Well what else is the coach suppose to say? Im taking over and we will struggle to win games? thanks for giving me the job?
Probably a more realistic expectation for somewhere like Kentucky like just make it back to the NCAA tournament soon? Or maybe "I snaked my way to a job and now the program is worse than it has ever been".
Nick? Who's his best friend? They're struggling a bit this year but Nick's a great coach. They will be competitive - for a mid-major.
Maybe we want to make Kentucky more competitive? Compete more in the SEC? Talking conference and national championships you are digging your own grave. With the current state of the program clearly this guy was dreaming and is out of his depth. Kentucky HOT!
Does anyone know why/how Jeremy Groves ended up as Volunteer Asst At UK. Left the head job at Murray (very successful I might add) to become assoc HC At Mississippi State but didn’t even make it to season...I know he’s a UK alum, but strikes me as strange. Would think he’d be a candidate to fill a mid major job this off season.
The Auburn loss was almost as ridiculous as last years Kentucky loss. Auburn was down half their starting lineup and had almost zero midfielders. They changed their lineup just for this game to four backs. In talking to people at both the SC game and the Auburn game, the coaches burned up the players Thursday night and they had little in their tank Sunday. I watched the Auburn game and UGA was the better side in my opinion, but they are unbelievably bad in the final third (like really really bad).
Thanks, I guess that explains why UGA only had three shots on goal. Did anybody else see that Texas A&M had 22 shots at Kentucky yesterday?
Since we're about 2/3 of the way through the season, here's my "actual compared to simulated" scores for new coaches and coaches with one year under their belts at their current schools. The system looks at teams' actual results as compared to what my simulation said their results would be if the teams followed their historic RPI trends (last eight years) combined with their recent RPIs (last two years). In each case -- actual results and simulated results -- the system looks at the team's record and computes a score for the team, awarding 3 points for a win and 1 for a tie. It then determines the difference between actual results score and simulated results score. A positive number means the actual results score is better than the simulated results score; and a negative number is the opposite.
Kentucky lost (4-0) at Arkansas Razorbacks first goal was at 22.35 and then (19 seconds later) scored again at 22.54 Arkansas had 19 shots (7 on-goal)
???? There's no such thing as the "list." Someone makes up his or her own list and may post it here. This thread, however, does not have "a list" much less an "updated list."
No way Pitt is hot. Syracuse is so hot the coach should be packing his bags. That program needs a good coach,
Pitt, UNC-Asheville and Hampton all have first year head coaches. Hard to imagine any of those seats are hot.
Forgive me if you have previously explained this, but as your simulation is based on historical data, it cannot account for roster changes in terms of an influx (or egress) of talent, can it? Doesn't that make the simulated results less realistic as a point of comparison to actual perfromance, at least in terms of reflecting the current season talent and performance level?
Yes, I have explained this previously, but that's ok, it's still a good question. You're right, the simulation cannot take into account players departed and players newly arrived. Rather, the simulation is completely based on teams' historic RPI ratings. One of my interests is in seeing how predictions based on historic performance compare with predictions that take "current" information -- such as who's departed and who's arrived -- into account. All White Kit's Chris Henderson has made predictions based on a sophisticated system that takes current information, as well as a lot of other information, into account. Each conference's coaches have made predictions about their own conference standings, presumably taking current information into account. I've kept records of those predictions and, when the season is over, will be comparing them to the simulation's predictions. The hypothesis I'm testing is that people tend to place more emphasis on current information than they should or, to put it differently, historic performance trends are more important than people think. But apart from that, for purposes of evaluating how new coaches are doing, I think the simulation as compared to actual results is pretty good at showing a change in direction, positive or negative. Where there's a change, there may be an explanation that has nothing to do with the coach, but where there's a significant change I think it should be assigned as the coach's responsibility unless there's a good explanation why it isn't.
Yep. Some people just look at W-L records and assume anyone with a bad record will be fired. None of those coaches will even be on the hot seat until season 3 at the earliest.