The loss of McKinner Dixon due to grades bothers me on a personal level, but I know that we also need to discuss how this effects the depth chart as we march onwards with what we hope is a special season.  Distractions have to be left behind.

I'm confused. Dixon has been on campus since the spring semester and in class. I just don't get how he can go from being in class probably for the spring semester and the summer and then be ineligible. Something's not right here, and I'm not sure what it is. It could be a simple case of Dixon not going to class, but he seemed really sincere to be given a second chance.

Again, this is probably one of my biggest faults/weaknesses, is that I tend to believe in people, often to my detriment. In Don Williams' Raider Rants blog, it appears that Leach is now completely indifferent towards Dixon:

Dixon was at practice Thursday night, but Mike Leach said it's doubtful he'll be playing this season. Rather than put Leach's quotes in two places, I'll let you hit the link at the bottom of this entry.

Just like the last time Dixon became ineligible, back in the spring of 2006, Leach didn't seem very sympathetic.

When he was asked Thursday how he evaluated Dixon so far, Leach said: "In the classroom, not very good.''

When a reporter clarified, asking about Dixon's on-field showing this week, Leach said: "It's irrelevant, because if you don't make it in the classroom, you don't get on the field. It's not even relevant. We're not going to rep him until he can get on the field.''

Again, I believed that Dixon was a changed man

Second, is the depth chart. With the loss of Dixon, that means that everyone moves up a spot. I'm wondering if it was intentional by the coaches to have Dixon behind the better player, Brandon Williams, in case something like this happened as it did his freshman season. I think that's a pretty good bet, although that's complete speculation on my part.

This isn't the best situation, but I'm okay with it. With Williams getting a majority of the snaps and Howard, who I think is one of those guys whose motor doesn't stop, is ideal for the end position. Having three quality defensive ends is a luxury, having two quality defensive ends is more reality. If Dixon is ineligible, then it's a crappy reality as I had high hopes for Dixon.

Williams discusses defensive end depth at Raider Rants:

The other good news: Well, it's old news, but it's still worth remembering. As deep as this team is, defensive end is one of the deepest positions on the team with or without McKinner. At left end, it's Jake Ratliff, Daniel Howard and Sesay -- and I believe a lot of Tech fans underrate the first two -- and at right end, it's Brandon Williams, Brandon Sharpe and Sandy Riley. I'll say again, I think Williams will take his play up a notch this season, simply because this is his third year in the program. Two years ago, he hit the ground running to earn a role as a true freshman. Last year, he was second-team all-Big 12. Now he's all grown up -- at least so far as completely grasping what it takes to play in this league.

Last week, Williams had B. Williams, Dixon and Howard all in the same position, but now it's Sharpe and Riley (although Williams RR Football Notebook this morning says otherwise). For the time being, I'm not going to change our depth chart as I tend to think that Sesay and Ratliff will be more than adequate on the left side and Daniel Howard, in my opinion, is right behind B. Williams in terms of making plays and play on the field.

In other words, if I had to rank the defensive ends that I've seen play (thus excluding Sesay and Sharpe) then it would be B. Williams, Howard, Ratliff and Riley. Howard needs to see the field and I'm not sure how that happens as much as I would like behind Ratliff and Sesay.

School: Eastern Washington University

Website: Go Eags

Mascot: Eagles

Location: Cheney, Washington

Conference: Big Sky

2007 Record: 9-4 (6-2)

2008 Prospectus: Heck yes

Season Statisitics: Football Championship Subdivision Statistics (National Rank)

• Rushing Offense: 166.77 (50)
• Passing Offense: 295.54 (8)
• Passing Efficiency: 155.61 (10)
• Total Offense: 462.31 (5)
• Scoring Offense: 33.62 (18)
• Rushing Defense: 144.08 (38)
• Pass Defense: 246.62 (104)
• Pass Efficiency Defense: 112.30 (24)
• Total Defense: 390.69 (80)
• Scoring Defense: 22.15 (30)
• Turnover Margin: 0.92 (20)
• Sacks: 2.00 (50)
• Sacks Allowed: 1.92 (62)

Generally: In December of last year Eastern Washington head coach Paul Wulff was named the Washington State's new head coach. Wulff finished second in the Big Sky last year, second behind Montana, who was perfect in conference, all behind a sophomore quarterback, putting up some pretty impressive passing numbers. Beau Baldwin was named as Wulff's successor, who previously coached at Central Washington University, his alma mater, but has previously coached at EWU. EWU made it to the playoffs, but lost to Appalachain State (I wonder if McNeill will be contacting Moore for some video of the Eagles).

