|
Post by McQuervo on Sept 10, 2019 17:48:49 GMT -8
Couldn't happen to a "Better Group" (ok maybe in Provostan or FresTuckie)...
|
|
|
Post by jp92grad on Sept 10, 2019 18:04:44 GMT -8
There's a reason UCLA was a poor second to USC in football. IMO Mark Harmon, aka Jethro Gibbs, had the most success post UCLA, followed by OU transfer Troy Aikman. During my time the most successful and most bizarre hiring was Donahue. That said, as SDSU is currently riding the coat tails of a sixty something, be reminded that success, regardless of the level, can be fleeting.
Actually, remembering the old Lone Ranger-Tonto joke, "what you mean "we" white man", "we" did nothing but fall into an extremely fortuitous situation, the gradual demise of UCLA football.
Following the departure of Terry Donahue five subsequent coaches have posted a combined record of 154-127. Frankly it was Donahue's longevity that allowed him to be the winningest coach in PAC-8 history, a relatively modest 151-74-8. Yes there were some great moments, including the Bruin's domination of future SDSU Coach Ted Tollner's USC program.
Regardless, Donahue was seen as an icon until his shelf life dictated it was time to go. Frankly, I believe he was personally more popular than his record. So what that meant was any subsequent
coach had to REALLY take the program to the next level. None did. Which, in my opinion, is why fan attendance has gradually, but steadily, been on the decline.
To further the "what we did to UCLA" reality check, as I've said before, like the Trump administration, the Aztec fan base has not grown, even with the recent success of Rocky Long's program. And the one thing UCLA does possess is, for better or worse, a secured future in a stadium that actually exists.
Yes, enjoy the game this Saturday as I will, because from day one I was offended by this hire of a fat retread, knowing this university had the resources to do so much better.
And then, please move on and focus on what the Aztecs can do to generate some real interest and support in San Diego. Their future may depend on it.
Are you sure you know what site you are on? Maybe now we know, Someone may have been asked to leave and not actually retired. You do know that this is the Aztec site and not the Bruin site. JUST GO AWAY!
|
|
|
Post by stealthaztec on Sept 10, 2019 18:27:24 GMT -8
I'm moving on from UCLA. This win is starting to remind me of a couple of times when we were preoccupied of a big win.
For those that weren't there and for those who were. The year was 1992. We opened with a 31 to 31 tie with USC. Then we played #25 BYU, and won. I still hear the words from just about every Aztec fan, we just won the WAC.
Well, we didn't, and actually ended up with 5-5-1 record, no bowl game, even with players like Faulk, Darny Scott and LeRoi Glover.
Or how about 1996. All we had to do was beat UNLV and we were going to the Holiday Bowl UNLV hadn't won a game, they were 0 and 10 at the time. So we lost to a Freshman QB, 44 to 42 and didn't go to any bowl game.. BTW that was UNLV only win.
So, I celebrated the UCLA victory over the weekend, and am now worried about our next opponent, NMSU.
Been there done that. Hope some of you share my concerns, especially the Aztec team and coaches.
|
|
|
Post by azman on Sept 10, 2019 20:34:23 GMT -8
Sounds like they want to avoid the embarrassment of a mostly empty stadium against Oklahoma on national TV. Not to worry, Oklahoma will do the embarrassing to them on the field.
|
|
|
Post by azman on Sept 10, 2019 20:35:56 GMT -8
Along with all the above, the nightmarish LA traffic has to be a factor, too. We think we have it bad with the campus and stadium being separated by a mile. Westwood to Pasadena can't be easy. Fans who live in the Westside, west end of the valley or South Bay have to think that staying home and watching the game on TV is a better option. That could have been an argument every game for the past 50 years....
|
|
|
Post by moctezumaii on Sept 11, 2019 4:47:40 GMT -8
It is some of that for sure, but the PAC-12 and UCLA in particular have made some media decisions that have KILLED them. The PAC-12 Network has no distribution contract with DirecTV or AT&T Uverse -AND- they just gave ESPN the middle finger. Because of an old contract UCLA signed with IMG that was breached when moving to the PAC-12 Network, UCLA has had to pay IMG $5.6 million over the past 4 years. What was promised as being possibly $7-$10 million per year going to UCLA from their media deal has turned into a reality of, after the IMG cut-out, $683,333 per year over six years of the PAC-12 Network. UCLA doesn't have the exposure they used to when their games were on ABC, CBS, or ESPN. UCLA doesn't have the money to market themselves. UCLA now has a really expensive coach who can't win. Football is losing the grip it once had, but most of UCLA's problems are self inflicted. awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/pac-12-teams-are-seeing-drastically-lower-payouts-than-expected-from-pac-12-networks.html Amazingly, Cal gets even less than UCLA does, which has to thrill that school in Berkeley, as they need all the $$ they can get to keep paying off the hundreds of millions in bonds that were used to rebuild HALF of Memorial Stadium. They will be paying on those bonds for generations to come. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently UCLA gets 1/3 from its media contract of what SDSU gets? Is that right? Roughly 2 million for us vs 700K for them? If so, the Pac12 is only gonna be a P5 a little longer. And compared to Larry Scott, the Hair is a media deal-making genius. That's just pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Sept 11, 2019 7:30:56 GMT -8
Amazingly, Cal gets even less than UCLA does, which has to thrill that school in Berkeley, as they need all the $$ they can get to keep paying off the hundreds of millions in bonds that were used to rebuild HALF of Memorial Stadium. They will be paying on those bonds for generations to come. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently UCLA gets 1/3 from its media contract of what SDSU gets? Is that right? Roughly 2 million for us vs 700K for them? If so, the Pac12 is only gonna be a P5 a little longer. And compared to Larry Scott, the Hair is a media deal-making genius. That's just pathetic. Just the p12 network revenue. They still get money from FOX and ESPN.
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Sept 11, 2019 9:57:36 GMT -8
I had two UCLA tickets sitting on my car dashboard while I went inside the store. I came back outside after I finished shopping and noticed that someone broke into my car and placed two more tickets next to mine.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 11, 2019 20:57:35 GMT -8
I'm moving on from UCLA. This win is starting to remind me of a couple of times when we were preoccupied of a big win. For those that weren't there and for those who were. The year was 1992. We opened with a 31 to 31 tie with USC. Then we played #25 BYU, and won. I still hear the words from just about every Aztec fan, we just won the WAC. Well, we didn't, and actually ended up with 5-5-1 record, no bowl game, even with players like Faulk, Darny Scott and LeRoi Glover. Or how about 1996. All we had to do was beat UNLV and we were going to the Holiday Bowl UNLV hadn't won a game, they were 0 and 10 at the time. So we lost to a Freshman QB, 44 to 42 and didn't go to any bowl game.. BTW that was UNLV only win. So, I celebrated the UCLA victory over the weekend, and am now worried about our next opponent, NMSU. Been there done that. Hope some of you share my concerns, especially the Aztec team and coaches. As I recall, we would have played BYU in the conference championship game that year had we beaten UNLV. Instead, Wyoming lost to the old men. Wasn't that the year that Wyoming won 10 games and did NOT go to a bowl game?!! AzWm
|
|
|
Post by vision on Sept 12, 2019 4:39:40 GMT -8
It actually kind of depressed me to see that program in that state. The Rose Bowl is patterned on the Yale Bowl, and it didn't look a whole lot different that the average sparsely-attended game in New Haven. Of course, some of this was brought on themselves with the crappy product and the even crappier kickoff time. Growing up in L.A., there was a time when UCLA football had a really good thing going on. There was a definite buzz, even with competition from Rams, Raiders, and USC. Something to keep in mind: While the Bruins have a crap product right now, they also have in the past -- and still drew reasonably well. I'm afraid such a depressed turnout might be another indicator of football's loosening grip on the American sports consumer. Dont feel too sorry for them. They have lots of money to pay CHIP KELLEY, plus 20million a year tv money. They could get better and beat SDSU next year. Aztecs WISH we could be like UCLA in some aspects. They pitied SDSU for the last 22 meetings.
|
|
|
Post by ignoranus on Sept 12, 2019 6:52:47 GMT -8
UC Stinkin' LA!
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Sept 12, 2019 7:10:30 GMT -8
Don't feel bad or pity UCLA. Remember how they look down on "State School's".
They will be back. They have too much money and prestige to be that bad for long.
|
|
|
Post by azson on Sept 12, 2019 7:30:40 GMT -8
As funny as this is, I would like to see UCLA somehow beat OU on Saturday (as unlikely as that may be) and go on a solid win streak. We need the win against our lone P5 opponent to "look" as good as possible for as long as possible. I agree 100%! But it’s still hard to watch UCLA win when I consider them my most hated team of all college football. Why them? Many others (bySUCKS #1) come to mind first for me.
|
|
|
Post by uncledougy on Sept 12, 2019 23:34:29 GMT -8
I agree 100%! But it’s still hard to watch UCLA win when I consider them my most hated team of all college football. Why them? Many others (bySUCKS #1) come to mind first for me. BYU is close second (by a nose). I always hated UCLAs sense of entitlement and condescending nature towards state schools. It goes beyond sports too, everything about them irritate me.
|
|