Babers is exactly average according to SRS

[Millhouse]

You tell me. I have my thoughts. Do your numbers tell you why anyone was better or worse?

No but they do tell me that narratives where marrone is great and shafer and babers are so bad might be worthless

 

[sufandu]

No but they do tell me that narratives where marrone is great and shafer and babers are so bad might be worthless

Ok. Why?

 

[Millhouse]

Ok. Why?

I'll try to go step by step.
Games are decided by points.
Teams that score a lot and give up few are good.
This is where it gets confusing.
You might play teams that are good or bad.
So how much you score and allow to be scored can change based on how good your competition is.
If you play lots of games, you can add up all those "numbers" and divide them by how many times you played. This tells how you did on average.
Computers can adjust that margin up or down based on the averages of the teams you played.

Wow what a mouthful

But what's great about using facts instead of emotions is you can compare coaches who played different schedules

Now there is a downside to using facts. Some people don't like facts. Facts make them sad if they have already decided what they want to believe is true. Often times sad people in this predicament will, as very uncouth rude people might say, throw shart against the wall

This sadness can lead people to think that there was a huge difference in facilities between 2009 and 2015 where it would be only reasonable to expect far better average adjusted scoring margins.

I see a trend where the end of Pasqualoni's tenure looks pretty similar to Marrone/Shafer/Babers on average with a 4 year debacle in between. I had big hopes for babers and it's hard for me to admit he's average. It really hurts my feelings. But here i am admitting he's average because I try not be a baby.

 

[upperdeck]

What computers can not do is figure out at what point of any game a coach/team adjusts their play to win the game. Pts matter but not always in how dominant you were.. Its the same reason people struggle to bet the NFL when the margins are so small because winning is more important than being dominant.

Some coaches push the game further when ahead, some dont.. Some have much better talent so 20 becomes 40 when both teams go to backups.

 

[upperdeck]

I'll try to go step by step.
Games are decided by points.
Teams that score a lot and give up few are good.
This is where it gets confusing.
You might play teams that are good or bad.
So how much you score and allow to be scored can change based on how good your competition is.
If you play lots of games, you can add up all those "numbers" and divide them by how many times you played. This tells how you did on average.
Computers can adjust that margin up or down based on the averages of the teams you played.

Wow what a mouthful

But what's great about using facts instead of emotions is you can compare coaches who played different schedules

Now there is a downside to using facts. Some people don't like facts. Facts make them sad if they have already decided what they want to believe is true. Often times sad people in this predicament will, as very uncouth rude people might say, throw shart against the wall

This sadness can lead people to think that there was a huge difference in facilities between 2009 and 2015 where it would be only reasonable to expect far better average adjusted scoring margins.

I see a trend where the end of Pasqualoni's tenure looks pretty similar to Marrone/Shafer/Babers on average with a 4 year debacle in between. I had big hopes for babers and it's hard for me to admit he's average. It really hurts my feelings. But here i am admitting he's average because I try not be a baby.

I agree Babers is pretty avg in how his results have ended up.. In some ways he is better than most because he is what you really want in your coach just without the results you hope for.

 

[orangecuse]

I agree Babers is pretty avg in how his results have ended up.. In some ways he is better than most because he is what you really want in your coach just without the results you hope for.

Good lord! That's the equivalent of saying that your sales rep in some ways is better than most because he/she is what you really want in your sales guy/gal, just without the sales results you hoped for.

 

[Millhouse]

What computers can not do is figure out at what point of any game a coach/team adjusts their play to win the game. Pts matter but not always in how dominant you were.. Its the same reason people struggle to bet the NFL when the margins are so small because winning is more important than being dominant.

Some coaches push the game further when ahead, some dont.. Some have much better talent so 20 becomes 40 when both teams go to backups.

If only there were ways to deal with that. could someone tell the computer to cap the margin to 20 instead of 40? i don't know if technology has progressed to that advanced state.

 

[upperdeck]

If only there were ways to deal with that. could someone tell the computer to cap the margin to 20 instead of 40? i don't know if technology has progressed to that advanced state.

capping it doesnt solve the question. That means a 20 pt win is the same as a 60 pt win.. unless they actually see who is in the game beyond the normal sub pattern.

and 20 pt wins where both teams play the starters is different than 20 pt games where they dont.

 

[upperdeck]

Good lord! That's the equivalent of saying that your sales rep in some ways is better than most because he/she is what you really want in your sales guy/gal, just without the sales results you hoped for.

So if you have the best sales rep and you have no merch. Are they good or bad at their job?

You can be great at your job and still get bad results as well.

I agree that much of it still is on him.. 25 yrs of sucky play starts to make you wonder how you dig out of the hole we have dug.. Maybe its more than the coach.

 

[Millhouse]

So if you have the best sales rep and you have no merch. Are they good or bad at their job?

You can be great at your job and still get bad results as well.

I agree that much of it still is on him.. 25 yrs of sucky play starts to make you wonder how you dig out of the hole we have dug.. Maybe its more than the coach.

99-23 our SRS is -0.47

That would be 84th this year between BC and Michigan St

Toss out Gerg years, we are 1.01

That would be 70th in the country this year.

2009-23 SRS of -0.24 which would be 81st (Purdue)

 

[sufandu]

I'll try to go step by step.
Games are decided by points.
Teams that score a lot and give up few are good.
This is where it gets confusing.
You might play teams that are good or bad.
So how much you score and allow to be scored can change based on how good your competition is.
If you play lots of games, you can add up all those "numbers" and divide them by how many times you played. This tells how you did on average.
Computers can adjust that margin up or down based on the averages of the teams you played.

Wow what a mouthful

But what's great about using facts instead of emotions is you can compare coaches who played different schedules

Now there is a downside to using facts. Some people don't like facts. Facts make them sad if they have already decided what they want to believe is true. Often times sad people in this predicament will, as very uncouth rude people might say, throw shart against the wall

This sadness can lead people to think that there was a huge difference in facilities between 2009 and 2015 where it would be only reasonable to expect far better average adjusted scoring margins.

I see a trend where the end of Pasqualoni's tenure looks pretty similar to Marrone/Shafer/Babers on average with a 4 year debacle in between. I had big hopes for babers and it's hard for me to admit he's average. It really hurts my feelings. But here i am admitting he's average because I try not be a baby.

You keep mentioning emotions. There is plenty being said on this board that has nothing to do with emotion. And the facts are great, but if you don't understand what leads to the facts you miss a huge part of the puzzle.

Your mouthful is a lot of sarcasm with little information.
Your "step by step" skips a crapload of steps.
Score more points and win more. Duh
Scoring more points is harder against better teams. Double duh

Why does a team score fewer points than the opponent? What makes an opponent better/worse?
1. Talent? How do we get better talent? Do need to scout better? Do we have trouble landing better prospects? What makes a teenager choose a program? Is it facilities? Is it the coaches? Is it location? Is it NIL? Is it the scheme the player will play in?
2. Scheme? What makes a scheme successful?
3. Execution? Can any scheme be successful if it's not executed well?
4. Player technique? Are players fundamentally sound? Are practices organized to teach the correct fundamentals and make them muscle memory?
5. Player conditioning. Are guys getting stronger? Do they have adequate stamina? Do they have good mobility and stability to minimize injury?

If you run a play and it does not succeed, is it because our talent was overwhelmed by their talent? Did our guy(s) make a mental mistake? Did our guy(s) do what he was told but that was the wrong thing in this curcumstance? Did their coach call a better play than our coach? Are our players getting fatigued?

You love to talk about numbers but you don't ever talk about the nuance behind the numbers. I suspect it's because you don't understand that side of the sport. I admit, my understanding of all those factors is also limited. But at least I don't dismiss their presence with flippant sarcasm.

 

[Millhouse]

You keep mentioning emotions. There is plenty being said on this board that has nothing to do with emotion. And the facts are great, but if you don't understand what leads to the facts you miss a huge part of the puzzle.

Your mouthful is a lot of sarcasm with little information.
Your "step by step" skips a crapload of steps.
Score more points and win more. Duh
Scoring more points is harder against better teams. Double duh

Why does a team score fewer points than the opponent? What makes an opponent better/worse?
1. Talent? How do we get better talent? Do need to scout better? Do we have trouble landing better prospects? What makes a teenager choose a program? Is it facilities? Is it the coaches? Is it location? Is it NIL? Is it the scheme the player will play in?
2. Scheme? What makes a scheme successful?
3. Execution? Can any scheme be successful if it's not executed well?
4. Player technique? Are players fundamentally sound? Are practices organized to teach the correct fundamentals and make them muscle memory?
5. Player conditioning. Are guys getting stronger? Do they have adequate stamina? Do they have good mobility and stability to minimize injury?

If you run a play and it does not succeed, is it because our talent was overwhelmed by their talent? Did our guy(s) make a mental mistake? Did our guy(s) do what he was told but that was the wrong thing in this curcumstance? Did their coach call a better play than our coach? Are our players getting fatigued?

You love to talk about numbers but you don't ever talk about the nuance behind the numbers. I suspect it's because you don't understand that side of the sport. I admit, my understanding of all those factors is also limited. But at least I don't dismiss their presence with flippant sarcasm.

Talent scheme execution technique and conditioning are all factors in scoring margin.
Luckily, they're all things under the control of the coach
So when the scoring margin is average, you can safely assume that the combination of all the factors involved combine to average.

 

[upperdeck]

think back to how bad we played at VT.. We scored to make it 32-10 after the safety.. Then remember. We dropped a pick 6 on a 1st quarter drive that one play alone changes the game to 25-17. VT is not free wheeling the whole half. That play doesnt require any coaching changes. and we played like crap most of the game..

Single plays can change a game beyond just the result of the play.

 

[orlandoorange]

Actually back during Covid I calculated SU's overall W-L record since I started as a student in 1969. It was within a few games of .500.

At a quick glance we look about 50 games under . 500 since 2005.

No doubt Maronne benefited from some recency bias, but he also has a pretty larg hole to climb out of.

