P5 Coaches Records Against AP Top 25 Teams

[BeantownKnight]

Check out the link showing the records of all P5 coaches against AP top 25 teams. You will find some interesting numbers there. But, you will also find that aside from a very select few (e.g. Nick Saban, Urban Meyer, etc.), there aren't many coaches out there with winning records against top 25 teams. I would say that our coaching, the last half dozen years or more, is fairly par for the course.

http://www.wsj.com/news/interactive/COUNT0820

Note: the link may or may not have been updated with 2014 stats.

 

[RU-ROCS]

Check out the link showing the records of all P5 coaches against AP top 25 teams. You will find some interesting numbers there. But, you will also find that aside from a very select few (e.g. Nick Saban, Urban Meyer, etc.), there aren't many coaches out there with winning records against top 25 teams. I would say that our coaching, the last half dozen years or more, is fairly par for the course.

http://www.wsj.com/news/interactive/COUNT0820

Note: the link may or may not have been updated with 2014 stats.

Good stuff. Only 8 coaches with winning records. Looks like the SEC coaches have a little bit of an advantage. Because so many SEC teams are ranked year in and year out, they have a larger sample size.

 

[Virginiarufan]

Loving that Butch Jones, and James Franklin stat.

I didn't know 1 career win against top 25 competition is worth 3+ million in salary.

 

[RUChoppin]

Yeah, that's an old list and was posted before last season. Still lists Hoke at Michigan, Pelini at Nebraska, Riley at Oregon State, Chryst at Pitt, etc.

 

[RUnion]

Randy Edsal 1 - 24 0 -8 Wow how has he kept his jobs after such a long history of ineptitude

 

[Ole Cabbagehead]

Randy Edsal 1 - 24 0 -8 Wow how has he kept his jobs after such a long history of ineptitude

Same way a lot of guys have. When everyone recognizes that the team is outside the Top 40, you are really not supposed to beat Top 25 teams. Sure an upset is nice, but its not ineptitude.

 

[sherrane]

Yeah, that's an old list and was posted before last season. Still lists Hoke at Michigan, Pelini at Nebraska, Riley at Oregon State, Chryst at Pitt, etc.

Yup, it also has Flood as 0-3 and he is 0-6 after last season. RU played as many top 25 teams last season (all on the road) as they did in the previous two under Flood. (I thought it was 4, but Wisconsin came in ranked 28th in the AP)

 

[BeantownKnight]

Of the people on that list, just a little more than 15% of them have winning records over their career.

I think that a lot of folks get lost in the "Flood/Schiano must go because they haven't beaten the top teams" mantra but don't really take a look at, evidently, how few have. I'm all for having a coach beat all of the top teams (all of the time) but there are so few that have done it and they demand the very top salaries. I think that coaches like Flood and others can win - even in the B1G - but it does take a lot -- i.e. paying coaching staffs competitively, having good/great facilities, getting very good university/state support, etc.

I have a good feeling about this season and even moreso for next.

 

[RUChoppin]

As a comparison, Schiano went 2-24 while at Rutgers against the AP Top 25. That's 0-15 from 2001-2005, 1-1 in 2006, and 1-8 from 2007-2011. Our two wins during that span were #6 Louisville in 2006 and #25 Cincinnati in 2011.

EDIT TO ADD: These numbers are based on final AP rankings, not rankings at the time the game was played.

 

[tlabue]

As a comparison, Schiano went 2-24 while at Rutgers against the AP Top 25. That's 0-15 from 2001-2005, 1-1 in 2006, and 1-8 from 2007-2011. Our two wins during that span were #6 Louisville in 2006 and #25 Cincinnati in 2011.

What about beating #2 USF in 2007, I think, on Thursday night football?

 

[MoobyCow]

What about beating #2 USF in 2007, I think, on Thursday night football?

He also missed #17 Pitt in 08, #23 USF in 09.

07 1-3 (USF... Cinci, WVU, UConn)
08 1-0 (Pitt)
09 1-1 (USF ... WVU)
10 0-1 (WVU)
11 0-1 (WVU)

That's 3-6

 

[RUChoppin]

He also missed #17 Pitt in 08, #23 USF in 09.

07 1-3 (USF... Cinci, WVU, UConn)
08 1-0 (Pitt)
09 1-1 (USF ... WVU)
10 0-1 (WVU)
11 0-1 (WVU)

That's 3-6

Only going by final AP rankings.

In 2007, USF was not in the final rankings, having dropped out after losing their bowl. They finished #23 in the regular season at 9-3, and then were unranked in the AP after getting blown out by Oregon in their bowl game.

