Tuesday, January 03, 2017

"Future Head Coach" Ryan Day makes his next move

There is a lingo to any fanbase, including BC's. One of the abbreviations on the BC Message Boards is FHCRD, which stands for Future Head Coach Ryan Day. There is a lot of sarcasm built into the acronym, but with Bruce Feldman reporting that Day is set to join Urban Meyer at Ohio State as Offensive Coordinator and QB coach, Day has taken the next step towards becoming BC's head coach. [UPDATE: Ohio State announced Day as QB coach. No coordinator role made official yet. Sometimes titles and roles are updated once all staff positions are in place.]

The sarcasm and skepticism towards Day is based on the belief that he's done nothing to earn his rise to the top. There is also the opinion that Day is too BC and too New England. That BC will never break through our ceiling with some guy who only really knows BC. I strongly disagree with those positions.

In my opinion Day's familiarity with BC and successful progression while at BC is a sign that he does get it. Working and winning under TOB, Jags, Spaz and Daz is the perfect environment to learn what works and doesn't work at BC. (It should be noted that Day was only part of one losing season at BC and that Daz and Spaz had their worst years after he left.) Yet Day also has had enough exposure to other coaches (Kelly, Golden, Meyer) and other environments (UNH, Temple, Florida, NFL) to not be so myopic to the BC way of doing things.

I inadvertently have been associated with Day's career rise since I reported that he would be BC's Offensive Coordinator following Gary Tranquil. I was premature in posting it and the behind the scenes politics between Gene and Spaz led to the Kevin Rogers compromise. The Spaz-Rogers situation blew up later that fall and when Spaz passed over Day again, the broken promises were enough to get him to join Addazio in Philly as Temple's Offensive Coordinator. He eventually became OC at BC when Daz got the job a year later. There has been plenty of ego and media talk about whose offense BC ran those first two years, but things worked much better than they have since Day left for the NFL. In both of those first two seasons, BC adapted to their personnel year to year, sprinkled in a little bit of spread and power, and yet still were a run-first team.

I know enough to know that Day might never come back to the Heights. So much of hiring a head coach is about timing and who is making the decisions. But one things is clear, if Day has any success as Ohio State's Offensive Coordinator, he will be a head coach soon. I just hope it is at BC.


mod34b said...

ket facts about Mr Day.

1. ATL may luv Day more than Matt Ryan. He is deaf dumb and blind to Day. Day can do no wrong
2. in 2012, Day was the OC for Temple: results #110 nationally in total O (bad job Day!)
3. in 2013, Day was OC for BC; Results: #93 nationally in total O (bad job Day!)

4. in 2014, Day was OC for BC; Results: #83 nationally in total O (bad job Day!)

5. in 2015, Day was the QB coach for Philly and Sam Bradford. Bradford and Day were both dumped by the next season (bad job Day!)

6. in 2016, Day was the QB coach for SF and Kaepernick. Resutls were terrible. Fired. (bad job Day!)

5 straight years of suckiness by Day. Where is the success? He has none in 5 years.

What ATL sees in Day I will never know.

I hope Day never is a BC coach again

(ps. BC's current OC Loeffler is also a QB specialist - look how bad he has done)

Bravesbill said...

I don't get the blind, irrational love for Day either. Great, he was on a couple of winning teams at BC. Spaz was also on winning teams at BC and Daz was on winning teams at Florida. Look how they turned out.

Napolean Bonaparte said...

In all fairness - I don't know why Urban would be considering this guy. My guess is that Chip Kelly has given him a huge assist in finding a new job. I would probably look at a lot of other guys first before I'd hand the head coaching reins at BC over to him (or at least I'd want to know what I wasn't seeing in his CV).

Hario said...

I am undecided on Day. I think he did have some success at BC when you looked at how the BC offense performed under him and compare to prior to him and after him

Stats based on PPG:
2016: 21.2 ppg (118 in country)
2015: 17.2 ppg (121 in country)
2014: 26.2 ppg (83 in country) Ryan Day Year
2013: 27.7 ppg (70 in country) Ryan Day Year
2012: 19.8 ppg (109 in country)
2011: 18.2 ppg (112 in country)

States based on Total Offense
2016: 292.8 ypg; 4.42 yards/play (127 in country)
2015: 275.6 ypg; 4.40 yards/play (125 in country)
2014: 384.0 ypg; 5.69 yards/play (80 in country)Ryan Day Year
2013: 367.2 ypg; 6.04 yards/play (92 in country)Ryan Day Year
2012: 349.8 ypg; 5.13 yards/play (100 in country)
2011: 300.3 ypg; 4.73 yards/play (112 in country)

He def did not light the world on fire but he had relative success as the BC offense was better under him (with the daz limitations that should be obvious to us all now). Talent is likely another problem that there seems to be no indication if he can recruit or not.

