Are we a Mid-Major in Football?

[Ish88888]

This is the worst thread I've seen on here in a while.

Just because a P5 program has fallen on hard times doesn't make us a mid-major.

We're not UConn.

Fn AMEN! The fact this thread has legs is annoying.

 

[tipphill]

Fn AMEN! The fact this thread has legs is annoying.

fallen on hard times is an understatement. since 1971 there has been more hard times than good.

 

[CuseLegacy]

fallen on hard times is an understatement. since 1971 there has been more hard times than good.

I guess you must have been in a coma during the 80s and 90s.

 

[Townie72]

I guess you must have been in a coma during the 80s and 90s.

Well, the late 80's were very good, but not the early 80's. We did manage to get to the Cherry Bowl in 1985.

And the 90's were 18 years ago.

 

[CuseLegacy]

Well, the late 80's were very good, but not the early 80's

And the 90's were 18 years ago.

Yes. I'm old enough to remember, but the posters comment implied that football hasn't been very good since 1971 which is a stretch.

 

[shandeezy7]

Yes. I'm old enough to remember, but the posters comment implied that football hasn't been very good since 1971 which is a stretch.

The comment might have been a little dramatic, but since 1971, we have had 23 seasons at or below .500 and 24 seasons above .500. 18 bowl games in the past 47 years. There have obviously been some great seasons in there. There have also been some incredibly mediocre and downright awful seasons in there. The argument that there has been more bad than good with SU football since 1971 isn't one without some merit.

 

[Townie72]

Yes. I'm old enough to remember, but the posters comment implied that football hasn't been very good since 1971 which is a stretch.

Actually what he said was that there have been more hard periods than good ones.

And he is technically correct if you are just counting by period or era. He does this by not counting the late 1950's and the 1960's.

The 70's were generally awful, except for the 1979 team which was quite good and had a bunch of very good players (Art Monk, Joe Morris, Craig Wolfley and Bill Hurley)

The early 1980's had some teams with winning records (6-5).

The late 1980's through the 1990's were second period in which SU teams were very good pretty consistently.

Since then we seem to have been mediocre some years at best.

What the late 1980 and 1990's establish is that SU can have a very good football program. It's not like we have never been consistently good for a stretch of years.

But the idea that the last 17 years have been some sort of unusual period doesn't hold water.

 

[Chip]

Actually what he said was that there have been more hard periods than good ones.

And he is technically correct if you are just counting by period or era. He does this by not counting the late 1950's and the 1960's.

The 70's were generally awful, except for the 1979 team which was quite good and had a bunch of very good players (Art Monk, Joe Morris, Craig Wolfley and Bill Hurley)

The early 1980's had some teams with winning records (6-5).

The late 1980's through the 1990's were second period in which SU teams were very good pretty consistently.

Since then we seem to have been mediocre some years at best.

What the late 1980 and 1990's establish is that SU can have a very good football program. It's not like we have never been consistently good for a stretch of years.

But the idea that the last 17 years have been some sort of unusual period doesn't hold water.

Yeah, I hate to say it. But even for me, who started on this SU football journey in 1991, 16 of 27 seasons we were .500 or better. For now we'll call that "good".

You take that back to 1971, and it has to be less than 50%.

 

[Townie72]

The problem with this thread started by Corpjet is than he didn't bother to define what a Mid-major was (nor did anyone else.) First tell me what a Mid-Major is and I'll tell you if SU football is one)

Of course Mid-Major is a college basketball term and it refers to a school from one of the second tier of Conferences. (Gonzaga, St Mary's, Wichita State, Davidson. etc.)

So if that's what a Mid-Major is, than SU isn't one. (I wish SU football was as good as Gonzaga basketball)

What SU in football is a Middle of the Pack or a Bottom Feeder in a P5 conference. We are roughly equivalent to Vanderbilt in the SEC or Baylor or Texas Tech in the Big 12.

 

[orange_in_VA]

The problem with this thread started by Corpjet is than he didn't bother to define what a Mid-major was (nor did anyone else.) First tell me what a Mid-Major is and I'll tell you if SU football is one)

Of course Mid-Major is a college basketball term and it refers to a school from one of the second tier of Conferences. (Gonzaga, St Mary's, Wichita State, Davidson. etc.)

So if that's what a Mid-Major is, than SU isn't one. (I wish SU football was as good as Gonzaga basketball)

What SU in football is a Middle of the Pack or a Bottom Feeder in a P5 conference. We are roughly equivalent to Vanderbilt in the SEC or Baylor or Texas Tech in the Big 12.

We've been much closer to Kansas than Baylor and Texas Tech over the last 10 years

 

[CuseLegacy]

Actually what he said was that there have been more hard periods than good ones.

And he is technically correct if you are just counting by period or era. He does this by not counting the late 1950's and the 1960's.

The 70's were generally awful, except for the 1979 team which was quite good and had a bunch of very good players (Art Monk, Joe Morris, Craig Wolfley and Bill Hurley)

The early 1980's had some teams with winning records (6-5).

The late 1980's through the 1990's were second period in which SU teams were very good pretty consistently.

Since then we seem to have been mediocre some years at best.

What the late 1980 and 1990's establish is that SU can have a very good football program. It's not like we have never been consistently good for a stretch of years.

But the idea that the last 17 years have been some sort of unusual period doesn't hold water.

I don't think the majority of football teams are able to maintain a consistent level of performance. I think most programs go through periods of not being consistently good. It's just that Syracuse's inconsistent period has been longer than most...except maybe Duke.

 

[tipphill]

I guess you must have been in a coma during the 80s and 90s.

look at the w/l record from 1971 til now. i said more hard times than not.

 

[Townie72]

I don't think the majority of football teams are able to maintain a consistent level of performance. I think most programs go through periods of not being consistently good. It's just that Syracuse's inconsistent period has been longer than most...except maybe Duke.

Really?

When I look at the 2017 final standings of the various conferences I see the same names on top of the table as I have always seen and the same names at the bottom.

Occasionally, one of the teams in the middle or at the bottom will work itself up to the top tier for a brief period (e.g. Northwestern or Duke).

I guess there are four major categories:
- Top Tier (Sometimes these schools have bad years and drop down to the mid Tier)
- Mid-Tier (Occasionally a good year and some bad years)
- Bottom Feeder. (Once in a while they creep up to the Mid Tier)
- Regularly vacillates between Bottom Feeder and Mid Tier

 

[shandeezy7]

Yeah, I hate to say it. But even for me, who started on this SU football journey in 1991, 16 of 27 seasons we were .500 or better. For now we'll call that "good".

You take that back to 1971, and it has to be less than 50%.

Right about at 50%

 

[Townie72]

Right about at 50%

Taking the total victories over a 46 year period and dividing them by 46 gives you the arithmetic mean but it does little to describe the past 46 years.

If you had a bar chart showing victores per year, it would show that the OP was right.

 

[Townie72]

We've been much closer to Kansas than Baylor and Texas Tech over the last 10 years

Maybe so. TT and Baylor have had some good seasons. But over the long run they are pretty dependably not at the top of the standings.

 

[shandeezy7]

Taking the total victories over a 46 year period and dividing them by 46 gives you the arithmetic mean but it does little to describe the past 46 years.

If you had a bar chart showing victores per year, it would show that the OP was right.

Huh? Did you read my previous post or not? I went back and did the math and about half of our seasons since 1971 have seen us with a .500 record or below. Read post #81.

 

[Townie72]

Huh? Did you read my previous post or not? I went back and did the math and about half of our seasons since 1971 have seen us with a .500 record or below. Read post #81.

That's interesting, but your analysis sheds little light on what the original claim was.

The OP talked about PERIODS not individual years. Periods are the clustering together of groups of years. Like the 1990's when we were up. Or the 2000's when we were down.

 

[sufandu]

I think most of us consider the good teams to be those that are consistently ranked in the polls.

