|
Post by LJ_Aztec on Nov 22, 2014 21:27:27 GMT -8
A positive win true but Air Force was without its best player at RB by far and we had Ruffin back at full steam. So our win is less impressive because we had a starter back available and playing? #mesalogic
|
|
|
Post by Quetzalcoatl on Nov 23, 2014 1:47:15 GMT -8
I love that there are so many bowl games, because it means more kids get to have that life experience.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Nov 23, 2014 6:58:15 GMT -8
Interesting about the "extra practice". Seems like the ensuing season's results on the field for us have gone down steadily over the past 3 years, yes? Emphatically NO! Only in your mind has anything "gone down steadily" whatever that means. Being in a bowl game generates numerous positives. Those who pay attention here have discussed all this. Let me help you out here -- practicing in Dec. allows the staff to work the RsF hard to see who has matured and gets the nod to compete in March. That of itself makes the experience so much more valuable. Now,if final season records is your only measuring stick, then your are still caught in the generalities of college football. The Aztecs are SO much deeper than five years ago. The fact that they don't win all their games is another issue. It might be that the difference between wining and losing is really quite close. Has to do with turnovers, senior leadership and sometimes just the bounce of the ball, penalties called or not called.. Don't believe it? Rocky speaks to this all the time, as do many other coaches. But, then some here don't comprehend what a treasure we have in this quite successful coach. "Discussing it", does not bring your take on it automatic verity or authenticity. Sorry. When your team goes from 9 wins in 2012, to 8 wins in 2013 and likely 7 (maybe 8) wins in 2014, THAT is nothing but "steadily going down". Especially, when we keep hearing that we're getting better recruiting. Keep discussing and you may yet "comprehend". We have a "treasure" that no other college D1 team (except lowly New Mexico) has ever wanted as HC. There is nothing in Mr. Long's "tool kit" that will ever excite the next level of recruits. His entire resume is the "little train who couldn't". Donors will infuse the football program's coffers, when excitement again returns to the Mesa. Until then, get used to the deafening sound of buzz in the city--snoring.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 23, 2014 7:10:11 GMT -8
There is no worse cliché in the world then there are winners and losers in life. That only applies to games and games have artificial rules and time constraints. You couldn't be more wrong. In life there absolutely are winners and losers. When you apply for a job, when you go for the interview - there are clearly winners (those that get the job) and losers (those that don't). And in most workplaces once you are on the job you are competing with your co-workers for raises. The employees with the best job performances get the biggest raises (so if you're not in the top tier your annual raise is pretty minimal if you even get a raise at all). When you're going for a promotion you're competing with your co-workers who also want that position, but only one person gets that promotion. Again, there are winners and losers. That's just the way life works. You're always competing, and most people will not get what they hope for. Most people will end up disappointed because they lost out on that promotion or didn't get a raise or didn't get the job in the first place. For every job opening there may be dozens of applicants. For every promotion there may be ten or more people up for it. For that raise you want you may not get it if your job performance isn't up to the standards that the company has set based on the job performance of your co-workers (with whom you compete for those raise dollars). Winners and losers. The message we've been sending to our kids over the last 10 or 15 years that everyone is special and everyone is a winner is flat out wrong. It sets them up for not only failure, but an inability to cope with failure. I've seen it in my younger co-workers. They don't understand criticism. They don't understand why they get fired for poor performance. They thought everyone wins. They expect that everyone gets Employee Of The Month eventually. But that's not the way life works, is is? So beyond the mere fact that a Bowl game is supposed to be something special but is now no big deal in most cases, you've got other reasons why letting mediocre teams with NON-winning records into Bowl games is the wrong thing to do. They aren't good enough to be in a Bowl game. They haven't earned it. And letting those teams play in Bowl games cheapens those Bowls and makes them meaningless to most college football fans. It's just another game between two teams who weren't good enough to make it into a, "Better," Bowl, or a more prestigious Bowl. Ratings for most of the pre-Christmas Bowls are in the toilet. Almost no one watches, and almost no one cares because the game doesn't mean anything to most college football fans.
|
|
|
Post by Luchador El Guerrero Azteca on Nov 23, 2014 7:30:51 GMT -8
We got it.
We actually got it the 5th or 10th time you said it. You don't really bother addressing issues raised, just repackage the same point.
