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:
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.
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:
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
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.
- Shaw (2.25)
- Mullen (1.83)
- Pinkel (1)
- Freeze (0.67)
- Sumlin (0)
- Malzahn (0)
- 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:
- Mullen (4)
- Pinkel (1)
- Shaw (1)
- Freeze (1)
- Fisher (-1)
- Sumlin (-2)
- 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: