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 my "I'm gonna need to see an SRS championship" line lasted a few days anyway.
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.
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?
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".
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?
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.
Your points are well taken and thus the point of the study is to show the pattern of regression.
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.
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.
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?
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.
(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.
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."
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."
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."
Fucked it all up, tried to block quote from AssDuck the above and put in the free pub for aubbie. Don't know what i was thinking...... i always screw up when i try to do a HB staple. So I will in fact stay away from trying to fit in and go to my lame version of trolling.
It was designed to be easy and it is incredibly hard to stop.
Until someone, besides Holt, comes up with a defense that is a scalable blueprint ... Oregon will run the PAC.
The odds also say they will win a NC in the next 3-5 years.
It literally is next man up ... because of the system.
If it was all just a system, everyone would be doing it. Look, no reasonable duck expects you assholes to be falling over yourselves to exclaim how awesome Oregon is. But don't give in to bouts of willful self-delusion and wishful thinking just so you can go back to how it used to be, because that's even less likely than Helfrich being the next Knute Rockne.
Your program was shown to the entire country for what it was. The epic quook pressing on this board has been unreal. LSU, Ohio State, Auburn, they all laughed at your meth'd out excuses and bullshit exclamations of "We'll be back!" Christ. The Committee has seen enough out of you marshmallows. Oregon is fucked. Helfrich is a fucking loser (he's from Oregon, of course he is). Oregon was arrogant in promoting clueless morons like Pellum, who wouldn't understand defense if it cut a hole in the back of his pimp suit and fucked him in the ass.
It was designed to be easy and it is incredibly hard to stop.
Until someone, besides Holt, comes up with a defense that is a scalable blueprint ... Oregon will run the PAC.
The odds also say they will win a NC in the next 3-5 years.
It literally is next man up ... because of the system.
If it was all just a system, everyone would be doing it. Look, no reasonable duck expects you assholes to be falling over yourselves to exclaim how awesome Oregon is. But don't give in to bouts of willful self-delusion and wishful thinking just so you can go back to how it used to be, because that's even less likely than Helfrich being the next Knute Rockne.
It's a proven system that has continuity. It helps.
It was designed to be easy and it is incredibly hard to stop.
Until someone, besides Holt, comes up with a defense that is a scalable blueprint ... Oregon will run the PAC.
The odds also say they will win a NC in the next 3-5 years.
It literally is next man up ... because of the system.
If it was all just a system, everyone would be doing it. Look, no reasonable duck expects you assholes to be falling over yourselves to exclaim how awesome Oregon is. But don't give in to bouts of willful self-delusion and wishful thinking just so you can go back to how it used to be, because that's even less likely than Helfrich being the next Knute Rockne.
The lack of success anyone has had in any other system suggests you're wrong. I thought Mastoli would be pretty good at Ole Miss. He was terrible. None of the other QB's has done shit poast Oregon either, not even Dennis Wouldahadtheheisman Dixon.
Mariota's the best of the bunch by far. But Oregon's absolutely developed a great plug and play system. Which is why they opted to keep Helfrich to keep the system intact. We'll see if it pays off.
I don't see how you could reasonably argue with any of this. It's a compliment to UO and bodes well for you guys. Hell, he said you're winning an NC in the next 3-5 years. That's as quooking it up as it's going to get from a Husky.
It was designed to be easy and it is incredibly hard to stop.
Until someone, besides Holt, comes up with a defense that is a scalable blueprint ... Oregon will run the PAC.
The odds also say they will win a NC in the next 3-5 years.
It literally is next man up ... because of the system.
If it was all just a system, everyone would be doing it. Look, no reasonable duck expects you assholes to be falling over yourselves to exclaim how awesome Oregon is. But don't give in to bouts of willful self-delusion and wishful thinking just so you can go back to how it used to be, because that's even less likely than Helfrich being the next Knute Rockne.
Everyone is doing it now. Didn't Ohio State look vaguely familiar?
That system Chip brought in turned around a pretty obvious Oregon regression from 2002 - 2006 and changed offensive strategy across the sport. It sent Pete fucking Carroll running away from CFB with guys Masoli and Barner. The system was the ducks advantage it was novel and unique and difficult to copy.
The past 2 or 3 years have seen everyone copying tempo and zone read concepts and catching up. Or doing it with better talent. If Helfrich doesn't out-execute everyone running that same system the talent disadvantage will become apparent and the ducks will regress to pre-Chip levels again. Cook it. I'm out.
But Oregon's absolutely developed a great plug and play system. Which is why they opted to keep Helfrich to keep the system intact. We'll see if it pays off.
If by "system" you mean "staff continuity," then, sure. But I think it was the NCAA which sent Pete Carroll packing, not anything Oregon was doing. Oregon is one of about five teams which runs a variation of the HUNH, run-first spread. Ohio State's another, TCU does as well, Auburn, Arizona, also. Okie Lite and West Virginia have variations of the same. So, when people say "system," I don't know how "unique" Oregon's system is, beyond the continuity of the coaching staff, the program culture, and the sweet sweet Nike cash.
If someone dropped a '5 reasons why Oregon will regress', AzDuckFS would refute it point by point right now, complete with headers and cross-references.
Comments
Well played.
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.
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?
(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."
It was designed to be easy and it is incredibly hard to stop.
Until someone, besides Holt, comes up with a defense that is a scalable blueprint ... Oregon will run the PAC.
The odds also say they will win a NC in the next 3-5 years.
It literally is next man up ... because of the system.
Mariota's the best of the bunch by far. But Oregon's absolutely developed a great plug and play system. Which is why they opted to keep Helfrich to keep the system intact. We'll see if it pays off.
I don't see how you could reasonably argue with any of this. It's a compliment to UO and bodes well for you guys. Hell, he said you're winning an NC in the next 3-5 years. That's as quooking it up as it's going to get from a Husky.
That system Chip brought in turned around a pretty obvious Oregon regression from 2002 - 2006 and changed offensive strategy across the sport. It sent Pete fucking Carroll running away from CFB with guys Masoli and Barner. The system was the ducks advantage it was novel and unique and difficult to copy.
The past 2 or 3 years have seen everyone copying tempo and zone read concepts and catching up. Or doing it with better talent. If Helfrich doesn't out-execute everyone running that same system the talent disadvantage will become apparent and the ducks will regress to pre-Chip levels again. Cook it. I'm out.
I thought Helfrich was coasting on talent. You confuse me.
Cook it. I'm out.
Jesus. Close the gates, @DerekJohnson.
But Oregon's absolutely developed a great plug and play system. Which is why they opted to keep Helfrich to keep the system intact. We'll see if it pays off.
If by "system" you mean "staff continuity," then, sure. But I think it was the NCAA which sent Pete Carroll packing, not anything Oregon was doing. Oregon is one of about five teams which runs a variation of the HUNH, run-first spread. Ohio State's another, TCU does as well, Auburn, Arizona, also. Okie Lite and West Virginia have variations of the same. So, when people say "system," I don't know how "unique" Oregon's system is, beyond the continuity of the coaching staff, the program culture, and the sweet sweet Nike cash.
Such a fag Az.