538 says Pitt is an overachiever
https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...he-most-with-the-least-talent-and-vice-versa/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...he-most-with-the-least-talent-and-vice-versa/
Results vs. Expected Wins Based on Talent
- Thread starter lilspainishflea
- Start date
I actually agree. Consistently, Pitt outwins (and outdraws) way beyond the commitment from its administration. We're basically funded as a 2-10 program, then throw the excessive morality on top of it ... winning around 7 most years and about 40,000 fans on average is actually really good.
Eh. Any study that doesn't take into account the talent level of the teams you play, is kinda worthless. That determines how successful your recruiting class should be. If you bring in the 15th best class every year, in a vacuum, you should be expected to win a lot of games. But if the rest of the teams in your division make up the Top 5 recruiting classes in the country, it wouldn't be shocking to end each year with at least 5 losses.
Interesting stuff. My takeaways:
> No wonder P5 schools raid the AAC for coaches to work with their 4&5 star kids.
> Obviously being in a weaker conference helps (MAC, AAC, Big12, Big10 West).
> A talented QB (regardless of stars) can make up for lesser players at other positions: Kenan Reynolds - Navy, Brandon Doughty - WKU, Baker Mayfield - OU, Lamar Jackson - UL
> No wonder P5 schools raid the AAC for coaches to work with their 4&5 star kids.
> Obviously being in a weaker conference helps (MAC, AAC, Big12, Big10 West).
> A talented QB (regardless of stars) can make up for lesser players at other positions: Kenan Reynolds - Navy, Brandon Doughty - WKU, Baker Mayfield - OU, Lamar Jackson - UL
It does take into account who you play. It's the Football Power Index (which measures projected wins/losses over 10,000 simulated seasons) compared to a Team Talent Composite. I'm guessing that MAC teams are overperforming to the extent that they have very little talent but occasionally will beat a Michigan (i.e., Appalachian State is very high on the list). Similarly, Georgia and Texas suck because they are almost entirely 5 and 4 star rosters but have fared very poorly against equal and lesser competition.
I'm sure that our wins against Clemson and PSU helped tremendously.
The only time pitt underachieved (and they mightily underachieved) was the wanny big east years. Obviously we had the 10 win season, he had a couple good teams no doubt. But my god how we didn't go to the BCS in 2010 is almost an impossible feat. Pitt was so much more talented than any other conference foe they should've ran away with the league title.
Other than that brief time period though, we are overachieving and have been for most of recent times. For every Fitzgerald, McCoy, Donald, and Revis, most of our recruiting classes have not been up to par. Right now though I'd say we're about as even as could be. Decent recruiting, 8 win seasons.
Other than that brief time period though, we are overachieving and have been for most of recent times. For every Fitzgerald, McCoy, Donald, and Revis, most of our recruiting classes have not been up to par. Right now though I'd say we're about as even as could be. Decent recruiting, 8 win seasons.
Not really, because even the FPI isn't taking what I'm talking about into account.
Pitt slightly outperforms the expectation. In the study, Pitt is 40th in talent and 35th in the 2 year power index average. That's pretty much where they should be and the article confirms that talent is strongly correlated to success.
Last edited:
Similar threads
