• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

So Many Questions!

Wait, you're telling me UNLV put a ton of money into their program, play in a massive NFL stadium, and stopped making their football team an afterthought, and now they're suddenly winning?

Crazy. Unreal. Who could ever believe it?
 
ElrodGrizzly said:
Oh, 23 seasons. My bad, I was off a couple of years.

Now that I looked at it, only 2 coaches in 28 years had a winning season before the Odom. So, it kind of proves the point you were trying to argue with. It is brutally hard to win at UNLV, obviously.
Click to expand...
That was seven seasons before Hauck got there. Hauck had three seasons where he was either 2-10 or 2-11. The next couch was at least winning 4 or 5 games a year and wasn't losing to FCS teams like Hauck did.
 
Skookum-Jim said:
That was seven seasons before Hauck got there. Hauck had three seasons where he was either 2-10 or 2-11. The next couch was at least winning 4 or 5 games a year and wasn't losing to FCS teams like Hauck did.
Click to expand...
So what? Not relevant to main point being discussed.
 
Skookum-Jim said:
That was seven seasons before Hauck got there. Hauck had three seasons where he was either 2-10 or 2-11. The next couch was at least winning 4 or 5 games a year and wasn't losing to FCS teams like Hauck did.
Click to expand...
Yes. He took over a horrifically bad team and built them up to winning after a time. I agree. Much like when he came back when we were unranked, and the trend line has been strongly up, leading to a national title game last year. Seems like a pattern of turning both teams around.
 
ElrodGrizzly said:
Yes. He took over a horrifically bad team and built them up to winning after a time. I agree. Much like when he came back when we were unranked, and the trend line has been strongly up, leading to a national title game last year. Seems like a pattern of turning both teams around.
Click to expand...
Oh please he left there in a mess. He was 2-10 his last year.
 
Skookum-Jim said:
Oh please he left there in a mess. He was 2-10 his last year.
Click to expand...
Yes, as my point has been, they almost never have winning seasons. You're talking in circles here. You said "remember when people said you couldn't possibly win at UNLV?"

I pointed out that it is actually incredibly rare for them to have a winning season, and Hauck built up to one.

Now you say "well, they were 2-10 his last year." So, like, we agree that it is historically a terrible program that almost never has any success?
 
ElrodGrizzly said:
Yes, as my point has been, they almost never have winning seasons. You're talking in circles here. You said "remember when people said you couldn't possibly win at UNLV?"

I pointed out that it is actually incredibly rare for them to have a winning season, and Hauck built up to one.

Now you say "well, they were 2-10 his last year." So, like, we agree that it is historically a terrible program that almost never has any success?
Click to expand...
When someone points out the fallacies and mistakes of some of these jokers, they just start changing the goalposts. They can't and won't defend their assertions.
 
ElrodGrizzly said:
Yes. He took over a horrifically bad team and built them up to winning after a time. I agree. Much like when he came back when we were unranked, and the trend line has been strongly up, leading to a national title game last year. Seems like a pattern of turning both teams around.
Click to expand...
So did he build them up, or did they have a one off year? Typically when you say a coach has build up a program, they don’t have a massive drop off.

UNLV under Hauck went:

2-11
2-10
2-11
7-6
2-11

Quite frankly, if it were any other coach that isn’t in any way related to UM, you’d look at that and say the one year was a fluke and that nothing was consistently built.

I think Hauck is a good coach, but let’s call a spade a spade.

Fwiw, the coach before Hauck went:

2-9
2-10
2-10
5-7
5-7

The coach after Hauck went:

3-9
4-8
5-7
4-8
4-8


Everybody there did poorly, but one of them was consistently worse than the others.
 
PTGrizzly said:
So did he build them up, or did they have a one off year? Typically when you say a coach has build up a program, they don’t have a massive drop off.

UNLV under Hauck went:

2-11
2-10
2-11
7-6
2-11

Quite frankly, if it were any other coach that isn’t in any way related to UM, you’d look at that and say the one year was a fluke and that nothing was consistently built.

I think Hauck is a good coach, but let’s call a spade a spade.

Fwiw, the coach before Hauck went:

2-9
2-10
2-10
5-7
5-7

The coach after Hauck went:

3-9
4-8
5-7
4-8
4-8


Everybody there did poorly, but one of them was consistently worse than the others.
Click to expand...
I find it hard to say that Hauck did worse than the others in that scenario, as he actually had a winning season.

I'll be totally honest, I have no idea what happened with the year after the bowl game for UNLV. I didn't watch a single one of their games. I agree with you that everyone does poorly there (though their recent program upgrades will help a lot), and that is the point I was making. The other user was sarcastically implying that UNLV isn't that hard of a place to win with his "Remember when people said it wasn't possible to win at UNLV?" I said yes, history shows that it is incredibly rare for them to have a winning season. Considering the fact that he was there for a few years and then had a winning season, I'm just not sure what other phrasing is more appropriate than "built up to that." It is factually what happened. How it tanked the next year, I don't know.

Honestly not trying to be argumentative with you, but the numbers you are throwing out there help prove the point I was making. Nobody was winning much of anything at UNLV for decades.

I also agree that Hauck is a good coach. There are better coaches out there, of course, but these people that act like he somehow tanked at UNLV and is a failure of a coach at Montana is just patently absurd to me.
 
ElrodGrizzly said:
I find it hard to say that Hauck did worse than the others in that scenario, as he actually had a winning season.

I'll be totally honest, I have no idea what happened with the year after the bowl game for UNLV. I didn't watch a single one of their games. I agree with you that everyone does poorly there (though their recent program upgrades will help a lot), and that is the point I was making. The other user was sarcastically implying that UNLV isn't that hard of a place to win with his "Remember when people said it wasn't possible to win at UNLV?" I said yes, history shows that it is incredibly rare for them to have a winning season. Considering the fact that he was there for a few years and then had a winning season, I'm just not sure what other phrasing is more appropriate than "built up to that." It is factually what happened. How it tanked the next year, I don't know.

Honestly not trying to be argumentative with you, but the numbers you are throwing out there help prove the point I was making. Nobody was winning much of anything at UNLV for decades.

I also agree that Hauck is a good coach. There are better coaches out there, of course, but these people that act like he somehow tanked at UNLV and is a failure of a coach at Montana is just patently absurd to me.
Click to expand...
I think if one were to look at it with unbiased eyes, you have two realistic options:

1) The winning season was a fluke, a one off, a season where everything went right.

2) He built the program up to a winning season, and then promptly tore down what he built to attain 2 wins again.

This is really just semantics to me, but when somebody in sports uses the phrase “built up” they are almost never using one season as their evidence. At least I’ve never seen it. Building a program directly implies long lasting effects.

Regarding the other coaches there, while never having a winning season, his predecessor had 3 more wins the year prior, his successor had one more win the year after. They all had a similar overall win percentage, with Hauck having the lowest overall (27% vs 23% vs 33%). So statistically, pretty easy to say he did the worst, but they all did quite bad.
 
PTGrizzly said:
I think if one were to look at it with unbiased eyes, you have two realistic options:

1) The winning season was a fluke, a one off, a season where everything went right.

2) He built the program up to a winning season, and then promptly tore down what he built to attain 2 wins again.

This is really just semantics to me, but when somebody in sports uses the phrase “built up” they are almost never using one season as their evidence. At least I’ve never seen it. Building a program directly implies long lasting effects.

Regarding the other coaches there, while never having a winning season, his predecessor had 3 more wins the year prior, his successor had one more win the year after. They all had a similar overall win percentage, with Hauck having the lowest overall (27% vs 23% vs 33%). So statistically, pretty easy to say he did the worst, but they all did quite bad.
Click to expand...
I think you're arguing something I am not with that last paragraph. My point is that nobody historically won at UNLV because it was a nearly impossible task. Your last paragraph is in agreement with that, yes?

I think it is probably semantics. I understand the connotation you are saying that comes with "built it up," and perhaps I could have found a different phrase like "found a way to get to a winning season that other coaches have hardly ever done at UNLV."
 
PTGrizzly said:
So did he build them up, or did they have a one off year? Typically when you say a coach has build up a program, they don’t have a massive drop off.

UNLV under Hauck went:

2-11
2-10
2-11
7-6
2-11

Quite frankly, if it were any other coach that isn’t in any way related to UM, you’d look at that and say the one year was a fluke and that nothing was consistently built.

I think Hauck is a good coach, but let’s call a spade a spade.

Fwiw, the coach before Hauck went:

2-9
2-10
2-10
5-7
5-7

The coach after Hauck went:

3-9
4-8
5-7
4-8
4-8


Everybody there did poorly, but one of them was consistently worse than the others.
Click to expand...
And one of them took the team to a bowl game. He built them up for one year. The other coaches didn’t do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top