|
Post by HighNTight on May 25, 2015 17:59:38 GMT -8
I didn't rank him 6th in the conference...glad you're OK with mediocrity. That "ranking" was specious at best with no criteria and was designed for page clicks ... it did nothing but fuel the need for people like you to make idiotic comments about mediocrity based on nothing more than one blogs opinion about coaches in a conference they don't follow and ranked first year head coaches that haven't had a winning season at the D-1 level yet or that haven't even seen a down as a D-1 head coach ahead of experienced coaches with winning records.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on May 25, 2015 18:03:05 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on May 26, 2015 8:33:03 GMT -8
But you're talking facts not opinion. Come on now, logic & facts aren't allowed on this board! You should know that!!
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on May 26, 2015 8:37:56 GMT -8
LOL. 7.5, given 2 road P5 games, is "low expectations" from Vegas? You also get Vegas sets the line based on where they see the public BETTING & not on actual expectations, right?
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on May 26, 2015 9:34:31 GMT -8
How much is Rocky paying some of you for kissing his ass?
Oops, I need to diminish my use of profanity. How much is Rocky paying you for being devoid of objectivity about him?
You want facts? How 'bout 1-6 versus P5 schools as SDSU's head coach? Or 2-7 all time in bowl games including 1-3 at SDSU with the sole victory being against the most downtrodden of our bowl opponents in the worst of the bowl games in which we have played?
To borrow from what sleepy said, if your high water mark for SDSU football is challenging for the title of the lousy conference we're in, Rocky is your guy. However, for those of us who want to see SDSU have any chance of getting admitted to the B12 assuming it expands in a decade or so, since to do that we need to beat P5 schools at least half the time and win half of our bowl games, Rocky either needs to start doing that or SDSU needs to replace him with somebody who can.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on May 26, 2015 11:04:08 GMT -8
How much is Rocky paying some of you for kissing his ass? Oops, I need to diminish my use of profanity. How much is Rocky paying you for being devoid of objectivity about him? You want facts? How 'bout 1-6 versus P5 schools as SDSU's head coach? Or 2-7 all time in bowl games including 1-3 at SDSU with the sole victory being against the most downtrodden of our bowl opponents in the worst of the bowl games in which we have played? To borrow from what sleepy said, if your high water mark for SDSU football is challenging for the title of the lousy conference we're in, Rocky is your guy. However, for those of us who want to see SDSU have any chance of getting admitted to the B12 assuming it expands in a decade or so, since to do that we need to beat P5 schools at least half the time and win half of our bowl games, Rocky either needs to start doing that or SDSU needs to replace him with somebody who can. Where have you read that? That's NOT the criteria for getting into a major conference. Especially in today's world where the gap between P5 & G5 is getting larger, not smaller. The key factor driving that is media $$'s.
No one's said their "high water mark" is challenging for the division title. Many just aren't pissing all over success either. Devoid of objectivity? Look in the mirror.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2015 11:04:23 GMT -8
We played in a conference with TCU for about 5 years and Utah wasn't all that amazing until Urban came along. Are you seriously excusing all the suck since Gilbert but then acting like Rocky has accomplished zero here? Selective excuse making? I'm not ignoring the increadible amount of suck our program has had, I'm just not on the RL is the savior bandwagon since his winning record is predominantly built on teams that had loosing records... Savior? Is this where people pointing out RL isn't as bad a he is portrayed = we are saying he is the Greatest of all time? Why is it all the old timers who are coming up with straw men arguments they so like to point out as garbage? RL is an ok coach that happens to be better than what we've had a majority of the last 30 years, and with better QB play we probably would've won 2 or 3 of our last 4 against p5 teams. In other words we have been about one position away from what everyone here says they want the last 2 seaosns. We'll see if RL can get us over the hump soon enough, but I'm afraid most 'fans' analysis here begins and ends with W/L only...that's fine if you don't want to know whats really happening with your team.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on May 26, 2015 11:08:22 GMT -8
How much is Rocky paying some of you for kissing his ass? Oops, I need to diminish my use of profanity. How much is Rocky paying you for being devoid of objectivity about him? You want facts? How 'bout 1-6 versus P5 schools as SDSU's head coach? Or 2-7 all time in bowl games including 1-3 at SDSU with the sole victory being against the most downtrodden of our bowl opponents in the worst of the bowl games in which we have played? To borrow from what sleepy said, if your high water mark for SDSU football is challenging for the title of the lousy conference we're in, Rocky is your guy. However, for those of us who want to see SDSU have any chance of getting admitted to the B12 assuming it expands in a decade or so, since to do that we need to beat P5 schools at least half the time and win half of our bowl games, Rocky either needs to start doing that or SDSU needs to replace him with somebody who can. Where have you read that? That's NOT the criteria for getting into a major conference. Especially in today's world where the gap between P5 & G5 is getting larger, not smaller. The key factor driving that is media $$'s.
