Zero and Five

[WyoGeezer]

It was forty years ago that we went zero and five to start the season. As some of you will recall, the next year we won the conference and went to the Fiesta Bowl. Forty years ... Forty. Isn't Forty sort of a magical number? ... Forty Days and Forty Nights ... yadayadayada. So ... put on the warpaint and do the chants, and maybe we can invoke that FORTY YEAR MOJO. Hey! ... It's worth a try.

 

[Wyokie]

I'm 41 so I was born right before our last 0-5 start.

Glad I have a great memory so I can remember that magical 1988 season. It was wonderful watching Wyoming beat the ever living CRAP outta BYU on ESPN to start the season that year.

 

[cowboyz]

Geezer, good to see you posting. This little nugget would be perfect for an earlier thread that wondered if any programs were shit and then got turned around with the same coach, and here we have to look no further than the Pokes.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Geezer, good to see you posting. This little nugget would be perfect for an earlier thread that wondered if any programs were shit and then got turned around with the same coach, and here we have to look no further than the Pokes.

Actually, that thread had criteria. 1 being programs that were successful when the coach failed for 4 straight years. Second being that it had to be modern football.

I can unequivocally say that anything pre-BCS is irrelevant to our situation today. Yes, IRRELEVANT.

 

[stymeman]

i was 5 and although my folks told me we went to games my 1st 2 years of my life of course i wasn't into UW sports the way i am now, let's hope they can control those Zoomies and show that we belong

 

[WyoGeezer]

What's that old Zen saying? ... "Nothing left to do now, but have a good laugh!" I guess it beats crying.

 

[cowboyz]

Geezer, good to see you posting. This little nugget would be perfect for an earlier thread that wondered if any programs were shit and then got turned around with the same coach, and here we have to look no further than the Pokes.

Actually, that thread had criteria. 1 being programs that were successful when the coach failed for 4 straight years. Second being that it had to be modern football.

I can unequivocally say that anything pre-BCS is irrelevant to our situation today. Yes, IRRELEVANT.

It had a little too much criteria to even create a debate or argument; coach fails for years, then success, only FBS, but only since BCS, which is why it strayed all over the place. Was there a particular color to the uniforms or did the mascot of the team have to be an animal? I forget.

Seriously though, just because a team sucks doesn't mean they will suck forever, and it also doesn't mean the turn-around time can not happen fairly quickly. So I guess that's what I took from it.

With my limited knowledge of football, I admit that watching this team scares me for its near future success. The coaches spend a lot the time with these players and see more than we do on the field or in the box score. I just hope they're seeing a lot more positive things than we are seeing on Saturdays.

 

[joshvanklomp]

It had a little too much criteria to even create a debate or argument; coach fails for years, then success, only FBS, but only since BCS, which is why it strayed all over the place. Was there a particular color to the uniforms or did the mascot of the team have to be an animal? I forget.

Easier to push an agenda the more criteria you add.

 

[Wyovanian]

Geezer, good to see you posting. This little nugget would be perfect for an earlier thread that wondered if any programs were shit and then got turned around with the same coach, and here we have to look no further than the Pokes.

Actually, that thread had criteria. 1 being programs that were successful when the coach failed for 4 straight years. Second being that it had to be modern football.

I can unequivocally say that anything pre-BCS is irrelevant to our situation today. Yes, IRRELEVANT.

It had a little too much criteria to even create a debate or argument; coach fails for years, then success, only FBS, but only since BCS, which is why it strayed all over the place. Was there a particular color to the uniforms or did the mascot of the team have to be an animal? I forget.

Seriously though, just because a team sucks doesn't mean they will suck forever, and it also doesn't mean the turn-around time can not happen fairly quickly. So I guess that's what I took from it.

With my limited knowledge of football, I admit that watching this team scares me for its near future success. The coaches spend a lot the time with these players and see more than we do on the field or in the box score. I just hope they're seeing a lot more positive things than we are seeing on Saturdays.

May I quote T.E. Lawrence?

"Nothing is written."

 

[ragtimejoe1]

It had a little too much criteria to even create a debate or argument; coach fails for years, then success, only FBS, but only since BCS, which is why it strayed all over the place. Was there a particular color to the uniforms or did the mascot of the team have to be an animal? I forget.

Seriously though, just because a team sucks doesn't mean they will suck forever, and it also doesn't mean the turn-around time can not happen fairly quickly. So I guess that's what I took from it.

With my limited knowledge of football, I admit that watching this team scares me for its near future success. The coaches spend a lot the time with these players and see more than we do on the field or in the box score. I just hope they're seeing a lot more positive things than we are seeing on Saturdays.

Too much criteria? Trying to build a winner in a P5 conference is VASTLY different than at the G5 level. What takes longer: trying to build a program to compete with Georgia, Alabama, Clemson, Ole Miss, TAMU, etc. etc. or BSU, USU, CSU, Nevada, UNLV, SJSU, etc. etc. Seems to me limiting to G5 is perfectly acceptable.

Modern era vs. old school. If you think CFB since the BCS is even remotely similar to what it was pre-BCS, then I guess we don't have much to argue over. Hell, Ivy League schools used to be the class of the D1A football. Is that relevant to today? The TV revenue discrepancy and labeling of non-AQ and G5 is killing us. These labels did not exist before the BCS and building a program with that label is very much different than building a program without that label.

We limited to 4 years because that is what most people were debating. If there is no success with 4 years, does that indicate something. Most, by far, successful G5 coaches in the modern era achieved success (7+ wins) within 4 years of hire.

Too much criteria or too specific for the fanboys to include a bunch of irrelevant crap? I'll go with the latter.

With that said, I don't think it will be an issue because I think Bohl will have a 7+ win season next year or the year following.

 

[kansasCowboy]

Geezer, good to see you posting. This little nugget would be perfect for an earlier thread that wondered if any programs were shit and then got turned around with the same coach, and here we have to look no further than the Pokes.

Actually, that thread had criteria. 1 being programs that were successful when the coach failed for 4 straight years. Second being that it had to be modern football.

I can unequivocally say that anything pre-BCS is irrelevant to our situation today. Yes, IRRELEVANT.

Speaking of which. I gave you about four examples and never heard another word from you. I think it was mainly Alyssa at that point... Novak at North Illinois and Darnell at North Texas and I don't think I placed him on the list but Greg Schiano at Rutgers.
Those three were BCS era, had a worse record their second year and it took them four or more years to turn it around.

Criteria.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Geezer, good to see you posting. This little nugget would be perfect for an earlier thread that wondered if any programs were shit and then got turned around with the same coach, and here we have to look no further than the Pokes.

Actually, that thread had criteria. 1 being programs that were successful when the coach failed for 4 straight years. Second being that it had to be modern football.

I can unequivocally say that anything pre-BCS is irrelevant to our situation today. Yes, IRRELEVANT.

Speaking of which. I gave you about four examples and never heard another word from you. I think it was mainly Alyssa at that point... Novak at North Illinois and Darnell at North Texas and I don't think I placed him on the list but Greg Schiano at Rutgers.
Those three were BCS era, had a worse record their second year and it took them four or more years to turn it around.

Criteria.

Yes, yes. I need to bump the post. Hasn't Rutgers always been either AQ or P5? You forgot Hoke at Ball State of course I can counter with Hoke at SDSU. Then we can go Urban Meyer x2. Patterson at TCU. Kyle Whit. Howdy Doody...naturally I can go on and on (and I will)

Or, are you going to place a whole bunch of criteria on the pre-coaching era?

 

[kansasCowboy]

Geezer, good to see you posting. This little nugget would be perfect for an earlier thread that wondered if any programs were shit and then got turned around with the same coach, and here we have to look no further than the Pokes.

Actually, that thread had criteria. 1 being programs that were successful when the coach failed for 4 straight years. Second being that it had to be modern football.

I can unequivocally say that anything pre-BCS is irrelevant to our situation today. Yes, IRRELEVANT.

