On-Field Success vs. Recruiting

[Moiraine]

IT LOOKS AS IF RALPHIE IS ABOUT TO DO SOMETHING UNSPEAKABLE TO BIG JAY..! WOULD SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN ?!

 

I noticed that too.

[NUpolo8]

 

 

 

So.....

We don't get the best players and they don't improve? Or what?

 

I interpret as coaches getting the most out of the players they get, if you are in red you are underachieving, in blue you are overachieving. Basically, our coaches have been getting players to play at their advertised skill level.

This lends creedence to a belief that the majority of Bo's best players were either juco guys with fundamentals and some basic understanding or inherited talents.

Not necessarily. It could just as easily be said, using this graph, that Bo's players improve at the same rate as they're expected to. Just like Saban's, OU's, South Carolina's, Wyoming's.

They are expected to do a touch better by many.

[NUance]

Also, if I'm reading this right, they're saying the best coaches are: Briles, Shaw, Patterson, Snyder, Gundy, Helfrich, Mendenhall and Andersen?

 

Since it's 2009-2013, Brett Bienema is clearly one of the best coaches in the nation.

[NUpolo8]

 

Also, if I'm reading this right, they're saying the best coaches are: Briles, Shaw, Patterson, Snyder, Gundy, Helfrich, Mendenhall and Andersen?

 

Since it's 2009-2013, Brett Bienema is clearly one of the best coaches in the nation.

Ahhhh.

 

I mean, he had some good teams those years. And he appears to have begun to resurrect Arkansas......

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

So.....

We don't get the best players and they don't improve? Or what?

I interpret as coaches getting the most out of the players they get, if you are in red you are underachieving, in blue you are overachieving. Basically, our coaches have been getting players to play at their advertised skill level.

This lends creedence to a belief that the majority of Bo's best players were either juco guys with fundamentals and some basic understanding or inherited talents.

Not necessarily. It could just as easily be said, using this graph, that Bo's players improve at the same rate as they're expected to. Just like Saban's, OU's, South Carolina's, Wyoming's.

They are expected to do a touch better by many.

 

 

That's true. But you're attempting to use the graph and saying it says things that it doesn't.

[NUpolo8]

So.....

We don't get the best players and they don't improve? Or what?

I interpret as coaches getting the most out of the players they get, if you are in red you are underachieving, in blue you are overachieving. Basically, our coaches have been getting players to play at their advertised skill level.

 

This lends creedence to a belief that the majority of Bo's best players were either juco guys with fundamentals and some basic understanding or inherited talents.

 

Not necessarily. It could just as easily be said, using this graph, that Bo's players improve at the same rate as they're expected to. Just like Saban's, OU's, South Carolina's, Wyoming's.

 

They are expected to do a touch better by many.

 

That's true. But you're attempting to use the graph and saying it says things that it doesn't.

 

If Nebraska wasn't squarely on the median line, maybe.

[Moiraine]

 

 

That's true. But you're attempting to use the graph and saying it says things that it doesn't.

 

If Nebraska wasn't squarely on the median line, maybe.

 

Everything you've said in this topic indicates to me that you don't understand how the graph is to supposed to be read. You picked the incorrect best coaches, you think the line is a median, you think it means Nebraska's players aren't being developed. None of those are correct conclusions based on the graph. That doesn't mean they're incorrect conclusions but they're not based on the graph.

 

Let's pretend for a minute that the only factor in getting more wins is the improvement of the players. That means Nebraska's players are improving the amount that they should, that Boise State's players are overachieving and Colorado's are underachieving. You're just slanting it in a more negative way. Nebraska's players/coaches/team are doing exactly what is expected based on their recruiting, according to the graph.

[NUpolo8]

 

 

That's true. But you're attempting to use the graph and saying it says things that it doesn't.

If Nebraska wasn't squarely on the median line, maybe.

Everything you've said in this topic indicates to me that you don't understand how the graph is to supposed to be read. You picked the incorrect best coaches, you think the line is a median, you think it means Nebraska's players aren't being developed. None of those are correct conclusions based on the graph. That doesn't mean they're incorrect conclusions but they're not based on the graph.

 

Let's pretend for a minute that the only factor in getting more wins is the improvement of the players. That means Nebraska's players are improving the amount that they should, that Boise State's players are overachieving and Colorado's are underachieving. You're just slanting it in a more negative way. Nebraska's players/coaches/team are doing exactly what is expected based on their recruiting, according to the graph.

If the line divides who performs better on the field, or who's better at recruiting, and it's a break even at the line, it's not a median.......

 

Either way it's an interesting graph.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

That's true. But you're attempting to use the graph and saying it says things that it doesn't.

If Nebraska wasn't squarely on the median line, maybe.

