Later this week, the ACC Coaches and players will head to North Carolina for the ACC Media Days. Coming off of last year, BC will not be a hot topic. In fact, we will be an afterthought. Outside of BC's players and fans, not much is expected. So as the ACC asks the attending media members for preseason predictions, I expect BC to finish last in the Atlantic.
Why the last place? I think Syracuse's new coach and the idea of them opening up their offense will earn points with the ACC observers. Wake is bad too, but they will have enough local writers there that some will put them above BC. I think the goodwill lost with the Don Brown departure will offset any positives related to the change on the offensive side of the ball.
The voting won't impact anything on the field but it does give insight into how we are perceived. Hopefully we get to prove them all wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
The smug southern sports writers always underrate BC. Homerism rules the day in Dixie
. But this year they have good reason. That reason is BC going 0-8 in conference and producing the worst ACC offense in a generation. BC was THE WORST. ACC team last year. No doubt about that.
We also have a dopey coach too - for in-game adjustments, tactics and strategy.
Will the newly "right sized " OL come through? Will the defense still be very good?
Southerners clearly feel they are the center of the football universe. But with a lower -tier MAC team, BC fans have little to crow about.
I thought that a second honeymoon was in progress. Evidently,"mod34b" and "Georgia Eagle" don't believe the misinformation put out by the Athletic Department. Sadly, I agree with them but will wait and see what happens with Georgia Tech.
JBQ, sure the second honeymoon is in effect....BC did not fire Mr 0-8. But will we get to respectability in ACC?
I am seeing predications by different sources of 1-7 and 2-8 in ACC. Most writers say we go 4-0 in lame OOC play (can we beat UConn?) but have BC with a losing record in ACC play.
We can't beat 4 of: Syracuse, Wake, NCSU, GT, VT? I guess it is right that we have little to no chance vs FSU, CU and L'ville
Its almost all on the OL - just to get us out of laughingstock territory and into modest respectability. I don't even want to think of another season like the last.
tom o'brien first 4 years (coming off two straight losing seasons):
4-7 (3-4)
4-7 (3-4)
8-4 (4-3)
7-5 (3-4)
Spaz's first 4 years:
8-5 (5-3)
7-6 (4-4)
4-8 (3-5)
2-10 (1-7)
followed by Addazio's first 3 years (coming off two straight losing seasons):
7-6 (4-4)
7-6 (4-4)
3-9 (0-8)
year 4 was also the year where Spaz lost to Army. the only OOC team I could see doing that is UConn, which would might probably more unpleasant. Addazio's first 2 years outperformed TOB's first 2, and year 3 was an unmitigated disaster in almost every way imaginable, notwithstanding the best D BC's had in a while. i haven't lost all faith in Daz based on his outperforming expectations in year 1 and meeting them in year 2, but last yr was hard to watch with the sideline meltdowns, lack of succession plan on the OL, and just general ineptitude (that wake loss still makes me laugh/cringe).
we have 4 cupcake OOC games. i think at least 3 wins are needed in conference to justify keeping Dazzy around, so 7-5 or bust for this humble anonymous blog commenter.
I'm with you, Miz. Anything less and he should be gone.
Miz, quite surprising to read that you have such a relatively high bar for minimum success.
I think if Daz beats 'Cuse and Wake (or any two ACC teams) plus 4 OOC wins, he will be 6-6, and proclaims himself a turn-around specialist (never minding who it was that put us in the dumpster) and a hero by self-proclamation.
And Bates and Leahy believe it.
in other words, at 6-6 or 6-7 or 7-6, I see Daz coming back for maybe another 2 years. Sadly, anything better than 1-7 in ACC play will be viewed as a great success.
Oh Mod, perish the thought of having this buffoon around another two years. I sadly agree with Miz that 7-5 is the minimum bar of success.
Mod, I think it's an exaggeration to say that 2-6 in ACC play will be viewed a "great success," at least by anyone other than Daz and Bates. I think the consensus would be that the team showed progress.
I am less willing to go by record as to whether the season is a success (and yes, I know you like to quote Parcells on that point, "you are what your record says you are") but how the team plays and the in-game coaching will have a lot to say in my evaluation of the season. My prediction is neither is up to what I expect and I will be calling for a change sooner rather than later.
Also, this article is quite interesting. It looks at expected wins (based on a formula involving points scored and points allowed - it's more complicated, but I'm not going to go into it here, you can read for yourself) vs actual wins and shows which coaches overperformed and which underperformed. Our very own Daz came in as the third most underperforming coach. TOB came in at the eleventh most overperforming coach.
Boston - my comment about great success was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. The legions of Daz apologists will seize upon a 6-6 record as a 'great success' and evidence that after all the unexpected (not!) problems of 2015 (poor Daz), Daz has righted the good ship and is "heading in the right direction."
Luv the link you provided. good to get an objective look at Daz and too see that based on objective measures Daz is a bad coach. (I'd like to see an objective measure of his recruiting results too)
The list of bottom 10 performers is a real list of losers. Daz truly should feel comfortable being a part of that group. Of the bottom, 10, 8 have presided over the horror of 0-8 winless-in-conference seasons. You gotta be awful to achieve that in year 3. The two exceptions to no-conference-wins in the bottom 10 were Phil Fulmer and Dave Wannstedt - both actually fine coaches.
Also, Spaz is listed as a middle-schmiddle coach - closely ranked with Jim Harbaugh, James Franklin and David Cutcliffe. Way better than Daz.
Post a Comment