UT Underachieves Even with Poor Recruiting

#27
#27
I am so sick of sports analysts half-assing their data then making broad leaps to try and prove a point which really, in the whole scope of things, means nothing because...and this is where it gets 'em....they half-assed their data to begin with. Good job Harvard guy you almost got the art of being a "hack writer" down to a science.

Would love to see one of these "sports anaylyst" take the time to factor in attrition rates, transfer additions, actual 2-deep talent as rated by the services, early NFL departures, etc. If you get that far, you're actually trying and actually have something worth writing about. This guy Stephen Pettigrew aint bout that life
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#28
#28
sjt18 said:
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.
Click to expand...


"Every coach leaves wins on the field."

Pete Carroll
 
#29
#29
sjt18 said:
Nope. UT could/should have beaten UF and Mizzou.... at home.
Click to expand...

By the same token we should have lost at USCjr and if all the stuff with AJ does not break then who knows, but ish happens and you still have to play the games. For what it is worth I did not think we would beat MIZZ because of the distractions.
 
#33
#33
ALLVOL24/7/365 said:
By the same token we should have lost at USCjr and if all the stuff with AJ does not break then who knows, but ish happens and you still have to play the games. For what it is worth I did not think we would beat MIZZ because of the distractions.
Click to expand...

I think UT beats Mizzou with AJ and that has nothing to do with distractions. He made plays. J Johnson may be a great player for UT but he wasn't ready to make plays when they were needed vs Mizzou. The game hung on just a few offensive plays by MU... IMHO, AJ's experience and talent would have turned that game.

The game shouldn't have been as close as it was vs USCe. UT had the better roster and Jones' style will always be a problem for Spurrier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#34
#34
ALLVOL24/7/365 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Whiskey beat Auburn, GT beat Georgia and Miss State, Mich. State beat Baylor.
 
#35
#35
sjt18 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lol what? How did we underperform out talent this year?
 
#36
#36
How is it that in the first graph for 2014, Alabama is considered to have overachieved for 2014? They had the #1 recruiting class for the past 5 seasons. It's not statistically possible to overachieve with that. Anything less than #1 would be underachieving.
 
#37
#37
sjt18 said:
Nope. UT could/should have beaten UF and Mizzou.... at home.
Click to expand...

Based on what? Mizzou was the best team in the SEC Eastand Florida had a far better roster than we ever thought of having.
 
#39
#39
I guess Oregon, Boise State, TCU, Missouri, Baylor, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech all over achieve? No?
 
#40
#40
photovol said:
I guess Oregon, Boise State, TCU, Missouri, Baylor, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech all over achieve? No?
Click to expand...

No. Virginia Tech hasn't been very good. And they have decent recruiting classes because of the occasional 5 star they pull from the dc area.
 
#45
#45
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...

Nope. Analysis like this needs context. In this case it's just a general assessment. But at its extreme points highlights cases where the conclusion holds true. I think Wisconsin does typically fare much better than their recruiting rankings would suggest
 
#46
#46
Vol8188 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe Massey ratings account for strength of schedule
 
#47
#47
someone else said:
How is it that in the first graph for 2014, Alabama is considered to have overachieved for 2014? They had the #1 recruiting class for the past 5 seasons. It's not statistically possible to overachieve with that. Anything less than #1 would be underachieving.
Click to expand...

It's about their performance thought the season relative to the quality of competition. If anything this evaluation shows that supposed "talent" isn't the be all end all. Coaching matters a lot too. Guys like Beilema, Chip kelly, David shaw, gundy, Patterson etc are either good coaches or much better evaluators of talent
 
Last edited:
#48
#48
It's funny that people are offended by the least offensive thing possible, numbers. Numbers don't take sides, don't argue politics, don't have a favorite team. They just are.

Now, bias people can add or remove data, argue it in a way you don't like, etc. but numbers alone are not bad.

All of this says what an unbiased opinion would see from the outside, which is as bad as dooley was (our worst recruiter/coach combo), he recruited better than 90% of the teams in the country, and his results were not in that top percentage, which equates to underachieving. If Dooley underachieved, then its pretty obvious that Kiffy and Fulmer did to.

Not sure why this bothers people.
 
#50
#50
golfballs said:
Yes, I believe Massey ratings account for strength of schedule
Click to expand...

My understanding after reading the article is that they are comparing team success to team recruiting. Not looking at team a vs team b but making general statements like "if you finish 120th in recruiting, you should finish the season 120th in wins also". The issue I see is obvious, if you finish 120th in recruiting, the rest of your conference probably did as well and one of you have to win.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top