Strength of Schedule

[Brad]

4 minutes ago, Ghostbuster said:

SoS does not equal free "would have been wins".

Please reference where anyone in this thread said that.

 

4 minutes ago, Ghostbuster said:

And that fact (as I see it) has nothing to do with Scott...I only mentioned his name because you claimed no one has made that argument, but he is the most prominent example of it.  I can reference board members too and 'pull up receipts' but I wasn't trying to start anything just explain why I think SoS shouldn't be used to "give" a win that was otherwise a loss.

Yeah, I was referring to the the topic, not the universe of other comments elsewhere including what Scott may have said.

 

4 minutes ago, Ghostbuster said:

You can't now claim I'm trying to bash the coach and bring him up; that's not what I came here to do.  I was answering your reply.

How were you answering my reply?  Not sure I posed a question.

[thekidnapper]

1 hour ago, Brad said:

I think recruits would like our schedule.  To me, if I can't play for X team, I'll be happy to play against them - and have a chance to beat them.  I think a weak schedule gives us a better chance to have a better record (fans happy), but I don't think recruits want to play lower level teams.

I hope this is true. Whether we believe SoS is important or not, a reality or an excuse, the recruits and the current players believing in our scheduling matters 

[Ghostbuster]

3 minutes ago, Brad said:

Please reference where anyone in this thread said that.

 

Yeah, I was referring to the the topic, not the universe of other comments elsewhere including what Scott may have said.

 

How were you answering my reply?  Not sure I posed a question.

I didn't say anyone in the thread made the argument that I was countering.  I said two things

1) SoS is a reason for the losses and thus, implicitly acknowledging the OPs question that yes it had an impact on record. 

2) People shouldn't go too far with that defense though, and claim the losses *would have been wins otherwise*

If you're saying it's out of line for me to extend a conversation about the topic (SoS) with point 2, because the "exact" case hadn't been made in this exact thread yet I don't know what to tell you...but that's just not how conversations work.  Topics are jumping off points.

It's not like I brought up Jim Leavitt and said "he would have won those games unlike our loser coach; therefore SoS is meaningless".  Which is not a sentiment I have; but it is an example that fits what would be out of line and going out of my way to attack the coach.

All I said was I just don't think people should equate a top 25 loss with a win.

And yes you replied saying "I don't think anyone made that argument " so I replied saying who had....which apparently is the problem here.  Other people *have* gone out of their way to do what you're saying and now any mention of "he who must not be named" causes a problem.  

[Peatearpan]

1 hour ago, thekidnapper said:

I understand and I am not justifying the losses. However, as @Brad mentioned, our best USF teams have lost to good and bad teams. I think it is realistic to be upset about getting our doors blown off by ECU and Louisville.

Louisville still has some P5 talent, and they have had flashes of good. Also, they gameplanned for our offense very well, and put all of the heavy lifting on our defense to make a stop.

We were always supposed to be 1-3 coming into conference play. I really thought once we hit conference play that we would really see what progress we made. The injuries really flipped that notion on its head, which is unfortunate.

[Brad]

2 minutes ago, Ghostbuster said:

2) People shouldn't go too far with that defense though, and claim the losses *would have been wins otherwise*

Sage-like, but still, outside of Scott's comment, I don't think anyone realistically can say what game(s) we might win without actually playing them.  So, while you are within your range to make your statement, it's just still doesn't help with the topic question at hand. 

I don't think it's off for someone to say an easier schedule would have provided a better chance to win - which is probably a supportable assumption.  It's quite a jump to say we would have beaten anybody but those on our schedule.  I haven't seen that statement anywhere, in this toipic or elsewhere but I'll take your word for it.

 

 

[Brad]

6 minutes ago, Peatearpan said:

Louisville still has some P5 talent, and they have had flashes of good. Also, they gameplanned for our offense very well, and put all of the heavy lifting on our defense to make a stop.

I didn't want to sidetrack the topic, but I never once thought UL was a gimme.  I'm not sure how anyone could have.  But I'm learning more and more each day.

[Peatearpan]

10 minutes ago, Brad said:

I didn't want to sidetrack the topic, but I never once thought UL was a gimme.  I'm not sure how anyone could have.  But I'm learning more and more each day.

The point I was trying to make in a long winded, roundabout way is SOS is totally a factor that contributes. It is so easy to blame the coaches or the players, but injuries and SOS totally contribute.

[Brad]

Yeah, I think that's one of the reasons this is not a simple discussion, when it could have been.

Of course, one's schedule is a factor in one's record.  Also, the OP's question (which I paid no heed to) "Does it justify our record?".  Of course, when taken alone, it does not.

I'm in full agreement with your comment and was also what I was saying about those that discuount the record having anything to do with schedule.  It does.  We have a lot of areas to consider when diagnosing the issues leading to a 1-6 record.

[Sellular1]

Liberty is destroying BYU…

[olafberserker]

1 minute ago, Sellular1 said:

Liberty is destroying BYU…

I wonder of MK has Hugh Freeze's number?