cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BearlyBeloved said:

---

The worst thing about CMR is that he left.

Other than that, I like him.

---

Same. The guy's taken over three programs in bad spots and will have ended up leaving all three in much better shape than he found them.

Is he a championship coach? Maybe not. He'll have to win more big games to achieve that.

Is he a damn good college football coach? Obviously.

His biggest sin among the Baylor fans that dislike him is that he wasn't Art Briles. But the man can build a program and will consistently field teams that compete hard and play sound, physical football. He's done it at three different stops now.

---

I have never understood this rewriting of history that goes on with Matt Rhule.

He did not take over 3 programs in bad spots. I think that is the narrative that keeps getting pushed to make him look better.

Temple had 3 winning seasons and then a losing season before Rhue took over. The coach before him left to go to another school. So yes Temple had a bad season right before he took over but they had been doing well the 3 years before that. Not a horrible spot to be in.

Baylor was a winning team in the middle of BOR created nightmare. But it was still a winning team he took over.

Nebraska is a totally different story as they were/are a struggling school. They never should have gotten rid of Solich. He was winning, just not enough for the spoiled fan base that wanted NC runs every year like the end of the Osborne era. Even when they had Pelini they were winning... just still not enough. That was also when they switched to the big 10 and lost Texas as a recruiting grounds and killed any chances of recruiting here.

So he took over one bad program, one in the middle of a mess but was still playing good football with good facilities, mostly engaged fan base, good players, etc. and one that had a single down year in the middle of what would be a 2 year stretch of down years with a 500 year sandwiched between multiple winning years in a 11 year stretch.

---

Chuckroast said:

---

The program may have been in disarray when Rhule arrived, but we still had a decent roster. We didn't have much in the way of a freshman recruiting class, but we had a lot of guys with good experience. His first year was a colossal underachievement. His last year was obviously a good season, but Baylor was nowhere near the level that we had been in previous years. We were eking out wins in a down big 12, and if I remember correctly, against teams who happened to be missing their quarterback for some or all of the game in which we played them.

Rhule was a good but not a great coach in my opinion. I just was not a big fan… I didn't like his style of play. I think he squandered a lot of the positive football reputation we had in the minds of high school players in the state of Texas. With Rhule, we had a high floor but a low ceiling.

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BearlyBeloved said:

---

The worst thing about CMR is that he left.

Other than that, I like him.

---

Same. The guy's taken over three programs in bad spots and will have ended up leaving all three in much better shape than he found them.

Is he a championship coach? Maybe not. He'll have to win more big games to achieve that.

Is he a damn good college football coach? Obviously.

His biggest sin among the Baylor fans that dislike him is that he wasn't Art Briles. But the man can build a program and will consistently field teams that compete hard and play sound, physical football. He's done it at three different stops now.

---

I have never understood this rewriting of history that goes on with Matt Rhule.

He did not take over 3 programs in bad spots. I think that is the narrative that keeps getting pushed to make him look better.

Temple had 3 winning seasons and then a losing season before Rhue took over. The coach before him left to go to another school. So yes Temple had a bad season right before he took over but they had been doing well the 3 years before that. Not a horrible spot to be in.

Baylor was a winning team in the middle of BOR created nightmare. But it was still a winning team he took over.

Nebraska is a totally different story as they were/are a struggling school. They never should have gotten rid of Solich. He was winning, just not enough for the spoiled fan base that wanted NC runs every year like the end of the Osborne era. Even when they had Pelini they were winning... just still not enough. That was also when they switched to the big 10 and lost Texas as a recruiting grounds and killed any chances of recruiting here.

So he took over one bad program, one in the middle of a mess but was still playing good football with good facilities, mostly engaged fan base, good players, etc. and one that had a single down year in the middle of what would be a 2 year stretch of down years with a 500 year sandwiched between multiple winning years in a 11 year stretch.

---

Temple moved from the MAC to the Big East/American the year before Matt Rhule arrived. What Golden and Addazio did in the MAC was completely irrelevant. The gap in schedule strength between the two leagues at that time was as wide as the current one between the Big 12 and the SEC.

And anyone who won't acknowledge that the Baylor program was in shambles when he took over isn't even worth the time. By the time Rhule arrived in Waco, none of the positives Briles brought remained.

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BearlyBeloved said:

---

The worst thing about CMR is that he left.

Other than that, I like him.

---

Same. The guy's taken over three programs in bad spots and will have ended up leaving all three in much better shape than he found them.

Is he a championship coach? Maybe not. He'll have to win more big games to achieve that.

Is he a damn good college football coach? Obviously.

His biggest sin among the Baylor fans that dislike him is that he wasn't Art Briles. But the man can build a program and will consistently field teams that compete hard and play sound, physical football. He's done it at three different stops now.

---

I have never understood this rewriting of history that goes on with Matt Rhule.

He did not take over 3 programs in bad spots. I think that is the narrative that keeps getting pushed to make him look better.

Temple had 3 winning seasons and then a losing season before Rhue took over. The coach before him left to go to another school. So yes Temple had a bad season right before he took over but they had been doing well the 3 years before that. Not a horrible spot to be in.

Baylor was a winning team in the middle of BOR created nightmare. But it was still a winning team he took over.

Nebraska is a totally different story as they were/are a struggling school. They never should have gotten rid of Solich. He was winning, just not enough for the spoiled fan base that wanted NC runs every year like the end of the Osborne era. Even when they had Pelini they were winning... just still not enough. That was also when they switched to the big 10 and lost Texas as a recruiting grounds and killed any chances of recruiting here.

So he took over one bad program, one in the middle of a mess but was still playing good football with good facilities, mostly engaged fan base, good players, etc. and one that had a single down year in the middle of what would be a 2 year stretch of down years with a 500 year sandwiched between multiple winning years in a 11 year stretch.

---

Temple moved from the MAC to the Big East/American the year before Matt Rhule arrived. What Golden and Addazio did in the MAC was completely irrelevant. The gap in schedule strength between the two leagues at that time was as wide as the current one between the Big 12 and the SEC.

And anyone who won't acknowledge that the Baylor program was in shambles when he took over isn't even worth the time. By the time Rhule arrived in Waco, none of the positives Briles brought remained.

---

Doesn't matter. They were still winning.

Lots of teams that have moved conference or even up a level and still win. There is no asterisk next to a win stating it was in a lower conference or level. It just goes down as a win or a loss.

The point still stands that the program at Temple was not in disarray and was not in the middle of some long losing drought. They were not going through any sort of lack of recruiting. They were still doing well.

At Baylor the facilities, fan base, etc. were still good. The players were still good. Were we short a ton of players? yes. Was the one recruiting class lost? Yes. But how many true freshmen were we playing those years? or even now? not many.

So again out of the 3 programs he has taken over one was way, way down (Nebraska) and one was doing well (Temple), and one had the recipe for success, with a little cluster f going on (Baylor) but it was not 3 complete rebuild jobs he did.

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BearlyBeloved said:

---

The worst thing about CMR is that he left.

Other than that, I like him.

---

Same. The guy's taken over three programs in bad spots and will have ended up leaving all three in much better shape than he found them.

Is he a championship coach? Maybe not. He'll have to win more big games to achieve that.

Is he a damn good college football coach? Obviously.

His biggest sin among the Baylor fans that dislike him is that he wasn't Art Briles. But the man can build a program and will consistently field teams that compete hard and play sound, physical football. He's done it at three different stops now.

---

I have never understood this rewriting of history that goes on with Matt Rhule.

He did not take over 3 programs in bad spots. I think that is the narrative that keeps getting pushed to make him look better.

Temple had 3 winning seasons and then a losing season before Rhue took over. The coach before him left to go to another school. So yes Temple had a bad season right before he took over but they had been doing well the 3 years before that. Not a horrible spot to be in.

Baylor was a winning team in the middle of BOR created nightmare. But it was still a winning team he took over.

Nebraska is a totally different story as they were/are a struggling school. They never should have gotten rid of Solich. He was winning, just not enough for the spoiled fan base that wanted NC runs every year like the end of the Osborne era. Even when they had Pelini they were winning... just still not enough. That was also when they switched to the big 10 and lost Texas as a recruiting grounds and killed any chances of recruiting here.

So he took over one bad program, one in the middle of a mess but was still playing good football with good facilities, mostly engaged fan base, good players, etc. and one that had a single down year in the middle of what would be a 2 year stretch of down years with a 500 year sandwiched between multiple winning years in a 11 year stretch.

---

Temple moved from the MAC to the Big East/American the year before Matt Rhule arrived. What Golden and Addazio did in the MAC was completely irrelevant. The gap in schedule strength between the two leagues at that time was as wide as the current one between the Big 12 and the SEC.

And anyone who won't acknowledge that the Baylor program was in shambles when he took over isn't even worth the time. By the time Rhule arrived in Waco, none of the positives Briles brought remained.

---

Doesn't matter. They were still winning.

Lots of teams that have moved conference or even up a level and still win. There is no asterisk next to a win stating it was in a lower conference or level. It just goes down as a win or a loss.

The point still stands that the program at Temple was not in disarray and was not in the middle of some long losing drought. They were not going through any sort of lack of recruiting. They were still doing well.

At Baylor the facilities, fan base, etc. were still good. The players were still good. Were we short a ton of players? yes. Was the one recruiting class lost? Yes. But how many true freshmen were we playing those years? or even now? not many.

So again out of the 3 programs he has taken over one was way, way down (Nebraska) and one was doing well (Temple), and one had the recipe for success, with a little cluster f going on (Baylor) but it was not 3 complete rebuild jobs he did.

---

They weren't winning. Their first year in the Big East (would become the American the following year) -- Addazio's final season -- rendered a 4-7 record. It's just that some of you guys just want to write that off as a one off blip as opposed to the natural result of playing a real schedule.

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BearlyBeloved said:

---

The worst thing about CMR is that he left.

Other than that, I like him.

---

Same. The guy's taken over three programs in bad spots and will have ended up leaving all three in much better shape than he found them.

Is he a championship coach? Maybe not. He'll have to win more big games to achieve that.

Is he a damn good college football coach? Obviously.

His biggest sin among the Baylor fans that dislike him is that he wasn't Art Briles. But the man can build a program and will consistently field teams that compete hard and play sound, physical football. He's done it at three different stops now.

---

I have never understood this rewriting of history that goes on with Matt Rhule.

He did not take over 3 programs in bad spots. I think that is the narrative that keeps getting pushed to make him look better.

Temple had 3 winning seasons and then a losing season before Rhue took over. The coach before him left to go to another school. So yes Temple had a bad season right before he took over but they had been doing well the 3 years before that. Not a horrible spot to be in.

Baylor was a winning team in the middle of BOR created nightmare. But it was still a winning team he took over.

Nebraska is a totally different story as they were/are a struggling school. They never should have gotten rid of Solich. He was winning, just not enough for the spoiled fan base that wanted NC runs every year like the end of the Osborne era. Even when they had Pelini they were winning... just still not enough. That was also when they switched to the big 10 and lost Texas as a recruiting grounds and killed any chances of recruiting here.

So he took over one bad program, one in the middle of a mess but was still playing good football with good facilities, mostly engaged fan base, good players, etc. and one that had a single down year in the middle of what would be a 2 year stretch of down years with a 500 year sandwiched between multiple winning years in a 11 year stretch.

---

Temple moved from the MAC to the Big East/American the year before Matt Rhule arrived. What Golden and Addazio did in the MAC was completely irrelevant. The gap in schedule strength between the two leagues at that time was as wide as the current one between the Big 12 and the SEC.

And anyone who won't acknowledge that the Baylor program was in shambles when he took over isn't even worth the time. By the time Rhule arrived in Waco, none of the positives Briles brought remained.

---

Doesn't matter. They were still winning.

Lots of teams that have moved conference or even up a level and still win. There is no asterisk next to a win stating it was in a lower conference or level. It just goes down as a win or a loss.

The point still stands that the program at Temple was not in disarray and was not in the middle of some long losing drought. They were not going through any sort of lack of recruiting. They were still doing well.

At Baylor the facilities, fan base, etc. were still good. The players were still good. Were we short a ton of players? yes. Was the one recruiting class lost? Yes. But how many true freshmen were we playing those years? or even now? not many.

So again out of the 3 programs he has taken over one was way, way down (Nebraska) and one was doing well (Temple), and one had the recipe for success, with a little cluster f going on (Baylor) but it was not 3 complete rebuild jobs he did.

---

They weren't winning. Their first year in the Big East (would become the American the following year) -- Addazio's final season -- rendered a 4-7 record. It's just that some of you guys just want to write that off as a one off blip as opposed to the natural result of playing a real schedule.

---

Sigh.

Yes they were. For 3 years before that they were winning. They had that losing season, then the first year of Rhule was losing. The next was 500 and then 6 more years of winning, even a few years after Rhule left.

Like I said changing conferences does not come with an asterisk next to a win.

We could start listing all the teams that changed conferences and WON.

Changing conferences does not automatically mean more losses. But it seems to be used as an excuse to dismiss the success of a program to make Rhule look better for what he did.

---

Chuckroast said:

---

What Al Golden did at Temple was completely relevant. He built a winning program/culture at a school that had been one of the biggest doormats in college football for many years. Sure you can expect somewhat of a dropoff when a team goes to a new and better conference or from FCS to FBS, but it's not like the program has to be rebuilt to attain success.

Look at James Madison who was dominating in the FCS for many years before it went to the FBS in 2022. They lost a few more games early on but are doing quite well at the higher level. It's a solid program that did not need to be rebuilt. They just need a good coach to sustain the success and to continue building on the foundation that was there. Ditto for N. Dakota St. who made the leap this past year. They're not dominating at the level they were, but they still look like a great program this year.

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

What Al Golden did at Temple was completely relevant. He built a winning program/culture at a school that had been one of the biggest doormats in college football for many years. Sure you can expect somewhat of a dropoff when a team goes to a new and better conference or from FCS to FBS, but it's not like the program has to be rebuilt to attain success.

Look at James Madison who was dominating in the FCS for many years before it went to the FBS in 2022. They lost a few more games early on but are doing quite well at the higher level. It's a solid program that did not need to be rebuilt. They just need a good coach to sustain the success and to continue building on the foundation that was there. Ditto for N. Dakota St. who made the leap this past year. They're not dominating at the level they were, but they still look like a great program this year.

---

If Golden had directly preceded Rhule, you might have a point. He didn't. Addazio did.

And Addazio left Rhule with a middling roster off a 4-7 season in which Temple's only conference wins came against 3-9 South Florida and 5-7 UConn.

Temple's five Big East losses that season came by an average of 25 points per game.

That program lost any and all momentum the second it changed conferences, which is why Addazio got out of dodge after that season to go spare it up at Boston College.

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

What Al Golden did at Temple was completely relevant. He built a winning program/culture at a school that had been one of the biggest doormats in college football for many years. Sure you can expect somewhat of a dropoff when a team goes to a new and better conference or from FCS to FBS, but it's not like the program has to be rebuilt to attain success.

Look at James Madison who was dominating in the FCS for many years before it went to the FBS in 2022. They lost a few more games early on but are doing quite well at the higher level. It's a solid program that did not need to be rebuilt. They just need a good coach to sustain the success and to continue building on the foundation that was there. Ditto for N. Dakota St. who made the leap this past year. They're not dominating at the level they were, but they still look like a great program this year.

---

If Golden had directly preceded Rhule, you might have a point. He didn't. Addazio did.

And Addazio left Rhule with a middling roster off a 4-7 season in which Temple's only conference wins came against 3-9 South Florida and 5-7 UConn.

Temple's five Big East losses that season came by an average of 25 points per game.

That program lost any and all momentum the second it changed conferences, which is why Addazio got out of dodge after that season to go spare it up at Boston College.

---

If a James Madison or a North Dakota state were to have a single bad year under a new one year coach, that doesn't negate the entire program that has been built. There is no way that temple is where it is today if it weren't for Golden giving temple a winning culture. They were the poster child for football futility before he got there.

Rhule built on the foundation, but he did not create it.

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BearlyBeloved said:

---

The worst thing about CMR is that he left.

Other than that, I like him.

---

Same. The guy's taken over three programs in bad spots and will have ended up leaving all three in much better shape than he found them.

Is he a championship coach? Maybe not. He'll have to win more big games to achieve that.

Is he a damn good college football coach? Obviously.

His biggest sin among the Baylor fans that dislike him is that he wasn't Art Briles. But the man can build a program and will consistently field teams that compete hard and play sound, physical football. He's done it at three different stops now.

---

I have never understood this rewriting of history that goes on with Matt Rhule.

He did not take over 3 programs in bad spots. I think that is the narrative that keeps getting pushed to make him look better.

Temple had 3 winning seasons and then a losing season before Rhue took over. The coach before him left to go to another school. So yes Temple had a bad season right before he took over but they had been doing well the 3 years before that. Not a horrible spot to be in.

Baylor was a winning team in the middle of BOR created nightmare. But it was still a winning team he took over.

Nebraska is a totally different story as they were/are a struggling school. They never should have gotten rid of Solich. He was winning, just not enough for the spoiled fan base that wanted NC runs every year like the end of the Osborne era. Even when they had Pelini they were winning... just still not enough. That was also when they switched to the big 10 and lost Texas as a recruiting grounds and killed any chances of recruiting here.

So he took over one bad program, one in the middle of a mess but was still playing good football with good facilities, mostly engaged fan base, good players, etc. and one that had a single down year in the middle of what would be a 2 year stretch of down years with a 500 year sandwiched between multiple winning years in a 11 year stretch.

---

Temple moved from the MAC to the Big East/American the year before Matt Rhule arrived. What Golden and Addazio did in the MAC was completely irrelevant. The gap in schedule strength between the two leagues at that time was as wide as the current one between the Big 12 and the SEC.

And anyone who won't acknowledge that the Baylor program was in shambles when he took over isn't even worth the time. By the time Rhule arrived in Waco, none of the positives Briles brought remained.

---

Doesn't matter. They were still winning.

Lots of teams that have moved conference or even up a level and still win. There is no asterisk next to a win stating it was in a lower conference or level. It just goes down as a win or a loss.

The point still stands that the program at Temple was not in disarray and was not in the middle of some long losing drought. They were not going through any sort of lack of recruiting. They were still doing well.

At Baylor the facilities, fan base, etc. were still good. The players were still good. Were we short a ton of players? yes. Was the one recruiting class lost? Yes. But how many true freshmen were we playing those years? or even now? not many.

So again out of the 3 programs he has taken over one was way, way down (Nebraska) and one was doing well (Temple), and one had the recipe for success, with a little cluster f going on (Baylor) but it was not 3 complete rebuild jobs he did.

---

They weren't winning. Their first year in the Big East (would become the American the following year) -- Addazio's final season -- rendered a 4-7 record. It's just that some of you guys just want to write that off as a one off blip as opposed to the natural result of playing a real schedule.

---

Sigh.

Yes they were. For 3 years before that they were winning. They had that losing season, then the first year of Rhule was losing. The next was 500 and then 6 more years of winning, even a few years after Rhule left.

Like I said changing conferences does not come with an asterisk next to a win.

We could start listing all the teams that changed conferences and WON.

Changing conferences does not automatically mean more losses. But it seems to be used as an excuse to dismiss the success of a program to make Rhule look better for what he did.

---

Changing conferences quite literally meant more losses for Rhule's direct predecessor, Steve Addazio, who went from winning nine games in the MAC to winning four in the Big East/American with a similarly talented roster.

This is why this discussion is so stupid. You guys have no knowledge of the context or any desire to learn the context around it.

What Al Golden did at Temple in the MAC was completely irrelevant to the situation Rhule inherited.

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

What Al Golden did at Temple was completely relevant. He built a winning program/culture at a school that had been one of the biggest doormats in college football for many years. Sure you can expect somewhat of a dropoff when a team goes to a new and better conference or from FCS to FBS, but it's not like the program has to be rebuilt to attain success.

Look at James Madison who was dominating in the FCS for many years before it went to the FBS in 2022. They lost a few more games early on but are doing quite well at the higher level. It's a solid program that did not need to be rebuilt. They just need a good coach to sustain the success and to continue building on the foundation that was there. Ditto for N. Dakota St. who made the leap this past year. They're not dominating at the level they were, but they still look like a great program this year.

---

If Golden had directly preceded Rhule, you might have a point. He didn't. Addazio did.

And Addazio left Rhule with a middling roster off a 4-7 season in which Temple's only conference wins came against 3-9 South Florida and 5-7 UConn.

Temple's five Big East losses that season came by an average of 25 points per game.

That program lost any and all momentum the second it changed conferences, which is why Addazio got out of dodge after that season to go spare it up at Boston College.

---

If a James Madison or a North Dakota state were to have a single bad year under a new one year coach, that doesn't negate the entire program that has been built. There is no way that temple is where it is today if it weren't for Golden giving temple a winning culture. They were the poster child for football futility before he got there.

Rhule built on the foundation, but he did not create it.

---

Comparing Temple to James Madison and North Dakota State, which were elite FCS programs for decades before making the jump to FBS, to Temple, which was kind of solid in the MAC for three years, is absurd, no?

Golden had two winning seasons and Addazio had one, and they lost a combined seven MAC games in those years. That's not nearly enough time or success to build the type of culture you're talking about here.

But you're misinterpreting my point, which is not that Golden didn't do a good job. He did. He got the ball rolling for Temple certainly. But Addazio was a scrub who got a one-year bump off Golden's platform and tanked the program before bolting to suck at BC and then Colorado State. By the time Rhule got to Temple, Golden's momentum was gone, and the challenge was compounded by the move to a much tougher league.

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BearlyBeloved said:

---

The worst thing about CMR is that he left.

Other than that, I like him.

---

Same. The guy's taken over three programs in bad spots and will have ended up leaving all three in much better shape than he found them.

Is he a championship coach? Maybe not. He'll have to win more big games to achieve that.

Is he a damn good college football coach? Obviously.

His biggest sin among the Baylor fans that dislike him is that he wasn't Art Briles. But the man can build a program and will consistently field teams that compete hard and play sound, physical football. He's done it at three different stops now.

---

Baylor was a winning team in the middle of BOR created nightmare. But it was still a winning team he took over.

.... one in the middle of a mess but was still playing good football with good facilities,

---

Stefano DiMera said:

---

The irony of this back and forth is Cowboy sounds like the Nebraska fans who ran off Solich.

Aranda is an average coach.

Rhule is a good coach.

---

jikespingleton said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BearlyBeloved said:

---

The worst thing about CMR is that he left.

Other than that, I like him.

---

Same. The guy's taken over three programs in bad spots and will have ended up leaving all three in much better shape than he found them.

Is he a championship coach? Maybe not. He'll have to win more big games to achieve that.

Is he a damn good college football coach? Obviously.

His biggest sin among the Baylor fans that dislike him is that he wasn't Art Briles. But the man can build a program and will consistently field teams that compete hard and play sound, physical football. He's done it at three different stops now.

---

Baylor was a winning team in the middle of BOR created nightmare. But it was still a winning team he took over.

.... one in the middle of a mess but was still playing good football with good facilities,

---

The 2017 class imploded and only 1 guy kept his commitment. There were 40-45 returning scholarship players when Rhule was hired. That's a hallowed out roster and program, not a winning team.

I'll just assume you are a fan from a different program that came here trolling because your post is probably the most ignorant **** I have read in a while on a fan board....any fan board.

No way a real Baylor fan could be that ignorant to the events preceding and during Rhules 1st year.

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BearlyBeloved said:

---

The worst thing about CMR is that he left.

Other than that, I like him.

---

Same. The guy's taken over three programs in bad spots and will have ended up leaving all three in much better shape than he found them.

Is he a championship coach? Maybe not. He'll have to win more big games to achieve that.

Is he a damn good college football coach? Obviously.

His biggest sin among the Baylor fans that dislike him is that he wasn't Art Briles. But the man can build a program and will consistently field teams that compete hard and play sound, physical football. He's done it at three different stops now.

---

I have never understood this rewriting of history that goes on with Matt Rhule.

He did not take over 3 programs in bad spots. I think that is the narrative that keeps getting pushed to make him look better.

Temple had 3 winning seasons and then a losing season before Rhue took over. The coach before him left to go to another school. So yes Temple had a bad season right before he took over but they had been doing well the 3 years before that. Not a horrible spot to be in.

Baylor was a winning team in the middle of BOR created nightmare. But it was still a winning team he took over.

Nebraska is a totally different story as they were/are a struggling school. They never should have gotten rid of Solich. He was winning, just not enough for the spoiled fan base that wanted NC runs every year like the end of the Osborne era. Even when they had Pelini they were winning... just still not enough. That was also when they switched to the big 10 and lost Texas as a recruiting grounds and killed any chances of recruiting here.

So he took over one bad program, one in the middle of a mess but was still playing good football with good facilities, mostly engaged fan base, good players, etc. and one that had a single down year in the middle of what would be a 2 year stretch of down years with a 500 year sandwiched between multiple winning years in a 11 year stretch.

---

Temple moved from the MAC to the Big East/American the year before Matt Rhule arrived. What Golden and Addazio did in the MAC was completely irrelevant. The gap in schedule strength between the two leagues at that time was as wide as the current one between the Big 12 and the SEC.

And anyone who won't acknowledge that the Baylor program was in shambles when he took over isn't even worth the time. By the time Rhule arrived in Waco, none of the positives Briles brought remained.

---

Doesn't matter. They were still winning.

Lots of teams that have moved conference or even up a level and still win. There is no asterisk next to a win stating it was in a lower conference or level. It just goes down as a win or a loss.

The point still stands that the program at Temple was not in disarray and was not in the middle of some long losing drought. They were not going through any sort of lack of recruiting. They were still doing well.

At Baylor the facilities, fan base, etc. were still good. The players were still good. Were we short a ton of players? yes. Was the one recruiting class lost? Yes. But how many true freshmen were we playing those years? or even now? not many.

So again out of the 3 programs he has taken over one was way, way down (Nebraska) and one was doing well (Temple), and one had the recipe for success, with a little cluster f going on (Baylor) but it was not 3 complete rebuild jobs he did.

---

They weren't winning. Their first year in the Big East (would become the American the following year) -- Addazio's final season -- rendered a 4-7 record. It's just that some of you guys just want to write that off as a one off blip as opposed to the natural result of playing a real schedule.

---

Sigh.

Yes they were. For 3 years before that they were winning. They had that losing season, then the first year of Rhule was losing. The next was 500 and then 6 more years of winning, even a few years after Rhule left.

Like I said changing conferences does not come with an asterisk next to a win.

We could start listing all the teams that changed conferences and WON.

Changing conferences does not automatically mean more losses. But it seems to be used as an excuse to dismiss the success of a program to make Rhule look better for what he did.

---

Changing conferences quite literally meant more losses for Rhule's direct predecessor, Steve Addazio, who went from winning nine games in the MAC to winning four in the Big East/American with a similarly talented roster.

This is why this discussion is so stupid. You guys have no knowledge of the context or any desire to learn the context around it.

What Al Golden did at Temple in the MAC was completely irrelevant to the situation Rhule inherited.

---

Please explain how other teams change conferences and win. Because it happens all the time. All the time.

So why was it so different for this one team and coach?

Because you want it to be an argument to make your average coach look better.

---

Chuckroast said:

---

It wasn't like Addazio was a bad coach at Temple. He went 9-4 and won a bowl game his first year. He went 4-7 his 2nd year which was in the tougher Big East conference which is a foreseeable outcome in their first year in a new tougher conference. Then he left, and Rhule did even worse the next year and only won 2 games in his first year before getting them to 10 wins in years 3 and 4. That was a great accomplishment but does not mean that Addazio was a bad coach either.

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BearlyBeloved said:

---

The worst thing about CMR is that he left.

Other than that, I like him.

---

Same. The guy's taken over three programs in bad spots and will have ended up leaving all three in much better shape than he found them.

Is he a championship coach? Maybe not. He'll have to win more big games to achieve that.

Is he a damn good college football coach? Obviously.

His biggest sin among the Baylor fans that dislike him is that he wasn't Art Briles. But the man can build a program and will consistently field teams that compete hard and play sound, physical football. He's done it at three different stops now.

---

I have never understood this rewriting of history that goes on with Matt Rhule.

He did not take over 3 programs in bad spots. I think that is the narrative that keeps getting pushed to make him look better.

Temple had 3 winning seasons and then a losing season before Rhue took over. The coach before him left to go to another school. So yes Temple had a bad season right before he took over but they had been doing well the 3 years before that. Not a horrible spot to be in.

Baylor was a winning team in the middle of BOR created nightmare. But it was still a winning team he took over.

Nebraska is a totally different story as they were/are a struggling school. They never should have gotten rid of Solich. He was winning, just not enough for the spoiled fan base that wanted NC runs every year like the end of the Osborne era. Even when they had Pelini they were winning... just still not enough. That was also when they switched to the big 10 and lost Texas as a recruiting grounds and killed any chances of recruiting here.

So he took over one bad program, one in the middle of a mess but was still playing good football with good facilities, mostly engaged fan base, good players, etc. and one that had a single down year in the middle of what would be a 2 year stretch of down years with a 500 year sandwiched between multiple winning years in a 11 year stretch.

---

Temple moved from the MAC to the Big East/American the year before Matt Rhule arrived. What Golden and Addazio did in the MAC was completely irrelevant. The gap in schedule strength between the two leagues at that time was as wide as the current one between the Big 12 and the SEC.

And anyone who won't acknowledge that the Baylor program was in shambles when he took over isn't even worth the time. By the time Rhule arrived in Waco, none of the positives Briles brought remained.

---

Doesn't matter. They were still winning.

Lots of teams that have moved conference or even up a level and still win. There is no asterisk next to a win stating it was in a lower conference or level. It just goes down as a win or a loss.

The point still stands that the program at Temple was not in disarray and was not in the middle of some long losing drought. They were not going through any sort of lack of recruiting. They were still doing well.

At Baylor the facilities, fan base, etc. were still good. The players were still good. Were we short a ton of players? yes. Was the one recruiting class lost? Yes. But how many true freshmen were we playing those years? or even now? not many.

So again out of the 3 programs he has taken over one was way, way down (Nebraska) and one was doing well (Temple), and one had the recipe for success, with a little cluster f going on (Baylor) but it was not 3 complete rebuild jobs he did.

---

They weren't winning. Their first year in the Big East (would become the American the following year) -- Addazio's final season -- rendered a 4-7 record. It's just that some of you guys just want to write that off as a one off blip as opposed to the natural result of playing a real schedule.

---

Sigh.

Yes they were. For 3 years before that they were winning. They had that losing season, then the first year of Rhule was losing. The next was 500 and then 6 more years of winning, even a few years after Rhule left.

Like I said changing conferences does not come with an asterisk next to a win.

We could start listing all the teams that changed conferences and WON.

Changing conferences does not automatically mean more losses. But it seems to be used as an excuse to dismiss the success of a program to make Rhule look better for what he did.

---

Changing conferences quite literally meant more losses for Rhule's direct predecessor, Steve Addazio, who went from winning nine games in the MAC to winning four in the Big East/American with a similarly talented roster.

This is why this discussion is so stupid. You guys have no knowledge of the context or any desire to learn the context around it.

What Al Golden did at Temple in the MAC was completely irrelevant to the situation Rhule inherited.

---

Please explain how other teams change conferences and win. Because it happens all the time. All the time.

So why was it so different for this one team and coach?

Because you want it to be an argument to make your average coach look better.

---

Because the Temple teams winning games in the MAC weren't actually very good. Their records were propped up by beating bad teams.

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

It wasn't like Addazio was a bad coach at Temple. He went 9-4 and won a bowl game his first year. He went 4-7 his 2nd year which was in the tougher Big East conference which is a foreseeable outcome in their first year in a new tougher conference. Then he left, and Rhule did even worse the next year and only won 2 games in his first year before getting them to 10 wins in years 3 and 4. That was a great accomplishment but does not mean that Addazio was a bad coach either.

---

Addazio coached three programs over a decade-long span and retired with a losing record. He was a bad coach. Worse than Dave Aranda, in fact.

People act like Temple's turnaround under Golden (which Addazio benefited from in Year 1) happened in a vacuum. It didn't. Their "turnaround" was a product of going from playing independent schedules to joining the MAC for a handful of years. Without that move, they likely would have continued to suck. They started winning games because they moved to the weakest G5 conference at the time ... and still only had one year with fewer than three conferences losses during their short tenure in the MAC.

Context matters. Before Rhule, Temple's only success in decades came during the few years they competed in the MAC.

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BearlyBeloved said:

---

The worst thing about CMR is that he left.

Other than that, I like him.

---

Same. The guy's taken over three programs in bad spots and will have ended up leaving all three in much better shape than he found them.

Is he a championship coach? Maybe not. He'll have to win more big games to achieve that.

Is he a damn good college football coach? Obviously.

His biggest sin among the Baylor fans that dislike him is that he wasn't Art Briles. But the man can build a program and will consistently field teams that compete hard and play sound, physical football. He's done it at three different stops now.

---

I have never understood this rewriting of history that goes on with Matt Rhule.

He did not take over 3 programs in bad spots. I think that is the narrative that keeps getting pushed to make him look better.

Temple had 3 winning seasons and then a losing season before Rhue took over. The coach before him left to go to another school. So yes Temple had a bad season right before he took over but they had been doing well the 3 years before that. Not a horrible spot to be in.

Baylor was a winning team in the middle of BOR created nightmare. But it was still a winning team he took over.

Nebraska is a totally different story as they were/are a struggling school. They never should have gotten rid of Solich. He was winning, just not enough for the spoiled fan base that wanted NC runs every year like the end of the Osborne era. Even when they had Pelini they were winning... just still not enough. That was also when they switched to the big 10 and lost Texas as a recruiting grounds and killed any chances of recruiting here.

So he took over one bad program, one in the middle of a mess but was still playing good football with good facilities, mostly engaged fan base, good players, etc. and one that had a single down year in the middle of what would be a 2 year stretch of down years with a 500 year sandwiched between multiple winning years in a 11 year stretch.

---

Temple moved from the MAC to the Big East/American the year before Matt Rhule arrived. What Golden and Addazio did in the MAC was completely irrelevant. The gap in schedule strength between the two leagues at that time was as wide as the current one between the Big 12 and the SEC.

And anyone who won't acknowledge that the Baylor program was in shambles when he took over isn't even worth the time. By the time Rhule arrived in Waco, none of the positives Briles brought remained.

---

Doesn't matter. They were still winning.

Lots of teams that have moved conference or even up a level and still win. There is no asterisk next to a win stating it was in a lower conference or level. It just goes down as a win or a loss.

The point still stands that the program at Temple was not in disarray and was not in the middle of some long losing drought. They were not going through any sort of lack of recruiting. They were still doing well.

At Baylor the facilities, fan base, etc. were still good. The players were still good. Were we short a ton of players? yes. Was the one recruiting class lost? Yes. But how many true freshmen were we playing those years? or even now? not many.

So again out of the 3 programs he has taken over one was way, way down (Nebraska) and one was doing well (Temple), and one had the recipe for success, with a little cluster f going on (Baylor) but it was not 3 complete rebuild jobs he did.

---

They weren't winning. Their first year in the Big East (would become the American the following year) -- Addazio's final season -- rendered a 4-7 record. It's just that some of you guys just want to write that off as a one off blip as opposed to the natural result of playing a real schedule.

---

Sigh.

Yes they were. For 3 years before that they were winning. They had that losing season, then the first year of Rhule was losing. The next was 500 and then 6 more years of winning, even a few years after Rhule left.

Like I said changing conferences does not come with an asterisk next to a win.

We could start listing all the teams that changed conferences and WON.

