Ouch

[JTrue]

What exactly is the argument here? Holtz has been successful at each of his stops except USF, including his current stint with LTech. There is really no debate to this. I don't understand the depths or nature of USF's sorrow dating back to the end of his tenure but I don't think he was the cause of it.

The hate of Holtz leads to two beliefs:

• Holtz failed at USF, therefore, his 51-40 record not at USF and conference titles, bowl wins, etc. are not to be acknowledged
• acknowledgment of any sort of success by Holtz before or after USF means you do not think he should have been fired

still don't hate the guy just don't understand how a Bulls fan can defend him. he was lousy here.

Thank you for proving my second point. ECU and LA Tech are not USF.

not sure how that proves your second point. I did not believe he was all that successful at either place. average really. never fewer than 5 losses in a season

The hate is so strong that 7-5 with conference championships and bowl games is now average.

[Triple B]

 

Go back and check out that chart again. The SRS is the real indicator for the coach on that chart and he was above average for all his years at ECU and his first two here .... and as a fan of USF, I think 3 division titles and 2 conference championships WOULD qualify as a **** fine job.

so according to that indicator he had a better year here in 2011 at 5-7 than he did in 2010 at 8-5??? yeah not buying that.

 

67-61 is average against a below average schedule.

 

oh and if you notice his totals for that column all end up as negatives at all 3 places.

 

So you buy the figures that kind of support your argument but not the ones that don't... got it. The SRS indicator takes into account average point differential and strength of schedule. We played a lot of close games in 2011 and had a higher SOS than in 2010, so it makes perfect sense that it could be higher ... and as far as his totals ending up as negatives, it's pretty obvious why. The dumpster fires he had to put out following Thompson and Dykes skewed that unmercifully. By all means, keep dumping on Skip's non-USF stuff if you want, but stop trying to use that chart to do so. It is counter productive to your cause.

[Thebullsfan]

I bet you if we upset FSU in old USF form we may be in the top 40s

[Bull94]

 

 

Go back and check out that chart again. The SRS is the real indicator for the coach on that chart and he was above average for all his years at ECU and his first two here .... and as a fan of USF, I think 3 division titles and 2 conference championships WOULD qualify as a **** fine job.

so according to that indicator he had a better year here in 2011 at 5-7 than he did in 2010 at 8-5??? yeah not buying that.

 

67-61 is average against a below average schedule.

 

oh and if you notice his totals for that column all end up as negatives at all 3 places.

 

So you buy the figures that kind of support your argument but not the ones that don't... got it. The SRS indicator takes into account average point differential and strength of schedule. We played a lot of close games in 2011 and had a higher SOS than in 2010, so it makes perfect sense that it could be higher ... and as far as his totals ending up as negatives, it's pretty obvious why. The dumpster fires he had to put out following Thompson and Dykes skewed that unmercifully. By all means, keep dumping on Skip's non-USF stuff if you want, but stop trying to use that chart to do so. It is counter productive to your cause.

 

again the srs that you want to reference shows a negative value at all 3 schools and a negative total value. not sure you want to use it to support your argument even with your excuses. sorry but Dykes didn't leave him a dumpster fire. Dykes left him 35+ players on his 2 deep in his 2nd year there. just go back and look at how many starters he had last year that were on his roster when Dykes left. I believe it was around 18 of 22 if I remember correctly.

 

last I checked coaches were fired for their record not for their srs rating.

[Bull94]

 

 

 

 

 

What exactly is the argument here? Holtz has been successful at each of his stops except USF, including his current stint with LTech. There is really no debate to this. I don't understand the depths or nature of USF's sorrow dating back to the end of his tenure but I don't think he was the cause of it.

The hate of Holtz leads to two beliefs:

• Holtz failed at USF, therefore, his 51-40 record not at USF and conference titles, bowl wins, etc. are not to be acknowledged
• acknowledgment of any sort of success by Holtz before or after USF means you do not think he should have been fired

still don't hate the guy just don't understand how a Bulls fan can defend him. he was lousy here.

Thank you for proving my second point. ECU and LA Tech are not USF.

not sure how that proves your second point. I did not believe he was all that successful at either place. average really. never fewer than 5 losses in a season

The hate is so strong that 7-5 with conference championships and bowl games is now average.

 

I get that we live in a culture where everyone deserves a trophy but bowl games are nothing special. you only have to be average(6-6) to go to one. 7-5 is just above average. he averaged 6 wins and 6 losses over his 10 years. that's average

[JTrue]

What exactly is the argument here? Holtz has been successful at each of his stops except USF, including his current stint with LTech. There is really no debate to this. I don't understand the depths or nature of USF's sorrow dating back to the end of his tenure but I don't think he was the cause of it.

The hate of Holtz leads to two beliefs:

• Holtz failed at USF, therefore, his 51-40 record not at USF and conference titles, bowl wins, etc. are not to be acknowledged
• acknowledgment of any sort of success by Holtz before or after USF means you do not think he should have been fired

still don't hate the guy just don't understand how a Bulls fan can defend him. he was lousy here.

Thank you for proving my second point. ECU and LA Tech are not USF.

not sure how that proves your second point. I did not believe he was all that successful at either place. average really. never fewer than 5 losses in a season

The hate is so strong that 7-5 with conference championships and bowl games is now average.

