SU FB History Lesson - Reason to Relax

[44cuse]

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.
　

Those sites link from a "gambling website". Sorry...ten year old inside joke that no one is going to get anymore but still makes me chuckle.

44cuse

 

[kirbivore]

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

I wish Xavier Lee paid attention to depth charts. Had a legit chance to start from day 1 here but decided to go to Florida St. and fight for the job with at least 5 other QB's on the roster. Even when he eventually started he was still looking over his shoulder.

 

[Stern]

so tired of comparing everything to coach mac era. so many things have changed in the last 30 years...

Coach Mac coached SU football in a landscape of college football that isn't anything like what we have today. The landscape of college football is so different today. The comparisons are old, outdated, and not anything to draw anything from.

 

[SWC75]

Coach Mac coached SU football in a landscape of college football that isn't anything like what we have today. The landscape of college football is so different today. The comparisons are old, outdated, and not anything to draw anything from.

What's going to make it easier to rebuidl the program now than in Ben and Mac's time? What are the changes that make that possible?

 

[Stern]

What's going to make it easier to rebuidl the program now than in Ben and Mac's time? What are the changes that make that possible?

A true college coach with true college HEAD coaching experience.

Marrone is another NFL coach in my mind cut more from the cloth of Robinson than some want to admit. Not as bad as Robinson obviously but he is closer to Gregg than some think. Yes Marrone spent some time at GT and coaching in college, but he is an NFL guy.

 

[SWC75]

A true college coach with true college HEAD coaching experience.

Marrone is another NFL coach in my mind cut more from the cloth of Robinson than some want to admit. Not as bad as Robinson obviously but he is closer to Gregg than some think. Yes Marrone spent some time at GT and coaching in college, but he is an NFL guy.

Ben and Mac had both been college head coaches and it took them 7-8 years. I'm trying to find out what's changed that would allow a "true college coach" to do it in less.

 

[Stern]

Ben and Mac had both been college head coaches and it took them 7-8 years. I'm trying to find out what's changed that would allow a "true college coach" to do it in less.

Money other schools throw into their football programs. The gap between the "haves" and "have not's" is as big as its ever been. Back in the day the gap was much much much smaller.

 

[xc84]

Money other schools throw into their football programs. The gap between the "haves" and "have not's" is as big as its ever been. Back in the day the gap was much much much smaller.

Not so sure. How do you explain Boise or even UConn and USF? The fact is, much more parity in college football now than when Ben and Mac coached.

 

[SWC75]

Money other schools throw into their football programs. The gap between the "haves" and "have not's" is as big as its ever been. Back in the day the gap was much much much smaller.

Wouldn't that make it harder to build a football program today, not easier? The idea is that it can be done more quickly today because of the change in eras so we can afford to be less patient.

 

[Stern]

Wouldn't that make it harder to build a football program today, not easier? The idea is that it can be done more quickly today because of the change in eras so we can afford to be less patient.

It's also not an excuse. Marrone's failures have been "in-game" decisions and poor decisions on the sidelines.

I don't hold the lack of facilities against him. That clearly isn't his fault. Marrone has been failing because he is a poor game-day coach and that has NOTHING to do with weight rooms, practice fields...etc

 

[SWC75]

It's also not an excuse. Marrone's failures have been "in-game" decisions and poor decisions on the sidelines.

I don't hold the lack of facilities against him. That clearly isn't his fault. Marrone has been failing because he is a poor game-day coach and that has NOTHING to do with weight rooms, practice fields...etc

We still haven't found out what in this era will make it easier and faster to rebuild the program. Your point simply seems to be that Marrone is not the one to do it. I don't know what the scuttlebut was back in Ben's era but there were many people who felt the same way about Mac before '87.

 

[Stern]

We still haven't found out what in this era will make it easier and faster to rebuild the program.

Money invested in the program and a solid leader who knows what they are doing on the sidelines

Your point simply seems to be that Marrone is not the one to do it.

I don't hold the lack of money and investment in the program against him. But I have seen too many red flags and failures in leadership and and failures with gameday decisions to know beyond a shadow of a doubt he isn't a solid leader who is the man for THIS job. I hope he proves me wrong though.

 

[SWC75]

Money invested in the program and a solid leader who knows what they are doing on the sidelines

So now we can spend our way into improving the program whereas we couldn't in the past? Every era has "solid leaders" and those who are not.

 

[xc84]

So now we can spend our way into improving the program whereas we couldn't in the past? Every era has "solid leaders" and those who are not.

Great points. If we had the internet and this forum after Mac's first year, we'd be getting the same comments: "Things are much different now than when Ben was here" and "Mac is not a good game-day coach and he can't recruit well". "Hi play calling is too simple...everyone knows what he is going to do."

 

[BlueCurtain]

As long as we're battling Hofstra for recruits, we're not going anywhere. Talent solves a lot of problems. Coach P was able to bring in skill position talent which bought him many years of relative success. Even though he couldn't coach his way out of a pizza box, the program was relevant and people came to watch. His demise was tied to the talent level depletion.

We need to recruit better before we even worry about the game plan and decision-making on the field. DM needs to hire assistants who can sell the program -- ends justify the means at this point. Marrone does not strike me as a salesman, so someone else on the staff needs to be that guy. If not, then he has to go. How many more fans need to kick the bucket on this watch? It's been 15 years since SU football was something to talk about.

 

[JeremyCuse]

It's also not an excuse. Marrone's failures have been "in-game" decisions and poor decisions on the sidelines.

I don't hold the lack of facilities against him. That clearly isn't his fault. Marrone has been failing because he is a poor game-day coach and that has NOTHING to do with weight rooms, practice fields...etc

BINGO. From head shaking play calling to horrendous clock management Marrone has left a lot to be desired on the field especially last year.

 

[SU2NASA]

Money invested in the program and a solid leader who knows what they are doing on the sidelines

I don't hold the lack of money and investment in the program against him. But I have seen too many red flags and failures in leadership and and failures with gameday decisions to know beyond a shadow of a doubt he isn't a solid leader who is the man for THIS job. I hope he proves me wrong though.

Not going for it on 4th and inches, inside the 1, against Rutgers at home, with the game on the line...

And not using Adonis only to burn his redshirt a week later.

That dumb, gutless call may have cost the team a bowl game last year.

 

[Henny & Coke]

We still haven't found out what in this era will make it easier and faster to rebuild the program. Your point simply seems to be that Marrone is not the one to do it. I don't know what the scuttlebut was back in Ben's era but there were many people who felt the same way about Mac before '87.

So, because two different coaches in the history of SU Football both happened to find success around the same time period in their coaching tenure (7-8 years in), that makes 7-8 years a universal benchmark for how long it will take every coach thereafter to turn a rebuilding project into a success? Yikes.

As far as what has changed in this "era", from 1987 and 1956 (the years of the "turnarounds") that may enable a coach to find success quicker than before? Well, I don't know about "quicker", but I'd argue that all the changes that have occured since those time periods have made it pretty useless to compare similar situations and accurately project what may happen in the future off of them. Just some of those changes include:

1987 - I'm assuming that scouting high school players is much easier now (internet), and that recruits come from different areas (maybe not even further...just different)...larger coaching staffs, more emphasis on passing games allow for the importance of finding a difference maker at just one position (QB) to increase (so a guy like Luck or Griffin being on a rebuilding team can have great improvments on their team's win/loss records unlike 25 years ago), how good your direct opponents are in those time periods, which schools are "cheating" in those time periods, just so many changes happen in 25 years (money spent on athletics, community support, impact of coaching strategies, ect) that make comparisons to what happened 25 years ago pretty useless, IMO.

And as for what has changed since 1956? Wow. Um, I guess we can start with the fact that some colleges wouldn't play african-american athletes, while others would, as evidenced by this account of events:

"Having said all that, I will now add that LeVias was technically not the first black player in SWC history. Let’s return to the summer of 1964, nearly a year before LeVias signed a scholarship offer with SMU. John Westbrook, then entering his senior year at Washington High School in Elgin, stepped into the offices of the coaching staff at Baylor University and told them of his plans to enroll there and perhaps play football. Westbrook, the son of a Baptist minister, had been ordained at age 15, and Baylor was a Baptist school, so why not? Well, for one thing, the BU Board of Trustees had only integrated the university in November 1963, and no word had been said about athletics. Like most European-American Texans back then, they did not want to think about a black guy wearing the green and gold of the Baylor Bears.

Coach John Bridgers and chancellor Abner McCall may not have been eager, but they decided to let Westbrook walk on as a freshman in 1965. He was one of just seven black students on a campus of 7,000, the large majority of whom were sons and daughters of the South. Hostility and isolation were the norm, although to be fair to those people, they were feeling their way in an integrated world, too. Westbrook’s arrival on the Baylor football team was utterly unheralded. His time in the 40-yard dash made him one of the fastest players on the team, but he hardly got on the field that season. Freshman coaches like Milburn “Catfish” Smith and Ramsey Muniz did all they could to discourage Westbrook with verbal taunts and brutal three-on-one drills. He was ignored by most of his teammates and goaded by a few others.

And to make matters worse, some of the black people in Waco regarded him as an Uncle Tom for even making the attempt to integrate Bear football. His lonely fight, however, was made easier by the support and reassurance of Eucolia Erby, a small black man who had known Westbrook’s father. Erby came to practices, watched and encouraged him and told him repeatedly, “Don’t quit.” His coach, Bridgers, made the decision, at the end of spring training, to award him a scholarship. That alone permitted Westbrook to stay at Baylor.

On September 10, 1966 (one week before SMU’s opener in which Jerry LeVias began his fabulous career), Baylor hosted Syracuse. The Bears were ahead by 22 points midway through the fourth quarter when Bridgers sent Westbrook into the game, making history."

http://richardpennington.com/index....football-in-texasracial-integraton-of-college


So...yeah, I'm not exactly sure that comparing situations from 1956 & 1987 and applying them to situations today makes a whole lot of sense. But I could be wrong.

 

[SWC75]

So, because two different coaches in the history of SU Football both happened to find success around the same time period in their coaching tenure (7-8 years in), that makes 7-8 years a universal benchmark for how long it will take every coach thereafter to turn a rebuilding project into a success? Yikes.

As far as what has changed in this "era", from 1987 and 1956 (the years of the "turnarounds") that may enable a coach to find success quicker than before? Well, I don't know about "quicker", but I'd argue that all the changes that have occured since those time periods have made it pretty useless to compare similar situations and accurately project what may happen in the future off of them. Just some of those changes include:

1987 - I'm assuming that scouting high school players is much easier now (internet), and that recruits come from different areas (maybe not even further...just different)...larger coaching staffs, more emphasis on passing games allow for the importance of finding a difference maker at just one position (QB) to increase (so a guy like Luck or Griffin being on a rebuilding team can have great improvments on their team's win/loss records unlike 25 years ago), how good your direct opponents are in those time periods, which schools are "cheating" in those time periods, just so many changes happen in 25 years (money spent on athletics, community support, impact of coaching strategies, ect) that make comparisons to what happened 25 years ago pretty useless, IMO.

And as for what has changed since 1956? Wow. Um, I guess we can start with the fact that some colleges wouldn't play african-american athletes, while others would, as evidenced by this account of events:

"Having said all that, I will now add that LeVias was technically not the first black player in SWC history. Let’s return to the summer of 1964, nearly a year before LeVias signed a scholarship offer with SMU. John Westbrook, then entering his senior year at Washington High School in Elgin, stepped into the offices of the coaching staff at Baylor University and told them of his plans to enroll there and perhaps play football. Westbrook, the son of a Baptist minister, had been ordained at age 15, and Baylor was a Baptist school, so why not? Well, for one thing, the BU Board of Trustees had only integrated the university in November 1963, and no word had been said about athletics. Like most European-American Texans back then, they did not want to think about a black guy wearing the green and gold of the Baylor Bears.

Coach John Bridgers and chancellor Abner McCall may not have been eager, but they decided to let Westbrook walk on as a freshman in 1965. He was one of just seven black students on a campus of 7,000, the large majority of whom were sons and daughters of the South. Hostility and isolation were the norm, although to be fair to those people, they were feeling their way in an integrated world, too. Westbrook’s arrival on the Baylor football team was utterly unheralded. His time in the 40-yard dash made him one of the fastest players on the team, but he hardly got on the field that season. Freshman coaches like Milburn “Catfish” Smith and Ramsey Muniz did all they could to discourage Westbrook with verbal taunts and brutal three-on-one drills. He was ignored by most of his teammates and goaded by a few others.

And to make matters worse, some of the black people in Waco regarded him as an Uncle Tom for even making the attempt to integrate Bear football. His lonely fight, however, was made easier by the support and reassurance of Eucolia Erby, a small black man who had known Westbrook’s father. Erby came to practices, watched and encouraged him and told him repeatedly, “Don’t quit.” His coach, Bridgers, made the decision, at the end of spring training, to award him a scholarship. That alone permitted Westbrook to stay at Baylor.

On September 10, 1966 (one week before SMU’s opener in which Jerry LeVias began his fabulous career), Baylor hosted Syracuse. The Bears were ahead by 22 points midway through the fourth quarter when Bridgers sent Westbrook into the game, making history."

http://richardpennington.com/index....football-in-texasracial-integraton-of-college


So...yeah, I'm not exactly sure that comparing situations from 1956 & 1987 and applying them to situations today makes a whole lot of sense. But I could be wrong.

The paragraph beginning 1987 addresses the issue I brought up- it provides reasons to think that rebuilding the program could be done faster now that in the past and therefore allow us to be more impatient with a lack of success. But Stern also pointed out the importance of money and facilities today and we don't seem all that well positioned there. It would be nice if we had a Phil Knight/T. Boone Pickens sugardaddy but we don't. There's also the subject of all the formerly small time programs who have become big time in search of the big bucks they can make and are now recruiting rivals.

The integration issue actually can be turned around. SU was in the forefront of using integrated teams back in 50's and that accelerated our development vs. teams that did not use blacks.

Overall, I think it will be at least as hard to rebuild the program this time around and even Marrone succeeds in doing it, his record until the break through will look very similar to Ben's and Mac's. If we keep firing coaches until we get a genius who could do it faster, we could be condemning ourselves to mediocrity or worse for many years to come.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Not going for it on 4th and inches, inside the 1, against Rutgers at home, with the game on the line...

That dumb, gutless call may have cost the team a bowl game last year.

SU had the ball first in OT. How can the game be on the line?

You cannot win the game when you have the ball first, you can only take a lead. Which SU did.

It's not the NFL where you can win with a TD. The other team always gets the ball in the bottom half of the OT.

The worst mistake you can make is to have the ball first and come away with zero points ... because Rutgers only needs a 42 yard FG to win.

And you can't say that a 3 point lead in OT isn't good enough ... because Rutgers only needed a 3 point lead in 2OT.

 

[kirbivore]

Not so sure. How do you explain Boise or even UConn and USF? The fact is, much more parity in college football now than when Ben and Mac coached.

They get JUCO's and kids from California. Also they have zero academic standards.

 

[xc84]

They get JUCO's and kids from California. Also they have zero academic standards.

I hear ya. Of course, no one is accusing Alabama, Oklahoma, or Texas football programs of ever being bastions of academic integrity either.

 

[SU2NASA]

SU had the ball first in OT. How can the game be on the line?

You cannot win the game when you have the ball first, you can only take a lead. Which SU did.

It's not the NFL where you can win with a TD. The other team always gets the ball in the bottom half of the OT.

The worst mistake you can make is to have the ball first and come away with zero points ... because Rutgers only needs a 42 yard FG to win.

And you can't say that a 3 point lead in OT isn't good enough ... because Rutgers only needed a 3 point lead in 2OT.

It was inside the 1, and you needed six inches to take a 7-pt lead rather than 3. It was a pansy call.

If we score a TD there, we put ourselves in a much better position to win.

 

[BlueCurtain]

i can live with clock mismanagement and poor in-game decisions if we at least have a sprinkling of NFL talent and playmaking on the field. We'll never afford a coaching staff that can recruit well AND do all of the above. So give me exciting players and I'll trade you smart coaching and a roster of Max Miesels.

 

[kirbivore]

i can live with clock mismanagement and poor in-game decisions if we at least have a sprinkling of NFL talent and playmaking on the field.

Sounds like the first 11 seasons of the Coach P regime, which I'd take in a heartbeat over what's currently there.