POLL: BC will contend for ACC Atlantic title in '17

[eagletx]

Any poll without a poll is dumb.

Premise was based on Addazio's prediction upon his hire that in 5 years, BC would be an ACC contender.

It was proposed as an either/or proposition.

Now we can add all sorts of other "poll" options based on caveats and "yah-buts" to satisfy Walrus, for example, so that he feels good about
winning 3-4 games, but, boy, look at all those close losses, and make it feel like BC was a contender. We should leave that kind of
baseless justification to losing politicians.

[twballgame9]

I love how "walrus" has become a substitute colloquialism for "Pollyanna"

[DavidGordonsFoot]

False. You don't go from 0-8 with a historically bad offense to challenging for the division in two years at BC, and especially not with Sarge. We'll be lucky if BC's contending for a winning conference record in '17.

just get a reliable FG kicker and we immediately jump from 0-8 to 4-4.

You keep saying this like it isn't a big deal. It is a big deal. Alabama had kicking woes this year. It is not some fluke that BC struggled there. It is not something that should be taken for granted. Do you know how many teams' fortunes would have changed averaging 3 more ppg on offense? A lot. You sound like a fucking moron with this bullshit.

[dtwalrus]

False. You don't go from 0-8 with a historically bad offense to challenging for the division in two years at BC, and especially not with Sarge. We'll be lucky if BC's contending for a winning conference record in '17.

just get a reliable FG kicker and we immediately jump from 0-8 to 4-4.

You keep saying this like it isn't a big deal. It is a big deal. Alabama had kicking woes this year. It is not some fluke that BC struggled there. It is not something that should be taken for granted. Do you know how many teams' fortunes would have changed averaging 3 more ppg on offense? A lot. You sound like a fucking moron with this bullshit.

Actually no, I don't know how many teams fortunes would've changed. So I looked it up. Just for arguments sake, averaging 3.5ppg more on offense would have the following effect (BC lost 4 games by 3, so more accurate to say averaging 3.5 more ppg would lead to wins):

ACC:
- BC: +5 wins
- Clemson: no change
- FSU: no change
- Louisville: +2 wins
- NCST: no change
- Syracues: +2 win
- Wake: +1 win
- Duke: +1 win
- GT: +2 wins
- UNC: +1 win
- Pitt: +1 win
- UVa: +1 win
- VT: +2 wins
- ND*: +2 wins

BIG
- Illinois: no change
- Iowa: +1 win
- Minnesota: +1 win
- Nebraska: +5 wins
- Northwestern: no change
- Purdue: +1 win
- Wisconsin: no chnage
- Indiana: +4 wins
- Maryland: +1 win
- Michigan: no change
- Michigan State: +1 win
- Penn State: +1 win
- Ohio State: +1 win
- Rutgers: +1 win

Big 12:
- Baylor: +1 win
- Iowa State: +2 win
- Kansas: +1 win
- Kansas State: +1 win
- Oklahoma: no change
- Oklahoma State: no change
- TCU: +1 win
- Texas: +3 wins
- Texas Tech: +1 win
- WVU: +1 win

Pac 12:
- Arizona: +1 win
- Arizona State: +3 wins
- Colorado: +1 win
- UCLA: no change
- USC: + 1 win
- Utah: +1 win
- Cal: no change
- Oregon: +3 wins
- Oregon State: no chnage
- Stanford: +1 win
- Washington: +1 win
- WSU: +1 win

SEC:
- Alabama: no change
- Arkansas: +2 wins
- Auburn: +1 win
- Florida: no change
- Georgia: no change
- Kentucky: +1 win
- LSU: no change
- Miss St: +1 win
- Missouri: +1 win
- Ole Miss: +1 win
- South Carolina: +2 wins
- Texas A&M: no change
- Tennessee: +2 wins
- Vanderbilt: +2 wins

The Breakdown:
No Change = 17/65
+1 Win = 31/65
+2 Wins = 5/65
+3 Wins = 3/65
+4 Wins = 1/65
+5 Wins = 2/65
>6 Wins = none

So the answer to your question, is 1 other team's fortunes would've changed as much as BC's last year (Nebraska). Just one. And 48 of the 65 P5 teams (75%) would've had practically no change in fortunes by averaging 3.5 more ppg.

Also, pretty sure no other team in the country lost their starting QB, starting RB, and were breaking in 5 new offensive lineman AND had kicking woes. Not even Alabama.

Who sounds like a fucking moron now?

[twballgame9]

There's a huge statistical flaw in that analysis and I will let you figure it out.

That said, I sort of agree with your point, even if you are being a little walrus-y.

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

can't kick a field goal from the other side of the 50.

wake and duke might have been a win with a better fg kicker. other than that, teddy's flaw applies

[twballgame9]

can't kick a field goal from the other side of the 50.

wake and duke might have been a win with a better fg kicker. other than that, teddy's flaw applies

That's a logical flaw. There's also a statistical flaw. These teams all play each other.

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

can't kick a field goal from the other side of the 50.

wake and duke might have been a win with a better fg kicker. other than that, teddy's flaw applies

That's a logical flaw. There's also a statistical flaw. These teams all play each other.

agreed. i was saying that when you look at the actual games themselves, those are the only games i think can be blamed on the kicker.

i ignored the retardation aspect of the whole comparison because walrus is retarded which you also are saying we should ignore... but you didn't call walrus retarded

[DavidGordonsFoot]

False. You don't go from 0-8 with a historically bad offense to challenging for the division in two years at BC, and especially not with Sarge. We'll be lucky if BC's contending for a winning conference record in '17.

just get a reliable FG kicker and we immediately jump from 0-8 to 4-4.

You keep saying this like it isn't a big deal. It is a big deal. Alabama had kicking woes this year. It is not some fluke that BC struggled there. It is not something that should be taken for granted. Do you know how many teams' fortunes would have changed averaging 3 more ppg on offense? A lot. You sound like a fucking moron with this bullshit.

Actually no, I don't know how many teams fortunes would've changed. So I looked it up. Just for arguments sake, averaging 3.5ppg more on offense would have the following effect (BC lost 4 games by 3, so more accurate to say averaging 3.5 more ppg would lead to wins):

ACC:
- BC: +5 wins
- Clemson: no change
- FSU: no change
- Louisville: +2 wins
- NCST: no change
- Syracues: +2 win
- Wake: +1 win
- Duke: +1 win
- GT: +2 wins
- UNC: +1 win
- Pitt: +1 win
- UVa: +1 win
- VT: +2 wins
- ND*: +2 wins

BIG
- Illinois: no change
- Iowa: +1 win
- Minnesota: +1 win
- Nebraska: +5 wins
- Northwestern: no change
- Purdue: +1 win
- Wisconsin: no chnage
- Indiana: +4 wins
- Maryland: +1 win
- Michigan: no change
- Michigan State: +1 win
- Penn State: +1 win
- Ohio State: +1 win
- Rutgers: +1 win

Big 12:
- Baylor: +1 win
- Iowa State: +2 win
- Kansas: +1 win
- Kansas State: +1 win
- Oklahoma: no change
- Oklahoma State: no change
- TCU: +1 win
- Texas: +3 wins
- Texas Tech: +1 win
- WVU: +1 win

Pac 12:
- Arizona: +1 win
- Arizona State: +3 wins
- Colorado: +1 win
- UCLA: no change
- USC: + 1 win
- Utah: +1 win
- Cal: no change
- Oregon: +3 wins
- Oregon State: no chnage
- Stanford: +1 win
- Washington: +1 win
- WSU: +1 win

SEC:
- Alabama: no change
- Arkansas: +2 wins
- Auburn: +1 win
- Florida: no change
- Georgia: no change
- Kentucky: +1 win
- LSU: no change
- Miss St: +1 win
- Missouri: +1 win
- Ole Miss: +1 win
- South Carolina: +2 wins
- Texas A&M: no change
- Tennessee: +2 wins
- Vanderbilt: +2 wins

The Breakdown:
No Change = 17/65
+1 Win = 31/65
+2 Wins = 5/65
+3 Wins = 3/65
+4 Wins = 1/65
+5 Wins = 2/65
>6 Wins = none

So the answer to your question, is 1 other team's fortunes would've changed as much as BC's last year (Nebraska). Just one. And 48 of the 65 P5 teams (75%) would've had practically no change in fortunes by averaging 3.5 more ppg.

Also, pretty sure no other team in the country lost their starting QB, starting RB, and were breaking in 5 new offensive lineman AND had kicking woes. Not even Alabama.

Who sounds like a fucking moron now?

That would still be you. On top of Teddy's point, this exercise does not account for the significance of each win in these deltas. For example, Stanford may have only won one more game, but that game would have gotten them into the playoff. I was not strictly talking about the numbers.

[dtwalrus]

Look, to be clear, I'm not saying that '15 should be ignored. I'm not saying we should be encouraged by '15. And I'm definitely not saying we can think of '15 as "almost" 8-4. Those would all be very overly simplified narratives. All I am saying is that the narrative which many people on this board took from '15 -- that BC Football is doomed, Daz can never win, and we need to clean house and start over -- is also an overly simplified (and likely totally inaccurate) narrative.

While I know every team can point to hypotheticals, just indulge me for a big.

Facts:
- BC lost their starting QB and had to rely on freshman QB's with no experience.
- BC lost their starting RB and the presumed star of the offense.
- BC in '15 was replacing their entire OL from the year before, with 4/5 OL with no prior starting experience.
- BC had a terrible FG game.
- BC lost 5 games by 3 or fewer points.

Hypotheticals:
1) BC loses Hilliman, has no OL, and a terrible kicker, BUT Darius Wade stays healthy --> BC probably wins some of those 5 close losses.
2) BC loses Wade, has no OL, and a terrible kicker, BUT Hilliman stays healthy --> BC probably wins some of those 5 close losses.
3) BC loses Hilliman and Wade, and has no OL, but has a reliable kicker -->> BC probably wins some of those 5 close losses.
4) BC loses Hilliman and Wade, and has a terrible kicker, but has an experience (more typical BC line) -->> BC probably wins some of those 5 close losses.

And now we get to my only point: If not for the fact that BC had 4 terrible developments in '15, this narrative of doom-and-gloom wouldn't exist AT ALL. If Wade went down and the OL struggled, but Hilliman was health and we had a FG kicker and we win 6 people would say, "Well, that's disappointing, but the OL was bad and Wade went down."

There's something about 3-9 and the pain of all the close losses that has blinded people to just how much bad luck BC faced. And it's blinded them to the fact that despite all the bad luck, BC wasn't uncompetitive in '15. They won 3, lost 5 by a FG or less, and were only really blown away in 2 games (VT and NCST).

The most moronic thing on this board is the delusion that BC is the new Duke (circa 2000's) because we barely lost 9 games in 2015 after losing our starting QB, starting RB, and having an unexpectedly bad OL and kicking game.

[dtwalrus]

Oh, and I forgot to mention that on top of all of that, we had one of the toughest SOS in the nation.

But yeah, I'm the asshole. Not all you douches that are cancelling your season tickets unless BC cleans house.

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

injuries happen to all teams.

bad coaches produce bad teams. bad coaches/teams lose 3-0 as the clock ticks out while your offense stands on the one yard line with their dicks in their hands. that is not because we have a bad kicker (of course, we would have been winning 6-3 if we had a better kicker but that's not the point here)... that's because we have a shitty coach.

you can blow slaughter all you want but this year he proved to me that he sucks and as long as he's at the helm, this team will only compete for the basement and never compete for the championship game

[twballgame9]

were only really blown away in 2 games (VT and NCST).

Marino, you need to stop.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/boxscore?gameId=400756953

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

Oh, and I forgot to mention that on top of all of that, we had one of the toughest SOS in the nation.

But yeah, I'm the asshole. Not all you douches that are cancelling your season tickets unless BC cleans house.

based on how well the acc did in bowl season, i'd suggest this is also a bullshit statistic. and you are the one who is the moron

[dtwalrus]

were only really blown away in 2 games (VT and NCST).

Marino, you need to stop.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/boxscore?gameId=400756953

Fine 3 games. How could I forget that we only stayed with the national champion run up for the first half...

[twballgame9]

were only really blown away in 2 games (VT and NCST).

Marino, you need to stop.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/boxscore?gameId=400756953

Fine 3 games. How could I forget that we only stayed with the national champion run up for the first half...

I've had about my fill of playing to stay close. Win one. How long can you hang your hat on beating 4 patsies, 2 peer schools in a good season, and a 2-year old win over what turned out to be a mediocre USC team giving out 70% scholarships?

[EagleDave]

were only really blown away in 2 games (VT and NCST).

Marino, you need to stop.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/boxscore?gameId=400756953

Fine 3 games. How could I forget that we only stayed with the national champion run up for the first half...

I've had about my fill of playing to stay close. Win one. How long can you hang your hat on beating 4 patsies, 2 peer schools in a good season, and a 2-year old win over what turned out to be a mediocre USC team giving out 70% scholarships?

Stop with your raised expectations.

Don't you know we just need to accept that being competitive with good teams is enough? #EverToExcel

[eepstein0]

If the OLine sucks we are doomed. Otherwise we're probably winning between 6-9 games (don't get excited TRE I know that's 69)

[DavidGordonsFoot]

I'm still renewing my tickets and I don't believe the program has become early 2000s Duke football. I also don't think BC should blow it up and clean house right now because they just did that 3 years ago.

I think Daz is good enough to challenge for the division if he builds the program similar to the way TOB built it - with patience and an eye for talent. Although he often did so to a fault, TOB was very good at managing younger players in his system and redshirting as many as possible in their first year with the team. This gave TOB a larger stable of physically mature players at his disposal in the future and became the foundation of a decade of good offensive line play on The Heights. Given Daz's offensive philosophy, he should strive to do the same, but he doesn't. Instead, he throws shit on the wall to see what sticks, and this is incredibly frustrating. I want to believe things will change, but a leopard doesn't change its spots.

