Is Mark Richt a chronic underachiever?

Over the last ten years, Bill Connelly’s not seeing it.  In fact, his numbers suggest very slight overachievement on Richt’s part.

Am I trolling some of you here?  Nah… okay, maybe a little.


UPDATE:  A little context from Mr. Connelly…


Filed under Stats Geek!

35 responses to “Is Mark Richt a chronic underachiever?

  1. Gravidy

    You can only troll those who are willing to be trolled.


  2. Bulldawg165


    Nine active SEC coaches plus Paul Johnson all performed better per that list


    • DawgPhan

      But the common refrain is that CMR underachieves. These numbers say that he doesnt.


      • Bulldawg165

        Not necessarily. This list shows the number of games won compared to the probability of winning those games based on plays that actually happened during those games.

        If you under-utilize or under-develop talent relative to your peers it wouldn’t show up on this list because those good players would’ve never came to be, or they would’ve never made good plays for you.

        In other words, straight from the article:

        You can potentially distill coaching into two things: building a team that produces great stats and figuring out how to maneuver in tight games when neither team has a statistical advantage. The former matters above all (Nick Saban and Steve Kragthorpe, after all, are nearly even on this list … and on no other list in existence), but if nothing else, this list might help us to understand which teams/coaches are good or bad at the latter.

        The author clearly states that this merely shows Richt can usually fight to a draw when he has equal stats (and that nine other conference coaches can do better). Big whoop. How about producing better stats? After all, that’s what matters above all (per the author of course, not me).

        Any way that you look at it, this doesn’t paint a “great” picture of CMR. It paints an “average” picture.


    • W Cobb Dawg

      Fishfry lost (badly) to Middle Tennessee. And he’s an overachiever?!

      If CMR had a couple dramatic wins over some tough competition to cancel out losses to teams like vandy, ky, ucf, during that period, I might buy it. But who did we beat in that period that would’ve been considered a clear favorite over us?

      Franchione, Groh & Neuheisel were higher achievers than CMR? This is what a useless list looks like.


      • Bulldawg165

        I agree. It’s not useful in my opinion (or the author’s either, apparently– see the part I quoted above), but if we’re going to use it to tout CMR’s greatness, we at least need to compare him to others on the list.


  3. Rick

    This is a silly list, and Connely knows it. With the statistic he is using, there probably aren’t any under achievers OR overachievers, it’s all just random noise. They only bear a resemblance to perception of coaches because coaches that randomly fall on the negative side of this metric have more losses, which does damage to their reputation. It’s a tautology.

    Ah well, I guess he has to keep busy in the off season.

    Richt is an underachiever in recruiting, because he’s had us averaging #5 in conference the last 8 years. That ain’t going to cut it. He’s an overachiever on the field, because out average finish in conference standings is #3. Net result: a good, but not hall of fame, coach.

    If we can replicate this year’s recruiting success every year, maybe that will change.


  4. BigAl

    I like to think of CMR as a multi-tasker; He is an underachiever as well as a nice guy! As all current apologist trend goes: “find me someone better to replace him”. I only wish the AD would actually let me.


  5. charlottedawg

    I’m usually a fan of Connelly’s work but this stat and $2 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. You can’t throw out the work a coaching staff does on the practice field and the recruiting trail among other places to actually assemble a team that puts the odds of winning in one’s favor. That’s the whole reason Nick Saban signs all those elite athletes. That’s how you get some stat that says Paul Johnson is better than Richt, because hey, “when you only sign a bunch of 2 stars, run a high school offense, and can’t hire a real DC to save your life,you should only win 25% of your games but since you won 50% of your games, you are awesome!”.

    It’s why i keep saying that wins are a direct reflection of a coaching staff’s ability, you don’t get additional points for handicapping yourself (looking at you UGA, undersigning cough cough, stupid drug policies, cough.) Now if you want to look at a coach’s winning percentage and how many standard deviations it is from the program’s historic winning percentage not counting said coach. That would give you a better yard stick of over or under achievement, which is why I have a lot of respect for Spurrier’s work at USC.


  6. Saxondawg

    Yeah. Connelly is a rock star at this kind of thing–the Bill James of college football–but this won’t go in his greatest hits. It’s certainly an interesting chart for a slow day, but very limited in what it tells us. Or at least you could say there are plenty of other ways to measure the same attribute.


  7. As I interpret this method, you’re only counted as an underachiever if you outplay the other team but still find a way to lose. But it does nothing to factor in getting beat (and outplayed) by an inferior team, such as in Jax this year. I like Bill a lot but I think this particular measure has pretty limited usefulness. Like someone stated above, given a big enough sample size, by far the majority would eventually gravitate to the mean.

    And I suspect you agree Bluto, and just wanted to see what kind of reactions you would get. 🙂


  8. Bulldawg165

    Richt apologists will use anything, ANYTHING to justify their position. Do y’all realize that if we gain a single yard of offense against Charleston Southern it wouldn’t have negatively impacted this Richt’s place on this list? Just let that sink in.


  9. WRDawgFan

    Relax guys…Thomas Brown is ON THE MUTHA!!


  10. Cojones

    Senator, I am aware that you have placed food for thought before us before on this subject, but I would like to see a few posts from you concerning our drug policy. I would like to see some bloggers take up their position concerning the “faults” of that policy and arguments against that position. We know punishments differ from school to school that show up hypocritical policies, but a discussion of punishment for breaking drug policy rules should be undertaken as to the value of that policy. Deterrent factors other than game suspensions and variation of punishments for differing drugs should be analyzed on this blog. We probably have readers who have expertise in differing social fields that are utilized to set a drug “policy”; i.e., what social actions are considered when qualifying what is a deterrent, how such policy steps apply in a cfb setting and how to bring about a consolidated nonsensical policy for the conferences. An update on what the SEC is doing along these lines would be valuable in such a discussion.

    While many of us have made it known how we view certain drugs that have attained social usage, it doesn’t mean we view their usage in the same manner when it reflects on team play. Anachronistic social mores and values toward certain drugs are having scientific light of logic shown upon them and are falling by the wayside, but that doesn’t mean that most drugs are not harmless. A good discussion would be beneficial to fans here and maybe will gain traction in other minds afterwards. Who knows, maybe it would benefit the discussion to be undertaken by the SEC.