Glass half full; glass half empty
- By WaveON
- Joe Kennedy's Wave Crest
- 7 Replies
After reading winwave’s excellent analysis I started thinking about why I am having so much trouble coming to a solid prediction on our future this year. One day I think things look pretty good. The next I go in completely the other direction. Glass half full; then glass half empty.
The Glass Half Full
We’ve got 50 lettermen returning, almost half of whom (23) have started at least one game.
Our QB returns with a full year of experience.
Our top three running backs return.
Two of our top five WR’s return.
Our top two receivers at tight end return.
Four of five starters return in the offensive line.
Our kicker, punter, snapper, holder, return men, and all of our key punt and kickoff coverage guys are back.
Three of our four starting defensive linemen return.
Our top three linebackers return
Our Freshman All American corner and leading interceptor returns along with a three year starter at safety.
And our coaching staff now has three years of experience.
Our schedule is not particularly daunting. Duke and Georgia Tech will be tough and probably Central Florida. But with the experience of playing Georgia Tech, Navy and Army should be no problem. We beat UCONN and Houston last year and have them at home again this year, so we should win those. And with Tulsa at home, we should roll them. SMU on the road should prove easy and we owe Temple a thumping, even if it is in Philadelphia. That leaves Memphis on the road, which could be tough. But, with our newly gained maturity and their losing a boatload of seniors, we should win. Our FCS game should be a “cakewalk,” so 9-10 wins is clearly attainable. After winning the “west,” we could face UCF for a second time in the conference championship. We’ll have learned a lot from the first game with them and should triumph in this one. Heck, with any luck, we’ll get to a New Year’s day game as the conference champion, ranked higher than any other G-5 team. How could it happen any other way?
Glass Half Empty
We lost 27 players from our roster including 24 lettermen and 13 players who started at least one game.
And, though we have a lot of players back, exactly how good are they? They went 2-9 against FBS competition and we haven’t seen much “growth” from returning players in recent years. In fact, many have regressed significantly.
Our offensive line loses its most experienced player who signed a pro contract and no one has shown enough to suggest he’s ready to step in to replace him. The line wasn’t very good anyway. Add to that, we’ve lost our best blocking tight end and our best wide receiver.
On defense, we’ve lost our best defensive end and have limited experience among potential backups across the front four.
In the defensive backfield, we must replace Schofield and Doss, two three-year starters, along with heavy contributors, LeBeau and Nixon. Four relatively inexperienced players will have to join Nickerson and Monroe in the defensive secondary. This could lead to a great deal of confusion, missed assignments, and long gains for the opposition.
While we have everyone back on special teams, they may have been the worst in the country. Significant improvement might not get us into the "top 100."
To make matters worse, our head coach and some key assistants haven’t proved they can “do the job.”
Our schedule could also be very challenging. Duke and Georgia Tech will be tough and so will Central Florida and Memphis. Army and Navy have owned us in recent years. We beat Houston last year so they’ll be ready for us; the same with UCONN. Tulsa at home and SMU on the road should provide possible victories, but Temple will tough in Philadelphia. We should win the game against our FCS opponent, so 2-3 wins is most likely. How could it happen any other way?
Half Full? Half Empty? The good news is I don't see it as all the way empty. But, it's not full either.
Roll Wave!!!!
The Glass Half Full
We’ve got 50 lettermen returning, almost half of whom (23) have started at least one game.
Our QB returns with a full year of experience.
Our top three running backs return.
Two of our top five WR’s return.
Our top two receivers at tight end return.
Four of five starters return in the offensive line.
Our kicker, punter, snapper, holder, return men, and all of our key punt and kickoff coverage guys are back.
Three of our four starting defensive linemen return.
Our top three linebackers return
Our Freshman All American corner and leading interceptor returns along with a three year starter at safety.
And our coaching staff now has three years of experience.