Offense: Much like Texas Tech, EWU is predominately a passing school, although EWU does rush for over 160 yards a game and considering the success the Eagles had last year, I would expect Baldwin to continue what Wulff started. Matt Nichols led the team in passing and in offense last year, was the 2007 Big Scky Offensive MVP, and was only a sophomore. Nichols finished the year with 34 passing touchdowns and only 9 interceptions. Nichols isn't necissarily a running quarterback, but he did rush for 103 yards against Weber State, so he certainly has the wheels to run.

It would seem that senior running back Dale Morris would be returning for his final year, but he was no where to be found or mentioned in the EWU's spring game write-up.  Morris rushed for 71.54 yards a game and a very healthy 12 touchdowns.  Redshirt freshman Tyler Hart led the team in rushing during the spring game with 28 yards, but senior runner Toke Kefu led with 7 rushes for the game.

ESU returns 4 of their top 5 receiving threats in receiver Aaron Boyce (85; 1,308; 10 TD), receiver Brynsen Brown (52; 755; 4 TD), receiver Tony Davis (35; 498; 4 TD) and tight end Nathan Overbay (12; 215; 3 TD). During ESU's spring game, Overbay caught 8 passes for 91 yards.

Defense: ESU is replacing it's top 4 tacklers from a defense that finished 80th in the FCS. Greg Peach does return and he finished 2ith 11 sacks on the year, good for 11th nationally, as well as 63 tackles. Jason Belford and Lance Witherspoon should also be returning for their senior years along the defensive line, and both were fairly effective at making plays beind the line of scrimmage. Belford had 13.5 tackles for a loss and Witherspoon had 11.

The linebacking corp doesn't seem to be a group that makes a lot of plays. Marcus Walker (47 tackles) and Makai Borden (52 tackles) are two of the returning linebackers with the most experience.

Defensive back Will Edge led the team with 9 tackles in the spring game, while fellow DB Jesse Hoffman had 7 tackles. It appears that EWU's best player in the defensive backfield is junior Kevin Hatch, who finished with 4 interceptions to go along with 75 tackles.

YouTube: Up first is the highlights from the Montana loss and the one thing that stands out is Nichols' ability sling the ball down the field and EWU's seemingly difficult time covering Montana's receivers on some fairly deep passes, especially early in the game.

University of Montana VS Eastern Washington 2007 highlights (via ThrashedKid)

Next, 1st and 2nd half highlights from the BYU game, but I think it gives a pretty good indication of what Texas Tech should be able to do against EWU. At times EWU is very much over-matched, although it seems that BYU is running the ball quite often, 47 rushes for the entire game (#45 for BYU is pretty good). I will say that EWU does a really nice job of dropping defensive players into coverage, a la, Missouri and Colorado. Again, Nichols has a retty good arm, and the EWU lone TD (about 6:00 into the 1st highlight) is a great pass and catch.

BYU vs EWU First half (via cougarclips)

BYU vs EWU 2nd Half (via cougarclips)

What I Think: I think EWU struggles against a very explosive Texas Tech offense. I know, look at me going out on a limb with my prediction, but the reality is EWU has a defense that doesn't return a number of their top players, I would imagine that they are probably learning a new defense under Baldwin, that 2 strikes against a defense that just wasn't very good last year. Defensively, Texas Tech should do just fine against the Eagles, although it will be interesting to see how the Red Raiders match up against a pretty good quarterback and a pretty good receiving corp. Lots of offense returns for EWU and this game can make a pretty big statement for the Red Raiders. Stop the Eagles and no one is going to wonder if this is the same old Texas Tech defense.

This made my stomach drop . . . in a bad way. On Tuesday, a Lubbock grand jury indicted Stephen Hamby for aggravated assault:

Mike Leach had this to say about the situation and the punishment:

Let's just wait and see. Remember that he's just been indicted, so there's quite a bit more of the legal process that he's going to have to wade through.

This morning's post caused a little bit of controversy and Mocking the Draft's Matt Miller responded to some of my and your questions regarding the Big 12 Conference rankings. I loves me some discussion, so here we go. I thought it would be a great way to kick off a weekend (do I know how to party, or what?) and ask you how you would rank them. Let's take the offensive unit rankings first and go from there. I'll start. Leave your rankings in the comments section:

• Backfield
• 1. Oklahoma
  2. Missouri
  3. Texas

  Rational: OU is perhaps the most balanced scoring team in the Big 12, and there's a lot of talented running backs in their stable (Murray and Brown). Missouri has shown that they are an offensive force to be reckoned with. Daniel and Jimmy Jackson are talented (we should know). I'm not convinced that McCoy will return to his freshman success, but there are a lot of talented runners who were waiting behind Charles. Besides, who else are you going to put at this spot? There aren't a lot of options and I don't think that the Aggies will turn it around that quickly, especially behind a very young offensive line.

• Receivers
• 1. Texas Tech
  2. Missouri
  3. Kansas

  Rational: I think Texas Tech deserves the top spot just because of Mr. Crabtree, but including Morris, T. Walker, Britton, etc., there's just a lot of talent. I was close to putting Missouri at the top spot because Maclin supremely gifted as well, plus Missouri has Coffman as a completely different threat. I was also pretty torn with this 3rd spot, but went with Kansas because they've got a pretty good QB and they return quite a bit of their receiving corp (Fields, Briscoe, and Meier).

• Offensive Line
• 1. Oklahoma
  2. Texas Tech
  3. Texas

  Rational: OU returns a ton of talented players and they do it every year. For a team that passes as much as Tech Tech, they only gave up 18 sacks for the year and would imagine that Potts gave up a few of those in mop-up duty. Texas was awfully young last year on the O-line and that means they are a year better.

• Overall Offense
• 1. Oklahoma
  2. Missouri
  3. Texas Tech

  Rational: First, although Kansas was outstanding offensively last year (1st in the conference in scoring), I need for them to do it one more year before I believe. It's not fair, but it's my rankings. Again, OU is balanced with 34 rushing TD's and 39 passing TD's, that's some pretty good football. Missouri was just a step behind Texas Tech last year, but I thought Missouri was more consistent. I struggled putting Texas Tech 3rd, but until those hiccup games stop, this is where they need to be.

Have at it.

Texas Tech Football:

Up first, New Era Scouting's Matt Miller (also of Mocking the Draft) previews the Big 12 Conference. First, I understand the perception that Texas Tech is an up and coming program, perhaps this year's squad is expected to be one of the best in the school's history, but Miller seems to ignore that perception and lump the Red Raiders in the lower half of the conference. That's just odd that Miller would ignore the preseason hype, especially when it seems more warranted than in previous years because we are actually talking about the defense. Quite simply, we know the offense is going to be good, but with a defense that can actually stop a few folks (crossing fingers), and I think they will, is something this should be mentioned.

I'm also still not sure about the lack of offensive linemen who get mention on either the All-Conference team. I shake my head when Louis Vasquez isn't even mentioned on either team, and I think Rylan Reed, were it not for the injury, would be one of the best linemen in the conference. Shawn Byrnes is mentioned as the first team center, but the latest from the spring is that Stephen Hamby may take Byrnes' job.

I also wonder about Bradford as the first team quarterback, personally, I think that Chase Daniel is the conference's best quarterback. He wins and he puts up numbers, but I think that right now, Harrell is a better quarterback than Bradford. Bradford is no slouch, I just don't think he's the best quarterback in the conference.

Defensively, I get it. No players deserve to be on either team. The Red Raiders have got to prove it and I've got no problem with that.

