Jump to content

AztecSU

Members
  • Posts

    13,467
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by AztecSU

  1. On 3/28/2024 at 6:46 AM, RSF said:

    And they'll say...who?

     

     

    if that were actually true, Texas State wouldnt still be languishing in the Sun Belt.  PT Aresco would have invited them to the AAC.

    They moved to D1 a little over a decade ago, so it's not a surprise that they are in the SBC. 

  2. On 3/27/2024 at 7:23 PM, RSF said:

    A mediocre school, a lousy athletic program, an undersized and apathetic fan base, in a market where UT dominates all.

    Biggest name in San Marcos.  That's a good one.

     

    And there multiple state school systems that 'represent' the whole state.  With the Texas State system comprised of the leftovers.  It doesnt even have a flagship.

     

    And its not a young brand.  Been around 125 years.  Used to be a directional school until they dropped the 'Southwest' from their name in a failed attempt to burnish their image.

    Other than that...

    Most people tuning in on the boob tube outside of Texas will have no clue. They’ll just see the name Texas State in the MW. 

  3. On 3/27/2024 at 1:19 PM, Headbutt said:

    Not liking that split or even necessarily those additions.  I'd much prefer to keep USU in a division with CSU and Wyoming.  I realize it's small time thinking, but I'd also prefer the Montana schools over Memphis and Tulane.  Good additions, but Texas is about as far east as I want to go.  I feel like we need to maintain some regionality.

    It's easy. MW+PAC2+TXST+UTEP

    I know the reaction the last two will get but I think in the long term they are the right additions to get to 16. UTEP is a natural UNM rival, rivalries are important IMO. TXST is likely to make the leap(Other Tx schools likely wouldn't), and they have a name that fits in with STATE heavy MW, and they have good FB/BB facilities. 

     

    • Like 1
  4. On 3/26/2024 at 3:08 PM, Gonzagafan2021 said:

    OSU and WSU are signing a deal with CW.

    Saw that, surprised they were able to get it done. Good for them, but it won't last. If anything they likely will bring CW into the fold with the MW. The CW/ACC deal ends in 2027, so good timing. 

    • Like 1
  5. On 3/26/2024 at 11:52 AM, utenation said:

    Look, I'm cheering for SDSU, just like last year but to avoid saying SDSU had an easy path to the S16 is pure blindness. Of course they handled their business. Nobody is saying they didn't. They are a good team with post season experience. 

    I just get a chuckle out of a SDSU fan that thinks every conference sucks and thinks SDSU is an NBA Dream Team. 

    And where are you getting this from? People correctly pointing out the MW is +++++ing up?

  6. On 3/26/2024 at 12:01 PM, East Coast Aztec said:

    The development of Heide from a big, but timid player to start the year to now has been the second biggest positive takeaway after LeDee, with Saunders also needing a mention.  

    Dont forget Byrd. 

    Between Heidi, Saunders, and Byrd, we have some good/young talent ready to get big minutes next year. 

    • Like 1
  7. On 3/26/2024 at 1:15 PM, AztecSU said:

    This is the future; it's just that WSU/OSU will decide how quickly it becomes permanent. We aren't going anywhere, but neither are they; they just need to understand that before they make the leap. 

    image.png.4863030d8f193d5f6cf97a4a5542c43d.png

    Top "STATE" schools from the following states

    California, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Utah, and Colorado. For marketing/brand purposes only we should pursue TXST in the future if our expansion options dry up and the school performs well. 

  8. Aztecs only hope is the guards shoot out of their minds from 3 and the bench comes up big. We don't have the horses to match up inside, but we are experienced in the back court. Last year they shot 35% from 3, while we shot 26% and they made 9 more FTs. Defend the 3, make our shots, big game for the bench, and manage fouls. Its a long shot, but guard play will be the difference if we have any chance. 

  9. On 3/20/2024 at 1:29 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

    SDSU Fans: "OOC wins a and strength of schedule are important to the committee"

    Others: "Yes, cut out a non D1 buy in game and your ability to schedule OOC teams won't be impacted by this decision.  It will probably be impacted though by fewer opportunities to schedule them as they all move to more conference games"

    SDSU Fans:  "Buy in games are important though, need those easy games for chemistry"

    SUDS fans trying to have it both ways here.  The MWC games are garbage and hurt their  tournament but also this makes their schedule harder because they would have to eliminate a buy game to have the same OOC scheduling opportunities they currently do in a fantasy world where the opportunities to do so remain static.

     

     

    It's not complicated. Like it or not, a large portion of the conf has their wins at home measured differently because of elevation. What increasing conf games does limits the amount of games not at elevation we can all log in exchange for games we now know the committee def downgrades. Its an unfortunately reality for the MW but its reality. 

  10.  

    On 3/20/2024 at 12:44 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

    Tons of ways to gel you would not miss a beat by a buy in game a year.  Closed scrimmages, Boise played 4 games in Canada this summer, etc...A buy game won't help you gel more than that.  And that is the ONLY thing these dumb ass SDSU fans can point to that they would lose that they would not otherise.  A buy game a year.  The horror.  The Aztecs sacrificing a buy game is a small price to pay for the modest benefit it will provide the MWC and our athletic departments.

    That's not the point.  In fact it reinforces mine.  That is 32 less OOC games a year the Big 12 will be scheduling.  We are looking at hundreds of less OOC games a year scheduled by the top conferences cumulatively in the coming years. 

    Any limitation in MWC school scheduling "up" will come from less opportunities from those conferences with no connection to the MWC to do so.  

    This is not taking away our ability to schedule signature games that will bolster NCAA tourney bid hopes.  It is, in theory, giving our teams better games by easing the scheduling burden most of us face so we don't have to add an LMU at the last minute but instead get an extra home game against a conference team.  Home games are huge for us.

    The only single argument any SDSU clown has put forth is "we all need body bag buy games for chemistry and this will make our schedule harder".

    Weak as +++++ing +++++ +++++

    MW games on the road at elevation are less important than out of conference games against P5 programs. You are so emotional about SDSU that I feel embarrassed for you, halfman. 

    • Like 1
  11. I was looking at the 2024 season, week by week, yesterday, when I got to week 7. Go and look and tell me that isn’t the future MW. It’s going to be a good conf that’s lots of fun. Not in the top 4 but with BB/FB will be the clear 5th representing regions and territories not otherwise represented. 
     

    Whatever happens with the ACC I doubt it will involve MW/Pac2 schools.

    • Like 2
  12. Not only will 4 or 5 MW schools not be joining the PAC2, but it's becoming clear the best thing for the MW schools in the death of the PAC and PAC brand. You can already see the media and sports fans commenting about the "only remaining truly Western conference". The MW brand is ascendant and if we can get 2 or more schools to the S16 we will ride a new wave of attention into the next school year. 

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
    • Cheers 2
  13. On 3/8/2024 at 12:23 PM, renoskier said:

    no...but the "thing on it" does not have an infinite life.

    think of two identical parcels side by side, both have similar structures but one is 30 years older than the other, which one is gong to be more valuable?

     

    On 3/8/2024 at 12:27 PM, bornontheblue said:

    Huh? 

    We are talking two different languages here. 

    One is depreciation expense on fixed assets and the other is fair market value. Two completely different things. 

     

    Perhaps you both struggle because you arent familiar with prices in SoCal? Shacks with almost no investment selling for near $1mm pretty much throughout the region. I get that they are separate. 

    • Confused 1
  14. On 3/8/2024 at 9:49 AM, East Coast Aztec said:

    Not a comment on the game itself, but why the hell does SDSU do whiteouts?  Not many fans have white SDSU shirts, since we are red and black.  Gotta kill that, unless they are providing the shirts. 

    Both teams looking for bounce backs, I just hope if we clank 3's right out the gate, we don't try to shoot our way into a groove, it is a risk I don't think we should take with Boise.

    This is a good question. Football doesn’t mess with red at all. Basketball kinda does but mostly because we had those dope Chicago bulls looking unis. 

  15. On 3/8/2024 at 9:32 AM, bornontheblue said:

    27.5 years for residential real estate

    39 years for commercial real estate

    Land is never depreciated 

     

    I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. Are you saying that because the FMV of land has appreciated so much over 30 years taking depreciation expense is not warranted????

     

     

    Are you saying that property values are only based on land on not the thing on it? 

    • Confused 1
×
×
  • Create New...