The AD's Ability to Hire: Myth or Fact

[ctchamps]

There are some people who are uncomfortable with JC or any head coach making decisions about their successor.

My question to these people is this: What has the success rate been for AD's from universities in the major conferences with their hires of coaches for the major sports? My gut, based on the coaching carousel that takes place every year and based on the relative paucity of successful programs, is that it is pathetic. Maybe someone can take the last ten or twenty years of hiring in the major conferences for bb and football coaches and show the average duration of the hires, the won/loss ratio and the progression, regression or static nature of the hires.

We have stats for everything else in life. How do we know we are not beating a dead horse over this issue about JC vs. WM without some data. For all we know, we can be stating the AD should do it because it's his job, only to find out the people in this position are pathetic in this skill set. Will we discover that we are just perpetuating incompetency based on the myth that this is the right position for this skill? Intuitively I have to ask: how does a guy who has not coached or maybe even played the sport know what makes a good coach? Yet we're questioning how one of the most successful coaches at his job would be unable to determine this? I'm impressed with the talent in these forums and believe there are people who can formulate a tabulation of data in which we can assess if we should be relying on AD's for hiring coaches. It is unfortunately not my skill set.

Some additional things to ponder: We have questioned ad nauseum the motives of JC about choosing a successor. Shouldn't we be examining this same issue concerning the ADs? How can anyone know the motives of the AD in the hiring process? Is the AD looking at the university or the sports program first in his choosing a coach? Or is his primary focus on the choice about maintaining his position as AD and therefore the choice is about CHA. Is the AD looking to influence the hire to control him for his own agendas, and therefore makes his choice not on a skill or success basis, but on a compliance basis? Does this impact the success factor for the hire?

 

[8893]

John Toner hired Jim Calhoun. He was the AD. Whatever his motivations, that was his job. Same goes for Manuel. For me, that's where the analysis begins and ends. He gets to decide. We get to judge the results.

 

[Kitaman]

I think it's a matter of the job description and nothing more.

Will it be delegated? probably not
Will it go to committee? probably not
Will it be open for discussion? yes which is what most likely happened.

However there is one person alone that is charged with staffing the University's athletic head coach positions, and I don't think precedent will be established for the Men's bball head coaching position with a 'brand new' AD. It could then set up future cases for other open athletic positions, especially the women.

Calhoun got what he wanted, which is for Ollie to succeed him. To me the one year thing is camouflage and seemingly a compromise. No boss wants to be forced/bullied/pressured into a decision, at least not publicly. Ollie is our coach and that's all that matters (right now). Ollie will succeed.

 

[ctchamps]

John Toner hired Jim Calhoun. He was the AD. Whatever his motivations, that was his job. Same goes for Manuel. For me, that's where the analysis begins and ends. He gets to decide. We get to judge the results.

Doesn't answer the question about competency of AD's. I'm not arguing about job descriptions. I'm arguing whether these individuals should be handling this process or whether something better should be considered.
You're drawing a line in the sand. I'm not trying to offend you but the analogy I get from your comment would be similar to someone insisting we should still be using rotary dial land lines and arguing against smart phones just because that was the way it was done. All I'm asking is for data about the competency of an AD's ability to hire. It is a fair thing to consider imo especially since so many of us are arguing about the competency of coaches.

 

[TRest]

Doesn't answer the question about competency of AD's. I'm not arguing about job descriptions. I'm arguing whether these individuals should be handling this process or whether something better should be considered.
You're drawing a line in the sand. I'm not trying to offend you but the analogy I get from your comment would be similar to someone insisting we should still be using rotary dial land lines and arguing against smart phones just because that was the way it was done. All I'm asking is for data about the competency of an AD's ability to hire. It is a fair thing to consider imo especially since so many of us are arguing about the competency of coaches.

Is the Kentucky AD competent because he hired Cal or incompetent because he can't find a football coach that will succeed at that school? A good hiring decision doesn't always result in success on the field or the court. Too many factors can influence how the coach is ultimately judged, on wins and losses. Ollie may be a great hire that is torpedoed by our conference situation, so we will never know if it was the right decision.

 

[ctchamps]

I think it's a matter of the job description and nothing more.

Will it be delegated? probably not
Will it go to committee? probably not
Will it be open for discussion? yes which is what most likely happened.

However there is one person alone that is charged with staffing the University's athletic head coach positions, and I don't think precedent will be established for the Men's bball head coaching position with a 'brand new' AD. It could then set up future cases for other open athletic positions, especially the women.

Calhoun got what he wanted, which is for Ollie to succeed him. To me the one year thing is camouflage and seemingly a compromise. No boss wants to be forced/bullied/pressured into a decision, at least not publicly. Ollie is our coach and that's all that matters (right now). Ollie will succeed.

Fair points. But I was not debating them. People are examining the next hire and rightfully so. I'm going one step further and questioning the competency of the folks doing the hiring. If the AD's are doing a great job then keep them in this role. If not, maybe something better can be established. This is not just a WM vs. JC thing. I don't know anything about WM and have nothing against him. I'm just wondering why so many passionate sports fans question some things (like the ability of KO to run a team without coaching experience) and not others (like whether an AD can be competent to assess a good coach if he hasn't played the sport).

More specifically: who has WM hired in the past and what was the track records of the hires? I think this is a fair question to ask if someone questions the ability of KO to coach based on experience/inexperience. I'm asking two things: a resume of WM and a database of the success rate of AD's in their role of hiring. This is not any different than examining KO.

 

[ctchamps]

Is the Kentucky AD competent because he hired Cal or incompetent because he can't find a football coach that will succeed at that school? A good hiring decision doesn't always result in success on the field or the court. Too many factors can influence how the coach is ultimately judged, on wins and losses. Ollie may be a great hire that is torpedoed by our conference situation, so we will never know if it was the right decision.

Anecdotal. You bring up the one gray hiring. How about the other 120 or so hires in the other major programs. Set a standard for hiring success and determine what the success rate is for ADs. We have performance ratings for professors, coaches and so on. Let's set a standard for ADs. If one can't be established because parameters are considerable and subjective, then how do we establish criteria for a successful replacement for JC?

 

[8893]

Doesn't answer the question about competency of AD's. I'm not arguing about job descriptions. I'm arguing whether these individuals should be handling this process or whether something better should be considered.
You're drawing a line in the sand. I'm not trying to offend you but the analogy I get from your comment would be similar to someone insisting we should still be using rotary dial land lines and arguing against smart phones just because that was the way it was done. All I'm asking is for data about the competency of an AD's ability to hire. It is a fair thing to consider imo especially since so many of us are arguing about the competency of coaches.

Your inquiry assumes there is data that would assist in this analysis. For that to be the case, you would need comparative data for an approach other than having the AD, whose job it is at every comparable institution, make the decision. I don't believe such data exists.

You also overlook the fact that the data would necessarily be skewed by what you consider relevant. Wins? Percentages? Championships? Improvement over prior coach? All of those factors rely on so many variables that I think any attempt to attribute them solely to the quality of a head coach hire would be a fool's errand.

I don't think your analogy to phone technology is apt. A rotary phone cannot handle the new technology. An AD is a different individual with a different skill set in each job. The University hires the AD based on its needs and wants at the time. The AD hires the basketball coach. The model can adapt in ways that are limited only by the particular individual holding the position at a particular school.

 

[businesslawyer]

Fair points. But I was not debating them. People are examining the next hire and rightfully so. I'm going one step further and questioning the competency of the folks doing the hiring. If the AD's are doing a great job then keep them in this role. If not, maybe something better can be established. This is not just a WM vs. JC thing. I don't know anything about WM and have nothing against him. I'm just wondering why so many passionate sports fans question some things (like the ability of KO to run a team without coaching experience) and not others (like whether an AD can be competent to assess a good coach if he hasn't played the sport).

More specifically: who has WM hired in the past and what was the track records of the hires? I think this is a fair question to ask if someone questions the ability of KO to coach based on experience/inexperience. I'm asking two things: a resume of WM and a database of the success rate of AD's in their role of hiring. This is not any different than examining KO.

One problem with your analysis is that the single reason most coaches "fail" is because the goals set by fans for determining whether or not they are a failure are unrealistic.

 

[Donyell]

Don't know but whatever it is a one year contract is no freaking good. This is a year of transition and we all know the reasons especially and because of that giving Ollie a one year deal sucks. It's like ok show us what you got and if we don't like the results there will be changes. Now maybe their is more to do this that we don't know but a one year deal does not seem fair. Plus with all the recruits out there that have already stated how much they like Ollie and we have a good chance with some if we have some stability at the helm.

 

[ctchamps]

You inquiry assumes there is data that would assist in this analysis. For that to be the case, you would need comparative data for an approach other than having the AD, whose job it is at every comparable institution, make the decision. I don't believe such data exists. (No one will ever get to this place unless they start out questioning and examining the competency of AD's for this job)

You also overlook the fact that the data would necessarily be skewed by what you consider relevant. Wins? Percentages? Championships? Improvement over prior coach? All of those factors rely on so many variables that I think any attempt to attribute them solely to the quality of a head coach hire would be a fool's errand. (And yet this same fools errand is the basis for all the arguments by fans and alumni and University Presidents why a hire is good or bad! IMO there can be more than one set of parameters or models concerning what makes a good hire and therefore which of the AD's can chose a decent coach. Or maybe we will determine that the hiring process is, for the most part, no better than getting a coach with a dartboard and all this debate and arguing is primarily emotional.)

I don't think your analogy to phone technology is apt. A rotary phone cannot handle the new technology. An AD is a different individual with a different skill set in each job. The University hires the AD based on its needs and wants at the time. The AD hires the basketball coach. The model can adapt in ways that are limited only by the particular individual holding the position at a particular school.

(Fair points. None the less, it would certainly assist a President of a University to have some data about hiring success if that is one of the roles the President is basing the AD hire. It would be no different than the criteria a AD would examine in determining the hire of a coach.

 

[freescooter]

Here's the thing, fleudslipcon, it is all over the lot, depending on the school and the situation. When he was at Buffalo, Manuel hired Turner Gill to coach football. Gill got them to a bowl game for the first time ever. But he also hired gill's replacement who is stuggling. Good or bad? You can make the case either way, no? John Toner hired Calhoun and Aurriemma. But he also hired Dom Perno...Is he a genius or a numbskull? If your argument is that ADs don't have a very good record on hiring coaches, so why not let the coach select his replacement, I guess I just don't buy it. The same guy hired Roy Williams at UNC as hired his predecessor. Was he a genius? Was he an incompetent knucklehead? Lots of factors go into the hiring process, the guy you want might not be willing to leave seeing a great opportunity for the coming year (that was Roy's situation at Kansas). You might not have the money to match other offers. You might select someone who was successful at one level but his talents don't translate to a higher level. The important thing is that if you don't think a guy has it, you need to move quickly to stem the damage and don't be afraid to get rid of him. John Thompson selected his replacement at Georgetown...and he ran the program onto the rocks. Louie Carnessecca selected his replacement at St Johns and he ran the program onto the rocks and it is still trying to get off. Ollie is getting a tremendous opportunity this year, one that frankly he has done nothing to deserve. And we'll be able to tell if he's getting it done. if the team plays hard, looks like they know what they are doing even if they lose, if there is improvement among the guards in particular. Even though they won't be that good, there are things you watch for...if htey are there, maybe Ollie gets a couple more years. If not, he doesn't. it won' t just be wins and losses.

 

[ctchamps]

One problem with your analysis is that the single reason most coaches "fail" is because the goals set by fans for determining whether or not they are a failure are unrealistic.

I'm aware of that problem and have the same opinion you do about it. That is the issue. If I'm correct, the data I'm asking for would demonstrate that there is no magic formula for a successful hire. All the arguments we, as passionate fans or alumni are making, are anecdotal and emotional. The problem is not about who gets hired and not about choosing the right person for the job . The problem is with our insistence about success in a process that has very little guarantees or underlying proof that success is attainable no matter what formula we come up with. But you have jumped the gun without letting the fish prove the hook is really about their problem and not JCs, PP's RE's or KO's or WMs. Certainly there are some hires that are absolutely destined for failure and some that have a better chance for success. But for the most part it is a crapshoot.

 

[arnie3]

Truly it could have been worse- they could have placed the "interim coach" tag on him. We won't have many expectations since there isn't any post-season to play for, and if he can keep this team competitive, he shouldn't have much of a problem getting an extension. I'm curious to see how he reacts in a close game- can he pull an upset say over a MSU? How does the team play in the Yum Yum Center or the Joyce? No matter how crappy the NBE may look to anyone on this board in the future, this year is the last year with all the big names. I think that a one year contract is realistic for someone who has never coached a college game, and personally I think that with his staff, Ollie will be up to the task. I'm sad to see JC go, but it was time. I'm happy to see Kevin in his place. I know that this has been a weird week what with an embassy being bombed on September 11, but we've got to keep this in perspective!

 

[freescooter]

I'm aware of that problem and have the same opinion you do about it. That is the issue. If I'm correct, the data I'm asking for would demonstrate that there is no magic formula for a successful hire. All the arguments we, as passionate fans or alumni are making, are anecdotal and emotional. The problem is not about who gets hired and not about choosing the right person for the job . The problem is with our insistence about success in a process that has very little guarantees or underlying proof that success is attainable no matter what formula we come up with. But you have jumped the gun without letting the fish prove the hook is really about their problem and not JCs, PP's RE's or KO's or WMs. Certainly there are some hires that are absolutely destined for failure and some that have a better chance for success. But for the most part it is a crapshoot.[/quote]
That may be, but it doesn't follow that because ADs don't get the best coach 100% of th etime, the departing coach will do better. Indeed, I suspect he'll be worse because he is limiting his search to "his coaching tree" rather than the wider net an AD might cast. And despite the fact that the AD has the final decision on hiring they rarely make such decisions in a vacuum. Calhoun, and most head coaches who do this, usually do. You think Calhoun "interviewed" Shaka Smart? Spoke to Sean Miller? Gauged Brad Stevens interest? Talked to Billy Donovan to get his take on Smart his former Assistant? Of course not. Calhoun just wants who he wants because Ollie is "in the family."

 

[ctchamps]

Here's the thing, fleudslipcon, it is all over the lot, depending on the school and the situation. When he was at Buffalo, Manuel hired Turner Gill to coach football. Gill got them to a bowl game for the first time ever. But he also hired gill's replacement who is stuggling. Good or bad? You can make the case either way, no? John Toner hired Calhoun and Aurriemma. But he also hired Dom Perno...Is he a genius or a numbskull? If your argument is that ADs don't have a very good record on hiring coaches, so why not let the coach select his replacement, I guess I just don't buy it. The same guy hired Roy Williams at UNC as hired his predecessor. Was he a genius? Was he an incompetent knucklehead? Lots of factors go into the hiring process, the guy you want might not be willing to leave seeing a great opportunity for the coming year (that was Roy's situation at Kansas). You might not have the money to match other offers. You might select someone who was successful at one level but his talents don't translate to a higher level. The important thing is that if you don't think a guy has it, you need to move quickly to stem the damage and don't be afraid to get rid of him. John Thompson selected his replacement at Georgetown...and he ran the program onto the rocks. Louie Carnessecca selected his replacement at St Johns and he ran the program onto the rocks and it is still trying to get off. Ollie is getting a tremendous opportunity this year, one that frankly he has done nothing to deserve. And we'll be able to tell if he's getting it done. if the team plays hard, looks like they know what they are doing even if they lose, if there is improvement among the guards in particular. Even though they won't be that good, there are things you watch for...if htey are there, maybe Ollie gets a couple more years. If not, he doesn't. it won' t just be wins and losses.

Here in lies the problem for coaches and AD's. We have no set of criteria because every situation is different. How do you measure KO's success or failure if he is utilizing players that he may or may not have selected for his system? How much time do you give him, or any coach for that matter, to make a fair assessment of success or failure? And as you brought out in another thread, what constitutes success? I believe different people have different measurements and because of all this disagreement and because there is some ability for fans and alumni to influence universities, it is impossible to prove anything one way or another. Because sooner or later, those alumni with the capability to do so, will influence what happens to a coach. And in that very process they will be proven correct whether events would have played out differently or not if they were unable to interfere. In this point BL and I are in total agreement.

 

[ctchamps]

The problem is there is very rarely consensus as to what is absolutely destined to failure and most likely for success. And even when there is an overwhelming consensus, there is no proof that the opinion will be correct. I'm looking at Shaka Smart and Matt Dougherty and they are pretty darn similar to one another regarding experience and intensity if not bb style. MD failed at the high profile institution of UNC. Was his failure because he had no squiggle room like he had at ND? Would Shaka have the same degree of fan and alumni support at UConn that he has at VCU? I doubt it and hence the lack of predictability for even a shining star.

 

[diggerfoot]

There are some people who are uncomfortable with JC or any head coach making decisions about their successor.

My question to these people is this: What has the success rate been for AD's from universities in the major conferences with their hires of coaches for the major sports? My gut, based on the coaching carousel that takes place every year and based on the relative paucity of successful programs, is that it is pathetic. Maybe someone can take the last ten or twenty years of hiring in the major conferences for bb and football coaches and show the average duration of the hires, the won/loss ratio and the progression, regression or static nature of the hires.

We have stats for everything else in life. How do we know we are not beating a dead horse over this issue about JC vs. WM without some data. For all we know, we can be stating the AD should do it because it's his job, only to find out the people in this position are pathetic in this skill set. Will we discover that we are just perpetuating incompetency based on the myth that this is the right position for this skill? Intuitively I have to ask: how does a guy who has not coached or maybe even played the sport know what makes a good coach? Yet we're questioning how one of the most successful coaches at his job would be unable to determine this? I'm impressed with the talent in these forums and believe there are people who can formulate a tabulation of data in which we can assess if we should be relying on AD's for hiring coaches. It is unfortunately not my skill set.

Some additional things to ponder: We have questioned ad nauseum the motives of JC about choosing a successor. Shouldn't we be examining this same issue concerning the ADs? How can anyone know the motives of the AD in the hiring process? Is the AD looking at the university or the sports program first in his choosing a coach? Or is his primary focus on the choice about maintaining his position as AD and therefore the choice is about CHA. Is the AD looking to influence the hire to control him for his own agendas, and therefore makes his choice not on a skill or success basis, but on a compliance basis? Does this impact the success factor for the hire?

I'm speaking as somewhat of an outsider on this issue. I'm getting so fed up with much of what goes on in college sports that I just don't care about this particular issue at this particular time. Having said that, something about this speaks to me because I've been a program evaluator that applied the sort of quantified analysis you call for.

The pool of great coaches is small so, obviously, there's not going to be a high success ratio of AD picking great ones. I would say even the pool of "good" ones may be smaller than we suspect, but talent negates some of this. Quantifying this expected poor result is meaningless unless we were to somehow also quantify the relative success of coaches having much of the say in being replaced as a point of comparison. That's likely to be too small of a sample size to make this endeavor meaningful.

 

[8893]

Not everything can be reduced to statistical analysis. It is far more art than science. Managing expectations is a big part of it. For how many years did Calhoun try to convince us that NCAA Final Fours and Championships should not be our measure of success? That was before he got to one. And then another. And another. And another...

And then he ended up doomed by the expectations created by his own success.

Presidents, ADs and coaches are all measured by how well they do against expectations. Our expectations are high, unreasonably so imo, precisely because Calhoun achieved more than we ever thought possible. In the process, he re-defined the "possible" in a way that makes following him exceedingly difficult no matter who it is. History is filled with a wake of bodies who have followed legends, and very few who have done so well. We are in for interesting times.

 

[freescooter]

The problem is there is very rarely consensus as to what is absolutely destined to failure and most likely for success. And even when there is an overwhelming consensus, there is no proof that the opinion will be correct. I'm looking at Shaka Smart and Matt Dougherty and they are pretty darn similar to one another regarding experience and intensity if not bb style. MD failed at the high profile institution of UNC. Was his failure because he had no squiggle room like he had at ND? Would Shaka have the same degree of fan and alumni support at UConn that he has at VCU? I doubt it and hence the lack of predictability for even a shining star.

Now you are just being ridiculous...truly...Doherty had one pretty good season at Notre Dame...finished 6th in the Big East at 8-8, 22-15 and went to the finals of the NIT. 18 regular season wins if memory serves. Smart has taken a team from a mid-major conference to a Final four and then taken one to a first round win the next year. In his head coaching career, he's 84-28. they are not even on the same planet in terms of what they have accomplished. That is like saying Abraham Lincoln and Chester Allen Arthur were similar because both were Presidents...

 

[ctchamps]

I'm speaking as somewhat of an outsider on this issue. I'm getting so fed up with much of what goes on in college sports that I just don't care about this particular issue at this particular time. Having said that, something about this speaks to me because I've been a program evaluator that applied the sort of quantified analysis you call for.

The pool of great coaches is small so, obviously, there's not going to be a high success ratio of AD picking great ones. I would say even the pool of "good" ones may be smaller than we suspect, but talent negates some of this. Quantifying this expected poor result is meaningless unless we were to somehow also quantify the relative success of coaches having much of the say in being replaced as a point of comparison. That's likely to be too small of a sample size to make this endeavor meaningful.

It's hard to pour one's soul into something when that something disgusts you. Your sentiment is, for better or worse, gaining momentum in out culture.

The numbers may be small but we could debate the parameters. And even with that small sample we could examine how success translates when coaches move "laterally" vs. "upwardly" for instance. We could also look at the surprises and see how frequent they occur and compare them against predicted failures or successes.

Alas this isn't for me. And maybe not for you the way you are feeling. But maybe somebody who has the desire and skill could come out with the data, if nothing more than to satisfy anyone interested in this subject. Could be a good project for a statistics student.

 

[ctchamps]

Not everything can be reduced to statistical analysis. It is far more art than science. Managing expectations is a big part of it. For how many years did Calhoun try to convince us that NCAA Final Fours and Championships should not be our measure of success? That was before he got to one. And then another. And another. And another...

And then he ended up doomed by the expectations created by his own success.

Presidents, ADs and coaches are all measured by how well they do against expectations. Our expectations are high, unreasonably so imo, precisely because Calhoun achieved more than we ever thought possible. In the process, he re-defined the "possible" in a way that makes following him exceedingly difficult no matter who it is. History is filled with a wake of bodies who have followed legends, and very few who have done so well. We are in for interesting times.

Really well stated. The idea of my desire for data, as difficult as it would be to come up regarding this matter, was to to demonstrate our irrationality in these matters. Sometimes I believe we argue away reasonable discussion so that we can stay entrenched in our emotions. Correction, not sometimes, but frequently.

 

[ctchamps]

Here's the thing, fleudslipcon, it is all over the lot, depending on the school and the situation. When he was at Buffalo, Manuel hired Turner Gill to coach football. Gill got them to a bowl game for the first time ever. But he also hired gill's replacement who is stuggling. Good or bad? You can make the case either way, no? John Toner hired Calhoun and Aurriemma. But he also hired Dom Perno...Is he a genius or a numbskull? If your argument is that ADs don't have a very good record on hiring coaches, so why not let the coach select his replacement, I guess I just don't buy it. The same guy hired Roy Williams at UNC as hired his predecessor. Was he a genius? Was he an incompetent knucklehead? Lots of factors go into the hiring process, the guy you want might not be willing to leave seeing a great opportunity for the coming year (that was Roy's situation at Kansas). You might not have the money to match other offers. You might select someone who was successful at one level but his talents don't translate to a higher level. The important thing is that if you don't think a guy has it, you need to move quickly to stem the damage and don't be afraid to get rid of him. John Thompson selected his replacement at Georgetown...and he ran the program onto the rocks. Louie Carnessecca selected his replacement at St Johns and he ran the program onto the rocks and it is still trying to get off. Ollie is getting a tremendous opportunity this year, one that frankly he has done nothing to deserve. And we'll be able to tell if he's getting it done. if the team plays hard, looks like they know what they are doing even if they lose, if there is improvement among the guards in particular. Even though they won't be that good, there are things you watch for...if htey are there, maybe Ollie gets a couple more years. If not, he doesn't. it won' t just be wins and losses.

BTW thanks for the history. You continually amaze me by your depth of knowledge. I don't agree with a lot of your conclusions or opinions but that doesn't mean I can't admire your knowledge.

 

[erod2000]

I could care less about KOs win-loss record this year, and how he coaches his players on the court. After all, it's a rebuilding year. Bottom line is CAN HE RECRUIT. If he gets a couple big time players to commit to the Conn over the next year, he deserves a longer term deal, regardless of his on-court record. The wins will come, but we've got to get the players.

 

[ctchamps]

Now you are just being ridiculous...truly...Doherty had one pretty good season at Notre Dame...finished 6th in the Big East at 8-8, 22-15 and went to the finals of the NIT. 18 regular season wins if memory serves. Smart has taken a team from a mid-major conference to a Final four and then taken one to a first round win the next year. In his head coaching career, he's 84-28. they are not even on the same planet in terms of what they have accomplished. That is like saying Abraham Lincoln and Chester Allen Arthur were similar because both were Presidents...

Matt Doherty went 22-15 at ND and went to the NIT finals. I stand corrected in that MD certainly did not have the experience of Shaka at the time of his hire and Shaka's resume as of this date. But Shaka's record is primarily due to the success in a small conference. He has had two successful runs in the NCAA's but I think it is a fair question to ask how much of that is due to his style being unfamiliar by the major hitters? Is it a guarantee for success when it is employed day in and day out in the major conferences? JC employed this style initially. He changed. What were his reasons?

Doherty was successful his first year at UNC going 26-7 the next season. But how much of that success was his and not Gutheridge's? How much was Doherty's failure the following season his failure as a coach and a recruiter and how much was it the failure of a team composed primarily of freshmen? The following season was not much better but how much was that the result of bad coaching or the loss of the key player Sean May to injury considering the success of the team prior to the injury?

I'm being ridiculous only in the comparison of experience but even in that regard, Shaka's experience is not in a major conference. Like it or not most of our choices have holes in them.

You don't like Doherty, then how about Dan Monson who was 52-17 at Gonzaga with an NIT second round loss his first season and an NCAA elite appearance his second season. And what did he do at Minnesota? He was 118-106 with no post season his first year followed by three NIT appearances getting to the semis his third try, followed by no postseason followed by a first round loss in his only appearance in the NCAA's in his eight season's at Minn. followed by a second round exit in the NIT's. After seeing this resume, why should I consider your contention that Shaka is a good choice for UConn any more or less ridiculous than any ideas I or any other posters have about KO.

None of us know the events of the future. We all have our preferences and we support them with evidence that seems to fit, omitting or underplaying evidence that refutes our position. I really can't answer the question who would make the better coach unless I can create two identical universes and have KO hired in one universe and Shaka in another with all other parameters being the same, and see what happens. Heck I'd like six universes in which KO and Shaka would each be hired in three of these universes for different contract durations of say 1, 3 and 4 years and see how things play out. Then I would know the answer to the postulation of Shaka vs. KO and what constitutes a reasonable contract offer. Without this set of tests all our arguments are unprovable if not ridiculous.