Correlation between good coach and mathematics background?

[RzrbckMAJ]

When I first heard CCM was going to get the job I have to admit I wasn't excited.  However, I did some research and came away really impressed with his achievements as a football coach.  My interest really piqued when I read that he has a degree in mathematics.  CBP had a minor in mathematics and despite his lapse in judgement, I considered him a very cerebral, detail oriented person - verge of perfectionist.

So my question is.....do you think there is a link between good coaching and a mathematics background?  While I don't have scientific research to back it up, I think there is a general perception that people that can do well in advanced math can also innately see things that others cannot.

I do not know of any other coaches with a similar background so maybe I am just grasping at straws hoping CCM can take us back to where CBP had us in 2011.

[Hogindasticks]

I would agree.....2 people have a less chance of tackling a back going down the middle than 11 in the box.

[Michael D Huff AIA]

I have a degree in Architecture, which has a little bit of math.  Not as much as some of the engineering majors, but a fair bit of calculus and a whole lot of trigonometry.

What I can say is that there is always a battle between what we think is a fact and what the math says given good data.  Sometimes they are the same, but other times what feels right is not necessarily so.  I would recommend a book titled, "Scorecasting" to anyone that wants to see the effects of a good dive into the mathematical side of sports written by a Harvard economist and a Sports Illustrated writer.  It goes after the cliches in sports like, "Defense wins championships" and "the home team wins because of the crowd" and disproves every one of them.  Kevin Kelley from Pulaski Academy is prominently featured and his reasoning for why he never punts or fields a punt, or why he always goes for it on 4th down is shown.

A tease on why defense doesn't win championships in the NFL as of the writing of the book:

# of times the SB champ was in Top 5 in defense in the regular season: 28
# of times the SB champ was in Top 5 in offense in the regular season: 27

407 NFL Playoff games -  58% won by better defensive team, 62% by better offense (note that the percentages add to >100% - sometimes the better offensive and defensive team was the same winning team)
Top 5 defense has won 195 playoff games
Top 5 offense has won 192 playoff games

10,000 regular season games
66.5% of the time the better defense wins.
67.4% of the time the better offense wins.

3 times the SB champ was in the bottom half in defense
2 times the SB champ was in the bottom half in offense

27 times the SB has had Top 5 offense vs. Top 5 defense
13 wins by best offense
14 wins by best defense

So, saying that 'Defense wins championships' is not necessarily an absolute truth.  It is marginally true at best.

[howboutthemhawgs]

It could be argued that the term "Defense wins championships" has nothing to do with being statistically ranked in the top %'s in Defensive categories.

If you have a defense, even one that is just decent, that can get THE stop when it's needed in a game, that wins championships.  Don't need stats to tell us how many times a game comes down to that one drive that everyone in the stands...everyone watching on TV...and everyone on the sidelines knows...this probably decides the game.

Not tryin' to pick fights...just sayin'

[HawgWild]

FWIW - CBP is left brain as well.

[Holmes501]

Stats don't lie.

[NaturalStateReb]

When I first heard CCM was going to get the job I have to admit I wasn't excited.  However, I did some research and came away really impressed with his achievements as a football coach.  My interest really piqued when I read that he has a degree in mathematics.  CBP had a minor in mathematics and despite his lapse in judgement, I considered him a very cerebral, detail oriented person - verge of perfectionist.

So my question is.....do you think there is a link between good coaching and a mathematics background?  While I don't have scientific research to back it up, I think there is a general perception that people that can do well in advanced math can also innately see things that others cannot.

I do not know of any other coaches with a similar background so maybe I am just grasping at straws hoping CCM can take us back to where CBP had us in 2011.

Hugh Freeze's degree was in mathematics.  Probably helps with probability and logic.

[PorkSoda]

Stats don't lie.

neither do they win games.

play calling has a good degree of "guessing right"

[Batman]

Proficiency in mathematics generally indicates intellectual superiority and the ability to think. 

[Dwight_K_Shrute]

Hugh Freeze's degree was in mathematics.  Probably helps with probability and logic.

I heard when he called the escort services his code was "What does 23+46 equal?"  Giggity!

[GringoHog]

Proficiency in mathematics generally indicates  the ability to think.

