Chart - Comparing UM v ND v TN Space Continuum of Suck
Thought it would be interesting to look at the 3 major blue bloods who have stunk for extended periods of late - UM v ND v TN, in chart form.
By plotting all 3 series on the same chart, it is easier to compare especially since the periods of suck began in different years.
- For UM the period of suck began in 2008
- For TN the period of suck began in Fulmer's last year, also 2008
- For ND the period began post Holtz as Davie came to town in 97. I ended it in BK's 1st year.
[click on image to enlarge]
TL;DR comment:
- Our "type" of suck from year to year is more like ND then it is TN, but our "duration" of suck is more like TN. Both TN and UM however are in fluid situations where their period of sucks are ongoing while ND solved their suckiness with Brian Kelly. So who knows what this chart will look like in 3 years.
Extended Comments:
- Before I looked closely I had thought TN's period of suck was a few years longer than ours but it began the same year. What saved us in a relative sense versus TN was 2011 (11 wins) and that they have been scuffling between 5-7 wins while aside from RR's first 2 years we've been more in the 7-8 win window. Of course the way this year is trending this could be a 2-4 win season to bring us back in aignments with TN over the full 7 year time frame; it also depends on what Butch Jones does with TN this year. They seem to be improving if the Georgia game is an indication.
- The Fig Things are special in their own way, due to duration - they had a grand period of 13 years of suck. I don't want to make too much fun of them because the difference between 7 years and 13 years is one more bad coaching hire in 2015. Their period of suck in terms of annual wins was more like UM's in that they rarely dipped to 5 or below like TN has been doing (only 4 of the 13 years) and had five 9-10 win seasons which is not actually sucky at all. So their suckiness was not quite as bad as I first thought - they just had wicked variability from year to year and a lack of consistency is what killed them until Kelly showed up. 1-2 good years would usually be followed with 2-3 crap years.
- If Hoke does not win at least 4 games, we will actually have 2 years of 3 wins or less out of 7, which neither of our 2 peers were able to "accomplish" during their periods of suck.
- Damn, this sucks.
October 5th, 2014 at 10:40 PM ^
Kirk: "Spock, is there any way we can reverse this continuum?"
Spock: "unfortunately not captain, sucktitude is connected to the ego force and this is too powerful to overcome at UM"
Scotty: "Do I really have to where this shitty kilt for the fight sequence?!"
October 5th, 2014 at 8:06 PM ^
Looks like we're gonna have the min and the max on this graph... Judging by this year we're on course to set the absolute min at 2.
October 5th, 2014 at 8:09 PM ^
One could make the case our period of suck began in 2005, with two high points (2006 and 2011) in between.
October 5th, 2014 at 8:19 PM ^
Nah, even good programs can have a 7 win season (2005) here or there - Bo had a 6-6 I believe the year we went to the Holiday Bowl.
Carr had 11 wins in 2006 and and 9 in 2007. 2003, 2004 were 10 and 9 wins. That is one down year (2005) in between plenty of healthy years.
October 5th, 2014 at 8:36 PM ^
had 7 win seasons in 2005 and 2007, its how close those teams were to being 4 and 5 win teams.
2005 we pulled out the MSU game out of our butts, somehow pulled off a win against an excellent Penn State team and a 3 point win at Iowa
IN 2007 MSU had us dead to rights beaten, and we beat Penn State with our backup QB because Joe Paterno brought the most dinosaur of all dinosaur offensvie game plans to Ann Arbor that year practically handing Michigan the game.
I think those wins glossed over just how far behind we were starting to fall.
October 5th, 2014 at 9:14 PM ^
If you're going to look at our close wins, then you have to account for our close losses also. The 2005 team didn't lose a game by more than 7 points all year long. 7 point loss to ND, 3 point loss at Wisconsin, 3 point loss to Minnesota, 4 point loss to OSU and a 4 point loss to Nebraska in the bowl game. That team just underperformed for whatever reason (don't remember the season much with the exception of the bowl game). Far from a true down year when you consider a few breaks here and there and that team would have had a great record.
2007 was one of the few I can remember when we had talent AND bad losses in pretty much each game. Still had a 9-4 record and they were by no means an unwatchable team unlike this year.
