Home› Hardcore Husky Board

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

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

Other 7 Win Turd Rebuilding Seasons

HeretoBeatmyChestHeretoBeatmyChest Member Posts: 4,295
in Hardcore Husky Board
Jim Tressell 2001, 7-5, #28 SRS. (Inherited #7 team previous 4 years) Won NC next season.
Pete Carroll 2001, 6-6, #26 SRS. (Inherited #23 team previous 4 years) #1 SRS in next season, won NC year after. Would have won NC in current system.
Bob Stoops 1999, 7-5, #19 SRS. (Inherited #70 team previous 4 years) Won NC next season.
Nick Saban 2007, 7-6, #27 SRS. (Inherited #27 team previous 4 years) #1 late next season, loss in SEC champ kept them out of NC game. Won NC next year.
Jeff Tedford 2002, 7-5, #26 SRS. One completion away from playing in NC game two seasons later.

Chris Petersen 2015, 7-6, #26 SRS. Inherited #35 team previous 4 years.

One distinction is for those four guys (not Tedford) it was their first season while for Petersen this was his second season. Given the transition, major turnover and rebuilding that had to be done, year 2 was somewhat like a first season. Tedford's second year was a similar rebuilding job as the team he inherited had many seniors.

Not only were we #26 in SRS but in the #23 in ESPN's efficiency and #20 in FEI. I think the S&P+ rating is unusually high and I place more emphasis on FEI as that has more to do with scoring whereas S&P+ focuses on yards.

The same people who hate the metrics now were using them several years ago to debunk Sark's 7-6 teams as good or improved teams.
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
«1345

Comments

  • KaepskneeKaepsknee Member Posts: 14,844
    Again any system that ranks a .500 team in the top 26 is FS.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BlowItUpBlowItUp Member Posts: 877
    salemcoog said:

    Again any system that ranks a .500 team in the top 26 is FS.

    God, you anti numbers "7-6" people add nothing to the conversation.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BasemanBaseman Member Posts: 12,365
    HeretoBeatmyChest said:

    Jim Tressell 2001, 7-5, #28 SRS. (Inherited #7 team previous 4 years) Won NC next season.
    Pete Carroll 2001, 6-6, #26 SRS. (Inherited #23 team previous 4 years) #1 SRS in next season, won NC year after. Would have won NC in current system.
    Bob Stoops 1999, 7-5, #19 SRS. (Inherited #70 team previous 4 years) Won NC next season.
    Nick Saban 2007, 7-6, #27 SRS. (Inherited #27 team previous 4 years) #1 late next season, loss in SEC champ kept them out of NC game. Won NC next year.
    Jeff Tedford 2002, 7-5, #26 SRS. One completion away from playing in NC game two seasons later.

    Chris Petersen 2015, 7-6, #26 SRS. Inherited #35 team previous 4 years.

    One distinction is for those four guys (not Tedford) it was their first season while for Petersen this was his second season. Given the transition, major turnover and rebuilding that had to be done, year 2 was somewhat like a first season. Tedford's second year was a similar rebuilding job as the team he inherited had many seniors.

    Not only were we #26 in SRS but in the #23 in ESPN's efficiency and #20 in FEI. I think the S&P+ rating is unusually high and I place more emphasis on FEI as that has more to do with scoring whereas S&P+ focuses on yards.

    The same people who hate the metrics now were using them several years ago to debunk Sark's 7-6 teams as good or improved teams.

    10 wins + or fuck off. Got it?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HeretoBeatmyChestHeretoBeatmyChest Member Posts: 4,295
    RaceBannon said:

    We've had 7 - 7 win seasons in a row. Pick any one of them and get your lame ass back to doogman

    The difference is the metrics and advanced statistics show that this team was substantially better than the others. These things have strong predictive value.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BlowItUpBlowItUp Member Posts: 877
    HeretoBeatmyChest said:

    RaceBannon said:

    We've had 7 - 7 win seasons in a row. Pick any one of them and get your lame ass back to doogman

    The difference is the metrics and advanced statistics show that this team was substantially better than the others. These things have strong predictive value.
    SRS had a 52% win % against the spread this year. Not that SRS is the end all be all, but Connelly chooses a winner of every game based on the SRS and keeps track so it's easy to find those numbers.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • haiehaie Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 21,506 Swaye's Wigwam
    edited January 2016
    RaceBannon said:

    We've had 7 - 7 win seasons in a row. Pick any one of them and get your lame ass back to doogman

    I pick 2012, the ultimate Sark year. ASJ, Wilcox pretending to be a great coordinator, meltdown against the coogs, meltdown against your favorite coach in Vegas. Playing in Seahawk Stadium so that PGOS could Bark, Howl, Snarl, and Kaw all at the same time. We beat Stanford! We got raped by dick rod! It was magical
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ThomasFremontThomasFremont Member Posts: 13,325
    Hoe. Lee. Shit. Chest has gone full doog...

    If Race doesn't like Petersen, that further validates he's on the right track.

    — HuskyFanPodcast (@HuskyFanPodcast) January 8, 2016
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PurpleJPurpleJ Member Posts: 36,936 Founders Club
    Jeepers.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • seatownfunkseatownfunk Member Posts: 805
    image
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • FremontTrollFremontTroll Member Posts: 4,744
    BlowItUp said:

    HeretoBeatmyChest said:

    RaceBannon said:

    We've had 7 - 7 win seasons in a row. Pick any one of them and get your lame ass back to doogman

    The difference is the metrics and advanced statistics show that this team was substantially better than the others. These things have strong predictive value.
    SRS had a 52% win % against the spread this year. Not that SRS is the end all be all, but Connelly chooses a winner of every game based on the SRS and keeps track so it's easy to find those numbers.

    I don't know if you are trying to refute his point or bolster it but 52% against the closing spread is very good.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HeretoBeatmyChestHeretoBeatmyChest Member Posts: 4,295
    Dennis_DeYoung said:

    We're all fucking doogz, so we all want to believe... Chest is going fucking full #offseasonnattySRSjustifieddoog, though. I hope for his sake (and for all of our sakes) that he's right.

    It's not about believing. Its understanding that the team got a lot better in what was supposed to be a deep rebuilding year. If they can make the same jump next season and the season after (difficult to go from good to great and we are not solidly good yet) then we all will be very happy.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • FremontTrollFremontTroll Member Posts: 4,744
    edited January 2016
    HeretoBeatmyChest said:

    Jim Tressell 2001, 7-5, #28 SRS. (Inherited #7 team previous 4 years) Won NC next season.
    Pete Carroll 2001, 6-6, #26 SRS. (Inherited #23 team previous 4 years) #1 SRS in next season, won NC year after. Would have won NC in current system.
    Bob Stoops 1999, 7-5, #19 SRS. (Inherited #70 team previous 4 years) Won NC next season.
    Nick Saban 2007, 7-6, #27 SRS. (Inherited #27 team previous 4 years) #1 late next season, loss in SEC champ kept them out of NC game. Won NC next year.
    Jeff Tedford 2002, 7-5, #26 SRS. One completion away from playing in NC game two seasons later.

    Chris Petersen 2015, 7-6, #26 SRS. Inherited #35 team previous 4 years.

    One distinction is for those four guys (not Tedford) it was their first season while for Petersen this was his second season. Given the transition, major turnover and rebuilding that had to be done, year 2 was somewhat like a first season. Tedford's second year was a similar rebuilding job as the team he inherited had many seniors.

    Not only were we #26 in SRS but in the #23 in ESPN's efficiency and #20 in FEI. I think the S&P+ rating is unusually high and I place more emphasis on FEI as that has more to do with scoring whereas S&P+ focuses on yards.

    The same people who hate the metrics now were using them several years ago to debunk Sark's 7-6 teams as good or improved teams.

    Don't pick and choose to fit your narrative. What is the entire population of teams that fit your broad parameters- shitty record and top 30 in SRS?

    100+ teams over the past 20 years?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Fire_Marshall_BillFire_Marshall_Bill Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 23,527 Founders Club
    I don't hate SRS or advanced stats in any sport...at times it starts to suck the fun out of it though.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ThomasFremontThomasFremont Member Posts: 13,325
    HeretoBeatmyChest said:

    Dennis_DeYoung said:

    We're all fucking doogz, so we all want to believe... Chest is going fucking full #offseasonnattySRSjustifieddoog, though. I hope for his sake (and for all of our sakes) that he's right.

    It's not about believing. Its understanding that the team got a lot better in what was supposed to be a deep rebuilding year. If they can make the same jump next season and the season after (difficult to go from good to great and we are not solidly good yet) then we all will be very happy.
    It's pretty special when you can boast that you were witness to one of the best 7 win teams ever.

    This is like the baseball stat guys that think it matters that the Mariners had a good value defensive SS during day games against lefties in a 100 loss season.

    Nobody here hates facts or can't understand the numbers, but seriously, fuck off with this loser shit.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.