I am sure that some of you know my fondness for trying to objectively/numerically evaluate some of the debates that we have had on here.
Using similar evaluations to some of my previous posts (numbers I will explain later) here are the list of coaches who we should be giving a hard look at based on what they have done with their talent, historically. If you want proven winners here they are, let the debate begin*.
1) Petrino
2) Gundy
3) Dantonio
4) Franklin
5) Mullen
6) Whittingham
Obviously, I have left off guys like Miles, Saban, Spurrier and Chip Kelly. Let us assume for the sake of conversation that they are untouchable (or unaffordable). You should also notice a few names that are glaringly absent (Tommy T., & "Leave it to" Golden) and you will see why later.
Now, to dig into the numbers.
METHODOLOGY: I began with alphabetically listing all 122 current NCAA "Division 1" programs. I then used Rivals recruiting rankings for each team over the past 4 seasons to come up with a trailing recruiting average. This should be a good base line evaluation for the talent on the team. Yes, I know there are weaknesses in this evaluation and I would love to hear your input (and feel free to spend the hours that I invested in this to create your own-I promise, I won't be offended). Using this average I ranked each team based solely on their 2011 four year trailing average. I used the 2011 (including the 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008) classes because the season has been played, so we can evaluate the hypothesis based on factual events. Still with me? Using this ordered list I took each team and looked at their 12 game schedule. If team X played 5 teams that were ranked on this list higher than them, I predicted those as losses based on talent. If team X played 7 teams that were ranked lower them on this list, I predicted them as wins. So now, team X has a predicted record of 7-5 (based on talent). This number is compared to their actual 2011 record. Let's say that team X actually went 8-4. This means that team X won one more game than they were predicted so team X got a (+1). After I did this to roughly the top half of the teams, I got really tired and I also figured that I had hit most of the schools that would include coaches that we would be interested in. I then ranked these teams based on this predicted v. actual outcome coefficient and ranked the teams accordingly
RESULTS:see attached .pdf
What this spreadsheet shows are the teams who overperformed based on their latent talent. I am sure that you will not be surprised at the top coaches. Some of these are a bit of a misnomer however. Alabama, for instance, has recruited so well that they should always win every game. When Bama drops a game, they go to the minus 1 category and that looks worse than it is. It is also an indictment of Petrino (for instance) that his recruiting average is in the 30's, but that is offset by his pretty impressive performances on the field. Yes, Franklin made the list. Also if you look at his recruiting it is taking Vanderbilt to heights that they have never had. I dislike him, but he should get a strong look.
Well, what are your thoughts?
*I know that Gruden isn't on this list, but it is hard to evaluate his W/L % in the NCAA, for reasons that most of you can probably guess.
Using similar evaluations to some of my previous posts (numbers I will explain later) here are the list of coaches who we should be giving a hard look at based on what they have done with their talent, historically. If you want proven winners here they are, let the debate begin*.
1) Petrino
2) Gundy
3) Dantonio
4) Franklin
5) Mullen
6) Whittingham
Obviously, I have left off guys like Miles, Saban, Spurrier and Chip Kelly. Let us assume for the sake of conversation that they are untouchable (or unaffordable). You should also notice a few names that are glaringly absent (Tommy T., & "Leave it to" Golden) and you will see why later.
Now, to dig into the numbers.
METHODOLOGY: I began with alphabetically listing all 122 current NCAA "Division 1" programs. I then used Rivals recruiting rankings for each team over the past 4 seasons to come up with a trailing recruiting average. This should be a good base line evaluation for the talent on the team. Yes, I know there are weaknesses in this evaluation and I would love to hear your input (and feel free to spend the hours that I invested in this to create your own-I promise, I won't be offended). Using this average I ranked each team based solely on their 2011 four year trailing average. I used the 2011 (including the 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008) classes because the season has been played, so we can evaluate the hypothesis based on factual events. Still with me? Using this ordered list I took each team and looked at their 12 game schedule. If team X played 5 teams that were ranked on this list higher than them, I predicted those as losses based on talent. If team X played 7 teams that were ranked lower them on this list, I predicted them as wins. So now, team X has a predicted record of 7-5 (based on talent). This number is compared to their actual 2011 record. Let's say that team X actually went 8-4. This means that team X won one more game than they were predicted so team X got a (+1). After I did this to roughly the top half of the teams, I got really tired and I also figured that I had hit most of the schools that would include coaches that we would be interested in. I then ranked these teams based on this predicted v. actual outcome coefficient and ranked the teams accordingly
RESULTS:see attached .pdf
What this spreadsheet shows are the teams who overperformed based on their latent talent. I am sure that you will not be surprised at the top coaches. Some of these are a bit of a misnomer however. Alabama, for instance, has recruited so well that they should always win every game. When Bama drops a game, they go to the minus 1 category and that looks worse than it is. It is also an indictment of Petrino (for instance) that his recruiting average is in the 30's, but that is offset by his pretty impressive performances on the field. Yes, Franklin made the list. Also if you look at his recruiting it is taking Vanderbilt to heights that they have never had. I dislike him, but he should get a strong look.
Well, what are your thoughts?
*I know that Gruden isn't on this list, but it is hard to evaluate his W/L % in the NCAA, for reasons that most of you can probably guess.
Last edited:
