Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2015 12:40:20 GMT -8
What section are your season tix in? I'm curious where you sit since you seem to think so highly of the Q. Would you please find a quote wherein I claimed Qualcomm Stadium as my "Happy Place"? Then why do you insist that it is adequate and a replacement is not needed? I take it you don't go to many games there...or am I wrong?
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 21, 2015 12:51:13 GMT -8
Speaking of seating at the Q here's a funny story ... My seats are Field 35 Row 25 (top of the field section between the 35 & 40 yd line) -- I brought a buddy of mine to a game last year who is a huge Chargers fan but can't afford seats in the lower bowl. He sat for most of the game just blown away by two things: 1. how big a difference it was in the lower bowl of the Q and that he could actually see the game. 2. still how far away the seats were from the field, even in a "Field" section and how the near sideline was still obstructed by the team -- even at the top row of the field level / first rows of the Plaza level.
I had Club Seats for a few seasons, but decided I wanted to be closer to the field, so I moved. When I moved my seats, I got the Aztec Ticket office staff to work with me on a few options and we walked around the stadium trying out different section and row combinations -- I settled on what I think are probably the 2nd best seats in the stadium (Top of the Field section on the 50 would be the best) and saved a bunch of money in the process -- which I decided to give the difference in the price of the tickets from Club level to Field level as an increased donation amount.
Anyway, he really appreciated the ticket and the experience, but came away from the game thinking there are really no good seats at the Q -- I totally agreed
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 21, 2015 13:38:46 GMT -8
Would you please find a quote wherein I claimed Qualcomm Stadium as my "Happy Place"? Then why do you insist that it is adequate and a replacement is not needed? I take it you don't go to many games there...or am I wrong? Again, where have I said it's adequate? I have indeed implied, and said, that our current leadership will not get us a new stadium. I should amend that: UNLESS the team ramps up football prowess on a national scale, such as Boise and TCU, thus making the pusillanimous AD and president's efforts nearly perfunctory.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 21, 2015 15:47:21 GMT -8
Speaking of seating at the Q here's a funny story ... My seats are Field 35 Row 25 (top of the field section between the 35 & 40 yd line) -- I brought a buddy of mine to a game last year who is a huge Chargers fan but can't afford seats in the lower bowl. He sat for most of the game just blown away by two things: 1. how big a difference it was in the lower bowl of the Q and that he could actually see the game. 2. still how far away the seats were from the field, even in a "Field" section and how the near sideline was still obstructed by the team -- even at the top row of the field level / first rows of the Plaza level. I had Club Seats for a few seasons, but decided I wanted to be closer to the field, so I moved. When I moved my seats, I got the Aztec Ticket office staff to work with me on a few options and we walked around the stadium trying out different section and row combinations -- I settled on what I think are probably the 2nd best seats in the stadium (Top of the Field section on the 50 would be the best) and saved a bunch of money in the process -- which I decided to give the difference in the price of the tickets from Club level to Field level as an increased donation amount. Anyway, he really appreciated the ticket and the experience, but came away from the game thinking there are really no good seats at the Q -- I totally agreed I would not mind being able to get back the seats we had for years in the View Level. We were on the 43 yard line, the second row (below the walk way). Far from the field, but you got a really good overall view of the action, and with binoculars it was even better. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by zollner on Apr 21, 2015 16:25:51 GMT -8
Just a quick thought about the Q and viewing football games. When San Diego Stadium was built wasn't it built to be the home of two professional teams the Chargers and the Padres? So you have stadium that houses two different pro sports, which was the norm back in those days,i.e. Three Rivers home of the Steelers and the Pirates, Riverfront, which housed the Reds and the Bengals, Oakland the same, I think you've got the idea, in addition the stadiums all look the same. It seems to me that when you build a structure to house two different events one of those events is going to be lacking in sight lines for the fans to see the event.
That's just the way things were back in the 60's. I believe San Diego Stadium was given many awards by architects for it's symmetry and form. It was a forward looking edifice and ahead of it's time.
My favorite memory at the Stadium was the night they gave away LP record albums of local bands singing songs about San Diego at a Padre game. Who can forget Chula Vista Chula Vista. Anyway there was a group of fans that wanted the home plate umpire to brush the dirt off of home plate. So despite the fans the ump refused, next thing you know there is a close play at the plate and the ump gets the call wrong and goes against the Padres. As usual it started with one fan throwing a long play album on to the field like a Frisbee. Next thing you know is that these Frisbee albums were being tossed from the upper decks. The game had to be stopped, the albums had to be picked up off the infield, and what was considered security back then tossed a couple of fans out. It was a memorable game. Anybody else at that game?
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Apr 21, 2015 16:36:28 GMT -8
How 'bout the game at which a certain owner grabbed the mike and asked Can anybody here play baseball?
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 22, 2015 13:21:31 GMT -8
No, not at all. To clarify: I prefer the Chargers to stay with a brand new stadium, jointly used with the Aztecs. This would include a locker room for each home team. I would like the stadium to have the ability to change the seats, and other accoutrement, to Aztec colors--the same idea they've concocted in Carson for those disparate teams. I would like there to be some element of campus expansion at the site. I would like for Rocky to leave and AD Sterk to get some cajones and Hirshman to get out of the way. If the Chargers leave, Aztec D1 football will not last past the demolition of the Q, ESPECIALLY if the three men above are pretending. So your opinion is: Aztecs football under Rocky Long, Jim Sterk and Elliot Hirshman has not improved from the last decade (2000-2010) in recruiting, performance or any other measurement ... that the AD has no cajones and Hirshman is an obstructionist. You feel that all 3 are merely pretenders. That the sustained success of Aztec football from 2010-2014 is a fluke and only if SDSU and the Athletic department insert themselves into the stadium debate with stadium demands of their own would you consider the leadership on the Mesa to be remotely competent. It is your conjecture that if the Chargers leave that SDSU football will collapse and by extension so would rest of the athletics programs on campus (without football, an equal number of scholarships for women's sports would be lost as well as membership in the MWC). In summary, you think that Sterk and Hirshman are okay with that outcome because they don't support football the way you think they need to. I'd like to respond to things posted by both myownwords and highntight. myownwords:
I prefer the Chargers to stay with a brand new stadium, jointly used with the Aztecs. This would include a locker room for each home team. I would like the stadium to have the ability to change the seats, and other accoutrement, to Aztec colors--the same idea they've concocted in Carson for those disparate teams.
Clearly, there is a serious divide between those (e.g., you) who are comfortable with the Aztecs playing in a new NFL style "Chargers" stadium and those (e.g., your obedient servant) who believe that such an outcome would be a mistake. I won't argue that issue per se, but will challenge what you say in the portion I have quoted above. What makes you think that, in the somewhat unlikely event that the city caves and helps the Chargers build a new stadium, said stadium would contain TWO home locker rooms? Frankly, that seems naïve to me. It also seems naïve, or at least presumptuous, to assume that any effort to accommodate the Aztecs (school colors, etc.) would be made. What would be the incentive to do so? The Aztecs are seen as barely more than free-loaders; they are not central stakeholders in this issue. They SHOULD be, but the fact is that the city is basically trying to please the Chargers. SDSU is = = = AT BEST = = = an afterthought. highntight(reacting to myownwords): So your opinion is: Aztecs football under Rocky Long, Jim Sterk and Elliot Hirshman has not improved from the last decade (2000-2010) in recruiting, performance or any other measurement ... No one doubts that the 2010-2014 Aztecs are better than the Aztec teams of 2000-2010. That is all well and good, but a couple of points can be made by way of rebuttal. First of all, though this may sound counter-intuitive, the truth is that the current strength of Aztec teams is not THAT much greater than the teams of the previous decade. If you carefully examine our schedules from 2000 to 2007, you will see that the Aztecs were way over-scheduled. Had the school used better sense in terms of scheduling, we might well have had at least a couple of winning seasons followed by bowl games. Let me explain. It is widely accepted, I believe, that a good non-conference schedule for SDSU would include one very strong opponent (Power Five conference teams now, BCS teams earlier), a couple of decent but beatable G5 schools (e.g., Northern Illinois, Tulsa, North Texas, etc.), and one easy mark, probably an FCS school. Instead, two, three, even four BCS schools were scheduled in the early 2000s, and we beat not one single one of them! Had we faced only one BCS school every year and instead of the others played relatively weak opponents, it is not at all unrealistic that our record would have been much better than what actually happened. The last of the following columns contains the potential W/L records for the years in question had SDSU played a more sensible schedule. The five columns below are these: Year Number of BCS schools scheduled Record against those BCS teams Actual W/L record that year Potential W/L record with more sensible scheduling. 2000: 4 0-4 3-8 6-5 2001: 3 0-3 3-8 5-6 2002: 3 0-3 4-9 6-7 2003: 2 0-2 6-6 7-5 2004: 2 0-2 4-7 5-6 2005: 2 0-2 5-7 6-5 2007: 3 0-3 4-8 6-6 This is speculative, of course, but not outrageously so. Anyway, the hypothetical W/L records I have suggested add up to 41-40 (not counting likely bowl games at least a couple of those years.) The actual record, of course, was 29-53. Quite a difference, no? Tom Craft might well have lasted several more years as HC. Oh, and I have not mentioned the botched last second short range FGA that cost us the Fresno game in 2002, nor the total screw-up by the officials that cost us a W against Colorado State in 2004! So, had our teams in the 2000s faced a more gentle schedule and gone to two or three bowls, would we now consider the Aztec football program of that decade so terrible? More importantly, would it have actually been so much worse than more recent Aztec teams that have been winners without having to face Utah, TCU, and, except for the P Bowl, BYU? We still can't, with the exception of a weak Washington State team, seem to be able to beat a P5 school. And our win totals have progressed in this fashion: 9, 8, 9, 8, 7. Not exactly the trend we seek. Bottom line: Yes, the current run of Aztec teams is better than those of the previous decade, but perhaps not nearly so much better than most of us like to think. Worst of all, we still can't break into the 10 or more wins a year category, and unless we can do that, we are pretty much stuck where we are. And where we are isn't all that good, is it? AzWm
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 22, 2015 14:23:06 GMT -8
So your opinion is: Aztecs football under Rocky Long, Jim Sterk and Elliot Hirshman has not improved from the last decade (2000-2010) in recruiting, performance or any other measurement ... that the AD has no cajones and Hirshman is an obstructionist. You feel that all 3 are merely pretenders. That the sustained success of Aztec football from 2010-2014 is a fluke and only if SDSU and the Athletic department insert themselves into the stadium debate with stadium demands of their own would you consider the leadership on the Mesa to be remotely competent. It is your conjecture that if the Chargers leave that SDSU football will collapse and by extension so would rest of the athletics programs on campus (without football, an equal number of scholarships for women's sports would be lost as well as membership in the MWC). In summary, you think that Sterk and Hirshman are okay with that outcome because they don't support football the way you think they need to. I'd like to respond to things posted by both myownwords and highntight. myownwords:
I prefer the Chargers to stay with a brand new stadium, jointly used with the Aztecs. This would include a locker room for each home team. I would like the stadium to have the ability to change the seats, and other accoutrement, to Aztec colors--the same idea they've concocted in Carson for those disparate teams.
Clearly, there is a serious divide between those (e.g., you) who are comfortable with the Aztecs playing in a new NFL style "Chargers" stadium and those (e.g., your obedient servant) who believe that such an outcome would be a mistake. I won't argue that issue per se, but will challenge what you say in the portion I have quoted above. What makes you think that, in the somewhat unlikely event that the city caves and helps the Chargers build a new stadium, said stadium would contain TWO home locker rooms? Frankly, that seems naïve to me. It also seems naïve, or at least presumptuous, to assume that any effort to accommodate the Aztecs (school colors, etc.) would be made. What would be the incentive to do so? The Aztecs are seen as barely more than free-loaders; they are not central stakeholders in this issue. They SHOULD be, but the fact is that the city is basically trying to please the Chargers. SDSU is = = = AT BEST = = = an afterthought. highntight(reacting to myownwords): So your opinion is: Aztecs football under Rocky Long, Jim Sterk and Elliot Hirshman has not improved from the last decade (2000-2010) in recruiting, performance or any other measurement ... No one doubts that the 2010-2014 Aztecs are better than the Aztec teams of 2000-2010. That is all well and good, but a couple of points can be made by way of rebuttal. First of all, though this may sound counter-intuitive, the truth is that the current strength of Aztec teams is not THAT much greater than the teams of the previous decade. If you carefully examine our schedules from 2000 to 2007, you will see that the Aztecs were way over-scheduled. Had the school used better sense in terms of scheduling, we might well have had at least a couple of winning seasons followed by bowl games. Let me explain. It is widely accepted, I believe, that a good non-conference schedule for SDSU would include one very strong opponent (Power Five conference teams now, BCS teams earlier), a couple of decent but beatable G5 schools (e.g., Northern Illinois, Tulsa, North Texas, etc.), and one easy mark, probably an FCS school. Instead, two, three, even four BCS schools were scheduled in the early 2000s, and we beat not one single one of them! Had we faced only one BCS school every year and instead of the others played relatively weak opponents, it is not at all unrealistic that our record would have been much better than what actually happened. The last of the following columns contains the potential W/L records for the years in question had SDSU played a more sensible schedule. The five columns below are these: Year Number of BCS schools scheduled Record against those BCS teams Actual W/L record that year Potential W/L record with more sensible scheduling. 2000: 4 0-4 3-8 6-5 2001: 3 0-3 3-8 5-6 2002: 3 0-3 4-9 6-7 2003: 2 0-2 6-6 7-5 2004: 2 0-2 4-7 5-6 2005: 2 0-2 5-7 6-5 2007: 3 0-3 4-8 6-6 This is speculative, of course, but not outrageously so. Anyway, the hypothetical W/L records I have suggested add up to 41-40 (not counting likely bowl games at least a couple of those years.) The actual record, of course, was 29-53. Quite a difference, no? Tom Craft might well have lasted several more years as HC. Oh, and I have not mentioned the botched last second short range FGA that cost us the Fresno game in 2002, nor the total screw-up by the officials that cost us a W against Colorado State in 2004! So, had our teams in the 2000s faced a more gentle schedule and gone to two or three bowls, would we now consider the Aztec football program of that decade so terrible? More importantly, would it have actually been so much worse than more recent Aztec teams that have been winners without having to face Utah, TCU, and, except for the P Bowl, BYU? We still can't, with the exception of a weak Washington State team, seem to be able to beat a P5 school. And our win totals have progressed in this fashion: 9, 8, 9, 8, 7. Not exactly the trend we seek. Bottom line: Yes, the current run of Aztec teams is better than those of the previous decade, but perhaps not nearly so much better than most of us like to think. Worst of all, we still can't break into the 10 or more wins a year category, and unless we can do that, we are pretty much stuck where we are. And where we are isn't all that good, is it? AzWm I can see how you'd infer that I do not want a football only stadium for SDSU, but that is not what I said. I'd love to see SDSU with it's very own toy. I think it would help the program in every respect. BUT, I am quite convinced that this administration, is NOT capable, or willing, to put their careers in jeopardy for something in which they have zero passion. One very basic question: When have you EVER heard either of these men speak about the program with passion and true determination? They utter pedagogic and perfunctory comments and reveal nothing tangible. Vague discourse about potential, etc. For that reason, our own stadium will not happen on the watch of these men. So we are left with the hope that the Chargers stay.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 22, 2015 14:26:32 GMT -8
So your opinion is: Aztecs football under Rocky Long, Jim Sterk and Elliot Hirshman has not improved from the last decade (2000-2010) in recruiting, performance or any other measurement ... that the AD has no cajones and Hirshman is an obstructionist. You feel that all 3 are merely pretenders. That the sustained success of Aztec football from 2010-2014 is a fluke and only if SDSU and the Athletic department insert themselves into the stadium debate with stadium demands of their own would you consider the leadership on the Mesa to be remotely competent. It is your conjecture that if the Chargers leave that SDSU football will collapse and by extension so would rest of the athletics programs on campus (without football, an equal number of scholarships for women's sports would be lost as well as membership in the MWC). In summary, you think that Sterk and Hirshman are okay with that outcome because they don't support football the way you think they need to. highntight(reacting to myownwords): So your opinion is: Aztecs football under Rocky Long, Jim Sterk and Elliot Hirshman has not improved from the last decade (2000-2010) in recruiting, performance or any other measurement ... No one doubts that the 2010-2014 Aztecs are better than the Aztec teams of 2000-2010. That is all well and good, but a couple of points can be made by way of rebuttal. First of all, though this may sound counter-intuitive, the truth is that the current strength of Aztec teams is not THAT much greater than the teams of the previous decade. If you carefully examine our schedules from 2000 to 2007, you will see that the Aztecs were way over-scheduled. Had the school used better sense in terms of scheduling, we might well have had at least a couple of winning seasons followed by bowl games. Let me explain. It is widely accepted, I believe, that a good non-conference schedule for SDSU would include one very strong opponent (Power Five conference teams now, BCS teams earlier), a couple of decent but beatable G5 schools (e.g., Northern Illinois, Tulsa, North Texas, etc.), and one easy mark, probably an FCS school. Instead, two, three, even four BCS schools were scheduled in the early 2000s, and we beat not one single one of them! Had we faced only one BCS school every year and instead of the others played relatively weak opponents, it is not at all unrealistic that our record would have been much better than what actually happened. The last of the following columns contains the potential W/L records for the years in question had SDSU played a more sensible schedule. The five columns below are these: Year Number of BCS schools scheduled Record against those BCS teams Actual W/L record that year Potential W/L record with more sensible scheduling. 2000: 4 0-4 3-8 6-5 2001: 3 0-3 3-8 5-6 2002: 3 0-3 4-9 6-7 2003: 2 0-2 6-6 7-5 2004: 2 0-2 4-7 5-6 2005: 2 0-2 5-7 6-5 2007: 3 0-3 4-8 6-6 This is speculative, of course, but not outrageously so. Anyway, the hypothetical W/L records I have suggested add up to 41-40 (not counting likely bowl games at least a couple of those years.) The actual record, of course, was 29-53. Quite a difference, no? Tom Craft might well have lasted several more years as HC. Oh, and I have not mentioned the botched last second short range FGA that cost us the Fresno game in 2002, nor the total screw-up by the officials that cost us a W against Colorado State in 2004! So, had our teams in the 2000s faced a more gentle schedule and gone to two or three bowls, would we now consider the Aztec football program of that decade so terrible? More importantly, would it have actually been so much worse than more recent Aztec teams that have been winners without having to face Utah, TCU, and, except for the P Bowl, BYU? We still can't, with the exception of a weak Washington State team, seem to be able to beat a P5 school. And our win totals have progressed in this fashion: 9, 8, 9, 8, 7. Not exactly the trend we seek. Bottom line: Yes, the current run of Aztec teams is better than those of the previous decade, but perhaps not nearly so much better than most of us like to think. Worst of all, we still can't break into the 10 or more wins a year category, and unless we can do that, we are pretty much stuck where we are. And where we are isn't all that good, is it? AzWm What is not speculative -- who was responsible for the OoC? Part of the responsibilities of the program leadership is scheduling (as well as coaching and funding). The point that you seem to miss in all of this is that the success or failure of the program is a joint effort. 