You use the word “stability” as if it has only one meaning. I asked you to clarify. Sure, 50 years under one coach is a form of stability. But, that’s not empirically a benefit. I’d rather have multiple championships under multiple coaches than one under one.
What‘s the obvious reason for UCSB? No Dome, right?
Why not mention USC and FSU and Georgia? Because they don’t prove or disprove anything. Players, just like academic students, go to the schools that are the best for them and climate is likely only a small factor. USC was hot for football during certain eras/periods. They were less hot during other periods. The locale and climate didn’t change. Why is/was the Newhouse school top-rated? [Is it, still?] Why do top students go to Dartmouth, Brown, Yale… etc?
Are basketball players really different? College is preparatory. You go to the situation best set up to enable success. And many players/students come from places where snow/cold is not so different from Syracuse. I went to SU from NE Ohio. My first choice of schools, since i was a kid, was USC. But Syracuse had Newhouse. I probably gave it two minutes thought, and checked the weather in Syracuse, and decided it wasn’t important enough to make a ‘comfort‘ decision. These players have millions of dollars on the line. They’re making business decisions. If a top athlete didn’t go to Syracuse, it was for reasons that outweighed climate. No one can say it’s not a factor. Calling it a handicap is a gross exaggeration. There were other, far more profound ‘impediments‘ to sustaining excellence.