For App, I consider a trip to the playoffs a successful season. We've been fortunate as a fan base to reach that level 18 out of the 33 years the playoff system has been around. (18 out of 25 since our first time in 1986.)
I love runs in the playoffs, and National Championships no doubt. But getting to play after Thanksgiving constitutes a successful regular season in my opinion.
Good - Going to the playoffs
Better - Winning a Conference Championship and going to the playoffs
Even Better - Winning a game or games in the playoffs
Best - Winning a National Championship (Whale of a Season )
Anything short of the playoffs and a 1st round win is a bad year. A good example is missing the playoffs 2 consecutive season (08 & 09) had the fan base rumbling for KC's head.
NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS 1946 · 1963 · 1971 · 1972 · 1979 · 2003
RUNNERS-UP · 1974 · 1978 · 1982 · 2007 · 2010
5 time Division 1-A National Champions & 5 - Final Fours
Gil Dobie wrote:Good - Going to the playoffs
Better - Winning a Conference Championship and going to the playoffs
Even Better - Winning a game or games in the playoffs
Best - Winning a National Championship (Whale of a Seaons )
Makes sense. And good point about winning the conference. That was more important to me this year than in other seasons because it allowed us to tie a record held by some kick ass Georgia Southern teams in the late 1990's to early 2000's.
I guess the reason I ask at all was remembering a kid in Boone two years ago who was bitching about how the team had let the fans down while we were getting beat by Richmond in the quarterfinals. It irritated me at first, but then I put it down to perspective. He probably thought the National Championships were his birthright as an ASU student. I could remember when the team sucked, and making the playoffs the first time was a reason to celebrate.
jd of de wrote:Anything short of the playoffs and a 1st round win is a bad year. A good example is missing the playoffs 2 consecutive season (08 & 09) had the fan base rumbling for KC's head.
I understand the grumbling because it is kind of hollow not to play during the Holiday season. But we all need to be careful what we wish for. The same happened at App after missing them in 2003-2004. Good thing they kept Jerry around for 2005.
jd of de wrote:Anything short of the playoffs and a 1st round win is a bad year. A good example is missing the playoffs 2 consecutive season (08 & 09) had the fan base rumbling for KC's head.
Same people were calling for his head after missing the playoffs in 2005 and 2006.
There are definitely two schools of though amongst Hen fans as to what constitutes a good season, but more accurately, a good run/decade. There are Hens fans that preferred the 1990's when the Hens went to the playoffs 6 times, never went to the finals, but never had a losing record. Others prefer the 2000's when the Hens went to the playoff only 4 times, but won the NC and had a runner-up, but had 3 losing seasons.
Me, I prefer getting to Chatty (now Frisco) and will accept a couple bad seasons.
For Ivy teams, a 'good' season is winning the Ivy championship. That's how shallow we are. If the Presidents allow us to play for Frisco, it will extend our reputation further and out.
Top two wishes of Ivy football fans everywhere: Playoff participation by the Ivy champion and the diversification of opponents in scheduling games.
89Hen wrote:BTW, I don't give a rats arse about conference titles. Those are a consolation prize for teams that don't get to the finals.
Sounds as elitist as Gee @ OSU. The thread says good season, not ultimate. You have to have that good season to even consider the rest.
Sorry, that's how I feel. As long as UD makes the playoffs, I really don't care if it's because they won the conference or got an at-large. Put it this way, I could rattle off all the years the Hens made the playoffs, but I have no clue whether they won the conference that year. My order is..
National Championship > Runner-Up > Made playoffs > Didn't make playoffs
That's it. I don't care about winning seasons or conference championships (or Lambert Cups).
Well, that's cause you're in the CAA and they'll take anybody left standing as an at large. When you win the conf championship in most other conferences, you already know you're in the playoffs. Not every conference that might have 3 teams with 7 (or more) DI wins will get all 3 in.
Playoffs and winning at least one game seems like a good definition to me.
Not to say that I think everyone who loses their first game had a bad season, just that its pretty frustrating as a fan base to get there and then go home right away.
Of course, in reality a season is always judged relative to the previous year and the pre-season expectations.
CatMom wrote:
Sounds as elitist as Gee @ OSU. The thread says good season, not ultimate. You have to have that good season to even consider the rest.
Sorry, that's how I feel. As long as UD makes the playoffs, I really don't care if it's because they won the conference or got an at-large. Put it this way, I could rattle off all the years the Hens made the playoffs, but I have no clue whether they won the conference that year. My order is..
National Championship > Runner-Up > Made playoffs > Didn't make playoffs
That's it. I don't care about winning seasons or conference championships (or Lambert Cups).
This. Conference championships are prizes for teams in a mediocre conference.
Well, that's cause you're in the CAA and they'll take anybody left standing as an at large. When you win the conf championship in most other conferences, you already know you're in the playoffs. Not every conference that might have 3 teams with 7 (or more) DI wins will get all 3 in.
Were there any teams with 7 DI wins from the Southland that were left out of the tourney this year? Don't blame the CAA for the Southland's problems.
89Hen wrote:
Sorry, that's how I feel. As long as UD makes the playoffs, I really don't care if it's because they won the conference or got an at-large. Put it this way, I could rattle off all the years the Hens made the playoffs, but I have no clue whether they won the conference that year. My order is..
National Championship > Runner-Up > Made playoffs > Didn't make playoffs
That's it. I don't care about winning seasons or conference championships (or Lambert Cups).
This. Conference championships are prizes for teams in a mediocre conference.
Sounds like something FBS elitists might say about FCS championships... hmmmm
I do enjoy a conference championship myself.
mebison wrote:Playoffs and winning at least one game seems like a good definition to me.
Not to say that I think everyone who loses their first game had a bad season, just that its pretty frustrating as a fan base to get there and then go home right away.
Of course, in reality a season is always judged relative to the previous year and the pre-season expectations.
I think Robert Morris has to feel pretty good about this year, as they should.
CrackerRiley wrote:Sounds like something FBS elitists might say about FCS championships... hmmmm
Not really. I can understand taking exception to what I said, but it's apples and oranges. It would be different if UD weren't eligible for a conference championship. The Hens do have conference championships, but IMO they are
mebison wrote:Playoffs and winning at least one game seems like a good definition to me.
Not to say that I think everyone who loses their first game had a bad season, just that its pretty frustrating as a fan base to get there and then go home right away.
Of course, in reality a season is always judged relative to the previous year and the pre-season expectations.
I think Robert Morris has to feel pretty good about this year, as they should.
Absolutely, and if we had lost, I'd still probably have felt ok about the season, compared to last year. Other than that whole lack-of-an-offense thing, of course.
bandl wrote:
This. Conference championships are prizes for teams in a mediocre conference.
Sounds like something FBS elitists might say about FCS championships... hmmmm
I do enjoy a conference championship myself.
Couldn't care less what FBS peeps think, and I won't care until they come up with a legit playoff system that involves more than 2 teams. Also couldn't care less about any conference championship game or trophy. IMO that's not what a team should set out to win every year unless they are playing in a league like the Ivy, SWAC, etc.
Well, that's cause you're in the CAA and they'll take anybody left standing as an at large. When you win the conf championship in most other conferences, you already know you're in the playoffs. Not every conference that might have 3 teams with 7 (or more) DI wins will get all 3 in.
Were there any teams with 7 DI wins from the Southland that were left out of the tourney this year? Don't blame the CAA for the Southland's problems.
Did I say the Southland or this year? No, not that I see. I didn't use specifics, as you seem to have read into it. Some people actually know how to make generalizations.
CatMom wrote:Did I say the Southland or this year? No, not that I see. I didn't use specifics, as you seem to have read into it. Some people actually know how to make generalizations.
You absolutely implied that the CAA gets preferential treatment when your conference doesn't. So OK, when was the last time a Southland had 7 DI wins and didn't make the playoffs?
Looking back, it would seem the only Southland team to not make the playoffs this century with 7 DI wins was SFA in 2003. They went 7-4. Villanova also went 7-4 (all DI) that year and also didn't make the playoffs.
CatMom wrote:
Sounds as elitist as Gee @ OSU. The thread says good season, not ultimate. You have to have that good season to even consider the rest.
Sorry, that's how I feel. As long as UD makes the playoffs, I really don't care if it's because they won the conference or got an at-large. Put it this way, I could rattle off all the years the Hens made the playoffs, but I have no clue whether they won the conference that year. My order is..
National Championship > Runner-Up > Made playoffs > Didn't make playoffs
That's it. I don't care about winning seasons or conference championships (or Lambert Cups).
Agreed.
The only reason I know the Griz had 13 conference titles in a row was because they were in a row. I couldn't tell you which years they were shared, and I couldn't tell you which years they didn't get the autobid. That being said, I would define a good season as this: Beating the sCats and making a deep run into the playoffs. Anything short of that is a failed season IMHO.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
clenz wrote:Anything short of a conference championship is a fail.
Would you really rather have a conference championship than a deeper run in the playoffs?
I was actually thinking about NDSU and UNI when I posted my first response. Which is better, conference champs and a first round exit, or no conference champ and a 2nd or 3rd round exit*?
Conference champ does come with nice banners and trophies to hang, whereas a 2nd or 3rd exit comes with a "better luck next year".
*(not that I am predicting a Bison loss or anything, but we are the underdogs, of course)
But getting to play after Thanksgiving constitutes a successful regular season in my opinion. 
)
If the Presidents allow us to play for Frisco, it will extend our reputation further and out.