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

... I want to believe things will change, but a leopard doesn't change its spots.

yes, but when you put it that way a wrestler does change his alliances...

[angrychicken]

If the OLine sucks we are doomed. Otherwise we're probably winning between 6-9 games.

Way to go out on a limb.

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

If the OLine sucks we are doomed. Otherwise we're probably winning between 6-9 games.

Way to go out on a limb.

micropenis goes out on microlimb.

it doesn't surprise me.

[angrychicken]

If the OLine sucks we are doomed. Otherwise we're probably winning between 6-9 games.

Way to go out on a limb.

micropenis goes out on microlimb.

it doesn't surprise me.

"We will win somewhere in the range of zero to nine games next year. You can quote me on that...unless they don't."

[JesuitIvy]

When Addazio was hired, I recall everyone saying, including Daz, that year 3 would be the most difficult year because of the way the Spaz's recruiting fell off, class size and quality, and kids leaving . Am I wrong? So, it's worse, but I also remember a lot of people giving credit to Notorious Orange and his Daz-great-coach prediction during seasons 1 and 2 on these boards.

[NotoriousOrange]

When Addazio was hired, I recall everyone saying, including Daz, that year 3 would be the most difficult year because of the way the Spaz's recruiting fell off, class size and quality, and kids leaving . Am I wrong? So, it's worse, but I also remember a lot of people giving credit to Notorious Orange and his Daz-great-coach prediction during seasons 1 and 2 on these boards.

You are a very insightful poster Ivy

[eagletx]

injuries happen to all teams.

bad coaches produce bad teams. bad coaches/teams lose 3-0 as the clock ticks out while your offense stands on the one yard line with their dicks in their hands. that is not because we have a bad kicker (of course, we would have been winning 6-3 if we had a better kicker but that's not the point here)... that's because we have a shitty coach.

you can blow slaughter all you want but this year he proved to me that he sucks and as long as he's at the helm, this team will only compete for the basement and never compete for the championship game

THIS. This fish is rotting from the head, down.

[eepstein0]

If the OLine sucks we are doomed. Otherwise we're probably winning between 6-9 games.

Way to go out on a limb.

micropenis goes out on microlimb.

it doesn't surprise me.

"We will win somewhere in the range of zero to nine games next year. You can quote me on that...unless they don't."

You guys struggle with reading comprehension don't you?

[dtwalrus]

injuries happen to all teams.

bad coaches produce bad teams. bad coaches/teams lose 3-0 as the clock ticks out while your offense stands on the one yard line with their dicks in their hands. that is not because we have a bad kicker (of course, we would have been winning 6-3 if we had a better kicker but that's not the point here)... that's because we have a shitty coach.

you can blow slaughter all you want but this year he proved to me that he sucks and as long as he's at the helm, this team will only compete for the basement and never compete for the championship game

THIS. This fish is rotting from the head, down.

There's a difference between a bad coach and a flawed coach. There are a lot of areas in which Daz is really above average, especially considering the unique needs of a small, low-budget, Catholic school with rigorous academic standards like BC. But yes, he has some significant in-game coaching weakness.

But so what? So does probably 75% of college coaches. If you hold a microscope up to every team in America you'll find moments as equally boneheaded as the clock management in the Wake game. You'd probably even find really stupid stuff done by Harbaugh, Saban and Fischer. But nobody holds a microscope up to every coach the way that 2015 held a microscope up to Daz, because almost no team in America had a personnel as flawed as BC.

Playing with 2-star 18-year old freshmen QB's, behind an inexperienced and largely rookie O Line, with only backup RB's carrying the ball, the 2015 BC offense flat out didn't have the talent to mask any of the coaching flaws. Any of the flaws. So every Daz and Fitch weakness was just laid bare for all to see and prominently impacted games in a way it likely wouldn't with better talent and more experienced players. Teams play with flawed coaches all the time and they win with those coaches, they can even win conference championships and national championships with flawed coaches. If you have the talent and experience. Jags wasn't the greatest in game coach. But Matt Ryan sure masked it. Hell, the greatest play in recent BC history (Ryan's TD at VT) was a broken play, after two drives of broken play after broken play, after 56 minutes of absolute offensive ineptitude. But Ryan improvised and made up for it, and nobody talks about how terrible the coaching was that night in Blacksburg.

This is all just my way of saying, despite the undeniably terrible coaching mistakes of 2015, Daz (warts and all) may still be good enough to win the ACC once his system and roster is fully in place.

[Brooklyneagle]

No, not likely. Not with last-in-the-ACC recruiting. Defense to take a step back too.

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

walrus's grave is getting deeper and deeper and he's going to look more foolish than siriuzdoanhue did after the beeker jizz dried and he siriuzly realized that maybe the ivy league champion coach wasn't a great fit for the acc

just sayin'