Football Recruiting 2017

Talk about the latest recruits here.
golfnut69
Green Wave
Posts: 8109
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:38 am
Status: Online

Sat Dec 31, 2016 4:21 pm

DfromCT wrote:It all depends on our QB. If QB play mirrors this year, golfnut is right, we're a 3-4 win team. If QB play is drastically improved we could get to 6 or maybe 7 wins. We left a whole lot on the table, and put our D in bad positions simply because our QB couldn't run the option, had lead feet, and completed a whopping 42% of his passes. It couldn't have been worse, which was why I predicted 4 wins for this years squad.

The good news is it can only get better. Our D suffers some serious losses with Marley and Smart graduating, but a lot of that could be overcome by an offense that gives the D a whole lot more time on the sidelines.

Banks is an important recruit. Getting another dual threat QB would be huge, and I hope coach Fritz is about to land another. His pitch should not only focus on academics and the City of New Orleans, but also on the opportunity to compete for a starting job right away.

any hopes for more than 4 wins will come if two more JUCO's and two Grad's are on the roster and all of them better be lineman !!!...The D is too thin upfront to carry an inept O


Be a Hero Today.... Adopt a Shelter Pet... The Beatles once sang "Can't Buy Me Love"... I disagree, unconditional Love can be bought, for the nominal adoption fee at your local Pet Shelter !
winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 12611
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Online

Sat Dec 31, 2016 4:50 pm

Aberzombie1892 wrote:
winwave wrote:
Aberzombie1892 wrote:
As a side note, Tulane's complete 1998 regular season schedule was a joke.
Not surprised at all by you making that comment. So you're saying the team was a joke. :roll: We had an innovative offense and opportunistic defense. The schedule was light but it's still hard to win every time out. That was a good teamt that deserved their ranking.
I said "Tulane's complete 1998 regular season schedule was a joke". What I didn't say was "the team was joke". Those are two extremely different statements that mean different things. Tulane's 1998 regular season schedule was a complete joke (one 6-6 team, two 7-5 teams, and rest had less than 6 wins) and no one can seriously argue that it wasn't. Tulane deserved the BCS bid for being undefeated, but that schedule was one of the worst schedules Tulane has -ever- had if it wasn't the worst.
GreenLantern wrote:Meanwhile, back to the recruiting channel...

From everything I've read and researched about our 2017 recruiting, the most positive feeling I can summon is ambivalence. I'm certainly not overwhelmed with confidence that this recruiting class is the one that allows Tulane to turn the corner.

I expected (fantasized) that given a complete year at Tulane, Coach Fritz would begin to compete for some serious talent in the recruiting wars. To clarify that statement, I certainly hoped for more three star recruits than you could count on three fingers. At the risk of stirring the pot, I'm not certain that this recruiting class is any better than we would have seen from Coach Johnson.

As I consider the teams on our schedule for next year, it's hard to be hopeful that we will be much more competitive than this season. Hope I'm wrong.
Unless Fritz is as good at quick turnarounds as he was marketed as being, next year is going to be a long year given what Tulane is losing in the offseason and the current makeup of both the roster and the 2017 recruiting class.
My point was that once again you followed your pattern of always trashing any positives by Tulane but always making ridiculous proclamations of others. Football schedules are made far in advance and no one knows how those teams will be then. On paper in advance it was a decent schedule. We have played worse schedules. See our last Bowl season.
High School Stadium Gets You High School Football
User avatar
RobertM320
Tsunami
Posts: 6587
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
Location: Destrehan, LA
Contact:
Status: Offline

Sat Dec 31, 2016 5:35 pm

galvezwave wrote:This years team would have only beaten grambling and maybe smu with luck. Banks will have to be better than average. Way better.
I don't agree with that. We should have beaten SMU. I'd also think this years team would have beaten either Cincy or ECU.
"ASK AND YE SHALL RECEIVE! HANG EM AND BANG EM! HANG EM AND BANG EM!"-- Todd Graffagnini
Wavetime
Swell
Posts: 1143
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 11:11 am
Status: Offline

Sat Dec 31, 2016 5:37 pm

RobertM320 wrote:
galvezwave wrote:This years team would have only beaten grambling and maybe smu with luck. Banks will have to be better than average. Way better.
I don't agree with that. We should have beaten SMU. I'd also think this years team would have beaten either Cincy or ECU.

