Start

State (8-1) is off to its best start since it began the 1986 season 9-0.

Coach Smith is 22-6 at Tech, the best start for a Tech coach since 1972, when Bob Sweatpants won 23 of his first 28 games.

My question: Where's the line between a start and, simply, a won-lost record? I mean, if State plays 12 games in a season and wins its first 11, is that an 11-0 start? The end is only one game away. Seems to me they're past what you'd call a "start." If Coach Smith is at some point 82-12, is he still off to a good start?

Am I the only one who thinks this term is over-used and often used improperly?

 

I see your point to a point.

But how would you rewrite the coach one? Coach Smith is 22-6 at Tech, the best record through 28 games for a Tech coach since 1972, when Bob Sweatpants was 23-5?

I mean, it just reads more clumsy like that. I'm fine with start, because you're saying it's from the beginning of the season/career/etc.

 

if a team is 11-0 in a 12-game season it's simpler to say they're 11-0 for the first time...rather than call it a start.

As for the coach thing, I agree with IJAG for the 22-6 or whatever.

By 82-12, he's well past "start" ... find another way to phrase it.

 

OK, I can give you that, IJAG, but when is it too many games to call it a start? Like I said, if the coach is 80-12 and that's the best record through 92 games, you can't really call that a good "start" anymore, can you?

I'm curious to know when/if people would stop using the handy word and start using the more wordy but more appropriate descriptor.

 

I don't understand what's wrong with start. Seriously. With one word, you show you're going from his/her first game there.

Otherwise, it takes 5-7 words.

It's not "more accurate." Start conveys exactly what the writer is trying to convey.

 

After 92 games, he's still starting his career?

 

I say for a coach, the best start ends after two seasons. For a team, it's a one season thing only.

 

Bobby Bowden is off to a 367-113-4 start.

 

If anyone is referring to a start after 92 games, then they're retarded.

But for 1-2 seasons? If they're that good, obviously it's not nearing the end of their career. If a coach is 32-2 through his first two NFL regular seasons, yes, that's a start.

If you can find me one actual example of someone using "start" for 4-5 seasons worth, then we can talk in crazy terms like that. You were saying 11 games didn't count for "start." I'm saying it does.


EDIT after your last post: Don't be a douche, Johnny.

 

;D Oh c'mon IJAG, that was funny.

 

The two-year rule is interesting, Mayfly. Les Miles is 24-4 at LSU after two games of his third season there. I read a note that said it's the best start by an LSU coach since ...

That's what led me to ask the above questions. If Miles finishes the season unbeaten and is 36-4 at LSU, then goes to Michigan, he'd "finish" at LSU with a 36-4 "start," I guess.

 

So you're asking a question after 28 games, but applying it over 92 games?

Oh, I see. THAT makes sense.