SLC Luncheon Report

This forum is for Football related topics only. Other topics will be moved to the appropriate forum.
bluemyself
Posts: 76
Joined: November 8th, 2010, 2:27 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 0

SLC Luncheon Report

Post by bluemyself » November 22nd, 2010, 5:09 pm

Well, even if you didn’t ask for it, here’s a review of today’s coach’s luncheon in Salt Lake with Gary Andersen and Scott Barnes. I’ll start with Barnes’ remarks first.

Scott mentioned first that our women’s volleyball team is third in the WAC, and beginning play in the WAC tournament tomorrow in Las Vegas. Of course, no one cares about volleyball, so the only interesting thing about this news was that this tournament is also being held in the Orleans Arena in Las Vegas, and is basically a trial run for this year’s Men’s Basketball Tourney. He then moved on to conference affiliation talk, and mostly wanted to clear up concerns about our autobid and FBS status if Hawaii leaves for the Mountain West. He (like Karl Benson in his teleconference) was pretty confident in the new NCAA legislation that would allow a conference of 7 teams to retain an autobid for basketball. I, personally, am not as confident, but I don’t know what goes on behind closed doors. With regards to our inclusion in the Mountain West, he said you wouldn’t believe how many dummies (my words) come to him and ask, “Have you considered asking the MWC for USU’s inclusion?” He assured us that they are doing everything they can to get us into the MWC while at the same time maintaining our relationship with the WAC. Regarding asking for inclusion in the Mountain West, though, he put it this way: “You can only ask the pretty girl to the dance so many times, though, before it’s considered stalking.” He then reiterated that we are right now “asking the pretty girl to the dance.” Someone asked about the possibility of the MWC to go to 12 teams, and he said that they are seriously discussing it, but some MWC university presidents want expansion, while others don’t. It sounds like it’ll be tricky to get them all to a consensus. Lastly, someone asked if we had burned our bridges with the Mountain West when we declined their initial interest in our joining. Barnes answered that with a pretty forceful “No.” He then reiterated that if placed in the same situation again, he would have responded the same way. And, he stated that even if we would have said that we had interest, Fresno and Nevada still had first rights of refusal on the offer, so they would have been taken ahead of us.

Gary then got up and showed highlights of the team. Surprisingly, there were plays from the Idaho game in there.:) He started by showing a sack and a tipped pass from Quinn Garner, and stated that Garner will be moving to DT next year. He’ll have to put on 15 pounds or so to do that, so we’ll see how that goes. For all of my excitement last year about players switching positions (e.g. Keiaho, Johnson), it sure hasn’t seemed to have paid off. He said that we need to get longer everywhere on the D-line, and Garner will help in that case at DT. Our guys there are too short. He likes Huahulu, but says “He’s not that tall; he’s as wide as he is tall.” Gary showed Curtis Marsh’s interception against the Vandals, and said he thinks Curtis has NFL-ready skills. Now don’t kill me; I’m just the messenger. I certainly don’t buy that, but then again, my least favorite Aggie DB of all time was Ade Jimoh, and somehow he lasted five years in the NFL. He also very highly praised Nevin Lawson, saying that he’s never, ever had a freshman CB play this much, because they’ve never been this good. Lawson had at least 4 pass breakups in the SJSU game, plus the game-winning interception. He’s a good one. On the flip side, he said Rashard Stewart this week is being permanently moved to offense. He’s played quite a bit at CB, and it highly pains Gary to lose an up-and-coming corner, but they really, really, really need a speedy game-breaker on offense. There is NO ONE on the available roster that can be that guy right now.

Speaking of game-breaking offensive threats, here’s the update on our giant list of injured players. Turbin is jogging now, and looks like he’ll be healthy for spring practice. But nobody is allowed to tackle him even once in the spring! That got a hearty laugh from the crowd. Michael Smith (remember him? He seems to be the forgotten injury) is still in a boot with his turf toe, but should still be ready for spring. Both Morrison and Austin are out of boots and crutches, respectively, and just barely getting back to some semblance of normal. Gary said that the underwater treadmill has been especially helpful for Morrison. This Thanksgiving week, I am especially grateful for our outstanding North Endzone facility. Gary says that all of those players are on track for recovery for next year, but they are recruiting as if they won’t have them. You have to expect the best, but plan for the worst. Gary says that the injuries that hurt us the most this year were to our wideouts. Like I mentioned, there is no one that defenses have to account for on the outside, so they can play single coverage and cheat with extra guys in the box. He also mentioned that we don’t have a RB that can break off an 80 yard TD run, so defenses can afford to cheat even more, knowing that if they’re caught out of position on a run they can still recover and hold it to a 20 or 30 yard gain. Other injuries that I wasn’t aware of include Oscar Molina-Sanchez who sprained an ankle and hasn’t played since, Ty Rogers who has arthritis and other issues that ended his season and career early, Austin Alder who separated a shoulder, and Eric Moats who caught one ball on Saturday and then couldn’t play from then on. And that’s not to mention the injuries to Kellen Bartlett, Spencer Johnson, and Tariq Polley. And that’s just the offense. It has been a rough, rough year for our team health.

Gary also showed us clips from the “Scout Bowl.” This is where he has all of the non-travel (i.e. redshirt/walk-on) guys play each other 11-on-11. Highlights included a long pass to Shaan Johnson, a long pass to Keegan (“My knucklehead,” Gary says), an interception by Zach Vigil, and a pass breakup by Forrest Dabb. He mentioned that Shaan Johnson just had his knee scoped (I know! Another injury) but he should be good for spring ball. Keegan is bulking up and being moved to tight end. Someone called out “Does this mean we’re going to throw to the tight end more now?” and got a good laugh. Gary also mentioned again that Joe Hill at RB is going to be a good player for us. As for the QB battle, there’s still no word on a favorite. He’ll take two QB recruits this year, probably a freshman and a JC transfer. Then, they’ll all battle it out for next year’s starting job, and he says he’s sure that all four won’t stick around the program as some of them lose out, because that’s just how things go. He says next year he’s not expecting to have a do-everything QB like Diondre, but rather just needs a game manager to hand off, get the ball to the playmakers, and not make mistakes. Personally, that sounds foreboding to me. I guess time will tell.

Also along the lines of recruiting, he says we’ll probably take around 6 JC players, likely at QB, tackle (both offensive and defensive), and WR. He is pretty disappointed in last year’s JC guys, especially the offensive linemen. We need two solid offensive tackles to come in from the JC ranks, and he admits that LaPan and Abel were both major misses there. This is my own analysis, but we took 4 O-linemen last year, and LaPan and Abel were busts, Fisilau never showed up, and Bryce Walker has barely even been mentioned by the coach, other than to say he’ll be a decent guard someday. Coach mentioned that we lost the Idaho game mainly because of weakness in our lines, and that will be a major point of emphasis in recruiting yet again. He also said that because of conference realignment, particularly the addition of the Texas schools, that not this year, but next year we will move our Orange County/San Diego recruiter to Texas to take advantage of that tie-in.

Lastly, as for the upcoming Boise game, he told us what we already know. They are really, really, ridiculously good. He said it’ll be a “good challenge,” which means, to me, a guaranteed loss. All his talk was about the future, and I can’t blame him. We may give Boise a game for a quarter or two, but that’s about all I think we can hope for. That’s all for now. He seemed less upbeat than usual, but still pretty optimistic and always honest. He’s as disappointed or moreso than any of us, but he calls this a 15-round fight, and we’ve won some rounds but lost plenty of others. Eventually, though, we’ll come out on top. I’m sure I didn’t cover everything, so if there are any questions, let me know, and I’ll let you know if they were discussed.



User avatar
SoCalAggie
Posts: 903
Joined: November 2nd, 2010, 11:10 pm
Location: Anaheim Hills, California
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by SoCalAggie » November 22nd, 2010, 5:20 pm

And, he stated that even if we would have said that we had interest, Fresno and Nevada still had first rights of refusal on the offer, so they would have been taken ahead of us.
what, what? I thought we got the first call? That's what Barns said back in September. So now we know it was "well your third on the list? :headscratch:


Drifting through a world that's torn and tattered, every thought I have don't mean a thing...

El Chapin
Posts: 236
Joined: November 16th, 2010, 9:38 am
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by El Chapin » November 22nd, 2010, 5:32 pm

Revisionist history. Barnes is as disingenuous as they come.



JasonJensen
Posts: 1154
Joined: November 18th, 2010, 7:46 am
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by JasonJensen » November 22nd, 2010, 5:38 pm

I quit asking for the reports because no one would ever respond so thank you. Too build up our lines it's going to take more than just another year. I wouldn't be surprised with a 5 win season next year and a 6-7 win season depending on who is even on the schedule or in the conference for the next year (assuming we still have Turbin). We'll have a lot of weapons next year but it will take a while to break the new QB in.



Stucki
Posts: 440
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 7:09 pm
Location: Midvale
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by Stucki » November 22nd, 2010, 5:55 pm

We all know by now that the phone call gauging our interest was nothing more than an effort to confirm the project.


Hail the Utah Aggies!

BigPermAg
Posts: 689
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 12:20 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by BigPermAg » November 22nd, 2010, 6:05 pm

Incorrect. They already had confirmation about the project from President Samuelson himself to the other Presidents of the MWC on conference call the Thursday before all this broke out. This was confirmed from President Kustra in the Idaho Statesman. They were gauging interest yes, but they already knew of the project.



USUinventedswagger
Posts: 2198
Joined: November 20th, 2010, 9:32 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by USUinventedswagger » November 22nd, 2010, 6:09 pm

4 playmakers that were out this year will be back in uniform next year. The odds that USU loses a home game next year? Answer: Extremely doubtful

We are so close to being back it is scary.

We are like a 30 year old virgin who sleeps with 200 girls by his 31st birthday. A great time for Aggie football is upon us.


The limitation of tyrants is the endurance of those they oppose. – Frederick Douglass

User avatar
hipsterdoofus21
Posts: 15693
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 9:39 pm
Has thanked: 340 times
Been thanked: 872 times

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by hipsterdoofus21 » November 22nd, 2010, 6:22 pm

So did I read that correct? If the MWC called again with the interest question we'd give them the same answer? Sounds to me like Barnes is covering his butt by saying they were checking our interest level. In fact, what would have been wrong with saying "yes, we're interested, what's on your mind?". Then we could have looked at The Project and the MWC's offer and made a decision. I think he knows that by just saying we had no interest he screwed the negociating pooch! No we have backtracking.



User avatar
justinmorrey
Posts: 629
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:29 am
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by justinmorrey » November 22nd, 2010, 9:40 pm

Sounds like Morrison's injury was not career ending like some thought. That's the best news of this luncheon



Yossarian
Posts: 2827
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 11:56 pm
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 185 times

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by Yossarian » November 22nd, 2010, 9:55 pm

SoCalAggie wrote:
And, he stated that even if we would have said that we had interest, Fresno and Nevada still had first rights of refusal on the offer, so they would have been taken ahead of us.
what, what? I thought we got the first call? That's what Barns said back in September. So now we know it was "well your third on the list? :headscratch:

Do you really think USU would be taken over Nevada and/or Fresno? Both of those schools have been ranked in the top 25 in the last 5 years. It had to have been clear to everyone in the college football world that USU would be way, way down on the list of potential expansion teams for the MWC. All five of FSU, UNR, UH, SJSU, and LTU bring more to the table than USU, and Idaho would probably be in front of USU as well. What has USU done in the last 30 years to make itself an attractive candidate for any league that can be choosy in who it takes? USU's predicament is not Stan Albrecht's so much as previous school administrators, athletic directors, coaches, and boosters. Nevada also had something USU didn't have - a proponent on the inside that lobbied hard to get Nevada in (UNLV).



User avatar
GeoAg
Moderator
Posts: 7127
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 1:09 am
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by GeoAg » November 22nd, 2010, 9:59 pm

Yossarian wrote:
SoCalAggie wrote:
And, he stated that even if we would have said that we had interest, Fresno and Nevada still had first rights of refusal on the offer, so they would have been taken ahead of us.
what, what? I thought we got the first call? That's what Barns said back in September. So now we know it was "well your third on the list? :headscratch:

Do you really think USU would be taken over Nevada and/or Fresno? Both of those schools have been ranked in the top 25 in the last 5 years. It had to have been clear to everyone in the college football world that USU would be way, way down on the list of potential expansion teams for the MWC. All five of FSU, UNR, UH, SJSU, and LTU bring more to the table than USU, and Idaho would probably be in front of USU as well. What has USU done in the last 30 years to make itself an attractive candidate for any league that can be choosy in who it takes? USU's predicament is not Stan Albrecht's so much as previous school administrators, athletic directors, coaches, and boosters. Nevada also had something USU didn't have - a proponent on the inside that lobbied hard to get Nevada in (UNLV).
Image


"I don't think you become resilient right in the middle of the season when adversity hits. You learn how to face adversity in the offseason in football. That's when we win games around Utah State." -Coach Matt Wells #ArmsAround

User avatar
BearLakeMonster
Posts: 1818
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:45 am
Location: The Caribbean of the Rockies
Has thanked: 85 times
Been thanked: 57 times

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by BearLakeMonster » November 22nd, 2010, 10:02 pm

What kind of a name is Yossarian?


"The evil I can tolerate. But the stupidity... Just knowing we're in the same genus makes me embarrassed to call myself homo!"

Yossarian
Posts: 2827
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 11:56 pm
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 185 times

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by Yossarian » November 22nd, 2010, 10:08 pm

BearLakeMonster wrote:What kind of a name is Yossarian?

It's Comanche Indian



User avatar
USU78
Pick'em Champ - '16 Weekly
Posts: 6883
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 6:43 am
Location: Sandy
Has thanked: 1022 times
Been thanked: 288 times

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by USU78 » November 22nd, 2010, 10:28 pm

Yossarian wrote:
BearLakeMonster wrote:What kind of a name is Yossarian?

It's Comanche Indian
That's true! See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yossarian :cheers:


You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

User avatar
AggiesForever
Pick'em Champ - '15 Kickoff
Posts: 1899
Joined: January 1st, 1997, 12:00 am
Has thanked: 142 times
Been thanked: 129 times

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by AggiesForever » November 22nd, 2010, 11:28 pm

Yossarian wrote:Do you really think USU would be taken over Nevada and/or Fresno? Both of those schools have been ranked in the top 25 in the last 5 years. It had to have been clear to everyone in the college football world that USU would be way, way down on the list of potential expansion teams for the MWC. All five of FSU, UNR, UH, SJSU, and LTU bring more to the table than USU, and Idaho would probably be in front of USU as well. What has USU done in the last 30 years to make itself an attractive candidate for any league that can be choosy in who it takes? USU's predicament is not Stan Albrecht's so much as previous school administrators, athletic directors, coaches, and boosters. Nevada also had something USU didn't have - a proponent on the inside that lobbied hard to get Nevada in (UNLV).
That's been the point exactly. Starting with the fourth or fifth year of Stan Cazier's term (about 1980) to the start of Stan Albrecht's term, we had a lot of lip service about getting going in football, but either too much of a good thing (George Emert pi$$ing everybody off with his over-the-top attitude) or doing bupkis, like Cazier did the last eight years of his 13-year presidency, and Kermit Hall did pretty much his entire presidency. Barnes used the example of the two Texas schools. Somebody piped up and said something like, "I don't know why we're letting THEM into this conference. Don't THEY kind of cheapen the WAC?" Barnes got this look on his face, as if to say, "You stupid a-hole," and then he said: "Listen this decision isn't being made for the here and now-- it's being made for five years down the road. For a comparison, our student fees generate us about $3.5 million every year. Well, Texas-SA's student fees generate them almost $9 million a year for athletics. They are in a city with no professional team, no FBS competition, they have the Alamo Dome to play in, and in five years they will have an athletic budget of about $29 million. As for Denver University, they have a beautiful campus in Denver, and they have an athletic budget of about $25 million. Of course, it costs $50,000 a year to go to school there. But I'm just putting you guys on notice, that we better step it up. Because, why they don't look like much now, in five years its going to be a very different story with these schools."

Kind of a shot across the bow, if you ask me. The general gist was "It's time to quit (I can't express myself without swearing) and time to start making some things happen financially. That's what these other schools are doing."



User avatar
SuperiorBlueDiver
Posts: 2217
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:27 am
Location: Astoria, OR
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by SuperiorBlueDiver » November 23rd, 2010, 1:12 am

Yossarian wrote:
BearLakeMonster wrote:What kind of a name is Yossarian?

It's Comanche Indian

Wow the only other comanche Indian name I've ever heard was "Poon" ..... and I believe I heard that on Fletch.



User avatar
SuperiorBlueDiver
Posts: 2217
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:27 am
Location: Astoria, OR
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by SuperiorBlueDiver » November 23rd, 2010, 1:42 am

Yossarian wrote:
BearLakeMonster wrote:What kind of a name is Yossarian?

It's Comanche Indian



User avatar
BigBlueDart
Pick'em Champ - '17 FB Predict the Score
Posts: 8094
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 7:57 am
Location: Syracuse, UT
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 294 times

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by BigBlueDart » November 23rd, 2010, 6:12 am

hipsterdoofus21 wrote:So did I read that correct? If the MWC called again with the interest question we'd give them the same answer? Sounds to me like Barnes is covering his butt by saying they were checking our interest level. In fact, what would have been wrong with saying "yes, we're interested, what's on your mind?". Then we could have looked at The Project and the MWC's offer and made a decision. I think he knows that by just saying we had no interest he screwed the negociating pooch! No we have backtracking.
No, I don't think you read that correctly. What I read was that given the same set of circumstances (i.e. the 5 year agreement) he would have done the same thing. If you read all of his comment there is a lot of talk about how we have been asking the pretty girl to the prom, but you can only do that so much before it's considered stalking.



NVAggie
SJSU Ultimate Loser Award Winner - Given to someone that should probably give up but won't.
Posts: 16362
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:09 am
Location: Where the sagebrush grows!
Has thanked: 745 times
Been thanked: 684 times

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by NVAggie » November 23rd, 2010, 8:04 am

hipsterdoofus21 wrote:So did I read that correct? If the MWC called again with the interest question we'd give them the same answer? Sounds to me like Barnes is covering his butt by saying they were checking our interest level. In fact, what would have been wrong with saying "yes, we're interested, what's on your mind?". Then we could have looked at The Project and the MWC's offer and made a decision. I think he knows that by just saying we had no interest he screwed the negociating pooch! No we have backtracking.
Barnes would be smart to take a page from Andersen and just fess up that he completely blew it and is trying to redeem himself.



NVAggie
SJSU Ultimate Loser Award Winner - Given to someone that should probably give up but won't.
Posts: 16362
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:09 am
Location: Where the sagebrush grows!
Has thanked: 745 times
Been thanked: 684 times

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by NVAggie » November 23rd, 2010, 8:06 am

USU78 wrote:
Yossarian wrote:
BearLakeMonster wrote:What kind of a name is Yossarian?

It's Comanche Indian
That's true! See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yossarian :cheers:
And I thought you were just referencing Fletch...

Image



User avatar
AndroidAggie
Posts: 4113
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 7:47 am
Has thanked: 99 times
Been thanked: 119 times

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by AndroidAggie » November 23rd, 2010, 8:09 am

Thank you very much for the report - a lot of detail. I really appreciate that.

