Rivals article on Charlie Weis provides another reason why not to fire Rich (at least yet)

Rivals article on Charlie Weis provides another reason why not to fire Rich (at least yet)

Submitted by maizenbluenc on November 22nd, 2009 at 5:38 PM

Rivals article on Charlie Weis provides another reason why not to fire Rich (at least yet)

So this article by Dan Wetzel gives another reason to give Rich more time:

"By beating USC, Florida and Texas for more than his fair share of coveted prospects the last few years ... Weis’ recruiting work is why this is actually a better job today than five years ago."


The key insight here being, if we fired Rich now, with so many holes in our team, not only would the open position be unattractive because we only gave Rich 2 years, it would also be unattractive because our current talent / experience deficiencies.

So for all you Rich Rod haters out there -- we're better off letting him recruit for one or two more years, and then firing him...

For the rest of us (fence sitters or Rich Rod proponents): we're better off giving him one or two more years.

(This probably works for GERG too ...)

Reasons for ND hopelessness: trends in average win percentages

Reasons for ND hopelessness: trends in average win percentages

Submitted by michelin on November 9th, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}

Much has been made of the recent UM record.    However, whenf statisticians seek a more reliable measure of a team’s quality and the direction of a program, they look at the bigger picture by (1) comparing that season record with records from other schools and (2) considering not a single year, but groups of years (called a moving average).

(1)     I looked at the records of the two most recent coaches among our rivals.  I found that ND had a 3 win season, OSU had a four win season;  and MSU had three four-win seasons.  Some of these occurred during coaching transitions, like UM’s.   But others had no such excuse.


(2)    As in prior threads (see footnote*),  I now report the  analysis of the records of the ND coaches,  based on the victories averaged over each of 4 successive seasons.** 

Results: Under Lou Holz, the trend was positive overall (with an increase of .125 victories per year).  Yet, much as occurred during LC’s initial years, the gains were all early, and were followed by a gradual decline.  For all the subsequent coaches at ND, the trends  were  consistently negative (a decrease in average victories of   -.25 per season for Davies, -.25 per season for Willingham, -.10 per season for Weiss. However, the trends appear downward at a uniform rate, starting at Holtz’s peak.


1. The ND program is progressively deteriorating. 

2. One wonders if the many coaching changes contributed to this.  I have given mixed shades to the transition years, in which one coach has at least 2 years of the other one’s players.  From this, one wonders whether Willingham would have continued the upward trend if he was kept and could play his recruits during what were the first two years of Weiss’ tenure. 

3. Since ND faces massive losses next year, including the OL, RB and probably Clausen and Tate, in addition, with a completely inexperienced backup QB who will be unable to practice and coming off ACL surgery next August, one must seriously wonder when—no, whether—the ND program will get back on track.


If UM uses ND as an example of what might happen to a program, the questions for UM now is whether it will follow the pattern of Holtz, who began with a decline in average wins—similar to what is likely for RR (although Holtz did not have the big immediate dropoff in average wins from his predecessor, since that average was already quite low). The promising thing is that, unlike ND, UM has more, not less, starters coming back for the next two years.  Clearly, it’s way too early to tell—as Brian has intimated today—but I can't help worrying that we might end up like ND if we keep getting rid of coaches before they can build their program. 


* In two previous threads titled “Reasons for Hope” (for UM), and “reasons for MSU hopelessness.”  Another interesting and pertinent link from another poster is: http://mgoblog.com/diaries/what-two-losing-seasons-start-tenure-means

**Note that it’s not a simple average.  At the beginning of a coach's tenure, his record is shown as an average that includes the prior coach's average--which may be either better or worse than the current record.  As, such the first two years of each coach’s tenure are shown as mixed colors, as they reflect the recruits of the previous coach as well as the performance of the current coach.  (just ask yourself, if Bo were alive and took over the coaching job of the perennial celler-dweller Northwestern team in the 60's, would he be responsible for the first few years?)