Is it really the coach or the schedule...

[BigDaddyBuzz]

Saw this stat today and found it very interesting. If you look at the list there are a lot of programs on here that people are propping up as great and the coaching is great...sometimes you have to look deeper. No hidden agenda, just thought it was a good stat.

10 Teams that played the most teams with a losing record: Cincy, Louisville, UCF, Oregon, Rutgers, Texas Tech, Vanderbilt, Baylor, Duke, Maryland

4 teams played the most teams with a winning record (11): UNC, Pitt, UVA, VT. All from the ACC Coastal and we wonder how Duke won it.

 

[sidewalkGTfan]

If we had played Duke's schedule, we would've won 10 games, played in the ACCCG and people would be talking about how great CPJ is.

Some of our fans complain about playing 2 FCS games this year, which was because the ACC screwed up the conference schedule for everybody, because we went 7-6. If we win 9-10 games fans wouldn't be bringing it up.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Saw this stat today and found it very interesting. If you look at the list there are a lot of programs on here that people are propping up as great and the coaching is great...sometimes you have to look deeper. No hidden agenda, just thought it was a good stat.

10 Teams that played the most teams with a losing record: Cincy, Louisville, UCF, Oregon, Rutgers, Texas Tech, Vanderbilt, Baylor, Duke, Maryland

4 teams played the most teams with a winning record (11): UNC, Pitt, UVA, VT. All from the ACC Coastal and we wonder how Duke won it.

Very interesting and very relevant. So let me get this straight, Duke played one of the lightest schedules on the planet while all of its division rivals played one the hardest?

Eh, if we beat just one of VT, Miami or Clemson, we go to the ACCCG instead of them no matter who played who.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

We play Clemson and UGag every year. Some years that is 2 losses coming out of the gate. Add UM and VT, and you have 4 losses before you leave the house. Teams that do not have a strong rival and a cross conference game have a possible 2 win advantage on us. That is one of the main reasons the SEC did not go with a 9 game conference schedule. Possible one additional loss instead of one more win.

 

[Animal02]

I wish they would get rid of the perennial cross division rival thing. Just rotate through the teams and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[GTJason]

The cross division rival thing potentially sets us up to play both Clemson and FSU in addition to VT, Miami, and whoever wants to round out the top 4 in the coastal in a given year. Even playing our best football that's a gauntlet to rival any SEC West team. Miami has the same argument here and it's valid. Just think if our rival was Wake or someone like that instead of Clemson this year, we're in the ACCCG. Point is I'm agreeing the rivalries are stupid.

The counter argument is let's say we get back to 2009 style football at GT. We're going to need that tough schedule to make the 4 team playoff and beating up on the powderpuffs in our league isn't the way to do it.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

The cross division rival thing potentially sets us up to play both Clemson and FSU in addition to VT, Miami, and whoever wants to round out the top 4 in the coastal in a given year. Even playing our best football that's a gauntlet to rival any SEC West team. Miami has the same argument here and it's valid. Just think if our rival was Wake or someone like that instead of Clemson this year, we're in the ACCCG. Point is I'm agreeing the rivalries are stupid.

The counter argument is let's say we get back to 2009 style football at GT. We're going to need that tough schedule to make the 4 team playoff and beating up on the powderpuffs in our league isn't the way to do it.

Eventually they're going to expand the playoff to 8 and include all Conference champs. That's when having to play Clemson each and every year is going to suck balls.

 

[GTRX7]

The cross division rival thing potentially sets us up to play both Clemson and FSU in addition to VT, Miami, and whoever wants to round out the top 4 in the coastal in a given year. Even playing our best football that's a gauntlet to rival any SEC West team. Miami has the same argument here and it's valid. Just think if our rival was Wake or someone like that instead of Clemson this year, we're in the ACCCG. Point is I'm agreeing the rivalries are stupid.

The counter argument is let's say we get back to 2009 style football at GT. We're going to need that tough schedule to make the 4 team playoff and beating up on the powderpuffs in our league isn't the way to do it.

In 2015, we are set to play Clemson, FSU, UGA, VT, Miami, and Notre Dame. Wow. Oh, and Duke

 

[dressedcheeseside]

In 2015, we are set to play Clemson, FSU, UGA, VT, Miami, and Notre Dame. Wow. Oh, and Duke

And all with a new coach to boot!

