There's absolutely no way that ends up on a bulletin board somewhere
Reasons for ND hopelessness: trends in average win percentages
Filed under:
Much has been made of the recent UM record. However, whenf statisticians seek a more reliable measure of a team’s quality and the direction of a program, they look at the bigger picture by (1) comparing that season record with records from other schools and (2) considering not a single year, but groups of years (called a moving average).
(1) I looked at the records of the two most recent coaches among our rivals. I found that ND had a 3 win season, OSU had a four win season; and MSU had three four-win seasons. Some of these occurred during coaching transitions, like UM’s. But others had no such excuse.
http://cid-4bf9d75c782b05b1.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/notre%20dame%20trends/ND+trends+vs+UM.jpg(2) As in prior threads (see footnote*), I now report the analysis of the records of the ND coaches, based on the victories averaged over each of 4 successive seasons.**
Results: Under Lou Holz, the trend was positive overall (with an increase of .125 victories per year). Yet, much as occurred during LC’s initial years, the gains were all early, and were followed by a gradual decline. For all the subsequent coaches at ND, the trends were consistently negative (a decrease in average victories of -.25 per season for Davies, -.25 per season for Willingham, -.10 per season for Weiss. However, the trends appear downward at a uniform rate, starting at Holtz’s peak.
Conclusion:
1. The ND program is progressively deteriorating.
2. One wonders if the many coaching changes
contributed to this. I have given mixed
shades to the transition years, in which one coach has at least 2 years of the
other one’s players. From this, one
wonders whether Willingham would have continued the upward trend if he was kept
and could play his recruits during what were the first two years of Weiss’
tenure.
3. Since ND faces massive losses next year, including the OL, RB and probably Clausen and Tate, in addition, with a completely inexperienced backup QB who will be unable to practice and coming off ACL surgery next August, one must seriously wonder when—no, whether—the ND program will get back on track.
If UM uses ND as an example of what might happen to a program, the questions for UM now is whether it will follow the pattern of Holtz, who began with a decline in average wins—similar to what is likely for RR (although Holtz did not have the big immediate dropoff in average wins from his predecessor, since that average was already quite low). The promising thing is that, unlike ND, UM has more, not less, starters coming back for the next two years. Clearly, it’s way too early to tell—as Brian has intimated today—but I can't help worrying that we might end up like ND if we keep getting rid of coaches before they can build their program.
* In two previous threads titled “Reasons for Hope” (for UM), and “reasons for MSU hopelessness.” Another interesting and pertinent link from another poster is: http://mgoblog.com/diaries/what-two-losing-seasons-start-tenure-means
**Note that it’s not a simple average. At the beginning of a coach's tenure, his record is shown as an average that includes the prior coach's average--which may be either better or worse than the current record. As, such the first two years of each coach’s tenure are shown as mixed colors, as they reflect the recruits of the previous coach as well as the performance of the current coach. (just ask yourself, if Bo were alive and took over the coaching job of the perennial celler-dweller Northwestern team in the 60's, would he be responsible for the first few years?)
November 9th, 2009 at 9:18 PM | 
The thing is, college
The thing is, college
November 9th, 2009 at 9:30 PM |
thanks for your patience
thanks for your patience
I am having trouble getting my graphs to show up on this post, so any suggestions would be appreciated.
Meanwhile, I do think you have a good point about parity and I wonder if a lot--but not all--programs have shown some downward trend (?regression) toward the mean.
Next year many juniors will come out to avoid the possible salary cap the following year. Clausen is a prime candidate. You are right that a lot depends on him. But if he's losing 3 OL, and a key receiver, that may be a big factor in his decision.
michelin
November 9th, 2009 at 9:37 PM |
Did you write this with a
Did you write this with a
Did you write this with a straight face?
From this, one wonders whether Willingham would have continued the upward trend if he was kept and could play his recruits during what were the first two years of Weiss’ tenure.
The life blood of a college football program is recruiting, without taking that into account your stats can be skewed to whatever point you want to make. And honestly that makes this write up pretty Hopeless on its own....
Current Smug rating: "lethal"
November 9th, 2009 at 9:53 PM |
you make my point
you make my point
I did write it with a straight face but apparently I did not make it clear enough.and unfortunately I cannot get my graphs to appear to further illustrate..
