Buff Donelli
Head Coach Pete Mangurian began his comments today at the Ivy Football Media event talking about how the second year of a new program is always where you see the most improvement.
If I've said it once, I've said it 100 times in Mangurian's general direction: "Columbia is Different."
The sooner he realizes that, the sooner I'll be more confident that he's addressing the real problems on the team.
Because 2nd year improvement is something that has eluded just about every new head coach at Columbia since Lou Little retired.
Let's look at the numbers:
Buff Donelli
1st year 1957: 1-9 (shut out three times)
2nd year 1958: 1-9 (shut out seven times)
Frank Navarro
1st year 1968: 2-7
2nd year 1969: 1-8
Bill Campbell
1st year 1974: 1-8
2nd year 1975: 2-7
Bob Naso
1st year 1980: 1-9
2nd year: 1981: 1-9
Jim Garrett
N/A (only coached one year)
Larry McElreavy
1st year 1986: 0-10
2nd year 1987: 0-10
Ray Tellier
1st year 1989: 1-9
2nd year 1990: 1-9
Bob Shoop
1st year 2003: 4-6
2nd year 2004: 1-9
Norries Wilson
1st year 2006: 5-5
2nd year 2007: 1-9
So, other than Campbell, it seems every team under new coaches at CU over the last 45 years has been more likely to be worse in its second year than its first.
I know, not so encouraging.
If I knew the reason why this is true for Columbia and not so much for other programs, I'd say so. But if I were Mangurian, I'd be careful to identify this problem.
You can't assume anything here.
This is Columbia.
We're different.
Please coach accordingly.
15 comments:
When will we see a transcript of the Ivy Media Day ???
Should be available soon...
Jake,
I know enough math to agree that 2 of 7 is better than 1 of 9. But please forgive me for not being impressed that Bill Campbell's second year was really any better than his first year.
You are really depressing me with the facts about CU's football results over these many years. We used to really stink. I hope and pray that we change that THIS YEAR!!
GO LIONS!!
Yeah, that's the point. In Campbell's defense, the Lions went 0-7 in the Ivies in '74 and 2-5 in '75.
I know we all want to win, but I would settle for consistent improvement over the next 3 years ... a lot this year hinges on O-line and QB play ... what would represent an improvement over last year ??? ... 4 wins, 5 wins, 6 wins ??? ... and which teams will we have a shot at beating ... I'd be interested in hearing what each of you think ...
Jake, I hope you are wrong. If being different is an excuse for lousy football I don't buy it. It is the assumption we are different that has to change. Boretti probably doesn't think we're different, unless different means better.
Different can absolutely mean better. But our situation has to be handled differently than just about any other school. I think some things are taken for granted by new staffs that shouldn't be. Mangurian, I hope, gets that and will keep getting it, hopefully faster than his predecessors.
Not your intent, I realize, but your 2nd year coaching stat stands as a prime example of a mis-directed thought exercise that has absolutely no predictive value.
All hope springs in August ... to be realized this fall.
Leonlion
I didn't mean it as a prediction, but as a historical clarification.
And for the record, I do think Columbia will be BETTER this year... but I'm not sure it'll show in the W-L column.
As I said, not your intent. How many of us need more clarity about history?
Leonlion
Well, again in all fairness, some of our past coaches have had success after some time. Donelli started to get things going in 1960 and the championship came a year later. Tellier got Wiley and Wilfork, figured out how to use them right and had a good year 6 thru 8. Norries' best team was the 2009 squad that got so badly injury depleted that it still only scratched out four wins.
From Donelli to Wilson, all of our coaches have had less success throughout than we care to think about. I was in the stands at Harvard and wondered what the hell. The following week, I was at Baker for the Cornell game and wondered how the hell.
It's August. Time to expect improved offensive line play .... more depth at key positions .... smarter play calling ... better tackling ... etc.
Leonlion
I couldn't agree more that there is nothing to be gained in examining the records of past coaches. As depressing as the second-year performance of Columbia coaches may be, nothing can match these two coaching historical tidbits :
1. During the years (1870-1898) when Columbia had NO COACH, the team had a winning percentage of 0.323. Not a single coach, not even Donelli, since Lou Little retired in 1956, has been able to match this record.
2. Jim Garrett could not surpass the team's record during the years (1906-1914) when football was ABOLISHED.
Jake puts it very well. The team will be better but this may not (will not) show in W-L.
Harvard loss, Cornell win. It's not unusual for a "bad" team to play well after a blowout loss. Sometimes getting blown out can take the pressure off and a team plays looser.
Also, a "bad" team will do things like this: lose games they should win, win games they should lose, get blown out, then pull an upset. Terrible teams just always lose. But the bad team mentality is difficult to break out of. A lot of it is the coaching. Good luck.
Post a Comment