Game 5 (2016): Tulane

Get ready for some MACtion
78
Hall of Fame
Posts: 8078
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 11:52 pm
Location: Near Boston

Re: Game 5 (2016): Tulane

Post by 78 » Sat Oct 01, 2016 9:27 pm

It's sad. They'll have to pay people to come or the Wagner contest.
Bamford has erased McCutcheon

Online
minutefanjsf
Hall of Fame
Posts: 2792
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:17 am

Re: Game 5 (2016): Tulane

Post by minutefanjsf » Sat Oct 01, 2016 10:05 pm

photoman wrote:Yes, uniforms were the best. 14-0 early lead was great while it lasted, which unfortunately wasn't very long. As for those who said it might be very difficult to equal the 3 win total from last year....they're looking prophetic right now. The "homecoming crowd" was a terrible disappointment as well. Lots of empty concrete and aluminum if you know what I mean. Just saw announced attendance on the box score of 14,892. That must've been measured by someone wearing double-vision maroon goggles.
Ticket sales, not actual attendance. The rain scared lots away. Where do we find a win aside from Wagner?

TheInsider
Hall of Fame
Posts: 4435
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 9:12 am

Re: Game 5 (2016): Tulane

Post by TheInsider » Sun Oct 02, 2016 6:24 am

Dumb mistakes and terrible play calling for a couple quarters... when we went spread and fast with short to medium throws and runs to the outide we moved the ball. Then in classic.umass fashion they go away from what works. Did Whip not like they way Ford was handing the ball off up the middle? Comis is a better runner, but unless we are going to a spread option offense Ford's passing numbers are way better. Just look at the passing stats.. they aren't even in the same stadium. It will be tough to run a pro style offense with a guy the completes well under 50% of his passes.

User avatar
LS71
Hall of Fame
Posts: 8083
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 8:55 pm
Location: Lost in Space

Re: Game 5 (2016): Tulane

Post by LS71 » Sun Oct 02, 2016 6:42 am

The good news is that they led at the half. The bad news is that it was the wrong one.

Guys you want have the lead at the end of the 2nd half! :? :wink:
"Win without boasting, lose without crying." -- Julius Erving

User avatar
Berkman
Hall of Fame
Posts: 6885
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 2:38 pm
Location: Mooresville, NC
Contact:

Re: Game 5 (2016): Tulane

Post by Berkman » Sun Oct 02, 2016 9:03 am

What I can't understand is why we have to run up the middle on the first play each time. After a couple of no gains I would think Whip would come up with something else.

User avatar
Swampy
Hall of Fame
Posts: 4120
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 9:21 am
Contact:

Re: Game 5 (2016): Tulane

Post by Swampy » Sun Oct 02, 2016 9:26 am

When people are posting about how great the unis look you know it's going to be a long day/season on the gridiron.

No rain, homecoming, tailgate with friends, watching competitive game with family, hearing the cannons a couple of times = a pretty good afternoon. The only thing I missed was saying hello and having a nip of Jim Beam with IV and Joey.

Fight, fight Massachusetts,
Fight, fight every play,
Fight, fight for a touchdown,
Fight all your might today.
Fight down the field Massachusetts,
The stars and stripes will gleam,
Fight, fight for old Bay State,
Fight for the team, team, team.

Online
minutefanjsf
Hall of Fame
Posts: 2792
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:17 am

Re: Game 5 (2016): Tulane

Post by minutefanjsf » Sun Oct 02, 2016 11:49 am

TheInsider wrote:Dumb mistakes and terrible play calling for a couple quarters... when we went spread and fast with short to medium throws and runs to the outide we moved the ball. Then in classic.umass fashion they go away from what works. Did Whip not like they way Ford was handing the ball off up the middle? Comis is a better runner, but unless we are going to a spread option offense Ford's passing numbers are way better. Just look at the passing stats.. they aren't even in the same stadium. It will be tough to run a pro style offense with a guy the completes well under 50% of his passes.
Ford was 11-19. Ford didn't play against BC and Florida. His numbers should be better. Ford was missing open receivers and his throws were all over the place, too high too low. Up until yesterday, I would've agreed with your assessment that Ford was a better passer. In pregame warm ups, Ross was throwing lasers and Ford was having trouble. The competition question is moot, though if Comis is injured.

baseline47
Senior
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 4:59 pm
Location: Amherst, MA

Re: Game 5 (2016): Tulane

Post by baseline47 » Sun Oct 02, 2016 11:54 am

Only good thing about the Tulane game was the band. A winnable game that was lost through mistakes which extended Tulane drives. Originally I thought Whipple was a great hire, now I have to wonder. Yesterday, his team did not play smart football.

We are, again, looking at a 2 or 3 win season (hopefully). Attendance continues to be poor which is the result of two factors: (1) Massachusetts isn't Alabama or Florida or Texas, etc. where football is king, and (2) the product (UMass football) is painful to watch. I have to wonder about the wisdom of continuing our FBS experiment. No FBS stadium, no fan base, no league, inability to attract better players, etc. The definition of insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.
"Drive the line!", "Baseline" Givens, Spfld. Tech. High.

Roadtrip
Hall of Fame
Posts: 3807
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 1:54 pm
Location: Back in FL
Contact:

Re: Game 5 (2016): Tulane

Post by Roadtrip » Sun Oct 02, 2016 2:05 pm

I hear ya, baseline. As fans, we have no idea what the administration's goals were/are. If the goal was to have a FBS team, that goal is met.
If the goal is to have a competitive team, they have a long way to go, through rather murky circumstances. If the goal is to have a large, rabid fanbase, and a championship contending team, then they are probably delusional. As stated previously, I believe they waited far to long to make the move from FCS, and even if they had moved up 20, or so, years ago, they might now be competitive in a G5 conference, but UMass football will not ever be big time.

photoman
Senior
Posts: 1165
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 8:25 pm
Location: Attleboro

Re: Game 5 (2016): Tulane

Post by photoman » Sun Oct 02, 2016 2:23 pm

Sobering thoughts by roadtrip and baseline. I still think the McGuirk inaction is potentially the biggest indicator of administration's thoughts on the FBS situation. It's also keeping things in the experimental category. They're certainly not going to build a new stadium, and THEN drop football, so they seem to be riding it out to see how long they can continue while doing nothing to time-battered McGuirk. A few years back, with our first FBS coach, you might remember the old slogan, "ALL IN". Is administration "all in"? It's definitely a point of concern.

User avatar
LS71
Hall of Fame
Posts: 8083
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 8:55 pm
Location: Lost in Space

Re: Game 5 (2016): Tulane

Post by LS71 » Sun Oct 02, 2016 3:21 pm

That we were looking at another long season was a given. UMass may still not be winning, but this year's team is definitely more competitive. Whipple has had exactly one recruiting cycle and this is season two for him, this time around. It takes longer than that to undo the damage Molnar did to the program. There are 44 freshmen/redshirt freshmen on the roster.

Feels to me like the program is on the right track. The doom and gloom drama is unnecessary.

The uniforms? I hate the grays and I hate the all maroon look. I'm just happy to see them look a UMass team

.
"Win without boasting, lose without crying." -- Julius Erving

Online
minutefanjsf
Hall of Fame
Posts: 2792
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:17 am

Re: Game 5 (2016): Tulane

Post by minutefanjsf » Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:03 pm

LS71 wrote:That we were looking at another long season was a given. UMass may still not be winning, but this year's team is definitely more competitive. Whipple has had exactly one recruiting cycle and this is season two for him, this time around. It takes longer than that to undo the damage Molnar did to the program. There are 44 freshmen/redshirt freshmen on the roster.

Feels to me like the program is on the right track. The doom and gloom drama is unnecessary.

The uniforms? I hate the grays and I hate the all maroon look. I'm just happy to see them look a UMass team

.
I agree this team was on a downward trajectory with KMO and then hit rock bottom with Molnar. This is Whipple’s second full recruiting class cycle, not first. This is year three for Whip 2.0. I think the five year plan we had when Molnar was hired has turned into at least 6 possibly 7. It is very tough to identify how playing those P5 teams have impacted the team this year. It looks to me that we are pretty beat up. I am looking forward to see how this team finishes this season, we are not even halfway through. I am looking more towards next year, though, to see how we do against a somewhat less daunting schedule. McGUirk will get some fixes this year before all the games return to Amherst next year. They will be small scale-no new seating, etc, according to the AD. My guess is some concourse work, lighting, possible additional permanent bathrooms, scoreboard for the north end zone, maybe some permanent concessions. Nothing will touch the existing structure though to keep away from having to meet ADA compliance.

User avatar
Rolling Ridge
Junior
Posts: 386
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:17 pm

Re: Game 5 (2016): Tulane

Post by Rolling Ridge » Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:16 pm

LS71 wrote:That we were looking at another long season was a given. UMass may still not be winning, but this year's team is definitely more competitive. Whipple has had exactly one recruiting cycle and this is season two for him, this time around. It takes longer than that to undo the damage Molnar did to the program. There are 44 freshmen/redshirt freshmen on the roster.
I think this is right. We talked with the wife of a football staff member during our tailgate yesterday. She really drove home for me the depth of damage Molnar did to this program. It was an almost complete restart with Whipple, and there hasn't been enough time to get quality recruits into the game. We are just completely overpowered on the lines, and you can't do much else without quality line play.

So it's going to take more time. I was encouraged to hear from the person I was talking to that the football staff feel they are getting very close to fielding a competitive team. It doesn't look like it right now, but sometimes it's darkest before the dawn.

As far as what the administration wants to accomplish with football, I think it's pretty simple. They want a program that excites and galvanizes students and alums in a way that actually makes a difference if the program is successful. For all our success at the FCS level, the football program never galvanized the kind of support it could have and should have. We pay the price for that with a disengaged alumni base and tepid school spirit among students. The administration has done a fantastic job of turning that around in the past 8-10 years, but a successful football program with a higher profile would make a huge difference. So if we can be successful, the upside is tremendous, and there really is no downside since it isn't clear FCS will be viable long term anyway - and even if it is it doesn't really help the University that much.

Admittedly, success at the FBS level seems like a pretty big "if" right now. But it isn't like they're mortgaging the University's future to do this, and if the team can turn it around and achieve success, I think the fans will come and the alumni support will be there, despite these terrible transition years. Students may be a tougher nut to crack, but if the success with basketball is any indicator, they will come if we get some higher profile success.

So, patience. As hard as that is, and believe me I'm about ready to cash it in for this year after yesterday's performance. But we have to keep our eyes on the prize and understand what a giant hole we started in, only to be further buried by our first FBS-era coach.

Floyd
Hall of Fame
Posts: 9559
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 8:50 am
Location: Not where I should be

Re: Game 5 (2016): Tulane

Post by Floyd » Sun Oct 02, 2016 5:51 pm

^ Good post RR
I've watched all the games that I could on tv and was encouraged that they looked better than last year. But yesterday after that first 5 min was tough. Hope the young guys develop, especially the line play as yesterday it looked like Tulane did whatever they wanted. It'll take a bit, but I have faith in Whip and the staff
Time to Win

Online
minutefanjsf
Hall of Fame
Posts: 2792
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:17 am

Re: Game 5 (2016): Tulane

Post by minutefanjsf » Sun Oct 02, 2016 6:45 pm

As fans it is difficult to handle failure, but it is even more difficult if you are a player, player family or related to anyone "on the inside". It's nice to hear someone in the inside being optimistic. Also, the fact we couldn't stop the run was not dissimilar to how the Cowboys destroyed the 49ers today. It happens and it is very difficult to comprehend from the sidelines how a team can not stop a play it knows is coming.

Post Reply