Speaking of which. I gave you about four examples and never heard another word from you. I think it was mainly Alyssa at that point... Novak at North Illinois and Darnell at North Texas and I don't think I placed him on the list but Greg Schiano at Rutgers.
Those three were BCS era, had a worse record their second year and it took them four or more years to turn it around.

Criteria.

Yes, yes. I need to bump the post. Hasn't Rutgers always been either AQ or P5? You forgot Hoke at Ball State of course I can counter with Hoke at SDSU. Then we can go Urban Meyer x2. Patterson at TCU. Kyle Whit. Howdy Doody...naturally I can go on and on (and I will)

Or, are you going to place a whole bunch of criteria on the pre-coaching era?

You wanted proof of coaches that did have success per your criteria, are you just wanting to compare to coaches that had instant success.

This leads me to question your motive in any debate, because the point was nothing to do with coaches having instant success.

And even if it was you've got guys on there that maintained success not created it.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

You wanted proof of coaches that did have success per your criteria, are you just wanting to compare to coaches that had instant success.

This leads me to question your motive in any debate, because the point was nothing to do with coaches having instant success.

And even if it was you've got guys on there that maintained success not created it.

You confound everything. It is simple, at the G5 level and in the modern era, of the coaches who are ultimately successful, do most achieve that success within 4 years or does it take the majority over 4 years to achieve success. To be a little more clear, we made it easy with a 7+ win season as criteria for success within 4 years. I have argued that most, by far, that are considered successful G5 coaches achieved that success within 4 years of taking over as HC.

So then, what other criteria are you wanting to add?

 

[kansasCowboy]

You wanted proof of coaches that did have success per your criteria, are you just wanting to compare to coaches that had instant success.

This leads me to question your motive in any debate, because the point was nothing to do with coaches having instant success.

And even if it was you've got guys on there that maintained success not created it.

You confound everything. It is simple, at the G5 level and in the modern era, of the coaches who are ultimately successful, do most achieve that success within 4 years or does it take the majority over 4 years to achieve success. To be a little more clear, we made it easy with a 7+ win season as criteria for success within 4 years. I have argued that most, by far, that are considered successful G5 coaches achieved that success within 4 years of taking over as HC.

So then, what other criteria are you wanting to add?

I'm not. I answered your criteria debate.

If you want coaches with instant success debate, you need criteria... Whitt at Utah took over an undefeated 12-0 team. Although his first few years were 8-5 and 9-4, he maintained a winning trend. Key word: maintained success.
Also, from other perspectives: Utah got money out the ass for the uni and athletics, plus a new and upgraded stadium due to the Olympics being hosted there. In fact you can kind of see that's when their program really skyrocketed...
Meyer at Utah again, took over a program that was good. Not down and out. McBride, I don't remember his record off hand, but it had a significant winning percentage and a lot of bowls. Instant success?

Calhoun at AFA: even though DeBerry had a couple down years to finish his career, the man was that of Legend. He will always be remembered as one of the top coaches in the country, and he did it at a military academy. Even if his last few years were subpar, he had a system set in place, mainly by taking advantage of the JV squad. Calhoun barely divied from the same system. He brought in a tweak on offense. Going back to Flexbone and adding in a hint of Spread Option. His first few years he had success with all of DeBerrys recruits. But even that only lasted a few years. His winning gradually waned year after year... I wonder why? Maybe using somebodies recruits? Still he was able to maintain a success a AFA. Until 2 1/2 seasons ago. 2-10. Then 10-3. Now, a shaky start. Where is Calhoun at really?
Hoke is the one guy you mention who took over a bad team and resurrected it. Kudos. I didn't list him because he was listed before.

So what is the criteria for the coaches who succeed? Do they take over winning programs or losing ones, or complete bottom feeders? Their quick success probably depends on the answer to that question...

 

[SDPokeFan]

On a related note, we're holding strong at No. 3

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/page/bottom10100615/ole-miss-rebels-fall-rankings-week-5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[kansasCowboy]

Yes, yes. I need to bump the post. Hasn't Rutgers always been either AQ or P5? You forgot Hoke at Ball State of course I can counter with Hoke at SDSU. Then we can go Urban Meyer x2. Patterson at TCU. Kyle Whit. Howdy Doody...naturally I can go on and on (and I will)

You created a thread. Asked a question. Got answers you didn't like. Created more and more "criteria" for it. Dwindles down the results to basically nil. Still got answers you didn't like. And then say you can a will go on with your list of coaches as "proof" without applying any "criteria" in the mixed results as well...

Rubbish!

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Yes, yes. I need to bump the post. Hasn't Rutgers always been either AQ or P5? You forgot Hoke at Ball State of course I can counter with Hoke at SDSU. Then we can go Urban Meyer x2. Patterson at TCU. Kyle Whit. Howdy Doody...naturally I can go on and on (and I will)

You created a thread. Asked a question. Got answers you didn't like. Created more and more "criteria" for it. Dwindles down the results to basically nil. Still got answers you didn't like. And then say you can a will go on with your list of coaches as "proof" without applying any "criteria" in the mixed results as well...

Rubbish!

:rofl: what in the hell are you talking about? The criteria is the same as it has always been. Read first post in other thread.

Before listing all the coaches who had success in 4 years, I just wanted to see what other criteria you were adding so I don't waste my time. Apparently you have some convoluted criteria about the time before the coach took over. What else?

 

[kansasCowboy]

Yes, yes. I need to bump the post. Hasn't Rutgers always been either AQ or P5? You forgot Hoke at Ball State of course I can counter with Hoke at SDSU. Then we can go Urban Meyer x2. Patterson at TCU. Kyle Whit. Howdy Doody...naturally I can go on and on (and I will)

You created a thread. Asked a question. Got answers you didn't like. Created more and more "criteria" for it. Dwindles down the results to basically nil. Still got answers you didn't like. And then say you can a will go on with your list of coaches as "proof" without applying any "criteria" in the mixed results as well...

Rubbish!

:rofl: what in the hell are you talking about? The criteria is the same as it has always been. Read first post in other thread.

Before listing all the coaches who had success in 4 years, I just wanted to see what other criteria you were adding so I don't waste my time. Apparently you have some convoluted criteria about the time before the coach took over. What else?

Who brings in a timeline with the BCS? Who wanted coaches who had a worse second year and still became champions? I could continue...

So whittle down one side of the argument and hold your side open to anything. Like the fact that is doesn't matter whether or not the coach took over a quality program or a complete shit storm... Common sense.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Yes, yes. I need to bump the post. Hasn't Rutgers always been either AQ or P5? You forgot Hoke at Ball State of course I can counter with Hoke at SDSU. Then we can go Urban Meyer x2. Patterson at TCU. Kyle Whit. Howdy Doody...naturally I can go on and on (and I will)

You created a thread. Asked a question. Got answers you didn't like. Created more and more "criteria" for it. Dwindles down the results to basically nil. Still got answers you didn't like. And then say you can a will go on with your list of coaches as "proof" without applying any "criteria" in the mixed results as well...

Rubbish!

:rofl: what in the hell are you talking about? The criteria is the same as it has always been. Read first post in other thread.

Before listing all the coaches who had success in 4 years, I just wanted to see what other criteria you were adding so I don't waste my time. Apparently you have some convoluted criteria about the time before the coach took over. What else?

Who brings in a timeline with the BCS? Who wanted coaches who had a worse second year and still became champions? I could continue...

So whittle down one side of the argument and hold your side open to anything. Like the fact that is doesn't matter whether or not the coach took over a quality program or a complete shit storm... Common sense.

Lol. Again, what the hell are you talking about. FFS, read the first post in the other thread. My criteria has been the same. I'm just trying to figure out what convoluted nonsense you are wanting to add.

You debate like a woman. Add in a bunch of emotional and hypersensitive garbage that nobody said anyway.

Again, it is simple. What other criteria do you want to add before I generate a list. No worries on your hypocrisy.