Mad Son puts a lot of time into his Ramblings. We should all thank him for his service.
Read the full story here
Coach effect does not equal game management.You'd have to be regularly punting on third down to cost your team three wins in one season via game management. Game management is wrapped up in there. It is a much larger term that encompasses nearly every aspect of the team, as I tried to acknowledge. I maybe wasn't as explicit in mentioning the offense there as I had intended to be. Basically those are the areas where we are under-performing and it is costing us games.
Coach effect does not equal game management.You'd have to be regularly punting on third down to cost your team three wins in one season via game management.
Coach effect does not equal game management.You'd have to be regularly punting on third down to cost your team three wins in one season via game management. Game management is wrapped up in there. It is a much larger term that encompasses nearly every aspect of the team, as I tried to acknowledge. I maybe wasn't as explicit in mentioning the offense there as I had intended to be. Basically those are the areas where we are under-performing and it is costing us games. All coach effect does is compare recruiting rankings to results.So, assuming the recruiting rankings are unbiased, coach effect attempts to measure every single aspect of coaching from identifying underrated talent to development to roster management to motivation to team-building to game management, etc.Game management is the most visible aspect of coaching but also the most overrated. A lot of awful fourth down decision makers have won Super Bowls and crystal footballs.
The only conclusions I'm drawing on the O is we have more speed and game breaking ability, and Jake looks to have improved one part of his game year-over-year, a part where he was universally critiqued. Everything else is TBD.
wtf'd for using coach effect.
wtf'd for using coach effect. Is this because you hate quantifying things and looking at more than the win-loss column? Do you hate trying to understand root cause and to figure out what the source of the failures are? Coach Effect is a perfectly valid angle to look at performance versus recruiting. There are caveats with that but most of us are capable of understanding them...
wtf'd for using coach effect. Is this because you hate quantifying things and looking at more than the win-loss column? Do you hate trying to understand root cause and to figure out what the source of the failures are? Coach Effect is a perfectly valid angle to look at performance versus recruiting. There are caveats with that but most of us are capable of understanding them... any metric that has Mike Leach as a better coach than David Shaw, Dabo Sweeney, Jimbo Fisher, Nick Saban and Urban Meyer is probably stupid and needs to be re-worked.
wtf'd for using coach effect. Is this because you hate quantifying things and looking at more than the win-loss column? Do you hate trying to understand root cause and to figure out what the source of the failures are? Coach Effect is a perfectly valid angle to look at performance versus recruiting. There are caveats with that but most of us are capable of understanding them... any metric that has Mike Leach as a better coach than David Shaw, Dabo Sweeney, Jimbo Fisher, Nick Saban and Urban Meyer is probably stupid and needs to be re-worked. Mike Leach does very well in his system with lower tier talent and that isn't a fluke. That is exactly what coach effect measures. All of those coaches you named may have been more successful, but that may be just because they aren't nut jobs and can attract top recruits. It sounds to me like you're afraid the Cougs are going to win the Apple Cup this year.
The problem with some of these new dangled metrics is that they assume conditions and variables are constant and fail to account for circumstance or situation.For example, if a team scores the same amount as they give up, the expectation is that this is a .500 team. And perhaps when this data is populated it is normally distributed. But there are still plenty of examples where there are teams that are 1-2 deviations outside the mean.The question that you have to ask at that point is what drives those instances where teams are outside the norm? Luck? Bad coaching? Injuries? Youth? Turnovers?
coaching effect is a stupid metric and you guys only use it cause it makes petersen look bad and ignore all the ones that make him look fine. bash petersen all you want for the '14 AZ game, the two minute (lol) drill against oregon, the 2nd half vs ASU, etc. i don't give a fuck. i'll just be over here scared of that coach that has a Apple cup record of 1-3 and been outscored by an average of 15 points a game.
The thing with the Coach Effect is that it is more geared to finding coaches getting less with more. If you are the worst recruiter in the country and go 0-12, your coach effect is 0. If you are the best recruiter in the country and you go 12-0 your coach effect is also 0. I do like CE, because it can help find those coaches that get less with more. But yeah.
I don't mind metrics, but Coach Effect has to be the most tenuous. Using it is at least two, probably three steps of inference down the chain, based on Ecklunds view of a group of kids' hips in high school 2-4 years prior.