|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Mar 25, 2015 15:38:44 GMT -8
Basketball has ended for this season: a game or two sooner than we would have liked. Baseball seems to be going better than usual: a pleasant development. As to the other spring sports, I cannot comment, not having enough information.
So that leaves football.
A while back I read (it may have been linked here) a proposal drafted for the improvement of Wyoming football. It was the product of people who were looking seriously at what could be done to strengthen Cowboy football. It contained specific goals to be reached. I think S.D.S.U. should likewise have such a plan. I know that there has been mention of goals coming from the administration, but I'm not sure that plan's specifics have been made public.
Here is what I would suggest. Please feel free to correct me where I am wrong.
1) Most important; contend seriously for the conference championship on a yearly basis. That means either winning the title or finishing second at least 7 our of every 10 years.
2) Continue to schedule P5 schools, but predominantly on a home-and-home basis. Schedule single away games against P5 schools only occasionally, and only if the guarantee for such games is significant (this basically to help the program's bottom line.)
3) Win half those P5 games. (Beating P5 schools only about once a decade is worse than not playing such schools at all.)
4.) Finish in the Top-25 at least 50% of the time, and perhaps only once a decade out of the Top-50 (as indicated by Sagarin and other rating serices; in other worse, do not have periods when the program is pathetic).
5.) Improve recruiting to the point at which the team is not caught with nothing but raw freshmen or mediocre transfers to man QB and other critical positions.
6.) Increase home attendance so that seldom do fewer than 30,000 fans actually attend games.
7.) Hire the best coaches possible. That means ones who have proven their ability to achieve success leading programs at Division I schools, be they FBS or FCS.
8.) Make it clear to new head coaches that they will not have an unlimited number of seasons to prove their worth. For instance, it should be required that by year 3, the teams will have won more than half its games and earned a bowl inivation. Additionally, it should be understood that consequtive losing seasons will in most cases be grounds for dismissal.
I realize that some will consider these goal to be unrealistic. My response to that is to say that settling for anything less amounts to accepting mediocrity. That's what happened in the 2000s. Actually, we accepted worse than mediocrity. The program may well not be capable of survival if we do not demand high standards.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Mar 25, 2015 15:54:38 GMT -8
Basketball has ended for this season: a game or two sooner than we would have liked. Baseball seems to be going better than usual: a pleasant development. As to the other spring sports, I cannot comment, not having enough information. So that leaves football. A while back I read (it may have been linked here) a proposal drafted for the improvement of Wyoming football. It was the product of people who were looking seriously at what could be done to strengthen Cowboy football. It contained specific goals to be reached. I think S.D.S.U. should likewise have such a plan. I know that there has been mention of goals coming from the administration, but I'm not sure that plan's specifics have been made public. Here is what I would suggest. Please feel free to correct me where I am wrong. 1) Most important; contend seriously for the conference championship on a yearly basis. That means either winning the title or finishing second at least 7 our of every 10 years. 2) Continue to schedule P5 schools, but predominantly on a home-and-home basis. Schedule single away games against P5 schools only occasionally, and only if the guarantee for such games is significant (this basically to help the program's bottom line.) 3) Win half those P5 games. (Beating P5 schools only about once a decade is worse than not playing such schools at all.)
4.) Finish in the Top-25 at least 50% of the time, and perhaps only once a decade out of the Top-50 (as indicated by Sagarin and other rating serices; in other worse, do not have periods when the program is pathetic). 5.) Improve recruiting to the point at which the team is not caught with nothing but raw freshmen or mediocre transfers to man QB and other critical positions. 6.) Increase home attendance so that seldom do fewer than 30,000 fans actually attend games. 7.) Hire the best coaches possible. That means ones who have proven their ability to achieve success leading programs at Division I schools, be they FBS or FCS. 8.) Make it clear to new head coaches that they will not have an unlimited number of seasons to prove their worth. For instance, it should be required that by year 3, the teams will have won more than half its games and earned a bowl inivation. Additionally, it should be understood that consequtive losing seasons will in most cases be grounds for dismissal. I realize that some will consider these goal to be unrealistic. My response to that is to say that settling for anything less amounts to accepting mediocrity. That's what happened in the 2000s. Actually, we accepted worse than mediocrity. The program may well not be capable of survival if we do not demand high standards. AzWm These appear to be viewed in a vacuum.
Re: #8, first I strongly believe any hire should be given at least 4 years to succeed. Second, it's all relevant to where the program is when the new coach is hired. We could be talking 4-5 years from now & we could be either solid in a the B12, near the bottom of the B12 given we'd still be playing catch-up, or still in the MWC. All those are different scenarios when it comes to hiring.
Re: #3, what if we're playing UCLA & USC H&H? You really think we should be winning half the time? Oregon? Stanford? Sorry, disagree. You don't put expectations on pulling upsets, especially major ones. Plus, beating P5 & especially those in 1 of the top 2 conferences in the country top to bottom like the P12, is going to get harder & harder by the year. The gap is growing, not shrinking, due to the financial investments made at those schools. Also disagree that playing them & losing is worse than not playing them at all - playing them feeds into #6 above.
The key point & goal is #6; that's something that WE control, and by doing that we're increasing our odds of succeeding with the others. That clearly should be #1.
The program is fine as is. No one is accepting mediocrity - some people just have different definitions of what that means & many lose perspective of what we've actually accomplished.
|
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Football Fan on Mar 25, 2015 16:10:38 GMT -8
Just build an on-campus stadium and all these problems will automatically be solved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2015 16:31:57 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Mar 25, 2015 16:57:33 GMT -8
Be the top defensive team in the MWC this season again.
Aztecs 2014 MWC Stats rankings
#1 Total Defense (Yards)
#2 Rushing Defense (Yards)
#2 Rushing Defense (Y/Att)
#2 Pass Defense (Yards)
#1 Pass Defense (Pass defense efficiency)
#1 Interceptions
#2 First Downs
|
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Mar 25, 2015 17:06:38 GMT -8
Be the top defensive team in the MWC this season again. Aztecs 2014 MWC Stats rankings#1 Total Defense (Yards) #2 Rushing Defense (Yards) #2 Rushing Defense (Y/Att) #2 Pass Defense (Yards) #1 Pass Defense (Pass defense efficiency) #1 Interceptions #2 First Downs Hold the other team scoreless and we'll win every game. |
|
|
|
Post by junior on Mar 25, 2015 17:15:02 GMT -8
Win 10 games in one season.
Just once is all I ask…
|
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Football Fan on Mar 25, 2015 17:29:50 GMT -8
It's alright that you still enjoy playing with dolls, but let's stay on topic. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2015 19:30:21 GMT -8
Basketball has ended for this season: a game or two sooner than we would have liked. Baseball seems to be going better than usual: a pleasant development. As to the other spring sports, I cannot comment, not having enough information. So that leaves football. A while back I read (it may have been linked here) a proposal drafted for the improvement of Wyoming football. It was the product of people who were looking seriously at what could be done to strengthen Cowboy football. It contained specific goals to be reached. I think S.D.S.U. should likewise have such a plan. I know that there has been mention of goals coming from the administration, but I'm not sure that plan's specifics have been made public. Here is what I would suggest. Please feel free to correct me where I am wrong. 1) Most important; contend seriously for the conference championship on a yearly basis. That means either winning the title or finishing second at least 7 our of every 10 years. 2) Continue to schedule P5 schools, but predominantly on a home-and-home basis. Schedule single away games against P5 schools only occasionally, and only if the guarantee for such games is significant (this basically to help the program's bottom line.) 3) Win half those P5 games. (Beating P5 schools only about once a decade is worse than not playing such schools at all.) 4.) Finish in the Top-25 at least 50% of the time, and perhaps only once a decade out of the Top-50 (as indicated by Sagarin and other rating serices; in other worse, do not have periods when the program is pathetic). 5.) Improve recruiting to the point at which the team is not caught with nothing but raw freshmen or mediocre transfers to man QB and other critical positions. 6.) Increase home attendance so that seldom do fewer than 30,000 fans actually attend games. 7.) Hire the best coaches possible. That means ones who have proven their ability to achieve success leading programs at Division I schools, be they FBS or FCS. 8.) Make it clear to new head coaches that they will not have an unlimited number of seasons to prove their worth. For instance, it should be required that by year 3, the teams will have won more than half its games and earned a bowl inivation. Additionally, it should be understood that consequtive losing seasons will in most cases be grounds for dismissal. I realize that some will consider these goal to be unrealistic. My response to that is to say that settling for anything less amounts to accepting mediocrity. That's what happened in the 2000s. Actually, we accepted worse than mediocrity. The program may well not be capable of survival if we do not demand high standards. AzWm So if I'm reading this correctly, the proposal is to have good coaches, win games and draw fans?  |
|
|
|
Post by Old School on Mar 25, 2015 19:49:06 GMT -8
Beat Boise, Fresno and all the BCS teams on the schedule.
