Hind sight is 20/20: A look back through years

[tigersmilk]

This famous adage will always ring true, even now, looking back we might say that this current coaching staff may have not have been the best option when compared to the other three finalists. Coincidentally this term “20/20” holds significance in another light. That light being: since 2005 our football team has lost 20 games by 20 points or more. As we all know seasons in 2005 and 2006 were governed by Larry Lewis as were the 6 seasons prior to ’05 and I will delve into that aspect deeper in a moment.

For now I want to draw attention to this margin of 20 points which I chose to distinguish between when our team was either competitive or non-competitive. Granted these are my operational definitions and not everyone will agree with what these definitions should be but I hope the significance of this data will not fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes since we’re reading this).

Looking back 3 years..

Zamberlin in 2007 won 3 games beating NCU, PSU, and SOU. However in 2007 Zamberlin also lost 8 games, 5 of which were by 20 points or more.
Zamberlin in 2008 won 1 game beating Sac in overtime. In his 11 losses in 2008, 6 were for 20 points or more.
Zamberlin now in his third season, 2009, has yet to win. Of the 6 losses this season (one being to a DII school by 11points) 5 have been by 20 points or more.

Looking back 3 more years…

Lewis in 2004 won 3 games lost 8 and of those losses 2 were by 20 points or more.
Lewis in 2005 went 5-6. 2 games lost in ’05 were by 20 points or more.
Lewis in 2006 lost all but 2 games. 3 of the 9 games lost were by 20 points or more.

What does all this mean? To me and based on my operational definitions this means that in the last three years of Lewis’s rule ISU was competitive in 26 of 33 games 79%. In the three years Zamberlin has been here ISU has been competitive in 13 of 29 games 45%. To further put this in perspective: Lewis, in 8 years, had ISU as non-competitive in 16 games whereas Zamberlin, in 2 ½ years has had ISU as non-competitive in as many (16).
I feel that It’s important to look closer than just W’s and L’s, to look under the surface at what is happening to the competitive nature of our football program. Based on this research I am compelled to say that the drop off in competitive play around the time of Zamberlin’s arrival is distinct and significant. To further illustrate this point I want to look at scoring disparity across entire seasons, which I believe will offer a perspective distinct from the competitive/non-competitive data crunch. I will use point disparity because it easily summates productivity with one data point while taking into consideration both offense and defense. For this view of productivity I have taken the liberty of dating back to the McNeely era. These stats will read quick and I will summarize my interpretation at the end.
McNeely- won 38% of games over 5yrs with 13 losses of 20 points or more.
Point Disparity:
‘92 -9
‘93 -4
‘94 -8
‘95 +5
‘96 +.5

Walsh- won 27% of games in 2yrs having 11 losses of 20 points or more.
Point Disparity:
‘97 -15
‘98 -17

Lewis- won 45% of games during his 8yrs having lost 16 games by 20 points or more.
Point Disparity:
‘99 -8
‘00 -2
‘01 -.5
‘02 +13
‘03 -3
‘04 -8
‘05 -.5
‘06 -7

Zamberlin- has now won 14% of his games over the 2 ½ yrs, of those losses 16 by 20 points or more.
Point Disparity:
‘07 -11
‘08 -20
‘09 -34 (to present)

Again looking back to 2004 we can a stable trend in disparity shift sharply at the time of Zamberlin’s arrival as head coach.

The truth is that the cupboard was not completely bare when Zamberlin arrived at ISU. Interestingly a declining productivity (as defined by point disparity) during Zamberlin’s tenure seems to correlate with the loss of players recruited by Lewis recruits (attrition, graduation, etc.). That is to say that: as there are fewer and fewer of Lewis’s players playing the team has done worse and worse.

There is no reason to think that Zamberlin’s productivity shouldn’t have, if anything, remained steady not to mention increased over the time he’s been here. One possible explanation is that he (and those who represent him) is not as capable as we have been led to believe. I would offer the explanation that he was honest when he presented himself as a coach who had success in a DII program and he brought just that to ISU…we are now a program who might have success in a DII program.

During my time in this community I have advocated that Zamberlin be fired, those word won’t be written here by me now. I ask that his supporters look at the black and white and consider what is truly best for ISU, to continue down our current path or to choose another? The road ahead can never be seen for exactly what it is, but we can always use what we know now to make rational decisions which may benefit us in the future.

 

[spartan]

strikes me you might have a personal axe to grind


plus you might just have to much time on your hands

 

[tigerpaws]

strikes me you might have a personal axe to grind


plus you might just have to much time on your hands

Precisely.

