When do you know that Syracuse football good?

[SWC75]

You're right, it is subjective. It's too bad you think the McNabb years were so subpar.

1995-98 Syracuse, with McNabb is 35-14. Virginia Tech is 36-12 and splits with us, outscoring us 90-109. Then we lose McNabb and they get Vick and we go 13-10 from 1999-00. With Vick, they go 22-2, are ranked in the top 5 each year, play for the national championship, beat us twice and out-score us 14-84. We couldn't get one season in four years with McNabb that were like either of the Vick years. And if you look at All-Americans and pro players, I don't think you will conclude that they had more talent than we did.

 

[GoSU96]

1995-98 Syracuse, with McNabb is 35-14. Virginia Tech is 36-12 and splits with us, outscoring us 90-109. Then we lose McNabb and they get Vick and we go 13-10 from 1999-00. With Vick, they go 22-2, are ranked in the top 5 each year, play for the national championship, beat us twice and out-score us 14-84. We couldn't get one season in four years with McNabb that were like either of the Vick years. And if you look at All-Americans and pro players, I don't think you will conclude that they had more talent than we did.

Durning McNabb's years SU played 13 BCS schools OOC, VT 9, and four of those were UVA. SU played 7 non BCS OOC regular season and Houston in a Bowl, VT, 11.

And the quality of the two sets are different.

For SU Regular season BCS OCC- Michigan coming off of the NC, Tenn eventual national champion, at OU, Wisconsin one year prior to 11-1 and with a Heismen winner, home and away with UNC losing to a team that finished in the top 10. And then there was the home and aways with NCST and Minny. Of those teams only OU and Minny finished with losing records.

Non BCS - one loss in four years to a ECU team that finished 9-3 and ranked. The other four were Tulane, Home and away, Army, 10-2 that year, Cinci and EMU. Of those games only the 1996 Tulane team and Cinci had losing records.

VT - BCS regular season, 4 games with UVA, and one with a Clemson team that finished 3-8. That's it.

Non BCS - 2 with Akron, 2 with UAB, Ark. St, Cinci, 2 with ECU, La-Laf, Miami Ohio, Navy. Of those teams only Cinci - loss, ECU, Miami Ohio - Loss, and Navy had winning records.

Flip those schedules what do you think happens to each team.

As for Vicks years, other than it's game with UVA VT played one BCS OCC, a Clemson team that finished 6-6.

Their other non conference games were with Akron, UAB, CFU, ECU and James Madison. What do you SU would have had with those two schedules when McNabb was playing?

 

[SWC75]

Durning McNabb's years SU played 13 BCS schools OOC, VT 9, and four of those were UVA. SU played 7 non BCS OOC regular season and Houston in a Bowl, VT, 11.

And the quality of the two sets are different.

For SU Regular season BCS OCC- Michigan coming off of the NC, Tenn eventual national champion, at OU, Wisconsin one year prior to 11-1 and with a Heismen winner, home and away with UNC losing to a team that finished in the top 10. And then there was the home and aways with NCST and Minny. Of those teams only OU and Minny finished with losing records.

Non BCS - one loss in four years to a ECU team that finished 9-3 and ranked. The other four were Tulane, Home and away, Army, 10-2 that year, Cinci and EMU. Of those games only the 1996 Tulane team and Cinci had losing records.

VT - BCS regular season, 4 games with UVA, and one with a Clemson team that finished 3-8. That's it.

Non BCS - 2 with Akron, 2 with UAB, Ark. St, Cinci, 2 with ECU, La-Laf, Miami Ohio, Navy. Of those teams only Cinci - loss, ECU, Miami Ohio - Loss, and Navy had winning records.

Flip those schedules what do you think happens to each team.

As for Vicks years, other than it's game with UVA VT played one BCS OCC, a Clemson team that finished 6-6.

Their other non conference games were with Akron, UAB, CFU, ECU and James Madison. What do you SU would have had with those two schedules when McNabb was playing?

And in conference games, when the schedules were the same, Va Tech was 22-6 without Vick in 1995-98 and 13-1 with him in 1999-00. We were 23-5 with McNabb in 1995-98 and 7-7 without him in 1999-00. It's not about flipping the schedules. it's about flipping the quarterbacks. They won 93% of their conference games with Vick. We won 82% with McNabb. They won 79% without Vick and we won 50% without McNabb. They won 50% of their games against us when we had McNabb and 100% when they had Vick. And McNabb was arguably better than Vick.