The first year we finished the season ranked in the AP poll was 1952. From 1952-1961 we finshed the season as a ranked team 6 times. We did not finish the season ranked in the AP poll again until 1987. From 1964-1971 we made appearances in the AP poll 6 other times peaking inside the top 10 four times and going to 2 bowl games. So, we had a 20 year period where we appeared in the poll 13 times and finished in it 6.

We then had a period of 15 years from 1972-1986 where we made no appearance in the AP poll that extends to 25 years of not finishing the season ranked.

In the 15 year stretch from 1987-2001 we were ranked at some during the season 13 times and finished the season ranked 9 times with 7 appearances and 2 finishes in the top 10.

Finally, we have our most recent stretch of 16 years of being unranked.

Where does that put us? I don't know. We have enough history to take pride in, but our stretches of being irrelevant are long enough that 2 separate generations graduated from high school without having any reason to have a memory of us. I was lucky enough to have come of age in the late '80's and was able to watch our success into my early 20's. If I had been born 15 yrs sooner, it's possible I wouldn't care about SU football. It seems that, if our long stretches of irrelevance had been broken up by a couple good seasons, we would not have been forgotten outside of CNY as easily. Maybe this speaks to the way the administration has historically been too reactive instead of proactive and too comfortable to rest on its laurels. Hopefully, lessons have been learned with the right guy now at the helm and an AD that "gets it."

 

[tipphill]

Huh? Did you read my previous post or not? I went back and did the math and about half of our seasons since 1971 have seen us with a .500 record or below. Read post #81.

if you consider 500. seasons an no bowls successful, then u are right

 

[shandeezy7]

if you consider 500. seasons an no bowls successful, then u are right

What are you talking about? A .500 season without a bowl game is not a successful season. At what point did I even insinuate that?

 

[shandeezy7]

That's interesting, but your analysis sheds little light on what the original claim was.

The OP talked about PERIODS not individual years. Periods are the clustering together of groups of years. Like the 1990's when we were up. Or the 2000's when we were down.

I honestly have no idea what argument you are trying to make here. The OP mentions nothing at all about periods. Someone else in the thread made a claim was that since 1971, we've had more bad than good. I concurred with that statement and the data backs it up.

 

[JeffCuse]

I don't even get what this thread is about. Mid-majors are defined conferences. We are in a major conference.

Yes, we are in a down period, but certainly not as down as we were, and i think the team is on the upswing. I firmly believe we will, in 5 years, be in a position where 6 wins is a down year and we are regularly winning 7 or 8+. And that is really where I think this program needs to look first. Not so much raising its ceiling, but raising its floor. The 2nd tier programs in major conferneces ae the ones who are still playing for a bowl bd every single year on the last game of the season. That's the first biggest step.

But until then, no, we get major money, we play major teams, and most importantly, win or lose, we get major exposure to national recruits. So we are not a mid major.

 

[elimunelson]

We're a terrible college football program since about 2004? How about that. No appearances in the top 25 in 15 years plus qualifies as inept. Call it mid-major, call it dysfunctional, call it whatever. I could care less about how u want to catalog it.

 

[storange]

Had an interesting conversation with some folks very knowledgeable with our football program over the weekend.

The words came out about us/CUSE being a "Mid-Major" Football program. Yes I know we are in the ACC however...

Lets be honest, we are not BAMA, TEXAS (although down as of late), FSU, Notre Dame, Ohio State (ugh), Oklahoma, USC, Nebraska or Florida. We can certainly add 20 more schools to this easily.

These schools who regularly line their rosters with 5 star recruits, get 60k for a spring game, have a state of the art facilities, unlimited football budgets and deep pocketed alum.

Are our expectations too high for our football program? Is our best case scenario to get to a bowl game, get a win and lets all call that a great season? Will we ever compete for our second National Championship?

Please before you start the bashing I'm as passionate as they come about Syracuse and its football and b-ball programs but our we looking through rose colored glasses and missing the obvious?

NO