October 6th, 2014 at 7:48 AM ^
I'm confused by what we call eras of suckitude or whatever then. For an elite program, three losses or 10 wins seems like the minimum of a successful year (depending on number of games played).
In the era that Notre Dame began sucking, they never went more than three seasons in between eight win seasons, all at the end of the Weiss era. If you knock out those last three years and go from 1997 to 2006, Notre Dame had 5 seasons with a record of 9-3 or better. Another way to look at it: You could consider half of their seasons successful. Of course, I'm cherry picking, but things really only look dour for ND if you look at the years from 2003-2009. There are only two seasons with 9-3 or better and five with seven wins or less.
If you go from 2005 to this year, Michigan will finish up with three seasons of 9 wins or better. To me 2005 always seemed like the year things started to fall apart, with 2006 being the blinding, brilliant supernova of a dying program. We can't really consider the 2007 season successful due to the loss to Appy State and four losses total, so that really leaves you with two successful years over a ten year stretch. For a program that recruits in the top two of its conference pretty much every year, that is appalling.
I would say we are the worst of these teams. Tennessee is in a brutal conference with numerous high quality teams. Notre Dame, even in their darkest times, interspersed bad years with successful ones. Michigan is in a terrible conference, has the recruiting advantage possible over every team other than Ohio State and has simply been bad with the occasional bright spot.
October 5th, 2014 at 8:09 PM ^
Did M and TN stop playing in 2006? Why is ND's line so much longer?
Maybe you are editing the chart values but I'm thoroughly confused. I thouught the X-axis is "(Year of Play - 2000)" but that doesn't seem to fit.
October 5th, 2014 at 8:17 PM ^
read the explanation again. The chart starts in the Bob Davies era for ND and doesn't end until Kelly took over, but year one for Michigan and Tennessee is 2008. So we don't know if our "periods of suck" will last as long as ND's did.
October 5th, 2014 at 8:21 PM ^
we do know our period of suck will last at least as long as ND's regardless of who we get to replace Hoke. the only unknown is whether Butch Jones is a truly good coach and will pull Tennessee out of their suckitude.
October 5th, 2014 at 8:22 PM ^
The X axis doesn't start in any particular year. It aligns UM 2008, TN 2008, and ND 1997 as year 1 of suck for all programs and goes from there. ND's period of suck has ended. It was just longer than either TN's or UM's (thus far). 13 years for ND to 7 [and counting] for TN and UM.
October 5th, 2014 at 8:13 PM ^
October 5th, 2014 at 8:23 PM ^
Texas had double digit wins from 2001 to 2009...then won 5 then 8 then 9 then 8...their chart would look the best.
October 5th, 2014 at 8:25 PM ^
2009 Texas 13-1
2010 5-7
2011 8-5
2012 9-4
2013 8-5
Underachieving for sure but it's not on the Michigan / ND / TN suck level
October 5th, 2014 at 10:50 PM ^
actually texas could reach michigan and tennessee level especially with A&M and Baylor taking over the spotlight. Charlie strong is a gret coach IMO but he will not get much patience from this fanbase. I hate Texas but i hope they dont dump without giving him a chance
October 5th, 2014 at 8:31 PM ^
No, they dont really deserve it. Neither does Florida. Yet.
I don't consider a period of many years of 8-9 wins with a double digit win season thrown in every 5 years to be suck. Underachieving - yes. But you need to repeatedly be .500 or below to join this prestigious group. If 2014-2015 are 5-7 win seasons they could be beginning their journey of suck with 2010 as their starting year...but they are not yet worthy.
7 wins or less repeatedly takes you from underachieving as a blue blood to just plain sucky.
| 2008 | Mack Brown | 12–1 | 7–1 | T-1st (South) | W Fiesta† | 3 | 4 |
| 2009 | Mack Brown | 13–1 | 8–0 | 1st (South) | L BCS National Championship Game† | 2 | 2 |
| 2010 | Mack Brown | 5–7 | 2–6 | 6th (South) | |||
| 2011 | Mack Brown | 8–5 | 4–5 | T-6th | W Holiday | ||
| 2012 | Mack Brown | 9–4 | 5–4 | T-3rd | W Alamo | 18 | 19 |
| 2013 | Mack Brown | 8–5 | 7–2 | T-2nd | L Alamo |
October 5th, 2014 at 8:18 PM ^
whatever the suckitude of either ND or Tennessee, both jobs are infinitely better than the Michigan one at this point in time.
October 5th, 2014 at 8:33 PM ^
October 5th, 2014 at 8:55 PM ^
Vanderbilt would be way better than Michigan for a country music fan.
Kentucky and horse racing, AMIRITE?
LSU is all over it for afficionados of creole cooking and jazz; also crawfish
Florida for the weather and proximity to Disney, obvs
Mississippi/Mississippi State: fans of kindergarten spelling rubrics
Etc.
October 5th, 2014 at 8:51 PM ^
I actually look up ND and Alabama's all time record a couple of weeks ago after the ND game because I needed some comfort. From 97 to 2007 Alabama sucked* and they were still loaded with talent. I remember the 99 team that Tom Brady beat was one of the fastest teams I'd ever seen. Of course they were good that year, and a couple of other years in there, but they struggled for 10 years until Saban came in there. Michigan was ridiculously lucky to have Bo/Mo/Carr for 40 years.
97 4-7
98 7-5
99 10-3
00 3-8
01 7-5
02 10-3
03 4-9
04 6-6
05 10-2
06 6-7
07 7-6
*I don't actually know how good Alabama was during these years, but their record wasn't stellar and they kept firing their coaches so...
October 5th, 2014 at 9:21 PM ^
They are actually a good example too but I decided to limit to the 2 teams currently in a funk and ND which most people are way more familiar with than Bama. After Stallings exited Bama they had a rough period - Dubose and Shula were both pretty bad, but both had 1 good year (10 wins) to keep their rope extended. They had a decent coach in between but if I recall correctly he left due to sanctions on Bama to go to A&M. But yes that was their dark period of a similar vein.
October 5th, 2014 at 9:42 PM ^
October 5th, 2014 at 10:52 PM ^
Great example. Poeple tend to forget that Bama fell to the lowest levels at some point. Only thing that scares me is that just because they got out of it doesnt mean we will. We need to find our Nick Saban
October 5th, 2014 at 11:45 PM ^
And there's a Nick out there, waiting, growing, learning his craft...
Nick Sheridan is now a grad assistant at Tennessee.
October 5th, 2014 at 9:50 PM ^
Hopefully, by next year we are all talking about how glad we are that the "troubles" exist only in the rearview mirror. This team has a good talent base. Brady Hoke may be overwhelmed, but he is too classy to encourage players to transfer after he gets fired.
The next coach will have a solid foundation upon which to build and enough players to get results right away. It would be nice if this can all get done without torching this year's recriting class, but one bad class won't hurt as long as most of the current players stay.
October 5th, 2014 at 10:04 PM ^
Assuming the wikipedia does not lie...
Nebraska has had decent seasons, but nothing like when they used to be top 5 every season. They have had at least 4 losses every year since 2004. In 2003, they had 3. They had two losing seasons in that stretch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nebraska_Cornhuskers_football_seas…
Miami (that Miami) has had more than 3 losses every year since 2005, when they went 9-3 for the second straight year, and one losing season.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Miami_Hurricanes_football_seasons
October 5th, 2014 at 10:54 PM ^
Nebraska had 5 years there at the end of the Solich era into the Callahan era where it applies but since then I dont consider it suckiness - just underachieving. Pellini has won 9 or 10 games every year since he has been there. Yes 4 losses all the time but Carr had a lot of 4 loss seasons as well.
Miami is next in line for sure. They have been mediocre but have not bottomed out with the 3-4 win seasons like the other teams. But they are reaching this level of mediocre in that they are stuck in 6-7 win range a lot. If they can pull one or two 4-5 win seasons they definitely belong in the club! 2007 was there only true disaster and that was still 5-7. Miami is also not a blue blood in my mind; they took off in the 80s but before then I dont think they had much of any tradition like TN, UM, and ND have had.