 

[sufandu]

1995-98 Syracuse, with McNabb is 35-14. Virginia Tech is 36-12 and splits with us, outscoring us 90-109. Then we lose McNabb and they get Vick and we go 13-10 from 1999-00. With Vick, they go 22-2, are ranked in the top 5 each year, play for the national championship, beat us twice and out-score us 14-84. We couldn't get one season in four years with McNabb that were like either of the Vick years. And if you look at All-Americans and pro players, I don't think you will conclude that they had more talent than we did.

I agree that there were games that we let slip away during those years. That wasn't the point of my comment, and you'd have to read the whole exchange between TheCusian and me to understand. TheCusian said we won't be good until we are able to have 3 ten win seasons in a 5 year span. That criteria means we weren't good '95-'98.

I don't know why you shifted it to a McNabb -vs- Vick comparison.

 

[richard levy]

When you are one of two teams that graduate nine guys off your defense, and 7 or 8 of them are drafted by the NFL, and the next year, you are either the #6 or #9 team in the country, like LSU or Georgia

 

[jekelish]

Unlike Jake who didn't aspire to be Top 25 every year, that should be the defining point, to finish every year rated in the polls. When you do that then you are considered a top team.

I agree with this. We need to be a perennial top 25 team before we are officially "back". Hell, I'd settle for getting back into the top 25 two out of three years right now.

 

[tep624]

I think we'll be back when we go undefeated and win a national championship at least once over an 80 year stretch. Wait...we're back!

 

[tep624]

I agree with this. We need to be a perennial top 25 team before we are officially "back". Hell, I'd settle for getting back into the top 25 two out of three years right now.

This is a much more realistic bar. To be regularly ranked is where I want to be.

 

[sufandu]

And in conference games, when the schedules were the same, Va Tech was 22-6 without Vick in 1995-98 and 13-1 with him in 1999-00. We were 23-5 with McNabb in 1995-98 and 7-7 without him in 1999-00. It's not about flipping the schedules. it's about flipping the quarterbacks. They won 93% of their conference games with Vick. We won 82% with McNabb. They won 79% without Vick and we won 50% without McNabb. They won 50% of their games against us when we had McNabb and 100% when they had Vick. And McNabb was arguably better than Vick.

Is it simply about flipping the quarterbacks?

They had the 5th ranked scoring defense in 1999 at 13.5 pts/gm. From '95-'98 we were never ranked higher than 14 and in '98 we were 53rd.

Vick had a very good year as a freshman with over 2000 yards, 13 td's, and a rating of 171. But if it's all about the QB, why did his yards drop to 1234, touchdowns drop to 8 (with 6 interceptions), and rating drop to 127 his sophomore year? Maybe because his go to receiver his freshman year, Andre Davis (42 receptions, 1070 yards, 25.5 yards/reception, 10 td's), was not as good (maybe hurt) Vick's sophomore year (24 receptions, 318 yards 13.3 yards/reception, 2 td's). Vick also had something McNabb never had, a running back that ran for over 1,000 yards, and he had it both years. Despite Vick having a worse statistical year than McNabb ever had, somehow they were still 11-1. I don't think it's as simple as flipping the quarterbacks.

 

[TheCusian]

I agree that there were games that we let slip away during those years. That wasn't the point of my comment, and you'd have to read the whole exchange between TheCusian and me to understand. TheCusian said we won't be good until we are able to have 3 ten win seasons in a 5 year span. That criteria means we weren't good '95-'98.

I don't know why you shifted it to a McNabb -vs- Vick comparison.

Dude, you need to read what I wrote. I thought we were good last season. I was a student during McNabb's years on campus and thought we were very good. I was just pushing on your comments that it would be impossible to get back to the 80's type success. It's not ridiculous to think its possible because we've done it before.

I try to have the same expectations and goals that I want our players to have. That's very high. My idea of what good is? A bowl season means we had a mediocre (6 wins) to great (conf champ and BCS game) year. Being "back" is perennial bowl team, sniffing the top 25.

 

[SWC75]

Is it simply about flipping the quarterbacks?

They had the 5th ranked scoring defense in 1999 at 13.5 pts/gm. From '95-'98 we were never ranked higher than 14 and in '98 we were 53rd.

Vick had a very good year as a freshman with over 2000 yards, 13 td's, and a rating of 171. But if it's all about the QB, why did his yards drop to 1234, touchdowns drop to 8 (with 6 interceptions), and rating drop to 127 his sophomore year? Maybe because his go to receiver his freshman year, Andre Davis (42 receptions, 1070 yards, 25.5 yards/reception, 10 td's), was not as good (maybe hurt) Vick's sophomore year (24 receptions, 318 yards 13.3 yards/reception, 2 td's). Vick also had something McNabb never had, a running back that ran for over 1,000 yards, and he had it both years. Despite Vick having a worse statistical year than McNabb ever had, somehow they were still 11-1. I don't think it's as simple as flipping the quarterbacks.

Vick was injured and missed all or part of three games including the only one they lost in 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Vick

The basic point is that the Hokies were as good as we were when we had McNabb, better than that when they got Vick and way better than we were without McNabb. I would describe that as disappointing.

 

[sufandu]

Dude, you need to read what I wrote. I thought we were good last season. I was a student during McNabb's years on campus and thought we were very good. I was just pushing on your comments that it would be impossible to get back to the 80's type success. It's not ridiculous to think its possible because we've done it before.

I try to have the same expectations and goals that I want our players to have. That's very high. My idea of what good is? A bowl season means we had a mediocre (6 wins) to great (conf champ and BCS game) year. Being "back" is perennial bowl team, sniffing the top 25.

Based on your own criteria for what we have to do to be considered good, we weren't during the McNabb years. Either you don't think we have to have 3 ten win seasons in a 5 year span, you think the McNabb years were less than good, or you didn't understand the original question.

I never said it would be impossible to get back to '80's like success. I said, given that we've had one 5 year period with 3 ten win seasons in the history of the program, it would be highly unlikely that we'll see that again. Even if we adjust your criteria to account for fewer games played, that kind of success has happened three other times ('23-'25, '58-'67). That's four times in over 100 years of football.

Your last sentence is exactly what describes being back for me. If you look at my original quote of your first post, you'll notice I agreed with all but two of your criteria.

 

[sufandu]

Vick was injured and missed all or part of three games including the only one they lost in 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Vick

The basic point is that the Hokies were as good as we were when we had McNabb, better than that when they got Vick and way better than we were without McNabb. I would describe that as disappointing.

I think it illustrates the direction of the two programs. Through the '90's Beamer had been steadily improving what was a sorry VaTech program, and the sharp drop off after McNabb illustrates how poorly P and company recruited during the McNabb years.
I think it also shows that Beamer did a better job of creating success with a less than elite quarterback. He consistently had superior production from his running backs and defenses.
Having said all that, I don't think records alone are a completely accurate comparison. Was our 2001 10 win team better than the 95-98 teams?

 

[SWC75]

I think it illustrates the direction of the two programs. Through the '90's Beamer had been steadily improving what was a sorry VaTech program, and the sharp drop off after McNabb illustrates how poorly P and company recruited during the McNabb years.
I think it also shows that Beamer did a better job of creating success with a less than elite quarterback. He consistently had superior production from his running backs and defenses.
Having said all that, I don't think records alone are a completely accurate comparison. Was our 2001 10 win team better than the 95-98 teams?

The program was not headed downhill when McNabb was here and the Vick teams were better than the McNabb teams, which is what we are talking about. I think the program headed downhill when we failed to have a Vick-type year in the McNabb era. Recruits looked at that, the blow-out losses on national TV and the multiple losses to Temple and Rutgers when they were the dregs of the conference and concluded this was not where they wanted to be.

 

[sufandu]

The program was not headed downhill when McNabb was here and the Vick teams were better than the McNabb teams, which is what we are talking about. I think the program headed downhill when we failed to have a Vick-type year in the McNabb era. Recruits looked at that, the blow-out losses on national TV and the multiple losses to Temple and Rutgers when they were the dregs of the conference and concluded this was not where they wanted to be.

Recruiting at a number of positions had dropped off while McNabb was still here, it just wasn't felt until after he left. Not only had we not recruited a replacement for McNabb, we hadn't recruited any high level receivers either (Morant came along later, but never quite lived up to his potential). Our secondary was slowly sliding after Abrams graduated in '96 followed by Darius and Jones in '97 and Will Allen in 2000. The staff failed to recruit adequate replacements for Bulluck and Greenwood when they left after '99 and 2000. We continued to recruit running backs well, but overall the cupboard had not been restocked.

 

[Stern]

Step 1: Go to a Bowl Game where you don't have to pack a winter coat and gloves

Step 2: Get ranked in a poll

 

[baggerbob]

Step 1: Go to a Bowl Game where you don't have to pack a winter coat and gloves

Step 2: Get ranked in a poll

Now that we play 12 games not counting bowls going 8-4, before the bowl being in the top 25 every year should be the goal.