I get that we live in a culture where everyone deserves a trophy but bowl games are nothing special. you only have to be average(6-6) to go to one. 7-5 is just above average. he averaged 6 wins and 6 losses over his 10 years. that's average

So you agree Holtz has been an above average coach at his pre and post USF stops. See, that wasn't so hard, was it?

[Bull94]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What exactly is the argument here? Holtz has been successful at each of his stops except USF, including his current stint with LTech. There is really no debate to this. I don't understand the depths or nature of USF's sorrow dating back to the end of his tenure but I don't think he was the cause of it.

The hate of Holtz leads to two beliefs:

• Holtz failed at USF, therefore, his 51-40 record not at USF and conference titles, bowl wins, etc. are not to be acknowledged
• acknowledgment of any sort of success by Holtz before or after USF means you do not think he should have been fired

still don't hate the guy just don't understand how a Bulls fan can defend him. he was lousy here.

Thank you for proving my second point. ECU and LA Tech are not USF.

not sure how that proves your second point. I did not believe he was all that successful at either place. average really. never fewer than 5 losses in a season

The hate is so strong that 7-5 with conference championships and bowl games is now average.

I get that we live in a culture where everyone deserves a trophy but bowl games are nothing special. you only have to be average(6-6) to go to one. 7-5 is just above average. he averaged 6 wins and 6 losses over his 10 years. that's average

So you agree Holtz has been an above average coach at his pre and post USF stops. See, that wasn't so hard, was it?

 

13-13 at La Tech is average.

 

yes he was just above average at ECU. never lost less than 5 games though.

[JTrue]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What exactly is the argument here? Holtz has been successful at each of his stops except USF, including his current stint with LTech. There is really no debate to this. I don't understand the depths or nature of USF's sorrow dating back to the end of his tenure but I don't think he was the cause of it.

The hate of Holtz leads to two beliefs:

• Holtz failed at USF, therefore, his 51-40 record not at USF and conference titles, bowl wins, etc. are not to be acknowledged
• acknowledgment of any sort of success by Holtz before or after USF means you do not think he should have been fired

still don't hate the guy just don't understand how a Bulls fan can defend him. he was lousy here.

Thank you for proving my second point. ECU and LA Tech are not USF.

not sure how that proves your second point. I did not believe he was all that successful at either place. average really. never fewer than 5 losses in a season

The hate is so strong that 7-5 with conference championships and bowl games is now average.

I get that we live in a culture where everyone deserves a trophy but bowl games are nothing special. you only have to be average(6-6) to go to one. 7-5 is just above average. he averaged 6 wins and 6 losses over his 10 years. that's average

So you agree Holtz has been an above average coach at his pre and post USF stops. See, that wasn't so hard, was it?

 

13-13 at La Tech is average.

 

yes he was just above average at ECU. never lost less than 5 games though.

 

You can do it...you're so close. I'll even overlook a disclaimer, like "Skip is seems to be doing well at LA Tech despite a rough first year."

[Bull94]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What exactly is the argument here? Holtz has been successful at each of his stops except USF, including his current stint with LTech. There is really no debate to this. I don't understand the depths or nature of USF's sorrow dating back to the end of his tenure but I don't think he was the cause of it.

The hate of Holtz leads to two beliefs:

• Holtz failed at USF, therefore, his 51-40 record not at USF and conference titles, bowl wins, etc. are not to be acknowledged
• acknowledgment of any sort of success by Holtz before or after USF means you do not think he should have been fired

still don't hate the guy just don't understand how a Bulls fan can defend him. he was lousy here.

Thank you for proving my second point. ECU and LA Tech are not USF.

not sure how that proves your second point. I did not believe he was all that successful at either place. average really. never fewer than 5 losses in a season

The hate is so strong that 7-5 with conference championships and bowl games is now average.

I get that we live in a culture where everyone deserves a trophy but bowl games are nothing special. you only have to be average(6-6) to go to one. 7-5 is just above average. he averaged 6 wins and 6 losses over his 10 years. that's average

So you agree Holtz has been an above average coach at his pre and post USF stops. See, that wasn't so hard, was it?

 

13-13 at La Tech is average.

 

yes he was just above average at ECU. never lost less than 5 games though.

 

You can do it...you're so close. I'll even overlook a disclaimer, like "Skip is seems to be doing well at LA Tech despite a rough first year."

 

so you admit that 13-13 is average

[JTrue]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I get that we live in a culture where everyone deserves a trophy but bowl games are nothing special. you only have to be average(6-6) to go to one. 7-5 is just above average. he averaged 6 wins and 6 losses over his 10 years. that's average

So you agree Holtz has been an above average coach at his pre and post USF stops. See, that wasn't so hard, was it?

 

13-13 at La Tech is average.

 

yes he was just above average at ECU. never lost less than 5 games though.

 

You can do it...you're so close. I'll even overlook a disclaimer, like "Skip is seems to be doing well at LA Tech despite a rough first year."

 

so you admit that 13-13 is average

 

Not when you look at what Dykes left for him. And LA Tech seems to be more than happy with his progress. So I'm going to defer to their assessment that he is "above average" and doing just fine.