[This Monday Morning Quarterback Guest Turkey editorial contribution was originally received as a comment, but I felt that it was an appropriate post for discussion fodder. —TNT] [Read more…]
(John Baranowski is a new contributor to The Nittany Turkey. Please enjoy his article and comment on it with no holds barred, as you would with me! —TNT)
There is an axiom in sports that it is better to be the coach who follows the coach that followed a coaching legend rather than the coach who followed the coaching legend. I would venture to guess that Bill O’Brien and Lane Kiffin would concur with that notion.
There was no doubt that whoever followed Joe Paterno as Penn State head coach at Penn State would certainly have big shoes to fill. O’Brien went 15-9 in two seasons and bolted for the NFL. Kiffin at USC had a 28-15 record following Pete Carroll’s record of 97-19. Kiffin’s .651 winning percentage wasn’t enough to keep him from being fired not after losing nearly as many games in less than four years than Carroll did in nine. Beginning this season, Penn State’s new head coach James Franklin and Steve Sarkisian at USC will have the opportunity to test that coaching axiom. But how true is it really?
Looking at examples that support the axiom, in 1931, Hunk Anderson had the unenviable task of following Knute Rockne as head coach at Notre Dame. Anderson’s 16-9-2 record with a winning percentage of .630 at many schools would be welcome but not following Rockne’s coaching record of 105-12-5. In three seasons, Anderson lost nearly as many games as Rockne did in 13. Rockne’s winning percentage of .881 just happens to rank first among Division I coaches all-time. Good luck following that. Elmer Layden, the coach who took over after Anderson, had a 47-13-3 record. This was more to Irish fans’ liking.
At the University of Florida during the ‘90s, the Fun ‘N Gun offense was in full force as Steve Spurrier won 122 games in 12 seasons and racked up a winning percentage of .817. His successor, Ron Zook, lasted only three seasons going 23-14 and that set the stage for Urban Meyer. Meyer in six seasons as Florida’s head coach won 65 games and two national championships and had a winning percentage of .813.
The situation at the University of Alabama was slightly different. One can say that the shadow cast by Bear Bryant affected the next two men that succeeded him or at the very least set a near impossible standard to follow. In 25 seasons, Bryant won 232 games with a winning percentage of .824. Ray Perkins could relate to Anderson at Notre Dame as Perkins lasted only four seasons as his teams compiled a 32-15-1 record for a .677 winning percentage. That is not nearly good enough at Alabama, particularly after following the Bear.
Bill Curry followed Perkins and even with a 26-10 record and a .722 winning percentage, Curry lasted only three seasons. Gene Stallings followed Curry and despite having a slightly lesser winning percentage than Curry, .713 to .722, Stallings lasted seven seasons, no doubt aided by winning a national championship in 1992.
At Michigan, it was an interesting situation as well. Following Lloyd Carr proved to be more difficult than following Bo Schembechler. Schembechler paced the sidelines in Ann Arbor for 21 years and amassed a 194-48-5 record for a winning percentage of .796.
Following Schembechler was not going to be easy. Gary Moeller did so for five seasons, winning three conference titles, and had a winning percentage of .758. Moeller resigned in May of 1995 and the head coaching job now belonged to Carr. Carr won five conference titles in 13 seasons and a national championship in 1997, Michigan’s first since 1948. Carr’s head coaching record was 122-40 for a .753 winning percentage.
Rich Rodriquez, “a non-Michigan man” succeeded Carr. Rodriquez brought a radically different offensive mindset to Ann Arbor and some might say a non-defensive mindset as well. After three seasons and a 15-22 record, Rodriquez was replaced.
There are numerous examples where a coaching legend’s successor did well but the following coach did not.
Perhaps a long-time successful coach creates such a well-oiled machine that it helps facilitate success for his immediate successor but by the time the next head coach comes along, significant fall-off begins.
John McKay at USC compiled a 127-40-8 record for a winning percentage of .749. One would think trying to match McKay’s winning percentage would have been very difficult. However, John Robinson nearly did just that succeeding McKay. Robinson’s record was 104-35-4 for a winning percentage of .741.
The fall-off at USC came following Robinson under Ted Tollner. Tollner, in four seasons from 1983 to 1986, went 26-20-1 for a winning percentage of .564. That is not going to cut it at USC.
Another example was at the University of Texas where Darrell Royal became a coaching legend winning 167 games losing 47 with five ties for a winning percentage of .774 over 20 seasons. His successor, Fred Akers, was 86-31-2 for a .731 winning rate over the next 10 seasons.
