2008's recruits, according to the RGJ:
2008 Nevada football recruits
Name, Pos., Ht., Wt., Cl.-Exp., Hometown (High school)
High School signees
*Brandon Wimberly, WR, 6-3, 195, Fr.-HS, Los Angeles (Gardena HS)
Michael Ball, RB, 5-10, 225, Fr.-HS, Las Vegas (Desert Pines HS)
*Zack Sudfeld, TE, 6-7, 230, Fr.-Nevada, Modesto Calif. (Modesto Christian HS)
Christian Barker, OL, 6-4, 315, Fr.-HS, Fontana, Calif. (Etiwanda HS)
Aaron Huck, OL, 6-3, 295, Fr.-HS, San Jose (Oak Grove HS)
Jeff Nady, OL, 6-7, 255, Fr.-HS Minden (Douglas HS)
Steve Werner, OL, 6-5, 310, Fr.-HS, Tulare, Calif. (Tulare West HS)
Mark Forrest, DE, 6-7, 210, Fr.-HS, San Jose (Oak Grove HS)
Jon Rabe, DT, 6-5, 285, Fr.-HS, Upland, Calif. (Damian HS)
*Mark Avery, DT, 6-4, 270, Fr.-HS, Stockton, Calif. (Amos Alonzo Stagg HS)
Jack Reynoso, DT, 6-3, 260, Fr.-HS, Loomis, Calif. (Del Oro HS)
*Albert Rosette, LB, 6-2, 225, Fr.-HS, Concord, Calif. (De La Salle HS)
*Brett Roy, LB, 6-4, 240, Fr.-Nevada, Yucaipa, Calif. (Yucaipa HS)
Thaddeus Brown, DB, 5-11, 177, Fr.-HS, Pasadena, Calif. (Notre Dame HS)
Isaiah Frey, DB, 6-0, 190, Fr.-HS, Olivehurst, Calif. (Jesuit HS)
Khalid Wooten, DB, 6-0, 195, Fr.-HS, Rialto, Calif. (Carter HS)
Marlon Johnson, S, 5-11, 185, Fr.-HS, Ingelwood, Calif. (Ingelwood HS)
Ahmad Wood, Ath, 5-11, 185, Fr.-HS, San Pedro, Calif. (San Pedro HS)
Junior College signees
Michael Andrews, DT, 6-3, 275, So.-JC, Kailua, Hawaii (Arizona Western College)
Antoine Thompson, DB, 6-1, 195, Jr.-JC, Norfolk, Va. (Reedley College)
Maurice Harvey, S, 6-4, 215, Jr.-JC, Titusville, Fla. (Reedley College)
Dayton Guillory, Ath, 6-0, 180, Jr.-JC, Bossier City, La. (Yuba CC)
* - already enrolled at Nevada
As usual, it would seem special teams is going to be left out - I don't see a single kicker on the list here, at least. I'm sure some of these guys are going to get some time on special teams while they wait for their starting positions to open up, and getting more speed on that side of the ball would be excellent, but it won't matter if we can't get a kicker that can keep the ball on the field on kickoffs. Letting our opponents repeatedly start on the 35 yard line is not exactly encouraging to me.
That said, it would seem our program is going in the right direction here. We definitely needed some more depth on defense, and it looks like we're going to get it. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I'm much less concerned about Ault and much more concerned about our program. If Ault can reinvent himself the way Tom Coughlin and countless others have reinvented themselves, we'll be the ones that benefit from that.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
In Response to Super Post
The nice thing about being a contributor here is that I get to reply with a full-on post... so I will!
I was the cohort that was at that game, and though I was also rooting for the Patriots, I can understand why others weren't. The key, ironically enough, is in this part of the Super Post:
In short, the reason my cohort became a Patriots fan was because they were terrible. They were the ultimate underdog. I understand. That's how I became a Rams fan. I was originally raised in Torrance, a suburb of Los Angeles, and I had a choice - I could either become a Raiders fan like all of the "cool kids", or I could become a Rams fan. Since I wasn't cool, guess what I did? It's the same way I became a Clippers fan. It's also the same way I became an Angels fan.
It's also the same way a lot of people became New York Giants fans that night.
To be honest, the Patriots weren't particularly likable this year. If your team played them, they probably ran up the score against you. If your team was the Jets, they also cheated against you. Their coach, though brilliant, is socially callous and inherently unfriendly. Tom Brady is not only a brilliant and amazing quarterback - he's a brilliant and amazing quarterback that goes out with supermodels. Not "supermodel", mind you - we're talking plural supermodels. If you're a Raiders fan, you probably have some Randy Moss hate mail in your AutoText, ready to go out at a moment's notice. The list goes on like this. Meanwhile, you turn on the radio, or you turn on ESPN, and what do you see? Patriots, Patriots, Patriots... nothing but the Patriots. Show after show after talking head after vapid personality expounding on how brilliant they are, how historic they are, how they do all the right things (provided a camcorder isn't involved, of course), how they're all so humble and righteous and...
Ugh.
Americans love heroes. Americans also love underdogs. There's a reason for this - heroes and underdogs, at least in the American tradition, are humble people that get the job done. We can relate to that. We do that every day we go to work, take care of the kids, or clean our bathrooms. What Americans can't stand is ostentatious success. We simply don't handle having someone else's success thrown in our faces all that well. Do you know why the NBA's ratings continue to plummet? Because the entire league is full of "me first" guys who are the opposite of humble. The Patriots, well, sure, their players are humble... but the organization sure as hell isn't. Humble organizations don't point cameras at opposing coordinators after winning three Super Bowls. Humble organizations don't prepare elaborate post-Super Bowl parties to celebrate their undefeated season before it even happens. Humble organizations don't run up the score like some kind of college powerhouse each and every game.
I can understand why nobody likes the Patriots. It has nothing to do with the small lives of small-minded people or anything like that. It's just that the Patriots were ruthlessly efficient, brutal, and effective, and "ruthless" and "cuddly" rarely go well together.
I was still rooting for them anyways.
I was the cohort that was at that game, and though I was also rooting for the Patriots, I can understand why others weren't. The key, ironically enough, is in this part of the Super Post:
With that stated, as far as NFL teams go I admit my leanings are toward the Patriots. Why, because they've been good for the past ten years? Quite the opposite, in fact. When I was a child I had the athletic ability of the average tarantula (those who have been in Gabbs, NV for the annual tarantula migration know what I'm talking about), and when we would pick team names, me being the one who could care less at the time, I would ask of the others: "Which team sucks the most?" Unanimously, they would blurt out: "Oh, the Patriots are terrible!" and so I always went with the Patriots as my one-on-one team name.
In short, the reason my cohort became a Patriots fan was because they were terrible. They were the ultimate underdog. I understand. That's how I became a Rams fan. I was originally raised in Torrance, a suburb of Los Angeles, and I had a choice - I could either become a Raiders fan like all of the "cool kids", or I could become a Rams fan. Since I wasn't cool, guess what I did? It's the same way I became a Clippers fan. It's also the same way I became an Angels fan.
It's also the same way a lot of people became New York Giants fans that night.
To be honest, the Patriots weren't particularly likable this year. If your team played them, they probably ran up the score against you. If your team was the Jets, they also cheated against you. Their coach, though brilliant, is socially callous and inherently unfriendly. Tom Brady is not only a brilliant and amazing quarterback - he's a brilliant and amazing quarterback that goes out with supermodels. Not "supermodel", mind you - we're talking plural supermodels. If you're a Raiders fan, you probably have some Randy Moss hate mail in your AutoText, ready to go out at a moment's notice. The list goes on like this. Meanwhile, you turn on the radio, or you turn on ESPN, and what do you see? Patriots, Patriots, Patriots... nothing but the Patriots. Show after show after talking head after vapid personality expounding on how brilliant they are, how historic they are, how they do all the right things (provided a camcorder isn't involved, of course), how they're all so humble and righteous and...
Ugh.
Americans love heroes. Americans also love underdogs. There's a reason for this - heroes and underdogs, at least in the American tradition, are humble people that get the job done. We can relate to that. We do that every day we go to work, take care of the kids, or clean our bathrooms. What Americans can't stand is ostentatious success. We simply don't handle having someone else's success thrown in our faces all that well. Do you know why the NBA's ratings continue to plummet? Because the entire league is full of "me first" guys who are the opposite of humble. The Patriots, well, sure, their players are humble... but the organization sure as hell isn't. Humble organizations don't point cameras at opposing coordinators after winning three Super Bowls. Humble organizations don't prepare elaborate post-Super Bowl parties to celebrate their undefeated season before it even happens. Humble organizations don't run up the score like some kind of college powerhouse each and every game.
I can understand why nobody likes the Patriots. It has nothing to do with the small lives of small-minded people or anything like that. It's just that the Patriots were ruthlessly efficient, brutal, and effective, and "ruthless" and "cuddly" rarely go well together.
I was still rooting for them anyways.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Super Blog
Before I begin I will admit to all readers: I am not much of an NFL fan. Sorry, but college football, I think, is far superior, even if the product varies in consistency. College athletics is WAR! Pro sports, on the otherhand, means paychecks. I, myself, am not completely consistent in this, either, as I do love professional baseball and my beloved Giants, Barry Bonds aside. But when it comes to football I'm somewhat less enthusiastic. Let alone the NBA, I could really care less about them. Just my opinion.
With that stated, as far as NFL teams go I admit my leanings are toward the Patriots. Why, because they've been good for the past ten years? Quite the opposite, in fact. When I was a child I had the athletic ability of the average tarantula (those who have been in Gabbs, NV for the annual tarantula migration know what I'm talking about), and when we would pick team names, me being the one who could care less at the time, I would ask of the others: "Which team sucks the most?" Unanimously, they would blurt out: "Oh, the Patriots are terrible!" and so I always went with the Patriots as my one-on-one team name. Leanings turned into an affinity and the next thing I knew my adopted team was in the Super Bowl, just months after I had proclaimed: "I just want to live long enough to see the Patriots in the Super Bowl; not to see them win, because I know that won't ever happen, but just to see them get there." Needless to say for about three years there I thought I was living on borrowed time.
The point? Well, I'm going to say a few things here. I don't think that they are too biased, but in case some other readers think otherwise that should provide some insight.
Aside from just wanting the Pats to win on principle's sake, I really, REALLY wanted to see history made this year. Of course, as all know by now, that didn't happen. My cohort and I tried out a new tavern for our Super Bowl festa, and for the first half or so there was one Giant's fan amongst a handfull of Pats fans. By the second half my comrade and I were the ONLY people rooting for the Patriots, and there were a hearty number rooting for the underdogs.
Why? I wanted to see history so badly, why did so many others want to see them fail?
I think that there is a little piece inside many, unfulfilled souls, who hate success, at least when other people achieve that success. Perhaps they hate their own lives, or just feel animosity toward anybody who nears achieving the unachievable. A part of me began to believe that people's internal negitivity drives their lust for those who are out there in the "thin air," pushing back the outside of that envelope and then hauling it back in. In other words, they are not where they thought they would be in life, and to see someone come oh so close just ravaged their very hearts. They weren't rooting for the Giants, they were rooting for the Patriots to fail; not because they're scary good, but because winning the big one this year would represent all those motivational things we are told in school that anyone can achieve, while they still work some menial job to help some guy in the South Meadows who probably doesn't even use his turn signal. In a way, the psyche brings the 18-1 Patriots down to "our" level a bit, and people seem to rather have that than use a 19-0 Patriots team to motivate themselves to bigger and better things.
Of course, I could be (and secretly hope I am) wrong, but there are precidents.
In 2004, when we played Gonzaga in the second round of the NCAAs the arena had a good number of Stanford fans awaiting their evening game. By and large they rooted for the underdog Wolf Pack. Were they rooting for us because we weren't a threat or even in the same bracket, or because we weren't the #2 team in the country?
People love an underdog, that's true. It helps build our own egos a bit, especially when the proverbial "we" are the underdog. But in this case, is this the popular reaction to two weeks (or five months) of hype, or a more extreme case of people rooting against history because they really hate to see a pure, unadulterated winner, or "perfects," in a world of OKs, goods, betters, and bests? Is "good" or "best" where people top out and fail to strive for even better than their best? If so, then is there a resentment toward those who do set the bar even higher? Good enough to beat my competition is all I have to be, and damn you if you come along and make me, my life, my attitude, look bad?
Or am I just a bit of a romantic idealist?
With that stated, as far as NFL teams go I admit my leanings are toward the Patriots. Why, because they've been good for the past ten years? Quite the opposite, in fact. When I was a child I had the athletic ability of the average tarantula (those who have been in Gabbs, NV for the annual tarantula migration know what I'm talking about), and when we would pick team names, me being the one who could care less at the time, I would ask of the others: "Which team sucks the most?" Unanimously, they would blurt out: "Oh, the Patriots are terrible!" and so I always went with the Patriots as my one-on-one team name. Leanings turned into an affinity and the next thing I knew my adopted team was in the Super Bowl, just months after I had proclaimed: "I just want to live long enough to see the Patriots in the Super Bowl; not to see them win, because I know that won't ever happen, but just to see them get there." Needless to say for about three years there I thought I was living on borrowed time.
The point? Well, I'm going to say a few things here. I don't think that they are too biased, but in case some other readers think otherwise that should provide some insight.
Aside from just wanting the Pats to win on principle's sake, I really, REALLY wanted to see history made this year. Of course, as all know by now, that didn't happen. My cohort and I tried out a new tavern for our Super Bowl festa, and for the first half or so there was one Giant's fan amongst a handfull of Pats fans. By the second half my comrade and I were the ONLY people rooting for the Patriots, and there were a hearty number rooting for the underdogs.
Why? I wanted to see history so badly, why did so many others want to see them fail?
I think that there is a little piece inside many, unfulfilled souls, who hate success, at least when other people achieve that success. Perhaps they hate their own lives, or just feel animosity toward anybody who nears achieving the unachievable. A part of me began to believe that people's internal negitivity drives their lust for those who are out there in the "thin air," pushing back the outside of that envelope and then hauling it back in. In other words, they are not where they thought they would be in life, and to see someone come oh so close just ravaged their very hearts. They weren't rooting for the Giants, they were rooting for the Patriots to fail; not because they're scary good, but because winning the big one this year would represent all those motivational things we are told in school that anyone can achieve, while they still work some menial job to help some guy in the South Meadows who probably doesn't even use his turn signal. In a way, the psyche brings the 18-1 Patriots down to "our" level a bit, and people seem to rather have that than use a 19-0 Patriots team to motivate themselves to bigger and better things.
Of course, I could be (and secretly hope I am) wrong, but there are precidents.
In 2004, when we played Gonzaga in the second round of the NCAAs the arena had a good number of Stanford fans awaiting their evening game. By and large they rooted for the underdog Wolf Pack. Were they rooting for us because we weren't a threat or even in the same bracket, or because we weren't the #2 team in the country?
People love an underdog, that's true. It helps build our own egos a bit, especially when the proverbial "we" are the underdog. But in this case, is this the popular reaction to two weeks (or five months) of hype, or a more extreme case of people rooting against history because they really hate to see a pure, unadulterated winner, or "perfects," in a world of OKs, goods, betters, and bests? Is "good" or "best" where people top out and fail to strive for even better than their best? If so, then is there a resentment toward those who do set the bar even higher? Good enough to beat my competition is all I have to be, and damn you if you come along and make me, my life, my attitude, look bad?
Or am I just a bit of a romantic idealist?
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Give Ault credit... he does learn
Fresh from the RGJ - Nevada has a couple of new defensive coaches:
The particularly interesting part was this gem:
Considering how pass defense was one of the biggest weaknesses of the Wolf Pack this year, it's encouraging that Ault is bringing in a couple of coaches to do something about it. Interestingly, it also looks like Nigel Burton is something of a hot commodity - Bruin Roar, a UCLA blog, speaks quite highly of him:
Unfortunately, Oregon State's athletic web site is down, so I'm unable to confirm or deny any of this. That said, it is encouraging that a section of Pac-10 fans find him to be an excellent coach, and that his personal connection with Ault brought him to our program. As I've said before, Ault's weakness has never been recruiting, as long as you ignore special teams - it's good to see that this also extends to assistant coaches. If Nigel is a decent game time coordinator and recruiter, we're going to be in decent shape.
EDIT: I read the comments on our last post, and, much to my surprise, these hires actually address the issues made by our visitors here. Ken Wilson is now the Assistant Head Coach, which, I suspect, is one of those idle positions created to keep Ault's friend around without actually putting him into a position where he can do any real damage. Meanwhile, Ault has pulled a proven, successful defensive coach at a Pac-10 school and brought him here, which... well, you have to admit, that's definitely a step in the right direction.
Nigel Burton and James Ward will join the Nevada football team as assistant coaches on the defensive side of the ball, head coach Chris Ault said Wednesday.
Burton is the Pack's new defensive coordinator, replacing Ken Wilson, who will remain with the program as Ault's associate head coach. Burton, who most recently was the cornerbacks coach at Oregon State, will also coaching the safeties.
Ward was the secondary coach at Colorado State and will coach cornerbacks at Nevada.
The particularly interesting part was this gem:
Burton, who was at Oregon State for five years, was ranked one of the top recruiters in the Pac-10 by rivals.com. He played collegiately for both Pacific and Washington.
"My excitement goes beyond the opportunity to be a coordinator," Burton said. "I am excited to come to a program like Nevada because I've known Chris Ault since I was 17 years old and I have tremendous respect for him and the program that he's built in Reno."
Considering how pass defense was one of the biggest weaknesses of the Wolf Pack this year, it's encouraging that Ault is bringing in a couple of coaches to do something about it. Interestingly, it also looks like Nigel Burton is something of a hot commodity - Bruin Roar, a UCLA blog, speaks quite highly of him:
Burton is currently the secondary coach up at Oregon State. Nigel has been on the staff with the Beavers for five years and their defense was one of the best in the conference this season. He is considered a fantastic recruiter and an up and coming coach. Before OSU, he coached at Portland State for a few seasons and at South Florida. He did an internship with the Denver Broncos for a season to help gain some experience at that level.
Unfortunately, Oregon State's athletic web site is down, so I'm unable to confirm or deny any of this. That said, it is encouraging that a section of Pac-10 fans find him to be an excellent coach, and that his personal connection with Ault brought him to our program. As I've said before, Ault's weakness has never been recruiting, as long as you ignore special teams - it's good to see that this also extends to assistant coaches. If Nigel is a decent game time coordinator and recruiter, we're going to be in decent shape.
EDIT: I read the comments on our last post, and, much to my surprise, these hires actually address the issues made by our visitors here. Ken Wilson is now the Assistant Head Coach, which, I suspect, is one of those idle positions created to keep Ault's friend around without actually putting him into a position where he can do any real damage. Meanwhile, Ault has pulled a proven, successful defensive coach at a Pac-10 school and brought him here, which... well, you have to admit, that's definitely a step in the right direction.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Athletic Budgeting
I had to "send Quasi deep into the vault" to get this one out, in this case to an article printed in the Nevada Sagebrush on 09/25/2007. To keep this in a bit of a perspective (albeit an inconclusive comparison), I will include the figures printed for BOTH Nevada universities. I figure this is an apt posting since it has come up in the past and will come up again, especially since my dear fellow blogger included another reference to coaches' salaries and how Ault fares into the mix.
According to the article, budgeting lies thusly:
School Up North:
Roughly $20,000,000
School Down South:
Roughly $24,800,000
Of that,
State Funding to Athletic Programs at the School Up North:
$6,763,868
State Funding to Athletic Programs at the School Down South:
$8,940,854
"From there, it is each school’s job to gain enough revenue to cover the remaining expenses for the year.
"In UNR’s case, additional revenue comes mainly from ticket sales and private donations (development), said John Nunn, associate athletic director at UNR. However, other sources include marketing/promotions, concession sales, royalties, NCAA and Western Athletic Conference."
So, according to these numbers (keeping in mind that the total budgets quoted here are approximate, then...
State Funding to Athletic Programs at the School Up North:
approx. 34%, or barely over 1/3.
State Funding to Athletic Programs at the School Down South:
approx. 36%, or barely over 1/3, but slightly higher that the School Up North.
Here's another quote for reference:
"UNLV’s coaching staff, as a whole, is also paid nearly double of what the coaching staff at Nevada receives. This is the big one. In 2005-2006, the Rebels coaching budget was $4,831,700 million, while the Wolf Pack’s was comparatively speaking, a measly $2,854,535 million."
There is a wealth of other info in this article, so I encourage all to read it; it does and will figure into our discussions here. I will point out, though, that when it comes to coaching salaries refer to the above info. regardless of your camp on the subject. But, if 2/3 of athletic funds at the beloved University of Nevada are raised from sources other than the state, we have to ask if this is the best that we can do. Well, is it? SMU folks were able to convince donors to contribute an extra $100K per year to lure June Jones (please see the link on my comrade's post below...granted, Dallas is just a sniffle bigger than Reno, but...). If not, is their enough concern amongst donors/alumni to raise the proverbial bar? What about the community at large? If not there, what can we do to raise their concerns and their willingness to contribute?
According to the article, budgeting lies thusly:
School Up North:
Roughly $20,000,000
School Down South:
Roughly $24,800,000
Of that,
State Funding to Athletic Programs at the School Up North:
$6,763,868
State Funding to Athletic Programs at the School Down South:
$8,940,854
"From there, it is each school’s job to gain enough revenue to cover the remaining expenses for the year.
"In UNR’s case, additional revenue comes mainly from ticket sales and private donations (development), said John Nunn, associate athletic director at UNR. However, other sources include marketing/promotions, concession sales, royalties, NCAA and Western Athletic Conference."
So, according to these numbers (keeping in mind that the total budgets quoted here are approximate, then...
State Funding to Athletic Programs at the School Up North:
approx. 34%, or barely over 1/3.
State Funding to Athletic Programs at the School Down South:
approx. 36%, or barely over 1/3, but slightly higher that the School Up North.
Here's another quote for reference:
"UNLV’s coaching staff, as a whole, is also paid nearly double of what the coaching staff at Nevada receives. This is the big one. In 2005-2006, the Rebels coaching budget was $4,831,700 million, while the Wolf Pack’s was comparatively speaking, a measly $2,854,535 million."
There is a wealth of other info in this article, so I encourage all to read it; it does and will figure into our discussions here. I will point out, though, that when it comes to coaching salaries refer to the above info. regardless of your camp on the subject. But, if 2/3 of athletic funds at the beloved University of Nevada are raised from sources other than the state, we have to ask if this is the best that we can do. Well, is it? SMU folks were able to convince donors to contribute an extra $100K per year to lure June Jones (please see the link on my comrade's post below...granted, Dallas is just a sniffle bigger than Reno, but...). If not, is their enough concern amongst donors/alumni to raise the proverbial bar? What about the community at large? If not there, what can we do to raise their concerns and their willingness to contribute?
What we can learn from SMU
This just in, courtesy of ESPN: June Jones is going to SMU. Interestingly, June Jones' Wikipedia article provides a little insight:
What SMU proved is that, if you offer a coach enough money ($2 million in Dallas goes a lot farther than $1.7 million in Hawaii, especially when it's offered first), they'll go just about anywhere. SMU is not a winning program, and hasn't been for quite some time - in fact, its record since the Death Penalty was handed down to it leads to a 27% winning percentage. But, SMU proved they were "committed" (i.e. they were willing to pay Jones more money), so off he goes.
Where does that leave Nevada? The answer is obvious: Absolutely nowhere.
June Jones made $800,000 in Hawaii before SMU swept him off his feet. That salary made him the highest paid public employee in Hawaii, and was considered a very extreme sum at the time. Ault, meanwhile, makes less than that - less than half of that, to be more specific, and many people in Reno believe he is overpaid. Part of that can be explained by the results of his tenure, which haven't been terribly exciting as of late, but let's get real here - if we're going to get and keep a decent coach, we need to be willing to accept that we're going to have to pay real money. $2 million/year is a big-time salary - that makes June Jones the 15th highest paid coach in the country right now. Chris Ault, meanwhile, makes less than the coach at Florida Atlantic. Let that sink in for a bit - our coach makes less than the coach of a Sun Belt program.
You can't spend Kia money and expect to get a Mercedes. At this point, we're not even spending enough to get a used Camry. Sooner or later, Nevada needs to get serious - if we're going to be competitive, we have to be willing to pay a competitive wage. Chris Peterson from Boise State? $880k/year, and he could make triple that at any big-time school in the country. Pat Hill? $1.23 million/year. Hawaii was paying June Jones $800k/year until he bailed. Do we really wonder why we can't stay even with these guys?
(Numbers pulled from coacheshotseat.com.)
EDIT: I am in no way suggesting that we spend $2 million/year on a head coach. We have far more pressing needs at the moment, like updating our stadium and our facilities. That said, if we ever replace Ault, all of us need to face facts and realize that, if we're going to get AND KEEP a competitive coach, we will need to pay a competitive salary. Right now, we're paying a "competitive with SJSU and La Tech" salary, and we're getting SJSU and La Tech results. If we want to be competitive with the big boys of the WAC, we're going to need to pony up some money. $500k will probably need to be the starting point for a new coach here, with the promise that, if they do well, we'll pay them nearly double that in a few years. Otherwise, we're going to stay right where we're at - varying shades of mediocre gray.
Frustrated with what he viewed as a lack of support from the University, Jones opted to leave Hawaii at the end of the 2007 season. After initial reports had him interviewing at SMU, Hawaii officials had offers to raise his salary from $800,000 a year to $1.7 million a year and offered a commitment to improve its facilities; in addition there was an outpouring of support from Hawaii fans, including Gov. Linda Lingle. However, Jones contacted Hawaii on January 7, 2008 and let them know he had decided to accept an offer from SMU. Jones went 75-41 at Hawaii, including 4-2 in bowls. His teams finished first in the WAC twice and second two other times.[17]
What SMU proved is that, if you offer a coach enough money ($2 million in Dallas goes a lot farther than $1.7 million in Hawaii, especially when it's offered first), they'll go just about anywhere. SMU is not a winning program, and hasn't been for quite some time - in fact, its record since the Death Penalty was handed down to it leads to a 27% winning percentage. But, SMU proved they were "committed" (i.e. they were willing to pay Jones more money), so off he goes.
Where does that leave Nevada? The answer is obvious: Absolutely nowhere.
June Jones made $800,000 in Hawaii before SMU swept him off his feet. That salary made him the highest paid public employee in Hawaii, and was considered a very extreme sum at the time. Ault, meanwhile, makes less than that - less than half of that, to be more specific, and many people in Reno believe he is overpaid. Part of that can be explained by the results of his tenure, which haven't been terribly exciting as of late, but let's get real here - if we're going to get and keep a decent coach, we need to be willing to accept that we're going to have to pay real money. $2 million/year is a big-time salary - that makes June Jones the 15th highest paid coach in the country right now. Chris Ault, meanwhile, makes less than the coach at Florida Atlantic. Let that sink in for a bit - our coach makes less than the coach of a Sun Belt program.
You can't spend Kia money and expect to get a Mercedes. At this point, we're not even spending enough to get a used Camry. Sooner or later, Nevada needs to get serious - if we're going to be competitive, we have to be willing to pay a competitive wage. Chris Peterson from Boise State? $880k/year, and he could make triple that at any big-time school in the country. Pat Hill? $1.23 million/year. Hawaii was paying June Jones $800k/year until he bailed. Do we really wonder why we can't stay even with these guys?
(Numbers pulled from coacheshotseat.com.)
EDIT: I am in no way suggesting that we spend $2 million/year on a head coach. We have far more pressing needs at the moment, like updating our stadium and our facilities. That said, if we ever replace Ault, all of us need to face facts and realize that, if we're going to get AND KEEP a competitive coach, we will need to pay a competitive salary. Right now, we're paying a "competitive with SJSU and La Tech" salary, and we're getting SJSU and La Tech results. If we want to be competitive with the big boys of the WAC, we're going to need to pony up some money. $500k will probably need to be the starting point for a new coach here, with the promise that, if they do well, we'll pay them nearly double that in a few years. Otherwise, we're going to stay right where we're at - varying shades of mediocre gray.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Swear? Swear.
Since we're running a little lean on Ault coverage right now, I'm going to take a quick diversion into the realm of Roger Clemens and his interview on 60 Minutes. Since I don't watch 60 Minutes (or CBS - nope, not even for the NFL), I'm so happy that Fox Sports has a wrap-up of it:
The bigger question, of course, is did Clemens pinky swear, or was it a swear with his fingers crossed behind his back? I suppose the world may never know...
NEW YORK (AP) - Roger Clemens said former trainer Brian McNamee injected him with the painkiller lidocaine and the vitamin B-12, according to the first excerpts released from the pitcher's interview with CBS's "60 Minutes."
McNamee said in the Mitchell report on doping in baseball that he personally injected Clemens with steroids in 1998 while with the Toronto Blue Jays, and with steroids and human growth hormone in 2000 and 2001 while with the New York Yankees.
[...]
Clemens told CBS that McNamee's accusation was "ridiculous" and said he "never" used banned substances.
"Swear?" CBS's Mike Wallace asked Clemens.
"Swear," Clemens responded.
The bigger question, of course, is did Clemens pinky swear, or was it a swear with his fingers crossed behind his back? I suppose the world may never know...
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Readers Chime in to the RG-J
The appearance of six letters to the editor in the RG-J this (Sunday) morning gives me the perfect fodder to get back into the blogging game, and just in time for the new year! I'll go through a few things in a sequence what really makes sense only to me and my ol' smell hound.
For reference, please refer to 2007 NCAA Football Rules. Likewise, for the original letters, refer to RG-J Letters to the Sports Editor, and for Sean Patrick's guest column of December 22, refer to Ault is not the source of Pack's plight. So, on with the quotes!
In my opinion there should only be one grade for the entire team and that is the grade given to the coaches.
I can see your point; the coaches represent the team in the same way that the Electoral College represents the states in order to decide the Presidency. Don't get me wrong here, I'm actually a fan of the Electoral College to a point. As go the coaches, so goes the team. However, as in politics, it is a bit more complicated than that: these are adults playing football and I have no objection to their performance being critiqued; heck, for any of them who will be lucky enough to prolong their carreers by playing professionally they will be getting a LOT more of that from many, much larger journalistic sources. The coaching is also graded, and the two can be weighed against each other with the reader deciding the weight of each side. I do agree, though, in spirit with your idea here, and it is true that the plight of the team, especially over time, rests in the hands of the coaching staff.
How can you call three or four linemen a defensive line? Five 300-pound offensive linemen can easily handle three or four defensive players and that gives the quarterback a lot of time to do whatever he needs to do.
NCAA rules specify that: "At the snap, at least seven men are on the offensive scrimmage line, with not less than five numbered 50-79." These numbers 50-79 are the offensive linemen excluding the tight ends. There are a number of rules governing what these "interior linemen" can and cannot do. In passing situations they are considered to be "inelligible receivers," and cannot be across the neutral zone before another player (not counting the QB) has touched the ball. They therefore have very specific jobs to do. The defense is not hampered by the same rules; their jobs are to pressure the offense. In a very general sense, defensive schemes consist of two players in the rear (safties or rovers), two players at the far ends (cornerbacks who, together with the safties comprise the "secondary"), three to four linebackers (depending upon the formation) and three to four down linemen (depending upon the formation). Sometimes these positions are somewhat juxtaposed on the field, but the down linemen can be distinguished from the linebackers as they are "down" in a three-point stance whereas the 'backers are not. Since the offensive "interior" linemen really can't do a whole lot, especially in passing plays, they become a fortification of sorts to protect the action in the offensive backfield. The defense (or coaches) will decide how much pressure to apply to the offensive backfield and how much downfield coverage they will be using (single, man-on-man coverage, doubles, &c.). In a pass happy conference like the WAC the 3-4 design seems outwardly to be pretty sound because it shifts a player from the front slightly to the rear where adjustments can be made depending on a nearly infinite number of possibilities, and this is why I'm a big fan of the 3-4 defense. These linebackers can, as I have alluded, cram the line with the down linemen as well in order to apply greater up-front pressure. Overall, the defensive setup places players in different clusters around the field than the offensive setup will, and with the duties of the offensive linemen so strictly regulated the necesity of down linemen on the defensive side is relaxed somewhat (they get more help from their backfield than their offensive counterparts get, after all, so that pass rushing can realistically come from anywhere on the defensive side). As a bit of an aside, I've always viewed the jobs of the offensive linemen to "stop" whereas the defensive linemen "pound," and their physical builds reflect this somewhat. After all of this is in place, it comes down to execution, and that is where we meet with our concern here, along with having enough players in place with the kind of speed you really need. If you really wanted you could put five or six down linemen on defense, but if you did you'd better plan on sacking the QB every down because that leaves you very little downfield to stop much of anything.
Whew, sorry that was so long.
...Our unfortunate players deserve a coach who's experienced in modern-day football and in coaching in Division 1. Ault is now the "great pretender" and doing great harm to his players in blaming his losses on them.
Ault has some good things going for him. Some very good things, in fact. He normally places blame where it is due, and, as I've said above, these are adults, not Pop Warner kids. He's also pretty consistent with it, and after the New Mexico debacle he did use "we" an awful lot to describe the failures. He also called out the offensive line; and we did on here, too. The offensive line was awful! Credit where it is due. The problem is that I just don't think that Ault is the complete package: he administers too heavily in certain areas and leaves others in the hands of his assistants whereas he needs to administer to the whole team and let the assistants do their jobs. I know he has a good heart for offense, and I wouldn't even mind having him as an offensive coordinator. But as a head coach he needs to manage the whole team as an entity and realize that he needs to have as much to do with the successes of the defense and special teams as he does the QB play. Even our receivers have not displayed the kind of consistency that they really need to in the wild, wild WAC.
College players should always be optimistic.
We have been over the Sean Patrick article a bit, but I will get into my feelings a bit more here. I don't believe it's ever satisfactory to settle for mediocrity. Ever! Where we end up at the end is one thing, but should we be aiming for #2 in the WAC every year? And with the stink that the WAC has been making the past few years (remember, Boise St. was being invited to non-WAC affiliated games for a number of years, not just the Fiesta Bowl), we should be aiming for the same things.
Nebraska didn't have much of a football program prior to Devaney, but he built that program himself and stayed on to see it through. Boise St. hasn't exactly had that same kind of stability, but when a coach lands there he generally stays around for at least a little while. I don't necesarily ask that we spend $2.5 million per year for a coach who will be here for his lifetime, but Boise St. has had some pretty fair success doing what they've been doing. Also, as far as our being a "revolving door," well, yes, you can say that. But look at the basketball scene here: TJ was here for five years and only left when his dream job opened at Stanford; Fox is now in his fourth year and has turned down other offers (such as Nebraska, for one). For what it's worth, Fox was also an internal hire. Do we need to hire from outside? Maybe. Will we get the next Bob Devaney? Maybe. But questions such as these are moot; what we need is a coach who believes that the proverbial "it" is possible and can really give the University and the community something truly special. It has happend before! I'm sure most people don't remember the so-called "powerhouse" years of the late '40's, but we had a couple of very special years as what was then known as a "major university."
One thing I will note about Mr. Patrick's article:
Tormey's final two seasons were riddled with news of Wolf Pack players in the police blotters more often than they were on the sports pages. Is that what you'd like to see again?
Are you kidding? This is a joke, right. Don't patronize us like this. Yes, the Tormey era reigned over several black eyes for the program. I commend Ault's stance on player behavior. But am I to believe that a new coach will bring in bank robbers and coke dealers? are we, as fans? Does success come with a price of jailtime for players? Don't be preposterous.
To all: have a fantastic (and safe) New Year, and we'll catch you on the flip side.
For reference, please refer to 2007 NCAA Football Rules. Likewise, for the original letters, refer to RG-J Letters to the Sports Editor, and for Sean Patrick's guest column of December 22, refer to Ault is not the source of Pack's plight. So, on with the quotes!
In my opinion there should only be one grade for the entire team and that is the grade given to the coaches.
I can see your point; the coaches represent the team in the same way that the Electoral College represents the states in order to decide the Presidency. Don't get me wrong here, I'm actually a fan of the Electoral College to a point. As go the coaches, so goes the team. However, as in politics, it is a bit more complicated than that: these are adults playing football and I have no objection to their performance being critiqued; heck, for any of them who will be lucky enough to prolong their carreers by playing professionally they will be getting a LOT more of that from many, much larger journalistic sources. The coaching is also graded, and the two can be weighed against each other with the reader deciding the weight of each side. I do agree, though, in spirit with your idea here, and it is true that the plight of the team, especially over time, rests in the hands of the coaching staff.
How can you call three or four linemen a defensive line? Five 300-pound offensive linemen can easily handle three or four defensive players and that gives the quarterback a lot of time to do whatever he needs to do.
NCAA rules specify that: "At the snap, at least seven men are on the offensive scrimmage line, with not less than five numbered 50-79." These numbers 50-79 are the offensive linemen excluding the tight ends. There are a number of rules governing what these "interior linemen" can and cannot do. In passing situations they are considered to be "inelligible receivers," and cannot be across the neutral zone before another player (not counting the QB) has touched the ball. They therefore have very specific jobs to do. The defense is not hampered by the same rules; their jobs are to pressure the offense. In a very general sense, defensive schemes consist of two players in the rear (safties or rovers), two players at the far ends (cornerbacks who, together with the safties comprise the "secondary"), three to four linebackers (depending upon the formation) and three to four down linemen (depending upon the formation). Sometimes these positions are somewhat juxtaposed on the field, but the down linemen can be distinguished from the linebackers as they are "down" in a three-point stance whereas the 'backers are not. Since the offensive "interior" linemen really can't do a whole lot, especially in passing plays, they become a fortification of sorts to protect the action in the offensive backfield. The defense (or coaches) will decide how much pressure to apply to the offensive backfield and how much downfield coverage they will be using (single, man-on-man coverage, doubles, &c.). In a pass happy conference like the WAC the 3-4 design seems outwardly to be pretty sound because it shifts a player from the front slightly to the rear where adjustments can be made depending on a nearly infinite number of possibilities, and this is why I'm a big fan of the 3-4 defense. These linebackers can, as I have alluded, cram the line with the down linemen as well in order to apply greater up-front pressure. Overall, the defensive setup places players in different clusters around the field than the offensive setup will, and with the duties of the offensive linemen so strictly regulated the necesity of down linemen on the defensive side is relaxed somewhat (they get more help from their backfield than their offensive counterparts get, after all, so that pass rushing can realistically come from anywhere on the defensive side). As a bit of an aside, I've always viewed the jobs of the offensive linemen to "stop" whereas the defensive linemen "pound," and their physical builds reflect this somewhat. After all of this is in place, it comes down to execution, and that is where we meet with our concern here, along with having enough players in place with the kind of speed you really need. If you really wanted you could put five or six down linemen on defense, but if you did you'd better plan on sacking the QB every down because that leaves you very little downfield to stop much of anything.
Whew, sorry that was so long.
...Our unfortunate players deserve a coach who's experienced in modern-day football and in coaching in Division 1. Ault is now the "great pretender" and doing great harm to his players in blaming his losses on them.
Ault has some good things going for him. Some very good things, in fact. He normally places blame where it is due, and, as I've said above, these are adults, not Pop Warner kids. He's also pretty consistent with it, and after the New Mexico debacle he did use "we" an awful lot to describe the failures. He also called out the offensive line; and we did on here, too. The offensive line was awful! Credit where it is due. The problem is that I just don't think that Ault is the complete package: he administers too heavily in certain areas and leaves others in the hands of his assistants whereas he needs to administer to the whole team and let the assistants do their jobs. I know he has a good heart for offense, and I wouldn't even mind having him as an offensive coordinator. But as a head coach he needs to manage the whole team as an entity and realize that he needs to have as much to do with the successes of the defense and special teams as he does the QB play. Even our receivers have not displayed the kind of consistency that they really need to in the wild, wild WAC.
College players should always be optimistic.
We have been over the Sean Patrick article a bit, but I will get into my feelings a bit more here. I don't believe it's ever satisfactory to settle for mediocrity. Ever! Where we end up at the end is one thing, but should we be aiming for #2 in the WAC every year? And with the stink that the WAC has been making the past few years (remember, Boise St. was being invited to non-WAC affiliated games for a number of years, not just the Fiesta Bowl), we should be aiming for the same things.
Nebraska didn't have much of a football program prior to Devaney, but he built that program himself and stayed on to see it through. Boise St. hasn't exactly had that same kind of stability, but when a coach lands there he generally stays around for at least a little while. I don't necesarily ask that we spend $2.5 million per year for a coach who will be here for his lifetime, but Boise St. has had some pretty fair success doing what they've been doing. Also, as far as our being a "revolving door," well, yes, you can say that. But look at the basketball scene here: TJ was here for five years and only left when his dream job opened at Stanford; Fox is now in his fourth year and has turned down other offers (such as Nebraska, for one). For what it's worth, Fox was also an internal hire. Do we need to hire from outside? Maybe. Will we get the next Bob Devaney? Maybe. But questions such as these are moot; what we need is a coach who believes that the proverbial "it" is possible and can really give the University and the community something truly special. It has happend before! I'm sure most people don't remember the so-called "powerhouse" years of the late '40's, but we had a couple of very special years as what was then known as a "major university."
One thing I will note about Mr. Patrick's article:
Tormey's final two seasons were riddled with news of Wolf Pack players in the police blotters more often than they were on the sports pages. Is that what you'd like to see again?
Are you kidding? This is a joke, right. Don't patronize us like this. Yes, the Tormey era reigned over several black eyes for the program. I commend Ault's stance on player behavior. But am I to believe that a new coach will bring in bank robbers and coke dealers? are we, as fans? Does success come with a price of jailtime for players? Don't be preposterous.
To all: have a fantastic (and safe) New Year, and we'll catch you on the flip side.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Final Thought before Christmas
Dan Hinxman had an interesting look at next year, along with his year-end team report card. If you ask me, and you haven't, I think it's pretty dern fair. A few thoughts of mine before my Pappy and I hit the egg nog until we go blind:
Quarterback
Nevada could have two of the best quarterbacks in the WAC next year in junior (next season) Nick Graziano, who was lost to a foot injury in the team's fifth game this season, and sophomore Colin Kaepernick, who was named the WAC's Freshman of the Year and entered the bowl game with the nation's fifth-best passer-efficiency rating.
Agreed. I think that Kaep's problems were strictly mental in the bowl game. Well, let me elaborate.
Our offensive line looked worse than week old sardines on the hood of a Studebaker, and that put far more undue pressure on our youngster which is hard to overcome. So, as the game wore on I thought he looked a bit too jittery, even the times where the line did give him halfway adequate pass protection. There were definately a few mistakes in there, though, I believe were nerves plain and simple, and I always thought that this was a coaching area where Ault worked very well...in the past, anyway.
Special teams
Senior placekicker Brett Jaekle returns, but the Pack needs to find a punter to replace Zachary Whited. The Pack also loses top return man Alex Rosenblum.
Don't worry, someone will "walk" into those spots.
Okay, that's all for now. Until later, Happy Ho Ho Ho. Here's a nice non-related story from the RG-J:
Bright light reported in Spanish Springs sky.
Quarterback
Nevada could have two of the best quarterbacks in the WAC next year in junior (next season) Nick Graziano, who was lost to a foot injury in the team's fifth game this season, and sophomore Colin Kaepernick, who was named the WAC's Freshman of the Year and entered the bowl game with the nation's fifth-best passer-efficiency rating.
Agreed. I think that Kaep's problems were strictly mental in the bowl game. Well, let me elaborate.
Our offensive line looked worse than week old sardines on the hood of a Studebaker, and that put far more undue pressure on our youngster which is hard to overcome. So, as the game wore on I thought he looked a bit too jittery, even the times where the line did give him halfway adequate pass protection. There were definately a few mistakes in there, though, I believe were nerves plain and simple, and I always thought that this was a coaching area where Ault worked very well...in the past, anyway.
Special teams
Senior placekicker Brett Jaekle returns, but the Pack needs to find a punter to replace Zachary Whited. The Pack also loses top return man Alex Rosenblum.
Don't worry, someone will "walk" into those spots.
Okay, that's all for now. Until later, Happy Ho Ho Ho. Here's a nice non-related story from the RG-J:
Bright light reported in Spanish Springs sky.
Ridiculous.
While trying to find some information on the scholarships Nevada has handed out to its football players, I ran across this gem:
Pack football: Nevada's rescinded offer angers prep coach
The coach of an Arizona high school linebacker whose scholarship offer by Nevada has been rescinded said the move by Nevada coaches could hurt future Pack recruiting efforts in the state.
"This hit us like a bombshell," Hamilton High (Chandler, Ariz.) coach Steve Belles said Friday. "I think it's going to hurt them in Arizona. It sets a bad precedent."
Elliott Harper had verbally committed to sign with Nevada months ago. According to Belles, Wolf Pack coaches told Elliott, a former high school teammate of Nevada's Dontay Moch, they needed to rescind the offer because Nevada plans to switch from a 3-4 defense to a 4-3 and does not need more linebackers.
The article goes on like that. Note the time stamp on it - 12/15/2007. After recruiting a kid and offering a scholarship, Ault then realizes, "Huh - our defensive scheme sucks", at which point he pulls the scholarship offer. Now, I understand this particular recruit isn't terribly talented - the other teams recruiting him were Northern Arizona and UNLV - but this seems awfully seedy from here.
As an aside, what are we doing recruiting talent that's only being looked at by Northern Arizona and UNLV in the first place? Shouldn't we be recruiting talent that's actually... talented? No wonder Hawaii and Boise State keep beating us.
Pack football: Nevada's rescinded offer angers prep coach
The coach of an Arizona high school linebacker whose scholarship offer by Nevada has been rescinded said the move by Nevada coaches could hurt future Pack recruiting efforts in the state.
"This hit us like a bombshell," Hamilton High (Chandler, Ariz.) coach Steve Belles said Friday. "I think it's going to hurt them in Arizona. It sets a bad precedent."
Elliott Harper had verbally committed to sign with Nevada months ago. According to Belles, Wolf Pack coaches told Elliott, a former high school teammate of Nevada's Dontay Moch, they needed to rescind the offer because Nevada plans to switch from a 3-4 defense to a 4-3 and does not need more linebackers.
The article goes on like that. Note the time stamp on it - 12/15/2007. After recruiting a kid and offering a scholarship, Ault then realizes, "Huh - our defensive scheme sucks", at which point he pulls the scholarship offer. Now, I understand this particular recruit isn't terribly talented - the other teams recruiting him were Northern Arizona and UNLV - but this seems awfully seedy from here.
As an aside, what are we doing recruiting talent that's only being looked at by Northern Arizona and UNLV in the first place? Shouldn't we be recruiting talent that's actually... talented? No wonder Hawaii and Boise State keep beating us.
Welcome, everyone!
It's funny what a shut-out in a bowl loss will do to our site traffic... we were pulling down about four or five visits a day for about a week before the bowl game. Since that bowl game, we're hitting fifteen. That's not bad. It's still not our high-water mark of 56, but, then again, we ended up taking a couple of weeks "off", so traffic went down. Either way, I want to thank everyone for stopping by here. Don't forget to tell your friends! Coincidentally, you can reach this site using the firechrisault.blogspot.com address, or you can reach us from www.firechrisault.com. Use whatever is easiest for you.
Welcome again, and Go Wolf Pack!
Welcome again, and Go Wolf Pack!
Sunday, December 23, 2007
All I Want for Christmas...2008
Do I expect the Pack to compete for a national championship? Well, no, I don't. At least, not until the beloved Pack is able to give a decade or more of Boise St.-esque seasons; but, in the meantime, I DO expect the Pack to compete with Boise St. regularly. Yes, it was close this year, but a loss is still a loss.
However, I do think that I have some realistic wishes for next season; so, with appologies to F. F. Ellis, here's my 2008 X-mas List:
Vs. Grambling
Nevada 52, Grambling 10
This is still the first game of the year, so I'm fronting Grambling ten points.
Vs. Texas Tech
Nevada 24, Texas Tech 35
A superficial look at Tech next year would imply that they will be very, very good. They return their All-American receiver as a sophomore next season and should have a very good core to work with. Their secondary may be a bit weak (superficially, anyway), but they will still have a great product on the field. This will be the second game for us, but the first against D-1A competition. I expect us to be able to put up a reasonable number of points, make a good showing, and keep it within two scores; I don't expect us to pull it out.
At Missou
Nevada 17, Missouri 49
Missou loses 19 seniors, including a couple of safeties, a couple of tailbacks, and quite a few linemen. I am still giving the benefit of the doubt to the almost-national-contender Tigers to run over the Pack at home, but, again, I expect us to score more than a token score against them.
At UNLV
Nevada 27, UNLV 24
UNLV will by hyped up a bit again, and at home there will be at least enough talk of the cannon going red. But they almost always let themselves down. More than anything, though, I'm being a total homer here and going with the Beloved Wolf Pack because I'd kick my own butt if I didn't.
Conference, in no particular order...
At LaTech
Nevada 35, LaTech 21
I expect LaTech to improve...but not enough.
At Idaho
Nevada 45, Idaho 21
We'll see how schizoid they are next year; they could be pretty good, but, again, I don't think they'll be good enough, even in the Kibble, erh, Kibbie dome.
At Hawai'i
Nevada 27, Hawai'i 35
We may be able to avenge our loss this year, maybe, but don't bank on it. It will be fascinating to see what Hawai'i will do without Brennan, but if I were in Honolulu I wouldn't be too woried.
At Fresno St.
Nevada 28, Fresno St. 32
I think we can keep this one close, but Pat Hill is always ready for us, unless we get him in the last game of the season and they've just played at top 40 team.
Vs. New Mexico State.
Nevada 49, NMSU 28
Pack defense will do enough to keep the game a bit less close than it was in 2007; I'm not worried about the offense in this one, though.
Vs. San Jose State
Nevada 38, SJSU 24
Vengeance will be ours!!!
Vs. Utah State
Nevada 41, Utah St. 3
No shutout, but I think that this matchup will still write itself.
Vs. Boise State
Nevada 21, Boise St. 38
Something of a repeat of two years ago. Face it, we're still not going to be able to compete with them, and they're not about to let us put another scare into them. We will score, though.
So, I expect a 7-5 season; that's not too much at this point in time. While to don't expect national championship calibre at Mackay in 2008, I do, however, think that it's sad that over .500 is all I can realistically expect.
However, I do think that I have some realistic wishes for next season; so, with appologies to F. F. Ellis, here's my 2008 X-mas List:
Vs. Grambling
Nevada 52, Grambling 10
This is still the first game of the year, so I'm fronting Grambling ten points.
Vs. Texas Tech
Nevada 24, Texas Tech 35
A superficial look at Tech next year would imply that they will be very, very good. They return their All-American receiver as a sophomore next season and should have a very good core to work with. Their secondary may be a bit weak (superficially, anyway), but they will still have a great product on the field. This will be the second game for us, but the first against D-1A competition. I expect us to be able to put up a reasonable number of points, make a good showing, and keep it within two scores; I don't expect us to pull it out.
At Missou
Nevada 17, Missouri 49
Missou loses 19 seniors, including a couple of safeties, a couple of tailbacks, and quite a few linemen. I am still giving the benefit of the doubt to the almost-national-contender Tigers to run over the Pack at home, but, again, I expect us to score more than a token score against them.
At UNLV
Nevada 27, UNLV 24
UNLV will by hyped up a bit again, and at home there will be at least enough talk of the cannon going red. But they almost always let themselves down. More than anything, though, I'm being a total homer here and going with the Beloved Wolf Pack because I'd kick my own butt if I didn't.
Conference, in no particular order...
At LaTech
Nevada 35, LaTech 21
I expect LaTech to improve...but not enough.
At Idaho
Nevada 45, Idaho 21
We'll see how schizoid they are next year; they could be pretty good, but, again, I don't think they'll be good enough, even in the Kibble, erh, Kibbie dome.
At Hawai'i
Nevada 27, Hawai'i 35
We may be able to avenge our loss this year, maybe, but don't bank on it. It will be fascinating to see what Hawai'i will do without Brennan, but if I were in Honolulu I wouldn't be too woried.
At Fresno St.
Nevada 28, Fresno St. 32
I think we can keep this one close, but Pat Hill is always ready for us, unless we get him in the last game of the season and they've just played at top 40 team.
Vs. New Mexico State.
Nevada 49, NMSU 28
Pack defense will do enough to keep the game a bit less close than it was in 2007; I'm not worried about the offense in this one, though.
Vs. San Jose State
Nevada 38, SJSU 24
Vengeance will be ours!!!
Vs. Utah State
Nevada 41, Utah St. 3
No shutout, but I think that this matchup will still write itself.
Vs. Boise State
Nevada 21, Boise St. 38
Something of a repeat of two years ago. Face it, we're still not going to be able to compete with them, and they're not about to let us put another scare into them. We will score, though.
So, I expect a 7-5 season; that's not too much at this point in time. While to don't expect national championship calibre at Mackay in 2008, I do, however, think that it's sad that over .500 is all I can realistically expect.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
The streak is over.
I'm not even sure where to begin here. The New Mexico Bowl was, flat out, an unmitigated disaster. In many ways, it went completely contrary to how I thought it would go - our defense was the force that kept us "in" the game, while it was our offense that was woefully inept.
