Preseason USA Today Coaches Poll

[Alsacs]

http://sportspolls.usatoday.com/ncaa/football/polls/coaches-poll/

We play #8 Florida State, #12 Clemson, #13 LSU.

I think Alabama is too high at#3. Question marks at QB.

I don't get how Phil Steele didn't think LSU would a top 25 team. I knew they would be in the teens.

Week 1 for VPI against Ohio State without 4 good to important players is real interesting. I grabbed VPI +17 before that line falls.

 

[longislandcuse]

ACC needs another team to jump up and be a consistent Top 25 team. A Virginia Tech, Miami or Syracuse. We can't be respected as challenging the SEC when we have two perennial powers in FSU and Clemson and a bunch of borderline top 25 teams. Georgia Tech establishing themselves helps but they aren't exactly a "sexy" team.

 

[Alsacs]

Miami with the HS talent in So. Florida has no business not being a top 25 pretty much every year. Miami should be the Florida State of the Coastal that was one reason the ACC divided them up in different divisions in 2005.

 

[longislandcuse]

A perennial Top 15 of FSU - Clemson -Miami with a perennial Top 25 of Georgia Tech - Louisville - Va Tech would really make this a sexy conference. It's also attainable given Miami's recruiting and the established cultures of Ga Tech, Va Tech and L'Ville.

Of course, adding Syracuse to the mix would be great for the conference and us. We need to become the northern team, not BC or Pitt.

 

[Alsacs]

ACC has a ton of football potential.
FSU/Clemson/Miami as you say should be perennial contenders.
You nailed the ACC middle class perfectly Georgia Tech and Virginia Tech with Louisville.
Duke has potential to be the Stanford of the East Coast.
UNC/BC/SU/NC State/Pitt/UVA/Wake need one or two to take turns stepping up each year.

 

[baggerbob]

Miami with the HS talent in So. Florida has no business not being a top 25 pretty much every year. Miami should be the Florida State of the Coastal that was one reason the ACC divided them up in different divisions in 2005.

If Miami doesn't win at least 10 games, and finish in the top 20, they need to clean house. The talent they bring in should be top 15 every year.

 

[Upstate]

As long as Miami has Al Golden, they shouldn't be sniffing any preseason rankings.

 

[HtownOrange]

Syracuse needs to be the team in the north in the ACC and in CFB. Add a strong Pitt and watch the B1G stumble and fumble along.

 

[TheCusian]

ACC has a ton of football potential. FSU/Clemson/Miami as you say should be perennial contenders. You nailed the ACC middle class perfectly Georgia Tech and Virginia Tech with Louisville. Duke has potential to be the Stanford of the East Coast. UNC/BC/SU/NC State/Pitt/UVA/Wake need one or two to take turns stepping up each year.

I don't get why we place ourselves under these glass ceilings. What was in place in the 80/90's that can't be replicated? We'll never be in a great recruiting area - but we have the facilities, conference affiliation, AD, etc to sustain top 3 in our division.

I'll give you that our coaches have a lot to prove, but coaches change.

 

[Alsacs]

I don't get why we place ourselves under these glass ceilings. What was in place in the 80/90's that can't be replicated? We'll never be in a great recruiting area - but we have the facilities, conference affiliation, AD, etc to sustain top 3 in our division.

I'll give you that our coaches have a lot to prove, but coaches change.

By this logic we should expect 9-3 every year.
C'mon Syracuse just needs to be a bowl team yearly and every few years capable of competing with the best.

Our recruiting base makes it practically impossible to expect top 3 finishes in our division consistently. We don't pay our coaching staff enough to expect that. Syracuse is 13th or 14th in coaching staff salaries. If you want consistent top 3 spend money.

There are no glass ceilings its called being objective and realizing the landscape of 21st century CFB. State Us in recruiting hotbeds have an advantage. Private schools need to be in recruiting hotbeds with insane local talent i.e. Baylor/TCU/Miami/USC or have elite academics Duke/Stanford/Northwestern.

Syracuse does not the ability to sustain top 3 in our division unless we have a MAJOR turn around.

 

[TheCusian]

By this logic we should expect 9-3 every year. C'mon Syracuse just needs to be a bowl team yearly and every few years capable of competing with the best. Our recruiting base makes it practically impossible to expect top 3 finishes in our division consistently. We don't pay our coaching staff enough to expect that. Syracuse is 13th or 14th in coaching staff salaries. If you want consistent top 3 spend money. There are no glass ceilings its called being objective and realizing the landscape of 21st century CFB. State Us in recruiting hotbeds have an advantage. Private schools need to be in recruiting hotbeds with insane local talent i.e. Baylor/TCU/Miami/USC or have elite academics Duke/Stanford/Northwestern. Syracuse does not the ability to sustain top 3 in our division unless we have a MAJOR turn around.

That's my point. Why is a MAJOR turnaround that unlikely? New Chancellor, new conference affiliation, new AD... All things are possible.

Can't change being private or natural recruiting areas... Everything else? Yeah - until proven otherwise the new regime should give us hope.

I don't think Coyle is afraid to spend on CFB.

 

[Alsacs]

That's my point. Why is a MAJOR turnaround that unlikely? New Chancellor, new conference affiliation, new AD... All things are possible.

Can't change being private or natural recruiting areas... Everything else? Yeah - until proven otherwise the new regime should give us hope.

I don't think Coyle is afraid to spend on CFB.

I would love to hear KaiserUEO opinion of this. It would be entertaining. I can think of one reason why a turnaround to the extent your say is unlikely and I think you know it.

 

[TheCusian]

I would love to hear KaiserUEO opinion of this. It would be entertaining. I can think of one reason why a turnaround to the extent your say is unlikely and I think you know it.

Huh?

I don't know it. Share away.

 

[Alsacs]

Huh?

I don't know it. Share away.

If by reading my responses to your posts in this thread haven't answered why I don't think we as a program can not expect consistent top 3 finishes in the ACC Atlantic I would rather not say it because I get sick of being accused of being negative when I just look without Orange colored glasses on SU FB.

 

[longtimefan]

By this logic we should expect 9-3 every year.
C'mon Syracuse just needs to be a bowl team yearly and every few years capable of competing with the best.

Our recruiting base makes it practically impossible to expect top 3 finishes in our division consistently. We don't pay our coaching staff enough to expect that. Syracuse is 13th or 14th in coaching staff salaries. If you want consistent top 3 spend money.

There are no glass ceilings its called being objective and realizing the landscape of 21st century CFB. State Us in recruiting hotbeds have an advantage. Private schools need to be in recruiting hotbeds with insane local talent i.e. Baylor/TCU/Miami/USC or have elite academics Duke/Stanford/Northwestern.

Syracuse does not the ability to sustain top 3 in our division unless we have a MAJOR turn around.

I wouldn't lump those teams together like that.

Miami/USC have historical (1980-->) advantages. Baylor/TCU have based their recent ascendancy on coaches and their schemes. And, if the Big XII implodes, all of the non-Bevo/A&M Texas schools will be in big trouble.

As for the "academic" institutions--Duke's recent success is tied to the coaching reputation of an aging Cutcliffe, who may or may not be able to bequeath a sustainable program. Stanford has had great success with its last 2 coaches; but go back ~10 years and they were less than mediocre. On the field, Northwestern has shown that it is a step ahead of SU. But that gap can be quickly closed.

As I composed this, it became clear to me that, outside of traditional big-time powers (USC and Miami), the current success of the other schools is directly tied to the head coach. And even the Trojans and Hurricanes have demonstrated that they can be blah with the wrong man at the helm.

Let's hope we have the right people in charge.

 

[TheCusian]

If by reading my responses to your posts in this thread haven't answered why I don't think we as a program can not expect consistent top 3 finishes in the ACC Atlantic I would rather not say it because I get sick of being accused of being negative when I just look without Orange colored glasses on SU FB.

I gave you recruiting territories, private affiliation. I could see an aging Carrier Dome as another (but that sounds like it could be remedied). People spent a long time harping on the IPF, but that's solved.

If your afraid to say coaching, you haven't read my posts in this thread. I said "coaches change." Coaching salaries can change too (and with a new AD, I'd bet they do).

So what's this mystery ailment that's afflicting the program? Donors? Local fandom?

 

[Scooch]

That's my point. Why is a MAJOR turnaround that unlikely? New Chancellor, new conference affiliation, new AD... All things are possible. Can't change being private or natural recruiting areas... Everything else? Yeah - until proven otherwise the new regime should give us hope. I don't think Coyle is afraid to spend on CFB.

Nothing's impossible, I have to believe that with the right coach, staff, facilities, AD and a little good fortune we can get back to being a top 25 program. Otherwise there'd be no point in spending as much time here as I do.

One thing that I do think was an under told part of why we did well in the late 80s and 90s was the lack of NE competition. Penn State always clobbered us on the recruiting trail, but Pitt fell on hard times, Rutgers and Temple were complete jokes, BC had a couple of good stretches mixed in with some awfulness, and UConn didn't exist. Plus we were ahead of our time in mining Florida for kids passed over by the big 3.

The other things that helped us was (a) recruiting athletic, black QBs when many school wanted to move those kids to other positions, (b) recruiting for speed on D and moving players up positions as they improved their strength (safeties to LBs, LBs, to DEs), and (c) being among the first to play starters on special teams in a big way.

The resurgence of eastern programs and the lack of innovation has really crippled us in recent years.

 

[HtownOrange]

By this logic we should expect 9-3 every year.
C'mon Syracuse just needs to be a bowl team yearly and every few years capable of competing with the best.

Our recruiting base makes it practically impossible to expect top 3 finishes in our division consistently. We don't pay our coaching staff enough to expect that. Syracuse is 13th or 14th in coaching staff salaries. If you want consistent top 3 spend money.

There are no glass ceilings its called being objective and realizing the landscape of 21st century CFB. State Us in recruiting hotbeds have an advantage. Private schools need to be in recruiting hotbeds with insane local talent i.e. Baylor/TCU/Miami/USC or have elite academics Duke/Stanford/Northwestern.

Syracuse does not the ability to sustain top 3 in our division unless we have a MAJOR turn around.

Simply because Syracuse has a currently lower paid HC, does not mean this is the case forever in perpetuity. Things change, highs and lows occur, fiscal constraints get loosened and contracted, etc. things go in cycles. Syracuse already has a recruiting base up and down the east coast as well as the midwest. As we improve, we will land bigger recruits, kids who want playing time over the "glory" of riding the pine with a chance to shine as a senior. Taking a picture of one moment in time is not a good method of forecasting.

 

[Alsacs]

I gave you recruiting territories, private affiliation. I could see an aging Carrier Dome as another (but that sounds like it could be remedied). People spent a long time harping on the IPF, but that's solved.

If your afraid to say coaching, you haven't read my posts in this thread. I said "coaches change." Coaching salaries can change too (and with a new AD, I'd bet they do).

So what's this mystery ailment that's afflicting the program? Donors? Local fandom?

If coaches change we would have a chance. The status quo now I would say we have a glass ceiling.

 

[TheCusian]

I wouldn't lump those teams together like that. Miami/USC have historical (1980-->) advantages. Baylor/TCU have based their recent ascendancy on coaches and their schemes. And, if the Big XII implodes, all of the non-Bevo/A&M Texas schools will be in big trouble. As for the "academic" institutions--Duke's recent success is tied to the coaching reputation of an aging Cutcliffe, who may or may not be able to bequeath a sustainable program. Stanford has had great success with its last 2 coaches; but go back ~10 years and they were less than mediocre. On the field, Northwestern has shown that it is a step ahead of SU. But that gap can be quickly closed. As I composed this, it became clear to me that, outside of traditional big-time powers (USC and Miami), the current success of the other schools is directly tied to the head coach. And even the Trojans and Hurricanes have demonstrated that they can be blah with the wrong man at the helm. Let's hope we have the right people in charge.

This is it exactly. I don't know if it's Shafer or not - but I am very hopeful that we have the right chancellor and AD in place.

Why we need to "just hope to make bowl games" and "rise up every few years with Wake and NC State" is selling the university and our history short.

 

[Alsacs]

Simply because Syracuse has a currently lower paid HC, does not mean this is the case forever in perpetuity. Things change, highs and lows occur, fiscal constraints get loosened and contracted, etc. things go in cycles. Syracuse already has a recruiting base up and down the east coast as well as the midwest. As we improve, we will land bigger recruits, kids who want playing time over the "glory" of riding the pine with a chance to shine as a senior. Taking a picture of one moment in time is not a good method of forecasting.

Currently lower paid coach implies not the best HC we could have leading the program. We hired a prospect not a finished product. The prospect over known quality costs less. If you believe the prospect will develop into something that is your right but Cusian already knows how I feel.

 

[TheCusian]

Nothing's impossible, I have to believe that with the right coach, staff, facilities, AD and a little good fortune we can get back to being a top 25 program. Otherwise there'd be no point in spending as much time here as I do. One thing that I do think was an under told part of why we did well in the late 80s and 90s was the lack of NE competition. Penn State always clobbered us on the recruiting trail, but Pitt fell on hard times, Rutgers and Temple were complete jokes, BC had a couple of good stretches mixed in with some awfulness, and UConn didn't exist. Plus we were ahead of our time in mining Florida for kids passed over by the big 3. The other things that helped us was (a) recruiting athletic, black QBs when many school wanted to move those kids to other positions, (b) recruiting for speed on D and moving players up positions as they improved their strength (safeties to LBs, LBs, to DEs), and (c) being among the first to play starters on special teams in a big way. The resurgence of eastern programs and the lack of innovation has really crippled us in recent years.

I'd agree with that. Very fair take.

There's still room for innovation and UCONN is falling backwards into irrelevance. But point taken.

 

[TheCusian]

If coaches change we would have a chance. The status quo now I would say we have a glass ceiling.

That's your opinion - but understandable.

 

[TheCusian]

Currently lower paid coach implies not the best HC we could have leading the program. We hired a prospect not a finished product. The prospect over known quality costs less. If you believe the prospect will develop into something that is your right but Cusian already knows how I feel.

Yeah - you were saying "as currently constituted" and I was saying "things change in the future" ... Two different arguments.

But yeah I know your position and hope you get to eat a pile of crow .

 

[HtownOrange]

I wouldn't lump those teams together like that.

Miami/USC have historical (1980-->) advantages. Baylor/TCU have based their recent ascendancy on coaches and their schemes. And, if the Big XII implodes, all of the non-Bevo/A&M Texas schools will be in big trouble.

As for the "academic" institutions--Duke's recent success is tied to the coaching reputation of an aging Cutcliffe, who may or may not be able to bequeath a sustainable program. Stanford has had great success with its last 2 coaches; but go back ~10 years and they were less than mediocre. On the field, Northwestern has shown that it is a step ahead of SU. But that gap can be quickly closed.

As I composed this, it became clear to me that, outside of traditional big-time powers (USC and Miami), the current success of the other schools is directly tied to the head coach. And even the Trojans and Hurricanes have demonstrated that they can be blah with the wrong man at the helm.

Let's hope we have the right people in charge.

I would add that even the Big State U's have the same problem with coaching issues. tOSU won a championship in the sixties and went decades without another championship. Michigan is in a bad way now (they lost to Rutgers!) but they will come out of it, I have no doubts. Bama dropped off the football map for many years. UF may be coming out of bad years. UT was down for a while. the list goes on and on.