|
Post by coyote70 on Jun 11, 2013 20:43:55 GMT -6
Thanks to all the posters who stuck up for the decision to play in Rapid City. Great marketing move and a great facility.
Hope I have better luck at the game than the last time I was at the Civic Center - sat on some bubblegum and someone behind me spilled their soda! (well, it was the Shrine Circus....).
Count me in!!
|
|
|
Post by coyote70 on Apr 20, 2013 16:37:50 GMT -6
Thank you, thank you for a great report. Can't have too many perspectives! Hope others will chime in with their observations.
I am most concerned by your comments regarding the QB position and still think the triple option style is the only way out. Next on the list would be depth.
4-5 wins? Depends on the first 3 games. If we win 1 of those, maybe. Otherwise, well, I don't know at this juncture.
|
|
|
Post by coyote70 on Apr 16, 2013 17:52:44 GMT -6
Exactly, obc. As I've stated before, the "U" needs to market, market, market. There are absolutely no downsides to promoting the Coyote brand.
|
|
|
Post by coyote70 on Mar 23, 2013 20:37:59 GMT -6
Anybody from Pierre want to weigh in on this?? I believe Eagle Creek has been there for a few years now.
|
|
|
Post by coyote70 on Feb 25, 2013 21:56:03 GMT -6
I'm proud of my University today (okay, I always am). Way to go track athletes!!
I know this accomplishment won't likely speed up development of an outdoor facility, but it can't hurt. In any event I'm looking for more good things to come.
|
|
|
Post by coyote70 on Dec 13, 2012 18:47:36 GMT -6
Just a little history note (bear with me). USD had a heckuva QB back in the early seventies who was from Scottsbluff, name of Tom Engleman. He got hot once late in a game against Wyoming and I think would have beaten them had there been more time. Back then the Cowboys were pretty decent.
I also believe back in the '60s Sottsbluff had one of the longest FB winning streaks in the country.
Anyway, always glad to recruit speed. I agree, obc, he looks to have the raw materials.
|
|
|
Post by coyote70 on Dec 8, 2012 9:25:25 GMT -6
Caught the second half of the Montana State / Sam Houston State game last night. Montana had a key LB out but don't think it mattered. SHS won 34-16 and from my perspective Montana was never really in the game after the first quarter. The 6'2" 175 lb QB from SH ran the option flawlessly and had a pretty good short-to-mid range arm as well. Montana was touted as having a very good rushing defense but basically got ran over or out-quicked. SH execution of the option was excellent. Their kicking game was very good, too. Wish the Coyotes could do as well.
|
|
|
Post by coyote70 on Dec 3, 2012 23:26:35 GMT -6
If you build it will they come?
I think facilities have an effect on crowd involvement and thus player performance. The New Armory had its own impact as does the Dome. Building a new BB facilty will start a chain of events resulting in nothing but good for all involved. If anything I wish we could accelerate the pace and get it built sooner than later.
|
|
|
Post by coyote70 on Dec 2, 2012 14:51:45 GMT -6
I'm with you obc on your predictions. Interesting to note there are two (Wofford and Georgia S.) teams that use the triple option. Should have had a third (Cal Poly) in the mix, too. I wonder if there are any other FCS teams that employ this type of offense, since the success rate of getting into the playoffs seems so high.
I predict that if either of the triple-o teams get ahead by the end of the first quarter, it will be a real dogfight. On the other hand, if they get behind by 10 points or more at the same point, it will be all over.
|
|
|
Post by coyote70 on Dec 2, 2012 10:25:00 GMT -6
Ahhh, the days of "New Armory". The lid was almost blown off that place nearly every game back then. "Frenzy" is a good way to describe the atmosphere. The only problem was how to cool down after games.
Sometimes I even felt sorry for the opposing team. They never had a chance (and they knew it).
|
|
|
Post by coyote70 on Dec 2, 2012 9:33:52 GMT -6
I'm sure a lot of folks have commented on this over the years, but what a strange name for an institution of higher learning. Indiana University Purdue University of Indianapolis if I've got it right. Even the acronym IUPUI does not lend itself to any easy pronounciation. Not to denigrate this fine university but I wonder why something more simple like IPU (Indiana Purdue University) wasn't better. I can understand why UPI wasn't used (symbolizes United Press International).
