Started By
Message
re: A Redditor's Objective Mathematical SEC HC Ranking
Posted on 3/6/14 at 10:52 am to Eric Nies Grind Time
Posted on 3/6/14 at 10:52 am to Eric Nies Grind Time
Posted on 3/6/14 at 10:54 am to Eric Nies Grind Time
seriously. college football is small sample size the sport. which is one of its biggest flaws yet probably its biggest attraction.
if auburn doesn't throw the hail mary to beat georgia, then butch jones leads the sec in 'wappy.' would that change my opinion of malzahn at all? no.
if alabama beats auburn in overtime along with georgia beating auburn, then malzahn would 'grade out' as like the 8th best coach.
if auburn doesn't throw the hail mary to beat georgia, then butch jones leads the sec in 'wappy.' would that change my opinion of malzahn at all? no.
if alabama beats auburn in overtime along with georgia beating auburn, then malzahn would 'grade out' as like the 8th best coach.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 10:55 am to TheSandman
Seems like math gibberish to me.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 10:55 am to cbi8
quote:
so it is a good list only because sumlin is higher than les? what about the rest of the list?
Bottom 2 seem fine, but I could see an argument either way. Only anomalies could be Saban, Gus and Butch, but I haven't seen enough from Gus/Butch to be sure.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 10:55 am to SammyTiger
Tennessee fan finds study that Butch Jones is the second best coach in the SEC
Posted on 3/6/14 at 10:57 am to The White Lobster
quote:
if alabama beats auburn in overtime along with georgia beating auburn, then malzahn would 'grade out' as like the 8th best coach.
But they didn't. Auburn was the better team. If you didn't believe it that night, you probably believed it after Oklahoma trounced Alabama, didn't you? Alabama had a better recruited team, well in to the Process, with a senior QB who finished second in the Heisman voting... and they STILL weren't as good as an Auburn team with a safety for a quarterback.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 10:58 am to TheSandman
What is their basis of ranking? Just last year? Last 5 years? Records as HC? It's obviously not national championships.
Richt has never won a title; yet is over Miles and Spurrier?
What has Jones done to be #2? His amazing 55-34 record as a HC?
Malzahn is up near the top; Top 5 on my list...but not #1.
What has Sumlin done to be above Miles and Richt? Hell Sumlin is 0-2 vs Miles with his golden child Manziel. Richt at least has 2 BCS Bowl wins.
Saban not #1 on any list at this moment is a joke.
Their opinion is quite stupid.
Richt has never won a title; yet is over Miles and Spurrier?
What has Jones done to be #2? His amazing 55-34 record as a HC?
Malzahn is up near the top; Top 5 on my list...but not #1.
What has Sumlin done to be above Miles and Richt? Hell Sumlin is 0-2 vs Miles with his golden child Manziel. Richt at least has 2 BCS Bowl wins.
Saban not #1 on any list at this moment is a joke.
Their opinion is quite stupid.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:00 am to TeLeFaWx
He wasn't commenting on whether or not he thought Auburn was better than Alabama. He was just saying a ranking where one play can make a coach go from 1st to 8th is dumb.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:02 am to TeLeFaWx
lol okay. not sure what this has to do with my post on this 'objective' 'ranking' system.
the field goal return by auburn did not change my opinion of saban or malzahn as coaches or even auburn or alabama as a team, though it did change the outcome of that one game in a sport of mass variance.
the field goal return by auburn did not change my opinion of saban or malzahn as coaches or even auburn or alabama as a team, though it did change the outcome of that one game in a sport of mass variance.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:02 am to TheSandman
t1. Gus Malzahn (1) -- can't argue with results, but dude is the anti-Ole Miss.
t1. Nick Saban (3) -- Results
3. Steve Spurrier (8) -- Results, never has a "bad" team, resurrecting a once-dead program in USCe
4. Les Miles (6)
5. Mark Richt (5) -- Very consistent coach. Would be tied for 1 if he wins a championship.
6. Gary Pinkel (10) -- GROSSLY underrated, gets most out players.
t7. Kevin Sumlin (6) -- Shows lots of promise, but ain't done a whole lot yet.
t7. Hugh Freeze (9) -- See Sumlin
t7. Will Muschamp (11) -- See Sumlin
t7. Dan Mullen (12) -- See Sumlin
11. Bret Bielema (10) -- another shitty season and he goes to last.
t12. Mark Stoops (13) -- Good recruiter, sucked at Arizona. jury still out.
t12. Butch Jones (2) -- ain't done shite. jury still out.
(parenthetical indicates OP link ranking)
I would put the coaches in tiers instead of ranking them outright.
Tier 1:
(in no particular order)
Gus Malzahn
Nick Saban
Steve Spurrier
Tier 2:
Mark Richt
Les Miles
Gary Pinkel
Tier 3:
Kevin Sumlin
Hugh Freeze
Will Muschamp
Dan Mullen
Tier 4:
Bret Bielema
Mark Stoops
Butch Jones
t1. Nick Saban (3) -- Results
3. Steve Spurrier (8) -- Results, never has a "bad" team, resurrecting a once-dead program in USCe
4. Les Miles (6)
5. Mark Richt (5) -- Very consistent coach. Would be tied for 1 if he wins a championship.
6. Gary Pinkel (10) -- GROSSLY underrated, gets most out players.
t7. Kevin Sumlin (6) -- Shows lots of promise, but ain't done a whole lot yet.
t7. Hugh Freeze (9) -- See Sumlin
t7. Will Muschamp (11) -- See Sumlin
t7. Dan Mullen (12) -- See Sumlin
11. Bret Bielema (10) -- another shitty season and he goes to last.
t12. Mark Stoops (13) -- Good recruiter, sucked at Arizona. jury still out.
t12. Butch Jones (2) -- ain't done shite. jury still out.