Everything you've said in this topic indicates to me that you don't understand how the graph is to supposed to be read. You picked the incorrect best coaches, you think the line is a median, you think it means Nebraska's players aren't being developed. None of those are correct conclusions based on the graph. That doesn't mean they're incorrect conclusions but they're not based on the graph.

 

Let's pretend for a minute that the only factor in getting more wins is the improvement of the players. That means Nebraska's players are improving the amount that they should, that Boise State's players are overachieving and Colorado's are underachieving. You're just slanting it in a more negative way. Nebraska's players/coaches/team are doing exactly what is expected based on their recruiting, according to the graph.

If the line divides who performs better on the field, or who's better at recruiting, and it's a break even at the line, it's not a median.......

 

Either way it's an interesting graph.

 

 

Ok I think you're right (on that part)

[Mavric]

Also, if I'm reading this right, they're saying the best coaches are: Briles, Shaw, Patterson, Snyder, Gundy, Helfrich, Mendenhall and Andersen?

 

First, three of those coaches you listed either have a lot of the success in the graph that actually belongs to a previous coach or with that coach's recruits (as you often like to point out).

 

Second, being above the line doesn't necessarily indicate being the best coach. If they are a terrible recruiter and an average coach, they'd be above the line. The best coaches are the ones in and near the top-right.

[Mavric]

Frank Solich is one of the farther ones above the line.

[NUpolo8]

Given Solich's recruiting history and ability to coach, I'd believe that.

[Moiraine]

 

Also, if I'm reading this right, they're saying the best coaches are: Briles, Shaw, Patterson, Snyder, Gundy, Helfrich, Mendenhall and Andersen?

 

First, three of those coaches you listed either have a lot of the success in the graph that actually belongs to a previous coach or with that coach's recruits (as you often like to point out).

 

Second, being above the line doesn't necessarily indicate being the best coach. If they are a terrible recruiter and an average coach, they'd be above the line. The best coaches are the ones in and near the top-right.

 

 

I don't necessarily agree with that. The three who did the best in relation to their recruiting are Boise State, Navy, and Kansas State. I don't think having a lower ranked recruiting class always says they're bad at recruiting. They're trying to get people to go to... Idaho, Kansas, and play for Navy. Put Snyder at Alabama and he'd be in the upper right corner. That doesn't mean he wasn't already one of the best coaches before he got there. Now if you're in a great location and your recruiting sucks then you have a problem.

 

Edit: Meant to say Northern Illinois not Kansas State. Meh. KSU is still pretty high.

[Mavric]

 

 

Also, if I'm reading this right, they're saying the best coaches are: Briles, Shaw, Patterson, Snyder, Gundy, Helfrich, Mendenhall and Andersen?

 

First, three of those coaches you listed either have a lot of the success in the graph that actually belongs to a previous coach or with that coach's recruits (as you often like to point out).

 

Second, being above the line doesn't necessarily indicate being the best coach. If they are a terrible recruiter and an average coach, they'd be above the line. The best coaches are the ones in and near the top-right.

 

 

I don't necessarily agree with that. The three who did the best in relation to their recruiting are Boise State, Navy, and Kansas State. I don't think having a lower ranked recruiting class always says they're bad at recruiting. They're trying to get people to go to... Idaho, Kansas, and play for Navy. Put Snyder at Alabama and he'd be in the upper right corner. That doesn't mean he wasn't already one of the best coaches before he got there. Now if you're in a great location and your recruiting sucks then you have a problem.

 

Edit: Meant to say Northern Illinois not Kansas State. Meh. KSU is still pretty high.

 

 

I don't necessarily disagree with that. But there are also a couple other factors other than just coaching. Their recruiting classes - for the reason you mentioned and others - will always be ranked pretty low. So it doesn't take a lot of success on the field to out-perform your recruiting ranking. Especially, in my opinion, when you get past the top 200-300 players in each class. Many of the others are so close that the #800 player probably isn't that much better than the #2000 player, etc. so it's tough to really rank a lot of the smaller schools' recruiting classes.. Also, those schools are playing in smaller conferences so it's easier to have on-the-field success with lesser recruits at those schools. You really need to compare the Power 5 schools against each other and other conferences to get a better idea.

[RedDenver]

If the line divides who performs better on the field, or who's better at recruiting, and it's a break even at the line, it's not a median.......

Either way it's an interesting graph.

 

The line does not provide who is better at recruiting or on the field. Think of this possibility: the coaches above/left of the line are the better recruiters because they identify underrated talent. Did those teams/coaches do better because of the coach getting the most out of the players, the players being undervalued as recruits, both, some other explanation? Or did the teams on the right have overvalued recruits, less player development, etc.?

 

I see that the only SEC teams on the left are Vandy and Mizzou (which only was in the SEC a year), and even those two are barely to the left. The rest of the SEC is on the right. Does the best conference then have overvalued recruits or poor coaching or what?

 

It is an interesting graph, but I'm not sure what can be gleaned from it.