Position don't mean as much as you're questioning. As long as a solid brick base has been laid, proper procedures were taken to select the new leaders, you have nothing to worry about. I look no further than my company, Home Depot. We just implemented a new CEO after arguably the greatest CEO in the history of the company resigned. We also replaced our Executive President of US stores Marvin Ellison, all within five months of one another. Two major major cogs in our company, tremendous leaders, now gone. What happened? Our SLT replaced them and our stock price, cash flow, and cash on hand is higher than ever. My point is that turnover is inevitable, so there is no reason to question that as long as competent people are in positions to make good replacement choices.
I don't see any comparisons available here other than both are jobs.
With the basketball coach, he's reporting to two people. These two people are the ones who will be structuring his contract, his support system, and the rest of these important stipulations in his contract. The mere fact those two could change weighs heavily in decisions.
Consider this, how often have you seen coaches lose their jobs when a new Ath. Dir. has been hired? Or, for that matter, AD's change with a change in presidency? Support systems start and end with those in these two positions. You shouldn't have to think about this long. The turmoil and dumpster fire we have seen at Texas with Dodds being forced out, Peterson brought in, has resulted in two coaches being sent packing.
Mike DuBose, Bill Curry, Andrew Sorenson, and Bob Bockrath are just a handful of examples how these very positions have created problems in Tuscaloosa.