Phil Wong

quote:

---

If I see this correctly, what the 80% represents is possibly a win-loss record. If this is LM's "exam," then his year-to-year scores (W-L) would be cumulative and possibly show reliability and validity. However, Les Miles was not hired totally on a win-loss exam score, but on how well his job performance appeared to be. Every job has a task analysis, where someone interviews numerous people in the field (often called subject-matter experts, or SMEs). The analyst breaks down the tasks, clusters them, and organizes them into a master task list. Following is a training task list, then the tasks are placed into a hierarchy, with the terminal tasks at the top (in a Top-Down Hierarchy). The resulting tree is then articulated into learning objectives, and then test items are derived from the tasks. If a test is given to a group, and the scores are compared with each other, it is called a norm-referenced test. Sometimes these tests in colleges are based on the content and not on the task analysis. This is the type of test many fans use to compare their coach with another--and it is perhaps the one used for the 80%. However, another type of test--a criterion-referenced test--looks at each task and determines if it is mastered. There are a lot of tasks that are involved in coaching, and my question is 'Who grades the coach on the mastery of objectives like recruiting, staying out of moral turpitude, dealing fairly with players and rightly with the media, disciplining players, and a host of other things. In this respect, winning and losing is just of the things that makes a coach a good coach and master. I see a coach as more than just a person who only wins and loses at games, but in doing the job of a coach. Oh, perhaps if you are going to lump Les Miles or any other coach in a norm-referenced array, why can't we add politicians to the melee?

---

quote:

---

I stopped caring about this season after LSU lost to UGA. So I didn't really feel anything.

---