At what time will Paul Rhoads be cleaning

[HOFCeluck]

Certainly I agree with that. But you get kids on these sites and you can usually tell from their posts who they are. They are all hyperbole and no thought whatsoever. I just ignore them unless I feel like calling them out because they were way over the top.

No coach will get fired going 1-0 no matter how ugly. Shafer was right ugly wins are better than pretty losses - we had enough of those in the last five years.

Do you not feel it is fair to question the D after 14 games, including 4 blowouts and no wins against good teams?

I'd be lying if I didn't say I was concerned.

 

[alphaorange]

It was a very crappy performance, without a doubt. It was also the first game of the season with a lot of new faces. Maybe we really aren't very good, or maybe Villanova is far better than anyone thought, but the point is nobody will know for a couple of games. I'm not saying relax, but I am saying it's far too early to panic. The next couple will likely show the direction we will be going...

 

[HOFCeluck]

And should have won against Northwestern , Cincy and Rutgers.

Sorry I don't see your point. We played many close games. Some we lost, and some we won.

 

[Crusty]

Sorry I don't see your point. We played many close games. Some we lost, and some we won.

I think the point is we were better than those teams and we lost. Goes with the theme that the 2012 team underachieved, I think.

 

[Crusty]

Yes. FOR THE MOST PART. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the vocal minority who thinks SS isn't the guy one game into the season.

And that 2012 team could have easily lost to Mizzou and South Florida. I think that gets forgotten.

In my opinion we were so much better than South Florida it wasn't even close. Sure we could have lost but we didn't - which is really the point - the 2012 team was really good and better than its record, Parcells notwithstanding.

 

[qdawgg]

I think the point is we were better than those teams and we lost. Goes with the theme that the 2012 team underachieved, I think.

Not the way sports seasons are determined. You either won or you didn't. It doesn't matter if you should have won, were the better team overall, dominated the other team. You either won the game or you didn't. There were just as many games the other team thought they were better than us and we won. You can't add wins to a season and call it underachieving when there could have been 2-3 losses as well. We aren't talking about 2 games that got away from us and the rest of the games we clearly won.

 

[CousCuse]

Sorry I don't see your point. We played many close games. Some we lost, and some we won.

That is my point.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

When was Gene the favorite to win player of the year in any division.

Point missed.
A great offensive performance against SU is not anything to hang your hat on as being a future Hall of Gamer.

 

[Crusty]

Not the way sports seasons are determined. You either won or you didn't. It doesn't matter if you should have won, were the better team overall, dominated the other team. You either won the game or you didn't. There were just as many games the other team thought they were better than us and we won. You can't add wins to a season and call it underachieving when there could have been 2-3 losses as well. We aren't talking about 2 games that got away from us and the rest of the games we clearly won.

The opinion was that the 2012 team underachieved. By definition it implies that the team was better than its record. You are obliviously of the opinion that it did not underachieve. BTW, your post would imply that there is no such thing as under or over achievement.

 

[HOFCeluck]

The opinion was that the 2012 team underachieved. By definition it implies that the team was better than its record. You are obliviously of the opinion that it did not underachieve. BTW, your post would imply that there is no such thing as under or over achievement.

It's awful hard to believe that team underachieved when it took a couple fourth quarter comebacks to even gets to 7-5.

If I recall that team was picked second to last in the big east.

 

[anomander]

You are right, I have learned that we are currently an elite program where Iowa St is on the same level as Rutgers and wake forest. No comparing the two

Paul Rhodes was clearly on the hot seat entering the season. They came in dead last the season before and were projected to do so yet again. They're a program with no history of winning, and many thought they wouldn't even win yesterday. Syracuse on the other hand finally had some expectations, and were favored by 2 plus td's. So yes there is a big difference between Iowa St and Syracuse.

 

[bevosu]

It happens every year on this board going back to previous incarnations...spring and summer optimism fed by coaching staff comments (particularly by this staff) newspaper columns and posters that are very team and player optimistic. Expectations get high. Optimism runs rampant.

I think it's a universal trait of fandom. More often than not it leads to disappointment.

 

[Crusty]

It's awful hard to believe that team underachieved when it took a couple fourth quarter comebacks to even gets to 7-5.

If I recall that team was picked second to last in the big east.

That's what makes markets - differences n opinions.

 

[anomander]

It happens every year on this board going back to previous incarnations...spring and summer optimism fed by coaching staff comments (particularly by this staff) newspaper columns and posters that are very team and player optimistic. Expectations get high. Optimism runs rampant.

I think it's a universal trait of fandom. More often than not it leads to disappointment.

