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

Other 7 Win Turd Rebuilding Seasons

HeretoBeatmyChest
HeretoBeatmyChest 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
«13

Comments

  • Kaepsknee
    Kaepsknee Member Posts: 14,913
    Again any system that ranks a .500 team in the top 26 is FS.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BlowItUp
    BlowItUp 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
  • Baseman
    Baseman Member Posts: 12,369
    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
  • HeretoBeatmyChest
    HeretoBeatmyChest 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
  • BlowItUp
    BlowItUp 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
  • haie
    haie Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 23,720 Founders Club
    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
  • ThomasFremont
    ThomasFremont 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
  • PurpleJ
    PurpleJ Member Posts: 37,643 Founders Club
    Jeepers.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • seatownfunk
    seatownfunk Member Posts: 807
    image
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • FremontTroll
    FremontTroll 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
  • HeretoBeatmyChest
    HeretoBeatmyChest 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
  • FremontTroll
    FremontTroll 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_Bill
    Fire_Marshall_Bill Member Posts: 25,615 Standard Supporter
    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
  • ThomasFremont
    ThomasFremont 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
  • ThomasFremont
    ThomasFremont Member Posts: 13,325
    Houhusky said:

    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.

    I don't understand how you think SRS supports the season, it's damning. It means that the metrics say UW had the 26th best team in the country with one of the best defenses in the country and still the best Petersen could muster was 7-6 (4-5).

    Doesn't the SRS just show the UW found a way to lose to worse teams (SRS ranking wise) like the same loser program that was here before.

    Boise state SRS 47th
    Cal SRS 29th
    ASU SRS 54th

    So 3 easy wins... Seems like UW should have finished 10-3 (7-2). Does that make Petersen a -3 win coach?
    Fucking THIS.

    The numbers say UW should have won more games.

    But they didn't.

    Which means the coach fucked up.

    Which means Petersen sucks.

    Wasn't the whole point of the Petersen hire that he could do more with less, so he should be able to do even more with more???

    Sounds like he is doing less with more.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Gladstone
    Gladstone Member Posts: 16,419
    ThomasFremont said:

    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

    This is real?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ThomasFremont
    ThomasFremont Member Posts: 13,325
    Gladstone said:

    ThomasFremont said:

    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
    This is real?

    Yes. And there's more:

    Remember RaceBannon wanted Don James fired in the late 80s, wanted Mora and moved to Cali to be a fan of UCLA with Rick....

    — HuskyFanPodcast (@HuskyFanPodcast) January 8, 2016
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Tequilla
    Tequilla Member Posts: 20,098
    People are going to take these kinds of numbers and read into them what they think or want to believe unless you really can cut through the BS and remain objective.

    If you go back to before the season, I think the consensus was that the first half was going to be rougher than the back half. That played out. We knew we had youth and that was going give some ups and downs as well. I think we all thought that this was going to be a team that was going to struggle with some consistency problems offensively ... that played out as well.

    The encouraging part of what we saw this year was that when this team put all the pieces together, they looked really good. Consistency and turnovers were big time factors in the losses against Cal and Utah. With the exception of the game at Stanford that Browning didn't start, every other game this year UW had a very good chance to win the game in the 4th quarter. There's definitely reason to believe with some overall team improvement plus better execution in tight situations this team could take some massive steps forward.

    The crowd that says "so what" and that they need to prove it isn't wrong. The numbers and computer simulations are predictive in their correlations but are far from absolutes.

    What I think can be concluded and should be agreed upon is that the potential for a sizable jump next year is definitely realistic. Being guarded and cautious with the expectations is probably reasonable given the 15 year stretch that we've been on. However, to be close minded to the fact that there could be a sizable jump of a magnitude up to a conference championship level is not paying attention to what the numbers and eyes are showing on the field.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • doogsinparadise
    doogsinparadise Member Posts: 9,320
    ThomasFremont said:

    Gladstone said:

    ThomasFremont said:

    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
    This is real?
    Yes. And there's more:

    Remember RaceBannon wanted Don James fired in the late 80s, wanted Mora and moved to Cali to be a fan of UCLA with Rick....

    — HuskyFanPodcast (@HuskyFanPodcast) January 8, 2016

    Chest should pm @IrishDawg22.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ThomasFremont
    ThomasFremont Member Posts: 13,325
    Tequilla said:

    People are going to take these kinds of numbers and read into them what they think or want to believe unless you really can cut through the BS and remain objective.

    If you go back to before the season, I think the consensus was that the first half was going to be rougher than the back half. That played out. We knew we had youth and that was going give some ups and downs as well. I think we all thought that this was going to be a team that was going to struggle with some consistency problems offensively ... that played out as well.

    The encouraging part of what we saw this year was that when this team put all the pieces together, they looked really good. Consistency and turnovers were big time factors in the losses against Cal and Utah. With the exception of the game at Stanford that Browning didn't start, every other game this year UW had a very good chance to win the game in the 4th quarter. There's definitely reason to believe with some overall team improvement plus better execution in tight situations this team could take some massive steps forward.

    The crowd that says "so what" and that they need to prove it isn't wrong. The numbers and computer simulations are predictive in their correlations but are far from absolutes.

    What I think can be concluded and should be agreed upon is that the potential for a sizable jump next year is definitely realistic. Being guarded and cautious with the expectations is probably reasonable given the 15 year stretch that we've been on. However, to be close minded to the fact that there could be a sizable jump of a magnitude up to a conference championship level is not paying attention to what the numbers and eyes are showing on the field.

    This is why your wall or words posts are useless.

    You say something and contradict yourself one sentence later trying to cover all the bases.

    Do you expect a sizable jump, or are you cautious with your expectations?

    Pick a side.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter