Ancient Reptile
Senior Member
- Mar 4, 2015
- 10,796
- 11,119
Dear Threat (to my sanity): If good coaches and talent correlate, then subtle statistical methods must be employed to separate them and determine the contribution of each factor. I believe it is sometimes called"factor analysis". Within the past six weeks, someone has posted an article here about an analyst who is attempting this.There's nothing to skew. It's simply the results of games. The fcking evidence is in the OP.
Why not change the thread title to "Recruiting is all that matters, 80 per cent of the time". Can you imagine our fan base if we had the most talent and lost two or three games a year?
What really matters is graduating quality young men with degrees in STEM areas ready to take their place in polite society. Anything else has no part in academia.Seems to me...Richt recruited pretty well @ ugaaa. only won 1 SEC. Not a very good game manager imho. Saban wins consistently for recruiting, game prep, assistants who know what they're doing, and a very consistent and rabid fan base. They spend big $ on facilities and anything Alabama football. The culture in Tuscaloosa is a lot more solid toward their team than the backbiting that goes on here in Gator Nation. I like Dan Mullen, but I really don't think he will bring an SEC championship to Gainesville; too many conflicting philosophies about how to improve the process, not enough focus on what really matters, i.e recruiting, proper game prep, competent assistant coaches who are committed to winning, etc. etc. But what the hell do I know??..
What really matters is graduating quality young men with degrees in STEM areas ready to take their place in polite society. Anything else has no part in academia.
This accurately describes the current situation at Ugly. Given the talent on that roster they should never lose to a team as bad as USCe (@ home no less) or even only beat us by a TD. Would any of us really be surprised if they lost to Barn and/or aTm?I would rather have a mediocre game day head coach/staff but excellent recruiters than excellent game day coaches and mediocre recruiters.
Thanks for posting some of the most interesting data that I have seen here.247 only goes back to 2015 so that's as far back as we can go.
Will ran the numbers for all conferences and came up with an overall number of 67%.
I ran the numbers for the SEC.
What really matters is graduating quality young men with degrees in STEM areas ready to take their place in polite society. Anything else has no part in academia.
Except for coaches that were so bad that they ended up getting fired, or sometimes coaches in their first year, among stable coaching situations talent is the overriding factor. So much that it's hard to argue that coaching, player development, blah blah blah really matters once you get rid of the idiots.
Yes sometimes a given coach can overcome the talent gap sometimes. But why put yourself in that position/? Clearly "you are what your recruiting record says you are".
Honestly I didn't realize just how overwhelming this was until I started to look at this. Or I should say I never saw the numbers that backed up what we (mostly) all know to be true. Championships are not won by offense or defense they are won on the recruiting trail. Whether or not a coach called a particularly play or two doesn't matter as much. If he has the horses that play is going to work most of the time. It's not he play, it's the execution. Most coaching staffs (that aren't about to get fired) probably fall within a standard deviation of each other. Among these coaches you could exchange talent and the results will follow the talent.
When she's in a bad mood? Definitely.Fear the beaver!?
I agree with the original post. The jimmys and the joes are what matters most. It takes 3-4 years to build a quality depth chart, whereas a new coach can be hired in a few weeks.
I would rather have a mediocre game day head coach/staff but excellent recruiters than excellent game day coaches and mediocre recruiters.
Which is why I'm not very high on Mullen and his staff.
There are a bunch of dependant and multi-dependant variables in that analsysis. My advice...have a beers or three ... watch the game...then proclaim:247 looks at the entire roster at the beginning of the season. It's not perfect. For instance it counts Brenton Cox counts towards our total - who obviously isn't playing. What I'd like to do (maybe in the offseason) is create a database of every team. Then each week I could do a comparison of starters vs starters. Even position group vs position group. A lot of work and the results will probably be as expected.
However what it would reveal is whether or not a particular unit and therefore coach is under- or over- performing.
Obviously, their record against inferior talent would project against superior talent. <sarcasm font>If the theory is correct, how did UCF become national championship?