At least one of them is a peer institution with UCD

Just curious on the long term effect of signing 30 guys in a class. Seems like that would limit later class’ size. I think we are more attractive this year but have fewer slots. But that’s just a supposition

This is what confuses me: did the thirty guys in last years signing class include walk-ons ?

Do you mean guys from signing day or walk-ons after signing day?

Were PWO part of the 30? Usually walk-ons not part of signing day announcements. Maybe partials
Interesting no running backs on horizon. That spot is up for grabs.

After getting these 10 signees how many spots do you think we have left?
A lot of speed in this group. That will help on special teams kick coverage for sure.

Whether the new guys can turn the defense around will be an open question for about two years. They won’t do it by themselves but with other classes including guys on team now. It looks like we are going after speed and athletes on D. We’ve had safeties turn into good linebackers on multiple occasions, the DBs all have some height.

Just goes to show that it makes a difference if the Governor feels he needs to make an appearance at your games. Cal Poly has a lot going for it as far as location goes, but its only has a very small regional draw, like Davis. At least their local paper is not behind a pay-wall. I'm sure they have to explain to a lot of recruits, particularly out of state recruits, what and where Cal Poly is.
On the issue of triple option, I think the criticism is correct. It's not going to carry you to a national championship; its main advantage at this point is that its not what everyone else runs. I'm not sure it's for teams that can't recruit athletes though. You can recruit run focused offensive linemen who can be smaller. The big slow guys are more for pass blocking. I think athletes are just as essential to option teams as to any other teams, maybe more so.

Shippy has a good combination of size and speed, if his size is listed correctly. While 40 times may be more relevant, I think there is a strong correlation between being fast for 100 and fast for 40, maybe the exception being guys who can’t sprint for 100, due to size, like linemen or little guys who can accelerate quickly but lack commensurate speed. I’m a fan of 100 times because they are more reliably measured. We should be happy any time we can recruit a player who is 6ft tall and runs a sub 11 100.

Stanford excepted what game would we be a prohibitive underdog in? San Jose we should be favored. One of these days we’ll beat Montana E. Washington, but these are winnable games. Idaho is dropping down to the level they should be playing at and shedding scholarships. I wish we weren’t playing Stanford but that’s it.

it's a relative thing. Like stated in the article you have to compromise something because you can't always recruit big and fast. They don't compromise athleticism for size. We can make that choice at our level as well. But when you choose to be small and faster you have to play a style that maximizes the effect of being quicker and masks the cost of being small; hence movement and deception.
It will be interesting to see if we can improve defensively next year as much as we improved offensively this year. Our defensive coordinator has an impressive resume, but improvement is obviously required.

I don’t think Idaho is much different than a middle of the pack BigSky team.

we can beat San Jose State, and probably would have this year. I’d like to see us play them every year. Natural rivalry against a team which is sometimes no better than us.

Looking at computer rankings is a way to quantify objectively whether we’ve improved.
In Sagarin’s rankings we went from ranked 197 to 152. There is a numerical rating number that can be used to predict games. Probably not intended to project between years, but it would indicate if this years team played last years team, this years team would be a 10 point favorite.

Fly offense guru bites dust.

it’s better than regression to the mean. We have a good QB for a couple of years, a promising freshman runnin back, depth at wide receiver, good TE. I think we’ve reestablished our rep as a good place for QBs and receivers to spend college career. Now we need to shore up the defense and offensive line. Rome was not built in a day.
Some people thought the previous coaching staff has been unfairly maligned, and there is some truth to that. The new staff has got a lot of credit, maybe too much. But the new staff definitely restored our passing game, and I think that is the only way we can have success at this time.

Embrace the healing power of AND.
We had a reasonably rough schedule AND we lost to all the good team and only beat the bottom teams. You are both right.
In my opinion we are in the middle of the conference instead of near the bottom so that’s improvement.

speechless... What an embarrassing deduction to have in the tax code.

The Aggies this year were a superior offensive team but on some occasions a little slow to get started. Sac SSU NA Are examples.
Defense was very weak. It seemed like an anomaly when they forced a punt.
I’m not sure the stats where we won the second half are very meaningful. When you are down multiple touchdowns the other teams defense isn’t focused on run defense. Could we rush for 300 yards that if the score was even? I have doubts.

notice that everyone had a good game rushing. I think it’s like scoring a lot during basketball garbage time.
But in any case Tehran is our most dangerous runner. He will likely get more carries than anyone next year. I don’t know why he was so turned around and falling sideways on his last carry that came up short (or had a bad spot).