Pg Q Article: Al Golden's Clock is Ticking

good read, thanks for posting.


1 thing i rarely if ever see mentioned is this:


Why do you guys think he would fire Dorito?

- he's his best friend and most trusted assistant
- he came to miami with him and is his only "home town guy" in that room with him


but most importantly....

By not firing him, he buys himself all of 2014. If thing go well... then he was right and F everyone

If things go as we all expect, then he finally lets Dorito go and thus buys himself another year in 2015. Even the biggest Golden haters will have some level of fulfillment should Dorito finally get fired.

So now that Golden has bought himself both 2014 and 2015 with his decision to not fire his buddy... he now has 2 full seasons to have just 1 decent year.

1 decent year in either 2014 (not happening) or 2015 (maybe) and he's right back to having another 2 years to play with.


This guy isn't dumb. He's a lot of things, but he's not stupid. Firing Dorito would have accelerated the clock on himself.


He now has 2 years of house money to play with.....


deal with it.
 
Advertisement
Whether we want to believe it or not..Golden did indeed inherit some talent. Even though they all left him hot, high, and dry after one year..he still had them. Forston knew what he was doing by leaving early. He saw the scheme and knew that it was not going to benefit him at all to stay and play under it. There was talent on that 2011 team that went 6-6.

Forston played in like 3 games and plays in the same scheme in New England.

Calling Marcus Forston talented is basically calling Kyle Wright a good QB or Ryan Moore a good WR. GTFO my face.

He is talented. He's also lazy and had very poor coaching when he was here. He's good enough to earn an NFL paycheck
 
1-22 against teams with less than five losses. Ok. How many of those teams did he play those first few years after he took over the Temple team that had been KICKED OUT OF THE BIG ******* EAST FOR SUCKING SO BAD. Thats like being too retarded for Special Ed courses. I will admit that even as a pretty big supporter of not just Golden but continuity, yeah lets fire everyone again and bring in all new coaches and coordinators and set these kids back another few years as the learn new schemes and all that ****, I have been dismayed by these past few weeks but I am expecting better things out of 2014 before I turn my checkbook into a pitch fork. Now someone's gonna say "Continuity!?! But Gus Malzahn..durrrrr...Auburn...derrr...National Championship!!" Yeah mother ****ers why do you think Auburn brought back their former OC and best recruiter. Dude was gone from Aubrurn for 1 season before coming back and taking over a team and offense he helped build.

0-4 this year, 0-3 the year before, 0-3 in 2011

0-10 at Miami against 8-5 teams or better. Does that make you feel better?
 
Advertisement
His career record against teams with less than five losses is 1-22.

Get this fat mother ****ing loser out of my face.

Somehow, Al's Army is claiming that's a "cherry-picked" stat. What the fck does that even mean? It's a real concrete actual stat. There's no fudging or doctoring of that stat. It's real life.

He's selectively using stats to favor his position. As if less then 5 losses is supposed to be some time of litmus test for future success.
It's not.
I could very well use Golden records vs above .500 teams his first 3 years which are better than Butch's at Miami and Saban's at Michigan State their first 3 years respectively.
Or wins vs teams with 6 losses or less which is also better then the above mentioned.
Actually those would be better indicators since we're judging comparably against coaches that faced similar rebuild jobs during the first 3 years.
Likewise, Coker's record vs less then 5 loss teams is one of the best ever.

The problem with that 4 loss or less criteria is that if you beat a 4 loss team and they end up with 5 losses as a result it doesn't get counted in your favor but if you loss it's used against you.
They beat UNC last year and they end up with 5 losses and Vishnu and his sheep would spout off that Golden is 1-21 vs 4 loss teams.
 
His career record against teams with less than five losses is 1-22.

Get this fat mother ****ing loser out of my face.

Somehow, Al's Army is claiming that's a "cherry-picked" stat. What the fck does that even mean? It's a real concrete actual stat. There's no fudging or doctoring of that stat. It's real life.

He's selectively using stats to favor his position. As if less then 5 losses is supposed to be some time of litmus test for future success.
It's not.
I could very well use Golden records vs above .500 teams his first 3 years which are better than Butch's at Miami and Saban's at Michigan State their first 3 years respectively.
Or wins vs teams with 6 losses or less which is also better then the above mentioned.
Actually those would be better indicators since we're judging comparably against coaches that faced similar rebuild jobs during the first 3 years.
Likewise, Coker's record vs less then 5 loss teams is one of the best ever.

