81-124-2. 5 bowl games in 18 seasons, and never consecutive bowl games
Does anyone other than the wanker from Hudson, Ohio think Ron Guenther is the best AD in the country? Props to Herb Gould of the Chicago Sun-Times for this nugget: "it also extends to his overambitious boss, athletic director Ron Guenther, who gave Illinois an endless, perilous schedule." Ron, YOU IDIOT!
posted by Fire Ron Guenther at 7:35 AM
38 Comments:
Illinois State is part of an endless, perilous schedule?
Herb Gould is as simple minded as frg.
What I want to know is, is frg 11% sure of this opinion? Or is he only 1.1% sure?
381-162
Q- if we added the FB and BB records together would that give a more fair view of the AD's performance?
A- yes, but I'm sure that frg couldn't figure out what his winning percentage was?
ROFLMAO!!!!!!
In support of frg, The 5 bowl games in 18 years is the most damning statistic of this incompetent AD's administration.
There are 34 bowl games this year, which means that 68 teams, or 56.7%of the 120 Division 1 schools will be going to the postseason.
Is anyone going to tell me that UI should not be in that group on a consistent basis, at least 4 out of every 5 years?
Illinifaningeorgia
We are now officially bowl ineligible after playing our two easiest non conference games one of which is not even an FBS team.
Tell me again how the schedule is the reason we aren't going bowling.
How can anyone defend this egotistical buffoon? The football record speaks for itsef. I usually respect most of Loren Tate's but he is dead wrong on thi one!! Guenther needs to be shown the door just like he did with Lou Henson.
Regarding Guenther's moronic non-conference scheduling, he should follow "The Minnesota Plan" when Glen Mason was coach.
The "Plan": schedule 4 patsies, all at home, and hope for at least a 2-6 conference record. You are now bowl elligible. He went to a bowl game almost every year with teams that won only 2 or 3 conference games.
I know this wouldn't be great for attendance at those games, but it should enhance the conference game attendance if we start the year 4-0
"Regarding Guenther's moronic non-conference scheduling, he should follow "The Minnesota Plan" when Glen Mason was coach.
The "Plan": schedule 4 patsies, all at home, and hope for at least a 2-6 conference record. You are now bowl elligible. He went to a bowl game almost every year with teams that won only 2 or 3 conference games.
I know this wouldn't be great for attendance at those games, but it should enhance the conference game attendance if we start the year 4-0"
Follow the Glen Mason plan, the one that got him canned? OK.
Apparently the Minnesota Plan is not that bad. Look how many mediocre teams have 3-1 and 4-0 records in their non-conference games against very weak teams. In the Big Ten alone you have Northwestern, Minnesota (of course), Michigan, and Indiana.
It's not a permanent solution. After several years of low-level bowls and improved team quality, you can always upgrade one or two of those games. In fact that's what Minnesota is trying to do under Brewster--this year they played California, next year I believe they play Texas.
"Apparently the Minnesota Plan is not that bad. Look how many mediocre teams have 3-1 and 4-0 records in their non-conference games against very weak teams. In the Big Ten alone you have Northwestern, Minnesota (of course), Michigan, and Indiana.
It's not a permanent solution. After several years of low-level bowls and improved team quality, you can always upgrade one or two of those games. In fact that's what Minnesota is trying to do under Brewster--this year they played California, next year I believe they play Texas."
If this plan is so good remind me why Glen Mason is not the Minny coach anymore.
I don't know why Mason was fired; maybe expectations were higher than what he produced.
His record as coach:
10 years
7 bowl games (3-4 record)
More bowl appearances than all of previous coaches combined (5)
I don't know about you, but I'm sure Illinois would take that in a heartbeat. And with UI's low expectations, I'm sure he would never be fired for poor performance.
Basketball winning percentage: .702
Football winning percentage: .393
Since every football game is worth about three basketball games (both in revenue and prestige):
.393*3 + .702 = .470 effective winning percentage on revenue sports.
That's pathetic.
I'm with FRG and want Guenther and Zook both playing golf somewhere warm next football season.
You would have to be a moron or an Iowa fan to support RG at this point.
There are capable AD's out there who can cultivate succesful bball and football programs simultaneously: Lew Perkins can do it at Kansas, Barry Alvarez can do it at Wisconsin. And yet people defend RG's right to continually run a mediocre sports program. I can see why Bush got 4 more years to "turn it around."
