Athlon's ACC experts don't think much of the BC job

It is that time of year. The preview magazines hit the shelves and post all sorts of lists. Athlon asked a panel of ACC experts to rank the conference coaching jobs based on potential and difficulty of the job. BC came in 12th out of 14. Although this list don't mean much (is Addazio going to quit tomorrow because we are not higher up?), I still take issue a bit with the ranking.

Is it easier to win at some schools than others? Absolutely. However, when ranking jobs, fit is too often overlooked. Take TOB as an example. He left BC for NC State (ranked 8th). Is NC State a better job? Maybe on paper. Maybe the budgets are a little higher and the admissions a little more friendly. But TOB could never make it work there. He wasn't the right fit. BC in general has done a good job finding guys who can work within our culture and thrive within our region. We will never be Florida State, so it doesn't make sense to try to be Florida State. If the experts slight the job at BC or view it as too difficult, does it really matter? There will always be coaches who can win at BC. We just need to find them.

Phil Steele likes BC more than most

Phil Steele made his name by publishing the most thorough, analytical and detailed college preview annually. He boasts that he's right when everyone else is wrong. In his latest edition, one of the teams Phil thinks will surprise is BC.

Phil's not behind BC for just some random reasons. He's always put an emphasis on returning starters and BC's rates high in that department. Steele also likes that BC faces most of its toughest opponents at home. BC's close losses from last season are also factored in (Steele think luck tends to revert to a mean -- so BC will do better in close games this year). Steele also predicts improvement from Rettig (due to Martin and maturity) and thinks our offensive line will be better than it has been in years.

Although he touts BC as a +3.5 on his new Stock Market metric, Steele's not predicting greatness for our Eagles. The magazine has us 4th in the division and playing Army in the Military Bowl. Still, that is relatively high praise when most magazines expect us to have another losing season.

I understand where Steele is coming from. All his factors give me some optimism. We should be better on offense. The defense does have some good returning talent. I like Doug Martin and what he represents. Yet I don't think it is that simple. Steele believes that some of the bad losses will even out this year. I'm not there ready to take that leap. Many of the reasons we've been in so many close games under Spaz is because he manages the games that way. He doesn't put teams away and doesn't go for broke when we trail. Is that suddenly going to change this year?

I want BC to win. I want to make a bowl game. I may not care for Spaz, but I love BC and watching winning football is fun. I hope Steele is right, but I still think this year will be as frustrating as last year.

Is Phil Steele wrong about BC again?

Every year I pick up Phil Steele's preview magazine. Every year I then write about how Steele has predicted a down year for BC. This year, when the whole world is predicting BC's demise, Steele plays contrarian again and thinks BC will finish 3rd in the Atlantic. But his prediction deserves a big asterisk since he wrote the preview before the Herzy and Davis news. Even without that factored in, here are some notes and nuggets from his review of BC that might give others optimism.

-- He ranks our offensive line 11th nationally and considers this the best BC line in five seasons.
-- He predicts we will face East Carolina in the EagleBank Bowl (Washington,DC). Based on our turnout for the Maryland games, we might actually sell tickets for this game.
-- Steele doesn't think much of the ACC, ranking the conference 5th overall.
-- Harris, Claiborne, Tennant, Castonzo, Albright, Ramella, McLaughlin, Davis and Gunnell made one of his various all ACC teams.
-- Two of his power forecasts (formulas which haven't been revealed, but are assumed to lean on returning starters and close games) called for BC to win the division. Steele also admits that BC has finished higher than his forecast for three years.
-- Steele thinks we are better at Head Coach but worse at the two coordinator positions.
-- Steele's formula ranked our special teams as 110th overall. Any surprise?
-- We are the 63rd most experienced team in football and the 6th most experienced team in the ACC.
-- BC has the 47th most difficult schedule this year.


This is how he ranked the Atlantic
1. Clemson
2. Florida State
T3. BC
T3. NC State
5. Wake Forest
6. Maryland

Don't put too much weight into what Steele writes about BC. I use his guide to learn more about our opponents and for the historical betting lines, but never take what he writes as the bible. Let's just hope that the year he is finally right about BC!

Guess the catty coach

With the preview magazines hitting the stands, Dr. Saturday reminded me of one of my favorite features -- the anonymous coaches comments. BC was one of the schools to receive a snipe this year. An opposing ACC coach said this regarding our offensive line:

"I think the offensive line has gone down every year since 2006, when I thought they were the best offensive line I'd seen. But they've deteriorated since then." -- An opposing ACC assistant coach.

Not terribly biting nor terribly accurate. The 2005 team had five guys who would all make NFL rosters one day. The 2006 unit didn't have the same level of play or depth. 2007 was a transition year. But 2008 saw major improvement with four of the five starters making an All ACC team. But who cares if they were right or wrong. More important is who was the coach who felt the need to needle BC.

