Posts: 2,300
Threads: 66
Joined: Apr 2016
I also disagree with the entire premise, but in a different sense.
Coaching indeed is enormously important, far moreso in college sports than in the professional ranks. But strategy/execution is not what separates coaches and shouldn't be the basis for defining three tiers of coaches.
The top coaches are hyper-effective CEOs who are able to obtain administrative buy-in, create a culture of accountability and teamwork, hire exceptional co-ordinators and perhaps most importantly create an elite recruiting network and operation. Charlie Weis is the obvious example of the brilliant co-ordinator who proved in the NFL that he could manage strategy and produce execution extremely well, but was disastrous in the other areas to the point that he soon lost the confidence of both his bosses and his players. Jim Harbaugh never was (or claimed to be) a tactical genius but he turned around Stanford by selling the program very effectively in order to attract a higher grade of talent, fostering a mentally and physically tough team in his own image, and delegating to elite co-ordinators, thus transforming the school into a destination for elite recruits who were willing to work hard.
The other issue - even if you accept the concept of three tiers - is identifying a coach's ability absent a decade+ of coaching or multiple successful stops. David Shaw is highly regarded as a top coach in his seventh season; Jeff Tedford was 59-30 (4-1 in bowls) through seven seasons at Cal yet is now lumped in with Dykes as a mediocre coach, inferred to rank below Justin Wilcox who has coached a grand total of one game. Obviously coaches like Saban, Meyer and Petersen who have been consistently successful at different stops are sure things, but there are few in that class and rarely available on the open market. Even Texas, Florida and SC in recent years has been forced to hope for the best in hiring head coaches whose resumes as the top man are still in the formative stages.
