NYT: Firing a Coach, at a Price, With Little Evidence the Move Pays Off

Submitted by reshp1 on

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

Article

 

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)

wile_e8

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.

reshp1

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.

KC Wolve

September 11th, 2014 at 3:42 PM ^

You make a change when your team isn't showing improvement and is not meeting expectations. A lot of it involves timing. Normally you should have a candidate or 2 before the firing that will say yes. In Michigan's case it should be a big name or at the very least a legitimate up and coming coordinator or small school coach. Again, a good AD should be able to do this. I have no idea who DB called last time. If he fired RR because he wanted Hoke, he should go with Hoke at the end of the year

carlos spicywiener

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.

gwkrlghl

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

Reader71

September 11th, 2014 at 11:48 PM ^

Frank Clark is a poster boy for player development.

Year one: Not hyped, gets some time, shows physical ability, isn't much of a full-time player.
Year 2: Full-time player. Plays at a decent B1G level but disappoints fans who expected Lawrence Taylor based on the last thing they saw: a great play in the bowl game.
Year 3: 2nd team All-B1G.
Year 4: Pending, but early returns are good.

Frank Clark is the anti-whatever-you-are-talking-about.

Countess is a good corner. He might never be a plus player in man coverage, but put him on a team that runs a cover 2 or cover 3 and he's fine.

I actually LOLed at the two guys you picked. Countess, OK. Frank Clark is the worst player you could have picked. Why not go with Ryan, the easy pick?

Tater

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.

reshp1

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.

reshp1

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.

the Glove

September 11th, 2014 at 3:33 PM ^

I agree with OP, those of us in the minority who didn't have a knee-jerk reaction to the game and decide that Coach Hoke is the worst person in the universe still believe this team can be successful. Yes it was a very bad loss, but at the same time most everyone on this board believed that the team was going to go 9-3. A lot of people picked Michigan to lose this game in the beginning...did Notre Dame losing two starters and a bunch of backups changed everything? Their QB played like a beast and Denarded us. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe we shut them out in 2003 and 2005. Back to my main point, I still believe that this coaching staff can and will be successful. Coach Nuss admitted he wasn't aggressive enough and besides the DBs the defense actually played pretty well. Its not like Harbaugh is waiting in the wings. I just feel it would be in everybody's best interests to calm down and let the season play out. And hopefully they can shake the injury bug before the Big Ten season starts.

Sten Carlson

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.

UMxWolverines

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. 

Sten Carlson

September 11th, 2014 at 10:32 PM ^

I don't know, and no matter how angrily you write it, neither do you. It never happened. It never happened, so it's nothing but speculation. Maybe Tyrone W. was right on the cusp, or maybe Charlie was, who knows and who the heck cares?

Too bad ND didn't have you to scream, "Do NOT fuck it up AGAIN!!" because that seems to be all you think it takes to get a decision correct. Do you have any idea how naive that sounds? Again, holding up ND's time in the abyss is directly refuting the argument you espouse. They got on the coaching carrousel and even hired a guy who use a fake resume. Do you think they were trying to fuck up? No, of course they weren't. They gave into the demands of irrational people who also were espousing: "it's not working, cut your losses and run to the next guy. He's bound to be the next Lou/Ara/Rock!"

If what you're saying is true, and Michigan has botched its only two coaching changes since 1969, why are you so convinced that they won't botch the next one as well? Oh wait, because you screamed, "do NOT fuck it up AGAIN!"

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. If change is warranted, the evidence will become clear when the time is right.

I know you want heads to roll. I get it. But, I think the last thing Michigan needs is more uncertainty and change at this juncture.

UMxWolverines

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. 

Sten Carlson

September 12th, 2014 at 12:34 AM ^

It was almost inevitable that he was going to get worse because: 1) he had 11 wins in year 1; and, 2) the roster had serious holes at key points that were time bombs that wouldn't explode until his 2nd and 3rd seasons.

It's all right there and easy to find: 47 recruits from 2010 and 2011 and only 10 are on the roster today. You understand how the recruiting and development cycle plays out right? As it turns out, this exact same issue hit Michigan with the 2005 recruiting class. I don't recall the numbers but by 2009 Michigan's roster was nearly completely devoid of 5th year players.

That's why oversigning gave the SEC such a huge advantage -- they basically got 5 full classes every 4 years. This lets programs redshirt the vast majority of their players, pick out the truely "college ready" freshmen, and thus have near endless stream of physically mature players. Michigan can't do this, and to make matters even worse, they're still not even able to redshirt players at the "normal" rate as compared to other programs.

That is the the "stability" of which I speak, and it is NOT found through perpetual hiring and firing of coaching staffs. Again, we're just now getting back to that level of depth where most guys, except the most talented, will likely redshirt, but we're still playing a true freshmen OLineman in Cole. Now, he might have been a rare exception and come in so ready that he beat everyone out -- those do happen from time to time -- but what's more telling is that that we have no 5th year OLinemen, and only one 4th year OLineman starting. I venture to guess no matter how good Cole is he'd RS in a historically normal roster environment.

As I've said a hundred times in here, it's the pipeline that makes the all difference, because it's very hard to predict who is going to be good and who is not. If you've got a constant flow, your chances of having to start a young guy, or a guy that isn't very good because there is nobody else, are significantly diminished.

Michigan hasn't had that luxury in nearly a decade, and that fact seems completely lost (or ignored) to the "Fire Hoke Now!" crowd. To me, it has more to do with rebuilding a winning tradition than X's & O's, motivation, or whether or not your coach gives injury reports, wears a head set, or what his record was before he arrived.

Even Nuss commented on how green Michigan was in his first post game presser. He was used to the complete opposite scenario in which if a young guy played it was because he was the bomb, not because he had to.

Reader71

September 12th, 2014 at 1:11 AM ^

PSU sanctioned in 2011. 9-4 (9 wins vacated), 8-4, 7-5.
24-13 overall, 64.8%.

USC sanctioned in 2010. 8-5, 10-2, 7-6, 10-4.
35-20 overall, 63.6%.

Michigan since 2011 when Hoke took over and Sten's argument starts. 11-2, 8-5, 7-6.
26-13, 66.6%

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. You are so bad at this. Remarkably, like in the Frank Clark case, you picked just about the worst examples you possibly could have!

Reader71

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.

pescadero

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.

Reader71

September 12th, 2014 at 9:43 PM ^

1) That is just not true. PSU was sanctioned in 2011, the same year Hoke came in. Their record is worse. It's close, but worse. 9,8,7 wins. USC has had 2 seasons of 10 wins mixed in with some bad ones, so you've got a bit of a point there, but Hoke's record is marginally better than theirs.

2) I agree and didn't want to imply otherwise. But our 2010 recruiting class brought in 27 kids, only 8 of which are still here. Almost none of them left after Hoke got here. So, essentially, he inherited very USC-like small recruiting class (USC was only allowed that many, we just couldn't keep them) that is hurting the team. That's Sten's point.

Sten Carlson

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.

pescadero

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.

reshp1

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.

LSAClassOf2000

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.