A contrarian View: Should He Stay of Should He Go?

[RSTuthill]

There was a New York Times article awhile back that reported on a statistical study that showed that replacing FB coaches at the three year mark produced worse performance in the following years. If I can find the URL I will share it, but it is being difficult to find at the moment.

So, if true, why should that be? Well, given that in the third year of a coach's tenure, at best, he has a roster to work with that includes the first of his recruits as redshirt sophomores. Yet, because new coaches are usually hired after the preceding season has finished, the new coach is scrambling to fill a new recruiting class and ends up with only a few of his own recruits the first year. Thus it can be argued that the new coach's third season has at best a few of his own redshirt sophomores. It is not until the sixth season that a new coach is working with ALL of his own recruits, assuming they all redshirt their freshman year. Of course in desperate situations (e.g. UConn's) many recruits will not redshirt which only means their eligibility expires before they have reached their full maturity.

As galling as it may seem, the fifth season is really the first that a coach's body of work may be effectively evaluated. And really only the sixth. Thus, although I think that UConn may make a change, indeed will likely make a change, I have never been on the fire Edsall bandwagon. Changes cause too much disruption, new style of play, new playbook, a mismatch in the new style of play with the current personnel, new methods of communication, all of the above. UConn would be wise to stand pat for a couple more years even if they have the money to make a change now.

 

[huskyrob1]

There was a New York Times article awhile back that reported on a statistical study that showed that replacing FB coaches at the three year mark produced worse performance in the following years. If I can find the URL I will share it, but it is being difficult to find at the moment.

So, if true, why should that be? Well, given that in the third year of a coach's tenure, at best, he has a roster to work with that includes the first of his recruits as redshirt sophomores. Yet, because new coaches are usually hired after the preceding season has finished, the new coach is scrambling to fill a new recruiting class and ends up with only a few of his own recruits the first year. Thus it can be argued that the new coach's third season has at best a few of his own redshirt sophomores. It is not until the sixth season that a new coach is working with ALL of his own recruits, assuming they all redshirt their freshman year. Of course in desperate situations (e.g. UConn's) many recruits will not redshirt which only means their eligibility expires before they have reached their full maturity.

As galling as it may seem, the fifth season is really the first that a coach's body of work may be effectively evaluated. And really only the sixth. Thus, although I think that UConn may make a change, indeed will likely make a change, I have never been on the fire Edsall bandwagon. Changes cause too much disruption, new style of play, new playbook, a mismatch in the new style of play with the current personnel, new methods of communication, all of the above. UConn would be wise to stand pat for a couple more years even if they have the money to make a change now.

The guy needs to go, he can't decide among three QB's, who is his best choice, when it's clear that Steven Krajewski was by far the most talented. We would have at least two wins now had he gone with Steven Krajewski from day one.

He is also calling plays first drawn up in 1913.

He does not know how to inspire players, never did, never could, either here or at Maryland.

Richard Nixon could come back from the dead and recruit players to UConn better than Edsall.

He has to take the blame, instead of constantly blaming the players for every miscalculation.

Decent OC's and DC's hate working for him. His ego is killing this program.

Dave Benedict needs to fire Edsall now and take over the coaching duties himself for the rest of the season. That would prevent IMO a mass exodus of starters beginning this December.

 

[BlueDogs]

I think people would be more understanding if there was any sense RE was out there competing to win. That coupled with the reality he is a career failure even when handed all the tools to compete (Maryland) indicates we are on another road to nowhere.

 

[Fairfield_1st]

I think given our situation (soon an independent) it may be harder to recruit here than it already is. Playing the style he does turns off fans and almost certainly is not attractive to recruits. I feel we need an offense minded coach who favors a wide open style of play. Put a product out there that players want to be a part of and fans want to see. The Phi Slamma Jamma of football or somewhat like what Westhead did at Loyola Marymount. Put points on the board, even in losses, and the healing can start.
The comparison of 3rd year coaches doesn't really work here because true freshman have gotten playing time and most of the players have been Randy's for 2 seasons. We haven't beaten an FBS team in 2 years. 2 years.

 

[Northbound]

There was a New York Times article awhile back that reported on a statistical study that showed that replacing FB coaches at the three year mark produced worse performance in the following years. If I can find the URL I will share it, but it is being difficult to find at the moment.

So, if true, why should that be? Well, given that in the third year of a coach's tenure, at best, he has a roster to work with that includes the first of his recruits as redshirt sophomores. Yet, because new coaches are usually hired after the preceding season has finished, the new coach is scrambling to fill a new recruiting class and ends up with only a few of his own recruits the first year. Thus it can be argued that the new coach's third season has at best a few of his own redshirt sophomores. It is not until the sixth season that a new coach is working with ALL of his own recruits, assuming they all redshirt their freshman year. Of course in desperate situations (e.g. UConn's) many recruits will not redshirt which only means their eligibility expires before they have reached their full maturity.

As galling as it may seem, the fifth season is really the first that a coach's body of work may be effectively evaluated. And really only the sixth. Thus, although I think that UConn may make a change, indeed will likely make a change, I have never been on the fire Edsall bandwagon. Changes cause too much disruption, new style of play, new playbook, a mismatch in the new style of play with the current personnel, new methods of communication, all of the above. UConn would be wise to stand pat for a couple more years even if they have the money to make a change now.

I get all of that and agree to an extent. However, this staff has demonstrated incompetence that nobody could have imagined. At some point the university has to make a change just to manage the public perception that these results are unacceptable. If the University cares one iota about football and the results of the team it has to make the change

I don't believe that RE can walk away from what he's preached his entire career and adopt and become an supporter of a modern offense and an offensive coordinator that would bring those principles to the party. That means RE letting the dude do the job he was hired for and staying out of his way and we all know that is not happening.

 

[gioff2323]

Dear Applicant,

We are looking to fill the now open position of head football coach at the Univ of CT. We are committed to competing and winning at the highest levels as has been witnessed over the past decade. Who could forget the ConFLiCT? We offer fantastic facilities coupled with no money to pay you or any half decent assistants you may have in mind (in fact, we encourage to take money from your paltry salary and offer it to assistants), an of campus stadium, and an admissions department that thinks football players should compete on open playing field with aspiring chemists and physicists. We no longer belong to a football conference and we think we will have more than 4 games next year, we think. There are rumblings we have our eye on the CAA as a future landing spot, but those are still unconfirmed. We do offer you the ability to change the uniform colors and logos monthly, so there is that. We can assure you that you will not last more than 3 years here, so no need to get bogged down on contractual details around housing, just find a studio in trendy downtown Hartford, and opt for the short-term lease. Your package will include 2 season tickets to see our men's UConn basketball team compete anew in the Big East against the likes of Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, ND, and Ville. Wait, what, they're not there? Hold on, I thought those were our new football opponents. Who exactly are we playing in Basketball? St. Louis? The Cardinals have a basketball team?) Anyway, I digress, you'll love it here, ask Mrs. Lashlee. Qualified Applicants only (and no bringing Jesus with you, even though you'll need his help to do anything here other than kill your career) need apply. Please submit your application to Whaler. If you have to ask, you really don't understand UConn football. Go Huskies!

 

[Bongo Fury]

A new coach at this time is going to start over again. Recruit his guys to UCONN only to find out the ones he wants won’t pick UCONN. The Temple situation is easier since new hires took over successful and competent teams and were able to build on them.

 

[huskyrob1]

A new coach at this time is going to start over again. Recruit his guys to UCONN only to find out the ones he wants won’t pick UCONN. The Temple situation is easier since new hires took over successful and competent teams and were able to build on them.

I've already said that Benedict needs to fire Edsall NOW, and assume the coaching duties himself for the interim. That would IMO prevent any mass exodus of starters in December if Edsall is still the coach.

 

[CL82]

There was a New York Times article awhile back that reported on a statistical study that showed that replacing FB coaches at the three year mark produced worse performance in the following years. If I can find the URL I will share it, but it is being difficult to find at the moment.

So, if true, why should that be? Well, given that in the third year of a coach's tenure, at best, he has a roster to work with that includes the first of his recruits as redshirt sophomores. Yet, because new coaches are usually hired after the preceding season has finished, the new coach is scrambling to fill a new recruiting class and ends up with only a few of his own recruits the first year. Thus it can be argued that the new coach's third season has at best a few of his own redshirt sophomores. It is not until the sixth season that a new coach is working with ALL of his own recruits, assuming they all redshirt their freshman year. Of course in desperate situations (e.g. UConn's) many recruits will not redshirt which only means their eligibility expires before they have reached their full maturity.

