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.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
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
Thursday, December 13, 2007
The Holidays: Good for God, Bad for Blog
I love this time of year, but it has been brutal on the time that my comrade and I have had to write anything meaningful. Even what has come from me just hasn't quite been up to the usual snuff; my sincere apologies to all. At least I have new tires to show for it! So, with that, here we go again!
On December 13th at 2:36 PM, a former elt 2jv said...
Would it be better for the program if they lost? Would that help expedite the change that is necessary in the program?
I just wonder how much longer Ault can stay if he posts several losing records...
One can always make that argument, but I would say that it is never, per se, "better" to lose, at least not consiously. Rather it is better to look back at certain failures and put a positive spin on them. There are always games which would serve us better to lose (which we have "admirably" done, shall I note). But the implications of Boise St. last year and Hawai'i this year didn't keep me from rooting until my throat was raw and bloody for my beloved Wolf Pack. Ditto for the bowl game. But if The Man gives us all enough for us to rent our hair then you can rest assured that it will show up here right after I've cussed most of the "inapropriate" anger out of my system.
Not to mention, Groth has already said that The Ault's job is not in trouble. That statement may come with a silent "yet," she may be afraid, or she may have orders from a higher power. Whatever the case and whatever that's worth, I don't think that the results of the bowl game will have any "real" effect upon the future of the current regime. If it does, it will have to be in conjunction with a number of misfortunes coming to light Tormey style (I mean the drug dealers and bank robbers coming to light) and culminating in a 84-3 broasting. But even then I feel that he'd get off with a warning.
We'll have to wait and see. In the meantime there will be plenty more for us to discuss (I still have a Letter to the Editor from last Sunday's RG-J I really, really want to write about, and my comrade is planning a ditty on the subject of special teams and special teams recruiting which promises to be quite rousing).
On December 13th at 2:36 PM, a former elt 2jv said...
Would it be better for the program if they lost? Would that help expedite the change that is necessary in the program?
I just wonder how much longer Ault can stay if he posts several losing records...
One can always make that argument, but I would say that it is never, per se, "better" to lose, at least not consiously. Rather it is better to look back at certain failures and put a positive spin on them. There are always games which would serve us better to lose (which we have "admirably" done, shall I note). But the implications of Boise St. last year and Hawai'i this year didn't keep me from rooting until my throat was raw and bloody for my beloved Wolf Pack. Ditto for the bowl game. But if The Man gives us all enough for us to rent our hair then you can rest assured that it will show up here right after I've cussed most of the "inapropriate" anger out of my system.
Not to mention, Groth has already said that The Ault's job is not in trouble. That statement may come with a silent "yet," she may be afraid, or she may have orders from a higher power. Whatever the case and whatever that's worth, I don't think that the results of the bowl game will have any "real" effect upon the future of the current regime. If it does, it will have to be in conjunction with a number of misfortunes coming to light Tormey style (I mean the drug dealers and bank robbers coming to light) and culminating in a 84-3 broasting. But even then I feel that he'd get off with a warning.
We'll have to wait and see. In the meantime there will be plenty more for us to discuss (I still have a Letter to the Editor from last Sunday's RG-J I really, really want to write about, and my comrade is planning a ditty on the subject of special teams and special teams recruiting which promises to be quite rousing).
Monday, December 10, 2007
There Are Some Things Greater...
For those who've read it, Dan Hinxman had a great article in the RGJ Sunday (Hard to call Pack football team's season a success). He gets to a number of great points.
"...the 'reaching a bowl game' argument doesn't fly...not in the current environment when 54 percent of Football Bowl Subdivision teams (64 of 119) make it to the postseason"
For those who think that there are too many bowl games, well, that's the beautiful part about capitalism: if you don't watch then it won't make money and it will go away. Some go away, some new ones sprout, but if there weren't at least a modest quarum of demand out there then there would be fewer bowl games. If you want it to go away then don't support it; it's that simple.
BUT, this does show just what type of 'reward' is being given to these schools. You have to be in the top 54%? The only place where that is considered passable is in batting average. Getting to the game doesn't show that the team is, per se, worthy, it just shows that the cards happened to fall the right way.
"And there are a few teams on the outside looking in that have stronger résumés than Nevada -- South Carolina (6-6) beat two Top 25 teams and plays in the toughest conference in the country (Southeastern), Louisville went 6-6 in the very competitive Big East and Iowa went 6-6 in the Big Ten, which included a win over Rose Bowl-bound Illinois. Troy went 8-4 with four of those losses to Top 25 teams."
So it's not even the top 54%! In fact, Sagarin has us rated at #95, between Villanova and McNeese State, both 1-AA teams. Or, eliminating the 1-AAs, between Iowa State and Middle Tennessee, and only 5 1-A spots above Duke http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt07.htm.
"The Wolf Pack, despite a handful of lean years in the late 1990s and early part if this decade, has set the bar too high for itself to consider a season at or near .500 a success, even with a win on the 22nd."
"But this is also the second straight year that the team has slipped backward."
True, this is. We were 9-3 in 2005. Wee little slips backward are one thing, but there has, so far, been very little to grab onto which would say that 9-3 isn't the high water mark. The future looks fairly positive, in terms of players, but each year so far has looked pretty fair in that regard. Yes, okay, one can consider 2007 a "rebuilding" year of sorts. Nobody was certain what would come of the offense when Rowe left, but things turned out even better; some youth issues, but by and large a step up. Plus, if the off-season after the 2006 season was looming, with a number of players leaving, perhaps there should have been more JuCo transfers added into the mix? Granted I may be eating these words in 2-3 years (which I would gladly do), but 2007 was year #4, which is generally considered a separation year of sorts. By year #4 we should be seeing a fair example of what we should be expecting.
Then there are the matter of the "close call" games. Two of them against very good teams, no doubt. But, there were 8 of 12 regular season games decided by 8 points or less...and the Pack lost 5 of them. 5!!! Northwestern (L), UNLV (W), Fresno St. (L), Utah St. (W), New Mexico St. (W), and San Jose St. (L) were the others. Fresno St. didn't have a bad year at all...not great by their standards, but certainly not what they saw last year by any stretch of the imagination. But aside from them, those remaining 5 shine about as well as grandma's old, tarnished silver.
There's also a factor I repeat frequently: the first game of the season has been embarassing every year. 2004: loss at La. Tech 38-21; 2005: loss vs. Wazzu 55-21; 2006: loss at Fresno St. 28-19 (in a real down year for them); 2007: loss at Nebraska 52-10. Granted most of those were on the road (and La. Tech still had Moats in 2004), but this is, to me, a good example of coaching. Teams always look bad in game 1, but the Pack never seems to be prepared for game 1 at all. At least there's generally the proverbial "sauce for the goose," but that never quite seems to apply.
So, long story short here: Hinxman wrote what I consider to be a great artice, one I encourage everyone to read. Likewise, here are my feelings in some of these matters.
Good luck, and Go Pack!
"...the 'reaching a bowl game' argument doesn't fly...not in the current environment when 54 percent of Football Bowl Subdivision teams (64 of 119) make it to the postseason"
For those who think that there are too many bowl games, well, that's the beautiful part about capitalism: if you don't watch then it won't make money and it will go away. Some go away, some new ones sprout, but if there weren't at least a modest quarum of demand out there then there would be fewer bowl games. If you want it to go away then don't support it; it's that simple.
BUT, this does show just what type of 'reward' is being given to these schools. You have to be in the top 54%? The only place where that is considered passable is in batting average. Getting to the game doesn't show that the team is, per se, worthy, it just shows that the cards happened to fall the right way.
"And there are a few teams on the outside looking in that have stronger résumés than Nevada -- South Carolina (6-6) beat two Top 25 teams and plays in the toughest conference in the country (Southeastern), Louisville went 6-6 in the very competitive Big East and Iowa went 6-6 in the Big Ten, which included a win over Rose Bowl-bound Illinois. Troy went 8-4 with four of those losses to Top 25 teams."
So it's not even the top 54%! In fact, Sagarin has us rated at #95, between Villanova and McNeese State, both 1-AA teams. Or, eliminating the 1-AAs, between Iowa State and Middle Tennessee, and only 5 1-A spots above Duke http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt07.htm.
"The Wolf Pack, despite a handful of lean years in the late 1990s and early part if this decade, has set the bar too high for itself to consider a season at or near .500 a success, even with a win on the 22nd."
"But this is also the second straight year that the team has slipped backward."
True, this is. We were 9-3 in 2005. Wee little slips backward are one thing, but there has, so far, been very little to grab onto which would say that 9-3 isn't the high water mark. The future looks fairly positive, in terms of players, but each year so far has looked pretty fair in that regard. Yes, okay, one can consider 2007 a "rebuilding" year of sorts. Nobody was certain what would come of the offense when Rowe left, but things turned out even better; some youth issues, but by and large a step up. Plus, if the off-season after the 2006 season was looming, with a number of players leaving, perhaps there should have been more JuCo transfers added into the mix? Granted I may be eating these words in 2-3 years (which I would gladly do), but 2007 was year #4, which is generally considered a separation year of sorts. By year #4 we should be seeing a fair example of what we should be expecting.
Then there are the matter of the "close call" games. Two of them against very good teams, no doubt. But, there were 8 of 12 regular season games decided by 8 points or less...and the Pack lost 5 of them. 5!!! Northwestern (L), UNLV (W), Fresno St. (L), Utah St. (W), New Mexico St. (W), and San Jose St. (L) were the others. Fresno St. didn't have a bad year at all...not great by their standards, but certainly not what they saw last year by any stretch of the imagination. But aside from them, those remaining 5 shine about as well as grandma's old, tarnished silver.
There's also a factor I repeat frequently: the first game of the season has been embarassing every year. 2004: loss at La. Tech 38-21; 2005: loss vs. Wazzu 55-21; 2006: loss at Fresno St. 28-19 (in a real down year for them); 2007: loss at Nebraska 52-10. Granted most of those were on the road (and La. Tech still had Moats in 2004), but this is, to me, a good example of coaching. Teams always look bad in game 1, but the Pack never seems to be prepared for game 1 at all. At least there's generally the proverbial "sauce for the goose," but that never quite seems to apply.
So, long story short here: Hinxman wrote what I consider to be a great artice, one I encourage everyone to read. Likewise, here are my feelings in some of these matters.
Good luck, and Go Pack!
Thursday, December 6, 2007
It's Entirely My Fault!
I had a bit of a realization here.
