Paralysis by analysis
I'd like to throw another log on the 'let's please give the guy a chance, even if he doesn't fit into my Excel VBA' bonfire.
Look, data is data. It doesn't mean anything outside of being analyzed. It doesn't coach.
People enjoy MGoBlog because it offers an intensely analytical perspective of football that the MSM doesn't provide.
But we tend to fall in love with the data, because it's a solid way to justify our positions. As rational observers, we align our expectations with the data we have available.
Here's the thing though; we can be immensely wrong the interpreations we make with the data. Many of us were wrong about Rodriguez. Whether or not he got a fair shake is irrelevant, it's over now.
Based on the data available, would you have predicted Tressel's immense success coming from Youngstown to OSU? Hell no.
The only thing that matters is execution, and the preparation that goes into it. So to get sullen about our future prospects because a prior teams' offense/defense had a mediocre ranking isn't worth it.
All the matters at this point is that the coaches put in the necessary work to get this team better.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:56 PM ^
Based on data, dickrod was 15-22. And that is all i got from your little lecture.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:59 PM ^
Someone is trying to get banned
January 13th, 2011 at 11:20 PM ^
Go back home to RCMB and to all the other little kiddies like you.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:58 PM ^
I keep saying it over and over in my head and am going to make a rap song out of it.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:59 PM ^
You mean that college football isn't like it is in my NFL fantasy league? No......
January 13th, 2011 at 11:00 PM ^
| Youngstown State: | 135–57–2 | |
With 6 national championships under his belt. Bullshit you couldnt predict he'd have some success at OSU. His resume was pretty damn impressive and if you ever met him (and I have) you'd be even more impressed.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:02 PM ^
Tressel has herpes.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:08 PM ^
WOTS is, He got it from Dantonio's wife.
January 14th, 2011 at 3:20 AM ^
I thought it was Glen Mason's Hot Wife.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:04 PM ^
before going to YSU he was the QB/WR coach at Ohio S. They won the B-10 that year.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:05 PM ^
Hoke coached Michigan during their National Championship season...so under your logic, Hoke is he better coach, right?
January 13th, 2011 at 11:05 PM ^
As impressive as his YSU record is--and that's pretty damn impressive--it's the intangibles that are most important to his success.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:07 PM ^
fair enough. again though, to go 9-1 against Michigan (even with our decline) was something very few people could have seen at the time.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:03 PM ^
There's one major flaw with them. People say that Tressel wasn't a "sexy hire" for OSU at the time. You're right. However, the one major difference between the two? I'm pretty sure there's nobody here that'll argue with me when I say that winning 1AA national championships is better than what Hoke has done thus far. Much better.
EDIT: Damn, just a tad late.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:06 PM ^
We'll never really know if we were wrong about RR either way; the sample is too small because he wasn't allowed to finish what he started. Judging RR's performance after three years is like judging an unfinished painting while the artist is taking a piss break.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:10 PM ^
Hoke is going for Broke In Ace Deuce. I just hope the defense will have enough talent for him to mold into a effective squad. I almost want him to just spend the season preparring for MSU and OSU and pounding them both. But I'll settle for a 6-6 season as well, sigh...
January 13th, 2011 at 11:12 PM ^
I disagree with the premise of the argument. No one who is down on Hoke (which I'm not) is down on him because they "analyzed data." They are down on him because he has a 47-50 career head coaching record, which is a fair criticism and one that the MSM certainly knows about and considers.
Falling in love with data is the least of our problems
January 13th, 2011 at 11:38 PM ^
maybe you're trying to take issue with the "analyzed" part?
January 13th, 2011 at 11:57 PM ^
Yes, I suppose I disagree with the "analyzed" part. It's not like the people who are down on Hoke did too many regressions based on his record and didn't factor in the intangibles enough, they just put more weight on his total record than his recent record.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:18 PM ^
It's depressing knowing we have almost 8 months of this until kickoff.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:25 PM ^
1986 : 2-9
1988 : 8-4
1989 : 4–7
1990 :9-4
1991 : 11-1
1992:12:3
1993:11:3:1
1994:14:0:1
1995:3-8
1996:8-3
1997:13-2
1998:6-5
1999:12-3
2000:9-3
There are probably two ways to look at it.One, seesaw... had his share of losing seasons.two : consistency esp in later years. As someone who deals a lot with number. I would have probably said, he would have been sucessful but the vest has done much better than expected.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:26 PM ^
1986 : 2-9
1988 : 8-4
1989 : 4–7
1990 :9-4
1991 : 11-1
1992:12:3
1993:11:3:1
1994:14:0:1
1995:3-8
1996:8-3
1997:13-2
1998:6-5
1999:12-3
2000:9-3
There are probably two ways to look at it.One, seesaw... had his share of losing seasons.two : consistency esp in later years. As someone who deals a lot with number. I would have probably said, he would have been sucessful but the vest has done much better than expected.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:44 PM ^
I don't think anyone would have expected that Tressel would have a higher winning percentage at Ohio State than he did at a I-AA powerhouse. His track record was nice, but he wasn't Mount Union-level dominant with a .920 winning percentage (or whatever Larry Kehres has now).
January 13th, 2011 at 11:51 PM ^
This is the old mgoblog recruiting rating discussion applied to coaches. Please refer to Brian in his most recent post, who was referring to a columnist whose name escapes me.
Highly touted recruits and coaches may fail. Unheralded recruits and coaches may thrive. As physicist Niels Bohr once said, "Prediction is difficult, especially of the future."
Basically, data (I'm assuming you're talking about quantitative data likes wins and losses, and excluding qualitative data) is a predictor of the future. It is not perfect.
But how else do you propose we predict?
January 14th, 2011 at 12:54 AM ^
January 14th, 2011 at 6:24 AM ^
Data *are* data.
<br>"Datum" is singular.
<br>Apologies for the grammar lesson. Please resume you analysis