The meaning of 10 Wins?

by bruinhoo on Jul 1, 2007 11:18 PM PDT

From the diaries. A must read post for everyone. It puts into context the tomfoolery of those fans who will be happy with 9 wins in a 13 game season during the 5th year of an underachieving headcoach. GO BRUINS. -N

One of the points that I have seen raised in discussion regarding UCLA Football, be it over Karl Dorrell and the 2005 season, or expectations for this season and the future is the seemingly magic figure of 10 wins. 7 times in the history of UCLA has the football team won 10 games in a season; the number holds a special meaning for many in regards to considering the level of success in a season.

However, the fact that UCLA football has achieved a limited number of 10-win seasons has to be considered with the knowledge that the length of the college football season has varied throughout the years (it ain't as short as it used to be). Under the current NCAA scheduling rules, we play 12 regular season games, plus a bowl (13 total). If you really want to compare the relative strength of a 10-win season now to prior seasons (As saying "this was only UCLA's Xth 10-win season", winning percentage seems to be the most accurate means). Looking back at the history of UCLA football, starting with the PCC affiliation in 1928, we have played anywhere between 8 and 13 games in a season.

A 10 win season, in the current 13-game schedule (including a bowl) = .769 win %
In a 9-game season, a 7-2 record is the closest fit, with a .778 win%
In a 10-game season, an 8-2 (.800%), or 7-2-1 (.750%) record is the best approximation of 10 wins today.
In an 11-game schedule, an 8-2-1 record (.773%) is the the most accurate point of reference to a modern 10-3 season.
A 12-game schedule is close enough to the 13-game schedule that a 10 win season is here the proper comparison.

While I am sure that we can all agree that a 10-win season is a fine accomplishment for Bruin football to achieve, those that cite the small number of such seasons in our program's history, together with having achieved one such season under the current regime as proof of the "rightness" of the program's direction must take into consideration the variance in the length of seasons in the past (ie, no matter how good a team is, it can't have a 10-win season while only playing 9 games).

Using my last post as a guide, here are the prior seasons of UCLA football that, by winning percentage, equal or better a contemporary 10-win season (.769%, assuming participation in a bowl game), with conference finish and top-10 end-of-season ranking noted. UCLA Football media guide

8-2-0 (.800%, PCC Co-champion)
6-0-4 (.800%, 2nd PCC, #7 AP)
10-1-0 (.909%, PCC Champion, #4 AP)
8-1-0 (.809%, 2nd PCC, #6 AP, UPI)
8-2-0 (.800%, PCC Champion, #4 UPI, #5 AP)
9-0-0 (1.000%, PCC Champion, UPI National Champion, #2 AP)
9-2-0 (.818%, PCC Champion, #4 AP, UPI)
8-2-0 (.800%, 3rd PCC)
8-2-1 (.773%, AAWU Champion, #4 AP, #5 UPI)
9-1-0 (.900%, 2nd AAWU, #5 AP, UPI)
8-1-1 (.850%, 2nd Pac-8, #10 UPI)
9-2-0 (.818%, 2nd Pac-8, #9 UPI)
9-2-1 (,792%, Pac-8 Champion, #5 AP, UPI)
9-2-1 (.792%, 2nd Pac-8)
9-2-0 (.818%, 2nd Pac-10)
10-1-1 (.875%, Pac-10 Champion, #5 AP, UPI)
9-2-1 (.792%, Pac-10 Champion, #6 UPI, #7 AP)
10-2-0 (.833%, Pac-10 Co-champion, #9 AP)
10-2-0 (.833%, 2nd Pac-10, #6 AP, UPI)
10-2-0 (.833%, Pac-10 Co-champion, #5 AP, USA Today)
10-2-0 (.833%, Pac-10 Champion, #8 AP, USA Today)
10-2-0 (.833%, 3rd Pac-10)

22 Seasons in all, out of the 79 seasons that UCLA has played major conference football (dating to 1928, with our joining the Pacific Coast Conference).

While a 10-win season has a good look to it (and would give Dorrell a couple years more job security, for those so interested), keep in mind that a 10-3 season would not crack the top 1/4 of UCLA's Football teams - good, but not outstanding from a historical perspective.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Look at it in terms of losses

I grew up in a ten game season. Ten wins equated to zero losses, and in all likelihoood a national championship.

Five losses meant a 500 season. Six losses meant a 600 season. Mr. Dorrell's body of work in his time at UCLA is a 580 mark, puting him at a very forgettable level of mediocrity.

Kevin Brown says we will have some losses. There is talk (from at least one denizen of the BN) that three losses would be acceptable. While three losses would be better than what Mr. Dorrell has done in his career, it really would show me only that with a relatively loaded roster he still is the wrong person to be leading our team.

All this prognostication is fine. I hope I'm wrong. Let's hope for better results than at least one member of the team expects. Let's also hope for the "Dream World Series" between the Dodgers and the Devil Rays.

by Fox 71 on Jul 2, 2007 5:31 AM PDT reply actions

Great post

And if anyone thinks our recent 10 win season, which included the unforgettable 66-19 trashing by SuC, was a success, well, then I just don't know what.

by Barnes2JJ on Jul 2, 2007 5:41 AM PDT reply actions

10 wins was an IMPROVEMENT, BUT...

... definitely not the ultimate goal, not with the Cat and Trojan hammerings.

If, if, IF!!! we get 10 pre-Bowl wins this year with an $C victory, I think that means we get at least a share of the Pac-10 crown, so I'm OK with that.

Ask me again in October.

WHY NOT US? WHY NOT NOW?

by Meriones on Jul 2, 2007 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions

It was an improvement,

yes. But our two losses were so abysmal, it almost negated our wins.

A team that is No. 11 in the country, with 9 wins, should not lose like it did to the SuCsters. They beat us like we were a high school team.

I would not be as critical if we had at least played them close and lost. But we didn't even show up. It's tough to write this, but we did not belong on the same field that day.

It's been said by others on BN elsewhere, but those types of defeats remind me of Lavinoma's blowouts.

by Barnes2JJ on Jul 2, 2007 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions

Context is Important

What a great analysis. All 10 win seasons are NOT equal. Creating an imaginary goal based on the appeal of a nice round number is ridiculous. Dorrell has 20 seasoned starters and a significant number of second team contributors coming back. If he is building the program that the uninformed media says he is, 10 regular season wins (the Bruins should be favored or even money in all 12 games except SC and I left room for an Arizona like melt down), plus a bowl victory are not just achievable, but expected.

Dorrell has the perfect storm of talent, experience and schedule to win at least 10 games during the 2007 regular season. Even 11-1 is not unreasonable based on the pre-season hype. Since it is not unreasonable to expect more than one bowl victory every five years, even with a 10-2 record going in to a bowl game, a bowl victory is also critical to demonstrating that this football program is where it should be. If he goes 12-0, I'll jump on the give Dorrell a raise and a contract extension band wagon. Anything less than 11-2 (with a bowl victory) can not be considered a success in the fifth year of his tenure. I might be convinced to cut him some slack if Dorrell beats TrOJies but falls flat in a bowl game, but not likely.

by Bruin77 on Jul 2, 2007 8:45 AM PDT reply actions

Context is important for bowls too.

Many Dorrell supporters like to point out he has made 4 consecutive bowls. Some even pointing, incorrectly, that he is the only UCLA coach to have done so.

Well, much like 10 wins, it is MUCH easier to make a bowl now than it was when Donahue was here, during his eight consecutive bowl win streak.

Some years since Karl has been here as many as SIX conference teams have made a bowl. So essentially all you have to do is finish in the top half of your conference.

With this new lower bowl requirement in place, making a bowl should be the MINIMUM level of achievement for a UCLA team, as there is no reason we should EVER finish in the lower half of the conference. Period.

All in all, making a bowl is a easier to reach achievement, just like the 10 win mark.

by Free the 16 on Jul 2, 2007 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions

2007 Football Season

We need to keep in mind that 10 wins next year is, IMO, a good result, but that is not enough. 10 wins including a win over SC, and a win in a BCS bowl game are in the mix. It must be ALL THREE to qualify as a "KD did a good job (but not great job)". If he achieves that, some of the heat will dissipate.
Bill

BillSouthBay

by Mensgym on Jul 2, 2007 8:49 AM PDT reply actions

"We've got high hopes"

Look, before you all start bashing me, I would take 10 wins (bowl win necessary [10-3]). But I doubt that would get us into a BCS bowl (rose) game with a 9-3 season record (Holiday I assume). Right now, I don't realistically see us beating SC with the revenge factor in their stadium. That leaves 2 hiccups which I assume will be on the road. Excuse my pessimism, but I was a student during 2000-05. I would be ok with 10 wins, but I think 11-2 (arizona road game 2 years ago still haunts me) including a Rose Bowl victory is very realistic (cream on top would be Dorrell leaving for NFL :)) and should be considered a success. I understand that we all want an undefeated season, but I can't seem to muster the same optimism that you guys have. I would be happy if we obtained the same consistent success as Wisconsin (even though nobody notices). Then I would begin to believe Dorrell can produce a national title game (or shot at it). But last year we were 7-6. The 10-2 two years ago was misleading (4 comebacks I believe[including be down 0-20 in bowl game] and 2 huge beatdowns). And our recruiting has been decent, not spectacular. Until we can get offense and defense to achieve the same level of success in same year, there will always be 1 or 2 games that slips away. And the fact that we're losing/firing assistants left and right isn't good for the stability of the program (I don't have much faith in Norvell). So until Dorrell starts winning 9+ games a year (and attracting game-changing recruits), I have no faith in him in obtaining a national title. Thus me being ok with 10-3.

by ratmboy on Jul 2, 2007 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions

A request and not a bash

I agree with some, not all, of what you wrote, but could you please use some paragraphs? It just makes it easier for everyone to read what you wrote.

I also think you might be accidentally misreading some of us. I really don't think there are many optimists at all on BN. It sort of gets back to that expectation vs. prediction thing.

Many of us EXPECT the team to win the Pac-10, beat SC and possibly go to a major bowl.

I think if you asked for predictions, you would see a lot more doom and gloom on here. I also fear a loss to SuC this year for the reasons you stated.

by Barnes2JJ on Jul 2, 2007 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions

new to this

Yeah, sorry about the rambling. New to this whole posting thing. Like most of you, I have no faith in Dorrell whatsoever. His lack of passion (in a sport where it is most critical) on the sideline pisses me off the most.

Of course I have expectations for UCLA to win a national title game during my lifetime. The recruits we have in our own backyard should give us a leg up on 95% of other teams. Before we even look at that though, I want consistency first to start producing a reputation on par with Bama, OU, ND ... Than we can start recruiting nationally.

I guess this all has to do with KD. If he wins 10 games (bowl win necc) next year, I will back off a little. I'm actually predicting 10 wins because of our defense. Than he has to maintain this and will then obviously narrow the gap with SC and possibly garner national title expectations.

Trust me, if KD can accomplish this, I will be the first to beg for his forgiveness for ever doubting him. I would love nothing more than for him to prove me wrong.

by ratmboy on Jul 2, 2007 2:10 PM PDT reply actions

Yes

Two "C" words: Consistency and Confidence.

I want our program to be consistent each year (and consistently strong or good).

I want to have confidence that our program will be consistently strong each year.

I want our Coach and our players to be confident that we will win all our games every year.

These are my Christmas wishes in July.

by Barnes2JJ on Jul 2, 2007 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions

Forget this . . .

10 wins and beating SC!! I feel like this is what everyone thinks is acceptable this year. If we were to win 10 games, 1 of them SC, then who in the hell does that mean we would've lost to then!?

SC is the best team we'll play this year. If we can beat them then we should beat them all. No excuse for anything than perfection if we beat them. Those 3 losses gives KD an out. No need to fire him if he blows 3 games, just beat SC!!

That's a bunch of bulls*&^!!

Even if he has less than 3 losses, look at 2008, he won't play any freshman this year, so we'll have a serious lack of experience coming back. It'll be 7 - 5 or 6 - 6. Then we're back to square 1 all over again.

by TheStick on Jul 2, 2007 11:18 PM PDT reply actions