Following a Legend (Updated)

[OttoinGrotto]

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.

In the 5 seasons previous to this one UNC was averaging 24 wins a season.

Over the same time period we averaged less than 20.

So...

 

[Zelda Zonk]

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.

If you're in charge of actually signing players, no, you don't rely on the simple metric of "road numbers." You look at park-factored numbers, and especially the parks in which your team will play. And you look at opposing pitchers, and a slew of other very specific factors. But, your table looks at only one thing, a result in broad terms, and doesn't examine the factors that might make that information relevant from one case to the next or to ours. Is it "irrelevant?" I think i called it "interesting." But, no, it's not very relevant.

More importantly, i will keep disagreeing with the founding premise, that "we need to know the odds... before we decide that a change would produce better results." My standing point is that a change is going to be made. I don't believe Wildhack will actively end JAB's time. It's up to JAB, maybe with some urging toward the sooner rather than the later, but in any case, don't we pretty much all expect it's going to end sometime between the end of this season and three years from now? It's not as if it's a decision Wildhack has to make with a 50-year old JAB. He was already scheduled to have retired a few years ago. There isn't a lot of bloom left on the rose. The term is finite and we're nearing the end. So, even if the odds were 95% against us, that's irrelevant. It's like if you have no food, except one cracker that stands a 95% chance of being poisoned, but if you don't eat it, you'll die of malnutrition. You can wait but you're going to have to try the cracker. You stand a far greater chance of being involved in an auto accident if you go out for pizza, than if you stay home and eat Totino's, but is that statistic going to stop you from driving your car? Some things just have to be done. So much of the subtext of a lot of these arguments seems to be that JAB's age is not a factor, and that all it will take is some luck to sign a couple of top 20 recruits and everything will be peaches for another 30 years.

Funny, that you call my paragraphs "word salad," when i look at the start of this thread and see unformatted lines of... stuff... I mean, i work for a data company, but i'm a writer (sorta).

Anyway, again, thanks for the work, but saying "103 coaches" isn't really the point, either. What do these names have to do with us? This is historically accurate, but it doesn't tell us even the odds potential of our next coach. We don't even know the candidate. If we signed Jay Wright instead of the guy running South by Southwest Cactus Tech, wouldn't that be a far more significant factor than knowing how many games Brett Weiberg won at Missouri Western?

 

[Bayside44]

In the 5 seasons previous to this one UNC was averaging 24 wins a season.

Over the same time period we averaged less than 20.

So...

Last season 18-11, first round lost. (we go Sweet 16)
2020, 14-19 (we've never done that under JB)
2019 - Good year Sweet 16, 29-7 (we lose first round)
2018 - 26-11 but a second round loss (we lost Sweet 16)
2017 - they win the whole thing, (NIT)
2016 - They beat us in the Final Four

Their stinker is worse than ours, their best is better than ours...

 

[Zelda Zonk]

Last season 18-11, first round lost. (we go Sweet 16)
2020, 14-19 (we've never done that under JB)
2019 - Good year Sweet 16, 29-7 (we lose first round)
2018 - 26-11 but a second round loss (we lost Sweet 16)
2017 - they win the whole thing, (NIT)
2016 - They beat us in the Final Four

Their stinker is worse than ours, their best is better than ours...

Wasn't that 2020 season the one where their best player was out for a huge chunk of the season? Cole Anthony? If we had a first round, #15 pick to take away, i imagine we could finish 14-19 or worse.

 

[Bayside44]

Wasn't that 2020 season the one where their best player was out for a huge chunk of the season? Cole Anthony? If we had a first round, #15 pick to take away, i imagine we could finish 14-19 or worse.

If you're UNC a player can go down and so what, there are 5 stars everywhere else.

We've weathered injuries as well.

 

[baggerbob]

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.

At this point the system in place has to be changed. The next coach is going to have problems, we might have to go through 2 or 3 coaches to find a winning one. We are a fish out of water in a Southern Basketball league.

 

[SWC75]

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.

In my original 2008 study, (where I looked at both football and basketball), i addressed those issues:

It appears that SU is preparing for the retirement of Jim Boeheim sometime in the near, (but not immediate) future by “making a deal” with Mike Hopkins assuring him that he will be Jim’s replacement. They obviously don’t want him going elsewhere first, seeing him as a Denny Crum or Roy Williams- the long time assistant who made good elsewhere and then decided not to come home, (although Williams finally did). This is controversial to some: why not go out and get a proven head coach for such a prestigious program? Which is better? I decided to look at a meaningful sample of such situations to try to find out. I looked at the listing of the winningest coaches of all time in both basketball and football as published in the NCAA guide. I limited myself to Division I and IA programs: “big time” schools. I also went by total wins rather than percentage, as there will be more retirees. I looked at the top 25 in both basketball and football as listed in the most recent NCAA guides.

Basketball

The #1 guy is Bobby Knight, who is still coaching. He was .735 at Indiana and was replaced by assistant Mike Davis, who was .613 when he was fired, despite having made it to an NCAA title game. Knight just passed #2 Dean Smith, who compiled a winning percentage of .776 at UNC. He was succeeded by Bill Guthridge, who is often sited as an example of a long-time assistant who gets the job on the coattails of his predecessor as a sort of fill-in guy until you bring in your real next coach. But Guthridge in three years had a winning percentage of .763- nearly as high as Smith’s and went to two Final Fours before retiring himself. The Tar Heel’s next coach was Matt Doherty, who was hardly the answer, going .553.Adolph Rupp is now #3. He was replaced by a former player and current assistant, Joe B. Hall, who had a fine career in his own right, going .748, (vs. Rupp’s .822, which is inflated because for much of his tenure the rest of the SEC could have cared less about his sport)), and winning a national title. He was able to retire with a strong reputation as a coach. #4 was Jimmy Phelan of Mount St. Mary’s, which was a small college program during much of that time, hardly a comparable situation to these other schools. #5 is Eddie Sutton who after compiling a .708 percentage at his alma mater was replaced by a trifecta: a former player and assistant coach who was also his son. Sean, in his first season last year, started 11-0 but wound up 22-13, (.629).

#6 is Lefty Driesell, who was .686 at Maryland. He was followed by the disastrous regime of Bob Wade, the long-time coach at Dunbar High in Baltimore. Not only did he win only .419 but he got in trouble with the NCAA and when he was fired, coaches at inner city schools in Baltimore steered their players away from the Terps for several years, feeling that Wade had been unfairly treated there. Wade had had no previous connection with the program. #7 is Lute Olson, who is still going strong. #8 is Lou Henson, who was .654 at Illinois before he was replaced by Lon Kruger, one of those guys who keep moving on and had been head coach at several schools. Kruger had no prior connection with the Illini went a credible .628. Mike Krzyzewski is #9 and still on the rise. #10 is Henry Iba, the long-time Olympic coach, (he was in charge of the debacle at Munich), and the even longer time coach at Oklahoma State, where he went .679. He was replaced by an assistant, Sam Aubrey, who tanked at .231 and was gone in three years.

#11 is Ed Diddle, the long time coach of Western Kentucky who won .715 of his games there over four decades. He was replaced by former player Johnny Oldham, who was head coach at league rival Tennessee Tech. Oldham actually topped his old coach at .811 before moving onto the athletic director’s chair. The two Jims- Boeheim and Calhoun- are tied for 12th with 750 wins. #14 is Phog Allen, who actually has 771 collegiate wins, (it was his record his former player Rupp broke at Kentucky), but only 746 at current NCAA institutions. He was .729 at Kansas and replaced by a former player and current assistant, Dick Harp, who inherited Wilt Chamberlain from him and went to the NCAA Final his first year but was still fired after 8 years at .596. #15 is John Chaney, who was .671 at Temple. His replacement, Fran Dunphy, the long-time successful coach at Penn, (he’d played under Tom Gola at LaSalle), went 12-18, (.400) in his first year.

#16 is Jerry Tarkanian, who went .829 in a weak conference at UNLV until they got tired of his act and brought in Rollie Massimino, who was supposed to clean up the program but also got on probation and didn’t win as much as Tark did, (.632). #17 is Norm Stewart, .656 at Missouri before being replaced by Duke product Quinn Snyder who was .581 with several off the field problems when he was asked to leave. #18 Ray Meyer, (.672), like Sutton was replaced by a former player, current coach and son- Joey, who was .594 before getting canned. #19 is Don “Glory Road” Haskins, (.671), who was replaced by Jason Rabedeaux who had been an assistant at Oklahoma under Kelvin Sampson and was replaced after a .500 record. #20 is Denny Crum, (.696), the rare legend who was replaced by another legend, Rick Pitino, at Louisville, who so far is .713, a bit better than Denny.

#21 is the grand old man of the sport, Johnny Wooden, who was .807 at UCLA. His replacement was “Clean Gene” Bartow, who actually topped that at .852 but disliked being in Wooden’s shadow and moved to UAB to start the program there so he could be his own legend. Then comes #22 Ralph Miller, who coached at three different schools but was .645 in 19 years at Oregon State before being replaced by assistant Jim Anderson, an alum who had been there even longer, (27 years). Anderson was a disappointing .382 before he was let go. #23 is Bartow, who was .643 at UAB before being replaced by a former player, current assistant and his son, Murray Bartow, who went .554 before being replaced. Billy Tubbs is #24. He was .716 at Oklahoma but his replacement, Sampson, topped that at .719. He had been the coach at Washington State and had no prior involvement with the program. He then moved on to Indiana. #25 is Marv Harshman, who also coached at three different schools, making the somewhat strange shift from Washington State, where he coached from 1959-71 to Washington, where he was .617 from 1972-85. He was replaced by Andy Russo, the coach at Louisiana Tech, who went only .496 and was forced to resign.

Football

The top two guys are Bobby Bowden and Joe Paterno who haven’t retired yet. #3 Bear Bryant was followed by Ray Perkins, a former player who had been coaching the New York Giants. He went 32-15-1, (.681- Bryant had been .834) in four years. Perkins decided to go back to the NFL. He wasn’t fired. #4 Pop Warner coached at so many places, (7 schools), and for such limited periods, I don’t think any of the many coaches who replaced him were in quite the same situation as Perkins and the others. #5 Amos Alonzo Stagg coached at Chicago for 41 seasons. He was forcibly retired at age 70 when Chicago began to de-emphasize its program. He was succeeded by none other than Clark Shaughnessy, (not an assistant- he’d been the head coach at Tulane and Loyola of New Orleans), the inventor of the “T” formation, who went a sorry 17-34-4 with no support form the school, (although he did coach the first ever Heisman Trophy winner, Jay Berwanger). The school gave up the sport and Shaughnessy went out to Stanford where he immediately went 10-0.

LaVell Edwards is #6. His replacement was Gary Crowton, who got off to a great start with a 12-2 first season in 2001. Three straight losing seasons left him with a record of 26-23, (.531- Edwards was .718). That and several off the field problems cost him his job. He graduated from BYU but had been the Bears’ offensive co-ordinator. Prior to that he’d been head coach at Louisiana Tech. #7 Tom Osborne had been the classic example of an assistant who made good. But he’s on this list as “the legend” and his successor, Frank Solich, is an oft-quoted example of an assistant who flopped. But Solich actually had a pretty good record, 58-19, (.753- Osborne’s percentage was .836). Solich’s successor, Bill Callahan, (brought in by an athletic director brought in from another schools who wanted “his guys” in charge), former Raiders coach, who has only been 22-15, (.595). #8 Lou Holtz like Warner, coached at a lot of places, (also 7 schools). But he was at Notre Dame long enough to win 100 games, (.769), and a national title there. He was replaced by Bob Davie, his defensive co-ordinator, who went 35-25, (.583) and was fired. #9 Woody Hayes was replaced by former assistant Earle Bruce, who had left the school to become head coach at Tampa and then Iowa State. Bruce Started out 11-0, (first game 31-8 over SU) and went 81-26-1, (.757- Hayes was .759). He had an incredible record- his teams went 9-3 for 5 years in a row and then went 10-3 before stumbling to 6-4-1. People got tired of the three loss seasons, (just as they did here with Coach P), and when things got worse, they used it as a reason to fire him. #10 Bo Schemblechler was followed by Gary Moeller who had previously been a head coach at Illinois but was Bo’s defensive co-ordinator and then his offensive co-ordinator. He went 44-13-3 in five seasons, (.758- Bo had been .802), before resigning after being charged with disorderly conduct.

#11 Hayden Fry was followed by Kirk Ferentz a former assistant who had left to become head coach at Maine and then been a position coach in the NFL for several years. Ferentz started 1-10 and is now 55-43 but with three 10 win seasons. #12 Jess Neely was coach for 27 years, (.537) at Rice, having a fair amount of success until two platoon football made it hard for schools like Rice to play football at a top level. He was replaced by Bo Hagan, who had been his offensive co-ordinator for a decade. He lasted 4 years going 12-27-1, (.308). But Rice has been only .336 since Neely left, so it was more of a case of a school that couldn’t compete at this level any more. #13 Warren Woodson was another guy who jumped from school to school, (5 of them) and never really achieved “legend” status at any one place. #14 Don Nehlen, (.616) was followed at West Virginia by Rich Rodriguez, who has done even better at .676. Rodriguez was one of Nehlen’s former players but was never an assistant under him. He’d been a small college head coach but was offensive co-ordinator at Tulane and Clemson under Tommy Bowden before he got the job. #15 is a tie between Vince Dooley and Dr. Eddie Anderson. Anderson spent most of his career at Holy Cross. Dooley is a classic example of the “legendary” coach for his 25 years at Georgia, (.723). His most noted assistant was his defensive co-ordinator, Erk Russell, who left to found the highly successful Division 1AA program at Georgia Southern and stayed there. Dooley was replaced by Ray Goff, a former QB under Dooley who was a position coach. He went 46-34-1, (.575), in seven years. He couldn’t find a way to beat Steve Spurrier, who called him “Ray Goof”.

#17 Jim Sweeney made his name at Fresno State, (.656). Pat Hill, a former assistant who had been coaching in the NFL took over and has gone .598 in 10 seasons. #18 is Dana Bible, another coach from the old days who bounced around, coaching at 5 different places. #19 goes father back than he did, Dan McGugin, who coached at Vanderbilt from 1904-1934, (.762). He was followed by a former player, Ray Morrison, who had been coach at SMU for years. Morrison spent four seasons there, going only 29-21-2, (.580). Vandy, like Duke and Rice, was once a power but high tuition and academic standards have made it hard to compete. But Duke and Rice were good for many years after 1939 while the Commodores struggled. #20 was the famous Fielding “Hurry Up” Yost of Michigan- the guy who thought kicking the ball to Red Grange was such a good idea. He was there for 25 years, (.851). He was replaced by one Elton Wieman, who went 6-2 his first year but only went 3-4-1 his second year, Michigan’s first losing season since 1891. That was the end for him. He had been one of Yost players and an assistant there for several years.

#21 Howard Jones was the guy who built Southern California into a national power, going .771 from 1925-40. (He had been the coach at Syracuse in 1908.) He died suddenly of a heart attack shortly before the 1941 season. He was succeeded by the amazing Sam Berry, who was a college head coach at football, basketball and baseball. He took USC to the Final Four in basketball and won the 1948-49 College World Series. However his one year as head football coach was a loser, 2-6-1. Barry then went off to join the Navy. When the war was over he returned as basketball and baseball coach but declined to unseat his replacement, Jeff Cravath, as head football coach and continued as Cravath’s assistant. He died at a football game in 1950, scouting an opponent. He was true Trojan. It could be said that Cravath was Jones’ real replacement. From 1942-50 he went 54-28-8, taking the Trojans to four Rose Bowls. But he was fired after a 2-5-2 season in 1950 that ended with a 0-39 loss to UCLA. He had also been an assistant under Jones from 1933-40 but was the head coach at San Francisco for one year in 1941. #22 Is John Cooper, the long time but much maligned coach at Ohio State. As he was fired, I don’t think we can say he attained “legend” status. #23 is Johnny Vaught, who coached Mississippi for 24 years, (.766), before giving away to Bill Kinard, a former player who was an assistant coach at Arkansas. Kinard lasted less than 3 full seasons, going 10-2 his first year, 5-5 the next and getting fired in mid-season in 1973 at 1-2 after losing to Memphis State. Vaught was convinced to come out of retirement and finished the year 5-3. Then he was replaced by line coach, Ken Cooper who went 19-25-0 over four seasons. (For the next section I’m going to treat Cravath as Jones’ real successor and Kinard as Vaught’s true successor, as Barry in 1941 and Vaught in 1973 were really interim coaches.) #24 is George Welch, who was .609 in 19 years at Virginia. He was followed by Al Groh, an old cavalier who had been coaching in the pros. Al’s gone 37-26, (.587). #25 is our old friend Frank Beamer who’s still the coach at Virginia Tech.

Summary

Of the 50 top winning coaches in the two sports I found 37 situations that seemed relevant to Jim Boeheim’s potential retirement: a long and successful run at one big-time school that is now over so we can examine the success- or lack thereof- of his replacement. That’s a pretty good database.

In 26 of those 37 cases the school picked a current assistant, a former assistant or a former player- “one of our guys”. In those cases, the legend they replaced had a cumulative winning percentage of .721 and “our guys” went .609, a drop off of 112 points. 17 of “our guys” wound up getting fired, (which includes being pressured to resign), while 5 are still coaching, (which means they could get fired). Two retired. One went back to the pros, (Perkins) and one became the athletic director, (Oldham).

The 11 new coaches who had had no prior connection with the program replaced legends who went .704: the new guy went .565, 139 points worse. Five of these guys got fired. Three more moved on, just as they’d moved on to your school. In one case, (Shaughnessy), the school gave up the sport. The other two, (Dunphy and Pitino), are still coaching. Staying within the family isn’t necessarily a bad idea. Those guys not only have a better record but they are less likely to move on to a better deal.

Of the 26 new coaches who had prior associations with the university, 15 were internal promotions of current assistants. They replaced guys who went .729 and went .581 themselves, a drop of 148 points. An astonishing 12 of them wound up getting fired. Two retired and one is still coaching. Internal promotions have a way of producing external demotions.

The 11 guys who left home and came back replaced coaches who were .711 and went .648 themselves, a drop of only 63 points. Five have been fired. Four are still at it. One left for the pros and one became athletic director. So there’s something to be said for gaining experience elsewhere before taking on your dream job.

Fifteen new coaches had previous major college head coaching experience. Bob Wade had high school head coaching experience and Ray Perkins had pro head coaching experience but I don’t consider those the same as a college job so I didn’t include them.

These 15 guys replaced coaches who went .714 and went .665 themselves, a drop off of only 49 points, so being a head man at the college level before you take over seems to help. But 6 of these guys have been fired. Three moved on. Oldham became and AD and Chicago gave up the sport. The four others are still coaching at their schools.

Of the 22 new coaches with no prior college head coaching experience, fully 16 have been fired. Two retired, one jumped to the pros and the other are still at it. They replaced legends with a .710 percentage and went .573 themselves, a drop of 137 points. Not a good record.

Does it help to come from the pros? Six new coaches did. They replaced guys who had gone .688 and went .612, a drop of only 76 points. Four of them, (Ferentz, Hill, Groh and Pitino) are still at it. One, (Perkins) returned to the pros and Crowton got fired. That’s better than most categories but not better than having had previous college head coaching experience.

But perhaps the key stat is that, in every category, the success rate of the program went down. The only replacements to have a higher winning percentage than their legendary predecessors have been Oldham, Pitino, Gene Bartow, Sampson and Rodriguez. 86% of the time, (32 of 37), the guy replacing the legend had a worse record. Bartow’s term at UCLA was only two years compared to 26 for Wooden and Pitino and Rodriguez are not done yet so we don’t know if they will stay ahead of Crum and Nehlen.

So what’s it all mean? Firstly, great coaches are not that common. A great program might have more than one of them in its history, but they are unlikely to be consecutive. The idea that a great coach has gotten away with mistakes for a long time due to his reputation and that his replacement will make the right adjustments while retaining his predecessor’s strengths and thus go on to even greater success is not borne out by the historical record. The new man will have strengths and weaknesses of his own.

A new coach will have the advantage of an established program- in most cases. But he has the disadvantage of not having the prior coach’s teflon reputation, built upon a history of success and the fact that most fans of the school won’t be able to remember when he wasn’t the coach. The new coach may find that the underpinnings of the program’s success which allowed the old coach to become a legend have eroded and his going will be much harder, (see Chicago, Vanderbilt, Rice, Oklahoma State under Iba, UNLV, etc.). Or it may be that the program actually declined under the old coach and will now be built up by the new guy. Johnny Oldham was the head coach at Tennessee Tech for 9 years before he returned to Western Kentucky and had a credible but unspectacular 107-72 record, (.597). Ed Diddle at Western had gone 10-32 in his final two years, his only losing records. Oldham then had a seven year run of 150-35, (.811) before sliding into the AD’s chair. Diddle didn’t suddenly become and idiot and Oldham a genius. They spent some money on that program. But the more likely scenario is that the reputation of the old coach masked the program’s decline and the new man inherited a reputation and a program that could no longer live up to it.

Maybe the most dismal stat is that of the 37 replacements, 22 were fired. Seven are still coaching and their fate awaits them. We need to wish Mike Hopkins luck, because he’s going to need it.

 

[SWC75]

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!

it varies. Some things I do some work on it each day until it's done, (which might be a couple of weeks). Part B was like that because I'd been challenged to do it. other projects I work on for a while, then other things come up and I get back to them later. they might take months. I've got some projects I've bene working on for years, on and off. I live alone and am retired so i can set my own schedule. It keeps my mind active.

 

[SWC75]

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.

And we'll all be rooting together for it be a big success.

 

[SWC75]

If you're in charge of actually signing players, no, you don't rely on the simple metric of "road numbers." You look at park-factored numbers, and especially the parks in which your team will play. And you look at opposing pitchers, and a slew of other very specific factors. But, your table looks at only one thing, a result in broad terms, and doesn't examine the factors that might make that information relevant from one case to the next or to ours. Is it "irrelevant?" I think i called it "interesting." But, no, it's not very relevant.

