UT Underachieves Even with Poor Recruiting

#1
V

volholio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Messages
333
Likes
174
#1
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#2
#2
How do you equate recruiting rankings to success given the attrition that comes with any coaching change? Is that accounted for?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#6
#6
Ridiculous to try to compare recruiting rankings vs on field results in such a simplistic manner. It doesn't account for the 1000s of other factors that influence a teams performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#7
#7
computergeekvol said:
Ridiculous to try to compare recruiting rankings vs on field results in such a simplistic manner. It doesn't account for the 1000s of other factors that influence a teams performance.
Click to expand...

The author writes: "I built my data set using two sources. I used ratings created by Ken Massey, a statistician best known for his system of rating sports teams, to measure team success. The ratings take into account factors such as win-loss and strength of schedule, which allowed me to distinguish between two teams with an identical win-loss record. I then used recruiting data from Rivals to measure how well a team recruited in each year from 2002 to 2014.1 With that, I made a simple statistical model to predict where a team would finish in the ratings and compared the prediction to its actual 2014 rating.2"

He also writes: "The worst of the underachievers are Colorado, Illinois and Indiana. And unsurprisingly, several years of coaching changes, off-field distractions and underwhelming on-field performance have left the football powerhouses of Michigan, Miami and Tennessee among the underachievers."
 
#8
#8
volholio said:
I replicated the analysis for each season since 2005 to see which programs are habitually over- or underachieving.
Click to expand...

I do not see the purpose of this post OP. We know we have sucked for the last decade. We had the Kiffen/Doofus effect and the last years of Fulmer. Let's see the Clawfense, Sal's classic 1 and done defense just to name a couple of bad memories.

CBJ is going to achieve what we all want. He is getting the kids in now. We just need to get them out of diapers before we expect a Natty this year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#9
#9
Newsflash guys. Turns out going 5-7, 7-6, 6-7, 5-7, 5-7, 5-7, 7-6 is underperforming!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#10
#10
It's not just about UT; it's a fascinating look at results from recruiting over the last five years for every major school. I don't see how that CAN'T be interesting to us. Sheesh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#12
#12
volholio said:
"This analysis replicates the analysis for each season since 2005 to see which programs are habitually over- or underachieving."

It's over the last 5 year span. The coaching changes certainly play a role. Wisconsin seems to do the best.

Cutcliffe does well.

According to this we underachieved last year, but I don't think anyone would argue with that. Yes, we all admit we ended on a high note, etc. etc.
Click to expand...

How can you possibly believe that no one would argue with that? We did not underachieve in anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#13
#13
volholio said:
It's not just about UT; it's a fascinating look at results from recruiting over the last five years for every major school. I don't see how that CAN'T be interesting to us. Sheesh.
Click to expand...

You see your problem here was that you made a blanket statement about underachieving that seemed like it could possibly be linked to our current infallible coaching staff. Big no-no.

Obviously, the first reaction for most of VN was to claim the statistics didn't take in every possible factor and were consequently invalid.

If you had framed it more along the lines of "Butch has to overcome years of underachieving by this program," everyone here would be thanking you for the info right now.

I thought it was an interesting article. Thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#14
#14
GAVol said:
How do you equate recruiting rankings to success given the attrition that comes with any coaching change? Is that accounted for?
Click to expand...

The other major issue is that they don't seem to be looking at strength of schedule at all. They're simply saying you should finish here based on recruiting.

If he would have compared each teams recruiting and then used it to predict wins/losses, then it would have been much better
 
#15
#15
oregonvol said:
You see your problem here was that you made a blanket statement about underachieving that seemed like it could possible be linked to our current infallible coaching staff. Big no-no.

Obviously, the first reaction for most of VN was to claim the statistics didn't take in every possible factor and were consequently invalid.

If you had framed it more along the lines of "Butch has to overcome years of underachieving by this program," everyone here would be thanking you for the info right now.
Click to expand...

1. These stats are crap because they're not factoring in schedules at all. They're just saying "if your recruiting average is 1, you should finish in first".

2. To claim we underachieved last year is absurd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#17
#17
GAVol said:
How do you equate recruiting rankings to success given the attrition that comes with any coaching change? Is that accounted for?
Click to expand...

The last three NC winners had consistent top five classes according to the CFB pundits on NSD shows. :question:
 
#18
#18
orangeluvr said:
The last three NC winners had consistent top five classes according to the CFB pundits on NSD shows. :question:
Click to expand...

Did you quote the right person there? Because he's talking about stability and you're talking about recruiting rankings.
 
#20
#20
All that really needs to be said is that cherry picked data used to support a thin hypothesis is a classic cliche....garbage in...garbage out
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#21
#21
Probably not a bad evaluation. You have to admit teams like Wisconsin, Michigan State, GT, Kansas State, and Oregon don't evaluate too highly in recruiting but always seem to perform pretty well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#22
#22
volholio said:
It's not just about UT; it's a fascinating look at results from recruiting over the last five years for every major school. I don't see how that CAN'T be interesting to us. Sheesh.
Click to expand...

Honestly, i don't really care about anybody else. VOLS IS ALL.
 
#23
#23
emzeeee said:
Newsflash guys. Turns out going 5-7, 7-6, 6-7, 5-7, 5-7, 5-7, 7-6 is underperforming!
Click to expand...

ABSOLUTELY earth shattering news I'll tell ya, completely mind blowing!

Edit: LOL @ Vandy being dead last on his chart.
 
Last edited:
#24
#24
volholio said:
"This analysis replicates the analysis for each season since 2005 to see which programs are habitually over- or underachieving."

It's over the last 5 year span. The coaching changes certainly play a role. Wisconsin seems to do the best.

Cutcliffe does well.

According to this we underachieved last year, but I don't think anyone would argue with that. Yes, we all admit we ended on a high note, etc. etc.
Click to expand...
UT has underperformed its talent in both of Jones' first two years. We can hope that it is part of his strategy and that he was laying a foundation... but they've left wins on the field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#25
#25
Sandvol said:
Probably not a bad evaluation. You have to admit teams like Wisconsin, Michigan State, GT, Kansas State, and Oregon don't evaluate too highly in recruiting but always seem to perform pretty well.
Click to expand...

Sandvol the one thing about the data was if you recruit average to slightly below average but win games you will be high on the exceeds side.

Whisky. - plays in the weakest side of B1G
MSU. - plays in the weakest side of B1G

GT. - plays in weak ACC
K State. - plays in weak BIG XII

Oregon. - played in PAC with USC on sanctions and UCLA Lost in the woods before Mora

These teams have played the Iowa State's, Kansas's, and Illinois of the football world. So I think that benefits them. I wish we had Iowa State next year instead of OU from a strictly W/L perspective. JMO TIFWIW not even .02 cents.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top