Cut the shit, Black coaches do not win at higher rate than Non-black…..

[Plaza23]

What is there about 12 black coaches, its funny when Stanford coach was only losing 2 games a year nobody congratulated him here but always nitpicked the 1 or 2 losses he had like the Michigan State game in the bowl. You guys need to stop, if there are only about 12 black coaches and most at programs that arnt good then there seems to leave well over 100 white coaches and yes you guessed it most of them have very bad records. Difference is they are given time, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th chances to succeed. Black coach with white qb and white qb throws 4 ints, and lose the game, blame the black coach, white coach with black qb and black qb scores 4 tds but lose the game, blame the black qb. Yesterday Purdue loses, white qb throws 4 ints, blame the black coach for awful play calling, nevermind the fact that John Shoop the white offensive coordinator is calling the plays. Lets just blame LeBron for it all and call it a day.

'

Keep betting on the blacks then. Like I said, we need money on the other side to keep this going.

[Plaza23]

So if black coaches hit at the same rate ATS as they have since the start of 2011 this season and I start betting against them from this point forward, I will return what percent of my investment????

I'm going to jump on this right now! We should probably delete this thread before the cats out of the bag and all my profits are sucked out of the lines.

Since 2012 and onward, black coaches ATS are:

233-273-9

54% wins betting against them

Payout:

(54*100) = 5,400 win
(46*110) = 5,060 loss

And that is knowing nothing about the teams. Just on pure race alone. People may suggest small sample size but we have sample now of 500+ games.

Feel free though to disregard it. We need to keep the money on the black coaches to get make this even more profitable.

I'll try to update my 1st post about this season and see how it plays out. Blacks are off to a terrible start week 1. 2-10 ATS and ML vs non-black coaches.

[Plaza23]

So how is it that tomlin from Steelers has won a superbowl and continues to win in the nfl if he lacks the analytical skills because he is black. Or how can sumlin beat saban.

I bet on the rule. Not the exceptions. That is how to be +EV when it comes to gambling.

[terpkeg]

So if black coaches hit at the same rate ATS as they have since the start of 2011 this season and I start betting against them from this point forward, I will return what percent of my investment????

I'm going to jump on this right now! We should probably delete this thread before the cats out of the bag and all my profits are sucked out of the lines.

[sandman0713]

It takes knowledge to coach football, does it not? I think we all can agree that you have to have some brain power to be a football coach, diagram plays, make adjustments, implement strategic motives. etc.

There's nobody here that would bet on a black student getting a higher SAT or ACT score than a white student, if you knew nothing about them other than their skin color. White and Asians score much higher on all standardized tests. They go to college more frequently. They get better grades than blacks.

So if we are willing to bet that whites are smarter than blacks (a rather easy bet), then shouldnt it play out too that white coaches would be smarter than black coaches - and thus have an edge. And you can see it in the results. You'd think the dumb black coach theory would be priced into the spread, but it apparently hasnt been since black coaches have been getting dominated the last 3 years.

My theory is that GOOD football coaching requires being analytical and smart. Black people in general are not as smart as white people. Therefore in a white coach vs black coach matchup - the white coach has the edge.

I completely hate the pc crap...but this post makes me want to throw up. White people like myself have been given much more opportunity over the years...in coaching, college, and really life in general. I can name several shitty white coaches for every shitty black coach on that list...and based on the above post I would bet on any of them on that list being smarter than you.

[Blaker88]

Investing your money depending on the race of a head coach... I think you may need a new financial advisor buddy.

[jtoler]

What is there about 12 black coaches, its funny when Stanford coach was only losing 2 games a year nobody congratulated him here but always nitpicked the 1 or 2 losses he had like the Michigan State game in the bowl. You guys need to stop, if there are only about 12 black coaches and most at programs that arnt good then there seems to leave well over 100 white coaches and yes you guessed it most of them have very bad records. Difference is they are given time, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th chances to succeed. Black coach with white qb and white qb throws 4 ints, and lose the game, blame the black coach, white coach with black qb and black qb scores 4 tds but lose the game, blame the black qb. Yesterday Purdue loses, white qb throws 4 ints, blame the black coach for awful play calling, nevermind the fact that John Shoop the white offensive coordinator is calling the plays. Lets just blame LeBron for it all and call it a day.

