|
|
Post by AztecTom on Jul 11, 2010 17:25:37 GMT -8
I don't even want to guesstimate if we're 2-3. It's called an empty Q but that won't be happening! |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 11, 2010 17:31:07 GMT -8
10 thousand more people would have showed up because of the coach? That is an outrageous comment. That would have literally been 3 times more people than showed up for Long's last game
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecTom on Jul 11, 2010 17:33:13 GMT -8
10 thousand more people would have showed up because of the coach? That is an outrageous comment. That would have literally been 3 times more people than showed up for Long's last game lol, oh $#!+! |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 11, 2010 18:44:56 GMT -8
Ted Tollner was better than both of them. Tom went back to JC after proving that he was a good (not great) OC here. The issue was recruiting. If Tom could not get the talent he wanted, he did not see a good future here, so he left. Ted went on to screw up recruiting almost as bad as Long. Tom came back to take the head coaching position, but did not have a recruiting class turned over to him. He had to frantically try to sign kids that the other major schools would not sign (Remember, most of the good talent was already verbally committed to major schools). They were not being signed by the major schools because they were projected non-admits. They proved to be non-admits at SDSU, too. Such is the life of an incoming head football coach with no recruiting class. Tom would have done better to have brought in 15 JC transfers using his connections at the JC's. He screwed up by not doing that. Of course, he foolishly hoped that he could get those nonadmits admitted. At any rate, his first actual recruiting class was the greatest in Aztec history from a standpoint of producing the most NFL players from a class. They were Redshirt Sophomores when Tom was fired. Ithink that says it all. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecTom on Jul 11, 2010 20:39:50 GMT -8
Ted Tollner was better than both of them. Tom went back to JC after proving that he was a good (not great) OC here. The issue was recruiting. If Tom could not get the talent he wanted, he did not see a good future here, so he left. Ted went on to screw up recruiting almost as bad as Long. Tom came back to take the head coaching position, but did not have a recruiting class turned over to him. He had to frantically try to sign kids that the other major schools would not sign (Remember, most of the good talent was already verbally committed to major schools). They were not being signed by the major schools because they were projected non-admits. They proved to be non-admits at SDSU, too. Such is the life of an incoming head football coach with no recruiting class. Tom would have done better to have brought in 15 JC transfers using his connections at the JC's. He screwed up by not doing that. Of course, he foolishly hoped that he could get those nonadmits admitted. At any rate, his first actual recruiting class was the greatest in Aztec history from a standpoint of producing the most NFL players from a class. They were Redshirt Sophomores when Tom was fired. Ithink that says it all. Craft's problem was he brought his JC mentality to the D-I level and you can't do that. You saw the results from him doing that. |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 11, 2010 22:27:10 GMT -8
Yours is speculation and mine is speculation. Do you disagree? Did you even understand my last post? Jesus!! Yes I did. |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 11, 2010 22:44:36 GMT -8
10 thousand more people would have showed up because of the coach? That is an outrageous comment. That would have literally been 3 times more people than showed up for Long's last game I don't think that is so outrageous. Of course we would have to "market" the season also. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jul 12, 2010 5:46:02 GMT -8
If Pete Carroll were hired at SDSU I'd say that there would be a huge spike in attendance. Would Terry Bowden have gotten a similar spike? Probably not, but there would have been a spike for a well known, respected coach.
Brady Hoke, for the most part, was unknown on the west coast, so we saw no bump in ticket sales.
San Diego football fans have felt burned by this program - always hyping the new coach as bringing a new winning era, but it hasn't happened for a long time. Only a big name coach with a great resume would be able to generate any excitement at all in the community when it comes to a new hire. Brady Hoke wasn't that coach, but he may very well be the right guy to turn this ship around.
|
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 12, 2010 6:12:31 GMT -8
If Pete Carroll were hired at SDSU I'd say that there would be a huge spike in attendance. Would Terry Bowden have gotten a similar spike? Probably not, but there would have been a spike for a well known, respected coach. Brady Hoke, for the most part, was unknown on the west coast, so we saw no bump in ticket sales. San Diego football fans have felt burned by this program - always hyping the new coach as bringing a new winning era, but it hasn't happened for a long time. Only a big name coach with a great resume would be able to generate any excitement at all in the community when it comes to a new hire. Brady Hoke wasn't that coach, but he may very well be the right guy to turn this ship around. I Hoke so B5. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2010 7:59:25 GMT -8
Tom went back to JC after proving that he was a good (not great) OC here. The issue was recruiting. If Tom could not get the talent he wanted, he did not see a good future here, so he left. Ted went on to screw up recruiting almost as bad as Long. Tom came back to take the head coaching position, but did not have a recruiting class turned over to him. He had to frantically try to sign kids that the other major schools would not sign (Remember, most of the good talent was already verbally committed to major schools). They were not being signed by the major schools because they were projected non-admits. They proved to be non-admits at SDSU, too. Such is the life of an incoming head football coach with no recruiting class. Tom would have done better to have brought in 15 JC transfers using his connections at the JC's. He screwed up by not doing that. Of course, he foolishly hoped that he could get those nonadmits admitted. At any rate, his first actual recruiting class was the greatest in Aztec history from a standpoint of producing the most NFL players from a class. They were Redshirt Sophomores when Tom was fired. Ithink that says it all. Craft's problem was he brought his JC mentality to the D-I level and you can't do that. You saw the results from him doing that. Agreed, Tom. Joe's comments may have validity with regard to Craft's first year but nothing beyond that. And I'm not going to bother explicating the details but Craft's second and third classes were the true killers. As the evil Schrotenboer stated in one of his articles and as confirmed by a review of the Rivals site, barely half of the LOIs signed those two years were on the roster for more than one season. And IIRC, in one of those classes we had a whopping 23 recruits. I'm not trying to make excuses for Chuck since his incompetence dug his own grave. However, Joe is just wrong about Craft in my view. Rather, as you say Tom, Craft recruited as if he were still coaching at the JC level where they take anybody regardless of academics. Just a miserable and inexcusable hire. (Thanks, Baywatch.) |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 12, 2010 8:39:34 GMT -8
Fisher had a name, won a national title, had been to two other championship games about half a dozen years before he got there, did his name increase attendance and excite the community? Wins turned the crowds from from 1500 to 5 or 6 grand to 8 or 9 on a regular basis. Perhaps he could have magically turned one of the worst offense, defense and special teams units last year into upper half bowl-eligible teams - but that is all we can argue, because we weren't going to draw 35k or something last year coming of a 2 win season where those last 2 games that year had maybe 15k there. Football is a different animal than basketball and we had 0 basketball tradition before Fisher. We do have tradition in football and there are tons of fans out there that are looking for a reason to come back. A big name would trigger that fan to come back......with a real nice marketing campaign to go along with it. |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 12, 2010 11:22:30 GMT -8
Fisher had a name, won a national title, had been to two other championship games about half a dozen years before he got there, did his name increase attendance and excite the community? Wins turned the crowds from from 1500 to 5 or 6 grand to 8 or 9 on a regular basis. Perhaps he could have magically turned one of the worst offense, defense and special teams units last year into upper half bowl-eligible teams - but that is all we can argue, because we weren't going to draw 35k or something last year coming of a 2 win season where those last 2 games that year had maybe 15k there. Football is a different animal than basketball and we had 0 basketball tradition before Fisher. We do have tradition in football and there are tons of fans out there that are looking for a reason to come back. A big name would trigger that fan to come back......with a real nice marketing campaign to go along with it. If you look at the attendance figures that someone compiled on the other board (if anyone has those or a link i'd appreciate it) all the spikes in attendance were after bowl games/.500 seasons. Long's penultimate game there might have been (max) 15-17k there, I and about 1/3 of that left at or before halftime because it had just gotten old and for the same reason I and many did not return for the last game to visually show our displeasure; that last game there was something like 10-12 actually in attendance. I just fail to see based on the way people voted with their attendance (even though many of us had tickets) and with the history of victories being the lagging indicator for tickets sold, that 3x as many people were going to show up 8 months later and stay throughout the year unless we won last year. If/when we win this year, go to a bowl game and particulalry if we win it (and if we could do that in the poinsettia doubly so) attendance will increase the next year - same deal if craft or all three bowdens coached the team P.S. the football tradition is at best 15-20 years past it's prime, and it was fairly mediocre seasons then. People were rightly disillusioned with aztec basketball then and they are the same with Aztec Football now - a decade of losing and a decade of mediocrity before that tends to do that. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Jul 12, 2010 12:06:35 GMT -8
Craft's problem was he brought his JC mentality to the D-I level and you can't do that. You saw the results from him doing that. Agreed, Tom. Joe's comments may have validity with regard to Craft's first year but nothing beyond that. And I'm not going to bother explicating the details but Craft's second and third classes were the true killers. As the evil Schrotenboer stated in one of his articles and as confirmed by a review of the Rivals site, barely half of the LOIs signed those two years were on the roster for more than one season. And IIRC, in one of those classes we had a whopping 23 recruits. I'm not trying to make excuses for Chuck since his incompetence dug his own grave. However, Joe is just wrong about Craft in my view. Rather, as you say Tom, Craft recruited as if he were still coaching at the JC level where they take anybody regardless of academics. Just a miserable and inexcusable hire. (Thanks, Baywatch.) Can you tell me why the players that Craft offered were also offered by other BCS schools then? I think a couple of things were happening in Crafts tenure. (Remember, Craft did land some of those big time recruits that are now in the NFL.) 1. Craft was under big time pressure to turn around the program NOW. 2. If Craft just went after the "safe" guys, and didn't make an effort to try and go after the bigger name guys, he would have been called out on that as well. As if he wasn't trying harder. For example, "Hey, why isn't Craft going after that guy, he probably has interest in us, he's just settling on the safe guys." "How are we going to get better if we don't go after the bigger names?" It was a no win situation. He did not have the luxury, or have the patience from above that would allow him to take his time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2010 12:11:31 GMT -8
Particularly if we were to win the Poinsettia Bowl by defeating a Pac-12 opponent - regardless of how low in the Pac that team finishes - I bet there would be close to a 50% increase in season ticket sales for 2011.
As to Chuck's penultimate game, I couldn't even remember what it was. For those also curious, it was 63-14 against Utah. Normally, I would never have forgotten such a blowout. Of course, considering it was to an undefeated team, even a 7-TD loss looks tame in comparison to a 9-TD defeat to somebody who otherwise won just three games.
(I love this thread. But then, I'm a masochist.)
|
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 12, 2010 12:11:44 GMT -8
Agreed, Tom. Joe's comments may have validity with regard to Craft's first year but nothing beyond that. And I'm not going to bother explicating the details but Craft's second and third classes were the true killers. As the evil Schrotenboer stated in one of his articles and as confirmed by a review of the Rivals site, barely half of the LOIs signed those two years were on the roster for more than one season. And IIRC, in one of those classes we had a whopping 23 recruits. I'm not trying to make excuses for Chuck since his incompetence dug his own grave. However, Joe is just wrong about Craft in my view. Rather, as you say Tom, Craft recruited as if he were still coaching at the JC level where they take anybody regardless of academics. Just a miserable and inexcusable hire. (Thanks, Baywatch.) Can you tell me why the players that Craft offered were also offered by other BCS schools then? I think a couple of things were happening in Crafts tenure. (Remember, Craft did land some of those big time recruits that are now in the NFL.) 1. Craft was under big time pressure to turn around the program NOW. 2. If Craft just went after the "safe" guys, and didn't make an effort to try and go after the bigger name guys, he would have been called out on that as well. As if he wasn't trying harder. For example, "Hey, why isn't Craft going after that guy, he probably has interest in us, he's just settling on the safe guys." "How are we going to get better if we don't go after the bigger names?" It was a no win situation. He did not have the luxury, or have the patience from above that would allow him to take his time. Craft just ended up not landing or keeping enrolled enough players overall and Craft proved to have some big problems as a d1a coach with game planning and making adjustments. He wasn't the trough he seemed back then as the next guy took the depths to new levels. |
