[stupac2]

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.

[stupac2]

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.