Connect with us

Texas

Meet the 24-year-old GM helping North Texas take aim at the College Football Playoff

Published

on

Meet the 24-year-old GM helping North Texas take aim at the College Football Playoff


Editor’s note: This article is part of our GM Spotlight series, introducing readers to general managers who occupy a relatively new and increasingly important job for college football teams.

When North Texas hired Raj Murti in April at 23, he became one of the youngest general managers in college football.

Murti’s rise through the industry has happened quickly. He knew early in his high school career at Martin High in Arlington, Texas, that a future playing football was a long shot. So he became a student assistant under Bob Wager, a highly successful Texas high school football coach. Murti ran the film crew, helped with equipment, played scout team quarterback and assisted with recruiting contacts when college coaches visited Martin. When he graduated, Wager connected him with Ryan Dorchester, who was then the GM at Houston under Dana Holgorsen.

“(Wager) told Dor, ‘I’ve got a guy for you. I don’t know what you need, but make him do something and he’ll make a role for himself,’” Murti said.

Advertisement

Murti, now 24, took that opportunity and ran with it, spending five years on the recruiting and personnel staff at Houston (including two as an undergraduate student). From there, Murti spent a year at TCU as a recruiting coordinator and assistant player personnel director on Sonny Dykes’ staff before landing at North Texas, where the Mean Green are 8-1 and have the best chance to earn the Group of 5’s College Football Playoff berth, according to The Athletic’s projections.

Under coach Eric Morris, North Texas has been one of the surprise stories of the season, with a former walk-on quarterback, Drew Mestemaker, becoming a star (including a 608-yard game). The Mean Green have won despite having a roster budget near the bottom of the American Conference.

The Athletic recently spoke with Murti about his journey through college football personnel, the challenges of winning at a low-budget G5 program in the era of name, image and likeness and revenue sharing, and how to plan for the transfer portal.

So how did the North Texas GM opportunity arise? 

It’s funny, I asked coach Morris the same question, like “Why am I here?” (laughs). When I was a program assistant at Houston, part of the job was driving Dana (Holgorsen). In 2023, the THSCA (Texas High School Coaches Association) convention was in Houston. Dana took me to lunch with him, and coach Morris comes in and sits down. They’re hugging and catching up, they obviously go all the way back to their Texas Tech days. About five, six minutes into the conversation, coach Morris looks at Dana and points at me and says, “Uh, who’s the kid?” And Dana tells him about me. Then coach Morris looks at me and says, “You must be pretty f—ing good if you’re sitting here with him right now.”

Advertisement

I saw (Morris) again the next year when I was at TCU and we hosted a big mega (recruiting) camp. We caught up and ate lunch together for two days at the camp. I never had his phone number or anything like that. We’d see each other sparingly. But he said when this job came open and he was going to make it a GM role, he called Dana and Sonny (Dykes). He asked them, “Is Raj ready for this?” And Dana was like “F— yeah.” And Sonny said: “No-brainer.”

He called me and we talked about philosophies, what I do, what’s my thought process. We were on the phone for about an hour and a half. A few days later, I go interview for 5 1/2 hours, (meet with the staff), talked about everything. … They called me the following Monday, which felt like an eternity … and offered me the job.

You’ve worked in personnel departments, but this is your first time running one. What’s that learning curve been like?

It’s been a whirlwind. I got here on April 1, the portal opened on April 15. I had to put together a revenue-sharing plan and evaluate a whole roster in two weeks. It’s everything from deciding who we need to move on from, what positions we need, and then the portal opens and it’s evaluation. I had to tie dollar amounts to the players, which is something I had never done before.

We didn’t finish all of our portal commitments until the end of May, then it’s (recruiting) camp season. Then I had to hire a director of player personnel. There was no chance for self-reflection or how can I get better at this or that, because it’s like, you better figure this s— out because it’s happening and the train is right around the corner, so buckle up.

Advertisement

How long did it take to evaluate the roster before the portal opened and finish putting together the 2025 roster?

Luckily, they were still in spring practice, so I got to do some of it live. I watched the whole roster (on tape) within three days. I didn’t sleep much. And I met with each coach on our coaching staff, individually, about their whole room and every single player in it. I listened to them on everything from what their players do outside of football and who he is to “Hey, he’s a really good inside zone blocker.” So I relied on a lot of their feedback. And I think anyone who doesn’t rely on position coaches’ feedback when building a roster is crazy, because they’re the ones who have to coach them.

