letting a magical season slip away

[McLoofus 35,182]

21 minutes ago, leglessdan said:

The record or the win total rankings don't mean s*** when the LOSSES are to the teams that you have to get through to set up for playoff contention. You can point out all the fancy numbers you want. Bottom line is an extremely high percentage of the losses come to the teams we have to beat to move forward...period. Then add in games like Tennessee last year and Miss St the year prior and it paints a pretty obvious picture of a guy in over his head. Period. Wde

I'm going to give you numbers anyway. Don't worry, they're not fancy.

LSU gives up 315.4 yards a game. We produced 287 against them. 

Florida gives up 328.2 yards per game. We produced 269 against them. 

Both of those averages include their games against us. This means that they actually give up more yards per game against their other opponents, and that our performance against them is even lower relative to their other opponents. 

Year 7 for the guy in charge of our offense. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

So he wants numbers huh?  How about these.  Winning percentages of every coach since Shug during conference play.

Barfield - 50%

Dye - 62%

Bowden - 67%

Tuberville - 63%

Chizik - 47%

Malzahn - 59%

 

Out of those six coaches, Malzahn is 4th on the list with regards to conference record.  This is on top of his previously stated record against all Power 5 competition.

Yes, Malzahn has to deal with a historically great Bama.  But he also gets a historically bad Arkansas every year too.  UGA didn't enter the national conversation until two years ago.  LSU has averaged 8-9 wins during Malzahn's tenure prior to this year, but more importantly they haven't finished higher than 3rd in the West since Malzahn got here.  His schedule, while tough, is no worse than what other coaches have had to deal with at AU.

Tubs had a top ranked UF team on the docket every year for a while and then got a top ranked LSU in the early/mid 00s.

Bowden had to deal with UF every year during the height of Spurrier.

Dye dealt with a nationally relevant Bama during the latter half of his tenure, plus an ascendening UF program and Tennessee.  However, he arguably had it easiest out of anyone of the list besides Barfield.

I'm just tired of the excuse making.  The numbers here show mediocrity when you start taking out the patsy cupcakes and focus on what matters: SEC and Power 5 games.

32-22 in SEC play (59% win)

39-28 vs P5 (58% win)

2-4 in bowl games (with one win and loss coming against Group of 5 teams)

17-21 vs Top 25 opponents...if you remove the Bama games, it's 15-16.

[AUFriction 1,179]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

So he wants numbers huh?  How about these.  Winning percentages of every coach since Shug during conference play.

Barfield - 50%

Dye - 62%

Bowden - 67%

Tuberville - 63%

Chizik - 47%

Malzahn - 59%

 

Out of those six coaches, Malzahn is 4th on the list with regards to conference record.  This is on top of his previously stated record against all Power 5 competition.

Yes, Malzahn has to deal with a historically great Bama.  But he also gets a historically bad Arkansas every year too.  UGA didn't enter the national conversation until two years ago.  LSU has averaged 8-9 wins during Malzahn's tenure prior to this year, but more importantly they haven't finished higher than 3rd in the West since Malzahn got here.  His schedule, while tough, is no worse than what other coaches have had to deal with at AU.

Tubs had a top ranked UF team on the docket every year for a while and then got a top ranked LSU in the early/mid 00s.

Bowden had to deal with UF every year during the height of Spurrier.

Dye dealt with a nationally relevant Bama during the latter half of his tenure, plus an ascendening UF program and Tennessee.  However, he arguably had it easiest out of anyone of the list besides Barfield.

I'm just tired of the excuse making.  The numbers here show mediocrity when you start taking out the patsy cupcakes and focus on what matters: SEC and Power 5 games.

32-22 in SEC play (59% win)

39-28 vs P5 (58% win)

2-4 in bowl games (with one win and loss coming against Group of 5 teams)

17-21 vs Top 25 opponents...if you remove the Bama games, it's 15-16.

His percentage is not statistically significantly different from Dye's. So Dye was a bad coach too?

 

I'm also not sure, given the sample size, that it would be significantly different from Tubbs either. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Just now, AUFriction said:

His percentage is not statistically significantly different from Dye's. So Dye was a bad coach too?

Dye won 4 SEC titles (2 in first 7 years).  But I do think people have a skewed view of Dye due to those rings.  He lost a bunch of games as a ranked team to unranked foes.  A bunch.  I don't think he was that great if I'm being honest, however he has the benefit of those three straight conference titles.

[AUFriction 1,179]

1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

Dye won 4 SEC titles (2 in first 7 years).  But I do think people have a skewed view of Dye due to those rings.  He lost a bunch of games as a ranked team to unranked foes.  A bunch.  I don't think he was that great if I'm being honest, however he has the benefit of those three straight conference titles.

Okay, so when have we had a "good" coach then? If Dye is not considered good, who in our history would be?

[AUFriction 1,179]

5 minutes ago, AUFriction said:

Okay, so when have we had a "good" coach then? If Dye is not considered good, who in our history would be?

I'm also going to reiterate my question.

No coach in Auburn history has won more than 75% of their games (today's equivalent of more than 9 games a year). Why do you think we are going to magically come up with a slam dunk hire to get us there now of all times?

[Tigerpro2a 5,650]

6 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Dye won 4 SEC titles (2 in first 7 years).  But I do think people have a skewed view of Dye due to those rings.  He lost a bunch of games as a ranked team to unranked foes.  A bunch.  I don't think he was that great if I'm being honest, however he has the benefit of those three straight conference titles.

Dye was what we needed at the time bur I think outlived his expectancy....much like our current HC. I think Gus was a decent Hire and I think he did a good job of getting our program back on tracks...but he should have been let go. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 minutes ago, AUFriction said:

Okay, so when have we had a "good" coach then? If Dye is not considered good, who in our history would be?

Good and great are two different things.  I said I didn't think he was that great.  He was good.  The championships show that.  

Look, if Gus had rings (multiple) to go along with this win percentage, it's a different conversation.  But he doesn't.

Also, basing the expectation for current results on history is an inherently bad argument.  What happened in 1985 or 1965 has no bearing on how you judge results today.  The college football landscape has drastically changed since then.  Should Florida have stopped expecting to win after Spurrier left because they hadn't won anything before he got there?  Remember, the Gators hadn't even won the SEC prior to Spurrier.  But they tasted success and built on it.  Their last 30 years look NOTHING like their previous 70 as a football playing school.  Yet we continue to stay on a similar path/trajectory.  That says more about our culture and administrations than anything else could.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 minutes ago, AUFriction said:

I'm also going to reiterate my question.

No coach in Auburn history has won more than 75% of their games (today's equivalent of more than 9 games a year). Why do you think we are going to magically come up with a slam dunk hire to get us there now of all times?

Because 75% today means going 3-0 against cupcakes, 5-3 in conference, and winning one non-conference P5 game each year.  That's not asking much.

[AUFriction 1,179]

16 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Because 75% today means going 3-0 against cupcakes, 5-3 in conference, and winning one non-conference P5 game each year.  That's not asking much.

That's an inadequate answer. Go look at the schedules during the 1970s and 1980s. That 60-0 win over Cincinatti was a pretty tough game, as was that 55-6 win over Western Carolina. That win by Jordan in his second to last year over Chattanooga was also pretty tough. We still played cupcake teams even then. And, back then, there was a bigger divide between a top tier and a bottom tier program.

[AUFriction 1,179]

25 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Good and great are two different things.  I said I didn't think he was that great.  He was good.  The championships show that.  

Look, if Gus had rings (multiple) to go along with this win percentage, it's a different conversation.  But he doesn't.

Also, basing the expectation for current results on history is an inherently bad argument.  What happened in 1985 or 1965 has no bearing on how you judge results today.  The college football landscape has drastically changed since then.  Should Florida have stopped expecting to win after Spurrier left because they hadn't won anything before he got there?  Remember, the Gators hadn't even won the SEC prior to Spurrier.  But they tasted success and built on it.  Their last 30 years look NOTHING like their previous 70 as a football playing school.  Yet we continue to stay on a similar path/trajectory.  That says more about our culture and administrations than anything else could.

Also not really comparable. Gus has to go through Saban every year. He's finished 2nd or higher in the SEC west in 1/2 of his seasons, and has managed to maintain high recruiting success against the best recruiter (arguably) in CFB history. Imagine where we'd be if not for Saban across the state.

To your final point, I'm not basing this solely on history. I'm also basing it on current data. I went to historical data because someone else implied that the current data was a bad comparison. With Gus, Auburn is more or less tied for 3rd in the SEC for winning percentage since 2013. (more details on this in a previous post if you are interested.) So, we're outperforming most of the conference. We're outperforming (or at least performing on par with) the better coaches in our own history. Where are these "standards" for what is considered successful coming from? The only options left are 1. emotion-guided irrational judgment, 2. Bama's success, or 3. A combination of the two. There's nothing to suggest that an average of 10-12 wins a season is doable every year. We play UGA, LSU, and Alabama every year. We usually play a good out of conference team. Occasionally, some unexpected team in the conference ends up doing well, and we end up against them. That's 3-5 tough games a year. If we were in the Big 10 or the Pac 12 and losing this many games in a year, it would be one thing. If we were in the SEC East, I think 9ish wins a year may be unacceptable. But we consistently play one of the hardest schedules in the conference. Winning that many games every year is just unreasonable. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

12 minutes ago, AUFriction said:

That's an inadequate answer. Go look at the schedules during the 1970s and 1980s. That 60-0 win over Cincinatti was a pretty tough game, as was that 55-6 win over Western Carolina. That win by Jordan in his second to last year over Chattanooga was also pretty tough. We still played cupcake teams even then. And, back then, there was a bigger divide between a top tier and a bottom tier program.

There's nothing inadequate there.  That breakdown I gave you is the reality of our schedule today.  Asking for 9 wins a year with that breakdown isn't asking for the world.

Back in the day, a full 25% of the schedule wasn't made up of cupcake games.  I have freely said that there was often a game each year like that.  Not 3.

[AUFriction 1,179]

5 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

 

  11 minutes ago, AUFriction said:

That's an inadequate answer. Go look at the schedules during the 1970s and 1980s. That 60-0 win over Cincinatti was a pretty tough game, as was that 55-6 win over Western Carolina. That win by Jordan in his second to last year over Chattanooga was also pretty tough. We still played cupcake teams even then. And, back then, there was a bigger divide between a top tier and a bottom tier program.

A full 25% of the schedule wasn't made up of cupcake games.  I have freely said that there was often a game each year like that.  Not 3.

We played less games, and our cupcake games were easier. it was easier to keep people healthy. It was easier to sustain energy through seasons. And the "easy" game of the year required pretty much no preparation. Today, you can't completely write off anyone.  Those differences cancel each other out. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

3 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

There's nothing inadequate there.  That breakdown I gave you is the reality of our schedule today.  Asking for 9 wins a year with that breakdown isn't asking for the world.

Back in the day, a full 25% of the schedule wasn't made up of cupcake games.  I have freely said that there was often a game each year like that.  Not 3.

You're plainly correct here. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

23 minutes ago, AUFriction said:

Also not really comparable. Gus has to go through Saban every year. He's finished 2nd or higher in the SEC west in 1/2 of his seasons, and has managed to maintain high recruiting success against the best recruiter (arguably) in CFB history. Imagine where we'd be if not for Saban across the state.

To your final point, I'm not basing this solely on history. I'm also basing it on current data. I went to historical data because someone else implied that the current data was a bad comparison. With Gus, Auburn is more or less tied for 3rd in the SEC for winning percentage since 2013. (more details on this in a previous post if you are interested.) So, we're outperforming most of the conference. We're outperforming (or at least performing on par with) the better coaches in our own history. Where are these "standards" for what is considered successful coming from? The only options left are 1. emotion-guided irrational judgment, 2. Bama's success, or 3. A combination of the two.

Saban hasn't been the cause of Gus going 8-4 in 2014, 7-6 in 2015, 8-4 in 2016, and 7-5 last year.  He's one game.  Stop giving that dude so much sway over our results.

Do we have to go through him for titles?  Yes.  But he has a 1/12 effect on our entire record every year.

I'm not one to complain about Bama's success.  What they are doing is unreal.  But I'm firmly in the "9 wins a year should be the minimum" camp for reasons I've already stated.  Our schedule, especially when compared to our recruiting ranks, justifies such a desire.  We play:

3 crap teams

Arkansas, Ole Miss, MSU, and Texas A&M

Thus I'm asking to go 2-3 against Bama, UGA, LSU, and one P5 non-conference game.

What about that is unreasonable for a top tier program?  Not based on history, but the here and now during Gus's tenure.  And remember, UGA has only been really good for a few years.  LSU has been a non-factor nationally since Gus got here.

[AUFriction 1,179]

3 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Saban hasn't been the cause of Gus going 8-4 in 2014, 7-6 in 2015, 8-4 in 2016, and 7-5 last year.  He's one game.  Stop giving that dude so much away over our results.

Do we have to go through him for titles?  Yes.  But he has a 1/12 effect on our entire record every year.

I'm not one to complain about Bama's success.  What they are doing is unreal.  But I'm firmly in the "9 wins a year should be the minimum" camp for reasons I've already stated.  Our schedule, especially when compared to our recruiting ranks, justifies such a desire.  We play:

3 crap teams

Arkansas, Ole Miss, MSU, and Texas A&M

Thus I'm asking to go 2-3 against Bama, UGA, LSU, and one P5 non-conference game.

What about that is unreasonable for a top tier program?  Not based on history, but the here and now during Gus's tenure.  And remember, UGA has only been really good for a few years.  LSU has been a non-factor nationally since Gus got here.

You made the argument that conference records really matter. If you remove the iron bowl from in conference % win calculations, Gus's percentage shoots through the roof. We only play 8 conference games a year. Having 1 as an almost guaranteed loss most years drops his win percentage by about 12%. So it makes a huge difference.

[auburnphan 6,050]

Having one as a guarantee win each year greatly raises his win percentage by 12%

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

22 minutes ago, AUFriction said:

You made the argument that conference records really matter. If you remove the iron bowl from in conference % win calculations, Gus's percentage shoots through the roof. We only play 8 conference games a year. Having 1 as an almost guaranteed loss most years drops his win percentage by about 12%. So it makes a huge difference.

I did that for you earlier.  I removed the Iron Bowl which, as you said, is an almost guaranteed loss.  I also removed the Arkansas game, which is an almost guaranteed win that we get every year.

Take those two out.  It puts Gus at 24-16 in SEC play overall, but just 19-15 since the start of the 2014 season.

[AUFriction 1,179]

31 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

I did that for you earlier.  I removed the Iron Bowl which, as you said, is an almost guaranteed loss.  I also removed the Arkansas game, which is an almost guaranteed win that we get every year.

Take those two out.  It puts Gus at 24-16 in SEC play overall, but just 19-15 since the start of the 2014 season.

Arkansas has hardly been a guaranteed win for parts of Gus's tenure. Bielema destroyed that program, and now it is a guaranteed win. But Arkansas fielded decent teams for about 3 of Gus's 6 years. They had ranked wins in 2014, 2015, and 2016. 

Oddly enough, they had 2 top 25 wins in all of those seasons. In 2014, nearly knocked off 2 others (TAMU and Bama), yet they still finished last in the SEC West, because THIS is a difficult division to win and not everyone can win it every year. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

2 minutes ago, AUFriction said:

Arkansas has hardly been a guaranteed win for parts of Gus's tenure. 

You might want to spend a minute on that one.

[I_M4_AU 8,933]

2 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

You might want to spend a minute on that one.

Sounds like his emotions talking instead of data.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

26 minutes ago, AUFriction said:

Arkansas has hardly been a guaranteed win for parts of Gus's tenure. Bielema destroyed that program, and now it is a guaranteed win. But Arkansas fielded decent teams for about 3 of Gus's 6 years. They had ranked wins in 2014, 2015, and 2016. 

Oddly enough, they had 2 top 25 wins in all of those seasons. In 2014, nearly knocked off 2 others (TAMU and Bama), yet they still finished last in the SEC West, because THIS is a difficult division to win and not everyone can win it every year. 

Arkansas record by year since Gus has been here with conference record in parentheses:

2013: 3-9 (0-8)

2014: 7-6 (2-6)

2015: 8-5 (5-3)

2016: 7-6 (3-5)

2017: 4-8 (1-7)

2018: 2-10 (0-8)

2019: 2-7 (0-8)

Average score of the Arkansas/AU game during the same time period: 45-18

But please, tell me again how tough Arkansas has been for the last seven years.  I know those records scare the hell out of me, especially those 12 conference wins in almost seven full seasons of football.

[McLoofus 35,182]

10 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Sounds like his emotions talking instead of data.

Judging by his handle, he might be doing a bit. Think Andy Kaufman. (Or Tony Clifton.) Pretty effective, if so. He drew a lot of heat with the sidewalk fan stuff and then doubled down with the "Who, me?!" response. 

I'm game. We need a new heel around here. The other apologists are basically a half empty sleeve of Ritz crackers at this point. 

[Eagle Eye 7 2,535]

4 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

So he wants numbers huh?  How about these.  Winning percentages of every coach since Shug during conference play.

Barfield - 50%

Dye - 62%

Bowden - 67%

Tuberville - 63%

Chizik - 47%

Malzahn - 59%

 

Out of those six coaches, Malzahn is 4th on the list with regards to conference record.  This is on top of his previously stated record against all Power 5 competition.

Yes, Malzahn has to deal with a historically great Bama.  But he also gets a historically bad Arkansas every year too.  UGA didn't enter the national conversation until two years ago.  LSU has averaged 8-9 wins during Malzahn's tenure prior to this year, but more importantly they haven't finished higher than 3rd in the West since Malzahn got here.  His schedule, while tough, is no worse than what other coaches have had to deal with at AU.

Tubs had a top ranked UF team on the docket every year for a while and then got a top ranked LSU in the early/mid 00s.

Bowden had to deal with UF every year during the height of Spurrier.

Dye dealt with a nationally relevant Bama during the latter half of his tenure, plus an ascendening UF program and Tennessee.  However, he arguably had it easiest out of anyone of the list besides Barfield.

I'm just tired of the excuse making.  The numbers here show mediocrity when you start taking out the patsy cupcakes and focus on what matters: SEC and Power 5 games.

32-22 in SEC play (59% win)

39-28 vs P5 (58% win)

2-4 in bowl games (with one win and loss coming against Group of 5 teams)

17-21 vs Top 25 opponents...if you remove the Bama games, it's 15-16.

Not picking on your numbers but it’s also helpful that today we book at least 4 powderpuff teams every year , so unlike before we start with 4 wins take those away you see under Gus we probably not even averaging 50 % wins against teams of our stature. 

[I_M4_AU 8,933]

4 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Judging by his handle, he might be doing a bit. Think Andy Kaufman. (Or Tony Clifton.) Pretty effective, if so. He drew a lot of heat with the sidewalk fan stuff and then doubled down with the "Who, me?!" response. 

I think his personality is more on the lines of Gus.  All data, no emotion schist, but a bit none the less.