- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 22,836
- Reaction Score
- 9,464
Problem statement:
We are not recruiting at a level to be putting players on the field annually that can compete with the level of competition we are facing regulary at both the conference and non-conference level we are playing at.
What's the solution?
(This is independant of coaching staff. There is no one followed this program for any significant amount of time, and there are only a handful left paying attention, should be surprised by anything Randy Edsall does. We simply didn't have the players to beat UMass, and struggled to beat URI. Randy has a convenient excuse, in somehow in his second year back, playing a roster that is incredibly young, and underdeveloped physically and mentally.)
But here's the thing. What if Randy's recruiting plan isn't adequate? We won't know if these freshmen are capable of playing to the level they're supposed to be at for at least another 2-3 years right? Convenient for Randy.)
None of that in ( ) addresses the problem statement above - the key word being 'annually'.
I've read it on the BY, just today, rumor - that there are plans to aggressively lobby for moving some athletic programs to different scheduling arrangements with conference affiliation. That's just rumor - but that rumor addresses where I want to see solutions being generate. The Athletic Director, the President and Provost, and the Board of Trustees plan to fix that problem.
Nothing Randy Edsall says, is anything I care to hear, read or see. He's got a job to do, he's lucky to have that job, and he isn't producing results. Shut up and fix it. We still have a bunch of games to go in what is now, a season with few goals left to achieve, other than 1 week seasons.
I thought getting shut out by BC was pure embarrassment a couple years ago. Losing to UMass at home, by folding like a cheap tent in the 4th quarter on homecoming? In a season with 1 win so far, against 1-AA URI on a last minute effort? Argueably the worst team in division 1 college football?
Talk about setting the bar low to measure success from here out.
We are not recruiting at a level to be putting players on the field annually that can compete with the level of competition we are facing regulary at both the conference and non-conference level we are playing at.
What's the solution?
(This is independant of coaching staff. There is no one followed this program for any significant amount of time, and there are only a handful left paying attention, should be surprised by anything Randy Edsall does. We simply didn't have the players to beat UMass, and struggled to beat URI. Randy has a convenient excuse, in somehow in his second year back, playing a roster that is incredibly young, and underdeveloped physically and mentally.)
But here's the thing. What if Randy's recruiting plan isn't adequate? We won't know if these freshmen are capable of playing to the level they're supposed to be at for at least another 2-3 years right? Convenient for Randy.)
None of that in ( ) addresses the problem statement above - the key word being 'annually'.
I've read it on the BY, just today, rumor - that there are plans to aggressively lobby for moving some athletic programs to different scheduling arrangements with conference affiliation. That's just rumor - but that rumor addresses where I want to see solutions being generate. The Athletic Director, the President and Provost, and the Board of Trustees plan to fix that problem.
Nothing Randy Edsall says, is anything I care to hear, read or see. He's got a job to do, he's lucky to have that job, and he isn't producing results. Shut up and fix it. We still have a bunch of games to go in what is now, a season with few goals left to achieve, other than 1 week seasons.
I thought getting shut out by BC was pure embarrassment a couple years ago. Losing to UMass at home, by folding like a cheap tent in the 4th quarter on homecoming? In a season with 1 win so far, against 1-AA URI on a last minute effort? Argueably the worst team in division 1 college football?
Talk about setting the bar low to measure success from here out.
