(06-20-2011 12:05 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  I think WVU should listen to Neheln and save some money by hiring a Baboon. Many teams would be happy with 8 wins per year. Neheln's idea could save WVU a ton of cash going forward. Maybe Baboon can be a good recruiter too :)

Here are couple applying for the job now I personally like #4 below

^^^^ Funniest post of the day

Quote:And the reality is that Nehlen's comments - even if his point about the strength of schedule is 100% accurate and true - sound to me like sour grapes.

Fair statement



Jackson

(06-20-2011 11:27 AM)Stookey57 Wrote:  the big east is getting stronger ndue to good coaching. thats why the tv money is crucial, if we can get 16-17 mil per fb team and strengthen the leauge coaches may stay.
the key is keeping coaches.

I agree that keeping coaches is key.

But, IMO while getting big bucks from the TV contract is important, the data base from that financial article posted last week makes one thing clear: there's no substitute for building LOCAL support for your program.

E.g., the data showed that in 2010, USF's athletic department got $8 million from ticket sales and alumni contributions, WVU got $33 million, while LSU got $69 million.

That money dwarfs even the huge dollars from the TV deals being negotiated. We'll have a hard time competing for the services of the Sabans and Meyers of the coaching world as long as we have that kind of money disparity with Big 10/SEC schools. We have to build up our programs.

Quote:Let's take 1986 as an example (a year in which Penn State won the National Title).

The average record of WVU's opponents that year:

6.5 - 4.5

The average record of WVU's opponents in 2010 (minus the 1-AA game):

6.7 - 6

Obviously given a 12 game schedule and far more bowl games, the numbers are a little hard to compare exactly. And win-loss record by itself isn't an exact measurement of the relative quality of a team.

But it's fairly close, even with PSU's undefeated season in 86.

Rutgers and Temple were on our schedule pretty much every year, and they were horrific most seasons (the year you cite, 1986, Rutgers had a rare winning record). Maryland has been generally far better after Nehlen left than they were before, Cincinnati is far better, and Louisville (a somewhat regular opponent) had the best years of it's program after Nehlan left.

Agree to a point, but if you look at the final polls they tell a different stroy. Penn St finished #1. Penn St beat Miami in the title game. Va Tech finished 9-2 and in the Top 20 in the rankings. Ditto Boston College. Pitt and Sryracuse had rare down years in the 80s and both finished at about .500

BE football doesn't come close to that kind of production most years

Jackson

(06-20-2011 12:46 PM)Jackson1011 Wrote:  

Quote:Let's take 1986 as an example (a year in which Penn State won the National Title).

The average record of WVU's opponents that year:

6.5 - 4.5

The average record of WVU's opponents in 2010 (minus the 1-AA game):

6.7 - 6

Obviously given a 12 game schedule and far more bowl games, the numbers are a little hard to compare exactly. And win-loss record by itself isn't an exact measurement of the relative quality of a team.

But it's fairly close, even with PSU's undefeated season in 86.

Rutgers and Temple were on our schedule pretty much every year, and they were horrific most seasons (the year you cite, 1986, Rutgers had a rare winning record). Maryland has been generally far better after Nehlen left than they were before, Cincinnati is far better, and Louisville (a somewhat regular opponent) had the best years of it's program after Nehlan left.

Agree to a point, but if you look at the final polls they tell a different stroy. Penn St finished #1. Penn St beat Miami in the title game. Va Tech finished 9-2 and in the Top 20 in the rankings. Ditto Boston College. Pitt and Sryracuse had rare down years in the 80s and both finished at about .500

BE football doesn't come close to that kind of production most years

I agree. WVU played the two national-title game teams, the #1 and #2 teams that year, plus other top 20 teams as well. That's brutal.

Personally, i tend to judge a schedule more on how many really good teams you play than really bad. E.g., even though the overall records are the same, i'd rather USF play two 6-6 teams than a 12-0 and a 0-12 team. Because whereas we have a decent shot of going 2-0 against two 6-6 teams, we're almost certainly going to lose to the 12-0 team. And losses hurt more than wins help.

What a stupid comment. Everyone knows it requires a chimp to pull off 8 games.

(06-20-2011 12:46 PM)Jackson1011 Wrote:  

Quote:Let's take 1986 as an example (a year in which Penn State won the National Title).

The average record of WVU's opponents that year:

6.5 - 4.5

The average record of WVU's opponents in 2010 (minus the 1-AA game):

6.7 - 6

Obviously given a 12 game schedule and far more bowl games, the numbers are a little hard to compare exactly. And win-loss record by itself isn't an exact measurement of the relative quality of a team.

But it's fairly close, even with PSU's undefeated season in 86.

Rutgers and Temple were on our schedule pretty much every year, and they were horrific most seasons (the year you cite, 1986, Rutgers had a rare winning record). Maryland has been generally far better after Nehlen left than they were before, Cincinnati is far better, and Louisville (a somewhat regular opponent) had the best years of it's program after Nehlan left.

Agree to a point, but if you look at the final polls they tell a different stroy. Penn St finished #1. Penn St beat Miami in the title game. Va Tech finished 9-2 and in the Top 20 in the rankings. Ditto Boston College. Pitt and Sryracuse had rare down years in the 80s and both finished at about .500

BE football doesn't come close to that kind of production most years

Jackson

We have had most of the teams in the league ranked in recent years, too - some of them very highly. WVU, UC, USF and UL have all been in the Top 10 (and Rutgers too?) at certain points of the season in recent years. We've also made strides in scheduling national programs OOC (LSU, Auburn, Colorado, etc), in recent years.

If you want to look at 86 when we happened to play both teams in the national title game, sure. Even that year, looking at the overall strength of schedule, it's not too much more difficult than our 2010 schedule.

But let's look 2 years later - 1988, when of course we ended up playing for the national title against Notre Dame. It's a bit of a different story.

(2-8-1) Bowling Green
(5-6) Cal State-Fullerton
(5-6) Maryland
(6-5) Pittsburgh
(3-8) Virginia Tech
(3-8) East Carolina
(3-8) Boston College
(5-6) Penn State
(3-8) Cincinnati
(5-6) Rutgers
(10-2) Syracuse
Overall opponents record:
50-71-1

I have a great deal of respect for Don Nehlen, I always have and always will. But this notion that it used to be so much tougher to win games, overall, is pure bunk. To me that shows disrespect for the current programs in the Big East, many of which have made incredible strides over the past decade - and it shows disrespect to the players and coaches in recent years to say that they didn't quite have it as hard as he did.