|
|
Post by laaztec on Jun 26, 2010 20:28:41 GMT -8
Maybe it's time for a whole NEW LOOK at this. We're not going to the Big 12. I'd say BYU and AFA aren't either (though it's correct that those schools have NATIONAL PROFILES and that's what the big conferences want). So it might be worth a look to take the best of the MWC and WAC and merge them with the best of CONFERENCE USA. Something like this, maybe with some modifications: AFA BYU UNM BOISE SDSU UNLV HAWAII FRESNO HOUSTON SMU TCU MEMPHIS SOUTHERN MISS TULSA TULANE UCF Maybe if we are all left out of the next round of expansion. Right now the MWC needs to worry about getting an AQ for the BC$. That should be the one and only goal and only make moves that helps the MWC move closer to that goal. If they fail to do that or there is a major landscape shift then re work the plan. Right now, stay at 9 and see where we are in 2 years. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 26, 2010 20:51:39 GMT -8
My guess is that the Big-12 Minus Two will, as others have opined, stay put at 10 for the moment. Actually, I mean for the next couple of years. Among other reasons may be that they want to see how things shake out for a while. Nobody knows just how the new lineup will do in terms of wins and losses, TV ratings, bowl games, etc.
As for SDSU, it certainly is extremely important that we get things going on the gridiron, and fast! That means breaking the string of losing seasons this year at the very least (i.e, a 6-6 finish or better).
However, even winning 10 or 11 games this year (or next) may have only a very marginal effect on our chances of moving up the college football ladder. Just as generally mediocre (or worse) football at Indiana, Iowas State, Vanderbilt, and Duke does not seem to threaten those schools with expulsion form their conferences, so a couple of excellent years by the Aztecs will not by themselves cause the Big-12 (or anyone else) to come running to the Mesa waving an invitation to join.
If we had, somehow, extended the success of Coryell and Gilbert, we might now be basking in the glory of multiple Top-25 finishes and bowl victories during the past 25 years instead of the garbage that is what we must live with. In other words, if we had been the big dog in the WAC and now the MWC instead of BYU (and more recently Utah and TCU), we might have a realistic chance of joining a more prestigious conference.
Let's face it, fans, unless some major conference is absolutely bound and determined to have a presence in San Diego irrespective of the quality of the local school's FB, we are not going anywhere. My geuss is that even if the Aztecs were enjoying a string of 8-10 win seasons we would get at most a shrug.
Our chance to land on the top floor of college football came in the 1960s and 70s. The chance came and we blew it.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by Fred Noonan on Jun 26, 2010 22:09:28 GMT -8
Man, wouldn't it be just SDSU's luck to get FB turned around just in time to have the MWC crumble beneath it's feet. Well, just control what you can and go out and win some damn football games. Hopefully, the rest will take care of itself. Correctamundo. Take care of that which you can take care of. Otherwise, let the chips fall where they may. Would be just our luck. Please, Brady--kick these peoples...... The Fred Noonan School of Navigation.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on Jun 27, 2010 6:58:11 GMT -8
This article has been getting considerable play on the conference board and well it should: www.deseretnews.com/mobile/article/700043408/Athletic-director-Tom-Holmoe-says-BYU-athletics-has-bright-future.htmlAs one of the more objective BYU posters put it there, Holmoe has understandably been getting major heat from boosters about their arch rival going to an AQ conference in 2011 while BYU remains behind in the MWC. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there's a lot more chance of BYU remaining in the Mountain West if the conference also gains AQ status. And make no mistake. Although the Borg undoubtedly doesn't want to go independent, if the MWC continues to fail to obtain AQ status, BYU really has little to lose and potentially much to gain from going that route. Reading between the lines, it sure seems as though Holmoe is considering the possibility if the MWC continues to fail to become an AQ conference. At a minimum, if BYU were to leave, the conference's TV network which is barely financially solvent is going to be in deep poop. From a worst case scenario, if BYU were to leave, the conference could become little more than a less populated version of the unsatisfactory one from which it sprang. And it's not an exaggeration to say that there isn't any single more important factor upon which AQ status hinges than whether SDSU football gets good again or remains the inept mess that it was in the 00's. Yes, as another poster put it a couple weeks ago, we're on the clock, folks. SGF: When I read your alarming post I expected the article to spell out BYUs defection. It was anything but. BYU is like the weak part of a duet. Judges said, "we'll take you, but your partner? No!" Imagine the "gilting" they feel. As the article says, "They had no research emphasis...and Utah had no problem playing on Sunday. BYU had none of the above." To save face, the YBU AD is posturing for his fan base, who feel abused by Utah's defection. It is laughable. He goes on to say how they will never change their ways. What it comes down to is that YBU in their present form, is not acceptable to any conference. What do they bring other than headaches and a small,insular market, half of Salt Lake City? Where could they possibly go? The Big 12-2 would never take them. They are the gilted lovers, trying to save face with their faithful. But, hey, maybe they could create their own conference and play BYU-Hawaii, Byu- Guam, BYU- American Samoa, BYU -- Pago Pago.  Seriously, SGF, take a powder, relax. Fall camp is just six weeks away and, from what I hear, the key new pieces are there in Gauld, Unga, Bolanos AND Perez. Our team, almost without question, will be marginally better this year. And, they may surprise us all and be quite a bit better. The last thing I am concerned about is what BYWho will never do. Have a nice summer and take it easy. AF1 |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jun 27, 2010 7:06:14 GMT -8
Damn, I don't want to get sucked into this vortex again, but I think you know in your heart of hearts SGF that the Big whatever simply slid its neck down from the axman's blow, but it is still on the block. A time will come in the next couple years (I fully believe the 12-18 month investment banker timeline of the Big10 is still active) when theBig10 will go after Texas again, perhaps the Pac10 will make another run. I think it is much more likely the Big12 falls apart before it expands.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2010 9:13:46 GMT -8
I think expansion is on hold for a couple of years and that gives SDSU time to get their act together. SDSU football needs to be a good football program when the next round of expansion starts. We have been saying that Coach Craft/Long/Hoke could be the last SDSU football coach, well if Hoke doesn't get SDSU going he could really be the last one. Good news is he probably has 3 to 5 more years to get it going. Bad news is if he can't do it we could be in trouble. I think it's a stretch to say Hoke could be the last SDSU football coach. However, I think you and I are on the same page insofar as Hoke could be the last SDSU coach with a legitimate chance to advance the program. If it wasn't before, it's now apparent that the advent of superconferences isn't a matter of if but merely when. In that regard, I think your estimate of 3-5 years is probably accurate. And regardless of other factors working in its favor (TV sets in SD, quality facilities, huge alumni base, access to California recruiting, etc.) if the Aztecs football program isn't considerably better when the time comes than the train wreck it's been the last decade, the big boys aren't going to take us. What if they don't? Think New Mexico State today. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2010 9:20:05 GMT -8
SGF: When I read your alarming post I expected the article to spell out BYUs defection. It was anything but. BYU is like the weak part of a duet. Judges said, "we'll take you, but your partner? No!" Imagine the "gilting" they feel. As the article says, "They had no research emphasis...and Utah had no problem playing on Sunday. BYU had none of the above." To save face, the YBU AD is posturing for his fan base, who feel abused by Utah's defection. It is laughable. He goes on to say how they will never change their ways. What it comes down to is that YBU in their present form, is not acceptable to any conference. What do they bring other than headaches and a small,insular market, half of Salt Lake City? Where could they possibly go? The Big 12-2 would never take them.Most of what you say is debatable. However, the highlighted part is simply wrong. BYU's following is limited to half of SLC? With due respect, that is so patently off base I won't even bother saying anything more. The Big 12-2 will never take them? Then why have several pundits prognosticated that if that conference decides to add two more schools to replace Nebraska and Colorado that the most likely targets will be AFA and BYU? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 27, 2010 9:55:37 GMT -8
It seems to me that the Big-12 Minus Two is probably a bit less fussy than the holier-than-thou Pac-10/11. I can't see why BYU's less than stellar academic rep (at least when speaking of research) would be an impediment to their joining the B12-2.
If there still is a Big-12, and if that conference wants two new members, I would think that BYU would be a serious contender. Would they not be a more serious contender than SDSU? The one thing that SDSU has that the Zoobs don't is its California location. (That is not inconsequential, though perhaps it would be insufficient to close the deal, even if Brady Hoke had elevated our FB to the 7 or 8 wins per season level.)
Keeping our fingers crossed is about all we can do with respect to more prestigious conferences' expansion plans. Getting above .500 in football is something within our power, however, and that we must do with all haste!
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Jun 27, 2010 11:44:04 GMT -8
Honestly, it is difficult to be critical of any school accepting a BCS spot knowing that SDSU would jump to an AQ BCS conference in a heartbeat.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Jun 27, 2010 13:03:19 GMT -8
SGF: When I read your alarming post I expected the article to spell out BYUs defection. It was anything but. BYU is like the weak part of a duet. Judges said, "we'll take you, but your partner? No!" Imagine the "gilting" they feel. As the article says, "They had no research emphasis...and Utah had no problem playing on Sunday. BYU had none of the above." To save face, the YBU AD is posturing for his fan base, who feel abused by Utah's defection. It is laughable. He goes on to say how they will never change their ways. What it comes down to is that YBU in their present form, is not acceptable to any conference. What do they bring other than headaches and a small,insular market, half of Salt Lake City? Where could they possibly go? The Big 12-2 would never take them. They are the gilted lovers, trying to save face with their faithful. But, hey, maybe they could create their own conference and play BYU-Hawaii, Byu- Guam, BYU- American Samoa, BYU -- Pago Pago. Seriously, SGF, take a powder, relax. Fall camp is just six weeks away and, from what I hear, the key new pieces are there in Gauld, Unga, Bolanos AND Perez. Our team, almost without question, will be marginally better this year. And, they may surprise us all and be quite a bit better. The last thing I am concerned about is what BYWho will never do. Have a nice summer and take it easy. AF1 The Big XII will compromise just as much as the Pac-10 was willing to do by bringing in Oklahoma State and Texas Tech. No way are they research universities. The Big XII - North desperately needs someone who can potentialiy beat Texas and/or Oklahoma. BYU can and did last year. That's why I think in time BYU is a given. What they need now is some bodybag team to fill their South division. And make no mistake, geography plays an important role on who they add to their respective divisions for their traveling fans. They don't have many valid candidates left to choose from. |
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Jun 27, 2010 13:20:36 GMT -8
I think expansion is on hold for a couple of years and that gives SDSU time to get their act together. SDSU football needs to be a good football program when the next round of expansion starts. We have been saying that Coach Craft/Long/Hoke could be the last SDSU football coach, well if Hoke doesn't get SDSU going he could really be the last one. Good news is he probably has 3 to 5 more years to get it going. Bad news is if he can't do it we could be in trouble. I think it's a stretch to say Hoke could be the last SDSU football coach. However, I think you and I are on the same page insofar as Hoke could be the last SDSU coach with a legitimate chance to advance the program. If it wasn't before, it's now apparent that the advent of superconferences isn't a matter of if but merely when. In that regard, I think your estimate of 3-5 years is probably accurate. And regardless of other factors working in its favor (TV sets in SD, quality facilities, huge alumni base, access to California recruiting, etc.) if the Aztecs football program isn't considerably better when the time comes than the train wreck it's been the last decade, the big boys aren't going to take us. What if they don't? Think New Mexico State today. I agree but I am not down with being like NMSU football. If it comes to that I would rather they drop football and try to be like Gonzaga. Don't get me wrong, College football is by far my favorite sport and that why it is painful for me to watch what SDSU football has become. When I graduated in '92 I though we were on our way and I was so happy to have just graduated from a school that was on the cusp of being a national player but thanks to a series of bone head mistakes SDSU football has cratered. Hoke seems to be the guy but we won't know for sure for a couple of seasons and by then it might be too late. I hate to rehash history but what are the odds that 2 AD's could make 2 worse HC hires back to back? SDSU has to be due for some good luck because bad luck has over run the football program the past 10 years. |
|
|
|
Post by k5james on Jun 27, 2010 13:47:26 GMT -8
If we drop football, me and my meager few g's a year are gone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2010 13:49:03 GMT -8
1) I am not down with being like NMSU football. If it comes to that I would rather they drop football and try to be like Gonzaga. 2) Don't get me wrong, College football is by far my favorite sport and that why it is painful for me to watch what SDSU football has become. When I graduated in '92 I though we were on our way and I was so happy to have just graduated from a school that was on the cusp of being a national player but thanks to a series of bone head mistakes SDSU football has cratered. 3) Hoke seems to be the guy but we won't know for sure for a couple of seasons and by then it might be too late. I hate to rehash history but what are the odds that 2 AD's could make 2 worse HC hires back to back? SDSU has to be due for some good luck because bad luck has over run the football program the past 10 years. 1) I agree completely. If the MWC falls apart and SDSU decides to return to the WAC, I will no longer support the program. Like you, I live in L.A. and with the traffic getting progressively worse, I simply won't drive down to SD for games against the miserable opponents we will face in that conference game after game. I'm serious when I say that I think SDSU should try returning to independent status for awhile before that. I think it would be a way of letting alumni know they better pick up their support significantly and immediately or the program will die like at Long Beach, Fullerton and Northridge. 2) Agree again. I think too many older guys like me (graduated in 1981) thought we screwed the pooch by not being good immediately in the WAC. However, I don't think anybody realized how much the additional travel and better competition was going to set SDSU back and we did manage to regroup and win the WAC in 1986 and then after Lugie cleaned up the mess Stolz left I too thought the future was bright. I still thought so after Tollner's first four years and then the bowl season in 1998 but should have listened to SteveEm, JYP and others with contacts inside the athletic department who warned that Ted had gotten lazy and recruiting had gone to $#!+. 3) I knew from the get go that Craft wouldn't succeed. There are reasons nobody else had hired a JC guy for a quarter century and the hiring process was as FUBAR as it could possibly get. In Schemmel's defense, I think he rolled the dice on Chuck and simply lost and at least we didn't wait a year too long to get rid of the guy like we did with Tollner and Craft. |
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Jun 27, 2010 15:06:01 GMT -8
1) I agree completely. If the MWC falls apart and SDSU decides to return to the WAC, I will no longer support the program. Like you, I live in L.A. and with the traffic getting progressively worse, I simply won't drive down to SD for games against the miserable opponents we will face in that conference game after game. I'm serious when I say that I think SDSU should try returning to independent status for awhile before that. I think it would be a way of letting alumni know they better pick up their support significantly and immediately or the program will die like at Long Beach, Fullerton and Northridge. 2) Agree again. I think too many older guys like me (graduated in 1981) thought we screwed the pooch by not being good immediately in the WAC. However, I don't think anybody realized how much the additional travel and better competition was going to set SDSU back and we did manage to regroup and win the WAC in 1986 and then after Lugie cleaned up the mess Stolz left I too thought the future was bright. I still thought so after Tollner's first four years and then the bowl season in 1998 but should have listened to SteveEm, JYP and others with contacts inside the athletic department who warned that Ted had gotten lazy and recruiting had gone to $#!+. 3) I knew from the get go that Craft wouldn't succeed. There are reasons nobody else had hired a JC guy for a quarter century and the hiring process was as FUBAR as it could possibly get. In Schemmel's defense, I think he rolled the dice on Chuck and simply lost and at least we didn't wait a year too long to get rid of the guy like we did with Tollner and Craft. Going back to the WAC would be a joke. I am with you, try to go Indy and see if they can make it work. Tollner had some nice early wins. I remember the CAL fans were in shock when we kicked the crap out of the Bears at the Q. Man that was fun. He did retire on the job and he is responsible for starting the snowball down hill. Bay F'ed up huge with Craft and Schemmel should have listened to Neinas and hired Jimbo Fisher. Schemmel and his F'n K-State bs contacts convinced him to hire Long. What a train wreck he turned out to be. The Aztecs under Long played some of the worst Football I have ever seen at the D1A level. At this early Point, Hoke and Crew ( Long and Borges) seem to be on the right track and have to program turned in the right direction, both on and off the field. But will they get us to where we need to go fast enough? The one thing that worries me about Hoke is it took him so long to get Ball State turned. We don't have that kind of time here. We need to make a bowl this year or next year. I like everything about Coach Hoke and I think he will get us there but we won't know for sure until November how we are progressing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2010 15:17:44 GMT -8
Schemmel and his F'n K-State bs contacts convinced him to hire Long. Yes. I went to the trouble to purchase a copy of the Bill Snyder biography written by the K-State play by play guy since I had heard it described how the many excellent assistants Snyder hired had helped him perform a miracle there. Among the assistants given props therein were supposedly Chuck, Bob Elliott and Del Miller. Well, although it's true that Snyder spoke glowingly of Elliott, I never read any such glowing reviews of Chuck and Miller. (Bob Stoops and others I can't recall off-hand were the true geniuses who worked for Snyder.) As to Elliott, I think his downfall was a recurrence of the cancer he thought he had beaten at K-State. In any event, Chuck is the epitome of the Peter Principle. I think he's an outstanding quarterbacks coach and he may even be a competent OC, though many Oklahoma fans didn't think so. However, he is not at all cut out to be a head coach and considering that Schemmel already knew Chuck, that doesn't say much for HIS competence as an AD. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on Jun 27, 2010 17:18:49 GMT -8
SGF: When I read your alarming post I expected the article to spell out BYUs defection. It was anything but. BYU is like the weak part of a duet. Judges said, "we'll take you, but your partner? No!" Imagine the "gilting" they feel. As the article says, "They had no research emphasis...and Utah had no problem playing on Sunday. BYU had none of the above." To save face, the YBU AD is posturing for his fan base, who feel abused by Utah's defection. It is laughable. He goes on to say how they will never change their ways. What it comes down to is that YBU in their present form, is not acceptable to any conference. What do they bring other than headaches and a small,insular market, half of Salt Lake City? Where could they possibly go? The Big 12-2 would never take them.Most of what you say is debatable. However, the highlighted part is simply wrong. BYU's following is limited to half of SLC? With due respect, that is so patently off base I won't even bother saying anything more. The Big 12-2 will never take them? Then why have several pundits prognosticated that if that conference decides to add two more schools to replace Nebraska and Colorado that the most likely targets will be AFA and BYU? Well, everything we conjecture about here is debatable. Why are you so overly cognizant of BYU. They are NOTHING outside of our conference. As Brad Rock, the author you've put before us put it, "Byu is a highly conservative univ. amid liberal left coasters." Do you really think they would be any more acceptable to the Big 12-2? How could they be? Pundits and prognosticators? Please! They don't know any more than you do. It is the university presidents with their ideas of who is academically acceptable that set the tune. Those scribes you seem impressed by had the Big 12 disappearing and it did not, same with Big 10 going to 16 schools. Did not happen. Finally, is MWC Thompson's just blowing smoke about no more immediate expansion. I don't think so. They are done, at least for the next year. What I suggest you focus on in the emerging Aztecs, you did not respond to my prognosis that with a highly experiened QB, WRs, new OLs getting experience, DBs we can trust more with 3-3-5, new kicker, we WILL be better and 6-6 is at least what we can expect. Isn't it more fun to discuss that than phony gloom and doom of what freaking YBU will so.? |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuaztecs on Jun 27, 2010 17:39:55 GMT -8
Based on the 25% kicker the MWC gets by having only nine teams, it appears to me that the MWC will become an AQ in 2012 if..........Boise, BYU and/or TCU rank in the Top 10 meaning an automatic invite to the BCS in 2010 and 2011. If any of these teams makes the Top 10 the MWC will get the AQ in 2012 to the BCS. So what are the odds one MWC team gets into the Top 10 the next two years? IMO....at least 50-50. With that probablity clearly BYU and any other team in the MWC would be foolish to consider leaving the MWC at this point in time. And once the 2010 season is over, AQ status to the BCS will be almost a done deal.....I hope.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2010 17:40:34 GMT -8
Fan1, I don't care a whit about BYU except that as long as we're in the Mountain West Conference, we need them to be too. For survival of the conference's TV network if nothing else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2010 17:47:38 GMT -8
Based on the 25% kicker the MWC gets by having only nine teams, it appears to me that the MWC will become an AQ in 2012 if..........Boise, BYUI and/or TCU rank in the Top 10 meaning an automatic invite to the BCS in 2010 and 2011. If any of these teams makes the Top 10 the MWC will get the AQ in 2012 to the BCS. So what are the odds one MWC team gets into the Top 10 the next two years? IMO....at least 50-50. TCU returns 16 starters from a team which lost only to Boise last year. Boise, whose 2010 season can be counted by the MWC toward AQ status in 2012, returns 20 starters from a team which was undefeated. The keys in 2010 are the following: 1. Oregon State: Both play the beav, which Phil Steele has as just a middle-of-the-Pac school this year. 2. VA Tech, which Boise plays at Landover, MD to open the season. 3. And as usual for TCU, BYU and Utah. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on Jun 27, 2010 18:57:00 GMT -8
Fan1, I don't care a whit about BYU except that as long as we're in the Mountain West Conference, we need them to be too. For survival of the conference's TV network if nothing else. You don't care about BYU?  Go back and read the way you started this thread. They need MWC as much or more than SDSU does. They are PHONIES. They are now the self-annointed CEO of the confernence and many of their fans and leaders now feel the MWC if beneath them now that Utah is gone. Screw them! What I care about about is our football and basketball teams. We are emerging. Come on down and watch a practice in August and you can see for yourself. Fan numero uno. |
|
