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. class of 74 10/09/2006 at 12:33 PM #

    To clear up my earlier post. Someone mentioned the nilly willy change of QB’s and the destroying chemistry. Hogwash. Many examples to prove otherwise and the Shaw/Buckey era is one that worked here. Holtz moved them in and out many times based on down and distance as well as alternating series. Just complete hogwash on the chemistry myth.

    If I’ve heard one Wolfpacker say this I’ve heard hundreds: “Marcus Stone is not a QB on the major college level.” He is, by all accounts, a great kid and I’m sorry it hasn’t worked out for him but for his “leading us” to wins is a bunch of bull. We made a decision to empahsize the running game after Jay Davis was replaced and with that change we began to win games. I still believe Jay Davis is a better QB than Stone. Then this season we began to “open up the play book” for Stone and viola, we can’t move the football effectively. The defenses began stacking the box with 8 or 9 players and they dared us to throw because they knew we could be them with the run but not so much with the passing game.

    If guys like Steve Logan think it’s a good idea to get a 2nd stringer meaningful playing time who here can effectively argue against this? I might also add, no less than Steve Spurrier has said the very same thing.

    Finally, you destroy team morale a heck of alot quicker by not giving your TEAM the best chance to succeed. It’s nice to reward upperclassmen but as a coach or business owner you owe more to the team than any one individual. I may never have coached but I sure as heck have owned a business.

  2. redfred2 10/09/2006 at 1:46 PM #


    If you are right, and Stone is the same in practice and only as good as we’ve seen so far, then the argument to continue to play him almost non stop through the first three games is ludicrous.

    ^Your last paragraph (!!!)

    We’re dealing with a few former union employee’s representatives around here I think. That ol’ seniority ladder, gotta pay your dues, you just can’t skip a rung.

  3. Wolfpack4ever 10/09/2006 at 6:33 PM #

    74 says: I may never have coached but I sure as heck have owned a business.

    I’ve done both. It ain’t the same, although I can see how you might think it is.

    74, The discussion you stepped into was originated by redfred’s: “Notice to all NCSU coaches past and present: The bench is not the place to store your best play makers and athletes.”

    and drifted into something else as redfred tried to dance out of having made such a ridiculous accusation. I appreciate your coming to redfred’s defence — Lord knows, he needed it.

  4. Wolfpack4ever 10/09/2006 at 6:42 PM #

    And 74, I fully agree with your opening post (the first post in this thread.) Undeniably true. I like that you didn’t find it necessary to crucify Amato or Trestman for their failure to predict the future and make that change after the first quarter of the ASU game.

    Arguements that the change should have been made sooner are valid. The assertion that they were “storing our best play makers and athletes” was more than I could abide. I hate it got into a pissing contest and I aplogize for some of comments and the “tone” of them.

    Here’s to the team and continued success.

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

    Team morale is team morale whether it is a sports team or a business team.

    From the “I’ve done both” comment; what college and sport did you coach?

  6. redfred2 10/10/2006 at 10:22 AM #


    Here’s one of yours that I didn’t even bother to comment on before. But you sir, are brilliant!!!

    Wolfpack4ever says:

    *“If we had beaten UNC every year and won the conference championship and been in the BCS bowls, Chuck’s ability to coach would not be an issue.�

    Guinness anyone???

    Do you know my wife? Are you my wife? or someone else’s?

    Just wandering because you can certainly pick out one tiny little phrase and dwell on it to no end like a woman. You have disregarded every common sense statement anyone else has said since, and been stuck on that one sentence for days. You don’t have any answers (((AGAIN))) but instead are just still having one of your little hissy fits again.

    Good night, Honey

    Yes, I took out the trash.

  7. redfred2 10/10/2006 at 10:54 AM #

    Wolfpack4ever says:

    “Why is it that Amato is faulted and deemed stupid for not playing Evans and asserting that Amato played Stone because he LOOKS like a better player. What evidence do you have for your statements like that.”

    I was simply asking for someone else to have a chance, never once said anything about Amato or Trestman being stupid and do not think that they are AT ALL. You jumped to your on conclusions without reading further there (((AGAIN))). Someone else said that about Stone’s appearance being a factor. I just repeated it because you and the others didn’t have any other reasons for him to stay in the games.

    Wolfpack4ever says:

    “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.”

    Total BS. As a freshman, maybe. When things are progressing otherwise, maybe. Not in this situation.

    (((Most recently)))Wolfpack4ever says:

    “Arguements that the change should have been made sooner are valid.”

    Need I reply?

  8. Wolfpack4ever 10/10/2006 at 3:31 PM #

    Redfred Says: Total BS (that you earn your opportunity in practice to start/play)

    I am interested in your supposition as to why Evans was given his shot ahead of 3 other QBs who we have not seen, if not based on his success in practice. Also, do you think one of the 3 other QBs should play a quarter each in the Wake game to gain experience if something should happen to Evans. At least one was more highly recruited than Evans.

  9. redfred2 10/10/2006 at 5:42 PM #

    “(that you earn your opportunity in practice to start/play)”

    NO!!! Your whole premise has been based on the fact that you think the coaches were doing exactly right by playing Stone and no one else. You say that they had no idea how Evans would stand up until he got his required “reps.”

    Oh yes they did.

    But they didn’t make a move until they were forced to after three dissapointing games and two losses.

    Two posts were eliminated from this thread and class of 74 stated it, but Stone could use a show of confidence with some playing time for sure.

  10. redfred2 10/10/2006 at 5:46 PM #

    ^I’m not saying that they knew he would set the world on fire, but they knew he had talent, and talent enough to make a difference in the earlier games possibly. They were just barreling straight ahead and discounting any hope of production out of the QB position.

  11. redfred2 10/10/2006 at 5:57 PM #

    ^…until those three disappointing games forced them to change there tune.

Leave a Reply