(04-06-2015 01:40 PM)zfred12 Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 12:01 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  Good thread b/c it adds a little bit of short term and long term perspective of how league members have been performing.

For USF fans this data is particularly distressing b/c it clearly shows how bad USF has been since we fired Jim Leavitt and hired Skip Holtz.

If you take away the last five years USF is looking at 40-24 record for a sparkling winning percentage of 0.625. That would put is near the top of the current group of teams. While playing an underappreciated Big East schedule that included programs that were regularly ranked like UL, WVU, RU, UCONN, PITT and UC.

Conversely, if you take away the last 5 years for UCF their record would be 34-30 which is a respectable 0.530 winning percentage while playing an “easier” C-USA schedule. Not as terrible as USF has been the last 5-years but certainly not the world beaters they have been the recently.

#1 Takeaway: things go in cycle.
#2 Takeaway: Firing Leavitt and/or hiring Skip Holtz was a bad decision.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at regarding UCF. We are ahead of usf in every category (the past 5, 10 and 20 years). It makes absolutely no sense to even hypothetically remove the last 5 years which are probably the most important to use as an indicator of the current state of your program.

Read it again....

Five years ago USF was the better program and UCF was mediocre at best despite playing in a weaker conference. The last five years UCF has made the most of it's opportunities while USF has been flat out awful and the numbers don't the whole story.

In terms of removing the years, it's called....analysis. It's not like we are making the last years completely disappear. Instead it's a great comparison to show the night and day difference of what good and bad coaching/recruiting can do for a program.

(04-06-2015 10:34 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 04:55 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  For Tulane, of course, the last 10 years is precisely the time-frame affected by Katrina.

We are at or near the bottom no matter what time frame you use. I am just waiting for the similar stats for basketball.

That of course is false. But try again.
In basketball, we were usually well above average for the 25 years prior to AD Rick Dickson coming to town and destroying our programs.

(04-06-2015 02:56 AM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  PAST 20 YEARS (minimum 150 games, 117 qualifying programs)

34. Cincinnati - .58943 / 145-101-0
46. UCF - .54978 / 127-104-0
49. East Carolina - .54286 / 133-112-0
50. Navy - .54098 / 132-112-0
52. USF - .53254 / 90-79-0
66. Houston - .49590 / 121-123-0
76. Connecticut - .46961 / 85-96-0
81. Tulsa - .45714 / 112-133-0
97. Memphis - .38397 / 91-146-0
102. Tulane - .36441 / 86-150-0
106. SMU - .35021 / 83-154-0
110. Temple - .31034 / 72-160-0

Damn the 90's and early 2000's were really brutal for my Coogs

Pretty hard to compare straight win and loss unless the level of competition is exactly the same. To say that a CUSA schedule was the same as a Big East schedule isnt really a proper comparison.

Then take into account overall time as a program. There's an obvious advantage to having a division II teams for a long time because when you move up, there are already recruiting relationships, some infrastructure and name recognition. The fact that were in the middle, I am fine with.

I will say even with the down years, I am still happy with USF overall percentage. Being only 18 years old, its really not to bad at all. I am watching programs like Charlotte and UTSA. I am eagerly waiting to see where they are at when they hit 10 years old to see if it was similar to USF or whether or not we just had a really solid start.

As an Ecu fan,it is frustrating to see this and realize that the old Big East found no value in our football program.Talk about short sighted leadership,wow.

(04-06-2015 06:13 PM)baruna falls Wrote:  As an Ecu fan,it is frustrating to see this and realize that the old Big East found no value in our football program.Talk about short sighted leadership,wow.

Its not at all that ECU didnt have value. You didnt have the value that they wanted. At the time, they placed a heavy desire to add strong basketball and for some reason USF was chosen over ECU for that reason.

though... this is one area that yall can be mad at Cinci... and Lville. They both campaigned to add USF. We all had a history together and those relationships paid dividends.

(04-06-2015 12:01 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  Good thread b/c it adds a little bit of short term and long term perspective of how league members have been performing.

For USF fans this data is particularly distressing b/c it clearly shows how bad USF has been since we fired Jim Leavitt and hired Skip Holtz.

If you take away the last five years USF is looking at 40-24 record for a sparkling winning percentage of 0.625. That would put is near the top of the current group of teams. While playing an underappreciated Big East schedule that included programs that were regularly ranked like UL, WVU, RU, UCONN, PITT and UC.

Conversely, if you take away the last 5 years for UCF their record would be 34-30 which is a respectable 0.530 winning percentage while playing an “easier” C-USA schedule. Not as terrible as USF has been the last 5-years but certainly not the world beaters they have been the recently.

#1 Takeaway: things go in cycle.
#2 Takeaway: Firing Leavitt and/or hiring Skip Holtz was a bad decision.

Ah, Rutgers, Pitt and UConn were seldom ranked, not "regularly ranked".

(04-06-2015 06:17 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 06:13 PM)baruna falls Wrote:  As an Ecu fan,it is frustrating to see this and realize that the old Big East found no value in our football program.Talk about short sighted leadership,wow.

Its not at all that ECU didnt have value. You didnt have the value that they wanted. At the time, they placed a heavy desire to add strong basketball and for some reason USF was chosen over ECU for that reason.

though... this is one area that yall can be mad at Cinci... and Lville. They both campaigned to add USF. We all had a history together and those relationships paid dividends.

It was less about UC's and UofL's "relationship" with USF and more to do with wanting access to Florida for recruiting purposes, alumni attendance in the Tampa Bay Area and the potential that USF has always had to grow into a more consistently strong program. It is surprising that USF has faltered so badly after such a promising start as a Division One program.

(04-06-2015 06:08 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Pretty hard to compare straight win and loss unless the level of competition is exactly the same. To say that a CUSA schedule was the same as a Big East schedule isnt really a proper comparison.

Then take into account overall time as a program. There's an obvious advantage to having a division II teams for a long time because when you move up, there are already recruiting relationships, some infrastructure and name recognition. The fact that were in the middle, I am fine with.

I will say even with the down years, I am still happy with USF overall percentage. Being only 18 years old, its really not to bad at all. I am watching programs like Charlotte and UTSA. I am eagerly waiting to see where they are at when they hit 10 years old to see if it was similar to USF or whether or not we just had a really solid start.

I think a big part of usf's early success could be attributed to joining an AQ conference back in 05'. Charlotte and UTSA won't see those kind of advantages. usf will be interesting to watch the next few years to see how the rebuilding process goes. This year is vital for usf because worst case scenario is usf goes under .500 and willie is fired then having to start over again, granted it will be starting from a better point that when taggart took over from skip. But thats worst case scenario

(04-06-2015 08:31 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 07:54 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  10 win seasons are nice, I guess.

Are 0-11 seasons fun? We wouldn't know...

You also wouldn't know anything about winning a BCS bowl or beating that 0-11 team recently.

Comparisons are fun, but hold little value. Everyone's schedule is different and the AAC is patched together of teams that played all kinds of competition.

(04-06-2015 01:00 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 12:54 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 02:56 AM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  PAST 20 YEARS (minimum 150 games, 117 qualifying programs)

34. Cincinnati - .58943 / 145-101-0
46. UCF - .54978 / 127-104-0
49. East Carolina - .54286 / 133-112-0
50. Navy - .54098 / 132-112-0
52. USF - .53254 / 90-79-0
66. Houston - .49590 / 121-123-0
76. Connecticut - .46961 / 85-96-0
81. Tulsa - .45714 / 112-133-0
97. Memphis - .38397 / 91-146-0
102. Tulane - .36441 / 86-150-0
106. SMU - .35021 / 83-154-0
110. Temple - .31034 / 72-160-0

Source: http://football.stassen.com/records/comp...quest.html

USF's record the last 20 years (actually 18, since this will be the 19th year of USF football) is actually 117-96, for a .549 winning percentage. This figure includes a couple 1AA seasons and that may be why your figure is off.

I should have mentioned, these records do not include time spent in lower divisions. It is strictly 1A/FBS records. Apples to apples is better anyway.

You've included A LOT of games where teams were in lower divisions. You should either count them all, or just FBS, not combine them.

(04-09-2015 02:00 PM)boxedlunch Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 01:00 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 12:54 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 02:56 AM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  PAST 20 YEARS (minimum 150 games, 117 qualifying programs)

34. Cincinnati - .58943 / 145-101-0
46. UCF - .54978 / 127-104-0
49. East Carolina - .54286 / 133-112-0
50. Navy - .54098 / 132-112-0
52. USF - .53254 / 90-79-0
66. Houston - .49590 / 121-123-0
76. Connecticut - .46961 / 85-96-0
81. Tulsa - .45714 / 112-133-0
97. Memphis - .38397 / 91-146-0
102. Tulane - .36441 / 86-150-0
106. SMU - .35021 / 83-154-0
110. Temple - .31034 / 72-160-0

Source: http://football.stassen.com/records/comp...quest.html

USF's record the last 20 years (actually 18, since this will be the 19th year of USF football) is actually 117-96, for a .549 winning percentage. This figure includes a couple 1AA seasons and that may be why your figure is off.

I should have mentioned, these records do not include time spent in lower divisions. It is strictly 1A/FBS records. Apples to apples is better anyway.

You've included A LOT of games where teams were in lower divisions. You should either count them all, or just FBS, not combine them.

Are you sure? When I ran the numbers on that website, I specified only games while the programs were in the FBS. Which programs have incorrect data?

These records should not include any seasons a team like USF was in a lower division.

(04-09-2015 02:08 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  These records should not include any seasons a team like USF was in a lower division.

That's fine. Why don't you remove seasons where the other teams were in a lower division? Do it for all, not just a few.

(04-09-2015 02:19 PM)boxedlunch Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 02:08 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  These records should not include any seasons a team like USF was in a lower division.

That's fine. Why don't you remove seasons where the other teams were in a lower division? Do it for all, not just a few.

I selected that option when I ran these records. Which teams on these records include seasons in a lower division? If that happened, it was not my intention. The script should have removed any seasons in which any of these teams played in a lower division.

As far as I know, USF, UCF, and UConn are the only football programs in the AAC that have ever played in a lower division. According to Wikipedia, UCF joined FBS in 1996, USF in 2001, and UConn in 2000. Only win-loss records from those years on are included on this list.

(04-09-2015 02:21 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 02:19 PM)boxedlunch Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 02:08 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  These records should not include any seasons a team like USF was in a lower division.

That's fine. Why don't you remove seasons where the other teams were in a lower division? Do it for all, not just a few.

I selected that option when I ran these records. Which teams on these records include seasons in a lower division? If that happened, it was not my intention. The script should have removed any seasons in which any of these teams played in a lower division.

Houston entered the upper division in 1949, you've got all-time numbers.
East Carolina entered in 1966, you've got, what I guess is supposed to be all-time numbers (they are 424-387-12).
Cincinnati's first year in the upper division was 1946. You have what I guess is all-time numbers (They are 589-564-51).
Memphis' first year in FBS was 1960, you have what I suppose are all-time numbers (they are 454-500-33).
Temple spent several years in the lower division, but again you have what are close to all-time numbers.

ECU joined the NCAA in1961, not 1966.

(04-09-2015 02:32 PM)boxedlunch Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 02:21 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 02:19 PM)boxedlunch Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 02:08 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  These records should not include any seasons a team like USF was in a lower division.

That's fine. Why don't you remove seasons where the other teams were in a lower division? Do it for all, not just a few.

I selected that option when I ran these records. Which teams on these records include seasons in a lower division? If that happened, it was not my intention. The script should have removed any seasons in which any of these teams played in a lower division.

Houston entered the upper division in 1949, you've got all-time numbers.
East Carolina entered in 1966, you've got, what I guess is supposed to be all-time numbers (they are 424-387-12).
Cincinnati's first year in the upper division was 1946. You have what I guess is all-time numbers (They are 589-564-51).
Memphis' first year in FBS was 1960, you have what I suppose are all-time numbers (they are 454-500-33).
Temple spent several years in the lower division, but again you have what are close to all-time numbers.

We've been D-I since the designation existed in 1973. Who cares about the 50s and 60s?