I would imagine that the Syracuse seat is pretty warm. not the greatest non conference for them. won't be any easier in conference play
Georgia just lost at Kennesaw St (2-1) Bulldogs tied it up at 54.29 Owls scored the game winner...12 seconds later?!?!?! Georgia was caught off-sides five times (Kennesaw zero) http://stats.statbroadcast.com/broadcast/?id=223111 Georgia is now 3-3-2 (with Arkansas coming to Athens on Thursday) Big win for Coach Benji Walton Kennesaw is now 7-1 for the season with a couple more games before the A-Sun conference schedule starts
UGA looked really really bad. Their midfield was dominated by KSU. That does not bode well as they move into conference play.
She's in her first year. No chance that seats warm. Plus she took over in the summer. Not much she can change
Wasn't this the program that the kids went into the new AD's office and complained about a veteran coach? AD makes a change to make kids happy. You think those players are happy now?
Oregon State has to be on his final season. 1-6 start with Portland and then the Pac-12 season on the horizon. Do they win another game? Hasn't had a winning season there since 2012.
UGA is average at best, not much quality anywhere on the field. Conference play in the SEC is going to be interesting overall anyway. UF is losing to UCF 3-0 as we speak which would put them at 2-5-1. Coach better be a good recruiter, JU isn't a great school academically there is not much left of a team there.
Hot seat- Syracuse Colorado State Georgia Michigan State Marshall Oklahoma Oregon Oregon State Pacific (CA) Seton Hall St. Bonaventure Temple Tulsa LSU (6-1, weak non conference schedule, SEC games could be the deciding factor?) App State Akron Canisius Charleston Southern Georgia Southern Grand Canyon IPFW Lafayette Louisiana – Lafayette Robert Morris Saint Peter's Kentucky- IMO getting warm, and will be hot next year if things don’t change this season. Davidson- is a unique situation, but will be heading towards the hot list if things don’t start to improve.
You guys crack me up with your calls, or suggestions, to put new coaches on the hot seat. The mere suggestion shows you know little about the collegiate game and intricacies within it. Ms. Colhoff was a good hire for NIU. She is currently working with and coaching athletes that she did not recruit. Her efforts in recruiting and coaching will not begin to come to fruition until near the end of her second year at NIU and into her third year. She has extensive contacts within Chicagoland and will start to get some good local talent. To answer your dumb question; yes, it's too early - far too early.
I think it's likely it takes even more time than that for a coach to make a program her or his own. A program's reputation, whether good or poor, can take a long time to change, my best estimate being it takes about 8 years to fully be free of a prior coach's (or prior coaches') influence on that reputation. And, the reputation influences things like recruiting. You might be able to get a sense of how a coach is doing earlier than that, maybe even quickly in unusual cases, but it takes time for a new coach to show what she or he can do.
While I can’t speak to the coach being referred to, this “8 year litmus test” reads like it was written by an underperforming, mediocre, or bad coach. Every coach inherits the prior person’s players and is expected to get the most out of them. It starts with talent, does a coach inherit any? If yes, are they getting the most out of that talent? Are they putting them in a system to succeed or at least be competitive? Can they develop players and take them to the next level of their abilities? If they’re not, they’re not a good coach. Along the way yes, they recruit players that fit a system or team vision or style of play the coach values. Using the methodology mentioned above , coaches could only be evaluated every 8-10 years. It doesn’t take anywhere near that long to determine if someone can coach or not. If Anson retired this year, for example, the next coach should absolutely be expected to have a healthy measure of success because that roster is loaded.
It was obviously tongue in cheek; new coach won’t be on the hot seat yet. But it’s a pretty bleak beginning. Looking at the way she has began this is a program that is destined to go downhill. And that’s saying something considering the program has been pretty poor.
On the "not" side, Anson's a great example. How long do you think his aura will last after he retires? Or, to put it differently, how long would it be before you really could evaluate the new coach for what he or she can do without having the benefit of the institutional good will that is associated with him? Good will created by a coach sticks around and affects a program for a long time. The question for a coach who follows Anson will not be how the coach does in the first bunch of years after Anson retires. It may look, for a number of years, like she or he "can coach." It will be how the coach does after Anson's aura has completely worn off -- about eight years is the period I've come up with. That's when you find out whether she or he can coach "or not." On the "can coach" side, it really depends on how much damage the prior coach has done. How long will it take a new coach to get the program out from under the cloud of that damage? I suspect that you can get a sense of whether the coach can turn a program in a positive direction fairly early. But, how far can the coach take the program? Again, it depends on how the coach does after the predecessor's aura (this time negative) has worn off. How long does a strong negative aura last? For now, I go with a mirror image of eight years. Maybe we should be watching Pittsburgh?
Creighton University should be on fire, they might not win a game the rest of season in the Big East. Coach is a legend from his playing days but the program has gotten worse since he took over. Syracuse Colorado State Georgia Michigan State Marshall Oklahoma Oregon Oregon State Pacific (CA) Seton Hall St. Bonaventure Temple Tulsa LSU (6-1, weak non conference schedule, SEC games could be the deciding factor?) App State Akron Canisius Charleston Southern Georgia Southern Grand Canyon IPFW Lafayette Louisiana – Lafayette Robert Morris Saint Peter's Kentucky- IMO getting warm, and will be hot next year if things don’t change this season. Davidson- is a unique situation, but will be heading towards the hot list if things don’t start to improve.[/QUOTE]
Most here in Georgia would like to see changes at Georgia, Georgia Southern and eventually Georgia State. Too much talent in the state for these programs to be this bad.
[/QUOTE] Loss to Eastern Michigan and 3 wins against Summit League teams (all 1 goal difference). They were down 1-4 against UMKC until a very late goal and were totally outplayed. Last year they finished 4-11-3, but on a positive note instead of losing the the South Dakota teams, this year they beat them. Hope things turn around in the next few weeks, but not looking too promising.
Since this and the 2017 Hot Seat threads have covered the new hires for the current 2018 season, and since there have been various comments pro and con those hires, the table below provides some data on how the coaches have done. The table is based on the system I described in a post about two weeks ago, but here's a repeat explanation of the system. 1. I assign each team a simulated rating for next year. The simulated rating is based on the team's long term trend (last eight years) and its more recent performance (last two years). It's not a predictor of how teams will do this year, but rather a description of how teams will do if they continue in their historic directions. 2. With each team having a simulated rating, I then determine, for each game after adjusting the rating for home field advantage, who the winner should be or, if the ratings are close enough, if the game should be a tie. This then shows what each team's current record should be, if it and its opponents continue in their historic directions. The system then gives the team 3 points for a win and 1 for a tie, similar to what is done to determine a team's standing within its conference. 3. The system also shows what each team's current record actually is. And, it again gives the team 3 points for a win and 1 for a tie. 4. The system then determines the difference between the points a team actually has achieved and what the simulation says the team should have achieved. A positive number means the team actually has done better than what historic directions say it should have done and a negative number means the team has done more poorly. The system doesn't explain why a team has done better or more poorly. Is it the new coach? Is it the situation left by the previous coach? Is it simply good or bad luck? Rather, the system simply says whether it has done better or more poorly. We're roughly 1/3 of the way through the regular season. Here's what the numbers show for this year's new coaches: PS - The North Alabama and Cal Baptist simulated ratings are based on where Kenneth Massey's system has them ranked among all college soccer teams. For each of them, I found the Division I team Massey ranked closest to it and assigned it that team's 2017 ARPI rating. Massey's rating system, I believe, is the best one out there, so I think the simulated ratings I assigned to them are reasonable.
Oy. Norman's worse than I thought. I thought the guy was just clearly in over his head as demonstrated by the amount of talent he has and the poor start, but he's at the bottom of the list, one away from dead last at a -9. He's on track to do the least with most unless he turns this around.