LaunchCode

40 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

A lot of SEC schools have yearly OOC rivalries though. SC plays Clemson every year. Florida plays Florida State every year. Georgia plays....well, Georgia Tech

 

I agree they need to switch to 9 also but for a handful of them at least it's not like some unbelievable advantage because they still have a marquee OOC matchup that somewhat takes that place.

Kentucky vs Louisville is another that comes to mind, but that still means three cupcake games and that's only a few of the 16 SEC teams.  

What many forget is a 9th conference game guarantees the conference will have more losses.  Half the teams will win that 9th game, half will lose.  That guarantees 7 extra losses for the B1G every year.  The SEC only playing 8 conference games means they can avoid the guaranteed 7 extra losses they'd have with a 9th conference game.

Which record looks better?  8-4* or 7-5 

Which is going to be ranked higher? 

Who are you going to get more credit for beating, the 8 win team or the 7 win team?

Until they play 9 conference games, put an asterisk behind their record.

*(only played 8 conference games)

As long as the SEC keeps receiving a free pass in rankings for only playing 8 conference games then they will continue to have a large advantage over other conferences in the polls.

There should be an asterisk next to their records denoting "Only played 8 conference games".

48 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

In order to NOT feel optimistic, you've obviously forgotten much more than that.

You're probably right.  I stopped posting mid season after I realized reading some of my posts I sounded like a sour old apple. 

I want to be excited and optimistic, but I am at the point where it's going to take actual wins and accomplishments on the field to get me there again.  The fluff and off season hype that had me optimistic going into this season led to an even bigger let down after the way we started. 

On 11/24/2018 at 11:36 AM, Redux said:

I'm honestly pretty stunned at the level of pessimism after the way we finished this year.  Look at how enthusiastic a lot of folks were after Riley's year 1 disaster.  Are people seriously less optimistic about the direction of this team than they were after 2015?

A 4 win season made up of a loss sandwich in which CU and Iowa were the bread and Wisconsin the filler in the middle doesn't fill me with optimism.   

I'm stunned anyone would be stunned by that.  In order to feel super optimistic I'd have to forget an awful lot, I'm not there yet, but certainly don't begrudge anyone who is.

42 minutes ago, MLB 51 said:

 

This list makes one wonder how Michigan is getting so many yards, points, and wins without a single All Conference player on offense?

31 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

And yet there you were, trying to compare two coaches who have nothing anywhere close to those similarities.  

 

Admitting your agenda is the first step.

My agenda was simple, point out how easy it is to paint a misleading picture with stats when context is ignored.  I pointed that out clearly(I thought) in the second and third sentence.  Guess it didn't come across that way.  

1 hour ago, LaunchCode said:

SF is 2-7 all time vs Power 5 opponents .222.  MR's win percentage actually improves vs Power 5 only. 

 

In both cases there's a lot more context to consider.  Judging either purely by win % absent context appears to be more agenda driven than actual insight. 

1 hour ago, Mavric said:

 

The context is their entire career.  There is no agenda in that.  When you start cherry-picking certain parts of it, that' s when someone's agenda comes out.

You can't have an agenda when comparing two entire coaching careers?  Unless you are comparing careers identical with regards to schedules, support, number of games played, poximity to talent base for recruiting, historical team results, etc....I couldn't disagree more.

Saban isn't winning multiple national titles or as many games coaching at Rutgers instead of Alabama.  I'm sorry, but there's a lot more to a coaches winning percentage than just how good a coach he is no matter how much some people would like to project that as fact on message boards.

50 minutes ago, Warrior said:

Frost is still an over 500 coach with an 0-6 start..  Reilly isn't over 500 and wont be for a long time even if you add his wins from his new team in Texas.. 

 

Edit

My apologies 

Reilly is at .504  177-174

Frost is  at .612 19-12 

 

SF is 2-7 all time vs Power 5 opponents .222.  MR's win percentage actually improves vs Power 5 only. 

In both cases there's a lot more context to consider.  Judging either purely by win % absent context appears to be more agenda driven than actual insight. 

16 hours ago, Making Chimichangas said:

I say yes, simply because you don't fire a coach after one season.  Mike Riley got 3 seasons to show what he could do and .500 is it.

That's about as insightful as saying SF has had six full games to show what he can do and .000 is it.

When you consider a new coaches first full class of recruits for his system usually comes a season after he's hired, it isn't until year 3 his first full class is even in the system and they are only freshman with a mix of his and previous coaches guys from the previous class being sophs or redshirt frosh.  Teams don't win many games with underclassman.

9 minutes ago, gobiggergoredder said:

 He took over a 9-3 squad.  Frost inherited a dumpster fire.  I think it’s a reach to try and draw comparisons.

 

Eichorst wouldn’t fire the guy he just hired.

Possibly the most misleading 9 win season ever.  

We beat one team with a winning record in 2014, the all powerful...drum roll....Rutgers!  I thought everyone realized exactly who we really were after the 35 point loss to Wisconsin.  A 9 win imposter.  Just think if SF had a similar schedule this season.   

Doubt it. 

If on the other hand several highly rated players left the program and he went 0-6 then I'm not as confident he or Eichorst survive.

1 minute ago, ScottyIce said:

As I was saying... I don't want to be Wisconsin or Iowa. 

Who then?  Canada?  

You might be onto something we could win a lot of games.

1 minute ago, ScottyIce said:

Wait, you're predicting a rematch with Troy?

If I were king for a day I'd combine the Beef O'brady Bowl and Famous Potato bowl.

I'd call it the Steak and Mashed Potato Bowl.  

12 minutes ago, ScottyIce said:

 

Okay...

You're right on a lot of accounts, but with Wisconsin, it just feels like this is always as good as they are going to be. It doesn't feel like they are ever going to take out the big boys. What is their recent record against tOSU, Michigan and Penn State since 2012?

1-9

 

Iowa is 3-5 in the same time frame. Nebraska is.... 4-5.

 

That's exactly where we were with Bo. Winning tons of games but never over the hump.

So is that where you wish we were? Back with Bo doing that?

 

Frost is going to do that and more. 

TO went 21 years without a title or undefeated season.  Wiscy has a similar track record over the past 20 or so years and is one of most consistent winners in college football.

The one thing not in their favor, it's a lot tougher to get to the championship game now than it was in the 90's.  Bigger more well funded conferences with much better coaching and talent in the bottom teams, 9 conference games instead of 7, more games period, plus a conference championship game and a playoff game as well as scholarship/roster restrictions.  

35 minutes ago, WyoHusker56 said:

The Toilet Bowl?

 

Jk, I actually do hope we still make a bowl somehow and I agree it'd be the Foster Farms/Red Box/Red Tube Bowl.

One Troylet Bowl per season is enough.

5 hours ago, lo country said:

I have said similar things.  Frost continues to talk about his scheme/system and he knows it works.  Is this based on the results at UCF?  I have no issue with his philosophy ie accountability, culture, commitment etc....But I wonder if his complete scheme that worked at UCF will work in the B1G.  Not calling for a whole sale change, but improvements on both sides to, in reality, "change to fit the B1G"........Yes UCF beat Auburn, but my co-workers argue it was an Auburn that "didn't want to be in the bowl", UCF had time to prepare for the "one big game" etc.....

 

One great season gives credibility, but not validity IMHO.  I'm all N for Frost.  Believe he needs time, but I also think he needs to make some tweaks on both sides of the ball.  I know talent will help, but talent isn't the only answer.

My thoughts as well. 

3 hours ago, Huskers93-97 said:

2 of frosts 3 years are a year 1 taking over a dumpster fire of a team. 1 team was 0-12 and the other 4-8 before he got there. He only has one season where his culture was in place and he went undefeated 

Totally disagree UCF or N were dumpster fires. 

UCF was 3 years removed from an 8-0 conference record, 12-1 overall record, and Fiesta Bowl win.  Two years removed from a 9 win conference championship season.  They've been an up and down program for over a decade and after every losing season in that time span have bounced right back with a winning season.

N had a lot of young guys on the field last year and won 4 games.  A new highly pro football AD, tons of fan and alumni support, and a willingness to give SF whatever he needs.  Normally you'd look at that and think it's a situation ripe for rapid improvement with the players a year older and more experienced.  In no way can anyone look at that and say dumpster fire.  Changing staffs and schemes stunted the growth that should have been made as you'd expect when changing coaches.  So while this season is a dumpster fire so far, I don't agree it couldn't have gone much better and was destined to be a dumpster fire.  It's not at all far fetched to look back and see a 5-1 or 4-2 record up to this point was very possible. 

Anyhow my original point was this isn't the song writers union, this is competitive Power 5 football so one season good or bad does not validate a coach as I pointed out with Gene Chizik.

38 minutes ago, commando said:

i assume they can't afford to pass up this payday

I don't know what the deal currently is, but is a win worth sweetening the pot a little more to make sure they can't pass up coming?

This staff has produced one winning season out of 3.  I'm hopeful, however not nearly as generous as some to say they've validated anything based on the evidence in front of us.

As a reminder Gene Chizik, like Frost, went undefeated in his second season, although he did it in what many claim is the strongest power 5 conference, and then capped that undefeated regulars season off with a national championship victory.  Clearly looking back that one great season was in no way a validation of his coaching, and he also didn't have a losing season in his first three.  Now we're talking about validating coaches who have 2 losing seasons in their first three years and are winless as power 5 coaches?

The only thing that is validated at this point is SF has blind support which I hope he can leverage into a major turnaround.    

57 minutes ago, HS_Coach_C said:

Minnesota didn't even score in the two games after they beat Nebraska last year, so it's not like their offense was amazing then either.

 

That said, I hope you're right and I hope the defense plays their best game in a few years.

Well when you put it that way I guess it's time to worry after all 

Let's hope not.

2 hours ago, PasstheDamnBallGuy said:

 

Just changing your run pass balance is not some complete overhaul in scheme. They are 3-3 and are doing exactly what people bitched about the previous staff doing here. 

They're 3-1 in conference and on top of the division so they're doing something right.  I said identity not scheme, but agree the word overhaul was incorrect.

45 minutes ago, Caliborn72 said:

 

Minnesota has averaged 19 points their last three games.  I don't think we have to worry about them running up the score on anyone this year.

2 minutes ago, grandpasknee said:

4-8....and lost the last 4 of the season...so in the big picture, Scott came in on a four game losing streak....at the end of a season when normally teams get better.

Wouldn't #17N'western, Minny, #8 Penn state, and Iowa also be better at end of season?  

42 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

That's fair.  But it doesn't make much sense to compare situations a coach in his first year is facing to a coach in his 13th year.

The situation I was comparing is how each coach has responded publicly after a loss.  Your point that for Fitz to blame anything on his players is an indictment on his recruiting and development which is a good point. 

That makes sense if he was deflecting blame altogether, but he actually took full responsibility for the loss.   He went so far as to say if players were losing one on one battles then the coaches needed to identify if that was due to technique or scheme and do a better job of coaching to help that player win the one on ones.  He never mentioned talent as an option for losing one on ones.  The two choices he gave, technique and scheme, places the responsibility for a player succeeding directly on the coaches.  I didn't hear him mention injuries or deflect blame and certainly didn't hear him say anything that would point a finger at the players inadequacies. 

53 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

Considering Fitz has been the head coach at Northwestern for the past 13 years, there wouldn't be much point in him saying that.

Frankly I don't see the point in a HC ever running down his own players whether he recruited them or not.