Jump to content

BulldogBBJ2

Members
  • Posts

    1,775
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Thx for the confidence, but little in Hill's history suggests he'll lose only two. Also, I think you might have overlooked that Boise is on the Dogs' OOC slate. Needless to say, I don't like our chances in that one. Moreover, Hill is usually good for one total head-scratching loss per year. Finally, the O-line is very suspect this year. I would feel fortunate to go 9-4.
  2. Yup. As a fan, I won't travel to watch a Pat Hill-coached team in any bowl against any non-AQ. If the team isn't going to show, why should I? I can't remember the details, but I recall reading that Hill let it slip that he was annoyed that the Dogs had to play in this bowl game, in light of its timing, and the relation of that timing to some recruiting date of significance. In other words, this bowl game was an irritation to him because it interfered with recruiting. THEN DON'T ACCEPT THE INVITATION, DAMN IT! It absolutely showed that he regarded the bowl game as an annoyance.
  3. Yeah, I know, 2005 is actually a very logical breaking point.
  4. The Fresno board is in absolute incineration mode. I am not exaggerating when I say it's probably a 20-to-1 ratio in posters lambasting Hill versus supporting him at this time. So, no, Fresno fans aren't satisfied. But that's not going to matter. President Welty made a couple of horrible hiring decisions in the past (Tark, and an AD named Scott Johnson who earned the U four sexual discrimination lawsuits), and I would strongly suspect that now that Welty is nearing retirement, he is more interested in running a clean program than winning -- as if "clean" and "winning" are mutually exclusive categories. I am afraid that we're stuck with Hill until Hill or Welty retires (whichever occurs first).
×
×
  • Create New...