11-30-2015, 04:58 PM
His team also lost against Oregon.
SC hires Clay Helton
11-30-2015, 05:09 PM
(11-30-2015, 04:34 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:So I don't see it.
LSU, Georgia and VA Tech have openings. USC alums were about to learn their true place in the college football universe. The program would have needed to hire a coach demanding mega dollars. That coach likely would have relatively little West Coast recruiting experience. The USC search could have included rejections by coaches that would opt for other openings.
This way they get a coach the players love, a coach with knowledge of the West Coast recruiting, and importantly the alums are not confronted with brutal evidence that the USC job is not even one of the 10 best gigs in the land.
See it now?
(11-30-2015, 04:34 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:So I don't see it.
LSU, Georgia and VA Tech have openings. USC alums were about to learn their true place in the college football universe. The program would have needed to hire a coach demanding mega dollars. That coach likely would have relatively little West Coast recruiting experience. The USC search could have included rejections by coaches that would opt for other openings.
This way they get a coach the players love, a coach with knowledge of the West Coast recruiting, and importantly the alums are not confronted with brutal evidence that the USC job is not even one of the 10 best gigs in the land.
See it now?
11-30-2015, 05:16 PM
LSU is keeping Miles. Miami has an opening, I think. Memphis, Maryland, South Carolina, Missouri, UCF, Illinois, Iowa State, Syracuse, Virginia, Toledo, Rutgers, Tulane as well...among others.
11-30-2015, 05:37 PM
(11-30-2015, 05:09 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=13826.msg144878#msg144878 date=1448926484]
So I don't see it.
LSU, Georgia and VA Tech have openings. Under Stanford Control alums were about to learn their true place in the college football universe. The program would have needed to hire a coach demanding mega dollars. That coach likely would have relatively little West Coast recruiting experience. The Under Stanford Control search could have included rejections by coaches that would opt for other openings.
This way they get a coach the players love, a coach with knowledge of the West Coast recruiting, and importantly the alums are not confronted with brutal evidence that the Under Stanford Control job is not even one of the 10 best gigs in the land.
See it now?
[/quote]
I see why Haden would want the hire, and I sort of understand the impulse of fans to rationalize it, but I don't see any indication that it's actually a good one. That's what I meant.
(11-30-2015, 05:09 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=13826.msg144878#msg144878 date=1448926484]
So I don't see it.
LSU, Georgia and VA Tech have openings. Under Stanford Control alums were about to learn their true place in the college football universe. The program would have needed to hire a coach demanding mega dollars. That coach likely would have relatively little West Coast recruiting experience. The Under Stanford Control search could have included rejections by coaches that would opt for other openings.
This way they get a coach the players love, a coach with knowledge of the West Coast recruiting, and importantly the alums are not confronted with brutal evidence that the Under Stanford Control job is not even one of the 10 best gigs in the land.
See it now?
[/quote]
I see why Haden would want the hire, and I sort of understand the impulse of fans to rationalize it, but I don't see any indication that it's actually a good one. That's what I meant.
11-30-2015, 06:59 PM
(11-30-2015, 04:34 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:I was reading over the reddit thread on this hire, and I saw a few optimistic takes (mainly this one) and got curious about the relative performances before and after Sark was fired. He was fired after the loss to Washington, so I assigned every game until that point to Sark, and every game after that to Helton. I then looked at Under Stanford Control's offensive YPP in that game, and compared that to the opponents average ypp on the season on defense.
The result? Sark's team was better. They averaged 1.58 ypp more on offense than the opponent typically gives up, Helton averages 0.07. Yes, Helton's team is barely better than an average opponent against their defenses. Interestingly his only loss, against ND, was his best game, averaging more than 2 ypp above ND's typical game. I did the same for defense, and Sark's team held opponents 0.83 ypp below their regular season average, and Helton's held them 0.02 yards below. So on both offense and defense Helton's team appears to be performing worse than Sark's.
