We have similar "fans" at 9-2. I'm convinced that anything short of 14-0. With the nations #1 rated offense and defense.....plus the Heisman trophy winner will have resident expert couch coaches who could have done better than the current coaching staff.
not for me. I am OK with a 10-2 season. However, we need to look at what 10-2 means. We beat every mediocre and bad team on our schedule. We then had two top 4 teams we lost to. One we played tough, the other blew us out of the stadium.
10-2 is 1.5 wins more than we were supposed to do according to the odds. Teams that are underdogs to only 2 teams on their schedule are expected to lose 1 or 2 more. Odds makers with millions on the line calculate it this way because teams don't beat every team that they are favored over.
That may be true but the way the season played out, we were favored in every game. I think our most challenging game was Purdue since it was the first game of the season. Charlie Jones made a big splash and we couldn't anticipate that because he wasn't on the team last year and didn't play much before with Iowa. Auburn had a down year, fired their coach. We didn't play Iowa, Wisconsin or Nebraska. We played Minn after they lost their key starting QB.
Every losing coach is a lousy game day coach and also many winning coaches....and who judges in these instances? You got it....some turkey sitting on his couch at home drinking an alcoholic beverage.
Pretty close to .500 since 2009.
Would you agree that that most coaches do struggle with game management?
right...but we also went 4 and 5 with losses to Indy, MD, Neb and Iowa (by 41-21). So while we are excited about not losing to any team where we were expected to win, UM is playing for the B1G championship and is ranked in the top 4.
Well Auburn and Minnesota will finish right at their preseason predicted win totals so you can't say they were less than we thought they would be. I think you could say that Purdue and Michigan State (assuming we beat them) are less than what was expected so overall the season was easier than expected but that's about it. I think it would be a lot easier to feel good about things if we were at least competitive vs OSU and UM. We're still lacking in some key areas.That may be true but the way the season played out, we were favored in every game. I think our most challenging game was Purdue since it was the first game of the season. Charlie Jones made a big splash and we couldn't anticipate that because he wasn't on the team last year and didn't play much before with Iowa. Auburn had a down year, fired their coach. We didn't play Iowa, Wisconsin or Nebraska. We played Minn after they lost their key starting QB.
So you can say we won 1.5 more games than we should have, a closer look shows that we won the games we should have and lost to the two we should have. We simply "held serve".
We can all call that "improvement" and rightfully so. We didn't lose to an "Indiana" or "Illinois", if that is considered an improvement. My position is that this "improvement" came after two years of dismal performance. I am not going to jump up and down because we beat Purdue and MD in the same year.
That is perhaps the most incredibly stupid statement I've ever read here.
So, is your issue with not winning games we should....or not winning games we shouldn't?
Fair enough but Auburn wasn't a good team and Minny was good until the week before when their QB got hurt. Regardless, we really didn't play a good football team outside of our two losses. Going into the seasons, I'd have said two losses was a good year. But the way it played out, we didn't beat any good football teams.
I think we should be challenging for the B1G championship. We haven't for the last three years. 2022, so far, has been an improvement but against whom? Looking back, a loss to any of the teams we beat would be embarrassing. There is a huge gap between the teams we beat and the two teams we lost to. It was feast or famine this year.
See the NHL hiring people simply to tell the coaches when to challenge plays
I totally agree. But in terms of historical success, looking back, there were no signature wins. We beat 7-4 Purdue and Minny (without their starting QB). We also beat a 5-6 (soon to be 5-7) Aburn team.
Michigan beat us
The "glory days" were last seen consistently in the 1980s. As earlier stated fans need to understand that historically Michigan and Ohio State are better programs. I too would love to win every single game. However, I'm not going to let unrealistic expectations destroy my appreciation for seasons such as the current one.
I believe research would show that most top D1 programs have such a person who is in the HC's ear at the appropriate instances. That may not be their only responsibility, but they are entrusted with keeping the HC informed.
It's a good question. If you go undefeated you'll be highly ranked despite SoS. UM has played and won. Their signature win is against, well, us. Second to that is probably Iowa.
They need someone who that is their only job--not just college--the NFL as well
No, but we should understand why we aren't ranked higher and why we may get left out of a NY6 game with the auto tie ins.
..and I am confused by the use of the term "cry". I don't see anyone "crying" about it. The fact is, we aren't a good enough team, at least to what PSU's standards should be. We beat a lot of cupcakes.
