Recruiting - 83.7% of the time it works every time

Ancient Reptile

Senior Member
Mar 4, 2015
10,796
11,119
There's nothing to skew. It's simply the results of games. The fcking evidence is in the OP.
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.
 

Ancient Reptile

Senior Member
Mar 4, 2015
10,796
11,119
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? The death threats Butters claimed would be both real and meaningful.
As it happens, this theory might be tested right here at UF. Mike White has amassed a boat load of talent, (why is the UF basketball program the only one allowed bag men?), but if they aren't coached any better than they were against FSU, we will see how the theory works for basketball.
 

B52G8rAC

SAC Trained Warrior
Lifetime Member
Feb 15, 2016
5,918
11,094
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.
 

Double Gator Dad

Founding Member
Senior Member
Lifetime Member
Jun 12, 2014
4,988
8,400
Founding Member
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 is the best post on this topic.
We all know that the primary purpose of college athletics is to teach and develop young men into productive members of society. Which is why the winniest coaches (Bowden and Paterno) are beacons of morality and truth.
 

Gator By Marriage

A convert to Gatorism
Lifetime Member
Dec 31, 2018
14,785
27,965
I would rather have a mediocre game day head coach/staff but excellent recruiters than excellent game day coaches and mediocre recruiters.
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?

Recruiting has to be the biggest priority (and balanced recruiting at that), but to win titles, the coaching better be good too. Look no further than the reigning National Champs. I don’t know what percentage on D was talent and what percentage was coaching, but does anyone doubt Venables impact?

On paper FSU has a better roster than we do. Anybody here actually think that? Anybody here give them much of a chance against us?
 

ThreatMatrix

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Aug 28, 2014
16,540
26,088
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.
2018.PNG
2017.PNG
2016.PNG
2015.PNG
 

ThreatMatrix

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Aug 28, 2014
16,540
26,088
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.
 

Ancient Reptile

Senior Member
Mar 4, 2015
10,796
11,119
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.
17771

17772

17773

17774
Thanks for posting some of the most interesting data that I have seen here.
 

jdh5484

Founding Member
Just Beat UGa
Lifetime Member
Jun 30, 2014
9,274
30,811
Founding Member
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.

Agreed. Recruiting is the foundation of the Program. Everything else is built on top of the foundation. The better the foundation, the more the Program can handle twists and turns at the other levels. (losing a position coach, injuries, bad calls, tough schedules, stupid calls, plain bad luck).
 

bayou gator

Lord I was born a shamblin' man...
Lifetime Member
Aug 30, 2014
1,131
3,065
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.

I agree. I think... Though I'm gonna give you the benefit of a doubt and believe that you are not insinuating Mullen and his staff are excellent game day coaches. We can all agree they haven't done much on the recruiting trail so far, but we are damn sure witnessing mediocrity out of them on game day, as well.

If Mullen can't figure out a way to significantly improve recruiting, he is likely hitting his ceiling this year.
 

ThreatMatrix

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Aug 28, 2014
16,540
26,088
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.
 

jdh5484

Founding Member
Just Beat UGa
Lifetime Member
Jun 30, 2014
9,274
30,811
Founding Member
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.
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:

giphy.gif


No math.
 

ThreatMatrix

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Aug 28, 2014
16,540
26,088
If the theory is correct, how did UCF become national championship?
Obviously, their record against inferior talent would project against superior talent. <sarcasm font>
This is the stupidity of the UCF would win in the SEC argument.
Vanderbilt has the least talent in the SEC. Yet UCF has even less. Conversely they have the most talent in the AAC. So of course they win all their games in conference. If they were in the SEC they'd have the record of Vandy or worse. Such an incredibly, humongous, outlandish, retarded and ignorant statement to even entertain the thought that UCF would have any success in the SEC.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    Birthdays

    Members online

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    31,642
    Messages
    1,615,698
    Members
    1,642
    Latest member
    fishermb