PSA: Tennessee's Win % Ranking Snapshots

[LWSVOL]

lets talk players for a minute how many games do you think Saben would have won with just medicore players instead of all 4 and 5 star players any one can win with those kinds of players but then look at the coach at Boise State for years he had top ten team with medicore players so I ask you do you think winning is from the players or coach.

great coaches get great players which is why they win championships. history shows you recruit top players you are more likely to win national championships.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...Vsl1FQOyT28UiP4S9FCMLez7M/edit#gid=1297148215

 

[daj2576]

Kiffin was not a discount coach. We paid that staff a ton.

To the general point:

Remember that Neyland was already an ROTC instructor on campus...

That turned out okay, I think.

Tl;Dr

The guy our stadium was named after was literally hired as a side job.

 

[Boca Vol]

To the general point:

Remember that Neyland was already an ROTC instructor on campus...

That turned out okay, I think.

Tl;Dr

The guy our stadium was named after was literally hired as a side job.

Not sure what your point is.

The post I quoted mentioned Kiffin as a discount coach and mentioned Shoop as a legitimate hire.

I would say Monte Kiffin, Ed Orgeron, Jim Chaney, & Justin Wilcox were legitimate hires as well.

Going back nearly 100 years to the Neyland hire is pretty irrelevant compared to 2016...which is sort of ironic in that Neyland helped get it to where it is today. But you're not going to comb the ROTC's and find the next Neyland.

 

[daj2576]

lets talk players for a minute how many games do you think Saben would have won with just medicore players instead of all 4 and 5 star players any one can win with those kinds of players but then look at the coach at Boise State for years he had top ten team with medicore players so I ask you do you think winning is from the players or coach.

the myth of Saban is created because most people and pundits can't distinguish coaching from recruiting.

For instance: going back to 2005, only 1 team has won the national championship with a team that had a worse 4 year trailing recruiting average.

In other words, the team that recruited better than their opponent has won 11 national champions in a row. Can that really be attributed to outstanding coaching? In a way this is so obvious that it's easy to ignore. Consider an exploded example to help visualize. Would you call the coach of an NFL team great because his team beat a middle school team?

During the regular season, the team with the better average wins 70% of the time, with a very few exceptions that trend significantly above or below that line.

Historically, by any matrices I've reviewed, Saban under-performs over long periods of time. This is irrelevant because he knows how to stockpile talent that wins games (it's a similar model used by Fulmer). It's only relevant if one considers the question of replacing coach X with Saban for a hypothetical year. In that situation the results would likely be 2-3 games below what an "average" coach would achieve. But, give him the ability to bring in talent, fill holes, move the pieces around, and you'll start to see championships because he out classes his competition on the field and is a competent coach.

Bottom line, pick a game that Bama has lost under Saban, and you'll find that he lost to a team with less talent. That means that the coach people find to be the gold standard, was flat out- coached.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

Not sure what your point is.

The post I quoted mentioned Kiffin as a discount coach and mentioned Shoop as a legitimate hire.

I would say Monte Kiffin, Ed Orgeron, Jim Chaney, & Justin Wilcox were legitimate hires as well.

Going back nearly 100 years to the Neyland hire is pretty irrelevant compared to 2016...which is sort of ironic in that Neyland helped get it to where it is today. But you're not going to comb the ROTC's and find the next Neyland.

Trying to put coaching salaries for that era into today’s dollars requires, first and foremost, a heck of a lot of adjustment for inflation. Second, for comparative purposes, I have no idea what Knute Rockne, for example, made at Notre Dame in 1926, when Neyland first became head coach at Tennessee. However, Lennox Baker, who would later become a famous orthopedic surgeon, was a student at UT in 1926 and was Neyland’s first team trainer. According to Baker (fast-forward to roughly the 2:30 mark of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBWJgoBZTeM), “I remember him as Captain Neyland; we showed up there together in 1925. . . . He was the end coach . . . and was making $750 a year for coaching the ends and they were paying me $60 a month, nine months out of the year, for $540 a year.” Dr. Baker did not indicate how much of a salary bump that then-Capt. Neyland received after becoming head coach the following year, but I believe that we can safely assume by any standard that hiring Robert Reese Neyland was the best value that any football program ever lucked into for a Hall of Fame-caliber coach.

 

[daj2576]

Not sure what your point is.

The post I quoted mentioned Kiffin as a discount coach and mentioned Shoop as a legitimate hire.

I would say Monte Kiffin, Ed Orgeron, Jim Chaney, & Justin Wilcox were legitimate hires as well.

Going back nearly 100 years to the Neyland hire is pretty irrelevant compared to 2016...which is sort of ironic in that Neyland helped get it to where it is today. But you're not going to comb the ROTC's and find the next Neyland.

The point was the last sentence.

That, if the view espoused on this board was used in about 1926, Neyland would be an objectively bad hire. Hell, he wasn't even a football coach.

It's just a funny perspective to look to history through a modern lens. I wasn't really agreeing, or disagreeing, with anything you said.

 

[bamawriter]

the myth of Saban is created because most people and pundits can't distinguish coaching from recruiting.

For instance: going back to 2005, only 1 team has won the national championship with a team that had a worse 4 year trailing recruiting average...

...Bottom line, pick a game that Bama has lost under Saban, and you'll find that he lost to a team with less talent. That means that the coach people find to be the gold standard, was flat out- coached.

Nice logic there.

If Saban wins (which he does frequently), he's not a better coach than his opponent; he's simply got more talent.

If Saban loses (which he does, on average, once a year), then it proves he's a worse coach than his opponent because he has more talent.

Solid.