I've often felt that winning percentage is not a great look at how good coaches actually perform as it does not factor in a multitude of items including environment, player talent and competition. As a result I devised a formula to try and tackle some of that problem and give a more accurate portrayal of what part of the wins and losses the head coach was responsible for.
This metric, the adjusted win percentage for FBS coaches, tries to take into account at least the players that each coach is responsible for. For example when a new head coach wins in their very first year the credit only lies somewhat with them. Many of the players they are winning with were recruited by the previous staff. Often these coaches go on to not be successful in the long term. The best examples I can think of are Ed Orgeron at LSU or Gene Chizik at Auburn. Both should be noted actually had their best year a few years in, but neither lasted after a prolonged time. On the flip side new coaches often lose heavily in their first year because it takes time to recruit and install new systems and to get a full buy-in from players. Think Sabin's first year at Alabama or Bobby Petrino's first at Arkansas.
The basic thrust of the formula is this, the longer a coach has coached a team the more accountable he is for their wins and losses. The transfer portal has changed some of this in that the formula now holds coaches more accountable sooner. Gone are the days when you had four years to show some results.
Special notes, these statistics are based on fbs wins and losses only. The time period for the coaches is endless so all the coaches years are included, but it is only an evaluation of current coaches not coaches from the past.
You've got two veteran coaches in the Big 12 at the top of the Adjusted winning percentage, but it's Mike Gundy from Oklahoma State who has a slightly better percentage than Kyle Whittingham from Utah. Gundy came out with a 69.5% rate, about two points higher than Whittingham who sits in second.
The most interesting coaches on the list are likely Lance Leipold at Kansas and Gus Malzahn at UCF. Leipold has a much better Adjusted rate, 63.2%, than has traditional rate. The metric suggests that Leipold is much better than a .500 coach. Malzahn on the other hand has a lower adjusted winning percentage than his traditional suggesting that he's come into some favorable situations and isn't as good as his 65.2% mark. It should be noted though he's not far from it, still ranking 4th in the Big 12.
Check where your coach ranks below.
| Big 12 Coaches | Team | W | L | Adjusted W Pct | Traditional W Pct | Difference |
| Mike Gundy | Ok St | 157.8 | 69.3 | 69.5% | 67.8% | 1.7% |
| Kyle Whittingham | Utah | 149.6 | 71.8 | 67.6% | 67.2% | 0.4% |
| Lance Leipold | KU | 46.8 | 27.3 | 63.2% | 50.0% | 13.2% |
| Gus Malzahn | UCF | 75.0 | 44.3 | 62.9% | 65.2% | -2.3% |
| Chris Klieman | Kansas State | 35.0 | 21.5 | 61.9% | 61.9% | 0.0% |
| Kalani Sitake | BYU | 50.5 | 32 | 61.2% | 59.8% | 1.4% |
| Neal Brown | WVU | 52.8 | 33.5 | 61.2% | 59.5% | 1.7% |
| Scott Satterfield | Cincinnati | 56.3 | 36.5 | 60.6% | 60.5% | 0.1% |
| Matt Campbell | Iowa St | 66.4 | 46.0 | 59.1% | 58.3% | 0.8% |
| Sonny Dykes | TCU | 61.5 | 42.6 | 59.1% | 55.3% | 3.8% |
| Joey McGuire | Texas Tech | 11.0 | 8.5 | 56.4% | 57.7% | -1.3% |
| Willie Fritz | Houston | 48.3 | 38.8 | 55.5% | 57.1% | -1.6% |
| Dave Aranda | Baylor | 22.0 | 21.5 | 50.6% | 47.9% | 2.7% |
| Brent Brennan | Arizona | 32.0 | 32.5 | 49.6% | 41.5% | 8.1% |
| Deion Sanders | Colorado | 2.0 | 4.0 | 33.3% | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Kenny Dillingham | AZ St | 1.5 | 4.5 | 25.0% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
 |
Big 12 Kids Shirts
|
 |
| Amazon Prime Deal |
