More Fun With Rankings- ACC Coaches

Here’s something to play with on a Thursday morning in August. Our favorite ESPN ACC blogger is at it again. (I suppose I’m using a “neutral” favorite there– neither a compliment nor in the perjorative.) Since we had so much fun with the stadium rankings, here is a ranking of the ACC coaches.

Now, these lists are rather subjective, but there are some things that are just common-freaking-sense. Like using a set of parameters to rank one coach (Cutcliffe) #4– FOUR! in the ACC and not applying the same standards to Paul Johnson. A few more of these, and I’ll dub Heather the Courtney Fells of bloggers– maddeningly inconsistent. Tom O’Brien is listed 6th in this list. While the positioning give or take (well, give) a spot or two is fine, some of the names above and below are curious.

Of course, ask some BC fans and TOB should be dead last– so like I said, these things are somewhat in the eye of the beholder.

Still, I leave you with: David Cutcliffe?? Maybe he got another Manning we don’t know about yet…

About Dr. BadgerPack

NCSU Class of 99 and PhD University of Wisconsin, 2006... Which should adequately explain the screen name I chose at 2am one Saturday...

General NCS Football Rankings & Lists Tom O'Brien

43 Responses to More Fun With Rankings- ACC Coaches

  1. Noah 08/08/2008 at 8:10 AM #

    (although she did give PR love in the ranking of top clutch performers)

    Well that proves your point…since there is no such thing as a clutch performer.

  2. Ed89 08/08/2008 at 9:02 AM #

    ^^^Well that proves your point…since there is no such thing as a clutch performer.

    Disagree — ask C.D.R. about “clutch” free throws….

  3. LRM 08/08/2008 at 9:03 AM #

    Has anyone else noticed we’re a week into practice and neither the N&O or Gopack seem to have noticed?

  4. LRM 08/08/2008 at 9:05 AM #

    FYI, Heather Dinich is basically the “authority” of the ACC in ESPN Blog World, which is a central focus of the “new” ESPN. Better get used to her.

  5. Otis 08/08/2008 at 9:08 AM #

    yeah the new unis are in NCAA 09 video game – they look nice.

  6. Noah 08/08/2008 at 9:12 AM #

    Disagree — ask C.D.R. about “clutch” free throws….

    Disagree all you want. “clutch” and “choke” are emotional responses that come from how someone responds during a time when everyone is paying attention.

    Bill James has written about this since the 70s. They don’t exist.

  7. BJD95 08/08/2008 at 9:25 AM #

    I would hesitate to argue with Bill James. He is the man, when it comes to sports statistical analysis.

  8. Dr. BadgerPack 08/08/2008 at 10:01 AM #

    Sure “clutch” and “choke” exist… Like when I read the coaches/stadium rankings and wanted to “clutch” her and “choke” some sense into her. 🙂

    Seriously though, in the sports sense- clutch and choke are media exaggerations. You started hearing more and more about “clutch” when the media was looking for an excuse to say Jeter was better than A-Rod.

  9. Ed89 08/08/2008 at 10:04 AM #

    Interesting article for a different point of view:

    http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=schlabach_mark&id=3513944

    Anyone got pictures of the new unis?

  10. Noah 08/08/2008 at 11:47 AM #

    I would hesitate to argue with Bill James. He is the man, when it comes to sports statistical analysis.

    I disagree with him on a few things. He thinks the peak years for a baseball player are 25-29 and I think they’re 27-32. The difference is that by the time a guy is 27, you usually have to pay him because of his service time, while a 25 year old is usually still playing under his first contract. So the most economical years are 25-29…but production-wise, I say it’s 27-32. But he’s completely turned me around on a million different things.

    I wish there was a cognate to James for football. I imagine that such an analyst would be able to show the punt is as stupid as baseball’s bunt.

  11. Dr. BadgerPack 08/08/2008 at 12:44 PM #

    Noah– I can’t remember when James wrote the 25-29 peak years argument. Was it earlier when the trend was to draft younger (it’s been more college-ish lately). I would be curious as to whether the real correlation isn’t age, but # of professional seasons in terms of peak production.

  12. BJD95 08/08/2008 at 12:50 PM #

    I think some statistician at Cal did demonstrate that punting on 4th and less than 4 yards is always a bad move, unless inside your own 20 yard line.

  13. Noah 08/08/2008 at 1:45 PM #

    James still maintains the peak-years argument today. He still says 25-29.

    And that stat about punting sounds right. There are specific times and places where punting makes sense. But like outs in baseball, possessions in football are finite and should be treated like gold.

  14. wufpup76 08/08/2008 at 2:29 PM #

    “I think some statistician at Cal did demonstrate that punting on 4th and less than 4 yards is always a bad move, unless inside your own 20 yard line.”

    ^This is correct … I keep waiting for a ballsy coach to start implementing this “no punting on 4th and 3 or under” tactic … Could be waiting a while 😉

    … Also, good point vtpackfan on WF’s blocking schemes … I have never been a fan of their tactics, but I do begrudingly give them respect

  15. PackerInRussia 08/08/2008 at 3:14 PM #

    I remember reading in a TMQ article where Gregg Easterbrook (I know, he’s unloved by many) talked about a high school (or perhaps lower level college) coach who employed his philosophy of never punting (unless it’s like 4th and 30 and you’re on your own 5 or something like that). They were quite successful also.
    Speaking of unis. How ’bout those Madden covers?

  16. BJD95 08/08/2008 at 4:12 PM #

    Suppose you are the head coach at a place like Duke. You’ll never recruit enough for trench warfare and playing field position. Why the hell not try the “no punting” approach? At least you’d generate interest, and probably recruit well on offense.

    I’m surprised Texas Tech hasn’t gone that way. Their short passing game is tailor-made for it (their crap defense, too).

    I think James is still right on peak age being 27. Most guys start showing serious skill erosion around 32. But his most important contributions are considering “age for level” and heavy focus on OPS. It’s hard to believe that even ten years ago, most baseball people were still focused on “counting stats.”

  17. b 08/08/2008 at 5:19 PM #

    Go vote for the pack to get a third Southern Fried football spot.

    http://www.southernfriedfootball.com/Schedule/vote.html

  18. Noah 08/08/2008 at 6:08 PM #

    I think it’s in Moneyball (a book I had SERIOUS problems with) that they go through the history of baseball stats. The modern day box score was conjured up by a guy who knew nothing about baseball…but was a cricket fan. So the emphasis was on the wrong stuff.

Leave a Reply