So, despite that our players really valued the Potato Bowl experience and point to it as valuable, you refuse to acknowledge that part of the argument. Secondly, the other point made is that this is the system is what it is and we need to make the most of it, and seemingly do. Your repetitive screeds don't counter our truly address these issues. The idea that there are to many Brown is wholly separate from whether the Aztecs should go to one this season. Your diatribe is essentially a non sequitur.
Sent from my Admiral Mark 01 Telegraph machine via Sputnik with dial-up
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 23, 2014 7:37:10 GMT -8
We got it. We actually got it the 5th or 10th time you said it. You don't really bother addressing issues raised, just repackage the same point. So, despite that our players really valued the Potato Bowl experience and point to it as valuable, you refuse to acknowledge that part of the argument. Secondly, the other point made is that this is the system is what it is and we need to make the most of it, and seemingly do. Your repetitive screeds don't counter our truly address these issues. The idea that there are to many Brown is wholly separate from whether the Aztecs should go to one this season. Your diatribe is essentially a non sequitur. No, what you and a handful of others are missing is the fact that I am NOT saying that the Aztecs shouldn't have gone to any of the Bowls that they've been in over the last few years. Not at all. Hell, the Aztecs had winning records each of the last four years, didn't they? So the failure of logic is to apply statements that .500 teams shouldn't go Bowling to the Aztecs. The Aztecs haven't gone Bowling at 6-6. Period. But if you eliminated the .500 teams from the Bowls, and dropped a Bowl game or three the remaining Bowl games would be a little more prestigious and a little more meaningful. And the Aztecs would have still gone Bowling in each of the last four years (because the P5/BCS teams that got in at .500 wouldn't have, opening up a few slots even with the loss of a Bowl game or three from the schedule).
|
|
|
Post by Luchador El Guerrero Azteca on Nov 23, 2014 8:01:54 GMT -8
You completely missed it because you are being a rhetorical hammer and not listening. The arguments are separate subjects, hence my non sequitur comment.
We got your point a long time ago and most probably agree with the sentiment but you are forcing them to counter your staccato responses because they are viewing it through a 2014 Aztec season lens.
Sent from my Admiral Mark 01 Telegraph machine via Sputnik with dial-up
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 23, 2014 8:20:38 GMT -8
You completely missed it because you are being a rhetorical hammer and not listening. The arguments are separate subjects, hence my non sequitur comment. They are separate subjects, but what my point was right in line with the thread title, "Bowl Eligible." I merely addressed what it means to be Bowl Eligible and what it really should take to be Bowl Eligible. Which is the wrong way to look at it since I never addressed the Aztecs' past Bowl appearances. And I didn't FORCE anyone to do anything. All I did was point out that what is Bowl Eligible is a bit of a bad joke these days. And as the rule was put in place when most teams only played 11 games my point is right in line with what the intent of the rule was in the first place. The eligibility rule is outdated and needs to be rewritten to meet how the original intent would work with modern scheduling.
|
|
|
Post by Luchador El Guerrero Azteca on Nov 23, 2014 8:25:24 GMT -8
You completely missed it because you are being a rhetorical hammer and not listening. The arguments are separate subjects, hence my non sequitur comment. They are separate subjects, but what my point was right in line with the thread title, "Bowl Eligible." I merely addressed what it means to be Bowl Eligible and what it really should take to be Bowl Eligible. Which is the wrong way to look at it since I never addressed the Aztecs' past Bowl appearances. And I didn't FORCE anyone to do anything. All I did was point out that what is Bowl Eligible is a bit of a bad joke these days. And as the rule was put in place when most teams only played 11 games my point is right in line with what the intent of the rule was in the first place. The eligibility rule is outdated and needs to be rewritten to meet how the original intent would work with modern scheduling. Got it the first hundred times you repeated it. Again, since the thread was about the Aztecs bowl eligibility, you merely needed to make that point and move on. You never addressed the point that the players really valued the experience of a lower bowl last year and will again this year. That matters in the current bowl scheme. Sent from my Admiral Mark 01 Telegraph machine via Sputnik with dial-up
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 8:40:46 GMT -8
College Football is weakening. SDSU is Bowl Eligible- FINE!! They get extra practices getting ready for the Paint Bowl in Nuevo Mexico But the fact is CFB is weakening. Look at the teams out there. NONE are truly dominant teams that scare other teams and you can't with a straight face say CFB Defense is playing at the level it used to years ago. So what will happen then as a consequence? Less Enthusiasm in CFB. Where is the enthusiasm of the average SDSU fan even diehard Football fan headed? Up on the Mesa at Viejas. The NCAA Tournament is way ahead of the CFB Playoff (or even the defunct BCS)as an established forum to PROVE you are a champion. If you win the Final Four NO ONE CAN SAY ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING to discredit the fact that you won the NCAA Tournament.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 23, 2014 8:41:54 GMT -8
They are separate subjects, but what my point was right in line with the thread title, "Bowl Eligible." I merely addressed what it means to be Bowl Eligible and what it really should take to be Bowl Eligible. Which is the wrong way to look at it since I never addressed the Aztecs' past Bowl appearances. And I didn't FORCE anyone to do anything. All I did was point out that what is Bowl Eligible is a bit of a bad joke these days. And as the rule was put in place when most teams only played 11 games my point is right in line with what the intent of the rule was in the first place. The eligibility rule is outdated and needs to be rewritten to meet how the original intent would work with modern scheduling. Got it the first hundred times you repeated it. Again, since the thread was about the Aztecs bowl eligibility, you merely needed to make that point and move on. You never addressed the point that the players really valued the experience of a lower bowl last year and will again this year. That matters in the current bowl scheme. And that's where I disagree. If a team doesn't get to a winning record then they haven't EARNED that Bowl experience. I don't care how good or how valuable that experience is, it has to be earned. AND THE AZTECS EARNED THAT EXPERIENCE. Those Bowl game appearances that the Aztecs had were great experiences (well, two of them were), and they were earned. All I'm saying is if they want to earn that experience in the future they (every team) should have to have a winning record. That's not exactly a point of view that's out of line or unfair.
|
|
|
Post by Luchador El Guerrero Azteca on Nov 23, 2014 9:35:30 GMT -8
We heard you the first hundred times, you made your point repeatedly and ignored what people were saying in response. No need to further this.
Sent from my Admiral Mark 01 Telegraph machine via Sputnik with dial-up
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Nov 23, 2014 10:21:23 GMT -8
the term Bowl Eligible was not created by the Aztecs football program . As of now as it says if you win 6 games you BE for a game but does not mean you are selected or that you are a quality team ,only means that those who have not won 6 games can NOT go to a bowl . The Bowls still get to choose who they want . There is a difference between P5 and G5 schools and the quality of play and bowls you play in . We all realize we are a G5 a school , with hopes of a P5 but not really our choice , invite only by a P5 . So if you are G5 ,you do the best you can for the options that are available . Try to win a Championship . Get to a bowl , for the extra practices even Red Shirts , any Bowl or extra FOOTBALL GAME mean something to the team , fans and RECRUITING . Coaches say we went to a bowl game for X amount of years but the other school you are considering did not . The bowls are not major, but mean something to a lot of those involved. So no it does not mean the team is great or P5 but it does mean we are better then those not going to any bowl . We did not reach the goal of a BCS bowl , MW Championship but at least getting to a bowl is better then sitting and watching 1 for 3 , 33% is not 100%,50% but better then Zero . Glass is 1/3 full not empty . It is what it is .
