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 12th, 2014 at 1:21 PM ^
Hoke pre Michigan...
47- 51 (48%) overall
21- 32 (39.6%) road/neutral
Bowl 3/8 years, 1-2 bowl record
No conference championships
1 win (in 98 games) over a top 25 opponent (1-13 versus top 25 opponents)
September 12th, 2014 at 1:40 PM ^
I think you're counting Ball State's 2008 GMAC bowl appearance, which they lost, but Hoke had already left to take the job at SDSU.
September 12th, 2014 at 2:38 PM ^
Yes, I am.
While Stan Parrish coached the bowl game, the team was a Hoke coached team for the entire season and I give him credit for the bowl game.
September 12th, 2014 at 12:51 AM ^
"Why are we the only place where it takes years to finally get things right."
I don't think that we are the only place, it's just that you're more sensative to it because its now happening in your place, and not some program that could care less about. But, since you're asking, I think Michigan has a very unique set of circumstances that all these other program don't share. There are only a few programs that are equal to Michigan in terms of the longevity of a controlling regime: PSU, FSU, and Nebraska are the only ones that I can come up with.
Personally, as I've said elsewhere, I think that Michigan was due for a change about 10 years ago. That would have been the right time to "start over," to "clean house," and to "bring in new blood." But, for whatever reason, Michigan didn't do any of these things. Instead, Michigan stayed with the same old regime, and as it turns out things had be come complacent, and really began slide at the tail end of the regime's watch. Then RR, and well here we are.
I know many want to discount the "RR Effect" but let's say, for the sake of argument, that RR's 2010 was "normal" in terms of talent, numbers by position group (meaning there were actuall more than 0 OLinemen), and that the retention level was "normal" and not off the chart bad. Now lets say, for the sake of argument, that very same thing about the 2011 class. What would Michigan's team look like?
Michigan signed 27 players in 2010, and only 2 players from that class remain -- DG and JMFR. Michigan signed 20 in 2011, and only 8 remain -- Bellomy, Beyer, Clark, Countess, Miller, Morgan, Taylor, and Wile.
There are your 4th and 5th year players all 10 of them when Michigan started with 47. So, there or no 5th year guys on the OL -- where as BC had 5 5th year OLinemen starting the other night vs. Pitt -- and only 1 4th year guy whom many in here call out as having "no business playing on Michigan." Well, I hate to break it to you guys, there aren't very many other choices save the younger guys.
Do all these other programs whose rebuild your wring your hands and compare to Michigan's have the same issues? I don't know. But what I do know is that Michigan has these issues, and they're not "excuses," they're liabilities that were born from instability and transition.
September 12th, 2014 at 1:25 PM ^
But what I do know is that Michigan has these issues, and they're not "excuses," they're liabilities that were born from instability and transition.
Of course they are excuses.
They may legitimate excuses, but they're still excuses.
...and I'd argue that they were born from instability caused by a POOR transition, and that instability and poor transitions aren't inherent - Michigan just screwed the pooch the last couple times.
September 12th, 2014 at 3:31 PM ^
So if Michigan botched the last two transitions, why not let all the dust settle from the most recent transition, i.e., get the roster back to its "historical norm", before undertaking another transition? Even the best transitions have some degree of fallout, so maybe it's best to wait until the program could withstand a bit of a hit without sending it into another tailspin.
September 12th, 2014 at 4:01 PM ^
1) Letting the dust settle from the most recent transition will have no positive effect on future transitions.
2) Sunk Cost/Concorde Fallacy -
"When one makes a hopeless investment, one sometimes reasons: I can't stop now, otherwise what I've invested so far will be lost. This is true, of course, but irrelevant to whether one should continue to invest in the project. Everything one has invested is lost regardless. If there is no hope for success in the future from the investment, then the fact that one has already lost a bundle should lead one to the conclusion that the rational thing to do is to withdraw from the project. To continue to invest in a hopeless project is irrational. Such behavior may be a pathetic attempt to delay having to face the consequences of one's poor judgment. The irrationality is a way to save face, to appear to be knowledgeable, when in fact one is acting like an idiot."September 12th, 2014 at 5:33 PM ^
When I commented on letting the "dust settle" I was specifically talking about returning the roster to its historical norms, and we're not there yet. That's all.
The sunk cost fallicy applies, per your definition, when there is no hope of success in the furure. That is not the case here where their is plenty of hope that things will get better.
Obviously you disagree with me, and that is the crux of this debate.
September 11th, 2014 at 8:05 PM ^
and now we have to allow Nuss even more time to implement his scheme.
Yeah he's already had two whole f*cking games. Why havent we fired him yet? I wanted to fire him when we didn't score on the 1st play against App State
September 11th, 2014 at 9:57 PM ^
with any of this.
September 11th, 2014 at 5:10 PM ^
And win the right way that will keep our standards where they need to be.
IMHO Jim Harbaugh is that move. Jim Harbaugh is a better recruiter than Hoke and the Stanford model for what he did fits exactly to what we need. And talk about firing up the fans and making the rivalry with the buckeyes a war again. I would love to see Harbaugh give Urban Meyer a nice pat on the back after a butt kicking.
Brandon needs to fly to SF and put a blank piece of paper in front of Jim and tell him he's not leaving until Jim gets on the plane with him and puts a number on that piece of paper. Period.
September 11th, 2014 at 7:30 PM ^
September 11th, 2014 at 8:05 PM ^
And what if Harbaugh isn't interested? Who's next on your list?
September 11th, 2014 at 5:15 PM ^
...fire nonperformers as soon as it becomes evident that they can't change the result. The more there is at stake for failure, the more reason to not wait. SInce football is different than, say, the corporate world, and you can't really have an intgerim or no coach with good results, you have to wait until a better option becomes available. That means as soon as a home rune calibur coach agrees to caoch michigan, you hire him. End of story. By the way I am guessing that this year if not next year we'll start to see strings of non-sellouts and bad attendance. We may even see a game with sub 100k attendances. When that happens, there is no doubt Brady's run is over. As I've always said nice guy, love me some Brady Hoke but the guy simply has not gotten it done. My guess is the kids don't fear and/or respect him.
September 11th, 2014 at 7:56 PM ^
"My guess is the kids don't fear and/or respect him."
Let's just say I don't trust your guess, since every available piece of evidence I've ever heard or seen indicates the players have a great deal of respect for him.
September 12th, 2014 at 7:27 AM ^
Results on the field sat they aren't giving 100%. That's what I'm talking about.
September 12th, 2014 at 12:12 AM ^
September 12th, 2014 at 7:03 AM ^
September 12th, 2014 at 9:29 AM ^
You made it about one game (the one that is attended by fewer than 100k fans)! You didn't even make it about the performance of the team in one game, but in the attendance of the fans in one game!
September 11th, 2014 at 5:27 PM ^
My concern after going to the Penn State game last year is that there's a leadership gap that makes this job too big for him.
I respect him for admitting that the coaches lost that game last year. I wanted to hear him say He lost it.
Critical error if memory serves me was not calling a time out in PSU territory at the end of the game when the play clock was running out on Devin when we had 3rd and 2. The 3rd and 2 turned into a 3rd and 7 - we gave the ball back - and then PSU throws the game tying TD. Yes, a lucky throw, no doubt, but a throw that should never have happened.
I like to manage by fact and the facts do not support Hoke as an effective game manager. Insert head set comments here.
September 11th, 2014 at 5:28 PM ^
Michigan went from 8-2 under Bump Elliott's final year to 8-3 in Bo Schembechler's first year. seem's legit.
September 11th, 2014 at 6:04 PM ^
September 11th, 2014 at 6:30 PM ^
As a player you want to know that your coaching staff has your back with respect to game plan prep and in game awareness and adjustments. During the honeymoon phase you assume the coach can do all that. You believe in him. What does the coach do to make adjustments that outsmart the opposing coach?
If your coach makes what you feel are bad decisions and no adjustments and seems a bit overwhelmed by the situation you will lose respect for that coach. Even if you don't want to. Something in your gut responds to them differently like a survival instinct.
If the players don't see the right kind of support in that regard it's a spiral downward.
I love Brady Hoke too. I want so badly for him to succeed. I just don't see it happening because of the gap in leadership in planning for the big games and in game coaching and adjustments in the big games.
And the risk is too high to let the trends that are going continue.
September 12th, 2014 at 7:06 AM ^
September 11th, 2014 at 7:55 PM ^
Hoke has shown us he cannot coach and develop this talent he has on the roster. That's the main reason I would like to see change at the head coaching position. Not because of wins and losses but simply because of the lack of development.
September 11th, 2014 at 8:11 PM ^
Look at D'Antonio and Meyers reaction when the players mess up on the field, their reaction is sooo cold the players feel it. Our guys mess up Hoke claps and smacks their asses..not saying we need a dictator but this is sports and in sports there is competition, when someone messes up, the coach needs to let them know.
Things have to completly be overhauled if we want to win again, starting from the fundementals of the program to the administration...it seems like kids perception now days is that if they play at Michigan they are going to automatically win, because "This is Michigan"...
It is pretty sad when a loss just becomes another day for us fans, I go to work and talk to other alums just to say its okay will get them next year, shrug our shoulders and move on for the day...it use to be the opposite, during the real michigan football years a loss would create a whole day conversation, now days we accept it to be lossers..even my MSU buddies are starting to feel bad for us, yet they are happy we have Hoke and they want us too keep Hoke forever..go figure....
