I for one am hopeful that this AD and really the university itself has finally decided to stop trying to nickle and dime the football program. We will know more once they get the new hire in and we see if the have actually opened the purse strings or not.

That said HCSS seems like a really nice guy but his outbursts (imo) show him to be more of a DC than a HC. For someone who was learning on the job he sure seemed to make the same mistakes over and over and never really showed himself emotionally capable of being the HC. After his handling of the freshman QB there really was no choice to be made imo.

I wish him well but his time will not be remembered fondly by this fan.

(11-24-2015 08:59 AM)WNCOrange Wrote:  I for one am hopeful that this AD and really the university itself has finally decided to stop trying to nickle and dime the football program. We will know more once they get the new hire in and we see if the have actually opened the purse strings or not.

That said HCSS seems like a really nice guy but his outbursts (imo) show him to be more of a DC than a HC. For someone who was learning on the job he sure seemed to make the same mistakes over and over and never really showed himself emotionally capable of being the HC. After his handling of the freshman QB there really was no choice to be made imo.

I wish him well but his time will not be remembered fondly by this fan.

I don't love the outburst, but I don't think that stops him from being considered a head coach. Look at Bobby Knight.

(11-24-2015 09:01 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-24-2015 08:59 AM)WNCOrange Wrote:  I for one am hopeful that this AD and really the university itself has finally decided to stop trying to nickle and dime the football program. We will know more once they get the new hire in and we see if the have actually opened the purse strings or not.

That said HCSS seems like a really nice guy but his outbursts (imo) show him to be more of a DC than a HC. For someone who was learning on the job he sure seemed to make the same mistakes over and over and never really showed himself emotionally capable of being the HC. After his handling of the freshman QB there really was no choice to be made imo.

I wish him well but his time will not be remembered fondly by this fan.

I don't love the outburst, but I don't think that stops him from being considered a head coach. Look at Bobby Knight.

Knight is a lot like JB in that you can be that kind of ******* when you have some skins on the wall. SS had accomplished absolutely nothing to be given any slack on his behavior.

He was a heck of a DC under Marrone. Don't forget that.

I can't help but think the timing of this firing is a mistake. When I saw Syracuse play Pitt this year I felt like they were definitely a program on the upswing. Changing coaches at this juncture may just take whatever wind was building for those sails out of them.

Yes, making a great hire can solve all of this. Do you really believe that's going to happen, though? Take a look at Pitt and what happened with Dave Wannstedt. He wasn't the greatest coach on earth but he was building something. He got fired and it basically took 5 years to get to where we are now with Narduzzi. We made 3 coaching hires along the way that didn't pan out.

I guess all I'm saying is it's easier to get it wrong than it is to get it right with football coaches. I would have given SS a one or two year extension and dealt with the financial consequences if I had to fire him after next season. I especially wouldn't want to be hiring a coach this year.

(11-24-2015 10:07 AM)ndlutz Wrote:  I can't help but think the timing of this firing is a mistake. When I saw Syracuse play Pitt this year I felt like they were definitely a program on the upswing. Changing coaches at this juncture may just take whatever wind was building for those sails out of them.

Yes, making a great hire can solve all of this. Do you really believe that's going to happen, though? Take a look at Pitt and what happened with Dave Wannstedt. He wasn't the greatest coach on earth but he was building something. He got fired and it basically took 5 years to get to where we are now with Narduzzi. We made 3 coaching hires along the way that didn't pan out.

I guess all I'm saying is it's easier to get it wrong than it is to get it right with football coaches. I would have given SS a one or two year extension and dealt with the financial consequences if I had to fire him after next season. I especially wouldn't want to be hiring a coach this year.

There was no choice really. They had to fire him or extend him. He had done nothing to this point to warrant an extension. Two years in a row at 3-9 isn't going to cut it anywhere. Add in a new AD and all the signs were on the wall. He had to win this season.

(11-24-2015 10:07 AM)ndlutz Wrote:  I can't help but think the timing of this firing is a mistake. When I saw Syracuse play Pitt this year I felt like they were definitely a program on the upswing. Changing coaches at this juncture may just take whatever wind was building for those sails out of them.

Yes, making a great hire can solve all of this. Do you really believe that's going to happen, though? Take a look at Pitt and what happened with Dave Wannstedt. He wasn't the greatest coach on earth but he was building something. He got fired and it basically took 5 years to get to where we are now with Narduzzi. We made 3 coaching hires along the way that didn't pan out.

I guess all I'm saying is it's easier to get it wrong than it is to get it right with football coaches. I would have given SS a one or two year extension and dealt with the financial consequences if I had to fire him after next season. I especially wouldn't want to be hiring a coach this year.

In addition to what WNC said, Shafer also didn't have anywhere near the success that Wandstedt had. The stache never had a losing season and was fired the season after he won 10 games. Its night and day those two situations. I'm back and forth on Shafer. He was plagued by injuries the last two years. He did a good job his first year but he had a senior laden squad and probably should have done better. I also think that next year could have been a very good year with all those freshmen making key plays this year. But Shafer was still making bad decisions and calling goofy plays, so theres no certainty that he would get it right next year.

(11-24-2015 01:18 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-24-2015 12:58 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  I don't think Syracuse had any choice but to fire Shafer.


1. He was in no-man's land with one year remaining on his contract. You either had to extend him or fire him as leaving him hanging like that would essentially be like announcing you were going to have an interim coach for next year and you sabotage two recruiting cycles.

2. Extend Shafer after the past two years and there would be 10k fans in the stands for next season's opener. When you don't have great attendance to begin with the last thing you want to do is give what few people that do bother to show up a reason not to.

3. How many more times was he going to be allowed to embarrass the program? From profane outbursts during games where he's getting his head kicked in to tweets blasting an area you are trying to recruit to comparing football to ISIS cutting people's heads off to high profile disputes with former coaches (McDonald), players (AJ Long, Wayne Williams) and recruits (Robert Washington, Chris Clark) to the bizarre "drama" concerning Jimbo Fisher and the injury report this year to him showing his behind and getting flagged in the past two games to the constantly contentious press conferences.......you might be able to get away with stuff like that when you are winning but when you are as far underwater as Shafer you can't.

And his team reflected his lack of discipline. For a bunch that hasn't won much of anything since joining the ACC they are world class trash talkers. Clemson players compared the woofing Miami was doing this year to Syracuse....both the players and the fans.


4. He should have been fired after the Louisville game for getting Dungey hurt. He's already lost one promising QB this year to concussions and left the only halfway decent QB you have in a blow out game to get hurt? Stupid.

5. His entire career can be summed up in one phrase: "questionable coaching decisions". I would list them but the post would be well into "tl;dr" territory a quarter of the way through.

6. For all the talk about his recruiting it's still garbage. You recruit bottom of the ACC talent you get bottom of the ACC results.

7. Total lack of offensive identity. You play your home games in a dome and most of your road conference games in usually decent weather. Why in the hell are you so stone-aged on offense? I could understand wanting to play three yards and a cloud of snow and tough defense if you were playing most of your games outdoors in NY but you aren't.

The thing is so much of that could have easily been avoided by so many people. That's not to excuse fHCSS, he's a grown man. Rather it's to show how mismanaged the program is. I don't think that SS was right to do what he did with regards to #1. At that point, it was a tossup. However, the AD shouldn't have let it get to that point, either. That situation was avoidable. #2 is irrelevant. That's a short term loss and an exaggeration. Losing a potential massive long term gain over peanuts is terrible management. #3 is a mixed bag. On one hand, I really don't care if he hurt your coach's feelings - or your feeling for that matter. I just don't. I also don't blame him for McD's inability to control himself on the internet. He's a kid, as are some of the players that you mentioned. That said, you are right about the discipline. Once again, fHCSS should have and could have controlled that. However, once again, good assistants would have made that a moot point. An unfortunate number of people were at fault IMHO. #4 is right. He was reckless with our QB's. However, once again, he wasn't the only person asleep at the wheel. #5 is incredibly wrong. He is an elite DC. In fact, our defense's regression is one of the many reasons why I think that most of the guys around him were mostly hapless. As a HC, he shouldn't have put himself in that position, but I also genuinely believe that our ADs shouldn't have let him paint himself into that corner. He *is* at fault for poor results, but so is poor general management. It was avoidable if anyone (other than the fans) cared. #6 isn't true. The talent level is on the upswing. The gap between SU and the rest of the ACC was/is closing. We aren't polished, so our ratings aren't great, but at least these are the types of kids that good coaching could turn into good players. Sure, they weren't/aren't FSU good, but they are WAY better than the other classes that we've had over the last decade. #7 is somewhat accurate. We don't have an offensive identity, and our field is made for a pass heavy offense. However, I don't think that we can get that players to make it happen right now. The NE isn't exactly pumping them out, and as you noted, though out recruiting is improving relative to what we were, it still isn't good in an absolute sense. It is worth noting, though, that this year's team looked like it was building an offensive identity, which was promising. I hope the next guy doesn't blow it up and rebuild. We've been on offensive rebuild mode since about 2004, and all the soul searching is getting old.

you are missing the point with respect to the Eff U Dabo! saga. Sure it shows fire and fight, but I would assume it also hurts recruiting. Consider that Florida was/is a focal point for Syracuse recruiting. The Southern kids are often from a religious family background, and I would presume some hesitation may arise in mamas mind with respect to sending their boy to Syracuse to be mentored by a man caught dropping f-bombs on national tv.

As for recruiting upswing, not sure how you can say that. Taken from an article in Syracuse.c0m, last year's class was rated:
Last in the ACC by 247 Sports
Next to last in the ACC by Rivals
Last in the ACC by ESPN
Ninth in the ACC by Scout

That is not indicative of recruiting that is on the upswing, especially when his best year record-wise was with Marrone's players.

Syracuse was a tough place to play for LSU and Clemson this year....

Too late now though, the guy is fired.....go after Schiano or Ed Orgeron

(11-24-2015 10:35 AM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  you are missing the point with respect to the Eff U Dabo! saga. Sure it shows fire and fight, but I would assume it also hurts recruiting. Consider that Florida was/is a focal point for Syracuse recruiting. The Southern kids are often from a religious family background, and I would presume some hesitation may arise in mamas mind with respect to sending their boy to Syracuse to be mentored by a man caught dropping f-bombs on national tv.

As for recruiting upswing, not sure how you can say that. Taken from an article in Syracuse.c0m, last year's class was rated:
Last in the ACC by 247 Sports
Next to last in the ACC by Rivals
Last in the ACC by ESPN
Ninth in the ACC by Scout

That is not indicative of recruiting that is on the upswing, especially when his best year record-wise was with Marrone's players.

1.Syracuse isn't getting the southern religious crowd. About 15 minutes on campus will relieve you of any doubts that you might have to the contrary. The loss is purely hurt feelings. Dabo likes us a little less and/or dislikes us a little more. I'm sure he sends really thoughtful Christmas cards, but I can live. It's not ideal, but in the grand scheme of life, so what?

2. I can't find it again, but one of the sites (scout - I think) used to have a page where they explained the difference between the stars and how they did the actual rankings. For example, which is better, a very polished player with a medium upside, or a very unpolished player with a medium/high upside? The answer was 5* players were the full package, 4* players were good 3* players, only with polish, 3* players tended to either lack polish or upside, 2* players had the ability to perform at the FBS level, but they needed a substantial amount of work, and those below 2* didn't have the right stuff.

Additionally, there are other factors that matter but don't impact rankings. One of those factors is that rankings don't take system fit into account. A recruiting class filled with 3*'s that all fit different systems isn't as good as a recruiting class filled with 3*'s that all fit the same system. Additionally, we're taking more key players from the south. That matters because rankings are relative. A kid who looks average on St. X's team (or Trinity for that matter) might get a similar ranking to a kid who looks average on CPA's team (city of Syracuse), even though the two kids would look different if they were on the same team or played the same competition. I did a poor job of explaining it, but in a nut shell, it's hard to standout/get attention if you're a RB and the guy running ahead of you in school is a 4/5*. Finally, it's worth noting that we're in the 3* space and there is a lot of room in that space because it covers a wider group of players, so you can improve for a while without it showing up in the rankings. To clarify, it varies from site, but 5*'s are are something like the top 1%, 4*'s are the next 10%, and the space between the rankings continues to get progressively bigger, so there is more variation in 4*'s than 5*'s, 3*'s than 4*'s and so on.

We're moving into the higher 3* with high upside (with key players from southern states) category that fit a coherent system, and that's evidenced by the fact that true freshman players and sophomore players essentially carried the team this year and made some major impacts (but I don't think anyone is willing to accuse us of looking polished). They were/are better than the upperclassmen.

But to speak to your point directly, you're comparing us to the rest of the ACC. You should be comparing us to ourselves. Are the players going in better than the players going out. That's the question that you need to be answering, not "is Syracuse getting better players than FSU." In an absolute sense we have a ways to go. However, we are moving in the right direction - or at least we were.

FYI, I found this from a Bleacher Report article, it's close to what I remember:
"Stars:
***** = Great prospect. Game ready as a true freshman. Prospect has the ability to be a difference-maker immediately.
**** = Very good prospect. The recruit can contribute as a freshman and be a difference-maker early in his career
*** = Good prospect. Can contribute to a program and eventually start but still needs some development to be effective.
** = Average prospect. Needs time to develop but has the potential to become a contributor to a program late in their career.
* = Evaluation pending/not enough film to evaluate"

Well, you guys certainly know your team much better than anyone else does, so I will defer to you. I'm just saying that as a fan of another team that plays you every single year, and has for decades now, you did seem more talented this year than in recent years.

Seriously, all of the Pitt fans I have spoken with about that game seemed to notice it and agree. We have had some close games in recent seasons and you have even beaten us on occasion but that was usually because we were also weak at the time and/or because we played a stinker of a game. We rarely play well in the Dome, regardless of SU's relative quality in a given year.

That wasn't the case this time. We're legitimately an average fringe Top 25 type of team and we played reasonably well that afternoon. However, your athleticism on both sides of the football was giving us fits. There was nothing fluky or overrated about it. Your young QB was especially impressive but so too were your wideouts and your linebackers. Let me put it this way. At the end of the game I had no idea you would be on a long losing streak a month or two later.

I'm not saying you guys reminded me of Alabama, only that you had the look and feel of a pretty athletic young team - irrespective of how the pundits rated them coming out of HS.

Also, why would any coach worth his salt (see what I did there?) take that job? In a best case scenario you are going to be barnstorming for a year or two. That's a coach killing situation if there ever was one. How do you build any cohesion among your players or fans when you are playing hours away from campus every single week? How does one recruit quality student-athletes to compete under those circumstances?

I just don't think this is as easy as, "We like this coach, let's keep him;" or "We hate this coach, let's fire him and hire someone new." This is a very unique circumstance and if I were advising someone considering taking that job, I would tell him to wait until after the dome renovations have been completed to even consider taking that job.

(11-24-2015 12:28 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-24-2015 10:35 AM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  you are missing the point with respect to the Eff U Dabo! saga. Sure it shows fire and fight, but I would assume it also hurts recruiting. Consider that Florida was/is a focal point for Syracuse recruiting. The Southern kids are often from a religious family background, and I would presume some hesitation may arise in mamas mind with respect to sending their boy to Syracuse to be mentored by a man caught dropping f-bombs on national tv.

As for recruiting upswing, not sure how you can say that. Taken from an article in Syracuse.c0m, last year's class was rated:
Last in the ACC by 247 Sports
Next to last in the ACC by Rivals
Last in the ACC by ESPN
Ninth in the ACC by Scout

That is not indicative of recruiting that is on the upswing, especially when his best year record-wise was with Marrone's players.

1.Syracuse isn't getting the southern religious crowd. About 15 minutes on campus will relieve you of any doubts that you might have to the contrary. The loss is purely hurt feelings. Dabo likes us a little less and/or dislikes us a little more. I'm sure he sends really thoughtful Christmas cards, but I can live. It's not ideal, but in the grand scheme of life, so what?

2. I can't find it again, but one of the sites (scout - I think) used to have a page where they explained the difference between the stars and how they did the actual rankings. For example, which is better, a very polished player with a medium upside, or a very unpolished player with a medium/high upside? The answer was 5* players were the full package, 4* players were good 3* players, only with polish, 3* players tended to either lack polish or upside, 2* players had the ability to perform at the FBS level, but they needed a substantial amount of work, and those below 2* didn't have the right stuff.

Additionally, there are other factors that matter but don't impact rankings. One of those factors is that rankings don't take system fit into account. A recruiting class filled with 3*'s that all fit different systems isn't as good as a recruiting class filled with 3*'s that all fit the same system. Additionally, we're taking more key players from the south. That matters because rankings are relative. A kid who looks average on St. X's team (or Trinity for that matter) might get a similar ranking to a kid who looks average on CPA's team (city of Syracuse), even though the two kids would look different if they were on the same team or played the same competition. I did a poor job of explaining it, but in a nut shell, it's hard to standout/get attention if you're a RB and the guy running ahead of you in school is a 4/5*. Finally, it's worth noting that we're in the 3* space and there is a lot of room in that space because it covers a wider group of players, so you can improve for a while without it showing up in the rankings. To clarify, it varies from site, but 5*'s are are something like the top 1%, 4*'s are the next 10%, and the space between the rankings continues to get progressively bigger, so there is more variation in 4*'s than 5*'s, 3*'s than 4*'s and so on.

We're moving into the higher 3* with high upside (with key players from southern states) category that fit a coherent system, and that's evidenced by the fact that true freshman players and sophomore players essentially carried the team this year and made some major impacts (but I don't think anyone is willing to accuse us of looking polished). They were/are better than the upperclassmen.

But to speak to your point directly, you're comparing us to the rest of the ACC. You should be comparing us to ourselves. Are the players going in better than the players going out. That's the question that you need to be answering, not "is Syracuse getting better players than FSU." In an absolute sense we have a ways to go. However, we are moving in the right direction - or at least we were.

FYI, I found this from a Bleacher Report article, it's close to what I remember:
"Stars:
***** = Great prospect. Game ready as a true freshman. Prospect has the ability to be a difference-maker immediately.
**** = Very good prospect. The recruit can contribute as a freshman and be a difference-maker early in his career
*** = Good prospect. Can contribute to a program and eventually start but still needs some development to be effective.
** = Average prospect. Needs time to develop but has the potential to become a contributor to a program late in their career.
* = Evaluation pending/not enough film to evaluate"

I used Rivals because the information was easier to retrieve there. A description of the star system would be:

6.1 Franchise Player; considered one of the elite prospects in the country, generally among the nation's top 25 players overall; deemed to have excellent pro potential; high-major prospect
6.0-5.8 All-American Candidate; high-major prospect; considered one of the nation's top 300 prospects; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team
5.7-5.5 All-Region Selection; considered among the region's top prospects and among the top 750 or so prospects in the country; high-to-mid-major prospect; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team
5.4-5.0 Division I prospect; considered a mid-major prospect; deemed to have limited pro potential but definite Division I prospect; may be more of a role player
4.9 Sleeper; no Rivals.com expert knew much, if anything, about this player; a prospect that only a college coach really knew about

2016 class
5.7 2 verbals
5.6 3 verbals
5.5 2 verbals
5.4 3 verbals
5.3 4 verbals
7 mid major prospects (2*s), 2 low-end 3*, 3 mid-range 3*, and 2 high-end 3*

2015
5.7 1 commit
5.6 2 commits
5.5 10 commits
5.4 6 commits
5.3 3 commits
5.2 3 commits
12 mid-major, 10 low-end 3*, 2 mid-range 3*, 1 high-end 3*

2014
5.8 1 commit
5.7 2 commits
5.6 4 commits
5.5 9 commits
5.4 4 commits
5.3 2 commits
5.2 2 commits
8 mid-major, 9 low-end 3*, 4 mid-range 3*, 2 high-end 3*, 1 4*

His recruiting has not changed that much, with the exception of 2014 being his best class by the numbers. OR, look at mid-3 star and above:
2016 5
2015 3
2014 7
There is not evidence of an improving trend.

Syracuse has to be one of the toughest football recruiting spots in the P-5. Penn State, Ohio State, and ND will pick over their talent. Selling the city can't be easy. It has no college town appeal like Charlottesville, Chapel Hill, Duke, WF, Clemson, BC or VT. It has no big city appeal like Miami, GT, BC, or Pittsburgh. In many ways Syracuse is like a run-down version of Louisville or Raleigh. And it's cold as hell as opposed to Miami, FSU, Clemson, and GT. Lack of in state competition is the only plus I can think of regarding Syracuse, but that means less in the NE than it does in the South.

