Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

For all my personal sadness at having Brohm leave Purdue, I understand it. I would be surprised to see him leave, even for Penn State which is undoubtedly a much "better" job when it comes to being high profile. But I don't think that's what animates Jeff Brohm. Hell, has he even traded in his old 2004 Honda Accord yet?

I know I've been waiting or the cheap squeek to sell it

like the hire for MSU of Pat Fitzgerald. Dude can coach ball, but more importantly think he'll be a good fit there.

call me crazy but I think Lane Kiffin will fall flat on his face at LSU. seems to me like Ole Miss was the perfect place for him. dude was a disaster in the NFL, at Tennessee, and at USC. seems to me like the smaller jobs with less expectations and media scrutiny on him is where he thrives. LSU throwing $100+ million at back to back coaches only to get rid of both within 4 years is going to be hilarious. a) bc it's stupid idea to think you can just throw $100 million at a coach and it'll just work- cause save Saban and Urbz there ain't no such thing as sure bets in coaching hires and b) bc LSU is a poor school in a poor state that flat out just doesn't have the money or obscenely wealthy booster base to keep doing this wild cowboy go for bust never going broke worry about it tomorrow spending. looming disaster incoming....

I think there's a fairly even chance, say 50%, that he fails to meet expectations that the AD and fans have of him.  He almost certainly was safer at Ole Miss, who would've probably been happy to keep him for years, especially after having an 11-win season.  

I've never much cared for the guy and I can't force myself to change that just because he's our coach.  But I'm getting used to that now, because I never liked Brian Kelly either, and I had to put up with him for the past 4 years.  But, like Kelly, I hope Kiffin does well, even if I don't like him.

The one thing I disagree with is your assessment of LSU's poverty.  The Athletic Department is not poor.  Like other universities, it operates on its own budget and does not depend on tax dollars.  It's one of the richest ADs out there.  It's one of the biggest brands out there, despite the football team sucking for the last 6 years.  Compared to most places, that place is awash in money.  And you've really underestimated the donors and boosters.  They're not Texas, or even Texas A&M, but there's plenty enough money around there to do what football programs need to do.  I mean, one single booster is paying all or most of Kelly's buyout.  He's one of the richest men in the world.  The problem LSU had in the early goings of NIL was their failure to open the hands of their boosters and communicate to them the reality of the new landscape and the need for them to step it up.  For better or for worse, a bunch of them have gotten on board with running Kelly off and ponying up for NIL and contract money.  Which isn't even touching the ADs generous budget.  

The state may be poor and run into the ground with decades of bad leadership, but the athletic department is anything but.  

I don't meant this to be argumentative, just a thought/question:

Did they keep him because at some point you need SOMEBODY to coach the team.  I mean you can tell the departing HC to take a hike but you can't tell the entire staff to get lost, right? 

Right, they wouldn't tell the staff to get lost.  An incoming coach frequently has the option to retain current coaches who haven't already left for other jobs.  What's weird to me is that Weis has taken another job, at LSU, with Kiffin.  The term "returning" to coach has been used by both LSU and Ole Miss.  You don't "return" unless you've left.  And he has left, for an annual rival.  Why let him stay and poach more players?  They already flipped 3 kids who were Ole Miss-bound in the early signing period.....why let more of that continue from the inside?  

I guess it's a question of need, but OAM made a relevant point about how unlikely it is for Ole Miss or any team to win an NC in the new format.  Ole Miss has made the calculation and prioritized the future over the best chance of winning this playoff.  If they basically conceded this playoff, then just let one of the people left on staff coach the team.  Don't bring Weis back, who's already drawing a check in Baton Rouge.  

I posted this on the SEC board, but also putting it here since it fits.

It's weird that Ole Miss is letting Charlie Weis Jr. return to coach the Re-bears in the playoffs.  Several have pointed out the ways it would be dumb for Ole Miss to let Kiffin stay there and coach, and they have good points.  But all the same stuff applies to Weis as well, who has followed Kiffin to Baton Rouge to be the OC there. 

It seems to me like Ole Miss is not so much worried about tampering from the inside as they are mad at Kiffin for leaving.  Which....fair enough.  But it seems ill-advised to let Weis return and coach for all the same reasons people have mentioned about letting Kiffin stay and coach. 

Yeah like I responded on the SEC thread, and this is just my speculation, but I think they're probably doing it because they're worried the playoff committee will dump a coach-less Ole Miss in the same way they dumped a QB-less FSU a few years back.  The Ole Miss administration wanted to show coaching continuity to avoid being jettisoned from the CFP.

I don't think the committee was really going to dump Ole Miss, but I can see the concern.

And I view it as being almost as detrimental to Ole Miss's current team, as it would be if they'd let Kiffin himself stick around and coach.  Absolutely a case of the fox guarding the hen house.

Right, they wouldn't tell the staff to get lost.  An incoming coach frequently has the option to retain current coaches who haven't already left for other jobs.  What's weird to me is that Weis has taken another job, at LSU, with Kiffin.  The term "returning" to coach has been used by both LSU and Ole Miss.  You don't "return" unless you've left.  And he has left, for an annual rival.  Why let him stay and poach more players?  They already flipped 3 kids who were Ole Miss-bound in the early signing period.....why let more of that continue from the inside? 

I guess it's a question of need, but OAM made a relevant point about how unlikely it is for Ole Miss or any team to win an NC in the new format.  Ole Miss has made the calculation and prioritized the future over the best chance of winning this playoff.  If they basically conceded this playoff, then just let one of the people left on staff coach the team.  Don't bring Weis back, who's already drawing a check in Baton Rouge. 

That all makes sense.  I think if you or I were the AD at Old Miss it is a difficult situation.  My first inclination would be what you are saying, I want all of these guys who are leaving for, as you point out, an annual rival, GONE.  OTOH, I'd be concerned that if I completely cleaned house I wouldn't have a prayer in this year's CFP.  

How likely is it for Ole Miss anyway?  I agree with OAM's underlying point and I also think that Ole Miss is a substantially overrated based on playing an extremely easy version of an SEC schedule but still, how many chances is Ole Miss going to get?  Also, even if they can't win it all, their first round game could be at home against Tulane and they already beat the daylights out of Tulane earlier this year.  

Ole Miss SEC schedule this year:

• Lost 43-35 at 7-1 UGA
• Won 34-26 at 6-2 OU
• Won 24-19 vs 3-5 LSU
• Won 34-24 vs 2-6 UF
• Won 30-23 at 2-6 UK
• Won 38-19 vs 1-7 MissSt
• Won 30-14 vs 1-7 USCe
• Won 41-35 vs 0-8 Ark

Seven SEC teams finished with losing records, Ole Miss played six of them and went 6-0.  Seven SEC teams finished with winning records, Ole Miss played two of them and went 1-1.  If you flip their schedule but keep the percentages, they are a 5-3/9-3 team.  I'm not saying they suck, just that they are a bit overrated based on schedule.  

All of that said, if you look at the current bracket projections Ole Miss appears to be heading toward hosting either Virginia or Tulane in the first round.  That is a game they would be HEAVILY favored in.  Then in the second round they get perhaps Georgia.  I wouldn't pick Ole Miss to win that game but earlier this year they went into the fourth quarter up 35-26 on the Dogs.  Granted, they gave up 17 unanswered points in that fourth quarter and lost by eight but that doesn't suggest that it would be altogether impossible for the Rebels to win that game.  If they were to win that it would get them into a game with Indiana, Notre Dame, or aTm.  None of those seem insurmountable.  

I'm not saying that Ole Miss would win the NC nor even make the NC Game but I am saying that if I were the AD at Ole Miss I wouldn't want to squander the possibility of accomplishing anything in the CFP.  

Ole Miss SEC schedule this year:

• Lost 43-35 at 7-1 UGA
• Won 34-26 at 6-2 OU
• Won 24-19 vs 3-5 LSU
• Won 34-24 vs 2-6 UF
• Won 30-23 at 2-6 UK
• Won 38-19 vs 1-7 MissSt
• Won 30-14 vs 1-7 USCe
• Won 41-35 vs 0-8 Ark

Seven SEC teams finished with losing records, Ole Miss played six of them and went 6-0.  Seven SEC teams finished with winning records, Ole Miss played two of them and went 1-1.  If you flip their schedule but keep the percentages, they are a 5-3/9-3 team.  I'm not saying they suck, just that they are a bit overrated based on schedule.  

Minor quibble:

Though it wouldn't change anything in this case, don't forget to remove the Ole Miss game from the opponents' records when looking at stuff like this.  That's how the "advanced" stats like S&P+, FEI, and all the old BCS computers handle sos.  Philosophically, you don't want to punish a team's sos by dinging their opponent with a loss when said team in question gave them that loss.  Similarly, you don't want to reward a team's sos by assigning the opponent a win, when that win was over the team in question.  So when considering Ole Miss, UGA is 6-1, OU is 6-1, LSU is 3-4, UF is 2-5, etc.  Again, it doesn't matter to your point in this case, but in some cases it would change how many teams you have with winning/losing records.  Ole Miss' schedule this year just happens to be against a couple of very quality teams, and then a slew of pretty bad teams.  

I get the logic but there are two reasons I don't do that.  The first is just because it is a lot more work typing up a post to subtract the result against the team in question so I'm just lazy and use the actual record. 

The other reason is that I'm not fully convinced by the logic.  Consider this:
Ole Miss and Alabama both played Georgia and Georgia finished 7-1.  The Rebels lost and the Tide won so using what you presented:

• UGA is a 7-0 team as against Bama and
• UGA is a 6-1 team as against Ole Miss

So UGA is a better team on Bama's schedule than they are on Ole Miss' schedule?  That makes no sense to me.  They both played the same team. 


Here is a bigger example:  Ohio State and Purdue both played Washington, Michigan, Illinois, Rutgers, and Minnesota this year.  Ohio State went 5-0 against those teams while Purdue went 0-5.  You are telling me that those five teams were better against tOSU than they were against Purdue? 

What if Purdue and Ohio State didn't play each other but they played the same nine B1G teams and just for this example lets say that they also played the same three OOC games.  Just to make it simple, lets say Ohio State went 12-0 and Purdue went 0-12.  So you would tell me that even though Ohio State and Purdue played the exact same schedule, Ohio State played a tougher schedule than Purdue?  That makes no sense to me, it is literally the exact same schedule. 

I see your point, and it's a valid one, but in the world of the stats nerds, self-referentialism is considered a more major flaw than asymmetry.  In network theory, neither way is considered perfect, so there's a tradeoff either way.  But you get way better results by removing node's effect when considering that node's environment.  In our example, teams would be analogous to nodes, and games would be what's called "edges."  In the world of machine-learning, cross-validation always removes the data point being predicted for this very reason.  The theory as well as the results behind ML are pretty solid.   

If you want more detail from the ground up about that, it would take quite some doing, not sure I have the fortitude to type something like that up, even on a slow day.