You see, I have a long history of bad luck. I don't just mean the usual Murphy's Law type stuff, where you can't seem to hit a green light out of five on your way to work one morning. I'm the guy who, the one time he doesn't get to the airport two hours early, nearly misses his 7:AM flight to Mineapolis after the security station has had a catastrophic failure for the first time in over a decade. I'm also the guy who, in a dry year like last winter, had to go to a funeral in California...at the same time that we got the only major winter storm of the season. Well, not only was it the only one, but by far the majority of precipitation was heading straight for my route home.
Coincidence?
This is a short list, of course, and it would seem that I inherit this trait from my Mother's side. Ironically, this is the same side which hails from Nebraska.
I think there's also a parallel between my existence on this earth and officiating in the WAC, Big West, and Big Sky.
Aside from my near bloodlust for my beloved Wolf Pack, I am also an avid Giants fan.
Starting to make sense now?
A couple of days ago I began to notice patterns here, between certain current leadership trends (and I mean trends in the most literal sense of the word) here, and certain leadership trends in San Francisco from, oh, let's say 1993 through 2002. Enough with allusions here, I'm talking about Dusty Baker (to whom my comerade on this site snidely refers as "the best manager the Angels ever had").
Dusty had some great seasons with the Giants, no argument there. But when it came down to the postseason, well, that's another story.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/managers/bakerdu01.shtml
For anyone who cares, for reference's sake, here's a quickie guide to his regular seasons in SF. It has long pained me to watch him in the postseason, though. I've ruined many fine hats in the process, in fact. 2000 was particularly painful, losing to the Mets in 4 games in the division series. I knew going into that series that game two was going to be the key to advancing since the Mets were a damn fine team, especially late in the season, and winning at Shea was a daydream at best. Of course you can't "believe" that when you're in the big leagues, but that's a fact, and they had to get game two in order to ensure a game five back home in the event of a collapse in New York. Of course, with the pitching staff he had, how could he lose, right? I mean, take away Robb Nen, Felix Rodriguez, and Livan Hernandez when he still knew how to pitch, and you still had Shawn Estes, young Russ Ortiz, Kirk Reuter, and Mark Gardner with Fultz, Henry, and Embree in the bullpen. Plain and simple: Baker didn't play to his strengths, especially in a game two which was to be far more important.
Then there's the 2002 World Series. But since that should be much more fresh in people's minds (and more cliche, too) I won't say much, except: WHY, FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT'S HOLY, DIDN'T YOU PUT IN ROBB NEN WHEN YOU TOOK OUT ORTIZ!!! IT WAS THE 8TH INNING! IT WAS IN ANAHEIM! HE DIDN'T HAVE TO HIT!!! HE DIDN'T HAVE TO HIT!
Cough cough; okay, I'm over it.
Then there's the matter of Baker's comments before the 2002 postseason was even done. Something to the effect of kinda considering the then open Seattle job. Great motivation there, that was.
So there are certainly parallels to be drawn here. Just compare this post with some of our others. It makes sense to me, anyway.
In addition, special thanks to the Sagebrush for plugging our humble site. I must point out, however, one correction: this site wasn't created by a supposed fan, it was created by two supposed fans.
I would also, if I may be allowed to indulge, reply to one opinion expressed by Mr. Oxarart...
Ault's main duty is the offense. Ken Wilson - the defense.
I beg to differ, sir; Ault's main duty is the team. Why have an offensive coordinator in Chris Klenakis if he's doing the work of both positions himself? Well, he may well be taking on both duties, relatively speaking, but since he is squarely in the head spot here then ultimately the successes and failures in all three phases do, in fact, rest on his shoulders.
Even G. W. Bush owned up to the Katrina debacle.
You see, I have a long history of bad luck. I don't just mean the usual Murphy's Law type stuff, where you can't seem to hit a green light out of five on your way to work one morning. I'm the guy who, the one time he doesn't get to the airport two hours early, nearly misses his 7:AM flight to Mineapolis after the security station has had a catastrophic failure for the first time in over a decade. I'm also the guy who, in a dry year like last winter, had to go to a funeral in California...at the same time that we got the only major winter storm of the season. Well, not only was it the only one, but by far the majority of precipitation was heading straight for my route home.
Coincidence?
This is a short list, of course, and it would seem that I inherit this trait from my Mother's side. Ironically, this is the same side which hails from Nebraska.
I think there's also a parallel between my existence on this earth and officiating in the WAC, Big West, and Big Sky.
Aside from my near bloodlust for my beloved Wolf Pack, I am also an avid Giants fan.
Starting to make sense now?
A couple of days ago I began to notice patterns here, between certain current leadership trends (and I mean trends in the most literal sense of the word) here, and certain leadership trends in San Francisco from, oh, let's say 1993 through 2002. Enough with allusions here, I'm talking about Dusty Baker (to whom my comerade on this site snidely refers as "the best manager the Angels ever had").
Dusty had some great seasons with the Giants, no argument there. But when it came down to the postseason, well, that's another story.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/managers/bakerdu01.shtml
For anyone who cares, for reference's sake, here's a quickie guide to his regular seasons in SF. It has long pained me to watch him in the postseason, though. I've ruined many fine hats in the process, in fact. 2000 was particularly painful, losing to the Mets in 4 games in the division series. I knew going into that series that game two was going to be the key to advancing since the Mets were a damn fine team, especially late in the season, and winning at Shea was a daydream at best. Of course you can't "believe" that when you're in the big leagues, but that's a fact, and they had to get game two in order to ensure a game five back home in the event of a collapse in New York. Of course, with the pitching staff he had, how could he lose, right? I mean, take away Robb Nen, Felix Rodriguez, and Livan Hernandez when he still knew how to pitch, and you still had Shawn Estes, young Russ Ortiz, Kirk Reuter, and Mark Gardner with Fultz, Henry, and Embree in the bullpen. Plain and simple: Baker didn't play to his strengths, especially in a game two which was to be far more important.
