Why does DBR ignore reality on ACC coaches

[Mudge]

For inexplicable reasons, DBR seems to have certain whipping boys (and correspondingly, certain anointed ones) among the ACC basketball coaches:

1) They are always making excuses for Sidney Lowe, who has never won, let alone been any good, anywhere he has coached... they are always talking about "he doesn't have much talent, but he has a few good pieces, and when he gets a true ACC-caliber squad, they should be very good"... yeah, right... how many years has he been there now, and how long is it going to take to get that talent-- and who is supposed to be responsible for getting the talent in the door anyway?

2) DBR is always running down the current coaches at BC, FSU, and Miami despite the fact that Leonard Hamilton built Miami (a basketball wasteland then) into an NCAA-tourney regular when they were in the Big East, did a creditable job at Ok. State, and has done wonderfully well at FSU-- just as his predecessor Pat Kennedy did a great job there, but could never get a fair assessment, let alone a decent compliment, from DBR... but just let Steve Robinson (for some unknown reason, another of DBR's anointed ones) show a faint glimmer of maybe recovering FSU's past basketball success-- but never getting anything worth talking about actually accomplished, and DBR was ready and waiting with Lowe-like compliments about what a "comer" Robinson was, even though his entire tenure was an abysmal failure.

Similarly, Al Skinner has done an excellent job at BC, but somehow, DBR has been deluded into the belief that BC has experienced a "steady decline" since they joined the ACC-- something not supported by DBR's own data on BC's W/L record-- is it just that BC plays Duke hard-nosed and tough every time Duke sees them? Somehow, DBR is as deluded as Jim Sumner, in saying that Virginia is going to be a tougher game for Duke today than BC would have been-- Hello? Did either of you even watch the two games that Duke played against these two teams this year-- did you even notice which team battled Duke hard for the majority of the game, and which team was out of it from the opening tip? I expect Duke to literally bury Virginia again today-- but not according to Jim Sumner and DBR ('cause they love Tony Bennett and his dad, as much as they love Scott Drew and his dad).

And Frank Haith has done an excellent job in restoring Miami's competitiveness, lost in the period after Hamilton left... but once again, DBR can barely see a single good thing about him, despite his team battling Duke hard (and beating them last year) in nearly every matchup, and Haith making Miami into a viable post-season tournament team. If Steve Robinson or Sidney Lowe had done half of what Haith or Hamilton did at Miami, you wouldn't be able to get DBR to stop singing their praises today.

3) Plenty of guys have had success in this league but DBR was blind to it-- they completely failed to acknowledge anything that Cliff Ellis and Rick Barnes accomplished at Clemson, and the same with with Kennedy at FSU, but let Oliver Pernell do essentially no more than Barnes or Ellis at Clemson, and suddenly Pernell is the second coming; similarly, Steve Robinson had an unlimited honeymoon with the DBR, despite year after year of disappointing results until he was fired (and has hardly resurfaced as a big success anywhere else). DBR loves Pernell the way they loved John Thompson (both of them), and is completely blind to all of the huge faults of Thompson senior-- I would have been embarassed to claim Georgetown as my alma mater, with the kind of player and team representation that the first Thompson put on the floor, when he was at Georgetown-- I still would be embarassed to have once had that antagonistic bunch of non-scholars and dirty players as representatives of my university-- every bit as much as I would have been embarassed to claim the 1980's-- 2000's Miami Hurricane football players as representatives of my university... but DBR could find a way to forgive the John Thompsons' and the John Cheney's of the world, despite their excursions over the line of decency, while Cliff Ellis, Pat Kennedy, and Rick Barnes are irredeemable, apparently-- is there a double standard at work in DBR's assessment of coaches-- I think so.

4) This doesn't even touch on DBR's admittedly biased assessment of Quin Snyder's coaching career, and their lack of candor about the bulk of Coach K's proteges' success in coaching (or lack thereof). You don't hear a lot from DBR this year about Oklahoma and Jeff Capel-- because there is not much good to say. You also don't hear much about some of the other guys (Henderson, Dawkins, O'Toole, etc.) because there is not much to say-- but you did hear a lot about Harvard and Amaker early-- and not much lately. Brey is doing OK-- but Brey isn't doing anything that Seth Greenberg hasn't done at Va. Tech-- and Greenberg is lucky if/when he can catch a small break from DBR, in their assessment of him.

[miramar]

"And Frank Haith has done an excellent job in restoring Miami's competitiveness"

I think you are confusing him with Randy Shannon.

In order to tell them apart, remember that Shannon is the one with the intense glare, and Haith is the one with the perpetually confused look on his face.

[Matches]

I don't think there's any pretense that DBR's thoughts on coaches are anything other than editorials. There's no question the owners of the site have favorites and.. uh... non-favorites, but all they're doing is expressing opinions. Reasonable people can diagree with most head coaching assessments.

[mgtr]

Anything more complex than second grade arithmetic will always be influenced by some point of view -- even "hard" science. That doesn't cause me a problem, and from the spirited debates on DBR I don't think it stifles discussion here.

[wilko]

Reality?

I only want them to be just good enuff to give our victories over them *some* occasional meaning. I dont want them to be good enuff to actually beat us...

If they are not Duke, they are fodder.

[Johnboy]

Reality?

I only want them to be just good enuff to give our victories over them *some* occasional meaning. I dont want them to be good enuff to actually beat us...

If they are not Duke, they are fodder.

I dissent. This is nice in theory, but my observation is that the better the conference is, the better prepared its members are for the NCAAs.

[wilko]

I dissent. This is nice in theory, but my observation is that the better the conference is, the better prepared its members are for the NCAAs.

I agree to a point.
However, whether we are the only ranked team in the league, or if ALL the league teams are ranked... We should always be the whipped cream and cherry on top of the ACC sundae.

[moonpie23]

I dissent. This is nice in theory, but my observation is that the better the conference is, the better prepared its members are for the NCAAs.

florida....back to back titles...

[miramar]

Now I love Haith! Anybody who beats Seth is fine with me.

Actually, I have watched a good number of UM's games this year (five of their home games), and the team has played very poorly in the ACC. They have blown leads and generally played dumb basketball at the end of games, but they seem to have gotten a new life in the tournament.

In the long run, Haith will only be successful if he gets a recruiting base in Florida. He only has two FL players (both seniors), so he has to fight for the leftovers in other regions. UM can't have more players from NC than from FL.

[wilko]

I'll love Haith after they rollover for us tomorrow... If they come out on top, not so much..

[Johnboy]

florida....back to back titles...

My point exactly! When Florida repeated, the SEC was the #1 ranked conference. In 2006 when Florida won, the SEC had two final four teams (LSU).

[Cockabeau]

Ask any casual Boston College fan if you think AL Skinner is an excellent coach.

[Mudge]

Ask any casual Boston College fan if you think AL Skinner is an excellent coach.

Uh, yeah, that's the problem-- I'm not really interested in what the dilettantes think-- you're asking casual fans, which is kind of like asking casual physics students what they think of the theory of relativity.

[El_Diablo]

Uh, yeah, that's the problem-- I'm not really interested in what the dilettantes think-- you're asking casual fans, which is kind of like asking casual physics students what they think of the theory of relativity.

I think the point is: even the casual fans (who are generally more forgiving than the hardcore fans) don't think he's that great.

Well, now that you've set up a strawman, torn it down, and drawn a few responses, I'm not sure where this is going. How about we just rank the ACC coaches based on their overall coaching ability? Here's my list:

1. Krzyzewski
2. Gary Williams
3. Greenburg
4. Roy Williams
5. Hamilton
6. Bennett
7. Skinner
8. Purnell
9. Hewitt
10. Haith
11. Lowe
12. Gaudio

If you disagree with any, please explain why instead of just saying I have my head in the sand.

[Zeb]

Here's my list:

1. Krzyzewski
2. Gary Williams
3. Greenburg
4. Roy Williams
5. Hamilton
6. Bennett
7. Skinner
8. Purnell
9. Hewitt
10. Haith
11. Lowe
12. Gaudio

If you disagree with any, please explain why instead of just saying I have my head in the sand.

C"mon - we can hate the heels all we want but putting a guy who has won 2 of the last 5 NC's at 4th? Behind a guy who has won nothing? Please. That is embarrassing.

Assuming by ranking coaches we are ranking all aspects of their job including recruiting, player development, staff, strategy, tactics--the whole shebang--then there is no question. K and Roy are clearly number 1 & 2. Gary is 3rd. Then there's a big gap.

I am totally in agreement on Gaudio being last--he is awful.

[El_Diablo]

C"mon - we can hate the heels all we want but putting a guy who has won 2 of the last 5 NC's at 4th? Behind a guy who has won nothing? Please. That is embarrassing.

Assuming by ranking coaches we are ranking all aspects of their job including recruiting, player development, staff, strategy, tactics--the whole shebang--then there is no question. K and Roy are clearly number 1 & 2. Gary is 3rd. Then there's a big gap.

I am totally in agreement on Gaudio being last--he is awful.

Maybe I tend to value in-game coaching more. If all these coaches were given the same team and played a round robin after a couple weeks of practice, I think Roy would finish somewhere in the middle. After seeing this year's version of Roy...maybe below the middle. Meanwhile, Gary and Seth tend to do pretty well with players who aren't 5-star studs.

I originally had Roy as third overall, but I felt the need to penalize him a little for the truly terrible job he's done this year despite having 7 McDonalds All-Americans on his roster.

[Mudge]

I think the point is: even the casual fans (who are generally more forgiving than the hardcore fans) don't think he's that great.

Well, now that you've set up a strawman, torn it down, and drawn a few responses, I'm not sure where this is going. How about we just rank the ACC coaches based on their overall coaching ability? Here's my list:

1. Krzyzewski
2. Gary Williams
3. Greenburg
4. Roy Williams
5. Hamilton
6. Bennett
7. Skinner
8. Purnell
9. Hewitt
10. Haith
11. Lowe
12. Gaudio

If you disagree with any, please explain why instead of just saying I have my head in the sand.

I think you have to put RWilliams second on the list, simply because of his success in the tournament (just as K moved up high, after his run from 86-94), and also because Williams has either the highest or one of the highest winning percentages of all coaches, all time, coaching only in top conferences. GWilliams can't compare, if for no other reason than his tournament success is far inferior. Also, a big part of coaching is recruiting, and RWilliams does that as well or better than anyone. For those who don't think Roy motivates well, I would say, look at how hard UNC competes against Duke (even when inferior-- see their victory over Duke at Duke in Hansborough's freshman year, that by all rights, never should have happened, when one compares the talent).

I also think you have Bennett far too high (he perhaps shouldn't even be ranked yet, at this stage of his limited career), and Hewitt deserves a higher ranking, because of what he has already done at GT (and Siena).

I'd put Lowe at the bottom of the list, behind Gaudio, because of his lack of success (to this point) in recruiting, where Gaudio has at least outdone him there, so far.

I'd probably go:
1)K
2)Roy
3)Gary
4)Hewitt
5)Hamilton/Skinner
7)Greenberg/Pernell/Haith
10)Gaudio
11) Lowe
TBD- Bennett

[Matches]

I agree with reserving judgment on Bennett. I recall Pete Gillen looking like a great hire during his first year at UVa too. Even Leaito (sp) had some brief success.

I'd put Gaudio below Lowe though. The Aminu class wasn't really Dino's, and Lowe has had a few bad breaks re: recruiting. As far as in-game strategy goes, I think Lowe's superior (though still not very good).

[Regenman]

I totally agree with the OP. I was involved in a post earlier this season where people were rushing to the defense of Coach K's protege legacy. It's frankly pretty bad this year.

As for DBR's focus on Barnes, I'm not quite sure why folks harp on UT's academics (especially when USA Today just did a mock bracketology run based on academic standing and Texas lost to Duke in the Final Four (and Kansas beats Duke in the Finals)).

As for the superbly talented Texas team (since I'm an alum of both), you really want to get into the recruit ranking comparison between Texas and Duke over the years and who has underperformed?

Let's look at the non-freshmen

Dexter Pittman (unranked) vs. Zoubek (24)
Damion James (17) vs. Singler (2)
Justin Mason (86) vs. Scheyer (71)
Gary Johnson (61) vs. Lance Thomas (42)
Alexis Wangmene (86) vs. Nolan Smith (39)
Clint Chapman (73) vs. Miles Plumlee (101)

Texas has one top 50 recruit whereas Duke has 4 (and frankly Scouts ranked Scheyer much higher than Rivals).

Barnes had a great freshmen class on paper. This year he wasn't able to integrate the team (so that makes him a bad coach?). Then compare the Big 12 to the ACC this year (Baylor, K State, Kansas, A&M versus Maryland???)

But yeah, Coach Barnes can't coach worth a lick and Texas has bad academics.....

Sometimes, the logic here at this site isn't worthy of supposed Duke grads.

[NSDukeFan]

As for the superbly talented Texas team (since I'm an alum of both), you really want to get into the recruit ranking comparison between Texas and Duke over the years and who has underperformed?

Let's look at the non-freshmen

Dexter Pittman (unranked) vs. Zoubek (24)
Damion James (17) vs. Singler (2)
Justin Mason (86) vs. Scheyer (71)
Gary Johnson (61) vs. Lance Thomas (42)
Alexis Wangmene (86) vs. Nolan Smith (39)
Clint Chapman (73) vs. Miles Plumlee (101)

Texas has one top 50 recruit whereas Duke has 4 (and frankly Scouts ranked Scheyer much higher than Rivals).

Barnes had a great freshmen class on paper. This year he wasn't able to integrate the team (so that makes him a bad coach?). Then compare the Big 12 to the ACC this year (Baylor, K State, Kansas, A&M versus Maryland???)

But yeah, Coach Barnes can't coach worth a lick and Texas has bad academics.....

Sometimes, the logic here at this site isn't worthy of supposed Duke grads.

I'm confused with your point when comparing Texas and Duke's recruits. You could make an argument that every Duke player is better than every Texas player you have compared them to. There is not a huge discrepancy in any of the rankings except Pittman has become a very solid player for someone unranked and Smith is obviously way better than his comparison. So, as far as development go, I don't understand how you could argue about any of Duke' players underperforming relative to Texas. The issue with Texas underachieving was because their freshman class (who you excluded) was very highly ranked and they had most of a solid team back from the prior year.