On top of that Cornell is down the road so you don't have the ability to claim an Ivy League type degree value as Duke, UVa, NW, Vandy, Stanford, and Rice can claim or the small private top degree that WF, Emory, Case Western, Williams College, etc.

As superficial as it is, in addition to the f-bomb, the ubiquitous rust layer due to salt and ferterlizer to combat snow, makes Syracuse look like a better version of Newark NJ, or Toledo Ohio.

You're looking at the wrong time periods. Compare the graduating classes with the incoming classes.

Or, if you want to be even more accurate, compare the actual on field performance of the freshmen with the seniors when they were freshmen.

Also, look at the types of people drafted, not just raw numbers.

If you want to do a dirty back of the envelope study, pick players at random and look to see who we beat out to get then. You will see we moved from competing for one-two offer G5 guys to multi offer p5 guys.

(11-24-2015 01:36 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-24-2015 01:34 AM)ClemVegas Wrote:  i think Wake Forest's former coach would be a decent coach if he's still around

I don't really follow WF, and I certainly didn't before we joined the ACC, but I think that Grobe dropped off at the end.

He did. He stopped recruiting in his last five years at Wake.

(11-24-2015 05:54 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Syracuse has to be one of the toughest football recruiting spots in the P-5. Penn State, Ohio State, and ND will pick over their talent. Selling the city can't be easy. It has no college town appeal like Charlottesville, Chapel Hill, Duke, WF, Clemson, BC or VT. It has no big city appeal like Miami, GT, BC, or Pittsburgh. In many ways Syracuse is like a run-down version of Louisville or Raleigh. And it's cold as hell as opposed to Miami, FSU, Clemson, and GT. Lack of in state competition is the only plus I can think of regarding Syracuse, but that means less in the NE than it does in the South.

On top of that Cornell is down the road so you don't have the ability to claim an Ivy League type degree value as Duke, UVa, NW, Vandy, Stanford, and Rice can claim or the small private top degree that WF, Emory, Case Western, Williams College, etc.

As superficial as it is, in addition to the f-bomb, the ubiquitous rust layer due to salt and ferterlizer to combat snow, makes Syracuse look like a better version of Newark NJ, or Toledo Ohio.

FWIW, CH is the reason I did NOT go to UNC. It has all the college town appeal of the dentist. And Stanford aside, those schools aren't Ivies. I don't know what their brochures say, but I know way more people that chose between SU and Cornell than any of those schools and any Ivy. I know their great schools, and my experiences only constitute anacdotyl evidence, so take my opinion for whatever you want.

(11-24-2015 12:20 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  Syracuse was a tough place to play for LSU and Clemson this year....

Too late now though, the guy is fired.....go after Schiano or Ed Orgeron

Schiano would have a worse record than Shafer. Please, never mention Schiano with any P5 conference team except the one he was the hero of. Take a close look at his record and you will be suddenly unimpressed.

Shafer is a great person and one you would be happy to have work with your kid. He simply did not get the job done as an HC. He has proven himself as a great DC. He will land on his feet somewhere, possibly an HC at a D2 school or a DC at any P5 school. He had a very tough defense with little talent when he coached defense. I wish Shafer the best and thank him for 7 years with Syracuse.

Moving forward, I hope Syracuse brings in an offensive minded HC. The Dome is a fast track and should not be wasted on a B1G "3 yards and a cloud of dust" offense. Even an option oriented attack should NOT be the featured offense, though running a few times each game is a nice change up for a defense to face. Expect AD Coyle to make a good hire, he has a history of doing so.

Syracuse should take a serious look at either Greg Schiano and Al Golden. You need access to New Jersey and Pennsylvania recruits. Both are from New Jersey and know where the talent is located in both states.

(11-24-2015 07:06 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  FWIW, CH is the reason I did NOT go to UNC. It has all the college town appeal of the dentist.

What do you mean by this?

Where are you from by the way? Your profile says UAB fan, which I assumei s uni of Alabama Birmingham.