Your point that recruiting is critical is just what I am arguing. That is why a coach, like Willingham, should get some credit for the recruits that later played for Weiss and won a lot of games. Weiss later did not do as well as his own recruits came into the system and Willingham's cycled out.
The same can be said of the RR, when he got a team that had no where near the quality of prior seasons. His last two seasons only are a partial reflection of what he's done; and I think that it is only fair that the stats reflect that. However, as next year and the following one roll around, the stats should increasingly reflect his own record exclusively. That's how my analysis works.
In addition, while statistics can be skewed to distort the truth,the statistics that human memory often distort the truth too. When you look at the actual records, moreover, you may see patterns when none exist. Yet, looking at the records through different types of summaries, as illustrated here, can reveal different perspectives.
michelin
November 10th, 2009 at 9:02 AM |
There was supposed to be a :)
There was supposed to be a :)
There was supposed to be a :) on that first line but it looks like I pasted over it. So don't take that too hard a comment.
Maybe your graphs will change my mind but that one 3 win season was a direct result of Willingham's "recruiting" without seeing that connection in your write up (and actually postulating him have success with it), it made me smile a bit.
Current Smug rating: "lethal"
November 9th, 2009 at 10:17 PM |
Is this guy French?
Is this guy French?
I feel like I'm reading a post-existential piece on the philosophy of statistical analysis and Focault's Pendulum.
"So I come out of Ohio Stadium after we beat the Buckeyes, and right there on the hood of my friend's car, some one took a dump, in the shape of an 'O'. no shit. Oh, sorry, bad pun."
November 9th, 2009 at 10:44 PM |
No, but it looks like I've
No, but it looks like I've
No, but it looks like I've made more errors than a French army ...with all this html stuff that appears on my post...I don't know how to get rid of it...and I know that makes it look pretty wierd...maybe that's part of your problem with the analysis
If not, I don't know what else to tell you.
Best of luck the next time you're in Ohio.
michelin
November 9th, 2009 at 11:38 PM |
could it be....
could it be....
That:
1) their coach sucks?
2) there is now an increasingly limited pool of recruits who want to attend a small, isolated, religion-based liberal arts college in Indiana?
I don't know...just wondering
(I know I am now asking for trouble)
November 10th, 2009 at 12:05 AM |
#2
#2
..I really don't think Charlie sucks any more than his predecessors...in fact, the rate of decline in their win rate has been almost constant since the middle part of Holtz's career, through Davies, then Willingham and now Weiss. So, I would vote for your #2.
Also, even though they have much relaxed standards for their athletes, the academics have to be a limiting factor, just as they are at UM. A number of OSU's players had NFL aptitude scores in the "illiterate" range.
michelin
November 10th, 2009 at 9:32 AM |
I was being...
I was being...
...somewhat tongue-in cheek with that.
Some weeks you just need a little humor.
November 10th, 2009 at 12:02 AM |
If Clausen goes to the NFL...
If Clausen goes to the NFL...
...woe to the team that drafts him. Clausen throws well when not under pressure...like just about every NFL quarterback bust.
Brady Quinn won't help him
November 10th, 2009 at 2:57 PM |
I expect the Cleveland Browns
I expect the Cleveland Browns
will trade to move up in the draft so they can snatch Clausen from all those other teams ready to draft him. Not!
Taking it one week at a time
November 10th, 2009 at 5:12 PM |
Clausen has got to come out for this draft
Clausen has got to come out for this draft
Not only is this possibly the last draft without a cap but who is his competition at QB? No way Tebow or Bradford get drafted before him and McCoy loses the size battle. With Cleveland, St. Louis, Buffalo, possibly Oakland and others looking for a QB it's just way too much to pass up. Let Bradford tell you whether he should have went last year or not....
Has the whole world gone CRAZY!?!
The thing is, college football has so much parity nowadays with scholarship limits and ESPN coverage for everybody that these long term trends don't really hold up.
For example, FSU from 90-2002, USC from 80s-2002, Nebraska in the 90s, Cincinnati/Boise/Utah... things change in a hurry, no matter how long a team has been down/up.
Also, I don't get the impression ND loses a lot of players. I looked at the rivals depth chart and they have 2 senior starters on D (the safties) and 4 on offense (3 o lineman and the fullback). Floyd is a soph. next year for them depends almost entirely on Clausen.