Elite Coaches in their Third Year
As a part of the current "sky is falling/future so bright" conversations, I decided to look at how Harbaugh's performance (and projected performance) stacks up to that of other highly regarded coaches. I chose 10 coaches across four conferences (Big 10, SEC, ACC and Pac-12), as well as Brian Kelley at Notre Dame. Most I chose because they are widely considered elite; a couple others I chose because the programs have faced challenges in the past that remind me of Michigan's.
Among those 11 coaches, 5/11 (Meyer at UF, Dantonio, Nick Saban at LSU, Dabo Swinney at Clemson, Brian Kelley at ND) replaced their predecessors due to poor performance. Among the remainder, 2/11 (Meyer at OSU*, Saban at Alabama**) replaced their predecessors because of minimal-impact scadals, 2/11 because their predecessors left for another job (James Franklin at PSU and Chris Petersen at Washington) and 2/11 because their predecessors retired (Chip Kelly at Oregon, Jimbo Fisher at FSU).
*Counting Fickell as an interim coach, so Meyer was replacing Tressel not Fickell.
**In both cases, I do not recognize the NCAA's decision to vacate wins. Wins are wins.
Given the small sample size and lack of randomness, you can't generalize from anything I write here. But it still points to some interesting patterns that potentially have some interesting implications for our program.
Here is what I found.
1. Not all situations are analogous
The mean wins of all coaches in their first two years is 9.11 wins/season. The mean wins for their third year is 10.05 wins/season. However, if we look narrowly at coaches hired to replace poor performers (like Harbaugh), mean wins in the first two years is 8.88, while mean wins in the third year is 8.20.
By contrast, elite coaches hired for reasons other than the poor performance of their predecessors won an average of 9.15 wins/season in their first two years, and 11.59 in their third. That is an average of +3.39 wins/season in their third year versus coaches hired to replace poor performers, though only +0.27 wins/season more during their first two years.
Thus we see that coaches hired to replace poor performers win less in their first 3 seasons than coaches hired for other reasons.
This is almost certainly tied to how the previous regime ended. Poor performing predecessors won -2.04 games/year during their final two years as compared with coaches who left for other reasons.
2. Coaches hired to replace poor performers generally win less in their third year than in their first and second
Elite coaches hired to replace poor performers average +2.46 wins/season in their first two years relative to the last two years of the preceding regime. However, they also average -0.68 wins/season in their third year relative to their first two. By contrast, elite coaches hired for other reasons average +2.44 wins/season relative to their first two years.
As it happens, only 1/5 coaches hired to replace poor performers (Brian Kelly) won more in their third year than they averaged across their first two years. All the others declined. Win totals for Meyer at UF and Dantonio declined by15% relative to their first two seasons. Nick Saban at LSU: 10%; and Dabo Swinney: 16%.
To me this suggests recruiting problems. Specifically, it suggests that the poor performance by and transition from the previous regime impacts recruiting over a two-year cycle, as has been the experience at Michigan—a down year prior to their final season and then a transition year. By contrast, coaches who take jobs for other reasons appear to benefit from continuity. Notably, Meyer did appreciably better in his third year at OSU, where he replaced a successful coach because of a minimal-impact scandals, than he did at UF, where he replaced Ron Zook.
3. How Harbaugh Fits in
Harbaugh averaged 10.00 wins/season during his first two, which is +0.89 wins/season relative to the mean for all elite coaches and +1.12 wins/season relative to coaches hired to replace poor performers. This despite the fact that Hoke’s win total during his final two seasons ranks 10/11 on our list, beating only Jerry Dinardo at LSU. Notably, these two preceding coaches are also the only ones on our list to win fewer than 50% of games during their final two seasons.
We do not yet know what Michigan’s win total will be for 2017, but 8 wins seems like a reasonable bet at this point. If that projection stands, then it would put Harbaugh at -2.05 wins/season relative to the mean for the whole field, but only -0.20 wins/season relative to the mean for other coaches hired to replace poor performers. In terms of rank, Harbaugh would be tied for 3/6: under Kelly (12.00) and Meyer at UF (9.00) but equal to Saban at LSU (8.00) and ahead of Dantonio (6.00) and Swinney (6.00).
