May I suggest that we are just about back?

[cuse309]

What does "we're back" mean? Does it mean we're ranked? If that's the only criteria then we are most certainly not back. What about how we perform vs. the competition? What about our record?
If we go by performance then we are pretty much back. When we say "back", I'm assuming we are using the term "back" as in back to our glory years between the undefeated 87 season, and just past the Mcnabb era until 2001, which is as you all know too well, the last time we were ranked. Revisionist history would have most people who were not around to enjoy those years, believe that we were a yearly top 10-15 team, and won 10 games a year, and were beating top 10 teams. As Lee Corso would say, "Not so fast my friends"

We only won 10 or more games 4 times in 15 years. We only finished in the top 10 2 times.

Between 1987 and 2001 we won 127 games. That averages to about 8.5 per year. Keep in mind that includes the bowl game, which we mostly won. So the avg. year we won between 7 and 8 games in the regular season. I believe we can match that this year.

Between 1987 and 2001 we went just 4-16 vs the ap top 10 teams we played.And we were largely destroyed. Losses of 30 plus points were not uncommon. Thats 4 wins in 15 years. We averaged just over 1 loss to top 10 teams per year. We're 1-1 this year, and have not been blown out. We're ahead of that 15 year trend in a very small sampling.

Vs. teams ranked 11-25 we were 17-13-2. That is where our bread was buttered. We were not giant killers, but for the most part, we handled business vs. those really good 11-25 teams, and we handled business vs the unranked teams.

After what I've seen the last 4 games, I would say that we are already back in theory. We knocked of an elite team, and we were very competitive on the road vs. a really good top 10 Miami team. Those are both things that were not common in the glory years. I feel like right now we can beat anybody ranked between 11-25 if we bring our B or C game. If we play our A game we've already seen what can happen. Hell we brought our D game to Miami, and could have won tonight. That's what is so exciting about what's happening. This team, and this program can actually have a higher ceiling than those "glory years" teams.

I guess what I'm getting at, is that being back, may be much closer than we think.

 

[kcsu]

What does "we're back" mean? Does it mean we're ranked? If that's the only criteria then we are most certainly not back. What about how we perform vs. the competition? What about our record?
If we go by performance then we are pretty much back. When we say "back", I'm assuming we are using the term "back" as in back to our glory years between the undefeated 87 season, and just past the Mcnabb era until 2001, which is as you all know too well, the last time we were ranked. Revisionist history would have most people who were not around to enjoy those years, believe that we were a yearly top 10-15 team, and won 10 games a year, and were beating top 10 teams. As Lee Corso would say, "Not so fast my friends"

We only won 10 or more games 4 times in 15 years. We only finished in the top 10 2 times.

Between 1987 and 2001 we won 127 games. That averages to about 8.5 per year. Keep in mind that includes the bowl game, which we mostly won. So the avg. year we won between 7 and 8 games in the regular season. I believe we can match that this year.

Between 1987 and 2001 we went just 4-16 vs the ap top 10 teams we played.And we were largely destroyed. Losses of 30 plus points were not uncommon. Thats 4 wins in 15 years. We averaged just over 1 loss to top 10 teams per year. We're 1-1 this year, and have not been blown out. We're ahead of that 15 year trend in a very small sampling.

Vs. teams ranked 11-25 we were 17-13-2. That is where our bread was buttered. We were not giant killers, but for the most part, we handled business vs. those really good 11-25 teams, and we handled business vs the unranked teams.

After what I've seen the last 4 games, I would say that we are already back in theory. We knocked of an elite team, and we were very competitive on the road vs. a really good top 10 Miami team. Those are both things that were not common in the glory years. I feel like right now we can beat anybody ranked between 11-25 if we bring our B or C game. If we play our A game we've already seen what can happen. Hell we brought our D game to Miami, and could have won tonight. That's what is so exciting about what's happening. This team, and this program can actually have a higher ceiling than those "glory years" teams.

I guess what I'm getting at, is that being back, may be much closer than we think.

Great post

 

[SWC75]

I think we will get better than this, perhaps considerably so.

"Back" to me means:

- Winning records every year, which now means

- Bowls every year

- We can play anyone anywhere and expect to be competitive, (which doesn't mean we always will be- I want to be able to expect it)

- Winning the division, winning the league and making the playoff is not out of the question

 

[Toga]

The improvement in the defense in one year is beyond impressive.

 

[SF Cuse]

Going on the road against a top 10 team, over two touchdown underdogs, and I loved our chances to win going into the game. So much better than expecting disaster year after year. Darn close to being back.

 

[cuse309]

I was going to be happy with a yearly 6-6 to 8-4 team that finishes 3rd or 4th in the division, and has a shot at being ranked at the end of the year. Based on the improvement I've seen since HCDB came here, I feel like I should adjust those expectations. Why can't we be a yearly 7-9 win team, with the occasional 10 wins? Why can't we compete every year for 2nd or 3rd in the Atlantic, and even once in a while grab that top spot? Why can't we play in new years bowl games? Why can't we be ranked throughout the year?
If Dino can make us a legitimately competitive team vs. colleges elite in just his second year, with players he largely didn't recruit, and overall team talent presumably as low as it will be for the foreseeable future, then what kind of monster can he build with improved talent, and players he selects for the scheme on both offense and defense? Keep in mind, the kids on this team have not completely grasped his concepts yet.

 

[cuse309]

Great post

Just not great enough to "like" it though huh?

 

[cuse309]

Going on the road against a top 10 team, over two touchdown underdogs, and I loved our chances to win going into the game. So much better than expecting disaster year after year. Darn close to being back.

Remember, even in out glory years, when we played top 10 teams, especially on the road, we were usually not even competitive. I'm remembering losing games like 54-0, and 63-0

 

[OttoinGrotto]

No, you may not.

 

[cuse309]

No, you may not.

Maybe not in the national perception. But tell me why if we finish with 7 or 8 wins (including a bowl), beat an elite #2 team, and go toe to toe with a top 10 team on the road (things that NEVER happened in the Mcnabb era), and go to a bowl game, why we aren't back? That is just about exactly where we were in the so called glory years. The only difference is that we wouldn't be ranked, only due to being ranked so low at the beginning of the year. Those McNabb teams that got blown out by 54 and 63 to the elite always won 8 games, and were ranked because they started the year out in or near the top 25.

 

[OburgOrange]

What does "we're back" mean? Does it mean we're ranked? If that's the only criteria then we are most certainly not back. What about how we perform vs. the competition? What about our record?
If we go by performance then we are pretty much back. When we say "back", I'm assuming we are using the term "back" as in back to our glory years between the undefeated 87 season, and just past the Mcnabb era until 2001, which is as you all know too well, the last time we were ranked. Revisionist history would have most people who were not around to enjoy those years, believe that we were a yearly top 10-15 team, and won 10 games a year, and were beating top 10 teams. As Lee Corso would say, "Not so fast my friends"

We only won 10 or more games 4 times in 15 years. We only finished in the top 10 2 times.

Between 1987 and 2001 we won 127 games. That averages to about 8.5 per year. Keep in mind that includes the bowl game, which we mostly won. So the avg. year we won between 7 and 8 games in the regular season. I believe we can match that this year.

Between 1987 and 2001 we went just 4-16 vs the ap top 10 teams we played.And we were largely destroyed. Losses of 30 plus points were not uncommon. Thats 4 wins in 15 years. We averaged just over 1 loss to top 10 teams per year. We're 1-1 this year, and have not been blown out. We're ahead of that 15 year trend in a very small sampling.

Vs. teams ranked 11-25 we were 17-13-2. That is where our bread was buttered. We were not giant killers, but for the most part, we handled business vs. those really good 11-25 teams, and we handled business vs the unranked teams.

After what I've seen the last 4 games, I would say that we are already back in theory. We knocked of an elite team, and we were very competitive on the road vs. a really good top 10 Miami team. Those are both things that were not common in the glory years. I feel like right now we can beat anybody ranked between 11-25 if we bring our B or C game. If we play our A game we've already seen what can happen. Hell we brought our D game to Miami, and could have won tonight. That's what is so exciting about what's happening. This team, and this program can actually have a higher ceiling than those "glory years" teams.

I guess what I'm getting at, is that being back, may be much closer than we think.

I'll have what you're having

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Maybe not in the national perception. But tell me why if we finish with 7 or 8 wins (including a bowl), beat an elite #2 team, and go toe to toe with a top 10 team on the road (things that NEVER happened in the Mcnabb era), and go to a bowl game, why we aren't back? That is just about exactly where we were in the so called glory years. The only difference is that we wouldn't be ranked, only due to being ranked so low at the beginning of the year. Those McNabb teams that got blown out by 54 and 63 to the elite always won 8 games, and were ranked because they started the year out in or near the top 25.

I just thought it would be funny to respond that you may not, since you titled your post by asking if you may.

 

[anomander]

What does "we're back" mean? Does it mean we're ranked? If that's the only criteria then we are most certainly not back. What about how we perform vs. the competition? What about our record?
If we go by performance then we are pretty much back. When we say "back", I'm assuming we are using the term "back" as in back to our glory years between the undefeated 87 season, and just past the Mcnabb era until 2001, which is as you all know too well, the last time we were ranked. Revisionist history would have most people who were not around to enjoy those years, believe that we were a yearly top 10-15 team, and won 10 games a year, and were beating top 10 teams. As Lee Corso would say, "Not so fast my friends"

We only won 10 or more games 4 times in 15 years. We only finished in the top 10 2 times.

Between 1987 and 2001 we won 127 games. That averages to about 8.5 per year. Keep in mind that includes the bowl game, which we mostly won. So the avg. year we won between 7 and 8 games in the regular season. I believe we can match that this year.

Between 1987 and 2001 we went just 4-16 vs the ap top 10 teams we played.And we were largely destroyed. Losses of 30 plus points were not uncommon. Thats 4 wins in 15 years. We averaged just over 1 loss to top 10 teams per year. We're 1-1 this year, and have not been blown out. We're ahead of that 15 year trend in a very small sampling.

Vs. teams ranked 11-25 we were 17-13-2. That is where our bread was buttered. We were not giant killers, but for the most part, we handled business vs. those really good 11-25 teams, and we handled business vs the unranked teams.

After what I've seen the last 4 games, I would say that we are already back in theory. We knocked of an elite team, and we were very competitive on the road vs. a really good top 10 Miami team. Those are both things that were not common in the glory years. I feel like right now we can beat anybody ranked between 11-25 if we bring our B or C game. If we play our A game we've already seen what can happen. Hell we brought our D game to Miami, and could have won tonight. That's what is so exciting about what's happening. This team, and this program can actually have a higher ceiling than those "glory years" teams.

I guess what I'm getting at, is that being back, may be much closer than we think.

Also should consider that we only played 11 games in those seasons and no conference championship game, so 8.5 wins/yr was still pretty damn good.

I think we need to have a couple back to back winning seasons before anyone can say "we are back"...which is something I have no doubt we will be saying. Let's just get some wins first.

 

[sufandu]

Remember, even in out glory years, when we played top 10 teams, especially on the road, we were usually not even competitive. I'm remembering losing games like 54-0, and 63-0

Those were the exception, we were usually more competitive than that. If I remember right without looking it up, 54-0 came in 2001 against a Miami team that was one of the most talented in cfb history. 63-0 came in 1999 against VaTech the year they were runner up for the NC.

Of course it's a matter of opinion, but I consider 1987-1998 the span of our recent glory years.

 

[CbusCuse]

Sure feels like we might be back. I'd wager that we are. But while the last two games we have looked the part, fact of the matter is we are are sitting at 4-4 right now. We need an extended period of good play and a better record before the masses perceive we are surely back. I am certainly hopeful though. Future looks bright right now.

 

[TheKid]

I can't say that we're back or not, but I can say that we have a well coached, tough, interesting football team this year. I had the in-laws over for dinner tonight (lucky me), and as soon as they walked in the door they asked "What's the score?". These people are not big SU football fans so it's crazy what the win last week has done. They were glued to the TV the entire time and can see the change in the program. This is proof to me that Dino has this entire community interested in SU football again and I'm thrilled. You can't have 3 turnovers and win on the road against a top 10 team but...we're on our way to great things.

 

[sufandu]

What does "we're back" mean? Does it mean we're ranked? If that's the only criteria then we are most certainly not back. What about how we perform vs. the competition? What about our record?
If we go by performance then we are pretty much back. When we say "back", I'm assuming we are using the term "back" as in back to our glory years between the undefeated 87 season, and just past the Mcnabb era until 2001, which is as you all know too well, the last time we were ranked. Revisionist history would have most people who were not around to enjoy those years, believe that we were a yearly top 10-15 team, and won 10 games a year, and were beating top 10 teams. As Lee Corso would say, "Not so fast my friends"

We only won 10 or more games 4 times in 15 years. We only finished in the top 10 2 times.

Between 1987 and 2001 we won 127 games. That averages to about 8.5 per year. Keep in mind that includes the bowl game, which we mostly won. So the avg. year we won between 7 and 8 games in the regular season. I believe we can match that this year.

Between 1987 and 2001 we went just 4-16 vs the ap top 10 teams we played.And we were largely destroyed. Losses of 30 plus points were not uncommon. Thats 4 wins in 15 years. We averaged just over 1 loss to top 10 teams per year. We're 1-1 this year, and have not been blown out. We're ahead of that 15 year trend in a very small sampling.

Vs. teams ranked 11-25 we were 17-13-2. That is where our bread was buttered. We were not giant killers, but for the most part, we handled business vs. those really good 11-25 teams, and we handled business vs the unranked teams.

After what I've seen the last 4 games, I would say that we are already back in theory. We knocked of an elite team, and we were very competitive on the road vs. a really good top 10 Miami team. Those are both things that were not common in the glory years. I feel like right now we can beat anybody ranked between 11-25 if we bring our B or C game. If we play our A game we've already seen what can happen. Hell we brought our D game to Miami, and could have won tonight. That's what is so exciting about what's happening. This team, and this program can actually have a higher ceiling than those "glory years" teams.

I guess what I'm getting at, is that being back, may be much closer than we think.

Based on your criteria in bold we needed to beat either NC State or LSU.

Like you said I think we're close. We're certainly closer than I thought we'd be following MTSU or even Pitt. The development of this team throughout the year has been remarkable, especially on defense and, recently, with the running game.

I really don't think the question of whether "we're back" can be answered any earlier than next year. We need to finish strong this year and then carry it over into next year with a climb and stay into the top 25, something along the lines of the '90 and '91 seasons.

 

[raf4488]

Keep in mind, for most of the 1987-2001 era we also played one less game each season. We usually played 11 regular season games plus the bowl, so 8 or 9 wins then was more impressive than it would be today

 

[orangehomer]

so "we're back" but we aren't even bowl eligible. so there's that.

 

[raf4488]

so "we're back" but we aren't even bowl eligible. so there's that.

It's more about the level of competitiveness than the number of wins

 

[Shark58]

in 2 years we'll know if we were back now

true story

 

[Shark58]

so "we're back" but we aren't even bowl eligible yet. so there's that.

^

 

[FrancoPizza]

Miami is a bit over ranked. They’ve had some luck to remain unbeaten. By the eye test today they look more like top 20 then top 10.

We also caught Clemson with a quarterback fiasco... so they weren’t at full strength either. Doesn’t take away from the win as a perception-changer for the program... it’s just that we might still be a couple elite playmakers away from being back.

 

[OrangeinBoston]

What does "we're back" mean? Does it mean we're ranked? If that's the only criteria then we are most certainly not back. What about how we perform vs. the competition? What about our record?
If we go by performance then we are pretty much back. When we say "back", I'm assuming we are using the term "back" as in back to our glory years between the undefeated 87 season, and just past the Mcnabb era until 2001, which is as you all know too well, the last time we were ranked. Revisionist history would have most people who were not around to enjoy those years, believe that we were a yearly top 10-15 team, and won 10 games a year, and were beating top 10 teams. As Lee Corso would say, "Not so fast my friends"

We only won 10 or more games 4 times in 15 years. We only finished in the top 10 2 times.

Between 1987 and 2001 we won 127 games. That averages to about 8.5 per year. Keep in mind that includes the bowl game, which we mostly won. So the avg. year we won between 7 and 8 games in the regular season. I believe we can match that this year.

Between 1987 and 2001 we went just 4-16 vs the ap top 10 teams we played.And we were largely destroyed. Losses of 30 plus points were not uncommon. Thats 4 wins in 15 years. We averaged just over 1 loss to top 10 teams per year. We're 1-1 this year, and have not been blown out. We're ahead of that 15 year trend in a very small sampling.

Vs. teams ranked 11-25 we were 17-13-2. That is where our bread was buttered. We were not giant killers, but for the most part, we handled business vs. those really good 11-25 teams, and we handled business vs the unranked teams.

After what I've seen the last 4 games, I would say that we are already back in theory. We knocked of an elite team, and we were very competitive on the road vs. a really good top 10 Miami team. Those are both things that were not common in the glory years. I feel like right now we can beat anybody ranked between 11-25 if we bring our B or C game. If we play our A game we've already seen what can happen. Hell we brought our D game to Miami, and could have won tonight. That's what is so exciting about what's happening. This team, and this program can actually have a higher ceiling than those "glory years" teams.

I guess what I'm getting at, is that being back, may be much closer than we think.

Nope, too soon. If, heaven forbid, SU goes o for the last 4 games, they are no better than last year. Even 1W 3Ls is no accomplishment. Have to get 2Ws and a bowl game before SU can be said to "be back." Even that is a bit generous, but I think that's fair considering SU plays in the best conference top to bottom, bar none. When it comes down to it, as the Tuna said, you are what your record says you are, and a sub-.500 team just isn't very good despite all the rationalizations ("Dungy is so tough," "The Defense is much improved," "Dino is great" blah blah blah).

 

[OrangePA]

Maybe not in the national perception. But tell me why if we finish with 7 or 8 wins (including a bowl), beat an elite #2 team, and go toe to toe with a top 10 team on the road (things that NEVER happened in the Mcnabb era), and go to a bowl game, why we aren't back? That is just about exactly where we were in the so called glory years. The only difference is that we wouldn't be ranked, only due to being ranked so low at the beginning of the year. Those McNabb teams that got blown out by 54 and 63 to the elite always won 8 games, and were ranked because they started the year out in or near the top 25.

What games with McNabb did we lose by 54 or 63 points?