FOX's College Football page posted and tweeted this sobering Rutgers stat earlier this week:
5,123 days
- Thread starter JamesDeanRutgers
- Start date
Has is really been 5,000 days? Lol. Bless this entire fanbase.
Who was our last ranked win?
Who was our last ranked win?
Oct. 25th, 2008. 54-34 vs. #17 Pitt.
Hyperbolic, ridiculous stat. We didn’t play a ranked team yesterday or the day before, etc. Counting by days is just an indicator the writer doesn’t have anything meaningful to say today. The only useful way to look at this is to consider how many ranked teams we have lost to consecutively. I’m sure that’s not a good look either but it least it would tell us something. Stupid, stupid tweet.
A handful of droughts have ended this year, who knows.
Oh like 14 years sounds so much better. Jeeze this fanbase sometimes...
We're in the Big Ten East. We've played a lot of ranked teams and had chances to upset them.
Some of them are experts at spin and making excuses.
Program has stunk for over a decade. And stinks now.
If Schiano doesn't get it done, hopefully we get a coach that can at least score a bunch of points even if we lose. At least it will be something to be interested in.
If Schiano doesn't get it done, hopefully we get a coach that can at least score a bunch of points even if we lose. At least it will be something to be interested in.
The usual suspects jump right in with the troll food.
Our program is still terminally infested with the idea that defense wins championships--like we ever have any chance at a championship. In the meantime, Tennessee beat Alabama--not 13 to 10, but 52 to 49. Ohio State beat Penn State 44 to 31. Kansas State scored 48 on Oklahoma State. Nobody else is trying to win by holding opponents to 10 or less. They score points.
Whether it's a troll or not, I don't know. Who cares, don't react or just ignore it. I actually got a nice chuckle out of the Titanic gif for whatever reason lol.
Some droughts like Cuse/Oregon St/Kansas/Illinois for some things have ended this year. Maybe some more will, who knows.
Some droughts like Cuse/Oregon St/Kansas/Illinois for some things have ended this year. Maybe some more will, who knows.
Yep. Someone asked why were weren't throwing down 14.
It's the old mindset of defense, punting, and field position win games. Schiano ball won't typically work unless you build a lead to employ those tactics.
And even then it's going to be tough.
Offense wins games. Schiano can't embrace that which is why he's never likely to win here again.
He didn't suggest counting in years. Sometimes our fanbase lacks basic reading comprehension.
It's why he had a ceiling in the Big East. Offense has been more important for a long time and it's the only way for lesser programs to level the playing field.
Oh, relax. OP just put something out there for general view. Yes, your suggestion is the right way to look at this topic, but JDean's post was not stupid or ridiculous. Sheesh!
The answer is we've lost to 34 consecutive ranked teams.
For as guy who seemingly understands football well, you'd think he would have gotten this early in his tenure when New Hampshire made us look stupid.
Running true spread fast open offenses is the only way to neutralize teams with better players.
To think you are going to line up and smash mouth Michigan and Ohio st is just silly.
Think back to the Big East from 2005 to 2010 and later. Who were the best teams? West Virginia. Louisville. Cincinnati under Brian Kelly. Were they known for offense or defense? Schiano was the one trying to make defense/ball control/field position work. And West Virginia, Louisville and Cincinnati were the teams going to BCS bowls. Think about most of the hot coaches for the last 20 years. Were they offense or defense guys? It blows my mind that there are still people who don't see this.
The ugly details by year,
2022 0-1, 10-49
2021 0-4, 49-141(#19UM13-20)
2020 0-2, 48-86
2019 0-5, 34-207
2018 0-3, 17-115
2017 0-4, 27-161
2016 0-4, 13-223
2015 0-3, 47-129(#4MSU24-31)
2014 0-3, 44-143
2013 0-3, 43-94
2012 0-0, no ranked opponents
2011 0-1, 31-41(WVU)
2010 0-1, 14-35(WVU)
2009 0-1 , 21-24(WVU)
Total 0-35, 398-1448, (11.4-41.4)
Nov 12 2009, Rutgers beat a ranked 23/24 USF team 31-0, 4,740 days
The Pitt game is 5,123 days
2022 0-1, 10-49
2021 0-4, 49-141(#19UM13-20)
2020 0-2, 48-86
2019 0-5, 34-207
2018 0-3, 17-115
2017 0-4, 27-161
2016 0-4, 13-223
2015 0-3, 47-129(#4MSU24-31)
2014 0-3, 44-143
2013 0-3, 43-94
2012 0-0, no ranked opponents
2011 0-1, 31-41(WVU)
2010 0-1, 14-35(WVU)
2009 0-1 , 21-24(WVU)
Total 0-35, 398-1448, (11.4-41.4)
Nov 12 2009, Rutgers beat a ranked 23/24 USF team 31-0, 4,740 days
The Pitt game is 5,123 days
Once again which is why Schiano was a bad hire. He’s playing tennis with a wooden racquet. It’s how he’s wired and it’s a losing formula.
2018 was fun.
#4 Michigan had a historic defense going into the OSU-UM game?
#10 OSU blew their f@cking doors off 62-39.
In those 35 games we lost by a total of 1,050. WOW!
Even Nick Saban quickly learned that plodding O's and big slower defenses, especially at linebacker, were a thing of the past. He quickly pivoted to recruiting the athletes that could thrive in space and implemented an offense to do so.
I've always said Schiano's biggest strength is also his biggest weakness. Being stubborn in his first tenure moved the program forward in a number of areas, even if it hurt other programs. But that wasn't his job.
We don't need that stubborn guy now. We need a great football coach.
I don't know why you two are putting this all on Schiano. This drought started with Flood. An offensive minded HC.
It's not all on him but it started in 2009, when Schiano was HC, and it continues when he is HC again.
But he has beaten multiple top 25 teams, even top 5 teams. The other 2 have not.
Last edited:
He's the coach going forward, not Ash or Flood, so it's up to him. And the drought started with him, when he'd been coach for a long time.
But his style you both are complaining about that "can't win games" has beaten top 25 teams and top 5 teams.
He’s beaten ranked teams, not necessarily top teams. teams move up rankings when teams ahead of them lose whether or not they are truly “top”. In our Pandemonium year the rankings were screwy because the best teams in the best conferences were beating each other. Context of ranking matters.
Rutgers was absolutely not one of the top 10 teams in the country, ever. Top 25, sure. Rankings are a different thing.
Rutgers was absolutely not one of the top 10 teams in the country, ever. Top 25, sure. Rankings are a different thing.
Right? I feel like we need to have a mandatory internet 101 course for the forum regulars.
Or at least a refresher course in spotting trolls who are here only to provoke the fanbase and couldn't care less about the team(s).
When was the last time this happened? 15 years ago? 3 years went by when he'd been coach for a decade and he didn't beat a ranked team. See, obsolete style.