Brown getting canned after 8-5, 9-4 seasons
Comments
-
The Arizona schools have never been cup cake bad though.
-
People don't understand how hard it is to win games in the PAC 12 now that the Arizona schools are serious about football.TitusPullo said:True, there were no cream puffs on the schedule. But Oregon State, Oregon, Cal, and Stanford in those days were usually pretty bad and damn near cupcake level. Even the Arizona schools always sucked except a few good years in the 90's.
-
I just love playing devil's advocate.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
8.5 wins in the Don James era = 10 wins in the extra game and fucktarded schedule era.PurpleReign said:CDJ averaged 8.5 wins a year, though he got better as his career progressed and Mack seems to be regressing.
Are we sure? That extra game is now in conference. Do I need to post that stat about the NW schools during that era?
Also, this goes for all coaches. One of the most significant changes has been the reduction of scholarships to 85. That is why you have seen the rise of the mid major + the top level of sub division be able to compete with BCS schools.
Spin machine on in 3, 2, 1.... -
Do you mean magical 7-4-1 seasons like this?
W = Stanford, Purdue, Pacific, Tulane, ASU, Beavs, WSU
T = Arizona
Pacific & Tulane may have been considered Div 1, but with the 100 scholarship rule, they were getting the players that now go to the subdivision. -
-
The extra conference game is against Colorado or Utah. This just in: they fucking suck. Thanks for proving my point.IrishDawg22 said:
I just love playing devil's advocate.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
8.5 wins in the Don James era = 10 wins in the extra game and fucktarded schedule era.PurpleReign said:CDJ averaged 8.5 wins a year, though he got better as his career progressed and Mack seems to be regressing.
Are we sure? That extra game is now in conference. Do I need to post that stat about the NW schools during that era?
Also, this goes for all coaches. One of the most significant changes has been the reduction of scholarships to 85. That is why you have seen the rise of the mid major + the top level of sub division be able to compete with BCS schools.
Spin machine on in 3, 2, 1....
I'm glad the 85 scholarship limit has brought the field back to Alabama and USC though. That's always a strong take. -
That compares quite well to Sark's magical 2010 season of 6-6 (bowl game excluded for comparison purposes):IrishDawg22 said:Do you mean magical 7-4-1 seasons like this?
W = Stanford, Purdue, Pacific, Tulane, ASU, Beavs, WSU
T = Arizona
Pacific & Tulane may have been considered Div 1, but with the 100 scholarship rule, they were getting the players that now go to the subdivision.
Syracuse, USC (only 8-5 in 2010), OSU, Cal, UCLA, WSU. Note the last four teams were all fucking dreck in 2010.
I appreciate all the research you are doing to prove my point for me.
-
Hold the phone, you can say Utah & Colorado suck, but if someone mentions the Pac 10 was a joke outside of UW, USC and UCLA for most years they are a Doog. Classic.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
The extra conference game is against Colorado or Utah. This just in: they fucking suck. Thanks for proving my point.IrishDawg22 said:
I just love playing devil's advocate.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
8.5 wins in the Don James era = 10 wins in the extra game and fucktarded schedule era.PurpleReign said:CDJ averaged 8.5 wins a year, though he got better as his career progressed and Mack seems to be regressing.
Are we sure? That extra game is now in conference. Do I need to post that stat about the NW schools during that era?
Also, this goes for all coaches. One of the most significant changes has been the reduction of scholarships to 85. That is why you have seen the rise of the mid major + the top level of sub division be able to compete with BCS schools.
Spin machine on in 3, 2, 1....
I'm glad the 85 scholarship limit has brought the field back to Alabama and USC though. That's always a strong take.
And if you can't see the 85 scholly rule change the landscape of college football, I can't help you. -
Irish dogs gotta doog. #hesnotdefendingsark #really
-
Pacific & Tulane compare to beating Pac 12 teams or Syracuse?? WTF??TierbsHsotBoobs said:
That compares quite well to Sark's magical 2010 season of 6-6 (bowl game excluded for comparison purposes):IrishDawg22 said:Do you mean magical 7-4-1 seasons like this?
W = Stanford, Purdue, Pacific, Tulane, ASU, Beavs, WSU
T = Arizona
Pacific & Tulane may have been considered Div 1, but with the 100 scholarship rule, they were getting the players that now go to the subdivision.
Syracuse, USC (only 8-5 in 2010), OSU, Cal, UCLA, WSU. Note the last four teams were all fucking dreck in 2010.
I appreciate all the research you are doing to prove my point for me.
Just a reminder, the majority of the Pac 10 was "fucking dreck" until the Oregon schools discovered football in the mid to late 90's.
And to the other dip shit who chimed in, this is a discussion about the college football landscape, not individual coaches.
Now SSBIAFF.
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
