Coaching Outcomes and Risk Management

The saying about Alabama's Coach Paul "Bear" Bryant was "he can take his'n and beat your'n or your'n and beat his'n."  The point being that the impact of coaching/training prowess cannot be overstated.

All things being equal, how might we express that "mathematically" or "graphically"?

On the 'X' axis we label "risk" which reflects all potential inputs including recruiting, training or overtraining, or any possible negative input. Coaches can (believe it or not) make unpopular decisions regarding style of play, coaching style, and personnel that would go into this.

On the 'Y' axis we label "return" which could be expressed as record or performance or some other measure of success.

The slope of the line is somewhat arbitrary, but we would acknowledge that the BEST coaches would have the steepest line relative to competitors and relative to their peers, they would shift the slope upward by getting more results with less "risk". 

Obviously, we can't measure this directly (either the slope or the 'risk') but you get the idea.

As a coach (or in parallel, an "investor"), you want to improve your 'return' at the lowest possible 'risk'. A coach like Kentucky's John Calipari has maximized his return at the cost of having a predominantly "one and done" approach looking for great talent to play for a year and send to the NBA.  There is a 'cost' to this regarding academic credibility. Conversely, any coach with poor results with good talent or other 'underachievement' must examine the process "whys".

Clearly, this is a qualitative approach, but illustrates the ideal of getting more or better results with less risk. Melrose has clearly enjoyed this effect.