 

[Millhouse]

think back to how bad we played at VT.. We scored to make it 32-10 after the safety.. Then remember. We dropped a pick 6 on a 1st quarter drive that one play alone changes the game to 25-17. VT is not free wheeling the whole half. That play doesnt require any coaching changes. and we played like crap most of the game..

Single plays can change a game beyond just the result of the play.

Yeah, babers has coached a zillion games now

 

[orangecuse]

So if you have the best sales rep and you have no merch. Are they good or bad at their job?

You can be great at your job and still get bad results as well.

I agree that much of it still is on him.. 25 yrs of sucky play starts to make you wonder how you dig out of the hole we have dug.. Maybe its more than the coach.

Well, you're conveniently moving the goal posts here. Your analogy is night and day from the real life scenario.

Fact of the matter is, Dino has been given and afforded more means, etc. than any coach in the history of SU football. And, with all of that, his ACC/peer record to date (in a relatively mediocre conference sans Clemson and the past 2 seasons with FSU) is a pathetic 19-43.

 

[Bayside44]

Well, you're conveniently moving the goal posts here. Your analogy is night and day from the real life scenario.

Fact of the matter is, Dino has been given and afforded more means, etc. than any coach in the history of SU football. And, with all of that, his ACC/peer record to date (in a relatively mediocre conference sans Clemson and the past 2 seasons with FSU) is a pathetic 19-43.

Our first four years in the ACC FSU won 47 games.

 

[Millhouse]

Well, you're conveniently moving the goal posts here. Your analogy is night and day from the real life scenario.

Fact of the matter is, Dino has been given and afforded more means, etc. than any coach in the history of SU football. And, with all of that, his ACC/peer record to date (in a relatively mediocre conference sans Clemson and the past 2 seasons with FSU) is a pathetic 19-43.

19/62=31%.

marrone was 11-17 in conference. 39%

as a whole, big east in 2012 SRS = .98
acc in 2023 = 5.7

the 44th team is 5.7 this year
the 70th team would be .98

When I have more time, I'll get the average conference SRS across multiple years to do it right.

But 31% and 39% might be similar once you take into account conference strength.

Shafer was 29%

Pasqualoni was 40% his last 3 years. The big east sucked his last year, SRS of -0.75 but was pretty good the prior two years (when he had a 29% winning percentage)

see any patterns here?

We have had a bunch of ordinary coaching performances 2002 on (along with one total failure) for a long time now. Some seasons the stars align, other seasons, the schedule is a little tough for us

 

[orlandoorange]

19/62=31%.

marrone was 11-17 in conference. 39%

as a whole, big east in 2012 SRS = .98
acc in 2023 = 5.7

the 44th team is 5.7 this year
the 70th team would be .98

When I have more time, I'll get the average conference SRS across multiple years to do it right.

But 31% and 39% might be similar once you take into account conference strength.

Shafer was 29%

Pasqualoni was 40% his last 3 years. The big east sucked his last year, SRS of -0.75 but was pretty good the prior two years (when he had a 29% winning percentage)

see any patterns here?

We have had a bunch of ordinary coaching performances 2002 on (along with one total failure) for a long time now. Some seasons the stars align, other seasons, the schedule is a little tough for us

It seems like it would be worth looking at trends rather than overall numbers. A successful coach would come in at level y and be y+ in year 2, 3, etc. And see somewhat of an upward slope

 

[syrBossHogg]

There’s this league where only 32 people are paid silly money to coach football. Marrone was one of them. There are also these things called eyeballs. Marrone was such a better coach than Schafer or Babers, I don’t think it’s much of a debate.

Citing the NFL as a reason why Marrone was a good coach makes no sense. He had a losing record there, was hated in Buffalo, and there's always horrible coaches that get hired there. It's an old boys club

 

[anomander]

I think it's funny that Babers is considered so bad, Shafer is considered horrible, and marrone is considered excellent when there is so little difference in schedule adjusted scoring margin

In fairness to Marrone he took over a horror show and for me at least gave me hope. He seemed to have a plan. These other guys are just winging it as they go.

 

[anomander]

Citing the NFL as a reason why Marrone was a good coach makes no sense. He had a losing record there, was hated in Buffalo, and there's always horrible coaches that get hired there. It's an old boys club

Don’t you factor in circumstances? Marrone had a total gutting job to do with absolutely no resources. In 3 years he turned us into a top 15 team by the end of the 2012 season.

 

[dasher]

Don’t you factor in circumstances? Marrone had a total gutting job to do with absolutely no resources. In 3 years he turned us into a top 15 team by the end of the 2012 season.

I'm sorry, what? We were no where near the top 15 at the end of the 2012 season. We weren't in the top 25. We weren't even in the also getting votes. I just looked.

 

[anomander]

I'm sorry, what? We were no where near the top 15 at the end of the 2012 season. We weren't in the top 25. We weren't even in the also getting votes. I just looked.

i know. what i meant was the way we were playing it felt like we were a top 15 team by the end of the year

 

[anomander]

That had to be the best punt return since Estime