Must be a story behind this. My guess is a committee was involved somewhere along the line.
|
|
|
Post by coyote70 on Nov 30, 2012 22:53:49 GMT -6
This is a thorny issue for sure and all the pros and yes, cons, of multi-year contracts need to be thoroughly explored and understood. Contracts have become somewhat of a political football in recent years as many have pushed for open government. I'm not sure USD, SDSU or the Board of Regents wants to get into that political arena. If you know the power structure in our state, it is the two (House/Senate) appropriations committees who hold sway on the issue, even if the BOR governs contracting at institutions of higher ed.
I don't see this as something USD/SDSU would push for right now. Likely they both have larger fish to fry. Will there ever be a right time for this issue? I don't know. One way to affect change would be for a coalition of sorts (e.g. alumni, legislators, citizens) to push for some type of study at the state level to see if a change in current policy is needed.
If that doesn't sound appealing, my next suggestion is to get a large group of grandmothers together on the issue and push for change during the next legislative session/Board of Regents meeting. They can get anything done!
|
|
|
Post by coyote70 on Nov 30, 2012 22:25:25 GMT -6
Didn't Wisconsin have an alumni band perform during the FB game vs USD last year? Thought they were called the "Decrepids" or something of that nature.
Couple of thoughts if this gets going: 1) all members must be, or at least appear to be, sober; and 2) a kazoo (sp) is NOT a band instrument.
|
|
|
Post by coyote70 on Nov 29, 2012 18:59:35 GMT -6
Coyotefan - still like/read your posts but beware of putting words in my mouth. Maybe you did not grasp the entirety of my earlier post. In that message regarding being realistic in our expectations about recruiting, I stated that USD might get a few players like the Finley kid every year. I sincerely hope we get more. Likely, though the great majority of recruits won't be of this calibur no matter what our recruiting goals are. I'm not wishing for this to happen. It's just that this is what has happened in the past. I don't like it, but I sure as heck am going to plan for that possibility.
I'd like to think we don't disagree that much; the main difference being I prefer to recruit players into a system and that system be run-oriented.
In any event I'm looking forward to a large, talented bunch of recruits and hope this will translate to success down the road.
|
|
|
Post by coyote70 on Nov 25, 2012 11:44:06 GMT -6
Coyotefan - like your post about what kind of coach/players you would have in your footabll program as an AD. Three words come to mind: ain't gonna happen. Sorry, I wish USD could recruit that level of player but the great majority of time - not every time - that type of player is going to go to ... (very long list of let's say about 100 FBS or FCS schools). In any event it is wise to assume that most top level high school players don't exactly have Vermillion on their radar.
I'm a bit of a realist and have stated over and over that USD has to adapt to its situation and develop a style that can compete with teams in the MVFC, especially when playing games in the friendly confines of the Dome. You want a good offense? Run the ball. Ball control. That's what USD won with in the seventies and eighties. I wish we could but we just can't recruit that big, smart, strong-armed QB year in and year out. However, I believe we can recruit running backs and we have had some good ones in past years. O-line? Again, quickness wins. If you study how the line in action, words like leverage, balance, footwork, technique come to mind before things like height and weight (read fat). We might have one or two big, strong, quick linemen on the team at any given time. That's not enough since o-linemen must constantly work together on blocking schemes, etc. One breakdown blows the play. I think every year the team could have maybe 7-8 smaller, quicker, fully capable linemean though. I'd like to have that mythical 310 lb guy who can actually block on the perimeter and pancake D-linemen; just don't think many of them will show up on our team.
Defense? Offensive ball control. Maybe we can get that 6' 3" four-star recruit all-state DT but I doubt it. In fact, recruiting a good defense may be even more difficult than an offense. A grind-it-out triple option running game may not be flashy but it gives defenses a fit and can wear them down so we have a chance to hold onto leads and maybe win a few games in the 4th quarter.
Coaches? Not much of an opinion here other than simply recruiting good players and calling plays oversimplifies things. In USD's case 3 or probably 4 years seems about right for the current crew. One thing. If I were head coach I would not want to inherit anyone in a coordinator position. Just like in the business world, you want to hire people (coaches) you can not only relate to but learn from. Hiring and firing are difficult tasks. Ironically, such tasks can get YOU fired.
Does anyone out there think we can actually recruit the kind of players Coyotefan wants? Maybe posters could vote on this. In any event, I suggest we get back together on this topic after we learn what recuits are coming USD's way this spring.
|
|