Interesting article claiming that coaching changes often don't matter

[AFDawg]

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/12/21/is-changing-the-coach-really-the-answer/

 

[johnson86-1]

They seem to be misrepresenting what the study really shows. It doesn't show that coaching doesn't matter. It most likely shows that there are many competent coaches and it doesn't matter which competent coach you have for the most part. But it still leaves plenty of room for their being a few special coaches, and it matters very much if you have one of them. It also leaves plenty of room for there to be many more incompetent coaches (but not that many that get the opportunity to prove it) and having one of them will kill your team/program.

I think this is much more true at the professional level, where the talent tends to be more evenly balanced, and the return to good (or bad) coaching doesn't compound itself by resulting in better (or worse) players coming to play for you in the future.

 

[AFDawg]

I agree with most of what you're saying I'm convinced, for example, that the change from Croom to Mullen mattered. But, as you point out and as the article seems to indicate, there's a large middle ground to coaching quality.