 

[bhumble]

strikes me you might have a personal axe to grind


plus you might just have to much time on your hands

Precisely.

sounds like an x of some kind.

 

[bengalcub]

I am not saying that Milk is right or wrong, but I challenge each and every one of you to make a more thought out argument one way or another as to why he is not right. Put some thought into it and hit him with your best shot.

 

[up for the challenge]

the past is the past and the sun will always rise in the morning. Coach Z is the process of rebuilding this team into winners, no doubt about it...buy your bengal gear and come out to the games.. roar - grawl

 

[john_clayton]

Whether or not tigersmilk has an axe or x or anvil or teeth to grind, his explanation is reasonable and well constructed, in my opinion. At least he operationalized his definition and supported his point with specific data sets.

The more I think of it, the more I'm starting to see the similarities of the Walsh Error and the Zamberlin Era.

One of the things that strikes me thus far in terms of talent level and recruiting was that Lewis and his staff were able to use their connections to get FBS from Pac-10 school drop downs to come to ISU in addition to going after FCS talent. What ties, if any, does the current coaching staff have with FBS schools? One or two guys don't carry an whole team, but one or two guys can make a difference on either side of the ball. Maybe ISU can get one or two of them in the 2010 class. Better yet, maybe ISU has one or two of them (if not more) already on board and can develop (another part of coaching is player development) into these difference makers.

As bad as it has been of late, I want to believe Z can do it.

 

[spartan]

sorry - his data is flawed at best... while his number crunching looks okay
he doesn't take into account the opponents who have scored all those points
you must at least account for the level of the competition
for example - those twenty + point losses to arizona state, oklahoma and oregon state a year or so ago were by more than twenty points and should be included in their own category (or excluded from the data set) if only due to the level of competition

it should work similarly for smaller (d2, or d3 schools that we may have played) each level should have its own category (conference, nonconference, etc)

because they (all opponents) appear to be included - for all the years - regardless -
then the data is skewed in the direction the poster wants to direct the argument/conversation... biased toward firing the current coach

the 'statistics' as 'presented' are skewed to push the reader in a predetermined direction/decision without providing all of the unbiased information require to make such a decision

i will stand by my belief that tigermilk seems to have an axe to grind - jmho

 

[bhumble]

let's see Oregon State, Boise St, Arz. St, Oklahoma, Idaho, others?

His budget has been cut every year. Give Z some money to go recruit kids. As he stated on the radio show the $900K from our body bag games went to the general fund. That team should get a big share of that money to get better (recruiting budget).

The upper classmen on Z's Central team competed pretty good in the BSC from a DII level.

His budget has been cut every year.

Look at the facilities we get to show potential recuits, 15 years ago the dome was cool. Now it's bottom of the pack.

Bottom line is you can't lay this all on Z. The entire administration needs to be called to the carpet.

 

[pocatato]

bhumble is very smart.

 

[bengalcub]

Lets see, Boise State, Idaho, Utah State (multiple times), UNLV, Kentucky. I will give you the Oklahoma game and you trade me the Central Washington and South Dakota loss from last season.

With that said, all of the blame should not fall on Zamberlin, but it will.

 

[outtastate]

o

 

[tigersmilk]

“sorry - his data is flawed at best... while his number crunching looks okay
he doesn't take into account the opponents who have scored all those points
you must at least account for the level of the competition
for example - those twenty + point losses to arizona state, oklahoma and oregon state a year or so ago were by more than twenty points and should be included in their own category (or excluded from the data set) if only due to the level of competition

it should work similarly for smaller (d2, or d3 schools that we may have played) each level should have its own category (conference, nonconference, etc)

because they (all opponents) appear to be included - for all the years - regardless -
then the data is skewed in the direction the poster wants to direct the argument/conversation... biased toward firing the current coach

the 'statistics' as 'presented' are skewed to push the reader in a predetermined direction/decision without providing all of the unbiased information require to make such a decision

i will stand by my belief that tigermilk seems to have an axe to grind – jmho”

My data and statements made here are dead on, no flaws. Although I could have broken the information down in a lot of ways, I chose to use entire seasons because that was the approach Zamberlin used to sell himself as a viable candidate for the job (ie having beaten Montana st while at CWU). That being said I appreciate the challenge Spartan, and I went ahead and ran the numbers your way. While I can say the figures are adjusted the overall effects remain the same.

