|
Post by steveaztec on Sept 15, 2010 6:48:30 GMT -8
In other words.......You don't have an answer to my question? I can answer that. Tollner is not currently coaching for another team. Also, Tollner was a two time Aztec coach (both in the 70's as OC and in the 90's as HC, for a total of 16 years). And, let's face it, Chuck Long is even more divisive than Tom Craft, and as such we're going to keep a tight rein on Chuck Long topics and posts. Topics/discussions about Chuck Long don't end well. Or middle well. Or start well, in most cases. They usually get pretty ugly. So it's on topic, on point, or on the other college conferences forum when it comes to Chuck Long. That goes for both sides of the CL debate. In other words, it is exactly what I thought.....A double standard. Tollner and Craft are on, because most posters can agree with comments on them. Chuck Long is off, because others don't agree with me on him. I see.
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Sept 15, 2010 6:51:33 GMT -8
If that is the reason, then why is Ted Tollner thread still on topic. He didn't play here or go to school here. He only coached here just like Chuck Long did. -Tom Craft on topic (because he is Aztec for life) -Chuck Long off topic (because he only coached here) -Ted Tollner on topic ( )---Fill in the ?. Ted had at least one winning season, therefore made SOME type of positive impact on the Mesa. (and I went to school with his nieces) CL was a complete and utter waste of carbon during his miserable tenure. I hate to break this to you Hoobs but... Chuck Long would have won 6 games last year. Hoke won 4. Hoke is now winning this year, because Chuck Longs recruits are becoming upper classmen. Hoke is winning BECAUSE of Chuck Longs recruits. Look at the starting lineups and the 2 deep. It is all Chuck Long recruits (except for a couple) I guess what I am saying, is that some of you should have least give credit where credit is due, instead of going over board with your "hating".
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Sept 15, 2010 10:09:39 GMT -8
I can answer that. Tollner is not currently coaching for another team. Also, Tollner was a two time Aztec coach (both in the 70's as OC and in the 90's as HC, for a total of 16 years). And, let's face it, Chuck Long is even more divisive than Tom Craft, and as such we're going to keep a tight rein on Chuck Long topics and posts. Topics/discussions about Chuck Long don't end well. Or middle well. Or start well, in most cases. They usually get pretty ugly. So it's on topic, on point, or on the other college conferences forum when it comes to Chuck Long. That goes for both sides of the CL debate. In other words, it is exactly what I thought.....A double standard. Tollner and Craft are on, because most posters can agree with comments on them. Chuck Long is off, because others don't agree with me on him. I see. That's not really it. Again - Tollner had 16 years as an Aztec coach, and is not currently coaching elsewhere. Therefore he is on topic. Chuck Long is currently a Kansas Jayhawk, not an Aztec. He didn't play for SDSU, and he was only here for 3 years and never really fit in. Therefore, unless talking about his tenure at SDSU he's off topic. Tom Craft PLAYED at SDSU and coached there twice (as OC and later as HC). As a former Aztec player he will always be on topic. Aztec for life, baby! And as for the other part of it - Chuck Long debates get ugly and detract from the board. Just about everyone is tired of the same old arguments, so as the administrators/moderators of the board we are going to limit those discussions and when they get out of hand they will be closed. Not to stifle discussion, but to stop needless bickering that takes away from the enjoyment of the board.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Sept 15, 2010 10:21:08 GMT -8
Ted had at least one winning season, therefore made SOME type of positive impact on the Mesa. (and I went to school with his nieces) CL was a complete and utter waste of carbon during his miserable tenure. In other words.......You don't have an answer to my question? What the hell do you mean? I answered your question. You just don't like my answer so you're trying to weasel an argument by tyring to say that I DIDN'T answer it? That's really lame, you're much better than that Steve.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Sept 15, 2010 10:28:21 GMT -8
Chuck Long would have won 6 games last year. Hoke won 4. Absolutely, insanely, horribly wrong. First of all, you cannot say "would" because this is not a certainty. You can try to say "could" or "might", however given the fact that the players comprehensively quit on him before he was fired... ABSOLUTELY NO, CL would not "likely not" have won 3 games last year.
Hoke is now winning this year, because Chuck Longs recruits are becoming upper classmen. No, Hoke is winning now this year because HE CAN COACH, and HIS STAFF CAN COACH, and because THE TEAM FINALLY HAS A REAL FITNESS REGIMEN.
Hoke is winning BECAUSE of Chuck Longs recruits. No, he might be winning WITH some of CL's recruits, but he also has many of his own recruits on the 2-deep. But winning WITH and winning BECAUSE OF are entirely different things.
Look at the starting lineups and the 2 deep. It is all Chuck Long recruits (except for a couple) With some very important exceptions. Like a running back.
I guess what I am saying, is that some of you should have least give credit where credit is due, instead of going over board with your "hating".[/quote] CL was a ***damn waste of time during his coaching tenure on the Mesa, and his name is a ***damn waste of time on this message board. I fully regret even engaging in this thread to begin with... but even more I hate people putting words in my mouth or strategically mis-interpreting/misrepresenting what I say to suit their own argument.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Sept 15, 2010 10:29:52 GMT -8
And as for the other part of it - Chuck Long debates get ugly and detract from the board. Just about everyone is tired of the same old arguments, so as the administrators/moderators of the board we are going to limit those discussions and when they get out of hand they will be closed. Not to stifle discussion, but to stop needless bickering that takes away from the enjoyment of the board. God bless you, Erik.
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Sept 15, 2010 10:33:23 GMT -8
Chuck Long would have won 6 games last year. Hoke won 4. Absolutely, insanely, horribly wrong. First of all, you cannot say "would" because this is not a certainty. You can try to say "could" or "might", however given the fact that the players comprehensively quit on him before he was fired... ABSOLUTELY NO, CL would not "likely not" have won 3 games last year.Hoke is now winning this year, because Chuck Longs recruits are becoming upper classmen. No, Hoke is winning now this year because HE CAN COACH, and HIS STAFF CAN COACH, and because THE TEAM FINALLY HAS A REAL FITNESS REGIMEN. Hoke is winning BECAUSE of Chuck Longs recruits. No, he might be winning WITH some of CL's recruits, but he also has many of his own recruits on the 2-deep. But winning WITH and winning BECAUSE OF are entirely different things. Look at the starting lineups and the 2 deep. It is all Chuck Long recruits (except for a couple) With some very important exceptions. Like a running back.I guess what I am saying, is that some of you should have least give credit where credit is due, instead of going over board with your "hating". CL was a ***damn waste of time during his coaching tenure on the Mesa, and his name is a ***damn waste of time on this message board. I fully regret even engaging in this thread to begin with... but even more I hate people putting words in my mouth or strategically mis-interpreting/misrepresenting what I say to suit their own argument. [/quote] Excuse me. I can say anything I want. Man, what a Long Hater you are.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Sept 15, 2010 10:36:15 GMT -8
And as for the other part of it - Chuck Long debates get ugly and detract from the board. Just about everyone is tired of the same old arguments, so as the administrators/moderators of the board we are going to limit those discussions and when they get out of hand they will be closed. Not to stifle discussion, but to stop needless bickering that takes away from the enjoyment of the board. God bless you, Erik. You're welcome. Now stop that needless bickering or else...
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Sept 15, 2010 10:37:54 GMT -8
Chuck Long would have won 6 games last year. Hoke won 4. Absolutely, insanely, horribly wrong. First of all, you cannot say "would" because this is not a certainty. You can try to say "could" or "might", however given the fact that the players comprehensively quit on him before he was fired... ABSOLUTELY NO, CL would not "likely not" have won 3 games last year.Hoke is now winning this year, because Chuck Longs recruits are becoming upper classmen. No, Hoke is winning now this year because HE CAN COACH, and HIS STAFF CAN COACH, and because THE TEAM FINALLY HAS A REAL FITNESS REGIMEN. Hoke is winning BECAUSE of Chuck Longs recruits. No, he might be winning WITH some of CL's recruits, but he also has many of his own recruits on the 2-deep. But winning WITH and winning BECAUSE OF are entirely different things. Look at the starting lineups and the 2 deep. It is all Chuck Long recruits (except for a couple) With some very important exceptions. Like a running back.I guess what I am saying, is that some of you should have least give credit where credit is due, instead of going over board with your "hating". CL was a ***damn waste of time during his coaching tenure on the Mesa, and his name is a ***damn waste of time on this message board. I fully regret even engaging in this thread to begin with... but even more I hate people putting words in my mouth or strategically mis-interpreting/misrepresenting what I say to suit their own argument. [/quote] Your points one by one... 1. True, I can't say Chuck Long would have won 6....Guess what Hoobs, you can't say he wouldn't have. 2. Soooo, you think Hoke would have won 6 with Chuck Longs first team with no lineman? Yes, Hoke is winning now because Chuck Longs recruits are older and more experienced. To say that is not a factor is laughable. 3. Why don't tell me exactly how many of Hokes players are in the 2 deep at this time? 4. Ronnie Hillman was a Chuck Long recruit. So was Brandon Sullivan. So was Ryan Lindley. 5. You proved my point. You (and others) hate the word Chuck Long so much, that you can't even think properly. I've never said he was a good coach at all.....But you are saying he did nothing? If he did nothing at all, then why did the AD at that time (Jeff Schemmel) say he was coming back for a 4th year?
