Stats don't mean wins

Submitted by DesHow21 on

Call it FEI or whatever...

 

Stats don't mean wins

Stats don't mean wins

Stats don't mean wins

Stats don't mean wins

Stats don't mean wins

Stats don't mean wins

Stats don't mean wins

Stats don't mean wins

THIS IS WHY RR WAS FIRED. Get that through your thick skull Brian. Oh and stop whining and start supporting the guy that by all indications is doing a "tremendous" job. 

WolvinLA2

April 5th, 2011 at 11:06 AM ^

Yeah - In Rod You Trust - if you have such a gripe with Brian, why not send him an email about it instead of making a public spectacle that none of us care about?  You're like the guy at work who has a problem with the boss so he bitches to all of his coworkers instead of actually talking to his boss like a man.  Also, that guy usually gets fired.

I hope you get fired from MGoBlog.

AeonBlue

April 5th, 2011 at 2:32 PM ^

Or how about the fact that just because offensive stats are great doesn't imply that a team wins. You have to compare whole team stats against opponent's whole team stats for an individual game. Stating that M had a great FEI doesn't mean that that directly translates to wins and I don't think (maybe I'll read it again to be sure) that that was even IMPIED by Brian's post.

brose

April 5th, 2011 at 10:32 AM ^

All work and no play makes In_Rod_I_Trust a dull boy

All work and no play makes In_Rod_I_Trust a dull boy

All work and no play makes In_Rod_I_Trust a dull boy

All work and no play makes In_Rod_I_Trust a dull boy

All work and no play makes In_Rod_I_Trust a dull boy

All work and no play makes In_Rod_I_Trust a dull boy

All work and no play makes In_Rod_I_Trust a dull boy

All work and no play makes In_Rod_I_Trust a dull boy

All work and no play makes In_Rod_I_Trust a dull boy

Oh and ironic name too...

Don

April 5th, 2011 at 10:41 AM ^

Cosign 1000x. Anyone know why they haven't been brought back yet? It's like doing away with law enforcement and still expecting everybody will behave themselves. Humans aren't like that in the aggregate.

joeyb

April 5th, 2011 at 10:53 AM ^

It was discussed in another thread. The general concensus was that Brian will get everything working how he wants and deploy it to the production servers all at the same time instead of in increments. This is what he has done in the past for the most part.

Ziff72

April 5th, 2011 at 10:35 AM ^

The wins are all that matter people want to come off as tough as nails no excuses bottom line people, but to make decisions based on 1 criteria and not take in all the data makes you look ignorant not successful.

"Stats are for losers, you're a nerd Brian!!!"

You should have ended your email with BRAH!!!!!!!!!!

 

SirJack

April 5th, 2011 at 10:38 AM ^

Uh, this is Brian’s blog. And part of what makes this blog great are his strong opinions and the spirited arguments that follow.

Also, Brian’s position is a well-reasoned one, even if you disagree with it.

Also also, he’s only that way because he cares :)

twohooks

April 5th, 2011 at 10:39 AM ^

To move on, he really does. You see, sometimes parents, even coaches, part ways under diffucult circumstances. This doesn't mean RR doesnt love you, he does, its just going to be different. Someday i hope you'll understand. This is not your fault.

profitgoblue

April 5th, 2011 at 10:42 AM ^

Once again, the OP makes a profound point and "wows" us all with his intelligence and deep thinking. 

For those new MGoMembers - this is the exact kind of "emo whine" post that gets you sent to Bolivian.  Thanks to the OP for serving as a perfect case study of how not to act.

 

Waters Demos

April 5th, 2011 at 11:14 AM ^

Your work on the FMB case arguably established you as the MGoJohnnyCochran. 

You could be billing massive amounts for this type of advice on account of your rising status.  How long did that post take?  .3? 

Is this part of the 50 hours/year of pro bono work that the model rules require?

Waters Demos

April 5th, 2011 at 11:59 AM ^

My proposals:

No time sheets, model rules, case law, or research in general.

The RAC should have the authority to promulgate rules after notice and comment from MGoCommunity, subject to the unbridled discretion of the RAC to dispense with notice and comment procedures when it sees fit to do so. 

profitgoblue

April 5th, 2011 at 12:25 PM ^

By the power vested in me (?), I hereby appoint you to serve as the first President of the MGoBarAssociation. 

I also suggest we do away with all ethical rules in general except those few ones that might be necessary (I can't think of any off the top of my head), with the right to waive them on a case-by-case basis, of course.

 

03 Blue 07

April 5th, 2011 at 4:12 PM ^

Wait, man. Just wait. I want in on this. And I'm not a sparty. If he is head of the bar association, can I be a part of the MGoSupremeCourt or something like that? I don't want a prosecutorial role; I tend to be more of a defense-minded guy (which might make me a good appointment for a hypothetical MGoCourt, Profit, nudge nudge. I don't take kickbacks though).

WolvinLA2

April 5th, 2011 at 11:01 AM ^

You've always been one of my least favorite posters.  Now everyone gets to see why.

Although posts like these make me think you're 15 or have a learning disability or something which makes me feel bad about ripping on you before.  I'm sorry for ripping on you if you have a learning disability.

Tater

April 5th, 2011 at 11:06 AM ^

Brian has managed to maintain a delicate balance.  He has stated an opinion that he doesn't agree with the CC, but isn't doing it in a way that undermines Brady Hoke in the least. 

I'm not happy with the decision either, because I expected this team to win 11 games this year with RR and a decent DC.  I wanted to see what RR could do when he finally had enough upperclassmen on the field to not get pushed around by bigger, older players.  When RR was fired, many of us talked about all of the successful candidates who were available. 

If Jim Harbaugh had said yes, I would still detest the reptilian David Brandon, but I would have more confidence that things were going to go well.  If they had hired Patterson, Peterson, Mullen, or even Gus Malzahn, I would still not trust DB as far as I can throw an F-350, but I would still be exceedingly optimistic about this season. 

Instead, we get a 47-51 head coach who is going to basically blow it up and start over.

So, whether you agree with Brain's position or not, I think his concerns are well-founded.  It's not as if Brain has ripped Hoke, either.  He has praised Hoke's skill as a delegator and a man who apparently knows his limitations. 

Really, Brian's hope for Hoke to be a delegator who hires the right people and trusts them to do their jobs is the best we can hope for out of Hoke.  He should be commended, not vilified.

Honestly, I'm not the least bit excited about the spring game.  I am scared shitless that changing the offense might squander a golden opportunity to win the Big Ten this year and get into a BCS game.  For the first time since LC's last few years, I have absolutely no confidence in the team going into this season.  I am hoping for mere competence out of an offense that would probably have been the best in the country this year under a spread option coach. 

It sucks to hope for "mere competence" out of the team I have followed since 1960, especially when I was hoping for 11 wins a few months ago.  I just hope the optimism comes back by October.   

lexus larry

April 5th, 2011 at 11:17 AM ^

I wanted to make a separate thread, on another day, about your last couple paras.

RR was brought in to be better than the guy he replaced.  He wasn't given time to get it done his way, so here we are.

I, too, have no interest in the Spring Game, whereas the past couple years, this was a great event my family and I looked forward to.

Finally, to the point I made above, those who will defend Hoke if the team manages a 7-8 win season as such an improvement over RR's first season...that's not how it's going to work. 

The expectation is that Hoke will exceed what would have been the expectation for RR.  I don't know if I would have expected 11 wins in 2011.  I know I was pretty comfortable expecting 7 wins in 2010...don't know who could have expected more than that, after TWolf's ankle was struck by the Angry Michigan Safety Hating God, but again, here we are...

My expectation for 2011 with RR at the helm was 9 wins, minimum, during the regular season.  We'll see what Hoke does...fewer wins is not an improvement.

I also wonder, was it Hoke's idea to get Mattison?  I've seen nothing out of DB that suggests he'd be quite so "hands off" so why is everyone patting Hoke on the back for this hire.  And again, Hoke brought how many guys from his "tree" with him, but not his DC?  Deja vu, anyone?

WolvinLA2

April 5th, 2011 at 11:27 AM ^

First of all, Mattison said he came to Michigan because of Hoke, and presumably wouldn't have come for just anyone else.  I'm sure there are other people he would have come for, but I tend to doubt RR is one of those people.  I think we can safely give Hoke credit for Mattison.

Secondly, just because you expected 9 wins in 2011 out of RR doesn't mean he would have gotten it.  We still would have the DC problem - either Gerg would have stayed or Michigan tries to hire a third DC in 4 years under the same head coach.  Pure speculation, but I bet we wouldn't have been able to bring in a top notch DC under those conditions. 

Just like RR wasn't evaluated on his first year, neither should Hoke.  No coach in college football should ever be expected to come in and turn things around immediately.  You don't hire a HC for the short term, you hire him because you think he'll improve the program over the long term. 

It's possible that UM 2011 is worse under Hoke than it would have been under RR, and that doesn't mean Hoke was a bad hire.  What UM looks like in 2012 and 2013 and beyond are how we judge Hoke. 

lexus larry

April 5th, 2011 at 11:42 AM ^

I hear what you're saying about the eval after Year One.  Howeva, I'm just launching my pre-emptive strike, that I don't want to hear/read high praises after a regression from the expectations for 2011.

I'm still a bit suspicious of any/all the media and fan "managing" and "handling" that's been part and parcel of the CC and the ensuing 3 months...so yeah, Mattison may have been quoted as saying that...I just wonder.

For sure, the D during RR's 4th year would have still been something to fear (sadly, not in the good way, either!), so 9+ wins, I felt, was reasonable.  We'll see how things play out, but preferably without the continued media 180 and the slurpfest that seems to have hijacked coverage of the team the past 3 months.

Your comments are appreciated.

unWavering

April 5th, 2011 at 1:14 PM ^

But you're still saying that anything less than 9 wins in 2011 is a failure, because that is what you expected from RR.  It comes off as more than a bit hypocritical.  Like it or not, Hoke is starting from scratch, and expectations should be tempered as such.  Is that not what you (or many on this board) said about RR?