I swear people don’t read. I said I’m not saying it’s better or worse, just fact that schools like DePaul and Villanova give far more leeway to women’s coaches than men’s coaches. Perretta is a perfect example. Do you really think that Jay Wright could‘ve lasted more than 5 years if every year he played a style that left his team better than the lower tier of the BE but rarely challenging the best teams, and pretty much never getting beyond round 1 or 2 of the Dance or not making it at all even with a winning record? Harry, same style over the years. , no real change in national potential. Good hs women’s hoops area to recruit from: same league as UConn and for years also ND and Rutgers to offer as opponents. Harry I actually think gave his kids a better chance to spring upsets than does Doug because his style could mess them up, way more than DePaul’s attempt to outscore really good teams.
Andy Landers lasted forever, often had very good recruits but only in a blue moon did he really challenge Tennessee or threaten to win it all. UGA was not so gracious to coaches in its men’s program, I think it’s absurd to think most schools have same expectation of their women’s head coaches as they do the men. The test is how they compete in their arena. Maybe the survival of coaches like Harry and Doug is a far better thing than the firing of male program coaches who might actually have better records than either of them, but the fact remains that neither changed their styles over the years and neither style gave their teams much of a chance to be either nationally competitive or even realistically win their leagues. If you notice, GA has won big; NC or not and with all sorts of teams, even early on when great players weren’t lining up to come to UConn. Meaning he is adaptable. As are most good coaches based on who is on the roster.