What Kind Of Turnaround Will A New Coach Bring?

UNT Mean Green · November 30, 2009

From Rivals.com, here are the 22 coaching changes that took place this time last year and their subsequent results.

Coaching Changes

The new guys

Team New coach Record Last season

Army Rich Ellerson 5-6 3-9

Auburn Gene Chizik 7-5* 5-7

Ball State Stan Parrish 2-10 12-2

Boston College Frank Spaziani 8-4* 9-5

Bowling Green Dave Clawson 7-5* 6-6

Clemson Dabo Swinney 8-5* 7-6

Eastern Michigan Ron English 0-12 3-9

Iowa State Paul Rhoads 6-6* 2-10

Kansas State Bill Snyder 6-6 5-7

Miami University Mike Haywood 1-11 2-10

Mississippi State Dan Mullen 5-7 4-8

New Mexico Mike Locksley 1-11 4-8

New Mexico State DeWayne Walker 3-9 3-9

Oregon Chip Kelly 9-2* 10-3

Purdue Danny Hope 5-7 4-8

San Diego State Brady Hoke 4-8 2-10

Syracuse Doug Marrone 4-8 3-9

Tennessee Lane Kiffin 7-5* 5-7

Toledo Tim Beckman 5-7 3-9

Utah State Gary Andersen 4-8 3-9

Washington Steve Sarkisian 4-7 0-12

Wyoming Dave Christensen 6-6* 4-8

Looks to be about a +2 in the win colum turn-around on average.

BIG DAWG · November 30, 2009

BUT...if we have the talent here, like many think we do...and they just aren't being coached well enough, like many think they aren't...maybe we are in for a big turnaround next season with a new coach.

I have no clue what to do...I just want to start winning games. My gut says to stay with Dodge one more year...if we fire him, I could understand that rationale too.

Who knows...GO MEAN GREEN!!!

greenminer · November 30, 2009

I think the O-line will do anyone well next season. I look forward to some stability and strength on the other side of the line.

NTSUEagle · November 30, 2009

I am just giddy as can be to know in the latest Sagarin Ratings that, Stephen F. Austin, Texas State, and Prairie View A&M are ranked higher than the Green! These are ALL FCS/Divison 1-AA Schools that even though they are playing in a lower-level, are WINNING!! How long will it be before we wave 'bye-bye' to Texas State? I mean, you can't beat that!! And, apparently Dodge doesn't care to either! Was the Sun Belt REALLY that tough this past Season not to get another 2-3 Victories in Conference?

The Fake Lonnie Finch · November 30, 2009

So, 16 did better in year one with "someone else's players." Four did worse. One did the same. And, one - Oregon is yet to be determined.

We really didn't need this to show progress is a matter of coaching, not whose players are on the roster. The "they're not his kids" theory is blown out of the water...as if it hadn't already been many, many times.

What really needs to be done is a comparison is Dodge to how other third year coaches have done.

Or, maybe we should look into two-year improvements like, say, the school down in Dallas.

untbowler · November 30, 2009

Why would a new coach do poorly here if the players are so great, especially if you get a coach that runs a variation of the spread, knows how to run full contact practices, and can outcoach a paperbag in the 4th Q. We will be in great shape.

Edited November 30, 2009 by untbowler

TheTastyGreek · November 30, 2009

I am just giddy as can be to know in the latest Sagarin Ratings that, Stephen F. Austin, Texas State, and Prairie View A&M are ranked higher than the Green! These are ALL FCS/Divison 1-AA Schools that even though they are playing in a lower-level, are WINNING!! How long will it be before we wave 'bye-bye' to Texas State? I mean, you can't beat that!! And, apparently Dodge doesn't care to either! Was the Sun Belt REALLY that tough this past Season not to get another 2-3 Victories in Conference?

Sagarin is meaningless.

Last year, he had Apples atop the list with Pears 2nd, and Oranges outside the top 5.

Tells me all I need to know about the validity of his methods.

aztecskin · November 30, 2009

I think the Fire/Not Fire thing is settled. Those who are for running him out have tons of support in the L column. Those for keeping him have some support in the (lack of) cash department.

I wonder what else we can do -- what new assistants can help with.

That is the most feasible solution says uninformed me.

UNT90 · November 30, 2009

Take a look at the SFA coach. You will like what you see. He is also the son of a college football coach.

Edited November 30, 2009 by UNT90

VideoEagle · November 30, 2009

From Rivals.com, here are the 22 coaching changes that took place this time last year and their subsequent results.
Coaching Changes
Looks to be about a +2 in the win colum turn-around on average.

You might want to check your math. I loaded the numbers into Excel and got an average improvement of 0.363636364 or just of 1/3 of a game better.

The article points out that 8 are leading their new teams to bowls this year, but 3 of those were bowl eligible (7 wins) last year. They also are counting 2 6-6 teams as bowl teams which may or may not be true. In any case, 6 of the 22 had 7 wins or more records with their new coaches as compared to 4 with their old coaches. That's just 2 more out of 22 for 9%.

Five teams had worse records. The two biggest improvements were Iowa State and Washington who added 4 victories each.

Only 3 of the teams with losing records (5 or less) in 2008 improved to winning records (7 or more) in 2009 or about 14%.

The 22 new coaches generated a whopping total of 8 additional wins for a total improvement of 8%.

Bringing in a new coach was not an sure thing in 2009.

(Can you tell I have some time on my hands this morning?)

Edited November 30, 2009 by VideoEagle

UNT Mean Green · November 30, 2009

You might want to check your math. I loaded the numbers into Excel and got an average improvement of 0.363636364 or just of 1/3 of a game better.
The article points out that 8 are leading their new teams to bowls this year, but 3 of those were bowl eligible (7 wins) last year. They also are counting 2 6-6 teams as bowl teams which may or may not be true. In any case, 6 of the 22 had 7 wins or more records with their new coaches as compared to 4 with their old coaches. That's just 2 more out of 22 for 9%.
Five teams had worse records. The two biggest improvements were Iowa State and Washington who added 4 victories each.
Only 3 of the teams with losing records (5 or less) in 2008 improved to winning records (7 or more) in 2009 or about 14%.
The 22 new coaches generated a whopping total of 8 additional wins for a total improvement of 8%.
Bringing in a new coach was not an sure thing in 2009.
(Can you tell I have some time on my hands this morning?)

My bad Video. I didn't have time for the Excel

Just thought it was an interesting read

Got5onIt · November 30, 2009

You might want to check your math. I loaded the numbers into Excel and got an average improvement of 0.363636364 or just of 1/3 of a game better.
The article points out that 8 are leading their new teams to bowls this year, but 3 of those were bowl eligible (7 wins) last year. They also are counting 2 6-6 teams as bowl teams which may or may not be true. In any case, 6 of the 22 had 7 wins or more records with their new coaches as compared to 4 with their old coaches. That's just 2 more out of 22 for 9%.
Five teams had worse records. The two biggest improvements were Iowa State and Washington who added 4 victories each.
Only 3 of the teams with losing records (5 or less) in 2008 improved to winning records (7 or more) in 2009 or about 14%.
The 22 new coaches generated a whopping total of 8 additional wins for a total improvement of 8%.
Bringing in a new coach was not an sure thing in 2009.
(Can you tell I have some time on my hands this morning?)

How many of these coaches came straight out of high school? If the answer is none, please feel free to reference the all time coaches jumping from high school-to-D1 football record book. It's been discussed at GMG many a time, and it doesn't look good. Dodge has NOT set himself apart from the expected outcome proven by history.

KingDL1 · November 30, 2009

You might want to check your math. I loaded the numbers into Excel and got an average improvement of 0.363636364 or just of 1/3 of a game better.
The article points out that 8 are leading their new teams to bowls this year, but 3 of those were bowl eligible (7 wins) last year. They also are counting 2 6-6 teams as bowl teams which may or may not be true. In any case, 6 of the 22 had 7 wins or more records with their new coaches as compared to 4 with their old coaches. That's just 2 more out of 22 for 9%.
Five teams had worse records. The two biggest improvements were Iowa State and Washington who added 4 victories each.
Only 3 of the teams with losing records (5 or less) in 2008 improved to winning records (7 or more) in 2009 or about 14%.
The 22 new coaches generated a whopping total of 8 additional wins for a total improvement of 8%.
Bringing in a new coach was not an sure thing in 2009.
(Can you tell I have some time on my hands this morning?)

I would argue we are ripe for a new coach, with a great situation to turn the corner. We have talent in place and more coming, we have a fairly easy conference compared with most. A .500+ season would make a coach a star. I think if we got the right coach he would have one hell of a good chance to be in a bowl nest season.

Greendylan · November 30, 2009

If you're going to mathematically analyze the situation you may need to make allowances for situations such as Ball State that has a new coach only because the previous one was so successful that he had better offers. That is quite different from a school that fires a coach and hopes for more from someone new.

VideoEagle · November 30, 2009

I would argue we are ripe for a new coach, with a great situation to turn the corner. We have talent in place and more coming, we have a fairly easy conference compared with most. A .500+ season would make a coach a star. I think if we got the right coach he would have one hell of a good chance to be in a bowl nest season.

Maybe, but the best any coaches did was 4 additional wins. One of the coaches was in the Pac 10 and the other in the Big XII so they had a lot more resources available.

Of the 22 new coaches, all with college coaching experience, they added a total of 8 additional wins out of a total of 262 games. That's just 3%. Only one coach out of 22 took a sub .500 team and moved them into a plus .500 team, although two did get to exactly .500. One out of 22 is just 4.5% so the odds are 95.5% against a new coach doing that.

All this suggests is that if we get a new coach, don't expect a quick turn around. The three teams that had just 2 wins (6 combined) in 2008 and got a new coach combined for a total of 5 wins in 2009. They collectively did worse, not better.

VideoEagle · November 30, 2009

If you're going to mathematically analyze the situation you may need to make allowances for situations such as Ball State that has a new coach only because the previous one was so successful that he had better offers. That is quite different from a school that fires a coach and hopes for more from someone new.

Throw out Ball State and you have an average improvement of 0.857142857, still less than one game.

forevereagle · November 30, 2009

Maybe, but the best any coaches did was 4 additional wins. One of the coaches was in the Pac 10 and the other in the Big XII so they had a lot more resources available.
Of the 22 new coaches, all with college coaching experience, they added a total of 8 additional wins out of a total of 262 games. That's just 3%. Only one coach out of 22 took a sub .500 team and moved them into a plus .500 team, although two did get to exactly .500. One out of 22 is just 4.5% so the odds are 95.5% against a new coach doing that.
All this suggests is that if we get a new coach, don't expect a quick turn around. The three teams that had just 2 wins (6 combined) in 2008 and got a new coach combined for a total of 5 wins in 2009. They collectively did worse, not better.

That would be a 200% increase for us. I would take that in a heartbeat.

mad dog · November 30, 2009

Sagarin is meaningless.
Last year, he had Apples atop the list with Pears 2nd, and Oranges outside the top 5.
Tells me all I need to know about the validity of his methods.

Yeah... the Citrus conference was woefully unrepresented. I claim selection bias.

VideoEagle · November 30, 2009

That would be a 200% increase for us. I would take that in a heartbeat.

It would be great. Extremely unlikely, but yes it would be great. Like I wrote, it only happened 4.5% of the time. The other 95.5% of the time it did not happen!

KingDL1 · November 30, 2009

It would be great. Extremely unlikely, but yes it would be great. Like I wrote, it only happened 4.5% of the time. The other 95.5% of the time it did not happen!

Keep in mind this is just a one year sample, and at the end of the day the situation of where the team is whether it is going down hill or building up are different. Stats are not always relative to a somewhat unique set of circumstances.

CaribbeanGreen · November 30, 2009

Keep in mind this is just a one year sample, and at the end of the day the situation of where the team is whether it is going down hill or building up are different. Stats are not always relative to a somewhat unique set of circumstances.

Exactly. And for the most part, we agree that this team is far more talented than their performance has indicated. With a full staff of experienced successful FBS coaches led by a Franchione or Bower, I think a 200% improvement would be a real possibility. Going into next or ANY season, who would really feel confident in getting the same win total from a team coached by Todd Dodge against a team coached by Dennis Franchione or Jeff Bower?

VideoEagle · November 30, 2009

It is absolutely possible for a new coach to come in and have 200% improvement. I'm just pointing out that is extremely rare. And even teh coach at who took Ball State to 2-10 had previous experience - and success - at the D1 level so you can't claim "an experienced coach" would do better than Dodge.

Lots of you write as though a new coach will be the "answer" and it is possible, but highly unlikely. It usually takes time to build a consistently winning football team and the longer they have been losing, the longer it usually takes. For every Paul Johnson at Georgia Tech, there is a Rich Rodriguez at Michigan. Success before is no guarantee of future success, just as past failure is no guarantee of future failure.

The whole point of the thread was to look at what happened to all of the new coaches, regardless of why they got there new jobs. And what actually happened was a 3% aggregate improvement.

Just because it is only a 3% improvement does not mean we should hang onto Dodge. But it does mean instant improvement is just not likely.

Edited November 30, 2009 by VideoEagle

The Fake Lonnie Finch · November 30, 2009

Mathematical equations don't win games.

UNT90 · November 30, 2009

It is absolutely possible for a new coach to come in and have 200% improvement. I'm just pointing out that is extremely rare. And even teh coach at who took Ball State to 2-10 had previous experience - and success - at the D1 level so you can't claim "an experienced coach" would do better than Dodge.
Lots of you write as though a new coach will be the "answer" and it is possible, but highly unlikely. It usually takes time to build a consistently winning football team and the longer they have been losing, the longer it usually takes. For every Paul Johnson at Georgia Tech, there is a Rich Rodriguez at Michigan. Success before is no guarantee of future success, just as past failure is no guarantee of future failure.
The whole point of the thread was to look at what happened to all of the new coaches, regardless of why they got there new jobs. And what actually happened was a 3% aggregate improvement.
Just because it is only a 3% improvement does not mean we should hang onto Dodge. But it does mean instant improvement is just not likely.

So, which is more likely, Dodge to have a 300% improvement (win 8 games, like some over optimistic on here are predicting) or a new coach to have a 200% improvement?

My money is on the new coach.

As a matter of fact, I feel better about the new coach producing more victories next year than Coach Dodge. And I don't even know who the new coach will be.

Edited November 30, 2009 by UNT90

VideoEagle · November 30, 2009

So, which is more likely, Dodge to have a 300% improvement (win 8 games, like some over optimistic on here are predicting) or a new coach to have a 200% improvement?
My money is on the new coach.
As a matter of fact, I feel better about the new coach producing more victories next year than Coach Dodge. And I don't even know who the new coach will be.

Actually a 300% improvement is just 6 games. It would take a 400% improvement to get to 8 and I doubt that could happen.

I'm just pointing out, this last year new coaches with D1 experience averaged only 1/3 of a game more wins than their predecessors. You can certainly put your money on a new coach, just as you can try to draw to an inside straight. Sometimes both work, but don't bet a lot on it.

And I have occasionally try to draw the inside straight, so bringing in a new coach is not beyond what I would consider. I would NOT count on it bringing NT a winning record next year, but in another three years or four years it could.

Edited November 30, 2009 by VideoEagle