NDSIOUXFAN1

That is not true either. Thus far in 2013 they have rushed for 2800 yards with 22 rushing TD's. They have also passed for 2200 yards with 27 passing TD's. Looks like a pretty balanced attack to me.

A entire offense is not based on a receiver being able to block. I would hope that a coach would not only be able to bring in receivers that can block and catch, but also be able to teach them to be better blockers. I couldn't possibly imagine a coach wanting a WR purely for his ability to block or catch. He needs to be able to run great routes, sell pass action run, block down field and of course catch the ball. There is no room on a football team for a specialized WR.

A "blocking receiver"? You have got to be kidding! Who comes up with this stuff?!

And why didn't he play professionally like the others?

I will agree that some do, but I have seen plenty over the years that didn't. I remember a WR many years back that came in that was hyped up. He played the season (average at best) and was gone after Christmas. I would rather bring in someone from HS that can develop, learn the system and contribute over 4-5 years.

Personally, I am not a fan of JUCO players because it seems they have a tougher time staying eligible. Just my opinion.

I completely disagree with this. The advantage you have at the college level is that you can recruit and bring in players at nearly every position yearly. With the ability to have up to 85 scholarships (including splits) in FCS football, there is little reason that you can't recruit nearly every position annually. Taking "best player available" would not be the smartest way to go, when you could potentially leaving big holes at positions. If we gave out 5 full and 10 half scholarships each year, we would cover 20 of 22 positions each year.

Perfect assessment!

nice subject change. That isn't what I was talking about.

You stated that was the case for St. John's, so how else is one to take it? There is not 1 university in the country that doesn't have to work their butt off to bring in athletes. Making any argument to the contrary is purely blind.

I won't argue this, but there is probably reason for lack of reps. Knowing your assignments is another reason that coaches have a tough time putting someone on the field (stepping the wrong way in pass pro, running the wrong route, not picking up a blitz ect). I personally have never run across a coach at any level that would keep a better player off the field unless he had a good reason to do so.

Best player in who's opinion? Is the "best player" working hard in practice, meetings or the classroom. There are many variables as to why players don't get on the field as much as some think they should. Usually it is because they aren't as good as the guy that is on the field.

Oh really?! So he could call kids up and say "forget about that full ride at U of M and Nebraska, come to St. John's if you want to win". That is not even close to reality, but if that is what you want to believe, enjoy fantasy land.

Do you honestly believe that? I personally know a D-III and a D-II coach and both of them recruit relentlessly.Yes, even the mighty Bison recruit, but they just do it better than most in this area. Do you really think they say "come here if you want to win" and kids just show up?

I am still waiting for the explanation.

Where should he be coaching if not NDSU?

I would like to know what that was about too.

The ONLY part of a head coach that interests me, is the staff he brings with him.

I would disagree with this statement. Most players are constantly working to keep or gain a starting spot. In college football they don't care if you are on scholarship or not, best player will play, regardless of age. I also disagree that there will be "lots of work to rebuild". If the new staff knows what they are doing, we could be above .500 next season and playoff bound the following year. Although I do not believe that Muss and his staff did a great job recruiting, I do believe that they did well enough to be competitive.

So would you explain to me how offers work these days?

I would rather have Mark Kauk on the sideline than to have the Sioux logo.

I agree that most would like a level of certainty, but why would they make so many offers? We currently have 56 offers to recruits that haven't verbally committed, 23 offers to recruits that have committed and 1 that has verbally committed to UND. I am just curious to the logic behind it.

My problem with the recruiting is that we have made 60 offers and had 1 verbal commit. If he was such a great recruiter of talent, you wouldn't have to throw offers out to 60 kids with the hopes to get someone. It doesn't make the offer sound very important when you offer 3 kids at every position. I think it makes you look desperate and unsure of who you want. Feel free to defend these guys, but I have been less than impressed.

So you think Tibesar, Bollinger or Claeys are willing to take $100K -$400k pay cuts in order to put HC on their resume? For as much as I would like to get one of these guys, I doubt that any of them are going take a 50% pay reduction and relocate their family to take over a struggling D-IAA program just so they can have HC on their resume. It is nice to dream, but this isn't going to happen.

If you say so.