College Football Matrix: Anti-Coach Effect

[cm husker]

from another board. In Nebraska's games so far the team with more talent on their 2 deep has one 6 times out of 8. the two teams that had less talent and won. Illinois, and BYU.

 

Here are the numbers for Purdue. Nebraska, barely has better talent, so we got that going for us, which is nice.

 

http://i.imgur.com/ALcofAt.png

 

 

http://i.imgur.com/Wt35zB4.png

 

 

 

As I suspected, these lists are generated with an agenda. Assigning a 5.0 to walkons is ridiculous. Each of the starters listed in NU's depth chart are clearly as good as at least a low three star. Just because they are from farms with little exposure and don't play the recruiting games of committing, decommitting and recommitting, they aren't going to get a rating. But no one can tell me that Jano is a worse talent than a lot of 3 and 4 star players.

 

So that alone unfairly drags an average down versus low low three stars who get a rating because they got an offer from Purdue and no one else (i.e., would have been a walk on most other places).

 

So, stupid methodology.

But with that said, have a look at MSU's starters:

 

QB – 5.7

RB – 6.0

WR – 5.9

WR – 5.7

WR – 5.7

TE – 5.7

OL – Walkon

OL – 5.5

OL – 5.8

OL – 5.6

OL – 5.7

 

Their average is 5.66. But looking closer, their average along the OL is exactly the same as NU's. They get an overall bump because their depth chart list an additional 5.7 WR, rather than our outstanding walkon fullback (who was arbitrary assigned only 5.0). If this methodology is sound, where's the actual talent difference?

 

Control for the walkons, and the number tightens even more. 5.72 for MSU versus 5.72 for NU.

 

By comparison, Purdue has no walkons and their average is 5.58.

 

But again, the entire methodology is flawed because the decimal system is neither accurate nor does it reflect actual separation (it just creates a false sense of separation so that recruitniks can create a 1 to 120 ranking and further monetize college football).

 

I'm so completely sick and tired of these superficial, transparent "analyses" that are designed to do nothing more than tear down our players to bolster a career sub .500 staff.

It's just gross.

[Saunders]

 

Mavric? I am curious about this whole list. Would you be able to answer any of those questions.

I don't know what methodology he is using. I tried looking around on his site but couldn't find it. Admittedly, I didn't look all that long.

 

But I had a thread on how much "talent" is on actual rosters today. 247 did the analysis:

 

247 broke down all schools by their current roster and those player's rating out of high school.

 

Obviously this is imperfect because it's more potential than production but it is better than signing class rankings as it takes into account players that have left (or transferred in).

 

Nebraska came in at #25. Miami was #20. Miami has two five-stars. Tracy Howard started at CB and made a couple plays. Chad Thomas was on the participation report but had no stats. Miami has an edge in four-stars 25-21 while Nebraska has more three-stars 54-47.

 

Other Nebraska Opponents:

BYU - 52

South Alabama - Not in Top 100

Southern Miss - 88

Illinois - 58

Wisconsin - 40

Minnesota - 62

Northwestern - 48

Purdue - 61

Michigan State - 23

Rutgers - 46

Iowa - 53

 

IIRC, he uses composite rankings based on the on hand talent. From what I remember from his podcasts, Dave's Coach Effect is based on 3 things for a game; Talent, Location, and Coaching.

 

The TL;DR version: Basically, if you have superior talent, and the home field, and just average coaching, you should win the vast majority of the time.

 

It's a bit more complicated than that, but he's been using this methodology for a while, and he's pretty dang good at predictions with it.

[teachercd]

He is very good with his predictions.

[beorach]

I don't see how you can judge what the coaching effect is on this team when you have so many intangibles. I think this guy relies heavily on recruiting rankings but, aside from those, I don't think there's much to go by in terms of figuring out what the Cornhusker baseline is... As Shatel pointed out yesterday, last year's team was very close to 7-5 with greater talent than this year's squad contains. The last time Nebraska was ranked in a poll that mattered was the end of the 2012 season. You've got a team that's still struggling with deciding to give this new coach their all. The asterisk above makes the most sense is all I'm driving at.

[QMany]

 

Mavric? I am curious about this whole list. Would you be able to answer any of those questions.

I don't know what methodology he is using. I tried looking around on his site but couldn't find it. Admittedly, I didn't look all that long.

 

But I had a thread on how much "talent" is on actual rosters today. 247 did the analysis:

 

247 broke down all schools by their current roster and those player's rating out of high school.

 

Obviously this is imperfect because it's more potential than production but it is better than signing class rankings as it takes into account players that have left (or transferred in).

 

Nebraska came in at #25. Miami was #20. Miami has two five-stars. Tracy Howard started at CB and made a couple plays. Chad Thomas was on the participation report but had no stats. Miami has an edge in four-stars 25-21 while Nebraska has more three-stars 54-47.

 

Other Nebraska Opponents:

BYU - 52

South Alabama - Not in Top 100

Southern Miss - 88

Illinois - 58

Wisconsin - 40

Minnesota - 62

Northwestern - 48

Purdue - 61

Michigan State - 23

Rutgers - 46

Iowa - 53

 

Thanks for posting that, Mav. I remember reading it but couldn't remember where.

[Saunders]

I don't see how you can judge what the coaching effect is on this team when you have so many intangibles. I think this guy relies heavily on recruiting rankings but, aside from those, I don't think there's much to go by in terms of figuring out what the Cornhusker baseline is... As Shatel pointed out yesterday, last year's team was very close to 7-5 with greater talent than this year's squad contains. The last time Nebraska was ranked in a poll that mattered was the end of the 2012 season. You've got a team that's still struggling with deciding to give this new coach their all. The asterisk above makes the most sense is all I'm driving at.

Last year's team was also very close to an 11-1 season, but alas, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

[beorach]

 

I don't see how you can judge what the coaching effect is on this team when you have so many intangibles. I think this guy relies heavily on recruiting rankings but, aside from those, I don't think there's much to go by in terms of figuring out what the Cornhusker baseline is... As Shatel pointed out yesterday, last year's team was very close to 7-5 with greater talent than this year's squad contains. The last time Nebraska was ranked in a poll that mattered was the end of the 2012 season. You've got a team that's still struggling with deciding to give this new coach their all. The asterisk above makes the most sense is all I'm driving at.

Last year's team was also very close to an 11-1 season, but alas, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

 

If any "non-blowout" is a game you almost won, then I really don't understand all the hand-wringing. Perhaps I missed the point, though. All I'm trying to say is it's tough to figure out how good this team is to then be able to discern whether they're better or worse for their coaching. Your shared view, if it was serious, underscores this.

[Stumpy1]

How does one gauge talent to begin with? How do we know that our players have more talent then Illi, BYU, Miami or who ever else we play? What is the measuring stick that is being used? I keep seeing people say that we are more talented but how do you actually know.

[Saunders]

How does one gauge talent to begin with? How do we know that our players have more talent then Illi, BYU, Miami or who ever else we play? What is the measuring stick that is being used? I keep seeing people say that we are more talented but how do you actually know.

Recruiting rankings aren't perfect, but they're a very good indicator of talent.

[teachercd]

How many different ways are people going to try and say that this is isn't all that bad?

[huskerfan92]

How does one gauge talent to begin with? How do we know that our players have more talent then Illi, BYU, Miami or who ever else we play? What is the measuring stick that is being used? I keep seeing people say that we are more talented but how do you actually know.

 

Like Saunders said, the rankings aren't perfect. However we're 25th when it comes to the talent composite. Illinois is 58th, BYU is 52nd, Wisconsin is 40th, Northwestern is 48th. Heck Southern Miss is 74th, and they almost came back against us at home. The rankings aren't going to be 100% but they aren't going to be that far off either. The only team that had more talent is Miami who is 20th...but we made them look like the most talented team in the country in that 1st half because our passing scheme is basing their success on the opposing QB not being able to throw. So a NFL prospect like Kaaya completely shredded us. And our offense which is based on the pass played right into Miami's strength on defense which is ranked 116th in rush defense. Not very smart football.

[Hammerhead]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I mean.....that's a lot of names. Those are all committed players from 2011-2014 that have not really been impactful here at Nebraska. Riley's only been here 10 months.

 

Are all those let downs Rileys fault too?

 

 

Please remind me which games we've lost this season due to being the lesser talented team?

 

Have you not seen our Offensive Line, Linebackers, Running Backs, QB and some corners? Miami and Wisconsin both have more talent.

 

So if you feel like counting Miami and Wisconsin, there's 2. What's our record again?

 

Dodge it all you want bud. You asked and I answered. Now you are just taking jabs as usual.

 

So is TA more talented than Taysom Hill? More talented than Wes Lunt or even? Should Jamal Turner briefly stop on a deep route when a nice pass is coming his way for what looked like a sure TD? Should Reilly drop a pass near the end zone? Tell me what game was it that Gerry dropped an INT that hit him in his hands? Illinois or Wisconsin? Should the kicker miss that many FGs in games that those points may have made a difference? How about the OL that keeps losing the battle at the line of scrimmage in almost every game they've played? Along those lines, why is that our QB is running for his life on many pass attempts each game when there isn't even a defensive blitz? And I haven't even touched on the LBs, the injuries to key players (VV, DPE, MRI).

 

Keep pecking at the HC and assistants if that's your entire prerogative. When the ball is snapped, each player has a job to do within the play. These guys - and I love them - they are just not talented enough to get it done. They are giving their best and I can see that. But their best is getting beat in every fourth quarter. Maybe that's just a depth issue - or questionable backup talent.

 

Didn't dodge anything "bud".....I took the answer you provided and asked why we've got the worst record through 8 games in decades. Maybe players aren't producing if you want to go with that. With Pelini, we'd either call it out for throwing players under the bus, or harp on that ol' "execution" thing again.

 

Here's the problem. Pelini found a way to get guys to play for him well enough to win 70% of his games. So yes, "pecking" at the HC is my prerogative. It's not like his coaching history didn't shout loud and clear to us this was coming.

 

 

Almost losing to South Dakota State one year, Wyoming another year, and McNeese State last year. You cannot possibly tell me that those are more talented teams than Nebraska.

 

Losing to Minnesota two years in a row when they ran the exact same play for seemingly the entire game both years.

 

Giving up 408 yards to Melvin Gordon in less than 45 minutes of game time.

 

And I would argue that he had more talent on those teams than Riley has this year (can you honestly say that anybody has proven to be a good replacement for Randy Gregory or Ameer Abdullah yet?).

 

Winning 70% of his games doesn't tell the whole story. Not even close.

[TheSker]

 

 

 

Almost losing to South Dakota State one year, Wyoming another year, and McNeese State last year. You cannot possibly tell me that those are more talented teams than Nebraska.

 

 

 

In case you missed it, Riley actually did lose to Illinois.

 

Illinois.

[Hammerhead]

 

 

 

 

Almost losing to South Dakota State one year, Wyoming another year, and McNeese State last year. You cannot possibly tell me that those are more talented teams than Nebraska.

 

 

 

In case you missed it, Riley actually did lose to Illinois.

 

Illinois.

 

 

Who's to say that Pelini wouldn't have?

[teachercd]

 

 

 

 

 

Almost losing to South Dakota State one year, Wyoming another year, and McNeese State last year. You cannot possibly tell me that those are more talented teams than Nebraska.

 

 

 

In case you missed it, Riley actually did lose to Illinois.

 

Illinois.

 

 

Who's to say that Pelini wouldn't have?

 

Well...history I guess.

 

Look, hate Bo, Love Bo...the simple fact is he won well over 60% of his games and the simple fact is he got blown out bad about 15-20 times.

 

Love Riley or hate Riley...the simple fact is he has lost over 100 games and has started off horribly this season. But he has some very nice wins on his resume.