BYU won 16 conference championships in the 50 years before Rose. That's roughly 1 every 3 seasons. Rose has won 4 in 10, and while it looks unlikely we'll get a 5th this year, it's TBD until the end of February. Regardless, he'll have outperformed the history and in particular the decade that preceded him (2 in 10 years). Yet somehow your expectation is that it's a failure to not win the conference half the time?

(see here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q8d4ZieVgFIhQ5zT0M8sggpB3-yLU1-ObQkumbM5Z7Q/edit#gid=6)

Similarly, we won the conference tourney championship 3 times in the roughly 40 years before Rose they held tourney champs. BYU just doesn't recruit the type of athletes that typically prevail in the 3 day tourney format. I'll grant that 0 conference tournament championships is frustrating, but when you look at all the other metrics highlighted in yellow (which means it was the best 10 years for that metric) Rose takes the cake on nearly every metric.

So your suggestion that we "find someone who can" basically means find someone better than the coaches of the last 60 years given our program has never once been at the level you suggest. Fine to hope for, silly to have expectations for IMO.

Everyone pines for the Roger Reid offenses, yet Rose's teams have a higher winning percentage, NCAA tournament appearance percentage (i.e. making it), conference championship percentage, more NCAA wins, and more teams ranked in the top 25.

My POV is Rose has earned the trust of the AD and the fans to coach the best recruiting classes we've ever assembled, regardless of what happens this year or next. His success is unprecedented for the program, he has the 9th best winning percentage of all active coaches, and he runs a system kids want to play for.

Know why Reid and Cleveland didn't win at the same level as Rose? They had boring, grind it out styles of play and that doesn't attract recruits. Kids want to play in Rose's free flowing system. Does it have it's downsides and flaws? Of course. Any strategic decision in life, sports, or business has pros and cons. The key is to maximize the pros and minimize the cons.

I think if you look at the aggregate results over 10-11 years of Rose's teams, his pros outweigh the cons. And certainly he is looking at the cons (defense, lack of discipline on offense, etc.) and aggressively trying to fix them. He's shown in his time he's not afraid to make hard decisions and cut players or staff if necessary.

Every coach, every system, every recruit that has ever or will ever be at BYU has upsides and downsides. There is no flawless player or coach (see Detmer, Ty in the INT column or Fredette, Jimmer in the defense column, or Edwards, LaVell in the record against the top 25 column) so the key for Holmoe and the coaches is to bring in the best available talent that is willing to come to a unique environment.

So to me the premise that we should replace one coach who has flaws for another coach who has strengths in those areas (say an X/O tactician or defensive specialist) lacks the perspective that this new coach will have flaws in another area where Rose is incredibly strong. Everyone admits he's great with PR and Recruiting so fans have generally loved him. And his biggest skill according to players who played under him is his ability to motivate and bring teams together (a skill that sadly doesn't seem to be working like it usually does with this group).

Now we're looking for a coach that is LDS, is great with PR/Recruiting, is a phenomenal motivator, is a disciplinarian, and is an elite tactician. Oh, and they need to accept BYU money and want to live in Provo.

I guess I just tire of the criticism of coaches when fundamentally I see BYU's limitations as BYU issues and not coaching issues. I'm not suggesting coaches couldn't do things better or are beyond criticism, I'm suggesting the notion that "get someone who can" is a little ridiculous.

I know the counterargument is "look at what Kalani is doing with recruiting, when Bronco had plateaued" and we all hope and assume Kalani will take us to the next level. Maybe he will...I certainly hope so.

The difference to me is I can follow the logic flow of how a new coach could take BYU football to the next level. It works like this...

BYU Football has a history of top 25 finishes and NFL players --> Bronco's recent years had few top 25 finishes and NFL players --> Bronco was never a gung-ho recruiter and had an odd style not as relatable --> Many top LDS players go elsewhere --> Many top LDS players are Poly --> Get a new Poly HC who can recruit those guys, and it shores up the offensive and defensive lines --> Strong lines lead to better teams which leads to better overall recruits and NFL players --> BYU returns to it's previous levels of 10 win seasons and top 25 rankings.

Someone could argue with any of those points I'm sure, but overall I get the logic of it. Kalani will bring in talent that makes us better. Sure.

In basketball, I understand there are flaws with the recent teams and could certainly argue for some scheme changes. However, the logic that doesn't compute for me is how simply replacing a coach makes us better. This is what you'd have to believe...

BYU has a history of being a program around #50 with occasional seasons better than that --> Rose elevates the program to a level beyond any previous decade --> Rose recruits more top 100 guys than we've ever had before (only one on the court as of today) --> In between Rose has a few seasons disappointing for the fanbase that show defensive deficiencies --> Therefore we should bring in a new LDS coach who will recruit/motivate at the same or better level, but install a scheme that takes BYU to a never-before-seen level of success.

To me, that just seems much more far fetched than the football scenario, because there is not a glaring recruiting problem like there has been in football. Scheme is important, but more often than not talent wins in college sports. Just ask Davidson (who has had the same scheme for 30 years under Bob McKellop, but only one Steph Curry), or the real Coach K (same scheme forever, but wins championships when he was a starting 5 of 1st round picks).

You gotta have talent. And for the first 7-8 years, Rose had talent and showed he could develop it and win a crap ton of games with it. The last 2-3 years haven't been at the same level, but there's more than enough reason to believe the next 2-5 years will get us back to where we were during the Jimmer era.

So in short, thumbs down. In looooong, read all the above .