SportsDawg Wrote:BigVandalFan Wrote:broncobob Wrote:They (USU) are the only team coming in with a history of winning and they have the best season ticket base. Most potential in my eyes!!!!!
Broncobob, I have a question for you: How many years of winning constitutes 'history?' What other criteria are you using?
My biased opinion is that Idaho has a pretty good history of winning in the modern era. Erickson on is a pretty solid record.
So this Ericson fellow, was a recent coach?????
SportsDawg, I was simply asking for a point of clarification to Broncobob as to how he viewed which team as being most competitive in the upcoming WAC seasons. Certainly our record in the '20s against won't have any bearing, would it? In fact this string has taken a wide tangent from its initial point: to discuss which of the incoming teams would exceed expectiations in their last year of the Sun Belt.
To answer that question, I'd say that NMSU has a great chance, for their QB play was very impressive. Personally, I wasn't impressed with NMSU's offensive- or defensive-line play, even with their touted guard. But, again, the QB play - both run and pass - was impressive during the game I saw. USU has a proven QB, and a highly touted RB coming in, not to mention a great free safetey, but that's all I know about them (other than a Vandal win last year). Now to Idaho, which I see as a quagmire and hard to access. Talent wise, I see mixed reviews: some good, raw talent, but also some skill positions in need of major upgrade. The o-line is young and uderappreciated. Hank Therien and Nate VanderPol will make the best, and youngest, tackle tandem in the Sun Belt; and will be the top in the WAC when they are JRs in '05. The Guard spots are above average and Young. Jade Tadvick, at the LG spot, is explosive, but I also saw him slip on some blocks in his freshmen year. I'm looking for improvement. The rest of the o-line is a question for I haven't seem them play, but three out of finve aint' bad. We'll certainly miss drafted Jake Scott. but I see the pre-season starting line being the strenght on offense. RB: no one knows, and we'll probably have to play a young player, probably a TF. WR: Wendal Octave will surprise, as will Stowe; might see a TF that was on Michigan State's board until late in the process. The Defense will be improved, but I don't expect miracles. We lost our top two tackles, and opposing teams ran around our ends all last season. I think our strength will be at LB (opposed to prognasticators) and corner. Even though True freshmen will play the DT spot, I expect the safeties to be the weakness. Our's last year couldn't do anything - cover or tackle - and it cost us dearly. We have some good players, a great motivator as a coach, but some holes that will be filled by young players, and a brutal schedule. We were in a lot of conference games late year, and I expect the same.
Now to answer your points: True, Ericson started our winning and we didn't win early in our history against teams with much larger budgets, and subsequently more players (no NCAA rules back then). But so what? What baring will that have on our future in the WAC? Our administration and university has done well over the course of the last two decades, bar Cable, at attracting talented coaches (on a side note: I won't harp on Cable any longer. He will show to be a very good OC in the future). Now with the return to a Western conference, I think you'll see us keep attracting talented coaches, particularly once we even out our slate of Major Contenders.
Your remarks about Idaho's "winning tradition" with wins mostly over d1aa teams: Well, duh, we were in the Big Sky, you know, a D1AA conference (Side note: so was UNR & BSU after their JC days). But we also beat D1A teams during those years. In '94 we - a lowly D1A - beat a UNLV that made it into a bowl game that year. The point is we've proven the ability to compete against conference members and win some games we weren't supposed to.
Facilities: Yup, it's an issue and may cause us to lose some recruits. But really, we have more of a Game Day Arena issue more than one of total facilities. The WAC commisioner himself praised our new weight center as 'state of the art,' and this was while showing little interest in Idaho. Now, it would be great to have a new hoop arena, and I would certainly welcome the news to having one. But, again, we've been competitive against current WAC teams with what we have (see: BSU and UNR), and you stated yourself how the kibbie could actually play to our favor as having a competive advantage. And speaking of facilities, you forgot about our greatest advantage: the campus. It's gorgeous and provides a real college atmosphere, which is a great advantage. I want new game day facilities, but it won't preclude us from competing. And it certainly didn't preclude us from getting a DT - that will play right away - from BYU, which offered his Jr year; or the LB from USC.
Season Tickets: Yup, again you're right. We are lacking. But we still already have a budget on pace with the WAC middle ground.
I never claimed to have a tradition on par with USC or Notre Damn. I know our winnig has been back loaded, but so have a lot of teams around these parts. But, as it pertained to the topic of this string, our winning since the Ericson years has bearing and weight.
