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

[TheCusian]

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.

Competition is getting better. The offense and defense had looked better until the FSU game.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

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

I don't think people really knew what to expect when he was hired, he was the death blow to the program though. It had been dying a slow death over the years with the lack of commitment to facilities, etc. hiring Robinson ruined this program and its perception nationally, still feel it today. Been a tough 10 years and that is what killed us when marrone left, I figured he would leave for the nfl at some point, just wish it was right about now...

 

[TheCusian]

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.

Agreed. But not typically accounting for 70% of your offense and defense.

 

[Scooch]

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.

It's fine, I do this for a living and I get much worse criticism on that front than I've gotten here!

Since a few people asked, I performed the same analysis for programs in the others receiving votes of this week's AP top 25. As before, I excluded programs that are considered elite (USC, Penn State). I also had to exclude Pitt, Wisconsin and Boise State (*edit and Tennessee) since their coaches haven't been on the job 3 years yet. Although Narduzzi and Chryst seem to be off to solid starts, while what Boise State accomplishes while cycling through coaches is nothing sort of remarkable.

That leaves 6 more coaches to analyze:

*edit* messed up the order of the data for Butch Jones. He hasn't completed his 3rd year so I'll exclude him for now. Change in analysis reflected below...

Five of these six had more wins in year #3 than the program did the year before they took over (just 2 had to exceed winning records though). 4 of the 6 had more wins in year 3 than they did in year 1, while one matched his year 1 total, and one fell short (Cutliffe).

David Cutliffe is the guy most often referenced around here as the case study of needing to be patient, and the data paints an interesting picture. Duke was absolutely horrendous before Cutliffe arrived. I mean worse then Gergian. Much worse. That program had 0 wins (zero) THREE times in the 8 years before he took over. They also had one win twice, and two wins twice. Duke was 13-90 in the eight seasons before Cutliffe started. Look at that again... THIRTEEN and NINETY. Cutliffe had Duke at 5 wins in his second season, which was the best record they had in fifteen years! He backslid in years 3 and 4, but that program is such an outlier compared to almost everyone else in college football I don't think he's a useful benchmark.

Honestly Cutliffe winning 5 games in his second season, including 3 ACC wins, might be the most impressive coaching job of this century. I'm not kidding. I don't think he's really the poster child for patience, it was clear he was good very early on.

This additional data supports the prior top 25 data. I'm sticking to my finding from earlier, generally speaking a coach who is in the top 25 today, or others receiving votes, was showing tangible improvement in his program's record by year #3.

 

[Scooch]

Youth

 

[Forza Azzurri]

Playing a few freshmen and sophomores here and there doesn't mean you can't evaluate a head coach

We are doing a lot more than just playing a few underclassmen here and there

And inexperienced players have nothing to do with horrid game management and unintelligent decisions from the HC.

As I stated in my response to UEO, this is an increasing concern. Both the crucial in-game decisions and the extracurricular polemics are more worrisome. Not enough for me to not give him that extra year but definitely a concern.

Inexperienced coaches can get better. Some do. Some don't. You need a crystal ball to know. Plenty of really good coaches with rocky starts. Plenty of mediocre coaches with good starts. As I said, I have concerns and will concede that the evidence against him is mounting, but am not ready to pull the plug yet.

Unfortunately, that is just something we have to live with every time we hire somebody. We just are never going to get someone who is a proven success. You are ready to toss him aside. I'm not there yet.

 

[Vorony]

It's fine, I do this for a living and I get much worse criticism on that front then I've gotten here!

Since a few people asked, I performed the same analysis for programs in the others receiving votes of this week's AP top 25. As before, I excluded programs that are considered elite (USC, Penn State). I also had to exclude Pitt, Wisconsin and Boise State (*edit and Tennessee) since their coaches haven't been on the job 3 years yet. Although Narduzzi and Chryst seem to be off to solid starts, while what Boise State accomplishes while cycling through coaches is nothing sort of remarkable.

That leaves 6 more coaches to analyze:

View attachment 53596

*edit* messed up the order of the data for Butch Jones. He hasn't completed his 3rd year so I'll exclude him for now. Change in analysis reflected below...

Five of these six had more wins in year #3 than the program did the year before they took over (Butch Jones needs one win to exceed his year-prior win total). 4 of the 6 had more wins in year 3 than they did in year 1, while one matched his year 1 total, and one fell short.

David Cutliffe is the guy most often referenced around here as the case study of needing to be patient, and the data paints an interesting picture. Duke was absolutely horrendous before Cutliffe arrived. I mean worse then Gergian. Much worse. That program had 0 wins (zero) THREE times in the 8 years before he took over. They also had one win twice, and two wins twice. Duke was 13-90 in the eight seasons before Cutliffe started. Look at that again... THIRTEEN and NINETY. Cutliffe had Duke at 5 wins in his second season, which was the best record they had in fifteen years! He backslid in years 3 and 4, but that program is such an outlier compared to almost everyone else in college football I don't think he's a useful benchmark.

This additional data supports the prior top 25 data. I'm sticking to my finding from earlier, generally speaking a coach who is in the top 25 today, or others receiving votes, was showing tangible improvement in his program's record by year #3.

Excellent analysis. Folks around here keep trying to use the outlier as a reason to justify keeping SS for a 4th year. But your analysis proves that, as you said, he's the exception not the norm. I consult for large hospitals for a living, and we use stats to prove our recommendations. It drives us crazy when the leadership focuses on that "one time 20 years ago when the ER had an influx of patients at 2am". That's pretty much exactly what's going on here. Focusing on the outlier, not the overall distribution of the data set.

 

[Scooch]

Excellent analysis. Folks around here keep trying to use the outlier as a reason to justify keeping SS for a 4th year. But your analysis proves that, as you said, he's the exception not the norm. I consult for large hospitals for a living, and we use stats to prove our recommendations. It drives us crazy when the leadership focuses on that "one time 20 years ago when the ER had an influx of patients at 2am". That's pretty much exactly what's going on here. Focusing on the outlier, not the overall distribution of the data set.

Thanks!

I'm sincerely not trying to "prove" anything. If people think it's best to keep Shafer on another season even if we only win 3 or 4 games this year that's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I just really wanted to see how his current trajectory compared to other coaches who are having success currently (as defined by being in the top 25, or others receiving votes). And the data suggest that his trajectory is not cause for optimism. But there are exceptions so should Coyle decide to retain him let's hope he's that.

 

[Scooch]

One more bit of analysis...

Of the 23 coaches I looked at ten of them inherited a program with a winning record the year before they took over (meaning 7 wins or better).

Five of those 10 won more games in their third year than the team won in the year before they started (Dabo, Patterson, Sumlin, Fitzgerald and Niumatalolo).

Two won the same amount (Gundy, Campbell).

Three won less (Shaw, who won 11 but that was less than Harbaugh's 12; Whittingham, who won 9 but that was less than Meyer's 12; and Fedora, who won 6 which was less than Whithers's 7).

So even when having to clear a high(ish) bar, 7 of the 10 coaches with team's currently in the top 25 or others receiving votes managed to win more, or the same, as their immediate predecessor's last season. Of the three that didn't two of them still had great year 3s (Shaw, Whittingham) so there was really little question that they were up to their jobs.

I guess we're hoping Shafer can be like Fedora, although he hasn't won less than 6 games in his 4 years and is on his way to his 4th straight bowl.

And for what it's worth, by excluding the programs I felt subjectively were "elite" I thought I'd be skewing this analysis to help Shafer. I figured those were the programs that would be much more capable of turning things around more quickly, since they likely had more talent on hand for a new coach, and/or recruit at a higher level and could get more game-ready kids on the field earlier in their careers. By focusing on tier 2 and below I thought I'd see more programs that took more time to build to their current status. But the data suggests those programs have ramped up relatively quickly all things considered.

 

[Forza Azzurri]

It's fine, I do this for a living and I get much worse criticism on that front than I've gotten here!

Since a few people asked, I performed the same analysis for programs in the others receiving votes of this week's AP top 25. As before, I excluded programs that are considered elite (USC, Penn State). I also had to exclude Pitt, Wisconsin and Boise State (*edit and Tennessee) since their coaches haven't been on the job 3 years yet. Although Narduzzi and Chryst seem to be off to solid starts, while what Boise State accomplishes while cycling through coaches is nothing sort of remarkable.

That leaves 6 more coaches to analyze:

View attachment 53596

*edit* messed up the order of the data for Butch Jones. He hasn't completed his 3rd year so I'll exclude him for now. Change in analysis reflected below...

Five of these six had more wins in year #3 than the program did the year before they took over (just 2 had to exceed winning records though). 4 of the 6 had more wins in year 3 than they did in year 1, while one matched his year 1 total, and one fell short (Cutliffe).

David Cutliffe is the guy most often referenced around here as the case study of needing to be patient, and the data paints an interesting picture. Duke was absolutely horrendous before Cutliffe arrived. I mean worse then Gergian. Much worse. That program had 0 wins (zero) THREE times in the 8 years before he took over. They also had one win twice, and two wins twice. Duke was 13-90 in the eight seasons before Cutliffe started. Look at that again... THIRTEEN and NINETY. Cutliffe had Duke at 5 wins in his second season, which was the best record they had in fifteen years! He backslid in years 3 and 4, but that program is such an outlier compared to almost everyone else in college football I don't think he's a useful benchmark.

