Thursday, February 12, 2009

Technical difficulties and other links

Sorry for the unintentional clipped post on the coach of the future. The Sirmans part has now been filled out. I was on the road and had some technical issues. The travel also explains the late, late post Thursday. Here are some links. Programming will return to normal Friday. I'll also be guest blogging for the BCI guys Friday afternoon.

The big news while I was in transit was BC's release of the football schedule. The only major change from past years is moving our DIAA game off of Parents Weekend. Instead we will begin the year with Northeastern. I'll have a more flushed out post on the schedule this weekend.

Here are HD's thoughts on each ACC schedule.

The 33 Touchdown Club honored Barry Gallup this week.

One of the "experts" at Rivals didn't like our recruiting class.

The Devine hire came together pretty quickly.

Former Tight Ends and Special Teams coach Don Yanowsky landed on his feet at LSU. I think he'll do well there, but it will be a different approach to recruiting.

I don't know if I should touch on this topic since it is not sports related, but I don't see the big deal about adding crucifixes back to the classrooms. I don't think this is going to change anyone's experience or education.


Lynn said...

ATL why do you put experts in quotes in the link? You always ramble after bball and football games about your "thoughts" and "grades" and just from reading those you are by no means an "expert". Let other people do their jobs... you do yours. Thats unfair of you!

Eagle0407 said...

When ATL starts charging us to read his opinions, we can call him an "expert" too.

Alex L. said...

Gotta love the diversity crowd. Diversity really just means: anything that's not white/Christian.

CT said...

“I can hardly imagine a more effective way to denigrate the faculty of an educational institution.”

You can't? I can.

What a moron.

Who's being more insensitive: the Catholic school or the teacher/student who would prefer BC to ignore the most important symbol of its MISSION??

Welcome to academia! Where placing a religious symbol in classrooms is "offensive" and "anti-intellectual."

At a Catholic school? Who would've thought? Tufts is right across town. If you'd be more comfortable there...

Teachers seem to think the classrooms belong to THEM. They don't. They're borrowing them.

I can't think of a planet more removed from reality than academia.

It boggles my mind: if you go to a Catholic school, you acknowledge its right to be Catholic. Symbolism comes on their terms, not yours. If you don't like it, leave. It's a free country.

Congratulations to BC for acting like it should. If BC caves on this, don't bother calling me for money.

ATL_eagle said...


I am an idiot just posting my opinions and others are free to challenge and mock (and they do). The reason I used the quotes is that this recruiting analyst stuff is a crap shoot. These guys never admit it and take themselves way to seriously. Barton Simmons doesn't think BC recruited well but has he or anyone else gone back over the past ten years and explained how the systems have been so off about BC in the past?

morrina said...

Please!!! Let's not talk about religion here. This is a sports blog, right? If I wanted to hear/discuss views on religion, I would tune to AM talk radio.

CT said...

Fine. But it was on the blog.

So, we can comment on BC's expansion plans but nothing "controversial." How religion at a Catholic school is controversial eludes me.

I'm okay with that. But you can always just skip the "controversial" comments, too.

I love the SEC homers down here who get all up in a tizzy during signing day and get consumed by stars and ratings and class rankings. ATL Eagle makes the point: have our recruiting classes matched our success over the last decade? For the heavyweights, the answer is yes. For us?

mod34b said...

Lynn -- boo, boo, boo

ATL -- have you done a post recently about recruiting rankings vs success?

I was just looking at recruiting rankings, and focused on G'Tech and Wake.

For the 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 years Wake was in the botton 3 for recruiting each year, yet has had very good success. G'Tech was in the bottom 3 for 2004, 2005, and 2006 -- but in the top 3 for 2007 -- and then in the bottom 4 for 2008. And they have been very good too.

On the other hand FSU and Miami have been in the top 3 (usally top 2) every year for the past 5 years, except 2007, and both teams have not had great success....

And, of course, we could add a few giggles about the correlation between the supposed recruiting sucess at ND and ND's on-field success (NOT!)

In short -- recruiting rankings success bear minimal correlation to on-field success -- or so it seems. So what are the drivers to predict success?

johnoatesforthree said...

some idiot on espn's 1st and 10 made a comment that in college football "it's not about the x's and the o's, but the willies and the joes."

i couldn't think of anything further from the truth. athletes are just that, athletes. they need to learn the game and also be given good direction during games. that is what coaching is all about.

bobble said...


I love that quote, Urban Meyer said it after his NC, it makes perfect sense without the athletes you can't do anything. You can call the perfect play on every down, but if you don't have the right athletes it won't matter. You have to coach to your personnel.

John said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...

Lynn: ATL's just a fan bringing his opinion to us each day- in no way is he masquerading as an "expert," just an informed and passionate fan. Let him be.