Max Duggan cleared to play Saturday

[BryceC]

SP+ does a much better job of providing an objective rating between eras of past, current, and future team performance that mere W-L on their own. W-L are what a team accomplishes, though, you are correct about that.

SP+ also adjusts for strength of schedule and the strength of those victories. If W-L was literally your only goal, then we should be scheduling three cupcakes in the non-con every year (including dropping good 1-AA and G5 programs like UNI and Louisiana from future schedules, only the dregs here, no more Iowa). I could even take that further that, if the only thing you want is wins, then we might as well drop to the MAC instead of playing Big 12 opponents.

You would say leaving the Big 12 to win games is absurd, and you are right, but that is an implicit admission on your part that not all wins are exactly created equal. Beating Texas takes a bit more than Bowling Green State.

I repeat -- if you think things now are no better than the Rhoads era, then you have your eyes closed. Bring those early Rhoads teams into our modern schedules, and they are not going 3/4 on bowl trips. And the late era Rhoads teams, well, wow, you see what happens when Rhoads had to play a full round-robin against the B12.

I understand all that. My point is simply that wins matter as well and I don't like systems that simply disregard that. We've had this discussion on the basketball side with KenPom and others - there is value there but W/L must be taken in to account.

Furthermore, I actually do think we should just play the dregs for noncon and drop Iowa. Wins matter more in football than other sports because those wins directly lead to better bowl bids. IMO best way forward is to stay in the Big 12, but also to maximize wins. Your noncon schedule is the only thing you control there. I know others disagree and that's fine.

Also it's dead obvious that Campbell is better than Rhoads, for no other reason than this team just doesn't get blown out that often. The game on Saturday, ND, that's basically twice in 3 years. That means something, especially that I just look forward to every game. I mean to take nothing away from Campbell. I hope he coaches here literally until I die. But winning games matters.

 

[Sigmapolis]

I understand all that. My point is simply that wins matter as well and I don't like systems that simply disregard that. We've had this discussion on the basketball side with KenPom and others - there is value there but W/L must be taken in to account.

Furthermore, I actually do think we should just play the dregs for noncon and drop Iowa. Wins matter more in football than other sports because those wins directly lead to better bowl bids. IMO best way forward is to stay in the Big 12, but also to maximize wins. Your noncon schedule is the only thing you control there. I know others disagree and that's fine.

Also it's dead obvious that Campbell is better than Rhoads, for no other reason than this team just doesn't get blown out that often. The game on Saturday, ND, that's basically twice in 3 years. That means something, especially that I just look forward to every game. I mean to take nothing away from Campbell. I hope he coaches here literally until I die. But winning games matters.

Alright, these are all fair points.

Rhoads wins by year (B12) --

7 (3) + W bowl against Minnesota
5 (3)
6 (3) + L bowl against Rutgers
6 (3) + L bowl against Tulsa
3 (2)
2 (0)
3 (2)

His first four years were not bad. But then things fell apart. Funny how, as soon as some of Chizik's recruiting ran out, the Rhoads program turned back into a pumpkin and started to suck really hard.

Campbell --

3 (2) ...which I think most would acknowledge as a rebuilding year
8 (5) + W bowl against Memphis
8 (6) + L bowl against Washington State
7 (5) + L bowl against Notre Dame

Campbell has been categorically better against better schedules and accomplished much more.

I would share your feelings if I felt Campbell's program was about to go off the rails like Rhoads did those last three years. But I see no sign that should be the case. Rhoads' "rented" talent from Chizik ran out, and his recruiting was abysmal. I hate to boil it down to just recruiting, but Campbell's has not dropped off.

Louisiana was a bad game, and I see why a lot of people have a bad taste in their mouth, but we really are in a good spot now compared to pretty much any point as a program in most of our lifetimes.

 

[Clonefan32]

Alright, these are all fair points.

Rhoads wins by year (B12) --

7 (3) + W bowl against Minnesota
5 (3)
6 (3) + L bowl against Rutgers
6 (3) + L bowl against Tulsa
3 (2)
2 (0)
3 (2)

His first four years were not bad. But then things fell apart. Funny how, as soon as some of Chizik's recruiting ran out, the Rhoads program turned back into a pumpkin and started to suck really hard.

Campbell --

3 (2) ...which I think most would acknowledge as a rebuilding year
8 (5) + W bowl against Memphis
8 (6) + L bowl against Washington State
7 (5) + L bowl against Notre Dame

Campbell has been categorically better against better schedules and accomplished much more.

I would share your feelings if I felt Campbell's program was about to go off the rails like Rhoads did those last three years. But I see no sign that should be the case. Rhoads' "rented" talent from Chizik ran out, and his recruiting was abysmal. I hate to boil it down to just recruiting, but Campbell's has not dropped off.

Louisiana was a bad game, and I see why a lot of people have a bad taste in their mouth, but we really are in a good spot now compared to pretty much any point as a program in most of our lifetimes.

I'd strongly advise you not to look at this year's recruiting rankings then.

 

[BryceC]

Alright, these are all fair points.

Rhoads wins by year (B12) --

7 (3) + W bowl against Minnesota
5 (3)
6 (3) + L bowl against Rutgers
6 (3) + L bowl against Tulsa
3 (2)
2 (0)
3 (2)

His first four years were not bad. But then things fell apart. Funny how, as soon as some of Chizik's recruiting ran out, the Rhoads program turned back into a pumpkin and started to suck really hard.

Campbell --

3 (2) ...which I think most would acknowledge as a rebuilding year
8 (5) + W bowl against Memphis
8 (6) + L bowl against Washington State
7 (5) + L bowl against Notre Dame

Campbell has been categorically better against better schedules and accomplished much more.

I would share your feelings if I felt Campbell's program was about to go off the rails like Rhoads did those last three years. But I see no sign that should be the case. Rhoads' "rented" talent from Chizik ran out, and his recruiting was abysmal. I hate to boil it down to just recruiting, but Campbell's has not dropped off.

Louisiana was a bad game, and I see why a lot of people have a bad taste in their mouth, but we really are in a good spot now compared to pretty much any point as a program in most of our lifetimes.

I agree with all of this. Campbell and Rhoads are not comparable. My point is simply that I'd rather play a crap noncon every year and go 8-4 or 9-3 versus being SP+ all stars and go 7-6.

 

[coolerifyoudid]

I think we can all agree that CPR never had to put a game plan together for Max Duggan

 

[Sigmapolis]

I agree with all of this. Campbell and Rhoads are not comparable. My point is simply that I'd rather play a crap noncon every year and go 8-4 or 9-3 versus being SP+ all stars and go 7-6.

I guess this is just a matter of preference. But remember what that "SP+ all-star" means.

-- beats highly-ranked teams with some regularity
-- if the stars align, has the "upside risk" of truly challenging for a Big 12 championship
-- but yes, has to tolerate a lower floor in the W column

Your style might win 1-2 more games per year, but it is going to have a lower ceiling.

I'll take the risk for the upside payoffs.

 

[shawn_200m]

I agree with you CMC is the best we've had but regarding coach Mac, he got the easy north schedule two years and then probably played the toughest schedule we've ever had for two years. That really stymied his program getting over the hump. There were years were UT, OU and Tech were all top 10ish type teams plus teams like Nebby, CU, Mizzou and K State all had legit teams during his time. If you're going to talk about his easy schedule, you have to give him credit for his tough schedules as well. You can argue he coached in a tougher big 12 than CMC.

His '02 schedule started with #3 Florida State, then beat an Iowa team that won double digit games, also included #20 Nebraska, @#2 OU, @#7 Texas, @#12 Kansas State and @#17 Colorado. That's tougher than anything this staff has faced. Imagine if that team had gotten to play the easy south rotation. It's probably a 10 win team that plays for the big 12 title.

That '02 team completely imploded, got destroyed by OU, lost by 50 to K-State and then lost to UCONN who was in their first year of being D1 in football and also got trounced in the bowl game by Boise. Also FSU was ranked #3 when we played them but ended up being not very good...same with that Nebraska team. Not a great comparison.

 

[BryceC]

I guess this is just a matter of preference. But remember what that "SP+ all-star" means.

-- beats highly-ranked teams with some regularity
-- if the stars align, has the "upside risk" of truly challenging for a Big 12 championship
-- but yes, has to tolerate a lower floor in the W column

Your style might win 1-2 more games per year, but it is going to have a lower ceiling.

I'll take the risk for the upside payoffs.

What's the potential upside payoff?

 

[clonedude]

Alright, these are all fair points.

Rhoads wins by year (B12) --

7 (3) + W bowl against Minnesota
5 (3)
6 (3) + L bowl against Rutgers
6 (3) + L bowl against Tulsa
3 (2)
2 (0)
3 (2)

His first four years were not bad. But then things fell apart. Funny how, as soon as some of Chizik's recruiting ran out, the Rhoads program turned back into a pumpkin and started to suck really hard.

Campbell --

3 (2) ...which I think most would acknowledge as a rebuilding year
8 (5) + W bowl against Memphis
8 (6) + L bowl against Washington State
7 (5) + L bowl against Notre Dame

Campbell has been categorically better against better schedules and accomplished much more.

I would share your feelings if I felt Campbell's program was about to go off the rails like Rhoads did those last three years. But I see no sign that should be the case. Rhoads' "rented" talent from Chizik ran out, and his recruiting was abysmal. I hate to boil it down to just recruiting, but Campbell's has not dropped off.

Louisiana was a bad game, and I see why a lot of people have a bad taste in their mouth, but we really are in a good spot now compared to pretty much any point as a program in most of our lifetimes.

So if CMC drops down to 3 wins this season.... it looks fairly similar to Rhoads actually.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

I'd strongly advise you not to look at this year's recruiting rankings then.

I would take this years rankings with a grain of salt, there were no summer camps etc which drive the raking evals.

 

[Clone95]

Even if they only win 3 games this year, it will mean Campbell has 21 conference wins in his first 5 seasons, compared to Rhoads 14, so not similar, actually.

 

[Sigmapolis]

What's the potential upside payoff?

Having the team that has the firepower to compete for conference titles and national attention.

Consider an analogy from basketball. Which would you rather be?

12-6 in the Big 12, made the dance at roughly a #4-5 seed
mid-major (e.g., American or MVC) team that lost one or two games in conference

Which one has a more realistic shot of bloodying somebody's nose in the NCAA tournament and making a run?

There are the Loyola-Chicago's of the world, but typically the battletested middle-tier of a power conference has a better chance of things breaking right some season and accomplishing some big things in the W column.

The program feasting on cupcakes might average more wins in the long-term, but it'll never accomplish anything as memorable as maybe going 11-1 some season and taking down Oklahoma in Dallas.

So if CMC drops down to 3 wins this season.... it looks fairly similar to Rhoads actually.

A prominent example involves Philip II of Macedon. After invading southern Greece and receiving the submission of other key city-states, he turned his attention to Sparta and asked menacingly whether he should come as friend or foe. The reply was "Neither." Losing patience, he sent the message:

You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city. The Spartan ephors again replied with a single word:

If.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

So if CMC drops down to 3 wins this season.... it looks fairly similar to Rhoads actually.

Not really. Good or bad I'm not sure how much stock you can put into this season. It is going to be a weird one.

 

[Rural]

Not really. Good or bad I'm not sure how much stock you can put into this season. It is going to be a weird one.

That may not have an ending.

 

[heitclone]

That '02 team completely imploded, got destroyed by OU, lost by 50 to K-State and then lost to UCONN who was in their first year of being D1 in football and also got trounced in the bowl game by Boise. Also FSU was ranked #3 when we played them but ended up being not very good...same with that Nebraska team. Not a great comparison.

Show me a year with a tougher schedule

 

[BryceC]

Having the team that has the firepower to compete for conference titles and national attention.

Consider an analogy from basketball. Which would you rather be?

12-6 in the Big 12, made the dance at roughly a #4-5 seed
mid-major (e.g., American or MVC) team that lost one or two games in conference

That's not what we're arguing though, and football and basketball are very different. #1 goal in basketball is getting to the tournament, hopefully with a great seed. #1 goal in football is winning the most games possible to get to the best bowl possible. We aren't leaving the Big 12 so a mid major comparison is pointless.

The argument would be, would it be better to be 9-3 with a crap noncon, or 8-4 with a loss in the noncon? In the world of football, that win matters more than your metrics by a mile.

 

[Sigmapolis]

That's not what we're arguing though, and football and basketball are very different. #1 goal in basketball is getting to the tournament, hopefully with a great seed. #1 goal in football is winning the most games possible to get to the best bowl possible. We aren't leaving the Big 12 so a mid major comparison is pointless.

The argument would be, would it be better to be 9-3 with a crap noncon, or 8-4 with a loss in the noncon? In the world of football, that win matters more than your metrics by a mile.

That 9-3 looks nice, but it isn't ever going 11-1 and playing in Dallas.

I'll take the 8-4 and be an SP+ all-star that might do something special occasionally.

 

[awd4cy]

Who gives af about Rhoads vs Campbell.

 

[IASTATE07]

Who gives af about Rhoads vs Campbell.

Thanks for contributing nothing once again.

 

[knowlesjam]

I'd strongly advise you not to look at this year's recruiting rankings then.

I would again take this year as a pass given the COVID. To me, Campbell is a very persuasive, in-person, recruiter. He wants to actually establish a connection with the recruit and their families. COVID has taken that away. Many kids are simply committing to a school because of the schools history. Nebraska has had many out of state recruits commit sight unseen with no in person recruiting or campus visit. At least a half dozen have now decommitted as they actually learn about the school they committed to. Long story short...teams in the middle that have personable coaches are having difficulty recruiting this year.

Now if it becomes a trend...