at least partially a victim of circumstance, I still don't think everything can be placed solely on the fact that he lived in Edwards shadow. BYU was the type of program that only had one losing season the whole time Lavell was here. This means two things, (1) the school had the type of program that can succeed, and (2) the competition inside the conference was beatable. The two difficult schedules were a little like the schedules we have now. There were the really tough teams and everyone else. The "everyone else" was beatable, he didn't need to beat #14 Boise, he just needed to beat UNLV or New Mexico. Granted even the beatable teams were more difficult than many of the beatable teams we play now (here's looking at you UMass, Porltand St., etc), but beatable nonetheless. This means winning seasons, even with some tough teams on the schedule were possible. You may be able to argue 1 or 2 of those seasons were not, but certainly not all three in a row.

As for the stats you shared about the study of legend replacements. The reason it's obvious those schools had unfair expectations is that they fired coaches with mostly winning records (65% wins type records). Crowton did not have that type of winning record. Granted he his overall record was somewhere around 53%, but that was skewed by an outlier, his one winning season. He was a 40% winning coach after that first season. So yes he wasn't living up to Lavell's high bar, but he wasn't doing what seems very doable at BYU getting to a bowl game.

Looking at Kalani, as a similar situation, Kalani started his first season with Taysom Hill and Jamaal Williams. He hasn't lost as much this year as Crowton did his second year, but the team does have a lot of young guys in a lot of positions (DL, WR, DB). But I feel like Kalani made an effort to get transfers to fill in a number of gaps (OL, DL, WR), and shifted players positions to help get the talent on the field. Was it possible for Crowton to have recruited better players to help cover the deficits? I have know idea. I didn't follow BYU that closely back then. Maybe it wasn't. That would suggest that Lavell left the program on the edge of a cliff. I think it is more likely that Crowton wasn't able to focus on the present and the future during his first year as head coach.

I think Crowton would likely have had a better 2005 season, but I don't think either of us know whether he would have turned things around. That was my point at the end. I think you are too hung up on the word "savior". I don't think anyone is trying to make any sort of metaphor or relation to Christ. A savior is just someone who saves something. Did Bronco save the program? I don't know. Could Crowton have turned it around? I don't know. He didn't do anything with Beck when he had him, but Beck needed time to develop, but would he have developed under Crowton. Would players have continued to come to a team run by Crowton after a 3rd losing season? Maybe they would have had a winning, but not great season in 2006 under Crowton, and then the programs recruiting would get a slight bump, but it wouldn't take affect right away and the program would again suffer. No one knows. If he couldn't have turned it around, then Bronco saved the program, by definition he would be the "savior" of the program. Is he the only "savior" the program could have had? No. Obviously other coaches could have come in and turned the program around too. Whit probably would have been a good coach at BYU too. Maybe even better than Bronco. Who knows. Then Whit would be the "savior", but Whit didn't come and no one else did either. Bronco was the one that "turned the program around", so if Crowton couldn't have done it, then he saved the program. You seem to be of the mind that Crowton could have turned things around eventually. Possibly, but he had enough haters, deserved or not, that I don't think he could.