high turnover rates, so what does that say?
Link: https://247sports.com/college/notre-dame/Article/The-History-Of-Brian-Kelly-Assistants-At-Notre-Dame-128435141/
since you have done nothing to compare ND coach turnover to other similar programs.
Even the article says that "By today’s rapid-coaching-turnover standards, Notre Dame’s football staffs under Brian Kelly since his arrival in 2010 have been relatively stable..."
(no message)
Funny, I always thought stability was an asset.
Clemson, Oklahoma and Ohio State don't have unusually high coaching turnover. If you look at who Saban hires, the fact that he has high turnover isn't surprising and has more to do with their backgrounds that the fact that Saban is known to work his staffs hard (i.e. all day Christmas day) than it is because Saban has a winning program.
Until you are ready to present some data beyond another one of your invented theories, they are nothing more than just that: your invented theories. You could probably get a job at Bleacher Report.
It is unlikely coaching turnover creates success in the field.
More likely success on the field creates demand for the hot commodity coach, and results in the turnover.
Link: https://xkcd.com/552/
presented as established fact and then referring to an article as support when the article neither says nor implies anything of the sort.
(no message)
programs or which current assistants are upgrades from those past.