Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

My response to those who "see" improvement

Auburndawg
Auburndawg Member Posts: 362
in Hardcore Husky Board
SoDawg1 has posted a thoughtful case for why Sark should return for year 6. His thesis is basically this:

"The DAWGS have IMPROVED as a team EVERY YEAR under SARK. The fact that various variables have impacted the team and caused the 'Record/Result' to be the same, does NOT mean the team is not better and improving."

I agree that it is possible for a team to be improved, but not have that improvement be reflected in more wins. But SoDawg1 does not offer any data to support his thesis. Like most Sark supporters his assertion is based on his observation of how the team plays.

When you look at the actual numbers, however, it is hard to see any real improvement since 2009.

First, of course there is the won lose record in the PAC-12, 4-5, 5-4, 5-4, 5-4, 3-4.

Now lets look at some statistics, just looking at PAC-12 games, because teams play different non-conference schedules, making it hard to get an apples to apples comparison.

Scoring Offense

2009 24 pts per game/5th in the league
2010 21 pts/7th
2011 30 pts/5th
2012 23 pts/9th
2013 34 pts/4th

Total Offense

2009 355 yds per game/5th in the league
2010 363 yds/6th
2011 397 yds/7th
2012 359 yds/10th
2013 455 yds/5th

Scoring Defense

2009 25 pts per game/7th in the league
2010 31 pts/8th
2011 32 pts/9th
2012 24 pts/4th
2013 30 pts/8th

Total Defense

2009 379 yds per game/7th in the league
2010 393 yds/7th
2011 418 yds/7th
2012 357 yds/2nd
2013 429 yds/9th

So, yes the offense is better this year, but the defense has taken a big step backwards. The main thing is, I don't see "improvement every year;" I see a team that was in the middle of the PAC statistically in 2009 and is still there today.

Lets break down our record in PAC-12 games. I divided the games into two categories, games against teams with winning league records, and games against teams with losing league records:

2009 2-3 against teams with wining records. 2-2 against teams with losing records
2010 1-2 against teams with wining records. 4-2 against teams with losing records
2011 0-3 against teams with wining records. 4-1 against teams with losing records
2012 2-2 against teams with wining records. 3-2 against teams with losing records
2013 0-4 against teams with wining records. 3-0 against teams with losing records

Improvement? Well, we haven't lost to a bad team this year, but in past years we won a game or two against good teams.

Finally, there are blow outs; losses by 29+ points:

2009 0
2010 4
2011 2
2012 3
2013 1

What does it say that the only Sark team that didn't suffer at least one rout was the team made up of Ty's recruits?

I think the reason people think they see improvement is due to our ridiculously weak non-conference schedule, and the good fortune of playing Cal and Colorado - two of the worst PAC-12 teams in living memory - at home.

The numbers say this program has not improved significantly since 2009. And college football history says 5 years is plenty of time for a coach to show what he is capable of.
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • CuntWaffle
    CuntWaffle Member Posts: 22,499
    Hugh in 2012 regarding Justin Wilcox

    "You put him in a room, hand him a blank check, then LEAVE!"
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dnc
    dnc Member Posts: 56,839
    I didn't realize Tawdy still had a handle over there.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HeretoBeatmyChest
    HeretoBeatmyChest Member Posts: 4,295
    Conference games works well but to be fair UW has played a tough conference schedule this year compared to 2011 & 2012 as they didnt play UCLA & ASU those years.

    Also you need to look at yards per play which accounts for the hurry up style on both sides of the ball. As you can see, UW has had its best yards per play on both sides of the ball under Sark this year.

    Here is the reality. The first three years we squeaked by with a lot of close wins and our stats were firmly in the bottom half of the conference with few players on all-conference teams.

    This season our stats are much better and we'll have a lot more guys get all-conference recognition. But, the W-L record is not much different. Its a huge underachievement.

    In reality, this team is only a few pieces here and there away from being a top 10 team in personnel. Those pieces are DeAndre Coleman, Scott Chricton, Josh Garnett, another OL, and a decent safety.


    Defense...

    6.16/390
    5.63/385
    6.43/453
    5.37/354
    5.02/384

    Offense...

    5.73/375
    5.50/362
    6.21/410
    5.11/355
    6.36/507
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 11,453
    I love that Doogs want to play the point differential game now after ignoring that Sark had the same point differential the past three years as Ty in 2006 and 2007.

    So if you go by point differential there Doogs then Sark should have been gone along time ago, if you want to go by W-L then he should be gone as well.

    This goes back to what I was saying how Doogs never keep their argument consistent. They always change the argument to fit their agenda.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RoadDawg55
    RoadDawg55 Member Posts: 30,142
    HeretoBeatmyChest said:

    . Those pieces are DeAndre Coleman, Scott Chricton, Josh Garnett, another OL, and a decent safety.


    You can add Jack to that list, but even if we had those guys, we would most likely still be 6-4. Sark would still be Sark. Those guys wouldn't make a difference just like how having Mariota instead of Price wouldn't matter.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sarktastic
    sarktastic Member Posts: 9,208
    why doesn't anybody look at the fucking wins anymore?

    Under Sark

    year 1 5 wins
    year 2 7 wins
    year 3 6 wins
    year 4 6 wins
    year 5 5 wins so far with 2 perhaps 3 to play.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AtomicDawg
    AtomicDawg Member Posts: 7,331
    RoadDawg55 said:

    HeretoBeatmyChest said:

    . Those pieces are DeAndre Coleman, Scott Chricton, Josh Garnett, another OL, and a decent safety.


    You can add Jack to that list, but even if we had those guys, we would most likely still be 6-4. Sark would still be Sark. Those guys wouldn't make a difference just like how having Mariota instead of Price wouldn't matter.

    This…. It doesn't matter who is on the roster. We aren't doing much better than 500. ASU and UCLA don't have too much of a difference in talent between them and us at the moment. That UCLA offensive line that was having trouble running the ball on the rest of the conference gashed us.

    At ASU, that defensive line that was having issues vs the run absolutely destroyed our running game.

    Yes our lines need to be better, but the real issue is execution. They ran the ball fine on the best defensive line in the conference vs stanford but get manhandled in other games. 10 win talent was there is this year but Seven has prevailed.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 11,453
    If Doogs want to play the "We are getting unlucky" card then look at 2010 when that team was 6-6 in regular season. Yet that team won 4 games in the final minute and literally three plays on the final snap. All three plays if the ball goes the other way then Sark has a losing season.

    If you want to argue that wins are wins, losses are losses which is what I kept hearing when UW won like 11 games in a row by 7 points or less then you gotta accept the defeats. That's the problem with counting on close victories is they tend to balance out.

    Sark ran good with those and was very lucky to have the shitty record that he even had. Besides only one loss this year was a close game. UW has only led in one of their four losses which was 7-0 early against ASU.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter