(09-02-2014 07:47 AM)Knightbengal Wrote: (09-02-2014 02:18 AM)shafted1 Wrote:
That is probably the best case to date of stats that lie. I am sorry but I will take penn state over utsa any day. Secondly you got 1.75 quarters worth of ucf's offense. Had Holman started the defense wouldn't have been gassed and our point total would have been higher. Not to mention that the offense for penn state wouldn't have been on the field the whole game. You had a couple of break downs that gave them over 100 yards in two plays and we still held them to 24 points. I am sorry but 8 and 5 in the b1g is better than 7 and 5 in cusa. Try to justify anything anyway you want but we would have dusted the team that Houston fielded this week.
'If' this or 'if' that doesn't hold up. 'If' frogs had wings they'd fly up and screw pigeons too but it didn't work out that way. UCF played all 4 quarters of that game, not 1.75. You're welcome to check with the NCAA Statistics personnel if you object to their numbers.
Neither Houston nor UCF performed well in their respective games. Houston is ranked 111th in total offense and UCF is 108th; not exactly enough difference to argue over. However, total defense rankings show Houston tied at 29th compared to UCF tied at 102nd; a distinct difference.
Penn State were not 8-5, they were 7-5 but you missed the point. The issue revolves around Houston's loss to UTSA. Both schools ended their 2013 seasons with similar records. Houston was 8-5 while UTSA was 7-5. On the other hand, UCF finished their 2013 season at 12-1 while Penn State finished at 7-5.
Statistics don't lie. Those numbers are based upon actual performance of the respective teams. However, they do eliminate the 'what if' from the equation. As for your claim, "we would have dusted the team that Houston fielded this week," I disagree. UCF only marginally out-performed Houston offensively but Houston performed much better defensively. In fact, they performed nearly as well as Penn State.
My comparison merely pointed out that the loss by a 12-1 team to a 7-5 team is worse than the loss by an 8-5 team to a 7-5 team. It was not an attack upon UCF; it merely identified a conference loss that was worse, on many levels, than Houston's. Several people gave a pass to UCF's loss in their assessment of the conference's weekly performance; a pass that was undeserved for obvious reasons. I would gladly apologize if I had misquoted any facts but I don't see any need to do so based upon my statement being taken out of context.
[/quote]
Again that's why computers don't run businesses. If you had watched the game you would know that. Okorn looked absolutely lost. Believe what you want but the difference is we were trying out our qb in his first game unlike Houston's established starter. Once we put the 1b in the offense clicked. There in lies the difference a and not in the statistics. One point loss vs a sound defeat. Again penn state plays b1g not cusa. If you think they are equal then you have just invalidated your post. Stats lie and can be manipulated in a way that supports theory's. You are proving that point. I don't care to get in a pissing contest with you but there is a reason most are giving us a pass for a one point loss we still would have won if oleary simply took the points.
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
[/quote]
The reali difference came at coach hiring time. UCF picked a veteran head coach with a solid track record of success in O'Leary. UTSA signed a former national championship winner to build thier program. Houston, coming off a 13-1 season and a Big-East invite---with a new stadium announced---promoted a special teams coach with no head coaching background. Heck nobody had ever even seen fit to make Levine a OC or DC. With all that momentum and with the Houston program offering a position that had been an excellent spring board to big time P5 jobs--we promote an unknown special teams coach rather than make a quality resume hire. I never understoodthat decision. But it goes a long way is illuminating why the debacles at Texas State and UTSA happened. More so than most experienced coaches, his lack of OC or DC background leaves Levine's success or failure far more dependent on the performance of his OC's and DC's than the typical coach.
I didn't like the hire when it went down and now you are seeing why. It was a risky hire when there was no reason to make such a long shot reach. We actually were offering a pretty attractive job at the time. There was no reason to settle on such a weak candidate.