There are two ways to frame North Texas’ season.

If you want to be harsh, you can say the Mean Green slightly underperformed.

If you want to be fair, the stronger case is that they mostly performed to expectation, and that expectation simply ended up disappointing people.

That distinction matters.

This was not a loaded roster that collapsed under pressure. It was a flawed roster from the start. KenPom opening UNT in the high 80s likely reflected recent program success more than the actual talent and fit on this team. EvanMiya projected them closer to 110th nationally, and they finished 131st.

That is not a collapse.

That is a team landing roughly where its roster construction suggested it might, especially after Will McClendon’s season-ending injury reshaped the backcourt rotation.

Still, the season felt frustrating because the flaws were visible all year.

The defense remained very strong:

• 34th in defensive efficiency
• 10th in steal percentage
• 22nd in block percentage

The offense did not.

UNT finished:

• 298th in offensive rating
• 349th in effective field goal percentage
• 347th in true shooting percentage
• 358th in three-point percentage

Those numbers are extremely low even for a defense-first program.

Interestingly, the offense still produced points in specific ways.

UNT ranked:

• 8th nationally in percentage of points from fast breaks
• 14th in percentage of points in the paint
• 38th in percentage of points from second chances

This was an aggressive team built on chaos. When the defense forced turnovers or the game opened into transition, UNT could score.

But when the game slowed down into half-court offense, the limitations of the roster became obvious.

Nearly 79% of UNT’s shots came in half-court possessions, where the team shot only 35.8% from the field.

That is where the season truly lived.

The Shot Clock Problem

Once the shot clock data is broken down, the offensive pattern becomes clear.

UNT’s offense worked early in possessions and collapsed late.

Early offense (20–30 seconds)
This was where the team was most efficient.

• 68.5% FG% finishing at the rim
• 50.8% FG% on paint twos
• 42.1% FG% on corner threes

When the first action created an advantage before the defense fully set, the offense worked.

Middle clock (10–20 seconds)
Still functional, but efficiency dropped.

• 55.1% FG% at the rim
• 38.3% FG% paint twos

Late clock (0–10 seconds)
This is where possessions died.

• 44.2% FG% at the rim
• 35.1% FG% paint twos
• 27.3% FG% above-the-break threes

The offense simply did not have enough late-clock shot creators or perimeter gravity to survive broken possessions.

The Spacing Collapse

The deeper issue was spacing.

UNT shot 28.7% from three, and most of those makes were assisted.

That meant the offense depended heavily on guards collapsing defenses first.

But when you examine the roster, very few players forced defenders to stay stretched.

• Terrell was not a perimeter threat
• Stevenson carried huge volume but with poor efficiency
• Crosby was the specialist but not dangerous enough
• Horton and Stinson were not shooters
• Arnett provided no spacing

When that many players operate inside the arc, defenses collapse the paint.

And when the paint collapses around downhill guards, the entire offense begins operating in a phone booth.

That is exactly what happened.

Player Roles

David Terrell Jr — The Ignition Key

Terrell was the engine that started everything.

He carried a 23.8% usage rate, produced a 32.9% assist rate, and maintained a 2.35 assist-to-turnover ratio while creating most of the team’s offense.

He also posted a massive 58.9% free-throw attempt rate, drawing 4.3 fouls per game.

His job was to create the first advantage.

The shot profile reflects that:

• nearly half his attempts at the rim
• two-thirds of his attempts inside the paint
• only 20.9% of attempts from three

He shot 26.5% from three, which allowed defenses to sag into driving lanes.

The shot context numbers tell the rest:

• 31.7% FG in half court
• 74.7% FG in transition

When the floor opened up, Terrell became electric.

The on/off numbers highlight his value:

• +3.5 net with him on
• –8.8 with him off

Development Path

If Terrell returns, the priority is clear:

• develop a reliable midrange jumper or
• reach 33–35% from three

He does not need to become a high-volume shooter. He simply needs enough shooting gravity to prevent defenses from collapsing the lane.

Je’Shawn Stevenson — The No. 1 Option

Stevenson was the primary scorer.

He carried a 28.8% usage rate, averaging 17.4 points per game while taking 14.5 shots per game.

That workload matters when evaluating efficiency.

He finished with:

• 37.4% from the field
• 29.4% from three
• 51.8% true shooting

More than half his attempts came from three:

• 51.4% three-point attempt rate
• 7.5 threes per game

But he also shot 58.5% at the rim and got to the line 5.1 times per game.

The on/off numbers were massive:

• +6.8 net rating on
• –22.4 off

The offense improved by 19 points per 100 possessions when he played.

Development Path

If Stevenson stays, the path forward is obvious. He needs:

• a better supporting cast
• less forced perimeter burden
• improvement as a shooter

He is capable of being a high-usage scorer, but the offense cannot rely on him to carry the entire perimeter scoring burden. Another year at UNT with a better-constructed lineup could help him a lot.

Reece Robinson — The Possession Extender

Robinson became one of the most efficient players on the roster.

He produced:

• 55.1% eFG
• 58.4% true shooting
• 65% finishing at the rim

He also shot:

• 33.3% from three overall
• 36.4% in conference play

His rebounding was critical:

• 10.8% offensive rebound rate

The on/off numbers were outstanding:

• +10.1 net on
• –10.0 off

Development Path

He took heat because of the family connection, but the truth is pretty simple: he got better, he became functional, and he looks like someone who can take another jump.

If he comes back, the biggest developmental question is the shot. If Robinson can hold 33–36% from three over a full season, he becomes a really valuable stretch 4 within this system. He does not need to be the guy. But he absolutely can be the third guy.

Dylan Arnett — The Interior Stabilizer That Never Stabilized

Arnett was expected to provide interior efficiency.

Arnett was brought in to be the interior stabilizer. He never got there.

Last season at Cleveland State, he was much more efficient:

• 59.5% on twos
• 74.3% at the rim

This year:

• 46.3% on twos
• 56.5% at the rim
• 46.5% true shooting

That is a major drop, especially for a big whose offensive role lived almost entirely inside the arc. He took zero threes, had 53.3% of his shots in the paint and another 36.8% at the rim, yet still did not finish efficiently enough to give UNT the inside-out balance it needed.

There was still some defensive value:

• 4.2% block rate
• 18.3% defensive rebound rate

But offensively he was supposed to be more than a structural center. UNT needed him to be a real counterweight to the guards. Instead, he mostly just gave them center shape without enough center production.

That mattered a lot.

Buddy Hammer Jr — The Physical Tone Setter

Hammer’s statistical impact backed up his reputation.

In limited minutes he produced:

• 61.7% true shooting
• 98.5% free-throw attempt rate

That means he got to the line almost once for every field goal attempt. He drew 0.82 fouls per shot attempt, which is absurdly high. In other words, when Hammer touched the ball with intent, something physical usually happened.

He also contributed:

• 11.3% offensive rebound rate
• 4.5% block rate

He was not a creator. He was not a handler. But he was an energy finisher who changed the temperature of the game:

• attacks
• putbacks
• fouls
• edge
• physicality

That is why he mattered.

Development Path

Hammer should see expanded minutes.

If he stays, I would keep pushing his role. Maybe not as a full-time 3, but exploring more lineup flexibility with him makes sense. Even if he remains a bench 4, he is a useful piece. He played like a tone setter because statistically he actually was one.

Cole Franklin — The Connector Who Got Overextended

Franklin got pushed into a bigger role than he probably should have had.

He finished with:

• 14.8% usage
• 6.1 points per game
• 25.4% from three
• 48.6% true shooting

He was never meant to carry much offensive weight, but the roster forced him into more shooting volume than expected. Nearly all of his threes were assisted (93.3%), which tells you he was functioning as a catch-and-shoot complementary wing, not someone creating his own offense.