We didn’t finish the roster until the end of May. We had to do a lot of portal work. … We were getting in bidding wars and (other) schools were overpaying for kids that I didn’t really value that highly. We bring a kid on a trip, and the day after, we’re about to send him his scholarship paperwork, and he’s like, “Hey, School X down the road said they’re going to offer us $50,000 more.” And I’m like, “Jesus, they don’t even have that much money!”

Drew Mestemaker ranks third in the FBS with 2,702 passing yards. (Raymond Carlin III / Imagn Images)

Your quarterback, Drew Mestemaker, has been one of the revelations of this season. When did you know he was legit?

Advertisement

By the end of spring ball. He was pretty freaky. When I got there, coach Morris told me, “We’ve got two guys (Mestemaker and former Miami and Albany transfer Reese Poffenbarger). I want you to watch for a little while and tell me which one you like.”

I was like, “Coach, I don’t know if it’s because this kid has been in the system for a year, but (Mestemaker) is really f—ing good.” And Drew was continuously getting better.

Your roster budget is less than $2 million, which is near the bottom of the conference, yet you’re 8-1. How do you build a winning roster on a small budget?

You don’t overpay. You keep your priorities and your values. … You don’t get big-eyed in the heat of the moment, keep your composure and understand that this is part of it. If another school wants to overspend for somebody, you’ve got to have a number that you’re like, “I’m not going higher than this.” As long as you have some kind of thought process and your thought process aligns with your evaluation process, which then aligns with your valuation process and how much to pay them.

I’m going to sit down and watch the tape. Our DPP and assistant DPP are going to watch the tape. The coaches are going to watch the tape. And once we all see it the same way, we look at our roster and say, “OK, where does this kid fit?” And it’s such a hard thing to project, because you’re trying to project where a high school kid or a junior college (prospect) or a transfer fits before you can even negotiate what next year’s contracts are with your current team. … So you have to be aligned in the staff from the personnel department to the position coach to the coordinator to the head coach, so we know where a kid fits and there’s a dollar range for that spot on the roster and we’re all on the same page and we’re not gonna overpay to try to get him.

Advertisement

So when do you start making offers to your current roster for next year’s team?

Probably December, before the portal opens. I want these kids to have all the information before the portal opens. “Hey, here’s where we’ve got you at (compensation-wise). If somebody’s going to pay you more money, I get it. But this is what we can do.”

For players like Mestemaker or (freshman running back) Caleb Hawkins, who will likely be attractive portal targets for Power 4 programs, do you have to speed up that process because there may be other teams sniffing around?

No, I don’t think so, because those programs are going to be in a different tax bracket. So either they’re going to stay here for the best offer we can give them and want to be here or not. I hope they stay, but I’m not going to be in a situation where another program is going to dictate what we do.

The early signing period for high school recruits is about a month away (Dec. 3-5), and the transfer portal opens in two months (Jan. 2-16). What’s your planning process for all of that?

Advertisement

We’re a big (high school) senior evaluation team, so we’ll have a lot of official visits for high school and junior college kids, because we’re still trying to finish up our 2026 class. We wait until all the P4s get their commits in the summer, and we know what our pool is after that, then we go swimming. After our bye week (this week), we’ll go into pre-portal evaluations.

What are the biggest priorities and challenges that you face as you approach that time?

Trying to figure out what it takes to retain your team. Because there’s a point where it’s just like, OK, we can spend this to retain him, but is he even worth this, or for this money, can we go get someone else? Or could we get two good players for that money?

It’s important not to be unrealistic. I know what a $16 million roster looks like (at the Power 4 level) and how those rosters are broken down. If a P4 school comes in and tells a player, “Hey, we’re going to give you $250,000,” and if the best we can do is $75,000, is that what it’s going to take for him to stay here? Or are we better off saying, “I need a yes or no now, because if not, we can go get two good players with this.” You gotta be realistic about where you’re at and what you’re capable of. And if you’re not capable of it, don’t overspend and put yourself in a hole because this is still football.

If you put all your money and eggs into one basket and a kid goes down in fall camp or spring ball or second play of the game in Week 1, f—, I’d rather have a deep room than a top-heavy room.

Advertisement

What do you think of having one portal window in the winter rather than having two, including the spring window?

Love it. I think they made it go too long. I thought Jan. 2-11 was perfect. Now that it’s extended to Jan. 16, you’re going to have so many enrollment issues. … How do you get them into school in time? I think you’re going to have so many players that don’t go anywhere in the spring and sit out. They’re just going to be floating around in the portal until someone comes and picks them up.

But I like knowing that whenever February comes around, we’re gonna have our team and that’s our team for the season. I don’t have to worry about the fact that I signed a kid to a contract, but in May I’m going to have to (increase it) because (a Power 4 team) loses somebody they’re gonna come try to poach our guys.

The GM Spotlight series is part of a partnership with T. Rowe Price. The Athletic maintains full editorial independence. Partners have no control over or input into the reporting or editing process and do not review stories before publication.



Source link

Advertisement

Texas

Orange County wedding photographer deported on way to job in Texas

Published

on

Orange County wedding photographer deported on way to job in Texas


An Orange County photographer is speaking out after he was deported as he was heading to Texas to photograph a wedding.

What they’re saying:

Advertisement

“I was trying to do it the right way, the legal way and it just feels like they don’t care about that,” said Adan Caceres.

Caceres came to the United States under asylum in 2014, fleeing a violent El Salvador.

“My mom’s sister was murdered and she was thrown in front of our house. She also was abused sexually before they murdered her and then my brother and I were threatened by the gangs,” said Caceres.

Advertisement

He says he never received the deportation order that was issued in 2018 and only learned about it in 2023. He then started the process of reopening his case.

“I was paying my taxes. I’m a business owner, I’m a wedding photographer. I’m also married,” said Caceres.

Advertisement

In October, Caceres was going through security at John Wayne Airport, heading to a job in Texas, when he was detained. He says from Santa Ana, he was sent to the Adelanto Detention Center then one in El Paso, Texas where he says the conditions were inhumane.

“We’re not even asking ‘hey let us out’ we’re asking for water, we’re asking for us to be able to use the restroom, these are basic human rights,” said Caceres.

He says now that he’s back in the country he once fled, he’s most concerned about his wife back in Orange County.

Advertisement

“I was providing a lot of income for our household and now my wife has to take care of all of those things on her own; paying car insurance, the rent, all the bills,” said Caceres.

Caceres says he had no criminal history and feels he was on the path to citizenship when it was ripped away from him, leaving his future with his family uncertain.

Advertisement

“I don’t know if I’m going to see them. I don’t know when I’m going to see them,” said Caceres.

The other side:

FOX11 reached out to the Department of Homeland Security asking about Caceres’ case but had not heard back at the time this story aired. 

Advertisement

The Source: Information for this story came from an interview with Adan Caceres.

ImmigrationOrange County



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Texas

SCOTUS won’t rule on Texas library’s book banning case

Published

on

SCOTUS won’t rule on Texas library’s book banning case


In a years-long Texas book banning case that’s seen rulings from multiple judges, the highest court in the nation has decided not to weigh in. 

It all started in 2021, when a community in a small county near Austin decided to rid their public library’s shelves of “inappropriate” literature. 

Advertisement

SCOTUS declines to rule

The latest:

The Supreme Court of the United States decided Monday they would not rule on an appeal in the Llano County case. Decisions by lower courts had previously allowed for books regarding topics like sex and social issues to be removed from the shelves. 

Advertisement

According to the court’s timeline of proceedings, they first received an application to file a petition in the case on July 24. Since this summer, the petition was filed, motions to extend were passed through, numerous briefs were submitted in support of the appeal, and finally, in November, the petition was distributed for conference. 

After nearly a month of no further actions, the next proceeding was a simple denial. 

Anti-censorship groups request action

Advertisement

What they’re saying:

Numerous groups and organizations advocating free speech and expression submitted briefs to the court in favor of the appeal.

One group was The National Coalition Against Censorship, whose conclusion reads in part as follows: 

Advertisement

“Allowing the Fifth Circuit’s decision to stand threatens to make public libraries a doctrinal oxymoron—institutions with a proud historical tradition of providing access to the widest possible range of ideas would become one of the only areas where the government could openly censor private viewpoints.”

Another group, PEN America, expressed a similar view in their brief:

Advertisement

“Library doors are open to all without regard to wealth, status, education, profession, or identity, and their collections run the gamut of expression. That extraordinary public service demands safeguards against official orthodoxy. Fortunately, the First Amendment has long offered such protection. This Court should reaffirm as much here.”

The removal of books from Llano County libraries

The backstory:

Advertisement

In 2021, a group of community members began working to have several books they deemed inappropriate removed from Llano County public library shelves.

A group of seven Llano County residents filed a federal lawsuit against the county judge, commissioners, library board members and the library systems director for restricting and banning books from the three-branch library system.

The lawsuit stated that the county judge, commissioners and library director removed several books off shelves, suspended access to digital library books, replaced the Llano County library board with community members in favor of book bans, halted new library book orders and allowed the library board to close its meetings to the public in a coordinated censorship campaign that violates the First Amendment and 14th Amendment.

Advertisement

In 2024, a divided panel from the Fifth Circuit ordered eight of the removed books returned.

Both the majority opinion of the 2024 panel and the dissenting opinion from Friday’s decision called the removal of the books a political decision.

Advertisement

What are the books?

The books at issue in the case include “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontent” by Isabel Wilkerson; “They Called Themselves the K.K.K: The Birth of an American Terrorist Group,” by Susan Campbell Bartoletti; “In the Night Kitchen” by Maurice Sendak; “It’s Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex and Sexual Health” by Robie H. Harris; and “Being Jazz: My Life as a (Transgender) Teen” by Jazz Jennings.

Other titles include “Larry the Farting Leprechaun” by Jane Bexley and “My Butt is So Noisy!” by Dawn McMillan.

Advertisement

The Source: Information in this article comes from the Supreme Court of the United States and briefs filed in a petition to the court. 

TexasTexas PoliticsLGBTQNews



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Texas

Letters to the Editor: Supreme Court’s opinion upholding Texas’ new maps is ‘blatant sophistry’

Published

on

Letters to the Editor: Supreme Court’s opinion upholding Texas’ new maps is ‘blatant sophistry’


To the editor: Contributing writer Erwin Chemerinsky’s recent op-ed should be required reading for all who support our constitutional democracy (“The Supreme Court’s 3 terrible reasons for allowing Texas’ racially rigged map,” Dec. 5).

There are so many things wrong with the Supreme Court’s blocking of the lower court’s reasoned opinion that ruled the Texas redistricting map unconstitutional. As Chemerinsky points out, the three reasons given by the Supreme Court in its unsigned opinion are blatant sophistry and result in effectively making it impossible for anyone to challenge a legislature’s action in redistricting anytime in advance of a midterm congressional election.

What’s more, this decision comes from the court’s “shadow docket,” meaning it is rendered without briefing or oral argument — but nonetheless gives a green light to the challenged redistricting map for this upcoming election.

Advertisement

The rationale that a map drawn for purely partisan political purposes might be constitutionally permissible is stunning. In 2019, in Rucho vs. Common Cause, Chief Justice John Roberts (in upholding a redistricting map) wrote: “Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust. But the fact that such gerrymandering is ‘incompatible with democratic principles’ does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary.” But this is where we are.

James Stiven, Cardiff
This writer is a retired U.S. magistrate judge.

..

To the editor: Chemerinsky is outraged that Texas is allowed to redraw its congressional maps, which are designed to elect five more Republicans to the House of Representatives. Would it be proper to ban Texas from doing this after California has already found legal avenues to do something similar? I’m not sure how all states can be forced to draw districts that are reasonable and fair, but Chemerinsky seems to lament the gerrymandering practice in Texas without mentioning complaints when it happens in California.

David Waldowski, Laguna Woods

Advertisement

..

To the editor: Although Chemerinsky accurately describes the Supreme Court’s stated reasons for the decision, the actual rationale was probably much more cynical.

First, Texas racially rigged its election district maps to favor Trump in the midterms. Second, California rigged its own maps in response, but did it better by putting it to statewide vote. Lastly, the Texas stunt got challenged in court on solid constitutional grounds and looked like it might lose, so that the whole thing might backfire against our man President Trump. And, well, we can’t have that, can we?

Ronald Ellsworth, La Mesa

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending