Hogville Info
• 9,294,192 Posts
• 382,845 Topics
• 21,408 Hogvillians
THE RULES (Read 'em!)
Quick Links
Pick'Ems:Football      Basketball      Baseball
Sister Sites:Gridiron HistoryFearless Friday
Listen NOW:Game ON 103.3 
  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Research Project - Long-term coaches  (Read 988 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Razorfox

  • Hall of Fame Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,706
Research Project - Long-term coaches
« on: September 19, 2017, 11:39:33 am »

I'm interested in this topic and would love to research it, but I just don't have the time or energy.  What I'm interested to know is if there is inherent advantage to keeping coaches long-term.  My natural instinct is for us not to fire coaches quickly (even though I'll admit, I'm a bit surprised and disappointed in CBB right now, because I expected better by now).  That being said, I'm hesitant to call for CBB's firing because like I stated before, my instinct is that if we stick with him long enough, it should work out because stability in a program like ours is beneficial.  Unfortunately I don't have a lot of data to back this up.  I think of names like Kirk Ferentz at Iowa, Frank Beamer at VT, and Bill Snyder at Kansas State who started slow and may have been fired if many of their fans had their way, but ultimately turned out to be long-term successes.  But admittedly, those are just anecdotal. 

What would be interesting is for someone to research other long-term coaches (maybe those with  10 or more years in a program).  And then compare their success with the years' preceding and following their departure when there was more turbulence in coaching turnover.

Are there enough examples to draw any conclusions?  Any takers?
Logged

East TN HAWG

  • Hogvillian
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1,875
  • Hogville.net
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2017, 11:45:15 am »

I'm interested in this topic and would love to research it, but I just don't have the time or energy.  What I'm interested to know is if there is inherent advantage to keeping coaches long-term.  My natural instinct is for us not to fire coaches quickly (even though I'll admit, I'm a bit surprised and disappointed in CBB right now, because I expected better by now).  That being said, I'm hesitant to call for CBB's firing because like I stated before, my instinct is that if we stick with him long enough, it should work out because stability in a program like ours is beneficial.  Unfortunately I don't have a lot of data to back this up.  I think of names like Kirk Ferentz at Iowa, Frank Beamer at VT, and Bill Snyder at Kansas State who started slow and may have been fired if many of their fans had their way, but ultimately turned out to be long-term successes.  But admittedly, those are just anecdotal. 

What would be interesting is for someone to research other long-term coaches (maybe those with  10 or more years in a program).  And then compare their success with the years' preceding and following their departure when there was more turbulence in coaching turnover.

Are there enough examples to draw any conclusions?  Any takers?


Very good question.  How much value does stability bring?  The coaches you mentioned were very competent.  Who would not respect Snyder or Beamer?  Good topic. 
Logged

Sponsored Ad



Hogville encourages you to do business with the following...

Hogwild

  • All-American Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 2,650
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2017, 11:48:35 am »

2 of the 3 coaches Synder and Beamer are Hall of Fame coaches that were at bottom feeder schools, those programs were dog stuff programs. 
Kansas State had only been to one bowl prior to Synder, VA Tech had only won one bowl game before Beamer.

While we are in a rough patch, we are nothing like those programs were when they stayed with their coaches.
Logged

Razorfox

  • Hall of Fame Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,706
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2017, 11:54:43 am »

2 of the 3 coaches Synder and Beamer are Hall of Fame coaches that were at bottom feeder schools, those programs were dog stuff programs. 
Kansas State had only been to one bowl prior to Synder, VA Tech had only won one bowl game before Beamer.

While we are in a rough patch, we are nothing like those programs were when they stayed with their coaches.

OK, that doesn't answer the question.  First, I put out a couple of anecdotal names, but am calling for a more inclusive list of similar coaches/programs.  Secondly, this idea that things from 40+ years ago have bearing on today is just not true.  If it were, Army would still be a power house along with some of the Ivy league schools.  More recent history is a better indicator than history going further back in time. 
Logged

Razorfox

  • Hall of Fame Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,706
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #4 on: September 19, 2017, 12:01:27 pm »

2 of the 3 coaches Synder and Beamer are Hall of Fame coaches that were at bottom feeder schools, those programs were dog stuff programs. 
Kansas State had only been to one bowl prior to Synder, VA Tech had only won one bowl game before Beamer.

While we are in a rough patch, we are nothing like those programs were when they stayed with their coaches.

