There have been 100's and 100's of posts this year about the fact that we haven't beaten anybody that is good. Depending upon your definition of good, that is probably true. But the real question is what is more predictive of how good we are, those wins against bad teams, or the close losses against good teams?
In other words, are we closer to the teams that we are beating, or the teams we are losing to? Since Claeys has taken over, there have been 7 Big 10 losses to Michigan, Ohio St., Nebraska, Iowa, Penn St. and Wisconsin. Those teams either finished ranked last year, or are currently ranked: 4th, 9th, 9th, 12th, 19th, and 21st in the country. 3 of the losses were to ranked teams on the road at night, a very tough venue to win. Several have been winnable, but we haven't been able to close the deal. The average margin of loss in those 7 games? 7 fricken points. A touchdown, with many painfully going down to the last play. So are we closer to the teams that have beaten us, or closer to the teams we have beaten and are below us in the standings?
I would argue the former, and that is more predictive of how good this team has been. If Armstrong doesn't play last week or goes down in the 1st half, anybody question whether we would have pulled that one out? If Hardin is playing against Penn St., anybody think that may have made the difference. Did anybody this year believe (after watching the games) that Iowa, Nebraska, and Penn St. were in a different league than the Gophers? In fact, most were pissed that we didn't close the deal.
Now if we are trending the wrong way, and the team won't have this much talent going into the future, that is a different question, but I don't think we know that fact.
In other words, are we closer to the teams that we are beating, or the teams we are losing to? Since Claeys has taken over, there have been 7 Big 10 losses to Michigan, Ohio St., Nebraska, Iowa, Penn St. and Wisconsin. Those teams either finished ranked last year, or are currently ranked: 4th, 9th, 9th, 12th, 19th, and 21st in the country. 3 of the losses were to ranked teams on the road at night, a very tough venue to win. Several have been winnable, but we haven't been able to close the deal. The average margin of loss in those 7 games? 7 fricken points. A touchdown, with many painfully going down to the last play. So are we closer to the teams that have beaten us, or closer to the teams we have beaten and are below us in the standings?
I would argue the former, and that is more predictive of how good this team has been. If Armstrong doesn't play last week or goes down in the 1st half, anybody question whether we would have pulled that one out? If Hardin is playing against Penn St., anybody think that may have made the difference. Did anybody this year believe (after watching the games) that Iowa, Nebraska, and Penn St. were in a different league than the Gophers? In fact, most were pissed that we didn't close the deal.
Now if we are trending the wrong way, and the team won't have this much talent going into the future, that is a different question, but I don't think we know that fact.
