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

[ankh83]

I love your scientific approach, and enjoyed looking over your results. Thank you for all the work you put into this. :hi:

 

[tm3]

So here is a chicken and egg question.

Usually in coaching analysis recruiting prowess is considered the dominant factor.

How to blend/weight the two .... ?

 

[WB4LBJ_4_UT]

I like the thinking the OP is doing. Reminds me of a Sherlock Holmes quote:

'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.'

 

[KingNick865]

So here is a chicken and egg question.

Usually in coaching analysis recruiting prowess is considered the dominant factor.

How to blend/weight the two .... ?

I've come up with something that would be considered a very rudimentary first step.

Take a coaches average recruiting class, or even just one class if you like, and divide that by the long term average of the school. If the number is above 1, the coach has recruited better than the school or institutional average.

Theoretically, by doing this, you could figure out which coaches recruit above what their school has been traditionally able to accomplish, and then, to take it a step further, come up with a complete formula or equation to figure out which coach is the best total package, both on the field and off.

 

[jasonvol18]

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.

Petrino will never happen in our lifetime and I have no desire to see Mullen,Whittingham or Dantonio roaming the sidelines either. None of those 3 have done anything lately to warrant an offer. Mullen has come back to reality with his recent a$$ beatings from the better teams on his schedule and no need to even get into the other 2. Grundy would be a decent hire but he is an OK St. Alum why would he even consider UT or Arky. It's Gruden so no list is necessary except for just fun.

 

[daj2576]

So here is a chicken and egg question.

Usually in coaching analysis recruiting prowess is considered the dominant factor.

How to blend/weight the two .... ?

Well, as many of our previous discussions revealed, recruiting IS a huge factor. As we discussed in a previous thread, recruiting determines the outcome 80% of the time, so it is important. What we are discussing here are the outliers, those coaches who live in the 20% where recruiting doesn't directly affect the outcome (to be fair, Dooley is one of those guys too but he is on the other side of the scale). My feeling is, that if you can get the guy who can coach up the "trash", imagine what he could do at a school that has the name recognition, resources, facility and budget that UT has.

Everyone talks about wanting a coach to win the games that he shouldn't...well here are the coaches who do that on a regular basis.

 

[daj2576]

Man you sure do post some interesting stuff.

What do you do for a living?

I own/run a Land Surveying/Engineering business and I am a full-time law student.

My day is generally spent deep inside my head and exercises like these are a welcome mental relief...

I am glad you joined the discussion, we had fun with the "Statistics" threads last time...

 

[volNation865]

Stopped reading after "1) Petrino"

 

[daj2576]

I've come up with something that would be considered a very rudimentary first step.

Take a coaches average recruiting class, or even just one class if you like, and divide that by the long term average of the school. If the number is above 1, the coach has recruited better than the school or institutional average.

Theoretically, by doing this, you could figure out which coaches recruit above what their school has been traditionally able to accomplish, and then, to take it a step further, come up with a complete formula or equation to figure out which coach is the best total package, both on the field and off.

You know that is not a bad idea. My thinking in this analysis wasn't to come up with THE answer, but to zoom in on a short list of guys who have quantifiable reasons to believe they will be successful. Once you have this short list, you can begin to apply other modifying factors to weed out those who you don't want.

These ideas are a great jumping off point and could probably pin down some great coaches.

 

[daj2576]

Petrino will never happen in our lifetime and I have no desire to see Mullen,Whittingham or Dantonio roaming the sidelines either. None of those 3 have done anything lately to warrant an offer. Mullen has come back to reality with his recent a$$ beatings from the better teams on his schedule and no need to even get into the other 2. Grundy would be a decent hire but he is an OK St. Alum why would he even consider UT or Arky. It's Gruden so no list is necessary except for just fun.

The emotional part of me really hopes you are right. I really do.

The more rational part of me is very doubtful that Gruden would come. Even if it is a 50/50 shot that Gruden would come here, and a 50/50 shot that he would be highly successful, that means that there is only a 25% chance of both events happening in sequence.

 

[daj2576]

Stopped reading after "1) Petrino"

I don't like the guy much myself, however he passes the eyeball test as a pretty good coach and his record proves it.

What he does off the field is less than attractive, but the dude is a winner.

Let me ask you this, would you be happy if he goes to Kentucky, a team we play every year? I wouldn't, in fact, that would terrify me.

 

[daj2576]

I love your scientific approach, and enjoyed looking over your results. Thank you for all the work you put into this. :hi:

Most welcome. Love your avi...

 

[daj2576]

Globadoc addressed several of my methodological considerations, most notably the discrepancy between recruiting rankings as of National Signing Day and longterm retention. I too was thinking specifically of Kiffin's class, which, on paper, was a top-10 class but consisted of so many high risk players that it was whittled by attrition to virtually nothing.

A special case in point pertains to Kansas State. I don't know if he is practicing it as extensively during the current tenure, but Snyder made a virtual science out of recruiting junior college players. He recruited them far more heavily than just about anyone I can remember, in some years totaling almost 50% of class signees. Since juco players do not typically figure into class rankings, KSU usually ranks quite low in recruiting. How do you massage the numbers in his case?

That is the reason that I chose the Rivals ranking service over some of the others. I believe, although I have not studied this in great detail, that Rivals includes Juco guys in their rankings whereas I am positive that ESPN (for instance) does not.

The idea of attrition is one that perplexed me to begin with. After some investigation into the matter it seemed that situations like what happened to UT in 2009 are rare (in fact, it is probably one of the worst recruiting situations for a one year class in modern history).

One of my base line assumptions was that across the board schools suffer similar attrition with players being dismissed, quitting, transferring, graduating, going pro. In fact, the higher ranked teams probably have worse attrition due to the quality of athlete and the availability of the draft than the much lower teams.

To look at UT specifically, the scariest thing is that if the 2009 class fell from top 10 to something like 100th due to said attrition, it should have only accounted for a one game increase in losses (South Carolina) due to the talent disparity between UT and Mizzouri, Kentucky, Vanderbilt and MSU. In essence, UT this year had the talent to go 5-3 in the SEC. The MSU and Mizzou games are simply unexplainable, for more than one reason.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

That is the reason that I chose the Rivals ranking service over some of the others. I believe, although I have not studied this in great detail, that Rivals includes Juco guys in their rankings whereas I am positive that ESPN (for instance) does not.

The idea of attrition is one that perplexed me to begin with. After some investigation into the matter it seemed that situations like what happened to UT in 2009 are rare (in fact, it is probably one of the worst recruiting situations for a one year class in modern history).

One of my base line assumptions was that across the board schools suffer similar attrition with players being dismissed, quitting, transferring, graduating, going pro. In fact, the higher ranked teams probably have worse attrition due to the quality of athlete and the availability of the draft than the much lower teams.

To look at UT specifically, the scariest thing is that if the 2009 class fell from top 10 to something like 100th due to said attrition, it should have only accounted for a one game increase in losses (South Carolina) due to the talent disparity between UT and Mizzouri, Kentucky, Vanderbilt and MSU. In essence, UT this year had the talent to go 5-3 in the SEC. The MSU and Mizzou games are simply unexplainable, for more than one reason.

Your baseline assumption of similar rates of attrition across the board is probably sound, albeit for different reasons. If memory serves me correctly, someone stated quite some time ago that, as a general rule of thumb, approximately 60% of a recruiting class typically survives to become seniors at a given program.

Among traditional powers, arguably only Nebraska has been more limited than Tennessee in terms of instate talent. Given the specific demographic distribution of Division 1-A talent in the Volunteer State, the Big Orange is forced to seek creative solutions (i.e. recruit on a national basis) to the task of stocking our roster with competitive talent. This inherent weakness may make us more susceptible to taking "character-challenged" athletes, for example, than most programs and, thus, more susceptible to a higher than average attrition rate. I remember Bobby Bowden stating essentially that, if "we want to win national championships, we're going to have to overlook a lot of character flaws in the process of recruiting." Needless to say, we don't have nearly as fertile a recruiting base as he does, where he can simply walk over to the nearest palm tree, shake vigorously and Division 1-A prospects fall out of the sky.

 

[KingNick865]

Your baseline assumption of similar rates of attrition across the board is probably sound, albeit for different reasons. If memory serves me correctly, someone stated quite some time ago that, as a general rule of thumb, approximately 60% of a recruiting class typically survives to become seniors at a given program.

Among traditional powers, arguably only Nebraska has been more limited than Tennessee in terms of instate talent. Given the specific demographic distribution of Division 1-A talent in the Volunteer State, the Big Orange is forced to seek creative solutions (i.e. recruit on a national basis) to the task of stocking our roster with competitive talent. This inherent weakness may make us more susceptible to taking "character-challenged" athletes, for example, than most programs and, thus, more susceptible to a higher than average attrition rate. I remember Bobby Bowden stating essentially that, if "we want to win national championships, we're going to have to overlook a lot of character flaws in the process of recruiting." Needless to say, we don't have nearly as fertile a recruiting base as he does, where he can simply walk over to the nearest palm tree, shake vigorously and Division 1-A prospects fall out of the sky.

I think that's a legitimate criticism, however, I will offer you up two theories.

