Alabama average coaching tenure; 2007 until present

[Shades]

Clemson is not that big of an anomaly, as there are other P5 programs with stable coaching staff tenures beside Clemson. See list below for comparable or longer staff tenures.

The common denominator is that nearly all of these teams do a great job on the field with their level of talent. Coaching stability matters, especially when it is with good coaches.

During the earlier Saban years, Alabama dominated with a fairly stable staff and elite talent. In recent years they have dominated with talent despite a revolving door of coaching staff. However, it might be catching up; time will tell.

Other P5 programs with relatively stable coaching staffs:
Dabo Swinney at Clemson
Mark Dantonio at Mich St
Kirk Ferentz at Iowa
Gary Patterson at TCU
Pat Fitzgerald at Northwestern
Mike Gundy at Oklahoma State, to some extent
Urban Meyer at Ohio St, to some extent

Frank Beamer when at Va Tech
Jim Tressel when at Ohio State (reaching back for this one)
Phil Fulmer when at UT (reaching way back for this one)
Jimbo Fisher when at Florida State, to some extent
Mark Richt when at Georgia to some extent

 

[LouderVol]

Except the outlier in this case only skews the data up one each year. It's not like Cochran will go from 10 years of experience to 15 between this year and next.

no it doesn't. unless there is some really weird statistical magic going on.

there is almost zero way cochran's ever changing tenure as a ratio of ever changing total staff tenure equals a 1 year delta, every single year. if you look at the charts you can tell the difference between the two lines is ever increasing.

 

[bamawriter]

no it doesn't. unless there is some really weird statistical magic going on.

there is almost zero way cochran's ever changing tenure as a ratio of ever changing total staff tenure equals a 1 year delta, every single year. if you look at the charts you can tell the difference between the two lines is ever increasing.

It expands gradually until the other long-term holdout, Burton Burns, retired in 2017. Thus the shift between with Cochran and without is 1 in the years since. It's only possible for Cochran to add 1 to the average each year. 1 person adding 1 year of tenure is a constant of 1.

 

[diehardvolsfan]

The Bama folks I know want him replaced NOW with Dabo.

Saban would have to be fired for him to leave unless things become so bleak he realizes his time is up and resigns....I’m still saying 1-2 years if that he’s done...

 

[Shades]

It expands gradually until the other long-term holdout, Burton Burns, retired in 2017. Thus the shift between with Cochran and without is 1 in the years since. It's only possible for Cochran to add 1 to the average each year. 1 person adding 1 year of tenure is a constant of 1.

Bama, you should stick to writing and not math or data analysis.

The difference in the two curves expands gradually every year, after year three, if we don't include Cochran. These yearly tenure values are an average of several coaching position tenures, not a sum. Thus if you add or remove Cochran, the difference between the two scenarios doesn't and can't change by a constant of 1.

Both curves include the effects of losing Kirby after 2015 and Burns after 2017. The only difference in the two curves is with and without Cochran.

Here's the data on the gradual expansion between the two graphs. There is no constant of 1 anywhere, nor can it be deduced by looking at the graph.

 

[bamawriter]

Bama, you should stick to writing and not math or data analysis.

The difference in the two curves expands gradually every year, after year three, if we don't include Cochran. These yearly tenure values are an average of several coaching position tenures, not a sum. Thus if you add or remove Cochran, the difference between the two scenarios doesn't and can't change by a constant of 1.

Both curves include the effects of losing Kirby after 2015 and Burns after 2017. The only difference in the two curves is with and without Cochran.

Here's the data on the gradual expansion between the two graphs. There is no constant of 1 anywhere, nor can it be deduced by looking at the graph.

View attachment 189721

Okay. Then look at it this way:

Doing two separate charts is redundant, because including or excluding Cochran doesn't shift the line by anything more than 1 at any point. As such, it doesn't rally advance the point you could easily have made by posting either one by itself.

Honestly, just going without Cochran would have made the most sense. He's not an on-field coach. He can't recruit. If you're going to include him, then it makes just as much sense to include other members of the S&C staff who have been there a few years. On that note, how many years did you credit to Joe Panunzio?

 

[Shades]

Okay. Then look at it this way:

Doing two separate charts is redundant, because including or excluding Cochran doesn't shift the line by anything more than 1 at any point. As such, it doesn't rally advance the point you could easily have made by posting either one by itself.

Honestly, just going without Cochran would have made the most sense. He's not an on-field coach. He can't recruit. If you're going to include him, then it makes just as much sense to include other members of the S&C staff who have been there a few years. On that note, how many years did you credit to Joe Panunzio?

I was going to not include Cochran for the reasons you mention. But he is part of the coaching staff, and an important part of any P5 team success is strength and conditioning and continuity in that area. So there are reasons for including and not including him.

Gonna put the "shift by 1" point and the "redundant" point to rest since it is pointless to go any further in completely different languages.

Include Panunzio??? The premise in the post is coaching staff only.

Going with and without Cochran gives everyone else except for you a chance to see both angles without going into a tizzy.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

While many have talked about Bamas dominance, and rightfully so, there seems to be an emphasis on how many assistants Saban has went through. Yet despite all of that, the guy keeps on winning at an insanely high rate. Looking a little deeper its easy to see why. One of the biggest reasons is he consistently gets the best talent n the country every year. However, there is another important factor.

When describng Bama football, what comes to mind? Physicality, strength and speed. They have one of, if not the best strength and conditioning coaches in college sports in Cochran. He has been there a long time. The most successful teams typically have a very stable strength and conditioning program. Its one of the big reasons why we are the doormats of the SEC. A highly stable S&C program, head coach and elite talent are what have turned Alabama into the greatest college football dynasty in modern history.

 

[Shades]

While many have talked about Bamas dominance, and rightfully so, there seems to be an emphasis on how many assistants Saban has went through. Yet despite all of that, the guy keeps on winning at an insanely high rate. Looking a little deeper its easy to see why. One of the biggest reasons is he consistently gets the best talent n the country every year. However, there is another important factor.

When describng Bama football, what comes to mind? Physicality, strength and speed. They have one of, if not the best strength and conditioning coaches in college sports in Cochran. He has been there a long time. The most successful teams typically have a very stable strength and conditioning program. Its one of the big reasons why we are the doormats of the SEC. A highly stable S&C program, head coach and elite talent are what have turned Alabama into the greatest college football dynasty in modern history.

Yep. Nail meet hammer.

1) Talent. 2) Coaching quality. 3) Coaching stability. 4) Strength and conditioning.

Bama has enjoyed all 4 of 4, but recently has 3 of 4 or maybe even 2 of 4 in some areas. It got masked for most of the season, but showed up in the NC game.
Let's see where it goes from here.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Yep. Nail meet hammer.

1) Talent. 2) Coaching quality. 3) Coaching stability. 4) Strength and conditioning.

Bama has enjoyed all 4 of 4, but recently has 3 of 4 or maybe even 2 of 4 in some areas. It got masked for most of the season, but showed up in the NC game.
Let's see where it goes from here.

Lets hope Butch helps Bama dissolve into the cellar like he did at TN

 

[spyfish007]

It would be interesting to back test this with TN football under Majors and Fulmer. Is that possible?

 

[Shades]

It would be interesting to back test this with TN football under Majors and Fulmer. Is that possible?

It is tough to do for all position coaches because of lack of readily-available information. But it is not that hard to do for the OC and DC positions.

The graphs below are for the average tenure of the OC and DC positions under Majors and Fulmer.

Majors changed coordinators like he changed his underwear for the first half of his tenure as HC, then the program was a little more stable in the second half of his tenure.

Fulmer's coordinators tended to stay for a while. Now that Fulmer is AD, let's hope for that pattern again, and that he and Pruitt can figure out a way to hold onto good coordinators for many years.

