Final 2012 game on schedule?

[71]

NY07 isn't speculating.  Both our former coach and our current one have that playing FBS schools is a recruiting tool and they emphasized that it's a good one.  Doesn't mean that the games are always worthwhile but on the single topic of whether or not it's a recruiting tool, the answer is definitive - it is.   

Then explain why, with scholarships, we are evidently not attracting the type of recruit who will help us defeat schools that have neither scholarships nor FBS opponents on their schedule?  Where are the results?

I don't doubt the sincerity in their statements, but "sayin' it ain't doin' it."  If it's an advantage, where are the dividends?  Has it gotten us better recruits?  The team collapsed like a house of cards last year.

[pjd]

Am majorly enthused about recruiting class coming in; glad that the coaching hires, departures and subsequent hires have been accomplished (although I'm sure it was not JM's initial hope).  Regarding Cincinatti road game during middle of season .... it is likely the best that JM could do.  I fully expect a better Ram squad and a better than 35-3 outcome of previous season's.  Go Fordham & get your respective asses in the seats!!!

[An Old Coach]

NY07 isn't speculating.  Both our former coach and our current one have that playing FBS schools is a recruiting tool and they emphasized that it's a good one.  Doesn't mean that the games are always worthwhile but on the single topic of whether or not it's a recruiting tool, the answer is definitive - it is.   

What are they going to say?  They can't talk about the success of the past few years, the stadium or the facilities.  Going off the players thecrecently fired coach was bringing in, do you think it was a good recruiting tool?  Hard to argue it's been effective.

[Chaka001]

Is this confirmed as Cicny has 12 games listed already?

For all of the naysayers out there, are you listening AOC...
cut JM so slack.  He just got here and yes it was obsurd for him to have to fill not one, but two slots this late in the game.  Just getting 2 games, regardless of the opponents is well done imo.  I agreed with an earlier comment that these games should have been scheduled already but kudos to JM for securing a full schedule.  I think its safe to say that no one is thrilled about Loch Haven or Cincy but find the positives and support the team.  What is important is that scheduling becomes a priority in the future.  Yes, an AD does get involved in scheduling and Frank continues to prove he is the wrost AD on the planet.

As for a recruiting tool, I would guarantee that the answer is Yes.  Virtually every successful FCS team plays one FBS per year.  I would agree with an argument that we should not play FBS until our program on solid footing, and playing 2 last year was one too many, but it was an audible due to a cancellation.  In the future, the ideal situation is playing a weaker D-I team who offers an attractive payout and/or Army and Navy.  If Masella and the team did not call it in and the weather was not a snowstorm, we could have and should have been respectable against Army.  If you are not convinced about playing an FBS, the answer is simple... ASK THE KIDS ON THE ROSTER.

One more tidbit, what was worse?
- Losing to FBS UConn on the road, getting a payout.
- Losing to DII Assmption at home and paying out to a lesser opponent.
THINK ABOUT IT.
 
chaka

[An Old Coach]

Is this confirmed as Cicny has 12 games listed already?

For all of the naysayers out there, are you listening AOC...

First, please point out in any post where I have been critical of Moorhead.  I am however critical of how the program is conducted and it looks to me that the playbook that Masella used hasn't been burned yet.

Also, please tell me where are all the great players who have come to Fordham in the two years since we've had FBS teams on the schedule.  Were these the ones who didn't bother showing up for a number of games last year?

I'll say one thing, Chaka, you're as good an apologist for the status quo as there possibly could be. 

[1standgoal]

I don't get this forum at all.  Trashing the administration, the coaches, the players...don't get it..thanks to the fans who support the program.  Last post for me..

[bronxram]

Yes, I can confirm we are in fact playing Cincinnati this season.

[ace93]

I don't get this forum at all.  Trashing the administration, the coaches, the players...don't get it..thanks to the fans who support the program.  Last post for me..

I don't think it is fair to knock the entire forum due to the opinions (trashing) by some of its members.  Part of the problem is that a lot of posters who want positive and supportive posts, get up and run.

[RC74]

I don't get this forum at all.  Trashing the administration, the coaches, the players...don't get it..thanks to the fans who support the program.  Last post for me..

Sometimes it gets out of hand here, but if the criticism is true it's not trashing. Are fans not allowed to criticize poor performance -- especially a pattern of such?  If you have evidence to refute someone why not offer it?

[Mugz]

Why do you think that is Ace? Many people, myself included, find the overall tone of this board to be extremely negative. Not to say that all posters are negative but there certainly are quite a few who for better or worse seem to shape the overall tone. As someone who would like to look on the positive side of things, it's a pretty depressing place to come for Fordham sports talk. Sadly, it's about the only place to available, since there are about 17 of us fans out there at this point.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I like many of the other fans who up and run, find myself coming here less and less because it's just generally depressing.

[jimbo65]

Why do you think that is Ace? Many people, myself included, find the overall tone of this board to be extremely negative. Not to say that all posters are negative but there certainly are quite a few who for better or worse seem to shape the overall tone. As someone who would like to look on the positive side of things, it's a pretty depressing place to come for Fordham sports talk. Sadly, it's about the only place to available, since there are about 17 of us fans out there at this point.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I like many of the other fans who up and run, find myself coming here less and less because it's just generally depressing.

Hopefully I am not one of the ultra negatives but the past and present state of our two major sports has been, and is, depressing itself. Who knows about the future but we have been disappointed more than positively surprised over the last three decades.  Personally I find negative comments about the recruits, and to a lesser degreeabout the coaches, inappropriate, particularly as to the recruits. Also, though I don't read every post, I dont recall any criticism re JM. IMO the administration is fair game provided the criticism is based on performance, or better put, lack of same. 

[ace93]

Why do you think that is Ace? Many people, myself included, find the overall tone of this board to be extremely negative. Not to say that all posters are negative but there certainly are quite a few who for better or worse seem to shape the overall tone. As someone who would like to look on the positive side of things, it's a pretty depressing place to come for Fordham sports talk. Sadly, it's about the only place to available, since there are about 17 of us fans out there at this point.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I like many of the other fans who up and run, find myself coming here less and less because it's just generally depressing.

I think jimbo65 hits the nail on the head.  Fordham sports are overall are depressing.  That might be a slight at a few sports or a few accomplishments, but it is as fair as saying that this forum is negative and trashes those involved in Fordham sports.  Some here do that, but I think most here are factual and accurate in their commentary about Fordham athletics.

Most everything we have to feel positive about is based on hope for the future. There is very little recent past to hang our hat on.  The tone is negative b/c quite frankly the overall results have been negative.

The current coaches of our two marquee programs each have the misfortune of following two coaches who came in with promise, but eventually fell flat on their faces.  The things that hyped us up then, don't necessarily get the same results now.  The old adage says, "Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice shame on me."  What is it when you get fooled more than twice?

[PA Ram]

Then explain why, with scholarships, we are evidently not attracting the type of recruit who will help us defeat schools that have neither scholarships nor FBS opponents on their schedule?  Where are the results?

I don't doubt the sincerity in their statements, but "sayin' it ain't doin' it."  If it's an advantage, where are the dividends?  Has it gotten us better recruits?  The team collapsed like a house of cards last year.

71, I was responding directly to this part of your post to '07.  That's why I quoted it:

...I agree with you: we don't know whether this is a recruiting tool. Neither do you. You're speculating also.  ...

You put 07's comment AND your comment about whether or not it's a recruiting tool on equal footing.  It's not.  Both coaches have confirmed that IT IS a recruiting tool and they both said it's a positive one.  Case closed - you are wrong in what you wrote and it's not a case of differing interpretations. 

Your post above then changes the subject to whether or not it's been an effective enough recruiting tool since you haven't seen good enough results yet.  That's fine but it's a separate discussion and there are so many variables that go into it that to strip it all down to a "I don't see us getting the recruits therefore FBS pay games must not be a recruiting tool" is goofy imo.  Would we have gotten a lesser recruit than we have now if we didn't have an FBS game?  Are we targeting the right kids?  Does the advantage of playing an FBS game outweigh the facilities?, etc.  Alot of unknowns but still alot of factors that make it impossible to discern what impact having us play an FBS game has on recruiting.   

More important for me is recognizing that our first full scholarship class has only now completed their sophomore year.  Many of the linemen were redshirted and have played one season so far.  While I think this is an important season for them to become team leaders and have a big impact, I still believe they get a "Too New To Rate" grade.  I'm far from viewing them as a group of kids who prove that we can't attract top FCS talent. 

[PA Ram]

What are they going to say?  ...

You wouldn't be able to come up with something better than lying if placed in a similar situation?   

[71]

71, I was responding directly to this part of your post to '07.  That's why I quoted it:

You put 07's comment AND your comment about whether or not it's a recruiting tool on equal footing.  It's not.  Both coaches have confirmed that IT IS a recruiting tool and they both said it's a positive one.  Case closed - you are wrong in what you wrote and it's not a case of differing interpretations. 

Your post above then changes the subject to whether or not it's been an effective enough recruiting tool since you haven't seen good enough results yet.  That's fine but it's a separate discussion and there are so many variables that go into it that to strip it all down to a "I don't see us getting the recruits therefore FBS pay games must not be a recruiting tool" is goofy imo.  Would we have gotten a lesser recruit than we have now if we didn't have an FBS game?  Are we targeting the right kids?  Does the advantage of playing an FBS game outweigh the facilities?, etc.  Alot of unknowns but still alot of factors that make it impossible to discern what impact having us play an FBS game has on recruiting.   

More important for me is recognizing that our first full scholarship class has only now completed their sophomore year.  Many of the linemen were redshirted and have played one season so far.  While I think this is an important season for them to become team leaders and have a big impact, I still believe they get a "Too New To Rate" grade.  I'm far from viewing them as a group of kids who prove that we can't attract top FCS talent. 

OK, so the gist of what you're saying is that these FBS games on the schedule, at this point in the program's development, is a positive recruiting tool. I say that I don't see any proof of that. Hopefully it's coming soon.

Do you agree with scheduling FBS games against opponents like Cincy at a point where we still struggle with competing at our own level?

[An Old Coach]

You wouldn't be able to come up with something better than lying if placed in a similar situation?   

I wouldn't have to.  I wouldn't schedule the game after two poundings last year and winning just one game.  My focus would be on developing the program and worrying about the PL.

[joea]

We all have to remember the way the administration sees athletics, which is in large part as a marketing tool for Fordham, the academic institution. So exposure of the name in a geographic area where exposure is low, may be one of the reasons to schedule a game like this versus a lower profile but much more winnable game. Not saying I have any knowledge of, or that I agree with, the thinking, just pointing out what it could be. I also hope they realize that being bad is usually not good marketing.

[71]

We all have to remember the way the administration sees athletics, which is in large part as a marketing tool for Fordham, the academic institution. So exposure of the name in a geographic area where exposure is low, may be one of the reasons to schedule a game like this versus a lower profile but much more winnable game. Not saying I have any knowledge of, or that I agree with, the thinking, just pointing out what it could be. I also hope they realize that being bad is usually not good marketing.

joe, if only I could believe that this was part of a larger plan that included marketing to underserved geographic areas!  I think that what is more likely, and as has been referenced here: Cincy got multiple holes in its schedule due conference realignment and we got asked to fill one. The new coach has Big East contacts. We took it. Catch as catch can  . . . but not really a plan.

[B2Bomber]

First, please point out in any post where I have been critical of Moorhead.  I am however critical of how the program is conducted and it looks to me that the playbook that Masella used hasn't been burned yet.

Also, please tell me where are all the great players who have come to Fordham in the two years since we've had FBS teams on the schedule.  Were these the ones who didn't bother showing up for a number of games last year?

I'll say one thing, Chaka, you're as good an apologist for the status quo as there possibly could be. 

Coach:

I think Chaka has been as critical of Grank as anyone here on the board.   Sometimes I think he is a bit over the top.     

[B2Bomber]

joe, if only I could believe that this was part of a larger plan that included marketing to underserved geographic areas!  I think that what is more likely, and as has been referenced here: Cincy got multiple holes in its schedule due conference realignment and we got asked to fill one. The new coach has Big East contacts. We took it. Catch as catch can  . . . but not really a plan.

+1  Cincy and Northern Kentucky are already a good draw for Fordham students, mostly coming from Catholic schools there.     

[An Old Coach]

We all have to remember the way the administration sees athletics, which is in large part as a marketing tool for Fordham, the academic institution. So exposure of the name in a geographic area where exposure is low, may be one of the reasons to schedule a game like this versus a lower profile but much more winnable game. Not saying I have any knowledge of, or that I agree with, the thinking, just pointing out what it could be. I also hope they realize that being bad is usually not good marketing.

Joe....  Fordham athletics and marketing tool?  Come on.  You can do better...

[Chaka001]

AOC...

I did not say anythig about your opinions about Coach Moorhead.
I do think he will do things differently than Masella and willbe more practive.  He played at FU so he knows how a program can be run with Frank in commands, he lived it.  he also knows and has solid expereince at the top level of FCS and going to bowl games.  I have faith that Coach Moorhead will run a better program than Masella.  Its early but at least he seems to have assembled a pretty good staff on short ntoice and theft ffom some NFL teams.  I would say that the training refimen seems like it is an improvement too.  Overall, its way too early to see what Coach Moorhead's efforts will yeild but I am cautiously optimistic it will be better than Masella.

As for players, who knows maybe we do have some talent, maybe we don't.  Maybe masellahad talent but just could not utilize it very well.  Not that it is a the best analogy but look waht Harbough did with the 49ers with a similar team in just one year's time.  The other side is that maybe masella was just an average recruiter at best, afterall his only success came on the heals of Clawson's recruits.  Heck even our kicker was an accident that fell on his lap.  To be fair about recruiting, I will say it again, ASK THE PLAYERS if playing a FBS school had any affect on coming to FU.  Does playing an FBS make or break a program?  No, but it does provide some extra cash, it can excite alums (Army: yes, UConn: not bad, Cincy: not so much), but it can be beneficial.  And yes I would agree it would be even more beneficial if our program was more stable.


Apologist, I think not.  Anyone who knows me realizes that I would wnat nothing more than the Grank gone and a one on one with McShane and the a meetin withthe BOT to express myine and others disgust for the university's lack of direction towards athletics.

chaka 

PS. Still waiting for your answer to my question?  UConn or Assumption?  What will it be?

[ace93]

OK, so the gist of what you're saying is that these FBS games on the schedule, at this point in the program's development, is a positive recruiting tool. I say that I don't see any proof of that. Hopefully it's coming soon.

Do you agree with scheduling FBS games against opponents like Cincy at a point where we still struggle with competing at our own level?

What proof are you looking for?  A tool means you get something better than you would get without the tool. It does not mean you get great talent or that it's enough to outweigh the rest of your deficiencies. Without the tool we'd be worse off.

[71]

What proof are you looking for?  A tool means you get something better than you would get without the tool. It does not mean you get great talent or that it's enough to outweigh the rest of your deficiencies. Without the tool we'd be worse off.

A fair point Ace. I'm not looking for any sophisticated tool or metric; just something that approximates progress.  With a couple of recruiting classes and the schedule, I would expect some traction.  We've got scholarships and FBS schools on the schedule for a couple of years. If those are recruiting positives, you should expect some forward motion. Maybe they are positives and the coaching staff couldn't handle the kids he recruited or the expectations. Hard to say.  I do think we'll find out to some extent this year and I wish Coach Moorhead the best of luck.

I'm not sure you can definitely say that without FBS games we'd be worse off. Maybe yes, maybe no.

The reality is, we could only be worse off in a technical sense when it comes to on-the-field results.  You're right, we could have been 0 and 11.  We won one game and (aside from the the URI game) the losses weren't close.

[An Old Coach]

AOC...

I did not say anythig about your opinions about Coach Moorhead.
I do think he will do things differently than Masella and willbe more practive.  He played at FU so he knows how a program can be run with Frank in commands, he lived it.  he also knows and has solid expereince at the top level of FCS and going to bowl games.  I have faith that Coach Moorhead will run a better program than Masella.  Its early but at least he seems to have assembled a pretty good staff on short ntoice and theft ffom some NFL teams.  I would say that the training refimen seems like it is an improvement too.  Overall, its way too early to see what Coach Moorhead's efforts will yeild but I am cautiously optimistic it will be better than Masella.

As for players, who knows maybe we do have some talent, maybe we don't.  Maybe masellahad talent but just could not utilize it very well.  Not that it is a the best analogy but look waht Harbough did with the 49ers with a similar team in just one year's time.  The other side is that maybe masella was just an average recruiter at best, afterall his only success came on the heals of Clawson's recruits.  Heck even our kicker was an accident that fell on his lap.  To be fair about recruiting, I will say it again, ASK THE PLAYERS if playing a FBS school had any affect on coming to FU.  Does playing an FBS make or break a program?  No, but it does provide some extra cash, it can excite alums (Army: yes, UConn: not bad, Cincy: not so much), but it can be beneficial.  And yes I would agree it would be even more beneficial if our program was more stable.


Apologist, I think not.  Anyone who knows me realizes that I would wnat nothing more than the Grank gone and a one on one with McShane and the a meetin withthe BOT to express myine and others disgust for the university's lack of direction towards athletics.

chaka 

PS. Still waiting for your answer to my question?  UConn or Assumption?  What will it be?

Chaka:

Go back and look at your post.  Start with "the naysayers".  Apparently legitimate questions on the direction of the program are negative in your eyes.

