2016 record vs 2017 record

WinLoseOrTy

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
669
Reaction score
168
Points
43
2016 team went 8-4 in the regular season.

2017 team went 5-7 in the regular season.

But let's dive a little deeper into the two...

Non-Conference
Both went 3-0 with a win over Oregon State.

Same Opponents, Same Result
Iowa - Loss
Illinois - Win
Wisconsin - Loss

Different Opponents

Penn St (2016, Loss) to Michigan (2017, Loss)
Rutgers (2016, Win) to Michigan St (2017, Loss)

I'd argue that the difference here is an apples vs oranges schedule loss. Changing Rutgers to Michigan St shouldn't be held against 2017.

So we are 8 games in, and W/L record is essentially identical if you consider the upgrade in B1G East opponent.


Same Opponents, Different Result
Maryland - Win to Loss
Purdue - Win to Loss
Nebraska - Loss to Win
Northwestern - Win to Loss

Here is where the real differences come to light. It all boils down to the Maryland and Purdue games flipping from wins to losses. They are the only real difference in the W/L records from 2016 to 2017.

Maryland - we were tied 24-24 with under 4 minutes to play
Purdue - we led 17-16 with under 2 minutes to play

So we were right there in both games. We didn't finish strong and lost. That's football. But I truly think that 2016 and 2017 were not as different as many seem to think.
 

2016 team went 8-4 in the regular season.

2017 team went 5-7 in the regular season.

But let's dive a little deeper into the two...

Non-Conference
Both went 3-0 with a win over Oregon State.

Same Opponents, Same Result
Iowa - Loss
Illinois - Win
Wisconsin - Loss

Different Opponents

Penn St (2016, Loss) to Michigan (2017, Loss)
Rutgers (2016, Win) to Michigan St (2017, Loss)

I'd argue that the difference here is an apples vs oranges schedule loss. Changing Rutgers to Michigan St shouldn't be held against 2017.

So we are 8 games in, and W/L record is essentially identical if you consider the upgrade in B1G East opponent.


Same Opponents, Different Result
Maryland - Win to Loss
Purdue - Win to Loss
Nebraska - Loss to Win
Northwestern - Win to Loss

Here is where the real differences come to light. It all boils down to the Maryland and Purdue games flipping from wins to losses. They are the only real difference in the W/L records from 2016 to 2017.

Maryland - we were tied 24-24 with under 4 minutes to play
Purdue - we led 17-16 with under 2 minutes to play

So we were right there in both games. We didn't finish strong and lost. That's football. But I truly think that 2016 and 2017 were not as different as many seem to think.

We were competitive in all the losses in 16, can't say the same about the ones in 17, so they were quite different seasons.
 

That's a fair point. I'm speaking to more of the group who harps on the records of 2016 vs 2017 though. If you want to say 2016 was a better team, I'd agree with you. But simply pointing to the records doesn't tell the whole story.
 

The competitiveness between '16 and '17 is the overwhelming difference. The Gophers had the lead in the 4th qtr of three of their losses (PSU, Iowa and Wisco) and were tied in the other (Nebby). That's significantly better than the 2017 team.

2016 losses:
Lost to PSU by 3 in OT
Lost to Iowa by 7
Lost to Nebby by 7
Lost to Wisco by 14.
 

Yep, not disputing that 2016 with 3.5 year starter at QB was the better team. Merely pointing out that W/L records don't tell the whole story.
 


The whole perception of the season for many hinges on the results of the Purdue and Maryland games. Had we won those games and gone 7-5 I really don't think there would be as many people gnashing their teeth about the great 9 win team that had the epic and devastating collapse to a 5 win team that clearly is a complete dumpster fire headed back to being the laughing stock of the conference.

Our passing offense would have sucked no matter who was in charge so we were not beating teams with great run defenses like Michigan, Northwestern, and Wisconsin this year. Scores may or may not have been different with old staff but no way to know that.

It is a transition year from one staff to another, those are almost always rocky. Some don't want to let go of the past and have decided that PJ is going to fail already. Others feel we need to be patient and give him time before giving up. We all would have liked to have won more games this season but in the end this was not a championship level team and it was going to take a step back this year, so the difference from 5-7 to a likely ceiling of 7-5 really isn't all that great in the grand scheme of things.
 


That's a fair point. I'm speaking to more of the group who harps on the records of 2016 vs 2017 though. If you want to say 2016 was a better team, I'd agree with you. But simply pointing to the records doesn't tell the whole story.

Neither does ignoring how they played in those games either, as GBFan and Billy just pointed out. No 23 , 31 or 39 point losses or shutouts in '16. They meant that there was no chance in turning a 2-7 Big Ten season into a 5-4 one. Or a 5-7 season into a 9-4 one.

Can't figure out why you posted it. If you were trying to defend the '17 season it's a big failure. If you were trying to show how awful the '17 season was you succeeded.

Just delete it.
 

The competitiveness between '16 and '17 is the overwhelming difference. The Gophers had the lead in the 4th qtr of three of their losses (PSU, Iowa and Wisco) and were tied in the other (Nebby). That's significantly better than the 2017 team.

2016 losses:
Lost to PSU by 3 in OT
Lost to Iowa by 7
Lost to Nebby by 7
Lost to Wisco by 14.

True.

If we had Rutgers instead of MSU, we likely win 6 and people feel a bit better.

Margin of loss on the last couple games doesn't bother me as much knowing the QB was halfway out the door, #1 or #2 RB out. #1 and #2 WR out. #1 safety out. O-line and D-line depleted.

These are all things we didn't have issues with last year. Fleck will fix it and we should be better in the years coming up.
 



The 9 wins thing keeps coming up a lot too.

Keep in mind, it included another win against another non-ranked team.

The biggest difference is not playing Rutgers this year and playing MSU instead.

Weaker team this year which we all agree with some key injuries.
Lost to two better coached Purdue and Maryland teams this year.
 

The whole perception of the season for many hinges on the results of the Purdue and Maryland games. Had we won those games and gone 7-5 I really don't think there would be as many people gnashing their teeth about the great 9 win team that had the epic and devastating collapse to a 5 win team that clearly is a complete dumpster fire headed back to being the laughing stock of the conference.

Our passing offense would have sucked no matter who was in charge so we were not beating teams with great run defenses like Michigan, Northwestern, and Wisconsin this year. Scores may or may not have been different with old staff but no way to know that.

It is a transition year from one staff to another, those are almost always rocky. Some don't want to let go of the past and have decided that PJ is going to fail already. Others feel we need to be patient and give him time before giving up. We all would have liked to have won more games this season but in the end this was not a championship level team and it was going to take a step back this year, so the difference from 5-7 to a likely ceiling of 7-5 really isn't all that great in the grand scheme of things.

As noted in the other thread, that is false. A team is equally likely to have a year that is the same or better with a new staff.
 

My main gripe about this season is that we lost games we shouldn't have. I don't think anyone really thought we'd even be a 7 win team. But losing to Purdue who had a coaching change also, and mind you, they gave us like 3 or 4 turn overs and we still lost. Losing to Maryland who was on their 3rd or 4th string QB.

A good barometer to judge Coach Fleck upon has to be Purdue. We had a way better record than them last year and past years. They had a coaching change, so did we. I'm sure they lost some players, so did we. They beat us. They ended up with a better record and played some good games. Fleck failed the test in season one. That said, I haven't given up on him but the issues in most of these losses were coaching issues. Heck... the two ugly losses at the end of the season would have been a lot better if the game plan was to try. It's like they players and the coaches just wanted the season to end.

So will a great recruiting class help? I sure hope so... but even great recruiting classes need good coaches that can game plan and coach up the players... see Brewster.
 

True.

If we had Rutgers instead of MSU, we likely win 6 and people feel a bit better.

Margin of loss on the last couple games doesn't bother me as much knowing the QB was halfway out the door, #1 or #2 RB out. #1 and #2 WR out. #1 safety out. O-line and D-line depleted.

These are all things we didn't have issues with last year. Fleck will fix it and we should be better in the years coming up.

Let's remember that Rutgers beat Purdue and Purdue beat Iowa and Iowa beat tOSU.

Every week is a different team and different challenge. It's not always who you play, it's when you play them. This year you could have Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers, and Maryland play around robin and they all end up around .500.

I heard somewhere that the Big Ten is one of the toughest conferences to coach in because week to week the teams are so different in what they do. One week it's spread run, next week spread pass, next week play action balance, next week run it down your throat. Big 12 doesn't have that and many offenses in the other power conferences are pretty similar.
 



I actually have zero problems with this year because to me - what's the difference between a 5 win or a 7 win season? Yes, a lower tier bowl game but I can live without that. The real reason people are getting behind Fleck is that they believe he can get the U of M the "magical year" where it all falls into place and the team either wins the West or goes 10-2 and breaks through.

That wasn't happening this year for sure and Fleck had as much to figure out as his players did. Claeys had a 9 win season in his and Kill's system. I actually applaud TC for that season as I think he found a way to keep the Gophs in every game and win quite a few of them despite some tough losses. But the real judgement on Fleck will be easier to figure out next year to a degree and moreso in 2019. He has identified who he wants to keep, who he doesn't, and how he wants to strategize offense and defensive strategy based off who he likes to fit his system.

I think a lot of our talk on here about 2016 vs 2017 is somewhat irrelevant just based off what the reality is. The reality is PJ is the coach now so in fairness, let him figure things out this year and move forward. We will never know what TC would have done this year. That's the tough part. But we can't rewrite history. Coyle made this move and this is road we now travel on so if I have to make an accurrate assessment of PJ I think it is very difficult only one season in.
 

This is an interesting way to look at it for sure. I'm sure there's plenty more "no blowout losses in '16" replies on the way, but I understand the point you're making. We were ~6 minutes away from general public perception of this season being a semi successful 1st year when taking everything into account.

I personally am all-in on RTB and think Fleck is going to get this program going in the right direction, and I think some interesting conversations can be had based on what you posted. Had we ended up winning those two games, Fleck's faults would be much more masked as we/public perception would tend to overlook the bad games and just chalk them up to learning experiences in year one (zero). I think now that we've had this year that everyone sees as more or less a failure, Fleck is going to be forced to really critically evaluate how his in-game coaching affected all of our games. That, or continue along like this year and get the boot in 2 or 3 years.
 


I like this analysis, but there is one thing it glosses over: home vs away.

Being away I think excuses, somewhat, the losses to Nebraska last year and Purdue & NW this year.

That would really leave Maryland as the game that stands out as "woulda, coulda, shoulda". Purdue as well, of course. 7-5 would have a much nicer ring to it. And a bowl game, with the extra practices.


Would've been interesting to see if Croft and Fleck would've still had "the situation" after the Wisconsin game, with a bowl game yet to come ...
 

Would've been interesting to see if Croft and Fleck would've still had "the situation" after the Wisconsin game, with a bowl game yet to come ...

Interesting indeed. Would making a bowl have made Croft decide to stay until after the bowl game? If so, would that have hurt our chances with Viramontes?
 

The competitiveness between '16 and '17 is the overwhelming difference. The Gophers had the lead in the 4th qtr of three of their losses (PSU, Iowa and Wisco) and were tied in the other (Nebby). That's significantly better than the 2017 team.

2016 losses:
Lost to PSU by 3 in OT
Lost to Iowa by 7
Lost to Nebby by 7
Lost to Wisco by 14.

The logic behind this post should stop the 16/17 comparison in its tracks.

This being Gopherhole though, I'm sure we can expect it to be glossed over.
 

The logic behind this post should stop the 16/17 comparison in its tracks.

This being Gopherhole though, I'm sure we can expect it to be glossed over.

So in what way does margin of loss matter?

If we have same margins next year, I kind of get it.

But with a broken down team the last couple of weeks against a possible national champion team in WI. I'm not sure what the big deal is.
 

Ultimately there is one camp that sees nothing wrong except roster problems and cannot bring themselves to critique P.J. on any level. The other camp feels perhaps winning was not priority #1 or if it was, there were failures.

You’re right Ty, the games we should have won do loom large. Maryland and also Purdue with a huge turnover advantage with the defensive collapse at the end were hard to stomach.

This team finished with the worst ever S&P+ rating. Clearly some of that was due to shuffling players all over the roster. It’s also clear P.J. will need to be better by 2020or the fan base will be very restless. I’m actually very hopeful he can pull it off. This was a very subpar year in terms of player execution on both sides of the ball and one thinks that has to get better. Plus, better talent coming in.
 

My main gripe about this season is that we lost games we shouldn't have. I don't think anyone really thought we'd even be a 7 win team. But losing to Purdue who had a coaching change also, and mind you, they gave us like 3 or 4 turn overs and we still lost. Losing to Maryland who was on their 3rd or 4th string QB.

A good barometer to judge Coach Fleck upon has to be Purdue. We had a way better record than them last year and past years. They had a coaching change, so did we. I'm sure they lost some players, so did we. They beat us. They ended up with a better record and played some good games. Fleck failed the test in season one. That said, I haven't given up on him but the issues in most of these losses were coaching issues. Heck... the two ugly losses at the end of the season would have been a lot better if the game plan was to try. It's like they players and the coaches just wanted the season to end.