His value came from being able to connect pieces of lineups:

• cuts
• spot-up attempts
• some rebounding
• some defensive activity

He also posted:

• 3.1% steal rate
• 2.4% block rate

So there was some event creation there.

But the on/off numbers were rough:

• -2.1 net on
• +6.6 off

He is someone I would keep if the role shrinks and sharpens. The form on the shot is fine. I think he is better than 25.4% from three. But this year he got asked to do more than his profile really supported.

Demarion Watson — The Disruption Wing

Watson’s role was specialized, but the defensive activity numbers were real.

He played just 13.9 minutes per game and had only a 10.5% usage rate, so this was never a player being asked to carry offense. But he did produce some weird and useful defensive numbers:

• 3.1% steal rate
• 6.6% block rate
• 9.8 Hakeem %

That is serious event creation from a wing.

Offensively he was limited:

• 23.7% from three
• 42.4% true shooting
• almost all shots assisted
• most value on corner threes, cuts, and second chances

But if you wanted a wing who could come in and create disruption, he fit that.

The problem is that lineups like this only work when the offense around them is healthier.

Cahmai Crosby — The Geometry Piece Who Never Found Rhythm

Crosby was the purest floor-spacing archetype on the roster.

The shot profile was extreme:

• 84.4% of his attempts from three
• 81.8% of those threes assisted

That means his role was simple: space the floor, be ready, punish help.

He shot:

• 33.8% from three overall
• around 31% in conference

So not awful, but not enough to really bend defenses the way this team needed. He did almost nothing inside the arc, got to the line very little, and had minimal defensive activity.

If that player is going to survive in this system, the shooting has to be more dangerous than it was.

Josiah Shackleford — The Bench Usage Spike

Shackleford matters because he was one of the strangest role profiles on the roster.

In just 11.8 minutes per game, he carried a 25.7% usage rate. That is huge. When he entered, possessions ran through him. He was a true bench usage spike.

And it was all inside:

• 0.0% 3-point attempt rate
• 64.3% of shots at the rim
• 29.6% in the paint
• 52.0% on twos
• 60.3% at the rim
• 41.8% free throw attempt rate

So there was some real interior scoring punch in short bursts.

But the team-level impact was rough:

• -9.0 net on
• +3.9 off
• Offense dropped from 107.0 off to 94.2 on
• Turnover rate rose from 13.4% off to 17.7% on

That is the tension with Shackleford. He could score inside. But the broader offense often lost shape when possessions tilted too heavily in his direction.

People will want to know about him because he was a real lineup question all season. The answer is that he brought interior usage and physical scoring, but it did not consistently translate to better offensive ecosystem play.

EJ Horton — The Athletic Disruptor

Horton needs the individual numbers because the profile is actually pretty interesting.

He played 9.5 minutes per game and posted:

• 17.1% usage
• 44.5% true shooting
• 37.1% from the field
• 17.9% from three
• 52.9% on twos
• 64.0% at the rim

That is important. The jumper was bad, but he actually finished at the rim pretty well in limited volume.

He also generated defensive activity:

• 4.0% steal rate
• 3.3% block rate
• 7.2 Hakeem %

Those are strong numbers for a freshman guard.

And one more stat really jumps out:

• 39.7% of his scoring came in transition

That fits the eye test. Horton looked best when the game got messy and athletic. Open floor, broken possessions, defensive pressure turning into speed. That is where he was useful.

Development Path

Where he has to improve if he stays:

• ball handling
• perimeter shooting
• decision-making under control

He has real tools. He is not going to be a great shooter most likely, but if he tightens the handle and becomes a more reliable downhill finisher, there is a useful player here.

Curtis Stinson Jr — Vision Guard

Stinson showed strong passing instincts:

• 14.5% assist rate

But offensively:

• 27.7% from the field
• 0 made threes

Development Path

To run the offense long-term, Stinson must develop a scoring threat—especially from the perimeter.

Without shooting gravity, defenses collapse passing lanes.

The Incoming Freshmen

Two freshmen are scheduled to join the roster next season in TJ Crumble and Aeneas Alexander, and both are interesting primarily because of how their skill sets relate to the weaknesses this team showed all year.

TJ Crumble

Crumble is a physical scoring forward who averaged 16.6 points and 7.4 rebounds in Pro16 play. His offensive game operates primarily inside the arc where he can score with his back to the basket, face up and attack, or use floaters and short hooks inside the lane.

Two parts of his profile stand out immediately when viewed against this year’s roster.

First is rebounding. Crumble has been a productive rebounder on both ends.

Second is interior scoring versatility. UNT often relied heavily on guard penetration to generate paint points. Crumble has the ability to create his own interior looks, which could diversify the offense.

Aeneas Alexander

Alexander brings a different profile.

At 6’8, he projects as a long forward who can space the floor and move without the ball. His game is built around positioning, shooting touch, and defensive length rather than high-usage scoring.

Neither freshman should be expected to immediately fix the offense, but both offer skill sets that align with areas UNT needs to strengthen.

What the Ideal UNT Roster Should Look Like

What UNT needs is not simply more talent. It needs better statistical balance across the roster. The best Mean Green teams over the past decade have followed a consistent formula: elite defense, disruptive perimeter play, and just enough offensive efficiency to capitalize on those defensive possessions. The problem this year was not identity. The problem was that too many players fell outside the statistical thresholds required for that identity to work offensively.

The answer is not simply “more shooting.”

It is better statistical balance across the roster.

Athletic Shooting Wings

Not just shooters. Athletic shooters.

Players who can defend, rebound, and still shoot around 33–36% from three on real volume (4+ attempts per game). These are the most expensive players in the portal because they fit almost every system.

But the numbers matter. In a defense-first system like UNT’s, ideal wings should statistically provide:

• 33–36% from three
• 55–58% true shooting
• 10–12% defensive rebound rate
• 2–3% steal rate

Those benchmarks ensure the wing is not just spacing the floor but also contributing to the disruptive defensive style that defines the program.

UNT had defensive wings this year. It did not consistently have wings who met both the defensive and shooting thresholds simultaneously.

Rebounding Guards

Rebounding cannot just come from the frontcourt. Guards who rebound their position extend possessions and allow the defense to finish stops.

The ideal backcourt player in this system produces something like:

• 12–15% defensive rebound rate
• 3–4% steal rate
• consistent downhill pressure and foul drawing

Those types of guards turn defensive chaos into extra possessions. This roster created defensive events but did not always convert those stops into finished possessions.

Interior Stabilizer

This roster never had a big who consistently controlled the paint on both ends.

The ideal frontcourt addition would provide something close to:

• 60–65% finishing at the rim
• 20% defensive rebound rate
• 5–7% block rate
• 58–62% true shooting

Not necessarily a high-usage scorer, but a player who stabilizes possessions around the rim.

That type of player changes both ends of the floor because it reduces offensive droughts while anchoring defensive rebounds.

Functional Spacing Around Creators

If Terrell and Stevenson return, the offense should be built to maximize their strengths.

Both players thrive attacking downhill and collapsing defenses. The roster around them should emphasize:

• spot-up shooters
• cutters
• rebounders
• secondary playmakers

The goal is not to turn the offense into a perimeter-heavy system.

The goal is to give the primary creators just enough space to operate efficiently.

There is also a broader lesson here about roster construction in the modern NIL era. College basketball is no longer simply about accumulating talent. It is about assembling complementary statistical skill sets. Shooting gravity, rebounding rates, defensive disruption, and offensive efficiency now have to be distributed correctly across the roster. When too many players overlap in the same statistical profile—defensive wings who struggle to shoot, guards who attack but do not space the floor—the offensive ecosystem collapses. That is largely what happened to UNT this season.

