Can football make a quick turnaround?

[Triple B]

25 minutes ago, puc86 said:

bad•coa•ch 

noun

plural noun: Postcjlusfcoaches

1.1 one who cannot manage to do better than average in a below average conference.

2. Someone that cannot preform better than the effort that lead to their predecessors firing.

3. Someone with an overall losing record that has never won a bowl game in a decade of coaching.

4. Someone that has coached for a decade in DIIIII football and when finally called up completely violation the bed

synonyms

CSH, CWT, CCS, CKB, the expectations people are setting for CJS. 

Careful ..... Unbiased opinions may look at 25-26 in the 6th best conference as fitting that criteria.

[NewEnglandBull]

1 hour ago, puc86 said:

If we can’t go at least 6-6 against a worse schedule than last year and with winning the games that could have been won by adequate coaching we have made a grave mistake that should cost every single person in athletics their jobs. CCS could have easily won 4 games this season too and CJS was brought in to do better than that, there is absolutely no excuse for not being able to manage 6-6 in the AAC and if our miracle making coach can’t manage that he is garbage and that people are actually trying to make excuses as to why he can’t preform what should be a pretty simple task is beyond alarming. No one is expecting him to go 12-0 in the SEC being 6-6 in the AAC when the guy that got fired managed to win 4 should be the bare minimum for keeping your job.

Don’t see where this schedule is any easier than last year. Still thinking 4/5 wins tops. 

[puc86]

15 minutes ago, Triple B said:

Careful ..... Unbiased opinions may look at 25-26 in the 6th best conference as fitting that criteria.

If they were unbiased they would recognize that being in a conference where the majority of teams got called up to the P5 is not the same as being in a conference where none has and that being above .600 is better than being in the .400’s but I digress.

21 minutes ago, NewEnglandBull said:

Don’t see where this schedule is any easier than last year. Still thinking 4/5 wins tops. 

Because we play worse teams 

[Rizman]

It comes down to how well the team gels and how quickly can the coaches get them to where they need them to be to be competitive.   Giant crap shoot. 

[NewEnglandBull]

8 minutes ago, puc86 said:

If they were unbiased they would recognize that being in a conference where the majority of teams got called up to the P5 is not the same as being in a conference where none has and that being above .600 is better than being in the .400’s but I digress.

Because we play worse teams 

Not really or the difference is negligible.

vs home Wisconsin = away Texas

vs GT = Nevada

vs BYU =  at FAU 

Cincy is better than last year

ECU is better than last year

Hou will stay the same or be up a bit

Navy down from last year

UCF same or better

 

[puc86]

33 minutes ago, NewEnglandBull said:

Not really or the difference is negligible.

vs home Wisconsin = away Texas

vs GT = Nevada

vs BYU =  at FAU 

Cincy is better than last year

ECU is better than last year

Hou will stay the same or be up a bit

Navy down from last year

UCF same or better

 

Let’s pretend you are right and it’s exactly the same because Wisconsin equals Texas, were there not games that could have been won last season with less questionable decisions? And is it not reasonable to expect a better coach to do better than what is determined is bad enough to get you fired?

[NewEnglandBull]

13 minutes ago, puc86 said:

Let’s pretend you are right and it’s exactly the same because Wisconsin equals Texas, were there not games that could have been won last season with less questionable decisions? And is it not reasonable to expect a better coach to do better than what is determined is bad enough to get you fired?

Now that is an excellent point! This gives me something to think about as you are correct there were two we should have won (GT and Cincy). This might just work. 

[JTrue]

9 minutes ago, NewEnglandBull said:

Now that is an excellent point! This gives me something to think about as you are correct there were two we should have won (GT and Cincy). This might just work. 

Could have won is a little more accurate than should have won.

[NewEnglandBull]

7 minutes ago, JTrue said:

Could have won is a little more accurate than should have won.

For GT I will stay with “should” have won. 

[puc86]

If the difference between a good coach and a bad coach isn’t enough to turn a couple coulds into shoulds maybe we could save a few million dollars and shouldn’t waste our time replacing something that apparently makes zero difference.