We often define bad coaching in terms of wins and losses, and of course vice versa. I realize at times a coach makes such glaring errors that one can criticize him specifically, but often we just go with the W/L thing.
This strikes me as somewhat circular. Urban is a great coach because he wins more often than he loses. Of course were he at say Utah or BGSU he might not, well, strike that one.
But a coach is also subject to his environment, his ability to recruit, who is on his schedule, and whether things fall his way, things like injuries, Hail Marys, turnovers (which are largely random events IMHO).
I view Nick Saban as more of a program manager, a CEO type, and a very good one obviously, but he also has some inherent advantages. As many note, he was so-so at Michigan State. Perhaps he learned from that. I'd guess we have some great coaches out there at lesser known programs who don't get recognition. Maybe they have to pay their dues to move up from Eastern Montana State to Wyoming to Colorado State to UCLA. And maybe at some point through no fault of their own, they hit a bad streak and don't get that promotion.
Wisconsin has lost a few coaches and they are still doing quite well, despite not having all those Five Star guys lined up to play. Are they just good at finding coaches? Maybe their AD is really good, as opposed to say the one at LSU.
UGA MAY have tumbled to a smart hire, obviously way too early on that front. The guy they fired was 10-3 and 9-3 in the preceding seasons, and is doing well now at Miami it would seem.
I guess my "point" if there is one is that the W:L percentage over a shorter period of time may not accurately reflect having a great coach. It might reflect variables out of the control of the HC and staff.
Either way, I see an unusual number of SEC programs with a lot of money about to be throwing said money at an apparently smallish pool of talent.