More importantly, i will keep disagreeing with the founding premise, that "we need to know the odds... before we decide that a change would produce better results." My standing point is that a change is going to be made. I don't believe Wildhack will actively end JAB's time. It's up to JAB, maybe with some urging toward the sooner rather than the later, but in any case, don't we pretty much all expect it's going to end sometime between the end of this season and three years from now? It's not as if it's a decision Wildhack has to make with a 50-year old JAB. He was already scheduled to have retired a few years ago. There isn't a lot of bloom left on the rose. The term is finite and we're nearing the end. So, even if the odds were 95% against us, that's irrelevant. It's like if you have no food, except one cracker that stands a 95% chance of being poisoned, but if you don't eat it, you'll die of malnutrition. You can wait but you're going to have to try the cracker. You stand a far greater chance of being involved in an auto accident if you go out for pizza, than if you stay home and eat Totino's, but is that statistic going to stop you from driving your car? Some things just have to be done. So much of the subtext of a lot of these arguments seems to be that JAB's age is not a factor, and that all it will take is some luck to sign a couple of top 20 recruits and everything will be peaches for another 30 years.

Funny, that you call my paragraphs "word salad," when i look at the start of this thread and see unformatted lines of... stuff... I mean, i work for a data company, but i'm a writer (sorta).

Anyway, again, thanks for the work, but saying "103 coaches" isn't really the point, either. What do these names have to do with us? This is historically accurate, but it doesn't tell us even the odds potential of our next coach. We don't even know the candidate. If we signed Jay Wright instead of the guy running South by Southwest Cactus Tech, wouldn't that be a far more significant factor than knowing how many games Brett Weiberg won at Missouri Western?

All I was saying was that history suggests that the next coach after a legend leaves is likely to have a worse record. That's simply a statistical fact. You challenged the definition of words, insisted that only situations identical to ours matter and announced that the past has nothing to do with the future. That's a word salad.

It's an attempt to avoid dealing with the facts presented. As I've said it's certainly possible that the next coach will do better and we'll all be rooting together for that to happen. But history suggests it probably won't. That's all I'm saying and that's the truth.

 

[Cusefan0307]

	Overall W	Overall L	ACC W	ACC L	NCAA Tw	NCAA L
Cuse	84​	57​	38​	35​	5​	3​
UNC	95​	51​	44​	29​	3​	3​

That's UNC and Syracuse's record since UNC won the title. We have won 2 of the last 3 meetings after losing 9 in a row.


Cole Anthony was the player they were missing when they went 14-19. They were still under .500 with him in the lineup at 10-12.

 

[supp]

In my original 2008 study, (where I looked at both football and basketball), i addressed those issues:
In 26 of those 37 cases the school picked a current assistant, a former assistant or a former player- “one of our guys”. In those cases, the legend they replaced had a cumulative winning percentage of .721 and “our guys” went .609, a drop off of 112 points. 17 of “our guys” wound up getting fired, (which includes being pressured to resign), while 5 are still coaching, (which means they could get fired). Two retired. One went back to the pros, (Perkins) and one became the athletic director, (Oldham).

The 11 new coaches who had had no prior connection with the program replaced legends who went .704: the new guy went .565, 139 points worse. Five of these guys got fired. Three more moved on, just as they’d moved on to your school. In one case, (Shaughnessy), the school gave up the sport. The other two, (Dunphy and Pitino), are still coaching. Staying within the family isn’t necessarily a bad idea. Those guys not only have a better record but they are less likely to move on to a better deal.

Thanks. It would appear that from your original research, you're better off with a continuity hire. But I would be curious about situations in which the legend tails off towards the end of their career. My hypothesis would be that when a legendary coach leaves on a high note, the pressure on the next guy (especially if he's not the chosen successor of the legend) is even greater. But in a situation where the legend is leaving with a mixed record in those final five years, perhaps the shadow of that guy is less of a burden for the non-continuity hire. I'm not trying to engineer an outcome here where we're better off going outside the family. I'm only wondering if the particular situation that we're currently in changes the odds for the non-continuity hire.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Last season 18-11, first round lost. (we go Sweet 16)
2020, 14-19 (we've never done that under JB)
2019 - Good year Sweet 16, 29-7 (we lose first round)
2018 - 26-11 but a second round loss (we lost Sweet 16)
2017 - they win the whole thing, (NIT)
2016 - They beat us in the Final Four

Their stinker is worse than ours, their best is better than ours...

I feel like you're glossing over some significant differences.

 

[Bayside44]

I feel like you're glossing over some significant differences.

Their title was 5 seasons ago. From then on it’s ok. No 14 win seasons in the 315.

Anyway I think they’re more like us than Duke. Roy chafed at early entries and transfers but he just said the heck with it, grew a beard for a while and moved on.

I’m just hard pressed to see a scenario where the hire isn’t a Cuse grad.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Their title was 5 seasons ago. From then on it’s ok. No 14 win seasons in the 315.

Anyway I think they’re more like us than Duke. Roy chafed at early entries and transfers but he just said the heck with it, grew a beard for a while and moved on.

I’m just hard pressed to see a scenario where the hire isn’t a Cuse grad.

14 win season doesn't matter especially when the NCAA technically stripped JB of the wins he needs to make the claim that he never had a losing record!

 

[Bayside44]

14 win season doesn't matter especially when the NCAA technically stripped JB of the wins he needs to make the claim that he never had a losing record!

The NCAA can see you, well you know where.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

The NCAA can see you, well you know where.

Fair enough.

 

[kcsu]

it varies. Some things I do some work on it each day until it's done, (which might be a couple of weeks). Part B was like that because I'd been challenged to do it. other projects I work on for a while, then other things come up and I get back to them later. they might take months. I've got some projects I've bene working on for years, on and off. I live alone and am retired so i can set my own schedule. It keeps my mind active.

Your post are simply amazing. I save almost all of them. I truly appreciate the time and effort you put into these. They are so informative and extremely well organized.

 

[SWC75]

Thanks. It would appear that from your original research, you're better off with a continuity hire. But I would be curious about situations in which the legend tails off towards the end of their career. My hypothesis would be that when a legendary coach leaves on a high note, the pressure on the next guy (especially if he's not the chosen successor of the legend) is even greater. But in a situation where the legend is leaving with a mixed record in those final five years, perhaps the shadow of that guy is less of a burden for the non-continuity hire. I'm not trying to engineer an outcome here where we're better off going outside the family. I'm only wondering if the particular situation that we're currently in changes the odds for the non-continuity hire.

The big take-away I had is that it's best to get someone who had been a head coach but in all categories, the new guy didn't do as well as the legend.

Anyone who wants to do additional research on the subject has all the names now. I just wanted to inoculate the conversation with the facts about replacing legends. I've done that and now I'm moving on to other projects.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

All I was saying was that history suggests that the next coach after a legend leaves is likely to have a worse record. That's simply a statistical fact. You challenged the definition of words, insisted that only situations identical to ours matter and announced that the past has nothing to do with the future. That's a word salad.

It's an attempt to avoid dealing with the facts presented. As I've said it's certainly possible that the next coach will do better and we'll all be rooting together for that to happen. But history suggests it probably won't. That's all I'm saying and that's the truth.

The chances of our next HC having the lengthy successful career JB has had is slim to none. But you are comparing his entire body of work with the next HC. That is highly flawed. Of course a school won't have back to back "legends" that is a silly premise. Our next HC shouldn't be judged on JB's entire career but on the end of his career. Our next HC could be viewed as being very successful by getting us to 22-10 (12-8). That is a big improvement over the last 8 seasons. But it is worse than the last 50 seasons. So you are going to view him as a failure?

 

[Cusefan0307]

The chances of our next HC having the lengthy successful career JB has had is slim to none. But you are comparing his entire body of work with the next HC. That is highly flawed. Of course a school won't have back to back "legends" that is a silly premise. Our next HC shouldn't be judged on JB's entire career but on the end of his career. Our next HC could be viewed as being very successful by getting us to 22-10 (12-8). That is a big improvement over the last 8 seasons. But it is worse than the last 50 seasons. So you are going to view him as a failure?

I am challenging this post. Fans will not be happy with consistent 22-10 seasons here. We were 18-10 and 9-7 last year and there was a lot of complaining.

Maryland ran off Turgeon because that's about what he did every year.

The vast majority of fans want us to finish in the top 4 of the ACC and be protected seeds every year.

22-10 is not enough.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I am challenging this post. Fans will not be happy with consistent 22-10 seasons here. We were 18-10 and 9-7 last year and there was a lot of complaining.

Maryland ran off Turgeon because that's about what he did every year.

The vast majority of fans want us to finish in the top 4 of the ACC and be protected seeds every year.

22-10 is not enough.

My main point was you cannot compare a 47 year win % to the next HC's win % when the last HC's win % the last 8 years has been pretty poor.

Going 9-7 last year means we would have needed 3-1 against at Wake, FSU, H & A vs Louisville to get to 12-8. That would be a huuuuge improvement. There is a big difference between 9-7 and 12-8. So there should be complaining.

They did not run off Turgeon for his in season results. It was the post season that killed him. My 22-10 (12-8) is pre NCAAT. We would need a few S16 runs on top of that to be happy.

Going 12-8 will typically get you 4th or 5th in conference. We need to reset W/L expectations and look at standings. We used to play 16 conference games, we now play 20. We used to play a ton of cupcakes OOC, now we play B1G-ACC plus one tournament. The increase in quality will result in more losses. BTW JB's win % in conference equates to a 12.8 and 7.2 record. If we have fans expecting 14-6 every year, then they are idiots.

If we went from 2014 to 22-10 (12-8) people would be more upset. But we are going from 14 loss seasons the last 8 years to 10 loss seasons it should be seen as an improvement.

 

[Alsacs]

No reason Syracuse can’t follow the Arizona model.

They went from Lute Olsen and eventually hired Sean Miller.

Miller was doing well at Arizona and they lost back to back elite 8’s to Wisconsin.

Miller would be fine to cheat now but was a couple of years to early.

Syracuse can go from Boeheim to a Sean Miller type of coach and do well.

Problem is Boeheim isn’t going to go away and will have opinions on everything. It’s why the next coach is going to be from Boeheim bench even though this fanbase is being torn up because the HC says whatever he wants and because some people think he is bigger than the program nothing will change.

I like and respect Jim Boeheim but he will want things done his way. The fanbase has to just accept we are a middle of the road program for a while.

 

[Cusefan0307]

My main point was you cannot compare a 47 year win % to the next HC's win % when the last HC's win % the last 8 years has been pretty poor.

Going 9-7 last year means we would have needed 3-1 against at Wake, FSU, H & A vs Louisville to get to 12-8. That would be a huuuuge improvement. There is a big difference between 9-7 and 12-8. So there should be complaining.

They did not run off Turgeon for his in season results. It was the post season that killed him. My 22-10 (12-8) is pre NCAAT. We would need a few S16 runs on top of that to be happy.

Going 12-8 will typically get you 4th or 5th in conference. We need to reset W/L expectations and look at standings. We used to play 16 conference games, we now play 20. We used to play a ton of cupcakes OOC, now we play B1G-ACC plus one tournament. The increase in quality will result in more losses. BTW JB's win % in conference equates to a 12.8 and 7.2 record. If we have fans expecting 14-6 every year, then they are idiots.

If we went from 2014 to 22-10 (12-8) people would be more upset. But we are going from 14 loss seasons the last 8 years to 10 loss seasons it should be seen as an improvement.

You're fixated on record too much. There's less of a difference between 22-10 and 18-10 than there is 22-10 and 26-6.

22-10 is not good enough. Fans here want to compete for protected seeds like we have most of JB's tenure.

And yes I agree with you on Turgeon. Regular season wins alone aren't good enough either.

My baseline for Syracuse:

13-7 ACC
10-1 OOC
2-1 ACC
2-1 NCAAT

27-10 should be the goal every season for a winning percentage of 73%

JB's average record including the last 7 or 8 mediocre seasons is 24-9(72%). We now play more games since the early 2000's so that's why the record is different.

Fair or not that is the expectations of this program over the long term.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

You're fixated on record too much. There's less of a difference between 22-10 and 18-10 than there is 22-10 and 26-6.

22-10 is not good enough. Fans here want to compete for protected seeds like we have most of JB's tenure.

And yes I agree with you on Turgeon. Regular season wins alone aren't good enough either.

My baseline for Syracuse:

13-7 ACC
10-1 OOC
2-1 ACC
2-1 NCAAT

27-10 should be the goal every season for a winning percentage of 73%

JB's average record including the last 7 or 8 mediocre seasons is 24-9(72%). We now play more games since the early 2000's so that's why the record is different.

Fair or not that is the expectations of this program over the long term.

Your baseline is better than JB's record. You might want to go find a new team to root for.

In today's landscape it is very hard to have that type of success at ANY P5 school. There is too much parity. There is also the kids leaving early issue which didn't happen 10 years ago. Heck since we joined the ACC Coach K's W% in ACC play yields a 13.8 and 6.2 record. If you want to take out last Covid season it is still only 14.4 and 5.6. I don't expect Duke nor UNC to average 14-6 going forward. So IMO it is unrealistic to expect SU to average 13-7.

If we are winning 2/3 of our games, we as a fan base should be content. That should be our baseline. Under 2/3 you get fired. Which equates to a 24-12 overall record and will keep us a Top 15 program. Telling a HC that they get fired for 26-11 is insane.