Following a Legend (Updated)

[SWC75]

A dozen years ago we were coming off a stretch of two NCAA one-and-dones and two NIT years, the second of which ended with a blown 24 lead in the Dome to UMASS- the second time they’d beaten us there. (Seemingly), everyone’s diagnosis and solution was that “the game had passed Jim Boeheim by” and that we had to “ease him into retirement”. The new coach would solve his problems and have none of his own. I decided at that time to look at occasions when a long-term successful coach leaves the job: how does his winning percentage compare to his successors? If it’s no significantly better, and certainly if it’s worse, the fans are likely to complain about the new guy even more, (and the complainers will probably be the same fans who wanted the legendary coach to move on).

At that time I decided to look at the top 25 college basketball and football coaches with the most wins, (this wasn’t long after Paul Pasquloni, our second winningest football coach was fired and replaced with our losingest football coach). I also delved into their stories, who replaced them, what their resume was, etc. I found that 84% of the time the next guy had a worse record and every category of new coaches, (internal promotion, alum, had head coaching experience elsewhere, came from the pros, etc.) as a group had a worse record than the legend that preceded them, (although having head coaching experience in college was a better predictor of success than the others). I’ve never updated it because I assumed the results would be similar.

We had a great stretch following that study, going 177-42 from 2009-14, (29.5-7 per year), and the complaints receded. It was a good thing Boeheim hadn’t retired.

Now the retirement bell is being rung again. We went on probation. We’ve had a series of ‘bubble’-type teams, (broadly defined: double figure losses on selection Sunday). This year we lost our starting center 4 minutes into the season. Our schedule got cut down and reconstructed and then shot full of holes by Covid. We wound up without the early season blow-out games where everybody gets to play and having to play most of our tough games on the road. The conference was down. It all produced a dearth of Quad One game and a dearth of victories in them. We’re playing a series of teams that seem assembled to take advantage of our weaknesses and are likely to end the regular season with a discouraging losing streak with little optimism for what might be accomplished in a post season, (which will likely end in the NIT). The solution is the same: get rid of Boeheim. The next guy will fix everything, (especially if he’s the guy we like for the job).

It seems like time to redo this study. I was looking for a list of the winningest college basketball coaches and came across this:

Men's DI college basketball coaches with the most wins

These are the men's Division I college basketball coaches with the most wins in their careers, led by Mike Krzyzewski.

www.ncaa.com

I looked over that list and decided to base the study simply on that. I also decided to keep it simple because I wanted to do this quickly: I’ll just look at the coach’s winning percentage at the school for which he had the longest tenure, (if that’s a tie I’ll use his winning percentage at those schools to break the tie), and then look at the winning percentage at that school of his immediate successor, (which I’m getting from Wikipedia and Sports Reference.com). I won’t get into the backstory and analysis I did in 2008. I’m excluding interim coaches as “successors”. Coaches still coaching at their longest tenure are, of course excluded: they have no successor yet. Where a coach has more than one period at the same school, they will be treated as separate tenures. The cases where the successor had a higher winning percentage are in bold.

Bob Knight was .735 at Indiana. His successor, Mike Davis was .593 = -142 points
Jim Calhoun was .720 at Connecticut. His successor, Kevin Ollie was .551 = -169 points
Dean Smith was .776 at North Carolina. His successor, Bill Guthridge was .740 = -36 points
Adolph Rupp was .822 at Kentucky. His successor, Joe B. Hall was .748 = -74 points
Jim Phelan was .613 at Mount St. Mary’s. His successor, Milan Brown was .442 = -171 points
Rollie Massimino was .596 at Villanova. His successor, Steve Lappas was .613 = +17 points
Eddie Sutton was .709 at Oklahoma State. His successor, Sean Sutton was .573 = -136 points
Rick Byrd was .673 at Belmont. His successor, Casey Alexander is .833 = +160 points
Lefty Driesell was .686 at Maryland. His successor, Bob Wade was .419 = -267 points
Lute Olson was .735 at Arizona. His successor, Kevin O’Neill was .559 = -176 points
Lou Henson was .654 at Illinois. His successor, Lon Kruger was .628 = -26 points
Bo Ryan was .737 at Wisconsin. His successor, Greg Gard is .639 = -98 points
Ed Diddle was .715 at Western Kentucky. His successor, Johnny Oldham was .781 = +66 points
Hank Iba was .673 at Oklahoma State. His successor, Sam Aubrey was .231 = -442 points
John Beilein was .650 at Michigan. His successor, Juwan Howard is .740 = +90 points
Phog Allen was .729 at Kansas. His successor, Dick Harp was .596 = -133 points
John Chaney was .671 at Temple. His successor, Fran Dunphy was .625 = -46 points
Norm Stewart was .656 at Missouri. His successor, Quin Snyder was .581 = -75 points
Jerry Tarkanian was .829 at Indiana. His successor, Rollie Massimino was .554 = -275 points
Ray Meyer was .672 at DePaul. His successor, Joey Meyer was .594 = -78 points
Jerry Slocum was .381 at Youngstown State. His successor, Jerrod Calhoun was .431 = +50 points
Don Haskins was .671 at UTEP. His successor, Jason Rabedeaux was .500 = -171 points
Larry Hunter was .801 at Wittenberg. His successor, Dan Hipsher was .843 = +42 points
Rick Barnes was .691 at Texas. His successor, Shaka Smart was .550 = -141 points
Mike Montgomery was .702 at Stanford. His successor, Trent Johnson was .625 = -77 points
Denny Crum was .696 at Louisville. His successor, Rick Pitino was .744 = +48 points
Gary Williams was .647 at Maryland. His successor, Mark Turgeon was .668 = +21 points
John Wooden was .808 at UCLA. His successor, Gene Bartow was .852 = +44 points
Ralph Miller was .633 at Oregon State. His successor, Jim Anderson was .467 = -166 points
Tom Penders was .654 at Texas. His successor, Rick Barnes was .691 = +37 points
Rick Pitino was .744 at Louisville. His successor, Chris Mack was .687 = -57 points
Gene Bartow was .643 at UAB. His successor, Murray Bartow was .554 = -89 points
Dana Altman was .650 at Creighton. His successor, Greg McDermott was .670 = +20 points
Jim Larranaga was .625 at George Mason. His successor, Paul Hewitt was .496 = -129 points
Billy Tubbs was .716 at Oklahoma. His successor, Kelvin Sampson was .719 = +3 points
Homer Drew was .550 at Valparaiso. His successor, Bryce Drew was .717 = +167 points
Marv Harshman was .628 at Washington. His successor, Andy Russo was .496 = -132 points
Hugh Durham was .580 at Georgia. His successor, Tubby Smith was .703 = +123 points
Cam Henderson was .695 at Marshall. His successor, Jule Rivlin was .532 = -163 points
Norm Sloan was .677 at Florida. His successor, Jim Valvano was .651 = -26 points
Stew Morrill was .720 at Utah State. His successor, Tim Duryea was .495 = -225 points
Tom Smith was .616 at Missouri Western. His successor, Brett Weiberg was .363 = -253 points
Kelvin Sampson was .719 at Oklahoma. His successor, Jeff Capel was .582 = -137 points
Ben Braun was .587 at California. His successor, Mike Montgomery was .640 = +53 points
Tubby Smith was .760 at Kentucky. His successor, Billy Gillespie was .597 = -163 points
Jerry Steele was .527 at High Point. His successor, Bart Lundy was .525 = -2 points
Dave Boots was .682 at South Dakota. His successor, Craig Smith was .589 = -93 points
Slats Gill was .604 at Oregon State. His successor, Paul Valenti was .526 = -78 points
Tom Davis was .660 at Iowa. His successor, Steve Alford was .589 = -71 points
Abe Lemons was .632 at Oklahoma City. His successor, Paul Hansen was .509 = -123 points
John Thompson was .714 at Georgetown. His successor, Craig Esherick was .582 = -132 points
Guy Lewis was .682 at Houston. His successor, Pat Foster was .660 = -22 points
Joe Hutton was .741 at Hamline. His successor, Howard Schultz was .240 = -501 points
Dom Roselli was .606 at Youngstown State. His successor, Mike Rice was .528 = -78 points
Steve Alford was.589 at Iowa. His successor, Todd Lickliter was .396 = -193 points
Tony Shaver was .747 at Hamden-Sydney. His successor, Bubba Smith was .671 = -76 points
Greg Walcavich was .613 at Edinboro State. His successor, Pat Cleary is .485 = -128 points
Fran Dunphy was .625 at Temple. His successor, Aaron McKie is .413 = -212 points
Bobby Cremins was .599 at Georgia Tech. His successor, Paul Hewitt was .540 = -59 points
Pat Douglass was .508 at Cal-Irvine. His successor, Russell Turner is .601 = +93 points
Fred Hobdy was .665 at Grambling. His successor, Bob Hopkins was .494 = -171 points
Eldon Miller was .480 at Northern Iowa. His successor, Sam Weaver was .345 = -135 points
Davey Whitney was .674 at Alcorn State. His successor, Lonnie Walker was .325 = -349 points
Dave Bliss was .695 at New Mexico. His successor, Fran Fraschilla was .573 = -122 points
Gale Catlett was .610 at West Virginia. His successor, John Beilein was .634 = +24 points
Gary Colson was .528 at Pepperdine. His successor, Jim Harrick was .633 = +105 points
Danny Kaspar was .636 at Stephen . Austin. His successor, Brad Underwood was .864 = +228 points
Bruce Pearl was .834 at Southern Indiana. His successor, Rick Herdes was .772 = -62 points
Ed Douma was .779 at Calvin. His successor, Kevin Vande Streek was .677 = -102 points
John Kresse was .792 at College of Charleston. His successor, Tom Herrion was .678 = -114 points
Tony Hinkle was .588 at Butler. His successor, George Theofanis was .429 = -159 points
Jim Boone was .764 was California (Pa). His successor, Bill Brown was .634 = -130 points
Glenn Wilkes was .558 at Stetson. His successor, Dan Hipsher was .518 = -40 points
Frank McGuire was .666 at South Carolina. His successor, Bill E. Foster was .538 = -128 points
Bob Davis was .694 at Georgetown (KY). His successor, Jim Reid was .727 = +33 points
Harry Miller was .603 at Stephen . Austin. His successor, Mike Martin was .218 = -385 points
Bill C. Foster was .595 at Clemson. His successor, Cliff Ellis was .581 = -14 points
Gene Keady was .655 at Purdue. His successor, Matt Painter is .660 = +5 points
Bob Gaillard was .617 at Lewis and Clark. His successor, Dinari Foreman is .486 = -131 points
Dave Bike was .514 at Sacred Heart. His successor, Anthony Latina is .416 = -98 points
Lou Carnesecca was .718 at St John’s. His successor, Brian Mahoney was .491 = -227 points
Pete Carril was .663 at Princeton. His successor, Bill Carmody was .786 = +123 points
Tom Young was .673 at Rutgers. His successor, Craig Littlepage was .267 = -406 points
Ben Jobe was .653 at Southern U. His successor, Tommy Green was .536 = -137 points
Larry Eustachy was .557 at Southern Mississippi. His successor, Donnie Tyndall was .767 = +210 points
Fred Enke was .611 at Arizona. His successor, Bruce Larson was .479 = -132 points
Bob Hoffman was .559 at Mercer. His successor, Greg Gary is .569 = +10 points
Rick Majerus was .773 at Utah. His successor, Ray Giacoletti was .574 = -199 points
C.M. Newton was .632 at Alabama. His successor, Wimp Sanderson was .692 = +60 points
Don DeVoe was .533 at Navy. His successor, Billy Lange was .444 = -89 points
Paul Webb was .666 at Randolph-Macon. His successor, Hal Nunnally was .650 = -16 points
Nolan Richardson was .697 at Arkansas. His successor, Stan Heath was .536 = -161 points
Hec Edmundson was .713 at Washington. His successor, Arthur McLarney was .596 = -117 points
John Giannini was .484 at LaSalle. His successor, Ashley Howard was .400 = -84 points
Harold Anderson was .662 at Bowling Green. His successor, Warren Scholler was .453 = -209 points
Dave Loos was .506 at Austin Peay State. His successor, Matt Figger is .603 = +97 points
Jerry Welsh was .778 at Potsdam State. His successor, Bill Mitchell was .410 = -368 points
Billy Donovan was .715 at Florida. His successor, Michael White was .630 = -85 points
Don Maestri was .556 at Troy. His successor, Phil Cunningham was .419 = -137 points
Gregg Marshall was .732 at Wichita State. His successor, Isaac Brown is .765 = +33 points
Ed Martin was .648 at Tennessee State. His successor, Larry Reid was .396 = -252 points
Bill Reinhart was .574 at George Washington. His successor, Babe McCarthy was .333 = -241 points
Cal Luther was .610 at Murray State. His successor, Fred Overton was .427 = -183 points

That’s 103 coaches who won over 500 games in their careers and are not currently employed at the school that employed them the longest. In 76 of those cases, the next coach had a worse winning percentage. That’s 74%, down a bit from my 2008 study but still a significant number, to say the least.
The total net change in the winning percent ages is -9,267 points. Divide that by 103 coaches and you get an average decline in winning percentage of 90 points.

So, have ‘that conversation’ with Jim Boeheim if you want to. But be careful what you wish for.

 

[miamicuse]

Nice analysis.

It would probably be too much work, but I would be curious to compare the winning percentages of the long time coaches' last X year vs his corresponding successors.

I am assuming most coaches toward the end of their tenures experienced a decline in their winning percentages. Not sure what X should be 3,4,5,6,7 years. The long time coaches' overall winning percentages may not tell the full story.

The current fans who want changes want to get out of the current stagnation and seemingly perpetual mediocrity, so it the wins back ten, twenty years ago, are no longer relevant (based on the argument that our coach has evolved and not the same coach with the same intensity), so a comparison to the tail end of a long tenure seems to reflect the short to medium term contrast between the coach and his successor. You could also make the argument that most successors were not given enough time to prove themselves - the predecessor had 40 years to make his mark, the successor had two.

 

[SWC75]

Nice analysis.

It would probably be too much work, but I would be curious to compare the winning percentages of the long time coaches' last X year vs his corresponding successors.

I am assuming most coaches toward the end of their tenures experienced a decline in their winning percentages. Not sure what X should be 3,4,5,6,7 years. The long time coaches' overall winning percentages may not tell the full story.

The current fans who want changes want to get out of the current stagnation and seemingly perpetual mediocrity, so it the wins back ten, twenty years ago, are no longer relevant (based on the argument that our coach has evolved and not the same coach with the same intensity), so a comparison to the tail end of a long tenure seems to reflect the short to medium term contrast between the coach and his successor. You could also make the argument that most successors were not given enough time to prove themselves - the predecessor had 40 years to make his mark, the successor had two.

If you wish to take the analysis beyond the rather basic look at the issue I've given here in search of a different conclusion, be my guest. The coaches who were at the Division 1 level can be found here:

College Basketball Statistics and History | College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com (sports-reference.com)

Some of the others are on Wikipedia. the school's websites or a google search can provide more information.

I would argue that the sheer number of coaches in the sample suggests that expecting a successor to do better is probably going to lead to disappointment.

 

[SWC75]

I have been challenged to look at the end of the legendary coach’s career and the record of his successor. One posters aid that “75% of those coaches underperformed prior levels and by a significant margin”, without providing the evidence of that. Another said “It would probably be too much work, but I would be curious to compare the winning percentages of the long-time coaches' last X year vs his corresponding successors. I am assuming most coaches toward the end of their tenures experienced a decline in their winning percentages. Not sure what X should be 3,4,5,6,7 years. The long-time coaches' overall winning percentages may not tell the full story.”

I decided to look at the legend’s last 5 seasons and then compare his winning percentage in those seasons to those of his successor.