[terrortwylight]

You think parcels sucked as a coach in Dallas or was it that he lacked the players. Strong in texas inherited an awful team left by a white legendary coach. Harbaug had Andrew luck a once in a lifetime recruit and Shaw has Hogan. Point is players make coaches look good and without them they suck.

ding ding ding

[gs]

If your to dumb to realize that than good luck.

[gs]

You think parcels sucked as a coach in Dallas or was it that he lacked the players. Strong in texas inherited an awful team left by a white legendary coach. Harbaug had Andrew luck a once in a lifetime recruit and Shaw has Hogan. Point is players make coaches look good and without them they suck.

[gs]

So how is it that tomlin from Steelers has won a superbowl and continues to win in the nfl if he lacks the analytical skills because he is black. Or how can sumlin beat saban.

[terrortwylight]

It takes knowledge to coach football, does it not? I think we all can agree that you have to have some brain power to be a football coach, diagram plays, make adjustments, implement strategic motives. etc.

There's nobody here that would bet on a black student getting a higher SAT or ACT score than a white student, if you knew nothing about them other than their skin color. White and Asians score much higher on all standardized tests. They go to college more frequently. They get better grades than blacks.

So if we are willing to bet that whites are smarter than blacks (a rather easy bet), then shouldnt it play out too that white coaches would be smarter than black coaches - and thus have an edge. And you can see it in the results. You'd think the dumb black coach theory would be priced into the spread, but it apparently hasnt been since black coaches have been getting dominated the last 3 years.

My theory is that GOOD football coaching requires being analytical and smart. Black people in general are not as smart as white people. Therefore in a white coach vs black coach matchup - the white coach has the edge.

Wow.

[Plaza23]

It takes knowledge to coach football, does it not? I think we all can agree that you have to have some brain power to be a football coach, diagram plays, make adjustments, implement strategic motives. etc.

There's nobody here that would bet on a black student getting a higher SAT or ACT score than a white student, if you knew nothing about them other than their skin color. White and Asians score much higher on all standardized tests. They go to college more frequently. They get better grades than blacks.

So if we are willing to bet that whites are smarter than blacks (a rather easy bet), then shouldnt it play out too that white coaches would be smarter than black coaches - and thus have an edge. And you can see it in the results. You'd think the dumb black coach theory would be priced into the spread, but it apparently hasnt been since black coaches have been getting dominated the last 3 years.

My theory is that GOOD football coaching requires being analytical and smart. Black people in general are not as smart as white people. Therefore in a white coach vs black coach matchup - the white coach has the edge.

[MeatWad]

"I had a sheet that I had been looking for for the last 18 months," Mason said. "Lo and behold, about two weeks ago, it popped up. I found it in my library of football books."
What he found was a detailed list of game situations and what he should do in each of them. According to his timeline, he had it when he accepted the job at Vanderbilt last January (or shortly thereafter). He was without it, though, when the Commodores went 3-9 and failed to win an SEC game for the first time in five years.
"I had already gone through that list and really remembered a couple of items on there that needed to be checked off," Mason said. "Now, I feel really good about what we're doing and where we're at."

http://www.foxsports.com/college-foo...ntender-090215

This is not a joke, can't make this stuff up if you wanted to!

How did this guy make it past the interview process at Vanderbilt, the best academic institution in the SEC? Even with their last black head coach Franklin, Vanderbilt was a team that massively underperformed at times, especially in 2012-13 when they had all the returners and a talented D, but never lived up to my expectations/valuation of them.

[MeatWad]

The sample size is compiling. I noticed a poster keeps adding in past years. Its time consuming for me to get results that aren't as good as the black coach system. However, I don't have enough confidence to believe that a simple one variable method is predictive, but as you said it definitely is compelling as a valid input.

In past post I have actually commented on the race of coaches with the conclusion being it should be definitely be considered as a negative variable but I am surprised at the data and I never considered it to be among significant considerations. Maybe I am a nit, but unless I am overanalyzing a game well beyond just this one variable, I don't have the confidence to invest.

[recon1]

Derek Mason Finds Missing Piece of Paper; Vandy Now Playoff Contender

"I had a sheet that I had been looking for for the last 18 months," Mason said. "Lo and behold, about two weeks ago, it popped up. I found it in my library of football books."
What he found was a detailed list of game situations and what he should do in each of them. According to his timeline, he had it when he accepted the job at Vanderbilt last January (or shortly thereafter). He was without it, though, when the Commodores went 3-9 and failed to win an SEC game for the first time in five years.
"I had already gone through that list and really remembered a couple of items on there that needed to be checked off," Mason said. "Now, I feel really good about what we're doing and where we're at."

http://www.foxsports.com/college-foo...ntender-090215

This is not a joke, can't make this stuff up if you wanted to!

[recon1]

Winning handicapping involves a paralyzing amount of analysis. When I bet a game, I could literally ramble on for 2-3 pages of reasoning. The more you analyze the more you are able to elucidate causal relationships and understand their significance in a given context. It is laborious and time consuming to read and analyze soo much about a sport, but to beat the markets it helps to understand them better than the coin flippers who forgo hours of actually trying to figure out how and why a team is a good or bad value.

Your comments remind me of a Huge $50 NFL Winning Trends book I bought as a teenager, about as good as a horoscope in addressing the relevant causal and predictive variables. The books a little dusty now, but I will sell it for $5.

Proven systems that you can strictly adhere to are the only winning formulations i know of. The equation of black HC Vs. non-black may be a valid input. I have a winning formulation I've used for years with a local that's not so local anymore, system is boring, but productie year in, year out. Then i play offshore to give the gambling bug a fix. I get to do what i want and take crazy risk. I spend more time capping games for the offshore than i do for system. Point and reason i mention this is, i could have saved a lot of time and energy if i simply looked at the Black HC Vs. non- black HC equation and nothing else. The preliminary findings are pretty much $ if you know how to use the information.

[recon1]

Looking at the ML is an awful way to adequately prove your point. The majority of black coaches are coaching shit football schools that do not put a premium on football. Out of all the schools you've shown, how many have had a winning tradition? The only school I see is Texas, maybe Houston and Louisville (which was very successful under Strong). Every other school including Stanford (take out Andrew Luck) has been a cellar dweller. White coaches have been fukking up for years and they always find a way to fail forward. Charlie Weiss was still being paid by 3 teams after he was canned by all 3 of them. Black coaches don't get second chances. The second and third chances is when you learn and have the most success. You're cherry picking black coaches who none have had on the job experience at top tiered schools because schools won't give them 2nd chances.

Look at Florida, Charlie Strong was one of the greatest assistant coaches at Florida. Had tremendous success as a HC but they gave the job to Muschump, who had ZERO experience, was a Georgia Bulldawg for Christ sakes.

but carry on with your flawed point.

Mac, you are trying to invent an excuse my friend. No coach starts off at Ohio State or Miami, all earn the wings and by early perception black head coaches are not earning the top spots.

[terrortwylight]

keep the PC bullshit out of here, please.

this is good information, thank you. in this forum where the emphasis is supposed to be completely on making money and becoming better handicappers, let's not debate the 'why'. i mean, you can if you want, but what the fuk is the point here?

[MeatWad]

Your comment is definition of 'Paralysis of analysis'

Winning handicapping involves a paralyzing amount of analysis. When I bet a game, I could literally ramble on for 2-3 pages of reasoning. The more you analyze the more you are able to elucidate causal relationships and understand their significance in a given context. It is laborious and time consuming to read and analyze soo much about a sport, but to beat the markets it helps to understand them better than the coin flippers who forgo hours of actually trying to figure out how and why a team is a good or bad value.

Your comments remind me of a Huge $50 NFL Winning Trends book I bought as a teenager, about as good as a horoscope in addressing the relevant causal and predictive variables. The books a little dusty now, but I will sell it for $5.

[Mac4Lyfe]

Looking at the ML is an awful way to adequately prove your point. The majority of black coaches are coaching shit football schools that do not put a premium on football. Out of all the schools you've shown, how many have had a winning tradition? The only school I see is Texas, maybe Houston and Louisville (which was very successful under Strong). Every other school including Stanford (take out Andrew Luck) has been a cellar dweller. White coaches have been fukking up for years and they always find a way to fail forward. Charlie Weiss was still being paid by 3 teams after he was canned by all 3 of them. Black coaches don't get second chances. The second and third chances is when you learn and have the most success. You're cherry picking black coaches who none have had on the job experience at top tiered schools because schools won't give them 2nd chances.

Look at Florida, Charlie Strong was one of the greatest assistant coaches at Florida. Had tremendous success as a HC but they gave the job to Muschump, who had ZERO experience, was a Georgia Bulldawg for Christ sakes.

but carry on with your flawed point.

Its been all downhill for black coaches since 2011. And the ML is simply awful across the board. If you need a team to just win the game, dont bet on a black coach.

[recon1]

Are any black coaches breaking through the Good Ole Boy network of white coaching staffs at top tier, big budget universities. Looks like Charlie Strong is the only one working at a top tier program with resources to compete. I just don't see how genes which control for the expression of melanin in epidermis cells has any affect on ability to cover a spread as a coach of an NCAAF game. About the only conclusion I make when I see a person of color, is that their ancient ancestors must have evolved in a sunny area and thus alleles promoting darker skin pigmentation were selected to protect against mutation causing UV rays of the sun.

Seems like sloppy, correlation over causation type of handicapping. To me, handicapping involves much more nuanced observations of more subtle yet complex causal factors. Its a lifestyle and immersion into these details that make winners who wouldn't be caught dead owning an alarm clock or calling another man boss.

Your comment is definition of 'Paralysis of analysis'

[recon1]

Its been all downhill for black coaches since 2011. And the ML is simply awful across the board. If you need a team to just win the game, dont bet on a black coach.

This looks to be a solid investing fact. Maybe somehow work these facts into an equation. i will have to think of value etc. to have this as an input.

[recon1]

Here we go.

J, I know what your thinking and this is not "that" we just want facts in order to better invest our money. That simple.

[MeatWad]

Are any black coaches breaking through the Good Ole Boy network of white coaching staffs at top tier, big budget universities. Looks like Charlie Strong is the only one working at a top tier program with resources to compete. I just don't see how genes which control for the expression of melanin in epidermis cells has any affect on ability to cover a spread as a coach of an NCAAF game. About the only conclusion I make when I see a person of color, is that their ancient ancestors must have evolved in a sunny area and thus alleles promoting darker skin pigmentation were selected to protect against mutation causing UV rays of the sun.

Seems like sloppy, correlation over causation type of handicapping. To me, handicapping involves much more nuanced observations of more subtle yet complex causal factors. Its a lifestyle and immersion into these details that make winners who wouldn't be caught dead owning an alarm clock or calling another man boss.

[ZINISTER]

Interesting! I often wondered how they were fairing in the coaching ranks over the years. I also enjoy knowing the FACTS. I also know when presenting the facts to dumb fuk people it has no effect on their preception of the situation. Only certain people will benefit from this info, Thanks!

[Plaza23]

Its been all downhill for black coaches since 2011. And the ML is simply awful across the board. If you need a team to just win the game, dont bet on a black coach.

[Plaza23]

2011 ATS & ML

James Franklin (Vanderbilt): 9-4 and 6-7
Charlie Strong (Louisville) : 8-5 and 7-6
Darren Hazell (Kent State): 5-7 and 5-7
Ron English (Eastern Michigan):7-5 and 6-6
Turner Gill (Kansas): 6-6 and 2-10 FIRED
Everett Withers (North Carolina): 6-7 and 7-6 FIRED
Mike London (Virginia): 6-7 and 8-5
Larry Porter (Memphis): 4-7-1 and 2-10 FIRED
Ruffin McNeil (East Carolina): 7-5 and 5-7
Mike Locksley (New Mexico): 6-6 and 1-11 FIRED
Jon Embree (Colorado): 4-9 and 3-10
Joker Phillips (Kentucky): 6-6 and 5-7
DeWayne Walker (New Mexico State): 8-5 and 4-9
David Shaw (Stanford): 11-2 and 11-2
Kevin Sumlin (Houston): 11-3 and 13-1
Willie Taggart (Western Kentucky): 10-2 and 7-5

ATS: 114 - 86-1
ML: 92 - 109

[Plaza23]

2012 ATS & ML

James Franklin (Vanderbilt): 9-4 and 9-4
Charlie Strong (Louisville) : 6-7 and 11-2
Darren Hazell (Kent State): 10-3-1 and 11-3
Curtis Johnson (Tulane): 7-5 and 2-10
Ron English (Eastern Michigan):4-8 and 2-10
Garrick McGee (UAB): 5-7 and 3-9
Jon Embree (Colorado): 3-9 and 1-11- FIRED
Joker Phillips (Kentucky): 3-9 and 2-10 - FIRED
DeWayne Walker (New Mexico State): 4-8 and 1-11 - FIRED
Mike London (Virginia): 2-9-1 and 4-8
Ruffin McNeil (East Carolina): 6-7 and 8-5
David Shaw (Stanford): 9-5 and 12-2
Kevin Sumlin (Texas AM): 8-5 and 11-2
Willie Taggart (Western Kentucky): 8-5 and 7-6

ATS: 84- 91 - 2
ML: 84 - 93

[TPowell]

did you just now figure this out? Taggart had some good years at WKU and Franklin hit it just right with the SEC East being bad when he was there. Strong had a lottery ticket in Teddy Bridgewater cashed. Garrick McGee is at UL now as the OC. Shaw seems to get worse the more he coaches. Mike London is a classic underachiever. Ron English had a **** job. He's a solid DC.

[Plaza23]

2013: ATS and ML

James Franklin (Vanderbilt): 7-6 and 9-4
Charlie Strong (Louisville) : 6-7 and 12-1
Darren Hazell (Purdue): 3-8-1 and 1-11
Curtis Johnson (Tulane): 9-4 and 7-6
Ron English (Eastern Michigan):2-10 and 2-10 - FIRED
Garrick McGee (UAB): 4-8 and 2-10 - FIRED
Mike London (Virginia): 5-6-1 and 2-10
Ruffin McNeil (East Carolina): 7-6 and 10-3
Trent Miles (Georgia State): 8-3-1 and 0-12
David Shaw (Stanford): 7-7 and 11-3
Kevin Sumlin (Texas AM): 5-8 and 9-4
Willie Taggart (South Florida): 5-7 and 2-10
Paul Haynes (Kent State): 4-8 and 4-8

ATS: 72-88-3
ML: 71-92

[jtoler]

Here we go.

[Plaza23]

You can go here and look up each year's teams:

http://www.covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/ncf/standings/2014-2015/league/standings.html

2014 ATS and ML:

Penn State: 6-6-1 and 7-6
Texas: 7-6 and 6-7
Purdue: 6-5-1 and 3-9
Tulane: 4-8 and 3-9
Virginia: 7-4-1 and 5-7
Vanderbilt: 6-6 and 3-9
East Carolina 5-8 and 8-5
Georgia State: 5-7 and 1-11
Stanford: 7-6 and 8-5
Texas AM: 5-8 and 8-5
Bowling Green: 5-8-1 and 8-6
South Florida: 6-6 and 4-8
Kent State: 5-6 and 2-9

ATS: 74-84-4
ML: 66-96

[recon1]

Plaza, that's the evidence i'm talking about. Those numbers should be accessible to all sports investors. Should be apart of the criteria entered into a database of computers that give results to games. I'll bet Billy Walters has this as one of his data entries.
Anyway to get results for last 10 years or so?

[Plaza23]

Black Head Coaches suck. Here are their results week 1:

2015 ATS and ML:

James Franklin (Penn State) - LOSS Game. Lost Spread
Charlie Strong (Texas) - LOSS Game. Lost Spread
Darren Hazell (Purdue) - LOSS Game. Lost Spread
Curtis Johnson (Tulane) - LOSS Game. Lost Spread
Mike London (Virginia) - LOSS Game. Lost Spread
Derek Mason (Vanderbilt) LOSS Game. Won spread
Ruffin McNeil (East Carolina) Won Game. Lost Spread
Trent Miles (Georgia State) LOSS Game. Lost Spread
Dino Babers (Bowling Green) Loss Game. Lost Spread
David Shaw (Stanford) - LOSS Game. Lost Spread
Kevin Sumlin (Texas AM) - Won Game. Won Spread
Willie Taggart (South Florida) - Won Game. Won Spread
Paul Haynes (Kent State) - LOSS Game. Lost Spread

ATS: 3-10
ML: 3-10

Caveat: Willie Taggart defeated Florida A&M (which is an FCS team with a black coach). If you dont count him, black coaches went 2-10 ML and 2-10 Spread vs white coaches this week

If I'm missing any other black head coaches, put them in there. I got the list from this article (and it left out Paul Haynes at Kent State).

http://newpittsburghcourieronline.com/2015/08/31/black-head-coaches-dont-get-second-chances/