Final Thought

This team never lacked effort.

They defended.
They competed.
They kept coming even when games got messy.

But effort alone cannot overcome structural roster flaws.

The defense was strong enough to win games.

The offense simply lacked the spacing and efficiency to consistently support it.

In modern college basketball, the ceiling of a team is often determined before the season begins—when the roster is built.

UNT now has an offseason to rebuild that puzzle.

Apologies for the lack of posting here by your humble proprietor. As I mentioned elsewhere, MGN is in the process of relocating back to Texas and that involves a lot of preparation — for selling, for moving, for acquiring property and so on and so forth. All the spare time is accounted for, and then some.

I did find time to watch both Women’s games this tournament. My eldest child has a newfound sense of hoops love, and has been working on her game. So we made time to really watch Jason Burton’s team.

The observations?

Here they are in her own words:

Andi Schissler is a good shooter from afar, Jaelyn Talley was not good at shooting and she was kinda slow defending, Megan Nestor was good, Mekhia Chase did good, and my last observation, even though it doesn’t involve our team, the last team we played, Tulsa, had a major fouler on their team.

I didn’t love the end-of-game decisions by the Lady Mean Green1 but they had a large-enough lead that it gave them some cushion. Tulsa had come back from double-digits something like 10 times this season, including vs North Texas in Denton, so it was not surprising to see the same scenario nearly play out again.

Tonight, NT takes on Rice in the semi-final. Rice has sat through the whole week, while NT is playing the third game in three days. These teams played two games and the difference between them was something like 10 points total. Rice won both. Here’s hoping.

Meanwhile, the chat has some of the men’s thoughts.

Chat

We’ve said all season that this team is all effort and wild outcomes. I can see this group efforting themselves to a tournament win, but I can also see them bowing out to literally anyone. They managed to eek it out vs FAU, and will move on. NT is the most firm example of Survive and Advance.

North Texas Men: vs No. 3 seed Tulsa this afternoon (Friday) in the quarterfinal round. 2pm CT ESPN2. NT and Tulsa split their two games this year.

North Texas Women: vs No 1 Rice tonight (FridaY) in the semifinal round. 6 CT. ESPN+. Rice won by 6 points total in two games this year.

We’ll be in the MGN Chat for both games. GMG!

That’s why I love this time of year.

Conference tournaments are strange things. Teams get hot. Matchups fall a certain way. A couple shots fall that didn’t all season and suddenly somebody is playing in the Big Dance that nobody saw coming.

The numbers might say the odds are small.

But the numbers never say impossible.

So the question entering the American Tournament becomes pretty simple.

Is there a path for North Texas?

To answer that, it helps to go back to something we looked at last season.

The Championship Blueprint.

Revisiting the Championship Blueprint

Last year I went back and looked at the statistical profiles of teams that won this conference tournament. When you stack those teams side by side certain patterns start to appear.

Championship teams in this league tend to check several boxes.

They produce efficient offense.
They defend at a high level.
They maintain balance between paint scoring and perimeter shooting.
They control possessions through rebounding and ball security.

From that research a blueprint emerged, a set of statistical benchmarks that championship teams consistently hit.

So the natural question entering the American Tournament becomes how closely North Texas actually resembles that blueprint.

Offensive Production and Efficiency

The first gap between North Texas and the blueprint shows up offensively.

Championship teams in this conference generally score around 74 points per game and operate with an offensive rating of at least 112.

North Texas enters the tournament averaging 68.5 points per game with a 104.8 offensive rating.

That places them noticeably below the offensive efficiency typically seen from conference champions.

The shooting numbers explain most of that difference.

Championship teams generally post effective field goal percentages above 50 percent. North Texas currently sits at 46.4 percent. They shoot 47.8 percent from two and just 29 percent from three, both numbers that sit below the championship benchmarks.

But the interesting part is that the structure of the offense actually fits the blueprint fairly well.

Nearly half of UNT’s scoring comes in the paint at 49.8 percent, which easily clears the forty percent benchmark that championship teams typically reach. Their three point attempt rate of 32.3 percent also sits comfortably within the ideal range.

So the offense is generating the right kind of shots.

They attack the paint.
They get to the free throw line.
They maintain balance between inside and outside scoring.

The problem has simply been converting those opportunities.

Ball Control and Possession Management

Another piece of the blueprint focuses on ball movement and ball security.

Championship teams usually maintain an assist percentage above 50 percent and an assist-to-turnover ratio above 1.2.

North Texas sits just below those marks with a 49.4 percent assist rate and a 1.02 assist-to-turnover ratio.

Those numbers suggest the offense does move the ball, but it does not quite reach the level of efficiency that championship offenses typically show.

The turnover number itself actually fits the blueprint fairly well.

North Texas turns the ball over on 14.7 percent of possessions, which sits comfortably inside the fifteen percent threshold seen in championship profiles.

Ball security has not been the issue.

Shot making has.

Paint Pressure and Free Throws

One area where North Texas strongly resembles a championship profile is their ability to attack the rim.

Championship teams typically generate a free throw attempt rate above 32 percent.

North Texas exceeds that mark with a 38.6 percent free throw attempt rate.

That number reflects an offense that consistently pressures the paint and forces defenses into difficult decisions.

Even when outside shots are not falling, North Texas has found ways to generate offense through drives and free throws.

Defensive Strength

Defensively, North Texas comes much closer to the blueprint.

Championship teams generally allow 71 points per game or fewer and maintain defensive ratings near or below 100.

North Texas allows 67.4 points per game, which easily clears that threshold. Their 103.2 defensive rating sits slightly above the championship benchmark but still reflects a strong defensive unit.

The biggest defensive strength shows up in their ability to create turnovers.

North Texas posts a 13.5 percent steal rate, a number that reflects the pressure they apply on opposing ball handlers and passing lanes.

That defensive pressure consistently creates extra possessions and disrupts offensive rhythm, both of which are hallmarks of successful defensive teams in this league.

Rebounding and Possession Control

The rebounding numbers show North Texas sitting almost exactly on the edge of the blueprint.

Championship teams typically maintain defensive rebounding percentages above 67 percent.

North Texas sits at 66.7 percent, essentially right on that threshold.

Offensive rebounding is actually one of the stronger areas for this team. UNT posts a 34.1 percent offensive rebound rate, which matches the level typically seen in championship teams.

That ability to extend possessions helps offset some of the shooting struggles.

What the Numbers Say About UNT Wins

When you dig through the numbers, a few patterns show up consistently in North Texas victories.

Certain statistical thresholds appear again and again when the Mean Green win games.

Defensive Control

North Texas is 10–1 when two things happen defensively:

• Defensive rebound rate reaches 68 percent or higher
• Opponents commit 17 or more fouls

Both indicators reflect the same idea, physical control of the game. When UNT finishes defensive possessions and forces opponents into foul trouble, the game tends to shift toward their preferred style.

The game slows down. Possessions become more physical. Clean scoring opportunities become harder to find.

Bench Contribution

Depth also plays a bigger role than it might appear.

North Texas is 13–2 when the bench produces 21 percent or more of the team’s total scoring.

This team plays a large rotation, but the offensive production still leans heavily on the core group. When the bench contributes meaningful scoring, it allows Robinson to keep defensive intensity high and maintain lineup flexibility.

Aggressive Offense

North Texas is 11–4 when their free throw attempt rate reaches 36.5 percent or higher.

That stat reinforces the identity of this offense. When UNT consistently attacks the rim and pressures the defense into fouls, their offensive efficiency improves significantly.

Taken together, those numbers paint a pretty clear picture of what winning basketball looks like for this team.

Physical defense.
Attacking the rim.
And contributions beyond the starting lineup.

The Stevenson and Terrell Factor

All of those winning indicators eventually circle back to the same reality for North Texas.

