The deck is generally heavily stacked against first-year coaches. They have the enormous job of assembling a staff, trying to pick up on recruiting, trying to get to know their players and their abilities and so on. The new staff always has a huge job trying to teach the schemes and systems as well as getting players to learn new techniques and perhaps "unlearn" old ones (consider our defensive backs this year and last year, for example).

It probably shouldn't come as a surprise that making a 5-game improvement in the win column, as Willingham did this year, is a pretty unusual feat. In most cases, good coaches will make a small improvement to the record or hold it steady (or even have a slight dip), but then make substantial improvements in years two, three, four or even five.

Let's look at the eight coaches who coached in B.C.S. games this year and look at their school's record the year before and then in their first through fifth years (if they have been there that long).

Iowa (Ferentz)

PY: 3-8
1Y: 1-10
2Y: 3-9
3Y: 7-5
4Y: 11-2 (Orange Bowl berth)

Ohio State (Tressel)

PY: 8-4
1Y: 7-5 (bowl loss)
2Y: 14-0 (national champs)

Miami (Coker)

PY: 11-1
1Y: 12-0 (national champs)
2Y: 12-1 (Fiesta Bowl berth)

Georgia (Richt)

PY: 8-4
1Y: 8-4 (bowl loss)
2Y: 13-1 (Sugar Bowl champs)

W.S.U. (Price)

PY: 9-3
1Y: 6-5
2Y: 3-8
3Y: 4-7
4Y: 9-3
5Y: 5-6

Bowden (F.S.U.)

PY: 3-8
1Y: 5-6
2Y: 10-2
3Y: 8-3
4Y: 11-1
5Y: 10-2

O.U. (Stoops)
PY: 5-6
1Y: 7-5 (bowl loss)
2Y: 13-0 (national champs)
3Y: 10-2 (bowl win)
4Y: 11-2 (Rose Bowl win)

U.S.C. (Carroll)

PY: 5-7
1Y: 6-6 (bowl loss)
2Y: 11-2 (Orange Bowl champs)

In most cases, they didn't make any substantial improvement in the first year, and really only Coker did anything significant his first year, though he certainly took over a better situation than the others. In fact, these eight coaches took over programs that on average had won 6.5 games the prior year and then they won on average 6.5 games their first years. In the second year, however, they all did vastly better, except for Price and Ferentz. Ferentz continued to make steady progress in years three and four. Price had the most unusual trajectory of the bunch, though he did have a very good year in year four. The 9-3 record from the prior year at W.S.U. was an anomaly as well -- that was Dennis Erickson's second year at W.S.U. (he won only 3 games the year before) and he high-tailed it for Miami.

So, Willingham would stand out in this crowd as having made, by far, the largest improvement his first year.

Of course, these sorts of improvements do happen occasionally, and when they do it's invariably a good sign for the program. Consider the route taken by two other coaches to have made big improvements in their first years recently:

Bowling Green (Meyer)

PY: 2-9
1Y: 8-3
2Y: 9-3

Maryland (Friedgen)

PY: 5-6
1Y: 10-2 (bowl loss)
2Y: 11-3 (Peach Bowl champs)

Of course, it's possible to have a big improvement the first year as did Ara and then take a half step back the second, but it's still a good sign that real improvements have been made.

Now let's consider some other programs that appear to be on the right track (Alabama's being up in the air given the NCAA situation):

Boise State (Hawkins)

PY: 10-2
1Y: 8-4
2Y: 12-1 (WAC champs and bowl win)

Boston College (O'Brien)

PY: 5-7
1Y: 4-7
2Y: 4-7
3Y: 8-4
4Y: 7-5
5Y: 8-4

Colorado State (Lubick)

PY: 5-7
1Y: 5-6
2Y: 10-2
3Y: 8-4
4Y: 7-5
5Y: 11-2

Oklahoma State (Miles)

PY: 3-8
1Y: 4-7
2Y: 8-5 (bowl win)

Texas Tech (Leach)

PY: 6-5
1Y: 7-6 (bowl loss)
2Y: 7-5 (bowl loss)
3Y: 9-5 (bowl win)

Auburn (Tuberville)

PY: 3-8
1Y: 5-6
2Y: 9-4
3Y: 7-5
4Y: 9-4 (bowl win)

South Carolina (Holtz)

PY: 1-10
1Y: 0-11
2Y: 8-4 (bowl win)
3Y: 9-3 (bowl win)
4Y: 5-7

Alabama (Franchione)

PY: 3-8
1Y: 7-5 (bowl win)
2Y: 10-3

North Carolina State (Amato)
PY: 6-6
1Y: 8-4 (bowl win)
2Y: 7-5 (bowl loss)
3Y: 11-3 (bowl win)

Virginia (Groh)
PY: 6-6
1Y: 5-7
2Y: 9-5 (bowl win)

Notice here, again, that none of them could really get much improvement in the first year except for Franchione, who made a 4-game improvement. Besides him, no other coach made more than a 2-game positive impact.

Now, of course, this doesn't mean that the first year is meaningless. New coaches who prove to be disasters usually show some sign of it the first year. It may come with a huge hit to the won-loss record (Faust taking over a 9-2-1 team and going 5-6 his first year was a sure sign that disaster loomed, when DuBose taking over a 10-3 Alabama team and going 4-7 signaled disaster as well), but often it shows up not so much in the record but in the season point differential.

Consider that Davie cost N.D. over 200 points his first year (N.D. went from +226 in Holtz's last year to +17 in Davie's first), Zook cost Florida over 300 points, Solich cost Nebraska almost 200 points, Bobby Williams at M.S.U. cost the Spartans almost 200 points, and so on. Generally coaches who will make a positive impact either make some improvement in the point differential (Holtz was +80 his first year at N.D., Willingham was +96, Stoops, Amato and Carroll were in the +100 range), or at the very worst come close to holding it steady (Richt, Groh and Tressel were all slightly negative their first years, in the range of 40 points). In fact, as I've pointed out before, the only five coaches post-Rockne to make a positive impact on N.D.'s season point differential their first years were Leahy, Layden, Ara, Holtz and Willingham.

Getting things going the right direction, at all, the first year is a very good sign. Even holding things fairly close to steady isn't necessarily a bad sign. But huge hits to the point differential of the kind that Zook, Davie, Solich, Williams and others inflicted are usually a sure sign that new coach doesn't know what he's doing.

Now, in closing, I'll point out that two of the last three national champions have been in circumstances eerily similar to ours. In 2000, O.U. (a traditional power) had a second year coach coming off a decent (7-5) season capped by a bowl loss and won the whole shootin' match. In 2002, Ohio State (a traditional power) had a second year coach coming off a decent (7-5) season and won it all the next. And for those who want to run to the JUCO explanation for Stoops's success his second year, consider that 19 of his 22 starters were Blake recruits.

There's something good about having a coach who knows what he's doing in his second year.