Quote: sergeant pepper "Right so the relevance only applies if it suits your argument? You can go back to last season to justify it, but that's where we stop and you can't to any further back.
Hypothetically a coach could take a team from 1st to 10th in year one and then 10th to 5th in year two. That still looks like a net loss to me.'"
Because it's the coach of the YEAR. How far do you want to go back? You compare any improvement against the baseline you started from in the year you're judging. Surely that's just common sense?
As for your hypothetical, if he'd taken his team from 1st to 10th he would (presumably) be the worst coach that year. It would have no bearing on whether he was eligible to win it the following year. If that were the case all coaches would have to be judged against their best ever year and Waney couldn't win it ever again after his double winning year, for example. In your example it would indeed be a net loss over 2 years but we are not talking about 'coach of the biennium', we're talking about 'coach of the year'.