Thursday, August 15, 2024

Top 25 Coaches in Adjusted Win Percentage


 

We've been rolling out the adjusted win percentage metric over the past couple weeks conference by conference, but now it's time to look at the coaches from the national perspective. We're highlighting just the top 25 here, but check the bottom of the post for the whole list. So without further ado here is the top 25 fbs football coaches with adjusted win percentage.

RankCoachTeamWLAdjusted W PctTraditional W PctDifferenceConference
1Sherrone MooreMichigan0.10.0100.0%100.0%0.0%B10
2Kirby SmartGeorgia78.7510.588.2%85.5%2.7%SEC
3Ryan DayOhio State46.97.586.2%87.5%-1.3%B10
4Curt CignettiIndiana15.02.585.7%82.6%3.1%B10
5Jon SumrallTulane17.03.085.0%85.2%-0.2%AAC
6Dan LanningOregon17.03.582.9%81.5%1.4%B10
7Dabo SwinneyClemson154.332.182.8%79.8%3.0%ACC
8Kalen DeboerAlabama306.582.2%80.4%1.8%SEC
9LIncoln RileyUSC53.514.079.3%80.4%-1.1%B10
10Luke FickellWisconsin53.815.877.3%69.6%7.7%B10
11Jeff TraylorUTSA35.511.575.5%73.6%1.9%AAC
12Jamey ChadwellLiberty42.014.075.0%69.3%5.7%CUSA
13Spencer DanielsonBoise State0.80.375.0%75.0%0.0%MW
14Brian KellyLSU1424874.7%72.9%1.8%SEC
15Marcus FreemanNotre Dame14.55.2573.4%70.4%3.0%Ind
16Rhett LashleeSMU14.56.070.7%66.7%4.0%ACC
17James FranklinPenn State88.837.570.3%67.5%2.8%B10
18Billy NapierFlorida37.2515.7570.3%66.2%4.1%SEC
19Mike NorvellFlorida State54.523.370.1%67.6%2.5%ACC
20Josh HeupelTennessee4117.7569.8%73.3%-3.5%SEC
21Mack BrownUNC252.0109.569.7%65.7%4.0%ACC
22Mike GundyOk St157.869.369.5%67.8%1.7%B12
23Lane KiffinOle Miss64.753068.3%66.2%2.1%SEC
24Kyle WhittinghamUtah149.671.867.6%67.2%0.4%B12
25Brent VenablesOklahoma136.566.7%61.5%5.2%SEC



Technically Sherrone Moore is leading the way, but with an extremely small sample size. That should change by the end of this year. The next coach on the list though is likely to stay there and no doubt he deserves it after the job he's done at Georgia. Kirby Smart has made the Bulldogs once again a dynasty and that is reflected here in his adjusted winning percentage. Smart has an adjusted win rate of 88.2%, 2.7 percentage points higher than his traditional. This means that Smart's program has gotten better the longer he's been there despite the fact that Georgia was a very good program when they hired him. 

The Big 10 also looks dominant with four of the top six coaches on this list. However, if we take a deeper look at that, two are likely to change. Moore, who we already referenced, has one collegiate game under his belt. Cignetti, who was dominant at James Madison, is now at Indiana and facing a whole different level of competition. 

The Big 10 has seven coaches here in the top 25. The SEC also equals that mark. The ACC has four teams. The Big 12 and American conference both only have two. Conference USA, the Mountain West and Independents each have one. 

Note: Coaches who have not coached an FBS game yet are not included on this list. The adjusted win percentage is based on a coaches win/loss record with consideration for when a coach first begins at a program. Basically a coaches records their first few years with a program are not given as much weight as their later years. 

Amazon Prime Free Trial








The entire list of coaches is below:

RankCoachTeamWLAdjusted W PctTraditional W PctDifferenceConference
1Sherrone MooreMichigan0.10.0100.0%100.0%0.0%B10
2Kirby SmartGeorgia78.7510.588.2%85.5%2.7%SEC
3Ryan DayOhio State46.97.586.2%87.5%-1.3%B10
4Curt CignettiIndiana15.02.585.7%82.6%3.1%B10
5Jon SumrallTulane17.03.085.0%85.2%-0.2%AAC
6Dan LanningOregon17.03.582.9%81.5%1.4%B10
7Dabo SwinneyClemson154.332.182.8%79.8%3.0%ACC
8Kalen DeboerAlabama306.582.2%80.4%1.8%SEC
9LIncoln RileyUSC53.514.079.3%80.4%-1.1%B10
10Luke FickellWisconsin53.815.877.3%69.6%7.7%B10
11Jeff TraylorUTSA35.511.575.5%73.6%1.9%AAC
12Jamey ChadwellLiberty42.014.075.0%69.3%5.7%CUSA
13Spencer DanielsonBoise State0.80.375.0%75.0%0.0%MW
14Brian KellyLSU1424874.7%72.9%1.8%SEC
15Marcus FreemanNotre Dame14.55.2573.4%70.4%3.0%Ind
16Rhett LashleeSMU14.56.070.7%66.7%4.0%ACC
17James FranklinPenn State88.837.570.3%67.5%2.8%B10
18Billy NapierFlorida37.2515.7570.3%66.2%4.1%SEC
19Mike NorvellFlorida State54.523.370.1%67.6%2.5%ACC
20Josh HeupelTennessee4117.7569.8%73.3%-3.5%SEC
21Mack BrownUNC252.0109.569.7%65.7%4.0%ACC
22Mike GundyOk St157.869.369.5%67.8%1.7%B12
23Lane KiffinOle Miss64.753068.3%66.2%2.1%SEC
24Kyle WhittinghamUtah149.671.867.6%67.2%0.4%B12
25Brent VenablesOklahoma136.566.7%61.5%5.2%SEC
26Tim AlbinOhio21.511.565.2%59.0%6.2%MAC
27Hugh FreezeAuburn6333.7565.1%64.0%1.1%SEC
28PJ FleckMinnesota66.035.864.9%58.8%6.1%B10
29Bronco MendenhallNew Mexico115.362.864.7%62.5%2.2%MW
30Tom HermanFAU31.517.364.6%65.9%-1.3%AAC
31Kirk FerentzIowa192.0105.864.5%62.2%2.3%B10
32Shawn ClarkApp State29.816.564.3%66.0%-1.7%Sunbelt
33Jason CandleToledo50.129.063.3%65.0%-1.7%MAC
34Lance LeipoldKU46.827.363.2%50.0%13.2%B12
35Gus MalzahnUCF75.044.362.9%65.2%-2.3%B12
36Dave DoerenNC State81.348.562.6%62.7%-0.1%ACC
37Rich RodriguezJacksonville St.94.856.862.5%59.3%3.2%CUSA
38Eliah DrinkwitzMizzou31.51962.4%64.5%-2.1%SEC
39Mike ElkoTexas A&M11.5762.2%64.0%-1.8%SEC
40Ryan SilverfieldMemphis27.016.562.1%63.3%-1.2%AAC
41Chris KliemanKansas State35.021.561.9%61.9%0.0%B12
42Steve SarkisianTexas51.2531.7561.7%59.2%2.5%SEC
43Matt RhuleNebraska38.323.861.7%51.0%10.7%B10
44Manny DiazDuke18.511.561.7%58.3%3.4%ACC
45Tim BeckCoastal Carolina4.02.561.5%61.5%0.0%Sunbelt
46G.J. KinneTexas State4.02.561.5%61.5%0.0%Sunbelt
47David BraunNorthwestern2.01.361.5%61.5%0.0%B10
48Kalani SitakeBYU50.53261.2%59.8%1.4%B12
49Neal BrownWVU52.833.561.2%59.5%1.7%B12
50Bill O'BrienBoston College5.53.561.1%62.5%-1.4%ACC
51Troy CalhounAir Force117.375.360.9%61.3%-0.4%MW
52Scott SatterfieldCincinnati56.336.560.6%60.5%0.1%B12
53Bret BielemaIllinois89.558.360.6%59.9%0.7%B10
54Jeff TedfordFresno State101.867.860.0%61.7%-1.7%MW
55Jeff MonkenArmy64.042.860.0%56.0%4.0%AAC
56Jeff BrohmLouisville48.332.559.8%61.3%-1.5%ACC
57Major ApplewhiteS. Alabama5.83.959.7%57.7%2.0%Sunbelt
58Tyson HeltonW. Kentucky35.524.059.7%60.6%-0.9%CUSA
59Matt CampbellIowa St66.446.059.1%58.3%0.8%B12
60Sonny DykesTCU61.542.659.1%55.3%3.8%B12
61Charles HuffMarshall18.514.056.9%56.4%0.5%Sunbelt
62Mark StoopsKentucky67.7552.2556.5%52.9%3.6%SEC
63Joey McGuireTexas Tech11.08.556.4%57.7%-1.3%B12
64Pat NarduzziPittsburgh53.842.056.1%56.5%-0.4%ACC
65Ken NiumataloloSan Jose State95.875.456.0%56.8%-0.8%MW
66Clay HeltonGSU37.129.355.9%60.4%-4.5%Sunbelt
67Blake AndersonUtah State56.844.855.9%57.8%-1.9%MW
68Jim McElwainC. Michigan46.837.555.5%56.6%-1.1%MAC
69Willie FritzHouston48.338.855.5%57.1%-1.6%B12
70Butch JonesArk St61.550.055.2%54.3%0.9%Sunbelt
71Barry OdomUNLV21.017.354.9%53.1%1.8%MW
72Jonathan SmithMichigan State3125.7554.6%49.3%5.3%B10
73Dave ClawsonWake Forest82.069.054.3%50.5%3.8%ACC
74Jay NorvellColorado State33.328.354.1%49.4%4.7%MW
75Alex GoleshUSF3.53.053.8%53.8%0.0%AAC
76Bryant VincentULM1.81.553.8%53.8%0.0%Sunbelt
77Chuck MartinMiami (OH)51.544.853.5%47.5%6.0%MAC
78Mario CristobalMiami57.851.153.0%50.3%2.7%ACC
79Brent KeyGT9.08.052.9%52.4%0.5%ACC
80Shane BeamerSouth Carolina16.51552.4%52.6%-0.2%SEC
81Dave ArandaBaylor22.021.550.6%47.9%2.7%B12
82Greg SchianoRutgers78.378.050.1%47.8%2.3%B10
83Jedd FischWashington15.615.650.0%43.6%6.4%B10
84Sam PittmanArkansas21.521.550.0%47.9%2.1%SEC
85Pete LemboBuffalo21.521.849.7%53.2%-3.5%MAC
86Brent BrennanArizona32.032.549.6%41.5%8.1%B12
87Sean LewisSan Diego State20.822.048.5%43.6%4.9%MW
88Chris CreightonE. Michigan48.353.547.4%43.3%4.1%MAC
89Jim MoraUConn32.7536.547.3%54.5%-7.2%Ind
90Michael DesormeauxLouisiana9.310.546.8%48.1%-1.3%Sunbelt
91Jake DickertWashington State9.310.846.3%48.4%-2.2%Pac12
92Brent PryVa Tech8.510.045.9%41.7%4.2%ACC
93Justin WilcoxCalifornia28.834.845.3%45.6%-0.3%ACC
94Mike MacintyreFIU41.350.844.8%40.0%4.8%CUSA
95Mike LocksleyMaryland27.435.443.6%34.4%9.2%B10
96Mike NeuBall State32.043.042.7%39.8%2.9%MAC
97Mike HoustonEast Carolina22.030.042.3%41.4%0.9%AAC
98Thomas HammockNIU21.529.542.2%42.1%0.1%MAC
99Eric MorrisUNT2.53.541.7%41.7%0.0%AAC
100Brian NewberryNavy2.53.541.7%41.7%0.0%AAC
101Kevin WilsonTulsa24.037.039.3%35.3%4.0%AAC
102Ricky RahneOld Dominion12.019.538.1%39.5%-1.4%Sunbelt
103Scot LoefflerBowling Green18.530.537.8%36.4%1.4%MAC
104Will HallSouthern Miss11.519.537.1%35.1%2.0%Sunbelt
105Mike BloomgrenRice19.035.534.9%32.4%2.5%AAC
106Tony SanchezNMSU14.527.534.5%33.3%1.2%CUSA
107Timmy ChangHawai'i6.513.033.3%30.8%2.5%MW
108Derek MasonMTSU21.342.533.3%32.9%0.4%CUSA
109Lance TaylorW. Michigan2.04.033.3%33.3%0.0%MAC
110Trent DilferUAB2.04.033.3%33.3%0.0%AAC
111Ryan WaltersPurdue2.04.033.3%33.3%0.0%B10
112Deion SandersColorado2.04.033.3%33.3%0.0%B12
113Joe MoorheadAkron12.028.329.8%36.0%-6.2%MAC
114Clark LeaVanderbilt82226.7%25.0%1.7%SEC
115Tony ElliottVirginia4.512.526.5%27.3%-0.8%ACC
116Sonny CumbieLa Tech5.014.326.0%27.6%-1.6%CUSA
117K.C. KeelerSam Houston1.54.525.0%25.0%0.0%CUSA
118Scotty WaldenUtep0.30.825.0%25.0%0.0%CUSA
119Biff PoggiCharlotte1.54.525.0%25.0%0.0%AAC
120Stan DraytonTemple4.513.525.0%25.0%0.0%AAC
121Troy TaylorStanford1.54.525.0%25.0%0.0%ACC
122Kenny DillinghamAZ St1.54.525.0%25.0%0.0%B12
123Don BrownUMass3.514.519.4%16.7%2.7%Ind
124Kenni BurnsKent State0.55.58.3%8.3%0.0%MAC
125Gerad ParkerTroy0.00.80.0%0.0%
0.0%Sunbelt

CFB T-Shirts @Amazon


Wednesday, August 14, 2024

SEC Coaches Adjusted Win Percentage

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.

Best Coach

Kirby Smart leads the way for the SEC in adjusted win percentage at 88.2%. Smart is six percentage points higher than the next coach which is Kalen DeBoer. Smart began his tenure at Georgia with an eight win season, but since that point has only won less than 11 games once and that was in the Covid shortened season. 


Overrated/Underrated

The adjusted win percentage indicates Tennessee's Josh Heupel is the leagues most overrated coach. Heupel has a traditional win percentage of 73.3% which would be the 3rd best mark in the SEC, but his adjusted percentage is 3.5% lower. Now 69.8% is still a fantastic percentage, but it lowers him to 5th best in the SEC.


The metric feels that Oklahoma's Brent Venables is the most underrated coach. Venables and Oklahoma join the SEC this year and projections have them anywhere between the second tier and the second half of the SEC. This metric indicates that some might be sleeping on Venables ability as a head coach. Venables has a traditional win percentage of 61.5%, but his adjusted percentage is 5.2% higher than that.



SEC CoachesTeamWLAdjusted W PctTraditional W PctDifference
Jeff LebbyMississippi State00#DIV/0!0.00%#DIV/0!
Kirby SmartGeorgia78.7510.588.2%85.50%2.7%
Kalen DeboerAlabama306.582.2%80.40%1.8%
Brian KellyLSU1424874.7%72.90%1.8%
Billy NapierFlorida37.2515.7570.3%66.20%4.1%
Josh HeupelTennessee4117.7569.8%73.30%-3.5%
Lane KiffinOle Miss64.753068.3%66.20%2.1%
Brent VenablesOklahoma136.566.7%61.50%5.2%
Hugh FreezeAuburn6333.7565.1%64.00%1.1%
Eliah DrinkwitzMizzou31.51962.4%64.50%-2.1%
Mike ElkoTexas A&M11.5762.2%64.00%-1.8%
Steve SarkisianTexas51.2531.7561.7%59.20%2.5%
Mark StoopsKentucky67.7552.2556.5%52.90%3.6%
Shane BeamerSouth Carolina16.51552.4%52.60%-0.2%
Sam PittmanArkansas21.521.550.0%47.90%2.1%
Clark LeaVanderbilt82226.7%25.00%1.7%

  

Cool CFB T-Shirts at Amazon


Amazon Prime Deal
                                                          

 

Monday, August 12, 2024

Adjusted Winning Percnetage for Pac 12 Coaches

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.


Only two programs remain in what is left of the Pac 12. Out of them only one has a coach with FBS experience so Jake Dickert wins by default. Dickert has had two seasons at Washington State and after a successful first year his team struggled in year two. As a result Dickert has an adjusted winning percentage of only 46.3%. The Aggregate also considers him overrated as his traditional winning percentage is 48.4%. 

Pac 12 CoachesTeamWLAdjusted W PctTraditional W PctDifference
Trent BrayOregon State0.00.0#DIV/0!0#DIV/0!
Jake DickertWashington State9.310.846.3%48.40%-2.2%

Deal on Amazon Prime

WashSt T-Shirts on Amazon

Thursday, August 8, 2024

Adjusted Winning Percentage for Big 12 Coaches

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 CoachesTeamWLAdjusted W PctTraditional W PctDifference
Mike GundyOk St157.869.369.5%67.8%1.7%
Kyle WhittinghamUtah149.671.867.6%67.2%0.4%
Lance LeipoldKU46.827.363.2%50.0%13.2%
Gus MalzahnUCF75.044.362.9%65.2%-2.3%
Chris KliemanKansas State35.021.561.9%61.9%0.0%
Kalani SitakeBYU50.53261.2%59.8%1.4%
Neal BrownWVU52.833.561.2%59.5%1.7%
Scott SatterfieldCincinnati56.336.560.6%60.5%0.1%
Matt CampbellIowa St66.446.059.1%58.3%0.8%
Sonny DykesTCU61.542.659.1%55.3%3.8%
Joey McGuireTexas Tech11.08.556.4%57.7%-1.3%
Willie FritzHouston48.338.855.5%57.1%-1.6%
Dave ArandaBaylor22.021.550.6%47.9%2.7%
Brent BrennanArizona32.032.549.6%41.5%8.1%
Deion SandersColorado2.04.033.3%33.3%0.0%
Kenny DillinghamAZ St1.54.525.0%25.0%0.0%

Big 12 Kids Shirts


Amazon Prime Deal
                                              

   

Monday, August 5, 2024

Adjusted Winning Percentage for Big 10 Coaches


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.

Moore at 


The coach with the best adjusted winning percentage for the Big 10 is technically Sherrone Moore. Who as an interim coach won one game. You can see in the chart below that the Adjusted metric only credits Moore with 12.5% of that win, but with no losses that gives him a 100% winning percentage. Beyond him Ryan Day has the highest winning percentage despite having a worse adjusted win percentage than traditional. 

The other coach with a worse adjusted win percentage than traditional was Lincoln Riley. Both Riley and Day have very good winning percentages, but started their coaching careers in very successful programs. As such the adjusted winning percentage see's both as not quite as good as their traditional win percentage would suggest. 

The other most notable thing for Big 10 coaches in the adjustable win percentage is the amount of coaches that have a much better  adjusted than traditional win rate. The Big 10 has six coaches with over a 5% better rate. Other large conferences have zero coaches with that large of difference. What does that mean? Mostly that those coaches are a bit undervalued in traditional winning percentage. 

The largest of those differences belongs to Nebraska's Matt Rhule with an adjusted rate of 61.7%. That's 10.7% higher than his traditional. Rhule is of course in his second year with Nebraska and seems to be on the rise. The Cornhuskers played a ton of close games last year and 5-7 was an improvement on seasons before.  

Here are the total results:

Big 10 CoachesTeamWLAdjusted W PctTraditional W PctDifference
DeShaun FosterUCLA0.00.0#DIV/0!0.0%#DIV/0!
Sherrone MooreMichigan0.10.0100.0%100.0%0.0%
Ryan DayOhio State46.97.586.2%87.5%-1.3%
Curt CignettiIndiana15.02.585.7%82.6%3.1%
Dan LanningOregon17.03.582.9%81.5%1.4%
LIncoln RileyUSC53.514.079.3%80.4%-1.1%
Luke FickellWisconsin53.815.877.3%69.6%7.7%
James FranklinPenn State88.837.570.3%67.5%2.8%
PJ FleckMinnesota66.035.864.9%58.8%6.1%
Kirk FerentzIowa192.0105.864.5%62.2%2.3%
Matt RhuleNebraska38.323.861.7%51.0%10.7%
David BraunNorthwestern2.01.361.5%61.5%0.0%
Bret BielemaIllinois89.558.360.6%59.9%0.7%
Jonathan SmithMichigan State3125.7554.6%49.3%5.3%
Greg SchianoRutgers78.378.050.1%47.8%2.3%
Jedd FischWashington15.615.650.0%43.6%6.4%
Mike LocksleyMaryland27.435.443.6%34.4%9.2%
Ryan WaltersPurdue2.04.033.3%33.3%0.0%

Want to score a discount on Amazon Prime? Check out this special here:








Looking for Great Big 10 Gear? Amazon's got you covered:


SEC End of Season Rankings

  The end of year rankings for the 2024 SEC season. The SEC had more parody than ever in the conference and without a dominant team at the t...