I only put stock in it because he did it again.
by rockmcd (2014-12-05 17:49:48)
[ cannot delete ]   [ Edit ]   [ Return to Rock's House ]   [ Show All Thread ]   [ Ignore Poster ]   [ Report Post ]   [ Highlight Poster ]   [ Reply ]

  In reply to: Some here put far more stock in Cincy's 2009 regular season  posted by ShermanOaksND



I think 2009 and 2012 validate each other and weaken the argument that either of those were flukes. It's not a huge thing but it's something.

It shows that he's capable of occasional seasons where we'll get an at bat in the playoff. Of course he's also capable of 4-5 loss regular seasons more often than not. Both things are true and there's no need for anybody to place an asterisk next to one data point or the other.


I disagree that 2009 and 2012 "validate each other"
by ShermanOaksND  (2014-12-05 18:37:15)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

In any event, the larger point is that those seasons are far outnumbered by the 4 years of 4-5 losses under Kelly at ND. Such seasons are now clearly established as the norm for him. Occasional exceptions aren't good enough. Davie, Willingham and Weis aren't judged solely by their comparably occasional 9-3 or 10-3 seasons, and rightfully so.


I definitely agree on the larger point. *
by rockmcd  (2014-12-05 18:59:43)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


The contents of this post represent the views of the author. NDNation.com is not responsible for its contents.