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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
SevenEleven
Member Posts: 318
Comments
#BlindSquirrel
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.
I can't stop laughing.
"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.
Still bad. But not worst in the nation.
cfbmatrix.com/20-washington-huskies-preview-2014/
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.