This is a thought I’ve kind of bounced around in my head for a little while now and decided to try and put it out there.

Today when I was reading through the Heisman Pundits most overrated coaches in college football, there was one line that really struck a chord with me. In his blurb about Mark Richt, whom he has rated as the 8th most overrated coach in the country, he says

“Nice man. Program is very good. But will he ever win big when he’s supposed to (like 2008)?”

This sort of thing really bugs me. When MSM types spout off on when a team is supposed to be good and criticize a coach for not having their programs succeed at the highest level when they are “supposed to”. 

To me it seems more like the Media monster likes to detract from the fact that their predictions and preseason assessments really have no validity or accuracy. Now I’m being a little hypocritical here because I sink my teeth into just as much preseason literature as the next fan, and I constantly feed the very beast that I’m being critical of. But what bothers me is when a program or coach gets blasted for having what if looked at objectively could really be seen as a decent season, just because they didn’t live up to your inaccurate predictions.

I realize I’m quoting a blogger who was just trying to fill the hours and get some hits. But this could also be used to describe Bruce Pearl’s squad this year. Did they underperform? Or did we simply over assess? Looking back on the year you could make the argument that we could have seen it coming. Losing your top 4 guards from the previous year as well as an experienced post player coming into his junior year and you’re supposed to improve as a team?

In general I think we just need to be careful when we judge a coaches worth based on how they perform when they’re supposed to be good vs. when they’re not.