Why is winning important?

[Scratchtown]

Why do teams like Memphis, Houston, Temple, Boise, etc have better teams than a lot of Power 5 programs? Is it recruiting? Coaching? Winning culture? Athletes want to play for a school that can win more than lose? (Example. Indiana always sucks, so would a kid choose Memphis over Indiana?)

 

Especially considering there are TONS of NFL contributors that come from schools outside of the P5 conferences.

 

Or

 

Do you think it's solely on the fact they "don't play anyone good" consistently through out the year?

 

Thoughts and opinions appreciated.

[In the Deed the Glory]

Late bloomers and small town kids play on a lot of those teams. I do think momentum and confidence are the two most important things in amateur sports.

[Kernal]

I think it's a combination of things probably different for each team each season.

 

For one thing, those schools are more easily overlooked by power-5 players. So they never have to play a game with a bullseye on their backs. Like Nebraska, man, a lot of people still think it's a big deal to beat us- and it's almost always circled on schools like BYU's schedule. Does anybody circle Memphis? Also, as with Ole Miss vs. Memphis and Arkansas vs. Toledo, I think both Miss. and Arkansas were overranked to begin with.

 

Another thing is players might have a chip on their shoulder from being overlooked by P5 schools.

 

Sometimes it's coaching, as with Fuente at Memphis. A lot of coaches come up through those non-P5 schools, and some of them end up being pretty good.

 

Sometimes it's easier schedule, in that they may not get beaten on for 9 games like in the Big Ten. This was the knock on Boise State- that they were almost good enough to win their conference without much special prep, so they could concentrate on beating the bigger dogs in the one tough non-con game and the bowl.

 

Another thing is we see this a lot early and middle of the season, but oftentimes the non-power-5 upstarts fall away as the season progresses (and they get a target on their backs from other teams).

 

Sometimes it's a couple great players. *eta: look at DeMornay Pierson-El. He was a three-star "nobody" as far as national recruiting was concerned. But he's a gamer. Randy Gregory was committed to Purdue before going to JUCO. Lavonte David was in JUCO. All those guys could have ended up at a non-P5 school and still been great players.

[Kiyoat Husker]

Interesting topic. Your thread title is a little misleading. You are basically asking how parity has increased to the point that power 5 (formerly AQ or BCS) conference teams no longer have an automatic advantage against the elite teams of the mid-majors.

 

Two obvious answers would be the 1992 85-scholarship limits, and an increase in TV exposure for college football on all levels. There are other factors, of course.

 

I think that at this point arguing against the existence of a gradual rise in parity would be like arguing against global climate change, although some nut jobs still try.

[JJ Husker]

Why does the topic title have absolutely nothing to do with the questions posited in the OP? I thought it was going to be a slam dunk, "why is winning important?" but come to find out this isn't about that at all.

[84HuskerLaw]

Why does the topic title have absolutely nothing to do with the questions posited in the OP? I thought it was going to be a slam dunk, "why is winning important?" but come to find out this isn't about that at all.

I am not sure, beyond its most simple and obvious response, that the answer to why winning is so important is all that easy or a 'slam dunk' as stated. Beyond something like "that's why we play the freaking games!" lies a very philosophical and deep subject that may require a great deal of thought and discussion, beyond a message board poster's time perhaps. Society is wrestling with this very issue with all the movements afoot to take score keeping and 'winning and losing' out of the game altogether with prizes and awards for participation and attempts to turn competition into an exercise class.

[TonyStalloni]

In a sport like track and field there is an accurate gauge as to your progress. It is measured in time, distance, or height. In football one can time a 40 yard run to see if you might be a bit faster but the only real gauge for a team is to play other teams. Each player has a challenge in front of them and it is your job to use the skills the coaches have taught you to help the team win. Teamwork is a beautiful thing when it all comes together. The team that performs like a machine is usually the winner.

[NUinID]

Well, I think there are a couple of factors. Living within shouting distance of a non power 5 power house BSU I think I may have a little insight.

 

Boise St. has fairly low academic entrance standards which helps them recruit marginally academic athletes. They take a lot of tweeners, guys that aren't ready made to play especially linemen. For example their starting left tackle was a 6'5" 250 lb kid that was a low 3 star out of Texas. He now weights about 310. He is a good athlete that needed to get bigger and stronger and is now a 2 year starter and has a chance to play in the NFL.

 

BSU also recruits California very well, looking for guys that the elite PAC 12 schools don't want for what ever reason. Usually it is because they are a little undersized. Great athletes that make great corners or linebackers. BSU has a lot of 5'9 corners with chips on their shoulders and a lot of 6' 220 linebackers with chips on their shoulders. Some of these guys will get offers from Washington St. or Oregon St, but frankly BSU is a better offer.

 

BSU has good coaching it is almost like Wisconsin in that they don't change the formula no matter who comes into be the head coach. Brian Harsin is from the Peterson, Dan Hawkins, Dirk Keotter coaching tree.

 

Finally they don't play a meat grinder schedule. They play a couple of power 5 teams a year that are spaced out. They play one at the beginning of the year and then maybe one at the end. This year they actually played 2 at the beginning and they were Washington and Virginia. Not 2 big powers right now. There is no way they could survive playing Oregon, Washington, USC, Utah, Arizona 5 weeks in a row. They may go 3-2 at best through that. Too many good athletic teams. Playing through the BIG may be even worse because it is a more physical style. Think about playing Iowa, MSU, Nebraska, Minnesota, and OSU all in a row.

 

BSU is the big dog in there conference. I know they lost to Utah St on Friday giving up 8 turnovers, but USU is a pretty good team.

[junior4949]

Boise State has to be winning culture. Once coaches leave the confines of Boise State, the trail of failure has been great. It's too soon to call Petersen a failure, but it is not for those who built the program before him: Koetter and Hawkins. The other schools mentioned are more than likely a combination of good coaching, easier schedule, and less expectations.

[NUinID]

Boise State has to be winning culture. Once coaches leave the confines of Boise State, the trail of failure has been great. It's too soon to call Petersen a failure, but it is not for those who built the program before him: Koetter and Hawkins. The other schools mentioned are more than likely a combination of good coaching, easier schedule, and less expectations.

 

Peterson has things going quite well at Washington. Give him a couple of years and he will have them contending in the PAC 12. Hawkins took bad advice going to Colorado that was a dumpster fire that no one was going to turn around. Koetter wasn't really given enough time at ASU IMO. Plus there was a QB controversy. He had a couple of decent years in a rebuilding project, but they got impatient. He is doing well as a OC in the NFL he may get a chance as a HC there soon.

 

It is a winning culture though. That was part of my formula. Plus BSU is really committed to being good at Football.

[junior4949]

Doesn't Petersen have almost the exact same win/loss ratio as Sarkisan did before him?

[suh_fan93]

[NUinID]

Doesn't Petersen have almost the exact same win/loss ratio as Sarkisan did before him?

 

He has been there a year and a half. He is changing the culture. Give him some time.

[junior4949]

Wasn't the same being said about Sarkisian before he jetted off for USC? Sark inherited a Washington team that hadn't won a game the previous year and still finished with five wins which was his only losing record while being there. Petersen inherited an eight win team. The culture was already changed before he got there. He's 3-3 to start this year. When you consider the rest of their schedule, there's only one gimme game. It's a flip of the coin whether they're bowl eligible this year. Sark went bowling every year he was there except his first year which again was the result of inheriting a team that didn't win a game the year before.

 

I'm not saying he's going to be a bust. However, history is not on his side. This is one of the biggest reasons I never wanted him considered as Nebraska's next coach.

[NUinID]

Wasn't the same being said about Sarkisian before he jetted off for USC? Sark inherited a Washington team that hadn't won a game the previous year and still finished with five wins which was his only losing record while being there. Petersen inherited an eight win team. The culture was already changed before he got there. He's 3-3 to start this year. When you consider the rest of their schedule, there's only one gimme game. It's a flip of the coin whether they're bowl eligible this year. Sark went bowling every year he was there except his first year which again was the result of inheriting a team that didn't win a game the year before.

 

I'm not saying he's going to be a bust. However, history is not on his side. This is one of the biggest reasons I never wanted him considered as Nebraska's next coach.

 

I don't know Junior I think you are trying real hard to make a point. If you don't think he is going to get it done that is fine. Sarkisian record at Washington was basically 7-6 every year he was there. Peterson was 8-5 his first year. Peterson was USC's first choice for that job and he turned them down. Peterson is a strict disciplinarian that has weeded out a few guys there, and is changing the culture from very loose to a much tighter style of play and coaching.

 

He may not get it done, but I would give him at least 4 full years before I decide that.