The fall-off in Austin came following Akers. David McWilliams managed only a 31-26 record over the next five seasons for a .544 winning percentage.
Meanwhile in Norman, Oklahoma, Chuck Fairbanks won 77% of his games compiling a 52-15-1 record. His successor, Barry Switzer, took that to an even higher level winning nearly 84% of his games with a record of 157-29-4. Switzer’s successor, Gary Gibbs, managed only 44 wins over the next six seasons going 44-23-2 from 1989-1994.
At Notre Dame, Ara Parseghian’s .836 winning percentage from 1964-1974 was followed by Dan Devine who produced a .764 winning percentage. Following Devine, who was under a hot seat following Parseghian until he won a national championship in 1977, proved too much for Gerry Faust. Faust’s 30-26-1 record just was not good enough for Notre Dame.
Then enters Lou Holtz, the last head coach to lead the Fighting Irish national championship in 1988, and his coaching record at Notre Dame was 100-30-2.
Succeeding Holtz was Bob Davie and then Ty Willingham, and each had an identical .583 winning percentage in their short tenures as Notre Dame’s head coach.
Tom Osborne roamed the sidelines as Nebraska’s head coach for 25 years, compiling a 255-49-3 record and a winning percentage of .836. Following the legendary Osborne would not be easy.
Keep in mind that Osborne followed Bob Devaney who won national titles in 1970 and 1971 and had a 101-20-2 record in 11 seasons and a winning percentage of .829.
Osborne was succeeded by Frank Solich in 1998 and in six seasons Solich won 58 games losing only 19 for a .753 winning percentage and was fired by then Nebraska Athletic Director Steve Pederson. Pederson hired Bill Callahan and over the next four years, Nebraska went 27-22-0, which definitely did not sit well with Husker fans.
So perhaps more importantly than simply being the coach who follows the coach that replaced a coaching legend, it is more important to have the right coach for the job. Nittany Lion and Trojan fans hope and believe they do.
John Baranowski is a Sports Historian and contributor to newspapers, sports publications and sports websites.
The words of AD Tim Curley in response to Joe Paterno’s declaration that he’ll return to the sidelines to coach in 2011 might suggest that the administration doesn’t quite feel the same way.
“We’re glad to hear of Coach Paterno’s excitement for next season. We share his optimism about the team’s potential, and look forward to our annual postseason discussion with Coach Paterno about next year.”
Sort of sounds like what you would tell someone who called you about a recommendation for someone you recently canned, doesn’t it? Don’t say anything for which you can later be held accountable. Waffle, waffle, waffle — IHOP should produce as many! Joe’s superiors are not looking forward to his return, just to the post-season discussion. Not much to look forward to there. They already know the script. Joe tells them what he’ll be doing and they congratulate him.
There might be nothing to it at all. Curley, after all, represents the administration on this issue, one that at least officially has not been decided yet. President Spanier and the Board of Trustees haven’t had time to weigh in on the subject, either, since Paterno opened his mouth. Lacking an official position by the university, Curley couldn’t publicly confirm or deny Paterno’s return. He squirmed like a man put on the spot.
Paterno had no reason not to say what he said. His contract extends through next year, so why wouldn’t he be looking forward to coaching the team? Viewed in this light, Curley’s equivocation could be meaningful, because the BOT, Spanier, and he all know about Joe’s contract.
Frankly, I think Curley is being coy just because he is a mealy-mouthed administrator in CYA Mode, and it is merely rumor mongering to read between the lines.
Our rampant speculation leading up to last year’s annual post-season discussion was defused when the three-year contract was announced. Paterno’s situation did not come up again until the summer, when he battled an intestinal virus that led to weight loss, cancelled speeches, and general observable debilitation, leading to speculation — at least by one reporter — that the venerable head coach might not even make it through the season. Once the 2010 season kicked off, much of that unfounded speculation was laid to rest. After the unexpected loss to Illinois, the drums grew louder once again. A couple of wins muted them a bit. Now, as usual after a worse than expected season, the “Joe Must Go” crowd, the reporters who must invent news to keep readers interested, and this Turkey are recontemplating our respective navels while formulating scenarios for Paterno’s demise as head coach and choosing his subsequent replacement. Given that there have been innumerable false alarms dating back to even before the dreaded “Dark Years”, it is certainly possible that those who see significance in Curley’s careful evasion will be disappointed once again.
I can’t take credit for unearthing Curley’s quote and perhaps overreacting to it. Phil Mushnick of the New York Post did that on Sunday. You can decide whether Curley is sending a signal by what he didn’t say. Read his take here.