I put together a spreadsheet summarizing G5 coaching changes of the last 5 years (note I'm talking about coaches that left voluntarily for another head-coaching position, not guys like Everett Withers and Mark Hudspeth). If I left one out, let me know.



So of all the coaching transitions, in only one case did the successor have a better record than the predecessor. That was Brian Harsin, who arguably hasn't taken Boise to quite the same heights as Chris Petersen did.

Bottom Line: Coaching changes are challenging...there's not just transitions to new staff but the fact that the guy that takes over is often not as good as the one who just took a higher-paying coaching job.

(01-14-2019 12:46 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  I put together a spreadsheet summarizing G5 coaching changes of the last 5 years (note I'm talking about coaches that left voluntarily for another head-coaching position, not guys like Everett Withers and Mark Hudspeth). If I left one out, let me know.



So of all the coaching transitions, in only one case did the successor have a better record than the predecessor. That was Brian Harsin, who arguably hasn't taken Boise to quite the same heights as Chris Petersen did.

Bottom Line: Coaching changes are challenging...there's not just transitions to new staff but the fact that the guy that takes over is often not as good as the one who just took a higher-paying coaching job.

There's a challenge to it, but some of the comparisons are ridiculous. UCF gets a worse score than AState because they didn't go undefeated somehow in that chart.

Unless you fire your coach, you lost your coach because you were having a good year. Generally speaking, good years are hard to repeat over and over again. Eventually you are going to whiff on something and drop off a bit.

(01-14-2019 12:46 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  I put together a spreadsheet summarizing G5 coaching changes of the last 5 years (note I'm talking about coaches that left voluntarily for another head-coaching position, not guys like Everett Withers and Mark Hudspeth). If I left one out, let me know.



So of all the coaching transitions, in only one case did the successor have a better record than the predecessor. That was Brian Harsin, who arguably hasn't taken Boise to quite the same heights as Chris Petersen did.

Bottom Line: Coaching changes are challenging...there's not just transitions to new staff but the fact that the guy that takes over is often not as good as the one who just took a higher-paying coaching job.

Only looking at the year immediately following the change is not a very accurate representation of what you’re trying to show. G5 coaches get poached because in general, they are coming off very exceptional seasons. When you’re at or near your top, you can’t improve, you can only zero out or get worse, season vs. season.

I think it’d be interesting to see leaving coach total win/loss % vs. new coach total win/loss %. Or at least show a span of 3-4 years.

I like your idea, just needs to be tweaked a bit.

(01-14-2019 02:17 PM)ah59396 Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 12:46 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  I put together a spreadsheet summarizing G5 coaching changes of the last 5 years (note I'm talking about coaches that left voluntarily for another head-coaching position, not guys like Everett Withers and Mark Hudspeth). If I left one out, let me know.



So of all the coaching transitions, in only one case did the successor have a better record than the predecessor. That was Brian Harsin, who arguably hasn't taken Boise to quite the same heights as Chris Petersen did.

Bottom Line: Coaching changes are challenging...there's not just transitions to new staff but the fact that the guy that takes over is often not as good as the one who just took a higher-paying coaching job.

Only looking at the year immediately following the change is not a very accurate representation of what you’re trying to show. G5 coaches get poached because in general, they are coming off very exceptional seasons. When you’re at or near your top, you can’t improve, you can only zero out or get worse, season vs. season.

I think it’d be interesting to see leaving coach total win/loss % vs. new coach total win/loss %. Or at least show a span of 3-4 years.

I like your idea, just needs to be tweaked a bit.

The obvious idea of the OP in this situation is to demean App State fans.

(01-14-2019 02:17 PM)ah59396 Wrote:  Only looking at the year immediately following the change is not a very accurate representation of what you’re trying to show. G5 coaches get poached because in general, they are coming off very exceptional seasons. When you’re at or near your top, you can’t improve, you can only zero out or get worse, season vs. season.

I think it’d be interesting to see leaving coach total win/loss % vs. new coach total win/loss %. Or at least show a span of 3-4 years.

I like your idea, just needs to be tweaked a bit.

So what you're saying is you just need to get the dice roll of the dice and have everything come together for a season and then you get another job? I can promise you it doesn't work like that.

Which of the successors in the list could you say with confidence are upgrades over their predecessors? Josh Heupel and Charlie Strong are TBDs. All of the rest, no.

(01-14-2019 02:31 PM)ericsaid Wrote:  The obvious idea of the OP in this situation is to demean App State fans.

He's simply refuting what many app fans believe. It's not belittling to have a counter argument. I'm all for stats based arguments, and as I've said before, I think both App and Troy will have growing pains with their new staves. Neither have head coaches that have been head coaches at the college level. Troy's assistants aren't really blowing away, but they could turn out to be really good. It's just really hard to replace Neal Brown and Scott Satterfield with rookie head coaches.

(01-14-2019 02:31 PM)ericsaid Wrote:  The obvious idea of the OP in this situation is to demean App State fans.

Here we go, making it all about App, once again.

That's how this works right?

(01-14-2019 02:35 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 02:17 PM)ah59396 Wrote:  Only looking at the year immediately following the change is not a very accurate representation of what you’re trying to show. G5 coaches get poached because in general, they are coming off very exceptional seasons. When you’re at or near your top, you can’t improve, you can only zero out or get worse, season vs. season.

I think it’d be interesting to see leaving coach total win/loss % vs. new coach total win/loss %. Or at least show a span of 3-4 years.

I like your idea, just needs to be tweaked a bit.

So what you're saying is you just need to get the dice roll of the dice and have everything come together for a season and then you get another job? I can promise you it doesn't work like that.

Which of the successors in the list could you say with confidence are upgrades over their predecessors? Josh Heupel and Charlie Strong are TBDs. All of the rest, no.

No. I’m not saying that.

I’m saying that, by and large, if a G5 coach is hired, they are probably coming off a really great season. I don’t know if many occasions where a G5 coach has a losing year and then gets snagged up. It doesn’t mean that haven’t had prior great seasons.

You’re using two seasons to promote that a new coach isn’t as good as a previous one (which may be true), I just think the matter in which your attempting to show it isn’t very accurate.

(01-14-2019 02:54 PM)ah59396 Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 02:35 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 02:17 PM)ah59396 Wrote:  Only looking at the year immediately following the change is not a very accurate representation of what you’re trying to show. G5 coaches get poached because in general, they are coming off very exceptional seasons. When you’re at or near your top, you can’t improve, you can only zero out or get worse, season vs. season.

I think it’d be interesting to see leaving coach total win/loss % vs. new coach total win/loss %. Or at least show a span of 3-4 years.

I like your idea, just needs to be tweaked a bit.

So what you're saying is you just need to get the dice roll of the dice and have everything come together for a season and then you get another job? I can promise you it doesn't work like that.

Which of the successors in the list could you say with confidence are upgrades over their predecessors? Josh Heupel and Charlie Strong are TBDs. All of the rest, no.

No. I’m not saying that.

I’m saying that, by and large, if a G5 coach is hired, they are probably coming off a really great season. I don’t know if many occasions where a G5 coach has a losing year and then gets snagged up. It doesn’t mean that haven’t had prior great seasons.

You’re using two seasons to promote that a new coach isn’t as good as a previous one (which may be true), I just think the matter in which your attempting to show it isn’t very accurate.

I've always felt like a new coach needs three years to get a majority "his guys" on the 2-deep. That's when I think you find out how good of a coach you have. It kinda amazes me how many coaches can win with someone else players but not there own.

(01-14-2019 03:07 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 02:54 PM)ah59396 Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 02:35 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 02:17 PM)ah59396 Wrote:  Only looking at the year immediately following the change is not a very accurate representation of what you’re trying to show. G5 coaches get poached because in general, they are coming off very exceptional seasons. When you’re at or near your top, you can’t improve, you can only zero out or get worse, season vs. season.

I think it’d be interesting to see leaving coach total win/loss % vs. new coach total win/loss %. Or at least show a span of 3-4 years.

I like your idea, just needs to be tweaked a bit.

So what you're saying is you just need to get the dice roll of the dice and have everything come together for a season and then you get another job? I can promise you it doesn't work like that.

Which of the successors in the list could you say with confidence are upgrades over their predecessors? Josh Heupel and Charlie Strong are TBDs. All of the rest, no.

No. I’m not saying that.

I’m saying that, by and large, if a G5 coach is hired, they are probably coming off a really great season. I don’t know if many occasions where a G5 coach has a losing year and then gets snagged up. It doesn’t mean that haven’t had prior great seasons.

You’re using two seasons to promote that a new coach isn’t as good as a previous one (which may be true), I just think the matter in which your attempting to show it isn’t very accurate.

I've always felt like a new coach needs three years to get a majority "his guys" on the 2-deep. That's when I think you find out how good of a coach you have. It kinda amazes me how many coaches can win with someone else players but not there own.

Totally agree.

(01-14-2019 03:07 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  It kinda amazes me how many coaches can win with someone else players but not there own.

If the previous staff instilled discipline and physicality in his players, the new coach can ride that for a little while, but if he's not good at developing "want to" in his players, the discipline and drive will eventually fade out of the program.

(01-14-2019 02:17 PM)ah59396 Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 12:46 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  I put together a spreadsheet summarizing G5 coaching changes of the last 5 years (note I'm talking about coaches that left voluntarily for another head-coaching position, not guys like Everett Withers and Mark Hudspeth). If I left one out, let me know.



So of all the coaching transitions, in only one case did the successor have a better record than the predecessor. That was Brian Harsin, who arguably hasn't taken Boise to quite the same heights as Chris Petersen did.

