1915-1946 • LSU, Mississippi College, Nebraska, Texas, Texas A&M
5 schools coached, anchored by Texas A&M.
Dana Bible coached 31 seasons, won 71.5%, and posted an average SRS of 9.1. Best season: 1941 Texas. The profile was balanced with a highly volatile profile. 5 stops shaped the career arc.
Career Record
190-69-22
Career Win %
71.5%
Seasons
31
Career Span
32 years
Average SRS
9.1
Peak SRS
28.8
Best Finish
#4
Consistency
22.7
Higher = steadier
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.
Active comparison point
8-1-1 • SRS 28.8 • SP Overall —
Win %
85.0%
YoY SRS
+12.3
SP Off / Def
— / —
Finish
#4
Comparison context
Focus a point to inspect how it stacks up against the rest of the field.
Each stop is sized by tenure length. Richer fill reflects a stronger average SRS at that school.
Texas
1937-1946 • 10 seasons
Avg SRS 12.2 • Win % 66.5%
Nebraska
1929-1936 • 8 seasons
Avg SRS 10.3 • Win % 74.3%
Texas A&M
1917-1928 • 11 seasons
Avg SRS 8.2 • Win % 76.5%
LSU
1916-1916 • 1 seasons
Avg SRS -4.5 • Win % 66.7%
Mississippi College
1915-1915 • 1 seasons
Avg SRS -9.0 • Win % 50.0%
Longest Tenure
Texas A&M • 11 seasons
Best Tenure
Texas • 12.2 SRS
Best Tenure Win %
Texas A&M • 76.5%
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.
Start with total quality before splitting style and variance.
Not enough data to compare.
Not enough data to compare.
Normalized score; raw SP overall stays underneath for reference.
Dana Bible
Insufficient sample
Raw avg SP Overall: —
—
Insufficient sample
See how each stop compared with what that program usually looked like outside this tenure.
1937-1946 • 63-31-3
Compared with this school's baseline outside the tenure over the prior 5 seasons (5 baseline seasons found).
Avg wins
Higher is better
6.3 during vs 5.0 baseline
+1.3
Avg SRS
Higher is better
12.2 during vs 8.8 baseline
+3.4
Avg SP Overall
Higher is better
— during vs — baseline
—
Ranked finish rate
Higher is better
50.0% during vs 0.0% baseline
+50.0%
1929-1936 • 50-15-7
Compared with this school's baseline outside the tenure over the prior 5 seasons (5 baseline seasons found).
Avg wins
Higher is better
6.3 during vs 5.6 baseline
+0.7
Avg SRS
Higher is better
10.3 during vs 12.3 baseline
-2.0
Avg SP Overall
Higher is better
— during vs — baseline
—
Ranked finish rate
Higher is better
12.5% during vs 0.0% baseline
+12.5%
1917-1928 • 72-19-9
Compared with this school's baseline outside the tenure over the prior 5 seasons (5 baseline seasons found).
Avg wins
Higher is better
6.5 during vs 5.8 baseline
+0.8
Avg SRS
Higher is better
8.2 during vs -2.9 baseline
+11.0
Avg SP Overall
Higher is better
— during vs — baseline
—
Ranked finish rate
Higher is better
0.0% during vs 0.0% baseline
+0.0%
1916-1916 • 1-0-2
Compared with this school's baseline outside the tenure over the prior 5 seasons (5 baseline seasons found).
Avg wins
Higher is better
1.0 during vs 5.2 baseline
-4.2
Avg SRS
Higher is better
-4.5 during vs -9.3 baseline
+4.8
Avg SP Overall
Higher is better
— during vs — baseline
—
Ranked finish rate
Higher is better
0.0% during vs 0.0% baseline
+0.0%
1915-1915 • 4-4-1
Baseline comparison is omitted when there are not enough outside-tenure seasons for this program.
High Points
Best Season
Texas 1941
8-1-1 • SRS 28.8
Biggest Improvement
Texas A&M 1927
8-0-1 • 25.2 SRS
Best Offensive Season
Unavailable
Best Defensive Season
Unavailable
Setbacks
Worst Season
Mississippi College 1915
4-4-1 • SRS -9.0
Biggest Drop
Texas A&M 1928
5-4-1 • -28.9 SRS
Full transparency into every season in the coaching record. Positive YoY values indicate improvement from the prior season.
