Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
ctr70
ParticipantThe Mission Hills and surrounding area (inc. parts of Bankers Hill, Morley Field, parts of Hillcrest, western part of University Heights around Park) I think is the best place to live in San Diego. It is one of the few areas in San Diego County that has at least a little bit of character, historical charm, pedestrian oriented neighborhoods, mom & pop stores. And so centrally located.
As compared to say North County inland east of 5 (where I live now…can’t wait to move back towards Balboa Park!), that is the exact opposite…cookie cutter homes, strip centers with mostly national chains, 100% car oriented, hardly anyone walking the sidewalks. Completely lacking in any character, charm or soul. “Phoenix By the Sea”. Man they used to build much cooler neighborhoods in 1890!
ParticipantSDSU had a awesome year, I love them, went to all the home games. But they were a bit overrated the whole year. I would say something like 17th or 18th in the nation was more accurate, not 6th. They just don’t really play anybody all year, they play a lot of cupcakes. They really have always had a hard time against top flight thoroughbred type programs :
-2002 NCAA lose to Illinois 1st round
-2006 NCAA lose to Indiana 1st round
-2010 NCAA lost to Tennessee 1st round
-2011 They beat No. Colorado (who was a Division 2 team a few years ago) and a mid major Temple who was not even the best team in their conference & had 2 bigs injured.
-2011 sweet 16 lose to UCONN…so the point is, whenever they have played against teams from the BCS schools they almost always lose. They used to play Arizona a lot and would lose to them every year. Steve Fisher just doesn’t schedule anybody. He never gets them in the big Holiday tournaments in Hawaii or NYC where they could play against Big East, Big 12, SEC and Big 10 schools. Instead they chock up wins against the Cal Poly’s, Occidentals, IUPUI’s, San Diego Cristian, Little Sisters of the Poor…
I would argue that they had the easiest road to the sweet 16 in the whole NCAA. Even Kentucky had to play West VA in the 2nd round, Duke Michigan, UNC had to play Washington, etc…..SDSU got the easiest 2nd round team in Temple.
I wish he would play some decent teams non-conference.
ParticipantSDSU had a awesome year, I love them, went to all the home games. But they were a bit overrated the whole year. I would say something like 17th or 18th in the nation was more accurate, not 6th. They just don’t really play anybody all year, they play a lot of cupcakes. They really have always had a hard time against top flight thoroughbred type programs :
-2002 NCAA lose to Illinois 1st round
-2006 NCAA lose to Indiana 1st round
-2010 NCAA lost to Tennessee 1st round
-2011 They beat No. Colorado (who was a Division 2 team a few years ago) and a mid major Temple who was not even the best team in their conference & had 2 bigs injured.
-2011 sweet 16 lose to UCONN…so the point is, whenever they have played against teams from the BCS schools they almost always lose. They used to play Arizona a lot and would lose to them every year. Steve Fisher just doesn’t schedule anybody. He never gets them in the big Holiday tournaments in Hawaii or NYC where they could play against Big East, Big 12, SEC and Big 10 schools. Instead they chock up wins against the Cal Poly’s, Occidentals, IUPUI’s, San Diego Cristian, Little Sisters of the Poor…
I would argue that they had the easiest road to the sweet 16 in the whole NCAA. Even Kentucky had to play West VA in the 2nd round, Duke Michigan, UNC had to play Washington, etc…..SDSU got the easiest 2nd round team in Temple.
I wish he would play some decent teams non-conference.
ParticipantSDSU had a awesome year, I love them, went to all the home games. But they were a bit overrated the whole year. I would say something like 17th or 18th in the nation was more accurate, not 6th. They just don’t really play anybody all year, they play a lot of cupcakes. They really have always had a hard time against top flight thoroughbred type programs :
-2002 NCAA lose to Illinois 1st round
-2006 NCAA lose to Indiana 1st round
-2010 NCAA lost to Tennessee 1st round
-2011 They beat No. Colorado (who was a Division 2 team a few years ago) and a mid major Temple who was not even the best team in their conference & had 2 bigs injured.
-2011 sweet 16 lose to UCONN…so the point is, whenever they have played against teams from the BCS schools they almost always lose. They used to play Arizona a lot and would lose to them every year. Steve Fisher just doesn’t schedule anybody. He never gets them in the big Holiday tournaments in Hawaii or NYC where they could play against Big East, Big 12, SEC and Big 10 schools. Instead they chock up wins against the Cal Poly’s, Occidentals, IUPUI’s, San Diego Cristian, Little Sisters of the Poor…
I would argue that they had the easiest road to the sweet 16 in the whole NCAA. Even Kentucky had to play West VA in the 2nd round, Duke Michigan, UNC had to play Washington, etc…..SDSU got the easiest 2nd round team in Temple.
I wish he would play some decent teams non-conference.
ParticipantSDSU had a awesome year, I love them, went to all the home games. But they were a bit overrated the whole year. I would say something like 17th or 18th in the nation was more accurate, not 6th. They just don’t really play anybody all year, they play a lot of cupcakes. They really have always had a hard time against top flight thoroughbred type programs :
-2002 NCAA lose to Illinois 1st round
-2006 NCAA lose to Indiana 1st round
-2010 NCAA lost to Tennessee 1st round
-2011 They beat No. Colorado (who was a Division 2 team a few years ago) and a mid major Temple who was not even the best team in their conference & had 2 bigs injured.
-2011 sweet 16 lose to UCONN…so the point is, whenever they have played against teams from the BCS schools they almost always lose. They used to play Arizona a lot and would lose to them every year. Steve Fisher just doesn’t schedule anybody. He never gets them in the big Holiday tournaments in Hawaii or NYC where they could play against Big East, Big 12, SEC and Big 10 schools. Instead they chock up wins against the Cal Poly’s, Occidentals, IUPUI’s, San Diego Cristian, Little Sisters of the Poor…
I would argue that they had the easiest road to the sweet 16 in the whole NCAA. Even Kentucky had to play West VA in the 2nd round, Duke Michigan, UNC had to play Washington, etc…..SDSU got the easiest 2nd round team in Temple.
I wish he would play some decent teams non-conference.
ParticipantSDSU had a awesome year, I love them, went to all the home games. But they were a bit overrated the whole year. I would say something like 17th or 18th in the nation was more accurate, not 6th. They just don’t really play anybody all year, they play a lot of cupcakes. They really have always had a hard time against top flight thoroughbred type programs :
-2002 NCAA lose to Illinois 1st round
-2006 NCAA lose to Indiana 1st round
-2010 NCAA lost to Tennessee 1st round
-2011 They beat No. Colorado (who was a Division 2 team a few years ago) and a mid major Temple who was not even the best team in their conference & had 2 bigs injured.
-2011 sweet 16 lose to UCONN…so the point is, whenever they have played against teams from the BCS schools they almost always lose. They used to play Arizona a lot and would lose to them every year. Steve Fisher just doesn’t schedule anybody. He never gets them in the big Holiday tournaments in Hawaii or NYC where they could play against Big East, Big 12, SEC and Big 10 schools. Instead they chock up wins against the Cal Poly’s, Occidentals, IUPUI’s, San Diego Cristian, Little Sisters of the Poor…
I would argue that they had the easiest road to the sweet 16 in the whole NCAA. Even Kentucky had to play West VA in the 2nd round, Duke Michigan, UNC had to play Washington, etc…..SDSU got the easiest 2nd round team in Temple.
I wish he would play some decent teams non-conference.
ParticipantI may not be totally against 20% down across the board as well. We just have to be OK with the economic consequences of that. Unemployment rates would stay higher longer, construction jobs would not come back for a much longer time, home owner % would go way down, and the bottom for prices would be much further off. That would be a very bitter pill for most. Maybe better off long term, but are we ready for that bitter pill?
Obviously we have to get the private label lending back and drastically reduce the Governments lending footprint. Not sure how that will be done though w/out much higher rates.
ParticipantI may not be totally against 20% down across the board as well. We just have to be OK with the economic consequences of that. Unemployment rates would stay higher longer, construction jobs would not come back for a much longer time, home owner % would go way down, and the bottom for prices would be much further off. That would be a very bitter pill for most. Maybe better off long term, but are we ready for that bitter pill?
Obviously we have to get the private label lending back and drastically reduce the Governments lending footprint. Not sure how that will be done though w/out much higher rates.
ParticipantI may not be totally against 20% down across the board as well. We just have to be OK with the economic consequences of that. Unemployment rates would stay higher longer, construction jobs would not come back for a much longer time, home owner % would go way down, and the bottom for prices would be much further off. That would be a very bitter pill for most. Maybe better off long term, but are we ready for that bitter pill?
Obviously we have to get the private label lending back and drastically reduce the Governments lending footprint. Not sure how that will be done though w/out much higher rates.
ParticipantI may not be totally against 20% down across the board as well. We just have to be OK with the economic consequences of that. Unemployment rates would stay higher longer, construction jobs would not come back for a much longer time, home owner % would go way down, and the bottom for prices would be much further off. That would be a very bitter pill for most. Maybe better off long term, but are we ready for that bitter pill?
Obviously we have to get the private label lending back and drastically reduce the Governments lending footprint. Not sure how that will be done though w/out much higher rates.
ParticipantI may not be totally against 20% down across the board as well. We just have to be OK with the economic consequences of that. Unemployment rates would stay higher longer, construction jobs would not come back for a much longer time, home owner % would go way down, and the bottom for prices would be much further off. That would be a very bitter pill for most. Maybe better off long term, but are we ready for that bitter pill?
Obviously we have to get the private label lending back and drastically reduce the Governments lending footprint. Not sure how that will be done though w/out much higher rates.
ParticipantGo get some charts on the default rates for FHA & VA over time. They were never even close to what we are seeing now and have seen since 2008 for fannie, freddie, and Wall Street loans. Even in the 1980’s, never even close. I just saw a very good chart on this at a Bruce Norris seminar the other day. Nor will they be this time.
b/c FHA is taking on a much larger % of the total loan volume in the U.S. (b/c there is NO private label mortgage market in existence right now) their total # of foreclosures will increase. But the ***percentage*** of those loans defaulting will never be close to what we are seeing today.
Yes fannie/freddie now have a high defualt rate b/c of the housing collapse. But the prices were driven up more by the “kryptonite” loans created by Wall Street 2002-2007. Wall Street did pretty much all the really scary subprime 2 and 3 year fixed exploding ARM’s, ALL of the option arms, and they were much more aggressive with stated IO ARM’s with zero down. Fannie and Freddie were late to the exotic loan stuff and their exotic stuff was not nearly as aggressive. The super toxic stuff from Wall Street was what really drove the market “vertical” in 2003 to early 2007. Those were the first loans to default in 2008 and bring down the market. If you notice most of the REO’s on the market in 2008/2009 were not Fannie owned…now much more REO’s are fannie owned b/c the prime loans are defaulting now that prices collapsed. If we did not have the Wall Street kryptonite loans, we would never had seen prices go even close to where they went at the peak. There were almost NO FHA or VA loans done in CA from 2002-2007.
A lot of people have a huge misunderstanding that fannie/freddie is primarily to blame, when it was the private label “kryptonite loans” from Wall Street that really caused the most damage & put house price increases on steriods from 2003-2007. Fannie/Freddie NEVER did ONE option ARM ever…those were 100% Wall Street products securitized by Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs (GS who also made huge bets with credit default swaps that their OWN LOANS they securitized & sold off would go bad… AND paid a half a billion settlement with the SEC b/c of that!).
