I would strongly disagree with that. Just like any other profession, I think being the executive or "boss" gives you a completely different outlook and additional experience that assistants, vice-presidents, managers, etc. don't have. So I would say that having a former div 1. head coach on your staff does absolutely have an impact and would usually be an asset. Whether or not that can do anything to fix Rutgers is a completely different story.
I do not mean that experience does not matter, of course it matters a lot. Just, that he has not been a critical factor in elevating their program. Rutgers is arguably the worst program (not just team) in B1G basketball.
Again, you seem to have spent a lot of time graphing, plotting, you may even have done some statistical analysis in the background. I commend you on that. :thumb:
But if you start making inferences or run regressions etc., the specific points do matter. The Illinois assistants have quite a bit of experience IMO, quite a few years. If the point is head coaching experience, I think giving percentages is enough (e.g., x% of assistants have head coaching experience). But that is different than correlating with long term winning, and I am not sure if that is supported by larger sample (HC assistants, winning in college basketball). Maybe it is.
I am in favor of a shake-up, but with different priorities. For example, hiring Dee would be my top priority. But that again would go in a different direction from your inference (he has zero experience). A lot of top recruiters actually tend to be younger guys. Now, if we were doing a complete shake-up of assistants, getting a former HC would be a plus. But I do not think this is possible or one of our priorities. If hiring Dee does not change things, for example, better start thinking about a coaching change. JMO.