In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 365
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
What? No props to Thad for being #6, and the first "Big School" coach listed....geez, you'd think this was a Michigan board or something....
This would be a lot better if it adjusted for strength of schedule somehow. The only concession the author makes to strength of schedule is to divide "high-majors" from "mid-majors," but winning a heap of games is way easier from a SoS standpoint in the Atlantic-10 (an alleged high-major conference) than in the Big Ten. And even within the Big Ten, its easier to win a heap of games if you play a nonsense nonconference schedule (see, e.g. Penn State) or if you get a good draw in conference play (e.g., Iowa plays Michigan, Michigan State, and Ohio State only once each). Thus, coaches from weak "high-major" conferences will get overrated. Actually, that effect is only enhanced by the fact that coaches from weaker "high-major" conferences will likely have smaller budgets. So, yeah, poor methodology imo.
Of course, the point probably isn't to be all that scientific with this. Still, would be interesting to see someone do this right.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports