Making Sense of Nonsense

Who's the better coach based on the criteria provided

  • Mike Riley

    Votes: 17 85.0%

  • Bo Pelini

    Votes: 3 15.0%
  • Total voters
    20
huskerinacaveman

huskerinacaveman

New member
I wanted to liven up the board a bit because I've noticed that its become a bit stagnant, so please be patient as I spell out what I am trying to do here.

If I am like any of you, which I probably am, I just have no real clue what to expect this year.

I've heard the arguments that M.R. isn't cut out for Nebraska, that his nice guy persona isn't going to fly, and the arguments that M.R. did more with less OSU than Bo did with NU.

From he sucks and it was a bad hire, to he's going to take us all the way...we've all heard them.

So, maybe, here is a little more concrete way to compare Mike Riley to Bo Pelini.

(Background) I am currently coming up on year number 10 in the Navy. Many of those years have been in the Reserves, and for several years I've been placed in a room with several others who hold the same rank as I do. We are asked to rank other sailors based only on the information provided in their evaluations.

There are areas of their evaluations that are not subjective and that all people scoring should have the same or very close to the same point totals for these areas. (Usually agreed upon through a discussion)

Then there are other areas that are subjective between ranges.

So if there was an evaluation of coaching careers between M.R. and Bo starting in 2008 ending in 2014....what would the area's of evaluation cover that would best represent the coach as a leader of an organization? I threw together some categories that we can play with.

I provided the non subjective point totals below.

Non Subjective Areas worth 10 Points Each

Bowl Games Played MR 5 Bo 7

Number of Winning Seasons MR 4 Bo 7

Blow Out Wins(defined by wins of 2 TD or more) MR 24 Bo 39

Blow out Losses (defined by losses of 2 TD or more) MR 19 Bo 13

Players Drafted MR 18 Bo 25

Games Against Top 25 Teams MR 29 Bo 27

Wins against top 25 teams MR 8 Bo 10

Losses against top 25 teams MR 21 Bo 17

How I graded areas Non Subjective

Bowl Games - 3 points for 1-2 games, 6 points for 3-4 games, 9 points for 5-6 games, 10 points for 7 games

Winning seasons - 3 points for 1-2 seasons, 6 points for 3-4 seasons, 9 points for 5-6 seasons, 10 points for 7 seasons

Blow out Wins - 2.5 points for 1-10, 5 points for 11-20, 7.5 points for 21-30, 10 points for 31-40

Blow out Losses - 2.5 points for 31-40, 5 points for 21-30, 7.5 points for 11-20, 10 points for 1-10

Players Drafted - 2.5 points for 1-10, 5 points for 11-20, 7.5 points for 21-30, 10 points for 31-40

Games Played Against Top 25 Teams - 2.5 points for 1-10, 5 points for 11-20, 7.5 points for 21-30, 10 points for 31-40

Wins Against Top 25 - 2 points for 1-2, 4 point for 3-4, 6 point for 5-6, 8 points to 7-8, 10 points for 9-10 Wins

Loses Against Top 25 - 2 point for 21-25, 4 points for 16-20, 6 points for 11-15, 8 points for 6-10, 10 points for 1-5

Non Subjective Point Total

Mike Riley 52.5

Bo Pelini 66.5

Rate Each coach where you think their skill sets are within each category below. Each category can be scored between 1-10

Perception (Grade on how he is perceived by his players and public)

Community Involvement (What did he do outside of the game)

Opponent Game Planning

Player Management

Staff Management

In Game Adjustments

Recruiting (Grade on ability to recruit vs what their recruiting classes are at the end of the recruiting cycle)

Player Development (Grade on their ability to develop players vs who has the better talent at the end of a players Senior Year)

Rank each coach on the Subjective Categories and then add up the points, and add to the Non Subjective Point Total I provided and answer the the poll questions.

Enjoy! GBR!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
huskerinacaveman said:
I provided the non subjective point totals below.

Non Subjective Areas worth 10 Points Each

Bowl Games Played MR 5 Bo 7

Number of Winning Seasons MR 4 Bo 7

Blow Out Wins(defined by wins of 2 TD or more) MR 24 Bo 39

Blow out Losses (defined by losses of 2 TD or more) MR 19 Bo 13

Players Drafted MR 18 Bo 25

Games Against Top 25 Teams MR 29 Bo 27

Wins against top 25 teams MR 8 Bo 10

Losses against top 25 teams MR 21 Bo 17

How I graded areas Non Subjective

Bowl Games - 3 points for 1-2 games, 6 points for 3-4 games, 9 points for 5-6 games, 10 points for 7 games

Winning seasons - 3 points for 1-2 seasons, 6 points for 3-4 seasons, 9 points for 5-6 seasons, 10 points for 7 seasons

Blow out Wins - 2.5 points for 1-10, 5 points for 11-20, 7.5 points for 21-30, 10 points for 31-40

Blow out Losses - 2.5 points for 31-40, 5 points for 21-30, 7.5 points for 11-20, 10 points for 1-10

Players Drafted - 2.5 points for 1-10, 5 points for 11-20, 7.5 points for 21-30, 10 points for 31-40

Games Played Against Top 25 Teams - 2.5 points for 1-10, 5 points for 11-20, 7.5 points for 21-30, 10 points for 31-40

Wins Against Top 25 - 2 points for 1-2, 4 point for 3-4, 6 point for 5-6, 8 points to 7-8, 10 points for 9-10 Wins

Loses Against Top 25 - 2 point for 21-25, 4 points for 16-20, 6 points for 11-15, 8 points for 6-10, 10 points for 1-5

Non Subjective Point Total

Mike Riley 52.5

Bo Pelini 66.5
Click to expand...
To be nonsubjective shouldn't we be comparing apples to apples? In most of Riley's upsets it was unranked OSU beating a ranked team. Like when 2008 unranked Oregon St beat #1 USC. I'm not sure if Bo ever beat a team ranked more than 10 spots higher than the Huskers. The same could be said for nearly every category. That is, Mike Riley doing more with less, as compared to Bo with vastly more resources.

Great topic for discussion though. +1
default_laugh.png


 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not sure I understand the blowout losses. Are you giving Pelini 2.5 points for every time he lost by more than 30? I think it should be negative points.

 
NUance. Absolutely, in no way did I write this up to make it seems as though my criteria is gold. We can definitely discuss what the criteria should be and rework the whole thing.

Moiraine

Yes, I could have used a negative point system for the losses, but regardless, the point system further differentiates the two from each other so I think it still makes for a valid comparison based on the info.

 
Your category of non-subjective comparison is anything but non-subjective. There's no honest way to look at Coach A with 5 bowl appearances vs Coach B with 7 bowl appearances, without also looking at every other factor.

The closest way to get to non-subjective, which still wouldn't even be close, would be to look at win percentages against the spread - ie, how each coach did when they were favored or when they were underdogs.

Anyways,

Rate Each coach where you think their skill sets are within each category below. Each category can be scored between 1-10
Perception (Grade on how he is perceived by his players and public) - 9 (Held back from 10 because he has a sterling reputation, but it's about equally as being a nice person as it is about being a great coach)
Community Involvement (What did he do outside of the game) - 8 (No idea on this, but he seems like a humble guy that is going to contribute where he's at)
Opponent Game Planning - 8 (You don't get the reputation for being a giant killer for nothing)
Player Management - No idea
Staff Management - 7.5 (Too early to judge one way or the other, but he has hired a lot of "buddies" and coaches he's familiar with. That could be great, but if it isn't, will he be able to get rid of them if he needs to?)
In Game Adjustments - No idea
Recruiting (Grade on ability to recruit vs what their recruiting classes are at the end of the recruiting cycle) - 7.5
Player Development (Grade on their ability to develop players vs who has the better talent at the end of a players Senior Year) - 8.5
 
MR has had a ton of talent up in Beaver world. And that being said to have as many losing records as he had I sure hope he don't bring that here.

 
Landlord, I think you might have missed what I was trying to say, and I though I do agree with what you are saying, the point I am making about non subjective, and subjective is not the criteria i used, but the points assigned to them. Everything is subjective, but I took to categories that are pretty defined, wins/losses top 25 stuff, that sort of stuff, and assigned (generally through a discussion) point values. I kind of took that part out of the discussion. That is how it works though. Like I said before we can discuss what really should be in there, and the point totals regarding any all criteria I used.

 
BaytownHusker said:
MR has had a ton of talent up in Beaver world. And that being said to have as many losing records as he had I sure hope he don't bring that here.
Click to expand...
Most of the problem with this statement is the fact that even though Riley has had some great talent his team as a whole was not very deep. In 03', I've long held the belief that KState was the best football team that year. Unfortunately, they were not very deep. When El Roberson went down with an injury, they lost to Marshall. When El Roberson was wrongly accused of assault and suspended for part of their bowl game, they lost to Ohio State. As great of a coach as Snyder is, it's highly doubtful he'll ever win a NC because KState will never have the depth of other teams. Only teams with a lot of depth can accomplish what Ohio State did last year with a third string QB. Here at Nebraska, Riley has the chance to have a roster with depth that he just didn't have at Oregon State.

 
huskerinacaveman said:
NUance. Absolutely, in no way did I write this up to make it seems as though my criteria is gold. We can definitely discuss what the criteria should be and rework the whole thing.

Moiraine

Yes, I could have used a negative point system for the losses, but regardless, the point system further differentiates the two from each other so I think it still makes for a valid comparison based on the info.
Click to expand...
You'd have to normalize everything that is affected by employer/location. Honestly your approach is horrible. Anyway if you actually care if your model is predictive or not, test it yourself. With many (not 2) cases.

The simplest approach that may work to a degree would include:

performance = power rank year end (nothing else no w/l, bowls etc all that is already built into power ranks)

recruiting rank (good groups or bad...considering the school. And did those groups do better or worse on the field than rec rank suggests)

deviation from the norm for the school

 
According to Rivals Nebraska has averaged 24.1 in the team rankings from 2008-2014 which is 22nd best comparing all schools. Oregon State averaged 48.3 good for 47th.

According to Ken Massey's power ratings Nebraska averaged 25.3 while Oregon State averaged 41.1. So Nebraska was slightly worse or even with their recruiting ranking and Oregon State was slightly better than theirs over that time period.

Not sure what that really tells us in regards to what Riley is going to do here.

 
Back
Top