Our schedule is not particularly daunting. Duke and Georgia Tech will be tough and probably Central Florida. But with the experience of playing Georgia Tech, Navy and Army should be no problem. We beat UCONN and Houston last year and have them at home again this year, so we should win those. And with Tulsa at home, we should roll them. SMU on the road should prove easy and we owe Temple a thumping, even if it is in Philadelphia. That leaves Memphis on the road, which could be tough. But, with our newly gained maturity and their losing a boatload of seniors, we should win. Our FCS game should be a “cakewalk,” so 9-10 wins is clearly attainable. After winning the “west,” we could face UCF for a second time in the conference championship. We’ll have learned a lot from the first game with them and should triumph in this one. Heck, with any luck, we’ll get to a New Year’s day game as the conference champion, ranked higher than any other G-5 team. How could it happen any other way?
Glass Half Empty
We lost 27 players from our roster including 24 lettermen and 13 players who started at least one game.
And, though we have a lot of players back, exactly how good are they? They went 2-9 against FBS competition and we haven’t seen much “growth” from returning players in recent years. In fact, many have regressed significantly.
Our offensive line loses its most experienced player who signed a pro contract and no one has shown enough to suggest he’s ready to step in to replace him. The line wasn’t very good anyway. Add to that, we’ve lost our best blocking tight end and our best wide receiver.
On defense, we’ve lost our best defensive end and have limited experience among potential backups across the front four.
In the defensive backfield, we must replace Schofield and Doss, two three-year starters, along with heavy contributors, LeBeau and Nixon. Four relatively inexperienced players will have to join Nickerson and Monroe in the defensive secondary. This could lead to a great deal of confusion, missed assignments, and long gains for the opposition.
While we have everyone back on special teams, they may have been the worst in the country. Significant improvement might not get us into the "top 100."
To make matters worse, our head coach and some key assistants haven’t proved they can “do the job.”
Our schedule could also be very challenging. Duke and Georgia Tech will be tough and so will Central Florida and Memphis. Army and Navy have owned us in recent years. We beat Houston last year so they’ll be ready for us; the same with UCONN. Tulsa at home and SMU on the road should provide possible victories, but Temple will tough in Philadelphia. We should win the game against our FCS opponent, so 2-3 wins is most likely. How could it happen any other way?
Half Full? Half Empty? The good news is I don't see it as all the way empty. But, it's not full either.
Roll Wave!!!!
Can Tulane return to the pinnacle of College Baseball?
- By WaveON
- Joe Kennedy's Wave Crest
- 4 Replies
Can Tulane return to the pinnacle of College Baseball? Can we again be a regular post-season participant and at least occasionally go to the College World Series?
Of course, the answer is “Yes!” I keep hearing tuition cost is the problem, but three high-priced universities (Miami, TCU, and Vandy) were all in the College World Series. Rice, Notre Dame, Dallas Baptist, USC, and Bradley joined Tulane as “private” schools that were “at large” choices for regionals, although none of them made the “Super Regionals.” Nonetheless, being expensive is not an “excuse” for failure to rank among the top baseball schools in the NCAA.
Naturally, however, the real question to be asked is, “will we return to the top tier of college baseball teams?” That’s much tougher to answer. Commitment and the willingness to expend necessary resources is obviously the key. I think we’ve begun that process with the hiring of Coach Pierce. I’ve watched a lot of college baseball the last few weeks. Frankly, the pitching looks a lot better than ours. Fastballs in the 90’s are commonplace and for those guys throwing 86-88 mph, their control is excellent. Our pitching is clearly our strength but we don’t have the talent that the best teams have. And our hitting isn’t close to “first rate;” it’s “third rate” at best. That Tulane did as well as it did this year I credit almost entirely to Coach Pierce and his staff, though the courage and “never say die” spirit of the players can’t be shortchanged either.
Can we keep Pierce? It’s hard to guess. He’s from Texas. When Texas, Houston, Rice, TCU, or Texas A&M come calling with “better baseball histories” and more resources, will he “go home?” And, if he leaves, can we get a comparable coach to replace him? This is not an issue for today (I don’t think) but it’s something that Rick Dickson needs to start considering now, not when the issue is imminent.
The other big issue is recruiting. How does Vanderbilt have three of the first 24 guys selected in the first round of the Major League draft? And they had three more in the first six rounds. Five of these six draftees were juniors. Yes, they have a recent history. Yes, they are widely recognized as a top tier academic university (better than Tulane). Yes, they are located in Nashville, a really good city in many people’s view. But, they are just as expensive as any of the other private schools who don’t do as well. How do they do it? I don’t know.
But Tulane used to recruit guys like Bogasevic, Aubrey, and Jurries. Even our best recent players like Segedin and Alamais are not in that class. Most don’t compare to Emaus, Hamilton, Manzella, and Gomes, who all made it to the major leagues. I think Everett, Dini, Madden, Southard, Riser, Holland, Crowell, Morgan, Mohl, and Latham (all on one team) would be “stars” on today’s team. How do we get back to that level of player, that depth of talent?
One big difference I note today is the lack of Legislative Scholarships on the team. Back in the day, we had 7 or 8 most years. Many were some of our best players. Now, we have none and it’s been a couple years since we had any (Napoli) who was a real contributor. Many of our legislative supporters have passed on, but that was a very important part of our success. Can Coach Pierce work that angle harder? Can the university support “non-scholarship” athletes better? That seems to be a big difference between us and the more successful private schools.
“Success breeds success” isn’t just a trite saying; it’s a proven formula and we've got a lot of positives. We’ve been to 20 regionals in baseball. To most schools, that’s a lot. We’ve just come off a “regional season.” We have a nice stadium and solid baseball facilities. We have a terrific coach and staff. If we can continue this year’s success, we’ll get the fans back. Success, quality opponents, and a good “game day” atmosphere will lead to better recruits and even more success. It can be done!!
Roll Wave!!!
Of course, the answer is “Yes!” I keep hearing tuition cost is the problem, but three high-priced universities (Miami, TCU, and Vandy) were all in the College World Series. Rice, Notre Dame, Dallas Baptist, USC, and Bradley joined Tulane as “private” schools that were “at large” choices for regionals, although none of them made the “Super Regionals.” Nonetheless, being expensive is not an “excuse” for failure to rank among the top baseball schools in the NCAA.
Naturally, however, the real question to be asked is, “will we return to the top tier of college baseball teams?” That’s much tougher to answer. Commitment and the willingness to expend necessary resources is obviously the key. I think we’ve begun that process with the hiring of Coach Pierce. I’ve watched a lot of college baseball the last few weeks. Frankly, the pitching looks a lot better than ours. Fastballs in the 90’s are commonplace and for those guys throwing 86-88 mph, their control is excellent. Our pitching is clearly our strength but we don’t have the talent that the best teams have. And our hitting isn’t close to “first rate;” it’s “third rate” at best. That Tulane did as well as it did this year I credit almost entirely to Coach Pierce and his staff, though the courage and “never say die” spirit of the players can’t be shortchanged either.
Can we keep Pierce? It’s hard to guess. He’s from Texas. When Texas, Houston, Rice, TCU, or Texas A&M come calling with “better baseball histories” and more resources, will he “go home?” And, if he leaves, can we get a comparable coach to replace him? This is not an issue for today (I don’t think) but it’s something that Rick Dickson needs to start considering now, not when the issue is imminent.
The other big issue is recruiting. How does Vanderbilt have three of the first 24 guys selected in the first round of the Major League draft? And they had three more in the first six rounds. Five of these six draftees were juniors. Yes, they have a recent history. Yes, they are widely recognized as a top tier academic university (better than Tulane
). Yes, they are located in Nashville, a really good city in many people’s view. But, they are just as expensive as any of the other private schools who don’t do as well. How do they do it? I don’t know.But Tulane used to recruit guys like Bogasevic, Aubrey, and Jurries. Even our best recent players like Segedin and Alamais are not in that class. Most don’t compare to Emaus, Hamilton, Manzella, and Gomes, who all made it to the major leagues. I think Everett, Dini, Madden, Southard, Riser, Holland, Crowell, Morgan, Mohl, and Latham (all on one team) would be “stars” on today’s team. How do we get back to that level of player, that depth of talent?
One big difference I note today is the lack of Legislative Scholarships on the team. Back in the day, we had 7 or 8 most years. Many were some of our best players. Now, we have none and it’s been a couple years since we had any (Napoli) who was a real contributor. Many of our legislative supporters have passed on, but that was a very important part of our success. Can Coach Pierce work that angle harder? Can the university support “non-scholarship” athletes better? That seems to be a big difference between us and the more successful private schools.
“Success breeds success” isn’t just a trite saying; it’s a proven formula and we've got a lot of positives. We’ve been to 20 regionals in baseball. To most schools, that’s a lot. We’ve just come off a “regional season.” We have a nice stadium and solid baseball facilities. We have a terrific coach and staff. If we can continue this year’s success, we’ll get the fans back. Success, quality opponents, and a good “game day” atmosphere will lead to better recruits and even more success. It can be done!!
Roll Wave!!!
An interesting recruiting site
- By WaveON
- Joe Kennedy's Wave Crest
- 1 Replies
I recently came across a site, called “Rank by Offers” (http://www.rankbyoffers.com/).
Essentially the site ranks recruits by the offers they have received. A recruit with 20 offers would generally be rated much higher than one with three. And the “quality” of the offers is also considered. For example, an offer from Alabama (#1) is worth more than an offer from Tulane (#80). That makes sense to me. The school rankings are based on a three year calculation of what teams a given school “beat out” for a prospect and which schools “beat them out.” It’s a little more complex than that as it is based on the Elo rating system, which was devised to rank world class chess players and involves some pretty intricate math. Somewhat arbitrarily, an offer from the top school, Alabama, is worth 100 points. And an offer from the 129th place team (last), Miami (O), is worth 1 point. The other 127 teams are arranged between those two numbers. If the range were 1 to 1,000 or 1 to 10, it probably wouldn't change the ordering much, but it would widen or tighten it. I'm OK with the 1 to 100.
As always with a system based on “reported offers,” it is only as good as the input data. Also, the more offers a school puts out, the more “defeats” they will encounter. Some of these may be after they “pulled back” their offer and the fact that the potential recruit signed with a “lesser school” had nothing to do with a legitimate head-to-head competition. This may essentially become a “wash” over thousands of data points, but it probably hurts the “higher rated” schools more than the lower rated ones. But, that’s just a guess. The math to prove that would hurt my head and probably take me a month or so to complete.
Anyhow, it’s another place to see how recruits are rated by a completely different system.
Roll Wave!!!
Essentially the site ranks recruits by the offers they have received. A recruit with 20 offers would generally be rated much higher than one with three. And the “quality” of the offers is also considered. For example, an offer from Alabama (#1) is worth more than an offer from Tulane (#80). That makes sense to me. The school rankings are based on a three year calculation of what teams a given school “beat out” for a prospect and which schools “beat them out.” It’s a little more complex than that as it is based on the Elo rating system, which was devised to rank world class chess players and involves some pretty intricate math. Somewhat arbitrarily, an offer from the top school, Alabama, is worth 100 points. And an offer from the 129th place team (last), Miami (O), is worth 1 point. The other 127 teams are arranged between those two numbers. If the range were 1 to 1,000 or 1 to 10, it probably wouldn't change the ordering much, but it would widen or tighten it. I'm OK with the 1 to 100.
As always with a system based on “reported offers,” it is only as good as the input data. Also, the more offers a school puts out, the more “defeats” they will encounter. Some of these may be after they “pulled back” their offer and the fact that the potential recruit signed with a “lesser school” had nothing to do with a legitimate head-to-head competition. This may essentially become a “wash” over thousands of data points, but it probably hurts the “higher rated” schools more than the lower rated ones. But, that’s just a guess. The math to prove that would hurt my head and probably take me a month or so to complete.
Anyhow, it’s another place to see how recruits are rated by a completely different system.
Roll Wave!!!