Texas Tech makes ESPN's Mark Schlabach list of Three Things I Can't Wait to See This Fall:

We're now in part 3 of a 4 part series on Tipping a program. We've already introduced Tipping A Program, and talked about The Law of Few and now we've moved onto the Stickiness Factor, perhaps the most difficult to define aspect of Tipping a Program.

Without a doubt, I am one of the least creative individuals that I know. Original ideas with me are few and far between so this is where I really need the help of the readers of DTN to figure out how this would work. First and foremost, I think it should be acknowledged that I've never sat in a living room listening to a recruiter talk about why his school is better than someone else's school nor have I ever sat in on the ad campaign for a football season or basketball season. My question is if there is a better way to get out your message?

And although I've never been in a living room with a recruiter, and I've never taken a marketing class, I think that a big part of this is to consider who is the audience. My way of thinking tells me that we've got two potential audiences here. The first being recruits and the second being the ticket buying public. Let's tackle the recruits first.

I would imagine that recruits hear the same message from each and every recruiter that comes through the door. That every letter that they receive is like any other letter that they receive. There's probably no distinguishing factor from one school to the next. They're all just words on a piece of paper and if anything, these letters are at the very least to let a potential player know that a particular school is interested in bringing that player to their school.

We learned in The Law of Few that there are certain factors that play a greater role in a player's decision of what school they will commit to and those they won't. Thus, if all of the messages are the same and there's been a study as to what's important to athlete's then I have to wonder if schools are changing their messages to make their message different from a rival school.

The bottom line, is Texas Tech's message memorable, or more appropriately, is it "sticky"?

Before we get too much further, I don't think this is about spending more money, or increasing any sort of advertising or recruiting budget. I don't think that's what Tipping a Program is about. Rather, this is more about making fundamental changes that hopefully and eventually turn the tide.

So I would imagine that the point here is not to do what every other school does, but to do it differently. If the difference in landing a recruit is presenting the message in a way that is entirely unique AND tailored to what what is important to these recruits then this is where you start. The problem with the current method is that if a school does the same thing, again and again, without improved results, then perhaps you have to take a look at the method. Or perhaps if the results don't come about as quickly as you want, then you might have to take a look at the method. It's tipping the program for a sustained period of time that's the key, not treading water or slowly making progress to an eventual goal.

Isn't this the epitome of marketing? Looking at data, determining how people make decisions (external influences), and creating a working model that might help you determine how to better reach that recruit with relatively less effort, yet still achieve a high level of success.

So now you're saying, that's really great, but who in the hell is Texas Tech or any other university going to employ to do all of this marketing research? Well. . . how about the university itself. The nice thing about a college is that within any university you're going to have everything you need to get this done. Almost any university has the resources at its fingertips to figure out what is important to a recruit, what sticks with a recruit, and what eventually what is that one thing that determines where a recruit goes to school. Research, statistics, and marketing are all there to be taken advantage of at any school. So I have to wonder how much self-study goes on with recruits once they are on campus? Have coaches ever considered utilizing the university to figure make this all happen? Does any school tap the minds of their own recruits to learn what they could have done better in the recruiting process?

As far as getting a class or department involved, you may ask what's in it for them? How about getting to use an ad campaign that the university utilizes on your resume as motivation. Or being a part of the production, writing, marketing, etc.? Those students involved get the credit for the work they've done and they get the satisfaction of doing something to create some interest in their school.

Next up is the ticket-buying public. I cannot recall any ticket-buying campaign from Texas Tech that is memorable or one that "stuck" with me over time. A perfect example of a sticky advertising campaign, at least in my opinion, is the NBA's "Where Amazing Happens" advertising campaign. The campaign itself is simple and effective. It's memorable. It's sticky. In fact, it's so sticky that someone put together a similar video related to Texas Tech that DTN posted some time ago.

I know it's a little unrealistic to ask that any university come up with something as sticky as the NBA, but let's take the current Texas Tech ticket buying campaign. Here we have the current 30 second commercial, "Big Plays, Big Games, Big Time". It's a fine commercial and I've got no problems with it, but here's my question. Is this memorable? Is this commercial any more memorable than a previous commercial for Texas Tech football?

