A little math: MD vs. GT vs. Clemson
by bshock on Dec 21, 2010 9:10 PM EST
Email
Print
Recently, there has been a ton of debate about the relative merits of the Friedgen era. Some posters have mentioned that, in the 10 seasons under Friedgen, Maryland's record was very similar to Georgia Tech and Clemson--football programs that are generally perceived as "successful" by most Maryland fans.
In an absolute sense, this is true:
Maryland was 74-50
Clemson was 76-50
Georgia Tech was 78-51
But I think if you look closer, the numbers aren't as similar as they first appear. I don't know if my hypothesis holds water, but I think it is interesting. And at the very least, it isn't the same thing that has been thrown out time and time again.
Let's look at it:
Taking Maryland's record, divided by the 10 years, you'd find that the "average" season would be 7.4 wins, and 5.0 losses.
However, I wanted to see if this was truly an "average" season for Maryland, in the common meaning of the word. In other words, knowing nothing about an individual team, could people reasonably expect that Maryland would be somewhere around 7.4 wins for the year?
To determine this:
I looked at Maryland's record for each of the 10 years. I then looked at how far away the actual "win" total for each year was from 7.4.
For example, in 2003, Maryland went 10-3. The difference between those 10 wins, and the "expected" 7.4 wins, is 2.6. In 2005, Maryland went 5-6. The difference between those 5 wins, and the "expected" 7.4 wins, is 2.4 (there are no negative numbers, I'm looking at the deviation).
I also did this for losses. In 2003, Maryland's 3 losses were 2.0 away from the "expected" 5.0 losses. In 2005, the 6 losses were 1.0 away from the expected 5.0 losses.
I calculated this for every season. I then did the same for Georgia Tech and Clemson.
The Results:
Maryland:
Win deviation per year: 2.32
Loss deviation per year: 1.80
Clemson:
Win deviation per year: 1.00
Loss deviation per year: .70
Georgia Tech:
Win deviation per year: 1.16
Loss deviation per year: .72
What It Means (Part I):
Maryland averaged 7.4 wins a year. The deviation was 2.32/year. That means that, for the 10-year Friedgen era, the "typical" season was anywhere from 5.08 wins to 9.72 wins.
Maryland averaged 5.0 losses a year. The deviation was 1.80/year. The "typical" season was anywhere from 3.20 losses to 6.8 losses.
Clemson averaged 7.6 wins a year. The deviation was 1.00/year. Their "typical" season was anywhere from 6.6 wins to 8.6 wins.
Clemson averaged 5.0 losses a year. Deviation of .70/year. That means a typical season of 4.3 losses to 5.7 losses.
Georgia Tech averaged 7.8 wins/year. Deviation of 1.16/year. Typical season of 6.64 to 8.9 wins.
Georgia Tech averaged 5.1 losses/year. Deviation of .72/year. Typical season of 4.38 to 5.82 losses.
What It Means (Part II):
Maryland was much more inconsistent than both Clemson and Georgia Tech. Maryland's expected win total was between 5.08 and 9.72--a difference of 4.64. Clemson and Georgia Tech totaled 2.0 and 2.26, respectively.
Maryland's expected loss total was between 3.20 and 6.80 losses--a difference of 3.60. Clemson and Georgia Tech totaled 1.4 and 1.44, respectively.
Basically, going into a year, Maryland fans had know idea what a "typical year" was. Some were really good. Some were really bad. Clemson and Georgia Tech fans could be reasonably certain what they were going to get--bowl eligibility at a minimum, and a year-in/year-out chance to be relevant in the ACC title discussion.
The Big Picture:
I think this number could be VERY important for one main reason. Many people point to the "risk" of hiring Mike Leach, because he is an "unknown." I would suggest that these calculations show that keeping Friedgen was not without substantial risk as well.
We are not an "8-win team" like Clemson and Georgia Tech are, year-in and year-out. If we were, I think the argument that we should have extended Fridge for a few more years would be much stronger--what would be the worst that could happen? A few more 7 or 8 win seasons, then we make a change at that point.
But the reality is that we were too inconsistent under Friedgen to "expect" 7 or 8 wins a year. There is a very good chance that we would have slipped back to a 5-win team, just look at the "typical year" range above.
Kevin Anderson was faced with two options: Both with pros and cons. The common viewpoint is that he took the "high-risk/high-reward" option. I question whether this option was much riskier than the alternative, based on the analysis above.
Anything deemed inappropriate will be deleted by an admin or moderator with the power to do so. The views of the above FanPost do not represent the beliefs of Testudo Times or Testudo Times' authors, nor are they the work of them.
26 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Too long
You’re in favor of Leach right?
I like Turtles!
Awesome
Very insightful perspective and spot on. Being an Engineer, I respect the above analysis as somewhat of a revelation that explains why there is such a division within Terrapin Nation.
In addition
The more I think about it, the more I’m impressed with your analysis. What is your perspective on travelling faster than the speed of light? ;-)
You need infinite energy
therefore it is impossible. ;-)
When you're rich you don't write checks - Randy Moss
by s.r.genovese on Dec 21, 2010 10:06 PM EST up reply actions
Haha
I’ll be honest. I’m a lawyer, precisely because I’m pretty bad with numbers. This post was the absolute extent of my mathematical ability.
Though I watched a special that aired on “Armageddon Week” a few years back, and was absolutely fascinated by this possibility: If a star explodes, it will emit a huge burst of light and energy (a pulsar maybe??). Often, this will form a “beam”—sort of like a laser. If directed at Earth, it could potentially just decimate the entire planet. BUT, because this is a beam of light (thus, it is moving at the speed of light), we wouldn’t even have observed the explosion until the light reached us, and destroyed us.
Basically, any second now, the world could end, and we would have absolutely no warning.
God I’m a nerd. (And I’m sure that nothing I just said is scientifically correct, but I promise, it was on TV).
by bshock on Dec 21, 2010 10:12 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The End of the World
We have enough doomsdayers on this site. How about some more football analysis. ( I did see that TV show as well. Depressing). Regarding Dark Matter noted above. It has been mathematically proofed that speeds faster than light can be achieved with anti matter/dark matter.
Thats enough of that. Back to a tougher task, putting fans in Byrd Stadium seats. ;-)
F*** ethynol....
i want my SUV to run on anti-matter. Love that Universe shit. In a parallel universe Ralph went undefeated this year.
by 1 proud terp on Dec 22, 2010 10:31 AM EST up reply actions
If only
we could stabilize and store dark matter…
When you're rich you don't write checks - Randy Moss
by s.r.genovese on Dec 22, 2010 5:46 PM EST up reply actions
i like
I’m an engineer drop out and now an accountant/consultant for a big 4 firm. I like numbers and this makes a lot of sense. Hense why over half of terp nation is saying that ralph was fired over last seasons performance and his inconsistencies… That’s what led him to be “coach of the year.”. I appreciate all of his work but I share the AD’s goal of wanting to be a top 25 team year in and year out. Shit let’s ramp up bball recruiting and get the bball team on the same page as well, although we usually finish about top 30.
by Charlotte NC Terp on Dec 22, 2010 1:05 AM EST via mobile reply actions
Quick Question
How many ACC schools have truly been top 25 year in, year out? Answer that and you will see it is not so easy, even in the soft football conference. I think once Leach is named as HC, all the hype and hope will immediately kick in from the Fridge dislikers :)… Maybe our AD will package winning, hype and hope all in one neat and tidy package as we become a perennial top 25 team. Let’s wait and see and let time play out the new story unfolding. I hope it’s a good one. I’ll be the first to cheer. But by all accounts, this didn’t have to be a disastrous parting like it was…
by bball purist on Dec 22, 2010 1:24 AM EST up reply actions
VIrginia Tech, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State...
You know, everyone except us…
by TerpsAllTheWay on Dec 22, 2010 11:21 AM EST up reply actions
Cherry picking - and inaccurate at that - your perception is not reality
Va Tech – 7 times (9 w/ Beast);
FSU- 6 times;
Terps – 3;
Clemson – 3;
GT – 2;
U Va – 2;
NC St – 1;
Wake – 1;
UNC, Duke – zippy;
the U – 4 (7 incl. Beast)
BC – 4 (6 incl. Beast)
by bball purist on Dec 22, 2010 11:37 AM EST up reply actions
Thanks for further analysis
The stats do show a wider deviation for the Terps than GT and Clemson. As I mentioned in one of my posts, we could even throw the U in for good measure. But stats do not tell the behind the scenes story of each season (actually, I think the behind the scenes happenings between certain boosters, the athletic dept., may have been a source of friction that got Fridge on a short leash to begin with). We must look at how Fridge did as a HC and OC after JF left for a while. If taking those years as ill advised (even Fridge admitted the extra long days had him beaten up by the end of the season), the stats are a little more consistent.
But again, stats cannot tell the entire story for a limited sample. Remember too, it’s worth pointing out, if the lows are looked at, we also experienced more highs too than Clemson and GT over these past 10 years (Clemson ranked top 25 only twice (21st and 22nd under Bowden, once under Swinney – 24th). Oh, and GT – never ranked in the final poll top 25 under Gailey, twice under Johnson – 22nd and 13th). And Fridge – 11, 13 and 17th). Looking at the entire body of work, it’s still difficult to separate the three (or four, including the U) teams that distinctly – the lines are blurred. If all posters would even begrudgingly give Fridge his due along with the concern about the off years, it would be more reasonable an approach. At this point, it would be wise to reflect back, take the good memories with us, and learn from the bad.
And btw, look at some of the shenanigans going on at GT when Gailey was there – Fridge never had any nonsense like that going on here. Credit goes to the players, ADept, and the coaches for that.
Oh I agree
You make a lot of good points:
1. This doesn’t tell the whole story. There are tons of reasons why one season will be more successful than another—injuries, talent, strength of schedule, weather, luck, behind-the-scenes events that affect team culture, etc. I would, however, point out that these uncertainties are present with every team. Even with these uncertainties, Clemson and Georgia Tech were much more consistent.
2. Consistency may be overrated. This is certainly a valid point. It is reasonable to say, “I’d rather win 10 games every 3 years, even if that means winning only 4 or 5 the next two, than just win 7 or 8 games every single year.” I didn’t look this up again, but I think Clemson hasn’t won 10 games in a really long time. I’m sure their fanbase hates this “consistency” with limited highs. That being said, see my response to #3.
3. Fridge had great qualities and value to the program that can’t be reflected by wins and losses. I 100% agree with this. Other than the Abiamari issue involving an assistant coach, we really haven’t had much in the way of “issues” with the football team. I don’t think this analysis “wins” the argument for the pro-Leach side. You still have the two options, each with signficant pros and cons (a decidedly “clean” program is one of them).
I just thought the significant differences in consistency were quite relevant to one “pro” cited by the people that would like to have extended Fridge—the argument that there was little risk in eeping Fridge for a few more years—see where it goes, let him leave on his own terms, and then make the move in a 3 or 4 years. At the same time, this argument argues that Leach would be a very risky move.
I don’t know if I completely refute this proposition, but I think I did show that Maryland is inconsistent. You just can’t treat Maryland’s predicted schedule as a “known”, under either Leach or Fridge. If that is the case, I think it really weakens the “too much risk” argument.
Again, there are numerous arguments, and this really just weakens one of them, it doesn’t change the answer. I just thought it was pretty interesting.
I liked your analysis - it provokes and promotes further thought
which is what we should do in this ongoing case study. We all we’ll learn from it. Let’s hope it works out great. Again, i’ll be the first to throw one down at a tailgate with some pro “move on” people and say I’m glad it worked out. But yes, your point about low risk for the next 2-3 years with Fridge and JF was where I was going – your points are well thought out and make sense to me – thanks for the thoughts.
by bball purist on Dec 22, 2010 9:35 AM EST up reply actions
And whatever we do, do not, I say do not, look at
UNC’s, UVa’s, Wake’s, and NC St’s record over Fridge’s 10 years.
Let's look at the number of final top 25s year in, year out for the heck of it...
Number of final top 25s of ACC teams during the Fridge era:
If we want late comers the U, BC, and VT, you can include Beast play, or look at ACC only. Obviously VT has been the only consistent top 25 team of that bunch. (all 7 ACC yrs, and 9/10 years).
FSU- 6 times;
Terps – 3;
Clemson – 3;
GT – 2;
U Va – 2;
NC St – 1;
Wake – 1;
UNC, Duke – zippy;
the U – 4 (7 incl. Beast)
BC – 4 (6 incl. Beast)
Make of it what you will, but our AD may have bit off more than he can chew with his top 25 year in, year out…best of luck…I learned a long time ago it’s easy to talk, much harder to back up all that talk…I guess KP would not like to hear “Just Do It!” lmssao
yeah the last of those top 25's was 7 years ago!
Since 2003, MD has beaten 10 ranked teams, 9 of which were in the ‘weak’ ACC.
And won 2 (hopefully 3) middle of the pack bowl games.
12-13 mildly significant wins over 7 seasons is not a enough to justify keeping Ralph.
Clearly the Ralph of these days is not going to get us into the top 25. Leach creates excitement around the program and pushes our ceiling of capability a lot higher.
clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose!
smoke'em if ya got'em!
by Daniel Hamilton on Dec 22, 2010 4:11 AM EST reply actions
I'm just proud to be a member of a blog that can have...
a good back and forth debate like this. And proud to be a Terp!
This is still an argument?
Leach > Fridge. If we don’t get leach then let’s talk.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