This offense still runs through Stevenson and Terrell.

They carry the largest offensive burden on the roster. They are the players who create shots when possessions stall and the ones most likely to take the ball late in the shot clock.

But the numbers suggest something interesting about how UNT wins.

It is not necessarily when Stevenson and Terrell score the most.

It is when the rest of the roster contributes enough to keep defenses from collapsing around them.

Stevenson carries the second-highest clutch usage rate in the conference, while Terrell also ranks among the primary late-game decision makers. When the offense becomes too dependent on those two creating everything, the margin for error shrinks quickly.

But when the supporting pieces contribute, when Franklin hits timely shots, when Robinson/Hammer/Shackleford/Arnett finish inside, when the bench provides scoring, the entire structure of the offense becomes far more balanced.

And that is the version of North Texas that most closely resembles the championship blueprint.

The Reality of the Tournament

The probability models don’t exactly love North Texas’ chances entering the American Tournament.

Most projections give UNT roughly a 48 to 50 percent chance of winning the first game.

After that the numbers drop quickly.

There is roughly a 9 to 13 percent chance of beating Tulsa, a 3 to 5 percent chance of reaching the championship game, and around a one percent chance of winning the entire tournament.

So yes, the road is difficult.

But the way I see this tournament breaking down for North Texas is fairly simple.

They either lose the first game.

Or they win two.

The opening game is essentially a toss-up. North Texas beat both Temple and FAU this season in games they probably could have lost. Those were tight games where the margins were extremely small.

But if UNT gets through that first game, the second matchup becomes much more interesting.

Tulsa is a decent offensive rebounding team, but they didn’t really hurt North Texas on the glass in either meeting this season. What UNT did do in those games was force turnovers, both times.

And that’s where style begins to matter in tournament settings.

North Texas plays with a defensive intensity that constantly pressures ball handlers and disrupts passing lanes. In a one-game environment that style can catch teams off guard, especially when UNT would already have a game under its belt and a feel for the arena.

The second meeting between UNT and Tulsa was competitive before Tulsa went on a big run late to close the game. That run felt a little fluky in how quickly it developed.

Which is why that matchup feels more winnable than the probabilities suggest.

After that, the path becomes much more difficult.

A potential matchup with Wichita State is simply not a great stylistic fit for North Texas, and by that point UNT would likely be playing its third game in three days.

Which is why the tournament path feels pretty clear.

They either lose the first game.

Or they find a way to win two.

The Path for North Texas

When you stack the numbers next to the championship blueprint, the path becomes fairly clear.

Three point shooting needs to move closer to 34 percent.

Effective field goal percentage needs to climb above 50 percent.

And the offensive rating needs to move closer to 110 or higher.

If those things happen, even briefly, the statistical profile suddenly begins to resemble the championship blueprint much more closely.

The defensive foundation is already there.

The rebounding is close.

The ability to attack the paint is already a strength.

The gap mostly comes down to one thing.

Shots falling.

If North Texas finds that shooting stretch during the American Tournament, the blueprint suddenly looks a lot more complete.

And if that happens, the probabilities start to matter a lot less.

Because March has always been the time of year when a team finds something for three days that it didn’t always have for three months.

The calendar has turned to March, the greatest time of the year.

This time of year always brings me a lot of joy. Lately one of my favorite moments has been hearing my son shooting baskets in his room yelling “Onions” after every made shot in honor of Bill Raftery. It makes me smile every single time. It is one of those small things that reminds you why this month feels different.

Now we are approaching the end game of the inaugural season for Daniyal Robinson.

Last week felt like another spin through the same familiar cycle for North Texas. Another split. UNT dropped a close one at Charlotte that was right there for the taking and then turned around and stole a road win against UAB.

That pretty much sums up this season.

The crazy part is how both games unfolded. In the loss at Charlotte, UNT held a ten point lead with 10:46 left in the second half and a win probability of 87.8 percent. The game felt firmly in hand.

Then two days later in the win at UAB, UNT saw their win probability dip all the way down to 11.8 percent with 19:42 remaining in the second half before battling back.

That is the same pattern we talked about last week.

This team lives in the margins.

I wanted to take a closer look at those minimum win probabilities. UNT has eight conference victories so far. I am going to set aside the two UTSA games because, frankly, UTSA has been one of the weakest teams in the league and UNT controlled those games from start to finish.

If you look at the other six conference wins, UNT had an average minimum win probability of just 21.7 percent during those games. In other words, they were on the ropes at some point in most of their victories.

Now flip that perspective.

In their eight conference losses, UNT reached an average win probability of 67 percent. If you remove the first Memphis game and the Wichita State game where UNT never really felt competitive, the number jumps all the way to 93.1 percent in the other six losses.

Let that sink in.

This team has been right there. They have had the lead. They have had the control. They have had the point in the game where it felt like things were about to close out.

But good teams find ways to win those games and struggling teams find ways to let them slip away. Sometimes the difference really is that simple.

We looked at clutch statistics last year, defined as the final five minutes of a game when the score is within six points. Those numbers tell a story here as well.

UNT’s three point shooting drops from an already poor 29.1 percent on the season to an abysmal 20.9 percent in clutch situations. Just typing that number out makes you shake your head.

Free throws are another area fans often point to in those moments. UNT shoots 70.7 percent from the line overall this season. In clutch situations they are actually slightly better at 72.3 percent. That difference is small enough that it is probably more perception than reality.

Where the real issue shows up again is defensive rebounding.

For the season UNT’s defensive rebound percentage sits at 67.2 percent. In clutch situations that number drops to 54.5 percent. That is a massive difference and it creates extra possessions at the worst possible time. We saw it again play out in the closing moments against Charlotte.

A few quick thoughts on the two games themselves.

Against UAB the biggest difference between the two halves was UNT’s ability to finish at the rim. In the first half they went 6 for 14 at the rim. In the second half that improved to 12 for 18. UAB experienced the opposite swing. They were 9 for 12 at the rim in the first half and only 4 for 10 in the second.

UNT defended well throughout the game but I really think the lineup combination of Robinson and Hammer made the biggest impact. In 34 possessions together that duo posted an offensive efficiency rating of 115.9 and a defensive efficiency rating of 72.6.

Reece Robinson finished as a plus 12 and Hammer was a plus 7.

Franklin also knocked down a huge three late in the game to help seal the win. That made him the hot hand option at the three spot in that moment. Interestingly, in his career he has only made multiple three pointers in a game three times and his team won each of those games.

If that three spot can give UNT even a modest offensive lift it changes the equation for this team. If Franklin could simply become a 35 percent three point shooter it would drastically improve the spacing for this offense.

The Charlotte loss was frustrating in a different way.

Hammer came up with a steal in the final seconds and stepped to the line with a chance to put UNT ahead by three. The front end of the one and one did not fall. Charlotte went down the floor got an offensive rebound and made both of their free throws to win the game.

In the end that game came down to stops.

Charlotte shot above 70 percent from two point range in both halves. They went 10 for 11 at the rim. UNT actually shot extremely well at the rim themselves, going 10 for 12. UNT even made eleven three pointers. The Mean Green are now 8 and 3 this season when their three point attempt rate is above 33 percent.

Charlotte simply made their shots and got to the free throw line more often. UNT struggled to generate those same free throw opportunities. Once again they played well enough to win but could not close the door.

Now we move into the final week of the regular season.

UNT has just one game remaining, but ten other conference games are still left on the schedule around the league. There is still a surprising amount of movement possible in the standings.

UNT still has a chance to climb to the six seed and earn a bye in the conference tournament. According to CBB Analytics that outcome carries a 25.9 percent probability. The most likely finish right now is the seven seed at 35.8 percent. There is still a small 4.3 percent chance that UNT could miss the conference tournament altogether.