The problem with that 4 loss or less criteria is that if you beat a 4 loss team and they end up with 5 losses as a result it doesn't get counted in your favor but if you loss it's used against you.
They beat UNC last year and they end up with 5 losses and Vishnu and his sheep would spout off that Golden is 1-21 vs 4 loss teams.

0-10 at Miami against 8-5 teams or better. 8-5 is a shade above a mediocre team and we haven't beaten one. Not a losing record, a winless one.
 
Snooze-fest. That dude is just regurgitating the same ***** people say here and on every other board. Whatever. AG has decided to roll with Coach D. Miami seems to still believe in AG. So, he's not going anywhere. Nothing I can do about it, so I hope he gets it all figured out.
 
Advertisement
His career record against teams with less than five losses is 1-22.

Get this fat mother ****ing loser out of my face.

Somehow, Al's Army is claiming that's a "cherry-picked" stat. What the fck does that even mean? It's a real concrete actual stat. There's no fudging or doctoring of that stat. It's real life.

He's selectively using stats to favor his position. As if less then 5 losses is supposed to be some time of litmus test for future success.
It's not.
I could very well use Golden records vs above .500 teams his first 3 years which are better than Butch's at Miami and Saban's at Michigan State their first 3 years respectively.
Or wins vs teams with 6 losses or less which is also better then the above mentioned.
Actually those would be better indicators since we're judging comparably against coaches that faced similar rebuild jobs during the first 3 years.
Likewise, Coker's record vs less then 5 loss teams is one of the best ever.

The problem with that 4 loss or less criteria is that if you beat a 4 loss team and they end up with 5 losses as a result it doesn't get counted in your favor but if you loss it's used against you.
They beat UNC last year and they end up with 5 losses and Vishnu and his sheep would spout off that Golden is 1-21 vs 4 loss teams.

I don't have a problem with you defending Golden, but your stance on this particular item is sad. First off, you keep saying if we didn't beat x team, they would have less than 5 losses. So what you are saying is in the world of stats, us beating the team no longer counts? Since when?

Second, the fact that they had 4 losses in the first place shows they were an average or slightly better than average team.

Third, the record against those less than 5 loss teams is 1-22. Is 23 attempts not enough for you? ****, I'll throw a bone in there and give Al 5 free wins that didn't happen just so you can see what it looks like. 6-22. Does 6-22 look good to you? No it still sucks. Even if he got credit for the wins against teams that would have been less than 5 losses if our win against them didn't count, it still sucks.

Seriously, if anything, Al is a bigger cherry picker of stats than anyone on this board. This guy only finds stats that make him look good. Really man, I don't care if you defend him. He's built some good graces because of NCAA mess, he seems like a good guy, and he's done a pretty solid job of recruiting, but to argue this stat is ludicrous.
 
Advertisement
His career record against teams with less than five losses is 1-22.

Get this fat mother ****ing loser out of my face.

Somehow, Al's Army is claiming that's a "cherry-picked" stat. What the fck does that even mean? It's a real concrete actual stat. There's no fudging or doctoring of that stat. It's real life.

He's selectively using stats to favor his position. As if less then 5 losses is supposed to be some time of litmus test for future success.
It's not.
I could very well use Golden records vs above .500 teams his first 3 years which are better than Butch's at Miami and Saban's at Michigan State their first 3 years respectively.
Or wins vs teams with 6 losses or less which is also better then the above mentioned.
Actually those would be better indicators since we're judging comparably against coaches that faced similar rebuild jobs during the first 3 years.
Likewise, Coker's record vs less then 5 loss teams is one of the best ever.

The problem with that 4 loss or less criteria is that if you beat a 4 loss team and they end up with 5 losses as a result it doesn't get counted in your favor but if you loss it's used against you.
They beat UNC last year and they end up with 5 losses and Vishnu and his sheep would spout off that Golden is 1-21 vs 4 loss teams.

I don't have a problem with you defending Golden, but your stance on this particular item is sad. First off, you keep saying if we didn't beat x team, they would have less than 5 losses. So what you are saying is in the world of stats, us beating the team no longer counts? Since when?

Second, the fact that they had 4 losses in the first place shows they were an average or slightly better than average team.

Third, the record against those less than 5 loss teams is 1-22. Is 23 attempts not enough for you? ****, I'll throw a bone in there and give Al 5 free wins that didn't happen just so you can see what it looks like. 6-22. Does 6-22 look good to you? No it still sucks. Even if he got credit for the wins against teams that would have been less than 5 losses if our win against them didn't count, it still sucks.

Seriously, if anything, Al is a bigger cherry picker of stats than anyone on this board. This guy only finds stats that make him look good. Really man, I don't care if you defend him. He's built some good graces because of NCAA mess, he seems like a good guy, and he's done a pretty solid job of recruiting, but to argue this stat is ludicrous.

again anyone using Golden's First 2 years at Temple against him has some very serious confirmation bias problems.
Funny how they like to use his losses at Temple against him but when someone points out the defensive rankings they were able to achieve in years 4 and 5 when they scuff at it and discredit it by saying he did it against MAC competition. So which is it, are we using his Temple results or not?
Regardless, like I said, Vishnu and other are just taking this arbitrary number of 4 losses and condemning to a future of poor results.
I repeat Golden as a better record his first 3 years (.370) here vs. teams over .500 then both Butch(.310) and Saban(.310) when he was at Michigan State. What does that tell you?
It tells you that coaches that are considered among the best struggled to beat BETTER teams during REBUILDING years.
Did anyone think that Butch and Saban were both condemned to have poor results vs above .500 teams cause they had poor records against their 1st 3 years? Of course not or only dumbass fans would have.
 
Do you people have anything else to do other than bash Golden and D'Onofrio?

Please, MOAR threads like this!!

315.jpg
 
His career record against teams with less than five losses is 1-22.

Get this fat mother ****ing loser out of my face.

Somehow, Al's Army is claiming that's a "cherry-picked" stat. What the fck does that even mean? It's a real concrete actual stat. There's no fudging or doctoring of that stat. It's real life.

He's selectively using stats to favor his position. As if less then 5 losses is supposed to be some time of litmus test for future success.
It's not.
I could very well use Golden records vs above .500 teams his first 3 years which are better than Butch's at Miami and Saban's at Michigan State their first 3 years respectively.
Or wins vs teams with 6 losses or less which is also better then the above mentioned.
Actually those would be better indicators since we're judging comparably against coaches that faced similar rebuild jobs during the first 3 years.
Likewise, Coker's record vs less then 5 loss teams is one of the best ever.

The problem with that 4 loss or less criteria is that if you beat a 4 loss team and they end up with 5 losses as a result it doesn't get counted in your favor but if you loss it's used against you.
They beat UNC last year and they end up with 5 losses and Vishnu and his sheep would spout off that Golden is 1-21 vs 4 loss teams.

I don't have a problem with you defending Golden, but your stance on this particular item is sad. First off, you keep saying if we didn't beat x team, they would have less than 5 losses. So what you are saying is in the world of stats, us beating the team no longer counts? Since when?

Second, the fact that they had 4 losses in the first place shows they were an average or slightly better than average team.

Third, the record against those less than 5 loss teams is 1-22. Is 23 attempts not enough for you? ****, I'll throw a bone in there and give Al 5 free wins that didn't happen just so you can see what it looks like. 6-22. Does 6-22 look good to you? No it still sucks. Even if he got credit for the wins against teams that would have been less than 5 losses if our win against them didn't count, it still sucks.

Seriously, if anything, Al is a bigger cherry picker of stats than anyone on this board. This guy only finds stats that make him look good. Really man, I don't care if you defend him. He's built some good graces because of NCAA mess, he seems like a good guy, and he's done a pretty solid job of recruiting, but to argue this stat is ludicrous.

again anyone using Golden's First 2 years at Temple against him has some very serious confirmation bias problems.
Funny how they like to use his losses at Temple against him but when someone points out the defensive rankings they were able to achieve in years 4 and 5 when they scuff at it and discredit it by saying he did it against MAC competition. So which is it, are we using his Temple results or not?
Regardless, like I said, Vishnu and other are just taking this arbitrary number of 4 losses and condemning to a future of poor results.
I repeat Golden as a better record his first 3 years (.370) here vs. teams over .500 then both Butch(.310) and Saban(.310) when he was at Michigan State. What does that tell you?
It tells you that coaches that are considered among the best struggled to beat BETTER teams during REBUILDING years.
Did anyone think that Butch and Saban were both condemned to have poor results vs above .500 teams cause they had poor records against their 1st 3 years? Of course not or only dumbass fans would have.

HE'S 0-10 AT MIAMI AND HIS LOSSES ARE AGAINST TEAMS HE HAS HAD SIGNIFICANTLY MORE TALENT THEN.

STOP BEING AN ENABLER. PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE THE ONES WHO HOLD THIS PROGRAM BACK WITH LUDICROUS POSITIONS.

Re-read everything this guy has posted. AGAIN.
 
Advertisement
Somehow, Al's Army is claiming that's a "cherry-picked" stat. What the fck does that even mean? It's a real concrete actual stat. There's no fudging or doctoring of that stat. It's real life.

He's selectively using stats to favor his position. As if less then 5 losses is supposed to be some time of litmus test for future success.
It's not.
I could very well use Golden records vs above .500 teams his first 3 years which are better than Butch's at Miami and Saban's at Michigan State their first 3 years respectively.
Or wins vs teams with 6 losses or less which is also better then the above mentioned.
Actually those would be better indicators since we're judging comparably against coaches that faced similar rebuild jobs during the first 3 years.
Likewise, Coker's record vs less then 5 loss teams is one of the best ever.

The problem with that 4 loss or less criteria is that if you beat a 4 loss team and they end up with 5 losses as a result it doesn't get counted in your favor but if you loss it's used against you.
They beat UNC last year and they end up with 5 losses and Vishnu and his sheep would spout off that Golden is 1-21 vs 4 loss teams.

I don't have a problem with you defending Golden, but your stance on this particular item is sad. First off, you keep saying if we didn't beat x team, they would have less than 5 losses. So what you are saying is in the world of stats, us beating the team no longer counts? Since when?

Second, the fact that they had 4 losses in the first place shows they were an average or slightly better than average team.

Third, the record against those less than 5 loss teams is 1-22. Is 23 attempts not enough for you? ****, I'll throw a bone in there and give Al 5 free wins that didn't happen just so you can see what it looks like. 6-22. Does 6-22 look good to you? No it still sucks. Even if he got credit for the wins against teams that would have been less than 5 losses if our win against them didn't count, it still sucks.

Seriously, if anything, Al is a bigger cherry picker of stats than anyone on this board. This guy only finds stats that make him look good. Really man, I don't care if you defend him. He's built some good graces because of NCAA mess, he seems like a good guy, and he's done a pretty solid job of recruiting, but to argue this stat is ludicrous.

again anyone using Golden's First 2 years at Temple against him has some very serious confirmation bias problems.
Funny how they like to use his losses at Temple against him but when someone points out the defensive rankings they were able to achieve in years 4 and 5 when they scuff at it and discredit it by saying he did it against MAC competition. So which is it, are we using his Temple results or not?
Regardless, like I said, Vishnu and other are just taking this arbitrary number of 4 losses and condemning to a future of poor results.
I repeat Golden as a better record his first 3 years (.370) here vs. teams over .500 then both Butch(.310) and Saban(.310) when he was at Michigan State. What does that tell you?
It tells you that coaches that are considered among the best struggled to beat BETTER teams during REBUILDING years.
Did anyone think that Butch and Saban were both condemned to have poor results vs above .500 teams cause they had poor records against their 1st 3 years? Of course not or only dumbass fans would have.

HE'S 0-10 AT MIAMI AND HIS LOSSES ARE AGAINST TEAMS HE HAS HAD SIGNIFICANTLY MORE TALENT THEN.

STOP BEING AN ENABLER. PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE THE ONES WHO HOLD THIS PROGRAM BACK WITH LUDICROUS POSITIONS.

Re-read everything this guy has posted. AGAIN.

Thank you for that Heg. More people need to start taking Don Bailey Jr. Almighty to task.
 
Somehow, Al's Army is claiming that's a "cherry-picked" stat. What the fck does that even mean? It's a real concrete actual stat. There's no fudging or doctoring of that stat. It's real life.

He's selectively using stats to favor his position. As if less then 5 losses is supposed to be some time of litmus test for future success.
It's not.
I could very well use Golden records vs above .500 teams his first 3 years which are better than Butch's at Miami and Saban's at Michigan State their first 3 years respectively.
Or wins vs teams with 6 losses or less which is also better then the above mentioned.
Actually those would be better indicators since we're judging comparably against coaches that faced similar rebuild jobs during the first 3 years.
Likewise, Coker's record vs less then 5 loss teams is one of the best ever.