Oldie Out
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on Mar 25, 2015 20:08:34 GMT -8
Basketball has ended for this season: a game or two sooner than we would have liked. Baseball seems to be going better than usual: a pleasant development. As to the other spring sports, I cannot comment, not having enough information. So that leaves football. A while back I read (it may have been linked here) a proposal drafted for the improvement of Wyoming football. It was the product of people who were looking seriously at what could be done to strengthen Cowboy football. It contained specific goals to be reached. I think S.D.S.U. should likewise have such a plan. I know that there has been mention of goals coming from the administration, but I'm not sure that plan's specifics have been made public. Here is what I would suggest. Please feel free to correct me where I am wrong. 1) Most important; contend seriously for the conference championship on a yearly basis. That means either winning the title or finishing second at least 7 our of every 10 years. 2) Continue to schedule P5 schools, but predominantly on a home-and-home basis. Schedule single away games against P5 schools only occasionally, and only if the guarantee for such games is significant (this basically to help the program's bottom line.) 3) Win half those P5 games. (Beating P5 schools only about once a decade is worse than not playing such schools at all.) 4.) Finish in the Top-25 at least 50% of the time, and perhaps only once a decade out of the Top-50 (as indicated by Sagarin and other rating serices; in other worse, do not have periods when the program is pathetic). 5.) Improve recruiting to the point at which the team is not caught with nothing but raw freshmen or mediocre transfers to man QB and other critical positions. 6.) Increase home attendance so that seldom do fewer than 30,000 fans actually attend games. 7.) Hire the best coaches possible. That means ones who have proven their ability to achieve success leading programs at Division I schools, be they FBS or FCS. 8.) Make it clear to new head coaches that they will not have an unlimited number of seasons to prove their worth. For instance, it should be required that by year 3, the teams will have won more than half its games and earned a bowl inivation. Additionally, it should be understood that consequtive losing seasons will in most cases be grounds for dismissal. I realize that some will consider these goal to be unrealistic. My response to that is to say that settling for anything less amounts to accepting mediocrity. That's what happened in the 2000s. Actually, we accepted worse than mediocrity. The program may well not be capable of survival if we do not demand high standards. AzWm #5 on your list has been accomplished. We have depth like never before. #8 is already reality. Sterk will not accept stepping backwards. #3 is the tall order and the others will fall into place if we can start winning one of the two P5 games each year. Is this that year? |
|
|
|
Post by zurac315 on Mar 25, 2015 20:50:59 GMT -8
All wonderful goals, but they are meaningless. What is necessary to attain those goals might be meaningful. One doesn't win 10 games a season by saying that that is a goal.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Mar 25, 2015 21:07:54 GMT -8
sdcoug responds, and AzWm answer back. . .
These appear to be viewed in a vacuum.
Re: #8, first I strongly believe any hire should be given at least 4 years to succeed. Second, it's all relevant to where the program is when the new coach is hired. We could be talking 4-5 years from now & we could be either solid in a the B12, near the bottom of the B12 given we'd still be playing catch-up, or still in the MWC. All those are different scenarios when it comes to hiring.
Re: #3, what if we're playing UCLA & USC H&H? You really think we should be winning half the time? Oregon? Stanford? Sorry, disagree. You don't put expectations on pulling upsets, especially major ones. Plus, beating P5 & especially those in 1 of the top 2 conferences in the country top to bottom like the P12, is going to get harder & harder by the year. The gap is growing, not shrinking, due to the financial investments made at those schools. Also disagree that playing them & losing is worse than not playing them at all - playing them feeds into #6 above.
The key point & goal is #6; that's something that WE control, and by doing that we're increasing our odds of succeeding with the others. That clearly should be #1.
The program is fine as is. No one is accepting mediocrity - some people just have different definitions of what that means & many lose perspective of what we've actually accomplished.
=== = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
You make good points, but I'm going to stick with my prescriptions at least in some cases.
Re: #8, first I strongly believe any hire should be given at least 4 years to succeed. Second, it's all relevant to where the program is when the new coach is hired. We could be talking 4-5 years from now & we could be either solid in a the B12, near the bottom of the B12 given we'd still be playing catch-up, or still in the MWC. All those are different scenarios when it comes to hiring.
First, we will not be in the Big-12 in five years or fifty. Let's face reality and that reality says we have to become another Boise State. In other words, the best of the have-nots.
Now to the issue of what we expect of a new head coach. Four years? Perhaps if we have let the program deteriorate below its current level. That's what we cannot permit. Ted Tollner presided over a very disappointing 1999 season in which we should have contended for the MWC title but settled for a 5-6 year. The 3-8 finish in 2000 called for a change of head coaches, but we let him stumble on for another 3-8 year. The fact that Tollner was not replaced after 2000 is an indication that the school really didn't care much what happened in football. If Rocky's replacement turns in three straight losing seasons after inheriting a program still above .500, then the guy has to go. Sure, if you want to talk about 2006, then perhaps Tom Craft's replacement should have been given four years. In the event, instead of making noticeable progress in his first three years, Chuck Long laid an egg. Had the Aztecs finish 3-9, 4-8, then 6-6. a fourth season would probably have been justified.
So you are correct, the state of the program at the time of hiring a new coach needs to be taken into consideration. But is there some reason why we can't do what Colorado State did in 1992? The Rams had posted just 2 winning seasons in the 12 years prior to Sonny Lubick's arrival. In his first year the Rams finished 5-6. Second year? TEN AND TWO! ! ! Repeat, from 5 wins to 10 from one season to the next. No five year plan needed. I repeat, what did CSU know at the end of the 1992 season as regards hiring good coaches that we did not know all those times that the Aztecs had to make a change? I could also mention San Jose State's hiring of Mike McIntyre and Fresno's hiring of Tim DeRuyter. Or the Bulldog's hiring of Pat Hill before DeRuyter. How come those schools were able to make good hires and we not?
We need to get smart in a hurry and start hiring Sonny Lubicks instead of Chuck Longs.
Re: #3, what if we're playing UCLA & USC H&H? You really think we should be winning half the time? Oregon? Stanford? Sorry, disagree. You don't put expectations on pulling upsets, especially major ones. Plus, beating P5 & especially those in 1 of the top 2 conferences in the country top to bottom like the P12, is going to get harder & harder by the year. The gap is growing, not shrinking, due to the financial investments made at those schools. Also disagree that playing them & losing is worse than not playing them at all - playing them feeds into #6 above.
Let's explore this question in greater detail. First of all, UCLA and USC are far superior to S.D.S.U. at the moment and probably will be for some time to come. If I were to make up S.D.S.U.'s future schedules, I would perhaps put one or both on our schedule perhaps once a decade for the money. But let's imagine a more extensive series with those two schools. Let's say that we are able (and this may be more difficult to do in the future) to set up home-and-homes with both twice a decade. Eight games. Eight losses, probably. Better, I say, to schedule home-and-homes with schools such as Kansas or Vanderbilt or Indiana or Rutgers. We would have a decent chance of beating those schools, and racking up Ws against P5 schools is essential if we want to build a nationally respected program. That's what Boise does, and that's what we must do. But not with a steady diet of Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Texas, etc.. And, yes, at some point it becomes stupid to keep scheduling schools you cannot beat. At some point it IS better to beat a mediocre Kansas or Vanderbilt than to get ground into the grass against Top-25 P5 schools.
The key point & goal is #6; that's something that WE control, and by doing that we're increasing our odds of succeeding with the others. That clearly should be #1.
I think you have it backwards. We must hire a staff that can improve our recruiting and win more games. Greater attendance will follow as a result of that. Sure, there is probably more that could be done in the area of marketing, and that should be done as well. But more winning, especially against respected non-conference opponents, will be needed to put fans in the seats.
The program is fine as is.
I disagree. I still don't see the all-out commitment to creating a football program that can rival Boise State.
No one is accepting mediocrity.
We will see next year. If 2015 ends in another 7 win season and Rocky is not replaced, then I think we will he forced to recognize that mediocrity is in fact tolerated here.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by fisherville on Mar 25, 2015 21:11:40 GMT -8
I have very little expectations with Rocky at the helm. We will win all of the games we should except for 1, we will win no more than 1 game against a good opponent, we will not win our division.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Mar 25, 2015 23:51:54 GMT -8
sdcoug responds, and AzWm answer back. . .
These appear to be viewed in a vacuum.
Re: #8, first I strongly believe any hire should be given at least 4 years to succeed. Second, it's all relevant to where the program is when the new coach is hired. We could be talking 4-5 years from now & we could be either solid in a the B12, near the bottom of the B12 given we'd still be playing catch-up, or still in the MWC. All those are different scenarios when it comes to hiring.
Re: #3, what if we're playing UCLA & USC H&H? You really think we should be winning half the time? Oregon? Stanford? Sorry, disagree. You don't put expectations on pulling upsets, especially major ones. Plus, beating P5 & especially those in 1 of the top 2 conferences in the country top to bottom like the P12, is going to get harder & harder by the year. The gap is growing, not shrinking, due to the financial investments made at those schools. Also disagree that playing them & losing is worse than not playing them at all - playing them feeds into #6 above.
The key point & goal is #6; that's something that WE control, and by doing that we're increasing our odds of succeeding with the others. That clearly should be #1.
The program is fine as is. No one is accepting mediocrity - some people just have different definitions of what that means & many lose perspective of what we've actually accomplished.
=== = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
You make good points, but I'm going to stick with my prescriptions at least in some cases.
Re: #8, first I strongly believe any hire should be given at least 4 years to succeed. Second, it's all relevant to where the program is when the new coach is hired. We could be talking 4-5 years from now & we could be either solid in a the B12, near the bottom of the B12 given we'd still be playing catch-up, or still in the MWC. All those are different scenarios when it comes to hiring.
First, we will not be in the Big-12 in five years or fifty. Let's face reality and that reality says we have to become another Boise State. In other words, the best of the have-nots.
Now to the issue of what we expect of a new head coach. Four years? Perhaps if we have let the program deteriorate below its current level. That's what we cannot permit. Ted Tollner presided over a very disappointing 1999 season in which we should have contended for the MWC title but settled for a 5-6 year. The 3-8 finish in 2000 called for a change of head coaches, but we let him stumble on for another 3-8 year. The fact that Tollner was not replaced after 2000 is an indication that the school really didn't care much what happened in football. If Rocky's replacement turns in three straight losing seasons after inheriting a program still above .500, then the guy has to go. Sure, if you want to talk about 2006, then perhaps Tom Craft's replacement should have been given four years. In the event, instead of making noticeable progress in his first three years, Chuck Long laid an egg. Had the Aztecs finish 3-9, 4-8, then 6-6. a fourth season would probably have been justified.
So you are correct, the state of the program at the time of hiring a new coach needs to be taken into consideration. But is there some reason why we can't do what Colorado State did in 1992? The Rams had posted just 2 winning seasons in the 12 years prior to Sonny Lubick's arrival. In his first year the Rams finished 5-6. Second year? TEN AND TWO! ! ! Repeat, from 5 wins to 10 from one season to the next. No five year plan needed. I repeat, what did CSU know at the end of the 1992 season as regards hiring good coaches that we did not know all those times that the Aztecs had to make a change? I could also mention San Jose State's hiring of Mike McIntyre and Fresno's hiring of Tim DeRuyter. Or the Bulldog's hiring of Pat Hill before DeRuyter. How come those schools were able to make good hires and we not?
We need to get smart in a hurry and start hiring Sonny Lubicks instead of Chuck Longs.
Re: #3, what if we're playing UCLA & USC H&H? You really think we should be winning half the time? Oregon? Stanford? Sorry, disagree. You don't put expectations on pulling upsets, especially major ones. Plus, beating P5 & especially those in 1 of the top 2 conferences in the country top to bottom like the P12, is going to get harder & harder by the year. The gap is growing, not shrinking, due to the financial investments made at those schools. Also disagree that playing them & losing is worse than not playing them at all - playing them feeds into #6 above.
Let's explore this question in greater detail. First of all, UCLA and USC are far superior to S.D.S.U. at the moment and probably will be for some time to come. If I were to make up S.D.S.U.'s future schedules, I would perhaps put one or both on our schedule perhaps once a decade for the money. But let's imagine a more extensive series with those two schools. Let's say that we are able (and this may be more difficult to do in the future) to set up home-and-homes with both twice a decade. Eight games. Eight losses, probably. Better, I say, to schedule home-and-homes with schools such as Kansas or Vanderbilt or Indiana or Rutgers. We would have a decent chance of beating those schools, and racking up Ws against P5 schools is essential if we want to build a nationally respected program. That's what Boise does, and that's what we must do. But not with a steady diet of Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Texas, etc.. And, yes, at some point it becomes stupid to keep scheduling schools you cannot beat. At some point it IS better to beat a mediocre Kansas or Vanderbilt than to get ground into the grass against Top-25 P5 schools.
The key point & goal is #6; that's something that WE control, and by doing that we're increasing our odds of succeeding with the others. That clearly should be #1.
I think you have it backwards. We must hire a staff that can improve our recruiting and win more games. Greater attendance will follow as a result of that. Sure, there is probably more that could be done in the area of marketing, and that should be done as well. But more winning, especially against respected non-conference opponents, will be needed to put fans in the seats.
The program is fine as is.
I disagree. I still don't see the all-out commitment to creating a football program that can rival Boise State.
No one is accepting mediocrity.
We will see next year. If 2015 ends in another 7 win season and Rocky is not replaced, then I think we will he forced to recognize that mediocrity is in fact tolerated here.
AzWm
First, stop referring to 1992. It's a different world. Have never figured out why some of our fans insist on living in the past. The landscape is very different. And yes, you can go from 2-10 to 10-2 but it's not the norm. Plus, We are not going 2-10 unless we do jump to higher conference, so not going to concern myself with that as it's been very obvious we have sought and achieves winning seasons annually. The bottom line is you can't dictate if a coach should get 2 or 5 years without knowing exactly where the program stands and changing after 2 recruiting periods is more likely to set you back than forward. Second, you have quite the defeatist attitude. You have no idea if we will or won't be in the B12. There's actually a pretty good chance. Third, don't disagree with you about seeking lower tier P5 schools, but you stated going .500 against P5 schools, not lower tier. Without knowing who we are able to schedule that seems like a silly goal. We can't pick and choose - it's not that easy, and the teams we do have on the schedule moving forward aren't walkovers by any means. Cal, ASU, UCLA and UA are all better programs than than ours. And the gap is getting larger. Regarding attendance, it's the chicken and the egg. To get successful you need alumni support and revenue, so if you want to ensure program growth fill the stadium no matter who we play, and what the record. This team has been successful for several years now. There's NO EXCUSE not to out 30k+ in there every game now. Boise is successful because they generate revenue, much more so than we do (TV deal helps but it's way beyond that). No, we don't rival Boise state. They have much greater support. It's the only game in town. That doesn't mean this program isn't successful and doing very well. We will see how we do; if we stay relatively injury free, etc. But we are very far from mediocrity. |
|
|
|
Post by Old School on Mar 26, 2015 5:29:36 GMT -8
Make field goals.  Oldie Out |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Mar 26, 2015 7:27:57 GMT -8
I have very little expectations with Rocky at the helm. We will win all of the games we should except for 1, we will win no more than 1 game against a good opponent, we will not win our division. I don't know why you are so sure we will not win our division. I think we will be favored to do so this year for the first time. We are in great position. We are so close to having won it 3 years in a row. I know 3 years ago there were no divisions but we were 7-1 in conference - so I went with that. Two years ago we were a 26 yard field goal away from winning it. Last year we could have easily won at Fresno State with a little better luck. There was a very bad call on that blocked punt and having a QB injury with a freshman replacement who wasn't nearly ready to play. Fresno State really lucked out 2 years in a row. Think about how little would have to change to make us division or conference champs 3 years in a row. Considering that, why should we not be confident in winning the thing when we will be favored to do so for the first time?
1. Win at least 1 of the P5 games. 2. Win our Division 3. Win the MWC championship game. 4. Play on New Year's day. Those should be the goals for the season. I lot of the numbered goals in the first post of this thread would be greatly aided by achieving the goals stated above. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 7:31:57 GMT -8
I want good Qb and WR play. And a kicker who won't miss a chippy with a game on the line.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Mar 26, 2015 7:35:06 GMT -8
Make field goals. Oldie Out Did you skip last season? Aztecs made 20-25 field goals in MWC games even though 13 of the attempts were 40+ yards. In addition, the Aztecs were the only MWC to be perfect on extra points. |
|
|
|
Post by Old School on Mar 26, 2015 8:27:04 GMT -8
Make field goals. Oldie Out Did you skip last season? Aztecs made 20-25 field goals in MWC games even though 13 of the attempts were 40+ yards. In addition, the Aztecs were the only MWC to be perfect on extra points. Did you see my smiley? Oldie Out |
|