Probably the wrong thread, but this years team didn't take any plays off and went strong till the final whistle. We sure did put a pounding on UCONN on the road in our last game.
Aberzombie1892
Swell
Posts: 1738
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:16 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline

Sat Dec 31, 2016 6:12 pm

winwave wrote:
My point was that once again you followed your pattern of always trashing any positives by Tulane but always making ridiculous proclamations of others. Football schedules are made far in advance and no one knows how those teams will be then. On paper in advance it was a decent schedule. We have played worse schedules. See our last Bowl season.
Tulane has played a worse schedule than two 7-5 teams, a 6-6 team, and 8 non-6 win teams controlling for the number of games played in a season? That seems extraordinarily unlikely. Tulane's "last Bowl season" regular season schedule in 2013 included: three 6-6 teams, a 7-6 team, a 7-5 team, a 9-4 team, a 10-3 team, and a 10-4 team. That information alone makes it silly to argue that the the 2013 regular season schedule was remotely close to being as easy as the 1998 regular season schedule.

As a side note, how is the truth a "ridiculous proclamation"? The 1998 regular season schedule/record was rightfully scrutinized because it was terrible.
winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 12611
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Online

Sat Dec 31, 2016 6:18 pm

Aberzombie1892 wrote:
winwave wrote:
My point was that once again you followed your pattern of always trashing any positives by Tulane but always making ridiculous proclamations of others. Football schedules are made far in advance and no one knows how those teams will be then. On paper in advance it was a decent schedule. We have played worse schedules. See our last Bowl season.
Tulane has played a worse schedule than two 7-5 teams, a 6-6 team, and 8 non-6 win teams controlling for the number of games played in a season? That seems extraordinarily unlikely. Tulane's "last Bowl season" regular season schedule in 2013 included: three 6-6 teams, a 7-6 team, a 7-5 team, a 9-4 team, a 10-3 team, and a 10-4 team. That information alone makes it silly to argue that the the 2013 regular season schedule was remotely close to being as easy as the 1998 regular season schedule.

As a side note, how is the truth a "ridiculous proclamation"? The 1998 regular season schedule/record was rightfully scrutinized because it was terrible.
No matter the records that 2013 schedule was weak. Only a fool would say it was tough.

As for proclamations my point is you always take things in the worst light for Tulane and always make ridiculously positive comments about the very one else.
High School Stadium Gets You High School Football
DfromCT
Tsunami
Posts: 6395
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:50 pm
Location: Stamford, CT
Status: Offline

Sat Dec 31, 2016 6:29 pm

Be real, Aberzombie. I don't care about the records; in 1998 we didn't play such "powers" as Jackson St, South Alabama (whom we lost to in 2013!) UL-M, North Texas, Florida Atlantic (another horrible loss!)and U of Texas at San Antonio, I'd take a 4 win C-USA team from 1998 over any of these. Yes, USL was terrible in 1998. But in 2013 we also had a lot of games in conference against teams that were missing their best players, including Tulsa and ECU. I'd take our 1998 schedule over the 2013 one 100 out of 100 times. Had we played the 2013 schedule this past year, we would have been back in the NO Bowl or something similar. Had we played the 1998 schedule, we probably don't get our 4 wins.
" For every alum, no matter where they are...I want a football coach that's going to make Saturday something you anticipate and look forward to." --Troy Dannen

Thank you all for your support as my son Zach continues to beat leukemia
Jaxwave
Surge
Posts: 914
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 8:14 pm
Status: Offline

Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:00 pm

DfromCT wrote:It all depends on our QB. If QB play mirrors this year, golfnut is right, we're a 3-4 win team. If QB play is drastically improved we could get to 6 or maybe 7 wins. We left a whole lot on the table, and put our D in bad positions simply because our QB couldn't run the option, had lead feet, and completed a whopping 42% of his passes. It couldn't have been worse, which was why I predicted 4 wins for this years squad.

