Overachieving and Underachieving Coaches & Seasons

[ColoradoHusk]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not making excuses for anyone. I wanted Bo to succeed. And want Riley to do well Facts are facts. I am just nuts and bolts, meat and potatoes, see things as they are type fan.

I am a "facts are facts" guy, too. Riley and his staff (especially Banker) flat out sucked last year, that's a fact. I hope he does better and turns things around, but he will have to make vast improvements from his historical performance in order to make NU a champion program again.

 

You can be mad at Riley all you want, your right. Not going to tell you how to feel or think. But given what Riley inherited was amazing that Nebraska was competitive in all games. I guarantee you that had Bo remained that the record, given no Ameer, no Kenny, no Randy, no DPE, is probably near identical to Rileys, maybe one game better at best, but know full well Nebraska would have been dismantled a time or two. We know that because it happened with those 4 players while Bo was head coach

 

And I guarantee he would have won 9 games, because that's the established trend. Hell, if Bo was still here, there's no guarantee that Randy leaves early, or DPE gets hurt.

 

See how useless this argument is?

 

 

 

Keep dreaming buddy. When I already establishd that in 2014 Bo and Nebraska don't win 7 games against an inferior schedule to that of 2015, with Ameer, Kenny, Randy and DPE. Bo's house of cars was about to fall at Nebraska; recruting misses, roster mismangement, player development. But I digress

 

Your opinion does not equal fact, because the variables will change simply by virtue of who was the HC.

 

Kenny, Ameer, Randy and DPE not being on the team in 2015 and being difference makers that allowed Nebraska to win games in 2014 ( McNeese St, Miami, Iowa) that they otherwise don't without them, isn't opinion. Straight fact

 

Maybe Bo's staff would have been able to do a better job of coaching the holdover players and they would have been able to replace the "difference makers" that were lost. All your arguments are pure conjecture at this point.

[drew95]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not making excuses for anyone. I wanted Bo to succeed. And want Riley to do well Facts are facts. I am just nuts and bolts, meat and potatoes, see things as they are type fan.

I am a "facts are facts" guy, too. Riley and his staff (especially Banker) flat out sucked last year, that's a fact. I hope he does better and turns things around, but he will have to make vast improvements from his historical performance in order to make NU a champion program again.

 

You can be mad at Riley all you want, your right. Not going to tell you how to feel or think. But given what Riley inherited was amazing that Nebraska was competitive in all games. I guarantee you that had Bo remained that the record, given no Ameer, no Kenny, no Randy, no DPE, is probably near identical to Rileys, maybe one game better at best, but know full well Nebraska would have been dismantled a time or two. We know that because it happened with those 4 players while Bo was head coach

 

And I guarantee he would have won 9 games, because that's the established trend. Hell, if Bo was still here, there's no guarantee that Randy leaves early, or DPE gets hurt.

 

See how useless this argument is?

 

 

 

Keep dreaming buddy. When I already establishd that in 2014 Bo and Nebraska don't win 7 games against an inferior schedule to that of 2015, with Ameer, Kenny, Randy and DPE. Bo's house of cars was about to fall at Nebraska; recruting misses, roster mismangement, player development. But I digress

 

Your opinion does not equal fact, because the variables will change simply by virtue of who was the HC.

 

Kenny, Ameer, Randy and DPE not being on the team in 2015 and being difference makers that allowed Nebraska to win games in 2014 ( McNeese St, Miami, Iowa) that they otherwise don't without them, isn't opinion. Straight fact

 

Maybe Bo's staff would have been able to do a better job of coaching the holdover players and they would have been able to replace the "difference makers" that were lost. All your arguments are pure conjecture at this point.

 

Conjecture simply because you don't like it. lmao

[Saunders]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not making excuses for anyone. I wanted Bo to succeed. And want Riley to do well Facts are facts. I am just nuts and bolts, meat and potatoes, see things as they are type fan.

I am a "facts are facts" guy, too. Riley and his staff (especially Banker) flat out sucked last year, that's a fact. I hope he does better and turns things around, but he will have to make vast improvements from his historical performance in order to make NU a champion program again.

 

You can be mad at Riley all you want, your right. Not going to tell you how to feel or think. But given what Riley inherited was amazing that Nebraska was competitive in all games. I guarantee you that had Bo remained that the record, given no Ameer, no Kenny, no Randy, no DPE, is probably near identical to Rileys, maybe one game better at best, but know full well Nebraska would have been dismantled a time or two. We know that because it happened with those 4 players while Bo was head coach

 

And I guarantee he would have won 9 games, because that's the established trend. Hell, if Bo was still here, there's no guarantee that Randy leaves early, or DPE gets hurt.