(parenthetical indicates OP link ranking)
I would put the coaches in tiers instead of ranking them outright.
Tier 1:
(in no particular order)
Gus Malzahn
Nick Saban
Steve Spurrier
Tier 2:
Mark Richt
Les Miles
Gary Pinkel
Tier 3:
Kevin Sumlin
Hugh Freeze
Will Muschamp
Dan Mullen
Tier 4:
Bret Bielema
Mark Stoops
Butch Jones
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:04 am to KaiserSoze99
Steve is 0-3 against Miles yo
eta:
Sumlin vs Miles 0-2
Malzahn vs Miles 0-1
eta:
Sumlin vs Miles 0-2
Malzahn vs Miles 0-1
This post was edited on 3/6/14 at 11:11 am
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:05 am to Tigercoop40
quote:So you didn't read any of it?
What is their basis of ranking? Just last year? Last 5 years? Records as HC? It's obviously not national championships.
Why even post in this thread then?
This post was edited on 3/6/14 at 11:05 am
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:05 am to KaiserSoze99
if anything, this system shows how dangerous it is to judge malzahn at auburn after just 14 games. it's statistically impossible for him to win close games over years and years of games at the rate auburn did in the regular season
i know this comment will flamed to death with 'u scared' or whatever but yolo SEND
i know this comment will flamed to death with 'u scared' or whatever but yolo SEND
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:06 am to TheSandman
"Objective" -written by a guy with a block T next to his screen name, has Butch Jones as the #2 coach in the SEC.
Me thinks you don't know what "objective" means.
Me thinks you don't know what "objective" means.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:06 am to TheSandman
And this is why the word "objective" should only be used by people who aren't blithering idiots.
Seriously, statistics are only as useful as the foundational premises, and even a cursory glance should make obvious that this list is useless. It ignores the extremely important issues of replication and consistency. Let me assure you -- these are not just issues that could make the list even more accurate. They're issues that, in removing them, actually make the list next to worthless. This contrast alone should have given you pause. Add to that the fact that the "Pythagorean wins" simultaneously rewards lowered expectations while punishing higher ones, especially when games are governed by football scoring....
Or, to put it another way -- I wonder where Chizik would have ranked in February 2010? Probably approximately where Malzahn ranks on this list. The almost-incidental mention of the likely course of Malzahn's numbers over time stands in stark contrast with his attention-grabbing and inane leaps to broad conclusions in the rest of the post.
Sorry, dude. I'm not attacking you for reposting this, or for not analyzing it closely before doing so. But common sense alone should have sent up alarm bells after reading the Reddit post (which is chock-full of subjective and unsustainable observations even over and above the numbers.) The mistake many people make is being dazzled by counter-intuitive results without grasping that being counter-intuitive isn't, in itself, validation. Indeed, it's a reason to invite much harsher scrutiny. In this case, the poster pretty much took an inapplicable algorithm and applied it improperly while deriving unsustainable conclusions from insufficient data points.
Seriously, statistics are only as useful as the foundational premises, and even a cursory glance should make obvious that this list is useless. It ignores the extremely important issues of replication and consistency. Let me assure you -- these are not just issues that could make the list even more accurate. They're issues that, in removing them, actually make the list next to worthless. This contrast alone should have given you pause. Add to that the fact that the "Pythagorean wins" simultaneously rewards lowered expectations while punishing higher ones, especially when games are governed by football scoring....
Or, to put it another way -- I wonder where Chizik would have ranked in February 2010? Probably approximately where Malzahn ranks on this list. The almost-incidental mention of the likely course of Malzahn's numbers over time stands in stark contrast with his attention-grabbing and inane leaps to broad conclusions in the rest of the post.
Sorry, dude. I'm not attacking you for reposting this, or for not analyzing it closely before doing so. But common sense alone should have sent up alarm bells after reading the Reddit post (which is chock-full of subjective and unsustainable observations even over and above the numbers.) The mistake many people make is being dazzled by counter-intuitive results without grasping that being counter-intuitive isn't, in itself, validation. Indeed, it's a reason to invite much harsher scrutiny. In this case, the poster pretty much took an inapplicable algorithm and applied it improperly while deriving unsustainable conclusions from insufficient data points.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:07 am to KaiserSoze99
quote:
KaiserSoze99
I can agree with everything besides having Miles in the second tier. Has been to 2 National Championships; won 1. Is an awesome recruiter along with his staff.
Malzahn has been to 1; lost it.
And Miles beat Malzahn this year.
I do think Sumlin and Muschamp show a lot of promise.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:08 am to The White Lobster
quote:It includes his entire head coaching career. Not just at Auburn.
if anything, this system shows how dangerous it is to judge malzahn at auburn after just 14 games. it's statistically impossible for him to win close games over years and years of games at the rate auburn did in the regular season
Same with Butch Jones.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:09 am to joeyb147
quote:
So you didn't read any of it?
Why even post in this thread then?
Why read something that has Butch Jones as the #2 Coach in the SEC. He is 55-34 as a Head Coach.
As the consensus said that read it.. His ranking is stupid.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:11 am to joeyb147
quote:
It includes his entire head coaching career. Not just at Auburn.
Same with Butch Jones.
So a 55-34 Jones is better than a 165-57-1 Saban with 4 National Titles?
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:13 am to joeyb147
I have a really effective, mostly objective, way to look at a HC's coaching prowess. Let him coach in the SEC for 5 years, then look at his W%.
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News