I feel for both Idaho and NMSU for similar reasons. Neither team knows its future conference affiliation, i.e., the Belt, FCS, independents, or whatever. This HAS to hurt recruiting... to the Nth degree! Players want to know who the coaching staff will (reasonably) be throughout their tenure, whether or not they'll be playing FBS or FCS, or in the Belt, another conference or as indies. This is something NEITHER coach can do anything about... recruits have these questions and both IU and NMSU's coaches probably do a lot of shrugging, stammering and stuttering before going on to simply explain the Idaho or NMSU "experience" as a student athlete, their schools' academic profiles, the Moscow and Las Cruces experiences, blah-blah-blah.

There is almost no way either team can be competitive in FBS until the coaching/recruiting staffs have solid, ready answers to these very normal recruiting questions. So say, for example, both teams are renewed for another couple, or few years as affiliate ONLY members of the Belt. It's the same thing all over again -- lack of futuristic answers to the most usual questions (i.e., "What about after that, coach?"... losing recruiting battles to almost EVERY other FBS program since they can answer the questions. With the unknowns, these two teams are FBSINO's (FBS In Name Only) and will continue to be until rectified.

I would think it'd be better for NMSU and Idaho to both break ties to the SBC without even thinking about renewing the affiliate agreement and either A) Join another conference (FBS or FCS - whichever works for each school, IF applicable), or B) Go independent until the MWC pulls their heads out of their asses and extend invites. At least this way, both recruiting staffs would have immediate answers to the most common questions with the only potential changes being POSITIVE changes versus blank stares.

Just my 2 cents.

Come on, how can you expect a coach to take a floundering college program and turn it into a competetor overnight? It's just not possible. A coach needs 4 years to prove himself and if the offense is any indication we'll be fine, we just need time to build depth.

It's also funny to see a coach who was universally respected for honoring a scholarship to a sick recruit and is now being called an a hole because one thin skinned reporter and his hack cronies. The football coach *gasp* yells and pushes his players to get better. I realize he's the only coach in history to do that but it's probably a trend that will catch on soon.

(09-23-2015 03:22 PM)nsavandal09 Wrote:  Come on, how can you expect a coach to take a floundering college program and turn it into a competetor overnight? It's just not possible. A coach needs 4 years to prove himself and if the offense is any indication we'll be fine, we just need time to build depth.

Well.....not to be pick it apart, but Hugh Freeze did pretty well in his first year as coach. So did a few others.

:)

(09-23-2015 02:29 PM)airtroop Wrote:  I feel for both Idaho and NMSU for similar reasons. Neither team knows its future conference affiliation, i.e., the Belt, FCS, independents, or whatever. This HAS to hurt recruiting... to the Nth degree! Players want to know who the coaching staff will (reasonably) be throughout their tenure, whether or not they'll be playing FBS or FCS, or in the Belt, another conference or as indies. This is something NEITHER coach can do anything about... recruits have these questions and both IU and NMSU's coaches probably do a lot of shrugging, stammering and stuttering before going on to simply explain the Idaho or NMSU "experience" as a student athlete, their schools' academic profiles, the Moscow and Las Cruces experiences, blah-blah-blah.

There is almost no way either team can be competitive in FBS until the coaching/recruiting staffs have solid, ready answers to these very normal recruiting questions. So say, for example, both teams are renewed for another couple, or few years as affiliate ONLY members of the Belt. It's the same thing all over again -- lack of futuristic answers to the most usual questions (i.e., "What about after that, coach?"... losing recruiting battles to almost EVERY other FBS program since they can answer the questions. With the unknowns, these two teams are FBSINO's (FBS In Name Only) and will continue to be until rectified.

I would think it'd be better for NMSU and Idaho to both break ties to the SBC without even thinking about renewing the affiliate agreement and either A) Join another conference (FBS or FCS - whichever works for each school, IF applicable), or B) Go independent until the MWC pulls their heads out of their asses and extend invites. At least this way, both recruiting staffs would have immediate answers to the most common questions with the only potential changes being POSITIVE changes versus blank stares.

Just my 2 cents.

That's probably not the worst idea out there for them just to make the decision and go with it. Rip that bandaid off fast, feel the sting and move on. I'd be ok with a four/five game agreement with both, they play each other, only have 6 more games to fill. As long as they are FBS, they could probably both pick up 2 B1G money games a year, an FCS team, schedule is almost full.

Win those games and the MWC will come calling.

(09-23-2015 03:22 PM)nsavandal09 Wrote:  Come on, how can you expect a coach to take a floundering college program and turn it into a competetor overnight? It's just not possible. A coach needs 4 years to prove himself and if the offense is any indication we'll be fine, we just need time to build depth.

It's also funny to see a coach who was universally respected for honoring a scholarship to a sick recruit and is now being called an a hole because one thin skinned reporter and his hack cronies. The football coach *gasp* yells and pushes his players to get better. I realize he's the only coach in history to do that but it's probably a trend that will catch on soon.

AState fans thought he was an A hole before you ever hired him.

(09-23-2015 03:22 PM)nsavandal09 Wrote:  Come on, how can you expect a coach to take a floundering college program and turn it into a competetor overnight? It's just not possible. A coach needs 4 years to prove himself and if the offense is any indication we'll be fine, we just need time to build depth.

It's also funny to see a coach who was universally respected for honoring a scholarship to a sick recruit and is now being called an a hole because one thin skinned reporter and his hack cronies. The football coach *gasp* yells and pushes his players to get better. I realize he's the only coach in history to do that but it's probably a trend that will catch on soon.

The question I'd have for Idaho fans is... what did he do to piss off the fans so much? The reporter? I get him being all butthurt and such.

But the fans? To my knowledge, he hasn't done anything. And not to try and knock on you guys... But you've been bad for a while now, so him not instantly producing wins seems like it wouldn't cause the uproar either.

So... what gives?

(09-23-2015 02:29 PM)airtroop Wrote:  I feel for both Idaho and NMSU for similar reasons. Neither team knows its future conference affiliation, i.e., the Belt, FCS, independents, or whatever. This HAS to hurt recruiting... to the Nth degree! Players want to know who the coaching staff will (reasonably) be throughout their tenure, whether or not they'll be playing FBS or FCS, or in the Belt, another conference or as indies. This is something NEITHER coach can do anything about... recruits have these questions and both IU and NMSU's coaches probably do a lot of shrugging, stammering and stuttering before going on to simply explain the Idaho or NMSU "experience" as a student athlete, their schools' academic profiles, the Moscow and Las Cruces experiences, blah-blah-blah.

There is almost no way either team can be competitive in FBS until the coaching/recruiting staffs have solid, ready answers to these very normal recruiting questions. So say, for example, both teams are renewed for another couple, or few years as affiliate ONLY members of the Belt. It's the same thing all over again -- lack of futuristic answers to the most usual questions (i.e., "What about after that, coach?"... losing recruiting battles to almost EVERY other FBS program since they can answer the questions. With the unknowns, these two teams are FBSINO's (FBS In Name Only) and will continue to be until rectified.

I would think it'd be better for NMSU and Idaho to both break ties to the SBC without even thinking about renewing the affiliate agreement and either A) Join another conference (FBS or FCS - whichever works for each school, IF applicable), or B) Go independent until the MWC pulls their heads out of their asses and extend invites. At least this way, both recruiting staffs would have immediate answers to the most common questions with the only potential changes being POSITIVE changes versus blank stares.

Just my 2 cents.

Or the Sun Belt could quit screwing around and just renew us both now.

There may be better regional options for you in the future but there are none now and any that are identified later will need time to transition. 4 more years in the Belt would do a lot to help our program and the conference is better off with 12 than 10. The only reason to do 10 would be if you want to go to a 9-game conference schedule but I don't think most want to do that and 10 leaves you unnecessarily vulnerable to raids. Trust me, you don't want to be the next WAC. And it's just football, so one road trip every 2-4 years is no big deal.

It makes sense for both sides. Personally, I like the teams in the Sun Belt and I'd be happy to be here quite a while. And we do bring value to the conference -- we are a land grant, state flagship school with a long history and a strong tradition. As long as we get out of our own way there's no reason we can't be competitive and bring in revenue from western bowls no other Belt team could access.

(09-23-2015 04:18 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(09-23-2015 03:22 PM)nsavandal09 Wrote:  Come on, how can you expect a coach to take a floundering college program and turn it into a competetor overnight? It's just not possible. A coach needs 4 years to prove himself and if the offense is any indication we'll be fine, we just need time to build depth.

It's also funny to see a coach who was universally respected for honoring a scholarship to a sick recruit and is now being called an a hole because one thin skinned reporter and his hack cronies. The football coach *gasp* yells and pushes his players to get better. I realize he's the only coach in history to do that but it's probably a trend that will catch on soon.