+1

Agreed.  It's considerably better than that degree in geology.....  Aside from indicating that the man is intelligent, math goes hand in hand with so many things...... like identifying tendencies.  All offensive coaches have tendencies whether they know it or not.....unless you're Texas A&M the last 5 years running 3 formations from a script.....

[oldhog63]

It could be argued that the term "Defense wins championships" has nothing to do with being statistically ranked in the top %'s in Defensive categories.

If you have a defense, even one that is just decent, that can get THE stop when it's needed in a game, that wins championships.  Don't need stats to tell us how many times a game comes down to that one drive that everyone in the stands...everyone watching on TV...and everyone on the sidelines knows...this probably decides the game.

Not tryin' to pick fights...just sayin'

And the statistics say half the time the defense prevails on that drive and half the time the offense does.

[26.2Hog]

Frank Broyles graduated with a degree in Industrial Management - lots of engineering and math.  He did pretty good.

[GoHogzzGo]

Bill Belichick covets coaches with higher level degrees. Including one rocket scientist on his staff. Gotta be something to it.

[redeye]

I've mentioned CCM's math degree a lot.  The reason is because anyone who's had a lot of math, also has in-depth experience working with systems as a critical thinker.  This is the type of mentality needed to make half-time adjustments and to break down film, while preparing for opponents.  While I don't know any details of CCM's educational background, I highly suspect this mentality played a large role in CBP's advanced offense.

Then again, it may mean nothing.  Not all math majors are good math majors, but it does suggest that CCM may be a good critical thinker, who will always have Arkansas well prepared.

[The NewEra]

High level of mathematics = attention to details

[Hog N Bama]

Although I did not graduate from the U of A with a mathematics degree, I majored in accounting. However in HS, I took Algebra, Algebra II, and Geometry, liking all 3.  I tend to be  somewhat of a perfectionist and an attention to detail freak. I'm not a coach though

[26.2Hog]

My wife graduated from the UofA with a math degree, and she is always right.

[Vantage 8 dude]

My wife graduated from the UofA with a math degree, and she is always right.

I can promise you that merely by virtue of being a woman she's ALWAYS going to be (at least that seems to be what they ALL think )

[redeye]

I have a degree in Architecture, which has a little bit of math.  Not as much as some of the engineering majors, but a fair bit of calculus and a whole lot of trigonometry.
...

A tease on why defense doesn't win championships in the NFL as of the writing of the book:

The key here is that he's talking about the NFL.  If he did the same analysis of the SEC, the results would likely be very different, because SEC champions typically have far stronger defenses.  The outlier has been Auburn teams with Malzahn calling plays.  With the exception of this year, because Auburn's defense is ranked higher than it's offense, Malzahn's other SEC champions have somehow won with great offenses and terrible defenses.  That's a plus for Arkansas, since CCM is a Malzahn protege.

I also think you can extend that outside of the SEC to all FBS football, but don't hold me to that.

edit: Almost forgot to mention that it's cool you're an architect!  Sometimes I wish that I'd studied architecture.

[Eddie Goodson]

When I first heard CCM was going to get the job I have to admit I wasn't excited.  However, I did some research and came away really impressed with his achievements as a football coach.  My interest really piqued when I read that he has a degree in mathematics.  CBP had a minor in mathematics and despite his lapse in judgement, I considered him a very cerebral, detail oriented person - verge of perfectionist.

So my question is.....do you think there is a link between good coaching and a mathematics background?  While I don't have scientific research to back it up, I think there is a general perception that people that can do well in advanced math can also innately see things that others cannot.

I do not know of any other coaches with a similar background so maybe I am just grasping at straws hoping CCM can take us back to where CBP had us in 2011.

Was told this just today and it is perfectly true. Sports are nothing more than applied math and sciences.

[PorkSoda]

Was told this just today and it is perfectly true. Sports are nothing more than applied math and sciences.

because we field teams of robots?

no there is a human factor in the sport.  that is what makes it unpredictable.

[Eddie Goodson]

because we field teams of robots?

no there is a human factor in the sport.  that is what makes it unpredictable.

Has nothing to do with robots. Come on man. What part of APPLIED messed you up? That is the human factor.

[BearsBisonsBoars]

.

[Jonbo]

My wife graduated from the UofA with a math degree, and she is always right.

Yeah, I took out the extraneous section for him.

[PorkSoda]

Has nothing to do with robots. Come on man. what part of APPLIED messed you up? That is the human factor.

its the "nothing more" that messed me up.

there is a lot more.  A player may need to apply x amount of force to throw the ball y distance, but if he throws the ball 10 times x will never be exactly same.

there for it is not predictable.  and science is all about making predictions based on controlled circumstances.

if it was all about applied science, then why didn't anyone hire stephen hawking as a HC?

why don't QB's carry a calculator with them?

[Eddie Goodson]

its the "nothing more" that messed me up.

there is a lot more.  A player may need to apply x amount of force to throw the ball y distance, but if he throws the ball 10 times x will never be exactly same.

there for it is not predictable.  and science is all about making predictions based on controlled circumstances.

if it was all about applied science, then why didn't anyone hire stephen hawking as a HC?

why don't QB's carry a calculator with them?

If a player throws the ball ten times and get ten different results, HE DIDN'T APPLY THE SCIENCE THE SAME. It is an applied math and science.

[PorkSoda]

If a player throws the ball ten times and get ten different results, HE DIDN'T APPLY THE SCIENCE THE SAME. It is an applied math and science.

thats the point.  real life is inevitably unpredictable.  it never works out exactly like it does on paper.

yes, I get the "applied" part.  but if there was a scientific formula for winning games, it would have been found by now.  but there isn't.

how did Auburn kill georgia just to turn around and get killed by georgia.

what is the scientific formula for motivation?

[redeye]

its the "nothing more" that messed me up.

there is a lot more.  A player may need to apply x amount of force to throw the ball y distance, but if he throws the ball 10 times x will never be exactly same.

there for it is not predictable.  and science is all about making predictions based on controlled circumstances.

if it was all about applied science, then why didn't anyone hire stephen hawking as a HC?

why don't QB's carry a calculator with them?

That's not true.  You can apply science to anything.  Of course football also has a human factor, but it would be foolish to think that science and/or math can't help.

But my thing is about understanding systems, rather than vector math.  For example, everyone thinks they know better than the coach and that may be true with some.  But someone experienced with systems, is more likely to understand the problems with the systems and find answers to those problems.  It's not about computing numbers, but rather a better understanding of systems.

[PorkSoda]

That's not true.  You can apply science to anything.  Of course football also has a human factor, but it would be foolish to think that science and/or math can't help.

But my thing is about understanding systems, rather than vector math.  For example, everyone thinks they know better than the coach and that may be true with some.  But someone experienced with systems, is more likely to understand the problems with the systems and find answers to those problems.  It's not about computing numbers, but rather a better understanding of systems.

good point.  but I was replying to someone who stated "Sports are nothing more than applied math and sciences."

I would say that there is "a lot more" or else we would be hiring science professors as HCs and signing math geeks as players

[Eddie Goodson]

thats the point.  real life is inevitably unpredictable.  it never works out exactly like it does on paper.

yes, I get the "applied" part.  but if there was a scientific formula for winning games, it would have been found by now.  but there isn't.

how did Auburn kill georgia just to turn around and get killed by georgia.

what is the scientific formula for motivation?

You are over thinking it. The sport itself in its base from is nothing but math and science. You and I are debating all the factors that go into the application of the math and science. All those factors you are addressing absolutely effect the application of the math and science. We are in complete agreement on that. The human factor, and all that entails, is bound up in the application. That includes anything you can think of.

[PorkSoda]

You are over thinking it. The sport itself in its base from is nothing but math and science. You and I are debating all the factors that go into the application of the math and science. All those factors you are addressing absolutely effect the application of the math and science. We are in complete agreement on that. The human factor, and all that entails, is bound up in the application. That includes anything you can think of.

I don't agree at all.  I think you are over simplifying it.  for what purpose?  I don't know.

what is the scientific formula for motivation,  how do you apply it?

what is the scientific formula for concentration, how do you apply it?

why aren't mathmatics professors making millions at HCs?

[Eddie Goodson]

I don't agree at all.  I think you are over simplifying it.  for what purpose?  I don't know.

what is the scientific formula for motivation.  how do you apply it?

Have you read the title of the thread? I made a simple statement, that is true and you're the one with the problem with it.

[Eddie Goodson]

I don't agree at all.  I think you are over simplifying it.  for what purpose?  I don't know.

what is the scientific formula for motivation,  how do you apply it?

what is the scientific formula for concentration, how do you apply it?

why aren't mathmatics professors making millions at HCs?

Motivation and concentration lay in the application. It is really that simple.

[PorkSoda]

Have you read the title of the thread? I made a simple statement, that is true and you're the one with the problem with it.

you made a statement that is not true, and I had a problem with it.  I don't have a problem with the OP as it is reasonable to think that having an understanding of math and science can be an asset in understanding the game of football.

I'm not the one arguing that science and math is the only thing you need to know to be successful in football.

[PorkSoda]

Motivation and concentration lay in the application. It is really that simple.

prove it?  or drop it.  I don't care.  this is a silly derail.

[Hog N Bama]

I don't agree at all.  I think you are over simplifying it.  for what purpose?  I don't know.

what is the scientific formula for motivation,  how do you apply it?

what is the scientific formula for concentration, how do you apply it?

why aren't mathmatics professors making millions at HCs?

FLASH FLASH BREAKING NEWS Pork Soda disagrees

[Eddie Goodson]

prove it? 

Are you arguing just for the sake of argument?

You seriously can't see that concentration, motivation, physical conditioning, etc. all rest in application?

[PorkSoda]

FLASH FLASH BREAKING NEWS Pork Soda disagrees

fake news

[PorkSoda]

Are you arguing just for the sake of argument?

You seriously can't see that concentration, motivation, physical conditioning, etc. all rest in application?

application of what?

again, what mathematical formula is being applied?  what variable do you use for concentration? what unit is motivation measured in?

[PonderinHog]

good point.  but I was replying to someone who stated "Sports are nothing more than applied math and sciences."

I would say that there is "a lot more" or else we would be hiring science professors as HCs and signing math geeks as players

Figures don't lie...

[Eddie Goodson]

application of what?

again, what mathematical formula is being applied?

Listen. I don't have time for your usual foolishness. You argue just to argue. I apologize for a simple statement that tripped your circuit breaker. This is apparently too difficult for you.

[jvanhorn]

It could be argued that the term "Defense wins championships" has nothing to do with being statistically ranked in the top %'s in Defensive categories.

If you have a defense, even one that is just decent, that can get THE stop when it's needed in a game, that wins championships.  Don't need stats to tell us how many times a game comes down to that one drive that everyone in the stands...everyone watching on TV...and everyone on the sidelines knows...this probably decides the game.

Not tryin' to pick fights...just sayin'

See OU defense.

[PorkSoda]

Listen. I don't have time for your usual foolishness. You argue just to argue. I apologize for a simple statement that tripped your circuit breaker. This is apparently too difficult for you.

fair enough.  my point stands.  the game of football is more than just "applied science".

if it could be reduced to such.  we wouldn't need to play the games to find out who wins.

[bennyl08]

its the "nothing more" that messed me up.

there is a lot more.  A player may need to apply x amount of force to throw the ball y distance, but if he throws the ball 10 times x will never be exactly same.

there for it is not predictable.  and science is all about making predictions based on controlled circumstances.

if it was all about applied science, then why didn't anyone hire stephen hawking as a HC?

why don't QB's carry a calculator with them?

Only the sith deal in absolutes.

Never heard of stochastic models or chaos theory?

X never being the same is something that scientists and mathematicians deal with a lot. However, you don't really get to do that until you go into grad school.

[oldhawg]

If memory serves me correctly, didn't Jack Crowe have a math degree?

[HawgWild]

I'd like to see us not punt on 4th downs.

[Eddie Goodson]

I'd like to see us not punt on 4th downs.

On some of them, absolutely. The fear of 4th down paralyzes some coaches.

[Seminole Indian]

Hugh Freeze's degree was in mathematics.  Probably helps with probability and logic.

Thought Frank Broyles have a degree in physics from GT, not Industrial Management.

[SchrodingersHog]

Jack Crowe had a chemistry degree and there's a lot of math used in chemistry, so I'm not sure the math thing is necessarily a correlation to coaching ability.  Then again there might be.  Lots of uncertainty.