No spinning this

[Rocco]

we play up and down to our competition to an alarming degree

Case and point: we played terrible against a terrible RU team.

 

[NKR1978]

Case and point: we played terrible against a terrible RU team.

They're really not that terrible.

 

[orange79]

In the other universe, we're 5-1, with our only loss to the defending National Champs ... Rutgers.

Shudder

 

[Rocco]

They're really not that terrible.

Because they trashed a middling Pitt team? We should've beat Rutgers by 21. We gave that game away. They really aren't good. Cmon now.

 

[NKR1978]

Because they trashed a middling Pitt team? We should've beat Rutgers by 21. We gave that game away. They really aren't good. Cmon now.

I didn't say they were good, I said they weren't terrible. They're slightly worse than average, just like Syracuse and the rest of the Big East that isn't WVU.

 

[SWC75]

Comparative scores can be misleading- espcially if you search out odd scores trying to find an absurd conclusions. But they are hardly irrelevant. When medicore teams like Army and UTEP blow out an opponent and you need a last second field goal to beat them or we beat a now 1-5 FCS team by a touchdown at home, that has to raise concern. You can't jsut dismiss it with a waive of your hand.

Doers anybody think we're a good football team right now?

 

[Stern]

Comparative scores can be misleading- espcially if you search out odd scores trying to find an absurd conclusions. But they are hardly irrelevant. When medicore teams like Army and UTEP blow out an opponent and you need a last second field goal to beat them or we beat a now 1-5 FCS team by a touchdown at home, that has to raise concern. You can't jsut dismiss it with a waive of your hand.

Doers anybody think we're a good football team right now?

Totally agree with you SWC. Some here are burying their heads in the sand and don't want to see the obvious.

If SU comes out and beats WV or even plays a solid game and loses, I will maybe say we are a good team. But off the 6 games I have seen thus far SU is not very good and probably not deserving of a bowl as of now. As I keep saying, we have 4 wins by the grace of god!

 

[NKR1978]

Comparative scores can be misleading- espcially if you search out odd scores trying to find an absurd conclusions. But they are hardly irrelevant. When medicore teams like Army and UTEP blow out an opponent and you need a last second field goal to beat them or we beat a now 1-5 FCS team by a touchdown at home, that has to raise concern. You can't jsut dismiss it with a waive of your hand.

Doers anybody think we're a good football team right now?

Using comparative scores is overly simplistic.
Syracuse 33, Toledo 30
Toledo 36, Temple 13
Temple 38, Maryland 7
Clemson 56, Maryland 45

Using this comparative "logic" in a vacuum and ignoring reality, what would you conclude in hypothetical matchups:
Syracuse vs. Temple
Temple vs. Clemson.

My guess is we would beat Temple pretty handily. 3+ touchdowns. (With my real world knowledge of the two teams I think we would actually beat them in a pretty tight game).
Also, going by just these two scores, Clemson and Temple would be in a tight game throughout with Temple winning. (Clemson would beat Temple by 4 TD's).

URI and Tulane were upsetting. Rutgers sucked because 5-1 would have been so nice and give us some breathing room. Oh well. Most people expected 6-6 and a step back from last year, while building to a really good 2012 season. Seems to me we're on track for that or better.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

we play up and down to our competition to an alarming degree

True, especially considering the emphasis that is supposedly placed on discipline.

 

[ClkWrkOrange]

Comparative scores can be misleading- espcially if you search out odd scores trying to find an absurd conclusions.
Agreed.
Tulane-3 Tulsa-31
Tulane-27 Duke-48
Tulane-6 Army-45
Tulane-7 UTEP-44
We have struggled in every game against a less than daunting schedule.
Tulane is a horrible team that routinely gets blown out by some pretty bad teams.
These are trends that cherry picking single games here and there doesn't explain away.
Spin it any way you want.This isn't a very good team.

 

[fanfanclubclub]

Not sure why people don't get that you can't play the transitivity game. The year JMU beat VT, you could play that game and arrive at the conclusion that JMU was the best team in the country. It's about talent and scheme, yes. But it's also about matchups and individual play calls and formations.

Actually, the leading analysts at both the college and pro level do use score comparisons and transitive analysis all of the time. Football Outsiders, for example, uses transitive analysis for DVOA and similar metrics. There is no question at all among the stat geeks who do empiricism for a living that these types of comparison do matter a great deal. Advanced metrics derived from scoring margins, and adjusted for "who you play" (i.e. transitive comparisons) are tremendously predictive, such that these metrics have a higher R-squared regarding wins than just about any other metric.

So there very mundane and obvious observations that "team A can beat team B, and then team B can beat team A" does not mean that transitive analysis is meaningless.

 

[cmr27]

Wake Forest had their backup QB in when they made that comeback. That isn't playing up to anything!!! Who do you think you are kidding with that nonsense! Please!

Nonsense? Injuries are part of the game. WF should have had a better backup QB. Too bad for them they didn't because that opened the door for SU to play better. The scoreboard says SU won. I'm pretty sure there's no asterisk next it.

 

[cmr27]

Comparative scores can be misleading- espcially if you search out odd scores trying to find an absurd conclusions. But they are hardly irrelevant. When medicore teams like Army and UTEP blow out an opponent and you need a last second field goal to beat them or we beat a now 1-5 FCS team by a touchdown at home, that has to raise concern. You can't jsut dismiss it with a waive of your hand.

Doers anybody think we're a good football team right now?

The team needs to get better, no doubt, but - as a great man once said - you are what your records says you are. It's a winning team right now.

 

[SWC75]

Using comparative scores is overly simplistic.
Syracuse 33, Toledo 30
Toledo 36, Temple 13
Temple 38, Maryland 7
Clemson 56, Maryland 45

Using this comparative "logic" in a vacuum and ignoring reality, what would you conclude in hypothetical matchups:
Syracuse vs. Temple
Temple vs. Clemson.

My guess is we would beat Temple pretty handily. 3+ touchdowns. (With my real world knowledge of the two teams I think we would actually beat them in a pretty tight game).
Also, going by just these two scores, Clemson and Temple would be in a tight game throughout with Temple winning. (Clemson would beat Temple by 4 TD's).

URI and Tulane were upsetting. Rutgers sucked because 5-1 would have been so nice and give us some breathing room. Oh well. Most people expected 6-6 and a step back from last year, while building to a really good 2012 season. Seems to me we're on track for that or better.

Ignoring reality? All the scores are real. The question is: how much signficance do you give specific comparisons. I think struggling to beat a team even mediocre teams are blowing away is significant.

 

[fanfanclubclub]

Nonsense? Injuries are part of the game. WF should have had a better backup QB. Too bad for them they didn't because that opened the door for SU to play better. The scoreboard says SU won. I'm pretty sure there's no asterisk next it.

Just because injuries are part of the game, doesn't mean that Syracuse didn't get lucky to beat WF.

For analogy, recovering fumbles is also part of the game. However, recovering fumbles appears, empirically, to be random: and not necessarily skill driven. The random bounces of the ball have more to do with who recovers a fumble, and no teams or players can generally be shown, at statistically significant levels, to have the "skill" of fumble recovery.

So if Syracuse wins a bunch of close games by recovering 12 fumbles out of 12 available fumbles: it would be easy to say that Syracuse had benefited from "some lucky bounces."

And this season, we have certainly benefited from some lucky bounces: WF and Toledo especially. Congrats to our guys for having the karma and never-say-die attitude to benefit from luck. I'm extremely confident that Greggors would have blown those games, so we can't chalk all of it up to luck.

 

[cmr27]

Just because injuries are part of the game, doesn't mean that Syracuse didn't get lucky to beat WF.

For analogy, recovering fumbles is also part of the game. However, recovering fumbles appears, empirically, to be random: and not necessarily skill driven. The random bounces of the ball have more to do with who recovers a fumble, and no teams or players can generally be shown, at statistically significant levels, to have the "skill" of fumble recovery.

So if Syracuse wins a bunch of close games by recovering 12 fumbles out of 12 available fumbles: it would be easy to say that Syracuse had benefited from "some lucky bounces."

And this season, we have certainly benefited from some lucky bounces: WF and Toledo especially. Congrats to our guys for having the karma and never-say-die attitude to benefit from luck. I'm extremely confident that Greggors would have blown those games, so we can't chalk all of it up to luck.

Good post. Can't disagree with much of this. I would clarify that the ball bounces randomly but the creation of fumble opportunities has something to do with skill. That's neither here nor there for purposes of this discussion though. I guess my point is that we can't discount the WF win because of the QB injury. SU had to put itself in a position to capitalize on the injury and then actually win the game, in other words... every team gets breaks during the season, but not every team capitalizes.

More broadly, I don't think we know if this is a good team or not. It's a winning team but you have to couch that statement in college football because everyone tries to schedule for success. The story of this team is still to be written.

And I totally agree re Greggors.

 

[Stern]

Nonsense? Injuries are part of the game. WF should have had a better backup QB. Too bad for them they didn't because that opened the door for SU to play better. The scoreboard says SU won. I'm pretty sure there's no asterisk next it.

We were lucky their QB got hurt since he was killing us the entire game up until he got hurt. It was a lucky win. To say otherwise is foolish

 

[Mark Joe]

Syracuse 36 Wake Forest 29
Wake Forest 35 Florida State 30

Syracuse > Florida State? I don't think so. I get your point, but honestly don't care about style points. As Al Davis said Just Win Baby. When we are competing for the BCS MNC then style points will matter.

You make FSU sound like an invincible program... they are the most overrated team ever. ONCE AGAIN. Fla St is 3-3.

I don't think you get his point, because if you are only hoping to squeak by all opponents, and hang your hat on 3 pt wins over teams that would be more competitive in FCS play, then our program should be content with mediocrity.

 

[Mark Joe]

did the back up qb play defense?

You don't get it. Their backup was a total 0 out there, with an INT. Have WF play SU 10 more times, and I'd bet at least 9 times WF would win.

 

[Mark Joe]

Case and point: we played terrible against a terrible RU team.

You can only play down to your competition if you TRULY are the better team. Sorry to burst your bubble but WE ARE NOT head n shoulders above ANY team on our schedule to say that we could possibly play "down" to our competition. And I got news for ya, as much as I hate Rutgers, they are better than us right now. And FYI, 2 teams can play terrible games. People on here think only SU playing terrible effects a games outcome.

 

[orange79]

We were lucky their QB got hurt since he was killing us the entire game up until he got hurt. It was a lucky win. To say otherwise is foolish

Didn't realize their entire D went out with injuries too.

 

[Cuse2010]

The QB was hurt because Chandler Jones did what he was taught to go full speed through a hold that caused him to fall on QB. The luck was created by an agressive, hustling football play. I agree this discussion is stupid a good team will find ways to win even if they do not play good it doesn't matter by how much. We are forgetting that this team is rebuilding sometimes I think the worst thing that happened was that they won that bowl last year, because people here have a false sense of wear the program truely is.

 

[suloyalfan]

did the back up qb play defense?

Thank you... that would have been my response.

The STARTING QB for Wake Forest led them to 1 score in the 2nd half through 19 minutes (out of 30)... they kicked a FG one play after he left the game. He played a fine game and was making some good plays... but he was also playing against a banged up secondary (which no one seems to mention or remember) for most of the game (Rishard Anderson, Phillip Thomas, Olando Fisher, and Shamarko Thomas were all out for parts of this game due to injury).

But, yes, the loss of Tanner Price was the ONLY reason lowly Syracuse was able to win the game. Whoa is us... we're not worthy to win any of these games... Good thing all of these teams just rolled over for Syracuse this year because they feel bad for Syracuse... otherwise, Syracuse would be 0-6 and hanging their heads in shame.

I don't understand why some of you can't just give Syracuse credit for things they've accomplished. Syracuse outscored Wake Forest 29-9 in the 2nd half and OT. Isn't that worth something? They put up 33 points on Toledo (who only gave up 27 to Ohio State the week before). Syracuse scored 37 points against Tulane (who gives up an average of 35.8 points per game against FBS competition this season so far)... what was an acceptable amount of points for the fanbase? 45? 55? 65?

The team has "won ugly" this year so far... I get it. But, I get so tired of all the negativity of the fanbase expressed relentlessly on this forum. Syracuse has issues and weaknesses, but so does almost every other team in the country. Syracuse has been good enough to fight their way to 4-2, and given the weakness of the Big East, they have a great opportunity to win some games in the second half of the season. Just about all I hear on this site is constant whining about how "lucky" we've been, how we don't deserve to have the wins we have, how we have no talent, and how poorly we recruit, and on, and on, and on. Yes, this is a message board and people are going to debate topics... but it's very frustrating to hear constant negativity from a significant portion of the SYRACUSE fanbase regarding our team. I, for one, am happy that Syracuse has navigated the first 6 games and managed 4 victories. There are definitely plenty of areas for improvement, but I'm looking forward to seeing how the second half of the season plays out.

 

[cmr27]

Thank you... that would have been my response.

Just about all I hear on this site is constant whining about how "lucky" we've been, how we don't deserve to have the wins we have, how we have no talent, and how poorly we recruit, and on, and on, and on. Yes, this is a message board and people are going to debate topics... but it's very frustrating to hear constant negativity from a significant portion of the SYRACUSE fanbase regarding our team. I, for one, am happy that Syracuse has navigated the first 6 games and managed 4 victories. There are definitely plenty of areas for improvement, but I'm looking forward to seeing how the second half of the season plays out.

Great post. I keep looking for the "lucky wins" column on the stat sheet, but can't find it. The team can get better, yes. There's no reason to diminish what has been accomplished.

 

[Stern]

what some call negativity MOST call reality!