There are four head coach "types", so which would be ideal?
Head coaches obviously oversee the entire football operation, but there are theoretically four types of head coaches:
1. Offense - Controls. Defense - Influences.
2. Offense - Influences. Defense - Controls.
3. Offense - Controls. Defense - Controls.
4. Offense - Influences. Defense - Influences.
"Controls" = Has assistants to support, but flat out calls the play to play shots and is the team's foremost intellectual "talent" on that side of the ball.
"Influences" = Exercises various degrees of veto power as the HC, but is not the team's foremost intellectual "talent" on that side of the ball, and defers calling the shots to an assistant.
Not too many 3s that I can think of, but I feel like Harbaugh was more of a 1 to start, then when he hired Gattis he became a 4. Ryan Day for example, is clearly a 1. Saban? Dabo?
I wonder which type of head coach is the most desirable. I would personally say a coach who brings the intellectual control/talent to one side of the ball or the other, because if they are just overseers and not in direct control over schemes, the team can lack identity from year to year as successful assistants move on to HC jobs of their own. Thus why I am not sure at this point what it is about Harbaugh that makes him desirable any more, other than running a clean program.
Thoughts on this? Curious everyone's take on which HC types have traditionally excelled and if there is a pattern there.
December 10th, 2020 at 2:08 PM ^
5) The guy that is competitive with OSU and wins the game at least 40% of the time.
December 10th, 2020 at 2:24 PM ^
"... wins the game at least 40% of the time."
Even if we "recruit Ohio" winning that game 40% of the time is not a reasonable near-term goal.
If we roll sixes on the next coach it would take a few years to get to a point where that would be realistic. The talent margin is currently huge and we're not going to get their yearly "flake" game. (Spare me the cries of "Iowa!" and "Purdue!")
December 10th, 2020 at 3:02 PM ^
Yes, and neither Iowa nor Purdue is winning 40% against OSU.
In statistics, you learn learn not to draw too many conclusions from "this has literally happened only once".
Our fanbase though is so obsessed with "BUT PURDUE DID IT ONCE WHEN OSU PLAYED WELL BELOW THEIR USUAL LEVEL SO MICHIGAN SHOULD BE ABLE TO IT ALL THE TIME" and buddy, the world does not work that way.
December 10th, 2020 at 7:04 PM ^
No, it doesn't. But no matter how we slice it, Mich should be able to beat OSU at least the same rate that Auburn beats Alabama. Since 2010, Auburn is 4-7 in that head to head rivalry, (not quite 40%.) Everyone on this board would take that record against OSU in a heartbeat.
December 10th, 2020 at 8:48 PM ^
To be fair, we’re a weird 2012 game, a 2 pt conversion, a spot, and a John O’Korn game from being 5-6. Auburn is Cam Newton, kick 6 and a shit ton of Mac Jones pick 6s away from 1-10. Just haven’t gotten the cookie to crumble our way
December 10th, 2020 at 2:26 PM ^
5) The guy that is competitive with OSU and wins the game at least 40% of the time.
I think Lloyd Carr retired in 2007.
December 10th, 2020 at 3:16 PM ^
Yeah, 40% of the time, but preferably not one that wins 6 of 7 then only 1 of the next 10.
December 10th, 2020 at 3:42 PM ^
John Cooper is a helluva drug.
December 10th, 2020 at 5:06 PM ^
That 6 of 7 would be a hell of a ride though at this point
December 10th, 2020 at 8:46 PM ^
The problem is Buckeye’s significantly raise their game in the past 10 years; Carr would not compete with the current OSU...
December 10th, 2020 at 2:27 PM ^
This requires a level of recruiting that frankly might not even be possible at Michigan. Harbaugh was recruiting close to this level for a while but our fans have been doing their best to torpedo that.
I don't see this happening without some major, damaging mistakes on OSU's part causing them to fall off at least a bit.
December 10th, 2020 at 3:34 PM ^
Really?
247 rankings overall/Big 10
2011: 30/5
2012: 6/2
2013: 4/2
2014: 20/2
Michigan-Ohio State results
2011: M win. Still counts even if Fickell was the coach.
2012: M loses by 5
2013: M loses by 1. Devin Gardner played with a broken ankle
2014: M loses by 14. Michigan was in it until Drake Harris injured his leg yet again
December 10th, 2020 at 4:06 PM ^
Lol the fans. Come visit almost any SEC state during football season. Alabama would be the best, where one fan killed another fan because he wasn't upset enough about a loss.
December 10th, 2020 at 5:11 PM ^
Fans don’t torpedo recruiting. You literally don’t know what you are talking about or could you please provide me with specifics on your experience that shows this to be the case?
December 10th, 2020 at 10:20 PM ^
Right. It's the "fans" who messed up recruiting. Got it, professor.
December 10th, 2020 at 5:36 PM ^
I upvoted you, but the 40% is on the high end right now. I'd be happy with a coach that:
**Maintains good academics and lack of scandals
**Recruits well, and in an organized and balanced fashion.
**Develops players to their ceilings
**Motivates the team so that they play well in difficult games and can pull upsets.
**Utilizes scheme and in-game coaching that is modern, tempo-driven on O (and tempo-resistant on D), and is opponent-dependent. Manages the clock well.
**Returns the program to dominance over MSU, superiority over PSU, Indiana, and Wisconsin, and competitiveness with OSU.
December 10th, 2020 at 8:24 PM ^
It's sad that we will accept 40%. 50% minimum. I want Michigan to be elite again. I won't accept a defeatist attitude.
December 10th, 2020 at 2:09 PM ^
I'll take the guy that is currently not the head coach at Michigan.
December 10th, 2020 at 2:11 PM ^
6.) A "Michigan" man.
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck THAT.
December 10th, 2020 at 2:15 PM ^
5. A coach that is results-oriented and not "process-oriented."
December 10th, 2020 at 2:17 PM ^
Trust the Process
December 10th, 2020 at 2:29 PM ^
No, absolutely not. You want a coach who is both process oriented and results oriented.
No one generates consistent results without a quality process. So when results are diminished, the coach or individual knows what he needs to change in the process.
Ex: Saban saw that the pro spread was a superior system so he brought in coaches like Kiffin to begin the transition.
There's a reason why great leaders (all-time coaches like Saban/Meyer, CEOs, successful entrepreneurs, etc.) highly prioritize the process. But the process must be flexible and adaptive.
As Darwin concluded, it is not necessarily the smartest or strongest that survive but the one most capable of adapting well to continually changing circumstances.
December 10th, 2020 at 3:17 PM ^
Concur... Most failure in organizations can be traced to an inflexible process. And face it - the managers you least want to work for are the ones that read the letter of a process, and follow it religiously and strictly.
December 10th, 2020 at 3:37 PM ^
The process is the means to an end (result), not the end itself as Harbaugh would want us to believe.
For example, you eat healthy and exercise consistently (good process) to have a healthy body (good result).
You don't eat junk and exercise haphazardly (bad process), and well who cares about the 20 lb weight gain (bad result).
It is entirely possible to be process-oriented, but if you're yielding bad results (20 lb weight gain) and say, "only the process matters," then you set yourself up for failure as Harbaugh has.
Also, which would you take: a coach with theoretically the best-processes in the world that yields actual poor results or a coach with a theoretically poor-process that yields actual good results?
That's what I mean by results oriented. Fans are not looking to see what processes went into the win, they just want the win. I don't care if Jim Harbaugh has the best processes in the world, an L is an L, and he needs to recognize that.
Also the process is defined by the result it achieves. If having a weekly pizza party yielded good results on the field for some unknown reason, people wouldn't say, "Well it's not a good process so we'll keep our good process and take the worse result instead." No, they would have weekly pizza parties.
December 10th, 2020 at 4:27 PM ^
Agreed. You really can't achieve much without a process. Excellent outcomes happen to those that have a process and are willing to adjust that process when needed.