If UNT wins tonight and the rest of the favorites hold serve, the most likely outcome is the six seed. That bye would give UNT what I believe is a legitimate outside chance of making a run in the tournament.

If you flip the result and give UNT a loss tonight, the projection shifts toward the ten seed.

There are still too many toss up games around the conference to confidently predict the final standings. That feels strange to say with only one game remaining, but when seven teams are clustered together in the middle of the standings it creates a lot of uncertainty.

My best guess is that UNT lands at the six seed.

Tonight brings a rematch with Rice.

Earlier this season UNT had that game essentially wrapped up before multiple missed free throws in the closing seconds allowed Rice to escape with the win. On paper this is a game UNT should win.

But this season has conditioned fans to expect anything.

Every time UNT earns a strong victory or gives fans a little reason to believe, the next game seems to swing in the opposite direction. Optimism builds and then the next result brings the pitchforks back out.

So I think a lot of people are sitting here today half expecting UNT to lose simply because that has been the rhythm of the season.

Rice still has life in the race for the conference tournament, so they will be fighting hard. UNT will have to match that energy. One major key will be the offensive glass. Rice grabbed 26 offensive rebounds in the first meeting. That cannot happen again. Having Hammer available tonight should help since he did not play in that game.

I will have more thoughts later on UNT’s tournament chances and Robinson’s first season as a whole. I have seen some comparisons to previous coaching eras floating around. One comment that made me laugh was someone saying they do not know what this team runs offensively.

Have you watched this team?

They might be one of the most predictable teams I have seen. You can usually tell exactly where the ball is going. The game scripts feel predictable as well. If UNT is struggling early you almost expect them to claw back and make the game close. If they build a comfortable lead you start bracing for a scoring drought and a comeback from the other side.

At the very least it keeps things interesting.

But this is also the beauty of March.

Teams can become something different this time of year. The conference tournament is its own season. What happened during the regular season does not have to define what happens next.

Every year someone becomes a hero.

That is what makes this month special.

So strap in. It might be a short ride. It might be a bumpy one. Or it could become something none of us saw coming.

That last part is up to this team now.

Well that was quite the week.

If North Texas wanted to stay in position for the American tournament they needed to protect home court against two solid teams in Tulane and FAU. What they got was a split. They picked up a win they probably should not have against FAU and dropped a game they absolutely should have closed against Tulane.

That Tulane loss was maddening.

With 11:33 left in the second half UNT was up 59 to 44. Tulane’s win probability was 2.9 percent. Two point nine. The game was controlled. The boards were controlled. The pace was controlled. UNT looked like the better team.

And then it flipped.

Tulane grabbed eight offensive rebounds in the second half which is a massive number for one of the worst offensive rebounding teams in the country. Strangely that only led to four second chance points. For me the real swing was turnovers. Tulane turned UNT mistakes into ten points in the second half. Once the tide shifted Robinson struggled to find a rotation that could stop it.

Watson’s minutes did not produce much. Hammer disappeared despite being a plus 14 in the game. Franklin and Horton combined for minus 19. That three spot continues to be a problem. Franklin was getting attacked defensively. It is not entirely his fault because he is often put in tough help situations, but some of his decisions and shot selection do not help. He is out there largely for defensive rebounding and stability.

That game just reinforced what we have said all year. This team is consistently inconsistent.

Then came FAU.

During the broadcast it was mentioned that Robinson believed UNT could turn FAU over at a good clip. That is what I thought would keep UNT in the game too. FAU had been playing solid defense in conference play but was one of the more turnover prone offenses in the league.

Instead FAU had its cleanest game of the season protecting the ball and still lost. That is wild.

What really jumped out was how well FAU attacked UNT with middle ball screen action. They got into the lane and made the extra pass. When UNT went hunting blocks FAU dumped it off. The result was 12 for 15 at the rim which is 80 percent. Nine of those twelve makes came in the second half.

FAU had everything working offensively at the rim and still could not overcome Stevenson’s second half explosion.

For UNT three guys had real positive impact games. Stevenson. Terrell Jr. Hammer Jr. I love Hammer’s intensity. He plays with edge. Over the last five games only those three have a positive offensive efficiency rating when on the floor.

When Hammer has been on the floor the last five games the offensive efficiency is 118 compared to 108 when he is off. Defensively it is 101.4 with him on the floor compared to 105.5 when he is off.

Now this is where the conversation gets tricky.

There are people who believe Hammer should be playing over Reece Robinson. I cannot go there. I like Reece. In the FAU game I thought he was officiated poorly which has happened more than once this year. But zooming out he is one of the few players I trust.

For the full season he is one of only four players with a positive net rating in both offensive and defensive efficiency when on the floor. He is second only to Stevenson in that category. He is the most important defensive piece on the roster. For the season the defensive efficiency is 8.3 points better when he is on the floor which is the best number on the team. Over the last five games that number jumps to 15.8.

So what do you do if you are Coach Robinson.

Hammer and Robinson are both fours. Arnett is another guy the staff clearly trusts. Stevenson and Terrell Jr are not coming off the floor. That leaves one perimeter spot and a rotation that is constantly being tweaked.

Over the last five games with at least ten possessions the best efficiency lineup has been Stevenson, Crosby, Horton, Stinson, and Hammer Jr. That group has played only nine minutes together. Offensive efficiency 143.9. Defensive efficiency 82.2. Is ten possessions enough to declare that the answer. Probably not. But the numbers are the numbers.

The most used lineup over the last five games is the starting lineup. The second most used is the starting lineup with Hammer in for Robinson. The starting lineup has been better defensively. The Hammer version has been better offensively.

Then I started asking what about playing Hammer and Robinson together.

For the full season they have 75 possessions together. Offensive efficiency 115.3. Defensive efficiency 76.4. That is elite defensively.

Another look that caught my eye was the three guard lineup with Stinson, Terrell Jr, and Stevenson. Offensively over the last five games that trio has produced a 163 efficiency rating. That is absurd. The issue is defense. With Stinson in that group the defensive efficiency is 122.2. He moves the ball and looks to facilitate. I like his offensive feel. But defensively he is still developing.

So who is the three man for this team.

You can count on five guys to some extent. Stevenson. Terrell Jr. Robinson. Hammer Jr. Arnett. Three of those five are front court players and they have played zero possessions together this season.

That leaves Watson, Franklin, Crosby, Horton, and Stinson to fill the gaps. None of those players has a positive offensive on/off impact for the full season. Only Watson has a positive defensive on/off impact.

If you are Robinson you are coaching situational basketball. Crosby and Stinson for offense. Watson and Horton for defense. Franklin for rebounding and familiarity. You are chasing matchups and hot hands every night.

Now we head to Charlotte.

Halton Arena has been brutal for UNT. The last win there was 2019 when Roosevelt Smart and Umoja Gibson combined to go 8 for 16 from three. Since then UNT is 0 and 3 there averaging 45 points per game and shooting 8 for 49 from three which is 16 percent. That is historically bad.

Would it not be ironic if this version of UNT suddenly had a decent shooting night there. I would laugh. I am not betting on it.

What we are getting is good on good and bad on bad.

Aaron Fearne has always come across as a strong tactician. In the past he has had success dissecting UNT defenses. This is a different defensive style though. Charlotte is third in offensive efficiency in conference play at 113 but over the last five games that number has dipped to 104. In their losses this season their offensive efficiency is 104.6. They are 1 and 4 over their last five. There is a connection there.

Turnovers could be key. Charlotte has committed 64 turnovers over the last five games which is 12.8 per game. UNT thrives on that.

Charlotte does not live at the free throw line either. Even in wins their free throw rate is lower than the rate UNT typically allows in losses. UNT has also improved in not fouling the last five games.

