Career Quality
Clear edgeEdge: Clark Shaughnessy
Clark Shaughnessy: 63rd pct vs Lou Little: 50th pct
Percentile score against all tracked coaches.
Coaches Compare
Compare coach careers on the same scale.
See top-line edges, side-by-side profiles, overlaid career arcs, and school-stop comparisons in one matchup view.
Clark ShaughnessyLou Little
2 of 4 slots filled. Comparison is active.
Top-line verdicts
Who leads, and by how much
Peak Score
SimilarSimilar: Lou Little vs Clark Shaughnessy
Lou Little: 84th pct vs Clark Shaughnessy: 83rd pct
Percentile peak score derived from each coach's best season.
Consistency
Narrow edgeEdge: Clark Shaughnessy
Clark Shaughnessy: 12th pct vs Lou Little: 4th pct
Percentile steadiness score across season-to-season performance.
National Championships
SimilarSimilar: Clark Shaughnessy vs Lou Little
Clark Shaughnessy: 0 titles vs Lou Little: 0 titles
Raw championship seasons from the curated national-title dataset.
Longevity
Narrow edgeEdge: Clark Shaughnessy
Clark Shaughnessy: 32 seasons vs Lou Little: 30 seasons
Raw career span based on first and last tracked season.
Career Win Percentage
Narrow edgeEdge: Clark Shaughnessy
Clark Shaughnessy: 54.6% vs Lou Little: 51.9%
Raw career win rate, not a normalized score.
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.
Clark Shaughnessy
Insufficient sample
Raw avg SP Overall: —
—
Insufficient sample
Lou Little
Insufficient sample
Raw avg SP Overall: —
—
Insufficient sample
Career Arc Overlay
Overlay the same SRS scale to compare where each career climbed faster, held steadier, peaked higher, or dipped harder.
Focus on where peaks separate, where floors hold, and how the shape of each career changed over time.
Clark ShaughnessyLou Little
EliteStrongAverageLean
Clark Shaughnessy: 1933 ChicagoClark Shaughnessy: 1940 StanfordClark Shaughnessy: 1942 MarylandClark Shaughnessy: 1943 PittsburghClark Shaughnessy: 1946 MarylandLou Little: 1930 Columbia
1915Actual season year • SRS range -25.7 to 20.01956
Active comparison point
Clark Shaughnessy • 1940
1940 Stanford
Best seasonBiggest improvementNew stop: Stanford10-0 • SRS 19.5 • SP Overall —
Win %
100.0%
YoY SRS
+44.6
SP Off / Def
— / —
Finish
#2
Comparison context
Compared against the nearest season year point for the other selected coach.
Lou Little
Nearest year 1940 • Columbia
5-2-2 • SRS 3.3 • SP Overall —
Clark Shaughnessy holds a 16.2-point SRS edge at this point.
Tenure comparison
Compare school stops, duration, average level, and peak seasons across each coach's path.
| School | Years | Seasons | Record | Avg SRS | Peak |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clark Shaughnessy | |||||
| Tulane | 1915-1926 | 10 | 55-27-6 | -2.0 | 12.9 |
| Chicago | 1933-1939 | 7 | 17-34-4 | -8.0 | 8.3 |
| Stanford | 1940-1941 | 2 | 16-3 | 16.6Best quality | 19.5 |
| Maryland | 1942-1946 | 2 | 10-8 | -8.1 | -6.8 |
| Pittsburgh | 1943-1945 | 3 | 10-17 | -2.8 | 1.2 |
| Lou Little | |||||
| Georgetown | 1927-1929 | 3 | 21-5-2 | 12.0 | 20.0 |
| Columbia | 1930-1956 | 27 | 110-116-10 | -4.0 | 9.5Longest stop |
Closing takeaway
What separates these careers at the finish
Higher career quality
Full profile →Clark Shaughnessy
108-89-10 • 54.6% • 24 seasons • 0 titles
63rd pct career-quality score.
Best Season
Stanford 1940
SRS 19.5
Worst Season
Chicago 1939
SRS -25.1
Biggest Improvement
Stanford 1940
44.6 SRS
Similar overall level
Full profile →Lou Little
131-121-12 • 51.9% • 30 seasons • 0 titles
This matchup stays tight across the headline comparison signals.
Best Season
Georgetown 1928
SRS 20.0
Worst Season
Columbia 1956
SRS -25.7
Biggest Improvement
Columbia 1945
24.6 SRS
Program impact deltas are hidden because at least one selected coach lacks a credible pre-tenure baseline.