Another terrific piece. What I so appreciate about your work, is that you put data and rigor around what are often just observations and intuition. College coaches "seemed" to struggle at the professional level - but now we know.
As I am apt to do, I will offer a few additional thoughts as to why this might be so. For starters, talent certainly matters (see Chuck Daly and Barry Switzer). Also, college coaches making the jump tend to take on struggling franchises. So, in many cases the die is cast before the contract is signed. Beyond that, as you reference, while there is some truth in the saying "it's not the X's and O's but the Jimmy's and Joe's" college programs are becoming more like their professional counterparts, making for somewhat easier transitions.
However, a crucial differentiator is the ability to quickly build effective partnerships and consensus inside the building with a wide array of constituencies. The higher up you go, the more EQ matters as much as IQ. This can be an enormous challenge for many highly touted college coaches who have operated what are essentially fiefdoms at their schools where their every wish is somebody else's command.
That's not happening in the pros. You have owners, investors, multiple front office personalities, star players, powerful agents, and a ravenous media. LA is especially challenging. Not only is AD aging and LeBron and Klutch Sports a handful, but Jeanie Buss is reportedly among the least wealthy of NBA owners, Rob Pelinka and others have a strong hand in decision-making, a notoriously engaged local media covers every real or imagined development and even Magic Johnson is an occasional advisor. The LA ecosystem is way tougher than the one in Connecticut. Way tougher and requiring different skills.
The experience of Jim Harbaugh is instructive. Harbaugh became the HC in San Francisco after two disastrous 49er stints with Mike Singletary and Jim Tomsula. He also found immediate success in the NFL after having success at Stanford - making the difficult decision to switch starting quarterbacks, winning games, gaining accolades, and even making it to the Super Bowl. Impressive accomplishments all.
Yet, going into only year four Harbaugh was already on the way out. Some of it was that his Friday Night Lights motivational shtick had become tiresome with veteran players (some even suggesting that his style was better suited for college football with its constant influx of new young players), but most of it was a reportedly contentious relationship with GM Trent Baalke which the media often characterized as a "power struggle." He wound up back at college and successful again... yet seemed to still lack the political acumen necessary to navigate treacherous waters beyond Ann Arbor.
We'll see what this trip to the NFL brings in LA, but while Harbaugh has been very good at X's and O's along with the Jimmy's and Joe's, he has appeared less adept at deftly handing authority as one would hope and instead quickly rubbing others the wrong way. Success only buys you so much cover.
At the other end of the spectrum lies Brad Stevens. A great, quiet, and humble college coach at a smaller Indiana school with an even smaller sports budget. Stevens quickly found success in the NBA at notoriously tough and demanding Boston. After 8 years, Stevens was out too - only this time to become the Celtics' GM. His ascension and success at that new role is a testament of his ability to navigate internal political waters and build consensus as much as it was his in-game rotations and substitutions.
The NBA is a completely new gig complete with a whole set of new challenges and demands. Success at this level requires new skills that many college coaches haven't had to develop in their prior roles. Some adapt and make it, many others do not as your data shows.
Predictions are tough, but one key directional indicator here is to ponder whether Dan Hurley strikes you as more like Jim Harbaugh or Brad Stevens?
Another terrific piece. What I so appreciate about your work, is that you put data and rigor around what are often just observations and intuition. College coaches "seemed" to struggle at the professional level - but now we know.
As I am apt to do, I will offer a few additional thoughts as to why this might be so. For starters, talent certainly matters (see Chuck Daly and Barry Switzer). Also, college coaches making the jump tend to take on struggling franchises. So, in many cases the die is cast before the contract is signed. Beyond that, as you reference, while there is some truth in the saying "it's not the X's and O's but the Jimmy's and Joe's" college programs are becoming more like their professional counterparts, making for somewhat easier transitions.
However, a crucial differentiator is the ability to quickly build effective partnerships and consensus inside the building with a wide array of constituencies. The higher up you go, the more EQ matters as much as IQ. This can be an enormous challenge for many highly touted college coaches who have operated what are essentially fiefdoms at their schools where their every wish is somebody else's command.
That's not happening in the pros. You have owners, investors, multiple front office personalities, star players, powerful agents, and a ravenous media. LA is especially challenging. Not only is AD aging and LeBron and Klutch Sports a handful, but Jeanie Buss is reportedly among the least wealthy of NBA owners, Rob Pelinka and others have a strong hand in decision-making, a notoriously engaged local media covers every real or imagined development and even Magic Johnson is an occasional advisor. The LA ecosystem is way tougher than the one in Connecticut. Way tougher and requiring different skills.
The experience of Jim Harbaugh is instructive. Harbaugh became the HC in San Francisco after two disastrous 49er stints with Mike Singletary and Jim Tomsula. He also found immediate success in the NFL after having success at Stanford - making the difficult decision to switch starting quarterbacks, winning games, gaining accolades, and even making it to the Super Bowl. Impressive accomplishments all.
Yet, going into only year four Harbaugh was already on the way out. Some of it was that his Friday Night Lights motivational shtick had become tiresome with veteran players (some even suggesting that his style was better suited for college football with its constant influx of new young players), but most of it was a reportedly contentious relationship with GM Trent Baalke which the media often characterized as a "power struggle." He wound up back at college and successful again... yet seemed to still lack the political acumen necessary to navigate treacherous waters beyond Ann Arbor.
We'll see what this trip to the NFL brings in LA, but while Harbaugh has been very good at X's and O's along with the Jimmy's and Joe's, he has appeared less adept at deftly handing authority as one would hope and instead quickly rubbing others the wrong way. Success only buys you so much cover.
At the other end of the spectrum lies Brad Stevens. A great, quiet, and humble college coach at a smaller Indiana school with an even smaller sports budget. Stevens quickly found success in the NBA at notoriously tough and demanding Boston. After 8 years, Stevens was out too - only this time to become the Celtics' GM. His ascension and success at that new role is a testament of his ability to navigate internal political waters and build consensus as much as it was his in-game rotations and substitutions.
The NBA is a completely new gig complete with a whole set of new challenges and demands. Success at this level requires new skills that many college coaches haven't had to develop in their prior roles. Some adapt and make it, many others do not as your data shows.
Predictions are tough, but one key directional indicator here is to ponder whether Dan Hurley strikes you as more like Jim Harbaugh or Brad Stevens?