Saturday, November 14, 2009

Staying alive

It certainly is a game of inches. This had all the makings of a WTF game. We were flat against a lame duck coach. We allowed a non offensive touchdown. Consistent players kept making mistakes. Weird calls and then throw in your random chain problem. Yet we didn't let those things spoil the day and held on for the win. This keeps hope alive for the division. We now need to run the table and hope that UVA upsets Clemson next week.

I'll have my grades and second viewing thoughts up late Sunday.


eagleboston said...

That was without a doubt the ugliest win in recent memory. But, we are now at 7 wins, not bad for a team that was predicted to finish 5th or 6th. And, this is a very young BC team. Plus, we finally won on the road.

Unless this team improves dramatically in just one week, they will not defeat a surging North Carolina team, but I believe BC will win at Maryland to get to 8 wins.

At this point, I would not get too worked up about number of wins as BC will go to a crappy bowl no matter how many wins they have, unless by some miracle BC wins the Atlantic (stranger things have happened) and then beats Ga Tech (I know, keep dreaming).

Go Eagles!

mod34b said...

if we beat unc and md, we can't go lower than acc #5 bowl.

if clemson beats g tech in the ACCCG, but g tech somehow still gets a BCS slot, BC would get the #4 Bowl -- Champs.

There are still some interesting possibilities...but UNC will be very tough. Thank God its a home game and the liklihood that the "good" shinskie should show. I hope.

eagleboston said...

Any chance local fans realize that this is a pivotal ACC game and fill Alumni on Saturday? It has to be better than the Central Michigan crypt that I attended at Alumni.

Mod, are you sure BC can't be passed over? I thought that our travel rep hurts us with selection committees. Music City might be our best hope but Emerald or Eagle Bank are probably the most realistic.

mod34b said...

Pretty sure #5 bowl MCB can't bypass BC unless BC agrees (assuming we are 6-2)

mmason said...

Eagleboston--"without a doubt the ugliest win" in longer than recent memory...I can't think of anything with a "w" tacked to it worse than this that I've seen in 40 years. Except for Montel's carrying the entire team with him for the whole game, there was less than zero to applaud here. On the road? This was more like an Off Road win, with dropped balls, bad passing, stupid penalties, brain dead ref's, clock and chains problems, mentally unsound play calling, that damn "defensive cushion" pass D that guarantees an 8 yard gain per down for the opposing team on every play. It was like Al Quaeda fixed the game... (If Virginia had caught a few more passes down the stretch BC would have lost this game. They dropped balls with nobody near them and shot themselves in the foot in the the last six minutes.)

It was a shamefully inept victory.

When was the last time on the record that we played this badly against a team that has not won a home game all year? I'm starting to think that Coach Tranquil is a sleepwalker. We have a guy who puts up 100 yards in the first half and then we stop giving him the ball? Shinskie had ten opportunities to just run the ball for ten yards and decided to just throw the ball into quadruple coverage instead. Nothing worked--except Pantale did show some promise.

After reading all these posts during the game--many of which were hilariously brilliant--I've got big worries about UNC. Thank God we're not playing Stanford this year...
Go Eagles!! It's time to regroup, rethink and retool...this bye week gameplan sucked.

eagleinexile said...


If we lose to UNC, the wheels come off the "better bowl" wagon. At 5-3 we're not likely to be 2 wins better than UNC, FSU and maybe Duke. At 6-2, as mod says we probably cannot fall lower than MCB, but do we want to go back to Nashville again? If you look at the money, Emerald actually pays 1.2m as opposed to just 1m, and we get a little Left coast exposure. I am biased, as the Nut Bowl is one I can easily attend, but I always want us to win, and at 6-2, I do not think that Champs can pass us up if we do not go to the CG. I think the Champs Bowl would pit us against a better team from the Big 11 which would be better for our recruiting as we have strong connections in the Midwest. I bring up the "Duke" factor because if they are eligible, someone might take them as getting Duke in a bowl is rare, and since they are a Southern school they might turn out.

All of this being said, I hoping beyond hope that the Cavs pull off the upset and we take of business to go to the title game. It does not matter how much the conference and ESPN do not like us, the more title games we are in, the more we will draw those recruits we supposedly cannot develop and build our tradition.


BCMike said...

shamefully inept victory>>Loss

blist said...

i actually like the nut bowl - heck, the worst thing is SF against PAC 10 -who we never play? Not bad at all. Great city, good for BC's exposure in Calif. Honestly, SF is more of a realistic road trip for me and the missus from New England than to one of the places down South that seem to want to avoid us at all costs.

mod10aeagle said...

In search of a silver lining ... UVA misinterprets BC's incompetent, lifeless offensive performance (and vaunted "bend until they F-up" pre-vent defense) as a major turnaround in their own capabilities and are riding high into Clemson with visions of salvaging their season. Maybe?

mod10aeagle said...

Better yet, move on to BC hockey! They absolutely crushed a pretty good UVM team last night with great passing and speed, relentless back checking and solid defense. And, they gave 100% the full 60 minutes. It was the perfect antidote to watching 2.5 quarters of the football game.

D Train said...

Ad in the globe today offering "Family Four Pack" ticket package including seats, hot dogs and drinks for $100. Someone remind me again why I buy season tickets...

mod34b said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mod34b said...

Some more "ifs"

"If" we go 6-2 (beat UNC and MD), and Miami somehow loses to Duke (it's posible), then BC would be a lock for at least the #4 bowl. (UNC and Miami would both be 4-4)

If BC loses to UNC or Md, or even loses both, we effectivley fall to the bottom of the ACC selection heap.

UNC game is big for BC! keep in mind that UNC did lose to UVA

I'm copping two... said...

I got a chance to see Chase Retting in person on Friday night and I was definitely impressed. He was much more mobile than I expected and he has a strong arm. He did not have his most consistent game and through a few interceptions. But he ended up with 4 TDs on the day, including 2 in the 4th quarter. On 4th and 15 down by four points with 1 minute left, Chase threw a 25 yard TD for the win.

SFeagle said...

Someone needs to give Gene Jim Harbaugh's phone number before the USC game in 2013.

eagleboston said...

What do people think about the future of Charlie Tuna? I'm actually a believer that the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. Weis beat BC once. Just once. Aside from this season, we owned him. We know with Charlie that he will recruit very well but his players under-perform. We know that BC can beat a Weis-run Notre Dame team.

What we don't know is how powerful ND becomes with a better coach. They could win the NC. Put a guy like Brian Kelly, matched with ND's national TV exposure, tradition and alumni support, and the sky is the limit.

Or, is this all a moot point as we only play ND one more time?

BlockParty said...

kudos to eagle in exile and his dog squeeze references throughout the game yesterday.

CT said...

UNC also beat Va. Tech on the road.

Whatever, it doesn't matter. This team doesn't deserve the ACCCG--it hasn't played well enough. Being uncompetitive in your two biggest games of the year--embarrassingly so--doesn't cut it.

And it's all or nothing for us. So, really, who cares if it's SF, Nashville, Charlotte, or DC. The end result is the same--another bowl game that allows the staff to say, "we've played in 24 consecutive December bowls, come be a part of it." And we'll recruit the same kids. And we'll get the same results. Beat the worse teams, lose to the better ones. It's the BC way.

mmason said...

On a selfish note--I'd love to see us in SF because I can drag the entire family to a BC football game that's in our home state. They're tired of hearing me cheering or screaming at a flat screen. As well, lots of BC kids & Alums from California (the #4 feeder state to BC!) will be there to support the Eagles in a "home" game, and all you Right Coasters 'n Mid'n Southern folks of BC decent can come out our way and have a grand time in one of the great cities of the world. And, the margaritas will be tasty...What's not to like?

We can go to a big time bowl next season when the Eagles are older, smarter and the coaches have a better sense of who we can be...and what a pass defense can actually do to help us win games. It's a win/win.
Go Eagles!! Win out and hang tough!

mod34b said...

CT -- why do you bother with BC football if it's such a downer for you? Root for Florida or Texas instead if you seek consistent excellence in football and all that entails.

Does Clemson derserve the ACCCG given that they sucked against Maryland? Silly argument. Best record is the one who 'deserves' the ACCCG. Those are the rules.

CT said...

Ok, mod34b, silly argument. We've played two good defensive teams this year and been crushed. As in, no first downs for a half crushed.

I didn't realize the best record went to the ACCCG.

It's not a downer. What's the definition of insanity?

A spade is a spade. If you're having trouble seeing it...too bad.

2009 is really all about 2011. In the meantime, I can't wait for the Meineke Car Care Bowl. Charlotte is beautiful in late December. Think of all the banks you can visit.

mod34b said...

Insanity is the act of repeating the same activity while expecting a different result.

So why do you keep watching BC and expecting a different result if you beleive nothing has or will change at BC. You seem to dislike hope or at least have no clue as to where to find the stuff!

mmason said...

Mod--I can understand CT's state of mind--when our present BC squad squanders opportunities to dominate lesser teams, like VA and ND, and we suffer Death by FG to Clemson, and just look badly prepared for the Big Games, it's frustrating...Having sat in the stands as an undergrad, watching a Joe Pa or a WV annihilate us for years, I don't want to see those years of mediocre play ever return.

When we look poorly prepared or uninspired as we did against a Virginia, it makes some of us crazy. But, I agree with CT that we are definitely headed in the right direction to big things...IF we adapt and become less conservative (e.g., going for it on 4th & 1, mixing it up more and looking less "tranquil" in battle) this could be a great team in a year or two.

Sometimes the pains of old scars die hard...
Then again--we gladly are not a USC, who just got schooled with their worst defeat in history, paid out to them by a real School. I see BC and the kids from Palo Alto with the same dilemma. Plaschke in the L.A. Times called Stanford a "perennial loser", who had no business bringing the Trojans down yesterday. ESPN sees the Eagles in often the same light. BC is a great university battling against football powers that have little aspiration to be known as Academic powerhouses. How dare we challenge a Va Tech? If a Stanford can rise to those heights...well, all puns intended, y'all can finish this BC thought with ease. Go Eagles!! No Fear!!

mod34b said...

Mmason --

"BC is a great university battling against football powers that have little aspiration to be known as Academic powerhouses. How dare we challenge a Va Tech? "

Vtech is a good school. So don't get so high and mighty about BC. BC ain't at the top of the academic heap (yet!) and is not an academic powerhouse.

How about GTech, ND, Stanford, UNC, USC, UVA, Duke, Wake, Vandy, etc. all better schools, all better (or more-or-less equal) football programs (ok, except Duke, but they are climbing)

ps Mmason. We won. what more do you need?

prof said...

Vtech might be a "good school", but do all or most of their football players go to school in a way recognizable as worthy of a university? How does the education Doug Flutie or Matt Ryan received compare with the one the Vick brothers had? Do we have apparel majors or courses in house decoration? Many "good" and better schools have places they stick their ball players, course sequences that would embarrass a decent high school. Let's not defend those who seek advantage by such means.

matthew said...

"How about GTech, ND, Stanford, UNC, USC, UVA, Duke, Wake, Vandy, etc. all better schools, all better (or more-or-less equal) football programs (ok, except Duke, but they are climbing)"

What? Am I misreading some of those teams? You really feel that we aren't noticeably better than some of those programs? BC football is worse off than I thought...

CT said...

Mod, I wasn't calling myself insane.

Oh, and I disagree with almost every word in your last post.

"All better schools..." What?? No, they're all good schools. Big difference.

"All better football programs..."


eagleinexile said...

Wow, this conversation certainly has spun out of control. Let's get back to football.

BlockParty, thanks for the kudos, glad you liked the reference.

Well, since no one appears to be looking ahead with any optimism, here's some incentive:

If we go to the Emerald Bowl, I will hold a tailgate, and it will be free burgers and kool-aid for all my insane friends. Okay, beer or bourbon instead of kool-aid, but you get the idea, then after we club Cal or Stanford, we can march (stumble) back to the Union Square Westin with the team, and party until they kick us out. It was better when this was on New Year's Eve because then we had an excuse to be partying in a hotel lobby past midnight, but it's all good as long as you stay nearby.

RSVP, please

matthew said...

(mod34b furiously scans the pages of US News and World Report annual college rankings to prove his point)

gonna be tougher to prove that some of those football programs are even close to ours.

mod34b said...

So fellas, let's get past the feigned dismay and tell me:

1. Which program on my list is academically inferior to BC (or who is BC better than on my list)

2. BC's football program is clearly superior over which listed football program (except Duke, we still got them)

mod34b said...

1. Which school* on my list is academically inferior to BC (or who is BC better than on my list)

mod34b said...

c'mon matthew cough it up!

matthew said...

I didn't argue the academic quote, just poked fun at you scanning the pages.

As far as football programs -- Duke, which you names.

Look at Vandy -- the last 15 years, here are their win totals.

2, 2, 3, 2, 5, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 5, 3, 5, 7. 2. One winning season, (last year). I know they beat BC in the bowl game to get over .500. Please don't use that as part of your argument in why they have a program near our level.

Virginia, while being a step up from Vandy, is a program going in the wrong direction. After a few seasons of relative success at the beginning o the decade, their last 5 seasons include (2005 through this year, in order) 7-5, 5-7, 9-4, 5-7, 3-7. Their coach is about to be fired, as their third sub .500 season out of 5 comes to a close.

Going back to 2002 Stanford's records (quickest data I could find, I bet it's bad further back too) -- 2-9, 4-7, 4-7, 5-6, 1-11, 4-8, 5-7, 7-3. Yes Jim Harbaugh has them on the right track this year... but this program is nowhere near our level.

UNC? -- In the last 12 years, their combined record is 63-79. Since 02, here are their win totals -- 3, 2, 6, 5, 3, 4, 8 and 7 so far this year. Again, they seem to be going in the right direction, but two years does not mean their program compares to ours. Again, after we beat them in the bowl in 04, they upset us in 05 and pounded us in 07, but that doesn't mean you can say their program is better than ours.

Just for reference, BC's totals in the last 8 years, again, me being lazy include -- 9, 8, 9, 9, 10, 11, 9, and 7 so far this year. That is pretty good, compared to some of those teams you presented. I'm not going to take the time to look up Wake, as I see them as a somewhat similar program... ND is ND.... a great history, mediocre in modern times with a somewhat soft schedule. USC is clearly superior. And GA Tech for reference in the last 8 years? 7 wins 5 times, 9 wins twice, and 10 so far this year. They are having a pretty special year, but how far they go remains to be seen.

Actually, I just looked up Wake -- in the last 8 years, here are their records ---- 7-6, 5-7, 4-7, 4-7, 11-3 (BCS loss to Louisville), 9-4, 8-5, and 4-7 this year....

Even when it seems like we are having a down year, look at the wins we are able to still rack up as compared to a well-coached Wake team that has seen some success in the last couple of years.

Tell me if you disagree despite the numbers

mod34b said...

Vandy beat us last year
Stanford is ranked; we aren't
UVA has had very good teams, but is in a funk as of late;
UNC is ranked;
Wake -- tough game every year
GTech is ranked;
ND beat us;

These football programs are all better or equal to BC

Vandy is bit of a stretch footballwise, but they are in the SEC and did beat us, so its hard to say we are so superior to them

matthew said...

if that's all the thought that you're going to put into this discussion, then I've already put in too much.

Disregard 6 wins in a row vs. ND.

I think we played Stanford to open 2002, and we beat them. That should mean something in your twisted mind.

Is it really hard to say that we are better than Vandy? If I were you, I'd retract that statement and try to retain any credibility that you might have on this blog.

I could pick apart a lot more of your arguments about conferences, this year meaning everything for some teams (Stanford) but nothing for others (Virginia), and others, but like I said.... already too much time put it on this end.

mod34b said...

Good night

BlockParty said...

this conversation is dog squeeze!

eagleinexile said...

So, the basis of whether a school's football program is superior to ours is whether or not they are ranked right now or who won the last time the schools met?

C'mon this is flawed logic. If winning 8 or 9 games every year was so easy, then everyone would do it. Everybody puts softies on the schedule, so don't give me that crap about our 8 or 9 wins a year being inflated. Let's talk about the UVA you seem to think is just as good, but in a funk, lost to William and Mary AT HOME! When was the last time BC lost to a 1-AA team? What about a team like Michigan? We were ranked last year, they weren't, by your logic we'd be the better program, Michigan is also high on the Academic scale. Then there's Wake, whom we beat, and they beat Stanford. What, is there no transitive property of football dominance in the Mods these days?

In all seriousness, what are you trying to say here, that BC sucks at football in relation to all the academically focused schools that play D-1 football and they are all superior to BC in academics too?

Well, when you're right, you're right. Grab the torches and gasoline, let's march to Conte and burn all of those trophies and displays, because God knows Wake is better!

Danny Boy said...

Mod34B, one season, let alone one game does not make a program. Looking at one game means we do what we need to do in order to win on the road. One game shows that our defense doesn't give up TD's while on the road. Similarly, one season only shows flash in the pans. USC doesn't win championships based on one season. Hell, looking at one season means Boise State never sees the top 10 of the BCS. Boise State's ranking is based on their program's success. That means their success over multiple seasons.

Expand your sample size past 1 season (or 1 game) and look at Matthew's numbers. You'll see that none of those programs compare with the consistent success that BC has enjoyed over the past decade.

Its funny that you give CT so much grief over being a downer, yet you consistently compare us to inferior programs. Its no wonder you're always satisfied with our performances, you're comparing them to the teams of the 90s.

feeneyjj said...

PLAYING HOUSE: Virginia Tech linebacker Cody Grimm needs only two credits to graduate in December and is taking just one class: House planning.
House planning? What is that?
"I don’t really know," Grimm said. "It’s all about setting up how you build a house and what should be what size and stuff. It’s kind of interesting."
But it’s probably knowledge he will never put to use.
"I’ll probably just buy a house already built, if I can," he said.

As for Stanford, it definitely has BC beat academically and it is one of the top schools athletically across the board, but its athletes take courses in their sports for credit (!) -- or at least that was the case when I was in grad school there (Elway). North Carolina's football team was replete with "recreation" majors the last time I was at a game in Chapel Hill. Neither of those have come close to matching BC's football success in the last decade. And, don't forget Matt Leinert's "Ballroom Dancing" course.

mod34b said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mod34b said...


You ask:

In all seriousness, what are you trying to say here, that BC sucks at football in relation to all the academically focused schools that play D-1 football and they are all superior to BC in academics too?

How did you arrive at that question? I never said BC sucks -- you did. I said these other football programs are comparable to BC, and they are

Consider Kuechly, the schools that most seriously recruited him were Stanford, UVA, Duke and BC. Doesn't that suggest that these other schools are comparable to BC? I think it does.

Do people really think BC is consistently a top 10, top 15 progam? We are usually a top 20-35program, with the ability to bust into the top 10 once a decade. So are these other programs, usually, and hence are comparable. (ok Vandy does not cut it here)

Sure over the last 5 years, BC is better than UVA, UNC, Stanford. These are all great schools that do a great job maintaining academic standards for the University and fielding decent football teams. BC should be proud to be in such company and no one should be upset if some of these programs are better than BC's and some are BC's equal.

CT said...

Matthew, you and your silly facts. They're just facts. Stop.

And yes, the effort was great but the juice is not worth the squeeze.

You and your truth. You're a crazy dude.

I say we grab some torches, go party with Eagleinexile and the posse, and then go burn down Conte in a show of protest that the Stanfords and Wakes are passing us by. Don't worry, no one will be inside.

eagleinexile said...


Congratulations, you have been awarded the "Obama" Prize for backpedaling. This most recent post was lucid, well thought and in general a good argument. This was a 180 degree turn from your earlier comments where all of these other schools were "equal or better" than BC, which would mean that at best BC is in some sort of tie for last place.

You use the vague term "comparable", which I can get behind, because although it allows teams like Duke and Vandy to be in the same breath as BC, it allows BC to be mentioned in the same instance as VT, Miami and FSU.

I do not think most people here think BC is consistently a top 10 team, but I do think most tried and true BC fans feel that this decade has earned BC fans the right to think of their team as a consistent 15-25 program, with the occasional year where they deviate both above and below this range.

I offer this new metric for the trend of a program. The following lists were compiled by ESPN in 2007 as the most Over and Under rated teams for the ten years. The formula uses the difference between the team's beginning position in the rankings and its final ranking.

Most overrated teams in last 10 years:

1. Florida State (-63)
2. Tennessee (-58)
3. Washington (-42)
4. Miami (-35)
T5. Ohio State (-34)
T5. Nebraska (-34)
7. Florida (-33 1/2)
8. Michigan (-25)
9. Texas (-24)
10. Clemson (-22)

Most underrated teams in last 10 years:

1. Washington St. (+51)
2. Boise State (+48)
3. Oregon (+32 1/2)
4. Arkansas (+26)
5. Wisconsin (+23)
6. Louisville (+20)
7. TCU (+18)
T8. Boston College (+17)
T8. Iowa (+17)
T8. Maryland (+17)

I don't see any of the other "Academic" schools on the list, which means that not only do they not start out in the rankings like the overrated teams, they also do not achieve success during the season to end up much better than they started like BC.

Anyway, see you at the AT&T Field (formerly PacBell) parking lot, Level: B, row: C, spot: 22 on Dec 26th.