expectations for a coaching hire (whenever one may be required)

[beorach]

Preface/disclaimer/BS: I waited longer than most to join this conversation, right?  Maybe things will change but I'm looking at things the same way I did in 2014 (and those posts are still around thanks to this swell website we frequent) because, like Bill Moos, I like to be prepared.  Those old posts featured a different methodology, in terms of calculations (don't think I was using z-scores back then), and coaches have changed places but I digress.

 

Do we need to get a guy to get us back in the top 25 regularly first so we can hire a guy to take the next step or are people expecting Bill Moos to hire the latter immediately somehow?  We're not Kansas but our current state has to affect the process, right?  Hiring a coach is always going to involve some risk but it stands to reason that your program's attractiveness factors in, I mean.  p.s. - Do we need a guy who has multiple full seasons experience as a HC already?  p.p.s. - Can we break the rules and get a great OC and DC with an administrative head coach?  Let's get Joe Moglia, Brett Venables, and <insert greatest OC out there here>...taking care to spend the big dollars on the coordinators (who can bring whomever but the HC has to deal with whomever we can get as far as those coordinators go).  While I'm dreaming, would it be as crazy to think we hire a great OL coach to be our OC?  Michigan State's guy isn't too long in the tooth and they've always impressed.

 

I know we all discussed another expectation that Eichorst failed to prioritize.  We want our team to run the ball first and see the return of the Blackshirts.  I guess the latter is generic (have a great defense) but the former is no longer the norm.  I have two spreadsheets running now (one with stats from all games between FBS teams and the other from all games between conference teams) and decided to focus only on rushing d, rushing o, scoring d, and turnover margin to figure out what teams out there are the toughest.  The only problem with the data right now (aside from it only being data - ;)) is some teams have only played a couple of conference games to date this season.  The lists are as follows:

 

All FBS Games Sample Top 25 "Toughest" Teams w/o SOS adjustment

1	Alabama
2	South Florida
3	Notre Dame
4	UCF
5	Ohio State
6	Penn State
7	Georgia
8	Auburn
9	Wisconsin
10	Clemson
11	Washington
12	TCU
13	Miami (Florida)
14	Wake Forest
15	North Carolina State
16	Stanford
17	Kansas State
18	Virginia Tech
19	UTSA
20	Michigan State
21	Michigan
22	San Diego State
23	Duke
24	Oklahoma
25	Appalachian State

 

Nebraska is 89th by this rationale.

 

All FBS Games Sample Top 25 "Toughest" Teams w/ SOS adjustment

1	Alabama
2	Notre Dame
3	Ohio State
4	Penn State
5	Clemson
6	Georgia
7	Auburn
8	Wisconsin
9	South Florida
10	UCF
11	Stanford
12	Miami (Florida)
13	North Carolina State
14	Washington
15	TCU
16	Michigan State
17	Wake Forest
18	Michigan
19	Oklahoma
20	San Diego State
21	Duke
22	Kansas State
23	USC
24	Virginia Tech
25	Oklahoma State

 

Nebraska is 80th by this rationale.

 

Conference Games Only Sample Top 25 "Toughest" Teams w/o SOS adjustment

1	South Florida
2	Alabama
3	Ohio State
4	Toledo
5	Georgia
6	Fresno State
7	Washington
8	Auburn
9	UCF
10	Clemson
11	Michigan State
12	TCU
13	Florida Atlantic
14	Marshall
15	Rice
16	Wisconsin
17	North Carolina State
18	Boise State
19	Appalachian State
20	Penn State
21	Tulane
22	Southern Mississippi
23	Georgia Tech
24	South Alabama
25	Western Michigan

 

Nebraska is 100th by this rationale.

 

Conference Games Only Sample Top 25 "Toughest" Teams w/ SOS adjustment

1	TCU
2	Boise State
3	Clemson
4	Michigan State
5	Tulane
6	South Alabama
7	Charlotte
8	Utah State
9	Toledo
10	Wyoming
11	North Carolina State
12	Georgia Southern
13	Appalachian State
14	Colorado State
15	Florida State
16	Southern Mississippi
17	Stanford
18	Miami (Florida)
19	Texas
20	Wake Forest
21	Washington
22	San Diego State
23	Northern Illinois
24	Wisconsin
25	South Florida

 

Nebraska is 94th by this rationale.

 

Edited October 20, 2017 by beorach

[brophog]

Turnovers regress to the mean heavily from year to year due to randomness. They should not be used in any such analysis, despite their impact on wins. They'll just add noise.

 

 

[beorach]

2 minutes ago, brophog said:

Turnovers regress to the mean heavily from year to year due to randomness. They should not be used in any such analysis, despite their impact on wins. They'll just add noise.

 

 

 

I don't know.  Our fumbling problems have largely disappeared (84th percentile using the all FBS games sample) since Bo became a Penguin.  We still aren't forcing fumbles, of course  (15th percentile from same sample).  Queue a point about WR drops...