I wish Coach Moorhead nothing but the best.  Unfortunately, I think he has to perform before he gets the benefit of the doubt.  Remember, he is Frank's hand picked coach.  It's not as if he came to the top out of a legitimate search.  Do you have that much faith in Frank's judgement?  Please show me where one gets that kind of blind faith...

I don't believe Moorhead's experience as a student/athlete at Fordham has any value to speak of.  He was a kid.  He had no idea what was going on in the coaches office or the second floor of the historic RHG.  It does give him a leg up with alums and there is something to be said for that but at Fordham, I don't know how much that matters.  It certainly doesn't mean we'll raise another $1 million.  He has had a very nice career as an assistant.  In most university's, that is how one gets the job.

If, as you claim, our players came to Fordham becaise they were impressed with our FBS games, I'll take your word for it.  I have to question why that is important to them but they overlooked the lack of facilities, the high school field and lack of any recent success.  Makes me wonder about their priorities.

Finally, as to your question, which is a better loss?  Sorry, only a true kool-aid drinker could ask that.  The answer is neither.  There is no such thing as a good loss, except at Fordham.

[PA Ram]

...If, as you claim, our players came to Fordham becaise they were impressed with our FBS games, I'll take your word for it.  I have to question why that is important to them but they overlooked the lack of facilities, the high school field and lack of any recent success.  Makes me wonder about their priorities.

...

you question their priorities yet your assumptions about what they are considering don't include any reference to a free education at a top 50 University?  sounds like you're the one with the wrong priorities. 

No one has indicated that having an FBS game is anywhere near a primary reason that a kid chooses a school yet you immediately contort the argument to make it sound as if that's what is being said.  Once again, bad form.

[DamnRam]

I really wish Fordham would conduct searches with more integrity.  Not that I have any reason to doubt any particular person that gets hired, but rather because it gets really tiring having to deal with all of the questions from others about the legitimacy of whomever is ultimately selected.

Having said that, I for one will give Moorhead the benefit of the doubt.  I do this because I think it's the right thing to do.  You have to give an incoming coach the credibility and respect he needs to get the job done.  I regard this as being one of the hallmarks of a fan as opposed to a disinterested observer.  The fan gives the benefit of the doubt initially and you give them the space to succeed.  In other words, you choose to be optimistic and, in this case, hope that even a flawed selection process can yield a good result.

[ace93]

A fair point Ace. I'm not looking for any sophisticated tool or metric; just something that approximates progress.  With a couple of recruiting classes and the schedule, I would expect some traction.  We've got scholarships and FBS schools on the schedule for a couple of years. If those are recruiting positives, you should expect some forward motion. Maybe they are positives and the coaching staff couldn't handle the kids he recruited or the expectations. Hard to say.  I do think we'll find out to some extent this year and I wish Coach Moorhead the best of luck.

I'm not sure you can definitely say that without FBS games we'd be worse off. Maybe yes, maybe no.

The reality is, we could only be worse off in a technical sense when it comes to on-the-field results.  You're right, we could have been 0 and 11.  We won one game and (aside from the the URI game) the losses weren't close.

You are right int that one cannot definitively say that without FBS games we'd be worse off.  As you pointed out, it would be hard to be much worse than we were.  My point tough was more theoretical and more an argument of logic. If an equation we call FBS games letter Z, then we can say that A + Z > A where A is everything else we have to offer.  And I used Z intentionally b/c it might be one of the last things a recruit considers, in theory, but it is still of some value.

[An Old Coach]

you question their priorities yet your assumptions about what they are considering don't include any reference to a free education at a top 50 University?  sounds like you're the one with the wrong priorities. 

No one has indicated that having an FBS game is anywhere near a primary reason that a kid chooses a school yet you immediately contort the argument to make it sound as if that's what is being said.  Once again, bad form.

Excelent point and I'm glad you made it.  The idea, though is that with scholarships, we should be about getting very good football players, who also want a great education.  So far, it seems like we're succeeding in getting the kids who want a great education...

Actually, those who continue to point to scheduling FBS as a recruiting asset, seem to be saying it is a fairly important factor.  If it isn't, I don't know why we're scheduling these games.  Surely, alumni and fans aren't demanding it and the payday isn't as large as many would suggest.

[sleuth]

Cinci announced it's 2012 schedule today, and yes Fordham is scheduled for October 13th.

http://www.foxsportsohio.com/03/27/12/Bearcats-announce-2012-football-schedule/landing_ucbearcats.html?blockID=697028&feedID=3852