A recap of the key points in terms of conference play:

Competitive/non-competitive:

“this means that in the last three years of Lewis’s rule ISU was competitive in 26 of 33 games 79%. In the three years Zamberlin has been here ISU has been competitive in 13 of 29 games 45%.”

this means that in the last three years of Lewis’s rule ISU was competitive in 19 of 24 games 79% (no change). In the three years Zamberlin has been here ISU has been competitive in 9 of 19 games 47% (improves 2%).

Comments: here we see a slight moral victory in that the gap closes by 2%

“Lewis, in 8 years, had ISU as non-competitive in 16 games whereas Zamberlin, in 2 ½ years has had ISU as non-competitive in as many (16).”

Lewis, in 8 years, had ISU as non-competitive in 12 conference games (meaning 19% of conference games were non-competitive), whereas Zamberlin, in 2 ½ years has had ISU as non-competitive in 10 conference games (meaning 53% of conference games were non-competitive).

Comments: again a slight moral victory here but as spartin predicted that was going to be obvious.
Point Disparity & Productivity

“Lewis- won 45% of games during his 8yrs having lost 16 games by 20 points or more.
Point Disparity:
‘99 -8
‘00 -2
‘01 -.5
‘02 +13
‘03 -3
‘04 -8
‘05 -.5
‘06 -7”

Lewis- won 40% of conference games during his 8yrs having lost 12 conference games by 20 points or more.
Point Disparity in conference:
‘99 -16
‘00 -4.7
‘01 -13.7
‘02 +10
‘03 -5
‘04 -7.4
‘05 -4.4
‘06 -5.1

Comments: fluctuations for Lewis remain similar while the overall trend shifts slightly in a negative direction.

“Zamberlin- has now won 14% of his games over the 2 ½ yrs, of those losses 16 by 20 points or more.
Point Disparity:
‘07 -11
‘08 -20
‘09 -34 (to present)”

Zamberlin- has now won 16% of conference games over the 2 ½ yrs, of those 19 conference games 10 are lost by 20 points or more.
Point Disparity:
‘07 -9.6
‘08 -17.375
‘09 -27.667 (to present)

Comments: again trends in point disparity remain the same with slight shift in a positive direction. This of course is to be expected as big point games were thrown out from the data set.

I’m not sure if this satisfies you Spartan, it doesn’t have to I guess. Here is the black and white for conference games. We can still see that Zamberlin has become less and less competitive, and we can still see that has become less and less productive. Obviously these things go hand and hand, but I think it’s interesting to see what the numbers look like.

I’m not sure if your euphemistic reference to axe grinding applies to me, but I’ll admit right now I am not satisfied. If I had to explain why I’ve spent as much time as I have on this post I would say: this is the only way I know how to “prove” to the lay person how inept Zamberlin and is staff are. I know firsthand their shortcomings as it pertains to their ability to: teach technique, effectively coach assignments, remodel ineffective defenses to fit available talent, make game time adjustments, communicate with their player, communicate with each other, monitor academic problem players, respect players, consider a players health over them playing, and follow NCAA time rules.

Here’s the thing, for most of you, there is no way you’ll ever know what goes on behind the scenes and there is no way anyone could accurately convey that to you. So I am left with looking at the numbers and presenting the numbers as products of these unseen behaviors.

The “axe grinding is this”: I don’t believe Zamberlin will change, I just don’t see it (this is my bias), so for the sake of those players who deserve something good for all they have sacrificed I hope Zamberlin will be replaced. Guys like Rutt, Tuua, Krosch, Tew, Arias, and Hjelseth should get a shot at success. Now if Zamberlin can figure it out, and give them that, then I will be satisfied. I don’t need him to go down in flames, I just need him to not take undeserving players with him. But if the trend says he’s failing and if my experience says the same then I say cut him loose.

 

[spartan]

sorry - your 'statistical' analysis is flawed if only because you set it up to prove your point

you begin with the premise of 'zamberlin deserves to be fired' and then work to prove the point...

i believe you are committing type 1 error

 

[blackfootbengal]

Spartan, all statistics evidence is set up to prove a point. To prove that the milkmans logic is flawed you have to show where and how, not just claim it is flawed. Your trying to prove your point without presenting any evidence other than you said it was flawed.

 

[Skippy]

There is one big difference between the Coach Z era and the Tom Walsh era -- Tom alienated so many people, he was fired in the middle of his second season. Coach Z has a lot of people rooting for him because he is a good human being who cares about people. At some point, you have to start talking about what you stand for as a program and an institution. Sure, winning and losing are why you play the game, and we all know that football coaches have to win games in order to keep their jobs.

But also at some point you find yourself just "rooting for the laundry" if all you care about is the final score, and not the people in the uniforms or on the sideline. There have been more than a few examples of that in Idaho State history over the years. My point is this: John and his staff will have to start winning and making positive steps forward, we all agree on that. But when you have a quality individual who cares about his people and doing things the right way, you give that person more time and leeway to try to right the ship. I know, for example, Doug Oliver, who Baller worked for, got a much longer tenure at ISU than his record warranted because Dr. Bowen liked him and was personally involved in making the decision to hire him after getting an endorsement from Ron Stephenson.

BTW, Baller, you may not have been asked by recruits about how long your coach's contract is, but I know for a fact that opposing coaches use a coach's job situation against them. If you're going head to head with another Big Sky school for a kid you want and you're in the last year of your contract, you can be assured the other coach will bring that up to the recruit. It's only common sense. Is that a deciding factor? Each situation will vary and every recruit has his own set of values and what he's looking for, but it certainly is not a positive.

 

[blackfootbengal]

I have to agree with Skippy concerning the comparison of Walsh to Zamberlin. First and foremost, Walsh was an ass who if given the chance would bully people. As to his coaching ability, can't tell you. Walsh truly took over a empty cubboard. I'm not sure any of McNeely's last class made it academically. Walsh's first spring practice had thirty kids in it, many of them walkons. He never really had a chance to build anything because his personallity offended everyone who came in contact with him. Funny, the person who finally got him fired, had a reputation every bit as bad as Walsh's. As for his staff; the introduction of the double wing to Layne Coffin was made by Leo Brouhard (May be mistaken on last name), Walker at Poky was one of his assistants, and our beloved Barnum was a hold over from Walsh's staff to Lewis's staff and in hind sight should have been a hold over to Zamberlin's staff. Reminds me of a saying, "Don't cut your nose to spite your face". While Walsh was an ass, in looking back on his staff, with time they may have been able to get the job done. As we now recognize, Barnum was a solid coach who knew his X and O's. Walker as did Leo brought a vast amount of experience to the program. This was one staff that never had a chance because the man who brought them in was such a jerk. We talk like Walsh was one of the worst coaching hires we ever had. The reality, he was a assh*le, but to be honest, was never given a chance to prove if he could build a team. He only had two recruiting classes, the first is never your best, and a second. Who knows what would have happened with time.

 

[bhumble]

It's amazing how short people's memories are.

Did you forget about the off field behavior, including guns, of prior players?

Did you forget that many of the same people that are calling for Z's job were also calling for Lewis's job?

Did you forget that Z has had two different bosses in 3 years?

Did you forget that Lewis had an increase in his recruiting budget and Z has had a decrease every year?

In large part it boils down to money. Lewis got support, Z is not. I dare to say the Z is probably working with the tightest budget in 20 years. How can Z, or anyone else, survive in this environment. When many on this board were calling for Lewis's head I said.... "Be careful what you wish for", I say the same today. Until the administration and community get behind a coach we're all in for more of the same. Urban Myer couldn't win under these conditions.
:evil: :evil:

 

[blackfootbengal]

It's amazing how short people's memories are.

Did you forget about the off field behavior, including guns, of prior players?

:evil: :evil:

The statement about guns is somewhat inaccurate. While the football team was involved, it was a basketball player who was accused of shooting a football players car.

As to off field problems, both coaches Zamberlin and Lewis, had and have their share. Lewis just had more time to build a case file. He also had the assistance a Journal Reporter who made it his job to get ISU athletes.

 

[spartan]

blackfoot - 'all statistics evidence is set up to prove a point' - sorry thats not how statistics are done.
if you decide to prove a specific point then you are not allowing the numbers/statistics to tell the true story - th e 'debate' on global warming for example

statistical evidence tells the strory one way or another - if you go looking for evidence to prove a point one way or another you are likely to find evidence to support your claim no matter what (it is a self fulfilling prophecy). you need to look at the data and see what it says - not decide what you want and set out to prove it

thats what tiger milk has done

if he wanted to be statistically accurate he would run numbers for all the head football coaches across time (all the way back), and account for in-conference, out of conference, d1, d2, d3, indoor/turf, outdoot/grass, good weather, bad weather (good and bad would also need to be defined), budgets for all areas (recruiting, assistant coaches, he might even want to work in the head coaches overall compensation package and see how that impacts the analysis) wins, losses, account for the differing number of games teams play now vs in th past, hell even the height, weight, speed etc of the players across time....

he didn't - he simply set out to prove a point/gind his own axe - jmho

but you're welcome to your own opinion