OT-with Nick Saban's retirement here is a POLL question

[DefenseBB]

With Nick Saban's retirement announcement and the Mulkey defection from two years ago and Baylor looking good again, I was curious what the BYers think.

One the one hand we have Shea rebuilding Vanderbilt after a disasterous Steph White tenure but yet we have Marissa still struggling at Wisconsin
For the other choice, you have Nicki Collen who seems to have righted the ship and has Baylor in the top 10, yet Tennessee is still trying to recapture former glory. So I ask you, would you rather rebuild or take over an established program?

 

[DefenseBB]

I voted for "maintain" as I would know the school and program already have all the infrastructure in place for the program and my sole effort has to be on recruiting and coaching. For rebuilding, I have to ensure I get the funding for coaches, training, recruiting, meals and now NIL to upgrade the program. Plus I have to garner Athletic Department support for all these AND garner Booster/Alumni/Supporter dollars.

 

[bballnut90]

I voted for "maintain" as I would know the school and program already have all the infrastructure in place for the program and my sole effort has to be on recruiting and coaching. For rebuilding, I have to ensure I get the funding for coaches, training, recruiting, meals and now NIL to upgrade the program. Plus I have to garner Athletic Department support for all these AND garner Booster/Alumni/Supporter dollars.

I'd prefer to take over a new program. There's a certain amount of credibility that gets issued when you build your own program and achieve success. I think there's a whole different level of pressure to maintain the status quo when you're taking over a winning program and the level of expectation is often unfair. Tennessee's decline under Holly is probably the best example, though Ivey is doing a good job at Notre Dame and Collen is doing a solid job at Baylor.

 

[maple]

All things being equal, and excluding situations of coaches who have a proven good (or bad) track record and would not likely move the needle much (e.g., good coaches can come in and maintain good programs, bad coaches can come in and maintain bad programs) ...

There's way more pressure on you to maintain a certain level of success when you take over a strong program. There's a lot more scrutiny and the second you stumble, people will be calling for you to be fired. And if the program begins to significantly decline under your tenure, yikes.

When you're rebuilding a weak program, there's a lot more leniency, and even mediocrity, if it's better than what existed before, will start to look not so bad. And then you can build off of that. It's a lot nicer to say you took a bad program and made it good, rather than to say you took a good program and made it bad.

 

[JellyBean]

I voted for "I want to rebuild a weak program" folks. With trying to maintain a successful program, you hear "That's not how coach so & so did it!" or "You are only winning because you are using the former coaches blueprint." How about the comments from the boosters/fans after one or two losses if you are maintaining a successful program. It gets old. Very few people remember any coach after Bear Bryant (Alabama) even less people may remember who followed Coach Bryant.

With the rebuilding program, you get to build that program your way. You get to recruit players, if you are coaching a college program, that fit your coaching style & philosophy. Or cut lose players that don't fit your style. If you cut or release a player at a successful program, you start to get crazy looks and the added comments. With rebuilding, nobody cares. The AD will support you as will a majority of fans.