|
|
|
Post by gettough on Jul 12, 2010 12:18:08 GMT -8
Agreed, Tom. Joe's comments may have validity with regard to Craft's first year but nothing beyond that. And I'm not going to bother explicating the details but Craft's second and third classes were the true killers. As the evil Schrotenboer stated in one of his articles and as confirmed by a review of the Rivals site, barely half of the LOIs signed those two years were on the roster for more than one season. And IIRC, in one of those classes we had a whopping 23 recruits. I'm not trying to make excuses for Chuck since his incompetence dug his own grave. However, Joe is just wrong about Craft in my view. Rather, as you say Tom, Craft recruited as if he were still coaching at the JC level where they take anybody regardless of academics. Just a miserable and inexcusable hire. (Thanks, Baywatch.) Can you tell me why the players that Craft offered were also offered by other BCS schools then? I think a couple of things were happening in Crafts tenure. (Remember, Craft did land some of those big time recruits that are now in the NFL.) 1. Craft was under big time pressure to turn around the program NOW. 2. If Craft just went after the "safe" guys, and didn't make an effort to try and go after the bigger name guys, he would have been called out on that as well. As if he wasn't trying harder. For example, "Hey, why isn't Craft going after that guy, he probably has interest in us, he's just settling on the safe guys." "How are we going to get better if we don't go after the bigger names?" It was a no win situation. He did not have the luxury, or have the patience from above that would allow him to take his time. Fairly simple. Percentage. The BCS schools offered those guys but they saw them as a high-risk portion of a more balanced recruiting class. Craft had too high a percentage of high-risk recruits, clearly. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2010 12:23:46 GMT -8
Can you tell me why the players that Craft offered were also offered by other BCS schools then? I think a couple of things were happening in Crafts tenure. (Remember, Craft did land some of those big time recruits that are now in the NFL.) 1. Craft was under big time pressure to turn around the program NOW. 2. If Craft just went after the "safe" guys, and didn't make an effort to try and go after the bigger name guys, he would have been called out on that as well. As if he wasn't trying harder. For example, "Hey, why isn't Craft going after that guy, he probably has interest in us, he's just settling on the safe guys." "How are we going to get better if we don't go after the bigger names?" It was a no win situation. He did not have the luxury, or have the patience from above that would allow him to take his time. Fairly simple. Percentage. The BCS schools offered those guys but they saw them as a high-risk portion of a more balanced recruiting class. Craft had too high a percentage of high-risk recruits, clearly. I should admit that I never before checked to see how many of the highly rated guys were actually offered by BCS schools rather than simply being contacted by them and although a few were not offered by such schools, most were. On that basis I think JohnE's defense of Craft is legit. Mea culpa to him and Craft. That said, I think gettough's answer is a good one. Maybe the kind of player Craft had to go after was beyond his control and there's no doubt that as I've said before, Bay gave Craft next to no institutional support. Still, to have such a huge percentage of LOIs fail to suit up beyond one year has to be more than just bad luck. |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 12, 2010 12:43:18 GMT -8
Particularly if we were to win the Poinsettia Bowl by defeating a Pac-12 opponent - regardless of how low in the Pac that team finishes - I bet there would be close to a 50% increase in season ticket sales for 2011. As to Chuck's penultimate game, I couldn't even remember what it was. For those also curious, it was 63-14 against Utah. Normally, I would never have forgotten such a blowout. Of course, considering it was to an undefeated team, even a 7-TD loss looks tame in comparison to a 9-TD defeat to somebody who otherwise won just three games. (I love this thread. But then, I'm a masochist.) SGF, your killing me. You have told me very recently that you refuse to get in a discussion about Chuck Long again.  Now you love it.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 12, 2010 13:00:16 GMT -8
We are up to page 11 now and counting.
|
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 12, 2010 13:05:05 GMT -8
We are up to page 11 now and counting. "Dead Topic" and I'm the only one that cares about it.  Let it go Steve....Let it go!!!! |
|
