Wisconsin Coach

[Jackson5]

20 years isn't relevant. College football did not begin until 1994.

10 years is slightly better. They averaged about 8.5 wins per seasons over the last 10 years. Big 10 finishes of 5th, 8th, 8th, 7th, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 4th.

 

[Goldmember]

BTW, Wisconsin finnished in a 3-way tie for 6th in Big Ten last year.

Um no. First off, they finished in a tie for 4th place with NW. Second, they were 10-3 (5-3 in the Big Ten) with hardfought losses to Iowa (Orange Bowl winner) and OSU (Rose Bowl winner) plus the WTF loss to Northwestern. This is better then any season Mason ever had here other than 2003 which I'd say was the same level of success (his 5-3 B10 record in 1999 included losses to the 6th and 8th place teams).

Okay, my bad. I was meaning to refer to 2008. The "year before last year" they tied for 6th. And this falls outside of the range that you just established.

So is a 3-way tie for 6th place acceptable, or isn't it? Or... does it depend? Because it did happen very recently.

And that just happens to have been a very similar season to Minnesota 2006. Complete with the close-call against an FCS.

 

[GoAUpher]

Okay, my bad. I was meaning to refer to 2008. The "year before last year" they tied for 6th. And this falls outside of the range that you just established.

So is a 3-way tie for 6th place acceptable, or isn't it? Or... does it depend? Because it did happen very recently.

And that just happens to have been a very similar season to Minnesota 2006. Complete with the close-call against an FCS.

Of course its acceptable. When you have the baseline of success that WI has had you can have down years and move on. When 7-6 and ties for 6th place are typical performance then no, that's back to mediocre. That's the difference. At IA and WI these years are the outliers. With Mason they were the norm. That's why your insistence on focusing on 2006 is so pointless. You want to pretend he was fired for one bad year, when the bulk of his career at MN was made up of years like that one. In 5 of his 10 years, he finished lower than 6th in the conference. The problem wasn't 2006. It's that 2006 was simply a continuation of a well established trend.

 

[Goldmember]

Of course its acceptable. When you have the baseline of success that WI has had you can have down years and move on.

Since they last went to a Rose Bowl over a decade ago, Wisconsin's Big Ten record has averaged 4.4 wins and 3.6 losses.

Mason, after his 2 year honeymoon, averaged 3.6 wins and 4.4 losses over his next 8 years.

With all of the built-in advantages, coaching stability, and Rosebowl folklore Wisconsin has, they have managed to best Glen Mason by fewer than ONE Big Ten win per season.

 

[GoAUpher]

Since they last went to a Rose Bowl over a decade ago, Wisconsin's Big Ten record has averaged 4.4 wins and 3.6 losses.

Mason, after his 2 year honeymoon, averaged 3.6 wins and 4.4 losses over his next 8 years.

With all of the built-in advantages, coaching stability, and Rosebowl folklore Wisconsin has, they have managed to best Glen Mason by fewer than ONE Big Ten win per season.

That's a pretty good point. The fact is however, that they did get to those Rose Bowls and have since made consistent trips to meaningful bowl games. They've also consistently won their rivalry games. Mason had not and IMO would not have ever done those things had he stayed.

Also, if you look at the records each season there was a 4 year stretch (2000-2003) where they didn't finish as strongly in conference, however, since then they've finished 4th twice, 3rd twice, 2nd once, with the '08 6th place finish mixed in. That means in the last 6 years they've only had 1 season (2008) that was typical Mason. And that's my point. If you look at the WI program since Barry got there, they've had many more ups than downs and the "downs" end up looking like a typical Mason season. Mason was at MN 10 years and never had a single breakthrough year. If he had shown any interest in working to improve then I might miss him. But he was clearly comfortable with where the team was and didn't see a need to get better. WI is a clear indicator that doing better with what we have is possible and that settling for finishing around 6th in the conference does not have to be a "good" year for the Gophers.

 

[dpodoll68]

Wisconsin's bad season- going 7-6, going to the Champs Bowl and losing to Florida State

You're an idiot.

Even though Wisconsin football didn't start until 1993, they actually have gone sub-.500 twice since 1995. I won't even go into 1956 through 1992.

 

[GoAUpher]

You're an idiot.

Even though Wisconsin football didn't start until 1993, they actually have gone sub-.500 twice since 1995. I won't even go into 1956 through 1992.

He's not an idiot. He's just 12 years old and doesn't know any better.

 

[Regdab]

It's not idiotic at all. It's what the expectations are here and now. So what if they are based off of what our program has been since 1994? In fact, current Badger fan expectations were probably put in place after the 2nd Rose Bowl in 2000 and then got a nice re-boost in 2006 when we went 12-1. Is evolving and replenishing our fan base and it's expectations a bad thing? Maybe you should think about that for a while. The point is that the standards are there and whether you agree or like it or not, going 7-6 and losing to FSU in 08 was a BAD year by our standards. People were calling for BB to be fired. People were even calling for BARRY to leave. It was nearly as bad as what seems to be transpiring right now in gopherland.

 

[badgerman27]

You're an idiot.

Even though Wisconsin football didn't start until 1993, they actually have gone sub-.500 twice since 1995. I won't even go into 1956 through 1992.

Why not go into that period? The same people who think UW fans only remember anything after '93 have this fantasy that UW football was nothing before that time. In realty, there have been 3 down periods in modern UW football: 1930-1948, 1967-1977, and 1986-1990. From 1948-1966, 1978-1985, and 1991-today UW has been an above average program.

The people who aren't sold on Bielema, or aren't happy with the direction of the program are just unrealistic. They have become spoiled by recent success, and can't seem to accept our limitations. They now expect us to challenge for a Rose Bowl berth every few years. We're very limited in recruiting, and are always going to have up and down cycles. We'll have years where we fall to 7-5 or 6-6, just like we'll have seasons where we rise to 12-1. We simply don't have the recruiting base to give us the yearly stability that many of our unrealistic fans now expect.

 

[Jdogg0821]

I'm a gopher but live in Wisconsin, which has been brutal by the way. Most "rationale" fans don't consider it a decline vs the Alvarez era. Only the radical, don't make any sense fringe which is often very vocal.

Bret has one nearly 75% of his games in 4+ years with some nice bowl wins but no BCS wins to date. He's beaten every team except OSU and is undefeated against the Gophers (uggh) and 2-2 vs Iowa. He went 10-2 last year with a team loaded with his recruits which tells you he's still putting talent on the roster. He's been able to keep the vast majority of the Wisconsin kids he's wanted in state which was an Alvarez staple.

Alvarez won 61% of his games over 16 years but obviously had the the three Rose Bowls. However, people forget that after the 2000 Rose Bowl, Wisconsin was finishing middle of the pack in the B10.

Wisconsin has not been a mediocre program under Bret or with Barry. Find me 15 programs in the country that have been better than Wisconsin in the last 20 years ( reasonable time frame). I'll help....

OSU
Michigan
PSU - maybe
Florida
LSU
Alabama
Texas
Oklahoma
Nebraska
USC
Oregon - maybe
FSU
Miami
Iowa - maybe

Anyway you slice it they've been a top 20 program easily. I don't call that mediocre. I'd would take that anyday as a gopher fan and never look back right now.

I for one think the transition from Bret to Barry has gone as smooth as any I've seen when losing an iconic coach. Plus he's young, so there's a chance he only gets better.

 

[2727Gopher]

Why not go into that period? The same people who think UW fans only remember anything after '93 have this fantasy that UW football was nothing before that time. In realty, there have been 3 down periods in modern UW football: 1930-1948, 1967-1977, and 1986-1990. From 1948-1966, 1978-1985, and 1991-today UW has been an above average program.

I think you're overestimating UW between the mid 60's and 1993. From 1978-1985, their best stretch in that time (that you called "above average"), the Badgers went 32-34-3 in the Big Ten, finishing in the upper half 4 times and the lower half 4 times. I'd call that average, not above average. Essentially, UW was a lousy program after 1963 and until 1993. In the 29 seasons in between, Wisconsin finished in the bottom half of the Big Ten 22 times, in the top half 5 times and there were two times that they straddled the middle (tied for 5th place in a ten team conference).

 

[badgerman27]

I used the time period from '78-'85, because it was McClain's tenure. You're right, from '78-'80, and again in '85, they weren't very good. From '81-'84, they were a good program, twice in position to go to the Rose Bowl. Lousy again from '86-'90, competitive in '91 & '92, before breaking through in '93. There can be no debate that the program was lousy from '66-'78, except for a couple of teams in '73 - '75, where they were again competitive.

My point was that they weren't completely irrelevant from '56-'93, like the poster suggested. Some good years in the late 50's and early 60's, mid 70's, and mid 80's. The down period were so bad that they may have led some people to believe that they were as bad throughout the entire time period.

 

[Goldmember]

I used the time period from '78-'85, because it was McClain's tenure. You're right, from '78-'80, and again in '85, they weren't very good. From '81-'84, they were a good program, twice in position to go to the Rose Bowl. Lousy again from '86-'90, competitive in '91 & '92, before breaking through in '93. There can be no debate that the program was lousy from '66-'78, except for a couple of teams in '73 - '75, where they were again competitive.

My point was that they weren't completely irrelevant from '56-'93, like the poster suggested.

This is a perfect example of how everyone hold Minnesota to a higher standard because what everyone here really wants is a Rose Bowl (and a NC or two, although no one here will ever admit it aloud). Most would-be fans of Minnesota have no interest in the Alamo Bowl or Champs Sports Bowl, and their organizers know it.

So if 7-win seasons are indicative of a "good program" you must think think the Glen Mason-era Gophers were largely a "good program".

And if 5-7 is "competitive" you must agree that from 1999-2006 the Gophers were always "competitive-to-good".

The problem is that this era of Gopher Football has generally been branded as "bad-to-mediocre", (and by no one more than the badger faithful).

You can't have it both ways. If, you think that in the 8 years that led up to Tim Brewster that the Gophers were irrelevant, then you must also agree that the Badgers were irrelevant for over 3 decades leading up to the 1993 season.

 

[Great Plains Gopher]

BB on TV the past two nights: they showed stat he is 21-4 in last 25 home conference games - I'd settle for that. Also, much as I dislike him, he's more articulate and provides less BS in interviews than most coaches, including Pelini and Brew. I hope he sticks around so our next coach can beat him in Madison year after year and mess up those stats.

 

[badgerman27]

So if 7-win seasons are indicative of a "good program" you must think think the Glen Mason-era Gophers were largely a "good program".

I think UM was a good program under Mason. The problem was your fans' expectations were raised, and too many of your fans forgot about your program's limitations.

And if 5-7 is "competitive" you must agree that from 1999-2006 the Gophers were always "competitive-to-good".

I think being a game on either side of .500 is being competitive.

You can't have it both ways. If, you think that in the 8 years that led up to Tim Brewster that the Gophers were irrelevant, then you must also agree that the Badgers were irrelevant for over 3 decades leading up to the 1993 season.[/QUOTE]

I think the Mason era was the best period of UM football dating back to the early 60's.