Rankings of Div 1 MBB head coaches

[bbtds]

https://www.three-man-weave.com/3mw/coach-rank-2020?__twitter_impression=true&format=amp

Matt Lottich, Valparaiso---313

Todd Lickliter, Evansville---302

Bryan Mullins, Southern Illinois---267

Dana Ford, Missouri State---213

Dan Muller, Illinois State---174

Brian Wardle, Bradley---158

Porter Moser, Loyola---156

Darian DeVries, Drake---161

Greg Lansing, Indiana State---87

Ben Jacobson, Northern Iowa---83




95. Bryce Drew, Grand Canyon
Score: 64
Raw Rank: T-70th
Relative Rank: T-101st

Bryce Drew returns in 2021 as the head coach of Grand Canyon following a fall from grace at Vanderbilt. How bad was Drew's relative score from his 2019 Vanderbilt season? Really bad. And so was his 2018 Vandy season, for that matter. But, Drew significantly exceeded preseason expectations in 2017 and his entire Valparaiso tenure was a success, save for 2014. Drew's Valpo performance definitely is the primary reason behind his top-100 ranking, but he did notch a top 50 and top 100 finish at Vandy before being canned.

32. Scott Drew, Baylor



The Unranked
These coaches are new to the DI head honcho ranks in 2020. As these rankings are based on past results, these particular coaches have no data and therefore are excluded from the official rankings.

Scott Davenport, Bellarmine; Anthony Boone, Central Arkansas; Jon Judkins, Dixie State; (Fordham is currently coachless); Brian Burg, Georgia Southern; Luke Yaklich, Illinois Chicago; Stan Johnson, Loyola Marymount; Steve Smiley, Northern Colorado; Bucky McMillan, Samford; Brad Korn, Southeast Missouri State; Eric Olen, UC San Diego; Takayo Siddle, UNC Wilmington; Clayton Bates, Western Michigan

[bbtds]

Here is the criteria for the ranking of MBB head coaches above:

Criteria
General Notes
KenPom data was used for all performance scores. Data in KenPom goes back to the 2002 season, meaning any coaching performance from prior to 19 years ago was not considered in this ranking. For example, Coach K's 1991 and 1992 national titles were not considered in this ranking.

KenPom tracks preseason rankings back to the 2012 season. For example, this means Steve Alford's performance relative to preseason expectations at Iowa in 2006 was not considered in this ranking.

Ties were broken more or less subjectively, but most weight was given towards relative performance metrics.

Relative Performance (57% of total score)
Relative performance is made up of two attributes. The first is a coach's performance relative to his school's average performance. Average school performance was derived by taking the average ending (pre-Tourney) Adj. EM from 2002 to 2020, per KenPom. A coach's average ending (pre-Tourney) Adj. EM at a particular school was measured against his school's average Adj. EM.

The second attribute is a coach's performance relative to preseason expectations. This is simply the difference between a coach's beginning Adj. EM per KenPom and ending Adj. EM (from 2012 to 2020).

Note, in order to limit skewed results, special consideration was made for coaches who have been head coaching for only 1-2 years and coaches who have been at a program for 15+ years.

Raw Performance (34% of total score)
Raw performance takes into account the following: 1) KenPom top 100 finishes, 2) KenPom top 50 finishes, 3) KenPom top 10 finishes, 4) Tournament appearances, 5) Sweet Sixteens & Elite Eights, 6) Final Four appearances, and 7) National Championships.

Raw performance is an average. As such, special consideration was made for coaches who have been head coaching for only 1-2 years and coaches who have been at a program for 15+ years.

Job Moves (9% of total score)
Job moves takes into account promotions, demotions, and longevity. Promotions are reflected as additional points to a coach's score. Demotions take away from a coach's score. Bonuses were given to coaches who have been at their current programs for 10+ years.

[valpo64]

I think this ranking or whatever it is is a joke.  I wonder if quality of players make a difference.  Duh!

[tiny707]

Curious what current MVC coaches got their current MVC team to the Big Dance?

[usc4valpo]

Dumb poll indeed

[vu84v2]

There is not a lot of credibility in your rankings when a coach who took a mid-major to the Final Four a few years ago is ranked 156.

[usc4valpo]

Matt Lottich may not be the second coming of John Wooden, but I know he is better than Dave Leiteo any day.

[bbtds]

Curious what current MVC coaches got their current MVC team to the Big Dance?

Correct me if I'm wrong. The answer is Wardle-Bradley, Jacobson-Northern Iowa and Moser-Loyola

Muller-Illinois State has many NIT appearances but no NCAAT appearances.

[wh]

https://www.three-man-weave.com/3mw/coach-rank-2020?__twitter_impression=true&format=amp

Matt Lottich, Valparaiso—-313

People outthinking their ability is like a punter out kicking his coverage - it often doesn't end well.

Yes there are a lot of factors that can be included, but the most important and most objective is wins and losses. Thus, it might be a good idea to start with that and then factor in less important and/or more subjective considerations around it to see if the final numbers make sense.

That said, Matt's W/L record over 4 years is 73-60. That's a .549 winning percentage. So, how does that compare with the other 352 D-1 programs?

For simplification let's assume that all 75 P-6 coaches are better than Matt. That leaves 278 programs. The average winning percentage among mid and low majors is approximately 40%, due to the overwhelming number of losses to P-6 programs during non-conference play. Cutting to the chase, Matt's .549 winning percentage ranks 105th of 278 mid major program records, and 179th of all 353 D-1 programs.

So, to recap, conceding that all 75 P-6 coaches should be ranked higher than Matt and only ranking Matt's W/L record against other mid/low majors, he ranks 179th of 353 D-1 programs in winning percentage (the only true objective measure). And yet, the authors of the poll rank him 134 spots lower than that (313) based on a nonsensical hodgepodge of subjectivity, implicit bias and polling ignorance. Garbage in, garbage out.

Bottom line - this poll has no redeeming value.

[PlumStreetBum]

LOL

This board until March: FIRE LOTTICH (myself included)

Also this board: AWFUL NONSENSE RANKINGS

Guys, a lot of us have been constantly frustrated at Matt's inability to meet our expectations and live up to the Drews' legacy, raw winning % aside. This ranking takes expectations and program history into accout... And y'all are angry about it!

Honestly though, it's pretty endearing. Nobody gets to criticize our guy but us! 

[Valpower]

The poll is, if one reads the article, a strictly data-based ranking.  They are quite forthright about how it was derived and admit that it wouldn't be their ranking if they applied some other methodology or analysis. But, because many people don't read beyond the headlines or the bullet points, the ranking has probably fulfilled its primary purpose; riling up the casual readers and getting them to talk about it.

[usc4valpo]

I agree that it is data based but the formula was obviously not correlated well or validated. It was a cute statistical exercise.