"Basketball winning percentage: .702
Football winning percentage: .393
Since every football game is worth about three basketball games (both in revenue and prestige):
.393*3 + .702 = .470 effective winning percentage on revenue sports.
That's pathetic.
I'm with FRG and want Guenther and Zook both playing golf somewhere warm next football season.
You would have to be a moron or an Iowa fan to support RG at this point."
I can see why you and frg want RG gone as neither one of you can do simple math....which I believe indicates you are both simple minded!
It works out to be 462-286-2 for a winning percentage of 62%, which is pretty darn good.
Girls from Hudson, Ohio smell bad.
"Girls from Hudson, Ohio smell bad."
Actually, only 1.1% of them do.
"Illinois Out Of The ESPN Bottom 10!!!!!!"
Replaced by a certain lawyer from Joliet?
It works out to be 462-286-2 for a winning percentage of 62%, which is pretty darn good.
Now who is bad at math?
Here's the calculation:
.393
.393
.393
.702
total 1.881 divided by 4 = .470
Hudson, Ohio did you learn your math from Ron Guenther?
I don't know how many times you have to have been dropped on your head as a kid to think that 3*(81-124-2)+(381-162)= 482-286-2, but I'm sure it's a lot.
"It works out to be 462-286-2 for a winning percentage of 62%, which is pretty darn good.
Now who is bad at math?
Here's the calculation:
.393
.393
.393
.702
total 1.881 divided by 4 = .470"
Only a graduate of the Joliet school system randomly assigns "three times the revenue and prestige to a football game" and uses that to calculate an "effective" winning percentage.
The way it actually works is that you add the wins and you add you add the total games played and you divide total wins by total number of games and multiply by 100.
I guess you got Guenther's salary as 11% of revenue because he's 10x more "prestigous" than any other AD?
You are the biggest 'tard in Illini Nation!
Even if I accept that a FB game is worth three times a BB in terms of revenue and prestige your math is incorrect. They don't play the same number of FB and BB games in a season so you don't multiply the FB winning percentage by 3 and average it with the BB record! You multiply the FB record by 3 and add it to the BB record and then calculate the winning percentage.
Which makes the record 624-534-6 for a winning percentage of 54%.
Presenting "facts" like this is the reason that you only win 1.1% of your cases
No doubt, himey and frg are the two biggest 'tards in Illini Nation!
I didn't know Illinois had a "special needs" program. For lawyers, no less!
"Basketball winning percentage: .702
Football winning percentage: .393
Since every football game is worth about three basketball games (both in revenue and prestige):
.393*3 + .702 = .470 effective winning percentage on revenue sports.
That's pathetic.
I'm with FRG and want Guenther and Zook both playing golf somewhere warm next football season.
You would have to be a moron or an Iowa fan to support RG at this point."
Dude, you should be ashamed! Logic this poor, compounded with math skills this bad and then you call someone else a moron!
The only reason the guy from Hudson, Ohio sticks up for Ron Guenther is so he can stay buddies with the pseudo-lawyer from Atlanta.
"The only reason the guy from Hudson, Ohio sticks up for Ron Guenther is so he can stay buddies with the pseudo-lawyer from Atlanta."
The only reason that the lawyer from Joliet posts something like this is to avoid further discussion on his piss poor math skills.
382-162!
Okay, let's try again.
I (Kevin) wrote the original post arguing that each football game is worth 3 basketball games. I have *not* written any subsequent posts, and I therefore have not called anyone a moron, though some of you act like them.
I stand by my opinion that each football game is worth a MINIMUM of 3 basketball games. If you follow college athletics, or can do simple math, this should seem about right.
1st argument: revenue/attendance
Basketball attendance is about 17k paying what, 20 bucks a ticket? Football is 60k paying about 35 a ticket (this is conservative figuring in skybox revenue and such). Multiplying this figures gives us this:
Basketball game = 340,000
Football game = 2,100,000
2nd argument: games played
There are 12 football games in an Illinois season. There are about 35-40 basketball games. 3-to-1 seems about right.
3rd argument: prestige
People nationally simply care about football more than basketball. If you don't believe this, I can't help you.
The crappy '08 title game between OSU and LSU drew a 14.4 rating and a 22 share. By contrast, the NCAA title game last year drew a 6.5 rating and a 15 share.
Given these three elements, I thought 3-to-1 in terms of importance is about right, all things considered (it's probably conservative, if anything).