I feel like this has to be some bad Karma and the football gods are punishing us, no matter what we do at this point we are still going to be bad...you cant be this bad with a 5th year senior, you cant be bad wit 4* and 5* players, you cant be this bad with ex NFL coordinator and ex National Champ coordinator, you cant be this bad at Michigan period, where people pour money to make a winning program...overall this sucks and as much as i am not a Hoke fan i hope to God he starts winning soon and succeeds.....rant over
September 11th, 2014 at 8:53 PM ^
Hoke not throwing spittle spewing fit when things go wrong is probably #241 on the list of things wrong with this team.
September 11th, 2014 at 10:30 PM ^
Many thanks for citing it: here is a link to the actual article.
This study certainly could be relevant to UM but it mainly tells us whether replacing a coach by a generic alternative makes sense. On the other hand, from a cost-benefit perspective, one might ask whether replacing the coach by a newly available, outstanding alternative makes sense. Then a cold and calculating AD could make a change not necessarily even because the current coach is performing so badly but because the newly available coach would clearly be better. Many successful NFL teams use such cold logic in cutting or retaining players as well as coaches. On the other hand, if no clearly superior coach is likely to be the replacement, then the NY Times article would suggest that change for the sake of change usually does not make sense.
Another perspective would be to consider the decision to retain a coach as a sequential choice problem. One would decide each year whether to keep the coach (or extend him)., If all other factors in the decision to retain or fire were equal, then one could set boundaries for acceptable win and loss percentages so that the chance of errors (firing a good coach or retaining a poor one) is minimized. For instance, after an abysmal year or two, a school intent on winning might judge it worthwhile to eat the costs of the buy-out and fire the coach right away. To delay might just postpone the inevitable firing and perpetuate the coaching instability.
Similar perspectives could be used to expand the analysis to consider not just win and loss pct but strength of schedule and recruiting class quality.
Of course, such cold economic logic does ignore how the future reputation of the school could be affected by rapid firings. That could give future coaches reservations about taking a position.
September 12th, 2014 at 8:58 AM ^
Another factor that should be considered is who is doing the hiring.
Was the new coach hired by the same person who hired the old coach?
I think Hoke will need five years, but even if I did not think that I still have no confidence Brandon has the ability to handle the search for his replacement.
Brandon gets a lot of reflected glory from Beilein's success, but in fact he did not hire Beilein. I also don't think he should get much credit for making Michigan's football coaching-staff salaries competitive. That decision (Rodriguez's main legacy at Michigan) was already made when he arrived -- indeed, that's what Brandon was hired to do.
The goal at Michigan is to play Ohio State with something on the line. That's what motivates players and teams. Without it, if you're always playing them in hopes of spoiling their season (as sweet as that can be), it wears you down. It's hard to stay focused in the off-season, or after a setback during the season. You need to believe the goal is attainable.
I still think Hoke will meet that standard. He will find his way. Possibly even this year.
If he does not, you have to look at replacing Brandon before you fire Hoke. In my view, it was Brandon who created the problem in the first place. If you let Brandon hire the next coach, you're just rolling the dice. "Maybe he'll get lucky."
September 11th, 2014 at 9:01 PM ^
but--scientific though they claim their analysis to be--this is bunk. A few coaches retire, but MOST are fired, right? And college football programs, rise, fall, stagnate, etc. They do every damned thing that such programs do.
The tiny kernel of truth you can take from the Times's lazy analysis is that your program may not improve if you hire a new coach. This is not news.
I see four general scenarios with Hoke--
he really puts us over the hump here, and pretty soon (it's got to be soon);
our record improves a little and we retain. . . mediocrity;
he has put us in a position to succeed with another coach;
or he has put us in a position to struggle for some while more.
I'm hoping it's the first or third of these, but I don't think any of us knows. I fear the mediocrity scenario, but see it as also quite a strong possibility. I also think it's possible that Shane Morris is not as great as advertised, and we struggle for some time more, under him or the next guy.
What I would really like to see is us pluck some fine young mind from a small school who excels and remains around for another ten years. But I think there's a carousel of mediocrity that predominates through agents, word-of-mouth, and the good old boy network, and prevents more young coaches from rising.
September 11th, 2014 at 11:30 PM ^
Is in the blurb quoted here they mention 2 teams who seem to be on an upward trend, one of which went from being pretty bad to in the damned national title game in one year because they hired a guy some of us around here were praying Brandon would have at least fucking called
September 11th, 2014 at 10:26 PM ^
is that, yes, they still went 7-5 after firing their line coach, but their line also got 10 times better and they hung 70+ points and 400-sum yards rushing in the B1G championship game against Nebraska.
September 11th, 2014 at 10:52 PM ^
Oh, I'm more than ready to fire Funk. Seems like a low risk, high reward situation.
September 11th, 2014 at 11:28 PM ^
For him to succeed, he needs to be Gene Chizik, but he's too loyal. Just look at Fred Jackson, sitting there doing nothing while Roy Manning is forced to coach a position he has zero experience with, that is now struggling despite what appears to be a pretty good talent pool. Or Funk, who I'm pretty sure at this point could be reasonably replaced by a few stray hairs from Alex Gibbs or Dante Scharnecchia. Hell, they might be an upgrade, because at least we know at one point in time they were in the general vicinity of being able to coach an effective O-line.
September 12th, 2014 at 12:25 AM ^
September 12th, 2014 at 12:49 AM ^
Should Daryl Funk really still have a job? Do you honest to god believe that?
Also, what has Fred Jackson done lately? When has he landed a recruit that has panned out? What great Running Back has he churned out after Mike Hart, and even then how responsible was he for Hart? Jackson was kept on by Rod because he was familiar with the high school coaches in state and RB coach is a nice place to stash a guy who doesn't really bring a whole lot to the teaching aspect of coaching. He was an attempt at easing the transition to a new school and it's new recruiting footprint, something Hoke certainly does not need.
Oh, and Manning was RB coach at Cinci in 2012 when they lead the Big East in rushing, so excuse me for thinking he might not ruin our backs.
September 12th, 2014 at 12:58 AM ^
September 12th, 2014 at 1:43 AM ^
Funk was like Borges last year. Bad output, but really bad materials to work with. That line was never going to be good. Borges was fired for it. Funk might have been, too, if there was a Nuss-level OL replacement.
Also, when Roy Manning was made the RB coach at Cinch, he had never before coached RB. That turned out OK, by your own admission. Why won't his coaching the DBs work out?
The answer is that the ND loss really upset you and the CBs were bad. Its OK to feel that way. It doesn't make unfounded claims any more true, though.
September 12th, 2014 at 8:20 AM ^
Another interesting thing regarding Manning is that after the Appalachian State game, one of the coaches - Hoke or Mattison - said that Raymon Taylor probably played his best game ever. So that guy has his best game ever, he gets hurt on the first series or two the next week, and the defensive backs were poor without Taylor, the nickel corner (Peppers), and potentially their starting safety (Delano Hill). Hill was the presumed leader for the position going into fall camp, so Michigan was basically missing 3 defensive starters - plus whatever Desmond Morgan is - for the Notre Dame game.
September 12th, 2014 at 8:35 AM ^
We missed out on the only non Harbaugh that could have been a difference maker - James Franklin. Had we cut bait at the right time, we could have had him too.
Dude will win Big Ten Championships at PSU. Maybe even this year.
He is the anit-Hoke.
September 12th, 2014 at 9:52 AM ^
September 12th, 2014 at 11:31 AM ^
To be fair to Franklin, Penn State has looked really good in those two games. Right? I'm not saying Franklin will fail at PSU because two games isn't really any data, but there certainly was nothing in those two games that would impress anyone.
I do agree that Franklin is the anti-Hoke. By all accounts, Hoke has never said anything inappropriate about the wives of his assistant coaches. Their demeanors are pretty much opposite. We all hate Hoke not being fired up enough on the sidelines for our taste, but I suspect that if PSU ever has a bad stretch, people will hate Franklin's rah-rah fist pumps.
September 12th, 2014 at 9:47 AM ^
From an outside perspective I was concerned when Hoke was hired. I absolutely thought he was the right man for the job. (Really I thought RR should have gotten a couple more years and his own DC). Hoke has killed it in recruiting. The results don't match though. Regardless of * talent level Dantonio has done more with less. So to me its coaching.
Saying that I think Hoke needs to go for your program to move up and use that talent. I don't know who that person is. It won't be Harbaugh, it might be Miles. I'm just not sure who wants to try and rebuild this program. ND is in the same position. ND has been shuffling its feet and tripping over itself for the better part of 20 years now. All because they forced out Lou too early and floundered from coaching hire to coaching hire. Brian Kelly has restored the program from the bottom up. As his record indicates he is a program builder from GVSU to ND.
Becareful what you wish for and unless you have the next head coach in waiting and he is a home run, then you will be starting again in 4-5 years. Atleast Hoke is recruiting well. At ND Davie was ok, then Willingham absolutely trashed the program. Weis restored some importance back to recruiting.
Its a slippery slope and once you are on it, it is very hard to get off.
September 12th, 2014 at 1:43 PM ^
Common sense indicates that replacing a coach is no guarantee of success. Scientific analysis lol.
September 12th, 2014 at 6:13 PM ^