|
|
|
Post by bananaslug on Nov 23, 2014 10:51:36 GMT -8
There is no worse cliché in the world then there are winners and losers in life. That only applies to games and games have artificial rules and time constraints. You couldn't be more wrong. In life there absolutely are winners and losers. When you apply for a job, when you go for the interview - there are clearly winners (those that get the job) and losers (those that don't). And in most workplaces once you are on the job you are competing with your co-workers for raises. The employees with the best job performances get the biggest raises (so if you're not in the top tier your annual raise is pretty minimal if you even get a raise at all). When you're going for a promotion you're competing with your co-workers who also want that position, but only one person gets that promotion. Again, there are winners and losers. That's just the way life works. You're always competing, and most people will not get what they hope for. Most people will end up disappointed because they lost out on that promotion or didn't get a raise or didn't get the job in the first place. For every job opening there may be dozens of applicants. For every promotion there may be ten or more people up for it. For that raise you want you may not get it if your job performance isn't up to the standards that the company has set based on the job performance of your co-workers (with whom you compete for those raise dollars). Winners and losers. The message we've been sending to our kids over the last 10 or 15 years that everyone is special and everyone is a winner is flat out wrong. It sets them up for not only failure, but an inability to cope with failure. I've seen it in my younger co-workers. They don't understand criticism. They don't understand why they get fired for poor performance. They thought everyone wins. They expect that everyone gets Employee Of The Month eventually. But that's not the way life works, is is? /Rant on yikes, judge much? veering off the topic here, but do you call your kid "loser" if they try something difficult and don't succeed? Is the kid who tries out for the team out of pure desire and doesn't have the athletic ability a "loser"? I work in a firm where we hire < 5% of applicants from the top 10 colleges in the country. Do I think of those we don't hire or don't stay as "losers". Hell no, they are extremely talented people who will find success elsewhere. Further, I don't know the story of the shoeshine guy, the janitor or the homeless person on the corner, they may have overcome incredible odds or face challenges and personal hells that many of us can't even conceive of. You really want to brand a bunch of kids losers because they tried something hard and failed? That sounds like a winner to me, the loser never tried. The gap is not winning/losing but rather teaching personal accountability for success and an understanding of how to realize your own personal potential. /Rant off
|
|
|
Post by brokencurse on Nov 23, 2014 10:52:34 GMT -8
I cannot fathom anyone thinking that rewarding a 6-6 (MEDIOCRE) team with a Bowl game is good for college football. Bowl games used to be special. They used to mean something. Getting to a Bowl game was a big accomplishment. Now HALF the teams in D1 go to a Bowl game. Half. It's not a big deal to make it to a Bowl game anymore. They've been cheapened. Devalued. It's all about money now. Can we make money by creating a new Bowl game that no one is demanding? Can we make money by creating a Bowl game where there is no need to create one? There aren't enough winning teams to fill these new Bowls? No problem, just let in the .500 teams and we're good! There is nothing special about just squeaking into a joke of a Bowl game that gets no respect. Respect is earned. Rewards should also be earned. A 6-6 record deserves neither respect nor reward. Couldn't disagree more. So back when there were 20 bowl games, a 7-4 3rd place Pac-10 team against a 6-5 4th place Big 10 team in Sun Bowel in El Paso was special? Only 1 or 2 bowl games per year were "special," those that had an impact on the National Championship. The rest didn't mean anything except to the teams playing in them. Thank God now half the teams go to bowels. Because most the conferences get to send their 6-5 and 7-4 teams to a bowl game not just the P5 teams. Otherwise we would have 8, 9, or 10 wins and still be locked out just like the "special" days! How was that great for SDSU? Pppffffttt!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 11:13:54 GMT -8
There is no worse cliché in the world then there are winners and losers in life. That only applies to games and games have artificial rules and time constraints. You couldn't be more wrong. In life there absolutely are winners and losers. When you apply for a job, when you go for the interview - there are clearly winners (those that get the job) and losers (those that don't). And in most workplaces once you are on the job you are competing with your co-workers for raises. The employees with the best job performances get the biggest raises (so if you're not in the top tier your annual raise is pretty minimal if you even get a raise at all). When you're going for a promotion you're competing with your co-workers who also want that position, but only one person gets that promotion. Again, there are winners and losers. That's just the way life works. You're always competing, and most people will not get what they hope for. Most people will end up disappointed because they lost out on that promotion or didn't get a raise or didn't get the job in the first place. For every job opening there may be dozens of applicants. For every promotion there may be ten or more people up for it. For that raise you want you may not get it if your job performance isn't up to the standards that the company has set based on the job performance of your co-workers (with whom you com The message we've been sending to our kids over the last 10 or 15 years that everyone is special and everyone is a winner is flat out wrong. It sets them up for not only failure, but an inability to cope with failure. I've seen it in my younger co-workers. They don't understand criticism. They don't understand why they get fired for poor performance. They thought everyone wins. They expect that everyone gets Employee Of The Month eventually. But that's not the way life works, is is? mediocre teams with NON-winning records into Bowl games is the wrong thing to do. They aren't good enough to be in a Bowl game. They haven't earned it. And letting those teams play in Bowl games cheapens those Bowls and makes them meaningless to most college football fans. It's just another game between two teams who weren't good enough to make it into a, "Better," Bowl, or a more prestigious Bo wl. Ratings for most of the pre-Christmas Bowls are in the toilet. Almost no one watches, and almost no one cares because the game doesn't mean anything to most college football fans.