In terms of the calculation, whoever said this:
"Even if I accept that a FB game is worth three times a BB in terms of revenue and prestige your math is incorrect. They don't play the same number of FB and BB games in a season so you don't multiply the FB winning percentage by 3 and average it with the BB record! You multiply the FB record by 3 and add it to the BB record and then calculate the winning percentage."
is an idiot.
It's precisely BECAUSE they don't play the same number of games that we use winning percentage rather than aggregating records. If you aggregate records, you implicitly reject the 3-to-1 idea (because you're lumping 36 random football games with differing numbers of basketball games, e.g. 41 games in the '05 season; note that the "overage" is only due to the team being successful in tournaments, see below).
What we're interested in solving is: What is Ron Guenther's performance in revenue sports?
The odds of Guenther teams winning a random basketball game is .702.
The odds of Guenther teams winning a random football game is .391.
Weight football 3 times basketball and the odds of Ron Guenther doing well in random revenue sports is .470.
This is not that hard to figure out.
The reason you're getting .540 is because you're biasing the numbers towards the basketball team by including tournament games that the basketball team only plays because they win (and Illinois gets little revenue from, by the way), e.g., you're giving them credit for beating the 1st-round patsies in the Big Ten tournament every year.
Remember that the Illinois team doesn't have the opportunity to lose a bowl game every season to make up for that deficit. There's a lost opportunity cost of playing in bowl games that needs to be factored in and offset going to the sweet sixteen.
I don't know who FRG is, or who these other people are responding (Hudson, OH?).
I'm just an average guy who loves Illinois sports. I want Ron Guenther gone for the good of the program.
And for the record, there's nothing wrong with my math or reasoning skills. If there is, the U of I needs to can some people.
-Kevin
"I stand by my opinion that each football game is worth a MINIMUM of 3 basketball games. If you follow college athletics, or can do simple math, this should seem about right."
My original calculation of the winning percentage of the revenue programs under Guenther was never intended to be "weighted" in any way. If you want to weight FB games v. BB games based on revenue than I can buy the 3x number. Personally, I don't buy your third point about prestige and I think bringing this in just clouds the issue. Your whole line of thought and your calculations get clouded due to lack of definition- see below.
"In terms of the calculation, whoever said this:
It's precisely BECAUSE they don't play the same number of games that we use winning percentage rather than aggregating records. If you aggregate records, you implicitly reject the 3-to-1 idea (because you're lumping 36 random football games with differing numbers of basketball games, e.g. 41 games in the '05 season; note that the "overage" is only due to the team being successful in tournaments, see below)."
I multiplied the FB record by three and added the BB record to this and calculated a "winning" percentage to get my revised number based on your hypothesis. This normalizes the performance in FB and BB based over Guenther's tenure based on your 3x the revenue number.
"What we're interested in solving is: What is Ron Guenther's performance in revenue sports?"
I don't see anything in this statement that implies any kind of weighting based on revenue, prestige, etc. Your lack of defintion clouds the issue and we get back to my original calculation. Add the BB and FB records together and calculate a winning percentage being the correct answer to this question.
"The odds of Guenther teams winning a random basketball game is .702.
The odds of Guenther teams winning a random football game is .391.
Weight football 3 times basketball and the odds of Ron Guenther doing well in random revenue sports is .470."
This whole thread was about his past performance and, therfore, you cannot ignore the fact that there are a differing number of events in FB and BB. Whether you weight them based on revenues is a seperate issue which my second calculation accounted for.
You appear to be calculating some weighted probablity based on revenue for one future randon event. For this number to have any value you have to conclude that there is a strong correlation between winning and revenue.
Also, This number has limited value in predicting how much revenue is generated by Guenther during any academic year. The AD has no control over the number of either FB or BB events so this number is of no value when he invests in a program, coaching staff, etc.
"The reason you're getting .540 is because you're biasing the numbers towards the basketball team by including tournament games that the basketball team only plays because they win (and Illinois gets little revenue from, by the way), e.g., you're giving them credit for beating the 1st-round patsies in the Big Ten tournament every year."
The fact that you are not calculating his performance correctly has a far bigger impact on your erroneous numbers than a couple of March Madness games.
"And for the record, there's nothing wrong with my math or reasoning skills. If there is, the U of I needs to can some people.
-Kevin"
I think you made some iffy conclusions, did a convulted analysis and came up with the answer to the wrong question in regard to the subject of this thread.
"For this number to have any value you have to conclude that there is a strong correlation between winning and revenue."
