CBJ among the most elite coaches in college football.

#26
#26
daj and vegasvol need to see this one.

wonder why he only did two years worth of data?

interesting that les miles is in the top 3, while being called a "bad' coach in another VN thread.

Read it. Good stuff.

As I said, Jones is one of the few coaches with a history of over performing. He is worth about 3 extra games a season above his talent, on average.

The thing that stuck out to me is the quote about the resistance from people who reject numerical predictors in football. That is very true.

Dooley is a -4 game coach by comparison.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#28
#28
It would be interesting to see the statistic for a long term. Obviously, coaches like Johnny Majors, Nick Saban, and Brian Kelly would suffer for moving from school to school rebuilding program after program when compared to coaches like Paterno or Fulmer who never had to build a program. Maybe that is why he elected to look at only two years. Still, coaches in Dooley's position would have no chance if their programs were on the bottom during the short look.

I read through this thread just shaking my head with so much Dooley hate just to make themselves feel better about themselves. Obviously u r a smart one that thinks outside the box. I would add CBJ to the none rebuilder list. May not have been handed gems like Fulmer, but still nothing like some of the others.

Welcome to the hated group of the logical.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#29
#29
I'll tell you what's dumb: arguing a coach is "elite" based on two seasons in which his teams won the Liberty and the Belk Bowls.

I think elite should be judged based on what you are working with. End result doesn't matter necessarilly. They key is to find a way to objectively judge what a coach is working with and how they perform with what they have. Jones not only consistently beats more talented teams, but he also consistently improves the talent onhis teams in relation to his competition. He might not yet have eatearned the "elite" handle but he is one of the few coaches I found with a verifiable history of doing both.
 
#31
#31
I worked out the formula for the SEC coaches for the 2012 season. Keep in mind that I had to use the coach's team of the '12 season (i.e., Bret Bilema-Wisconsin, Butch Jones-Cincinnati, Gus Malzahn-Arkansas State)
* Mark Stoops is the misnomer due to the fact that this is his first year as a head coach so I just used Florida State's team stats.

Nick Saban
Butch Jones
Will Muschamp
Mark Richt
Steve Spurrier
Kevin Sumlin
*Mark Stoops
James Franklin
Les Miles
Dan Mullen
Bret Bilema
Gus Malzahn
Hugh Freeze
Gary Pinkel
 
#32
#32
I worked out the formula for the SEC coaches for the 2012 season. Keep in mind that I had to use the coach's team of the '12 season (i.e., Bret Bilema-Wisconsin, Butch Jones-Cincinnati, Gus Malzahn-Arkansas State)
* Mark Stoops is the misnomer due to the fact that this is his first year as a head coach so I just used Florida State's team stats.

Nick Saban
Butch Jones
Will Muschamp
Mark Richt
Steve Spurrier
Kevin Sumlin
*Mark Stoops
James Franklin
Les Miles
Dan Mullen
Bret Bilema
Gus Malzahn
Hugh Freeze
Gary Pinkel

Nice work. James Franklin sucks out loud.
 
#33
#33
And here are the rankings with the Strength of Schedule calculated in:
Nick Saban
Will Muschamp
Butch Jones
Mark Richt
Kevin Sumlin
Steve Spurrier
*Mark Stoops
Les Miles
James Franklin
Bret Bilema
Dan Mullen
Gus Malzahn
Hugh Freeze
Gary Pinkel

Not much of a difference with the weighted SoS, but enough to move some coaches up or down 1 spot.
 
#35
#35
Les Miles is #2? :blink:

yeah i wondered about this myself. I could only deduce that in the article, Les Miles is number 2 over two seasons.
I also did NOT calculate winning percentage into the equation so although Les Miles' teams do not have high efficiency numbers, they find ways to win.
I'll do some more research to figure out how exactly winning % factors in.
 
#36
#36
Les Miles does win a LOT of close games and the ones they lose are close as well. This also creates the middle of the pack efficiency ratings.
 
#37
#37
Read it. Good stuff.

As I said, Jones is one of the few coaches with a history of over performing. He is worth about 3 extra games a season above his talent, on average.

The thing that stuck out to me is the quote about the resistance from people who reject numerical predictors in football. That is very true.

Dooley is a -4 game coach by comparison.
Because numbers don't tell the whole story. I don't mind stats but some people act as if they are conclusive. Predictors yes, conclusive in a future outcome? No. Numbers will never account for heart, the will to win. There's no % for resiliency. The numbers said statistically I would be dead by 25 due to gun violence and the life I was living. But the numbers couldn't account for ones will to straighten up and seek an education. Just sayin. I'm done.
 
#39
#39
I worked out the formula for the SEC coaches for the 2012 season. Keep in mind that I had to use the coach's team of the '12 season (i.e., Bret Bilema-Wisconsin, Butch Jones-Cincinnati, Gus Malzahn-Arkansas State)
* Mark Stoops is the misnomer due to the fact that this is his first year as a head coach so I just used Florida State's team stats.

Nick Saban
Butch Jones
Will Muschamp
Mark Richt
Steve Spurrier
Kevin Sumlin
*Mark Stoops
James Franklin
Les Miles
Dan Mullen
Bret Bilema
Gus Malzahn
Hugh Freeze
Gary Pinkel

Yeah and if you used 2010/11, Pinkel would look good and Muschamp would look horrible (except for beating down turd bin meyer). I'm sure if you used 1998, Coach Fulmer would be lookin pretty damm untouchable too!
 
#40
#40
It would be interesting to see the statistic for a long term. Obviously, coaches like Johnny Majors, Nick Saban, and Brian Kelly would suffer for moving from school to school rebuilding program after program when compared to coaches like Paterno or Fulmer who never had to build a program. Maybe that is why he elected to look at only two years. Still, coaches in Dooley's position would have no chance if their programs were on the bottom during the short look.

Majors would suffer because his lifetime winning percentage was .574 and great seasons were by far the exception - 29 years coaching, only 9 were 8 or more wins (and 8 wins is not a particularly great season). The "always rebuilding" excuse is a load of crap. Saban has 11 of 17. Bryant had 26 in 38. Neyland had 15 in 21.
 
#41
#41
Because numbers don't tell the whole story. I don't mind stats but some people act as if they are conclusive. Predictors yes, conclusive in a future outcome? No. Numbers will never account for heart, the will to win. There's no % for resiliency. The numbers said statistically I would be dead by 25 due to gun violence and the life I was living. But the numbers couldn't account for ones will to straighten up and seek an education. Just sayin. I'm done.

I get your point, and you make some valid ones, but your point is about exceptions, not rules.

You cannot extrapolate from an exception to make a rule.

Taken at the lowest levels, things get very difficult to predict. The way one human will react, the outcome of one football game, the behavior of one molecule are all good examples. However, if you take millions of molecules, demographic slices of humanity, or seasons of football for whole conferences you can in fact see patterns and general predictors of specific behavior and outcomes.

It is to your peril if you try to say that every game, or every human, or every molecule will behave exactly as the general population. That is my point. Exceptions and general rules are things to be viewed separately. You must understand the general rules to appreciate and celebrate the exceptions.

Congratulations, by the way, on whatever it is that you overcame and I wish you continued success. Without the exceptions, like yourself, life would get incredibly boring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#43
#43
Majors would suffer because his lifetime winning percentage was .574 and great seasons were by far the exception - 29 years coaching, only 9 were 8 or more wins (and 8 wins is not a particularly great season). The "always rebuilding" excuse is a load of crap. Saban has 11 of 17. Bryant had 26 in 38. Neyland had 15 in 21.

I agree that eight wins is not a great season . . . in the era of twelve-game regular seasons. When Neyland was coaching, however, nine or ten game regular seasons were the norm, and eight victories would often garner you a spot in the top ten. With respect to the "always rebuilding excuse," are you making a general observation or one that pertains specifically to Majors? It definitely took Johnny longer to rebuild our program than we would have liked but, as a point of fact, he did inherit four separate rebuilding scenarios. He was mildly successful at Iowa State, highly successful at Pitt the first time around, eventually quite successful at Tennessee, and failed in his second tenure at Pitt.
 
#44
#44
Because numbers don't tell the whole story. I don't mind stats but some people act as if they are conclusive. Predictors yes, conclusive in a future outcome? No. Numbers will never account for heart, the will to win. There's no % for resiliency. The numbers said statistically I would be dead by 25 due to gun violence and the life I was living. But the numbers couldn't account for ones will to straighten up and seek an education. Just sayin. I'm done.

I get what you're saying, but the numbers serve an important function in that they allow us to make inferences about something unknown. In this case, the estimate infers that Butch Jones is a good football coach. You are right that it does not conclusively say it, but we'll get closer and closer to reality with every sample we pull.

This means given an appropriate metric, and a large enough sample, I would be very confident in my ability to evaluate the impact of say a player's intangibles (resiliency, heart, ect). I'd much rather make personnel decisions where I'm certain that 95 times out of 100 that my predicted outcome is going to occur than go in blind.

Granted, those 5 aberrations are why we play the game, but the point is it is clearly better to have a metric that helps to accurately evaluate players or coaches 95% of time than it is to have nothing. Whether or not this particular metric is the one we should be using won't be known for a little longer.
 
Last edited:
#47
#47
All the people hating on Dooley (again, what a shock) for this system should realize he is probably ranked extremely well offensively. Defense would bring him back down to below average though.
 
#48
#48
All the people hating on Dooley (again, what a shock) for this system should realize he is probably ranked extremely well offensively. Defense would bring him back down to below average though.

Good post.

I read how the system works and even watched the video of the author and this makes a lot of sense. It's not based on wins/losses but, again, points per yard. Thus, it takes into account Offense, Defense, and STs.

Unlike "MoneyBall," this system does not tell you how to win but, rather, tells you who has been effective and efficient - which usually translates to wins. The best application for it would be for hiring a HC. We better get CBJ on a long term contract because it's not the rest of college football that we have to worry about luring him away, but, instead, I can see the NFL calling in 2 or 3 years...
 

VN Store



Back
Top