2016 record vs 2017 record

Donate To GopherHole

Iceland12 said:
The person who started this thread did it because he thought comparing '17 to '16 would make this year's record look better.

To paraphrase you "obviously" that a fool's game. Which is why he's shouldn't have posted it in the first place.
Click to expand...

You sure got your panties in a bunch over this thread. You've told me now to delete it and that I shouldn't have posted it. I must have crossed some line with you. Amazing.

Since you are caught up in how 2016 team had close losses (I bet you are first in line for participation trophies), why do you also conveniently gloss over the blowout wins 2017 had that 2016 did not? 2017 blew out Oregon State. 2016 struggled down to the wire with them. 2017 blew out Nebraska. 2016 took the loss. Is it because you've already made up your mind and if the evidence doesn't support your theory then ignore it?

Stop being so obtuse. My original post was comparing the Win and Loss records of the two seasons. Maybe I should have put that in the thread title so you wouldn't confuse that with comparing how good the 2016 and 2017 teams were? Oh wait...
 

WinLoseOrTy said:
You sure got your panties in a bunch over this thread. You've told me now to delete it and that I shouldn't have posted it. I must have crossed some line with you. Amazing.

Since you are caught up in how 2016 team had close losses (I bet you are first in line for participation trophies), why do you also conveniently gloss over the blowout wins 2017 had that 2016 did not? 2017 blew out Oregon State. 2016 struggled down to the wire with them. 2017 blew out Nebraska. 2016 took the loss. Is it because you've already made up your mind and if the evidence doesn't support your theory then ignore it?

Stop being so obtuse. My original post was comparing the Win and Loss records of the two seasons. Maybe I should have put that in the thread title so you wouldn't confuse that with comparing how good the 2016 and 2017 teams were? Oh wait...
Click to expand...

We're back to wins*...?
 

WinLoseOrTy said:
why do you also conveniently gloss over the blowout wins 2017 had that 2016 did not?
Click to expand...

Pardon me?

2016
58-14 over Indiana St. (44-point margin)
40-17 over Illinois (23)
31-10 over Maryland (21)

2017
48-14 over Oregon St. (34)
54-21 over Nebraska (33)
34-3 over MTSU (31)

The three largest margins combined for 2016 were 88 points. The three largest margins combined for 2017 were 98 points. I could also point out that two of the three largest 2016 wins were on the road, compared to 2017 where OSU was the only road win for the season.
 

WinLoseOrTy said:
2016 team went 8-4 in the regular season.

2017 team went 5-7 in the regular season.

But let's dive a little deeper into the two...

Non-Conference
Both went 3-0 with a win over Oregon State.

Same Opponents, Same Result
Iowa - Loss
Illinois - Win
Wisconsin - Loss

Different Opponents
Penn St (2016, Loss) to Michigan (2017, Loss)
Rutgers (2016, Win) to Michigan St (2017, Loss)

I'd argue that the difference here is an apples vs oranges schedule loss. Changing Rutgers to Michigan St shouldn't be held against 2017.

So we are 8 games in, and W/L record is essentially identical if you consider the upgrade in B1G East opponent.


Same Opponents, Different Result
Maryland - Win to Loss
Purdue - Win to Loss
Nebraska - Loss to Win
Northwestern - Win to Loss

Here is where the real differences come to light. It all boils down to the Maryland and Purdue games flipping from wins to losses. They are the only real difference in the W/L records from 2016 to 2017.

Maryland - we were tied 24-24 with under 4 minutes to play
Purdue - we led 17-16 with under 2 minutes to play

So we were right there in both games. We didn't finish strong and lost. That's football. But I truly think that 2016 and 2017 were not as different as many seem to think.
Click to expand...

Nobody is holding it against anyone that it was MSU and not Rutgers on the schedule.

Play the games on the schedule. Win the games on the schedule.
 


WinLoseOrTy said:
You sure got your panties in a bunch over this thread. You've told me now to delete it and that I shouldn't have posted it. I must have crossed some line with you. Amazing.

Since you are caught up in how 2016 team had close losses (I bet you are first in line for participation trophies), why do you also conveniently gloss over the blowout wins 2017 had that 2016 did not? 2017 blew out Oregon State. 2016 struggled down to the wire with them. 2017 blew out Nebraska. 2016 took the loss. Is it because you've already made up your mind and if the evidence doesn't support your theory then ignore it?

Stop being so obtuse. My original post was comparing the Win and Loss records of the two seasons. Maybe I should have put that in the thread title so you wouldn't confuse that with comparing how good the 2016 and 2017 teams were? Oh wait...
Click to expand...

"My original post was comparing the Win and Loss records of the two season". Yep, by downgrading close wins and ignoring close losses.

Last season and this one's are over and done with. Why did you insist to bring them up to try and prove a very bad point? That's why I suggested you delete it in the first place, but instead your hubris insisted on doubling down instead.

Either way it was a terrible attempt to obfuscate the fact that last year's team won 4 games more than this year's team. Oh, and don't say "But they only got to play 12 games this year!" True, but that's because of they lost 7 of those 12 games killing any chance to play 13.

You knew it was a bad idea when you started backpedaling by post #3. Number 3.

"Panties in a bunch", "stop being obtuse" Personal attacks now? Yeah, works on the playground and in recess but in real life not so much.

Team don't get credit for close losses unless they are playing a team way out of their league. Didn't happen last year or this one. Last year because they never faced a team like that. This year because they got blown-out when they did. Except the whole point of the post is how those close wins could have easily gone the other way. That was the whole point of you lunk-headed post. You're worried about "participation trophies" for close losses, but your entire post was built upon how easily close wins should be seen a close losses or vice versa. How if you turned losses this year into wins, the records would be damn near identical!

Jeesus, what kind of a moron would bring the comparison up when the '16 team had leads in the Nebraska, Wisconsin and Penn State games? Using your logic they could have/ should have been 12-1 last year! "Cuz you know, if you just turned those games around...:rolleyes:

But they weren't. The record is what it is. Why you tried to re-write history to make last year look worse and this year look better is a puzzle. That you failed miserably is something you should have know would happen.

Hope that didn't hurt too much. Wouldn't want you to collapse in embarrassment and start stomping your little feet and shouting pejoratives in the dark.

Or bring up a subject again that you should have left alone in the first place, let alone taking another run at it.

Who knows, maybe a sycophant will cheer you on. You should just remember that will be B.S. too.
 


Loved the thesaurus usage. I wish you a happy and safe holiday season.
 

WinLoseOrTy said:
2016 team went 8-4 in the regular season.

2017 team went 5-7 in the regular season.

But let's dive a little deeper into the two...

Non-Conference
Both went 3-0 with a win over Oregon State.

Same Opponents, Same Result
Iowa - Loss
Illinois - Win
Wisconsin - Loss

Different Opponents
Penn St (2016, Loss) to Michigan (2017, Loss)
Rutgers (2016, Win) to Michigan St (2017, Loss)

I'd argue that the difference here is an apples vs oranges schedule loss. Changing Rutgers to Michigan St shouldn't be held against 2017.

So we are 8 games in, and W/L record is essentially identical if you consider the upgrade in B1G East opponent.


Same Opponents, Different Result
Maryland - Win to Loss
Purdue - Win to Loss
Nebraska - Loss to Win
Northwestern - Win to Loss

Here is where the real differences come to light. It all boils down to the Maryland and Purdue games flipping from wins to losses. They are the only real difference in the W/L records from 2016 to 2017.

Maryland - we were tied 24-24 with under 4 minutes to play
Purdue - we led 17-16 with under 2 minutes to play

So we were right there in both games. We didn't finish strong and lost. That's football. But I truly think that 2016 and 2017 were not as different as many seem to think.
Click to expand...
Nvm
 

It's tough to find historical strength of schedule ratings, but this website: https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/schedule-strength-by-other has the following:

2016 - 53rd
2017 - 56th (this is exactly the same as Sagarin's strength of schedule ranking, fwiw)

So, if this analysis has any validity, it means that we went 9-4 in 2016 against virtually the same strength of schedule as in 2017, where we finished 5-7. And yet, the ongoing narrative exists that we played a really weak schedule in 2016 and that's the only reason that a "clearly overmatched" head coach won 9 games.

I would love to see any data that contradicts this.
 



dpodoll68 said:
It's tough to find historical strength of schedule ratings, but this website: https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/schedule-strength-by-other has the following:

2016 - 53rd
2017 - 56th (this is exactly the same as Sagarin's strength of schedule ranking, fwiw)

So, if this analysis has any validity, it means that we went 9-4 in 2016 against virtually the same strength of schedule as in 2017, where we finished 5-7. And yet, the ongoing narrative exists that we played a really weak schedule in 2016 and that's the only reason that a "clearly overmatched" head coach won 9 games.

I would love to see any data that contradicts this.
Click to expand...

Keep looking.
You'll be able to find it if you look hard enough.
 


dpodoll68 said:
It's tough to find historical strength of schedule ratings, but this website: https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/schedule-strength-by-other has the following:

2016 - 53rd
2017 - 56th (this is exactly the same as Sagarin's strength of schedule ranking, fwiw)

So, if this analysis has any validity, it means that we went 9-4 in 2016 against virtually the same strength of schedule as in 2017, where we finished 5-7. And yet, the ongoing narrative exists that we played a really weak schedule in 2016 and that's the only reason that a "clearly overmatched" head coach won 9 games.

I would love to see any data that contradicts this.
Click to expand...

Opponent Record - 2016 - including championship games/bowl games
Overall: 75-77
B1G: 60-56

Opponent Record - 2017
Overall: 74-70
B1G: 61-47

Our B1G schedule was more difficult this year. Our non-conference schedule also featured 2 bowl teams and no FCS teams vs 1 bowl team and 1 FCS team last year. The difference isn't drastic, but overall this year's schedule was slightly stronger.
 

In the end, I am not an analytics guy. I'm a go-with-the-gut guy, and trust your eyesight guy.

I watched the 2016 season. I watched the 2017 season. The 2016 team was better. I am NOT just talking wins and losses. the 2016 team looked like a better team. Yes, they let a couple of games get away. They weren't perfect. But, the 2016 team was a better team. More often than not, they made plays to win games. Yes, they won some close games. emphasis on the WIN part. every game is not going to be 55-0. sometimes, you find yourself in a close game, and you have to make plays to win a close game. the 2016 team did that a lot more successfully than the 2017 team.

AND, I would say the 2016 team was a better coached team. a lot of people ripped on the previous coaching staff, and touted what Fleck and his staff would do. I was waiting to see a more creative offense. I'm still waiting. Some people blame the players for that. The players run the schemes that are given to them by the coaches. the players run the plays called by the coaches.

Maybe Fleck has a master plan. Maybe he will bring in better recruits. Maybe the coaches will be more creative in the future. maybe the Gophers will win more game in the future. I don't know. All I know is what I saw this year. Not impressed.
 





RolGnav said:
My main gripe about this season is that we lost games we shouldn't have. I don't think anyone really thought we'd even be a 7 win team. But losing to Purdue who had a coaching change also, and mind you, they gave us like 3 or 4 turn overs and we still lost. Losing to Maryland who was on their 3rd or 4th string QB.

A good barometer to judge Coach Fleck upon has to be Purdue. We had a way better record than them last year and past years. They had a coaching change, so did we. I'm sure they lost some players, so did we. They beat us. They ended up with a better record and played some good games. Fleck failed the test in season one. That said, I haven't given up on him but the issues in most of these losses were coaching issues. Heck... the two ugly losses at the end of the season would have been a lot better if the game plan was to try. It's like they players and the coaches just wanted the season to end.

So will a great recruiting class help? I sure hope so... but even great recruiting classes need good coaches that can game plan and coach up the players... see Brewster.
Click to expand...

Good points, but I think it's important to remember that Purdue had two QBs with more experience than anyone on our roster and the lack of consistency at that position is what really killed us more than anything. I was more disappointed with the Maryland loss.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
In the end, I am not an analytics guy. I'm a go-with-the-gut guy, and trust your eyesight guy.

I watched the 2016 season. I watched the 2017 season. The 2016 team was better. I am NOT just talking wins and losses. the 2016 team looked like a better team. Yes, they let a couple of games get away. They weren't perfect. But, the 2016 team was a better team. More often than not, they made plays to win games. Yes, they won some close games. emphasis on the WIN part. every game is not going to be 55-0. sometimes, you find yourself in a close game, and you have to make plays to win a close game. the 2016 team did that a lot more successfully than the 2017 team.

AND, I would say the 2016 team was a better coached team. a lot of people ripped on the previous coaching staff, and touted what Fleck and his staff would do. I was waiting to see a more creative offense. I'm still waiting. Some people blame the players for that. The players run the schemes that are given to them by the coaches. the players run the plays called by the coaches.

Maybe Fleck has a master plan. Maybe he will bring in better recruits. Maybe the coaches will be more creative in the future. maybe the Gophers will win more game in the future. I don't know. All I know is what I saw this year. Not impressed.
Click to expand...

I think this is a fair assessment and opinion.

2017 is done. Players are transferring. Coaches are recruiting, and making plans to completely refresh the team in almost all areas over the next two years.


Would not be surprised if we went 4-8 or 5-7 next year. And I still think that's fair. Because usually in 4-year rebuilding jobs, the first year is putrid (0,1,2 wins). Year three is where we need to see 7,8,9 wins. If that year is 5-7 again ... then the fourth year becomes make or break.
 

Billy M said:
I actually have zero problems with this year because to me - what's the difference between a 5 win or a 7 win season? Yes, a lower tier bowl game but I can live without that. The real reason people are getting behind Fleck is that they believe he can get the U of M the "magical year" where it all falls into place and the team either wins the West or goes 10-2 and breaks through.

That wasn't happening this year for sure and Fleck had as much to figure out as his players did. Claeys had a 9 win season in his and Kill's system. I actually applaud TC for that season as I think he found a way to keep the Gophs in every game and win quite a few of them despite some tough losses. But the real judgement on Fleck will be easier to figure out next year to a degree and moreso in 2019. He has identified who he wants to keep, who he doesn't, and how he wants to strategize offense and defensive strategy based off who he likes to fit his system.

I think a lot of our talk on here about 2016 vs 2017 is somewhat irrelevant just based off what the reality is. The reality is PJ is the coach now so in fairness, let him figure things out this year and move forward. We will never know what TC would have done this year. That's the tough part. But we can't rewrite history. Coyle made this move and this is road we now travel on so if I have to make an accurrate assessment of PJ I think it is very difficult only one season in.
Click to expand...

Only problem with this is this is a team that really could have used a couple of more weeks of practice. The Purdue loss is the one that I struggle with, as others have said here. We've been better, have better talent, and they turned the ball over 4 times. Poor coaching cost us that game, and kept us from doing better in others (wins and loses). Next year is next year. We'll see where we go, but not having the extra practices hurts.
 


Hey, the win differential for Fleck at his new school is only -4.
At his old school, where he miraculously turned the program around into a MAC power and laid a solid foundation for years to come, the win differential from 16 to 17 is -7.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom