May I suggest that we are just about back?

[BuffOrange]

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.

Don't care about the Clemson qb but re: Miami - ya these "elite" proclamations are a bit much. Unclear if they're better than NC St. Don't like their chances vs ND.

 

[Chip]

We’ve had 3 road games at tough venues against talented teams and had a pretty terrible first half in each (throw in the first play of the 3rd Q at LSU).

Any of them could have been blowouts but none of them were. Each were a play or 2 from a win.

Speaks to the ability of this staff to adjust and motivate.

Eventually the talent, but more importantly the depth, will catch up. How can anyone not be excited about what’s to come.

 

[721Comstock]

We’ve had 3 road games at tough venues against talented teams and had a pretty terrible first half in each (throw in the first play of the 3rd Q at LSU).

Any of them could have been blowouts but none of them were. Each were a play or 2 from a win.

Speaks to the ability of this staff to adjust and motivate.

Eventually the talent, but more importantly the depth, will catch up. How can anyone not be excited about what’s to come.

THIS.

Historically, as in recent history, we get utterly TRUCKED on the road in games like that.
Especially with the TO's, penalties, and generally inconsistent play and slow starts.

And yet - this team was in all of those games late in the 4th. Amazing.

 

[rocklloyd]

it is really amazing. This team could beat anyone left on schedule. It wasn't too long ago where I felt like burning my remaining season tickets at this point in the season because there was not one ounce of hope.

 

[DBCooper]

Don't care about the Clemson qb but re: Miami - ya these "elite" proclamations are a bit much. Unclear if they're better than NC St. Don't like their chances vs ND.

To be fair, the OP did not refer to Miami as elite.

"We knocked of an elite team, and we were very competitive on the road vs. a really good top 10 Miami team."

 

[GoSU96]

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).

There is more than enough evidence this program is vastly improved. Anything to the contrary is nothing but blah, blah, blah. Wins and losses don't tell the whole story.

 

[GoSU96]

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

Only when he was in disguise as a 5-11 white kid wearing an 11 jersey.

 

[SmilinBob]

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

Having them all come back sure helped along with being talented.

 

[SmilinBob]

We’ve had 3 road games at tough venues against talented teams and had a pretty terrible first half in each (throw in the first play of the 3rd Q at LSU).

Any of them could have been blowouts but none of them were. Each were a play or 2 from a win.

Speaks to the ability of this staff to adjust and motivate.

Eventually the talent, but more importantly the depth, will catch up. How can anyone not be excited about what’s to come.

Agreed...even the PWO's are better and loading that depth is huge...especially talented depth. Very exciting indeed.

 

[cuse309]

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

yes. you get my point.

 

[cuse309]

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

My mistake. The 2001 team lost to Miami 59-0. Lost 62-0 to Tech in 99. Those were 2 years post McNabb, but still in the 87-2001 glory year range. We did get blown out ofter vs. ranked teams with McNabb however. Not 62-0 bad, but losses like 38-14 type of games were not uncommon when playing ranked teams. My point being, that although it's a really small sampling, we have not even come close to getting blown out vs. the best teams we've played.

 

[FrancoPizza]

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

To be fair the Mcnabb teams never really played elite competition on an annual basis like we do now. Remember the new syracuse rule they invented? The conference lacked a true power. In the orange bowl and fiesta bowl we played legit top 10 teams -and didn’t look very good. Versus North Carolina in 96 when they were top 10 I think- we were overmatched. Plus the annual 2 losses to inferior teams.

 

[GoSU96]

My mistake. The 2001 team lost to Miami 59-0. Lost 62-0 to Tech in 99. Those were 2 years post McNabb, but still in the 87-2001 glory year range. We did get blown out ofter vs. ranked teams with McNabb however. Not 62-0 bad, but losses like 38-14 type of games were not uncommon when playing ranked teams. My point being, that although it's a really small sampling, we have not even come close to getting blown out vs. the best teams we've played.

If uncommon means twice, you'd be right. They lost by 24 or more exactly twice, both at VT. The first when McNabb was a freshmen, the second when he played with two separated shoulders.

 

[Crusty]

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.

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.

You may.

 

[cuse309]

If uncommon means twice, you'd be right. They lost by 24 or more exactly twice, both at VT. The first when McNabb was a freshmen, the second when he played with two separated shoulders.

I didn't qualify a blowout as 24 points,that was just an example. I'd call a blowout a 17 point loss or greater. They got blown out plenty with McNabb.
lost 31-7 vs. Tech in 95
lost 27-10 vs UNC in 96
lost 31-3 vs. tech in 97
lost 35-18 to K-State in 97
lost 38-17 to NC State in 98
lost 31-10 vs. Florida in 98

Like I said, "losses of the 38-14 type, were not uncommon."

 

[Cuseregular]

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.

You're right the buzz is in the air. Our next door neighbors kids for five years now I've only seen them play outside with lacrosse sticks and balls. This past week was the only time I've ever in 5 years seen them toss a football around over there. Small thing, but get the kids invested and buying in and there's a future to this thing.

 

[GoSU96]

I didn't qualify a blowout as 24 points,that was just an example. I'd call a blowout a 17 point loss or greater. They got blown out plenty with McNabb.
lost 31-7 vs. Tech in 95
lost 27-10 vs UNC in 96
lost 31-3 vs. tech in 97
lost 35-18 to K-State in 97
lost 38-17 to NC State in 98
lost 31-10 vs. Florida in 98

Like I said, "losses of the 38-14 type, were not uncommon."

Nobody calls a 17 pt loss a blowout.

 

[cuse309]

Nobody calls a 17 pt loss a blowout.

Really? Syracuse loses 34-17 and they weren't blown out? If you're a 17 point underdog, it's considered a major upset if you win. 40-23 isn't a blowout? 30-13? 24-7? Those scores are not one sided?

 

[OrangePA]

My mistake. The 2001 team lost to Miami 59-0. Lost 62-0 to Tech in 99. Those were 2 years post McNabb, but still in the 87-2001 glory year range. We did get blown out ofter vs. ranked teams with McNabb however. Not 62-0 bad, but losses like 38-14 type of games were not uncommon when playing ranked teams. My point being, that although it's a really small sampling, we have not even come close to getting blown out vs. the best teams we've played.

It's nice to be happy with the improvement in the team this year and it's a good thing to be optimistic about where this program is headed, but I would not get too excited about what happened yesterday, and I would not discount how well the program performed from 1987 through the McNabb years.

The Miami team we played yesterday is a solid team but not a great team.

The Syracuse University Football team that lost badly to Miami in 2001, was beaten by what is probably the greatest college football team ever put together. That Hurricane team, you may recall, led Nebraska 34-0 at halftime in the National Championship game. That team had All-Pros all over its roster.

The Va Tech team that beat us up badly when we had Troy Nunes at QB was led by probably the most dynamic college football player of his era, Mike Vick and I am pretty sure went on to the National Championship Game that season.

We went to the Liberty, Gator, Fiesta and Orange Bowls during the McNabb years. We beat a very good Wisconsin team, a solid Michigan team and a pretty decent Miami team while McNabb was the QB. We beat a favored Clemson team pretty badly in the Gator Bowl and competed hard against, and with a few breaks could have beaten a very good K-State team in the Fiesta Bowl with McNabb.

We lost a few disappointing games during those years - a few - but I don't recall any McNabb teams getting beaten badly, other than maybe the Orange Bowl loss to Florida.

So, I am very enthusiastic over what I have seen this year, but I am not accepting yesterday as a moral victory - I thought we could win that game and thought that at that point when we were down one point with five minutes to go, we would win the game.

 

[OrangePA]

Really? Syracuse loses 34-17 and they weren't blown out? If you're a 17 point underdog, it's considered a major upset if you win. 40-23 isn't a blowout? 30-13? 24-7? Those scores are not one sided?

I can't go through every game during the McNabb era.

I'll simply say this - I'll take that era right now if somebody can bring all of that back to Syracuse University Football.

 

[cuse309]

I can't go through every game during the McNabb era.

I'll simply say this - I'll take that era right now if somebody can bring all of that back to Syracuse University Football.

Those scores I just listed aren't real scores. They were simply to show 17 point loss games and whether or not they're considered a blowout loss.
I listed 6 games in McNabbs 4 years above, that to me were blowout losses against teams that they should have competed with. I'm not saying that we, right now, are back. What I'm saying is that we have performed, despited W-L, similarly to our avg. teams in the glory years. Those teams usually won between 7-9 games. We can do that this year. Those teams competed against the elite, but never could pull of a victory over a top 10 team, we've already done that. And those teams would lose to ranked teams by 17+ points at least once a year. We haven't done that yet. Obviously the rest of the season, and next year, and next year need to be played to be back, but my suggestion in the o.p. was that based on how we have performed this year, we aren't too far off from those 90's teams. This team would beat those 90's Rutgers, Pitt, West Virginia, Boston College, Temple, teams, and split games against Va Tech, and lose badly to most of those Miami teams. They could beat the non conference teams like we did in Wisconsin, or Auburn or Michigan from back then, and lose to a National Champion Tennessee team. I feel like if this team could go back in time to the 90's it would have similar results as those 90's teams.

 

[PAcuse]

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

How many poor coaches did SU have in the 10 years before McNabb?
How many inept recruiting classes did SU have in the 10 years before McNabb?
Sure I would love to see that type of football again (I really do miss it), but we are ahead of where we should be at this point.
This schedule was terrible for year two of a rebuild and we have a very solid shot at going bowling.