2004 FSU at Syracuse

[anomander]

No weight room? Here is a segment from my "Facilities" post of a couple of years back:

"The 1982 Yearbook has an article on our weight room at that time. Mike Woicik, our strength and conditioning coach, who later wrote a book on the field and became the S&C guy for the Dallas Cowboy’s Super Bowl winners on the 90’s, is quoted as saying “The administrative support has been great. They’ve expanded the weight room for us, purchased new equipment and supplied us with just about everything we need.” The article says that before Woicik, “there was no one to either design or administer a much needed strength program. In past years, winter was a time when the coaches took to the recruiting trail and athletes were pretty much left on their own. Since Woicik’s arrival, the winter months have produced some of the athlete’s greatest gains in strength….Woicik’s program at Syracuse, barely a fledgling at two years old, has already seen 13 athletes surpass the 400-pound mark for a bench press. And there were several others hovering just below that figure…For years, one of the most respected weight programs in the East has been at the University of Maryland, under the guidance of former coach Jerry Clairborne. In eight years there, Clairborne’s program yielded 20 players who could bench press more than 400 pounds.

I remember that what brought us back in that era was a hard-hitting defense. The exciting offensive players came later. It wasn’t just attitude or scheme. Woicik’s weight room had a lot to do with that. “I think that the SU coaches understood that in order to be competitive with Penn State, Pittsburgh and some of the other teams on our schedule, we had to step up our efforts in weight training.” The article went on: “-So the commitment was made. Woicik was hired in the summer of 1980. During the following year, the Manley Field House weight room was switched to a much bigger location. More equipment of all types was purchased and put into use. The new equipment included benches, squat racks, Olympic bars and weights. Nautilus machines and wall-mounted pull-up stations. Woicik summed up the new commitment to weight training: ‘What we need, we have. It wasn’t like that two years ago.’”

The 1982 yearbook, yet we are talking about 2004. So that's a 25 year old weight room, which was by that time far out of date. Facilities and the lack of funding were the reasons for the downfall of the program. Plain and simple.

 

[Alsacs]

The 1982 yearbook, yet we are talking about 2004. So that's a 25 year old weight room, which was by that time far out of date. Facilities and the lack of funding were the reasons for the downfall of the program. Plain and simple.

McNabb gave a big donation that paid for the new weight room at Manley during the summer of 2005.

 

[Scooch]

The 1982 yearbook, yet we are talking about 2004. So that's a 25 year old weight room, which was by that time far out of date. Facilities and the lack of funding were the reasons for the downfall of the program. Plain and simple.

Facilities...And greatly increased competition for recruiting in the northeast.

People conveniently forget that when SU rose to prominence under Mac that our only northeast competition was Penn State, Pitt and BC. And as P took the reigns Pitt fell off a cliff and BC was about to lose Coughlin and endure a major scandal. We really benefitted from being the unquestionable #2 northeast program for a decade. Plus we made inroads into Florida. By the early 2000s Pitt and BC righted their ships, other schools hit the NE and FL much harder, and Rutgers started to invest in their program. Plus piddly schools like UConn, Buffalo, etc. launched programs which took some scraps off the table.

Which is all to say that the decline was multifaceted. It was not any one thing, but a combination of factors. And none more pronounced then our inability to recruit an above average QB for years and years. That, more than anything, crushed us. Put a really good QB on any SU team from 1999 to 2004 and it's a totally different story.

 

[SWC75]

The 1982 yearbook, yet we are talking about 2004. So that's a 25 year old weight room, which was by that time far out of date. Facilities and the lack of funding were the reasons for the downfall of the program. Plain and simple.

There are several references in subsequent Media Guides to the weight room being expanded and moved before the current one opened in 2005. I was countering the statement that we had "no weight room".

 

[SWC75]

The best way to measure the talent level of a college team is to look at how many of their players were later drafted or signed as free agents by the pros. They may or may not have ‘made it’ in the pros but they must have made it pretty good in college for the pros to be interested in them. Using the SU media guide, I came up with these numbers for the Coach P Era:

1991: 31 players in 1992-95
1992: 35 players in 1993-96
1993: 32 players in 1994-97
1994: 30 players in 1995-98
1995: 33 players in 1996-99
1996: 35 players in 1997-00
1997: 33 players in 1998-01
1998: 36 players in 1999-02
1999: 31 players in 2000-03
2000: 32 players in 2001-04
2001: 31 players in 2002-05
2002: 29 players in 2003-06
2003: 31 players in 2004-07
2004: 27 players in 2005-07

There had been an obvious decline in talent from the 1998 peak but there were still 27 players the pros showed interested in., so we were hardly bereft of talent.


For years I have evaluated individual games and teams by what I call their “point differential ranking. You see how a team did against a particular opponent in terms of the point differential in that game and compare it to that team’s other opponents. If you beat a team by more than anybody else did or tie a team that won all their other games or lose to a team that won all their games by the smallest margin, you get a ranking of “1”. If another team ties your team, each gets a “1”. If one team did better, you get a ‘2’. If two teams did better, you get a ‘3’. If ten teams did better, you get an ‘11’. In coach P’s time, teams played 11 game regular seasons and the best teams played in bowl games so the worst it could get was a “12”.

Here are the point differential rankings form 1-12 and the number of times Coach p’s teams had that ranking:

1- 24 times
2- 21 times
3- 23 times
4- 22 times
5- 23 times
6- 11 times
7- 7 times
8- 9 times
9- 6 times
10- 3 times
11- 8 times
12- 11 times

We were in the top 5 of our opponent’s opponents 68% of the time. That’s clearly where we belonged. An occasional slip form that level is to be expected. But the number of times we were in the 11-12 area is clearly disappointing. That means at least ten teams played the same opponent and did better than we did. The fact that the number of bad performances increases from 3 at the 10 level to 8 at the 11 level to 11 at the 12 level indicates a tendency of the team’s effort to collapse when things went bad.

Here is the list of the 19 worst performances of the Pasqualoni Era:
10/5/91 at Florida State 14-46 11 teams did better
10/23/93 at Miami 0-49 11 teams did better
10/30/93 West Virginia 0-43 11 teams did better
11/12/94 Boston College 0-31 11 teams did better
10/1/98 at N C State 17-38 11 teams did better
10/16/98 at Virginia Tech 0-62 11 teams did better
11/23/99 at Rutgers 21-24 10 teams did better
9/1/01 at Tennessee 9-33 10 teams did better
11/17/01 at Miami 0-59 10 teams did better
8/29/02 at BYU 21-42 10 teams did better
9/7/02 North Carolina 22-30 11 teams did better
10/5/02 Pittsburgh 24-48 11 teams did better
10/19/02 at West Virginia 7-34 10 teams did better
11/30/02 Miami 7-49 11 teams did better
10/11/03 at Virginia tech 7-51 11 teams did better
10/25/03 at Pittsburgh 14-34 10 teams did better
11/29/03 at Rutgers 7-24 10 teams did better
9/5/04 at Purdue 0-51 10 teams did better
11/27/04 Georgia Tech 14-51 10 teams did better (bowl game)

There’s no spinning these games. They are not about talent level, weight rooms or practice facilities, not with all those teams that did better than we did. We just stunk up the joint .

Now to be balanced, let’s remember the greatest games of the Pasqualoni era, when we did better than any other opponent against the teams we played:

9/21/01 Florida 38-21
11/2/01 Temple 27-6
10/10/02 Rutgers 50-28
1/1/96 Clemson 41-0 (bowl game)
9/28/96 Virginia Tech 52-21
11/2/96 at West Virginia 30-7
11/9/96 at Tulane 31-7
11/16/96 Army 42-17
8/24/97 Wisconsin 34-0
10/4/97 East Carolina 56-0
10/18/97 Temple 60-7
11/1/97 West Virginia 40-10
9/5/98 Tennessee 33-34 (a loss but nobody came closer to beating them)
9/19/98 Rutgers 70-14
10/10/98 Cincinnati 63-21
11/28/98 Miami 66-13
9/2/99 at Toledo 35-12
9/30/00 Brigham Young 42-14
9/29/01 East Carolina 44-30
10/20/01 Temple 45-3
12/29/01 Kansas State 26-3 (bowl game)
9/27/03 Toledo 34-7
10/18/03 Boston College 39-14
11/27/03 Boston College 43-17

This list contains a lot of Rutgers, Temples, Tulanes and Toledos but we still beat them worse than anybody else did. And it contains Florida, Clemson, Tennessee, Miami and Kansas State. It’s dominated by home games just as the first list is dominated by road games. I will say that good teams typically are nearly as formidable on the road as at home and bad teams are bad everywhere. Home field advantage means more to mediocre teams. The main thing is that these high points don’t make the low points OK: they make them more inexplicable and less tolerable. In both 1998 and 2003, we had a #1 game followed by a #12 game followed by another #1 game. Such roller-coaster results leave the fans dizzy- and disappointed.

Coach P is our second all-time winningest coach with 101 wins, 59 losses and a tie (.630). That’s a better record than anyone we’ve had since. He deserves our respect. But it’s not inappropriate to suggest that he could have done better or to access at least part of the blame for the decline of the program to him.

 

[sufandu]

It is pretty sad for BC then that they lost three of their last four games against Pasqualoni.

It is indeed.

 

[OrangeDW]

The best way to measure the talent level of a college team is to look at how many of their players were later drafted or signed as free agents by the pros. They may or may not have ‘made it’ in the pros but they must have made it pretty good in college for the pros to be interested in them. Using the SU media guide, I came up with these numbers for the Coach P Era:

1991: 31 players in 1992-95
1992: 35 players in 1993-96
1993: 32 players in 1994-97
1994: 30 players in 1995-98
1995: 33 players in 1996-99
1996: 35 players in 1997-00
1997: 33 players in 1998-01
1998: 36 players in 1999-02
1999: 31 players in 2000-03
2000: 32 players in 2001-04
2001: 31 players in 2002-05
2002: 29 players in 2003-06
2003: 31 players in 2004-07
2004: 27 players in 2005-07

There had been an obvious decline in talent from the 1998 peak but there were still 27 players the pros showed interested in., so we were hardly bereft of talent.


For years I have evaluated individual games and teams by what I call their “point differential ranking. You see how a team did against a particular opponent in terms of the point differential in that game and compare it to that team’s other opponents. If you beat a team by more than anybody else did or tie a team that won all their other games or lose to a team that won all their games by the smallest margin, you get a ranking of “1”. If another team ties your team, each gets a “1”. If one team did better, you get a ‘2’. If two teams did better, you get a ‘3’. If ten teams did better, you get an ‘11’. In coach P’s time, teams played 11 game regular seasons and the best teams played in bowl games so the worst it could get was a “12”.

Here are the point differential rankings form 1-12 and the number of times Coach p’s teams had that ranking:

1- 24 times
2- 21 times
3- 23 times
4- 22 times
5- 23 times
6- 11 times
7- 7 times
8- 9 times
9- 6 times
10- 3 times
11- 8 times
12- 11 times

We were in the top 5 of our opponent’s opponents 68% of the time. That’s clearly where we belonged. An occasional slip form that level is to be expected. But the number of times we were in the 11-12 area is clearly disappointing. That means at least ten teams played the same opponent and did better than we did. The fact that the number of bad performances increases from 3 at the 10 level to 8 at the 11 level to 11 at the 12 level indicates a tendency of the team’s effort to collapse when things went bad.

Here is the list of the 19 worst performances of the Pasqualoni Era:
10/5/91 at Florida State 14-46 11 teams did better
10/23/93 at Miami 0-49 11 teams did better
10/30/93 West Virginia 0-43 11 teams did better
11/12/94 Boston College 0-31 11 teams did better
10/1/98 at N C State 17-38 11 teams did better
10/16/98 at Virginia Tech 0-62 11 teams did better
11/23/99 at Rutgers 21-24 10 teams did better
9/1/01 at Tennessee 9-33 10 teams did better
11/17/01 at Miami 0-59 10 teams did better
8/29/02 at BYU 21-42 10 teams did better
9/7/02 North Carolina 22-30 11 teams did better
10/5/02 Pittsburgh 24-48 11 teams did better
10/19/02 at West Virginia 7-34 10 teams did better
11/30/02 Miami 7-49 11 teams did better
10/11/03 at Virginia tech 7-51 11 teams did better
10/25/03 at Pittsburgh 14-34 10 teams did better
11/29/03 at Rutgers 7-24 10 teams did better
9/5/04 at Purdue 0-51 10 teams did better
11/27/04 Georgia Tech 14-51 10 teams did better (bowl game)

There’s no spinning these games. They are not about talent level, weight rooms or practice facilities, not with all those teams that did better than we did. We just stunk up the joint .

Now to be balanced, let’s remember the greatest games of the Pasqualoni era, when we did better than any other opponent against the teams we played:

9/21/01 Florida 38-21
11/2/01 Temple 27-6
10/10/02 Rutgers 50-28
1/1/96 Clemson 41-0 (bowl game)
9/28/96 Virginia Tech 52-21
11/2/96 at West Virginia 30-7
11/9/96 at Tulane 31-7
11/16/96 Army 42-17
8/24/97 Wisconsin 34-0
10/4/97 East Carolina 56-0
10/18/97 Temple 60-7
11/1/97 West Virginia 40-10
9/5/98 Tennessee 33-34 (a loss but nobody came closer to beating them)
9/19/98 Rutgers 70-14
10/10/98 Cincinnati 63-21
11/28/98 Miami 66-13
9/2/99 at Toledo 35-12
9/30/00 Brigham Young 42-14
9/29/01 East Carolina 44-30
10/20/01 Temple 45-3
12/29/01 Kansas State 26-3 (bowl game)
9/27/03 Toledo 34-7
10/18/03 Boston College 39-14
11/27/03 Boston College 43-17

This list contains a lot of Rutgers, Temples, Tulanes and Toledos but we still beat them worse than anybody else did. And it contains Florida, Clemson, Tennessee, Miami and Kansas State. It’s dominated by home games just as the first list is dominated by road games. I will say that good teams typically are nearly as formidable on the road as at home and bad teams are bad everywhere. Home field advantage means more to mediocre teams. The main thing is that these high points don’t make the low points OK: they make them more inexplicable and less tolerable. In both 1998 and 2003, we had a #1 game followed by a #12 game followed by another #1 game. Such roller-coaster results leave the fans dizzy- and disappointed.

Coach P is our second all-time winningest coach with 101 wins, 59 losses and a tie (.630). That’s a better record than anyone we’ve had since. He deserves our respect. But it’s not inappropriate to suggest that he could have done better or to access at least part of the blame for the decline of the program to him.

Those 96 blowout wins 3 weeks in a row all being on that list are interesting. 11/2, 11/9, 11/16...that backs up my memory that we were absolutely tagging teams once we got rolling that year. That fluke Minnesota loss and a bad first half against Miami...we should've went 10-1 that year. That team was really good.

 

[sufandu]

Those 96 blowout wins 3 weeks in a row all being on that list are interesting. 11/2, 11/9, 11/16...that backs up my memory that we were absolutely tagging teams once we got rolling that year. That fluke Minnesota loss and a bad first half against Miami...we should've went 10-1 that year. That team was really good.

Yeah, it was disappointing that we never got a 10 win season out of the McNabb years.

 

[SWC75]

Those 96 blowout wins 3 weeks in a row all being on that list are interesting. 11/2, 11/9, 11/16...that backs up my memory that we were absolutely tagging teams once we got rolling that year. That fluke Minnesota loss and a bad first half against Miami...we should've went 10-1 that year. That team was really good.

We went to an "attack" defense for a a couple of years. Then we went back to "read and react" under DeLeone.