[stupac2]

Stuff

Look, I get all that, I know the sample size is small, I know there are other confounding factors, etc etc. You know I'm a physicist, I understand this stuff. (Although saying the difference between #9 and #26 is significant is kinda rich, it's the difference between at best the Holiday Bowl vs contending for a NY6 game, but leave all that aside.)

The point is that you get a natural experiment. You just can't sensibly compare completely different situations. Like, who's better, Tom Brady or Joe Montana? Who cares? It doesn't make any sense and there's no way to decide it. But there is a sensible way to decide this one, because both guys played games with the same exact players and staff. And by every measure I've seen Sark's team performed better! You can harp on it not being statistically significant if you want, but if you want to make the case that Sark was putting a worse product on the field and you find out that every way of actually looking at the team's performance says Sark's team was better, then I think it's hugely intellectually dishonest to conclude the opposite.

Finally, as I already said, "expanding the sample size" to include games with teams that the other didn't coach isn't reasonable as a comparison. Helton was gifted Darnold, as far as I can tell he had nothing whatsoever to do with his recruitment, apparently Wilcox lead it (so he actually fired the guy who got him his star QB). Then there was the Browne debacle, where we have to read the tea leaves but basically everyone was saying Darnold outperformed Browne but Helton started Browne until he was basically facing a mutiny. Then the QBs he's recruited since then have apparently all been terrible, to the point where he needed a true freshman to come in a year early and get the job.

Like, yeah, that's better than a guy who's getting drunk on the job and sleeping with with booster's wives or whatever the hell Sark was doing, but to look at the evidence before us and say that Helton has performed well rather than being carried by a high draft pick (that he didn't even want to play!) is baffling to me. I'd be shocked if Helton is still coaching there in 2020.

[stupac2]

Stuff

Look, I get all that, I know the sample size is small, I know there are other confounding factors, etc etc. You know I'm a physicist, I understand this stuff. (Although saying the difference between #9 and #26 is significant is kinda rich, it's the difference between at best the Holiday Bowl vs contending for a NY6 game, but leave all that aside.)

The point is that you get a natural experiment. You just can't sensibly compare completely different situations. Like, who's better, Tom Brady or Joe Montana? Who cares? It doesn't make any sense and there's no way to decide it. But there is a sensible way to decide this one, because both guys played games with the same exact players and staff. And by every measure I've seen Sark's team performed better! You can harp on it not being statistically significant if you want, but if you want to make the case that Sark was putting a worse product on the field and you find out that every way of actually looking at the team's performance says Sark's team was better, then I think it's hugely intellectually dishonest to conclude the opposite.

Finally, as I already said, "expanding the sample size" to include games with teams that the other didn't coach isn't reasonable as a comparison. Helton was gifted Darnold, as far as I can tell he had nothing whatsoever to do with his recruitment, apparently Wilcox lead it (so he actually fired the guy who got him his star QB). Then there was the Browne debacle, where we have to read the tea leaves but basically everyone was saying Darnold outperformed Browne but Helton started Browne until he was basically facing a mutiny. Then the QBs he's recruited since then have apparently all been terrible, to the point where he needed a true freshman to come in a year early and get the job.

Like, yeah, that's better than a guy who's getting drunk on the job and sleeping with with booster's wives or whatever the hell Sark was doing, but to look at the evidence before us and say that Helton has performed well rather than being carried by a high draft pick (that he didn't even want to play!) is baffling to me. I'd be shocked if Helton is still coaching there in 2020.