ADVERTISEMENT

2014 vs. 2002 vs. 1999 by the Numbers

Any stat that said the 2014 team had a stronger schedule than 99 or 2002 immediately loses credibility. The 2014 team was fun to watch and had some great players on it. They may very well be better than 99 or 02 teams but the schedule we played last year was embarrassing no matter how you slice it. La Tech and WKU were the only teams we played with a pulse.
 
caliherd said:
Any stat that said the 2014 team had a stronger schedule than 99 or 2002 immediately loses credibility. The 2014 team was fun to watch and had some great players on it. They may very well be better than 99 or 02 teams but the schedule we played last year was embarrassing no matter how you slice it. La Tech and WKU were the only teams we played with a pulse.
Click to expand...

That was my first reaction as well, but it's easy to forget just how bad the MAC was back in those days. Yes, Clemson and BYU were better at the top, but the bottom was really bad. And our other two out-of-conference games in 1999 were FCS Liberty and 2-9 Temple.

I'd also argue that NIU, Rice and even UAB had pulses in 2014.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohio herd
another good measure would be NFL talent. will need a couple more years to see how many guys from the '14 squad play in the league since several still have eligibility. the '99 team was stacked...
 
LOL, I cannot wait for extra to read that. His head will explode.
 
caliherd said:
Any stat that said the 2014 team had a stronger schedule than 99 or 2002 immediately loses credibility. The 2014 team was fun to watch and had some great players on it. They may very well be better than 99 or 02 teams but the schedule we played last year was embarrassing no matter how you slice it. La Tech and WKU were the only teams we played with a pulse.
Click to expand...


Yeah, cause they didn't use biased opinions or anything...just numbers from the games...stats...you know...the shit that apparently matters in sports?
 
extragreen said:
That's where you're sitting?
Click to expand...
Uhm, no actually, I'm going with what has been presented to me...not willing to go beyond it and talk about the NFL to pad the fact I don't really know what I am talking about.

These guys who did the research, actually researched a whole ton of numbers and stats...but your tiny brain doesn't see that and decides to half ass it and just goes for the eye test, which doesn't mean a thing in real sports discussions. You might as well call yourself olliver luck or any other member of the CFP group.
 
Herdstruck said:
Uhm, no actually, I'm going with what has been presented to me...not willing to go beyond it and talk about the NFL to pad the fact I don't really know what I am talking about.

These guys who did the research, actually researched a whole ton of numbers and stats...but your tiny brain doesn't see that and decides to half ass it and just goes for the eye test, which doesn't mean a thing in real sports discussions. You might as well call yourself olliver luck or any other member of the CFP group.
Click to expand...


Here's some numbers. Ranked 10th nationally. 13-0.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IslandHerd1
"2014 team had a slightly better SRS, yards per play, and a much greater point differential. The 1999 team allowed much fewer yards per play from their competition and had several higher quality wins. If these two teams were to play, the media would hype up Cato versus Pennington, but the real deciding factor would be the 2014 offense versus the 1999 defense, two juggernaut forces that would be in for a tremendous challenge against one another.

If I was forced to pick a winner based on numbers, I would give a slight edge to the 2014 team, but the game really could go either way, and I certainly would not feel confident betting any money on the outcome. Also, I’m not completely ready to write off the 2002 team in this hypothetical match, as I feel the statistics unfairly represent them for at times playing down to their opponents."

According to the end result using numbers, 2014 wins.


But, if you want to put things into other perspectives...

1999 team doesn't finish in the top 10 nationally with the 2014 ranking system including the CFP.
 
I'd still take the starting 1996 team over any team we've had. Obviously, the depth wouldn't be what it was for 2014, but starters vs starts.. 1996 all day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JBALWANZ
Herdstruck said:
"2014 team had a slightly better SRS, yards per play, and a much greater point differential. The 1999 team allowed much fewer yards per play from their competition and had several higher quality wins. If these two teams were to play, the media would hype up Cato versus Pennington, but the real deciding factor would be the 2014 offense versus the 1999 defense, two juggernaut forces that would be in for a tremendous challenge against one another.

If I was forced to pick a winner based on numbers, I would give a slight edge to the 2014 team, but the game really could go either way, and I certainly would not feel confident betting any money on the outcome. Also, I’m not completely ready to write off the 2002 team in this hypothetical match, as I feel the statistics unfairly represent them for at times playing down to their opponents."

According to the end result using numbers, 2014 wins.


But, if you want to put things into other perspectives...

1999 team doesn't finish in the top 10 nationally with the 2014 ranking system including the CFP.
Click to expand...

No, let's use numbers. Ranked 10th nationally. 13-0.
 
Herd struck sorry dude if the 2014 team would have played a decent P5(like Clemson 99) and a bad P5 (like Temple 99) and went undefeated they would have been top 10 no questions asked. If they would have beat a top 25 team in a bowl (like BYU 99) we would have finished anywhere from 6 -10. The reason we had trouble getting ranked was because we played a horrible schedule. That doesn't mean we weren't good, we were, it just means the CFB committee had no basis to compare us because our schedule was so bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohio herd
caliherd said:
Herd struck sorry dude if the 2014 team would have played a decent P5(like Clemson 99) and a bad P5 (like Temple 99) and went undefeated they would have been top 10 no questions asked. If they would have beat a top 25 team in a bowl (like BYU 99) we would have finished anywhere from 6 -10. The reason we had trouble getting ranked was because we played a horrible schedule. That doesn't mean we weren't good, we were, it just means the CFB committee had no basis to compare us because our schedule was so bad.
Click to expand...


The sad thing is they won't. They'll look for everything else. However, I really wonder what influence ollie really had. I guess we will see this season. We do have a P-5 school on the schedule...who cares what their record is or how bad they are, they're P-5.

Although, I wonder how many P-5 schools would use a close loss or a close win over, let's say, us or Boise, as a stepping stone for themselves? I don't doubt Ole Miss kept using the win over Boise to stay afloat in the CFP while they could.
Wouldn't good P-5 teams want to use victories over REALLY good, if not the best, G-5 teams for leverage as well?
Basically, it really couldn't be THAT one sided.
 
I agree with you. It's the one thing I hate about college football and that is how much subjective opinion is brought into play. It totally sucks that Boises loss to Ole Miss was held higher than our wins. But unfortunately through television etc the inmates run the asylum and the P5 makes the rules. The rule is you have to play P5s to have a tough schedule. Sad thing is I think it's only going to get worse.
 
caliherd said:
Herd struck sorry dude if the 2014 team would have played a decent P5(like Clemson 99) and a bad P5 (like Temple 99) and went undefeated they would have been top 10 no questions asked. If they would have beat a top 25 team in a bowl (like BYU 99) we would have finished anywhere from 6 -10. The reason we had trouble getting ranked was because we played a horrible schedule. That doesn't mean we weren't good, we were, it just means the CFB committee had no basis to compare us because our schedule was so bad.
Click to expand...

Clemson was decent??? No that's laughable
 
Beating Clemson @ Clemson any year is a feat in its self. Don't care what their record was. That was hell of a game. We over came the heat, crowd and the officials the whole last quarter and still won. Probably one of the best Marshall finishes that I have witnessed. They never gave up.....

Comparing teams in different times is hard to do because of how the game has changed offensively and defensively. Lets just let it rest and acknowledge that there were some Damn good teams with great players that have built one hell of a tradition.......
 
angelo54 said:
Comparing teams in different times is hard to do because of how the game has changed offensively and defensively. Lets just let it rest and acknowledge that there were some Damn good teams with great players that have built one hell of a tradition.......
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
 
extragreen said:
Funny stuff. Which team beat a ranked opponent? Which team was undefeated? Which team had a QB that started in the NFL?
Click to expand...
Extra is correct. (I know that is rare). Heck, this team and Cato tried to lose to UAB and would have had not been for a dropped pick (right in his hands) that went for score for us.

As far as Clemson goes, they lost 6 - -3 losses were to the three undefeated teams that year. Marshall and FSU/Va Tech who played for national title. fsu won by exact same score differential on exact same field as us.
 
angelo54 said:
Beating Clemson @ Clemson any year is a feat in its self. Don't care what their record was. That was hell of a game. We over came the heat, crowd and the officials the whole last quarter and still won. Probably one of the best Marshall finishes that I have witnessed. They never gave up.....

Comparing teams in different times is hard to do because of how the game has changed offensively and defensively. Lets just let it rest and acknowledge that there were some Damn good teams with great players that have built one hell of a tradition.......
Click to expand...

Agree with this. Plus, beating Clemson AT Clemson was certainly a much tougher game than anything the 2014 team faced.
 
i just love how we like to amp up things in the past, to put down things in the present.

the 99 schedule was horrendous, byu was the only team we played all year that won 65%+ of their games. clemson was a great win, top 5 wins in our program history (probably), but they were a mediocre team, at best. they beat 7-5 UVA, 3-8 UNC, 6-6 NCSU, 7-5 WFU, 3-8 Duke, and 0-11 S Carolina.

people tend to forget just how bad the bottom 2-4 games each year on our schedule was back in the day. we had 2-4 games a year we could take off and still win without much fuss. i know we're not debating the 98 season, but that year we beat a 1 win USC team (their only win was 1 win ball state) we beat 3 win eastern michigan (two of their wins combined for 1 win total), winless kent state, 1 win ball state (only win was a 2 win team), and 1-AA wofford. in an 11 game regular season, that's almost half of our games against absolutely awful teams, like 5 of the worst 8 or so in the nation bad...

in 99, the best regular season team we played was a 6-6 clemson team that didn't beat anyone with a pulse, a 7-4 miami oh team that only beat 1 team with a winning record, or a 7-5 wmu team who beat 1 1A team with a winning record and 2 1A teams with 0 wins. it was a bad, bad schedule, any one that tries to claim otherwise is just a moron.

edit: to add, i'd take the 99 team by a touchdown or more over last year's team.
 
Last edited:
19MU88 said:
Extra is correct. (I know that is rare). Heck, this team and Cato tried to lose to UAB and would have had not been for a dropped pick (right in his hands) that went for score for us.

As far as Clemson goes, they lost 6 - -3 losses were to the three undefeated teams that year. Marshall and FSU/Va Tech who played for national title. fsu won by exact same score differential on exact same field as us.
Click to expand...

unless you're using WVU math, VT wasn't undefeated that year. and in either case they weren't in that game. they also won 6, 3 of those losses were against teams that would've struggled to finish .500 in the mac. duke went 3-8, south carolina went 0-11, and unc went 3-8.

you do realize there was more at stake in the fsu/clemson game that year, right?
 
well, this thread turned out EXACTLY like i figured it would...

just to pour some more gas on it... for those preaching numbers over "eye tests" do you also think the 2007 Hawaii Sugar Bowl team was one of the best ever? you want to talk about statistics... take a look at their numbers...

again, i think NFL talent speaks louder than most statistics...

1999 team
'00 draft - Pennington #17, Beckett #43, Chapman #88, and Williams #175
'01 draft - Toviessi #51
'02 draft - Massey #243
'03 draft - Leftwich #7, Crocker #84, Sciullo #122

2014 team
'15 draft - Roberts #247

the 2014 team is obviously still TBD on the NFL draft board for the next few years, but i'll be very surprised (happily) to see 9 or more guys drafted...

*note, SEVERAL other players from the '99 squad signed and played in the NFL without being drafted...
 
19MU88 said:
Extra is correct. (I know that is rare). Heck, this team and Cato tried to lose to UAB and would have had not been for a dropped pick (right in his hands) that went for score for us.

As far as Clemson goes, they lost 6 - -3 losses were to the three undefeated teams that year. Marshall and FSU/Va Tech who played for national title. fsu won by exact same score differential on exact same field as us.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but if you want to nitpick, the 99 team tried to lose the MAC title game at HOME to a VERY average WMU team.

IMO, it's stupid to argue that last year's team was better than the 96 or 99 team. Last year's team may not have even beaten the 98 or 01 teams. But I think for comparison's sake last year's team is more on par with the 2002 team. Not really balanced, more of an offensive juggernaut who had a heart breaker in conference play.

You can't use statistics to argue talent because the game has changed so much. The variables aren't the same. If someone is hell bent on using statistics as their only argument, then they better be claiming Tommy Shuler is our greatest WR ever along with Rakeem Cato as our greatest QB ever. And if someone wants to argue that, they need to stick to fantasy football and don't even bother watching the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: andy4theherd
Interesting article that takes some study. I would like to acknowledge the quality blogging effort by the HerdWorld writers. The overall concept for the site is well conceived and I would like to thank Chief Editor Alex Vance for this fine Marshall Sports website.
 
I agree with some of you that it is really hard to compare teams from different decades. That being said, I am amazed at how many of you fail to see the talent of the 2014 team. Once you get past some of the nostalgia of the MAC days, the MAC was no better than the current C-USA. ( I will say the 2003 MAC was an exception). This years defense was easily the 2nd best we have had and the best since the 99 squad.Cato may not be CP and Shuler may be no Randy Moss but those 2 dudes were an awesome duo!. Take away the WKU meltdown and this team dominated like no other. I'm sure that most of us will never see eye to eye on this. All I can say is this, it is great to be a Herd fan where we continue to produce great teams!
 
I wouldn't say the WKU game was a meltdown, more like a slow start and wrong game planning. We did out score them 28-10 to send the game to overtime
 
I think the main thing to take away is that the new playoff committee and weeks and weeks of everybody screaming about our schedule has conditioned us and the rest of the nation to think less of what the 2014 team accomplished.

I'd probably still take the 1999 team if I had to choose, but I think it's silly to say it's not debatable. Yeah, the 1999 team was undefeated, but they trailed by 23 at home to a 7-5 team and won because they had the ball last while the 2014 team trailed by 21 at home to an 8-5 team and lost because they didn't have the ball last.

Both teams massacred fringe top 25 teams in bowl games, and Clemson, while maybe one of the best 6-6 teams ever, was still a 6-6 team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohio herd
The 99 team didn't win that game because they had the ball last. They won because they held WMU to 10 points in the 2nd half while scoring 34, while the 14 team held WKU to 10 points in the 2nd half and scored 17. The second half was not a shoot out in either of the 2 games.
 
Once again extra skew shit, we out scored WKU 28-10 to close the game after a bad start
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BleedsGreen33

Attendance Predictions

Replies
46
Views
1K
Old Fairfield - Premium Forum
TwentyTen
T
30CAT

Crisis in California: Surge in migrant boat landings brings 'chaos' to seaside communities

Replies
10
Views
189
Pullman Square - Non Sports Talk
30CAT
30CAT
30CAT

California minimum wage shocks fast food workers as restaurant closes: 'Only the beginning,' ex-manager warns

Replies
74
Views
825
Pullman Square - Non Sports Talk
30CAT
30CAT
jeremycriss

Marshall vs South Alabama - Tale of the Tape

Replies
1
Views
258
Old Fairfield - Premium Forum
marshallisqbu
marshallisqbu
30CAT

Energy developer delivers major blow to Blue state's climate agenda by canceling offshore wind contracts

Replies
1
Views
99
Pullman Square - Non Sports Talk
GeauxHerd
GeauxHerd
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back