My .02

[Trueblue25]

Linton looks like the guy most likely to have a break out year of the DEs. Still need DTs and I think last night drove that point home even further. I expect they will add at least 2 from the portal.

A rare piece of inside info I have. Most of our core defensive players have huge hopes for Linton. He’s a guy that flashes crazy ability. Just needs to maintain some size and be consistent.

 

[007]

A rare piece of inside info I have. Most of our core defense have huge hopes for Linton. He’s a guy that flashes crazy ability. Just needs to maintain some size and be consistent.

For sure TB. There is a ton of buzz regarding Linton.

 

[RICuse44]

Remember that they have a position they call football player, expect to see Shrader, and Lamson together.

This FBP role IMO is similar to the option offense/running Qb role syracuse had in the late 80s/early 90s that set the team apart from other teams. The adaptation of the spread/RPO across the college football landscape removed the novelty cuse used to have.

I love this FBP position and can’t wait to see them exploit it. It’s innovative and not something defenses see week in and week out. For cuse to be successful given the landscape we have to be constantly putting out these novel schemes.

 

[SWC75]

I think you have difficulty being objective. When you talk about the past to justify the present, it smacks of being congenitally incapable of being objective about how the program is performing, and the tangible decline that we've seen over the past 8 years. Talking about what transpired the preceding ~40 seasons is subterfuge that ignores the elephant in the room.

The football program has struggled immensely. They need to step it up. This season is an important one for Dino Babers.

But in much the same way as past seasons will not dictate nor impact how this upcoming football season unfolds, Jim Boeheim's previous 45 years did not alter the fact that this season resulted in a losing record. When you have a losing record in both the conference and overall, you aren't competitive -- you are subpar, especially when the ACC conference was weak overall, outside of the top 2 teams. And the results our program had bore that out.

If Babers gets the team to a bowl, what he did last year, or in the 2020 COVID-19 year, will not matter. Results matter. The same way that JB's HOF historical record, while impressive as hell, doesn't alter the fact that we had a losing record last year, culminating an unprecedented period of steady decline over a span of years that is now approaching a decade. No amount of spin can change that. Because at the end of the day, results matter.

What's more objective than posting an Upside and a Downside after every game?

And if Babers taking the football team to a bowl this year wipes out the last eight years, then I suppose JB taking the team back to the NCAA tournament will wipe out his last 8 years as well.

 

[RF2044]

What's more objective than posting an Upside and a Downside after every game?

And if Babers taking the football team to a bowl this year wipes out the last eight years, then I suppose JB taking the team back to the NCAA tournament will wipe out his last 8 years as well.

How about being intellectually honest about the palpable decline of the basketball program?

The goofy second paragraph straw man is a sign that rationalized spin and a compulsion to argue against any critical feedback directed toward JB prevents you from doing so.

 

[SWC75]

We posted a losing record, and a losing conference record in a year when the ACC was extremely down. We went 0-10 in games against Tier 1 opponents. We went 2-5 in games against Tier 3 opponents.

The statistics may have shifted slightly by the end of the year, so forgive me if these are slightly off -- but at one point late in the season we were 358th out of 358 teams in giving up three point attempts per game, and 357th out of 358 in opponent three pointers made. We rated 322 out of 358 in giving up defensive rebounds, and 335th out of 358 in field goals opportunities allowed.

We had what was probably our worst non-conference performance in the Jim Boeheim era. We lost to a Georgetown team that went o-fer in the Big East. In our last 8 losses, we got beaten by 20, 11, 12, 10, 25, 9, 3, and 9. In the game that we lost by 3, we had a 17 point lead in the second half of the game and squandered it away in OT.

The data doesn't support that we were "competitive." Neither does our record.

I recognize that this is a football thread but the methodology of analyzing teams is important to both sports.

In what objective universe is 16-17 with 7 losses by 5 points or less or in overtime not competitive? How is it irrelevant that five of the losses came to Final Four teams and two more to an Elite 8 team? The ACC, at least at the top was clearly under-rated based on early results but all of our losses came to teams higher than us in the standings, save for the second Pittsburgh game. And we won ACC games by 22, 23, 20 and 39 points.

It's certainly relevant that Ken Pomeroy ranks us 207th in defense but isn't it just as relevant that he ranks us #15 in offense? We were 443rd in strength of schedule, #38 in the strength of our opponents 's offenses and #51 in the strength of their defenses.

Of course, that's not objective because it just quotes facts that are in opposition to your point of view. Just as just quoting facts that support your point of view is not objective. That's the problem with these arguments. I know that 16-17 is not good enough by Syracuse standards. And you know that 16-17 is not 10-21.

 

[RF2044]

I recognize that this is a football thread but the methodology of analyzing teams is important to both sports.

In what objective universe is 16-17 with 7 losses by 5 points or less or in overtime not competitive? How is it irrelevant that five of the losses came to Final Four teams and two more to an Elite 8 team? The ACC, at least at the top was clearly under-rated based on early results but all of our losses came to teams higher than us in the standings, save for the second Pittsburgh game. And we won ACC games by 22, 23, 20 and 39 points.

It's certainly relevant that Ken Pomeroy ranks us 207th in defense but isn't it just as relevant that he ranks us #15 in offense? We were 443rd in strength of schedule, #38 in the strength of our opponents 's offenses and #51 in the strength of their defenses.

Of course, that's not objective because it just quotes facts that are in opposition to your point of view. Just as just quoting facts that support your point of view is not objective. That's the problem with these arguments. I know that 16-17 is not good enough by Syracuse standards. And you know that 16-17 is not 10-21.

In the objective universe where wins and losses matter, not qualitative subjectivity about coming close to actually performing well. In the objective universe where 7 games constitutes a limited subset [~20%] of the total number of games we played for the entire year. And in the objective universe where we got steamrolled by every top 25 team we played.

"All of our losses came to teams higher than us in the standings" -- thanks for unintentionally proving my point. Since we finished in the bottom half of the ACC, with a losing record, that context suggests that we couldn't beat any conference opponent with a pulse, even in a watered down league.

We were what our record said we were. And occasionally, when we shot well, we could hang with even good teams. The problem is that happened too infrequently for the team to overcome its limitations [such as inability to handle pressure defenses, poor inbounding, limited athleticism, etc]. And when we faced opponents who were ranked, the disparity of how far away we are from being on par was stark -- with the exception of our final game, when we gave it our all against a Duke team that seemed to take us lightly in the first half, since we were playing without Buddy, and still lost by 9.

No idea where you come up with 10-21 as a comparative data point.

But you are right about one thing -- this is a thread on the football board, and it is clear that this is a pointless discussion. If you'd like to continue, let's do so offline via PM.

 

[SWC75]

How about being intellectually honest about the palpable decline of the basketball program?

The goofy second paragraph straw man is a sign that rationalized spin and a compulsion to argue against any critical feedback directed toward JB prevents you from doing so.

In the objective universe where wins and losses matter, not qualitative subjectivity about coming close to actually performing well. In the objective universe where 7 games constitutes a limited subset [~20%] of the total number of games we played for the entire year. And in the objective universe where we got steamrolled by every top 25 team we played.

"All of our losses came to teams higher than us in the standings" -- wow. But since we finished in the bottom half of the ACC, with a losing record, that context suggests that we couldn't beat any conference opponents of quality with a pulse, even in a watered down league.

We were what our record said we were. And occasionally, when we shot well, we could hang with even good teams. The problem is that happened too infrequently, and the team couldn't overcome other limitations [such as inability to handle pressure defenses, poor inbounding, limited athleticism, etc.], to win consistently. And when we faced opponents who were ranked, the disparity of how far away we are from being on par was stark -- with the exception of our final game, when we gave it our all against a Duke team that seemed to take us lightly in the first half, since we were playing without Buddy, and still lost by 9.

No idea where you come up with 10-21 as a comparative data point.

But you are right about one thing -- this is a thread on the football board, and it is clear that this is a pointless discussion. If you'd like to continue, let's do so offline via PM.

I've had quite enough of this, at least until next season. I won't respond to any PMs. Your concept of objectivity is based on whether people agree with you. You have a clear agenda and filter your facts through it more than anyone on the board.

 

[RF2044]

I've had quite enough of this, at least until next season. I won't respond to any PMs. Your concept of objectivity is based on whether people agree with you. You have a clear agenda and filter your facts through it more than anyone on the board.

My "agenda" is not being blind to the team's performance and not pretending that the systemic issues hurting our program don't exist.

When the record, the outcome of games, the empirical evidence / data back up those concerns, it's not an "agenda."

Gladly agree to disagree.

 

[GoSU96]

I've had quite enough of this, at least until next season. I won't respond to any PMs. Your concept of objectivity is based on whether people agree with you. You have a clear agenda and filter your facts through it more than anyone on the board.

SWC with the smack down from the top of the ropes

Ouch

 

[SWC75]

My "agenda" is not being blind to the team's performance and not pretending that the systemic issues hurting our program don't exist.

When the record, the outcome of games, the empirical evidence / data back up those concerns, it's not an "agenda."

Gladly agree to disagree.

Search results for query: The Downside

syracusefan.com

Back at it next year.

 

[RF2044]

Search results for query: The Downside

syracusefan.com

Back at it next year.

Here's the cliff notes version:

 

[All4SU]

In the objective universe where wins and losses matter, not qualitative subjectivity about coming close to actually performing well. In the objective universe where 7 games constitutes a limited subset [~20%] of the total number of games we played for the entire year. And in the objective universe where we got steamrolled by every top 25 team we played.

"All of our losses came to teams higher than us in the standings" -- thanks for unintentionally proving my point. Since we finished in the bottom half of the ACC, with a losing record, that context suggests that we couldn't beat any conference opponent with a pulse, even in a watered down league.

We were what our record said we were. And occasionally, when we shot well, we could hang with even good teams. The problem is that happened too infrequently for the team to overcome its limitations [such as inability to handle pressure defenses, poor inbounding, limited athleticism, etc]. And when we faced opponents who were ranked, the disparity of how far away we are from being on par was stark -- with the exception of our final game, when we gave it our all against a Duke team that seemed to take us lightly in the first half, since we were playing without Buddy, and still lost by 9.

No idea where you come up with 10-21 as a comparative data point.

But you are right about one thing -- this is a thread on the football board, and it is clear that this is a pointless discussion. If you'd like to continue, let's do so offline via PM.

Our record says we were one game below .500 in the ACC. Basically the middle of the pack. Without our center down the stretch. Competitive. Disappointing, yes. But competitive.

 

[RF2044]

Our record says we were one game below .500 in the ACC. Basically the middle of the pack. Without our center down the stretch. Competitive. Disappointing, yes. But competitive.

No, our record shows that we were two games below .500 in the ACC conference. "Middle of the pack" -- 9th place -- when the conference has only 1 ranked team for the majority of the year, is a lot different than when the ACC has a typical year, with 4-5 ranked teams and 7-9 teams qualifying for the ACC tournament.

Overall, the qualify of the conference was down. Substantially. And under those circumstances, we still finished with a losing record, in conference play and overall. We lost every game we played against ranked opponents by double digits, and in one case 9 points.

It's like saying we were the skinniest elephant in the pen.

 

[All4SU]

No, our record shows that we were two games below .500 in the ACC conference. "Middle of the pack" -- 9th place -- when the conference has only 1 ranked team for the majority of the year, is a lot different than when the ACC has a typical year, with 4-5 ranked teams and 7-9 teams qualifying for the ACC tournament.

Overall, the qualify of the conference was down. Substantially. And under those circumstances, we still finished with a losing record, in conference play and overall.

It's like saying we were the skinniest elephant in the pen.

No. 9-11. Win one more game and we’re .500.

 

[money3189]

Some times its as simple as using the old eye test. I thought they played hard each game but most of the time they couldn't over come the deficiencies they had. Its the staff's fault for not having a team equipped enough to win more games. A typical SU team would have been top 5 in the Acc this year.

 

[Scooch]

With this schedule:

2024 Football Schedule - Syracuse University Athletics

The official 2024 Football schedule for the Syracuse University Orange

cuse.com

I had the feeling we are a bunch of bugs preparing to do battle with a windshield. Six of the first 12 games are at home but we are likely to be underdogs in 5 of them and one of the road games is Clemson. Then we
finish with 3 of the last 4 on the road. This with 7 of our last 8 seasons and 5 of Dino's 6 producing losing records.

I just hope Wildhack is prepared to stick with this staff long enough to get this turned around because this year is going to be straight uphill.

I'm going to challenge people from now until September re: the schedule. So don't take it personally. But we're essentially playing one game we'd prefer not to this season.

The ACC schedule is the ACC schedule. The 6 division games + Pitt don't change. That is our reality.

The cross-over is an early home game against a thoroughly mediocre UVA, who is breaking in a completely new staff. That's about as kind as it's gonna get.

OOC features 2 automatic wins.

Since we always play 1 P5 OOC game, obviously the game we'd probably like to reschedule is Purdue, since we also are obligated to play ND.

Aside from that 1 game, this schedule is pretty much par for the course for us, given our conference affiliation and alignment.

 

[SUFan44]

I'm going to challenge people from now until September re: the schedule. So don't take it personally. But we're essentially playing one game we'd prefer not to this season.

The ACC schedule is the ACC schedule. The 6 division games + Pitt don't change. That is our reality.

The cross-over is an early home game against a thoroughly mediocre UVA, who is breaking in a completely new staff. That's about as kind as it's gonna get.

OOC features 2 automatic wins.

Since we always play 1 P5 OOC game, obviously the game we'd probably like to reschedule is Purdue, since we also are obligated to play ND.

Aside from that 1 game, this schedule is pretty much par for the course for us, given our conference affiliation and alignment.

I’m with you. Schedule can be used as an excuse only so much.

The schedule during our 10-3 season had Western Michigan in place of Purdue, and that’s about it.

Varying levels of ACC quality but that’s every year. Not going to change.

If we are good, we will make a bowl.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

Some times its as simple as using the old eye test. I thought they played hard each game but most of the time they couldn't over come the deficiencies they had. Its the staff's fault for not having at team equipped enough to win more games. A typical SU team would have been top 5 in the Acc this year.

Cuse had one of the worst statistical Special Teams in the country last year. I just hope it's not a game of whack-a-mole - fix a problem, but another one pops up.

 

[TheCusian]

I'm going to challenge people from now until September re: the schedule. So don't take it personally. But we're essentially playing one game we'd prefer not to this season.

The ACC schedule is the ACC schedule. The 6 division games + Pitt don't change. That is our reality.

The cross-over is an early home game against a thoroughly mediocre UVA, who is breaking in a completely new staff. That's about as kind as it's gonna get.

OOC features 2 automatic wins.

Since we always play 1 P5 OOC game, obviously the game we'd probably like to reschedule is Purdue, since we also are obligated to play ND.

Aside from that 1 game, this schedule is pretty much par for the course for us, given our conference affiliation and alignment.

This assumes the ACC doesn‘t ebb and flow like the rest of CFB teams do year to year. That assumes beating us in 2018 was just like beating us in 2020.

One of the best parts of the sport is that teams outside of the elite few have wide swings in quality.

It‘s best to analyze each season’s schedule like it’s brand new each year and to update as the year progresses, imo.

I like this ND vs the last few times we played them for example. Same with Clemson.

 

[FloridaFan]

All we have to do is go 4-8 against P5 schools? This isn’t the MAC where you take 3 bodybag games and start the year 1-3. If we can’t expect a bowl then what are we even doing calling BC and Wake and Pitt peers? They don’t set the floor at 5-7 and “competitive.” 6-6 or get out and let another coach have a try

 

[Scooch]

This assumes the ACC doesn‘t ebb and flow like the rest of CFB teams do year to year. That assumes beating us in 2018 was just like beating us in 2020.

One of the best parts of the sport is that teams outside of the elite few have wide swings in quality.

It‘s best to analyze each season’s schedule like it’s brand new each year and to update as the year progresses, imo.

I like this ND vs the last few times we played them for example. Same with Clemson.

It assumes that most of our schedule is what it is, and saying we’re “bugs against a windshield” is silly if we consider ourselves a P5 program.

 

[OrangePA]

I’d hope Dino can recruit better than Lamson in the next two years.

Agreed.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

All we have to do is go 4-8 against P5 schools? This isn’t the MAC where you take 3 bodybag games and start the year 1-3. If we can’t expect a bowl then what are we even doing calling BC and Wake and Pitt peers? They don’t set the floor at 5-7 and “competitive.” 6-6 or get out and let another coach have a try

In theory you are 100% correct but you now have multiple coaches under more than a 1 year contract. Obviously Dino being one of them but the DC/OC/ Qb coach would all have to be bought out if they were to move on from Dino after this season. So that would be 4 coaches. Dino at 5-7 will be back next year. I can almost guarantee that, you don't get two coaches the quality of Anae and Beck on a 1 year deal. They both had too many options because they are in fact proven commodities. People need to remember this and Wildhack actually doubled down for the most part. These coaches on offense didn't just wind up at Syracuse because they liked Dino and were desperate for work. They knew the score and the situation. Personally, I think we will win 7 so not worried.

Now could they let Dino go and shuffle the deck? Maybe Fire Dino, Anae maybe retires after 1 more year, Beck moves to OC/ QB coach and White is your new HC. I doubt it though, recruiting seems to be gathering momentum and I doubt they move on from Dino after this year considering the financial commitment they have made to his staff.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

Agreed.

I think they already have.