He will be under tight scrutiny at OSU - if that offense fails he will be gone quickly.

Def not my top choice for next coach anyway

mod34b said...

so Hario if i get your drift, you are saying that even though Day's results were near the bottom of college football, the OCs at BC directly before him and directly after him were actually worse..... so Day could be ok?

nah. good stats though.

Hario said...

I have no real drift. Just saying that the BC offense was more competent under Day than prior to him and after him and was trying to look at his performance from another angle.

In 2014 Old Dominion had the 37th best offense, Appalachia State had 27th best offense Georgia Southern had the 16th best offense -- maybe they wouldnt have been as high in ACC, maybe they would have - who knows - but factors like that make me think its useful to look at Day's record from different angles.

Day will be at a school that has had a top 50 offense past 5 seasons (lowest at 46th in 2012). Hes gonna have to have a top 20 offense next year to be considered a success relative how the school has performed in recent history

Hario said...

I am not really concluding anything. Dont really want him as next coach

Knucklehead said...

He is going to a place with talent where the players want to win. He will be successful.

Danny Boy said...

Mod, the problem with your stats is one of context. In a vacuum, 80th offense doesn't look good (and I'm not going to pretend that it is). But the way offense is measured isn't always a great metric for success (which is what we're really concerned with). If you look back at the past few years, in almost all cases, at least 7 of the top 10 offenses were ultimately nobodies. Their vast offensive superiority didn't lead to any actual success of the team.

When Stanford was dominating the PAC, they were in the back half of the nation in Offensive rankings. I think all of us would have been over the moon for Stanford's success in the early 2010's.

I'm not saying that Day is a genius, but if you look at Hario's stats, Day seemed like he was good for an additional 60 yards and an TD per game (while handcuffed by Daz). It'll be interesting to see what he does without those shackles (we've already seen another Daz OC produce a top 3 offense once Daz isn't holding him back).

mod34b said...

Danny, you seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel to find a stat to make Day look good.

Being 80th or 90th in total offense in FBS is bad by an objective measure -- and, there is context galore - the entire seasons of all 128 FBS teams. The stat is not in a vacuum. It is a comparison of 128 teams over 1,500 long football games and tens of thousands of football plays. Lot of data there.

My stats seems like a fair measure of the work of Day. In fact, compared to other ACC teams in ACC games he was in the bottom quarter. Day has not been a success. are there other stats i have overlooked that paint a better picture of Day?

Hario's stats say he was better than Gary Tranquil and Fitch (as muzzled by Daz)

to have success, yes a good offense is not enough. You need a good defense - which BC has had.

Day will not be the answer for BC - evah.

Danny Boy said...

I have no dog in the fight for Day. He must be doing something right because he continues to get hired. All I'm trying to point out is that judging solely by national ranking of offense is not always useful. In 2012, Stanford had the 54th best offense. They won the Rose Bowl and went 11-2. In a vacuum, 54th best offense looks bad, but in truth we'd all trade for that season in a heartbeat.

When the top 10 offenses are largely middle of the road teams who put up a lot of yards, its a flawed stat. Its like measuring wins for a baseball pitcher. There is only a slight correlation between offensive output and success of a team (would you want to trade places with Texas Tech?)

Not to mention we've never seen Day without Daz as his coach. We saw Fitch go from the 121st best offense at BC to the 3rd best offense at La Tech once Daz was out of his way. Day showed that he could perform better under Daz's constraints than any other OC brought in, that shows creativity and flexibility that will more than likely serve him well under better working conditions.

EL MIZ said...

BC rushing stats - yards per game

2013 - 2nd in conference; 20th nationally. (Williams is a Heisman candidate and sets single season ACC record)
2014 - 2nd in conference; 15th nationally. (Murphy sets single season ACC record for a QB)

echoing Danny and Hario, just looking at Total Offense doesn't tell the story. neither Clemson nor Bama is top 20 in total offense this year, yet they are the two best teams by far.

Daz told Day he wanted a ground and pound offense that would control the clock and Day delivered that. we had two of the most exceptional individual performances under Day as OC, and he was the WR coach for the Matt Ryan year in 08, so the 3 best individual performances on offense at BC in the past 2 decades have his fingerprints on it.

i'm not (currently) advocating for Day to be hired, but i've long thought that your Day stats were pretty empty. if you watched the games in 2013 and 2014 i don't think you'd walk away thinking the offense was ineffective - we used a ton of different sets and motion, and Day built around two pretty dynamic (and different) skillsets effectively.

Knucklehead said...

Bowman reminds me of Scottie Reynold - Villanova guard. Can anyone name the last PG we had who took the ball to the basket successful? Gerrod Abrahms?

EL MIZ said...

times BC offense scored over 21 points against a power 5 opponent:

Day - 12x in 2 seasons
Daz without Day - 1x in 2 seasons (the Bowl game a couple weeks ago)

its inarguable we are a much worse offense without Day.

again, i'm not campaigning for Day to be the HC tomorrow (although i'd welcome him back over Loeffler as OC), but i've always found it odd how you pulled total offense as the metric to conclude he was a "bad" OC.

Bravesbill said...

I'd agree with your point Danny. BC always had a top 20 rush defense in the early 2000s....but that was only because it's pass defense was always in the bottom third nationally.

Knucklehead said...

The OC - Ryan Day or Sean Payton or Mike Leach(whoever) are useless without an offensive line. The o-lines in the 2000's made Mike Cloud, Derek Knight(Xaverian), LV Whitworth(CM) and a host of average running backs into 1,000 yards rushers and look excellent. They also made Brian St. Pierre, Tim Hasselbeck and Quinton Porter NFL level QB's(the exception to this is Matt Hasselbeck who had a shitty performing line)

Not sure what the disconnect is. It really doesn't matter who is calling the plays if the line can block well then the QB/ RB's will be effective and the lack of talent at WR can be mitigated, especially of you have TE like Sweeney or a P.Mitchell/M.Chumura.

Big Jack Krack said...

Just a quick digression. The Eagles are up at halftime over the Deacons, 37 to 35 - and we are 3 for 15 from 3 point land. This team's ball movement is way ahead of our teams from the past 6-8 years. If our 3's start to drop - watch out.

Last year the Deacs were ahead at halftime 41 to 14 (and we got a late 3 pointer :-)).

Go BC - beat Wake Forest.

I have a dozen Titleist ProV1's riding on this game = $50.00.

mod34b said...

Miz. Yes I watched every BC game when Day was OC. And it was s bad offense.

So unbalanced and unproductive.

You got a better stat? I was not suggesting total
Offense was the only stat. Find me a good stat. Bet you can't.

Bravesbill said...

Quinton Porter? He was not very good and not NFL caliber at all. Point taken the others though.

mod34b said...

Danny. Because some good teams had middling offensive productive, offensive stats are. Meaningless?

I'll reject that logic.

Day was a terrible OC.

So Why does Day land good jobs? Who cares but it is Not based on a record of success. I would gather he is some sort of suck-ass toady who powerful egos like to have around - wallpaper guy.

Georgia Eagle said...

Question. Why doesn't ATL get involved in his own blog? Even when we challenge him he doesn't respond. What arrogance

mod34b said...

GE - ATL comments on the eagle outsider blog, where he is called blogboy. he will speak there but not hear.. or not too often.

Georgia Eagle said...

And why is that, some kind of narcissistic superiority complex?

mod34b said...

In the best light, I think ATL wants to raise a topic and then let others comment. Step aside. He want to let commenters say what they wish. He speaks first and then no more.

It is an approach that works ok.

In contrast, at BCi one of the founders just argued all day long with anyone who spoke and often arbitrarily banned people with contrary points of view. That was a personality disorder. Not good. I like ATL's approach much better

I wish he'd participate a bit more, especially given his frequent post elsewhere. Or now. ATL To just explain to you his approach.

I'd just call it quirky. Not arrogance or narcissism. I've never sensed those traits at all. Might actually be unduly humble. He is a good guy. I wouldn't think of his approach as a negative at all.

Georgia Eagle said...

Perhaps he needs a blend of both approaches. I don't appreciate asking the guy a sports question, but never getting the courtesy of a reply. In my book, that is rude and discourteous. Sorry, Mod. But I'm old school.

Danny Boy said...

Mod, measuring an offense on total yardage is largely meaningless because it varies entirely on offensive mindset. Many of the most prolific offenses are air raid offenses or spread style. Daz's grinding philosophy is designed to limit yardage and possessions. Even the most talented team imaginable isn't going to compete in terms of yardage or scoring with even a middling air raid offense. If a measurement needs that many qualifiers, it's not very good.

Day coached two different record breaking efforts as OC (and another stellar performance by Harris at temple). That to means he gets it. He was able to achieve success within Daz's framework. We agree that the framework is flawed, but Day did far better within it than the other people (one of whom now has a top rated offense). It stands to reason that Day will excel similarly. ATL's fandom for day is equaled in its baselessness by your hatred for him.

mod34b said...

Danny - i threw out total Offense as just one exemplary stat. every stat can be criticized. but you know this

yet each stat does add to the overall picture.

for Day in 2013 and 2014, look at 3rd downs conversions , # of offensive plays from scrimmage, number of first downs, points scored; TD's, redone TD's - all really bad... many rank #100 and below.

some stats do make Day look better. in 2014, our time of possession was high. but in 2013, it was low. BC scoring percent in redone was high (but we got to red zone less than almost everybody else and did not get TD;s but got FG via awesome kicker nate freese)

overall, i trust my eyes. i watched every BC game where Day coached the offense, and he was not good. That 'visual' impression is corroborated by the stats. of course, i said as much on this blog in 2013 and 2014.

Day's job is to coach the offense to get points and win games. his job was not to coach individual players to stat success. So, sure while a few guys did well under Day, the team suffered. i don't think we should measure Day's success as an Offensive coordinator by looking at individual achievement. There is no "I" in team - to cite a cliche.

but reasonable people can disagree. If you like Day, bravo!. I simply don't.

Danny Boy said...

Mod, to answer your question about a better stat, I'd look for something that measures offensive efficiency. How much does a team do with the possessions it has.

BC's offensive efficiency from ESPN:
2012: 110
2013: 48
2014: 32
2015: 123
2016: 117

When looking at a more fair metric, Day's quality stands out even more.

mod34b said...

Danny - lol. what bs stat. ha no one has ever cited this bs before.

indeed, when no one can even explain what the stat is, we should be leery. here is the explanation - all gibberish.

"Team efficiencies are based on the point contributions of each unit to the team's scoring margin, on a per-play basis. The values are adjusted for strength of schedule and down-weighted for "garbage time" (based on win probability). The scale goes from 0 to 100; higher numbers are better and the average is roughly 50 for all categories. Efficiencies update daily during the season."


mod34b said...

and ignore all the stats you do not like.... i hope you are not managing other's money!

Danny Boy said...

Lets use football outsiders: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feioff2014 they do a better job explaining it. Day's 2014 offense is ranked 31st. Most advanced metric are just that, advanced.

You explained it, you just don't like the guy. You're entitled to your opinion, and god knows I can't change it. But to drop the offensive stats that you do as concrete proof of his awfulness is a bit silly.

I don't ignore the stats, I just acknowledge them in the larger context.

CT said...

I'm certain Urban Meyer knows far less than mod about who is a good coach and who isn't. The inanity of these posts is truly impressive. Even for you Mod.

He's a QB coach. The program/position is a rung up the ladder for the future. Who better to learn from? If he ever migrates back this way, you should be damn happy he worked under Meyer. You act like he's a finished product! At that age? You're just so desperate to pimp a narrative over and over that you lose sight of some basic common sense.

Oh and btw, offensive efficiency is a very important stat nowadays. Thought your googling would've illuminated that at this point.

And it's ATL's blog. He can do what he wants. I don't see GE posting BC news everyday. If old school is being a complete ingrate, then I would think you are rich in self-awareness. Join BCI or better yet EO. That attitude would be a big hit over there. Watch out. You might get your online blog feelings hurt, though. Nothing old school about that.

mod34b said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mod34b said...

Danny. More garbage stats no one every heard off to feed your obsession to be a Day boy. You and ATL can form a support group to "Bring back the Old Day to BC"

Are you now relying on the FEi stat or the S*P stats and what the heck are either one of those. Just crap

Keep it simple. Day sucked as OC. You saw it. I saw it. Which may explain why Day has never been offered an OC again.

gE. Don't you luv the moral guidance from CT. Ha. The smug schmuck. But I do wish CT would follow his own advise and join another blog - for his own freedom from misery ofvthis blog

Georgia Eagle said...

