Do coaching changes work. Social science quarterly

[kcsu]

A friend of mine Vandy grad did some homework on coaching changes. His research diddnt just focus on American college football but many sports from many countries both pro and college.

Here are the facts.

In short teams from all walks of life who have a horrible season and make a coaching change do not do any better going forward than teams with equally bad results who do not make a change.

Teams with middle of the road records lets say 500 or so that make coaching changes almost always do worse than 500 teams that stay the course. What this tells me is that we may not be providing enough time in todays win now world to build a good program. Other posters have provided many examples including our own Mac. Recruiting connections are critical in college sports and the damage that can be done by trading out coaches who are making solid progress in recruiting can be hard to overcome. So for me i hope that Shaf and crew make a bowl this year and gain a few more years because i believe they are on a solid path. The facts seem to support staying the course.

 

[SoBristol]

...
In short teams from all walks of life who have a horrible season and make a coaching change do not do any better going forward than teams with equally bad results who do not make a change.

Teams with middle of the road records lets say 500 or so that make coaching changes almost always do worse than 500 teams that stay the course. ... So for me i hope that Shaf and crew make a bowl this year and gain a few more years because i believe they are on a solid path. The facts seem to support staying the course.

On average, you might expect that teams do about the same as in their recent history --because there are many variables at play (location, fan support, overall strength of the school and the program) and many of these variables do not change.

Yet there are plenty of examples close to us where a change in the HC does make a difference. PP to Robinson (big negative change); Robinson to Marrone (big positive change); Marrone to Shafer (arguable in many dimensions, but there was a set-back on the OC side).

To me, it depends on judgment factors about why the program is struggling, and the reasons for the change in HC. Not winning recruiting battles -- and the new HC has personal qualities that will make him better at closing? Insufficient discipline and motivation within the program? Game prep and in-game decisions? Doubts about how the HC is building and refreshing his staff? Lack of energy among the staff in recruiting efforts? Ability of the HC to sell and promote the program internally & externally? Or, just not winning rivalry games, for whatever reasons?

I see positive signs in what Shafer is doing. Bobby Acosta was a great hire, as was Jake Morland. Recruiting seems to be a tad stronger (nothing spectacular yet). A lot depends on progress on the OC side. And, unfortunately, the 2015 team has some big challenges (the secondary, RB, DTs, lack of a capable back-up QB) that a different HC might have addressed through smart JUCO recruiting.

And, yes, bottom line I hope like crazy that Shafer puts it together, gets to a bowl, and makes it an easy decision to keep his band in place.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

He has to put an average to slightly below average offense out there this year... What we saw last year waivered on incompetence actually I don't even think it waivered, it was basically incompetent. Regardless of how people feel about Shafer and I hope the guy coaches here for 20 years, you cant ignore what they put on the field last year with regard to offense. His future lies with his assistants that he has hired on the offensive side of the ball. Like I said slightly below average would probably be the 2nd best offense we have had here in 10-12 years. A new AD isn't nor should they accept that type of play on the field. They will never in a million years put their name on that type of stuff

 

[Scooch]

Interesting, but your friend needs to control for a LOT more factors than just the coaching change to see if that one aspect is a significant driver.

Got a link to his work?

 

[Millhouse]

A friend of mine Vandy grad did some homework on coaching changes. His research diddnt just focus on American college football but many sports from many countries both pro and college.

Here are the facts.

In short teams from all walks of life who have a horrible season and make a coaching change do not do any better going forward than teams with equally bad results who do not make a change.

Teams with middle of the road records lets say 500 or so that make coaching changes almost always do worse than 500 teams that stay the course. What this tells me is that we may not be providing enough time in todays win now world to build a good program. Other posters have provided many examples including our own Mac. Recruiting connections are critical in college sports and the damage that can be done by trading out coaches who are making solid progress in recruiting can be hard to overcome. So for me i hope that Shaf and crew make a bowl this year and gain a few more years because i believe they are on a solid path. The facts seem to support staying the course.

selection bias. 500 teams that keep their coach are more likely to be improving than 500 teams that get rid of their coach.

 

[upperdeck]

wouldnt you also need to know if its a .500 team on the way down or a .500 team on the way up? what period of time was the team .500? also what players did they lose along with changing the coach?

 

[Millhouse]

He has to put an average to slightly below average offense out there this year... What we saw last year waivered on incompetence actually I don't even think it waivered, it was basically incompetent. Regardless of how people feel about Shafer and I hope the guy coaches here for 20 years, you cant ignore what they put on the field last year with regard to offense. His future lies with his assistants that he has hired on the offensive side of the ball. Like I said slightly below average would probably be the 2nd best offense we have had here in 10-12 years. A new AD isn't nor should they accept that type of play on the field. They will never in a million years put their name on that type of stuff

both of my teams are implementing these multiple tight end centric unclassifiable offenses in an attempt to mask not having a qb who can throw the ball. which makes some sense if your idiot gm spends two first rounders on one WR (instead of up to 2 QBs)

i think this is a terrible idea in college where there are a dozen qbs dismissed as system guys every year. the best thing for the program is to install an offense that makes QBs very successful. the best thing for shafer is to try to trick his way to 6 wins. i don't think that's happening anyway so maybe next year we start over and do it the right way

 

[orangeinjersey]

agree'd its not all about the coaching change. Look at Rich Rod. He stunk it up in Ann Arbor, is killing it at Zona. Todd Graham, mediocre at Pitt, killing it at ASU. There are so many variables at play here. Too many schools think a coaching change solves all problems, but many of the issues are systematic, ie; fan support, AD support, funding, recruiting area etc.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

both of my teams are implementing these multiple tight end centric unclassifiable offenses in an attempt to mask not having a qb who can throw the ball. which makes some sense if your idiot gm spends two first rounders on one WR (instead of up to 2 QBs)

i think this is a terrible idea in college where there are a dozen qbs dismissed as system guys every year. the best thing for the program is to install an offense that makes QBs very successful. the best thing for shafer is to try to trick his way to 6 wins. i don't think that's happening anyway so maybe next year we start over and do it the right way

I don't have much faith in Syracuse football ever doing things the right way at this point

 

[Millhouse]

I don't have much faith in Syracuse football ever doing things the right way at this point

i'd love to see Syverud hire some southern no frills AD. somebody who's surrounded by simple effective high school offenses that knows college football that has no interest in manhattan style lounges

 

[sufandu]

A friend of mine Vandy grad did some homework on coaching changes. His research diddnt just focus on American college football but many sports from many countries both pro and college.

Here are the facts.

In short teams from all walks of life who have a horrible season and make a coaching change do not do any better going forward than teams with equally bad results who do not make a change.

Teams with middle of the road records lets say 500 or so that make coaching changes almost always do worse than 500 teams that stay the course. What this tells me is that we may not be providing enough time in todays win now world to build a good program. Other posters have provided many examples including our own Mac. Recruiting connections are critical in college sports and the damage that can be done by trading out coaches who are making solid progress in recruiting can be hard to overcome. So for me i hope that Shaf and crew make a bowl this year and gain a few more years because i believe they are on a solid path. The facts seem to support staying the course.

Cutcliffe at Duke may be a current example. To be fair, Duke was so bad for so long before he got there they had every reason to be patient.

 

[CuseIsInTheHouse]

Can you friend do research on the effects of new uniforms on recruits?