When 9 wins a year isn't the whole story.

the point of this discussion, for me anyways, is that bo is not held accountable to the standard he set himself, which is to win championships. and he is not because everyone falls back on the 9 wins and mostly overlook the 4 losses. people are trying to re-imagine the past to cut bo some slack and change our perspective to give bo more credit. fact is, we have seen what he can put on the field with elite talent. he is the one who has created this angst because we know, we can see, that his teams and his staff are underperforming. that is the issue. 9 wins is a smokescreen hiding the reality of the situation.

9 wins is nice, but 9 wins alone proves nothing. we have all watched the past 4 seasons now and know that we should have been doing better. heck, i would be happier with 9 wins if it meant we overperformed and played some quality football, but just lost to some quality opponents. but we are not. we are losing to teams we have more talent than and getting embarrassed by any team in the top 20. frankly, 2009 was the last season that gave me hope. since then, the seasons have been disappointing and now hope is running dry. but, hey, 9 wins.
Spot on. Just win (9), baby!

 
devnet said:
Great, so thanks for making my point. Stop comparing Osborne to Pelini, because the comparison ISN'T VALID.
Um...ok. Clicky that cornnation linky in my quote and read the article I wrote where I talk about how you can't compare TO to Bo.
We get it. "Read what I wrote and see how smart I am and how wrong you are!"

 
Last edited by a moderator:
devnet said:
Great, so thanks for making my point. Stop comparing Osborne to Pelini, because the comparison ISN'T VALID.
Um...ok. Clicky that cornnation linky in my quote and read the article I wrote where I talk about how you can't compare TO to Bo.
You are trying very hard to get people to go to that article. I sense you have validation issues.

 
devnet said:
Great, so thanks for making my point. Stop comparing Osborne to Pelini, because the comparison ISN'T VALID.
Um...ok. Clicky that cornnation linky in my quote and read the article I wrote where I talk about how you can't compare TO to Bo.
You are trying very hard to get people to go to that article. I sense you have validation issues.
I sense he wants page views.

 
devnet said:
devnet said:
Great, so thanks for making my point. Stop comparing Osborne to Pelini, because the comparison ISN'T VALID.
Um...ok. Clicky that cornnation linky in my quote and read the article I wrote where I talk about how you can't compare TO to Bo.
We get it. "Read what I wrote and see now smart I am and how wrong you are!"

No I'm just tired of repeating myself
Like you are repeating that everyone should read your article?

 
devnet said:
devnet said:
Great, so thanks for making my point. Stop comparing Osborne to Pelini, because the comparison ISN'T VALID.
Um...ok. Clicky that cornnation linky in my quote and read the article I wrote where I talk about how you can't compare TO to Bo.
We get it. "Read what I wrote and see now smart I am and how wrong you are!"

No I'm just tired of repeating myself
And yet you keep repeating how there's this super cool article to read, interesting.

 
devnet said:
Auburn is so rare of a case that they are most definitely the exception to the rule. I can't think of another school out there over the last 15 years that has done what they have done.
Are they? Maybe year-over-year - but how many coaches have won big in years 2 and 3 or their employment? Happens all the time. it's not like they took over for fired coaches that were winning 10 games before they got there. See Malzahn this year, Bill O'Brien last year, Urban Meyer (twice), Saba, Stoops - the list goes on. You'll find more coaches that have one early in their career, than you'll find coaches that performed like Bo over a long period and then found success. The only program I can think of that has consistently performed in the 8-10 range for a number of years then had success is South Carolina - and even they haven't won anything of substance...but they're certainly on the brink.

I think winning a national championship in year 2 has happened THREE times in college football history. Not sure about year 3....but year 2 stats don't support "happens all the time"
And a coach that has won 9 games in each of his first 6 years and then gone on to win a National Championship has only happened ONE time in college football history.
default_tongue.png


 
I wasn't around for TO's first six. I don't deny that there was a good deal of dissatisfaction among the fans. But when I look at the final rankings (finished top 10 five of the six years, and 12th the other year) it sure seems like it is not equal (zero top 10 finishes in Bo's first six).
And people wanted Tom fired too.

 
devnet said:
I think winning a national championship in year 2 has happened THREE times in college football history. Not sure about year 3....but year 2 stats don't support "happens all the time"
Funny, when I tried to search for year three turnarounds I got this...(from 2010)

This year, the top candidate for the third-year leap is Nebraska. After nearly winning the Big 12 last season, Bo Pelini's Cornhuskers are a top-10 team according to most of the preseason magazines.
http://online.wsj.co...403442183854362

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wasn't around for TO's first six. I don't deny that there was a good deal of dissatisfaction among the fans. But when I look at the final rankings (finished top 10 five of the six years, and 12th the other year) it sure seems like it is not equal (zero top 10 finishes in Bo's first six).
And people wanted Tom fired too.
Completely different eras. If I had a dollar for every time my older brother, by fifteen years, compared TO to Devaney and wanted him fired I would have been rich. The reason why NU always finished in the top 10 was because there was really only about 10 teams that year in and year out were consistently good. Nebraska was one of them along with OU, Alabama, ND, USC, Michigan, OSU, PSU, Pitt was really good for 7-8 years. Other teams never were as consistent.

 
the point of this discussion, for me anyways, is that bo is not held accountable to the standard he set himself, which is to win championships. and he is not because everyone falls back on the 9 wins and mostly overlook the 4 losses. people are trying to re-imagine the past to cut bo some slack and change our perspective to give bo more credit. fact is, we have seen what he can put on the field with elite talent. he is the one who has created this angst because we know, we can see, that his teams and his staff are underperforming. that is the issue. 9 wins is a smokescreen hiding the reality of the situation.

9 wins is nice, but 9 wins alone proves nothing. we have all watched the past 4 seasons now and know that we should have been doing better. heck, i would be happier with 9 wins if it meant we overperformed and played some quality football, but just lost to some quality opponents. but we are not. we are losing to teams we have more talent than and getting embarrassed by any team in the top 20. frankly, 2009 was the last season that gave me hope. since then, the seasons have been disappointing and now hope is running dry. but, hey, 9 wins.
Exactomundo!

This thread could've/should've ended with post #80 imo.

/thread

 
And yet, 95% of fans would trade for the results of their six in a heartbeat. Because theirs included truly satisfying accomplishments: Two SEC championships and a National Championship. We got three mid-tier bowl wins and a moral victory against Texas.
No frickin thanks.
He still could be right, you could be in the 5%. However, I wouldn't take Auburn's results either.
Count me as that 5% too.

 
Back
Top