|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 22, 2014 8:49:17 GMT -8
Yes I disagree with you Erik 100% eh. In all this rankings and mythical national championships we lose sight of the fact that college football is a sport that's played by college students who put a tremendous amount of time and energy into their sport. It's a brutal sport with injuries abounding and you have to play with those pains. The smaller bowl games are merely celebrations of football, these comments about rewarding mediocrity don't take into account the violence and sacrifice of the game. This is not a professional sport. If some of you have ever played college football, or college hockey, or college rugby you know the pounding you take the love of the sport. But some teams may go six and six because key players were injured or they were grossly over scheduled. The approach that the bowls must represent some sort of superior standard is about 20 years too late. Anyone who has played the sport or has had a sono nephew play can tell you that the rewards are few and the pains are many. Let the bowls in the NCAA set the standards. And you just sit back and watch the game.instead of pondering the merits of the bowl game just think of it as somebody's kid out there getting wined and dined and having an experience of a lifetime. That to me is more valuable than worrying about the mediocrity of the team and pontificating about the value of the bowl. Yes, and let's give every kid who plays youth sports a trophy just for participating. I'm sorry, but life doesn't work that way. In life there are winners and losers. This whole pat on the back and giving the kid a trophy just for participating thing is pathetic. Rewards must be earned. College football is about competition, not rewarding everyone just for participating. EVERY team has injuries. EVERY team has struggles to overcome. That doesn't mean that .500 teams should be Bowl eligible. I can't change the system, but I can criticize it when it rewards mediocrity. We've seen the system go from one extreme to the other. There needs to be a better balance. No 9-3 team should be left out, but no 6-6 team should be let in, either. It's not about participation, it's about rewarding achievement (and there is no way that you will ever convince me that a .500 record is an achievement worthy of reward).
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on Nov 22, 2014 8:55:24 GMT -8
Yes I disagree with you Erik 100% eh. In all this rankings and mythical national championships we lose sight of the fact that college football is a sport that's played by college students who put a tremendous amount of time and energy into their sport. It's a brutal sport with injuries abounding and you have to play with those pains. The smaller bowl games are merely celebrations of football, these comments about rewarding mediocrity don't take into account the violence and sacrifice of the game. This is not a professional sport. If some of you have ever played college football, or college hockey, or college rugby you know the pounding you take the love of the sport. But some teams may go six and six because key players were injured or they were grossly over scheduled. The approach that the bowls must represent some sort of superior standard is about 20 years too late. Anyone who has played the sport or has had a sono nephew play can tell you that the rewards are few and the pains are many. All this trying to reach the top denies the fact that the elite teams in the FBS are simply much better and much more professional than the others. That's why in the four years that Rocky has been coach the Mountian West has won 18% of their games against them. Let the bowls in the NCAA set the standards. And you just sit back and watch the game.instead of pondering the merits of the bowl game just think of it as somebody's kid out there getting wined and dined and having an experience of a lifetime. That to me is more valuable than worrying about the mediocrity of the team and pontificating about the value of the bowl. There's a lot worse things in college football for one all those ridiculous celebrations and taunting, and trash talking. My all-time favorite is a Utah player who dropped the ball before he went to the end zone and then did his gangster thing in front of the fans. +1000
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 22, 2014 9:38:03 GMT -8
Everyone who plays is a winner!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2014 9:41:02 GMT -8
If my memory serves me correctly, there were 4 P5 teams that ended up going to a bowl game at 6-6 record last year. No one from the non P5 conference ended up going to a bowl game with a 6-6 record. I know Rocky hates the word " Must Win" but they have to win on Saturday if the want to extend the season... We almost didnt get selected to a bowl game last yeat at 7-5. MWC teams 1 through 7 are eligible for bowls and 6-6 will get us there. Besides, the Molehill West won't have 7 eligible teams. As long as we don't lose money going to a bowl were ok. I don't think that's entirely correct. I think the only way the MWC could get 7 teams into a bowl game is either if the conference champion is chosen for the Access Bowl or if Okie State loses at Baylor today, which is probable, and then loses again next week at Oklahoma, which is also probable. Then the MWC would get a team into the Cactus Bowl in Tempe. Since the opponent would be a Pac school, that would be good for the MWC but it's highly doubtful SDSU would be picked to play in it with just a 7-5 record. Assuming UNR loses the conference title game at Boise, you have to think the Wolf Pack would be picked.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2014 9:44:07 GMT -8
I'm happy(and surprised) that some SDSU fans have reached the level of under appreciation for bowl games this fast. Getting to a bowl game was just a dream 6-7 years ago, now making it to a bowl game isn't good enough. What im more excited about is the talent level that has improved over the past 5 years. Winning,Successful programs are always built from the inside out,Something SDSU has done a great job at improving in the past 5 years. Skill players come and go but when you have a offensive line that can push people around and get them tired come 4th quarter, you have yourself a successful formula that should continue years down the line. Having a nice record for 1 year is good and all but can that level of success be maintained year in and year out? I think SDSU is heading towards the right direction and I'm excited to see how things work out in the near future. Well put.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Nov 22, 2014 9:47:46 GMT -8
I'm happy(and surprised) that some SDSU fans have reached the level of under appreciation for bowl games this fast. Getting to a bowl game was just a dream 6-7 years ago, now making it to a bowl game isn't good enough. What im more excited about is the talent level that has improved over the past 5 years. Winning,Successful programs are always built from the inside out,Something SDSU has done a great job at improving in the past 5 years. Skill players come and go but when you have a offensive line that can push people around and get them tired come 4th quarter, you have yourself a successful formula that should continue years down the line. Having a nice record for 1 year is good and all but can that level of success be maintained year in and year out? I think SDSU is heading towards the right direction and I'm excited to see how things work out in the near future. Well put. IF our talent level has improved, how do you explain our regressing---or at the very least stagnant--- results on the field?
|
|
|
Post by aztecforlife29 on Nov 22, 2014 9:55:32 GMT -8
IF our talent level has improved, how do you explain our regressing---or at the very least stagnant--- results on the field? Recruiting deficiency at a critical position. I am a huge QK fan but with a better QB we are easily 9-2, possibly 10-1. We will improve. If Rodrigues or Bawden step up next year we will break out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2014 10:12:50 GMT -8
IF our talent level has improved, how do you explain our regressing---or at the very least stagnant--- results on the field? Recruiting deficiency at a critical position. I am a huge QK fan but with a better QB we are easily 9-2, possibly 10-1. We will improve. If Rodrigues or Bawden step up next year we will break out. We're also still quite young. We're only starting eight seniors right now and a bunch of the guys in the two-deep are sophomores. That said, I still think we need to bring in an experienced JC guy to back up Rodrigues and that Bawden should redshirt with Chapman being the third stringer.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Nov 22, 2014 10:15:30 GMT -8
IF our talent level has improved, how do you explain our regressing---or at the very least stagnant--- results on the field? Recruiting deficiency at a critical position. I am a huge QK fan but with a better QB we are easily 9-2, possibly 10-1. We will improve. If Rodrigues or Bawden step up next year we will break out. How does that explain going from 9-4 in 2012, to 8-5 in 2013? Should we have been, perhaps 11-2 or 12-1?
|
|
|
Post by aztecforlife29 on Nov 22, 2014 10:18:34 GMT -8
Recruiting deficiency at a critical position. I am a huge QK fan but with a better QB we are easily 9-2, possibly 10-1. We will improve. If Rodrigues or Bawden step up next year we will break out. We're also still quite young. We're only starting eight seniors right now and a bunch of the guys in the two-deep are sophomores. That said, I still think we need to bring in an experienced JC guy to back up Rodrigues and that Bawden should redshirt with Chapman being the third stringer. Agree on all points.
