Home› Hardcore Husky Board

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register
Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Peterman - worst power 5 coach

SevenElevenSevenEleven Member Posts: 318
edited January 2015 in Hardcore Husky Board
http://cfbmatrix.com/current-coach-effect-ranks-p5s/
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
«13

Comments

  • claychaclaycha Member Posts: 662
    So 1 year?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,812
    Original title didn't troll hard enough, had to change it up?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CokeGreaterThanPepsiCokeGreaterThanPepsi Member Posts: 7,646
    edited January 2015
    puppylove_sugarsteel said:

    Oh fer fuck sakes here we go. In 3-4 more years he'll be the best so fuck you punto

    By the nature of the matrix it would not be possible for Peterman to be the best in this study. UW recruits at too high of a level. But your poont stands.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ThomasFremontThomasFremont Member Posts: 13,325
    puppylove_sugarsteel said:

    Oh fer fuck sakes here we go. In 3-4 more years he'll be the best so fuck you punto

    While I want to agree with you, you said the same thing about Sark, and therefore you cannot be trusted.

    #BlindSquirrel
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SarkinghamSarkingham Member Posts: 299
    So CFB Matrix thinks UW should've gone 12-2? His sweatpants were tighter than anyone here.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • greenbloodgreenblood Member Posts: 14,527
    edited January 2015
    I like how this poll measure a coaches performance to his talent on the roster, however, it doesn't account for the coach recruiting those great players to begin with.

    So if you recruit a bunch of 5 star guys, and you finish the year 12-1, you're going to get a lower rank than a 3-8 coach because you had better players? Shouldn't you get credit for bringing in the better players in the first place?

    College coaching is about 80% game planning, in-game adjustments, playcalling, etc. But I'd argue that there is a very important 20% that requires you to have talent as well. Urban Meyer could coach Kentucky next season, and he might get them to 8-9 wins, but without the necessary talent, he isn't close to sniffing a SEC title.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CokeGreaterThanPepsiCokeGreaterThanPepsi Member Posts: 7,646
    edited January 2015
    Deleted...

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CokeGreaterThanPepsiCokeGreaterThanPepsi Member Posts: 7,646
    greenblood said:

    I like how this poll measure a coaches performance to his talent on the roster, however, it doesn't account for the coach recruiting those great players to begin with.

    So if you recruit a bunch of 5 star guys, and you finish the year 12-1, you're going to get a lower rank than a 3-8 coach because you had better players? Shouldn't you get credit for bringing in the better players in the first place?

    College coaching is about 80% game planning, in-game adjustments, playcalling, etc. But I'd argue that there is a very important 20% that requires you to have talent as well. Urban Meyer could coach Kentucky next season, and he might get them to 8-9 wins, but without the necessary talent, he isn't close to sniffing a SEC title.

    Yup, it is naturally flawed. He actually has a great formula for picking records before the season is even close to starting. But this one for coach effect is naturally flawed because the worst recruiters are rewarded and the best recruiters are punished.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RoadDawg55RoadDawg55 Member Posts: 30,123
    CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:

    All this study does is take into account recruiting rankings of the teams. UW outrecruited 4 teams over the previous 4 years that they lost to this season, therefore the -4 Coach Effect.

    That is surprising actually. I thought Oregon, Stanford, and UCLA had all recruited better?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • greenbloodgreenblood Member Posts: 14,527
    whatshouldicareabout said:

    According to that matrix, Mike Leach is the 10th best coach in the country.

    I can't stop laughing.

    I guess the developer doesn't watch the red-zone channel
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 108,168 Founders Club
    RoadDawg55 said:

    CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:

    All this study does is take into account recruiting rankings of the teams. UW outrecruited 4 teams over the previous 4 years that they lost to this season, therefore the -4 Coach Effect.

    That is surprising actually. I thought Oregon, Stanford, and UCLA had all recruited better?
    They did.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • oregonblitzkriegoregonblitzkrieg Member Posts: 15,288
    puppylove_sugarsteel said:

    Oh fer fuck sakes here we go. In 3-4 more years he'll be the best so fuck you punto

    l-o-l
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CokeGreaterThanPepsiCokeGreaterThanPepsi Member Posts: 7,646
    I messed up, CFBmatrix was doogin big time based off of only their numbers... Coach Effect is based on loosing games you were predicted to win, based on talent and field advantage combined. Here is what they said prior to the season about UW:

    "They have a higher talent ranking than ten of the teams on their schedule for a talent only baseline record of 10-3. Adjust up 2 games for home wins versus Stanford and UCLA and the record is 12-1. Down -1 games for a new head coach and have 11-2 with my favorite middle number at 10.5."

    So the -4 comes from loosing to Stanford, ASU, UCLA and Arizona.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,812
    CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:

    I messed up, CFBmatrix was doogin big time based off of only their numbers... Coach Effect is based on loosing games you were predicted to win, based on talent and field advantage combined. Here is what they said prior to the season about UW:

    "They have a higher talent ranking than ten of the teams on their schedule for a talent only baseline record of 10-3. Adjust up 2 games for home wins versus Stanford and UCLA and the record is 12-1. Down -1 games for a new head coach and have 11-2 with my favorite middle number at 10.5."

    So the -4 comes from loosing to Stanford, ASU, UCLA and Arizona.

    And really it's -2.5 off of his own prediction.

    Still bad. But not worst in the nation.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CokeGreaterThanPepsiCokeGreaterThanPepsi Member Posts: 7,646
    Here was his preseason preview:

    cfbmatrix.com/20-washington-huskies-preview-2014/
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 45,005 Standard Supporter
    whatshouldicareabout said:

    According to that matrix, Mike Leach is the 10th best coach in the country.

    I can't stop laughing.

    That is so FUCKINGLY STUPID, I can't even abbreviate FUCKINGLY STUPID.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CanardCanard Member Posts: 504
    Any analysis that looks at 3 star Mariota as lower on paper than four star miley is fucktarded.

    That's the only way this guy is doing a "talent analysis," by dry star counting.

    Anyone with even one functional eyeball on Miley the season before he was named starter knew that the young noodle arm who had the throwing motion and slow delivery of a trebuchet, but without the zip and range, was taking you nowhere good, or certainly not to 10+/- 1 wins.

    Well, at least I was laughing at the sweatpants boners around here. You'll have to acquit yourself if you were in the Great Purple Circle Jerk of 2014.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.