Western Michigan had Michigan State, Iowa, and Northern Illinois on the schedule this year. They lost two games by less than a touchdown and one in overtime.Quote:
Originally Posted by T1
Printable View
Western Michigan had Michigan State, Iowa, and Northern Illinois on the schedule this year. They lost two games by less than a touchdown and one in overtime.Quote:
Originally Posted by T1
Then they almost got as many wins as Tech?
Come on, T1. You don't believe in quality losses? :D I don't understand, considering their record, how Western Michigan played Michigan State so close.
Fluke. Nicholls St beat them the next week. :)
T1,
I really hope that you are proved to be the wisest poster who has ever graced a message board.
My biggest concern with Holtz is the LACK of passion the team exhibited. I've seen outmanned teams play (poorly) with fire....last years team looked like they were just watching the clock.
I'm not a believer in Holtz yet and I am concerned about his demeanor as well. But y'all have to realize the hand he was dealt this year. This wasn't as shocking to me as it seems to have been to most. We would have had a big offensive dropoff if we JUST replaced Colby with Higgins or Young and had everyone else back. But throw in that we played 4 new linemen and the backup receivers from last year and you get the disaster that we got, regardless of who is coaching.Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeDawg
I may have missed your response to a similar question, but what would you have to see next season to think Holtz should be retained after his second year?Quote:
Originally Posted by T1
You've been outspoken since the Tulane loss and the suckiness of our HC shined brightly. Were you this outspoken about our lack of talent before the season began?Quote:
Originally Posted by T1
If we get the same season next year, he should be fired. It's him. We should see improvement with a year in the systems and more experienced players.Quote:
Originally Posted by skilldawg
2 year evaluation process is over rated.:D
I had hope. I hoped the new players would be good without having any evidence that they would be. No one knew what we would be like because we had never seen most of these guys play before (we knew Dixon and IK would be good... and they were). I thought we had a chance to go bowling with the easy schedule, but we weren't good enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
But if someone told me before the season that Andrew Guillot would be our most explosive receiver, I would have predicted 4-8 at best.
So 4-8 will not cut it, or does he get some credit for playing a more difficult schedule.Quote:
Originally Posted by T1
I realize that you will not be the one making the decision, but your reasoning appears to more accurately reflect that of the administration than the vast majority of the posters on this board.
I am more concerned with competitiveness. I don't want to see another team steal our manhood like Army and Rice did. I want to see a tough team. I want to see some guys (other than Dixon) make some plays with the ball on offense.... and I want to see better plays called to put them in a position to do that. I think if we improve, the record will take care of itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by skilldawg
But beats the hell out of a four or five year evaluation! Baseball gets a decade long evaluation.Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
Only one more year of a guy who doesn't care about Tech running the baseball program.Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeDawg