Apparent Talent vs Team Results (i.e. coaching)

I was reading the fivethirtyeight article today about the early 2000's Miami team and how immensely talented they were. One of the external links in the article talked about recruiting and how programs perform relative to their expectations. The article itself is from the beginning of last season, but I think its interesting nonetheless. If it was posted here last year I apologize.

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2013/8/19/4635732/college-football-appa...

I think the article gives credence to a couple points that some Tech fans have been making about our success over the decade. First of all it does appear that Tech has been punching above its weight, having positive (or non-negative) results every year of the study. As addressed in the article, part of their measure of coaching is including how well a coach can assess talent, or at least in comparison to the industry. Also I think it is of note that even in our terrible 2012 season, we performed exactly as expected to our talent level.

Taking a look at the names of coaches that appear in the positive vs negative, its clear that Beamer still has been performing well, (obviously 2013, 2014 data withstanding). The only other coaches that have had that consistency include Saban, Stoops, Carroll and Meyer.

None of this is an attempt to directly make a pro/anti change in the program argument, I just thought it provided some interesting data.