July Afternoon Blahs - I love Les Miles and Can't Stand Charlie Weis Edition

by corn blight on Jul 12, 2007 12:37 PM CDT in Corn Flakes

Yes, it's still July. It's a great month to catch up on stupid movie watching, read some books, take the kids fishing, or endlessly complain about LSU head coach Les Miles.

Funny thing about Les Miles. We complain when we get nothing but coach-speak from a guy, then we complain and howl like hell when we don't get coach-speak from Les Miles. If that ain't proof there's an off-season, what is?

Is there anyone out there who seriously believes that Pac-10 football is anywhere close to the level of football being played in the SEC? Anyone but Pac-10 supporters? Do you guys believe that Big 12 football is close to the SEC? Year in, year out, the SEC is the best conference in college football and until the Big 12 North radically improves that's how it's going to stay.

I like Les Miles. I thought he was a good coach at Oklahoma State. With Bo Pelini as his defensive coordinator, it's only a matter of time before LSU is in a title game.

Oklahoma had to vacate their wins for 2005. Rather than me talk about it, read this excellent commentary from Crimson and Cream Machine about how the 'punishment' from the NCAA isn't much worse than what Oklahoma had already done to themselves.

Not to be outdone, the guys at USC are disgusted with the idea that Oklahoma's sanctions should apply to them and the Reggie Bush debacle scandal hullabaloo.

Bill Callahan just missed Stewart Mandel's list of the five worst coaches in college football.

Whenever I think about Billy C, I think about Charlie W. Charlie W has a Super Bowl ring. Billy C does not although he got a team to the big game. Billy C's best showing to date has been winning the Big 12 North last season and getting into the Big 12 Championship game - not exactly huge but a step in the right direction. Charlie W's biggest accomplishment has been getting into a BCS bowl game that Notre Dame didn't deserve last season and getting utterly destroyed by LSU, continuing a bowl losing streak that extends back to 1994.

Why is it that Charlie W gets hailed as an offensive genius and Billy C barely misses the list of the five worst coaches in the nation? Notre Dame is set to have a bad season in 2007 and tons of excuses will be made for Charlie W about how he's starting a new quarterback. Nebraska will have a decent season, and if we don't, Billy C will be blamed even though we're starting a new quarterback.

These two coaches are not that far apart and the gap is narrowing year by year. I say this with a certain amount of confidence:

When that gap closes Bill Callahan will last much longer at Nebraska than Charlie Weiss will at Notre Dame.

When the time comes, I expect no retraction from Stewie Mandel. You shouldn't either.

0 recs | Comment 9 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

numbers

Is there anyone out there who seriously believes that Pac-10 football is anywhere close to the level of football being played in the SEC? Anyone but Pac-10 supporters?

Well, as someone pointed out on EDSBS last week, the Pac-10 does have a winning record against the SEC this decade. I'm not sure what other metric you'd use, but W-L seems kind of important.

And I say this as a full-throated Husker-backer.

Can you hear this, Denver, or shall I turn it up for you?

by Ignignokt on Jul 12, 2007 7:31 PM CDT 0 recs

oh sure

There's nothing like facts to cloud the issue. Ha!

Still.... from top to bottom I think the SEC is the better conference.

Stanford is hopeless. Washington/WSU seem lost. Oregon/Oregon State are always decent and can pull off an upset. Arizona State seems lost. Hell, that's about half the conference.

OTOH, Kentucky, Vandy, lost. But then you look at one side of that conference and you've got Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, and LSU. That's pretty awesome.

Then the other side you've got Florida, Georgia, Tennessee (TN has definitely seen better times, though).

Pac-10 better than the SEC? I haven't looked at the wins and losses... but I still don't believe it.

Go Big Red!

by corn blight on Jul 13, 2007 8:09 AM CDT up 0 recs

USC & Pete Carroll

The Pac-10's results this decade have been seriously skewed by USC who have been a top-5 team the last 4 years in a row.

I think it's a safe argument that the Pac 10's best is better than the SEC's best this decade.

But it's also a safe argument is that the rest of the SEC is much better than the rest of the Pac 10.

by Husker Mike on Jul 13, 2007 12:45 PM CDT 0 recs

yes and no

Let's look at a comparison of winning percentages from 2000-2006 (*=MNC):

<align="center" cellspacing="5"><th rowspan="3">Top Dogs
75%+</th>
<th rowspan="4">Next Best
60-75%</th><th rowspan="5">Middlings
50-60%</th><th rowspan="5">Bottom-Feeders
50% or less</th>

	Pac 10	SEC
USC-78.6%**	LSU - 77.7%*
	Georgia - 76.6


Oregon - 67.4	Auburn - 74.1
Oregon St. - 62.8	Florida - 73.0*
	Tennessee - 69.3


Wash. St. - 59.0	Arkansas - 57.5
UCLA - 58.1	South Carolina - 57.1
Cal - 55.3	Bama - 53.5%
ASU - 53.5


Washington - 48.2	Ole Miss - 49.9
Stanford - 38.0	Kentucky - 34.6
Arizona - 35.0	Miss St. - 30.9
	Vandy - 25.0

The most obvious thing is that the top of the SEC is clearly better than the top of the PAC 10. The SEC's top five, not surprisingly, are among the best teams in the country every year. After USC, there's a significant drop-off in quality in the PAC 10.

Next, note that the Middlings group contains traditional powers Bama and UCLA. In recent years, these teams simply haven't been as good as their pedigree would indicate. More importantly, note that the percentages are roughly equal in both conferences. You could argue that Bama is clearly superior to Cal or Arkansas is definitely better than Wazzu, but the numbers indicate otherwise.

Finally, at the bottom are the predictable dregs. Here again, the percentages are similar, with perhaps a slight edge to the PAC 10. Miss. St. and Vandy really are that bad.

What this indicates to me is that the "top-to-bottom" arguments don't necessarily fly. The bottom half of the PAC 10 is just as good as that of the SEC. When comparing elite teams, however, the SEC wins on both quantity and quality. That's where SEC fans should hang their proverbial hats.

Can you hear this, Denver, or shall I turn it up for you?

by Ignignokt on Jul 13, 2007 3:58 PM CDT up 0 recs

oops

my html screwed up somewhere along the way, but you get the idea.... i hope

(is there an edit comment option anywhere?)

Can you hear this, Denver, or shall I turn it up for you?

by Ignignokt on Jul 13, 2007 4:01 PM CDT up 0 recs

That would be correct....

If you just took teams that were played by teams from both conferences. If the bottom of the Pac-10 went 0-10 against certain teams and then split games amongst each other that will skew the winning %. You need to look at games of teams that were played by teams from both conferences. I.E. If Tenn. plays Notre Dame and USC plays Notre Dame you could count that. If Tenn. plays Fla. ATl. and USC plays Pacific you cant really count that because you dont know how the other team would have faired against the other opponent. If USC and Tenn. play you could count that because it would be a common opponent for the conferences. I'm sure this has been as clear as mud to read but I hope you get my point.

by taflorom on Jul 17, 2007 7:52 PM CDT up 0 recs

even then

Even then it could only work if they shared the same opponent in the same season. For example, Notre Dame beat Tennessee in 2005. USC beat Notre Dame in 2006. This does not give any grounds for comparing USC to Tennessee, let alone the PAC 10 to the SEC. Comparing conferences across years using this method would yield few telling data. For example, if USC beats Notre Dame, Texas and Nebraska in a given season, but none of them have an SEC team on their schedule, USC gets no credit for those victories in your model (no matter how strong they are, they're not a common opponent). I think overall winning percentage is the best way to gauge a team's success over large periods of time.

More importantly, I'm not trying to make any advanced statistical argument (I wouldn't begin to know how). I'm just presenting two pieces of statistical evidence - (1)The Pac 10 has a winning record against the SEC this decade; (2)From mid-table on down, members of the two conferences have similar winning percentages. What these indicate to me is that the SEC is the stronger conference, but not by an overwhelming margin.

In short, I can see that the SEC is the best conference in college football, but I don't see it lapping the field the way so many in the blogosphere do.

Can you hear this, Denver, or shall I turn it up for you?

by Ignignokt on Jul 18, 2007 1:05 AM CDT up 0 recs

Just wanted to clarify

I'm not opposed to USC being sanctioned if the coaches or Athletic Dep't types knew what was going on with Reggie Bush and did nothing. But until the NCAA can prove that, what they have is some kind of malarkey between Bush's family and a couple of would-be agents about cashing in on his professional career. It looks bad, but it's not conclusive proof that SC is in the wrong.

Again, if someone were to prove that SC staff knew and did nothing, then SC would deserve whatever they got... (a crippling sense of guilt about Fresno State getting the death penalty, for instance.)

I suppose though, upon further reflection, if the punishment was Olkahoma-esque (i.e., symbolic) then maybe SC should just take it and move on...

by DC Trojan on Jul 14, 2007 10:34 PM CDT 0 recs

the big key

is that there is so much more at stake for 'SC and Reggie Bush.

Some might think that it's not that big a deal if they take away a Heisman, but it is a prestige thing. He won't be invited back to the club again, and once you're in that club you're there for life, and it's a pretty darned elite club.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Go Big Red!

by corn blight on Jul 15, 2007 1:35 PM CDT up 0 recs