SI’s SEASON Predictions Wrong by Week 5

Sorry. We couldn’t help ourselves. We wanted to make point about the “power” of preseason prognostications.

The “experts” write it before a single game is played.

Therefore, it must be true.

The public – and fans – read what is written and start committing it to their conscious as something that is generally accepted to be true.

The rest of the media then takes what is written and expounds upon it as if it were true.

Therefore, the media ends up creating ‘realities’ that are NOT reality.

Luckily for everyone involved, the game is played on the field and not on paper.

Take, for example, Sports Illustrated’s fearless preseason football predictions BEFORE the season where SI proclaimed that NC State would finish the season 3-9 overall and 1-7 in the Atlantic Coast Conference. (The Sporting News followed SI’s predictions by selecting the Pack 5th in the Atlantic Division)

These preseason predictions were then taken to heart by many fans and most media outlets and before you know it one of the most successful coaches in the history of NC State football is excessively scrutinized in the public and put on the proverbial ‘hot seat’ by the media.

We ask that you check out our perspective of some of this BEFORE the season began by clicking here.

All it took was less than five weeks of football to validate OUR preseason perspectives (not just about NC State, but about UNC-CH) and ruin predictions of the likes of Sports Illustrated.

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 Media

61 Responses to SI’s SEASON Predictions Wrong by Week 5

  1. Heels Perspective 10/08/2006 at 5:55 PM #

    Word is that Sports Illustrated has amended the predictions and made NCSU National Champions!!!

    A top spokesman for SI said “that despite all of our efforts to destroy the State team and the very University itself, it seems that State is, the VERY best team in all the land” He went on to say that the City of Raleigh (wants all the land along Western Blvd.) the N&O, and John Swofford were teamed up early in the summer and despite all the conspiratory efforts have failed to destroy the football program.

    Is this stupid crap?……..of course. SI was only going on the fact that you’ve never been better than 4th in the league (under CTC) and you lost a lot of players this year………. Congrats to your players and coaches, The Daniel Evans story is great.

  2. redfred2 10/08/2006 at 7:10 PM #


    Thanks for the congrats and the comment on the Evans story. Oh, and thanks for just stopping by in general.

    I don’t know what it would take, but I guess I should really feel the need to start posting on some Tar Heel boards sometime? Maybe if ever I find a sport that most WOLFPACK fans don’t give a rat’s ass about, I’ll check you guys out. Come on back though, it has got to be terribly lonely over there in powder blue heaven right about now.

    Seriously though, all you need to do is…just wait until basketball season. Whoops, my bad! Can somebody besides a hapless Tar Heel football fan even use that phrase under the current patent laws? Please just send a bill for any copyright infringements.

  3. Woof Wolf 10/08/2006 at 7:57 PM #

    I hate to get into this fight but redfred2 is getting beat up pretty bad. I agree with all the stuff about team chemistry and experience, It would be very disruptive to the game plan, team moral and confidence to start changing quarterbacks during the games. You game plan based of the skills and capabilities of the guys who are going to be in the game. You don’t usually mess with that unless the quarterback gets injured or a game turns into a total disaster lis Southern Miss.

    Daniel wasn’t ready at tthe beginning of the year, because he had never been higher that two on the depth chart and didn’t get the reps especially with the first team offense. It’s not some magical breakfast food that made him so much better on Thursday night than he was three weeks ago or at the begining of the season. It’s the experience (the reps) at practice and in the games that made him better.

    I don’t think the coaches are totally inept or trying to sabotage the program. They probably want to win more than any of us. Chuck is totally loyal and dedicated to State. The other coaches earning abillity depends upon the success of the team.

    I do however think they overlooked some things that maybe could have prevented the terrible start to the season. We only averaged a little over 18 points per game during the six games that Marcus started last year. Due to a great defense we won five of those games. It should have been obvious during the off season, spring practice or surely after the NFL draft that the defense was going to be a lot younger and maybe not quite as good as last.

    The next logical thought should have been, we were probably going to need to score more than twenty points a game, if we want to win very many.

    “Can we average more than 20 points with our quarterback and games plans? No, probably not.”

    “What are our options? We’ll we could expand the game plan or we could give the Evans kid a shot. He’s been here two years. He’s going to be a redshirt sophomore.”

    I would like to think that dialog happened, but somehow I don’t think it did. Based on what I’ve heard from pressers and interviews, it was more likely, “We have to be more disiplined. We’ll play the experienced quarterback. That will cut down on turnovers and penalties and we can win with our kicking game.”

    I don’t care how good your defense or special teams are at some point your offense is going to have to score to win games. Sadly we started the season without that capability.

    Burke was not an option because he is too young and lacks knowledge of and experience with the offense. Daniel was a viable option. I think, especially with 20/20 hindsight, we should have should have given him
    the job and let him lose it if necessary. Worst case, we don’t recognizee some short comings in practtice and he falls on his butt in the first half against App. State. We have an experienced back up on the bench to come in and try to right the ship.

    I am not a part of any Chuck Chuck movement. I think he is capable of taking us to where we and he want us to be. But to accomplish that we have got to get better on offense. “Playing not to lose” can make a talented team good, but you have to play yo win to be great.

    I thought we were a lot better Thursday night. The three double reverse, flea flicker type plays in a row had me thinking we may have gone off the deep end. But after that we were good. But we need to get better. Let’s score more that 30 points and win by more than 14 Saturday. Two wins over ranked teams feels pretty good, but do not a season make. Hopefully Daniel and the team will continue to improve.

    In my humble opinion, if Chuck could be a little less combative and learn from some mistakes both on and off the field, he can take us to the top.

    Wow, I didn’t mean to write a book. It’s too long to proof. I hope I din’t screw up so much that you cam not understand what I am trying to say.

  4. Woof Wolf 10/08/2006 at 8:14 PM #

    Phillip is on NBC.

  5. redfred2 10/08/2006 at 9:08 PM #

    Woof Wolf

    Thanks for the help!

    EVANS was not and is NOT A FRESHMAN, or a totally unknown quantity, he’s been AROUND THE PROGRAM. So please, stop trying to convince me that he just took a massive and totally unbelievable growth spurt pertaining to his skills and play making abilities over a matter weeks. He did not.

    If you really believe that is the case you need to turn your attention away from football, and go back to watching Sesame Street instead. Only some one at that early stage of mental development could be so niave as to really believe that crock.

    Did some numb nuts sports analyst type out a column about this already? That would mean that it has to be absolutely true for some of you guys. Maybe Barney has a college football segment?

  6. redfred2 10/08/2006 at 9:13 PM #

    ^Woof Wolf

    Only the thanks was addressed to you.

    The rest is basically for, well, you know who.

  7. for2n8son 10/08/2006 at 9:27 PM #

    Based on my limited inside knowledge, Stone was probably the logical choice based on his reported performance in pre-season practice. Problem is, that didn’t translate into good game performance. It was also understandable that they would stick with him for a while expecting him to settle down and perform on gameday. I think Chuck did learn from last year in that he didn’t ride a lame horse through half the season.

  8. GAWolf 10/08/2006 at 9:48 PM #

    For comparison, there are guys who can hit 50 jumpers in a row in practice and couldn’t throw a basketball in a 50 gallon drum when the game is on the line.

    This argument you guys are having is pretty moot. Some folks are gamers, for lack of a better word, and some are not. The major difference between Evans versus Stone is that he believes in his team and his team believes in him. Many of his completions so far have not been beautiful passes, but rather beautiful catches. With that said, he has the gumption, or whatever you want to call it, to throw it out there and let his receivers make a play. Stone, for whatever reason, never hardly gave our guys a chance to make a big play.

    It was the same sort of thing with Jay Davis. When you have the athletes we allegedly have at the skill positions, all our quarterback really needs to do is just enough to help those guys around him make a play. It’s been said on this board a million times that we’ve been looking for a QB who doesn’t necessarily push the bus but rather one who can is able to simply drive it. Evans drives our bus/offense a heck of a lot better than anyone since Rivers.

    QB play at the college level is not always about sheer athletic ability. Stone dominated in highschool because he was a dominant athlete. That doesn’t always necessarily relate to success at a higher level. There are countless unmeasureable, “unclockable”, intangible things that make a quarterback. While Stone has some things Evans doesn’t, the things that Evans has that Stone doesn’t are much more important at this level.

    Many of those intangibles are only noticeable in live game situations. Again, I think with the success Evans is helping our team have the argument above is somewhat if not totally moot.

  9. redfred2 10/08/2006 at 9:53 PM #


    Does it really take 14 consecutive unimpressive quarters? I say you shouldn’t even keep riding that same “lame horse” for two consecutive halfs without trying something different.

    It can be surprising how quickly a starting player’s talent and potential can be brought back to light when someone else is out there on the field in his spot or barking the signals for him.

    I still say Stone is better than he has ever shown in a game. He has to be, or you guy’s arguments are really invalid.

  10. Wolfpack4ever 10/08/2006 at 10:00 PM #

    What redfred doesn’t realize as has been pointed to by many posters here is a simple fact of team-sport life — you earn your right to play in practice.

    for2n8son Says:
    Stone was probably the logical choice based on his reported performance in pre-season practice.

    Woof Wolf Says:
    he had never been higher that two on the depth chart and didn’t get the reps especially with the first team offense. It’s not some magical breakfast food that made him so much better on Thursday night than he was three weeks ago or at the begining of the season. It’s the experience (the reps) at practice and in the games that made him better.

    noah Says:
    Evans was not impressive in the spring game… He wasn’t ready to play during the first part of the year.

    When Evans started against BC it was an idea whose time had come OR as the commercial says “no wine before its time.”

  11. Woof Wolf 10/08/2006 at 10:09 PM #

    Maybe if we (the coaches) had recognized “when it was the wines time,” we could be undefeated and ranked in the top 15.

  12. for2n8son 10/08/2006 at 10:12 PM #


    Let us reason together. We won the first game, not by the margin we should have, but we won. We really, in my opinion, won the second game. Stone, only made it 3/4 through the S. Miss. game. Dumping him any quicker might have had evreybody looking over their shoulder and playing tight, maybe..

  13. redfred2 10/08/2006 at 10:24 PM #

    That is just it. I have never EVER said dump Stone at any point, I disagreed when he was. I said use the time wisely by give someone a chance for some needed experience when Stone was struggling. Let Stone come out, calm down and shake the cobb webs, and put him back in the game. It would never mean dumping Stone and I never wanted to or implied such. It would simply provide the coaches an opportunity to check out other options and help in the future, if not on that particular day.

    Sticking someone with Evans’ experience into a game like the BC game and having it turn out the way it did is about a one in one hundred chance, if not much, much higher. We got lucky, the kid is unreal.

  14. for2n8son 10/08/2006 at 10:33 PM #

    ^OK I’m with you now. I do think, though, that we have a much better QB in there now. Stone was just too skiddish in the pocket and he is an inaccurate passer. That’s a bad, bad, bad combination. He’s had enough game experience by the S. Miss. game that if he was ever going to shake out, we should have seen some sign of it.

  15. redfred2 10/08/2006 at 10:55 PM #


    Please go back and read all of my posts on this thread, your comment about Stone shows that you joined the fray in mid stream.

    ^^^^^^You guys, especially you Wolfpack4ever, EVANS IS A FREAKIN RED SHIRT SOPHOMORE. Not a green horn freshman who hasn’t seen anything yet.

    I guess in those seven days between a running a few downs in the already decided loss to MSU, young Daniel Evans fulfilled his necessary quota to be worthy of playing time. Lord knows there is no way possible that he could have had any talent before then.

    What a joke. And how gullible can anyone be to believe that crapola.

  16. redfred2 10/08/2006 at 11:37 PM #


    “Many of his completions so far have not been beautiful passes, but rather beautiful catches.”

    Sorry, but I have to disagree with that one also. If a QB throws the ball right in the numbers when there is a defender draped all over his receiver, that is not a beautiful pass, it’s an interception. The passes have been right where the very WELL COVERED receiver’s could go up to make a play on the ball every time, and just out of reach of the defender’s reach. Worst case scenario if the receiver doesn’t make the play, they’re incompletions.

    It has been absolutely uncanny to me, and I pray he can it can keep it up.

  17. redfred2 10/08/2006 at 11:41 PM #

    It’s late. I give.

  18. class of 74 10/09/2006 at 6:11 AM #

    Two points.
    1. Bruce Shaw and Dave Buckey, two completely different style QB’s shared time at NCSU and it sure did not hurt those teams at all. Holtz would put them in and take them out in the same series quite often. Those were some of the best, most entertaining offenses in our schools history. So much for the can’t change QB’s argument.

    2. None other than that QB guru and coach Steve Logan has said many, many times that a good coaching staff will prepare the second string QB for play regardless of how little he may see action. Logan liked to put his second string guy in for at least a series in the first half of each game just so the guy would get a feel of real game speed and to see how he might perform if an injury took out the starter. I can’t argue with that line of reason and besides Steve Logan forgot more about offense than any of us will ever know. And the list of effective QB’s he coached is very impressive IMHO.

  19. class of 74 10/09/2006 at 6:12 AM #

    ^Not sure how the second point got that way!

  20. redfred2 10/09/2006 at 9:07 AM #

    Just checking back on Monday a.m.


    I don’t know about the point that got away, but your point about Buckey/Shaw and Steve Logan’s thoughts on just letting them adjusted to the speed of the game, and in the ‘first’ half, pretty much sums up what I’ve been saying all along. The difference is that Logan saw the need to give the back ups those opportunitites even when the starter was playing WELL. It’s common sense planning and insurance for down the road. That ‘future’ can be the as far away as the next season, or that ‘future’ and immediate need may possibly present itself on the very next play.

    Moving on.

  21. Wolfpack4ever 10/09/2006 at 9:23 AM #

    Class of 74, you haven’t “so muched for” anything. Let’s look at how it went with Jay Davis and Marcus Stone. Those were two of the most entertaining offenses — for our opponents — were have had. Which one of those two are you compoaring Marcus Stone to?

    Apparently you were not following the discussion which was not, as you pictured above, can two excellent but different QBs produce some of the best and most entertaining offenses. The question is or was do you chuck, no pun intended, an older classman aside without giving him opportunity to produce AFTER he out-played the younger player in Spring and pre-season without destroying the morale of the team.

    A secondary argument which is also totally unrelated to your example above was do you trust the coaches who work with these young men every day or do you willy-nilly “try” random changes in hope something might work out.

    Logan may have forgotten more offense than any of us will ever know but the question is has he forgotten more offense than Trestman will ever know? Treatman’s judgement was the fundamental object of debate, not mine or redfred/s judgement. While in your mind it may not be possible but in my mind it is possibe for there to be more than one unarguable line of thinking.

    Lastly, Trestman has coached almost as many effective QB’s as Logan. Given the choice I’d have to go with Trestman’s group. To paraphrase you, so much for Logan being the last word on handling QB’s argument.

  22. redfred2 10/09/2006 at 10:49 AM #

    “The question is or was do you chuck, no pun intended, an older classman aside without giving him opportunity to produce AFTER he out-played the younger player in Spring and pre-season without destroying the morale of the team.”

    It’s been said before over and over and over again. Nobody said “chuck” anything, not (((ONE))) time. Nobody said Stone wasn’t deserved, and I even thought he should have started the BC game based purely on the lack of, or almost non-existent, playing time the ONE back up had seen. We are not talking about taking over the spot, we’re talking about giving experience and exploring other possibilities when things aren’t clicking
    AND HAVEN’T BEEN OVER THE COURSE OF 16 QUARTERS OF FOOTBALL or THREE AND A HALF GAMES!!! Even if he were 5th year redshirt starter at the QB position and was playing very well, that is not carelessly “chucking” Marcus Stone for anything.

    One theory is for the positive and the future, the other is reactionary and taken after the fact in order to fend off further damage and negatives.

    If anyone careless in this scenario it was the people who made the decision at a very important juncture involving the future of the football program as a whole, with their own coaching future’s in the balance, flying by the seat of their pants with everything riding on a untested young man’s shoulders who should have already had opportunities, but had hardly even seen the playing field.

    What are the odds?

  23. packbackr04 10/09/2006 at 11:36 AM #

    I agree woof wolf^^ where would be if Evans was the starter from day 1. but that is neither here nor there… Although I do think we would be undefeated and top 25 in the country

  24. redfred2 10/09/2006 at 11:41 AM #

    If anyone thinks that the first three games contributed to and were the solid foundation laid for Daniel Evans’ coming out party against BC, I don’t know what to say. If anyone thinks that Daniel Evans improved so dramtically in just (((seven))) days from a lesser performer than what Marcus Stone was doing at the time, into a player that lead the team in the unbelievable win over a #20 ranked BC team, all of that formerly unnoticed talent just sprang up out of nowhere, again in the time period of (((seven))) short days, once again I do know what to say.

    This horse is dead.


  1. The ACC Basketblog - 10/09/2006

    The Daily Roundup

    We’re talking about the Wolfpack on the ACC Basketblog. Get over there!

Leave a Reply