Central Michigan on Resume....

[Dougie_D]

I'm just wondering what's the deal with the Central Michigan love?

More than half of our coaches have a connection there, whether they played/coached with CBJ or not.

My point is... I hope that our staff stays for a long time, but eventually 1 or 2 might always leave for a better job.

Does CBJ have a big circle of "staffers" he can call in case that becomes a need? What's his network involving other coaches?

 

[lincolncovol]

Coachsearch.com

 

[YankeeVol]

He just calls Brian Kelly

 

[volsare1]

who cares

 

[lincolncovol]

Just messing around, They know more about each other than the casual fans know of. So I sure he has a larger tree to pick from than the CMU tree. Plus we are Tennessee coaches would love to work under CBJ here.

 

[Rudy123]

I'm just wondering what's the deal with the Central Michigan love?

More than half of our coaches have a connection there, whether they played/coached with CBJ or not.

My point is... I hope that our staff stays for a long time, but eventually 1 or 2 might always leave for a better job.

Does CBJ have a big circle of "staffers" he can call in case that becomes a need? What's his network involving other coaches?

There is not a better job in college football than the Tennessee job, so they can't leave for a better job. Maybe they will leave to go to a worse job but get a promotion out of it.

Maybe offensive line coach leaves to be offensive co ordinator else where, etc. etc.

 

[VolFootballlover]

This will be Butches down fall, every team upgrades the staff and Butch stays loyal to his... how do you compare this staff with the Bottom 4 SEC teams Staff?

 

[Boca Vol]

Playing in the MAC or Big East is a different animal than the SEC. In the MAC or Big East you may have 2-3 "tough" games per year. In the SEC, there are 7-8. You can't have an off-waek and easily win.

Let's see what Butch & Co. learned and see what happens in 2014. If changes need to be made, then he better make them as there is no time to waste.

 

[WoodsmanVol]

This will be Butches down fall, every team upgrades the staff and Butch stays loyal to his... how do you compare this staff with the Bottom 4 SEC teams Staff?

Please, oh please, don't let this become Fulmer 2.0.

 

[daj2576]

Playing in the MAC or Big East is a different animal than the SEC. In the MAC or Big East you may have 2-3 "tough" games per year. In the SEC, there are 7-8. You can't have an off-waek and easily win.

Let's see what Butch & Co. learned and see what happens in 2014. If changes need to be made, then he better make them as there is no time to waste.

Respectfully, I think this is where most people's view of college football goes off of the rails. What makes a game tough? You can put any label on it that you want, but a "tough" game is really just a team that is at least as good as, if not better than the team you are coaching, from a talent stand-point.

At CMU and Cincy, Jones and company were working with talent that began at, or near, the bottom of his conference in relative talent. Viewed from the mountain-top of SEC talent, those teams would not be considered "tough" games. Viewed from inside the conference, from Jones' perspective as head coach, the majority of his conference games would be against "better" teams. Yet he won, and he won more than he should with consistency.

Over 7 years, he has averaged beating 3.5 teams a year that were better than his team from a talent stand point. That translates to any conference. A coach can and should only be judged on how he does relative to talent, not on how he does relative to playing what football fans view as "good" teams. That is why so many get wrapped up in the idea that Butch lost to Dooley as an indicator of coaching prowess. There was an ocean of difference between the two rosters.

The SEC is no different...talent predicts wins with alarming rate. So while it is true that when viewed from the outside, the SEC has many teams that would be "tough" for almost every other team in the nation, when viewed inside the SEC from a specific team's roster, the number of "tough" games changes. Example: Bama, due to talent differentials, only has 1-2 "tough" games a year. Kentucky, for the same reasons, has 8 "tough" conference games.

Here is a chart that shows how Butch has done relative to recruited talent of his opponents over his career.



Believe it or not, there is no magic system in the SEC. Better talent will win the majority of the games. Just ask Auburn who performed EXACTLY as talent predicted (lost to LSU who they should have beat, beat Bama who they would lose to 7 out of 10 games, and then lost to a more talented FSU team). Yes, some coaches under-perform at exceptional rates (Dooley/Kiff/Brown and others), and some coaches over-perform at exceptional rates (Cutcliffe/Jones/Petrino/Franklin). Those guys are the exception and not the rule.

Here is a summary of how easily the SEC is predicted by simple talent averages.



tl;dr
talent matters. all that matters is that a coach can recruit in a way that increases his talent relative to his competition, and that he can at least win the games that the talent differentials predict he should. We have a coach with a long history of doing both.

 

[ajvol01]

Hey daj, do you have that for 2008-2012 SEC?

I'd be very interested to see how the prediction model fared vs actual.

Especially 2012.

How do you judge talent? Recruiting class rankings?

Thanks - nice work.

 

[Vol logic]

Hey daj, do you have that for 2008-2012 SEC?

I'd be very interested to see how the prediction model fared vs actual.

Especially 2012.

How do you judge talent? Recruiting class rankings?

Thanks - nice work.

This model should work but is predicated upon those recruiting rankings which we all know have serious flaws. How many players lost to attrition? How many star players busted? Injuries? Turnovers? Penalties? Most of the people doing the recruiting analysis have no real background in football, hell some of them got jobs at Scout due to them being posters and hobbiest with less statistical know how than daj. That model surely didn't predict Mizzou run this year I am certain. Pinkle had both staff stability and a good system but his recruiting averages didn't predict a win over UGA or UF which were both decimated by injuries. Saying Franklin's coaching abilities solely contributed to wins that Qb's on two of their best wins achieved had no bearing isn't exactly accurate either.

The playing field can be leveled with statically anomalies which is why we play the game.

 

[YorkVol]

I'm just wondering what's the deal with the Central Michigan love?

More than half of our coaches have a connection there, whether they played/coached with CBJ or not.

My point is... I hope that our staff stays for a long time, but eventually 1 or 2 might always leave for a better job.

Does CBJ have a big circle of "staffers" he can call in case that becomes a need? What's his network involving other coaches?

LinkedIn ftw

 

[Boca Vol]

daj,

While I don't fully disagree with what you're saying I don't think it's as easy as a subjectively ranked #1 should automatically beat a subjectively ranked #2. The rankings are subjective as far as 1-2-3, etc. but there is merit is ranking them in blocks (top 5, 10, 15, 20). Is there really that much difference between #1 and #3? I don't think so.

My point is, look at how many SEC teams are in the top 20 in recruiting rankings. A lot. The spread among the top 10 recruiting ranked teams is much less than the top 10 ACC, Big 10, etc.

That was my point about not being able to take a week off and win easily. I'm not discounting your talent rankings. I just think it's more compact in the SEC.

 

[daj2576]

This model should work but is predicated upon those recruiting rankings which we all know have serious flaws. How many players lost to attrition? How many star players busted? Injuries? Turnovers? Penalties? Most of the people doing the recruiting analysis have no real background in football, hell some of them got jobs at Scout due to them being posters and hobbiest with less statistical know how than daj. That model surely didn't predict Mizzou run this year I am certain. Pinkle had both staff stability and a good system but his recruiting averages didn't predict a win over UGA or UF which were both decimated by injuries. Saying Franklin's coaching abilities solely contributed to wins that Qb's on two of their best wins achieved had no bearing isn't exactly accurate either.

The playing field can be leveled with statically anomalies which is why we play the game.

You are right. There are flaws in rivals rankings insofar as that specific attrition isn't accounted for. But, they are pretty darn good when you can look at nothing else and be right around 70% of the time. The resistance that I get (and I completely fall prey to it too...even when I pick games for pick-em contests) is that we tend to look at the exceptions (Mizzou) and not the rule. The media fuels this fire to a large extent. For instance, the talk has been about Malzahn ' s "miraculous" job at Auburn. No, he performed exactly how he should. The real shocker was how bad Chizik really was. No system is perfect, and the game must be played, but the outcomes are largely predetermined on signing day.

 

[daj2576]

daj,

While I don't fully disagree with what you're saying I don't think it's as easy as a subjectively ranked #1 should automatically beat a subjectively ranked #2. The rankings are subjective as far as 1-2-3, etc. but there is merit is ranking them in blocks (top 5, 10, 15, 20). Is there really that much difference between #1 and #3? I don't think so.

My point is, look at how many SEC teams are in the top 20 in recruiting rankings. A lot. The spread among the top 10 recruiting ranked teams is much less than the top 10 ACC, Big 10, etc.

That was my point about not being able to take a week off and win easily. I'm not discounting your talent rankings. I just think it's more compact in the SEC.

Here is a hypothesis that I plan on testing this offseason. I have some data that strongly suggests that the predictability of talent actually goes way up when the teams are both in the top 50. My preliminary data tends to suggest that as teams accumulate better recruits that the services are better at differentiating them. Conversely as teams accumulate low rated players the evaluations become more muddy. So far that is holding true, and explains why historically, as a general rule, the SEC has about a 10% higher correlation of talent to wins, than the country at large (80% SEC compared to 70% overall).

 

[daj2576]

Hey daj, do you have that for 2008-2012 SEC?

I'd be very interested to see how the prediction model fared vs actual.

Especially 2012.

How do you judge talent? Recruiting class rankings?

Thanks - nice work.

I do have that data back to 2005 but not in such an easy to digest form. I assure you it is consistent. Actually this year was a slightly down year for predictability in the SEC.

 

[ajvol01]

I do have that data back to 2005 but not in such an easy to digest form. I assure you it is consistent. Actually this year was a slightly down year for predictability in the SEC.

Just curious, what was the model's prediction for the 2012 Vols?

Just guessing I'd think 8 or 9 wins

 

[MustafaRasta]

Respectfully, I think this is where most people's view of college football goes off of the rails. What makes a game tough? You can put any label on it that you want, but a "tough" game is really just a team that is at least as good as, if not better than the team you are coaching, from a talent stand-point.

At CMU and Cincy, Jones and company were working with talent that began at, or near, the bottom of his conference in relative talent. Viewed from the mountain-top of SEC talent, those teams would not be considered "tough" games. Viewed from inside the conference, from Jones' perspective as head coach, the majority of his conference games would be against "better" teams. Yet he won, and he won more than he should with consistency.

Over 7 years, he has averaged beating 3.5 teams a year that were better than his team from a talent stand point. That translates to any conference. A coach can and should only be judged on how he does relative to talent, not on how he does relative to playing what football fans view as "good" teams. That is why so many get wrapped up in the idea that Butch lost to Dooley as an indicator of coaching prowess. There was an ocean of difference between the two rosters.

The SEC is no different...talent predicts wins with alarming rate. So while it is true that when viewed from the outside, the SEC has many teams that would be "tough" for almost every other team in the nation, when viewed inside the SEC from a specific team's roster, the number of "tough" games changes. Example: Bama, due to talent differentials, only has 1-2 "tough" games a year. Kentucky, for the same reasons, has 8 "tough" conference games.

Here is a chart that shows how Butch has done relative to recruited talent of his opponents over his career.

View attachment 72650

Believe it or not, there is no magic system in the SEC. Better talent will win the majority of the games. Just ask Auburn who performed EXACTLY as talent predicted (lost to LSU who they should have beat, beat Bama who they would lose to 7 out of 10 games, and then lost to a more talented FSU team). Yes, some coaches under-perform at exceptional rates (Dooley/Kiff/Brown and others), and some coaches over-perform at exceptional rates (Cutcliffe/Jones/Petrino/Franklin). Those guys are the exception and not the rule.

Here is a summary of how easily the SEC is predicted by simple talent averages.

View attachment 72651

tl;dr
talent matters. all that matters is that a coach can recruit in a way that increases his talent relative to his competition, and that he can at least win the games that the talent differentials predict he should. We have a coach with a long history of doing both.

I love this guy's posts. Ok, I'm on the record.

 

[mreorange]

This will be Butches down fall, every team upgrades the staff and Butch stays loyal to his... how do you compare this staff with the Bottom 4 SEC teams Staff?

Staff continuity is key to success! Watch bama and see! It cost them this year or sure

 

[daj2576]

Just curious, what was the model's prediction for the 2012 Vols?

Just guessing I'd think 8 or 9 wins

Yes, in 2012 raw talent averages predicted winning 9 games. Dooley under-performed by 4. Interesting note: a single season 4 game under performance is the threshold at which most coaches lose their jobs. Florida not ridding themselves of Muschamp is an exception to that rule.

Another interesting note, I haven't accounted for specific attrition of any of the rosters until recently. The major reason why is that it would take so much time, and raw talent averages can get to a 70% correlation to regular season wins overall, about 80% overall in the SEC, and about 90% in national championship games. In other words, attrition across the board is mathematically regular. It appears that due to attrition that UT is actually one of the few schools whose roster talent was well below the recruiting numbers. For proof, we had a talent average of around 15 using four years of Rivals numbers. When looking at the actual two-deep that took the field last season, we averaged a team of players with no ranking. That is wholly inconsistent with any team that has recruited in the top 25 for four years. If you suppose that our 2014 recruiting class holds together and build a two-deep off of those projections mixed with the returning players, the two deep jumps to averaging almost 4 stars at each position. That is a massive jump in skill and athleticism, even if it is a step back in experience.