The question I'd have for Idaho fans is... what did he do to piss off the fans so much? The reporter? I get him being all butthurt and such.

But the fans? To my knowledge, he hasn't done anything. And not to try and knock on you guys... But you've been bad for a while now, so him not instantly producing wins seems like it wouldn't cause the uproar either.

So... what gives?

At this point we're so angry that we're just shooting at anyone who pops his head out of the bunker.

(09-23-2015 03:35 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  

(09-23-2015 03:22 PM)nsavandal09 Wrote:  Come on, how can you expect a coach to take a floundering college program and turn it into a competetor overnight? It's just not possible. A coach needs 4 years to prove himself and if the offense is any indication we'll be fine, we just need time to build depth.

Well.....not to be pick it apart, but Hugh Freeze did pretty well in his first year as coach. So did a few others.

:)

Comparing Ole Miss 2012 to Idaho 2013 is like comparing a 2012 Toyota Camry to a 1970 Gremlin with a missing engine.

That would be before Ole Miss.....when he was at ASU.
Then Malzahn after him. And even Harsin and Anderson did ok.

(09-23-2015 09:46 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  That would be before Ole Miss.....when he was at ASU.
Then Malzahn after him. And even Harsin and Anderson did ok.

Sorry -- A 2011 Hyundai Elantra vs. a 1970 Gremlin with a missing engine. Honestly the comparison isn't even close. Freeze had players on the roster who'd played actual D1 college football games when he showed up.

The only guy I'd give credit for having a tougher job than 2013 Idaho is the guy coaching Marshall right after the plane crash.

:)
Don't lose faith.

(09-23-2015 10:33 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  :)
Don't lose faith.

I don't understand why it took so long for them to lose faith.

(09-22-2015 10:30 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  Idaho was hopelessly overmatched in every single game (Except maybe NMSU. How we beat Temple I'll never understand).

Because we started Connor Reilly instead of true freshman PJ Walker. The coaches didn't think Walker was ready. He ended up playing almost the entire game the next week against #7 Louisville and went 10/19 for 182 and a TD.

(09-24-2015 01:43 AM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(09-22-2015 10:30 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  Idaho was hopelessly overmatched in every single game (Except maybe NMSU. How we beat Temple I'll never understand).

Because we started Connor Reilly instead of true freshman PJ Walker. The coaches didn't think Walker was ready. He ended up playing almost the entire game the next week against #7 Louisville and went 10/19 for 182 and a TD.

I remember watching your QB overthrow wide open receivers all afternoon. If I were a Temple fan I'd have gone nuts. But thanks to your coach for doing that. We didn't need an 0-12 that year and your program seems to have survived pretty well.

(09-23-2015 03:35 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  

(09-23-2015 03:22 PM)nsavandal09 Wrote:  Come on, how can you expect a coach to take a floundering college program and turn it into a competetor overnight? It's just not possible. A coach needs 4 years to prove himself and if the offense is any indication we'll be fine, we just need time to build depth.

Well.....not to be pick it apart, but Hugh Freeze did pretty well in his first year as coach. So did a few others.

:)

There's a slight difference between taking a 4-8 team and promoting the offensive coordinator versus bringing in an outside hire to take over a 1-11 team that needs a total rebuild from the ground up while being held back by APR sanctions. Out of 125 teams there may be 1 or 2 examples but there is a reason quick turnarounds are so rare.

(09-23-2015 04:18 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(09-23-2015 03:22 PM)nsavandal09 Wrote:  Come on, how can you expect a coach to take a floundering college program and turn it into a competetor overnight? It's just not possible. A coach needs 4 years to prove himself and if the offense is any indication we'll be fine, we just need time to build depth.

It's also funny to see a coach who was universally respected for honoring a scholarship to a sick recruit and is now being called an a hole because one thin skinned reporter and his hack cronies. The football coach *gasp* yells and pushes his players to get better. I realize he's the only coach in history to do that but it's probably a trend that will catch on soon.

The question I'd have for Idaho fans is... what did he do to piss off the fans so much? The reporter? I get him being all butthurt and such.

But the fans? To my knowledge, he hasn't done anything. And not to try and knock on you guys... But you've been bad for a while now, so him not instantly producing wins seems like it wouldn't cause the uproar either.

So... what gives?

