Surely you understand that success at a historically good program vs success at a historically poor program aren’t 100% comparable or translatable, right?
I don't see why comparable high major coaches taking over comparable rebuilds would have such disparate results, no - can you explain it to me without acting like it's just a truism?
One of the two guys took over a program with a previous four year record of 70-61 (34-38), one NCAA appearance and no wins, two NIT appearances.
The other took over a program with a previous four year record of 73-65 (29-43), no NCAA appearances, three NIT appearances.