- Joined: Jul 10, 2015
- Last Login: Jan 21, 2022, 1:28pm EST
- Posts: 2
- Comments: 45
Share this profile
Comment 2 replies, 2 recs
You cannot win a national championship without winning a set number of games. That was the point of my study, and the data show there’s not a meaningful correlation between talent and games won.
Another of the posters here wrote a fan post about the rarity of football dynasties over a given period of time. That work found that coaching was the primary factor for success at dominant schools, which dovetails with my findings. Now, talent levels may change as coaching staffs evolve—but it truly is about the coach and system around a program and not the levels of talent on a given squad/year.
Comment 6 recs
Thanks for the shout out!
That post was a summary for a study I completed for a statistics code course last semester.
FWIW, I did another statistical study when Lake was named coach—I wanted to have an understanding of how an inexperienced head coach may perform. I found that he was nearly guaranteed to fail if success meant maintaining some level of performance equal to that of Petersen. I say all of this because of Oregon’s gamble that will probably backfire…