forums
It's Official: Al Golden Historically Awful.
- Thread starter WhatTheHell
- Start date
Advertisement
HulkaCaniac
Cheeseburger football.
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2011
- Messages
- 8,301
GMG = Golden Must Go.
terdferguson
Junior
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2012
- Messages
- 1,536
That's the part that gets me. Look around college football. Every year is littered with upsets. A ranked team loses to a nobody. Crappy teams rise up and knock someone off. The law of averages says that if you play enough seasons and enough games eventually you'll pull an upset. You get lucky. The other team turns it over a bunch. You play over your head. The opponent has a terrible day. Whatever. But when has Al done this? 4 seasons in, is there even one upset? OSU and UF qualified at the time of the game, but not after they showed us they actually sucked. I think you've got to be really awful to never pull an upset. Especially given the talent that's on Al's squads for christs sake.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,087
He grossly underachieved at Temple too.
He landed the top recruiting class among MAC teams 4 seasons in a row and finished second once more.
Yet he went 0-14 against MAC teams over .500. At every level of CFB, Al Golden's teams underperform relative to their talent.
It's beyond conclusive that this idiot is unqualified to lead any program in College Football with ambitions to succeed, which is why we need to hope and pray that he's fired. Nobody is hiring him from UM, he's been exposed.
He landed the top recruiting class among MAC teams 4 seasons in a row and finished second once more.
Yet he went 0-14 against MAC teams over .500. At every level of CFB, Al Golden's teams underperform relative to their talent.
It's beyond conclusive that this idiot is unqualified to lead any program in College Football with ambitions to succeed, which is why we need to hope and pray that he's fired. Nobody is hiring him from UM, he's been exposed.
Advertisement
drifters1234
Senior
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2011
- Messages
- 3,116
Mike London has only won 11 ACC games in 5 years as UVA's head coach. THREE of those wins are against UM!
Golden is singularly horrific.
CanesAreAble
All-ACC
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2011
- Messages
- 9,025
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2011
- Messages
- 15,505
Of all the eye-popping stats I've seen in this thread, that one might be the absolute scariest. By any objective measure, Mike London is an atrocious coach. Yet, approximately 1/3 of his victories against conference opponents occur when he takes whatever group of stragglers he ends up with and puts them in positions to succeed against our guys.
Less with more. How is this not the standard by which we're judging our coaches?
We'retheBoss
Sophomore
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2012
- Messages
- 2,271
in 4 years, Al's biggest win is over a 9-4 Duke team
Advertisement
D
deleted3746
Guest
UM has paid Golden almost 10 million for 4 ACC wins a year.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2012
- Messages
- 21,161
Look at it this way to be even more amazed. Coaches at Miami are 100-10 in seasons where they produce at least 5 top 3 round draft picks.
Twice Al Golden has had teams put out that much talent. His record? 12-13.
Twice Al Golden has had teams put out that much talent. His record? 12-13.
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2012
- Messages
- 43,263
Send that stat to Julio Frenkenstein. Even a selfie-taking, granny-looking, bean-eating soccer f@yg can grasp the complete repulsiveness of that stat.
Advertisement
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2011
- Messages
- 15,505
The obnoxious part is that some will defend that stat with insinuations to the "Cloud." I don't remember the 90s, under a truly shackling probation period, having this tone. I feel like, for the most part, we produced at our talent level during that time and then began to turn the corner to do more with less at the end. Ultimately, Butch's 'more with less' elite status was in identification of talent.
BoroCane83
Schadenfreude's Friend
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2011
- Messages
- 5,318
There is no 'spin' to those stats. Any rebuttal will be ***s claiming that it 'is more whining like little kids'.
Advertisement
mirednmediocrity2
Senior
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
- Messages
- 5,296
DISGUSTING! Losing to the damned 'Hoos over and over again....and the majority of those losses were by double digits. We are worse than some chitty midmajor now. I think FAU will beat this ragamuffin team because we are finally descending to their level.
OzarCaneSaw
Super Fan 99
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2011
- Messages
- 2,918
WTH, I hope you don't mind this info being shared.
TriStarCane
Coaching Carousel 2029
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 10,099
It gets even worse when you factor in how bad we lose when we do lose.
Consider this with OPs great info: Over the last 4 years, Golden's record is 28-19 with a winning % of .595.
We lost, on average, by a margin of 14.38 points per loss (2 ******* TDs!) and the cumulative winning % of those teams is a "robust" .686 - or roughly an 8-4 team.
So we lose big to teams that really aren't all that great and we lose even bigger to teams with winning % >.750 - 18 points per loss! Holy ****.
We have lost to 5 teams with sub .500 records, so more than one loss to a losing team per year. We have beat only 7 P5 opponents in 4 years with winning records, the best team being last year's Duke team at 9-4.
Even better, Al's record in the ACC is 16-16 with an average loss of 11.62 points per loss (2 scores) against a cumulative winning % of .630 - roughly a 7.5 win team. It's so bad it hurts.
That's why I cringe every time someone makes a statement like "We will beat Team X cuz they suck." We actually lose by about 9 points per game when we lost to teams under .500, so don't hold your breath. It's not like we are losing on last second field goals or big time shockers- we are getting our *** handed to us by over a TD per defeat. It's so depressing.
Consider this with OPs great info: Over the last 4 years, Golden's record is 28-19 with a winning % of .595.
We lost, on average, by a margin of 14.38 points per loss (2 ******* TDs!) and the cumulative winning % of those teams is a "robust" .686 - or roughly an 8-4 team.
So we lose big to teams that really aren't all that great and we lose even bigger to teams with winning % >.750 - 18 points per loss! Holy ****.
We have lost to 5 teams with sub .500 records, so more than one loss to a losing team per year. We have beat only 7 P5 opponents in 4 years with winning records, the best team being last year's Duke team at 9-4.
Even better, Al's record in the ACC is 16-16 with an average loss of 11.62 points per loss (2 scores) against a cumulative winning % of .630 - roughly a 7.5 win team. It's so bad it hurts.
That's why I cringe every time someone makes a statement like "We will beat Team X cuz they suck." We actually lose by about 9 points per game when we lost to teams under .500, so don't hold your breath. It's not like we are losing on last second field goals or big time shockers- we are getting our *** handed to us by over a TD per defeat. It's so depressing.
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2012
- Messages
- 43,263
Folden's still yapping about the fake cloud. He was crying about us being at 80 scholarships this year (even though the sanctions only required us to be at 84) because he could have used those 5 on some great RBs and WRs. So, of course, the lame f@qgits who worship Folden will continue to echo his cloud rhetoric.
Those 90s teams you referenced genuinely felt the effect of those 30 scholarship reductions. They were reductions from the 25 yearly max not the fake sanction Folden got where he could count them against the 85 total. We had guys like Popovich starting at Safety because we didn't have anyone else.
As you said, Butch's genius was evaluating HS talent. He didn't have the greatest luck always landing his top targets, but he was the best there ever was at identifying HS talent that would grow into incredible college talent.
Advertisement