|
Post by zurac315 on Nov 23, 2014 12:35:06 GMT -8
Fresno State whipped Nevada at Nevada? I'm surprised.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 12:45:50 GMT -8
Fresno State whipped Nevada at Nevada? I'm surprised. UNR's offensive line has suffered significant injury problems since we played them and UNR still has the crappy defense they've had forever. So they wouldn't have put up close to 30 points on us if we played them yesterday. More like just 20 like they scored against Fresno. The question, however, is whether we would have scored just 14 against them and lost again anyway. (Excluding SDSU, UNR's FBS opponents have averaged 31 ppg.) /s/ Part-time Negative Nellie
|
|
|
Post by OnionHead on Nov 23, 2014 13:52:03 GMT -8
Just bought my Poinsettia Bowl tickets. Plenty of good seats still available. I'll bring 12. Hopefully, no floods this time around - but same result on the scoreboard. Go Aztecs
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 23, 2014 14:51:23 GMT -8
You couldn't be more wrong. In life there absolutely are winners and losers. When you apply for a job, when you go for the interview - there are clearly winners (those that get the job) and losers (those that don't). And in most workplaces once you are on the job you are competing with your co-workers for raises. The employees with the best job performances get the biggest raises (so if you're not in the top tier your annual raise is pretty minimal if you even get a raise at all). When you're going for a promotion you're competing with your co-workers who also want that position, but only one person gets that promotion. Again, there are winners and losers. That's just the way life works. You're always competing, and most people will not get what they hope for. Most people will end up disappointed because they lost out on that promotion or didn't get a raise or didn't get the job in the first place. For every job opening there may be dozens of applicants. For every promotion there may be ten or more people up for it. For that raise you want you may not get it if your job performance isn't up to the standards that the company has set based on the job performance of your co-workers (with whom you compete for those raise dollars). Winners and losers. The message we've been sending to our kids over the last 10 or 15 years that everyone is special and everyone is a winner is flat out wrong. It sets them up for not only failure, but an inability to cope with failure. I've seen it in my younger co-workers. They don't understand criticism. They don't understand why they get fired for poor performance. They thought everyone wins. They expect that everyone gets Employee Of The Month eventually. But that's not the way life works, is is? yikes, judge much? veering off the topic here, but do you call your kid "loser" if they try something difficult and don't succeed? Is the kid who tries out for the team out of pure desire and doesn't have the athletic ability a "loser"? I work in a firm where we hire < 5% of applicants from the top 10 colleges in the country. Do I think of those we don't hire or don't stay as "losers". Hell no, they are extremely talented people who will find success elsewhere. Further, I don't know the story of the shoeshine guy, the janitor or the homeless person on the corner, they may have overcome incredible odds or face challenges and personal hells that many of us can't even conceive of. You really want to brand a bunch of kids losers because they tried something hard and failed? That sounds like a winner to me, the loser never tried. The gap is not winning/losing but rather teaching personal accountability for success and an understanding of how to realize your own personal potential. I never said that someone was a loser for not getting a job or a promotion. The point was that they lost out on that opportunity because someone else won. Losing out to someone else for a job or a promotion doesn't make someone a, "Loser," but they did lose in the competition for that job or promotion. You don't hire half the people who apply for a job any more than half the teams playing in FBS should be allowed into Bowl games. Life is difficult enough without unrealistic expectations. We have set up a couple generations for failure because we haven't taught them how to cope with failure. That was my whole point with the, "Trophies for everyone who participates," comments. When you get out in the real world there aren't trophies for everyone. Only the exceptional employees get recognized by their employers. Jobs, promotions, raises, etc - they all have to be earned through achievement. The sad thing here is that I've never said that the Aztecs didn't belong in any of the Bowl games that they appeared in. What is unfortunate is that some people can't get past previous posts and carry their feelings about those topics over to other ones so that they completely tune out the points that are being made. I get what some of you are saying - the extra practice is a great benefit. The ability to give the players a feel good reward for a hard fought season is a great benefit. I agree with ALL of that. The Aztecs earned those benefits over the last four years. That's a comment I've made at least three times now and yet some people have erroneously claimed that I haven't made those comments or addressed those points. My original point had NOTHING to do with the Aztecs and everything to do with a system that has become a farce when it comes to competition and rewarding achievement.
