Gridiron Countdown: The Citadel’s 2014 run/pass tendencies, per-play averages, 4th-down decision-making, and more

Posted on August 4, 2015 by Sandlapper Spike

Also in the “Gridiron Countdown” series:

Preseason ratings, featuring The Citadel (and the rest of the SoCon)

What teams will the Bulldogs’ opponents play before facing The Citadel?

The Citadel competes to win games — and fans

—

Link of interest:

Jeff Hartsell of The Post and Courier writes about The Citadel’s quarterback/slotback situation

—

Last year, I wrote about tendencies in playcalling by the then-new coach of the Bulldogs, Mike Houston (and his offensive coordinator, Brent Thompson), and compared what Houston had done while at Lenoir-Rhyne the year before to Kevin Higgins’ last two seasons at The Citadel. This post will be similar.

This time, I’m comparing what Houston and company did last year at The Citadel with the 2013 season for the Bulldogs, as well as the aforementioned 2013 Lenoir-Rhyne campaign. My focus, as it was last year, is on down-and-distance run/pass tendencies, fourth down decision-making, and assorted other statistical comparisons.

Most of the statistics that follow are based on conference play, and only conference play. That’s where the gridiron success or failure of The Citadel will be judged, not on games against Florida State or Charlotte.

The conference slates looked like this:

  • The Bulldogs played seven games in 2014 versus SoCon opposition. The teams in the league last year: Wofford, Western Carolina, Chattanooga, Mercer, Furman, Samford, and VMI.
  • The Citadel played eight games in 2013 against SoCon foes. As a reminder, those opponents were: Wofford, Western Carolina, Furman, Appalachian State, Georgia Southern, Chattanooga, Samford, and Elon.
  • Lenoir-Rhyne is a member of D-II’s South Atlantic Conference. In 2013, the Bears played seven league games in 2013 versus the following schools: Wingate, Tusculum, Brevard, Newberry, Mars Hill, Carson-Newman, and Catawba.

Some definitions:

– 2nd-and-short: 3 yards or less for a first down
– 2nd-and-medium: 4 to 6 yards for a first down
– 2nd-and-long: 7+ yards for a first down
– 3rd-and-short: 2 yards or less for a first down
– 3rd-and-medium: 3 to 4 yards for a first down
– 3rd-and-long: 5+ yards for a first down

The first number that will follow each down-and-distance category will be the percentage of time The Citadel ran the ball in that situation in 2014. Next to that, in parenthesis, is the run percentage for The Citadel in 2013, and that will be followed by Lenoir-Rhyne’s run percentage for that situation in 2013 (which will be in brackets).

For example, when it came to running the ball on first down, the numbers looked like this:

– 1st-and-10 (or goal to go): 88.9% (77.1%) [92.1%]

Thus, The Citadel ran the ball on first down 88.9% of the time last year, while the Bulldogs ran the ball in that situation 77.1% of the time in 2013. Lenoir-Rhyne ran the ball 92.1% of the time on first down during its 2013 campaign.

Lenoir-Rhyne went undefeated in SAC play in 2013 and had substantial leads in the second half in most of its league games, which probably explains the slightly higher percentage of first down run plays (as compared to last year’s team at The Citadel, which was coached by the same staff). I don’t think the fairly sizable difference between the Bulldogs’ 2013 and 2014 squads in this category is an accident.

Overall, The Citadel passed the ball on 15.7% of its plays last season in league action. As a comparison, Lenoir-Rhyne threw the ball only 10.8% of the time in 2013 SAC play.

Here are the rest of the down-and-distance categories:

– 2nd-and-short: 84.0% (95.8%) [90.0%]
– 2nd-and-medium: 90.2% (87.8%) [87.7%]
– 2nd-and-long: 82.2% (75.0%) [84.1%]
– 3rd-and-short: 95.5% (85.7%) [95.8%]
– 3rd-and-medium: 90.3% (90.9%) [93.1%]
– 3rd-and-long: 57.4% (54.0%) [71.1%]

A caveat to these numbers is that there were a few called pass plays that turned into runs.

There were also six would-be pass attempts in conference play that resulted in sacks. However, those six plays are considered pass attempts in terms of playcalling, even though the yardage lost in sacks is subtracted from a team’s rushing totals (this is how the NCAA does it; in the NFL, sacks go against a team’s passing yardage).

I think the bracketed percentages (from Lenoir-Rhyne’s 2013 season) probably come close to Brent Thompson’s ideal in terms of how often he wants to run the football in those down-and-distance situations. Other than 3rd-and-long, The Citadel’s playcalling last year was very similar to what the Bears did that season. Again, that reflects the difference between a team that was usually in the lead versus a team that wasn’t always so fortunate.

In 2013 conference play, Lenoir-Rhyne only attempted one pass in a 3rd-and-short situation. It fell incomplete. In 2014 league action, The Citadel only attempted one pass in a 3rd-and-short situation; however, that came on the final play of the game against Samford, and shouldn’t really count as a standard down-and-distance playcalling situation.

That 2013 Lenoir-Rhyne squad attempted three passes on 2nd-and-short. Two of them were incomplete; the third try resulted in a sack.

Last year, The Citadel attempted four passes on 2nd-and-short. The first three of them fell incomplete.

In the season finale at VMI, however, the Bulldogs did complete a 2nd-and-short toss, a Miller connection (Aaron to Vinny) that went for 26 yards and set up a field goal to close out the first half of that contest. Upstairs in the Foster Stadium press box, Brent Thompson undoubtedly heaved a sigh of relief after calling his first successful 2nd/3rd-and-short pass play in league action in almost two years.

On a serious note, The Citadel has to convert at a higher rate when it passes the ball in 2nd- and 3rd-and-short situations. The offense must take advantage of having the element of surprise in its favor.

—

– The Citadel’s offense in 2013 in SoCon action: 69.6 plays per game, 12.0 possessions per game
– Lenoir-Rhyne’s offense in 2013 in SAC play: 73.0 plays per game, 12.1 possessions per game
– The Citadel’s offense in 2014 in SoCon action: 75.4 plays per game, 11.0 possessions per game*

*This does not include the Bulldogs’ overtime possession against Furman

As I mentioned last year, there is occasionally a misconception that under Mike Houston, Lenoir-Rhyne ran a “hurry up” offense. In truth it ran a “no huddle” offense. Indeed, it is hard to imagine too many “hurry up” offenses that only possess the football for eleven drives per game, as The Citadel did last season.

In 2014, The Citadel had a time of possession edge over its league opponents that exceeded five minutes (32:40 – 27:20). Holding on to the football is generally good for offensive production, to be sure, but it also is greatly beneficial for the Bulldogs’ defense. Keeping the other team’s offense off the field is often the best defense.

Incidentally, in 2013 Lenoir-Rhyne had an edge in time of possession versus its SAC opponents of over seven minutes (33:38 – 26:22).

—

– The Citadel’s offense in 2013 in SoCon action: 5.41 yards per play, including 5.13 yards per rush and 6.4 yards per pass attempt
– Lenoir-Rhyne’s offense in 2013 in SAC play: 6.09 yards per play, including 5.81 yards per rush and 8.5 yards per pass attempt
– The Citadel’s offense in 2014 in SoCon games: 5.56 yards per play, including 5.35 yards per rush and 6.8 yards per pass attempt

Last year, the Bulldogs’ offense improved in all three per-play categories listed above. I think the goal going forward might be for yards per rush to exceed 5.75, and for yards per pass attempt to exceed 8.0 (or at least 7.5). I don’t know what the coaching staff thinks about that, of course (or if they think about it at all).

—

Now let’s look at yards per play numbers for the defense:

– The Citadel’s defense in 2013 in SoCon action: 5.47 yards per play, including 4.39 yards per rush and 7.2 yards per pass attempt
– Lenoir-Rhyne’s defense in 2013 in SAC play: 4.25 yards per play, including 2.37 yards per rush and 6.2 yards per pass attempt
– The Citadel’s defense in 2014 in SoCon action: 7.02 yards per play, including 5.69 yards per rush and 9.1 yards per pass attempt

Uh, yikes.

This wasn’t a situation where a one-game outlier affected the average, either. The Citadel allowed more than seven yards per play in four of seven league contests. Not coincidentally, it allowed more than nine yards per pass attempt in four of seven league games as well.

The yards per rush statistics wouldn’t be so bad if the totals for the game against Western Carolina weren’t included, but that’s like asking Mary Todd Lincoln if the rest of the play was decent.

—

Did the Bulldogs consistently put pressure on the quarterback last year? Well, not exactly.

– The Citadel’s defense in 2013 in SoCon action: 12 sacks, 26 passes defensed in 204 attempts (12.7% PD)
– Lenoir-Rhyne’s defense in 2013 in SAC play: 32 sacks, 31 passes defensed in 212 pass attempts (14.6% PD)
– The Citadel’s defense in 2014 in SoCon action: 8 sacks, 14 passes defensed in 176 pass attempts (8.0% PD)

Passes defensed is a statistic that combines pass breakups with interceptions. Averaging only two passes defensed per game isn’t good, especially when opponents are throwing the ball 25 times per contest.

Hard and fast statistics in passes defensed are not easy to find at the FCS level, so I don’t know for certain how The Citadel stacked up on a national basis. Cross-division comparisons aren’t perfect, but I think it’s worth mentioning that Idaho finished last in all of FBS in 2014 in passes defensed per game, with an average of…two.

That isn’t all about the secondary, either. It is very hard to defend the pass when the quarterback has plenty of time to throw the ball (in addition to a measly eight sacks in league play, the Bulldogs only had eleven “hurries” in those seven games).

In seven conference games, The Citadel’s defense allowed 47 plays from scrimmage of 20 yards or more — 21 rushes and 26 pass plays.

Western Carolina had seven of those rushes. VMI’s Al Cobb personally accounted for eight 20+ yard plays from scrimmage against the Bulldogs (seven passes and a run).

Yes, there is a great deal of room for improvement on defense.

—

During the 2014 campaign, The Citadel’s offensive 3rd-down conversion rate in SoCon action was 46.3%, about in line with its conversion rate for all games (47.8%, best in the league). The Bulldogs’ offensive 4th-down conversion rate was 60% (12 for 20).

On defense, The Citadel held conference opponents to a 3rd-down conversion rate of 41.5%, which is a little better than it did when including all games (45.3%). However, the Bulldogs were not as good stopping opponents on third down as the upper-echelon SoCon squads were. Counting all games and not just league contests, both Chattanooga and Samford held their opponents below 33% for the season.

In 2015, The Citadel’s defense has to do a better job of “getting off the field” on third down. It also would help to pick up a few more stops on 4th down. League opponents converted 52.9% of 4th-down attempts against the Bulldogs.

Fourth-down stops were an issue against Samford (which converted on 4th down during both of its final two possessions, with each drive resulting in a touchdown) and Wofford (which went 4 for 4 on 4th down). Of course, the key to the game against the Terriers was a successful fourth-down conversion by The Citadel that was ignored by the on-field officials.

—

The red zone isn’t a misbegotten region of communist influence, but instead is a reference to the area of a football field inside the 20-yard line.

In SoCon play, The Citadel’s offensive TD rate in the red zone last year was 67% (18 TDs in 27 trips inside the 20). That was an improvement over 2013 (60% TD rate). Lenoir-Rhyne’s rate in 2013 was 73%.

League opponents successfully converted red zone appearances into touchdowns 60% of the time against the Bulldogs’ defense (15 TDs in 25 trips). Last season, that number was 67%. Mike Houston’s 2013 Lenoir-Rhyne squad only allowed opponents to score TDs in the red zone 46% of the time.

—

A quick look at fumbles:

In 2014 league play, The Citadel’s opponents fumbled fourteen times, with the Bulldogs recovering seven of them. On offense, The Citadel fumbled ten times, losing six of those.

There wasn’t any real “fumble luck” either way for the Bulldogs last season. When the ball hits the ground, each team usually has a 50-50 shot at getting it.

While there were a few ill-timed fumbles last season, I think it could be argued that The Citadel in general did a better job of not fumbling than might be expected for a triple option team. Aaron Miller has to get a lot of credit for that.

—

The Citadel was called for 37 penalties in seven league contests last season, an average of 5.3 per game. That is actually a little less than the number of infractions assessed against Lenoir-Rhyne in 2013 (6.1 per league matchup).

However, it was more than fans at Johnson Hagood Stadium had seen in recent years. The program had led FCS in fewest penalties per game for three consecutive seasons. Last year, The Citadel tied for 45th nationally in the category (counting all games, the Bulldogs were whistled for 5.9 penalties per contest).

—

– Punts by The Citadel while in opposing territory in 2013, SoCon action: 6 (in eight games)
– Punts by Lenoir-Rhyne while in opposing territory in 2013, SAC play: 3 (in seven games)
– Punts by The Citadel while in opposing territory in 2014, SoCon action: 6 (in seven games)

One of the six punts in opposing territory came in the season finale at VMI. Leading 45-25 early in the 4th quarter, the Bulldogs faced a 4th-and-7 on the VMI 33.

The Citadel wound up taking a delay-of-game penalty, moving the ball back to the VMI 38, and punted into the end zone for a touchback. Taking a delay penalty didn’t do anything in terms of taking time off the clock, because the previous play had been an incomplete pass.

Nevertheless, I see no particular reason to question a fairly conservative decision when up 3 scores in the 4th quarter. It’s too bad the net on the punt was only 18 yards (and in effect only 13 yards, taking into account the penalty).

Interestingly, the penalty-before-punt scenario was a part of four of the six punts The Citadel had in opposing territory.

Late in the first half against Western Carolina and holding an 8-7 lead, The Citadel lined up to go for it on 4th-and-2 at the Catamounts’ 39-yard line. The Bulldogs were called for a false start penalty, and wound up punting rather than going for it on 4th-and-7 from the WCU 44.

With less than six minutes remaining in the contest and the Bulldogs trailing 21-15, The Citadel again lined up to go for it in WCU territory. This time it was 4th-and-3 from the Catamounts’ 37-yard line — and once again, the Bulldogs were foiled by a false start penalty. On 4th-and-8 from the WCU 42, The Citadel punted.

Early in the fourth quarter against Furman, the Bulldogs faced a 4th-and-4 on the Paladins’ 43-yard line. The ensuing punt was a touchback.

Three plays later, Furman scored on a 65-yard pass play to take a 35-28 lead (though the Bulldogs would ultimately win the game in overtime).

Against Samford, The Citadel moved the ball to the SU 33 with just under a minute remaining in the first half, but wound up in a 4th-and-10 situation. Like the VMI game, the clock was stopped after an incomplete pass.

The Bulldogs wound up taking a delay-of-game penalty and punted into the end zone. Samford ran out the clock to end the half (with The Citadel trailing 7-0 at the break).

The Citadel’s opening offensive possession of the third quarter in that game resulted in another punt after crossing the 50. This time, the ball was on the Samford 47, and it was 4th-and-7.

None of the decisions to punt were egregious. The issue, of course, is that The Citadel had a limited number of possessions in any given game (as noted earlier, an average of 11). It’s critical to cash in when there are opportunities on a short field.

I don’t know if Mike Houston regrets any of these six decisions. If he didn’t, I could easily understand.

The most questionable of them was arguably the second punt in opposing territory against Western Carolina. Down six points in a game in which The Citadel would likely only get one more possession (and facing an offense that had moved the ball up and down the field all day against the Bulldogs’ defense), going for it may have been worth the gamble, even after the penalty.

—

Speaking of whether or not to go for it on 4th down, here is a summary of what The Citadel did in those situations in 2014 when the Bulldogs were inside the opponent’s 40-yard line (and also mentioning when the Bulldogs went for it in other areas of the field).

Not included in these numbers: 4th-down “desperation” or “garbage time” situations, and “accidental” fourth down tries. Last season, there were no “accidental” attempts (dropped punts, that type of thing).

I determined there were four “desperation” 4th-down tries, and one “garbage time” attempt. For the record, these five plays were:

– Down 34-7 to Chattanooga very late in the 3rd quarter, The Citadel went for it on 4th-and-3 from its own 49
– Down 29-15 to Western Carolina late in the 4th quarter, The Citadel went for it on 4th-and-6 from the WCU 19
– Down 17-13 to Wofford late in the 4th quarter, The Citadel went for it on 4th-and-4 from the Wofford 31
– Down 17-13 to Wofford very late in the 4th quarter, The Citadel went for it on 4th-and-3 from the Wofford 3
– Down 13-10 to Samford late in the 4th quarter, The Citadel went for it on 4th-and-3 from the Samford 38

Okay, now for some terms (as defined by Football Outsiders):

– Deep Zone: from a team’s own goal line to its 20-yard line
– Back Zone: from a team’s own 21-yard line to its 39-yard line
– Mid Zone: from a team’s own 40-yard line to its opponent’s 40-yard line
– Front Zone: from an opponent’s 39-yard line to the opponent’s 21-yard line
– Red Zone: from an opponent’s 20-yard line to the opponent’s goal line

In league play, The Citadel was faced with 4th-and-short in the Red Zone twice. The Bulldogs attempted a field goal (which was missed) late in the game at VMI. The other time the 4th-and-short situation came up was in overtime against Furman, and Aaron Miller ran for a first down inside the 2-yard line (he would score two plays later).

The only two times the Bulldogs had a 4th-and-medium situation in SoCon play in the Red Zone, Eric Goins successfully converted field goals (both against Wofford). I should mention that the decision to kick one of those field goals was influenced by the fact that only 19 seconds remained in the first half of the game.

Goins also kicked a field goal on the one occasion in which The Citadel faced a 4th-and-long in the Red Zone (versus Samford).

On 4th-and-short in the Front Zone, the Bulldogs went for it three times (not counting one of the two false start/punt situations that were discussed in the previous section of this post). The Citadel ran the ball all three times, and picked up the first down twice.

On 4th-and-medium in the Front Zone, The Citadel went for it twice (again, not including one of the false start/punt situations against Western Carolina).

One of those 4th-and-medium tries was a failed rushing attempt at Mercer. The other play, however, was a 32-yard TD pass from Aaron Miller to Alex Glover against VMI.

On 4th-and-long in the Front Zone, the Bulldogs did not have a lot of luck, missing all four field goal attempts in that situation, and also failing on a rushing attempt and a pass play.

The Citadel went for it six times on 4th-and-short in the Mid Zone, and made five of them (all six attempts were rushing plays). There was also a converted first down in this situation that was the result of the defense jumping offsides (that was against Furman).

Incidentally, one of the six attempts could have been considered a “desperation” situation. That came slightly more than midway through the fourth quarter against Samford. Later in the same drive, the Bulldogs were faced with another 4th-down call, and I did consider that one a “desperation” play. Your mileage may vary.

In reviewing all 4th-and-short situations for The Citadel’s offense in league play, it appears there was only one 4th-and-short situation in the Mid Zone in which Mike Houston did not go for the first down. That happened on the Bulldogs’ opening drive of the game against Chattanooga. On 4th-and-2 from its own 49, The Citadel punted.

I think this illustrates Houston’s philosophy on 4th-down decision-making fairly well. In 4th-and-short situations in the Red, Front, and Mid zones, The Citadel lined up to go for it twelve out of fourteen times in SoCon action. The two exceptions were a late, relatively meaningless field goal attempt and an early-game punt from near midfield.

Basically, once the Bulldogs got past their own 40-yard line, they were a threat (if not outright expected) to go for it on every 4th-and-short situation.

I like that. I like that a lot.

—

As you can probably guess, I’m ready for the season to start. Who isn’t?

Filed under: Football, The Citadel | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

FCS school football pages and 2015 media guides

Posted on July 31, 2015 by Sandlapper Spike

This post provides lists and links to FCS football pages/media guides for the 2015 season (I did the same thing in 2013 and 2014). SBNation also has a page with links to FBS football pages and media guides.

Included below are the schools’ football web pages, 2015 football media guides, and occasionally something extra (more often than not an additional record book that is separate from the regular media guide).

A few schools have standalone football websites that are separate from their football web pages; those are listed (as “FB website”) too.

Some of the guides are called prospectuses or supplements (or are extended “notes” packages); these usually have fewer pages.

Quite a few schools are now eschewing media guides. When that is the case, I will link to the appropriate “fact sheet” or general notes/stats packages. At times it is difficult to discern whether or not a school intends to release a media guide, to be honest.

This will be a work in progress (to say the least). I’ll link to media guides or prospectuses as they are released by the individual schools. In some cases, that won’t happen before the season actually begins.

A couple of final notes: this year, Kennesaw State and East Tennessee State join the FCS ranks as new and re-started programs, respectively. Kennesaw State will play its football in the Big South, while East Tennessee State will play this season as an independent before joining the SoCon in 2016. However, to simplify things I am still including ETSU among the SoCon schools on the list below.

One school left FCS after last season. Charlotte is now considered an FBS program.

Last update: September 11, 2015 

 

Big Sky 2015 Guide
Cal Poly 2015 Guide
Eastern Washington 2015 Guide
Idaho State 2015 Info Records History Video
Montana 2015 Guide
Montana State 2015 Guide Records
North Dakota 2015 Guide
Northern Arizona 2015 Guide
Northern Colorado 2015 Guide Records
Portland State 2015 Guide
Sacramento State 2015 Guide
Southern Utah 2015 Stats
UC Davis 2015 Guide
Weber State 2015 Guide
Big South 2015 Guide
Charleston Southern 2015 Guide
Coastal Carolina 2015 Guide
Gardner-Webb 2015 Guide
Kennesaw State 2015 Guide
Liberty 2015 Stats Record Book
Monmouth 2015 Guide
Presbyterian 2015 Facts
CAA 2015 Guide
Albany 2015 Guide Record Book
Delaware 2015 Guide
Elon 2015 Guide Record Book
James Madison 2015 Guide
Maine 2015 Guide
New Hampshire 2015 Guide
Rhode Island 2015 Guide Record Book
Richmond 2015 Guide Record Book
Stony Brook 2015 Guide Record Book
Towson 2015 Guide
Villanova 2015 Guide
William & Mary 2015 Notes Archival Information
Ivy League 2015 Guide
Brown 2015 Guide Records
Columbia 2015 Guide
Cornell 2015 Stats Record Book
Dartmouth 2015 Notes Records
Harvard 2015 Guide
Pennsylvania 2015 Guide
Princeton 2015 Preview Record Book
Yale 2015 Preview Record Book FB website
MEAC 2015 Guide
Bethune-Cookman 2015 Notes
Delaware State 2015 Guide
Florida A&M 2015 News
Hampton 2015 Stats
Howard 2015 Facts
Morgan State 2015 Guide
Norfolk State 2015 Guide
North Carolina A&T 2015 Stats
North Carolina Central 2015 Stats Record Book
Savannah State 2015 Guide
South Carolina State 2015 Stats
MVFC 2015 News Record Book
Illinois State 2015 Guide
Indiana State 2015 Guide Record Book
Missouri State 2015 Guide
North Dakota State 2015 Stats Records and Results
Northern Iowa 2015 Guide
South Dakota 2015 Guide
South Dakota State 2015 Guide
Southern Illinois 2015 Guide
Western Illinois 2015 Guide
Youngstown State 2015 Guide
NEC 2015 News
Bryant 2015 Notes Records
Central Connecticut State 2015 Facts Record Book
Duquesne 2015 Guide
Robert Morris 2015 Guide
Sacred Heart 2015 Stats Record Book
St. Francis (PA) 2015 News Record Book
Wagner 2015 Guide
OVC 2015 Guide
Austin Peay 2015 Guide
Eastern Illinois 2015 Guide
Eastern Kentucky 2015 Guide
Jacksonville State 2015 Guide
Murray State 2015 Guide
Southeast Missouri State 2015 Guide
Tennessee State 2015 Guide
Tennessee Tech 2015 Guide
UT Martin 2015 Guide
Patriot League 2015 Guide
Bucknell 2015 Guide
Colgate 2015 Guide Record Book
Fordham 2015 Guide
Georgetown 2015 News
Holy Cross 2015 Guide
Lafayette 2015 Guide
Lehigh 2015 Info Record Book
Pioneer League 2015 News
Butler 2015 Facts Record Book
Campbell 2015 Guide
Davidson 2015 News
Dayton 2015 Stats Record Book
Drake 2015 Guide
Jacksonville 2015 News Record Book
Marist 2015 Guide
Morehead State 2015 Guide
San Diego 2015 Facts Records and Results
Stetson 2015 Guide Historical overview
Valparaiso 2015 Stats Records and Results
SoCon 2015 Guide
Chattanooga 2015 Guide
East Tennessee State 2015 Guide Record Book
Furman 2015 Guide Record Book
Mercer 2015 Guide
Samford 2015 Guide
The Citadel 2015 News  2015 Facts Record Book
Virginia Military Institute 2015 Guide
Western Carolina 2015 Guide
Wofford 2015 Guide
Southland 2015 Guide
Abilene Christian 2015 Guide
Central Arkansas 2015 Guide
Houston Baptist 2015 Guide
Incarnate Word 2015 Guide
Lamar 2015 Guide
McNeese State 2015 Guide
Nicholls State 2015 Guide
Northwestern State 2015 Guide
Sam Houston State 2015 Guide Record Book
Southeastern Louisiana 2015 Guide
Stephen F. Austin 2015 Guide
SWAC 2015 Stats
Alabama A&M 2015 Stats
Alabama State 2015 News
Alcorn State 2015 Facts
Jackson State 2015 Guide
Mississippi Valley State 2015 News
Arkansas-Pine Bluff 2015 Stats
Grambling State 2015 Preview
Prairie View A&M 2015 Guide
Southern University 2015 Stats
Texas Southern 2015 Stats

Filed under: Football | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Quick notes on minutes from a recent Board of Visitors meeting

Posted on July 22, 2015 by Sandlapper Spike

A recent (June 23) meeting of The Citadel Board of Visitors made local and national news, but that’s not what this post is about.

I just want to briefly highlight some parts of recently released minutes for another BOV meeting, points of discussion that were directly or tangentially related to The Citadel’s department of athletics. That meeting was held on April 24-25 this year.

The board also met by teleconference on June 1, but nothing related to sports at The Citadel is present in those minutes.

Since June 1, the board has held a board meeting for June 12-13, the aforementioned June 23 meeting, and a teleconference on July 1. However, minutes from those meetings have not yet been released (which from a timing perspective is not unusual).

—

April 24-25 meeting

At this meeting, John B. Sams was elected by the board to be its new chairman. Also of importance, varsity sports were occasionally discussed!

Lt. General Rosa’s remarks to the board were “brief”, but he had this to say:

President Rosa focused his remarks on…several key issues facing the college: the absolute need to replace Capers Hall, the need for a campus parking garage, appropriate utilization of college-controlled land to generate revenue, further refinement of the long term financial model, and the need for the athletic department to become self-sustaining through aggressive fundraising.

As has been pointed out to me, the parking garage is definitely of interest to varsity athletics, particularly during basketball season (especially since the Bulldogs are about to start winning big on the hardwood, drawing overflow crowds to McAlister Field House in the process). Later during the meeting, there was another mention of the proposed garage.

The note on the department of athletics’ need to be “self-sustaining” speaks for itself.

Jim Senter, the school’s director of athletics, was called on for a report:

Mr. Senter noted that he anticipated the FY 15 budget would be balanced and the FY 16 budget would have an increase of 2.5%. He is pleased with the consolidation of The Citadel Brigadier Foundation with The Citadel Foundation to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of fundraising…

…Mr. Senter closed by stating a more detailed financial analysis of the Athletic Department would be presented at the June meeting.

Duggar Baucom and Craig Mosqueda (the new basketball and volleyball coaches, respectively) were both introduced by Senter during the meeting.

I’m not sure Senter presented that “detailed financial analysis” of the department during the June 12-13 meeting. It is possible he did, though it wasn’t specifically listed on the agenda. On the other hand, neither was another item that was to be presented at that June 12-13 session: a proposal to establish a nursing program at The Citadel.

Claudius E. Watts IV then spoke to the board about The Citadel Foundation:

Mr. Watts…noted a strong year for TCF. Plans for a capital campaign are nearing completion with an anticipated start date of fall 2015, and enhancing athletic fundraising is also a priority…

There was also a brief mention of a “naming opportunity for a major gift currently being negotiated”.

—

With regards to sports at The Citadel, nothing contained in the minutes was particularly surprising. Making varsity athletics self-sustaining is a key part of Initiative #3 in The LEAD Plan, after all (which I wrote about two years ago).

It’s just further evidence that the need for more money is never far from the thoughts of anyone associated with The Citadel. Which, in the year 2015, is a very appropriate mindset.

—

I’ve said it more than once, but I’ll say it again: football season can’t get here fast enough…

Filed under: The Citadel | Tagged: , , | Leave a comment »

Gridiron Countdown: The Citadel competes to win games — and fans

Posted on July 20, 2015 by Sandlapper Spike

Also in the “Gridiron Countdown” series:

Preseason ratings, featuring The Citadel (and the rest of the SoCon)

What teams will the Bulldogs’ opponents play before facing The Citadel?

—

How can The Citadel can attract bigger crowds to its home football games? When it comes to that issue, almost every Bulldog fan has an opinion or two. Or three or four.

To be sure, I have shared more than a few of my own thoughts in the past about attendance issues.

The Citadel is making a concerted, sustained effort to sell season ticket packages this year. I know this firsthand, as in early June I got a call from a sales representative asking me to renew my season tickets, which I did.

Then the ticket office called me again the following week. They wouldn’t take yes for an answer!

I had no problem with that at all. From my vantage point, I am pleased that the school is leaving no stone unturned in its attempts to put more people in the seats, even those stones that have already been turned once before.

An argument could be made that an emphasis on ticket sales is also reflected in the recently updated staff directory. There has been quite a bit of updating to do as of late.

It isn’t easy to make a dent in the Charleston entertainment market. Folks who live in the Holy City have options when it comes to their discretionary income (it’s a big reason people like living there).

The idea behind this post (as it was last season) is to highlight competition The Citadel will face for each of its six home dates in 2015. Some of that competition is gridiron-related, but not all of it.

Ken Burger, the former sports columnist for The Post and Courier, noted in his columns on more than one occasion that Charleston is not really a “sports town”. Everyone working in sports in the local area knows this, and has to account for it.

Anyway, let’s get started.

—

September 5 — The Citadel vs. Davidson, 6:00 pm ET

South Carolina won’t be a factor on this date, as the Gamecocks play North Carolina on Thursday night in Charlotte. Clemson hosts Wofford at 12:30 pm, a game that will be televised on ACC Network affiliates and streamed on ESPN3.

Also taking place on September 5:

– “The Producers” (Dock Street Theatre)

The show starts at 7:30 pm.

– Lowcountry Jazz Festival (North Charleston Coliseum)

As always, multiple jazz performers will be featured. Saturday night’s lineup includes Jonathan Butler and Marcus Anderson. Also appearing is saxophonist Euge Groove, remembered by 1980s pop music aficionados for his solo on ExposĂŠ’s #1 smash hit, “Seasons Change“.

Seasons change, feelings change
It’s been so long since I found you
Yet it seems like yesterday-eeyay

September 12 — The Citadel vs. Western Carolina, 6:00 pm ET

At 12:30 pm, Clemson will play Appalachian State in Death Valley (another game that will be streamed on ESPN3). South Carolina has a 7:30 pm matchup with Kentucky at Williams-Brice Stadium that will be televised on the SEC Network.

Another potential game of interest will take place in Orangeburg. The kickoff for Coastal Carolina-South Carolina State is 6:00 pm.

Other events on September 12:

– Charleston Battery vs. Louisville City FC (Blackbaud Stadium)

The city’s professional soccer team has a home game scheduled to kick off at 7:30 pm on this date.

– North Charleston Pops! (North Charleston Performing Arts Center)

The night’s fare is a salute to John Williams, featuring themes from movies such as Star Wars and Jaws.

– Shaggin’ On the Cooper (Mt. Pleasant Pier)

The rug starts getting cut at 7:00 pm, with the Ocean Drive Party Band on hand to provide the music.

September 26 — The Citadel vs. Charleston Southern, 6:00 pm ET

The Gamecocks will host UCF (time to be announced later). Clemson is off this week (as is South Carolina State).

Non-football options on September 26:

– Taste of Charleston (Mount Pleasant Memorial Waterfront Park)

This is the leadup to the main event, which takes place Sunday at Boone Hall Plantation. As for the Saturday evening soirĂŠe, food is provided by caterers; entertainment includes a “singer/songwriter showcase”.

Clearly, dinner at Johnson Hagood Stadium is a much better alternative. Enjoy some boiled legumes served up by Tony the Peanut Man, and eat a couple of occasionally heated hot dogs.

– “Heist, Heist Baby!” (Church Street)

The description of this play (a production of the Black Fedora Comedy Mystery Theatre):

A Priest, a Rabbi, and a Clown walk into a Bank…and thereafter little is as it seems in this corny comic stage caper where volunteer audience actors take a crack at portraying the craziest characters yet to come out of the theatre where the audience is the star.

Uh, okay…

– Umphrey’s McGee (Music Farm)

It’s the last of three shows for this band at the Music Farm, and it begins at 9:00 pm.

October 10 — The Citadel vs. Wofford, 2:00 pm ET

Parents’ Day festivities begin early in the morning. It’s a good day to have a built-in fan base on campus. Both Clemson and South Carolina are at home, and each has a fairly high-profile opponent (Georgia Tech and LSU, respectively).

South Carolina State is on the road. Charleston Southern may wish it was on the road too, as it’s not going to be easy to draw fans on this date for a noon kickoff against Monmouth.

Also making waves in the metropolitan area:

– “Menopause The Musical” (North Charleston Performing Arts Center):

There will be two performances, at 2:00 pm and 8:00 pm. The description:

This hilarious musical parody set to classic tunes from the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s will have you cheering and dancing in the aisles!

I believe this is called counter-programming.

– “Hay Fever” (Footlight Players Theatre)

Set in an English countryside home, each member of the eccentric Bliss family invites a guest to spend the weekend. Judith, a retired actress; David, a self-absorbed novelist; and their two children seem to live in a world that holds a very thin line between reality and fiction. Audiences will be laughing out loud at their self-centered behavior, which eventually drives the tortured guests out the door unnoticed.

It starts at 3:00 pm for anyone who enjoys portrayals of self-absorbed novelists.

– “Heist, Heist Baby!” is playing again, a 5:30 pm performance on this date.

– Town Mountain (The Pour House)

This act calls itself a “hard driving Carolina string band”. The music starts at 9:30 pm.

October 31 — The Citadel vs. Mercer, 2:00 pm ET

South Carolina State celebrates Homecoming with a 1:30 pm game versus Hampton. Meanwhile, Charleston Southern hosts Coastal Carolina.

Both Clemson and South Carolina are on the road. The Tigers are in Raleigh to take on North Carolina State in the Textile Bowl. South Carolina makes a visit to Kyle Field to play Texas A&M, with the historic Bonham Trophy on the line.

Also of note:

Well, it’s Halloween, so you know there will be a lot of parties that night in Charleston. There are also a few stage productions.

– “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow” (Dock Street Theatre)

The show has a 3:30 pm start time.

– “Little Shop of Horrors” (Dock Street Theatre)

Yes, it’s a doubleheader. This one begins at 7:30 pm.

– Perpetual Groove (The Pour House)

Perpetual Groove takes the stage at 9:30 pm. From what I can tell, it is a rock band from Athens, Georgia. Really, hasn’t Athens produced enough musical acts already?

November 7 — The Citadel vs. VMI, 2:00 pm ET

It’s all on the line. The Military Classic of the South. The battle for the coveted Silver Shako.

Not only that, it’s Homecoming weekend!

South Carolina is at Tennessee. Clemson hosts Florida State in a game that probably won’t be of much interest.

South Carolina State meets North Carolina A&T in Orangeburg, with kickoff at 1:30 pm.

Other events:

– North Charleston Pops! (North Charleston Performing Arts Center)

This performance features a tribute to first responders and the military. Showtime is at 7:30 pm.

– South Carolina Stingrays vs. Elmira Jackals (North Charleston Coliseum)

It is hard to imagine two communities with more in common than Charleston and Elmira, New York. If you want to watch this long-running rivalry, be in your seat by 7:05 pm.

– “Inspector NoClue’s Murder Mystery Show” (Church Street)

It’s another production from the Black Fedora Comedy Mystery Theatre. This one is “a madcap whodunit in the tradition of Clue! Mr. Body has been murdered, and while bumbling Inspector NoClue matches wits with a redneck butler, a gold-digging French maid, and a hopelessly hapless hippie…”

You get the idea.

—

Quick notes:

– The Scottish Games and Highland Gathering (September 19, Boone Hall Plantation) won’t interfere with any game at Johnson Hagood Stadium this season. At times, previous conflicts have been very difficult for bagpiper groupies. It is good to know those individuals won’t have to make a tough decision this year.

– The Citadel’s home football slate also avoids a conflict with the South Carolina State Fair (October 14-25).

– In the past few years, The Citadel has not been able to count on many tickets being sold to opposing fans. This year is likely to be similar in that respect, with a couple of potential caveats.

While the trip to Charleston wouldn’t be that long a trip for many Davidson fans, the school has a limited number of football supporters. Davidson averaged 3,296 fans per home game in 2014, and given the on-field struggles in recent years I’m guessing there may not be a lot of excitement surrounding the program’s opening game of the football season.

Two other opponents on the home slate, Charleston Southern and Wofford, have not really put a lot of fans in the east stands in recent meetings, at least not as many as one might expect.

The opposite has generally been true for VMI road support, however. It’s still not a lot, but it’s not bad at all considering VMI’s long, loooong slide on the gridiron, the size of the school, and the distance many of its fans have to travel.

This year, Mercer makes its first appearance at Johnson Hagood Stadium since 1931 (and of course, that was a previous iteration of the stadium). It will be interesting to see how many fans Bobby Lamb and company bring to town.

I also think that Western Carolina may have a solid showing of fan support this season, after the Catamounts had their best season in many years in 2014.

—

A final reminder: when it comes to increasing attendance, there is one overarching truism, that which was coined many years ago by a former assistant football coach at The Citadel:

Just win, baby.

Filed under: Football, The Citadel | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Gridiron countdown: what teams will the Bulldogs’ opponents play before facing The Citadel?

Posted on July 15, 2015 by Sandlapper Spike

Ah, it’s a now-annual July topic. This season, I am delving a little further into the schedules, and noting which teams The Citadel’s opponents face after playing the Bulldogs.

Here we go…

—

September 5: Davidson makes its first appearance at Johnson Hagood Stadium since 1985, which was also the last time the Bulldogs and Wildcats met on the gridiron. As for 2015, it is the season opener for both teams, so Davidson naturally won’t have an opponent in the week prior to its trip to Charleston. The Wildcats’ most recent game was a 27-13 setback at Valparaiso to close out the 2014 campaign.

After playing The Citadel, Davidson will face Catawba the following week in its home opener at Richardson Stadium.

September 12: Western Carolina is the opposition for the Bulldogs, and the Catamounts will come to the Holy City after opening the week before in Cullowhee against Mike Houston’s alma mater, Mars Hill.

I don’t think WCU’s players and coaches will be looking ahead, not with The Citadel being the SoCon opener for both schools. However, a few of the Catamounts’ fans may do so, as Western Carolina plays at Tennessee on September 19.

September 19: The first road game of the season for The Citadel will be a short one, as the Bulldogs travel to Statesboro to play Georgia Southern. It will be the second home game of the season for the Eagles, as GS welcomes Western Michigan to Paulson Stadium on September 12.

Georgia Southern opens its season at West Virginia in a game that has “early upset potential” written all over it. I predict lots of Red Bull will be consumed in that contest.

In terms of scheduling, playing the Eagles after they come off games against WVU and Western Michigan (which will be one of the favorites to win the MAC) may not be such a bad thing for The Citadel. Of course, if Georgia Southern is 0-2 by that point, maybe it would be a bad thing. I don’t know.

Georgia Southern goes on a classic Sun Belt conference road swing after the matchup with The Citadel, travelling to Idaho and Louisiana (to play ULM) in consecutive weeks.

September 26: Charleston Southern comes to town to play the Bulldogs. Just like last season, CSU will play a Thursday night game the week before its game against The Citadel, giving it a couple extra days for recuperation and preparation.

The opponent for Charleston Southern on September 17 is another group of Buccaneers, as CSU hosts East Tennessee State and its resurrected football program. It will be ETSU’s first football road game since a contest at Wofford on November 8, 2003.

That game against East Tennessee State comes five days after Charleston Southern travels to Alabama to face a Sun Belt outfit, Troy. CSU begins its season with a home matchup versus North Greenville.

After playing The Citadel, Charleston Southern has a week off before beginning its Big South campaign with a home game against Monmouth.

October 3: There is no game this week for The Citadel. Not coincidentally, I’ll be on vacation.

October 10: Wofford is the Parents’ Day opponent this year for The Citadel. It will be the second SoCon game for both teams, as the Terriers will travel to Mercer on October 3 for their league opener.

Wofford’s early-season non-conference slate includes games at Clemson and (bizarrely, at least to me) at Idaho. After playing The Citadel, the Terriers host Western Carolina.

October 17: The Citadel makes the trek to Alabama to tangle with another group of Bulldogs, those representing Samford. It will be SU’s second meeting with a military college in back-to-back weeks, as it plays VMI in Lexington on October 10.

Samford opens with three home games (including a matchup with Chattanooga) before going on the road to face Louisville and VMI. There is an off week in between the games versus the Cardinals and Keydets.

After returning home to play The Citadel, Samford travels to Western Carolina. The October 17 game in Birmingham is SU’s only home contest between September 19 and October 31, a situation similar to that of the next opponent on The Citadel’s schedule.

October 24: Furman hosts The Citadel for the first time since 2012, with the Paladins having a week off before facing the Bulldogs. It will be Homecoming weekend at Furman.

The Paladins are at Chattanooga on October 10, and will travel to Samford on October 31. The game against The Citadel will be Furman’s lone home game between October 3 (South Carolina State) and November 14 (Mercer).

October 31: The Citadel hosts Mercer on Halloween (a day game, thankfully). It will be the second straight week the Bears will have squared off against a military college, as Mercer plays at home versus VMI on October 24.

The Bears are back in Macon on November 7, playing Chattanooga.

November 7: The final home game of the season for the Bulldogs is a big one. It will be Homecoming weekend at The Citadel, and VMI will arrive in Charleston to battle for the coveted Silver Shako.

The Keydets are at home against Wofford the week before making the trip to face the Bulldogs, and will return to Lexington the following week for VMI’s regular-season finale, versus Western Carolina.

November 14: The last SoCon game of the season for the Bulldogs is a road matchup against Chattanooga. As mentioned above, the Mocs are at Mercer on November 7. The week after playing The Citadel, Chattanooga meets Florida State in Tallahassee.

November 21: The Citadel travels to Columbia to play South Carolina. The two programs have split their last two meetings in the Palmetto State’s capital city.

The Gamecocks will be playing the second of three consecutive home games to complete the regular season. The contest versus the Bulldogs is sandwiched between games against Florida and Clemson.

—

The Bulldogs face one team coming off a “bye” week (Furman), and another that will have two extra days off (Charleston Southern). Obviously, Davidson won’t have played the week before facing The Citadel, either.

There is only one “triple option preview” situation this season. VMI will play Wofford the week prior to its game versus The Citadel, which incidentally was also the case last year.

—

Getting closer to kickoff…

Filed under: Football, The Citadel | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Gridiron countdown: preseason ratings, featuring The Citadel (and the rest of the SoCon)

Posted on July 7, 2015 by Sandlapper Spike

Also part of the “Gridiron Countdown” series:

What teams will the Bulldogs’ opponents play before facing The Citadel?

The Citadel competes to win games — and fans

—

Independence Day has come and gone, which means the home stretch of the college football offseason is drawing closer. That first college football weekend can’t get here fast enough.

There is still time to kill, though. With that in mind, I decided to take a brief look at a preseason ratings system that was released this week, the Massey Ratings.

Ken Massey is a math professor at Carson-Newman whose ratings system was used (with several others) for fifteen years by the BCS. He has ratings for a wide variety of sports, but most of the attention surrounding his work has been focused on college football.

A quick introduction of the Massey Ratings, from its website:

The Massey Ratings are designed to measure past performance, not necessarily to predict future outcomes…overall team rating is a merit based quantity, and is the result of applying a Bayesian win-loss correction to the power rating.

…In contrast to the overall rating, the Power is a better measure of potential and is less concerned with actual wins-losses.

…A team’s Offense power rating essentially measures the ability to score points. This does not distinguish how points are scored, so good defensive play that leads to scoring will be reflected in the Offense rating. In general, the offensive rating can be interpretted as the number of points a team would be expected to score against an average defense.

Similarly, a team’s Defense power rating reflects the ability to prevent its opponent from scoring. An average defense will be rated at zero. Positive or negative defensive ratings would respectively lower or raise the opponent’s expected score accordingly.

…the Massey model will in some sense minimize the unexplained error (noise). Upsets will occur and it is impossible (and also counter-productive) to get an exact fit to the actual game outcomes. Hence, I publish an estimated standard deviation. About 68% of observed game results will fall within one standard deviation of the expected (“average”) result.

…Preseason ratings are typically derived as a weighted average of previous years’ final ratings. As the current season progresses, their effect gets damped out completely. The only purpose preseason ratings serve is to provide a reasonable starting point for the computer. Mathematically, they guarantee a unique solution to the equations early in the season when not enough data is available yet.

So there you go. Basically, preseason ratings are almost meaningless, which makes them perfect for a blog post!

—

One of the interesting things about the Massey Ratings is that all college football teams are included — not just FBS and FCS squads, but D-2, D-3, NAIA, junior colleges, even Canadian schools. In all, there are preseason ratings for 924 colleges and universities.

The Citadel is #174 in the preseason ratings. How does that compare to the teams on the Bulldogs’ schedule?

  • Davidson — #584
  • Western Carolina — #168
  • Georgia Southern — #86
  • Charleston Southern — #162
  • Wofford — #182
  • Samford — #146
  • Chattanooga — #95
  • Furman — #205
  • Mercer — #267
  • VMI — #272
  • South Carolina — #28

As you can see, there isn’t a great deal of difference between The Citadel and most of the teams on its schedule.

Massey gives the Bulldogs a 1% chance of beating South Carolina. Of course, that is notably higher than the odds offered by The State newspaper when the two teams met in 1990 (the publication infamously opined that all the Gamecocks would have to do to win the game was “show up”; it didn’t quite work out that way).

Meanwhile, Davidson is listed as having a 0% chance of upsetting The Citadel, which is a function of the Wildcats having not beaten a legitimate team (no, College of Faith doesn’t qualify) since November 2012. The Wildcats are rated next-to-last among all FCS schools, ahead of only East Tennessee State, which relaunches its program this season and has a preseason rating of #651.

Another startup program, Kennesaw State, is actually rated ahead of Davidson (the Owls carry a #519 preseason rating). Kennesaw State begins its gridiron history with a Thursday night game at ETSU. It’s a shame they couldn’t work Davidson into a three-way round-robin.

Among all FCS schools, Chattanooga is rated 5th; Samford, 22nd; Charleston Southern, 33rd; Western Carolina, 36th; The Citadel, 38th; Wofford, 42nd; Furman, 56th; Mercer, 84th; VMI, 85th; and Davidson, 124th.

The highest-rated FCS team overall is (no surprise) four-time defending subdivision champ North Dakota State, rated #47 in all of D-1. Last year’s runner-up, Illinois State (#64 in D-1), is second among FCS squads.

A few other schools that may or may not be of interest:

  • Alabama — #1
  • Ohio State — #2
  • Oregon — #3
  • Georgia — #4
  • TCU — #5
  • Michigan State — #6
  • Baylor — #7
  • Arkansas — #8
  • Auburn — #9
  • Georgia Tech — #10
  • Stanford — #11
  • Clemson — #12
  • Florida State — #17
  • Notre Dame — #32
  • Duke — #41
  • North Carolina — #61
  • Navy — #73
  • Air Force — #80
  • Georgia Southern — #86
  • Coastal Carolina — #98 (#7 in FCS)
  • Appalachian State — #105
  • Old Dominion — #119
  • Liberty — #128 (#17 in FCS)
  • Army — #132
  • Colorado State-Pueblo — #134 (#1 in D-2)
  • James Madison — #147 (#23 in FCS)
  • Richmond — #148 (#24 in FCS)
  • Fordham — #150 (#26 in FCS)
  • William & Mary — 158 (#29 in FCS)
  • Harvard — #160 (#31 in FCS)
  • Georgia State — #178
  • Presbyterian — #188 (#48 in FCS)
  • Lenoir-Rhyne — #190 (#13 in D-2)
  • Delaware — #194 (#51 in FCS)
  • South Carolina State — #206 (#57 in FCS)
  • Charlotte — #226
  • Elon — #250 (#78 in FCS)
  • Gardner-Webb — #258 (#80 in FCS)

—

Sure, this is relatively light fare. Right now, though, it’s all we have.

Keep counting down the days…

Filed under: Football, The Citadel | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Frustration and inconsistency: The Citadel’s athletic uniforms

Posted on May 11, 2015 by Sandlapper Spike

WHAT IS A BRAND?
A brand is the experience our audience receives or expects to receive. It is what sets us apart from other colleges and universities. Our brand is defined by the ideas and perceptions people have about The Citadel, and those ideas are influenced by what they see…

…With today’s technology, people are bombarded with hundreds of visual images and messages every day. Successful organizations know that it is important to build and maintain a strong visual identity that will cut through the visual clutter and be recognized instantly and positively by target audiences.

– The Citadel Branding Toolbox, revised April 2015

The Citadel “branding” remains an issue with some alumni, but steps are being taken to rectify their concerns.

– From the minutes of The Citadel Board of Visitors’ teleconference on November 3, 2014

—

At around 3:30 pm ET on May 5, 2015, a member of the athletic equipment staff at The Citadel tweeted out a picture of an apparent “alternate uniform” the football team may wear this fall. He included with the photo the comment, “Black knights of the Ashley River”.

Link

On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is “exactly what The Citadel should have in a football uniform” and 10 is “the worst football uniform for The Citadel I’ve ever seen,” I would rate this effort a solid 25, with a five-point bonus for the “Black knights of the Ashley River” line. I suppose by now the staffer in question has been informed that a considerable number of alumni consider that comment to be derogatory in nature (though in all fairness, the original quote by Tim Brando back in 1990 was certainly not intended in that vein).

I’ll ignore the comment for now, and focus on the uniform. Among its problems:

1) The school’s athletic colors are not featured; black is not a school color, and never has been
2) The name of the school on the front of the jersey is wrong
3) The manufacturer’s logo on the front of the jersey is more prominent than the (incorrect) name of the school; indeed, you will note the multiple manufacturer’s logos present, which might make someone ask if the athletes are playing for the school, or for an apparel company
4) The logo on the helmet isn’t a primary logo (and I am unsure as to its status as a “secondary” logo)
5) Nothing about the uniform is particularly representative of the school at all; if the picture had not been posted by a staffer from The Citadel, I would have assumed the uniform was for the football program at Citadel High School, which is located in Nova Scotia
6) It appears the uniform is an attempt to emulate Wake Forest, Appalachian State, or Army (or ‘Army West Point’ as that school wants to be called now for some inexplicable reason)
7) The heat of Charleston (even for a 6 pm local start) combined with the all-black uniforms could conceivably cause mass cramping by the players after the midway point of the first quarter

—

After the picture was posted, I tweeted my decidedly negative opinion of the uniform. That led to a back-and-forth exchange with the equipment staffer. I don’t know if the individual in question was Kevin Yeager, or one of his assistants (so keep that in mind).

First, we discussed the lack of “The” in The Citadel. From @CitadelEquip:

I refer the 1943 THE Citadel alma mater. No reference to the. We understand the context and WE support The Citadel

This wasn’t the first time the equipment staff had tried to justify leaving the “The” off the jersey of one of The Citadel’s athletic teams. I received a similar response (excuse?) when I complained two months ago that the baseball jerseys didn’t have the “The”, either.

Of course, there are at least two major problems with the equipment staffer’s argument.

For one thing, it is absurd to suggest that the uniforms reference a song, rather than the school itself. (I also pointed out that the title of the song in question is “The Citadel Alma Mater”.)

Then there is the fact that just last year, the baseball team wore jerseys that actually included the “The”, in smaller script across the front left of the “C” in “Citadel”. It was a perfectly acceptable look, and one not unlike many other jerseys of the past.

I am quite confident that the words to the alma mater did not change in the past two years.

If I had to guess (and it would only be a guess), the absence of the “The” in this year’s baseball jerseys has little to do with the alma mater and a lot to do with adidas. Perhaps the apparel company wanted fewer letters on the jersey so as not to further distract from the manufacturer’s logos.

I don’t know, though. There really isn’t a justifiable reason to leave off the “The” in “The Citadel”.

On those occasions when The Citadel is playing a game on TV (or streaming on ESPN3, etc.), I get frustrated when an announcer continually refers to the school as “Citadel” rather than “The Citadel”. However, what is even more frustrating is that I really can’t be too critical, because the team playing in front of him is often wearing uniforms that say “Citadel” instead of “The Citadel”.

When people ask me where I went to college, I say “The Citadel”, like any alumnus would.

Why is it so hard to put the “The” on our jerseys? Is someone on the equipment staff offended by the “The”?

—

Then we got into a discussion about uniform changes in general. From @CitadelEquip (after a reference to the 1990 College World Series):

Now fast forward to 2015. Different era different athletes. All about recruiting young men to play, competitive advantage uniform options

I suggested that a lack of uniform changes had not seemed to affect the recruiting of, say, Alabama. His retort:

Alabama clearly has to carry rifles, march,and wear duty as well. Recruiting at THE Citadel is the toughest job in all NCAA

Notice that he capitalized the “The” in “The Citadel” in that tweet.

At any rate, his argument strikes me as dubious. Recruiting at The Citadel isn’t easy, but I don’t believe it is “the toughest job” in the entire NCAA. After all, The Citadel has something positive to offer prospective recruits and their families, and I’m not talking about drill.

Anyone who doubts this just needs to follow the twitter accounts of our varsity coaches (like football recruiting coordinator J.P. Gunter‘s, for example).

Also, The Citadel is not recruiting against SEC schools, like Alabama is.

Recruiting is important. There is no question about that. However, someone basing his or her college choice on uniform colors probably shouldn’t go to The Citadel.

—

I’ve been writing about the inconsistencies and problems with our athletic uniforms for what seems like forever, but things appear to have worsened in recent years, rather than improved.

I think the modern tipping point for what one of my friends rather inelegantly calls “uniform porn” came in the fall of 2010, when the football team played an entire home schedule without ever wearing the standard combination of light blue jerseys and white pants. Over the ensuing four-plus years, the school’s athletic uniform choices have rendered “primary” and “alternate” largely irrelevant terms.

Last season, The Citadel played six home football contests. In three of them, navy blue jerseys were worn, including both the Parents’ Day and Homecoming games.

Now, it appears even colors that aren’t considered “alternate” are to be used.

I don’t want to hear the “they look sharp” argument. A uniform doesn’t look sharp because it is all-black. It may just look different, which seems to be enough for some people. Of course, an all-black uniform isn’t really that different, either, when you consider how many other schools have tried the same thing.

Moreover, what is wrong with light blue? I think light blue looks sharp. It also happens to be one of our colors. If we are so desperate to wear “cutting-edge” uniforms, why can’t we wear cutting-edge uniforms in our actual school colors?

If someone decided green jerseys with pink polka dots looked sharp, does that mean The Citadel should have its football and basketball players wear them?

Later in the week the equipment staff tweeted out another mockup, one featuring tartan-print pants and numerals. This was presumably a joke, but due to recent uniform history, nobody was really sure it actually was a joke. That’s a problem.

Also from @CitadelEquip:

Stay tuned Bulldog fans for more creative options coming to a field near you!

I’m not looking forward to that.

—

As an aside, there is no proof to the theory that recruiting would improve and/or athletes would play better with “cool” uniforms, not for a school like The Citadel. As I mentioned earlier, the current period of ever-changing uniform combinations essentially started during the 2010-11 school year.

Any fan of The Citadel reading this post knows exactly how many SoCon team titles the school has won since the fall of 2010.

—

Last week, I emailed The Citadel’s Office of Communications and Marketing (formerly known as the Public Affairs Office or the Office of External Affairs) to ask if the college’s graphic standards manual had been updated. I did this mainly to confirm the college had not recently designated additional primary or alternate colors for the varsity athletic teams, like black or mauve.

I got a quick response from Kara Klein, the Director of Marketing, who was kind enough to email me a .pdf of the recently updated manual (a/k/a “The Citadel Branding Toolbox”), which was revised just last month. She pointed out to me, however, that the college as a whole does not have the same graphics/logo standards as the department of athletics. That department has separate requirements.

It is well worth perusing The Citadel Branding Toolbox anyway, though, as it is very interesting. The 32-page document includes rules and regulations for numerous items associated with the college, including graphic guidelines, logo requirements, typography standards, advice on social media use, and approved colors.

Ah yes, approved colors. After noting the two primary colors associated with athletics (light blue is Pantone 279C for “coated stock applications”, by the way), secondary and tertiary (!) colors were discussed:

Secondary color signatures are used in conjunction with The Citadel’s primary colors to provide visual support.  This provides a complimentary color palette that can be used in design to help augment the collegiate colors.  This is intended only as a guideline as colors should always be chosen as necessary to support the message and design.   Regardless of color choices, the primary colors should still be dominant and used overtly to support the brand.

The “secondary color signatures” are various shades of blue, including navy, the go-to color for shading and background. There are nine different “tones” and “tints” in this category.

Then there are the eight tertiary colors, all named for things related to the campus (“Summerall Field”, “Live Oak”, etc.). One of the eight is “Big Red”.

Another is “Shako”. It is not quite a black color, however; I would describe it as a dusty dark brown. It is clearly visible when set against a black background.

I thought it was noteworthy that while the school has no fewer than twenty different “color signatures” listed in the Branding Toolbox, none of them are black. From what I can tell, that color is only used in situations involving black-and-white publications.

(One of those additional colors, incidentally, is bright green, to be used exclusively for the “Dare to Lead” campaign. I am a bit puzzled by this, to be honest.)

For anyone who might be curious as to the inclusion of a section on social media in the Branding Toolbox, the Board of Visitors minutes from December 1, 2014, noted that “a challenging issue is how to control The Citadel brand on social media sites”. I can easily understand how it may be very challenging.

—

Regarding graphic and logo standards for varsity athletics, I was informed by associate AD Rob Acunto that it is a work in progress. A set of standards had not previously been established or documented, but the department is trying to remedy that situation. This is a good thing.

(My thanks to Acunto and to his fellow associate AD, Andy Solomon, for quickly responding to my query. I suspect they are both probably accustomed by now to answering off-the-wall questions from eccentric alums.)

I should hold out an oak branch (not olive, because it’s not one of the tertiary colors) to the folks who have to deal with these things on a day-to-day basis. The Citadel has a long and winding history when it comes to logos and artwork in general.

I can understand how someone might create something (a logo, uniform, etc.) outside the norm. Standards have changed so much over the years that trying to figure out exactly what is a standard can be a difficult task.

By various estimates, 30-40 variations of logos…represent The Citadel in our publications, letterheads and business cards. You will see…the college seal in a variety of colors and styles, lettering that might resemble wedding invitations or basic typewriter fonts, and a collection of images including PT Barracks, cadets, shakos, the ring, the bulldog, swords, a quill, or some artful combination of these. In the absence of graphic standards, creativity reigns and confusion is often the result. This variety of logos weakens the identity of The Citadel…

That passage is from an article published in 2001. I think it may have actually underestimated (by a considerable amount) the number of different logo variations used by the school over the years.

—

Let me give an example of a potential logo-related dilemma.

I first saw the logo of a small block “C” inside an outline of the State of South Carolina when it was used as the helmet logo for the final game of the 2013 football season, which was at Clemson. I didn’t understand then (and don’t really understand now) why we would break out a new helmet logo for the final game of the football season, especially when it was on the road.

Since then, this logo has become more prominent. I don’t have an issue with the logo itself, but its application at times has been problematic.

During the Medal of Honor Bowl, Bulldogs running back Jake Stenson wore a black helmet with the logo (the same helmet color/design in the all-black mockup released on Tuesday), along with his Medal of Honor Bowl jersey. If someone was watching the game on TV and saw Stenson, that person may have not realized Stenson was a player at The Citadel, because without a matching jersey color, there was nothing that specifically identified the helmet with the college.

Because of the outline of the state as part of the logo, the block “C” is naturally smaller than the block “C” on the regular helmet logo. It is not as easy to recognize the light blue coloring inside the “C” as a result, and that combined with the black shell could lead to someone assuming Stenson had gone to a school like Coastal Carolina, rather than The Citadel.

There is also a bit of a “macro” issue with the logo. Does The Citadel want to regularly use a logo that is “South Carolina-centric” (for lack of a better term)? Perhaps it does, and I assume this was something discussed prior to the logo’s implementation (at least, I would hope so).

—

At the beginning of this post I quoted a passage from the Branding Toolbox that stated “[s]uccessful organizations know that it is important to build and maintain a strong visual identity that will cut through the visual clutter and be recognized instantly and positively by target audiences.” The problem with the constant uniform tinkering is it creates just that “visual clutter” the school is trying (and should be trying) to avoid.

I am aware the school’s history with uniforms is less than ideal when it comes to consistency. All too aware. That doesn’t mean short shrift should be given to the standards The Citadel does have.

—

The bottom line:

Our varsity uniforms should be emblematic of our school’s identity. Not Oregon’s, not Army’s, not Appalachian State’s. Ours.

We seem to be trying very hard to be something we’re not. It’s time to get back to the basics.

We are The Citadel. Our school athletic colors are light blue and white.

—

One thing on which everyone can agree: football season can’t get here fast enough.

Filed under: The Citadel | Tagged: , | 3 Comments »

Recognition Day at The Citadel: a report from campus

Posted on April 15, 2015 by Sandlapper Spike

This past Saturday was Recognition Day at The Citadel. What is Recognition Day? From the school’s press release:

For freshmen, known on campus as knobs, Recognition Day marks the end of the highly regimented way of life that is The Citadel’s Fourth Class System, recognized as one of the toughest college military-training systems in the country.

The day begins at sunrise and includes hours of rigorous physical training tests and drills which are overseen by the regimental staff and the Commandant of Cadets. Those activities include an obstacle course nicknamed The Gauntlet, which will be set up on Summerall Field and will get underway at 10:30 a.m. It will be followed by one of the most iconic sights in Charleston – the Recognition Day March to Marion Square. The march begins at 3 p.m. at the college’s main gate. The freshmen will proceed in formation down Moultrie St., turning right on King St. to Marion Square, which was the college’s original parade ground in the mid-1800s.

A few years ago, Recognition Day underwent what might be called a “format change”. This has led to a fair amount of discussion on various social media outlets.

—

Normally there wouldn’t be any particular reason for me to be on campus during Recognition Day. However, several people suggested to me that I ought to see what the “new” Recognition Day was all about.

I arrived on campus early Saturday morning, and then observed the activities that make up ‘The Gauntlet’. I didn’t watch the march to Marion Square. Instead, I went to the baseball game at Riley Park (The Citadel beat Wofford 4-3, with a fantastic game-saving catch by centerfielder Clay Martin playing a major role in the victory).

—

Prior to “The Gauntlet” (which began at roughly 10:30 am), the freshmen went on an early-morning PT run, then were instructed in “leadership training” classes held in various buildings. After ‘The Gauntlet’, they went on yet another run across campus, then went back to the barracks, did the traditional pushups (I don’t know the exact number; maybe 118?), and then finally heard the announcement that all graduates still remember fondly: “The fourth-class system is no longer in effect.”

—

I’m an old goat, so my own Recognition Day was almost three decades ago. Afterwards, I mentally compared yesteryear to this year.

  • Was my Recognition Day different from this past Saturday? Yes.
  • Was my Recognition Day tougher than this past Saturday? No.
  • Was my Recognition Day more purposeful than this past Saturday? No.
  • Was my Recognition Day better than this past Saturday? No.

My general takeaway from Saturday’s events was that, on the whole, it’s a well-conceived way to end the fourth-class system in a given year. I think some alums have misgivings based on the fact that Recognition Day now actually has more order to it, but I believe the current well-structured setup is a good thing.

Again, the “modern” Recognition Day has a sense of purpose to it that hasn’t always been the case in prior years. Perhaps some might disagree, but I don’t really buy the notion that the point of Recognition Day is for freshmen to suffer some kind of physical abuse and/or to be demeaned in some fashion. In my opinion, those types of activities are unnecessary and largely counter-productive.

I remember several things about my own Recognition Day. One distinct memory: as we were lining up for the afternoon parade that immediately preceded the final burst of lunacy, a sophomore took the butt of his rifle and smacked it against my breastplate, leaving a large concave indentation.

I suppose I was lucky that the only thing that stayed concave was the breastplate.

At any rate, it didn’t enhance my experience at The Military College of South Carolina. It didn’t teach me a lesson about leadership, or provide an opportunity for team-building, or improve my physical fitness.

—

There are two other aspects of the “new” Recognition Day I want to mention. One is not really that big a deal; the other strikes me as more problematic.

—

Recognition Day is now held in early April, instead of just before Graduation Day. I think this is probably a good idea. From an academic perspective, ending the fourth-class system before final exams isn’t a bad thing at all.

Also, I would suspect that most upperclassmen are just as ready for recognition to take place as the freshmen are. Back in the day, even the most “moto” sophomores and juniors weren’t as enthused about challenging freshmen once spring break was over. Besides, during exams the knobs were always “at ease” anyway.

—

However, I am still coming to grips with Recognition Day’s now public nature. When I was in school, the idea that friends and family could watch you during Recognition Day events…well, there was no such idea.

Before arriving, I was a little worried that parents would show up in full-on cheerleading mode, with accompanying signage, etc. Thankfully, I didn’t see anything like that.

In terms of the audience and its relationship to the festivities, it was a lot like a parade. My (possibly faulty) estimation was that about 1,500 people showed up to watch Recognition Day activities (with ‘The Gauntlet’ being held on Summerall Field for four of the battalions, and on WLI Field for the other).

The crowd included parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters, girlfriends, a few random alums, and at least two dozen dogs. Also in attendance: AD Jim Senter and new hoops coach Duggar Baucom, watching the action together.

I believe the unrestricted access for viewing the proceedings is unfortunate. Ideally, Recognition Day would be by the corps of cadets, for the corps of cadets, and mostly include just the corps of cadets.

At times, I felt like a voyeur — and I’m a graduate who had experienced Recognition Day as a participant.

