Perspective

[nzm136]

The Pac 12 championship game featured #4 Washington vs. #8 Colorado this year. The winner of which, Washington, will go on to play in the Football Four. The loser of which will go on to play in the Alamo Bowl.

And yes, this is the same Pac 12 as the one in which Oregon, UCLA, Stanford, and USC play. Of course that goes without saying. Their conference affiliation is well known. They're in a P5 conference.

But what may be less know, or at least less appreciated, is that, until this year, Colorado averaged 1-8 in conference while in the Pac. Such utter failure also included a 1-11 2012 campaign and a 2-10 2014 campaign. In fact, until this year, the last time Colorado played in a bowl was in the 2007 season.

Washington is in a similar boat. The Huskies went 1-10 in 2004 and 0-12 in 2008. To put things in perspective, not even GRob went winless.

What does that mean for SU?

I honestly don't know. On one hand, their respective turnarounds give me hope. They changed a lot very fast and went from somewhere far lower than where we are to where we want to be. And, we have an exciting coach who has a history of turning around schools. On the other hand, we haven't been ranked since the 2001 season. What have we been doing? Do we not have roughly the same advantages/resources? Is it not our time to win?

When looked at either positively or negative, it's an interesting perspective.

[EDIT: The Buffs are playing in the Alamo Bowl. Contrary to what I originally wrote, USC got the Rose Bowl invite.]

 

[OrangeTarheel]

One of the biggest hurdles we faced in the past was lack of institutional support. How many new (never before existed positions) were hired this year for football? That's a good sign that we can retain HCDB and to make a quick turnaround. Then again, in the last fifteen years there were more than a couple years when the off season was the better part of our season.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

The Pac 12 championship game featured #4 Washington vs. #8 Colorado this year. The winner of which, Washington, will go on to play in the Football Four. The loser of which will go on to play in the Alamo Bowl.

And yes, this is the same Pac 12 as the one in which Oregon, UCLA, Stanford, and USC play. Of course that goes without saying. Their conference affiliation is well known. They're in a P5 conference.

But what may be less know, or at least less appreciated, is that, until this year, Colorado averaged 1-8 in conference while in the Pac. Such utter failure also included a 1-11 2012 campaign and a 2-10 2014 campaign. In fact, until this year, the last time Colorado played in a bowl was in the 2007 season.

Washington is in a similar boat. The Huskies went 1-10 in 2004 and 0-12 in 2008. To put things in perspective, not even GRob went winless.

What does that mean for SU?

I honestly don't know. On one hand, their respective turnarounds give me hope. They changed a lot very fast and went from somewhere far lower than where we are to where we want to be. And, we have an exciting coach who has a history of turning around schools. On the other hand, we haven't been ranked since the 2001 season. What have we been doing? Do we not have roughly the same advantages/resources? Is it not our time to win?

When looked at either positively or negative, it's an interesting perspective.

[EDIT: The Buffs are playing in the Alamo Bowl. Contrary to what I originally wrote, USC got the Rose Bowl invite.]

That's the question, was trending the right way with dome and locker room renovations but lets see how that plays out. Awful quiet these days.

UW renovated their stadium few years ago, Sark did just fine recruiting, Peterson came in and put his stamp on it and he recruit very specifically. UW is around for a while IMO. Boulder not so sure, sounds like their coach may have eyes for Baylor but they should be able to replace him with a solid candidate. Either way, both coaches have done a great job

 

[Orangejet]

That's the question, was trending the right way with dome and locker room renovations but lets see how that plays out. Awful quiet these days.

UW renovated their stadium few years ago, Sark did just fine recruiting, Peterson came in and put his stamp on it and he recruit very specifically. UW is around for a while IMO. Boulder not so sure, sounds like their coach may have eyes for Baylor but they should be able to replace him with a solid candidate. Either way, both coaches have done a great job

CU has pumped lots of dollars into their Football/Athletic facilities the past few years and will be undergoing a major renovation of Folsom Field shortly. Also, the Buffs HC is not going anywhere...believe me! Recruiting is skyrocketing in Boulder for the Buffs are #3 in the PAC 12 & #18 nationally.

 

[orangecuse]

As a diehard Syracuse fan, I'd like to look at those examples and draw a relatively similar parallel to SU. However, it's a way bigger hill to climb for SU than for those schools. Those school's are their respective state's Flagship institutions, so money, funding, and everything that goes with that is a different ballgame...as is the all important recruiting/base. I hope we can get the program back to respectability, but I just don't see us playing for a league championship any time soon, if ever, let alone a national championship.

It's a daunting realization, but it's reality. Even though we are so incredibly fortunate SU miraculously landed in a Power 5 conference, the fact that we are a small private institution with relatively limited funds, etc., it's like a fish out of water, other than ND, and a very select few other privates.

 

[TheCusian]

As a diehard Syracuse fan, I'd like to look at those examples and draw a relatively similar parallel to SU. However, it's a way bigger hill to climb for SU than for those schools. Those school's are their respective state's Flagship institutions, so money, funding, and everything that goes with that is a different ballgame...as is the all important recruiting/base. I hope we can get the program back to respectability, but I just don't see us playing for a league championship any time soon, if ever, let alone a national championship.

It's a daunting realization, but it's reality. Even though we are so incredibly fortunate SU miraculously landed in a Power 5 conference, the fact that we are a small private institution with relatively limited funds, etc., it's like a fish out of water, other than ND, and a very select few other privates.

Disagree 100%. State schools do get a leg up on private schools in expense heavy sports like Football. But it's not the end all, be all. There is so much money flowing into CFB that I think its getting close to diminishing returns on investment. Traditionally, I think you're right. I'm just not sure it's as big of a problem going forward.

The arms race is what is - but I'm def kinda glad we're not building a football players only whiffle ball field.

The Dome is the big one. Get that right and we'll be ok for a long while.

 

[orangecuse]

Disagree 100%. State schools do get a leg up on private schools in expense heavy sports like Football. But it's not the end all, be all. There is so much money flowing into CFB that I think its getting close to diminishing returns on investment. Traditionally, I think you're right. I'm just not sure it's as big of a problem going forward.

The arms race is what is - but I'm def kinda glad we're not building a football players only whiffle ball field.

The Dome is the big one. Get that right and we'll be ok for a long while.

 

[nzm136]

I don't buy the public vs private argument. SU doesn't have a fan problem. Our revenue sport attendance is roughly equal to Clemson's, and our merch sales are in the mid to low 30's.

...and that's after 15 years of mediocre to bad football.

Our issue is a donor problem. There aren't many nearby corporations who need to sponsor us, and we've had 3 AD's in 2 years. That's made it hard for the school to connect w/ althletic donors for a variety of reasons. If we fixed the donor issue to even 1/3rd of Clemson's level, we would have HUGE amounts of incremental money to dump into football to make it mediocre to good and we'd easily overshadow most public schools - even ones in power conferences.

 

[KaiserUEO]

I don't buy the public vs private argument. SU doesn't have a fan problem. Our revenue sport attendance is roughly equal to Clemson's, and our merch sales are in the mid to low 30's.

...and that's after 15 years of mediocre to bad football.

Our issue is a donor problem. There aren't many nearby corporations who need to sponsor us, and we've had 3 AD's in 2 years. That's made it hard for the school to connect w/ althletic donors for a variety of reasons. If we fixed the donor issue to even 1/3rd of Clemson's level, we would have HUGE amounts of incremental money to dump into football to make it mediocre to good and we'd easily overshadow most public schools - even ones in power conferences.

im sorry, what???!!

it would take us 4 home games to equal 1 game at Death Valley.

 

[Cuse House]

im sorry, what???!!

it would take us 4 home games to equal 1 game at Death Valley.

Yeah but when you throw in 15 home basketball games vs Clemson's basketball attendance, it equals out. I believe that was his point.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

CU has pumped lots of dollars into their Football/Athletic facilities the past few years and will be undergoing a major renovation of Folsom Field shortly. Also, the Buffs HC is not going anywhere...believe me! Recruiting is skyrocketing in Boulder for the Buffs are #3 in the PAC 12 & #18 nationally.

That is kind of what I was thinking, they were building facilities, had stability with the coach in his 4th year, who lets face it was probably on the hot seat if he didn't win this year but stability with a solid HC, money and recruiting is a good recipe to fix a program. That said, the UC coach was out on his butt if he didn't win year 4, he had 10 wins total I believe his first 3 years. Year 4 is the year if the AD believes in his coach, if not they are done after 3. Most people in Boulder wanted him gone last year I am sure

 

[nzm136]

im sorry, what???!!

it would take us 4 home games to equal 1 game at Death Valley.

Revenue sports - not just football. There are a ton of basketball games and they add up.

 

[cuse309]

That is kind of what I was thinking, they were building facilities, had stability with the coach in his 4th year, who lets face it was probably on the hot seat if he didn't win this year but stability with a solid HC, money and recruiting is a good recipe to fix a program. That said, the UC coach was out on his butt if he didn't win year 4, he had 10 wins total I believe his first 3 years. Year 4 is the year if the AD believes in his coach, if not they are done after 3. Most people in Boulder wanted him gone last year I am sure

It also helps that Boulder Colorado is one of the most beautiful places on earth, with more to do than go to Dinosaur, or the mall. It's probably a bit easier of a sell than Syracuse. They average 245 sunny days per year, and 83 inches of snow. Compared to Syracuse's avg. of 123 inches and 163 sunny days per year.

 

[SoBristol]

It is a complex equation -- can't say that SU can do it, just because Washington and Colorado used to be equally woeful. Location, corporate support & big alumni gifts, recruiting areas, recruiting competition -- so many variables. We will see how we do in raising the money for the Dome, and see whether Babers can lift recruiting in this cycle and next. Seems to be heading upwards, so maybe.

 

[nzm136]

It is a complex equation -- can't say that SU can do it, just because Washington and Colorado used to be equally woeful. Location, corporate support & big alumni gifts, recruiting areas, recruiting competition -- so many variables. We will see how we do in raising the money for the Dome, and see whether Babers can lift recruiting in this cycle and next. Seems to be heading upwards, so maybe.

I'm actually a little more pessimistic than most about recruiting. I don't think that this year has been as good as the SS years. But I'm willing to believe that year 2 will be more telling. Kids will already know that we run a system that produces highlights, so they should be more receptive early on.

 

[orangecuse]

I don't buy the public vs private argument. SU doesn't have a fan problem. Our revenue sport attendance is roughly equal to Clemson's, and our merch sales are in the mid to low 30's.

...and that's after 15 years of mediocre to bad football.

Our issue is a donor problem. There aren't many nearby corporations who need to sponsor us, and we've had 3 AD's in 2 years. That's made it hard for the school to connect w/ althletic donors for a variety of reasons. If we fixed the donor issue to even 1/3rd of Clemson's level, we would have HUGE amounts of incremental money to dump into football to make it mediocre to good and we'd easily overshadow most public schools - even ones in power conferences.

The state schools, even the non Flagship ones in the state have a much larger alumni base, etc. whom feel (or at least should feel) a connection to the school. Yes, Syracuse has a large following, but many, many of these good folks do so because they've lived in Syracuse or the metropolitan area (North Country) at one point of their lives. These are folks that may bleed Orange, travel to tournaments, Final Fours, hit the local establishments for viewing, etc., but since they are not alums, many don't have the desire/passion/connection to reach into their pockets for donation type contributions. It's a huge factor, not to mention all of the state funding, resources, etc. these state schools get from their respective state that SU doesn't as a private institution.

 

[721Comstock]

I'm actually a little more pessimistic than most about recruiting. I don't think that this year has been as good as the SS years. But I'm willing to believe that year 2 will be more telling. Kids will already know that we run a system that produces highlights, so they should be more receptive early on.

You're on crack.

Dino's 1st class, with almost no time to pull it together, was DRAMATICALLY BETTER than what SMFS had lined up prior.
Pretty much every guy we ended up not taking, went to a much lower level program.
What does that tell you about the talent level there?
If those kids were so great, they should have ended up at peer or better programs. They didn't.

This year we've got an Elite 11 finalist QB teed up, and lots of guys with size and speed.
Plus, we're making inroads at several powerhouse football high school programs, which will benefit us moving forward.

You're entitled to your opinion, but - you're wrong.

 

[SoBristol]

Dino's 1st class, with almost no time to pull it together, was DRAMATICALLY BETTER than what SMFS had lined up prior.
...

This year we've got an Elite 11 finalist QB teed up, and lots of guys with size and speed.
Plus, we're making inroads at several powerhouse football high school programs, which will benefit us moving forward. ...

Have to go with what we see on the field. First, Babers was smart to bring in Etta-Tawo and Wilson to supplement (a) the key position in his offense; and (b) an area of need at DE. His true frosh in the DL, and Armstrong at LB looked very promising. This 2017 class should be similar or better -- and then we have a base of 3 good classes in a row (Shafer's 2015 was his best).

 

[nzm136]

You're on crack.

Dino's 1st class, with almost no time to pull it together, was DRAMATICALLY BETTER than what SMFS had lined up prior.
Pretty much every guy we ended up not taking, went to a much lower level program.
What does that tell you about the talent level there?
If those kids were so great, they should have ended up at peer or better programs. They didn't.

This year we've got an Elite 11 finalist QB teed up, and lots of guys with size and speed.
Plus, we're making inroads at several powerhouse football high school programs, which will benefit us moving forward.

You're entitled to your opinion, but - you're wrong.

Stars aren't everything, but there is a correlation between having them and winning. And our current class has the weakest star rankings for quite some time.

Also, keep in mind that SS recruited some really great players before our former AD started talking about firing him. The whole family atmosphere thing works well.

Next year's best WR and starting QB are both SS recruits.

Now it's very possible that Babera is better at finding diamonds in the rough and/or training up talent, and/or those intangible inroads turn into actual results - I certainly hope that they do - but this class is going against the odds, whether either of us likes it, or not.

 

[nzm136]

The state schools, even the non Flagship ones in the state have a much larger alumni base, etc. whom feel (or at least should feel) a connection to the school. Yes, Syracuse has a large following, but many, many of these good folks do so because they've lived in Syracuse or the metropolitan area (North Country) at one point of their lives. These are folks that may bleed Orange, travel to tournaments, Final Fours, hit the local establishments for viewing, etc., but since they are not alums, many don't have the desire/passion/connection to reach into their pockets for donation type contributions. It's a huge factor, not to mention all of the state funding, resources, etc. these state schools get from their respective state that SU doesn't as a private institution.

Yes, some do. I think that Ohio State has about 50k students in Columbus. But not all public schools are bigger - even including some major ones. Clemson has 22.7k (as per Wikipedia). Syracuse has 21.3k + 2.8k at SUNY ESF + 1.5k at SUNY Upstate. We're arguably bigger. But honestly, whether or not you count the SUNY schools on the SU campus, Syracuse and Clemson are roughly the same size. Sure, Clemson has recruiting (and gameday) advantages that SU does not. My point isn't that SU = CU. It's that we aren't hopelessly small. We have the lowest alumni engagement with the AD in the ACC (as measured by percent of alums who donated), and we have some of the strongest school spirit in the nation when it comes to athletics (in general - not just football). You do the math. That's bad management due to turnover at the AD position.

I firmly believe that the defeatist mentality of "we can't spend like everyone else, so we will never be good again" is wrong and it needs to go. I realize that I put some words in your mouth, but I'm addressing some of what you said and some of what others have said in the same post because I think that the sentiments go together.

And for the record, schools like LSU aren't bankrolling their team w/ alumni donations.

 

[orangecuse]

Yes, some do. I think that Ohio State has about 50k students in Columbus. But not all public schools are bigger - even including some major ones. Clemson has 22.7k (as per Wikipedia). Syracuse has 21.3k + 2.8k at SUNY ESF + 1.5k at SUNY Upstate. We're arguably bigger. But honestly, whether or not you count the SUNY schools on the SU campus, Syracuse and Clemson are roughly the same size. Sure, Clemson has recruiting (and gameday) advantages that SU does not. My point isn't that SU = CU. It's that we aren't hopelessly small. We have the lowest alumni engagement with the AD in the ACC (as measured by percent of alums who donated), and we have some of the strongest school spirit in the nation when it comes to athletics (in general - not just football). You do the math. That's bad management due to turnover at the AD position.

