Pacific
1943-1943 • 7-2
Baseline comparison is omitted when there are not enough outside-tenure seasons for this program.
Avg SRS 20.8Win % 77.8%
No school baseline data available for this tenure.
← Back to Coaches
Volatile BuilderBalancedLong Career
Amos Alonzo Stagg
1891-1943 • Chicago, Pacific, Springfield
3 schools coached, anchored by Chicago.
Amos Alonzo Stagg coached 43 seasons, won 68.3%, and posted an average SRS of 10.9. Best season: 1905 Chicago. The profile was balanced with a highly volatile profile. 3 stops shaped the career arc.
Career Record
282-123-29
Career Win %
68.3%
Seasons
43
Career Span
53 years
Average SRS
10.9
Peak SRS
42.2
Best Finish
#19
Consistency
6.3
Higher = steadier
Career Arc
Track how the coach's season-to-season performance changed over time, where the peak landed, and where each school stop began.
Focus on where peaks separate, where floors hold, and how the shape of each career changed over time.
Amos Alonzo Stagg
EliteStrongAverageLean
Amos Alonzo Stagg: 1892 ChicagoAmos Alonzo Stagg: 1943 Pacific
1891Actual season year • SRS range -10.2 to 42.21943
Active comparison point
Amos Alonzo Stagg • 1905
1905 Chicago
Best season11-0 • SRS 42.2 • SP Overall —
Win %
100.0%
YoY SRS
+20.8
SP Off / Def
— / —
Finish
Unranked
Comparison context
Focus a point to inspect how it stacks up against the rest of the field.
School Tenures
Each stop is sized by tenure length. Richer fill reflects a stronger average SRS at that school.
Length = seasons coachedDeeper color = stronger tenure
Pacific
1943-1943 • 1 seasons
Avg SRS 20.8 • Win % 77.8%
Chicago
1892-1932 • 41 seasons
Avg SRS 10.6 • Win % 69.1%
Springfield
1891-1891 • 1 seasons
Avg SRS — • Win % 39.3%
Longest Tenure
Chicago • 41 seasons
Best Tenure
Pacific • 20.8 SRS
Best Tenure Win %
Pacific • 77.8%
Style and Strength Profile
Compare strength, identity, steadiness, and ceiling through normalized bars with raw SP and SRS context underneath.
These bars are normalized against the full coach dataset. Raw SP and SRS values stay visible so the profile reads as evidence, not decoration.
Overall Strength
Start with total quality before splitting style and variance.
Not enough data to compare.
Overall Strength
Decisive edgeNot enough data to compare.
Normalized score; raw SP overall stays underneath for reference.
Amos Alonzo Stagg
Insufficient sample
Raw avg SP Overall: —
—
Insufficient sample
Impact by School
See how each stop compared with what that program usually looked like outside this tenure.
Chicago
1892-1932 • 270-113-28
Baseline comparison is omitted when there are not enough outside-tenure seasons for this program.
Avg SRS 10.6Win % 69.1%
No school baseline data available for this tenure.
Springfield
1891-1891 • 5-8-1
Baseline comparison is omitted when there are not enough outside-tenure seasons for this program.
Avg SRS —Win % 39.3%
No school baseline data available for this tenure.
Career Highs and Lows
High Points
Best Season
Chicago 1905
11-0 • SRS 42.2
Biggest Improvement
Chicago 1902
14-1 • 25.5 SRS
Best Offensive Season
Unavailable
Best Defensive Season
Unavailable
Setbacks
Worst Season
Chicago 1901
8-6-2 • SRS -10.2
Biggest Drop
Chicago 1906
4-1 • -25.1 SRS
Season-by-Season Results
Full transparency into every season in the coaching record. Positive YoY values indicate improvement from the prior season.
| Pacific | 1943 | 9 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 77.8% | — | #19 | 20.8 | — | — | — | +19.8 | +34.0% |
| Chicago | 1932 | 8 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 43.8% | — | — | 1.0 | — | — | — | +6.8 | +16.0% |
| Chicago | 1931 | 9 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 27.8% | — | — | -5.8 | — | — | — | +2.8 | -5.6% |
| Chicago | 1930 | 9 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 33.3% | — | — | -8.6 | — | — | — | -12.9 | -36.7% |
| Chicago | 1929 | 10 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 70.0% | — | — | 4.3 | — | — | — | +12.5 | +47.8% |
| Chicago | 1928 | 9 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 22.2% | — | — | -8.2 | — | — | — | -12.0 | -27.8% |
| Chicago | 1927 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 50.0% | — | — | 3.8 | — | — | — | +6.7 | +25.0% |
| Chicago | 1926 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 25.0% | — | — | -2.9 | — | — | — | -9.6 | -18.8% |
| Chicago | 1925 | 8 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 43.8% | — | — | 6.7 | — | — | — | -6.5 | -25.0% |
| Chicago | 1924 | 8 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 68.8% | — | — | 13.2 | — | — | — | -1.4 | -18.8% |
| Chicago | 1923 | 8 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 87.5% | — | — | 14.6 | — | — | — | -0.3 | +8.9% |
| Chicago | 1922 | 7 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 78.6% | — | — | 14.9 | — | — | — | -12.0 | -7.1% |
| Chicago | 1921 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 85.7% | — | — | 26.9 | — | — | — | +12.6 | +42.9% |
| Chicago | 1920 | 7 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 42.9% | — | — | 14.3 | — | — | — | -3.5 | -28.6% |
| Chicago | 1919 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 71.4% | — | — | 17.8 | — | — | — | — | +30.5% |
| Chicago | 1918 | 11 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 40.9% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | -17.4% |
| Chicago | 1917 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 58.3% | — | — | 17.6 | — | — | — | +17.3 | +15.5% |
| Chicago | 1916 | 7 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 42.9% | — | — | 0.3 | — | — | — | -15.2 | -28.6% |
| Chicago | 1915 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 71.4% | — | — | 15.5 | — | — | — | -9.1 | +7.1% |
| Chicago | 1914 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 64.3% | — | — | 24.6 | — | — | — | +12.5 | -35.7% |
| Chicago | 1913 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% | — | — | 12.1 | — | — | — | -10.2 | +14.3% |
| Chicago | 1912 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 85.7% | — | — | 22.3 | — | — | — | +11.8 | 0.0% |
| Chicago | 1911 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 85.7% | — | — | 10.5 | — | — | — | +8.7 | +57.1% |
| Chicago | 1910 | 7 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 28.6% | — | — | 1.8 | — | — | — | -6.8 | -42.9% |
| Chicago | 1909 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 71.4% | — | — | 8.6 | — | — | — | -16.1 | -20.2% |
| Chicago | 1908 | 6 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 91.7% | — | — | 24.7 | — | — | — | +6.7 | +11.7% |
| Chicago | 1907 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 80.0% | — | — | 18.0 | — | — | — | +0.9 | 0.0% |
| Chicago | 1906 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 80.0% | — | — | 17.1 | — | — | — | -25.1 | -20.0% |
| Chicago | 1905 | 11 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% | — | — | 42.2 | — | — | — | +20.8 | +12.5% |
| Chicago | 1904 | 12 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 87.5% | — | — | 21.4 | — | — | — | +10.1 | +4.2% |
| Chicago | 1903 | 15 | 12 | 2 | 1 | 83.3% | — | — | 11.3 | — | — | — | -4.0 | -10.0% |
| Chicago | 1902 | 15 | 14 | 1 | 0 | 93.3% | — | — | 15.3 | — | — | — | +25.5 | +37.1% |
| Chicago | 1901 | 16 | 8 | 6 | 2 | 56.3% | — | — | -10.2 | — | — | — | -7.6 | -7.1% |
| Chicago | 1900 | 15 | 9 | 5 | 1 | 63.3% | — | — | -2.6 | — | — | — | -22.6 | -31.1% |
| Chicago | 1899 | 18 | 16 | 0 | 2 | 94.4% | — | — | 20.0 | — | — | — | +8.9 | +9.2% |
| Chicago | 1898 | 17 | 14 | 2 | 1 | 85.3% | — | — | 11.1 | — | — | — | +14.3 | -6.4% |
| Chicago | 1897 | 12 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 91.7% | — | — | -3.2 | — | — | — | — | +5.6% |
| Chicago | 1896 | 18 | 15 | 2 | 1 | 86.1% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | +9.2% |
| Chicago | 1895 | 13 | 10 | 3 | 0 | 76.9% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | +11.0% |
| Chicago | 1894 | 22 | 14 | 7 | 1 | 65.9% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | +7.6% |
| Chicago | 1893 | 12 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 58.3% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | -7.0% |
| Chicago | 1892 | 13 | 8 | 4 | 1 | 65.4% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | +26.1% |
| Springfield | 1891 | 14 | 5 | 8 | 1 | 39.3% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
Similar Coaches
Related profiles are matched by style, strength band, volatility band, peak range, and career length.
Lou Holtz
same balanced identity • avg SRS within 0.1
Avg SRS 11.0 • Peak SRS 27.5 • 33 seasons
Best finish #1 • Volatility 12.8
Open profile →Joe Paterno
same balanced identity
Avg SRS 15.6 • Peak SRS 30.6 • 46 seasons
Best finish #1 • Volatility 7.9
Open profile →Pop Warner
same balanced identity • volatility within 1.1
Avg SRS 16.3 • Peak SRS 41.4 • 42 seasons
Best finish Unranked • Volatility 10.4
Open profile →George Woodruff
same balanced identity • avg SRS within 1.3
Avg SRS 9.6 • Peak SRS 23.2 • 17 seasons
Best finish Unranked • Volatility 9.2
Open profile →Mack Brown
avg SRS within 1.1 • volatility within 0.5
Avg SRS 9.7 • Peak SRS 31.0 • 35 seasons
Best finish #1 • Volatility 11.0
Open profile →Dick Harlow
same balanced identity • avg SRS within 1.8
Avg SRS 9.1 • Peak SRS 21.9 • 13 seasons
Best finish Unranked • Volatility 10.2
Open profile →