What do they all have in common?

10 years ago it would not have been surprising to see them going at each other in the Final Four.

Today's bracketology:

• Baylor - 6 seed
• Notre Dame - 6 seed
• Tennessee - 8 seed
• Stanford - next 4 out

The answer to the question is not that hard to figure out......they all won multiple championships in this century under a long-time HOF coach. Once that coach left, none have come anywhere close to what they once enjoyed. Only 2 other schools have won multiple championships in the last 40 years....UConn and SC, both of whom still have their HOF coach.

Will any of those 4 ever make it back to where they once reigned or even competitive for frequent FF adventures? And what happens to UConn and SC when their HOF coach is no longer on the sidelines.

An even more interesting question would be who will be the next women's collegiate HOF coach? I don't believe there are any active coaches that have won more than one D1 championship. And really none that has consistently challenged that have enjoyed sustainability at a level that would indicate they could get to 2, even if they already have one. Parity was building before but is now exacerbated by free transfers and bidding wars that have made the task vastly more difficult than when those HOF coaches were building up their reputations.

Have Baylor, ND, and Tennessee (Stanford just hit this area, but have dropped off way more than the other three in just their first post-HOF coach season) just been unlucky with hires or do the up and comers just see those jobs as providing more downside risk to their budding careers because they will likely never approach the expectations imposed upon them, and the established coaches see the plight of those schools today as nothing more than a lateral move over what they have built at their current position.

The path forward is strewn with potholes. Why would Baylor's coaching position seem attractive to established recognized D1 level coaches? Would fans be patient with a hire below that level regardless of their record at lower levels and not be denouncing the hire from day 1?

Do we think we can catch lightning in a bottle (AGAIN) that may come around only once in forever? What really are the expectations that should be realistically achieved in the future and how can we best optimize the chance for that to come about when our peers have not been able to do any better? Can anyone really answer that question with any degree of confidence?

I literally have said time and time again. It is hard to replace a legend. Even Texas A&M hasn't taken a step back since Blair retired.

ScottyB_The_Baylor_King said:

---

I literally have said time and time again. It is hard to replace a legend. Even Texas A&M hasn't taken a step back since Blair retired.

---

I fear it may be a case that you may have to go through years of lesser performance to clear out unrealistic fan expectations that are still living in the days of multiple E8s and FFs such that your history is not actually a negative for an incoming coach. A coach that can face realistic expectations versus having to match something that will never come again....which is exactly the obstacle faced by the coach replacing the HOF coach.

It took Texas over a decade to get to Vic, and they hired an elite coach in Goestenkors who just couldn't transfer her success at Duke to Texas. But Tennessee with all of its storied past, playing in a great conference and probably has more than adequate NIL and fan support is well past Pat, but yet seems to be going in the wrong direction or treading water, at best.

I don't think there is any quick fix for us. I don't know how long CNC stays but unless she gets it turned around, I would hope that whoever is next does not have Mulkey-type expectations placed immediately on them to the point where we, the fans, cannot get excited again about watching a growing team whose initial ceiling might be nothing more than making the conference tournament championship game with good second weekend chances...the way it was in KM's early years. That was a fun time, but at some point we went from enjoying that type of rise to taking success for granted.

Very good points. The big 12 is tougher and different now than Mulkey was here. The parity is better now than back then.

People need to realize the following two truths too.
1. First 4 seasons under Mulkey were not 1st place finishes.
2. 2006-2010 no first place finishes under Mulkey.

I do think that Vic will retire at Texas eventually they might revert back to where they were before him.

IowaBear said:

---

Yeah I don't know how any could say that this league is tougher now. Did anyone watch the semifinal between WV and CO? Set offensive basketball back decades

---

Well, in all fairness, it is more competitive. There just isn't any actual good team. Not sure we'll have anyone in the elite eight this year. If TVU drops the ball, might not have a sweet 16 team.

TCU will get to the S16. Won't be shocked if they drilled in the S16 though. But yeah seems like a long shot to get anyone but them to the 2nd weekend. B12 really needs another team or 2 making that leap to the 2nd weekend

I'd agree that the B12 is competitive. Competitive doesn't always equal good. My gosh…we had CU/WV in the semi final with a halftime score tied at 17! Competitive? You could argue that with a tie score at half. Good teams? Nope. That's the B12.

apples and oranges.

1 of these schools didn't have to lose its coach, but hey what do I know.