I firmly believe that the defeatist mentality of "we can't spend like everyone else, so we will never be good again" is wrong and it needs to go. I realize that I put some words in your mouth, but I'm addressing some of what you said and some of what others have said in the same post because I think that the sentiments go together.

And for the record, schools like LSU aren't bankrolling their team w/ alumni donations.

Percisively, my larger point...state school (Flagship) with state funding/$$$.

 

[SoBristol]

Stars aren't everything, but there is a correlation between having them and winning. And our current class has the weakest star rankings for quite some time.

Also, keep in mind that SS recruited some really great players before our former AD started talking about firing him. The whole family atmosphere thing works well.

Next year's best WR and starting QB are both SS recruits.

Now it's very possible that Babera is better at finding diamonds in the rough and/or training up talent, and/or those intangible inroads turn into actual results - I certainly hope that they do - but this class is going against the odds, whether either of us likes it, or not.

OK -- you could build on that point. The true frosh QB (Culpepper) was a Shafer recruit, as was Moe Neal, the new skill player who had the most impact this season, other than Etta-Tawo.
But that isn't the whole story. All 4 of Babers' OL recruits in the 2016 class red-shirted, but have the height, weight and backgrounds we want in the OL. Should compare favorably with the Shafer recruits who played this season -- but of course that is only opinion at this point. The DL recruits in the 2016 were all recruited by Babers -- we had a chance to see their potential.
I believe you underestimate the 2017 class -- it has some slots to fill, and Babers sure closed strong in the last cycle. We will have to see what we have next August -- he has a group of WRs, two very good RBs, in addition to the #4 QB in the East. Babers will find some help from the juco and grad transfer ranks -- if he does that, you might like the improvement year over year.

 

[OrangeTarheel]

Invest in people first. If we had the dollars to spend when Greggers was here do you think we would have had better results? You might argue we would have secured a better coach with more money but that speaks to investing in people.

Facilities are great, definitely keep them looking good, but keep the bells and whistles. Let folks talk about the amazing people we have here -- we'll attract the best with that kind of recruiting.

 

[nzm136]

OK -- you could build on that point. The true frosh QB (Culpepper) was a Shafer recruit, as was Moe Neal, the new skill player who had the most impact this season, other than Etta-Tawo.
But that isn't the whole story. All 4 of Babers' OL recruits in the 2016 class red-shirted, but have the height, weight and backgrounds we want in the OL. Should compare favorably with the Shafer recruits who played this season -- but of course that is only opinion at this point. The DL recruits in the 2016 were all recruited by Babers -- we had a chance to see their potential.
I believe you underestimate the 2017 class -- it has some slots to fill, and Babers sure closed strong in the last cycle. We will have to see what we have next August -- he has a group of WRs, two very good RBs, in addition to the #4 QB in the East. Babers will find some help from the juco and grad transfer ranks -- if he does that, you might like the improvement year over year.

I do sincerely hope so. I remember what it was like to be good, and I want to be good again ... very badly.

I'm not sure if you remember the X Files, but Agent Mulder used to have a poster on his basement office wall w/ a picture of a UFO on it and the script "I want to believe." That's how I feel.

I've just spent the last 15 years getting burnt, so it's hard to have faith w/o some hard evidence. Here's to hoping, though...

 

[TheCusian]

Stars aren't everything, but there is a correlation between having them and winning. And our current class has the weakest star rankings for quite some time.

Also, keep in mind that SS recruited some really great players before our former AD started talking about firing him. The whole family atmosphere thing works well.

Next year's best WR and starting QB are both SS recruits.

Now it's very possible that Babera is better at finding diamonds in the rough and/or training up talent, and/or those intangible inroads turn into actual results - I certainly hope that they do - but this class is going against the odds, whether either of us likes it, or not.

You should check those stars again... this class is doing just fine. There are two Canadian kids who remain unranked in the composite that are dragging us down.