Then there's the 2002 World Series. But since that should be much more fresh in people's minds (and more cliche, too) I won't say much, except: WHY, FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT'S HOLY, DIDN'T YOU PUT IN ROBB NEN WHEN YOU TOOK OUT ORTIZ!!! IT WAS THE 8TH INNING! IT WAS IN ANAHEIM! HE DIDN'T HAVE TO HIT!!! HE DIDN'T HAVE TO HIT!
Cough cough; okay, I'm over it.
Then there's the matter of Baker's comments before the 2002 postseason was even done. Something to the effect of kinda considering the then open Seattle job. Great motivation there, that was.
So there are certainly parallels to be drawn here. Just compare this post with some of our others. It makes sense to me, anyway.
In addition, special thanks to the Sagebrush for plugging our humble site. I must point out, however, one correction: this site wasn't created by a supposed fan, it was created by two supposed fans.
I would also, if I may be allowed to indulge, reply to one opinion expressed by Mr. Oxarart...
Ault's main duty is the offense. Ken Wilson - the defense.
I beg to differ, sir; Ault's main duty is the team. Why have an offensive coordinator in Chris Klenakis if he's doing the work of both positions himself? Well, he may well be taking on both duties, relatively speaking, but since he is squarely in the head spot here then ultimately the successes and failures in all three phases do, in fact, rest on his shoulders.
Even G. W. Bush owned up to the Katrina debacle.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Comments to Comments of Comments
On December 3, 2007 at 6:23 AM, a former elt 2jv said...
Some comments from a friend of mine......
"As for the Ault situation, you're more than entitled to your opinion. I happen to have worked for the guy, indirectly through the athletic department and I like him as a man and an administrator and yes, even as a coach. He has more passion for this school and its sports than any ten boosters or alumni combined, but...time has passed him by. "
I agree; he's definately true blue. As a person, I can't vouch, I've only heard stories. I do believe he's a hard person, very driven. There have been times where I've also been driven to try to play basketball well, but at 5' 8" and with the coordination of a cow on wet grass and a 20-degree incline it really does me little good except for the excercise I get chasing my airballs. I was also good at a number of things when I was younger (like taking out the trash regularly) where I am nowadays somewhat amiss.
"Being that you are 20 - and this is no attack on your age, just a point of reference - you lack the perspective that I and some of the others do. I was in high school when coach Ault became the first, and so far only, coach to win a conference championship in his first year after moving from D-IAA to D-IA. That was twelve years ago and student mentalities have changed, as have coaching philosophies."
Ah, the good ol' days. Winning was more or less a fact of life back then, by and large. I remember an Ault quote at one point which was something to the effect of always running a rush attack-based system through most of the '80's, until there was a real impetus toward moving into D-1A. He adapted to that then. One would think that he could adapt to today's changes, as well, but something seems to be a bit off kilter here. I won't speculate at what exactly just yet, but it definately seems to be there. As for student mentalities, well, having the "success" we've had over the past decade effects that to a great deal. If we had a long, solid tradition, and that tradition had included winning on a larger stage for 50 some odd years until recently then student mentalities may be a bit different. Hell, by 1995 North McCarran Blvd. may have been renamed the Chris Ault Expressway the way they've done in Lincoln, Nebraska. But that's not entirely the case, at least not to the point that most people truly care. Most of our true successes came in D-1AA, and I do believe that we were on the path to where Boise St. is right now, but there's not too much concern with 1-AA unless you're from that town or you happen to beat Michigan. The good years didn't last long and most people remember the bad.
"I understand that for the three or so years you have been at UNR you've seen what passes for winning (9-4, bowl appearances, one-third of a conference championship), but we're merely beating the teams we're supposed to beat. I remember when we used to push Boise and Fresno up and down the field. Then coach Ault retired to become full-time AD and hired a series of worthless coaches in his place; Jeff Horton, Jeff Tisdel and Chris Tormey. Those programs rose and ours fell. Badly. I remember when Utah State (!) won the Big West Conference in 1997 and schooled us at home in the snow. When we lost to UNLV for the fourth straight time, Ault fired Tormey and hired himself. Some people cheered, others rolled their eyes. I cheered."
Can't argue with any of this. I've always wondered if there was a little voice inside Ault which was telling him to hire an inferior coach, one who would not outshine him. But that's just me, and I could be wrong. I also cheered, but I was a bit anxious, as well. Ault had done a lot for this school and I really hated to see him fail, if indeed he would fail. And he hasn't, exactly, but he hasn't excelled, either. We started this page after the NMSU game because, well, if you saw the game you know why. I've been defending him to the hilt up through the Nebraska game this year, but now I've just kinda had it.
"Just two years into his stint, in 2005, he had us winning again: a 9-3 record and a win over UCF in the Hawaii Bowl, but we got stomped that year by Boise, Wazzu and Colorado State. We beat Fresno just after they had gotten whacked by USC and were riddled with injuries. It almost deserves an asterisk. Last year, same story; we beat the teams we're supposed to beat but lost again to the same teams Ault fired Tormey for losing to. This year, same story. Close just doesn't cut it anymore when the AD hires himself to right the ship and in four years continues to limp his way to bowl games, this year at 6-6."
One point he made, at the press conference when he was announced as the new coach, was that he was going to take back Mackay! And he did, by and large. His first year back the Pack won 5 games, all at home, with the only home loss coming to Boise. The next year the Pack was able to win on the road, with the only home loss coming in the first game to Wazzu (and it was UGLY; so far his first games vs. non 1-AA teams have been ugly). This year we lost to Fresno St. and Hawai'i at home, and there's a lot of stuff to say about both of those losses. And I agree...close shouldn't cut it anymore.
"The only way we seem to survive is through individual efforts of great athletes like Chance Kretschmer, Jeff Rowe, Chris Barry, Caleb Spencer, Derrick Kennard, Joe Garcia, JJ Milan, Ezra Butler, Matt Hines and now, Colin Kaepernick and Luke Lippincott. The same could be said for the baseball team and Coach Powers. Loads of individual talent (Ryan Church, Darrel Rasner, Lyle Overbay, Chad Qualls, etc. all in the big leagues) but only two winning seasons in the past seven? This, after nine straight winning seasons and a handful of CWS appearances."
When the perceived need for this site is over it may well become "firegarypowers.org." I haven't heard a lot of good about him, either, at least not in the past 10 years, and he seems to be kinda riding a tenure-like adhesion to his job. That's to say, he knows he's not going to lose it so why put in the work that he did when he was 15 years younger? Near as I can tell we're still kinda like a Notre Dame in the collegiate baseball world, something of a baseball name down on their luck for an extended period. One or two years of solid effort before handing off the reigns (hopefully to Coach Ulhman) could easily ressurect that program, I believe.
" Furthermore is that this year, after defensive coordinator Tim DeRuyter left for Air Force, Ault replaced him with longtime friend and coach Ken Wilson. I worked with Ken too. He's a super guy, but he took the nation's twelfth best rush defense and turned it into the nation's worst - WORST - with no significant injuries. Only through coaching is that possible. To boot, listen to some of the post-game interviews and listen to how much coach Ault puts the failure on the kids, with phrases like "we didn't execute." That's appropriate sometimes, but his statements are chronic. It is earth-shattering to hear an 'I' statement following a loss."
Ault is a fairly straight shooter, and frequently they're fair shots. His general demeanor often makes his shots sound demeaning. Some of this is legit. But if he were to own up to his own mistakes, like the weaknesses of the staff being on his shoulders rather than threatening to shake things up then he'd have a bit more respect from me.
"The final kick in the (pants) is that the fans have seen our basketball program, which for years was absolutely horrible, turned around in just four short seasons by Trent Johnson and then handed off with equal success to Mark Fox. This year is turning out to be an off-year but this is a luxury for us. Between 1985 and 2003, we had been to exactly one postseason tournament (lost at home to Nebraska in 1997 in the first round of the NIT). Now it's a regular occurrence...but because of outside hiring. "
This depends; sometimes the proverbial inbreeding produces a beautiful dalmation puppy, but sometimes it produces a 5-legged dalmation who tires to eat the neighbors. However, living in a vacuum keeps you in a vacuum and once in a while, just once in a while, you need to change the bag. This may be a good time to change the bag. Incidentally, in 1997 we lost to Nebraska at home in the second round of the NIT then sponsored by Chase after beating Fresno St. on the road. That's Pat Foster's claim to fame.
"My undergraduate friends are fired up to can coach Ault and they're five to ten years younger than I am. Imagine how I feel, having experienced all that crap and witnessing the massive nepotism and good ol' boy hiring that takes place here. Believe me, as good of a president as Joe Crowley was, nobody should be in charge of an institution of higher learning for 23 years because it promotes entrenchment everywhere."
I hear ya', man, I hear ya'. Can't say much here because you've stated it for me.
"We're starting to see a turnaround with a new president, new AD, new deans all over the place, a new student union, new library, etc., etc. Why not new football and baseball coaches from somewhere other than here? Or at least...younger ones. "
One thing I do have to say about all this "new," especially coming in all at once, is that there is some tweaking being done on some of the traditions we have had. Having the marching band play the opponent's fight song is not a bad thing, but doing it because they saw Nebraska do it? That's a bit much. Doing it against UNLV for the first time? Not only does it, in my humble opinion, take just a bit out of the rivalry (and I don't mean the beer-tossing, swear-jerking, crowbar-to-the-knees-in-the-parking-lot aspect of the rivalry which really should go away), but it kinda comes across as patronizing, I think. Then moving the Alma Mater to the end of the game because "that's the way other schools do it," that's just assenine. So what if that's the way other schools do it? We're not other schools, and perhaps we should be proud of our individuality. Just becasue you're new doesn't mean that you have to leave your stamp on everything, or make it fit your mould...kinda like Ault snubbing Andy Heiser in '04 because he "didn't fit into the system."
Sorry that was so long - I needed a break from my papers. But now can you understand our frustration? It's not about wins and losses as much as it is who we're losing to, how long we've been doing it and why the guy in charge isn't doing what he promised when he hired himself four years ago...
Thank you for this post, it was great!
Some comments from a friend of mine......
"As for the Ault situation, you're more than entitled to your opinion. I happen to have worked for the guy, indirectly through the athletic department and I like him as a man and an administrator and yes, even as a coach. He has more passion for this school and its sports than any ten boosters or alumni combined, but...time has passed him by. "
I agree; he's definately true blue. As a person, I can't vouch, I've only heard stories. I do believe he's a hard person, very driven. There have been times where I've also been driven to try to play basketball well, but at 5' 8" and with the coordination of a cow on wet grass and a 20-degree incline it really does me little good except for the excercise I get chasing my airballs. I was also good at a number of things when I was younger (like taking out the trash regularly) where I am nowadays somewhat amiss.
"Being that you are 20 - and this is no attack on your age, just a point of reference - you lack the perspective that I and some of the others do. I was in high school when coach Ault became the first, and so far only, coach to win a conference championship in his first year after moving from D-IAA to D-IA. That was twelve years ago and student mentalities have changed, as have coaching philosophies."
Ah, the good ol' days. Winning was more or less a fact of life back then, by and large. I remember an Ault quote at one point which was something to the effect of always running a rush attack-based system through most of the '80's, until there was a real impetus toward moving into D-1A. He adapted to that then. One would think that he could adapt to today's changes, as well, but something seems to be a bit off kilter here. I won't speculate at what exactly just yet, but it definately seems to be there. As for student mentalities, well, having the "success" we've had over the past decade effects that to a great deal. If we had a long, solid tradition, and that tradition had included winning on a larger stage for 50 some odd years until recently then student mentalities may be a bit different. Hell, by 1995 North McCarran Blvd. may have been renamed the Chris Ault Expressway the way they've done in Lincoln, Nebraska. But that's not entirely the case, at least not to the point that most people truly care. Most of our true successes came in D-1AA, and I do believe that we were on the path to where Boise St. is right now, but there's not too much concern with 1-AA unless you're from that town or you happen to beat Michigan. The good years didn't last long and most people remember the bad.
"I understand that for the three or so years you have been at UNR you've seen what passes for winning (9-4, bowl appearances, one-third of a conference championship), but we're merely beating the teams we're supposed to beat. I remember when we used to push Boise and Fresno up and down the field. Then coach Ault retired to become full-time AD and hired a series of worthless coaches in his place; Jeff Horton, Jeff Tisdel and Chris Tormey. Those programs rose and ours fell. Badly. I remember when Utah State (!) won the Big West Conference in 1997 and schooled us at home in the snow. When we lost to UNLV for the fourth straight time, Ault fired Tormey and hired himself. Some people cheered, others rolled their eyes. I cheered."
Can't argue with any of this. I've always wondered if there was a little voice inside Ault which was telling him to hire an inferior coach, one who would not outshine him. But that's just me, and I could be wrong. I also cheered, but I was a bit anxious, as well. Ault had done a lot for this school and I really hated to see him fail, if indeed he would fail. And he hasn't, exactly, but he hasn't excelled, either. We started this page after the NMSU game because, well, if you saw the game you know why. I've been defending him to the hilt up through the Nebraska game this year, but now I've just kinda had it.
"Just two years into his stint, in 2005, he had us winning again: a 9-3 record and a win over UCF in the Hawaii Bowl, but we got stomped that year by Boise, Wazzu and Colorado State. We beat Fresno just after they had gotten whacked by USC and were riddled with injuries. It almost deserves an asterisk. Last year, same story; we beat the teams we're supposed to beat but lost again to the same teams Ault fired Tormey for losing to. This year, same story. Close just doesn't cut it anymore when the AD hires himself to right the ship and in four years continues to limp his way to bowl games, this year at 6-6."
One point he made, at the press conference when he was announced as the new coach, was that he was going to take back Mackay! And he did, by and large. His first year back the Pack won 5 games, all at home, with the only home loss coming to Boise. The next year the Pack was able to win on the road, with the only home loss coming in the first game to Wazzu (and it was UGLY; so far his first games vs. non 1-AA teams have been ugly). This year we lost to Fresno St. and Hawai'i at home, and there's a lot of stuff to say about both of those losses. And I agree...close shouldn't cut it anymore.
"The only way we seem to survive is through individual efforts of great athletes like Chance Kretschmer, Jeff Rowe, Chris Barry, Caleb Spencer, Derrick Kennard, Joe Garcia, JJ Milan, Ezra Butler, Matt Hines and now, Colin Kaepernick and Luke Lippincott. The same could be said for the baseball team and Coach Powers. Loads of individual talent (Ryan Church, Darrel Rasner, Lyle Overbay, Chad Qualls, etc. all in the big leagues) but only two winning seasons in the past seven? This, after nine straight winning seasons and a handful of CWS appearances."
When the perceived need for this site is over it may well become "firegarypowers.org." I haven't heard a lot of good about him, either, at least not in the past 10 years, and he seems to be kinda riding a tenure-like adhesion to his job. That's to say, he knows he's not going to lose it so why put in the work that he did when he was 15 years younger? Near as I can tell we're still kinda like a Notre Dame in the collegiate baseball world, something of a baseball name down on their luck for an extended period. One or two years of solid effort before handing off the reigns (hopefully to Coach Ulhman) could easily ressurect that program, I believe.
" Furthermore is that this year, after defensive coordinator Tim DeRuyter left for Air Force, Ault replaced him with longtime friend and coach Ken Wilson. I worked with Ken too. He's a super guy, but he took the nation's twelfth best rush defense and turned it into the nation's worst - WORST - with no significant injuries. Only through coaching is that possible. To boot, listen to some of the post-game interviews and listen to how much coach Ault puts the failure on the kids, with phrases like "we didn't execute." That's appropriate sometimes, but his statements are chronic. It is earth-shattering to hear an 'I' statement following a loss."
Ault is a fairly straight shooter, and frequently they're fair shots. His general demeanor often makes his shots sound demeaning. Some of this is legit. But if he were to own up to his own mistakes, like the weaknesses of the staff being on his shoulders rather than threatening to shake things up then he'd have a bit more respect from me.
"The final kick in the (pants) is that the fans have seen our basketball program, which for years was absolutely horrible, turned around in just four short seasons by Trent Johnson and then handed off with equal success to Mark Fox. This year is turning out to be an off-year but this is a luxury for us. Between 1985 and 2003, we had been to exactly one postseason tournament (lost at home to Nebraska in 1997 in the first round of the NIT). Now it's a regular occurrence...but because of outside hiring. "
This depends; sometimes the proverbial inbreeding produces a beautiful dalmation puppy, but sometimes it produces a 5-legged dalmation who tires to eat the neighbors. However, living in a vacuum keeps you in a vacuum and once in a while, just once in a while, you need to change the bag. This may be a good time to change the bag. Incidentally, in 1997 we lost to Nebraska at home in the second round of the NIT then sponsored by Chase after beating Fresno St. on the road. That's Pat Foster's claim to fame.
"My undergraduate friends are fired up to can coach Ault and they're five to ten years younger than I am. Imagine how I feel, having experienced all that crap and witnessing the massive nepotism and good ol' boy hiring that takes place here. Believe me, as good of a president as Joe Crowley was, nobody should be in charge of an institution of higher learning for 23 years because it promotes entrenchment everywhere."
I hear ya', man, I hear ya'. Can't say much here because you've stated it for me.
"We're starting to see a turnaround with a new president, new AD, new deans all over the place, a new student union, new library, etc., etc. Why not new football and baseball coaches from somewhere other than here? Or at least...younger ones. "
One thing I do have to say about all this "new," especially coming in all at once, is that there is some tweaking being done on some of the traditions we have had. Having the marching band play the opponent's fight song is not a bad thing, but doing it because they saw Nebraska do it? That's a bit much. Doing it against UNLV for the first time? Not only does it, in my humble opinion, take just a bit out of the rivalry (and I don't mean the beer-tossing, swear-jerking, crowbar-to-the-knees-in-the-parking-lot aspect of the rivalry which really should go away), but it kinda comes across as patronizing, I think. Then moving the Alma Mater to the end of the game because "that's the way other schools do it," that's just assenine. So what if that's the way other schools do it? We're not other schools, and perhaps we should be proud of our individuality. Just becasue you're new doesn't mean that you have to leave your stamp on everything, or make it fit your mould...kinda like Ault snubbing Andy Heiser in '04 because he "didn't fit into the system."
Sorry that was so long - I needed a break from my papers. But now can you understand our frustration? It's not about wins and losses as much as it is who we're losing to, how long we've been doing it and why the guy in charge isn't doing what he promised when he hired himself four years ago...
Thank you for this post, it was great!
Sunday, December 2, 2007
The bowl picture is set...
And we're in it, going to New Mexico. The WAC bowl picture looks like the following:
Dec. 22nd - New Mexico Bowl
Nevada vs. New Mexico
4:30 p.m. ESPN HD
Dec. 23rd - Sheraton Hawaii Bowl
Boise State vs. East Carolina
8 p.m. ESPN
Dec. 31st - Roady's Humanitarian Bowl
Georgia Tech vs. Fresno State
2 p.m. ESPN2 HD
Jan 1st - Allstate Sugar Bowl
Hawaii vs. Georgia
8:30 p.m. FOX
Interestingly, they didn't keep Boise State in Boise for their bowl game - this is probably because Boise State travels relatively well, and the Sheraton Bowl is going to need all the help it can get for this one, attendance wise. After all, I can't imagine East Carolina has a large legion of road fans capable or willing to go to Hawaii for a bowl game. We're going to New Mexico, which works out well - since New Mexico is playing in that, it won't matter how many of our fans bother to show up. Georgia Tech, meanwhile, makes another trip to the Humanitarian Bowl, showing up three years after their last showing. Of course, none of this wouldn't be possible if Hawaii wasn't going to the Sugar Bowl to face a bitter Georgia team that, frankly, will probably run over the Warriors.
We'll cover the matchup between New Mexico and Nevada soon... but we need to pace ourselves. It's a long three weeks 'til our bowl game, and we have to have something to post here.
Dec. 22nd - New Mexico Bowl
Nevada vs. New Mexico
4:30 p.m. ESPN HD
Dec. 23rd - Sheraton Hawaii Bowl
Boise State vs. East Carolina
8 p.m. ESPN
Dec. 31st - Roady's Humanitarian Bowl
Georgia Tech vs. Fresno State
2 p.m. ESPN2 HD
Jan 1st - Allstate Sugar Bowl
Hawaii vs. Georgia
8:30 p.m. FOX
Interestingly, they didn't keep Boise State in Boise for their bowl game - this is probably because Boise State travels relatively well, and the Sheraton Bowl is going to need all the help it can get for this one, attendance wise. After all, I can't imagine East Carolina has a large legion of road fans capable or willing to go to Hawaii for a bowl game. We're going to New Mexico, which works out well - since New Mexico is playing in that, it won't matter how many of our fans bother to show up. Georgia Tech, meanwhile, makes another trip to the Humanitarian Bowl, showing up three years after their last showing. Of course, none of this wouldn't be possible if Hawaii wasn't going to the Sugar Bowl to face a bitter Georgia team that, frankly, will probably run over the Warriors.
We'll cover the matchup between New Mexico and Nevada soon... but we need to pace ourselves. It's a long three weeks 'til our bowl game, and we have to have something to post here.
Hawaii Wins!
Hawaii did what it's been doing all season... just enough to win. Final score: Hawaii 35, Washington 28. This means we'll almost certainly be a shoo-in for a record third bowl game in a row.
So, Ault's great, right? I mean, he's brought us to three bowl games in a row! Nobody's ever done that before.
This is all quite true, but let's take a look at the circumstances of our latest potential bowl bid - Hawaii has to get a BCS bid and the WAC has three bowl bids on top of that. So, to get to a bowl game, we just had to be one of the top four schools in the conference. That's not hard. If you take out Tulsa and Rice from the 2003 standings, we did it then, too, with an identical record.
Here's my point - we're going to a bowl game, and that's wonderful. We beat who we needed to beat (finally!) to get that bowl game, helped in part by Coach Winter going up against a team that is mortally afraid of sub-50 temperatures. We beat that team soundly (good!). However, getting into a bowl game this year is easy compared to other seasons. It's only because of a perfect storm of events that we're getting in, not because we have a great record or because Ault is a wonderful coach.
Even so, I wish the Wolf Pack the best, I hope we get a bid, and I hope we play well. Like my compatriot, I'm not anti-Ault per se... I'm just not sure Ault is the guy that will get us into consistent Boise State/Hawaii territory.
So, Ault's great, right? I mean, he's brought us to three bowl games in a row! Nobody's ever done that before.
This is all quite true, but let's take a look at the circumstances of our latest potential bowl bid - Hawaii has to get a BCS bid and the WAC has three bowl bids on top of that. So, to get to a bowl game, we just had to be one of the top four schools in the conference. That's not hard. If you take out Tulsa and Rice from the 2003 standings, we did it then, too, with an identical record.
Here's my point - we're going to a bowl game, and that's wonderful. We beat who we needed to beat (finally!) to get that bowl game, helped in part by Coach Winter going up against a team that is mortally afraid of sub-50 temperatures. We beat that team soundly (good!). However, getting into a bowl game this year is easy compared to other seasons. It's only because of a perfect storm of events that we're getting in, not because we have a great record or because Ault is a wonderful coach.
Even so, I wish the Wolf Pack the best, I hope we get a bid, and I hope we play well. Like my compatriot, I'm not anti-Ault per se... I'm just not sure Ault is the guy that will get us into consistent Boise State/Hawaii territory.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
On November, er, December 1st, 2007 at 3:38 PM a former elt 2jv said...
...I'm not sure if Groth would ever actually "fire" Ault, but maybe Mr. Ault decides enough is enough and retires on his own.
I'm not sure if I, personally, have been clear, but this gets to the crux of my ambition here. I'm not entirely anti-Ault as much as I am pro-development of my beloved Wolf Pack. What Ault has done for the University and the football program cannot be understated.
However, I can't see us getting to the point where we compete for one of the top two or three in the WAC where we are now. We may have one "wow" year coming, but I don't see us developing a constistantly dominant force. Dangerous, maybe, but not a string of a decade where finishing #2 one season is considered a "down" year. Our lauded "Halftime Stats" would help to reinforce my feelings in this matter.
I would also rather he gets to do it on an "up" note. If the Pack can manage 8 or 9 wins next season then he could step aside with laurels upon his head. At least it wouldn't entirely seem like a forced retirement.
BUT, the department and the school should likewise not be afraid to envoke whatever measures may be deemed necessary for the continued development of the program. Development being the key word here (i.e. not settling for just having a winning record, not settling for top 3 or 4).
All this aside, however, I have to give props for the game today. Lippincott and Sammons were at the top of their game today, and Marko Mitchell had probably the most solid all-around game I've seen from him. Mistakes were made, but you can't argue with the results. Kudos!
Go Warriors (boy, that sure pains me to say)!
...I'm not sure if Groth would ever actually "fire" Ault, but maybe Mr. Ault decides enough is enough and retires on his own.
I'm not sure if I, personally, have been clear, but this gets to the crux of my ambition here. I'm not entirely anti-Ault as much as I am pro-development of my beloved Wolf Pack. What Ault has done for the University and the football program cannot be understated.
However, I can't see us getting to the point where we compete for one of the top two or three in the WAC where we are now. We may have one "wow" year coming, but I don't see us developing a constistantly dominant force. Dangerous, maybe, but not a string of a decade where finishing #2 one season is considered a "down" year. Our lauded "Halftime Stats" would help to reinforce my feelings in this matter.
I would also rather he gets to do it on an "up" note. If the Pack can manage 8 or 9 wins next season then he could step aside with laurels upon his head. At least it wouldn't entirely seem like a forced retirement.
BUT, the department and the school should likewise not be afraid to envoke whatever measures may be deemed necessary for the continued development of the program. Development being the key word here (i.e. not settling for just having a winning record, not settling for top 3 or 4).
All this aside, however, I have to give props for the game today. Lippincott and Sammons were at the top of their game today, and Marko Mitchell had probably the most solid all-around game I've seen from him. Mistakes were made, but you can't argue with the results. Kudos!
Go Warriors (boy, that sure pains me to say)!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)