ParticipantGo get some charts on the default rates for FHA & VA over time. They were never even close to what we are seeing now and have seen since 2008 for fannie, freddie, and Wall Street loans. Even in the 1980’s, never even close. I just saw a very good chart on this at a Bruce Norris seminar the other day. Nor will they be this time.
b/c FHA is taking on a much larger % of the total loan volume in the U.S. (b/c there is NO private label mortgage market in existence right now) their total # of foreclosures will increase. But the ***percentage*** of those loans defaulting will never be close to what we are seeing today.
Yes fannie/freddie now have a high defualt rate b/c of the housing collapse. But the prices were driven up more by the “kryptonite” loans created by Wall Street 2002-2007. Wall Street did pretty much all the really scary subprime 2 and 3 year fixed exploding ARM’s, ALL of the option arms, and they were much more aggressive with stated IO ARM’s with zero down. Fannie and Freddie were late to the exotic loan stuff and their exotic stuff was not nearly as aggressive. The super toxic stuff from Wall Street was what really drove the market “vertical” in 2003 to early 2007. Those were the first loans to default in 2008 and bring down the market. If you notice most of the REO’s on the market in 2008/2009 were not Fannie owned…now much more REO’s are fannie owned b/c the prime loans are defaulting now that prices collapsed. If we did not have the Wall Street kryptonite loans, we would never had seen prices go even close to where they went at the peak. There were almost NO FHA or VA loans done in CA from 2002-2007.
A lot of people have a huge misunderstanding that fannie/freddie is primarily to blame, when it was the private label “kryptonite loans” from Wall Street that really caused the most damage & put house price increases on steriods from 2003-2007. Fannie/Freddie NEVER did ONE option ARM ever…those were 100% Wall Street products securitized by Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs (GS who also made huge bets with credit default swaps that their OWN LOANS they securitized & sold off would go bad… AND paid a half a billion settlement with the SEC b/c of that!).
ParticipantGo get some charts on the default rates for FHA & VA over time. They were never even close to what we are seeing now and have seen since 2008 for fannie, freddie, and Wall Street loans. Even in the 1980’s, never even close. I just saw a very good chart on this at a Bruce Norris seminar the other day. Nor will they be this time.
b/c FHA is taking on a much larger % of the total loan volume in the U.S. (b/c there is NO private label mortgage market in existence right now) their total # of foreclosures will increase. But the ***percentage*** of those loans defaulting will never be close to what we are seeing today.
Yes fannie/freddie now have a high defualt rate b/c of the housing collapse. But the prices were driven up more by the “kryptonite” loans created by Wall Street 2002-2007. Wall Street did pretty much all the really scary subprime 2 and 3 year fixed exploding ARM’s, ALL of the option arms, and they were much more aggressive with stated IO ARM’s with zero down. Fannie and Freddie were late to the exotic loan stuff and their exotic stuff was not nearly as aggressive. The super toxic stuff from Wall Street was what really drove the market “vertical” in 2003 to early 2007. Those were the first loans to default in 2008 and bring down the market. If you notice most of the REO’s on the market in 2008/2009 were not Fannie owned…now much more REO’s are fannie owned b/c the prime loans are defaulting now that prices collapsed. If we did not have the Wall Street kryptonite loans, we would never had seen prices go even close to where they went at the peak. There were almost NO FHA or VA loans done in CA from 2002-2007.
A lot of people have a huge misunderstanding that fannie/freddie is primarily to blame, when it was the private label “kryptonite loans” from Wall Street that really caused the most damage & put house price increases on steriods from 2003-2007. Fannie/Freddie NEVER did ONE option ARM ever…those were 100% Wall Street products securitized by Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs (GS who also made huge bets with credit default swaps that their OWN LOANS they securitized & sold off would go bad… AND paid a half a billion settlement with the SEC b/c of that!).
-
AuthorPosts