Source?
Yet another straw man from Samantha.
When taking everything into consideration, Marshall is top two in C-USA in opportunity to win. Feel otherwise? Then, please try using some logic and facts to argue.
Can we give Doc a little credit?
- Thread starter ohio herd
- Start date
Source?
Yet another straw man from Samantha.
When taking everything into consideration, Marshall is top two in C-USA in opportunity to win. Feel otherwise? Then, please try using some logic and facts to argue.
https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/1998/team/ #118
https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/1999/team/ #111
https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2000/team/ #101
As the Sagrin points out our SOS was very similar to what it now is
https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2018/team/ #114
I must be unfamiliar with the definition that you are using for "exact same." The MAC years are emboldened below. The average SOS of those seven seasons is 104. The average SOS of Marshall's current last seven seasons is 121.
If you take Marshall's last six seasons in the MAC (average of 102 SOS) and compare that to Marshall's last six seasons in C-USA (average of 124 SOS), you can see that they not are "the exact same" in SOS, but they are substantially different.
If you take Marshall's last five seasons in the MAC (average of 100 SOS) and compare that to Marshall's last five seasons in C-USA (average of 124), you can see that they are not "the exact same" in SOS, but they are substantially different.
In looking at Marshall's history in FBS, you'll notice a clear trend: Under the last two regimes, Marshall's SOS became progressively more difficult. Under the current Marshall regime, the SOS became increasingly easier.
If you look at Mark Snyder's five seasons (2005-2009), the average SOS was 82. Doc's last five seasons? 124. That is a huge difference of 42 spots in SOS.
The SOS during the MAC years is substantially different than it is under the new C-USA. The SOS during the Snyder years is a world away from what it's been in Doc's years.
1998: 118
1999: 111
2000: 101
2001: 93
2002: 113
2003: 84
2004: 112
2005: 86
2006: 88
2007: 73
2008: 77
2009: 86
2010: 91
2011: 56
2012: 104
2013: 122
2014: 124
2015: 138
2016: 125
2017: 122
2018: 114
If you take Marshall's last six seasons in the MAC (average of 102 SOS) and compare that to Marshall's last six seasons in C-USA (average of 124 SOS), you can see that they not are "the exact same" in SOS, but they are substantially different.
If you take Marshall's last five seasons in the MAC (average of 100 SOS) and compare that to Marshall's last five seasons in C-USA (average of 124), you can see that they are not "the exact same" in SOS, but they are substantially different.
In looking at Marshall's history in FBS, you'll notice a clear trend: Under the last two regimes, Marshall's SOS became progressively more difficult. Under the current Marshall regime, the SOS became increasingly easier.
If you look at Mark Snyder's five seasons (2005-2009), the average SOS was 82. Doc's last five seasons? 124. That is a huge difference of 42 spots in SOS.
The SOS during the MAC years is substantially different than it is under the new C-USA. The SOS during the Snyder years is a world away from what it's been in Doc's years.
1998: 118
1999: 111
2000: 101
2001: 93
2002: 113
2003: 84
2004: 112
2005: 86
2006: 88
2007: 73
2008: 77
2009: 86
2010: 91
2011: 56
2012: 104
2013: 122
2014: 124
2015: 138
2016: 125
2017: 122
2018: 114
They were a P5. That was right before they folded the BE. It was part of the BCS so it was a win over what we now refer to as a P5
Thank you for sharing. The table is set for Doc. Weakened conference. Weakerned OOC schedules and Marshall has the best history and best facilities(perhaps or close to it) in CUSA.
He should be dominating this league.
You can be miserable and complain every day or be happy and excited about 2019..I for one would prefer not to make myself miserable by constantly being negative.Each individual must make this decision for himself.
Elephant in the Room: since our run in the MAC in the late 1990's, dozens of schools have joined FBS, some who didn't even play football prior to 1997, and many with more resources than Marshall.
Behind that Elephant is a Rhinoceros, kind of hidden over his shoulder: if Marshall joined the ACC tomorrow, we'd expect the quality of athlete we recruited to improve; yet while everyone recognizes C-USA might be the weakest FBS conference, no one ever considers that this could also have deleterious effect on Marshall's quality.
Behind that Elephant is a Rhinoceros, kind of hidden over his shoulder: if Marshall joined the ACC tomorrow, we'd expect the quality of athlete we recruited to improve; yet while everyone recognizes C-USA might be the weakest FBS conference, no one ever considers that this could also have deleterious effect on Marshall's quality.
Th
In 2011, the Big East consisted of WVU, Cincy, Louisville, Rutgers, Pitt, UConn, USF, and Syracuse. They were P5.
I like the disclaimer you started with, you should do the same when discussing the economy or politics on Pullman.
How is that an elephant in the room? Since 2000, here are the teams that joined FBS:
FIU, Charlotte, App State, Coastal Carolina, UConn, FAU, Georgia Southern, Georgia State, Liberty, UMass, ODU, South Alabama, USF, Texas State, UTSA, Troy, Western Kentucky.
Even if all 17 of those schools had a tougher SOS than Marshall, which is far from the case, it would put Marshall's MAC SOS under Pruett still slightly harder than the last six years under Doc.
Even if all 17 of those schools had a tougher SOS than Marshall, which is far from the case, it would put Marshall still significantly ahead in SOS in the Snyder years compared to the last six years under Doc.
Two fallacies with your attempt:
1) People aren't arguing that C-USA is the worst overall FBS conference. What has been argued this entire season is that C-USA, ON THE FIELD, is the worst FBS conference THIS season. That isn't the case every season. Further, that only pertains to on field success which isn't the overall measure of a conference. Attendance, branding, history, facilities, etc. all still favor C-USA over the Sun Belt and MAC currently. So one year of being the worst just on the field doesn't impact recruiting compared to other bottom conferences.
2) Yes, if Marshall jumped to the ACC, you could expect improved recruiting (especially as the P5 money started to flow to Marshall). However, your claim that Marshall's recruiting should then suffer, if they are in fact in the worst conference now, is wrong on multiple levels. First, a one year decline into being the worst ON FIELD conference won't hurt their recruiting. Second, a jump from C-USA to the ACC would be a huge leap; likewise, it would result in a huge leap in recruiting. Going from the 11th best conference to the 12th best conference would be just a slight drop, so it wouldn't have nearly the same impact on recruiting. Finally, according to recruiting results, Marshall's recruiting has actually improved since those days in the MAC. So even though 17 schools have joined FBS since 2000, and even though many of them have more resources according to you, Marshall's recruiting has gotten better.
To quote WVU then (today head of a planned pro wrestling/football league) Ollie (everything I touch turns to **** ) Luck, "The Big East was not major college football."
The BcS of that time, like the P5/G5 of today, is just something they made up.
Since 1992, 27 teams have joined FBS - nearly a quarter of the division's current membership. The conference Marshall currently plays in features only three schools who were members of FBS prior to this expansion. The majority of it's member institutions didn't join FBS until the current century, and two of those schools didn't even have football the day Mark Snyder was fired.
According to statistics on college athletic expenditures compiled and published by USA Today, Marshall ranks 104th in all of college sports, behind many schools that don't even play football. Of the 27 teams who've joined FBS since 1992, 18 of them currently have higher athletic budgets than Marshall.
Counting only the increase in scholarships from moving up from FCS, the teams who have joined FBS since Marshall made the jump account for 400 additional scholarships that didn't exist in FBS in September 1997.
Marshall joined the MAC when it moved up, then advanced to C-USA, which then collapsed during realignment (brought on by large institutions who wanted to reinstate the FBS/FCS divide), leaving it adrift in a Conference of Misfit Toys, in what is ostensibly an FCS conference.
Last year, participation in football in American high schools dropped to its lowest point in ten years. 40,000 fewer students played in 2017 than in 2015.
Do the math.
Christ, that's quite a change from your last statement in which you said after the successful run of Marshall in the late nineties. Due to your statement, I looked at the teams that joined the FBS starting from 2000 on. Now, you want to look at the teams that started FBS since 1992? That makes absolutely no sense in the context of this discussion considering Marshall wasn't FBS until 1997. We are comparing SOS numbers from Marshall's MAC years compared to Doc's tenure. What do teams having joined FBS BEFORE Marshall did have anything to do with the huge disparity between Marshall's SOS from the MAC years until now? I'll answer for you: absolutely nothing.
Yep. You're now supporting our argument. The majority of C-USA schools, according to you, started FBS after Marshall, giving Marshall even more of an advantage.
Great. An overall college's athletics budget is not a strong indicator of the amount they invest in football. If School A spends $30 million to fund 22 sports while School B spends $28 million to fund 10 sports, you can be pretty assured that School B spends more on football than School A, yet your comment doesn't reflect that since School B has a lower overall athletics budget.
Want to look at what matters? Look at only football spending, not an overall athletic department's spending. Even at that, there is far more that goes into success in a college football program than how much a school shows on its budget . . . not to mention SOS rankings.
Again, you're looking at overall athletic budgets. That doesn't provide much help to your argument unless you are looking at specifically football budgets, which as I also said, is only part of the equation of success in football.
But let's give you the entire benefit of the doubt. Put all 18 of those schools you claim that have higher athletic budgets (which isn't the same as football) ahead of MU in SOS during the MAC years. Of course, since some of those started FBS as early as 1992, they'd be counted twice as being ahead of Marshall in SOS, but again, I'm trying to give your argument every benefit of the doubt possible (even if it is illogical). Assume, illogically, that all 18 of those schools with higher budgets means they have a harder SOS than Marshall. Even after adding those 18 to Marshall's SOS rankings from the MAC years, they still aren't as bad at Marshall's SOS over the last 6 years.
Now, you want to start looking at teams since 1997. Earlier, when you needed help with your argument, you wanted to look at teams who jumped from 1992. Ugh, yeah.
More important, what the hell does the increased number of FBS scholarships available have to do with the SOS of Marshall changing? Nothing? I agree.
Yeah, I agree. Marshall is now playing in a much weaker conference with a bunch of teams that started after Marshall, which has resulted in Marshall having a much easier schedule, yet Marshall's record is far worse than it was when playing in the MAC (against a harder schedule versus far more established programs).
Remember, this discussion was about somebody claiming that Marshall's SOS is "exactly the same" as it was in the MAC days. That's incredible inaccurate.
And again, what does this have to do with Marshall having faced a far harder schedule during the MAC days compared to Doc's last six years? A lower pool of high school players would impact every team, including Marshall's competitors.
I'm really hoping you were just trying to keep the balloon afloat with this post, as it had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion or even with your previously failed post.
Christ, Rifle. You never go away, and you never get better at arguments. Just the ok blunt force tactic. If you’re the only one left arguing, then you’ve won, right? Just go back to ban hammer land.
And no matter how you look at it, 100+ SOS isn’t exactly something to brag about. I’d say your entire point is moot, beyond some semantics.
And no matter how you look at it, 100+ SOS isn’t exactly something to brag about. I’d say your entire point is moot, beyond some semantics.
By all means, try to defend Ohio's claim that Marshall's SOS during the MAC days was "exactly the same" as it is now.
You can't . . . and for once, it isn't because you are moron, but rather, because it cannot be defended with facts or logic. That was what I contested. That is what I easily blew away.
Nobody's bragging about having a difficult schedule during the MAC years. Why create arguments that don't exist? Having a 100 SOS is far more difficult than having a 129 SOS.
My entire argument was that Ohio's claim was wrong. It wasn't a little wrong. It was extremely inaccurate. That isn't semantics. A 17-24 SOS difference is pretty big. As I showed, the average SOS difference for Snyder compared to Doc's last five years was 42 spots! That's a drastic SOS difference.
This claim that Marshall's SOS is the same as it always has been, same as during the MAC glory years, etc. is simply bogus. That isn't semantics.
Now, go back into hiding or try to defend Ohio's claim with logic (which you lack) or facts (which everyone lacks since they don't exist).
except I never said they were exactly the same. I said very similar. But don't let that small detail get in the way of your argument. Having a SOS of over 100 is similar. I would add I never referenced Snyder either when I made that statement. I was referring to the tenure of Doc. As usual you make up stuff all the time
No, the issue is you're just not bright enough to even know what you said within the last two days, as I just proved above.
Now, you can admit that your original statement which started this was wrong, admit that your follow-up argument denying ever saying it was wrong, and apologize for once again questioning somebody far superior to you in intellect.
Wahhh I’m Rifle and have nothing better to do with my life but be an internet tough guy. I wish I could get a job coaching, but I topped out as a gradass and am wasting my life on a message board now.
I've never been a GA. It would be a violation for me to be one, even when I first started coaching. I don't "wish" anything- I coached at an FCS in 2016, an FBS in 2017, and had plenty of opportunities to coach in 2018. Not all of us are plebes like you who have to get a paycheck. Some of us have been far more successful in life.
Certainly have achieved great success in becoming the all time biggest message board hemorrhoid, that's for certain!
Since you didn’t coach in 2018, you must have a successful wife. Congrats. Househusband
Maybe you should have taken one of those opportunities. Take a little burden off your spouse.
I'm not married nor am I interested in your advances, but thanks for your interest.
Some of us have made better life choices than to have to work two jobs at 62 years old in order to put food on the table. Unfortunately, you aren't one of those, gramps. Now, get back to work.
If you can bring about $ 3 million of your friends to the table. Shut the hell up. I’m not surprised you are not married. Wheres the two jobs? I’m Retired. Dick.
Did you or did you not have to work two jobs until you were 60 years old, gramps?
And that's fine. But don't come around talking shit about somebody else when that is your lot in life.
Where would you like to start? You had to work two jobs until you were 60 years old. Included in that was working one of those jobs until after midnight. You don't know the difference between "than" and "then." You can't figure out how the quote function on here works. I shouldn't make fun of mentally slow people, but you're making it hard.
But here . . . let's start with one of your posts to another long time Marshall poster. It looks like you have been bitter a long time, not just to me, about your lot in life:
Anytime you want to post about what you have done for the good of society let me know. Still want to compare lives? You go first. You are on here at 12:06. What’s your life dickhead? I Don’t have to be but you want to be. I can stay up all night. I put my time in
I already did. You had to work two jobs, one of which ended after midnight, until you were 60 years old just to put food on the table. That's not a good life, gramps. This isn't 1944.
I don't even know what that means. You don't have to be, but I want to be? Is this some hillbilly old-timer shit you're trying here?
What's my life? In about 14 hours, I fly to Texas. This evening, a friend asked if I wanted to celebrate New Years with her in Tulum. So after arriving in Texas for one night tomorrow, I am flying out to Tulum the following day. The friend, at 24 years old, just received an offer for more than $100,000 above the asking price on her house (which puts the offer at over $4 million). In other words, neither of us are working at the factory until 1 am when we are 60 years old. She looks really good. I'm sure Tulum will be a fun night with her.
Then, around 2 pm today, I made arrangements to go to St. Barts a couple of weeks after I get back from Tulum. The girl flying down from DC to spend a week with me in St. Barts has a body that will wear me out. Remember those weeks when you had to work until 1 am at the factory for six straight nights at 60 years old? Yeah, she will make me as worn out as those weeks did to you, gramps.
Gramps, you can't even stay up to watch the second hour of Hee Haw. Don't act like you can stay up all night.
Let’s start with that. Proudly worked. Apparently you can’t keep a job How’s the basement feel? Look me up. I’m true. You won’t find a time since 75 that I haven’t worked. How much time off have you had. Listen, some advice. If you want good things, work your ass off. I did. My wife and I did. Quit comparing lives. You do this often.
How much time have I had off? See, this is why you shouldn't run your mouth when 1) you're uneducated and stupid 2) have no clue who you're talking to.
I haven't "worked" in 1.5 years. During that time, I have purchased a BMW X5, a BMW i8, and then got rid of the last one quickly and bought a Maserati Ghibli. During that time when I haven't "worked," I took trips to Maui, Miami, San Diego, Seattle, different parts of Mexico (times 2 or times 3), four trips to NY, two trips to the Emerald Coast in Florida, a trip to Raleigh, and the previously mentioned Tulum and St. Barts upcoming travels. I'm sure I can't recall some other trip during that time. Oh, I also closed on a piece of prime beachfront land.
Thanks, but I don't need your "advice" on how to work. I don't have to work two jobs, one until 1 am, when I am 60 years old. I have a fully paid 3 bed/3 bath beach condo in Florida, the previously mentioned beachfront land, and live in a fairly modest 3 bedroom/2 bath house by myself (with a separate 1 bed/1 bath guest house).
I spent over $10,000 for contractors to knock down some walls, put some drywall up, paint, put new floors, and provide new furniture at a children's home over the last 1.5 years, spent countless hours with the children, and donated over $1000 in toys/furniture to the 9 kids there a couple of weeks ago. On the other hand, you were working until 1 am at your second job.
Move along, gramps. You're out of your league here.
You made four posts within four minutes? Christ, you're an old, stupid, uneducated moron. Try keeping your tantrums to one post at a time.
Been to all fifty states. Several foreign countries. Plan on a 8 month around the world trip starting next month. No worries, no bills. Debt free. I did it on my own. Did you? You have no work ethic. Who gave you yours? You’re sad. Very sad and probably not truthful. Prove it. Show me the money. I can. Gainfully employed for 40 years. No college degree. Didn’t need it. You obviously had help. I’ll compare lives.
Help? I had a mother who worked her ass off and laid a good foundation. My college was paid through athletic and academic scholarships. I haven't had any "help" financially.
I worked two full-time jobs when I was in my late 20s to early 30s which allowed me to "retire" and do whatever I wanted, work or not, for fun which is what I did starting at age 33. You didn't need a degree, but you needed to work two jobs, one until 1 am every night, until you were 60 years old. That's miserable.
Congratulations on thinking you have a work ethic. Too bad you didn't work smarter.
Similar threads