As for the "UT-SA and other new WAC schools blow" - doesn't it suck that Boise State and Nevada were both Div 2 schools while we were a Div 1 school? And now they've both surpassed us? I agree with Barnes on this - it doesn't look like they're much now, but with that kind of budget they could do very well.

All USU can do right now is just be successfull and something good will happen.



NVAggie
SJSU Ultimate Loser Award Winner - Given to someone that should probably give up but won't.
Posts: 16362
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:09 am
Location: Where the sagebrush grows!
Has thanked: 745 times
Been thanked: 684 times

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by NVAggie » November 23rd, 2010, 8:11 am

After hearing about Gary explaining all the injuries and the effect it has had on our team I have to take a step back and realize how tough this year has been. I never thought about the injuries in the context that he shared. I hope we can avoid the injury bug next year and get a quarterback that will lead the team.

Let the optimism begin.... :rock: :rock: :rock: :golfclap: :golfclap: :golfclap: :lol: :lol: :lol: :cheers: :cheers: :scotsman: :scotsman: :scotsman: :scotsman: :scotsman: :utah: :scotsman: :scotsman: :scotsman: :scotsman: :scotsman: :state: :scotsman: :scotsman: :scotsman: :utah: :scotsman: :scotsman: :scotsman: :scotsman: :state: :scotsman: :scotsman: :scotsman: :utah: :scotsman: :scotsman: :scotsman: :scotsman: :scotsman: :scotsman: :scotsman: :state: :scotsman: :scotsman: :scotsman: :scotsman: :scotsman: :scotsman: :utah: :scotsman: :scotsman: :scotsman: :scotsman: :scotsman: :state: :scotsman: :scotsman: :scotsman: :scotsman: :scotsman: :scotsman: :scotsman: :scotsman: :scotsman:



bluemyself
Posts: 76
Joined: November 8th, 2010, 2:27 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 0

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by bluemyself » November 23rd, 2010, 9:42 am

Sorry for any confusion in my initial remarks. I reported everything just as it was stated, but here's my take on it. Barnes still believes that "The Project" was our best shot at strengthening our conference position. Thus, our best move back in August was to stay the course and stick with the WAC. Remember that the facts were that Utah was leaving, BYU was leaving, and probably TCU would follow. The MWC would be stuck at 8 schools, and we'd be at 9 with BYU and a great ESPN contract.

So, the MWC called us first, gauging interest. If we would have said yes, we have interest, my understanding after hearing Barnes talk is that the MWC would have said, "Cool, we're looking at some other schools, too, and we'll be in touch." They were only looking for two teams to replace the U and the Y, so they would still have gone to Fresno and Nevada next and made their offer. We wouldn't have been invited over Fresno or Nevada because WE DON'T HAVE A GOOD FOOTBALL PROGRAM. I left that out of my recap, but Barnes said exactly that. Football drives this whole conference realignment business, and we have very little ammo to work with because of, as Barnes put it "the neglect of our football program for the past twenty years."

Luckily, we have leadership in place to focus on football now, but it is probably too little, too late. We may luck into the MWC eventually, but as the old saying goes "beggars can't be choosers." We are football beggars right now. Wins against Idaho and LA Tech sure would have helped this year to show that we are better than the rest of the rump WAC. But obviously that was too much to ask for.:(



Machismo
Posts: 3444
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:10 pm
Location: Providence ,Utah
Has thanked: 295 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by Machismo » November 23rd, 2010, 10:20 am

Wins against Idaho and LA Tech sure would have helped this year to show that we are better than the rest of the rump WAC. But obviously that was too much to ask for.:(

"The Rump WAC" LOL!! I beleive we have a new Conference name. :lol:


"It's not a lie if you believe it" George Costanza

NVAggie
SJSU Ultimate Loser Award Winner - Given to someone that should probably give up but won't.
Posts: 16362
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:09 am
Location: Where the sagebrush grows!
Has thanked: 745 times
Been thanked: 684 times

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by NVAggie » November 23rd, 2010, 11:05 am

20 years of neglect my RUMP, we have been neglecting the football program for a solid 30 to 40 years now.



