|
|
Post by gettough on Jul 28, 2010 14:04:15 GMT -8
Absolutely nothing wrong with the upcoming schedules projecting for 2011, 2012, etc. The LAST thing we need is to prematurely bulk up the schedule, knocking a 6-6 season back to 5-7, or knocking a 7-5 or 8-4 season back to 6-6. One toughie. One easy. Two moderate but very winable challenges. Agreed. Become a winning program, get bowl games, get students there. Tweak that formula when we start challenging for conference championship. When we have a legit shot at beating BYU, BSU, TCU, AFA, the fans will come. |
|
|
|
Post by some_aztec on Jul 28, 2010 15:07:42 GMT -8
Here's the home games already on the schedule: Washington St at SDSU Sept 17, 2011 Our horrifically long losing streak against teams from AQ conferences will end that day. You can bet the house on it. I'm hoping you're wrong and it ends on Sept. 18 this year... |
|
|
|
Post by cvtower on Jul 28, 2010 15:17:13 GMT -8
Absolutely nothing wrong with the upcoming schedules projecting for 2011, 2012, etc. The LAST thing we need is to prematurely bulk up the schedule, knocking a 6-6 season back to 5-7, or knocking a 7-5 or 8-4 season back to 6-6. One toughie. One easy. Two moderate but very winable challenges. On paper it appears the case this season and in 2011: 2010 Easy: Nicholls State Moderate/beatable: New Mexico State, Utah State Toughie: Missouri 2011 Easy: Army Moderate/beatable: Cal Poly, Washington State Toughie: Michigan |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2010 16:19:20 GMT -8
2011 Easy: Army Moderate/beatable: Cal Poly, Washington State Toughie: Michigan I would definitely flip Army and Cal Poly. Cal Poly beat us twice because their coach, Ellerson, completely out-coached our "coach." Well, in 2009 Ellerson was at Army, which therefore improved by leaps and bounds whereas Cal Poly fell off dramatically. Bottom line is that by next year, Army should be a poor man's AFA while Cal Poly will be just another mediocre DIAA school playing an SDSU team that is WELL coached. |
|
|
|
Post by RenoAztec on Jul 28, 2010 16:30:17 GMT -8
Fresno state, they have rabid fans and not too far for a roadie
|
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 28, 2010 17:09:59 GMT -8
Fresno state, they have rabid fans and not too far for a roadie Their fans likely do have rabies |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuaztecs on Jul 28, 2010 17:40:19 GMT -8
Fresno State is the most obvious opponent/rival for SDSU and it's time we got them on the schedule every frickin' year. You want 40k - 45k in the stands? Get Fresno State in the Q. Oh and by the way, Fresno has dates available for SDSU beginning in 2012 to 2016. fresnostate.scout.com/2/839110.html |
|
|
|
Post by jdaztec on Jul 28, 2010 19:27:16 GMT -8
I would like to see us play Ohio St @ the Q (like it was scheduled) USC, a SEC team like Alabama would be interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Village Aztec on Jul 28, 2010 19:33:26 GMT -8
Do not the big schools all play cup cakes?
They don't play them to draw fans like we think we need to do.
So we were scheduling big schools and I don't think we knew how good our conference would become.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2010 6:51:31 GMT -8
Gimme
Va Tech
Nebraska
Any SEC team
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 29, 2010 9:34:40 GMT -8
Hoobs has the right idea. It would be folly to schedule three pretty good to very good BCS teams, as happened once or twice in the last decade. On the other hand, at some point the program will progress (if it doesn't, we are cooked!) and when that happens we definitely want to bring some name teams to San Diego. Whether we will get any of them to come here is an open question.
On that last thought, here is a list of "pretty good teams" (from what are now the BCS conferences, with the exception of Houston, which was in the SWC at the time) that have played the Aztecs locally since we became Division I . . .
Iowa St.- '70, '71, '72, '73
Arizona- '71, '75, '98, '01
Oregon St. -72
Houston- '73
Florida St.- '77
Wisconsin - '79, '98
Miami FLA- '79, '90, '92
Missouri - '80
Oklahoma St.- '82
California- '83, '94, '95
UCLA- '84, '86, '89, '91, '93, '02, '05
Stanford- '85, '87
Arizona St.- 2000, '02
Illinois- 2000,
Oregon- '85,'88,
Oklahoma- '96
USC- '92
Minnesota- '93
Cincinnati- '07
Of 39 game home games against "quality" opposition, 11 were in the '70s, 10 in the '80s, 11 in the 90s, 7 in the 2000s. You can see the progression. As the SDSU FB program deteriorated, the number of quality teams we could lure here declined also. Significantly, in the past seven seasons, 2002 through 2009, only two of those games were played. In short, we are seen as college football roadkill.
In the '70s, we routinely beat the patsies we scheduled; Tampa, Fullerton, Long Beach, Santa Barbara, etc. Therefore, we can whine all we want to about scheduling better opponents here, but the fact is that it will be difficult to get any to agree to a home and home. Why should a Wisconsin or Miami of Florida agree to that when they know (A) we can't draw flies, and (B) we desperately need the money a game away from San Diego will provide?
Okay, here are some schools that would be good to play at home. . .
Colorado
Houston
Iowa St.
Navy
Northwestern
Purdue
SMU
And how about one of the traditionally black colleges such as Grambling, Southern Univ., or Florida A&M?
AzWm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2010 10:15:42 GMT -8
In short, we are seen as college football roadkill. Okay, here are some schools that would be good to play at home. . . Colorado Houston Iowa St. Navy Northwestern Purdue SMU We're seen as roadkill because in the 00's, that's what we were. To your list I would add: Illinois (Ron Zook amazingly still has a job) Indiana (Bill Lynch has been as unimpressive as Zook) Kentucky (with Rich Brooks having retired, expect major regression) NC State (Tom O'Brien has been awful) Tennessee (they're in a world of hurt) I'll also list schools some might think we should try to schedule but IMO we shouldn't because although they're bad right now, their new or almost new coaches will have them good by the time we would play them: Baylor Duke Iowa State (I disagree with you here) Mississippi St. |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 29, 2010 10:20:41 GMT -8
Absolutely nothing wrong with the upcoming schedules projecting for 2011, 2012, etc. The LAST thing we need is to prematurely bulk up the schedule, knocking a 6-6 season back to 5-7, or knocking a 7-5 or 8-4 season back to 6-6. One toughie. One easy. Two moderate but very winable challenges. 2010 Easy: Nicholls State Moderate/beatable: New Mexico State, Utah State Toughie: Missouri 2011 Easy: Army Moderate/beatable: Cal Poly, Washington State Toughie: Michigan Wait a minute....2011, you have Cal Poly as "moderate"? I thought that is supposed to be in the easy bracket. You know, a step lower than D1 and an automatic win. At least that is what the "Long Haters" say.  Ahhh, just playing with you Long Haters (not you CV, but overall). You can't have it both ways.  |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 29, 2010 11:05:18 GMT -8
In short, we are seen as college football roadkill. Okay, here are some schools that would be good to play at home. . . Colorado Houston Iowa St. Navy Northwestern Purdue SMU We're seen as roadkill because in the 00's, that's what we were. To your list I would add: Illinois (Ron Zook amazingly still has a job) Indiana (Bill Lynch has been as unimpressive as Zook) Kentucky (with Rich Brooks having retired, expect major regression) NC State (Tom O'Brien has been awful) Tennessee (they're in a world of hurt) I'll also list schools some might think we should try to schedule but IMO we shouldn't because although they're bad right now, their new or almost new coaches will have them good by the time we would play them: Baylor Duke Iowa State (I disagree with you here) Mississippi St. Yes, Illinois might be a good choice, as well as Indiana and Kentucky. I guess I left Indiana off my list since I thought that Purdue might be a better draw. . . after all, Indiana is the UNLV (or SDSU?) of the Big-10/12. Even though Tennessee is "rebuilding," they won't be down for long, and anyway, a mediocre Volunteer team is still too tough for us. But the worst part about Tennessee is that they probably wouldn't even go for a home-home deal. Have you noticed that some of the perennial Top-10/15 schools are scheduling ALL their non-conference games at home, giving them EIGHT home games a year? Kentucky, Baylor, Duke, or Miss. St. might be willing to cut a deal. The Ohio States, Tennessees, LSUs, and USCs, probably not. However, it doesn't hurt to try. Wonder what Sterk's philosophy is. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by southbaysucker on Jul 29, 2010 11:18:11 GMT -8
Some real interesting choices but remember that we are attempting to put some a$$es in the $eats --meaning that we are also hoping the visitors bring people too. I respect the hell out of cal Poly but are they going to stir up locals to go see them as a must see event? I think - for the immediate future--its more important to create a buzz than build a moderately successful program..
|
|
|
|
Post by gettough on Jul 29, 2010 11:22:28 GMT -8
Some real interesting choices but remember that we are attempting to put some a$$es in the $eats --meaning that we are also hoping the visitors bring people too. I respect the hell out of cal Poly but are they going to stir up locals to go see them as a must see event? I think - for the immediate future--its more important to create a buzz than build a moderately successful program.. You don't create a buzz by getting your ass kicked. |
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jul 29, 2010 11:24:26 GMT -8
Some real interesting choices but remember that we are attempting to put some a$$es in the $eats --meaning that we are also hoping the visitors bring people too. I respect the hell out of cal Poly but are they going to stir up locals to go see them as a must see event? I think - for the immediate future--its more important to create a buzz than build a moderately successful program.. Losses do not create "buzz" about the program. Losing by 20 (or 40) to Ohio State would NOT help. Winning, even over teams like NMSU, is a lot shorter route to creating a "buzz". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2010 12:34:51 GMT -8
Even though Tennessee is "rebuilding," they won't be down for long, and anyway, a mediocre Volunteer team is still too tough for us. But the worst part about Tennessee is that they probably wouldn't even go for a home-home deal. Have you noticed that some of the perennial Top-10/15 schools are scheduling ALL their non-conference games at home, giving them EIGHT home games a year? Kentucky, Baylor, Duke, or Miss. St. might be willing to cut a deal. The Ohio States, Tennessees, LSUs, and USCs, probably not. However, it doesn't hurt to try. Wonder what Sterk's philosophy is. Two years ago as a 4-8 team, Wyoming won at Knoxville. Home and home? NEVER going to happen with an SEC school. They know they're the best so if you want to play them, the absolute best you're going to do is get a 2 for 1. Some SEC bottom feeders have been known to agree to that with schools like us and with exception of Vanderbilt, they ALL travel. I know it's a long way for them to SD but since most or all have never been to Qualcomm, I suspect it would be a treat for their fans and a Kentucky would bring 30K for a one-time deal. But you have to be careful about how you schedule these things. Take Illinois, when Bay scheduled them, they were terrible under Lou Tepper. However, anyone with any sense could see that Tepper was SO bad that by the time the games would be played, he would be gone. So Sterk should look at schools like Indiana, which always pays its football staff as low as anybody in the Big Ten so even if Lynch gets shown the door, they're very likely going to just replace with another dunderhead, and NC State, where O'Brien has been terrible but it's similarly no football powerhouse and they gave the guy a gazillion dollars to lure him away from BC so they aren't going to eat any of his contract. |
|
|
|
Post by sdlocal on Jul 29, 2010 13:00:31 GMT -8
You are all missing the point. The point is, too find opponents that you can beat, that would still bring a crowd.
1. ASU -they are in shambles with DE. They might be ripe for the picking.
2. WSU- worst pac12 team-still not a game sdsu would be favored. But winnable
3. Navy- at this point they would be an upset if sdsu won but again if you can't start winning these games then what?
4. Fresno-should play every year.
5. UCLA- sooner or later you need to compete here.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdsuaztecs on Jul 29, 2010 14:16:43 GMT -8
Wazzu and Navy don't necessarily mean butts in the stands. Fresno is a no-brainer. USC and UCLA are also no-brainers albeit most likely losses. How about Fresno every year and UCLA every other year? SDSU is running a budget deficit. Bodies in the stands can help reduce that deficit. Scheduling Nichols State means higher budget deficits and jeopardizes the entire athletic program.
|
|
