Year 3 Tends to be When You Kinda, Sorta Know... | Syracusefan.com

Year 3 Tends to be When You Kinda, Sorta Know...

Scooch

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
16,313
Like
53,136
... says data.

As I always preface all of my stats-heavy posts, this is not perfect. There are outliers and qualifiers.

I took a look at coaches currently with teams in the AP top 25 to see how they did in year #3 at their program. I didn’t bother to look at coaches from powerhouse schools, so I excluded Ohio State, LSU, Alabama, ND, Florida, Oklahoma , Michigan and Florida State. What Bob Stoops did at Oklahoma in year #3, or Saban at ‘Bama, really has little bearing on how we should calibrate our expectations at SU.

I also excluded Houston since the coach hasn’t been there 3 years yet . So I’ve focused on what arguably could be the sixteen comparable top 25 programs with circumstances vaguely similar to SU. Again, NOT PERFECT, but at least a conversation starter.

Of the sixteen coaches I examined 11 had more wins in year 3 than what the program achieved the year prior to that coach’s arrival. 2 were the same and 3 were worse. To be fair, just 8 of those 16 programs had winning seasons before the coach’s arrival, so many faced a relatively low bar. Also to be fair, of those 3 that were worse it includes David Shaw following a 12-1 year and Kyle Whittingham following a 12-0 year. Exceedingly high bars.

Perhaps more telling, of the sixteen coaches 12 had more wins in year #3 of their tenure then than they had in year #1. Three had the same amount of wins, and just 1 had less.

I know what some of the immediate responses will be: this isn’t apples-to-apples with SU’s circumstances, we have young talent, we’re catching up to the rest of the ACC, this isn’t a fair peer set, etc. I get it. I do.

But this data suggests that generally speaking, in broad strokes, by year #3 a top 25 coach tends to be showing progress, if not outright marked improvement. Only one of these coaches actually backslid from year #1 to #3, and that was Mark Dantonio with a 1 win decline.

I know progress is rarely linear, and I’m sure someone can produce examples of ultimately successful coaches who struggled for 3 years before flourishing later. But I do find this data troubling. We should be seeing improvement from a record standpoint, and we’re not.

Falling off from the 8 win total we had the year before Shafer started would not be unheard of. But falling off to 3 or 4 wins in year #3 definitely would be for a coach that ultimately gets to the top 25.

Maybe we’ll finish strong and put this to bed, I think we’d all prefer that.

upload_2015-11-5_13-21-28.png
 
Last edited:
But none of those guys ended up being as good as Mike Krzyzewski....
 
*edit* I made a mistake. Two of the sixteen coaches backslid year 1 to year 3. I missed Larry Fedora. He went from 8 wins to 6. And Dantonio went from 7 to 6.

Still, going from seven to 3 or 4 is not a good sign for the future given this data. If it plays out that way. Let's hope not.
 
KaiserUEO said:
hello?? anyone?? is this thing on?? where are the pro-SS arguments against this??

I'll take a semi-stab at it. But my disclaimer is that it's really hard to argue against that list and I'm on the fence on being a pro-SS guy after the FSU game - I expected to lose, but there was a lot not to like.

But I think even though he hired Mcit and gets the full blame for that - it was a mistake that's hard to unwind after you make it. We are just now getting Shafer talent in a decent system on O. Mcit put us behind and this years O has shown me enough to give him another year if we win 1-2.

The defense will recover.
 
Unfortunately I think I would toss a bunch more of those programs out of this study since they are closer to the Powerhouses than they are to us.

Clemson, Mich St, UCLA, Iowa, Oak St, Texas A&M, Stanford, ole Miss ...

Sigh... I get depressed just looking at those schools and thinking how far we are from them
 
Unfortunately I think I would toss a bunch more of those programs out of this study since they are closer to the Powerhouses than they are to us.

Clemson, Mich St, UCLA, Iowa, Oak St, Texas A&M, Stanford, ole Miss ...

Sigh... I get depressed just looking at those schools and thinking how far we are from them

And that's not entirely unfair. Which is of course depressing, as you said.

Although honestly if we really are at a point where our administration thinks we can't attain the level of UCLA, Iowa, OK State, Stanford or Ole Miss, then there's really no point in continuing this charade. I don't believe they think that though, otherwise Coyle wouldn't be here.
 
Id like to see the entire top 25 and the also receiving votes list. This is a cool data set though. Thanks
 
PhatOrange said:
Id like to see the entire top 25 and the also receiving votes list. This is a cool data set though. Thanks

I didn't pull data for the other 8 top 25 schools because I just didn't see the point in evaluating how coaches do at the preeminent factories. Didn't think that's relevant to SU. Others receiving votes might be interesting to add more sample.
 
First off, this makes Justin Fuente look like a goddamn stud. Let's just kidnap him for head coach and call it a day.

Honestly, there is a lot more at work than just the head coach. How much are they, and t.heir assistants, getting paid? What are their recruiting classes like? What is their opposing strength of schedule?

I think a lot of folks on here are just tired of defending HCSS and I don't blame them, I'm sick of investing my time in a losing product every weekend. That said, get us a schedule that is soft and money to attract great assistant coaches (or head coach) and you'll see a different product on the field. No offense to those who want a new modified Dome with a hotel and cool stuff everywhere but you could spend that same money on coaching personnel and get yourself in national championship contention in under a decade.
 
Unfortunately I think I would toss a bunch more of those programs out of this study since they are closer to the Powerhouses than they are to us.

Clemson, Mich St, UCLA, Iowa, Oak St, Texas A&M, Stanford, ole Miss ...

Sigh... I get depressed just looking at those schools and thinking how far we are from them

Didn't used to be.:(
 
I think you should have skewed the research to the teams 20-40. Traditionally that's where we were in the coach p years with a few better. Most of the schools in that area are closer to Syracuse
 
Shorter leash for promoted head coaches.

Shafer inherited a program on the upswing and three years is more than enough time for him to show he can at least sustain that upswing and display adequate competency in important areas such as game management.

Shafer has not shown an acceptable ability there specifically and hasn't made up for it in other areas so replacing him is the only logical choice.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
168,134
Messages
4,751,864
Members
5,942
Latest member
whodatnatn

Online statistics

Members online
186
Guests online
1,746
Total visitors
1,932


Top Bottom