Post by AztecWilliam on Oct 22, 2009 10:13:22 GMT -8
There have been many bad decisions that have contributed to the near demise of Aztec football. Certainly firing Claude Gilbert after the 1980 season was huge. There is ample evidence to believe that Claude would have successfully made the transition from JC to high school recruiting.
Denny Stolz was probably not a good hire, though the school perhaps should given him another year. (A better hire would have been Jim Sweeney, a successful coach who continued winning games at Fresno for a number of years after 1986.)
Lugie could have succeeded had he fired his defensive coordinator after the 1991 season instead of his successful offensive coordinator.
Ted Tollner seemed to be a good choice, but he apparently became discouraged about recruiting against the Pac-10 and therefore came up short in personnel.
But the two biggest disasters were Tom Craft and, especially, Chuck Long. Long was an unknown quantity in terms of head coaching. Craft at least had been a successful head coach, though admittedly on the JC level. The problem with Craft was not so much that he had shortcomings, though he did. The real problem with that hire was that there were coaches available who had succeeded at the highest level. I am thinking here of Rich Brooks and Dick Tomey. With the program already considerably degraded from the high point of the Coryell/Gilbert years it was foolish not to get the best man to turn the tide.
The Long hire just made the situation worse.
Now we come to Brady Hoke. I'm not sure that Hoke is as impressive a hire as some of the men (Jim Sweeney, Rich Brooks, Rick Neuheisel, Dennis Erickson, etc.), who were passed over in favor of inferior hires, but he seems to be a no-nonsense, capable, and certainly well-seasoned football man. The problem here is not the quality of the head coach, it is the dismal state of the local Division I-A (FBS) football program. In short, is Aztec football beyond repair?
I think Aztec football can make a comeback, but that comeback had better be fairly soon. Let's see what Hoke and his very good staff have done so far.
* UCLA game: A much better performance than the Aztecs usually make against the Bruins. Had the 2nd half Aztec FG attempt been good we would have trailed only 26-17, and fairly late in the game. I tend to doubt S.D.S.U. would have won, but I still consider this game a decent performance . . . and in just the first Hoke/Long/Borges coached game, too.
* Southern Utah. A somewhat mediocre performance against an inferior team. (BTW, the Thunderbirds are now 2-4; their last game was a one point loss to, you guessed it, Cal Poly!). Not aw-inspiring, but at least it was a win.
* Idaho. Dismal. No other word for it. I saw it via the Univ. of Idaho webcast. Idaho pretty much dominated. Well, at least Idaho is FBS and, furthermore, has to this point lost only to Pac-10 Washington. Still, Aztec football will not be where we want it until it can fairly easily push aside even a good Vandal team in their Moscow hangar.
* Air Force. Perhaps more than the UCLA game, the Aztecs actually recorded a solid effort. The last second TD made the score very respectable (okay, we won't talk about "moral victories"), and the Aztec defense did reasonably well against the AFA run game. No offensive TDs by the Flyboys? That was impressive. But the Aztec offense continued to stall.
* New Mexico State. A good win against a fairly weak (though I would say improving) team. Still, this was not total domination. I was in the stands for the 70-21 Aztec win over the Aggies in 1969. . . now that was domination! We can at least say that we beat a team we should have beaten.
* BYU. With the Aztecs probably headed for another losing season, a ten point loss to BYU is certainly a respectable effort. Especially when you consider that the Aztecs were in the game until over half way through the fourth quarter. The Aztec running game is still awful, of course, and until that changes we won't beat the Cougars. The crucial dropped passes were also killers. Brady Hoke was not amused, but I must say that the glass was at least half full, which is more than could be said of some of the Aztecs' pathetic performances during the last several seasons.
Now what? If we can somehow beat CSU, a 6 win season would be a distinct possibility (though I put no money down on such a bet). Perhaps more realistic is 4 wins, maybe 5. Either way we have improved.
Hoke is 51 years old. If he is to move to a BCS school it must be fairly soon; just look at our turn-down of Jim Sweeney on the grounds that he was too old! His best bet is to somehow make it to 6-6 this year, get to a bowl in 2010, and win 9 or 10 in 2011. He would still be only 53 or 54 and would be perfect for a Pac-10 or Big-10 hire.
On the other hand, we may only win 3 or 4 this year, be lucky to break even in 2010, and maybe reach a bowl in '11. If that sets the stage for six or seven seasons in a row of 9 or 10 win teams, then he may just decide that staying here is perfect, much as Sweeney became a legend in Fresno. There are worse places to end up in.
For Aztec football's sake, I hope my first scenario is closer to reality.
AzWm
Denny Stolz was probably not a good hire, though the school perhaps should given him another year. (A better hire would have been Jim Sweeney, a successful coach who continued winning games at Fresno for a number of years after 1986.)
Lugie could have succeeded had he fired his defensive coordinator after the 1991 season instead of his successful offensive coordinator.
Ted Tollner seemed to be a good choice, but he apparently became discouraged about recruiting against the Pac-10 and therefore came up short in personnel.
But the two biggest disasters were Tom Craft and, especially, Chuck Long. Long was an unknown quantity in terms of head coaching. Craft at least had been a successful head coach, though admittedly on the JC level. The problem with Craft was not so much that he had shortcomings, though he did. The real problem with that hire was that there were coaches available who had succeeded at the highest level. I am thinking here of Rich Brooks and Dick Tomey. With the program already considerably degraded from the high point of the Coryell/Gilbert years it was foolish not to get the best man to turn the tide.
The Long hire just made the situation worse.
Now we come to Brady Hoke. I'm not sure that Hoke is as impressive a hire as some of the men (Jim Sweeney, Rich Brooks, Rick Neuheisel, Dennis Erickson, etc.), who were passed over in favor of inferior hires, but he seems to be a no-nonsense, capable, and certainly well-seasoned football man. The problem here is not the quality of the head coach, it is the dismal state of the local Division I-A (FBS) football program. In short, is Aztec football beyond repair?
I think Aztec football can make a comeback, but that comeback had better be fairly soon. Let's see what Hoke and his very good staff have done so far.
* UCLA game: A much better performance than the Aztecs usually make against the Bruins. Had the 2nd half Aztec FG attempt been good we would have trailed only 26-17, and fairly late in the game. I tend to doubt S.D.S.U. would have won, but I still consider this game a decent performance . . . and in just the first Hoke/Long/Borges coached game, too.
* Southern Utah. A somewhat mediocre performance against an inferior team. (BTW, the Thunderbirds are now 2-4; their last game was a one point loss to, you guessed it, Cal Poly!). Not aw-inspiring, but at least it was a win.
* Idaho. Dismal. No other word for it. I saw it via the Univ. of Idaho webcast. Idaho pretty much dominated. Well, at least Idaho is FBS and, furthermore, has to this point lost only to Pac-10 Washington. Still, Aztec football will not be where we want it until it can fairly easily push aside even a good Vandal team in their Moscow hangar.
* Air Force. Perhaps more than the UCLA game, the Aztecs actually recorded a solid effort. The last second TD made the score very respectable (okay, we won't talk about "moral victories"), and the Aztec defense did reasonably well against the AFA run game. No offensive TDs by the Flyboys? That was impressive. But the Aztec offense continued to stall.
* New Mexico State. A good win against a fairly weak (though I would say improving) team. Still, this was not total domination. I was in the stands for the 70-21 Aztec win over the Aggies in 1969. . . now that was domination! We can at least say that we beat a team we should have beaten.
* BYU. With the Aztecs probably headed for another losing season, a ten point loss to BYU is certainly a respectable effort. Especially when you consider that the Aztecs were in the game until over half way through the fourth quarter. The Aztec running game is still awful, of course, and until that changes we won't beat the Cougars. The crucial dropped passes were also killers. Brady Hoke was not amused, but I must say that the glass was at least half full, which is more than could be said of some of the Aztecs' pathetic performances during the last several seasons.
Now what? If we can somehow beat CSU, a 6 win season would be a distinct possibility (though I put no money down on such a bet). Perhaps more realistic is 4 wins, maybe 5. Either way we have improved.
Hoke is 51 years old. If he is to move to a BCS school it must be fairly soon; just look at our turn-down of Jim Sweeney on the grounds that he was too old! His best bet is to somehow make it to 6-6 this year, get to a bowl in 2010, and win 9 or 10 in 2011. He would still be only 53 or 54 and would be perfect for a Pac-10 or Big-10 hire.
On the other hand, we may only win 3 or 4 this year, be lucky to break even in 2010, and maybe reach a bowl in '11. If that sets the stage for six or seven seasons in a row of 9 or 10 win teams, then he may just decide that staying here is perfect, much as Sweeney became a legend in Fresno. There are worse places to end up in.
For Aztec football's sake, I hope my first scenario is closer to reality.
AzWm