First of all if no one profit the law of supply and demand would eliminate the bowls. Therefore they must have value to someone. To apply some sort of morality to who gets into a bowl game is absurd. My statement that to look at life in terms of winning and losing, is simpleminded you have turned into" people telling everyone they're winners". Now I just said that I don't believe in the concept of reducing life to winners and losers. So you are attributing to my position and attitude which I have already rejected. The workplace is always a balance of competition and cooperation which means that one has to occasionally put their ambitions aside for the general good. When you compete for a job and do not get it you need to evaluate why that was and how you can be more prepared in the future. If you look at it as winning and losing it will already create a psychological state that either over values your success, or devalues you as a person. I have always taught my children of looking at life as winning and losing is simplistic and stupid. What is important is hard work, intelligent work, growth and respect for others. Now two of them have already achieved the highest degrees possible in their field. The third one has also never had to pay a dime for education( nor did I have to pay)because he excelled academically. My sisters and brothers also have all successful children with competed and excelled in sports and have advanced degrees. None of them and one is a Retired College president) none of them taught their kids that life is made up of winners and losers. Were not always competing we spend a lot of time Cooperating otherwise he wouldn't have a society. Even chimpanzees cooperate as well as complete. Yes there are people who give the all "were all winners" SPIEL, and there are even more that abuse there children as losers. The high school bully is all about winners and losers. It is a well-known fact in business that more people are terminated for interpersonal issues than they are for poor performance. By your definition a person's self worth is entirely wrapped up in their temporal success at the moment. My life experience tells me that achievement does not overcome bad character or dishonesty. I still reiterate that a bowl game is an exhibition and to make it marketable, they try to find the best teams possible. If the NCAA has allowed them to have something like 38 bowls then there's going to be teams was 500 records. So your gripe should be with the NCAA. Now to say that it is wrong which is a moral or ethical judgment that these bowls do this is interesting. Since they have the money and the power to do what they want and you cannot stop them they are winners and you are the loser. Stupid argument huh. I think all of us have lost a girlfriend and then looked back and said thank God I'm not with her anymore. Almost every coach in football has been fired at one time or another that does not make them a loser. Pete Carroll's brrn fired about three times, there are situations that are no-win situations, and if we follow your desires only and not common sense,you will continually shoot our toes off. There are quite a few guys who applied for the job at San Diego State and didn't get it who went on to successful careers, much better than the one here. instead of winners and losers I prefer coach Claude Gilbert dictum about scholarship athletes. Eaters and Competers.
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Nov 23, 2014 11:19:02 GMT -8
A positive win true but Air Force was without its best player at RB by far and we had Ruffin back at full steam. So our win is less impressive because we had a starter back available and playing? #mesalogic And Barret and Fely, two of our best defensive players were out. Next man up, we dominated.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Nov 23, 2014 11:19:38 GMT -8
Geesus Erik, angry much?
+1 to Silvershark, TexasAztec, OnionHead, bananaslug, & brokencurse.
Erik... seriously, go somewhere and do something to chill out. Or otherwise just give it a rest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 11:22:35 GMT -8
College Football is weakening. SDSU is Bowl Eligible- FINE!! They get extra practices getting ready for the Paint Bowl in Nuevo Mexico But the fact is CFB is weakening. Look at the teams out there. NONE are truly dominant teams that scare other teams and you can't with a straight face say CFB Defense is playing at the level it used to years ago. So what will happen then as a consequence? Less Enthusiasm in CFB. Where is the enthusiasm of the average SDSU fan even diehard Football fan headed? Up on the Mesa at Viejas. The NCAA Tournament is way ahead of the CFB Playoff (or even the defunct BCS)as an established forum to PROVE you are a champion. If you win the Final Four NO ONE CAN SAY ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING to discredit the fact that you won the NCAA Tournament. Laughable. Check the ratings. Just because you love college bb doesn't change the fact that, except for a couple of weeks in the spring, it is completely irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by adammclane on Nov 23, 2014 12:11:25 GMT -8
Just bought my Poinsettia Bowl tickets. Plenty of good seats still available.
|
|