I think Danny has a man crush on ATL.

Knucklehead said...

Mod, name me a good offensive coordinator in college football right now? No research.

mod34b said...

Todd Fitch of course!

Or some PA dudes - Moorhead (PSU) and Canada (Pitt, formerly)

Like to see Moorhead in maroon n gold.

I assume you like Lefty Loeffler after first half vs Maryland

Hario said...

Mod- offensive efficiency is an often cited stat these days. When a stat disagrees with your position you call it garbage but criticize the rest of the board for looking at other stats besides just total offense? odd

mod34b said...

not odd.... danny boy was obsessed with trying to be right (that Day is all that) .... he argued for hours to no avail. When Danny Boy found himself in a corner he became desperate and grabbed for google and found support in the exotic stat.

Likewise, you did not use these new fangled stats either. I also did not call your stats garbage, but simply disagreed with the conclusion you drew. I also did not criticize you for your bag of stats. right. You are overstating things

The problem is that these "offensive efficiency" stats are composite stats. They are so complex that no one other than a stats guru can understand them. People, like Danny Boy, just latch onto rankings when it suits their fancy (or when getting crushed in an argument and looking for a life raft). In contrast, all my stats are clearly stated and well-known metrics that have been used for a 100 years. You can go find counter stat if you wish.... but I've not seen much there. (so go exotic! when you can't win with bread-and-butter stats)

For example at the football outside page, they tout an "FEI" offense composite stat and a "S+ P" offensive stat. Which one should we rely upon? and why? No one knows. For 2013 and 2014, BC's ranking is very different under the two stat composites.

Georgia Eagle said...

all you guys get too complex in these statistics wars - trying to out-impress each other. Just follow the KISS principle so simple men of the people like me can understand.

Danny Boy said...

Mod, you truly are a character. I don't think Day is all that. I don't think Day has earned the right to be anointed future head coach. All I'm saying is that the stats you choose to mention are flawed. I like that you think I've argued to no avail, because I haven't really argued, nor am I concerned with your acceptance of the truth.

New fangled stats were created because they better tell the story of what we're looking to do. Composite stats are only problems for people who can't wrap their heads around them (or who don't agree with what they point to).

We can look at FEI or S + P. Both of them show how much of a drastic improvement Day was over his replacements. He was ranked in the 40s in S + P both years where as his replacements are in the 100s (his predecessors were as well).

You strike me as the type of person who still argues that RBIs are the measure of a good batter.

Again, to sum up. I don't think Day has proven himself as a great OC, just better than every other OC we've had since Logan. You don't like the guy, and that is fine. Enjoy your crusade. Keep tilting at windmills using flawed stats. And, at the end of the day, your stats and eyeball test are just that, flawed and anecdotal.

Knucklehead said...

Porter was in the NFL but NFL.

Didnt you say the PSU OC was responsible for the crummy play calling at the end of the rosebowl?

Why is Fitch a good OC now but ignored before? No line and not even close at the skill positions. Their QB and wr s superb. The wr s are better than we have ever had. O-line blocks like hell for that QB.

Again that is the fix BC needs to make.

Knucklehead said...

V for Vendetta.

mod34b said...

danny -- it turns out your really had no point other than the idea than some stats are more reliable than others.... omg. .. and making up stuff about advanced stats...plus you got to vent a little anger -- but angry at what? that I think Day stinks and that you do not actually disagree and seem to be mr milquetoast about taking a position on Day?

Georgia Eagle said...

Can we stop with the childish petulance, boys? Keep this up and I'm going to discuss politics. Far more interesting than the stats wars.

Bravesbill said...

Knuckle, Porter wasn't very good in his BC playing days. He started like 7 games before being replaced by Matt Ryan. He bounced around on practice squads but I don't think he ever actually made a roster. He was probably one of the weakest QBs BC had from the mid-90s to 2010.

mod34b said...

gE. Talk about your luv of Hillary if you must.

mod34b said...

But nobody wants done leftist moderator

Knucklehead said...

Porter played more than 7 games. Was choppy but played parts of two-three seasons. Hurt his ankle if I recall.

They saw enough at BC to give him a couple chances.

Weak then would be strong today.

Knucklehead said...

The NFL saw enough from his time at BC to give him a couple chances. I should say.