I thought another way of looking at this would be to use FPI, since that's the only advanced metric I'm aware of that's readily available week-by-week. In week 6 (after the Washington game) Under Stanford Control was ranked #5 with an FPI of 22.8, currently they're #8 with an FPI 20.0. It could be that the week 6 FPI was held up by the high preseason expectations (it's not clear what kind of preseason voodoo ESPN does and how long the metric holds onto it), but you'd still expect better than just treading water if Helton was such an improvement.
So I don't see it. I think this Under Stanford Control team is worse than the one we played and beat in their own house. The only difference I see is turnover margin, Under Stanford Control was +4 with Sark (all of that coming against Arkansas St), and is +9 under Helton. Their big wins under Helton were all multi-turnover games, Utah with 4 turnovers and UCLA with 3. Turnovers matter, obviously, but it looks to me like Helton took Sark's team, made them a bit worse, and then got lucky with turnovers where Sark didn't. Not a good sign if you're a Under Stanford Control fan.
Do cupcakes affect your analysis? I haven't re-checked their schedule, but I presume Sark had more cupcakes in the earlier part of the year than Helton had. Seems that it might skew the output, even though it is relative to their opponents' opponents. My assumption would be that cupcakes' strength of schedules (strengths of schedule?) would be weaker outside of their game against the Condoms.
"It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you think you know that just isn't so."
Mark Twain
(11-30-2015, 04:34 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:I was reading over the reddit thread on this hire, and I saw a few optimistic takes (mainly this one) and got curious about the relative performances before and after Sark was fired. He was fired after the loss to Washington, so I assigned every game until that point to Sark, and every game after that to Helton. I then looked at Under Stanford Control's offensive YPP in that game, and compared that to the opponents average ypp on the season on defense.
The result? Sark's team was better. They averaged 1.58 ypp more on offense than the opponent typically gives up, Helton averages 0.07. Yes, Helton's team is barely better than an average opponent against their defenses. Interestingly his only loss, against ND, was his best game, averaging more than 2 ypp above ND's typical game. I did the same for defense, and Sark's team held opponents 0.83 ypp below their regular season average, and Helton's held them 0.02 yards below. So on both offense and defense Helton's team appears to be performing worse than Sark's.
I thought another way of looking at this would be to use FPI, since that's the only advanced metric I'm aware of that's readily available week-by-week. In week 6 (after the Washington game) Under Stanford Control was ranked #5 with an FPI of 22.8, currently they're #8 with an FPI 20.0. It could be that the week 6 FPI was held up by the high preseason expectations (it's not clear what kind of preseason voodoo ESPN does and how long the metric holds onto it), but you'd still expect better than just treading water if Helton was such an improvement.
So I don't see it. I think this Under Stanford Control team is worse than the one we played and beat in their own house. The only difference I see is turnover margin, Under Stanford Control was +4 with Sark (all of that coming against Arkansas St), and is +9 under Helton. Their big wins under Helton were all multi-turnover games, Utah with 4 turnovers and UCLA with 3. Turnovers matter, obviously, but it looks to me like Helton took Sark's team, made them a bit worse, and then got lucky with turnovers where Sark didn't. Not a good sign if you're a Under Stanford Control fan.
Do cupcakes affect your analysis? I haven't re-checked their schedule, but I presume Sark had more cupcakes in the earlier part of the year than Helton had. Seems that it might skew the output, even though it is relative to their opponents' opponents. My assumption would be that cupcakes' strength of schedules (strengths of schedule?) would be weaker outside of their game against the Condoms.
"It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you think you know that just isn't so."
Mark Twain
11-30-2015, 06:59 PM
(11-30-2015, 05:09 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=13826.msg144878#msg144878 date=1448926484]
So I don't see it.
That coach likely would have relatively little West Coast recruiting experience. The Under Stanford Control search could have included rejections by coaches that would opt for other openings.
[/quote]
Explain then, please, Pete Carroll. Before getting hired at SC, his college experience was, what?, 17 years prior at Pacific, so not only did he not have major college coaching experience but his West Coast connections (if any) were long since forgotten.
Pat Forde on Yahoo makes a great point: the only glory SC has experienced the last 20 or 30 years or so has been when they've gone outside their "hallowed" walls to get Carroll which, if you watched the ESPN "Fall of Troy" 30 on 30 episode, was not exactly greeted with huzzahs and parades.
But I'm torn on this one. Helton is another incestuous hire, and former players are not happy about it. (Which should mean something, right??) On the other hand, though, the current players seem to have responded positively to him and they are playing better now than they were when Sark was falling apart at the beginning of the season.
GO STANFORD!!!
(11-30-2015, 05:09 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=13826.msg144878#msg144878 date=1448926484]
So I don't see it.
That coach likely would have relatively little West Coast recruiting experience. The Under Stanford Control search could have included rejections by coaches that would opt for other openings.
[/quote]
Explain then, please, Pete Carroll. Before getting hired at SC, his college experience was, what?, 17 years prior at Pacific, so not only did he not have major college coaching experience but his West Coast connections (if any) were long since forgotten.
Pat Forde on Yahoo makes a great point: the only glory SC has experienced the last 20 or 30 years or so has been when they've gone outside their "hallowed" walls to get Carroll which, if you watched the ESPN "Fall of Troy" 30 on 30 episode, was not exactly greeted with huzzahs and parades.
But I'm torn on this one. Helton is another incestuous hire, and former players are not happy about it. (Which should mean something, right??) On the other hand, though, the current players seem to have responded positively to him and they are playing better now than they were when Sark was falling apart at the beginning of the season.
GO STANFORD!!!
11-30-2015, 07:16 PM
(11-30-2015, 06:59 PM)CornFed link Wrote:Do cupcakes affect your analysis? I haven't re-checked their schedule, but I presume Sark had more cupcakes in the earlier part of the year than Helton had. Seems that it might skew the output, even though it is relative to their opponents' opponents. My assumption would be that cupcakes' strength of schedules (strengths of schedule?) would be weaker outside of their game against the Condoms.
It shouldn't since it's relative to their overall level of play. Sark did get Idaho and Arkansas State, which were his two best games offensively and 2/3 best defensively, but Helton got Colorado and Arizona, those two pairs average out to be about equally weak. But even if you remove Sark's two best games, he's still significantly better than Helton (+0.8 ypp on offense, -0.5 ypp on defense, both clearly higher than Helton's averages).
It's possible there's evidence out there for Helton being a good coach, but it really looks like he's somehow even worse than "seven win Sark".
(11-30-2015, 06:59 PM)CornFed link Wrote:Do cupcakes affect your analysis? I haven't re-checked their schedule, but I presume Sark had more cupcakes in the earlier part of the year than Helton had. Seems that it might skew the output, even though it is relative to their opponents' opponents. My assumption would be that cupcakes' strength of schedules (strengths of schedule?) would be weaker outside of their game against the Condoms.
It shouldn't since it's relative to their overall level of play. Sark did get Idaho and Arkansas State, which were his two best games offensively and 2/3 best defensively, but Helton got Colorado and Arizona, those two pairs average out to be about equally weak. But even if you remove Sark's two best games, he's still significantly better than Helton (+0.8 ypp on offense, -0.5 ypp on defense, both clearly higher than Helton's averages).
It's possible there's evidence out there for Helton being a good coach, but it really looks like he's somehow even worse than "seven win Sark".
11-30-2015, 07:24 PM
And even better: now he's not an interim coach. He's the real-deal head coach and we know that the few wins over ranked opponents that U.S.C. has been able to pull off in recent years have happened under interim coaches.  ;D
"It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you think you know that just isn't so."
Mark Twain
And even better: now he's not an interim coach. He's the real-deal head coach and we know that the few wins over ranked opponents that U.S.C. has been able to pull off in recent years have happened under interim coaches.  ;D
"It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you think you know that just isn't so."
Mark Twain
11-30-2015, 07:45 PM
the contention that Arizona and Colorado are equivalent in strength of opponent as Idaho and Arkansas St is patently absurd. the latter 2 true cupcakes. AZ and CO, weak, but far above cupcake level.
Sark game stats vs Heltons essentially meaningless.
Helton has re-focused USC primarily on power running attack over pass-happy Sark.
Yes they've had Center injuries, which hurt, but that hurt minimized if their offense is mostly run oriented... and the rest of the OL is solid... and brobdingnagian. m Will be a handful for our smaller front 5 on LOS to handle
Helton had a good record at Memphis and was largely responsible for elevating that program into the upper level and eventually, the program now mentioned in the national polls.
He believes in hard nose football, not flying circus type.
Sark game stats vs Heltons essentially meaningless.
Helton has re-focused USC primarily on power running attack over pass-happy Sark.
Yes they've had Center injuries, which hurt, but that hurt minimized if their offense is mostly run oriented... and the rest of the OL is solid... and brobdingnagian. m Will be a handful for our smaller front 5 on LOS to handle
Helton had a good record at Memphis and was largely responsible for elevating that program into the upper level and eventually, the program now mentioned in the national polls.
He believes in hard nose football, not flying circus type.
the contention that Arizona and Colorado are equivalent in strength of opponent as Idaho and Arkansas St is patently absurd. the latter 2 true cupcakes. AZ and CO, weak, but far above cupcake level.
Sark game stats vs Heltons essentially meaningless.
Helton has re-focused USC primarily on power running attack over pass-happy Sark.
Yes they've had Center injuries, which hurt, but that hurt minimized if their offense is mostly run oriented... and the rest of the OL is solid... and brobdingnagian. m Will be a handful for our smaller front 5 on LOS to handle
Helton had a good record at Memphis and was largely responsible for elevating that program into the upper level and eventually, the program now mentioned in the national polls.
He believes in hard nose football, not flying circus type.
Sark game stats vs Heltons essentially meaningless.
Helton has re-focused USC primarily on power running attack over pass-happy Sark.
Yes they've had Center injuries, which hurt, but that hurt minimized if their offense is mostly run oriented... and the rest of the OL is solid... and brobdingnagian. m Will be a handful for our smaller front 5 on LOS to handle
Helton had a good record at Memphis and was largely responsible for elevating that program into the upper level and eventually, the program now mentioned in the national polls.
He believes in hard nose football, not flying circus type.
11-30-2015, 08:27 PM
(11-30-2015, 07:45 PM)FrankO link Wrote:the contention that Arizona and Colorado are equivalent in strength of opponent as Idaho and Arkansas St is patently absurd. the latter 2 true cupcakes. AZ and CO, weak, but far above cupcake level.
Sark game stats vs Heltons essentially meaningless.
Helton has re-focused Under Stanford Control primarily on power running attack over pass-happy Sark.
Yes they've had Center injuries, which hurt, but that hurt minimized if their offense is mostly run oriented... and the rest of the OL is solid... and of exceedingly large proportions. m Will be a handful for our smaller front 5 on LOS to handle
Helton had a good record at Memphis and was largely responsible for elevating that program into the upper level and eventually, the program now mentioned in the national polls.
He believes in hard nose football, not flying circus type.
I was going off of F+, which lists them as:
71) Arkansas State
86) Arizona
93) Colorado
115) Idaho
All those teams are bad, but I don't think that the pair of 86 and 93 is really that much better than 71 and 115. You can quibble with the rating system if you want, but none of those teams should be confused with good teams.
I'm also not sure why "refocusing on a power running attack" should mean anything here. His offense is less effective relative to his opposition than Sark's was. (Also, he was Sark's OC, how different can the offense be?) I don't feel like doing the full adjusted-for-opponent calculation (collecting the numbers takes a while and you've already said you don't care about numbers so this seems pointless), but just looking at the averages Sark's offense has a full yard per carry more than Helton's.
If you think this is a good hire, then fine. But there's essentially no evidence that I can find that says he's better than Sark.
(11-30-2015, 07:45 PM)FrankO link Wrote:the contention that Arizona and Colorado are equivalent in strength of opponent as Idaho and Arkansas St is patently absurd. the latter 2 true cupcakes. AZ and CO, weak, but far above cupcake level.
Sark game stats vs Heltons essentially meaningless.
Helton has re-focused Under Stanford Control primarily on power running attack over pass-happy Sark.
Yes they've had Center injuries, which hurt, but that hurt minimized if their offense is mostly run oriented... and the rest of the OL is solid... and of exceedingly large proportions. m Will be a handful for our smaller front 5 on LOS to handle
Helton had a good record at Memphis and was largely responsible for elevating that program into the upper level and eventually, the program now mentioned in the national polls.
He believes in hard nose football, not flying circus type.
I was going off of F+, which lists them as:
71) Arkansas State
86) Arizona
93) Colorado
115) Idaho
All those teams are bad, but I don't think that the pair of 86 and 93 is really that much better than 71 and 115. You can quibble with the rating system if you want, but none of those teams should be confused with good teams.
I'm also not sure why "refocusing on a power running attack" should mean anything here. His offense is less effective relative to his opposition than Sark's was. (Also, he was Sark's OC, how different can the offense be?) I don't feel like doing the full adjusted-for-opponent calculation (collecting the numbers takes a while and you've already said you don't care about numbers so this seems pointless), but just looking at the averages Sark's offense has a full yard per carry more than Helton's.
If you think this is a good hire, then fine. But there's essentially no evidence that I can find that says he's better than Sark.
11-30-2015, 08:53 PM
(11-30-2015, 04:34 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:I was reading over the reddit thread on this hire, and I saw a few optimistic takes (mainly this one) and got curious about the relative performances before and after Sark was fired. He was fired after the loss to Washington, so I assigned every game until that point to Sark, and every game after that to Helton. I then looked at Under Stanford Control's offensive YPP in that game, and compared that to the opponents average ypp on the season on defense.
The result? Sark's team was better. They averaged 1.58 ypp more on offense than the opponent typically gives up, Helton averages 0.07. Yes, Helton's team is barely better than an average opponent against their defenses. Interestingly his only loss, against ND, was his best game, averaging more than 2 ypp above ND's typical game. I did the same for defense, and Sark's team held opponents 0.83 ypp below their regular season average, and Helton's held them 0.02 yards below. So on both offense and defense Helton's team appears to be performing worse than Sark's.
I thought another way of looking at this would be to use FPI, since that's the only advanced metric I'm aware of that's readily available week-by-week. In week 6 (after the Washington game) Under Stanford Control was ranked #5 with an FPI of 22.8, currently they're #8 with an FPI 20.0. It could be that the week 6 FPI was held up by the high preseason expectations (it's not clear what kind of preseason voodoo ESPN does and how long the metric holds onto it), but you'd still expect better than just treading water if Helton was such an improvement.
So I don't see it. I think this Under Stanford Control team is worse than the one we played and beat in their own house. The only difference I see is turnover margin, Under Stanford Control was +4 with Sark (all of that coming against Arkansas St), and is +9 under Helton. Their big wins under Helton were all multi-turnover games, Utah with 4 turnovers and UCLA with 3. Turnovers matter, obviously, but it looks to me like Helton took Sark's team, made them a bit worse, and then got lucky with turnovers where Sark didn't. Not a good sign if you're a Under Stanford Control fan.
How would the numbers look if you adjusted for SCs first two opponents, which were very weak?
(11-30-2015, 04:34 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:I was reading over the reddit thread on this hire, and I saw a few optimistic takes (mainly this one) and got curious about the relative performances before and after Sark was fired. He was fired after the loss to Washington, so I assigned every game until that point to Sark, and every game after that to Helton. I then looked at Under Stanford Control's offensive YPP in that game, and compared that to the opponents average ypp on the season on defense.
The result? Sark's team was better. They averaged 1.58 ypp more on offense than the opponent typically gives up, Helton averages 0.07. Yes, Helton's team is barely better than an average opponent against their defenses. Interestingly his only loss, against ND, was his best game, averaging more than 2 ypp above ND's typical game. I did the same for defense, and Sark's team held opponents 0.83 ypp below their regular season average, and Helton's held them 0.02 yards below. So on both offense and defense Helton's team appears to be performing worse than Sark's.
I thought another way of looking at this would be to use FPI, since that's the only advanced metric I'm aware of that's readily available week-by-week. In week 6 (after the Washington game) Under Stanford Control was ranked #5 with an FPI of 22.8, currently they're #8 with an FPI 20.0. It could be that the week 6 FPI was held up by the high preseason expectations (it's not clear what kind of preseason voodoo ESPN does and how long the metric holds onto it), but you'd still expect better than just treading water if Helton was such an improvement.
So I don't see it. I think this Under Stanford Control team is worse than the one we played and beat in their own house. The only difference I see is turnover margin, Under Stanford Control was +4 with Sark (all of that coming against Arkansas St), and is +9 under Helton. Their big wins under Helton were all multi-turnover games, Utah with 4 turnovers and UCLA with 3. Turnovers matter, obviously, but it looks to me like Helton took Sark's team, made them a bit worse, and then got lucky with turnovers where Sark didn't. Not a good sign if you're a Under Stanford Control fan.
How would the numbers look if you adjusted for SCs first two opponents, which were very weak?
11-30-2015, 09:02 PM
It's a bit confusing to give Helton any credit whatsoever for Memphis. Helton was OC at Memphis from 2007-9, well before the Justin Fuente surge. During his tenure at Memphis, the Tigers went 15-23 -- Helton's boss got fired after a 2-10 debacle in 2009 -- and the offense averaged a modest 5.65 yards per play against conference foes from '08-'09. That's solid, but not exactly overwhelming.
It's a bit confusing to give Helton any credit whatsoever for Memphis. Helton was OC at Memphis from 2007-9, well before the Justin Fuente surge. During his tenure at Memphis, the Tigers went 15-23 -- Helton's boss got fired after a 2-10 debacle in 2009 -- and the offense averaged a modest 5.65 yards per play against conference foes from '08-'09. That's solid, but not exactly overwhelming.
11-30-2015, 09:10 PM
(11-30-2015, 08:53 PM)DC link Wrote:How would the numbers look if you adjusted for SCs first two opponents, which were very weak?
Huh? All the numbers are adjusted for opponent, and as I said those two opponents aren't a ton weaker than Arizona and Colorado, who Helton faced.
(11-30-2015, 08:53 PM)DC link Wrote:How would the numbers look if you adjusted for SCs first two opponents, which were very weak?
Huh? All the numbers are adjusted for opponent, and as I said those two opponents aren't a ton weaker than Arizona and Colorado, who Helton faced.
12-01-2015, 04:19 PM
Back to the rumor mill -- apparently Helton's planning on making a housecleaning among the coaches? http://usc.247sports.com/Board/29/Conten...d-41604108
Wonder how that affects the ol' locker room atmosphere.
Wonder how that affects the ol' locker room atmosphere.
Back to the rumor mill -- apparently Helton's planning on making a housecleaning among the coaches? http://usc.247sports.com/Board/29/Conten...d-41604108
Wonder how that affects the ol' locker room atmosphere.
Wonder how that affects the ol' locker room atmosphere.
12-01-2015, 04:25 PM
(12-01-2015, 04:19 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Back to the rumor mill -- apparently Helton's planning on making a housecleaning among the coaches? http://Unbelievably Spoiled Children.247sports.com/Board/29/Contents/The-Herd-41604108
Wonder how that affects the ol' locker room atmosphere.
USC fans want Wilcox gone, which is interesting since he was considered one of the top DCs in the country a few years ago.
(12-01-2015, 04:19 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Back to the rumor mill -- apparently Helton's planning on making a housecleaning among the coaches? http://Unbelievably Spoiled Children.247sports.com/Board/29/Contents/The-Herd-41604108
Wonder how that affects the ol' locker room atmosphere.
USC fans want Wilcox gone, which is interesting since he was considered one of the top DCs in the country a few years ago.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »