Einstein

The data indicates the probability of the complete opposite. But again, I realize that this is not your strong suit.

PS, for everyone who is interested in this line of research. Five Thirty Eight (the polling website) did an entire research column on an offshoot of this very subject. Rather than just looking at coaches, they looked at head coach and quarterback duos. The result? They determined that HC/QB duo’s have only 5 years. Very close to my 4.2 result. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-coaches-and-qbs-should-divorce-after-five-years-of-not-winning/amp/

Im glad I was able to teach you the word that you meant to use. But no, using 40 years of every Super Bowl attending coach is not cherry picked data. It is as extensive as you get. Yeah, this part proved that you’re not a scientist nor a researcher… To complain that a 40 year data set is invalidated due to a team (that is not even included in the data set) had a player almost die on the field? It’s not only ignorant of data study, but it is also laughable.

Pretty much.

The hypothesis doesn’t invalidate the data. Your ruining your scientist ploy. All data in studies are selected. There is no other way to narrow the subject from the entire universe to the topic at hand. I think what you meant to say is the data is cherry picked. Which, you would again be wrong, considering I used every Super Bowl attending coach for 40 year. It doesn’t get more large data set than that. As said before - What is actually happening is that you do not like the conclusive results of the data, but you know that with an extremely large data set of 40 years, there is very little that you can do to discredit the data. Therefore, you resort to ad hominem.

You don’t seem to be. You still have no basis for this assertion. What is in all actuality happening is that you do not like the data, and with an extremely large data set of 40 years you know that there is very little that you can do to discredit the data. Therefore, you resort to ad hominem. It’s called presenting a full data set (I included both mean, mode, and range) to allow people to see the full data.

You said that you are a scientist with experience in research. Surely you understand that the mode does not intimate the expected result. You already wrote this but, again, you have no basis for this assertion. Not a single shred of evidence. While on the off-topic subject, what you said is complete nonsense. The pre-bias of the researcher is not grounds for dismissal of a study UNLESS the pre-bias directly affects the results. Show me a researcher without bias and i’ll show you a liar. Its called a hypothesis. Researchers tackle subjects that interest them, and subjects that interest people have inherent bias. Numerous studies - including massively funded, accepted and peer reviewed studies - were originated because the research team had a hypothesis that they were attempting to prove was true. If the data set as large as this one (40 years) and shows a consistent result, it is accepted regardless of intent. It would be peer reviewed and the data would stand on its own. In the vast majority of situations, the coach and GM are hired concurrently. And for many successful coaches, they ARE the gm. Belichick, Carrol, Reid (who hand picked his own GM), Payton (who is said to have control over personnel), etc. .

There are 16 current head coaches who have been in the playoffs. McD is 13th among them, in playoff win percentage.

The fact that there are so many different variables and the data is still so consistent is what makes it so remarkable. 4.2 years is the average. You have no basis for this assertion. This is a 40 year data set that proves the assertion. The data disproves this.

Belichick didn’t have a franchise QB in Cleveland.

The fact that there are so many different variables and the data is still so consistent is what makes it so remarkable.

I see that data analysis is not your strong suit.

You would rather be the bridesmaid for a long time but never the bride… I just don’t understand that rational.

Great question. The answer is that the numbers are likely to be very close to the same, as many of the coaches have both won and lost Super Bowls.

Reid made it in his 6th season.

And when it does it typically happens within 7 years.

Great ideas for further research.

That’s fair.

Agreed, but those numerous variables and unique circumstances seem to point to a remarkably consistent conclusion when examining the data over a long span of time. Can a coach past year 7 be the outlier? Sure. But that requires faith in a significantly low percentage of success (8%).

What the data shows is that point in time typically happens within a coaches first 7 years.

Maybe at one point in time.

I'll be celebrating right next to you.

I haven't done that analysis yet, but lots of coaches on the Super Bowl list had been fired. Several of them after only 1 down year following several great years.

Exactly. That's why teams should always be searching for one who can. Haha. Got it fixed!

The tenure of Sean McDermott as head coach and the appropriate "leash" to allow him to lead this team to the Super Bowl has been a topic of considerable debate on this forum. While there's a consensus that he deserves additional time, the crux of the argument lies in determining the precise length of this leash. To shed light on this, I conducted a simple data study, examining the trajectory of every NFL head coach who has led their team to the Super Bowl (not necessarily winning, just reaching the final game) over the past 40 NFL seasons. Here is what the data revealed: On average, it takes a head coach 4.2 seasons to reach his first Super Bowl. Only 5 coaches in the past 40 years have made their inaugural Super Bowl appearance after 7 seasons of head coaching. This is particularly relevant as Sean McDermott is about to enter his seventh season as head coach The most frequent timeline for a coach's first Super Bowl appearance is two years, closely followed by five years. This trend suggests that many coaches are capable of assembling a Super Bowl-worthy team within the first 5 years of their tenure (77% of these coaches managed to make the Super Bowl within their first 5 seasons) NOTE: The data is across the coaches entire NFL career. For example, if a coach spent 5 years on his first team, and 4 years on his second team (before making a Super Bowl) the data tallies 9 total seasons prior to his inaugural Super Bowl appearance. NOTE 2: The Sean McDermott line is where McDermott will be after this upcoming season. the chart cuts off some of the names because the list is so long, but the data is there.