ChantRant.com

Corey Simon takes a break to chat.

Fifteen years ago Corey Simon anchored a Florida State defensive line that was instrumental in winning the Noles second national title—a season that saw Simon record 21 tackles for loss. The amiable defensive tackle was never at a loss for words, though. And a few weeks ago, visiting Jimbo Fisher's summer camp along with his two young sons, and eager to talk about FSU's program, then and now. 

And truly, the salient point is that FSU now has the support of its past.  During the "dark days" we saw former players distancing themselves from the program and, in all fairness, rightfully so.  But now, we're seeing the players reappear and re-integrated into the program in ways that only makes FSU stronger.  With the backing of its history, FSU's future looks ever so bright.

Is FSU competing against itself?

Credit: Melina Vastola

During the ACC Media Days, Jimbo Fisher fielded many questions about what it will take to repeat and defend its title.

As all of you know, Jimbo's philosophy is that no one can take away the 2013 National Championship... it's history, there is no defending or repeating.  Each season is a 1 season vacuum.

Fisher dropped a quote, however, that made me think that maybe our own enemy is us.

"We're not defending anything, we're trying to go and get another one,” Fisher said. “We want to keep an attitude of domination. We want to create the great habits and the culture in which we've already created there, and then continue to enhance that.”

What Jimbo hopes to do is build on the success of last season and, well, the only way to build on the success of a national championship season is to win another national championship.

Obviously, easier said than done.

But Jimbo alludes to the habits and culture that existed last year, meaning FSU's biggest competition will be itself.  Can it live up to its own expectations?  Will this year's team feel like last year's team?  Because, if you're looking to last year as a benchmark, you're going to come up short in many ways.  And it's for that reason that I think Jimbo's comment didn't do his own program justice.

Jimbo Fisher has frequently preached that each team has its own DNA, but that's what I find puzzling by his comments.  Fisher seems adament that this year's team build on the efforts of last year's team, but if we are to truly consider each team a 1-team capsule (with no regard to what has happened or will happened in future seasons), then why worry about building on anything a previous team did?

If Fisher tries to compare this team to last year's team, even on the basis of habits and attitude, he's going to come up short.  You're going to be hard pressed to find harder working leaders than Telvin Smith and Lamarcus Joyner.  But to be fair, I hope the coaches aren't looking for players to be Telvin Smith and Lamarcus Joyner.  They can't do that; those two are one-of-a-kind players and are incapable being imitated.  

It is reasons like these that "repeating" is so difficult, regardless of whether Jimbo Fisher wants to acknowledge.  FSU has become a victim of its own success before; constantly having to measure itself not against its opponents but against the strength and valor of previous FSU squads.  This year, the coaches will face a similar battle, but can they let the team breathe long enough to form its own identity?  Or will the coaches staunchly try to find the next Joyner and Smith?  Because if they are, they're wasting their breath.

 

Geno Hayes has come a long way.

On the field, you'd be hard pressed to find a player with more hustle than Geno Hayes.  He had the type of motor few have and it is that very motor that has propelled his career in the NFL.  However, he had an up-and-down career at Florida State, often mired by poor choices.  For example, in 2007, Hayes faced misdemeanor charges of assault on an officer, resisting arrest without violence and disorderly conduct.  Events like that are often the fork in the road for these athletes; can they overcome their past and fulfill the promise of their athletic abilities?  Bobo Wilson sits at a similar crossroads and should take heed of Geno Hayes and his success in the NFL.  Hayes is entering his 8th season in the NFL, almost all of which have been productive.  And recently, Garnet and Great had a chance to catch up with Geno.

 

Do you own a good pair of glasses? Good, read this.

Here you can find Phil Steele's FSU page.

Aside from the lack of white space on the page, there a few things worth mentioning.

First, he feels that the offensive line underperformed last year.  I think that is still up for debate but a debate worth having.  Second, he claims our toughest games are the ones on the road against Oklahoma State, Louisville, and Miami.  If that's truly the case, then get your tickets booked for Dallas.  I disagree with him; our toughest games will be the three home games against Clemson, Notre Dame, and Florida.  Finally, his forecast is that we'll likely be double digit favorites in each of our games.  What I don't like, though, is that his forecast is more of a history lesson than an analysis of the current team and its capabilities.  For instance, he could have easily discussed our senior-laden offensive line and a stable of running backs that might be the best group in the nation.

The jury has spoken: most don't like the new logo.

A group of three researchers with ties to FSU (David Hedlund, Ph.D, Joseph St. Germain, Ph.D., and Marlon McPhatter) released the results of its "Florida State University Seminole Logo Public Opinion Research" study.  Simply put, they asked the fans if they liked the new logo.

The resounding answer?  No.  The fans, or the 6,872 responses to the survey, overwhelmingly prefer the old Seminole logo.  This is, of course, not surprising given the enormous backlash that occurred when the first images of the logo leaked.  

What's most surprising to me about the study is that the older Seminole fans were most approving of the new logo.  That seems to go against the very logic given to us by the Florida State administration; they told us, oh so long ago, that the logo was being "modernized" to appeal to the younger fans.  As it turns out, it's the older generation that likes the logo more than the younger generation.  In discussions I've held with fans, I've found that this is for a reason; the older generation is less emotional and more rational.  I'm sorry, but it's just a function of age.  And with age, comes wisdom that all things change at one point or another.  The older generation was also more receptive to the logo change because they trusted the administration more.

With that said, the study yielded more questions than answers and I went straight to the source.  Fortunately, one of the authors of the study, Joseph St. Germain, Ph.D., was kind enough to sit down and respond to my questions.  The following is our exchange and some insight into the study.

First, who paid for the study? 

This study was done pro bono by David Hedlund, Ph.D. (professor at St. John’s University and FSU alum), Marlon McPhatter (current doctoral candidate at FSU) and myself (Vice President of Kerr & Downs Research and FSU alum) on our own time.

Second, what's the goal of the study? Are you hoping to convince the Florida State administration that they should reconsider the logo change? 

Other than a survey conducted on Warchant and people expressing themselves on social media (which is not always a great indicator of what everyone thinks), we weren’t sure what people, on the whole, thought about the new logo. Our goal was to better understand how FSU students, alumni and public at-large felt about the original, new, and Jodi Slade’s logo. We’re not trying to change anything. Our plan from the beginning was to conduct this study and then release the results to the public.

Third, is the opinion scale too vague? How can we meaningfully distinguish between, for instance, the "hate a lot" and "hate a good amount" or "hate some" and "hate a little" categories? 

These questions were presented as a Likert-type 1-10 scale. For example, Q2 of the survey reads as follows: “How do you feel about Logo #1? Please rate Logo #1 on a scale of 0­10, where 10 is "I love Logo #1" and 0 is "I hate Logo #1." Using question types and scales similar to the preceding example are standard in the research industry.

[Note: this still seems odd to me.  I personally think the questions should be something simpler, along the lines of "How willing are you to purchase merchandise with the new logo?" with potential responses along the lines of "less willing," "about the same," or "more willing."  Granted, I don't do research for a living, but I personally think the survey would be more meaningful especially if you're trying to prove a point to FSU's administration.]

Fourth, did anything about the study surprise you? 

I didn’t have any preconceived notions about what the results would look like. It was good to see that individuals plan to attend the same or slightly more FSU events inside and outside of Tallahassee in the next 12 months, as attendance at sporting events is trending down in most markets.

Finally, do you think 6,872 responses represent a meaningful sample and how do you explain the nearly 4,000 individuals who agreed to take the survey but did not begin to take it? 

More than 6,800 responses is a meaningful sample size. I was very happy to see that many responses. Additionally, the demographic information (age, gender, income, etc.) aligns closely with what one would expect a sample of students and alumni to have.

11,271 opened the survey and we ended up analyzing 6,872 responses. That means more than 60% of all individuals who visited the survey page ended up completing the survey. That’s a great percentage in survey research. As far as the other 4,000 individuals, I can’t know for sure why they didn’t take survey. However, based on the communications we received from some people and based on our experiences conducting surveys, the following might be reasons they did not take the survey:

1)      They wanted to see what the research was about and didn’t think the survey pertained to them

2)     They thought the survey was about the use of Native American logos in general

3)     They wanted to see what the research was about and the survey looked like it would take more time than they are willing to commit to taking a survey