Anyone miss Holtz yet?

[bullsfan1983]

 

 

I honestly think rating services are ridiculous and here is an example. skip's class last year was rated #84

 

he had 3 3-stars and the rest weren't rated. he had 21 signings.

 

that class was rated the same as Dykes class in 2011 that had 17 3-stars out of 25 signings. both at #84.

 

Dykes had no less than 8 3 stars in every class including one class with 17 of them and his best rating was equal to skips worst at La Tech and he had 3 3 stars last year and 7 the year before. none of the others are rated.

 

Because rankings are comparative for that year. Its compared to the talent of that year. You can't  compare a class rank in 2013 to 2011 and expect the exact same number of 2s, 3s, etc.. Its in relation to the other schools for THAT year.

 

you're kidding right? people compare classes from year to year all the time . sure maybe the rank is meaningless but I'm not the one that brought them up. I simply said that Dykes brought in far more 3 stars at La Tech than Holtz. That is comparable. He averaged more than twice as many 3 stars than Holtz has at La Tech.

 

So the star rating does matter but only when it suits your argument?

[Bull94]

 

 

 

I honestly think rating services are ridiculous and here is an example. skip's class last year was rated #84

 

he had 3 3-stars and the rest weren't rated. he had 21 signings.

 

that class was rated the same as Dykes class in 2011 that had 17 3-stars out of 25 signings. both at #84.

 

Dykes had no less than 8 3 stars in every class including one class with 17 of them and his best rating was equal to skips worst at La Tech and he had 3 3 stars last year and 7 the year before. none of the others are rated.

 

Because rankings are comparative for that year. Its compared to the talent of that year. You can't  compare a class rank in 2013 to 2011 and expect the exact same number of 2s, 3s, etc.. Its in relation to the other schools for THAT year.

 

you're kidding right? people compare classes from year to year all the time . sure maybe the rank is meaningless but I'm not the one that brought them up. I simply said that Dykes brought in far more 3 stars at La Tech than Holtz. That is comparable. He averaged more than twice as many 3 stars than Holtz has at La Tech.

 

So the star rating does matter but only when it suits your argument?

 

no it doesn't. It sounds like it matters to you so i have proven that Dyke's classes were far more talented according to rivals ratings than skip's.

 

it really doesn't matter where they rank. it only matters how much rated talent they bring in from year to year. and Dyke's brought in 11.3 3 stars a year and skip has brought in 5 on average.

[JTrue]

 

 

 

I honestly think rating services are ridiculous and here is an example. skip's class last year was rated #84

 

he had 3 3-stars and the rest weren't rated. he had 21 signings.

 

that class was rated the same as Dykes class in 2011 that had 17 3-stars out of 25 signings. both at #84.

 

Dykes had no less than 8 3 stars in every class including one class with 17 of them and his best rating was equal to skips worst at La Tech and he had 3 3 stars last year and 7 the year before. none of the others are rated.

 

Because rankings are comparative for that year. Its compared to the talent of that year. You can't  compare a class rank in 2013 to 2011 and expect the exact same number of 2s, 3s, etc.. Its in relation to the other schools for THAT year.

 

you're kidding right? people compare classes from year to year all the time . sure maybe the rank is meaningless but I'm not the one that brought them up. I simply said that Dykes brought in far more 3 stars at La Tech than Holtz. That is comparable. He averaged more than twice as many 3 stars than Holtz has at La Tech.

 

So the star rating does matter but only when it suits your argument?

 

Here's how it works. You make the decision you don't like Holtz based on what he did at USF, then you simply apply that same anger to everything he's ever done retroactively or going forward. Since Holtz failed at USF, he also failed at ECU and UConn. He is also failing at LA Tech.

[Bull94]

 

 

 

 

I honestly think rating services are ridiculous and here is an example. skip's class last year was rated #84

 

he had 3 3-stars and the rest weren't rated. he had 21 signings.

 

that class was rated the same as Dykes class in 2011 that had 17 3-stars out of 25 signings. both at #84.

 

Dykes had no less than 8 3 stars in every class including one class with 17 of them and his best rating was equal to skips worst at La Tech and he had 3 3 stars last year and 7 the year before. none of the others are rated.

 

Because rankings are comparative for that year. Its compared to the talent of that year. You can't  compare a class rank in 2013 to 2011 and expect the exact same number of 2s, 3s, etc.. Its in relation to the other schools for THAT year.

 

you're kidding right? people compare classes from year to year all the time . sure maybe the rank is meaningless but I'm not the one that brought them up. I simply said that Dykes brought in far more 3 stars at La Tech than Holtz. That is comparable. He averaged more than twice as many 3 stars than Holtz has at La Tech.

 

So the star rating does matter but only when it suits your argument?

 

Here's how it works. You make the decision you don't like Holtz based on what he did at USF, then you simply apply that same anger to everything he's ever done retroactively or going forward. Since Holtz failed at USF, he also failed at ECU and UConn. He is also failing at LA Tech.

 

I never said he failed anywhere else. I don't get the love he gets from supposed USF fans. He was terrible here and left us in an awful position. he walked into a far better position and people act like it's his coaching/recruiting prowess that has gotten him there. it's not. he followed a hugely successful coach and had plenty of talent there. just like he had here for his first 2 years.

[JTrue]

 

 

 

 

 

I honestly think rating services are ridiculous and here is an example. skip's class last year was rated #84

 

he had 3 3-stars and the rest weren't rated. he had 21 signings.

 

that class was rated the same as Dykes class in 2011 that had 17 3-stars out of 25 signings. both at #84.

 

Dykes had no less than 8 3 stars in every class including one class with 17 of them and his best rating was equal to skips worst at La Tech and he had 3 3 stars last year and 7 the year before. none of the others are rated.

 

Because rankings are comparative for that year. Its compared to the talent of that year. You can't  compare a class rank in 2013 to 2011 and expect the exact same number of 2s, 3s, etc.. Its in relation to the other schools for THAT year.

 

you're kidding right? people compare classes from year to year all the time . sure maybe the rank is meaningless but I'm not the one that brought them up. I simply said that Dykes brought in far more 3 stars at La Tech than Holtz. That is comparable. He averaged more than twice as many 3 stars than Holtz has at La Tech.

 

So the star rating does matter but only when it suits your argument?

 

Here's how it works. You make the decision you don't like Holtz based on what he did at USF, then you simply apply that same anger to everything he's ever done retroactively or going forward. Since Holtz failed at USF, he also failed at ECU and UConn. He is also failing at LA Tech.

 

I never said he failed anywhere else. I don't get the love he gets from supposed USF fans. He was terrible here and left us in an awful position. he walked into a far better position and people act like it's his coaching/recruiting prowess that has gotten him there. it's not. he followed a hugely successful coach and had plenty of talent there. just like he had here for his first 2 years.

 

Who here has EVER argued Holtz was a success at USF? He was a success at every stop before us and he's a successful coach again. In the middle, he took a dump. The only thing anyone has been arguing in here is your insistence that Sonny Dykes left Holtz a national championship team and Holtz left CWT Bethune-Cookman.

[Bull94]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I honestly think rating services are ridiculous and here is an example. skip's class last year was rated #84

 

he had 3 3-stars and the rest weren't rated. he had 21 signings.

 

that class was rated the same as Dykes class in 2011 that had 17 3-stars out of 25 signings. both at #84.

 

Dykes had no less than 8 3 stars in every class including one class with 17 of them and his best rating was equal to skips worst at La Tech and he had 3 3 stars last year and 7 the year before. none of the others are rated.

 

Because rankings are comparative for that year. Its compared to the talent of that year. You can't  compare a class rank in 2013 to 2011 and expect the exact same number of 2s, 3s, etc.. Its in relation to the other schools for THAT year.

 

you're kidding right? people compare classes from year to year all the time . sure maybe the rank is meaningless but I'm not the one that brought them up. I simply said that Dykes brought in far more 3 stars at La Tech than Holtz. That is comparable. He averaged more than twice as many 3 stars than Holtz has at La Tech.

 

So the star rating does matter but only when it suits your argument?

 

Here's how it works. You make the decision you don't like Holtz based on what he did at USF, then you simply apply that same anger to everything he's ever done retroactively or going forward. Since Holtz failed at USF, he also failed at ECU and UConn. He is also failing at LA Tech.

 

I never said he failed anywhere else. I don't get the love he gets from supposed USF fans. He was terrible here and left us in an awful position. he walked into a far better position and people act like it's his coaching/recruiting prowess that has gotten him there. it's not. he followed a hugely successful coach and had plenty of talent there. just like he had here for his first 2 years.

 

Who here has EVER argued Holtz was a success at USF? He was a success at every stop before us and he's a successful coach again. In the middle, he took a dump. The only thing anyone has been arguing in here is your insistence that Sonny Dykes left Holtz a national championship team and Holtz left CWT Bethune-Cookman.

 

Where did i say national championship team?where did I say you argued he had success here? I said I don't understand the love some supposed USF fans have for him.

 

It's a fact that when coaches get hired away for better jobs they leave their programs in better shape than when coaches get fired.

 

I have proven that even though you insisted skip had a rebuild job on a team where 87% of his 2 deep 2 years later were recruited by his predecessor. or when you shifted to recruiting rankings I proved that his predecessor's recruiting classes averaged 6.3 more 3 star rated players than skip's.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Bull94

[slick1ru2]

There are a lot of reasons external, internal, changeable, unchangeable, that effect a team and its being a winner or loser. To point at one or two misses 8 or 9 other things, some that could have been changed, some that couldn't. That's also why teams with good coaches have losing seasons at times. Its the world of football and its more complex than x's and o's.

[DELdaBull]

Skip Holtz sucked here.

Taggart so far has been terrible here.

That is all.

How about we try this. Stop bringing in suck ass Holtz into every USF thread. Stop making threads about him. He screwed USF over while getting paid 1.75M a year. USF screwed itself over by STILL giving him 500k a year for the next 3 years. STILL

[GaUSFBull]

Skip Holtz sucked here.

Taggart so far has been terrible here.

That is all.

How about we try this. Stop bringing in suck ass Holtz into every USF thread. Stop making threads about him. He screwed USF over while getting paid 1.75M a year. USF screwed itself over by STILL giving him 500k a year for the next 3 years. STILL

 

QFT

[Bull Dozer]

 

Skip Holtz sucked here.

Taggart so far has been terrible here.

That is all.

How about we try this. Stop bringing in suck ass Holtz into every USF thread. Stop making threads about him. He screwed USF over while getting paid 1.75M a year. USF screwed itself over by STILL giving him 500k a year for the next 3 years. STILL

 

QFT

 

 

Yup all that needed to be said about that has been said.