Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Bell Tolls for Thee" data-source="post: 131687484" data-attributes="member: 1812660">9-13 was a big loss for what was on the line.&nbsp; Although RR losing to Temple in 2001 and Holgs losing to Kansas in 2014 are more embarrassing.&nbsp; You are splitting and using selective stats to bolster your opinion.&nbsp; RR can be a prick who botched a likely to never happen again opportunity for WVU and had been a good coach.&nbsp; These are not mutually exclusive positions, but you are using the splitting fallacy where it's gotta be all bad or all good.&nbsp; RR can even be more bad than good, but just to be in the position to f**k up as badly as he did requires him to have had at least some redeeming qualities as a coach.&nbsp; Acknowledging that he was a good coach is not calling him &quot;great&quot; or negating the cluster f**k of his exit.&nbsp; As far as selective stats go, Holgorsen had more games at WVU to account for his wins.&nbsp; RR had a better winning percentage and at least won some big games when it mattered while Holgorsen only won a big game against the top of the conference when it didn't matter ala 2014 OSU and 2015 Baylor.&nbsp; And Holgorsen was not a bad coach either.&nbsp; He had deficiencies for sure, but I'd say he was an average to slightly below average coach at WVU.&nbsp; Huge waste of potential for Holgorsen though as he could've been better than RR with personal discipline and work ethic.&nbsp; But with the data available there is no logical way Holgorsen can be considered a better coach for his time at WVU than RR for his time.Lastly, it's &quot;than&quot; and not &quot;then&quot; when comparing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Bell Tolls for Thee, post: 131687484, member: 1812660"] 9-13 was a big loss for what was on the line. Although RR losing to Temple in 2001 and Holgs losing to Kansas in 2014 are more embarrassing. You are splitting and using selective stats to bolster your opinion. RR can be a prick who botched a likely to never happen again opportunity for WVU and had been a good coach. These are not mutually exclusive positions, but you are using the splitting fallacy where it's gotta be all bad or all good. RR can even be more bad than good, but just to be in the position to f**k up as badly as he did requires him to have had at least some redeeming qualities as a coach. Acknowledging that he was a good coach is not calling him "great" or negating the cluster f**k of his exit. As far as selective stats go, Holgorsen had more games at WVU to account for his wins. RR had a better winning percentage and at least won some big games when it mattered while Holgorsen only won a big game against the top of the conference when it didn't matter ala 2014 OSU and 2015 Baylor. And Holgorsen was not a bad coach either. He had deficiencies for sure, but I'd say he was an average to slightly below average coach at WVU. Huge waste of potential for Holgorsen though as he could've been better than RR with personal discipline and work ethic. But with the data available there is no logical way Holgorsen can be considered a better coach for his time at WVU than RR for his time. Lastly, it's "than" and not "then" when comparing. [/QUOTE]

Name