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

[CuseOnly]

"Stats are for losers." - Scott Shafer

 

[007]

David Cutcliffe at Duke.

Exceptions to strong correlations do not disprove the correlation. If Scooch's data suggests that the vast majority of successful coaches show improvement in win-loss totals by year 3, pointing out exceptions like Cutcliffe and Beamer does not invalidate the correlation. There are probably 1000s of people (just making up numbers here) who smoke 2 packs a day and never get lung cancer. Does that prove that smoking does not cause cancer?

If the majority of successful coaches show improvement in win-loss totals by year 3, does that mean that Shafer will not have a Cutcliffe like career? Nope. It does show that he is in a much larger "risk pool."

 

[Millhouse]

cutcliffe inherited worse than what marrone did, not what shafer did. Completely different.

we have not been great but would anyone have wanted to trade places with duke and washington state before cutcliffe and leach?

 

[Millhouse]

Exceptions to strong correlations do not disprove the correlation. If Scooch's data suggests that the vast majority of successful coaches show improvement in win-loss totals by year 3, pointing out exceptions like Cutcliffe and Beamer does not invalidate the correlation. There are probably 1000s of people (just making up numbers here) who smoke 2 packs a day and never get lung cancer. Does that prove that smoking does not cause cancer?

If the majority of successful coaches show improvement in win-loss totals by year 3, does that mean that Shafer will not have a Cutcliffe like career? Nope. It does show that he is in a much larger "risk pool."

yes! no one wants to think about probabilities with this stuff. there are so many teams, there's always going to be an exception that can be used to prop up any possible story.

 

[Scooch]

Exceptions to strong correlations do not disprove the correlation. If Scooch's data suggests that the vast majority of successful coaches show improvement in win-loss totals by year 3, pointing out exceptions like Cutcliffe and Beamer does not invalidate the correlation. There are probably 1000s of people (just making up numbers here) who smoke 2 packs a day and never get lung cancer. Does that prove that smoking does not cause cancer? If the majority of successful coaches show improvement in win-loss totals by year 3, does that mean that Shafer will not have a Cutcliffe like career? Nope. It does show that he is in a much larger "risk pool."

I love you.

 

[Scooch]

"Stats are for losers." - Scott Shafer

That mindset certainly shows in his clock management.

BOOM, ROASTED!

 

[orangenirvana]

"Stats are for losers." - Scott Shafer

I thought you were joking but looked it up and sure enough Shafer said it. I forgot all about it.

Indicative of a meathead mentality that I don't want to see out of my head coach.

 

[Forza Azzurri]

hello??

anyone??

is this thing on??

where are the pro-SS arguments against this??

Same arguments I made before...

The recruiting is better. The team is very young. I give him one more year.

Next year, no excuses. 7-5 or better.

HOWEVER, what is becoming increasingly concerning to me are two things:

1. In-game decisions. I don't think there is any need to elaborate here.

2. Extracurriculars. He is complaining about Golson's injury not being disclosed? Really????? What if they had both been healthy and Fisher had decided to bring in Maguire? Focus on what you can control and ignore that why you can't or that which is trivial. Like we would have won the game if we had known that Maguire was going to be the QB? We all knew that they were going to hand the ball off the entire second half and we still couldn't stop them. Gimme a break.

As I said, next year 7-5 or better...

 

[storange]

... 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.

View attachment 53582

Should I go spend time researching and pull up the 20 coaches that it took longer for starting with our own Coach Mac. I'll pass

 

[orangenirvana]

Same arguments I made before...

The recruiting is better. The team is very young. I give him one more year.

Next year, no excuses. 7-5 or better.

HOWEVER, what is becoming increasingly concerning to me are two things:

1. In-game decisions. I don't think there is any need to elaborate here.

2. Extracurriculars. He is complaining about Golson's injury not being disclosed? Really????? What if they had both been healthy and Fisher had decided to bring in Maguire? Focus on what you can control and ignore that why you can't or that which is trivial. Like we would have won the game if we had known that Maguire was going to be the QB? We all knew that they were going to hand the ball off the entire second half and we still couldn't stop them. Gimme a break.

