Coaches are supposed to lower exceptions. Well, they should do that to some extent if they are smart. The coach who says "We're loaded; Top-10 for sure" and then leads his team to a 7-6 record capped by an ugly bowl loss is going to have major egg on his face.
If, instead, he says, "We've got some great young kids coming in, but please understand that it's going to take a while for them to learn to play at this level" is in much better shape. If his team finished 10-3 with a nice bowl win, no one will remember that he sounded gloomy in August. If he finishes 7-6, people will say, "Well, that's not bad considering how many youngsters he had to rely on."
I am reminded of a cartoon (think it was the LA times) from the mid 1950s. It showed Red Sanders (UCLA) and Jess Hill (USC) getting kicked out (literally!) from a meeting of the coaches association. As they flew out the door and headed for a hard landing on the sidewalk, both were quoted as saying roughly this: "Gee, I just said there was an outside chance that we might be decent this year!" The caption below said something like, "This is what happens when coaches suggest that their teams might actually win a couple of games in the coming season."
Somehow, fans now want coaches to take the first approach; "Hey we are going to be terrific this Fall!" Anything less exuberant and the fans say the coach is making excuses. I suppose they would have said the same thing had Miller Huggins or Joe McCarthy pointed out that, should Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig be out simultaneously with injuries, the Yankees might not be quite as strong!
AzWm
So in other words you think coaches should be self defeatist? When a coach says a team is going to be mediocre, the players have a built in excuse and won't be working extra hard.
Coaches are supposed to lower exceptions. Well, they should do that to some extent if they are smart. The coach who says "We're loaded; Top-10 for sure" and then leads his team to a 7-6 record capped by an ugly bowl loss is going to have major egg on his face.
If, instead, he says, "We've got some great young kids coming in, but please understand that it's going to take a while for them to learn to play at this level" is in much better shape. If his team finished 10-3 with a nice bowl win, no one will remember that he sounded gloomy in August. If he finishes 7-6, people will say, "Well, that's not bad considering how many youngsters he had to rely on."
I am reminded of a cartoon (think it was the LA times) from the mid 1950s. It showed Red Sanders (UCLA) and Jess Hill (USC) getting kicked out (literally!) from a meeting of the coaches association. As they flew out the door and headed for a hard landing on the sidewalk, both were quoted as saying roughly this: "Gee, I just said there was an outside chance that we might be decent this year!" The caption below said something like, "This is what happens when coaches suggest that their teams might actually win a couple of games in the coming season."
Somehow, fans now want coaches to take the first approach; "Hey we are going to be terrific this Fall!" Anything less exuberant and the fans say the coach is making excuses. I suppose they would have said the same thing had Miller Huggins or Joe McCarthy pointed out that, should Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig be out simultaneously with injuries, the Yankees might not be quite as strong!
AzWm
The point you---and others---seem to be avoiding is that we've been hearing the "mediocrity" tale for 4 years into a 5-year plan. If that's to be believed, HOW are we going to jump to the promised land with only 20% of the time remaining after this upcoming 4th year of average team play? And obviously we're no where near close to that hallowed ground.
Hearing it for 4 years? Rocky has only been HC (talking to the meadia) for 1 - so if you heard it before it was from Hoke (which I don't recall him saying much other than in hind).
The point you---and others---seem to be avoiding is that we've been hearing the "mediocrity" tale for 4 years into a 5-year plan. If that's to be believed, HOW are we going to jump to the promised land with only 20% of the time remaining after this upcoming 4th year of average team play? And obviously we're no where near close to that hallowed ground.
Hearing it for 4 years? Rocky has only been HC (talking to the meadia) for 1 - so if you heard it before it was from Hoke (which I don't recall him saying much other than in hind).
Hearing it for 4 years? Rocky has only been HC (talking to the meadia) for 1 - so if you heard it before it was from Hoke (which I don't recall him saying much other than in hind).
Despite what some think is an easy schdeule we will look young and makes lots of mistakes this year. That's just the way it is but, 2013 promises to be better.
I care a lot less about wins, losses, and coaches than I used to, BUT...
I and many others (maybe even you) been hearing these same words for going on thirty years. During exactly which decade are we finally gonna be plugging in juniors and seniors to replace departing players?
When do the Hoke/Long recruits start playing? If we're "young" four years in, then what has happened with the infrastructure of this program?
This is Year Four of a five-year rebuild. In other words, we're going on 80% of the way to the payoff. No one can tell me that we should expect a dropoff the year before the payoff year, especially against a DIAA schedule like this.
Gotta agree with John. Yeah, we're going to have a lot of youth on the O-line and on defense. For that reason, it's unreasonable to expect us to win the opener at Washington. It's similarly unreasonable to expect us to win at Boise, which almost never loses on that gawd awful blue field. However, I fail to see why we shouldn't be a toss-up in half our other games and why we shouldn't outright dominate slugs like North Dakota, UNLV and CSU.
Actually not helpfull at all.... perhaps you should read youownwords more closely...
"we've been hearing the "mediocrity" tale for 4 years "
I should have said 15 or 20 years. But that is not the point. The point--and your objection--was to the "assumtion" that some of us on the board fabricated Rocky's "plan". I, and many others, took from his repeated comments that we'd likely be in the top 20 regularly after his 5-year plan. But with us going into year 4 and his talk of mediocrity, there's no way we'll get there on his time table. Especially with us going into a MUCH tougher league next year. But at this point, I believe he no longer has such a plan and you'll no longer see or hear him refering to same.
Actually not helpfull at all.... perhaps you should read youownwords more closely...
"we've been hearing the "mediocrity" tale for 4 years "
I should have said 15 or 20 years. But that is not the point. The point--and your objection--was to the "assumtion" that some of us on the board fabricated Rocky's "plan". I, and many others, took from his repeated comments that we'd likely be in the top 20 regularly after his 5-year plan. But with us going into year 4 and his talk of mediocrity, there's no way we'll get there on his time table. Especially with us going into a MUCH tougher league next year. But at this point, I believe he no longer has such a plan and you'll no longer see or hear him refering to same.
I should have said 15 or 20 years. But that is not the point. The point--and your objection--was to the "assumtion" that some of us on the board fabricated Rocky's "plan". I, and many others, took from his repeated comments that we'd likely be in the top 20 regularly after his 5-year plan. But with us going into year 4 and his talk of mediocrity, there's no way we'll get there on his time table. Especially with us going into a MUCH tougher league next year. But at this point, I believe he no longer has such a plan and you'll no longer see or hear him refering to same.
OK. So???
Here is your chance...
Chance?
If you're refering to "the plan" going forward, I have no "proof", just my frustration with our program in the past, with Rocky's past comments, results, his choices and now my speculation. In other words, my opinion.
I care a lot less about wins, losses, and coaches than I used to, BUT...
I and many others (maybe even you) been hearing these same words for going on thirty years. During exactly which decade are we finally gonna be plugging in juniors and seniors to replace departing players?
When do the Hoke/Long recruits start playing? If we're "young" four years in, then what has happened with the infrastructure of this program?
This is Year Four of a five-year rebuild. In other words, we're going on 80% of the way to the payoff. No one can tell me that we should expect a dropoff the year before the payoff year, especially against a DIAA schedule like this.
The Aztecs have a high number of juniors there should be no excuses next year, but I am sure we will hear some.
Indeed, he's already set up the Senior excuse (before the damn bowl game by the way). This isn't the days of JV teams and 105 schollarships. Players graduate, 120 other teams have to deal with that, and 112 of them are playing teams with a pulse.
Only in Aztecdom is this team treated like they are a bunch of 17 year olds just getting off the bus in late august, meeting each other, putting their toes on the line, picking a couple captains, and trying to field a team. 3 seniors will be playing in the interior line, a senior will be qb, a senior will be the main target, a 3 year contributor will be running the ball. Most of the dline got quite a few snaps last year, the linebackers all got snaps and a lot of them, we return an all conf. corner and another guy that has been in the starting lineup before, we have a bunch of guys that have got PT at safety, a couple wrs took nearly every snap last year, the guy moving to LT was in blocking many of his snaps (learning to pass pro on an island is tough, of course).
we have 17 seniors, and most of them will be contributing. Multiply 5 classes by 17 and what do you get? 85. How many scholly can you have? 85. So is the argument Excuesy long is trying to make is that we won't be any good because we don't have 15 walkons that are seniors sitting on the bench? Absurd.
Do we have question marks? Of course, it's GD college football. We are playing some serious scrubs and have 7 of the worst teams in the country at home. Now, I know this schedule is best compared with the labors of Hercules, but Punxsutawney Rocky, coming out of hiding every 3 months and proclaiming to the press that he was scared of his shadow and so 5 more years of rebuilding is just nonsense.
Actually not helpfull at all.... perhaps you should read youownwords more closely...
"we've been hearing the "mediocrity" tale for 4 years "
I should have said 15 or 20 years. But that is not the point. The point--and your objection--was to the "assumtion" that some of us on the board fabricated Rocky's "plan". I, and many others, took from his repeated comments that we'd likely be in the top 20 regularly after his 5-year plan. But with us going into year 4 and his talk of mediocrity, there's no way we'll get there on his time table. Especially with us going into a MUCH tougher league next year. But at this point, I believe he no longer has such a plan and you'll no longer see or hear him refering to same.
Do you just make stuff up as you go along?
Where did you get the idea that I object to what Rocky stated - unlike you, I remember it well, I listened to his initial HC presser.
This whole thread was started on a ridiculous premise that if a coach doesn’t get a raise after going to a bowl game, he must be on his way out.
Does this signal the administration's intentions about Rocky's future?
Then when confronted with the fact that Rocky makes more than Hoke in his first couple of years, and almost as much as Hoke’s scheduled raise, instead of backing yourownwords, you jump on a more reasonable posters option about losing fan support… If you are simply stating that you don’t believe Rocky is the future, then just say it – you know inyourownwords.
Again, Hoke was doing all the talking 3 years ago, not Rocky.
I should have said 15 or 20 years. But that is not the point. The point--and your objection--was to the "assumtion" that some of us on the board fabricated Rocky's "plan". I, and many others, took from his repeated comments that we'd likely be in the top 20 regularly after his 5-year plan. But with us going into year 4 and his talk of mediocrity, there's no way we'll get there on his time table. Especially with us going into a MUCH tougher league next year. But at this point, I believe he no longer has such a plan and you'll no longer see or hear him refering to same.
Do you just make stuff up as you go along?
Where did you get the idea that I object to what Rocky stated - unlike you, I remember it well, I listened to his initial HC presser.
This whole thread was started on a ridiculous premise that if a coach doesn’t get a raise after going to a bowl game, he must be on his way out.
Does this signal the administration's intentions about Rocky's future?
Then when confronted with the fact that Rocky makes more than Hoke in his first couple of years, and almost as much as Hoke’s scheduled raise, instead of backing yourownwords, you jump on a more reasonable posters option about losing fan support… If you are simply stating that you don’t believe Rocky is the future, then just say it – you know inyourownwords.
Again, Hoke was doing all the talking 3 years ago, not Rocky.
I didn't say that Rocky began the "plan". He assumed it and has continued (as per the article) it. And the thread title or description, I'll take your criticism. I can see it was confusing. I meant it to be rhetorical and a little sarcastic and the bowl loss did not enter my thinking about a raise, or lack thereof. To repeat an earlier post, if boosters and the administration are excited about a coach and want to make sure he stays, the best way to show that love is to reach out with a raise in appreciation (or bribe, your choice). They conspicuously did NOT do that. My question then was, does this have significance. Many have said NO, others yes. It's that simple. ALL opinion based on how I and others see actions and reactions.
Where did you get the idea that I object to what Rocky stated - unlike you, I remember it well, I listened to his initial HC presser.
This whole thread was started on a ridiculous premise that if a coach doesn’t get a raise after going to a bowl game, he must be on his way out.
Does this signal the administration's intentions about Rocky's future?
Then when confronted with the fact that Rocky makes more than Hoke in his first couple of years, and almost as much as Hoke’s scheduled raise, instead of backing yourownwords, you jump on a more reasonable posters option about losing fan support… If you are simply stating that you don’t believe Rocky is the future, then just say it – you know inyourownwords.
Again, Hoke was doing all the talking 3 years ago, not Rocky.
I didn't say that Rocky began the "plan". He assumed it and has continued (as per the article) it. And the thread title or description, I'll take your criticism. I can see it was confusing. I meant it to be rhetorical and a little sarcastic and the bowl loss did not enter my thinking about a raise, or lack thereof. To repeat an earlier post, if boosters and the administration are excited about a coach and want to make sure he stays, the best way to show that love is to reach out with a raise in appreciation (or bribe, your choice). They conspicuously did NOT do that. My question then was, does this have significance. Many have said NO, others yes. It's that simple. ALL opinion based on how I and others see actions and reactions.
I didn't say that Rocky began the "plan". He assumed it and has continued (as per the article) it. And the thread title or description, I'll take your criticism. I can see it was confusing. I meant it to be rhetorical and a little sarcastic and the bowl loss did not enter my thinking about a raise, or lack thereof. To repeat an earlier post, if boosters and the administration are excited about a coach and want to make sure he stays, the best way to show that love is to reach out with a raise in appreciation (or bribe, your choice). They conspicuously did NOT do that. My question then was, does this have significance. Many have said NO, others yes. It's that simple. ALL opinion based on how I and others see actions and reactions.
We all (I assume) want the same thing: For SDSU to excel at everything. We've been through some very tough times in football and want Rocky to blow up every team we face, retiring after we win a national championship. But how and when?
"America loves a winner and will not tolerate a loser" - George Patton
Joined: Jul 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 5,180 Location: Fallbrook, CA
Re: No Raise for Rocky Long? « Reply #53 on Apr 16, 2012, 1:45pm »
I often peruse the pages of Rivals.com to see how other programs are doing in the area of recruiting. Such study easily indicates that SDSU is far from being equipped to beat, at least on a regular basis, bowl-bound teams with winning records.
Take a look:
* In the MWC, only Boise and Nevada have more recruits of 3 stars or better than SDSU. But we aren't going to be competing in the MWC past this Fall. * In the WAC, Texas St (11), Louisiana Tech (8), and New Mexico State (7) have more 3-star recruits. (Say what?! Texas State! New Mexico State! )
* In Conference-USA, only UAB and UTEP have fewer 3-star recruits than does SDSU. Here are the rest:
Houston......1 4-star, 16-3 star Marshall......1 and 10 So Miss.......1 and 12 Memphis.....0 and 11 E. Carolina. 0 and 11 Tulane........1 and 6 Tulsa..........0 and 14 SMU...........0 and 13 Rice...........0 and 11
Keep in mind that some of those schools just listed did not have particularly outstanding seasons in 2011 (e.g., Rice 4-8, Tulane 2-10). Nevertheless, even the C-USA schools that were terrible last year have managed to recruit better than did the Aztecs.
* Big East
All schools recruited better, usually much better, than SDSU (e.g., Rutgers got one 5-star, four 4-star, and thirteen 3-star recruits! ! !) Only the bottom 3 have no 4s to go along with more 3s than we were able to sign. It is against those teams (some will be gone, of course) that we will compete in '13. Take a look here to see just how far behind our soon-to-be conference mates we find ourselves. http://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiti....k/2012/BIGE/all
Yes, it's quite true that some 2-star athletes will end up being very solid performers. Still, if one school regularly stocks up on 4s and 3s (sometimes 5s) and another gets mostly 2s with a few 3s, which do you think is likely to prevail most of the team when they go head-to-head?
Unless we can significantly improve our recruiting next year, we will find life in the Big East very challenging. Frankly, I was hoping for more 3-star or better players this year. We got only six. Hell, man, even lowly San Jose State got 5!
I often peruse the pages of Rivals.com to see how other programs are doing in the area of recruiting. Such study easily indicates that SDSU is far from being equipped to beat, at least on a regular basis, bowl-bound teams with winning records.
Take a look:
* In the MWC, only Boise and Nevada have more recruits of 3 stars or better than SDSU. But we aren't going to be competing in the MWC past this Fall. * In the WAC, Texas St (11), Louisiana Tech (8), and New Mexico State (7) have more 3-star recruits. (Say what?! Texas State! New Mexico State! )
* In Conference-USA, only UAB and UTEP have fewer 3-star recruits than does SDSU. Here are the rest:
Houston......1 4-star, 16-3 star Marshall......1 and 10 So Miss.......1 and 12 Memphis.....0 and 11 E. Carolina. 0 and 11 Tulane........1 and 6 Tulsa..........0 and 14 SMU...........0 and 13 Rice...........0 and 11
Keep in mind that some of those schools just listed did not have particularly outstanding seasons in 2011 (e.g., Rice 4-8, Tulane 2-10). Nevertheless, even the C-USA schools that were terrible last year have managed to recruit better than did the Aztecs.
* Big East
All schools recruited better, usually much better, than SDSU (e.g., Rutgers got one 5-star, four 4-star, and thirteen 3-star recruits! ! !) Only the bottom 3 have no 4s to go along with more 3s than we were able to sign. It is against those teams (some will be gone, of course) that we will compete in '13. Take a look here to see just how far behind our soon-to-be conference mates we find ourselves. http://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiti....k/2012/BIGE/all
Yes, it's quite true that some 2-star athletes will end up being very solid performers. Still, if one school regularly stocks up on 4s and 3s (sometimes 5s) and another gets mostly 2s with a few 3s, which do you think is likely to prevail most of the team when they go head-to-head?
Unless we can significantly improve our recruiting next year, we will find life in the Big East very challenging. Frankly, I was hoping for more 3-star or better players this year. We got only six. Hell, man, even lowly San Jose State got 5!
AzWm
Rocky was quoted in stating he doesn't base his recruiting on these so-called star systems. Well then, we'll get to see how that shakes out.
I often peruse the pages of Rivals.com to see how other programs are doing in the area of recruiting. Such study easily indicates that SDSU is far from being equipped to beat, at least on a regular basis, bowl-bound teams with winning records.
Take a look:
* In the MWC, only Boise and Nevada have more recruits of 3 stars or better than SDSU. But we aren't going to be competing in the MWC past this Fall. * In the WAC, Texas St (11), Louisiana Tech (8), and New Mexico State (7) have more 3-star recruits. (Say what?! Texas State! New Mexico State! )
* In Conference-USA, only UAB and UTEP have fewer 3-star recruits than does SDSU. Here are the rest:
Houston......1 4-star, 16-3 star Marshall......1 and 10 So Miss.......1 and 12 Memphis.....0 and 11 E. Carolina. 0 and 11 Tulane........1 and 6 Tulsa..........0 and 14 SMU...........0 and 13 Rice...........0 and 11
Keep in mind that some of those schools just listed did not have particularly outstanding seasons in 2011 (e.g., Rice 4-8, Tulane 2-10). Nevertheless, even the C-USA schools that were terrible last year have managed to recruit better than did the Aztecs.
* Big East
All schools recruited better, usually much better, than SDSU (e.g., Rutgers got one 5-star, four 4-star, and thirteen 3-star recruits! ! !) Only the bottom 3 have no 4s to go along with more 3s than we were able to sign. It is against those teams (some will be gone, of course) that we will compete in '13. Take a look here to see just how far behind our soon-to-be conference mates we find ourselves. http://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiti....k/2012/BIGE/all
Yes, it's quite true that some 2-star athletes will end up being very solid performers. Still, if one school regularly stocks up on 4s and 3s (sometimes 5s) and another gets mostly 2s with a few 3s, which do you think is likely to prevail most of the team when they go head-to-head?
Unless we can significantly improve our recruiting next year, we will find life in the Big East very challenging. Frankly, I was hoping for more 3-star or better players this year. We got only six. Hell, man, even lowly San Jose State got 5!
AzWm
Rocky was quoted in stating he doesn't base his recruiting on these so-called star systems. Well then, we'll get to see how that shakes out.
Yes, Rocky certainly has said that. Curious, do other coaches, I mean those that are top-20 coaches, do they say that? Or do they just go out and recruit top-starred players by accident?
Re: No Raise for Rocky Long? « Reply #56 on Apr 16, 2012, 3:50pm »
William, FYI, almost half of our recruits were unrated by Rivals until the week before LOI day. Then all of a sudden, all the unrated ones were given a 5.3 rating. The result was an average rating of 5.4 by Rivals, or less than the 5.5 average for Texas State. To put it another way, Rivals fumbled the ball big time on rating our 2012 class. Also, some of Texas State's ratings are questionable. I say that because Franchione is understandably bringing in a disproportionate number of JC transfers, who are always overrated. As an example, two of Texas State's 3-star recruits are transfers from JCs in California.
IMO, a better comparison this year is therefore on ESPN, which often isn't impressed enough with a kid to rate him above the minimum 45 grade. JUCO transfers are never rated by ESPN, presumably because they will only be around two years and because so many fail to qualify. ESPN felt positive enough about our class to give 15 of our 20 recruits a rating of 69 and above. Only 11 of Texas State's 25 recruits were similarly rated.
For a brand new school, Texas State did very well. However, to say their class is better than ours is very illusory.
William, FYI, almost half of our recruits were unrated by Rivals until the week before LOI day. Then all of a sudden, all the unrated ones were given a 5.3 rating. The result was an average rating of 5.4 by Rivals, or less than the 5.5 average for Texas State. To put it another way, Rivals fumbled the ball big time on rating our 2012 class. Also, some of Texas State's ratings are questionable. I say that because Franchione is understandably bringing in a disproportionate number of JC transfers, who are always overrated. As an example, two of Texas State's 3-star recruits are transfers from JCs in California.
IMO, a better comparison this year is therefore on ESPN, which often isn't impressed enough with a kid to rate him above the minimum 45 grade. JUCO transfers are never rated by ESPN, presumably because they will only be around two years and because so many fail to qualify. ESPN felt positive enough about our class to give 15 of our 20 recruits a rating of 69 and above. Only 11 of Texas State's 25 recruits were similarly rated.
For a brand new school, Texas State did very well. However, to say their class is better than ours is very illusory.
SGF, you'd mentioned a while back that a newish recruiting evaluation service would be out in, May or June. What was that again please?
If you check the Big East rankings, you'll see that 247 rates our class as being almost identical to UConn's but that we trail all the other BE leftovers. The test will be for 2013. Can we just outright kick UConn's butt if they are lousy again and if we win a bowl game as I think we should, can we put together a class comparable to that of South Florida, for example?
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/home.png "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/help.png "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/search.png "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/login.png "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/register.png "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/search2.png "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/print.png "[Print]")
Author
Logged
New Mexico State!