Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="RSTuthill, post: 3291368, member: 7322"] There was a New York Times article awhile back that reported on a statistical study that showed that replacing FB coaches at the three year mark produced worse performance in the following years. If I can find the URL I will share it, but it is being difficult to find at the moment. So, if true, why should that be? Well, given that in the third year of a coach's tenure, at best, he has a roster to work with that includes the first of his recruits as redshirt sophomores. Yet, because new coaches are usually hired after the preceding season has finished, the new coach is scrambling to fill a new recruiting class and ends up with only a few of his own recruits the first year. Thus it can be argued that the new coach's third season has at best a few of his own redshirt sophomores. It is not until the sixth season that a new coach is working with ALL of his own recruits, assuming they all redshirt their freshman year. Of course in desperate situations (e.g. UConn's) many recruits will not redshirt which only means their eligibility expires before they have reached their full maturity. As galling as it may seem, the fifth season is really the first that a coach's body of work may be effectively evaluated. And really only the sixth. Thus, although I think that UConn may make a change, indeed will likely make a change, I have never been on the fire Edsall bandwagon. Changes cause too much disruption, new style of play, new playbook, a mismatch in the new style of play with the current personnel, new methods of communication, all of the above. UConn would be wise to stand pat for a couple more years even if they have the money to make a change now. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach