Originally Posted by
HogDawg
Interesting article. Basketball --perhaps more than any other sport-- is super impacted by its' head coaches. And women's basketball, maybe even more so than the men's game. LA Tech, Texas and Tennessee -- just to name 3-- all lost women's BB dynasties, and have never fully recovered. Oh they all hired some good "follow-up" head coaches....but none ever got close to matching their predecessor's success.
It's called a dynasty for a reason. Truth is, these 3 highlighted programs had head coaches that were so good and dominated the game for so long, that a fall from grace seemed impossible. Surely, the "next guy up" would continue the winning, right? But here we are today thinking back to better times, when our programs reigned supreme.
It will be interesting to watch the next generation struggle with the same transition challenges. Will UCONN be the same dynasty program after Gino Auriemma moves on? I predict, no way. How 'bout Baylor, once Kim Mulkey moves on? Nope. Enjoy it while you can Lady Bears fans. It will likely never be as good "post Kim" as you've got it today.
Coaches. We forget sometimes that college basketball is really about the coaches. On the men's side, UCLA is not the same without John Wooden, and has never come close to repeating that dynasty. Indiana isn't the same without Bobby Knight. And Duke will likely never be as successful under its' next head coach as they have been under Coach K's dynasty. Oh sure, schools can always hire another really good basketball coach. But, long term, it's rarely ever as good as the dynasty years they are trying to live up to.