How do you evaluate a coach?

Submitted by Blue in Yarmouth on

I want to ask the question how a coach should be evaulated. I have always been behind RR but at this point I have simply resigned myself to living with whatever happens. I want him to stay, and think we would be better off if he does, but what can I do about it?

After coming to this point I have to wonder how a coach should be evaluated. What we have seen over the past three season has been disappointing. As a fan it has been hard to watch the team we all love go through the growing pains they have. It is fair to say, however, that we have seen steady progress from going 3-9 in year one to 7-5 in year 3.

I would agree with all those who feel the progress hasn't been as fast as I would have hoped, but if we are looking at the long term state of the program is three years really enough (under these circumstances) to say that it is best to go another direction?

For people that think it is, are we going to judge the next coach the same way? If we move back to a pro-style offense, are we going to tell that coach that by year three he needs to be challenging for a big ten title or he is gone? Are we going to tell him that steady improvement isn't enough, and we don't care that the future looks bright beyond this year but since we are not in the big ten title race he is gone? Before the players he recruited even get to the point of being seniors, are we going to tell him he has failed in making us the team we want to become?

I have a difficult time imagining a scenario where it is best for UM to fire the head coach at this point in time, three years into his contract. We have seen steady (albeit slow) progress and it is unquestionable to me that this team will continue to get better given the chance.

There are also the many things outside football that contribute. We have quality young men with a coach who puts discpline and the players health above his own job security. They are doing well in school and genuinely seem to care about eachother and the university. I believe this program is in good shape and improving each year since RR came.

So my question is, how do you evaulate a coach, and when is steady improvement not reasonable to bring them back?

NomadicBlue

November 29th, 2010 at 3:23 PM ^

I don't.  I leave it to people who actually have all of the necessary information.  This isn't meant to be a snarky comment.  All I know is that RRod is the coach until Brandon says he is not.  any effort on my part to do such an evaluation is futile until David Brandon starts calling me for my opinion.  Until then I will focus my efforts on more important things like, for instance, Minesweeper - Advanced Level. 

mejunglechop

November 29th, 2010 at 3:25 PM ^

It's simple. 1) What do you expect to see from this team under this coach next year and beyond. 2)  Is this outlook satisfactory?

Any retributive reason based on what's happened in the past should be disregarded. Also, a potential marginal improvement in recruiting in a given year is never a good reason to make a coaching change.

Newk

November 29th, 2010 at 3:29 PM ^

That is a good point. I think a lot of people want RR gone because they're mad about the losses. But there's no sense in firing him to "punish" him for what's happened. Of course, past results should be used in any evaluation, but the key thing is if you (that is, Brandon) think he can make the program successful in the near future.

Blue in Yarmouth

November 29th, 2010 at 3:32 PM ^

I appreciate all the funny responses but I was hoping for some real opinions and I got yours. I appreciate it.

To those with the funny answers, many seem to be implying that you don't evaluate the coach, and yet most have expressed your opinions on what should happen in this instance. To that I say you have evaluated the coach, and what I am asking for is the criteria you used to come to that conclusion.

Again, I like the jokes, but I would like some serious answers too.

BluePants

November 29th, 2010 at 3:43 PM ^

This has been discussed ad nauseum for 2 years, down to splitting hairs on the relative merit of different normalized/adjusted statistics for 2nd quarter points when we have 4 wide and denard is slightly dehydrated and the opposing defensive tackles have turf toe and it's below 40 degrees.  I like to call it the "2Q4WD-H2OTT-40" metric.  Very telling.

Shame we don't have that transcript from the DB & RR meeting.  Then we'd know.

jtmc33

November 29th, 2010 at 3:34 PM ^

My criteria for a defensive coach:

1)  The size of his Teddy Bear used to pump-up MLBs; and

2)  The infliction of his voice when he reads childrens' books at press conferences.

Besides that, I guess I'd look at the number of yards given up in comparison to the history of the program, and maybe, the ability to get better as the season continues.  Oh, and whether they know what a blitz is....

Topher

November 29th, 2010 at 3:49 PM ^

-Wins and losses

-Progression in wins and losses

-Detail orientation (has the team been coached adequately in the skills required for all three phases)

-Team's ability to win games they should win

-Team's ability to overachieve (win games they shouldn't, get maximal performance from talent on hand)

-Improvement of players through coaching (this is where Charlie Weis failed) and improvement of talent through recruiting

-Ability to enforce/motivate conduct of players (e.g. personal fouls, discipline, academic performance, soundbites, etc)

-Overall esprit of program (player pride, recruiting buzz, do opponents fear playing you, do alums/students/boosters feel connected to program)

-Fit of personality and goals with that of AD, president and school at large (i.e. don't talk about winning national championship at Indiana, don't talk about moral victories at Notre Dame)

EDIT: wanted to add I think this list holds from youth football up through college. 

Personally, as a coach myself I respect most those coaches who can take a mediocre band of players and get them coached up in the basic skills, get them all doing their jobs correctly even if they aren't dominating anybody, and don't beat themselves. Those are coaches who stand to spike in performance when they get some talent but not suffer a big dropoff when talent is thin.

psychomatt

November 29th, 2010 at 3:57 PM ^

Ordeal by water: a [coach] accused of [not taking the Ohio State and MSU rivalries seriously] was to be submerged in a stream and [allowed one additional year to turn around the program] if he survived ... [A]n accused who sank (and usually drowned) was considered [a Michigan Man], while floating indicated [he runs a defense that simply will not work in the Big Ten] ... Some argued that [evil coaches] floated because they had renounced baptism when they [deserted their alma maters] ... [or] that they were supernaturally light, and recommended weighing them as an alternative to dunking them. (A practice that was famously parodied in Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_ordeal

jmblue

November 29th, 2010 at 3:47 PM ^

Good coaching is like pornography: you can't define it, but you know it when you see it. 

Basically, you want to see a team look reasonably competent in the three phases of the game, and show improvement in those areas over time.  There will be little hiccups when guys get hurt, graduate and so forth, but in general, you should see positive trends - at least until you get to a point where, say, OSU is, where there's not a lot of room for improvement, but you can at least maintain that level of success. 

By "reasonably competent," I mean a team should have a solid grasp of the fundamentals and not commit too many elementary mistakes.  Reaching out for a guy's facemask instead of going low is an elementary mistake.  So is holding the ball in the inside hand when you're running.  Others: trying to hit a player, rather than tackle him; trying to catch passes with your body and not your hands (and running before you catch the ball); taking an inside pursuit angle when you're responsible for outside containment; kicking knuckleballs that go out of bounds, and so forth.  Some of these are going to happen; they're human.  But on a well-coached team, they should happen less frequently in week 12 than week 1. 

This is hard to quantify, but a well-coached team should display a good level of physical and mental toughness.  The Other Brian had this to say on his blog:

The wide receivers are pretty good at catching the ball...except against legitimate, "old school" Big Ten defenses. Then they get alligator arms and start dropping everything. The running backs are physical...until they face physical defenses, then they go down on first contact and cough the ball up. The quarterbacks are accurate and make plays...until they play good defenses, then they turn the ball over and are wild with many of their throws.

A well-coached team seems to be better than the sum of its parts.  Despite having weaknesses (every team has some), it finds ways to mask them to allow it to compete even when its opponent is better on paper - at least some of the time.  On paper, 2007 USC-Stanford was a colossal mismatch.  1995 and 1996 OSU-Michigan were supposed to be mismatches, too.  When we upset Wisconsin in 2008, I thought that was a very good sign - but that kind of game has become rare around here.  You really can't point to any game this season and say we rose to the occasion and played above our ability.   



By year 3, you pretty much know what you have in a coach.  In fact, most of the great ones achieve their big breakthrough in year 2: Carroll, Stoops, Meyer, Tressel, and Saban all did so.  Chizik, if he qualifies, has as well.  Carr didn't in year two, but then went 12-0 in year 3.  For the great coaches, a couple of recruiting classes and spring practices are enough. 

dougr188

November 29th, 2010 at 4:17 PM ^

There are so many ways to evaluate a coach.  If you step away and evaluate the team forgoing all the crazy stats and recruiting and general banter among the two camps it looks like this.  (As always IMHO)

Offense has gotten better clearly.  The defense not so much.  Special teams seem to be as ugh as ever.  (Think Oregon, App St for pre-RR examples)

Also remember our Heisman trophy candidate QB didn't get booted from another school for laptop theft, none of our starting DBs has spent time in jail during the season, and our best special teams player was left home for violating team rules for the biggest game of the year.

My point here is there has been improvement from this team in 3 years.  You want better?  So does everyone.  Would another coach get Michigan there?  Maybe.  Does acting like children, using crazy statistics, calling everyone out on the carpet for disagreeing with you make a difference?  No.

chatster

November 29th, 2010 at 4:33 PM ^

Is it long enough to allow the tallest member of your household to lay completely prone on the seat cushions without touching either arm?

Do your basketball shorts stick to it after you’ve been sitting on it for more than an hour in hot summer weather?

After you’ve slept on it for more than an hour, does your neck ache?

Do you need more than one person to help you up after you’ve been sitting on it for more than an hour of Sunday afternoon football viewing?

Does it burn quickly in East Lansing after national championship game losses?

What? You said, "coach"? Oh, that’s very different. Never mind.

(Apologies to Emily Litella)

oakapple

November 29th, 2010 at 4:43 PM ^

There are plenty of examples of coaches that join storied programs, and go on to have great careers. Practically always, excellence is apparent by year 3.

It is worth noting that in the nearly four decades that Michigan was coached by Bo Schembechler and his former assistants, the team averaged roughly nine wins a year. And that included many seasons when the maximum available was fewer than the 13 that teams can play today.

If Rodriguez had reached nine wins this year, he would still have been merely average, by Michigan standards.

It is true that the offense, by most measures, has improved. (Turnovers and the running game other than Denard are two measures by which it has not.) But the defense and special teams have gotten worse. Last I checked, Rich Rodriguez is the head football coach, not the offensive coordinator.

It is true that the defense has had serious injuries and defections, particularly in the secondary. But even at positions where there have been no injuries, you still see players like Jonas Mouton and Obi Ezeh making the same maddening mistakes they were making two years ago, without a significant improvement. You see no confidence in the scheme, which seems to change weekly.

I don’t need to tell you the score on the field, including no wins against OSU or MSU, no wins against teams that finished with a winning conference record, no wins against teams that finished in the top 25. It is hard to get excited about seven wins, when two of them are squeakers vs. Indiana and Illinois, and when they nearly lost to UMass. It is hard to find hope in five losses, when they were all by double digits.

I won’t scream bloody murder if Rodriguez is brought back for 2011, but there are very legitimate arguments that the improvement is not clear enough or consistent enough to justify a fourth season.

Does that mean Rodriguez’s replacement needs to win the Big Ten title by his third season? No. But he needs to be better than 7-5 in his third season, and he needs to be better than 1-14 vs. OSU, MSU, PSU, Iowa, and Wisconsin.

bighouseinmate

November 29th, 2010 at 4:52 PM ^

......head coach, it's got to be different between one who recently got to a program and one who has been with a program awhile. Also, it's not as simple as "wins and losses" like so many of the RR detractors are complaining about. One must look at the overall picture of the program, where the coach has envisioned that it is supposed be at, where the program is at, whether the future with the coach looks promising or more of the same, etc.

Simply looking at a coach's win-loss record and seeing someone who may or may not be available who has had a good season, is not a sound way to make a decision. Neither is listening to the crowd, many of whom were never behind RR to begin with, when they start bitching and complaining about this not being Michigan football(What Bo put on the field was not the same as what Yost or Crisler put on the field, not what Carr put on the field, etc.)

As well, one must look at where the game is headed to and make an evaluation on the coach's vision, his style, and whether or not it fits with the future landscape of college football in general.

I am glad that I, personally don't have to make the decision. There is a lot riding on it, not the least of which is Brandon's own job. I support keeping RR though, and as others have stated, I do not want to see him go just yet, but if that is the AD's decision, then I will support the new coach just as much.