header pic

The B12 (XII) Forum, home of the 'Front Porch, y'all' at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: CBS Top 25 Coaches

 (Read 1468 times)

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • All Star
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 3794
  • Liked:
Re: CBS Top 25 Coaches
« Reply #28 on: June 05, 2019, 10:28:46 AM »
Agree.  We need to keep Orlando around as long as possible.  But I'm guessing Herman already has a short list of who he'd approach as a potential replacement


BrownCounty

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3677
  • Liked:
Re: CBS Top 25 Coaches
« Reply #29 on: June 14, 2019, 08:45:22 PM »
Its a little unfair to hang Strongs results on MB

Yeah, cuz MB never had anything to do with USF.

MrNubbz

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 4642
  • Liked:
Re: CBS Top 25 Coaches
« Reply #30 on: June 16, 2019, 11:22:52 AM »
I believe it all flows together.

We worked a ton of miracles with Colt McCoy. He was a dynamic QB, and unfortunately a risky single point of failure. We rode him through the season his senior year, and darned near made it. An innocent hit on a routine option play changed college football as we know it. Without that hit that took Colt out of the game, Texas obliterates Alabama. Texas doesn't change anything, and Alabama goes on to be just a pretty good college football team.
Yup and I don't think that's just a fanboys slant.Texas was moving the chains systematically as I always thought he was one of the best collegiate game managers.Fundamentals,technique,mechanics,Xs & Os as damn near mistake free as one can get.Intelligent and a hard worker.Shame he didn't have Ryan Leafs/Brandon Weedens/Jamarcus Russells physical attributes - they damn sure weren't using them.
"The problem with the rat race is even if you win - you're still just a rat" - Lily Tomlin

bayareabadger

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1988
  • Liked:
Re: CBS Top 25 Coaches
« Reply #31 on: June 17, 2019, 07:54:16 AM »
42-22 looks like crap to me, but it's not even the correct W/L record for Mack's final 5 seasons' worth of recruiting.  Mack's terrible recruiting was also a large part of the 2014, 2015, and 2016 teams that went 6-7, 5-7, and 5-7.  Counting those years, the record of teams with Mack's final 5 seasons of recruits on them was 9-4, 8-5, 6-7, 5-7, 5-7 for a total of 33-30.

So in reality you've made my point for me.  The recruiting rankings are complete crap.  Even 42-22 is a pretty terrible record for that level of recruiting ranking, but that's exactly my point-- those rankings are useless, because the moment a kid gets an offer from Texas, he jumps up a star.

The development wasn't nearly as bad as the evaluation.  Mack's lazy ass stopped actually bothering to recruit the best players, and he got into this mode of only bothering with players that were going to come to Texas anyway.  The results on the field were obvious and devastatingly bad. 

Mack gave up for the second half of his career, which is precisely why he was fired, and for good reason.  But one thing's for sure, I'm darn glad he brought Vince Young to the Horns, and that alone is worth having had him as our coach.


The argument that recruiting rankings are complete crap would be incorrect. They are not a perfect indicator (nothing is), but they’re a very good one.

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • All Star
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 3794
  • Liked:
Re: CBS Top 25 Coaches
« Reply #32 on: June 17, 2019, 10:34:34 PM »
In a general sense they are one data point that might not be terrible.  But in this specific case, you are incorrect.

Texas or Alabama offers a 3-star and the recruiting services raise him to a 4-star.  This type of thing occurs regularly. That's where recruiting rankings for a team like Texas under Mack Brown become inflated and stop reflecting reality.

Mack Brown was a great receuiter for his first decade or so at Texas.  After that he got very lazy, but the recruiting rankings didn't suffer much because the recruiting services were part of the machine.

Mr Tulip

  • Learn to love or leave me. Either one you wanna do.
  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Posts: 284
  • Non Serviam
  • Liked:
Re: CBS Top 25 Coaches
« Reply #33 on: June 18, 2019, 10:24:53 AM »
As I see it, we've picked an outlier to argue a point. I believe recruiting rankings matter a great deal. However, Texas at this time was an extremely rare beast.

Mack essentially let Street and Smith's and Athlon pick his recruiting targets over the last 4 years. The top players would get offers, and most would accept them. The trouble was, for a lot of them, their lifelong dream was to get a lot of stars and become a Texas football player. Once they'd accomplished this, they dropped any pretense of effort. Accountability was nonexistent. They came in as a group of high school all-stars - and never got any better. The results simply followed the effort level (as life is wont to do).

I believe head football coaches have a shelf-life. Mack simply exceeded his. Effort and focus can only stay sharp for so long in a human being. Texas was a rare beast indeed that combined historical success with recent wins. The recruiting services bumped players with Texas interest, and Texas rewarded that bump with a scholarship offer. There are few schools with that pedigree. In this particular window, Texas had a feedback loop (for lack of a better analogy) that kept the stars high while the wins were low. Eventually, the stars faded and matched the wins.

bayareabadger

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1988
  • Liked:
Re: CBS Top 25 Coaches
« Reply #34 on: June 27, 2019, 03:54:09 PM »
In a general sense they are one data point that might not be terrible.  But in this specific case, you are incorrect.

Texas or Alabama offers a 3-star and the recruiting services raise him to a 4-star.  This type of thing occurs regularly. That's where recruiting rankings for a team like Texas under Mack Brown become inflated and stop reflecting reality.

Mack Brown was a great receuiter for his first decade or so at Texas.  After that he got very lazy, but the recruiting rankings didn't suffer much because the recruiting services were part of the machine.
I think this is interesting because it asked a central question: Is the concern that there is actually a rot at the top of the ranking, i.e. they stop working well when certain top programs continue to skate? Or is it a moment where someone is going to be an outlier, and the fans of the teams that are feel a certain level of exceptionalism (i.e., this is happening to the team is see closest, that must mean the system is wrong, rather than my team being a quirk in it)

So was Texas getting players who were smaller and slower than before? Were those players' offer sheets shrinking in quality? It's all well and good to say other coaches said such and such behind the scenes. They might well have said the same in 2004, but it only pops up when outcomes confirm it.

My theory on this is a different angle, something I call cluster busting. There's a term in baseball called hit clustering, namely, if I have nine hits in a game and the come in two innings, I likely have a few runs, if they's spread out to 1-2 per inning, I have few.

Going in, we assume some percentage of 4-star and five-star kids will bust. Assuming 11-12 schools are in the top fifth of recruiting, math says 1-2 will not be playing at that level. Texas for a stretch might just have been it (focused mostly on the late Brown era. The coaching change/strong era complicates things somewhat). If you run into a mildly higher bust rate than average, it might well drop a team from 10-11 wins to 8-9, which is what happened. 

(South Carolina is a great example of this. The hight of the Spurrier era saw a really good run of hitting on nearly every blue chipper and getting a lot of three-stars to become Connor Shaw, then their recruiting dropped a tick or two as the state was without five-stars, but they started having a horrendous bust rate on four-stars)

Now this is not to say the coaches are particularly absolved. Recruiting rankings have trouble with dumbasses, both behaviorally and in terms of grades. A staff makes its bones on the edges taking the right number of risks that they can get the most out of (some are more skilled at identifying and dealing with this, other's not). I recall Strong having to clean house to a degree, so perhaps that factored in. 

Anyway, my larger point is, I'm skeptical the ratings had some massive flaw in them, other than a high level of deference toward people who physically look able to play football and have done so at high level programs/in camp settings against high level players. But if it was truly flawed, I guess I can just ignore OSU/Bama/Texas ratings at all times and assume it's just a mystery if they're really getting good players. 

(There's also the motivation factor, and I wouldn't be surprised if a run of Texas players were prone to getting too high on their own hype)

Mr Tulip

  • Learn to love or leave me. Either one you wanna do.
  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Posts: 284
  • Non Serviam
  • Liked:
Re: CBS Top 25 Coaches
« Reply #35 on: June 27, 2019, 05:29:27 PM »
At Texas, Mack did not have to attract talent. The 4 star talent always answered his phone calls. Maybe not all the 5 stars were interested always, but they're a rarity anyway.

The problem is, not all talent is equal. An athletically gifted 16 or 17 year old, living at home, can really dazzle on a high school football field simply by being faster or stronger than the competition. However, that 18 year old will certainly need to improve and develop at college in order to compete. He will need the discipline to complete his studies - if nothing else, to stay eligible.

In the beginning, Mack and Co invested the time and energy to select their scholarship roster from kids with both talent and hunger. They were certainly good players in high school, but also showed that they'd put in the effort necessary to grow. The coaches would investigate living arrangements and ask questions about ethics. "Character" is a trite word, but sort of sums up what they'd look for. It was important, because they'd have 80 talented high school stars vying for 23 spots on scholarship each year. They had to own their misses.

The downfall came when they stopped doing that work. Recruiting magazines issue stars based on performance. They don't factor in the development ability or character issues (beyond glaring criminal or academic issues). The Texas coaches stopped doing their due diligence and started listening to the star raters. The roster started filling up with high school all-stars more impressed with the prestige of being a Texas Longhorn football player, rather than doing the work required of a Longhorn teammate. Kids that came in as a good high school player left as the good high school player without growing.

 

Associate Links/Search