I have noticed that new coaches often have early success. Tressel in his first years at OSU, Carr at UM, Hoke at UM, Meyer at Fla, Miles at LSU, Stoops at OK, Pellini at Neb. etc. But then things sort of slow down after that and the momentum subsides. Just wondering why it may be that a coach's best years are often their first years.
Why do new coaches often have so much success?
Because belief is half of being. People believe the outgoing coach was the problem so they tend to collectively play better.
I also think of it as similar to NFL players who are due for new contracts-they always seem to perform at a higher level. They get a huge new deal and then go back to being average in most cases. I would think with a new coach college players feel a lot of pressure to prove themselves and perform so that first year you might get a lot more out of a team.
But are you seriously using that infamous Woody Hayes quote as your username? I've got to hear the story behind this choice...
That's a Bo quote.
Woody was the one to say ''Because I couldn't go for 3.''
My bad. I didn't follow the thread properly. I thought he was responding to the post directly above his, which has a Bo quote in the signature.
Im a Michigan grad who loves that quote.
that actually makes sense and it wouldn't have occurred to me regarding players trying harder for a new coach
I think Rodriguez lost the team at Illinois on the goal line stand. After that game there was a deficit in "Reason to Believe". The fact that he didn't change out his coaching staff after that season left a "reason to doubt" the rest of his tine here.
This is why I think Hoke has to make some changes or he never gets the team fully on board. One only has to witness the Copper Bowl to see what happens when a team is not fully bought in.
when people first begin a task they has a much clearer perspective than 5 or 6 years down the road...
I assume you already know.
Responded to a deleted post, nothing to see here.
I suspect that if you did a statistical analysis of all first-year coaches, less than half would have would you would consider to be successful years.
I'm sure you'll find that plenty more coaches have had to wait a while to find success...or in even more cases, many never find it all.
They have sufficient talent and players that fit their system.
There are exceptions, of course. It rather depends on the situation that one takes on, I suppose. Perhaps one of the more interesting modern examples is Frank Beamer at Virginia Tech, where he took over in 1987, and for a reasonably successful Bill Dooley (not wildly, but reasonably). In his first six years, he never had more than six wins and 4 of the 6 seasons were losing seasons. It wasn't until 1993 when things seemed to come together for the Hokies under Beamer.
Here's a good site to see what first year coaches records are. Enjoy.
Thanks for the link.
Ball State went from 12-1 to 2-11 after Brady left. Woo hoo!
Are you suggesting Brady left the cupboard bare?
If Stoops' momentum has subsided I would take his subsided momentum all day
You just cherry-picked a few examples that you think make your point. And it's not clear what you're even defining as early success. You mention both Carr and Hoke - yet their first three years are opposite each other. Carr had two 8-4 seasons then went 12-0, Hoke went 11-2 and then 15-11.
And I can point to plenty of coaches off the top of my head who haven't had early success. Rich Rod obviously, Bret Beliema at Arkansas, Bill Calahan at Nebraska, John L. Smith at both MSU and Arkansas, Mike Shula at Alabama, etc...
If you actually looked at all of the data I'd bet you'd find that new coaches do far worse than their more experienced counterparts on the whole.
We remember the guys who did well. That is the only phenomenon at play.
True. I am actually wondering why they do well given the typical need to rebuild.
How would RichRod know? Went 3-9 his first year.
This is a terrible post with no data. I'll just keep drinking my two hearted and shut up now.
Dude this isn't a thesis- chill out. I never made the claim that this is "always" or made any sweeping statements at all- please take the time to actually read a post carefully before commenting on it. I was just wondering why so many new coaches seem to do well, then not do as wll from then on- that is all. have fun in life and relax
But your examples are terrible; Carr and Tressel? Carr had three sub-par years before 1997. Tressel went 7-5 his first season
I think the circumstances likely have a lot to do with a new coach's success. If the players had quit on the previous coach, due to conflicts or uncertainty about his future, or whatever, then the new coach is in a great position. Also, I wouldn't expect an in-house promotion to have as much effect.
Switch to Founder's and then tell me how you feel.
A lot of attrition weeds out all of the players who haven't bought in. The ones who stay feel like they have something to prove. Plus, it's exciting, new coaches bring in new ideas, everyone buys in. The players who buy in no matter what buy in, but also the players who maybe lose faith after a couple years buy in for a while too.
Plus a fresh set of eyes can pinpoint what was wrong and fix it right away. Pick the low hanging fruit so to speak. As someone who's been in management and moved around to different departments, it's always easy to come in and dramatically improve things at first by just fixing the obvious, much harder to continue to make gains as time goes by.
Then a couple years later a lot of the talent that stayed graduates and there can be a little step back while the new players grow and become upperclassmen. I think we're going through this now and maybe next year, OSU will go through it next year and maybe the year after.
Agree about the low hanging fruit- thanks
Taken from the site mentioned below by trueblueintexas ...
I'd look into this more but it's counter intuitive...new coaches need time to institute their systems.
If there is a link I'd suspect it would have something to do with random luck regression (fumble luck, injury luck, close game luck,). I wonder what the numbers would look to like if you separated coaches replacing fired coaches vs. coaches replacing coaches getting promoted. I suspect coaches getting fired experienced bad luck and the next year there would be a regression towards the mean whereas coaches getting promoted experience good luck. I wonder what a team's average age/experience has to do with whether a coach gets fired/promoted.
I don't think being new means success, but rather those that were very successful are often new. Many of the winners NC winners since Carr have been in the first few years. This year the NC has a 1st year and 4th year coach.
I hate this thread with every fiber of my being.
As others have pointed out, some have great success, others not so much. Having lived in Oklahoma for about 20 years now, I do know a bit about Bob Stoops. He walked into a team absolutely stocked with great recruits. John Blake (now under an NCAA show clause penalty for his time at UNC) was a great recruiter but weak HC, so Stoops's first NC team was in his second year, and most of the starters were Blake recruits. The one notable exception was QB. Mike Leach was OC, and they were able to find a JUCO player by the name of Josh Heupel to fill that slot. Stoops was a DC before being hired by Oklahoma, so the combination of top notch recruits already in the system, one of the best OCs in the nation with a style of play that most teams had not yet adjusted to, and the ability to go the JUCO route to immediately fill in gaps with experienced players are what helped him to such early success.
Even leaving aside the coaching (the addition of Mike Leach to his staff, for example) without the cupboard well stocked and ability to go the JUCO route, it seems unlikely that Stoops would have had such early success.
Could be a combination of factors. As mentioned, players may tire of a staff and tune them out. Sometimes it just helps to hear a new voice. I am sure we would all like to think that a new coach could take his team to the national title game in the first year. Malzhan at Auburn is a unique situation because he helped recruit many of the current players at Auburn because he was recently on staff there as the OC. I also agree that is is easier to remember the coaches who have succeeded right away and dismiss the one who struggled.
So maybe the browns actually do know what. their doing
Statistically a coaches first year is likely to be better than their last year when they are fired.
Was that a shot at RichRod?
why is the sky blue? Reflections and shit, that's why
Who knows why, every circumstance is different, sometimes a coach loses 4 or 5 games in 1st year and then has a stellar year the next, Tressel and Saban for example, sometimes the opposite happens, the roster has something to do with it I'm guessing.
Michigan had success in 2011 due to Denard & a defense that developed a clue thanks to Mattison.
2012 would have been better had Denard not had his arm killed.
Michigan's troubles last year can be attributed to the OL , IMO, and that can be attributed to the 2009-2011 recruiting classes. MAYBE next year the OL will be solid. More likely the next.
Also for all 3 years, Borges. I don't think he's led the offense to do as well as it could have.
Anyway, back to the OL, according to Rivals:
2009: 3 OL recruited ( Scofield, Lewan, Washington - who wound up on defense).
2010: 1 OL recruited ( Pace - IIRC had career ending injury and is no longer in football).
2011: 2 OL recruited ( Posada, Bryant - Posada is out of football and Bryant has been injured. Jack Miller was recruited as a DE according to Rivals and is currently a backup center. )
This isn't hard to track down yet people only want to complain about the coaching staff. If OL coaching is a problem, fine, but don't overlook the poor OL recruiting for 2009-10. Posada deciding he doesn't like football hasn't helped either.
Miller was recruited for OL, not DE. DE is simply the positionRivals rated him for. Scout listed Denard as a CB. They didn't change that even though we obviously recruited him to play a different position.
