Coaching Effect over the last 7 years

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2013/8/19/4635732/college-football-apparent-talent-coaching-effects
To sum it up, the guy normalized talent rankings and then compared to wins. then ranked about 130 coaches spanning 7 seasons. He doesn't aggregate by coach, but i copied his numbers into excel and did it on my own. Turns out of the 130 coaches, steve sarksian is the 109th ranked coach out of 132 measured. believe it or not, Willingham is ranked 105. Fuck. So who is the better coach, Sarksian or Willingham? I thought it was pretty clear that Sark was better. Now i'm not so sure.
For the record here are the TOP ranked coaches of the last 7 years:
1) Sumlin
2) Saban
3) C. Kelly
4) Jagodzinski
5) T. Bowden
6) Bielema
7) Shaw
8) B. Kelly
9) B. Jones
10) Beamer
11) Gundy
12) Leavitt
13) Petrino
14) B. Stoops
15) Bellotti
16) Tressel
17) Dantonio
18) Patterson
19) Mangino
20) Pinkel
21) Riley
Comments
-
interesting stuff. thanks for posting it.
-
How the fuck is Jim Harbaugh, arguably the best CFB coach of the last decade, not in the top 21?
flawed formula is flawed -
How is Jim Harbaugh not on that list? Same with Urban Meyer.
-
looks like a fellow Husky fan wrote that above article...credit to RedmondLonghorn
in a related note, He_Needs_More_Time posted this link a while back in another thread:
http://cfbmatrix.com/portfolio/washington-huskies-2013/
Serves as a nother point of reference. Sark is costing us about 1 game a year. If Woodward had any brain, he'd start his coaching search with proven coaches, that end up winning 1 or 2 more games a year than their talent says they should. In effect, search for coaches with a positive coaching effect...there are prob a bunch of hidden gems at smaller schools. Offer them some big $ and we go from a 9 win team (with 10 win talent) to an 11 win team (with that same 10 win talent).
Take any ONE of these articles with a grain of salt. There's prob a lot of fudge factor in any one ranking...but i've yet to see a good statistical analysis showing sark is either a good coach, or has a decent chance of ever becoming a good coach based on his current performance. Thats a bad sign -
Meyer is number 26CollegeDoog said:How is Jim Harbaugh not on that list? Same with Urban Meyer.
Harbaugh is 51.
There are some issues with this ranking, and again its not meant as a stand alone, but just another point of reference. This analysis gets a lot of things right, especially at the extremes..but there are some issues. Meyer is prob penalized because the talent was so good at the schools he was at.
Harbaugh is penalized b/c of his first few seasons...i just did a simple average of his 4 seasons coaching rankings...but in looking at harbaugh vs sarkisian there is a clear difference. harbaugh, at his best was ranked 26 out of the 466 coach seasons (only 109 coaches, but each season gets its own record, so there are 466. 26 out of 466 is great. Meanwhile, sarks BEST season to date had him ranked 318 out of 466.
Meyers best single season ranking was 22 out of 466...Again sark has come no one near these numbers for a single season, much less his career.
again, this rnaking isn't perfect, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water...there is a general story here even if some of the specific measurements have some flaws. Sarks case is pretty extreme and getting more and more clear cut in my mind (when factoring in the other stats i've seen) -
Did they factor in kick ass presser quality? Did they factor in close losses that can be counted as wins? Did they factor in FREE PUB!. Didn't think so.
-
Who cares if the rankings are flawed? It says Sark sucks!!!!!!!!
End of story!!!!! -
Sark has been lucky to go 7-6 > 7-6 > 7-6. He's closer to a 4-9 coach than 9-4
We're fucked. -
Hey, I just noticed you can flag AND down vote a comment. Abundance.
-
disagree. Once you do the second it cancels out the first. Abundance lacking.AZDuck said:Hey, I just noticed you can flag AND down vote a comment. Abundance.
-
low tweak
-
He's right. You only get one shot.HillsboroDuck said:
disagree. Once you do the second it cancels out the first. Abundance lacking.AZDuck said:Hey, I just noticed you can flag AND down vote a comment. Abundance.
-
Dammit... I was so excited about that. Well... I think this coaching effect thing has merit. Nice post from op
-
As I have always said: A 4 win coach + 10 win players = 7-6HillsboroDuck said:Sark has been lucky to go 7-6 > 7-6 > 7-6. He's closer to a 4-9 coach than 9-4
We're fucked. -
Do we have 11 or 12 win players now and will get to 8-5 or 9-4? Or might the negative coaching effect be exacerbated by the presence of more depth and talent? As in 6 or 5 wins. Anything less than 9 regular season wins this year is unacceptable.
