Historical analogies to Taylor Year 1

Historical analogies to Taylor Year 1 - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Historical analogies to Taylor Year 1 (/thread-24686.html)

Historical analogies to Taylor Year 1 - msqueri - 12-27-2023

We are currently Sagarin #100. Others may or may not find this interesting, but my mind started wandering tonight to what Power Five teams have done after a season under a new coach had a season like Taylor's first year. I thought I'd take a look at the track record of Power Five coaches who were in the 90-110 range their first year. This century that describes (in rough order of success):

2020 Florida State: #102 in Norvell's first season....#63 in Year 2, #16 in Year 3, #10 (undefeated/obviously irked by the lack of respect but I'm talking algorithm here) in Year 4

2017 Baylor: #97 in Rhule's first season....#62 in Year 2, #16 in Year 3

2012 Washington State: #104 in Leach's first season.....#40 in Year 2, #81 in Year 3, #53 in Year 4, #34 in Year 5, #28, in Year 6, #20 in Year 7, #46 in Year 8

2013 Kentucky: #104 in Stoops' first season....#49 in Year 2, #91 in Year 3, #65 in Year 4, #67 in Year 5, #26 in Year 6, #33 in Year 7, #47 in Year 8, #20 in Year 9, #35 in Year 10, and #41 in Year 11

2006 Northwestern: #93 in Fitzgerald's first season......#86 in Year 2, #44 in Year 3, #61 in Year 4, #71 in Year 5, #58 in Year 6, #21 in Year 7, #65 in Year 8, #66 in Year 9, #49 in Year 10, #35 in Year 11, #20 in Year 12, #32 in Year 13, #71 in Year 14, #15 in Year 15, #101 in Year 16, and #103 in Year 17

2019 Maryland: #97 in Locksley's first season.....#61 in Year 2, #58 in Year 3, #37 in Year 4, #35 in Year 5

2022 Virginia Tech: #94 in Pry's first season....#54 in Year 2

2016 Virginia: #107 in Mendenhall's first season.....#81 in Year 2, #43 in Year 3, #34 in Year 4, #57 in Year 5, #64 in Year 6

2005 Illinois: #96 in Zook's first season....#108 in Year 2, #30 in Year 3, #68 in Year 4, #94 in Year 5, #39 in Year 6, #55 in Year 7

2002 Vanderbilt: #96 in Johnson's first season....#105 in Year 2, #112 in Year 3, #67 in Year 4, #63 in Year 5, #54 in Year 6, #39 in Year 7, and #104 in Year 8

2011 Maryland: #104 in Edsall's first season....#101 in Year 2, #73 in Year 3, #50 in Year 4, #85 in Year 5

2006 Colorado: #94 in Hawkins' first season.....#56 in Year 2, #72 in Year 3, #91 in Year 4, and #68 in Year 5

2008 Michigan: #95 in Rodriguez's first season....#81 in Year 2, #60 in Year 3

2005 Ole Miss: #102 in Orgeron's first season....#74 in Year 2 and #80 in Year 3

2019 Georgia Tech: #107 in Collins' first season....#101 in Year, #96 in Year 3, #84 in Year 4

2002 Indiana: #98 in DiNardo's first season....#121 in Year 2 and #98 in Year 3

2004 Duke: #90 in Roof's first season...#133 in Year 2, #153 in Year 3, and #109 in Year 4

2012 Kansas: #98 in Weis' first season....#119 in Year 2 and #115 in Year 3

2007 Iowa State: #92 in Chizik's first season....#114 in Year 2

2018 Arkansas: #98 in Morris' first season....#117 in Year 2

2011 Colorado: #107 in Embree's first season....#156 in Year 2

(Fisch at Arizona, Smith at Oregon State, and Doeren at NC State are success stories not included above as their first years were actually worse than my parameters, but of course there are failure stories outside of the parameters too, like Robinson at Syracuse, Smith at Illinois, and Andersen at Oregon State)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The median is Randy Edsall at Maryland and he's joined in the median group by Bobby Johnson at Vanderbilt and Dan Hawkins at Colorado. In other words, making it five years and having a few respectable seasons but never being particularly good. [I'd note that when I looked at historical track records of rebuilding coaches there was about a 50/50 chance of getting somebody who eventually could have a good (8+ wins) season, so as a strictly empirical matter Taylor's first season at Stanford puts him on a typical trajectory worse than when we hired him.]

Of course, we hope Troy Taylor isn't average and has the goods to be in the top half of this list. Good coaches - Mike Norvell, Matt Rhule, Mike Leach, Mark Stoops, Mike Locksley (it's early days but Year 2 indicates Brent Pry may be good) - are able to get major leaps from Year 1 to Year 2. Pat Fitzgerald took until Year 3, but generally Year 2 saw major leaps for the coaches who have been able to overcome a Year 1 like Taylor had. I'm talking really major leaps - 35+ spots. If Stanford is the #65 team in the nation next year that will feel like major progress. Here's to hoping Taylor is a good coach in that mold.

All rebuilding programs hope their coach is in the good category. Time will tell. Across the whole data set, most did better in their second season than the first - 62 percent - but it's certainly nowhere close to a high enough percent one would view it as a certainty.

My gut tells me Taylor is in the Locksley-Pry-Mendenhall neighborhood of this typology. I don't see him falling below the Orgeron-Collins echelon. But again, time will tell. This story is still to be written. Hopefully our guy gives us reason to think of him in the upper echelons.

RE: Historical analogies to Taylor Year 1 - qwerty49 - 12-27-2023

What does, say, #65 typically translate to in terms of W-L record? About .500?

RE: Historical analogies to Taylor Year 1 - msqueri - 12-28-2023

Depends on the schedule. Against the kind of schedule we’ll face it’s 4-5 wins, mostly 5. We’d win slightly more but also be significantly more competitive in the losses in general. We have a long way to go to be good.

RE: Historical analogies to Taylor Year 1 - Mick - 12-28-2023

In the mid- to long-term, I think Taylor can hit the 6-8 win numbers depending whether (a) his recruiting improves, which I think it will; (b) OOC games (less Notre Dame, more Cal Poly, Hawaii, SJSU) and © AAC competition which is generally weaker than Pac-12 competition.

RE: Historical analogies to Taylor Year 1 - jacket3ree - 12-28-2023

Nice work Matt.

If Taylor is in the Collins echelon, I'll find something else to do when Stanford plays. The Clown was shit canned along with the idiot (an alum) who hired him after the fourth game of his fourth season. The interim coach was immediately competent (.500) and they seem like a completely different team despite the Jekyll and Hyde act. Went toe to toe with UGA - gave them the best game this year outside of Alabama. Collins was all about slogans (for the 404), and skinny jeans with no socks. The successor is just a football coach with deep ties to GT and time on Saban's staff. The delicious irony was that GT scored 404 points this season.

An also ran Pac12 team just destroyed the #2 ACC team this year, but it is hard to know what to make out of bowl games these days. Generally speaking the ACC is like the Pac12 was. One or two powers in a season, a handful of decent teams, and a bunch of meh.

RE: Historical analogies to Taylor Year 1 - Mick - 12-28-2023

(12-28-2023, 02:00 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: An also ran Pac12 team just destroyed the #2 ACC team this year, but it is hard to know what to make out of bowl games these days. Generally speaking the ACC is like the Pac12 was. One or two powers in a season, a handful of decent teams, and a bunch of meh.

I'm going to cherry pick a few numbers, so forgive my arbitrariness. But near as I can figure, here's how the late, lamented Pac-12 and the who-knows-what-they'll-be-next-year ACC:

Pac-12 has twice the ACC schools in the Top 10 (2:1) Also twice the ACC schools in the Top 20 (4:2).

ACC schools outnumber Pac-12 from #21 to #40, 4:2.

They're even from #40 to #50, 1:1.

ACC outnumbers Pac-12 4:1 in rankings #61 to #80.

Pac-12 outnumbers ACC from #81 to #128, 5:3.

I suppose I see where FSU is coming from. ACC added #71 Cal and #111 Stanford. Doesn't do much for the ACC. The former Pac-12 had a lot of strength at the top, and was #2-rated only after the SEC. The ACC was #5 rated among the Power 5 conferences,

RE: Historical analogies to Taylor Year 1 - 82lsju - 12-28-2023

(12-28-2023, 03:54 PM)Mick Wrote: I suppose I see where FSU is coming from. ACC added #71 Cal and #111 Stanford. Doesn't do much for the ACC. The former Pac-12 had a lot of strength at the top, and was #2-rated only after the SEC. The ACC was #5 rated among the Power 5 conferences,

well it does if the ACC gets more TV money and Stanford, Cal, and SMU are not getting any TV money for several years, especially given one of FSU's big complaints has been less $$ than the SEC of Big 10. And I think the "new TV inventory" in the +/-7pm PT TV slot from Stanford and Cal is worth something to the ACC