Possible we end up without a single win against a P5 school with a winning record!!

[eers1foru]

Anyone remember how many P5 teams we beat last year with a winning record? 2 What about 2013? 2
So since the days that Geno and Tavon left we've beaten 4 P5 teams with a winning record and "padded" our win column with bad teams, Bowl Division and Mac caliber teams. The bowl division teams will all but be gone after this season. And the teams replacing them have historically good programs. If the current situation is allowed to continue its not gonna be "A great day to be a Mountaineer"

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

Look on the bright side ..... we could be Kansas!

 

[Shipyard Dog]

No shit Sherlock.. do you think we're just waiting for your posts to tell us it's sucking right now?

 

[pressvirginia]

This is a valid point.

The season has gone exactly as I projected in the summer.

3-0 start. 0-4 October. Edged Texas Tech to get to 4-4. 1-4 in the BXII.

Texas is 4-5. Kan 0-9. I-State 3-6. K-State 3-5.

It'll be interesting to see how it finishes & what value is placed on winning these coming games. Assuming more wins are to come.

 

[Woody in Helvetia]

Anyone remember how many P5 teams we beat last year with a winning record? 2 What about 2013? 2
So since the days that Geno and Tavon left we've beaten 4 P5 teams with a winning record and "padded" our win column with bad teams, Bowl Division and Mac caliber teams. The bowl division teams will all but be gone after this season. And the teams replacing them have historically good programs. If the current situation is allowed to continue its not gonna be "A great day to be a Mountaineer"

We are in the Bowl Division. The Liberty is a member of the "Championship Division".

 

[KeatonsCorner]

We cannot control the records of anyone but ourselves

We beat who we beat.....

 

[wbgvwbgv]

Anyone remember how many P5 teams we beat last year with a winning record? 2 What about 2013? 2
So since the days that Geno and Tavon left we've beaten 4 P5 teams with a winning record and "padded" our win column with bad teams, Bowl Division and Mac caliber teams. The bowl division teams will all but be gone after this season. And the teams replacing them have historically good programs. If the current situation is allowed to continue its not gonna be "A great day to be a Mountaineer"

Why is that so surprising. There is a winner and a loser for every game. If the majority of your P5 games are in conference then almost all of the the teams in the middle of any conference will have only one or two wins over teams with winning records. If you are at the bottom, you may not have any wins over P5 teams with winning records that is how you ended up in the bottom. And at the top, you likely will have only 3 or 4 wins.

And as for the future, as long as our out of conference P5 games aren't against top 10 teams then our chances are good. Big 12 teams have historically done well against other conferences.

 

[thunderstruckatthejoan]

Dumbest thing I have read all day...

Considering you play 9 conference opponents who also play the same conference games, the law of averages dictate that you are going to have the vast majority of those teams slightly above, right at or slightly below the .500 mark.

You selectively leave out the other 3 games sans one b/c their wins do not fit your agenda. But I would pretty much guarantee that if you look at it collectively across the board, you will see a lot of teams similar to our record and possible records of the opponents.

 

[Low Mountains Drifter]

Well, to an extent we can control the record of the teams we play. When we beat them, their record is 1 game worse and vice versa when we lose.

Were we to go 9-0 in conference, the rest of the conference would be 9 games below .500 in aggregate. 0-9 and it's 9 games above .500.

The outcomes in our games are obviously heavily dependent on how good we are. It's true enough to say we lose most games to better teams and win most against worse.

Justifying losing by saying we only lose to teams that are better than us, ignores one of the main things a coach is supposed to do. If a coach is not expected to make us better so we can win more games what exactly is his job?

If the consensus has become that we should never be expected to exceed 5-4 in conference, it's acceptable to go 2-7 as often as we go 5-4, and an overall conference record winning percentage of .375 is good enough now, then there should be no debate about Dana's future. He's getting that job done.

For those who think the job should require making the team better so the record becomes better, there are serious doubts about whether he is getting that job done.