In 2008, Pitt was not in the final rankings, also having dropped after losing their bowl. They finished #18 in the regular season, and then were unranked after losing to Oregon State by a score of 3-0 in their bowl game.

In 2009, USF was not in the final rankings, and were last ranked in Week 10. When we pasted them 31-0, they fell out of the rankings, never to return.

 

[Knight Shift]

Can Rutgers entice Les Miles to leave LSU to coach on the banks?

 

[MoobyCow]

Only going by final AP rankings.

In 2007, USF was not in the final rankings, having dropped out after losing their bowl. They finished #23 in the regular season at 9-3, and then were unranked in the AP after getting blown out by Oregon in their bowl game.

In 2008, Pitt was not in the final rankings, also having dropped after losing their bowl. They finished #18 in the regular season, and then were unranked after losing to Oregon State by a score of 3-0 in their bowl game.

In 2009, USF was not in the final rankings, and were last ranked in Week 10. When we pasted them 31-0, they fell out of the rankings, never to return.

That is almost never how these things are calculated. Your record against top 25 teams is just about always counted as what they were ranked when you played them.

 

[RUChoppin]

That is almost never how these things are calculated. Your record against top 25 teams is just about always counted as what they were ranked when you played them.

Really didn't have the time (or inclination) to go back and look at every season to 2001 to see if the teams we played were ranked in the week we played them.

The USF win over a #2 team in 2007 was great... until their season imploded over the next three weeks and they plummeted in the rankings. Were they really a #2 team, or were they just propped up by their nonconference schedule.

Similarly, UCF in 2013 didn't get ranked until Week 8... but finished 12-1 and #10 in the AP poll. When #8 Louisville lost to them, they were unranked... but they finished the season ranked 5 places ahead of the Cardinals.

I've always found it more meaningful to look at how many top teams we played, not how many teams we played that were just perceived (or not perceived) as being a top team at the time we played them.

I added an Edit above to more clearly indicate how those numbers were counted.

 

[MoobyCow]

Really didn't have the time (or inclination) to go back and look at every season to 2001 to see if the teams we played were ranked in the week we played them.

The USF win over a #2 team in 2007 was great... until their season imploded over the next three weeks and they plummeted in the rankings. Were they really a #2 team, or were they just propped up by their nonconference schedule.

Similarly, UCF in 2013 didn't get ranked until Week 8... but finished 12-1 and #10 in the AP poll. When #8 Louisville lost to them, they were unranked... but they finished the season ranked 5 places ahead of the Cardinals.

I've always found it more meaningful to look at how many top teams we played, not how many teams we played that were just perceived (or not perceived) as being a top team at the time we played them.

I added an Edit above to more clearly indicate how those numbers were counted.

All that is fair, and I agree it's the right way to evaluate it, I just doubt you are then doing an apples to apples with the linked stats. I think everyone's record against the top 25 likely looks worse using your method, because by default the teams you beat now have 1 less win and are thus less likely to be in the top 25.

 

[RUChoppin]

That's fair. I did a little digging (took one of the newer coaches), and it looks like the WSJ did a "ranked at the time" look. NC State faced 3 teams that finished 2013 ranked in the Top 25 (Duke was not ranked at the time they played), and Doeren would have been 0-3 instead of the 0-2 listed if final rankings were used.

Flood's numbers are the same using either counting method.

 

[vkj91]

That is almost never how these things are calculated. Your record against top 25 teams is just about always counted as what they were ranked when you played them.

Not on this board.

 

[ag67]

That is almost never how these things are calculated. Your record against top 25 teams is just about always counted as what they were ranked when you played them.

Please show me how you came up with this "rule". Who is the official expert that made this decision? IMO It sounds more like a rule of convenience to support your side of a discussion.

 

[MoobyCow]

Please show me how you came up with this "rule". Who is the official expert that made this decision? IMO It sounds more like a rule of convenience to support your side of a discussion.

Um, F you. Whenever anyone talks about beating ranked teams they talk about it in this manner. The last time RU beat a ranked team at home, they use the ranking when we played them. The highest ranked team RU beat at home, ranking at the time we played them. Hell even Choppin went back and looked and verified this is exactly what they did.

It supports my argument, because it's accurate.

 

[knightfan7]

If you beat a team ranked #20 in the 1st game of the season and that team ends up 3-9, did you beat a Top 25 team? I think not.

 

[MoobyCow]

If you beat a team ranked #20 in the 1st game of the season and that team ends up 3-9, did you beat a Top 25 team? I think not.

Look, I agree from a logical standpoint (I even said so above), I've just never seen it refereed to that way in sports writing or in stat keeping. You think RU has erased the #2 from in front of USF in their program? Or that teams that upset the #1 team in the country back that out of the records when the team finished #5 instead? It is what it is, and Choppin verified that I was correct in how the WSJ put together the chart.

