|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 27, 2011 8:24:51 GMT -8
I just want a chance to play a big-name school here. We have done it in the past and can again in the future.
AzWm
|
|
|
Post by ryandickie on Sept 27, 2011 9:05:14 GMT -8
it's an easy road trip for Nebraska fans. That's why they signed the deal. Bingo. In the new college football landscape, the days of the "big boys" leaving their yard in the preseason are mostly gone. They must see some sort of extra benefit to forgo the revenue from the lost home game. Plus, in the BC$ era, the potential (financial) risks of a "bad" loss early in the season are far too great to risk traveling. Thus, we need to try to schedule the teams who want more SoCal access. A major reason for the sudden stop to the PAC10/12/14 expansion was that the finite number of SoCal games would have more mouths to feed. Many schools wouldn't stand for that. One only has to look at any Pac-12 roster to see how heavily it feeds on recruits from Santa Barbara to San Diego. Plus, these schools usually have strong alumni bases in the SD area as in the Nebraska@Wyoming reference above and/or are easy travel distance to Lindbergh Field. Effectively, we need to whore out our fertile recruiting grounds as bait and smack the invaders upside the heads once we've lured them into our lair. (See: WSU)
|
|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on Sept 27, 2011 19:58:03 GMT -8
I am tired of schedules that look like those of Nichols State or Eastern Washington. We used to get schools such as Washington, USC, and Oklahoma to play here. These days we go around the country holding out a tin cup like some pathetic mendicant hoping that someone will drop in a coin or two so we can buy a crust of stale bread. "Oh, please, Mr. Big Time Program, we will gladly come to your house to get butt-whipped if only you will pay us some meager, or . . . forgive us for being so insolent . . . perhaps enough coins so we can buy TWO crusts of stale bread."William, you surprise me. You have been around long enough to know better. The Michigans of the world have everything to lose by playing in San Diego and never will. We have $$$$$$$ to gain and will happily play on the road for the bucks. Do you see UW coming down here after we play them there next Sept? Hardly. We are still on the outside looking in until major conference re-alignment occurs and hopefully we will move up,but I don't see that today either. Enough of this crap! We must demand that Michigan or Notre Dame or whoever give us a home-and-home deal. At worst, two there and one here as we did with Ohio State. (And even then we sold back the third game to the Buckeyes!) And if it's a 2-1, demand that we get 1.5 million each time we darken their door and offer than a half a mil to come here. If they gripe over that last one, tell them to shut up and enjoy the nice weather here while they visit or get some patsy to play in their place. And what if we can't get a big-time-program to agree to such a deal? Well, fine, in that case we schedule Louisiana Tech, Florida International, or Western Michigan. We need money, but we need, desperately need, 10 win seasons even more. Go back and look at our schedules during the Craft era (among others) and ask yourself how we would have done had we been playing North Texas instead of Ohio State, or Kent State instead of Michigan. We need to stop acting as if we were a member of the Big Sky Conference in terms of scheduling non-conference games. Yes, we need a win over someone like Michigan, but we are unlikely to get it if we always play schools of that caliber in their yard. And, anyway, what we really need is to reliably beat Nevada, Fresno State, Boise State, and Hawai'i. If we go 6-2 or 7-1 in conference, nobody will care that our extra 3 or 4 wins came against the likes of Weber State or Ball State. What will impress people on the national level will be regular season records of 9-3, 10-2, or 11-1. And, yes, people will show up at the Q if we playing "no-name" teams. They will if we have been winning consistently and they feel confident that the Aztecs are going to win again. Enough of this "We are poor little sheep who need a hand-out" type scheduling. Nobody will think we are big-time if we act as if we were small-time, and that's what our non-conference scheduling has been shouting out loudly and clearly. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on Sept 27, 2011 20:02:18 GMT -8
I am tired of schedules that look like those of Nichols State or Eastern Washington. We used to get schools such as Washington, USC, and Oklahoma to play here. These days we go around the country holding out a tin cup like some pathetic mendicant hoping that someone will drop in a coin or two so we can buy a crust of stale bread. "Oh, please, Mr. Big Time Program, we will gladly come to your house to get butt-whipped if only you will pay us some meager, or . . . forgive us for being so insolent . . . perhaps enough coins so we can buy TWO crusts of stale bread."William, you surprise me. You have been around long enough to know better. The Michigans of the world have everything to lose by playing in San Diego and never will. We have $$$$$$$ to gain and will happily play on the road for the bucks. Do you see UW coming down here after we play them there next Sept? Hardly. We are still on the outside looking in until major conference re-alignment occurs and hopefully we will move up,but I don't see that today either. Enough of this crap! We must demand