[SacCityBear]

Originally Posted by socaltownie

I think the bigger problem is that Fischer can't sell what he has been selling - PT for kids that THINK they can get to the NBA but are buried on the depth charts at Zona, UCLA, and USC. (or who were overlooked by those programs).

Whereas before kids with that dream had the opportunity to showcase their wears against decent talent and a multi-bid conference, the Aztecs now get to play decidedly lower tier competition with likely, at best, one bid and a shitty seed. Plus whereas we saw SDSU students lining up 5 days early to get in to see the Fredette show when was the last time the Big West had a kid with that much hype (answer: NEVER)

It really pisses me off because it is so obvious the deep structural challenges SDSU has in football. The alumni pushing for this are living back in about 30-40 years ago. So rather than emphasize a sport they COULD have excelled at they killed it - and football will still stink and never be any good.

(The reason is that the BCS is consolidating and SDSU has to compete against SO many better programs that mine SoCal for recruits. While finding the overlooks guy in Hoops can yield gold, too many bodies in football and thus even if you are a genius evaluator of talent eventually the sheer numbers kill you. I think about 20 years since SDSU beat a Pac-12 football team)

I would argue that there is no structural reason why SDSU cannot be the #5 school (behind USC, Cal, UCLA, LSJU. In that order) for California recruits in football. I assume you think SDSU is so low on the totem pole in regards to recruiting California in football because Pac-12 > Big East and players would be more willing to go to Washington/Utah/Arizona/etc simply because they would rather play in the Pac-12.

If it is true that recruits think that way, then they are doomed, but there is really no advantage in making it to the professional leagues gained by playing in one of the top leagues. Look at all the small school players chosen in the NFL draft. Professional leagues will find talent no matter the league in which it resides.

There is also the advantage of location (people seem to like San Diego though my brother hated living there, so I'm ambivalent about the place) and the proximity to family for players in SoCal.

Basketball is different due to the shoe contracts for individual athletes. The additional hype and built in marketing from playing at a UCLA/Kentucky/UNC/etc makes players and their shoes infinitely more marketable, at least right out of college.

[socaltownie]

Originally Posted by SacCityBear

I would argue that there is no structural reason why SDSU cannot be the #5 school (behind USC, Cal, UCLA, LSJU. In that order) for California recruits in football. I assume you think SDSU is so low on the totem pole in regards to recruiting California in football because Pac-12 > Big East and players would be more willing to go to Washington/Utah/Arizona/etc simply because they would rather play in the Pac-12.

If it is true that recruits think that way, then they are doomed, but there is really no advantage in making it to the professional leagues gained by playing in one of the top leagues. Look at all the small school players chosen in the NFL draft. Professional leagues will find talent no matter the league in which it resides.

There is also the advantage of location (people seem to like San Diego though my brother hated living there, so I'm ambivalent about the place) and the proximity to family for players in SoCal.

Basketball is different due to the shoe contracts for individual athletes. The additional hype and built in marketing from playing at a UCLA/Kentucky/UNC/etc makes players and their shoes infinitely more marketable, at least right out of college.

They would be #8 behind the four you mention plus zonas and Washington. They probably WOULDN'T recruit well outside of Socal. It really is a commuter school and "shows" that way when the recruits come out. Football is and will remained doomed at SDSU. They are like zombies - they just don't know they are dead.

[RicoRico]

I thought SDSU was a commuter school also, but somebody recently told me that all freshmen are required to live in the on campus dorms.

[FingeroftheBear]

Originally Posted by RicoRico

I thought SDSU was a commuter school also, but somebody recently told me that all freshmen are required to live in the on campus dorms.

I'd call SDSU a hybrid. It's a nice older campus, has lots of dorms and a frat row but there's also a decent amount of commuters. Regionally it was the big school in the San Diego area until UCSD was established. When I think of SDSU I think of ASU but not sure how apt that is.

[Vandalus]

Originally Posted by FingeroftheBear

I'd call SDSU a hybrid. It's a nice older campus, has lots of dorms and a frat row but there's also a decent amount of commuters. Regionally it was the big school in the San Diego area until UCSD was established. When I think of SDSU I think of ASU but not sure how apt that is.

It's very apt in my opinion. I grew up in SD, and I don't know anyone who applied to both ASU and SDSU who didn't get into both. If you have a choice, you would probably go to SDSU if you are from SD, given the relative costs of the institutions. They both are crazy party schools. They both have unbelievably hot women. I mean, I walked around campus with one of my best friends on a few occasions and it was just simply unbelievable. In 15 minutes of walking on a random day through campus, I would have seen at least 30 or more girls who would absolutely dominate at Cal. It's hard to even express adequately the quality and quantity of hot girls at SDSU. I recall discussing this with my buddy as we are walking though, with me just stammering and gawking. His attitude: "whatever, there are way hotter chicks than that around here, she's just average." Mind you, he's saying this about a straight 10 on cal's campus. And let me tell you, there are distinct advantages to an arrangement like this. You wouldn't believe the types of chicks I saw with complete d-bag losers. I mean, you can go to SDSU and date WAY up in the looks department. Basically the girls all feel like they have to compete with each other, so when it's warm (which is basically always), they are showing a ton of skin, since it's the only way to stand out amongst the crowd. Whereas at Cal 70% of girls on campus are wearing pajamas and no makeup, 70% of girls at SDSU are looking like porn stars. It was just unbelievable...

Anyway, back on topic: SDSU has a good number of commuter students, but everyone I knew that went to SDSU wound up living on campus their first year in dorms and then moving off campus. The area that it's in isn't great, but it's not bad either. But with San Diego, a lot of the students wound up living in Pacific Beach or elsewhere, and then just driving in the 15 minutes to school, since partying at the beach is a lot better than partying in the Mission Valley/La Mesa corridor.

[UrsaMajor]

Cal went from not making the tournament in 1992 to winning two games, including beating a #1 seed in Duke the next year (JK's freshman season). That's a difference.

[SonomaBear]

Sean Lampley was a difference maker. Pac 10 POY.

[OaktownBear]

Originally Posted by UrsaMajor

Cal went from not making the tournament in 1992 to winning two games, including beating a #1 seed in Duke the next year (JK's freshman season). That's a difference.

I believe Duke was a 3 or a 4 seed. We were definitely not an 8/9 seed. I thought we were a 5, but we could have been a 6. Duke was somewhat down that year.

edit: Looked it up - Duke was a 3, we were a 6.

[south bender]

Does being a 6 seed one year and beating a 3, and then the next year losing to Wisconsin Stevens Point, make a team "elite"?

I don't think so.

I am not arguing that Jason was not a difference maker, but even with Murray (who owes his being drafted #7 to Kidd's passing) Cal was not quite elite, as I would define it.

Elite: Within a 5 year period, being consistently ranked in the top 20, and in the top 10 for a good part of that time.