| Texas | 1946 | 10 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 80.0% | — | #15 | 18.2 | — | — | — | +5.0 | -10.9% |
| Texas | 1945 | 11 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 90.9% | — | #10 | 13.2 | — | — | — | +5.1 | +35.4% |
| Texas | 1944 | 9 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 55.6% | — | — | 8.1 | — | — | — | -6.9 | -27.8% |
| Texas | 1943 | 9 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 83.3% | — | #14 | 15.0 | — | — | — | +0.2 | +1.5% |
| Texas | 1942 | 11 | 9 | 2 | 0 | 81.8% | — | #11 | 14.8 | — | — | — | -14.0 | -3.2% |
| Texas | 1941 | 10 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 85.0% | — | #4 | 28.8 | — | — | — | +12.3 | +5.0% |
| Texas | 1940 | 10 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 80.0% | — | — | 16.5 | — | — | — | +10.2 | +24.4% |
| Texas | 1939 | 9 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 55.6% | — | — | 6.3 | — | — | — | +11.7 | +44.4% |
| Texas | 1938 | 9 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 11.1% | — | — | -5.4 | — | — | — | -11.6 | -16.7% |
| Texas | 1937 | 9 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 27.8% | — | — | 6.2 | — | — | — | -14.9 | -50.0% |
| Nebraska | 1936 | 9 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 77.8% | — | #9 | 21.1 | — | — | — | +8.9 | +5.6% |
| Nebraska | 1935 | 9 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 72.2% | — | — | 12.2 | — | — | — | +9.1 | +5.6% |
| Nebraska | 1934 | 9 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 66.7% | — | — | 3.1 | — | — | — | -15.1 | -22.2% |
| Nebraska | 1933 | 9 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 88.9% | — | — | 18.2 | — | — | — | +10.6 | +5.6% |
| Nebraska | 1932 | 9 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 83.3% | — | — | 7.6 | — | — | — | +2.2 | +3.3% |
| Nebraska | 1931 | 10 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 80.0% | — | — | 5.4 | — | — | — | +0.4 | +24.4% |
| Nebraska | 1930 | 9 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 55.6% | — | — | 5.0 | — | — | — | -5.1 | -13.2% |
| Nebraska | 1929 | 8 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 68.8% | — | — | 10.1 | — | — | — | +10.6 | +13.8% |
| Texas A&M | 1928 | 10 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 55.0% | — | — | -0.5 | — | — | — | -28.9 | -39.4% |
| Texas A&M | 1927 | 9 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 94.4% | — | — | 28.4 | — | — | — | +25.2 | +33.3% |
| Texas A&M | 1926 | 9 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 61.1% | — | — | 3.2 | — | — | — | -4.7 | -22.2% |
| Texas A&M | 1925 | 9 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 83.3% | — | — | 7.9 | — | — | — | +0.7 | +8.3% |
| Texas A&M | 1924 | 10 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 75.0% | — | — | 7.2 | — | — | — | +1.4 | +13.9% |
| Texas A&M | 1923 | 9 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 61.1% | — | — | 5.8 | — | — | — | -3.9 | +5.6% |
| Texas A&M | 1922 | 9 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 55.6% | — | — | 9.7 | — | — | — | +8.1 | -22.2% |
| Texas A&M | 1921 | 9 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 77.8% | — | — | 1.6 | — | — | — | +2.2 | -3.5% |
| Texas A&M | 1920 | 8 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 81.3% | — | — | -0.6 | — | — | — | -10.1 | -18.8% |
| Texas A&M | 1919 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% | — | — | 9.5 | — | — | — | -8.0 | 0.0% |
| Texas A&M | 1917 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% | — | — | 17.5 | — | — | — | +22.0 | +33.3% |
| LSU | 1916 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 66.7% | — | — | -4.5 | — | — | — | +4.5 | +16.7% |
| Mississippi College | 1915 | 9 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 50.0% | — | — | -9.0 | — | — | — | — | — |
Related profiles are matched by style, strength band, volatility band, peak range, and career length.
same balanced identity • avg SRS within 0.4
Avg SRS 8.7 • Peak SRS 24.2 • 29 seasons
Best finish #1 • Volatility 8.8
Open profile →same balanced identity • avg SRS within 0.0
Avg SRS 9.1 • Peak SRS 21.9 • 13 seasons
Best finish Unranked • Volatility 10.2
Open profile →same balanced identity • avg SRS within 0.2
Avg SRS 8.8 • Peak SRS 22.4 • 10 seasons
Best finish #6 • Volatility 10.2
Open profile →same balanced identity • avg SRS within 0.1
Avg SRS 8.9 • Peak SRS 25.4 • 30 seasons
Best finish Unranked • Volatility 7.1
Open profile →same balanced identity • avg SRS within 0.5
Avg SRS 9.6 • Peak SRS 23.2 • 17 seasons
Best finish Unranked • Volatility 9.2
Open profile →same balanced identity • avg SRS within 0.6
Avg SRS 8.5 • Peak SRS 26.0 • 23 seasons
Best finish #3 • Volatility 8.3
Open profile →