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Sept 15, 2010 10:41:00 GMT -8
And as for the other part of it - Chuck Long debates get ugly and detract from the board. Just about everyone is tired of the same old arguments, so as the administrators/moderators of the board we are going to limit those discussions and when they get out of hand they will be closed. Not to stifle discussion, but to stop needless bickering that takes away from the enjoyment of the board. God bless you, Erik. Let me ask you this Hoobs.....Who made this last page ugly? I will give two hints... -It wasn't me... -It was you...
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Sept 15, 2010 14:15:59 GMT -8
1. as the administrators/moderators of the board we are going to limit those discussions and when they get out of hand they will be closed. 2. Not to stifle discussion, but to stop needless bickering that takes away from the enjoyment of the board. You contradict yourself here... It's your board, but the term "out of hand" is pretty subjective, don't you think? Well, that's not a contradiction, but it is subjective. You're right about that. Most board members got tired of all the thread hijacking that went on between two or three members who were just arguing among themselves and got off topic. Threads die for everyone else when that happens, so that's just not going to be allowed here, that's all. We just want this board to be enjoyable for everyone (as much as possible, anyway).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2010 19:26:38 GMT -8
Kansas goes down again 31-16 to S. Miss
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Sept 19, 2010 10:13:20 GMT -8
Kansas goes down again 31-16 to S. Miss I think he needs 4 years at Kansas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2010 10:14:33 GMT -8
and he can have 'em. not our problem anymore Kansas goes down again 31-16 to S. Miss I think he needs 4 years at Kansas.
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Sept 19, 2010 12:42:13 GMT -8
Ted had at least one winning season, therefore made SOME type of positive impact on the Mesa. (and I went to school with his nieces) CL was a complete and utter waste of carbon during his miserable tenure. I hate to break this to you Hoobs but... Chuck Long would have won 6 games last year. Hoke won 4. Hoke is now winning this year, because Chuck Longs recruits are becoming upper classmen. Hoke is winning BECAUSE of Chuck Longs recruits. Look at the starting lineups and the 2 deep. It is all Chuck Long recruits (except for a couple) I guess what I am saying, is that some of you should have least give credit where credit is due, instead of going over board with your "hating". total poppycock, steve. Chuckles had some of the greatest football players in the history of the school and managed to lose with them, yet they went to the Pros. Chuckles recruited DOWN when it came to athletes, and conceded to the Pac Ten almost every kid they were recruiting. Only one good thing can be said about Chuckles and that is he was bringing in linemen in greater numbers than Tollner, or Luginbill or Stolz.
|
|
|
Post by missionbeachaztec on Sept 24, 2010 15:29:47 GMT -8
I hate to break this to you Hoobs but... Chuck Long would have won 6 games last year. Hoke won 4. Hoke is now winning this year, because Chuck Longs recruits are becoming upper classmen. Hoke is winning BECAUSE of Chuck Longs recruits. Look at the starting lineups and the 2 deep. It is all Chuck Long recruits (except for a couple) I guess what I am saying, is that some of you should have least give credit where credit is due, instead of going over board with your "hating". total poppycock, steve. Chuckles had some of the greatest football players in the history of the school and managed to lose with them, yet they went to the Pros. Chuckles recruited DOWN when it came to athletes, and conceded to the Pac Ten almost every kid they were recruiting. Only one good thing can be said about Chuckles and that is he was bringing in linemen in greater numbers than Tollner, or Luginbill or Stolz. I do like the name "Chuckles". Pretty good Joe.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 26, 2010 10:07:39 GMT -8
Keep in mind that this section of AztecMesa deals with the MWC as a whole and topics related to anything else in the world of college sports that is not especially SDSU-related. That's a pretty broad definition, but we were reluctant to break it down into even more, and narrower, sections. (Also, please understand that this business of administering a sports opinion website is not an exact science. Reasonable people may disagree with where we put certain threads, how we deal with comlaints about fellow membrs, etc., but someone has to act as gatekeeper and in this case that means the Rupps.)
Erik has explained our policy toward CL threads quite well. Let's just get with the spirit of AztecMesa, which is one of good will and fellowship. (Well, in the political sections that may be a bit harder to achieve, but politics has always been a rough-edged business. Better to confine bitter disagreements to the printed word rather than take up arms and settle things in the streets.)
AzWm
|
|