that Michigan or Notre Dame or whoever give us a home-and-home deal. At worst, two there and one here as we did with Ohio State. (And even then we sold back the third game to the Buckeyes!) And if it's a 2-1, demand that we get 1.5 million each time we darken their door and offer than a half a mil to come here. If they gripe over that last one, tell them to shut up and enjoy the nice weather here while they visit or get some patsy to play in their place. And what if we can't get a big-time-program to agree to such a deal? Well, fine, in that case we schedule Louisiana Tech, Florida International, or Western Michigan. We need money, but we need, desperately need, 10 win seasons even more. Go back and look at our schedules during the Craft era (among others) and ask yourself how we would have done had we been playing North Texas instead of Ohio State, or Kent State instead of Michigan. We need to stop acting as if we were a member of the Big Sky Conference in terms of scheduling non-conference games. Yes, we need a win over someone like Michigan, but we are unlikely to get it if we always play schools of that caliber in their yard. And, anyway, what we really need is to reliably beat Nevada, Fresno State, Boise State, and Hawai'i. If we go 6-2 or 7-1 in conference, nobody will care that our extra 3 or 4 wins came against the likes of Weber State or Ball State. What will impress people on the national level will be regular season records of 9-3, 10-2, or 11-1. And, yes, people will show up at the Q if we playing "no-name" teams. They will if we have been winning consistently and they feel confident that the Aztecs are going to win again. Enough of this "We are poor little sheep who need a hand-out" type scheduling. Nobody will think we are big-time if we act as if we were small-time, and that's what our non-conference scheduling has been shouting out loudly and clearly. AzWm William:you surprise me. This is about money and power. No reason for ND or Michigan to ever come here. We, on the other hand will gladly go there for $,$$$,$$$. Until we ever get into the BCS, we have no leverage to get them to come here, not even the upper level Pac 12 schools. We are fortunate to have Oregon St. and ASU on future home and home schedules,hope those stick.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 27, 2011 21:04:11 GMT -8
Not really. Look, we have had Oklahoma, UCLA, USC, Wisconsin, Arizona, Miami of Florida, and Florida State play here. Now it appears that we can't get teams like that to come here any more. I think we should try harder, even if it's on a one-here-two there basis. Do you think Wyoming paid Nebraska 5 or 6 million dollars to play in Laramie last Saturday? I doubt it. What we need are some home-and-homes with schools such as Indiana or Iowa State. The WSU deal is just what I have been talking about. Let's do some more of those. AzWm Times have changed. We're going to have to do it the way Boise State did it. That means playing (and not always winning BTW) the big name programs on the road. I don't think they've ever gotten a return sec game. Played Washington, Mich state away a couple of times. Had a little better schedule recently hm&hm vs Oregon, but that was after they were already a perennial top 15 team. The trick is to take care of business in conference. If the Aztecs can improve enough to get into the position of beating all the teams in the MW and playing Boise every year for the title we will be OK. Yes, SDSU has to win in conference on a regular basis. No question about it. That means beating CSU, Wyoming, New Mexico, and UNLV just about every year, and Fresno State and Nevada maybe two out of every three times. The trick will be to beat BSU. I believe it will happen, but I want it to happen more often than we beat BYU. I'm sticking to my main point, though. Give up scheduling Midwestern schools such as Ohio State and Michigan for awhile if they won't give us a return game. We can get other opponents, maybe Kansas State or Texas Tech, to come here. Would fewer tough road games make a positive difference to this program? Well, look back at 2003. Aztec football finished the year at 6-6. Sure, there were two FCS games, but .500 is still .500. Two of the losses were by 10 or fewer points to Ohio State and UCLA. Both were away games. Now, let's say that we had scheduled a road trip to Utah St. or North Texas instead of one of those two BCS schools. One of those games likely would have been a W, making us 7-5 with a bowl invitation. Ya think maybe, just maybe, that would have been a big deal for the program? A bigger deal than the money we got from the Bruins or the Buckeyes in my opinion. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by k5james on Sept 28, 2011 6:34:18 GMT -8
Aztec football finished the year at 6-6. Sure, there were two FCS games, but .500 is still .500. Two of the losses were by 10 or fewer points to Ohio State and UCLA. Both were away games. Now, let's say that we had scheduled a road trip to Utah St. or North Texas instead of one of those two BCS schools. One of those games likely would have been a W, making us 7-5 with a bowl invitation. Ya think maybe, just maybe, that would have been a big deal for the program? A bigger deal than the money we got from the Bruins or the Buckeyes in my opinion. AzWm Make up your mind. Do you want us to play big name schools or not? The schedule wasn't the problem that year. UCLA wasn't that good of a team and if we had a coach worth a damn, we would have won that game.
|
|
|
Post by aztec2000 on Sept 28, 2011 7:18:20 GMT -8
Bizarre post. This issue has already been addressed and pretty much solved. Upcoming games over the next few years: Washington, Oregon state,Arizona State. We just played Michigan and before that Washington State. Along with a early season patsie. If anything it's time to commend the Athletic Dep. for finally getting it right. Agree. The schedule is just right. Usually play one BCS school. One Div 1AA and two non BCS div 1 schools. This has been addressed.
|
|
|
Post by GothamCityRogue on Sept 28, 2011 7:56:01 GMT -8
AW,
It's look like it's beginning to change. ASU and OrSU are scheduled for a home-home series. I don't get why the same wasn't done with UDub and Cincy.
|
|
|
Post by GothamCityRogue on Sept 28, 2011 8:05:22 GMT -8
Not really. Look, we have had Oklahoma, UCLA, USC, Wisconsin, Arizona, Miami of Florida, and Florida State play here. Now it appears that we can't get teams like that to come here any more. I think we should try harder, even if it's on a one-here-two there basis. Again, you are clueless as to SDSU's place in the landscape of college football. Michigan's AD came out a few months ago and said he doesn't see Michigan playing anymore road OOC games other than Notre Dame as long as he's there. That's how most of the big time schools are scheduling right now. I hate to agree w/ K5, really I do, but looking at Mich's schedule, five straight home games to kick off the season is a sign of how cfb power players are thinking. They're not leaving Ann Arbor until mid October. The AD did publicly state that he doesn't think that most of Mich's opponents offer a financial incentive for the wolverines to travel or oblige home-and-home deals. Aztecs will need, at minimum, two more consecutive bowling seasons for Sterk to have any kind of leverage. But I do like the idea of scheduling the Golden Gophers, Vols, 'dores, Cougs, Bruins and Boilermakers of the BCS world, as someone already mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 28, 2011 10:48:37 GMT -8
Aztec football finished the year at 6-6. Sure, there were two FCS games, but .500 is still .500. Two of the losses were by 10 or fewer points to Ohio State and UCLA. Both were away games. Now, let's say that we had scheduled a road trip to Utah St. or North Texas instead of one of those two BCS schools. One of those games likely would have been a W, making us 7-5 with a bowl invitation. Ya think maybe, just maybe, that would have been a big deal for the program? A bigger deal than the money we got from the Bruins or the Buckeyes in my opinion. AzWm Make up your mind. Do you want us to play big name schools or not? The schedule wasn't the problem that year. UCLA wasn't that good of a team and if we had a coach worth a damn, we would have won that game. Of course I want to play big name schools, but not always in the other guy's stadium. There are two issues here which should be kept in perspective. We should insist on, at worst, a one-here-two there deal with BCS schools. It looks as if schools such as Oregon State and Washington State are willing to do a home-and-home. I think there are others (K St, Indiana, etc.) that would likewise be amenable to the type of deal I am suggesting. If we absolutely MUST agree to a money game, make damned sure that the money is absolutely huge. I would say 1.5 million minimum, and preferably 1.75. The bastards can afford it, so make them pay. If a Michigan or Ohio State isn't willing to pay that kind of coin, let's pass. I brought up the 2003 season as an example of my second point. Namely, that scheduling for wins is more important than scheduling for money. For a program that has gone in the toilet, as SDSU had by 2000, it was much more important to get a winning season and a bowl appearance than the extra money that playing in Ann Arbor and Columbus brought us. If your program is really competitive, that's one thing; it's okay to make that one trip back East against a top team. You probably will lose, but may at least make a game out of it. And, of course, there's the money. But even with a loss, if you have a pretty good team, you can overcome that loss by beating teams in your own conference. The trouble for us in the decade from 2000-2009 was that we couldn't even beat CSU and New Mexico, for god's sake. The extra cash we got playing teams we had no chance of beating was not worth adding to the continued streak of non-winning seasons. We could go back to when Fred Miller was AD. He had big ideas about really boosting the program. That left us with some very tough non-conference games. Had we won a few of those (UCLA in 1989 and Miami of Florida in 1990 come to mind), things would have worked out. We did not, however, and the univ. refused for a very long time to recognize that we were on life support and needed to line up patsies pronto to get back above .500. I think the current administration is probably on the right track, but I still hope that they arrange some more home-and-homes and stay away from the one-offs. If that means we do not schedule more Top-10 or Top-25 teams for a few years, let's not worry about it. AzWm
|
|