A couple of nuggets...

[xc84]

Little dramatic? Discussing something negative or something negative that happened, is not causing harm to the program. Must be every program save the undefeated, top 5, Alabama type programs are being harmed by their whiny fans. I think it is just as silly to run around acting like everything is peaches and cream and nobody can do no wrong. Do you know how many threads turn into pissing matches and go forever because someone says something like "it is stupid not to have a recruiting event" but then all the "we should say nothing negative" people jump in and make excuses? Any mention of the internet impacting the program is both being out of touch and childish. It's also trying to displace blame which some posters here love to do.

Ok. What coach complained about bloggers, what did he say exactly and what priority did he say it was in the mix of all his agenda items?

 

[Whitey23]

I think it's valid point of view to say that whiny, negative comments about a team, player, coach does the program no favors. No one said Marrone can't handle it. No one said it's killing the program. No one is running down the street in mass hysteria about it. However, it's still not a good thing. I'm not a fan of it. It's not about the internet. It's about any medium that is used to spew it.

Guys like Saban and Calipari still gets kids. Have you read what's said about him on msg boards?

 

[xc84]

Guys like Saban and Calipari still gets kids. Have you read what's said about him on msg boards?

Who said you can't get kids? Not me. I said it does not help the program. If you think the negative idiots over at syracuse.com help the program, then I disagree.

And are these the Alabama and Kentucky boards or rival boards?

 

[Chip]

External items that you can't control add risk to any endevor, and those are the hardest things to mitigate. Some people even make a living out of trying to manage that stuff.

All he was letting these guys know is that it's a concern.

And some programs, like SU, have less margin and ability to absorb the impact than others, to it doesn't all even out.

While that is certainly true, especially compared the heavyweights, it would hardly apply to anyone in the league we've been competing against in the past 7 years. Those teams are full of negative fans (Louisville? Pitt? Rutgers? they are negative on the internet, boo at games, dress up as empty seats). I think our inclusion in that soon to be dead league has been a much bigger recruiting challenge than fans of a losing team being negative on the internet.

I get that negative attitudes among the fans doesn't make the job easier. But I think it's down the list of things for us to overcome, especially since it's really not something that's ever going to change, at least not to the positive level Marrone would ever hope to see. I think (as I believe bees indicated in this thread), it sounds more like he's someone who's a little out of touch with today's technological world. Every crazy has a forum, better get used to it. Most of us did several years ago.

 

[BlazeOrange]

74% close rate on in-homes? So we only get 30 In-homes a year? I wonder if that is typical.

I'd like to see the fine print on that calculation (the 74%, not the back-calc of 30 visits)...

When are in-homes made during the process? After offers have been made? Do they visit those who already accepted offers or just ones that are holding out on their decisions?

Are their categories of "official" in-homes (e.g., HC and position coach) vs. "unofficial" visits (e.g., just the regional recruiter) that may or may not be included in the success calculations?

I'd assume that close rate means accepted offers. Since we make many more offers than we have space for, are more people accepting than end up coming here than we know of? Aside from players that end up being non-qualifiers, would we make in-homes to those who we would eventually rescind the offer to?

 

[JeremyCuse]

While that is certainly true, especially compared the heavyweights, it would hardly apply to anyone in the league we've been competing against in the past 7 years. Those teams are full of negative fans (Louisville? Pitt? Rutgers? they are negative on the internet, boo at games, dress up as empty seats). I think our inclusion in that soon to be dead league has been a much bigger recruiting challenge than fans of a losing team being negative on the internet.

I get that negative attitudes among the fans doesn't make the job easier. But I think it's down the list of things for us to overcome, especially since it's really not something that's ever going to change, at least not to the positive level Marrone would ever hope to see. I think (as I believe bees indicated in this thread), it sounds more like he's someone who's a little out of touch with today's technological world. Every crazy has a forum, better get used to it. Most of us did several years ago.

SO true, if programs failed or struggled based on there message boards Rutgers would never win a game. Ever been over to Rutgersfan.com after a loss in the Schiano era especially the last few years? GO's head would explode, that place makes here look like Shangra freekin la

 

[CaliCuse]

Try decaf I think you

74% close rate on in-homes? So we only get 30 In-homes a year? I wonder if that is typical.

play the numbers game like everyone else to show any number of points

Every single program deals with this stuff though, so I'm pretty sure it all evens out.

Football coaches just LOOVVVEEE to tell people how hard their job is though. Surgeons, cops, firefighters, scientists... they got it easy. Coaching football, man that is HARD.

Oh Lord

I'd love to know why the Fizz guys are called "?"What have they done to deserve that label? I admit I find their topics to be lame and misdirected at times but I think I stop well short of calling them the A-hole designation. Uninformative and late with news ,yes.

 

[xc84]

Funny. There is not one quote attributed here to Marrone about the internet and yet look at the comments here about how Marrone hates the internet and better get used to it and is paranoid of bloggers, my favorite now..."out of touch with today's technological world." And this is from "fans" who have never heard from or talked to Marrone about the internet.

 

[GoSU96]

I'm sure you know risk is always more obvious to someone or something that is performing poorly. The impact of the internet on recruiting is so minimal and sooo far down the list it isn't something to get worked up about or even mention. Wanna help recruiting? Here are the big 3 in order.

1. Winning
2. Attendance
3. Facilities

The internet? Maybe 54th.

Ask Wayne Morgan. He went from 99% lock to needing to be rerecruited late.

 

[JackBauer44]

Ask Wayne Morgan. He went from 99% lock to needing to be rerecruited late.

Are you saying that we almost lost Wayne because of stuff being said on the internet? Not doubting you because I know how connected you are, but I just want to make sure I am understanding what you're saying.

 

[Noexcuse]

74% close rate on in-homes? So we only get 30 In-homes a year? I wonder if that is typical.

I see what you are saying. That can't be correct. And it reminds me of a conversation I had with a Contractor once. He told me that if you are getting a very high percentage of the Contracts you are bidding on you are bidding too low.

 

[billsin01]

My only point is that sure, coaches hate the internet, but programs can and do use it to their advantage. It is also small potatoes compared to everything else that impacts recruiting and the program. But too many times it is brought up by a coach in the negative sense and intimating it is or can hurt the program. Bottom line is that the internet is not going away. It is water cooler talk or letters to the editor on steroids times 1,000. Embrace it or forget it and focus on the real drivers of risk or program weaknesses.

I'm late to the party on this and probably biased due to being someone who doesn't hate the media. I also will give DM the benefit of the doubt and assume he said it in passing and didn't expect to create a stuff storm.

But I do think it's funny that coaches are always bemoaning the Internet since:
A) it isn't going away
B) it helps generate significant interest in the program and gives fans a forum to discuss the program. those are two pretty good things.
C) college is full of distractions -- maybe we should get rid of girls on campuses too.

Listen, I'm sure we're reading more into this than we should and I'm fine with DM not appreciating the media. It's fine. But it really is ridiculous to assume everyone isn't dealing with the same issues. Those folks arguing that it's harder at SU b/c of a smaller margin for error? What about the far more intense scrutiny at ND? What about the fact that in the SEC or Big 10 you aren't likely to get 5 years to build your program and the fans are all over you in year 1?

It's a fact of life. All schools deal with it.

 

[SoBristol]

I'm late to the party on this and probably biased due to being someone who doesn't hate the media. I also will give DM the benefit of the doubt and assume he said it in passing and didn't expect to create a stuff storm.

But I do think it's funny that coaches are always bemoaning the Internet since:
A) it isn't going away
B) it helps generate significant interest in the program and gives fans a forum to discuss the program. those are two pretty good things.
C) college is full of distractions -- maybe we should get rid of girls on campuses too.

Listen, I'm sure we're reading more into this than we should and I'm fine with DM not appreciating the media. It's fine. But it really is ridiculous to assume everyone isn't dealing with the same issues. Those folks arguing that it's harder at SU b/c of a smaller margin for error? What about the far more intense scrutiny at ND? What about the fact that in the SEC or Big 10 you aren't likely to get 5 years to build your program and the fans are all over you in year 1?

It's a fact of life. All schools deal with it.

Sure -- the main reason there is a "small margin" is that SU limped out of the season with 5 losses in a row. You can't expect a lot of love from "bloggers" until September comes around and we beat someone (other than Stoney Brook), or unless we get commits from our next Carter, Williams & Hogue.

It seems right that Marrone said something in passing -- and it is getting blown out of proportion. He has a lot of other things to devote attention to -- return of injured players, getting 2013 recruiting into gear, adding some juice to his offense, finding a pass rush, rallying some big donors.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

 

[xc84]

I'm late to the party on this and probably biased due to being someone who doesn't hate the media. I also will give DM the benefit of the doubt and assume he said it in passing and didn't expect to create a stuff storm.

But I do think it's funny that coaches are always bemoaning the Internet since:
A) it isn't going away
B) it helps generate significant interest in the program and gives fans a forum to discuss the program. those are two pretty good things.
C) college is full of distractions -- maybe we should get rid of girls on campuses too.

Listen, I'm sure we're reading more into this than we should and I'm fine with DM not appreciating the media. It's fine. But it really is ridiculous to assume everyone isn't dealing with the same issues. Those folks arguing that it's harder at SU b/c of a smaller margin for error? What about the far more intense scrutiny at ND? What about the fact that in the SEC or Big 10 you aren't likely to get 5 years to build your program and the fans are all over you in year 1?

It's a fact of life. All schools deal with it.

Yes, it's a fact of life. No one is saying it's not. No one is saying it should be banned. No one is saying that it will or should go away. No one is saying the internet does not provide benefits. No one is saying we should spend a lot of time getting rid of all distractions (like chicks on campus). No one is saying negative internet rants have a significant impact on recruiting. No one is saying that this is a high priority. Marrone has not been quoted on the subject and to my knowledge, no one on this board has admitted to talking with Marrone about the topic. Nowhere on this board is an indication of how important, priority-wise, anyone in SU's football program views negative internet comments. No one is saying that honest, negative comments about the program are unacceptable.

 

[rrlbees]

Ask Wayne Morgan. He went from 99% lock to needing to be rerecruited late.

All because people were praying that he would be an SU commit? OK. Or because people weren't happy with 5 straight loses?

 

[rrlbees]

Yes, it's a fact of life. No one is saying it's not. No one is saying it should be banned. No one is saying that it will or should go away. No one is saying the internet does not provide benefits. No one is saying we should spend a lot of time getting rid of all distractions (like chicks on campus). No one is saying negative internet rants have a significant impact on recruiting. No one is saying that this is a high priority. Marrone has not been quoted on the subject and to my knowledge, no one on this board has admitted to talking with Marrone about the topic. Nowhere on this board is an indication of how important, priority-wise, anyone in SU's football program views negative internet comments. No one is saying that honest, negative comments about the program are unacceptable.

Hmmm...no comment.

 

[JeremyCuse]

All because people were praying that he would be an SU commit? OK. Or because people weren't happy with 5 straight loses?

Gee I wonder what had more affect 5 straight losses to mostly mediocore bad teams or some posts on syracusefan.com. Jesus I have heard it all now.

 

[billsin01]

No one is saying negative internet rants have a significant impact on recruiting.

Um, yes they are.