2018 HOT Seat

I don't buy Oklahoma being a hot seat, regardless of how bad they were last year. Potter's easily the best coach that program has had and 2016 was OU's program-best season. If this year is as bad as last, then next year might be warm.

 

Couldn't agree with you more, except he has been the one telling people they told him he needs to win. Unfortunately, its a world of college admin not quite getting it. I think some of these admin see other big programs having success and they assume they should as well.

 

If Potter himself is saying he's got heat, then that's disappointing. That program is in a much better place competitively than it was when he got there.

 

I was inclined to ask whether oneofnine had actual evidence for this statement, but then decided to hold off. Enzo, you pushed me over the edge.

oneofnine, any actual numbers to support your statement?

 

yes.....actually thought I had provided evidence. Here are a couple: recruiting budget of a Big East member - $45,000. Operating budget (recruiting, equipment, team travel) of a "mid major" $46,000. First hand knowledge of this. Another example are those schools whom have adopted "cost of attendance" as opposed to schools whom have not - furthering the gap. Operating budgets of schools in conferences such as the AAC and even the MAC can sometimes be 3-4x in excess of other "mid majors"....I'm not talking about SWAC or MAAC as mid-majors. And to make matters worse, sometimes the disparity in support even exists within the same conference (as mentioned by another poster earlier)

As relevant to this thread, that is why I agree with the statement made earlier about who may or may not be on the hot seat. Simply because a program has a losing record doesn't or shouldn't place them on the hot seat. Depends on expectations of administration and level of support.

 

It becomes to subjective to so many administrations what their expectations may or may not be. Not definitive line in the sand to draw.

Regarding power five just having their own tourney I don’t agree but understand the logic. As was posted earlier the basketball tournament is exciting because some big dogs can be upset.

Add Grand Canyon to the hot list this year. Unrealistic admin expectations mean they have to at minimum make postseason as this is a contract year.

 

I've been calling for separate dna divisions in the olympics for years. It's so boring how the ex-slave descendants dominate the sprints, east africans the distance, etc, etc.

 

I agree with your second paragraph. But, operating budgets don't prove that there is an increasing gap. Teams' and conferences' performances are where the evidence is. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with our statement about the increasing gap, I'm just wondering if you have actual evidence of an increasing performance gap. (I'm trying to avoid doing the research myself.)

 

I think American is safe. Especially after the whooping they gave Longwood yesterday.

 

Several candidates to go 0-6 after this coming weekend....will those be Hot Seats?

 

This seemed probably true to me, but I wanted to see if results-driven data actually show it's true. Here's a little table that provides info on whether there's been a widening gap when going from the 2007-2012 period to the 2013-2017 period. The table has limitations due to the addition of 19 schools between 2007 and 2017 and to the reshuffling of conference membership since 2007, but I think it's good enough to show that indeed the gap has widened.



In the lower table, starting with the ACC on the top left and reading from left to right and then down to the next row, the teams are in order of their average Adjusted ARPIs over the 11 years from 2007 to 2017. These are Adjusted ARPIs for those 11 years, all calculated using the NCAA's current formula

 

I thought it might be interesting to see how teams are doing in real life, as compared to my simulated full season's results. Rather than start a new thread, I think this probably is a pretty good place to post, since it shows who is doing better than the simulation and who is doing worse. For those not familiar with the simulation, it assigns simulated Adjusted RPIs to teams based on their long term trends and their recent records. The trended piece looks at the straight line trend in teams' ratings over the last 8 years and, from that, assigns them a rating for this year. The recent records piece looks at teams' ratings over the last two years and takes their average. The simulated ARPI is based on these two pieces weighted at 50% each. For systems limited to using only the ARPI as a basis for simulating future results, this is the best basis for assigning simulated ratings to teams, meaning that it comes the closest to what teams' ratings actually will turn out to be. Once having assigned simulated ratings to teams, the system then looks at each game and, based on teams' simulated ratings as adjusted for home field advantage, it identifies the winner and loser, or a tie result, for each game.

A big limitation of the simulation is that, because it uses only historic ARPIs, it cannot take into consideration players who have graduated or transferred out and freshmen and transfers who are coming in.

For the games played so far, for each game I've compared the actual result to the simulated result. I then used a point system to compare how a team actually has done so far as compared to how the simulation said it should do. The point system is the classic 3 points for a win and 1 for a tie. I compute the points of each team based on actual results and based on the simulated results. I then compute the difference between these two point totals. For a positive difference, it means that the team has done better than the simulation says it should have done; and for a negative difference, it means the team has done worse. Using the most extreme case so far to illustrate, the simulation says Nevada should have gone 0 wins - 4 losses - 0 ties so far. That's 0 points. It's actually gone 3-0-1 giving it 9 points for its 3 wins and 1 point for its tie, for a total of 10 points. So, Nevada's actual to simulation difference is 10 points.

Here's a table that shows all teams that have an actual to simulation difference of at least +5 or -5 points. It also shows who the coaches are and how long they've been in place. For how long they've been in place, a 0 means it's a new coach and an 11 means at least 11 years. There are lots of games yet to be played, so I expect there will be plenty of changes. Take it for whatever you think it's worth.

 

Whatever happened to the Coach Rank by AWK?

 

That's a pretty significant limitation. I would argue it's not really offering an accurate reflection of the actual teams on the field. I do think it's really interesting, and appreciate the work that goes into it, but surely the only way we can 'expect' a given result in a given game is to have thorough knowledge of both team as they currently are. Would Maryland, for example, really not be expected to beat James Madison or Temple, and having not done so, would we still say Leone is outperforming expectations?

 

Leone wiped his brow with that scapegoating mess. New, preoccupied president and admin won't screw with him for a while.

 

You're right.

What the simulation does, however, is not exactly what you're talking about. It identifies what teams' trends and recent years' results have been and says what will happen if those trends and results continue into this year. My comparison of this to actual results then shows where teams are doing better or more poorly than those trends and results indicate they "should" do. Or, to use your terminology, they show how teams "as they currently are" are performing as compared to how they'd perform if past trends and results had carried into this year.

For example, here's a chart showing Nevada's ARPI history over the last 8 years. I've picked them because they make for a good illustration:



I use the trend (dotted) line formula to compute a trended rating for this year (what would be year 9 in the chart). I also use the last two years' ratings (years 7 and 8 in the chart) to get an average rating over the last two years. I then take the average of those two numbers to get the simulated rating. In the case of Nevada, that number is 0.3984. Looking at the chart, that seems like a pretty good representation of where one would expect the team to be this year, if one is looking at the team's past results over time. That's what the simulation is intended to show. For Nevada, using this simulated number and comparing it to similarly calculated numbers for its opponents so far, the numbers indicate it would be 0-4-0 through its first four games. Instead, it's 3-0-1. So, either Nevada is performing better than its past results over time would have indicated or its four opponents are performing more poorly than their past results over time would have indicated or a combination of the two. So, in looking at coach Otagaki, it seems reasonable to say it looks like she may be starting to move the team in a different direction. Or again using your words, the team "as they currently are" is starting to look better than what one would expect if looking at past results over time.

For teams with long term downward trends, I think this can be helpful for seeing if a new or relatively new coach is managing to do something (regardless of what it is) that is changing the team's direction. For historically strong teams, I think one has to be more cautious. For example, Nikki Izzo-Brown is at the bottom of the table. Here's West Virginia's chart:



Based on West Virginia's 8-year trend and their last two years, their simulated rating is 0.6861. Matched with their opponents' similarly simulated ratings, if one is looking at past results over time, West Virginia at this point would be 5-0-0 whereas they actually are 1-1-3. In a case like this, with a coach who has had her team on a long-term upward trend, I would be looking to see if there's an explanation that indicates a temporary issue (such as the graduation, all at once, of a stellar group of players) before concluding that the program is undergoing a major change in direction.

I'll add one more thing in terms of the simulation as a "predictor." Your critique is right but I nevertheless would expect the simulation on average to be a better "early in the season" predictor, of what will happen for all teams over the course of the entire season, than most humans. This isn't because the simulation is a really good predictor. Rather it's because most humans are not good predictors, even ones who think they know a lot. I expect that a really knowledgeable, but unbiased, human who's willing to put in a lot of time would do better than the simulation, but that's about it. At the end of the current season, I'll actually get to see if my expectation is right, as I have preserved the pre-season All White Kit predictions, which I consider to be the best out there, as well as each conference's coaches' predictions of how teams will end up in their conference standings. I'll compare those to what the simulation says and will get to see how the different systems stack up.

 

Excellent points all around, thanks.

 

They havent beaten a Power 5 team since the end of 2016. They will get two wins this week, then the SEC starts.

 

Looks like Syracuse are their usual mess. Surely a change finally and they get someone competent in charge of the program.

Creighton must be on fire too. Watching Big East results they are in for a rough ride when they get to conference play.

 

Thoughts on UCONN? It didn't seem like they were sold on Mags to become the replacement to begin with, took a while to make the hire and brought at least 3 others on campus and I do not believe they gave her a multi year contract. They are 1-5 to start with two SEC matches on the road this weekend. They potentially could be 2-7 going in to AAC play. Looking at their schedule they host the top 3 teams in the conference, meaning they have to travel to the schools they may be able to compete with which will be a disadvantage. Could be looking at a 4-14 year potentially. Does UCONN expect more?

 

I'm not sure it's a case of competence, but one of priorities. Dude seems to spend most of his time on his goalkeeping conferences and activities. They are big events and very time-consuming to organize, while other head coaches are out there recruiting. It shows.

 

UConn botched their process. Lenny did well in his time and when his retirement finally came and faced with making a change they didn’t handle it well. Had some good candidates but screwed up from there. Mags is a short term fix and after two years they will get another chance to make it right. But to be fair their two best players are out with ACLs so any program would be hurting when faced with that.

 

Is it too early to put the new Northern Illinois coach on the hot seat?