The problem with that 4 loss or less criteria is that if you beat a 4 loss team and they end up with 5 losses as a result it doesn't get counted in your favor but if you loss it's used against you.
They beat UNC last year and they end up with 5 losses and Vishnu and his sheep would spout off that Golden is 1-21 vs 4 loss teams.

I don't have a problem with you defending Golden, but your stance on this particular item is sad. First off, you keep saying if we didn't beat x team, they would have less than 5 losses. So what you are saying is in the world of stats, us beating the team no longer counts? Since when?

Second, the fact that they had 4 losses in the first place shows they were an average or slightly better than average team.

Third, the record against those less than 5 loss teams is 1-22. Is 23 attempts not enough for you? ****, I'll throw a bone in there and give Al 5 free wins that didn't happen just so you can see what it looks like. 6-22. Does 6-22 look good to you? No it still sucks. Even if he got credit for the wins against teams that would have been less than 5 losses if our win against them didn't count, it still sucks.

Seriously, if anything, Al is a bigger cherry picker of stats than anyone on this board. This guy only finds stats that make him look good. Really man, I don't care if you defend him. He's built some good graces because of NCAA mess, he seems like a good guy, and he's done a pretty solid job of recruiting, but to argue this stat is ludicrous.

again anyone using Golden's First 2 years at Temple against him has some very serious confirmation bias problems.
Funny how they like to use his losses at Temple against him but when someone points out the defensive rankings they were able to achieve in years 4 and 5 when they scuff at it and discredit it by saying he did it against MAC competition. So which is it, are we using his Temple results or not?
Regardless, like I said, Vishnu and other are just taking this arbitrary number of 4 losses and condemning to a future of poor results.
I repeat Golden as a better record his first 3 years (.370) here vs. teams over .500 then both Butch(.310) and Saban(.310) when he was at Michigan State. What does that tell you?
It tells you that coaches that are considered among the best struggled to beat BETTER teams during REBUILDING years.
Did anyone think that Butch and Saban were both condemned to have poor results vs above .500 teams cause they had poor records against their 1st 3 years? Of course not or only dumbass fans would have.

HE'S 0-10 AT MIAMI AND HIS LOSSES ARE AGAINST TEAMS HE HAS HAD SIGNIFICANTLY MORE TALENT THEN.

STOP BEING AN ENABLER. PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE THE ONES WHO HOLD THIS PROGRAM BACK WITH LUDICROUS POSITIONS.

Re-read everything this guy has posted. AGAIN.

You sir, have grossly OVERESTIMATED the talent level at Miami currently.
 
He's selectively using stats to favor his position. As if less then 5 losses is supposed to be some time of litmus test for future success.
It's not.
I could very well use Golden records vs above .500 teams his first 3 years which are better than Butch's at Miami and Saban's at Michigan State their first 3 years respectively.
Or wins vs teams with 6 losses or less which is also better then the above mentioned.
Actually those would be better indicators since we're judging comparably against coaches that faced similar rebuild jobs during the first 3 years.
Likewise, Coker's record vs less then 5 loss teams is one of the best ever.

The problem with that 4 loss or less criteria is that if you beat a 4 loss team and they end up with 5 losses as a result it doesn't get counted in your favor but if you loss it's used against you.
They beat UNC last year and they end up with 5 losses and Vishnu and his sheep would spout off that Golden is 1-21 vs 4 loss teams.

I don't have a problem with you defending Golden, but your stance on this particular item is sad. First off, you keep saying if we didn't beat x team, they would have less than 5 losses. So what you are saying is in the world of stats, us beating the team no longer counts? Since when?

Second, the fact that they had 4 losses in the first place shows they were an average or slightly better than average team.

Third, the record against those less than 5 loss teams is 1-22. Is 23 attempts not enough for you? ****, I'll throw a bone in there and give Al 5 free wins that didn't happen just so you can see what it looks like. 6-22. Does 6-22 look good to you? No it still sucks. Even if he got credit for the wins against teams that would have been less than 5 losses if our win against them didn't count, it still sucks.

Seriously, if anything, Al is a bigger cherry picker of stats than anyone on this board. This guy only finds stats that make him look good. Really man, I don't care if you defend him. He's built some good graces because of NCAA mess, he seems like a good guy, and he's done a pretty solid job of recruiting, but to argue this stat is ludicrous.

again anyone using Golden's First 2 years at Temple against him has some very serious confirmation bias problems.
Funny how they like to use his losses at Temple against him but when someone points out the defensive rankings they were able to achieve in years 4 and 5 when they scuff at it and discredit it by saying he did it against MAC competition. So which is it, are we using his Temple results or not?
Regardless, like I said, Vishnu and other are just taking this arbitrary number of 4 losses and condemning to a future of poor results.
I repeat Golden as a better record his first 3 years (.370) here vs. teams over .500 then both Butch(.310) and Saban(.310) when he was at Michigan State. What does that tell you?
It tells you that coaches that are considered among the best struggled to beat BETTER teams during REBUILDING years.
Did anyone think that Butch and Saban were both condemned to have poor results vs above .500 teams cause they had poor records against their 1st 3 years? Of course not or only dumbass fans would have.

HE'S 0-10 AT MIAMI AND HIS LOSSES ARE AGAINST TEAMS HE HAS HAD SIGNIFICANTLY MORE TALENT THEN.

STOP BEING AN ENABLER. PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE THE ONES WHO HOLD THIS PROGRAM BACK WITH LUDICROUS POSITIONS.

Re-read everything this guy has posted. AGAIN.

You sir, have grossly OVERESTIMATED the talent level at Miami currently.


You're right teams like Virginia Tech and Duke are more talented. OK

LOL

Throw in Virginia and Maryland as well.

You really can't make this stuff up.
 
He's selectively using stats to favor his position. As if less then 5 losses is supposed to be some time of litmus test for future success.
It's not.
I could very well use Golden records vs above .500 teams his first 3 years which are better than Butch's at Miami and Saban's at Michigan State their first 3 years respectively.
Or wins vs teams with 6 losses or less which is also better then the above mentioned.
Actually those would be better indicators since we're judging comparably against coaches that faced similar rebuild jobs during the first 3 years.
Likewise, Coker's record vs less then 5 loss teams is one of the best ever.

The problem with that 4 loss or less criteria is that if you beat a 4 loss team and they end up with 5 losses as a result it doesn't get counted in your favor but if you loss it's used against you.
They beat UNC last year and they end up with 5 losses and Vishnu and his sheep would spout off that Golden is 1-21 vs 4 loss teams.

I don't have a problem with you defending Golden, but your stance on this particular item is sad. First off, you keep saying if we didn't beat x team, they would have less than 5 losses. So what you are saying is in the world of stats, us beating the team no longer counts? Since when?

Second, the fact that they had 4 losses in the first place shows they were an average or slightly better than average team.

Third, the record against those less than 5 loss teams is 1-22. Is 23 attempts not enough for you? ****, I'll throw a bone in there and give Al 5 free wins that didn't happen just so you can see what it looks like. 6-22. Does 6-22 look good to you? No it still sucks. Even if he got credit for the wins against teams that would have been less than 5 losses if our win against them didn't count, it still sucks.

Seriously, if anything, Al is a bigger cherry picker of stats than anyone on this board. This guy only finds stats that make him look good. Really man, I don't care if you defend him. He's built some good graces because of NCAA mess, he seems like a good guy, and he's done a pretty solid job of recruiting, but to argue this stat is ludicrous.

again anyone using Golden's First 2 years at Temple against him has some very serious confirmation bias problems.
Funny how they like to use his losses at Temple against him but when someone points out the defensive rankings they were able to achieve in years 4 and 5 when they scuff at it and discredit it by saying he did it against MAC competition. So which is it, are we using his Temple results or not?
Regardless, like I said, Vishnu and other are just taking this arbitrary number of 4 losses and condemning to a future of poor results.
I repeat Golden as a better record his first 3 years (.370) here vs. teams over .500 then both Butch(.310) and Saban(.310) when he was at Michigan State. What does that tell you?
It tells you that coaches that are considered among the best struggled to beat BETTER teams during REBUILDING years.
Did anyone think that Butch and Saban were both condemned to have poor results vs above .500 teams cause they had poor records against their 1st 3 years? Of course not or only dumbass fans would have.

HE'S 0-10 AT MIAMI AND HIS LOSSES ARE AGAINST TEAMS HE HAS HAD SIGNIFICANTLY MORE TALENT THEN.

STOP BEING AN ENABLER. PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE THE ONES WHO HOLD THIS PROGRAM BACK WITH LUDICROUS POSITIONS.

Re-read everything this guy has posted. AGAIN.

You sir, have grossly OVERESTIMATED the t̶a̶l̶e̶n̶t̶ coaching level at Miami currently.

fif
 
Advertisement
Back
Top