|
|
|
Post by aztecforlife29 on Nov 22, 2014 10:21:48 GMT -8
Recruiting deficiency at a critical position. I am a huge QK fan but with a better QB we are easily 9-2, possibly 10-1. We will improve. If Rodrigues or Bawden step up next year we will break out. How does that explain going from 9-4 in 2012, to 8-5 in 2013? Should we have been, perhaps 11-2 or 12-1? It doesn't. It only explains this year. I still believe that next year we will experience a significant improvement.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Nov 22, 2014 10:24:30 GMT -8
How does that explain going from 9-4 in 2012, to 8-5 in 2013? Should we have been, perhaps 11-2 or 12-1? It doesn't. It only explains this year. I still believe that next year we will experience a significant improvement. But the record of the last few years does highlight the dilemma of supposed increased talent vs. the record, verdad?
|
|
|
Post by aztecforlife29 on Nov 22, 2014 10:36:31 GMT -8
It doesn't. It only explains this year. I still believe that next year we will experience a significant improvement. But the record of the last few years does highlight the dilemma of supposed increased talent vs. the record, verdad? When looking looking at a 5 year record chart you see a slight downward trend. In a 10 year chart it is less pronounced and but is still apparent. On a 15 year chart it's not even a blip on the radar. I see the point you are trying to highlight but I still look forward to seeing how the kids will play every week. Talent is subjective but record is not. Hard to measure and establish relationships between the two variables.
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Nov 22, 2014 10:37:20 GMT -8
Recruiting deficiency at a critical position. I am a huge QK fan but with a better QB we are easily 9-2, possibly 10-1. We will improve. If Rodrigues or Bawden step up next year we will break out. How does that explain going from 9-4 in 2012, to 8-5 in 2013? Should we have been, perhaps 11-2 or 12-1? Where you part of the Fire Fisher crowd after we had a slight regression in W/L record after our first NCAA tourney despite an incresse of overall talent?
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Nov 22, 2014 10:42:29 GMT -8
How does that explain going from 9-4 in 2012, to 8-5 in 2013? Should we have been, perhaps 11-2 or 12-1? Where you part of the Fire Fisher crowd after we had a slight regression in W/L record after our first NCAA tourney despite an incresse of overall talent? And please explain again, how basketball and football, are even remotely connected? I mean, other than they both have players and coaches.
|
|
|
Post by Luchador El Guerrero Azteca on Nov 22, 2014 10:51:59 GMT -8
Where you part of the Fire Fisher crowd after we had a slight regression in W/L record after our first NCAA tourney despite an incresse of overall talent? And please explain again, how basketball and football, are even remotely connected? I mean, other than they both have players and coaches. Lol. It's about the credibly of message board critics. The parallels are there. You know that and prefer just to be curmudgeonly indifferent. Sent from my Admiral Mark 01 Telegraph machine via Sputnik with dial-up
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Nov 22, 2014 10:55:44 GMT -8
Yes I disagree with you Erik 100% eh. In all this rankings and mythical national championships we lose sight of the fact that college football is a sport that's played by college students who put a tremendous amount of time and energy into their sport. It's a brutal sport with injuries abounding and you have to play with those pains. The smaller bowl games are merely celebrations of football, these comments about rewarding mediocrity don't take into account the violence and sacrifice of the game. This is not a professional sport. If some of you have ever played college football, or college hockey, or college rugby you know the pounding you take the love of the sport. But some teams may go six and six because key players were injured or they were grossly over scheduled. The approach that the bowls must represent some sort of superior standard is about 20 years too late. Anyone who has played the sport or has had a sono nephew play can tell you that the rewards are few and the pains are many. Let the bowls in the NCAA set the standards. And you just sit back and watch the game.instead of pondering the merits of the bowl game just think of it as somebody's kid out there getting wined and dined and having an experience of a lifetime. That to me is more valuable than worrying about the mediocrity of the team and pontificating about the value of the bowl. Yes, and let's give every kid who plays youth sports a trophy just for participating. I'm sorry, but life doesn't work that way. In life there are winners and losers. This whole pat on the back and giving the kid a trophy just for participating thing is pathetic. Rewards must be earned. College football is about competition, not rewarding everyone just for participating. EVERY team has injuries. EVERY team has struggles to overcome. That doesn't mean that .500 teams should be Bowl eligible. I can't change the system, but I can criticize it when it rewards mediocrity. We've seen the system go from one extreme to the other. There needs to be a better balance. No 9-3 team should be left out, but no 6-6 team should be let in, either. It's not about participation, it's about rewarding achievement (and there is no way that you will ever convince me that a .500 record is an achievement worthy of reward). I cannot possibly disagree with you more. Stephen is spot on. These are amateur, 18-22 year old student athletes. If the marketplace supports the expansion of bowls, so be it... let the kids enjoy it. The "winners and losers" angle is so extremely cynical in this application that it really disturbs me. It's a far cry from "everyone gets a trophy." For that comparison to be true, it would be that every team goes to a bowl with an equal payout, equal pageantry, equal prestige, etc. But that ain't the case. There's still a CLEAR pecking order and the "winners" are higher up in that pecking order and the "losers" are farther down.
