Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
ragtimejoe1 wrote:
Yes, yes. I need to bump the post. Hasn't Rutgers always been either AQ or P5? You forgot Hoke at Ball State of course I can counter with Hoke at SDSU. Then we can go Urban Meyer x2. Patterson at TCU. Kyle Whit. Howdy Doody...naturally I can go on and on (and I will)
You created a thread. Asked a question. Got answers you didn't like. Created more and more "criteria" for it. Dwindles down the results to basically nil. Still got answers you didn't like. And then say you can a will go on with your list of coaches as "proof" without applying any "criteria" in the mixed results as well...
Rubbish!
what in the hell are you talking about? The criteria is the same as it has always been. Read first post in other thread.
Before listing all the coaches who had success in 4 years, I just wanted to see what other criteria you were adding so I don't waste my time. Apparently you have some convoluted criteria about the time before the coach took over. What else?
Who brings in a timeline with the BCS? Who wanted coaches who had a worse second year and still became champions? I could continue...
So whittle down one side of the argument and hold your side open to anything. Like the fact that is doesn't matter whether or not the coach took over a quality program or a complete poop storm... Common sense.
Lol. Again, what the hell are you talking about. FFS, read the first post in the other thread. My criteria has been the same. I'm just trying to figure out what convoluted nonsense you are wanting to add.
You debate like a woman. Add in a bunch of emotional and hypersensitive garbage that nobody said anyway.
Again, it is simple. What other criteria do you want to add before I generate a list. No worries on your hypocrisy.
Ha!! Show me where I've ever been a hypocrite? You wanted facts, you wanted numbers. History doesn't lie. Whether you want to accept that I gave you exactly what you wanted or not.
And yet you continue with you "hypersensitive" talk... Figures.
Can't go a conversation without you calling me something. Typical.
I'm just trying to figure out what criteria you want to add. Why can't you just state it?
How about something similar to Bohl.
No 9+ win seasons in 3 seasons prior to coach taking over.
No more than 2 wimning seasons in the 5 seasons prior to coach taking over.
2 losing seasons prior to coach taking over.
Any of those work for you? Are there other criteria you'd like?
WYO1016 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:10 am
I'm starting to think that Burman has been laying the pipe to ragtimejoe1's wife
Insults are the last resort of fools with a crumbling position.
ragtimejoe1 wrote:Lol. Again, what the hell are you talking about. FFS, read the first post in the other thread. My criteria has been the same. I'm just trying to figure out what convoluted nonsense you are wanting to add.
You made no mention of the FBS era in your original question. You also made no mention of going from 4 down to 0 up to 7.
All you asked for was G5 coaches who took over 4 years to achieve a 7+ win season, which I provided for you. Like Kansas said, it didn't fit your agenda against Bohl so you had to come up with new "criteria" to add.
ragtimejoe1 wrote:Lol. Again, what the hell are you talking about. FFS, read the first post in the other thread. My criteria has been the same. I'm just trying to figure out what convoluted nonsense you are wanting to add.
You made no mention of the FBS era in your original question. You also made no mention of going from 4 down to 0 up to 7.
All you asked for was G5 coaches who took over 4 years to achieve a 7+ win season, which I provided for you. Like Kansas said, it didn't fit your agenda against Bohl so you had to come up with new "criteria" to add.
kansasCowboy wrote:
Speaking of which. I gave you about four examples and never heard another word from you.
Criteria.
You get all impatient until the data is provided then you seem to wander off...just like when you were spewing nonsense about FCS essentially equaling over half of FBS
That was a good one.
WYO1016 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:10 am
I'm starting to think that Burman has been laying the pipe to ragtimejoe1's wife
Insults are the last resort of fools with a crumbling position.
kansasCowboy wrote:
Speaking of which. I gave you about four examples and never heard another word from you.
Criteria.
You get all impatient until the data is provided then you seem to wander off...just like when you were spewing nonsense about FCS essentially equaling over half of FBS
That was a good one.
I haven't been on here hardly at all. This morn a few snippet times here and there.
I do have a life outside of this place consisting of two full time jobs, a full time family and coaching... Which we lost last week on top of harvest, so I've been burning the candle at both ends here lately. Something's got to give. I told you on the other thread with your lists that I really don't have time right now.
what in the hell are you talking about? The criteria is the same as it has always been. Read first post in other thread.
You get all impatient until the data is provided then you seem to wander off...just like when you were spewing nonsense about FCS essentially equaling over half of FBS 
