POLL: Football record this year.

[PaintedontheSky]

Well, I would suppose Punish-EER and Getya would be pretty satisfied that they produced the facts of the matter to dispelled an idiotic notion........ can't wait until they run across 'topdecktigger' who will attempt to tell them what they didn't say in their post and their motivation for posting what they didn't post in the first place, and explain to them exactly what they meant when they didn't post what he says they posted even though they didn't post anything of the sort to begin with.......

I beginning to believe when you show some of these guys just how stupid they are, they take it as a challenge to show they can actually be more stupid than you thought they were to begin with.

 

[BobbyBoucheer]

Re: Just don't agree about old schedules being that much weaker

Originally posted by ThePunish-EER:

Originally posted by WVUDisciples:
Temple and Rutgers were not great but they were much better than these I-AA teams we play today. Not even close.

Pitt averaged 7 wins per season during the 90s. What stats are you looking at? Hardly an auto win for us. We pretty much split with them.

VaTech was a top 10 team for a number of years in the 90s and early 2000s. They played in the national championship game once and only Miami held them back twice. They were just as good or better than Oklahoma of today.

Texas hasn't been any good since we joined the Big XII. They barely qualified for a low-level bowl. Shark? Not since we joined. Kansas State is good -- but a shark? Hardly. Year in and year out, our recruits are better than KSU -- facilities are better -- if they can be a "shark" then we should be too. Though we're not a shark, we can still be a big fish, just like KSU is.

To say that MD is better now than they were in the 90s and early 2000s is just crazy. They were a top 3 ACC team, top 25 in the country for 5 years under Fridge. They played in New Year's Bowls half the years from 97-05. They haven't been anywhere close to that since we joined the Big XII, haven't been in the top 25 one year. That's just crazy for you to say that they are better under Randy Edsell. Are you drunk?

How many more clues do you need?

Big XII > Big East (92-02). Yes. Current schedule should equal 2 more losses a year compared to then = no way! Nehlen's teams would not have averaged 6 losses a year in this Big XII. No way.

What a doufus....

Temple 1991-2000 records (Temple joined the Big East in 1991):
1991 2-9
1992 1-10
1993 1-10
1994 2-9
1995 1-10
1996 1-10
1997 3-8
1998 2-9
1999 2-9
2000 4-7

Average win total: 1.9 wins per year

Rutgers 1991-2000 records (Rutgers joined the Big East in 1991):
1991 3-8
1992 7-4
1993 4-7
1994 5-5
1995 4-7
1996 2-9
1997 0-11
1998 5-6
1999 1-10
2000 3-8

Average win total: 3.4 wins per year

Pitt 1991-2000 records (Pitt joined the Big East in 1991):
1991 6-5
1992 3-9
1993 3-8
1994 3-8
1995 2-9
1996 4-7
1997 6-6
1998 2-9
1999 5-6
2000 7-5

10 seasons. Average win total: 4.1 wins per year
*You might want to check your math skills. How did you get Pitt averaging 7 wins during this time? hahahaha!!!

Maryland 1986-2000 (Post Boomer Esiason and HC Bobby Ross years): 2 Winning Seasons from 1986-2000
1986 5-5
1987 4-7
1988 5-6
1989 3-7
1990 6-5
1991 2-9
1992 3-8
1993 2-9
1994 4-7
1995 6-5
1996 5-6
1997 2-9
1998 3-8
1999 5-6
2000 5-6

15 seasons. Average win total: 4 wins per year

Maryland has 9 winning seasons since 2001 and 9 bowl games. That equals MUCH BETTER!


Nehlen would indeed average more than 6 losses a year in the Big 12. He averaged 5-6 losses a year in the OLD Big East where he finished on average 4th to 5th place out of 8 teams. Of those 8 teams, 3 were automatic wins with Temple, Pitt, and Rutgers. So really, the only team with a pulse he could beat was Boston College. Your comment about MAC teams being a dogfight should tell you how stupid your comments are. NEVER has Bowling Green, Miami,OH, or Marshall been a damn dog fight except the 1997 Marshall/WVU game and the time Bill Stewart almost lost to Marshall. The other 10 times were never a dogfight and usually a blowout.

Also it looks, as I provided above, the statistics by year prove that Nehlen enjoyed 3 automatic wins in the Old Big East and an automatic win each and every year with scrub Maryland. Thats 4 wins. Add Boston College, and 2 more OC games against MAC schools, you can see how Nehlen averaged 6-7 wins per season. HE beat NOBODY. His usual wins were Temple, Rutgers, Pitt, Boston College, Maryland, 2 MAC schools. No way in hell could he hang in the Big 12 today.

Your comment comparing Virginia Tech to Oklahoma is absurd. Good grief. Oklahoma is top 5 all-time winning seasons. Multiple National Titles. Multiple bowl wins. The Big 12 has 3 sharks, Oklahoma, Texas, KSU. 2 of those teams; Oklahoma, Texas are 2 legitimate elite programs on par with any of the truest bluebloods of the NCAA. The Old Big East had Miami and ONLY Miami. The Big 12 has several schools the caliber of Virginia Tech; WVU, Oklahoma State, TCU, Baylor. And yes, WVU is much better now than back in the old Big East under Nehlen. The program has grown to that level.

Now, do YOU need any more clues??? Are YOU drunk??? Go back to knitting. hahaha!

game, set, and match.

 

[WVUDisciples]

Re: Just don't agree about old schedules being that much weaker

If you look back at my post and actually read it, I said the BE from 97-05. The only mistake I made was saying a general Pitt in the 90s, but specifically in the rest of the post I said late 90s early 2000s, and repeatedly 97-05.

Here's Pitt's record = 97-05 - do the math = 7 wins/season. Four of the nine years in top 25, one top 10.

Maryland WON the ACC in 2001, finished 2nd TWICE, top 10 once, ranked four years, three 10+ wins in a season, AS I POSTED BEFORE, under Fridge, they were pretty good, and yes MUCH MUCH better than they are now under Randy Edsall. Again, how can you say they are better now than what they were from 97-05? That's nuts!

We dropped Temple during this time period so they don't count as auto wins.

Virginia Tech AVERAGED three losses/year from 97-05. Top 10 almost half that time. National champ runner up one year.

I don't care what Texas and Oklahoma did from the beginning of time until 2012. As far as how they affect our record, all you can look at is what they've done since we've joined the Big XII.

Since we've joined the Big XII, mighty OU has averaged more than 3 losses a year. Didn't even finished ranked in top 25 this year. Top 10 ranking percentage compared to when VaTech was on our schedule is about the same. If that's a shark, it's a nurse shark.

Your "shark" Longhorns have lost an average of 5 games per year since they've been on our schedule, You wanna compare them to Miami? H#ll, they don't even match up with Syracuse from 97-05. That's more like a goldfish.

Of course the Big East was awful from 08-11. No one argues that. We don't even have to go back to Nehlen's glory days. Just look at what he did in late 90s and RR did in his first five years. We should be able to accomplish close to the same.


Sorry, but like Huggins and our new AD, I'm wanting a top 25 program with occasional shots at top 10. I'm not willing to lower the bar just so Dana can go .500 and keep his job. I'm glad Huggins didn't say "The big xii is just so tough, we should be happy with 17-16." Fight for it @#$@%it.

 

[torontoeers]

Re: Just don't agree about old schedules being that much weaker

Originally posted by BobbyBoucheer:

Originally posted by ThePunish-EER:

Originally posted by WVUDisciples:
Temple and Rutgers were not great but they were much better than these I-AA teams we play today. Not even close.

Pitt averaged 7 wins per season during the 90s. What stats are you looking at? Hardly an auto win for us. We pretty much split with them.

VaTech was a top 10 team for a number of years in the 90s and early 2000s. They played in the national championship game once and only Miami held them back twice. They were just as good or better than Oklahoma of today.

Texas hasn't been any good since we joined the Big XII. They barely qualified for a low-level bowl. Shark? Not since we joined. Kansas State is good -- but a shark? Hardly. Year in and year out, our recruits are better than KSU -- facilities are better -- if they can be a "shark" then we should be too. Though we're not a shark, we can still be a big fish, just like KSU is.

To say that MD is better now than they were in the 90s and early 2000s is just crazy. They were a top 3 ACC team, top 25 in the country for 5 years under Fridge. They played in New Year's Bowls half the years from 97-05. They haven't been anywhere close to that since we joined the Big XII, haven't been in the top 25 one year. That's just crazy for you to say that they are better under Randy Edsell. Are you drunk?

How many more clues do you need?

Big XII > Big East (92-02). Yes. Current schedule should equal 2 more losses a year compared to then = no way! Nehlen's teams would not have averaged 6 losses a year in this Big XII. No way.

What a doufus....

Temple 1991-2000 records (Temple joined the Big East in 1991):
1991 2-9
1992 1-10
1993 1-10
1994 2-9
1995 1-10
1996 1-10
1997 3-8
1998 2-9
1999 2-9
2000 4-7

Average win total: 1.9 wins per year

Rutgers 1991-2000 records (Rutgers joined the Big East in 1991):
1991 3-8
1992 7-4
1993 4-7
1994 5-5
1995 4-7
1996 2-9
1997 0-11
1998 5-6
1999 1-10
2000 3-8

Average win total: 3.4 wins per year

Pitt 1991-2000 records (Pitt joined the Big East in 1991):
1991 6-5
1992 3-9
1993 3-8
1994 3-8
1995 2-9
1996 4-7
1997 6-6
1998 2-9
1999 5-6
2000 7-5

10 seasons. Average win total: 4.1 wins per year
*You might want to check your math skills. How did you get Pitt averaging 7 wins during this time? hahahaha!!!

Maryland 1986-2000 (Post Boomer Esiason and HC Bobby Ross years): 2 Winning Seasons from 1986-2000
1986 5-5
1987 4-7
1988 5-6
1989 3-7
1990 6-5
1991 2-9
1992 3-8
1993 2-9
1994 4-7
1995 6-5
1996 5-6
1997 2-9
1998 3-8
1999 5-6
2000 5-6

15 seasons. Average win total: 4 wins per year

Maryland has 9 winning seasons since 2001 and 9 bowl games. That equals MUCH BETTER!


Nehlen would indeed average more than 6 losses a year in the Big 12. He averaged 5-6 losses a year in the OLD Big East where he finished on average 4th to 5th place out of 8 teams. Of those 8 teams, 3 were automatic wins with Temple, Pitt, and Rutgers. So really, the only team with a pulse he could beat was Boston College. Your comment about MAC teams being a dogfight should tell you how stupid your comments are. NEVER has Bowling Green, Miami,OH, or Marshall been a damn dog fight except the 1997 Marshall/WVU game and the time Bill Stewart almost lost to Marshall. The other 10 times were never a dogfight and usually a blowout.

Also it looks, as I provided above, the statistics by year prove that Nehlen enjoyed 3 automatic wins in the Old Big East and an automatic win each and every year with scrub Maryland. Thats 4 wins. Add Boston College, and 2 more OC games against MAC schools, you can see how Nehlen averaged 6-7 wins per season. HE beat NOBODY. His usual wins were Temple, Rutgers, Pitt, Boston College, Maryland, 2 MAC schools. No way in hell could he hang in the Big 12 today.

Your comment comparing Virginia Tech to Oklahoma is absurd. Good grief. Oklahoma is top 5 all-time winning seasons. Multiple National Titles. Multiple bowl wins. The Big 12 has 3 sharks, Oklahoma, Texas, KSU. 2 of those teams; Oklahoma, Texas are 2 legitimate elite programs on par with any of the truest bluebloods of the NCAA. The Old Big East had Miami and ONLY Miami. The Big 12 has several schools the caliber of Virginia Tech; WVU, Oklahoma State, TCU, Baylor. And yes, WVU is much better now than back in the old Big East under Nehlen. The program has grown to that level.

Now, do YOU need any more clues??? Are YOU drunk??? Go back to knitting. hahaha!

game, set, and match.

Indeed it sure as hell is!....nice work Punish-EER....I suggest somebody go lick their wounds...ouch!

 

[PaintedontheSky]

Re: Just don't agree about old schedules being that much weaker

Originally posted by WVUDisciples:
If you look back at my post and actually read it, I said the BE from 97-05. The only mistake I made was saying a general Pitt in the 90s, but specifically in the rest of the post I said late 90s early 2000s, and repeatedly 97-05.

Here's Pitt's record = 97-05 - do the math = 7 wins/season. Four of the nine years in top 25, one top 10.

Maryland WON the ACC in 2001, finished 2nd TWICE, top 10 once, ranked four years, three 10+ wins in a season, AS I POSTED BEFORE, under Fridge, they were pretty good, and yes MUCH MUCH better than they are now under Randy Edsall. Again, how can you say they are better now than what they were from 97-05? That's nuts!

We dropped Temple during this time period so they don't count as auto wins.

Virginia Tech AVERAGED three losses/year from 97-05. Top 10 almost half that time. National champ runner up one year.

I don't care what Texas and Oklahoma did from the beginning of time until 2012. As far as how they affect our record, all you can look at is what they've done since we've joined the Big XII.

Since we've joined the Big XII, mighty OU has averaged more than 3 losses a year. Didn't even finished ranked in top 25 this year. Top 10 ranking percentage compared to when VaTech was on our schedule is about the same. If that's a shark, it's a nurse shark.

Your "shark" Longhorns have lost an average of 5 games per year since they've been on our schedule, You wanna compare them to Miami? H#ll, they don't even match up with Syracuse from 97-05. That's more like a goldfish.

Of course the Big East was awful from 08-11. No one argues that. We don't even have to go back to Nehlen's glory days. Just look at what he did in late 90s and RR did in his first five years. We should be able to accomplish close to the same.


Sorry, but like Huggins and our new AD, I'm wanting a top 25 program with occasional shots at top 10. I'm not willing to lower the bar just so Dana can go .500 and keep his job. I'm glad Huggins didn't say "The big xii is just so tough, we should be happy with 17-16." Fight for it @#$@%it.

 

[torontoeers]

Re: Just don't agree about old schedules being that much weaker

Originally posted by PaintedontheSky:

Originally posted by WVUDisciples:
If you look back at my post and actually read it, I said the BE from 97-05. The only mistake I made was saying a general Pitt in the 90s, but specifically in the rest of the post I said late 90s early 2000s, and repeatedly 97-05.

Here's Pitt's record = 97-05 - do the math = 7 wins/season. Four of the nine years in top 25, one top 10.

Maryland WON the ACC in 2001, finished 2nd TWICE, top 10 once, ranked four years, three 10+ wins in a season, AS I POSTED BEFORE, under Fridge, they were pretty good, and yes MUCH MUCH better than they are now under Randy Edsall. Again, how can you say they are better now than what they were from 97-05? That's nuts!

We dropped Temple during this time period so they don't count as auto wins.

Virginia Tech AVERAGED three losses/year from 97-05. Top 10 almost half that time. National champ runner up one year.

I don't care what Texas and Oklahoma did from the beginning of time until 2012. As far as how they affect our record, all you can look at is what they've done since we've joined the Big XII.

Since we've joined the Big XII, mighty OU has averaged more than 3 losses a year. Didn't even finished ranked in top 25 this year. Top 10 ranking percentage compared to when VaTech was on our schedule is about the same. If that's a shark, it's a nurse shark.

Your "shark" Longhorns have lost an average of 5 games per year since they've been on our schedule, You wanna compare them to Miami? H#ll, they don't even match up with Syracuse from 97-05. That's more like a goldfish.

Of course the Big East was awful from 08-11. No one argues that. We don't even have to go back to Nehlen's glory days. Just look at what he did in late 90s and RR did in his first five years. We should be able to accomplish close to the same.


Sorry, but like Huggins and our new AD, I'm wanting a top 25 program with occasional shots at top 10. I'm not willing to lower the bar just so Dana can go .500 and keep his job. I'm glad Huggins didn't say "The big xii is just so tough, we should be happy with 17-16." Fight for it @#$@%it.

 

[mountiefan88]

Since WVU joined the 12 Oklahoma has had one really good team. The team that beat Bama two years ago in a bowl. This is not the Oklahoma of legends past. Texas has been down right terrible. Yet, WVU can not beat these teams. KSU is not a shark. They have been mediocre for the exception of the first year in the conference. VT was very good in the 90s. Remember how good Syracuse was from 87-01? Syracuse was usually loss when both WVU and SU had good years. VT was usually a loss. Miami was usually a loss. Those three teams were usually better than what we are seeing currently in the 12. Oklahoma fans are not happy with their program. Neither are Texas fans. Yet, they are both beating WVU. WVU is not as good as it was when Bulger, Major, and White were here.

 

[WVUDisciples]

I'm still waiting for him to explain the whole "Maryland is MUCH better now than what they used to be" under Fridge when they won the ACC and finished runner up two years.

Yep, man, they've been really tough under Edsall as compared to 97-05. Maryland lost to MARSHALL two years ago -- in virtually a home game in Annapolis.

Anytime you say a team is really tough and they lost to Marshall at home -- you lose.

 

[mountiefan88]

I remember when Bobby Ross coached Maryland and they gave some solid WVU teams some good beatings. Those were some big games. I remember one year both teams were good and Maryland won 28-0. Ross wanted facilities upgrades and Maryland did not want to invest in them. Ross left town and won a MNC at GT. Maryland has had a few good years under Fridge. Had they made a commitment and kept Ross they may have built something special there. They really dropped the ball.
This post was edited on 4/13 2:31 AM by mountiefan88

 

[79eer]

Got to believe to have a successful season the offensive and defensive lines will play a significant role. Like the direction of the team, and believe Holgerson is capable of producing a winner on a consistent basis provided he can bring in some big, strong, and talented interior lineman ( not easy ). Having said that, lines on both sides of the ball were man handled at times last year, particularly against Texas and Oklahoma, and guessing they will be just as good next year if not better. If the interior line can match up, who knows, we certainly have some skilled people on both sides of the ball.

 

[PaintedontheSky]

Originally posted by 79eer:
Got to believe to have a successful season the offensive and defensive lines will play a significant role. Like the direction of the team, and believe Holgerson is capable of producing a winner on a consistent basis provided he can bring in some big, strong, and talented interior lineman ( not easy ). Having said that, lines on both sides of the ball were man handled at times last year, particularly against Texas and Oklahoma, and guessing they will be just as good next year if not better. If the interior line can match up, who knows, we certainly have some skilled people on both sides of the ball.

Good to see someone "Gets It"......... somebody needs to buy this guy a beer!!

 

[79eer]

Hi Paint, not sure I get it, but just an observation that most successful teams always seem to have what Keith Jackson use to refer to as " big uglies ", who don't get pushed around too much. Got to get some of those guys to Motown.

 

[PaintedontheSky]

Wanna' see what happens when superior offensive and defensive line play are executed during a game?

As painful as it was and is...... just watch these.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIiRZ5tNQHY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiXvQfxUH9w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9129xZuhdw

 

[mountiefan88]

Notre Dame physically dominated that game. Also, I believe Notre Dame could have thrown to the TE all night. WVU should have expected ND's pass rush to be brutal and implemented some screen passes. ND was going to win regardless but it could have been a little closer.

 

[wvufan4828]

6-6 and at the end of the year Holgy gets fired

 

[GoWVU]

Quite the opposite, WiiWii...

Actually it's hilarious. I get to sit back and watch normally reasonable posters--like you--suddenly get irrational and resort to all kinds of mental gymnastics whenever the slightest criticism of Holgorsen is raised.

Funny thing is I didn't even have you or The Punish-EER in mind when I first made that post and referenced "Holgorsen zombies", but you two certainly wasted no time self-identifying and getting defensive like the others.

 

[GoWVU]

Interesting, Numbers...

My opinion - He's a slightly above average head coach.

That's the problem, Numbers: WVU football now needs a head coach who is much better than "slightly above average" in order to win enough. Our circumstances are a lot different than they used to be, and we're going to be an oddball in this league in many ways. To overcome our unique set of obstacles that most of the other schools don't have, we need a head coach who is very good to excellent...and we don't have him at the moment.

I respect the gamble Luck took on Holgorsen; it was certainly understandable and defensible at the time. However, each season makes it more likely that gamble is not ever going to pay off at the levels we need.

However, I definitely give you credit for conceding once or twice in recent months that you now have doubts you didn't have a year or so ago. Most of the people on this board are not man enough to admit that.

 

[PaintedontheSky]

.....and it's not surprising in the slightest that someone, like GOWVU, doesn't "Get It".