"Spend a few minutes reading College Football Resource" - Whit Watson, Sun Sports

"Maybe you should start your own blog" - Bruce Feldman, ESPN

"[An] Excellent resource for all things college football. It’s blog index is the definitive listing of the CFB blogosphere ... [A] must-read for fans." - Sports Illustrated (On Campus)

"The big daddy of them all, the nerve center of this twisted college football blogsphere" - The House Rock Built

"Unsurprisingly, College Football Resource has generated some discussion" -Dawg Sports

Sections
Vitals
The Coalition
Top Teams 2008
COMING SOON
Display
RSS
Search CFR

« Bad ending | Main | CFB Hall of Fame nominees »
Tuesday
26Jul

One bad idea

DateTuesday, July 26, 2005 at 08:09PM

If there was a captain obvious for the advancement of college football's shaky sense of conventional wisdom, that captain obvious would be a former college football coach.

So excuse us while we roll our eyes at the notion of a Master Coaches Survey.

On the surface of course it seems alright, with former elite coaches sitting around watching games and then comparing notes.

The problem is this---

These guys are former coaches for a reason, and it's not just age.  At some point the game passed them by and they failed to adjust or lost passion and interest.  What's sorely lacking in college football punditry and voting right now is the recognition of all the style of play components involved and just how ridiculous conventional analysis (most often passed along to us by...former coaches and players!) has become.

Maybe I'm way off here, but I have a feeling if these former coaches follow through on this, their results will vary only a little (probably due to smaller sample size) from the results achieved by the BCS computers and the new combination BCS poll.  So what's the point?

AuthorCFR | Comment6 Comments |
in , , , ,

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (6)

The one area in which this is good is that supposedly the coaches would get tape of every game to watch, so at least they can be well informed in their voting, as opposed to the current method.
July 27, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterHeismanpundit
I disagree on several points, but I'll focus on one: The game has not passed these guys by. The *business* of college football (appealing to recruits, boosters, making the rounds at university functions, hiring/recruiting asst's, etc) may have passed them by, but the game hasn't. And there are several guys on the list that --if they wanted to grind out a few more years of 4a-11p hours in the office-- could certainly get jobs at major programs today.

There's not a guy on the list that can't evaluate talent and offer a pretty sound analysis on schemes for any given team.

The game has not passed them by.
July 27, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterKevin @ Fanblogs.com
to bring what i think is the most valid point in judging who's opinions should count in CFB rankings: i really doubt these former-coaches watch ALL the games of the teams that they are ranking, which is the only way to be able to judge their strengths/weaknesses relative to another team. even most CFB media types (admittedly) dont do this.

i strongly suspect that these rankings will almost completely mirror the old coaches poll, but maybe trend a little favoritism toward the "old school" football powers that were reigning during theses coaches' tenures, out of an inherant, unconscious bias.
July 27, 2005 | Unregistered Commentercw
CW nailed it.

In writing this up last night I had omitted one of my notes as I was thinking about it earlier---that the coaches would unconsciously find ways to support traditional and old powers that they were familiar with, as well as schemes they were familiar with.

I trust that not a single one of those Masters coaches could competently coach the Al Borges offense for example, or the Pete Carroll defense. No way. So yes in our eyes the game has passed them by. That's not to say that they couldnt go back to doing their stuff and having some modest success, but certainly not what they were used to. Bobby Bowden still wins 8-9 games, but the game has blitzed past him, for example.

July 27, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterResource Admin
O.K. if we accept the negatives as true, which might be the case with some but not all, this would certainly not be any worse than any of the methods currently being employed.
July 28, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterDawgy1
Its worse because its less diverse, its "more knowledgeable" stature is in doubt, and there's a smaller sample size.

Again, on the surface it sounds nice, I kind of got excited at first glance. But after sitting down and thinking about it I'm very skeptical.
July 28, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterResource Admin

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.