If I had a choice between Dixon and Weber I'd choose Dixon (and it's not particularly close).
Holy crap.
These posts are really amazing.
When you take their career as a whole or even when Dixon got to the big 12 oscar's resume is unquestionably better. Sure oscar has lower lows, but he has more than all of those accomplishments that kith listed for Dixon. oscar has 6 damn conference championships.
Weber has 4 conference titles at Power 5 schools (plus 2 at at SIU). He's got the national game appearance and final four that Dixon doesn't have, but Dixon has zero lows anywhere near Weber's 4 abysmal seasons at Illinois and K-State.
To each their own, but the whole thing started when you said Dixon was crap. He's not. And, it's at least debatable that he's in the same league as Weber (regardless of whom you prefer).
He is crap. Why are you giving him credit for what he did at Pitt, or even what he did his first few years at TCU? I started this by saying his job should be in jeopardy and if they were serious about basketball it would. Havs has the right answer, Dixon being seemingly safe has much more to do with their expectations and how little they care.
You're making an argument that he can stand on the merits of where the program is currently and that's silly. 19-33 in three years in any conference, in any circumstance outside of the NCAA death penalty, is completely unacceptable. We were talking about high highs and low lows, but oscar has never had a three year stretch that bad, and oscar's best three year stretch,'03-'06, is better than Dixon's 3 year stretch '08-'11.
There is no statistical reason to indicate that Dixon and the state of his program is on the right track and there is no statistical reasoning to indicate that Dixon has accomplished what oscar has. I don't know if someone outside of K-State, Illinois, Pitt, and TCU would care enough to even think about it but if they did consider it a toss up when presented with data, they're just ignoring the data.
Saying Dixon doesn't get credit for what he did at Pitt is like saying Weber doesn't get credit for what he did at Illionis. Which is to say, it's stupid. An 0-fer season in b-ball is a historically poor season. Dixon got TCU to a NCAA tourney a few years later. That's impressive. They have certainly plateued these past two years and he should be on the hot seat if they have another year next year like they had this year. But having a bit of perspective on how horrible the program was when he arrived is important. Dixon inherited a complete turd. Prohm and Weber didn't. TCU wasn't quite at KU football levels when he took over, but it was in the same hemisphere. If KU's next coach got them to a bowl game in three years (an easier thing to do than make NCAAs), KU fans would be ecstatic and give that coach a ton of leeway if he faltered thereafter.
And, as it relates to data, you're picking and choosing which data is most important to you ("oscar's best three-year stretch is better than Dixon's best three-stretch"). And, that's fine. But, by a number of other measures (career win %, conference win %, winning seasons, non-terrible seasons, NBA draft picks, etc.), Dixon is better than Weber. It just may not be the measures you value over others.
And, if you truly think that Dixon "is crap" then 95 percent of D-I coaches are crap because Dixon's resume is better than the rest.