|
|
|
Post by keepersdsu on Nov 22, 2014 11:20:25 GMT -8
Yes, and let's give every kid who plays youth sports a trophy just for participating. I'm sorry, but life doesn't work that way. In life there are winners and losers. This whole pat on the back and giving the kid a trophy just for participating thing is pathetic. Rewards must be earned. College football is about competition, not rewarding everyone just for participating. EVERY team has injuries. EVERY team has struggles to overcome. That doesn't mean that .500 teams should be Bowl eligible. I can't change the system, but I can criticize it when it rewards mediocrity. We've seen the system go from one extreme to the other. There needs to be a better balance. No 9-3 team should be left out, but no 6-6 team should be let in, either. It's not about participation, it's about rewarding achievement (and there is no way that you will ever convince me that a .500 record is an achievement worthy of reward). I cannot possibly disagree with you more. Stephen is spot on. These are amateur, 18-22 year old student athletes. If the marketplace supports the expansion of bowls, so be it... let the kids enjoy it. The "winners and losers" angle is so extremely cynical in this application that it really disturbs me. It's a far cry from "everyone gets a trophy." For that comparison to be true, it would be that every team goes to a bowl with an equal payout, equal pageantry, equal prestige, etc. But that ain't the case. There's still a CLEAR pecking order and the "winners" are higher up in that pecking order and the "losers" are farther down. I don't follow football as closely as others, but you're telling me that there is a pecking order college football? I thought everyone was on the same playing field, and everyone got into the playoffs at the end of the year.
|
|
|
Post by Luchador El Guerrero Azteca on Nov 22, 2014 11:25:19 GMT -8
Yes, and let's give every kid who plays youth sports a trophy just for participating. I'm sorry, but life doesn't work that way. In life there are winners and losers. This whole pat on the back and giving the kid a trophy just for participating thing is pathetic. Rewards must be earned. College football is about competition, not rewarding everyone just for participating. EVERY team has injuries. EVERY team has struggles to overcome. That doesn't mean that .500 teams should be Bowl eligible. I can't change the system, but I can criticize it when it rewards mediocrity. We've seen the system go from one extreme to the other. There needs to be a better balance. No 9-3 team should be left out, but no 6-6 team should be let in, either. It's not about participation, it's about rewarding achievement (and there is no way that you will ever convince me that a .500 record is an achievement worthy of reward). I cannot possibly disagree with you more. Stephen is spot on. These are amateur, 18-22 year old student athletes. If the marketplace supports the expansion of bowls, so be it... let the kids enjoy it. The "winners and losers" angle is so extremely cynical in this application that it really disturbs me. It's a far cry from "everyone gets a trophy." For that comparison to be true, it would be that every team goes to a bowl with an equal payout, equal pageantry, equal prestige, etc. But that ain't the case. There's still a CLEAR pecking order and the "winners" are higher up in that pecking order and the "losers" are farther down. Nailed it. Sent from my Admiral Mark 01 Telegraph machine via Sputnik with dial-up
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2014 12:11:15 GMT -8
|
|