As galling as it may seem, the fifth season is really the first that a coach's body of work may be effectively evaluated. And really only the sixth. Thus, although I think that UConn may make a change, indeed will likely make a change, I have never been on the fire Edsall bandwagon. Changes cause too much disruption, new style of play, new playbook, a mismatch in the new style of play with the current personnel, new methods of communication, all of the above. UConn would be wise to stand pat for a couple more years even if they have the money to make a change now.

Kind of agree, though I think it isn't an unreasonable expectation in year 3 that the football team be able to compete on the field. Right now, we don't look like we belong out there. That's worrying.

 

[RSTuthill]

I might also add that UConn has changed HC's three times in the last nine years. Once reactively and twice proactively. Each time the W-L record took a quantum step down followed by a further more gradual decline with ups and downs but with the trend line down.

Those data are indisputable. And I am reminded of the old adage that the definition of stupidity is doing the same thing multiple times and somehow expecting a different result.

That doesn't mean that adjustments can't be made. Next year an experienced OC can be brought in. Given the record so far, the HC will not have autonomy in that choice although he may have veto power if he feels a certain candidate is a totally bad fit. Other things can be done as well. But the overall balance of pros and cons leads me to argue for HCRE2.0 to be retained for a minimum of two more years.

 

[Northbound]

Here's the article - year three is the breakthrough year.

Want a National Title? Hire a Coach, Wait Three Years (Published 2016)

A coach’s third year at a top football program seems particularly magical for winning a title, based on recent examples.

www.nytimes.com

 

[RSTuthill]

Thanks. Interesting article but not the one that I was referring to. The article that I saw was at least 5 years ago, a whole lot more scientific, and came to a different conclusion. And it wasn't about national championships but rather the broader topic.

 

[huskymedic]

Firing a Coach, at a Price, With Little Evidence the Move Pays Off

>> Over the past decade, about 1 in 10 universities at the major college level replaced their head football coaches annually for performance-related reasons. But a recent study suggests that replacements do not tend to make underperforming teams much better in subsequent seasons and frequently make them worse.

Anecdotal evidence and scientific analysis indicate that replacing a coach is no guarantee of success. Houston finished 5-7 this season after changing its coordinator. Wisconsin is a middling 7-5 after firing its line coach. The Badgers reached the Big Ten Conference title game only because N.C.A.A. penalties left Ohio State and Penn State ineligible.

A study published last month in Social Science Quarterly may provide sobering news to Auburn, Tennessee and other universities that have fired their coaches. Using data from 1997 to 2010, the study compared the performance of major college teams that replaced their coach with teams with similar records that kept their coach.

The results, tracked over a five-year period following the coaching changes, might surprise many. The lowliest teams subsequently performed about the same as other struggling teams that did not replace their coach. Mediocre teams — those that won about half their games in the year before a coaching change — performed worse than similar teams that did not replace their coach.<<

 

[uconnric]

There was a New York Times article awhile back that reported on a statistical study that showed that replacing FB coaches at the three year mark produced worse performance in the following years. If I can find the URL I will share it, but it is being difficult to find at the moment.

So, if true, why should that be? Well, given that in the third year of a coach's tenure, at best, he has a roster to work with that includes the first of his recruits as redshirt sophomores. Yet, because new coaches are usually hired after the preceding season has finished, the new coach is scrambling to fill a new recruiting class and ends up with only a few of his own recruits the first year. Thus it can be argued that the new coach's third season has at best a few of his own redshirt sophomores. It is not until the sixth season that a new coach is working with ALL of his own recruits, assuming they all redshirt their freshman year. Of course in desperate situations (e.g. UConn's) many recruits will not redshirt which only means their eligibility expires before they have reached their full maturity.

As galling as it may seem, the fifth season is really the first that a coach's body of work may be effectively evaluated. And really only the sixth. Thus, although I think that UConn may make a change, indeed will likely make a change, I have never been on the fire Edsall bandwagon. Changes cause too much disruption, new style of play, new playbook, a mismatch in the new style of play with the current personnel, new methods of communication, all of the above. UConn would be wise to stand pat for a couple more years even if they have the money to make a change now.

I think he gets another year unless we continue to be blown out. Have to show some improvement. (And Cinci will certainly blow us out) This year's offense is a little better than last year, which was based on David Pindell running for his life. Defense regressed Saturday. This team has to become more competitive this year.

 

[The Viking]

How many of the current starters are seniors? At some point he will lose that as an excuse but I tend to favor giving a head coach 4-5 years unless something crazy (Diaco) is going on.

 

[ZooCougar]

We basically have two coordinators in stretch roles.

The school is not supporting the program by spending the money to attract coaches that can actually recruit.

We have stringent admissions standards that maybe even exceed schools like Duke and Stanford. Why?

This is not an attractive job. Who would we get?

 

[crazyUCfan23]

Following an away game, AD Dave should not allow Randy back on the plane/bus and fire him on spot. Make him pay his own way home.

 

[Excalibur]

The best answer is that it doesn't matter . . .

 

[Northbound]

You're telling me that UConn football can become worse than it has over the past three years? You just can't hang your hat on minuscule improvements in year three - there has to be significant steps forward. Not a title for god sake, but you've got to win some games and be competitive in most of the others.

Keeping RE is akin to just saying f*&k it and is just another signal that the University has decided to stop competing at the FBS level. If FCS is the destination, I'd rather just get their quickly and stop with the charade.

 

[CL82]

You're telling me that UConn football can become worse than it has over the past three years? You just can't hang your hat on minuscule improvements in year three - there has to be significant steps forward. Not a title for god sake, but you've got to win some games and be competitive in most of the others.

Keeping RE is akin to just saying f*&k it and is just another signal that the University has decided to stop competing at the FBS level. If FCS is the destination, I'd rather just get their quickly and stop with the charade.

Firing Randy in year three is like shooting yourself in the foot because is still hurts from the last time you shot yourself in it. It won't help and it will likely hurt quite a bit.

Still, he's got to show meaningful progress. I'm not sure he has. Progress? Definitely. Meaningful progress for year three, I'm not so sure.

 

[Bongo Fury]

Don Brown was a successful HC. Went to the finals at UMASS

 

[Excalibur]

Don Brown was a successful HC. Went to the finals at UMASS

He should have been hired instead of Pasqualoni. Now he's too old, too expensive, and too not interested in being a head coach.

 

[RSTuthill]

Firing a Coach, at a Price, With Little Evidence the Move Pays Off

>> Over the past decade, about 1 in 10 universities at the major college level replaced their head football coaches annually for performance-related reasons. But a recent study suggests that replacements do not tend to make underperforming teams much better in subsequent seasons and frequently make them worse.

Anecdotal evidence and scientific analysis indicate that replacing a coach is no guarantee of success. Houston finished 5-7 this season after changing its coordinator. Wisconsin is a middling 7-5 after firing its line coach. The Badgers reached the Big Ten Conference title game only because N.C.A.A. penalties left Ohio State and Penn State ineligible.

A study published last month in Social Science Quarterly may provide sobering news to Auburn, Tennessee and other universities that have fired their coaches. Using data from 1997 to 2010, the study compared the performance of major college teams that replaced their coach with teams with similar records that kept their coach.

The results, tracked over a five-year period following the coaching changes, might surprise many. The lowliest teams subsequently performed about the same as other struggling teams that did not replace their coach. Mediocre teams — those that won about half their games in the year before a coaching change — performed worse than similar teams that did not replace their coach.<<

I think that's it. EDIT: Firing College Football Coaches, With Little Evidence It Pays Off

and:

Study

 

[Marty Jackson]

If you are going to ask RE to manage the program and continue to pay minimum for coaches then you have a revolving door for the staff.

I’m not sold on RE. But not sure another coach is available, willing to come, and would put up with what RE does regarding coach pay.

If there is, then question is, is that coach better than RE? Up until now, the answer is no.

 

[Husky68]

I might also add that UConn has changed HC's three times in the last nine years. Once reactively and twice proactively. Each time the W-L record took a quantum step down followed by a further more gradual decline with ups and downs but with the trend line down.

Those data are indisputable. And I am reminded of the old adage that the definition of stupidity is doing the same thing multiple times and somehow expecting a different result.

That doesn't mean that adjustments can't be made. Next year an experienced OC can be brought in. Given the record so far, the HC will not have autonomy in that choice although he may have veto power if he feels a certain candidate is a totally bad fit. Other things can be done as well. But the overall balance of pros and cons leads me to argue for HCRE2.0 to be retained for a minimum of two more years.

Hire PP, Red Pants and HCREDreamJob1.0 again and UConn would be crazy. Hire a competent (not fired from last head coaching job or no head coaching experience) current, winning head coach and not crazy.
You are thinking crazy (didn't say you were crazy) if you think HCRE2.0 will be ok with not having 10000% autonomy on all UConn football related hires!