In fairness I think there were genuine reasons for being optimistic. We returned the most experienced team in the ACC, and 17th nationally. Our offensive line which was a strength last year returned 4 starters including a possible 1st round OT. Our starting qb, and team finished last season with 2 great games increasing the hope even further. The reasons for optimism were pretty evident. Don't get me wrong I do think this team has the potential to be very good, but Friday night was a big letdown.

 

[qdawgg]

The opinion was that the 2012 team underachieved. By definition it implies that the team was better than its record. You are obliviously of the opinion that it did not underachieve. BTW, your post would imply that there is no such thing as under or over achievement.

In 2012 we won 3 games by a total of 4 points. Your telling me we underachieved and should have won more games? Clearly we could have lost 3 as well. It's not my opinion that we underachieved, we lost some games we could have won and we won some games we could have lost. We ended up with the record we deserved and played to.

Not only did we win 3 games by a total of 4 points but we almost lost to Stony Brook, the game was 21-17 at the end of the 3rd quarter. Against Temple we went down by 10 in the first quarter, at the start of the 4th quarter the game was 24-20 SU. Even in the Cincy game we dominated the 2nd quarter but the other 3 quarters there was a 1 point differential.

So no, I don't think we underachieved at all. The team was exactly what it's record was. And I never suggested or implied there is no such thing as under or over achievement. I stated in my last sentence that was possible in 1 or 2 games of a season where you could suggest that. But if you almost won 3 games but just as easily almost lost 3 games, I don't think you can say the team underachieved. Their record was exactly what it should have been. If any, there were more than 3 losable games in that season.

Why the hell are we talking about 2012?

 

[Crusty]

In 2012 we won 3 games by a total of 4 points. Your telling me we underachieved and should have won more games? Clearly we could have lost 3 as well. It's not my opinion that we underachieved, we lost some games we could have won and we won some games we could have lost. We ended up with the record we deserved and played to.

Not only did we win 3 games by a total of 4 points but we almost lost to Stony Brook, the game was 21-17 at the end of the 3rd quarter. Against Temple we went down by 10 in the first quarter, at the start of the 4th quarter the game was 24-20 SU. Even in the Cincy game we dominated the 2nd quarter but the other 3 quarters there was a 1 point differential.

So no, I don't think we underachieved at all. The team was exactly what it's record was. And I never suggested or implied there is no such thing as under or over achievement. I stated in my last sentence that was possible in 1 or 2 games of a season where you could suggest that. But if you almost won 3 games but just as easily almost lost 3 games, I don't think you can say the team underachieved. Their record was exactly what it should have been. If any, there were more than 3 losable games in that season.

Why the hell are we talking about 2012?

There you go - your opinion and you are entitled to it - some of us don't share it. The Bill Parcells "You are what your record says you are" is true enough but it does not speak to fulfilling potential. I never said we deserved to win more games I simply have the opinion that we underachieved meaning that we were capable of much more.

Now, more importantly I have no idea why we are talking about 2012. Perhaps, because there is nothing on TV?

 

[qdawgg]

There you go - your opinion and you are entitled to it - some of us don't share it. The Bill Parcells "You are what your record says you are" is true enough but it does not speak to fulfilling potential. I never said we deserved to win more games I simply have the opinion that we underachieved meaning that we were capable of much more.

Now, more importantly I have no idea why we are talking about 2012. Perhaps, because there is nothing on TV?

That's fine, I wasn't trying to express the idea that everyone else is wrong and I am right. I'm merely arguing the season could have easily been worse than it was. There were high expectations for 2012, I think looking back now, seeing how much our talent has continued to improve at least on paper. Maybe the expectations were too high. This board was a complete train wreck after the Stony Brook game. Regardless, it wasn't a I'm right your wrong post, sorry if you took it that way.

There is definitely nothing on TV. I hate the sunday after college football starts because I want to start watching some NFL games too.

 

[Crusty]

That's fine, I wasn't trying to express the idea that everyone else is wrong and I am right. I'm merely arguing the season could have easily been worse than it was. There were high expectations for 2012, I think looking back now, seeing how much our talent has continued to improve at least on paper. Maybe the expectations were too high. This board was a complete train wreck after the Stony Brook game. Regardless, it wasn't a I'm right your wrong post, sorry if you took it that way.

There is definitely nothing on TV. I hate the sunday after college football starts because I want to start watching some NFL games too.

Nah, didn't take it that way. Just thought you misunderstood my point.

Watching replays of games I was clicking through yesterday. Have replayed Nova twice, which is enough to make up for many things I did wrong in my childhood and for which I was never punished! Have to wait two weeks to get renewed hope really sucks.