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

Some chinteresting data on Pete's last 3 years from WestCoastCFB

13

Comments

  • Pitchfork51
    Pitchfork51 Member Posts: 27,691
    Sounds like you got played like dawgs
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Canadawg
    Canadawg Member Posts: 6,128
    https://hardcorehusky.com/discussion/64757/wins-losses-vs-talent/p1

    Been done
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MikeDamone
    MikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    RoadDawg55 said:

    Pete was way better than Rick. Not even close.

    Not if wins is the measure.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • creepycoug
    creepycoug Member Posts: 24,410
    Lawrence_of_a_Labia said:

    MikeDamone said:

    So my neuheisal compassion is being proven out more every day.

    Rick without the Rosebowl win.

    You’ve never had compassion for nobody.
    He is a student of the dismal science. What do you expect? A sunny disposition?

    Btw, brilliant fucking handle. Maybe the best I've seen on the boards ... ever.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Kaepsknee
    Kaepsknee Member Posts: 14,919
    YellowSnow said:

    creepycoug said:

    YellowSnow said:

    creepycoug said:

    Of course, the problem with this stat is that, if you have talent like Washington has, your comparator group is going to be comprised of very good teams.

    Conversely, when you don't have talent, you only need to beat teams that have more talent, but are not necessarily good themselves. Shit beats slightly less shit all the tim. It's a different thing to beat genuinely good teams.

    I'm not apologizing for Toothy; and this stat can reveal coaches who underperform with what they have. But there's a reason Cuog is atop this poll and it's not all because of the Pirate. Cuog's comparator group is not a murderer's row, and he has that passing game that will allow him to beat some teams who may be better overall, but not necessarily elite or even very good.

    Good analysis here Creep.

    The 5 wins were as follows...

    2017 UCLA and Oregon (they were one spot higher than us in 247 composite that year)
    2018 Stanford and UCLA
    2019 USC

    Not exactly murderer's row.
    Yup. There you have it.

    But, but, but we do more with less.

    I hate the fucking saying. It's for losers.
    Looking ahead to the 247 composite 2020 rankings, there were only be 3 teams ahead of UW on the schedule in terms of overall talent: USC, Oregon and Michigan and if they are ranked higher then us it's only by a c-hair.

    Jimmy really needs to go 10-2 or better to instill a lot of confidence in the half brain segment of the fan base. I will tolerate 9-3 but won't be happy.
    You got Michigan the first week and travel to SC, Oregon, Utah and Cal.

    You should be tickled pink at 9-3.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RoadDawg55
    RoadDawg55 Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 30,551 Swaye's Wigwam
    MikeDamone said:

    RoadDawg55 said:

    Pete was way better than Rick. Not even close.

    Not if wins is the measure.
    You really overrate a win against Purdue in the Rose Bowl. I can even except that 2000 was better than 2026, especially considering the Miami win. Pete’s 2017 and 2018 are better than any other Rick year.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MikeDamone
    MikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    RoadDawg55 said:

    MikeDamone said:

    RoadDawg55 said:

    Pete was way better than Rick. Not even close.

    Not if wins is the measure.
    You really overrate a win against Purdue in the Rose Bowl. I can even except that 2000 was better than 2026, especially considering the Miami win. Pete’s 2017 and 2018 are better than any other Rick year.
    I don’t over rate a win over Purdue, I do value a rose bowl win. The rose bowl aside, their win percentages are similar.

    You underrate losses to Cal, Stanford, ASU, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Stanford, Colorado...

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • FremontTroll
    FremontTroll Member Posts: 4,744
    MikeDamone said:

    RoadDawg55 said:

    MikeDamone said:

    RoadDawg55 said:

    Pete was way better than Rick. Not even close.

    Not if wins is the measure.
    You really overrate a win against Purdue in the Rose Bowl. I can even except that 2000 was better than 2026, especially considering the Miami win. Pete’s 2017 and 2018 are better than any other Rick year.
    I don’t over rate a win over Purdue, I do value a rose bowl win. The rose bowl aside, their win percentages are similar.

    You underrate losses to Cal, Stanford, ASU, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Stanford, Colorado...

    If wins are the measure and Petersen has more wins and a higher winning percentage, then are wins really the measure?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MikeDamone
    MikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    FremontTroll said:

    MikeDamone said:

    RoadDawg55 said:

    MikeDamone said:

    RoadDawg55 said:

    Pete was way better than Rick. Not even close.

    Not if wins is the measure.
    You really overrate a win against Purdue in the Rose Bowl. I can even except that 2000 was better than 2026, especially considering the Miami win. Pete’s 2017 and 2018 are better than any other Rick year.
    I don’t over rate a win over Purdue, I do value a rose bowl win. The rose bowl aside, their win percentages are similar.

    You underrate losses to Cal, Stanford, ASU, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Stanford, Colorado...

    If wins are the measure and Petersen has more wins and a higher winning percentage, then are wins really the measure?
    I didn't say Rick was better than Peterson.

    I said that Peterson isn't "way better".

    Wining % difference isn't huge. .7 vs .67

    Factor in a major bowl win and the difference is even less.

    Yay yay. Purdue. So what? They beat who they had to. As for as fun goes... The Rick years were a kick as a fan. Peterson was more frustrating.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter