Oh The Humanity!

by DeltaDuck on Dec 9, 2008 3:26 AM PST

Lots of talk about who should have been named coach of the year for the Pac-10. Before I digest, let me say that I am very happy with where the Ducks ended up. While Oregon didn’t exceed my expectations, 9-3 is great considering some of the adversity the Ducks were able to overcome this year.

However

During the preseason, almost everyone had the Ducks at #3 in the Pac-10 behind ASU and USC. Oregon finished 2nd. Even though 2nd is great, it's only one spot higher than people expected the Ducks to be. Lets not forget that the Pac-10 didn't turn out to be the strongest conference this year either. Both before the season, and after, people are going on about USC and the other 9 schools in the Pac-10. Had the Ducks bested SC, at the coliseum, at night, finished #1 in the conference and gone to the Rose Bowl, by all means, give Bellotti the coaching honors. Does he really deserve it for basically finishing where people thought he would?

I don't like to put too much stress on the Civil war game either. The primary reasons being, we had a bye, OSU played without quizz. I hate to play the "what if" game. My grandmother always said, "If my aunt had balls, she'd have been my uncle". But, if quizz had been healthy, the Ducks would have prepped differently. Maybe quizz brings a couple to the house, takes the emotion away from Oregon and totally changes the landscape of the game.

There have been a couple articles about Bellotti never receiving the Pac-10 coach of the year honors and being overdue. It’s gotten some people upset while at the same time, it’s somewhat of a mixed blessing. Considering that the Ducks have gone to a bowl game 12 of the last 14 seasons, it’d be hard for Bellotti to distinguish himself in a given year. I don't mind Bellotti not being named coach of the year when its for similar reasons to why Pete Carroll wasn't named, rather than reasons why Willingham or Erickson weren't named.

Maybe Bellotti had a chance this year and blew it. Maybe the voters got it wrong. I personally wouldn’t get too fired up about it until Bellotti takes the Ducks to a BCS game and then misses out on coach of the year. Even then I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep on it, would you?

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or the Addicted To Quack Moderators. FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable Oregon fans.

Tweet Comment 11 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I wrote my original article...and it had nothing to do with Bellotti...

I will also say that using expectations is a very poor way to judge the quality of coaching. You can exceed expectations with poor coaching. You can have great coaching, and not meet expectations.

In my opinion, you have to look at the actual coaching that took place, look at the circumstances, and see who did the best job.

As far as the Civil War being different, yeah, it may have been. But that does not mask the fact that Mike Riley was totally and completely outcoached in almost every phase of the game.

For example, last year, Oregon had massive injury issues as well. But despite the losses, the Oregon coaches did a stand up job. They did what they could with what they had. The coaching staff did a good job with what they had. In the Civil War, OSU came out lifeless. They had very poor defensive gameplans and made no adjustments, and were forced into an offensive game they could not win. Mike Riley was totally outcoached in that game.

Did Mike Bellotti deserve it this year? There are arguments to be made for that. I’m not totally convinced. I think he did a better job overall this year than Mike Riley.

In my opinion, you have to get past expectations, and various people deserving it. You have to look at who did the best job coaching throughout the entire season. Who made the adjustments to make their teams the best? Who taught their players and kept them motivated?

Unfortunately, most of the arguments for Bellotti are based on the fact that he deserved it because he hadn’t gotten it before, while Riley exceeded expectations. Both of these reasons are asinine.

--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog

by jtlight on Dec 9, 2008 7:48 AM PST reply actions

huh?

you lost me there Jared.

Exceeding expectations is an asinine argument in judging a coach’s worth? This is either a misstatement, or you just didn’t think it over.

Exceeding expectations is without a doubt in my mind the #1 factor that get used time after time for coach of the year, sport to sport. what you are talking about is ignoring the way it actually gets done, and substituting your own system.

When people evaluate how well a coach has done, the first thing they think about is how many wins did the coach get that they shouldn’t have. In the Beavers case, it was like 7 (I kid, I kid).

I heart taxes.

by everett on Dec 9, 2008 8:55 AM PST up reply actions

The expectations of Clemson were high.
The expectations of Chase Daniels were high.

Expectations are misleading, and often times misplaced. To think that OSU would finish 7th in the Pac-10 is rather preposterous now.

It's spelled "S-H-U-C-F-A-D-O-D-N-C-S"

Please, ask me about CFADODNCS.

by JShufelt on Dec 9, 2008 9:05 AM PST up reply actions

I stand by my original statement...

How a team performs in relation to their expectations does not correlate to the quality of coaching.

There are so many reasons why a team does better or worse than what is “expected of them.” Minnesota was doing incredibly well this year. They also got a lot of turnovers, which many would say is random in football. When they were doing so well, was that a direct result of the coaching staff? They were exceeding expectations weren’t they?

I would say that you have to throw the expectations out. You have to look at the coaching that took place, and how the coaching impacted the games and the players. What things could the coaches control, and what did they do about that?

As far as what you said, exceeding expectations is used to judge a coach. I think that’s not a good way to judge a coach.

--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog

by jtlight on Dec 9, 2008 9:11 AM PST up reply actions

I understand what you are saying, and I agree.

That said, I still think EE gets used pretty freely in these situations. There are very few Xs and Os that get thrown into these conversations.

I provide the current NBA COY discussion as fodder:

Phil: the lakers are 17-2. Never-mind that they have the most talented starting five and bench in the history of the NBA.

Jerry Sloan: 13-9, w/out D-Will. No one expected over .500 until their best player was back.

Nate: ’nuff said.

Mike Brown: Cleveland looks unstoppable, in spit of being picked 4th or fifth in most pre-season polls. All Mike Brown, and not Mo Williams, I am sure.

D’Antoni: the Knicks aren’t great, but they are better than last year… even without Z-Bo.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=10797

I heart taxes.

by everett on Dec 9, 2008 9:27 AM PST up reply actions