Steve Donahue hasn't coached a game at BC yet, but ESPN already thinks we are a tournament team. They are also assuming we will have a 96 team field next season.
NESN caught up with Matt Ryan as he recounted his draft day experience.
I think this ranking underrates Tennant a bit. I think he is arguably the best or second best center in the draft.
Posts
15 comments:
Crap, we have kansas state in the second round. We're screwed.
Andrew , by "second round" do you mean the NCAA's "Super Sixty-four" finalits?
"Arguably the best?" Maybe, but are you aware how much noise is being made about this Pouncey fellow? Scouts think he's the best Center prospect in the draft in a decade. Mock drafts have him going as high as #11 or #18. Hard to compete with hype like that!
I do think Tennant is a very good center, and I think this article ranks him lower than most. Several of the major draft sites have him as the #2 or #3 center in the draft. If he lasts to the third round, I hope the Falcons take a long look at him - it'd be nice to reunite him with Matty Ice.
Jagz is comging to Omaha...
http://omaha.com/article/20100415/SPORTS/100419745#ufl-jagodzinski-to-coach-omaha-expansion-team
what a strange ride for him.
ATL -- BC's 2010 strength of schedule is 102nd easiest, not 53rd easiest.
What you linked to is to Phil Steele's retrospective review of the accuracy of the 2009 pre-season stength-of-schedule predictions.
As for Steele's 2010 pre-season predictions, see this link
Steele predicts that BC's 2010 schedule is the 102nd easiest of the 120 D1 schools.
In other words, for 2010 BC is predicted to have the softest schedule in ALL of major college football. THE SOFTEST SCHEDULE in MAJOR COLLEGE FOOTBALL
Not good GDF. C'mon GDF, get BC some real OOC opponents. Build the program; build the TV appearances with good games.
As for 2009, the NCAA said pre-season for 2009 BC was expected to have the 53rd toughest schedule. Steele, thought a little better of BC's schedule and predicted it would have the 47th toughest
However, using the actual 2009 results, showed that BC, in fact, played the 83rd toughest schedule. In other words, BC played the softest schedule in 2009 in the ACC. Not good GDF, and not "program building" stuff, let alone charcter building or TV attracting stuff.
I heart having an easy schedule. For those not following, college football now is ALL ABOUT WINS.
The *ONLY* time SOS hurts you is IF at the END of the season you are undefeated and are lined up against another undefeated team from a fellow BCS conference that has a stronger SOS.
For our team next year, I'm more than willing to concede that if we go undefeated and two other BCS schools also do so with stronger SOS's that they should play for the MNC, not us. Past that, it's ALL ABOUT WINS.
BC Mike,
For Boston College, all that matters is ACC win/loss record. Unless we need that last OOC game to become bowl eligible, 10-2 or 7-5 doesn't make too much difference for us if we don't make the Orange Bowl. We're good enough to become bowl eligble without needing 4 OOC wins.
I'd rather lose and exciting game to TCU or Boise this year than beat Weber State by 40 in front of 31,000 people while you and ATL watch on your laptops.
Also, we're at the point in the year where this is a topic that we will discuss once a month until Sept.
BC Mike -- Quality OOC games bring TV coverage, bring 'buzz' about the program and are good for the long term, good for recruits, good for attendance, and good for BC.
Sure, 1 or 2 easy games for "bowl insurance" (Kent State, Cent Mich) is ok, but must be go for the likes of Weber State, Hofstra, Northeastern etc. These games do not get on TV, and a win is almost meaningless and it does nothing for the program.
Once we swap out ND for Syr our rating should drop even farther!
I'd rather lose and exciting game to TCU or Boise this year than beat Weber State by 40 in front of 31,000 people while you and ATL watch on your laptops.
This made me chuckle. I actually just got the PCI connection on the new big screen specifically for ESPN3(60) games. How sad is that? Sigh.
Mod...
"BC Mike -- Quality OOC games bring TV coverage"
True, but they're also double-edged swords if you get housed by a Texas or an Alabama or whatnot.
Teams that win a lot of games get better TV coverage, because teams that win get ranked.
I'm not saying it's fair, it's right, or it's how it should be--I'm just telling you that wins are all that matters any longer in CFB and more wins = better ranking = more exposure = less laptops.
See how I brought it back around at the end? Nice, right?
Well its a good effort. I watched that UVA football game on my home desktop with a fairly old school monitor while sitting in an uncomfortable chair for 3.5 hours.
It's probably worth your investment.
BCMike -- you say "wins are all that matters any longer in CFB and more wins = better ranking = more exposure"
this is just not so....why does Vtech schedule Alabama or Boise State?, why does Miami schedule Nebraska? Clemson schedule TCU and Auburn and others?
Big OOC games are how a team enhances its program. Sure wins are nice, but do you want BC to always be the 8-4 team going to the latest lackluster bowl.
Why is Boise and TCU begging to play anyone good? they have lots of wins, but they need quality wins.
As in all things in life, "NO PAIN, NO GAIN." Plus have a litte faith in your team. We can and have beat the likes of BYU, ND, MSU, Boise. No need for the Rhode Islands, Maines, Weber States, Northeasterns.
I do wonder why this is the state of affairs?
The Athletic Director is just plain stupid if he doesn't realize how much scheduling Kent State and Weber State hurts BC's image. Maybe Florida and Alabama can stick those types of teams into their schedules and get away with it - BC cannot.
Who will come to those games?
He may have written notes on the back of an envelope, for all I know - but bring me back a guy like Bill Flynn.
When he wanted to upgrade the program and bring us forward he scheduled Texas A&M in 1973 and had the guts to schedule Texas to open the season in 1974 and Notre Dame in 1975 - and Texas in 1976 and 1977. In my humble opinion, those games, plus our regular pretty tough schedule began our push to the next level.
Texas A&M came to BC in 78 and Tennessee and Stamford in 79. Shortly thereafter defending national champ Clemson and Alabama.
Where did this bozo from Springfield ever get the idea that Boston College wanted to start off the season with two cupcakes?
He was too nice a guy, but Bill Flynn would p... on GDF to make him smell like a man.
BC's OOC for the next 5 years...2013 might be good!
2010 Syra, ND, Weber St, Kent St
2011 Northwesstern, Umass, Buffalo, Cent Fla
2012 Rhode I, Army, North West, Buffalo
2013 USC, SYr, Army, open
2014 USC, Syr, Army, New Hampshire
but do you want BC to always be the 8-4 team going to the latest lackluster bowl.
Mod, I'm not sure that a weak schedule = 8-4. I think we have a good shot of doing some real damage this year with a weak schedule.
If that's all we were able to muster, in this the weakest schedule in recent memory, then I completely agree with you. If six wins is the best we can do, might as well take a pot shot at a Bama or a Texas.
I just don't believe that to be the case.
Post a Comment