BYU

[Georgia_Husker]

We have no comparison because There is no place like nebraska

 

[Mavric]

But none of those examples you gave got worse in their first year. Except Strong but it's yet to be seen if he'll actually make them better. If there's plenty of data, it should be hard to show some examples, right?

I know there's plenty that got better over time but I'm talking about the transition from one to the next.

Show me teams that had 9 wins in their last two years with their head coach and then we can look to see if there are examples of new coaches that came in and got worse.

It's a lot easier to get worse from 9-4 than it is to get worse from 6-6.

I agree. But surely there are 6-6 teams that slipped to 4-8 or something like that. Otherwise, where are all the concerns about struggling through a transition coming from. Or what about a new coach taking over for someone retiring? There has to be some guys who took over good programs.

 

[Landlord]

Just a little bit of incomplete research:

Urban left Florida with an 8-5 record; Will Muschamp's first year went 7-6 against a similar schedule, then 11-2, then 4-8, then 7-5.

Houston Nutt left Arkansas with 10-4 and 8-5 records; Petrino's first year went 5-7, then 8-5, 10-3, 11-2.

Bobby Petrino left Arkansas with an 11-2 record; John L Smith went 4-8 the next year (who the hell is this I have no idea).

Franchione left A&M with 9-4 and 7-5 records; Sherman went 4-8 the next year, 6-7 the next, and 9-4 the next.

Already mentioned Strong at Texas.

There just isn't a lot of data of coaches that left or were fired with strong seasons in the modern era.

 

[Mavric]

Just a little bit of incomplete research:

Urban left Florida with an 8-5 record; Will Muschamp's first year went 7-6 against a similar schedule, then 11-2, then 4-8, then 7-5.

Houston Nutt left Arkansas with 10-4 and 8-5 records; Petrino's first year went 5-7, then 8-5, 10-3, 11-2.

Bobby Petrino left Arkansas with an 11-2 record; John L Smith went 4-8 the next year (who the hell is this I have no idea).

Franchione left A&M with 9-4 and 7-5 records; Sherman went 4-8 the next year, 6-7 the next, and 9-4 the next.

Already mentioned Strong at Texas.

There just isn't a lot of data of coaches that left or were fired with strong seasons in the modern era.

+1 for the research.

So, which one of those coaches had even comparable success to their predecessor? I'd say Petrino but none of the others. So that's one. And that's my point. I don't think you'll find many examples of coaches who saw a decline from their predecessor in the first year but recovered to do significantly better down the road.

So I think the struggle to transition is over-sold. If they get worse out of the gate, it doesn't bode well for the future.

 

[Landlord]

So, which one of those coaches had even comparable success to their predecessor? I'd say Petrino but none of the others. So that's one. And that's my point.

I thought the point was that the transition isn't a reason for less success. Plenty of those coaches improved as they went on, which would imply that it was less difficult the further removed from transition.

 

[Mavric]

So, which one of those coaches had even comparable success to their predecessor? I'd say Petrino but none of the others. So that's one. And that's my point.

I thought the point was that the transition isn't a reason for less success. Plenty of those coaches improved as they went on, which would imply that it was less difficult the further removed from transition.

They improved from their first year but not an improvement over where the program was before they got there. So the program didn't get to the next level. And three of your four ended up getting worse and fired (the fourth got fired but not for getting worse on the field). So you can't say if it was because of the transition or because they just weren't that good of a coach. The coaches who got their programs to the next level didn't slide backwards in their first year.

 

[Landlord]

They improved from their first year but not an improvement over where the program was before they got there. So the program didn't get to the next level. And three of your four ended up getting worse and fired (the fourth got fired but not for getting worse on the field). So you can't say if it was because of the transition or because they just weren't that good of a coach. The coaches who got their programs to the next level didn't slide backwards in their first year.

I guess. I don't see a compelling argument either way. Pete Carroll went 6-6 in year one at SC, the next year they went 11-2 and didn't look back. Same with Stoops at OU. Now they didn't inherit gold mines by any means, but I think it's pretty much a crapshoot trying to glean any meaningful predictor of what to expect.

 

[Mavric]

They improved from their first year but not an improvement over where the program was before they got there. So the program didn't get to the next level. And three of your four ended up getting worse and fired (the fourth got fired but not for getting worse on the field). So you can't say if it was because of the transition or because they just weren't that good of a coach. The coaches who got their programs to the next level didn't slide backwards in their first year.

I guess. I don't see a compelling argument either way. Pete Carroll went 6-6 in year one at SC, the next year they went 11-2 and didn't look back. Same with Stoops at OU. Now they didn't inherit gold mines by any means, but I think it's pretty much a crapshoot trying to glean any meaningful predictor of what to expect.

USC was 5-7 the year before Carroll got there. Oklahoma was 5-6 the year before Stoops went 7-5.

I agree that it doesn't have to be a definite predictor but then I fail to see where the fear over the transition year comes from. I don't find any evidence for it.

 

[Landlord]

I agree that it doesn't have to be a definite predictor but then I fail to see where the fear over the transition year comes from. I don't find any evidence for it.

The fear isn't the same thing as, but is tied to, the fear of the new staff not being good enough.

Plus, people want to have fun. Winning is more fun. Evidence be damned, people will get nervous about the idea of winning less, logical or illogical as it may be.

 

[Hedley Lamarr]

Most new head coaches don't have as much room to get 'noticeably worse' because their predecessor wasn't getting 9 wins.

Exactly correct and a reason why the Riley tenure has a real shot at being Callahan v.2

Come on man the 2 guys have zilch in common

 

[Ratt Mhule]

Most new head coaches don't have as much room to get 'noticeably worse' because their predecessor wasn't getting 9 wins.

Exactly correct and a reason why the Riley tenure has a real shot at being Callahan v.2

 

[Bowfin]

as long as we see a methodical march to improvement, realistically, that should really be enough. 7-5 or 8-4 would be very good, indeed.

I forget, are we Kansas or Iowa State now?

Whether anyone will admit it or not, Riley is living in Pelini's 9 win shadow this year and I am sure Riley knows it as well.

 

[Kiyoat Husker]

First of all, this "Bo crowd" is extremely small in the fan base now. I honestly can't even remember the last time I had a conversation in real life or on this board with a group of people pissed off that Bo was fired and that think he should still be here.

That "Bo" crowd has to be imaginary, at this point. Right?

Wrong, and wrong.

The Bo leavers are here, and have not gone away. They have just tired of arguing for now. Passively-aggressively waiting for the regular season, when they can finally prove to everyone that the 'Riley Experiment' (blatent allusion) was a mistake. If there really is any similarity to Callahan, that would be it. Not the coach, but the certain percentage of fans who stay pissy about TO's chosen coaches being fired.

 

[walksalone]

Who the hell put BYU as a first game?

 

[The Dude]

Even with Hill, we should beat BYU. We will have a better understanding of what we have, though, depending on how we play.

Miami is more concerning to me. It took a career game from Abdullah to only beat them by 10 at home last season. We'll have a much better understanding of what we have after that game.

Not sure what to expect, really. Which is what makes this season exciting for a change.

Whether or not Riley is the right guy for the job, letting Bo go was the correct choice. People need to get over that.