Jump to content

HighNTight_SD

Members
  • Posts

    4,131
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Team
    San Diego State
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    City on the Eastern Rim of the Pacific

Recent Profile Visitors

4,980 profile views
  1. that would have been my next observation ... then we should bold Utah and TCU for them what still post here, UCLA for BayBruin and don't forget Idaho & NMSU (the later of which I have not seen in a spell)
  2. why exactly did you bold Houston?
  3. All fine points ... but don't address the response that inferred that without Penny we got nuhtin'. Same old response from you all ... without Hillman, Muema, Pumphrey, Penny etc. Behind each one was either a very capable backup like Kazee or next years feature back whose job was made a lot easier in either case by an O-Line that has always cleared a hole and a Fullback that has always kept it that way.
  4. When are you guys going to realize that the h-backs excel at SDSU because of our O-line and Fullbacks -- by November they will be refined and even our 3rd string H-back will be killing it.
  5. TBH ... part of me is gratified when a few of the Aztec Faithful post their over the top musings about our place in the conference and our positive development as a program. If not for the "cautious optimism" that comes with being a San Diego Sports fan, more of us would be like them. Another part of me is embarrassed by the over-the-top, jimmie rustlin' nature of their posts. It's good to know that most of you recognize that they are a small, albeit vocal minority of our fans. I may not be as "fanatical" as they are, but they do make salient points from time to time -- often lost in that cloak of TSDSUF style. Until we are counted among the giants (P5), I'll take being the tallest midget.
  6. Yeah it sucked to lose to a team that would go on to lose to Idaho ... Of course that was offset by beating Wyo & Houston in the next two games
  7. Hmmm ... a thread about 2018 recruiting champions before the 2017 season has started? I, like most sane people, will wait until the 2019 season begins to see the results of 2018 recruiting in 2017. So much will happen between now and then. Coaches will be fired, recruits will de-commit or be declared academic ineligibles as well as transfers, injuries, dismissals and other such events will all have an effect before today's recruits are ever integrated into any teams' 2-deep and thus can a class be declared a success or a bust. Recruiting is indeed important -- ratings, not so much.
  8. so would the Pac take TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech, K-State and/or Iowa State?
  9. bwahahahhahaha Liberty, Coastal Carolina, etc.
  10. I would suppose it would be the result of a P4 cabal agreement in which the only way to have a guaranteed spot in a 4 team "Autonomous" Championship playoff is for each conference champion to come from a 16 team conference. This would solidify the separation from the rest of the FBS.
  11. 1st ... Any expansion of the Pac beyond 12 will reduce the number of non-CA teams playing in CA (unless the expansion teams are from CA). 2nd .. Any method by which you divide 16 schools into two divisions -- even with a 9 game schedule will result in some conference teams not playing other teams for at least 4 years. The 4 CA teams want to keep playing each other every year regardless of division, just as the Pac NW schools want to continue to play each other every year regardless of division ... All conference members want multiple games in CA. The Pac is at it's membership limit in being able to accomplish both these things.
  12. So ... using the previous example of a 9 game conference schedule with 7 divisional games and 2 x-div games: Pac: WA, OR St, Cal, USC, AZ St, CU, SDSU, UNM West: WA St, OR, Stanford, UCLA, AZ, UT, HAWAII, UNLV Cal has their perm x-div rival as Stanford -- add 7 division games (of which USC is one) the remaining x-div game will be the remaining regional team, which in this case is UCLA. 2 years later the divisions are reconfigured: Pac: WA, OR, Cal, UCLA, AZ St, UT, Hawaii, UNM West: WA St, OR St, Stanford, USC, AZ, CU, SDSU, UNLV Cal still has their perm x-div rival Stanford -- this time UCLA is a divisional game and the remaining regional x-div is USC. The zipper can continually be shuffled until all conference team have played each other ... but the basic premise is that there will always be at least 2 CA teams in each division and that all teams in a region will play each other every year (Pac NW, CA, AZ/UT/CO, & the +4). It is doubtful that there is any equitable division of a 16 team conference that will allow the original Pac-8 to form a division and lock the other division out of CA.
  13. I'm pretty sure the CA schools playing each other is covered in the "zipper" approach to divisions. Cal & Stanford are permanent x-div rivals, as are USC & UCLA. The 4 CA schools would make up a "region" (like the 4 Pacific NW schools) so whichever CA schools that are not in the same div or permanent rivals will be covered with the "regional x-div" game. As it stands now the 4 CA schools are in different divisions and all 4 continue to play each other every year -- that has been preserved. Any expansion to 16 would have an effect on the number of games all non-CA teams have in CA ... whether 2 divisions, 4 pods or zippered.
  14. If the Pac were to expand to 16 teams, they would probably switch to an ACC "zipper" type of divisional alignment & 9 game conference schedule (7 divisional games, 1 perm x-div rival and 1 regional x-div game) for football. This format would ensure all teams continue to play in CA as well as the teams in their geographic "pod". e.g. (using 4 mwc teams to get to 16 -- could have used 4 B12 teams) Pac: WA, OR St, Cal, USC, AZ St, CU, SDSU, UNM West: WA St, OR, Stanford, UCLA, AZ, UT, HAWAII, UNLV Washington would play all the teams in its' div (OR St, Cal, USC, SDSU, AZ St, CU & UNM), x-div rival would be WA St & regional x-div would be Oregon. In this example, Washington would have 3 games vs CA teams & still have all their regional rivalries vs WA St, OR & OR St. Every 2 Years the divisions would alternate: Pac: WA, OR, Cal, UCLA, AZ St, UT, Hawaii, UNM West: WA St, OR St, Stanford, USC, AZ, CU, SDSU, UNLV Washington would still have 2 games vs CA teams, still play all the teams in its region - but has exchanged the additional CA game for a game @ Hawaii & the opportunity for a week "0" home game & whatever revenue or exposure that comes with it.. 2 years later the divisions would shift again so that team will have played every other conference member ... this would mean that teams that have not played in Las Vegas like WA & Cal would now have UNLV on their schedule. If it helps, you can substitute Houston, TX Tech, KS St &/or IA St in place of any or all of SDSU, Hawaii UNLV &/or UNM. For Basketball (and other Oly Sports) ... it would be an 18 game conference schedule in which each team would play it's regional teams 2x (6 games) and the other 12 teams 1x. Again using Washington as an example, they would play WA St, OR & OR St both home and away, while playing all other teams either home or away ... (Cal at home and Stanford on the road, USC at home and UCLA on the Road etc.) In the above example, this would put SDSU, UNLV, UNM & Hawaii in a "region".
  15. There is no doubt that athletics are the most flexible condition -- teams can obviously have up and down years ... but the program should be be consistently in the upper half of the FBS & D1 (basketball & baseball). That being said ... the teams added have to be able to compete not just for their own post-season, but to increase the chances of their fellow conference members to do so as well. An addition that can compete right away is going to be more attractive than one that will take time to increase their level of play.
×
×
  • Create New...