2012 Football, Game 2: The Citadel vs. Georgia Southern

Posted on September 6, 2012 by Sandlapper Spike

The Citadel vs. Georgia Southern, to be played at historic Johnson Hagood Stadium, with kickoff at 6:00 pm ET on Saturday, September 8.  The game will not be televised, although it will be webcast on Bulldog Insider (subscription service) and can be heard on radio via the twelve affiliates of The Citadel Sports Network. Danny Reed (the “Voice of the Bulldogs”) will call the action alongside analyst Josh Baker, with Lee Glaze roaming the sidelines and Walt Nadzak providing pre-game, halftime, and post-game commentary. 

—

Links of interest:

The Citadel game notes                   Box score from The Citadel’s game last week

Georgia Southern game notes        Box score from GSU’s game last week

SoCon weekly release

—

I want to start by talking about one of my favorite topics, attendance.

A crowd of 14,264 attended the game against Charleston Southern. Even with the ticket promotions and the postgame fireworks, I was pleasantly surprised with that total. As I arrived, I could see that there were a lot of people in the area around the stadium, even if a significant portion of them were just there for the tailgating.

It was the largest crowd for a game at Johnson Hagood Stadium since 2009, and the largest crowd for a home opener since 2006.

Charleston Southern actually brought a decent number of fans, a departure from previous seasons. More power to them. Georgia Southern will bring considerably more this week, so an opportunity for a big crowd is there.

This will be only the second time the two schools have met on the gridiron in the month of September. The Citadel played Georgia Southern on September 11, 1993, in Statesboro.

That is something to keep in mind when looking at attendance figures at Johnson Hagood Stadium for previous contests against the Eagles. Somewhat surprisingly, only twice has a game at JHS against Georgia Southern drawn crowds larger than the one last Saturday against CSU. However, all of those games came later in the season.

Attendance at Johnson Hagood Stadium when Georgia Southern is the opponent:

1994 — 18,559
1996 — 9,427
1998 — 14,222
2000 — 12,391
2002 — 16,427
2004 — 12,472
2006 — 12,129
2008 — 11,190
2010 — 10,385

I think there is a good chance that attendance will get a sizable bump for this matchup. It helps that both Clemson and South Carolina are playing earlier in the day.

That makes it all the more important for the Bulldogs to play well against the Eagles, because I believe that attendance for the remaining home games may be affected by The Citadel’s “momentum”. If a large crowd sees a good game, some of those people will come back for more. The bandwagon will start to roll again.

Interestingly, The Citadel’s potential attendance surge would be going against the national tide, at least if early-season FBS crowds are any indication:

There was exactly one announced capacity crowd in eight Southeastern Conference home openers. Before the Labor Day Georgia Tech-Virginia Tech game, six out of seven Atlantic Coast Conference schools had smaller crowds than their openers last year – some of them much smaller. Attendance was down at six out of eight Big 12 home openers from 2011. Five out of eight Pac-12 schools had smaller crowds as well, and Oregon’s 13-year sellout streak was in jeopardy until game day.

The Citadel’s attendance against Charleston Southern (14,264) was greater than the average attendance for the four MAC games played last week (13,928).

—

Can The Citadel beat Georgia Southern? Of course. What are the Bulldogs’ chances? Probably not very good, if history is a guide.

One of the great games in the history of Johnson Hagood Stadium was The Citadel’s 20-3 upset of top-ranked Marshall in 1988. The Bulldogs would also beat a top-10 opponent at JHS in 1991 when they edged #7 Furman 10-6 in a classic defensive struggle.

However, that 1991 win over Furman is one of just three victories by the Bulldogs over top 10 opposition since 1990. Two of those wins came in 1991; Appalachian State was ranked #9 when the Bulldogs beat the Mountaineers that season.

The Citadel defeated East Tennessee State in 1997 in Johnson City when the Bucs were ranked #8 (and still played football). Other than that, nothing:

– The Citadel vs. Top 10 opposition since 1990: 3-40 (29 straight losses)
– The Citadel vs. Top 5 opposition since 1990: 0-23
– The Citadel vs. Georgia Southern since 1990 when GSU was in the top 10: 0-9

I’m not trying to be negative. I’m just trying to provide a little perspective. If The Citadel were to win on Saturday, it would be the biggest win for the football program in at least fifteen years and the signature victory for Kevin Higgins in his tenure at the school.

It would also snap a rather ignominious streak: the Bulldogs have lost nine consecutive conference home games since beating Samford in 2009. The Citadel has not won a SoCon contest at Johnson Hagood Stadium since switching to the triple option offense.

—

While Georgia Southern has a history of high-octane offenses and rushed for 557 yards last week in a 58-0 demolition of Jacksonville, the Eagles’ best player is defensive lineman Brent Russell. He has had any number of big games (his performance versus Navy in 2010 was particularly noteworthy). Russell didn’t have a big game against The Citadel last year, though, because he was suspended and didn’t play.

Russell is back for this season’s matchup with the Eagles, but the Bulldogs will be without his fellow All-SoCon defensive lineman, Derek Douglas. Advantage: GSU.

One of the easy storylines for this game would be Russell matching up against The Citadel’s all-league center, Mike Sellers. However, it is unlikely there will be many (if any) one-on-one battles between the two star linemen. Kevin Higgins noted this at his weekly press conference when he pointed out Russell is now a “three technique” lineman.

Georgia Southern has moved Blake Riley to nosetackle in an effort to keep Russell from being repeatedly double-teamed, and as a result it will likely be The Citadel’s guards who will have to deal with Russell more often than not. Of course, the Bulldogs will try to neutralize him whenever possible by optioning off of him. The best way to neutralize Russell, though, is to block him. That will be a difficult task.

Another key figure in GSU’s defense will be Patrick Flowe, who is starting at middle linebacker for the Eagles as a true freshman.  It is surely unusual for a team coming off back-to-back appearances in the national semifinals to immediately start a true freshman at middle linebacker.

Curiously, Flowe is listed as the backup at MLB in GSU’s game notes.

—

Georgia Southern’s offense did not complete a pass in eight tries against Jacksonville, not that it mattered. In my preview of the Charleston Southern game I mentioned how overrated “balance” in an offense can be. To further illustrate this, GSU is 7-0 in modern program history when it fails to gain any passing yardage. One of those games was in 2010 at Johnson Hagood Stadium against the Bulldogs.

In contrast to The Citadel’s stuttering start against Charleston Southern, GSU came out blazing against the Dolphins, scoring 27 points in the first quarter. The second play from scrimmage for the Eagles was a 79-yard touchdown run by Ezayi Youyoute, one of two quarterbacks who will see significant time for Georgia Southern.

Fifteen different players carried the ball at least once for GSU. They included B-back Dominique Swope (104 yards, 3 TDs), Youyoute (164 yards, 3 TDs), Youyoute’s fellow QB Jerick McKinnon (71 yards, some of which came as a slotback, and a TD), and Robert Brown (63 yards on three rushes).

Those who remember the 2010 game against Georgia Southern (and Bulldog fans could be excused for trying to forget it) will recognize McKinnon’s name, as the then-frosh QB had to replace regular starter Jaybo Shaw early in that contest. McKinnon rushed for 182 yards that afternoon on 35 carries, both of which remain career highs for him.

Brown played in that game too, but as the B-back. He has now been moved to slotback. The fact he will play at all on Saturday is borderline amazing (at least to me), as he had back surgery just seven weeks ago.

Georgia Southern’s offense this season is expected to be more explosive with Youyoute and McKinnon at the controls. Jaybo Shaw was efficient and effective, a solid passer who made good decisions running the triple option, but was not a breakaway threat.

Of course, that doesn’t mean the combination of Youyoute/McKinnon won’t make the right reads, or that either/or can’t throw a nice ball. It may be, however, that The Citadel is playing Georgia Southern at the right time of year, as the two QBs are still developing as signal callers.

—

Georgia Southern also ran a fake punt against the Dolphins, and recovered an onside kick while leading 41-0 (though I gather that may have been an accident).

GSU had excellent special teams units last year, but is breaking in a new placekicker and punter this season, and needs to find a kick returner to replace Laron Scott.

Speaking of Scott, he also blocked one of the two missed Bulldog PATs that were so critical in last season’s game (free safety Darius Eubanks blocked the other). The Citadel is going to have to do a much better job in that phase of the game.

—

Confusion alert: Darreion Robinson, Georgia Southern slotback/punt returner, meet Darien Robinson, The Citadel B-back. Both scored touchdowns in last year’s matchup.

—

Offensively, the Bulldogs face the challenge of trying to control the line of scrimmage against Russell and company. It goes without saying that fumbling six times in a half again would be a bad idea. Georgia Southern lost both of its starting cornerbacks from last season (including the ubiquitous Scott), so perhaps this is the week that Triple O’Higgins breaks out the forward pass in a major way.

I was impressed with freshman running back Vinny Miller last Saturday, as were many other observers. I wouldn’t be surprised if he assumed an expanded role in this week’s game. Miller was one of several freshmen who made significant contributions during the Bulldogs’ victory over the Buccaneers. Another who impressed in his debut was defensive tackle Colin Parsons.

The Citadel’s defense has to do its best to prevent big plays, although it is probably inevitable that GSU will break at least a couple of long gainers. Against Jacksonville, the Eagles had nine runs of 19 yards or more. To combat the Eagles’ explosiveness, The Citadel must punish the high risk/reward nature of GSU’s offense by forcing turnovers.

Last year’s game featured five Georgia Southern fumbles (two lost) and an interception. The Bulldog D needs to at least match that total on Saturday.

The Bulldogs also must win the special teams battle. It’s not just about the placekicking, either.

—

Georgia Southern held The Citadel’s offense to 264 yards of total offense last season, which was the second-best performance by the Eagle defense all year (only Elon had fewer yards against GSU). However, the Bulldogs matched them on the other side of the ball, as Georgia Southern’s offense produced fewer total yards against The Citadel’s defense (320) than any team it played in 2011 except Appalachian State.

I don’t see that kind of game playing out on Saturday. I think both offenses are going to move the ball and score more points. That would probably be a good outcome from The Citadel’s perspective, as the Bulldogs are less likely to win a low-scoring game.

Indeed, The Citadel is 2-35 in the Kevin Higgins era when scoring 20 or fewer points (including an 0-4 record last season). I can understand having that bad a record when scoring 10 or fewer points, or even 14, but 20? Conversely, GSU is 2-5 under Jeff Monken when scoring 20 or fewer points.

—

It will be Military Appreciation Day on Saturday. It should be a festive occasion, with plenty of different events happening in conjunction with the football game. It will be even more festive if the home team can pull off a big upset. I would like to see a really big fiesta at Johnson Hagood Stadium that night.

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

Game review, 2012: Charleston Southern

Posted on September 2, 2012 by Sandlapper Spike

The Citadel 49, Charleston Southern 14.

Links of interest:

Game story in The Post and Courier

Postgame notes in The Post and Courier

The Post and Courier‘s video review of the game

The Citadel’s release

Video of the postgame press conference

Charleston Southern’s release

—

First, an exercise in perspective…what if the second half of last night’s game had actually been the first half, and vice versa?

In the second half against Charleston Southern, the Bulldogs rushed 34 times for 255 yards. They completed both of their pass attempts. The Citadel scored five touchdowns (by four different players) in the half and did not fumble. The Bulldogs committed one penalty, for five yards.

Defensively, the Bulldogs held Charleston Southern to 113 total yards in the second half. It forced three turnovers (two fumbles and an interception). CSU did not score in the half.

In the first half, The Citadel scored twice and moved the ball with relative ease (the Bulldogs did not punt during the entire game), but the offense fumbled six times (two lost). In addition, an ill-timed penalty cost The Citadel three points.

The defense played fairly well in the first half, but allowed a long touchdown drive after the first lost fumble, and appeared to have some communication issues in the secondary.

If The Citadel had raced out to a 35-0 halftime lead, and then settled for a 49-14 victory after some sloppy second-half play, I think the fan reaction would have been almost uniformly positive. There would have been some admonitions about letting up, and maintaining focus, but the general opinion of the fan base for the game would have probably been “solid effort”.

That’s not what happened, of course, and as a result the Bulldogs played last night to mixed reviews. On the one hand, a win is a win, especially if you root for The Citadel, and the second-half effort was an encouraging response to a disappointing first-half performance.

However, that doesn’t excuse a first half that gave supporters flashbacks to two years ago, when just trying to run the offense was a major challenge. At various points in the half, I was more annoyed with the team than I had been during the Georgia Southern game in 2010, when the Bulldogs fumbled nine times in one of the all-time Johnson Hagood Stadium debacles.

Of course, it really wasn’t the same as that GSU game. For one thing, the Bulldogs did run the triple option effectively, at least in terms of yardage and possessions. Oh, those fumbles, though…and that penalty…and that long CSU drive against the defense, during which the Buccaneers converted a 3rd-and-7 from their own 5-yard-line, then added a 29-yard pass play and a 25-yard run, and capped it off with a 15-yard TD pass that came when one of the Bulldogs appeared to blow a coverage assignment.

Frustrating. Still, it was a victory, and in truth The Citadel was in control of the game throughout, with the exception of that brief window when the Bulldogs trailed 14-7. After the second of Rickey Anderson’s three touchdowns tied the game just before the half, however, it was simply a question of whether The Citadel would fumble six more times in the second half, or win the game going away. Thankfully, all the fumbling after the break came from the Buccaneers.

“The good thing is, we executed the option real well,” coach Kevin Higgins said. “The fumbles were not as much on exchanges as they were down field, the ones that hurt us. That’s a matter of protecting the ball and being smart.

“Our guys know they didn’t play as well as they could have, and that they have work to do next week. That’s probably good with a team like Georgia Southern coming in.”

Ah yes, Georgia Southern. I earlier mentioned the 2010 game with all the turnovers. That was the last time the Eagles journeyed to Johnson Hagood Stadium.

In a way, next week is part of an unintentional round-robin. Georgia Southern’s opponent on Saturday was Jacksonville, and the Dolphins will play at Charleston Southern next week while the Eagles tangle with The Citadel.

Last year, JU played at The Citadel in the home opener and played creditably, losing 31-9 to the Bulldogs. Unfortunately for the Dolphins, their starting quarterback and several other key players graduated after last season. Georgia Southern crushed JU 58-0, with 41 of those points coming in the first half. GSU had 557 total yards, all rushing (the Eagles were 0-8 passing).

Georgia Southern was ready for the season to begin. The Citadel needed a half to work out some kinks. The Bulldogs won’t be getting any mulligans next Saturday against the Eagles. More on that game later in the week.

—

I took a few photos last night, though not as many as I would have liked. Not unlike the Bulldogs, the first game of the season was a struggle for me at times, too.

The first picture is a shot of the parking lot that replaced the old gym that used to be across the street from the stadium.

 

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

2012 Football, Game 1: The Citadel vs. Charleston Southern

Posted on August 27, 2012 by Sandlapper Spike

Ah, football. So glad to see you again, old friend. The offseason was long and hard. The lack of a winter confused us. We’ve had to wade through conference realignment conspiracy theories again, with some of those rumors involving our own conference.

Yes, football is back, and just in time.

—

The Citadel vs. Charleston Southern, to be played at historic Johnson Hagood Stadium, with kickoff at 6:00 pm ET on Saturday, September 1.  The game will not be televised, although it will be webcast on Bulldog Insider (subscription service) and can be heard on radio via the twelve affiliates of The Citadel Sports Network. Danny Reed (the “Voice of the Bulldogs”) will call the action alongside analyst Josh Baker, with Lee Glaze roaming the sidelines and Walt Nadzak providing pre-game, halftime, and post-game commentary. After the game, there will be a fireworks show, which probably guarantees that a series of thunderstorms will begin to pass through Charleston during the second half.

—

Some links of note:

The Citadel game notes    The Citadel depth chart   SoCon weekly release

Oh, and just for fun, a few things I wrote in the spring and summer:

Why I don’t expect an overflow crowd at Saturday’s game

A brief look at returning lettermen for The Citadel and its opponents

An analysis of attendance at Johnson Hagood Stadium over the past five decades

My ridiculously long-winded manifesto on why The Citadel needs to add more varsity sports

—

Watching The Post and Courier‘s video preview for The Citadel’s upcoming season, I was interested to hear Jeff Hartsell state that head coach Kevin Higgins was not under any particular pressure in terms of wins and losses for this year. According to Hartsell, The Citadel administration is “all-in” on Higgins, who is now in his eighth season at the military college.

I’m not surprised school officials would take that position in public (it is, after all, the correct thing to do). I was a little curious to hear Hartsell say so without equivocation, which tells me the public position is also the private one. Higgins has one year remaining on his contract after this season, to be sure, and The Citadel is not known for terminating coaches in that situation.

Not that I’m advocating a “win this year or else” strategy with regards to Higgins; far from it. I think it’s good to have a veteran coach running things. As long as he still has the energy for the job (and that certainly appears to be the case), I like the idea of having a coach who has been at the school long  enough to know what to do and what not to do. He knows how to approach things that are unique to The Citadel, whether it be recruiting or corps squad/rest of corps relations (this tweet is evidence of the latter).

In other words, he’s made all the big mistakes he’s going to make. Now, though, I would like to see him win a few more games, which would go along nicely with his cutting-edge practice field attire.

—

I think it’s important to be realistic about a football program that has had just one winning season since 1997. The definition of a successful campaign this year, then, is to finish with more wins than losses. As Hartsell also said in the video preview, that’s what fans should be expecting (in terms of a breakthrough).

It won’t be easy. The schedule is not as conducive to a winning year as one would like. There are only five home games, and in addition to that the slate is front-loaded. It is not out of the question The Citadel could be 1-4 after its first five games. In fact, the football cognoscenti of the SoCon would predict exactly that. The Bulldogs were picked to finish next-to-last in the league by both the media writers and the coaches.

Therefore, a key to the season is improving upon that 1-4 expectation. That is quite possible, in my view. The Bulldogs more than held their own last season against the three league opponents they will play in that five-game stretch. The Citadel lost by seven points to Appalachian State at home, narrowly missed out on a road upset of Georgia Southern, and stunned Chattanooga (in Chattanooga!) after spotting the Mocs a 27-point lead.

The Citadel won’t be favored to be as competitive against North Carolina State, though nothing is impossible (and taking no chances, Tom O’Brien is already preparing his team for the triple option). The Bulldogs are a solid favorite against Charleston Southern. (I get a little nervous whenever I write that The Citadel is a “solid favorite” over any team.)

—

The Citadel total offense (in yards) vs. SoCon opponents, 2010: 359, 304, 263, 197, 160, 143, 300, 203

The Citadel total offense (in yards) vs. SoCon opponents, 2011: 301, 267, 268, 238, 361, 447, 264, 259

Triple O’Higgins was clearly better last season, yet there is plenty of room for improvement. The Citadel averaged 300.6 yards of total offense in eight league games. That number rises to 318.8 counting the non-conference contests, which was the worst total in the SoCon.

Of course, the numbers that matter are points, but total offense is generally a good indicator of points scored, and The Citadel’s 23.5 points per game finished next-to-last in the SoCon, ahead of only hapless Western Carolina.

Most of The Citadel’s total offense came in rushing, which will surprise nobody. The Bulldogs only averaged 32.2 yards passing per contest, which ranked last in the entire country. In a way, that makes The Citadel’s rushing totals all the more impressive, given every opponent could focus exclusively on the run — and I do mean exclusively.

I remember driving through a torrential thunderstorm on I-26 and listening to Danny Reed call the Bulldogs’ game against Elon. “10 men in the box for Elon,” he said about one early second-quarter play. Later on, he exclaimed, “Now the Phoenix have 11 men in the box!” As the game wound down to its conclusion, I was half-expecting him to say that Elon was putting 12 men in the box.

The lack of a passing threat was a key reason why the Bulldogs, despite finishing third in the SoCon (and the nation) in rushing, wound up finishing last in the league in total first downs.

For this season, The Citadel needs to at least make its opponents nervous about the possibility of a forward pass. To do so, a new formation has been added to the playbook:

A new feature of The Citadel offense this year will be a heavier reliance on the shotgun, a formation which will allow both returning quarterbacks to improve their accuracy and make the Bulldogs more of a productive passing team.

Kevin Higgins is not going to tell anybody what numbers he is looking for in the passing game, which is understandable, because he really isn’t looking for a specific amount of receiving yards. He just wants to make opponents honor the pass, which will in turn help the Bulldogs’ rushing attack.

While there may be no “magic number”, I believe some parameters for success can be estimated. It appears The Citadel does plan to throw the ball a bit more often this season. If the idea is to average 10-12 pass attempts per game (the Bulldogs averaged a shade under 7 attempts last season), then I think The Citadel needs to average around 8.0-8.5 yards per pass attempt at a minimum (preferably it should be above 9 yards per attempt). Last season, that number was 4.7 ypa, an awful average.

As for interceptions, I am inclined to think the goal should be no more than one per 25 attempts, though that number could fluctuate based on overall total offense production and the number of possessions per game. Last season the Bulldogs threw seven interceptions in only 75 passing attempts, which is very poor. Interestingly, Wofford tossed seven picks in 108 attempts, which isn’t much better — but the Terriers also threw eight touchdown passes. The Citadel only had one TD pass, and that was a halfback option pass by Rickey Anderson.

While the Bulldogs need to improve in the passing game, the team needs to be careful not to lose its identity as a run-first, run-second, run-as-much-as-possible offense. The Citadel needs to stick to the basics. This isn’t about “balance”. Nothing is more overrated than balance in an offense. It’s not how you score points, it’s how many points you score. Case in point: since 1990, there have been ten games in which The Citadel has had seven or fewer passing yards. The record for the Bulldogs in those ten games? 6-4.

Regardless of formation variance, I think the offense will be better this season. The Citadel has a generally solid cast of returnees, including a plethora of slotbacks, two quality B-backs, and two quarterbacks. The largely experienced offensive line is led by the offense’s best player, center Mike Sellers.

There is some concern about the wide receiver position, but to me the biggest question marks are the two tackle positions and the rotating quarterbacks. The Citadel recently made a significant move at the tackle position, inserting Cullen Brown at starting right tackle. Alex Glover will now start at tight end.

Regarding the QBs, I am not a huge believer in the notion that you must have a #1 guy at the position, at least at the college level. However, I do wonder about the timing of the offense when you combine two quarterbacks with two different B-backs. Everyone remembers the problems the Bulldogs had two years ago with the center-QB exchange and the QB/back “mesh” operation. No one at The Citadel wants to see anything resembling a repeat of those days.

—

I am a little worried about the defense, particularly when it comes to that four-game stretch following the opener: Georgia Southern, Appalachian State, North Carolina State, and Chattanooga. The unit must be ready to compete at a high level for those games, but lacks starting experience in key areas. The front-loaded schedule could really hurt the Bulldogs.

Four of the five leading tacklers from last season are gone, although that in itself doesn’t bother me too much. It’s the amount of experience those four players had that is the real issue (last year’s three starting linebackers played in a combined 126 career games).

Then there is the loss of Derek Douglas for at least the first part of the season due to a knee injury. Many observers felt Douglas was the team’s best all-around player last season, a force on the d-line and an all-conference selection. He had 11 tackles for loss; only one other returning SoCon player had more (Wes Dothard of UTC). Douglas can’t return fast enough for the Bulldogs.

There is more talent coming back, however, including lineman Chris Billingslea, a true playmaker on the defensive side of the ball. Billingslea’s big-play capability (he always seems to be around the football) is something The Citadel needs from more of its defensive players; while solid, last season’s defense didn’t force quite enough negative plays, particularly turnovers (eighteen in eleven games).

There are a number of candidates to feature alongside Billingslea (and Douglas, when he returns) on the defensive line. I think the Bulldogs are in reasonably good shape with this group. The Citadel just needs two or three of them to assert themselves as major contributors, and quickly. It appears that at least two freshmen will get an opportunity to make an impact.

While the linebacking corps will feature three new starters, all three played last season and showed promise, including flashes of that big-play ability the Bulldogs need. However, there has been talk that they aren’t as athletic as the previous starters. Personally, I’m not overly concerned with their athleticism, as long as they can make game-changing plays that benefit The Citadel. Depth could be an issue, however, as there are fewer obvious options for this group than there are for the defensive line.

The secondary needs to improve on its interception totals (only six all last season). The lack of picks has been an ongoing problem. The Citadel was last in the league in passes intercepted in 2010 and next-to-last in 2011. Another issue that has occasionally bedeviled The Citadel is the “killer pass” from the opposition —  not just long TD throws, but third-down conversion pickups that have allowed drives to continue.

The Citadel allowed opponents to complete 65.3% of their passes last season, the highest percentage allowed in the Higgins era. Opponents have completed at least 60% of their passes against the Bulldogs in each of the last four years, a far cry from the 52.7% completion rate allowed in 2007, The Citadel’s last winning campaign.

The Bulldogs were next-to-last in the league in defensive pass efficiency last season. To win more games, The Citadel has to do better than that in 2012.

—

Phil Steele recently released his FCS Special Teams rankings for the 2011 season. The Citadel, primarily thanks to its success in punting and returning (or rather, blocking) punts, finished first in the nation in his ratings. Only one other Southern Conference team finished in the top 30 (Georgia Southern was thirteenth).

The star performer for The Citadel’s special teams last season was punter Cass Couey, who was superb, leading the SoCon in punting average (43.0 yds) and net punting (38.2 yds). He’s also capable of tucking the ball under his arm and running for a first down if the opposition isn’t paying attention.

The Citadel also had a big edge when the other team punted, thanks to nine blocked punts. However, one of the NCAA’s rules changes for 2012 will force the Bulldogs to adjust at least part of their kick-blocking strategy:

There will…be a new rule prohibiting players from leaping over blockers in an attempt to block a punt. Receiving-team players trying to jump over a shield-blocking scheme has become popular for teams in punt formation. Receiving-team players try to defeat this scheme by rushing into the backfield to block a punt. In some cases, these players are contacted and end up flipping in the air and landing on their head or shoulders.

This change could be called the Domonic Jones Rule, as the rangy 6’5″ wide receiver blocked or deflected five punts last season by doing exactly what is described above. While the new rule may not favor The Citadel, in all honesty I think it’s a good change. Too many times I have watched a player land on his head or neck after leaping into a pair of shield blockers.

Kevin Higgins was on the committee that recommended the new rules changes, and he and his fellow panelists were busy. The kicking game drew special attention, and the Jones Rule wasn’t the only thing to be enacted:

[T]eams will kick off at the 35-yard line instead of the 30. Also, players on the kicking team can’t line up for the play behind the 30-yard line, which is intended to limit the running start kicking teams used to have during the play.

Also, touchbacks on free kicks will be moved to the 25-yard line instead of the 20 to encourage more touchbacks. Touchbacks on other plays (for example, punts that go into the end zone, or fumbles that go out of the end zone) will remain at the 20-yard line.

Those rule changes will affect The Citadel on kickoffs, an aspect of special teams the Bulldogs could improve upon. While the kickoff return unit was fine, The Citadel was seventh in the league in net kickoff coverage. A freshman is expected to be the Bulldogs’ kickoff specialist this fall. So far, reviews are good.

Reviews are also good for senior Thomas Warren, who becomes the starting placekicker this season. By all accounts, Warren has had an excellent preseason camp. Missed opportunities in the kicking game cost The Citadel a chance at winning both the Elon and Georgia Southern games last season, and as a result there is a lot of interest (if not angst) among fans about the placekicking unit. It should be pointed out, however, that it’s not all about the kicker. The holder, snapper, and blockers must all do their jobs too.

—

One thing The Citadel did very well last year was not commit penalties. In fact, the Bulldogs were the least-penalized team in the nation last season, both in terms of number (3.09 per game) and yardage (22.45 yds), which is to the credit of the players and the coaches. I like rooting for a team that doesn’t commit a lot of penalties.

Incidentally, another rules change for this season will particularly impact teams running the triple option:

Offensive players in the tackle box at the snap who are not in motion are allowed to block below the waist legally without restriction. All other players are restricted from blocking below the waist with a few exceptions (for example, straight-ahead blocks).

—

The Citadel’s opponent on Saturday, Charleston Southern, had a rough season last year. Actually, “rough” may be a nice way to put it, as the Buccaneers were 0-11. Charleston Southern started the season getting blitzed by two FBS opponents (Central Florida and Florida State) by a combined score of 124-10, and never really recovered.

The lowlight of the Bucs’ season was probably the 32-20 loss to Division III Wesley College, which came at CSU’s Homecoming. Charleston Southern lost close games to Jacksonville, VMI, Coastal Carolina, and Gardner-Webb, but also got bashed a few times, including a 30-point loss to Norfolk State and a 31-point defeat to Presbyterian in the season finale.

Non-FBS opponents averaged 35 points per game against the Bucs, and had success on the ground and in the air. CSU allowed 225 rushing yards per game, and 217 passing yards per contest.

Charleston Southern ranked last in the Big South in the following defensive categories: defensive pass efficiency, fumbles recovered, rushing defense, total defense, scoring defense, tackles for loss, sacks, and turnovers gained.

Offensively, CSU ranked last in the Big South in rushing offense and scoring offense. The Bucs were also the worst team in the league at returning kickoffs. On the bright side, Charleston Southern led the Big South in net punting and only lost seven fumbles.

It all added up to a winless season. CSU has now lost twelve straight and eighteen of its last nineteen games.

—

Charleston Southern has two quarterbacks battling for the starting spot; regardless of which player wins the job, he must improve upon last year’s pass completion percentage (45.7%). I mentioned earlier that CSU finished last in the Big South in rushing offense. In fact, the Bucs only averaged 2.6 yards per carry, and only two starters return on CSU’s offensive line. Charleston Southern quarterbacks were sacked 32 times last year.

The defense has a new coordinator, Shawn Quinn, who was Georgia Southern’s linebackers coach and recruiting coordinator last season. He has work to do. However, given his experience at GSU, he should have a very good idea of how to defend The Citadel’s triple option attack.

Charleston Southern is not completely bereft of experienced talent. Senior cornerback Charles James was selected as the preseason Big South Defensive Player of the Year. He must be an excellent player to receive that kind of accolade while playing for a team coming off an 0-11 campaign. James is a former walk-on who has ten career interceptions; he also made 66 tackles last season for the Bucs and is a fine punt returner as well, averaging just under ten yards per return last season (with one touchdown).

Junior wideout Nathan Perera caught 43 passes (four touchdowns) last season and joined James on the preseason All-Big South squad. Perera averaged over 16 yards per reception. However, he is questionable for the game against The Citadel due to injury.

The Buccaneers’ special teams were respectable in 2011, with the punting units in particular being very solid. However, CSU must replace its punter/placekicker this season.

Charleston Southern was picked to finish last in the Big South’s preseason poll. One of the eighteen voters did tip CSU to finish second, for reasons not immediately apparent.

—

This year’s Charleston Southern team is probably not as good as the Jacksonville squad that The Citadel faced in last year’s opener. However, the Bucs are likely better than 2010 opening-game opponent Chowan or the Presbyterian outfit the Bulldogs played in the 2009 home opener.

While CSU’s defense last year was porous, it will return seven starters, and that group doesn’t include UGA transfer Damian Dixon, who will likely start in the defensive backfield with Charles James. Add in to the mix a new defensive coordinator who is familiar with The Citadel’s offense, and the result is a unit that should be ready to compete against the Bulldogs.

On the other side of the ball, The Citadel has several players who will be starting for the first time, but the same is going to be true for CSU’s offense. It may be a good situation for the Bulldogs in that respect.

The Citadel should win this game. It probably won’t be a rout, but it ought to be decisive. Losing to the Buccaneers would be disastrous. The Bulldogs will struggle to salvage the rest of the 2012 campaign if they do not prevail on Saturday.

That is pressure. Then again, nobody goes to The Citadel to avoid pressure.

I can’t wait until Saturday.

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

Waiting on college football season…hurry up already!

Posted on May 29, 2012 by Sandlapper Spike

This is a post featuring meaningless gridiron musings, and it’s not even June yet.

I saw this chart on Phil Steele’s site a couple of days ago. It’s an interesting look at the percentage of lettermen returning for each FBS team, although perhaps not really indicative of how a team may do this season. For example, I suspect that Southern California, next-to-last in the category, is still going to be really good.

North Carolina State, which will play The Citadel in late September, is also near the bottom of the list, with a lettermen return rate of 59.6%. That got me thinking, what’s The Citadel’s return rate? It turns out to be not much higher (62.9%).

I compiled a similar list of The Citadel’s opponents this year in a chart. Well, not all the opponents, for the simple reason that I couldn’t find readily available numbers. I found practically no information about Charleston Southern’s returnees, to name just one school, although I would imagine that since the Buccaneers were 0-11 last season there are going to be some changes.

I have return/loss statistics for eight of the eleven schools playing the Bulldogs. As I get more information for the others, I’ll add those numbers to the chart.

Anyway, this is what I came up with for eight opponents, plus The Citadel (excuse the less-than-stellar presentation):

Team     2011 L’men     Lost         Returning   % Returning

Appy           55                22                 33       60.0%

GSU             80                24                 56       70.0%

NCSU          52                 21                 31       59.6%

Wofford      64                 17                 44       68.8%

WCU           63                 21                42       66.7%

UTC            65                 20                 45       69.2%

Furman        62                 17                 45       72.6%

VMI          54                   19                    35       64.8%

The Citadel  62                 23                 39       62.9%

Among returning offensive and defensive starters, Chattanooga returns 16 of 22 (8 offensive/8 defensive); Georgia Southern, 15 of 22 (8/7); Appalachian State, 14 of 22 (5/9); North Carolina State, 14 of 22 (7/7); Western Carolina, 14 of 22 (8/6); VMI, 11 of 22 (5/6); and Furman, 14 of 22 (6/8).

Some links, if you’re interested or bored or both:

Appalachian State 2012 Preseason Prospectus

Georgia Southern 2012 Quick Facts

A report from Charleston Southern’s spring game

Wofford 2012 Quick Facts

Chattanooga 2012 Spring Notes

Furman 2012 Quick Facts

VMI 2012 Quick Facts, Newspaper report on VMI spring football, school report on final spring scrimmage

Western Carolina 2012 Quick Facts and A report from Western Carolina’s spring game

Samford 2012 Prospectus

A report from Elon’s spring game

North Carolina State 2012 Spring Prospectus

Phil Steele’s team page for The Citadel

Jeff Hartsell’s writeup of The Citadel’s spring game (over two months ago, sure, but in case you missed it)

—

Less than 100 days to go…

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

Hoops update: still searching for a second SoCon victory

Posted on January 29, 2012 by Sandlapper Spike

Just a few quick thoughts on the losses to Wofford and Furman:

— The Citadel has a lot of issues to address, both offensively and defensively, but one noticeable problem the Bulldogs have had, particularly over the last three games, is a tendency to commit a ridiculous number of first-half turnovers. The Citadel has averaged over 11 turnovers in the first half in those three games. The Bulldogs have taken care of the basketball in the second half in two of those games, but to win consistently (or at all) they must cut down on turnovers throughout the game.

If The Citadel had not committed 12 first-half turnovers against Wofford, the Bulldogs likely would have had a decent lead at the break instead of being tied at 21. Against Furman, ten TOs in the opening stanza led to a deficit that the Bulldogs could never quite overcome.

The Citadel had 12 first-half turnovers against Georgia Southern in a game the Bulldogs lost in double overtime; in the second half and two overtime periods in that contest, The Citadel only committed seven turnovers. Just cutting down on a few of the first-half miscues would have resulted in a victory for the Bulldogs.

You just can’t throw away possessions like that. Against Furman, the Bulldogs shot the ball very well in the first half (53% FG), actually got to the foul line and made a good percentage of their free throws (9-12)…and still trailed by six points at intermission because 29% of The Citadel’s possessions ended in a turnover.

Against Wofford, 37.5% of The Citadel’s first-half possessions ended in a turnover.

Admittedly, none of this is news to the Bulldogs. As Mike Groselle said after the Wofford loss:

We’re really close, and everyone on the team knows it. It’s up to us to be more solid with the ball. That’s going to be the difference in winning and losing these games.

— Groselle is continuing to put together what is by anyone’s definition an outstanding season, despite The Citadel’s struggles. There is no telling how many points he would have scored against Furman if the Paladins had not elected to go to a sagging 2-3 zone midway through the second half; as it was, Groselle finished with 24 points on 10-12 shooting from the floor (along with 11 rebounds).

Unfortunately, the Bulldogs were unable to make Furman pay for that defensive strategy, only making three of fifteen three-point shots. Not only was The Citadel unable to hit from outside, the Bulldogs’ guards could not penetrate the zone for easier shots in the paint (or simple feeds to Groselle). Chuck Driesell’s take:

The zone bothered us, and I’m surprised about that. We worked on it, and we knew they played it some. We didn’t knock down shots. The zone keeps the ball out of the big man’s hands, but if you knock down a couple of 3-pointers, they can’t stay in it long.

Of course, it’s easy to say what the Bulldogs need to do against a zone. Executing that plan is another matter. I was reminded that it’s not the simplest of propositions when on Sunday, Rob Dauster of Ballin’ Is A Habit tweeted that “to beat a zone, you have to move the ball quickly and get the ball into the paint via pass or penetration.” The team that drew Dauster’s ire because of its inability to do that?

That team would be Connecticut — which, last time I checked, won the national title last season.

— I was able to make it to McAlister Field House on Saturday night, and happy to have been in attendance, despite the loss to Furman. The 1600 or so fans at the game were treated to a good game between two teams that played hard, if not always well.

At halftime, The Citadel honored Jake Burrows, whose accomplishments I mentioned in a previous post, by putting jersey number 3 in the rafters. Burrows is the third hoopster so honored by The Citadel; somewhat amusingly, only one numeral has been needed, as the other two honorees (Regan Truesdale and Art Musselman) both wore no. 33. Burrows spoke briefly and movingly to the crowd, better than most people could have, and most people aren’t 93 years old.

It is a shame there weren’t more cadets on hand, although it certainly is understandable, given it was Saturday night. The Southern Conference schedule doesn’t really help The Citadel on that front.

I have a suggestion to the administration that I’ve made before and that I’m going to make again. There are cadets on campus on Saturday nights (besides the hard-working pep band). I’m talking about cadets who are serving tours or confinements. It wouldn’t be a bad idea to give those cadets credit for tours/cons by letting them come to McAlister and support the team. I am betting some of them would be ideally suited for the role of cheering the Bulldogs and mocking the opponents.

Actually, I know they would be ideally suited, because the idea is not without precedent.

On a February night in 1990, conduct-restricted cadets (and a few of their “free to roam” colleagues) cheered on The Citadel’s basketball team as it battled an outstanding East Tennessee State squad, one that would win the second of four straight SoCon titles that season. The Bulldogs had played ETSU earlier that season in Johnson City and lost badly, 92-57.

However, with the support of a particularly rowdy section of the corps behind them, the Bulldogs put together what may have been their best performance of that season. Alas, it wasn’t quite enough for a win, as Ted Mosay’s last-second shot was blocked, enabling the Buccaneers to escape with an 87-86 victory. Still, it was a great game and a lot of fun.

The night at McAlister wasn’t over, though. In a decidedly unusual development, a wrestling match between The Citadel and UT-Chattanooga had been scheduled to follow the basketball game. The hoops game had tipped just after 6 pm, so by the time the first wrestling match started it was around 9 pm. UTC, the conference favorite, would eventually win, but things were tougher than expected for the Mocs, in no small part due to a vocal contingent cheering on The Citadel.

It was a great experience for the Bulldog wrestlers, and probably for the Moc grapplers as well. My lasting memory of that evening, though, was the one voice in the stands that stood out the most. Leading the crowd in cheers, needling the referee at every given opportunity, supporting the cadets on the mat throughout every match…was the assistant commandant of cadets, the one and only LTC Harvey M. Dick.

Harvey Dick died Saturday morning; there was a moment of silence before the game, and flags on campus were lowered to half-staff. It is a loss that has hit the greater community of The Citadel hard, understandably so. Few people loved The Citadel and cared more for its students than Harvey Dick. Stories about him are numerous, mostly true, and could be told for days on end. For me, I’ll always remember that night at McAlister. Condolences to his family.

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

Talking stats: SoCon football and turnovers

Posted on December 27, 2011 by Sandlapper Spike

I was reading Jeff Hartsell’s review of The Citadel’s football season in The Post and Courier. In the second post of the three-part series, head coach Kevin Higgins had this to say about turnovers:

 We didn’t get as many turnovers as I would have liked. We just didn’t have that many opportunities. That’s something we’ll have to study in the off-season and address that. We need to be able to turn the ball over — one more turnover against Samford or Georgia Southern or App State could have meant the difference in any of those games.

I thought it might be an interesting idea to dig a little deeper into the statistical record to see what The Citadel could do to force more turnovers. However, that meant more than just going by the raw data.

First, I decided that it would be best to concentrate solely on Southern Conference play. Including games played against the likes of Virginia Tech and Virginia-Wise (just to name two SoCon opponents) would make the statistics something less than balanced. Besides, teams are ultimately judged on how they fare against league opponents. There is also the benefit of each team’s conference statistical summary including four home and four away games.

Another consideration was trying to account for the different types of offenses employed by SoCon teams, including three “true” triple option teams and several schools running the spread, and with varied paces of play. That is why I felt it was important to focus on certain percentage categories, rather than totals.

I compiled data (league play only) for a number of different statistics, both for offense and defense. After doing this, I put together a spreadsheet which you can access at the link below:

Southern Conference 2011 Football Statistics

I trust most of what is on the spreadsheet makes at least some sense.

—

Before I get to my conclusions about The Citadel’s issues with forcing turnovers (along with observations on some other SoCon schools), I want to make a few points:

– It is generally accepted that there is no real skill in recovering fumbles. Anyone who follows any of the websites that study professional football statistics/history is aware of this. Football Outsiders puts it best:

Stripping the ball is a skill. Holding onto the ball is a skill. Pouncing on the ball as it is bouncing all over the place is not a skill. There is no correlation whatsoever between the percentage of fumbles recovered by a team in one year and the percentage they recover in the next year. The odds of recovery are based solely on the type of play involved, not the teams or any of their players.

Fans like to insist that specific coaches can teach their teams to recover more fumbles by swarming to the ball. Chicago’s Lovie Smith, in particular, is supposed to have this ability. However, since Smith took over the Bears, their rate of fumble recovery on defense went from a league-best 76 percent to a league-worst 33 percent in 2005, then back to 67 percent in 2006. Last year, they recovered 57 percent of fumbles, close to the league average.

Fumble recovery is equally erratic on offense. In 2008, the Bears fumbled 12 times on offense and recovered only three of them. In 2009, the Bears fumbled 18 times on offense, but recovered 13 of them.

Fumble recovery is a major reason why the general public overestimates or underestimates certain teams. Fumbles are huge, turning-point plays that dramatically impact wins and losses in the past, while fumble recovery percentage says absolutely nothing about a team’s chances of winning games in the future.

Although this makes perfect sense, it is understandable that longtime football fans might not be so sure. I think the best way to illustrate the randomness of fumble recoveries is to highlight Pittsburgh Steelers legend Jack Lambert, who besides being a fantastic linebacker was one of my favorite players.

In the 1975 AFC championship game against the Oakland Raiders, Lambert recovered three fumbles. In the following year, 1976, he recovered an amazing eight fumbles (in fourteen games) for a remarkable Steelers defense. Lambert had a “nose for the football”, to say the least — and yet…

Those three fumble recoveries against the Raiders were the only recoveries he made in eighteen career playoff games. Those eight fumble recoveries in the ’76 regular season? They make up almost half of his career total (17).

Not everything about the NFL applies to college football, of course, particularly in FCS play, but there is no doubt that this particular observation does hold at the college level. Basically, when a ball is loose on the ground each team has a 50-50 shot at getting it. In 2011, there were 130 fumbles in Southern Conference play. The defense recovered 69 of those fumbles, or 53%. Congratulations to SoCon defenses!

No team in league play had a particularly unusual percentage when it came to recovered fumbles, either from an offensive or defensive perspective. It may be that an individual school was luckier or unluckier by a fumble or two, but that’s about it.

That isn’t to say that fumbles aren’t important, because they are. Often a fumble is more damaging to an offense than an interception (because of lost field position). However, they aren’t predictive events.

That doesn’t mean coaches shouldn’t be training their players to use the Lawrence Taylor “chop”, or continuing to have drills emphasizing fumble recoveries. It’s just that everybody does those things.

– Another thing to remember: interceptions (from a defensive perspective) tend to be random too.

This one isn’t quite as intuitive as the fumble recovery factoid, but think about it this way. Most interceptions result from a bad pass thrown by the quarterback. However, what has (normally) happened is that the QB has thrown a bad pass that was caught by a defender, instead of a bad pass that just hits the ground; there is an element of chance to this. That is why team defense interception totals can vary wildly from year to year even with similar personnel.

That isn’t to say that defenses can’t create situations where interception-prone offenses will toss the pigskin to the wrong players. I wanted to see what teams in the SoCon did the best job at pressuring the quarterback, which seemed to me to be a good way of forcing offensive errors.

I compiled sack percentage and interception percentage to see if they correlated. Again, I didn’t use raw totals, because there is a big difference when facing a team that throws the ball seven times per game (Wofford) versus forty times per game (Elon). The “pressures” statistic isn’t readily available for the SoCon; I suspect that there would have been similarities between team pressures and sacks. At least, I hope so.

You can see the numbers in the linked spreadsheet. Some observations:

– It is no accident that the three teams to make the playoffs (Appalachian State, Georgia Southern, and Wofford) are in the upper echelon when it comes to defensive sack percentage. Furman, which finished fourth in the league, finished second in the category. Leading the category was Chattanooga (more about the Mocs later).

– Defensive interception percentage does seem to at least have some correlation to defensive sack percentage. The exceptions: Samford (which intercepted more passes than it “should” have), and Wofford and UTC (each of which intercepted fewer passes than a correlation might suggest). The Terriers, in particular, seem to have been short-changed a few picks.

The Citadel’s defense finished last in interception percentage. The Bulldogs were seventh in sack percentage, ahead of only Samford and Western Carolina. I think it’s no coincidence that The Citadel didn’t intercept many passes after having less-than-stellar sack numbers. (Admittedly, that’s a rather obvious conclusion.)

– I also examined the offensive statistics for the same categories. The Citadel finished as the worst team in the league in both interceptions thrown (by percentage) and fumbles per play. The Bulldogs fumbled 23 times in SoCon action, losing ten of them. (Curiously, Georgia Southern also fumbled 23 times in league play, losing ten.)

While I tracked fumbles per play, I elected not to go through every game account to determine whether fumbles occurred on rushing or passing plays; that would have taken more hours and more days than I have, to be honest. In the NFL, the average rushing play results in a fumble 1.16% of the time, while a pass play will end with a fumble 2.04% of the time. Interestingly, 18% of all sacks in the NFL (2000-2009 time period) resulted in fumbles.

I’m not sure those numbers are quite as relevant at the college level; for one thing, there is a lot more fumbling in SoCon play than in the NFL (2.66% vs. 1.67%). There is also a lot more running than passing in the conference (almost a 2-to-1 differential).

Those sack/fumble stats are something to think about, however.

Meaningless trivia: there was only one game in the Southern Conference this season in which neither team fumbled: Georgia Southern-Appalachian State.

– The “luckiest” team, at least on the surface, appears to have been Samford, which finished eighth in defensive sack percentage but fourth in defensive interception percentage. The Birmingham Bulldogs also had the best rates for offensive interceptions thrown (with the fourth-best sacks against percentage), so it worked out both ways for Samford.

I have to wonder if Samford’s pace of play had something to do with that. Samford ran the most plays from scrimmage of any team in the league, and also faced the second-most plays on defense (Western Carolina drew the short straw in that category).

– Balance, as always, is overrated. Samford was by far the most balanced team on offense (305 runs, 301 passes) and finished 4-4 in league play. The second-most balanced team was WCU, which was 0-8. There is nothing offensively balanced about Georgia Southern and Wofford; those two playoff teams combined for a league record of 13-3.

– I don’t know what to make of Chattanooga. Usually a team that loses so many close games (including three by the same exact score, 28-27) doesn’t do itself any favors in the turnover battle, but the Mocs tied for the league lead in fumbles recovered and led the league in forced fumbles. UTC also finished second-best in the league in offensive lost fumbles.

UTC didn’t have the rate of return on defensive interceptions that might have been expected by its league-leading defensive sack percentage, but it wasn’t bad. The Mocs did have a higher average offensive interception percentage, but it wasn’t abysmal.

I think it would take a more detailed look at Chattanooga to figure out exactly how and when things went wrong for the Mocs, but I can safely say no team in the league was unluckier than UTC — just not as unlucky in the things you usually would associate with unlucky teams.

—

I guess my final conclusion, at least with regards to The Citadel, is that the Bulldogs must get more pressure on the quarterback if they expect to increase their defensive turnovers. However, it has to be remembered that defensive turnovers are an effect of good play, not a cause of good play.

I would also suggest the Bulldogs were a touch lucky on offense themselves when it came to turnovers, and need to continue to improve the consistency of execution on that side of the ball.

I admit my analysis of The Citadel (and some of the other teams in the league) may be flawed. That’s one reason I included the spreadsheet, in case anyone else wants to take a crack at what the numbers may mean.

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

2011 Football Game 10: The Citadel vs. Samford

Posted on November 10, 2011 by Sandlapper Spike

The Citadel vs. Samford, to be played at historic Johnson Hagood Stadium, with kickoff at 3:00 pm ET on Saturday, November 12.  The contest will be televised on the SoCon Network, with play-by-play by Darren Goldwater (formerly the “Voice of the Bulldogs”) and analysis by Doug Chapman. It is also available via the ESPN3.com platform. The game can be heard on radio via The Citadel Sports Network, with current “Voice of the Bulldogs” Danny Reed calling the action alongside analyst Walt Nadzak. 

—

This is another “combo” post, with a brief review of the Georgia Southern game and a preview of the Samford contest.

—

Georgia Southern 14, The Citadel 12.

There isn’t a whole lot to add to what has already been said and written about the game. I’ll just make a few points:

— In my preview of the game I devoted the better part of two paragraphs to Brent Russell, Georgia Southern’s star nosetackle. I expected him to be a major factor in the game, so news that he wasn’t going to play gave me hope that the Bulldogs could establish themselves offensively. I thought he was that important, and I think the way the game went bore that out. The Citadel rushed for a respectable 239 yards, averaging 4.6 yards per carry.

Russell’s absence surely had an impact on the Bulldogs’ ability to gain yards up the middle, as Darien Robinson had an outstanding afternoon, rushing for 92 yards and a TD on only nine carries. Good teams take advantage of opportunities, and I felt in this respect The Citadel did just that.

— While there was some focus on the missed field goal at the end of the game, that wasn’t what bothered me (especially with the wind issues). The two blocked PATs were what bothered me. It is unacceptable to have one PAT blocked in a game, much less two. Field goals are going to be missed from time to time, but PATs should be all but automatic.

The Citadel has done a lot of good things in the area of special teams this season, most notably the Bulldogs’ punt-blocking exploits. Cass Couey has had a fine year, and even the kick return teams have improved over the last three games (including Kevin Hardy’s tone-setting 50-yard return to open up the festivities in Statesboro).

The Bulldogs are still struggling with kick coverage and placekicking, however, and that isn’t all on the kickers, not by a long shot. Those struggles are also, unfortunately, not a one-year aberration. Thinking about this game, I remembered that I had written about another game against Georgia Southern that got away from The Citadel three years ago. That one also came down to placekicking problems.

The Citadel does not have much margin for error when playing football in the Southern Conference. It cannot afford to lose a game or two each season because of a recurring problem that should be correctable.

I’m not saying it’s easy, because it’s not. Alabama probably just lost a shot at making the BCS title game because Nick Saban didn’t have a placekicker on the roster capable of making long field goals under pressure — and that’s at tradition-rich Alabama, with 85 scholarships at its disposal (not even taking oversigning into account). Bobby Bowden and Florida State lost a couple of mythical crowns in the early 1990s because of an unreliable kicking game.

Despite those examples, your typical 50-year-old male thinks he can roll out of bed and make a 35-yard field goal. That’s just the way the position (and overall placekicking unit) is perceived.

— Okay, now for something tangentially related, but still worth following (at least, I think so)…

Some fans of the Bulldogs may remember that The Post and Courier elected not to send a beat writer for The Citadel’s game at Western Carolina three weeks ago. This was the first time in recent memory that the newspaper had not covered a SoCon football game involving The Citadel. The decision was reportedly not made by the sports department.

At the time, I wrote:

Obviously these are tough times for the newspaper business, so it’s not shocking the paper would cut an occasional corner.  This time it came at the expense of coverage for The Citadel’s football team, which should be a concern for any fan of the military college.

I’m hopeful it was just a one-time thing…

It appears to have been just that, for now. Jeff Hartsell was in Statesboro on Saturday.

The reason I am bringing this up again is that I noticed The Post and Courier sent two reporters to Fayetteville, Arkansas, to cover the South Carolina-Arkansas game. Both Gamecocks beat writer Darryl Slater (a recent hire by the paper) and general sports columnist Gene Sapakoff were at that contest.

It occurs to me that Cullowhee is a lot closer to Charleston than Fayetteville…

It probably doesn’t mean anything. It’s just something to watch.

—

Pat Sullivan knew he had to make some changes to Samford’s offense after last season, one in which a good defense could not make up for a less than dynamic offense. In 2010, the Birmingham Bulldogs averaged just over 10 points per game at home and finished 4-7 (despite an upset over Georgia Southern). The final game of the season was a 13-12 home loss to The Citadel.

Sullivan brought in several new coaches, with the key hire being 28-year-old Rhett Lashlee, a protege of Auburn offensive coordinator Gus Malzahn. Lashlee has installed the hurry-up/spread system run by Malzahn, the same offensive philosophy employed by fellow Malzahn acolyte Chad Morris of Clemson.

Thus, Samford’s meat-and-potatoes attack of years past has been replaced by an offense that spreads the field and tries to run 80 plays from scrimmage per game. It has been, for the most part, successful. Samford is averaging over 30 points per game, ranking third in the SoCon in scoring offense, total offense, and passing offense. It is also fifth in the league in rushing offense, a very respectable placement considering the three triple-option attacks in the conference tend to dominate that statistical category.

Samford has scored at least 17 points in every Southern Conference game this season, a far cry from last year. However, Sullivan’s squad has not been as strong defensively, perhaps in part because of the nature of the offense (Samford’s opponents have a time of possession advantage of close to five minutes). Samford is seventh in the league in scoring defense, next-to-last in total defense, and next-to-last in pass defense (though that is misleading, as it is second in defensive pass efficiency).

Samford has allowed at least 21 points in every SoCon game this season. The second half of games has occasionally been problematic, as the team has allowed 21 second-half points to both Furman and Wofford, and 24 to Georgia Southern.

In Samford’s five wins, the Birmingham Bulldogs have rushed for 304, 160, 181, 348 (Elon), and 303 yards. In its four losses, the rushing totals have been 61, 34 (Wofford), 84, and 92.

If that’s not a key indicator, I don’t know what is.

As far as how the Samford defense has fared against the other triple-option offenses in the league, Wofford rushed for 443 yards, while Georgia Southern’s ground attack put up 263. Both of those schools controlled the running game on both sides of the ball. I think a good goal for Triple O’Higgins would be an average of those two rush totals — 353 yards.

—

If you think Dustin Taliaferro has been Samford’s quarterback for a long time, you would be correct. He’s been taking snaps for Samford since 2008. The new offense seems to be to his liking (Kevin Higgins called him “much improved”). He is completing almost 62% of his passes this season, with 12 TDs against 8 interceptions. He threw three of those TDs against Furman.

Fabian Truss also had a good game against the Paladins, rushing for 136 yards. He was even better the next week against Elon, piling up 191 rushing yards in that game. Sullivan noted that Truss was hurt last week against Chattanooga, a game in which he carried the ball ten times for 46 yards. It was the fourth consecutive game in which his rush attempts from scrimmage had declined. Despite that, Truss still leads the SoCon in all-purpose yardage (he is averaging almost 30 yards per kick return).

Taliaferro’s primary receiving targets are Kelsey Pope (56 catches, five for touchdowns) and Riley Hawkins (33 receptions, two TDs). Hawkins is also Samford’s main punt returner, and he’s a very good one, leading the league in punt return average (11.7 yards). Samford has outstanding kick return teams and also has a solid placekicker in Cameron Yaw, who has made 18 of 23 field goals.

Samford will be motivated to win this game in part because a victory would clinch a winning season for the visitors from Birmingham. If Samford loses to The Citadel, it would have to win its season finale to get that elusive sixth victory. That last game, though, is at Auburn.

—

This is going to be a tough matchup for The Citadel. It is a winnable game, to be sure. Of course, that has been the case for the Bulldogs most of the season, which in itself is suggestive of the improvement the team has made this year.

It is also Homecoming, so a fairly sizeable crowd should be on hand. I hope that a significant portion of those in attendance actually wander into Johnson Hagood Stadium to watch the game. It should be a good one.

Congratulations to all the reunion year classes, particularly the Class of 1961, which is having its 50th-year celebration.

I’ll be at the game this Saturday. I won’t be at any of the reunions, but I’ll be in the stands, rooting on the home team. The weather forecast for Charleston is promising. I hope things are just as sunny for the Bulldogs.

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

2011 Football Game 9: The Citadel vs. Georgia Southern

Posted on November 3, 2011 by Sandlapper Spike

The Citadel at Georgia Southern, to be played at Paulson Stadium, with kickoff at 2:00 pm ET on Saturday, November 5.  The game will not be televised. The game can be heard on radio via The Citadel Sports Network, with “Voice of the Bulldogs” Danny Reed calling the action alongside analyst Walt Nadzak.   Bulldog Insider will also provide free audio; the only video available for this game is being provided by Georgia Southern as part of a subscription service.

—

I’ve already written about The Citadel’s victory over VMI. There isn’t much to add to that, except I did want to briefly mention VMI’s fans.  The Keydets brought more supporters to Johnson Hagood Stadium than Wofford did, and weren’t too far behind Furman in the “travel” category. That’s very impressive, given that A) it’s a long trip, and B) VMI hasn’t had a winning season in 30 years.  Full credit to VMI’s fans, a group that surely deserves better results on the gridiron.

—

Now the Bulldogs face what could be their biggest challenge of the season to date, a road game against Georgia Southern, which until last week was unbeaten and ranked #1 in the country in both FCS polls. The Eagles saw their perfect season go by the boards in a 24-17 loss in Boone to Appalachian State, and are likely to be a rather surly bunch right now, just in time for Homecoming in Statesboro. Beautiful Eagle Creek may seem a little less beautiful right now.

One thing Georgia Southern can’t really afford to do at this point in the season is lose to The Citadel, because it would put the Eagles in a rather difficult position. Right now GSU is 7-1 with three games remaining. After hosting the Bulldogs, Georgia Southern finishes the regular season with two road games. One of those is in Spartanburg against fellow SoCon title contender Wofford, while the finale is a matchup with BCS title contender Alabama.

If Georgia Southern were to lose all three games, it would finish at 7-4, and would have a borderline case for a postseason bid. The record wouldn’t be great, and GSU would have finished the campaign with four straight defeats. Even more problematic would be the fact that the Eagles would have only six victories against Division I teams, as one of GSU’s wins came against Division II Tusculum.

Technically, an FCS playoff at-large team doesn’t need seven D-1 wins, but historically it has been a de facto rule that at-large candidates should have at least seven such victories. (That may change if there is more postseason expansion.)

GSU definitely needs to win one of its next two games to ensure a playoff bid, and probably needs to win both to garner a national seed.

Although the odds of Georgia Southern getting left out of the FCS postseason are low, it’s important not to overlook the problem of scheduling both a “money” game and a matchup against a non-D1 squad. While a team that closes a season with four straight losses isn’t likely to get an at-large berth anyway, what if Georgia Southern had lost earlier in the season (say, to Chattanooga, a one-point victory for the Eagles), and then finished the year with a win over The Citadel but a tough loss at Wofford, and then the expected defeat to the Crimson Tide?

A SoCon team with 7 wins and a loss to Alabama would normally be at worst a marginal at-large contender, but GSU would only have six D-1 victories and would presumably be out of the running.

That’s why it is better, when looking for a no-return home game, that ADs at schools with playoff aspirations try to schedule D-1 schools rather than D-2 or NAIA teams. It’s not that easy to find FCS schools willing to make a one-way trip, at least not cheaply, but it’s something that needs to be done. Of course, there is the additional risk that the school in question may be good enough to actually win the game.

For The Citadel, Jacksonville was an excellent season-opening opponent in this respect. Presbyterian would also be a good candidate, and of course there is a long tradition of games between the Bulldogs and the Blue Hose. Newberry, on the other hand, is probably not an option, since it is still D-2.

—

For some fans of the Eagles, the playoffs aren’t enough. There is still a significant group of Georgia Southern supporters who believe that it is time for GSU to make the move to the land of FBS. The school published a study on the issue two years ago. At the time I wrote about whether GSU should make the leap, the latest round of conference-jumping wasn’t even on the horizon, much less a staple of hourly news reports.

I think it is even more of a risk to move to FBS now than it was two years ago, because there is major uncertainty about what that division will become in the next few years. Georgia Southern (and Appalachian State) supporters hoping to become part of the FBS club are dreaming of a chance to join a league like the Sun Belt or, in a best-case scenario, Conference USA.

Even if that were to happen, though, in the current climate there is a possibility it would amount to jumping on a treadmill. If the much-theorized breakaway by the major programs to form super-conferences comes to pass, Sun Belt and C-USA schools are not likely to be part of the chosen few. They are more likely to wind up in a larger FCS.

—

The Citadel has won two straight games, reason for optimism in the continuing story that is Triple O’Higgins. However, I think there is still reason to be cautious. While I’m not one to complain about any victory, Western Carolina and VMI are not exactly the Pittsburgh Steelers and Green Bay Packers when it comes to football prowess. While the Bulldog D has generally been excellent this season, The Citadel’s triple option attack is still very much a work in progress.

That isn’t to say that strides haven’t been made, because they have. It’s just that the Bulldogs haven’t really had that “eureka” moment, or game, at least not yet. It may be that it won’t happen this season.

Was there such a defining game in 1988, the second year of Charlie Taaffe’s wishbone attack? Was there a specific game when everyone realized that the Bulldogs were no longer learning how to run the offense, but were instead refining it?

Well, I’m not sure. Looking back at the seven-game winning streak in 1988, there wasn’t a true breakout game in terms of rushing yardage. It was more of a gradual increase, from 290 yards rushing (Navy) to 322 (Western Carolina), then a blip downwards (187 vs. Chattanooga), then the two games started by Tommy Burriss (278 yards rushing against Boston University and 301 vs. East Tennessee State).

Tangent: as it happens, the two games Burriss started in 1988 both came against schools that in the next few years would drop their respective football programs. I don’t think this can be blamed on Burriss, however.

The contest against ETSU could qualify as the game that truly established the offense as a force, as in addition to the rushing yardage the Bulldogs threw for 199 yards, with the 500 yards of total offense being the most in a game for the cadets since 1980. The Citadel scored 48 points against ETSU (31 in the second quarter).

The game against the Buccaneers was the eighth of the 1988 campaign. In the ninth game, Gene Brown would return from injury and lead the Bulldogs to one of their more celebrated victories, a 20-3 Homecoming triumph over #1 Marshall.

It would be nice to have a similar result in the ninth game of this season…

—

It won’t be easy, though, as the Eagles rank first in the SoCon in scoring defense and rush defense. One big reason why is Georgia Southern nosetackle Brent Russell, who Kevin Higgins called “the best defensive lineman in the country at our level.” It’s hard to argue the point. In last week’s loss to Appalachian State, the redshirt junior registered a career-high ten tackles.

One of the more notable performances in Russell’s career came last season against Navy, when he completely dominated the line of scrimmage, a major reason why Navy was held to 193 total yards (109 rushing). The Midshipmen managed to win the game despite Russell’s efforts, 13-7.

I found it interesting that in his weekly SoCon teleconference, GSU coach Jeff Monken was quick to praise Mike Sellers, the Bulldogs’ sophomore center. When The Citadel’s offense faces Georgia Southern’s defense, the critical matchup could be between the two players who line up closest to the ball.

Incidentally (or maybe not so incidentally), Georgia Southern’s defense has forced a punt on their opponents’ opening possession six times. Presbyterian’s opening drive against the Eagles resulted in a field goal attempt that was blocked. The only time the opposition scored on its initial possession against Georgia Southern was last week, when Appalachian State’s first drive resulted in a touchdown. Obviously, that’s also the only game GSU has lost.

—

Jaybo Shaw, GSU’s quarterback, was injured early in the contest last season at Johnson Hagood Stadium, so (presuming he stays healthy) this will be the first time The Citadel has seen him in extended game action. The Bulldogs will get their fill of quarterbacks named Shaw, however, as they will face Jaybo’s brother Connor in the game at South Carolina. Two Shaws in three weeks is probably a record.

Shaw’s passing numbers are reasonably solid, if modest by comparison to “normal” offenses. He has completed 54% of his throws for five touchdowns, against two interceptions. More importantly, he is averaging 11.2 yards per attempt, as the Eagles are third nationally (second in the SoCon) in pass efficiency. Shaw has rushed for 261 yards and seven touchdowns.

He has distributed the ball well in GSU’s triple option attack, with a bevy of running backs featuring for the Eagles. Robert Brown, the starting B-back, is the leading ground-gainer on the season for GSU. Included in his totals are 178 yards versus Chattanooga, 140 yards against Samford, and 116 yards versus Elon. He is averaging nearly seven yards per carry.

Georgia Southern’s offensive line has included the same five starters in every game except for last week’s contest, with the two-deep released by the school indicating the standard five-man group will return for the game against The Citadel. Three of the five are seniors.

GSU leads the nation in scoring offense (41.1 points per game) and is second in rushing offense.

The Eagles are also dangerous on special teams. Laron Scott averages 35. 5 yards per kick return, tops in FCS. As for punt returner Darreion Robinson, statistics don’t tell the whole story. This effort against Appalachian State does: Link

—

Saturday’s game against Georgia Southern will be a challenge, but that’s all right. The players won’t be dreading the trip to Statesboro; rather, they will be relishing it. It’s an opportunity to see how far the Bulldogs have come, and how far they still need to go.

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

Game Review, 2011: VMI

Posted on October 30, 2011 by Sandlapper Spike

The Citadel 41, VMI 14. The coveted Silver Shako remains in Charleston.

—

Links of interest:

Game story from The Post and Courier

Jeff Hartsell’s postgame notes column

Photo gallery of VMI-The Citadel from The Post and Courier

Game writeup from VMI’s sports website

Game writeup from The Citadel’s sports website

—

I got to the stadium early on Saturday, and decided to walk around campus. That gave me the opportunity to see the new Ring Statue (I guess that’s what it is going to be called). The statue is a great addition to the parade ground, and I like where it is stationed. It is also a magnet for photographers of all types (including me).

The campus as a whole looked good, even on a gloomy, overcast morning. Conditions improved considerably as gametime approached, and by kickoff it was nice and sunny, classic fall “jacket weather”. The only negative was a rather insistent breeze, but it wasn’t too bad.

The Hall of Fame inductions resulted in some familiar faces showing up for the game, including former hoopsters like Gus Olalere and James Stevens, just to name two. Nate Ross, Renaissance Man, was also on hand. It wasn’t surprising to see a strong basketball contingent, what with Randy Nesbit being one of the HoF inductees.

Dallas McPherson and Tony Skole were also honored, so more than a few ex-baseball players (like Anthony Jenkins and Mike Montei) were at Johnson Hagood Stadium. Phil Florence was enshrined as well. I had forgotten just how good a career he had in track, to say nothing of his abilities as a wide receiver; I was reminded of that fact during his introduction to the crowd at the half.

Charlie Taaffe wasn’t there, as Central Florida had a game on Saturday. I’m not sure the Knights really needed their offensive coordinator, as UCF shut out hapless Memphis 41-0, but Taaffe was represented at halftime by his son Brian. Tom McQueeney, one of about 300 McQueeneys to attend The Citadel, was also inducted into the Hall.

Just before I entered the stadium, I saw an older gentleman come out of the front of JHS, slip past the turnstiles, and walk over to a small group of people. They appeared to be family members. He pointed them in the direction where they were apparently supposed to go, and off they went.

After a moment, he strolled through the side gate (mysteriously open) next to the Altman Center. He then stopped briefly to take out a visitors’ pass and put it around his neck, a needless gesture if there ever was one.

If I had been a little closer when I first saw him, I probably would have greeted him. After all, Bobby Ross was the head coach for the first football game I ever attended. It was a win, too. I watched him amiably talking to one of the security workers for a minute or so, on the edge of the field. Then memories came flooding into my brain, and I turned away.

—

I was disappointed in the attendance. It was a good day for football (eventually), Clemson and South Carolina were both playing road night games, and there weren’t any truly interesting football games on TV in the afternoon. Just 11,184 people decided to go to the game, though.

Bobby Ross, who had the honors at the coin toss, might have been able to relate to the attendance woes. In his first two years as head coach at The Citadel the average attendance for a game at Johnson Hagood Stadium was just 11,692, not much more than the crowd on Saturday. However, in his last three seasons with the Bulldogs, the average attendance jumped to 16,718.

—

As for the game itself, some random thoughts:

— At halftime, The Citadel led 21-7. That was the good news, and the best kind of good news, since it was the bottom line. However, I found it worrisome that the difference in the half boiled down to two blocked punts.

After the first couple of drives the Bulldogs did not accomplish much on offense, and the defense allowed a touchdown drive by VMI that consisted of two penalties and six consecutive runs by Keydet running back Chaz Jones, most of them right up the middle. Jones finished the day with 112 yards rushing on 16 carries.

— Sparky Woods is a good coach, but if he had to do it over again, I suspect he might have done a couple of things differently on Saturday. I think Woods tried too hard to keep his offense “balanced”, as VMI finished the day with 33 rush attempts and 26 pass plays. Those numbers don’t account for sacks, so it was really more like 30 designed rushing plays and 29 throws or would-be throws.

The problem was that VMI was reasonably effective on the ground but putrid in the air. Only 9 of those 26 pass attempts were completed, for a total of just 68 yards. From my vantage point, it seemed the primary problem with VMI’s passing game was that its receivers could not get open. Meanwhile, the Keydets were averaging a respectable 4.7 yards per rush, led by Jones, who I thought probably should have received more opportunities to carry the ball.

— The decision by Woods that I found most perplexing, though, came in the third quarter. With The Citadel leading 24-7, VMI faced a fourth-and-seven on its own 29. The Keydets prepared to punt, which for their fans was a cover-your-eyes situation, as two VMI punts had already been blocked in the game, and another possible block just missed.

VMI survived yet another close call on this particular punt. The net was only 23 yards, but considering the troubles with the VMI punting game, and the fact the Keydets were going against the wind, it wasn’t the most terrible of outcomes. However, there was a penalty on the play.

It wasn’t roughing the kicker, but running into the kicker. If the penalty were accepted, it would be fourth and two on the VMI 34. VMI could go for it (after all, the Keydets had nothing to lose, down 17, and Jones was picking up good yardage on running plays). The Keydets could also decline the penalty, with The Citadel taking over at its own 48.

Woods elected to take the penalty, and punt again. I have no idea why. The result was rather predictable, as John Synovec came through the line untouched and blocked the punt.

Tangent: after Synovec blocked the punt, I noticed a Bulldog player (probably Chris Billingslea, always in the middle of The Citadel’s punt-blocking exploits) grab a Keydet in an effort to prevent the VMI player from covering the football. It didn’t matter in the end, as the ball was not advanced, but I think The Citadel could have been called for a post-possession holding penalty in that situation. Then again, I might be wrong about that.

— VMI did a good job adjusting on defense after The Citadel’s first two offensive drives. To this non-expert, it seemed the Keydets D was doing a fair bit of stunting and blitzing, blowing up plays before The Citadel could get to the perimeter.

The Bulldogs finally started to get back on track midway through the third quarter, with the offensive adjustments including the toss sweep (a play Georgia Tech would run repeatedly later that night against Clemson) and some misdirection plays. The Citadel’s wide receivers also did a better job of blocking in the second half.

— It’s not every game in which a team has eleven different players with a rushing attempt, but that was the number of Bulldogs who carried the ball on Saturday. One of those eleven was punter Cass Couey, who picked up twelve yards and a first down on a fake punt, the second time in his career he has made such a play.

I’m honestly not sure whether or not that was planned, or if he felt the pressure on his right and decided to take off on his own. It was a heady play either way by Couey, who is making a strong case to be the all-SoCon punter.

— The Citadel wore what is arguably the most aesthetically displeasing of all its uniform sets, the light blue jersey/navy pants combo. The Bulldogs had lost six consecutive games in which they wore navy pants prior to the victory over VMI.

—

I’ll close out this post with some photos I took on Saturday. They include several shots of the new Ring Statue, some pictures of the Bulldogs warming up pregame (I saw no Schembechler-inspired activity on that front), static game shots, an actually semi-decent “action” photo of the first blocked punt, a few other “at the game” pictures, plus a photo of that which is most coveted. As always, please understand that the photographer isn’t very good and his camera isn’t much better.

—

On to Statesboro..

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

Larry Leckonby’s Lament: The Citadel in 2010-11

Posted on May 21, 2011 by Sandlapper Spike

The first thing I want to note is that none of what follows is intended to be a negative reflection on any of the individuals who compete for The Citadel in varsity athletics.  I am greatly appreciative of all the young men and women who represent the school on the field of play.

This is about the “big picture”, and the truth is that the big picture for the school year 2010-11 at The Citadel featured a lot of losing.  Just how much losing?

Well, let’s take a look at all the varsity programs under the military college’s banner. The Citadel has fifteen varsity sports, by my reckoning.  I count rifle (listed as both a men’s and women’s sport on the school’s website) as just one sport, because it is co-ed.  I consider indoor track and outdoor track to be separate entities, because the Southern Conference awards championships in both of them (and for both men and women).  The school competes in the SoCon in fourteen of the fifteen sports (the exception is rifle).

—

The Citadel’s most successful sport in 2010-2011 was, in fact, rifle.  The rifle team won its first conference title since 2001, the conference title in question being the Southeastern Air Rifle Conference championship.  I don’t know a whole lot about this, but it sounds good to me.  The previous four SEARC titles had been won by North Carolina State.  Those four titles had been won by NCSU prior to Debbie Yow being named director of athletics at that school, but there was no indication that sabotage was involved in The Citadel’s triumph.

It seems appropriate that The Citadel has an outstanding rifle program.

The women’s soccer team finished 12-8-1, 7-4 in the Southern Conference (good for 3rd place), and was easily the second-most successful sport at The Citadel this school year.  It was #1 in the “feel good” category by miles and miles, however, since the program had only won three league games in its entire history prior to the 2010 campaign.

In addition, the soccer team was the only squad this year to win a postseason game of any kind for The Citadel, defeating Furman 2-1 in 2OT in the first round of the SoCon tourney.

The wrestling team finished fourth in the SoCon (out of six teams) in what probably could be considered a mildly disappointing season.  On the bright side, at least The Citadel still has a wrestling program, which is more than can be said for second-place UNC-Greensboro or NCAA Division II champion Nebraska-Omaha.

The Citadel finished 5th in the SoCon (out of nine teams) in both men’s indoor and outdoor track, while the women were 9th (out of twelve teams) in both.  This strikes me as perfectly respectable.  Ninth is not as good as first or second, obviously, but perspective has to maintained, especially considering that as of September there were only 142 female cadets overall at The Citadel.  The coaches just need to find another Stephanie McNeill or two in order to vault a few spots in the standings.

The Citadel finished next-to-last in both men’s and women’s cross country in the SoCon (10th/11 men, 11th/12 women).  In this case, though, it may be fair to grade on a curve. I suspect that it is not easy (if even possible) to develop a serious league contender in cross country at a military school located in Charleston, South Carolina. The City of Charleston has a number of charms, but it is certainly not conducive to ideal cross country training.

I noticed when reviewing the league’s history and records that the College of Charleston (since becoming a league member) has generally joined The Citadel in the lower part of the standings.  That’s probably not a coincidence, and neither is the fact that Appalachian State and Chattanooga have dominated the sport in the league over the years.  Incidentally, The Citadel’s 3rd-place result in the 1972 SoCon meet is the best finish in school history.

—

You know it’s been a bad school year in Bulldog athletics when there are six varsity sports that arguably had worse seasons than a pair of cross country teams that each finished next-to-last in the league…

The volleyball team finished 7-25, 1-15 in the SoCon.  Perhaps not surprisingly, The Citadel made a coaching change.  You have to wonder if the success of the women’s soccer team this year cast a less-than-favorable light on the volleyball program, which has an alltime record in league play of 10-192.  (No, that’s not a typo.)

One of the downsides when a “non-revenue” sport is on the short end of the wins-and-losses ledger is that alums and other interested observers are less likely to read or hear about the players, and some of those cadets are rather accomplished student-athletes.  That’s just another reason why it’s important to maintain competitive teams in all of The Citadel’s varsity programs.

Another program that will be helmed by a new coach next season is the tennis team, which finished 3-21, and failed to win a single Southern Conference match (0-10). The Bulldogs were winless against Division I competition, with the three victories coming against Case Western and Reserve, Johnson C. Smith, and Lenoir-Rhyne.

Then there is the women’s golf team, which was possibly even less competitive in the conference in 2011 than the tennis team.

At this year’s SoCon championships, there was a 79-shot difference between the first-place team (Chattanooga, which won the title by 30 strokes) and the ninth-place team (Appalachian State).  The Citadel finished 10th and last, 70 shots behind App State.

—

For a lot of graduates, football, baseball, and basketball are the sports that matter. They tend to get the lions’ share of attention and resources, and are thus held to a higher standard by most alums, who are more inclined to follow them and compare the successes and failures of the programs to other schools.  If you are reading this, you undoubtedly know how their seasons went, but a quick recap:

Football:  3-8, 1-7 (tied for last) in the SoCon.  The first year of Triple O’Higgins was often a cover-your-eyes situation, with the nadir being the nine-turnover debacle at home against Georgia Southern.

Basketball:  10-22, 6-12 in the Socon (next-to-last in South Division).  Chuck Driesell’s first year as head coach was not a success, as a senior-laden team and wannabe league contender struggled all season.

Baseball:  20-36, 8-22 in the SoCon (last).  The baseball team missed the SoCon tournament for the first time since 1987 (and back then, only four teams made the tourney).  A twelve-game losing streak to close the season resulted in the Bulldogs finishing last in the league for the first time ever.  The collapse came as a shock, despite expectations being relatively modest following the team’s championship season of a year ago.

The combined 66 losses by the “Big 3” is a record, as you might have guessed.  It’s not often all three programs have a losing season in the same school year.  The last time it happened was in 1993-94, but that year the baseball team got on a serious roll at the end of the season and won the league tournament, making the NCAAs.  The football team was a not-so-terrible 5-6.  The worst record for the three sports that year was the hoops squad’s 11-16 mark.

—

When it comes to “best year” or “worst year” in Bulldog athletics, of course, it’s really just a matter of opinion.  To me, an especially difficult year would include poor results by the “Big 3” combined with less-than-stellar records for a lot of the other programs.  I want The Citadel to be good at everything, or at least decent at everything.

I went back and looked at some of the records for the past five decades.  I was particularly interested in the 1966-67 and 1986-87 school years, the most recent campaigns (prior to 1993-94) where the “Big 3” programs all finished with losing records.  Exact comparisons could not be made, of course, as The Citadel has sponsored sports in which it no longer fields varsity teams (like men’s golf and men’s soccer) and now has other sports which didn’t exist in previous years (all the women’s teams).

In 1966-67, the baseball team lost 12 in a row (just like this season) and finished 9-16.  That losing streak included losses to Taylor and Pfeiffer.  The basketball team was 8-16, a season that has been well chronicled.  The football team was 4-6, although that campaign did include end-of-season victories over VMI and Furman.

The 1966-67 basketball and baseball teams were not good, and comparable to this year’s editions of those teams, but the football team was probably better than 2010’s squad.  In addition, 1966-67 featured a solid tennis team (3rd in the SoCon) and, most notably, a championship outfit — the wrestling team, which won the Southern Conference title that year and featured Ed Steers, who was named Most Outstanding Wrestler after winning the second of his three league titles in the 145-lb. division.

When comparing 2010-11 to 1986-87, it’s a closer call.  The football team was arguably worse (that was Tom Moore’s final season; the Bulldogs finished 3-8 with some dreadful performances, particularly at home against VMI and Chattanooga), but the hoops squad was better (13-15, 6-10 in the SoCon) and the baseball team was too.  In addition, the other sports were slightly more successful across the board in 1986-87 (with tennis being significantly better).

I did not find another school year in the 1961-2001 era where the varsity sports teams struggled as much as in those two years.  I think a persuasive argument can be made that 2010-11 was the worst school year for varsity athletics at The Citadel in at least 50 years.

—

What does it mean?  Well, in the short term it probably means that Jerry Baker, Caleb Davis and company will have that much more difficult a time raising money for the Brigadier Foundation. Contributors want to see a winner, and you had to search far and wide to find a winner in The Citadel’s athletics department this year.

For Larry Leckonby, it means that 2011-12 will be an important year, one in which he will have to make key decisions.  His biggest call will be on Kevin Higgins’ future.  The department of athletics pivots off the success of the football team; it’s the most high-profile sport at the school, it’s where the money is made, and I also think that it sometimes establishes momentum for the other sports.

Speaking of coaches, Leckonby also needs to find the right one for the tennis team, which should be better than 3-21 (and yes, I know that NCAA tennis is a different animal than it was two and three decades ago).  I don’t have any good advice on that front, other than if he gets an applicant who drives a Jaguar (with a baby bulldog in the front seat) and appears regularly on television, he should hire him.  It worked fairly well the first time.

While last year was mostly grim, there is hope, and that hope can be found by considering what happened following the 1986-87 school year.  In May of 1987, it would have been easy to be pessimistic about sports at The Citadel, but in the next six years:

— The baseball team won two regular season SoCon titles, one league tourney, and advanced to the College World Series in 1990.

— The football team won at South Carolina, at Army, beat Navy twice (at home and on the road), made three playoff appearances, and won the Southern Conference title for only the second time in school history.

— The basketball team won at South Carolina (the first win over the Gamecocks since the 1943 Southern Conference tournament) and had a 16-win season.

— The tennis team had two top-3 finishes in the SoCon tourney; the golf team had a top-4 finish; and the soccer team had a tie for first place (in 1990).

After the struggles of 1986-87, the department had its best run of success since the early 1960s.  Maybe history can repeat itself.

I hope so.  Losing isn’t any fun…

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

« Previous Page — Next Page »