Changing conferences does not automatically mean more losses. But it seems to be used as an excuse to dismiss the success of a program to make Rhule look better for what he did.

---

Changing conferences quite literally meant more losses for Rhule's direct predecessor, Steve Addazio, who went from winning nine games in the MAC to winning four in the Big East/American with a similarly talented roster.

This is why this discussion is so stupid. You guys have no knowledge of the context or any desire to learn the context around it.

What Al Golden did at Temple in the MAC was completely irrelevant to the situation Rhule inherited.

---

Please explain how other teams change conferences and win. Because it happens all the time. All the time.

So why was it so different for this one team and coach?

Because you want it to be an argument to make your average coach look better.

---

Because the Temple teams winning games in the MAC weren't actually very good. Their records were propped up by beating bad teams.

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

It wasn't like Addazio was a bad coach at Temple. He went 9-4 and won a bowl game his first year. He went 4-7 his 2nd year which was in the tougher Big East conference which is a foreseeable outcome in their first year in a new tougher conference. Then he left, and Rhule did even worse the next year and only won 2 games in his first year before getting them to 10 wins in years 3 and 4. That was a great accomplishment but does not mean that Addazio was a bad coach either.

---

Addazio coached three programs over a decade-long span and retired with a losing record. He was a bad coach. Worse than Dave Aranda, in fact.

People act like Temple's turnaround under Golden (which Addazio benefited from in Year 1) happened in a vacuum. It didn't. Their "turnaround" was a product of going from playing independent schedules to joining the MAC for a handful of years. Without that move, they likely would have continued to suck. They started winning games because they moved to the weakest G5 conference at the time ... and still only had one year with fewer than three conferences losses during their short tenure in the MAC.

Context matters. Before Rhule, Temple's only success in decades came during the few years they competed in the MAC.

---

I was evaluating Addazio solely by his tenure at Temple. Addazio was better at Temple in his first year in the Big East than Rhule. He just didn't stick around. Who knows what he might have accomplished had he stayed. I know that's speculation, but you're moving the goalposts by talking about his other coaching stops. He did just fine at Temple and didn't bring the program down. If you want to talk about other coaching stops, how about Rhule in the NFL?

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BearlyBeloved said:

---

The worst thing about CMR is that he left.

Other than that, I like him.

---

Same. The guy's taken over three programs in bad spots and will have ended up leaving all three in much better shape than he found them.

Is he a championship coach? Maybe not. He'll have to win more big games to achieve that.

Is he a damn good college football coach? Obviously.

His biggest sin among the Baylor fans that dislike him is that he wasn't Art Briles. But the man can build a program and will consistently field teams that compete hard and play sound, physical football. He's done it at three different stops now.

---

I have never understood this rewriting of history that goes on with Matt Rhule.

He did not take over 3 programs in bad spots. I think that is the narrative that keeps getting pushed to make him look better.

Temple had 3 winning seasons and then a losing season before Rhue took over. The coach before him left to go to another school. So yes Temple had a bad season right before he took over but they had been doing well the 3 years before that. Not a horrible spot to be in.

Baylor was a winning team in the middle of BOR created nightmare. But it was still a winning team he took over.

Nebraska is a totally different story as they were/are a struggling school. They never should have gotten rid of Solich. He was winning, just not enough for the spoiled fan base that wanted NC runs every year like the end of the Osborne era. Even when they had Pelini they were winning... just still not enough. That was also when they switched to the big 10 and lost Texas as a recruiting grounds and killed any chances of recruiting here.

So he took over one bad program, one in the middle of a mess but was still playing good football with good facilities, mostly engaged fan base, good players, etc. and one that had a single down year in the middle of what would be a 2 year stretch of down years with a 500 year sandwiched between multiple winning years in a 11 year stretch.

---

Temple moved from the MAC to the Big East/American the year before Matt Rhule arrived. What Golden and Addazio did in the MAC was completely irrelevant. The gap in schedule strength between the two leagues at that time was as wide as the current one between the Big 12 and the SEC.

And anyone who won't acknowledge that the Baylor program was in shambles when he took over isn't even worth the time. By the time Rhule arrived in Waco, none of the positives Briles brought remained.

---

Doesn't matter. They were still winning.

Lots of teams that have moved conference or even up a level and still win. There is no asterisk next to a win stating it was in a lower conference or level. It just goes down as a win or a loss.

The point still stands that the program at Temple was not in disarray and was not in the middle of some long losing drought. They were not going through any sort of lack of recruiting. They were still doing well.

At Baylor the facilities, fan base, etc. were still good. The players were still good. Were we short a ton of players? yes. Was the one recruiting class lost? Yes. But how many true freshmen were we playing those years? or even now? not many.

So again out of the 3 programs he has taken over one was way, way down (Nebraska) and one was doing well (Temple), and one had the recipe for success, with a little cluster f going on (Baylor) but it was not 3 complete rebuild jobs he did.

---

They weren't winning. Their first year in the Big East (would become the American the following year) -- Addazio's final season -- rendered a 4-7 record. It's just that some of you guys just want to write that off as a one off blip as opposed to the natural result of playing a real schedule.

---

Sigh.

Yes they were. For 3 years before that they were winning. They had that losing season, then the first year of Rhule was losing. The next was 500 and then 6 more years of winning, even a few years after Rhule left.

Like I said changing conferences does not come with an asterisk next to a win.

We could start listing all the teams that changed conferences and WON.

Changing conferences does not automatically mean more losses. But it seems to be used as an excuse to dismiss the success of a program to make Rhule look better for what he did.

---

Changing conferences quite literally meant more losses for Rhule's direct predecessor, Steve Addazio, who went from winning nine games in the MAC to winning four in the Big East/American with a similarly talented roster.

This is why this discussion is so stupid. You guys have no knowledge of the context or any desire to learn the context around it.

What Al Golden did at Temple in the MAC was completely irrelevant to the situation Rhule inherited.

---

Please explain how other teams change conferences and win. Because it happens all the time. All the time.

So why was it so different for this one team and coach?

Because you want it to be an argument to make your average coach look better.

---

Because the Temple teams winning games in the MAC weren't actually very good. Their records were propped up by beating bad teams.

---

Where is that stated on their record?

Why are other teams able to move from the same conferences and still win?

FActs only. Not your claim.

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

It wasn't like Addazio was a bad coach at Temple. He went 9-4 and won a bowl game his first year. He went 4-7 his 2nd year which was in the tougher Big East conference which is a foreseeable outcome in their first year in a new tougher conference. Then he left, and Rhule did even worse the next year and only won 2 games in his first year before getting them to 10 wins in years 3 and 4. That was a great accomplishment but does not mean that Addazio was a bad coach either.

---

Addazio coached three programs over a decade-long span and retired with a losing record. He was a bad coach. Worse than Dave Aranda, in fact.

People act like Temple's turnaround under Golden (which Addazio benefited from in Year 1) happened in a vacuum. It didn't. Their "turnaround" was a product of going from playing independent schedules to joining the MAC for a handful of years. Without that move, they likely would have continued to suck. They started winning games because they moved to the weakest G5 conference at the time ... and still only had one year with fewer than three conferences losses during their short tenure in the MAC.

Context matters. Before Rhule, Temple's only success in decades came during the few years they competed in the MAC.

---

I was evaluating Addazio solely by his tenure at Temple. Addazio was better at Temple in his first year in the Big East than Rhule. He just didn't stick around. Who knows what he might have accomplished had he stayed. I know that's speculation, but you're moving the goalposts by talking about his other coaching stops. He did just fine at Temple and didn't bring the program down. If you want to talk about other coaching stops, how about Rhule in the NFL?

---

No we can't talk about the NFL years because that tarnishes the record/prestige of all mighty Rhule.

Just like we have to add an asterisk to his lose against Liberty because it was his first game, blah blah blah.

In the minds of the Rhule lovers he is the only reason Temple won. Any other success they had is dismissed with things not on the record books. Any failures they had are not his fault.

Same for his time at Baylor or at Nebraska. Ignore the fact that he is barely above .500 and even by the end of the year will not improve much, and could go down depending on how many games they lose down the stretch.

He is the greatest coach ever and we must worship him for his time at Baylor ignoring all the records and facts that are out there proving otherwise.

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

It wasn't like Addazio was a bad coach at Temple. He went 9-4 and won a bowl game his first year. He went 4-7 his 2nd year which was in the tougher Big East conference which is a foreseeable outcome in their first year in a new tougher conference. Then he left, and Rhule did even worse the next year and only won 2 games in his first year before getting them to 10 wins in years 3 and 4. That was a great accomplishment but does not mean that Addazio was a bad coach either.

---

Addazio coached three programs over a decade-long span and retired with a losing record. He was a bad coach. Worse than Dave Aranda, in fact.

People act like Temple's turnaround under Golden (which Addazio benefited from in Year 1) happened in a vacuum. It didn't. Their "turnaround" was a product of going from playing independent schedules to joining the MAC for a handful of years. Without that move, they likely would have continued to suck. They started winning games because they moved to the weakest G5 conference at the time ... and still only had one year with fewer than three conferences losses during their short tenure in the MAC.

Context matters. Before Rhule, Temple's only success in decades came during the few years they competed in the MAC.

---

I was evaluating Addazio solely by his tenure at Temple. Addazio was better at Temple in his first year in the Big East than Rhule. He just didn't stick around. Who knows what he might have accomplished had he stayed. I know that's speculation, but you're moving the goalposts by talking about his other coaching stops. He did just fine at Temple and didn't bring the program down. If you want to talk about other coaching stops, how about Rhule in the NFL?

---

No we can't talk about the NFL years because that tarnishes the record/prestige of all mighty Rhule.

Just like we have to add an asterisk to his lose against Liberty because it was his first game, blah blah blah.

In the minds of the Rhule lovers he is the only reason Temple won. Any other success they had is dismissed with things not on the record books. Any failures they had are not his fault.

Same for his time at Baylor or at Nebraska. Ignore the fact that he is barely above .500 and even by the end of the year will not improve much, and could go down depending on how many games they lose down the stretch.

He is the greatest coach ever and we must worship him for his time at Baylor ignoring all the records and facts that are out there proving otherwise.

---

No one has ever argued that Rhule is the greatest coach ever. The argument is that he's really good at building college football programs, particularly those in need of some foundation work.

He may never win another championship again. He has a lot to prove where winning high-profile games is concerned. But he's proven at three different stops now that his process for getting a struggling program to a respectable, competitive level works pretty much every time and in every environment he's employed it.

If I was in need of a program rebuild, he would be near the top of my list of all current college football coaches.

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BearlyBeloved said:

---

The worst thing about CMR is that he left.

Other than that, I like him.

---

Same. The guy's taken over three programs in bad spots and will have ended up leaving all three in much better shape than he found them.

Is he a championship coach? Maybe not. He'll have to win more big games to achieve that.

Is he a damn good college football coach? Obviously.

His biggest sin among the Baylor fans that dislike him is that he wasn't Art Briles. But the man can build a program and will consistently field teams that compete hard and play sound, physical football. He's done it at three different stops now.

---

I have never understood this rewriting of history that goes on with Matt Rhule.

He did not take over 3 programs in bad spots. I think that is the narrative that keeps getting pushed to make him look better.

Temple had 3 winning seasons and then a losing season before Rhue took over. The coach before him left to go to another school. So yes Temple had a bad season right before he took over but they had been doing well the 3 years before that. Not a horrible spot to be in.

Baylor was a winning team in the middle of BOR created nightmare. But it was still a winning team he took over.

Nebraska is a totally different story as they were/are a struggling school. They never should have gotten rid of Solich. He was winning, just not enough for the spoiled fan base that wanted NC runs every year like the end of the Osborne era. Even when they had Pelini they were winning... just still not enough. That was also when they switched to the big 10 and lost Texas as a recruiting grounds and killed any chances of recruiting here.

So he took over one bad program, one in the middle of a mess but was still playing good football with good facilities, mostly engaged fan base, good players, etc. and one that had a single down year in the middle of what would be a 2 year stretch of down years with a 500 year sandwiched between multiple winning years in a 11 year stretch.

---

Temple moved from the MAC to the Big East/American the year before Matt Rhule arrived. What Golden and Addazio did in the MAC was completely irrelevant. The gap in schedule strength between the two leagues at that time was as wide as the current one between the Big 12 and the SEC.

And anyone who won't acknowledge that the Baylor program was in shambles when he took over isn't even worth the time. By the time Rhule arrived in Waco, none of the positives Briles brought remained.

---

Doesn't matter. They were still winning.

Lots of teams that have moved conference or even up a level and still win. There is no asterisk next to a win stating it was in a lower conference or level. It just goes down as a win or a loss.

The point still stands that the program at Temple was not in disarray and was not in the middle of some long losing drought. They were not going through any sort of lack of recruiting. They were still doing well.

At Baylor the facilities, fan base, etc. were still good. The players were still good. Were we short a ton of players? yes. Was the one recruiting class lost? Yes. But how many true freshmen were we playing those years? or even now? not many.

So again out of the 3 programs he has taken over one was way, way down (Nebraska) and one was doing well (Temple), and one had the recipe for success, with a little cluster f going on (Baylor) but it was not 3 complete rebuild jobs he did.

---

They weren't winning. Their first year in the Big East (would become the American the following year) -- Addazio's final season -- rendered a 4-7 record. It's just that some of you guys just want to write that off as a one off blip as opposed to the natural result of playing a real schedule.

---

Sigh.

Yes they were. For 3 years before that they were winning. They had that losing season, then the first year of Rhule was losing. The next was 500 and then 6 more years of winning, even a few years after Rhule left.

Like I said changing conferences does not come with an asterisk next to a win.

We could start listing all the teams that changed conferences and WON.

Changing conferences does not automatically mean more losses. But it seems to be used as an excuse to dismiss the success of a program to make Rhule look better for what he did.

---

Changing conferences quite literally meant more losses for Rhule's direct predecessor, Steve Addazio, who went from winning nine games in the MAC to winning four in the Big East/American with a similarly talented roster.

This is why this discussion is so stupid. You guys have no knowledge of the context or any desire to learn the context around it.

What Al Golden did at Temple in the MAC was completely irrelevant to the situation Rhule inherited.

---

Please explain how other teams change conferences and win. Because it happens all the time. All the time.

So why was it so different for this one team and coach?

Because you want it to be an argument to make your average coach look better.

---

Because the Temple teams winning games in the MAC weren't actually very good. Their records were propped up by beating bad teams.

---

Where is that stated on their record?

Why are other teams able to move from the same conferences and still win?

FActs only. Not your claim.

---

Who has ever moved from the MAC to a tougher conference and immediately been as good or better in the new league? Temple? Nope. Marshall? Nope. Northern Illinois? Nope.

The MAC is a really bad league guys. If your hate for Matt Rhule has you arguing that eight- and nine-win, non-championship teams from the MAC are actually good, you might want to reexamine things. The MAC has had a handful of actually good teams over the years (mostly from Northern Illinois), but all of those were winning double digit games and conference championships.

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BearlyBeloved said:

---

The worst thing about CMR is that he left.

Other than that, I like him.

---

Same. The guy's taken over three programs in bad spots and will have ended up leaving all three in much better shape than he found them.

Is he a championship coach? Maybe not. He'll have to win more big games to achieve that.

Is he a damn good college football coach? Obviously.

His biggest sin among the Baylor fans that dislike him is that he wasn't Art Briles. But the man can build a program and will consistently field teams that compete hard and play sound, physical football. He's done it at three different stops now.

---

I have never understood this rewriting of history that goes on with Matt Rhule.

He did not take over 3 programs in bad spots. I think that is the narrative that keeps getting pushed to make him look better.

Temple had 3 winning seasons and then a losing season before Rhue took over. The coach before him left to go to another school. So yes Temple had a bad season right before he took over but they had been doing well the 3 years before that. Not a horrible spot to be in.

Baylor was a winning team in the middle of BOR created nightmare. But it was still a winning team he took over.

Nebraska is a totally different story as they were/are a struggling school. They never should have gotten rid of Solich. He was winning, just not enough for the spoiled fan base that wanted NC runs every year like the end of the Osborne era. Even when they had Pelini they were winning... just still not enough. That was also when they switched to the big 10 and lost Texas as a recruiting grounds and killed any chances of recruiting here.

So he took over one bad program, one in the middle of a mess but was still playing good football with good facilities, mostly engaged fan base, good players, etc. and one that had a single down year in the middle of what would be a 2 year stretch of down years with a 500 year sandwiched between multiple winning years in a 11 year stretch.

---

Temple moved from the MAC to the Big East/American the year before Matt Rhule arrived. What Golden and Addazio did in the MAC was completely irrelevant. The gap in schedule strength between the two leagues at that time was as wide as the current one between the Big 12 and the SEC.

And anyone who won't acknowledge that the Baylor program was in shambles when he took over isn't even worth the time. By the time Rhule arrived in Waco, none of the positives Briles brought remained.

---

Doesn't matter. They were still winning.

Lots of teams that have moved conference or even up a level and still win. There is no asterisk next to a win stating it was in a lower conference or level. It just goes down as a win or a loss.

The point still stands that the program at Temple was not in disarray and was not in the middle of some long losing drought. They were not going through any sort of lack of recruiting. They were still doing well.

At Baylor the facilities, fan base, etc. were still good. The players were still good. Were we short a ton of players? yes. Was the one recruiting class lost? Yes. But how many true freshmen were we playing those years? or even now? not many.

So again out of the 3 programs he has taken over one was way, way down (Nebraska) and one was doing well (Temple), and one had the recipe for success, with a little cluster f going on (Baylor) but it was not 3 complete rebuild jobs he did.

---

They weren't winning. Their first year in the Big East (would become the American the following year) -- Addazio's final season -- rendered a 4-7 record. It's just that some of you guys just want to write that off as a one off blip as opposed to the natural result of playing a real schedule.

---

Sigh.

Yes they were. For 3 years before that they were winning. They had that losing season, then the first year of Rhule was losing. The next was 500 and then 6 more years of winning, even a few years after Rhule left.

Like I said changing conferences does not come with an asterisk next to a win.

We could start listing all the teams that changed conferences and WON.

Changing conferences does not automatically mean more losses. But it seems to be used as an excuse to dismiss the success of a program to make Rhule look better for what he did.

---

Changing conferences quite literally meant more losses for Rhule's direct predecessor, Steve Addazio, who went from winning nine games in the MAC to winning four in the Big East/American with a similarly talented roster.

This is why this discussion is so stupid. You guys have no knowledge of the context or any desire to learn the context around it.

What Al Golden did at Temple in the MAC was completely irrelevant to the situation Rhule inherited.

---

Please explain how other teams change conferences and win. Because it happens all the time. All the time.

So why was it so different for this one team and coach?

Because you want it to be an argument to make your average coach look better.

---

Because the Temple teams winning games in the MAC weren't actually very good. Their records were propped up by beating bad teams.

---

Where is that stated on their record?

Why are other teams able to move from the same conferences and still win?

FActs only. Not your claim.

---

Who has ever moved from the MAC to a tougher conference and immediately been as good or better in the new league? Temple? Nope. Marshall? Nope. Northern Illinois? Nope.

The MAC is a really bad league guys. If your hate for Matt Rhule has you arguing that eight- and nine-win, non-championship teams from the MAC are actually good, you might want to reexamine things. The MAC has had a handful of actually good teams over the years (mostly from Northern Illinois), but all of those were winning double digit games and conference championships.

---

Where is this shown in season records?

Please provide a link to an explanation of how a win is not a win. Again facts only.

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

It wasn't like Addazio was a bad coach at Temple. He went 9-4 and won a bowl game his first year. He went 4-7 his 2nd year which was in the tougher Big East conference which is a foreseeable outcome in their first year in a new tougher conference. Then he left, and Rhule did even worse the next year and only won 2 games in his first year before getting them to 10 wins in years 3 and 4. That was a great accomplishment but does not mean that Addazio was a bad coach either.

---

Addazio coached three programs over a decade-long span and retired with a losing record. He was a bad coach. Worse than Dave Aranda, in fact.

People act like Temple's turnaround under Golden (which Addazio benefited from in Year 1) happened in a vacuum. It didn't. Their "turnaround" was a product of going from playing independent schedules to joining the MAC for a handful of years. Without that move, they likely would have continued to suck. They started winning games because they moved to the weakest G5 conference at the time ... and still only had one year with fewer than three conferences losses during their short tenure in the MAC.

Context matters. Before Rhule, Temple's only success in decades came during the few years they competed in the MAC.

---

I was evaluating Addazio solely by his tenure at Temple. Addazio was better at Temple in his first year in the Big East than Rhule. He just didn't stick around. Who knows what he might have accomplished had he stayed. I know that's speculation, but you're moving the goalposts by talking about his other coaching stops. He did just fine at Temple and didn't bring the program down. If you want to talk about other coaching stops, how about Rhule in the NFL?

---

No we can't talk about the NFL years because that tarnishes the record/prestige of all mighty Rhule.

Just like we have to add an asterisk to his lose against Liberty because it was his first game, blah blah blah.

In the minds of the Rhule lovers he is the only reason Temple won. Any other success they had is dismissed with things not on the record books. Any failures they had are not his fault.

Same for his time at Baylor or at Nebraska. Ignore the fact that he is barely above .500 and even by the end of the year will not improve much, and could go down depending on how many games they lose down the stretch.

He is the greatest coach ever and we must worship him for his time at Baylor ignoring all the records and facts that are out there proving otherwise.

---

No one has ever argued that Rhule is the greatest coach ever. The argument is that he's really good at building college football programs, particularly those in need of some foundation work.

He may never win another championship again. He has a lot to prove where winning high-profile games is concerned. But he's proven at three different stops now that his process for getting a struggling program to a respectable, competitive level works pretty much every time and in every environment he's employed it.

If I was in need of a program rebuild, he would be near the top of my list of all current college football coaches.

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BearlyBeloved said:

---

The worst thing about CMR is that he left.

Other than that, I like him.

---

Same. The guy's taken over three programs in bad spots and will have ended up leaving all three in much better shape than he found them.

Is he a championship coach? Maybe not. He'll have to win more big games to achieve that.

Is he a damn good college football coach? Obviously.

His biggest sin among the Baylor fans that dislike him is that he wasn't Art Briles. But the man can build a program and will consistently field teams that compete hard and play sound, physical football. He's done it at three different stops now.

---

I have never understood this rewriting of history that goes on with Matt Rhule.

He did not take over 3 programs in bad spots. I think that is the narrative that keeps getting pushed to make him look better.

Temple had 3 winning seasons and then a losing season before Rhue took over. The coach before him left to go to another school. So yes Temple had a bad season right before he took over but they had been doing well the 3 years before that. Not a horrible spot to be in.

Baylor was a winning team in the middle of BOR created nightmare. But it was still a winning team he took over.

Nebraska is a totally different story as they were/are a struggling school. They never should have gotten rid of Solich. He was winning, just not enough for the spoiled fan base that wanted NC runs every year like the end of the Osborne era. Even when they had Pelini they were winning... just still not enough. That was also when they switched to the big 10 and lost Texas as a recruiting grounds and killed any chances of recruiting here.

So he took over one bad program, one in the middle of a mess but was still playing good football with good facilities, mostly engaged fan base, good players, etc. and one that had a single down year in the middle of what would be a 2 year stretch of down years with a 500 year sandwiched between multiple winning years in a 11 year stretch.

---

Temple moved from the MAC to the Big East/American the year before Matt Rhule arrived. What Golden and Addazio did in the MAC was completely irrelevant. The gap in schedule strength between the two leagues at that time was as wide as the current one between the Big 12 and the SEC.

And anyone who won't acknowledge that the Baylor program was in shambles when he took over isn't even worth the time. By the time Rhule arrived in Waco, none of the positives Briles brought remained.

---

Doesn't matter. They were still winning.

Lots of teams that have moved conference or even up a level and still win. There is no asterisk next to a win stating it was in a lower conference or level. It just goes down as a win or a loss.

The point still stands that the program at Temple was not in disarray and was not in the middle of some long losing drought. They were not going through any sort of lack of recruiting. They were still doing well.

At Baylor the facilities, fan base, etc. were still good. The players were still good. Were we short a ton of players? yes. Was the one recruiting class lost? Yes. But how many true freshmen were we playing those years? or even now? not many.

So again out of the 3 programs he has taken over one was way, way down (Nebraska) and one was doing well (Temple), and one had the recipe for success, with a little cluster f going on (Baylor) but it was not 3 complete rebuild jobs he did.

---

They weren't winning. Their first year in the Big East (would become the American the following year) -- Addazio's final season -- rendered a 4-7 record. It's just that some of you guys just want to write that off as a one off blip as opposed to the natural result of playing a real schedule.

---

Sigh.

Yes they were. For 3 years before that they were winning. They had that losing season, then the first year of Rhule was losing. The next was 500 and then 6 more years of winning, even a few years after Rhule left.

Like I said changing conferences does not come with an asterisk next to a win.

We could start listing all the teams that changed conferences and WON.

Changing conferences does not automatically mean more losses. But it seems to be used as an excuse to dismiss the success of a program to make Rhule look better for what he did.

---

Changing conferences quite literally meant more losses for Rhule's direct predecessor, Steve Addazio, who went from winning nine games in the MAC to winning four in the Big East/American with a similarly talented roster.

This is why this discussion is so stupid. You guys have no knowledge of the context or any desire to learn the context around it.

What Al Golden did at Temple in the MAC was completely irrelevant to the situation Rhule inherited.

---

Please explain how other teams change conferences and win. Because it happens all the time. All the time.

So why was it so different for this one team and coach?

Because you want it to be an argument to make your average coach look better.

---

Because the Temple teams winning games in the MAC weren't actually very good. Their records were propped up by beating bad teams.

---

Where is that stated on their record?

Why are other teams able to move from the same conferences and still win?

FActs only. Not your claim.

---

Who has ever moved from the MAC to a tougher conference and immediately been as good or better in the new league? Temple? Nope. Marshall? Nope. Northern Illinois? Nope.

The MAC is a really bad league guys. If your hate for Matt Rhule has you arguing that eight- and nine-win, non-championship teams from the MAC are actually good, you might want to reexamine things. The MAC has had a handful of actually good teams over the years (mostly from Northern Illinois), but all of those were winning double digit games and conference championships.

---

Where is this shown in season records?

Please provide a link to an explanation of how a win is not a win. Again facts only.

---

To be fair, many here play down wins based on the quality of the opponent, so evaluating the quality of the opponent in a win is not a new concept to this forum.

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BearlyBeloved said:

---

The worst thing about CMR is that he left.

Other than that, I like him.

---

Same. The guy's taken over three programs in bad spots and will have ended up leaving all three in much better shape than he found them.

Is he a championship coach? Maybe not. He'll have to win more big games to achieve that.

Is he a damn good college football coach? Obviously.

His biggest sin among the Baylor fans that dislike him is that he wasn't Art Briles. But the man can build a program and will consistently field teams that compete hard and play sound, physical football. He's done it at three different stops now.

---

I have never understood this rewriting of history that goes on with Matt Rhule.

He did not take over 3 programs in bad spots. I think that is the narrative that keeps getting pushed to make him look better.

Temple had 3 winning seasons and then a losing season before Rhue took over. The coach before him left to go to another school. So yes Temple had a bad season right before he took over but they had been doing well the 3 years before that. Not a horrible spot to be in.

Baylor was a winning team in the middle of BOR created nightmare. But it was still a winning team he took over.

Nebraska is a totally different story as they were/are a struggling school. They never should have gotten rid of Solich. He was winning, just not enough for the spoiled fan base that wanted NC runs every year like the end of the Osborne era. Even when they had Pelini they were winning... just still not enough. That was also when they switched to the big 10 and lost Texas as a recruiting grounds and killed any chances of recruiting here.

So he took over one bad program, one in the middle of a mess but was still playing good football with good facilities, mostly engaged fan base, good players, etc. and one that had a single down year in the middle of what would be a 2 year stretch of down years with a 500 year sandwiched between multiple winning years in a 11 year stretch.

---

Temple moved from the MAC to the Big East/American the year before Matt Rhule arrived. What Golden and Addazio did in the MAC was completely irrelevant. The gap in schedule strength between the two leagues at that time was as wide as the current one between the Big 12 and the SEC.

And anyone who won't acknowledge that the Baylor program was in shambles when he took over isn't even worth the time. By the time Rhule arrived in Waco, none of the positives Briles brought remained.

---

Doesn't matter. They were still winning.

Lots of teams that have moved conference or even up a level and still win. There is no asterisk next to a win stating it was in a lower conference or level. It just goes down as a win or a loss.

The point still stands that the program at Temple was not in disarray and was not in the middle of some long losing drought. They were not going through any sort of lack of recruiting. They were still doing well.

At Baylor the facilities, fan base, etc. were still good. The players were still good. Were we short a ton of players? yes. Was the one recruiting class lost? Yes. But how many true freshmen were we playing those years? or even now? not many.

So again out of the 3 programs he has taken over one was way, way down (Nebraska) and one was doing well (Temple), and one had the recipe for success, with a little cluster f going on (Baylor) but it was not 3 complete rebuild jobs he did.

---

They weren't winning. Their first year in the Big East (would become the American the following year) -- Addazio's final season -- rendered a 4-7 record. It's just that some of you guys just want to write that off as a one off blip as opposed to the natural result of playing a real schedule.

---

Sigh.

Yes they were. For 3 years before that they were winning. They had that losing season, then the first year of Rhule was losing. The next was 500 and then 6 more years of winning, even a few years after Rhule left.

Like I said changing conferences does not come with an asterisk next to a win.

We could start listing all the teams that changed conferences and WON.

Changing conferences does not automatically mean more losses. But it seems to be used as an excuse to dismiss the success of a program to make Rhule look better for what he did.

---

Changing conferences quite literally meant more losses for Rhule's direct predecessor, Steve Addazio, who went from winning nine games in the MAC to winning four in the Big East/American with a similarly talented roster.

This is why this discussion is so stupid. You guys have no knowledge of the context or any desire to learn the context around it.

What Al Golden did at Temple in the MAC was completely irrelevant to the situation Rhule inherited.

---

Please explain how other teams change conferences and win. Because it happens all the time. All the time.

So why was it so different for this one team and coach?

Because you want it to be an argument to make your average coach look better.

---

Because the Temple teams winning games in the MAC weren't actually very good. Their records were propped up by beating bad teams.

---

Where is that stated on their record?

Why are other teams able to move from the same conferences and still win?

FActs only. Not your claim.

---

Who has ever moved from the MAC to a tougher conference and immediately been as good or better in the new league? Temple? Nope. Marshall? Nope. Northern Illinois? Nope.

The MAC is a really bad league guys. If your hate for Matt Rhule has you arguing that eight- and nine-win, non-championship teams from the MAC are actually good, you might want to reexamine things. The MAC has had a handful of actually good teams over the years (mostly from Northern Illinois), but all of those were winning double digit games and conference championships.

---

Where is this shown in season records?

Please provide a link to an explanation of how a win is not a win. Again facts only.

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BearlyBeloved said:

---

The worst thing about CMR is that he left.

Other than that, I like him.

---

Same. The guy's taken over three programs in bad spots and will have ended up leaving all three in much better shape than he found them.

Is he a championship coach? Maybe not. He'll have to win more big games to achieve that.

Is he a damn good college football coach? Obviously.

His biggest sin among the Baylor fans that dislike him is that he wasn't Art Briles. But the man can build a program and will consistently field teams that compete hard and play sound, physical football. He's done it at three different stops now.

---

I have never understood this rewriting of history that goes on with Matt Rhule.

He did not take over 3 programs in bad spots. I think that is the narrative that keeps getting pushed to make him look better.

Temple had 3 winning seasons and then a losing season before Rhue took over. The coach before him left to go to another school. So yes Temple had a bad season right before he took over but they had been doing well the 3 years before that. Not a horrible spot to be in.

Baylor was a winning team in the middle of BOR created nightmare. But it was still a winning team he took over.

Nebraska is a totally different story as they were/are a struggling school. They never should have gotten rid of Solich. He was winning, just not enough for the spoiled fan base that wanted NC runs every year like the end of the Osborne era. Even when they had Pelini they were winning... just still not enough. That was also when they switched to the big 10 and lost Texas as a recruiting grounds and killed any chances of recruiting here.

So he took over one bad program, one in the middle of a mess but was still playing good football with good facilities, mostly engaged fan base, good players, etc. and one that had a single down year in the middle of what would be a 2 year stretch of down years with a 500 year sandwiched between multiple winning years in a 11 year stretch.

---

Temple moved from the MAC to the Big East/American the year before Matt Rhule arrived. What Golden and Addazio did in the MAC was completely irrelevant. The gap in schedule strength between the two leagues at that time was as wide as the current one between the Big 12 and the SEC.

And anyone who won't acknowledge that the Baylor program was in shambles when he took over isn't even worth the time. By the time Rhule arrived in Waco, none of the positives Briles brought remained.

---

Doesn't matter. They were still winning.

Lots of teams that have moved conference or even up a level and still win. There is no asterisk next to a win stating it was in a lower conference or level. It just goes down as a win or a loss.

The point still stands that the program at Temple was not in disarray and was not in the middle of some long losing drought. They were not going through any sort of lack of recruiting. They were still doing well.

At Baylor the facilities, fan base, etc. were still good. The players were still good. Were we short a ton of players? yes. Was the one recruiting class lost? Yes. But how many true freshmen were we playing those years? or even now? not many.

So again out of the 3 programs he has taken over one was way, way down (Nebraska) and one was doing well (Temple), and one had the recipe for success, with a little cluster f going on (Baylor) but it was not 3 complete rebuild jobs he did.

---

They weren't winning. Their first year in the Big East (would become the American the following year) -- Addazio's final season -- rendered a 4-7 record. It's just that some of you guys just want to write that off as a one off blip as opposed to the natural result of playing a real schedule.

---

Sigh.

Yes they were. For 3 years before that they were winning. They had that losing season, then the first year of Rhule was losing. The next was 500 and then 6 more years of winning, even a few years after Rhule left.

Like I said changing conferences does not come with an asterisk next to a win.

We could start listing all the teams that changed conferences and WON.

Changing conferences does not automatically mean more losses. But it seems to be used as an excuse to dismiss the success of a program to make Rhule look better for what he did.

---

Changing conferences quite literally meant more losses for Rhule's direct predecessor, Steve Addazio, who went from winning nine games in the MAC to winning four in the Big East/American with a similarly talented roster.

This is why this discussion is so stupid. You guys have no knowledge of the context or any desire to learn the context around it.

What Al Golden did at Temple in the MAC was completely irrelevant to the situation Rhule inherited.

---

Please explain how other teams change conferences and win. Because it happens all the time. All the time.

So why was it so different for this one team and coach?

Because you want it to be an argument to make your average coach look better.

---

Because the Temple teams winning games in the MAC weren't actually very good. Their records were propped up by beating bad teams.

---

Where is that stated on their record?

Why are other teams able to move from the same conferences and still win?

FActs only. Not your claim.

---

Who has ever moved from the MAC to a tougher conference and immediately been as good or better in the new league? Temple? Nope. Marshall? Nope. Northern Illinois? Nope.

The MAC is a really bad league guys. If your hate for Matt Rhule has you arguing that eight- and nine-win, non-championship teams from the MAC are actually good, you might want to reexamine things. The MAC has had a handful of actually good teams over the years (mostly from Northern Illinois), but all of those were winning double digit games and conference championships.

---

Where is this shown in season records?

Please provide a link to an explanation of how a win is not a win. Again facts only.

---

To be fair, many here play down wins based on the quality of the opponent, so evaluating the quality of the opponent in a win is not a new concept to this forum.

---