Career Quality
Narrow edgeEdge: Chet Benefiel
Chet Benefiel: 46th pct vs John Mayhew: 42nd 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.
John MayhewChet Benefiel
2 of 4 slots filled. Comparison is active.
Top-line verdicts
Who leads, and by how much
Peak Score
SimilarSimilar: John Mayhew vs Chet Benefiel
John Mayhew: 45th pct vs Chet Benefiel: 44th 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: Chet Benefiel vs John Mayhew
Chet Benefiel: 0 titles vs John Mayhew: 0 titles
Raw championship seasons from the curated national-title dataset.
Longevity
SimilarSimilar: Chet Benefiel vs John Mayhew
Chet Benefiel: 2 seasons vs John Mayhew: 2 seasons
Raw career span based on first and last tracked season.
Career Win Percentage
Clear edgeEdge: Chet Benefiel
Chet Benefiel: 57.5% vs John Mayhew: 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.
John Mayhew
Insufficient sample
Raw avg SP Overall: —
—
Insufficient sample
Chet Benefiel
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.
John MayhewChet Benefiel
EliteStrongAverageLean
1909Actual season year • SRS range -7.2 to 4.21940
Active comparison point
John Mayhew • 1909
1909 LSU
Best season6-2 • SRS 4.2 • SP Overall —
Win %
75.0%
YoY SRS
—
SP Off / Def
— / —
Finish
Unranked
Comparison context
Compared against the nearest season year point for the other selected coach.
Chet Benefiel
Nearest year 1939 • Tulsa
4-5-1 • SRS -7.2 • SP Overall —
John Mayhew holds a 11.4-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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| John Mayhew | |||||
| LSU | 1909-1910 | 2 | 7-7 | -1.2 | 4.2 |
| Chet Benefiel | |||||
| Tulsa | 1939-1940 | 2 | 11-8-1 | -1.6 | 4.0 |
Closing takeaway
What separates these careers at the finish
Similar overall level
Full profile →John Mayhew
7-7 • 50.0% • 2 seasons • 0 titles
This matchup stays tight across the headline comparison signals.
Best Season
LSU 1909
SRS 4.2
Worst Season
LSU 1910
SRS -6.6
Biggest Improvement
LSU 1910
-10.8 SRS
Higher career quality
Full profile →Chet Benefiel
11-8-1 • 57.5% • 2 seasons • 0 titles
46th pct career-quality score.
Best Season
Tulsa 1940
SRS 4.0
Worst Season
Tulsa 1939
SRS -7.2
Biggest Improvement
Tulsa 1940
11.2 SRS
Program impact deltas are hidden because at least one selected coach lacks a credible pre-tenure baseline.