Topic: For the 6-6 and 7-5 crowd

[extragreen]

Wow. What follows is an exercise in futility.

Maybe I should have posted more, but the gist was you say we haven't improved, and there was no measurable way to quantify improvement. Many disagreed thinking 5 years to get to a bowl game vs. 2, but I understood 7 wins vs. 7 wins. Really I want to follow you, but then you agreed you would be WRONG if proven wrong. Read it. Don't qualify or triangulate, read your own words, specifically the "of course" part in response to the  "So, by your logic extra, if Doc wins 7 or more regular season games this year you are wrong, no?".

I'll leave this one be but Jebus dude, really?

Once again, I simply agreed that if doc wins 7 regular season games, it would "of course" be a record that snides never managed. I was NOT saying it meant we had progressed or improved as a team. I made myself as plain and easy to understand about that as humanly possible. If we play 4 lower tier southern conference teams this year and go 8-4, would that be making progress or improving as a team? 

[extragreen]

Here is exactly what I said in that conversation that was being discussed:

"What are you unable to understand? The original premise that there's no difference in snyders best record and docs best record is FACTUAL, no matter how many people deny it. And once again I'm talking about ACCOMPLISHMENTS, not potential, not good/bad manners, and not the number of years it took. doc inherited a 6-6 regular season team that won a bowl game. doc's best feat so far simply matches that record, nothing more."

[mubowhunter]

I will throw all of the coaches under the bus if we do not have a better final record than last year. Win more every year spells improvement every year. At some point you have to reach an undefeated season if improvement is the annual goal. You cannot show improvement by winning the same or less......that is unless you subscribe to the eyeballing, tingles up my leg barometer for measuring success.

This

[herdadreh]

You are all correct.  :-)

But I think it is possible to win fewer games and be better, and I think it is possible to win more games and be worse.  Sometimes the ball bounces funny.  To some extent you make your own luck, but not completely.

Is every 6-6 team in the country better than every 5-7 team? 

Is every 7-5 team better than every 6-6 team?

Wins and losses are the goal (wins that is), but they do not tell the whole story.

We were lucky to be 6-6 last year.  We lost to Ohio this year in much the same way we beat ECU last year (to get to 6-6).  The only substantial difference was the W or L at the end of the game.

In college football, with such a small sample size (12 games), how you play, and who you play against, will always matter in determining how good you are - not just W-L.

I think it is possible we could play better than last year and finish 6-6.

I think the team has a lot of life still left in them despite the doom and gloom on this board and elsewhere.

[MarshallGrad]

You are all correct.  :-)

But I think it is possible to win fewer games and be better, and I think it is possible to win more games and be worse. 

Yes, but you are confusing perception of execution with what is the primary objective. There is nothing that says a conference champ, or an undefeated team has to have the best stats to get to their goal. By the same token, a a team good really look great all the way to a 6-6 record. But then, leading in stats or looking good losing misses the point of the purpose of playing. As the often quoted coach of the NY Jets said, "you play the game to win". As the was prominently noted in We Are Marshall, as to winning, "...nothing else matters". Ask any athlete if they would rather play well, or win.

Let's not muddy the water of what is clearly the primary measure of success for a coach and his team (winning) with what are nice or interesting aspects of playing the game (execution).

[herdadreh]

Valid points, Marshall Grad.  Later in my post - soon after the part you quoted - I mention that W and L are the goal.

Since the topic is about whether we are progressing or not, I think a discussion of what constitutes progress, and specifically whether or not W-L record ALONE is the sole valid measure of progress, is germane.

In 1999 I attended the Clemson game.  It was a big win against a good team at their place.  Clemson finished ONLY 6-6, but somehow they managed a #25 Sagarin end of year ranking.  Why?  5 of their 6 losses were against top 25 teams and most were very close.

Should we discount that win over a Clemson team because they weren't very good - obviously - since they were only 6-6?

Or is there more to how good a team is - hence how a team is progressing - than record?

Yes, I agree with you that we should always look to W and L as a primary indicator.  We were 7-6 last year - so our record progressed - but how much did our team really progress?  Part of progressing is actually getting substantively better so next year you will do better yet.  When you win all the close ones except one, and finish 7-6, you might expect to take a step back next year record-wise if you play the same quality level of football.  You might even play better but finish with the same record!  (Blasphemy, I know.)

It should not matter but I neither support nor condemn the job Doc Holiday and his staff are doing.  I think they could do better with what they have.  I think what they are bringing in is somewhat better than before so I am glad for that.

And I reiterate, the team has lots of fight left in them despite what all the naysayers are naysaying.

[MarshallGrad]

Valid points, Marshall Grad.  Later in my post - soon after the part you quoted - I mention that W and L are the goal.

Perhaps I was a little too quick on the reply.