Athlon: Doc ranks in bottom half

[Herd Fever]

I'll say this Marshall has came a long way in terms of Facilities.

But what is interesting is while the BIG XII comes only second to the SEC in facilities but is last among the P5 conferences.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

1. Before the improvements mentioned above, where did Marshall stand in the rankings of facilities?
.

That isn't an easy answer because of the massive changes in membership C-USA has seen. Before the new Marshall facilities, a lot of other schools were a part of the conference (UCF, Tulsa, Houston, Memphis, Tulane, SMU). Many of those schools have since drastically upgraded their facilities. While in C-USA, and before Marshall's most recent facility upgrades, the Herd was ahead of Tulsa, Houston, Tulane, and SMU in facilities. I am not sure when Memphis made their upgrades. I also am not sure what they had/have now. As much as we liked to make fun of UCF's erector set/tin can stadium, their facilities at the time were close to Marshall's. So, even before the migration of teams, Marshall was still at the upper end of the conference in facilities. They were (and still are) better than Tulsa, were better than Houston, were better than Tulane, were better than SMU (and still are), and I believe were better than Memphis at the time. The only one that could make an argument at the time would be UCF.

Eliminating the first couple seasons to give a coach a chance for his recruits to make a difference on the field, and the aberration that was last season (no real excuse or explanation for that), it seems that he has done fairly well in Conference USA.

This discussion evolved from a comparison between Dana and Doc. Dana had to revamp his team as well in terms of recruits. Dana had to come in and entirely change a run-heavy offense that was using an entirely type of blocking scheme (and personnel) into a pass-heavy offense. I didn't eliminate his first couple of years as coach, so I can't do the same for Doc. I also didn't eliminate Dana's worst year by considering it an aberration, so I won't do the same for Doc.

Not only did Dana also have to revamp his roster, but he also had to suddenly jump to a far more competitive conference. He had to compete in a Big 12 schedule with an already watered-down roster of Big East recruits. That is a massive jump in which he had to compete. Doc didn't have to do that; in fact, he was given the privilege of the opposite happening.

I can acknowledge the chance of the two programs being in a worse stae than the other when each coach took over (again, in comparison to their peer conference schools, since that is what we are looking at). However, even though Marshall was transitioning from the Snyder years, I don't see the big disparity that some Marshall fans feel should give Doc more credit.

C-USA is far easier now than it was under Snyder. If you look at how Snyder fared his last three years in C-USA, it is almost identical to the first three years under Doc. The very year that C-USA became much easier (Houston, UCF, Memphis, Tulsa leaving, with ECU the following year), Doc had his first year of results that was different than what Snyder had been doing in the conference. Is that because Doc suddenly had his recruits in four years later or a result of a far less competitive conference? It may be a mix of both, but it usually doesn't take a coach four years of his recruits to show a change in record. I believe it was more a case of getting to play FIU, FAU, North Texas, and UTSA instead of Houston, UCF, Memphis, ECU, and Tulsa. Even if you play only one of those west division downgraded teams, that still leaves four far easier games on the conference schedule for Doc. Even if Doc had been fairly successful and won two out of four of the harder games had they stayed in C-USA (against a Houston, UCF, ECU, Memphis, Tulsa), that would still mean two more conference losses. That takes away any division titles or playing in any conference championships that he has.

Snyder had some 4-4 seasons. Imagine if he were able to play FIU, FAU, Charlotte, and North Texas instead of ECU, UCF, Houston, and Memphis. Suddenly, those 4-4 seasons turn into 6-2 seasons or 7-1 seasons, and he is winning divisions and playing in conference championships. Snyder's last three years had a conference record of 10-14. Doc's first three years record was 13-11. That is one win per year more.

So, no, I don't see Doc having to undertake a more difficult start compared to what Dana had. Actually, I think Dana had a more difficult task in taking a roster of watered-down Big East players with Big East facilities to compete against a Big 12 schedule. Doc had to take a roster with average C-USA talent into playing a much easier C-USA schedule where his school had some of the best facilities in the conference.