 

[RUChoppin]

Agree. That *is* the way it's commonly looked at. When commentators say "the last time the team beat a ranked opponent" they are talking about an opponent ranked going into the game, not where they finished up. That's the way the WSJ counted the records, and the way they're usually looked at. I didn't do that when I looked up Schiano because it was more work than I wanted to do. :)

If you're trying to get a sense of the real merit of your opponents though, in hindsight, the more meaningful/logical way to look at it is with final rankings/record - being the only team to beat a 12-1 team is impressive, even if that win came before they were ranked (as South Carolina did over UCF in 2013). Alternately, beating the #8 team in the country isn't that impressive if they finish 4-8 (as Louisiana-Monroe did to Arkansas in 2012).

But to compare to everyone else in the WSJ list, you'd have to count them all the same way.

 

[needmorecowbell]

I'm most impressed by David Shaw. 14-4 is incredible for a school consider to be A+ academically.

 

[derleider]

That is almost never how these things are calculated. Your record against top 25 teams is just about always counted as what they were ranked when you played them.

But it shouldnt be. What a stupid way to judge it. Either way, Flood has no wins against the top 25, and Schiano only had a couple.

 

[MADHAT1]

But it shouldnt be. What a stupid way to judge it. Either way, Flood has no wins against the top 25, and Schiano only had a couple.

Injuries and such make some ranked schools become unranked at the end of season.
You can find reasons to claim judging should be at the time the teams played or after the final rankings come out.

I'm of the opinion that judgement should be based on the rankings at the time game was played, but can't claim
final rankings shouldn't be the deciding factor..
Either way will have its supporters and both sides can't prove, in my opinion, they are absolutely positively right.

 

[MoobyCow]

Injuries and such make some ranked schools become unranked at the end of season.
You can find reasons to claim judging should be at the time the teams played or after the final rankings come out.

I'm of the opinion that judgement should be based on the rankings at the time game was played, but can't claim
final rankings shouldn't be the deciding factor..
Either way will have its supporters and both sides can't prove, in my opinion, they are absolutely positively right.

Exactly so. There's no great way to judge it, maybe you beat a team to start off the season that creeps into the top 25 by the end. It may be more accurate to take the season ending rankings, but it's not necessarily more accurate on all occasions. Either way, none of it has anything to do with my point on this thread. If you want to have apples to apples, you need to use the standard methodology, and it is, without a doubt, taking the ranking at the time they played.

 

[ag67]

If you beat a team ranked #20 in the 1st game of the season and that team ends up 3-9, did you beat a Top 25 team? I think not.

Agree with this. I am curious as to the number of teams that start in the Top 25 before the first game end up there at the end of the season. Beating a Top 25 team in the first game of the season may or may not mean anything when the season ends. Beating a team that ends up in the Top 25 at the end of the season is far more likely to be considered a significant accomplishment. IMO

This is an open discussion board, so people are free to believe whatever they want to. It is obvious from this board that an argument can be made for almost any point of view.

 

[RUChoppin]

If you beat a team ranked #20 in the 1st game of the season and that team ends up 3-9, did you beat a Top 25 team? I think not.

Not to this extreme, but this is sort of what happened with USF in 2007.

In Week 7, they were #2 in the country and 6-0 heading into a game at Rutgers (including wins against Auburn, WVU, and UCF - all of whom finished with 9+ wins). We beat them and sent them on a skid, losing to three consecutive unranked teams (though Cincy went on to finish ranked #17) to drop out of the rankings entirely by Week 10 at 6-3. They managed to scrape themselves back into the rankings at 9-3 at the end of the season, then got hammered in their bowl game.

So, did we really beat a Top 2 team? Given their resume going into Week 7, it certainly looked like it. At the end of the season, though, they looked more like Top 30-35. It still technically counts as the highest ranked opponent Rutgers has ever beaten, but it's hard to consider it as good a win as over #3 Louisville the year before.

 

[motorb54]

All this "ranked at the time of the game" crap
is one of the ways the SEC makes all these BS claims.

 

[BoroKnight]

Same way a lot of guys have. When everyone recognizes that the team is outside the Top 40, you are really not supposed to beat Top 25 teams. Sure an upset is nice, but its not ineptitude.

So relived SOMEBODY realized a team -- UConn? Vanderbilt? -- is not supposed to beat a Top 25 team unless it also is Top 25 material. A coach at a school not known for top talent to be 1-8 against the Top 25, to me, is one win better than he's supposed to be.

But we don't like him, so he sucks. Makes sense.