SU FB History Lesson - Reason to Relax

[SWC75]

so all coaches should get 7-8 years?

it doesnt work that way in todays world where winning is more important to the bottom line than it was yesteryear.

If we dial it back, we may never get there. We could have a succession of coaches who, staritng over again, never get there.

 

[JeremyCuse]

so all coaches should get 7-8 years?

it doesnt work that way in todays world where winning is more important to the bottom line than it was yesteryear.

Zero chance Marrone gets 7-8 years, if things dont show some improvement by next year he will be let go. No BCS level school can wait 7-8 years anymore. I am hopeful next year if we can get a QB this team can take another step forward. Im less optimistic on this season.

 

[OrangePA]

Difference: Mac had a Head Coach Job and a lot more Pro experience.

Well, I'm not sure the HC experience made much of a difference given that Mac inherited a program that was, in 1980, in much better shape than the program was in 2008 when Marrone came on board, and it took Mac more than six years to finally get over the hump.

Marrone has moved more quickly with the progam and, as noted, started with far less than Coach Mac.

Also, Doug has more pro experience than Mac - seven years to five years - and Doug was a pro coordinator - Mac was essentially a LB coach with Denver and Cleveland.

 

[SWC75]

Zero chance Marrone gets 7-8 years, if things dont show some improvement by next year he will be let go. No BCS level school can wait 7-8 years anymore. I am hopeful next year if we can get a QB this team can take another step forward. Im less optimistic on this season.

This school did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Pinkel

What you can't afford to do is things that prevent you from makiing a success of the program. You can declare that it's a new age where you can't wait but that doesn't mean it takes any less time to build a success. This school is not a "football factory". At Ohio State or Alabama they can afford to pull the trigger quickly but we can't afford to do that here.

 

[SWC75]

BS was 4 games over .500 after 4 years.

Marrone would have to be 7 games over 500 this year to match that 4 year record

so BS isn't a great comparison.

if marrone goes 4-8 this year (that's my guess) , he'll be 7 games under .500 through 4 years just like Mac

marrone is following right in mac's footsteps. hopefully he follows the same blueprint with a great QB. then who knows maybe he makes a mistake goes to the NFL just like Mac.

Ben was 10-9 in his second and third years, Doug 14-14, so I don't think the comparison is that far off. Doug had a worse first eyar but I don't think you want to fire him because of that. I also think Ben didn't face schedules that were as difficult. Even that fourth Schwartzwalder team lost to Michigan State 7-48 and Alabama 6-61.

 

[JeremyCuse]

This school did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Pinkel

What you can't afford to do is things that prevent you from makiing a success of the program. You can declare that it's a new age where you can't wait but that doesn't mean it takes any less time to build a success. This school is not a "football factory". At Ohio State or Alabama they can afford to pull the trigger quickly but we can't afford to do that here.

Pinkel hasnt had a losing season 2004 his fourth year there and despite his record was almost fired a couple of times. Not sure Mizzou is really a comparable option your talking about the then Big 12 (Neb, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma etc) versus the Big East. SU cant afford to weight 7-8 years to see if Marrone is the guy when were finishing in the basement of the worst BCS conference of all time and havent beaten Uconn or Pitt in a decade.

 

[Millhouse]

Ben was 10-9 in his second and third years, Doug 14-14, so I don't think the comparison is that far off. Doug had a worse first eyar but I don't think you want to fire him because of that. I also think Ben didn't face schedules that were as difficult. Even that fourth Schwartzwalder team lost to Michigan State 7-48 and Alabama 6-61.

i don't want to fire marrone at all. nassib is just good enough to hamper his ability to recruit over him but not good enough to take the offense anywhere. Just good enough to be the worst 3 year starter ever. I'm not willing to fire him for that. so we have to wait. now given what other teams are able to do with their quarterbacks, he has to get it right with broyld or hunt. by the time those guys are upperclassmen, we're around the same time into his tenure as ben and mac's breakthroughs.

looking at games over 500, ben didn't have as many games - easier to get more games over 500 when you play more games, even if the schedule's a little harder i think.

 

[billsin01]

Sure it could be a million different factors: bad coaching, injuries, tough scheduling, learning curve, bad luck...and history does repeat itself, but this is a classic 'appeal to nature' logical fallacy. Just because its natural does not mean its valid, inevitable or ideal.

Ummmm ... uhhhhh ... what? I think all he's saying is that rebuilding -- while we'd all love it to be -- is not a linear process. Good coach or bad there are usually ebbs and flows, highs and lows along the way.

 

[rrlbees]

Zero chance Marrone gets 7-8 years, if things dont show some improvement by next year he will be let go. No BCS level school can wait 7-8 years anymore. I am hopeful next year if we can get a QB this team can take another step forward. Im less optimistic on this season.

I don't think Marrone will give himself 7-8 years.

 

[orangenirvana]

Ben was 10-9 in his second and third years, Doug 14-14, so I don't think the comparison is that far off. Doug had a worse first eyar but I don't think you want to fire him because of that. I also think Ben didn't face schedules that were as difficult. Even that fourth Schwartzwalder team lost to Michigan State 7-48 and Alabama 6-61.

We're comparing records while completely ignoring strength of schedule, which is kind of important, no? How did SU's schedule strength back then compare to now? I can't imagine it was nearly as easy as today, what with more participating D1 schools (watered down teams) and being in an extremely weak conference. I really don't know, the Mac years were before my time (especially the early years).

Also, did Coach Mac struggle as much with gameday decisions and clock management as Marrone has? Not to say a coach has to be brilliant in these areas to be a good head coach, but Marrone has struggled mightily in this area.

 

[billsin01]

nassib is just good enough to hamper his ability to recruit over him but not good enough to take the offense anywhere. Just good enough to be the worst 3 year starter ever.

This is laughable. I get that Nassib is limited and not a world beater at QB, but how in the world is he hampering anyone's ability to recruit over him? In fact, I'd think that responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the staff.

I don't care which opinion you take, but Nassib either sucks and the guys behind him are even suckier (at this point) or he's better than you think and while there
may be some talent behind him, they simply have not reached his level yet. The idea that he is impeding the program (i.e. keeping other deserving kids off the field or other recruits from joining the fold) is absurd, IMO.

And as far as not taking the offense anywhere, we won 10 games in 2001 with RJ Anderson's primary skill being "not turning it over." Is that a blueprint for success? Absolutely not. Would I rather have an AA at quarterback? Absolutely. But the idea that Nassib's shortcomings are what are truly holding our offense back is far too simple an explanation and certainly nothing more than a subjective point with pretty thin substantiation behind it.

 

[All4SU]

I don't think Marrone will give himself 7-8 years.

Agree. IF it takes 8 years, HCDM would spontaneously combust before then.

 

[billsin01]

SU cant afford to weight 7-8 years to see if Marrone is the guy when were finishing in the basement of the worst BCS conference of all time and havent beaten Uconn or Pitt in a decade.

I think your general point is fine but I think it could be argued that pulling the trigger too quickly without fully supporting a rebuilding project under a guy that has had some success (remember, he inherited a mess and has been to a bowl game AND is only in year 4) is equally as fruitless. Especially if a major disparity in facilities/financial investment exists.

 

[Millhouse]

This is laughable. I get that Nassib is limited and not a world beater at QB, but how in the world is he hampering anyone's ability to recruit over him? In fact, I'd think that responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the staff.

I don't care which opinion you take, but Nassib either sucks and the guys behind him are even suckier (at this point) or he's better than you think and while there
may be some talent behind him, they simply have not reached his level yet. The idea that he is impeding the program (i.e. keeping other deserving kids off the field or other recruits from joining the fold) is absurd, IMO.

And as far as not taking the offense anywhere, we won 10 games in 2001 with RJ Anderson's primary skill being "not turning it over." Is that a blueprint for success? Absolutely not. Would I rather have an AA at quarterback? Absolutely. But the idea that Nassib's shortcomings are what are truly holding our offense back is far too simple an explanation and certainly nothing more than a subjective point with pretty thin substantiation behind it.

if he were worse, we might've recruited someone better than loeb or kinder because the recruit would have more confidence he'd play immediately.

he's good enough to deter recruits who wanted immediate playing time but not good enough to have a good offense. qb recruiting got better the closer nassib got to graduation. it's how it goes with entrenched starters

 

[JeremyCuse]

I think your general point is fine but I think it could be argued that pulling the trigger too quickly without fully supporting a rebuilding project under a guy that has had some success (remember, he inherited a mess and has been to a bowl game AND is only in year 4) is equally as fruitless. Especially if a major disparity in facilities/financial investment exists.

Marrone is going to get 5 years, I think we should have a good handle on where the program is and where it is headed by then. Barring an absolute meltdown he will be back next year without question.

 

[OrangePA]

This school did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Pinkel

What you can't afford to do is things that prevent you from makiing a success of the program. You can declare that it's a new age where you can't wait but that doesn't mean it takes any less time to build a success. This school is not a "football factory". At Ohio State or Alabama they can afford to pull the trigger quickly but we can't afford to do that here.

True.

It will take more time at Syracuse University.

The Administration should and likely will give Coach Marrone that time.

 

[billsin01]

if he were worse, we might've recruited someone better than loeb or kinder because the recruit would have more confidence he'd play immediately.

he's good enough to deter recruits who wanted immediate playing time but not good enough to have a good offense. qb recruiting got better the closer nassib got to graduation. it's how it goes with entrenched starters

Eh, I don't buy that. If you're a legit HS QB who liked Marrone and co., liked the school, liked the location, etc. -- you're going elsewhere so you don't have to sit behind Nassib? If it were that simple we would have signed someone better in the 10-year interval between mcnabb and nassib. Instead the best QB recruit we've landed is the guy you refer to as the worst three-year starter in quarterback history.

 

[Fjoinkay]

This is a fun thread to read. My thought is that if SU's offense improves this year and SU has a winning record, both are possible, then Marrone is as popular and secure in his job as he was one year ago.

The 2012 schedule is much more difficult, but I really believe the 2012 team is better. I believe the defense is better. If the offense improves I think everyone will be excited about the future.

 

[xc84]

Eh, I don't buy that. If you're a legit HS QB who liked Marrone and co., liked the school, liked the location, etc. -- you're going elsewhere so you don't have to sit behind Nassib? If it were that simple we would have signed someone better in the 10-year interval between mcnabb and nassib. Instead the best QB recruit we've landed is the guy you refer to as the worst three-year starter in quarterback history.

I agree and frankly, if there was any kid who was that worried about competing for the starting job with Nassib (or any other potential starter), I would not recruit him.

 

[Millhouse]

I agree and frankly, if there was any kid who was that worried about competing for the starting job with Nassib (or any other potential starter), I would not recruit him.

ah yes the famous message board guy who thinks that recruits should pay no attention to depth charts.

 

[xc84]

ah yes the famous message board guy who thinks that recruits should pay no attention to depth charts.

Ah yes, the big-time poster guy who thinks that all QBs must select teams that don't have a talented QB so he can play immediately.

 

[SWC75]

looking at games over 500, ben didn't have as many games - easier to get more games over 500 when you play more games, even if the schedule's a little harder i think.

It would also be easier to get more games under .500. Being .500 would have the same degree of difficulty.

 

[SWC75]

We're comparing records while completely ignoring strength of schedule, which is kind of important, no? How did SU's schedule strength back then compare to now? I can't imagine it was nearly as easy as today, what with more participating D1 schools (watered down teams) and being in an extremely weak conference. I really don't know, the Mac years were before my time (especially the early years).

This site has all the scores:
http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Syracuse.htm

This one ranks all the teams:
http://www.jhowell.net/cf/cfindex.htm

I did the math:

In 1949, SU played one small college. Seven of the other 8 teams were ranked 52nd or below. The average ranking, (there were 120 teams ranked so I'll count the small college team, Lafayette, as #121), was 75th. The best team we played was Cornell who was #29.
In 1950, SU played two small colleges, (Lafayette and John Carroll). Six of the remaining eight teams were ranked #72 or worse. The only two top 50 teams were Cornell at #33 and Fordham at #42. The average ranking, (There were 121 teams ranked so the smalls got #122 and #123), was 78th.
In 1951, SU played one small college, (again, Lafayette). They also played #3 Illinois and #46 Cornell. The other six teams were all ranked #60 or worse. The average, (there were 117 majors so Lafayette will be #118), was 67th.
In 1952, SU played a service team and nine college teams, including Michigan State, (#1 in both polls but Howell has them #3), #8 Alabama, #17 Penn State and #27 Holy Cross. The other were ranked #55 or worse and the average, (I won’t include the service team since we don’t where they would rank), was 53rd (of 111).
In 1953, Temple had been dropped from the major college rankings. Illinois was #10 and Penn State #36. The others were ranked 53rd or worse. There were 112 major teams that year so, ranking Temple #113, the average was 66th.
In 1954, all the teams were collegiate, major college teams. Penn State was #31 and Boston U. #46. The rest were all #56 or worse, an average of 73rd, (of 112).
In 1955, (all all collegiate majors: assume that from here on in unless I mention otherwise), Maryland was #3, Pittsburgh #13, West Virginia #15, Army #43 and Colgate, (yes, Colgate) #44. The average was 44th (of 111).
In the breakthrough year of 1956 we played 9 teams, including #8 Texas Christian, #10 Pittsburgh, #25 Penn State, #40 West Virginia and #43 Army. The average was 48th (of 112).

In 1981, we played #2 Penn State, #3 Pittsburgh, #17 West Virginia, #34 Illinois and #39 Navy. The rest were #52 or worse and the average was #49 (of 138).
In 1982, Colgate fell to Division 1AA. We played #1 Penn State, #6 Pittsburgh, #12 West Virginia, #14 Maryland, #28 Boston College and #35 Illinois. Counting Colgate as #115, we averaged 42nd of 114.
In 1983, we played #2 Nebraska, #10 West Virginia, #13 Pittsburgh, #17 Maryland, #22 Boston College and #27 Penn State. The other five teams were #66 or worse and the average was 50th, (of 113).
In 1984, we played #3 Florida, #4 Nebraska, #6 Boston College, #9 Maryland, #18 West Virginia, #31 Army, #34 Rutgers and #43 Penn State. There were only three teams of 11 out of the top 50: #62 Navy, #70 Pittsburgh, (who had been thought to be a national title contender), and #97 Northwestern. The average was 34th (of 111). Probably the toughest schedule we have ever played.
In 1985, we played #4 Penn State, #16 Maryland, #38 West Virginia, #46 Mississippi State, #48 Virginia Tech and #50 Pittsburgh. The others were all ranked 56th or worse. The average was 58th (of 111).
In 1986, we played #1 Penn State, #18 Boston College, #25 Virginia Tech, #33 Temple, #36 Pittsburgh and #43 Rutgers. The others were all ranked #56 or worse. The average was 48th (of 106).
In 1987, Mac’s breakthrough year, we played Colgate, a 1AA team. We also played #5 Auburn, #26 Penn State #36 West Virginia, #41 Boston College, #45 Missouri and #48 Rutgers. The others were ranked #51 or worse. Counting Colgate as #106, the average was 51stnd, (of 105). I’ve heard the opinion that we went undefeated due to a weak schedule in 1987. We’ve played stronger schedules, (1984). but this one wasn’t weak.

In 2009, we played Maine, a 1AA team. We also played #7 Cincinnati, #10 Penn State, #15 Pittsburgh, #29 West Virginia, #31 Connecticut, #37 Rutgers and #44 South Florida. The other teams were rated #55 or worse. The average, counting Maine as #122, was 51st (of 121).
In 2010, we played two 1AA teams, Maine and Colgate. We also played #25 West Virginia, #35 Pittsburgh, #43 Washington, #47 Connecticut and #50 South Florida, (two of whom we beat). But we were dragged down by playing the two 1AA teams, (count them as #122 and #123), and Akron who was #121. The average was 70th (of 121).
In 2011, we played one 1AA team, Rhode Island. We also played #14 Southern California, #21 West Virginia, #28 Cincinnati, #32 Rutgers and #35 Toledo. The rest were ranked #55 or worse. The average, (counting Rhode Island as #122), was 60th (of 121).
I don’t think Doug Marrone’s schedules have been weak compared to Ben’s or Mac’s. The 2010 schedule didn’t have a high rating because we played three very low-rated teams but we also played 5 top 50 teams and beat two of them and won a bowl game.
　

 

[SWC75]

so all coaches should get 7-8 years?

it doesnt work that way in todays world where winning is more important to the bottom line than it was yesteryear.

Why will is be easier now, such that it will take fewer years? And if it's not easier, what is the point of firing coaches until we find a miracle worker who can deliver in less than that? After a while, no one, (coaches or recruits) will want to come here because it's a revolving door.

 

[SWC75]

Pinkel hasnt had a losing season 2004 his fourth year there and despite his record was almost fired a couple of times. Not sure Mizzou is really a comparable option your talking about the then Big 12 (Neb, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma etc) versus the Big East. SU cant afford to weight 7-8 years to see if Marrone is the guy when were finishing in the basement of the worst BCS conference of all time and havent beaten Uconn or Pitt in a decade.

But he wasn't fired and it paid off. That's the point. And we are going to the ACC, so the Big 12 may be a better reference point.