re: No Excuses

quote:

---

I'm talking more long term. FSU has been the most consistent, but they even struggle during Bowden's last years.

---

That's ridiculous. If you count the Bowden era (1976) as the start of modern day FSU football here are their stats

40 years
33 Top 25 Finishes
19 Top 10 Finishes
17 Top 5 Finishes (almost half of the last 40 years FSU finished in the Top 5, HALF)
3 National Championships
24 10-win seasons
0 losing seasons
38 bowl games

FSU's "down period" from 2006-2009 they went 30-24 and went to 4 bowl games. Basically every season outside of that they've won 8+ games, most years 9-10+ games.

If FSU has struggled in mediocrity the last 40 years then Auburn (and most of the SEC) is gutter trash.

quote:

---

quote:I'm talking more long term. FSU has been the most consistent, but they even struggle during Bowden's last years. That's ridiculous. If you count the Bowden era (1976) as the start of modern day FSU football here are their stats 40 years 33 Top 25 Finishes 19 Top 10 Finishes 17 Top 5 Finishes 3 National Championships 24 10-win seasons 0 losing seasons 38 bowl games FSU's "down period" from 2006-2009 they went 30-24 and went to 4 bowl games. Basically every season outside of that they've won 8+ games, most years 9-10+ games. If FSU has struggled in mediocrity the last 40 years then Auburn (and most of the SEC) is gutter trash.

---

Do some research before you make a fool of yourself. I said Bowden struggled during the last years:

2005 8-5
2006 7-6
2007 7-6
2008 9-4
2009 7-6

Not quite up to FSU Standards.

quote:

---

Do some research before you make a fool of yourself

---

quote:

---

Not quite up to FSU Standards.

---

LOL - did you read my post? "FSU standards" are insanely high because FSU was insanely good for almost 50 years. They literally had 5 so-so years over a 40 year stretch, and they followed that up by being awesome again.

Your stupid point was there is no excuse for them to be mediocre. (like, ever? I guess). They aren't mediocre and they certainly haven't been mediocre "long-term". They are the most consistent program in college football over the last half century ("long term").

The idea that a program should never have a 5 year "bad run" (one that was still average and not terrible) is ludicrous. It happens to ever program in college football.

quote:

---

They weren't mediocre those last years of Bowden ? Quit chasing your tail on this one. I never said they were mediocre "long term", I just claimed they didn't have a excuse to be mediocre period.

---

Again, is your expectation that a program should literally never have a 5 year stretch in which they average 7 wins (following a stretch averaging 11 and preceding a stretch averaging 10)? Because that is your implication. And that is laughably unrealistic.

Alabama, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, USC, Nebraska, Penn State, Texas, Ohio State, Florida State, Michigan have all had those stretches. Every blue blood in CFB has had AT LEAST a 5 year stretch like that in the last 30 years.

quote:

---

Again, is your expectation that a program should literally never have a 5 year stretch in which they average 7 wins (following a stretch averaging 11 and preceding a stretch averaging 10)? Because that is your implication. And that is laughably unrealistic. Alabama, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, USC, Nebraska, Penn State, Texas, Ohio State, Florida State, Michigan have all had those stretches. Every blue blood in CFB has had AT LEAST a 5 year stretch like that in the last 30 years.

---

Reading is an issue with you. Alabama, Notre Dame, OU, Nebraska, Penn St, Michigan do not have the built in advantage of location in recruiting. Their failures were because of recruiting and coaching, but the excuses are more palatable than those schools I listed.

quote:

---

No, it's not a failure. I was pointing out that the bluest of the blue bloods have those periods (including teams in the regions you mentioned). You didn't answer my question. Is your expectation that FSU, UGA, Florida, USC, UCLA, Texas, Miami, Texas A&M, because of "recruiting area", should literally never have a 5 year period where they average 6-7 wins? Like I said, nobody in the history of CFB has avoided a period like that.

---

First read the OP.

With 25 scholarships and the title of the "State University" to go with the fertile recruiting area, no they shouldn't have a 5 year period where they average 6-7 wins.

What excuse would you accept for that period ? Bama's down periods could be blamed for recruiting and incompetency. Half of that equation is out of the picture for those teams listed.

quote:

---

I wouldn't accept an excuse, nor am I saying you'd let the coach stick around. I'm saying that there are 50 programs in CFB that wouldn't accept 5 years like that and would fire their coach (assuming he isn't the father of a program like Bowden/Paterno). However, anyone with a brain understands that they will happen, because they happen everywhere.

---

So, it happens everywhere is your answer ? You still fail to answer why it happens and why is it acceptable when it does. Your excuse sounds like an AD trying to keep his job.

quote:

---

If your point is it shouldn't be acceptable at these schools, my counter would be sure, those schools, plus about 30 other ones that aren't in those states. It isn't like those schools have some added burden on them because they are in states with lots of recruits. Those states also have lots of schools, and recruiting is a zero sum game.

---

My point is it shouldn't be an excuse at those schools (OP). When should those schools slip in recruit (not developing) ? Again, most could recruit 100-150 miles from their campus and have a top 10 class every year. How competitive would Bama be if you limited them to every recruit (25) from an area from Birmingham to Jackson to Montgomery and Memphis. Superimpose that model over the teams I listed. Just a small example of the advantage they have.