The Rest of College Football

[Hannibal]

That was the sarcasm side. Nobody honestly believes that.

[iam416]

Well, of course not.

[hack]

I didn't take it as something you'd take literally myself.

[iam416]

No, the literal point was that JH's Staff is the best in the B10.

[WM Wolverine]

So was Brady Hoke's.

[hack]

No, the literal point was that JH's Staff is the best in the B10.

Yes. But if everyone took literally everything that gets said on a sports forum things would be even more incoherent than they already are.

[iam416]

I dunno, I think taking OP literally is kind of fun.

[iam416]

The B10's top draft prospects for 2016: http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/...raft-prospects

Buckeyes, Spartans and Hackenberg. Vonn Bell, IMO, will work his way into the conversation.

[froot loops]

Conklin is a stud.

[UMStan White]

Gholson transferring from ND

[Dr. Strangelove]

Wow. Wonder how much longer Kelly has at ND.

[Hannibal]

Didn't everyone already expect that?

[iam416]

Yeah, I thought he had moved on past Gholston. And, frankly, for good cause.

[Jeff Buchanan]

I have no clue why wins/championships/etc. are a "really poor objective indicator" of coaching ability. I get why you'd want to say that (UFM's career record is 142-26 with 3 national titles! -- JH won't match or exceed that). But, I mean, c'mon.

Because it isn't a good measure in isolation. There's way more to it than that and ferGod's sake you know this. The first paragraph in this Athlon Sports ranking of CFB coaches explains this to those that have minimal reading and comprehension skills.

In this list of all 128 coaches, lets just take the top 20, say. It's hard to tell right now but based on these rankings where would you put Harbaugh. If he goes 11-1, beats osu sending them to a lesser bowl, wins the conference and makes it to the CFP, where would you rank him?

http://athlonsports.com/college-football/ranking-all-128-college-football-coaches-2014

As for the other stuff, well, I mean if your point is that JH has more room to improve M than UFM does for OSU, well, duh!

Sure, "duh" but it makes a point that JH has more potential energy than UFM does and in any shaky analysis of who's the "better coach," I'd rather be in JH's shoes at the start of the 2015 season than in ufm's

I still don't get why you won't just say JH > UFM. I mean, you have have quantified coaching into two elements. One element you consider even and the other element you give the advantage to JH. Setting aside whether those elements are correct or not, the important thing is they are correct IYO so, ergo, IYO JH > UFM.

.

I have not "quantified" coaching into two elements. I have characterized it that way. Big difference. Your argument holds if the elements you list above are somehow quantifiable into hard numbers providing truth to your mathematical analysis. They aren't. I've got lots of wiggle room here. You don't like that. It suits me just fine.

[iam416]

You stated that wins, and presumably other objective measures that flow from wins, i.e., championships, are a "really poor objective indicator" of coaching ability. You then have the gall to point to Athlon to support this obviously idiotic statement. Athlon says:

"...statistics may not tell the full story when judging a coaching tenure."

Sure. Wins and championships MAY not tell the FULL story when judging a coach. However, anyone having "minimal reading and comprehension skills" understands that MAY not tell the FULL story isn't anywhere near the same area code as being a "really poor objective indicator." In fact, the Athlon article, when listing the coaches, LISTS THEIR RECORDS! Because, well, they're obviously relevant!

It ought to be glaringly obvious to all but the dimwitted that objective coaching accomplishments become more and more germane as the sample size of results increase to the point of dispositive. Can we draw an accurate conclusion on a coach that went 5-7 in one season? Eh -hard to say -- that 5-7 MAY not tell the FULL story. Can we draw an accurate conclusions on a coach that is 142-26 with 3 national titles? Uh, duh. Those numbers tell the FULL story. In your world, however, 142-26 and 3 national titles are a "really poor objective indicator" of coaching ability. It's just impossible to say that UFM is a really good coach based on those objective numbers. LOL.

With that absolute flaying of your position complete, there's nothing else really to say. You won't commit to say JH is a better coach than UFM even though your entire premise for M beating OSU this season is that JH is a better coach than UFM. It's hilarious.

I look at this and think coaching, like being a great military unit leader, encompasses two elements. First understanding and flat out knowing your job. Second, being a great leader and motivator.

My present view based on the available information is that ufm v JH on the first element is probably a draw. On the second, HARBAUGH.

Coaching, in Buchanan's eyes, consists of two elements -- a quantity, if you will. JH=UFM on 1. JH > UFM on the other. But, lol, he won't just say JH is a better coach.