-
Nice post.greenearplugs said:Good article on measuring the coaching effect over the last 7 years:
http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2013/8/19/4635732/college-football-apparent-talent-coaching-effects
To sum it up, the guy normalized talent rankings and then compared to wins. then ranked about 130 coaches spanning 7 seasons. He doesn't aggregate by coach, but i copied his numbers into excel and did it on my own. Turns out of the 130 coaches, steve sarksian is the 109th ranked coach out of 132 measured. believe it or not, Willingham is ranked 105. Fuck. So who is the better coach, Sarksian or Willingham? I thought it was pretty clear that Sark was better. Now i'm not so sure.
For the record here are the TOP ranked coaches of the last 7 years:
1) Sumlin
2) Saban
3) C. Kelly
4) Jagodzinski
5) T. Bowden
6) Bielema
7) Shaw
8) B. Kelly
9) B. Jones
10) Beamer
11) Gundy
12) Leavitt
13) Petrino
14) B. Stoops
15) Bellotti
16) Tressel
17) Dantonio
18) Patterson
19) Mangino
20) Pinkel
21) Riley
Anybody in the Top 100 available next year?
Incremental Progress.
-
Top 100? We are fucking Washington. I want a top 15......Bellotti!!!!tracker said:
Nice post.greenearplugs said:Good article on measuring the coaching effect over the last 7 years:
http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2013/8/19/4635732/college-football-apparent-talent-coaching-effects
To sum it up, the guy normalized talent rankings and then compared to wins. then ranked about 130 coaches spanning 7 seasons. He doesn't aggregate by coach, but i copied his numbers into excel and did it on my own. Turns out of the 130 coaches, steve sarksian is the 109th ranked coach out of 132 measured. believe it or not, Willingham is ranked 105. Fuck. So who is the better coach, Sarksian or Willingham? I thought it was pretty clear that Sark was better. Now i'm not so sure.
For the record here are the TOP ranked coaches of the last 7 years:
1) Sumlin
2) Saban
3) C. Kelly
4) Jagodzinski
5) T. Bowden
6) Bielema
7) Shaw
8) B. Kelly
9) B. Jones
10) Beamer
11) Gundy
12) Leavitt
13) Petrino
14) B. Stoops
15) Bellotti
16) Tressel
17) Dantonio
18) Patterson
19) Mangino
20) Pinkel
21) Riley
Anybody in the Top 100 available next year?
Incremental Progress. -
Who needs a coach in the top 100 when you have so much fucking house money!
That list is fucking depressing btw. Hope Woodward drinks some gasoline and swallows a match. Today. -
Thanks for that comment. I haven't had a belly roar in quite a while.Swaye said:Who needs a coach in the top 100 when you have so much fucking house money!
That list is fucking depressing btw. Hope Woodward drinks some gasoline and swallows a match. Today.
-
You're in the media room, I take it?Homebrew_Dawg said:
Thanks for that comment. I haven't had a belly roar in quite a while.Swaye said:Who needs a coach in the top 100 when you have so much fucking house money!
That list is fucking depressing btw. Hope Woodward drinks some gasoline and swallows a match. Today. -
Where else? But not in the WIAA media room. They evidently have a problem with fat boy stalkers. Their loss, clearly.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
You're in the media room, I take it?Homebrew_Dawg said:
Thanks for that comment. I haven't had a belly roar in quite a while.Swaye said:Who needs a coach in the top 100 when you have so much fucking house money!
That list is fucking depressing btw. Hope Woodward drinks some gasoline and swallows a match. Today. -
Glad I could help. I haven't had a good belly roar since the last time Sven tricked me with the citrus.Homebrew_Dawg said:
Thanks for that comment. I haven't had a belly roar in quite a while.Swaye said:Who needs a coach in the top 100 when you have so much fucking house money!
That list is fucking depressing btw. Hope Woodward drinks some gasoline and swallows a match. Today.
#BRBJO -
Which top 100 coach can we land though? I'm hearing they are all under CONTRACT!
-
Swaye said:
Glad I could help. I haven't had a good belly roar since the last time Sven tricked me with the citrus.Homebrew_Dawg said:
Thanks for that comment. I haven't had a belly roar in quite a while.Swaye said:Who needs a coach in the top 100 when you have so much fucking house money!
That list is fucking depressing btw. Hope Woodward drinks some gasoline and swallows a match. Today.
#BRBJO
FREE PUB!
-
No, you don't.Homebrew_Dawg said:Do we have 11 or 12 win players now
-
Here is the list of coaches from the article, ranked by average percent deviation from expected F/+
Some items of note/thoughts:
Brett Bielema is listed as coaching 2011 twice, with different expectations and results each time. I did not scour the data for these sorts of inconsistencies.
There is huge variation in some coaches from season to season.
There are clear cases of one hit wonders. Since Sumlin has only coached one year his ranking at number one may not be well-deserved.
While this system may not be perfect in all cases, it does seem to show a lot of the general trends that you would expect to see.
1 Sumlin 21%
2 Saban 18%
3 C. Kelly 15%
4 Jagodzinski 13%
5 B. Kelly 13%
6 Petrino 12%
7 Bielema 12%
8 Leavitt 12%
9 T. Bowden 12%
10 Beamer 11%
11 Snyder 11%
12 Gundy 11%
13 Shaw 11%
14 B. Jones 10%
15 Bellotti 9%
16 Mangino 9%
17 Pinkel 9%
18 B. Stoops 8%
19 Dantonio 8%
20 Tressel 8%
21 Riley 7%
22 Patterson 7%
23 Ferentz 7%
24 Meyer 6%
25 Miles 6%
26 Franklin 6%
27 Hoke 6%
28 Pellini 6%
29 Fisher 6%
30 Stewart 6%
31 Gailey 6%
32 Schiano 5%
33 Spurrier 5%
34 Brooks 5%
35 Mason 4%
36 Strong 4%
37 Leach 4%
38 Holgorsen 4%
39 Nutt 3%
40 Edsall 3%
41 Wannstedt 2%
42 Carroll 2%
43 Flood 2%
44 Rodriguez 2%
45 Paterno 2%
46 Pasqualoni 2%
47 Harbaugh 2%
48 Swinney 1%
49 Dorrell 1%
50 Koetter 1%
51 Shula 1%
52 Grobe 1%
53 O'Brien 1%
54 Bo. Johnson 1%
55 Muschamp 1%
56 Freeze 0%
57 Fitzgerald 0%
58 Briles 0%
59 Marrone -1%
60 Carr -1%
61 S. Holtz -1%
62 P. Johnson -1%
63 Mora -1%
64 Graham -1%
65 Richt -1%
66 B. Davis -1%
67 Fulmer -1%
68 M. Stoops -2%
69 Rhoads -2%
70 Friedgen -2%
71 Doba -3%
72 Mullen -3%
73 Spaziani -3%
74 Erickson -3%
75 Tuberville -3%
76 Fedora -3%
77 Zook -3%
78 Chryst -4%
79 Callahan -5%
80 Franchione -5%
81 B. Bowden -5%
82 Groh -5%
83 Prince -5%
84 Sherman -5%
85 Hope -5%
86 Golden -6%
87 Kiffen -6%
88 Tiller -6%
89 Addazio -6%
90 Hoeppner -6%
91 Whittingham -6%
92 Withers -6%
93 Tedford -7%
94 Croom -7%
95 J.L. Smith -7%
96 Lynch -8%
97 Cutcliffe -8%
98 Shannon -8%
99 Sarkisian -9%
100 Chizik -9%
101 Amato -9%
102 Coker -9%
103 London -9%
104 Hawkins -10%
105 Brewster -10%
106 Fickell -10%
107 McCarney -10%
108 Kragthorpe -11%
109 Dooley -11%
110 Orgeron -12%
111 Robinson -12%
112 Kill -13%
113 Morriss -13%
114 Willingham -13%
115 Phillips -13%
116 Weis -13%
117 Brown -0.14
118 Bunting -15%
119 Caldwell -15%
120 Wilson -15%
121 Roof -18%
122 Harris -19%
123 Neuheisel -21%
124 Beckman -22%
125 Gill -27%
126 Wulff -28%
127 Embree -32%
-
WULFF!Mad_Son said:Here is the list of coaches from the article, ranked by average percent deviation from expected F/+
Some items of note/thoughts:
Brett Bielema is listed as coaching 2011 twice, with different expectations and results each time. I did not scour the data for these sorts of inconsistencies.
There is huge variation in some coaches from season to season.
There are clear cases of one hit wonders. Since Sumlin has only coached one year his ranking at number one may not be well-deserved.
While this system may not be perfect in all cases, it does seem to show a lot of the general trends that you would expect to see.
1 Sumlin 21%
2 Saban 18%
3 C. Kelly 15%
4 Jagodzinski 13%
5 B. Kelly 13%
6 Petrino 12%
7 Bielema 12%
8 Leavitt 12%
9 T. Bowden 12%
10 Beamer 11%
11 Snyder 11%
12 Gundy 11%
13 Shaw 11%
14 B. Jones 10%
15 Bellotti 9%
16 Mangino 9%
17 Pinkel 9%
18 B. Stoops 8%
19 Dantonio 8%
20 Tressel 8%
21 Riley 7%
22 Patterson 7%
23 Ferentz 7%
24 Meyer 6%
25 Miles 6%
26 Franklin 6%
27 Hoke 6%
28 Pellini 6%
29 Fisher 6%
30 Stewart 6%
31 Gailey 6%
32 Schiano 5%
33 Spurrier 5%
34 Brooks 5%
35 Mason 4%
36 Strong 4%
37 Leach 4%
38 Holgorsen 4%
39 Nutt 3%
40 Edsall 3%
41 Wannstedt 2%
42 Carroll 2%
43 Flood 2%
44 Rodriguez 2%
45 Paterno 2%
46 Pasqualoni 2%
47 Harbaugh 2%
48 Swinney 1%
49 Dorrell 1%
50 Koetter 1%
51 Shula 1%
52 Grobe 1%
53 O'Brien 1%
54 Bo. Johnson 1%
55 Muschamp 1%
56 Freeze 0%
57 Fitzgerald 0%
58 Briles 0%
59 Marrone -1%
60 Carr -1%
61 S. Holtz -1%
62 P. Johnson -1%
63 Mora -1%
64 Graham -1%
65 Richt -1%
66 B. Davis -1%
67 Fulmer -1%
68 M. Stoops -2%
69 Rhoads -2%
70 Friedgen -2%
71 Doba -3%
72 Mullen -3%
73 Spaziani -3%
74 Erickson -3%
75 Tuberville -3%
76 Fedora -3%
77 Zook -3%
78 Chryst -4%
79 Callahan -5%
80 Franchione -5%
81 B. Bowden -5%
82 Groh -5%
83 Prince -5%
84 Sherman -5%
85 Hope -5%
86 Golden -6%
87 Kiffen -6%
88 Tiller -6%
89 Addazio -6%
90 Hoeppner -6%
91 Whittingham -6%
92 Withers -6%
93 Tedford -7%
94 Croom -7%
95 J.L. Smith -7%
96 Lynch -8%
97 Cutcliffe -8%
98 Shannon -8%
99 Sarkisian -9%
100 Chizik -9%
101 Amato -9%
102 Coker -9%
103 London -9%
104 Hawkins -10%
105 Brewster -10%
106 Fickell -10%
107 McCarney -10%
108 Kragthorpe -11%
109 Dooley -11%
110 Orgeron -12%
111 Robinson -12%
112 Kill -13%
113 Morriss -13%
114 Willingham -13%
115 Phillips -13%
116 Weis -13%
117 Brown -0.14
118 Bunting -15%
119 Caldwell -15%
120 Wilson -15%
121 Roof -18%
122 Harris -19%
123 Neuheisel -21%
124 Beckman -22%
125 Gill -27%
126 Wulff -28%
127 Embree -32% -
Interesting to see Harbaugh at #47 and only 2% positive deviation from expectation. Would have thought he should be ranked higher. Trouble with statistics is they can be manipulated to support any conclusion.
-
Yeah, Harbaugh is lower than I would think to put him. I would rate him right up there with Saban. Something that is interesting about him though is that in an absolute sense his talent increased every year, his expectations raised every year (duh since that is determined by talent), his success raised every year, and his relative success increased each year. Basically Harbaugh was improving exponentially. Stanford was on pace to win the Super Bowl in like three years.Homebrew_Dawg said:Interesting to see Harbaugh at #47 and only 2% positive deviation from expectation. Would have thought he should be ranked higher. Trouble with statistics is they can be manipulated to support any conclusion.
-
Another problem with Harbaugh is he went 4-8, 5-7 first two years then only 8-5 year three. Only his fourth and final year was kick ass so his true value isn't shown.Mad_Son said:
Yeah, Harbaugh is lower than I would think to put him. I would rate him right up there with Saban. Something that is interesting about him though is that in an absolute sense his talent increased every year, his expectations raised every year (duh since that is determined by talent), his success raised every year, and his relative success increased each year. Basically Harbaugh was improving exponentially. Stanford was on pace to win the Super Bowl in like three years.Homebrew_Dawg said:Interesting to see Harbaugh at #47 and only 2% positive deviation from expectation. Would have thought he should be ranked higher. Trouble with statistics is they can be manipulated to support any conclusion.
Him laying the foundation for Stanford to make two more BCS games doesn't equate into that is the problem.