Dropping "bowl berth" as a goal...

[kougar24]

Am I being unrealistic when I say that "bowl berth" isn't a worthy goal these days? I mean, you don't even have to have a winning record to get one, and frankly, I have a hard time imagining recruits getting a hard on for the Texas Bowl.

I bring this up because it makes me mad when our fans keep saying "just get to a bowl." I'm having a hard time mustering up the ability to even give a crap whether we go to Houston again or stay home.

[catzacker]

Yes.  It should be a goal, but not the goal.  The goals should be:

1. National Champ
2. Conference Champ
3. Division Champ
4. Bowl Game
5. Don't lose to Baylor


It is important to go to a bowl because it's another "metric" to say that your program is improving or is a good program. 

[kougar24]

It is important to go to a bowl because it's another "metric" to say that your program is improving or is a good program. 

Is it, though? Would beating a sorry NU team this weekend and going to the Texas Bowl again say anything about K-State being a good program?

I don't think so.

[ksu_FAN]

It is important to go to a bowl because it's another "metric" to say that your program is improving or is a good program. 

Is it, though? Would beating a sorry NU team this weekend and going to the Texas Bowl again say anything about K-State being a good program?

I don't think so.

If we go 7-5 it doesn't say we are a great program.  But it doesn't say we are horrible either.  Its a sign that the program is going in the right direction, but there still may be some cause for concern.  More good than bad IMO though.  6-6 and a bowl birth isn't nearly as good IMO.  Prince has to at least match last year's record (with a tougher schedule) and even that is a bit disappointing after starting the Big 12 with the win at UT.

[cocomonkey]

well if you have read "leadership lessons" none of those are goals but the byproduct of goal achievement.

GOCATS!!!

[michigancat]

If a coach goes to a bowl game every year at KSU, he shouldn't be fired.

If you sustain that success, you'll get better than everyone else because of turnover in the league.

I know I say it over and over, but all I want from KSU football is a bowl game every year and a North title once every 4 or 5.

[BostonPancake]

It's so easy to get to a bowl game that if you don't make it you really look bad.  So it should be a goal in the sense that, while you may not be that good of a team, at least you aren't so crappy you can't make a bowl.

[Newbie]

Am I being unrealistic when I say that "bowl berth" isn't a worthy goal these days? I mean, you don't even have to have a winning record to get one, and frankly, I have a hard time imagining recruits getting a hard on for the Texas Bowl.

I bring this up because it makes me mad when our fans keep saying "just get to a bowl." I'm having a hard time mustering up the ability to even give a crap whether we go to Houston again or stay home.

Agreed for the most part.  Lower tier bowl = basketball NIT.  Its nice and all, but it definitely doesn't mean what it used to just to get into any old bowl game.  On the other hand, making any bowl at all is important because you get the extra weeks of practice time.

[Wildcat Jack]

Get better every day

It's sage advice that results in excellence which leads to the things that are deserved.  Gotta focus on the right things.

[Legore]

Going to a bowl is certainly better then the alternative.  At this point in this season it's all that is left.  So yeah it's our goal for the rest of this year and I think it's pretty important for the program to make a bowl every year at a minimum.  That said not making one last year didn't seem to hurt ku too badly.  

To me making a bowl is not a measure of success I have higher standards to declare success but not making a bowl is certainly a meaure of failure.  If we don't make one then the season will have been a failure just like the 04 and 05 seasons were.  

[catzacker]

IMO, now that we have an extra game, making it to a bowl game is more difficult, especially the way Ron wants to schedule.  It just seemed easier for the past 15 years because we had good/great teams that made it look easy.  I mean, the NORTH has 2 top 10 BCS teams, and on our schedule this year we play/will play 4 teams in the top 20 BCS.

[kougar24]

Good responses.

Rusty, I'd say winning the North at least once every 3 (to 4...okay) years should be reasonable for K-State.

[michigancat]

Good responses.

Rusty, I'd say winning the North at least once every 3 (to 4...okay) years should be reasonable for K-State.

would you fire ron if he doesn't win the north next season?

[KSUTOMMY]

Prince needs 4 years before the thought of firing him should come up. I cant see otherwise.

I think that we have gotten off track (or maybe it's me) I thought that the meaning of this thread was Should Bowl Eligibility be dropped as a goal. That is, should we drop the attitude of just being Bowl Eligible, just getting to 6-6 or 7-5 = success. I think so, as that breeds mediocraty. A bowl birth used to be the standard around here anything less was failure. I am perfectly aware of the final years of Snyder and that crap, BUT even though it is a sign of improvement - you all cant say that you are disappointed (even last year) in a lower tier bowl. I know that I am.

4 years, boys - that is the benchmark. Mangina and his first 5 yrs = the luckiest coach alive, epitomy of making it by the "skin of his fat ass".

[kougar24]

Good responses.

Rusty, I'd say winning the North at least once every 3 (to 4...okay) years should be reasonable for K-State.

would you fire ron if he doesn't win the north next season?

Well, I said "to 4," so it would be after Year 4, not next year. I'd have to say I'd consider it. I might give him a "grace period" of 2 years as a new coach to implement his system, which would give him 5-6 years to win it. That would depend on how close we were in Year 4, though. If we finished in the bottom third, I'd probably fire him, yes.

[michigancat]

Prince needs 4 years before the thought of firing him should come up. I cant see otherwise.

I think that we have gotten off track (or maybe it's me) I thought that the meaning of this thread was Should Bowl Eligibility be dropped as a goal. That is, should we drop the attitude of just being Bowl Eligible, just getting to 6-6 or 7-5 = success. I think so, as that breeds mediocraty. A bowl birth used to be the standard around here anything less was failure. I am perfectly aware of the final years of Snyder and that crap, BUT even though it is a sign of improvement - you all cant say that you are disappointed (even last year) in a lower tier bowl. I know that I am.

4 years, boys - that is the benchmark. Mangina and his first 5 yrs = the luckiest coach alive, epitomy of making it by the "skin of his fat ass".

I think you're kind of muddying the line between "team goals", "fan expectations", and "administration requirements".  (everyone is, really).

If the "team goal", is to get to a bowl game, that's a problem.
If an "administration requirement" is to get to a bowl game every year, I'm fine with that.
"Fan expectations" are basically meaningless and should largely be ignored.

[kougar24]

Yeah, that's fair. Look at my above post in the light of "team goals," then. Do you think, given a grace period of 2 years to build, it's unreasonable as a team/administration to expect to win the North once every 3 to 4 years? I just think once in 5 may be stretching a bit too low.

[michigancat]

Yeah, that's fair. Look at my above post in the light of "team goals," then. Do you think, given a grace period of 2 years to build, it's unreasonable as a team/administration to expect to win the North once every 3 to 4 years? I just think once in 5 may be stretching a bit too low.

I think you'd have to look at the circumstances on the North Title requirement.  I also think 2 years is an odd "grace period".

[michigancat]

Kind of a tangent question:

Would you endure the first 6 years of Pinkel and the first 5 years of Mangino if you knew you'd get the seasons they're having now?

For reference:

Pinkel:

2001-02 Missouri 4-7 .364   
2002-03 Missouri 5-7 .417   
2003-04 Missouri 8-5 .615   
2004-05 Missouri 5-6 .455   
2005-06 Missouri 7-5 .583   
2006-07 Missouri 8-5 .615   


Mangino:

2002-03 Kansas 2-10 .167   
2003-04 Kansas 6-7 .462   
2004-05 Kansas 4-7 .364   
2005-06 Kansas 7-5 .583   
2006-07 Kansas 6-6 .500 

9 games deep into the season:

 1. Ohio State (60) 10-0 1,616
 2. LSU (5) 8-1 1,523
 3. Oregon 8-1 1,517
 4. Oklahoma 8-1 1,421
 5. Kansas 9-0 1,329
 6. West Virginia 7-1 1,327
 7. Missouri 8-1 1,260
 8. Boston College 8-1 1,051
 9. Arizona State 8-1 1,042
10. Georgia 7-2 1,021

[kougar24]

Kind of a tangent question:

Would you endure the first 6 years of Pinkel and the first 5 years of Mangino if you knew you'd get the seasons they're having now?

For reference:

Pinkel:

2001-02 Missouri 4-7 .364   
2002-03 Missouri 5-7 .417   
2003-04 Missouri 8-5 .615   
2004-05 Missouri 5-6 .455   
2005-06 Missouri 7-5 .583   
2006-07 Missouri 8-5 .615   


Mangino:

2002-03 Kansas 2-10 .167   
2003-04 Kansas 6-7 .462   
2004-05 Kansas 4-7 .364   
2005-06 Kansas 7-5 .583   
2006-07 Kansas 6-6 .500 

9 games deep into the season:

 1. Ohio State (60) 10-0 1,616
 2. LSU (5) 8-1 1,523
 3. Oregon 8-1 1,517
 4. Oklahoma 8-1 1,421
 5. Kansas 9-0 1,329
 6. West Virginia 7-1 1,327
 7. Missouri 8-1 1,260
 8. Boston College 8-1 1,051
 9. Arizona State 8-1 1,042
10. Georgia 7-2 1,021

Knowing that they'd have that success? Of course. But we don't know that. And why is 2 years an odd grace period? That's enough time to plug in holes, bring in coaches, and implement a system.

I don't know. This isn't concrete enough to really argue with you over the frequency of North titles, so let me put it this way: at the very least, they'd have to compete for the North once every 3 years (i.e. this season would not count toward that) and win it every 4 or 5. Would that be more agreeable?

[catzacker]

FWIW, I think Ron will have a Pinkel like run from '03 on (i.e. 8-5, 5-6, 7-5, etc.).  I'll be curious if that will be enough.  I wish Bill would get another head coaching job somewhere and fail terribly.  It would help our fan base immensely.  Prince is going to get Gary Gibb'd.  

[michigancat]

^kougs, You would have fired both coaches, and endured a 2-10 Brent Venables "grace" season.

FWIW.

FWIW, I think Ron will have a Pinkel like run from '03 on (i.e. 8-5, 5-6, 7-5, etc.).  I'll be curious if that will be enough.  I wish Bill would get another head coaching job somewhere and fail terribly.  It would help our fan base immensely.  Prince is going to get Gary Gibb'd. 

I think you're right, and then the idiot fans will get John Blaked right in the ass.

[kougar24]

^kougs, You would have fired both coaches, and endured a 2-10 Brent Venables "grace" season.

Are you telling me what I'd do? Pinkel's track record goes against my "formula," yes, but Mangino, assuming he wins the North, does not. This would have been his last chance, and after this year, he'd have to compete for the North every 3 years, winning it at least every fourth.

Look, there are always exceptions. I'm just spitballing here, trying to get a grasp on what our administration's expectations should be.

Would you not have fired either Pinkel or Mangino by now BEFORE you knew how this season played out?

[BostonPancake]

Kind of a tangent question:

Would you endure the first 6 years of Pinkel and the first 5 years of Mangino if you knew you'd get the seasons they're having now?

For reference:

Pinkel:

2001-02 Missouri 4-7 .364   
2002-03 Missouri 5-7 .417   
2003-04 Missouri 8-5 .615   
2004-05 Missouri 5-6 .455   
2005-06 Missouri 7-5 .583   
2006-07 Missouri 8-5 .615   


Mangino:

2002-03 Kansas 2-10 .167   
2003-04 Kansas 6-7 .462   
2004-05 Kansas 4-7 .364   
2005-06 Kansas 7-5 .583   
2006-07 Kansas 6-6 .500 

9 games deep into the season:

 1. Ohio State (60) 10-0 1,616
 2. LSU (5) 8-1 1,523
 3. Oregon 8-1 1,517
 4. Oklahoma 8-1 1,421
 5. Kansas 9-0 1,329
 6. West Virginia 7-1 1,327
 7. Missouri 8-1 1,260
 8. Boston College 8-1 1,051
 9. Arizona State 8-1 1,042
10. Georgia 7-2 1,021

If it was a guarantee that Prince would have similar results, I would have no problems right now.  But, we let Wooldridge hang around for 6 years and he didn't amount to crap.  I think you have to ask yourself at the end of 4 years "is this program going in the right direction".  If you answer yes, you stick with your guy.  If you truly think that someone isn't getting it done, and can't get it done, then I think you need to make a move.

[catzacker]

Prince is almost "hurting" himself by going 7-6 in his first season, instead of tanking like Hawkins did.  We're having nearly identical season as CU, and CU fans are for the most part thrilled because they see progress (freshman QB, young players, etc.).  Ron's throwing stuff against the wall and seeing what sticks.  The difference is that we have a lot of JR's and SR's on the defense and the offense looks fairly top heavy as well.  Next year I worry even more about the defense, after next year I worry about the entire team.   

[Houstoncat93]

Good responses.

Rusty, I'd say winning the North at least once every 3 (to 4...okay) years should be reasonable for K-State.

I agree with Koug to a point here.  However I'd modify it with "contend" for a North title every year.  Granted contending is a subjective measurment but there are just too many varibles to have iron clad rules of 4 years.....no North title.....show coach the door. 

[chum1]

Making a bowl game is CRITICAL because of the extra practices.

[kougar24]

Making a bowl game is CRITICAL because of the extra practices.

You think 3 weeks of light practices after a full season is going to do that much? Obviously, it's impossible to quantify, but I can't imagine it doing a whole lot extra.

I'm not saying it hurts, mind you.

[mjrod]

Making a bowl game is CRITICAL because of the extra practices.

You think 3 weeks of light practices after a full season is going to do that much? Obviously, it's impossible to quantify, but I can't imagine it doing a whole lot extra.

I'm not saying it hurts, mind you.

Helps younger players learn and develop  in the system.  When you aren't practicing, you're not helping your younger players learn the system and get them ready for the next year.

[chum1]

Making a bowl game is CRITICAL because of the extra practices.

You think 3 weeks of light practices after a full season is going to do that much? Obviously, it's impossible to quantify, but I can't imagine it doing a whole lot extra.

I'm not saying it hurts, mind you.

I'm glad you asked.  It's not too hard to quantify. 

62% of teams that made a bowl in 2004 also made a bowl in 2005.

This means that 38% of 2004 bowl teams failed to make a bowl in 2005.  The extra practice they got in 2004 did not help them make a bowl in 2005.

It also means that 38% of 2005 bowl teams made a bowl despite not having extra practice in 2004.

It is entirely reasonable to assume that many of the repeat bowl teams would have made a bowl in 2005 had they not had extra practice in 2004 (suppose they were on probation in 2004, for example).  These are the teams that were good enough in 2005 that extra practice in 2004 was not a deciding factor in whether or not they made a bowl in 2005.  

Given that only half of the 35 repeat bowl teams fit the above description, the following are true:

Having extra practice in 2004 did not help 54% of 2004 bowl teams to make a bowl in 2005.

Not having extra practice in 2004 would not have kept 54% of 2005 bowl teams from making their bowl in 2005.