Study: College football coaching changes are overrated

[SUinNYC]

Interesting article...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2012/11/16/university-study-coaching-change-help/1708975/

This particular passage stood out to me because P had 6 wins in each of his last two seasons.

Basically, poorly performing teams might get a brief improvement when changing coaches, but the change doesn't last – bad teams remain bad. And average teams, those that hover around six wins every season, actually get worse after making a coaching change.

 

[dollarbill44]

So, this study would suggest that it wouldn't have mattered if we kept GRob. The article didn't give a reason why they only looked at the subsequent 4 years after the coaching change, since improvements in recruiting under a new coach would not be fully realized until year 5. I'm sure there was a valid reason, but I would like to know what it was, unless the data beyond 4 years disproved their hypothesis.

 

[billsin01]

So, this study would suggest that it wouldn't have mattered if we kept GRob. The article didn't give a reason why they only looked at the subsequent 4 years after the coaching change, since improvements in recruiting under a new coach would not be fully realized until year 5. I'm sure there was a valid reason, but I would like to know what it was, unless the data beyond 4 years disproved their hypothesis.

Yeah, I think studies like this are kind of funny because we all understand that there is a lot more involved than simply coaching. But this seems to insinuate that if you have an OK coach you shouldn't bother trying to find a really good one. I don't buy that.

 

[Millhouse]

Dollar bill makes a good point. The study ignores writing on the wall. If a coach's recruiting is declining, it might only be fully reflected a couple years into the next coach's record.

 

[SUinNYC]

Yep, there are flaws here. But I found it interesting to see the numbers independent of names/schools/reputations.

I was one of the people who was ready to see P go. I was more than ready to see GRob go. And I also think we need to stick with Marrone and give him an extension.

 

[Chip]

Dollar bill makes a good point. The study ignores writing on the wall. If a coach's recruiting is declining, it might only be fully reflected a couple years into the next coach's record.

And it doesn't take the entire situation into effect. Sometimes programs just get stale under a coach. Doesn't mean he can't coach, just means it isn't working anymore. And if you keep him (because the next guy might not be better), you lose fan interest, you lose donations, ticket sales. Best case you run in place. One of the only coaches to consistently recover from stale periods was Paterno. Phil Fulmer wasn't likely to. Jeff Tedford will be another example after this season.

It's up to the school to find the right hire. Which, as we know, is not an exact science. Changing to a worse coach doesn't mean you shouldn't have changed. It means you should have picked a better coach.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Changing to a worse coach doesn't mean you shouldn't have changed. It means you should have picked a better coach.

That's right.

 

[Chip]

That's right.

Maybe Bill Snyder will revolutionize it for the stale coach. Let him go for a few years, then bring him back.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Maybe Bill Snyder will revolutionize it for the stale coach. Let him go for a few years, then bring him back.

There might be something to say for that.

 

[BlazeOrange]

Maybe Bill Snyder will revolutionize it for the stale coach. Let him go for a few years, then bring him back.

Didn't Pitt try that with Majors a while ago? USC with Robinson too? Neither worked out too well, IIRC.

 

[Chip]

Didn't Pitt try that with Majors a while ago? USC with Robinson too? Neither worked out too well, IIRC.

True. Those are both very very bad examples. Although Majors at Pitt part II really helped our program succeed. It spoke for itself so badly that you didn't have to negatively recruit.