|
|
|
Post by bananaslug on Nov 23, 2014 15:02:58 GMT -8
I never said that someone was a loser for not getting a job or a promotion. In life there absolutely are winners and losers. When you apply for a job, when you go for the interview - there are clearly winners (those that get the job) and losers (those that don't).
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 23, 2014 15:06:35 GMT -8
I never said that someone was a loser for not getting a job or a promotion. In life there absolutely are winners and losers. When you apply for a job, when you go for the interview - there are clearly winners (those that get the job) and losers (those that don't). CONTEXT is everything. You can lose out on a job and not be a loser as a person. The losers in the job competition aren't necessarily losers as people. There is a world of difference there.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Nov 23, 2014 15:40:21 GMT -8
If we beat SJSU (highly likely) and then win a bowl game (can't speculate on that since the identify of the opponent is unknown), the season will end just as did 2013: 8-5. Not a bad record, certainly. On the other hand, it appears that the program is stuck on the "a bit better than average" level.
I realize that replacing Rocky Long for 2015 when '14 has been a winning year for the team would raise a lot of eyebrows. Were Rocky Long ten years younger and just completing his fourth year as a head coach, I would definitely want to see what he could do next year. Not since Don Coryell achieved the same degree of success in this first four seasons has a new Aztec head man done this well. But Rocky is almost 65 years of age and has a long record as a DI head coach. His record at New Mexico was good (considering the Lobos weak history in football) but not exceptional. His four years here prove that he can keep a decent program producing about as well as when he took over. But he has not demonstrated that he can make a decent program better.
Unlike Steve Fisher, Rocky Long's accomplishments are not so outstanding that we are worried about the possibility of his retirement. On the contrary, bringing in a new football coach should be seen as an opportunity to make this program something more than it is.
We know that Rocky Long will not be here 10 years hence. Replacing him now, or at least soon, is something that is inevitable. Barring a loss to SJSU and then failure to play in a bowl, Rocky will be back in 2015. But wouldn't it be prudent to stipulate that nothing short of a breakout season will be sufficient to retain Rocky past 2015?
That, I'm sure, is the conventional wisdom of most fans. My own view is a bit more radical.
We must think seriously of how the program is go continue after Rocky Long retires. My preference would be to find an outstanding replacement to 2015. The program, though not as good as we would like, is not in horrible shape as was the case when Brady Hoke arrived. SDSU has a lot of things going for it. Let's use the pretty good foundation that has been put in place the last four or five years, along with the school's many positive assets, to hire that program-changer that I have been calling for. If I had to make a choice right now I would nominate Jeff Tedford. Perhaps you have other candidates with an equally positive record.
Let's do it. Rocky has earned our thanks and a retirement stipend greater than a gold watch. Retiring him should be seen not a renunciation of his record but instead as a natural evolution of the program.
This would be a good time to make a change. Let's not risk waiting until the program is less healthy than it is now.
AzWm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 16:07:28 GMT -8
If we beat SJSU (highly likely) and then win a bowl game (can't speculate on that since the identify of the opponent is unknown), the season will end just as did 2013: 8-5. Not a bad record, certainly. On the other hand, it appears that the program is stuck on the "a bit better than average" level.
I realize that replacing Rocky Long for 2015 when '14 has been a winning year for the team would raise a lot of eyebrows. Were Rocky Long ten years younger and just completing his fourth year as a head coach, I would definitely want to see what he could do next year. Not since Don Coryell achieved the same degree of success in this first four seasons has a new Aztec head man done this well. But Rocky is almost 65 years of age and has a long record as a DI head coach. His record at New Mexico was good (considering the Lobos weak history in football) but not exceptional. His four years here prove that he can keep a decent program producing about as well as when he took over. But he has not demonstrated that he can make a decent program better.
