|
Post by mySTRAS on Sept 20, 2014 9:47:14 GMT -8
Actually the thread should have been a celebration of SDSU basketball prowess; but, the opening sentence was a dig at SDSU's football program. A dig? You are serious? Fisher's BB program is nationally respected. Aztec football is not. That's just a plain fact. Our FB program has risen from the dead and is respectable once more, but it is not close to being as successful as the hoops team. Wouldn't YOU be ecstatic is were were winning 10 or 11 games a year in football and appearing almost every year in the Top-25? Not a dig on football. Just a recognition of how much our basketball program has improved. Same thing may happen with football. AzWm Perhaps the biggest problem on AztecMesa... those who read posts and try to insinuate the author's intent (even when the author provides further clarification).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2014 11:02:56 GMT -8
Stop "driving the bus" on a dead subject. Fisher had already reached the highest levels of success for his sport before his arrival. He took the equivalent of an intramural basketball team and improved the talent and results quickly. He was beating established teams with some regularity. It seems to me that the football team, as bad as it was, was starting at a higher level. Certainly, Hoke had the team improving before Rocky started. It is difficult to judge the progress of our football team when level of competition is getting lower. Our conference is getting weaker and weaker. Our non-conference schedule is as week as we've had since Madden coached the defense. The bar for bowl eligibility has never been lower. Is a b minus in special ed better than a d in an honors course? I don't know. So, I cheer every game. Celebrate every win and bemoan every loss. I will call it progress when we don't lose to any FCS teams, when we beat every awful team on our schedule, and we actually beat some mediocre P5 teams. Why not start this year?
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Sept 20, 2014 12:22:57 GMT -8
Lol.
This has zero to do about Michigan or New Mexico. The analogy was merely about wh as t happened here. Fish had a tough tow to hoe and had to build a platform from which to step up to the next level. Many of had to argue with the same short-sightedness when they argued Fish was too old and had reached his limit, we had to actually argue that he was merely firming up the foundation. The base (the program) needed to be solid to step up to the next level.
Rocky is at that same point. The program is in great shape and poised to really take off.
It's a pretty simple concept.
Had the same short-sighted people won in the '05 or thereabouts era, we may not be in the position with our hoops team as we are now. It's time to listen to the reasoned voices again.
Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2014 13:37:14 GMT -8
Lol. This has zero to do about Michigan or New Mexico. The analogy was merely about wh as t happened here. Fish had a tough tow to hoe and had to build a platform from which to step up to the next level. Many of had to argue with the same short-sightedness when they argued Fish was too old and had reached his limit, we had to actually argue that he was merely firming up the foundation. The base (the program) needed to be solid to step up to the next level. Rocky is at that same point. The program is in great shape and poised to really take off. It's a pretty simple concept. Had the same short-sighted people won in the '05 or thereabouts era, we may not be in the position with our hoops team as we are now. It's time to listen to the reasoned voices again. Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards I would argue that the "chicken little" plateau posters of yesteryear were clucking about a very different situation. They were dead wrong. The clarity of hindsight makes that obvious. Those who believed that Fisher had plateaued certainly believed that he had reached that level on his own. I believe that Hoke moved the program forward markedly. Rocky has kept us from slipping back to the god awful state of football that preceded his and Hoke's tenure. Maintaining our current level of success is to some degree progress and certainly better the back sliding, but Rocky didn't dig us out of the hole by himself. I am cheering for him and this team to have a break out year.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 20, 2014 13:49:55 GMT -8
Stop "driving the bus" on a dead subject. Fisher had already reached the highest levels of success for his sport before his arrival. He took the equivalent of an intramural basketball team and improved the talent and results quickly. He was beating established teams with some regularity. It seems to me that the football team, as bad as it was, was starting at a higher level. Certainly, Hoke had the team improving before Rocky started. It is difficult to judge the progress of our football team when level of competition is getting lower. Our conference is getting weaker and weaker. Our non-conference schedule is as week as we've had since Madden coached the defense. The bar for bowl eligibility has never been lower. Is a b minus in special ed better than a d in an honors course? I don't know. So, I cheer every game. Celebrate every win and bemoan every loss. I will call it progress when we don't lose to any FCS teams, when we beat every awful team on our schedule, and we actually beat some mediocre P5 teams. Why not start this year?
Very well said, indeed! It's no slight to point out that, despite obvious progress during the past half decade, SDSU football is still about one standard deviation below the level of at least two/thirds of the P5 schools. And maybe we are still a half standard deviation below even the lesser P5 schools. There's no way to get around the fact that SDSU has lost 27 out of the last 28 games played against P5 schools. We were very close in a number of those 27 losses, but losses they remain with no outstanding wins over respected teams to balance the scales.
I especially endorse your point about the strength of competition in the MWC. Many of us, and I must include myself in this, tend to forget that the MWC would be providing much tougher chances if TCU, BYU, and Utah were still members. Frankly, if we were really improved as much as we would like to believe, we would seldom lose to MWC schools. By now, only Boise and Fresno State should be giving us real competition. New Mexico? San Jose State? Colorado State? UNLV? Wyoming? etc. Come on; if the program could seriously be considered ready to face Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Baylor, TCU, etc., do you think we would have trouble with the likes of the Rams, Lobos, and Rebels? How about Utah, BYU, and TCU? Did they struggle to beat the dregs of the MWC before they moved on? Of course not.
The point is simply this. Aztec football, though much better than during the 2000s, has a long, long way to go to be considered good enough to join the Big-12. Or course, I am including our attendance is that; 20,000 to 25,000 actually attending will not be enough to get anybody's attention.
(I got to thinking about those 27 losses to P5 schools in the last 28 games played against such teams. I was also thinking about how I am inclined to count New Mexico as one of the dregs. But how have the Lobos done against P5 teams as we were losing 27 of 28? Here's the record.. . .
University of New Mexico against P5 schools, their last 27 games. Listed are the year and the W/L results against P5 schools for each year.
'13 0-1 '12 0-2 '11 0-2 '10-0-2 '09 0-2 '08 1-1 (win Arizona: 36-28) '07 1-0 (win at Arizona: 29-27) '06 0-1 '05 1-0 (win at Mizzou: 45-35) '04 1-2 (win Texas Tech: 27-24) '03 0-2 '02 1-2 (win Baylor: 23-0) '01 0-2 '00 0-2 '99 0-0 '98 0-0 '97 0-1
In 17 seasons, the Lobos have a 5-22 P5 record compared with our 1-27. And two of those wins for the Lobos were on the road. This just highlights the degree of futility that has plagued Aztec football. If New Mexico can win 5 of 27, why have we won only 1 of 28? Maybe we should stop calling them the lowly Lobos when it comes to football.)
Getting back to basketball, I agree with those who credit Steve Fisher with the resurgence of the Aztec basketball. Nobody had set the table before Fish came on board. As for football, perhaps we will have to count on hiring another Steve Fisher when Rocky's run is over.
AzWm
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Sept 20, 2014 13:56:02 GMT -8
Lol. This has zero to do about Michigan or New Mexico. The analogy was merely about wh as t happened here. Fish had a tough tow to hoe and had to build a platform from which to step up to the next level. Many of had to argue with the same short-sightedness when they argued Fish was too old and had reached his limit, we had to actually argue that he was merely firming up the foundation. The base (the program) needed to be solid to step up to the next level. Rocky is at that same point. The program is in great shape and poised to really take off. It's a pretty simple concept. Had the same short-sighted people won in the '05 or thereabouts era, we may not be in the position with our hoops team as we are now. It's time to listen to the reasoned voices again. Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards I would argue that the "chicken little" plateau posters of yesteryear were clucking about a very different situation. They were dead wrong. The clarity of hindsight makes that obvious. Those who believed that Fisher had plateaued certainly believed that he had reached that level on his own. I believe that Hoke moved the program forward markedly. Rocky has kept us from slipping back to the god awful state of football that preceded his and Hoke's tenure. Maintaining our current level of success is to some degree progress and certainly better the back sliding, but Rocky didn't dig us out of the hole by himself. I am cheering for him and this team to have a break out year. Respectfully, they weren't "chicken little" posters at all. The essential argument then was that Fish brought us to the tournament and 20 win level but perhaps didn't have the drive or energy or similar points to take the team further. There was plenty of respect for coach but that that we could use some new energy and perhaps someone younger to make that move. I was very active in those conversations, defending what he was doing. The argument, in that context is similar to what we hear about Rocky. You just essentially repeated the points made by the Fish has Plateaued posters in suggesting Rocky is at his apex. I will add that Hoke had Rocky as a key element to that resurgence and I consider Rocky as a part architect of that renaissance. My position about Fish wasn't hindsight, it was exactly the argument I made then and merely repeated for historical context.
|
|
|
Post by aztecfankrishnan on Sept 20, 2014 14:46:41 GMT -8
Thank you! Completely agree. It is really unfair to compare basketball with 13 scholarships and a 68 team playoff and football with 80 scholarships and a 4 team playoff. You can turn a basketball program around with 2-3 big time recruits. With football it takes many more. The disparity in resources is also much greater in football between the haves and have nots. That doesn't make it any harder, there are many more teams you are competing with in basketball which makes it that much harder to land those 2-3 impact recruits. And Rocky has not landed 1 4 star while at SDSU which is pathetic, look at what BSU is doing. The same BSU team that we have beaten 2 years in a row and hasn't knocked off a top Power Conference team in three years? Aztecs are about to become the new BSU!
|
|