Pac-10/12 Teams that have won 10+ games the last 5 years...........

IMALOSER_

2012 - Stanford, Oregon
2011 - Stanford, Oregon, USC
2010 - Stanford, Oregon
2009 - Oregon
2008 - Oregon, USC

In the last 5 seasons only 3 teams have won 10+games playing in the Pac-10/12.

In the same time span the Big-12 has had 8 different teams with 10+ games.

In the same time span the Big-10 has had 8 different teams win 10+ games.

In the same time span the SEC has had 8 different teams win 10+ games.

[Deleted User]

I noticed all 3 teams had one thing in common.....they changed coaches/ coaches left.

There goes the "coaching stability" argument that Baird is the leader of.

greenblood

Oregon and Stanford >>> The Field

Moving on

Mad_Son

I noticed you picked leagues that don't (didn't) play 9 conference games and thus had cupcake padded schedules. They also had more teams. The Pac-12 was a 10 team league most of that time while most of them were 12 team leagues most of that time. If you want to make things closer to even you'd look at Pac-12 teams that won 9 games and correct for a 6/5 ratio. That wouldn't be perfect but it would be much closer to fair.

So you would add

2012: Oregon State, UCLA
2011:
2010:
2009: USC
2008: Oregon State, Cal

So now we're at 6 teams and correcting for size you get ~7 teams. So basically the Pac-12 is just like any other conference.

TierbsHsotBoobs

Nine conference games is a huge factor in this.

IrishDawg22

Don James never had to play 9 conference games.

IMALOSER_

He_Needs_More_Time said:

I noticed all 3 teams had one thing in common.....they changed coaches/ coaches left.

There goes the "coaching stability" argument that Baird is the leader of.

I noticed Oregon and Stanford both hired Offensive Coordinators with no head coaching experience. I guess we can expect both to end up 7-6.

RaceBannon

We don't have to expect seven win Steve to go 7-6 HTH

HeretoBeatmyChest

IMALOSER_ said:

He_Needs_More_Time said:

I noticed all 3 teams had one thing in common.....they changed coaches/ coaches left.

There goes the "coaching stability" argument that Baird is the leader of.

I noticed Oregon and Stanford both hired Offensive Coordinators with no head coaching experience. I guess we can expect both to end up 7-6.

Sark only had 2 years of being an OC while Shaw had 4. In terms of overall experience Shaw had a lot more. The same can be said of Kelly who was an OC for far longer than Sark. Most important both of those guys inherited good programs.

dtd

Mad_Son said:

I noticed you picked leagues that don't (didn't) play 9 conference games and thus had cupcake padded schedules. They also had more teams. The Pac-12 was a 10 team league most of that time while most of them were 12 team leagues most of that time. If you want to make things closer to even you'd look at Pac-12 teams that won 9 games and correct for a 6/5 ratio. That wouldn't be perfect but it would be much closer to fair.

So you would add

2012: Oregon State, UCLA
2011:
2010:
2009: USC
2008: Oregon State, Cal

So now we're at 6 teams and correcting for size you get ~7 teams. So basically the Pac-12 is just like any other conference.

A couple years ago the SEC had 9 bowl teams and only 2 or 3 had winning conference records.

Mad_Son

dtd said:

Mad_Son said:

I noticed you picked leagues that don't (didn't) play 9 conference games and thus had cupcake padded schedules. They also had more teams. The Pac-12 was a 10 team league most of that time while most of them were 12 team leagues most of that time. If you want to make things closer to even you'd look at Pac-12 teams that won 9 games and correct for a 6/5 ratio. That wouldn't be perfect but it would be much closer to fair.

So you would add

2012: Oregon State, UCLA
2011:
2010:
2009: USC
2008: Oregon State, Cal

So now we're at 6 teams and correcting for size you get ~7 teams. So basically the Pac-12 is just like any other conference.

A couple years ago the SEC had 9 bowl teams and only 2 or 3 had winning conference records.

If you go 3-0 out of conference and 4-5 in conference you are GUARANTEED a bowl. Ridiculous really. Sure, you can only count one FCS victory toward your minimum wins requirement but there are enough shitty ass FBS teams out there to make it easy to find FCS equivalents.

IMALOSER_

HeretoBeatmyChest said:

IMALOSER_ said:

He_Needs_More_Time said:

I noticed all 3 teams had one thing in common.....they changed coaches/ coaches left.

There goes the "coaching stability" argument that Baird is the leader of.

I noticed Oregon and Stanford both hired Offensive Coordinators with no head coaching experience. I guess we can expect both to end up 7-6.

Sark only had 2 years of being an OC while Shaw had 4. In terms of overall experience Shaw had a lot more. The same can be said of Kelly who was an OC for far longer than Sark. Most important both of those guys inherited good programs.

I wasn't talking about Kelly. I guess that means that there have been 3 OC's with no head coaching experience hired for those 3 programs. Kelly and Harbaugh both were the OC and play callers at their respective schools. Those that think Shaw and Helfrich had more experience than Sark are really reaching. Thanks for pointing that out.

Shaw = Kiesau

HTH

IMALOSER_

..

RaceBannon

Those that think Sark is anywhere close to those guys needs gasoline and matches. Sark was a bad hire and is a bad coach. Get his dick out of your mouth and pay attention

IMALOSER_

RaceBannon said:

Those that think Sark is anywhere close to those guys needs gasoline and matches. Sark was a bad hire and is a bad coach. Get his dick out of your mouth and pay attention

jecornel

The Baird drumming the coaching stability line holds absolutely no relevance in today's win at all costs era. Coaching continuity is a myth. Since sark was hired I think Nansen is the only coach left from the greatest coaching staff in America.

TierbsHsotBoobs

IMALOSER_ said:

..

Easily your most insightful and valuable contribution to this board to date.

Keep up the good work.

TheKobeStopper

IMALOSER_ said:

HeretoBeatmyChest said:

IMALOSER_ said:

He_Needs_More_Time said:

I noticed all 3 teams had one thing in common.....they changed coaches/ coaches left.

There goes the "coaching stability" argument that Baird is the leader of.

I noticed Oregon and Stanford both hired Offensive Coordinators with no head coaching experience. I guess we can expect both to end up 7-6.

Sark only had 2 years of being an OC while Shaw had 4. In terms of overall experience Shaw had a lot more. The same can be said of Kelly who was an OC for far longer than Sark. Most important both of those guys inherited good programs.

I wasn't talking about Kelly. I guess that means that there have been 3 OC's with no head coaching experience hired for those 3 programs. Kelly and Harbaugh both were the OC and play callers at their respective schools. Those that think Shaw and Helfrich had more experience than Sark are really reaching. Thanks for pointing that out.

Shaw = Kiesau

HTH

I'm lost. Can someone translate this idiots dumbfuckery for me?

Thanks in advance.

HeretoBeatmyChest

jecornel said:

The Baird drumming the coaching stability line holds absolutely no relevance in today's win at all costs era. Coaching continuity is a myth. Since sark was hired I think Nansen is the only coach left from the greatest coaching staff in America.

Nansen was kept because he's Sark's buddy. He's the most useless guy on the staff. He's coached DL now special teams and RBs. Never coached these positions before. Was a LB as a player.

[Deleted User]

HeretoBeatmyChest said:

jecornel said:

The Baird drumming the coaching stability line holds absolutely no relevance in today's win at all costs era. Coaching continuity is a myth. Since sark was hired I think Nansen is the only coach left from the greatest coaching staff in America.

Nansen was kept because he's Sark's buddy. He's the most useless guy on the staff. He's coached DL now special teams and RBs. Never coached these positions before. Was a LB as a player.

Notice the first two stops that particular unit sucked ass too. I don't get why Sark carries dead weight like Nansen and Cozz around.

TierbsHsotBoobs

He_Needs_More_Time said:

HeretoBeatmyChest said:

jecornel said:

The Baird drumming the coaching stability line holds absolutely no relevance in today's win at all costs era. Coaching continuity is a myth. Since sark was hired I think Nansen is the only coach left from the greatest coaching staff in America.

Nansen was kept because he's Sark's buddy. He's the most useless guy on the staff. He's coached DL now special teams and RBs. Never coached these positions before. Was a LB as a player.

Notice the first two stops that particular unit sucked ass too. I don't get why Sark carries dead weight like Nansen and Cozz around.

It took an epic plunger rape for him to fire Holt, and he hated doing it even then.

When you are buddies with everyone, firing people is hard.