SpiderRico
Well-Known Member
I was looking up statistics regarding how we have performed under KF when we were double digit favorites. The numbers just blow my mind....
From 1999-2005 (first 7 years), we played a total of 20 games in which we were a double digit favorite. They are as follows
1999: Northern Illinois
2000: No games as double digit favorites
2001: Kent State, Miami OH, Minnesota, Penn State
2002: @Indiana, @Minnesota, Akron, Northwestern, Utah State
2003: Buffalo, Illinois, Penn State
2004: @Illinois, Iowa State, Kent State
2005: Ball State, Illinois, Indiana, Northern Iowa (there was no line here, but we would conceivable be double digit favorites)
So in those first 7 years, we played 20 games in which we were favored by double digits. In those 20 games, we were a perfect 20-0 straight up. In fact, we covered the double digit spreads in every single game except for 3....Penn State in 2001 (line was 10.5 and we won by 6), @Illinois in 2003 (line was 13 and we won by 10), and Iowa State at home in 2004 (line was 25 and we won by 7). 17-3 against double digit spreads is great.
However, from 2006-2012 (the 2nd 7 years), the story is VASTLY different. We played a total of 34 games in which we were double digit favorites. They are as follows:
2006: @Syracuse, @Illinois, @Indiana, Iowa State, Montana, Northern Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue
2007: Nothern Illinois (neutral), @Iowa State, Indiana, Minnesota, Syracuse, Western Michigan
2008: Florida Int'l, Iowa State, Maine, Purdue
2009: Arkansas State, Indiana, Minnesota, Northern Iowa, Northwestern
2010: @Indiana, @Northwestern, @Minnesota, Ball State, Eastern Illinois, Iowa State
2011: @Minnesota, Indiana, Tennessee Tech, Louisiana Monroe
2012: Central Michigan
So the second 7 years saw us as double digit favorites 34 times. In those 34 games, we were a combined 24-10. That's horrendous. Ten losses against teams you were favored by more than 10 points against is unfathomable and SHOULD be a fireable offense. But it gets even worse. We were unable to cover the spread in an additional 12 games. So overall, we are 12-22 against the spread as double digit favorites in the last 7 years. We went from covering the spread as double digit favorites at an 85% clip to covering at a 35% clip, which also includes 10 losses straight up. And I don't want to hear the talent excuse because we had enough talent to be ranked in the Top 10 to start the 2006 season, to be ranked in the top 20 to end the 2008 season, to be ranked in the top 10 to end the 2009 season and to be ranked in the Top 10 to start the 2010 season.
In the last 7 years, our "peers" in the conference (at least they used to be) which include Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Nebraska and Penn State don't have 10 losses COMBINED as double digit favorites.
Had we won those games over the years, our regular season records would have been as follows:
2006 - 8-4
2007 - 9-3
2008 - 8-4
2009 - 11-1
2010 - 10-2
2011 - 8-4
2012 - 5-7
And 2012 probably wouldn't have happened that way because a run like the above from 2006 thru 2011 would have most likely netted us better recruits so that a losing record doesn't happen.
This isn't asking Kirk to perform miracles and upset teams on a regular basis that he has no business upsetting. It's about simply winning the games that everyone expect us to win by at least 10 points.
Wait, let me guess......that's football?
From 1999-2005 (first 7 years), we played a total of 20 games in which we were a double digit favorite. They are as follows
1999: Northern Illinois
2000: No games as double digit favorites
2001: Kent State, Miami OH, Minnesota, Penn State
2002: @Indiana, @Minnesota, Akron, Northwestern, Utah State
2003: Buffalo, Illinois, Penn State
2004: @Illinois, Iowa State, Kent State
2005: Ball State, Illinois, Indiana, Northern Iowa (there was no line here, but we would conceivable be double digit favorites)
So in those first 7 years, we played 20 games in which we were favored by double digits. In those 20 games, we were a perfect 20-0 straight up. In fact, we covered the double digit spreads in every single game except for 3....Penn State in 2001 (line was 10.5 and we won by 6), @Illinois in 2003 (line was 13 and we won by 10), and Iowa State at home in 2004 (line was 25 and we won by 7). 17-3 against double digit spreads is great.
However, from 2006-2012 (the 2nd 7 years), the story is VASTLY different. We played a total of 34 games in which we were double digit favorites. They are as follows:
2006: @Syracuse, @Illinois, @Indiana, Iowa State, Montana, Northern Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue
2007: Nothern Illinois (neutral), @Iowa State, Indiana, Minnesota, Syracuse, Western Michigan
2008: Florida Int'l, Iowa State, Maine, Purdue
2009: Arkansas State, Indiana, Minnesota, Northern Iowa, Northwestern
2010: @Indiana, @Northwestern, @Minnesota, Ball State, Eastern Illinois, Iowa State
2011: @Minnesota, Indiana, Tennessee Tech, Louisiana Monroe
2012: Central Michigan
So the second 7 years saw us as double digit favorites 34 times. In those 34 games, we were a combined 24-10. That's horrendous. Ten losses against teams you were favored by more than 10 points against is unfathomable and SHOULD be a fireable offense. But it gets even worse. We were unable to cover the spread in an additional 12 games. So overall, we are 12-22 against the spread as double digit favorites in the last 7 years. We went from covering the spread as double digit favorites at an 85% clip to covering at a 35% clip, which also includes 10 losses straight up. And I don't want to hear the talent excuse because we had enough talent to be ranked in the Top 10 to start the 2006 season, to be ranked in the top 20 to end the 2008 season, to be ranked in the top 10 to end the 2009 season and to be ranked in the Top 10 to start the 2010 season.
In the last 7 years, our "peers" in the conference (at least they used to be) which include Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Nebraska and Penn State don't have 10 losses COMBINED as double digit favorites.
Had we won those games over the years, our regular season records would have been as follows:
2006 - 8-4
2007 - 9-3
2008 - 8-4
2009 - 11-1
2010 - 10-2
2011 - 8-4
2012 - 5-7
And 2012 probably wouldn't have happened that way because a run like the above from 2006 thru 2011 would have most likely netted us better recruits so that a losing record doesn't happen.
This isn't asking Kirk to perform miracles and upset teams on a regular basis that he has no business upsetting. It's about simply winning the games that everyone expect us to win by at least 10 points.
Wait, let me guess......that's football?