Direct from the spin machine

[TierbsHsotBoobs]

If we are referring to Missouri Gary Pinkel then where is Sark's 27 years of coaching experience, 7 years of coordinating experience and 10 years of head coaching experience?

After his first two seasons, Pinkel was 38-27 in conference play for a school with no tradition and no advantage and in a conference that included Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas A&M and Colorado.

Sven, your fill of shit. Missouri has been very lucky to have Pinkel. The shame or joke is that UW hired Gilby & Lambo with Pinkel never getting a shot. Pinkel probably would have kept UW in the top 15 regularly. I don't think he's a top 10 coach and I wouldn't hire him now but I think he would have done quite well at UW over a long period. Comparing Sark to Pinkel is way beyond me. Someone pulled that one deep from their fartbox.

Pinkel's first six years at Missouri:
2001 Missouri 4–7 3–5 T–4th (North)
2002 Missouri 5–7 2–6 5th (North)
2003 Missouri 8–5 4–4 3rd (North) L Independence
2004 Missouri 5–6 3–5 T–3rd (North)
2005 Missouri 7–5 4–4 T–2nd (North) W Independence
2006 Missouri 8–5 4–4 T–2nd (North)

Name one REAL football school in America that would have kept him after year 4, much less year 6.

He's done some nice things there, but he is only 49-48 career at Missouri in conference play. Sark's conference record is better than that.

Yet despite being so average unlike Sark still managed to win more than 7 games a few times in his career.

Sark is a worse version of stellar coaches like Pinkel, Gailey, Neuheisel, and Tedford.

Win a BCS bowl and you don't deserve to be in that list.

 

[Mad_Son]

As far as I can tell the problem with Pinkel is not his ability to coach but his ability to recruit. He performs better than his talent would suggest an average coach would. He does not bring in sufficient talent to reach an acceptable standard though, relative to his capabilities.

 

[dnc]

As far as I can tell the problem with Pinkel is not his ability to coach but his ability to recruit. He performs better than his talent would suggest an average coach would. He does not bring in sufficient talent to reach an acceptable standard though, relative to his capabilities.

Bingo. And that's why trying to remove the players variable from college coaching doesn't tell us much, IMO, because the coaches are largely responsible for obtaining the players. Obviously recruiting to Alabama is easier than recruiting to Michigan State, and we need to adjust for context. But Pinkel's recruiting is nothing special, even for Mizzu. He'd probably be better at UW since UW naturally attracts better players than Mizzu, and he can clearly coach 'em up, but we'd still likely be dissatisfied with him, just not as dissatisfied as we have been the last couple of clowns (Sark is better than Ty!)

 

[greenearplugs]

As far as I can tell the problem with Pinkel is not his ability to coach but his ability to recruit. He performs better than his talent would suggest an average coach would. He does not bring in sufficient talent to reach an acceptable standard though, relative to his capabilities.

Yeah kinda seems like it. I was basing my previous statement on Pinkel (which may have been a bit overboard) based on the fact that he does seem to do well with the talent he has (not great, but clearly is above average in the "coaching effect" stats).

But i guess that is a major flaw in some of these stats. A coach could have a good "coaching effect" simply because he is a shitty recruiter but a decent developer of talent/gameday coach. Obviously you need some way to factor in recruiting ability as well.

 

[Swaye]

There is a lot of football talk in this thread. Somebody call IMALOSER. Wait, he died in a fire.

 

[Mad_Son]

As far as I can tell the problem with Pinkel is not his ability to coach but his ability to recruit. He performs better than his talent would suggest an average coach would. He does not bring in sufficient talent to reach an acceptable standard though, relative to his capabilities.

Yeah kinda seems like it. I was basing my previous statement on Pinkel (which may have been a bit overboard) based on the fact that he does seem to do well with the talent he has (not great, but clearly is above average in the "coaching effect" stats).

But i guess that is a major flaw in some of these stats. A coach could have a good "coaching effect" simply because he is a shitty recruiter but a decent developer of talent/gameday coach. Obviously you need some way to factor in recruiting ability as well.

Problem is if you're going to look at it that way then if you find the guys who bring in the best talent and are also great at developing talent, then you might as well just look at wins

What you need to do is find a way to remove the circumstance variables - tradition, location, etc. That would be the golden goose but I suspect some of those factors are temporally variable enough that it would be possible to de-trend.

 

[TierbsHsotBoobs]

As far as I can tell the problem with Pinkel is not his ability to coach but his ability to recruit. He performs better than his talent would suggest an average coach would. He does not bring in sufficient talent to reach an acceptable standard though, relative to his capabilities.

Yeah kinda seems like it. I was basing my previous statement on Pinkel (which may have been a bit overboard) based on the fact that he does seem to do well with the talent he has (not great, but clearly is above average in the "coaching effect" stats).

But i guess that is a major flaw in some of these stats. A coach could have a good "coaching effect" simply because he is a shitty recruiter but a decent developer of talent/gameday coach. Obviously you need some way to factor in recruiting ability as well.

Problem is if you're going to look at it that way then if you find the guys who bring in the best talent and are also great at developing talent, then you might as well just look at wins

What you need to do is find a way to remove the circumstance variables - tradition, location, etc. That would be the golden goose but I suspect some of those factors are temporally variable enough that it would be possible to de-trend.

See Oregon and Washington for details.

 

[dnc]

As far as I can tell the problem with Pinkel is not his ability to coach but his ability to recruit. He performs better than his talent would suggest an average coach would. He does not bring in sufficient talent to reach an acceptable standard though, relative to his capabilities.

Yeah kinda seems like it. I was basing my previous statement on Pinkel (which may have been a bit overboard) based on the fact that he does seem to do well with the talent he has (not great, but clearly is above average in the "coaching effect" stats).

But i guess that is a major flaw in some of these stats. A coach could have a good "coaching effect" simply because he is a shitty recruiter but a decent developer of talent/gameday coach. Obviously you need some way to factor in recruiting ability as well.

Problem is if you're going to look at it that way then if you find the guys who bring in the best talent and are also great at developing talent, then you might as well just look at wins

What you need to do is find a way to remove the circumstance variables - tradition, location, etc. That would be the golden goose but I suspect some of those factors are temporally variable enough that it would be possible to de-trend.

Where's AuburnDave when you need him?

 

[Swaye]

As far as I can tell the problem with Pinkel is not his ability to coach but his ability to recruit. He performs better than his talent would suggest an average coach would. He does not bring in sufficient talent to reach an acceptable standard though, relative to his capabilities.

Yeah kinda seems like it. I was basing my previous statement on Pinkel (which may have been a bit overboard) based on the fact that he does seem to do well with the talent he has (not great, but clearly is above average in the "coaching effect" stats).

But i guess that is a major flaw in some of these stats. A coach could have a good "coaching effect" simply because he is a shitty recruiter but a decent developer of talent/gameday coach. Obviously you need some way to factor in recruiting ability as well.

Problem is if you're going to look at it that way then if you find the guys who bring in the best talent and are also great at developing talent, then you might as well just look at wins

What you need to do is find a way to remove the circumstance variables - tradition, location, etc. That would be the golden goose but I suspect some of those factors are temporally variable enough that it would be possible to de-trend.

the fuck is de-trend?

#ihatewhenpeoplearesmarterthanme

 

[Mad_Son]

As far as I can tell the problem with Pinkel is not his ability to coach but his ability to recruit. He performs better than his talent would suggest an average coach would. He does not bring in sufficient talent to reach an acceptable standard though, relative to his capabilities.

Yeah kinda seems like it. I was basing my previous statement on Pinkel (which may have been a bit overboard) based on the fact that he does seem to do well with the talent he has (not great, but clearly is above average in the "coaching effect" stats).

But i guess that is a major flaw in some of these stats. A coach could have a good "coaching effect" simply because he is a shitty recruiter but a decent developer of talent/gameday coach. Obviously you need some way to factor in recruiting ability as well.

Problem is if you're going to look at it that way then if you find the guys who bring in the best talent and are also great at developing talent, then you might as well just look at wins

What you need to do is find a way to remove the circumstance variables - tradition, location, etc. That would be the golden goose but I suspect some of those factors are temporally variable enough that it would be possible to de-trend.

the fuck is de-trend?

#ihatewhenpeoplearesmarterthanme

To remove the trend!

Some of the coaches a result produces will be inherent in his own capabilities but part of it will be result of the circumstances he is provided. Obviously any given coach will probably get different results if he coaches at WSU versus if he coaches at Alabama. Ok, maybe that is a bad example. #HiMikePrice Anyways, if the amount of help you got from coaching at Bama was constant over time and the amount of hurt you got from coaching at WSU was also constant over time, it would be easy by comparing different coaches to remove the effect (trend) of the school. Since that effect surely changes over time (Minnesota was probably an easier place to coach at in 1960 than it is now) it makes it hard to identify the trend and remove it to isolate a coach's contribution to the results.

 

[RaceBannon]

Winners win. HTH