Tennessee, in recent years, has provided a higher quality athlete than in years past. That isn't so much a theory as it is a general statement.

I also think that another way to get past the talent differences is to recruit in areas where not a lot of SEC teams go, specifically, go into Pac-12/Big Ten country for recruits more than say, Alabama or LSU would.

 

[daj2576]

Your baseline assumption of similar rates of attrition across the board is probably sound, albeit for different reasons. If memory serves me correctly, someone stated quite some time ago that, as a general rule of thumb, approximately 60% of a recruiting class typically survives to become seniors at a given program.

Among traditional powers, arguably only Nebraska has been more limited than Tennessee in terms of instate talent. Given the specific demographic distribution of Division 1-A talent in the Volunteer State, the Big Orange is forced to seek creative solutions (i.e. recruit on a national basis) to the task of stocking our roster with competitive talent. This inherent weakness may make us more susceptible to taking "character-challenged" athletes, for example, than most programs and, thus, more susceptible to a higher than average attrition rate. I remember Bobby Bowden stating essentially that, if "we want to win national championships, we're going to have to overlook a lot of character flaws in the process of recruiting." Needless to say, we don't have nearly as fertile a recruiting base as he does, where he can simply walk over to the nearest palm tree, shake vigorously and Division 1-A prospects fall out of the sky.

That is very true.

With many of the questions and issues that have been raised in this thread, I have gone back and reviewed some of these issues. While this information is just a first blush look, I have found some interesting points.

When globally comparing two teams based on their recruiting averages, the closer the two teams four year trailing recruiting average gets, the more likely it is that the team with the better recruiting will win, even if that differential is tiny. A good portion of the "upsets" have been between the teams with the greater disparities in recruiting, and that has been shocking for me to see.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

I think that's a legitimate criticism, however, I will offer you up two theories.

Tennessee, in recent years, has provided a higher quality athlete than in years past. That isn't so much a theory as it is a general statement.

I also think that another way to get past the talent differences is to recruit in areas where not a lot of SEC teams go, specifically, go into Pac-12/Big Ten country for recruits more than say, Alabama or LSU would.

I agree that the state of Tennessee has recently produced more elite athletes than has historically been the case. We simply aren't getting many of their signatures on National Signing Day, due in large measure to the fact that we are at a 40-year valley in terms of on-the-field performance.

As for recruiting areas that are foreign territory to other SEC powers, we have certainly had some success in that, particularly at the QB position, with Clausen and Bray from the left coast. It is ironic how poorly our signees from the Lone Star State have panned out though.

 

[BYUVol]

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

Sadly the only team Whittingham can beat consistently is my "other" team, BYU. I'd love to see him leave Utah the same way I'd love to see Saban leave Alabama, but I'd hate to have him at Tennessee. In recent years, after he had staff turnover, his team has consistently come out flat against lesser teams.

 

[Sheath Huler]

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.

You're like the Nate Silver of Volnation. Solid model bro.

 

[daj2576]

You're like the Nate Silver of Volnation. Solid model bro.

Thank you! I am not sure who Nate Silver is...you could have said Ron Silver and I would have known, but not understood. lol

 

[KingNick865]

Thank you! I am not sure who Nate Silver is...you could have said Ron Silver and I would have known, but not understood. lol

Nate Silver is the guy who manages the 538 blog over at the New York Times. Correctly picked every single state in the 2012 presidential election, and was a former Sabermetrics guy in baseball.

 

[daj2576]

Nate Silver is the guy who manages the 538 blog over at the New York Times. Correctly picked every single state in the 2012 presidential election, and was a former Sabermetrics guy in baseball.

Oh yeah...lol...been a long exhausting day mentally.

 

[daj2576]

I hate to bump this post just to say that I have started a blog about UT football. But if any of you who found my perspective interesting would like to visit and offer insight, comments, suggestions, here it is.

If I bleed orange, I am bled out

 

[82_VOL_83]

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.

No Stoops? Better coaching record and pedigree than anyone on your list.

Edit: That is why they call them coaches and not recruiters. When programs win, recruiting gets easier. UT has been afflicted with a coach over his head. I think we saw this year what happens when you have medium to good talent and someone who has trouble coaching a team. I wanted him to get it done, but he didn't and it really showed vs. MO and Candy this year.

 

[daj2576]

No Stoops? Better coaching record and pedigree than anyone on your list.

No Stoops, Miles, Saban, etc.

This list presupposes that most of those guys have hit their potential. In essence, I am looking for coaches with an upside, who haven't peaked and are "gettable".

When I originally published this post, Stoops was laughable as an option. But his performance is in the Saban, Richt, Miles range...but, his recruiting is suspect compared to those other guys.