I agree it takes time to win in WBB, but losing a HOF coach and not shooting at poaching a top coach for a replacement was the clear writing on the wall for WBB lol.

BUatbirth said:

---

I'd agree that the B12 is competitive. Competitive doesn't always equal good. My gosh…we had CU/WV in the semi final with a halftime score tied at 17! Competitive? You could argue that with a tie score at half. Good teams? Nope. That's the B12.

---

Agree. Competitive but not at all good. I can't watch any game in the Big 12 that don't have Baylor. And even that is tough at times. Odd how strong the conference is on the men's side and the fell off on the women's.

Kentucky opened up and who was the prime target? What did we do to keep Drew? Threw the entire kitchen sink. That alone should tell you lol.

If you think Rhodes tried hard enough to find a true replacement, you're crazy. He sent offers to better hires, but ultimately he was fine with going the low risk, hoping for a miracle hire reward when he hired NC.


Im not taking any shots at him, i don't know him; however, I do know that WBB became a less serious sport based on his hiring of NC.

IM fine with the major sports of Football and MBB being the focal point, but he could've did better better with the WBB hire.

bawitdaball said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Yeah I don't know how any could say that this league is tougher now. Did anyone watch the semifinal between WV and CO? Set offensive basketball back decades

---

Well, in all fairness, it is more competitive. There just isn't any actual good team. Not sure we'll have anyone in the elite eight this year. If TVU drops the ball, might not have a sweet 16 team.

---

Yeah, I think he was confusing competitiveness with quality. The B12 was much better before, it's just that Mulkey's BU teams were good enough to make it less competitive at the top.

BaylorBears_254 said:

---

Kentucky opened up and who was the prime target? What did we do to keep Drew? Threw the entire kitchen sink. That alone should tell you lol.

If you think Rhodes tried hard enough to find a true replacement, you're crazy. He sent offers to better hires, but ultimately he was fine with going the low risk, hoping for a miracle hire reward when he hired NC.


Im not taking any shots at him, i don't know him; however, I do know that WBB became a less serious sport based on his hiring of NC.

IM fine with the major sports of Football and MBB being the focal point, but he could've did better better with the WBB hire.

---

I didn't realize that the Kentucky men played WBB.

You probably could have thrown the whole kitchen sink at WBB and the FB and MBB boards would have gone ballistic. And you still probably would have not gotten the interest in the job you think. And apparently having thrown the kitchen sink at Drew is not looking all that great right now.

But I'll play the game a bit. Was Kentucky's roster decimated when their job opened up? We had a shell of a team. Many here questioned as to whether we could field a team for the 2021-22 season. Kim had lined up several transfers for the next season who all flew the coop before a hire was even announced. NC was able to convince Smith, Egbo and Bickle to stay, no small feat with the interest Smith and Egbo likely got from top flight teams that could compete for national championships their senior year. Andrews was on the team, but Kim seldom played here that year in meaningful situations and was no where ready for prime time as demonstrated by the UConn substitution when Richards went down. Beyond that there was little else, not even in numbers. Not a prime destination for anyone who apparently you would have thought met your qualifications for the coaching position.

No one in this football crazy place is going to throw tons of money to WBB and I'm not sure that many of us here can rationalize doing so with our other needs. But I think it is a moot point. If we were to get a top of the line coach to come in to replace a late-departing Mulkey with such a small roster returning and then the big guns of that leaving the next year, we would be the first to do so after losing a coach of that stature. I sure wouldn't give up my job at where ever I was that I had built and was building that brought me recognition as a top coach to take the risk at Baylor where under the circumstances here was at best a lateral move with a ton of risk.

WBB became a less serious sport because many of our fans were more fans of KM than the team. If that were not true they would have rallied around what was left after they, the team, had gotten thrown under the bus. But that didn't happen. What ever coach was hired was going to make way less than KM, and anything close to it would have been irresponsible because none could come anywhere near duplicating her results.

Whether or not we could have done better is speculation. We could be sitting here talking about the same stuff with a different coach. You don't know until the games have already been played. WBB just doesn't have any history that says the next coach after the HOF coach is going to be successful at anywhere near previous levels. Why should Baylor have been any different?

This isn't about CNC or anyone else. It is just a fact that has played out over and over again in this sport. I will give you this. I would sure like to have seen the list of those Rhoades contacted and who contacted him.

I didn't realize Mark Kellogg is from Texas! He seems like a good coach.