No one's said their "high water mark" is challenging for the division title. Many just aren't pissing all over success either. Devoid of objectivity? Look in the mirror.
Translation: SDSU does not play bad football. As an alumnus of Washington State, I know bad football when I see it and trust me, SDSU has been a success.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2015 11:13:12 GMT -8
Where have you read that? That's NOT the criteria for getting into a major conference. Especially in today's world where the gap between P5 & G5 is getting larger, not smaller. The key factor driving that is media $$'s.
No one's said their "high water mark" is challenging for the division title. Many just aren't pissing all over success either. Devoid of objectivity? Look in the mirror.
Translation: SDSU does not play bad football. As an alumnus of Washington State, I know bad football when I see it and trust me, SDSU has been a success. Signed Maryland and Rutgers...traditional, longtime football powerhouses...it wasn't our market...nope.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on May 26, 2015 11:18:55 GMT -8
Where have you read that? That's NOT the criteria for getting into a major conference. Especially in today's world where the gap between P5 & G5 is getting larger, not smaller. The key factor driving that is media $$'s.
No one's said their "high water mark" is challenging for the division title. Many just aren't pissing all over success either. Devoid of objectivity? Look in the mirror.
Translation: SDSU does not play bad football. As an alumnus of Washington State, I know bad football when I see it and trust me, SDSU has been a success. I think an alumnus of ANY school would be able to figure that out. Or at least be more objective than many on this board. People are always harder on their own teams.
And, BTW, WSU has sucked & still sucks within the realm of their direct competition, yet they pull in a lot more talent then most any B5 school. Why? Financials, leading to capital improvements and an opportunity to play on a bigger stage. That's the reality of college football today. You compare P12 programs to each other, or possibly other P5 schools. You compare B5 schools WITHIN their own category for that same reason. We have been among THE most successful B5 programs over the past 4-5 years.
Until you put a program in a position of dominance (e.g. higher revenue programs; best facilities, etc.), you're not going to be a dominant program. If you think otherwise you're not in tune with reality.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on May 26, 2015 12:07:39 GMT -8
Translation: SDSU does not play bad football. As an alumnus of Washington State, I know bad football when I see it and trust me, SDSU has been a success. Signed Maryland and Rutgers...traditional, longtime football powerhouses...it wasn't our market...nope. It sure would be wonderful if rather than just being in a large TV market previously unavailable to a higher level conference as was the case with Maryland and Rutgers, SDSU similarly offered a secondary reason for the higher level conference to add it. In the case of Maryland and Rutgers, that secondary consideration was membership in the Association of American Universities. SDSU may have a good men's basketball program but that pales in importance to the B12 compared to the value of AAU membership to the B1G. That's because basketball barely moves the needle when it comes to TV revenue. Instead, it's football which does so. Which is why if we hope to gain an offer from the B12, we cannot continue to accomplish nothing more in football than finishing above the dreck of the MWC.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on May 26, 2015 12:25:02 GMT -8
Signed Maryland and Rutgers...traditional, longtime football powerhouses...it wasn't our market...nope. It sure would be wonderful if rather than just being in a large TV market previously unavailable to a higher level conference as was the case with Maryland and Rutgers, SDSU similarly offered a secondary reason for the higher level conference to add it. In the case of Maryland and Rutgers, that secondary consideration was membership in the Association of American Universities. SDSU may have a good men's basketball program but that pales in importance to the B12 compared to the value of AAU membership to the B1G. That's because basketball barely moves the needle when it comes to TV revenue. Instead, it's football which does so. Which is why if we hope to gain an offer from the B12, we cannot continue to accomplish nothing more in football than finishing above the dreck of the MWC. Huh? No, Maryland & Rutgers were added for to increase the footprint of the Big 10. Population bases among the Big 10 schools was shrinking & becoming among the smallest of all P5 conferences & they needed LARGE POPULATION BASES to become relevant. That, and increase the # of eyeballs they can sell to their TV partners in 2017!
It's why Boise St may have had success on the football field but is not among the crown jewels for the B12 - they have NO POPULATION base & offer little in terms of increasing the size of the B12's combined DMA.
Has little to do with basketball success, etc. It's all about eyeballs & footprint, both from a population & recruiting perspective. Conferences realize & expect that teams who get added will improve simply by being added to their conference.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on May 26, 2015 14:14:02 GMT -8
The B1G's expansion options were significantly limited by the fact AAU membership is a prerequisite for admission thus greatly enhancing Maryland's chances and Rutgers' chances. Like Maryland and Rutgers, SDSU is privileged to be located in a major metro area. However, unlike Maryland and Rutgers, SDSU has very little else to separate itself from at least a dozen possible competitors for admission. To repeat, significant basketball success (as opposed to dominance of the kind of a Kansas or Duke) won't provide that. However, significant football success probably would. Why you two can't seem to fathom that concept is, to put it diplomatically, perplexing.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on May 26, 2015 14:50:23 GMT -8
The B1G's expansion options were significantly limited by the fact AAU membership is a prerequisite for admission thus greatly enhancing Maryland's chances and Rutgers' chances. Like Maryland and Rutgers, SDSU is privileged to be located in a major metro area. However, unlike Maryland and Rutgers, SDSU has very little else to separate itself from at least a dozen possible competitors for admission. To repeat, significant basketball success (as opposed to dominance of the kind of a Kansas or Duke) won't provide that. However, significant football success probably would. Why you two can't seem to fathom that concept is, to put it diplomatically, perplexing. Maybe it's because we've actually had conversations with those in the know who have actually been a part of those talks & we've heard something different? Could that be it?
Or maybe it's the fact only 2 Big 12 schools are members of this AAU you're so fond of?
Or maybe it's the fact our program has actually been successful in the eyes of most of the country excluding some residing on this board?
Put simply, if Rutgers was in New Hampshire they wouldn't be in the Big 10 today, no matter what their AAU membership or success on the field had been. Why you can't fathom that is actually the real perplexing part?
We need to remain successful, primarily because it impacts 2 of the more important factors: 1) eyeballs - do people in this market watch the games (they do), and 2) attendance, although they realize a change of conference WILL impact attendance more than anything.
What this has to do with some random scribe coming up with his own random rankings is beyond me though.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on May 26, 2015 15:23:28 GMT -8
I have no idea what you mean by your first question. As to the second and fourth questions, with due respect, either I've done a poor job of making myself clear or you've done a poor job of reading. Assuming what you say in your third question is accurate, and you don't say what you're basing your conclusion on, almost nobody outside the MWC pays it any mind whatsoever so I dare say if they think SDSU has been successful, it's because all they have done is look at our W-L record, from which the uninformed have little knowledge of how terrible most of our competition has been. To your final comment the explanation is criticism that random scribe received for not having given Rocky Long proper respect among his MWC peers. As I said, I wouldn't grade him below Bohl from Wyoming but other than that, I think the grading is quite proper. He hasn't ever gotten to a access bowl like Harsin has, much less win one, he hasn't taken a bunch of exclusively 2-star recruits to the conference title game like Wells has and he sure isn't the equal of DeRuyter who to this point has owned Rocky head to head.
|
|
|
Post by junior on May 26, 2015 15:33:13 GMT -8
This time of year, I like Rocky.
This will change when the weather warms up, though, like it seems to do every year since he took over.
By the time it's 100ºF in the Aztec Club tent…well, I'll be singing a different tune just like I seem to do every year since he took over. LOL
This year's gonna be different though, I tell ya!
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on May 26, 2015 16:49:12 GMT -8
I have no idea what you mean by your first question. As to the second and fourth questions, with due respect, either I've done a poor job of making myself clear or you've done a poor job of reading. Assuming what you say in your third question is accurate, and you don't say what you're basing your conclusion on, almost nobody outside the MWC pays it any mind whatsoever so I dare say if they think SDSU has been successful, it's because all they have done is look at our W-L record, from which the uninformed have little knowledge of how terrible most of our competition has been. To your final comment the explanation is criticism that random scribe received for not having given Rocky Long proper respect among his MWC peers. As I said, I wouldn't grade him below Bohl from Wyoming but other than that, I think the grading is quite proper. He hasn't ever gotten to a access bowl like Harsin has, much less win one, he hasn't taken a bunch of exclusively 2-star recruits to the conference title game like Wells has and he sure isn't the equal of DeRuyter who to this point has owned Rocky head to head. I'll simplify, in case I haven't been clear:
1. I, as have many others, have heard from people who have actually been in meetings with the B12 that the key factors for consideration relate to the market we bring to the equation, and that they aren't questioning our level of success on the football field. It's about what we bring the B12 that will allow them to go to their media partners & sell the growth so it's worth it to the current membership. Nothing more. It's the same reason BSU is less attractive, despite greater success on the field.
2. You repeatedly have said that a key reason Rutgers & Maryland were added to the Big 10 was due to their AAU membership which would be odd since Nebraska and several other b10 programs aren't members of the AAU per their website. Plus, not sure how that relates to us since most B12 schools aren't either. What is important is $$.
3. If you count the B12 as the "uninformed" then that's one thing. As noted above, I haven't heard that mentioned as a concern based on any of the initial talks with the B12. Plus, yes, most of the country does see our W/L record, and most of the country sees how we compare to our B5 brethren & those in the know actually understand that we aren't a dominant program. It's not like they look at our media revenue & facilities & say "hey, they should be dominating that lousy conference".
4. Rutgers & Maryland are in the B10 because of their media & recruiting markets. That's the same key factor that makes SDSU attractive as a potential expansion partner to the B12. Not membership in the AAU.
No one has said, or at least I never have, that potential B12 expansion will be impacted by our success in basketball. We wouldn't be merging with a basketball only conference, and believe the typical Media contracts are something like 70% based on football. It's about something that transcends football and basketball success - what we bring to the table financially. That is the carrot.
Other factors include geographically fit and they'll quote things such as academic success and the overall quality of the athletic department, but the bottom line is $$. You don't vote to split the pie 12 or 14 ways vs. 10 to add academics to your conference, and the fact we have 27 conference titles in the past 3 years says all we need to about the success of our program overall.
As for your "ranking", we'll disagree. As noted by many, you can make arguments for most of these coaches to be ranked 1-6. Harsin has been there 1 year, and rode the success of Peterson thus far. I think Wells is a terrific young coach, but he's also someone who coached under & learned from Rocky at New Mexico. DeRuyter has thrived thanks to David Carr, but slipped last year & anyone who saw our game knows that was greatly impacted by a series of bad calls (as has been admitted by league office). We'll see how he does moving on, including this year AT SDSU.
All of them have had bad losses, and will continue to do so I'm sure.
|
|
|
Post by Spud on May 26, 2015 17:22:07 GMT -8
I think what gets lost in the discussion about our on-field success is how the "fans" view that success. Sure we may have high winning percentages, but even the casual football fan will see that we're beating (and sometimes just barely), terrible teams. That's not the kind of winning that brings out fans, much less casual observers. Our game time attendance (and not the bull$#!+ tickets sold/distributed attendance) shows that San Diegan's aren't interested in a team that constantly struggles against +500 teams, and even has a hard time beating sub 500 teams. We even blew our chance to beat a byu team when they were really in a down year. You can blame the stadium, lack of marketing, or whatever, but excitement is what brings fans out in San Diego and Aztec football has been lacking excitement. Maybe we were a quarterback away from winning some games, but who's fault is that? Certainly not the fans or those on this board.
Sent from my SM-T900 using proboards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2015 19:08:55 GMT -8
I think what gets lost in the discussion about our on-field success is how the "fans" view that success. Sure we may have high winning percentages, but even the casual football fan will see that we're beating (and sometimes just barely), terrible teams. That's not the kind of winning that brings out fans, much less casual observers. Our game time attendance (and not the bull$#!+ tickets sold/distributed attendance) shows that San Diegan's aren't interested in a team that constantly struggles against +500 teams, and even has a hard time beating sub 500 teams. We even blew our chance to beat a byu team when they were really in a down year. You can blame the stadium, lack of marketing, or whatever, but excitement is what brings fans out in San Diego and Aztec football has been lacking excitement. Maybe we were a quarterback away from winning some games, but who's fault is that? Certainly not the fans or those on this board. Sent from my SM-T900 using proboards Well as the world of college football discovered, Brady Hoke wasn't great at bringing in good QBs. On top of that you may have noticed our OC has changed 3 times in what 4 seasons? What position did you think would suffer with a hole left by the last coach and 2 OC changes back to back years after he left? This is why casual Aztec fans hate Rocky, and the ones who really watch close may not love him but they give him at least some respect and are still waiting to see what he can do in 2015 and 16(if he shows us something this fall). I don't disagree either spud. I don't think your average san diegan will show up until we win some sexy matchup a gainst P5/ranked teams. I guess I'm not the average san diegan, so I urge moderate your ire for just one more fall.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on May 26, 2015 20:25:50 GMT -8
I think what gets lost in the discussion about our on-field success is how the "fans" view that success. Sure we may have high winning percentages, but even the casual football fan will see that we're beating (and sometimes just barely), terrible teams. That's not the kind of winning that brings out fans, much less casual observers. Our game time attendance (and not the bull$#!+ tickets sold/distributed attendance) shows that San Diegan's aren't interested in a team that constantly struggles against +500 teams, and even has a hard time beating sub 500 teams. We even blew our chance to beat a byu team when they were really in a down year. You can blame the stadium, lack of marketing, or whatever, but excitement is what brings fans out in San Diego and Aztec football has been lacking excitement. Maybe we were a quarterback away from winning some games, but who's fault is that? Certainly not the fans or those on this board. Sent from my SM-T900 using proboards Well as the world of college football discovered, Brady Hoke wasn't great and brining in good QBs. On top of that you may have noticed our OC has changed 3 times in what 4 seasons? What position did you think would suffer with a hole left by the last coach and 2 OC changes back to back years after he left? This is why casual Aztec fans hate Rocky, and the ones who really watch close may not love him but they give him at least some respect and are still waiting to see what he can do in 2015 and 16(if he shows us something this fall). I don't disagree either spud. I don't think your average san diegan will show up until we win some sexy matchup a gainst P5/ranked teams. I guess I'm not the average san diegan, so I urge moderate your ire for just one more fall. Nobody "hates" Rocky Long. Some, just realize that he's like a chicken with one foot nailed to the floor.
|
|