Let's Do Some Research

[Landlord]

• There is no evidence that shows a direct correlation between early success at a school and sustained future success at that school.

Great post and awesome job on the research. I'm not going to argue with anything you said, but what I would like to point out is the above quote in your OP. I think that what a lot of us fans (at least those of us older than maybe 25-30) are comparing our ideas of what a successful coach should be to TO. Those of us that lived through that era proably can't help to compare all future coaches to him. And when looking at his record:

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/coaches/tom-osborne-1.html

then it would seem the above statement is not true. Now TO was one of a kind and I am sure you didn't mean him specifically but meant generally with all coaches. However, unfortunately, a lot of our mindsets even 15 years later still aren't there yet.

What I meant is that there isn't a discernable trend amongst all data points of all coaches in college football history that makes this a trend. It worked for TO - it doesn't work for a lot of other coaches. The entire point is that nothing this early on means anything, regardless of if we're 5-0 or 0-5 - we're just as likely to spend the next season completely the opposite.

 

[Sho'nuff]

• There is no evidence that shows a direct correlation between early success at a school and sustained future success at that school.

Great post and awesome job on the research. I'm not going to argue with anything you said, but what I would like to point out is the above quote in your OP. I think that what a lot of us fans (at least those of us older than maybe 25-30) are comparing our ideas of what a successful coach should be to TO. Those of us that lived through that era proably can't help to compare all future coaches to him. And when looking at his record:

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/coaches/tom-osborne-1.html

then it would seem the above statement is not true. Now TO was one of a kind and I am sure you didn't mean him specifically but meant generally with all coaches. However, unfortunately, a lot of our mindsets even 15 years later still aren't there yet.

What I meant is that there isn't a discernable trend amongst all data points of all coaches in college football history that makes this a trend. It worked for TO - it doesn't work for a lot of other coaches. The entire point is that nothing this early on means anything, regardless of if we're 5-0 or 0-5 - we're just as likely to spend the next season completely the opposite.

I figured that is what you meant. I was just pointing out that his awesomeness as a head coach has an affect on the way our fans judge other coaches. It probably shouldn't, but I think it does.

 

[Kernal]

Ameer and 5 starters on defense out is the difference between last year and this year. If Armstrong has an off day nobody is there to compensate because or next best skill players are recievers.

That's the nature of college football. Have to plan for this, unless you're Oklahoma and have Lashars around for about 100 years.

and usually you plan for this in recruiting. and how has Riley had been able to fix that in 9 months?

A good coach would have fixed three years of recruiting neglect and roster mismanagement in the two months before signing day.

 

[zoogs]

All the coaches listed had periods of success.

A lot of them only found that success after they were offered, and took, a big time job. Nick Saban, as just one example, never accomplished anything in his 5 years at Michigan State that Riley hasn't at Oregon State.

That's a great point. Can't give you enough kudos for this thread, by the way, LOMS.

Consider that Mike Riley was .54 at Oregon State. Pat Fitzgerald is .55 at Northwestern -- .53 not counting this young season. He's done some nice things there and has to be regarded as a good coach, but will he ever do really big things -- consistently -- without getting out of there?

He'll surely have plenty of opportunity.