2019 is currently our toughest schedule in 6 years

Donate To GopherHole
Spoofin said:
Are you comparing our depth to that at Alabama, Clemson, and tOSU?
Click to expand...

If you actually believe that Fleck is capable of delivering a string of 9+ win seasons (like Wisconsin, for example), doesn't it *have* to be the case that some of those seasons we're going to lose some very talented seniors, going into more difficult schedules than the prior year??

Why is it a grave concern now, but if we do get to that promised land, won't be a concern then??
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Maybe, maybe not. The schedule is not as attractive even without considering the roster maturation of some opponents.

We trade Penn State at TCF for Michigan at TCF.
We trade Rutgers in Piscataway for Michigan State in East Lansing.
We get Wisconsin in Madison.
Nebraska is away.
Click to expand...

We also trade out a more difficult non conference schedule. And Purdue, Iowa, and NW become home games. We also don't really know how difficult a schedule really is until the year is done.
 

Gophers_4life said:
If you actually believe that Fleck is capable of delivering a string of 9+ win seasons (like Wisconsin, for example), doesn't it *have* to be the case that some of those seasons we're going to lose some very talented seniors, going into more difficult schedules than the prior year??

Why is it a grave concern now, but if we do get to that promised land, won't be a concern then??
Click to expand...

Who said anything about “a string of 9+ win seasons”? Your post is the first I have seen of anyone claiming that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

So then it is truly, that you’re willing to sacrifice sustained success for a flash in the pan this season.

That kind of desperation I cannot accept.
 

btowngopher said:
We also trade out a more difficult non conference schedule. And Purdue, Iowa, and NW become home games. We also don't really know how difficult a schedule really is until the year is done.
Click to expand...

So you’re countering my projections with your own?
 


Gophers_4life said:
So then it is truly, that you’re willing to sacrifice sustained success for a flash in the pan this season.

That kind of desperation I cannot accept.
Click to expand...

WTH are you even talking about?
You make no sense. *shocker*

I think we will win 9+ this year. That has nothing to do with if we can or can’t, will or won’t, “string together 9+ win seasons”.

I think you are trying so hard to back off your “unreasonable” claims and clear misunderstanding of what the definition of ‘expectations’ is that you are just making things up. In fact, I know it. You have done it on 2 straight posts. Pretty pathetic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 






Pompous Elitist said:
All that really matters for determining record is the probability of winning each individual contest. Averaging them all together doesn’t really make much sense. Not to mention you’re comparing year end vs preseason rankings which are...less accurate.




.
Click to expand...

Exactly, end of story.
 

Blitzkrieg said:
Exactly, end of story.
Click to expand...

Yeah, using averages makes the difference between 167 and 100 the same as the difference between 1 and 68. I would consider 100 and 167 as effectively the same, since I expect an easy either way. 1 and 68 on the other hand is the difference between a game we would almost certainly lose and a competitive one that we should win.
 

Gophers_4life said:
So then it is truly, that you’re willing to sacrifice sustained success for a flash in the pan this season.

That kind of desperation I cannot accept.
Click to expand...

This is a false choice. In fact, being more successful this year automatically increases the chances for two successful seasons in a row since it is already there.

Spoofin isn’t sacrificing anything. He is predicting/speculating
 

Some guy said:
being more successful this year automatically increases the chances for two successful seasons in a row
Click to expand...

That’s trivially true, when you define the two in a row as 2019 + 20.

The point was a flash in the pan in 2019 vs long term success 2020 and onward. In the hypothetical where you can only have one, any true fan picks the latter.

And yet the PMW, Spoofin, PE cadre are trying to sell as hard as they can that we're going to take a step backwards next year.
 
Last edited:



Face The Facts said:
Based on current Sagarin rankings compared to other seasons end of season Sagarin rankings:

Average Sagarin Rankings:
2019: 54.5
2018: 55.5 (7-6)
2017: 63.8 (5-7)
2016: 75.3 (9-4)
2015: 58.2 (6-7)
2014: 66.5 (8-5)

I don't have complete data for years prior to 2014.

...
Click to expand...

Thanks for pulling the data. I love stats because one can often make the stats say what you want them to say.

If you take the same season ratings but take a median, instead of an average (the median eliminates the impact from high or low outliers), then last year's schedule looks the toughest and this year's schedule looks the second weakest. If you assume a bowl game this year against a highly rated team, it's still the second weakest.

Median Sagarin Rankings:
2019: 55.5
2018: 39.0 (7-6)
2017: 51.5 (5-7)
2016: 45.0 (9-4)
2015: 44.0 (6-7)
2014: 62.0 (8-5)

BTW, I regrouped Missouri into 2014 instead of 2015 (New Year's Day bowl game after 2014)
 

Panthadad2 said:
Thanks for pulling the data. I love stats because one can often make the stats say what you want them to say.

If you take the same season ratings but take a median, instead of an average (the median eliminates the impact from high or low outliers), then last year's schedule looks the toughest and this year's schedule looks the second weakest. If you assume a bowl game this year against a highly rated team, it's still the second weakest.

Median Sagarin Rankings:
2019: 55.5
2018: 39.0 (7-6)
2017: 51.5 (5-7)
2016: 45.0 (9-4)
2015: 44.0 (6-7)
2014: 62.0 (8-5)

BTW, I regrouped Missouri into 2014 instead of 2015 (New Year's Day bowl game after 2014)
Click to expand...

Sure. Very good counter point.

When the statistics stew is completely boiled down, this fundamental question remains: what really is the difference between having avg opponent Sagarin rankings of #55 vs #75 (using FtF's mean) or #39 vs #62 (using your median) ???

Is there any meaningful difference?


You can quantify that someone ran a marathon at a 10:00 pace, and another guy ran it at a 10:01 pace. I would guess that for most people observing the outcome of the race, that's not really a meaningful difference. But in a race of individuals, every second does matter. In football, the ultimate outcomes (W-L) are huge step changes, and are conglomerates of hundreds of statistics which may or may not have any correlations to the outcomes.
 
Last edited:

Gophers_4life said:
Sure. Very good counter point.

When the statistics stew is completely boiled down, this fundamental question remains: what really is the difference between having avg opponent Sagarin rankings of #55 vs #75 (using FtF's mean) or #39 vs #62 (using your median) ???

Is there any meaningful difference?


You can quantify that someone ran a marathon at a 10:00 pace, and another guy ran it at a 10:01 pace. I would guess that for most people observing the outcome of the race, that's not really a meaningful difference. But in a race of individuals, every second does matter. In football, the ultimate outcomes (W-L) are huge step changes, and are conglomerates of hundreds of statistics which may or may not have any correlations to the outcomes.
Click to expand...

Statistics give some background color, that's all. But to me, and most fans I think, what counts is quality wins and terrible losses. I clearly remember the jubilation after Mason beat #2 Penn State in 1999, beat a lesser Ohio State team in 2000 in the horseshoe, got the axe in 2003, beat MI in the big house, when Kill beat Nebraska the first time, and last year's axe win. I was on cloud nine for days after those. The terrible losses stick too (too many to count).

To your point about huge step changes, the big 2003 loss to MI coulda woulda shoulda have been a huge step change upwards but turned into a terrible loss. I'm hoping we look back at last year's Whiskey win as a step change.
 

Panthadad2 said:
Thanks for pulling the data. I love stats because one can often make the stats say what you want them to say.

If you take the same season ratings but take a median, instead of an average (the median eliminates the impact from high or low outliers), then last year's schedule looks the toughest and this year's schedule looks the second weakest. If you assume a bowl game this year against a highly rated team, it's still the second weakest.

Median Sagarin Rankings:
2019: 55.5
2018: 39.0 (7-6)
2017: 51.5 (5-7)
2016: 45.0 (9-4)
2015: 44.0 (6-7)
2014: 62.0 (8-5)

BTW, I regrouped Missouri into 2014 instead of 2015 (New Year's Day bowl game after 2014)
Click to expand...


I understand your criticism of the mean / average ranking which does have some faults, but how is a median any better?
All you are doing in that case is comparing our mid-level opponent and that's it. Purdue this year vs Georgia Tech last year.
That's a single data point compared to using all of the values.

In the end, the level of opponent if highly ranked doesn't matter unless you beat them, and the lower end doesn't matter unless you lost to them.

I'd say anything 100 and lower should be a win, so a loss to a team below 100 (Illinois last year) is a bad loss.
Anything top 40 starts to get pretty good. Wisconsin, Purdue, GA Tech, Fresno St 2018.
 

The Fresno win from last year still feels like a statistical anomaly.

They beat UCLA early, and they beat Arizona State in the bowl game. They beat Idaho and Toledo at home. And they went 7-1 in the MW, mostly against the inferior division, and then avenged their only loss to Boise in the championship game which was played again in Boise (in December). Clearly the best team in the MW, clearly a top 25 team.


So why did they lose to us, with Robb Smith calling the defense?? Doesn't make sense. To me, that should mean that if they played a full PAC-12 schedule they'd be middling, but they did beat two PAC teams (one of which was pretty good).

Granted, the play that sealed the game was a freak play by Winfield. He was out of position ... but happened to be in the wrong place at the right time. So you could say our defense won the game, in spite of Robb Smith.
 
Last edited:

Gophers_4life said:
That’s trivially true, when you define the two in a row as 2019 + 20.

The point was a flash in the pan in 2019 vs long term success 2020 and onward. In the hypothetical where you can only have one, any true fan picks the latter.

<b>And yet the PMW, Spoofin, PE cadre are trying to sell as hard as they can that we're going to take a step backwards next year.</b>
Click to expand...

I’ll be releasing my 2020 expectations on Dec 12th at Sally’s. Be there.

