[76lsjumb]

[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14741.msg158604#msg158604 date=1458009990]
Please explain why, given the exact same players, the exact same outcome is a complete failure for one coach and "not a bad outcome" for another?

I think it's fair to assume a new coach has a steep learning curve to get to know the players, maximize their talents, figure out a school's culture, develop offensive and defensive schemes that work for the particular permutations on hand, etc. In other words, all other things equal, it's reasonable to think a new coach's team would perform worse in year 1 than a mediocre coach's same team in year 9.

[/quote]

I don't think that is always the case and, in particular, not the case in the situation where [as here] the previous coach is fired for long-term underachievement that has created a somewhat toxic environment.  There is an emotional "bump" that the new coach gets -- fans are naturally more optimistic and more excited; they actually start attending games again, and they are less critical and more willing to give the new coach "a pass" that they would never have given the old coach in that same season.  That new atmosphere, in turn, leads to better performance by the players as the emotional baggage of the prior season(s) is shed and basketball gets to be "fun" again.  Unless there is a drastic change in the respective schemes of the old and new coaches -- or unless the players really aren't as talented as everyone assumed when they were blaming the team's poor performance on the previous coach rather than on the players themselves -- the first year of a new coach under these circumstances is often fairly successful.  It seems to me that it is the second year -- i.e. the year in which a "sophomore slump" either appears or doesn't -- that provides a better indicator of the new coach's abilities and potential for long term success. [Again, this assumes a coach with prior head coaching experience.  If the coach has never been a head coach before, then I agree with you entirely.]

Look at OSU and Wayne Tinkle, for example.

[76lsjumb]

[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14741.msg158604#msg158604 date=1458009990]
Please explain why, given the exact same players, the exact same outcome is a complete failure for one coach and "not a bad outcome" for another?

I think it's fair to assume a new coach has a steep learning curve to get to know the players, maximize their talents, figure out a school's culture, develop offensive and defensive schemes that work for the particular permutations on hand, etc. In other words, all other things equal, it's reasonable to think a new coach's team would perform worse in year 1 than a mediocre coach's same team in year 9.

[/quote]

I don't think that is always the case and, in particular, not the case in the situation where [as here] the previous coach is fired for long-term underachievement that has created a somewhat toxic environment.  There is an emotional "bump" that the new coach gets -- fans are naturally more optimistic and more excited; they actually start attending games again, and they are less critical and more willing to give the new coach "a pass" that they would never have given the old coach in that same season.  That new atmosphere, in turn, leads to better performance by the players as the emotional baggage of the prior season(s) is shed and basketball gets to be "fun" again.  Unless there is a drastic change in the respective schemes of the old and new coaches -- or unless the players really aren't as talented as everyone assumed when they were blaming the team's poor performance on the previous coach rather than on the players themselves -- the first year of a new coach under these circumstances is often fairly successful.  It seems to me that it is the second year -- i.e. the year in which a "sophomore slump" either appears or doesn't -- that provides a better indicator of the new coach's abilities and potential for long term success. [Again, this assumes a coach with prior head coaching experience.  If the coach has never been a head coach before, then I agree with you entirely.]

Look at OSU and Wayne Tinkle, for example.