As an aside, why didn't Texas Tech upload this video? Did you know that Texas Tech has it's own YouTube video channel? Why wouldn't a school promote itself, especially for something that's free, like YouTube, as much as possible. Why aren't there more highlights of every sport on Texas Tech's channel?

But back to the idea of making a particular message memorable or sticky, I tend to think that almost every football program's advertising campaign is fairly static and there's probably plenty of room for improvement. It's a picture or clip of the team or a player, looking tough or making a spectacular play with a catchy slogan. Is there a different way to get out the message and make it memorable or are we stuck with the same type of message year after year?

When I first wrote this, almost a month ago, I wondered if Texas Tech would utilize the most recent success of Wes Welker and Michael Crabtree, and sure enough, I received a letter from Wes Welker asking me to contribute to the Red Raider Club. Before that, I received a phone call from Michael Crabtree, I think asking me to buy season tickets. I think the school is on the right track here. This is a move in the right direction, capitalizing on the success of current and past athletes, something that hasn't necessarily happened at the same time before.

If anything, this should really highlight how special a time it is at Texas Tech. Perhaps unprecedented. And this is what will lead us to the Law of Context, the next segment.

Again, I don't think it's necessary to spend more money or increase your advertising budget. It's about spending the money uniquely. Spend the money so that the message is memorable among those who buy tickets an those who we want to come to Texas Tech.

A Series In Tipping A Program:

• Introduction
• The Law of Few
• Stickiness Factor
• Law of Context
• Conclusion

Double-T Nation News:

In no particular order, DTN's Top Four:

1. Bonnie Richardson of Rochelle High School won the Texas 1A track title -- all by herself.
2. Kinda funny, Baron Davis and Adam Sandler promote Don't Mess With Zohan.
3. ESPN's Tim Griffin breaks down the Big 12 North.
4. The Dagger with an even-handed look at the O.J. Mayo situation (there's plenty to blame to go around - the NCAA, the NBA, and the colleges who take players with baggage).

Texas Tech Football:

ESPN's Tim Griffin breaks down every team of the Big 12 South, including your Red Raiders. I think Griffin hits on my two biggest concerns, finding a kicker and figuring out if this team knows how to handle success. Griffin also mentions the running back situation and thinks that Kobey Lewis might have an inside track for the job because of his blocking skills, but it's always been my understanding that it's Woods' blocking skills that have what might earn him the starting spot, while Batch may have the best combination of size and speed and Crawford has the best size, but not game-changing speed. In any event, I still think that all 4 see time this year in some form or fashion.

Texas Tech Football:

LAJ's Don Williams talks with new Texas Tech commits Dion Chidozie and Aaron Fisher. There are a couple of interesting things here, let's first tackle Fisher. Fisher's receiving numbers are quite different from the numbers linked yesterday from the FWST (which BTW, is no longer a good link for whatever reason), so he's a little more productive than originally thought. That's the good news. The interesting thing about Fisher was his quote about the Texas Tech staff only taking one receiver:

Now I would guess that if the right receiver were to come along, Texas Tech would jump all over it, but I find it interesting that this would be 2 classes in a row where the staff decides that there's not much need to take 3 or 4 receivers. Granted, the 2008 class and the 2009 class are both classes without a large number of commitments. In that 2008 class, there were only 2 receivers that committed, Cornelius Douglas and Austin Zouzalik. I like both Douglas and Zouzalik (why wouldn't I), but considering that receivers are the life-blood of this program, I wouldn't mind seeing 3 receivers per class. I also realize that the 2007 class had a number of receivers (Hawk, Flannel, Lewis, Swindall, and Franks), but I'd like to see a more even distiribution.

Fisher talks about the strengths and the spread offense:

Chidozie currently plays outside linebacker at Bishop Lynch, and also talks about what is expected of him:

If Chidozie is 190 rather than then 175, then the Red Raiders have an interesting commitment. I'm hoping Chidozie has a big frame to add a little more weight, otherwise he's not any bigger than some of the safety commits the Red Raiders have already received.

If I sound a little negative, I don't mean to. I like how this staff is going after athletes who project to get bigger and stronger with the key factor being speed amongst all of the new commits. I like the direction this thing is going.

Texas Tech Football:

ESPN's Mark Schlabach updates his Top 25, and your Red Raiders check in at #11:

Here are a couple of pretty cool recruiting maps: 2008 Big 12 Recruiting (South) and 2009 Big 12 Recruiting (hat-tip to DTN reader Keith).

SI.com's Gene Menez thinks that Mr. Crabtree is the 5th best candidate to take the Heisman Trophy this year (hat-tip to DTN reader djollie111):

Personally, I don't think that Mr. Crabtree will duplicate his 2007 season, just because it was that unbelievable. If he does duplicate it, then he should be at the top of the list. His numbers are so much more ridiculous that his competitors and he's reliant on his quarterback to make sure he gets the ball rather than being able to create on his own, which he does when he does get the ball.

SI.com's Stewie Mandell also has his updated Top 25 with your Red Raiders checking in at #8 (hat-tip to DTN reader djollie111):

DallasCowboys.com's Nick Eatman is asking all of us to tap the breaks a bit with the Danny Amendola love (hat-tip Blogging The Boys):

As excited that I am that Amendola is with the Cowboys, I think ultimately he's going to be on the practice squad by the time camp concludes. I do think that it's better for everyone involved to remember that Amendola isn't Welker, and I think Amendola is handling as best he possibly can. There's 2 ways to look at this, the Cowboys are pretty well set at receiver and if he's going to beat anyone, he's going to have to beat Miles Austin or Sam Hurd. Eatman correctly points out that Amendola has to do more than just catch passes, he's got to show that he's versatile, that he can run down the field with wreckless abandon on punt and kickoff returns. There's only 53 spots and the more versatile Amendola is, then the greater the chance that Amendola gets a shot to catch a few passes from Romo.

There's also some updated video on Amendola at the DMN and Amendola on the Welker comparisons (hat-tip to DTN Reader Keith).

The Bat-Signal went up (i.e. an email) from Bond J. Bond of Disco Tech! notifying me of an article by ESPN's Mark Schlabach on the genius that is Mike Leach. I called Mr. Bond, we had a tremendous conversation. Hawaii was great. But he's back hard at work and he wanted me to relay his thoughts about this article.

First and foremost, go read the whole article. It's great. And I mean that.

Second, Mr. Bond's thoughts, which I will probably relay incorrectly, but it's the thought that Schlabach probably interviewed the Captain over the course of a couple of days, watching practice and hanging out with Leach, only to realize that he didn't have one quote about how Leach felt about his football team, or the Red Raiders' chances this season, but rather, there was more talk of pirates, a mock-Van Gogh in the image of the Captain, and not working too much.

I've often danced around defending Captain Leach, in part because he hasn't quite done "it". He hasn't put together that complete season where he beats every team that fans expect Texas Tech to beat, but I'm done doing that.

I love the man. I'm not ashamed to say it, I think he's great for Texas Tech. I think he is great for Lubbock. I think he is great for Double-T Nation.

Here's the deal. I've tried to do it before, compiling recruiting ranks, numbers, statistics, blah, blah, blah and I still say that Leach has done more with less talent than any school in the country over the past 8 season with Texas Tech. And perhaps this will have to be my little summer project, detailing why I think Captain Leach has done more with less and why he's so great for Texas Tech, but for the time being, I'm going to be unabashedly in love and in favor of all things Leach.

I completely get that he can be critical of his team, players and officials and doesn't always take the blame for errors on the field. The man has his faults. I get that. There is no such thing as a perfect coach.

But he's my captain.

I think Leach is tremendously entertaining and I think he can coach the hell out of a bunch of kids that, for the most part, bigger schools didn't want. I'll take a guy who overachieves with less talent every time rather than a guy who underachieves with more talent.

So indulge me as I blockquote my favorite bit from the Schlabach's article: