wmvusa:

You are focusing on one third of the message that was written.  It is BB's body of work that is most important.  Take out the lower echelon schools with winning records and he is 9 and 13 against teams with winning records at the end of a season. 

I get 9-10 against "upper echelon"  winning records....BCS schools and Fresno.  This is the record entering this year because we don't know the records for the teams we've played.  Who are you counting?

wmvusa:

Go back to 2006, he had two wins against winning teams, two!  The other ten were against losing teams.  The win over Arkansas was wonderful but it was not like, wow we really kicked butt today. 

Does that mean you don't wish to count Arkansas?  Because there were actually 3 wins.  Purdue and Penn State make it 3.

 

Your research is Swiss cheese

puddyellow:

thebaumer:

How about comparing it to BA? What would that show us? I don't know.

It's weird, but I find that Barry Alvarez was 48-53-2 versus teams with winning records (at season's end)

This is unacceptable....er....WAS unacceptable.

And BB is 10-10 coming into this year.  Wow.  Talk about wrecking a theory.

 

Bumpty bump

puddyellow:

wmvusa:

On the other side of the coin BB has lost one game to a team that ended the season with a losing record.

With a record of 18-1, btw        Wow.  how shitty is that?

Bump to keep the replies together....so no one misses them!

wmvusa:

thebiga:

You posted your opinion on here and I challeged it.  That's kinda the point with discussion boards isn't it?  If you don't want to discuss your opinion, don't post it.  Will you answer why would you want to get rid of someone who has the best performance compared to his predecessors?

You have asked many questions.  I have answered many and provided you evidence that BB is a paper tiger.  Why don't you and rest of the BB fans on this forum bring something more to the table than the great record he has, which by the way is a facade.

Go back to 2006, he had two wins against winning teams, two!  The other ten were against losing teams.  The win over Arkansas was wonderful but it was not like, wow we really kicked butt today. 

The guy has a losing record against winning teams.  Is that acceptable to you?  If it is there is no reason to continue the conversation.

You've answered many of my questions?  Sorry but saying you have higher standards isn't answering the question.

Is BB's record against winning teams acceptable to me?  I don't know.  There's more layers of the onion that need to be peeled.  You've offered nothing to compare him to.  Get some more data comparing him to coaches at both UW and comparable--none of the list you provided earlier, btw--programs.  This is college football afterall, there's other factors in winning and losing besides coaches. If BB's record compares poorly to the peer group, I will acknowledge that you have a point.  No cherry picking data either.  Look at the entire records.

wmvusa:

thebaumer:

wmvusa:

thebiga:

You posted your opinion on here and I challeged it.  That's kinda the point with discussion boards isn't it?  If you don't want to discuss your opinion, don't post it.  Will you answer why would you want to get rid of someone who has the best performance compared to his predecessors?

You have asked many questions.  I have answered many and provided you evidence that BB is a paper tiger.  Why don't you and rest of the BB fans on this forum bring something more to the table than the great record he has, which by the way is a facade.

Go back to 2006, he had two wins against winning teams, two!  The other ten were against losing teams.  The win over Arkansas was wonderful but it was not like, wow we really kicked butt today. 

The guy has a losing record against winning teams.  Is that acceptable to you?  If it is there is no reason to continue the conversation.

 

Could you post BA's record against winning teams?

You do know how stupid you sound talking about 13 losses to 12 wins? Let me clue you in. First, you have not shown it to be any different than the majority of good coaches. Please, let's exclude statistical outliers who coach at legendary programs. How about comparing it to coaches at MSU, Colorado, etc..or to coaches that have coached 3.5 years. It seems kinda stupid to compare BB to Tom Osborne, especially since you are comparing the whole career to BB's beginning.

How about comparing it to BA? What would that show us? I don't know. But, i do know one thing, BA had a LOSING RECORD against MSU and Iowa.

You have yet to show that 12-13 is appreciable different than the other good coaches. Nor have you broken down the teams. Is losing to a 7-6 team the same as losing to a 10-2 team?

Finally, out of those 13 losses, how many are bad losses. We know one. How much more above 500 should BB be. I know that against OSU, PSU, UM (excluding rebuilding) i would HOPE to go 500 at best, more likely gonna lose more than we win. Iowa would break even. MSU, i would hope to win more than i lose, BA couldn't, but we can hope...but, wouldn't be shocked if we were 500 or less.

In 3.5 seasons that is 7 losses (i'm taking one team out as if we lose them on the sked) losses if we go 500 against OSU, PSU, UM, MSU, and Iowa. You are making a decision on his record based losing 6 games. Oh, lord.

So average is good for you? Thanks for falling into the abyss.

But you don't know that BB is average!!  You haven't compared his record to anything!!  Try comparing it to his predecessors or anyone that coaches at a comparable school.  You have a data set of one.  Thus, BB is not only average, he's also the best and worst. 

Awesome analysis, wmv!!

Compared to Alvarez...he's better in terms of the metric debated:  winning against teams with winning records.

thebiga:

But you don't know that BB is average!!  You haven't compared his record to anything!!  Try comparing it to his predecessors or anyone that coaches at a comparable school.  You have a data set of one.  Thus, BB is not only average, he's also the best and worst. 

Awesome analysis, wmv!!

Since you guys can't seem to get past BA 's record let me point out BA took over a program in complete shambles.  Just getting it to average and sometimes well above average makes him an icon to most college football fans.

BB took over a program that was on the rise.  He has now made it average and you like it.  I don't fault you for it.

Compare him to Brian Kelly if you wish.  Since he has been at Cincinnati he 14 and 5 against winning teams and has lost one game to a losing team.  BK is a good comparison to BB since they both took over programs on the rise.   I'm sure comparing him to BB is not to your satisfaction since he has a Jim Tressel pedigree too this point.  In other words he's above average. 

Hopefully Cincinnati isn't a school too steeped in tradition for you. 

 

wmvusa:

thebiga:

But you don't know that BB is average!!  You haven't compared his record to anything!!  Try comparing it to his predecessors or anyone that coaches at a comparable school.  You have a data set of one.  Thus, BB is not only average, he's also the best and worst. 

Awesome analysis, wmv!!

Since you guys can't seem to get past BA 's record let me point out BA took over a program in complete shambles.  Just getting it to average and sometimes well above average makes him an icon to most college football fans.

BB took over a program that was on the rise.  He has now made it average and you like it.  I don't fault you for it.

Compare him to Brian Kelly if you wish.  Since he has been at Cincinnati he 14 and 5 against winning teams and has lost one game to a losing team.  BK is a good comparison to BB since they both took over programs on the rise.   I'm sure comparing him to BB is not to your satisfaction since he has a Jim Tressel pedigree too this point.  In other words he's above average. 

Hopefully Cincinnati isn't a school too steeped in tradition for you. 

I agree with your assessment of Alvarez.  But why are you crucifying BB then?  The worst he's been is average.  And he's also had an exceptional season, the best ever at Wisconsin.  Why judge a man based on his worst?  It's not the entire picture.

Kelly is a better choice than Osborne and the others you cited earlier, but still not really comparable.

Big Ten > Big East.  By far.  No Ohio St, Penn St or Michigan in the BE.  You really think UW under BB would have a similar or worse record if they played in the BE?

Congrats though, you now have a data set of 2.  You're going to need several more to be able to make a conclusion.  Might want to look at Big Ten coaches next.

thebiga:

I agree with your assessment of Alvarez.  But why are you crucifying BB then?  The worst he's been is average.  And he's also had an exceptional season, the best ever at Wisconsin.  Why judge a man based on his worst?  It's not the entire picture.

Congrats though, you now have a data set of 2.  You're going to need several more to be able to make a conclusion.  Might want to look at Big Ten coaches next.

Touché, I'm going to lay low and let this rest until further results are in.  I really do hope BB proves me wrong and finishes the season strong.

Barry Alvarez had 4 losses to teams with losing records in his last 3 years.  What did we establish...1 for Bielema in the next 3?

He was also 11-8 in the final three years to winning records.

Average, I guess.

puddyellow:

Barry Alvarez had 4 losses to teams with losing records in his last 3 years.  What did we establish...1 for Bielema in the next 3?

He was also 11-8 in the final three years to winning records.

Average, I guess.

And your point is?

Did you miss the point?

Yes....my rebuttals to your backward arguments are not registering with you, I see.

Blinded by seething anger perhaps?

The point is.....there is little, if any difference between Alvarez and Bielema in terms of performance.  The program always vascillated under Alvarez...we've had three decent years under Bielema...the fourth year looks like something of a rebound....and next year could be an even better outcome.

You play anywhere from 5 to 7 teams with winning records every year.  If you win a total of 10 games, you'll almost always beat 3 or 4 teams with winning records.  If you win just seven, you probably can't win more than two.  It's really a dumb metric.

Plus, your numbers are erroneous.

wmvusa:

thebaumer:

wmvusa:

thebiga:

You posted your opinion on here and I challeged it.  That's kinda the point with discussion boards isn't it?  If you don't want to discuss your opinion, don't post it.  Will you answer why would you want to get rid of someone who has the best performance compared to his predecessors?

You have asked many questions.  I have answered many and provided you evidence that BB is a paper tiger.  Why don't you and rest of the BB fans on this forum bring something more to the table than the great record he has, which by the way is a facade.

Go back to 2006, he had two wins against winning teams, two!  The other ten were against losing teams.  The win over Arkansas was wonderful but it was not like, wow we really kicked butt today. 

The guy has a losing record against winning teams.  Is that acceptable to you?  If it is there is no reason to continue the conversation.

 

Could you post BA's record against winning teams?

You do know how stupid you sound talking about 13 losses to 12 wins? Let me clue you in. First, you have not shown it to be any different than the majority of good coaches. Please, let's exclude statistical outliers who coach at legendary programs. How about comparing it to coaches at MSU, Colorado, etc..or to coaches that have coached 3.5 years. It seems kinda stupid to compare BB to Tom Osborne, especially since you are comparing the whole career to BB's beginning.

How about comparing it to BA? What would that show us? I don't know. But, i do know one thing, BA had a LOSING RECORD against MSU and Iowa.

You have yet to show that 12-13 is appreciable different than the other good coaches. Nor have you broken down the teams. Is losing to a 7-6 team the same as losing to a 10-2 team?

Finally, out of those 13 losses, how many are bad losses. We know one. How much more above 500 should BB be. I know that against OSU, PSU, UM (excluding rebuilding) i would HOPE to go 500 at best, more likely gonna lose more than we win. Iowa would break even. MSU, i would hope to win more than i lose, BA couldn't, but we can hope...but, wouldn't be shocked if we were 500 or less.

In 3.5 seasons that is 7 losses (i'm taking one team out as if we lose them on the sked) losses if we go 500 against OSU, PSU, UM, MSU, and Iowa. You are making a decision on his record based losing 6 games. Oh, lord.

So average is good for you? Thanks for falling into the abyss.

Translation: i have nothing, so i will just repeat myself.

puddyellow:

thebaumer:

How about comparing it to BA? What would that show us? I don't know.

It's weird, but I find that Barry Alvarez was 48-53-2 versus teams with winning records (at season's end)

This is unacceptable....er....WAS unacceptable.

And BB is 10-10 coming into this year.  Wow.  Talk about wrecking a theory.

 

Who woulda thunk it. Perhaps the guy posting the question. ;) It is a pretty simple formula for almost all coaches. Win the games you are suppose to win, beat the average teams (teams like yourself), and try and split against the good/great teams. Doing that should result in 9 wins or so. Every couple of years you make your big push.