The good news is it can only get better. Our D suffers some serious losses with Marley and Smart graduating, but a lot of that could be overcome by an offense that gives the D a whole lot more time on the sidelines.

Banks is an important recruit. Getting another dual threat QB would be huge, and I hope coach Fritz is about to land another. His pitch should not only focus on academics and the City of New Orleans, but also on the opportunity to compete for a starting job right away.
Academics is a negative for us not a positive. The better players don't want to have to perform in a real academic curriculum, especially in Louisiana. That is why I wish we would recruit nationally (Midwest, up east, etc.) Where a Tulane education is valued.
User avatar
RobertM320
Tsunami
Posts: 6587
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
Location: Destrehan, LA
Contact:
Status: Offline

Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:42 pm

I think you bring up an important point, Jaxwave. I think a Tulane education is more valued by people outside of Louisiana than in-state.
"ASK AND YE SHALL RECEIVE! HANG EM AND BANG EM! HANG EM AND BANG EM!"-- Todd Graffagnini
User avatar
wave97
Swell
Posts: 1328
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:08 pm
Status: Offline

Sat Dec 31, 2016 11:23 pm

Jaxwave wrote:
DfromCT wrote:It all depends on our QB. If QB play mirrors this year, golfnut is right, we're a 3-4 win team. If QB play is drastically improved we could get to 6 or maybe 7 wins. We left a whole lot on the table, and put our D in bad positions simply because our QB couldn't run the option, had lead feet, and completed a whopping 42% of his passes. It couldn't have been worse, which was why I predicted 4 wins for this years squad.

The good news is it can only get better. Our D suffers some serious losses with Marley and Smart graduating, but a lot of that could be overcome by an offense that gives the D a whole lot more time on the sidelines.

Banks is an important recruit. Getting another dual threat QB would be huge, and I hope coach Fritz is about to land another. His pitch should not only focus on academics and the City of New Orleans, but also on the opportunity to compete for a starting job right away.
Academics is a negative for us not a positive. The better players don't want to have to perform in a real academic curriculum, especially in Louisianna. That is why I wish we would recruit nationally (Midwest, up east, etc.) Where a Tulane education is valued.
The Mid-West & Mid-Atlantic are a shell of what they once were for producing the Don Maggs, Rodney Holman's and Roch Hontas' of our world. There is no other region in the country that can come close to producing the talent of the Deep-South. We are, for want of a suitable dual threat QB in a similar recruiting situation that we have been in for decades. In spite of the fact that our coaching staff is very much improved, there doesn't seem to be one naturally gifted recruiter who can flip or retain a prospect on the power of vision and charisma.
Everybody knows what we need:
A proven Dual-threat QB.
A handful of o-lineman.
A handful of d-lineman.
Completing the construction of Yulman Stadium to transform the high school embarrassment of the west-side bleachers. The current west sideline screams of SH*T BIRD status to every single person who sees it and it will remain an impediment to recruiting until it's fixed.
Last edited by wave97 on Sat Dec 31, 2016 11:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
golfnut69
Green Wave
Posts: 8109
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:38 am
Status: Online

Sat Dec 31, 2016 11:26 pm

wave97 wrote:
Jaxwave wrote:
DfromCT wrote:It all depends on our QB. If QB play mirrors this year, golfnut is right, we're a 3-4 win team. If QB play is drastically improved we could get to 6 or maybe 7 wins. We left a whole lot on the table, and put our D in bad positions simply because our QB couldn't run the option, had lead feet, and completed a whopping 42% of his passes. It couldn't have been worse, which was why I predicted 4 wins for this years squad.

The good news is it can only get better. Our D suffers some serious losses with Marley and Smart graduating, but a lot of that could be overcome by an offense that gives the D a whole lot more time on the sidelines.

Banks is an important recruit. Getting another dual threat QB would be huge, and I hope coach Fritz is about to land another. His pitch should not only focus on academics and the City of New Orleans, but also on the opportunity to compete for a starting job right away.
Academics is a negative for us not a positive. The better players don't want to have to perform in a real academic curriculum, especially in Louisianna. That is why I wish we would recruit nationally (Midwest, up east, etc.) Where a Tulane education is valued.
The Mid-West & Mid-Atlantic are a shell of what they once were for producing the Don Maggs, Rodney Holman's and Roch Hontas' of our world. There is no other region in the country that can come close to producing the talent of the Deep-South. We are, for want of a suitable dual threat QB in a similar recruiting situation that we have been in for decades. In spite of the fact that our coaching staff is very much improved, there doesn't seem to be one naturally gifted recruiter who can flip or retain a prospect on the power of vision and charisma.
Everybody knows what we need:
A proven Dual-threat QB.
A handful of o-lineman.
A handful of d-lineman.
Completing the construction of Yulman Stadium to transform the high school embarrassment of the west-side bleachers. The current west sideline screams of SH*T BIRD status to every single person who sees it.
A New Years resolution...Death to the NIMBY's and all politicians who agree with them...bring on the blindfold and cigarettes !!!!
Last edited by golfnut69 on Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Be a Hero Today.... Adopt a Shelter Pet... The Beatles once sang "Can't Buy Me Love"... I disagree, unconditional Love can be bought, for the nominal adoption fee at your local Pet Shelter !
User avatar
wave97
Swell
Posts: 1328
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:08 pm
Status: Offline

Sat Dec 31, 2016 11:53 pm

Why didn't Mr. Wonderful,(aka, Scott Cowen) have the good sense of initially introducing a stadium plan on this scale.
He would have had no problem settling with the Nimby's on his terms.
Image
Wave755
Riptide
Posts: 2796
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:04 pm
Status: Offline

Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:39 am

wave97 wrote:
Jaxwave wrote:
DfromCT wrote:It all depends on our QB. If QB play mirrors this year, golfnut is right, we're a 3-4 win team. If QB play is drastically improved we could get to 6 or maybe 7 wins. We left a whole lot on the table, and put our D in bad positions simply because our QB couldn't run the option, had lead feet, and completed a whopping 42% of his passes. It couldn't have been worse, which was why I predicted 4 wins for this years squad.

The good news is it can only get better. Our D suffers some serious losses with Marley and Smart graduating, but a lot of that could be overcome by an offense that gives the D a whole lot more time on the sidelines.

Banks is an important recruit. Getting another dual threat QB would be huge, and I hope coach Fritz is about to land another. His pitch should not only focus on academics and the City of New Orleans, but also on the opportunity to compete for a starting job right away.
Academics is a negative for us not a positive. The better players don't want to have to perform in a real academic curriculum, especially in Louisianna. That is why I wish we would recruit nationally (Midwest, up east, etc.) Where a Tulane education is valued.
The Mid-West & Mid-Atlantic are a shell of what they once were for producing the Don Maggs, Rodney Holman's and Roch Hontas' of our world. There is no other region in the country that can come close to producing the talent of the Deep-South. We are, for want of a suitable dual threat QB in a similar recruiting situation that we have been in for decades. In spite of the fact that our coaching staff is very much improved, there doesn't seem to be one naturally gifted recruiter who can flip or retain a prospect on the power of vision and charisma.
Everybody knows what we need:
A proven Dual-threat QB.
A handful of o-lineman.
A handful of d-lineman.
Completing the construction of Yulman Stadium to transform the high school embarrassment of the west-side bleachers. The current west sideline screams of SH*T BIRD status to every single person who sees it and it will remain an impediment to recruiting until it's fixed.
+1, the Westside of Yulman is one of the strangest visages in all of college football and screams "small time."
User avatar
wave97
Swell
Posts: 1328
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:08 pm
Status: Offline

Sun Jan 01, 2017 10:58 am

A running back or two who actually make an effort to pick up a penetrating defender would be nice.
Aberzombie1892
Swell
Posts: 1738
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:16 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline

Wed Jan 04, 2017 9:43 pm

winwave wrote:
Aberzombie1892 wrote:
winwave wrote:
My point was that once again you followed your pattern of always trashing any positives by Tulane but always making ridiculous proclamations of others. Football schedules are made far in advance and no one knows how those teams will be then. On paper in advance it was a decent schedule. We have played worse schedules. See our last Bowl season.
Tulane has played a worse schedule than two 7-5 teams, a 6-6 team, and 8 non-6 win teams controlling for the number of games played in a season? That seems extraordinarily unlikely. Tulane's "last Bowl season" regular season schedule in 2013 included: three 6-6 teams, a 7-6 team, a 7-5 team, a 9-4 team, a 10-3 team, and a 10-4 team. That information alone makes it silly to argue that the the 2013 regular season schedule was remotely close to being as easy as the 1998 regular season schedule.

As a side note, how is the truth a "ridiculous proclamation"? The 1998 regular season schedule/record was rightfully scrutinized because it was terrible.
No matter the records that 2013 schedule was weak. Only a fool would say it was tough.

As for proclamations my point is you always take things in the worst light for Tulane and always make ridiculously positive comments about the very one else.
No one said that the 2013 schedule was tough - it was just way tougher than 1998 and certainly tougher than some Tulane fans give it credit for.

1998 regular season schedule:
Cincinnati 2-9
SMU 5-7
Navy 3-8
USM 7-5
Louisville 7-5
Rutgers 5-6
ULL 2-9
Memphis 2-9
Army 3-8
Houston 3-8
Louisiana Tech 6-6

45-60 Record of opponents.

2013 regular season schedule:
Jackson State NA
USA 6-6
La Tech 4-8
Syracuse 7-6
ULM 6-6
North Texas 9-4
East Carolina 10-3
Tulsa 3-9
FAU 6-6
UTSA 7-5
UTEP 2-10
Rice 10-4

70-67 Record of opponents.

To phrase it differently, the 1998 schedule had 6 opponents with 15 wins between them while the worst 6 teams on the 2013 schedule had 27 wins between them. Also, it wouldn't unreasonable for someone to suggest that CJ's 2013 team would have performed very well (9+ wins) against 1998 schedule considering only three teams on that schedule were even or better.
winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 12611
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Online

Wed Jan 04, 2017 9:55 pm

You don't take into consideration the difference in the level of competition the opponents in 98 had versus those in 13. The 98 team would have killed the 13 team. Try as you might you can't detract from the greatness of that team.
High School Stadium Gets You High School Football
DfromCT
Tsunami
Posts: 6395
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:50 pm
Location: Stamford, CT
Status: Offline

Thu Jan 05, 2017 4:31 am

Yes, the 1998 team would have beaten the 2013 team by four or five touchdowns, easily. Might be worse if you factor in some of our QB struggles the 2013 team faced when Griff was out. Forget the records of the opponents and focus on the quality of the opponents. Some of those teams on the 2013 schedule got their 6, 7 and 9 wins over teams that weren't in the top 100. Heck, we got to 7 wins with victories over teams not in the top 100, and there's only 127 FBS teams. The 2013 team played one of the easiest, if not the easiest schedule I've seen Tulane play. And I'd much rather go 4-8 against a schedule of "real" teams than 7-6 against those pansies.
" For every alum, no matter where they are...I want a football coach that's going to make Saturday something you anticipate and look forward to." --Troy Dannen

Thank you all for your support as my son Zach continues to beat leukemia
User avatar
wave97
Swell
Posts: 1328
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:08 pm
Status: Offline

Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:08 am

winwave wrote:You don't take into consideration the difference in the level of competition the opponents in 98 had versus those in 13. The 98 team would have killed the 13 team. Try as you might you can't detract from the greatness of that team.
What was "great" about that '98 team was Rich Rodriguez merging the pistol with the read option. It was such a novelty that whole defensive schemes were dumbfounded in finding a solution. Without the right combination of players, defenses to this day, 20 years later are still being torched by that scheme that was first introduced to D-1 football just North of Willow Street.
Can you imagine what could have been done with Nickie Hall or Terrence Jones running that scheme?
Reggie Collier at Southern Mississippi would have been another Cam Newton.
Last edited by wave97 on Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Aberzombie1892
Swell
Posts: 1738
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:16 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline

Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:56 am

DfromCT wrote:Yes, the 1998 team would have beaten the 2013 team by four or five touchdowns, easily. Might be worse if you factor in some of our QB struggles the 2013 team faced when Griff was out. Forget the records of the opponents and focus on the quality of the opponents. Some of those teams on the 2013 schedule got their 6, 7 and 9 wins over teams that weren't in the top 100. Heck, we got to 7 wins with victories over teams not in the top 100, and there's only 127 FBS teams. The 2013 team played one of the easiest, if not the easiest schedule I've seen Tulane play. And I'd much rather go 4-8 against a schedule of "real" teams than 7-6 against those pansies.
Looking at the 1998 schedule quality in its entirety - even including BYU - and comparing it to the 2013 season, it seems difficult to argue that 2013 had a bunch of "pansies" while the 1998 schedule didn't. Even if I pick the best "win" by record for each team on the 1998 regular season schedule, it looks like this:

Cincinnati 2-9 (Arkansas State 4-8)
SMU 5-7 (TCU 7-5)
Navy 3-8 (BC 4-7)
USM 7-5 (Louisville 7-5)
Louisville 7-5 (ECU 6-5)
Rutgers 5-6 (Navy/Army 3-8)
ULL 2-9 (Arkansas State 4-8)
Memphis 2-9 (Arkansas State 4-8)
Army 3-8 (Houston/Navy 3-8)
Houston 3-8 (ECU 6-5)
Louisiana Tech 6-6 (Boise State 6-5)

Aside from SMU's victory over TCU, there is nothing here that indicates that these teams were somehow tougher than the 2013 teams.

In contrast the 2013 regular season schedule:

USA 6-6 (ULL 9-4)
La Tech 4-8 (UTEP 2-10)
Syracuse 7-6 (Minnesota 8-5)
ULM 6-6 (ULL 9-4)
North Texas 9-4 (Ball State/Rice 10-3/10-4)
East Carolina 10-3 (MTSU 8-5)
Tulsa 3-9 (Colorado State 8-5)
FAU 6-6 (Tulane 7-6)
UTSA 7-5 (North Texas 9-4)
UTEP 2-10 (New Mexico State 2-10)
Rice 10-4 (Marshall 10-4)

They look pretty different to me.

*Note that these are only looking at records and not the brand name of an opponent. It would be too subjective to try to quantify the value of a bigger name team with a worse record.
CT Wave
Ripple
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 1:27 pm
Status: Offline

Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:14 am

[/quote]1998 regular season schedule:
Cincinnati 2-9
SMU 5-7
Navy 3-8
USM 7-5
Louisville 7-5
Rutgers 5-6
ULL 2-9
Memphis 2-9
Army 3-8
Houston 3-8
Louisiana Tech 6-6

45-60 Record of opponents.

2013 regular season schedule:
Jackson State NA
USA 6-6
La Tech 4-8
Syracuse 7-6
ULM 6-6
North Texas 9-4
East Carolina 10-3
Tulsa 3-9
FAU 6-6
UTSA 7-5
UTEP 2-10
Rice 10-4

70-67 Record of opponents.[quote]

One problem with just looking at the opponents' records is that it includes the results of playing Tulane. So before playing us, the 1998 records are :
45-49.
Before playing us, the 2013 records are:
61-64.
If my memory and math are correct, the records of our opponents in both years are very similar. The 2013 opponents had the advantage of not facing the 1998 Tulane football team!
Highwave
Low Tide
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 8:06 am
Status: Offline

Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:32 am

2013 SOS rankings:

Jackson State N/A
USA 6-6 (114)
La Tech 4-8 (125)
Syracuse 7-6 (41)
ULM 6-6 (103)
North Texas 9-4 (108)
East Carolina 10-3 (117)
Tulsa 3-9 (68)
FAU 6-6 (115)
UTSA 7-5 (73)
UTEP 2-10 (109)
Rice 10-4 (104)
Highwave
Low Tide
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 8:06 am
Status: Offline

Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:39 am

Cincinnati 2-9 (70)
SMU 5-7 (72)
Navy 3-8 (79)
USM 7-5 (63)
Louisville 7-5 (82)
Rutgers 5-6 (53)
ULL 2-9 (78)
Memphis 2-9 (66)
Army 3-8 (62)
Houston 3-8 (50)
Louisiana Tech 6-6 (81)

Avg. 1998 opp SOS = 68.7
Avg. 2013 opp SOS = 97.9

SOS obviously does not determine how good a team is but 30 pts is a pretty big difference.
winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 12611
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Online

Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:46 am

Highwave wrote:Cincinnati 2-9 (70)
SMU 5-7 (72)
Navy 3-8 (79)
USM 7-5 (63)
Louisville 7-5 (82)
Rutgers 5-6 (53)
ULL 2-9 (78)
Memphis 2-9 (66)
Army 3-8 (62)
Houston 3-8 (50)
Louisiana Tech 6-6 (81)

Avg. 1998 opp SOS = 68.7
Avg. 2013 opp SOS = 97.9

SOS obviously does not determine how good a team is but 30 pts is a pretty big difference.
+1. Plus the fact that that doesn't include the Bowl Game opponents.
High School Stadium Gets You High School Football
User avatar
RobertM320
Tsunami
Posts: 6587
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
Location: Destrehan, LA
Contact:
Status: Offline

Thu Jan 05, 2017 12:42 pm

Also, the 2013 team barely won several of their games. The 1998 team dominated most of their opponents. So, even if the schedule strength is comparable, how the two teams performed clearly shows how much better the 1998 team was.
"ASK AND YE SHALL RECEIVE! HANG EM AND BANG EM! HANG EM AND BANG EM!"-- Todd Graffagnini
Aberzombie1892
Swell
Posts: 1738
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:16 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline

Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:12 pm

Highwave wrote:Cincinnati 2-9 (70)
SMU 5-7 (72)
Navy 3-8 (79)
USM 7-5 (63)
Louisville 7-5 (82)
Rutgers 5-6 (53)
ULL 2-9 (78)
Memphis 2-9 (66)
Army 3-8 (62)
Houston 3-8 (50)
Louisiana Tech 6-6 (81)

Avg. 1998 opp SOS = 68.7
Avg. 2013 opp SOS = 97.9

SOS obviously does not determine how good a team is but 30 pts is a pretty big difference.
What you say is correct about SOS, but what I'm saying is a little bit different - I'm saying that the 1998 teams generally had bad records, which means that the SOR (and wins and losses) would be more on point than the SOS, or, to phrase it differently, it doesn't matter what the SOS is for a team if the team isn't winning those games.

As a side note in regard to SOS, Sports-reference.com lists Tulane's 1998 schedule at 93/112 (83%) SOS and the 2013 schedule at 103/125 (82%) on SOS. Assuming it's accurate, it looks like 1998 was in the bottom 17% and 2013 was in the bottom 18% of all FBS teams in SOS.

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/sch ... edule.html
http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/sch ... /2013.html
Post Reply