First, let's narrow the field. I am guessing it is a coach we see on an annual basis. That eliminates most of the other division. I eliminated Clemson since they had turnover in their defensive staff. I was tempted to predict someone from FSU, but we ran over them in Tallahassee last year. The 'Noles know our line was good. I also crossed off VT since their speed actually gave those 2005 and 2006 Olines trouble. Could it be Wake or Maryland? Maybe. But my guess is actually from former BC assistant and current NC State assistant Keith Willis. Willis was always known for his blunt forms of communication and didn't leave BC under the best of terms. I am sure he has no problem sharing his opinions and like some of the former TOB staffers, keeps waiting for things to fall apart now that they are not in Chestnut Hill. But like I said, that is just a guess and is pure speculation. Let me know who you think it might be.

New York Times finally previews BC

The New York Times' excellent college football countdown finally got to BC. They have us at No. 46. Unlike many preseason takes on the team, this preview is on the mark. The writer Paul Myerberg hit all the high points of the upcoming season without glaring errors or misconceptions about the team. To be honest, his "season breakdown, prediction, nightmares and dreams" are pretty close to what I'll post in August.

First reaction to Phil Steele's BC prediction

I bought Phil Steele's preview last night. (I've sworn off all the other preview magazines.) I will spend a lot more time writing about Steele this summer, but thought I'd share the basics first.
-- He predicts BC to finish 5th in the Atlantic.
-- He forecasts BC to play Boise in the Humanitarian Bowl.

Given his track record, I am not worried.

Guess the source of Athlon's bulletin board material?

I am not buying Athlon's preview this year. However, their use of candid and, at times, biting critiques from anonymous sources does have me intrigued. Here is what their ACC source said about BC:

Boston College: “Overrated. Good coaches, and their kids play hard. But their cupboard is bare this year. They lost that edge of toughness on offense when the new coach [Jeff Jagodzinski] came in.”

Fair enough take. I think our cupboard is less bare than perception. Other ACC teams dished on include Florida State, Duke, Georgia Tech, Maryland, and Miami. Because of the assistant tag, we'll never guess the coach serving as Ahtlon's Deep Throat but you can narrow which staff he came from.

Who is out? Obviously the schools named. I also think you can cross off anyone from NC State. I just don't see one of the former TOB staffers degrading our talent and crediting our coaches. My guess is that it is someone from Clemson. The Tigers played all of the teams listed with the exception of Miami. However, if they were scouting BC, Duke, Georgia Tech, and Florida State they would have seen the 'Canes plenty on tape and noticed that "Last year the defense was extremely vanilla. Mostly just man-free with occasional blitzes. You’ve got to mix it up once in a while.”

Because the unnamed source mentioned Miami's vanilla schemes, I am guessing he was watching his potential opponents' offenses. Therefore, if it is someone from Clemson, he is probably on the defensive side. I won't go so far as to guess which Clemson defensive coach may have been the source. You can do your own speculating by looking at their staff bios.

Dispelling Steele

All the preview magazines have a similar outlook on this year’s BC team: Good experience, love Ryan, think Jags will continue TOB’s success, think our ACC schedule is tough but our non-conference schedule is favorable. Overall most mags have us as an ACC contender and a definite bowl team. The one exception is Phil Steele. The College Football gambling guru thinks we'll be last in our division and miss out on bowl season. Who cares about one outlier, right? Well Steele puts together the best preview and is always good at identifying the five or so BCS teams that will be much better than expected. As Orson pointed out, his trick to finding the “surprise teams” is to look at programs with veteran teams that were unlucky in his “close games” category the previous season. Logic and statistics state that these teams will get lucky and revert to the mean (the mean in this case being more wins). It is the same “close games” stat that causes Steele to slot BC so low this year. Last year according to Steele's stat we had five close wins with only three close losses. So in his rankings this year he predicts BC will be 2-6 in these same types of games. Wins against Army, Bowling Green, and UMass won’t be enough to get us into a bowl if the close games break as he predicts,

I respect Steele, but I am not worried about his predictions. Since the ACC expanded (and faced extreme parity) Steele’s had trouble predicting the teams in our division. Look at 2005.

Steele	Actual
FSU	FSU
NC State	BC
Maryland	Clemson
BC	NC State
Clemson	Maryland
Wake Forest	Wake Forest

He was way off and the division proved one of the most balanced in BCS conferences. The winner had a 5-3 record and the 6th place team only bottomed out at 3-5.

Steele also missed the boat on the Atlantic Division in 2006.

Steele	Actual
FSU	Wake Forest
Clemson	BC
Maryland	Maryland
BC	Clemson
Wake Forest	FSU
NC State	NC State

This year he sees the division like this:

1. FSU
2. Clemson
3. NC State
4. Maryland
5. Wake Forest
6. BC

In his explanation of BC’s surprising slotting he hedges claiming anyone (including BC) could win the Atlantic. I like our chances and think that Steele overlooked Jags’ impact on close games. TOB’s notorious conservative style caused some games to be much closer than they should have been. Our near collapses against Central Michigan last year or against Boise State in 2005 are classic TOB games that skew the real story behind the “close games.” If Jags really does put his imprint on the team Steele won’t have to worry about BC reverting. But don’t expect Steele to admit he was wrong about BC in next season’s magazine. The guy is great at telling you what he got right, but rarely admits to his missteps.

My advice regarding all these magazines stays the same: buy them to learn about other teams but don’t get too caught up in what they think or write about BC.