How did I did I make it personal or turn it negativ? I gave your my opinion and also told how you could go about actually making this topic useful instead complaining about elites lol. Stop focusing on me and talking about me and get back to teaching new coaches. I posted something and got insightful responses. Thought you wanted to hear other coaches point of view guess not.

Why is it every time one user has an opinion, another user forces an argument and then personal attacks develop?

If one coach feels so insecure about their gameplanning skills, let them just schedule SIM's. I don't care if they get off on having a bunch of wins on a computer simulation game.

Likewise, if a coach wants to go 7-6 by taking over Montana and scheduling USC, Texas, Michigan, Alabama and Liberty for non-conference, they should be allowed to do so.

Having a strong opinion is one thing, and often times a good thing, but learn to contain it to just simply an opinion. There is no reason to go after other coaches like this because you're too insecure to have a disagreement.

Im all for people voicing their opinions.. right, wrong, or whatever. Its good to have multiple perspectives on something like this.. but we really dont need to argue and have a whole page of back and forth that doesnt help anyone.

Alright back to the topic.

I'm going to go find out some stats on nonbcs vs BCS.

Not to prove a point. Just because I'm interested now.

I'll bet they win more against BCS than non elite BCS does against elites.

It's gonna take me a few minutes to look at the worlds.

Please be sure to separate out the two components of the Elites/Non-Elites/Non-BCS teams:

1. The team, itself, with its inherent advantages and/or disadvantages
2. The Coach of the team

This will prove, of course, to be a tremendously difficult task, since poor and mediocre coaches don't tend to get Elite jobs, while they get non-Elite and non-BCS jobs all the time. The presence robust data on every "level" of coaching ability at all three types of schools would yield the most meaningful distinctions.

Nonetheless, any existing data in its raw form (ie, Elite records vs. non-Elites, non-Elite records vs. non-BCS), will certainly show the hierarchy as Elite > non-Elite BCS > non-BCS. But wrapped up in such data are a couple of facts:

1. Elite schools tend to get the better/best coaches
2. Non-Elite BCS schools tend to be human-coached more than non-BCS schools

These tendencies, played out over tens- or hundreds of thousands of games over years of real time, will inevitably give rise to the aforementioned hierarchy. In reality, it proves little because better coaches tend to beat worse coaches and better coaches tend to coach at Elites. So now... is it the team or is it the coach? Elites DO have advantages over non-Elite BCS schools; non-Elite BCS schools DO have advantages over non-BCS schools. These show up in the form of recruiting advantages, which tend to show up as superior talent, which tends to show up as wins more than losses. That's the advantage of the school, itself, adjusted by the success (or lack thereof) of the coach at the school in question, since Prestige is a spectrum.

So what are you really seeing when you note that, say, Elites beat non-Elite BCS teams 80% of the time (made-up number)? Are you seeing some sort of Elite superiority? Or are you seeing coaching superiority? If it's coaching superiority that you're seeing, then the position shifts meaningfully: Do Not Schedule Elite Coaches. This is a different matter than not scheduling Elite teams. In fact, much hay can be made for non-Elite BCS schools by scheduling Elites with mediocre coaching. Even with mediocre coaching, Elites tend to have pretty good records and bolster one's SoS.

There is a lot to intelligent scheduling and to throw a "Don't schedule Elites if you're not one" blanket over it ignores some of the more nuanced aspects of the endeavor. As with most every facet of this game, it is really a sliding scale. I find nuggets of truth in both sides of this particular argument. And someday, when I find the motivation to complete my Have a Plan series - JUST TWO MORE ARTICLES TO GO! - I'll get to Scheduling.

We are taking this argument to The People Court!!!!! All decisions are final!

But back to the above. (Happy daddy CJ?)

I'm assuming the numbers will say BCS schools won 80%+ of the time. Now the numbers kinda lie in both of these situations IMO. We have to factor in that the best coaches get attracted to the best teams Elites>BCS and therefore win. Would this coaches win at non-bcs teams. The best ones have proven yes. Wish it was easier to pull better conclusions from just win loss stats but there are so many variables in what makes a team win.

Posted by truedevil33 on 2/27/2017 7:38:00 PM (view original):
We are taking this argument to The People Court!!!!! All decisions are final!

But back to the above. (Happy daddy CJ?)

I'm assuming the numbers will say BCS schools won 80%+ of the time. Now the numbers kinda lie in both of these situations IMO. We have to factor in that the best coaches get attracted to the best teams Elites>BCS and therefore win. Would this coaches win at non-bcs teams. The best ones have proven yes. Wish it was easier to pull better conclusions from just win loss stats but there are so many variables in what makes a team win.

Judge Wapner just died yesterday. Wow, 97 years young he was.

Good post VH. Some sound advice from someone with a lot of experience....and success. That kind of information much preferable compared to someone else here who is intent on proving that Dunning-Kruger Effect is in fact real.

If Vhoward would have just finished his have a plan series and wrote about scheduling we wouldn't be in this mess!

You know I'm kidding. Another well thought out piece. Laying the hammer down.

Here's the problem guys

Those of you that hate me will love this

the other 10 of you...lol

My damn computer power cord is done for.

Can't do much without it. Bad day for chrondon. I got to go buy a new one tomorrow.

No show tonight. Boo hoo.

More like a love to hate then just straight hate. It's like the Outsiders. Your a social and I'm a greaser man. Just call me soda pop.