And I just had another thought...maybe the only reason those coaches were able to succeed in historically bad programs is because they got to stay there for a long time.  I guess I don't see your point as taking away from the fact that stability is good. 
Logged

Poker_hog

  • All-American Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,817
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #5 on: September 19, 2017, 12:05:26 pm »

We gave Nutt 10 years.  Is that long enough for you?  Suposidly Bert's system was going to take time to build depth and start winning but it would be sustained once it got going.  None of that has happened and there's no reason to think it will.
Logged

Razorfox

  • Hall of Fame Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,706
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2017, 12:26:27 pm »

We gave Nutt 10 years.  Is that long enough for you?  Suposidly Bert's system was going to take time to build depth and start winning but it would be sustained once it got going.  None of that has happened and there's no reason to think it will.

OK, Nutt...how did his winning percentage compare to Arkansas' average winning percentage for the life of the program and during the times right before and after him?  He's another example that is good for this research project. 
Logged

bphi11ips

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13,286
  • I need help with my footwork, too.
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #7 on: September 19, 2017, 01:04:53 pm »

I'll make it easy for you and others on the research side.  Here are list of seasons for a number of football programs who have sustained long periods of success over time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ohio_State_Buckeyes_football_seasons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Florida_Gators_football_seasons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Alabama_Crimson_Tide_football_seasons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Tennessee_Volunteers_football_seasons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Texas_Longhorns_football_seasons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_USC_Trojans_football_seasons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nebraska_Cornhuskers_football_seasons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Oregon_Ducks_football_seasons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Oklahoma_Sooners_football_seasons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arkansas_Razorbacks_football_seasons

If you browse through the history of these programs, as I have done recently, you'll see a common theme being a spike in success created by one head coach who establishes a long tenure, followed in most cases by one or more coaches who ride the success for a while until it fizzles, followed by turnover every 3-5 years until, in some cases, like Alabama, another head coach comes along and again establishes dominance and tenure.  Bryant/Saban are clearly the models there.  Tennessee is still looking for a Fulmer.  Nebraska is looking for an Osborne.  In Arkansas's case it was Broyles/Holtz/Hatfield, and we have been looking since. 

Is Bret Bielema the next Broyles?  That is the current question.  Check out Virginia Tech's and South Carolina's experience:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_South_Carolina_Gamecocks_football_seasons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Virginia_Tech_Hokies_football_seasons

What if South Carolina had fired Steve Spurrier before year 6?  What if Virginia Tech had fired Frank Beamer before year 7?

Everyone here knows that Bret Bielema came to Arkansas with the intent of changing the Razorbacks' style of play.  He was up front about the time it would take to accomplish that.  Everything looked to be on the right trajectory until the second half against Missouri 3 1/2 games ago. Are Razorbacks fans really willing to throw away four years of building because they don't like the results of three games?  Does that make any sense?

Frank Broyles brought success very quickly to Arkansas, but his first team stood 0-6 when it took the field in College Station against Texas A&M in 1958.  Broyles recalls a moment on the field before the game in his autobiography "Hog Wild":

"Dixie White had been at Arkansas three years with Jack Mitchell.  I asked Dixie if he thought Arkansas could ever compete consistently in the Southwest Conference.  'At one time I thought so,' Dixie said. 'I thought we could be average or better most of the time, and now I don't see any way we can compete with all those Texas athletes they pick from.'"

The Hogs beat the Aggies that day 21-8.  They would finish in the AP Top Ten 8 of the next 11 years and win more games in the 60s than any team in the country except Texas, who eclipsed the Hogs victory total by one. 

The team I saw take the field against TCU last Saturday is close to being a good football team.  They are young but talented, like Broyles' 1958 team.  They play a brand of football that Spurrier and Beamer preferred.  And Broyles.  It is a brand of football that can sustain success for years.  To paraphrase Broyles's question to Dixie White - "Can Arkansas ever compete consistently in the SEC?"  Maybe we'll get a glimpse of the answer this Saturday.






Logged

East TN HAWG

  • Hogvillian
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1,875
  • Hogville.net
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #8 on: September 19, 2017, 02:26:33 pm »

Even the great coaches go through bad seasons.  Beamer was used as an example 
2- 2 win seasons, 1-3 win seasons, 1-5 win seasons, 2-6 win seasons,
, 4-7 win seasons, 4-8 win seasons, 2-9 win seasons, 7-10 win seasons, 6-11 win seasons.

Most of the poor season were at the beginning of his tenure, and the success come during the last half of his tenure.  If they would have fired him during year 5, his record would have been 23-32-1. 
Logged

FutureMan

  • Varsity
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 159
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #9 on: September 19, 2017, 02:56:20 pm »

Even the great coaches go through bad seasons.  Beamer was used as an example 
2- 2 win seasons, 1-3 win seasons, 1-5 win seasons, 2-6 win seasons,
, 4-7 win seasons, 4-8 win seasons, 2-9 win seasons, 7-10 win seasons, 6-11 win seasons.

Most of the poor season were at the beginning of his tenure, and the success come during the last half of his tenure.  If they would have fired him during year 5, his record would have been 23-32-1.

This discussion is interesting, and I think you guys are onto something.

I looked up Barry Alvarez to see how his overall record looked.  Very similar to Beamer.  There is a lot of good seasons in there, but there is also stretches of bad seasons:

From Wikipedia:

1990 Wisconsin 1–10 0–8 10th   
1991 Wisconsin 5–6 2–6 T–8th   
1992 Wisconsin 5–6 3–5 T–6th   
1993 Wisconsin 10–1–1 6–1–1 T–1st W Rose 5 6
1994 Wisconsin 7–4–1 4–3–1 4th W Hall of Fame   
1995 Wisconsin 4–5–2 3–4–1 T–7th   

(At this time, I could see the fanbase saying, 'he's regressing get rid of him')

1996 Wisconsin 8–5 3–5 7th W Copper   
1997 Wisconsin 8–5 5–3 5th L Outback   
1998 Wisconsin 11–1 7–1 T–1st W Rose† 5 6
1999 Wisconsin 10–2 7–1 1st W Rose† 4 4
2000 Wisconsin 9–4 4–4 T–5th W Sun 24 23

(But they stick with him and go through this amazing stretch)

2001 Wisconsin 5–7 3–5 T–8th   
2002 Wisconsin 8–6 2–6 T–8th W Alamo   
2003 Wisconsin 7–6 4–4 T–7th L Music City   

(Another stretch where I could see a less patient fanbase getting rid of him)

2004 Wisconsin 9–3 6–2 3rd L Outback 18 17
2005 Wisconsin 10–3 5–3 T–3rd W Capital One 15 15

(But they stick with him and go for two final great seasons)

This just reinforces my understanding that teams go through periods of ups and downs, sometimes you need to be patient until you are on the upswing.

But, the strike still against Bielema is he hasn't had that big season.  For the most part, these other long-tenured coaches had that 9-10 win season.  Bielema has yet to do that.  He needs to show that he can accomplish that in the first place.  And if he doesn't do that by year 6 or 7, I don't know if he ever will.


 
Logged

RagingHawgOn

  • Varsity
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 380
  • Surfing the web at Hogville.net
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #10 on: September 19, 2017, 03:10:15 pm »

If you browse through the history of these programs, as I have done recently, you'll see a common theme being a spike in success created by one head coach who establishes a long tenure, followed in most cases by one or more coaches who ride the success for a while until it fizzles, followed by turnover every 3-5 years until, in some cases, like Alabama, another head coach comes along and again establishes dominance and tenure.  Bryant/Saban are clearly the models there.  Tennessee is still looking for a Fulmer.  Nebraska is looking for an Osborne.  In Arkansas's case it was Broyles/Holtz/Hatfield, and we have been looking since. 

Is Bret Bielema the next Broyles?  That is the current question.  Check out Virginia Tech's and South Carolina's experience:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_South_Carolina_Gamecocks_football_seasons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Virginia_Tech_Hokies_football_seasons

What if South Carolina had fired Steve Spurrier before year 6?  What if Virginia Tech had fired Frank Beamer before year 7?

Everyone here knows that Bret Bielema came to Arkansas with the intent of changing the Razorbacks' style of play.  He was up front about the time it would take to accomplish that. Everything looked to be on the right trajectory until the second half against Missouri 3 1/2 games ago. Are Razorbacks fans really willing to throw away four years of building because they don't like the results of three games?  Does that make any sense?

Frank Broyles brought success very quickly to Arkansas, but his first team stood 0-6 when it took the field in College Station against Texas A&M in 1958.  Broyles recalls a moment on the field before the game in his autobiography "Hog Wild":

"Dixie White had been at Arkansas three years with Jack Mitchell.  I asked Dixie if he thought Arkansas could ever compete consistently in the Southwest Conference.  'At one time I thought so,' Dixie said. 'I thought we could be average or better most of the time, and now I don't see any way we can compete with all those Texas athletes they pick from.'"

The Hogs beat the Aggies that day 21-8.  They would finish in the AP Top Ten 8 of the next 11 years and win more games in the 60s than any team in the country except Texas, who eclipsed the Hogs victory total by one. 

The team I saw take the field against TCU last Saturday is close to being a good football team.  They are young but talented, like Broyles' 1958 team.  They play a brand of football that Spurrier and Beamer preferred.  And Broyles.  It is a brand of football that can sustain success for years.  To paraphrase Broyles's question to Dixie White - "Can Arkansas ever compete consistently in the SEC?"  Maybe we'll get a glimpse of the answer this Saturday.

Excellent post. Unfortunately, it's an instant-gratification age; divorce is too easy. Sucks.
Logged

East Clintwood

  • All-American Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 3,136
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #11 on: September 19, 2017, 03:11:18 pm »

I'm interested in this topic and would love to research it, but I just don't have the time or energy.  What I'm interested to know is if there is inherent advantage to keeping coaches long-term.  My natural instinct is for us not to fire coaches quickly (even though I'll admit, I'm a bit surprised and disappointed in CBB right now, because I expected better by now).  That being said, I'm hesitant to call for CBB's firing because like I stated before, my instinct is that if we stick with him long enough, it should work out because stability in a program like ours is beneficial.  Unfortunately I don't have a lot of data to back this up.  I think of names like Kirk Ferentz at Iowa, Frank Beamer at VT, and Bill Snyder at Kansas State who started slow and may have been fired if many of their fans had their way, but ultimately turned out to be long-term successes.  But admittedly, those are just anecdotal. 

What would be interesting is for someone to research other long-term coaches (maybe those with  10 or more years in a program).  And then compare their success with the years' preceding and following their departure when there was more turbulence in coaching turnover.

Are there enough examples to draw any conclusions?  Any takers?



The problem with your theory and trying to find or compile data to support it is that (with rare exceptions like Hootie and we have another in the making) the only coaches that hang around to become long term coaches are the successful ones.  The failures are weeded out before they become long term.

Maybe a better question is if Arkansas is the only supposed big time school stupid enough to let bad coaches hang around long after they've shown that things aren't going to get any better.
Logged

bphi11ips

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13,286
  • I need help with my footwork, too.
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #12 on: September 19, 2017, 03:15:39 pm »


But, the strike still against Bielema is he hasn't had that big season.  For the most part, these other long-tenured coaches had that 9-10 win season.  Bielema has yet to do that.  He needs to show that he can accomplish that in the first place.  And if he doesn't do that by year 6 or 7, I don't know if he ever will.


But isn't that the point as you very well stated before you wrote that last paragraph?  Right now we are four years and two games into a complete overhaul.  Year 5 might be the year, but it might not be until year 6.  And it might not happen then.  But it took Spurrier five years to win 9 games at South Carolina, and it took Frank Beamer six years to win 9 at Va Tech.  Those are coaches similarly situated to Bret Bielema at schools similarly situated to Arkansas.  Plus - Spurrier took over a decent program from Lou Holtz, while Beamer inherited a 10-1-1 team from Bill Dooley.  We all know the disaster Bret Bielema stepped into.     
Logged

DeltaBoy

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 66,532
  • I'm Un-Reconstructed. Sic semper tyrannis
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #13 on: September 19, 2017, 03:17:28 pm »

I willing to stick it out if I see 4 quarters of hard nosed effort .  The TCU game the D was gaming till they ran out of gas.  We need the O to play better and the D to keep it up.
Logged

FutureMan

  • Varsity
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 159
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #14 on: September 19, 2017, 03:30:33 pm »

But isn't that the point as you very well stated before you wrote that last paragraph?  Right now we are four years and two games into a complete overhaul.  Year 5 might be the year, but it might not be until year 6.  And it might not happen then.  But it took Spurrier five years to win 9 games at South Carolina, and it took Frank Beamer six years to win 9 at Va Tech.  Those are coaches similarly situated to Bret Bielema at schools similarly situated to Arkansas.  Plus - Spurrier took over a decent program from Lou Holtz, while Beamer inherited a 10-1-1 team from Bill Dooley.  We all know the disaster Bret Bielema stepped into.   

Right, I think ideally we need to wait 6 or 7 years before we do anything.  You said Spurrier took five years, Beamer took six years, but they both got there.  That's why I said if it doesn't happen by year 6 or 7, that's when the doubt for me will begin to creep in.
Logged

bphi11ips

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13,286
  • I need help with my footwork, too.
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #15 on: September 19, 2017, 04:14:58 pm »

Right, I think ideally we need to wait 6 or 7 years before we do anything.  You said Spurrier took five years, Beamer took six years, but they both got there.  That's why I said if it doesn't happen by year 6 or 7, that's when the doubt for me will begin to creep in.

Fair enough.
Logged

bphi11ips

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13,286
  • I need help with my footwork, too.
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #16 on: September 19, 2017, 04:17:23 pm »


The problem with your theory and trying to find or compile data to support it is that (with rare exceptions like Hootie and we have another in the making) the only coaches that hang around to become long term coaches are the successful ones.  The failures are weeded out before they become long term.

Maybe a better question is if Arkansas is the only supposed big time school stupid enough to let bad coaches hang around long after they've shown that things aren't going to get any better.

Hopefully we will be as stupid as Michigan State and South Carolina. 
Logged

East TN HAWG

  • Hogvillian
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1,875
  • Hogville.net
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #17 on: September 19, 2017, 04:48:18 pm »

Excellent post. Unfortunately, it's an instant-gratification age; divorce is too easy. Sucks.

This is the issue.  If it is not to a persons satisfaction, they have more avenues to complain and be heard.  Unfortunately,  its their voices that the media tends to listen to.   
Logged

Razorfox

  • Hall of Fame Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,706
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #18 on: September 20, 2017, 06:39:14 am »


The problem with your theory and trying to find or compile data to support it is that (with rare exceptions like Hootie and we have another in the making) the only coaches that hang around to become long term coaches are the successful ones.  The failures are weeded out before they become long term.

Maybe a better question is if Arkansas is the only supposed big time school stupid enough to let bad coaches hang around long after they've shown that things aren't going to get any better.

That would be easily provable in the data, which is the whole point of the post, by the way (duh!).  There would be examples of schools that have long-term coaches with worse success than their averages for the programs' history or than the times preceding and following their tenures. 
Logged

NuttinItUp

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13,282
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #19 on: September 20, 2017, 08:20:02 am »

There were some Clemson people wanting Dabo fired after his 3rd year when he went 6-7. Lucky for them they didn't get rid of him.
Logged

RazorbackAlways

  • Senior
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 858
  • Surfing the web at Hogville.net
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #20 on: September 20, 2017, 08:35:11 am »

There were some Clemson people wanting Dabo fired after his 3rd year when he went 6-7. Lucky for them they didn't get rid of him.

BB aint Dabo Sweeney.
Logged

ChicoHog

  • Hall of Fame Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,781
  • RIP Glenn. You're "Already Gone" way too soon
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #21 on: September 20, 2017, 08:35:46 am »

There were some Clemson people wanting Dabo fired after his 3rd year when he went 6-7. Lucky for them they didn't get rid of him.
Then wiser heads prevailed and realized they had maybe the best recruiter in college football and also a guy who formed an excellent staff and let his assistants do their job.  Getting Venables was probably his best hire. 
Logged

Razorfox

  • Hall of Fame Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,706
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #22 on: September 20, 2017, 09:11:49 am »

BB aint Dabo Sweeney.

You don't know that.  That's the whole point of this exercise is to see if there is an inherent advantage.  I'm sure that there were Clemson fans saying Dabo Sweeney ain't no "fill in the blank coach" until he was after some time and stability. 
Logged

jcbville

  • Senior
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 880
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #23 on: September 20, 2017, 09:22:26 am »

There were some Clemson people wanting Dabo fired after his 3rd year when he went 6-7. Lucky for them they didn't get rid of him.

This. They didn't even want him hired. They hated the hire. They saw him as part of the old regime and he'd never been a HC. Does no one remember the term "Clemsoning"? A term used for Clemsons bonehead losses his first 5 years or so.
Logged

Atlhogfan1

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16,207
  • Surfing the web at Hogville.net
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #24 on: September 20, 2017, 09:24:48 am »

This. They didn't even want him hired. They hated the hire. They saw him as part of the old regime and he'd never been a HC. Does no one remember the term "Clemsoning"? A term used for Clemsons bonehead losses his first 5 years or so.

That term goes back before Dabo.  Was an underachieving program. 
Logged

a0ashle

  • Hogvillian
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,707
  • Surfing the web at Hogville.net
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #25 on: September 20, 2017, 09:38:01 am »

A lot of people hate the buyout Long gave Bielema, but a wrench in the stability approach is anticipation of a coach being fired. It can have a severe negative impact on recruiting (think Penn State at the end of the Joe Pa era), but with this buyout, it tells everyone that CBB isn't going anywhere anytime soon, critical to hit the stability notes.

If it doesn't work out with CBB, it also sends a message that we will not be a school that is quick to fire and we give our coaches a chance to succeed. That has to increase our schools desirability for coaches.

We don't have fertile recruiting grounds in our backyard, we don't have top tier name recognition, we don't have an easy path to a championship, but what we can give is top level support for our coaches and overall program stability.
Logged

toxichog

  • Varsity
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 152
  • Surfing the web at Hogville.net
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #26 on: September 20, 2017, 09:42:37 am »

BB aint Dabo Sweeney.
When Clemson hired Dabo as the head coach fans were not happy.  Not only was he not an established head coach, he had never been an offensive or defensive coordinator.  Only a position coach.  But he was considered a BIG TIME recruiter.....maybe the best.  A real gamble, but he would have a short leash.  They kept him after the tough season......after his Tigers gave up 70 points in the Orange Bowl to West Virginia, many claimed he was "over his head".  They kept Dabo and dumped the defensive coordinator.........all in all a good call.
Truth is, when we hired CBB he had twice the resume that Dabo when when given the Clemson job.
Dabo is an unbelievable recruiter AND has a unique ability to communicate with 17 to 22 year olds.  Nobody would claim that he has an above average offensive mind........or above average defensive mind.  He is obviously has enough common sense to hire good coaches and Let Them do the coaching.
Broyles requirements were to always hire an established head coach...........maybe we should rethink whenever there is a next time.
Logged

oldhog63

  • Varsity
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 357
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #27 on: September 20, 2017, 09:46:01 am »

It is not so much the overall record that concerns me as the inconsistent, uninspired play and the lack of development in the trenches which points to a lack of a well defined system. I see a program in constant flux and to me that points to a leader without an end goal and a plan of how to get there.
Logged

oldhog63

  • Varsity
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 357
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #28 on: September 20, 2017, 09:49:39 am »

A lot of people hate the buyout Long gave Bielema, but a wrench in the stability approach is anticipation of a coach being fired. It can have a severe negative impact on recruiting (think Penn State at the end of the Joe Pa era), but with this buyout, it tells everyone that CBB isn't going anywhere anytime soon, critical to hit the stability notes.

If it doesn't work out with CBB, it also sends a message that we will not be a school that is quick to fire and we give our coaches a chance to succeed. That has to increase our schools desirability for coaches.

We don't have fertile recruiting grounds in our backyard, we don't have top tier name recognition, we don't have an easy path to a championship, but what we can give is top level support for our coaches and overall program stability.

I felt the initial contract was fine for the reasons you state, but to extend it with such a huge buyout after only 2 years was asinine.
Logged

FutureMan

  • Varsity
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 159
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #29 on: September 20, 2017, 09:50:03 am »

A lot of people hate the buyout Long gave Bielema, but a wrench in the stability approach is anticipation of a coach being fired. It can have a severe negative impact on recruiting (think Penn State at the end of the Joe Pa era), but with this buyout, it tells everyone that CBB isn't going anywhere anytime soon, critical to hit the stability notes.

If it doesn't work out with CBB, it also sends a message that we will not be a school that is quick to fire and we give our coaches a chance to succeed. That has to increase our schools desirability for coaches.

We don't have fertile recruiting grounds in our backyard, we don't have top tier name recognition, we don't have an easy path to a championship, but what we can give is top level support for our coaches and overall program stability.

I agree A0ashle.  I like the fact that we are not a 'quick triggered' institution.  I think that will only help us in the future because it shows coaches that we have their backs, that we know the inherit limitations of our program, and that we will give them every chance to succeed.  This mentality will pay dividends for us down the road.

If we fire coaches too quickly, it doesn't make us a desirable landing spot for any future coach.  And when you combine that with the inherent limitations of our school i.e. recruiting base, that just further compounds our issues.
Logged

a0ashle

  • Hogvillian
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,707
  • Surfing the web at Hogville.net
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #30 on: September 20, 2017, 09:58:44 am »

I felt the initial contract was fine for the reasons you state, but to extend it with such a huge buyout after only 2 years was asinine.

But you want CBB bought out, stability isnt your concern, that shapes your opinion. If your goal is to tell the whole CFB world that we will not cave behind the fragile psyche of the average CFB fan base, and you back it up by putting money where your mouth is, it's brilliant.
Logged

bphi11ips

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13,286
  • I need help with my footwork, too.
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #31 on: September 20, 2017, 10:11:41 am »

A lot of people hate the buyout Long gave Bielema, but a wrench in the stability approach is anticipation of a coach being fired. It can have a severe negative impact on recruiting (think Penn State at the end of the Joe Pa era), but with this buyout, it tells everyone that CBB isn't going anywhere anytime soon, critical to hit the stability notes.

If it doesn't work out with CBB, it also sends a message that we will not be a school that is quick to fire and we give our coaches a chance to succeed. That has to increase our schools desirability for coaches.

We don't have fertile recruiting grounds in our backyard, we don't have top tier name recognition, we don't have an easy path to a championship, but what we can give is top level support for our coaches and overall program stability.


Thoughtful points.
Logged

lawhawg20

  • Band Nerd
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 23
  • Maybe we're just a baseball school...
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #32 on: September 20, 2017, 10:24:31 am »

I love this thread.  Like everyone else, I'm sick of the avoidable losses.  I think consistency could eventually win out, though.  Let's see what can develop over the next couple of years.  If we lose, it was likely going to happen anyway during a regime change.  At least this way we can adequately assess CBB's plan.
Logged

hogmolar

  • Senior
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 529
  • Surfing the web at Hogville.net
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #33 on: September 20, 2017, 10:38:27 am »

This thread may be the best one in weeks.  Very good insightful points on both sides without the childish posts.  Chip Kelly was on Sportscenter last Sunday and he made a great point about Heisman front runners and coaches on the hot seat right now, he said remember last year at this time everyone was talking about ND versus Texas as being the best game after week 1, well both teams finished with a losing record and 1 lost its coach. He said be patient it is a long year.  I thought this was great advise from someone who has been involved.   
Logged

FrozenHam

  • Varsity
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 311
  • McFadden 2006 -- He's In the Game!
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #34 on: September 20, 2017, 10:46:29 am »

Great question, RazorFox!  Anecdotally, stability would seem to favor team performance.  A quick Google on the topic yielded this research poster from an investigator at Michigan State University:  http://polisci.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/SADLERposter.pdf

Although much of it is lost on me, their simple conclusion is that stability does benefit team performance.  I believe a 'residual' is the difference between expected performance and actual performance.  The University of Arkansas appears to be an outlier, overachieving from 2010 - 2014. 

Thanks for this thread, RazorFox.
Logged

East Clintwood

  • All-American Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 3,136
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #35 on: September 20, 2017, 10:52:26 am »

That would be easily provable in the data, which is the whole point of the post, by the way (duh!).  There would be examples of schools that have long-term coaches with worse success than their averages for the programs' history or than the times preceding and following their tenures. 


No, there wouldn't, at least not many because the schools saw that they had a loser and cut him loose before he could provide you with the data that he was a long-term loser.
Logged

a0ashle

  • Hogvillian
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,707
  • Surfing the web at Hogville.net
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #36 on: September 20, 2017, 11:00:33 am »

No, there wouldn't, at least not many because the schools saw that they had a loser and cut him loose before he could provide you with the data that he was a long-term loser.

Actually cutting them lose early would neither confirm nor contradict the hypothesis, as they weren't given a chance to show what effect stability would have.
Logged

greenie

  • Senior
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,292
  • Go Hogs!!
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #37 on: September 20, 2017, 11:05:22 am »

Hats off to RazorFox, bphi11ips, a0ashle, and a few others for bringing intelligent, non-emotional discussion to this debate about CBB.  I'm still very solidly in CBB's camp simply because he has does so many things well as related to recruiting, discipline, holding assistants accountable, relating to the press, work ethic, and commitment to his mission without being so stubborn that he won't adapt.  He needs to win more games, but this stability argument is a strong one. 
Logged

jcbville

  • Senior
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 880
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #38 on: September 20, 2017, 11:31:11 am »

That term goes back before Dabo.  Was an underachieving program.

Probably so but I personally have it attached to him as I heard it the most attached to his tenure. But to the earlier more important point had fans had their way Dabo would be gone several times over. And I'll add my voice to the other guys and say kudos to Razorfox on a great thread.
Logged

The Boar War

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14,547
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #39 on: September 20, 2017, 11:32:19 am »

Actually cutting them lose early would neither confirm nor contradict the hypothesis, as they weren't given a chance to show what effect stability would have.

Of course.  The only answer to the question (with the parameters given) is stability.  Who keeps an underachieving coach after 7-10 years?  I don't think you'll find a power 5 program that can afford to do that in the modern age (which was one of the parameters).  If you automatically strike any evidence that indicates a failure in the hire you're only going to end up with successes due to stability.

It's a good question but the evidence gathering process is flawed.
Logged

Razorfox

  • Hall of Fame Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,706
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #40 on: September 20, 2017, 12:05:51 pm »

Of course.  The only answer to the question (with the parameters given) is stability.  Who keeps an underachieving coach after 7-10 years?  I don't think you'll find a power 5 program that can afford to do that in the modern age (which was one of the parameters).  If you automatically strike any evidence that indicates a failure in the hire you're only going to end up with successes due to stability.

It's a good question but the evidence gathering process is flawed.


I don't understand what you're saying here.  The idea is to compare the time of coaching stability with the program's average success or the times that it had less stability before and after the coach's tenure.  The only way that won't work is if the program has nothing but coach after coach with long tenures.  Then there would be no way to compare the program with itself.

Using Arkansas as an example, compare Coach Nutt's success from 1998 - 2008 with Arkansas' success from say 1990 - 2008 and 2009 - 2017.  If his record is better than during those times, you could say that it's possible his stability in the position actually helped.  If not, then he would be an example where stability did not help and more turbulent times were better. 
Logged

The Boar War

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14,547
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #41 on: September 20, 2017, 12:33:32 pm »

I don't understand what you're saying here.  The idea is to compare the time of coaching stability with the program's average success or the times that it had less stability before and after the coach's tenure.  The only way that won't work is if the program has nothing but coach after coach with long tenures.  Then there would be no way to compare the program with itself.

Using Arkansas as an example, compare Coach Nutt's success from 1998 - 2008 with Arkansas' success from say 1990 - 2008 and 2009 - 2017.  If his record is better than during those times, you could say that it's possible his stability in the position actually helped.  If not, then he would be an example where stability did not help and more turbulent times were better. 

I was referring to the process of dismissing evidence of short tenured coaches because they might have reached their potential had they been retained.  I might have misunderstood what the poster meant.
Logged

oldhog63

  • Varsity
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 357
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #42 on: September 20, 2017, 12:58:13 pm »

But you want CBB bought out, stability isnt your concern, that shapes your opinion. If your goal is to tell the whole CFB world that we will not cave behind the fragile psyche of the average CFB fan base, and you back it up by putting money where your mouth is, it's brilliant.
At what point does it go from being brilliant to stupid?
Logged

a0ashle

  • Hogvillian
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,707
  • Surfing the web at Hogville.net
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #43 on: September 20, 2017, 02:45:48 pm »

At what point does it go from being brilliant to stupid?

Why does it have to become stupid? It would be stupid to have a buyout that presents very little hurdle to execute and therefore represents very little commmitment from an school to a coach.

If you intend to fulfill the full term of the contract you agreed to, a buyout means nothing, it could be 100 million. 15 million basically means the contract will be honored in all but the most extreme situations that cause doesn't apply.

Buyouts should be "break in case of emergency only".
Logged

oldhog63

  • Varsity
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 357
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #44 on: September 20, 2017, 08:14:09 pm »

Why does it have to become stupid? It would be stupid to have a buyout that presents very little hurdle to execute and therefore represents very little commmitment from an school to a coach.

If you intend to fulfill the full term of the contract you agreed to, a buyout means nothing, it could be 100 million. 15 million basically means the contract will be honored in all but the most extreme situations that cause doesn't apply.

Buyouts should be "break in case of emergency only".
I used the word 'stupid' to be the opposite of 'brilliant'. I agree with giving a new coach the stability needed to establish their program. If that is done by a large buyout, then so be it. My question is how long should the coach be protected, safe, whatever word you want to use to provide long enough stability to determine whether they are the man for the job? I think 5 years is plenty of time to make that determination.
Logged

The Boar War

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14,547
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #45 on: September 20, 2017, 09:57:19 pm »

You don't know that.  That's the whole point of this exercise is to see if there is an inherent advantage.  I'm sure that there were Clemson fans saying Dabo Sweeney ain't no "fill in the blank coach" until he was after some time and stability. 

That 6-7 team was preceded by a 9-5 division championship season and followed by six seasons in which they won 10 or more games.
Logged

Razorfox

  • Hall of Fame Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,706
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #46 on: September 21, 2017, 07:26:38 am »

That 6-7 team was preceded by a 9-5 division championship season and followed by six seasons in which they won 10 or more games.

And there are more people than not on this site that would be upset with 9-5 division record.  As proof, see HDN's seasons when he equaled that accomplishment.  Or they would discount that it wasn't in the SEC. 
Logged

The Boar War

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14,547
Re: Research Project - Long-term coaches
« Reply #47 on: September 21, 2017, 08:38:01 am »

And there are more people than not on this site that would be upset with 9-5 division record.  As proof, see HDN's seasons when he equaled that accomplishment.  Or they would discount that it wasn't in the SEC. 

More people than not?  You think more people would be complaining about a 9-5 record in a coach's first full year than those who would be happy with it? 

Regardless you can't use Dabo (or Clemson) as an example of programs being successful because they stuck with a coach.  He has one season with less than 9 wins.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

KARK
KWNA
Fox 16 Arkansas