 

[Low Mountains Drifter]

The Big 12 is not very good against other Power 5 conferences. Since we joined:

Baylor versus OOC Power 5 competition (1-1):
2012:1-0
2013 0-0 (but LOST to UCF)
2014: 0-1
2015: 0-0

TCU (4-2):
2012: 1-1
2013: 0-1
2014: 2-0
2015: 1-0

Oklahoma (4-3):
2012: 0-2
2013: 2-0
2014: 1-1
2015: 1-0

OSU (3-3):
2012: 1-1
2013: 1-1
2014: 1-1
2015: 0-0

WVU (3-4):
2012: 1-1
2013: 0-1
2014: 1-2
2015: 1-0

TTU (3-1):
2012: 1-0
2013: 1-0
2014: 0-1
2015: 1-0

Texas (2-6, [8?]):
2012: 2-0
2013: 0-2 (plus a loss to BYU)
2014: 0-2 (with another loss to BYU)
2015: 0-2

Kansas State (2-3):
2012: 1-1
2013: 1-0
2014: 0-2
2015: 0-0

ISU (2-2):
2012: 1-0
2013: 0-1
2014: 1-0
2015: 0-1

Kansas (0-2):
2012: 0-0
2013: 0-0
2014: 0-1
2015: 0-1

That's 24-27 (29 if you count BYU) . And, it's not as if there are a whole host of impressive wins in there either. Our "bell cow" Baylor has exactly ONE win over a Power 5 team in the last 4 years, and its .500 record could be as much due to chicken$#!+ scheduling as prowess.

We also see losses to Group of 5 and even FCS schools -- not just by Kansas. This isn't the murderer's row some of you like to claim.

And I repeat, Dana is 5-3 lifetime against teams that were in the 2004-11, Big East, with a worse winning percentage not just than Rodriguez but also Stewart.

 

[wbgvwbgv]

The Big 12 is not very good against other Power 5 conferences. Since we joined:

Baylor versus OOC Power 5 competition (1-1):
2012:1-0
2013 0-0 (but LOST to UCF)
2014: 0-1
2015: 0-0

TCU (4-2):
2012: 1-1
2013: 0-1
2014: 2-0
2015: 1-0

Oklahoma (4-3):
2012: 0-2
2013: 2-0
2014: 1-1
2015: 1-0

OSU (3-3):
2012: 1-1
2013: 1-1
2014: 1-1
2015: 0-0

WVU (3-4):
2012: 1-1
2013: 0-1
2014: 1-2
2015: 1-0

TTU (3-1):
2012: 1-0
2013: 1-0
2014: 0-1
2015: 1-0

Texas (2-6, [8?]):
2012: 2-0
2013: 0-2 (plus a loss to BYU)
2014: 0-2 (with another loss to BYU)
2015: 0-2

Kansas State (2-3):
2012: 1-1
2013: 1-0
2014: 0-2
2015: 0-0

ISU (2-2):
2012: 1-0
2013: 0-1
2014: 1-0
2015: 0-1

Kansas (0-2):
2012: 0-0
2013: 0-0
2014: 0-1
2015: 0-1

That's 24-27 (29 if you count BYU) . And, it's not as if there are a whole host of impressive wins in there either. Our "bell cow" Baylor has exactly ONE win over a Power 5 team in the last 4 years, and its .500 record could be as much due to chicken$#!+ scheduling as prowess.

We also see losses to Group of 5 and even FCS schools -- not just by Kansas. This isn't the murderer's row some of you like to claim.

And I repeat, Dana is 5-3 lifetime against teams that were in the 2004-11, Big East, with a worse winning percentage not just than Rodriguez but also Stewart.

The reality is that even with your skewed selective years where Texas has been down, the Big 12 is close to winning half the games played out of conference against so called power conference schools. A longer period is needed to be considered "historically" unless you are trying to fit the data to some faulty conclusion ( which seems to be your calling card on this board ). Even on our idiot board, selective statistics won't fool many.

 

[Low Mountains Drifter]

The "skewed selective" years, coincidentally, are the years we have been in the conference.

Since we did not play those teams other years, those are the years that matter when you are attempting to rationalize our losing record against them during those years. That's not hard to grasp.

You really embarrass yourself repeatedly. Do you you and Punisheer have some sort of contest to see if one of you can outdo Keaton and be the biggest jackass and say the most idiotic things?

 

[wbgvwbgv]

The "skewed selective" years, coincidentally, are the years we have been in the conference.

Since we did not play those teams other years, those are the years that matter when you are attempting to rationalize our losing record against them during those years. That's not hard to grasp.

You really embarrass yourself repeatedly. Do you you and Punisheer have some sort of contest to see if one of you can outdo Keaton and be the biggest jackass and say the most idiotic things?

The statement that you were attempting to dispute was the historical record of Big 12 teams against other conferences. Most wouldn't consider 3-1/2 years as historical unless you are in grade school. Even on our idiot board, selective statistics won't fool many.

 

[Low Mountains Drifter]

Dumbass, how the Big 12 did before we were a member has no more relevance to our performance than how the teams in the old SWC did.

For example, that Texas was very good when Vince Young played there doesn't matter when one is evaluating our performance since joining the conference. That it is 2-8 against OOC major college competition during the period we have played them does matter . Heck, Pitt actually was a major power at one time. Their record in those days would provide no excuse for what happens if we play them now.

Even if it did matter, why don't you look up the OOC record of the other current Big 12 members and report back if it supports your claim that the Big 12 has performed well historically against other conferences now called the Power 5.

I'd say no one could really be as stupid as you seem, but you have convinced everyone that you are. Well done. Keep digging.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Dumbest thing I have read all day...

Considering you play 9 conference opponents who also play the same conference games, the law of averages dictate that you are going to have the vast majority of those teams slightly above, right at or slightly below the .500 mark.

You selectively leave out the other 3 games sans one b/c their wins do not fit your agenda. But I would pretty much guarantee that if you look at it collectively across the board, you will see a lot of teams similar to our record and possible records of the opponents.

Correct. Every conference, and division within the conference for those where it applies, is going to play about half their schedule against teams that will wind up with a losing conference and/or overall record. The difference is in the OOC games. The SEC pads their schedules with patsies, although this is changing, for their OOC games, making even the bottom dwellers look good if you only consider the numbers.

It is amplified in the current B12 scenario of round-robin play. At least 4 teams are always going to have a losing conference or overall record depending on their OOC.

 

[pressvirginia]

The OK State game should've been the relevant, signature win of the season. We'd be 5-3 with a shot at 9-3 & there's no arguing, blaming Dana, justifying Dana, trashing the Big East and Don Nehlen, trolling Rodriguez and his accomplishments, etc.

That sloppy home loss vs Ok State is still lingering and the reason for the discontent this season.

The collective discontent is because of the overall results since 2012 & going 12-20 in our new league that we're having trouble assimilating into.

 

[wbgvwbgv]

Dumbass, how the Big 12 did before we were a member has no more relevance to our performance than how the teams in the old SWC did.

For example, that Texas was very good when Vince Young played there doesn't matter when one is evaluating our performance since joining the conference. That it is 2-8 against OOC major college competition during the period we have played them does matter . Heck, Pitt actually was a major power at one time. Their record in those days would provide no excuse for what happens if we play them now.

Even if it did matter, why don't you look up the OOC record of the other current Big 12 members and report back if it supports your claim that the Big 12 has performed well historically against other conferences now called the Power 5.

I'd say no one could really be as stupid as you seem, but you have convinced everyone that you are. Well done. Keep digging.

LOL - I am starting to agree with others that Low IQ drifter has become the most annoying troll on the board for at least the month of November. Sorry WVToiletpaper - you have been dethroned.

 

[huey]

How many teams with winning records did we beat in 88

 

[Cuyahoga Falls Eers]

Don Nehlen’s 1988 team, the high water mark in WVU football because it was undefeated till it played Notre Dame for what would have been recognized as a national title in the Fiesta Bowl, beat THREE teams with winning records, and two of those were 6-5.

Bowling Green and Cal State Fullerton don’t count for this discussion.

Maryland was 5-6.

Pitt was 6-5.

Virginia Tech was 3-8.

East Carolina was 3-8.

Boston College was 3-8.

Penn State was 5-6.

Cincinnati was 3-8.

Rutgers was 6-5.

Syracuse was 10-2

By the way, there were TWENTY FOUR independents in 1988, and they wound up with the #1, #2, #3, #4 and #13 ranked teams after it was all over.

My, how times change.

 

[pressvirginia]

All hail independence