Variety pack: Triple Option, The Citadel on TV, college baseball on the clock, Plant of the Week

Posted on July 24, 2010 by Sandlapper Spike

This is going to be a grab-bag type of post, a variety pack if you will.  I may do this sort of thing periodically, as I really need to blog on a more regular basis.  I look at this as a way to make shorter comments on various issues, mostly about sports (including sports at The Citadel), with a few other odds and ends that catch my eye.  Think of them as Twitter entries that are longer than 140 characters.

—

Speaking of Twitter, my latest tweets can be seen on the left side of this page.  If anyone hasn’t noticed and is halfway interested in following me on Twitter, the location is http://twitter.com/SandlapperSpike (my tweets feature links/comments on a lot of stuff, including up-to-the-minute updates on Bulldog sports, baseball, football, and soccer, among other things).

—

As The Citadel counts down to kickoff against Chowan (as of today, T-41 days!), it’s time to focus on the Bulldogs’ new offense, which may be a little like an old offense, namely Charlie Taaffe’s wishbone attack.  However, it appears that Kevin Higgins may intend to run more of a “spread” triple option than Taaffe’s offense.

With that in mind, it might be a good idea to take a look at what the folks at Navy (and Georgia Tech, with Paul Johnson’s arrival in Atlanta) have been doing, particularly since Higgins apparently told one of our quarterback recruits (Ben Dupree) that The Citadel would be running a “Navy-style triple-option offense.”

Another reason to pay attention to the triple option is that Georgia Southern is also going to start running the offense this season, in a return to its roots.

For those interested in a breakdown of the nuts and bolts of the triple option, then, I cannot recommend highly enough a visit to The Birddog, the blog of choice for Navy football (and lacrosse).  The Birddog does a great, great job of illustrating (with video!) the intricacies of the triple option attack.

I’ve picked out four posts that I think serve as a good introductory primer for what the offense is all about.  (I hope I’ve chosen correctly.)  While reading these, just in case anyone gets confused, keep in mind that Paul Johnson is the former head coach at Navy (and Georgia Southern, of course) and is now at Georgia Tech.  The current Navy head coach is Ken Niumatalolo, and his offensive coordinator is Ivin Jasper.

Reading Is Fundamental

The Science and the Art

The Midline Option

Other People’s Rivalries And The Futility Of Defending Against the Wishbone

—

As of today, only one of The Citadel’s football games is scheduled to be televised (at Wofford on October 30).  There is always a chance that a local station (either in Charleston or another SoCon town) will elect to broadcast a game, although that is unlikely.  Other than that scenario, there are only two other games that could be televised.

It is possible (but doubtful) that SportSouth will pick up the November 20 game at Samford as part of its “SoCon Saturday” package, as the last two weekends of the regular season are “wild card” weekends — basically, the network will televise the most attractive matchup that week, based on the teams’ records to that point in the season.  Admittedly, very few prognosticators are going to bet that a game between Samford and The Citadel will have serious repercussions in the league standings, but you never know.

However, there is a decent chance that The Citadel’s game at Arizona on September 11 will be televised by Fox Sports Net Arizona (FSN-AZ), a regional sports network received by cable subscribers in Arizona (and I believe parts of California and New Mexico), and also available as part of DirecTV’s “Sports Pack”.  Arizona has asked the Pac-10 (and the league’s TV partners) for a waiver in order for the game to be broadcast.

The reason a waiver is needed is because there are already two Pac-10 games scheduled to be televised during the same time period, and that league’s national cable partners have television exclusivity rights for those games.  In other words, a local/regional broadcast can’t take place at the same time as a nationally televised league TV game.  If another Pac-10 school wants its game on television, it has to play in another time slot.

However, Arizona and Arizona State have been given waivers in the past because home game time slots for those schools are limited, especially early in the season. You just can’t play a football game in the desert in the midday heat.

(Matt Sarzyniak was nice enough to explain the Arizona/Arizona State waiver issue to me, which I appreciate.)

We’ll see what happens.  I am cautiously optimistic that the game will be televised.

—

The NCAA Baseball Rules Committee passed legislation that, if approved, will establish a time clock in college baseball.  The committee is basically incorporating the rules employed by the SEC for its 2010 conference tournament.

The 20-second rule for throwing a pitch was already on the books, but now it will be enforced with a timer, as will the amount of time allocated between innings.  I’ll be interested to see how the Southern Conference handles this; will it have a visible clock, with a timekeeper in the press box monitoring it?  Or will it just have an umpire carrying a watch?  I’m guessing the latter, for financial reasons.

The committee also modified the obstruction rule, which got a lot of notoriety in the Southern Conference tournament thanks to the second-round game/brawl between The Citadel and Elon.  That was the second-wildest fight I’ve ever seen at the SoCon tourney (nothing compares to the epic Raleigh/Piepenbrink donnybrook in 1990, though).

—

Not about sports:  you can be assured that I will never quote from or link to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.  Why, you ask?  This is why.

Link 1

Link 2

I sincerely hope that the Review-Journal goes bankrupt sooner rather than later.  Also, the photo of the CEO in the first link — doesn’t he look like a guy who hopes you throw something at him, so that he can sue you?

I have a great deal of respect for copyright law.  I think this guy and the Review-Journal (which is funding him) are abusing copyright law.

—

Not about sports:  I really enjoyed this article in The New Yorker on the identification and authentication of artworks.  It’s a long piece, but worthwhile.  I won’t spoil it, but there is a major twist halfway through.  The bottom line:  if P.T. Barnum had been more familiar with the art world, he would have said “there’s a sucker born every 15 seconds.”

—

Finally, a new feature, the Plant of the Week.  That’s right, plants.  As I’ve said elsewhere on the blog, I consider gardening a sport.  In honor of this being the first edition of the PotW, I will honor not one but two plants in my garden.  Both are crinums. Feast your eyes on a Powelii (Cecil Houdyshel) and a Herbertii (no common name).

Until next time…

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

Thoughts on The Citadel and transfers

Posted on July 19, 2010 by Sandlapper Spike

When I write about The Citadel and transfers, I want to first distinguish between basic types.  One of them is the three-year transfer.  It’s a little bit unusual, but not rare, for someone to spend his or her freshman year at another school, and then transfer into The Citadel.

Now, the “system” at The Citadel is designed for a four-year student.  In other words, the typical member of the corps of cadets spends four years at the school, and those four years have very specific benchmarks.  However, it is possible (and not particularly difficult) for a student to transfer in and spend three years in the corps, and have essentially the same experience as a four-year student.  Basically, the sophomore/junior years are combined.

I don’t know anyone associated with The Citadel who has a problem with a three-year transfer athlete representing the school.  I certainly don’t.  It doesn’t happen often, to be sure.  Recently Kenny Manigault, who played high school basketball in the Charleston area for Pinewood Prep, announced he was transferring from Wichita State to The Citadel. Manigault will have three years of athletic eligibility, and will presumably be spending (at least) three years in the corps of cadets.

Another athlete who will be transferring in to The Citadel is Blane Woodfin, who originally committed to Air Force, but was not admitted to the AFA (reportedly because of a physical problem).  Woodfin attended Montana State last year but did not play football, and will thus apparently have four years of athletic eligibility remaining at The Citadel, not three.

These are not transfers likely to cause any cantankerous old alum heartburn, even though Manigault called Chuck Driesell “real laid back”, which is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone call Driesell laid back.  The Citadel as an institution, as Manigault and Woodfin will soon learn (if they don’t know already), is certainly not laid back…

—

However, there is another type of transfer that has been popping up more and more at The Citadel in recent years, the “fifth-year” transfer.

This started in football, where a player can transfer from an FBS school to an FCS school and play immediately.  The “trailblazer” in this category for The Citadel was Jeff Klein, a quarterback who transferred from Auburn and played one year for The Citadel (2002).

He was followed the next season by former Clemson QB Willie Simmons and ex-Duke defensive back Anthony Roberts.  Those three players played for The Citadel under former coach (and alum) Ellis Johnson.  In recent years, Kevin Higgins has had two fifth-year transfers — his son, wideout Tim Higgins (who originally played for Florida), and tight end B.J. Phillips (North Carolina).

All of these guys graduated from their original schools and played one year as graduate students for The Citadel, except for Phillips (who had two years of athletic eligibility in football remaining after graduating from UNC).

As students in The Citadel Graduate College, none of these players were members of the corps of cadets (indeed, it’s possible none of them even attended classes with cadets, as graduate classes at The Citadel are held at night).

Reports vary on how seriously these graduate student athletes attempted to bond with their teammates, tried to understand/appreciate what cadets go through, etc.  My general impression, which could be wrong, is that Simmons and the younger Higgins made an effort to try and “jell” with the team and school; Klein, not so much.  Phillips, of course, still has one year left on the football team.

