PostGameOrangeSlices
Well-known poster
You're in the media room, I take it?
Coaching Effect over the last 7 years
- Thread starter greenearplugs
- Start date
You're in the media room, I take it?
D
[Deleted User]
Guest
Which top 100 coach can we land though? I'm hearing they are all under CONTRACT!
TierbsHsotBoobs
New Fish
FREE PUB!
Mad_Son
New Fish
Here is the list of coaches from the article, ranked by average percent deviation from expected F/+
Some items of note/thoughts:
Brett Bielema is listed as coaching 2011 twice, with different expectations and results each time. I did not scour the data for these sorts of inconsistencies.
There is huge variation in some coaches from season to season.
There are clear cases of one hit wonders. Since Sumlin has only coached one year his ranking at number one may not be well-deserved.
While this system may not be perfect in all cases, it does seem to show a lot of the general trends that you would expect to see.
1 Sumlin 21%
2 Saban 18%
3 C. Kelly 15%
4 Jagodzinski 13%
5 B. Kelly 13%
6 Petrino 12%
7 Bielema 12%
8 Leavitt 12%
9 T. Bowden 12%
10 Beamer 11%
11 Snyder 11%
12 Gundy 11%
13 Shaw 11%
14 B. Jones 10%
15 Bellotti 9%
16 Mangino 9%
17 Pinkel 9%
18 B. Stoops 8%
19 Dantonio 8%
20 Tressel 8%
21 Riley 7%
22 Patterson 7%
23 Ferentz 7%
24 Meyer 6%
25 Miles 6%
26 Franklin 6%
27 Hoke 6%
28 Pellini 6%
29 Fisher 6%
30 Stewart 6%
31 Gailey 6%
32 Schiano 5%
33 Spurrier 5%
34 Brooks 5%
35 Mason 4%
36 Strong 4%
37 Leach 4%
38 Holgorsen 4%
39 Nutt 3%
40 Edsall 3%
41 Wannstedt 2%
42 Carroll 2%
43 Flood 2%
44 Rodriguez 2%
45 Paterno 2%
46 Pasqualoni 2%
47 Harbaugh 2%
48 Swinney 1%
49 Dorrell 1%
50 Koetter 1%
51 Shula 1%
52 Grobe 1%
53 O'Brien 1%
54 Bo. Johnson 1%
55 Muschamp 1%
56 Freeze 0%
57 Fitzgerald 0%
58 Briles 0%
59 Marrone -1%
60 Carr -1%
61 S. Holtz -1%
62 P. Johnson -1%
63 Mora -1%
64 Graham -1%
65 Richt -1%
66 B. Davis -1%
67 Fulmer -1%
68 M. Stoops -2%
69 Rhoads -2%
70 Friedgen -2%
71 Doba -3%
72 Mullen -3%
73 Spaziani -3%
74 Erickson -3%
75 Tuberville -3%
76 Fedora -3%
77 Zook -3%
78 Chryst -4%
79 Callahan -5%
80 Franchione -5%
81 B. Bowden -5%
82 Groh -5%
83 Prince -5%
84 Sherman -5%
85 Hope -5%
86 Golden -6%
87 Kiffen -6%
88 Tiller -6%
89 Addazio -6%
90 Hoeppner -6%
91 Whittingham -6%
92 Withers -6%
93 Tedford -7%
94 Croom -7%
95 J.L. Smith -7%
96 Lynch -8%
97 Cutcliffe -8%
98 Shannon -8%
99 Sarkisian -9%
100 Chizik -9%
101 Amato -9%
102 Coker -9%
103 London -9%
104 Hawkins -10%
105 Brewster -10%
106 Fickell -10%
107 McCarney -10%
108 Kragthorpe -11%
109 Dooley -11%
110 Orgeron -12%
111 Robinson -12%
112 Kill -13%
113 Morriss -13%
114 Willingham -13%
115 Phillips -13%
116 Weis -13%
117 Brown -0.14
118 Bunting -15%
119 Caldwell -15%
120 Wilson -15%
121 Roof -18%
122 Harris -19%
123 Neuheisel -21%
124 Beckman -22%
125 Gill -27%
126 Wulff -28%
127 Embree -32%
Some items of note/thoughts:
Brett Bielema is listed as coaching 2011 twice, with different expectations and results each time. I did not scour the data for these sorts of inconsistencies.
There is huge variation in some coaches from season to season.
There are clear cases of one hit wonders. Since Sumlin has only coached one year his ranking at number one may not be well-deserved.
While this system may not be perfect in all cases, it does seem to show a lot of the general trends that you would expect to see.
1 Sumlin 21%
2 Saban 18%
3 C. Kelly 15%
4 Jagodzinski 13%
5 B. Kelly 13%
6 Petrino 12%
7 Bielema 12%
8 Leavitt 12%
9 T. Bowden 12%
10 Beamer 11%
11 Snyder 11%
12 Gundy 11%
13 Shaw 11%
14 B. Jones 10%
15 Bellotti 9%
16 Mangino 9%
17 Pinkel 9%
18 B. Stoops 8%
19 Dantonio 8%
20 Tressel 8%
21 Riley 7%
22 Patterson 7%
23 Ferentz 7%
24 Meyer 6%
25 Miles 6%
26 Franklin 6%
27 Hoke 6%
28 Pellini 6%
29 Fisher 6%
30 Stewart 6%
31 Gailey 6%
32 Schiano 5%
33 Spurrier 5%
34 Brooks 5%
35 Mason 4%
36 Strong 4%
37 Leach 4%
38 Holgorsen 4%
39 Nutt 3%
40 Edsall 3%
41 Wannstedt 2%
42 Carroll 2%
43 Flood 2%
44 Rodriguez 2%
45 Paterno 2%
46 Pasqualoni 2%
47 Harbaugh 2%
48 Swinney 1%
49 Dorrell 1%
50 Koetter 1%
51 Shula 1%
52 Grobe 1%
53 O'Brien 1%
54 Bo. Johnson 1%
55 Muschamp 1%
56 Freeze 0%
57 Fitzgerald 0%
58 Briles 0%
59 Marrone -1%
60 Carr -1%
61 S. Holtz -1%
62 P. Johnson -1%
63 Mora -1%
64 Graham -1%
65 Richt -1%
66 B. Davis -1%
67 Fulmer -1%
68 M. Stoops -2%
69 Rhoads -2%
70 Friedgen -2%
71 Doba -3%
72 Mullen -3%
73 Spaziani -3%
74 Erickson -3%
75 Tuberville -3%
76 Fedora -3%
77 Zook -3%
78 Chryst -4%
79 Callahan -5%
80 Franchione -5%
81 B. Bowden -5%
82 Groh -5%
83 Prince -5%
84 Sherman -5%
85 Hope -5%
86 Golden -6%
87 Kiffen -6%
88 Tiller -6%
89 Addazio -6%
90 Hoeppner -6%
91 Whittingham -6%
92 Withers -6%
93 Tedford -7%
94 Croom -7%
95 J.L. Smith -7%
96 Lynch -8%
97 Cutcliffe -8%
98 Shannon -8%
99 Sarkisian -9%
100 Chizik -9%
101 Amato -9%
102 Coker -9%
103 London -9%
104 Hawkins -10%
105 Brewster -10%
106 Fickell -10%
107 McCarney -10%
108 Kragthorpe -11%
109 Dooley -11%
110 Orgeron -12%
111 Robinson -12%
112 Kill -13%
113 Morriss -13%
114 Willingham -13%
115 Phillips -13%
116 Weis -13%
117 Brown -0.14
118 Bunting -15%
119 Caldwell -15%
120 Wilson -15%
121 Roof -18%
122 Harris -19%
123 Neuheisel -21%
124 Beckman -22%
125 Gill -27%
126 Wulff -28%
127 Embree -32%
D
[Deleted User]
Guest
WULFF!
Homebrew_Dawg
New Fish
Interesting to see Harbaugh at #47 and only 2% positive deviation from expectation. Would have thought he should be ranked higher. Trouble with statistics is they can be manipulated to support any conclusion.
Mad_Son
New Fish
Yeah, Harbaugh is lower than I would think to put him. I would rate him right up there with Saban. Something that is interesting about him though is that in an absolute sense his talent increased every year, his expectations raised every year (duh since that is determined by talent), his success raised every year, and his relative success increased each year. Basically Harbaugh was improving exponentially. Stanford was on pace to win the Super Bowl in like three years.
D
[Deleted User]
Guest
Another problem with Harbaugh is he went 4-8, 5-7 first two years then only 8-5 year three. Only his fourth and final year was kick ass so his true value isn't shown.
Him laying the foundation for Stanford to make two more BCS games doesn't equate into that is the problem.
This year is going to be different! I can feel it!
"..Willingham . It takes a special effort to take average talent and go 0-12"
Last edited:
Mad_Son
New Fish
By the metric used in this exercise he actually underperformed the first two years relative to the talent he had. Looking at the season records for 2007 and 2008, Harbaugh was actually blown out several times so I don't think this is some sort of anomaly. It seems it actually took Harbaugh a while to get things implemented/change the culture/whatever. That being said Harbaugh's worst season is better than Sark's average in terms of getting results from your talent.
Maybe my middle aged and frequently inebriated eyes missed it but based on your metrics I can't imagine Chris Peterson not being near the top.
TheKobeStopper
New Fish
I'll keep posting this until you clowns listen. Sark is Ty. You're letting 0-12 cloud your vision.
The objection to Willinghams hiring wasn't that he would be a disaster that would lead to 0-12, it was that he was a mediocore coach and that UW would be stuck with him because he'd be impossible to fire when winning 6-8 games a season. This should sound familiar because Sark is right in the sweet spot of 6-8 wins.
Sark may well win 9 games this season but it will be no different from when Ty had magical seasons. The stars align sometimes. 9 wins this season won't make Sark some great coach or even a coach with potential. It'll make him a mediocore coach with a contract extension.
Last edited:
HeretoBeatmyChest
New Fish
I havent looked but the advanced metrics for Harbaugh's teams in years 2 and 3 likely showed a team much better than the record indicated. In year 2 I think they were 5-7 and had quite a few close losses. Then in the 8-5 year, they had many close calls and were quite close to being a 10 win team.
Mad_Son
New Fish
8/28/2008 Oregon State W 36-28 +12
9/6/2008 @ Arizona State L 17-41 -24
9/13/2008 @ Texas Christian L 14-31 -17
9/20/2008 San Jose State W 23-10 +13
9/27/2008 @ Washington W 35-28 +7
10/4/2008 @ Notre Dame L 21-28 -7
10/11/2008 Arizona W 24-23 +1
10/18/2008 @ UCLA L 20-23 -3
11/1/2008 Washington State W 58-0 +58
11/8/2008 @ Oregon L 28-35 -7
11/15/2008 Southern California L 23-45 -22
11/22/2008 @ California L 16-37 -21
That is four losses by 17+ in year 2. Year 3 (8-5) was much better.
Harbaugh took a 1 win team to 4, to 5, to 8, to 12. His situation was by far worse than Sark's. He had Tavita Pritchard playing QB his first two years. Locker is a polarizing guy, but Pritchard was basically Casey Paus II. He was terrible. Looking back, he probably should have played Luck his true freshman year, but Harbaugh may not have wanted to throw him to the wolves too early.
The other thing Harbaugh did was develop players. In 2008, he had the same WR's and TE's (Fleenor, Baldwin, the Whalen's, Owusu) as 2010. Young players got better under Harbaugh. I would have loved to see what he could have done at Michigan, they would have been scary good.
The other thing Harbaugh did was develop players. In 2008, he had the same WR's and TE's (Fleenor, Baldwin, the Whalen's, Owusu) as 2010. Young players got better under Harbaugh. I would have loved to see what he could have done at Michigan, they would have been scary good.