My Version of the Hugh Millen Nerd Machine (Updated)

greenearplugs

Sent this email to woodward earlier (and was originally from a discussion i posted here a few weeks before the season started...now with updated numbers)

Dear Mr. Woodward,

This is a comprehensive list of all coaches who had their first 10+ win season in year 5 or after of their coaching tenure. Data is from every pac10 school, 1970-2010.

Name (School) - Years of 10+ wins - Win % through year 5 of tenure

Mike Price (WSU) -Year 9, 13,14 - 48% win through year 5
Mike Bellotti (Oregon) -Year 6,7,11,14 - 63% win through year 5
Bruce Snyder (Cal) -Year 5 - 50% win through year 5
Terry Donahue (UCLA) -Year 7,12,13 - 63% win through year 5
Dick Tomey (Arizona) -Year 7,12 - 52% win through year 5
Bruce Snyder 2(ASU) -Year 5 - 57% win through year 5


Sark (assuming he goes 8-4 this year, which is being generous), will have a win % of 54% through 5 years. even if he wins out his win % would be 56%

So our examples of what we can hope for sark to accomplish are Dick Tomey and Mike Price. Being generous you could compare him to Mike Bellotti, but Bellotti had averaged about 1 more win a season than sark has through the first 5 years of their respective coaching tenures.

Hope this sheeds light on the question of "How much data do we need to reasonable judge sark's coaching record? Is 5 years enought time to make an educated decision?"
_________________________________________________________________

In addition you can't just say "is there a chance sark ever wins 10+ games" you have to say what are chances that sark ever winning 10+ vs our other options (hiring a random coach).

Looking at the data, there were 26 coaches that had a 10+ win season since 1970

of that 26,

6 of them got first 10 win season in year 1 of coaching stint
7 of them got first 10 win season in year 2 of coaching stint
5 of them got first 10 win season in year 3 of coaching stint
2 of them got first 10 win season in year 4 of coaching stint
2 of them got first 10 win season in year 5 of coaching stint
4 of them got first 10 win season in years 6+ of coaching stint

so 84% of coaches who ever went on to win 10+, had their first 10+ season is years 1-5.

only 4 out of 26 or about 16% had their first 10+ season in year 6 or after (as Sark would need to do)

If you are going to win 10+ games it is very likely that you will do it in years 1-5. Chance of turnarounds has historically not been that high.

There have been more examples of coaches getting 10+ wins in their first year, than examples of coaches getting 10+ wins for the first time in year 6+.

Based on historical data, a random new coach is more likely to win 10 games NEXT YEAR (1 year), than Sark is likely to win in ALL REMAINING YEARS (cumulative! - multi year) at UW.

HeretoBeatmyChest

You should also look at those who couldn't even reach 9 wins in their first 5 years. Tomey is the only one I think bc Price did win 9 games in one of his first few years. And at least Tomey won 8 games his 3rd year. Also look at the coaches who did not win more than 7 games their first 4 years.

dnc

And, of course, winning 10 games now is a lot simpler than it was back in Donahue, for instance's, first 5 years.

Sark ain't winning 10.

[Deleted User]

Sark finds a way to only win 7 games despite the softest OOC schedule UW has had in the last 50 years plus.

RoadDawg55

Good information, and I am glad you sent that to Woodward. There's way too much evidence right in front of Woodward's face to not fire Sark, yet somehow, it probably won't happen. I really hope to see empty crowds. I can't take another year of Sark in charge.

[Deleted User]

RoadDawg55 said:

Good information, and I am glad you sent that to Woodward. There's way too much evidence right in front of Woodward's face to not fire Sark, yet somehow, it probably won't happen. I really hope to see empty crowds. I can't take another year of Sark in charge.

At 7-5 he SHOULD be fired but he won't. However, this is where I disagree with most on here I do think he is fired at 6-6.

RoadDawg55

He_Needs_More_Time said:

RoadDawg55 said:

Good information, and I am glad you sent that to Woodward. There's way too much evidence right in front of Woodward's face to not fire Sark, yet somehow, it probably won't happen. I really hope to see empty crowds. I can't take another year of Sark in charge.

At 7-5 he SHOULD be fired but he won't. However, this is where I disagree with most on here I do think he is fired at 6-6.

If Sark goes 6-6 with a loss to WSU and is retained, I would want to throw bricks through every one of Woodward's windows. That would be 2-6 in his last 8 games after being ranked #15. It's sad at how pathetic the program has become that we even have to debate whether Sark will get fired after 7-6 seasons filled with punger rape losses.

[Deleted User]

RoadDawg55 said:

He_Needs_More_Time said:

RoadDawg55 said:

Good information, and I am glad you sent that to Woodward. There's way too much evidence right in front of Woodward's face to not fire Sark, yet somehow, it probably won't happen. I really hope to see empty crowds. I can't take another year of Sark in charge.

At 7-5 he SHOULD be fired but he won't. However, this is where I disagree with most on here I do think he is fired at 6-6.

If Sark goes 6-6 with a loss to WSU and is retained, I would want to throw bricks through every one of Woodward's windows. That would be 2-6 in his last 8 games after being ranked #15. It's sad at how pathetic the program has become that we even have to debate whether Sark will get fired after 7-6 seasons filled with punger rape losses.

We'll see maybe I'm wrong but at 6-6 if Sark is retained then Pool Boy is putting his own job on the line.

If he fires Sark and hires a new coach then he bought himself time.

I can't see ticket sales being good at 6-6 with 2-6 finish down the stretch after being ranked #15.

unfrozencaveman

greenearplugs said:

Sent this email to woodward earlier (and was originally from a discussion i posted here a few weeks before the season started...now with updated numbers)

Dear Mr. Woodward,

This is a comprehensive list of all coaches who had their first 10+ win season in year 5 or after of their coaching tenure. Data is from every pac10 school, 1970-2010.

Name (School) - Years of 10+ wins - Win % through year 5 of tenure

Mike Price (WSU) -Year 9, 13,14 - 48% win through year 5
Mike Bellotti (Oregon) -Year 6,7,11,14 - 63% win through year 5
Bruce Snyder (Cal) -Year 5 - 50% win through year 5
Terry Donahue (UCLA) -Year 7,12,13 - 63% win through year 5
Dick Tomey (Arizona) -Year 7,12 - 52% win through year 5
Bruce Snyder 2(ASU) -Year 5 - 57% win through year 5


Sark (assuming he goes 8-4 this year, which is being generous), will have a win % of 54% through 5 years. even if he wins out his win % would be 56%

So our examples of what we can hope for sark to accomplish are Dick Tomey and Mike Price. Being generous you could compare him to Mike Bellotti, but Bellotti had averaged about 1 more win a season than sark has through the first 5 years of their respective coaching tenures.

Hope this sheeds light on the question of "How much data do we need to reasonable judge sark's coaching record? Is 5 years enought time to make an educated decision?"
_________________________________________________________________

In addition you can't just say "is there a chance sark ever wins 10+ games" you have to say what are chances that sark ever winning 10+ vs our other options (hiring a random coach).

Looking at the data, there were 26 coaches that had a 10+ win season since 1970

of that 26,

6 of them got first 10 win season in year 1 of coaching stint
7 of them got first 10 win season in year 2 of coaching stint
5 of them got first 10 win season in year 3 of coaching stint
2 of them got first 10 win season in year 4 of coaching stint
2 of them got first 10 win season in year 5 of coaching stint
4 of them got first 10 win season in years 6+ of coaching stint

so 84% of coaches who ever went on to win 10+, had their first 10+ season is years 1-5.

only 4 out of 26 or about 16% had their first 10+ season in year 6 or after (as Sark would need to do)

If you are going to win 10+ games it is very likely that you will do it in years 1-5. Chance of turnarounds has historically not been that high.

There have been more examples of coaches getting 10+ wins in their first year, than examples of coaches getting 10+ wins for the first time in year 6+.

Based on historical data, a random new coach is more likely to win 10 games NEXT YEAR (1 year), than Sark is likely to win in ALL REMAINING YEARS (cumulative! - multi year) at UW.

Great content - but the narrative/presentation is piss poor. Next time upload it here, and let someone edit it.

Then, we can print out a hard copy and I'll force Old Dawg post it from his Parkside Dr E address. That is how you get attention. Not by e-mails

Southerndawg

Using 10 wins as a target is somewhat random and misses the real point. It also does not lend itself as an accurate measuring stick across eras as the season length and make up of OCC games has changed over the years.

The goal is to be a championship team. The measure of success is how often you attain that goal and how close you consistently come to reaching it. Go back and look at James and Donahue again in that light. You'll find conference titles and a lot of second place finishes. In other words they consistenty produced teams that were in contention for and/or won conference titles. There is no point in keeping a coach who does not achieve this level of success. It's year five of the Sark error, and the Huskies are no closer to winning a conference title than they were in his first year. He has them firmly mired in mediocrity. He needs to go. Case closed.