4. Fourth Seasons
The 9 coaches who have completed their fourth seasons recorded an average of 11.56 wins/season, which is +1.68 wins/season relative to the average for their third season. Those hired to replace poor performers recorded an average of 11.20 wins/season, which is a whopping +3.00 wins/season relative to their third season average.
And 4/5 coaches in this category improved in their fourth year relative to their third year—the sole exception being Brian Kelley, who was the only coach to improve in his third year relative to his first two.
5. Conclusions
Harbaugh’s performance in his first two years was above average for both elite coaches as a whole and those specifically hired to replace poor performers. A projected 8-5 finish would be significantly below the average for elite coaches as a whole but fairly average for those replacing poor performers, a group that includes both Urban Meyer at UF and Nick Saban at LSU.
It is impossible to know what the future brings, but if one considers Harbaugh to be an elite coach, then one can hypothesize—from these other examples and our 16+ returning starters—that in 2018 we will improve our win total by a significant margin.
This is why I’m not ready to press the panic button, and why--regardless of our current offensive ineptitude--I’m still bullish on our program. Even Dantonio and Swinney, who only won 6 games apiece in their third years, won 10 or more in their fourth. And in both cases, that success was sustainable. MSU, one notes, has won at least 10 games in 5/7 years since his third; Clemson has done so in all 6/6. In fact, of our 5 coaches hired to replace poor performers, only Kelley has failed to win 10 games in a majority of seasons after his third.
If Harbaugh is not, in fact, an elite coach, then there is more reason to worry. But given his track record and how we are recruiting, I think it's more reasonable to assume he is. In that case, truly sustained success begins when we can field an experienced team and also have credible depth at all or nearly all positions. Even better, when we start replacing outgoing seniors and juniors with incoming seniors and juniors, year in and year out (particularly on the offensive line, where we have struggled since 2011). In that case, we'd look a bit like Wisconsin, but with better talent.
That's a good recipe.
October 26th, 2017 at 12:27 PM ^
October 26th, 2017 at 12:47 PM ^
This is the antithesis of Pete, Clay Travis and all those other clowns throwing up comparisons of Harbaugh's record to Hoke or Butch Jones. Also a good alternative to the "Conistent Underachivement" Diaries. While well written, those too seem to lack the needed context, and seem like more like a kneejerk reaction. No doubt, I am as disappointed in the season and play on the field as the next guy. That said, I am also flabbergasted at the "burn it all down" reactions coming up on this board. 5-2 heading into 3 very winnable games - is not even close to Hoke's 6-1 heading into November in 2013....
October 26th, 2017 at 12:50 PM ^
related contribution. Would give you more than +1 if it were possible. Go Blue
October 26th, 2017 at 3:05 PM ^
October 26th, 2017 at 1:34 PM ^
October 27th, 2017 at 12:40 AM ^
And considered adding Harbaugh at Stanford, but in the end didn't. I may expand the list one of these days, and I'll definitely keep these others in mind!
October 26th, 2017 at 1:59 PM ^
as the year we can make a run at the NC
Go Blue!!
October 26th, 2017 at 2:05 PM ^
was #1 in offensive s&p and #24 in defense s&p. They were basically last year's young OSU team but without the same luck. They lost by 4 on the road to the then #1 team in the country.
That team had every reason to expect a huge breakthrough in the following season.
Michigan has very little reason for optimism on the offensive side of the ball.
Records are nice and all, but they give very little insight for predicting future success.
October 26th, 2017 at 6:10 PM ^
October 27th, 2017 at 12:54 AM ^
...is to look at how elite coaches fare in their third years. I showed that it's not uncommon for elite coaches to regress in terms of wins in their third year, only to bounce back in their fourth.
Now the rest is speculation...
If Harbaugh is an elite coach, then we can reasonably expect some bounce back. How much is another story. The average among the cases I looked at (hired to replace poor performers) is +3.00. If I were to hazard a guess based on our personnel and who other teams bring back, I'd predict we field a galactic level defense and an improved, if still not great offense--enough to win 2.00 more games, but probably not more. But there are a lot of unknowns.
