Ben Frederickson over at the Post-Dispatch came up with an interesting statistic. Since 2000, five NCAA D-I Coaches have lost 40+ games their first two seasons and gone on to make an NCAA tournament.
Taking a little deeper look at the specifics of those situations:
(Record -- Ken Pomeroy Rating)
1. Ed DeChellis (Penn State)
2002: 7-21 -- 199th
2003: 7-21 -- 209th
***DeChellis Hired***
2004: 9-19 -- 226th
2005: 7-23 -- 217th
2006: 15-15 -- 118th
(made tournament 8th year; was his only appearance; no longer coaching at PSU)
2. Scott Drew (Baylor)
2002: 12-16 -- 106th
2003: 14-14 -- 104th
***Drew Hired***
2004: 8-21 -- 235th
2005: 9-19 -- 236th
2006: 4-13 -- 155th (only allowed to play conference schedule due to sanctions)
(made tournament 5th year)
3. Tom Crean (Indiana)
2007: 21-11 -- 14th
2008: 25-8 -- 29th
***Crean Hired***
2009: 6-25 -- 211th
2010: 10-21 -- 194th
2011: 12-20 -- 88th
(made tournament 4th year)
4. Larry Krystkowiak (Utah)
2010: 14-17 -- 124th
2011: 13-18 -- 141st
***Krystkowiak Hired ***
2012: 6-25 -- 303rd
2013: 15-18 -- 115th
2014: 21-12 -- 40th
(Made tournament 4th year)
5. Andy Enfield USC
2012: 6-26 -- 220th
2013: 14-18 -- 104th
***Enfield Hired***
2014: 11-21 -- 152nd
2015: 12-20 -- 151st
2016: 21-13 -- 49th (made tournament)
Relevant notes:
1. 3 of the 5 coaches were faced with significant sanctions, Baylor being the most severe. USC and Indiana were included in these.
2. 3 of the 5 coaches made a tournament within 4 seasons. Enfield did it in his third year.
3. 4 of the 5 programs studied were in significantly worse shape, in terms of quality on the court, than Mizzou was.
4. In year 3, every coach had made considerable improvement in year 3, compared to his first two seasons in terms of either record or analytical rank (in 3 of the 5, both).
5. In 2 of the 5 examples, the coaches had considerably improved their team by year 3 as compared to their successor's final two years.
What this doesn't tell us is the group (of which I haven't looked up the number, or names) that lost 40+ games in their first two seasons and did NOT make the tournament.
This is the "group of hope" as it relates to Kim Anderson.
What this tells me is pretty simple:
1. There needs to be marked improvement in year 3 (as compared to years 1 and 2) to have a realistic belief that a tournament appearance will be achieved by the coach in question. Only Drew (coming off arguably one of the biggest NCAA controversies) and DeChellis (who was ultimately a failure) didn't make the tournament within 4 seasons. Only 2 schools didn't achieve at least a .500 record in year three.
2. Mizzou is a better program than PSU and Baylor (at that time), worse than Indiana, and arguably on par with USC and Utah. Both Utah and USC were top 50 teams in year 3. It's certainly acceptable to use those as the best barometers.
3. If we don't see a top 50 team in year 3, the only three examples of "success" are a proven coach hired by Indiana, Drew at Baylor or a coach who ultimately left his p5 gig to coach Navy.
Taking a little deeper look at the specifics of those situations:
(Record -- Ken Pomeroy Rating)
1. Ed DeChellis (Penn State)
2002: 7-21 -- 199th
2003: 7-21 -- 209th
***DeChellis Hired***
2004: 9-19 -- 226th
2005: 7-23 -- 217th
2006: 15-15 -- 118th
(made tournament 8th year; was his only appearance; no longer coaching at PSU)
2. Scott Drew (Baylor)
2002: 12-16 -- 106th
2003: 14-14 -- 104th
***Drew Hired***
2004: 8-21 -- 235th
2005: 9-19 -- 236th
2006: 4-13 -- 155th (only allowed to play conference schedule due to sanctions)
(made tournament 5th year)
3. Tom Crean (Indiana)
2007: 21-11 -- 14th
2008: 25-8 -- 29th
***Crean Hired***
2009: 6-25 -- 211th
2010: 10-21 -- 194th
2011: 12-20 -- 88th
(made tournament 4th year)
4. Larry Krystkowiak (Utah)
2010: 14-17 -- 124th
2011: 13-18 -- 141st
***Krystkowiak Hired ***
2012: 6-25 -- 303rd
2013: 15-18 -- 115th
2014: 21-12 -- 40th
(Made tournament 4th year)
5. Andy Enfield USC
2012: 6-26 -- 220th
2013: 14-18 -- 104th
***Enfield Hired***
2014: 11-21 -- 152nd
2015: 12-20 -- 151st
2016: 21-13 -- 49th (made tournament)
Relevant notes:
1. 3 of the 5 coaches were faced with significant sanctions, Baylor being the most severe. USC and Indiana were included in these.
2. 3 of the 5 coaches made a tournament within 4 seasons. Enfield did it in his third year.
3. 4 of the 5 programs studied were in significantly worse shape, in terms of quality on the court, than Mizzou was.
4. In year 3, every coach had made considerable improvement in year 3, compared to his first two seasons in terms of either record or analytical rank (in 3 of the 5, both).
5. In 2 of the 5 examples, the coaches had considerably improved their team by year 3 as compared to their successor's final two years.
What this doesn't tell us is the group (of which I haven't looked up the number, or names) that lost 40+ games in their first two seasons and did NOT make the tournament.
This is the "group of hope" as it relates to Kim Anderson.
What this tells me is pretty simple:
1. There needs to be marked improvement in year 3 (as compared to years 1 and 2) to have a realistic belief that a tournament appearance will be achieved by the coach in question. Only Drew (coming off arguably one of the biggest NCAA controversies) and DeChellis (who was ultimately a failure) didn't make the tournament within 4 seasons. Only 2 schools didn't achieve at least a .500 record in year three.
2. Mizzou is a better program than PSU and Baylor (at that time), worse than Indiana, and arguably on par with USC and Utah. Both Utah and USC were top 50 teams in year 3. It's certainly acceptable to use those as the best barometers.
3. If we don't see a top 50 team in year 3, the only three examples of "success" are a proven coach hired by Indiana, Drew at Baylor or a coach who ultimately left his p5 gig to coach Navy.
