Career Quality
SimilarSimilar: Mark McMahon vs Andrew Gill
Mark McMahon: 37th pct vs Andrew Gill: 35th 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.
Andrew GillMark McMahon
2 of 4 slots filled. Comparison is active.
Top-line verdicts
Who leads, and by how much
Peak Score
SimilarSimilar: Andrew Gill vs Mark McMahon
Andrew Gill: 26th pct vs Mark McMahon: 26th pct
Percentile peak score derived from each coach's best season.
Consistency
Decisive edgeEdge unavailable
Not enough data
Percentile steadiness score across season-to-season performance.
National Championships
SimilarSimilar: Andrew Gill vs Mark McMahon
Andrew Gill: 0 titles vs Mark McMahon: 0 titles
Raw championship seasons from the curated national-title dataset.
Longevity
SimilarSimilar: Andrew Gill vs Mark McMahon
Andrew Gill: 2 seasons vs Mark McMahon: 1 seasons
Raw career span based on first and last tracked season.
Career Win Percentage
Clear edgeEdge: Mark McMahon
Mark McMahon: 54.2% vs Andrew Gill: 50.0%
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.
Andrew Gill
Insufficient sample
Raw avg SP Overall: —
—
Insufficient sample
Mark McMahon
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.
Andrew GillMark McMahon
EliteStrongAverageLean
1903Actual season year • SRS range -5.0 to -3.01919
Active comparison point
Andrew Gill • 1919
1919 Kentucky
Best seasonWorst season3-4-1 • SRS -4.0 • SP Overall —
Win %
43.8%
YoY SRS
—
SP Off / Def
— / —
Finish
Unranked
Comparison context
Compared against the nearest season year point for the other selected coach.
Mark McMahon
Nearest year 1903 • Oklahoma
5-4-3 • SRS -4.0 • SP Overall —
Andrew Gill holds a 0.0-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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andrew Gill | |||||
| Kentucky | 1918-1919 | 2 | 5-5-1 | -4.0 | -4.0 |
| Mark McMahon | |||||
| Oklahoma | 1903-1903 | 1 | 5-4-3 | -4.0 | -4.0 |
Closing takeaway
What separates these careers at the finish
Similar overall level
Full profile →Andrew Gill
5-5-1 • 50.0% • 2 seasons • 0 titles
This matchup stays tight across the headline comparison signals.
Best Season
Kentucky 1919
SRS -4.0
Worst Season
Kentucky 1919
SRS -4.0
Biggest Improvement
Unavailable
—
Similar overall level
Full profile →Mark McMahon
5-4-3 • 54.2% • 1 seasons • 0 titles
This matchup stays tight across the headline comparison signals.
Best Season
Oklahoma 1903
SRS -4.0
Worst Season
Oklahoma 1903
SRS -4.0
Biggest Improvement
Unavailable
—
Program impact deltas are hidden because at least one selected coach lacks a credible pre-tenure baseline.