Predicting Future Success

Randy Carson

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
153
This is a football thread, I promise. Just give me a minute to set up my question.

I'm not a fan of the one-and-done phenomenon in college basketball. I would rather watch a group of kids develop over four years than to live and die by the revolving door, and I can't believe it is more satisfying to coach one-and-done's than to build a team over a period of several seasons. Do you think Coach K enjoyed coaching Zion more than Johnny Dawkins or Christian Laettner? I don't.

So, here's my football question: Which is the greater predictor of a football team's success: the average number of stars each of the players had coming out of high school or the average number of years that the team has been together?

I lean toward the idea that a bunch of three- and four-star juniors and seniors will consistently beat a team of four- and five-star freshmen and sophomores - because younger players make more mistakes. And perhaps because Juniors and Seniors have spent more time in the weight room and studying game film.

IOW, "get old and stay old" wins over the long haul. Are there any studies on this? Your thoughts?
 

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,471
Hard to have old guys every year.
Need a stud in mix

Pitt this year
OL all seniors , Defense stout.
QB Senior plus who was stud.

Baylor and gt had special offensive system.
Gt was good w studs - first odange bowl and w/o studs was good in decond orange bowl because all skill guys were sr level.
Same was true of Baylor. When RG3 came but had to sit they built depth. The rg3 played and then got must better. When they added nfl tall wr stud they sere great.

Imo, with portal gt need to focus on ALWAYS HAVING OL GUYS THAT ARE R SR. W portal as they say " Resdy day 1 studs will come"
 

roedeo

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
186
Stars are an important leading indicator, but in the end some of the ranking scores are subjective. Several GT recruits have had their scores lowered after committing.

The first recent modifier was the ‘free’ year granted to SAs in 2020 due to the pandemic. Some players stayed instead of moving on. That prevented some of the younger players from getting game reps.

Now, with the floodgates open and hundreds of SAs rushing to change teams thru the transfer portal, teams with 3 or 4-year starters, with the same team, will become the exception and no longer the norm. This will likely become a major modifier for future team performance. ALOT of teams.

Add on top of this the coaching carousel we are witnessing, including changing OCs and DCs, thus the play calling changes.

So, as a former stock broker once said “past performance is no predictor of future success”

So for now, we are in a holding pattern, waiting for more pieces of the puzzle to be added. It’s a only partial view, like a mirror dimly lit. More to be revealed by next September.
 

Gtswifty81

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
432
This is a football thread, I promise. Just give me a minute to set up my question.

I'm not a fan of the one-and-done phenomenon in college basketball. I would rather watch a group of kids develop over four years than to live and die by the revolving door, and I can't believe it is more satisfying to coach one-and-done's than to build a team over a period of several seasons. Do you think Coach K enjoyed coaching Zion more than Johnny Dawkins or Christian Laettner? I don't.

So, here's my football question: Which is the greater predictor of a football team's success: the average number of stars each of the players had coming out of high school or the average number of years that the team has been together?

I lean toward the idea that a bunch of three- and four-star juniors and seniors will consistently beat a team of four- and five-star freshmen and sophomores - because younger players make more mistakes. And perhaps because Juniors and Seniors have spent more time in the weight room and studying game film.

IOW, "get old and stay old" wins over the long haul. Are there any studies on this? Your thoughts?
I would say it depends. The top factories land the blue chippers who can be impact players immediately but I think they still need OL and inside lineman with some experience. For the average teams I think experienced QBs and experienced OL is very important for success. Other positions like RB and WR can be filled more easily with youth.
 

gville_jacket

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
488
Stars are an important leading indicator, but in the end some of the ranking scores are subjective. Several GT recruits have had their scores lowered after committing.
Rankings are definitely subjective on an individual person level. However, it’s well documented that a team with a higher overall average star ranking typically does better than a lower star. It’s not as important a team gets this or that 4 star, any given 4 star can be a bust but a team that gets 10 4 stars is guaranteed 3 of them become all conference.
 

southernhive

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
433
BYU is a good example of players in you "get old stay old" concept. Many of their players go on a 2 year sabbatical during their years in college. Some of their players are 26 or 27 years old, married with kids. On the other hand, I don't know how many Mormons play football. Not that you have to be Mormon to play at BYU.
 