 

See how useless this argument is?

 

 

 

Keep dreaming buddy. When I already establishd that in 2014 Bo and Nebraska don't win 7 games against an inferior schedule to that of 2015, with Ameer, Kenny, Randy and DPE. Bo's house of cars was about to fall at Nebraska; recruting misses, roster mismangement, player development. But I digress

 

Your opinion does not equal fact, because the variables will change simply by virtue of who was the HC.

 

Kenny, Ameer, Randy and DPE not being on the team in 2015 and being difference makers that allowed Nebraska to win games in 2014 ( McNeese St, Miami, Iowa) that they otherwise don't without them, isn't opinion. Straight fact

 

Maybe Bo's staff would have been able to do a better job of coaching the holdover players and they would have been able to replace the "difference makers" that were lost. All your arguments are pure conjecture at this point.

 

Conjecture simply because you don't like it. lmao

 

No, because that's how arguments & words work.

[ColoradoHusk]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not making excuses for anyone. I wanted Bo to succeed. And want Riley to do well Facts are facts. I am just nuts and bolts, meat and potatoes, see things as they are type fan.

I am a "facts are facts" guy, too. Riley and his staff (especially Banker) flat out sucked last year, that's a fact. I hope he does better and turns things around, but he will have to make vast improvements from his historical performance in order to make NU a champion program again.

 

You can be mad at Riley all you want, your right. Not going to tell you how to feel or think. But given what Riley inherited was amazing that Nebraska was competitive in all games. I guarantee you that had Bo remained that the record, given no Ameer, no Kenny, no Randy, no DPE, is probably near identical to Rileys, maybe one game better at best, but know full well Nebraska would have been dismantled a time or two. We know that because it happened with those 4 players while Bo was head coach

 

And I guarantee he would have won 9 games, because that's the established trend. Hell, if Bo was still here, there's no guarantee that Randy leaves early, or DPE gets hurt.

 

See how useless this argument is?

 

 

 

Keep dreaming buddy. When I already establishd that in 2014 Bo and Nebraska don't win 7 games against an inferior schedule to that of 2015, with Ameer, Kenny, Randy and DPE. Bo's house of cars was about to fall at Nebraska; recruting misses, roster mismangement, player development. But I digress

 

Your opinion does not equal fact, because the variables will change simply by virtue of who was the HC.

 

Kenny, Ameer, Randy and DPE not being on the team in 2015 and being difference makers that allowed Nebraska to win games in 2014 ( McNeese St, Miami, Iowa) that they otherwise don't without them, isn't opinion. Straight fact

 

Maybe Bo's staff would have been able to do a better job of coaching the holdover players and they would have been able to replace the "difference makers" that were lost. All your arguments are pure conjecture at this point.

 

Conjecture simply because you don't like it. lmao

 

No, because that's how arguments & words work.

 

WERDS R HARD!!!

[cm husker]

A partial list of schools that were never able to beat Bo Pelini:

 

Alabama

LSU

Mississippi

Florida

USC

Oregon

Stanford

Notre Dame

 

Also, he never lost a national championship game or playoff game.

 

No context needed. The facts are right here.

 

Pretty sure he never lost to the '85 Bears, but we'll need to confirm.

[drew95]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not making excuses for anyone. I wanted Bo to succeed. And want Riley to do well Facts are facts. I am just nuts and bolts, meat and potatoes, see things as they are type fan.

I am a "facts are facts" guy, too. Riley and his staff (especially Banker) flat out sucked last year, that's a fact. I hope he does better and turns things around, but he will have to make vast improvements from his historical performance in order to make NU a champion program again.

You can be mad at Riley all you want, your right. Not going to tell you how to feel or think. But given what Riley inherited was amazing that Nebraska was competitive in all games. I guarantee you that had Bo remained that the record, given no Ameer, no Kenny, no Randy, no DPE, is probably near identical to Rileys, maybe one game better at best, but know full well Nebraska would have been dismantled a time or two. We know that because it happened with those 4 players while Bo was head coach

And I guarantee he would have won 9 games, because that's the established trend. Hell, if Bo was still here, there's no guarantee that Randy leaves early, or DPE gets hurt.

 

See how useless this argument is?

 

Keep dreaming buddy. When I already establishd that in 2014 Bo and Nebraska don't win 7 games against an inferior schedule to that of 2015, with Ameer, Kenny, Randy and DPE. Bo's house of cars was about to fall at Nebraska; recruting misses, roster mismangement, player development. But I digress

Your opinion does not equal fact, because the variables will change simply by virtue of who was the HC.