I agree, fans shouldn't be this mad at him but he is in the wrong place at the wrong time. Fans are sick of losing and even the wins haven't been very convincing. But we can handle losing on the field adding the off the field headlines is just too much for some. The way he handled the third Epps/bookstore incident might have been well intentioned but it could not have been presented to the media in a worse way. Tack on the reporter incident which was blown way out of proportion and the other local media types dove in looking for blood (for example a local paper launched a FOIA investigation because the bookstore valued the returned merch about 25% high than the AD said because they used the actual price while the AD used the sticker price since it was on sale, then threw a hissy fit when the school responded with an invoice for the estimated costs which is completely normal and legal). The frustration is just boiling over, how people can't seem to link our incompetent AD to this mess is simply beyond belief, but that's a story for another thread.

The problem is you need to give a coach time to install his coaches, system and players and we may be on the verge of seeing the fruits of this labor and I hope it doesn't result in a knee jerk "fire the coach" response and put us back at step one.

Losing sucks.
Add some players in trouble
Add a tiff with local media

No one is going to be in a pleasant mood.

(09-23-2015 05:09 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(09-23-2015 02:29 PM)airtroop Wrote:  I feel for both Idaho and NMSU for similar reasons. Neither team knows its future conference affiliation, i.e., the Belt, FCS, independents, or whatever. This HAS to hurt recruiting... to the Nth degree! Players want to know who the coaching staff will (reasonably) be throughout their tenure, whether or not they'll be playing FBS or FCS, or in the Belt, another conference or as indies. This is something NEITHER coach can do anything about... recruits have these questions and both IU and NMSU's coaches probably do a lot of shrugging, stammering and stuttering before going on to simply explain the Idaho or NMSU "experience" as a student athlete, their schools' academic profiles, the Moscow and Las Cruces experiences, blah-blah-blah.

There is almost no way either team can be competitive in FBS until the coaching/recruiting staffs have solid, ready answers to these very normal recruiting questions. So say, for example, both teams are renewed for another couple, or few years as affiliate ONLY members of the Belt. It's the same thing all over again -- lack of futuristic answers to the most usual questions (i.e., "What about after that, coach?"... losing recruiting battles to almost EVERY other FBS program since they can answer the questions. With the unknowns, these two teams are FBSINO's (FBS In Name Only) and will continue to be until rectified.

I would think it'd be better for NMSU and Idaho to both break ties to the SBC without even thinking about renewing the affiliate agreement and either A) Join another conference (FBS or FCS - whichever works for each school, IF applicable), or B) Go independent until the MWC pulls their heads out of their asses and extend invites. At least this way, both recruiting staffs would have immediate answers to the most common questions with the only potential changes being POSITIVE changes versus blank stares.

Just my 2 cents.

Or the Sun Belt could quit screwing around and just renew us both now.

There may be better regional options for you in the future but there are none now and any that are identified later will need time to transition. 4 more years in the Belt would do a lot to help our program and the conference is better off with 12 than 10. The only reason to do 10 would be if you want to go to a 9-game conference schedule but I don't think most want to do that and 10 leaves you unnecessarily vulnerable to raids. Trust me, you don't want to be the next WAC. And it's just football, so one road trip every 2-4 years is no big deal.

It makes sense for both sides. Personally, I like the teams in the Sun Belt and I'd be happy to be here quite a while. And we do bring value to the conference -- we are a land grant, state flagship school with a long history and a strong tradition. As long as we get out of our own way there's no reason we can't be competitive and bring in revenue from western bowls no other Belt team could access.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. On the other hand, neither of us or anybody in the State of Idaho has a say in Idaho's SBC future, which gets back to my point - Idaho (and NMSU) are pinning their conference futures on the desires of the presidents of the Belt schools. As long as your leaders refuse to chart their OWN courses, you'll have trouble recruiting the players to help you compete in the FBS.

Let's say the SBC presidents say "Ok, we'll renew Idaho's contract for another four years". How does that help Idaho get better? The first recruiting class gets four years, so it might be a decent recruiting class. After that one, you're back to being stuck with recruiting kids who really don't care about their athletic futures (like you have been doing), which (IMNSHO) puts you right back where you are: a SLIGHTLY and arguably competitive FBS program. Think for a moment about the type of person who would go for a deal like that. Are they "world beaters"? Maybe, but I highly doubt it. There may be a bunch of things you can blame on your coach but this one's on your administrations.

Unless the Belt offers Idaho and NMSU a permanent contract versus another 2, 3, or 4 year provisional one, if I were in charge, I'd say "Thanks, but I guess we'll just go indie". I truly believe your recruiting would GREATLY improve, just as it would if you were made permanent affiliate members. Again, completely out of yours, mine and the two affiliate schools' control on the latter.