So will a great recruiting class help? I sure hope so... but even great recruiting classes need good coaches that can game plan and coach up the players... see Brewster.

According to Vegas lines we were not suppose to beat Purdue and Oregon State as we were not favored. Only game we lost as a favorite was the Maryland game.
 

The logic behind this post should stop the 16/17 comparison in its tracks.

This being Gopherhole though, I'm sure we can expect it to be glossed over.

The thing that I still don't get is why some are so hung up on comparing 2016 vs. 2017 and acting like it proves something. Obviously the implication that some are trying to make is that somehow this proves that Claeys is a better coach then Fleck and the U screwed up by getting rid of him. Those people seem convinced that Fleck is the sole reason why the team did not duplicate last year's win total regardless of what happened with the roster and what kind of personnel was available this year.

Of course there is no way of knowing how Claeys would have done with the current roster. My guess is the results would have been very similar but maybe the JC QB who is currently a JC WR would have been the savior, or maybe somehow they could have gotten the same collection of receivers to catch the ball.....we will never know.

It really is surprising how some have written off Fleck already after 1 season, good news for them I guess is that with one year in the books we are one year closer to being able to fire him and maybe we can bring Claeys or Kill back so all will be right again.
 

Ultimately there is one camp that sees nothing wrong except roster problems and cannot bring themselves to critique P.J. on any level. The other camp feels perhaps winning was not priority #1 or if it was, there were failures.

I'd say you're missing a third camp.

The camp that doesn't see any roster problems and brings themselves to critique PJ on every level.
 

The thing that I still don't get is why some are so hung up on comparing 2016 vs. 2017 and acting like it proves something. Obviously the implication...

The person who started this thread did it because he thought comparing '17 to '16 would make this year's record look better.

To paraphrase you "obviously" that a fool's game. Which is why he's shouldn't have posted it in the first place.
 

I'm an equal opportunity ripper.

20% of me thinks Claeys would have had a similar season this year and would have been fired. And we'd be in a worse spot finding a coach right now and our recruiting class would be ranked bottom three in big ten.
20% thinks the roster was thin and suffered greatly from injuries this year
10% says the QB issue was huge and is glossed over by many
10% says this was a tougher schedule. (MSU Game over Rutgers)
30% say people overrated our 9 win season last year which included a bowl win over an unranked team
10% of me says Fleck could have done more to win this year if we were really fighting just to get to 6 wins. But if you are going to argue that we should have been 8 wins or 9 wins, I'd say you're wrong and then lower this 10% to nothing because achieving 8 or 9 wasn't going to happen no matter how you coached this team with the situation we had.
 


According to Vegas lines we were not suppose to beat Purdue and Oregon State as we were not favored. Only game we lost as a favorite was the Maryland game.

What percent of teams win a game with a 2 or 3 turnover advantage? That goes along with a similar or better talent rating. I'm sure someone has crunched the numbers.
 

I'm an equal opportunity ripper.

20% of me thinks Claeys would have had a similar season this year and would have been fired. And we'd be in a worse spot finding a coach right now and our recruiting class would be ranked bottom three in big ten.
20% thinks the roster was thin and suffered greatly from injuries this year
10% says the QB issue was huge and is glossed over by many
10% says this was a tougher schedule. (MSU Game over Rutgers)
30% say people overrated our 9 win season last year which included a bowl win over an unranked team
10% of me says Fleck could have done more to win this year if we were really fighting just to get to 6 wins. But if you are going to argue that we should have been 8 wins or 9 wins, I'd say you're wrong and then lower this 10% to nothing because achieving 8 or 9 wasn't going to happen no matter how you coached this team with the situation we had.

I think you should ban yourself again after this post.
 

I'm an equal opportunity ripper.

20% of me thinks Claeys would have had a similar season this year and would have been fired. And we'd be in a worse spot finding a coach right now and our recruiting class would be ranked bottom three in big ten.
20% thinks the roster was thin and suffered greatly from injuries this year
10% says the QB issue was huge and is glossed over by many
10% says this was a tougher schedule. (MSU Game over Rutgers)
30% say people overrated our 9 win season last year which included a bowl win over an unranked team
10% of me says Fleck could have done more to win this year if we were really fighting just to get to 6 wins. But if you are going to argue that we should have been 8 wins or 9 wins, I'd say you're wrong and then lower this 10% to nothing because achieving 8 or 9 wasn't going to happen no matter how you coached this team with the situation we had.

1dpyce.jpg1dpyce.jpg
 




Top Bottom