College Football Catch-All Thread

[Peppers49]

Gun to my head, I think he gets year 3 as long as he avoids an egregious scandal and wins at least 3 games. I hope you're right though. No way we're winning 8 games next year.

Tommy from IC had an article the week before the Dook game that said that Belichick is going to be under serious pressure to show significant improvement in the W/L column next season.

I realize that’s a little vague, but I think most of us have followed this stuff long enough to read between the lines when IC is willing to go on the record with something like that. I remember someone asking Tommy about the specific number of wins needed and the poster threw out 7-5 as a baseline, and Tommy said something along the lines of feeling confident that 7-5 would not cut it.

Understand that it’s tough to pinpoint specific win/loss targets until the season actually plays out and we can never fully trust UNC to make smart, proactive decisions about the football program, but I think 8 wins at minimum are probably needed.

 

[mpaer]

Tommy from IC had an article the week before the Dook game that said that Belichick is going to be under serious pressure to show significant improvement in the W/L column next season.

I realize that’s a little vague, but I think most of us have followed this stuff long enough to read between the lines when IC is willing to go on the record with something like that. I remember someone asking Tommy about the specific number of wins needed and the poster threw out 7-5 as a baseline, and Tommy said something along the lines of feeling confident that 7-5 would not cut it.

Understand that it’s tough to pinpoint specific win/loss targets until the season actually plays out and we can never fully trust UNC to make smart, proactive decisions about the football program, but I think 8 wins at minimum are probably needed.

I would be good with playing Belichick style (Traditionally) relatively error free ball with great scheming-and some young ones with promise

 

[Milk and Cookies]

Tommy from IC had an article the week before the Dook game that said that Belichick is going to be under serious pressure to show significant improvement in the W/L column next season.

I realize that’s a little vague, but I think most of us have followed this stuff long enough to read between the lines when IC is willing to go on the record with something like that. I remember someone asking Tommy about the specific number of wins needed and the poster threw out 7-5 as a baseline, and Tommy said something along the lines of feeling confident that 7-5 would not cut it.

Understand that it’s tough to pinpoint specific win/loss targets until the season actually plays out and we can never fully trust UNC to make smart, proactive decisions about the football program, but I think 8 wins at minimum are probably needed.

That's great news if we're reading the tea leaves correctly. BB will need an historic portal haul to sniff that. Up or out.

 

[SnoopRob]

Tommy from IC had an article the week before the Dook game that said that Belichick is going to be under serious pressure to show significant improvement in the W/L column next season.

I realize that’s a little vague, but I think most of us have followed this stuff long enough to read between the lines when IC is willing to go on the record with something like that. I remember someone asking Tommy about the specific number of wins needed and the poster threw out 7-5 as a baseline, and Tommy said something along the lines of feeling confident that 7-5 would not cut it.

Understand that it’s tough to pinpoint specific win/loss targets until the season actually plays out and we can never fully trust UNC to make smart, proactive decisions about the football program, but I think 8 wins at minimum are probably needed.

I'm not saying you're wrong (or that Tommy's wrong), but I think this mindset is one that makes it really, really hard to justify bringing Belichick back for another year.

If he has to meet a standard that he's shown little aptitude to meet and one that is high enough that we can't give him a solid statistical-likelihood to meet, then are we really doing anyone a favor by bringing him back for another season?

Right now, I'd put the likelihood that we go 8-4 or better next season (against a much tougher schedule than this year) at 25% or less. If that's close to correct, then we're obviously estimating him at a 75% likelihood of failure. And if we're giving someone another season against a 75% chance of failure, then we're essentially throwing a season away in order to avoid paying a larger buyout and to kick the can down the road another year.

I can understand that it feels like pulling the plug after a year is unfair. And I can certainly understand that we don't want to be hiring a new HC this offseason since everyone and their brother seemingly has an open position. But I can't really buy into the idea that it would take an 8-4 season for Belichick to get Year 3 and, if that's accurate, that it's not a good idea to move on now.

My hunch is that he really doesn't need an 8-4 season to keep his job and that any real improvement (like cutting down on the stupid errors/penalties, looking competent in all 3 phases of the game, and making a bowl) will be deemed good enough for another year. But obviously I have no way to prove that from where I currently sit.

 

[uncjhodges]

I'm not saying you're wrong (or that Tommy's wrong), but I think this mindset is one that makes it really, really hard to justify bringing Belichick back for another year.

If he has to meet a standard that he's shown little aptitude to meet and one that is high enough that we can't give him a solid statistical-likelihood to meet, then are we really doing anyone a favor by bringing him back for another season?

Right now, I'd put the likelihood that we go 8-4 or better next season (against a much tougher schedule than this year) at 25% or less. If that's close to correct, then we're obviously estimating him at a 75% likelihood of failure. And if we're giving someone another season against a 75% chance of failure, then we're essentially throwing a season away in order to avoid paying a larger buyout and to kick the can down the road another year.

I can understand that it feels like pulling the plug after a year is unfair. And I can certainly understand that we don't want to be hiring a new HC this offseason since everyone and their brother seemingly has an open position. But I can't really buy into the idea that it would take an 8-4 season for Belichick to get Year 3 and, if that's accurate, that it's not a good idea to move on now.

My hunch is that he really doesn't need an 8-4 season to keep his job and that any real improvement (like cutting down on the stupid errors/penalties, looking competent in all 3 phases of the game, and making a bowl) will be deemed good enough for another year. But obviously I have no way to prove that from where I currently sit.

I mean they have also said the same thing with regards to Hubert from what i remember, though i’d say Hubert has a better chance than Bellichick given the revelation that Caleb Wilson has been, so it would fit their bullshit MO

 

[SnoopRob]

I mean they have also said the same thing with regards to Hubert from what i remember, though i’d say Hubert has a better chance than Bellichick given the revelation that Caleb Wilson has been, so it would fit their bullshit MO

I hope that HD has a better than 25% chance of meeting the standards needed to be retained this season (and I think he does), although I think he has a somewhat special status as an alum and Roy's choice as successor.

Of course, i've taken a dim view of giving HD this season, as well, so you can imagine how much more it annoys me if we're doing the same thing with Belichick.

 

[Peppers49]

I'm not saying you're wrong (or that Tommy's wrong), but I think this mindset is one that makes it really, really hard to justify bringing Belichick back for another year.

If he has to meet a standard that he's shown little aptitude to meet and one that is high enough that we can't give him a solid statistical-likelihood to meet, then are we really doing anyone a favor by bringing him back for another season?

Right now, I'd put the likelihood that we go 8-4 or better next season (against a much tougher schedule than this year) at 25% or less. If that's close to correct, then we're obviously estimating him at a 75% likelihood of failure. And if we're giving someone another season against a 75% chance of failure, then we're essentially throwing a season away in order to avoid paying a larger buyout and to kick the can down the road another year.

I can understand that it feels like pulling the plug after a year is unfair. And I can certainly understand that we don't want to be hiring a new HC this offseason since everyone and their brother seemingly has an open position. But I can't really buy into the idea that it would take an 8-4 season for Belichick to get Year 3 and, if that's accurate, that it's not a good idea to move on now.

My hunch is that he really doesn't need an 8-4 season to keep his job and that any real improvement (like cutting down on the stupid errors/penalties, looking competent in all 3 phases of the game, and making a bowl) will be deemed good enough for another year. But obviously I have no way to prove that from where I currently sit.

I don’t disagree with that logic; it seems very unlikely that Belichick will be able to win 8+ games next season.

I think that UNC’s PTB is stuck between a rock and a hard place of their own making. They definitely thought this would be an instant success experiment and did not want to pay a guy in his mid 70s a top 10 salary for a 3-4 year rebuild where we lose a bunch of games before even having a chance to see a payoff season. Combination of stubbornness to admit they made a mistake after only 1 season + hesitancy to enter a chaotic coaching carousel where they might have an even harder time finding a good coach means that they’d rather just sit tight for another year.

If by some miracle Belichick has us in contention for the ACC then great, we’re off and running. If we’re just scraping for 6 or 7 wins I really do think there would be serious pressure.

 

[CFordUNC]

I tell you what, man, if we go like 6-6 or worse next year and UNC doesn't move on from this mess, I might figure out how to do whatever it takes to get the university to send me a permanent disassociation letter like they did with Robert Quinn, Marvin Austin, and Greg Little. That'll be it for me.

 

[wmheel1287]

I tell you what, man, if we go like 6-6 or worse next year and UNC doesn't move on from this mess, I might figure out how to do whatever it takes to get the university to send me a permanent disassociation letter like they did with Robert Quinn, Marvin Austin, and Greg Little. That'll be it for me.

There is no chance we even sniff 6 wins. We will be fortunate to duplicate the 4 we got this year.

 

[Calheel]

There is no chance we even sniff 6 wins. We will be fortunate to duplicate the 4 we got this year.

Heck, I’m not even confident of East Tennessee State.

That said, you can’t say no chance. College football is too weird to say that. All the teams UNC plays are not very good - they’d all be in the bottom half of the SEC. So, there is always a chance of six wins. I just don’t think it is a very good chance.

 

[SnoopRob]

Heck, I’m not even confident of East Tennessee State.

That said, you can’t say no chance. College football is too weird to say that. All the teams UNC plays are not very good - they’d all be in the bottom half of the SEC. So, there is always a chance of six wins. I just don’t think it is a very good chance.

 

[SnoopRob]

I read this a few minutes ago and thought it was interesting...



I'm sure that eventually Penn State will get a coach and have some recruits, but isn't to avoid this exact situation why you fire your coach mid-season?

 

[keywestheel]

Wake me when our nightmare BB and FB programs are at least back to normalcy.

 

[Calheel]

I read this a few minutes ago and thought it was interesting...



I'm sure that eventually Penn State will get a coach and have some recruits, but isn't to avoid this exact situation why you fire your coach mid-season?

I am not sure why anyone would sign a NLI these days anyway. Just sign an NIL agreement instead whenever you feel like it.

 

[SnoopRob]

I am not sure why anyone would sign a NLI these days anyway. Just sign an NIL agreement instead whenever you feel like it.

If you're a 4 or 5-star, I totally agree with you. For most 3-stars, they probably still have to play the game at most P4 schools.

 

[Batt Boy]

Wake me when our nightmare BB and FB programs are at least back to normalcy.

This has been the normal for FB since 1981.

As for BB, unless something changes, we will have to be very good with the portal because we are no longer the cool place. Caleb is an anomaly. Thank goodness we got him for a year, but recruiting looks bleak.

I think you'll be asleep for some time.

 

[keywestheel]

This has been the normal for FB since 1981.

As for BB, unless something changes, we will have to be very good with the portal because we are no longer the cool place. Caleb is an anomaly. Thank goodness we got him for a year, but recruiting looks bleak.

I think you'll be asleep for some time.

There's zero comparison to this season if you take everything into consideration. I don't remember a season where we didn't beat at least one team in the top 100.

 

[Calheel]

There's zero comparison to this season if you take everything into consideration. I don't remember a season where we didn't beat at least one team in the top 100.

2003 Football Schedule - University of North Carolina Athletics

The official 2003 Football schedule for the North Carolina Heels

goheels.com

 

[Milk and Cookies]

2003 Football Schedule - University of North Carolina Athletics

The official 2003 Football schedule for the North Carolina Heels

goheels.com

I like to look at Massey ratings. Its an aggregator of few dozen different rating sites.

For 2003, we beat Wake Forest (5-7 record) who finished the season rated #66.
In 2002, we only won 3 games but beat Arizona St rated #31.
In 2006 we only won 3 games but beat NC State rated #69.
In 2017 we only won 3 games but beat Pitt rated #47.
In 2018 we only won 2 games but we beat Pitt again who finished rated #38.

This season, our best win was against Stanford who finished #79.

This is the weakest "best win" since beating VMI in 1989.

 

[keywestheel]

I like to look at Massey ratings. Its an aggregator of few dozen different rating sites.

For 2003, we beat Wake Forest (5-7 record) who finished the season rated #66.
In 2002, we only won 3 games but beat Arizona St rated #31.
In 2006 we only won 3 games but beat NC State rated #69.
In 2017 we only won 3 games but beat Pitt rated #47.
In 2018 we only won 2 games but we beat Pitt again who finished rated #38.

This season, our best win was against Stanford who finished #79.

This is the weakest "best win" since beating VMI in 1989.

Throw in the whole staff/admin budget and it's not even close which is the worse.