How could this happen? Easy - penalties. Remember the second stat? Yep - it came back to bite us in the ass yet again, this time to the tune of eight penalties for fifty-nine yards, frequently at the worst times imaginable. It's not like the New Mexico crowd was that rowdy, either, so we can't blame crowd noise. Simply put, our team was not prepared. If you saw the game, it was clear that the offensive line was inept and ill-prepared. They were also the source of many of our penalties.
If I gave you three weeks to plan for something - anything - would you be able to do it? Would you at least be ready to begin work on whatever that was when the moment arrived? What about a football game? Would your team be ready to follow a basic snap count? Would your offense be capable of running routine blocking patterns? Would you be able to hold a running game piloted by a third-string running back not named "Kretchmer" to under 190 yards? I think you would, no matter who you are, which is why I think that just about anyone with a pulse would be an improvement over the "capable" leadership of Coach Chris Ault.
Okay - that's not quite accurate. We don't need another warm body. We've had plenty of those. What we need is someone with a little drive, a little gamesmanship, and, most importantly, someone whose best moves and methods didn't come and go over fifteen years ago.
Some people, however, disagree. Let's cover those points, one by one...
- Do I think Nevada should contend for a national championship? Of course not. We're in the WAC. That's not happening. I do expect that we would, at least once, go in a direction that gives us a fighting chance to make the same kind of noise that Hawaii, Boise, and Fresno make.
- Do I think high school seniors should choose us over Ohio State, Florida, USC or Notre Dame? Perhaps we can beat Notre Dame on the recruiting trail... I mean, they are terrible. But, no, I don't expect us to choose us over them. I do expect that we can, at some point, be in the same breath as Hawaii, Boise, Fresno, or perhaps even BYU. We've been getting hammered by Boise on the recruiting trail time and again, and I've yet to see a single sign of change. Getting shut out to New Mexico in a bowl game doesn't help.
- Yes, we've gone to three consecutive bowl games. We lost two of them, and lost our shutout streak in one. There's no point in going to a bowl game if we're going to get embarrassed. Heck, the only reason we went to one this year is because Hawaii went undefeated; were it not for that, we'd be staring at a 6-6 season.
- Yes, we have some great quarterbacks. Outstanding. We had some decent ones under Tisdel and Tormey, too. It's the rest of the team that's always been problematic.
I have respect for what Ault has done. He earned his Hall of Fame credentials. He took a moribund program and turned it into a program that we could realistically talk about winning a WAC championship with. I'm happy with that. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that Ault can get past that hump. Our record has consistently declined since 2005. Our teams are consistently either underprepared or misprepared whenever he has more than a week to work with, whether that's the beginning of the season or a bowl game. We're still getting beat on the recruiting trail to schools that are only marginally better than we are, facilities-wise.
I'm pleased with what Ault has done for this program. It's time he hands this off to someone else... and, this time, Groth needs to prove how much better of an athletic director she is and find us a coach from outside the program. As Sean Patrick pointed out, we're not Ohio State, USC, or any of those other big-time schools with amazing pedigrees. We're Nevada, a decent program in a decent conference - we don't have a pedigree worth sweating over.
How could this happen? Easy - penalties. Remember the second stat? Yep - it came back to bite us in the ass yet again, this time to the tune of eight penalties for fifty-nine yards, frequently at the worst times imaginable. It's not like the New Mexico crowd was that rowdy, either, so we can't blame crowd noise. Simply put, our team was not prepared. If you saw the game, it was clear that the offensive line was inept and ill-prepared. They were also the source of many of our penalties.
If I gave you three weeks to plan for something - anything - would you be able to do it? Would you at least be ready to begin work on whatever that was when the moment arrived? What about a football game? Would your team be ready to follow a basic snap count? Would your offense be capable of running routine blocking patterns? Would you be able to hold a running game piloted by a third-string running back not named "Kretchmer" to under 190 yards? I think you would, no matter who you are, which is why I think that just about anyone with a pulse would be an improvement over the "capable" leadership of Coach Chris Ault.
Okay - that's not quite accurate. We don't need another warm body. We've had plenty of those. What we need is someone with a little drive, a little gamesmanship, and, most importantly, someone whose best moves and methods didn't come and go over fifteen years ago.
Some people, however, disagree. Let's cover those points, one by one...
- Do I think Nevada should contend for a national championship? Of course not. We're in the WAC. That's not happening. I do expect that we would, at least once, go in a direction that gives us a fighting chance to make the same kind of noise that Hawaii, Boise, and Fresno make.
- Do I think high school seniors should choose us over Ohio State, Florida, USC or Notre Dame? Perhaps we can beat Notre Dame on the recruiting trail... I mean, they are terrible. But, no, I don't expect us to choose us over them. I do expect that we can, at some point, be in the same breath as Hawaii, Boise, Fresno, or perhaps even BYU. We've been getting hammered by Boise on the recruiting trail time and again, and I've yet to see a single sign of change. Getting shut out to New Mexico in a bowl game doesn't help.
- Yes, we've gone to three consecutive bowl games. We lost two of them, and lost our shutout streak in one. There's no point in going to a bowl game if we're going to get embarrassed. Heck, the only reason we went to one this year is because Hawaii went undefeated; were it not for that, we'd be staring at a 6-6 season.
- Yes, we have some great quarterbacks. Outstanding. We had some decent ones under Tisdel and Tormey, too. It's the rest of the team that's always been problematic.
I have respect for what Ault has done. He earned his Hall of Fame credentials. He took a moribund program and turned it into a program that we could realistically talk about winning a WAC championship with. I'm happy with that. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that Ault can get past that hump. Our record has consistently declined since 2005. Our teams are consistently either underprepared or misprepared whenever he has more than a week to work with, whether that's the beginning of the season or a bowl game. We're still getting beat on the recruiting trail to schools that are only marginally better than we are, facilities-wise.
I'm pleased with what Ault has done for this program. It's time he hands this off to someone else... and, this time, Groth needs to prove how much better of an athletic director she is and find us a coach from outside the program. As Sean Patrick pointed out, we're not Ohio State, USC, or any of those other big-time schools with amazing pedigrees. We're Nevada, a decent program in a decent conference - we don't have a pedigree worth sweating over.
At Least The Pack's Been to a Bowl Game Three Years in a Row
Thanks to our friend Jon for that one (yes, it was sarcasm).
Forever we'll be true to thee,
Our pride of all the West,
They fame we'll carry far and wide,
Our Alma Mater we love best;
Thy sons and daughters live for thee,
We're loyal and we're true,
We pledge eternaly our faith
To our Nevada U.
Fidelity enduring all
Shall never wane nor fall,
But stand the test of time and strife,
By weath'ring ev'ry storm and gale;
Our pride and joy in thee we trust,
Our hopes with thee will rest,
For our Nevada U to be
The greatest and the best.
--Fidelity by J. A. Aikin
I would think that the New Mexico Bowl would be an opportunity to prove the "weatherability" through the storms and gales which have been the 2007 Wolf Pack football season. Obviously, I was wrong. I did put my hopes with my pride and joy, I really did. It got me about as far as the walk-on program has gotten the Pack special teams.
I would like to take time to make a bit of a historical comparison, mainly because I'm a history nerd.
Let's take another trip in the Wayback Machine to December 11-15, 1862, and the town of Fredricksburg, Virginia. Appropriately enough, this is the site of the immortal Battle of Fredricksburg pitting Generals Robert E. Lee of the Army of Northern Virginia against Ambrose E. Burnside of the Army of the Potomac.
I'll spare the details about this bloody battle and get to the grit of the matter: Burnside was too old-fashioned and myopic, and the result was a Confederate victory so decisive that Lee had the chance to pursue the retreating Federals and crush them once and for all. Lee failed to do this effectively, but the Union loss at this battle was not only embarassing to the United States, but it put a lasting pall over Burnside's carreer.
Well, that's not the end for Burnside; after all, he was a Union general and he got there somehow. He performed reasonably well in East Tennessee, but when it came to the Overland Campaign he couldn't coordinate the attacks and refused to commit the bulk of his troops to direct frontal assaults. This seems, outwardly, that he's learning; at the battle of Antietam constant frontal assaults cost both sides dearly in a battle which was realistically a draw, but slightly more in favor of the Confederates than the Union. But one has to be able to adapt to the surroundings and the proverbial game of battle and this is where Burnside failed again.
Then came Petersburg. Burnside had this great idea to tunnel beneath Confederate entrenchments and detonate a large quantity of ordinance to break through the line. Great! Run it up the middle, break through the line and totally screw them. Of course the detonation created a gigantic crater in the Confederate lines, what would you expect? Now the dynamic was changed and the plan would have to be adapted; after all, one goes into the crater and then has to fight uphill to get out of it any way you look at it. So Burnside decided to go up the middle through the crater. In his defense he did have a division of African American troops trained for this mission which General Meade ordered to keep clear of the battle, but in the end would it have made a difference? Up the middle Burnside went and his troops became fish in a bucket with infantry fire raining down upon them like brimstone.
Postbellum he would go on to become the first president of the National Rifle Association.
So I guess this answers my question asked about six weeks ago: has the Little General turned from a "Fightin'" Joe Hooker into a George McClellan or an Ambrose Burnside?
There are so many comparisons to be made here, from his crushing failure at Fredricksburg (game 1 from the past four seasons) to East Tennessee (offensive predictability and special teams consideration) to the Battle of the Crater (pick something, I promise it will fit), and all of which relate to the New Mexico Bowl.
Okay, nerd moment over. I'll hand over the reigns to my comrade, I know he has a whole lot of statistical goodies and perhaps a colorful metaphor or two to add to this.
I know we've both been busy of late, but I think we have enough fodder now to last MONTHS!!!
Forever we'll be true to thee,
Our pride of all the West,
They fame we'll carry far and wide,
Our Alma Mater we love best;
Thy sons and daughters live for thee,
We're loyal and we're true,
We pledge eternaly our faith
To our Nevada U.
Fidelity enduring all
Shall never wane nor fall,
But stand the test of time and strife,
By weath'ring ev'ry storm and gale;
Our pride and joy in thee we trust,
Our hopes with thee will rest,
For our Nevada U to be
The greatest and the best.
--Fidelity by J. A. Aikin
I would think that the New Mexico Bowl would be an opportunity to prove the "weatherability" through the storms and gales which have been the 2007 Wolf Pack football season. Obviously, I was wrong. I did put my hopes with my pride and joy, I really did. It got me about as far as the walk-on program has gotten the Pack special teams.
I would like to take time to make a bit of a historical comparison, mainly because I'm a history nerd.
Let's take another trip in the Wayback Machine to December 11-15, 1862, and the town of Fredricksburg, Virginia. Appropriately enough, this is the site of the immortal Battle of Fredricksburg pitting Generals Robert E. Lee of the Army of Northern Virginia against Ambrose E. Burnside of the Army of the Potomac.
I'll spare the details about this bloody battle and get to the grit of the matter: Burnside was too old-fashioned and myopic, and the result was a Confederate victory so decisive that Lee had the chance to pursue the retreating Federals and crush them once and for all. Lee failed to do this effectively, but the Union loss at this battle was not only embarassing to the United States, but it put a lasting pall over Burnside's carreer.
Well, that's not the end for Burnside; after all, he was a Union general and he got there somehow. He performed reasonably well in East Tennessee, but when it came to the Overland Campaign he couldn't coordinate the attacks and refused to commit the bulk of his troops to direct frontal assaults. This seems, outwardly, that he's learning; at the battle of Antietam constant frontal assaults cost both sides dearly in a battle which was realistically a draw, but slightly more in favor of the Confederates than the Union. But one has to be able to adapt to the surroundings and the proverbial game of battle and this is where Burnside failed again.
Then came Petersburg. Burnside had this great idea to tunnel beneath Confederate entrenchments and detonate a large quantity of ordinance to break through the line. Great! Run it up the middle, break through the line and totally screw them. Of course the detonation created a gigantic crater in the Confederate lines, what would you expect? Now the dynamic was changed and the plan would have to be adapted; after all, one goes into the crater and then has to fight uphill to get out of it any way you look at it. So Burnside decided to go up the middle through the crater. In his defense he did have a division of African American troops trained for this mission which General Meade ordered to keep clear of the battle, but in the end would it have made a difference? Up the middle Burnside went and his troops became fish in a bucket with infantry fire raining down upon them like brimstone.
Postbellum he would go on to become the first president of the National Rifle Association.
So I guess this answers my question asked about six weeks ago: has the Little General turned from a "Fightin'" Joe Hooker into a George McClellan or an Ambrose Burnside?
There are so many comparisons to be made here, from his crushing failure at Fredricksburg (game 1 from the past four seasons) to East Tennessee (offensive predictability and special teams consideration) to the Battle of the Crater (pick something, I promise it will fit), and all of which relate to the New Mexico Bowl.
Okay, nerd moment over. I'll hand over the reigns to my comrade, I know he has a whole lot of statistical goodies and perhaps a colorful metaphor or two to add to this.
I know we've both been busy of late, but I think we have enough fodder now to last MONTHS!!!
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
A UNM-Nevada Preview
This is David - I'm finally back. Things have been rather hectic, personally. I came down with a rather nasty cold, and it's taken me a bit to get back to full strength.
First, some good news: New Mexico's top two running backs are out, according to the RGJ. Meanwhile, on ESPN, Pat Forde is also predicting a victory for us. Even Herbstreit is going with us.
You know something? We should win. Let's do a comparison, shall we?
Offense
Quarterbacks
We have Kaepernick, who is fifth in the nation in pass efficiency but is a freshman. New Mexico, meanwhile, will bring in Donovan Porterie, a decent sophomore pocket quarterback with fewer touchdowns despite playing four more games. Did I mention that Colin is the second-leading rusher on the team? Advantage: Nevada
Running Backs
We have Luke. They're down to their third string. Oh, and our QB can run, too. It's okay, though - New Mexico only averaged 3.3 yards/carry anyways. Advantage: Nevada
Receivers
New Mexico has one receiver with five touchdowns, and he leads the team in that statistic. For Nevada, we have Marko Mitchell and Adam Bishop (included in this category for simplicity sake), who, put together, have put in three times that many. Meanwhile, 71% of New Mexico's reception yards belong to the aforementioned Travis Brown and Travis Smith. Conversely, 72% of Nevada's reception yards come from our three receivers, and one of them isn't Adam Bishop. Advantage: Nevada
Overall Offense Advantage: Nevada... and it's not even close.
Defense
This is where things get ugly. They get almost double the interceptions than we do. They also are able to keep opponents down a solid ten points fewer per game than we do. Advantage: New Mexico
Special Teams
If you're a Nevada fan, you know ours are weak. I have good news, though - they've never scored a touchdown on a punt or kickoff return. The bad news is they haven't allowed any, either, which doesn't matter too much since we've never had a kickoff return for more than fifty yards. Oh, their kicker is more accurate and their punt kicker averages two more yards per kick. No matter how you slice it, special teams is a major weak point on this team - then again, when your head coach thinks "special teams" is synonymous with "walk-ons", well, you kind of have to expect that. Advantage: New Mexico
Final Analysis
If New Mexico had a running game, I'd say they were going to win this. Since both of New Mexico's running backs are out, their quarterback is a vanilla pocket passer, and they only have two receivers that they throw to, I think even Ault can think up of a defensive game plan that will keep them from making any progress on that front. Meanwhile, we have a potent running game that, if Ault uses his head, can definitely chew up some clock, wear their defense out, and keep our special teams off the field. In short, which will score points faster - our offense, or their special teams? Right. By the way, did I mention that the invincible San Jose Spartans beat them in last year's New Mexico Bowl? Final Score: Nevada 30, New Mexico 15
First, some good news: New Mexico's top two running backs are out, according to the RGJ. Meanwhile, on ESPN, Pat Forde is also predicting a victory for us. Even Herbstreit is going with us.
You know something? We should win. Let's do a comparison, shall we?
Offense
Quarterbacks
We have Kaepernick, who is fifth in the nation in pass efficiency but is a freshman. New Mexico, meanwhile, will bring in Donovan Porterie, a decent sophomore pocket quarterback with fewer touchdowns despite playing four more games. Did I mention that Colin is the second-leading rusher on the team? Advantage: Nevada
Running Backs
We have Luke. They're down to their third string. Oh, and our QB can run, too. It's okay, though - New Mexico only averaged 3.3 yards/carry anyways. Advantage: Nevada
Receivers
New Mexico has one receiver with five touchdowns, and he leads the team in that statistic. For Nevada, we have Marko Mitchell and Adam Bishop (included in this category for simplicity sake), who, put together, have put in three times that many. Meanwhile, 71% of New Mexico's reception yards belong to the aforementioned Travis Brown and Travis Smith. Conversely, 72% of Nevada's reception yards come from our three receivers, and one of them isn't Adam Bishop. Advantage: Nevada
Overall Offense Advantage: Nevada... and it's not even close.
Defense
This is where things get ugly. They get almost double the interceptions than we do. They also are able to keep opponents down a solid ten points fewer per game than we do. Advantage: New Mexico
Special Teams
If you're a Nevada fan, you know ours are weak. I have good news, though - they've never scored a touchdown on a punt or kickoff return. The bad news is they haven't allowed any, either, which doesn't matter too much since we've never had a kickoff return for more than fifty yards. Oh, their kicker is more accurate and their punt kicker averages two more yards per kick. No matter how you slice it, special teams is a major weak point on this team - then again, when your head coach thinks "special teams" is synonymous with "walk-ons", well, you kind of have to expect that. Advantage: New Mexico
Final Analysis
If New Mexico had a running game, I'd say they were going to win this. Since both of New Mexico's running backs are out, their quarterback is a vanilla pocket passer, and they only have two receivers that they throw to, I think even Ault can think up of a defensive game plan that will keep them from making any progress on that front. Meanwhile, we have a potent running game that, if Ault uses his head, can definitely chew up some clock, wear their defense out, and keep our special teams off the field. In short, which will score points faster - our offense, or their special teams? Right. By the way, did I mention that the invincible San Jose Spartans beat them in last year's New Mexico Bowl? Final Score: Nevada 30, New Mexico 15
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
