Coach Envy

#26
#26
Butch Jones has only one win over a top 25 opponent - last year vs. South Carolina. That includes his tenures at Cincinnati and Central Michigan.

1-13.

Factor that into your comprehensive analysis.

He sure can recruit, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#27
#27
sjt18 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Please provide some data to support your last sentence. Feelings are good and valuable but a few anecdotes are not data.
 
#28
#28
daj2576 said:
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
Click to expand...

Maybe you mentioned but how do you adjust for strength of schedule.
 
#29
#29
raynochonspeed said:
Butch Jones has only one win over a top 25 opponent - last year vs. South Carolina. That includes his tenures at Cincinnati and Central Michigan.

1-13.

Factor that into your comprehensive analysis.

He sure can recruit, though.
Click to expand...

You have chosen an arbitrary measure of success and have missed the point.

Talent matters. Even universally well regarded coaches have a narrow range of ability to effect results in a way that is independent of talent. If so, it is a rare occurrence.

Pinkel, for instance, was lauded as a miracle worker last season and pre season this year. But in ten years has only had 2 seasons with significant over performances whereas the other 8 were largely as talent predicted.

Bottom line, Butch did far more with Cincy talent than most with similar talent, just as he did at his previous stop. Also, Butch improved his recruiting against his competition. Those are the two measures of success that will pay dividends.

EDIT FOR CLARITY:

A coach shouldn't be measured by beating ranked teams, as that might not indicate he is a great coach in relation to talent. Imagine a team ranked number 1 beats teams ranked 23, 24, and 25. Should that team be lauded for beating three teams that he should have beaten if the rankings matter, as you seem to believe that they do? Again, if rankings matter, better ranked teams should beat worse teams, with consistency, right?

Did Jones lose to top 25 teams when he was ranked higher than them? If so, that might be a cause for concern.

Jones is 1 for 13 (8%) against ranked teams, I concede that. However, in relation to talent, Jones has won 28 of 58 (48%) against teams with more talent. Let me say that again. Over his 7 year tenure, Jones wins about 50% of games against teams that are more talented than his own.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#30
#30
Falcons02 said:
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.
Click to expand...

How can they put the lineman in a better position to succeed? The problem is not the skill positions, it's the OL. Whatever we do going forward will handicap us. If they keep extra blockers in, that means less playmakers on the outside. If we don't keep extra blockers in, Worley will get killed.
 
#31
#31
92volalum said:
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
Click to expand...

another alum of the Derek Zoolander Center For Children Who Can't Read Good And Wanna Learn To Do Other Stuff Good Too...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#33
#33
Catbone said:
It'll take 4+ years to clean this complete joke of a program around.
Click to expand...

I think CBJ has bleach and good cleaning technique...in 2016,we will see a quality product on both sides of the ball. I would say 2015,but QB and OL are still question marks...

and looking at the other coaches on the OP list,all of them had quality or great QB play,along with solid OL play...
 
#34
#34
Nice post DAJ, interesting as always.

Has any coach ever started in the SEC with consecutive losing seasons and then gone on to win the SECC?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#35
#35
daj2576 said:
Please provide some data to support your last sentence. Feelings are good and valuable but a few anecdotes are not data.
Click to expand...

I have been unable to find even one example of a coach in the last 20 years that HAS failed to improve their new team's record then gone on to a successful tenure at that school. You apparently have better resources than I do... can you name one?

Winning more does not assure success.... but not improving the record seems to point to failure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#36
#36
titansvolsfaninga said:
How can they put the lineman in a better position to succeed? The problem is not the skill positions, it's the OL. Whatever we do going forward will handicap us. If they keep extra blockers in, that means less playmakers on the outside. If we don't keep extra blockers in, Worley will get killed.
Click to expand...

We've seen delayed draw handoffs be particularly successful at times, as well as RB screens. I think a middle screen or 2 a game would be particularly effective at taking some of the steam off the rush. Bust a few long gainers with those and the DL has to stop and think an extra tick before going all out. You think we could do a few more passing plays with an extra sec in the pocket? And if they don't adjust you punish them by doing it till they do adjust.

As an added benefit the blocking for those two plays in particular already resemble what is happening naturally. On the draw you can let your guy commit to where he wants to go and just ride him on upfield... on the screen you only block the guy a sec before releasing downfield.
 
#37
#37
sjt18 said:
I have been unable to find even one example of a coach in the last 20 years that HAS failed to improve their new team's record then gone on to a successful tenure at that school. You apparently have better resources than I do... can you name one?

Winning more does not assure success.... but not improving the record seems to point to failure.
Click to expand...

Absence of data is not data. ;)

Much of the data is up for interpretation. I'll leave that, in this case, to you.

Remember there are also dynamic factors to consider, such as the difficulty of schedule from year to year. For instance, I would argue that Jones' first year was more difficult in relation to Dooley's last. Replace Oregon with MTSU and you have the improvement in the wins column you're looking for, plus increasing recruiting, plus a win over a top 25 team.

In my view, to directly answer your question, wins against talent did improve from Dooley's typical -4 to Jones' -2. Gross wins was unchanged but that team, using talent trends from Dooley, would have been expected to win 3 games.
 
Last edited:
#39
#39
sjt18 said:
I have been unable to find even one example of a coach in the last 20 years that HAS failed to improve their new team's record then gone on to a successful tenure at that school. You apparently have better resources than I do... can you name one?

Winning more does not assure success.... but not improving the record seems to point to failure.
Click to expand...

Need to hone your research skills.

Battle 1976: 6-5
Majors 1977: 4-7
Majors 1978: 5-5-1
 
#41
#41
raynochonspeed said:
Butch Jones has only one win over a top 25 opponent - last year vs. South Carolina. That includes his tenures at Cincinnati and Central Michigan.

1-13.

Factor that into your comprehensive analysis.

He sure can recruit, though.
Click to expand...

Did you just rain on someone's parade?

The real question was how many points is he from being undefeated in those 13 loses?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#42
#42
VolunteerHillbilly said:
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.
Click to expand...

Tell the masses to STFU and get an education. The only sure fix is time and recruiting. CBJ is doing the recruiting, dumb ass hillbillies and rednecks need to give him time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#43
#43
Falcons02 said:
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.
Click to expand...

While Fulmers recruiting had fallen off from the amazing success he had in the mid to late 90's, let's not forget he had Taj Boyd and Bryce Petty committed to play at UT and Mr. Kiffin did not want them.
 
#46
#46
Watch the next two weeks. Tennessee gets pounded by superior talent and game planning. There is no relief in sight... GBO!
 
#47
#47
raynochonspeed said:
Butch Jones has only one win over a top 25 opponent - last year vs. South Carolina. That includes his tenures at Cincinnati and Central Michigan.

1-13.

Factor that into your comprehensive analysis.

He sure can recruit, though.
Click to expand...

To be fair though he did not get the oppurtunity to played ranked teams week in and week out while at Cincinnati and he has been at a clear disadvantange in his tenure at UT but he did have a win over VA Tech in 2012 which finished the season ranked.
 
#48
#48
We rejected Cutcliffe and the Chief, still paying for that mistake. All of our chips are riding on Jones. He either pulls us out of this tailspin or we crash. Thats my take.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#50
#50
1985Vols said:
While Fulmers recruiting had fallen off from the amazing success he had in the mid to late 90's, let's not forget he had Taj Boyd and Bryce Petty committed to play at UT and Mr. Kiffin did not want them.
Click to expand...

Good point. Hurts even worse after watching Baylor and Bryce torch TCU for a bunch of 4Q points Saturday.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top