Depressing Stat

SWC75

Bored Historian
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
18,021
Likes
26,807
#3
I believe we were last ranked in 2001. Too busy to check this now but I wonder if every other P5 team has been ranked since.
 

007

All Conference
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
3,465
Likes
5,018
#4
I believe we were last ranked in 2001. Too busy to check this now but I wonder if every other P5 team has been ranked since.
Last i checked, SU and Indiana are the only teams never to be ranked in the P5 era.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
1,550
Likes
2,143
Age
29
#5
Last i checked, SU and Indiana are the only teams never to be ranked in the P5 era.
That is definitely incorrect. The "P5 era" started like 5 years ago. Plenty of teams haven't been ranked. I believe what you think you are referring to is the BCS and on era, but that started in 1998 if I remember correctly and Cuse was ranked after that. Most recently in 2001
 

OrangeTarheel

All Conference
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
2,111
Likes
2,136
#8
This is a hell of a slog out of obscurity but one bright light is that I enjoy watching our team play under Babers. Focus and enthusiasm. Discipline. These guys are enjoying themselves and they have a coach who helps get them there with a great scheme and training.

I was aware of those stats before clicking on this thread, I think those stats bothered me more when I didn't see potential in the product on the field (or enjoy watching it).
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
48
Likes
115
#11
One more depressing stat: SU bowl drought: 4 years. Next longest bowl drought in ACC: 1 year (Ga Tech, Pitt, NC)

4 year streak ends this year.
We will win 7 or 8 games this year. Hell, how close were we last year? LSU, FSU,Miami, NC state, middle tenn. We are close to cracking the top 25 again. If #2 can stay on the field we're in good shape.
 

TheCusian

Living Legend
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
16,691
Likes
19,439
#12
Bowl games are such a weird way to evaluate success.

I get it from a players point of view. But as fans? There are a lot of other data points to get depressed about ;)
 

MSOrange

Former Iggy Award Winner (used to be a big deal)
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
10,894
Likes
21,238
#13
Bowl games are such a weird way to evaluate success.

I get it from a players point of view. But as fans? There are a lot of other data points to get depressed about ;)
I don't think so. Considering you need a 500 record to make a bowl these days and we haven't been able to do it
 

Whitey23

Twitter Wizard
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
10,824
Likes
11,033
#14
I believe we were last ranked in 2001. Too busy to check this now but I wonder if every other P5 team has been ranked since.
Hey, when was the last time Syracuse was ranked in the poll anyway?"

They hit Google or perhaps take to Twitter or text a friend to ask that very question.

The answer?

2001.

Syracuse finished 14th in both the AP and USA Today poll after a 26-3 over Kansas State in the Insight.com Bowl.

The last time Syracuse made an appearance in the AP's preseason poll was 1998.

When will Syracuse football return to the AP Top 25? (poll)

2014 Axe:
Despite the absence of Syracuse in the polls since the year George W. Bush was sworn in as president, the evidence suggests Syracuse football is on the upswing.
 
Last edited:

Consigliere

All Conference
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
2,241
Likes
5,279
#15
Bowl games are such a weird way to evaluate success.

I get it from a players point of view. But as fans? There are a lot of other data points to get depressed about ;)
Success is defined by the achievement of goals. Bowl eligibility is a stated goal of the program on the road back to national relevance. Nothing weird about that at all.
 

elimunelson

All Conference
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
2,102
Likes
2,571
#16
The no ranking is the barometer of a healthy program. Cusian is right to a degree. A bowl now means 500 season which would have in the past would have put us in a bowl game from like 1987-2001. The ranking shows success to some degree over a season. I mentioned in one thread we haven’t put together 3 game winning streaks much in past 16 years. That’s atrocious coaching bc coaching is getting consistent results from your team
 

TheCusian

Living Legend
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
16,691
Likes
19,439
#17
I don't think so. Considering you need a 500 record to make a bowl these days and we haven't been able to do it
Right. But sometimes .500 teams don’t get a bowl and sometimes teams with losing records get in.

Some P5 teams are better than the G5 teams that get in - but play a harder schedule.

Fans of Eastern Michigan are happy because the got in a bowl but we were one of 3 teams to beat Clemson in two years and somehow were lamenting no getting into the QuickBooks Tax Writeoff for the 1% bowl.

It’s really a BS metric.
 

Obie9

Co-Winner 2017 2nd Chance Challenge
Joined
Aug 23, 2011
Messages
328
Likes
533
#20
Success is defined by the achievement of goals. Bowl eligibility is a stated goal of the program on the road back to national relevance. Nothing weird about that at all.
I don't know. I've expressed my feeling on this before and I understand that my opinion flies in the face of many who I respect on this board. I simply don't view attending the Bad Boy Mowers Gasparilla Bowl or the Quick Lane Bowl aginst a team like Tulsa as the path to getting back on the road to national relevance. Especially when you drop a team like Wisconsin to play a team like Holy Cross enabling you to get the win needed to have the privilege to play in the these bowls.
I spoke with a few of the football coaches (I purposely will withhold the names) at the Seneca Falls Golf outing in June on this topic and without directly stating it, the reason for this scheduling is not to get us to bowl games, but because coaching jobs are dependent on wins regardless of who you play. Playing teams like LSU/Wisconsin can often be a recruiting tool & often more desirable on many factors (my belief and agreed upon by the coaches I spoke with), but reduces the likelihood of wins and places coaches on the hot seat.
 

SWC75

Bored Historian
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
18,021
Likes
26,807
#21
I don't know. I've expressed my feeling on this before and I understand that my opinion flies in the face of many who I respect on this board. I simply don't view attending the Bad Boy Mowers Gasparilla Bowl or the Quick Lane Bowl aginst a team like Tulsa as the path to getting back on the road to national relevance. Especially when you drop a team like Wisconsin to play a team like Holy Cross enabling you to get the win needed to have the privilege to play in the these bowls.
I spoke with a few of the football coaches (I purposely will withhold the names) at the Seneca Falls Golf outing in June on this topic and without directly stating it, the reason for this scheduling is not to get us to bowl games, but because coaching jobs are dependent on wins regardless of who you play. Playing teams like LSU/Wisconsin can often be a recruiting tool & often more desirable on many factors (my belief and agreed upon by the coaches I spoke with), but reduces the likelihood of wins and places coaches on the hot seat.

We aren't playing Holy Cross. We're playing Western Michigan, who was in the Cotton bowl two years ago. Wagner? Everybody players those games and we've been doing it for years. The rest of the schedule is a gauntlet. We aren't trying to schedule our way into a bowl. Going to one against this schedule would be a strong accomplishment and a sign we are on our way up after four straight losers.
 

OrangeTarheel

All Conference
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
2,111
Likes
2,136
#22
I haven't heard someone say in a while that the extra practices are the reason we need to get to a bowl game which I personally think is odd ... the program is getting the athletes it needs to win, I think stability is the greatest asset the next few years. I was more bothered by the loss of assistant coaches late this off season than anything else, that seems like it would be disruptive to player development, recruiting and prep for the season.
 

Obie9

Co-Winner 2017 2nd Chance Challenge
Joined
Aug 23, 2011
Messages
328
Likes
533
#23
We aren't playing Holy Cross. We're playing Western Michigan, who was in the Cotton bowl two years ago. Wagner? Everybody players those games and we've been doing it for years. The rest of the schedule is a gauntlet. We aren't trying to schedule our way into a bowl. Going to one against this schedule would be a strong accomplishment and a sign we are on our way up after four straight losers.
We are playing Holy Cross as well as Western Michigan in 2019, which is when
I thought we were supposed to play Wisconsin. I rattled that off the top of my head when responding earlier today. After looking at it, we scheduled Rutgers to replace Wisconsin in 2020. Sorry my facts were a little off. However, my point still stands. I don’t feel playing in some bowl game against a .500 conference USA team in Detroit is the path back to national relevance.
As I said, I spoke with 2 position coaches who sat at our table for dinner. Several softball questions were asked throughout the meal. I then asked about scheduling and playing P5 teams in iconic stadiums like LSU versus scheduling teams like Liberty, Holy Cross, etc. I don’t really care to get into the specifics, but the bottom line was that playing teams like LSU/Wisconsin reduces the likelihood of wins and places coaches on the hot seat.
However, I do feel scheduling teams like LSU & Wisconsin is the way to become more relevant. We have beaten Clemson, and Virginia Tech each of the last two seasons and look at the recognition/national press it got us. Our slogan on billboards this year is “Our House” which was born following the win over Virginia Tech. Those 2 wins have done more in regards to national publicity then any win in Detroit in the Quick Lane Bowl on a cold night in December against a .500 Conference USA or MAC opponent played in front of a crowd of 8,000. This is my personal opinion.
 

SWC75

Bored Historian
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
18,021
Likes
26,807
#24
We are playing Holy Cross as well as Western Michigan in 2019, which is when
I thought we were supposed to play Wisconsin. I rattled that off the top of my head when responding earlier today. After looking at it, we scheduled Rutgers to replace Wisconsin in 2020. Sorry my facts were a little off. However, my point still stands. I don’t feel playing in some bowl game against a .500 conference USA team in Detroit is the path back to national relevance.
As I said, I spoke with 2 position coaches who sat at our table for dinner. Several softball questions were asked throughout the meal. I then asked about scheduling and playing P5 teams in iconic stadiums like LSU versus scheduling teams like Liberty, Holy Cross, etc. I don’t really care to get into the specifics, but the bottom line was that playing teams like LSU/Wisconsin reduces the likelihood of wins and places coaches on the hot seat.
However, I do feel scheduling teams like LSU & Wisconsin is the way to become more relevant. We have beaten Clemson, and Virginia Tech each of the last two seasons and look at the recognition/national press it got us. Our slogan on billboards this year is “Our House” which was born following the win over Virginia Tech. Those 2 wins have done more in regards to national publicity then any win in Detroit in the Quick Lane Bowl on a cold night in December against a .500 Conference USA or MAC opponent played in front of a crowd of 8,000. This is my personal opinion.

Going to a bowl is still better than not going to a bowl. We can't afford to continue our run of losing seasons. And the 1987-2001 run was set up by our going to the 1985 Cherry Bowl, (even though we lost). Mac said that gave the program "bowl credibility" and he recruited the class that put us over the top.

On the subject of scheduling, we've been over-scheduled for years. We are already in one of the three toughest divisions in college football, (with the SEC West and Big 10 East) and we will be playing several nationally ranked teams as part of our conference schedule, as well Notre Dame in some years. We don't need to add teams like LSU onto the pile to get a reputation. And several teams have built themselves into powers by playing weakened non-conference schedules and giving their team confidence and getting winning records that attract more good recruits. It's hard to recruit if you keep going 4-8.
 

Obie9

Co-Winner 2017 2nd Chance Challenge
Joined
Aug 23, 2011
Messages
328
Likes
533
#25
Going to a bowl is still better than not going to a bowl. We can't afford to continue our run of losing seasons. And the 1987-2001 run was set up by our going to the 1985 Cherry Bowl, (even though we lost). Mac said that gave the program "bowl credibility" and he recruited the class that put us over the top.

On the subject of scheduling, we've been over-scheduled for years. We are already in one of the three toughest divisions in college football, (with the SEC West and Big 10 East) and we will be playing several nationally ranked teams as part of our conference schedule, as well Notre Dame in some years. We don't need to add teams like LSU onto the pile to get a reputation. And several teams have built themselves into powers by playing weakened non-conference schedules and giving their team confidence and getting winning records that attract more good recruits. It's hard to recruit if you keep going 4-8.
I’m not buying into that train of thought. Bowl games were different in 1985. There were only 18 bowl games. It meant more. Today there are over 40 bowl games. It means nothing to be selected to a lower tier bowl playing against a .500 team from a non P5 conference.
As far as the brutal conference schedule, that’s an issue that needs to be handled by the ACC. The conference needs to be realigned to balance it out.
Again, it’s just my opinion.
 



Top Bottom