I track MAC coaches based on a simple formula that uses long term changes compared to prior years in Sagarins, and which eliminates me having personal bias. The way it currently ranks the MAC coaches:
1. Golden, Temple - 3.59 Five years
2. Kill, NIU - 2.38 Three years
3. Beckman, Toledo - 2.06 second year
4. Solich, Ohio - 1.33 six years
5. Martin, Ken - (.17) fired after seven years
6. Cubit, WMU - (.37) six years
7. Clawson, BUGS - (1.03) second year
8. Haywood, Miami - (1.23) second year
9. English, EMU - (4.10) second year
10. Enos, CMU - (6.91) first year
11. Parrish, Ball State - (7.23) fired after two years
12. Quinn, Buffalo - (15.73) first year
13. Ianollo, Akron - (18.13) first year
On this index, coaches often start out negative, and then see their numbers improve in years 2-3 if they can make sustainable progress. Normally it takes 2-4 years before you really know how a coach is going to do. Parrish had a very bad first year (rating was -13.27), and the second year the team was rated lower yet, so I would have been surprised if he was retained. Quinn and Ianollo had similarly bad first years, and if they don't do better next year, they may be out, that is, if they even get a second year. With Akron having the worst team ever in their history, Ianollo may be gone after one (though I hope they keep him on). At Buffalo, Quinn has only returned Buffalo where they were prior to Gill, so he may get another year. Enos and English may both be feeling some heat if they don't have better years next year. With Haywood and Clawson, the next couple years will tell how good they are.
At the other extreme, anyone with a rating better than 1 is a candidate for a better job. Recent examples were Hoke and Kelly. You have to be surprised that Golden hasn't had an offer yet. Kill and Beckman could also be candidates, but may need to add another year or two to their resume. Solich's age would probably limit any offers he might get.
In the middle, Cubit and Martin are solid coaches that have shown they can be competitive at their current level, but who aren't building so much as sustaining. Sooner or later their AD must decide if that level is adequate or not. In Martin's case the answer was no.
For historical purposes, I went back and computed numbers for Knorr and Solich:
Year 1 - Knorr (6.2), Solich (.98)
Year 2 - Knorr (4.2), Solich 3.06
Year 3 - Knorr (1.7), Solich 2.31
Year 4 - Knorr (1.7), Solich 1.26
If you didn't enjoy Knorr's negative 6.2 and 4.2, imagine how Ball State fans felt after -13.27 and -7.23.
Last Edited: 11/23/2010 4:39:51 PM by L.C.