These one-year-only players were not a factor in basketball at The Citadel because there was no lower classification within Division I for them to transfer to without penalty (in other words, no FBS/FCS distinction).  At least, they weren’t a factor until last year, when Joe Wolfinger transferred to The Citadel after graduating from Washington.

Wolfinger had his degree and one year of athletic eligibility in basketball remaining, and he used that year to play basketball at The Citadel, thanks to a technicality.  As this article explained:

Wolfinger will be a fifth-year senior next season and is apparently eligible to play immediately at The Citadel because he has graduated from UW and will enter a Master’s program at The Citadel that is not offered at Washington.

Wolfinger is gone, and so is Ed Conroy, but Chuck Driesell has decided to bring in his own tall transfer for this upcoming season:

Mike Dejworek, a 6-11 center from Belmont University, will play one season for the Bulldogs as a graduate student, new coach Chuck Driesell confirmed…

…Dejworek, a native of Ulm, Germany, sat out last season with a shoulder injury after playing three years for Belmont. In 2008-09, he played in 24 games and started one for a 20-13 Belmont team, averaging 1.7 points and 1.6 rebounds. He was a reserve on a Belmont team that made the NCAA tournament his sophomore season.

I presume that, like Wolfinger, Dejworek will be enterering a Master’s degree program at The Citadel that is not offered by Belmont.

—

There are plenty of alums who are less than crazy about athletes competing on varsity teams without ever being part of the corps of cadets.  Ken Burger, then the sports editor of The Post and Courier, wrote about this as far back as 2003:

…the school’s old guard is very vocal about this troublesome trend. They say these young men never spent a single day at The Citadel and don’t deserve the privilege of wearing the school’s uniform. Even its football uniform…

…Over the next three months we will find out how this experiment works out for [Ellis] Johnson’s program and The Citadel. And, there will be plenty of people watching and judging from the sidelines…

…While it’s easy to say the old school should stick to the old ways, there’s another side of this controversy that can’t be ignored.

The Citadel’s military counterpart, VMI, recently left the SoCon and downgraded to the Big South Conference because the Keydets could no longer compete…

Ah, yes, the old “we just can’t compete” crutch.  Poor, pitiful puppies; how can our coaches ever win?

—

First, the obvious.  Charlie Taaffe won a Southern Conference title in football without any non-cadet help.  He beat South Carolina and Arkansas and Army and Navy, and all of his players were in the corps of cadets.

Brief tangent:  Just for clarification, Taaffe did occasionally have some fifth-year guys who had already graduated and had an extra year of eligibility remaining after redshirting, but all of them had spent four years in the corps.  That is a completely different situation than the fifth-year ‘program’ I’m discussing in this post, of course.

Eddie Teague won a SoCon title back in the day, too, with members of the corps of cadets.  It’s not easy (after all, The Citadel has just those two league titles in football), but it can be done.

Meanwhile, the fifth-year recruits have not exactly led to dramatic success on the gridiron.  Klein set lots of passing records in 2002, but the team went 3-9.  With Simmons at quarterback (and Roberts in the defensive backfield)  in 2003, the Bulldogs improved to 6-6.  Tim Higgins’ one season at The Citadel came in 2007, the only season since 1997 in which the Bulldogs have finished with a winning record (7-4).

In hoops, Wolfinger did not prove to be a difference-maker last year, as The Citadel went 16-16, a season that followed a 20-13 campaign.  Wolfinger got progressively less playing time as the year went on, as he turned out not to be a particularly good fit for The Citadel’s style of play.

There is another aspect to this, the “recruited over” concern.  If you are a promising high school football player and you are considering The Citadel, should you be worried about the possibility that down the road, when it’s finally time for you to become a regular, the coach will suddenly bring in some graduate student to take your position?  Being recruited over is something normally associated with players at big-time college basketball programs, not The Citadel.

—

Those are the on-field results and issues.   What about the off-the-field repercussions?

— The essence of The Citadel, the part that differentiates it from other schools, is the corps of cadets.  Our athletic teams are supposed to represent the students at the military college.  What statement is the school making when it elects to offer opportunities to varsity athletes who have never been a part of the military environment?

— For that matter, the athletic teams represent the alumni as well.  Am I supposed to identify with varsity athletes who did not go through the same experiences that I did?

— If I have misgivings as an alumnus about identifying with these athletes, just imagine how the current members of the corps of cadets must feel.

— There is also the public perception.  Many outsiders are impressed that The Citadel can compete at all with the inherent disadvantages of being a military school.  When you bring in players from outside that environment, do you know what the general public calls them?  Ringers. (So do some alums.)

At that point The Citadel becomes “just another school” in the minds of some people.  Is that something that the powers-that-be at The Citadel want?

I might add that the perception issue is magnified when the player plays a high-profile position (like quarterback) in football.  In basketball, there aren’t that many players, so almost any player is highly visible.

—

Having said all that, I don’t blame any of the individual coaches for bringing in graduate students.  Coaches are trying to win.  Winning is not easy to do at The Citadel, so it’s not surprising that coaches try to work the system as much as possible.

Coaches also tend to have a narrower focus; it’s hard to expect Chuck Driesell, for example, to consider how a graduate student playing basketball may affect the school, in terms of the big picture.   Driesell is just trying to find a big man who can rebound.

The administration has the responsibility of telling the coaches to focus solely on recruiting players who will be part of the corps of cadets.  It appears that, for whatever reason(s), the current administration does not share the concerns that have been expressed by some alums.

Maybe the thinking from General Rosa and company is that one or two exceptions don’t really matter.  I don’t know.  It’s also possible that the school wants to have occasional graduate student varsity athletes, in an effort to promote the Graduate College.

I tend to doubt that having an occasional hoopster or football player in the graduate school is going to raise the profile of the CGC, although I couldn’t blame the school for trying every avenue to promote it.  The CGC is an opportunity for The Citadel to make money, which the school needs to do.

Over the past few years, the military college has gradually become simply a state school, as opposed to a state-supported school.  That’s because the State of South Carolina continues to cut back on funding for higher education (in general, the state legislature believes higher education should end after the third grade).

[Sorry for the political jibe, but honestly, our state’s lack of commitment to education is embarrassing.]

—

In closing, one thing I want to emphasize is that I don’t have anything against the players who enter the school as graduate students.  They are taking advantage of a great opportunity, as well they should.  I wish them well, and I hope they are successful in class and on the field of play.  I will be rooting for them, as I do anyone who represents my alma mater.

I just wish the administration would revisit the current policy.  I strongly believe that varsity athletes at The Citadel should all come from the corps of cadets.  I know my opinion doesn’t really matter, but I also know that I’m not the only person who feels this way about transfers and varsity athletics.

—

Yes, I’m ready for football season…

Filed under: Basketball, Football, The Citadel | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Ruminating about off-field football troubles at The Citadel

Posted on April 4, 2010 by Sandlapper Spike

It’s been a busy and occasionally difficult time for yours truly, which partly explains the lack of recent posts.  With regards to the Rice/Starks situation, I also wanted to wait and see how things shook out.  As it is, things haven’t become that much clearer as of late, but I figured I could make some comments about what we know right now.

They aren’t earthshaking observations, to be sure, but I wanted to weigh in on the matter in a little more detail.  I’m going to concentrate on just a few points.  There are two issues worth addressing that I’m not going to mention right now, because I simply don’t have enough information (not that I have any extra-special info on what I’m actually going to write about).

—

Before I delve into the recruitment of Reggie Rice and Miguel Starks, I wanted to briefly focus on an article in The Post and Courier from March 10 written by Schuyler Kropf. On the whole, I don’t have a big problem with the media coverage of the Rice/Starks arrests, but this particular piece gave me pause.

Kropf interviewed several alums, asking them about how the arrests might affect The Citadel’s image.  All fine and good, and he got on-record quotes from three different graduates, one of whom I actually know.  Kropf apparently could not get anyone to go on record with a “gloom and doom” quote, however, so he had to do what any intrepid reporter does when faced with such a dilemma.

He got quotes from anonymous message board posters.

Seriously, that’s what he did.  I had to read the article a couple of times to make sure I wasn’t missing something.

I’m not completely sure Kropf understands the nature of message boards.  I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, I suppose, but it strikes me as poor reporting.  For one thing, how sure is he that the posts he quotes are from actual graduates of The Citadel?

Now, maybe he did some checking, or asked permission from the posters in question before quoting their comments, but even then can he really be sure they are who they say they are?  (He certainly didn’t indicate that he had confirmed anyone’s identity.  Heck, he didn’t even mention the usernames associated with the quotes.)

