First-Year Coaching Grades

[Mavric]

This is a very big (and accurate, so don't hear me wrong) focus on schemes and proficiency, which is good, but your arguments in support of Frost have disappeared when examining Riley. 

Obviously Riley's record wasn't great. Like this year. But we played well enough to win several more games. Like this year. Which - to many at the time, at least - meant we were better than our record showed. If you change any one of several plays we could've beat BYU, Miami, Illinois, Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Iowa. None of that takes any better coaching job, just some better luck and we could easily be anywhere from 7-6 to 11-2.

We were pretty competitive against everyone except Purdue (lol)

So the results and the context of the W-L results were pretty damn close to the same. So a somewhat worse defense and a very much improved offense is the main distinction between a B and an F grade? Of course context matters, but there was no reason for us to only win 4 games this season, especially if our schemes were better and our coaches more competent and that deserves...something less than a B grade imo.

I just don't see any way that a 4 win season could or should ever be graded as a B performance. We could win TEN more games next year and that would only be an increase of a letter grade and a half? Also I imagine everyone giving B grades would have also given B grades for this season if we would've won 7-8 games.

I mean .... I listed a bunch of stuff in the post you just quoted.  How the YPP was going vastly different directions.  In addition to the schemes, recruiting possibilities, where we were compared to the previous year, etc.  But I guess you just want to focus on the one part that lets you be argumentative about it.

 

[Landlord]

I'm not being argumentative I'm just trying to understand all the underlying logic of a worse season being 2-3 letter grades better than a better season. Why do you always want to shut down conversation as being argumentative or "whatever fits your agenda™" when people ask or respond with disagreement? 

Similarly but separately, I still don't understand the math or logic of a 'B' rating for a 4 win season, regardless of comparison to 2015. It's obviously not an entirely direct variation equation,  and obviously there is context and there are things other than straight wins and losses that go into such a thing, but it does point to some very dramatic curve (or bias/benefit of the doubt).

What would have constituted an F performance? Or a D, or a C?

If 4 wins is a B, then is this the curve?

0 wins = F

1 win = D

2.5 wins = C

4 wins = B

11 wins = A

15 wins = A+

 

[ColoradoHusk]

I'm not being argumentative I'm just trying to understand all the underlying logic of a worse season being 2-3 letter grades better than a better season. Why do you always want to shut down conversation as being argumentative or "whatever fits your agenda™" when people ask or respond with disagreement? 

Similarly but separately, I still don't understand the math or logic of a 'B' rating for a 4 win season, regardless of comparison to 2015. It's obviously not an entirely direct variation equation,  and obviously there is context and there are things other than straight wins and losses that go into such a thing, but it does point to some very dramatic curve (or bias/benefit of the doubt).

What would have constituted an F performance? Or a D, or a C?

If 4 wins is a B, then is this the curve?

0 wins = F

1 win = D

2.5 wins = C

4 wins = B

11 wins = A

15 wins = A+

I think some people are looking at straight wins and losses as their determining factor for the grade.  It's not how I gave my grade, but I don't have a problem with those who did.  I gave Frost a B- because I think Frost inherited such a giant pile of crap that most of the fans didn't realize.  Frost isn't blameless on the 0-6 start, but I don't know what else he could have done to win more than 1 or 2 of those games.  Then on the 4-2 finish, the team won the games they were supposed to, played a close game as a huge underdog, and went 1-1 in the toss-up games.  The flip in the culture took hold in the last half of the season, but there is still a talent deficiency.

 

[Mavric]

I'm not being argumentative I'm just trying to understand all the underlying logic of a worse season being 2-3 letter grades better than a better season. Why do you always want to shut down conversation as being argumentative or "whatever fits your agenda™" when people ask or respond with disagreement? 

Similarly but separately, I still don't understand the math or logic of a 'B' rating for a 4 win season, regardless of comparison to 2015. It's obviously not an entirely direct variation equation,  and obviously there is context and there are things other than straight wins and losses that go into such a thing, but it does point to some very dramatic curve (or bias/benefit of the doubt).

What would have constituted an F performance? Or a D, or a C?

If 4 wins is a B, then is this the curve?

0 wins = F

1 win = D

2.5 wins = C

4 wins = B

11 wins = A

15 wins = A+

I think you're just being argumentative because you continue to only focus on one aspect when I've repeatedly stated a bunch of other reasons.  Yet you keep acting like I haven't.

 

[Landlord]

I think you're just being argumentative because you continue to only focus on one aspect when I've repeatedly stated a bunch of other reasons.  Yet you keep acting like I haven't.

I'm trying to figure out your matrix because it is unclear how the number of wins and losses a team has and who the wins and losses were against actually is any factor in your method of ranking at all. 

The only rationale you gave for a 2015 D or F grade are bad schemes and regression or maintaining of offensive and defensive production. So if next year's team is better schematically and improves offensively and defensively, but only wins 3 games, would their grade go up? No, that's a facetious question, but the actual genuine question is okay, so how do the actual results and performance play in for you?

 

[Mierin]

I'm not being argumentative I'm just trying to understand all the underlying logic of a worse season being 2-3 letter grades better than a better season. Why do you always want to shut down conversation as being argumentative or "whatever fits your agenda™" when people ask or respond with disagreement? 

Similarly but separately, I still don't understand the math or logic of a 'B' rating for a 4 win season, regardless of comparison to 2015. It's obviously not an entirely direct variation equation,  and obviously there is context and there are things other than straight wins and losses that go into such a thing, but it does point to some very dramatic curve (or bias/benefit of the doubt).

What would have constituted an F performance? Or a D, or a C?

If 4 wins is a B, then is this the curve?

0 wins = F

1 win = D

2.5 wins = C

4 wins = B

11 wins = A

15 wins = A+

People have already given their reasoning. Why don’t you argue with them point by point instead of mentioning win totals over and over while ignoring their reasoning?

It seems like you’ve been out to prove since day one that people are biased for Frost. There probably is a little of that, but as someone who was happy to give Riley a fair shot especially after he beat MSU, I felt much better about this season and I feel that this team (2nd half of season) would have blown out that team. 

Also, I think you’re ignoring or underselling how important a factor it is that we went from 9 win seasons to 5 wins. That by itself makes the 5-7 season a lot different than going 4-8 after 5, 9, and 4 wins, to me and most other people.

 

[Mavric]

I'm trying to figure out your matrix because it is unclear how the number of wins and losses a team has and who the wins and losses were against actually is any factor in your method of ranking at all. 

The only rationale you gave for a 2015 D or F grade are bad schemes and regression or maintaining of offensive and defensive production. So if next year's team is better schematically and improves offensively and defensively, but only wins 3 games, would their grade go up? No, that's a facetious question, but the actual genuine question is okay, so how do the actual results and performance play in for you?

Wins and losses are a factor, but when looking at all the changes that go into Year 1 of a new coaching staff, I think a lot of other things are at least as important.  What direction is the program headed?  How does that project going forward?  Things like that.  Wins and losses become more important in following years, imo.

As far as "better than our record showed", obviously that can be subjective.  But beyond what I stated above, Football Outsiders has a stat called Second Order Wins which basically looks at advanced stats to see how many games you "should" have won that year.  For 2015, they came up with 6.8 wins, similar to the 6 we did win.  For this year they show 6.7 wins (2.7 more than we actually won).  So they would agree with my above assessment that we were better than our record shows.  But not so much for 2015.

Obviously another part of what your record is is who you play.  In 2015, Sagarin says we played the #49 toughest schedule.  This year we played the #18 toughest schedule.  So that's another reason you can't just do a straight comparison of records.  

And as I also mentioned above, the trajectory makes a lot of difference.  In 2015, the coaches took over a program that had won at least 9 games every year for the prior seven years and won five regular-season games.  Frost's staff took over a team that only won four games the previous year and did the same.  Those don't seem equal to me.

Also:

 

[ColoradoHusk]

Of course people are biased, I know I am.  I sure as heck like Frost and his staff more than I do than Riley and his staff.  I knew who Riley was when he came to NU, and I was open to him succeeding at NU.  Starting from the first year, he took a winning program (no matter how flawed) and turned it into complete dog crap.  Frost is now being tasked with turning that dog crap into a nice, juicy steak.

 

[I am I]

I'm not being argumentative I'm just trying to understand all the underlying logic of a worse season being 2-3 letter grades better than a better season. Why do you always want to shut down conversation as being argumentative or "whatever fits your agenda™" when people ask or respond with disagreement? 

Similarly but separately, I still don't understand the math or logic of a 'B' rating for a 4 win season, regardless of comparison to 2015. It's obviously not an entirely direct variation equation,  and obviously there is context and there are things other than straight wins and losses that go into such a thing, but it does point to some very dramatic curve (or bias/benefit of the doubt).

What would have constituted an F performance? Or a D, or a C?

If 4 wins is a B, then is this the curve?

0 wins = F

1 win = D

2.5 wins = C

4 wins = B

11 wins = A

15 wins = A+

I gave my grade based on the overall season and coaching, not just wins and losses. If the question was “grade Scott Frost on wins and losses” I’d give him a D

but I took it more as, how did he run the program in his first year?  I think he deserves a solid B for that. Next year, assuming even more things are organized and galvanized and we go 4-8?  D-   We go 6-7? C-  

overall cosching job, not just wins and losses. And MR 4-8 I would give an F. He sucked st running the program AND coaching AND wins and losses. Frost did much better 

 

[ColoradoHusk]

I gave my grade based on the overall season and coaching, not just wins and losses. If the question was “grade Scott Frost on wins and losses” I’d give him a D

but I took it more as, how did he run the program in his first year?  I think he deserves a solid B for that. Next year, assuming even more things are organized and galvanized and we go 4-8?  D-   We go 6-7? C-  

overall cosching job, not just wins and losses. And MR 4-8 I would give an F. He sucked st running the program AND coaching AND wins and losses. Frost did much better 

Great way of looking at it.

 

[Toe]

Just reading through some of Bartoo's other recent tweets....



"prude" :lol:

This year we played the #18 toughest schedule.

Which would have been a lot higher if we didn't have Bethune-Cookman on the schedule. They brought down the average big time, we went from like #3 SoS to #26 the week we played them.

 

[Mavric]

Scott Frost, Nebraska
2018 record: 4-8
2017 record: 4-8

Grade: C

I'm not blind to what happened in the second half of the season. Frost established his standard and got his team playing in a way that should make Nebraskans proud. Quarterback Adrian Martinez is a future national awards candidate and the defense finally showed some life in a 9-6 win over Michigan State in the snow. But these grades factor in the entire season, and Nebraska was hard to watch during the first half, still prone to errors (92nd in penalties) and couldn't eclipse last year's record. A big breakthrough is likely coming soon, perhaps in 2019, but Frost needs a much cleaner start to the season.

ESPN

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

If you went any higher than a C+ you need to put down the Kool-Aid :koolaid2:

The team went 4-8!

 

[Mavric]

If you went any higher than a C+ you need to put down the Kool-Aid :koolaid2:

The team went 4-8!

If Martinez doesn't get his knee wrenched, we almost assuredly beat both Colorado and Troy for 6-6 with a bowl game upcoming.

If you only change that one aspect and the record gets that much better, does that make Frost's performance worthy of a higher grade?

 

[ColoradoHusk]

If you went any higher than a C+ you need to put down the Kool-Aid :koolaid2:

The team went 4-8!

I get that the team went 4-8 and that's a terrible record.  Call me a Kool-Aid drinker, but I think so many of the events in the first half of the year was out of Frost's control.  The Gebbia transfer, the Akron rain out, Martinez's injury, the lack of discipline and other traits the players carried over from the Riley era.