The Magic Number

[Skipper44]

 
[/quote]

DO DOC NOW
[/quote]

I have Doc currently sitting at -4, went past zero after year 4 (09-10)


For coaches taking over good programs where the last guy moved up (like Self at KU) this is a pretty good system.  For guys like Wooly and Doc maybe the clock should start after a year or two

[CHONGS]

Oh crap didn't see you added points for confy titles and P66 titles.  

Great system then.  Works well

Still need to put in a clause for coaches turning around horrid programs.

well this is mainly for kstate coaches and other programs where making the 2nd weekend is the expectation.

[nicname]

Original formula with no confy stuff added.

Bill Self: 8
03-04 8+1=9
04-05 9-1= 8
05-06 8-1= 7
06-07 7+1 = 8
07-08 8+8 = 16
08-09 16+0 = 16
09-10 16-1 = 15
10-11 15+1 = 16

Math is right unless I am supposed to ad positive points together say 1+2+4+8 for a natty title.

[CHONGS]

Original formula with no confy stuff added.

Bill Self: 8
03-04 8+1=9
04-05 9-1= 8
05-06 8-1= 7
06-07 7+1 = 8
07-08 8+8 = 16
08-09 16+0 = 16
09-10 16-1 = 15
10-11 15+1 = 16

Math is right unless I am supposed to ad positive points together say 1+2+4+8 for a natty title.

The original formula had confy stuff in it.

[nicname]

Okay. Then, like I said, works pretty well.  Makes me kind of want to compare coaches with the non-confy stuff in one column and without in another.  great system. 

What do you think about adding a clause for turning crappy teams around.  How would you work that.

[CHONGS]

Okay. Then, like I said, works pretty well.  Makes me kind of want to compare coaches with the non-confy stuff in one column and without in another.  great system. 

What do you think about adding a clause for turning crappy teams around.  How would you work that.

you add half the negative the previous coach left.  For instance if the last coach left a -6 you get 11. (round up so  -7 gets you +4)

[nicname]

Okay. Then, like I said, works pretty well.  Makes me kind of want to compare coaches with the non-confy stuff in one column and without in another.  great system. 

What do you think about adding a clause for turning crappy teams around.  How would you work that.

you add half the negative the previous coach left.  For instance if the last coach left a -6 you get 11. (round up so  -7 gets you +4)

oh that is awesome

[WillieWatanabe]

someone do every big 12 coach and put it in a fancy color coded chart. tia

[michigancat]

A coach should not lose points for making the NCAA tournament at Kansas State.  Sweet 16 being the annual "expectation" is far too steep IMO. Make NCAA tournament a +1 and add a point or 2 for each weekend

I agree something like top 4 (or bottom 4) conference finish should count for something as well.

Nice concept, though.

[Skipper44]

Ok, so if Asbury was a -3 when fired, then Wooly starts at +11.  He then fails to go to post season every year and should be fired after year 4 instead of year 3 if he starts at +8.

Basically, Asbury's horrible last two years gives Wooly an extra season.  Tim Weiser would agree with this method.

[CHONGS]

A coach should not lose points for making the NCAA tournament at Kansas State.  Sweet 16 being the annual "expectation" is far too steep IMO. Make NCAA tournament a +1 and add a point or 2 for each weekend

I agree something like top 4 (or bottom 4) conference finish should count for something as well.

Nice concept, though.

I agree its far too steep, but I think many would disagree with us and say our expectations are too low.

[CHONGS]

My preferred system:

Not making the NIT : -3
Not making the NCAA: -2
Losing first round : -1  (I flip flop between this being a -1 and a 0)
First round win: 0  (I flip flop between this being a 0 and 1)
Making sweet sixteen: 2
Making Elite 8: 4
Making Final Four : 6
Making Champ Game: 8
Winning Champ: 10

Win Conference: 2
Win Conference Tourny: 1


I don't think top 4 or bottom 4 are necessary (will be reflected in making tournaments).

[SwiftCat]

My current expectation with frank is to make it to the round of 32 every year. I don't think it's unreasonable for him to have at least an 8 seed every year, which would put him in position to win the opening round game of the NCAA's.

[michigancat]

My preferred system:

Not making the NIT : -3
Not making the NCAA: -2
Losing first round : -1  (I flip flop between this being a -1 and a 0)
First round win: 0  (I flip flop between this being a 0 and 1)
Making sweet sixteen: 2
Making Elite 8: 4
Making Final Four : 6
Making Champ Game: 8
Winning Champ: 10

Win Conference: 2
Win Conference Tourny: 1


I don't think top 4 or bottom 4 are necessary (will be reflected in making tournaments).

I think winning conference regular season should equal a final four.

[gatoveintisiete]

Miss the ncaa's two years in a row......you're fired! simple, concise and to the point. 

[CHONGS]

My preferred system:

Not making the NIT : -3
Not making the NCAA: -2
Losing first round : -1  (I flip flop between this being a -1 and a 0)
First round win: 0  (I flip flop between this being a 0 and 1)
Making sweet sixteen: 2
Making Elite 8: 4
Making Final Four : 6
Making Champ Game: 8
Winning Champ: 10

Win Conference: 2
Win Conference Tourny: 1


I don't think top 4 or bottom 4 are necessary (will be reflected in making tournaments).

I think winning conference regular season should equal a final four.

I respectfully disagree.  Making the Final Four is much harder than winning your conference.   Apparently even more so in the Big 12.

[michigancat]

.

My preferred system:

Not making the NIT : -3
Not making the NCAA: -2
Losing first round : -1  (I flip flop between this being a -1 and a 0)
First round win: 0  (I flip flop between this being a 0 and 1)
Making sweet sixteen: 2
Making Elite 8: 4
Making Final Four : 6
Making Champ Game: 8
Winning Champ: 10

Win Conference: 2
Win Conference Tourny: 1


I don't think top 4 or bottom 4 are necessary (will be reflected in making tournaments).

I think winning conference regular season should equal a final four.

I respectfully disagree.  Making the Final Four is much harder than winning your conference.   Apparently even more so in the Big 12.

It's harder in some ways, easier in others. A conference title is a more accurate indicator of the long-term strength of a program IMO. You can make it to a Final Four without beating a top 10 seed or by having several very favorable matchups, but there's no way you can win the Big 12 without some outstanding wins (and great talent).

[wetwillie]

I think going undefeated at home in conference should get 1+

[mocat]

Wooly would of been fired after year 2, would of been what, -22 when he finally was Weisered

Asbury would of been -12


I may be doing it wrong, but you basically get a -5 every year there is no post season, correct?

no he would lose -3 every year

OK

Wooly should of been fired after year 3 and would of been -10

Asbury should of been fired after year 4 and was -3

goddammit, skipper, i can't let 5 in a row slide. it's WOULD/SHOULD HAVE. 
sorry everyone, carry on

[sys]

chingon, your system is a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

[Deez Nutz]

Ok, so if Asbury was a -3 when fired, then Wooly starts at +11.  He then fails to go to post season every year and should be fired after year 4 instead of year 3 if he starts at +8.

Basically, Asbury's horrible last two years gives Wooly an extra season.  Tim Weiser would agree with this method.

No, Skipper.  It was clearly stipulated that an incoming coach gets to add half of the negative points the previous coach left with.  So if Asbury left at -3, then Wooly starts at 9.5. 

[CHONGS]

chingon, your system is a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

maybe so, maybe so

[nicname]

.

My preferred system:

Not making the NIT : -3
Not making the NCAA: -2
Losing first round : -1  (I flip flop between this being a -1 and a 0)
First round win: 0  (I flip flop between this being a 0 and 1)
Making sweet sixteen: 2
Making Elite 8: 4
Making Final Four : 6
Making Champ Game: 8
Winning Champ: 10

Win Conference: 2
Win Conference Tourny: 1


I don't think top 4 or bottom 4 are necessary (will be reflected in making tournaments).

I think winning conference regular season should equal a final four.

I respectfully disagree.  Making the Final Four is much harder than winning your conference.   Apparently even more so in the Big 12.

It's harder in some ways, easier in others. A conference title is a more accurate indicator of the long-term strength of a program IMO. You can make it to a Final Four without beating a top 10 seed or by having several very favorable matchups, but there's no way you can win the Big 12 without some outstanding wins (and great talent).

Although I tarded up the beginning of this thread (sorry chingon), I'll add something.  At first I was against using the tournament as such a high barometer, as we know it has pretty high variance.  After some deliberation and going through the numbers with a lot of coaches (I mistakenly did this without even giving points to confy and confy tourney titles), and it seemed like over the years the teams that were winning conference titles were at a reasonable pace getting additional points in the NCAA's.  Of course there were outliers. Gene Keady was one at Purdue as they never did too well in the NCAAs, thus negating there fairly high number of conference titles. Izzo is a kind of an outlier as well from there great success in the tournament. 

This is fun though. 

[Deez Nutz]

This point system should be built into the contract of every new coach hired at every school in the nation, and Chingon should collect the royalties off of it.  No more lawsuits for a firing without just cause.

[puniraptor]

Is it necessary to account for public choking or slapping of players in this system? What about DUIs?