Article Says BEST CASE Scenario Is 5-7

[jacketup]

I think after the last two years of poor head coaching and terrible on field results, the fans are going to want to see some real results. The games were not even close the vast majority of the time the last two years. very little reason to sit through such an embarrassing coaching performance and watch such a poor product on the field. We are not nearly as low on talent as the results we have had. The recruiter who thinks he is a head coach has crushed all hope for a while for a large swath of the fanbase, greatly reducing season ticket holders and the $ that generates. 4-6 wins is not going to change the trajectory either. Expect even less season tickets to be purchased in season 4 of the recruiter experiment.

The silent majority are voting by doing something else on Saturdays.

The decline in attendance is happening all over the place. With almost every game on TV, big screen TVs, and beer while you watch the game from a comfortable chair, why pay a bunch of money to go fight a crowd, traffic and parking to sit on a bench and have a worse view? Covid likely accelerated the move away from game attendance.

You take every opportunity to bash a staff that walked into a mess without giving them a chance. That's what your post, and your other posts, are really about. Your posts are entitled to no respect.

 

[ncjacket79]

Hearing the schedule is hard doesn’t change the reality that it is really hard. Clemson, UGA and ND are annually top 1 to 10 teams in college football. Having 25% of your schedule at teams who regularly compete for the National Championshipis hard. No one else in the ACC faces the equivalent of Clemson and IGA annually.

Miami and UNC are stacked with talent. No one can question Mack Brown as a coach, he is elite.

improved play across all positions is what we need this year and the results will be what they are.

Sort of agree. But Mack’s best record so far in his second stint is 8 wins and they lost a fair amount from that team. Diaz is the same…8 wins. Not saying we should beat either but I’m not scared.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I am cautiously optimistic about this season. I think people underestimate the impact not having a true offseason had on our team. We started a freshman qb, tackle and rb. We also started a new center and a transfer guard. That is a lot of new pieces in offense, many with no college experience. They missed hundreds of reps that you would normally have to gain some cohesion and work through mistakes. I highly doubt Sims would have thrown as many interceptions had he had the offseason reps to make those mistakes. That experience, along with a full offseason and quality transfers is why I think we can outperform expectations. Also, having a proven kicker should lower the number of empty drives we had last year. We still need to prove it on the field but I think we are set up to surprise some people if we can play the way we are capable of playing.

Yep, this reminds me of the pre-season predictions for ACC Basketball. We were picked to finish 9th when we essentially finished 3rd.

In hindsight it makes total sense to everyone, since almost the entire roster from the previous year returned.

I feel the same way about football. We didn't lose any major unreplaceable pieces of the team last year. My only real concern was the same concern I had last year - linebacker position. But in terms of taking a team that improved 50% in most metrics year over year that gets back nearly the entire roster this year, that's why I don't see us winning 0-3 games as a predicted outcome being a reasonable opinion.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Sort of agree. But Mack’s best record so far in his second stint is 8 wins and they lost a fair amount from that team. Diaz is the same…8 wins. Not saying we should beat either but I’m not scared.

Mack Brown is also one of the original architects of the fake classes scheme. So you can bet part of the reason they get that much talent is the cheating shenanigans that go hand in hand with that university (sic).

 

[roadkill]

Mack Brown is also one of the original architects of the fake classes scheme. So you can bet part of the reason they get that much talent is the cheating shenanigans that go hand in hand with that university (sic).

For those with a subscription to The Athletic, Mack Brown is ranked #1 in the ACC in a just-released analysis of coach's recruiting skills based on improvements since arrival. Anyone care to guess who came in second?

Ranking recruiting game-changers: Nick Saban's crazy stats, Ryan Day's post-Urban rise, and Return of the Mack

We compared each coach's recruiting results to the classes that were assembled before their arrival at their respective schools.

theathletic.com

 

[Deleted member 2897]

For those with a subscription to The Athletic, Mack Brown is ranked #1 in the ACC in a just-released analysis of coach's recruiting skills based on improvements since arrival. Anyone care to guess who came in second?

Ranking recruiting game-changers: Nick Saban's crazy stats, Ryan Day's post-Urban rise, and Return of the Mack

We compared each coach's recruiting results to the classes that were assembled before their arrival at their respective schools.

theathletic.com

Interesting. He improved their long run average class rankings by 10-12 spots and that puts him in 1st in the ACC in recruiting improvement. Geoff Collins has improved our rankings 25-30 spots each year and that’s good for 2nd. Seems legit.

 

[roadkill]

Interesting. He improved their long run average class rankings by 10-12 spots and that puts him in 1st in the ACC in recruiting improvement. Geoff Collins has improved our rankings 25-30 spots each year and that’s good for 2nd. Seems legit.

Did you read the article? Not sure where you got your numbers, but that's not what the article's chart says. They said they used 247 composite, but I did not verify the validity of their data.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Did you read the article? Not sure where you got your numbers, but that's not what the article's chart says. They said they used 247 composite, but I did not verify the validity of their data.

I can't read the article - behind a paywall.

I looked at the average ranking the last 5 years starting back in 2018 (before both our coaches started). Per Rivals, UNC's average ranking was about 25. The last couple years its averaged about 14, which is a net gain of 11. Georgia Tech averaged about 50 and went to about 20 for a net gain of 30. 247 says their average was 28 compared to Rivals' 25 and has the same average of 50 as Rivals does. So 247 has UNC gaining about 14 spots, not just 11. But still a fraction of ours.

If you look at roster composite rating by 247, UNC is currently at 22 and we are at 34. In 2018 they were 29 and we were 50. So they improved 7 spots under that measure and we improved 16. To me this measure is this broadest measure which captures the best picture of recruiting, because you get credit or blame for transfers in and out over a full roster period.

Again, I don't know what types of measures they're using, but under any scenario I would use, Mack Brown has improved their recruiting, but not nearly anywhere near the number of spots we have.

 

[Coloradojacket]

Interesting. He improved their long run average class rankings by 10-12 spots and that puts him in 1st in the ACC in recruiting improvement. Geoff Collins has improved our rankings 25-30 spots each year and that’s good for 2nd. Seems legit.

Not sure where you are getting the recruiting improving 30 spots
Rankings 2014 class to 2021
Per Rivals
47
39
67
41
53
43* Hybrid year
25
48

And interesting about that 2016 class at 67, lots of 2 stars that turned out to be pretty good, Such as Jalen Camp.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Not sure where you are getting the recruiting improving 30 spots
Rankings 2014 class to 2021
Per Rivals
47
39
67
41
53
43* Hybrid year
25
48

And interesting about that 2016 class at 67, lots of 2 stars that turned out to be pretty good, Such as Jalen Camp.

I put all the information up above. I also just now took 247s roster composite ratings back in 2015 (as far back as they go).
So here is what 247 says for rankings
Right now: UNC 22, GT 34
2018: UNC 29, GT 50
2015: UNC 26, GT 49

Using this metric, UNC has improved 4-7 spots. We have improved 15-16 spots. Anyway you slice it, our recruiting has improved 2-4x as many spots as theirs has.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Not sure where you are getting the recruiting improving 30 spots
Rankings 2014 class to 2021
Per Rivals
47
39
67
41
53
43* Hybrid year
25
48

And interesting about that 2016 class at 67, lots of 2 stars that turned out to be pretty good, Such as Jalen Camp.

Oh, I think I know what you left out. Which is a reason I really like 247s roster composite approach. And I can't read the article, so I'm not sure why they are saying something that conflicts with their own data. But when I hear recruiting, I'm looking at who we recruit. Who transfers in. Who transfers out. Are we bringing in highly rated players? Are we churning out low rated players? Is the net effect that essentially the average star rating on our roster is getting better? How much so? 247 and Rivals say over the last 2 years our recruiting rankings have improved 2-4x as much as UNC, depending on the time period and service you compare.

 

[Coloradojacket]

I put all the information up above. I also just now took 247s roster composite ratings back in 2015 (as far back as they go).
So here is what 247 says for rankings
Right now: UNC 22, GT 34
2018: UNC 29, GT 50
2015: UNC 26, GT 49

Using this metric, UNC has improved 4-7 spots. We have improved 15-16 spots. Anyway you slice it, our recruiting has improved 2-4x as many spots as theirs has.

Maybe it is one of those cases that is stating going from say 50-40 is not as hard as 35-20. or say 12-2. The higher up you are the incremental is worth more. Maybe....

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Maybe it is one of those cases that is stating going from say 50-40 is not as hard as 35-20. or say 12-2. The higher up you are the incremental is worth more. Maybe....

Going from 28 to 22 is a 20% improvement.

Going from 50 to 35 is a 30% improvement.

I had thought of that too (relative performance), but we're still 50% better on a relative basis using that approach too.

But that could be it - damn the data, we just think 28 to 22 is better than 50 to 35.

 

[orientalnc]

 

[roadkill]

I put all the information up above. I also just now took 247s roster composite ratings back in 2015 (as far back as they go).
So here is what 247 says for rankings
Right now: UNC 22, GT 34
2018: UNC 29, GT 50
2015: UNC 26, GT 49

Using this metric, UNC has improved 4-7 spots. We have improved 15-16 spots. Anyway you slice it, our recruiting has improved 2-4x as many spots as theirs has.

OK, this is my last slap at this horse... I'm not going to dispute anyone's data nor have I checked the article's accuracy. Also since it's behind a paywall I won't paste verbatim here. I just found it interesting and data-driven. So the basis of the ranking is recruiting improvement on a point scale based on 247 Composite class rankings vs the average of the five years before the coach's arrival. Mack got a 27.8-to-14.5 (13.3) score improvement. Collins got a 50-to-37 (13.0) improvement. Their chart also figures this on a percentage basis which may be a better way to look at some scores that were already good. Collins came in third as a percentage behind Mack and Dabo.
The article also includes a narrative about each coach and is quite favorable to Collins recruiting.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I can't read the article - behind a paywall.

I looked at the average ranking the last 5 years starting back in 2018 (before both our coaches started). Per Rivals, UNC's average ranking was about 25. The last couple years its averaged about 14, which is a net gain of 11. Georgia Tech averaged about 50 and went to about 20 for a net gain of 30. 247 says their average was 28 compared to Rivals' 25 and has the same average of 50 as Rivals does. So 247 has UNC gaining about 14 spots, not just 11. But still a fraction of ours.

If you look at roster composite rating by 247, UNC is currently at 22 and we are at 34. In 2018 they were 29 and we were 50. So they improved 7 spots under that measure and we improved 16. To me this measure is this broadest measure which captures the best picture of recruiting, because you get credit or blame for transfers in and out over a full roster period.

Again, I don't know what types of measures they're using, but under any scenario I would use, Mack Brown has improved their recruiting, but not nearly anywhere near the number of spots we have.

Just a theory but my crude math skills tell me that the improvement Brown showed was harder. For instance, in theory, it would be harder to go from say 11th best recruiting to 2nd best in recruiting as a product of fewer available top players that you are competing for. So the higher you go in recruiting rankings the harder it would be to make a big jump in rankings.

Not arguing, just throwing out a thesis.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

OK, this is my last slap at this horse... I'm not going to dispute anyone's data nor have I checked the article's accuracy. Also since it's behind a paywall I won't paste verbatim here. I just found it interesting and data-driven. So the basis of the ranking is recruiting improvement on a point scale based on 247 Composite class rankings vs the average of the five years before the coach's arrival. Mack got a 27.8-to-14.5 (13.3) score improvement. Collins got a 50-to-37 (13.0) improvement. Their chart also figures this on a percentage basis which may be a better way to look at some scores that were already good. Collins came in third as a percentage behind Mack and Dabo.
The article also includes a narrative about each coach and is quite favorable to Collins recruiting.

That explains it - they are cherry picking their own data. They are ignoring transfers in and out the last two years (which they themselves include in their roster composite rankings). 247 currently ranks UNC 22nd, but are giving Mack a 14.5 average recruiting rating in the article apparently. Their roster has only improved around 6 spots since his arrival according to 247, but they're not going off that.

Here is the direct link to 247s data, and you can flip back through the years to see how the numbers have changed over time:

2020 College Football Team Talent Composite

In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.

247sports.com

 

[roadkill]

That explains it - they are cherry picking their own data. They are ignoring transfers in and out the last two years (which they themselves include in their roster composite rankings). 247 currently ranks UNC 22nd, but are giving Mack a 14.5 average recruiting rating in the article apparently. Their roster has only improved around 6 spots since his arrival according to 247, but they're not going off that.

Here is the direct link to 247s data, and you can flip back through the years to see how the numbers have changed over time:

2020 College Football Team Talent Composite

In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.

247sports.com

To be clear, the report I linked was not from 247 - it was from a reporter on The Athletic who chose to use 247's data. I don't think he was trying to cherry-pick, but simply used one popular set of data that was available. Frankly, I agree with you that the Talent Composite is a better way of ranking overall recruiting and transfer success, and probably a better predictor of on-the-field success, but it is not as easy to use objectively when looking at a recruiting trend for newer coaches.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

To be clear, the report I linked was not from 247 - it was from a reporter on The Athletic who chose to use 247's data. I don't think he was trying to cherry-pick, but simply used one popular set of data that was available. Frankly, I agree with you that the Talent Composite is a better way of ranking overall recruiting and transfer success, and probably a better predictor of on-the-field success, but it is not as easy to use objectively when looking at a recruiting trend for newer coaches.

I don’t know, I think it is still just as useful and easy even with newer coaches. If a new coach comes in and runs off a bunch of players who transfer away, they should be held accountable for that in terms of recruiting. Likewise, if they bring in a bunch of highly rated recruits via transfer, they should get credit for that. The roster composite takes all those things into account.

 

[roadkill]

I don’t know, I think it is still just as useful and easy even with newer coaches. If a new coach comes in and runs off a bunch of players who transfer away, they should be held accountable for that in terms of recruiting. Likewise, if they bring in a bunch of highly rated recruits via transfer, they should get credit for that. The roster composite takes all those things into account.

Fair point, and in your example, the composite would be a better way to rank recruiting success. But there are other cases where a new coach doesn't run off a bunch of players or dip into the transfer portal much, but makes a dramatic improvement (or dramatic drop, see Fuente) in their first year or two of recruiting. In that case, using the composite would initially under-count the coach's impact. Point is, there are different ways of judging a coach's recruiting success, and the article picked one that ranked Collins 2nd out of 14 in the ACC and described his recruiting improvement as "dramatic".