Career Quality
SimilarSimilar: Ted Cox vs Tim DeRuyter
Ted Cox: 48th pct vs Tim DeRuyter: 46th 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.
Ted CoxTim DeRuyter
2 of 4 slots filled. Comparison is active.
Top-line verdicts
Who leads, and by how much
Peak Score
Narrow edgeEdge: Tim DeRuyter
Tim DeRuyter: 76th pct vs Ted Cox: 70th pct
Percentile peak score derived from each coach's best season.
Consistency
SimilarSimilar: Ted Cox vs Tim DeRuyter
Ted Cox: 5th pct vs Tim DeRuyter: 2nd pct
Percentile steadiness score across season-to-season performance.
National Championships
SimilarSimilar: Ted Cox vs Tim DeRuyter
Ted Cox: 0 titles vs Tim DeRuyter: 0 titles
Raw championship seasons from the curated national-title dataset.
Longevity
SimilarSimilar: Ted Cox vs Tim DeRuyter
Ted Cox: 7 seasons vs Tim DeRuyter: 6 seasons
Raw career span based on first and last tracked season.
Career Win Percentage
SimilarSimilar: Ted Cox vs Tim DeRuyter
Ted Cox: 51.4% vs Tim DeRuyter: 50.8%
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.
Tim DeRuyter sets the reference point in overall strength.
Overall Strength
Decisive edgeTim DeRuyter sets the reference point in overall strength.
Normalized score; raw SP overall stays underneath for reference.
Ted Cox
Insufficient sample
Raw avg SP Overall: —
—
Insufficient sample
Tim DeRuyter
Above average
Raw avg SP Overall: 1.3
62th pct
Above average
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.
Ted CoxTim DeRuyter
EliteStrongAverageLean
Ted Cox: 1936 Oklahoma StateTim DeRuyter: 2012 Fresno State
1932Actual season year • SRS range -20.5 to 16.02016
Active comparison point
Ted Cox • 1934
1934 Tulane
Best seasonBiggest improvement10-1 • SRS 13.5 • SP Overall —
Win %
90.9%
YoY SRS
+5.8
SP Off / Def
— / —
Finish
Unranked
Comparison context
Compared against the nearest season year point for the other selected coach.
Tim DeRuyter
Nearest year 2011 • Texas A&M
1-0 • SRS 16.0 • SP Overall 22.7
Ted Cox trails by a 2.5-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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ted Cox | |||||
| Tulane | 1932-1935 | 4 | 28-10-2 | 8.3 | 13.5 |
| Oklahoma State | 1936-1938 | 3 | 7-23 | -15.5 | -12.1 |
| Tim DeRuyter | |||||
| Texas A&M | 2011-2011 | 1 | 1-0 | 16.0Best quality | 16.0Highest peak |
| Fresno State | 2012-2016 | 5 | 30-30 | -7.4 | 8.2 |
Closing takeaway
What separates these careers at the finish
Similar overall level
Full profile →Ted Cox
35-33-2 • 51.4% • 7 seasons • 0 titles
This matchup stays tight across the headline comparison signals.
Best Season
Tulane 1934
SRS 13.5
Worst Season
Oklahoma State 1938
SRS -20.0
Biggest Improvement
Tulane 1934
5.8 SRS
Higher ceiling
Full profile →Tim DeRuyter
31-30 • 50.8% • 6 seasons • 0 titles
16.0 peak SRS at the top end.
Best Season
Texas A&M 2011
SRS 16.0
Worst Season
Fresno State 2016
SRS -20.5
Biggest Improvement
Fresno State 2016
-2.6 SRS