College Football 2013 Season

[MRT144]

Please produce some statistics. You're also stating that good teams never have slumps. (think ND) And dooming a team to everlasting mediocrity because it was never great in the past, is just silly.

What do you want?

5-10-15-20-25-30 year rolling averages for all Big 10, Big 12, SEC, ACC, Big East, Pac-12 teams since 1968 (Tieing it in with integration for the SEC)? This will take a very long time. Do you want me to also figure out how a many standard deviations a losing % is for these teams?

Good teams do have slumps. But they rarely last very long. And they are rarely very bad slumps. Constant mediocrity is not a slump, it's constant mediocrity.

Furthermore, I can point to a few teams right off the bat that consistently have had good teams with only 1 slump.

1. Oklahoma (3 long term coaches who are in the top 15 all time in winning % who have ever only coached at Oklahoma)
2. Ohio State (9 Losing seasons EVER and not one since 1988)
3. Alabama
4. Michigan (Only 2 losing seasons since 1968)
5. Nebraska (Only 2 losing seasons since 1968)
6. Florida State
7. Texas



Then theres teams like Miami, LSU, Wisconsin, USC, Florida, Va Tech, Penn State, Oregon evne where they have had spurts of success or gotten consistently better and are at the top of their game.

Illinois by contrast has not had back to back winning seasons in 20 years. Why do the tier 1 teams consistently perform well while Illinois does not. It can't all be coaching unless you believe Oklahoma, Ohio State, Nebraska, and Michigan (Rich Rod withstanding) somehow knows how to pick coaches better than anyone else. The brand of the school themselves make them more attractive not only for players but good coaches as well.

Looping this back in with my idea about a pool of available wins; for Wisconsin to get better, who got worse? It wasn't Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State...it's come at the expense of Indiana, Illinois. I wish I had the stats ready to go in graph form but I'm pretty sure that you'd see the rolling average of those two teams drop just at the same time that Wisconsin's took off.

Let's also look at Nick Saban; Why do you think he left Michigan State? One explanation is he simply didn't like competing for recruits against Michigan and Ohio State. He even said so himself! http://bleacherreport.com/articles/4...ust-for-aggies

[MRT144]

10 years is a short time in the grand scheme of things.

We won't be able to judge the new regime for awhile yet.

And yet zook put together non losing records back to back.

[Tupac Shakur]

I disagree. College football is full of place holder coaches that amount to statistical noise. The illini with or without zook would likely be just as average as they have always been. There's maybe 10-12 coaches in college football who have meaningful impact on their teams success in the positive and there will always only be a handful of them to go around. The odds that anyone in Champaign-Urbana can identify such a candidate is slim to none. They haven't done it before, and the prize pigs go to the storied universities eventually (Saban at LSU with Les Miles continuing is one of the few times that an individual made an average team a national powerhouse).

Do you think Illinois should shell out Urban money or Saban money on anyone but those two guys? Penn State's sexual abuse issues withstanding, they kept Joe Pa on board through thick and thin and didn't blow their wad on whatever new coach was gonna supposedly turn everything around. Zooker may not be a Joe Paterno, but it pains me whenever a coach doesn't pan out and the "solution" is to get an equally weak bum in there for more money.

Very well said.

[Tupac Shakur]

4. Michigan (Only 2 losing seasons since 1968)
5. Nebraska (Only 2 losing seasons since 1968)

**** you, RichRod. And **** you, Callahan.

[Ming]

And yet zook put together non losing records back to back.

One more time for those to slow to understand...

Zook's record against Big 10 teams... 18 - 38 (.321)
Only ONE winning season out of seven in league play
Had a winning record against only ONE Big 10 team - Indiana

He sucks... Yet it seems some people think you shouldn't be fired for this kind of track record..

[Tupac Shakur]

1. You shouldn't fire a coach that just achieved something that your program hasn't achieved in 20 years.

2. You shouldn't fire a coach that you're highly unlikely to replace with a superior coach in the current hiring environment.

It would have been much smarter for Illinois to hold off another year (and maybe get a third consecutive bowl bid!) and consider replacing Zook under better circumstances. They've probably done more damage to an already ****ty program with this hasty and ill-conceived move.

[Ming]

You shouldn't fire a coach that just achieved something that your program hasn't achieved in 20 years and that you're highly unlikely to replace with a superior coach in the current hiring environment. It would be better to hold off another year (and maybe get a third consecutive bowl bid!) and consider replacing him under better circumstances.

It is funny that some people are so stupid that they can't see that the correct move was to fire Zook... And that they think it's "unlikely" to find a coach that can have better than a .400 record and win more than a third of their conference games.

[Tupac Shakur]

If all of us were being as "stupid" as you claim, you'd be able to mount a more convincing argument against us. I think someone's projecting...

[Boris Godunov]

Rick Neuheisel will be available for Illinois to pick up. Does anyone think they can do any better?

[Tupac Shakur]

It's a toss up between Neuheisel and Houston Nutt. Illinois would be lucky to get either.

[Ming]

If all of us were being as "stupid" as you claim, you'd be able to mount a more convincing argument against us. I think someone's projecting...

Take a look at the press... It's difficult to find ANYBODY that thinks he shouldn't have been fired. Sure, you might find people that make claims that it might be easier to find a better coach in the future, but most of the experts do not disagree with the firing. Only a few are saying he should have kept his job.

So yes... You are stupid.

You have no real argument except your brain dead view that a .400 winning coach, and a guy who couldn't even win a third of his conference games after being given 7 years can't be replaced by somebody better. And for that reason, he shouldn't he have been fired.

He sucked! And if you can't see that, you are indeed a moron.

[Tupac Shakur]

You can use all the ad hominem attacks you want. It won't change the fact that my argument is far more sensible and reality-based than yours.

[Tupac Shakur]

Holy ****! A&M fired Mike Sherman!

Leave it to the Aggies to make Illinois look intelligent and reasonable...

[Ming]

Not really... You have no argument except that they should keep a crappy coach on the slim chance they might have a better selection of candidates next year. Which is also no sure thing.

You think they should keep a guy who sucks. Most of the experts agree that he should have been fired.
And you are no expert.

[Guynemer]

Holy ****! A&M fired Mike Sherman!

Leave it to the Aggies to make Illinois look intelligent and reasonable...

Oh wow. What a bad idea.

The year before they switch conferences, too.