NYT: Firing a Coach, at a Price, With Little Evidence the Move Pays Off
This is from 2012 but seems really relevant right now. I think it's important to look at coaching changes holistically, and not just focus on the positives or cherry pick just the success stories
Anecdotal evidence and scientific analysis indicate that replacing a coach is no guarantee of success. Houston finished 5-7 this season after changing its coordinator. Wisconsin is a middling 7-5 after firing its line coach. The Badgers reached the Big Ten Conference title game only because N.C.A.A. penalties left Ohio State and Penn State ineligible.
A study published last month in Social Science Quarterly may provide sobering news to Auburn, Tennessee and other universities that have fired their coaches. Using data from 1997 to 2010, the study compared the performance of major college teams that replaced their coach with teams with similar records that kept their coach.
The results, tracked over a five-year period following the coaching changes, might surprise many. The lowliest teams subsequently performed about the same as other struggling teams that did not replace their coach. Mediocre teams — those that won about half their games in the year before a coaching change — performed worse than similar teams that did not replace their coach.
Here's the actual study, but it's paywalled
EDIT: Hat tip to user michelin, Here's the pdf of the study
(by the way, I'm working on a diary right now that takes a look at this)
September 11th, 2014 at 3:12 PM ^
Did anyone hear about the article from Grantland on Hoke?
September 11th, 2014 at 3:17 PM ^
Ohhh Grantland. I love Bill Simmons and Entourage. Tell me more!
September 11th, 2014 at 3:38 PM ^
You are the weakess link!
September 11th, 2014 at 8:48 PM ^
Thanks for that! Obviously Matt Hinton sucks at writing and we should ignore his opinion cuz...Bill Simmons man.
September 11th, 2014 at 3:18 PM ^
Obviously no coaching change is guranteed to work out. But when you know your current coaching change isn't working, sometimes you have to take a chance that you'll be in the minority that improve after a change, unless you want to be stuck in mediocrity forever. The real question for us is if the current coach can work out.
September 11th, 2014 at 3:23 PM ^
Right, at some point, you have to make a change and hope for the best. It just seems like that's not how a lot of people are thinking about it though. I feel like a lot of folks think Brandon can just wave a giant sack of money around and we can automatically land someone to save us. That's not the case.
My feeling on coaching changes is that you absolutely do not do them until there is no doubt whatsoever that you have to. Are we to that point yet? IMO, no. We'll have to see at the end of the season, but again, I hope people can keep a level head about it and evaluate the potential downsides as well as the potential positives.
September 11th, 2014 at 3:42 PM ^
September 11th, 2014 at 3:22 PM ^
September 11th, 2014 at 9:48 PM ^
But then why do we keep score?
September 12th, 2014 at 1:20 PM ^
Football is a zero sum game. Win or die.
September 11th, 2014 at 3:22 PM ^
Replacing a coach is rarely about actually getting better. It's about providing hope. And hope sells.
September 11th, 2014 at 3:26 PM ^
And alls Deez bitchez round chea wanna gon head on n replayce da Hokesta. Da Hoke ain't no joke. We outta keep that fella. And dats all I'll say bout dat. Ju heard!
September 11th, 2014 at 3:25 PM ^
If the Michigan job comes open, a new coach will have an opportunity to make a fast impact. Hoke has stocked the roster pretty well, and attrition has been low. All that's left for the new guy to do is coach.
September 11th, 2014 at 3:37 PM ^
September 11th, 2014 at 4:45 PM ^
As though that's relevent. Greg Mattison has also won a national championship. Why is his defense not elite yet in year 4? Why haven't Blake Countess and Frank Clark improved much in 4 years?
September 11th, 2014 at 8:01 PM ^
Frank Clark is wayyyy better than he used to be. I'd say most everything else is TBD. Yeah, Countess got burned last week but the D shut down ND's run offense and were generally pretty sound (giving up <10 yards as opposed to blowing coverages wide open. Golson was <7ypa IIRC)
Everyone's ready to mail it in on the entire team after 2 games. Get a grip
September 11th, 2014 at 11:48 PM ^
September 11th, 2014 at 9:52 PM ^
Rich Rod was fired after going 7-6 in his third year with a very nice stockpile of talent that was just about to become upperclassmen. Brady Hoke went 7-6 last year in his third year and is coaching this year.
While it's nice to see that the average MGoUser has been patient with Hoke for a year longer than they were with Rich Rod, I don't think "stockpile of talent" applies here. Hoke did better with the fourth year of players Rich Rod assembled than it appears he will with the fourth year of his own players.
While I blame David Brandon more than Brady Hoke, I think Michigan fans have been a lot more patient with Hoke than they were with Rich Rod.
My solution: , fire David Brandon, keep Brady Hoke and hire an OC who uses the spread offense. The spread is what's 'working in college now. Even with two statues-in-waiting at QB, you have to spread the field.
September 11th, 2014 at 10:53 PM ^
It's not Hoke's problem that RR was fired in only 3 years. It doesn't make it the right call to do the same thing for him for the sake of consistency.
Nuss is in game 2 and shows every intention of being a spread to pass team right now until the run game develops, so I don't think we're that far off.
September 11th, 2014 at 3:29 PM ^
get Gruden we will be fine.
September 11th, 2014 at 3:32 PM ^
September 11th, 2014 at 3:50 PM ^
Al Borges was the slam dunkiest of slam dunks and it still wasn't easy.
It's just 2 games in, but I think it's safe to say a lot of the same problems Al had to deal with are hampering Nuss right now as well. You'd think replacing a career journeymen with a spotty record with a rising star and OC of the NC team would have made a bigger difference, but the realities are still the realities. I do think Nuss can make a difference, but it's going to take time and it's not going to be as night and day as people think. Oh, and even though Al had next to nothing to do with recruiting, we ended up losing arguably our best 2015 recruit out of it too.
September 11th, 2014 at 3:33 PM ^
September 11th, 2014 at 4:02 PM ^
I too am tired of all the "Fire Hoke" talk. Yeah, lets sign up for another 4 years of change, change, change. People are so impatient.
September 11th, 2014 at 4:13 PM ^
Awesome avatar!
I was fortunate enough to play the UMGC this summer when I visited AA for the first time since 2000. I was very impressed with the continuing rennovations and how they've opened up the sight lines on the course. I remember when you couldn't see anything of the campus, and now from any highpoint looking back north is stunning. I brought my camera and snapped pics looking back from #2 green, #3 tee, #10 green, #14 green and tee, #15 tee, and all the way down #18 -- no doubt UMGC is one of the greatest "in-town" courses in the US, with a layout that rivals any in the world. I love the cluster of tees and greens in the center of the course.
September 11th, 2014 at 6:06 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 11th, 2014 at 4:59 PM ^
Notre Dame hiring Davie, Willingham, and Weis say hello about ''being patient''.
September 11th, 2014 at 7:55 PM ^
Isn't that like the perfect example of what can go wrong if you aren't patient? 18 years wandering in the woods for ND before they finally found (?) the right guy.
September 11th, 2014 at 7:58 PM ^
I know right? Unless I am not reading his post right, it sure seems to me that he posted the perfect counter-argument to his argument. Odd, to say the least.
September 11th, 2014 at 9:07 PM ^
You're seriously hopeless. You really think if Notre Dame had stuck with either one of those guys for longer than they did they wouldn't have been as bad?
How are all of those guys doing in coaching these days? They fucked up 3 hires in a row. We have fucked up two so far. At some point you just have to cut your losses and move on! And NOT fuck up AGAIN.
September 11th, 2014 at 10:32 PM ^
September 11th, 2014 at 11:31 PM ^
I really don't get how you think keeping coaches who's records got worse every year could have been a good idea just to provide ''stability''.
You're going to defend Hoke until the end of the earth anyway.
You're no different than Section 1 with Rich Rod.
September 12th, 2014 at 12:34 AM ^
September 12th, 2014 at 12:57 AM ^
USC and Penn State (who beat us last year) laugh at your depth argument.
September 12th, 2014 at 1:11 AM ^
September 12th, 2014 at 1:21 AM ^
Guy, are you really serious with this?
Penn State BEAT us last year. Beat us with scholarship reductions. What will you say if they beat us this year? So far they've looked better than us.
USC just beat Stanford on the road with less than 70 guys on scholarship.
September 12th, 2014 at 12:00 PM ^
I know. But this gives me a chance to again point out that M, PSU, and USC have each played two games this season. We won our first two last year. Doesn't that give you pause to make predictions?
Also, Sten's argument is more macro than micro. The roster had problems that have long lasting implications. One result doesn't change that. Since they were hit with sanctions and thus given roster problems, they have performed at a UM level. And their problems, according to Stem, will continue for years. This discussion is early, let's finish it in 2018 or so. I just wanted to point out that your reply was pretty close to being the worst of all possible replies.
September 12th, 2014 at 1:08 PM ^
The implication here is that you don't know what you are talking about. PSU and USC should not be laughing at Sten, unless they enjoy being roughly as good as Michigan with their depleted roster, thus providing evidence to support Sten's claim.
1) PSU/USC have been similar to better
2) PSU/USC depleted rosters are MUCH more depleted than Michigan ever was.
September 12th, 2014 at 9:43 PM ^
September 12th, 2014 at 1:00 PM ^
Maybe Tyrone W. was right on the cusp, or maybe Charlie was
Hahhhhhhaahhahahha...
That is the most delusional thing I've read in a long time.
September 12th, 2014 at 1:28 PM ^
First it's hard to take someone serious who posts "Hahhhhhhaahhahahha..."
Secondly, my point was that nobody will ever know what would have happened should those coaches remained at ND because they didn't. You assume that it's delusional, but in actual fact, you have no idea. I wasn't saying it would have been so, I was saying maybe.
So many assume they're right and use spurious evidence that cannot be proved either way to try to prove their case.
Sad.
September 12th, 2014 at 1:37 PM ^
First it's hard to take someone seriously who posts "Maybe Tyrone W. was right on the cusp, or maybe Charlie was"
Secondly, we don't know... but we aren't "assuming" - just making rational predictions based on their horrible job while at ND and the continuing garbage jobs both did AFTER leaving ND.
...but hey, some miracle (that never happened in their post ND coaching career) could have occurred because they stayed at ND and they could have become brilliant coaches. Anything is possible... if infinitesimally likely.
September 12th, 2014 at 1:03 PM ^
Just like traders say all the time, sometimes doing NOTHING is the hardest thing of all. But that takes discipline and patience, something many lack.
This just reeks of the "sunk cost fallacy".
September 11th, 2014 at 11:02 PM ^
You know, you're entitled to your opinion, but you don't need to express them like an asshole to get people to take you seriously. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them an idiot, which seems to be your assumption ("you're hopeless", "For Christ's sake. What is wrong with some of you?", "Simply incredible", "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills."). Just because you believe something doesn't make it the only correct opinion by default. If you're seriously getting that flabbergasted, maybe it's time to log off for a while.
September 11th, 2014 at 11:20 PM ^
Just as a note, let's try not to start posts with "you're seriously hopeless", because really what that means in essence is that you have no intention of considering an alternative viewpoint and such things only make threads go downhill as things escalate between folks digging in their heels. I suppose I am simply asking proactively for people to word things in a more considered manner before exchanges become totally unnecessary shitshows.