Until then, I’ll stick by my expectations that this is the year to make a move based on talent, schedule, an open West, etc. I dispute your ridiculous “it is always year 4” - nothing more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Gophers_4life said:
The point was a flash in the pan in 2019 vs long term success 2020 and onward. In the hypothetical where you can only have one, any true fan picks the latter.
Click to expand...

And who are you arguing this point with? No one has even mentioned or discussed this “choice” other than you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Spoofin said:
Until then, I’ll stick by my expectations that this is the year to make a move based on talent, schedule, an open West, etc.
Click to expand...

No one, myself include, disputes that we have a talented roster, we have a slightly better schedule than the previous three seasons, and that the West is wide open.

Why have you arbitrarily defined "making a move" as 9+ wins ??? That's the illogical part.

I contend that 8-4 would be just as equally satisfying "making a move".
 


Gophers_4life said:
The Fresno win from last year still feels like a statistical anomaly.

They beat UCLA early, and they beat Arizona State in the bowl game. They beat Idaho and Toledo at home. And they went 7-1 in the MW, mostly against the inferior division, and then avenged their only loss to Boise in the championship game which was played again in Boise (in December). Clearly the best team in the MW, clearly a top 25 team.


So why did they lose to us?? When we still had Robb Smith?? Doesn't make sense. To me, that should mean that if they played a full PAC-12 schedule they'd be middling, but they did beat two PAC teams (one of which was pretty good).
Click to expand...

Tough to understand.
I think the best example of what happened was our game against Indiana last year. With a little over 5 minutes left, Gophers were driving into the red zone up 31-9 ready to extend their lead and fumbled. The game felt like the Gophers might get to 40-50 points with a 30 point blowout.
Up to that point, Indiana had 9 points and 172 yards.

At that point of the fumble, Indiana proceeds to score 22 points and gain 208 yards while possessing the ball for about 12 minutes.

So at one point, the defense was playing solid, and suddenly, couldn't make a stop.
Polar opposites within the same game.
 

Gophers_4life said:
I started out replying to post #58.

You wandered in. Donny, you're out of your element.
Click to expand...

Yet post #58 also didn’t make the claim you are arguing. No one did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Face The Facts said:
Tough to understand.
I think the best example of what happened was our game against Indiana last year. With a little over 5 minutes left, Gophers were driving into the red zone up 31-9 ready to extend their lead and fumbled. The game felt like the Gophers might get to 40-50 points with a 30 point blowout.
Up to that point, Indiana had 9 points and 172 yards.

At that point of the fumble, Indiana proceeds to score 22 points and gain 208 yards while possessing the ball for about 12 minutes.

So at one point, the defense was playing solid, and suddenly, couldn't make a stop.
Polar opposites within the same game.
Click to expand...

Well it all goes to the same point: Robb Smith shouldn't be a defensive coordinator at the college level. Something he does, just doesn't work with these kids.
 

Spoofin said:
Yet post #58 also didn’t make the claim you are arguing
Click to expand...

It, like PE, you, and others, was trying to make the point that we need to win now, because we are going to take a step backwards in 2020.

Not any kind of logical overstep to then go where I went with it.
 

Face The Facts said:
Tough to understand.
I think the best example of what happened was our game against Indiana last year. With a little over 5 minutes left, Gophers were driving into the red zone up 31-9 ready to extend their lead and fumbled. The game felt like the Gophers might get to 40-50 points with a 30 point blowout.
Up to that point, Indiana had 9 points and 172 yards.

At that point of the fumble, Indiana proceeds to score 22 points and gain 208 yards while possessing the ball for about 12 minutes.

So at one point, the defense was playing solid, and suddenly, couldn't make a stop.
Polar opposites within the same game.
Click to expand...

Yeah, was strange how quickly that game flipped. I believe after fumble, we threw an interception next drive. In end, I think Gophers turned it over 4 times
 

Our offense was explosive, because we had Brooks back for that game. As soon as he tore his knee, it was like our offense lost its soul.

And once our offense couldn't do anything suddenly, our defense couldn't stop a wet paper towel from scoring. We probably should not have won that game, in hindsight. Maybe Fleck would've fired Robb Smith a week earlier, and then we could've beaten Illinois instead.

Hindsight is 20-20.
 

Gophers_4life said:
It, like PE, you, and others, was trying to make the point that we need to win now, because we are going to take a step backwards in 2020.

Not any kind of logical overstep to then go where I went with it.
Click to expand...

That someone would prefer 1 good year in ‘19 over sustained good years starting in ‘20 was a logical step from that? You thinking so sums up this conversation nicely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Spoofin said:
That someone would prefer 1 good year in ‘19 over sustained good years starting in ‘20 was a logical step from that?
Click to expand...

How can it not be, if you're predicting that 2020 is a step-back?? It logically has to be. No way around that.


Your only escape now is to come out that you want 2019 to be the start of a string of success. But if 2020 is going to be a success, then I have you. Because I can say that we can just wait for 2020. So I don't see a way for you to win here.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom