|
|
Post by laaztec on Jun 29, 2010 11:24:11 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2010 11:38:39 GMT -8
I've criticized Jim Sterk for hiring Paul Wulff but after looking at the pathetic budget at WSU, I'm sure he had next to no money to work with.
JYP loves to say that Wyoming should be in the Big Sky Conference but maybe Up-the-Wazzu should be too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old School on Jun 29, 2010 12:03:36 GMT -8
From our low success rate, it shows that we've had the wrong people spending the football money. Wow, #4 of non-BCS?
And Boise State has been spending much less and getting better results! Boosters should take note.
You need football people running the program, not accountants.
Oldie Out
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2010 12:19:05 GMT -8
From our low success rate, it shows that we've had the wrong people spending the football money. Wow, #4 of non-BCS? Well, it's a snapshot in time and consider this. How many other non-BCS schools are paying their head football coach $675K per year while still paying that guy's predecessor $725K? Combine the two and we're paying our head football coach as much as TCU and Utah are paying Gary Patterson and Kyle Whittingham and except for June Jones, they are the highest paid non-BCS coaches in the country. (Just one more reason to think that hire was a major clusterphuck.) |
|
|
|
Post by ziggy on Jun 29, 2010 13:43:05 GMT -8
From our low success rate, it shows that we've had the wrong people spending the football money. Wow, #4 of non-BCS? And Boise State has been spending much less and getting better results! Boosters should take note. You need football people running the program, not accountants. Oldie Out SDSU. We do less with more. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2010 16:53:09 GMT -8
SDSU football and baseball. We do less with more. I corrected what you said since in fairness, I think in most sports that's not true. And it certainly isn't true of the university generally, which I think actually does more with less. |
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jun 29, 2010 17:00:21 GMT -8
SDSU football and baseball. We do less with more. I corrected what you said since in fairness, I think in most sports that's not true. And it certainly isn't true of the university generally, which I think actually does more with less. ABSOLUTELY true in academic ranking & such... |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jun 29, 2010 17:13:16 GMT -8
I corrected what you said since in fairness, I think in most sports that's not true. And it certainly isn't true of the university generally, which I think actually does more with less. ABSOLUTELY true in academic ranking & such... Sadly the only ranked world university that has to fight its legislature and trustees and is severely hampered by their limitations and yet still is on a year-to-year increase in student profile and research over the past 15 years. |
|
|
|
Post by ziggy on Jun 29, 2010 18:50:21 GMT -8
SDSU football and baseball. We do less with more. I corrected what you said since in fairness, I think in most sports that's not true. And it certainly isn't true of the university generally, which I think actually does more with less. I was only posting with respect to football since this is what the thread was about. I do think baseball qualifies as you stated. |
|
|
|
Post by Spud on Jun 30, 2010 10:44:04 GMT -8
It'll be interesting to see how much Utah will be able to spend once they make the jump to the Pac-10...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2010 11:17:12 GMT -8
It'll be interesting to see how much Utah will be able to spend once they make the jump to the Pac-10... More obviously. But to what end? Utah today is Arizona State in 1977 and how many Rose Bowls have the Sun Devils gone to? Even worse, how many national championships have the Sun Devils contended for since moving to the Pac versus the several they competed for while in the WAC? Utah earned the promotion but Utes fans are being pretty naive about what the end result figures to be. |
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Jun 30, 2010 11:41:03 GMT -8
It'll be interesting to see how much Utah will be able to spend once they make the jump to the Pac-10... More obviously. But to what end? Utah today is Arizona State in 1977 and how many Rose Bowls have the Sun Devils gone to? Even worse, how many national championships have the Sun Devils contended for since moving to the Pac versus the several they competed for while in the WAC? Utah earned the promotion but Utes fans are being pretty naive about what the end result figures to be. Agree about that. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 30, 2010 13:00:02 GMT -8
I'm pleased to see the commitment.
|
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jun 30, 2010 14:39:27 GMT -8
It'll be interesting to see how much Utah will be able to spend once they make the jump to the Pac-10... More obviously. But to what end? Utah today is Arizona State in 1977 and how many Rose Bowls have the Sun Devils gone to? Even worse, how many national championships have the Sun Devils contended for since moving to the Pac versus the several they competed for while in the WAC? Utah earned the promotion but Utes fans are being pretty naive about what the end result figures to be. Exactly, the situations are rather striking and something that I've pointed out before; worse yet, they could become like UofA and never go to a rose bowl, or maybe that is Colorado. I don't think they'll find the competition such a big jump, but going from being top dog and in control of the goings-on of the conf. to being way back in the pecking order will be a major change. If the PAC resigns with Fox Sports net, where are the UTah games going to be? Part of the neccessity for the MTN is that no MWC team had a regional Fox Sports so basically the MTN created that regional network; if the pac12 tv deal looks like the pac10 deal, then they'll be on abc a couple times a year and on a fox sports net and they might have to schedule their games to even allow them to be televised. The grass is greener, but they will not be at the standing of USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington (even as abysmal as they've been), Cal, Stanford, ASU -- those teams will likely get preferential treatment on TV until Utah wins in the pac. |
|
|
|
Post by HollywoodAztec on Jun 30, 2010 15:18:47 GMT -8
Interesting viewpoint about the “end” of Utah when they start playing in the PAC12. Yet, many of SDSU fans seem to have an opposite perspective IF we were to be invited to the PAC. Many have repeatedly stated that if SDSU is in the PAC, we’ll be competitive quickly due to being on similar footing with the PAC teams - basically “stealing” the quality of recruits to come to The Mesa instead of them going to the states of AZ, OR and WA.
|
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jun 30, 2010 15:40:07 GMT -8
Interesting viewpoint about the “end” of Utah when they start playing in the PAC12. Yet, many of SDSU fans seem to have an opposite perspective IF we were to be invited to the PAC. Many have repeatedly stated that if SDSU is in the PAC, we’ll be competitive quickly due to being on similar footing with the PAC teams - basically “stealing” the quality of recruits to come to The Mesa instead of them going to the states of AZ, OR and WA. The pac is not a panacea nor is it poison - but there is a big difference going from the big man on campus to the middle - over time playing second fiddle to USC and company can be a hard row to hoe. Utah will be fine, but, I think their fans are underestimating the challenges they'll face, the same ASU has faced (consider that when ASU has challenged USC has been rather down and the Frank Kush/WAC years they were a top 10 team for a number of years in a row |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2010 15:47:54 GMT -8
Interesting viewpoint about the “end” of Utah when they start playing in the PAC12. Yet, many of SDSU fans seem to have an opposite perspective IF we were to be invited to the PAC. Many have repeatedly stated that if SDSU is in the PAC, we’ll be competitive quickly due to being on similar footing with the PAC teams - basically “stealing” the quality of recruits to come to The Mesa instead of them going to the states of AZ, OR and WA. You make a good point. My comments: You don't see me saying SDSU would automatically get good by being in the Pac. However, I think we're in different circumstances from Utah. Utah doesn't lose any in-state recruits to speak of as a result of being in the MWC. Not so for SDSU. No better example of that than we lost all four California kids we went head-to-head with WSU on. I'll bet if we were in the Pac, all four would have come to SDSU. Further, Utah already sells out every home football game. SDSU? Uh, not quite. Although I'm sure we still wouldn't sell out games if we were in the Pac, my guess is a combination of greater interest in many opponents by casual fans and better turnout from opponents' fans would mean our average attendance would immediately almost double. |
|
|
|
Post by HollywoodAztec on Jun 30, 2010 16:15:34 GMT -8
Interesting viewpoint about the “end” of Utah when they start playing in the PAC12. Yet, many of SDSU fans seem to have an opposite perspective IF we were to be invited to the PAC. Many have repeatedly stated that if SDSU is in the PAC, we’ll be competitive quickly due to being on similar footing with the PAC teams - basically “stealing” the quality of recruits to come to The Mesa instead of them going to the states of AZ, OR and WA. The pac is not a panacea nor is it poison - but there is a big difference going from the big man on campus to the middle - over time playing second fiddle to USC and company can be a hard row to hoe. Utah will be fine, but, I think their fans are underestimating the challenges they'll face, the same ASU has faced (consider that when ASU has challenged USC has been rather down and the Frank Kush/WAC years they were a top 10 team for a number of years in a row Agree on the Yoots miscalculating the challenges they’ll face. I think Yoot fans have gotten a little cocky, deservingly so, since they’ve won two BCS games. They don’t realize that despite increased revenue, the competition to win the league crown will be more intense. And since they’re the NKOTB (New Kid On The Block), I bet the PAC teams will not welcome them with open arms but rather show them they do NOT “belong” in their league. Their first year will be a rude awakening akin to what Penn St. fans and teams experienced in their initial year in the Big10. I don’t think Utah will win the PAC title in our lifetime. |
|
|
|
Post by texasaztec on Jul 1, 2010 8:34:14 GMT -8
On the topic of UTAH doing well or not doing well in the PAC12, I HOPE they go in and smoke the competition. That is my heart talking, because it would reflect well on the MWC. I don't think that is going to happen, because the overall depth of the PAC 12 is greater than the overall depth of the MWC.
But at this point, I don't really want for SDSU to get an invite to the PAC whatever. I would rather see us stick to our guns with the MWC and help turn this conference into a powerhouse in its own right. All this talk about Big 12 and Pac whatever completely ignores that the MWC is a great place for us to be, and if we can continue to get better, especially as a football program, and if we can get a decent TV package, then I would rather us earn it as part of the MWC, rather than earn our way into a different conference.
Part of my reasoning for this is a desire to stick it to the elite, arrogant minded hacks of the BCS conferences.
Go SDSU! Go MWC!
|
|
|
|
Post by HollywoodAztec on Jul 1, 2010 11:46:56 GMT -8
But at this point, I don't really want for SDSU to get an invite to the PAC whatever. I would rather see us stick to our guns with the MWC and help turn this conference into a powerhouse in its own right. All this talk about Big 12 and Pac whatever completely ignores that the MWC is a great place for us to be, and if we can continue to get better, especially as a football program, and if we can get a decent TV package, then I would rather us earn it as part of the MWC, rather than earn our way into a different conference. The only advantage I see for us remaining in MWC is the path to reach a BCS game would be less challenging. However, as much as I hate to say it, money dictates the game. Our league cannot compete monetarily with the other AQ leagues even when we attain the AQ status. Moreover, MWC will have a difficulty significantly increasing our TV contract even with the addition of Boise St. Even if Utah had stayed, I doubt MWC can command from our TV partners to more than double or triple the revenue share per school. We cannot continue to be in a position of doing more with less. We need more money so we’ll have a better chance keeping our head coaches and assistants. If the opportunity to move to a more prestigious league presents itself, I say let’s jump in with both feet. |
|
