This really is the low t board

[HRE Otto IV]

UL, Clemson, FSU not challenging enough? The conference is stacked. Heck I don't want an OOC opponent south of the state line.

In a few years we will be at ten P5 games, one FCS, and one G5. Hopefully that G5 is always a middling MAC Ohio school and never an AAC school.

Also an interesting byproduct of the P5 schools going to 10 games is the limited supply of P5 teams needing OOC games. With less opportunity to play a P5 school OOC, the G5 schools should be more open to 2 for 1s or even a money grab 1 off.

 

[Townie72]

Ours won't add on a second deck that looks frightening. We're just tightening up the ship.

$100 Million dollars of ship tightening? And no additional seats?

I'd like to see the Business Plan. It may not be as ugly as the Byrd addition, but $100M?

 

[KaiserUEO]

$100 Million dollars of ship tightening? And no additional seats?

I'd like to see the Business Plan. It may not be as ugly as the Byrd addition, but $100M?

not sure why the Titanic needs more deck chairs, when a fresh coat of paint will suffice to keep it afloat.

but what do I know...

 

[GoSU96]

UL, Clemson, FSU not challenging enough? The conference is stacked. Heck I don't want an OOC opponent south of the state line.

Wagner, SUNY SB/Albany, Colgate to open at home every year. UB, Army, home/away alternate. MAC/CUSA guest of the year.

ACC.

That's it.

 

[Townie72]

not sure why the Titanic needs more deck chairs, when a fresh coat of paint will suffice to keep it afloat.

but what do I know...

I don't know what you know.

But I find your comment "mystifying".

Neither chairs nor paint would have kept the Titanic off the Ocean floor.

I know a little about construction and $100M is big bucks, especially for a simple structure (Versus a Hospital, for example). If someone is giving them that money (as occurred in 1980) than that's one thing. But if they are borrowing the money and have to pay it back, then you've got to have additional revenue. No seats are being added as I understand it. So maybe they are counting on the incremental revenue associated with filling the stadium.

10,000 seats x 6 games x $50 = $3 Million per year
15,000 seats x 6 games x $75 = $6.7 Million per year.

$100M to get that? At an Incremental $6.75M per year that's a 14 year payback.

 

[KaiserUEO]

I don't know what you know.

But I find your comment "mystifying".

Neither chairs nor paint would have kept the Titanic off the Ocean floor.

I know a little about construction and $100M is big bucks, especially for a simple structure (Versus a Hospital, for example). If someone is giving them that money (as occurred in 1980) than that's one thing. But if they are borrowing the money and have to pay it back, then you've got to have additional revenue. No seats are being added as I understand it. So maybe they are counting on the incremental revenue associated with filling the stadium.

10,000 seats x 6 games x $50 = $3 Million per year
15,000 seats x 6 games x $75 = $6.7 Million per year.

$100M to get that? At an Incremental $6.75M per year that's a 14 year payback.

Exactly.

New seats at Dome, mean nothing if nobody goes anyway.

And even in the Dome's 'heyday' it didn't need another 10k.

Adding seats would be a waste of $$$.

Plenty of other areas where $$ can be spent.

Wisely, at that.

 

[cuse309]

I'm still in shock over the level of shock regarding our defense. It is what it is. They are on the field all game, and have very little depth right now. This is what we have to work with for now. Here is a tough pill for some to swallow...the defense next year, may not be a whole lot better no matter what scheme you use. I'm not sure bringing in a few freshman will turn this defense around in 1 season. As long as improvement is shown next year, that's all we can hope for, and I'm fine with it. Once our defense gets to the point where it can make just enough stops to keep our 10-14 point cushion, this will get really fun.

 

[Ish88888]

Bunch whiny little girls. Punts, kickers, no talent,weak arm the last guys fault,the dcs fault, the worst defense ever, too much running, play the young guys,too much youth.

This team was 7 -17 the prior two years. Babers is building a program with a proven blueprint.

So strap in, toughen up, and take a big dose of shut the hell up

Alrighty then, lets just get rid of message board discussion and call it the POM POM board. All across the land fanbases with any ounce of passion scratch, claw, question, wonder, cheer, cry, and yell. We all have a right to bitch and yell. At the end of the day we love our team.

 

[Ish88888]

1. We will never have the DL talent to run the Tampa 2

2. We have rarely used cover 2 and/or had Franklin drop into the deep middle. So if we aren't really running the Tampa 2, there is no excuse for the . . . . show we have seen.

3. I would be ecstatic if we had a bend but don't break D.

4. The Tampa 2 wasn't built to stop the Spread.


There are bigger issues on D than just talent. Even with better talent our ceiling under Babers will be 7 Ws if we keep "attacking" on D this way.

I am waiting for "bend but dont break" too. However, i have yet to see a safety running over the top, late to a sideline route, or even trailing with our trailing corners. Havent seen a safety in the same screen along with a corner getting taken to the house. We are breaking just the same way we did when we blitzed, only, we aren't blitzing. :bang::bat:

 

[GoSU96]

Alrighty then, lets just get rid of message board discussion and call it the POM POM board. All across the land fanbases with any ounce of passion scratch, claw, question, wonder, cheer, cry, and yell. We all have a right to bitch and yell. At the end of the day we love our team.

Five games into to a major overhaul, from a dumpster fire, yeah people should get with the program.

I bit my tongue a lot Robinson's first year. If I could do that for what was an obvious disaster out of the gate people can tone down the nonsense.

 

[tipphill]

I guess my point was that big investments in facilities don't automatically mean improved results. And in MD's case it was a disastrous decision that forced them into the clutches of the B1G.

Mayland won 1 ACC FB championship in the past 30 years. They weren't all that good in the ACC. I don't see them improving in the B1G. A winning record? Maybe. And they'll be better than Rutgers. But a long history indicated that they'll be no better than middle of the pack in the B1G.

Easy enough for you to want SU to go all in. It's not your money.

Su's Athletic Programs are profitable right now ... thanks primarily to SU BB. There's no reason to take huge risks.

$100M investment requires what? $10M a year in incremental revenue at least?

in this day and age of big time college athletics,and our alleged goal of becoming a force in eastern football, it is rediculous not to invest in the dome. u r right its not my money, except for the tickets i buy, the gas i buy to travel to games,the hotel i buy to stay in, etc. in your scenario we would be like VILLANOVA
why do u comment on maryland???if anything they have more dollar support(under armor) than su, and i really don't care what they do.
there is absolutely reason to take what u call huge risks. if you r in(su) u are in otherwise get out.the rewards if we succeed are great ,the loss is not major in the greater scheme of things.
using your reasoning, su should fold the cards and get out.
its hard enough to sell syracuse w/o a great facility---if we do not improve it we will remain in the abyss. further the economic impact on the city,county businesses would be significant. i hope su talks with them about investing in the program because if we down grade it will effect them, SIGNIFICANTLY---I THINK JOANNIE MAHONY gets that---look at what the amphitheater had done despite its problems!!!!

 

[tipphill]

I'm still in shock over the level of shock regarding our defense. It is what it is. They are on the field all game, and have very little depth right now. This is what we have to work with for now. Here is a tough pill for some to swallow...the defense next year, may not be a whole lot better no matter what scheme you use. I'm not sure bringing in a few freshman will turn this defense around in 1 season. As long as improvement is shown next year, that's all we can hope for, and I'm fine with it. Once our defense gets to the point where it can make just enough stops to keep our 10-14 point cushion, this will get really fun.

i always wonder what it is what it is means? to me it means --what the f... is it???

 

[Ish88888]

Five games into to a major overhaul, from a dumpster fire, yeah people should get with the program.

I bit my tongue a lot Robinson's first year. If I could do that for what was an obvious disaster out of the gate people can tone down the nonsense.

Our defenses, while having a few horrendous performances the last few years, were never a dumpster fire. We pressured, we ran to the ball, we smacked opposing qbs. yes, we got beat deep while we river boat gambled bringing pressure, but we were very competitive for the most part.

 

[qdawgg]

If you want to complain about the so called "cover 2/tampa 2" we are using,

1. We will never have the DL talent to run the Tampa 2

2. We have rarely used cover 2 and/or had Franklin drop into the deep middle. So if we aren't really running the Tampa 2, there is no excuse for the . . . . show we have seen.

3. I would be ecstatic if we had a bend but don't break D.

4. The Tampa 2 wasn't built to stop the Spread.


There are bigger issues on D than just talent. Even with better talent our ceiling under Babers will be 7 Ws if we keep "attacking" on D this way.

There's a lot wrong with this.

1) You actually have this one completely wrong. You need really fast/quick/athletic DE's to run the Tampa 2. Like Chandler Jones. Or beefy/strong DL's like Art jones or bromley. Those guys are rare players we don't just recruit all the time but they also weren't 5 star players. They were 2 star and 0 star players. The right guys to run this type of D is actually far easier than most other defenses because you need a DE that can be really good at one thing or a DL that is really good at 1 thing. The tampa 2 relies on concept of using average players to plug and play. You only need a couple playmakers in the system to make the whole D look exceptional.

3) Ok. Kind of what they say they are attempting to implement. So...?

4) What defense was designed to stop the spread. The success of the spread in CFB is that if run well, it can't be stopped. It seems like the Tampa 2 is the perfect system to slow a spread offense down and hope that by forcing it to nickel and dime itself down the field mistakes are made. Either by the offense in not converting a 3rd down or by the defense forcing a TO.

 

[Eric15]

Five games into to a major overhaul, from a dumpster fire, yeah people should get with the program.

Honest question: what percentage of the board do you think is currently feeling negative about the overall direction of SU football with Babers?

 

[GoSU96]

Our defenses, while having a few horrendous performances the last few years, were never a dumpster fire. We pressured, we ran to the ball, we smacked opposing qbs. yes, we got beat deep while we river boat gambled bringing pressure, but we were very competitive for the most part.

The only thing wrong with the defense is giving up home run plays. I get that is a self inflicted wound to an extent, but short term pain for long term gain.

I don't think they are giving up plays like that, in the volume they have been, against Wake, BC, Pitt, Wake, VT, and NCSt like they have against Lville, ND, and USF.

 

[Ish88888]

The only thing wrong with the defense is giving up home run plays. I get that is a self inflicted wound to an extent, but short term pain for long term gain.

I don't think they are giving up plays like that, in the volume they have been, against Wake, BC, Pitt, Wake, VT, and NCSt like they have against Lville, ND, and USF.

True, to some extent, just waiting to see a safety show up once in a while, in 2 deep coverage as help.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

If you want to complain about the so called "cover 2/tampa 2" we are using,


There's a lot wrong with this.

1) You actually have this one completely wrong. You need really fast/quick/athletic DE's to run the Tampa 2. Like Chandler Jones. Or beefy/strong DL's like Art jones or bromley. Those guys are rare players we don't just recruit all the time but they also weren't 5 star players. They were 2 star and 0 star players. The right guys to run this type of D is actually far easier than most other defenses because you need a DE that can be really good at one thing or a DL that is really good at 1 thing. The tampa 2 relies on concept of using average players to plug and play. You only need a couple playmakers in the system to make the whole D look exceptional.

3) Ok. Kind of what they say they are attempting to implement. So...?

4) What defense was designed to stop the spread. The success of the spread in CFB is that if run well, it can't be stopped. It seems like the Tampa 2 is the perfect system to slow a spread offense down and hope that by forcing it to nickel and dime itself down the field mistakes are made. Either by the offense in not converting a 3rd down or by the defense forcing a TO.

1. You need to be able to get pressure with just your front 4. How many times has SU had a DL that could pull that off with any consistency? I can only think of 2001.

3. My point was we aren't trying to play a Tampa 2 which would limit big plays. So what exactly is the plan on D? Whatever it is, it isn't working. Why aren't we running Cover 2? Why go away from your base system all the time? What do you gain from that? We have been awful on D and we aren't running our base system. How does that make any sense?

4. That is kind of my point. Why is no one designing a D to stop the spread? The 4-3 didn't exist back in the day, it was an adjustment. Why are coaches being meatheady and sticking with a 4-3? What TCU runs, and RichRod runs is better equipped for facing the spread. IMO a 3-4 or a variant of Shafer's Okie package (3-2-6) would perform better as well. There has been a ton of innovation on the O side of the ball and the D side hasn't adjusted. IMO the teams that are willing to be innovative on D first will be ahead of the curb. That is something SU can control. Spreads love to nickel and dime, not sure how a D that invites that is a competitive advantage.

 

[TheCusian]

Our defenses, while having a few horrendous performances the last few years, were never a dumpster fire. We pressured, we ran to the ball, we smacked opposing qbs. yes, we got beat deep while we river boat gambled bringing pressure, but we were very competitive for the most part.

We were just about as bad last season.

 

[TheCusian]

1. You need to be able to get pressure with just your front 4. How many times has SU had a DL that could pull that off with any consistency? I can only think of 2001.

3. My point was we aren't trying to play a Tampa 2 which would limit big plays. So what exactly is the plan on D? Whatever it is, it isn't working. Why aren't we running Cover 2? Why go away from your base system all the time? What do you gain from that? We have been awful on D and we aren't running our base system. How does that make any sense?

4. That is kind of my point. Why is no one designing a D to stop the spread? The 4-3 didn't exist back in the day, it was an adjustment. Why are coaches being meatheady and sticking with a 4-3? What TCU runs, and RichRod runs is better equipped for facing the spread. IMO a 3-4 or a variant of Shafer's Okie package (3-2-6) would perform better as well. There has been a ton of innovation on the O side of the ball and the D side hasn't adjusted. IMO the teams that are willing to be innovative on D first will be ahead of the curb. That is something SU can control. Spreads love to nickel and dime, not sure how a D that invites that is a competitive advantage.

The answer to #1 and #3 is we don't have the right kind of players yet. The DE's may grow into the role, but our secondary is too short.

 

[Ish88888]

We were just about as bad last season.

#notevenclose. That's actually comical.

 

[Bayside44]

$100 Million dollars of ship tightening? And no additional seats?

I'd like to see the Business Plan. It may not be as ugly as the Byrd addition, but $100M?

Seats, AC, updated nice stuff. Man hasn't slimmed in 37 years.

 

[TheCusian]

#notevenclose. That's actually comical.

In 2015 vs FBS: #111 in yards allowed (472 per game). #112 6.44 YPP allowed. #94 in points per game at 33.8.

In 2016 vs FBS: #122 in yards allowed (502 per game). #122 6.93 YPP allowed. #122 in points per game at 45.2.

#thatsprettyclose #not-funny

Edit: we've also played 3 top 25 in S&P+ Offense. Last years stats at least are evened out by less elite offense like Wake and BC. This years numbers are getting the Lamar Jackson treatment a little.

 

[CanadianSU]

Honest question: what percentage of the board do you think is currently feeling negative about the overall direction of SU football with Babers?

What are these threads about.

Nobody has turned on Babers seriously...

0%

 

[CanadianSU]

We were just about as bad last season.

No. We were not this bad on defense last year.

we sucked on defense too last year.