Dallasbowlin
Everything woke turns to sh*t
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2013
- Messages
- 24,626
- Likes
- 13,568
Vols Ranked #9 In AP Poll
- Thread starter derekdoolander
- Start date
JC61
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 1,489
- Likes
- 807
no doubt UM is a very good coach....but, giving him credit over Fickell is sorta disingenuous.
OSU had been good for many years under Tressel. Fickell was a placeholder while Tressel was under suspension, and when the latter quit....OSU really didn't have a choice mid season. Fickell might be a decent DC, but he wasn't ready to be a HC. Talent aside, the program was reeling in 2011.
OTOH, I think the dude is somewhat of a head case...so, if Harbaugh manages to stay out of his own way, he could have some tough teams for years to come at UM.
Disingenuous? It makes the point perfectly IMO, to the extreme. Take a headcoach who isn't very good and he goes 6-7 with pretty much the same team that the elite coach goes 12-0 with.
Hoke was a poor headcoach who couldn't do much with what talent he had. In steps Harbaugh with the same team, in what was expected to be an off season/rebuilding year....and improves the team from 5-7 to 10-3. That's impressive imo and confirms what most think about Harbaugh given his previous stints at Stanford and with the 49ers.
Last edited:
JC61
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 1,489
- Likes
- 807
Yes, on one hand it definitely demonstrates how a very good coach can win with same talent.
I just don't think the comparison is justified in the case of OSU - it's not like they really wanted Fickell at the helm....just had no choice....that's why it provides an "extreme" example.
A comparision of Tressel w/ Meyer is more applicable since it was "really" Tressel's team and talent...he just didn't coach it that year. Two fairly equal coaches, at the same program, comparable talent, and very similar results.
Just my opinion KB...I see it differently when doing comparisons
If you acknowledge that relative talent is an important indicator of success, then you must also acknowledge that a win loss record should be judged through the same lens.
In other words, you are conflating matrices. On one hand you acknowledge the importance of talent, give a nod to the importance of the relative talent of a team that takes the field, and then look at raw win/loss records as an indication of the quality of coaching. Using the latter often requires ignoring the first two things you looked at.
T
R: It's entirely possible for a coach to have a team go 4-8 and be doing heroic things, while a coach that goes 10-2 is average.
Last edited:
TheMookieMonster
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2015
- Messages
- 32,195
- Likes
- 127,995
If you acknowledge that relative talent is an important indicator of success, then you must also acknowledge that a win loss record should be judged through the same lens.
In other words, you are conflating matrices. On one hand you acknowledge the importance of talent, give a nod to the importance of the relative talent of a team that takes the field, and then look at raw win/loss records as an indication of the quality of coaching. Using the latter often requires ignoring the first two things you looked at.
T
Ummmmm........sure. I'm not ignoring anything. I have a very simple premise here....a good coach wins more, with the same type of talent, sometimes even the same exact talent, than a bad coach. Keep on pontificating but that's all I'm saying and Harbaugh and Meyer are excellent examples of this very simple, pretty pedestrian idea.
Your statement is true, that is that if all teams talent were the same, you could judge a coach by how much he wins. That is very pedestrian.
It also doesn't apply here.
As I keep saying, if you look at talent and relative talent to judge wins and losses, as you should if you look at Harbough's talent at Michigan, and the relative talent in the conference that is closer to Kentucky than Ohio State, you would see that his wins/losses aren't of the variety that would trigger talent parity required in your initial analysis.
I'm not saying Harbough is a bad coach. Don't misunderstand me.
I'm just saying your analysis is one that is dispositive, and more often than not leads to faulty conclusions.
jakez4ut
Patience... It's what's for dinner
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
- Messages
- 72,782
- Likes
- 134,099
saw it a couple times here, glad to see the ranking. hope to still be there, or higher on 9/25 and beyond.
reading Daj, KB and a couple others on the difference coaching makes....interesting read.
as to the michigan dynamic....KB i agree with you, i think Harbaugh is very good. but he's also the benefactor of being in the right place at the right time. past OSU, and Mich St at times....the big 10 is not that good. everyone basiclly assumes Mich will be a top 5 team this year in large part because of the schedule.
every prognosticator i've heard say it....they should be 7-0 before their season really starts....
sure, good coach, sure talent is upgraded.....but the schedule is (level of competition) just not there. relatively speaking, should we be surprised he's been instantly successful? not really. Mich is just joining OSU at the head of the table, of an otherwise pedestrian conference. but no doubt the guy is a good coach. Stanford and the 49ers resume speaks for itself.
reading Daj, KB and a couple others on the difference coaching makes....interesting read.
as to the michigan dynamic....KB i agree with you, i think Harbaugh is very good. but he's also the benefactor of being in the right place at the right time. past OSU, and Mich St at times....the big 10 is not that good. everyone basiclly assumes Mich will be a top 5 team this year in large part because of the schedule.
every prognosticator i've heard say it....they should be 7-0 before their season really starts....
sure, good coach, sure talent is upgraded.....but the schedule is (level of competition) just not there. relatively speaking, should we be surprised he's been instantly successful? not really. Mich is just joining OSU at the head of the table, of an otherwise pedestrian conference. but no doubt the guy is a good coach. Stanford and the 49ers resume speaks for itself.
Advertisement
