[DC 86]

That strikes me as an odd approach.  You keep your coach if you think he's meeting your standard; if not, he goes and you hope the next guy - whom you've done some diligence on - meets program standards.  It shouldn't be that hard conceptually.

I would argue that you replace your coach whenever you have identified a replacement that will take the job and that you believe is an upgrade. That can be true even if your present coach is "pretty good". If there is somebody better, pull the trigger. There are risk factors involved in this comparison. If your current coach has been there long enough that you have a pretty good calibration on what is possible, that reduces your risk. If your new candidate has a track record that you can evaluate, that reduces your risk.
Often your new coaching candidate has a big standard deviation. You have to decide if replacing a 0.500 coach that you are pretty sure will stay that way with a guy that could be .800 and could also be 0.200 is worth the risk. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. That is one of those things the AD has to manage, either by doing the evaluation himself or hiring some outsiders to do it. It is best to take the emotion out of it and realize exactly what you think the tradeoffs are. You should also document the factors you considered, how you reached the evaluations you did, and how sure of those evaluations you are.
Generally, that isn't what happens and the choice is made based on gut feel/ fan base pressure. Those choices often don't work out well, unsurprisingly. Sometimes they do. Until this last time, I think the process by which USC replaced their football coaches was in that category. This last time, I think they did it right. It still may not work out, but I think they identified a guy that was a clear upgrade.

That sounds great in theory, but there are financial and recruiting considerations. If you recently signed your coach to an extension then you are probably looking at a hefty buyout. Depending on when the "upgrade coach" becomes available could sabotage an incoming recruiting class. There is a cost to making a change, so "pulling the trigger" any time you can upgrade isn't optimal.

For the record I would have replaced Haase at this point, but that's based on the premise that we could significantly upgrade the position which would justify the cost.

[DC 86]

That strikes me as an odd approach.  You keep your coach if you think he's meeting your standard; if not, he goes and you hope the next guy - whom you've done some diligence on - meets program standards.  It shouldn't be that hard conceptually.

I would argue that you replace your coach whenever you have identified a replacement that will take the job and that you believe is an upgrade. That can be true even if your present coach is "pretty good". If there is somebody better, pull the trigger. There are risk factors involved in this comparison. If your current coach has been there long enough that you have a pretty good calibration on what is possible, that reduces your risk. If your new candidate has a track record that you can evaluate, that reduces your risk.
Often your new coaching candidate has a big standard deviation. You have to decide if replacing a 0.500 coach that you are pretty sure will stay that way with a guy that could be .800 and could also be 0.200 is worth the risk. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. That is one of those things the AD has to manage, either by doing the evaluation himself or hiring some outsiders to do it. It is best to take the emotion out of it and realize exactly what you think the tradeoffs are. You should also document the factors you considered, how you reached the evaluations you did, and how sure of those evaluations you are.
Generally, that isn't what happens and the choice is made based on gut feel/ fan base pressure. Those choices often don't work out well, unsurprisingly. Sometimes they do. Until this last time, I think the process by which USC replaced their football coaches was in that category. This last time, I think they did it right. It still may not work out, but I think they identified a guy that was a clear upgrade.

That sounds great in theory, but there are financial and recruiting considerations. If you recently signed your coach to an extension then you are probably looking at a hefty buyout. Depending on when the "upgrade coach" becomes available could sabotage an incoming recruiting class. There is a cost to making a change, so "pulling the trigger" any time you can upgrade isn't optimal.

For the record I would have replaced Haase at this point, but that's based on the premise that we could significantly upgrade the position which would justify the cost.