The concern as always is defensive rebounding. UNT has allowed about ten offensive rebounds per game over the last five. In losses that number jumps to 13.1. Charlotte over the last five is grabbing ten offensive boards per game and in wins that number is 12.1. They are big. Two 6 foot 10 players and a 7 foot 2 in the front court. Even their guards have size. Antone Bonke is fifth in the conference in rebounds per game.

Then there is the three point chess match.

Charlotte is shooting 36 percent from three in conference play but just 32.8 percent in their recent stretch. UNT is allowing 34.7 percent over the last five. UNT pressures aggressively on the perimeter but can give up clean looks with ball movement. 87.4 percent of the threes they allow are assisted.

Charlotte values the three. In wins they shoot 41 percent with a three point attempt rate of 43.7 percent. In losses they shoot 31 percent with a three point attempt rate of 44.4 percent. They are taking threes regardless. The question is whether UNT can force them into contested twos instead of rhythm catch and shoot threes.

Then comes UAB on Sunday. It was tight in Denton. I would expect another close one but we will see how we feel after Charlotte.

Three games left. Charlotte. UAB. Rice.

UNT sits ninth and is in solid position to finish above the bottom three. Rice is the only real threat to knock them out of the tournament field. Rice is 5 and 9 with games left against USF, Temple, UNT, and UTSA. They are projected to win one of those.

If both teams lose the games they are projected to lose UNT would finish 8 and 10 and Rice 6 and 12 which likely locks UNT into the ten seed. If UNT wins out they could climb to the four or five seed. Teamrankings puts that at 2.8 percent. The most likely outcome is the nine seed at 18 percent followed closely by the six seed at 17.1 percent.

The six through ten range feels like destiny.

In past seasons you knew who was a nightmare matchup for UNT. This year I do not have that sense. Tulsa and USF are good but not untouchable. UNT lost to USF by four at home and split with Tulsa. That second Tulsa game unraveled late but UNT was up three with six minutes left before losing by sixteen.

If UNT can sneak into the tournament and avoid playing on the first day as a seven through ten seed then there is a path to making noise. If they are playing Wednesday it becomes almost impossible.

That is where we are. A team with clear flaws. A roster puzzle that still does not have a clean answer. A conference that is wide open. And three games left to define the path.

As frustrating as it has been, it is still right there in front of them.

You know I have not written one thing about this year’s team. No preview. No breakdown. Nothing. And honestly it has been hard to get excited about what we have watched.

It has not been pretty. It has been a frustrating cycle of inconsistent basketball. We have seen moments where you lean forward in your chair and think okay here we go. Then five minutes later you are staring at the screen wondering how this is the same group. That is the tension of this season. Are we watching a team turning the corner or a team about to slide right back down?

Let us lay it out.

North Texas sits at 6 and 7 in conference play, tied for ninth with a team they see this Sunday. They just put together a dominating win over a lifeless UTSA squad and pulled off solid comeback wins against Memphis and Temple. Those three wins matter. In the newly formatted American tournament where only ten teams get in, those games have them back in the mix.

And here is the wild part. The last five games of the season are against teams right next to UNT in the standings. In a conference that is more wide open than it has been in years, there is a scenario where UNT wins out and climbs as high as fourth. Is that likely? Probably not. The American this year has no true juggernaut and chaos feels more probable than chalk. Most likely this team finishes somewhere between seventh and tenth. That means five games in five days to win the conference tournament. That is a brutal task for anyone. It is even tougher when you are consistently inconsistent and reliant on defensive intensity to generate offense.

Now we have to talk about the numbers.

This is shaping up to be one of the worst three point shooting seasons since the 2001 Vic Trilli year when UNT went 2 and 24. This team is shooting 28 percent from three overall and 25.4 percent in conference play. That is not just bad. That is crippling.

What makes it more puzzling is that UNT is actually very good at getting to the rim. They are top 80 nationally in field goal attempts at the rim per game. They can collapse a defense. They can drive it. They can force help. Yet they cannot convert open threes.

Take the straight on three from the top of the key. One of the cleanest looks in basketball. UNT is shooting 18.7 percent from that spot. Last year they shot 40.4 percent. In conference play this year that number is 14 percent. Fourteen. That is almost unfathomable.

There is one small ray of light. They are shooting 45.5 percent from the left corner along the baseline. That makes sense schematically. When you are a heavy driving team, the help often comes from that corner defender. Stevenson is hitting 42.3 percent from the corner. That should be emphasized. That should be hunted.

This all ties back to roster construction. Robinson’s Cleveland State teams never really prioritized the three. He did not load up on shooters. Crosby is probably the best shooter on this roster. McClendon being hurt has been a massive blow. He was supposed to be one of the main cogs in the offense and a reliable three point threat.

Mid major teams do not make the NCAA tournament shooting below 30 percent from three. Grand Canyon last year shot 31.3 percent. Troy shot 30.1 percent. San Diego State as a five seed shot 31.5 percent the year before. Those are not elite numbers. But they are north of 30.

And here is the problem. North Texas is not just struggling from three. They are shooting 47.8 percent from two, which ranks around 310th nationally. If you are going to struggle from deep, you cannot also be inefficient inside the arc.

The half court numbers are brutal. Their field goal percentage in half court sets ranks 358th in the country. Their mid range field goal percentage ranks 361st. That is bottom tier. You cannot contend in this league with that profile.

So how does this team survive?

Defense.

You know it because you have watched them. They are elite at generating turnovers. Top ten nationally in steal percentage and turnover percentage. That is real. That is identity level stuff.

Those turnovers fuel transition. UNT takes 14.4 percent of its field goal attempts in transition, which ranks 86th nationally. Over the last five games that number jumps to 18.9 percent. In wins it is 14.9 percent. Their field goal percentage in transition is 64 percent, which ranks 29th nationally. They get 19.9 percent of their points on the fast break, about 13.6 points per game.

They are going to get theirs in transition. That part of the formula is stable.

The swing factor is defensive rebounding.

Coming into the season this was a concern. Robinson’s Cleveland State teams consistently struggled on the defensive glass. That has followed him. UNT ranks 317th in defensive rebound percentage. Opponents get 18 percent of their points on second chance opportunities. That is near the bottom nationally. Opponents are shooting 73.6 percent on putbacks, ranking 362nd in the country. They are 325th in attempted putbacks allowed.

But the split tells the story.

In wins, opponents’ offensive rebound percentage drops to 29.1 percent. In losses it balloons to 40 percent. Opponents shoot 65 percent on putbacks in wins versus 80.4 percent in losses. When UNT clears the defensive glass, they look like a completely different team.

It is not complicated. When they defend, force turnovers, and finish possessions with a rebound, they can beat anyone in this league. When they give up second chances, the math does not work.

Now we have to talk about Robinson.

Year one was always going to be loud. Expectations at North Texas are different now. The Grant McCasland and Hodge era raised the floor. Seeing what Matt Braeuer is doing at SFA only adds fuel. He is winning and will absolutely be on athletic directors’ radars this offseason. Could he have been the hire here? It’s irrelevant now and we have to move on.

Does Robinson deserve year two? Yes. He does. I will give him a pass for the turbulence of year one. What I will not do is call this a complete rebuild. He brought four players from his previous team. They are all starting. He has resources here. This is not a shoestring operation. The idea that you need a Memphis or South Florida level budget to win this league feels outdated. Coaches have to piece together rosters that fit, not just collect talent.

This is where I think year one missed.

If you are going to play with a rim protecting five who hunts blocks, you need elite defensive rebounding at the four and from your guards. If you have two strong downhill drivers, you need a stretch four or wing that spaces the floor and punishes help. Otherwise you end up with the cramped driving lanes we have watched all season.

