[ColoradoTree]

Stanford stayed put at #14 in the Coaches Poll: http://sportspolls.usatoday.com/ncaa/foo...ches-poll/

Other Pac-12/opponent notes: 
* SC dropped a spot to #5, getting leapfrogged by Clemson and Penn State. 
* Washington stayed at #7
* Washington State entered the poll at #22 (it was already #24 in last week's AP poll)
* Utah is now ranked at #23
* Our Lady entered the rankings this week at #25. 
* Lots of action in the "others receiving votes" section: Colorado is effectively 27th, UCLA 30th, Oregon 31st, San Diego State 39th, Cal 45th, and Arizona 51st. 

Stanford is also #14 in the new AP poll: http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll. 
* We're ranked as high as #6 (thank you, Pat Dooley of the Gainesville Sun) and as low as #19 (Soren Petro, a Kansas City radio guy)
* Distribution of Stanford votes: #6 (1), #8 (1), #9 (1), #10 (4), #11 (6), #12 (5), #13 (11), #14 (17), #15 (6), #16 (2), #17 (5), #18 (1), and #19 (1). 

Other Pac-12/opponent notes:
* SC dropped two spots to #6
* Washington moved up a spot to #7, despite what I thought was a pretty unimpressive opener against Rutgers.  I mean, I'd wager that Western Michigan would beat Rutgers at Rutgers right now. 
* Washington State is now #20, up from #24 last week
* Our Lady enters the poll at #24
* Utah is not ranked in the AP poll, but is the unofficial #26, coming first in the list of other teams receiving votes
* Also in the "others receiving votes" are #27 UCLA, #29 Colorado, #31 Oregon, #36 San Diego State, and #40 Cal

[ColoradoTree]

Stanford stayed put at #14 in the Coaches Poll: http://sportspolls.usatoday.com/ncaa/foo...ches-poll/

Other Pac-12/opponent notes: 
* SC dropped a spot to #5, getting leapfrogged by Clemson and Penn State. 
* Washington stayed at #7
* Washington State entered the poll at #22 (it was already #24 in last week's AP poll)
* Utah is now ranked at #23
* Our Lady entered the rankings this week at #25. 
* Lots of action in the "others receiving votes" section: Colorado is effectively 27th, UCLA 30th, Oregon 31st, San Diego State 39th, Cal 45th, and Arizona 51st. 

Stanford is also #14 in the new AP poll: http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll. 
* We're ranked as high as #6 (thank you, Pat Dooley of the Gainesville Sun) and as low as #19 (Soren Petro, a Kansas City radio guy)
* Distribution of Stanford votes: #6 (1), #8 (1), #9 (1), #10 (4), #11 (6), #12 (5), #13 (11), #14 (17), #15 (6), #16 (2), #17 (5), #18 (1), and #19 (1). 

Other Pac-12/opponent notes:
* SC dropped two spots to #6
* Washington moved up a spot to #7, despite what I thought was a pretty unimpressive opener against Rutgers.  I mean, I'd wager that Western Michigan would beat Rutgers at Rutgers right now. 
* Washington State is now #20, up from #24 last week
* Our Lady enters the poll at #24
* Utah is not ranked in the AP poll, but is the unofficial #26, coming first in the list of other teams receiving votes
* Also in the "others receiving votes" are #27 UCLA, #29 Colorado, #31 Oregon, #36 San Diego State, and #40 Cal

[OutsiderFan]

My Top teams until I can't do it any more...

1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Ohio State
4. Penn State
5. Oklahoma
6. Michigan
7. Washington
8. USC
9. Oklahoma State
10. Wisconsin
11. Auburn
12. Stanford
13. LSU
14. Georgia (Missing QB Eason or would be higher)
15. Louisville
16. Florida State (Missing QB Francois or would be higher)

[OutsiderFan]

My Top teams until I can't do it any more...

1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Ohio State
4. Penn State
5. Oklahoma
6. Michigan
7. Washington
8. USC
9. Oklahoma State
10. Wisconsin
11. Auburn
12. Stanford
13. LSU
14. Georgia (Missing QB Eason or would be higher)
15. Louisville
16. Florida State (Missing QB Francois or would be higher)

[ColoradoTree]

For those of you that care about movement from week to week, Stanford had 695 points in the preseason AP poll, and we were 99 points behind #13 LSU (794) and just 5 points ahead of #15 Georgia (690).  In this week's poll, Stanford has 772 points, 101 points behind #13 Auburn (873) and 87 points ahead of #15 Georgia (685).  That tells me that a few voters had shortchanged us in the preseason poll but reversed course, the most extreme example of that being the LA Daily News' Scott Wolf, who had us unranked in the preseason, but #10 in this week's poll.  (FYI, Wolf doesn't think much of the top of the Pac-12 this year, though he has 6 Pac-12 teams in the top 25. He puts SC at #14 and UW at #15; he's each school's worst voter.)

In the coaches' poll, Stanford had 732 points in the preseason poll, and we were 87 points behind #13 Auburn (819) and 31 points ahead of #15 Georgia (701).  In this week's poll, Stanford has 839 points, 24 behind #13 Auburn (863) and 72 ahead of #15 Georgia (767).  That looks like a marginally improved position, despite the ranking remaining the same. 

Of course, Stanford will either have a big jump or somewhat of a drop after this week's game, even though a rational ranking system wouldn't punish #14 too much for losing to #5, nor would #5 fall too far if it lost to #14 (though #5 would necessarily fall behind wherever #14 ended up, of course, given how few data points we have so far). 

[ColoradoTree]

For those of you that care about movement from week to week, Stanford had 695 points in the preseason AP poll, and we were 99 points behind #13 LSU (794) and just 5 points ahead of #15 Georgia (690).  In this week's poll, Stanford has 772 points, 101 points behind #13 Auburn (873) and 87 points ahead of #15 Georgia (685).  That tells me that a few voters had shortchanged us in the preseason poll but reversed course, the most extreme example of that being the LA Daily News' Scott Wolf, who had us unranked in the preseason, but #10 in this week's poll.  (FYI, Wolf doesn't think much of the top of the Pac-12 this year, though he has 6 Pac-12 teams in the top 25. He puts SC at #14 and UW at #15; he's each school's worst voter.)

In the coaches' poll, Stanford had 732 points in the preseason poll, and we were 87 points behind #13 Auburn (819) and 31 points ahead of #15 Georgia (701).  In this week's poll, Stanford has 839 points, 24 behind #13 Auburn (863) and 72 ahead of #15 Georgia (767).  That looks like a marginally improved position, despite the ranking remaining the same. 

Of course, Stanford will either have a big jump or somewhat of a drop after this week's game, even though a rational ranking system wouldn't punish #14 too much for losing to #5, nor would #5 fall too far if it lost to #14 (though #5 would necessarily fall behind wherever #14 ended up, of course, given how few data points we have so far). 

[OutsiderFan]

Here's a ballot I can be down with:

http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll-voter/rece-davis

[OutsiderFan]

Here's a ballot I can be down with:

http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll-voter/rece-davis

[fullmetal]

Michigan made too many mistakes to be 5th place, but pundits gotta pander.

[fullmetal]

Michigan made too many mistakes to be 5th place, but pundits gotta pander.

[slide]

My Top teams until I can't do it any more...

1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Ohio State
4. Penn State
5. Oklahoma
6. Michigan
7. Washington
8. Under Stanford Control (again)
9. Oklahoma State
10. Wisconsin
11. Auburn
12. Stanford
13. LSU
14. Georgia (Missing QB Eason or would be higher)
15. Louisville
16. Florida State (Missing QB Francois or would be higher)

fwiw, Georgia looked much better Saturday with Fromm than with Eason.  Fromm has a limited arm but seemingly unlimited confidence in it.

[slide]

My Top teams until I can't do it any more...

1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Ohio State
4. Penn State
5. Oklahoma
6. Michigan
7. Washington
8. Under Stanford Control (again)
9. Oklahoma State
10. Wisconsin
11. Auburn
12. Stanford
13. LSU
14. Georgia (Missing QB Eason or would be higher)
15. Louisville
16. Florida State (Missing QB Francois or would be higher)

fwiw, Georgia looked much better Saturday with Fromm than with Eason.  Fromm has a limited arm but seemingly unlimited confidence in it.

[2006alum]

Michigan made too many mistakes to be 5th place, but pundits gotta pander.

Usual anchoring bias. Michigan beat a ranked team, Florida, so they should move up a few spots, right? This was confounded by the fact that only three schools beat ranked teams this weekend: Alabama (already no. 1), Michigan, and Virginia Tech (which also moved up 3 spots).

[2006alum]

Michigan made too many mistakes to be 5th place, but pundits gotta pander.

Usual anchoring bias. Michigan beat a ranked team, Florida, so they should move up a few spots, right? This was confounded by the fact that only three schools beat ranked teams this weekend: Alabama (already no. 1), Michigan, and Virginia Tech (which also moved up 3 spots).

[BostonCard]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=17316.msg199229#msg199229 date=1504642738]
Michigan made too many mistakes to be 5th place, but pundits gotta pander.

Usual anchoring bias. Michigan beat a ranked team, Florida, so they should move up a few spots, right? This was confounded by the fact that only three schools beat ranked teams this weekend: Alabama (already no. 1), Michigan, and Virginia Tech (which also moved up 3 spots).
[/quote]

Also, given their losses, there was a lot of uncertainty on how good Michigan was.  To the extent that I updated my priors, beating a ranked team really helps.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=17316.msg199229#msg199229 date=1504642738]
Michigan made too many mistakes to be 5th place, but pundits gotta pander.

Usual anchoring bias. Michigan beat a ranked team, Florida, so they should move up a few spots, right? This was confounded by the fact that only three schools beat ranked teams this weekend: Alabama (already no. 1), Michigan, and Virginia Tech (which also moved up 3 spots).
[/quote]

Also, given their losses, there was a lot of uncertainty on how good Michigan was.  To the extent that I updated my priors, beating a ranked team really helps.

BC

[martyup]

How can you get beat in your opener, with your starting QB going down for the season, and still be ranked in the top 10?  I don't care if you played the #1, you should have to play your way back up the ladder.  IMO anyway.

[martyup]

How can you get beat in your opener, with your starting QB going down for the season, and still be ranked in the top 10?  I don't care if you played the #1, you should have to play your way back up the ladder.  IMO anyway.

[TreesAndBirds]

Usual anchoring bias. Michigan beat a ranked team, Florida, so they should move up a few spots, right? This was confounded by the fact that only three schools beat ranked teams this weekend: Alabama (already no. 1), Michigan, and Virginia Tech (which also moved up 3 spots).

Hey, dont forget the Turtles beating ranked Texas. Go Terps! (Not that they should be ranked highly based on that win).

[TreesAndBirds]

Usual anchoring bias. Michigan beat a ranked team, Florida, so they should move up a few spots, right? This was confounded by the fact that only three schools beat ranked teams this weekend: Alabama (already no. 1), Michigan, and Virginia Tech (which also moved up 3 spots).

Hey, dont forget the Turtles beating ranked Texas. Go Terps! (Not that they should be ranked highly based on that win).

[ColoradoTree]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=17316.msg199229#msg199229 date=1504642738]
Michigan made too many mistakes to be 5th place, but pundits gotta pander.

Usual anchoring bias. Michigan beat a ranked team, Florida, so they should move up a few spots, right? This was confounded by the fact that only three schools beat ranked teams this weekend: Alabama (already no. 1), Michigan, and Virginia Tech (which also moved up 3 spots).
[/quote]

We should see that phenomenon a few times this week, too, with four matchups between ranked teams: #3 Clemson hosting #13 Auburn; #2 Ohio State vs. #6 Oklahoma; #25 Our Lady hosting #15 Georgia; and, of course, our game.  In 3 of the 4 matchups, the higher-ranked team is the host, so you'd think an upset would mean an even bigger climb in the rankings. 

On another note, this may not be the week for the Pac-12 teams that are knocking on the door (UCLA, CU, Utah (in the AP, at least), and Oregon) to break into the Top 25, since the week doesn't look primed for upsets.  But Oregon should improve its standing with a win over Nebraska, and next week has a couple of tough games for teams in the bottom of the Top 25, so there may be some room before long. 

[ColoradoTree]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=17316.msg199229#msg199229 date=1504642738]
Michigan made too many mistakes to be 5th place, but pundits gotta pander.

Usual anchoring bias. Michigan beat a ranked team, Florida, so they should move up a few spots, right? This was confounded by the fact that only three schools beat ranked teams this weekend: Alabama (already no. 1), Michigan, and Virginia Tech (which also moved up 3 spots).
[/quote]

We should see that phenomenon a few times this week, too, with four matchups between ranked teams: #3 Clemson hosting #13 Auburn; #2 Ohio State vs. #6 Oklahoma; #25 Our Lady hosting #15 Georgia; and, of course, our game.  In 3 of the 4 matchups, the higher-ranked team is the host, so you'd think an upset would mean an even bigger climb in the rankings. 

On another note, this may not be the week for the Pac-12 teams that are knocking on the door (UCLA, CU, Utah (in the AP, at least), and Oregon) to break into the Top 25, since the week doesn't look primed for upsets.  But Oregon should improve its standing with a win over Nebraska, and next week has a couple of tough games for teams in the bottom of the Top 25, so there may be some room before long. 

[fullmetal]

[quote author=2006alum link=topic=17316.msg199232#msg199232 date=1504644875]
Usual anchoring bias. Michigan beat a ranked team, Florida, so they should move up a few spots, right? This was confounded by the fact that only three schools beat ranked teams this weekend: Alabama (already no. 1), Michigan, and Virginia Tech (which also moved up 3 spots).

Hey, dont forget the Turtles beating ranked Texas. Go Terps! (Not that they should be ranked highly based on that win).
[/quote]

Actually, I was impressed by Maryland.  They lost three players and still rolled.  Their pass rush looked pretty good, and their secondary covered well (against Texas, which I would say is mediocre but sometimes decent in a game).  The Maryland run attack looked well-blocked and well-executed.

Whether this works against the Big10 powers that be is something else, but Maryland has a fighting chance now.  You know they didn't used to...

[fullmetal]

[quote author=2006alum link=topic=17316.msg199232#msg199232 date=1504644875]
Usual anchoring bias. Michigan beat a ranked team, Florida, so they should move up a few spots, right? This was confounded by the fact that only three schools beat ranked teams this weekend: Alabama (already no. 1), Michigan, and Virginia Tech (which also moved up 3 spots).

Hey, dont forget the Turtles beating ranked Texas. Go Terps! (Not that they should be ranked highly based on that win).
[/quote]

Actually, I was impressed by Maryland.  They lost three players and still rolled.  Their pass rush looked pretty good, and their secondary covered well (against Texas, which I would say is mediocre but sometimes decent in a game).  The Maryland run attack looked well-blocked and well-executed.

Whether this works against the Big10 powers that be is something else, but Maryland has a fighting chance now.  You know they didn't used to...

[TreesAndBirds]

[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=17316.msg199240#msg199240 date=1504650891]
[quote author=2006alum link=topic=17316.msg199232#msg199232 date=1504644875]
Usual anchoring bias. Michigan beat a ranked team, Florida, so they should move up a few spots, right? This was confounded by the fact that only three schools beat ranked teams this weekend: Alabama (already no. 1), Michigan, and Virginia Tech (which also moved up 3 spots).

Hey, dont forget the Turtles beating ranked Texas. Go Terps! (Not that they should be ranked highly based on that win).
[/quote]

Actually, I was impressed by Maryland.  They lost three players and still rolled.  Their pass rush looked pretty good, and their secondary covered well (against Texas, which I would say is mediocre but sometimes decent in a game).  The Maryland run attack looked well-blocked and well-executed.

Whether this works against the Big10 powers that be is something else, but Maryland has a fighting chance now.  You know they didn't used to...
[/quote]

Maryland getting a lot of help from Under Armour. Founder is Md. grad and company based in Baltimore. They are aware of Nike/Oregon, but Nikes market cap is like 10x so UA has a ways to go.

[TreesAndBirds]

[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=17316.msg199240#msg199240 date=1504650891]
[quote author=2006alum link=topic=17316.msg199232#msg199232 date=1504644875]
Usual anchoring bias. Michigan beat a ranked team, Florida, so they should move up a few spots, right? This was confounded by the fact that only three schools beat ranked teams this weekend: Alabama (already no. 1), Michigan, and Virginia Tech (which also moved up 3 spots).

Hey, dont forget the Turtles beating ranked Texas. Go Terps! (Not that they should be ranked highly based on that win).
[/quote]

Actually, I was impressed by Maryland.  They lost three players and still rolled.  Their pass rush looked pretty good, and their secondary covered well (against Texas, which I would say is mediocre but sometimes decent in a game).  The Maryland run attack looked well-blocked and well-executed.

Whether this works against the Big10 powers that be is something else, but Maryland has a fighting chance now.  You know they didn't used to...
[/quote]

Maryland getting a lot of help from Under Armour. Founder is Md. grad and company based in Baltimore. They are aware of Nike/Oregon, but Nikes market cap is like 10x so UA has a ways to go.

[DC 86]

Whether this works against the Big10 powers that be is something else, but Maryland has a fighting chance now.  You know they didn't used to...

As a program Maryland is definitely improving with Kevin Plank's support. Re the short term, sadly the QB who led the upset over Texas (Pigrome) tore his ACL in the win and is out for the season, although his replacement is highly touted and played well after coming in following the injury.

[DC 86]

Whether this works against the Big10 powers that be is something else, but Maryland has a fighting chance now.  You know they didn't used to...

As a program Maryland is definitely improving with Kevin Plank's support. Re the short term, sadly the QB who led the upset over Texas (Pigrome) tore his ACL in the win and is out for the season, although his replacement is highly touted and played well after coming in following the injury.

[fullmetal]

Yes, Pigrome was injured at the end of the 3Q.  But Hill came in for a full quarter and led two scoring drives to touchdowns.  I attribute Maryland's resurgence to Durkin et al. in the mold of Harbaugh's quick turnaround recipe = better line play and offensive execution.  I'm convinced it's the coaches.

[fullmetal]

Yes, Pigrome was injured at the end of the 3Q.  But Hill came in for a full quarter and led two scoring drives to touchdowns.  I attribute Maryland's resurgence to Durkin et al. in the mold of Harbaugh's quick turnaround recipe = better line play and offensive execution.  I'm convinced it's the coaches.

[CTcard]

... in the mold of Harbaugh's quick turnaround recipe = better line play and offensive execution.  I'm convinced it's the coaches.

I've always been a little suspicious of overly quick turnarounds - if a team can make a big change in won/loss right away then either things weren't so bad to begin with or there is good old randomness at play.

Harbaugh at Stanford is a good example of the opposite. Things were bad. And Harbaugh's four years went 4-8, 5-7, 8-5, 12-1. That first Harbaugh team was a step up from 1-11 the year before but only a step, and it was worse than the 5-6 record from two years previous. [And I am surprised to realize it was only the year previous to Harbaugh that we switched to 12 regular season games. (EDIT thanks to French Rage.)] Of course watching the team was different. It was obviously a much more disciplined and ... enthusiastic team in 2007 versus the several previous years.

The continuing rise was more steady than meteoric, at least until the big jump in 2010. Many things came together that year, but I've always thought the real key development was the magic of Vic Fangio, our one-year DC. Through 2009 our defense was still bad. In 2009 we were ninth in the Pac 10 in yds/game total defense (402.7). In 2010 that switched to second (322.8 ) and the worst we have been ever since was fourth last year. [Plus the conference added two teams for 2011.]

It sure feels to me that a steady improvement is a better sign of a long term change than a sudden first great year from a coach - but I admit that is mostly just a feeling.

[CTcard]

... in the mold of Harbaugh's quick turnaround recipe = better line play and offensive execution.  I'm convinced it's the coaches.

I've always been a little suspicious of overly quick turnarounds - if a team can make a big change in won/loss right away then either things weren't so bad to begin with or there is good old randomness at play.

Harbaugh at Stanford is a good example of the opposite. Things were bad. And Harbaugh's four years went 4-8, 5-7, 8-5, 12-1. That first Harbaugh team was a step up from 1-11 the year before but only a step, and it was worse than the 5-6 record from two years previous. [And I am surprised to realize it was only the year previous to Harbaugh that we switched to 12 regular season games. (EDIT thanks to French Rage.)] Of course watching the team was different. It was obviously a much more disciplined and ... enthusiastic team in 2007 versus the several previous years.

The continuing rise was more steady than meteoric, at least until the big jump in 2010. Many things came together that year, but I've always thought the real key development was the magic of Vic Fangio, our one-year DC. Through 2009 our defense was still bad. In 2009 we were ninth in the Pac 10 in yds/game total defense (402.7). In 2010 that switched to second (322.8 ) and the worst we have been ever since was fourth last year. [Plus the conference added two teams for 2011.]

It sure feels to me that a steady improvement is a better sign of a long term change than a sudden first great year from a coach - but I admit that is mostly just a feeling.

[French Rage]

[And I am surprised to realize it was only in Harbaugh's first year that we switched to 12 regular season games.]

I think that was the year before, going 1-11.

[French Rage]

[And I am surprised to realize it was only in Harbaugh's first year that we switched to 12 regular season games.]

I think that was the year before, going 1-11.

[Mick]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=17316.msg199350#msg199350 date=1504727857]
... in the mold of Harbaugh's quick turnaround recipe = better line play and offensive execution.  I'm convinced it's the coaches.

I've always been a little suspicious of overly quick turnarounds - if a team can make a big change in won/loss right away then either things weren't so bad to begin with or there is good old randomness at play.

Harbaugh at Stanford is a good example of the opposite. Things were bad. And Harbaugh's four years went 4-8, 5-7, 8-5, 12-1. That first Harbaugh team was a step up from 1-11 the year before but only a step, and it was worse than the 5-6 record from two years previous. [And I am surprised to realize it was only the year previous to Harbaugh that we switched to 12 regular season games. (EDIT thanks to French Rage.)] Of course watching the team was different. It was obviously a much more disciplined and ... enthusiastic team in 2007 versus the several previous years.

The continuing rise was more steady than meteoric, at least until the big jump in 2010. Many things came together that year, but I've always thought the real key development was the magic of Vic Fangio, our one-year DC. Through 2009 our defense was still bad. In 2009 we were ninth in the Pac 10 in yds/game total defense (402.7). In 2010 that switched to second (322.8 ) and the worst we have been ever since was fourth last year. [Plus the conference added two teams for 2011.]

It sure feels to me that a steady improvement is a better sign of a long term change than a sudden first great year from a coach - but I admit that is mostly just a feeling.
[/quote]

That's a good question.  Harbaugh took a 5-7 team at UMich and went 10-3 his first year. Then went 10-3 his second year.  Hope he hasn't stalled...;) :D

[Mick]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=17316.msg199350#msg199350 date=1504727857]
... in the mold of Harbaugh's quick turnaround recipe = better line play and offensive execution.  I'm convinced it's the coaches.

I've always been a little suspicious of overly quick turnarounds - if a team can make a big change in won/loss right away then either things weren't so bad to begin with or there is good old randomness at play.

Harbaugh at Stanford is a good example of the opposite. Things were bad. And Harbaugh's four years went 4-8, 5-7, 8-5, 12-1. That first Harbaugh team was a step up from 1-11 the year before but only a step, and it was worse than the 5-6 record from two years previous. [And I am surprised to realize it was only the year previous to Harbaugh that we switched to 12 regular season games. (EDIT thanks to French Rage.)] Of course watching the team was different. It was obviously a much more disciplined and ... enthusiastic team in 2007 versus the several previous years.

The continuing rise was more steady than meteoric, at least until the big jump in 2010. Many things came together that year, but I've always thought the real key development was the magic of Vic Fangio, our one-year DC. Through 2009 our defense was still bad. In 2009 we were ninth in the Pac 10 in yds/game total defense (402.7). In 2010 that switched to second (322.8 ) and the worst we have been ever since was fourth last year. [Plus the conference added two teams for 2011.]

It sure feels to me that a steady improvement is a better sign of a long term change than a sudden first great year from a coach - but I admit that is mostly just a feeling.
[/quote]

That's a good question.  Harbaugh took a 5-7 team at UMich and went 10-3 his first year. Then went 10-3 his second year.  Hope he hasn't stalled...;) :D

[OutsiderFan]

There is a reason the best coaches are paid $5million+/year these days. Coaching does matter.

Watch Justin Wilcox at Cal.  Yes, they have one of the toughest schedules in the country, but does anyone think Cal wins at UNC with Dykes as coach?  Wilcox has a coaching staff that teaches fundamentals significantly better than Dykes, they look at the game much more holistically than Dykes did, and they put their players in the best position to succeed at all times.  Another thing, and this is important, the players acknowledge they are a tighter, more trusting group than they were under Dykes.

In my time of observing, it seems in general* there are three types of coaches:

1. The kind that doesn't know the questions or the answers - Buddy Teevens and Tom Holmoe (terrible)
2. The kind that know the questions but not the answers - Jeff Tedford and Sonny Dykes (middling)
3. The kind that know the questions and the answers - David Shaw & Chris Peterson (championship level)

* Really tough to judge coaches at USC and UCLA that have massive recruiting advantages, but Pete Carroll was obviously a #3.

The lousy coaches employ poor strategy and don't inspire execution.  The mediocre coaches have either poor strategy with good execution or good strategy with poor execution.  The great coaches use both good strategy and inspire sound execution.

One game does not a program make, but I think both Durkin and Wilcox have demonstrated they have real potential to be championship level.  Maybe they won't quite get there at Maryland and Cal, but they should be watched as up and comers who might do so at a larger program.  Think Mack Brown doing well at North Carolina, and then really becoming a top their coach at Texas, at least for a little while anyway.

[OutsiderFan]

There is a reason the best coaches are paid $5million+/year these days. Coaching does matter.

Watch Justin Wilcox at Cal.  Yes, they have one of the toughest schedules in the country, but does anyone think Cal wins at UNC with Dykes as coach?  Wilcox has a coaching staff that teaches fundamentals significantly better than Dykes, they look at the game much more holistically than Dykes did, and they put their players in the best position to succeed at all times.  Another thing, and this is important, the players acknowledge they are a tighter, more trusting group than they were under Dykes.

In my time of observing, it seems in general* there are three types of coaches:

1. The kind that doesn't know the questions or the answers - Buddy Teevens and Tom Holmoe (terrible)
2. The kind that know the questions but not the answers - Jeff Tedford and Sonny Dykes (middling)
3. The kind that know the questions and the answers - David Shaw & Chris Peterson (championship level)

* Really tough to judge coaches at USC and UCLA that have massive recruiting advantages, but Pete Carroll was obviously a #3.

The lousy coaches employ poor strategy and don't inspire execution.  The mediocre coaches have either poor strategy with good execution or good strategy with poor execution.  The great coaches use both good strategy and inspire sound execution.

One game does not a program make, but I think both Durkin and Wilcox have demonstrated they have real potential to be championship level.  Maybe they won't quite get there at Maryland and Cal, but they should be watched as up and comers who might do so at a larger program.  Think Mack Brown doing well at North Carolina, and then really becoming a top their coach at Texas, at least for a little while anyway.

[BostonCard]

I disagree with the entire premise of your post.

The great coaches don't "know the questions and the answers".  The difference between the great coaches and the middling coaches is that the great coaches know their limitations and can identify the people who can fix them.  Chip Kelly was an offensive genius, but he was smart enough to find a good DC and let them run the defense.  Same with Jim Harbaugh; the story of Richard Sherman is that one of the reasons he transferred to defense is that it put him outside of Harbaugh's purview.  Even Nick Saban knew that he didn't have the answers for the changed to college football (spread option, tempo), so he hired an offensive coordinator who modernized his offense.

The great coaches don't know everything, but they know what they don't know and hire accordingly.

BC 

[BostonCard]

I disagree with the entire premise of your post.

The great coaches don't "know the questions and the answers".  The difference between the great coaches and the middling coaches is that the great coaches know their limitations and can identify the people who can fix them.  Chip Kelly was an offensive genius, but he was smart enough to find a good DC and let them run the defense.  Same with Jim Harbaugh; the story of Richard Sherman is that one of the reasons he transferred to defense is that it put him outside of Harbaugh's purview.  Even Nick Saban knew that he didn't have the answers for the changed to college football (spread option, tempo), so he hired an offensive coordinator who modernized his offense.

The great coaches don't know everything, but they know what they don't know and hire accordingly.

BC