It’s all about psychology. If you look at when coaches get fired, it’s because they have not had success. And, often they have not had success for a number of years in a row. It’s not as though the players didn’t want to win under the previous coach. But, when you bring in a new guy, a new perspective, a new energy it rejuvenates the players, the coaches, the fans, etc. Everyone is excited about playing, practicing, proving people wrong. It’s new, it’s exciting, etc. It’s no different than dating a new girl, starting a new job, moving into a new place. It’s exciting. But, the longer you have this new situation the more you become de-sensitized to it. The new girl you were super attracted to a few years later is just your girl. You’re no longer awed by her pretty face. You’ve slept with her a hundred times. The same is true of a coach. That motivational speech doesn’t carry the same weight when you’ve heard it a hundred times before. As time moves on there has to be more substance. But, psychology and emotions are huge in college football. Take a look at the momentum swings in football, playing against rivals, playing in bowl games, playing the week after a big game (upset alert). The psychology of college football and all sports teams are tremendously important. They always talk about team chemistry. Compare the Red Sox of last year to the year before. On paper the 2012 unit was better, but there’s no comparison to the results.
What does she look like?
Lot of talent for this to work. Look at Ferentz, every Indiana coach, etc.
I'd prefer to change the question to, "When new coaches are successful, why?"
. . . and I'd answer that by saying, when a program is on the hunt for a new coach, they'll be sensitive to what went wrong with the last one. In the case of RichRod, he came in without institutional support, didn't do a good job reversing that, didn't recruit in-state talent, didn't recruit O-line, broke the kicker and defense was an absolute horror. So Michigan set out to find a guy who'd address those and probably didn't take a close enough look at the offensive coaches because RichRod was so good at running the spread-and-shred.
In comes Hoke, and he does almost the exact opposite. He's a "Michigan Man" who says the right things, recruits in-state, recruits a ton of linemen, fixed the kicker and Mattison turned the defense around in 1 year. Meanwhile, the offense -- especially the running game -- has regressed almost every year.
So everyone with a goddamn agenda wants to credit either RichRod OR Hoke exclusively for 2011, but frankly 2011 was a confluence of what RichRod did right and what Hoke needed to fix. The pieces were in place on offense; the best thing Borges did was not mess with it too much (the Iowa debacle being the exception). Mattison had pieces to work with on defense (Martin, RVB, Kovacs et. al.) and he turned that disorganized wreck almost completely around.
When teams turn things around quickly with a new coach, I daresay it's because the new coach focuses on the things that need fixing while the rest of the pieces remain in place. This is kind of why evaluating a coach based on X years is nonsensical because it really comes down to the team makeup when the new coach arrives. When Meyer took over at Ohio State he had close to the sort of team he'd build anyway. When RichRod took over, Carr had atrophied the program, and then RichRod's witch-hunting & firing did it again. So Michigan had been depleted of quality depth for about five years when Hoke arrived.
Which is kind of why I'm getting downright pissed at the calls to fire him. Was 2013 a disaster? Yeah, but IF you fire Hoke NOW we'll lose all our 2014 & 2015 recruits and now you're looking at Michigan being almost a decade removed from established depth.
"Mix theory" is the winner.
And Hoke's first season had nine gimme games, ND, and two tough road games (which he lost). The other guys walked into decent situations and had flexibility with schemes, which allows for success against coaches you haven't coached against.
2011 Nebraska was not a gimme game. I don't think Northwestern or Illinois (both on the road) were either, and SDSU was a bowl team playing for payback against its old coach - I remember a lot of people being nervous before that one.
SDSU was 4-3 in the MWC, Nebraska was 5-3, both at home. NW was 3-5, 6-7. Hoke still has no road wins against a winning team.
A lot of times it has to do with why a team has a new coach. Stewart Mandell wrote a column a couple of years ago looking at coaching changes at major schools and the phenomenon of winning a national title within 3 years. Basically, coaches at major programs get fired for not producing with the talent they have. Most, if not all, major BCS programs get talented players, but not every coach can get the most out of that talent. Those coaches get fired, but leave behind a talented football team (think Florida with Zook).
The new guy can come in and not have to rebuild the program. He gets a lot of the benefits mentioned above (new voice, renewed spirit, etc.) and has some early success. However, after that it is up to the new coach to use that momentum to recruit well and develop his own guys. That doesn't always work out.