It's interesting that Reader would say this given that he's the one that introduced said standard, but I'll assume he can't or doesn't want to explain it.
It makes no sense to use the last couple of years for Saban, because Alabama is favored in every game they play at this point. If we're comparing hin to Butch, we would look at his first few years there, when he showed signs of what was coming by beating a ranked McFadden-led Arkansas team and destroying Tennessee in 2007. He did the same at LSU, where he inherited a 3-8 team and beat #11 Tennessee and #13 MSU in year one before beating a top-5 Tennessee team to win the SEC in year 2.
It shouldn't be that hard to come to a consensus on which teams are better, but if objective metrics really tickle your fancy that much, you're welcome to use the Vegas favorites. That has obvious flaws, like the fact that in October people thought Georgia was actually good, or the fact that those lines become more friendly to us because we choked away the month of September, but it is what it is.
Either way, this strikes me as nitpicking just to nitpick because none of this will substantively change the answer to my question. But, I've gotten used to people like Reader avoiding my questions and/or responding with their own questions, so it's nothing new.
So, to make sure I understand you, Saban gets a pass when he loses games when he is favored in Vegas now because at some point you believe he didnt?
Or, in the alternative, you appear to be saying that it isn't fair to judge Saban as underperforming in relation to expectations set by objective third parties, who are really good at predicting sports outcomes, because those expectations can change and deform given continued changing circumstances and new data.
But yes, objective sports metrics are "my thing". In fact, they have been a big part of my career for several years now. Objectively, Saban has not ever performed outside of a standard deviation above predictions based on either proactive or retroactive talent analysis, in fact, he has trended below those expectation lines for his whole career. He relies, probably more than any coach in the top 10 teams, on talent to win games instead of his ability to improvise and adapt.
There are no coaches who out recruit Saban, but there are many who could out coach him given the same, or similar talent. In aggregate, this means Saban wins many games (talent matters more than coaching in most events), but that isn't to be confused with saying that Saban's coaching wins those games. In fact, Richt got fired for having a lomg career of actually being more stable in relation to his talent than Saban, but his talent levels were never as high as Saban, and his talent was slowly declining.
The end result is that Saban is probably the most valuable coach in football because recruiting will make him favorites in every game he plays, and thus he will win most games he stands on the sidelines, not because he is performing to any sort of objective trend analysis. Jones, on the other hand, is performing at a similar trend line at UT (above it if one aggregates his career), but is seen as underperforming.