(09-24-2015 02:01 PM)airtroop Wrote:  

(09-23-2015 05:09 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(09-23-2015 02:29 PM)airtroop Wrote:  I feel for both Idaho and NMSU for similar reasons. Neither team knows its future conference affiliation, i.e., the Belt, FCS, independents, or whatever. This HAS to hurt recruiting... to the Nth degree! Players want to know who the coaching staff will (reasonably) be throughout their tenure, whether or not they'll be playing FBS or FCS, or in the Belt, another conference or as indies. This is something NEITHER coach can do anything about... recruits have these questions and both IU and NMSU's coaches probably do a lot of shrugging, stammering and stuttering before going on to simply explain the Idaho or NMSU "experience" as a student athlete, their schools' academic profiles, the Moscow and Las Cruces experiences, blah-blah-blah.

There is almost no way either team can be competitive in FBS until the coaching/recruiting staffs have solid, ready answers to these very normal recruiting questions. So say, for example, both teams are renewed for another couple, or few years as affiliate ONLY members of the Belt. It's the same thing all over again -- lack of futuristic answers to the most usual questions (i.e., "What about after that, coach?"... losing recruiting battles to almost EVERY other FBS program since they can answer the questions. With the unknowns, these two teams are FBSINO's (FBS In Name Only) and will continue to be until rectified.

I would think it'd be better for NMSU and Idaho to both break ties to the SBC without even thinking about renewing the affiliate agreement and either A) Join another conference (FBS or FCS - whichever works for each school, IF applicable), or B) Go independent until the MWC pulls their heads out of their asses and extend invites. At least this way, both recruiting staffs would have immediate answers to the most common questions with the only potential changes being POSITIVE changes versus blank stares.

Just my 2 cents.

Or the Sun Belt could quit screwing around and just renew us both now.

There may be better regional options for you in the future but there are none now and any that are identified later will need time to transition. 4 more years in the Belt would do a lot to help our program and the conference is better off with 12 than 10. The only reason to do 10 would be if you want to go to a 9-game conference schedule but I don't think most want to do that and 10 leaves you unnecessarily vulnerable to raids. Trust me, you don't want to be the next WAC. And it's just football, so one road trip every 2-4 years is no big deal.

It makes sense for both sides. Personally, I like the teams in the Sun Belt and I'd be happy to be here quite a while. And we do bring value to the conference -- we are a land grant, state flagship school with a long history and a strong tradition. As long as we get out of our own way there's no reason we can't be competitive and bring in revenue from western bowls no other Belt team could access.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. On the other hand, neither of us or anybody in the State of Idaho has a say in Idaho's SBC future, which gets back to my point - Idaho (and NMSU) are pinning their conference futures on the desires of the presidents of the Belt schools. As long as your leaders refuse to chart their OWN courses, you'll have trouble recruiting the players to help you compete in the FBS.

Let's say the SBC presidents say "Ok, we'll renew Idaho's contract for another four years". How does that help Idaho get better? The first recruiting class gets four years, so it might be a decent recruiting class. After that one, you're back to being stuck with recruiting kids who really don't care about their athletic futures (like you have been doing), which (IMNSHO) puts you right back where you are: a SLIGHTLY and arguably competitive FBS program. Think for a moment about the type of person who would go for a deal like that. Are they "world beaters"? Maybe, but I highly doubt it. There may be a bunch of things you can blame on your coach but this one's on your administrations.

Unless the Belt offers Idaho and NMSU a permanent contract versus another 2, 3, or 4 year provisional one, if I were in charge, I'd say "Thanks, but I guess we'll just go indie". I truly believe your recruiting would GREATLY improve, just as it would if you were made permanent affiliate members. Again, completely out of yours, mine and the two affiliate schools' control on the latter.

Right now we can tell potential recruits "We're in the Sun Belt and we expect to stay there. If anything happens we'll go FBS independent, keep playing all the top schools and compete for bowl berths." I think that sounds better than "We're independent." That just makes it even more credible when other competing programs tell kids that we're just barely clinging to FBS and will be dropping down to the Big Sky soon. We'd only be one step away from FCS rather than two.

Believe me, I'd love to be in a position where we could control more of our destiny than we do but we kicked that opportunity away years ago. If we'd done our jobs back then the Sun Belt would be thrilled to have us and we wouldn't be having this conversation. But we can't change the past so now the more time we have the more we have a chance to pull ourselves back up out of the muck. I'd be all for a permanent SB contract but I'll take as many years as I can get.