Study on the effects of firing a losing coach - not good!

[VideoEagle]

For those who think firing Mac is the answer, here's a study on how that worked in all of FBS from 1997 to 2010. The study itself is behind a pay wall and I don't feel like buying it. But the abstract is free here. And there was an article about the study in Science Daily here. 

They found for teams performing poorly over a number of years, firing the coach and bringing in a new one produces "a slight, short lived improvement" in wins. Yes, a few teams that fired their coaches with losing records had huge gains the next year but so did an equal number of teams with coaches with losing records who retained their coaches. 

And generally teams that were doing right around .500 - 5,6 and 7 win seasons - that fired their coaches actually did worse the next year and for several years thereafter. 

From the abstract of the study -

The findings have important implications for our understanding of how entry conditions moderate the effects of leadership succession on team performance, and suggest that the relatively common decision to fire head college football coaches for poor team performance may be ill advised.

Yes, there are times to fire a coach. But do not expect to win quickly anymore than you expect to retire on your lottery winnings! 

 

[Mean_Green09]

For those who think firing Mac is the answer, here's a study on how that worked in all of FBS from 1997 to 2010. The study itself is behind a pay wall and I don't feel like buying it. But the abstract is free here. And there was an article about the study in Science Daily here. 

They found for teams performing poorly over a number of years, firing the coach and bringing in a new one produces "a slight, short lived improvement" in wins. Yes, a few teams that fired their coaches with losing records had huge gains the next year but so did an equal number of teams with coaches with losing records who retained their coaches. 

And generally teams that were doing right around .500 - 5,6 and 7 win seasons - that fired their coaches actually did worse the next year and for several years thereafter. 

From the abstract of the study -

Yes, there are times to fire a coach. But do not expect to win quickly anymore than you expect to retire on your lottery winnings! 

 

Its all about who you hire. Hiring the right coach at a G5 program should yield instant success. At a P5 school it may take some time. 

Consistency is a big thing in the coach world and it often equals success. We have had pretty good consistency here with Mac. We've lost some coaches, but the formula he tries to win with hasnt changed. The offense has changed much. We should be seeing success and growth on the field. We arent seeing that. Mac is really hurting the future of this program with his recruiting failure.

The right move for North Texas is to move on from Mac. We have to hope that our current AD or new AD if happens someday will make the right hire.

Again make the right hire and the article doesnt really mean crap. 

[BillySee58]

Its all about who you hire. Hiring the right coach at a G5 program should yield instant success. At a P5 school it may take some time. 

Consistency is a big thing in the coach world and it often equals success. We have had pretty good consistency here with Mac. We've lost some coaches, but the formula he tries to win with hasnt changed. The offense has changed much. We should be seeing success and growth on the field. We arent seeing that. Mac is really hurting the future of this program with his recruiting failure.

The right move for North Texas is to move on from Mac. We have to hope that our current AD or new AD if happens someday will make the right hire.

Again make the right hire and the article doesnt really mean crap. 

Absolutely

[VideoEagle]

Again make the right hire and the article doesnt really mean crap. 

Right. And to win the lottery all you have to do it pick the right numbers. 

The article points out statistically, the "right hire" happens far less often than the "wrong hire," no matter the school, no matter P5 or G5, no matter whom is hired and no matter who is doing the hiring.  

[Mean_Green09]

Right. And to win the lottery all you have to do it pick the right numbers. 

The article points out statistically, the "right hire" happens far less often than the "wrong hire," no matter the school, no matter P5 or G5, no matter whom is hired and no matter who is doing the hiring.  

Cant win the lottery if you don't play. In our case we aren't even playing the lottery, but we are still losing. We didnt win the last time we played, but seem satisfied that we won a $1. If we stay the coarse, it will yield the same results as making the wrong hire. So what do we have to lose?

Morale is all time low. The future doesnt look brighter than the past. We have no answer to the QB question. Everything is trending down and way down. If we made the wrong hire, we we'd be right where we are now. Id even believe we'd probably be a little better off. 

[Cerebus]

The article points out statistically, the "right hire" happens far less often than the "wrong hire," no matter the school, no matter P5 or G5, no matter whom is hired and no matter who is doing the hiring.  

That's not how statistics work.

This would only be valid to us if the chance of hiring the wrong coach was lower than the chance of a long term losing coach becoming a winner.  Are you guaranteed to pick a winner? No.  Is it a better chance than just sticking with a coach that is getting beat handily 4 out of five years?  Highly likely.   

[Eagle1855]

What are the effects of keeping one? 

[TheTastyGreek]

What are the effects of keeping one? 

Funny you should ask!

If you're wondering how often things work out well in year 6+ for a coach that has losing seasons in four out of his first five? 

...I'll let you know after we have our 7th loss. 

[BillySee58]

Right. And to win the lottery all you have to do it pick the right numbers. 

The article points out statistically, the "right hire" happens far less often than the "wrong hire," no matter the school, no matter P5 or G5, no matter whom is hired and no matter who is doing the hiring.  

Making one good hire is a hell of a lot more likely than winning a lottery. We're talking about, with a good AD, maybe a 50/50 chance versus worse than 1 in 1,000,000 chance at winning the lottery. Well, I guess that depends what you mean by winning the lottery. Winning the jackpot is actually more like 1 in 100,000,000. 

Edited October 1, 2015 by BillySee58

[UTSA Fan]

This is a very interesting subject. I think the 2 things that come to mind are the VERY HIGH value of QB play in G5 and a change of an offensive system. I can see having a bad QB and a system change bringing an increase in loosing i.e. learning curve. But, if you get a coach who can recruit and delevop QB talent and put in a QB oriented system, thinking of Texas Tech, then you are in positive territory.

[Travis]

*losing

[UNT90]

Right. And to win the lottery all you have to do it pick the right numbers. 

The article points out statistically, the "right hire" happens far less often than the "wrong hire," no matter the school, no matter P5 or G5, no matter whom is hired and no matter who is doing the hiring.  

one thing for sure. At this school with this AD, the wrong football hire happens 100% of the time. 

Shove that in your study and smoke it...

Sometimes I think you actually like losing. 

Edited October 1, 2015 by UNT90

[meanrob]

Ah damn, we shouldn't have fired Dodge....I mean Dickey....no Simon.......er Parker........Corky......

[GoMeanGreen1999]

Ah damn, we shouldn't have fired Dodge....I mean Dickey....no Simon.......er Parker........Corky......

Funny.

Do not remove Mac as coach BEFORE you remove RV.  If RV is coming back next season, just leave Mac in place.  This goes for Benford as well.

Edited October 2, 2015 by GoMeanGreen1999

[eulessismore]

This type of study is ridiculous.  If everyone followed it, no one would ever be fired.  Of course, not every school is going to win immediately after a coach is hired.  But, what are you supposed to do?

Took Baylor a while to get Art Briles.  But, that doesn't mean they should have held onto Dave Roberts or Kevin Steele or Guy Morriss.  If a guy cannot win, he cannot win.  You don't have a theory, in these cases you have real athletic departments trying to make money. 

Tulsa cut three guys to finally find Kragthorpe.  Houston bagged booted Dana Dimel after three losing season and got Art Briles and Kevin Sumlin in succession.  TCU had decades worth is sh*tty coaches before they stumbled onto Franchione, who brought Patterson along with him.  I mean, talk about a blind squirrel finding a nut!  But, even a blind squirrel has to keep looking for the nuts to eat.

Study or no, you can't just keep letting a guy lose and pay him for it as your alumni/fan base/customers go away.  You have to keep trying to get better.  

I'd say, based on what other schools do, we are really patient.  Other places boot guys after two or three losing seasons.  We let Todd Dodge stick it out for 3+, McCarney is on the verge of going 1 for 5 in the winning season department.

As I asked earlier, where do you set the bar?  The bar cannot be one winning season every five years.  That's crazy.  If it means that little to win, why are we even spending as much time and money as we do to be an FBS-level program. 

If this is just a playground for high school coaches like Todd Dodge or retirement home for coaches like Dan McCarney, just drop the pretense and rejoin the Southland Conference. 

If it's not, then start giving guys three year deals with options to earn extra years if they win within the first two!  We're not in the friggin' SEC.  We're in the reconstituted Sun Belt with a couple of C-USA leftover and some start ups. 

 

You write some good stuff.

[MeanGreen13]

This type of study is ridiculous.  If everyone followed it, no one would ever be fired.  Of course, not every school is going to win immediately after a coach is hired.  But, what are you supposed to do?

Took Baylor a while to get Art Briles.  But, that doesn't mean they should have held onto Dave Roberts or Kevin Steele or Guy Morriss.  If a guy cannot win, he cannot win.  You don't have a theory, in these cases you have real athletic departments trying to make money. 

Tulsa cut three guys to finally find Kragthorpe.  Houston bagged booted Dana Dimel after three losing season and got Art Briles and Kevin Sumlin in succession.  TCU had decades worth is sh*tty coaches before they stumbled onto Franchione, who brought Patterson along with him.  I mean, talk about a blind squirrel finding a nut!  But, even a blind squirrel has to keep looking for the nuts to eat.

Study or no, you can't just keep letting a guy lose and pay him for it as your alumni/fan base/customers go away.  You have to keep trying to get better.  

I'd say, based on what other schools do, we are really patient.  Other places boot guys after two or three losing seasons.  We let Todd Dodge stick it out for 3+, McCarney is on the verge of going 1 for 5 in the winning season department.

As I asked earlier, where do you set the bar?  The bar cannot be one winning season every five years.  That's crazy.  If it means that little to win, why are we even spending as much time and money as we do to be an FBS-level program. 

If this is just a playground for high school coaches like Todd Dodge or retirement home for coaches like Dan McCarney, just drop the pretense and rejoin the Southland Conference. 

If it's not, then start giving guys three year deals with options to earn extra years if they win within the first two!  We're not in the friggin' SEC.  We're in the reconstituted Sun Belt with a couple of C-USA leftover and some start ups. 

 

I almost completely agree but a 3 year deal won't ever be taken seriously by the type of guy we want to take over. some job security is needed to get a good coach to sign up. the only type of coach I can see taking US up on a 3 year deal would be a young dummy who has way too much faith in their ability and has no concept of how hard it is to win football games anywhere, let alone a perennial loser. I don't want that coach. Even a Kliff Kingsbury type would be OK here because he has something that will attract talent here. pair him with a DC like a McCarney or similarly successful, older guy and that would work all day! Alas, we are North Texas and we literally couldn't pay a good coach to come here and stay. 

[oldguystudent]

 Alas, we are North Texas and we literally couldn't pay a good coach to come here and stay. 

Sort by CUSA and see that McCarney is the third highest paid coach in the conference.

His $711K compensation in 2014 (which I can't tell if it includes things like radio stipend or car allowance) is a far cry from the $275K we paid that high school water boy.  

To say we literally can't pay market rate for a coach today is patently false.  A more accurate statement might be that we won't buy out a failure.

[VideoEagle]

The key point is there is more to winning than just the coach. 

For every team that does better following a change, there is another that sees a dip in performance. Moreover, there is just as much volatility in win/loss records of teams that do and do not replace their coaches.

Notice the bolded section - the is just as much volatility in w/l of teams that keep their coaches. Coaches are not the only part winning when you study all of FBS football over 13 years. Records change so dramatically from year to year you can't simply pin winning on a new coach or losing on an old coach. 

The statistical analysis doesn't mean there are no exceptions, Adler said. Some teams that replace their coach do perform better -- but the same can be said about teams that do not replace their coach. "What our findings demonstrate is that, on average, replacing a coach in an attempt to boost performance is not a winning proposition," he said.

 It's less than a 50-50 when studied of all of FSB football for 13 years. Between 1997 and 2010, an average of 10% of teams in FBS fired their losing coaches and after several years over half were still losing. Simply hiring a new coach usually doesn't mean you start winning, especially in three or less years. If you expect that, LUCK appears to be more involved than whom the coach happens to be. 

[Mean_Green09]

The key point is there is more to winning than just the coach. 

Notice the bolded section - the is just as much volatility in w/l of teams that keep their coaches. Coaches are not the only part winning when you study all of FBS football over 13 years. Records change so dramatically from year to year you can't simply pin winning on a new coach or losing on an old coach. 

 It's less than a 50-50 when studied of all of FSB football for 13 years. Between 1997 and 2010, an average of 10% of teams in FBS fired their losing coaches and after several years over half were still losing. Simply hiring a new coach usually doesn't mean you start winning, especially in three or less years. If you expect that, LUCK appears to be more involved than whom the coach happens to be. 

Simply hiring the RIGHT new coach will mean winning right away. Now some P5 school may come jump in and take him away and then we make a bad hire and now we are back to losing.

 

[MeanGreenHoops]

Funny.

Do not remove Mac as coach BEFORE you remove RV.  If RV is coming back next season, just leave Mac in place.  This goes for Benford as well.

I'm actually worried that we might fire Mac and have the same AD hire the next guy that we'll be stuck with for 5 years. This is the safe move and less expensive as well and "shows" the fan base they are serious about winning. Except it doesn't because the problem is systemic and unfortunately everyone needs to go.

[MeanGreenTexan]

I'm actually worried that we might fire Mac and have the same AD hire the next guy that we'll be stuck with for 5 years. This is the safe move and less expensive as well and "shows" the fan base they are serious about winning. Except it doesn't because the problem is systemic and unfortunately everyone needs to go.

Nope.  You're still one level too high.  Firing Mac = too expensive.   Chico is your trophy to show the fan base they are serious about winning... because he's cheaper to let go.

[forevereagle]

It's less than a 50-50 when studied of all of FSB football for 13 years. Between 1997 and 2010, an average of 10% of teams in FBS fired their losing coaches and after several years over half were still losing. Simply hiring a new coach usually doesn't mean you start winning, especially in three or less years. If you expect that, LUCK appears to be more involved than whom the coach happens to be. 

If it's a less than 50-50 proposition, we should keep trying. We have hit below the mark a bunch, shouldn't the law of averages help us out at some point?

[MeanGreenHoops]

Nope.  You're still one level too high.  Firing Mac = too expensive.   Chico is your trophy to show the fan base they are serious about winning... because he's cheaper to let go.

While I don't think removing Canales will do anything, strangely I'd prefer that scenario. And, you're probably right.

[Udomann]

 When you're staring down the barrel of an 0-4 start against South Miss, how exactly does it get worse?

Anything, lottery or not, is better.

[untjim1995]

This type of study is ridiculous.  If everyone followed it, no one would ever be fired.  Of course, not every school is going to win immediately after a coach is hired.  But, what are you supposed to do?

Took Baylor a while to get Art Briles.  But, that doesn't mean they should have held onto Dave Roberts or Kevin Steele or Guy Morriss.  If a guy cannot win, he cannot win.  You don't have a theory, in these cases you have real athletic departments trying to make money. 

Tulsa cut three guys to finally find Kragthorpe.  Houston bagged booted Dana Dimel after three losing season and got Art Briles and Kevin Sumlin in succession.  TCU had decades worth is sh*tty coaches before they stumbled onto Franchione, who brought Patterson along with him.  I mean, talk about a blind squirrel finding a nut!  But, even a blind squirrel has to keep looking for the nuts to eat.

Study or no, you can't just keep letting a guy lose and pay him for it as your alumni/fan base/customers go away.  You have to keep trying to get better.  

I'd say, based on what other schools do, we are really patient.  Other places boot guys after two or three losing seasons.  We let Todd Dodge stick it out for 3+, McCarney is on the verge of going 1 for 5 in the winning season department.

As I asked earlier, where do you set the bar?  The bar cannot be one winning season every five years.  That's crazy.  If it means that little to win, why are we even spending as much time and money as we do to be an FBS-level program. 

If this is just a playground for high school coaches like Todd Dodge or retirement home for coaches like Dan McCarney, just drop the pretense and rejoin the Southland Conference. 

If it's not, then start giving guys three year deals with options to earn extra years if they win within the first two!  We're not in the friggin' SEC.  We're in the reconstituted Sun Belt with a couple of C-USA leftover and some start ups. 

 

This is spot on...

If you don't want to try and compete at the FBS level, just admit it. We've had to endure it before--it won't be more catastrophic than the first go, I can promise you that. You've already shown 100000x over that attendance doesn't matter.