Fox Sports’ Regurgitated NCS Preview

StateFansNation is working on a “master entry” of all preseason previews of the entire Atlantic Coast Conference that we hope will be a one-stop-link for you to visit when doing your preseason reading.

Relatedly, you can peruse all of NC State’s preseason mentions in football magazines by clicking/surfing the links here. We think that nothing beats Phil Steele or Blue Ribbon’s preview (that was linked for ESPN Insiders just a couple of days ago).

In the meantime, Fox Sports has posted their NC State preseason preview…but on further review, the article is nothing more than a piece that we already featured in this entry.

Enjoy the surfing!

One of two things will happen with the NC State program over the next year. (1) Beleaguered head coach Chuck Amato and his staff will prove they can coach a little and get this team full of great athletes and prospects to finally pull it all together, or (2) there will be a regime change.

It’s possible that no one did less with more than Amato and his staff over the last two seasons, but he has the type of team that can quickly make amends. First things first; this team has to beat the teams it’s supposed to.

The season will be a success if … State wins eight games. Nine would be a good goal to shoot for, but let’s allow for a Wolfpack brain-cramp against someone like East Carolina. With the exception of missing Duke, the Wolfpack has as favorable an ACC schedule, and a light enough non-conference schedule, to make anything less than an eight-win year cause for screaming.

About StateFans

'StateFansNation' is the shared profile used by any/all of the dozen or so authors that contribute to the blog. You may not always agree with us, but you will have little doubt about where we stand on most issues. Please follow us on Twitter and FaceBook

'06 Football General

15 Responses to Fox Sports’ Regurgitated NCS Preview

  1. choppack1 07/20/2006 at 10:03 AM #

    Obviously, this writer doesn’t understand our Athletic Department. The only way Amato is forced out this year is if a) something happens off the field that causes embarassment to the university or b) we win less than 4 games.

  2. BJD95 07/20/2006 at 10:46 AM #

    ^ chop is right. Sendek’s departure and ensuing “Keystone Kops” search ensures that Amato will stay here unless he has the proverbial “dead girl/live boy” problem.

    Without that, I do think Amato would be squarely on the hot seat (and deservedly so, IMHO).

  3. packpigskinfan23 07/20/2006 at 10:54 AM #

    Amato NEEDS a good year. Not for the AD’s sake… but the fans. I would hate to see the fans treat him like some did to Sendek. I would hate to go to another game and hear him get booed like at the Clemson game last year. I left completly disgusted… in the team, in the coaches, in the fans…. in everything. That was a big let down for me for a lot of reasons. 1) I used to live really close to Death Valley and have always followed Clemson sports… and wanted the Pack to show they were for real. 2) first game that I got to sit WITH a whole group of friends… 3) best seats I have ever had. 50 yard line on the bottom about half way up in the Staff section…. the view was AWESOME.

    wouldnt it be nice if we could keep some assistant coaches around for a while?!

  4. Jeff 07/20/2006 at 10:56 AM #

    I know that we disagree about this a little bit…but, that is fine.

    Carving everything else away (including the ancillary issues of Lee “who needs to work until we lose a coach” Fowler)…I feel as though the only way that Amato should be at risk of losing his job after this season is if the team wins 4 or fewer games.

    ^With that understood…if we don’t do better than 6-6 this year, then I think that all of his “goodwill/equity” would be totally used up and that 2007 would be a make or break year requiring a Top 3 or 4 ACC Bowl (which in the new world is pretty damn good) to keep his job.

    Just my opinion.

  5. BJD95 07/20/2006 at 11:18 AM #

    ^ Jeff – I think that’s a fair assessment, except with the bunny schedule, I would find a firing warranted if we win 2 or fewer ACC games, regardless of the OOC record. With another sub-.500 ACC mark, 2007 would be make or break. He needs to take this team and overachieve (better than .500 in ACC play) to regain goodwill with me.

    It would be a boring blog if we all agreed on everything!

  6. choppack1 07/20/2006 at 11:20 AM #

    “Amato NEEDS a good year. Not for the AD’s sake… but the fans”

    I think that’s an excellent point.

    Jeff – I see your POV. Of course, you realize, you’ve already placed him squarely on the hot seat!

  7. RickJ 07/20/2006 at 11:33 AM #

    I will disagree a lot.

    When Chuck Amato was hired NC State’s all time football record (since 1892) was 468 wins and 468 losses (a nice even 50%). His record is 46 wins and 28 losses (62%) in six years. In spite of the out of conference schedule we’ve played the last six years, I can’t find a six year period in our history with a schedule as demanding as the one he has faced. This is entirely due to the improvement of the ACC but when determining the difficulty of a schedule – ALL GAMES COUNT, not just the out of conference.

    This is not to say that Chuck doesn’t deserve any criticism or that this is not a pivotal year for the direction of the program.

  8. packpigskinfan23 07/20/2006 at 1:25 PM #

    I agree that Amato probably will not be fired if the team pulls at least 5 wins….. but TWO?!?!!? you gotta be kidding me. If we only win 2 lousy games this year, the whole damned coaching staff, team, ad department, and maybe even chancoller(jk) should be fired!!!!

    the sad thing is, if we did only win two games…. they would probably be against Florida State and Georgia Tech!!

  9. choppack1 07/20/2006 at 1:43 PM #

    “His record is 46 wins and 28 losses (62%) in six years. ”

    I think this is a good point, but I’m more concerned about the present trend. Amato now has a losing conference record – and I think even if you take out VaTech and Miami, he is one game under .500
    Duke – 4-0
    Wake – 4-2
    UNC – 3-3
    FSU – 3-3 (wow, just wow.)
    UVa – 2-2
    GaTech – 2-4
    UMd – 2-4
    Clemson – 2-4.

    Actually, against the “old pre-FSU” ACC – he’s batting .500. I do think he’s clearly operatting against a better “old-pre-FSU” ACC and there can be no argument he’s operating against a better conference that the ACC has ever been. However, I think it’s safe to say, we didn’t bring in Amato to go .500 against the old ACC.

  10. redfred2 07/20/2006 at 2:38 PM #

    Same W-L record against FSU and UNC??????

    The inconsistency blares.

  11. RickJ 07/20/2006 at 2:46 PM #

    ^NC State record vs UNC before Amato – 24 wins, 51 losses, 33%; and

    NC State record vs FSU before Amato – 5 wins, 15 losses, 25%.

    The improvement blares pretty loud also.

  12. BJD95 07/20/2006 at 3:26 PM #

    The improvement against FSU is unquestionable. The improvement against UNC has come against some pretty low-hanging fruit (Torbush and Bunting instead of Mack Brown).

    chop is right – .500 against even the “old ACC” just isn’t enough, especially long-term. Especially when there is a clear downward trend AWAY from .500 performance.

    We can and must do better than that – or at least have periodic division titles as part of the overall pie. Otherwise, you are looking at mediocrity, plain and simple.

  13. redfred2 07/20/2006 at 5:19 PM #

    RickJ- Stats bear you out, but this is a supposedly energized, new and improved version of NCSU football. UNC is just steadily plugging along kinda like the proverbial tortoise, but still right there, neck and neck as always.

  14. joe 07/20/2006 at 6:58 PM #

    I guess it probably should be pointed out that in the past several years FSU is WAY down from the previous standards. Don’t forget that they even got blown out at UNC a few years back. Clemson has beaten them twice recently too. And a 5-6 MD team beat FSU as well.

  15. vtpackfan 07/21/2006 at 3:20 PM #

    Fox regurgitates so much i think that a belemia condition can be suspected.

Leave a Reply