As I said, next year 7-5 or better...

Just a waste of time.

We have a young quarterback who has the potential to be pretty special (at least relatively speaking). Four-year window. We need to find a coaching staff that will elevate him and the team around him.

There are candidates available out there who have a history of overseeing high-powered offenses. Don't stand around waiting for the inevitable failed fourth year - go get him now.

 

[Scooch]

Should I go spend time researching and pull up the 20 coaches that it took longer for starting with our own Coach Mac. I'll pass

Thanks for reading!

 

[Millhouse]

Thanks for reading!

so much making the perfect the enemy of the good

the objective is not to make the best choice based on probabilities, it is to never ever ever fire a coach too early

 

[Scooch]

I think I was pretty unambiguous in my initial post that there are many exceptions to this data. I hope Shafer rips off 3 wins to close this season, wins a bowl, and has a long, successful career at SU.

But what this data indicates to me (note: not proves, just indicates) is that the oft-repeated comment that a coach needs 4 or 5 years is not necessarily true. Lots of currently successful coaches had their programs pointing in the right direction by year 3 of their tenure.

 

[Forza Azzurri]

Just a waste of time.

That is just a difference of opinion.

You think he is a lost cause.

I'm not there yet.

 

[orangenirvana]

That is just a difference of opinion.

You think he is a lost cause.

I'm not there yet.

Why is four years enough but three years is too soon?

 

[Millhouse]

I think I was pretty unambiguous in my initial post that there are many exceptions to this data. I hope Shafer rips off 3 wins to close this season, wins a bowl, and has a long, successful career at SU.

But what this data indicates to me (note: not proves, just indicates) is that the oft-repeated comment that a coach needs 4 or 5 years is not necessarily true. Lots of currently successful coaches had their programs pointing in the right direction by year 3 of their tenure.

it's interesting that no one seems to be that upset that robinson was around for 2008.

all the frustration is concentrated on hiring him in the first place. but it's just sort of accepted that he got that extra year

 

[Scooch]

it's interesting that no one seems to be that upset that robinson was around for 2008. all the frustration is concentrated on hiring him in the first place. but it's just sort of accepted that he got that extra year

It's also interesting that the mantra when it comes to players (professionals, obviously, with contracts) is that it's better to cut a guy a year too early than a year too late.

No one seems to think that way re: coaches. Not perfectly analogous, but interesting.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Not that there haven't been some reasonable suggestions as to how Scooch may have done things with a bit more precision, but man, that's missing the point.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

It's also interesting that the mantra when it comes to players (professionals, obviously, with contracts) is that it's better to cut a guy a year too early than a year too late.

No one seems to think that way re: coaches. Not perfectly analogous, but interesting.

Eh, GMs and ADs think that way sometimes. Maybe they're aware of the types of trends you identified.

 

[Forza Azzurri]

Why is four years enough but three years is too soon?

Because the team this year is very young and inexperienced, other than the O-Line.

A lot of young guys getting a lot of playing time.

 

[orangenirvana]

Because the team this year is very young and inexperienced, other than the O-Line.

A lot of young guys getting a lot of playing time.

Many said the same thing about Gerg in 2007. Playing a few freshmen and sophomores here and there doesn't mean you can't evaluate a head coach.

I would think a young, inexperienced team with a quality head coach would be getting better, not worse. And inexperienced players have nothing to do with horrid game management and unintelligent decisions from the HC.

Having promising young talent is all the more reason to make a change to upgrade as soon as possible.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

Next year the built in excuse will be the o-line is young. This is college football there will always be units that are young and inexperienced.

 

[GoSU96]

it's interesting that no one seems to be that upset that robinson was around for 2008.

all the frustration is concentrated on hiring him in the first place. but it's just sort of accepted that he got that extra year

I wasn't happy he was hired and I wasn't happy he got the extra year

 

[TheCusian]

Why is four years enough but three years is too soon?

Youth

 

[Millhouse]

I wasn't happy he was hired and I wasn't happy he got the extra year

i remember the sinking feeling the first time i heard west coast