re: LSU'S last three years...Just a bare bones look....

quote:

---

Baloo, what would you call our signature win in 2009? Wouldn't you agree that every year in Miles tenure, we have had some great signature wins?

---

I frankly could not care less about "signature wins". Do signature wins count more in the standings? Do you win a prize if you get a "signature win"? The term is meaningless. So, no, I wouldn't agree. Signature wins are for the same people who look for moral victories.

I care about actual wins and losses.

quote:

---

Again, I know you are smarter than "hey look at the numbers!". 2009, on the surface, was saved by shitty OOC games against bad LA teams, and cheap wins against down SEC teams(5 of them, OMG!!).

---

I didn't even reference any OOC wins. LSU went 5-3 in the SEC. If you want to try and come up with some argument that the SEC wins were somehow invalid, go knock yourself out. But I'll have no part of that conversation. I'm trying to have the least amount of variables. I'm making a straight comparison to SEC record through his tenure. Are we going to argue that the SEC was suddenly a bad conference for one year?

quote:

---

2009 WAS NOT "clearly" in line with other great Les Miles seasons. Again, you are glorifying it. Look at it deeper instead of just looking at "oh we won 9 games and 5 in the SEC". 2009 was more in line with 2008, that is a fact for anyone that has watched those 2 seasons intently.

---

Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate.

I'm glorifying nothing. I said it was one loss below the baseline set in Miles' tenure. If you want to call that glorifying, then that's your verbage, not mine. And I would say that you're going to run out of positive expressions if you describe my description of 2009 as "glorifying."

I never mentioned 9 wins. You did. You were the one whose been bringing up OOC wins and losses, as I've tried to steer the conversation away from that to normalize for quality of opponent. I did object to your presentation of his overall record and said so, but that was using your standards again. When given a chance to explain my position, I went back to SEC records, which I believe are more fair for the exact reason you mention: you can't rig your SEC schedule like your OOC schedule.

I've clearly tried to keep the standards the same: how did you do in the SEC? I don't believe in ever-shifting standards to justify criticism. I belive in having a set standard of what is accomplishment, and if someone reaches that standard, I call it success.

You can attempt to impose your ever-shifting standards which render evaluation meaningless so its just your gut feeling and only those with the proper football smarts can evaluate the coach, but that is a flight of fancy that I strongly disagree with.

I'm a bottom line guy. Did you win? Did you lose? No modifier in front of the words wins and losses. there are no good losses or bad wins. We don't recalculate the record at the end of the season for asthetic value.

Though I would argue if you were "watching intently", you should have seen the improvements made by the team in 2009 setting up the 2010 season. I saw it, and correctly predicted a 10-2 season this year.