The Talent Debate

[jakeman1]

The defensive scheme made it easy for other schools to pick off the DL. No one wanted to play that kind of defense. 3-4, 4-3, doesn't matter if they're playing 2-gap. Miami was scraping for bottom of the barrel guys most of the time while FSU is redshirting 4-5* kids, 2-3 deep.

 

[MIATL]

Thanks for posting that.

But I think the point most people are making is that there are only 2 teams ahead of us on that list on our schedule.

So, going 10-2 is not unreasonable. UNC is ranked 28th, and we get them at home.

The "can we win the natty next year" crowd might be a bit unrealistic. But the "10 win is a must" crowd is basing their opinion on the link you just posted. Our roster is more talented than everyone else on the schedule, except FSU and ND.

Except it doesn't work that way. It's basic combinatorial math. Just because you're more talented than team X doesn't mean your odds of beating them are 100%.

We might be a couple slots ahead of a team like Virginia Tech. So let's say our chance of beating them on talent alone is 60/40. We might be a couple slots ahead of Duke. Let's say our chance of beating them is also 60/40.

In a two game season of Miami vs Duke and Va Tech...if the odds of winning each game is 60%, you might say we should go 2-0. But you'd be wrong. Our odds are 60% x 60% which is 36%. So odds are GREATER that you WON'T go 2-0 in that scenario

The more games you string together, the lower the odds of a clean sweep, especially if the talent gap is small.

For that reason, it's very unlikely that we will win 10 games.

Except statistics only matter when considered in the context of a large sum. That calculation doesn't work for all teams, individually. So, it's not applicable in this instance, at all. ... Unless you're a gambler.

In that case, it helps degenerate gamblers (no offense) to play the odds ...

But I'm guessing gamblers lost a lot of money betting on UNC to lose games to end the season last year, huh??? Since "basic combinatorial math" probably gave them a 10% chance to finish the season 11-0.

Back on topic ... Canes have enough talent on the roster to win the Coastal. With improved coaching from Richt and Diaz, this team should be better than ANY team the previous staff fielded ... And they won 9 games, without a guy projected to be a 1st round pick playing QB.

 

[MiamiCaneCane]

The defensive scheme made it easy for other schools to pick off the DL. No one wanted to play that kind of defense. 3-4, 4-3, doesn't matter if they're playing 2-gap. Miami was scraping for bottom of the barrel guys most of the time while FSU is redshirting 4-5* kids, 2-3 deep.

Agree

 

[FG305]

So tell me, what was Dukes? Gts? North Carolinas? They won the Coastal, so why can't we?

Coaches.....you Golden slurpers are something else.

 

[MiamiCaneCane]

Thanks for posting that.

But I think the point most people are making is that there are only 2 teams ahead of us on that list on our schedule.

So, going 10-2 is not unreasonable. UNC is ranked 28th, and we get them at home.

The "can we win the natty next year" crowd might be a bit unrealistic. But the "10 win is a must" crowd is basing their opinion on the link you just posted. Our roster is more talented than everyone else on the schedule, except FSU and ND.

Except it doesn't work that way. It's basic combinatorial math. Just because you're more talented than team X doesn't mean your odds of beating them are 100%.

We might be a couple slots ahead of a team like Virginia Tech. So let's say our chance of beating them on talent alone is 60/40. We might be a couple slots ahead of Duke. Let's say our chance of beating them is also 60/40.

In a two game season of Miami vs Duke and Va Tech...if the odds of winning each game is 60%, you might say we should go 2-0. But you'd be wrong. Our odds are 60% x 60% which is 36%. So odds are GREATER that you WON'T go 2-0 in that scenario

The more games you string together, the lower the odds of a clean sweep, especially if the talent gap is small.

For that reason, it's very unlikely that we will win 10 games.

Except statistics only matter when considered in the context of a large sum. That calculation doesn't work for all teams, individually. So, it's not applicable in this instance, at all. ... Unless you're a gambler.

