Here is the answer you have been looking for (with proof-LOOONG).

#27
#27
daj2576 said:
Even if there is a 99.9% chance that he is coming, there is still a chance that he isn't.

That being said, wouldn't it be nice to think that we (and our administration) are looking at options that would be acceptable?
Click to expand...

I am honestly surprised you left off Butch Davis....Not sure why Gundy is on there, I seriously doubt he will consider leaving Ok st.
 
#28
#28
vol66 said:
So...go over again how you project how many wins a team should have? Because, if Vandy was predicted to win 3 in 2011, they would be projected to lose every conference game with Ole Miss and UK on the schedule. I'm not criticizing, I just ain't all that bright.
Click to expand...

Your conclusion is correct. Vandy has the worst four year trailing recruiting average in the SEC. This matrix would suggest that they lose all of their SEC games. Yet they won more with less.

To summarize: A team is ranked on talent. Their schedule is reviewed and a number of wins is predicted based solely on talent (in other words pretend the team is coachless, and it is just shirts v. skins on the roster). That is the baseline. Then their actual results for that schedule were compared to their predicted results. Vandy won 2x more than they were predicted to win. Does that make sense?
 
#30
#30
daj2576 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Golden ain't half bad!
 
#31
#31
VOLnMiami said:
I am honestly surprised you left off Butch Davis....Not sure why Gundy is on there, I seriously doubt he will consider leaving Ok st.
Click to expand...

I might be wrong, but I don't think Butch was coaching last year...

This was for 2011 only. Again, I might be wrong. UNC was on that pdf list though, I just believe they fell way down on it.
 
#33
#33
daj2576 said:
I might be wrong, but I don't think Butch was coaching last year...

This was for 2011 only. Again, I might be wrong. UNC was on that pdf list though, I just believe they fell way down on it.
Click to expand...

Oh ok my bad...I missed that :salute: Carry on!
 
#34
#34
daj2576 said:
It would be interesting to see his results, over time, at temple based on this analysis.

His brief time at Miami has been very lack luster, with their talent.
Click to expand...

Golden reminds me a lot of Dooley...He's not really a good game day coach...He's only 5-5 this season with a ton of talent at his disposal so I am not impressed at all.
 
#35
#35
VOLnMiami said:
Golden reminds me a lot of Dooley...He's not really a good game day coach...He's only 5-5 this season with a ton of talent at his disposal so I am not impressed at all.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I didn't follow him closely but people swear that what he did at Temple was a miracle (I hope that I am getting his former school correct). His proponents also suggest that his problems at Miami are not due to his coaching. I don't know, haven't followed him beyond this one analysis.
 
#37
#37
daj2576 said:
Your conclusion is correct. Vandy has the worst four year trailing recruiting average in the SEC. This matrix would suggest that they lose all of their SEC games. Yet they won more with less.

To summarize: A team is ranked on talent. Their schedule is reviewed and a number of wins is predicted based solely on talent (in other words pretend the team is coachless, and it is just shirts v. skins on the roster). That is the baseline. Then their actual results for that schedule were compared to their predicted results. Vandy won 2x more than they were predicted to win. Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

So in this instance, Ole Miss and UK had higher ranked recruiting classes they would be predicted to beat Vandy because of Vandy's recruiting ranking?
 
#39
#39
vol66 said:
So in this instance, Ole Miss and UK had higher ranked recruiting classes they would be predicted to beat Vandy because of Vandy's recruiting ranking?
Click to expand...

Yes. Ole Miss recruits surprisingly well for as bad as they have performed recently (notwithstanding 2012).
 
#41
#41
daj2576 said:
It would be interesting to see his results, over time, at temple based on this analysis.

His brief time at Miami has been very lack luster, with their talent.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I do like him as a recruiter though. However, I have "reservations" him coaching on the big stage. :hi:
 
#42
#42
daj2576 said:
I agree...

I am not saying that these guys should be hired. I am suggesting that these are probably the better coaches available who have a college record.
Click to expand...

I'd also look at Northwestern and see how they stack up using that system.
 
#43
#43
daj2576 said:
It would be interesting to see his results, over time, at temple based on this analysis.

His brief time at Miami has been very lack luster, with their talent.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The shine is off based on his performance to date at Miami.
 
#45
#45
So, if I understand this correctly, for your analysis, not only did you not judge prospective coaches on their ability to recruit, but you effectively gave them more points for recruiting poorly? Nice.
 
#46
#46
I read your post because I'm a numbers geek as well. Two questions:

1)Why did you only go back 4 years?
2) Were you able to workaround the fact your method punishes schools like Alabama and LSU because they should always win?

Good work on a difficult project. *tips hat*
 
#47
#47
One guy not being mentioned much is Northwestern HC Pat Fitzgerald.

Advantages:
1. History of over-performance. Team has a documented history of over-performing talent expectations year-in, year-out in a BCS Conference. He had led them to 4 straight bowl games at a program that should never stiff a bowl but once a decade.
2. Age. He's 37.
3. Defensive background. NFL player.
4. Only 1 losing regular season record in 7 years at the helm.
5. No off-field problems of any kind.
 
#48
#48
VegasVol said:
I'd also look at Northwestern and see how they stack up using that system.
Click to expand...

Good catch.

Northwestern has an average trailing average for 2011 of 73.75 (up to 70 this year). They should have won 3, they won 6 so that puts them about even with Vanderbilt.

Surprising win:Nebraska
Surprising loss: Army
 
#49
#49
oregonvol said:
So, if I understand this correctly, for your analysis, not only did you not judge prospective coaches on their ability to recruit, but you effectively gave them more points for recruiting poorly? Nice.
Click to expand...

see follow up below
 
Last edited:
#50
#50
Very interesting. If you're looking for comment on your methodology, the thing that jumps out immediately is this: it looks like you're putting too much on the raw recruiting rankings, which imply a granularity of distinction that simply does not exist. I.e., an 18th ranked class is not really better in any meaningful sense than a 19th or 20th ranked class. This ends up meaning that, in your system, two coaches can recruit almost identical classes, but only one can get full credit for beating the other. (If the coached of the 18th ranked team beats the 19th, that's a game he's supposed to win, but if the 19th beats the 18th, that's an "overperformance." Even though the talent levels are essentially identical.)

I'd like to see this kind of analysis run with some sort of groupings to blur out that false granularity -- letter grades for recruiting classes rather than raw ordinal rankings, perhaps?

Interesting stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top