Bottom Line: Coaching changes are challenging...there's not just transitions to new staff but the fact that the guy that takes over is often not as good as the one who just took a higher-paying coaching job.

Only looking at the year immediately following the change is not a very accurate representation of what you’re trying to show. G5 coaches get poached because in general, they are coming off very exceptional seasons. When you’re at or near your top, you can’t improve, you can only zero out or get worse, season vs. season.

I think it’d be interesting to see leaving coach total win/loss % vs. new coach total win/loss %. Or at least show a span of 3-4 years.

I like your idea, just needs to be tweaked a bit.

2016-2017 Western Michigan with Fleck being hired away.

Yeah, this list will only give you info on what to maybe expect first year. Many of these coaches went on to do better. That transition can knock anyone back because the coach may be changing systems, players need to learn new plays, sometimes players will transfer, new coaches don't get to recruit like they normally would. Plus, these coaches were hired away because they did well. Not much room to improve, and sometimes, the only place to go is down.

(01-14-2019 02:47 PM)eaglewraith Wrote:  Here we go, making it all about App, once again.

That's how this works right?

Considering it was posted by a Southern fan it can be interpreted as a jab at us or Troy.

Disagreeing with someone is not a jab...

Do you people not work?

Outstanding coaches recruit outstanding players. App particularly may have a honey moon period and feel little has changed early with a great Xs and Os HC but keeping the train rolling is difficult. Relationship take time to develop.

All new faces showing up to recruit likely get put in the back of the line eventually finding yourself in Ark state's position relying on transfers to feel the gap after being pillaged every time you get your head above water.

(01-14-2019 05:21 PM)seaking4steel Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 02:47 PM)eaglewraith Wrote:  Here we go, making it all about App, once again.

That's how this works right?

Considering it was posted by a Southern fan it can be interpreted as a jab at us or Troy.

It was such a jab at you guys that we showed how ****** of a job we did with our last coaching transition.

Truly a masterful troll job.

(01-14-2019 02:45 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 02:31 PM)ericsaid Wrote:  The obvious idea of the OP in this situation is to demean App State fans.

He's simply refuting what many app fans believe. It's not belittling to have a counter argument. I'm all for stats based arguments, and as I've said before, I think both App and Troy will have growing pains with their new staves. Neither have head coaches that have been head coaches at the college level. Troy's assistants aren't really blowing away, but they could turn out to be really good. It's just really hard to replace Neal Brown and Scott Satterfield with rookie head coaches.

I think there is more to it than just the coach. I think it fair to say that any program reset will result in growing pains, but how many of these programs had senior heavy teams in the coach’s final season? Problem with this kind of blanket analysis is that is not complete or granular enough to draw any conclusions.

(01-15-2019 07:26 AM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  ...how many of these programs had senior heavy teams in the coach’s final season?

That would likely make it worse. They've been under Satterfield / Brown for three seasons (or more in some cases). Some of them really don't want to get used to a new staff and a new system in their final season. They're used to the way things have been.

(01-14-2019 02:45 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 02:31 PM)ericsaid Wrote:  The obvious idea of the OP in this situation is to demean App State fans.

He's simply refuting what many app fans believe. It's not belittling to have a counter argument. I'm all for stats based arguments, and as I've said before, I think both App and Troy will have growing pains with their new staves. Neither have head coaches that have been head coaches at the college level. Troy's assistants aren't really blowing away, but they could turn out to be really good. It's just really hard to replace Neal Brown and Scott Satterfield with rookie head coaches.

A statistics based argument must have a relevant time frame. As was pointed out previously, measuring how a new coach does a year after going 11-2 isn't going to paint a complete picture. For many programs, particularly in the G5, 10 win seasons happen with senior laden rosters. Thus, even with the existing coach, the win total was more likely than not to decrease year over year.

Using the following season after the existing coach leaves to measure how a program fares after having their coach hired away is extremely misleading. If you want to know how the program has fared, do a five year win total analysis (total number of seasons under each coach). For Georgia Southern that would be 3 seasons with Fritz and then two years with Summers. For UCF that would be 3 years with Frost and then the following however many seasons with the new coach.

The question of "How a Program Fares" would suggest that you are determining the overall health of the program. For this particular chart, the better title would be "How a Program Fares in the Season Following". To further expand on that thought, you could start with 9 wins and ask how a G5 Team fares the season following a 9 win season. My guess is that the statistics from the latter would look very similar to the former.

If you want to take it FURTHERRRRR you can add the number of departures from the roster following the 9 win season, coaching change, and then try to draw conclusions of causation of the reduction in wins.

However, simply measuring the number of wins the season following a coach being hired away proves nothing about how a program fares overall and there is no context for understanding how a team may have fared even with the old coach based on the other data I mentioned.