I had a great deal of sympathy for the cadets who were really struggling. Not only were they going through something very difficult, but they were doing it in front of their families, and (I think this is important) other people’s families.

As a cadet, I wouldn’t have liked that at all. As an alumnus, I don’t like it now.

—

There is another side to the argument, of course. After it was all over, I expressed some reservations. I mentioned that I wouldn’t have enjoyed my mother attending Recognition Day, and that I didn’t think she would have wanted to be there either.

I was respectfully but firmly challenged on that line of thinking by a mother of a current freshman. She told me she was very glad to be there, and would have been unhappy not to have the opportunity.

One thing I sometimes forget (perhaps because I don’t have children) is that when a high school senior elects to go to The Citadel, he or she isn’t alone in being affected by that decision. In a certain way, the entire family goes to The Citadel.

For some families, it has been a long first year. In that sense, Recognition Day is important for them too.

When I think about it that way, it makes me a little more understanding. I feel a little better about the situation.

I am still not a big fan of “public” Recognition Day, but I can accept it. The bottom line is that it doesn’t detract from the accomplishments of the freshmen.

Also, it’s not going to change anytime soon. You will excuse the cynic in me for noting that the gift shop sold a lot of folding chairs on Saturday.

—

One final observation:

I didn’t watch the freshmen march to Marion Square on Saturday, because it conflicted with the baseball game (and you know which event I was going to attend). However, the march is an inspired addition to Recognition Day. The individual who came up with that idea should take a bow.

An aspect to the march which I particularly like is that it further connects the college with the city.

—

Congratulations to the Class of 2018. Just remember, you have three years left, and they aren’t easy ones. That said, you’ve accomplished one major goal. Well done.

Below are some pictures, most of which (as usual) aren’t very good. For much better photos, I recommend the work of Russ Pace and company.

I threw in a few non-Recognition Day shots at the beginning; the final picture is a nod to another day of note at The Citadel.

 

Filed under: Special Topics, The Citadel | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

Duggar Baucom is The Citadel’s new hoops coach. Is he the right choice?

Posted on April 2, 2015 by Sandlapper Spike

Links of interest:

School release

Article on Duggar Baucom’s hiring from The Post and Courier

Video report from WCIV-TV (with additional interview of Duggar Baucom)

Video report from WCSC-TV (with additional interviews of Duggar Baucom, Jim Senter, and Quinton Marshall)

—

On Monday, The Citadel hired Duggar Baucom as its new head basketball coach. Baucom is 54 years old, and a bit of a late bloomer in the coaching profession.

His story has been chronicled many times. To sum it up as succinctly as possible:

Baucom was a police officer, then a state trooper. He suffered a heart attack at age 30 that caused him to change careers, eventually going back to school and graduating from UNC Charlotte. Baucom worked as an assistant basketball coach at various colleges (starting as a GA under Bob McKillop at Davidson).

He got his first college head coaching gig at D-2 Tusculum, winning 37 games in two years there and parlaying that into the VMI job. In his second year in Lexington, Baucom decided (by necessity, he would say) to operate the dramatically uptempo style that would give him national notoriety.

After a decade at VMI, he is now in Charleston, charged with improving the hardwood fortunes of another military school. Baucom is a surfer and golf aficionado who is about to enjoy life on the coast, and with a little more cash in his pocket (an increase in salary of over $40,000 per year).

—

More than twenty years ago, I was talking to an assistant basketball coach at The Citadel when the subject of Loyola Marymount’s 1990 hoops squad came up. That was the year the Lions advanced to the Elite Eight after the death of star player Hank Gathers, a run that included a mesmerizing 149-115 obliteration of defending national champion Michigan.

LMU was coached at the time by Paul Westhead, who employed a run-and-gun style called “The System”. The result was an incredible scoring machine of a team, one that in 1990 averaged 122.4 points per contest, still the all-time Division I record. Earlier that same season, the Lions had lost an overtime game in Baton Rouge to LSU by a final score of 148-141 (the game was tied at 134 at the end of regulation), a simply astonishing game that had to be seen to be believed.

Those were fun games to watch. I asked the coach whether or not he thought that style would become more prevalent.

“I hope it doesn’t,” he said. “I think it reduces the importance of coaching.”

Duggar Baucom, it is safe to say, has a different point of view. From an article written two years ago:

“Coaches are a lot more control freaks than they’ve ever been,” says Baucom, which is not a complaint you hear very often from a coach at a school [VMI] that claims to foster “punctuality, order, discipline, courtesy, and respect for authority.”

“I call ‘em joystick coaches,” Baucom tells me. “They try to orchestrate every movement instead of letting ‘em play. It becomes kind of like a wrestling match. There’s teams in [the Big South] that run 20 seconds of false motion to get the shot clock down, and then run a set. I watch some teams play and it looks like the kids are in jail.”

Under Baucom, VMI led the nation in scoring in six of the last nine seasons. The Keydets were the last D-1 team to average over 100 points per game over a full season, doing so during the 2006-2007 campaign.

Can he recreate that kind of offense at The Citadel? More importantly, can he consistently win at The Citadel?

The answers to those two questions, in my opinion:

1) He might be able to produce an explosive offensive team, but it depends in part on the overall point-scoring climate of D-1 hoops, something which he obviously doesn’t control. Right now, averaging over 100 points per game over the course of a season is almost impossible due to the current state of the college game.

2) Baucom can consistently win games at The Citadel, but only if his teams’ historic defensive statistics significantly improve.

—

My statistical look at Baucom’s career at VMI encompasses his last nine seasons with the Keydets. I chose not to include the 2005-06 campaign, his first year as head coach. That season (in which VMI went 7-20), he had not yet installed the “loot and shoot” offense (that happened the following year). Baucom also missed 12 games in 2005-06 after complications arose during an operation to replace his pacemaker.

–

Year W-L LG Adj. O Adj. D Poss/gm Nat’l avg
2007 10-19 5-9 110 331 90.9 66.9
2008 10-15 6-8 126 331 79.2 67.0
2009 20-8 13-5 107 280 80.9 66.5
2010 6-19 5-13 195 346 84.2 67.3
2011 14-13 10-8 50 340 75.6 66.7
2012 14-16 8-10 180 311 73.6 66.1
2013 11-17 8-8 172 331 71.1 65.9
2014 18-13 11-5 90 306 74.7 66.4
2015 9-19 7-11 295 260 77.1 64.8

–

The win-loss column reflects Division I games only. “LG” refers to league games, all in the Big South with the exception of the 2014-15 season, VMI’s first in its return to the SoCon.

The “Adj. O” and “Adj. D” columns represent VMI’s national rank in adjusted offense and adjusted defense, per kenpom.com. “Poss/gm” refers to possessions per game, with “Nat’l avg” the national average in possessions per game for that particular season.

–

One of the things that interested me when I reviewed these numbers was that the “frenzied style” used by VMI wasn’t really quite as frenzied as advertised, at least when compared to years past. It is an indictment of the way the game is played today that 77.1 possessions per game would be enough to lead the nation in that category, but that’s exactly what the Keydets did last season.

In 1989-1990, 16% of the teams ranked in the final AP poll averaged more than 80 possessions per contest. That’s just the ranked teams, mind you — there were many other squads playing at that pace (though none matched Loyola Marymount’s 103 possessions per game, then and now a staggering total).

–

These numbers don’t include non-D1 games, a non-conference scheduling staple of Baucom’s tenure at VMI (as they are for many other low-major programs, of course). VMI regularly played three or four NAIA/D2 schools each season.

Looking at the results of those matchups, I wondered if Baucom scheduled some of the teams in part because they were willing to run up and down the court with the Keydets. There weren’t any Wimp Sanderson types opposing VMI in these games, that’s for sure.

VMI had a 116-possession game during the 2007-2008 season against Southern Virginia, a 144-127 Keydet victory that must have been fascinating to watch, if only from an academic perspective. Incidentally, that’s the same number of possessions (in regulation) that occurred during the famed LMU-LSU game in 1990 I referenced above.

Starting in the 2006-2007 season, here are the points scored by VMI against non-D1 foes: 156, 144, 135, 125, 135, 156, 112, 123, 118, 133, 113, 113, 111, 108, 99, 99, 106, 120, 94, 151, 101, 109, 122, 116, 102, 110, 121, 112, 110, 128, 124, and 133.

That is one reason why I didn’t concentrate on yearly scoring averages when reviewing the overall statistical record.

–

The 2006-2007 season may have been Baucom’s Platonic ideal in terms of pace of play. VMI averaged over 90 possessions per game (the only D-1 team to do that over the course of an entire season since at least 2002). Beginning on January 10, 2007, VMI embarked on a 13-game stretch against Division I competition in which its point totals were as follows: 104, 116, 97, 102, 103, 117, 96, 99, 105, 102, 107, 108, and 92.

Alas, the Keydets only won five of those thirteen games.

That last loss, 109-92 to High Point, was the final game of the regular season. Then a funny thing happened. VMI dialed down its pace of play to more “normal” levels, started playing a sagging zone defense, and promptly won consecutive games in the Big South tournament, beating two teams (Liberty and High Point) that had swept the Keydets during the regular season.

In the conference title game, VMI continued to slow things down, and wound up narrowly losing to Winthrop (84-81).

Maybe that led to a slight adjustment by Baucom in the years to follow. I don’t know.

It’s possible, though, that he infused his philosophical approach to hoops with a dose of practicality. VMI didn’t approach the 90-possession plateau after that season, with its highest per-game rate since then being 84.2 in 2009-2010, a year in which the Keydets only won six D-1 contests.

–

The success in that 2007 Big South tournament was not a fluke. While VMI never won the tourney under Baucom, the Keydets generally fared well in the event during his time in Lexington (making the final three times), a marked contrast to The Citadel’s continued struggles in the SoCon tournament.

With a little luck, Baucom may well have led VMI to the tourney title at least once. He had a very good record in tournament play when the Keydets hosted a game or were playing at a neutral site. Most of the time, VMI only lost in the Big South tournament when it had to play on an opponent’s home floor.

VMI’s record in the Big South tournament, 2007-2014

  • Home (3-0)
  • Neutral (6-1)
  • Road (1-7)

The Keydets lost the aforementioned 2007 Big South final to Winthrop in Rock Hill; lost the following year to Liberty in Lynchburg; lost at Radford in the 2009 Big South title game; lost games in Conway to Coastal Carolina in 2010, 2011, and 2014; and lost the 2012 final to UNC-Asheville at Kimmel Arena in Asheville.

Since it appears the Southern Conference tournament is going to remain in Asheville for the next few years, The Citadel needs to make sure UNC-Asheville is not allowed to join the league.

–

In 2007, VMI finished 331st nationally in adjusted defense. Only six teams in all of D-1 were worse on defense (in terms of points per possession, and further adjusted for schedule) than the Keydets.

That began a pattern under Baucom. He produced high-scoring teams generally better-than-average in terms of offensive efficiency, but saddled with defenses that were not very good, even taking into account pace of play.

Two years later, the Keydets won 20 D-1 games, including a memorable 111-103 victory over Kentucky at Rupp Arena. Surprisingly, VMI’s successful campaign occurred despite having a below-average defense (280th out of 344 D-1 squads).

The win over Kentucky (which came in the season opener) was a 93-possession game, the most possessions in any of VMI’s games that season against D-1 opponents. The Wildcats decided they could run with the Keydets. That was a mistake.

The following season, VMI was the second-worst defensive outfit in the country, and the record reflected it. The Keydets would continue to be a bottom-50 team in adjusted defense every year until last season, when the team finished a slightly more respectable 260th (out of 351 D-1 teams).

In case you were wondering, The Citadel’s defensive efficiency was better than VMI’s in five of those nine seasons. This past season, of course, the Bulldogs were the worst defensive squad in the country.

–

While the Keydets were never a good defensive rebounding team under Baucom, they also struggled for several years on the offensive glass. However, in the last three seasons, there was a distinct improvement in offensive rebounding percentage.

  • VMI’s national rank in offensive rebounding percentage by year, 2007-2012: 232, 254, 320, 326, 264, 303
  • VMI’s national rank in offensive rebounding percentage by year, 2013-2015: 150, 136, 131

I don’t know if there was a concerted effort to get better in that area, or if the increased offensive rebounding totals are simply a product of changing personnel.

—

I tend to agree with those who believe that for The Citadel to be successful in hoops, it needs to be different. The Bulldogs either need to use a patterned, deliberate style (such as the “Princeton offense”), or do the exact opposite and run-and-gun for forty minutes. Pick an extreme, and gravitate to it.

While I’ve been critical of the current state of college hoops, with its clutching and grabbing and incessant timeouts, that doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy a slower-paced game, especially when it is of high quality. I was a big fan of Ed Conroy’s teams. This past season, I enjoyed watching Tony Bennett’s Virginia squad, which played a muscular-but-skillful brand of basketball.

If anything, I thought The Citadel would be best served “going slow”. Clearly, Jim Senter had other ideas.

Part of his reasoning, I’m sure, is about the box office. He wants more people in the seats, and probably figures that a perpetual scoreboard explosion is a good way to attract curious onlookers to McAlister Field House.

With that in mind, Baucom will have more on his plate than just coaching the team. He has to sell his program to the local community, and to the corps of cadets as well.

As far as the local scene is concerned, this may not be a bad time to make a renewed effort to attract fans, with College of Charleston scuffling a bit, still trying to find its way with a relatively new coach and league. There is plenty of room for both of the college basketball teams in the city, but becoming the lead hoops story in town wouldn’t hurt any.

Regarding the corps, I was encouraged by this season’s cadet presence. It can still get better, and I think it will. There is momentum on that front.

Baucom might also consider reaching out to some of the more recent graduates from the basketball program. Several of them were hoping that former assistant coach Doug Novak would get the job, and were understandably disappointed when that didn’t happen.

—

I’ve seen a couple of criticisms of Baucom’s preferred style of play that I wanted to quickly discuss, mainly because I think both are misguided.

1) This style of basketball is just a “roll the balls out” type of coaching, or non-coaching

I think an actual “roll the balls out” coach would be a very static, middle-of-the-road operator. He certainly wouldn’t be interested in pressing, trapping defense, or approaching the game from a mathematical point of view:

“Its basketball inflation,” Baucom said. “The more possessions we can create the less value they have. We’re trying to get more shots than the other team, force more turnovers, get offensive boards. The key is passing and catching and spacing.”

2) This style of basketball is at odds with The Citadel’s institutional history

Honestly, I don’t get this at all. I guess the argument is that it is undisciplined basketball, but I don’t think that’s true. At its very core, it seems to me that it requires a great deal of discipline. To be conditioned well enough to play this way takes discipline. To never take a play off while on the court takes discipline. To get in the proper defensive position while pressing takes discipline.

—

The best argument against Baucom’s style of play, in my opinion, is that it may be difficult to recruit players who can flourish in his system.

I think it’s possible that one reason Baucom’s teams never approached the 90-possession days of 2006-2007 in subsequent seasons was that the coach realized he didn’t “have the horses” to run quite that fast and still win games. If so, I believe that presents a potential issue.

That’s because I believe the best chance for this system to work at The Citadel is if it is stretched to its natural limit. In other words, if the team is going to play this way, it needs to strive for 90+ possessions per game on a regular basis.

Instead of having a possession differential when compared to the rest of the country of between six and twelve possessions per game (as was the case for VMI over the last five seasons), The Citadel should have a possession differential of between fifteen and twenty possessions per game. That’s the best way, employing this system, for the program to become an upper-echelon Southern Conference outfit. It’s the best way, employing this system, for the Bulldogs to win the league.

To do that, though, The Citadel has to bring in players capable of handling that pace and doing the things that have to be done to win games. Rebounding, three-point shooting, superior point guard play, the ability to defend — those elements are requirements if the team is going to be successful.

Of course, that’s true regardless of how fast or slow a team plays. It seems to me, though, that a higher level of athleticism is needed to play at a supercharged pace.

I think back to that 1989-1990 Loyola Marymount squad. LMU wasn’t exactly the “little engine that could”. It may have been an upstart program from the West Coast Conference, but the Lions had two NBA-caliber players, Hank Gathers and Bo Kimble. Both were transfers, having been originally recruited to play for Southern Cal by George Raveling, one of the great basketball talent evaluators of his era.

Also on that LMU team: an elite college jump shooter (Jeff Fryer) and a better-than-you-realized rebounder/post defender (Per Stumer, who played professionally in Europe for over a decade). Backup point guard Terrell Lowery later played major league baseball. Yes, that team had some great athletes.

Can the Bulldogs’ new coach bring in the talent necessary to win this way? That’s the big question. One thing is for certain, he’s not wasting any time. On the day Baucom was introduced at The Citadel, he got a commitment from a 6’7″ sharpshooter from Virginia.

—

I don’t know if The Citadel can win playing racehorse basketball, but we’re about to find out.

I’ll be watching with interest when next season rolls around. We all will…

Filed under: Basketball, The Citadel | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Riley Report: The Citadel begins SoCon play

Posted on March 27, 2015 by Sandlapper Spike

Previously: Previewing The Citadel’s 2015 baseball season

—

The Citadel begins league play in the Southern Conference after a fairly lengthy pre-conference schedule (23 games). The Bulldogs are 14-9 as they enter their first SoCon weekend series, travelling to Cullowhee to take on Western Carolina.

The rest of the league opened conference action last weekend. Western Carolina, the preseason favorite to win the SoCon, got off to a stuttering start, splitting a pair of blowouts with UNC-Greensboro before losing the rubber game of the series in Greensboro to fall to 1-2 in the league.

I think it would be fair to describe the Bulldogs’ campaign to date as encouraging. A lot of young players have played significant roles for The Citadel, and on the whole they have acquitted themselves quite well.

I decided to compare this year’s start to last season’s pre-league slate. It’s an inexact comparison for several reasons, including the number of games (last year the Bulldogs played 17 games before beginning SoCon play) and different opponents (this year’s schedule was, by design, a little less challenging).

Weather is also a factor. For example, The Citadel’s February 28 game versus Alabama State was played in conditions that were not really conducive to quality baseball.

That said, I thought it would be interesting to see where things stood as of today versus the way things were in 2014 (when the Bulldogs were 8-9 prior to beginning conference action).

—

Batting

Considering the returning Bulldogs combined for only 282 at bats in SoCon play last season, The Citadel’s offense was the biggest unknown entering 2015. So far, so good.

Through 23 games this season, The Citadel has a team OBP of .381 and is slugging .394, which results in an OPS of .775. Those numbers after 17 games in 2014 were .365 (OBP), .348 (SLG), and .713 (OPS).

The team batting average is up slightly (.277 versus .275), but the Bulldogs are walking at a higher rate. Through 23 games this season, The Citadel is averaging 4.7 free passes per game, solidly above 2014’s pre-SoCon rate of 3.9 walks per contest. That doesn’t count the “bruise factor”, either — Bulldog players have been hit by pitches 27 times, more than one per game.

As far as slugging is concerned, the Bulldogs averaged 1.65 extra-base hits per game in last season’s first 17 games. In 23 contests in 2015, The Citadel is averaging 2.83 extra-base hits per game.

The top 5 Bulldogs in terms of OPS, minimum 20 at bats: Connor Walsh (.983), Stephen Windham (.982), Johnathan Stokes (.872), Jason Smith (.777), and Drew Ellis (.771).

Stokes is a veteran with a lot of experience, but the other four players had a combined 65 at bats (30 in SoCon play) last season. Ellis is one of several freshmen who have been solid contributors thus far.

Perhaps the biggest surprise of the young season is the play of Windham, who had a career batting average of .179 (5 for 28, no extra-base hits) entering 2015. Windham is slugging .508 through 23 games this year.

One thing the Bulldogs could do a better job of going forward is making consistent contact at the plate, as the team is averaging almost nine strikeouts per contest. Given that the squad is not really made up of big boppers, that needs to be a priority (though it should be noted that eight different cadets have homered so far this year).

—

Pitching

There were plenty of 2015 returnees on the pitching staff with experience. However, not all of that experience had produced good results.

Early on, it appears the pitching has improved. The team ERA is 4.39, which is a much better performance than that from last season’s pre-conference slate (5.23).

Potentially, the news could be even better. The staff has walked fewer batters (BB/9 of 3.03) this year than it did in the first 17 games of last season (3.93) and has dramatically increased its strikeout rate (K/9 of 9.44 this year; K/9 of 6.19 in early 2014).

The jump in opponent whiffs is important, particularly given the Bulldogs’ fielding issues (more on that subject below). Last year, The Citadel had a K/9 rate in SoCon action of 6.50. The Bulldogs need to continue picking up those strikeouts as they enter league play while not issuing too many walks.

The Citadel has allowed ten home runs in 23 games, which isn’t great, but isn’t terrible either. It’s a slightly higher rate (0.43 per game) than what was given up in last year’s pre-conference schedule (0.35).

James Reeves has been a dependable anchor in the weekend rotation, with a 2.81 ERA and 44 strikeouts in 32 innings (and only four walks). If Reeves stays healthy, he should continue to be a very effective pitcher for The Citadel. Another left-handed starter who has impressed is freshman J.P. Sears. The native of Sumter has looked very good in almost every one of his appearances.

The bullpen has held things together for the most part, with occasional hiccups (which have usually featured too many bases on balls). Skylar Hunter already has nine saves; with his next save, he will set the all-time career saves record in the Southern Conference.

—

Fielding

This is an area of concern. The raw numbers are, well, raw.

The Citadel has allowed 39 unearned runs in 23 games; that’s a not-so-hot 1.7 unearned runs per contest. The Bulldogs are averaging over two errors per game.

The problems on defense also show up in categories other than errors committed. For instance, The Citadel has given up 55 non-homer extra-base hits in 23 games this season. Last year, the Bulldogs allowed 26 non-homer extra-base hits in the first 17 games.

A lot of the doubles and triples are on the pitching staff, of course. Anyone who has watched The Citadel play this season, however, is well aware that defense has affected those statistics as well, and not in a positive manner.

If The Citadel hopes to be a contender in the Southern Conference this season, the Bulldogs need to at least maintain their batting and pitching rate statistics while substantially improving on defense. It is hard to imagine the squad making a move to the top of the standings with subpar defensive play.

—

It has been a promising start to the season for The Citadel. With the calendar turning to April, fans should come out in force to Riley Park and cheer on a hard-working, entertaining bunch of Bulldogs.

At the very least, portable space heaters won’t be needed any more…

Filed under: Baseball, The Citadel | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

« Previous Page — Next Page »