Unlike Steve Fisher, Rocky Long's accomplishments are not so outstanding that we are worried about the possibility of his retirement. On the contrary, bringing in a new football coach should be seen as an opportunity to make this program something more than it is.
We know that Rocky Long will not be here 10 years hence. Replacing him now, or at least soon, is something that is inevitable. Barring a loss to SJSU and then failure to play in a bowl, Rocky will be back in 2015. But wouldn't it be prudent to stipulate that nothing short of a breakout season will be sufficient to retain Rocky past 2015?
That, I'm sure, is the conventional wisdom of most fans. My own view is a bit more radical.
We must think seriously of how the program is go continue after Rocky Long retires. My preference would be to find an outstanding replacement to 2015. The program, though not as good as we would like, is not in horrible shape as was the case when Brady Hoke arrived. SDSU has a lot of things going for it. Let's use the pretty good foundation that has been put in place the last four or five years, along with the school's many positive assets, to hire that program-changer that I have been calling for. If I had to make a choice right now I would nominate Jeff Tedford. Perhaps you have other candidates with an equally positive record.
Let's do it. Rocky has earned our thanks and a retirement stipend greater than a gold watch. Retiring him should be seen not a renunciation of his record but instead as a natural evolution of the program.
This would be a good time to make a change. Let's not risk waiting until the program is less healthy than it is now.
AzWm
You Can not be serious about 2015,no way that will happen. Jeff Tedford lost control of his program.two things caused that to happen, one he began to let bad actors like Marshawn Lynch set bad examples by being late to class etc,miss practices the same thing with the wide receiver Long Beach poly. One set of rules for the team another for the stars. Then he worked his coaches to death they all had cots in their offices, never saw their families. Several who were up for NFL jobs got the word back to them that he gave them less than sterling recommendations to keep them at Cal. When he fired George Cortez as Offensive coordinator he never had a good quarterback after that. Then he kept changing offensive coordinators and losing coaches to other programs. Do you seriously believe they would repalce Long in 2015?
|
|
|
Post by bananaslug on Nov 23, 2014 16:31:02 GMT -8
CONTEXT is everything. You can lose out on a job and not be a loser as a person. The losers in the job competition aren't necessarily losers as people. There is a world of difference there. I am pretty sure my point isn't that hard to understand. You are equating winning=good and losing=bad to job promotions and interviews. That someone "won" and that is good, and someone "lost" and that is bad. You further state that are reluctance winner and loser labels is bad for our country. What I am saying is that the individual who applied and "lost" actually won by the very nature that they applied. It is the person who never bothered to apply that in fact lost. When you start labeling winners and losers you end up with people who don't want to try for fear of being a loser and who go for the easy "win".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 16:37:58 GMT -8
Gee MOW nevere hears that before. In what world do coaches get fired from going from nine wins to eight wins. That's slowly getting worse, doesn't matter that there is a bunch of injuries to key personnel that has nothing to do with anything. The increase in recruiting talent is all freshmen and sophomores so you wouldn't expect them to play like seniors yet. Well I suppose you would but then you have a lot of strange ideas. You're always talking about retreads but your own postes are retreads. The offense has to improve dramatically next year and if it doesn't something major has to change. Even if we blow the game against San Jose Rocky will be back next year. That's just the facts whether we like it or not. It's also fact that we don't have any money and it would be a crapshoot hiring a new coach, if the AD wants to go for it well that's okay with me Rocky did a fine job with the defense, but the offense is terrible and the excuses stop with the Quinn Kahler era. They are making a lot of noise about the spread in the read option and I suspect if nobody shows they can run the pro set in spring that's what were going to see. We just beat a team that was eighth two I suppose we still haven't beaten a team with a winning record, since Mesa logic is like Schrödinger's cat it's both dead and alive t the same time.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 23, 2014 16:47:17 GMT -8
CONTEXT is everything. You can lose out on a job and not be a loser as a person. The losers in the job competition aren't necessarily losers as people. There is a world of difference there. I am pretty sure my point isn't that hard to understand. You are equating winning=good and losing=bad to job promotions and interviews. That someone "won" and that is good, and someone "lost" and that is bad. You further state that are reluctance winner and loser labels is bad for our country. What I am saying is that the individual who applied and "lost" actually won by the very nature that they applied. It is the person who never bothered to apply that in fact lost. When you start labeling winners and losers you end up with people who don't want to try for fear of being a loser and who go for the easy "win". Are you serious? Trophies for everyone just for trying? Good grief. In the REAL world it doesn't work that way. You don't get anything for not getting a job or a promotion or a raise. You get more challenges in life. You have to buckle down and work harder, work smarter, up your game - otherwise you cannot succeed. If someone doesn't want to try for a job or a promotion for fear of, "Being a loser," then that person really IS a loser. If you try and give it your best shot that's one thing, even if you DO lose out on the job. But, come on, who isn't going to apply for that job or post for that promotion out of fear? I've never met anyone who said, "I really want that job, but I'm afraid of not getting it so I'll just skip it." Who does that? And, YES, losing is bad. It is a failure. You didn't succeed in attaining your desired result. However, you CAN learn from losing. Sometimes you can take that experience and use it to win the next time. I've been turned down for promotions a dozen times over because of the level of competition for a single position. It happens. I lost out on opportunities to get better positions with higher pay. I've also succeeded in getting those promotions, too. You just keep at it and don't give up. That's why it's important to get people used to losing. They need to NOT let it define them. They need to learn to COPE with losing and learn from those experiences so they can do a better job next time out. The problem I see is with the younger people with their first serious jobs - they cannot cope with criticism at all. They cannot cope with being told that they are not doing a good job. They're fragile emotionally. They have fragile egos. They don't have that toughness and resolution that comes with dealing with past failures and having had people be brutally honest with them. If we cannot be honest with these kids (and I include college kids in that group) then we are just setting them up for situations that they will not be able to cope with later on. As for the Bowls, it's driven by money. Someone thinks that they can make money by starting a new Bowl. I get it. But that doesn't mean that the NCAA has to allow it. There should be some minimum standard set for teams to earn their way into Bowl games. The current minimum is a joke. I'm sorry if anyone feels differently, but even if my criteria and standards were enacted it still would NOT have affected the Aztecs recent run of Bowl games. The Aztecs DID have winning records, and they DID earn their way in. They deserved those Bowl Game appearances. Period.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Nov 23, 2014 17:08:52 GMT -8
If we beat SJSU (highly likely) and then win a bowl game (can't speculate on that since the identify of the opponent is unknown), the season will end just as did 2013: 8-5. Not a bad record, certainly. On the other hand, it appears that the program is stuck on the "a bit better than average" level.
I realize that replacing Rocky Long for 2015 when '14 has been a winning year for the team would raise a lot of eyebrows. Were Rocky Long ten years younger and just completing his fourth year as a head coach, I would definitely want to see what he could do next year. Not since Don Coryell achieved the same degree of success in this first four seasons has a new Aztec head man done this well. But Rocky is almost 65 years of age and has a long record as a DI head coach. His record at New Mexico was good (considering the Lobos weak history in football) but not exceptional. His four years here prove that he can keep a decent program producing about as well as when he took over. But he has not demonstrated that he can make a decent program better.
Unlike Steve Fisher, Rocky Long's accomplishments are not so outstanding that we are worried about the possibility of his retirement. On the contrary, bringing in a new football coach should be seen as an opportunity to make this program something more than it is.
We know that Rocky Long will not be here 10 years hence. Replacing him now, or at least soon, is something that is inevitable. Barring a loss to SJSU and then failure to play in a bowl, Rocky will be back in 2015. But wouldn't it be prudent to stipulate that nothing short of a breakout season will be sufficient to retain Rocky past 2015?
That, I'm sure, is the conventional wisdom of most fans. My own view is a bit more radical.
We must think seriously of how the program is go continue after Rocky Long retires. My preference would be to find an outstanding replacement to 2015. The program, though not as good as we would like, is not in horrible shape as was the case when Brady Hoke arrived. SDSU has a lot of things going for it. Let's use the pretty good foundation that has been put in place the last four or five years, along with the school's many positive assets, to hire that program-changer that I have been calling for. If I had to make a choice right now I would nominate Jeff Tedford. Perhaps you have other candidates with an equally positive record.
Let's do it. Rocky has earned our thanks and a retirement stipend greater than a gold watch. Retiring him should be seen not a renunciation of his record but instead as a natural evolution of the program.
This would be a good time to make a change. Let's not risk waiting until the program is less healthy than it is now.
AzWm
You Can not be serious about 2015,no way that will happen. Jeff Tedford lost control of his program.two things caused that to happen, one he began to let bad actors like Marshawn Lynch set bad examples by being late to class etc,miss practices the same thing with the wide receiver Long Beach poly. One set of rules for the team another for the stars. Then he worked his coaches to death they all had cots in their offices, never saw their families. Several who were up for NFL jobs got the word back to them that he gave them less than sterling recommendations to keep them at Cal. When he fired George Cortez as Offensive coordinator he never had a good quarterback after that. Then he kept changing offensive coordinators and losing coaches to other programs. Do you seriously believe they would repalce Long in 2015? Okay, that's one vote against Jeff Tedford. Now, help us, please, by suggesting someone else. Or are you willing to let Rocky stay indefinitely? Even if next year is another mediocre season? In which we lose games because of poor recruiting and inadequate depth? By the way, what pipeline to Cal football insiders do you have? AzWm
|
|
|
Post by OCEOTL on Nov 23, 2014 17:11:26 GMT -8
Just bought my Poinsettia Bowl tickets. Plenty of good seats still available. I'll bring 12. Hopefully, no floods this time around - but same result on the scoreboard. Go Aztecs El Cajones gonna bring twice that number.
|
|
|
Post by Luchador El Guerrero Azteca on Nov 23, 2014 17:23:37 GMT -8
How does this go from dumpster fire to another takeover by the mods that even has a replace Long conclusion?
Rhetorical...
Sent from my Admiral Mark 01 Telegraph machine via Sputnik with dial-up
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Nov 23, 2014 17:36:04 GMT -8
How does this go from dumpster fire to another takeover by the mods that even has a replace Long conclusion? Rhetorical... Sent from my Admiral Mark 01 Telegraph machine via Sputnik with dial-up No one is "taking over the thread." Any member who is registered has the right to post replies. That includes me, by the way. If you are not happy about a post, rebut it with reason and logic. Or just ignore the whole damned thing. But complaining that some other member has posted something you don't like is not terribly helpful. With respect to Rocky Long, I have posted my view that he is probably not going to improve the program and, anyway, is at retirement age and therefore does not off hope for the long term answer to the problem of how we are going to go from 8 or 9 wins a year to 10, 11, or 12. Or have I have misjudged the situation? Perhaps 8 or 9 wins a season, with many an agonizing loss over teams which appear quite beatable, is just fine with most Aztec fans. (Question: I was not active in the old AztecTalk until early 2006. Those of you who were posting around 2000 may be able to answer this question; Were there fans in those days who wanted to stay the course with Ted Tollner after the program had fallen from 3 winning seasons out of 4 to 3 straight losing seasons?) AzWm
|
|
|
Post by OnionHead on Nov 23, 2014 17:53:48 GMT -8
How does this go from dumpster fire to another takeover by the mods that even has a replace Long conclusion? Rhetorical... Sent from my Admiral Mark 01 Telegraph machine via Sputnik with dial-up No one is "taking over the thread." Any member who is registered has the right to post replies. That includes me, by the way. If you are not happy about a post, rebut it with reason and logic. Or just ignore the whole damned thing. But complaining that some other member has posted something you don't like is not terribly helpful. With respect to Rocky Long, I have posted my view that he is probably not going to improve the program and, anyway, is at retirement age and therefore does not off hope for the long term answer to the problem of how we are going to go from 8 or 9 wins a year to 10, 11, or 12. Or have I have misjudged the situation? Perhaps 8 or 9 wins a season, with many an agonizing loss over teams which appear quite beatable, is just fine with most Aztec fans. (Question: I was not active in the old AztecTalk until early 2006. Those of you who were posting around 2000 may be able to answer this question; Were there fans in those days who wanted to stay the course with Ted Tollner after the program had fallen from 3 winning seasons out of 4 to 3 straight losing seasons?) AzWm Did I miss something? Has Rocky had 3 straight losing seasons? VERY poor analogy...but you got your swipes in nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by Luchador El Guerrero Azteca on Nov 23, 2014 18:00:47 GMT -8
How does this go from dumpster fire to another takeover by the mods that even has a replace Long conclusion? Rhetorical... Sent from my Admiral Mark 01 Telegraph machine via Sputnik with dial-up No one is "taking over the thread." Any member who is registered has the right to post replies. That includes me, by the way. If you are not happy about a post, rebut it with reason and logic. Or just ignore the whole damned thing. But complaining that some other member has posted something you don't like is not terribly helpful. With respect to Rocky Long, I have posted my view that he is probably not going to improve the program and, anyway, is at retirement age and therefore does not off hope for the long term answer to the problem of how we are going to go from 8 or 9 wins a year to 10, 11, or 12. Or have I have misjudged the situation? Perhaps 8 or 9 wins a season, with many an agonizing loss over teams which appear quite beatable, is just fine with most Aztec fans. (Question: I was not active in the old AztecTalk until early 2006. Those of you who were posting around 2000 may be able to answer this question; Were there fans in those days who wanted to stay the course with Ted Tollner after the program had fallen from 3 winning seasons out of 4 to 3 straight losing seasons?) AzWm There were threads, on their own topic, that surmised that Ted had retired on the job. There were program insiders that vented frustration at this reality. They didn't state that they were tied to the program but it was obvious. Those same people that warned that Craft wasn't the answer either but were frustrated at Roush's control and lack off willingness to spend money needed to get the staff we needed to compete. Sent from my Admiral Mark 01 Telegraph machine via Sputnik with dial-up
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 21:59:47 GMT -8
You Can not be serious about 2015,no way that will happen. Jeff Tedford lost control of his program.two things caused that to happen, one he began to let bad actors like Marshawn Lynch set bad examples by being late to class etc,miss practices the same thing with the wide receiver Long Beach poly. One set of rules for the team another for the stars. Then he worked his coaches to death they all had cots in their offices, never saw their families. Several who were up for NFL jobs got the word back to them that he gave them less than sterling recommendations to keep them at Cal. When he fired George Cortez as Offensive coordinator he never had a good quarterback after that. Then he kept changing offensive coordinators and losing coaches to other programs. Do you seriously believe they would repalce Long in 2015? Okay, that's one vote against Jeff Tedford. Now, help us, please, by suggesting someone else. Or are you willing to let Rocky stay indefinitely? Even if next year is another mediocre season? In which we lose games because of poor recruiting and inadequate depth? By the way, what pipeline to Cal football insiders do you have? AzWm I am close friends with two of the former coaches. None of the guys that I would like would take the job too little money. Well one maybe but lets see how he does next year he is in his first year of head coaching.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 22:04:34 GMT -8
There should be a MicroBeer Bowl or something by now. The Sierra Nevada Bowl. That would be great. Pale Ale flowing.
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Nov 24, 2014 10:34:09 GMT -8
Why is Tolner being compared to Rocky when Ted never took us to the bowl and had several losing seasons?
|
|