With how I measured wvu's results since Dana took over, there really isn't a fair way to do the same with Doc. The Big 12 has stayed consistent in teams every year during Dana's reign, both in which teams it had and the number of teams. C-USA has lost 75% of their teams excluding Marshall since Doc started in C-USA. They have also reduced the number of overall teams. By losing 75% of conference teams, I can't really rank each team's average finish. Marshall's average conference finish since Doc took over is 4.43. But that isn't the ranking of their average conference finish, which is entirely different and is what I did with Dana's wvu teams.

But for the sake of the discussion, lets try to compare the two as best as we can. To the extreme benefit of Doc, I will only look at Conference USA over the last four years. So, this takes out the majority of Doc's worst seasons, and it also only includes the inferior teams (Charlotte, FAU, FIU, UNT) instead of including Houston, UCF, ECU, Tulsa, etc.

In doing that, the ranking of the average finishes for C-USA is below:

WKU: 2.67
MTSU: 3.25
Marshall: 4
La Tech: 4.25
UTSA: 5.5
UTEP: 7.5
USM: 8
FIU: 8
UNT: 8.5
FAU: 8.75
Charlotte: 10.5 (two seasons)

Again, that ranking is doing Doc a huge favor by only looking at the last four years while ignoring his three years of average finishes.

Doc has had three years of being average in C-USA, three years of being good in C-USA, and one year of being bad in C-USA. In all seven years, he has always had good facilities in comparison to the rest of the conference.

Dana has had one year of bad in the Big 12, three years of average, and one year of good. In all five years, he has always had bad facilities in comparison to the rest of the Big 12.

As I mentioned, there are some other factors in play (is Dana given a far more competitive Big 12 recruiting budget than Doc is compared to other C-USA schools, is Dana given a more competitive salary budget compared to other Big 12 schools than Doc is his peers, etc.)? But based on facilities and what each coach is getting out of them, Dana is doing a superior job.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

But what is interesting is while the BIG XII comes only second to the SEC in facilities but is last among the P5 conferences.

The Big 12 is last among the P5 conferences in what?

 

[Herd Fever]

As far as on field performance.

 

[C.K. Ocsevol-Evad]

As far as on field performance.

No way. That's not even debatable.

Since wvu entered the Big 12, Sagarin has ranked the conference 2nd or 3rd every season.

I don't think you're remembering just how bad the ACC has been some years. You're letting a couple of teams near the top (Ohio State & Michigan) influence a proper perception of the conference overall.

At worst, the Big 12 has been the 3rd best conference over the last five years. They definitely aren't #4 or #5, and even as average as the SEC East has been recently, the Big 12 is also not #1.

 

[JudgeDD]

But for the sake of the discussion, lets try to compare the two as best as we can. To the extreme benefit of Doc, I will only look at Conference USA over the last four years. So, this takes out the majority of Doc's worst seasons, and it also only includes the inferior teams (Charlotte, FAU, FIU, UNT) instead of including Houston, UCF, ECU, Tulsa, etc.

In doing that, the ranking of the average finishes for C-USA is below:

WKU: 2.67
MTSU: 3.25
Marshall: 4
La Tech: 4.25
UTSA: 5.5
UTEP: 7.5
USM: 8
FIU: 8
UNT: 8.5
FAU: 8.75
Charlotte: 10.5 (two seasons)

That's a very good analysis, and accurate as far as I can tell.

I would argue this, however. There are other ways to determine average, including one that is designed to account for outlying scores. I know that 10th place finish counts; it's part of Doc's resume. But if it is truly an aberration, then it's influence on the mean is disproportional. To show, I'll throw out some numbers.

Using all 7 of Doc's seasons:
Mean = 4
Median = 4.4

Statistically similar.

Using just the last 4 seasons:
Mean = 4
Median = 2.5

In this case, though both are measurements of average, median accounts for the existence of an outlying score. It's what I mean by throwing out last season. Not that it shouldn't count, but that it counts to much in the mean score. Especially if it does turn out to be an aberration.

Also, is it out of standard deviation if Doc's average finish in the league is somewhere between 2.5 and 4, with facilities that have just recently brought him into the top 2 or 3 in the conference? Is that not a reasonable result?

 

[Herd Fever]

No way. That's not even debatable.

Since wvu entered the Big 12, Sagarin has ranked the conference 2nd or 3rd every season.

I don't think you're remembering just how bad the ACC has been some years. You're letting a couple of teams near the top (Ohio State & Michigan) influence a proper perception of the conference overall.

At worst, the Big 12 has been the 3rd best conference over the last five years. They definitely aren't #4 or #5, and even as average as the SEC East has been recently, the Big 12 is also not #1.

As of right now the BIG XII is 5th

 

[JudgeDD]

Since wvu entered the Big 12, Sagarin has ranked the conference 2nd or 3rd every season.

It seems you're incorrect on this point. A quick check online says Sagarin has rated the Big 12 Conference as follows for the past five seasons: 2, 3, 4, 3, 5

At worst, the Big 12 has been the 3rd best conference over the last five years. They definitely aren't #4 or #5, and even as average as the SEC East has been recently, the Big 12 is also not #1.

Here is seems you're pretty much correct on all of the three traditional average computations, though it would be better stated that "at BEST, the Big 12 has been the 3rd best conference over the last five years." Using Sagarin's numbers for the past 5 seasons:

Mean = 3.4
Median = 3
Mode = 3

 

[C.K. Ocsevol-Evad]

Also, is it out of standard deviation if Doc's average finish in the league is somewhere between 2.5 and 4, with facilities that have just recently brought him into the top 2 or 3 in the conference? Is that not a reasonable result?

Fair point about standard deviation and if you want to claim one season was an anomaly, outlier, aberration, or however you want to refer to it. That still puts Doc's on field results behind how his facilities rank in the conference .

I disagree with your belief that Marshall just recently had facilities upgraded putting them in the top 2 or 3 in the conference. In the old C-USA, even before Marshall's recent upgrades, the Herd was top 2 in the conference in facilities. Who do you put ahead of them at that time (remember, this was before Houston, Tulane, etc. built new everything)? ECU? Maybe UCF?

After those teams departed, and before Marshall upgraded facilities, who had better in the conference? Nobody. Southern Miss' wasn't better at that time and isn't better now.

Marshall has always had facilities in the top 2 in the conference, yet Doc's average on the field (even giving him the doubt of removing his worst season) is worse than that. In comparison, Dana isn't given the privilege of having his worst season removed, had to take a team into a far better conference than what they were recruiting with, and has produced on the field on par with his facilities within the conference, not worse like Doc (and, again, that's with removing Doc's worse season which we didn't do for Dana).

It seems you're incorrect on this point. A quick check online says Sagarin has rated the Big 12 Conference as follows for the past five seasons: 2, 3, 4, 3, 5

That's not correct. I believe you are counting the divisions of certain conferences as being in front of the Big 12.

For instance, if Sagarin has one of the ACC's divisions rated slightly higher than the Big 12, yet has the ACC's other division rated way lower, the Big 12 has a higher rating than the ACC (you're free to check my math on all of them, but my percentage of making a mistake is only .00223%). Yet, in your "quick check online," you ended up counting divisions ahead of conferences.

Here is seems you're pretty much correct on all of the three traditional average computations, though it would be better stated that "at BEST, the Big 12 has been the 3rd best conference over the last five years." Using Sagarin's numbers for the past 5 seasons:

Mean = 3.4
Median = 3
Mode = 3

Again, your numbers are flawed here because of your earlier mistake. Sagarin has ranked the Big 12 2nd or 3rd every year since wvu has been in the conference. So, like stated before, the Big 12 has been 3rd at worse over the last five years.

As of right now the BIG XII is 5th

How are you basing that- on how you predict each conference will do this season?

 

[JudgeDD]

For instance, if Sagarin has one of the ACC's divisions rated slightly higher than the Big 12, yet has the ACC's other division rated way lower, the Big 12 has a higher rating than the ACC (you're free to check my math on all of them, but my percentage of making a mistake is only .00223%). Yet, in your "quick check online," you ended up counting divisions ahead of conferences.

