Peterman - worst power 5 coach
Comments
-
So 1 year?
-
Original title didn't troll hard enough, had to change it up?
-
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.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.puppylove_sugarsteel said:Oh fer fuck sakes here we go. In 3-4 more years he'll be the best so fuck you punto
#BlindSquirrel -
So CFB Matrix thinks UW should've gone 12-2? His sweatpants were tighter than anyone here.
-
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.
-
Deleted...
-
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.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. -
That is surprising actually. I thought Oregon, Stanford, and UCLA had all recruited better?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.
