BIG TEN Coaching – Net Game Effect

If you have read ‘About the CFBMatrix’, you already know it started with the idea of using recruiting ranking to establish trends and predictability in college football teams and games.  With I have shown that our national composite recruiting rankings can be directly correlated with nearly 70% of all CFB games.  The rest, as was discovered, was a tied into coaching ability and scheduling.  There are multiple other ‘little things’ that are part of a team’s success or lack thereof, but those a proven to be isolated and not correlated to football outcomes as a whole.

In this BIG TEN article, I breakdown the net coaching effect for each coach in total, at home and away.  While these numbers do not reflect the true ‘value’ or ability of a coach, it certainly provides a comparison and perspective any other ‘ranking’ article lacks.  These are not my opinions or ‘expertise’ on the subject, as they are simple numbers provided to add to the information gathering for every fan.  They may confirm your emotions about a coach, open your eyes to a new angle of interpretation or just make you more angry.

The biggest caveat to these numbers are chances and opportunity.  For teams like Ohio State or Michigan, they have very few chances in a season to beat someone that the model says should beat them and therefore, negative game effects are more likely.  For teams like Purdue and Northwestern, nearly every game is a chance to beat someone that they are supposed to lose to in the model.  The other part of your evaluation of the coaches should be their recruiting.   As I always say, you recruit to win, not win to recruit.  You need to be able to maximize recruiting and then your wins.  A coach may be good on game day with less talent, but without recruiting they are never going to move up too far.

Team Coach Coaching Effect (games) Coaching Effect Home (games) Coaching Effect Road (games) Coaching Effect Trend (4Yr Max) Total Annual Average Home Ave/Yr Away Ave/Yr Recruiting Class Rank ’08-’11
Northwestern Pat Fitgerald – ’06 +11 +1 +10 4 +2.75 0.25 2.50 65
Michigan State Mark D’Antonio – ’07 +7 +3 +4 4 +1.75 0.75 1.00 31
Wisconsin Bret Beilema – ’06 +2 +2 0 4 +0.50 0.50 0.00 49
Penn State Joe Paterno – ’66 -1 -1 0 4 -0.25 -0.25 0.00 21
Purdue Danny Hope – ’09 -1 -2 1 2 -0.50 -1.00 0.50 59
Iowa Kirk Ferentz – ’98 -4 -2 -2 4 -1.00 -0.50 -0.50 42
Nebraska Bo Pelini – ’08 -3 -3 0 3 -1.00 -1.00 0.00 22
Illinois Ron Zook – ’05 -10 -5 -5 4 -2.50 -1.25 -1.25 40
Minnesota Jerry Kill – 2011 NA NA NA NA 52
Michigan Brady Hoke – ’11 NA NA NA NA 12
Indiana Kevin Wilson – ’11 NA NA NA NA 63
Ohio State Luke Fickell – ’11 NA NA NA NA 7

One Response to BIG TEN Coaching – Net Game Effect

  1. Pingback: Betting on College Football Coaches: Iowa’s Kirk Ferentz | The Saturday Edge

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s