SevenEleven
New Fish
Last edited:
Peterman - worst power 5 coach
- Thread starter SevenEleven
- Start date
puppylove_sugarsteel
Asshole Emeritus
Oh fer fuck sakes here we go. In 3-4 more years he'll be the best so fuck you punto
CokeGreaterThanPepsi
New Fish
By the nature of the matrix it would not be possible for Peterman to be the best in this study. UW recruits at too high of a level. But your poont stands.
Last edited:
ThomasFremont
New Fish
While I want to agree with you, you said the same thing about Sark, and therefore you cannot be trusted.
#BlindSquirrel
Sarkingham
Member
So CFB Matrix thinks UW should've gone 12-2? His sweatpants were tighter than anyone here.
greenblood
New Fish
I like how this poll measure a coaches performance to his talent on the roster, however, it doesn't account for the coach recruiting those great players to begin with.
So if you recruit a bunch of 5 star guys, and you finish the year 12-1, you're going to get a lower rank than a 3-8 coach because you had better players? Shouldn't you get credit for bringing in the better players in the first place?
College coaching is about 80% game planning, in-game adjustments, playcalling, etc. But I'd argue that there is a very important 20% that requires you to have talent as well. Urban Meyer could coach Kentucky next season, and he might get them to 8-9 wins, but without the necessary talent, he isn't close to sniffing a SEC title.
So if you recruit a bunch of 5 star guys, and you finish the year 12-1, you're going to get a lower rank than a 3-8 coach because you had better players? Shouldn't you get credit for bringing in the better players in the first place?
College coaching is about 80% game planning, in-game adjustments, playcalling, etc. But I'd argue that there is a very important 20% that requires you to have talent as well. Urban Meyer could coach Kentucky next season, and he might get them to 8-9 wins, but without the necessary talent, he isn't close to sniffing a SEC title.
Last edited:
CokeGreaterThanPepsi
New Fish
Deleted...
Last edited:
CokeGreaterThanPepsi
New Fish
Yup, it is naturally flawed. He actually has a great formula for picking records before the season is even close to starting. But this one for coach effect is naturally flawed because the worst recruiters are rewarded and the best recruiters are punished.
That is surprising actually. I thought Oregon, Stanford, and UCLA had all recruited better?
whatshouldicareabout
Active poster
According to that matrix, Mike Leach is the 10th best coach in the country.
I can't stop laughing.
I can't stop laughing.
greenblood
New Fish
I guess the developer doesn't watch the red-zone channel
Between this and SRS ranking a 2-6 SEC team #10, I'm about to give up on advanced metrics in college football.
They did.
oregonblitzkrieg
New Fish
l-o-l
CokeGreaterThanPepsi
New Fish
I messed up, CFBmatrix was doogin big time based off of only their numbers... Coach Effect is based on loosing games you were predicted to win, based on talent and field advantage combined. Here is what they said prior to the season about UW:
"They have a higher talent ranking than ten of the teams on their schedule for a talent only baseline record of 10-3. Adjust up 2 games for home wins versus Stanford and UCLA and the record is 12-1. Down -1 games for a new head coach and have 11-2 with my favorite middle number at 10.5."
So the -4 comes from loosing to Stanford, ASU, UCLA and Arizona.
"They have a higher talent ranking than ten of the teams on their schedule for a talent only baseline record of 10-3. Adjust up 2 games for home wins versus Stanford and UCLA and the record is 12-1. Down -1 games for a new head coach and have 11-2 with my favorite middle number at 10.5."
So the -4 comes from loosing to Stanford, ASU, UCLA and Arizona.
CokeGreaterThanPepsi
New Fish
That is so FUCKINGLY STUPID, I can't even abbreviate FUCKINGLY STUPID.