Coaching Effect over the last 7 years
Comments
-
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.



