One in Seven Coaches Goes Home to Coach. Home Gives Them No Edge.

Chuck Amato died on October 19. He was 80. He played linebacker at NC State in the 1960s, spent years as an assistant elsewhere, and came home to run the program in 2000. His teams went 49–37 over seven seasons. The 2002 team went 11–3, which the Associated Press notes is still the only double-digit-win season in school history.

His death raised a question we could count. Does a coach do better at the school he played for?

Here is the answer, with its number: no. Since 1970, 181 of about 1,345 major-college head coaching hires had played at the school. That is about one in seven, and it has held in every decade. They won 47% of their games. Every other coach at the same schools won 46%.

That should surprise you, because both of the usual stories predict a gap. One says a former player knows the place, sells it better, and wins more. The other says schools hire their old heroes for love and pay for it in losses. The numbers back neither one. By the end of this, you will know what does predict how a coach will do. You can look it up before he signs.

It Looks Like Coming Home Hurts

Start with a number that seems to settle it the other way. Take every coach who lasted at least three seasons. Compare his record to how the team did in the five years before he arrived. Of 125 former players, 80 won less than that. That is nearly two in three. Of 746 outsiders, fewer than half did.

So the old heroes made things worse? Hold on. Look at what each group was handed. The teams that hired a former player had been winning 54% of their games. The teams that hired an outsider had been winning 48%. Former players got the better jobs.

And a good job is hard to keep good. A team that has won a lot has usually had some luck along with its talent: a healthy quarterback, a few close games. The luck does not come along for the next coach. So the record slides back toward the middle, no matter who is in charge. That is regression to the mean, and it is the whole story here.

Read the chart left to right. Take over a losing team, and only about one coach in four does worse, former player or not. Take over a powerhouse, and nearly everyone does worse. The team you inherit tells you far more than where you played.

Of 19 former players handed a powerhouse, 18 won less than the five years before them. The one who did not is Kirby Smart at Georgia, who has won 85% of his games.

Compare Like With Like

Once you match coaches who took over similar teams, the gap almost closes. Former players come out about two points of winning percentage lower. That is about one game in fifty, and the likely range includes zero. We would not call it real.

Notice where the old heroes do look a bit worse: at the winning programs. One guess is that schools often promote a former player from the staff when a winning coach leaves. The program is at its peak on the day he is hired. That is a guess; our data cannot test it.

The list of homecomings runs from the best records in the sport to the worst. Steve Spurrier won 82% of his games at Florida. Jim Harbaugh won 78% at Michigan. Rick Venturi went 1–31–1 at Northwestern. Every one of them was coming home.

And Amato? NC State had won 44% of its games in the five years before he arrived. His teams won 57%. Coaches who take over a losing team usually improve it, and he did a little better than usual. Home had nothing to do with it; he was a good coach who started near the bottom and climbed.

What to Take Home

When your school hires a coach, look up how the team did over the last five years before you judge him. A coach who takes over a winner will probably win less. A coach who takes over a loser will probably win more. Where he played tells you about his heart. Those five years tell you about his record.

The same trap shows up everywhere. A new manager takes over a hot sales team and the numbers dip. A new principal takes over a failing school and scores rise. Before you credit or blame the person, ask what they were handed.