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

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

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.

Nine conference games is a huge factor in this.

IrishDawg22

Don James never had to play 9 conference games.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

..

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

Keep up the good work.

TheKobeStopper

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That is the main problem right there. Sark isn't a CEO at all instead he tries to be buddy buddy with all his coaches and players.

That is why Danny Shelton is still hitting Price late in practice because he doesn't respect Sark and knows he won't get punished.

That is why the team commits 18 penalties against a shitty team because they lack disciplined as they were too busy in the same game talking shit to the fans.

The coaches and players FEARED Don James, they fear Saban. Remember in the national title game when Bama was up 30+ late how pissed Saban was at some OL jumping for a false start? That guy is intense non stop.

While Sark is too busy looking at his play sheet to notice his players doing some stupid ass dance which was started by another coach, too busy to notice his players goofing off in a rivalry game on the sideline and more importantly not one guy in that program fears him or respects him.

I thought we were discussing why some conferences have more teams capable of winning 10 games over a 5 year period.

It amazes me how you can turn a discussion about conference strength and get to Sark is not feared or respected like Saban and James.

Really is fucking amazing. It's kind of like 7 degrees to Kevin Bacon.

I thought we were discussing why some conferences have more teams capable of winning 10 games over a 5 year period.

It amazes me how you can turn a discussion about conference strength and get to Sark is not feared or respected like Saban and James.

Really is fucking amazing. It's kind of like 7 degrees to Kevin Bacon.

When you post the non-crossed out parts that is worthy of an up-vote.

Fuck off LOSER

Fuck off LOSER

Fire_Marshall_Bill

Fuck off LOSER

Are you going to hack in to people's Fbook accounts next?

Hacking into Fbook accounts is way above my pay grade. I'm just happy that my computer turns on when I push the little button.

Comments

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

Nine conference games is a huge factor in this.

IrishDawg22

Don James never had to play 9 conference games.

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.

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

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.

dtd

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.

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.

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.

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

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

..

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

Keep up the good work.

TheKobeStopper

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I thought we were discussing why some conferences have more teams capable of winning 10 games over a 5 year period.

It amazes me how you can turn a discussion about conference strength and get to Sark is not feared or respected like Saban and James.

Really is fucking amazing. It's kind of like 7 degrees to Kevin Bacon.

When you post the non-crossed out parts that is worthy of an up-vote.

Fuck off LOSER

Fuck off LOSER

Fire_Marshall_Bill

Fuck off LOSER

Are you going to hack in to people's Fbook accounts next?