 

[Jax_Vol]

Saban would have to be fired for him to leave unless things become so bleak he realizes his time is up and resigns....I’m still saying 1-2 years if that he’s done...

The bama people I know live in Rainbow City, Alabama!

They would have fired him on the airport tarmac the night of the Clemson game. Made him hitchhike home.

 

[diehardvolsfan]

The bama people I know live in Rainbow City, Alabama!

They would have fired him on the airport tarmac the night of the Clemson game. Made him hitchhike home.

Yeah what coach gets his ass blown out by a HIGH SCHOOL QB in his first year at Clemson???? Boggles my mind!!!!!

 

[LouderVol]

Bama, you should stick to writing and not math or data analysis.

The difference in the two curves expands gradually every year, after year three, if we don't include Cochran. These yearly tenure values are an average of several coaching position tenures, not a sum. Thus if you add or remove Cochran, the difference between the two scenarios doesn't and can't change by a constant of 1.

Both curves include the effects of losing Kirby after 2015 and Burns after 2017. The only difference in the two curves is with and without Cochran.

Here's the data on the gradual expansion between the two graphs. There is no constant of 1 anywhere, nor can it be deduced by looking at the graph.

View attachment 189721

I was wondering if I just super eyes or something and could read the chart better than other people. he clearly didn't understand what you were plotting and how the pieces fit together.

 

[spyfish007]

It is tough to do for all position coaches because of lack of readily-available information. But it is not that hard to do for the OC and DC positions.

The graphs below are for the average tenure of the OC and DC positions under Majors and Fulmer.

Majors changed coordinators like he changed his underwear for the first half of his tenure as HC, then the program was a little more stable in the second half of his tenure.

Fulmer's coordinators tended to stay for a while. Now that Fulmer is AD, let's hope for that pattern again, and that he and Pruitt can figure out a way to hold onto good coordinators for many years.

View attachment 189817



View attachment 189818

Thanks! It really seems like good things happen s you get 3 to 5 years with the same people.

 

[bamawriter]

I was wondering if I just super eyes or something and could read the chart better than other people. he clearly didn't understand what you were plotting and how the pieces fit together.

I understand it fine. I was trying to understand the point of going into that detail when adding or removing Cochran doesn't make a significant difference. It only adds or removes one extra year of tenure each year. And given that he isn't an on-field coach, there was never any pressing need to include him from the start.

 

[LouderVol]

I understand it fine. I was trying to understand the point of going into that detail when adding or removing Cochran doesn't make a significant difference. It only adds or removes one extra year of tenure each year. And given that he isn't an on-field coach, there was never any pressing need to include him from the start.

S&C continuity doesn't matter? Have you seen our program? there is a reason keeping Fitz was a huge win for UT. I think Bama has been so good for so long you can't see the real why of it anymore and it just gets lumped under the Saban umbrella.

 

[Shades]

I understand it fine. I was trying to understand the point of going into that detail when adding or removing Cochran doesn't make a significant difference. It only adds or removes one extra year of tenure each year. And given that he isn't an on-field coach, there was never any pressing need to include him from the start.

 

[05_never_again]

S&C continuity doesn't matter? Have you seen our program? there is a reason keeping Fitz was a huge win for UT. I think Bama has been so good for so long you can't see the real why of it anymore and it just gets lumped under the Saban umbrella.

Pretty sure he meant for purposes of calculating average staff tenure, not that he didn't matter to the team.

 

[LouderVol]

Pretty sure he meant for purposes of calculating average staff tenure, not that he didn't matter to the team.

As long as shades used consistent data points, Cochran being included is just as relevant as him not being included. someone like a GA, who is limited in years they can work, would be a bad number to through in. but if Shades had the info he could have plotted it down to the number of analysts and quality control people.

S&C has more contact with the players than anyone else. shades included them, and didn't include them. so I don't even know what the issue is.