Saturday, November 06, 2010

Weird (feeling) win at Wake

BC dominated but didn't play well. We controlled the pace of the game and scoring yet got a scare in the 4th quarter. I guess you just have to toss it up to another weird day in BC sports. I am happy with the win though and glad we are keeping hope alive for a bowl game. Harris really set the tone early and the defense was opportunistic.


I'll have my second viewing thoughts and grades up late Sunday (which has been slipping into Monday morning lately).

41 comments:

mmason said...

There's a question I need to ask my fellow BC alums after this kind of "weird" game: Does this team really rate a bowl game? Is the whole post season just becoming so diluted (or deluded?) that we're just happy to accept an invitation to some event that doesn't recognize excellence as a prerequisite? If we accept these kinds of truly lower tier events as befitting our legacy then don't we do some damage to our reputation? Am I just out of the loop on this and maybe it's just what everyone does now and I'm not getting it--you know, hey, it's a party, so whatever? Just asking, is all, out of curiosity, mostly.

Ryan said...

Let me pose the question this way:

Do you really want to play (lose to?) a C-USA team in the EagleBank bowl? Do we even deserve to be put in that situation? Just a waste of time in my opinion.

mmason said...

The last team to beat Boise State in a bowl game was BC...and it wasn't a lock and we had a very good team. At the time, it was considered a lose-lose deal by most of us...and we played them in their home stadium on that blue turf. People don't remember it because we beat them before they had something to lose. We are no way anywhere as near as good as we were back then.

Ryan's question is on track with my dilemma as a BC Eagle fan. Why would we do this? Playing a UConn or a Rutgers even, in our present clearly precarious state just to go to a "bowl" game of dubious value--is it worth it? Is it the money? Can you put a price on a loss of time earned cred? To be reminded for decades of the loss in the Humble Pie Bowl to a team that never had anything to lose?

Eagle 1 said...

I feel like I just had sex with a fat chick; Not great, but better than nothing.

FitzP14 said...

This team needs a bowl game, period. Not only is it nice to give the seniors one last game, the young team and especially Rettig would benefit tremendously from the extra practice.

BCNorCal07 said...

BC is perpetually in a tough situation when it comes to bowl games. We're not going to get invited to a top-tier game unless we win the conference and few alumni want to go to lesser bowls against mediocre BCS opponents or mid-majors. Boise St on their home turf? Vandy in Nashville? Navy in Charlotte? Colorado State all the way across the country? Hardly ideal winter vacations and I can hardly blame alumni for not wanting to shell out the coin.

On the other hand, the bowls are kind of like a high school dance. If you want to be popular, it's better to not buy a ticket than to go and not dance with anyone. If BC starts turning down bottom-tier bowl invitations, all bowl invitations will start drying up. We'd only get invites from bowls that had no choice but to choose us. That doesn't sound much worse that where we are now, but at least games like the Emerald Bowl want us. If we turn down the EagleBank Bowl, we'll NEVER get invited to the Chick-Fil-A Bowl.

These things matter. The bowl world is a small community. Bowl organizers talk. We have to play the game if we ever want to improve our standing among bowl organizers. Notre Dame can afford to pass on a bottom-tier bowl invite. We can't. Our travel rep is fragile enough as it is.

Another issue, bowl-bound teams get 14-18 extra practices. That may not seem like much, but coaches swear by it. It gives you a head-start on spring practice and a chance to further work in and evaluate young talent that's already been in the system for an entire season. Turning down an invite means giving up that extra practice time.

blist said...

If we make a bowl it means we're playing better than we had been. Even today, we looked better than we did against NC St. One thought I had with all those 3rd and longs is it just didn't feel as hopeless as when we had 3rd and longs with Uncle Dave.
I'll be psyched if we make a bowl and the kids would deserve it. We're not Notre Dame in that a) we've been better than them for a long time now and b) turning down bowl games on our end would just look silly.

mod34b said...

I'll tell you what is weird: being really sour after a win. Perk up and enjoy our modest success

mmason said...

OK. This makes some better sense to me, now...but I'm still concerned that we just don't have the right stuff to bring it come Bowl season against teams that haven't lost 6 straight like WF. This was not a win worthy of much note--it was like a scrimmage btwn 2 works in progress. Not a Bowl recipe for much more than a massacre in the waiting down the stretch.

John B said...

The extra weeks of practice time for the players makes a bowl game worth it.

Greg said...

Gotta agree with Mod on this one. Did anyone think we would suddenly turn around and be a great team? Progress is measured in the small improvements, and I think they were there today. Perfect? Not by a long shot. But I'm happy to see a team starting to come together and some real positives.
Oh yeah, and actually winning games is a nice change of pace this season.

mmason said...

Yeah, a win is a win--especially when you don't win much. But when you play a team that is almost a mirror image of yourself and you think it's more than just a step forward, then ya got problems. It's safe to say we have to get better and grow, game to game--which we haven't done too dramatically lately. And we do have a young QB in Chase who can do something special as we progress through our path to an eventual competence in this game of college football.

The thing that's key is that we can't misinterpret wins for WINS. We don't put big points on the board--we have the best, The Best, running back in the ACC in Montel Harris, and we have this season squandered his talent by forcing him to block for himself on most downs he runs every week. This dude coulda been, and shoulda been a Heisman candidate--you all know this is true. It was suggested nationally often last year, and righteously so. We saw him work last year with really good blockers. We know this. With a weapon of this calibre in Montel and to still have no game that exploits his ability now, is painful to watch, and worse for us to use to entertain our bowl game aspirations, when we can't score Montel TD's with regularity inside the red zone against a WF.

C'mon. I party for Montel's guts and bravery to keep running up the middle on every F'ing 1st down Gary calls (and with no blockers.) He is a Man. But do I want to see him get crushed by monster defenses in bowl games that the BC O Line has no bizness being invited to--NO. A win is a win, but either you do or you don't, you will or you won't. Football is Tuff--it is not a ritual sacrifice of great talent protected by lesser beings with good intentions but no game plan.

I celebrate our victory over Wake Forest, their 7th straight loss. Our 2nd straight win. It's a good thing. A positive event. And so? What else? Bowl games are good, I guess, for everyone...but are we there yet?

I'm done--thanks for putting up w/ me here. Go BC.

CT said...

Make no mistake.

Bowl games, save for the BCS title, are all and simply about the extra 15 practices. That's it.

It has nothing to do with the end result. It's. About. The. Practice.

Ask a coach.

chicagofire1871 said...

This may be the first season that BC gets invited to a bowl that it doesn't deserve to be in!

A friend of mine told me that the revenue sharing agreement with the ACC is to share bowl revenue, but only with other bowl invited teams. Is that correct, or does it go conference wide?

Snuffy said...

mmason - Get serious. Montel is a nice back but certainly not at the elite or even upper levels of FBS. And our guys do block for him. What are even blathering about with that?

Walter said...

I disagree that this was a weird feeling win. What more do you want from this team?

Retig had a few great passes and the obvious dumb interceptions, but he is a brand new freshman. He's won his last two starts and I'm very pleased with him.

At this point any of our wins should be accepted with open arms. The fact that this team is still in a position to go to bowl is miraculous. They lost 5 straight games. Any progress is progress.

Bravesbill said...

Mmason--I don't know what you're talking about when you mention that BC will play some great team if it makes a bowl game. If BC is lucky to make a bowl game, it's going to play some crap team from a BCS conference who finished at the bottom of its division or it will play some mediocre team from a non-BCS conference that made the bowl because it played crap teams in its conference. BC shouldn't get killed against of one these teams and the extra practices will do wonders for next year. Whether you will actually shell out money to attend the game or even watch it on tv is another question altogether.

ATL_eagle said...

What I meant by weird is that it wasn't a fun game or tense game or exciting game. Yet we won.

Even if it is the DC Bowl we should go and be glad to go. I hate the bowl system but as long as it is in place we need the bowl to develop players, pad the win total and give a guy like Albright one more shot to wear the Maroon and Gold.

A33Jim said...

I side with the folks saying the extra practice is what you really win with bowl eligibility. If we're pinning our hopes on Chase, we need to get him as many snaps as we can, any way we can.

Erik said...

I would love a bowl game, doesn't matter which. I view this blog every day all spring & summer because baseball is boring and I love watching BC football games. Of course I want to play in a bowl.

When you can't be in a great bowl, I think fans just have to hope for good viewing opportunity, such as a weekend date or at least a night game, hopefully a location near some Alumni.

Claver2010 said...

This is what makes the early part of the season so frustrating. It shouldn't take the OLine 2 months with 3 returning starters to get it together.

This team needs a month of extra practice.

Dan said...

"But do I want to see him get crushed by monster defenses in bowl games that the BC O Line has no bizness being invited to--NO."

I don't think we'll be seeing too many monster D's in the Eaglebank bowl. I do, however, not understand why Montel ran it 36 times yesterday. McCluskey is healthy and everyone likes what they've seen out of Williams so far. Why not let McCluskey wrecking ball the short yard downs and let Williams have a few more snaps for development/ giving Montel a breather? The overuse is whats gonna kill Montel.

As for going to the bowl. We absolutely should:

-Gives Rettig a month to work with the receivers.
-Gives the o-line a month to get healthy/ consistent.
-Gives Herzlich a month to rest for one last showcase before maybe a shot at the NFL.
-Gives Gause and Albright one last shot to play.
-Gives Keuchly a shot at obliterating all sorts of tackle records.
-Gives us an extra month of BC football.
-It's probably the same level bowl BC woulda ended up in even if we played well but missed the Orange bowl.

Kevin said...

there are no negatives when it comes to bowl games whatsoever. the extra practices are obviously a huge advantage and the eaglebank bowl would be a great situation.
"It's probably the same level bowl BC woulda ended up in even if we played well but missed the Orange bowl." That is very true and the bowl games are a great time for fans, I am always very excited to go and highly recommend it. DC is a great location with easy access for alumni and the game is on the 29th, long enough after Christmas and close enough to new years, perfect timing. It should also be a good game to get the bowl winning streak back on track.

eagleboston said...

Here is a stat that blew me away: BC has never won 3 in a row in the Coach Spaz era.

EagleManhattan said...

"It's probably the same level bowl BC woulda ended up in even if we played well but missed the Orange bowl."

This is completely false. We're playing for a bowl that's 3 or 4 levels below what we would have gotten had we lost the ACC championship. That's pathetic. Why are people making excuses for this? The only reason we want to get to the bowl is because it gives the young players 15 practices. That is a legitimate goal; however, downplaying how bad a bowl it would be is just stupid.

http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/7643/new-acc-bowl-selection-process-in-effect-for-2010

mod34b said...

Who is better Shinskie, Marsco or Rettig?

Here are the stats:


NAME   CMP ATT YDS CMP% YDS/A TD INT RAT
Chase Rettig 53 99 625 53.5   6.31 3 5 106.5
Dave Shinskie 46 96 618 47.9   6.44 5 6 106.7
Mike Marsco   34 58 369 58.6    6.36 2 4 109.6


They are almost identical .  Surprising.  The Tranq (I won't allow success!) effect???

Galvin said...

It's hard to argue with the stats Mod put out, but to me there's a sizeable difference between Rettig's play and Uncle Dave's. Chase throws a better ball and seems to have more mobility. I am much more confident with him in there than the other two. Could be a case of the grass is greener, but I am glad he is the starter and wish that had been the case from the beginning of the season. Still, I hope Tranquill is hitting the early bird special down in Sarasota this time next year.

mod34b said...

Galvin - I agree. Better intangibles with Rettig. Better QB fundamentals with Rettig ( to be developed)

I think the surprising similarity in stats owes to the very conservative playing calling by Tranq.

Rettig looked great - sometimes - yesterday. I particularly liked the incomplete long ball to Amidon (?) between two defenders. That ball was right on the money.

However, the second interception was a really bad play

The ups and down of a rookie.

parth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
BCDoubleEagle said...

eagleboston-
let's not forget the Spaz "era" consists of only one full season at this point

Dan said...

"We're playing for a bowl that's 3 or 4 levels below what we would have gotten had we lost the ACC championship."

3 or 4 levels?

There aren't 3 or 4 levels on that list; just varying degrees of mediocrity.

Chick-fil-a would probably yield a better opponent. However, most of that quality is lost in the fact that you can't actually say Chick-fil-A at the water cooler without getting laughed at by all of your coworkers. Outside of that is there really much of a difference between the rest of the bowls on that list?

mod34b said...

Even at 7-5, we might not get a bowl.

Espn projects us now for Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl in SF on Jan 9 iff no PAC team avail against some middle of the WAC team that Boise crushed. .. That is right: the old emerald bowl

Faced with such a steaming heap of bleep, I am seeing the wisdom of Mmason's NYET approach.

Big Jack Krack said...

Geez - maybe we can get a chance to go to Shreveport or El Paso.

BCDoubleEagle said...

Why don't we just start our own bowl game and play it in Alumni? Boise State did it, and look where their program is now.

Bravesbill said...

Mod, I'm sure with those projections, ESPN is assuming we will lose another game (probably to Syracuse) which will leave us at 6-6 and deserving of a crap Fight Hunger Bowl.

mod34b said...

I think you are right, Bravesbill.

But it is really important for BC to win out and be a "winning" team at 7-5. At 6-6, we might be bypassed, at 7-5 it is hard (impossible?) to be bypassed. As we know, we are not exaclty the most appealing team for bowls to invite.

The bowl selection rule, per Wiki, is: "Bowls must select from teams with winning records when choosing a replacement team, unless there are no such teams left, then they may choose a 6-6 team. Should less than 68 teams be bowl eligible, all bowl eligible teams must be placed in bowls before non-eligible teams may be selected"

It looks like Clemson and G'Tech both may wind up 6-6. If they do, and we are 7-5, we get preference. If that scenario plays out, can you imagine how steamed the cocky Clemson fans will be when tehy realize the loss to BC costs them twice!

But one step at a time: Let's get past Duke first. Duke is going to pass, pass, pass. I hope our secondary is up for the challenge (the one that played FSU, not the one that played NCSU). Obviously, we can't beat anybody in a shootout.

Frankie said...

Skip on a lesser bowl? Lets be honest, there are very few programs in the country that can afford to do that.

But more to the point, why would we skip? Do the players not deserve to go? Would anyone question their level of effort and committment? Besides the practice and experience benefits noted, its a nice reward to go to a bowl game - even ifs its not one of the "top" bowls.

If we finish bowl eligible then the team has earned the right to play in a bowl and I hope they get the chance.

mod34b said...

Frankie -- sure we go bowling . . . but still how much interest is there to play the #5 WAC team on Jan. 9?

right now #5 WAC would appear to be Idaho....a team that just lost to Nevada 63-17, and will get creamed by BSU this weekend.

In that circumstances, it would seem that playing in such a bowl would make us look foolish and very, very small-time, and passing would be a better move. Even though passing will never happen.

Any how, if we win out, I do not think we will be relegated to that Bowl -- Clemson will. Ha!!

blist said...

Since we split bowl revenue with other ACC schools, aren;t we essentially obligated to go to whatever bowl will have us?

BCNorCal07 said...

mod: There is no reason to pass on a bowl. It's not about looking good. We're not a big-time program and this season has done nothing to disprove that. It's about getting 15 extra practices, rewarding the players - not the alumni - for their hard work, and not screwing ourselves when it comes to bowl invitations in future seasons.

mod34b said...

BCNorcal -- My point is kind of a "how low is too low" point. As I noted, of course we will go where invited for all the reasons you and many others stated.

But if we have a choice would we stay home or play an embarrassing game that makes BC look about as important and a middle of the pack MAC team. Playing in a really bad bowl, I think, would hurt our recruiting, not help it, so i would vote for the couch.