- Is Newsome coming back, and if so, in what form?
- Is Cesar Ruiz as good and college ready as we think he is?
- Is Aubrey Solomon the next Hurst?
- Will Gary be Clowney 2.0?
- Will the light go on for our young and sloppy WRs?
- Who will play QB, and might there be improvement at that position?
...and so forth.
October 27th, 2017 at 1:24 AM ^
there is nothing inherently important about year 3. Looking at their schedule and the poor quality of this offense, Michigan will probably go 8-4 again next year. That means nothing about whether or not Harbaugh is elite. Next year it is way more likely that the offense improves and maybe puts up a Florida-esque season where 9-4 actually projects to a great following year. They may very well win the Big Ten in Year 5.
October 27th, 2017 at 4:58 AM ^
Year 3 is generally when coaches hired to replace poor performers suffer most from bad recruiting related to the transition. That's what's "special" about year 3...youth.
The reason coaches whose win total declined in year 3 experienced a rise in year 4 is, well, because the roster gained experience. I believe the average team returning 15+ starters wins +0.8 games/season over the previous year. And that's without an elite coach. Thus I think it's reasonable to expect, with an elite coach, that you'll see additional improvement above that marker.
Now that said, I do not expect us to win the East, but I do see us improving on both sides of the ball, translating to a couple more wins.
October 27th, 2017 at 4:18 PM ^
is that your analysis only looks at wins and makes a bunch of assumptions about the rosters, strength of schedule, margin of losses, S&P, returning starters, etc.
There is also no causal relationship between when the breakthrough happens and whether or not a coach is elite. You claim "If Harbaugh is elite, then we should expect better success next year." That claim is meaningless. We could very easily go 8-4 next year, and then win the national championship the following year, and Harbaugh gets to join the "elite" club. IMO, that is much more likely than us actually winning the big ten next year.
October 28th, 2017 at 5:43 PM ^
Urban lost to Al Borges' Auburn offense in year 3.
Al Borges was fired at the end of the regular season.
Urban in year 3 also lost to Mike Debord's offense in the bowl game.
So in year 3 he lost to two of the worst offensive minds in the game.
October 26th, 2017 at 3:27 PM ^
put Harbaugh up against certain other elite program coaches such as Meyer, Saban and Dabo Swinney, if you do this only based on their income levels and salary.
I mean if you base it strictly on record over certain periods of time, then let's compare other factors that influenced their records more than simply name recognition and reputation upon arrival.
Harbaugh was given a high incoming salary at Michigan simply to attract him because he was a highly successful and sought-after coach at both the pro and college level and commanded top of the scale pay, which actually was a determining factor in what teams and programs could compete for his services. His salary rank was never based on anything else in bringing him back home other than the expectation that you pay to get the best, and his resume supported that position.
When Harbaugh was hired is as important today in discussing how his team is performing as it relates to the state of the team's roster in all areas and what's transpired with his tream through his first two seasons of coaching and development.
What's more, it's also arguable to say that other programs have found sufficient quality in the coaches that he originallhy assembled for his staff, that a few are no longer around. Whether that was by design or circumstance, the fact is he's turned over coaching responsibilities, augmented others and improved the payscale for his assistants to draw others to Michigan as head coach.
Michigan's two biggest problem areas are qb and Oline today. And those position groups were big question marks when he arrived, and have yet to be solved. So far, Harbaugh has managed using short-term tactics ro bridge longer-term solutions to those critical areas.
As as a perceived offensive guru and qb whisperer, it was expected that Harbaugh would turn the offense into a juggernaut. And with a mostly veteran offensive line and a senior transfer he was able to do that his first two seasons, winning 10 his first year and second year, yet worked with first time starters for his program both years.
He could have done better last year, and losing to Iowa crippled the team's chances of making a playoff bid. That loss along with the heartbreakers to OSU and Florida State still sting, but not as much as two home losses to MSU during his brief run. The Sparty loss this year will likely never be explained away as a reputable loss given all the factors leading up to it. It was a bad loss compared to say two lopsided losses the team has suffered against Ohio State and Penn State.
Still, I see nothing but a shining path to a better tomorrow with this coach, and see him as the most dynamic coach Michigan could expect or want at this time regardless of the flaws in his team and performance now. Harbaugh rubs many the wrong way. I think he knows his business like no one else and is a great teacher in the college tradition perfect for Michigan.
We all demand excellence, and performance should match compensation. This team needs to win the games it's supposed to win and breakthrough with victories it's not projected to get now. There is still season ahead to achieve those goals.
October 26th, 2017 at 3:17 PM ^
October 26th, 2017 at 3:30 PM ^
It's a good point, but context matters here. Harbaugh is 1 - 4 against MSU and OSU. That's obviously not great, but look at some of these losses:
2015 MSU: A last second dropped punt cost us the game against a playoff team. That's about as far on the negative variance/unlucky end of the spectrum you can get.
2016 OSU: If any one of the 10 obvious penalties went our way, the 4th down spot went our way, or Speight didn't randomly drop the ball at OSU's goalline, we win. Again, that's hard to blame the coaching, that's just almost entirely unlucky.
2017 MSU: This one is less clear than the above two, but we were down 4 and coming off a TD drive in the second half when the skies opened and the conditions didn't allow either team to move the ball for the rest of the game.
If those three games are not overtly unlucky, Harbaugh is 4-1 against rivals. Even if you don't want to be charitable, at least one or two of those games are wins with even average luck.
October 26th, 2017 at 5:17 PM ^
October 26th, 2017 at 3:37 PM ^
track record is very important. Jim Harbaugh didn't forget how to coach between 2016 and 2017.
October 26th, 2017 at 4:46 PM ^
doesn't ensure repeatability, especially with a different ancillary coaching staff and in the best division in the country.
October 26th, 2017 at 3:42 PM ^
All I know is I sure am excited that when we let go of Harbaugh at the end of the season we've got ALL of these ELITE couch potato coaches ready to take over our program with all the answers!
I can't understand how we missed on all of these guys 3 years ago with all of their experience in coaching and instead went with someone who has only been coaching his entire career at the HIGHEST levels.
Can't wait for them to come in and with just a simple snap of their fingers fix our problems!
October 26th, 2017 at 4:03 PM ^
I, unlike some people in our fan base, have no worries that Jim can get the program turned around. In fact, he already has. This was going to be a tough year. We knew this coming in. Very few teams have great seasons following one that lost eighteen starters, many who went to the league. 2018 will be great. The schedule is pretty brutal, but good teams find ways to win those tough games. We'll see what Michigan is made of next season.
October 26th, 2017 at 4:58 PM ^
October 27th, 2017 at 12:57 AM ^
But don't have time to do it properly here. It would be neat to do so, though. Like make a proper data set and do some logit or EHA.
October 26th, 2017 at 5:06 PM ^
Excellent, excellent work. Great points, well executed! Looking forward to future posts.
October 26th, 2017 at 9:04 PM ^
October 27th, 2017 at 4:48 AM ^
And that was enough.
I probably would have given RR one more, at that time. But in hindsight, I also don't think RR was an elite coach. An offensive innovator, but not an elite coach.
October 26th, 2017 at 9:33 PM ^
As someone from another fanbase I hate that you put this together because it's extremely convincing and I want you folks to run Harbaugh out of town.
The 2015 class was bad and it can't really be blamed on Harbaugh. 2014 class not great either. Basically anyone recruited by Hoke with NFL talent is gone. This gap in the roster is insurmountable. He's been forced to resort to stop-gaps of decent(at best) upper classmen plus young guys that don't belong on the field yet.
Michigan should not be competitive with great teams this year and would not be in the running for this B1G title under any coach in the world. An inability to recognize this is pure delusion.
I can definitely understand the griping when it comes to how much he gets paid, though. I find it kind of strange that he raked his alma mater over the coals given how financially comfortable he should be. Doesn't seem like something a truly loyal "Michigan Man returning purely to restore the glory of the program" would do.
October 26th, 2017 at 9:49 PM ^
October 26th, 2017 at 11:47 PM ^
First, he pays for himself, his salary effectively costs nothing, and second, he could have had more but chose to look out for his staff. JH said he could only eat so many steaks.
When's the last time you ever heard someone with money say they had enough of it!
Brilliant leader = Jim Harbaugh
October 26th, 2017 at 10:52 PM ^
Interesting analysis and it does make some sense. Year 1 gives you that immediate bump with the improvement in overall coaching and Year 2 would give you experienced players who aren't new to the system.
Ultimately, if Michigan had an offensive line or a QB, they'd probably be right there. The Hoke classes and hybrid Hoke/Harbaugh class were just brutal:
OL:
2013 - Kugler (#68), Kyle Bosch (#87), David Dawson (#95), Chris Fox (#110), Logan Tuley-Tillman (#168), Dan Samuelson (#411)
2014 - Cole (#127), JBB (#335)
2015 - Newsome (#235), Runyan Jr. (NR), Ulizio (NR)
QB:
2013 - Shane Morris (#72)
2014 - Wilton Speight (#453)
2015 - Gentry (#175), Malzone (#292)
I mean that is just abysmal. Brian has pointed this out multiple times, but that 2013 OL class is a disaster. Took 6 and only 1 guy ever contributed (and it took until his 5th year to do it). 5 OL that would have three years or more in the program. Cole and JBB are starters. Newsome had a disastrous injury or would be. Runyan Jr. and Ulizio were too low to even be ranked in the Top 1000 on 247. Of course, the OL sucks!
And at QB, Morris just turned out to be a bust. Speight was average-ish which if they could manball people like they want, would be enough. Hell, even playmaker wise, it wasn't exactly a great haul:
2013 - Derrick Green, Jake Butt, De'Veon Smith, Jaron Duke, Csonte York, Da'Mario Jones
2014 - Drake Harris, Freddy Canteen, Ian Bunting, Mo Ways,
2015 - Brian Cole, TJ Wheatley, Karan Higdon, Grant Perry
So basically, Hoke got Butt and Smith who were both great and are both gone. Nobody else in those last two classes became contributors.
If you want to know why Michigan is struggling this year, a complete lack of offensive linemen, quarterbacks, and skill position players recruited in Hoke's last two years left them bereft of basically any experienced talent on offense. Which is kind of a problem.
October 27th, 2017 at 11:04 PM ^
Completely agree.
October 27th, 2017 at 8:43 AM ^
The challenge here is sample size, of course, but still - this is an interesting read. I think we all saw a year 3 slump coming for a while due to the recruiting curve, but it's interesting that this bears out against other coaches coming in due to their predecessor's performance.
For those replacing underperformers, Year 3 is a double-whammy - first, the players the new coach brought in are still young (depending on hire date, maybe two classes - the first put together in a mad scramble), and second the previous coach's recruiting likely suffered because he was distracted and his program was on the wrong trajectory.
Harbaugh messed up this narrative by bringing in Rudock and giving us a great first year, and by hiring wonderful defensive coordinators to coach up the strength of the teams. But he still inherited a wounded Hoke's recruiting classes and the players he recruited are young.
On top of that, Harbaugh had not been recruiting at the college level for years when he came over. He had to start that process anew, and has done a fantastic job.
Bottom line is that this post gives folks like me a basis for our optimism. Thanks for putting this together!
October 27th, 2017 at 11:02 PM ^
So there's so statistical validity. It's basically anecdotal evidence.
I'd love to do a proper dataset where P5 coaches are chosen at random, or even a comprehensive dataset of all coaches who started at P5 schools after the beginning of the BCS era. But no time to do it, especially if for free. Hence this version.
October 27th, 2017 at 11:05 PM ^
Whiffing on nearly all the OL in the 2013 class is a problem in two ways:
(1) Most of the OL in the 2013 class never ended up contributing, or only did late in the game, like Kugler--depriving us of our would-be RS senior OL class this year.
(2) Taking so many OL in the 2013 class meant there weren't spaces for OL in the small 2014 class, depriving us of potential would-be RS junior OL class this year.
October 29th, 2017 at 11:11 AM ^
Comments