- Jun 12, 2014
- 5,416
- 9,453
Founding Member
Law98gator;n261173 said:Sorry, but that is patently false. Creyer took a 3 win team at Bowling Green and won the MAC in his second year. Creyer then took a 4 win team at Utah, won the WAC in his second year, became the first midmajor to win a BCS game and went undefeated.
Mac went 21-16 just like Chimp, had one good year in which he failed to win even a division and lost to military school three years in a row. Mac's resume looks a lot more like Chimp's than Meyers. That's a fact.
It's also patently false that Colorado State is a horrendous program. They had one bad coach and have long been one of the beasts of the WAC. Their budget is one of the largest in their conference. Frankly, their AD knows more about winning football and writing contracts than ours does. We should consider hiring him when we fire Fooley.
Law, normally you are one of my favorite posters, but I just don't get this. We've been through the record thing twice already most recently here where I pointed out that his CSU turnaround was very similar to Spurrier's Duke turnaround:
Bernardo de la Paz;n251760 said:He won 57% of his games at CSU, an improvement of 32% over the previous 3 years. Spurrier won 59% of his games at Duke, an improvement of 29% over the previous 3 years. Those records are not materially different.
In Spurrier's final season at Duke they went 8-4 overall, 6-1 in the conference finishing tied for first among the 8 teams (pre-FSU joining the conference) and unranked nationally. Also the team that he 'tied' with for first in the conference beat him head-to-head so if there really was some kind of trophy or playoff berth associated with it, Duke would not have been the 'champion'.
In Mac's final season at CSU he went 10-2 overall, 6-2 in the conference finishing tied for second among the 12 teams and unranked nationally. Again, not materially different.
Non of that is conjecture or an excuse. That's just comparing the actual results.
I also want to point out that whomever convinced you that CSU is some kind of powerhouse really sold you a bill of goods.
As it turns out they are 6th in their conference in spending on athletics as you can see here:
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
And that's only because their AD (who I agree with you is very good) has fought to get them up from where they were a couple of years earlier which was 7th, or dead last in the conference at that time. Reference here:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/spor...ollege-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1
Even back 20 years ago when they were briefly good and still in the WAC they were in the bottom 3 in the conference in budget:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/469840/WAC-RELEASES-ATHLETIC-BUDGETS.html?pg=all
Here's a nice blurb from an article where said AD is trying to get money to put a football stadium on campus even though their attendance averages less than 20,000 a game:
"Another issue is the CSU football team. The Rams have been ranked as one of the nation's top 25 teams in just eight of the past 78 seasons and played in 12 postseason bowl games in more than a century of organized football. "
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303983904579093432304563144
I guess I just don't see why you have to go and make up the notion that CSU is some kind of football juggernaut just because they had one decent coach almost 2 decades ago.
Oh yeah, and that Air Force team that they are supposed to be incredibly embarrassed to have lost to spends millions more on athletics than CSU including $25 million on coaches compared to only $14 million at CSU.