The Rule of 3

[Irishbounty28]

If I knew how to rep this I would do it in a heartbeat.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I get that some of the back and forth between Wooly and I regarding the statistical relevancy of the third year got a little tiresome and went on too long, but I'm not sure why it ALL got deleted. I think that discussion is very relevant to the topic.

To summarize (cliff notes style): Wooly seems to believe that because all 11 ND coaches since Rockne either sank or swam based on their Y3 season, that definitively proves that if a ND coach does not take the big jump in Y3 then their fate is sealed and they cannot ever win. My counter is that, while Y3 is clearly very important based on history, every situation is unique and the "Rule of 3" is not absolutely determinative. I posit that the history of 11 ND coaches that have coached beyond three years is too small of a sample size upon which to draw an ultimate conclusion, and that it is entirely possible that, say, 5% of coaches could buck the trend and based on 11 cases we wouldn't necessarily know that.

Wooly, I hope that seems like a fair reset of our discussion. I don't want to relitigate the topic, I just wanted to enter it into the record for this discussion because I think it is relevant.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Yep, Rhode. With you all the way on this. My own comment had the subtext that if such a "Rule" applied [rigidly] to only Notre Dame coaches over college football's tenure, it would be a VERY strange rule indeed. What could there possibly be about Notre Dame to make such a rule rigid for just one school for at least 90 years? [Even if one claimed that it sloppily applies here and there elsewhere, which in my post I show that I at least do not believe that to be at all robust]. Hypotheses about such a strange mechanism haunting [deterministically] Notre Dame for 90 years are reduced in imagination [given the radical changes seen in University, football participation, economics, etc] to things like paranormal battles between good and bad angels overhanging the campus. Admittedly our mascot is a Leprechaun, but I think it is not the best of theories that he or some anti-leprechaun is responsible.

And, as it relates to actually reading posts: I would have never commented on this "magical thinking" at all if the tone in a few posts hadn't turned towards "if Kelly doesn't win this year maybe we should consider firing him". And I said so up front. If it had stayed just good not-really-serious-fun, no post would have been made.

 

[Patulski]

ND hasn't dominated in the trenches like that since Holtz. I'd think an old-school guy like yourself would be able to recognize and appreciate the importance of such things..

I do appreciate that Kelly has brought back toughness, and said so in my first post.

However, and this gets back to the greats: They did it and didn't turn the ball over, minimized penalties and had excellent special teams. Kelly went 8-5 because he didn't do these things adequately. Let's hope he turns it around.

 

[Patulski]

To summarize (cliff notes style): Wooly seems to believe that because all 11 ND coaches since Rockne either sank or swam based on their Y3 season, that definitively proves that if a ND coach does not take the big jump in Y3 then their fate is sealed and they cannot ever win. My counter is that, while Y3 is clearly very important based on history, every situation is unique and the "Rule of 3" is not absolutely determinative. I posit that the history of 11 ND coaches that have coached beyond three years is too small of a sample size upon which to draw an ultimate conclusion, and that it is entirely possible that, say, 5% of coaches could buck the trend and based on 11 cases we wouldn't necessarily know that..

I think this era is different than Leahy and Ara's, but more similar to Holtz's. With Leahy and Ara, we still had premier football talent and depth. All it took was a great coach to achieve greatness. With Holtz, the talent-particularly team speed and athleticism- had slipped under Faust. By year three, you could see Holtz's upgrade of speed in guys like Rice, Watters, Rocket, Anbthony Johnson (a fast fullback), Derek Brown (a big/fast TE), Todd Light etc.. This is one of the things I'm looking to see this year: Are we going to be faster and more athletic in year 3 through Kelly's recruiting? If we are, and Kelly can cut the turnovers dramatically, he can have a very good season since he has built toughness back into the program.

 

[woolybug25]

Rhode - I asked the mods to delete both of our dialogue because it was over 20 posts arguing over statistical theory. Two people commented on how the thread was turning to crap and I wanted to get back on topic. Deleting the posts did just that. Don't blame the mods, blame me.

You feel the sample size of 125 and 11 coaches is too small. That's cool and certainly relevant, but I don't want to get into another "chicken or the egg" conversation that spirals what has turned into a good dialogue back into a nerdy back and forth about statistical analysis.



OMM - I understand that you agree with Rhode on the sample size. Have you considered what I posted in response to your previous post about college football coaches across time as a whole? While that amount isn't 100% like at Notre Dame, the correlation is remarkably high. Even the majority of the coaches you listed fell into the paradigm.






I think the toughest thing for some people is the fact that we have to look at this as a possible make or break year if you put any credence to the history of this. Only a handful of the championship coaches over history and not a single ND coach have ever beat the rule. So saying Kelly will do so in another year other than this year is less likely than him going undefeated this year, imo.

Even if we don't win it all this year, I hope Kelly surprises people with something like a 11-1 season with a top 5 finish. That would certainly fit the profile of a successful coach for the Rule of 3 and give hope for the future.

 

[woolybug25]

I think this era is different than Leahy and Ara's, but more similar to Holtz's. With Leahy and Ara, we still had premier football talent and depth. All it took was a great coach to achieve greatness. With Holtz, the talent-particularly team speed and athleticism- had slipped under Faust. By year three, you could see Holtz's upgrade of speed in guys like Rice, Watters, Rocket, Anbthony Johnson (a fast fullback), Derek Brown (a big/fast TE), Todd Light etc.. This is one of the things I'm looking to see this year: Are we going to be faster and more athletic in year 3 through Kelly's recruiting? If we are, and Kelly can cut the turnovers dramatically, he can have a very good season since he has built toughness back into the program.