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,471
BYU is a good example of players in you "get old stay old" concept. Many of their players go on a 2 year sabbatical during their years in college. Some of their players are 26 or 27 years old, married with kids. On the other hand, I don't know how many Mormons play football. Not that you have to be Mormon to play at BYU.
Back in 93 my ol son was offered a PWO at nebraska but wanted to play immediatly. Neb told him he might get on scholarship when he was going to be r shirt jr Told him they have plenty kids that want to come but are short and not quick. They said that while he was 6'5 245# , he was only 17 so it would take 3 years of effort before he could add weight to be ol. ( they were right).

Tech , imo, should have the best ol coach long term money can buy. He should be our ol coach no matter who is HC. Put a tech ol guy in nfl e eryvother yesr and the floor for wins is 6 games. The qb and sr follow the ol. No excuse for not being " the ol institute"
 

chewybaka

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
876
Back in 93 my ol son was offered a PWO at nebraska but wanted to play immediatly. Neb told him he might get on scholarship when he was going to be r shirt jr Told him they have plenty kids that want to come but are short and not quick. They said that while he was 6'5 245# , he was only 17 so it would take 3 years of effort before he could add weight to be ol. ( they were right).

Tech , imo, should have the best ol coach long term money can buy. He should be our ol coach no matter who is HC. Put a tech ol guy in nfl e eryvother yesr and the floor for wins is 6 games. The qb and sr follow the ol. No excuse for not being " the ol institute"
Bobby Ross philosophy...focus on OL and DL...it works!
 

Jmonty71

Banned
Messages
2,156
2 rules of thumb conflict, with me. Rule 1. Past performance is not an indicator of future success. In this case, lack of success. Rule 2. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. Both apply here. We have had little success, the last 3 years. To add, during that 3 year span, Collins said the same things over and over... We changed our OC, so that changes things....for better, worse or indifferent. However, how can you not take the last 3 years of history, and place that into your through process? I have little faith in Collins. He needs to prove himself to the fan base. He needs to prove himself to those young men, playing for him. He has a tough hill to climb. First step is to realize his way, isn't the right way....or at least not the way GT needs. If he can do that, anything is possible.
 

85Escape

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
877
2 rules of thumb conflict, with me. Rule 1. Past performance is not an indicator of future success. In this case, lack of success. Rule 2. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. Both apply here. We have had little success, the last 3 years. To add, during that 3 year span, Collins said the same things over and over... We changed our OC, so that changes things....for better, worse or indifferent. However, how can you not take the last 3 years of history, and place that into your through process? I have little faith in Collins. He needs to prove himself to the fan base. He needs to prove himself to those young men, playing for him. He has a tough hill to climb. First step is to realize his way, isn't the right way....or at least not the way GT needs. If he can do that, anything is possible.
I'm with whoever posted the Linus Football Meme. Here I go again...

I really want CGC to work out. Another transition isn't any more likely to be successful and probably will result in another two to three years of mediocrity. Finding a super-star coach is unlikely, and retaining them is even less likely.

We need CGC to figure this out and win. I'm stupid, but with a change in OC I'm starting to get hopeful that we can see things gel.

  • Maybe we'll quit running a hurry-up when facing high-powered offensive teams.
  • Maybe when we do run hurry-up it will be well-done, instead of slow as molasses as the coaching staff tries to figure out what the play should be.
  • Maybe more rest on the sidelines will help our thin defense stay fresh.
  • Maybe when you've got probably the best RB room in the conference you'll actually figure out how to use them instead of slavishly trying to stay 'balanced' as if losing with balance is better than winning out-of-balance.

While our defense was certainly a major problem, I think our poor offense contributed to our defensive woes. Or, at least, I want to convince myself of that since that's the only place we are likely to see a step-change in performance.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,730
Rankings are definitely subjective on an individual person level. However, it’s well documented that a team with a higher overall average star ranking typically does better than a lower star. It’s not as important a team gets this or that 4 star, any given 4 star can be a bust but a team that gets 10 4 stars is guaranteed 3 of them become all conference.
Coached up, of course,
 

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,745
Location
Auburn, AL
So, here's my football question: Which is the greater predictor of a football team's success: the average number of stars each of the players had coming out of high school or the average number of years that the team has been together?
I believe there's a study on this. There is a direct correlation between the percentage of 4/5 stars on a team and end of year results.
 

CEB

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
361
I believe there's a study on this. There is a direct correlation between the percentage of 4/5 stars on a team and end of year results.
I’m sure there is. How does Cincy shake out? Does it take into consideration the year of success vs the year the 4/5stars were recruited? Not a knock on you or the study (I haven’t seen it), but I suspect there’s a lot “noise” in the conclusions.
I for one believe the biggest reason the usual suspects remain the usual suspects is because of their ability to redshirt and develop 4/5 star guys. When these 4/5 star guys are major contributors in year 3,4 and 5 as opposed to year 1,2 and 3 the result is light years better.
Certainly recruiting Success matters. It’s a huge first step. Retaining and developing talent is what distinguishes the perennial playoff teams from everyone else.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,730
Tech , imo, should have the best ol coach long term money can buy. He should be our ol coach no matter who is HC. Put a tech ol guy in nfl e eryvother yesr and the floor for wins is 6 games. The qb and sr follow the ol. No excuse for not being " the ol institute"
Don't know about one of the "best", but we certainly have one of the most expensive O-line coaches. Brent will be making $650,000 in 2022:


1. Kyle Flood, Texas -- $1 million*
2. Matt Luke, Georgia -- $900,000+
3. Bill Bedenbaugh, Oklahoma -- $810,000+
4. Doug Marrone, Alabama -- $755,000
5. Glen Elarbee, Tennessee -- $750,000
6. James Cregg, LSU -- $707,000
7. Justin Frye, UCLA -- $700,000*
7. Chris Kapilovic, Michigan State -- $700,000+
7. Greg Studrawa, Ohio State -- $700,000
10. Brad Davis, Arkansas -- $650,000
11. Robbie Caldwell, Clemson -- $640,000
12. Josh Henson, Texas A&M -- $600,000
12. Brent Key, Georgia Tech -- $600,000+
 

Jmonty71

Banned
Messages
2,156
I'm with whoever posted the Linus Football Meme. Here I go again...

I really want CGC to work out. Another transition isn't any more likely to be successful and probably will result in another two to three years of mediocrity. Finding a super-star coach is unlikely, and retaining them is even less likely.

We need CGC to figure this out and win. I'm stupid, but with a change in OC I'm starting to get hopeful that we can see things gel.

  • Maybe we'll quit running a hurry-up when facing high-powered offensive teams.
  • Maybe when we do run hurry-up it will be well-done, instead of slow as molasses as the coaching staff tries to figure out what the play should be.
  • Maybe more rest on the sidelines will help our thin defense stay fresh.
  • Maybe when you've got probably the best RB room in the conference you'll actually figure out how to use them instead of slavishly trying to stay 'balanced' as if losing with balance is better than winning out-of-balance.

While our defense was certainly a major problem, I think our poor offense contributed to our defensive woes. Or, at least, I want to convince myself of that since that's the only place we are likely to see a step-change in performance.
My former coach used to say the best defense is a time consuming offense. Usually, if you have the ball, the other team can't score. However; that still puts ownership on the D, to make stops. As a team, we have failed in all 3 phases. Offense, defense and special teams. All 3 have been flat out terrible. There is a lot of work to be done. I also hope CGC succeeds. I just think he will. Talking and doing are two different things. He has talked enough, time to see the do. The do matters.
 

7979

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
182
Location
Nashville
My former coach used to say the best defense is a time consuming offense. Usually, if you have the ball, the other team can't score. However; that still puts ownership on the D, to make stops. As a team, we have failed in all 3 phases. Offense, defense and special teams. All 3 have been flat out terrible. There is a lot of work to be done. I also hope CGC succeeds. I just think he will. Talking and doing are two different things. He has talked enough, time to see the do. The do matters.
"My former coach used to say the best defense is a time consuming offense."
Just talked with Paul...he says Hi" and he agrees with your "former coach"....
 

bke1984

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,701
I believe there's a study on this. There is a direct correlation between the percentage of 4/5 stars on a team and end of year results.
There’s also a direct correlation on the number of stars a player gets and where his offers are coming from suggesting that the name brands of winning teams influence the star rating. If this is true to then the correlation to wins also makes sense.

The stars are a really poor system that I’m fairly certain coaches don’t even care about. It’s much more of a fan marketing scheme than anything else.
 
Top