In that case, it helps degenerate gamblers (no offense) to play the odds ...

But I'm guessing gamblers lost a lot of money betting on UNC to lose games to end the season last year, huh??? Since "basic combinatorial math" probably gave them a 10% chance to finish the season 11-0.

Back on topic ... Canes have enough talent on the roster to win the Coastal. With improved coaching from Richt and Diaz, this team should be better than ANY team the previous staff fielded ... And they won 9 games, without a guy projected to be a 1st round pick playing QB.

Like flipping a coin, winning/losing is a binary event. The number of times you flip is irrelevant, if you flip it once - the odds of getting heads is 50%. The odds of getting heads twice in a row is 25%. Etc. That's the math.

That's not affected by sample size.

Similarly, the odds of winning 10 "winnable" games in a row is very low - even if Miami is favored in every game. It matters HOW MUCH you'ree favored by. If our odds of winning games are up in the 90% range, running off a string of victories becomes more likely. If our odds of winning each game are in the 60% range, the math proves out that it becomes very difficult to go on a run.

That has nothing to do with gambling, it's simply a mathematical fact.

The Canes might win the Coastal. My point is just that the odds are quite a bit lower than you seem to expect.

 

[supacane]

Every die hard knows this team is seriously devoed of talent and depth.

You say that...

But you have a plethora of ****suckers around here saying that there's a chance to 11-1/10-2.

There is a chance. What the **** is Duke's ranking on that same list? They won 10 games recently and won the coastal. Putrid non conference and putrid division. A 6 year old can figure why people are saying that. U must be 5

 

[MIATL]

Thanks for posting that.

But I think the point most people are making is that there are only 2 teams ahead of us on that list on our schedule.

So, going 10-2 is not unreasonable. UNC is ranked 28th, and we get them at home.

The "can we win the natty next year" crowd might be a bit unrealistic. But the "10 win is a must" crowd is basing their opinion on the link you just posted. Our roster is more talented than everyone else on the schedule, except FSU and ND.

Except it doesn't work that way. It's basic combinatorial math. Just because you're more talented than team X doesn't mean your odds of beating them are 100%.

We might be a couple slots ahead of a team like Virginia Tech. So let's say our chance of beating them on talent alone is 60/40. We might be a couple slots ahead of Duke. Let's say our chance of beating them is also 60/40.

In a two game season of Miami vs Duke and Va Tech...if the odds of winning each game is 60%, you might say we should go 2-0. But you'd be wrong. Our odds are 60% x 60% which is 36%. So odds are GREATER that you WON'T go 2-0 in that scenario

The more games you string together, the lower the odds of a clean sweep, especially if the talent gap is small.

For that reason, it's very unlikely that we will win 10 games.

Except statistics only matter when considered in the context of a large sum. That calculation doesn't work for all teams, individually. So, it's not applicable in this instance, at all. ... Unless you're a gambler.

In that case, it helps degenerate gamblers (no offense) to play the odds ...

But I'm guessing gamblers lost a lot of money betting on UNC to lose games to end the season last year, huh??? Since "basic combinatorial math" probably gave them a 10% chance to finish the season 11-0.

Back on topic ... Canes have enough talent on the roster to win the Coastal. With improved coaching from Richt and Diaz, this team should be better than ANY team the previous staff fielded ... And they won 9 games, without a guy projected to be a 1st round pick playing QB.

Like flipping a coin, winning/losing is a binary event. The number of times you flip is irrelevant, if you flip it once - the odds of getting heads is 50%. The odds of getting heads twice in a row is 25%. Etc. That's the math.

That's not affected by sample size.

Similarly, the odds of winning 10 "winnable" games in a row is very low - even if Miami is favored in every game. It matters HOW MUCH you'ree favored by. If our odds of winning games are up in the 90% range, running off a string of victories becomes more likely. If our odds of winning each game are in the 60% range, the math proves out that it becomes very difficult to go on a run.

That has nothing to do with gambling, it's simply a mathematical fact.

The Canes might win the Coastal. My point is just that the odds are quite a bit lower than you seem to expect.

:11263323124_b207743


Why are the odds lower?

If your theory is that we won't win every game we're projected to win, does that carry over to us not losing every game we're projected to lose?

I mean, the spread between us and ND is the same as the spread between us and UNC ...

 

[ThomasM]

Excuse me? GOOD coaching, Richt, is the reason I'm saying we can win the Coastal. Bad coaching is the reason we didn't. Understand me now?

So tell me, what was Dukes? Gts? North Carolinas? They won the Coastal, so why can't we?

Coaches.....you Golden slurpers are something else.

 

[Dirty Sprite]

You're clueless if u don't think we have enough talent to win the coastal and compete for the acc.

 

[ILCane2011]

No real Miami fan thinks we can't win the Coastal this year. We have the most talent in the Coastal, a solid coach, and the same crossover opponents as the only real threat (UNC).

The posters that don't are either trolls or people who do nothing except bash this team/program.

 

[McGahee2TheHouse]

Basically the math suggests that we should win somewhere between 7-8 games.

So then Golden wasn't the problem these past 5 years. Gotcha.

Actually Golden was part of the problem, but not the whole problem in my opinion.

The biggest failure of the program in the last 5 years has been recruiting. Golden's recruiting classes have been dismal. Part of that is Golden and company getting no respect locally, part of that is a scheme nobody wanted to play in, and part of that is the University not wanting to spend money on basics like an indoor practice facility and an on-campus stadium that would attract recruits

Golden's biggest issue was recruiting, yet he put numerous players in the NFL during his tenure. I totally get you now.

Crazy how we were struggling with teams that had less or even zero NFL players, despite us having more NFL players on last year's roster than Alabama and FSU.

You're definitely on to something here.

 

[MiamiCaneCane]

Thanks for posting that.

But I think the point most people are making is that there are only 2 teams ahead of us on that list on our schedule.

So, going 10-2 is not unreasonable. UNC is ranked 28th, and we get them at home.

The "can we win the natty next year" crowd might be a bit unrealistic. But the "10 win is a must" crowd is basing their opinion on the link you just posted. Our roster is more talented than everyone else on the schedule, except FSU and ND.

Except it doesn't work that way. It's basic combinatorial math. Just because you're more talented than team X doesn't mean your odds of beating them are 100%.

We might be a couple slots ahead of a team like Virginia Tech. So let's say our chance of beating them on talent alone is 60/40. We might be a couple slots ahead of Duke. Let's say our chance of beating them is also 60/40.

In a two game season of Miami vs Duke and Va Tech...if the odds of winning each game is 60%, you might say we should go 2-0. But you'd be wrong. Our odds are 60% x 60% which is 36%. So odds are GREATER that you WON'T go 2-0 in that scenario

The more games you string together, the lower the odds of a clean sweep, especially if the talent gap is small.

For that reason, it's very unlikely that we will win 10 games.

Except statistics only matter when considered in the context of a large sum. That calculation doesn't work for all teams, individually. So, it's not applicable in this instance, at all. ... Unless you're a gambler.

In that case, it helps degenerate gamblers (no offense) to play the odds ...

But I'm guessing gamblers lost a lot of money betting on UNC to lose games to end the season last year, huh??? Since "basic combinatorial math" probably gave them a 10% chance to finish the season 11-0.

Back on topic ... Canes have enough talent on the roster to win the Coastal. With improved coaching from Richt and Diaz, this team should be better than ANY team the previous staff fielded ... And they won 9 games, without a guy projected to be a 1st round pick playing QB.

Like flipping a coin, winning/losing is a binary event. The number of times you flip is irrelevant, if you flip it once - the odds of getting heads is 50%. The odds of getting heads twice in a row is 25%. Etc. That's the math.

That's not affected by sample size.

Similarly, the odds of winning 10 "winnable" games in a row is very low - even if Miami is favored in every game. It matters HOW MUCH you'ree favored by. If our odds of winning games are up in the 90% range, running off a string of victories becomes more likely. If our odds of winning each game are in the 60% range, the math proves out that it becomes very difficult to go on a run.

That has nothing to do with gambling, it's simply a mathematical fact.

The Canes might win the Coastal. My point is just that the odds are quite a bit lower than you seem to expect.

:11263323124_b207743


Why are the odds lower?

If your theory is that we won't win every game we're projected to win, does that carry over to us not losing every game we're projected to lose?

I mean, the spread between us and ND is the same as the spread between us and UNC ...

It's just the math. But look man, take the math out of it.

In 1995, the Chicago Bulls went 72-10. That team had Michael Jordan in his prime, Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman, etc.

They still lost to: Orlando, Seattle, Indiana, Denver, Phoenix, Miami, New York, Toronto, and Charlotte.

They were favored to win each one of those games. They still lost. Why? Because anyone who knows sports will tell you - it's hard to win every single game you're supposed to win. It generally doesn't happen.

That's why there's only been one perfect season in NFL history. There have been plenty of great teams. How come Joe Montana never did it?

It's just the way it is. Winning every game you're supposed to win doesn't normally happen... the vast majority of times you win some of the games you're expected to lose, and lose a handful of games you're expected to win.

Now you take that and you look under the hood and ask why, that's where you get in to your probabilities and math. It actually makes sense and is predictable. But even without math, it's something that everybody who follows sports knows intuitively.

 

[3FW]

His biggest issue was coaching. Decent recruiter and developer of talent, horrible coach.

 

[firstandcanes]

It's a combination of things. Really good to great recruiting classes only get you so far, see Florida under Zook. Good coaching gets a team further than talent alone but not over the hump, see Virginia Tech.

Good coaching and good to great recruiting classes will get a program to a top level. But for a championship season you need coaching, players, avoid injuries, and usually a good amount of luck.

This team holes and all is capable of winning the coastal. UNC won the coastal last year with atrocious run defense. So it's not so much of having a weakness or some holes, as much as it is masking those weaknesses and not letting them become major problems.

 

[MiamiCaneCane]

Basically the math suggests that we should win somewhere between 7-8 games.

So then Golden wasn't the problem these past 5 years. Gotcha.

Actually Golden was part of the problem, but not the whole problem in my opinion.

The biggest failure of the program in the last 5 years has been recruiting. Golden's recruiting classes have been dismal. Part of that is Golden and company getting no respect locally, part of that is a scheme nobody wanted to play in, and part of that is the University not wanting to spend money on basics like an indoor practice facility and an on-campus stadium that would attract recruits

Golden's biggest issue was recruiting, yet he put numerous players in the NFL during his tenure. I totally get you now.

Crazy how we were struggling with teams that had less or even zero NFL players, despite us having more NFL players on last year's roster than Alabama and FSU.

You're definitely on to something here.

Let's say 5% of the players Golden recruited went on to play in the NFL.... did the other 95% not contribute to our wins/losses?

Maybe Golden had top-heavy recruiting classes. Which makes sense if you think about it - he got some die-hards to come here like Duke Johnson who were coming anyway, and those kids went on to the NFL.

But we saw that a handful of players like Duke Johnson can't win championships by themselves

He missed a lot of can't miss types. His "coal shovelers" he missed evaluations on. Anything beyond that top tier of obviously talented players who were coming here no matter what tended to not go well for him

 

[FG305]

Excuse me? GOOD coaching, Richt, is the reason I'm saying we can win the Coastal. Bad coaching is the reason we didn't. Understand me now?

So tell me, what was Dukes? Gts? North Carolinas? They won the Coastal, so why can't we?

Coaches.....you Golden slurpers are something else.

That was a wealth of knowledge right there. Of course we'll now win the Coastal with Richt. Just glad you former Golden slurpers finally realize that Al was a bad coach.

 

[DTP]

The OP was discussing Miami's talent (as defined by 247's recruiting rankings) versus the top teams in FBS. Only a total homer would say Miami is a top 10 team in regards to total talent but top 20 is very reasonable. That talent was enough to muster 8 wins despite the worst coaching staff in FBS. Even if the new staff is only a marginal upgrade, expecting less than 9 regular season wins with this schedule is pathetic. Kicking FSU's *** is a given. They needed desperation fourth quarter comebacks to beat Al Golden's coaching. Miami beats them easy this year.

 

[MiamiCaneCane]

The OP was discussing Miami's talent (as defined by 247's recruiting rankings) versus the top teams in FBS. Only a total homer would say Miami is a top 10 team in regards to total talent but top 20 is very reasonable. That talent was enough to muster 8 wins despite the worst coaching staff in FBS. Even if the new staff is only a marginal upgrade, expecting less than 9 regular season wins with this schedule is pathetic. Kicking FSU's *** is a given. They needed desperation fourth quarter comebacks to beat Al Golden's coaching. Miami beats them easy this year.

I don't believe that a roster full of kids chosen and evaluated by Al Golden is going to win 10 games. But that's just an opinion.

I think Richt has proven he's capable of winning 10 games, but that's with his own roster of players.

I think we have some elite guys, but not enough. I think this team is top-heavy. I think the middle-of-the-pack, 2/3* type guys that Golden/D'Onofrio had to watch film on and evaluate and decide to offer are probably not very good.

That's my hunch.

I think that Richt looks at guys like Langham and Gus and Redwine and Young... guys we think are decent.... and says "are you ******* kidding me?"

That's what I think. I think he's used to seeing better talent and he comes off as not being very impressed by what he's seen so far.

Take it with a grain of salt

 

[252cane]

The OP was discussing Miami's talent (as defined by 247's recruiting rankings) versus the top teams in FBS. Only a total homer would say Miami is a top 10 team in regards to total talent but top 20 is very reasonable. That talent was enough to muster 8 wins despite the worst coaching staff in FBS. Even if the new staff is only a marginal upgrade, expecting less than 9 regular season wins with this schedule is pathetic. Kicking FSU's *** is a given. They needed desperation fourth quarter comebacks to beat Al Golden's coaching. Miami beats them easy this year.

You are crazy. Fsu is loaded and is solid qb play away from being a playoff team. There is no way this team wins easy. Fsu should have blown them out last year but kept making mistakes and then kaaya got hot.

 

[252cane]

The OP was discussing Miami's talent (as defined by 247's recruiting rankings) versus the top teams in FBS. Only a total homer would say Miami is a top 10 team in regards to total talent but top 20 is very reasonable. That talent was enough to muster 8 wins despite the worst coaching staff in FBS. Even if the new staff is only a marginal upgrade, expecting less than 9 regular season wins with this schedule is pathetic. Kicking FSU's *** is a given. They needed desperation fourth quarter comebacks to beat Al Golden's coaching. Miami beats them easy this year.

I don't believe that a roster full of kids chosen and evaluated by Al Golden is going to win 10 games. But that's just an opinion.

I think Richt has proven he's capable of winning 10 games, but that's with his own roster of players.

I think we have some elite guys, but not enough. I think this team is top-heavy. I think the middle-of-the-pack, 2/3* type guys that Golden/D'Onofrio had to watch film on and evaluate and decide to offer are probably not very good.

That's my hunch.

I think that Richt looks at guys like Langham and Gus and Redwine and Young... guys we think are decent.... and says "are you ****ing kidding me?"

That's what I think. I think he's used to seeing better talent and he comes off as not being very impressed by what he's seen so far.

Take it with a grain of salt

Agree. Mandel said he spoke with diaz when he was in miami interviewing richt. Said diaz didn't flat out say guys weren't that good but basically said there was only 3 or 4 guys on defense that he thinks has shown to be players.