Coach Envy

#1

daj2576

@aVolForLife
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
5,454
Likes
2,636
#1
One of the consistent themes recurring through many of the threads is the impact that "better" coaching has on a team. It seems that many on here look at a team that is having success and say "ah, if only we had those coaches, look what we could do." Most coaches are incredibly closely tied to their recruiting, even the ones that are seen as being spectacular.

In a rather time consuming and painstaking process I am working on examining some coaches and their success in relation to talent. In other words, if you rank a team's schedule by talent, in general, the team should lose to the better talented teams and win against the lessor talented teams. Few coaches follow this paradigm precisely, but most stay within a game or two of their talent every year.

I have been watching for several weeks to see the names of coaches that have been thrown around as being guys with the "it" factor and inserted some of my own. In no particular order, they are:

  • Stoops (KY)
  • Mullen (MSU)
  • Shaw (Stanford)
  • Dantonio (MIch. St.)
  • Sumlin (aTm)
  • Freeze (Ole Miss)
  • Pinkel (Mizzou)
  • Bielema (Arkansas)
  • Malzahn (Auburn)
  • Fisher (FSU)

To date, I have completed the evaluation of Fisher, Shaw, Sumlin, Pinkel, Mullen, Malzahn and Freeze. I only examined that coach's performance at his current school. I could only examine data from 2005 to present, but that only effects Pinkel.

The results might surprise you. Here are the coaches ranked by their average net effect on talent per year at their current job. In other words, this is how many games above talent predictions these coaches win. This data is good through today's games.

  1. Shaw (2.25)
  2. Mullen (1.83)
  3. Pinkel (1)
  4. Freeze (0.67)
  5. Sumlin (0)
  6. Malzahn (0)
  7. Fisher (-1.4)

The next thing I wanted to do was examine the statement that all supposedly great coaches have a substantial increase in wins the second year. The coaches ranked by that number are:

  1. Mullen (4)
  2. Pinkel (1)
  3. Shaw (1)
  4. Freeze (1)
  5. Fisher (-1)
  6. Sumlin (-2)
  7. Malzahn (TBD)

The surprising thing is that the only coach on that list with a national championship, arguably the gold standard of how to evaluate coaching, is the one with both an overall negative net effect on talent and a decline in wins from year one to two. The inverse of that statement is also true as the coach with the second largest impact in games per year on talent, and also the biggest jump between year one and year two, is Dan Mullen. Mullen, according to some, was firmly on the hot seat last year and has never had a ten win season. This year, the 6th year of his tenure, Mullen's team is being praised as an SEC west elite with a three-game talent over-performance. The season is still too young to firmly draw too many conclusions, however.

While some coaches do more with less, they are still tethered relatively closely to their talent. That does not bode well for Shaw, Pinkel or Mullen. None of those coaches has a history of improving their recruiting enough to enter the threshold of elite, championship caliber, teams. Since 2005, no team has played for a championship without a four year recruiting average in the top 15-20 teams. Mullen bounces around in the mid-thirties, Pinkel averages similar recruiting with wilder swings into the lower 20s or upper 40s, and Shaw hovers just outside this cloud of elite talent. I realize that this year could be the first exception to that rule with Miss. St. appearing to be completely dominant and staring at a number 1 ranking, but that doesn't change the flavor of the general rule.

I leave you with this thought. Championship coaches follow Fisher's (and Saban's) model; that is to recruit, recruit and recruit and then win a bunch of games. That is precisely what Jones is trying to do.

More to follow as I complete the evaluation. Here is a link to the incomplete spreadsheet with the data.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17usSIvQaGcvsc1cikIqrVfBzHNQ-eLFUzAMs6-2IGmg/edit?usp=sharing
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 22 people
#2
#2
I'm guessing it would be very hard to handicap Butch Jones at Tennessee so far since he followed quite possibly one of the top 10 worst coaches in SEC history. It sucks to have to keep laying so much of the blame on Dooley but it is what it is. Realistically I think 2016 is the first year CBJ deserves full 100% ownership of the results.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 9 people
#3
#3
I'm guessing it would be very hard to handicap Butch Jones at Tennessee so far since he followed quite possibly one of the top 10 worst coaches in SEC history. It sucks to have to keep laying so much of the blame on Dooley but it is what it is. Realistically I think 2016 is the first year CBJ deserves full 100% ownership.

To look at the numbers objectively without trying to spin the data, or correct for roster attrition, Jones was -2 against talent last year, and this year, to date is 0.

For comparison Dooley's last year was a -4, and DD averaged -3.5 games per year as an under-performance.

Jones, prior to coming to UT, averaged 3.5 games a year more than talent would expect.

The key is that Jones, currently, is blowing the doors off of recruiting. As talent is the biggest indicator of success, more talent = more wins. That is, unless your first name is Derek and you coach an SEC team in TN.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#4
#4
I'm guessing it would be very hard to handicap Butch Jones at Tennessee so far since he followed quite possibly one of the top 10 worst coaches in SEC history. It sucks to have to keep laying so much of the blame on Dooley but it is what it is. Realistically I think 2016 is the first year CBJ deserves full 100% ownership of the results.


And 2016 is when we'll be back in the SECCG. It's what I've been saying, and to me the first year that Butch will really display his true coaching abilities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5
#5
The reality is, the #1 recruiting class by media could actually be #10 recruiting class on the field and vice versa.

You need talent but you also need good coaching (to coach a 3 star to a 5 star potential) and good evaluators ( where they can determine a 5 star is really a 3 star)

Right now, I have no idea how we stand.

Most people in colleges are better at coaching and motivating. There has been so many good college players but became busts in the NFL. You really need that raw talent in the NFL IMO.
 
#6
#6
I also hate to beat the dead horse that is the smoldering remains of Dooley's tenure here, but frankly I think that it is something that cannot be said enough... Dooley's time in Knoxville was a how-to manual of coaching incompetence, recruiting and evaluation ineptitude, and an example of how to alienate practically everyone who cares about Tennessee... players, fans, alumni, even his own assistants. It was no accident or abberation that he had almost entirely replaced his initial coaching staff. Even a rat knows to get off a sinking ship.

Having said that, Dooley isn't entirely to blame for UT's current situation. Fulmer's last few classes started the decline, and Kiffin's lone class ended up being a freakin' dumpster fire. Throw in an AD who was a good fundraiser and not much else, and it isn't tough to see how we arrived at this point.

However I also think this does not absolve the current staff of responsibility for the current team. I firmly believe the very best coaches put their athletes in a position to succeed... find out what your guys are individually good at and gameplan them into those situations. In doing so you give them the highest opportunity to be successful. At that point it is on the kids to go make plays.

THIS is the biggest problem I have with our current coaches. For the record, I really like CBJ and think when it is all said and done he will be successful here. HOWEVER... it is my opinion that rather than opt for this more flexible approach to coaching, he has decided "We are gonna implement our system and take our lumps while we recruit guys who fit it." I hope he gets the time to get his guys in here, because there's no denying he can recruit his ass off.

Tl;dr: Jones inherited a dumpster fire and has decided to implement his system regardless of current talent. I hope it works.

Sorry for the long post. GBO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#8
#8
"This year, the 6th year of his tenure, Mullen's team is being praised as an SEC west elite"

6 years,a lot of people think CBJ will get it turned around in a couple of years,I don't think that will happen,could it yes ,but highly doubtful.there are question marks everywhere, and Worley and AJ will be gone next year

which means there will be more freshmen that will be called on ,which is a bad thing ,until CBJ can red shirt players on both sides of the lines,it will be ugly,but he is recruiting lights out,which is the bright spot right now
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9
#9
The inverse of that statement is also true as the coach with the second largest impact in games per year on talent, and also the biggest jump between year one and year two, is Dan Mullen. Mullen, according to some, was firmly on the hot seat last year and has never had a ten win season. This year, the 6th year of his tenure, Mullen's team is being praised as an SEC west elite with a three-game talent over-performance. The season is still too young to firmly draw too many conclusions, however.

While some coaches do more with less, they are still tethered relatively closely to their talent. That does not bode well for Shaw, Pinkel or Mullen. None of those coaches has a history of improving their recruiting enough to enter the threshold of elite, championship caliber, teams. Since 2005, no team has played for a championship without a four year recruiting average in the top 15-20 teams. Mullen bounces around in the mid-thirties ... I realize that this year could be the first exception to that rule with Miss. St. appearing to be completely dominant and staring at a number 1 ranking, but that doesn't change the flavor of the general rule.

I leave you with this thought. Championship coaches follow Fisher's (and Saban's) model; that is to recruit, recruit and recruit and then win a bunch of games. That is precisely what Jones is trying to do.

Great post as always, Daj.

As Mullen has done so well this year, it has made me recall how much VolNation trashed the guy a few years ago when we were looking for a new coach. I'm 100% happy with Butch, but it's hard not to remember that VN was saying the exact same things about Mullen two years ago that many are saying about Butch right now.

Mullen is great at player development, and I suspect that his recruiting is "weak" relative to other SEC schools merely because he's at Mississippi State. In terms of history, facilities, and the factors that recruits might look out, Miss State would probably be ranked 13th out of 14 in the SEC (with only Vandy being worse). So Mullen has succeeded in spite of taking one of the toughest jobs.

I'm a bit scared of the thought of him going to Florida. If he can turn 2- and 3- star guys into 4- and 5- star players at Miss State, imagine what he can do at Florida, where he gets his pick of talent?

That said, I've been really impressed with player development under Butch Jones, as well. It takes time to see results from that, but we're already seeing the rewards on defense. We're looking better on offense, too, with the exception of the O-line, which is really more of a talent and depth issue. I think we'll get a better sense of how the O-line can look in two years, but I know Vols fans don't want to wait till then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#10
#10
Great post as always, Daj.

As Mullen has done so well this year, it has made me recall how much VolNation trashed the guy a few years ago when we were looking for a new coach. I'm 100% happy with Butch, but it's hard not to remember that VN was saying the exact same things about Mullen two years ago that many are saying about Butch right now.

Mullen is great at player development, and I suspect that his recruiting is "weak" relative to other SEC schools merely because he's at Mississippi State. In terms of history, facilities, and the factors that recruits might look out, Miss State would probably be ranked 13th out of 14 in the SEC (with only Vandy being worse). So Mullen has succeeded in spite of taking one of the toughest jobs.

I'm a bit scared of the thought of him going to Florida. If he can turn 2- and 3- star guys into 4- and 5- star players at Miss State, imagine what he can do at Florida, where he gets his pick of talent?

That said, I've been really impressed with player development under Butch Jones, as well. It takes time to see results from that, but we're already seeing the rewards on defense. We're looking better on offense, too, with the exception of the O-line, which is really more of a talent and depth issue. I think we'll get a better sense of how the O-line can look in two years, but I know Vols fans don't want to wait till then.

On the Mullen to Florida note? Four years ago, when the Gator job became available, he declined the interview...now that he's put his stamp on Missy State and recruiting will bloom? He might repeat that action. Would be a good story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#11
#11
Two things u r only looking at turnaround n wins of a list u picked not historical data that shows all the coached that won championships..

Just my 2 cents. Cbj will get his time but not six yrs at the rate he is winning
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#12
#12
I'm guessing it would be very hard to handicap Butch Jones at Tennessee so far since he followed quite possibly one of the top 10 worst coaches in SEC history. It sucks to have to keep laying so much of the blame on Dooley but it is what it is. Realistically I think 2016 is the first year CBJ deserves full 100% ownership of the results.

The announcers even lay the blame on Dooley..talking about that massive Oline recruiting class of 2012 that he brought in...........
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#13
#13
Two things u r only looking at turnaround n wins of a list u picked not historical data that shows all the coached that won championships..

Just my 2 cents. Cbj will get his time but not six yrs at the rate he is winning

Maybe I missed the point, but I thought the op was on turning around programs and coaches perceived to be doing the best at it.
 
#14
#14
If we don't make a bowl this year, Jones will be playing for his job next season. The masses won't stand for the return of someone with three straight losing seasons no matter what he inherited.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#15
#15
The announcers even lay the blame on Dooley..talking about that massive Oline recruiting class of 2012 that he brought in...........

Some of these players have been in this scheme two years

Its just not the freshmen on this line that aren't performing
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#16
#16
The reality is, the #1 recruiting class by media could actually be #10 recruiting class on the field and vice versa.

You need talent but you also need good coaching (to coach a 3 star to a 5 star potential) and good evaluators ( where they can determine a 5 star is really a 3 star)

Right now, I have no idea how we stand.

Most people in colleges are better at coaching and motivating. There has been so many good college players but became busts in the NFL. You really need that raw talent in the NFL IMO.
Other than the OL I was quite pleased with development of the young guys.
 
#17
#17
I love Shaw and his "style". Having said that I think UT is something of a unique job for several reasons. Finding a "fit" can't be a challenge as we've seen. I think Butch goes well with this job and given support and time, I think he will be very successful here. Based on his recruiting to date, I think that will be sooner rather than later. Nice job on the analysis.
 
#18
#18
One of the consistent themes recurring through many of the threads is the impact that "better" coaching has on a team. It seems that many on here look at a team that is having success and say "ah, if only we had those coaches, look what we could do." Most coaches are incredibly closely tied to their recruiting, even the ones that are seen as being spectacular.

In a rather time consuming and painstaking process I am working on examining some coaches and their success in relation to talent. In other words, if you rank a team's schedule by talent, in general, the team should lose to the better talented teams and win against the lessor talented teams. Few coaches follow this paradigm precisely, but most stay within a game or two of their talent every year.

I have been watching for several weeks to see the names of coaches that have been thrown around as being guys with the "it" factor and inserted some of my own. In no particular order, they are:

  • Stoops (KY)
  • Mullen (MSU)
  • Shaw (Stanford)
  • Dantonio (MIch. St.)
  • Sumlin (aTm)
  • Freeze (Ole Miss)
  • Pinkel (Mizzou)
  • Bielema (Arkansas)
  • Malzahn (Auburn)
  • Fisher (FSU)

To date, I have completed the evaluation of Fisher, Shaw, Sumlin, Pinkel, Mullen, Malzahn and Freeze. I only examined that coach's performance at his current school. I could only examine data from 2005 to present, but that only effects Pinkel.

The results might surprise you. Here are the coaches ranked by their average net effect on talent per year at their current job. In other words, this is how many games above talent predictions these coaches win. This data is good through today's games.

  1. Shaw (2.25)
  2. Mullen (1.83)
  3. Pinkel (1)
  4. Freeze (0.67)
  5. Sumlin (0)
  6. Malzahn (0)
  7. Fisher (-1.4)

The next thing I wanted to do was examine the statement that all supposedly great coaches have a substantial increase in wins the second year. The coaches ranked by that number are:

  1. Mullen (4)
  2. Pinkel (1)
  3. Shaw (1)
  4. Freeze (1)
  5. Fisher (-1)
  6. Sumlin (-2)
  7. Malzahn (TBD)

The surprising thing is that the only coach on that list with a national championship, arguably the gold standard of how to evaluate coaching, is the one with both an overall negative net effect on talent and a decline in wins from year one to two. The inverse of that statement is also true as the coach with the second largest impact in games per year on talent, and also the biggest jump between year one and year two, is Dan Mullen. Mullen, according to some, was firmly on the hot seat last year and has never had a ten win season. This year, the 6th year of his tenure, Mullen's team is being praised as an SEC west elite with a three-game talent over-performance. The season is still too young to firmly draw too many conclusions, however.

While some coaches do more with less, they are still tethered relatively closely to their talent. That does not bode well for Shaw, Pinkel or Mullen. None of those coaches has a history of improving their recruiting enough to enter the threshold of elite, championship caliber, teams. Since 2005, no team has played for a championship without a four year recruiting average in the top 15-20 teams. Mullen bounces around in the mid-thirties, Pinkel averages similar recruiting with wilder swings into the lower 20s or upper 40s, and Shaw hovers just outside this cloud of elite talent. I realize that this year could be the first exception to that rule with Miss. St. appearing to be completely dominant and staring at a number 1 ranking, but that doesn't change the flavor of the general rule.

I leave you with this thought. Championship coaches follow Fisher's (and Saban's) model; that is to recruit, recruit and recruit and then win a bunch of games. That is precisely what Jones is trying to do.

More to follow as I complete the evaluation. Here is a link to the incomplete spreadsheet with the data.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17usSIvQaGcvsc1cikIqrVfBzHNQ-eLFUzAMs6-2IGmg/edit?usp=sharing

Weird that you do this research to compare it to Jones, but then you don't include Jones in the research. Also weird that you draw a conclusion about Saban but don't include him in the research either.

What I see in your research are several coaches who inherited lesser recruited talent than Butch Jones, probably have lesser recruited talent at the moment, but are still doing much better overall.

I don't really know why Fisher was included, except to skew the results. I haven't seen anyone on here compare Butch Jones to Jimbo Fisher. What he took over and what Jones took over were completely different situations.

Also, interesting that your research didn't take into account improvement based on the team's results before the coaches got to their program. Another attempt to skew the results, I assume, but clearly, the impact a coach like Sumlin made immediately puts a drop in wins his second year into a better perspective vis a vis a coach who takes over a 5-7 team, goes 5-7, and then looks to repeat that his 2nd year as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#19
#19
I'm guessing it would be very hard to handicap Butch Jones at Tennessee so far since he followed quite possibly one of the top 10 worst coaches in SEC history. It sucks to have to keep laying so much of the blame on Dooley but it is what it is. Realistically I think 2016 is the first year CBJ deserves full 100% ownership of the results.

Agreed. In 2016 Butch is 100% responsible for the teams performance. It's gonna be a tough year and a half fighting off the instant gratification Vol fans but we have to keep up the good fight.
 
#20
#20
Some of these players have been in this scheme two years

Its just not the freshmen on this line that aren't performing

Yep. Hopefully it's just the learning curve. Next year there will be no doubt as to whether or not it is poor coaching.
 
#21
#21
"This year, the 6th year of his tenure, Mullen's team is being praised as an SEC west elite"

6 years,a lot of people think CBJ will get it turned around in a couple of years,I don't think that will happen,could it yes ,but highly doubtful.there are question marks everywhere, and Worley and AJ will be gone next year

which means there will be more freshmen that will be called on ,which is a bad thing ,until CBJ can red shirt players on both sides of the lines,it will be ugly,but he is recruiting lights out,which is the bright spot right now

AJ will be gone, but I am hoping Maggitt returns. Our D next year will be nasty. Our OL will be better, our RB situation is better. Dobbs and Blair are redshirting, but hopefully Dobbs is much better
 
#22
#22
Two things u r only looking at turnaround n wins of a list u picked not historical data that shows all the coached that won championships..

Just my 2 cents. Cbj will get his time but not six yrs at the rate he is winning

If I understand what you wrote, I didn't look at all championship coaches because I have already done that as best I could.

To recap a previous post, going back to 1993 and looking at every coach who won a national championship during that time reveals that it took them, on average, six years from being hired at a school to winning their first national championship. If you remove Osborne and Bowden, who averaged 19 years, the number drops to right around 3. Many of the coaches who people believe created a miraculous turn around inherited extremely talented teams.

Even Fisher's FSU team was averaging top ten classes-top 2ish in the ACC when he took over-and it still took him 4 years. Malzahn hasn't won a championship yet, but he inherited a top SEC roster. See also Meyer.
 
Last edited:
#23
#23
.."it's not about the Xs and Os, it's all about the Jimmies and Joes" ..is what OP is selling .. has merit ..
 
#24
#24
The next thing I wanted to do was examine the statement that all supposedly great coaches have a substantial increase in wins the second year. The coaches ranked by that number are:

  1. Mullen (4)
  2. Pinkel (1)
  3. Shaw (1)
  4. Freeze (1)
  5. Fisher (-1)
  6. Sumlin (-2)
  7. Malzahn (TBD)

Just curious? Who made that argument? I think many of us have said that no coach goes on to be successful in a job without winning more than the previous coach within the first two years... almost always in the first year.

The comparison isn't really of the coach compared to himself but the coach compared to his predecessor.

Your numbers are interesting and meaningful at 70% accuracy. I believe the % of coaches who fail to succeed in a new job that do NOT improve the team record over the previous coach within the first two years is higher than that.
 

VN Store



Back
Top