How long should a college coach get?

Submitted by vablue on

This is not about Brady Hoke, but about whatever new coach we get.  How long should a college coach get.  Conventional thought is three maybe four years.  But more recently coaches like Dantonio and Mullen have shown that 5 or 6 years is more in line with reality, especially if you are not taking over a team that is already a powerhouse with all its players returning, like Meyer at OSU.

I think 5 or 6 is a better number, unless you see a coach that is just straight up bad (kind of like Marty Morningwheg was with the lions, even if it is a NFL reference).  So many things can make three or four years a tough call.  Like scheduling for instance.  in three or four years scheduling could not be on your side, especially if its only 3 years.  Or your ability to find a good QB.  QBs make and break coaches, 5 or 6 years to recruit and develop good players seems more realistic to determine if you are viable over the long term.

Not waiting this long risks just churning and burning through coaches every three to four years, potentially dumping coaches that would have worked.  Both Mullen and Dantonio had a fair number of people in their fan base that wanted them gone around years four and five. They stuck with a system and it paid off.  Something to think about as we are about to venture into yet another new coaching era.

MGoBoard
Football

glewe

November 30th, 2014 at 12:04 PM ^

Bro, you been paying attention?

Only 12(?) seniors...that's because of all the RR transfers, all the decommitments before and after his ultimate firing, and all the RR flame-outs under Hoke's tenure.

Our roster--especially on offense, which was hit way harder by the coaching transition--is mostly just really young because of the coaching transition.

I'm saying that in 3 years we'll likely find ourselves in the same talent+experience gap year we are in now.

Joined: 08/25/2010

MGoPoints: -7293

Stringer Bell

November 29th, 2014 at 10:44 PM ^

It remains to be seen whether or not Mullen is a 1 hit wonder.  Mississippi State looked pretty bad today against Ole Miss.

 

A guy like Harbaugh or Miles will get more time than an unproven guy like Hoke, due to their track record.  But 4 years is a large enough sample to recognize when things are trending in the wrong direction, as they have been with Hoke.

Joined: 11/06/2014

MGoPoints: 52835

alum96

November 29th, 2014 at 11:01 PM ^

That's just wrong info.

First, he won 9 games in year TWO of a sad sack program in much worse shape than Hoke inherited.  It was beaten into the ground by Bobby Williams and JL Smith and was recruiting in the 40s+.  To put in perspective the last 9 win season for MSU had been 1999 under Saban.

Then won 11 games in year 4.  And again in year 5. 

Their 7 win season was year 6 and nobody was asking for dantonio's head except for the same fringe asking for Saban's after Bama didnt win the NC last year.

Two 11 win seasons in year 4/5 and a 9 win season in year 2 is pretty good evidence.

Joined: 04/28/2012

MGoPoints: 82404

wolpherine2000

November 29th, 2014 at 11:11 PM ^

...that anyone sober* or with credibility** in East Lansing was actually asking to fire the coach who in his worst year still got them to a bowl game.  My family is made up of die hard MSU fan/employees, and I assure you that the unfathomable depths of the John L Smith/Bobby Williams era have not been forgotten.

*excludes Trustee Perles

**excludes people who pay attention to football

Joined: 07/10/2009

MGoPoints: 8827

MonkeyMan

November 29th, 2014 at 10:46 PM ^

If a guy is actually good at coaching instead of just relying on recruiting then 2 years is all you really need to see if things are going in the right direction. Just about every really good coach transforms a team quickly by teaching new technigues, habits, etc. If a team is improving keep them- if it is staying flat or going backwards it usually never recovers.

I think coaching contracts are too long- they should have show improvement faster- the whole "wait till I get all my players" argument is bogus. If you can't improve the players you have then you usually aren't that good. 

Joined: 10/13/2013

MGoPoints: 1753

snarling wolverine

November 30th, 2014 at 1:05 AM ^

Let's stop with the RichRod sob story already.  I'm happy for him that he's landed on his feet in Arizona, but that doesn't change the fact that he was an utter disaster in B1G play here.

RichRod went 2-6, 1-7 and 3-5 in B1G play.  A Michigan coach who records three straight losing seasons in this terrible conference will get fired every time, regardless of where he came from.  Hell, we're about to fire Brady Hoke for only two losing conference seasons.

How bad was RichRod's conference record?  Hoke (who's gone 6-2, 6-2, 3-5 and 3-5) would have to lose 40 consecutive B1G games from here on out to match Rich's .250 winning percentage.

 

 

Joined: 12/14/2011

MGoPoints: 98320

aiglick

November 30th, 2014 at 1:46 AM ^

I've seen others argue that the conference was much better even seven years ago compared to now. I'm not sure it was appreciably better although the conference seems to be trending down. Should we dismiss that I could argue the opposite and say RichRod is doing better in the much stronger PAC-12 and seems to be trending upward though it is only year three. It would be nice for people to acknowledge RichRod is a good coach and we may have possibly made a mistake. This program and fan base, as with all other human institutions, is fallible. I admit I was definitely frustrated during the RichRod era but not anything close to what I've felt during this current period.

Joined: 11/27/2010

MGoPoints: 21513

Bosch

November 30th, 2014 at 2:14 PM ^

...but it wasn't because he was a bad coach. That should be painfully obvious even to those who marched around their living room with glee the day he was let go. It deserves to be discussed and will continue to be discussed until Michigan fields a team that is also competing for conference championships. Pointing out RR's record as if there weren't other forces besides his coaching ability contributing to it is not only naive, it is blatantly ignorant.

Joined: 04/03/2009

MGoPoints: 8195

bo_lives

November 29th, 2014 at 10:51 PM ^

He then won the division in his fifth year. He beat his arch-rival 4/5 of those years.

Mullen plays in the SEC West, which has been easily the most dominant division in college football over the past 5 years. Yet he has still managed to make a bowl game every year except his first.

Also, both of those guys were guru coordinators for national championship winning teams. And neither of them does nonsense crap like insist on running a pro-style punt formation because that's what they're "comfortable" with.

Joined: 04/10/2011

MGoPoints: 7867

titanfan11

November 29th, 2014 at 10:50 PM ^

the school, the expectations, the roster, a schematic change, etc.  I think you have to give a guy at least 4 years (not saying that because of Hoke, honestly).  I think that gives you enough time to recruit, implement changes, set your "style," and show what you have as a coach.  

Look at a guy like Jimbo Fisher for instance.  Not sure what the board thinks of him, but he lost 8 games his 1st 2 years.  He now has a NC and a 28 game winning streak, along with a team that continues to come up big in key moments, and a nice 4-0 bowl record.  

 

Joined: 10/13/2013

MGoPoints: 3255

alum96

November 29th, 2014 at 10:51 PM ^

Did a boatload of coaching candidates in diaries and the good coaches show big signs in year 3 (that doesnt mean double digit wins but it means upsets against teams "better than you") and get it done in year 4.  Time after time after time.

Let's stop proclaiming anything about Dan Mullen as "arrived" until we see what Miss State is next year.  A lot of coaches have 1 year of pinnacle.  Or ride a hot QB (Sumlin)  Dantonio did it by year 4.

So year 3 you show some top teams in your conference you are someone to reckon with.  Year 4 you are competing for league titles.  And that is for teams who are garbage i.e. 4-8, 5-7.   UM has as much recruiting talent on paper as Oregon and more than Wiscy, MSU, TCU, KSU etc.  It should never take more than 4 here.

Joined: 04/28/2012

MGoPoints: 82404

ThadMattasagoblin

November 29th, 2014 at 10:51 PM ^

depends on the coach. You know when that moment happens that he won't survive. For RR it was Mississippi State and for Brady Hoke it was Minnesota. 3-4 years but basically when things start falling apart.

Joined: 08/24/2011

MGoPoints: 63999

Jeff09

November 29th, 2014 at 10:52 PM ^

This is an unanswerable question because there is no one size fits all for this. What's the starting level of quality of the roster that's inherited? What are the institutional resources available to the team? How much has the program won historically? What level of emphasis does the school put on academics? Is the team showing signs of improvement or regression through the years? What's the record against rivals?

Joined: 06/25/2011

MGoPoints: 8460

sheepdog

November 29th, 2014 at 10:53 PM ^

It's all about performance vs expectation. We could tolerate a 7-6 or 8-5 year if there was improvement coming. If hoke went 9-4 or 10-3 this year I think we'd have the grace to give him another year



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 06/15/2011

MGoPoints: 3277

MichiganStudent

November 29th, 2014 at 10:53 PM ^

I really don't think it takes 5-6 years to figure out the projection and product you'll be getting long-term from a coach.

Obviously, there are extenuating circumstances, but 4 years should be sufficient to provide an AD with enough information to make an informed decision.

Joined: 08/27/2008

MGoPoints: 7223

Frieze Memorial

November 29th, 2014 at 11:06 PM ^

I think longer is better ... these are extremely difficult jobs and ADs should try to develop coaches.  Mentor and invest in your staff at every level.

Of course, this is assuming measurable improvement and some evidence of future success.  Without these, you gotta cut your losses.

Joined: 01/09/2014

MGoPoints: 6465