Stupid mistake on my part. I actually took that into account for the 2013 season, and then just ignored it for the next three. I don't know why. The conference rankings, at least according to Sagarin, should be: 2, 3, 3, 3, 3

 

[oldeherd]

YAK, first you say that better facilities lead to better recruits which leads to winning. Posted yesterday. Now are you not saying that is so? I never said that having better facilities will "automatically" result in better results. A damn lie on your part. Talk about picking and choosing.

Seems argument is that 3 factors, mainly, to success: coaching, facilities and recruits. Certainly not the only factors. Comparisons between Doc and Holgy, can be both objectively and subjectively made. Right now won-loss seasonal average of the two virtually the same. Following Bill Stewart's 9-4 seasons for 2-3 years certainly doesn't appear as difficult as Doc trying to rebuild at MU following Snyder's disappointing tenure. Maybe 2017 season will provide more definitive results on which to further compare the two coaches.

 

[Herd Fever]

1. ACC
2. SEC
3. BIG 10
4. PAC 12
5. BIG XII

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

YAK, first you say that better facilities lead to better recruits which leads to winning. Posted yesterday. Now are you not saying that is so? I never said that having better facilities will "automatically" result in better results. A damn lie on your part. Talk about picking and choosing.

Better facilities does result in better recruits! Now, are other factors involved (coaching, recruiting, location, etc.)? Yes. But if better facilities didn't result in better recruits, why would so many coaches put their asses on the line to fight ADs for more money to be invested into their facilities? This isn't something that a sane person would argue. It is a no-brainer.

It is 100% foolproof? No. wvu could out recruit Texas for a player. Marshall could out recruit Florida for a player. It isn't automatic that having better facilities will land individual recruits over a school with inferior facilities every time. But overall, having better facilities is one of the three biggest recipes in winning (the other two being coaching and recruiting, which are all intertwined). Can a superior recruiter help balance recruits choosing a school with inferior facilities over a school with better facilities? Yes. That is why I have said other factors (coaching, recruiting) can influence those things. But having better facilities is a huge key in recruiting better which is a huge key in winning more. Hence facilities = recruiting = winning.

My argument has been consistent and hasn't changed at all. You arguing against any of what I said shows you to be entirely clueless on the subject.

You keep running away from these questions:

1) Do you believe that recruiting is a huge factor in winning games?
2) If having better facilities isn't very important in recruiting success, why do so many coaches fight for it and schools pay billions on it, cumulatively?

Seems argument is that 3 factors, mainly, to success: coaching, facilities and recruits. Certainly not the only factors.

Those are the three biggest factors, by far. Are you claiming otherwise?

Comparisons between Doc and Holgy, can be both objectively and subjectively made. Right now won-loss seasonal average of the two virtually the same.
.

Yes, and as I claimed, Doc has always had one of the top 2 facilities in his conference to recruit with while Dana has had one of the bottom 3 in his conference. That gives Doc a huge advantange, gives Dana a huge disadvantage, so Dana is doing better than Doc is in relation to what they have compared to their peers.

Following Bill Stewart's 9-4 seasons for 2-3 years certainly doesn't appear as difficult as Doc trying to rebuild at MU following Snyder's disappointing tenure. Maybe 2017 season will provide more definitive results on which to further compare the two coaches.

And you'd be wrong. Stewart went 9-4 in a far inferior conference than the Big 12. Dana had to take 9-4 teams and transition into a far better conference. In the same conference, he improved on that 9-4 record in his first year. The record fell for the next few years while having to face a far harder schedule against teams with far better facilities.

Compare that to Doc. He took over a 7-6 team. With virtually the same schedule for the next three years, he averaged a whopping one more win per year. That isn't much of an improvement. He also had one of the top facilities in the conference. Only after the schedule became far easier (swapping ECU, UCF, Houston, Tulsa, Memphis for FIU, FAU, North Texas, UTSA) did he show any relevant improvement. He also had one of the top facilities in the conference during this time.

As you mentioned, both Doc and Dana have about the same record. The differences:

1) Doc walked into a situation where his facilities were one (see, classifying them as singular) of the best in the conference. Dana walked into a situation where his facilities were one of the worst in the conference.
2) Doc walked into a situation where he continued to play the same level of competition. Dana walked into a situation where he saw a huge increase in competition, facilities, and talent than what he was given.
3) Doc averaged one win per year more in his first three years than Snyder did in his last three. That only changed after the schedule became far, far easier.

You should go read this thread again. The other poster presented far better arguments than you have, yet it still didn't change the facts that I presented.

Considering what each coach has in terms of facilities and where they rank in the respective conferences, Dana is doing a better job than Doc.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

1. ACC
2. SEC
3. BIG 10
4. PAC 12
5. BIG XII

So, you're predicting how well you think each conference will do this year. That doesn't impact that the Big 12 has the second best facilities as a conference and has been the 2nd or 3rd best conference over the last five years.

 

[JudgeDD]

This article used Sagarin and some other factors to rank last season's conferences. Nothing is perfect, but this seems like a pretty fair evaluation. It's so hard to eliminate the personal bias from these rankings. And you certainly don't have to look too far to find "scientific" proof to support practically any scenario.

1 Big 10
2 Pac 12
3 ACC
4 SEC
5 BIG 12

ALGORITHM ARTICLE

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

This article used Sagarin and some other factors to rank last season's conferences. Nothing is perfect, but this seems like a pretty fair evaluation. It's so hard to eliminate the personal bias from these rankings. And you certainly don't have to look too far to find "scientific" proof to support practically any scenario.

1 Big 10
2 Pac 12
3 ACC
4 SEC
5 BIG 12

ALGORITHM ARTICLE

At first look, I was able to toss this thing aside due to it having the Pac and Big 10 better than the SEC last year. But out of sheer entertainment, I wanted to read about his "algorithm." I am guessing you didn't read what was (even more, what wasn't) included in his algorithm.

He didn't count head-to-head non-conference games. I'll say that again: games played between an SEC and an ACC team or a Big 10 vs. a Big 12 team or any matchup between conferences wasn't included. Why? Because he claimed it would "explode your head." So, He also gave bonus points for teams playing in a New Year's Six game and the playoffs. So, even though he was already awarding "points" based on how well a team had done in its first 12-13 games, he then went and double-rewarded teams that were selected for certain polls. Why? Because he wanted to make his algorithm easy to shoot down, I presume. Doing this, of course, makes his algorithm extremely top heavy. If a conference has some great teams but a bunch of awful teams, it wins out over a conference that is full of all good teams. It is no different than when I was mocking people on here claiming that Conference USA was one of the top few basketball conferences based solely on Memphis almost winning the national championship.

You have to look at the entire conference and you have to weigh each slot the same. Yes, the Big 10 had 3-4 great teams last year. However, they also had some awful teams. They had 4 teams with 3 wins or less. The SEC didn't have a single team with 3 wins or less. The SEC had 12 teams bowl eligible. The SEC didn't have the same number of elite teams because they are busy beating each other up in the conference since they don't have 4 doormats like the Big Ten did.

For the fun of it, lets look at what he didn't include: non-conference games (this blows my mind that he thought his "algorithm" was worth presenting to the world without calculating non-conference games).

SEC vs. Big 10

#4 SEC team (LSU) vs. #2 Big 10 team (Wisconsin): Wisconsin wins 16-14
#5 SEC team (Tennessee) vs. #5 Big 10 team (Nebraska): Tennessee wins 38-24
#2 SEC team (Florida) vs. #5 Big 10 team (Iowa): Florida wins 30-3

SEC vs. Pac 12

#5 SEC team (A&M) vs. #9 Pac 12 team (UCLA): A&M wins 31-24
#1 SEC team (Alabama) vs. #3 Pac 12 team (USC): Alabama wins 52-6
#1 SEC team (Alabama) vs. #1 Pac 12 team (Washington): Alabama wins 24-7

So, against the two conferences I said had no business being put in front of the SEC, the SEC went 5-1. Of course, that small of a sample isn't a great barometer, but all of the other things are.

Next time we have this discussion, please don't provide a conference "algorithm" that doesn't include results of non-conference games. Whoever Ben Kercheval is deserves to lose his job after publishing something so absurd.

And, @ToesMU , you continuing to "like" every post made against any opinion or post I make further shows you to be as dumb as you looked in that nightgown picture that you used to present. If you're going to support somebody's post, at least have enough common sense to see what they are actually presenting . . . a conference ranking algorithm that doesn't include non-conference games. I think they should just only count games until halftime for next year's algorithm.

 

[JudgeDD]

My point was not that this particular article was the definitive ranking, but that there are a multitude of varied ways to qualify and quantify something as complex and, to a large extent, subjective, as the strength of these conferences. This is one such measurement, which values certain aspects over others, which every evaluation must.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Yeah, well I could get the kid with Down Syndrome next door to color me a chart with his opinion ranking the conferences. I wouldn't use it as a source to defend my argument.

Similarly, I wouldn't expect somebody to try arguing a person of Sagarin's reputation and work with an "algorithm" from some guy named Ben Kercheval who doesn't even believe in looking at non-conference games.

 

[JudgeDD]

Yeah, well I could get the kid with Down Syndrome next door to color me a chart with his opinion ranking the conferences. I wouldn't use it as a source to defend my argument.

Similarly, I wouldn't expect somebody to try arguing a person of Sagarin's reputation and work with an "algorithm" from some guy named Ben Kercheval who doesn't even believe in looking at non-conference games.

Up until now we were having a respectful debate on the topic of conference ranking. There are a lot of opinions. Yours is certainly valid, but doesn't automatically invalidate the opinions of others on the matter. Your last response was insensitive, disrespectful, and totally unnecessary. Good night.

 

[C.K. Ocsevol-Evad]

Wait! I didn't even get a chance to call you a moron (joking: you shouldn't feel disrespected).

Somebody who is attempting to rank the conferences while excluding the results of the hundreds of non-conference games doesn't have a valid opinion. That doesn't need to be explained.

That isn't you; that's the Ben guy. That's who the comment was joking about.

 

[beefcake0520]

Geez, facilities matter a little in recruiting and a little in attendance but it matters not in winning games. Yes they need to be up to a certain standard for attraction but that isn't winning the games for you, the coach and ability to recruit does that.

 

[herdit44]

Geez, facilities matter a little in recruiting and a little in attendance but it matters not in winning games. Yes they need to be up to a certain standard for attraction but that isn't winning the games for you, the coach and ability to recruit does that.

so, in your first sentence you say facilities matter in recruiting, but not wining. then in your second sentence you say recruiting matters in winning. classic.

 

[beefcake0520]

so, in your first sentence you say facilities matter in recruiting, but not wining. then in your second sentence you say recruiting matters in winning. classic.

Go ahead, micro analyze. Read it again, I said it matters a little. Second sentence says it has to be up to a certain standard for attraction which backs up the first. Reading comprehension on here is terrible sometimes.

 

[herdit44]

Go ahead, micro analyze. Read it again, I said it matters a little. Second sentence says it has to be up to a certain standard for attraction which backs up the first. Reading comprehension on here is terrible sometimes.

haha, yup, you're right. but you did say it matters in recruiting and winning is based on recruiting ability.

ps: it matters more than a little, otherwise the p5 schools wouldn't be spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year to build all this crap.

 

[TwolfHerdfan]

Considering we have some top notch facilities, can take kids that most schools can't and play in the weakest D1 league, Doc should never have a losing season, or close. jmo.

 

[beefcake0520]

haha, yup, you're right. but you did say it matters in recruiting and winning is based on recruiting ability.

ps: it matters more than a little, otherwise the p5 schools wouldn't be spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year to build all this crap.

I don't think anyone is going to compare what we can do versus what Texas can do. Almost all G5 schools is limited financially, other than a few that stick out. I'm speaking of our direct competition. As a G5 program, we have met and surpassed what a standard would be imo for facilities, so in that regard our ability to recruit and win comes down to the coaches. We have good facilities that compete with the top half of G5, so yeah, it becomes more about the coach when the standard is met.

 

[herdit44]

I don't think anyone is going to compare what we can do versus what Texas can do. Almost all G5 schools is limited financially, other than a few that stick out. I'm speaking of our direct competition. As a G5 program, we have met and surpassed what a standard would be imo for facilities, so in that regard our ability to recruit and win comes down to the coaches. We have good facilities that compete with the top half of G5, so yeah, it becomes more about the coach when the standard is met.

three years ago we didn't meet or surpass those standards, we had an old-ish locker room and meeting rooms, no ipf, etc. so the kids that are upperclassmen on last year and this year's teams were recruited with average facilities.

 

[TwolfHerdfan]

three years ago we didn't meet or surpass those standards, we had an old-ish locker room and meeting rooms, no ipf, etc. so the kids that are upperclassmen on last year and this year's teams were recruited with average facilities.

WKU doesn't have what we have, neither does La Tech; but they seem to be doing fine. Hell USM has never had the best facilities or budget but they have had susbstantial more success in CUSA and against so called P5 programs than we ever thought about. Must be coaching then.

 

[The Real SamC]

At the P5 level, facilities don't matter because every team has everything (with a couple of bottom feeder exceptions that are just happy to cash that conference revenue check and play a lot of homecomings) . You have to have everything to compete, but once you do, then you do.

At the G5 level, facilities do matter because a smart kid is going to look to see what the real deal is after the dog and pony show of the official visit is over. Have you seen what some of the MACers have? There are WV high schools with better. Rotten old stadiums with seats they cannot give away, HS sized locker room (singular), dank not cleaned in decades basements with some free weights, film rooms (probably the actual film equipment is shoved in the corner) with some folding chairs, coaches office has a 1946 USN surplus desk. Same can be said for some of CUSA and most of the Sun Belt. We were in the upper half of the G5 before the IPF, and are way near the top today. Again, what exactly do we need in terms of facilities for football that we don't have?

And, again, remember that in terms of recruiting neither MU nor WVU (except for the tiny cadre of WVians and not all of them) is anybody's first, or 20th choice. Remember Doc, with the exception of his short time at Florida, has been making good teams out of people that have been told (correctly) that they just are not good enough to play where they always dreamed of playing.

 

[herdit44]

WKU doesn't have what we have, neither does La Tech; but they seem to be doing fine. Hell USM has never had the best facilities or budget but they have had susbstantial more success in CUSA and against so called P5 programs than we ever thought about. Must be coaching then.

oh where to begin...

so, if la tech is doing just fine, aren't we?

as far as the usm comment. firstly, right before hiring fedora and that fantastic run they went on in the last decade or so, they were coming off a $30m renovation to the rock. secondly, their expenses are essentially the same as us when you figure in we have 3 more sports on campus than they do. even so, with a $30m renovation to their football stadium/facilities they have managed to go 20-43 since fedora left to go to carolina, with just 1 win against a p5 (last year).

 

[herdit44]

since we joined cusa in 2005...

marshall: 76-74 overall, 52-44 in cusa, 1 conference title, 2 conference division titles, 5 bowl wins
southern miss: 77-77, 49-48, 1 conference titles, 3 conference division titles, 5 bowl wins

but sure, "substantial more success in CUSA"

 

[TwolfHerdfan]

oh where to begin...

so, if la tech is doing just fine, aren't we?

as far as the usm comment. firstly, right before hiring fedora and that fantastic run they went on in the last decade or so, they were coming off a $30m renovation to the rock. secondly, their expenses are essentially the same as us when you figure in we have 3 more sports on campus than they do. even so, with a $30m renovation to their football stadium/facilities they have managed to go 20-43 since fedora left to go to carolina, with just 1 win against a p5 (last year).

I think La Tech has been as consistent as anyone in CUSA. They trump us in CUSA titles across the board. As for USM, I am speaking of overall CUSA titles, when the league was lite years better than it is now. Have you seen their history of P5 or major college wins? Ours pales in comparison.

We can have differing opnions but in the end, we aren't getting it done in terms of CUSA titles and we have been inconsistent in Doc's tenure. Why is that?

I won't even go into WKU and how they have blown by us and have around 22 league titles across the board.

 

[beefcake0520]

three years ago we didn't meet or surpass those standards, we had an old-ish locker room and meeting rooms, no ipf, etc. so the kids that are upperclassmen on last year and this year's teams were recruited with average facilities.

So what you are saying is that facilities don't mean as much as you initially claimed in regards to recruiting and winning........damn you confuse me.

 

[beefcake0520]

The only thing else I am going to add to this discussion, and leave it at that, is are we better under Snyder or Doc. I agree with TWolf about WKU, that will always be the mystery to many MU fans, especially in 2014. If Doc reverses the damage from last year and goes from 3-9 to at least 8-4, is that enough to get off his case? Snyder would have never had a 2014 year or 2013 or 2015, it wouldn't have mattered who he had to play it just wasn't going to happen. So if Doc falters again this year, which I believe is less likely but we will see, then what coach out there at this point could we afford that can provide what he has done to date? Out of 7 seasons, he has 4 bowl wins, 3 good seasons, one average season. Its a little inconsistent but in perspective its not that bad, last year tainted almost all of the fans view of him and makes things seem worse under his tenure than what they really are. That's jmo.

 

[TwolfHerdfan]

The only thing else I am going to add to this discussion, and leave it at that, is are we better under Snyder or Doc. I agree with TWolf about WKU, that will always be the mystery to many MU fans, especially in 2014. If Doc reverses the damage from last year and goes from 3-9 to at least 8-4, is that enough to get off his case? Snyder would have never had a 2014 year or 2013 or 2015, it wouldn't have mattered who he had to play it just wasn't going to happen. So if Doc falters again this year, which I believe is less likely but we will see, then what coach out there at this point could we afford that can provide what he has done to date? Out of 7 seasons, he has 4 bowl wins, 3 good seasons, one average season. Its a little inconsistent but in perspective its not that bad, last year tainted almost all of the fans view of him and makes things seem worse under his tenure than what they really are. That's jmo.

I definitely think we can turn it around. How many wins? Who knows. My personal feeling is if we win 8 or more this fall, it will one of the best, if not the best turn around in MU history and Doc would deserve praise for that. jmo

 

[C.K. Ocsevol-Evad]

I definitely think we can turn it around. How many wins? Who knows. My personal feeling is if we win 8 or more this fall, it will one of the best, if not the best turn around in MU history and Doc would deserve praise for that. jmo

Praise?

That's like a 25 year old with an MBA failing a third grade math test, then getting praise for getting a B on the next one.

Marshall plays in a conference in which they have the best facilities. A third of their divisions was either not playing football or playing FCS five years ago. Another in their division, as of two years ago, had a stadium so bad that it made the coaches sit in an open air area with a tarp over their head while calling plays. It may still be like that.

This conference should be a cakewalk considering the advantages Marshall has over the majority of opponents. At the very worst, Marshall should never go under .500 in this conference.

And you want to praise Doc if he goes 8-4 or 8-5 against this schedule?

 

[TwolfHerdfan]

Praise?

That's like a 25 year old with an MBA failing a third grade math test, then getting praise for getting a B on the next one.

Marshall plays in a conference in which they have the best facilities. A third of their divisions was either not playing football or playing FCS five years ago. Another in their division, as of two years ago, had a stadium so bad that it made the coaches sit in an open air area with a tarp over their head while calling plays. It may still be like that.

This conference should be a cakewalk considering the advantages Marshall has over the majority of opponents. At the very worst, Marshall should never go under .500 in this conference.

And you want to praise Doc if he goes 8-4 or 8-5 against this schedule?

For the turnaround, yeah. I'll give him props. But I'd also fire him if he goes less than 6-6. Maybe even if he goes 6-6. If we have the clusterbomb season and off the field issues/rumors we had last year; yeah major changes need made.