Good post, reps.

While I agree with you about the talent situation and schedule being more like Holtz, I do think that if Kelly was highly successful this season, it would be more like Ara's. From the first post, Ara's third season:

This was quite possibly my favorite season to read about. Not only was it Ara's first National Title, it was Notre Dame's first in over a decade. It was a time similar to today. Many people thought that the game may have passed us by and that we weren't going to be "relevant" anymore. While the team had markedly improved (we almost won it all in Ara's first season) people were doubting Ara based off of his decision to start a relatively unknown sophomore in Terry Hanratty over Coley O’Brien. This season included a 10-10 tie to MSU that is widely considered the "Game of The Century". We toppled USC 51-0 and beat Oklahoma 38-0 in Norman. The Irish outscored its opponents 362-38 in what was quite possibly the most dominating season in Notre Dame history.... and most thought the schedule would be too difficult for Ara to overcome.

Wouldn't a repeat of those USC/OU scores be something?

 

[PANDFAN]

Hi OMM, long time listener... first time devil's advocate.

If you read the original posts, you will see that the rule is pertaining to Notre Dame coaches, not all coaches. It also states that the coaches were HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL, not just winning a championship. Rockne for instance, while going undefeated, didn't win the National Title in his third season.

That being said, I made note of all college coaches since 2000 except MBrown fitting the profile by winning a championship before year three or achieving high success in their third year. So lets look at the coaches you mentioned.... for, you know... fun....

Mac Brown- I'll give you this one, but technically he went 9-3 and finished second in the Big12 in his third year. Furthermore, the only reason he didn't win it, was because Bob Stoops was busy bringing OU out of nowhere for his first National Title in.... you guessed it.... his third season.

Saban - Won it in his second year and was highly successful in his third. Fits the rule.

Fulmer - Phil Fulmer went 11-1 in his third FULL season. He took over and coached as an interim coach in '92, but technically, Fulmer was highly successful in his third year and fits the rule.

Osborne - Tom Osborne's third year found him chasing a National Title only to lose a heartbreaker to Oklahoma in the final game. They still technically won the Big12, but lost their chance in for the title. They later lost their meaningless bowl game one month later. Tom Osborne's third year is strikingly similar to Ara's first year. He fits the rule perfectly.

Spurrier - I guess that I will give you Spurrier, but it is only by a little. He did win the SEC in his third year and finished ranked #10 in the country. We would be ecstatic with that type of finish next year. That being said, it doesn't stack up with the others. So I will reluctantly put him in with Mack Brown. Oh.... by the way. In 1992 (Spurrier's 3rd year) the team that did win it was Bama..... In Gene Stallings third season as head coach.

Bowden - While going 8-3 during this season, they had a very good year. I'll give you this one too though. Since John Robinson at our beloved USC won the title in... once again.... his third season.

James - His third year UW team went 10-2 after years of terrible teams. They won the Pac12 and beat #5 USC. This was a huge year for UW and definetely fits the mold of "highly successful".

McCartney - You wrote [BAMA] next to him and I don't know of any Bama coach by that name. Am I missing something on this one?

Johnson - Jimmy went 11-1 and finished 2nd in the polls. I would definetely say that was a highly successful third season.

Paterno - Ol' Joe went 11-0 in a season just like Rockne's third year. While he didn't win the title, there wasn't anything else his team could do. They won every. single. game.

Ok... i'm tired of researching so, I will leave it at that. If someone else wanted to pick up the rest, go ahead. So while the "Rule of 3" was once again only pertaining to Notre Dame, it has a very high probability across the board. According to even the supposed outliers that you listed (again, sorry for not doing all of them, it took me an hour to look up the ones I did), they all were close to fitting the rule and ALL of them that didn't win the title, had a third year coache win a title in their third year instead.

While it's not 100% across football history, like it is at Notre Dame. It is probably north of 80% and I wouldn't be shocked if it applies to close to 90% of coaches.

I surprised myself even with that...

certainly thought provoking! I'm fully behind you on this wooly!

i am of the belief that the 1st year of a coach is usually damage control and your doing everything possible to transition...year 2 u have begun to instill ur off/def but not everyone is 100% onboard...kind of like when a new boss comes in and tries changing everything...some buy it but you certainly have many who will question the moves they are making..year 3..well now that "new coach" isn't so new and its now or never..because if ur not 100% on board ur getting left behind on the depth chart....the players are more comfortable and know what the expectations are..plus doesn't hurt that the new wave of recruits are coming in to fit that coaches scheme which further provides a swing in the postiive direction...IF the coach is trully the coach or right fit for the job it is usually seen in the 3rd year whether or not they are heading in the right direction!

 

[Old Man Mike]

Wooly: I actually supported the concept that you're talking about in the first post that I made in the thread. I have no problem at all seeing year threes or year fours having a heavy success rate for the reasons stated at that time --- note that I was giving a conceivable mechanism for how such a "soft statistical trend" might be generated.

But again: although I believe that thinking about year three and four success is interesting, I do not think that lumbering Coach Kelly with the specific burden of that perception is; particularly without taking into account the differences of this exact situation in which we find ourselves. Since several of the greats won big in year four, lets at a minimum give Kelly some range of opportunity here. For me, and Rhode, we want to evaluate each season as it actually is. Maybe we have a Miles. Maybe we have a Bryant. Maybe we have a Bowden or Osborne. Maybe we have a Beamer. I'll happily take any of those guys, record-wise.

 

[woolybug25]

Wooly: I actually supported the concept that you're talking about in the first post that I made in the thread. I have no problem at all seeing year threes or year fours having a heavy success rate for the reasons stated at that time --- note that I was giving a conceivable mechanism for how such a "soft statistical trend" might be generated.

But again: although I believe that thinking about year three and four success is interesting, I do not think that lumbering Coach Kelly with the specific burden of that perception is; particularly without taking into account the differences of this exact situation in which we find ourselves. Since several of the greats won big in year four, lets at a minimum give Kelly some range of opportunity here. For me, and Rhode, we want to evaluate each season as it actually is. Maybe we have a Miles. Maybe we have a Bryant. Maybe we have a Bowden or Osborne. Maybe we have a Beamer. I'll happily take any of those guys, record-wise.

I'm not sure I get what you are saying about year 4. The Rule of 3 is pertaining to a coach winning a championship before year three and/or being highly successful in their third season. Even the majority of people that waited until year four for a championship, still had a highly successful year 3. This goes throughout out all championship coaches, only a handful of successful coaches have beat it. Tie that in to the fact that no Notre Dame coach has ever beat it, and the statistical likelihood goes down into the single digits.

I think I touched on some of the guys that you listed, and many/most of them fit into the rule. Also consider, that the coaches you are listing, you are listing because you thought they didn't fit the rule. Most of them still actually fit it thoug. So if we got one of those guys, I too would be ecstatic.

All except for Beamer. Now, please note, I love Beamer and think he is an excellent coach. But I do not believe that he will ever win a title at VT. His first three seasons were poor at VT and I believe that he is a great example of the Rule of 3. Despite him being an excellent coach, I truly believe that you will never see him win a title at VT. I do not want a coach at Notre Dame that consistently puts out 8-10 win teams. I want a coach that will challenge for a National title at least 1-2 times a decade. Beamer is not that guy.

 

[woolybug25]

When I have more time, fellas. I am going to go through every single National Title and see what the actual percentage of championships fit into the rule. We know it's high, but I think we need to know the exact number.

It will be a long write-up, but I think it will be worth it.

 

[domerfreak]

No... Have you seen our schedule??

1) Who do you want to replace him? Honestly, the grass is always greener.

2) Have you seen our schedule? 9 wins would be an accomplishment

3) The only way ND can get back IMO is consistency. We need a coach to be here a few year so he can develop his program. It bothers me when ppl say "if this happens hes gone..." No. The only way I see BK not coming back is if we win less than 6 games... and even then I think hell still be here.

4) and who will come to SB then???
5) fire BK anything short of five years and the program will suffer. another coaching change is the last thing we need.

 

[BobD]

The average tenure of a college football coach is about 4.5 years, no matter how you crunch the numbers, year 3 will come out as vital.

 

[woolybug25]

4) and who will come to SB then???
5) fire BK anything short of five years and the program will suffer. another coaching change is the last thing we need.

If someone believes in the Rule of 3, then anything but a "highly successful" season this year spells doom for Kelly. Why wait?

That's the theory at least....



Btw, I started on the list. I am going to do the last 100 National Titles. I have done the first 50 years and I thought that some of the coaches in that era were going to kill the percentage (The last10 years for instance, is 90%) because I knew off the top of my head some coaches that won titles that didn't fit the rule in that era. Plus the titles are funky, way too many voters and there are some real questionable titles where a coach won with losses while other coaches that would have fit the rule went undefeated, but I digress.

I am currently at 74% though, which means the 80%-90% assumption I made is probably going to be correct.

PS - Earl Blake at Army didn't fit the rule and won half of the titles that didn't fit the rule so far. Guy was a stud.

I'll keep you posted.

 

[domerfreak]

If someone believes in the Rule of 3, then anything but a "highly successful" season this year spells doom for Kelly. Why wait?

That's the theory at least....



Not that i dont think that the "rule of three" cannot happen im just looking at years four, five, and beyond. If there is any truth behind the "rule of three" things are certainly in ND favor.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Wooly, the thing that frustrates me about reading this stuff is not the idea itself, but the rigid application of the rule as if it is a law of physics. It isn't. Your own research has shown you that the "Rule of 3" is applicable most of the time, but not all of the time. That is all I was ever really trying to argue.

We definitely agree that the third season is important, but I view it more as an indicator or a checkpoint, which then has to be juxtaposed with the unique and specific "facts on the ground" in a given situation. I hate single-factor analysis to begin with, and I don't view this single-factor be nearly infallible enough to make an exception for it. To be a slave to this theory in making a decision about who is going to coach the football team would be a huge mistake, IMO.

To bring this point back around to the current situation at ND, I would love to see ND go 10-2, and go to a BCS game and win it. I am probably one of the few here that believe that is possible, although I certainly wouldn't bet my house on it. I figure that would lead to a final ranking as high as top-5, but certainly top-10. Would that satisfy your criteria for the "Rule of 3" season and get you on board for more years of Kelly? Or does he need to run the table and win the whole thing?

More realistically, what if we go 9-4? That certainly seems to miss the bar for what you're looking for from a Y3 season. But this is where my point about the single-factor analysis comes in. I wouldn't even consider firing Kelly after a 9-4 2012. First, you have continued improvement; you (hopefully) did it breaking in a new QB, or in the alternative you are about to hand the reigns over to your 5 QB of the future; you did it against a very difficult schedule; on paper, the 2013 and 2014 teams would appear to be your real shot to contend for a title, and switching coaches would mean taking all that talent and putting it into yet another new system; your recruiting is starting to absolutely hum (because I believe a 9-4 year this year keeps this class largely together); the schedules for 2013 and 2014 seem better situated to produce a serious title run (especially 2013 with OU and USC at home). How do you feel about all that? Do you buy so completely into this "Rule of 3" that you would ignore all of those other factors?

[Note to Wooly: I know why we deleted all of those posts from yesterday and totally agree with doing so. I just wanted to get the general point we were discussing back into the thread, because I do think its relevant, but the entire discussion wasn't needed. I'm not trying to rehash our probability debate here, I'm just curious about your response to the questions I posed.]

 

[Irish#1]

Serious questions...

Was winning the title as difficult back then? Did we have 66 AQ teams for BCS (saw this number on espn last night)? Was it as media driven? Did we have as many dominate teams as we do now? Did teams have the opportunity to recruit like they can now? Didn't SMU, be it by cheating, get players like ND could and shock the nation?

Once again, serious. Today is a new age. Just like they said then. Do I think BK can win? DAMN right I do. I think if the cards fall right, we have a chance this year BECAUSE of the schedule. Say we drop OU but beat USC. I think we could just possibly make it in. I think BK will win in year 5 and I think we give him 5.

Your question is difficult to answer, but let me say this. The number of major D-I football teams was smaller than today. Therefore back then teams had more talent up and down the roster because there were fewer teams to dilute the talent across the board.

Ara is still my favorite coach. I remember watching the Game of the Century. I remember the questions surrounding Ara when he came to Notre Dame. His cupboard wasn't bare, but he didn't have a ton of talent on the roster. Nobody in the country had heard of John Huarte when he started for Notre Dame. If memory serves me correctly, he was third string when practice began. Plain and simple, the man knew how to motivate his coaches and players to be their best. They could see his office light on at 11:00 at night working. They knew if he was working that hard, they better do the same so they wouldn't disappoint him or their fellow teammates.

Can Kelly do it this year? I'm not sure he will, but I think it's possible. He's already shown me he's a quicker learner the way he has shifted his recruiting to find the RKG. The RKG's are the players who will do they extra work so as not to disappoint their coaches and teammates.

 

[woolybug25]

Wooly, the thing that frustrates me about reading this stuff is not the idea itself, but the rigid application of the rule as if it is a law of physics. It isn't. Your own research has shown you that the "Rule of 3" is applicable most of the time, but not all of the time. That is all I was ever really trying to argue.

We definitely agree that the third season is important, but I view it more as an indicator or a checkpoint, which then has to be juxtaposed with the unique and specific "facts on the ground" in a given situation. I hate single-factor analysis to begin with, and I don't view this single-factor be nearly infallible enough to make an exception for it. To be a slave to this theory in making a decision about who is going to coach the football team would be a huge mistake, IMO.

To bring this point back around to the current situation at ND, I would love to see ND go 10-2, and go to a BCS game and win it. I am probably one of the few here that believe that is possible, although I certainly wouldn't bet my house on it. I figure that would lead to a final ranking as high as top-5, but certainly top-10. Would that satisfy your criteria for the "Rule of 3" season and get you on board for more years of Kelly? Or does he need to run the table and win the whole thing?

More realistically, what if we go 9-4? That certainly seems to miss the bar for what you're looking for from a Y3 season. But this is where my point about the single-factor analysis comes in. I wouldn't even consider firing Kelly after a 9-4 2012. First, you have continued improvement; you (hopefully) did it breaking in a new QB, or in the alternative you are about to hand the reigns over to your 5 QB of the future; you did it against a very difficult schedule; on paper, the 2013 and 2014 teams would appear to be your real shot to contend for a title, and switching coaches would mean taking all that talent and putting it into yet another new system; your recruiting is starting to absolutely hum (because I believe a 9-4 year this year keeps this class largely together); the schedules for 2013 and 2014 seem better situated to produce a serious title run (especially 2013 with OU and USC at home). How do you feel about all that? Do you buy so completely into this "Rule of 3" that you would ignore all of those other factors?

[Note to Wooly: I know why we deleted all of those posts from yesterday and totally agree with doing so. I just wanted to get the general point we were discussing back into the thread, because I do think its relevant, but the entire discussion wasn't needed. I'm not trying to rehash our probability debate here, I'm just curious about your response to the questions I posed.]

I don't know why you keep saying it's rigid? No one at Notre Dame has done it, but there are a handful of other coaches that have. But from a statistical standpoint, if say 80% of all college football champion coaches fit the rule and 100% of Notre Dame coaches fit the rule, then the likelihood of of a make or break season for this year is immense.

When you talk about the objectivity of the record (ie 9-3, is it good enough?), I understand what you are saying, so let me try to answer that. So this isn't an issue when looking at Notre Dame coaches. The only title from a coach that didn't win a title in his third year was Rockne, and he went undefeated. I think we could both agree that undefeated is "highly successful".

But with looking at all of the coaches in history, there were records like 9-3, where a few coaches that won later. If it was arguable one way or the other, i'm calling it a "NO". I look at the season itself. For instance, Look at Osborne's third year. He went 10-2, but his only regular season loss was in the heartbreaking last game that cost him a chance at the title. His second came in his meaningless bowl game that counted for nothing, because the loss in the season finale cost them a shot of their bowl game being for all of the marbles. I called that season, "highly successful".

I'm realizing through your posts on here and in another thread that you are highly analytical. You are going to have to get over that in this thread, because while there are percentages and rules getting thrown around, the whole thing is an objective theory. It's not rigid, it;s not concrete. But there are few things in the world that are. So don't get so worked up about it.

PS - No more statistical theory please. It takes the thread off course, so please quit trying to bring it into the conversation. All of the other comments of yours are awesome, so lets stick to those.

 

[woolybug25]

So here it is. Every National Title coach in the last 100 years. The total amount came to 79% that fit the Rule of three. But here are some other things to consider:

- There are a lot of guys like Spurrier (finished top 10 and won SEC in third year) and Earl Blake (went 7-2-1, but lost final two games and finished #11 in the polls) that were very questionable as "No's". I'm sure there are a lot of people that would put them as a "yes", but I promised to say "no" if there was any question what so ever.

- Guys like Earl Blaik, Woody Hayes, etc won multiple titles.

- Many of the people that didn't win in their third season (ie Mack Brown, Spurrier, etc) had other coaches winning it in that season that were in their third year.

- In the days of several voting agencies, there were years where the champion (Earl Blaik) had a worse record than an undefeated team with a third year coach. This happened several times.

- A significant amount of the guys that didn't fit the rule, won it in their fourth season.

Rule of 3 List​

1911 – Bill Hollenback: Penn State
I’m going to give this a yes. He coached PSU in 1909, then one year at Missouri, then came back to PSU and won a title in his third year coaching.

1912 – Percy Haughton: Harvard
While he won the title in 1912, he won his first in 1910, which was his third year as coach.

1913 – Percy Haughton: Harvard
Yes, see above

1914 – Charles Daly: Army
Yes, this was his second season as coach and he had a highly successful third season. He fits the rule.

1915 – Albert Sharp: Cornell
Yes, this was his third season as coach. Interestingly enough, he also was the basketball and baseball coach as well.

1916 – Glenn Scobey Warner: Pitt
Yes, he went undefeated for the first three seasons of his tenure at Pitt, winning two National Titles (share of 1915 with Cornell and 1916).

1917 – John Heisman: Georgia Tech
I’m sure you recognize the last name. He is a no. He went 5-3-1 in his third year and didn’t win a title until his 13th season as coach.

1918 – Fielding Yost: Michigan
Yes. He won the all of the titles between 1901-1904 and then made a return to Titletown in 1918.

1919 – Bob Fisher: Harvard
Yes. While this is another undefeated season where Rockne was robbed for the title, it is widely considered a title for Bob Fisher, who was in his first year as coach, he also had a spectacular third season narrowly missing the title.

1920 – Andy Smith: Cal
Yes, in his third season as Cal’s coach, he won the Pacific Coast Conference title and narrowly missed a National Title. In 1920, he won his first title despite Rockne going undefeated for the second year in a row. He shares this title with William Roper of Princeton and is one of the most disputed title in history.

1921 – Andy Smith: Cal
Yes. See above

1922 – William Roper: Princeton
Yes. He shared the 1920 title.

1923 – Robert Zuppke: Illinios
Yes. This was his second year and although he didn’t win the title in his third, his team went undefeated.

1924 – Knute Rockne: Notre Dame
Boom

1925 – Wallace Wade: Alabama
Yes, this was his third season as coach.

1926 – Wallace Wade: Alabama
Yes. See above

1927 – Robert Zuppke: Illinios
Yes. See above. Rockne got a share of this title in the HS voting, but it is widely held as Zuppke’s.

1928 – Howard Jones: USC
Yes. In his third season, he narrowly missed a title, but won the Pacific Coast Conference. In 1928, he won it all.

1929 – Knute Rockne: Notre Dame
Pimp

1930 – Knute Rockne: Notre Dame
Reckless

1931 – Howard Jones: USC
Yes. See above and boo this man…

1932 – Howard Jones: USC
Yes. See above and boo this man… (this is shared with Harry Pipke of Michigan, which makes it worse)

1933 – Harry Kipke: Michigan
Yes. He won the big ten in his third season with only one loss. This year, was his fourth season.

1934 – Frank Thomas: Alabama
Yes. This was his second season and in his third season chased a title, falling short.

1935 - Bernie Bierman: Minnesota
Yes. This was his third season as coach

1936 - Bernie Bierman: Minnesota
Yes. See above

1937 – Jock Sutherland: Pitt
No. He went 5-2-2 in his third season

1938 – Robert Neyland: Tennessee
Yes, this was his third season. I know many of you will be pissed because you want to say this one is Laydan’s title for ND, but this Tenn team is widely held as the best SEC team ever and had the majority of the selectors choose them as champions.

1939 – Homer Norton: Texas A&M
No, he went 8-3-1 in his third year and 1939 was his 6th season as coach.

1940 – Bernie Bierman: Minnesota
Yes. See above

1941 – Bernie Bierman: Minnesota
Yes. See above

1942 – Paul Brown: Ohio State
Yes. This was his second season

1943 – Frank Leahy: Notre Dame
Boom

1944 – Earl Blaik: Army
No. This was his fourth season and he went 7-2-1 in year three.

1944 – Earl Blaik: Army
No. This was his fifth season and he went 7-2-1 in year three.

1945 – Earl Blaik: Army
No. This was his sixth season and he went 7-2-1 in year three.

1946 – Frank Leahy: Notre Dame
Boom

1947 – Frank Leahy: Notre Dame
Boom

1948 – Bennie Ooserbaan: Michigan
Yes. First season as coach and almost won it in his third.

1949 – Frank Leahy: Notre Dame
Boom

1950 – Bud Wilkinson: Oklahoma
Yes. While this is his fourth season, he went undefeated in his third, but Notre Dame was awarded that title.

1951 – Jim Tatum: Maryland
Strangely Yes. He went 9-1 in his third season and got votes for a title, but that title went to Notre Dame. Once they moved to the ACC and became the Maryland of today, he won in his first season.

1952 – Biggie Munn: Michigan State
No. He went 6-3 in his third season and this title was his sixth season as coach.

1953 – Jim Tatum: Maryland
No. While Notre Dame had more than double the selectors choose them as champs, the most important (UPI) voted for Maryland. It is also widely held as Maryland’s title. Since we don’t claim it, I guess it’s Maryland’s. But I call BS, this should be Leahy’s title.

1954 – Woody Hayes: OSU
No, this was his fourth season and he went 6-3 in his third.

1955 – Bud Wilkinson: Oklahoma
Yes. See Above

1956 – Bud Wilkinson: Oklahoma
Yes. See Above

1957 – Either Woody Hayes (OSU) or Ralph Jordan (Auburn)
No. This one is stupid. Both teams claim it, Auburn got the UPI and OSU got the AP. Neither fit the rule though, so pick you poison.

1958 – Paul Dietzel: LSU
No. This was his fourth season and he went 5-5 in his third.

1959 – Ben Schwartzwalder: Syracuse
No. In his third season he went 5-4 and this was many years later.

1960 – Murray Warmath: Minnesota
No. Ironically one of the few two loss champions, but it was in his sixth season.

1961 – Bear Bryant: Alabama
Yes. He went 8-1-1 in the regular season and won the SEC in his third year. The following year he won his first title.

1962 – John McKay: USC
Yes. This was his third season

1963 – Darrell Royal: Texas
Yes. Made a run at the title in his third season, but fell short with one regular season loss. But they won the Southwest Conference and finished 4th in the country in the polls.

1964 – Bear Bryant: Alabama
Yes. See above.

1965 – Bear Bryant: Alabama
Yes. See above.

1966 – Ara Parseghian: Notre Dame
Booya. One of ND’s greatest seasons.

1967 – John McKay: USC
Yes. See above

1968 – Woody Hayes: Ohio State
No. See above

1969 – Darrell Royal: Texas
Yes. See above.

1970 – Bob Devaney: Nebraska
Yes. He waited 8 years for his first title, but only lost one regular season game in his third year. They finished 6th in the polls as well.

1971 – Bob Devaney: Nebraska
Yes. See above

1972 – John McKay: USC
Yes. See above

1973 – Ara Parseghian: Notre Dame
Booya.

1974 – Barry Switzer: Oklahoma
Yes. Won it in this, his second season, and then again in the following third season.

1975 – Barry Switzer: Oklahoma
Yes. See above

1976 – Johnny Majors: Pitt
No. This was his fourth season and he went 8-4 in his third season.

1977 – Dan Devine: Notre Dame
Hells jeah…

1978 – John Robinson: USC
Yes. This was his third season.

1979 – Bear Bryant: Alabama
Yes. See above.

1980 – Vince Dooley: Georgia
Yes. While he waited 16 years for his title. His third season was a 10-1 march to the ranking of #4 in the polls.

1981 – Danny Ford: Clemson
Yes. While he was the interm coach for the final game of ’78, his third full season resulted in a National Title.

1982 – Joe Paterno: Penn State
Yes. While Old Joe waited 17 years for his first title, he won every single game of his third season.

1983 – Howard Schnellenberger: Miami
Yes. In his third season, he made a run at the title but lost two games. Despite that, they finished #8 in the polls and a favorite to make a run the following year.

1984 – LaVell Edwards: BYU
No. He went 7-4-1 in his third season and waited 12 years for a title.

1985 – Barry Switzer: Oklahoma
Yes. See above.

1986 – Joe Paterno: Penn State
Yes. See above.

1987 – Jimmy Johnson: Miami
Yes. Jimmy went 11-1 and finished 2nd in the polls in his third season. I would definitely say that was a highly successful third season.

1988 – Lou Holtz: Notre Dame
That’ s right…

1989 – Dennis Erickson: Miami
Yes. He won the title in his first and third seasons. (split the third year with Washington)

1990 – Bill McCartney: Colorado
No.. hell no…. he went 1-10 in his third season

1991 – Don James: Washington & Dennis Erickson: Miami
Yes to both. Don Jame’s third season saw a Pac10 championship, win over #5 USC and a top ten finish. See above for Erickson.

1992 – Gene Stallings: Alabama
Yes. This was his third season

1993 – Bobby Bowden: Florida State
No, he went 8-3 in his third season and was unranked. Interesting fact, he won this title despite his brother Terry going undefeated at Auburn the same year. Awkward Christmas that year…

1994 – Tom Osborne: Nebraska
Yes. Tom Osborne's third year found him chasing a National Title only to lose a heartbreaker to Oklahoma in the final game. They still technically won the Big12, but lost their chance in for the title. They later lost their meaningless bowl game one month later. Tom Osborne's third year is strikingly similar to Ara's first year. He fits the rule perfectly.

1995 – Tom Osborne: Nebraska
Yes. See above.

1996 – Steve Spurrier: Florida
No. This is only a no because of the record (9-4). But he had a top ten finish and won the SEC. You decide for yourself.

1997 – Lloyd Carr: Michigan & Tom Osborne: Nebraska
Yes and Yes. In what became our last split title, we had third year coach Lloyd Carr sharing the title with Tom Osborne, who we spoke about above.

1998 – Phil Fulmer: Tennessee
Yes. Phil Fulmer went 11-1 in his third FULL season. He took over and coached as an interim coach in '92, but technically, Fulmer was highly successful in his third year and fits the rule.

1999 – Bobby Bowden: Florida State
No. See above

2000 – Bob Stoops: Oklahoma
Yes. This was his third season and the only reason Mack Brown didn’t win it in his third season.

2001 – Larry Coker: Miami
Yes. Won the title in his first season and made a run at it in his third.

2002 – Jim Tressel: Ohio State
Yes. Won it in his second year and made a run for it in his third.

2003 – Pete Carroll: USC
Yes. This was his third season

2004 – Pete Carroll: USC
Yes. See above.

2005 – Mack Brown
No. He went 9-3 and finished second in the Big12 in his third year. Furthermore, the only reason he didn't win it, was because Bob Stoops was busy bringing OU out of nowhere for his first National Title in.... you guessed it.... his third season.

2006 – Urban Meyer: Florida
Yes. This was his second season.

2007 – Les Miles
Yes. This was his third season

2008 – Urban Meyer: Florida
Yes. See above.

2009 – Nick Saban: Alabama
Yes. This was his third season

2010 – Gene Chizik: Auburn
Yes. This was his second season

2011 – Nick Saban: Alabama
Yes. See above.

2012 - Nick Saban: Alabama
Yes. See above. But also note that Brian Kelly, despite everyone thinking I was crazy, chased the title.

 

[DomeLover3]

I think BK has at least a very good season. I'm going to be optimistic and say 9-3, maybe 10-3 with a bowl win. I think BK will be the guy who brings ND back

 

[woolybug25]

I guess how I am looking at it, from a historical/statistical perspective. If Kelly should win a championship while at Notre Dame, then we have a significantly higher chance of winning 10-11 games and surprising the hell out of everyone then say... winning 8-9 games.


I have to be honest, I know it's just a fun look at history, but those numbers are astounding to me. Before this thread, I was fully expecting and ok with an 8-5 season. But I am not so sure anymore.

 

[chubler]

Ahhh I shouldve been clearer earlier.
When I said that I want Kelly gone after this year unless he either gets 9 wins or cleans up the penalties and turnovers, I worded it clumsily.
What I really mean is that if Kelly doesn't make significant progress cleaning up the turnovers this year, I don't think that he will ever, and in this day and age we are simply not talented enough to overcome those mistakes and win at the level we expect.

Therefore, the only reason to keep him around if he fails to clean up the turnovers would be 9+ wins. 9+ wins would prove either the arrival of that talent or a reversal of luck, either of which i am fine with!

 

[Whiskeyjack]

in this day and age we are simply not talented enough to overcome those mistakes and win at the level we expect.

No team is talented enough to win a title with the type of misfortune ND suffered last season. Not even 'Bama.

 

[woolybug25]

It got quit around here once I posted all of championship coaches. What's everybody's thoughts on that? I mean, that is a pretty solid sample and the rule seems to hold strong across the board, in addition to it's 100% accuracy with Notre Dame coaches.


Speak up, dudes.

 

[Emcee77]

I guess how I am looking at it, from a historical/statistical perspective. If Kelly should win a championship while at Notre Dame, then we have a significantly higher chance of winning 10-11 games and surprising the hell out of everyone then say... winning 8-9 games.


I have to be honest, I know it's just a fun look at history, but those numbers are astounding to me. Before this thread, I was fully expecting and ok with an 8-5 season. But I am not so sure anymore.

Yep, surely everyone can agree, even if you don't think it ultimately means anything, the numbers are striking. The similarities between Holtz's tenure and Kelly's going into their third year are the ultimate freakiness.
The new Lou, Part II // News // Notre Dame Magazine // University of Notre Dame

 

[woolybug25]

Yep, surely everyone can agree, even if you don't think it ultimately means anything, the numbers are striking. The similarities between Holtz's tenure and Kelly's going into their third year are the ultimate freakiness.
The new Lou, Part II // News // Notre Dame Magazine // University of Notre Dame

This is what burns me about people talking about how Kelly's teams aren't like Lou's and that his aren't as sound as Lou's. Look at Lou's first two seasons compared to Kelly.

Notre Dame finished the 1987 season 8-4.
Notre Dame finished the 2011 regular season 8-4.

In 1986 and 1987, Notre Dame had 10 losses by a total of 90 points.
In 2010 and 2011, Notre Dame had 10 losses by a total of 88 points.

In 1988, Notre Dame defeated four teams ranked in the Coaches’ Poll Top 10.
In 2012, Notre Dame plays four teams ranked in ESPN.com’s preseason Top 11.

I bet there were a lot of people saying "Lou's teams just don't look like Ara's" after his second season.

 

[IrishFBfanatic]

This is what burns me about people talking about how Kelly's teams aren't like Lou's and that his aren't as sound as Lou's. Look at Lou's first two seasons compared to Kelly.

Notre Dame finished the 1987 season 8-4.
Notre Dame finished the 2011 regular season 8-4.

In 1986 and 1987, Notre Dame had 10 losses by a total of 90 points.
In 2010 and 2011, Notre Dame had 10 losses by a total of 88 points.

In 1988, Notre Dame defeated four teams ranked in the Coaches’ Poll Top 10.
In 2012, Notre Dame plays four teams ranked in ESPN.com’s preseason Top 11.

I bet there were a lot of people saying "Lou's teams just don't look like Ara's" after his second season.

Agreed!

A few more comparisons:

The question mark at receiver...
1988 - ND must replace Heisman winning great receiver Tim Brown
2012- ND must replace ND record setting great receiver Michael Floyd

The question mark in the seconrady...
1988 - Pat Terrell makes switch from WR to DB (in 87) and gets his first career start (in 88)...I'm sure there were doubters back then wondering if he could really truly be an all-american DB at ND.
2012 - Jackson switches from WR to DB (in 2011) and gets his first career start at the position (in 2012)

It's tough to compare because '88 is over. We all know exactly how that season turned out. But if we look at the '88 season before it started did anyone really know Zorich would become an all-american, college football hall of famer with zero experience under his belt and a position change to this point in his career? Did anyone really know the three amigos (Stams, Stonebreaker, Pritchett) would be the force they were? Two all-americans and an all-american mention...Did anyone really know what The Rocket could do with the ball in his hands at the college level? Heck, Tony Rice had one season of playing experience...to fans today it seems he would have been a question mark as well.

At least 2012 knows they have the best TE in the country, best MLB in the country, great ability/experience on the d-line. Who knows...are we calling Tuitt, Nix, and KLM the three amigos this time next year? Does someone in the secondary come out of nowhere like Pat Terrell and surprise us all? Is our speedy little freshman, Neal, as electric as the Rocket with the ball in his hands? Can our strong stable of runningbacks out produce the likes of Rice, Green, Brooks, Culver, and Johnson? ...sounds a little like Golson, Wood, Riddick, Carlisle, and Atkinson.

No one really knows. Basically the only way to fairly compare 88 and 12 is to wait until the season is over. Going in, though...they both had/have plenty of question marks and PLENTY of upside.

Again, this is a cool/interesting topic to discuss, Wooly. It's funny how so many are taking it so seriously...it's the off season, and it's football. No one really knows anything until the games are played. I just think it's fun to think about while waiting on the season

 

[woolybug25]

It's tough to compare because '88 is over. We all know exactly how that season turned out. But if we look at the '88 season before it started did anyone really know Zorich would become an all-american, college football hall of famer with zero experience under his belt and a position change to this point in his career? Did anyone really know the three amigos (Stams, Stonebreaker, Pritchett) would be the force they were? Two all-americans and an all-american mention...Did anyone really know what The Rocket could do with the ball in his hands at the college level? Heck, Tony Rice had one season of playing experience...to fans today it seems he would have been a question mark as well.

At least 2012 knows they have the best TE in the country, best MLB in the country, great ability/experience on the d-line. Who knows...are we calling Tuitt, Nix, and KLM the three amigos this time next year? Does someone in the secondary come out of nowhere like Pat Terrell and surprise us all? Is our speedy little freshman, Neal, as electric as the Rocket with the ball in his hands? Can our strong stable of runningbacks out produce the likes of Rice, Green, Brooks, Culver, and Johnson? ...sounds a little like Golson, Wood, Riddick, Carlisle, and Atkinson.

Actually, Tony Rice had 6 games of experience. He came in during the '87 season only because Terry Andrysiak got injured.

Another interesting fact about Rice was that he had to sit the entire '86 season because he didn't qualify for Notre Dame. From his wiki:

Rice entered Notre Dame in 1986 and was the crown jewel in Holtz's first recruiting class. These incoming freshmen were also the first to be bound by the NCAA rules of Proposition 48, which stated that in order to participate during his (or her) freshman year, an athlete must (1) be a high school graduate; (2) have a high school grade point average of 2.0 in an 11-course core curriculum; and (3) have scored 700 (out of a possible 1600) on the SAT or 17 (out of a possible 36) on the ACT. If he (or she) failed to meet those standards, the athlete would not be allowed to play or practice with a college team his (or her) freshman year. Because Rice failed to meet the required 700 on his SAT (he scored a 690), he was forced to sit out the entire 1986 season.

Interesting note considering the current Tee rumblings...

 

[IrishFBfanatic]

Actually, Tony Rice had 6 games of experience. He came in during the '87 season only because Terry Andrysiak got injured.

Right, and played very sparingly in the Cotton Bowl in '87....Just not a lot of experience and definitely wasn't "proven" as some may say.

 

[woolybug25]

Right, and played very sparingly in the Cotton Bowl in '87....Just not a lot of experience and definitely wasn't "proven" as some may say.

Truff! If you look back at the original post, you will see that pretty much all of the championship coaches had an awkward QB situation in their third season. It didn't stop any of them.