Other 7 Win Turd Rebuilding Seasons

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

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.

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?

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.