Bob Knight was .654 at Indiana. His successor, Mike Davis was .593 = -61 points
Jim Calhoun was .702 at Connecticut. His successor, Kevin Ollie was .551 = -151 points
Dean Smith was .799 at North Carolina. His successor, Bill Guthridge was .740 = -59 points
Adolph Rupp was .820 at Kentucky. His successor, Joe B. Hall was .748 = -72 points
Jim Phelan was .319 at Mount St. Mary’s. His successor, Milan Brown was .442 = -+123 points
Rollie Massimino was .576 at Villanova. His successor, Steve Lappas was .613 = +37 points
Eddie Sutton was .721 at Oklahoma State. His successor, Sean Sutton was .573 = -148 points
Rick Byrd was .720 at Belmont. His successor, Casey Alexander is .833 = +113 points
Lefty Driesell was .646 at Maryland. His successor, Bob Wade was .419 = -227 points
Lute Olson was .724 at Arizona. His successor, Kevin O’Neill was .559 = -165 points
Lou Henson was .573 at Illinois. His successor, Lon Kruger was .628 = +55 points
Bo Ryan was .765 at Wisconsin. His successor, Greg Gard is .635 = -130 points
(Ryan started the 2015-16 season and resigned so that Greg Card could take over. I counted that as the first Greg Card season.)
Ed Diddle was .537 at Western Kentucky. His successor, Johnny Oldham was .781 = +244 points
Hank Iba was .370 at Oklahoma State. His successor, Sam Aubrey was .231 = -139 points
John Beilein was .696 at Michigan. His successor, Juwan Howard is .706 = +10 points
Phog Allen was .727 at Kansas. His successor, Dick Harp was .596 = -131 points
John Chaney was .535 at Temple. His successor, Fran Dunphy was .625 = +90 points
Norm Stewart was .583 at Missouri. His successor, Quin Snyder was .581 = -2 points
Jerry Tarkanian was .874 at Indiana. His successor, Rollie Massimino was .554 = -320 points
Ray Meyer was .858 at DePaul. His successor, Joey Meyer was .594 = -264 points
Jerry Slocum was .415 at Youngstown State. His successor, Jerrod Calhoun was .431 = +16 points
Don Haskins was .536 at UTEP. His successor, Jason Rabedeaux was .500 = -36 points
Larry Hunter was .819 at Wittenberg. His successor, Dan Hipsher was .843 = +24 points
Rick Barnes was .624 at Texas. His successor, Shaka Smart was .550 = -74 points
Mike Montgomery was .825 at Stanford. His successor, Trent Johnson was .625 = -200 points
Denny Crum was .553 at Louisville. His successor, Rick Pitino was .744 = +191 points
Gary Williams was .639 at Maryland. His successor, Mark Turgeon was .668 = +29 points
John Wooden was .947 at UCLA. His successor, Gene Bartow was .852 = -95 points
Ralph Miller was .638 at Oregon State. His successor, Jim Anderson was .467 = -171 points
Tom Penders was .654 at Texas. His successor, Rick Barnes was .691 = +37 points
Rick Pitino was .792 at Louisville. His successor, Chris Mack is .670 = -122 points
Gene Bartow was .609 at UAB. His successor, Murray Bartow was .554 = -55 points
Dana Altman was .661 at Creighton. His successor, Greg McDermott was .670 = +9 points
Jim Larranaga was .645 at George Mason. His successor, Paul Hewitt was .496 = -149 points
Billy Tubbs was .656 at Oklahoma. His successor, Kelvin Sampson was .719 = +63 points
Homer Drew was .515 at Valparaiso. His successor, Bryce Drew was .717 = +202 points
Marv Harshman was .633 at Washington. His successor, Andy Russo was .496 = -137 points
Hugh Durham was .541 at Georgia. His successor, Tubby Smith was .703 = +162 points
Cam Henderson was .653 at Marshall. His successor, Jule Rivlin was .532 = -121 points
Norm Sloan was .660 at Florida. His successor, Jim Valvano was .651 = -9 points
Stew Morrill was .655 at Utah State. His successor, Tim Duryea was .495 = -160 points
Tom Smith was .447 at Missouri Western. His successor, Brett Weiberg was .363 = -84 points
Kelvin Sampson was .755 at Oklahoma. His successor, Jeff Capel was .582 = -173 points
Ben Braun was .513 at California. His successor, Mike Montgomery was .640 = +127 points
Tubby Smith was .766 at Kentucky. His successor, Billy Gillespie was .597 = -169 points
Jerry Steele was .338 at High Point. His successor, Bart Lundy was .525 = +187 points
Dave Boots was .526 at South Dakota. His successor, Craig Smith was .589 = +63 points
Slats Gill was .709 at Oregon State. His successor, Paul Valenti was .526 = -183 points
Tom Davis was .671 at Iowa. His successor, Steve Alford was .589 = -82 points
Abe Lemons was .591 at Oklahoma City. His successor, Paul Hansen was .509 = -82 points
John Thompson was .646 at Georgetown. His successor, Craig Esherick was .582 = -64 points
Guy Lewis was .728 at Houston. His successor, Pat Foster was .660 = -68 points
Joe Hutton was .492 at Hamline. His successor, Howard Schultz was .240 = -252 points
Dom Rosselli was .515 at Youngstown State. His successor, Mike Rice was .528 = +13 points
Steve Alford was.608 at Iowa. His successor, Todd Lickliter was .396 = -212 points
Tony Shaver was .867 at Hamden-Sydney. His successor, Bubba Smith was .671 = -196 points
Greg Walcavich was .496 at Edinboro State. His successor, Pat Cleary is .485 = -11 points
Fran Dunphy was .613 at Temple. His successor, Aaron McKie is .413 = -200 points
Bobby Cremins was .510 at Georgia Tech. His successor, Paul Hewitt was .540 = +30 points
Pat Douglass was .472 at Cal-Irvine. His successor, Russell Turner is .601 = +129 points
Fred Hobdy was .410 at Grambling. His successor, Bob Hopkins was .494 = +84 points
Eldon Miller was .460 at Northern Iowa. His successor, Sam Weaver was .345 = -115 points
Davey Whitney was .601 at Alcorn State. His successor, Lonnie Walker was .325 = -276 points
Dave Bliss was .694 at New Mexico. His successor, Fran Fraschilla was .573 = -121 points
Gale Catlett was .497 at West Virginia. His successor, John Beilein was .634 = +137 points
Gary Colson was .591 at Pepperdine. His successor, Jim Harrick was .633 = +42 points
Danny Kaspar was .713 at Stephen . Austin. His successor, Brad Underwood was .864 = +148 points
Bruce Pearl was .825 at Southern Indiana. His successor, Rick Herdes was .772 = -52 points
Ed Douma was .779 at Calvin. His successor, Kevin Vande Streek was .677 = -102 points
John Kresse was .793 at College of Charleston. His successor, Tom Herrion was .678 = -115 points
Tony Hinkle was .481 at Butler. His successor, George Theofanis was .429 = -52 points
Jim Boone was .800 was California (Pa). His successor, Bill Brown was .634 = -166 points
Glenn Wilkes was .483 at Stetson. His successor, Dan Hipsher was .518 = +35 points
Frank McGuire was .585 at South Carolina. His successor, Bill E. Foster was .538 = -47 points
Bob Davis was .684 at Georgetown (KY). His successor, Jim Reid was .727 = +43 points
Harry Miller was .650 at Stephen . Austin. His successor, Mike Martin was .218 = -432 points
Bill C. Foster was .547 at Clemson. His successor, Cliff Ellis was .581 = +34 points
Gene Keady was .480 at Purdue. His successor, Matt Painter is .660 = +180 points
Bob Gaillard was .609 at Lewis and Clark. His successor, Dinari Foreman is .486 = -123 points
Dave Bike was .433 at Sacred Heart. His successor, Anthony Latina is .416 = -17 points
Lou Carnesecca was .652 at St John’s. His successor, Brian Mahoney was .491 = -161 points
Pete Carril was .689 at Princeton. His successor, Bill Carmody was .786 = +97 points
Tom Young was .604 at Rutgers. His successor, Craig Littlepage was .267 = -337 points
Ben Jobe was .453 at Southern U. His successor, Tommy Green was .536 = +83 points
Larry Eustachy was .612 at Southern Mississippi. His successor, Donnie Tyndall was .767 = +155 points
Fred Enke was .378 at Arizona. His successor, Bruce Larson was .479 = +101 points
Bob Hoffman was .500 at Mercer. His successor, Greg Gary is .569 = +69 points
Rick Majerus was .733 at Utah. His successor, Ray Giacoletti was .574 = -159 points
C.M. Newton was .705 at Alabama. His successor, Wimp Sanderson was .692 = -13 points
Don DeVoe was .445 at Navy. His successor, Billy Lange was .444 = -1 points
Paul Webb was .712 at Randolph-Macon. His successor, Hal Nunnally was .650 = -62 points
Nolan Richardson was .697 at Arkansas. His successor, Stan Heath was .536 = -161 points
Hec Edmundson was .658 at Washington. His successor, Arthur McLarney was .596 = -62 points
John Giannini was .439 at LaSalle. His successor, Ashley Howard was .400 = -39 points
Harold Anderson was .619 at Bowling Green. His successor, Warren Scholler was .453 = -166 points
Dave Loos was .363 at Austin Peay State. His successor, Matt Figger is .603 = +230 points
Jerry Welsh was .840 at Potsdam State. His successor, Bill Mitchell was .410 = -430 points
Billy Donovan was .743 at Florida. His successor, Michael White was .630 = -113 points
Don Maestri was .445 at Troy. His successor, Phil Cunningham was .419 = -26 points
Gregg Marshall was .738 at Wichita State. His successor, Isaac Brown is .765 = +27 points
Ed Martin was .491 at Tennessee State. His successor, Larry Reid was .396 = -355 points
Bill Reinhart was .350 at George Washington. His successor, Babe McCarthy was .333 = -17 points
Cal Luther was .584 at Murray State. His successor, Fred Overton was .427 = -157 points

That’s 37 new coaches whose winning percentage exceeded that of the 103 legendary coaches last 5 years. 64% did not, down from 74%. The 37 improvements were by a total of 3,419 percentage points, an average of 92 points per coach. But the 66 new coaches who did worse, did so by at total of 8,851 points, an average of 134 points per coach. Add it together and it’s a net loss of 5,432 points by the 103 schools, an average of 53 points per school.

Of the 103 legendary coaches, 64 had worse winning percentage sin their last 5 years than in their overall tenure at the school, 62%, not 75%. 36 of them actually improved in their last five years. Three had exactly the same winning percentage. Ten of the legends saw their winning percent age dip below that of their successors by focusing on the last five years. One of them had been below his successor but moved above him by concentrating on the last five years.

The bottom line is that 74% of the winningest college basketball coaches of all time had better records at their longest gig than their successors did. If you just look at the legend’s last five years, that reduced to 64% but 64% - 36% is still a landslide. It’s possible that Jim Boeheim’s successor will win at a higher rate than he did, at least in the last five years of Jim’s tenure. But not likely.

 

[kcsu]

A dozen years ago we were coming off a stretch of two NCAA one-and-dones and two NIT years, the second of which ended with a blown 24 lead in the Dome to UMASS- the second time they’d beaten us there. (Seemingly), everyone’s diagnosis and solution was that “the game had passed Jim Boeheim by” and that we had to “ease him into retirement”. The new coach would solve his problems and have none of his own. I decided at that time to look at occasions when a long-term successful coach leaves the job: how does his winning percentage compare to his successors? If it’s no significantly better, and certainly if it’s worse, the fans are likely to complain about the new guy even more, (and the complainers will probably be the same fans who wanted the legendary coach to move on).

At that time I decided to look at the top 25 college basketball and football coaches with the most wins, (this wasn’t long after Paul Pasquloni, our second winningest football coach was fired and replaced with our losingest football coach). I also delved into their stories, who replaced them, what their resume was, etc. I found that 84% of the time the next guy had a worse record and every category of new coaches, (internal promotion, alum, had head coaching experience elsewhere, came from the pros, etc.) as a group had a worse record than the legend that preceded them, (although having head coaching experience in college was a better predictor of success than the others). I’ve never updated it because I assumed the results would be similar.

We had a great stretch following that study, going 177-42 from 2009-14, (29.5-7 per year), and the complaints receded. It was a good thing Boeheim hadn’t retired.

Now the retirement bell is being rung again. We went on probation. We’ve had a series of ‘bubble’-type teams, (broadly defined: double figure losses on selection Sunday). This year we lost our starting center 4 minutes into the season. Our schedule got cut down and reconstructed and then shot full of holes by Covid. We wound up without the early season blow-out games where everybody gets to play and having to play most of our tough games on the road. The conference was down. It all produced a dearth of Quad One game and a dearth of victories in them. We’re playing a series of teams that seem assembled to take advantage of our weaknesses and are likely to end the regular season with a discouraging losing streak with little optimism for what might be accomplished in a post season, (which will likely end in the NIT). The solution is the same: get rid of Boeheim. The next guy will fix everything, (especially if he’s the guy we like for the job).

It seems like time to redo this study. I was looking for a list of the winningest college basketball coaches and came across this:

Men's DI college basketball coaches with the most wins

These are the men's Division I college basketball coaches with the most wins in their careers, led by Mike Krzyzewski.

www.ncaa.com

I looked over that list and decided to base the study simply on that. I also decided to keep it simple because I wanted to do this quickly: I’ll just look at the coach’s winning percentage at the school for which he had the longest tenure, (if that’s a tie I’ll use his winning percentage at those schools to break the tie), and then look at the winning percentage at that school of his immediate successor, (which I’m getting from Wikipedia and Sports Reference.com). I won’t get into the backstory and analysis I did in 2008. I’m excluding interim coaches as “successors”. Coaches still coaching at their longest tenure are, of course excluded: they have no successor yet. Where a coach has more than one period at the same school, they will be treated as separate tenures. The cases where the successor had a higher winning percentage are in bold.

Bob Knight was .735 at Indiana. His successor, Mike Davis was .593 = -142 points
Jim Calhoun was .720 at Connecticut. His successor, Kevin Ollie was .551 = -169 points
Dean Smith was .776 at North Carolina. His successor, Bill Guthridge was .740 = -36 points
Adolph Rupp was .822 at Kentucky. His successor, Joe B. Hall was .748 = -74 points
Jim Phelan was .613 at Mount St. Mary’s. His successor, Milan Brown was .442 = -171 points
Rollie Massimino was .596 at Villanova. His successor, Steve Lappas was .613 = +17 points
Eddie Sutton was .709 at Oklahoma State. His successor, Sean Sutton was .573 = -136 points
Rick Byrd was .673 at Belmont. His successor, Casey Alexander is .833 = +160 points
Lefty Driesell was .686 at Maryland. His successor, Bob Wade was .419 = -267 points
Lute Olson was .735 at Arizona. His successor, Kevin O’Neill was .559 = -176 points
Lou Henson was .654 at Illinois. His successor, Lon Kruger was .628 = -26 points
Bo Ryan was .737 at Wisconsin. His successor, Greg Gard is .639 = -98 points
Ed Diddle was .715 at Western Kentucky. His successor, Johnny Oldham was .781 = +66 points
Hank Iba was .673 at Oklahoma State. His successor, Sam Aubrey was .231 = -442 points
John Beilein was .650 at Michigan. His successor, Juwan Howard is .740 = +90 points
Phog Allen was .729 at Kansas. His successor, Dick Harp was .596 = -133 points
John Chaney was .671 at Temple. His successor, Fran Dunphy was .625 = -46 points
Norm Stewart was .656 at Missouri. His successor, Quin Snyder was .581 = -75 points
Jerry Tarkanian was .829 at Indiana. His successor, Rollie Massimino was .554 = -275 points
Ray Meyer was .672 at DePaul. His successor, Joey Meyer was .594 = -78 points
Jerry Slocum was .381 at Youngstown State. His successor, Jerrod Calhoun was .431 = +50 points
Don Haskins was .671 at UTEP. His successor, Jason Rabedeaux was .500 = -171 points
Larry Hunter was .801 at Wittenberg. His successor, Dan Hipsher was .843 = +42 points
Rick Barnes was .691 at Texas. His successor, Shaka Smart was .550 = -141 points
Mike Montgomery was .702 at Stanford. His successor, Trent Johnson was .625 = -77 points
Denny Crum was .696 at Louisville. His successor, Rick Pitino was .744 = +48 points
Gary Williams was .647 at Maryland. His successor, Mark Turgeon was .668 = +21 points
John Wooden was .808 at UCLA. His successor, Gene Bartow was .852 = +44 points
Ralph Miller was .633 at Oregon State. His successor, Jim Anderson was .467 = -166 points
Tom Penders was .654 at Texas. His successor, Rick Barnes was .691 = +37 points
Rick Pitino was .744 at Louisville. His successor, Chris Mack was .687 = -57 points
Gene Bartow was .643 at UAB. His successor, Murray Bartow was .554 = -89 points
Dana Altman was .650 at Creighton. His successor, Greg McDermott was .670 = +20 points
Jim Larranaga was .625 at George Mason. His successor, Paul Hewitt was .496 = -129 points
Billy Tubbs was .716 at Oklahoma. His successor, Kelvin Sampson was .719 = +3 points
Homer Drew was .550 at Valparaiso. His successor, Bryce Drew was .717 = +167 points
Marv Harshman was .628 at Washington. His successor, Andy Russo was .496 = -132 points
Hugh Durham was .580 at Georgia. His successor, Tubby Smith was .703 = +123 points
Cam Henderson was .695 at Marshall. His successor, Jule Rivlin was .532 = -163 points
Norm Sloan was .677 at Florida. His successor, Jim Valvano was .651 = -26 points
Stew Morrill was .720 at Utah State. His successor, Tim Duryea was .495 = -225 points
Tom Smith was .616 at Missouri Western. His successor, Brett Weiberg was .363 = -253 points
Kelvin Sampson was .719 at Oklahoma. His successor, Jeff Capel was .582 = -137 points
Ben Braun was .587 at California. His successor, Mike Montgomery was .640 = +53 points
Tubby Smith was .760 at Kentucky. His successor, Billy Gillespie was .597 = -163 points
Jerry Steele was .527 at High Point. His successor, Bart Lundy was .525 = -2 points
Dave Boots was .682 at South Dakota. His successor, Craig Smith was .589 = -93 points
Slats Gill was .604 at Oregon State. His successor, Paul Valenti was .526 = -78 points
Tom Davis was .660 at Iowa. His successor, Steve Alford was .589 = -71 points
Abe Lemons was .632 at Oklahoma City. His successor, Paul Hansen was .509 = -123 points
John Thompson was .714 at Georgetown. His successor, Craig Esherick was .582 = -132 points
Guy Lewis was .682 at Houston. His successor, Pat Foster was .660 = -22 points
Joe Hutton was .741 at Hamline. His successor, Howard Schultz was .240 = -501 points
Dom Roselli was .606 at Youngstown State. His successor, Mike Rice was .528 = -78 points
Steve Alford was.589 at Iowa. His successor, Todd Lickliter was .396 = -193 points
Tony Shaver was .747 at Hamden-Sydney. His successor, Bubba Smith was .671 = -76 points
Greg Walcavich was .613 at Edinboro State. His successor, Pat Cleary is .485 = -128 points
Fran Dunphy was .625 at Temple. His successor, Aaron McKie is .413 = -212 points
Bobby Cremins was .599 at Georgia Tech. His successor, Paul Hewitt was .540 = -59 points
Pat Douglass was .508 at Cal-Irvine. His successor, Russell Turner is .601 = +93 points
Fred Hobdy was .665 at Grambling. His successor, Bob Hopkins was .494 = -171 points
Eldon Miller was .480 at Northern Iowa. His successor, Sam Weaver was .345 = -135 points
Davey Whitney was .674 at Alcorn State. His successor, Lonnie Walker was .325 = -349 points
Dave Bliss was .695 at New Mexico. His successor, Fran Fraschilla was .573 = -122 points
Gale Catlett was .610 at West Virginia. His successor, John Beilein was .634 = +24 points
Gary Colson was .528 at Pepperdine. His successor, Jim Harrick was .633 = +105 points
Danny Kaspar was .636 at Stephen . Austin. His successor, Brad Underwood was .864 = +228 points
Bruce Pearl was .834 at Southern Indiana. His successor, Rick Herdes was .772 = -62 points
Ed Douma was .779 at Calvin. His successor, Kevin Vande Streek was .677 = -102 points
John Kresse was .792 at College of Charleston. His successor, Tom Herrion was .678 = -114 points
Tony Hinkle was .588 at Butler. His successor, George Theofanis was .429 = -159 points
Jim Boone was .764 was California (Pa). His successor, Bill Brown was .634 = -130 points
Glenn Wilkes was .558 at Stetson. His successor, Dan Hipsher was .518 = -40 points
Frank McGuire was .666 at South Carolina. His successor, Bill E. Foster was .538 = -128 points
Bob Davis was .694 at Georgetown (KY). His successor, Jim Reid was .727 = +33 points
Harry Miller was .603 at Stephen . Austin. His successor, Mike Martin was .218 = -385 points
Bill C. Foster was .595 at Clemson. His successor, Cliff Ellis was .581 = -14 points
Gene Keady was .655 at Purdue. His successor, Matt Painter is .660 = +5 points
Bob Gaillard was .617 at Lewis and Clark. His successor, Dinari Foreman is .486 = -131 points
Dave Bike was .514 at Sacred Heart. His successor, Anthony Latina is .416 = -98 points
Lou Carnesecca was .718 at St John’s. His successor, Brian Mahoney was .491 = -227 points
Pete Carril was .663 at Princeton. His successor, Bill Carmody was .786 = +123 points
Tom Young was .673 at Rutgers. His successor, Craig Littlepage was .267 = -406 points
Ben Jobe was .653 at Southern U. His successor, Tommy Green was .536 = -137 points
Larry Eustachy was .557 at Southern Mississippi. His successor, Donnie Tyndall was .767 = +210 points
Fred Enke was .611 at Arizona. His successor, Bruce Larson was .479 = -132 points
Bob Hoffman was .559 at Mercer. His successor, Greg Gary is .569 = +10 points
Rick Majerus was .773 at Utah. His successor, Ray Giacoletti was .574 = -199 points
C.M. Newton was .632 at Alabama. His successor, Wimp Sanderson was .692 = +60 points
Don DeVoe was .533 at Navy. His successor, Billy Lange was .444 = -89 points
Paul Webb was .666 at Randolph-Macon. His successor, Hal Nunnally was .650 = -16 points
Nolan Richardson was .697 at Arkansas. His successor, Stan Heath was .536 = -161 points
Hec Edmundson was .713 at Washington. His successor, Arthur McLarney was .596 = -117 points
John Giannini was .484 at LaSalle. His successor, Ashley Howard was .400 = -84 points
Harold Anderson was .662 at Bowling Green. His successor, Warren Scholler was .453 = -209 points
Dave Loos was .506 at Austin Peay State. His successor, Matt Figger is .603 = +97 points
Jerry Welsh was .778 at Potsdam State. His successor, Bill Mitchell was .410 = -368 points
Billy Donovan was .715 at Florida. His successor, Michael White was .630 = -85 points
Don Maestri was .556 at Troy. His successor, Phil Cunningham was .419 = -137 points
Gregg Marshall was .732 at Wichita State. His successor, Isaac Brown is .765 = +33 points
Ed Martin was .648 at Tennessee State. His successor, Larry Reid was .396 = -252 points
Bill Reinhart was .574 at George Washington. His successor, Babe McCarthy was .333 = -241 points
Cal Luther was .610 at Murray State. His successor, Fred Overton was .427 = -183 points

That’s 103 coaches who won over 500 games in their careers and are not currently employed at the school that employed them the longest. In 76 of those cases, the next coach had a worse winning percentage. That’s 74%, down a bit from my 2008 study but still a significant number, to say the least.
The total net change in the winning percent ages is -9,267 points. Divide that by 103 coaches and you get an average decline in winning percentage of 90 points.

So, have ‘that conversation’ with Jim Boeheim if you want to. But be careful what you wish for.

You are amazing. Thank you.

 

[the villager]

There is no earthly reason not to give him his wins back,if that happens I think he will ride into the sunset with his two sons.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

Your work is consistently astounding.

I disagree with one of the original premises/assertions, though.

The new coach would solve his problems and have none of his own.

I don’t think that is true. There has never even been a replacement candidate discussed with enough confidence to even begin to discuss whether any specific or general problems would be solved, and no one can reasonably suggest the next coach won’t have any problems.

The surest candidate we have had was Hopkins, and no one knew how attached he would have been to JB’s systems and methods. When discussing anyone else, from the inside… same thing. From the outside, Oats seems to have been the most hyped option, but that wouldn’t dissolve our sanctions history or the oft-expressed sense that we are a fish out of water in the ACC, or that we can’t/won’t pay enough to retain someone who does succeed, or… whatever.

This is an impressive set of statistics. But so much of it doesn’t seem to relate specifically enough to our situation. Citing Southern Mississippi, for example—that’s a ‘data point,’ but what happened there also has no relevance to our context.

Either way, it’s all innerestin. 15 years from now, we can revisit this to see how we did fit into it. Thanks for all the ‘conversation pieces!’

 

[SWC75]

Your work is consistently astounding.

I disagree with one of the original premises/assertions, though.

I don’t think that is true. There has never even been a replacement candidate discussed with enough confidence to even begin to discuss whether any specific or general problems would be solved, and no one can reasonably suggest the next coach won’t have any problems.

The surest candidate we have had was Hopkins, and no one knew how attached he would have been to JB’s systems and methods. When discussing anyone else, from the inside… same thing. From the outside, Oats seems to have been the most hyped option, but that wouldn’t dissolve our sanctions history or the oft-expressed sense that we are a fish out of water in the ACC, or that we can’t/won’t pay enough to retain someone who does succeed, or… whatever.

This is an impressive set of statistics. But so much of it doesn’t seem to relate specifically enough to our situation. Citing Southern Mississippi, for example—that’s a ‘data point,’ but what happened there also has no relevance to our context.

Either way, it’s all innerestin. 15 years from now, we can revisit this to see how we did fit into it. Thanks for all the ‘conversation pieces!’

That statement was just summarizing the attitudes of many that if we can just get JB to retire and replace him with ________ then our problems will be over. the data, (which is from all levels of the college sport), suggests that its' more likely that in replacing a legend, you'll wind up with someone worse. That's all I was trying to say.

 

[721Comstock]

That statement was just summarizing the attitudes of many that if we can just get JB to retire and replace him with ________ then our problems will be over. the data, (which is from all levels of the college sport), suggests that its' more likely that in replacing a legend, you'll wind up with someone worse. That's all I was trying to say.

Yeah, and for a legend who was maybe tailing off during his last 5 or so seasons (sound familiar?), you’re still 2 to 1 odds AGAINST landing somebody who does better than the legend you just got rid of.

So, as much as many of JB’s decisions and behaviors are wearing on people’s nerves of late, be careful what you wish for.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

That statement was just summarizing the attitudes of many that if we can just get JB to retire and replace him with ________ then our problems will be over. the data, (which is from all levels of the college sport), suggests that its' more likely that in replacing a legend, you'll wind up with someone worse. That's all I was trying to say.

I understand. I just don’t think it’s such a common sentiment that “our problems will be over.” And especially not immediately. Firstly, I discount/ignore the most extreme opinions on both sides, so I’m not working with the furthest outliers. I think the most reasonable opinions are of the sort that recognize change is inevitable/impending, and that the need for change is to get us back on the right track and reestablish standards. Not that we are immediately going to be launched back into the top 10 and fighting for Duke recruits.

If we get back into the bottom of the top 25 reliably and consistently, and leave the bubble for a while, that’s an improvement over the status quo. Getting back to the JAB highpoints is another matter and the next coach shouldn’t have to compete with Big East history, just improve upon the present.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

Yeah, and for a legend who was maybe tailing off during his last 5 or so seasons (sound familiar?), you’re still 2 to 1 odds AGAINST landing somebody who does better than the legend you just got rid of.

So, as much as many of JB’s decisions and behaviors are wearing on people’s nerves of late, be careful what you wish for.

What is this “wish?” That he retires this season rather than in two more seasons? What ‘care’ needs to be exercised when retirement is an inevitability, and within a relatively short timeframe?

2:1 isn’t a statistic that has relevance to our specific context. It’s a general ‘survey.’

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Obviously just amazing stuff from SWC. This kind of thing is what makes the board great.

While I acknowledge that we could end up with a "careful what you wish for" scenario whenever JB hangs it up, and the numbers suggest the odds aren't on our favor that we improve on recent history even with a new coach, to me it comes down to this:

When I ask myself if the things JB seem to be prioritizing are going to break current trends and push us back upward, or keep us at this level (or heaven forbid, make is slide back)... it's tough to acknowledge but I just don't see how we're going to get better.

A new coach has the appeal of the unknown, but also might bring something new strategically, or in terms of recruiting ability, or have something else that gives us reason to believe that we can get back to a level we used to consistently achieve.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

Obviously just amazing stuff from SWC. This kind of thing is what makes the board great.

While I acknowledge that we could end up with a "careful what you wish for" scenario whenever JB hangs it up, and the numbers suggest the odds aren't on our favor that we improve on recent history even with a new coach, to me it comes down to this:

When I ask myself if the things JB seem to be prioritizing are going to break current trends and push us back upward, or keep us at this level (or heaven forbid, make is slide back)... it's tough to acknowledge but I just don't see how we're going to get better.

A new coach has the appeal of the unknown, but also might bring something new strategically, or in terms of recruiting ability, or have something else that gives us reason to believe that we can get back to a level we used to consistently achieve.

Yeah.
I think about it like baseball. The best hitters are still out two thirds of the time. But, you still send them to the plate. Because batting averages aren't predictive, and because you can't score without trying.

Even if the odds are against getting a second consecutive HoF coach, that's irrelevant because the first one isn't immortal and because we're not operating at an HoF level now. It may take us two or three tries to to get one who sticks. That's the cost of doing business.

 

[Cusefan69]

Obviously just amazing stuff from SWC. This kind of thing is what makes the board great.

While I acknowledge that we could end up with a "careful what you wish for" scenario whenever JB hangs it up, and the numbers suggest the odds aren't on our favor that we improve on recent history even with a new coach, to me it comes down to this:

When I ask myself if the things JB seem to be prioritizing are going to break current trends and push us back upward, or keep us at this level (or heaven forbid, make is slide back)... it's tough to acknowledge but I just don't see how we're going to get better.

A new coach has the appeal of the unknown, but also might bring something new strategically, or in terms of recruiting ability, or have something else that gives us reason to believe that we can get back to a level we used to consistently achieve.

So for you does a coach on JBs staff offer that appeal for the unknown or is new blood in the program?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

So for you does a coach on JBs staff offer that appeal for the unknown or is new blood in the program?

Has to be new blood.

Would feel differently if we were recruiting at a higher level and having more regular season success.

 

[Cusefan69]

Has to be new blood.

Would feel differently if we were recruiting at a higher level and having more regular season success.

Yeah I am with you on that one. Need new blood in the program.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Yeah I am with you on that one. Need new blood in the program.

This is why I don't feel like we should look at Duke and UNC as setting the proper transition precedent for us.

Their programs are performing at a higher level than ours. A lot higher.

A goal of continuity makes sense in that case. So prop up someone that's currently on staff.

For us though... we're performing at a level below our program's expectations.

Why would we want continuity on that?

Because we're afraid it could be worse?

So what?

 

[SWC75]

I understand. I just don’t think it’s such a common sentiment that “our problems will be over.” And especially not immediately. Firstly, I discount/ignore the most extreme opinions on both sides, so I’m not working with the furthest outliers. I think the most reasonable opinions are of the sort that recognize change is inevitable/impending, and that the need for change is to get us back on the right track and reestablish standards. Not that we are immediately going to be launched back into the top 10 and fighting for Duke recruits.

If we get back into the bottom of the top 25 reliably and consistently, and leave the bubble for a while, that’s an improvement over the status quo. Getting back to the JAB highpoints is another matter and the next coach shouldn’t have to compete with Big East history, just improve upon the present.

Which is exactly what we were hoping G-Rob would do. I'm not saying that change is not inevitable. When we get a new BB coach, we'll all be hoping for the results you describe, (or better). But there are plenty of posts that you've ignored, (as you say) that clearly seem to imply that replacing JB will be a positive experience. And history tells us that most of the time it isn't.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

Which is exactly what we were hoping G-Rob would do. I'm not saying that change is not inevitable. When we get a new BB coach, we'll all be hoping for the results you describe, (or better). But there are plenty of posts that you've ignored, (as you say) that clearly seem to imply that replacing JB will be a positive experience. And history tells us that most of the time it isn't.

"A positive experience." That's a little ambiguous. I think that anyone who suggests "it's time" for JB to retire clearly believes that another coach can do better than what we've been seeing these latest handful of years, and what we expect if we continue the course with JAB for another few. So, "positive," meaning an improvement on the status quo—of course.

I don't really agree that "history" tells us what you seem to be suggesting, though. Your mammoth study results suggest that 'odds are against us' toward getting an improvement on JAB's legacy. But, again, i think it's important that we improve upon the product we have now. It's unfair to have to compete with our Big East history, because 1) the Dome was a massive sales piece; 2) we were instrumental in defining the greatness of a great conference; 3) NIL was not yet in existence; 4) the internet wasn't in existence; 5) etc., etc., etc. —Different landscape. That success would not be repeated even if we had an actual 30-year old JAB walking through that door.

So, A) it's meaningless to set that as a standard for judging the success of the next coach. B) I think it's reasonable to assume that JAB isn't going to get better in the next few years. C) The longer we go without becoming nationally relevant (let's define that as Top 25 during the season, with any accompanying media results), the harder it will be for the next coach to claw that back. So, how far do we let this go, and why? Fear of the unknown?

Lastly, your comprehensive data is, as i said before, a survey, but it doesn't delve into context. Mississippi State may have replaced a coach at some point, and the successor may or may not have been better than the predecessor. But, by what metrics or characteristics is that situation related to ours? If we were to list the top 10 reasons why a school should be able to attract a great new coach, and then another list of the reasons why a high schooler would want to play for our university or Mississippi State, how many of those factors would be common? We operate in a different set of circumstances than just about every school on the list above. And even if we didn't, the ratios and percentages and odds are only reflective of what has happened. They aren't predictors of what will happen. Certainly, it's smart to make decisions based on good data and best odds. But, it's not a matter of do we replace JAB, it's a matter of when. So, even if the odds are shockingly bad, we will have to wade into that territory. If there are those who wish we would just stay the same for many more years out of fear of even further regression at someone else's hands, that's just something i might understand conceptually, if it were something to do with my life. Like, having fear of changing jobs or apartments or relationships or somesuch. But this is a more objective matter. It's 'business.' Or, i guess we could just say "it's sports." When someone is not performing at a level you expect, you have to make a cut and move on. You don't know with 100% certainty that the replacement will be better. But, you can't settle out of nostalgia and fear.

Your information also only factors in immediate successors. But, i would suggest that the road back to success/prominence should be expected to have turns. Citing Steve Lappas and Bill Guthridge isn't meaningful to me because it ignores the eventual result. Those two schools have national championships after 'the legend' retired. How long after and how many coaches in between is only relevant if we think JAB has a realistic chance to get another one.

I'm just going to suggest that football and basketball are different animals. G-Rob isn't relevant. And not just because of the difference in the sports and roster demands and such, but also with us specifically. For football, we have a compromised environment. A smallish, sterile Dome and a relatively apathetic football culture—compared to the SEC, for instance. But, for basketball, we have a premiere environment and a more current positive history, and at least one big name pro player still keeping us relevant. Making an impact in basketball can be a matter of one or two recruits in a 7-man rotation. In football, it takes a lot more on a massive roster.

I hope i haven't seemed dismissive of your work. I'll say it again—i'm always impressed by what you do and your commitment to bringing it all to us. I just disagree with some of the conclusions that arise from the interpretation of this set.

 

[SWC75]

"A positive experience." That's a little ambiguous. I think that anyone who suggests "it's time" for JB to retire clearly believes that another coach can do better than what we've been seeing these latest handful of years, and what we expect if we continue the course with JAB for another few. So, "positive," meaning an improvement on the status quo—of course.

I don't really agree that "history" tells us what you seem to be suggesting, though. Your mammoth study results suggest that 'odds are against us' toward getting an improvement on JAB's legacy. But, again, i think it's important that we improve upon the product we have now. It's unfair to have to compete with our Big East history, because 1) the Dome was a massive sales piece; 2) we were instrumental in defining the greatness of a great conference; 3) NIL was not yet in existence; 4) the internet wasn't in existence; 5) etc., etc., etc. —Different landscape. That success would not be repeated even if we had an actual 30-year old JAB walking through that door.

So, A) it's meaningless to set that as a standard for judging the success of the next coach. B) I think it's reasonable to assume that JAB isn't going to get better in the next few years. C) The longer we go without becoming nationally relevant (let's define that as Top 25 during the season, with any accompanying media results), the harder it will be for the next coach to claw that back. So, how far do we let this go, and why? Fear of the unknown?

Lastly, your comprehensive data is, as i said before, a survey, but it doesn't delve into context. Mississippi State may have replaced a coach at some point, and the successor may or may not have been better than the predecessor. But, by what metrics or characteristics is that situation related to ours? If we were to list the top 10 reasons why a school should be able to attract a great new coach, and then another list of the reasons why a high schooler would want to play for our university or Mississippi State, how many of those factors would be common? We operate in a different set of circumstances than just about every school on the list above. And even if we didn't, the ratios and percentages and odds are only reflective of what has happened. They aren't predictors of what will happen. Certainly, it's smart to make decisions based on good data and best odds. But, it's not a matter of do we replace JAB, it's a matter of when. So, even if the odds are shockingly bad, we will have to wade into that territory. If there are those who wish we would just stay the same for many more years out of fear of even further regression at someone else's hands, that's just something i might understand conceptually, if it were something to do with my life. Like, having fear of changing jobs or apartments or relationships or somesuch. But this is a more objective matter. It's 'business.' Or, i guess we could just say "it's sports." When someone is not performing at a level you expect, you have to make a cut and move on. You don't know with 100% certainty that the replacement will be better. But, you can't settle out of nostalgia and fear.

Your information also only factors in immediate successors. But, i would suggest that the road back to success/prominence should be expected to have turns. Citing Steve Lappas and Bill Guthridge isn't meaningful to me because it ignores the eventual result. Those two schools have national championships after 'the legend' retired. How long after and how many coaches in between is only relevant if we think JAB has a realistic chance to get another one.

I'm just going to suggest that football and basketball are different animals. G-Rob isn't relevant. And not just because of the difference in the sports and roster demands and such, but also with us specifically. For football, we have a compromised environment. A smallish, sterile Dome and a relatively apathetic football culture—compared to the SEC, for instance. But, for basketball, we have a premiere environment and a more current positive history, and at least one big name pro player still keeping us relevant. Making an impact in basketball can be a matter of one or two recruits in a 7-man rotation. In football, it takes a lot more on a massive roster.

I hope i haven't seemed dismissive of your work. I'll say it again—i'm always impressed by what you do and your commitment to bringing it all to us. I just disagree with some of the conclusions that arise from the interpretation of this set.

That's a word salad. I think that the history of trying to replace the 103 most successful coaches in basketball history with someone who does better has obvious meaning and relevance to our situation, even if it doesn't produce the results you want. All kinds of circumstances will be represented in the 103 situations. Are any of them identical to our own? It's like evaluating a baseball player by his road numbers because they are accumulated in all several different ballparks rather than one. You can't dismiss it as irrelevant.

The results are not ironclad: we might be in the 26% who get wins more often under the new guy or the 36% who get more wins than the old guy's last 5 years. But we need to know the odds of getting that kind of improvement before we decide that a change would produce better results.

 

[supp]

I have been challenged to look at the end of the legendary coach’s career and the record of his successor. One posters aid that “75% of those coaches underperformed prior levels and by a significant margin”, without providing the evidence of that. Another said “It would probably be too much work, but I would be curious to compare the winning percentages of the long-time coaches' last X year vs his corresponding successors. I am assuming most coaches toward the end of their tenures experienced a decline in their winning percentages. Not sure what X should be 3,4,5,6,7 years. The long-time coaches' overall winning percentages may not tell the full story.”

I decided to look at the legend’s last 5 seasons and then compare his winning percentage in those seasons to those of his successor.

Bob Knight was .654 at Indiana. His successor, Mike Davis was .593 = -61 points
Jim Calhoun was .702 at Connecticut. His successor, Kevin Ollie was .551 = -151 points
Dean Smith was .799 at North Carolina. His successor, Bill Guthridge was .740 = -59 points
Adolph Rupp was .820 at Kentucky. His successor, Joe B. Hall was .748 = -72 points
Jim Phelan was .319 at Mount St. Mary’s. His successor, Milan Brown was .442 = -+123 points
Rollie Massimino was .576 at Villanova. His successor, Steve Lappas was .613 = +37 points
Eddie Sutton was .721 at Oklahoma State. His successor, Sean Sutton was .573 = -148 points
Rick Byrd was .720 at Belmont. His successor, Casey Alexander is .833 = +113 points
Lefty Driesell was .646 at Maryland. His successor, Bob Wade was .419 = -227 points
Lute Olson was .724 at Arizona. His successor, Kevin O’Neill was .559 = -165 points
Lou Henson was .573 at Illinois. His successor, Lon Kruger was .628 = +55 points
Bo Ryan was .765 at Wisconsin. His successor, Greg Gard is .635 = -130 points
(Ryan started the 2015-16 season and resigned so that Greg Card could take over. I counted that as the first Greg Card season.)
Ed Diddle was .537 at Western Kentucky. His successor, Johnny Oldham was .781 = +244 points
Hank Iba was .370 at Oklahoma State. His successor, Sam Aubrey was .231 = -139 points
John Beilein was .696 at Michigan. His successor, Juwan Howard is .706 = +10 points
Phog Allen was .727 at Kansas. His successor, Dick Harp was .596 = -131 points
John Chaney was .535 at Temple. His successor, Fran Dunphy was .625 = +90 points
Norm Stewart was .583 at Missouri. His successor, Quin Snyder was .581 = -2 points
Jerry Tarkanian was .874 at Indiana. His successor, Rollie Massimino was .554 = -320 points
Ray Meyer was .858 at DePaul. His successor, Joey Meyer was .594 = -264 points
Jerry Slocum was .415 at Youngstown State. His successor, Jerrod Calhoun was .431 = +16 points
Don Haskins was .536 at UTEP. His successor, Jason Rabedeaux was .500 = -36 points
Larry Hunter was .819 at Wittenberg. His successor, Dan Hipsher was .843 = +24 points
Rick Barnes was .624 at Texas. His successor, Shaka Smart was .550 = -74 points
Mike Montgomery was .825 at Stanford. His successor, Trent Johnson was .625 = -200 points
Denny Crum was .553 at Louisville. His successor, Rick Pitino was .744 = +191 points
Gary Williams was .639 at Maryland. His successor, Mark Turgeon was .668 = +29 points
John Wooden was .947 at UCLA. His successor, Gene Bartow was .852 = -95 points
Ralph Miller was .638 at Oregon State. His successor, Jim Anderson was .467 = -171 points
Tom Penders was .654 at Texas. His successor, Rick Barnes was .691 = +37 points
Rick Pitino was .792 at Louisville. His successor, Chris Mack is .670 = -122 points
Gene Bartow was .609 at UAB. His successor, Murray Bartow was .554 = -55 points
Dana Altman was .661 at Creighton. His successor, Greg McDermott was .670 = +9 points
Jim Larranaga was .645 at George Mason. His successor, Paul Hewitt was .496 = -149 points
Billy Tubbs was .656 at Oklahoma. His successor, Kelvin Sampson was .719 = +63 points
Homer Drew was .515 at Valparaiso. His successor, Bryce Drew was .717 = +202 points
Marv Harshman was .633 at Washington. His successor, Andy Russo was .496 = -137 points
Hugh Durham was .541 at Georgia. His successor, Tubby Smith was .703 = +162 points
Cam Henderson was .653 at Marshall. His successor, Jule Rivlin was .532 = -121 points
Norm Sloan was .660 at Florida. His successor, Jim Valvano was .651 = -9 points
Stew Morrill was .655 at Utah State. His successor, Tim Duryea was .495 = -160 points
Tom Smith was .447 at Missouri Western. His successor, Brett Weiberg was .363 = -84 points
Kelvin Sampson was .755 at Oklahoma. His successor, Jeff Capel was .582 = -173 points
Ben Braun was .513 at California. His successor, Mike Montgomery was .640 = +127 points
Tubby Smith was .766 at Kentucky. His successor, Billy Gillespie was .597 = -169 points
Jerry Steele was .338 at High Point. His successor, Bart Lundy was .525 = +187 points
Dave Boots was .526 at South Dakota. His successor, Craig Smith was .589 = +63 points
Slats Gill was .709 at Oregon State. His successor, Paul Valenti was .526 = -183 points
Tom Davis was .671 at Iowa. His successor, Steve Alford was .589 = -82 points
Abe Lemons was .591 at Oklahoma City. His successor, Paul Hansen was .509 = -82 points
John Thompson was .646 at Georgetown. His successor, Craig Esherick was .582 = -64 points
Guy Lewis was .728 at Houston. His successor, Pat Foster was .660 = -68 points
Joe Hutton was .492 at Hamline. His successor, Howard Schultz was .240 = -252 points
Dom Rosselli was .515 at Youngstown State. His successor, Mike Rice was .528 = +13 points
Steve Alford was.608 at Iowa. His successor, Todd Lickliter was .396 = -212 points
Tony Shaver was .867 at Hamden-Sydney. His successor, Bubba Smith was .671 = -196 points
Greg Walcavich was .496 at Edinboro State. His successor, Pat Cleary is .485 = -11 points
Fran Dunphy was .613 at Temple. His successor, Aaron McKie is .413 = -200 points
Bobby Cremins was .510 at Georgia Tech. His successor, Paul Hewitt was .540 = +30 points
Pat Douglass was .472 at Cal-Irvine. His successor, Russell Turner is .601 = +129 points
Fred Hobdy was .410 at Grambling. His successor, Bob Hopkins was .494 = +84 points
Eldon Miller was .460 at Northern Iowa. His successor, Sam Weaver was .345 = -115 points
Davey Whitney was .601 at Alcorn State. His successor, Lonnie Walker was .325 = -276 points
Dave Bliss was .694 at New Mexico. His successor, Fran Fraschilla was .573 = -121 points
Gale Catlett was .497 at West Virginia. His successor, John Beilein was .634 = +137 points
Gary Colson was .591 at Pepperdine. His successor, Jim Harrick was .633 = +42 points
Danny Kaspar was .713 at Stephen . Austin. His successor, Brad Underwood was .864 = +148 points
Bruce Pearl was .825 at Southern Indiana. His successor, Rick Herdes was .772 = -52 points
Ed Douma was .779 at Calvin. His successor, Kevin Vande Streek was .677 = -102 points
John Kresse was .793 at College of Charleston. His successor, Tom Herrion was .678 = -115 points
Tony Hinkle was .481 at Butler. His successor, George Theofanis was .429 = -52 points
Jim Boone was .800 was California (Pa). His successor, Bill Brown was .634 = -166 points
Glenn Wilkes was .483 at Stetson. His successor, Dan Hipsher was .518 = +35 points
Frank McGuire was .585 at South Carolina. His successor, Bill E. Foster was .538 = -47 points
Bob Davis was .684 at Georgetown (KY). His successor, Jim Reid was .727 = +43 points
Harry Miller was .650 at Stephen . Austin. His successor, Mike Martin was .218 = -432 points
Bill C. Foster was .547 at Clemson. His successor, Cliff Ellis was .581 = +34 points
Gene Keady was .480 at Purdue. His successor, Matt Painter is .660 = +180 points
Bob Gaillard was .609 at Lewis and Clark. His successor, Dinari Foreman is .486 = -123 points
Dave Bike was .433 at Sacred Heart. His successor, Anthony Latina is .416 = -17 points
Lou Carnesecca was .652 at St John’s. His successor, Brian Mahoney was .491 = -161 points
Pete Carril was .689 at Princeton. His successor, Bill Carmody was .786 = +97 points
Tom Young was .604 at Rutgers. His successor, Craig Littlepage was .267 = -337 points
Ben Jobe was .453 at Southern U. His successor, Tommy Green was .536 = +83 points
Larry Eustachy was .612 at Southern Mississippi. His successor, Donnie Tyndall was .767 = +155 points
Fred Enke was .378 at Arizona. His successor, Bruce Larson was .479 = +101 points
Bob Hoffman was .500 at Mercer. His successor, Greg Gary is .569 = +69 points
Rick Majerus was .733 at Utah. His successor, Ray Giacoletti was .574 = -159 points
C.M. Newton was .705 at Alabama. His successor, Wimp Sanderson was .692 = -13 points
Don DeVoe was .445 at Navy. His successor, Billy Lange was .444 = -1 points
Paul Webb was .712 at Randolph-Macon. His successor, Hal Nunnally was .650 = -62 points
Nolan Richardson was .697 at Arkansas. His successor, Stan Heath was .536 = -161 points
Hec Edmundson was .658 at Washington. His successor, Arthur McLarney was .596 = -62 points
John Giannini was .439 at LaSalle. His successor, Ashley Howard was .400 = -39 points
Harold Anderson was .619 at Bowling Green. His successor, Warren Scholler was .453 = -166 points
Dave Loos was .363 at Austin Peay State. His successor, Matt Figger is .603 = +230 points
Jerry Welsh was .840 at Potsdam State. His successor, Bill Mitchell was .410 = -430 points
Billy Donovan was .743 at Florida. His successor, Michael White was .630 = -113 points
Don Maestri was .445 at Troy. His successor, Phil Cunningham was .419 = -26 points
Gregg Marshall was .738 at Wichita State. His successor, Isaac Brown is .765 = +27 points
Ed Martin was .491 at Tennessee State. His successor, Larry Reid was .396 = -355 points
Bill Reinhart was .350 at George Washington. His successor, Babe McCarthy was .333 = -17 points
Cal Luther was .584 at Murray State. His successor, Fred Overton was .427 = -157 points

That’s 37 new coaches whose winning percentage exceeded that of the 103 legendary coaches last 5 years. 64% did not, down from 74%. The 37 improvements were by a total of 3,419 percentage points, an average of 92 points per coach. But the 66 new coaches who did worse, did so by at total of 8,851 points, an average of 134 points per coach. Add it together and it’s a net loss of 5,432 points by the 103 schools, an average of 53 points per school.

Of the 103 legendary coaches, 64 had worse winning percentage sin their last 5 years than in their overall tenure at the school, 62%, not 75%. 36 of them actually improved in their last five years. Three had exactly the same winning percentage. Ten of the legends saw their winning percent age dip below that of their successors by focusing on the last five years. One of them had been below his successor but moved above him by concentrating on the last five years.

The bottom line is that 74% of the winningest college basketball coaches of all time had better records at their longest gig than their successors did. If you just look at the legend’s last five years, that reduced to 64% but 64% - 36% is still a landslide. It’s possible that Jim Boeheim’s successor will win at a higher rate than he did, at least in the last five years of Jim’s tenure. But not likely.

Thanks for this. Another interesting thing to follow up on is whether continuity hires do better or is going outside of the coaching tree the right move. That was also part of the same conversation in the thread that inspired this one. Just from a quick look at your list, it would appear that the improvements were mostly non-continuity hires but you'd have a better idea.

Eventually Boeheim will go away. There will be a next coach. So what combo of qualities gives us the best odds? That's the only question that matters.

 

[Bayside44]

This is why I don't feel like we should look at Duke and UNC as setting the proper transition precedent for us.

Their programs are performing at a higher level than ours. A lot higher.

A goal of continuity makes sense in that case. So prop up someone that's currently on staff.

For us though... we're performing at a level below our program's expectations.

Why would we want continuity on that?

Because we're afraid it could be worse?

So what?

Duke is, but they're a one and done factory.

UNC really isn't.

If JB still has a shadow over the place it's going to make things interesting.

 

[RF2044]

"Be careful what you wish for."


People are too afraid of change. Risk isn't just about negative outcomes, it also brings opportunity. Boeheim is going to eventually step away -- it's an inevitability that will occur within the next 5 seasons [max], and we're going to have to replace him.

So there's no "wish" -- it's a fait accompli that JB isn't going to be around too much longer, relatively speaking.

When he is replaced, we can either seek to identify the best, most qualified candidate we can -- thereby maximizing the likelihood that the successor will be successful -- OR we can artificially constrain the available candidate pool, focus on emphasizing the wrong evaluative criteria, and greatly enhance the likelihood that there will be a dropoff.

Many of the programs you list above had poor results because they did the latter. We need to do the former.

Ottointhegrotto nailed it -- a continuity hire only makes sense for a high-performing program. Currently, we are not performing at a high level, so handing the program off to a replacement who is embroiled in the decline toward mediocrity is a sure way to practically guarantee that the status quo will continue, or that things will continue to decline.

If our AD is smart, he'll do whatever it takes to avoid that pitfall. There's nothing set in stone that the guy following THE GUY has to fail. Doesn't 100% guarantee that this will make it successful -- after all, nothing in life is guaranteed -- but if we tie our own hands on who the replacement is, we're a lot close to a failed outcome than we need to be.

 

[HyattsCuse]

I'm blown away by both parts a and b of this post. Just curious if you track how long it takes you to compile all this data?

Thank you for the time you put into these types of posts. I really appreciate it!

 

[Goin' Deep]

So what SWC is stating(very logically) is the changing of the guard is likely not going to be a positive one.
But, when it happens, it will be a NECESSARY one.