There is. That's indisputable.
"The AD has no control over the number of either FB or BB events..."
Auburn has 8 home games this year. Illinois has 6. Are you telling me the AD has NO CONTROL over that? Seriously?
"I think you made some iffy conclusions, did a convulted analysis and came up with the answer to the wrong question in regard to the subject of this thread."
The word is "convoluted," and I'll admit as much. All I was trying to do was show a simple example of why many sane Illini fans believe Guenther's football failures far outweigh his basketball success.
I came on here and saw someone had simply posted the basketball record in response. I tried to explain, with relatively little effort, why a .700 basketball team does not make up for a .400 football team.
For that matter, what would an average replacement AD have done with the basketball team? Given Illinois' history in basketball, a generic AD would have likely had a .600+ basketball record.
Remember, Ron Guenther wanted to hire Kelvin Sampson at one point in time. I'm baffled at how people think his basketball hiring is outstanding when he wanted to hire Kelvin Sampson.
While I'm 95+% sure a replacement AD would have done similar with basketball, I'm also sure a replacement AD would have done significantly better with football (as in, what, a sixth bowl game? a 7th home game? the sky's the limit!).
Think about it- the subject of this blog is "81-124-5." That's the historical record of the FB team during Guenther's tenure.
I'm the one that suggested adding the HISTORICAL BB record to this in order to better evaluate his performance. That calculation is simple and I provided it. You took exception and this is the first mistake you made.
You attempted to weight his performance based on the value of a FB game v. a BB game. You made the statement that a FB GAME was more valuable than a BB GAME in terms of revenue. Given that and the fact that this blog is in regard to his past performance IT IS INCORRECT to ignore the different number of games. Simple logic tells you that if a FB game is 3x more valuable than a BB game and there are nearly three times the number of BB games the effective winning percentage you propose should be ~average of the two records. As there are slightly less than 3x times the number of BB games the effective winning percentage should be slightly below that average, .5465. My weighted number falls, .540, falls just below this number; yours, .470, is nothing close to this.
Your justification for the .470 number is that you are using 18 years of history under Guenther to predict the probablity of winning a random revenue event. Sporting events are not random events, the performance changes over time and using 18 years of history to create a number to predict the next events is obviously not correct. Then you chose to ignore the higher probablity that the next event is a BB game!
As for your latest reply. There is likely a correlation between winning and revenue, but not for any particular event. Fans aren't going to selectively show up for games that the team is likely to win. I think history shows that fans show up for games against the better teams on the schedule.
My point in regard to the AD having control over the schedule, was about the number of games not the location. Your point is only relevant if a home game creates a different amount of revenue than a road game, which is not a proven fact. Also once again, the difference in revenue between these two for that seventh game is insignificant compared to your gross miscalculation based on your poor assumption.
In regard to the BB team's record during Guenther's tenure, his ALMOST hiring Sampson is just a pitiful point. There is evidence he almost interviewed Sampson, there is no evidence that he almost hired him. In regard to not giving him credit for the BB record due to the past performance of that program...why do you apply a different standard to the FB program? Doesn't he get a break due to the prior poor performance of that program?
Your arguents are just full of holes!
I wanted to add that your education apparently didn't include the concept of "expected value." That is the expected value from the revenue programs at Illinois is equal to the value of the event x the probabiity of the event occuring. Therefore you ignoring the differing probabilities of a FB and a BB game occurring is incorrect!
Hello, person who either works for the DIA or lives in a mental home,
Any scheme to calculate probabilities of random revenue sports would be full of holes by nature, which is why I didn't try to do such a silly thing. Instead, I was merely trying to illustrate why the basketball record is misleading.
"I wanted to add that your education apparently didn't include the concept of "expected value.""
Again, the hack calculations weren't meant to reach a precise answer. I factored in expected value previously (rough estimates, mind your feeble mind), and if you want to get technical you're ignoring all sorts of missed opportunity costs.
Look, you don't read, you don't understand, and you're convinced that Ron Guenther has been a positive force on Illinois athletics (do you work for the DIA?), so instead of providing substantive proof you regurgitate a basketball record and defend it like a virgin princess' honor because it's the only thing you have.
I shouldn't be surprised. You can't see a poor athletic department that managed a good football program into the mud, why should I expect you to take a stupid, simple illustration in context? Instead, you take it as some definitive pronouncement on probabilities and accuse me of ignoring key variables (which I actually accounted for when thinking up the 3-1 ratio, which you would have seen if you actually THOUGHT about it, but I guess that isn't your strong suit) while you ignore multiple variables yourself.
You get an F.
-Kevin
Oops, I missed the substantive criticism of your post, in case you actually wanted to learn something:
"IT IS INCORRECT to ignore the different number of games."
I have yet to do ignore that there is a different number of events in football and basketball. I actually factored this in and estimated as part of my 3-1 calculation.
"Your justification for the .470 number is that you are using 18 years of history under Guenther to predict the probablity of winning a random revenue event."
Wrong, that's not what I was doing. I misused the word "random" once, but I figured readers were bright enough to see what I was doing.
"Sporting events are not random events, the performance changes over time and using 18 years of history to create a number to predict the next events is obviously not correct."
I wasn't interested in predicting future events. My interest was in putting the basketball record in proper context compared to the football record, plain and simple.
"Then you chose to ignore the higher probablity that the next event is a BB game!"
I factored in that possibility when I came up with the 3-1 calculation.
"My point in regard to the AD having control over the schedule, was about the number of games not the location."
We could have played 13 games a season with a different AD.
"Your point is only relevant if a home game creates a different amount of revenue than a road game, which is not a proven fact."
Yes it is.
"There is evidence he almost interviewed Sampson, there is no evidence that he almost hired him."
He was first on the interview list. Are you dense?
"why do you apply a different standard to the FB program?"
I don't. A generic, average replacement AD would have the football team on pace with Purdue, Northwestern, or Minnesota, you know, somewhere above 10th in the Big Ten.
"Doesn't he get a break due to the prior poor performance of that program?"
Four bowls in four consecutive years right before Guenther took over. My God, are you that ignorant of history?
""IT IS INCORRECT to ignore the different number of games."
I have yet to do ignore that there is a different number of events in football and basketball. I actually factored this in and estimated as part of my 3-1 calculation."
Let's try this an easier way. Your initial statement was that EACH FB game is 3x more valuable than EACH BB game. Tell me how my math of multiplying the ACTUAL FB record by 3 and averaging that with the ACTUAL BB record is incorrect. My math follows your statement word for word!
Are you not understanding that you have weighted FB at ~9x times BB by using the winning %?
""Your justification for the .470 number is that you are using 18 years of history under Guenther to predict the probablity of winning a random revenue event."
Wrong, that's not what I was doing. I misused the word "random" once, but I figured readers were bright enough to see what I was doing."
This was and is my only plausible explanation for your strange math.
""Sporting events are not random events, the performance changes over time and using 18 years of history to create a number to predict the next events is obviously not correct."
I wasn't interested in predicting future events. My interest was in putting the basketball record in proper context compared to the football record, plain and simple."
Try again- see above.
""My point in regard to the AD having control over the schedule, was about the number of games not the location."
We could have played 13 games a season with a different AD."
Onced again, this is a small error compared to your gross errors.
""Your point is only relevant if a home game creates a different amount of revenue than a road game, which is not a proven fact."
Yes it is."
And that proof is?
""There is evidence he almost interviewed Sampson, there is no evidence that he almost hired him."
He was first on the interview list. Are you dense?"
Nice laydown.
""why do you apply a different standard to the FB program?"
I don't. A generic, average replacement AD would have the football team on pace with Purdue, Northwestern, or Minnesota, you know, somewhere above 10th in the Big Ten.
"Doesn't he get a break due to the prior poor performance of that program?"
Four bowls in four consecutive years right before Guenther took over. My God, are you that ignorant of history?"
I don't see a legitimate answer in there, another nice laydown.
"Look, you don't read, you don't understand, and you're convinced that Ron Guenther has been a positive force on Illinois athletics (do you work for the DIA?), so instead of providing substantive proof you regurgitate a basketball record and defend it like a virgin princess' honor because it's the only thing you have."
This reads like the YOU, just from the opposite perspective. Think about it.
Plus, you are the one that created this absurd mathematical model not me. I'm not sure why I have to provide any information or facts to the contrary when you have failed to provide any support for it.
Summary of your posts is- some "hack calculations," some disingenuous arguments and when it all gets exposed you resort to insults. Sound correct?
BTW- per you it's time to look at firing some of those people at the U of I? I presume you are talking about the people who offered you an education?
Easier to blame them for your poor math and reasoning skills than yourself for not learning. Yep, that fits in with the way the rest of your posts read.
Post a Comment
<< Home