Morning Coffee Salutes Rooster Andrews

by PB @ BON on Jan 22, 2008 9:05 AM CST in Quick Hits Comment 18 comments

A legend passes. Austin and University of Texas icon Rooster Andrews has passed away at age 84. For those of us who grew up in Austin and/or attended the university, the man and his effects on UT were ubiquitous. As track coach Bubba Thornton told the Statesman: "He probably was one of the greatest ambassadors for the unviersity that I've ever known... The number of lives he's influenced in a positive way is simply staggering."

No question about it. A chapter of The Eyes of Texas 2008 will be devoted to chronicling his remarkable life.

Slump might be a bit charitable. Mark Rosner notes that AJ Abrams' 0-7 night from three point range ended a three-year, 54-game streak of consecutive contests with a three point basket made for the junior guard. AW noted in his game summary that AJ's only made 7 of his 32 three pointers in conference play, a point Ron Franklin made during last night's broadcast as well.

But Franklin was wrong to call it a "mini"-slump. Mega seems more appropriate. Recall the Dec. 21 Texas Basketball Report, which chronicled how poorly Abrams was shooting the three ball in non-con play since the Tennessee win.

For the season, Abrams has now slipped to hitting just 35.6% of his three point shots. That's not an awful rate... unless you're shooting 146 three pointers, as Abrams has. To put that in perspective, Abrams has attempted more three pointers than Connor Atchley has attempted field goals. Hell, except for Augustin and James, Abrams has attempted more threes than every member of the team has shots of any kind.

Fortunately, AJ's improved other aspects of his half court game, and I thought last night in particular did a great job at times of making interior passes after penetrating. It's critical he play well in other areas of the game if he's going to keep shooting as poorly as he has. My God is he ice cold.

It's not science, but it's close. If you're like me, you don't live and die with the rumors of where each 17 year old kid may or may not go to school. I keep an eye on things as they progress, but I'm far more interested in looking at the recruiting class after signing day, when we've got a final head count we can evaluate.

Last year at this time I wrote about the relative importance of recruiting, concluding:

That's why, when you really think about signing day, it pays to temper your expecations with a large dose of reality. Signing kids with talent is important, but turning them into great football players is far more critical to meeting the lofty goals we all set for our favorite teams. Player development, acceptable academic performance, and adequate discipline to avoid the countless pitfalls that await these kids will wind up going a lot further toward determining Texas' won-loss records over the next four years than any accumulation of grading stars ever could.

Recruiting is important, and it can even be fun, but try not to be a determinist about it all. It's simply one step in a long and complicated formula for collegiate football success. Teams don't win and lose games on signing day. Amidst a sea of uncertainty, that's one thing we can be sure of.

Forget me and my soap box, though: SMQ hits a monster home run with this empirical evaluation of recruiting rankings, assessing their accuracy, validity, and impact. Conclusion: there's more to on-field success than bringing in the top talent, but you're not very likely to have the former without the latter. Go, read.

--PB--

0 recs | Comment 18 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

SMQ article

Very interesting article. Recruiting gives fans something to obsess over during the off season. The winners can celebrate, and history gives the others some reason for hope. What more could you ask for?

After all the gnashing of teeth over "Coach February" over the years, one would expect to see Texas as one of the biggest underachievers. After all, Mack can just recruit 'em, he can't coach 'em. Right? Maybe it's time for the more rabid fans to reconsider their position. Three points higher in the winning record column than in recruiting isn't so bad, particularly if you consider that plus six was the maximum possible showing. (Hard to be + 10 when you start out at #7.)

As an aside, if I was Mike Leach I would forward this article to every AD in the country.

by Longhorn in Canada on Jan 22, 2008 11:48 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Some Fans

Don't let facts get in the way of what they know to be true.

by Wells on Jan 22, 2008 12:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

smq

aggies the worst at -33

by titans10 on Jan 22, 2008 12:38 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

SMQ

The problem with SMQ's analysis is that the performance of a given team (say, Texas) is recorded from '02-'07, as is his recruiting rankings (Texas, average 9.3, rank 7). Thus, the performance of Texas in year 2007 is probably highly indicative of the team they fielded given those 5 recruiting classes.

However, the performance of Texas in year 2002 is barely indicative of those same recruiting rankings (average 9.3, rank 7). Instead, you'd have to use the recruiting rankings from the relevant classes of that era (say, '98-'02), to make it more equally weighted.

It's a minor quibble; overall, it's a quick, effective study. And I enjoy how A&M has the largest negative differential (-33!) in Winning % vs. BCS Schools and Recruiting Rankings.

My adopted kid is pure genius at the Black-Scholes Option Pricing Model.

by jc25 on Jan 22, 2008 12:38 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

This is not a problem:

SMQ addresses it:

Now, on-field winning percentage in relation to those rankings. A more careful study would divide winning percentages into rolling four or five-year periods and weight the results of certain seasons to account for the differences in a class as freshmen and sophomores and as upperclassmen, etc., but again, this is not intended to be that specific or time-consuming. The years 2002-2007 encompass the entire results of three classes ranked above and at least half the contributions of two more. If you long for more specificity, the numbers are there to sate your curiosity.

I think you'd be asking a bit much of anyone to record the numbers as such, especially for what amounts to a hobby.

by Red Blooded on Jan 22, 2008 1:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

re:

I actually linked to a study that weighted the recruiting classes, came up with a perceived ranking, and analyzed that against 2006 performance. But damn if I can't find that link now; it's buried amongst the comments. Again, I'm just pointing out the weakness in the argument. It's an analysis that can be done, but I agree that it's unfair to ask someone like SMQ to do a full-on study of the issue.

My adopted kid is pure genius at the Black-Scholes Option Pricing Model.

by jc25 on Jan 23, 2008 11:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

SMQ wouldn't .....

....make the "fair & balanced" standard. I find something other than a coincidence that SMQ fails to show Texas' results against equal or higher ranked opponents.

Probably due to Mack's record at Texas of 6-12 vs. Top-10 opponents.

With all the talent we've recruited to the Forty Acres, we still managed to lose consecutive games to the sorriest HC of the Big-XII, Dennis Franchione. We also lost consecutive games to a 2nd-year HC Ron Prince, including the worst home loss of Mack's career at Texas.

I tip my hat to Mack Brown for going out obtaining the services of the finest young HC'ing candidate on the market to come run our defense. I'll never understand how Arkansas or GaTech didn't snatch up Muschamp. I guess we'll find out soon enough when we face a Hog squad led by Petrino. Mack's greatest move at Texas and definitely timely!

I wonder how SMQ would explain a Kansas squad, with only one 4-star* recruit in the past 4 collective classes, going 12-1. Please don't anyone try to claim it was due to their schedule.

Kansas defeated K.State............Texas couldn't

Kansas defeated A&M................Texas couldn't

Kansas won at Colorado.............OU couldn't

Kansas put 76 on Nebraska..........Texas scored 28

Kansas smoked the MAC Champ 52-7.....Texas struggled with Ark.State

Kansas won their BCS Bowl..........OU lost theirs and Texas didn't make one

--- All roads to the Big-XII Championship lead through OU/RRS. It's not just another game! We're all about championships here. ---

by HornChamps on Jan 22, 2008 2:26 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

It a conspiracy

SMQ is actually Mack Brown's brother in law, secretly set up as a general college football blog and has written for years just so he can write this one article a prop up Mack's internet prestige.

As for Kansas, he actually answered you in his article:

To the point (that is, the counterpoint): If you’re going to make a claim about the numbers – especially if the claim is that the numbers don’t matter – you have to use all the numbers. In our case, that means going back to 2002 (the last year for national rankings archives on Rivals.com) and auditing the site’s projections against actual performance over the same span of time. I have no particular reason to use Rivals over any other outlet, except that it has the numbers, its numbers are not wildly different that anyone else’s, and since I want to be able to speak in generalities rather than conduct a journal-ready academic study of an admittedly un-scientific process, it will suffice for that big picture.

by Wells on Jan 22, 2008 2:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

haha

I read his post and was sure that your sarcastic reply is coming.

Get your ass going! You ain't hurt!

by Cyrus on Jan 22, 2008 4:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

wells

Saw your Pops at Westwood last night. In his words, 'I read Peter's shit every day. Might be the best chance I have to hear from my son.'

by Blitzburgh on Jan 23, 2008 10:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That is about right

We mostly talk UT sports anyway, so this is way we know each other's opinions without having to call, although he posts less than I do.

by Wells on Jan 23, 2008 11:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Kafka?

It would be...

Growing up, I only fed Jared Norton paper. That's why he eats plays.

by Horn Brain on Jan 23, 2008 12:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No

by Wells on Jan 23, 2008 4:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Damn!

That seemed so perfect.

Growing up, I only fed Jared Norton paper. That's why he eats plays.

by Horn Brain on Jan 23, 2008 4:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You realize of course...

...that SMQ is not a Texas fan, has no interest whatsoever in propping Mack Brown up or tearing him down, and did not write this post just about Texas?

You also realize, of course, that when SMQ lists "results against equal or higher ranked opponents" he is referring to recruiting rankings, not poll rankings?

You further realize that SMQ only listed the "overachievers" and "underachievers" - two categories that Texas did not fit into because its recruiting ranking correlated pretty well with its performance on the field.

You've said some pretty ridiculous things in the past HC (like say, that time you said I should be ignored because I didn't live in Austin. remember that? I do.) but I think this accusation might take the cake.

by billyzane on Jan 22, 2008 4:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

the happiest longhorn...

you know my favorite part of this post?

it's how Wells says: "Some fans... Don't let facts get in the way of what they know to be true."

and then four posts later, hornchamps chimes in with proof...

Roy Miller - with the possible exception of Barbara Feldon, the best #99 anywhere!!!

by agent orange on Jan 22, 2008 5:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yup.....

Your naivety is typical of those far-removed from the program. If you ever get back to Austin, tap into some sources, then maybe you'll get it. Until then, you are simply to be ignored.

....right as rain. Thanks billy, for reminding me that I nailed it dead solid perfect.

--- All roads to the Big-XII Championship lead through OU/RRS. It's not just another game! We're all about championships here. ---

by HornChamps on Jan 22, 2008 5:24 PM CST reply actions 0 recs