|
Post by bluehen on Jul 6, 2018 20:51:44 GMT
FYI, Bevo the NCAA stopped publishing its annual record book in the early 2000s. I got it annually. I'm looking at my 2002 edition right now, page 67, under "Winningest Teams By Decade"..It says this :
1950s: 1) Oklahoma .895 2) Mississippi .778 3) Michigan State .766
1960s: 1) Alabama .865 2) Texas .810 3) Arkansas .805
1970s: 1) Oklahoma .877 2) Alabama .863 3) Michigan .848
1980s : 1) Nebraska .837 2) Miami .831 3) BYU .797
Now the same reason that the NCAA knows that OU was more difficult to beat than Bama in the 70s is the same reason that Switzer was more difficult to beat than Bear...it's called 2nd grade arithmetic. Any second grader knows that .902 is greater than .863...the relative winning success rates of the two HCs being compared.
Do you also feel that Bryant's 19th best .780 career win rate is also far superior to Switzer's 5th best .837 career win rate ?..or does reverse math only work in the 1970s?
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Jul 6, 2018 21:02:13 GMT
Kids don't actually learn decimals in the 2nd grade. You keep coming to the plate and striking out.
"Winningest"? WTF is that? OU had a higher win percentage. Cool.
But, they won fewer games, fewer National Championships, and fewer extraordinary (11+) win seasons. And yet, you think they were more dominant?
You keep your opinion, I'll keep mine.
And, for future reference, there are two sources you should never use to convince me of anything: Howard Finnebaum or the NCAA.
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Jul 7, 2018 3:08:43 GMT
You should contact the governing body of the sport, Bevo, and explain that their definition of 'winningest' is incorrect and offer your correct definition of 'winningest' and that might inspire them to correct OU to Bama for the 70s winningest team. And please...those pretend NCs ? Bear wins the 1973 make believe NC yet couldn't even win his bowl game? How do you do that ? Thought we could have a debate/discussion without referencing all that mythical baloney. I would like to apply your 'winningest' definition to pro FB coaching history and get your take, because I respect your opinions, Bevo. For example Jeff Fisher won 173 games as a HC... 77 more games than Vince Lombardi . Coach Fisher was also beaten in 49 % of the games he coached. Vince Lombardi was beaten in 26% of the games he coached. So which , by your definition, was the most 'winningest' ..and which of the two would you say was the most difficult to beat ? Fisher (173-165-1 .512) Lombardi (96-34-6 .738)
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Jul 7, 2018 7:46:23 GMT
The word "winningest" is ambiguous. There is no clear, universally accepted definition for what it means. Which is why, most websites I see that take up this topic list coaches both in win%, and total wins.... Sometimes, they also list championships won.
I think Lombardi was a better coach than Jeff Fisher....(who I think was a pretty good coach)
So, what about this Hen? Who's the "winningest" between these two NFL coaches:
Guy Chamberlin. 81 games, 58 wins, 78.4 win %. Isn't that outstanding? He was THE HARDEST to beat in the history of the NFL. Don Shula. 490 games, 328 wins, 67.7%. Pretty poor, eh? Heck, Shula was easier to beat that Bear or Barry!
There is no ONE end-all, be-all stat to rank coaching greatness.
Real life just isn't that simple.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Jul 7, 2018 7:52:41 GMT
Here's another:
John Madden and Vince Lombardi both coached the same number of years, 10. Madden has MORE wins, AND a Higher win%. Is Madden the better coach?
So, why is Lombardi's name on the trophy
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Jul 7, 2018 20:04:15 GMT
Good point about 'winningest' being a mushy term, but so is 'great ' or 'greatness' that you bought up for the first time in the thread. Everybody you mentioned in your two posts was 'great' IMO.....Shula, Lombardi, Madden and Chamberlin. Most all time winning history lists require a HC to coach at least 10 seasons ( Pro and college) and I agree with that, so hard to comment on Chamberlin and his six pro seasons. For the guys that meet the 10 year minimum Lombardi and Madden were clearly the most difficult to beat HCs in NFL history and Belichick is right behind them. I've seen the numbers for both that you posted and I've also seen numbers where Lombardi had a slightly higher career WP. An interesting trivia note : The Alma Maters of the three most difficult to beat head coaches in history at the very highest level of American football : Madden - Cal Poly Lombardi - Fordham Belichick - Wesleyan
And Don Shula - John Carroll
Want to have a discussion sometime about the cerebralness levels of the NCAA championship divisions vs the Exhibition division in regard to coaching talent production ?
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Jul 8, 2018 0:37:50 GMT
Not really, no.
|
|