Search results

If the data is informative under a 4-team playoff it can still be informative under a 12-team playoff, the heuristic should not be seen as a hard-and-fast rule under either condition though but in the long run and in the aggregate it will probably still tend to be true that new coaches that go...

No I mean like "coached special teams better, analysts dealt with opponents better, did [some coaching thing] that Mario is incapable of , didn't motion in slot WRs to block in condensed formation, had more than 2 favorite running plays, didn't eat pizza with milk" something that has contact...

I have a laundry list of gripes with Mario but if the idea is Ed Orgeron and Gene Chizik did anything that Mario can't do then I need specifics to buy that idea I won't buy that from data set augury.

Forums gonna be lit if they lose that game

What I would watch for is if they blow out average teams and if they fix those negative value offense stats that @mossmadness likes to post. If they win 10 games but it is some fluky Rosier year type stuff against a weak schedule then that is still bad sign imo.

I would start a little sooner but I am much more confident that the 24 months thing suggests "We can be **** sure this guy isn't Saban or Urban Meyer" than I am that it means "this guy can't win a title." 08 - Urban + stacked roster 09 - Saban + stacked roster 10 - all-world QB all-time carry...

Even without the new age, so many titles have been won by the same few coaches or standout QBs that I am not sure there is any takeaway in the data beyond "3-5 coaches are running really strong programs and Vince Young/Cam Newton/Joe Burrow tier QBs can win titles".

I kinda feel like you could make a long list of guys you think are better coaches than Mario and most likely the majority of them will need a generational QB and/or dominant lines of scrimmage (which is usually but not always downstream of stacked classes) to win a title as well.