What is the recipe?

#1
DD4ME

DD4ME

Zoo Keeper
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Messages
69,802
Likes
202,904
#1
I used to think the formula of coaches + recruiting= championships was a pretty straightforward one. The more I watch the OSU's get stomped, Freeze's get canned and Sumlin's fall of their pedestal the more I wonder if it isn't a larger part luck and timing. Curious what the rest of you think.

My current guessipe

30% coaching
50% recruiting
20% luck
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Weezer
#2
#2
Recruiting 75%.

Saban has the most talent. 90% of their games could be won without a gamelan or practicing the week before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5
#5
DD4ME said:
But how does Dabo beat him then?
Or Freeze.
Click to expand...

QB play.

The one position that can make up for a slight disadvantage in talent in other places. At least with Clemson.

OM had good QB play too, but I think that was more about them just putting a lot more in to that game than any other and why the never closed escrow on the west after winning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6
#6
It's hard to put percentages on it with some coaches being able to compete with less and some squandering a lot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7
#7
Tough to put percentages on it. Having more talent and being better coached will make it look like you have more luck because you'll probably get more breaks (that your time probably helped with)


One big thing for me is in-game coaching. You can't just have a good game plan, and not make any adjustments during the game (technically it's possible, but unlikely that adjustments aren't necessary). Have to be smart with timeouts, when to go for 2 or go for it on 4th, of course actual play calling, etc


And being balanced (read "good") in all three phases. Clemson and bama have had really good defenses (good play calling and great talent). But they also were putting up points. Hard to be elite if you don't have great offense and defense. (Can probably still be great overall without great special teams, but could lose some because of field position, missed FGs, turnovers (blocked kicks or muffed kicks))

(This was annoying to type on mobile...)
 
#8
#8
There is an aspect of system, which is coaching. And the right QB which is recruiting.

Chip Kelly/Mark Helfrich's Oregon run, Art Briles' Baylor teams, Johnson at GT.

None out recruited the rest of the 'AA with the notable exception of fielding two Heisman winning QB's.
 
#9
#9
DocVOLiday said:
Tough to put percentages on it. Having more talent and being better coached will make it look like you have more luck because you'll probably get more breaks (that your time probably helped with)


One big thing for me is in-game coaching. You can't just have a good game plan, and not make any adjustments during the game (technically it's possible, but unlikely that adjustments aren't necessary). Have to be smart with timeouts, when to go for 2 or go for it on 4th, of course actual play calling, etc


And being balanced (read "good") in all three phases. Clemson and bama have had really good defenses (good play calling and great talent). But they also were putting up points. Hard to be elite if you don't have great offense and defense. (Can probably still be great overall without great special teams, but could lose some because of field position, missed FGs, turnovers (blocked kicks or muffed kicks))

(This was annoying to type on mobile...)
Click to expand...


I'd go with in-game coaching/adjustments. And I'm not focusing on the half time stuff. Saban excels, because he is the best at evaluating real time sideline adjustments.
 
#10
#10
You have to have great coaching and player execution. You can have all the talented players in the world but if those players fail to execute, then it's meaningless.
 
#11
#11
Great quarterback play. If you have a great quarterback, everything changes.

Also, I think actual positional coaching gets overlooked completely.
 
#13
#13
DD4ME said:
I used to think the formula of coaches + recruiting= championships was a pretty straightforward one. The more I watch the OSU's get stomped, Freeze's get canned and Sumlin's fall of their pedestal the more I wonder if it isn't a larger part luck and timing. Curious what the rest of you think.

My current guessipe

30% coaching
50% recruiting
20% luck
Click to expand...

That seems pretty accurate to me. You could also throw in scheduling and injuries into the luck category too (it's more than just getting the ball to bounce the right way), although some would argue that injuries aren't all bad luck (and I'd agree).

In college, being able to coach and develop talent is a huge advantage. That sounds like such an obvious statement but I think it is worth saying because there are a ton of coaches in college, even coaches we think of as "good coaches," who are subpar tacticians, talent developers, and talent evaluators. NFL scouts make comments to this effect every combine season. They might be really good at convincing a group of talented guys to come to their school, but they don't receive top notch coaching once they get there. Just think about it - out of the top 10 current coaches in football, how many of them would you say are expert tacticians and in-game coaches?

The reason Saban is so good is that he's just as good of a coach/tactician as he is a recruiter. And he essentially doesn't even have to recruit now (he'd never admit that and get upset if you even suggested it but it's true). The brand is built to such an extent that all the top players just flock to him.

A lot of coaches, especially the position coaches that do a lot of the boots-on-the-ground recruiting, are salesmen whose best skill is relating to 17 and 18-year old kids.
 
#14
#14
at Louisville it's 10% strippers and hookers.

DD4ME said:
I used to think the formula of coaches + recruiting= championships was a pretty straightforward one. The more I watch the OSU's get stomped, Freeze's get canned and Sumlin's fall of their pedestal the more I wonder if it isn't a larger part luck and timing. Curious what the rest of you think.

My current guessipe

30% coaching
50% recruiting
20% luck
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#15
#15
DD4ME said:
I used to think the formula of coaches + recruiting= championships was a pretty straightforward one. The more I watch the OSU's get stomped, Freeze's get canned and Sumlin's fall of their pedestal the more I wonder if it isn't a larger part luck and timing. Curious what the rest of you think.

My current guessipe

30% coaching
50% recruiting
20% luck
Click to expand...

I'm at

30% coaching
65% recruiting
5% luck

With better players less luck is needed.
 
#16
#16
As much as Saban is touted as a great tactician he usually loses a game to a team with inferior talent. It does not happen a lot, but if he was such a master mind and with his talent advantage it should not happen at all.

Whoever said QB is on to something. Maybe that goes under recruiting but a great QB makes up for a lot of other issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Weezer
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top