Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I have no problem with forcing the ACC North teams (Pitt/Cuse/BC) to square off on Friday nights, it’s not like their fanbases have other games to go to those nights. And besides, no one wants to watch them play anyways…except maybe in the tv markets they were brought in for…and if those markets don’t tune in…it doesn’t matter because the ACC still gets TV revenue from the expanded footprint, but at least it’s one less game to hear about on Saturday.
I’m not sure why so many people are peeved about our use of the wildcat last year. It allowed our OL to get used to blocking designed QB runs (which we called later in the season to great success) in noncon games without risking our QB to injury early in the season. Personally, I hope we use it again early in the season if it means Jacoby is at 100% come November.
Is it time for spring ball yet?
He has lost to a Carolina team….of the gamecock variety. Lost in Columbia his first game as a starter in 2008, and again to them at home in 2009. Granted, I’m not sure he made it past the first series down in Columbia before getting concussed, but he was the starter if I recall.
As far as North Carolina teams that call themselves Carolina though he is spotless.
I’d swap us and Kentucky.
Basketball:
Kentucky would add to the ACC basketball “pedigree” far more than we will in the future. Kentucky also would be far more likely to win an ACC title in basketball than we will vpgiven the conference shakeup. Kentucky would pair with Louisville to give the ACC two major in state rivalries. The other obviously being duke and unx. It isn’t easy to swallow, but we just don’t add that much value to the basketball table comparative to Kentucky. We would be far more likely to compete for SEC titles in basketball than in the ACC. Sorry, call me what you will, but the odds are not in our favor,me specially after we let in Cuse and Louisville. Furthermore, the ACC has made it very clear they want to focus on basketball. Kentucky would greatly help that profile.Football:
We’re probably fairly comparable all things considered. I think in any given year we have an edge over Kentucky, but I think we have a higher ceiling in football than they do. We just need he SEC recruiting pitch to get us there.I think overall it makes sense for the ACC: Kentucky focuses on basketball in a football conference and we can’t make up our mind which one we want to focus on, but with even marginal success in football we could easily (IMO many of us are already there) make football our primary focus.
A quick back of the envelope calc…
3100 students involved total * 47.4% of total were student athletes, therefore 1469 student athletes were involved total.
Of these 1469 student athletes…
50.9% Football = 748 football players
12.2% Basketball = 179 basketball playersNow, placing an average recruiting class…
Each football recruiting class = 25 football players/ recruiting classes x 18 classes = 450 football players…
Add four years so seniors in ’93 can be included, and the number goes to 550 football players…
Each basketball recruiting class = 6 basketball players/ recruiting class x 18 classes = 108 basketball players…
Same thing, add four years…132 players
550 < 748 & 132 < 179
Obviously the report didn’t state 3100 unique students, but still. I must be missing something.
What am I missing?
Is that AD expenses or just football?
I selected the option to download just football related financial reporting and sifter though to get the total reported football expenses. I had some revenue data in there too, but for figuring out how well a team could do would, IMO, have more to to with how much you spend.
what I was asking for was just how recruiting matched up against final results.
I think you and I are losing something. It’s probably on my end not really getting what you’re asking for/me adequately explaining what I’ve done, but probably both. If we are on the same page, then I’m sorry for the discussion I’m about to write up using State in 2013.
Since we have two divisions, I just ranked the teams by number of ACC wins in a given season. I.e. 2012, FSU had an ACC Finish ranking of 1, and we had a ranking of 6. For each season, I took the aggregate recruiting classes of the previous five classes to determine a preseason ranking. I sorted the aggregate ranking in ascending order to get integers for rankings, 1 and 8, for FSU and State, respectively, not 1.2 and 7.6. Then I took the ACC Finish Ranking and subtracted the Projection Ranking to see how each team did on the field relative to the recruiting projection. In 2012, we had a score of +2, meaning we had a ACC Finish Ranking two spots higher than recruiting projected. Positive outperforms, negative underperforms, zero meets expectations. Sorry if we were on the same page, and I just didn’t realize it.
One of the most interesting websites that I ever ran across.
Yeah, it’s definitely clunky to use, but it is a wealth of data. Do you have the link? I’d be interested in reading it again.
Since it seems I have nothing better to do, I’ve kept digging a bit. This time, I pulled Department of Education reporting information from ACC teams from 2010 through 2012 and was able to come up with the following charts.
Disclaimer: The files were not organized very well, but I think I got it. There was one column with operating expenses and another with just expenses. I found a Forbes article that had similar info, but only for preseason 2013 top 25 teams (Clemson and FSU), and adding the operating expenses column with the expenses column got me pretty close, but not exact, to the Forbes numbers.
This time, I used the teams by expenses to generate a projection, and compared the projection with results to determine overachieve/underachieve/meet factors, by simply getting the difference between the rankings.
It doesn’t seem the link between expenses and results correlates as nicely as recruiting, but there’s a big difference between being last in spending and outperforming by 2, than it is to be #4 in expenses and outperform by 2, like Clemson.
I’m interested to see the 2013 data, but if I had to guess, FSU and CLemson would be two of the top ACC teams in terms of expenses. Money talks. Especially to coaching talent.
No disagreement here. It just sucks because as a fan, I want nothing more than 8/9/10 win seasons to be the norm. I think everyone in the fanbase wants that. However, the reality, based on recruiting, is we are a below average ACC team on the field. At that #Statement doesn’t include the newcomers. Once you factor in the new comers, we get pushed down even further because Louisville and Pitt consistently out recruit us. It’s tough to say, but it’s time we as fans accept that we as a program aren’t exactly where we many of us, myself included before I started looking hard at the data, think we are. Accept isn’t the right word. Maybe understand is. Once we understand where the program realistically is, we can set realistic goals, expectations, and milestones to get the program where we all think it should be.
We won’t win a national championship with DD. Heck, he may not even put together a squad that wins an ACC title. Rome wasn’t built in a day, and we sure as heck aren’t Auburn (SEC worst to first last year).
Those charts should list the teams in terms of results vs. recruiting success.
Yogi, I wanted to approach it from the other direction and use the recruiting rankings to determine a projected final ACC ranking, by number of wins, then took the difference between the final results and the projection to see how teams overachieved/underachieved/met expectations. The table below shows, by year, the difference between State’s final ranking, as ranked by number of ACC wins, vs our projected ranking. I feel like differences of one or two are not as significant, since I didn’t consider things such strength of schedule, home wins, away wins, etc.
2010, by this metric, we really overachieved.
I was watching a game that featured
-A TOB recruited offensive line, doing TOB offensive line things. I.e. Not giving the QB enough time to make smart decisions.
-A two deep that was 7 Freshmen / Redshirt Freshmen / Sophomores on offense and 10 on defense (38.6% total, 31.8% offense, 45.5% defense)
-A team that hasn’t had a Saturday off since 8/23.
-A team that got physically beat down by both FSU and Clemson in the previous two weeks. I think we all know the kind of athletes FSU and Clemson are – superior to us. That’s just the realistic cold hard facts on the field. Yes, we played with glimmers of greatness in the first quarter vs FSU, but once the adrenaline wore out, so did we.
-An opponent that was coming off a bye, that had previously held So Cal to 20 rushing yards and was averaging 316.8 rushing yards per game coming into Raleigh.
I really think the loss to BC is more a function of the bye week than anything else. I think the team is beat down, both physically and mentally.
Sucks to say, but we’re about to face another good D in terms of efficiency before heading into the bye week.
At this point, I think the realistic goal is to go to Louisville, not get hurt, not get blown out, and go into the bye week to regroup.
As much as I liked the carbon fiber helmets, I’m a big fan of the matte black with logo look. Think VT a few years ago when they played Boise in those slick computer chip uni’s.
I’ve had this one circled on the calendar since the match-up has been announced. I work in Newport News, VA as an engineer. My boss is an ODU grad, our two senior engineers are ODU grads, and two of the three engineers* I share a cube block with are ODU grads. In defiance to the ODU majority, I have had, from day one in the cube, a full size State flag, each years respective football poster, and one of those white “Welcome to our State” posters SWPC gave out my senior year. On days that I am not desk ridden and go get dirty, I wear old free State shirts. I have a block S on my hardhat above my name. Suffice to say, I’ve made myself quite the target.
I need things to click Saturday night.
The trash talk has already started. They think they beat the spread. Given how we looked vs Ga Southern, they might.
Good thing I have two and a half weeks of vacation saved up.
*One of their degrees is Mechanical Engineering Technology, after two years I’m still not sure how that counts as an engineering degree to our company, but that’s a whole other matter.
What makes the article and cover even better – the Chairman of the Board of Bloomberg sits on the unx BOT.
Bill, that’s true, right now some navy contractors rely on ODU…probably because the bureaucracy in place does everything it can to stifle actual engineers and dumb it down significantly.
7 Universities and Labs: North Carolina State [Lead], Arizona State University, Florida State University, University of California at Santa Barbara, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
I’m sure it will be DOE, but that doesn’t mean that USNRL doesn’t have a significant interest in the research.
the average SAT scores for affleets entering his school rank in the top five nationally
This may be true across the entire department, but I’d like to see a sample size that was ONLY scholarship Basketball players and another that was ONLY scholarship football players, and see where the average of those specific samples go without the help of walk-ons and olympic sport athletes to boost the “average” to make them top five.
EDIT: To get the full picture, those averages would have to be compared to the averages of other ACC schools, and other conferences.
We build nuclear subs. And we sink ships.
I always find it incredible that more State grads don’t go to do that – build subs and carriers. It’s only a couple of hours from Raleigh, and there’s some very unique engineering/construction/manufacturing work. I’d feel a heck of a lot better if we had more State grads working on them than ODU grads.
Looking at the list of labs in the institute, and its very easy to see the two directions government wants the research to go.
