You asked for examples of shampship winning teams that had mediocre coaches. And I provided a few.
Ohio State won in spite of Jim Tressel, especially when you consider that nobody has even attempted to engage him for another coaching job, pro or college. And don't give me the show cause crap, because it didn't stop Bruce Pearl from landing another job. anOSU's success during Tressel's time was largely due to a weaker B1G.
Bobby Ross finished his career with a .500 record, including a sterling 31-26-1 record at Georgia Tech.
Coker is not like Switzer at all. Coker's predecessor didn't win any championships.
Sorry, but if you are selling me on any of those being great coaches, then you're barking up the wrong tree.
-YTC
What is your criteria for a good coach, or even a great one? I think that is issue here.
I think our expectations are out of step with reality in judging teams and coaches in CFB, and sports in general. It sounds like you would only consider a handful of coaches good over the past 20 years, like 20 at most over 20 years. Shouldn't the number of good coaches kind of follow a bell curve, where roughly 15-20% of coaches are considered good in a given year. For instance, that means about 25 coaches have done a good job in a given year, as compared to each other, since that is how you would define doing good. If instead you hold up some standard of good that few coaches ever attain, then what does it matter how many or which coaches you consider good. If you have some arbitrary standard that doesn't fit reality who cares how you assess coaches? I could say that no coaches are good who have not won 6 NCs at the D1A level, and therefore no coaches in CFB are good, but that would be a meaningless assessment. You compare coaches based on what they do with what they have, relative to what their peers do with what they have. That is a little vague, but it's the right way to approach the subject. So how does Tressell stack up against his peers, and coaching at a top flight program with lots of talent? Tressell stacks up pretty good.
I think of mediocre as middle of the pack. I don't consider Tressel middle of the pack, he was a very successful coach. He was at least a good coach, if not a great one. Sure he had a lot of talent at OSU, but he won a lot, a whole lot, 80% of his games, and he won a lot of big games, 4-3 in BCS bowls and a MNC. It sounds like you are saying OSU could have won without Tressel, and in fact would have done better without him. Plenty of great coaches win a lot with great talent, and you don't hold it against them, why does Tressel not get credit for winning at OSU? OSU was better with Tressel than his predecessor, so I find it hard to say OSU was better off without him.
You mentioned he won in a down Big Ten. First, conf strength is a always a circular argument with no objective answer so it's a harder argument to make, but certainly the Big Ten was never worse than the 4th or 5th best conference during the 2000s, so that is not a good argument. Second, historically, it's pretty common for coaches we call great to win while beating less talented teams in conferences with not much competition. That is the history of the game. Until the mid 90s, most conferences were dominated by a couple of teams without much competition. We consider Tom Osborne and Barry Switzer great coaches, and yet both had an embarrassment of talent and only one team in their conference that could beat them (Nebraska and Oklahoma). Same thing for FSU, where no one holds it against Bobby Bowden for FSU cleaning house in the 90s ACC. No one holds it against any of those coaches who are all considered great, not even just good. No one holds it against Switzer for winning with a dirty program either, so Tressel should be OK there too. Tressel certainly won with more competition than did Osborne, Switzer, or Bowden, so you shouldn't hold it against Tressel for winning a "weak conference", if you consider it that. Why is winning 80% of your games not enough to be good? I don't measure a coach by MNCs, if that is the criteria, and in any case, Tressel has one, which is similar to a lot of coaches we call great.
Can Tressel win without having great talent around him, which people often ask to assess how good a coach is? Yeah, he build Youngstown State into the most powerful D1AA dynasty of its time, winning 4 NCs and playing for the title a total of 6 times in his 14 years there. THEN, he came to OSU, one of the premier programs in the country, and kept on winning. He won with lesser programs, and he won with a great one. I think that answers the question that Tressel is at LEAST a good coach.
I get the feeling it's the style of play that people hold against Tressel, the so called "Tresselball". Who cares if played close the vest, the sweater vest as it were? Who cares if won without blowing out opponents, even though his teams probably could have blown out a lot more teams. Why does margin of victory matter? He had a style that won tons of games, and had them perennially in contention for BCS bowls and MNCs. What more do you want?
Maybe Tressel didn't want to coach anymore after OSU and his run ins with the NCAA. He has been in Ohio his whole life and appears to want to stay there. He is now president of Youngstown St., maybe that is what he wanted to do after coaching.
At the very least you should consider Tressell a good coach, even if you don't think he is great.