CSNbbs

from Trent's blog:

"If it's not a very good team and not very fun to watch, you can be giving away $10 bills and they won't be coming."

Radio station talking heads, die hard fans, the school-- you name it, all complaining/scratching their heads over attendance. Well I think Coach Kelly hit the nail on the head with his statement right here.

UC traditionally has not been a very good team. The success we had this year was moderate at best. And I say, look to Rutgers if you want a model for how to fill the stands. They had a 7-5 season last year that built up attendance that peaked during the last few games of their season this year. Hopefully, we can follow-up this season's success with a better season next year.

And point #2: How painful was this team to watch in some of the losses to big time programs like OSU, VaTech, and U of L-- even Pitt? Sure they may have kept it close, for a time- but we always had the feeling that they were going to blow it with their lack of consistent offense. Coach Kelly will bring a high-flying, exciting offense to UC. It will be fun to watch (even the important win we had vs USF was excruciating to watch with the 2-0 half-time score). As a football fan, don't get me wrong I LOVE a great defense. But most casual fans want to see the scoreboard.

I still have my reservations, but I have a reason to hope for a big year next season.

Bearcatbdub Wrote:from Trent's blog:

"If it's not a very good team and not very fun to watch, you can be giving away $10 bills and they won't be coming."

Radio station talking heads, die hard fans, the school-- you name it, all complaining/scratching their heads over attendance. Well I think Coach Kelly hit the nail on the head with his statement right here.

UC traditionally has not been a very good team. The success we had this year was moderate at best. And I say, look to Rutgers if you want a model for how to fill the stands. They had a 7-5 season last year that built up attendance that peaked during the last few games of their season this year. Hopefully, we can follow-up this season's success with a better season next year.

And point #2: How painful was this team to watch in some of the losses to big time programs like OSU, VaTech, and U of L-- even Pitt? Sure they may have kept it close, for a time- but we always had the feeling that they were going to blow it with their lack of consistent offense. Coach Kelly will bring a high-flying, exciting offense to UC. It will be fun to watch (even the important win we had vs USF was excruciating to watch with the 2-0 half-time score). As a football fan, don't get me wrong I LOVE a great defense. But most casual fans want to see the scoreboard.

I still have my reservations, but I have a reason to hope for a big year next season.

It was not only painful to watch in losses - it could be painful to watch in wins, too. Eastern Michigan and WCU last year, Akron and Miami this year. UC was close to losing all of those games.

Yeah, the offense was one of the biggest complaints I heard about the team all year long, from anybody. Granted the defense was pretty good.

But for example:

"Hey come watch this UC team with a great defense that makes opponents go three and out a lot. The games are usually pretty close though, because the offense is pretty anemic. They beat Miami 20-10."

or

"You have to see this wide open passing attack that UC is running! They really move the ball up and down the field! They scored 50 points last week on Miami!"

I agree with the assertion about the offense, but, for sake of argument, what makes it exciting? The system, or the players?

Dustin Grutza, for example, compiled a 5.8% interception rate (one in every 17 attempts) this past season. If Coach Kelly maintains the playcalling balance as at CMU, 32 pass calls a game, it means two interceptions per game. Maybe exciting, but that won't win many games.

On the other side of the coin, Nick Davila (dah-VEEL-ah, like salsa lmfao ) helped produce over 400 yards/game (no INTs but he did lose a fumble) running Treadwell's offense over the last two games.

So, which offense would you rather see? I know the answer: Kelly's system with Davila running it lmfao

BJUnklFkr Wrote:Kelly's system with Davila running it lmfao

this is what I am hoping for Toronto, but I doubt Coach K (FB version) can install his system in 15 practices.

BJUnklFkr Wrote:I agree with the assertion about the offense, but, for sake of argument, what makes it exciting? The system, or the players?

Dustin Grutza, for example, compiled a 5.8% interception rate (one in every 17 attempts) this past season. If Coach Kelly maintains the playcalling balance as at CMU, 32 pass calls a game, it means two interceptions per game. Maybe exciting, but that won't win many games.

On the other side of the coin, Nick Davila (dah-VEEL-ah, like salsa lmfao ) helped produce over 400 yards/game (no INTs but he did lose a fumble) running Treadwell's offense over the last two games.

So, which offense would you rather see? I know the answer: Kelly's system with Davila running it lmfao

Well, I think it's pretty obvious to everyone (except maybe the previous staff) that Davila is our best QB right now. But I'm not sure how/if Coach Kelly will be able to incorporate much of his system in a few weeks, even with Davila in the bowl game.

The big question is can Grutza run the offense next year? I have my doubts and feel that some other guy will be behind the helm. Who that may be I don't know.

Kelly doesn't necessarily have to install his offense for Toronto -- he just needs to be well-versed in what the Dantonio/Treadwell playbook offers, and match that up with his preferences out of his offense.

If he wants to augment that with a handful of new plays that he can teach leading up to the bowl, that's even better.

Making major changes in that gap between the end of season and the bowl game is not unheard of. Recall our Humanitarian Bowl appearance, when we snuck Deontey Kenner in as our new starting QB and shifted Chad Plummer to a slash-type role.

Socko Wiethe Wrote:Making major changes in that gap between the end of season and the bowl game is not unheard of. Recall our Humanitarian Bowl appearance, when we snuck Deontey Kenner in as our new starting QB and shifted Chad Plummer to a slash-type role.

My understanding of that scenario had been that they had practiced that throughout the season (with majority of snaps going to Plummer as QB). In that case you are switching two players with only one out of position and using the same playbook.

In this case you have to learn new terminology, routes, sets, etc.

I'm not saying it's impossible - just very difficult.

I guess I should rename this thread:

"What offense will we be running in the bowl game?"

Bearcatbdub Wrote:

I guess I should rename this thread:

"What offense will we be running in the bowl game?"

Sorrybdub, we hijacked your thread...

The team gets twenty practice days before the bowl game.

How many days are there for practice in the Spring and Fall before next season starts.

I would imagine that a fairly decent offense could be installed in twenty days. We are dealing with higher educated students here, right?

BearcatOtto Wrote:The team gets twenty practice days before the bowl game.

How many days are there for practice in the Spring and Fall before next season starts.

I would imagine that a fairly decent offense could be installed in twenty days. We are dealing with higher educated students here, right?

Per an interview on Scout you are limited to 15 practices for the bowls.

Bearcatbdub Wrote:from Trent's blog:

"If it's not a very good team and not very fun to watch, you can be giving away $10 bills and they won't be coming."

Wow...Kelly understands the situation...his statement not onky aplies to FBall...it decribes our curremt BBall teams as well