(10-03-2021 12:46 PM)dansplaining Wrote:  the offensive line play is so much more concerning than the defense play

One of the nice things about ESPN+ is that you are able to go back and re-watch games. I did just that last night (I don't know why they didn't edit out the 2:45 rain delay, but I was able to scrub forward through it). I specifically watched the O-line play, and I have to say that upon further review, their play was not nearly as bad as I had first thought.

Yes, they came out flat and for much of the first quarter did not do all that well (Alex whiffed on a block and gave up the first sack). But as the second quarter developed and then throughout the second half, the line play was very solid. Solid, but not perfect...I saw one sack where the center was straight out bull-rushed and Bryant had no chance.

Other than that, the sacks/pressures I saw were either coverage related, where Bryant needs to make his reads then get rid of the ball more quickly, or blitzes where a Safety/CB/LB/DE comes in with a head of steam and the line is already fully engaged with defenders. In those instances, the RB is supposed to pick up the blitz and make a block. On more than one occasion those blocks were missed.

For the most part, particularly in the second half, Bryant was well protected in the pocket and had plenty of time to make his reads and passes. I'm not sure why the running game struggled so, but I did see a few instances where a Guard or Tackle pulled and the RB chose to run to the other side of the line instead of following the pulling block. The same happened a couple of times when the guards peeled off their first block and threw solid downfield blocks...the RB, for whatever reason did not follow those blocks (a few times they did for solid yardage). Those may have been designed misdirection plays, but if that was the case, they weren't effective.

I realize I am more than a little biased in favor of the O-line, but after looking at them more closely, yes, they made some mistakes, but I don't think the sky is falling as a result of the Eagles' O-line. They are a solid group of performers who did not have their best game on Saturday, but also did not completely fall apart, and in fact improved as the game went on.

(10-04-2021 07:35 AM)cidbearit Wrote:  

(10-03-2021 12:46 PM)dansplaining Wrote:  the offensive line play is so much more concerning than the defense play

One of the nice things about ESPN+ is that you are able to go back and re-watch games. I did just that last night (I don't know why they didn't edit out the 2:45 rain delay, but I was able to scrub forward through it). I specifically watched the O-line play, and I have to say that upon further review, their play was not nearly as bad as I had first thought.

Yes, they came out flat and for much of the first quarter did not do all that well (Alex whiffed on a block and gave up the first sack). But as the second quarter developed and then throughout the second half, the line play was very solid. Solid, but not perfect...I saw one sack where the center was straight out bull-rushed and Bryant had no chance.

Other than that, the sacks/pressures I saw were either coverage related, where Bryant needs to make his reads then get rid of the ball more quickly, or blitzes where a Safety/CB/LB/DE comes in with a head of steam and the line is already fully engaged with defenders. In those instances, the RB is supposed to pick up the blitz and make a block. On more than one occasion those blocks were missed.

For the most part, particularly in the second half, Bryant was well protected in the pocket and had plenty of time to make his reads and passes. I'm not sure why the running game struggled so, but I did see a few instances where a Guard or Tackle pulled and the RB chose to run to the other side of the line instead of following the pulling block. The same happened a couple of times when the guards peeled off their first block and threw solid downfield blocks...the RB, for whatever reason did not follow those blocks (a few times they did for solid yardage). Those may have been designed misdirection plays, but if that was the case, they weren't effective.

I realize I am more than a little biased in favor of the O-line, but after looking at them more closely, yes, they made some mistakes, but I don't think the sky is falling as a result of the Eagles' O-line. They are a solid group of performers who did not have their best game on Saturday, but also did not completely fall apart, and in fact improved as the game went on.

and to be fair to our defense the offense has dug them some holes this year with turnovers again a Xeroxed some of last year's games with fumbles

(10-03-2021 01:57 PM)Sellers dweller Wrote:  

(10-03-2021 10:20 AM)EagleSam Wrote:  

(10-03-2021 09:28 AM)Sellers dweller Wrote:  I think that comparison is way off. For one, the postseason structure of CFB and CBB are so different it is hard to compare them at all. If you want to be technical the college football playoff is the only thing you could compare to the NCAA basketball tournament. Since it is such a different system though, I would say the whole New Year six games and maybe some of the bigger bowl games (Outback Bowl, Citrus bowl etc.) are equivalent to making the basketball tournament. Even that isn't a really fair comparison since every conference gets at least one bid to the tournament you just have to win your conference. In football the group of 5 as a whole gets one big to the New Year six so you have to be the best of multiple conferences.

I would say bowl games outside of those bowls I listed above are like making the NIT. Even then, just my personal opinion, I wouldn't really care too much about Eastern in the NIT I would watch, but who cares? I'm much more excited about a bowl game. The CIT and CBI are basically like not even making a bowl game.

Bowl games are also a bit of a 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' in terms of we are talking about the MAC. Most Big Ten, SEC, etc. schools are not going to be very excited about going to most of the bowls with MAC tie-ins. However, every MAC school is excited to go to any bowl game.

If they were to do something like expand the playoffs to 16 teams and every conference got a bid that would make it somewhat more comparable.

In regards to the Creighton v. Murphy; while the football program isn't quite where we all want to be yet, CC has built a program, created an identity and seems to be going in the right direction. I do agree with your earlier comment about the recent contract extension, while we are in a better place that five years ago or so, it seems like we could be stalling out. If we don't take that next step soon I think it would be fair to question if CC can get us to that next step. So I do wish they had held off on that contract extension.

With Murphy, I didn't feel the same program building and buy-in from him, in addition he had seemed to stall out. It is one of the reasons I'm very excited about Coach Heath, I think he'll move the program forward and have more of that program building.

A sub .500 MAC team would never set foot in the NIT, so his comparison is pretty accurate, in my opinion. We went 3-5 in conference play in 2019 and still made a bowl game. While I’m not complaining about more football, the entire bowl system is pretty diluted when over half the FBS gets a bid. The NCAA and NIT fields, combined, don’t even account for 1/3 of D1 hoops programs.

Much like Murphy, Creighton should be judged on his conference record. Even if you take out the first two years, Creighton’s MAC record is still below .500. He’s won 5 MAC games in a season exactly once in his tenure (2018), which was also the only year we even came remotely close to the MACC. Since then, we are 5-10 in MAC play. I don’t know how that can be considered “going in the right direction” at all.

The same types of losses have plagued us for years and kept us from taking the next step as a program. Sounds, again, an awful lot like his former counterpart on the basketball court.

That is sort of my point. The post season format for the two sports are so different it is hard to compare them at all. The MAC gets one team in the NCAA tournament and one in the NIT, and honestly who cares about the NIT? I'm sure you could look it up, but I would bet a school who makes the NIT and a bowl game (even a low level bowl game) that bowl game will get higher ratings.

I think Eastern football is "going in the right direction" when you look at in the sense of being arguably the worst program in America for 30 years and from 2016 forward we have at least been a respectable program in bowl contention every year. I would agree that the past 2+ years (I don't know how much stock you can put into last year) it seems like we might be reaching/reached the level Creighton is going to get to. Which is why, as I said, that contract extension wasn't at the best time.

The difference is we know what EMU basketball can be; the program has a reach history and is an in area (SE Michigan) that has traditionally produced a lot of talented basketball players. Football on the other hand, no matter what you think of Creighton or his "success" the past six+ years we are currently in is probably the longest sustained "success" we have had as a program. So I can understand why someone would have trepidation in saying pull the plug on this guy if he is going to year in and year out have us winning 5-7 games, we could easily just go back to winning 0-2 games a year.

It sort of reminds me of Glen Mason at Minnesota, he was averaging 7 wins or so and getting to a bowl every year. They got rid of him because they wanted more and they sucked for years (and pretty much still do) after him. On the flip side, Iowa has stuck with Kirk Ferentz for 20+ years and I'm sure they are happy about it. He's won a couple big ten titles, but going by that he has a success rate of under 10% in over two decades. You have to know who you are. You are Minnesota. You are Iowa.

My thoughts, in my words:

EMU FB and EMU MBB. A Tale of Two Programs.

1). EMU MBB. Golden era 1988 - 1998. Four NCAA tourney bids (1988, '91, '96 and '98). NCAA wins in '91 (Sweet 16) and '96 (over Duke). Marque wins over UofM (1997), Syracuse (1997) and the Wisconsin (Barn Burner at Bowen). I believe we were nationally ranked in Dec. 1997.

Packed field house and later a state of the arm Convo. Today the Convo is as good as most any NCAA basketball arena. It's not the biggest. It wasn't built by Jerry Jones. But it is a very fine arena for players and fans alike. The arena is almost brand new.

2). EMU FB. Decades of futility. It is true that WYO was our first FBS OOC road win. (I'm not sure how our California Bowl game fits in here). Beating KY, Rutgers and IL on the road was a historic achievement for football.

Our facilities had been among the worst in the MAC. We played catch up for decades with IPF and going from a terrible scoreboard to a bad scoreboard.

Our stadium isn't a plus in the MAC but it isn't a minus either. The scoreboard attached to the SAPC was a huge step forward in visual appeal. The north end zone looks really good.

I agree with '79, that Genyk could coach but boy did he and his team have to run up hill. By any criteria he faced a daunting challenge. C.C. built the program to where the money started to flow for things like lights, sound, new turf. and now the crowning piece, the SAPC.

Both the university and donors have bought into C.C. and decided to pony up the bucks.

Dear cidbearit,
Thanks for the observations of offensive line play. I would agree with some, and have always respected other points of view on our site. That is what makes it enjoyable, and interesting.

(10-04-2021 09:41 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(10-03-2021 01:57 PM)Sellers dweller Wrote:  

(10-03-2021 10:20 AM)EagleSam Wrote:  

(10-03-2021 09:28 AM)Sellers dweller Wrote:  I think that comparison is way off. For one, the postseason structure of CFB and CBB are so different it is hard to compare them at all. If you want to be technical the college football playoff is the only thing you could compare to the NCAA basketball tournament. Since it is such a different system though, I would say the whole New Year six games and maybe some of the bigger bowl games (Outback Bowl, Citrus bowl etc.) are equivalent to making the basketball tournament. Even that isn't a really fair comparison since every conference gets at least one bid to the tournament you just have to win your conference. In football the group of 5 as a whole gets one big to the New Year six so you have to be the best of multiple conferences.

I would say bowl games outside of those bowls I listed above are like making the NIT. Even then, just my personal opinion, I wouldn't really care too much about Eastern in the NIT I would watch, but who cares? I'm much more excited about a bowl game. The CIT and CBI are basically like not even making a bowl game.

Bowl games are also a bit of a 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' in terms of we are talking about the MAC. Most Big Ten, SEC, etc. schools are not going to be very excited about going to most of the bowls with MAC tie-ins. However, every MAC school is excited to go to any bowl game.

If they were to do something like expand the playoffs to 16 teams and every conference got a bid that would make it somewhat more comparable.

In regards to the Creighton v. Murphy; while the football program isn't quite where we all want to be yet, CC has built a program, created an identity and seems to be going in the right direction. I do agree with your earlier comment about the recent contract extension, while we are in a better place that five years ago or so, it seems like we could be stalling out. If we don't take that next step soon I think it would be fair to question if CC can get us to that next step. So I do wish they had held off on that contract extension.

With Murphy, I didn't feel the same program building and buy-in from him, in addition he had seemed to stall out. It is one of the reasons I'm very excited about Coach Heath, I think he'll move the program forward and have more of that program building.

A sub .500 MAC team would never set foot in the NIT, so his comparison is pretty accurate, in my opinion. We went 3-5 in conference play in 2019 and still made a bowl game. While I’m not complaining about more football, the entire bowl system is pretty diluted when over half the FBS gets a bid. The NCAA and NIT fields, combined, don’t even account for 1/3 of D1 hoops programs.

Much like Murphy, Creighton should be judged on his conference record. Even if you take out the first two years, Creighton’s MAC record is still below .500. He’s won 5 MAC games in a season exactly once in his tenure (2018), which was also the only year we even came remotely close to the MACC. Since then, we are 5-10 in MAC play. I don’t know how that can be considered “going in the right direction” at all.

The same types of losses have plagued us for years and kept us from taking the next step as a program. Sounds, again, an awful lot like his former counterpart on the basketball court.

That is sort of my point. The post season format for the two sports are so different it is hard to compare them at all. The MAC gets one team in the NCAA tournament and one in the NIT, and honestly who cares about the NIT? I'm sure you could look it up, but I would bet a school who makes the NIT and a bowl game (even a low level bowl game) that bowl game will get higher ratings.

I think Eastern football is "going in the right direction" when you look at in the sense of being arguably the worst program in America for 30 years and from 2016 forward we have at least been a respectable program in bowl contention every year. I would agree that the past 2+ years (I don't know how much stock you can put into last year) it seems like we might be reaching/reached the level Creighton is going to get to. Which is why, as I said, that contract extension wasn't at the best time.

The difference is we know what EMU basketball can be; the program has a reach history and is an in area (SE Michigan) that has traditionally produced a lot of talented basketball players. Football on the other hand, no matter what you think of Creighton or his "success" the past six+ years we are currently in is probably the longest sustained "success" we have had as a program. So I can understand why someone would have trepidation in saying pull the plug on this guy if he is going to year in and year out have us winning 5-7 games, we could easily just go back to winning 0-2 games a year.

It sort of reminds me of Glen Mason at Minnesota, he was averaging 7 wins or so and getting to a bowl every year. They got rid of him because they wanted more and they sucked for years (and pretty much still do) after him. On the flip side, Iowa has stuck with Kirk Ferentz for 20+ years and I'm sure they are happy about it. He's won a couple big ten titles, but going by that he has a success rate of under 10% in over two decades. You have to know who you are. You are Minnesota. You are Iowa.

My thoughts, in my words:

EMU FB and EMU MBB. A Tale of Two Programs.

1). EMU MBB. Golden era 1988 - 1998. Four NCAA tourney bids (1988, '91, '96 and '98). NCAA wins in '91 (Sweet 16) and '96 (over Duke). Marque wins over UofM (1997), Syracuse (1997) and the Wisconsin (Barn Burner at Bowen). I believe we were nationally ranked in Dec. 1997.

Packed field house and later a state of the arm Convo. Today the Convo is as good as most any NCAA basketball arena. It's not the biggest. It wasn't built by Jerry Jones. But it is a very fine arena for players and fans alike. The arena is almost brand new.

2). EMU FB. Decades of futility. It is true that WYO was our first FBS OOC road win. (I'm not sure how our California Bowl game fits in here). Beating KY, Rutgers and IL on the road was a historic achievement for football.

Our facilities had been among the worst in the MAC. We played catch up for decades with IPF and going from a terrible scoreboard to a bad scoreboard.

Our stadium isn't a plus in the MAC but it isn't a minus either. The scoreboard attached to the SAPC was a huge step forward in visual appeal. The north end zone looks really good.

I agree with '79, that Genyk could coach but boy did he and his team have to run up hill. By any criteria he faced a daunting challenge. C.C. built the program to where the money started to flow for things like lights, sound, new turf. and now the crowning piece, the SAPC.

Both the university and donors have bought into C.C. and decided to pony up the bucks.

The saddest part of the Convo is how empty it is.

(10-02-2021 08:48 PM)Sellers dweller Wrote:  

(10-02-2021 08:37 PM)cidbearit Wrote:  Tough loss. A couple calls by the refs I didn't agree with (Drummond's catch on 4th down and the offsides on the onside kick), but you can't blame this on the refs. The Eagles
came out flat in the first quarter, and the loss of Crawford hurt them. And all the damn penalties.

I couldn't really tell on the onside kick, but I thought Dummond drop the ball. HOWEVER, I THINK he dropped it, I'm still not 100% sure and that was after watching 100 slow motion replays! My point being there is no way they could tell for sure and since it was ruled a catch on the field the call should have stood.

Good, hard fought game guys. FWIW I thought the offsides was a bad call, a really tough break for you guys. I watched it a whole bunch of times and don't see how they make that call. Pretty ticky tack to me, expecially when it may have decided the game.

I have no idea what the right call is on the fourth down pass. That's likely not a catch in the NFL, because nothing is, but I'm not sure what the "completing the catch" deal is in college.

(10-04-2021 09:41 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(10-03-2021 01:57 PM)Sellers dweller Wrote:  

(10-03-2021 10:20 AM)EagleSam Wrote:  

(10-03-2021 09:28 AM)Sellers dweller Wrote:  I think that comparison is way off. For one, the postseason structure of CFB and CBB are so different it is hard to compare them at all. If you want to be technical the college football playoff is the only thing you could compare to the NCAA basketball tournament. Since it is such a different system though, I would say the whole New Year six games and maybe some of the bigger bowl games (Outback Bowl, Citrus bowl etc.) are equivalent to making the basketball tournament. Even that isn't a really fair comparison since every conference gets at least one bid to the tournament you just have to win your conference. In football the group of 5 as a whole gets one big to the New Year six so you have to be the best of multiple conferences.

I would say bowl games outside of those bowls I listed above are like making the NIT. Even then, just my personal opinion, I wouldn't really care too much about Eastern in the NIT I would watch, but who cares? I'm much more excited about a bowl game. The CIT and CBI are basically like not even making a bowl game.

Bowl games are also a bit of a 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' in terms of we are talking about the MAC. Most Big Ten, SEC, etc. schools are not going to be very excited about going to most of the bowls with MAC tie-ins. However, every MAC school is excited to go to any bowl game.

If they were to do something like expand the playoffs to 16 teams and every conference got a bid that would make it somewhat more comparable.

In regards to the Creighton v. Murphy; while the football program isn't quite where we all want to be yet, CC has built a program, created an identity and seems to be going in the right direction. I do agree with your earlier comment about the recent contract extension, while we are in a better place that five years ago or so, it seems like we could be stalling out. If we don't take that next step soon I think it would be fair to question if CC can get us to that next step. So I do wish they had held off on that contract extension.

With Murphy, I didn't feel the same program building and buy-in from him, in addition he had seemed to stall out. It is one of the reasons I'm very excited about Coach Heath, I think he'll move the program forward and have more of that program building.

A sub .500 MAC team would never set foot in the NIT, so his comparison is pretty accurate, in my opinion. We went 3-5 in conference play in 2019 and still made a bowl game. While I’m not complaining about more football, the entire bowl system is pretty diluted when over half the FBS gets a bid. The NCAA and NIT fields, combined, don’t even account for 1/3 of D1 hoops programs.

Much like Murphy, Creighton should be judged on his conference record. Even if you take out the first two years, Creighton’s MAC record is still below .500. He’s won 5 MAC games in a season exactly once in his tenure (2018), which was also the only year we even came remotely close to the MACC. Since then, we are 5-10 in MAC play. I don’t know how that can be considered “going in the right direction” at all.

The same types of losses have plagued us for years and kept us from taking the next step as a program. Sounds, again, an awful lot like his former counterpart on the basketball court.

That is sort of my point. The post season format for the two sports are so different it is hard to compare them at all. The MAC gets one team in the NCAA tournament and one in the NIT, and honestly who cares about the NIT? I'm sure you could look it up, but I would bet a school who makes the NIT and a bowl game (even a low level bowl game) that bowl game will get higher ratings.

I think Eastern football is "going in the right direction" when you look at in the sense of being arguably the worst program in America for 30 years and from 2016 forward we have at least been a respectable program in bowl contention every year. I would agree that the past 2+ years (I don't know how much stock you can put into last year) it seems like we might be reaching/reached the level Creighton is going to get to. Which is why, as I said, that contract extension wasn't at the best time.

The difference is we know what EMU basketball can be; the program has a reach history and is an in area (SE Michigan) that has traditionally produced a lot of talented basketball players. Football on the other hand, no matter what you think of Creighton or his "success" the past six+ years we are currently in is probably the longest sustained "success" we have had as a program. So I can understand why someone would have trepidation in saying pull the plug on this guy if he is going to year in and year out have us winning 5-7 games, we could easily just go back to winning 0-2 games a year.

It sort of reminds me of Glen Mason at Minnesota, he was averaging 7 wins or so and getting to a bowl every year. They got rid of him because they wanted more and they sucked for years (and pretty much still do) after him. On the flip side, Iowa has stuck with Kirk Ferentz for 20+ years and I'm sure they are happy about it. He's won a couple big ten titles, but going by that he has a success rate of under 10% in over two decades. You have to know who you are. You are Minnesota. You are Iowa.

My thoughts, in my words:

EMU FB and EMU MBB. A Tale of Two Programs.

1). EMU MBB. Golden era 1988 - 1998. Four NCAA tourney bids (1988, '91, '96 and '98). NCAA wins in '91 (Sweet 16) and '96 (over Duke). Marque wins over UofM (1997), Syracuse (1997) and the Wisconsin (Barn Burner at Bowen). I believe we were nationally ranked in Dec. 1997.

Packed field house and later a state of the arm Convo. Today the Convo is as good as most any NCAA basketball arena. It's not the biggest. It wasn't built by Jerry Jones. But it is a very fine arena for players and fans alike. The arena is almost brand new.

2). EMU FB. Decades of futility. It is true that WYO was our first FBS OOC road win. (I'm not sure how our California Bowl game fits in here). Beating KY, Rutgers and IL on the road was a historic achievement for football.

Our facilities had been among the worst in the MAC. We played catch up for decades with IPF and going from a terrible scoreboard to a bad scoreboard.

Our stadium isn't a plus in the MAC but it isn't a minus either. The scoreboard attached to the SAPC was a huge step forward in visual appeal. The north end zone looks really good.

I agree with '79, that Genyk could coach but boy did he and his team have to run up hill. By any criteria he faced a daunting challenge. C.C. built the program to where the money started to flow for things like lights, sound, new turf. and now the crowning piece, the SAPC.

Both the university and donors have bought into C.C. and decided to pony up the bucks.

Steve this is one of your very best posts! I can't disagree with ANYTHING you stated.

(10-04-2021 09:46 AM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear cidbearit,
Thanks for the observations of offensive line play. I would agree with some, and have always respected other points of view on our site. That is what makes it enjoyable, and interesting.

Sir Ken I absolutely agree.

Unfortunately I was playing golf and the round ended late so when I tuned into WEMU on my way home, Bryant had already been sacked three times. When I got home and started watching the game, the protection seemed far improved. In fact, from my perspective having missed the early minutes, I felt the O-Line acquitted themselves adequately.

As far as our failure to grind out running yards, that seems to be a program problem. I watched MS St. vs Texas A&M where State could not gain a couple of yards in the red zone because their O-Lineman are so trained and developed for the pass. Creighton's marquee running back in his previous seven seasons was Shaq Vann who only reached the 700 yard milestone in his last year. By contrast Darius Jackson gained 1078 yards the year prior to the Creighton regime. We are who we are, a passing oriented team, like it or not.

I love the emphasis on offensive passing attack, it makes EMU football fun! That said, I truly miss the days when an opponent did not run over us in critical game situations like they have in the past three seasons.

(10-04-2021 06:09 PM)Jerry Weaver Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 09:41 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(10-03-2021 01:57 PM)Sellers dweller Wrote:  

(10-03-2021 10:20 AM)EagleSam Wrote:  

(10-03-2021 09:28 AM)Sellers dweller Wrote:  I think that comparison is way off. For one, the postseason structure of CFB and CBB are so different it is hard to compare them at all. If you want to be technical the college football playoff is the only thing you could compare to the NCAA basketball tournament. Since it is such a different system though, I would say the whole New Year six games and maybe some of the bigger bowl games (Outback Bowl, Citrus bowl etc.) are equivalent to making the basketball tournament. Even that isn't a really fair comparison since every conference gets at least one bid to the tournament you just have to win your conference. In football the group of 5 as a whole gets one big to the New Year six so you have to be the best of multiple conferences.

I would say bowl games outside of those bowls I listed above are like making the NIT. Even then, just my personal opinion, I wouldn't really care too much about Eastern in the NIT I would watch, but who cares? I'm much more excited about a bowl game. The CIT and CBI are basically like not even making a bowl game.

Bowl games are also a bit of a 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' in terms of we are talking about the MAC. Most Big Ten, SEC, etc. schools are not going to be very excited about going to most of the bowls with MAC tie-ins. However, every MAC school is excited to go to any bowl game.

If they were to do something like expand the playoffs to 16 teams and every conference got a bid that would make it somewhat more comparable.

In regards to the Creighton v. Murphy; while the football program isn't quite where we all want to be yet, CC has built a program, created an identity and seems to be going in the right direction. I do agree with your earlier comment about the recent contract extension, while we are in a better place that five years ago or so, it seems like we could be stalling out. If we don't take that next step soon I think it would be fair to question if CC can get us to that next step. So I do wish they had held off on that contract extension.

With Murphy, I didn't feel the same program building and buy-in from him, in addition he had seemed to stall out. It is one of the reasons I'm very excited about Coach Heath, I think he'll move the program forward and have more of that program building.

A sub .500 MAC team would never set foot in the NIT, so his comparison is pretty accurate, in my opinion. We went 3-5 in conference play in 2019 and still made a bowl game. While I’m not complaining about more football, the entire bowl system is pretty diluted when over half the FBS gets a bid. The NCAA and NIT fields, combined, don’t even account for 1/3 of D1 hoops programs.

Much like Murphy, Creighton should be judged on his conference record. Even if you take out the first two years, Creighton’s MAC record is still below .500. He’s won 5 MAC games in a season exactly once in his tenure (2018), which was also the only year we even came remotely close to the MACC. Since then, we are 5-10 in MAC play. I don’t know how that can be considered “going in the right direction” at all.

The same types of losses have plagued us for years and kept us from taking the next step as a program. Sounds, again, an awful lot like his former counterpart on the basketball court.

That is sort of my point. The post season format for the two sports are so different it is hard to compare them at all. The MAC gets one team in the NCAA tournament and one in the NIT, and honestly who cares about the NIT? I'm sure you could look it up, but I would bet a school who makes the NIT and a bowl game (even a low level bowl game) that bowl game will get higher ratings.

I think Eastern football is "going in the right direction" when you look at in the sense of being arguably the worst program in America for 30 years and from 2016 forward we have at least been a respectable program in bowl contention every year. I would agree that the past 2+ years (I don't know how much stock you can put into last year) it seems like we might be reaching/reached the level Creighton is going to get to. Which is why, as I said, that contract extension wasn't at the best time.

The difference is we know what EMU basketball can be; the program has a reach history and is an in area (SE Michigan) that has traditionally produced a lot of talented basketball players. Football on the other hand, no matter what you think of Creighton or his "success" the past six+ years we are currently in is probably the longest sustained "success" we have had as a program. So I can understand why someone would have trepidation in saying pull the plug on this guy if he is going to year in and year out have us winning 5-7 games, we could easily just go back to winning 0-2 games a year.

It sort of reminds me of Glen Mason at Minnesota, he was averaging 7 wins or so and getting to a bowl every year. They got rid of him because they wanted more and they sucked for years (and pretty much still do) after him. On the flip side, Iowa has stuck with Kirk Ferentz for 20+ years and I'm sure they are happy about it. He's won a couple big ten titles, but going by that he has a success rate of under 10% in over two decades. You have to know who you are. You are Minnesota. You are Iowa.

My thoughts, in my words:

EMU FB and EMU MBB. A Tale of Two Programs.

1). EMU MBB. Golden era 1988 - 1998. Four NCAA tourney bids (1988, '91, '96 and '98). NCAA wins in '91 (Sweet 16) and '96 (over Duke). Marque wins over UofM (1997), Syracuse (1997) and the Wisconsin (Barn Burner at Bowen). I believe we were nationally ranked in Dec. 1997.

Packed field house and later a state of the arm Convo. Today the Convo is as good as most any NCAA basketball arena. It's not the biggest. It wasn't built by Jerry Jones. But it is a very fine arena for players and fans alike. The arena is almost brand new.

2). EMU FB. Decades of futility. It is true that WYO was our first FBS OOC road win. (I'm not sure how our California Bowl game fits in here). Beating KY, Rutgers and IL on the road was a historic achievement for football.

Our facilities had been among the worst in the MAC. We played catch up for decades with IPF and going from a terrible scoreboard to a bad scoreboard.

Our stadium isn't a plus in the MAC but it isn't a minus either. The scoreboard attached to the SAPC was a huge step forward in visual appeal. The north end zone looks really good.

I agree with '79, that Genyk could coach but boy did he and his team have to run up hill. By any criteria he faced a daunting challenge. C.C. built the program to where the money started to flow for things like lights, sound, new turf. and now the crowning piece, the SAPC.

Both the university and donors have bought into C.C. and decided to pony up the bucks.

Steve this is one of your very best posts! I can't disagree with ANYTHING you stated.

Steve is wrong about the ranking in Dec 1997, they were only ranked for a portion of the 95/96 season. And they beat Syracuse in Fall 1996, not 1997. So a couple disagreeable facts. But the sentiment is well taken.

(10-04-2021 10:04 PM)RamyEMU Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 06:09 PM)Jerry Weaver Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 09:41 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(10-03-2021 01:57 PM)Sellers dweller Wrote:  

(10-03-2021 10:20 AM)EagleSam Wrote:  A sub .500 MAC team would never set foot in the NIT, so his comparison is pretty accurate, in my opinion. We went 3-5 in conference play in 2019 and still made a bowl game. While I’m not complaining about more football, the entire bowl system is pretty diluted when over half the FBS gets a bid. The NCAA and NIT fields, combined, don’t even account for 1/3 of D1 hoops programs.

Much like Murphy, Creighton should be judged on his conference record. Even if you take out the first two years, Creighton’s MAC record is still below .500. He’s won 5 MAC games in a season exactly once in his tenure (2018), which was also the only year we even came remotely close to the MACC. Since then, we are 5-10 in MAC play. I don’t know how that can be considered “going in the right direction” at all.

The same types of losses have plagued us for years and kept us from taking the next step as a program. Sounds, again, an awful lot like his former counterpart on the basketball court.

That is sort of my point. The post season format for the two sports are so different it is hard to compare them at all. The MAC gets one team in the NCAA tournament and one in the NIT, and honestly who cares about the NIT? I'm sure you could look it up, but I would bet a school who makes the NIT and a bowl game (even a low level bowl game) that bowl game will get higher ratings.

I think Eastern football is "going in the right direction" when you look at in the sense of being arguably the worst program in America for 30 years and from 2016 forward we have at least been a respectable program in bowl contention every year. I would agree that the past 2+ years (I don't know how much stock you can put into last year) it seems like we might be reaching/reached the level Creighton is going to get to. Which is why, as I said, that contract extension wasn't at the best time.

The difference is we know what EMU basketball can be; the program has a reach history and is an in area (SE Michigan) that has traditionally produced a lot of talented basketball players. Football on the other hand, no matter what you think of Creighton or his "success" the past six+ years we are currently in is probably the longest sustained "success" we have had as a program. So I can understand why someone would have trepidation in saying pull the plug on this guy if he is going to year in and year out have us winning 5-7 games, we could easily just go back to winning 0-2 games a year.

It sort of reminds me of Glen Mason at Minnesota, he was averaging 7 wins or so and getting to a bowl every year. They got rid of him because they wanted more and they sucked for years (and pretty much still do) after him. On the flip side, Iowa has stuck with Kirk Ferentz for 20+ years and I'm sure they are happy about it. He's won a couple big ten titles, but going by that he has a success rate of under 10% in over two decades. You have to know who you are. You are Minnesota. You are Iowa.

My thoughts, in my words:

EMU FB and EMU MBB. A Tale of Two Programs.

1). EMU MBB. Golden era 1988 - 1998. Four NCAA tourney bids (1988, '91, '96 and '98). NCAA wins in '91 (Sweet 16) and '96 (over Duke). Marque wins over UofM (1997), Syracuse (1997) and the Wisconsin (Barn Burner at Bowen). I believe we were nationally ranked in Dec. 1997.

Packed field house and later a state of the arm Convo. Today the Convo is as good as most any NCAA basketball arena. It's not the biggest. It wasn't built by Jerry Jones. But it is a very fine arena for players and fans alike. The arena is almost brand new.

2). EMU FB. Decades of futility. It is true that WYO was our first FBS OOC road win. (I'm not sure how our California Bowl game fits in here). Beating KY, Rutgers and IL on the road was a historic achievement for football.

Our facilities had been among the worst in the MAC. We played catch up for decades with IPF and going from a terrible scoreboard to a bad scoreboard.

Our stadium isn't a plus in the MAC but it isn't a minus either. The scoreboard attached to the SAPC was a huge step forward in visual appeal. The north end zone looks really good.

I agree with '79, that Genyk could coach but boy did he and his team have to run up hill. By any criteria he faced a daunting challenge. C.C. built the program to where the money started to flow for things like lights, sound, new turf. and now the crowning piece, the SAPC.

Both the university and donors have bought into C.C. and decided to pony up the bucks.

Steve this is one of your very best posts! I can't disagree with ANYTHING you stated.

Steve is wrong about the ranking in Dec 1997, they were only ranked for a portion of the 95/96 season. And they beat Syracuse in Fall 1996, not 1997. So a couple disagreeable facts. But the sentiment is well taken.

In the disagreeable spirit of this fan forum, I'm going to disagree with you.

I went to my coffee table and found the Sports Illustrated issued dated Nov. 1997.

Inside is an article on little man, highlighting Earl Boykins. I have the article autographed by Boykins, Dial, Head, etc. That was done up in Syracuse in December 1997 after they upset Syracuse and the Orange lost their tourney for the first time.

I'll look for a 'screen print' of the USA Today when EMU beat UofM. Maybe UofM was ranked and we were not. TBD.

(10-05-2021 04:03 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 10:04 PM)RamyEMU Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 06:09 PM)Jerry Weaver Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 09:41 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(10-03-2021 01:57 PM)Sellers dweller Wrote:  That is sort of my point. The post season format for the two sports are so different it is hard to compare them at all. The MAC gets one team in the NCAA tournament and one in the NIT, and honestly who cares about the NIT? I'm sure you could look it up, but I would bet a school who makes the NIT and a bowl game (even a low level bowl game) that bowl game will get higher ratings.

I think Eastern football is "going in the right direction" when you look at in the sense of being arguably the worst program in America for 30 years and from 2016 forward we have at least been a respectable program in bowl contention every year. I would agree that the past 2+ years (I don't know how much stock you can put into last year) it seems like we might be reaching/reached the level Creighton is going to get to. Which is why, as I said, that contract extension wasn't at the best time.

The difference is we know what EMU basketball can be; the program has a reach history and is an in area (SE Michigan) that has traditionally produced a lot of talented basketball players. Football on the other hand, no matter what you think of Creighton or his "success" the past six+ years we are currently in is probably the longest sustained "success" we have had as a program. So I can understand why someone would have trepidation in saying pull the plug on this guy if he is going to year in and year out have us winning 5-7 games, we could easily just go back to winning 0-2 games a year.

It sort of reminds me of Glen Mason at Minnesota, he was averaging 7 wins or so and getting to a bowl every year. They got rid of him because they wanted more and they sucked for years (and pretty much still do) after him. On the flip side, Iowa has stuck with Kirk Ferentz for 20+ years and I'm sure they are happy about it. He's won a couple big ten titles, but going by that he has a success rate of under 10% in over two decades. You have to know who you are. You are Minnesota. You are Iowa.

My thoughts, in my words:

EMU FB and EMU MBB. A Tale of Two Programs.

1). EMU MBB. Golden era 1988 - 1998. Four NCAA tourney bids (1988, '91, '96 and '98). NCAA wins in '91 (Sweet 16) and '96 (over Duke). Marque wins over UofM (1997), Syracuse (1997) and the Wisconsin (Barn Burner at Bowen). I believe we were nationally ranked in Dec. 1997.

Packed field house and later a state of the arm Convo. Today the Convo is as good as most any NCAA basketball arena. It's not the biggest. It wasn't built by Jerry Jones. But it is a very fine arena for players and fans alike. The arena is almost brand new.

2). EMU FB. Decades of futility. It is true that WYO was our first FBS OOC road win. (I'm not sure how our California Bowl game fits in here). Beating KY, Rutgers and IL on the road was a historic achievement for football.

Our facilities had been among the worst in the MAC. We played catch up for decades with IPF and going from a terrible scoreboard to a bad scoreboard.

Our stadium isn't a plus in the MAC but it isn't a minus either. The scoreboard attached to the SAPC was a huge step forward in visual appeal. The north end zone looks really good.

I agree with '79, that Genyk could coach but boy did he and his team have to run up hill. By any criteria he faced a daunting challenge. C.C. built the program to where the money started to flow for things like lights, sound, new turf. and now the crowning piece, the SAPC.

Both the university and donors have bought into C.C. and decided to pony up the bucks.

Steve this is one of your very best posts! I can't disagree with ANYTHING you stated.

Steve is wrong about the ranking in Dec 1997, they were only ranked for a portion of the 95/96 season. And they beat Syracuse in Fall 1996, not 1997. So a couple disagreeable facts. But the sentiment is well taken.

In the disagreeable spirit of this fan forum, I'm going to disagree with you.

I went to my coffee table and found the Sports Illustrated issued dated Nov. 1997.

Inside is an article on little man, highlighting Earl Boykins. I have the article autographed by Boykins, Dial, Head, etc. That was done up in Syracuse in December 1997 after they upset Syracuse and the Orange lost their tourney for the first time.

I'll look for a 'screen print' of the USA Today when EMU beat UofM. Maybe UofM was ranked and we were not. TBD.

I guess I get to disagree with myself. I'm testing my memory of events 25 years ago. How dumb of me... Lol. I guess I got it autographed elsewhere. Where? IDK. 1998 MAC tourney at the Seagate in Toledo?

http://www.orangehoops.org/CompetitorRes...chigan.htm

EMU did beat UofM 12/17/1997. I think UofM was nationally ranked. We, I guess not.

That loss to NIU seems less. NIU may win the MAC West this year after beating Toledo yesterday.

(10-10-2021 07:50 AM)emu79 Wrote:  That loss to NIU seems less. NIU may win the MAC West this year after beating Toledo yesterday.

We will trip up somewhere. We have a tough crossover schedule with two of the best East teams on the road (Buffalo and KSU) and an improved BG team. CMU always has our number even when they are bad.

Congrats on your win, I watched your defense hold strong that last quarter.

(10-10-2021 07:50 AM)emu79 Wrote:  That loss to NIU seems less. NIU may win the MAC West this year after beating Toledo yesterday.

I wasn't worried about the NIU loss. Sure it was a loss but at NIU and at their homecoming...

To me, one game is ONE game. Not a harbinger of things to come.