Year two has to be about balance. Keep the defensive identity. Keep the turnover pressure. But go into the portal with a clear blueprint. Add shooting. Add rebounding. Add spacing that complements what you already do well.

So where does that leave us?

This team is flawed. The shooting numbers are rough. The half court offense is near the bottom nationally. The defensive rebounding is a glaring weakness.

But the defensive pressure is elite. The transition efficiency is real. The recent wins matter. And the standings are tight.

We are not watching a finished product. We are watching a team at a fork in the road. If they clean the glass and find even modest improvement from three, they can climb. If the shooting and rebounding trends hold, they are looking at a short stay in March.

Either way, these last five games are going to tell us exactly who this team is. And for the first time all year, that feels worth watching.

First, a note about MGN’s posting schedule. My full intention was to get to these a little more quickly, but life has its way of disrupting plans, well laid or no. My real-life job has become quite demanding and I have given it due attention. I also still try to play rec-league stuff and well yesterday after a Thursday-Friday back-to-back of 10:30-9pm games (yes I know) we had to take my daughter to her game in the morning, went to a basketball game in the afternoon, and then I coached my eldest daughter’s game at 5pm. When I got back home I fell asleep on the sofa and didn’t wake up until approximately 11am Sunday.

All that to say I am a little tired.

But with a smidge of coffee, and nothing planned today except for rooting against the Patriots, I decided this was a perfect time to go through the new roster. So let us do so, and begin with the returners.

Some unsorted observations here: Jayden Becks was leaning toward leaving, but will stay. He’ll be competing for a regular rotation spot but is not the pencilled-in number 1. He has speed, and we are still intrigued. Dalton Carnes was a one-time starter who fell down the charts a bit. He’s well liked and will have another shot to make the regular rotation. Of course Chris Jimmerson, Jr. is back and certainly has a real shot to take the top job. He played for Ray Gates, and Gates is now on the staff. Kyle Koch has intriguing size for a wide out but has had two seasons with one glaring mistake — vs TTU and then Tulane — and that is his defining resume point otherwise filled with special teams, and garbage time snaps. Taylor Starling is talented and had some starting snaps for a while. He fell in the depth chart. I like him still. Chase Canada is also back, he was highly touted and had a good season as the third corner. Kamdon McFarland also had some starting snaps and did some good things for a bad defense. Finally, Terrell Washington briefly considered leaving but ultimately returned.

The takeaway is that the guys who the previous staff valued were poached, but these guys had some good moments. The rest were unproven but we’ve seen good things before. Some are culture guys, and all will get a chance to prove themselves to the new staff.

This is a big list. We’ll be more organized here:

QB: Chaston Ditta, ECU and Tayven Jackson, UCF. These two are interesting. Ditta played in a scheme similar to what we’ll see here but is young and doesn’t have much experience. Jackson has more experience, but relatively unimpressive stats. I give the early nod to Jackson for his experience, and then Jimmerson and Ditta battling for number two.

WR: TJ Chukwurah, Black Hills State; Josiah Martin, OU; Corri Milliner, UAB; Garyson O’Bara, Dartmouth; Justin Stevenson, Utah; James Tyre, WCU. I like that they grabbed some production. Chukwurah is a 1000 yard guy and 16 TD grabs. James Tyre had 800 and 11 scores. O’Bara had 500 yards. I also like that they grabbed some potential. Martin, Milliner, Stevenson were at the American-or-higher level. North Texas has had success with lower division guys (Cam Dorner) and also depth-chart P5-ish guys (DT Sheffield). North Texas under The Elf was able to turn no-names into household names, and we expect the system to be very similar. That of course does not guarantee anything whatsoever.

TE: Drew Clemens, Utah; Brec Long, USA; Max Reese, MSST — Mike Bloesch is back to coach the run game and the tight ends. He had success with a run game that included heavy 11-and 12-personnel. Clemens comes from a good program at Utah, but didn’t play. Brec Long had a good season at Coffeeville, and Max Reese is an experienced guy at an SEC program. Expect more run-blocking out of these guys than pass-catching.

RB: Brendon Haygood, Missouri; Nick Osho, Indiana State; Colin Page, Texas, Jahiem White, WVU. The prize here is White, who has a career 1,879 and 14 scores on his resume. Nick Osho is a big back — 6'1" 220lbs — from Indiana State. Haygood and Page played at good programs, but had little to no time. My guesstimate is the depth chart looks like White-Becks-Osho-as-power back.

OL: Drew Cunningham, Charlotte; Henry Fenuku, Missouri; Jahzari Priester, VT; Chandler Strong, Georgia Southern; Neto Umeozulu, Texas; Caden Voltaire, Loomis Chafee School; Johnny Williams IV, Missouri.

We discussed some of these guys previously.

• Chandler Strong - Georgia Southern — Graded strongly as a pass blocker, but average in the run game. He might be the new guard?

• Henry Fenuku - Missouri — A former Ray Gates player at North Crowley, this was an early win on the new Edge coach and special assistant to the head coach. He didn’t get much time at Missouri for a solid team, but he has nice feet (played soccer growing up).

• Johnny Williams IV - Missouri — He actually went WVU→ Missouri → North Texas. He didn’t get much time at Mizzou. He’s a tackle by trade.

• Drew Cunningham - Charlotte - Played center at Charlotte including against North Texas. He was a better pass blocker than a run blocker.

The staff leaned on area and staff connections, got some talent and will try to build a line that can dominate in the run game.

DL: Justin Benton, ECU; Steven Curtis, Minnesota; Mouhamed Diawara, Sioux Falls; Udoka Ezeani, UTEP; Wesley Hudson, Central Oklahoma; Christian Lorenzo, Illinois State; David Onuoha, UMasss; Courage Osawe Jr, Butte College; Davion Rhodes, Georgia Southern; Curlee Thomas IV, Cal -

From the early notes:

This is a a crucial position group. Skyler Cassidy recruited Ethan Day, and some others to fill out the group and brought depth but I wouldn’t say there were any clear game-changers. Ray Gates’ background is coaching edge rushers in college (and good teams in high school) and Neal Brown’s Troy teams had fearsome defensive lines. It has been about a decade since North Texas’ front four has been a problem for conference foes. For now, it looks like the recruiting focus is on talented but underused guys.

• Mouhamed Diawara - Sioux Falls - Not much to go on here. Didn’t play much and had limited stats, but has the size and look of a prototype edge rusher. A coaching and scouting win if he can do damage here.

• Curlee Thomas IV - Cal - Former 3-star high school edge from Ft Worth, was a three-year depth guy (read: no playing time) at Cal. He was recruited as an outside linebacker but moved to defensive line early in his career. Spot duty.

Lorenzo is another interior lineman, the rest are all intriguing edge guys with prototypical size and varying levels of experience. Some were big contributors at like Georgia Southern (Rhodes) and others are looking for a new start. If North Texas simply has eight average guys that would still be awesome. You don’t want a drop-off, and it is great to have waves of fresh bodies to attack the opposition.

LB: Aaron Alexander, ArkState; Zakye Barker, SMU; Cedric Roberts, Alcorn - Alexander was a key contributor for stAte, and racked up 90+ tackles. Barker is a former ECU second-team all league guy. NT didn’t play a lot of linebackers last year, and I like the idea of a Burrell, Alexander duo, backed up by some combination of the rest of the group. Roberts has played a ton also.

CB: Zach Johnson, Southeastern Louisiana; Jaden Allen, Arkansas; Ja’Bree Bickham, Boise State; Keshawn Davila, Arkansas; Cameron Jenkins, Baylor; Chantz Johnson, Texas State; Peyton Taylor, Emporia State —

S: CJ Coombes, Wofford; Jason cross Jr, WVU; Graham Gillespie, Texas; Caden Jenkins, Baylor; Brandon Jones, McNeese; Taye Seymoure, Auburn, Tyson Wilson, Tyler JC -

From the previous notes:

Upon immediate perusal, North Texas has went heavy on some defensive backs. That was a hope, considering Neal Brown hired Jevaughn Codlin from Notre Dame, a well-regarded recruiter and defensive backs coach. There was also a Baylor connection, with new defensive coordinator Powledge having a line to his old gig.

Safeties and DBs:

• CJ Coombes - Wofford — an experienced safety. North Texas has had success with a lot of FCS and lower division guys who had experience.

• Tyson Wilson - Tyler JC - Vito had a good interview where he got some background on the kid. The takeaway: An undersized winner at the high school and JUCO level.

• Cameron and Caden Jenkins - Baylor - Caden was a two-year starter for the Bears, and looked to be progressing solidly, but struggled along with the entire Baylor defense. I don’t grade underclassmen corners too harshly and am excited about his future. Cameron went to UNLV (a good, and interesting system) as a freshman and had a lot of time on special teams and as a back up. Redshirted as a sophomore at Baylor. He’s the less-heralded of the brothers, but has talent and can do some things. Again, an underclassman with lots of potential.

• Keshawn Davila - Arkansas — This is a clear potential kind of deal. He reminds me of S’Maje Burrell, in that Davila is also a former highly rated recruit that has not lived up to that potential. You think 4-stars? That must mean he’s one of the top stars on the squad. You read Davila’s bio and its’ “Well, he played in games”. Defense is a team game and it is funny that guys like Wesloski were considered mediocre when the defense was the worst in the nation, and now a highly touted transfer when the defense is average. Clear upside here and a depth piece at worst if it doesn’t work out.

• Brandon Jones - McNeese — The kid calls himself “Mr. Pick-Six” and I would love to see him live up to that name here in Denton. PFF suggests he was a box safety, and graded well as a tackler, and fine as a pass defender.

• Taye Seymore - Auburn — He didn’t get any time in 2025 at Auburn, so this really should be considered a transfer from Georgia Tech where he spent time as a special teamer and part-time player. He’s a multi-sport athlete (typical for DBs) and has potential.

• Jason Cross - WVU - No playing time at WVU as he redshirted. Former 3-star Pennsylvania safety.

I expect some good things from the secondary, considering the quality recruiters here. Returnees Allen, McFarland, Starling and Canada should fit in nicely and provide some competition.

Specialists:

K: Dominic De Freitas, App State (K), Ian Ratliff, App State (P), Jacob Poff, App State (LS) — NT stole the App State battery basically.

Notable: 28 seniors, 32 juniors, 19 sophomores, 16 redshirt freshman. Eric Morris had complained that his team needed to get older, and did. That led to the best season in program history. Neal Brown has brought in a class of heavy experience. It is not quite the Indiana group that prioritizes experience on the field, as NT has guys with roster experience but not much game time in some spots. Still, guys should not be overawed by playing college football at this point.

We expect Neal Brown to lean on the run game more than you might expect, and focus on the defense. His Troy teams were very good along the line of scrimmage — on both sides of the ball. He had trouble replicating that at WVU, but again, we give him a pass given that WVU in the Big 12 is at a disadvantage in a lot of areas. Brown heavily recruited Texas this portal round, and build a staff with a clear focus on talent-acquisition. To my eyes, this is the most talent on the defensive side I’ve seen in years.

The offensive side of the ball doesn’t have many clear-and-obvious guys — I think you can make the case for any of the three QBs for example — but that’s the game. This was a good haul considering the circumstances. I can’t see this as one that will clearly beat Indiana — but that’s not the immediate goal. Can this group compete for the American? I can see the vision. There is plenty of work to do.

We had something like 10 inches of snow in a couple of days. I had no car, as my car was in the shop for routine maintenance when the auxiliary battery went out and caused the car to not be able to reverse. We learned this as they were calling us to get the car. This would not have been much of a deal except for the fact that we were snowed in.

It was not a huge deal, as we hadn’t planned to go anywhere in this. The midwest is better than Texas at this type of deal, but it still takes time to remove snow, prepare the roads, and no matter where you are in this world, some people simply cannot drive in any weather. So you get accidents and mistakes. Complicating things is that sometimes your neighborhood doesn’t have the most traffic so the roads aren’t as cleared as some others. Maybe the snow plow came through and now your car is buried. It happens.

MGN HQ was fine. We made a small snowman. The real issue wasn’t the snow, it was the cold. The temps said it felt like -18° on a single-digit day. So the kids were home but couldn’t really go outside to play in the snow until day three or four.

You get tired of wearing three layers. You are cold and yet hot at the same time. Letting the dogs out and helping them stay alive lets some of the cold air in. Now the kitchen is freezing but you are hungry. Maybe you grab a bag of chips instead of making a sandwich. Choices are made.

In Denton, the portal window closed. The signings were made. Something like 52 new players and roster participants were announced. Sometime soon, MGN will go through this list and project and analyze and make grand proclamations. For now, it is enough to simply get another tea. It is cold out here.

It is your weekly open thread where you can do what you like. Forget not that you have the forum as well.

Links:

• Charlie Baker interviewed by SI.

• (Soccer)’s class appropriation problem.

• TDH Does Not Recommend Stranger Things — I was out on ST after the first season. I said at the time that the entire show’s premise was “hey remember this?” and I was happy to move on. Looks like I wasn’t wrong.

Over on the forum, we have a tracker and it is slightly ahead of the 247 sports one. There are trackers all over. Everyone is tracking.

Read more

We asked for a close enough game so Je’Shawn Stevenson could have a shot to carry the squad. We got what we wanted, and also learned the lesson that if you need your main man to be a superhero to win, you won’t win a lot.

North Texas shot 9/20 from the free throw line, while USF made 27 of 36 (75%). USF had 19 second chance points, including a back-brea…

Read more

Who is Ousmane Ndour? He’s a 6’9” Senagalese hooper who played in Spain’s second division. He averaged about 10-points and 5-rebounds per game in about 20-minutes per game. He was called “skilled” and has four years of eligibility, despite his experience and age (20 years old). Will he play four years at North Texas? Likely not, if he is even mildly goo…

Read more

Being a part of Mean Green Nation is a choice. You do not need to root for North Texas, support the athletic programs, or anything you do not want to do. It is not an obligation in any sense other than cultural. Will your humbler MGN proprietor think less of you? Yes.

So your continued support for North Texas is possibly contingent on whether that means…

Read more

That’s a big win. The final graphic said it was the highest NET win since the 2021 Purdue first rounder in the Tournament. Tulsa was ranked 38th in NET and had lost only once. North Texas gummed up the works, put the clamps on a high-scoring offense and sprinkled in some threes to win the game.

The defense was on-brand, but the threes and FTs down the s…

Read more

In 2025, the American’s top two teams were Memphis and North Texas. They played a defensive slugfest in Memphis in early January, and Memphis won at home. We came away from that game thinking that UNT could do some things when the game was going our way, and couldn’t when Memphis created chaos.

In 2026, Memphis is one of the league’s top teams and they …

Read more

North Texas has something like 30-plus portal entries. Some of these were just a means to an end — Morris taking his key guys to Oklahoma State — and some were reactionary — the depth chart seeing what is out there. We’ve already seen Jayden Becks reverse his decision to enter the portal. I imagine there is a range of circumstances and a range of enthus…

Read more

Read more

We said on the show that the forum is for the people. Whereas Adam is a non-stop opinion haver, you don’t need my permission to fire off some hot sports opinions in the forum. But also here in the Open Thread, you may wax profound. You don’t even need to tell us about your Mean Green opinions. Have some HSOs about the colorized version of It’s A Wonderf…

Read more

Read more