Swinging for the fences may not mean the same thing at Gene Hooks Field as say Chavez Ravine. I'm wondering just what makes Gregg Marshall, say, better than Archie Miller. Of course, Miller's only been a head coach 3 years so this may be apples and oranges but:
Archie Miller Dayton 63-37 63%
Sean Miller Xavier, Arizona 249-84 72%
Mike White La Tech 74-31 70%
Chris Mack Xavier 111-57 66%
Anthony Grant VCU, Ala 175-96 64%
Shaka Smart VCU 137-46 74%
Tom Izzo MSU (since 1995) 467-186 72%
Billy Donovan Marshall, Florida 485-188 72%
Rick Pitino Hawaii, BU, Prov, KY, Louis. 689-244 74%
Ben Howland No Ariz, Pitt, UCLA 399-288 65%
Gregg Marshall Winthrop, WSU 368-154 70%
The "big boys," Izzo, Pitino, Donovan, and I include Howland all had huge winning percentages when they were at schools where it is frankly easier to recruit: Mich State, Kentucky, Louisville, UCLA. So, the argument goes, better athletes = better coaching percentages. All of the other guys, who have not been at the 8 or 10 biggest name schools and probably have not consistently played primo competition, nevertheless have won with what they had, and the percentages aren't that far off. Smart is something of an exception but Grant left a full cupboard so he hasn't had to rebuild a program. So, when you look at the coaches at the mid-majors, given that they don't get the prime beef, the percentages aren't that bad. So, you know we're not getting Izzo, Pitino, or Donovan. Who among the remainder represents swinging for the fences? I think it may be Smart or Marshall, but I've never thought Smart was coming (I could be wrong) and I would be shocked if RW hired Marshall. Is there anyone else out there that, realistically, represents a swing for the fences? To me, looks like Archie's big brother might be it.