Why do new coaches often have so much success?

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.

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.

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.

Teams so bad that they hire a sort of unknown with a good rep and word of mouth, when truly given time and nut constantly under a microscope, tend to eventually build a program. I think of Schiano. Took him about, what, 7 years before his first winning season? Then they were respected and always were a tan that could get ya if you didn't show up. They'd always have a kid or two go in the first few rounds in the draft. That was Rutgers, lol. How long was Briles at Baylor before they broke out? UCF was truly one of the best teams in America after O'Leary was there a decade. Most new coaches have to build so most start poorly and rarely are coaches given more than 3 years (not a RR reference). I think immediate success is the exception and rarely does it stay. Regardless, when it happens, I agree it's often kids energized by a second chance, a clean slate and just the excitement of new anything. Then, most if the time, it fades due to becoming jaded again or losing the kids that helped win early. Think Martin, RVB and Molk with us.

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.

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.