The coaching staff deserves some blame but...

[orangeinjersey]

Isn't it ironic we blasted the girls from piscataway for years for scheduling lite, and are now clamoring for the same scheduling philosophy?

 

[cuseincincy]

SEC schools can schedule whoever they want and fill their stadiums, their fans show up regardless. The only way for us to come close to filling ours is to schedule good recognizable teams and beat them the year after having a good season. Our fans won't show up if we schedule no-names.

Hard to fill your stadium when neither of the games against name teams were at home! Now we're 0-2 and the fans are expected to go to see Wagner and Tulame? And NYC branding for football is over rated. I'm not saying to change the teams but the order they are played. If Wagner was last week there would have been a lot more fans than there will be now.

 

[baggerbob]

Jim should be doing the scheduling for the football program, regardless of all the snide remarks from the press, he gets the team prepared with the exhibition season, and consistently wins, and draws fans. Winning brings fans, and recruits, if you consistently win 8,9,10 games recruits think you're good, and are more likely to come.

 

[SaltineWar]

Hard to fill your stadium when neither of the games against name teams were at home! Now we're 0-2 and the fans are expected to go to see Wagner and Tulame? And NYC branding for football is over rated. I'm not saying to change the teams but the order they are played. If Wagner was last week there would have been a lot more fans than there will be now.

As for this NYC branding. We've snuck into the ACC, so can we please end this nonsense now?

 

[Alsacs]

In 2008 we played @Northwestern, Akron, Penn State, Northeastern, @Notre Dame 2-3 record
In 2009 we played Minnesota, @Penn State, Northwestern, Maine, Akron 3-2 record
In 2010 we played @Akron, @Washington, Maine, Colgate, Boston College 3-2 record
In 2011 we played Wake Forest, Rhode Island, @USC, Toledo, @Tulane 4-1 record
In 2012 we played Northwestern, USC-Metlife, Stony Brook, @Minnesota, and @Missouri which was an accident and caused by TCU going to the Big XII. 2-3 record
This year we played Penn State-Metlife, @Northwestern, Wagner, Tulane 0-2 so far but we likely go 2-2

Our schedule has always had a minimum of 2 guarantee games we should win and because the Big East has only had 7 conference games we have added an extra BCS opponent most of the time. These schedules aren't bad and aren't ungodly difficult we need to win games we should win. We gave away 2 wins last year versus Northwestern on a horrible call by the refs and Minnesota game were the offense sucked. This scheduling isn't that bad none of our non-conference opponents have played in a BCS bowl the year we have played them the 2011 USC team would have had a chance, but our schedule has just featured decent teams not world beaters.

 

[SaltineWar]

In 2011 we played Wake Forest, Rhode Island, @USC, Toledo, @Tulane 4-1 record

Now this was a smart schedule, even though we didn't take advantage of the good start. If they had swapped the sure loss @USC (with no return game; thanks Gross) for a NW, PSU, Tenn.-caliber team it would have been perfect. Too bad the rest of the years make it look like we're Legends Division of the B1G.

 

[Lou_C]

In 2008 we played @Northwestern, Akron, Penn State, Northeastern, @Notre Dame 2-3 record
In 2009 we played Minnesota, @Penn State, Northwestern, Maine, Akron 3-2 record
In 2010 we played @Akron, @Washington, Maine, Colgate, Boston College 3-2 record
In 2011 we played Wake Forest, Rhode Island, @USC, Toledo, @Tulane 4-1 record
In 2012 we played Northwestern, USC-Metlife, Stony Brook, @Minnesota, and @Missouri which was an accident and caused by TCU going to the Big XII. 2-3 record
This year we played Penn State-Metlife, @Northwestern, Wagner, Tulane 0-2 so far but we likely go 2-2

Our schedule has always had a minimum of 2 guarantee games we should win and because the Big East has only had 7 conference games we have added an extra BCS opponent most of the time. These schedules aren't bad and aren't ungodly difficult we need to win games we should win. We gave away 2 wins last year versus Northwestern on a horrible call by the refs and Minnesota game were the offense sucked. This scheduling isn't that bad none of our non-conference opponents have played in a BCS bowl the year we have played them the 2011 USC team would have had a chance, but our schedule has just featured decent teams not world beaters.

That's five years, going into conference play with 2 losses in four of them. That proves Syracuse is not scheduling correctly. At some point you can't keep saying "should have won." You are what you are.

Maybe going into conference play with two losses makes sense to you, but that is not the case, and it's bad news for the ACC. Unless you are piss poor (Kansas) and plan on going 0-fer in the conference. Because otherwise, every ACC team you beat just looks bad. NOBODY cares who you lose to. Most of the time they don't care who you beat, unless you're 12-0 and 11-1 and fighting for a national championship. Otherwise nobody cares, and wins are wins.

Just the fact that no other conference has teams doing this should make it clear on the face of it. You don't schedule yourself to go into conference play with two losses year after year. When you have a five year run of it, that proves that the scheduling philosophy is flawed.

Remember, you're not in the Big East anymore. Starting next year you've got three top 10 teams in your division. Not only are those going to be likely losses, but you're visibility isn't going to disappear like you're used to in the Big East. It's not like you HAVE to get those OOC games just to stay on the map when you've got Clemson, FSU, Louisville and every three years Notre Dame. You don't need to use the OOC just to get in front of eyeballs of better recruiting areas.

Play the game as it's played. It's like Syracuse (and UVA and BC) are refusing to throw the forward pass because you didn't back in the day.

Yes, you made fun of Rutgers. But it was a much different story in the Big East schedule. And who got the last laugh?

You can't support doing the wrong thing just because you have a mental consistency bias.

Yes you made fun of Rutgers. Yes, you need to follow the same philosophy. Yes, it's hypocritical. Who the hell cares, that's what college football fandom is all about. You should see the way UF and FSU fans go nuts criticizing every time one of the other's players gets arrested.

 

[Lou_C]

Now this was a smart schedule, even though we didn't take advantage of the good start. If they had swapped the sure loss @USC (with no return game; thanks Gross) for a NW, PSU, Tenn.-caliber team it would have been perfect. Too bad the rest of the years make it look like we're Legends Division of the B1G.

I agree with this. Swap USC for one of those schools, or Iowa or Mississippi or something, and you're golden.

Remember, once your program is established, you can do more. Virginia Tech and even Kansas State have played good out of conference games in recent years. Nobody is saying that it has to be that way forever.

 

[SaltineWar]

Lou_C, please send your resume and cover letter to: Manley Field House, 1301 E. Colvin St., Syracuse, NY 13244

 

[SmilinBob]

Isn't it ironic we blasted the girls from piscataway for years for scheduling lite, and are now clamoring for the same scheduling philosophy?

Yes indeed but since about everybody is scheduling this way it's just foolish trying to swim upstream all the time, it's getting tiresome. Plus, it really doesn't matter to the recruits whatsoever...they want to see 8-4 and not 6-6 with a really tough schedule. Another thing is if the ACC were ever to go to 9 games there's no way in heck SU should be playing 2 big games OOC.

 

[Alsacs]

That's five years, going into conference play with 2 losses in four of them. That proves Syracuse is not scheduling correctly. At some point you can't keep saying "should have won." You are what you are.

Maybe going into conference play with two losses makes sense to you, but that is not the case, and it's bad news for the ACC. Unless you are piss poor (Kansas) and plan on going 0-fer in the conference. Because otherwise, every ACC team you beat just looks bad. NOBODY cares who you lose to. Most of the time they don't care who you beat, unless you're 12-0 and 11-1 and fighting for a national championship. Otherwise nobody cares, and wins are wins.

Just the fact that no other conference has teams doing this should make it clear on the face of it. You don't schedule yourself to go into conference play with two losses year after year. When you have a five year run of it, that proves that the scheduling philosophy is flawed.

Remember, you're not in the Big East anymore. Starting next year you've got three top 10 teams in your division. Not only are those going to be likely losses, but you're visibility isn't going to disappear like you're used to in the Big East. It's not like you HAVE to get those OOC games just to stay on the map when you've got Clemson, FSU, Louisville and every three years Notre Dame. You don't need to use the OOC just to get in front of eyeballs of better recruiting areas.

Play the game as it's played. It's like Syracuse (and UVA and BC) are refusing to throw the forward pass because you didn't back in the day.

Yes, you made fun of Rutgers. But it was a much different story in the Big East schedule. And who got the last laugh?

You can't support doing the wrong thing just because you have a mental consistency bias.

Yes you made fun of Rutgers. Yes, you need to follow the same philosophy. Yes, it's hypocritical. Who the hell cares, that's what college football fandom is all about. You should see the way UF and FSU fans go nuts criticizing every time one of the other's players gets arrested.

I get what you are saying and I realize it affects the schools that are playing for the NC and I bet now we will schedule differently because we only have to schedule 4 games OOC and not 5 like we were forced in the Big East. I would be we will scale it back a little, but I doubt we will go Rutgers and play nobody. I see no problem with playing 2 guaranteed wins like Tulane, and Wagner, 1 neutral site game versus Penn State and instead of Northwestern we play Central Michigan or Toledo since our current coaching staff likes the MAC so much, but once we have 4 7-5, 8-4 seasons in a row I would want that 4th game to be West Virginia, a B1G team or somebody that will get us on national TV. The thing we should change is the order of the games.

 

[Lou_C]

I get what you are saying and I realize it affects the schools that are playing for the NC and I bet now we will schedule differently because we only have to schedule 4 games OOC and not 5 like we were forced in the Big East. I would be we will scale it back a little, but I doubt we will go Rutgers and play nobody. I see no problem with playing 2 guaranteed wins like Tulane, and Wagner, 1 neutral site game versus Penn State and instead of Northwestern we play Central Michigan or Toledo since our current coaching staff likes the MAC so much, but once we have 4 7-5, 8-4 seasons in a row I would want that 4th game to be West Virginia, a B1G team or somebody that will get us on national TV. The thing we should change is the order of the games.

Absolutely.

 

[gmoney44]

Perhaps you need to read my post that you quoted again. I wrote that the majority of SEC teams schedule fluff. Now go to ESPN.com and check the first two weeks of games that the SEC teams played. The vast majority of the games were against teams I never heard of.

I have no problem with the teams on our schedule my issue is with the order in which we play them.

 

[sufandu]

Hard to fill your stadium when neither of the games against name teams were at home! Now we're 0-2 and the fans are expected to go to see Wagner and Tulame? And NYC branding for football is over rated. I'm not saying to change the teams but the order they are played. If Wagner was last week there would have been a lot more fans than there will be now.

Maybe so, but we still wouldn't approach 40,000. See my post about Auburn getting over 74,000 toward the end of a 3-8 season when they played Alabama A&M. Two completely different cultures, and scheduling will never change that.

 

[Lou_C]

Yes indeed but since about everybody is scheduling this way it's just foolish trying to swim upstream all the time, it's getting tiresome. Plus, it really doesn't matter to the recruits whatsoever...they want to see 8-4 and not 6-6 with a really tough schedule. Another thing is if the ACC were ever to go to 9 games there's no way in heck SU should be playing 2 big games OOC.

Yes, you need the kids and some continuity.

Right now you're lined up for a couple of 5-win seasons in a row, barring your coach being a genius that wins a lot of games that he should lose. I don't mean "program should lose", I mean "pro oddsmakers say this team should lose".

Nobody consistently beats the oddsmakers, an no coach consistently springs upset after upset.

So you'll likely be starting fresh with a new coach in 2015. Conveniently, you've got 2015 wide open, and a perfect excuse to schedule a lot of scrubs.

"It's simply too late in the process to get the better teams"

You have wide open schedules for the four seasons after next. If Syracuse does it right, they might be ready for playing Northwestern and Maryland in 2019.

Eight regular season wins in 2015.
Eight wins in 2016.
Nine wins in 2017.
Nine wins in 2018.

Possibly some high profile bowl wins against B1G or SEC teams.

Syracuse can definitely make it back.

 

[Alsacs]

Perhaps you need to read my post that you quoted again. I wrote that the majority of SEC teams schedule fluff. Now go to ESPN.com and check the first two weeks of games that the SEC teams played. The vast majority of the games were against teams I never heard of.

I have no problem with the teams on our schedule my issue is with the order in which we play them.

Thanks to Miami over Florida and Clemson over Georgia consolidated by Georgia beating South Carolina this week the ACC has risen nationally. I think the Canes should be 4-0 playing Georgia Tech and with Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, and this week Texas A&M all having a loss this early the SEC invincibility won't be talked about as much this year. Alabama, and LSU will likely run the table to till their matchup. I think Ole Miss is a legit team, but let's see if they beat Texas this week in Austin. The Clemson win over Georgia and Miami win over Florida WERE HUGE for this conference. Clemson has already passed Ohio State in the polls. The ACC could end up the 3rd best conference this year and have two BCS teams this year.

 

[sufandu]

Lou_C, please send your resume and cover letter to: Manley Field House, 1301 E. Colvin St., Syracuse, NY 13244

... and promptly get killed by people on this board for scheduling OOC games no one wants to see. It's a no win situation for anyone making the schedule unless we're good enough to beat good OOC teams. People that attend SU games (the ones that take us from 35,000 to 45,000) want both a winner AND big name teams on the schedule.

 

[kirbivore]

My problem isn't the schedule it's the sequence. If you must open with the Met life game the next game can't be a road trip vs a BCS level team. Looking at the 2014 dates they are starting to get that. The Maryland game is 9/20 and the Notre Dame contest @ Met Life is 9/27, so in 2014 SU can open the season with Wagner/Tulane equivalents and have a great shot to start 2-0.

 

[Alsacs]

My problem isn't the schedule it's the sequence. If you must open with the Met life game the next game can't be a road trip vs a BCS level team. Looking at the 2014 dates they are starting to get that. The Maryland game is 9/20 and the Notre Dame contest @ Met Life is 9/27, so in 2014 SU can open the season with Wagner/Tulane equivalents and have a great shot to start 2-0.

Fair point we had to play Penn State the opening game this year for the best chance to win because of their inexperienced QB. I probably schedule Tulane week 2 and then go to Northwestern week 3 and get killed comeback and beat Wagner before Clemson. That Penn State game was beyond winnable if the coaching staff wasn't so dysfunctional offensively and we were prepared. If we are 3-1 going into Clemson nobody is upset, and the Dome is loud for #3 Clemson on ESPN primetime. Now the game will be an ESPN/ESPN2 12 game or and ABC 3:30 game and won't have the electricity it could have had at night.

 

[Ottoble]

You know the OP made a few good points. I think a good solution to all the argument about this is to schedule ARMY EVERY YEAR. They are right down the road most cases it should be a W and I honestly would not have any problem with a standing Home and Home series with them if that will make it happen.

SU Fans would (Should) travel to a game at the beautiful cliff side stadium they have at West Point and its a big enough draw that fans would come to the Dome also. It would improve the engagement of the strong Albany fan base and if you nail down that game as an annual occurrence it simplifies difficulties in scheduling for the future and keeps SU out of the two major BCS non-conf game situation unless absolutely desired.

My opinion is it would be a great way to start the season every year. Bring down 5,000+ the 10th Mt Div. guys and their families the opposing team takes the field to a round of applause because they are a service academy, unlike our standard boobirds and then game on.

Simple schedule (1)BCS Team (ie Notre Dame, Penn St), (1) 1-AA team, 1 Beatable Non BCS FBS team (Tulane Akron Buffalo ETC) and Army.

In regard to what some have said about strength of schedule, (I would love every team to be forced to schedule as strongly as SU has in the past) but as many teams have proven SOS simply doesn't matter unless you have 11+ wins in a season, Wins DO.

 

[rosconey]

we complain about the schedule because we lose the games-
marrone is in the league because of hcss and his wins because of defense-

we should be 1-1 right now with a staff that had a grasp and no one would be crying about why we dont follow the loss leader of all time and do it how they do

 

[Lou_C]

You know the OP made a few good points. I think a good solution to all the argument about this is to schedule ARMY EVERY YEAR. They are right down the road most cases it should be a W and I honestly would not have any problem with a standing Home and Home series with them if that will make it happen.

SU Fans would (Should) travel to a game at the beautiful cliff side stadium they have at West Point and its a big enough draw that fans would come to the Dome also. It would improve the engagement of the strong Albany fan base and if you nail down that game as an annual occurrence it simplifies difficulties in scheduling for the future and keeps SU out of the two major BCS non-conf game situation unless absolutely desired.

My opinion is it would be a great way to start the season every year. Bring down 5,000+ the 10th Mt Div. guys and their families the opposing team takes the field to a round of applause because they are a service academy, unlike our standard boobirds and then game on.

Simple schedule (1)BCS Team (ie Notre Dame, Penn St), (1) 1-AA team, 1 Beatable Non BCS FBS team (Tulane Akron Buffalo ETC) and Army.

In regard to what some have said about strength of schedule, (I would love every team to be forced to schedule as strongly as SU has in the past) but as many teams have proven SOS simply doesn't matter unless you have 11+ wins in a season, Wins DO.

The Army idea is a good one.

 

[Lou_C]

... and promptly get killed by people on this board for scheduling OOC games no one wants to see. It's a no win situation for anyone making the schedule unless we're good enough to beat good OOC teams. People that attend SU games (the ones that take us from 35,000 to 45,000) want both a winner AND big name teams on the schedule.

I get that. But show me a team that jumped another level status wise and had their attendence go down. It never actually works that way.

You might get a few thousand less tickets sold for Army than Northwestern, but you more than make it up on the back end. You don't think you sell more tickets to Clemson if you're 4-0? More tickets to say NC State if you are 5-1 versus 3-3?

You don't think you sell more season tickets (whether they all show up for those two dog games) when you have a 8-9 win team?

That's the way it always works.

Remember, when you schedule realistically to get to 7-8 wins, then get that upset or two, or you get just the right combinations of seniors or staff (before they get hired away), you're right on the brink of a 10-win season. That's a big deal for a program. That turns heads, of media and kids.

 

[Lou_C]

we complain about the schedule because we lose the games-
marrone is in the league because of hcss and his wins because of defense-

we should be 1-1 right now with a staff that had a grasp and no one would be crying about why we dont follow the loss leader of all time and do it how they do

Well of course if you win the games. That's like saying you should always go for it on fourth down and never punt. It's a great strategy, all you have to do is always convert it.

 

[cvilleorange]

this is a pretty reasonable strategy. I think it was Tomcat who suggested trying to schedule army and colgate on an annual basis to start out the season as we have history with those two programs. a mac or aac team as a third game also sounds reasonable. The only thing I will add is that if we only have one out of conference BCS game I don't know that playing a middle or lower tier team is the way to go. Certainly it increases your chances of a win to go after a lower tier, but an attractive out of conference game does bring some excitement and does give the program some national exposure. I just don't think we gain anything from playing purdue or the equivalent out of conference