I think analytics are extremely valuable and need to be prioritized in our team's approach to the game and our program's approach to team construction.
I also think many in here are conflating "analytics" to be some sort of catch-all to defer to and making it seem as if all analytics should be taken equal.
Any mention comparing the value of F+ for our coaching hires to a baseball team's approach to playing the game or a football coach's in-game decisions based on down/distance/score/etc. seems like a silly conflation to me. Firstly, baseball is the most analytic driven sport by a mile because the data is the least noisy--every player is essentially functioning in a clearly isolated manner in most of their actions on the field.
I think F+ is a really strong analytic stat and we should reference it to assess how our team is doing, how other teams are doing, how good coaches are, etc. But, without a full understanding of the methodology of it and how it may skew results to favor the highest-end programs (more explosive players, more talented players, more games played against competition that doesn't stack up to them), then I think it could be used recklessly as the end-all be-all.
Off the bat, as we look at offensive coaches coming from a G5 level, I can't help but notice how few and far between the presence of G5 teams in the top 25 of F+ ranking is. I would be interested in better understanding why that is. For my understanding of a future OC/DC, I want to be able to reference a multitude of numbers, analytic rankings, raw data rankings, context (schedule, personnel), etc. to be able to form an opinion.