You've been playing football since 1893 and you've had 31 head coaches. Michigan has had 17 in the same amount of time. OSU has had 23 in that same amount of time. bama has had 26. USC has had 25 including some more than 1 "interim" but also including 8 years without a coach.
One head coach or 2 head coaches don't turn you into a blue blood unless they are there for 40 years like JoePa (fucking dick fucker) was. It is about sustained success and that's why I took your one and maybe borderline second outlier out of the equation. In fact, I could argue that texas under herman was right where it should have been based on both win percentage and based on coaching tenure... Including all of your coaches the average tenure is 4.13 years.
Was never trying to insult anyone per se, just trying to draw comparisons. For the record, since 1898 KU has had 8 total head coaches in basketball. If we take out our most successful coaches we still look good. If we take out Phog Allen, then we are taking out Adolph Rupp from UK, Dean Smith of UNC, Larry Brown of UCLA/SMU/KU, Roy Williams of UNC/UK, and John Calipari of UMASS/Memphis/UK when you look at the college ranks. You can take some of our coaches and it either doesn't effect the whole or it destroys every other blue blood program. That's basically what I hang onto as a lower tier blue blood fan.