at least it's not just us?
- Member for
- 2 years 28 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- vs. 1-10: 7-19 .269
- vs. 11-25: 26-13 .667
- vs. 26-50: 40-8 .833
- vs. 1-10: 7-14 .333
- vs. 11-25: 20-6 .769
- vs. 26-50: 32-4 .889
- vs. 1-10: 12-14 .462
- vs. 11-25: 28-14 .667
- vs. 26-50: 41-7 .854
- vs. 1-10: 12-15 .444
- vs. 11-25: 15-11 .577
- vs. 26-50: 36-12 .750
- vs. 1-10: 9-9 .500
- vs. 11-25: 13-2 .867
- vs. 26-50: 17-2 .895
- 1999 7/9
- 2000 13/9
- 2001 11/11
- 2002 12/11
- 2003 12/10
- 2004 12/11
- 2005 8/13
- 2006 11/10
- 2007 11/10
- 2008 12/12
- 2009 8/13
- 2010 12/5
- 2011 10/8
- 2012 10/9
- 2013 10/8
- Washington St. -14 1/2 over Colorado St.
- USC -12 1/2 over Fresno St.
- Oregon St. -4 1/2 over Boise St.
- Washington -8 over BYU
- Oregon -11 1/2 over Texas
- Arizona St. -18 over Texas Tech
- Arizona -9 1/2 over Boston College
- UCLA -11 over Virginia Tech
- Stanford -2 1/2 over Michigan St.
|1 day 12 hours ago||I think you misread that.||
If I read it right, Sarkisian is required to provide a list of all potential assistant-coach hires to the USC compliance office, which is responsible for vetting them.
|1 day 13 hours ago||No, that's not what I'm saying at all.||
It's a question of getting agreement up front from the people whose funds and support you require.
Sort of like the reason kings agreed to consult a Parliament. That wasn't a matter of covering one's ass.
And losing isn't the only thing that can go wrong. Look at Texas Tech--their most important supporter spent years tring to get rid of Leach and it had nothing to do with on-field performance. There's no reason for a school like Texas to go through anything like that.
|1 day 14 hours ago||What are their strengths?||
What are their strengths? They built their offense around a dual-threat quarterback that now can't run. How do you propose they use him?
|1 day 14 hours ago||It also sends a message to||
It also sends a message to everyone that matters in the UT system--donors, politicians--that if they've got a problem with someone that is or might be considered, these are the people to talk to. You know somebody on this list; that's who you call.
It's sort of a representative assembly of everyone that might otherwise be tempted to do some backstabbing later. Gets the grievances aired in advance, and in the open but not in public. I don't know why something like this isn't S.O.P. everywhere.
|1 day 15 hours ago||Pam Willeford..||
...was the only eyewitness to Dick Cheney's hunting accident. I thought the name was vaguely familiar.
I hope I can make that comment without the thread getting diverted somewhere it shouldn't go--the point is that she is indeed connected to an important UT constituency. If the purpose of the committee is to vet the reactions of important boosters and donors and supporters to prospective coaches in advance of any news leaks, she's a reasonable choice.
|1 day 16 hours ago||If you want to include||
If you want to include Brown's first year, when he took over a 4-7 team and went 9-3 and won a Cotton Bowl, fine. I don't think it helps your argument much, it's a little better than taking over a 5-6 team and going 7-5 with an Independence Bowl loss. I wouldn't have mentioned it if you hadn't brought it up, but it looks like Brown had better success in the turnaround year.
I'd never done this before for Brown or Stoops, but sometimes (this came from an idea Brian threw out a few years back) I use the Massey database to see how coaches did against certain levels of teams. (Massey's good for this because the website's easy to use and the archive conveniently posts each opponent's end-of-season ranking next to each game.) I'm starting the post before I even run the numbers, to avoid any accusations that I've cherrypicked the study. I'll put it up regardless.
Let's get rid of old-time Baylor and Rice and the like, and just look at records against the top 10, the top 25, the top 50.
Mack Brown at Texas:
Something clearly happened between 2009 and 2010--people around the Texas program called it the "Alabama Hangover". Through his first 12 years, Brown's records were:
You can do the subtraction to see what the last four years look like; theyr'e pretty bad. Age happens. Lloyd Carr had the grace and the self-perception to step down when he felt his energy level dropping; not everyone does.
Bob Stoops at Oklahoma:
Better against the top tier, worse against the next rung down until Brown's late-career decline brought them even. It's consistent with the basic theme I suppose--Brown's teams extraordinarily consistent; Stoops's teams have higher highs and lower lows. You prefer the latter; I get that.
For comparison, and since you brought hiim up, here's Lloyd Carr:
And to establish a top end, Saban at Alabama:
Interesting, isn't it? Saban, Stoops and Carr all had, to within statistical error, the same record against the top ten (and don't get me wrong, all three are quite exceptional in this regard. only the very greatest go .500 against the top ten). It's their performance against the next rung down that separates them.
|2 days 7 hours ago||Texas and Oklahoma play||
Texas and Oklahoma play basically the same conference schedule year after year. What small differences there are in a given year even out over time--that's why I included conference records. Against those identical schedules, Brown won two more games during the 1999-2009 span.
Stoops had slightly better top-end years, more and worse years at the bottom end, until 2010. It was 6-5 OU head-to-head at the time, which you might find convicing but I think is pretty obviously not statistically signficant. Since then there's been a clear difference between the programs, before that there wasn't. Since you only compare the top-end years, it looks like Stoops was better, and if that's your criterion I suppose he was. I think I acknowledged that in my post, too--I just objected to your exaggeration of the size of the difference, and still do.
The suggestion that Carr only beat bad teams doesn't stand up to the facts either, but I think there's probably no point documenting that again.
|2 days 10 hours ago||OU/UT wins per season in the Stoops/Brown era.||
in the B12: 99/92
Until 2010 Brown had the edge in both categories
Outperformed, yes. "Far and away" is not a phrase I'd use to describe a difference of about half a game per season, especially since the gap only opened up in the last four years.
|2 days 13 hours ago||This is Iowa we're talking about.||
Shouldn't there be two tight ends in that diagram?
|2 days 14 hours ago||Let's put it this way.||
If, in the run-up to the most important event in my company's fiscal year, I got myself busted on numerous drug-related charges and wasn't able to contribute, I would NOT expect glowing recommendations from my employer.
Whatever bad things there might be to say about Ferentz and Iowa football, "no one at Iowa would say anything good about me" is at the bottom of the list. What the hell did he expect?
|2 days 14 hours ago||2010 and 2011||
It's bad enough that people hold Hoke responsible for 2011 when he had very little time to even hold things together. But now he's even responsible for 2010?
|2 days 14 hours ago||That was my very first thought.||
Anyone that could even briefly consider 2013 as the most diasppointing year has to be under 40.
In '74 football was two points from an undefeated season and basketball was two points from a final four. BTN has immortalized '73. I probably don't need to mention the '72 Rose Bowl.
Nothing that happened this year comes close to any of that. The expectations haven't built up to anywhere near where they were in those early years of Bo; until they do there can't be any comparable disappointment.
|2 days 14 hours ago||And maybe there should be||
And maybe there should be some negative disappointment-points handed out for the national titles in gymnastics and swimming, not to mention Mikulac winning the all-around at nationals to go with his NCAA title. And Davis and White winning nationals.
All that, plus national runner up in basketball, seems like a pretty good year if you ask me.
|2 days 14 hours ago||It sure is nice...||
...to be able to be disappointed. A few years ago that hardly seemed possible.
|3 days 7 hours ago||It's a big-12 tie-in, #4 on||
It's a big-12 tie-in, #4 on their list. The only way Arizona could possibly have gone is if the Big 12 only had three bowl-eligible teams, which if not literally impossible is extremely unlikely.
|4 days 7 hours ago||It's not that hard to get the||
It's not that hard to get the facts right, if you bother to try. When you don't, it looks like you're exaggerating on the likely chance that no one will call you on it, then when they do the facts didn't matter anyway. But never mind that....
Where did I say anything about Hoke? And what was your point?
Arizona has had successive years with 8, 8, 7, 4, 8 and 7 wins.
You might look at that list and say Wow! The guy responsible for those last two years must be terrific!
Or it might just look like there was a one-off bad year in there.
Except for the brief three-year collapse under Mackovic they've consistently won 5-9 games/year for decades now. Their first twenty years in the PAC they were .500 or better in the conference 16 times. It fell apart under Mackovic, Stoops got it back to a level of mediocrity not quite up to the standards of Smith and Tomey. RR has held that same level so far.
If we don't want to live in the past and just look at recent results, there'd be nothing to indicate that Rodriguez is anything special as a coach. Well, that's not quite right--in detail his record's pretty unique (offensive FEI #2, defensive FEI #109--that doesn't happen often). But the overall results are pedestrian.
I don't actually think that's a fair assessment of the man. But if you want to see something else, you have to be willing to look at his past.
ed: WTF? Now I look like I'm crazy. Talking to myself. Oh well... :-)
|4 days 9 hours ago||I'm not sure where to find||
I'm not sure where to find historical bowl TV ratings, but I'll bet a lot of folks tuned in to watch Notre Dame get drubbed in '04.
|4 days 9 hours ago||Arizona wasn't 3-9. They've||
Arizona wasn't 3-9. They've only lost nine or more games in a football season once in the history of the school, the 2003 Mackovic disaster.
|4 days 9 hours ago||To refer to Rich Rodriguez as||
To refer to Rich Rodriguez as a successful football coach you need to be living in the past. The man hasn't had a .500 or better season in conference since 2007.
Not that that means he isn't a good coach. Sometimes it's worth living in the past a little bit.
|6 days 11 hours ago||Tray Allen, maybe?||
The foot injury probably had something to do with that, though. And it doesn't change the argument at all, except that they happened to have one 5-star that didn't pan out.
|6 days 11 hours ago||Not following the argument here, from either of you.||
Most of the top 25 are running a spread. Most of the bottom 25 are also running a spread.
What does this prove?
|6 days 11 hours ago||That's one of first things I||
That's one of first things I noticed when I started putting together the spreadsheet--you can't trust the rosters, for most schools you have to go the player bios on the team's website to get the redshirt status.
|6 days 11 hours ago||It wouldn't surprise me in||
It wouldn't surprise me in the least to find out that there's some correlation between scheme and the winners and losers on these graphs. Some schemes emphasize offensive line play, some de-emphasize it.
The bigger question here to me is, which is to Michigan's advantage long term? Hoke's staff has had good success recruiting offensive line talent, and in a couple of years I think we'll be glad we're running a system that uses it. Not just because we'll be making good use of the talent. but because I think one of the reasons for that recruiting success is that Hoke can tell a lineman that at Michigan he's going to matter. He's not just going to pass-protect on an endless succession of quick passes*, he's going to get to push people around and he's going to be a big reason for the success of the offense.
All these schemes work, if you commit to them and recruit for them. Spread option works. Wing-T works. WCO works. Wisconsin's power offense works. Picking a new one every year to fit what you happen to have on your roster? That's a recipe for disaster.
*That's not so much a reference to Malzahn as to Indiana, or Leach.
|1 week 3 days ago||Just a hunch...||
...but I'm guessing that if Jamail decided to try to take the program or the university down a notch, Brown wouldn't be able to do much about it.
|1 week 3 days ago||Coaches and real estate are a bad combination.||
John L. Smith bought a whole subdivision, and where did that get him?
|1 week 3 days ago||Denials...||
...pretty sure they're corporatese for "the person formally responsible for that decision is about to be relieved of his duties and nothing will happen until he's replaced."
|1 week 3 days ago||the possibilities are endless...||
ADDITION IS NOT COMMUTATIVE
|1 week 4 days ago||This should be a question on||
This should be a question on every drivers license exam.
"You've stopped your car on a side street. A kid stands a few feet in front of your car and lobs snowballs at your windshield. What do you do?
A. Wait for him to move out of the way.
B. Step out of the car and ask him to move out of the way.
C. Step on the gas. He'll move."
|1 week 4 days ago||B1G $49,600,000 PAC||
It's true that the B1G's auxiliary bowls pay out better than the PAC's, but the big difference isn't the tie-ins but the fact that one conference has one BCS bowl this year and the other has two. If Oregon had been taken for the Sugar instead of Oklahoma the PAC's total would be $44,881,250, about 10% less than the B1G.
|1 week 4 days ago||Massey predictions:||
Favored in all nine games, by more than a TD in all but two.
They're probably happy with the matchups.