 

[Rodney Kent]

BigDaddyBuzz: It is a combination of the coach, the schedule, the matchups, etal. However, my view is that the buck stops with the coach. Regardless of the opposition, the coach is hired to win games and develop players. The coach is paid handsomely to win the games. If we don't care about winning, then we just hire a coach, pay him a professor's salary, and it is his job to teach the sport to the players. However, it is true that a team is a mirror image of its coaching. What you see on the field is the result of the coaching to produce those results.

Auburn is a great example. Gene Chizik's record was 8-5 in 2009. He rode a great quarterback to a 14-0 season in 2010. He then, dropped back to 8-5 in 2011, and down to 3-9 in 2012. Gus Malzahn comes in 2013, plays for the NC and has a record of 12-2. The team played to its coaching. We will see if this continues next year. There has never been a dearth of talent at either Auburn or Alabama.

Bobby Bowden had grown old and should have given up the job sooner, but from 2005-2009, his record was 8-5, 7-6, 7-6, 9-4, and 7-6. His coaching was affecting the play of the team (he still had great material). They were a mirror image of his coaching. Fisher takes over the head job in 2010 and continues through 2013 at present. His record is 10-4, 9-4, 12-2, and 14-0 for this period. It has to be apparent that his coaching has improved the effects of the team. The same type of results are readily available throughout the history of NCAA schools. Schools will be losing, a new coach arrives, and the won-loss records change. Sometimes, it is in reverse such as North Carolina. Mack was their coach, recruited well and won big-time. He left for the Texas job, and Torbush took over from him. Torbush could not win with the same good recruits Mack left in the program. Again, a team is the mirror image of its coaching.

I have looked up these situations an placed the same type of information on other boards. It can be confirmed from history and coaching changes, even at the big factories. Texas, which had one of the best bases of recruiting in the nation had its ups and downs with great recruits, but various coaches. Mack had lost his edge and was becoming mediocre with great talent. He has now been replaced with Charlie Strong. Let's see how their team plays next year under a new coach. I don't care how good the players are rated, unless they are coached properly and to their individual talents and strengths, they will not fare greatly.

 

[Boomergump]

BigDaddyBuzz: It is a combination of the coach, the schedule, the matchups, etal. However, my view is that the buck stops with the coach. Regardless of the opposition, the coach is hired to win games and develop players. The coach is paid handsomely to win the games. If we don't care about winning, then we just hire a coach, pay him a professor's salary, and it is his job to teach the sport to the players. However, it is true that a team is a mirror image of its coaching. What you see on the field is the result of the coaching to produce those results.

Auburn is a great example. Gene Chizik's record was 8-5 in 2009. He rode a great quarterback to a 14-0 season in 2010. He then, dropped back to 8-5 in 2011, and down to 3-9 in 2012. Gus Malzahn comes in 2013, plays for the NC and has a record of 12-2. The team played to its coaching. We will see if this continues next year. There has never been a dearth of talent at either Auburn or Alabama.

Bobby Bowden had grown old and should have given up the job sooner, but from 2005-2009, his record was 8-5, 7-6, 7-6, 9-4, and 7-6. His coaching was affecting the play of the team (he still had great material). They were a mirror image of his coaching. Fisher takes over the head job in 2010 and continues through 2013 at present. His record is 10-4, 9-4, 12-2, and 14-0 for this period. It has to be apparent that his coaching has improved the effects of the team. The same type of results are readily available throughout the history of NCAA schools. Schools will be losing, a new coach arrives, and the won-loss records change. Sometimes, it is in reverse such as North Carolina. Mack was their coach, recruited well and won big-time. He left for the Texas job, and Torbush took over from him. Torbush could not win with the same good recruits Mack left in the program. Again, a team is the mirror image of its coaching.

I have looked up these situations an placed the same type of information on other boards. It can be confirmed from history and coaching changes, even at the big factories. Texas, which had one of the best bases of recruiting in the nation had its ups and downs with great recruits, but various coaches. Mack had lost his edge and was becoming mediocre with great talent. He has now been replaced with Charlie Strong. Let's see how their team plays next year under a new coach. I don't care how good the players are rated, unless they are coached properly and to their individual talents and strengths, they will not fare greatly.

I hear all the time that it is the jimmies and the joes and not the system or the coaching. The truth is that it is a combination of many things. With that said, I will not argue with you over the importance of good coaching.