Untitled Document
American Army Bucknell Colgate Holy Cross Lafayette Lehigh Navy



 Page 1 of 4 1234
Username Post: Bucknell FB        (Topic#21839)
bison63 
Postdoc
Posts: 3857

Reg: 01-23-06
09-09-18 08:26 PM - Post#261061    

What’s it say about Bucknell Football that :

Joe Susan has been here for nearly a decade, and we are still a 5-6/6-5 team. If you think he is a good coach, then what is the problem, what is he not being given to make the Bison a consistent winner.

More than 24 hours after a hard fought, but nonetheless convincing loss to Sacred Heart (who?)nary a word appeared on this board about what happened yesterday live on the Stadium network and Facebook. Apparently nobody cares. This bothers me because when I attended Bucknell (a very long time ago) Football mattered. Basketball got a lot of interest, but FB was the big sport. I for one, am delighted at the rise of BU Basketball, but the total lack of interest in football, as evidenced by very low attendance, and continued run of .500 at best seasons disturbs me. Having a TV game is embarrassing when the stands are virtually empty. I know the weather was bad yesterday, but I also know that the stands would have been sparsely populated regardless.

If the University does not care about football, why not just give it up and put the money toward getting basketball teams that can win games in theDance? Otherwise how about committing to do what it takes to field a winner?

Just sayin’



 
KenZ 
Postdoc
Posts: 2777
KenZ
Reg: 01-23-06
Bucknell FB
09-09-18 09:26 PM - Post#261062    
    In response to bison63

i think you ask some very valid questions. with the exception of a few years during the Gadd era this has been the story of Bucknell football for 30+ years. i won't attempt to speak for others, but for me it has simply felt too futile to get invested or even bother debating these questions on the board when nothing changes whether it is required administrative commitment:
- to provride lacking financial resources if that is the problem, or
- to address the coaching/internal problems if the necessary resources have been provided.

if we want to have a debate on your last points, let it begin

 
Bison69 
Freshman
Posts: 11

Reg: 03-03-12
Bucknell FB
09-10-18 01:41 AM - Post#261068    
    In response to KenZ

Thank you for posting this bison63. I share your dismay and frustration. Football was better supported by students when I went there, lo these many decades ago, but it would probably be inaccurate to say there was good support even then. Lewisburg High games on Friday nights substantially outdrew the Bison in the same stadium.

I was an unrecruited walk-on and the facilities were unbelievably poor at the time. I played in HS at the smallest NJ school with a football program and even we had better facilities then than BU. I know the stadium was refurbished a number of years ago but I can't imagine they are a selling point.

My years at BU proved to be transitional ones for the football program. Before I went there, we had mostly winning years and the prior head coach, Bob Odell had been very successful. During my 4 years, the Carroll Huntress years, we went 19-19 and with the exception of Gadd have had losing coach after losing coach after losing coach since. I was optimistic Susan would stop the slide. After all, he knew the school, was well connected and recruited throughout the area for years, had been associated with the turnaround at Rutgers and had even been head coach for a year and been undefeated. What more could you ask for? The fact that his tenure has done little to restore the program suggests to me the problem is not the coaching staff but has to do with how the university regards football and that it's a problem some 50 years in the making.

Personally, after ~50 years of hoping for a turnaround I have begun to think that if the administration doesn't care that 5-6 is now the high water mark for the program then it's time to drop the sport. Student athletes who commit their collegiate years to represent the university deserve better support than this and this level of performance is doing nothing for the university's image.




Edited by Bison69 on 09-10-18 01:45 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

 
Bison137 
Professor
Posts: 16147
Bison137
Reg: 01-23-06
09-10-18 10:16 AM - Post#261073    
    In response to Bison69

I share the frustration. I few quick comments.

1. Bucknell has not supported the program to allow it to compete on a level playing field. Facilities are below average, and for years they have put off building a new football/lacrosse facility that has been on the drawing board. Bucknell always gave a lot less athletic aid than other PL schools. When the league went to scholarships, I thought that would level the playing field. It did to some extent, but apparently not completely. Here is what the PL schools have averaged in expenditures on scholarships, salaries, and recruiting over the past two years:

Bucknell University $4,588,818.50
Colgate University $5,211,155.50
College of the Holy Cross $4,837,320.00
Fordham University $5,881,798.50
Lafayette College $5,585,045.50
Lehigh University $4,601,184.00

Part of the difference is that Bucknell employs two fewer assistant coaches than any other PL team - which is an important difference that helps point out the unlevel playing field.

2. Other than Bucknell and Georgetown, all other PL members always have a number of 5th year players (those who allegedly lost a year due to injury). If you look back at rosters for Lehigh, Lafayette, Holy Cross, Fordham, and Colgate, they have each had over fifty 5th year players over the past 15 years. Bucknell has had ZERO. BU administration makes it extremely hard to get clearance for a 5th year and I am not sure what the position is of the coaching staff. In any event, having four or five fifth year players every year is a huge advantage. Further, many of BU's OOC opponents, schhols like William & Mary and Sacred Heart, redshirt most of their players - which gives them an advantage that is very hard to overcome.

3. I also had hopes that Susan would improve things. I think he is a really good guy, but it appaers he is in way over his head for this situation. His offense looks like something copied from an old Woody Hayes playbook. Despite a mediocre line, they attempt to overpower the other team with the running game or with passes thrown less than 3 yards down the field. Only once or twice a game do they try to throw long - which allows the opposing defense to crowd the line. I used to think the problem was the OC, until two years ago when they brought in a new OC known for a wide-open offense. Despite the new OC, nothing has changed - which makes it apparent that the problem is with the head coach. To give the team any chance to be competitive, they need to totally open up the offense, eliminate the predictability, and throw down the field occasionally. I realize that there is a QB issue, but the current offensive scheme makes it that much harder for whoever plays the position.

At the end of the season, I think it is time for a coaching change. Take a chance on a young, aggressive coordinator, one who will leave the program in five years if he is successful, instead of going with a mediocre coach who is willing to stay for his whole career.

4. As for the crowds, as 63 pointed out Saturday's crowd in the rain was disappointing. However the previous week they drew over 5000, including a decent student turnout. That is more than Colgate or Fordham typically draw. They will almost never outdraw Lehigh, Lafayette, or HC - who are located in large population centers with tens of thousand of alums nearly - but only a few thousand less. If the Bison were successful, they could draw almost as many. One thing that's certain is that after years of neglect, Bucknell finally has started marketing the team more aggressively. But it will take some success on the field before crowds pick up. It also would help if they didn't play such boring football.

5. As for dropping football, that argument can certainly be made - but I think it would anger a lot of alums and possibly cost Bucknell a significant amount of donations and a certain percentage of student applications. The better solution imo is to fix the problem, and not just put a band-aid on it, which has been the traditional approach.





 
Bucknellbisonfan21 
Masters Student
Posts: 548
Bucknellbisonfan21
Loc: Bloomsburg
Reg: 11-12-15
09-10-18 11:01 AM - Post#261076    
    In response to Bison137

I could actually hear the Sacred Heart coaches calling out some of bucknell’s plays before the ball was snapped and they were mostly correct.

I actually think the future could have some potential if they can build around the freshman running back (can’t remember name or number off the top of my head) and the freshman receiver (number 5). Both seem like they will be good players. I think a big key in building around them will be getting a quarterback who is a threat to run. Every team we play seems to always have a quarterback who can run and is a threat to keep the ball in read option plays. Susan seems to like the pocket passing type QB’s so it might take a coaching change to get a running QB.

I can’t speak for the locker room facilities but from a fans perspective I like the game day experience at Christy Mathewson with the exception of one thing. The stadium desperately needs a new scoreboard, the current one is probably from the 80’s .

 
bison63 
Postdoc
Posts: 3857

Reg: 01-23-06
09-10-18 11:10 AM - Post#261078    
    In response to Bison137

Thanks for the input. Glad to see I am not the only one feeling this way. I should also have recognized in my original post, that Coach Susan HAS ended the era of Bucknell as the laughing stock of the PL. 5-6 is better than 3-8 and 50 point losses to Lehigh.I think 69 echoed what I am thinking, that the problem is a lot higher than the coach, but 137 as usual raises a lot of interesting points. As for a new coach after this season, I am not there yet UNLESS, the new AD is convinced that the problem is coaching as opposed to support, and that he in turn is committed to fixing the problem. I doubt that he has at this early stage of his tenure arrived at any definitive conclusions about the coaching staff, but who knows?

As for crowds, 69 is right, Lewisburg and the surrounding area was never Gaga over BU. football. HS Friday night lights was the king. Nonetheless, students turned out in much larger numbers than now ( with a student body of half today’s). I do remember a crowd of 10,000 for a Homecoming game. This in the day when there was a Homecoming parade featuring area HS bands which attended the game afterwards. The bands, alums helped swell that crowd from the more typical 5,000 in those days. It was also a winning program as that was the O’dell era. My freshman year the team was 4-5 with a huge home win over Rutgers (15-8). After that season the team won two of the next four Lambert Cups and missed a third by virtue of a 9-6 loss to Delaware in Newark that led to the Hens getting the cup. O’dell went to his alma mater Penn a few years later, and the slide began.

 
Bison137 
Professor
Posts: 16147
Bison137
Reg: 01-23-06
09-10-18 11:37 AM - Post#261079    
    In response to bison63

One comment on student support. Sadly students don't support football at any PL schools or similar schools. As good as Lehigh and Colgate and Fordham have been, they draw very few students. And HC and LC draw even less. That is the way things are these days. But Bucknell student support is not worse than at other PL schools, especially when you consider the lack of success.




 
JPM 
Masters Student
Posts: 449
JPM
Reg: 05-20-08
09-10-18 03:44 PM - Post#261083    
    In response to Bison137

I spoke to a trustee of an Ivy university over the weekend. His view is that at least one Ivy will drop football in the next 10-15 years. He cited the health issues (primarily CTE) inherent in football as a driving factor.

In the longer run, he believes that football will become a regional sport (similar to lacrosse) outside the P-5 conferences.

 
Bison54 
PhD Student
Posts: 1800
Bison54
Reg: 11-18-09
09-10-18 05:19 PM - Post#261085    
    In response to JPM

That's not a surprise. My understanding is that participation in various youth football programs is down, and further that participation in high school programs is also down. Some programs are being cancelled because of declining participation, one HS in NJ recently cancelled its schedule as they had only 22 participants.
Some of this is attributed to concerns with regard to head injury, and some is attributed to the number of other sports alternatives available to youth.


 
Bison137 
Professor
Posts: 16147
Bison137
Reg: 01-23-06
09-10-18 06:16 PM - Post#261087    
    In response to Bison54

I think the players now playing football will show a very significant drop in the pct with CTE due to the concussion protocols that have been developed. Many NFL players in the past had over 20 concussions. Some had more than 50 based on reasonable estimates. Some had 2 or 3 in one game, a situation that doctors say dramatically increases the probability of permanent damage. I even know of high school players who had two or more in one game and five or more during their HS career. That rarely if ever happens with the new protocols. It shouldn't ever happen.

One other thing is that the many rule changes have clearly affected the safety of the game, banning blows to the head and most helmet-to-helmet contact. Also the new NFL kickoff rule should eliminate many concussions, which are much more prevalent on kickoffs than on other plays.

By the time football has been shown to be safer, however, the number of people playing it may have declined markedly.




 
jkrun80 
Postdoc
Posts: 3305

Age: 65
Reg: 05-07-12
09-10-18 08:20 PM - Post#261091    
    In response to Bison137

Here's my opinion, though I have no right to an opinion having attended exactly one BU football game (Fordham in 2014 - quite a game).

Most of the issues stem from:
1. more stringent academic standards than other PL schools
2. lack of flexibility in academic scheduling (most, if not all, other PL schools carve out 2-3 hours for extra curricular activities
3. excess influence of faculty in setting university policy (see above)
4. lack of support from university administration (including funding support)
5. lack of tradition

Other schools use some or all of these as recruiting tools against us.


 
A Western Bison 
Sophomore
Posts: 179

Age: 65
Loc: Albuquerque
Reg: 07-05-12
09-11-18 01:25 AM - Post#261100    
    In response to jkrun80

I appreciate this discussion tremendously. The entire conference is engaged in some soul-searching regarding football, as no one seems to be where they had hoped this far into the scholarship era.

The red-shirt situation is my greatest concern, because if William and Mary can basically give everyone an extra year, that year is of seniority, size and maturity is gained over the PL in general and Bucknell in particular. I don't know, but such a shift would not only have its only direct costs, but also be reflected in Title IX commitments.


 
RichH 
Sophomore
Posts: 159

Age: 76
Reg: 01-30-12
09-11-18 01:02 PM - Post#261109    
    In response to A Western Bison

From the outside, much of what has been said here echoes what I've read on all our boards from time to time. Agree, I think administration support and the Head Coach may be the major issues. The talent level at Bucknell is not vastly different than most PL squads. Offensive scheme seems adequate to get yards but not to score points.In scouting Bison, most concentrate on the vanilla O and QB. I note your frosh QB has the potential to be a real difference maker. Dont know whether that is possible in your current offensive scheme.
As to the rest, we are all feeling the pain of PL restrictions and, in my opinion, a poor transition to schollie recruiting.In order to compete better in OOC games, we need more better players. That entails a lot of luck with with partials and/or giving more full rides. Lehigh has opted for the latter the last 2 years. We did get much better classes but we we now have only 78 on the roster. Admittedly, we also lost 5-6 players due to jnjuries, some of which ended careers. Situation does highlight tho the problem with roster and schollie caps. There is no leeway at all for coaches to adjust to the not uncommon events that occur in every progam.

 
HuskyColonial 
PhD Student
Posts: 1976

Age: 50
Reg: 02-17-12
09-12-18 07:32 AM - Post#261126    
    In response to RichH

Everything else has been covered here so I’ll just chip in with a question: How many other head coaches would still have a job with Susan’s record at any other school? In my mind, zero.

 
DoCtoR62 
Masters Student
Posts: 463

Reg: 05-18-08
09-12-18 01:03 PM - Post#261154    
    In response to HuskyColonial

Bucknell has seemingly always been hesitant when making changes to the football staff. I think it is both an acknowledgement the University's support might not be on par with the competition as well as a lack of willingness to invest more into the program. Almost any new, respected head coach would come in with demands to upgrade the program.

The future of the program is, IMO, up for great debate. The previous AD was a football guy. His accomplishments at Bucknell were many, yet he could never get the football program to a competitive level.

A cost/benefit analysis of upgrading football vs an analysis of dropping it is likely happening on many campuses. At Bucknell (and I assume other places), that analysis will likely be very different in the not too distant future when the most ardent alumni supporters are lost. We know there is still strong interest and support from those in the '60s, but do we really think alums from the last 30-40 years will be as passionate about the program? I don't.

Within the last decade, both Hofstra and Northeastern dropped football, not because they could not afford it, but because they could not afford to excel in it. If the University ever decides mediocre is no longer acceptable, I'm guessing they'd make the same decision (w/o some type of change to NCAA rules that would allow a change to a lower level).

One last obstacle not mentioned above is Penn State. I know when I was at Bucknell in the '80s, there were many Lewisburg residents who were both fans of Bucknell and even friends of the coaching staff who would choose Penn State games over Bucknell games ... either driving to Beaver Stadium or staying home to watch on TV. With no student support (which Bison137 notes is universal), no local support (prefer PSU) and no young alumni connection, who do we think we can build a tradition off of?

 
Bison89 
Professor
Posts: 5370
Bison89
Loc: Philadelphia
Reg: 11-14-07
09-12-18 01:23 PM - Post#261155    
    In response to HuskyColonial

  • HuskyColonial Said:
Everything else has been covered here so I’ll just chip in with a question: How many other head coaches would still have a job with Susan’s record at any other school? In my mind, zero.



Husky, that is a valid point. I was recruited by Coach Susan a LONG time ago. He is a very nice guy who is hard working, but he is not having a lot of success in the W column. Personally, I think that a younger, hungry coach might be the way to go. We need to keep in mind that a younger coach would treat Bucknell as a stepping stone.
New season, new team, new dream . . .


 
HuskyColonial 
PhD Student
Posts: 1976

Age: 50
Reg: 02-17-12
09-12-18 01:52 PM - Post#261158    
    In response to DoCtoR62

Why isn't Bucknell playing Penn State? or Pitt or Ohio State?

If funding is a problem, take a $1 million paycheck game each year while giving the guys a change to play on a huge stage.

 
Bison137 
Professor
Posts: 16147
Bison137
Reg: 01-23-06
09-12-18 03:15 PM - Post#261161    
    In response to HuskyColonial

I know a few years ago they were well into negotiations to play PSU, but then the Big Ten issued an edict about no more scheduling of FCS teams. That ended those discussions. Later they rescinded the rule, but I don't think any new discussions occurred.




 
jkrun80 
Postdoc
Posts: 3305

Age: 65
Reg: 05-07-12
09-12-18 06:27 PM - Post#261169    
    In response to HuskyColonial

  • HuskyColonial Said:
Why isn't Bucknell playing Penn State? or Pitt or Ohio State?

If funding is a problem, take a $1 million paycheck game each year while giving the guys a change to play on a huge stage.


Because they don't want to lose 77-0. I don't see how that helps the program other than financially.

 
jkrun80 
Postdoc
Posts: 3305

Age: 65
Reg: 05-07-12
09-12-18 06:32 PM - Post#261170    
    In response to HuskyColonial

  • HuskyColonial Said:
Everything else has been covered here so I’ll just chip in with a question: How many other head coaches would still have a job with Susan’s record at any other school? In my mind, zero.


There is a good culture among the team, they are very successful academically, so that somewhat offsets the mediocre results (with the exception of 2014). I've heard coaches of other sports say it's remarkable he's maintained a .500 average given the obstacles the administration places in his way. But cuts in Athletics in the next few years wouldn't surprise me and football will be looked at long and hard.

 
 Page 1 of 4 1234
Icon Legend Permissions Topic Options
Report Post

Quote Post

Quick Reply

Print Topic

Email Topic

6276 Views



Copyright © 2004-2012 Basketball U. Terms of Use for our Site and Privacy Policy are applicable to you. All rights reserved.
Basketball U. and its subsidiaries are not affiliated in any way with any NCAA athletic conference or member institution.
FusionBB™ Version 2.1 | ©2003-2007 InteractivePHP, Inc.
Execution time: 0.457 seconds.   Total Queries: 16   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0500) Eastern. Current time is 08:19 AM
Top