Kenny, Ameer, Randy and DPE not being on the team in 2015 and being difference makers that allowed Nebraska to win games in 2014 ( McNeese St, Miami, Iowa) that they otherwise don't without them, isn't opinion. Straight fact

Maybe Bo's staff would have been able to do a better job of coaching the holdover players and they would have been able to replace the "difference makers" that were lost. All your arguments are pure conjecture at this point.

Conjecture simply because you don't like it. lmao

No, because that's how arguments & words work.

WERDS R HARD!!!

2014 Nebraska; 6-6 record or worse without Ameer, Randy, DPE and Kenny. But somehow you think Bo is going to coax the team to 9 wins in 2015 against a much more difficult schedule without those 4. When the roster mismanagement, recruiting failures really started to spread the cracks wide open in the foundation of this program. Conjecture, wishful thinking, for sure.

[Guy Chamberlin]

I think Bo might have coached last year's team to 9 wins.

 

At which point we would have fired him.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not making excuses for anyone. I wanted Bo to succeed. And want Riley to do well Facts are facts. I am just nuts and bolts, meat and potatoes, see things as they are type fan.

I am a "facts are facts" guy, too. Riley and his staff (especially Banker) flat out sucked last year, that's a fact. I hope he does better and turns things around, but he will have to make vast improvements from his historical performance in order to make NU a champion program again.

You can be mad at Riley all you want, your right. Not going to tell you how to feel or think. But given what Riley inherited was amazing that Nebraska was competitive in all games. I guarantee you that had Bo remained that the record, given no Ameer, no Kenny, no Randy, no DPE, is probably near identical to Rileys, maybe one game better at best, but know full well Nebraska would have been dismantled a time or two. We know that because it happened with those 4 players while Bo was head coach

And I guarantee he would have won 9 games, because that's the established trend. Hell, if Bo was still here, there's no guarantee that Randy leaves early, or DPE gets hurt.

 

See how useless this argument is?

 

Keep dreaming buddy. When I already establishd that in 2014 Bo and Nebraska don't win 7 games against an inferior schedule to that of 2015, with Ameer, Kenny, Randy and DPE. Bo's house of cars was about to fall at Nebraska; recruting misses, roster mismangement, player development. But I digress

Your opinion does not equal fact, because the variables will change simply by virtue of who was the HC.

Kenny, Ameer, Randy and DPE not being on the team in 2015 and being difference makers that allowed Nebraska to win games in 2014 ( McNeese St, Miami, Iowa) that they otherwise don't without them, isn't opinion. Straight fact

Maybe Bo's staff would have been able to do a better job of coaching the holdover players and they would have been able to replace the "difference makers" that were lost. All your arguments are pure conjecture at this point.

Conjecture simply because you don't like it. lmao

No, because that's how arguments & words work.

WERDS R HARD!!!

2014 Nebraska; 6-6 record or worse without Ameer, Randy, DPE and Kenny. But somehow you think Bo is going to coax the team to 9 wins in 2015 against a much more difficult schedule without those 4. When the roster mismanagement, recruiting failures really started to spread the cracks wide open in the foundation of this program. Conjecture, wishful thinking, for sure.

Take the 4 best contributors off any team and they will struggle.

 

But what oh what did we do before those 4?

[admo]

First, some background:

 

There are exponents available for turning college football points into a Pythagorean win percentage, but I'm more interested in another concept: second-order wins. That basically takes the same idea but uses advanced stats of some sort to determine not simply what you did score and allow, but what you should have scored and allowed.

My new ratings are based on margins in categories related to my Five Factors: efficiency, explosiveness, field position, finishing drives, turnovers/luck. As I flesh the system out with previous years of data, I'm able to basically use these margins to determine both what was your most likely scoring margin in a given game and, based on the plays that took place, your likelihood of winning a given game.

To further explain the second part of that last sentence, it basically says "If you took all the plays in this game, tossed them up in the air, and had them land in a random order, you'd win this game XX% of the time." It is a single-game win likelihood concept, and with it, we can look at wins and losses not as zeroes and ones, but as percentages. And if you're winning a lot of "You'd have won this game 60 percent of the time" games, you're probably getting a little bit lucky. And as with everything else, that luck is likely to change over time.

 

SB Nation

 

Top Overachieving Coaches (min. 4 seasons since 2005):

 

18 - Frank Solich - +0.56 wins per year

22 - Bo Pelini - +0.51 wins per year

23 - Turner Gill - +0.50 wins per year

 

Others:

 

Mike Riley - +0.16 wins per year

This makes my head spin.

 

Mav, does this make sense to you? I guess I'm struggling to see that "half of a win per year" is overachieving. Or I am just not putting it together. Help.