2000-2007 as you have used to illustrate your point and the basis of your conjecture as to what could have been ... with a more moderate approach to scheduling was a result of the actual choices and a failures of the leadership of that time. Would you not agree that the system in place now (and still in its early stages) is a better one than the previous one? Bowl games, improved recruiting, a conference championship (shared) and an actual sense that this program is on the rise are all things that the current leadership have brought. As far as trends go ... I have seen your posts regarding what should be acceptable, and I agree with SDSUDevil that 8-4 is a good baseline, but you have to accept the occasional 7-5 to allow for key injuries and other unforeseen incidents that can befall any team (college or pro) and negatively affect an otherwise great team. 8,9,8,7 averages out to be 8 wins per season from 2011-2014. I will not pull the "moral victory" card regarding 2014, but will echo your botched FGA reference to 2002 and apply it to the P-bowl vs. Navy and leave out my thoughts on the UNC game or the Fresno St. game from the past season and just say that they were winnable. There have been other games that we lost that were decided by a late FG (we missed or they made). When it comes to speculation ... the person who sets the hypothetical gets to control the factors to be included. Not facing TCU, Utah (or BYU) is not in the control of the current leadership ... facing Fresno St., Boise St or Utah State is. I have said this before and I will state it again, beating a ranked Boise St. on the blue turf is an accomplishment regardless of the fact that we share a conference. Increasing the training table and funding an additional coach for special teams is also in the control of this leadership. Paying stipends was optional, but necessary and so is finding the money to afford them -- the current leadership has done both. SDSU is still trending up ... last year USA Today had the Aztecs ranked in the 60's in the pre-season, so far Scout has SDSU in the 50s & SBNation has us as the favorite to win the West. These are solid improvements for the program thanks to the leadership of Rocky Long, Jim Sterk & Elliot Hirshman.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 22, 2015 15:34:58 GMT -8
There is no doubt that we are in better shape, for whatever combination of reasons, than in the 2000s. I was just trying to say that those years could have been better had we been playing North Texas and Florida International rather than Michigan and Ohio State. Or, to put it the other way around, had be been playing UCLA, Ohio State, Michigan, and Arizona St. recently, we would not have so good a record as is the case currently.
Here's the deal; We absolutely must do two things. A) At least make it to the MWC championship game, and B) beat some P5 schools. We must do BOTH, and in the process, record some 10 win seasons in order to firm up the program financially as well as improve its chances (however slim they may be) if the Big-10 comes calling.
AzWm
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 22, 2015 16:38:11 GMT -8
There is not doubt that we are in better shape, for whatever combination of reasons, than in the 2000s. I was just trying to say that those years could have been better had we been playing North Texas and Florida International rather than Michigan and Ohio State. Or, to put it the other way around, had be been playing UCLA, Ohio State, Michigan, and Arizona St. recently, we would not have so good a record as is the case currently. Here's the deal; We absolutely must do two things. A) At least make it to the MWC championship game, and B) beat some P5 schools. We must do BOTH, and in the process, record some 10 win seasons in order to firm up the program financially as well as improve its chances (however slim they may be) if the Big-10 comes calling. AzWm I can agree with this ^^^ We must continue to improve and succeed -- benchmarks for that success should be: MWC Championships 10-win seasons Beating ranked teams (P5 or not) Winning games against the P5 both at home and on the road NYE/D Access Bowl National Championship This would not be different from the Men's BBall team benchmarks: MWC Championships Win 25 games Play against good competition and win (both home & away) Make it to the Elite 8 National Championship
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 22, 2015 17:06:31 GMT -8
So your opinion is: Aztecs football under Rocky Long, Jim Sterk and Elliot Hirshman has not improved from the last decade (2000-2010) in recruiting, performance or any other measurement ... that the AD has no cajones and Hirshman is an obstructionist. You feel that all 3 are merely pretenders. That the sustained success of Aztec football from 2010-2014 is a fluke and only if SDSU and the Athletic department insert themselves into the stadium debate with stadium demands of their own would you consider the leadership on the Mesa to be remotely competent. It is your conjecture that if the Chargers leave that SDSU football will collapse and by extension so would rest of the athletics programs on campus (without football, an equal number of scholarships for women's sports would be lost as well as membership in the MWC). In summary, you think that Sterk and Hirshman are okay with that outcome because they don't support football the way you think they need to. I'd like to respond to things posted by both myownwords and highntight. myownwords:
I prefer the Chargers to stay with a brand new stadium, jointly used with the Aztecs. This would include a locker room for each home team. I would like the stadium to have the ability to change the seats, and other accoutrement, to Aztec colors--the same idea they've concocted in Carson for those disparate teams.
Clearly, there is a serious divide between those (e.g., you) who are comfortable with the Aztecs playing in a new NFL style "Chargers" stadium and those (e.g., your obedient servant) who believe that such an outcome would be a mistake. I won't argue that issue per se, but will challenge what you say in the portion I have quoted above. What makes you think that, in the somewhat unlikely event that the city caves and helps the Chargers build a new stadium, said stadium would contain TWO home locker rooms? Frankly, that seems naïve to me. It also seems naïve, or at least presumptuous, to assume that any effort to accommodate the Aztecs (school colors, etc.) would be made. What would be the incentive to do so? The Aztecs are seen as barely more than free-loaders; they are not central stakeholders in this issue. They SHOULD be, but the fact is that the city is basically trying to please the Chargers. SDSU is = = = AT BEST = = = an afterthought. highntight(reacting to myownwords): So your opinion is: Aztecs football under Rocky Long, Jim Sterk and Elliot Hirshman has not improved from the last decade (2000-2010) in recruiting, performance or any other measurement ... No one doubts that the 2010-2014 Aztecs are better than the Aztec teams of 2000-2010. That is all well and good, but a couple of points can be made by way of rebuttal. First of all, though this may sound counter-intuitive, the truth is that the current strength of Aztec teams is not THAT much greater than the teams of the previous decade. If you carefully examine our schedules from 2000 to 2007, you will see that the Aztecs were way over-scheduled. Had the school used better sense in terms of scheduling, we might well have had at least a couple of winning seasons followed by bowl games. Let me explain. It is widely accepted, I believe, that a good non-conference schedule for SDSU would include one very strong opponent (Power Five conference teams now, BCS teams earlier), a couple of decent but beatable G5 schools (e.g., Northern Illinois, Tulsa, North Texas, etc.), and one easy mark, probably an FCS school. Instead, two, three, even four BCS schools were scheduled in the early 2000s, and we beat not one single one of them! Had we faced only one BCS school every year and instead of the others played relatively weak opponents, it is not at all unrealistic that our record would have been much better than what actually happened. The last of the following columns contains the potential W/L records for the years in question had SDSU played a more sensible schedule. The five columns below are these: Year Number of BCS schools scheduled Record against those BCS teams Actual W/L record that year Potential W/L record with more sensible scheduling. 2000: 4 0-4 3-8 6-5 2001: 3 0-3 3-8 5-6 2002: 3 0-3 4-9 6-7 2003: 2 0-2 6-6 7-5 2004: 2 0-2 4-7 5-6 2005: 2 0-2 5-7 6-5 2007: 3 0-3 4-8 6-6 This is speculative, of course, but not outrageously so. Anyway, the hypothetical W/L records I have suggested add up to 41-40 (not counting likely bowl games at least a couple of those years.) The actual record, of course, was 29-53. Quite a difference, no? Tom Craft might well have lasted several more years as HC. Oh, and I have not mentioned the botched last second short range FGA that cost us the Fresno game in 2002, nor the total screw-up by the officials that cost us a W against Colorado State in 2004! So, had our teams in the 2000s faced a more gentle schedule and gone to two or three bowls, would we now consider the Aztec football program of that decade so terrible? More importantly, would it have actually been so much worse than more recent Aztec teams that have been winners without having to face Utah, TCU, and, except for the P Bowl, BYU? We still can't, with the exception of a weak Washington State team, seem to be able to beat a P5 school. And our win totals have progressed in this fashion: 9, 8, 9, 8, 7. Not exactly the trend we seek. Bottom line: Yes, the current run of Aztec teams is better than those of the previous decade, but perhaps not nearly so much better than most of us like to think. Worst of all, we still can't break into the 10 or more wins a year category, and unless we can do that, we are pretty much stuck where we are. And where we are isn't all that good, is it? AzWm Oh, the incentive? I assume the Aztecs will have to pony up anywhere from $50 million to $75 million for the "incentives".
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Apr 26, 2015 7:35:11 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Apr 26, 2015 22:43:55 GMT -8
The Univercity of Cincinatti's Nippert Stadium will open this August after an $86 million renovation. They are not a MWC member but have been one of the candidates who would be likely to get an invitation from the Big XII. This is who SDSU is competing with. magazine.uc.edu/issues/1013/nippert_update.html
|
|