BC Postgame Stuff...

[orangmannc1]

BC barely had 100 yards against WKU. Guess it is talent.

Two things to remember is that BC had a bye week before playing SU, and SU had a hard fought game against VTech that went into overtime. An experience BC coaching staff had 2 weeks to get ready for us.

 

[OrangeinBoston]

Some knowledgeable BC fans behind us said from their opening drive: "pound it on the ground" and repeated it all game long. If the fans knew it, why didn't SU's coaching staff?

 

[CuseLegacy]

 

[OrangePA]

I do.

We went 10-2 vs BC from 87 to 98. Most easy wins

From 1987 to 1998 we had a great record against everybody we played, including an undefeated season and big time bowl games.

In the years before that great era of SU Football we were 7-10 against BC.

It has always been a tough series.

 

[djcon57]

From 1987 to 1998 we had a great record against everybody we played, including an undefeated season and big time bowl games.

In the years before that great era of SU Football we were 7-10 against BC.

It has always been a tough series.

“Remember when you looked at the schedule and BC was an automatic win? Those were the days.”

thats the line you felt the need to do a “welllll actually” to.

I point out there was was such a time, you move the goalposts.

whatever

 

[Scooch]

To be fair, I wouldn’t have “taken” 6-3. It’s a good record in the abstract, but since I’ve been on team “gotta go 8-4 this season” I hoped we’d be 7-2 right now.

Winning 3,000 miles away from home is going to be crazy tough, and Miami is Miami.

 

[OrangePA]

“Remember when you looked at the schedule and BC was an automatic win? Those were the days.”

thats the line you felt the need to do a “welllll actually” to.

I point out there was was such a time, you move the goalposts.

whatever

You were the one who felt compelled to look back 37 years.

From my first BC game in 1969 when Frank Harris crushed us at Archbold, I have never viewed BC as an automatic win.

Even in 1987 when we trailed the Eagles 17-0.

Whatever.

 

[MikeSU02]

Too early to worry about. Who knows what anyone's roster will look like.

That’s not true.

Tennessee will be very hard. If we were to open with Georgia, Alabama, OSU, etc, we could say it would be tough. Tennessee is right up there.

This is our road schedule. Can we get to six wins? Sure. Will it be an easier than this year - no way. I don’t care how much roster turnover there is each year. We will need to land big time transfers and have young guys pop big.

 

[MikeSU02]

So what? The wins count.

In 2022, both us and Georgia were 6-0.

All our wins counted, no one in the world would have said we could have stayed on the field with Georgia.

There is nuance to a record.

This year, I’ll be happy to get to 8-4. But we’re TD dogs against Cal right now.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

That’s not true.

Tennessee will be very hard. If we were to open with Georgia, Alabama, OSU, etc, we could say it would be tough. Tennessee is right up there.

This is our road schedule. Can we get to six wins? Sure. Will it be an easier than this year - no way. I don’t care how much roster turnover there is each year. We will need to land big time transfers and have young guys pop big.


View attachment 246684

Yeah man, like, whatever.

In 2022, both us and Georgia were 6-0.

All our wins counted, no one in the world would have said we could have stayed on the field with Georgia.

There is nuance to a record.

This year, I’ll be happy to get to 8-4. But we’re TD dogs against Cal right now.

You're actually really helping to make my point. How common betting has become has genuinely screwed up how people think about stuff.

The line against Cal is meaningless to the game result. The game will be played, one team will win, one team will lose. There's no value to the competition itself when it comes to the betting lines. It gets particularly insidious when commentators last year used that to justify certain matchups. Game results are the only thing that matter. And Vegas knows that too! They don't pay on predicting betting lines. They pay on game results.

 

[djcon57]

Yeah man, like, whatever.

You're actually really helping to make my point. How common betting has become has genuinely screwed up how people think about stuff.

The line against Cal is meaningless to the game result. The game will be played, one team will win, one team will lose. There's no value to the competition itself when it comes to the betting lines. It gets particularly insidious when commentators last year used that to justify certain matchups. Game results are the only thing that matter. And Vegas knows that too! They don't pay on predicting betting lines. They pay on game results.

So based on that Army and Oregon are basically the same team.

this gimmick sucks.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

So based on that Army and Oregon are basically the same team.

this gimmick sucks.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you play the game.

I do think the way the rankings are done is stupid. They should rank all of the undefeated teams. Then all of the teams with 1 loss. Then all of the teams with 2 losses. And so on.

The only loss that shouldn't count against a team and bust them into the tier below is a conference championship. Teams should only get credit for that, and teams that don't make their conference championship shouldn't get credit for avoiding a loss that hits another team.

 

[djcon57]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you play the game.

I do think the way the rankings are done is stupid. They should rank all of the undefeated teams. Then all of the teams with 1 loss. Then all of the teams with 2 losses. And so on.

The only loss that shouldn't count against a team and bust them into the tier below is a conference championship. Teams should only get credit for that, and teams that don't make their conference championship shouldn't get credit for avoiding a loss that hits another team.

I get your point about us, you can play the schedule in front of you.
but suggesting to can’t analyze the quality of opponents to rank teams seems silly.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I get your point about us, you can play the schedule in front of you.
but suggesting to can’t analyze the quality of opponents to rank teams seems silly.

I'm saying wins and losses matter more than quality of opponent and are the only objective way to measure teams. So look at the records, and evaluate the schedule quality in the record cohorts - 0 losses, 1 loss, 2 losses, etc.

I know everyone freaks out but I promise, it will level out, especially with the current playoff format. Let's take the 4 undefeated teams Oregon, BYU, Indiana, and Army as auto bids in the playoffs. That works. Now pick 8 out of Miami, Texas, Ohio St., Boise St., Tennessee, Washington St., SMU, Notre Dame, Louisiana, and Penn St. Let's say you bump out Louisiana and Washington St. That doesn't work? And I know, the SEC craps it's pants because it's like "BUWUDDABOUT!!!" and you know what? The other SEC teams are fine, because those undefeated and 1 loss teams ahead of them have games coming up, and there's probably going to be some shuffling. They just have to take care of business and not get the benefit of a subjective thing like "but, like, the SEC teams are just better, man."

Everyone always says that teams will go soft on the schedule. It'll work itself out. Winning games and going undefeated is really, really difficult. We don't see it often. Middling teams can manipulate their record with soft scheduling, because they're not trying to limit themselves to zero or a single loss. The heavyweights wouldn't be able to pull it off. And it makes every game matter so much, for every program.

 

[im4cuse]

Some things.

1, the other team matters too. They have talent. They have schemes. They're trying to make plays and win. There's variability to that. They're scholarship athletes. Being a backup doesn't mean the player is incompetent. It means there's someone ahead of them on the depth chart.

2, next year is next year. No point in worrying about that now when we have 3 games and a bowl left this season.

3, we have a young staff and to some extent they're building the plane while they're flying it. They will come back as better coaches next season.

Can’t stand this thinking. There was no more crap program than Indiana. A joke They hire ONE guy and are completely transformed in ONE year. Plus they r fun to watch.

It can b done. Just need the right hire. Some of us told you Cignetti.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

The McCord fumble, was it discussed on TV as forward progress? It reminded me of the Dungey vs Pitt fumble. That is the only other time I have seen a QB wrapped up and going backwards but no whistle leading to a fumble.

 

[richmondcuse03]

Can’t stand this thinking. There was no more crap program than Indiana. A joke They hire ONE guy and are completely transformed in ONE year. Plus they r fun to watch.

It can b done. Just need the right hire. Some of us told you Cignetti.

For starters, Cignetti didnt want to come here so it wasn't even an option. And that crap program has still outrecruited Syracuse every year the past decade. He's certainly outperforming his recruiting rankings, but that's why you hire an experienced guy -- to take top 40 to 50 talent and coach it up to top 25.

 

[MikeSU02]

I'm saying wins and losses matter more than quality of opponent and are the only objective way to measure teams. So look at the records, and evaluate the schedule quality in the record cohorts - 0 losses, 1 loss, 2 losses, etc.

I know everyone freaks out but I promise, it will level out, especially with the current playoff format. Let's take the 4 undefeated teams Oregon, BYU, Indiana, and Army as auto bids in the playoffs. That works. Now pick 8 out of Miami, Texas, Ohio St., Boise St., Tennessee, Washington St., SMU, Notre Dame, Louisiana, and Penn St. Let's say you bump out Louisiana and Washington St. That doesn't work? And I know, the SEC craps it's pants because it's like "BUWUDDABOUT!!!" and you know what? The other SEC teams are fine, because those undefeated and 1 loss teams ahead of them have games coming up, and there's probably going to be some shuffling. They just have to take care of business and not get the benefit of a subjective thing like "but, like, the SEC teams are just better, man."

Everyone always says that teams will go soft on the schedule. It'll work itself out. Winning games and going undefeated is really, really difficult. We don't see it often. Middling teams can manipulate their record with soft scheduling, because they're not trying to limit themselves to zero or a single loss. The heavyweights wouldn't be able to pull it off. And it makes every game matter so much, for every program.

What?

You are off from your initial point.

It absolutely matters who you play. It matters how you won. Pure record is not an objective way to measure how good a team is (your words from above).

So in 2022, when us and Georgia were both 6-0, you were like "eh, basically, same"?

Our schedule + how we played = that we are not a top tier team. Anyone with eyes can see that we cannot hang with the best of the best. If we played Ole Miss, they would have 17 sacks before halftime. If we played OSU, they would name their score.

So it matters if you win and the construct is set up that way, if we had won our conference, we're in. But that doesn't mean we are a top tier team. This is crazy.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

What?

You are off from your initial point.

It absolutely matters who you play. It matters how you won. Pure record is not an objective way to measure how good a team is (your words from above).

So in 2022, when us and Georgia were both 6-0, you were like "eh, basically, same"?

Our schedule + how we played = that we are not a top tier team. Anyone with eyes can see that we cannot hang with the best of the best. If we played Ole Miss, they would have 17 sacks before halftime. If we played OSU, they would name their score.

So it matters if you win and the construct is set up that way, if we had won our conference, we're in. But that doesn't mean we are a top tier team. This is crazy.

You're not following.

I didn't say 6-0 Georgia and 6-0 Syracuse were the same at that point in the season. That's not the argument, and you're insisting on making a comparison I'm not making.

I was saying that you compare them and anyone else 6-0 at that point AND THEN you rank the 5-1 teams after that. A team with a blemish shouldn't ever be ranked ahead of an unblemished team. Who you played, margin of victory etc. is used to determine ranking within the cohort. So this season, based on that, your top 4 go Oregon, Indiana, BYU, Army. Then you figure out the pack of one loss teams after that.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Can’t stand this thinking. There was no more crap program than Indiana. A joke They hire ONE guy and are completely transformed in ONE year. Plus they r fun to watch.

It can b done. Just need the right hire. Some of us told you Cignetti.

The only indication that we didn't hire the right guy is that a different program's coach is having a better year, and that's ridiculous thinking.

 

[Bayside44]

Can’t stand this thinking. There was no more crap program than Indiana. A joke They hire ONE guy and are completely transformed in ONE year. Plus they r fun to watch.

It can b done. Just need the right hire. Some of us told you Cignetti.

Let's see what happens next week. Great story, soft schedule (100 according to ESPN today).

 

[PhatOrange]

Let's see what happens next week. Great story, soft schedule (100 according to ESPN today).

I thought the big 10 was tough? ;-)

 

[MGDCuse]

This didn't age well.

Ha. That post of mine might be the typo to end all typos on here. Meant to say the much lesser known Cam Arnold (Starting linebacker for BC). I must have been watching highlights of the Miami/GT game when I posted that lol. Sorry for that.

 

[Scooch]

I'm saying wins and losses matter more than quality of opponent and are the only objective way to measure teams. So look at the records, and evaluate the schedule quality in the record cohorts - 0 losses, 1 loss, 2 losses, etc.

I know everyone freaks out but I promise, it will level out, especially with theThis icurrent playoff format. Let's take the 4 undefeated teams Oregon, BYU, Indiana, and Army as auto bids in the playoffs. That works. Now pick 8 out of Miami, Texas, Ohio St., Boise St., Tennessee, Washington St., SMU, Notre Dame, Louisiana, and Penn St. Let's say you bump out Louisiana and Washington St. That doesn't work? And I know, the SEC craps it's pants because it's like "BUWUDDABOUT!!!" and you know what? The other SEC teams are fine, because those undefeated and 1 loss teams ahead of them have games coming up, and there's probably going to be some shuffling. They just have to take care of business and not get the benefit of a subjective thing like "but, like, the SEC teams are just better, man."

Everyone always says that teams will go soft on the schedule. It'll work itself out. Winning games and going undefeated is really, really difficult. We don't see it often. Middling teams can manipulate their record with soft scheduling, because they're not trying to limit themselves to zero or a single loss. The heavyweights wouldn't be able to pull it off. And it makes every game matter so much, for every program.

LMAO. This is insane.

But guys, guys, guys hear me out... what if they make the WHOLE PLANE out of the black box?!

 

[OttoinGrotto]

LMAO. This is insane.

But guys, guys, guys hear me out... what if they make the WHOLE PLANE out of the black box?!

I'm surprised you don't have more imagination that this Scooch. It's no less insane than having a committee that weekly publishes "what would happen if the season were to end today" that then changes it at the last second because you can't exclude the SEC on merit, you have to play convoluted logic games, or having supposedly serious pundits reference future betting lines as a better evaluative criteria than things that actually happened on the field of competition.

Think of how much more interesting the season ranking becomes as the season progresses.

You have a preseason top 25. After the first games, you've only got undefeated teams in it. Oh, you thought you were really good but lost that first game (or one of the first few)? Cool, prove it during the season by winning. The pretenders will fall out. They always do. And if they don't - THAT'S FINE. They're undefeated, which nobody else proved they could do. That should be recognized.