[Mavric]

 

First, some background:

 

There are exponents available for turning college football points into a Pythagorean win percentage, but I'm more interested in another concept: second-order wins. That basically takes the same idea but uses advanced stats of some sort to determine not simply what you did score and allow, but what you should have scored and allowed.

My new ratings are based on margins in categories related to my Five Factors: efficiency, explosiveness, field position, finishing drives, turnovers/luck. As I flesh the system out with previous years of data, I'm able to basically use these margins to determine both what was your most likely scoring margin in a given game and, based on the plays that took place, your likelihood of winning a given game.

To further explain the second part of that last sentence, it basically says "If you took all the plays in this game, tossed them up in the air, and had them land in a random order, you'd win this game XX% of the time." It is a single-game win likelihood concept, and with it, we can look at wins and losses not as zeroes and ones, but as percentages. And if you're winning a lot of "You'd have won this game 60 percent of the time" games, you're probably getting a little bit lucky. And as with everything else, that luck is likely to change over time.

 

SB Nation

 

Top Overachieving Coaches (min. 4 seasons since 2005):

 

18 - Frank Solich - +0.56 wins per year

22 - Bo Pelini - +0.51 wins per year

23 - Turner Gill - +0.50 wins per year

 

Others:

 

Mike Riley - +0.16 wins per year

This makes my head spin.

 

Mav, does this make sense to you? I guess I'm struggling to see that "half of a win per year" is overachieving. Or I am just not putting it together. Help.

 

Not gonna lie, I haven't looked into it enough to understand how they're actually calculating it.

 

But as far as what qualifies as overachieving, they're basically just running their formula and raking the coaches based on what the calculations spit out.

 

The best coach in their formula was just over one game per year. Obviously the differences are pretty slim but it's just one way to try to find differences in coaching over time. The stats say they shouldn't have won as much as they did but they managed to still get an extra W here and there.

[admo]

Ah, ok thanks.

[Landlord]

2014 Nebraska; 6-6 record or worse without Ameer, Randy, DPE and Kenny.

 

 

Prove it.

[Kiyoat Husker]

This is interesting. The title is a little bit misleading. In my mind, whether a coach is overachieving or underachieving is directly related to talent vs. achievement. This calculation disregards talent completely (which is a hard thing to define anyway).

 

Instead he(she) is looking at things like field position, finishing drives, etc. Really this is more a measure of "winning in spite of yourself" since being in bad field position and not finishing drives would be your own fault anyway. I still agree that coaches that win in spite of themselves aren't simply lucky, but to me this is only one small part of being an overachieving coach.

 

I agree that Pelini was particularly good at doing that - willing his team to victory, somehow. I didn't realize that Frank was even better.

[Redux]

I think Bo Pelini's record for 2014 (with RG because he would have stayed maybe) looks like this:

 

BYU- W

USA- W

@Miami- L (just because he had a tendency to lose our big OOC road game: VaTech, UCLA. But this could definitely been a Bo win)

SMiss- W

@ILL- W

Wiscy- L

@Minny- W

NW- W (Maybe a win, probably a loss. Total Toss up for me.)

@Purdue- W

MSU- L

@Rutgers- W

Iowa- L

 

You could swap NW and Miami in my book and either way the season ends 8-4. We probably get a slightly better bowl or maybe not, so 8-5 or 9-4.

 

Is that what we want? I don't. Guy was right above, we still end up firing him so it really doesn't make a difference. We may as well have fired him after 2013 when he said they could fire him if they wanted to.

 

Do we end up with HCMR if he was fired in '13 or'15? That's the real question.

[Mavric]

This is interesting. The title is a little bit misleading. In my mind, whether a coach is overachieving or underachieving is directly related to talent vs. achievement. This calculation disregards talent completely (which is a hard thing to define anyway).

 

Instead he(she) is looking at things like field position, finishing drives, etc. Really this is more a measure of "winning in spite of yourself" since being in bad field position and not finishing drives would be your own fault anyway. I still agree that coaches that win in spite of themselves aren't simply lucky, but to me this is only one small part of being an overachieving coach.

 

I agree that Pelini was particularly good at doing that - willing his team to victory, somehow. I didn't realize that Frank was even better.

 

I do agree that it seems to be somewhat "winning in spite of yourself." And they did mention that it's still kind of a small sample size.

 

But over four years if you're getting an extra couple wins - or an extra couple losses - there would seem to be something to it. Handling the situation well or getting yourself out of a jam.

 

The problem I have with the "talent vs. achievement" rankings is I think it can be misleading. If you're a terrible recruiter but a decent coach, it looks like you score high on that metric. If you're a good recruiter and a good coach, you look average when you're probably near the top because you're doing all facets well.