Would you take a 7-5 season every other year if it meant you could go 11-2 (or better, let’s say you win the NC every few tries) in the off years? Conversely, would you prefer to be 9-3 every year and never challenge for a title, or be slightly worse most years, but challenge for a national title 1 in 5 years or so?
The basic question here is whether you’d accept fairly consistent mediocrity with the occasional great year, or prefer consistent elite(ish) performance without getting to the promised land.
I’d like to never have to make that choice, but take the consistently elite years, with national championships sprinkled in here and there. Under Rich Rodriguez, I honestly believe that is a possibility, but given the theoretical “would you rather situation,” I don’t know what I’d take.
I guess I would take the elite years with no (or almost no) national championships. I find that to be better than being a program that people have a lesser opinion of, but occasionally surprises for the better. I think that the consistently elite program is more apt to break through than the consistently mediocre program (especially because successful programs have a recruiting advantage over mediocre ones except Clemson), which is why I think the premise of the question is flawed.
Posted under Mail Bag
Tags: Football, mailbag-like substance
Agreed. We may not be the best team year in and year out, but when it comes to not sucking, Michigan is without peer. The ceiling may be harder to reach like that, but the floor is sure higher.
i think the better question would be: would you rather go 9-3 but beat ohio state or go 11-1 and lose to ohio state? in this scenario the 9-3 year beats osu but the 11-1 year gets you to a BCS bowl game. decisions, decisions, decisions.
hey david, here is that site i was talking about where i made the extra cash this summer, it’s pretty cool… anyway,
check it out ..
hey david, here is that site i was talking about where i made the extra cash this summer, it’s pretty cool… anyway,
check it out ..