Rating the Coaches
| 9
|
by user Leftyloon
Which coaches earned their clipboards last season and which should be forced to hand in their headsets? Everyone’s got an opinion on which coaches did well and which did not last season. In playing around with the numbers, I’ve developed a simple rating system to rate each of the NCAA coaches. First we need to come up with a reasonable preseason expectation for each team. To do this, we could peruse numerous preseason magazines and come up with an average, or we could save some time and come up with a simple formula like this:
Win % Last Season (50%) + Win % 2 Yrs Ago (20%) + Win % 3 Yrs Ago (10%) + .500 (20%)
The four components are winning percentage for the previous three seasons; with each season decreasing in importance as the distance from the current season increases and the final component is a winning percentage of .500 as teams tend to trend towards .500. Including this component ensures we don’t penalize coaches coming off undefeated seasons because improving upon a 100% winning percentage is impossible. Additionally, we don’t reward coaches who go winless because we assume they will improve at least marginally. Next we just subtract the team’s expected winning percentage from their actual winning percentage. This number is the coach’s rating.
Here's an example of the formula at work for Jeff Tedford of the California Golden Bears:
In 2003 the Bears went 8-6 (.571 win %), in 2004 the Bears went 10-2 (.833 win %), in 2005 the Bears went 8-4 (.667 win %), and in 2006 the Bears went 10-3 (.769 win %). The 2003 win % gets multiplied by .5. The 2004 win % gets multiplied by .2. The 2005 win % gets multiplied by .1. Then we multiply the standard .500 win % by .2.
(.667*.5)+(.833*.2)+(.571*.1)+(.500*.2)=.657 is Cal's expected win % for 2006. Cal actually won at a .769 clip so Tedford's coaching rating for 2006 is +.112 (.769-.657). This means Cal won a little more than 11% more games than was reasonably expected at the beginning of the season. This figure was the fourth best coach rating in the Pac 10 in 2006.
Before we get into the coaching rating portion, it’s important to find out if this expected winning percentage is at least a decent predictor of a team’s record. If it’s not then the coach rating is not a valid statistic. Fortunately it is quite valid. The r squared value for the expected winning percentage predictive power in 2006 was .3437. This means that expected winning percentage explained a little more than 34% of the variation in actual 2006 winning percentage. If we break this number down by BCS and non-BCS schools we find that it is a much better predictor for a BCS school’s record than for a non-BCS school. The r squared value for BCS schools (including Notre Dame) was .4254 in 2006. For non-BCS schools it was only .1705. This is still a decent relationship, but it shows that the records of non-BCS schools tends to vary more from year to year than the records of BCS schools. Consequently, we should not be quite as shocked when non-BCS schools see a substantial jump in their winning percentage. BCS schools live in a more caste-dominated society where the divisions between upper, middle, and lower classes are rigid and defined. Non-BCS schools on the other hand reside in a more socially unpredictable society where the lines between the three classes are much less defined. With that out of the way, here are the best coaches from 2006.
Dick Tomey (San Jose State) +.392
Jim Grobe (Wake Forest) +.389
Bronco Mendenhall (BYU) +.372
Greg Schiano (Rutgers) +.340
Rich Brooks (Kentucky) +.309
Todd Graham (Rice) +.296
June Jones (Hawaii) +.290
Chris Petersen (Boise State) +.278
Urban Meyer (Florida) +.276
Frank Solich (Ohio) +.271
At worst, this rating seems to be a solid predictor of coach of the year award winners. Petersen won Paul 'Bear' Bryant Coach of the Year Award, Jim Grobe win the Bobby Dodd Coach of the Year Award, and Greg Schiano won the Walter Camp, Eddie Robinson, and Home Depot Coach of the Year Awards.
Now here are the worst coaches from 2006.
Tom Amstutz (Toledo) -.263
Gregg Brandon (Bowling Green) -.268
Pat Hill (Fresno State) -.289
Chuck Amato (NC State) -.294
Jeff Genyk (Eastern Michigan) -.297
Jack Bicknell (Louisiana Tech) -.329
Walt Harris (Stanford) -.354
Dan Hawkins (Colorado_ -.367
Tommy West (Memphis) -.427
Shane Montgomery (Miami, Ohio) -.467
Three of these gentlemen were axed after the season (Amato, Bicknell, and Harris) and several others are on the hot seat heading into 2007 (Genyk and Montgomery). Of course, some are also good coaches who just had poor seasons (Amstutz, Hill, Hawkins, and West). Now here are the best coaches by conference.
ACC Jim Grobe (Wake Forest) +.389
Big East Greg Schiano (Rutgers) +.340
Big 10 Bret Bielema (Wisconsin) +.235
Big 12 Dennis Franchione (Texas A&M) +.215
Pac 10 Mike Riley (Oregon State) +.208
SEC Rich Brooks (Kentucky) +.309
Conference USA Todd Graham (Rice) +.296
MAC Frank Solich (Ohio) +.271
Mountain West Bronco Mendenhall (BYU) +.372
Sun Belt Larry Blakeney (Troy) +.166
WAC Dick Tomey (San Jose State) +.392
And finally the worst coaches by conference.
ACC Chuck Amato (NC State) -.294
Big East Randy Edsall (Connecticut) -.203
Big 10 Pat Fitzgerald (Northwestern) -.205
Big 12 Dan Hawkins (Colorado) -.367
Pac 10 Walt Harris (Stanford) -.354
SEC Mike Shula (Alabama) -.185
Conference USA Tommy West (Memphis) -.427
MAC Shane Montgomery (Miami, Ohio) -.467
Mountain West Chuck Long (San Diego State) -.181
Sun Belt Darrell Dickey (North Texas) -.127
WAC Jack Bicknell (Louisiana Tech) -.329
Obviously this system is not meant t0 be the end-all, be-all coaching ratings. I don't think Rich Brooks is a better coach than Steve Spurrier, but in accordance with exceeding preseason expectations, Brooks was better in 2006. For more stat-inclined college football articles check out: http://leftyloon.blogspot.com/