User avatar
BearLakeMonster
Posts: 1818
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:45 am
Location: The Caribbean of the Rockies
Has thanked: 85 times
Been thanked: 57 times

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by BearLakeMonster » November 23rd, 2010, 11:06 am

USU78 wrote:
Yossarian wrote:
BearLakeMonster wrote:What kind of a name is Yossarian?

It's Comanche Indian
That's true! See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yossarian :cheers:
No, no, no. I said, "What the hell kind of name is Yossarian?"


"The evil I can tolerate. But the stupidity... Just knowing we're in the same genus makes me embarrassed to call myself homo!"

User avatar
ultramagnus
Posts: 453
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:30 am
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by ultramagnus » November 23rd, 2010, 12:01 pm

Mars wrote:Thank you very much for the report - a lot of detail. I really appreciate that.

As for the "UT-SA and other new WAC schools blow" - doesn't it suck that Boise State and Nevada were both Div 2 schools while we were a Div 1 school? And now they've both surpassed us? I agree with Barnes on this - it doesn't look like they're much now, but with that kind of budget they could do very well.

All USU can do right now is just be successfull and something good will happen.
This. If we don't continue to improve results on the field and keep up with funding and facilities like we have the past couple years, I fully expect the Texas schools to pass USU (and Idaho and NMSU for that matter) on the gridiron. We'd better have our tish together if we want to take advantage of the new WAC. Otherwise, I see two hungry programs that have the money (and are located in a recruiting gold mine!) and vision to be the next Boise or Nevada.

Edit: Anyone see Oregon's newly proposed 41 million dollar facility for football? :shock: The arm's race is never-ending in big time college football.



User avatar
BigBlueDart
Pick'em Champ - '17 FB Predict the Score
Posts: 8094
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 7:57 am
Location: Syracuse, UT
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 294 times

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by BigBlueDart » November 23rd, 2010, 12:22 pm

Whether TxSt and UTSA will be the next Boise and Nevada is one issue. Whether USU will be able to develop a meaningful rivalry with either school is another. For that reason alone I would prefer to be in a conference with Wyoming and Colorado St, even if they don't have great programs themselves (they've both still been bowling more recently than we have).



NVAggie
SJSU Ultimate Loser Award Winner - Given to someone that should probably give up but won't.
Posts: 16362
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:09 am
Location: Where the sagebrush grows!
Has thanked: 745 times
Been thanked: 684 times

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by NVAggie » November 23rd, 2010, 12:51 pm

We need to get a T. Boone, or a Phil Knight on our side. Then we would be in good shape.



utaggies
Posts: 3862
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 12:25 pm
Has thanked: 90 times
Been thanked: 121 times

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by utaggies » November 23rd, 2010, 1:43 pm

NVAggie wrote:
hipsterdoofus21 wrote:So did I read that correct? If the MWC called again with the interest question we'd give them the same answer? Sounds to me like Barnes is covering his butt by saying they were checking our interest level. In fact, what would have been wrong with saying "yes, we're interested, what's on your mind?". Then we could have looked at The Project and the MWC's offer and made a decision. I think he knows that by just saying we had no interest he screwed the negociating pooch! No we have backtracking.
Barnes would be smart to take a page from Andersen and just fess up that he completely blew it and is trying to redeem himself.
Your opinion, but certainly not mine. Either you honor your agreement or you don't. You don't say you will; vote that you will; contractually obligate yourself that you will; and then don't when it becomes convenient to do so.

But I agree with the post that stated although USU's interest of going to the MWC was being gaged, it would be difficult for a logical person to believe that we would have stepped ahead of FU and UNR in the pecking order. We didn't step ahead of them when the WAC was inviting Big West teams and we've done nothing since to warrant us stepping ahead of them back in August.

The whole object of any invites was to stop BYU from going to the WAC. Did Thompson feel he needed 3 MWC invites to do that instead of two? I don't know. Regardless, BYU was not disuaded.



User avatar
SoCalAggie
Posts: 903
Joined: November 2nd, 2010, 11:10 pm
Location: Anaheim Hills, California
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by SoCalAggie » November 23rd, 2010, 3:23 pm

Yossarian wrote:
SoCalAggie wrote:
And, he stated that even if we would have said that we had interest, Fresno and Nevada still had first rights of refusal on the offer, so they would have been taken ahead of us.
what, what? I thought we got the first call? That's what Barns said back in September. So now we know it was "well your third on the list? :headscratch:

Do you really think USU would be taken over Nevada and/or Fresno? Both of those schools have been ranked in the top 25 in the last 5 years. It had to have been clear to everyone in the college football world that USU would be way, way down on the list of potential expansion teams for the MWC. All five of FSU, UNR, UH, SJSU, and LTU bring more to the table than USU, and Idaho would probably be in front of USU as well. What has USU done in the last 30 years to make itself an attractive candidate for any league that can be choosy in who it takes? USU's predicament is not Stan Albrecht's so much as previous school administrators, athletic directors, coaches, and boosters. Nevada also had something USU didn't have - a proponent on the inside that lobbied hard to get Nevada in (UNLV).
Yes because Fresno was/is not well liked by the MWC school presidents. I think that's a fact. If the MWC wanted Fresno, they would have been in the MWC long before the "project" came along. The invites were clear attempts to derail the "project".

Oh and that part about UNLV helping UNR get an invite :lol: yea and I've got some prime land out near the bear river marsh I want to unload, interested? No, UNLV was no more interested in having UNR join the MWC than Utah was US (when they were still members).


Drifting through a world that's torn and tattered, every thought I have don't mean a thing...

Yossarian
Posts: 2827
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 11:56 pm
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 185 times

Re: SLC Luncheon Report

Post by Yossarian » November 23rd, 2010, 4:01 pm

Do you really think USU would be taken over Nevada and/or Fresno? Both of those schools have been ranked in the top 25 in the last 5 years. It had to have been clear to everyone in the college football world that USU would be way, way down on the list of potential expansion teams for the MWC. All five of FSU, UNR, UH, SJSU, and LTU bring more to the table than USU, and Idaho would probably be in front of USU as well. What has USU done in the last 30 years to make itself an attractive candidate for any league that can be choosy in who it takes? USU's predicament is not Stan Albrecht's so much as previous school administrators, athletic directors, coaches, and boosters. Nevada also had something USU didn't have - a proponent on the inside that lobbied hard to get Nevada in (UNLV).[/quote]

Yes because Fresno was/is not well liked by the MWC school presidents. I think that's a fact. If the MWC wanted Fresno, they would have been in the MWC long before the "project" came along. The invites were clear attempts to derail the "project".

Oh and that part about UNLV helping UNR get an invite :lol: yea and I've got some prime land out near the bear river marsh I want to unload, interested? No, UNLV was no more interested in having UNR join the MWC than Utah was US (when they were still members).[/quote]


If I remember correctly, it was pretty well documented that UNLV was very much pro-UNR in the conference. It makes sense, if the conference was going to expand, the only real viable options were Fresno State, Nevada, Hawaii, and some Texas schools (Houston, SMU, Rice, UTEP). If you were a school administrator or Athletic Director trying to balance a budget and you were figuring out travel costs for all sports, which schools do you think look most appealing? Couple that with the fact that Nevada has a Top 25 football program and a basketball program that has been in the Top 25 recently, and it is not too much of a stretch to see how UNLV administration would want Nevada. The fans of UNLV wanting Nevada is a different discussion, but the fans do not make the decisions.


Post Script: I completely gummed up that whole QUOTE feature - my apologies



Locked Previous topicNext topic