December 10th, 2020 at 2:30 PM ^
Do you think Nick Saban or Urban Meyer achieved results without focusing obsessively on process? What you're asking for is magic, plain and simple.
December 10th, 2020 at 3:16 PM ^
The situation we are in is this ongoing "process" is not producing good results. So why should I trust the process, Mr. Harbaugh? "Wait and see" is not a good answer. It's been 6 years.
December 10th, 2020 at 3:53 PM ^
+1 Everyone should see if they can make it at their job for 6 years by failing to deliver results year after year and telling their boss, "Just trust in my great process and wait and see."
December 10th, 2020 at 4:07 PM ^
Their process was results-oriented. It's not like they focused solely on the process and ignored the results. In that case, you can develop any process.
December 10th, 2020 at 5:29 PM ^
I think #2. I believe a really good defensive coach can probably get more results from lesser talented players than an offensive coach can. Harbaugh would be a #5. Offense-clueless, defense-what? Clock management- bahahahaha
December 11th, 2020 at 9:42 AM ^
Going to push back on this one. Yes, there are people who elevate process above results (and that's bad), but typically in large complex organizations good process is how you get better results more consistently.
Harbaugh's problem is that he doesn't really have process. Everything about the program is chaotic, from recruiting and roster management to scheme and tactics. Wisconsin, by contrast, has an incredibly efficient and replicable process that allows a program with mid-tier talent to compete for conference championships every year. In other words, they get better results specifically because they have put a really strong process into place.
We need that. I mean, imagine a version of Wisconsin that *also* brings in 5-star talent at key positions.
December 10th, 2020 at 2:22 PM ^
I don't the type matters.
The real questions are is the offense/defense innovative in maximizing the players strengths and hiding their weaknesses.
If no, then I don't care if the head coach controls/influences either one.
That and lets not get student assistants killed in a windstorm by sending them up a scissors lift in 30mph winds. Lets not cover up sexual assaults. Lets not call escort services, etc.
December 10th, 2020 at 3:18 PM ^
You want a lot...
December 10th, 2020 at 2:22 PM ^
I don’t know a coach that controls both offense and defense... so realistically you have 3 options
December 10th, 2020 at 3:51 PM ^
I'm the winningest coach in my NCAA 14 dynasty doing just that. Looks like 4 options are back on the table. How silly do you feel right now?
December 10th, 2020 at 2:23 PM ^
The kind that wins a lot.
December 10th, 2020 at 2:55 PM ^
So by this metric would you prefer to keep Jim Harbaugh (college career W-L record 107-49, 0.686) over Matt Campbell (69-42, 0.621) or Luke Fickell (40-20, 0.666) ?
December 10th, 2020 at 3:20 PM ^
"...Luke Fickell (40-20, 0.666)"
His winning percentage is 666... Makes sense, given his OSU roots. If you're the religious type, you don't want this guy!
December 10th, 2020 at 2:26 PM ^
There are two head coach types. Winners and losers. And by winners, I mean guys who win the games that matter more often than not, not guys who can beat up on weaklings. Winners are preferred, but the supply of losers is far more abundant.
December 10th, 2020 at 2:29 PM ^
In college football I think you want a guy who is an offensive guru who is willing to hire the best available DC (and assistants) -- and not hire his whole staff from his group of buddies.
December 10th, 2020 at 3:00 PM ^
I would agree. I believe it's easier for an offensive coach to successfully replace a defensive coordinator (e.g., Ryan Day losing Jeff Hafley) who was hired away than it is for a defensive coach to successfully replace an offensive coordinator (e.g., Ed Orgeron losing Joe Brady).
Frankly, modern offenses are more individualized from coach to coach; even if you go from one Air Raid offense (Mike Leach) to another Air Raid offense (Lincoln Riley), they end up being wildly different systems. Meanwhile, most base defenses have at least some overlap from one system to the next (thinking of the transition from Greg Mattison's defense to Don Brown's defense in 2016).
December 10th, 2020 at 2:30 PM ^
The version of Harbaugh stunting on OSU.
December 10th, 2020 at 2:30 PM ^
All offense all the time. It isn't 1989 anymore. You have to score to win in todays game. Sure, a good defense is nice, but you aren't stopping elite teams enough to win games 10-7 anymore anyway. You have to score to win.
December 10th, 2020 at 3:18 PM ^
A match between top 10 teams are rarely this low. That being said, where are the young urban meyers lighting it up?
December 10th, 2020 at 2:50 PM ^
I break college coaching styles into three general categories:
Brain: Intellectual, analytical approach; most likely to innovate; can be cold, clinical
Heart: Inspirational, "player's coach" type; rousing locker room speeches; positive in orientation
Fist: Stern authoritarian prone to angry pointed outbursts; players fear as much as respect.
I believe that the vast majority of coaches are dominated by one of these traits, with admixtures of at least one of the others.
Schembechler: Fist dominant, but large portion of Heart
Hayes: Fist dominant, but large portion of Heart
Rodriguez: Fist, with some portion of Brain
Fritz Crisler: Brain dominant, but significant Heart
Carr: Heart, with some Brain
Saban: Fist, with some Brain
Wayne Fontes: Almost entirely Heart, little Brain or Fist
Bryant: Fist dominant, large portion of Heart
Meyer: Brain dominant, with small portion of Heart, little fist
Frank Kush: Fist over everything else
December 10th, 2020 at 5:45 PM ^
Sorry Don, entitled to your opinion but unless you knew each of these guys personally or played for them or had a son that played for them, this is useless BS. In my opinion of course.
December 10th, 2020 at 2:59 PM ^
I'd love a little more data about each of the numbers regarding who fits where. I don't watch college sports outside of Michigan any more. I spend more time looking at their stats than the games, honestly. Where does Campbell fit? Hafley? Fitzgerald? Allen? Herman?, etc. I really think any of the four can work at Michigan. The most successful coach we have had in recent memory was Carr. He was certainly a 4 with weighting toward D. In today's game, I would think Moeller is more the way to go. I remember him as 4 with weighting toward O.
December 10th, 2020 at 3:28 PM ^
I think it just depends on the coach.
I'm fine with Harbaugh being a 1 or a 4. He's a QB and has done a nice job in the past. I don't mind ball control.
Campbell I don't know what he does, where his expertise is; so that depends.
Whomever takes over I'm fairly agnostic I guess, depending on their expertise. What I think we absolutely MUST have is:
A) Can recruit.
B) Can hire, and retain for a reasonable time, good assistants
C) Is organized. I don't want to see a team where kid's don't graduate and don't do well.
D) Is able to run a disciplined, clean program*.
*I'll be honest; if we found out a booster paid a kid I'd be upset, but not angry. If there was academic misconduct I'd be upset, and disappointed, but not angry. But I never, ever want to see our team involved in a sexual or physical assault scandal.
December 10th, 2020 at 3:28 PM ^
I see the types of coaching a little bit differently. I see it in the form of coaching attributes:
-Recruiting skill: How good can you recruit/surround yourself with good recruiters/evaluators
-Program Culture Leadership: How well can you establish a program culture, discipline, NCAA rule and academic compliance. How well can you inspire. How efficient are your practices, ect.
-Staff Builder: How well can you keep, develop, identify, motivate, and hire quality assistants.
-In Game Coaching: Whether thats calling plays, clock management, knowing when to bench someone, ect.
Proficient at 1 of the 4: You are an assistant coach
Proficient at 2 of the 4: You are a good assistant coach, or a G5 coach
Proficient at 3 of the 4: You are a P5 coach
Proficient at 4 of the 4: You are an elite, Saban level coach
Now, if I could only take three of those four attributes, since elite level coaches don't grow on trees, give me Recruiting Skill, Program Culture Leadership, and Staff Building.
December 10th, 2020 at 3:37 PM ^
Congratulations! You just hired James Franklin