Study Suggests Oregon is Doomed for a Downturn with Helfrich
Comments
-
Well my "I'm gonna need to see an SRS championship" line lasted a few days anyway.AZDuck said:Read the thread and the original article. Chest mentions SRS post-season #1 as the moral equivalent of a natty. I'm just adopting the standards that Chest espouses. You guys should be happy
Well played. -
Jesus Christ.
-
This is now my favoritest HH thread of all the times
-
SRS is an objective measure of how good teams are. Oregon was the best team but the best team doesn't always win the championship in every sport. You can criticize using #1 SRS as a criteria point. If I eliminate that then Davis/Coker and Bo Schembechler/Moeller are off the board. I could widen the criteria but there wouldn't be that many more cases.
Oregon being SRS #1 under Helfrich this season doesn't prove or disprove anything. Oregon has been the strongest SRS team over the past 6-8 seasons and it is a historical outlier that they haven't won a NC. Most teams with similar SRS dominance over 6-8 years won multiple NC's within the period. USC 2000s, Nebraska 1990s, Miami 1980s, Oklahoma 1970s, etc.
Most of the internal hires that worked really well were in cases where the program had positive standing but room to reach another level (Chip, Belotti, Petersen, Osborne, Phil Fulmer). The ones that did not work long-term were in cases where the program essentially had only one way to go. -
But does this prove anything other than "it's really hard to hire two kickass coaches back to back?" Are there enough schools that had only one way to go that hired externally and didn't dropoff that we can prove something beyond SSS?HeretoBeatmyChest said:SRS is an objective measure of how good teams are. Oregon was the best team but the best team doesn't always win the championship in every sport. You can criticize using #1 SRS as a criteria point. If I eliminate that then Davis/Coker and Bo Schembechler/Moeller are off the board. I could widen the criteria but there wouldn't be that many more cases.
Oregon being SRS #1 under Helfrich this season doesn't prove or disprove anything. Oregon has been the strongest SRS team over the past 6-8 seasons and it is a historical outlier that they haven't won a NC. Most teams with similar SRS dominance over 6-8 years won multiple NC's within the period. USC 2000s, Nebraska 1990s, Miami 1980s, Oklahoma 1970s, etc.
Most of the internal hires that worked really well were in cases where the program had positive standing but room to reach another level (Chip, Belotti, Petersen, Osborne, Phil Fulmer). The ones that did not work long-term were in cases where the program essentially had only one way to go.
I'm a big fan of metrics in general, but it seems like this can all be boiled down to "you're probably fucked when you lose an elite coach like Chip Kelly". -
Florida State could be one example.dnc said:
But does this prove anything other than "it's really hard to hire two kickass coaches back to back?" Are there enough schools that had only one way to go that hired externally and didn't dropoff that we can prove something beyond SSS?HeretoBeatmyChest said:SRS is an objective measure of how good teams are. Oregon was the best team but the best team doesn't always win the championship in every sport. You can criticize using #1 SRS as a criteria point. If I eliminate that then Davis/Coker and Bo Schembechler/Moeller are off the board. I could widen the criteria but there wouldn't be that many more cases.
Oregon being SRS #1 under Helfrich this season doesn't prove or disprove anything. Oregon has been the strongest SRS team over the past 6-8 seasons and it is a historical outlier that they haven't won a NC. Most teams with similar SRS dominance over 6-8 years won multiple NC's within the period. USC 2000s, Nebraska 1990s, Miami 1980s, Oklahoma 1970s, etc.
Most of the internal hires that worked really well were in cases where the program had positive standing but room to reach another level (Chip, Belotti, Petersen, Osborne, Phil Fulmer). The ones that did not work long-term were in cases where the program essentially had only one way to go.
I'm a big fan of metrics in general, but it seems like this can all be boiled down to "you're probably fucked when you lose an elite coach like Chip Kelly".
Your points are well taken and thus the point of the study is to show the pattern of regression. -
Objective? Really? Certainly it's an attempt at objectivity, and I'd cede that it's not a bad way to rank a group of teams in tiers when looking back in time, but I'd also argue that it's biased towards teams with high scoring offenses who pad their margin of victory, and can be deceiving. #1 SRS does not mean best team, it just means what it means, that team has the highest SRS score, nothing more, nothing less.HeretoBeatmyChest said:SRS is an objective measure of how good teams are. Oregon was the best team but the best team doesn't always win the championship in every sport. You can criticize using #1 SRS as a criteria point. If I eliminate that then Davis/Coker and Bo Schembechler/Moeller are off the board. I could widen the criteria but there wouldn't be that many more cases.
Oregon being SRS #1 under Helfrich this season doesn't prove or disprove anything. Oregon has been the strongest SRS team over the past 6-8 seasons and it is a historical outlier that they haven't won a NC. Most teams with similar SRS dominance over 6-8 years won multiple NC's within the period. USC 2000s, Nebraska 1990s, Miami 1980s, Oklahoma 1970s, etc.
Most of the internal hires that worked really well were in cases where the program had positive standing but room to reach another level (Chip, Belotti, Petersen, Osborne, Phil Fulmer). The ones that did not work long-term were in cases where the program essentially had only one way to go.
So, have you drilled a little deeper to see why Oregon has been a historical outlier? Your eyes don't lie when you see them line up against teams with inferior SRS ranking, but just somehow magically go on to shove their inferior SRS ranking up Oregon's discipline hole. Surely there's an advanced metric that explains this statistical oddity.
Your final analysis makes a lot of sense, but do you really need SRS to support that conclusion? -
@HeretoBeatmyChestHeretoBeatmyChest said:SRS is an objective measure of how good teams are. Oregon was the best team but the best team doesn't always win the championship in every sport. You can criticize using #1 SRS as a criteria point. If I eliminate that then Davis/Coker and Bo Schembechler/Moeller are off the board. I could widen the criteria but there wouldn't be that many more cases.
Oregon being SRS #1 under Helfrich this season doesn't prove or disprove anything. Oregon has been the strongest SRS team over the past 6-8 seasons and it is a historical outlier that they haven't won a NC. Most teams with similar SRS dominance over 6-8 years won multiple NC's within the period. USC 2000s, Nebraska 1990s, Miami 1980s, Oklahoma 1970s, etc.
Most of the internal hires that worked really well were in cases where the program had positive standing but room to reach another level (Chip, Belotti, Petersen, Osborne, Phil Fulmer). The ones that did not work long-term were in cases where the program essentially had only one way to go.
(1) You can criticize using #1 SRS as a criteria point
That's pretty much what I'm doing here.
(2) Oregon has been the strongest SRS team over the past 6-8 seasons
Huh? Link?
First I've heard of this. [EDIT: Just went back and looked. Oregon has never finished higher than 2nd in SRS until this year. So now you're not being honest with the facts. http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/oregon/2000.html]
(3) The [internal hires] that did not work long-term were in cases where the program essentially had only one way to go.
So do some actual analysis. Take a gander at *all* internal hires versus outside hires or some shit like that. I don't have a problem with someone saying "Helfrich is unlikely to perform at Chip Kelly levels over time." No shit, Sherlock. Very unlikely that a program is going to hire two geniuses in a row. That being said, there are plenty of examples of high-performing programs continuing to perform at a high level through coaching changes (Boise State is a good example where the internal transitions have worked out well but the BSU coaches have not exactly set the world on fire when hired outside the program).
In 2009 lots of people were questioning the Chip Kelly promotion after the Boise State loss and lackluster performance in OOC. It wasn't until Oregon put a hurting on then top-10 Cal that people started to calm down.
Back in 1998 I read some doog bullshit called "The Oregon Myth" which was basically bullshit supposition unsupported by actual analysis. It was basically "Iron Laws, scoff, Oregon will revert to its historical mean and UW will kick ass." The bullshit you wrote at the top of this thread isn't much better, and frankly, I think you're better than that.
Your response to criticism in this thread really reminds me of how Bleenor responded to people making fun of "The Oregon Myth."
Do better. You wrote a shit article, you didn't do any analysis, nor did you look at any actual data. It's okay, I still think you're a smart guy with some good insights on Husky football.
But by digging in here you aren't doing yourself any favors - and you're dooging it up worse than most of the bullshit I used to laugh at over at DM.c.
Do better.
-
-
FREE PUB!!! Aubbie
Back in 1998 I read some doog bullshit called "The Oregon Myth" which was basically bullshit supposition unsupported by actual analysis. It was basically "Iron Laws, scoff, Oregon will revert to its historical mean and UW will kick ass."