Honestly Cutliffe winning 5 games in his second season, including 3 ACC wins, might be the most impressive coaching job of this century. I'm not kidding. I don't think he's really the poster child for patience, it was clear he was good very early on.

This additional data supports the prior top 25 data. I'm sticking to my finding from earlier, generally speaking a coach who is in the top 25 today, or others receiving votes, was showing tangible improvement in his program's record by year #3.

BTW, both this and the original analysis are terrific.

They definitely provide food for thought...

The A's have Billy ball. SU has Scooch Stats...

 

[storange]

hello??

anyone??

is this thing on??

where are the pro-SS arguments against this??

Here is a simple one, We are inches and at least one big horrific call from being 5-3 instead of being 3-5. with a team full of freshmen and sophomores I can wait to see what happens next year before making the switch and I'm pretty sure Coyle will as his "its a Marathon not a sprint " quote would suggest.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Here is a simple one, We are inches and at least one big horrific call from being 5-3 instead of being 3-5. with a team full of freshmen and sophomores I can wait to see what happens next year before making the switch and I'm pretty sure Coyle will as his "its a Marathon not a sprint " quote would suggest.

We're also inches from being 2-6.

 

[Fly Rodder]

Every team has close wins and losses. Gotta go with what's on the paper. Also winning teams put themselves in position to win.

Same with close calls in any other sport. It just washes out as noise.

 

[storange]

Every team has close wins and losses. Gotta go with what's on the paper. Also winning teams put themselves in position to win.

Same with close calls in any other sport. It just washes out as noise.

That has always been a view point that I flat out disagree with, Especially on a team loaded with underclassmen.

 

[TheCusian]

Every team has close wins and losses. Gotta go with what's on the paper. Also winning teams put themselves in position to win. Same with close calls in any other sport. It just washes out as noise.

Yeah I'd agree if we were a veteran team.

 

[phil77]

Say we lose out this year and turn in back to back 3-9 win seasons. I am just baffled as to how many people still would believe in Shafer and want him around. That would mean last year we ended with losing 9 out of the last 10. And this year losing 9 games in a row. Last two years only we would have beaten only Wake Forest in the ACC. And Wake Forest would be our only 2 wins versus P5 teams. I don't know how anyone can look at that and go yes I believe he will turn it around.

Last two years we would have beaten Central Michigan twice, Wake twice, Rhode Island and Villanova. That is awful and bottom of the barrel type stuff.

 

[GoSU96]

I don't think people really knew what to expect when he was hired, he was the death blow to the program though. It had been dying a slow death over the years with the lack of commitment to facilities, etc. hiring Robinson ruined this program and its perception nationally, still feel it today. Been a tough 10 years and that is what killed us when marrone left, I figured he would leave for the nfl at some point, just wish it was right about now...

He'd been a fired from two jobs in the prior four years, he had one season as co-DC at Texas in 2004, it had been 14 years before that since he had been in college.

How anyone could spend 10 minutes listening to the guy speak in a public setting and not see he was a mess is beyond me. He gave a speech at an university event and he went on for 3o minutes and it was a mess. It was the most disorganized, jumbled thing I've ever sat through. Not a single organizing theme, a bunch of words strung together signifying nothing.

And it's exactly how he ran the program and coached games.

I bit my tongue for awhile to be a "good fan" but I was pissed then, and I'm still pissed. There was an article that I posted during that hiring process about how horrible he was as a DC, and the counter was "two superbowl rings".

You are exactly right "still felt today".

And what's remarkable is that they hired a guy to fix it, he was doing the job they hired him to do, but instead of giving him the tools he needed to get better from there, they hedged their bets, didn't get him signed to a new deal, figured they could wait until the season ended, and looked what happened.

TGD, 'ed up his first hire, mismanaged the guy who was actually doing the job well, caught flatfooted a third time.

 

[Bayside44]

Here is a simple one, We are inches and at least one big horrific call from being 5-3 instead of being 3-5. with a team full of freshmen and sophomores I can wait to see what happens next year before making the switch and I'm pretty sure Coyle will as his "its a Marathon not a sprint " quote would suggest.

The horrific call (if you mean UVa) happened in the first quarter. Still had the lead in the 4th.

We had Boeheim on the payroll, he goes to the games, maybe he can be our clock management guy.

 

[Scooch]

The horrific call (if you mean UVa) happened in the first quarter. Still had the lead in the 4th.

We had Boeheim on the payroll, he goes to the games, maybe he can be our clock management guy.

JB stalls better than Shafer, that's for sure.

 

[storange]

He'd been a fired from two jobs in the prior four years, he had one season as co-DC at Texas in 2004, it had been 14 years before that since he had been in college.

How anyone could spend 10 minutes listening to the guy speak in a public setting and not see he was a mess is beyond me. He gave a speech at an university event and he went on for 3o minutes and it was a mess. It was the most disorganized, jumbled thing I've ever sat through. Not a single organizing theme, a bunch of words strung together signifying nothing.

And it's exactly how he ran the program and coached games.

I bit my tongue for awhile to be a "good fan" but I was pissed then, and I'm still pissed. There was an article that I posted during that hiring process about how horrible he was as a DC, and the counter was "two superbowl rings".

You are exactly right "still felt today".

And what's remarkable is that they hired a guy to fix it, he was doing the job they hired him to do, but instead of giving him the tools he needed to get better from there, they hedged their bets, didn't get him signed to a new deal, figured they could wait until the season ended, and looked what happened.

TGD, 'ed up his first hire, mismanaged the guy who was actually doing the job well, caught flatfooted a third time.

Ahh yes how those Superbowl Rings were going to drive in the 5 star recruits and take us to college football utopia . Remember it well.

 

[Scooch]

We're also inches from being 2-6.

All this talk of inches really excites Ch-... nah, I'm not going to go there.

 

[GoSU96]

It's fine, I do this for a living and I get much worse criticism on that front than I've gotten here!

Since a few people asked, I performed the same analysis for programs in the others receiving votes of this week's AP top 25. As before, I excluded programs that are considered elite (USC, Penn State). I also had to exclude Pitt, Wisconsin and Boise State (*edit and Tennessee) since their coaches haven't been on the job 3 years yet. Although Narduzzi and Chryst seem to be off to solid starts, while what Boise State accomplishes while cycling through coaches is nothing sort of remarkable.

That leaves 6 more coaches to analyze:

View attachment 53596

*edit* messed up the order of the data for Butch Jones. He hasn't completed his 3rd year so I'll exclude him for now. Change in analysis reflected below...

Five of these six had more wins in year #3 than the program did the year before they took over (just 2 had to exceed winning records though). 4 of the 6 had more wins in year 3 than they did in year 1, while one matched his year 1 total, and one fell short (Cutliffe).

David Cutliffe is the guy most often referenced around here as the case study of needing to be patient, and the data paints an interesting picture. Duke was absolutely horrendous before Cutliffe arrived. I mean worse then Gergian. Much worse. That program had 0 wins (zero) THREE times in the 8 years before he took over. They also had one win twice, and two wins twice. Duke was 13-90 in the eight seasons before Cutliffe started. Look at that again... THIRTEEN and NINETY. Cutliffe had Duke at 5 wins in his second season, which was the best record they had in fifteen years! He backslid in years 3 and 4, but that program is such an outlier compared to almost everyone else in college football I don't think he's a useful benchmark.

Honestly Cutliffe winning 5 games in his second season, including 3 ACC wins, might be the most impressive coaching job of this century. I'm not kidding. I don't think he's really the poster child for patience, it was clear he was good very early on.

This additional data supports the prior top 25 data. I'm sticking to my finding from earlier, generally speaking a coach who is in the top 25 today, or others receiving votes, was showing tangible improvement in his program's record by year #3.

The other data point I'd look at is not just the prior season but three or four seasons before, that would give context regarding the overall state of the program. One season in isolation could be the result of a lot of factors, good and bad, that don't reflect the broader state of the program.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

He'd been a fired from two jobs in the prior four years, he had one season as co-DC at Texas in 2004, it had been 14 years before that since he had been in college.

How anyone could spend 10 minutes listening to the guy speak in a public setting and not see he was a mess is beyond me. He gave a speech at an university event and he went on for 3o minutes and it was a mess. It was the most disorganized, jumbled thing I've ever sat through. Not a single organizing theme, a bunch of words strung together signifying nothing.

And it's exactly how he ran the program and coached games.

I bit my tongue for awhile to be a "good fan" but I was pissed then, and I'm still pissed. There was an article that I posted during that hiring process about how horrible he was as a DC, and the counter was "two superbowl rings".

You are exactly right "still felt today".

And what's remarkable is that they hired a guy to fix it, he was doing the job they hired him to do, but instead of giving him the tools he needed to get better from there, they hedged their bets, didn't get him signed to a new deal, figured they could wait until the season ended, and looked what happened.

TGD, 'ed up his first hire, mismanaged the guy who was actually doing the job well, caught flatfooted a third time.

And there you have it... The train-wreck that has been Syracuse football for 10+ years now. Greg absolutely torched this program.

 

[Millhouse]

And there you have it... The train-wreck that has been Syracuse football for 10+ years now. Greg absolutely torched this program.

they could've limited the damage had they fired him after year one but noooooo we need continuity and what about the recruits

 

[storange]

they could've limited the damage had they fired him after year one but noooooo we need continuity and what about the recruits

To be honest, I don't remember anyone on this board calling for his head after one year. I remember him be introduced at a hoop game and getting a big cheer after the 1-10 season. Almost everybody was on board still.