Kropf was unable to get a negative quote from any current cadet (or alum) on the record, although he did write this, a time-honored crutch for a struggling scribe:

…several cadets declined to speak about the mood inside the ranks, quickly turning their heads around to see if anyone had seen them talking with a reporter.

With all due respect, Mr. Kropf, get over yourself.

Now, as it happens, the two message board quotes in the article are, I believe, from actual alumni of The Citadel.  I can’t guarantee that, but I’m fairly sure — but then, I’m an occasional poster on that forum myself, and thus may be able to differentiate from regular posters and “trolls”.  Whether Kropf can do so is another matter.

That particular message board doesn’t have nearly as much traffic as you would see from forums devoted to larger schools. Sites such as InsideMDSports or  Phog.net may have several thousand members, with hundreds of posters online at one time, while thelordsofdiscipline.net has slightly over 500 registered members, with about a dozen of them online at extreme “peak” times.

What that means, among other things, is that when you have an event like the Rice/Starks arrests, the board is arguably more susceptible to being overwhelmed by people posting as fans of the school who aren’t really fans, just to stir things up.  It’s been known to happen.

Kropf could easily have wound up quoting a 13-year-old posing as a graduate of The Citadel.

There is obviously a big difference between getting something on record from a living, breathing person and grabbing a comment from the internet.  The first line of the article stated, “Whether The Citadel has an image problem depends on who’s doing the talking.”   Well, not only does the article not adequately identify those behind part of “the talking”, it doesn’t identify them at all.

It appears to me that the reporter wanted to write the story from a certain angle, but could not get the confirming quotes he needed, so he took a cheap way out.  In my view, that is not quality journalism.

—

Should Reggie Rice have been admitted to The Citadel?  Based on what he has done since enrolling, the answer is no, but should have that been the answer all along?

For those not familiar with Rice’s history prior to receiving an athletic scholarship to the military college, this column gives the basic story:

During Rice’s senior season [in high school], he was spectacular. He had three 200-yard games, including one against perennial state power Lincoln County.

However, his final season was cut short when he was suspended after eight games following his arrest and subsequent guilty plea in juvenile court to a statutory rape charge. Rice [was] tried in juvenile court because the three girls involved were deemed to have been willing participants.

Rice was placed on 24 months of probation and ordered to perform 56 hours of community service. He was given something else after the 2006 incident: a second chance.

Several area leaders went to bat for Rice, and even assisted in him being admitted to The Citadel, where he had been offered a football scholarship.

Early on during his career as a cadet, it appeared Rice was redeeming himself…

There was a racial aspect to the statutory rape case.  Rice (and one of the other males involved) were black, the girls white, and some in the community felt the charges were only brought due to race.  It appears that some of those “area leaders” quoted in the piece thought he was being more or less railroaded, including a superior court judge (and graduate of The Citadel) who sent the case back to juvenile court.

Tangent:  if you think you’ve heard a similar tale before, maybe you have.  I was reminded of another, more notorious case in Georgia, one that involved Marcus Dixon (now of the Dallas Cowboys).

Besides being a fine football player, Rice was intelligent and personable.  He impressed a lot of people, including the aforementioned judge and, later, a prominent businessman in the Charleston area (and alumnus).  It has been interesting to read comments from people — experienced “men of the world” types, presumably naturals at spotting a fraud — who liked Rice, trusted him, and were shocked at his subsequent problems.  Some people might call Rice a born con artist, or maybe even a sociopath.  I don’t know what he is, and it doesn’t really matter now.

Given that background, should Rice have been admitted to The Citadel?  No, he should not have.  It should have been clear then, as it is now.  I lay the blame for that on the admissions office more so than Kevin Higgins, as Rice was in Higgins’ first recruiting class, and the coach would not have been that familiar with the school.  I think it is clear that General John Rosa believes Rice’s admission was in error.  From his March 4 letter to alumni:

As did many colleges in the country, The Citadel revised its admission application process following the tragedy at Virginia Tech. We now require more information from candidates. Additionally, if the director of admissions has any concerns regarding an application, he presents them to me for consideration before final action is taken.

In other words, “that’s not happening again.”

It shouldn’t have happened in the first place.  Most people understand that The Citadel is not a reformatory for wayward boys, but every now and then someone gets confused about the school’s mission and talks about its capacity to “redeem” a student.  In the first column I linked, note that the author says that “it appeared Rice was redeeming himself.”

There are schools, many of them very good schools, where Rice would have been a reasonable candidate for admission.  The Citadel is not one of them.  You don’t go to The Citadel for redemption, because that’s not what the college is about.  The Citadel “experience” tends to highlight your natural, innate personality traits, as opposed to developing others.

The Citadel, at its essence, is about testing yourself, and learning exactly who you are. This is a very good thing, because young men and women fresh out of high school usually have no idea who they really are.  It’s also about learning how to deal with pressure, and about perseverance.

It’s not a second-chance type of place.  Maybe Kevin Higgins didn’t realize that when he first arrived on campus, but there surely were officials in positions of authority who could have guided him.

—

I can’t give Higgins a pass for the recruitment (and subsequent “handling”) of Miguel Starks, however.  Starks was a project in more ways than one.  He was always the most impressive-looking player on the sidelines during a game, as he looked great in a football uniform.  At The Citadel, though, that’s not the most important uniform.

Higgins saw in Starks the potential of a special player, and treated him accordingly.  Higgins may have chosen to  overlook some red flags that were raised during Starks’ high school career.  Some of those apparently included being dismissed from the basketball team and being suspended for a playoff game (for an on-field fight).

There have been numerous complaints raised in various quarters that Higgins essentially “enabled” Starks at The Citadel, going to bat for him on multiple occasions when Starks got in trouble for not adapting to the military system.  When you give preferential treatment to a star (or potential star) player, you run the risk of alienating the corps of cadets, not to mention his fellow football players.  This may go a long way towards explaining some of the angst expressed by current cadets concerning corps squad issues.

Also, running interference for an athlete (or any cadet, for that matter) is ultimately a pointless exercise.  You can’t make a person want to make it at The Citadel — he’s got to want it for himself.  If he doesn’t, all the interceding and pleading in the world won’t make a difference.

Coaches at The Citadel have a learning curve when it comes to recruiting.  One of the key things they have to learn is that keeping attrition low often correlates directly to on-field success.  One of the important ways to prevent attrition is to recruit cadets who can become good players, as opposed to recruiting players and trying to make them cadets.  Sometimes it takes a coach several years before he figures that out.  There have been coaches at The Citadel who have never figured it out.

—

I’m not advocating firing anybody.  I’m fairly confident that this episode is an isolated incident.  However, I think coaches and administrators need to be put on notice.  It’s one thing to have a losing record on the football field.  At The Citadel, though, you better be undefeated off the field.  One loss off the field is one loss too many.

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

Just make a play

Posted on November 16, 2009 by Sandlapper Spike

““If anybody on offense, defense or special teams had just made one play at any point, it would have been a different game.” — Kevin Higgins

—

To review some of the plays that weren’t made:

— UTC quarterback B.J. Coleman threw 61 passes on Saturday.  He was not sacked.  Not once!  To be honest, that’s hard to do.  You would think that at least one time he would have tripped over a lineman’s foot and fallen down, or suffered a leg cramp while in the pocket, or pulled a Brett Favre-against-Michael Strahan move, but no.

What’s more, when Coleman went back to pass, he wasn’t looking to run.  Coleman threw 61 passes and had no rush attempts for the game.  The Mocs only rushed 12 times during the entire game (for 17 yards), so basically on every play, the Bulldogs knew that Coleman was going to throw the ball, and he was never going to be a threat to take off and run with it (and they also knew he was going to throw in Blue Cooper’s direction as often as possible, but Cooper still caught 14 passes).

The Bulldog D held the Mocs in check for a while, and when Chris Billingslea intercepted a fourth-down pass and returned it to the UTC 49, eventually leading to a Bulldog TD, things were looking good.  Then the Mocs went to a no-huddle attack, and from that point on, The Citadel’s defense turned to mush.  The ensuing drives for UTC were as follows:

  • 60 yards, field goal
  • 56 yards, field goal
  • 80 yards, touchdown
  • 71 yards, touchdown (plus a two-point conversion)
  • 43 yards, field goal
  • 9 yards, touchdown (after a long punt return)
  • 17 yards, turned over on downs (a clock-eating exercise that left The Citadel just 25 seconds to try to score)

You’ll notice there are no turnovers or punts listed.  That’s because there weren’t any to list once the Mocs went to the no-huddle.

— Speaking of turnovers, The Citadel’s defensive backs probably should have intercepted at least three Coleman passes in the second half.  Should have, but didn’t.  Again, someone needed to make a play, but no one did.

— Not only was Coleman not sacked, he was rarely pressured.  Higgins noted that “looking at the tape, we did have five or six hits on him”.  Five or six hits is generally not going to be enough to make an impact against a QB who threw 61 passes, but as it is the official statistics only credit The Citadel with one “hurry” for the entire game.  Of course, the official statistics also list John Synovec as having played quarterback for the Bulldogs on Saturday…

— The actual quarterback for The Citadel on Saturday was freshman walkon Tommy Edwards, who basically performed at the same level as he did against Samford — that is to say, quite well.  You really couldn’t have asked for much more from Edwards, who did a good job throwing the ball and forced the Mocs to honor him as a runner.  He also committed no turnovers.

After a gimpy Bart Blanchard struggled against Wofford, and with Miguel Starks apparently not in much better shape than Blanchard, the coaching staff’s decision to start Edwards was obviously the right call.  It probably should have been the call last week, too.

The offense did bog down in the second half (and the fourth-down playcall that resulted in Terrell Dallas losing two yards was poor), but the bottom line is that Edwards and company put 28 points on the board, including a touchdown with just over ten minutes to play that made the score 28-13.  That should have been enough to win the game, but the defense didn’t hold up its end of the bargain, and neither did the special teams.

The Bulldogs had another makeable field goal go unmade, failed to recover an onside kick, and also allowed a 53-yard punt return to set up the winning touchdown.  Teams don’t win games with special teams that are less than special.

—

The Citadel didn’t perform as badly against UT-Chattanooga as it did against Elon, Western Carolina, and Wofford, but it was still a crushing defeat.  Every week it seems the Bulldogs have another goal for this year go by the boards.  In the case of the UTC loss, that unmet goal is a winning season.

Of course, winning teams make key plays to clinch victories.  The Citadel hasn’t been making those plays for most of the season, and it shows in the win-loss record.

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

Same song, different year

Posted on November 9, 2009 by Sandlapper Spike

In college football, there are not that many games in a season, at least when compared to other sports.  For an FCS school, there are just eleven opportunities.  It’s important to make the most of each and every one of them.

The Citadel has played nine games this season.  In three of those games, the team’s performance has been absolutely awful, and I mean awful in the “did they know there was a game today?” sense.  That’s fully one-third of the games.

In sports, every now and then you’re going to have a bad day where nothing goes right (the same is true for life in general).  Most fans can understand that.  Having it happen once every three games — well, that’s not so understandable.  Worse, all three thud-fests were conference games (Elon, Western Carolina, and now Wofford).

In past posts, I called the Elon game a debacle, and the WCU loss a disaster.  I’m not sure what adjective applies to The Citadel’s game on Saturday against the Terriers.  Perhaps I should call it “disheartening” just to stay with the D-word theme.

Speaking of D:

  • On the second Wofford series, the Terriers were faced with a 3rd-and-8, and promptly converted it by completing a 23-yard pass — this from a team that rarely throws the ball (Wofford entered the contest last in the nation in passing yardage per game).  You just knew it was going to be a long day for the Bulldogs when that happened.
  • That third-down conversion was one of seven the Terriers picked up in eleven tries.  Wofford had come into the game only converting 38% of its third downs.
  • Of course, Wofford had 13 first downs in which it didn’t even need to convert a third down.
  • Wofford had lost 13 fumbles and thrown 6 interceptions prior to Saturday’s game, but the only Terrier turnover on Saturday came deep in Bulldog territory with Wofford already leading 29-10.
  • That fumble would be the only time the Terriers failed to score in the “red zone” in seven tries (four touchdowns, two field goals).

The defense’s day was probably best epitomized by a play in the second quarter.  Wofford faced a 3rd and 1 at The Citadel’s 33 yard line.  As the Terriers broke their huddle, an image of Terrence Reese in full “make some noise, get pumped up” mode appeared on the video board.  Wofford ran an inside handoff for three yards and a first down, with Reese then penalized for a late hit.  The Terriers scored four plays later.

The defensive issues weren’t particularly surprising, given the Bulldogs’ struggles on D for most of the season, and the success Wofford has had against The Citadel in recent years.  During the Kevin Higgins era, the Terriers have scored at least 28 points in every game against the Bulldogs.

However, unlike last season’s game against Wofford, on Saturday the Bulldog offense was equally disappointing.

I’m not sure what to make of the way the quarterbacks were utilized during the game.  Obviously, Bart Blanchard and Miguel Starks were both coming off injuries, and if they couldn’t play, that would be one thing.  As it happened, they both played, although whether either should have seemed debatable.

Blanchard was clearly struggling with a bad toe (and he’s had a bad ankle all year).  Never the fastest of QBs, he was no threat to run.  Any nominal “option” plays that The Citadel ran with Blanchard in the game were really just handoffs to Terrell Dallas or Van Dyke Jones, and Wofford treated them as such.  He also appeared to be a sitting duck in the pocket.

After the game, according to a story in The Post and Courier, Blanchard was wearing a walking boot in the locker room, just as he had in prior games against Furman and Samford, when he didn’t play.  I’m not sure why he played against Wofford, either.

I appreciated the effort and the determination, though.  Even with a bad wheel, he threw a really impressive pass to Kevin Hardy that would lead to a field goal; I’m not sure all of the fans in the stands appreciated how good a throw that was.  Blanchard did not get much help from his receivers, as there were several dropped passes (a recurring issue for most of the season).

Blanchard was in the game late in the first half when The Citadel got the ball on its own 6 yard line.  There were only 61 seconds left on the clock, and the Bulldogs actually had a little momentum, having scored on their previous drive to cut Wofford’s lead to seven, at 17-10.  The Terriers had just one timeout left, so the Bulldogs could have run out the clock.

However, on first down Blanchard went back to pass and was sacked, fumbling the ball.  Lincoln Kling recovered in the end zone for the Bulldogs, but the result was a safety.  Wofford returned the ensuing free kick to the Bulldog 40 and would eventually kick a field goal to take a 22-10 lead into the locker room.  It was like giving away five free points and all the momentum.  Wofford then got the ball first to open the third quarter, drove right down the field and scored.  Ballgame.

Tommy Edwards replaced Blanchard just before the end of the third quarter, moved the Bulldogs 38 yards in five plays, and then threw an interception.  On the Bulldogs’ next series (now trailing 43-10), Miguel Starks started taking the snaps.  He would lead The Citadel to the game’s final score on his second series of the game.

This I really didn’t understand.  If Starks was injured and couldn’t start, why put him in the game with 10 minutes left and the team trailing by five touchdowns?  I didn’t see the point in that.  If he had been healthy enough to play at all, he should have started over the clearly ailing Blanchard, or come into the game when the outcome was still in doubt.

Kevin Higgins noted that Edwards “doesn’t have much experience at all”, and that’s certainly true, but in retrospect I wonder if it would have been better for all concerned if Edwards had played instead of either Blanchard or Starks.

Of course, I’m just a yokel watching the game.  I don’t have any inside information on what the thinking was regarding playing Blanchard/Edwards/Starks.  It may be that Starks’ injury is the type that won’t get worse, but won’t get much better anytime soon.  If that’s the case, the coaches may have wanted to see what he was capable of doing, so they could take that into account for next week.

—

To have such a trouncing occur on Homecoming was also a bit dispiriting.  Without the TD at the end of the game, the Bulldogs would have suffered their worst Homecoming loss since 1989.  It’s not the best way to impress visiting alums, that’s for sure.

Things I may or may not have heard in and around the various reunion tents:

  • “Why don’t we run the wishbone?”
  • “Well, we’re a basketball school, anyway.”
  • “Maybe the guys on the team would play better if we rewarded a good season by letting them stay at the beach house during second semester, instead of the barracks.”
  • “How long have we been wearing navy pants?”
  • “Skip the orange juice, just give me what’s left in that bottle.”

A few observations about some off the field issues:

— Over the past couple of years, I’ve noticed that a significant number of cadets don’t make it to the game, and I’m not the only one who has spotted this trend.  At Saturday’s game I guesstimated that at least one-third, if not more, of the corps was not in the stands during the game.  Where were they?

This is something that the school administration needs to address before next season.  I know there are some legitimate absences, but the bottom line is that at least 90% of the corps of cadets needs to be in the stands at Johnson Hagood Stadium at every game.  Right now, that’s not happening.

— I’ve said this before, but if I attend too many more games at Johnson Hagood I’m going to eventually go deaf, thanks to the sound system speakers, which, apparently inspired by Spinal Tap, are set at “11”.  At least on this particular Saturday A) the referee’s microphone worked, and B) they didn’t play the “clap your hands” riff as the Bulldogs lined up to punt.

— Video board, good:  the Randy Bresnik message intro was great.  Excellent job setting that up.  I can’t imagine going into outer space.  Of course, I’m not crazy about heights…

— Video board, unintentionally amusing:  the Anthony Maldanado speech (through no fault of his own, of course).  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you.

— I thought the attendance was okay (Wofford didn’t bring a lot of fans).  Plenty of alums were wandering around, taking in the sights at the almost brand-new stadium, marveling at bathroom facilities that weren’t holdovers from the 19th century.  Everyone was ready to cheer; there just wasn’t anything worth cheering about, at least on the field.

— MVPs for the day, school of business administration:  both the Class of ’59 and the Class of ’69 presented enormous monetary contributions to the school on Saturday.  Major, major thumbs-up for those two classes.  Outstanding.

— MVPs for the day, school of recreation and leisure:  this would go to the Class of ’89, which had a huge throng of partiers at its reunion tent, all of whom appeared to be having a good time.  Great turnout by that group of youngsters.

—

The Citadel now has two games left on the schedule, road contests against UT-Chattanooga and Georgia Southern.  A winning season is still a possibility, but it will be a tall order to triumph against both an improved Mocs squad and the traditionally tough Eagles.  The Bulldogs will certainly have to play much, much better than they did on Saturday if they hope to win either of those games, much less both of them.

Filed under: Football, The Citadel | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Football, Game 9: The Citadel vs. Wofford

Posted on November 6, 2009 by Sandlapper Spike

I wrote about the series between Wofford and The Citadel during the preview for last season’s matchup between the two schools.  I’m not going to re-hash the history in this post; if anyone is interested, the link will serve to give some background.

This will be the third consecutive meeting between the Terriers and Bulldogs to be featured on SportSouth, which may be the first time The Citadel has played on TV against the same opponent three years in a row.  Tom Werme and Sam Wyche will again call the action from the booth.

—

When sporting events began to be regularly broadcast (first over radio, then television), some of the individuals running sports clubs feared that broadcasting games would lead to attendance declines, because people could just stay at home and listen to the radio, or watch on TV.  This notion was largely debunked by Hall of Fame baseball executive Larry MacPhail (in the 1930s and early 1940s).

Tangent:  this type of thinking had gone on for decades, beginning with clubs trying to deny telegraph operators the right to give scoring updates for baseball games.  In 1876, the first year of the National League’s existence, Hartford owner Morgan Bulkeley (one of the three most undeserving members of the Hall of Fame) attempted to bar representatives of the local telegraph company from buying tickets.

However, the question has to be asked:  if a game is on TV, why would someone choose to see it in person, rather than watch it on the tube?  Going to a game can be very inconvenient and expensive.  Instead, you could choose to not leave your house and watch the game (preferably in HD) while lying on your couch, with all the comforts of home, including a refrigerator, bathroom, and an HVAC system.

A lot of people go to the games anyway, as evidenced by the large crowds that see many different kinds of sporting events.  Even when it is noted that there are empty seats at an arena or stadium (like Doak Campbell Stadium for the North Carolina State-Florida State game last Saturday, the bottom line is that there were still a lot of people who went to the game (in that case, over 50,000).

Why do they go?  Well, tradition, I suppose, along with camaraderie — tailgating, seeing old friends in the same seats every year, that type of thing.  They go for the atmosphere.  Sometimes, that atmosphere isn’t so great.  However, occasionally there is a day to remember, a day when the electricity in the stadium isn’t just being provided by the power company.

It’s the kind of thing that gets people off their couches and in their cars and headed to the game, just for the chance to be a part of a high-voltage event, to be swept along in a moment of nirvana.  Maybe it won’t happen too often, but when it does, it makes up for all the times it didn’t.

Such an occurrence happened at Johnson Hagood Stadium in 1988.  Since this Saturday is Homecoming, I’m going to write briefly about the most memorable Homecoming game in the history of the stadium, which had the most electric atmosphere of any game I’ve ever seen at JHS.

—

***November 5, 1988 — Marshall (#1) vs. The Citadel (#19)***

It was a bright, sunny day when the Thundering Herd and the Bulldogs met on the gridiron.  Marshall had played in the I-AA title game the year before, losing 43-42 to Northeast Louisiana.  After that setback, the Thundering Herd hit the ground running in 1988.  By the time Marshall ventured to Charleston, it was 8-0 and ranked #1 in I-AA football.

The Thundering Herd featured a high-octane offense averaging 32.6 points per game.  Starting quarterback John Gregory threw for 3,127 yards and 21 touchdowns in 1988.  Many of Gregory’s throws went to Mike Barber, Marshall’s All-American wide receiver, who would be named I-AA player of the year in 1988 by the American Football Coaches Association.  Barber had caught 106 passes in 1987 and followed that up with “only” 79 catches in 1988.

When Gregory wasn’t throwing passes to Barber, he was tossing them to Sean Doctor, the Herd tight end, who in just two years in Huntington would accumulate 2,100 receiving yards.  Marshall could run the ball, too, as halfback Ron Darby gained 1,282 yards in 1988 and scored 16 touchdowns.

That was the juggernaut facing The Citadel, although the Bulldogs did not lack for confidence.  The Citadel came into the game 6-2, having won five straight games, including a 42-35 victory over Navy.  That triumph had been led by quarterback Gene Brown.  However, Brown was injured two weeks later against UT-Chattanooga.

Tommy Burriss had ably filled in at quarterback (no surprise, as he was the former starter) to lead the Bulldogs to victories over Boston University (yes, BU still played football back then) and East Tennessee State.  Brown’s return to the field was highly anticipated, though, as he was a truly gifted director of Charlie Taaffe’s wishbone attack.

A crowd of 20,011 showed up to see the matchup, the second time that season more than 20,000 people had attended a football game at Johnson Hagood Stadium.

After a scoreless first quarter, The Citadel would strike first, with Adrian Johnson scoring on a one-yard touchdown run.  Marshall would respond with a short field goal, but the score was only 6-3 at halftime (the Bulldogs having missed the PAT).

However, The Citadel’s offense began to control the game, dominating the time of possession.  Brown entered the game in the second quarter and the rushing yardage started to pile up.  Johnson rushed for 106 yards and Raymond Mazyck added 79 (on just 10 carries).  The Bulldogs as a team rushed for 359 yards, and perhaps more importantly ran 83 plays and kept Marshall’s high-powered offense off the field.

Even when Marshall had the ball, the Herd struggled.  In one sequence, the Herd would run eight consecutive plays inside the Bulldog 5-yard line without scoring a TD.  For the game, Marshall only managed 247 yards of total offense.

The crowd went into a frenzy when Phillip Florence took an end-around 33 yards for a touchdown in the third quarter, and when Johnson scored his second touchdown of the day in the fourth period, it was all over.  20-3, The Citadel.

Well, almost over.  As the game ended, the field was invaded by the corps of cadets, a number of whom headed straight for the goalpost in the south endzone.  The uprights were then torn down…okay, maybe not quite torn down.  The cadets were unable to rip the uprights away from the crossbar, and the crossbar remained attached to the stanchion.  It was the Cardinal Richelieu of goalposts.

It didn’t matter, though, as it was the thought that counted.  The administration didn’t seem to mind having to shell out some cash for a new goalpost, either, which may be the best indication of how amazing the atmosphere at the game really was.

Tangent:  the next week, Marshall’s Darby rushed for 262 yards against Western Carolina, which would have been a Southern Conference record — but on the same day, Brown rushed for 286 yards against VMI (on only 13 carries!) to shatter the mark.  Talk about bad timing for Darby.

Now that was a game worth attending.  What about Saturday’s game?  Will it be worth attending for Bulldog fans?

—

Wofford had enjoyed seven consecutive winning seasons before this year’s campaign.  The Terriers are 2-6, although it should be noted that Wofford played not one but two FBS schools this year, losing to both South Florida and Wisconsin.

However, eyebrows were raised around the conference when the Terriers (picked in the preseason to finish in the league’s top 3) lost 38-9 at UT-Chattanooga.  The Mocs have proven to be the most improved team in the league, but that loss clearly showed that Wofford had some unexpected issues.  The two main themes for the Terriers this year have been injuries and turnovers. 

Wofford entered the season with a fairly inexperienced squad (only nine returning starters), and that inexperience has been compounded by a rash of serious injuries, many of them season-ending.  Only ten players have started every game for the Terriers; in all, 34 different players have made at least one start. 

Many of the losses have been on defense (including pre-season All-SoCon pick Mitch Clark, who has only played one game this year).  The Terriers also suffered the loss of starting fullback Eric Breitenstein (who rushed for 121 yards against South Florida).  Wofford was already missing halfback Jeremy Marshall, who tore an ACL last season against Appalachian State; in this season’s matchup with the Mountaineers, another Terrier halfback, Derek Boyce, tore his ACL.

The Terriers run an option attack known as the “wingbone”, with the emphasis on run.  Wofford, with all its problems, still leads FCS in rushing, averaging 258 yards per game.  However, the Terriers are last in the division in passing, averaging only 70.5 yards per contest.

Quarterback Mitch Allen is completing just 45.2% of his passes.  That’s not a huge problem – after all, he doesn’t attempt that many – but while Allen has thrown five touchdown passes, he’s also thrown five interceptions (in just 62 attempts). 

Wofford as a team has thrown six picks, and has also fumbled 19 times, losing 13.  Losing two-thirds of their fumbles is a bit of bad luck, to be sure, but the Terriers are at heart a possession-oriented team.  Committing nineteen turnovers over eight games is not typical of a Wofford outfit.  The Terriers have committed 3+ turnovers in four games this season, losing all four.

The Terriers are still a dangerous offensive team, even with the turnover bugaboo, but have been inconsistent.  Wofford rolled up 537 yards of total offense against Appalachian State and another 426 against Western Carolina.  Unlike The Citadel’s last opponent, Samford, the Terriers are more than capable of creating big plays (Wofford has had five plays from the line of scrimmage of over 60 yards).

On the other hand, Wofford only had 170 yards of total offense against Elon (The Citadel can relate) and just 151 against UT-Chattanooga.  Part of the inconsistency can be traced to the Terriers’ third down conversion rate, which is just 38.3%. 

For the style of offense Wofford employs, that isn’t good enough.  The problems converting third down have led to Wofford averaging less than 29 minutes per game in time of possession, definitely not what an all-out running team like the Terriers wants.

When Wofford scores first, it is 2-0; when it doesn’t, 0-6.  Wofford is 0-5 when trailing after three quarters and 0-4 when scoring less than 20 points. 

Terrier opponents are averaging 387 yards per game in total offense.  Wofford has forced twelve turnovers in eight games, including five interceptions.  Much like its offense, the Terrier D has not had a lot of luck in the fumble department, forcing twenty but recovering only seven.  That’s the kind of statistic that will eventually turn in Wofford’s favor; let’s hope it doesn’t happen this week.

Wofford’s opponents have been in the “red zone” 36 times this season, and have scored touchdowns on 26 of those occasions.

The Terriers have a solid kick return game, led by running back Mike Rucker.   Wofford has a net punting average of 35.9, which is quite good.  The Terriers have only attempted four field goals all season, making two (both against Elon).

In last year’s game, The Citadel did a good job offensively but couldn’t stop the Terriers, as Wofford had 409 yards of total offense, including 279 yards rushing.  Andre Roberts had a huge game (14 receptions, 190 yards, 3 TDs) but it wasn’t enough, as Wofford stayed one step ahead of the Bulldogs the whole way, committing no turnovers and converting all three of its fourth-down attempts.

You can bet that Roberts will be priority #1 for the Wofford defense, but you can say that about any defense that faces The Citadel.  Who winds up throwing the ball in Roberts’ direction is anybody’s guess. 

What I hope happens is that if both Bart Blanchard and Miguel Starks are healthy, the coaches rotate them by series instead of by play.  If one of them is moving the team down the field, then that’s the guy that needs to stay in the game.  I’m not forgetting about Tommy Edwards, either.  He got the job done against Samford, and he’ll get the call if need be against the Terriers. 

I would like to see more of the type of playcalling used in the game against Furman, which seemed to suit the offensive line.  Speaking of the o-line, that unit will need to contain Wofford defensive end Ameet Pall, a Montreal native who is having a fine season for the Terriers.  Kevin Higgins was quick to note Pall’s abilities during his press conference on Monday.

It’s been too long since The Citadel won in this series.  Hopes are high that the Bulldogs will end that streak on Saturday, in front of an appreciative Homecoming crowd.  I am not so sure, to be honest, but I’ll be there cheering them on regardless.

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

Bulldogs show some bite, and just in time

Posted on October 27, 2009 by Sandlapper Spike

The Citadel 38, Furman 28.  Out of the ashes…

The Bulldogs had managed to put together two of the worst performances by the football team in quite some time, so expectations were low heading into the battle with Furman.  With Bart Blanchard hobbled by a toe injury, all the quarterback snaps were taken by redshirt freshman Miguel Starks.  He proved more than ready for the challenge, much to the chagrin of a Paladin defense that never really figured out a way to stop him (other than forcing fumbles — more on that later).

Also up to the challenge this week were offensive coordinator Dave Cecchini and head coach Kevin Higgins, who deserve some praise after drawing criticism for the playcalling in some previous games (particularly the Western Carolina contest).  With Starks in the game, the run/pass ratio changed markedly.  Going into the Furman game, here were the relevant numbers for the season:

  • Rush attempts — 184 (677 yards)
  • Pass attempts — 181 (1020 yards)

There was balance, to be sure, but not a lot of success, as the Bulldogs were averaging just 3.68 yards per carry and only 5.64 yards per pass attempt.  Then came the Furman game:

  • Rush attempts — 49 (296 yards)
  • Pass attempts — 19 (183 yards)

The Bulldogs averaged 6.04 yards per rush against the Paladins and 9.63 yards per pass attempt.  You can win a lot of games averaging six yards per carry and nine yards for every pass thrown.

Starks was the headliner, but Van Dyke Jones appears to be the solution at running back, based on this game as well as the Appalachian State contest.  He looked very good teaming up with Starks on the various read-option plays.  He picks up tough yards, and he’s got the potential to break long runs (as the Mountaineers’ defense can attest).

The offensive line had its best game of the year, by far.  There was some discussion about fundamentals and correcting mistakes and such, but ultimately it seemed to me that the linemen much preferred the aggressive, run-oriented approach the Bulldogs had on Saturday to the usual pass-to-set-up-run attack.  It’s a cliché, but I think the guys liked the “hit ’em in the mouth” strategy.  I know a lot of older alumni appreciated it.

It wasn’t just a run-run-pass scenario, either.  Nine of Starks’ nineteen pass attempts came on first down (he threw on first down a little over 25% of the time, enough to keep the Paladins honest).  On third and long, The Citadel actually ran the ball five out of seven times.  The Bulldogs were totally committed to the run on third and short/medium, rushing on all five of those occasions.  Conversely, on four second-and-short plays The Citadel threw twice.  It was a nice mix.

Starks threw six passes in each of the first three quarters (one pass in the third quarter was wiped out by a penalty).  In the fourth, with the Bulldogs protecting a double-digit lead, he would throw only three times (a flag erasing one attempt).  The drive that put the game away featured no passes, with Starks scoring the clinching TD on a 23-yard run.

The other noticeable thing about the passing game was that Starks threw exclusively short and intermediate passes in the first half, but started to go deep in the third quarter.  On consecutive pass attempts in that quarter, he threw a slant pass for 20 yards, followed by a 28-yard TD toss on a post route (both to Scott Harward), a 38-yard post would-be TD to Andre Roberts wiped out by a holding penalty, a 35-yard pass to Roberts (sensational catch by Andre), and an incomplete post pass to Alex Sellars (which would have resulted in a 45-yard TD if the connection had been made).

Starks’ touch on his passes was generally good, and his receivers helped him on the few occasions where he was off target.  There were two legitimately outstanding catches, one by Kevin Hardy (arguably the best reception Hardy has made for the Bulldogs to date) and Roberts’ scintillating effort in the third quarter, which got the Bulldogs out of a field position hole (moving the ball from the 12 to the 47).  Only one pass all day was dropped.

—

Of course, it’s easier to call plays when your team leads the entire game, as was the case on Saturday for The Citadel.  After a very impressive opening drive for a TD, the Bulldogs took advantage of an unintentional onside kick (the wind becoming a temporary 12th man) to grab a 14-0 lead before Furman could run a play on offense.

This would ultimately lead to a rather unusual situation, as despite scoring 28 points in the game Furman’s offense never had the ball with less than a 10-point deficit facing it.  In other words, at no point in the game were the Paladins within one drive of tying the game or taking the lead.  Furman would get within 3 points at 24-21 early in the third quarter, but The Citadel scored a TD on its next drive, stretching the lead back to 10, and the Paladins could draw no closer.

Furman’s failures were mostly on defense, but Paladins QB Jordan Sorrells will surely want to forget the two interceptions he threw, both in the end zone, and both with Furman trailing 31-21.

The first of the two was particularly bad, as on first-and-ten at the Bulldog 26 he threw the ball late over the deep middle of the field and into the wind, while rolling out in the opposite direction, and with three defenders in the vicinity.  Calling that pass “ill-advised” doesn’t really do it justice.  I thought he played fairly well other than that, though.  It’s hard to lead a comeback when you trail the entire game by double digits.

—

It wasn’t all great for The Citadel, though.  The defense continued to struggle with preventing long drives.  Furman converted six out of eleven third down attempts, and was 3-for-3 on 4th down tries.  The Paladins did not punt until the third quarter.  Truthfully, the defense has not had a solid game all season, and I am including the Princeton game in that analysis, despite the Bulldogs allowing just seven points, because the Tigers moved the ball fairly well for a significant portion of that game (and also because Princeton is just not a very good team this year).

Looking back, an argument could be made that the defense’s most satisfactory performance came in the season opener against North Carolina.

Against the Paladins, the Bulldogs only had one sack, although Furman is not a team prone to giving up sacks.  What the defense did do well was create some critical turnovers; in previous games those two end-zone picks weren’t happening.

It was a good thing the defense did get those turnovers and make those stops, as Starks lost two fumbles in the second half (after fumbling twice earlier without punishment).  On that issue, I was struck by some comments made by Higgins in The Post and Courier:

On the fumbles, Higgins said, “We knew the first time he stepped on campus that was going to be a challenge. We watched him as a freshman on the scout team and said, that will be a challenge. But until you actually get under fire, it takes a while to understand that.

This sounds a little like the Tiki Barber situation with the New York Giants, when he was alternating between big runs and big fumbles (sometimes on the same play).  Maybe the Bulldog staff should get Tom Coughlin on the phone…

The Citadel is going to have to live with some fumbling, it appears.  Other teams are going to make a concerted effort to try to strip Starks of the ball, which may lead to more fumbling, but which may also lead to bigger plays by Starks as players go for the ball rather than the tackle.  Starks isn’t going to go down just by being hit; he has to be wrapped up, and if other teams don’t realize this now they will realize it soon enough.

I think that with Starks at QB, Bulldog fans are going to have more than the usual number of “no no yes yes!” and “yes yes oh no” moments, at least in the near future.

—

As disappointing as the Bulldogs’ lost weekends at Elon and Cullowhee were — and those were VERY disappointing results —  it’s good to see the team (and coaches) get up off the canvas and come out fighting.  To do so against Furman makes it even better.  Now it’s time to focus on Samford, which shouldn’t be too difficult, given last year’s mauling.  It’s about time to re-buckle those chinstraps.

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

Football, Game 7: The Citadel vs. Furman

Posted on October 23, 2009 by Sandlapper Spike

If you looked at the overall statistics for last year’s Bulldogs-Paladins game, you might think it had been a competitive game.  It wasn’t.  Furman led at one point by 28 points and scored on every one of its possessions in the first three quarters.

Furman alternated between delayed handoffs and intermediate pass routes, picking up first downs with ease (the Paladins had 22 first downs, only four of which came after a third-down conversion).  It was a lot like the Elon game two weeks ago, only The Citadel actually scored on its first two possessions against Furman (both field goals).

Allowing Furman those kinds of long scoring drives can’t happen on Saturday if the Bulldogs expect to win, but The Citadel’s defense has struggled to get off the field all season, allowing a third-down conversion rate of 51% and failing to create negative plays (only six sacks, and not enough turnovers).  The Bulldogs have only 24 tackles for loss so far this year; opponents have 43.

—

The Citadel desperately needs to get Andre Roberts more involved, and in a position to make big plays.  After all, he is the Bulldogs’ best player.  He did catch 9 passes against Western Carolina (for 78 yards and a TD), but in three conference games Roberts has only 16 catches for 138 total yards and that one TD.

Roberts lit it up against Presbyterian (12 catches, 184 yards, four touchdowns), but I can guarantee you Furman isn’t going to defend him like the Blue Hose did.  Just the opposite, probably.  The Paladins are well aware of how dangerous he can be; in three career games against Furman, Roberts has 28 receptions for 342 yards.

To have a chance of winning on Saturday, The Citadel needs more of the same from Roberts.  Whether the offense is capable of giving him that opportunity is open to question.

Furman’s defense, like The Citadel’s, has struggled on third downs; like the Bulldogs, the Paladins are allowing a 51% conversion rate.  Both defenses are allowing an average of right around 400 total yards per game.  Furman only has five sacks all season (but on offense, the Paladins have allowed just four).

It would seem that The Citadel might be able to move the ball on the Paladins, given those numbers.  However, with uncertainty at quarterback, a lack of a consistent ground game, and the absence of a secondary receiving threat, the Bulldogs may not be able to take advantage of that opportunity.  It’s hard to imagine the team that could only put up 10 points against Western Carolina doing much damage offensively against Furman (which defeated the Catamounts in Cullowhee 33-14).

The revolving door at running back has undoubtably resulted in some of the problems the Bulldogs have had running the ball, but the o-line hasn’t held up its end of the bargain either.  The failure of the offensive line to control the line of scrimmage in most of the games played thus far is arguably the most disappointing part of the team’s play to date.

—

One of the things that will be interesting to follow over the next three weeks is the attendance at Johnson Hagood Stadium.  The last two weeks have not exactly been helpful in terms of generating interest in the team.

Going back to last season, attendance for the Parents’ Day game against Elon was 12,582.  That was very disappointing for a Parents’ Day weekend crowd, even with the weather not being ideal.

Looking at various factors that could affect attendance on Saturday, there is a 30% chance of rain in Charleston by gametime.  Also, Clemson plays on TV at 3:30 pm ET (at Miami), and South Carolina hosts Vanderbilt (also on TV) at night.  Other than that, though, the college football slate on TV is not particularly compelling (and neither of those games is a must-see).

The last time the Bulldogs hosted Furman, it was also Parents’ Day, and 16,272 people showed up to watch one of the wilder games (if not the wildest) in the history of the series.  However, that was a winning Bulldog team playing on a day featuring good weather.

So, which direction will Saturday’s game take, attendance-wise?  I could make a pretty good guess.  What’s more, it’s the first of three consecutive football weekends at Johnson Hagood, and if the Bulldogs don’t make a good account of themselves against the Paladins, that is likely to be reflected in how many people show up to watch the Samford and Wofford games (with the latter being Homecoming).

I’ve written before about attendance, but the biggest factor when it comes to getting people to enter the stadium (as opposed to either not making the trip or just tailgating, which is another subject entirely) is winning.  The Citadel isn’t winning games right now, and attendance is likely to suffer as a result.

—

Bart Blanchard may or may not play against Furman, and Miguel Starks is not 100% healthy either.  Starks is likely to see much, if not all, of the playing time at quarterback, but if both Blanchard and Starks are unable to play, The Citadel’s quarterback will be 5’11”, 185 lb. Tommy Edwards, a freshman walkon from Los Angeles.

Edwards went to Ulysses S. Grant High School (hey, at least he didn’t go to William T. Sherman High School).  Notable alums of Grant High include Tom Selleck, Mickey Dolenz, Mitch Gaylord, Gilbert “Agent Zero” Arenas, three members of the pop/rock group Toto, TV theme kingpin Mike Post, and the late Rod Beck.  Apparently there haven’t been any notable football players to have come from Grant High, though, so Edwards has a chance to break new ground in that respect.

No offense to Edwards, but I really hope he’s not a featured player on Saturday.

—

The Citadel can beat Furman on Saturday, although the last two weeks haven’t inspired confidence in that possibility coming to pass.  The Paladins are a good team, but not without flaws.  The Citadel’s game against Appalachian State showed what the team is capable of doing on a given day, and after two lost weekends in North Carolina, playing at home will surely be beneficial to the Bulldogs.

It’s going to be a big test for the coaching staff.  Kevin Higgins and company have something to prove, too.

The team has to be ready to play from the opening kickoff.  I feel kind of dumb just writing that, but then again, I felt kind of dumb watching the Elon game.  If the Bulldogs’ energy isn’t there from the very start, it’s going to be a very long day for The Citadel.

The playcalling has to get better.  If Blanchard and Starks both play, the coaches can’t telegraph whether the play is a run or pass just by virtue of who is taking the snap from center.  Starks, in particular, has to throw the ball down the field, and he’s got to look for Roberts.

The coaches must find a way for the defense to stop the Paladins on third down (after making sure there is a third down in the first place).  Turnovers, tackles for loss, etc. are musts, not just for the yardage/field position, but to pump up the entire team, along with the crowd.

Of course, an unexpected win by the Bulldogs would really pump up the crowd…

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

Following up a debacle with a disaster

Posted on October 21, 2009 by Sandlapper Spike

The Citadel lost to Western Carolina last Saturday, a horrific, potentially season-tanking loss if there ever was one.  I was trying to think of the last time the Bulldogs played a game like that, and then realized it had happened just last season…only The Citadel actually managed to win that contest.

Last year for Homecoming the Bulldogs entertained a UT-Chattanooga squad with a 1-9 record and a lame-duck coach.  The Mocs seemed a good bet to mail it in, but The Citadel was unable to hold onto a 14-0 lead and with less than two minutes remaining trailed UTC 21-17.  That’s when Andre Roberts returned a punt 43 yards for a touchdown to win the game.

In Saturday’s contest, Western Carolina lined up to punt with less than two minutes to play.  Roberts was ready for another potential game-winning return, but alas, the canny Catamount punter avoided punting to Roberts by kicking the ball off one of his own players, an upback trying to block for him.

Sure, that meant The Citadel got possession of the ball at the WCU 34-yard-line, but the way things were going the Bulldogs might have had a better chance of scoring a TD on special teams than on offense.  As it happened, The Citadel managed to drive to the Catamount 15 but no further.

Losing to teams you are supposed to beat is a problem, not least because for The Citadel, there aren’t too many of those types of teams on the schedule, especially in conference play.  The Bulldogs have to be ready to play 60 minutes of solid football against any opponent, because The Citadel doesn’t have the talent level to just cruise past an overmatched team.

As a former coach of The Citadel once said, “”We can lose to anybody.”  Of course, he said that after one of his (and the school’s) greatest victories, in any sport, and it was a reference to playing “loose” and without fear.  Sometimes I wonder if in games like on Saturday, or UT-Chattanooga last season, or Charleston Southern in 2006, the team plays not to lose instead of playing to win.

—

So in the last two weeks, The Citadel has played two of its worst games in the Kevin Higgins era.  Higgins was unable to attend Monday’s press luncheon, as he was attending the funeral for Bulldog DB Rod Harland’s father.  He was replaced for the day by defensive coordinator Isaac Collins and offensive coordinator Dave Cecchini.

I read Jeff Hartsell’s notes from the luncheon and listened to parts of it made available on The Citadel Sports Network.  Both Collins and Cecchini tried to explain why the Bulldogs were struggling, and each made some good points.  I have to take issue with one comment made by Collins, though:

I think Elon was unfortunate, we fell behind early. But as I tell people, for a long time, that game was 23-0. So it wasn’t out of hand until later on in the fourth quarter.

Well, the game wasn’t really 23-0 “for a long time”.  Elon kicked a field goal (after a drive that lasted more than eight minutes) to take a 23-0 lead in the second quarter.

After The Citadel went three-and-out (again), the Phoenix drove down the field again, taking almost six minutes off the clock, and eventually kicked another field goal near the end of the half.  Elon led 26-0 at intermission.  The Phoenix then scored on its opening drive of the third quarter.  In terms of game time, Elon led 23-0 for about eight minutes.

Collins probably just got the score wrong when he was talking, which is understandable, but the real issue is that it doesn’t matter if it was 23-0 or 29-0 when the Bulldogs finally forced a punt.  It’s way, way too late at that point; the game is (and was) essentially over.  I realize he was trying to look at positives for his defense, but to me there were no positives in the Elon game.  None.

There weren’t any positives against Western Carolina, either.

—

Up next is Furman, on a Parents’ Day Saturday at Johnson Hagood Stadium.  I’ll write about that game in another post.

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

Football, Game 6: The Citadel vs. Western Carolina

Posted on October 16, 2009 by Sandlapper Spike

Like a lot of other college football fans, I’ve been following the current situation with Bobby Bowden and Florida State with some interest, wondering how it will end.  At this point, it does not look like it will end well, because it’s obvious that A) Bowden clearly does not want to retire, and B) FSU higher-ups desperately want him to do so. 

Bowden is Florida State football, at least as we know it today.  How do you cast off a legend?  It’s not easy.  It’s something Western Carolina had to do 20 years ago, though, under circumstances much more tragic.

Bob Waters was a star quarterback at Presbyterian in the late 1950s who wound up playing for five years for the San Francisco 49ers.  He started several games at quarterback in 1961 in Red Hickey’s then-novel “shotgun” offense. 

After three years as a college assistant coach (at PC and Stanford), Waters would become the head coach at Western Carolina in 1969.  In 20 seasons in Cullowhee, he would not only become the Catamounts’ winningest coach, he would win more games than all his predecessors did combined.  Waters is the only coach in the history of the program to finish his career at the school with a winning record.

Western Carolina would make the Division II playoffs in 1974, a prelude to joining the Southern Conference (and Division I) in 1976.  Waters was a key part of the move up the NCAA ladder, as he by this time was also director of athletics at WCU.  In 1983 Waters and the Catamounts would win 11 games and go all the way to the I-AA championship game (played at Johnson Hagood Stadium!), losing in the final to Southern Illinois. 

Then in 1985, Waters was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).  He would lead the Catamounts to a 4-6-1 record that year; the following season WCU would go 6-5.  

In April of 1987 he would be profiled in Sports Illustrated.  The piece noted that Waters was one of three players from the 1965 49ers squad to suffer from ALS, a coincidence (or perhaps not a coincidence) that drew considerable scrutiny. 

In 1987, the Catamounts would slip to 4-7, and then in 1988 WCU would lose its last five games and finish 2-9, the worst season of Waters’ career.  It would also be the last season of his career.

During spring practice in 1989, Waters was “reassigned” by Western Carolina administrators, a decision made more difficult because Waters had wanted one more year.  He didn’t get it.  Waters died in late May of that year.

That had to have been a very trying time for the WCU administration, which was faced with trying to decide how best to ease the best coach it ever had out of the position he had held for so long.  Waters had made WCU football a success, but it appeared that success was drifting away as Waters’ body continued to fail him.  He wouldn’t quit, so he was removed.

Then the folks at WCU made a mistake, bringing in an “outsider”, Dale Strahm, to coach the team.  Strahm was in Cullowhee for one year, and then decided to get out of town following a 3-7-1 season.  Four coaches have followed, none establishing any pattern of success. 

Steve Hodgin, who had been an assistant at the school for seven years prior to becoming head coach, did have a respectable run, with three straight winning seasons in the mid-1990s, but after a 1-7 SoCon record in 1996, he was done.  Bill Bleil was actually 7-4 in his fifth season in Cullowhee, but was then fired after a series of off-the-field problems. Kent Briggs spent six seasons at WCU; he would finish his career at the school with 15 consecutive conference losses.

The current coach of the Catamounts is Dennis Wagner.  WCU was 3-9 in his first season; this year, the Catamounts are 0-5 entering Saturday afternoon’s contest.

Western Carolina is 79-135 since the reassignment of Bob Waters.  Replacing a legend is not easy.

—

It’s also not easy to win while dealing with budget restraints, a historic problem at Western Carolina.  WCU’s budget for athletics is the league’s smallest (just under $8.5 million in FY2008).  Western Carolina has fewer athletic donors than any school in the league save UT-Chattanooga (The Citadel has more than seven times as many boosters as does WCU). 

The school is situated in a population area that is one of the league’s smallest (Elon, by comparison, has a population base surrounding it three times as large), which perhaps partly explains the less-than-stellar home attendance (less than 7,000 per game last season).  Western Carolina also does not have a large local corporate presence from which to solicit donations, and the general population is not particularly affluent (average household income:  just over $34,000).    

It’s a tough sell.

Tangent:  Appalachian State and Western Carolina are rivals, or at least are supposed to be rivals.  The two schools have met on the gridiron 73 times, which means they’ve met almost every year WCU has had a football program.  App State leads the series, 54-18-1.  It has to be tough when your biggest game of the year is against a team that has beaten you 75% of the time.  The Mountaineers have won 22 of the last 24 meetings.

—

Western Carolina’s cumulative statistics in the current campaign are not pretty, which is not surprising for an 0-5 team.  Opponents are outscoring the Catamounts 30 to 8; have more than twice as many first downs; have intercepted WCU passers seven times (with the Catamounts yet to pick off a pass on defense); and are averaging almost twice as many yards of total offense.

In five games, Western has a total of 3 first-half points.  WCU has scored 4 touchdowns in those five games.

—

In short, this is a game The Citadel should win.  Of course, that was the feeling before the 43-7 embarassment at Elon.  Now, will doubt creep in?  Kevin Higgins has to convince his team it isn’t as bad as last week’s game and prepare them to fight a desperate team which needs a victory just as badly (if not more so) as do the Bulldogs.  Other potential x-factors:  Whitmire Stadium’s playing surface is artificial turf, and the game is WCU’s Homecoming. 

The Citadel has defeated Western Carolina five times in a row, and historically has had more success against the Catamounts than any other Southern Conference school (19-13-1).  I am hopeful that both of those trends will continue on Saturday.  However, if they don’t, The Citadel may be in for a very long season.

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

« Previous Page — Next Page »