Quazzum69
Stable Genius
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2012
- Messages
- 3,921
- Like
- 6,107
I've been trying to figure out a way to separate talent from coaching, facilities, and other things that go into a winning team; it's probably impossible since they are so related to each other with no real good way to get it. The talent on the team might not even be the cause of winning (or at least to the extent) but other things at the school associated with lots of talent (coaching, facilities, fake majors, etc.). Recruiting is probably a good overall index of the factors of a program.
So I took the past five seasons of ACC conference wins for each team and compared them to three year averages of rivals rankings, did some other stuff. Basically, "talent" (I'll just assume it's minimally related to other factors) only really starts to matter when you get into the top-50ish range and really picks up from there.
How high can SU expect to get in the rankings? To average 5 ACC wins a year, we would probably have to be top 20 consistently. Even a good jump in recruiting to a consistent 40 ranking would still result on average in a losing record (3.5 wins). If Shafer and Co. cannot consistently get classes in the top 40, is he good enough of a coach to be on top of the blue line with average talent (or can he hire people that can help him)? Maybe SUAD needs to do more to make it more attractive (the IPF's a good start). We are near the bottom of the ACC arm's race I'd imagine.
There are lots of problems with separating talent and coaching from wins:
1) you have to assume ranking is unbiased and its a true measure of skill
2) there is probably a positive correlation between coaching and talent - truly better coaches (from a motivational and/or strategic standpoint) probably end up with better players. How do you measure one without the other?
3) Facilities: Is it the state-of-the-art weight rooms and the best trainers at schools that attract the top talent that are the cause for the success?
4) Position coaches/other people: Schools that can afford good coaches everywhere (best talent more likely to go there) are probably better at developing players and are more successful because of it.
So I took the past five seasons of ACC conference wins for each team and compared them to three year averages of rivals rankings, did some other stuff. Basically, "talent" (I'll just assume it's minimally related to other factors) only really starts to matter when you get into the top-50ish range and really picks up from there.
How high can SU expect to get in the rankings? To average 5 ACC wins a year, we would probably have to be top 20 consistently. Even a good jump in recruiting to a consistent 40 ranking would still result on average in a losing record (3.5 wins). If Shafer and Co. cannot consistently get classes in the top 40, is he good enough of a coach to be on top of the blue line with average talent (or can he hire people that can help him)? Maybe SUAD needs to do more to make it more attractive (the IPF's a good start). We are near the bottom of the ACC arm's race I'd imagine.
There are lots of problems with separating talent and coaching from wins:
1) you have to assume ranking is unbiased and its a true measure of skill
2) there is probably a positive correlation between coaching and talent - truly better coaches (from a motivational and/or strategic standpoint) probably end up with better players. How do you measure one without the other?
3) Facilities: Is it the state-of-the-art weight rooms and the best trainers at schools that attract the top talent that are the cause for the success?
4) Position coaches/other people: Schools that can afford good coaches everywhere (best talent more likely to go there) are probably better at developing players and are more successful because of it.
