Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 112
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Walnut Creek, California
    Quote Originally Posted by Wander View Post
    I think you guys are making this a little too complicated. Kansas had 2 national championships and 8 Final Fours before Roy. UNC had 3 national championships and 15 Final Fours before Roy. Duke had 0 national championships and 4 Final Fours before K.

    Don't get me wrong, Duke was a good program before Coach K. He didn't build it from nothing. Our pre-K program is probably underrated by most people, but it's also probably a little overrated by some people here. Duke was definitely behind UNC and Kansas. And that's the biggest knack on Roy in coaching circles - that he's gotten to spend his entire career at historical powerhouses.
    Look...we can all agree with what you say here. But you and some others have changed the question: Which was: Which of Brown, Williams and K had the best advantage at the time they were hired based on basketball reputation? That was not my question, it was Ferryfor50's. He asserted:

    Originally Posted by FerryFor50

    I'd add that his recruiting really benefits from being able to sell basketball powerhouses that he didn't have to build up himself like K had to at Duke.

    KU had Phog Allen and Larry Brown to build the program up to national recognition and make a college in the middle of nowhere a hotbed for recruits in college bball.

    UNC of course had Dean to build the college up.
    That was the question--not who is the better coach or whose program is or was the best at the time of the coaching change. It was which coach at that moment had the better school brand allowing him to successfully recruit after the coaching change. That's why Bucky (my ole Speedball coach) was omitted and led to other omissions as well. Nor did he call for comparing KU under Roy with UNC under Roy. Neither did it really deal with the coaches' personalities/recruiting skills. You could call it school cred if you want. But he chose Allen-Brown, Smith-(skipping 6 years)-Williams and K's 1980 hire. There are a lot of inconsistencies in his selections. But if you accept his proposal, as I tried to do, then the other stuff becomes irrelevant.

    Obviously there can be disagreement in such circumstances, but let's acknowledge that when you change the question, the answers get changed and you don't get debate points for changing the premise.

    And, I understood all along that KU's 27 year hiatus between Allen and Brown covered a lot of territory beyond simple years. But if you look at the record over that time you still get Allen at .729 (520-219) (39 years) compared to Harp .677 (121-82) (8 yerars) and Owens .657 (348-182) (19 years). So for a total of 27 years after Allen, the supposedly legendary KU really had only decent, not dominant, success. Perhaps 'under the radar' was a bit harsh, but if it had truly maintained legendary status, there would have been more FFs and NCs than there were. Given that Allen can legitimately be said to be the father of modern NCAA basketball, that's probably how Kansas history should be.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim3k View Post
    Look...we can all agree with what you say here. But you and some others have changed the question: Which was: Which of Brown, Williams and K had the best advantage at the time they were hired based on basketball reputation? That was not my question, it was Ferryfor50's. He asserted:



    That was the question--not who is the better coach or whose program is or was the best at the time of the coaching change. It was which coach at that moment had the better school brand allowing him to successfully recruit after the coaching change. That's why Bucky (my ole Speedball coach) was omitted and led to other omissions as well. Nor did he call for comparing KU under Roy with UNC under Roy. Neither did it really deal with the coaches' personalities/recruiting skills. You could call it school cred if you want. But he chose Allen-Brown, Smith-(skipping 6 years)-Williams and K's 1980 hire. There are a lot of inconsistencies in his selections. But if you accept his proposal, as I tried to do, then the other stuff becomes irrelevant.

    Obviously there can be disagreement in such circumstances, but let's acknowledge that when you change the question, the answers get changed and you don't get debate points for changing the premise.

    And, I understood all along that KU's 27 year hiatus between Allen and Brown covered a lot of territory beyond simple years. But if you look at the record over that time you still get Allen at .729 (520-219) (39 years) compared to Harp .677 (121-82) (8 yerars) and Owens .657 (348-182) (19 years). So for a total of 27 years after Allen, the supposedly legendary KU really had only decent, not dominant, success. Perhaps 'under the radar' was a bit harsh, but if it had truly maintained legendary status, there would have been more FFs and NCs than there were. Given that Allen can legitimately be said to be the father of modern NCAA basketball, that's probably how Kansas history should be.
    Yep. My point was that KU had more tradition before Roy ever got there than Duke had when K got there. Phog Allen and Larry Brown were examples because of Allen's legendary status and Brown's NCAA tournament win. Duke had never won a natty prior to K. UNC and Kansas both had multiple championships by the time Roy showed up. I didn't really care how much time had passed between Allen and Williams because Allen was still a legend and had put KU on the map.

    My Duke history began with K, so I can't comment on the history prior to K, but I do know that KU was much more of a household name than Duke.

    The main point was that while people tout Roy's recruiting, I think it had more to do with *where* he was recruiting moreso than his recruiting acumen. I wonder how Roy would have done had he started out at a mid-major like Butler instead of nationally recognized blue blood programs?

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by FerryFor50 View Post
    Yep. My point was that KU had more tradition before Roy ever got there than Duke had when K got there. Phog Allen and Larry Brown were examples because of Allen's legendary status and Brown's NCAA tournament win. Duke had never won a natty prior to K. UNC and Kansas both had multiple championships by the time Roy showed up. I didn't really care how much time had passed between Allen and Williams because Allen was still a legend and had put KU on the map.

    My Duke history began with K, so I can't comment on the history prior to K, but I do know that KU was much more of a household name than Duke.

    The main point was that while people tout Roy's recruiting, I think it had more to do with *where* he was recruiting moreso than his recruiting acumen. I wonder how Roy would have done had he started out at a mid-major like Butler instead of nationally recognized blue blood programs?
    If you can't comment about Duke's history prior to K, why are you still talking about it? So, Kansas had multiple "natties" (a grand total of two, one in 1952, and one in 1988, which was somewhat of a fluke as they came out of a #6 seed) before Williams showed up there? So did Oklahoma State, San Francisco, NC State, and Cincinnati. Were all those programs "more of a household name than Duke"?

    In the 30 years before Roy got to Kansas, the school had been to four Final Fours (one championship game). In the 30 years before K got to Duke, the school had been to four Final Fours (two championship games). The programs were pretty close to the same place. Just because Jim Naismith and Phog Allen coached at Kansas a million years ago didn't make recruiting all that much (if any) easier for Roy Williams.

    And we obviously have no idea how Roy would've done if he started out at a mid-major, but we do know Coach K started out at Army and he only did so-so (73-59, including a 9-17 record the year before Duke hired him). What does that prove?

    Anyway, my point is that we don't like it when people spout unsubstantiated nonsense about Duke or our players or Coach K, right? So why can't we refrain from doing the same about UNC? Roy isn't as good as Coach K, but he's a Hall of Fame coach who has consistently recruited well and had great coaching success for decades. Why can't we just leave it at that?
    Last edited by Kedsy; 07-31-2013 at 01:02 AM.

  4. #44

    Trouble with the curve

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Corey View Post
    Roy-Will's skills don't extend far beyond the basketball court, IMO, and his role as public commenter whenever he's needed to comment on something beyond the game itself...well, in that role, he has struggled.

    That's one of the many reasons he's not the GOAT.

    His mishandling of the Hairston situation has been painful to watch--er, read about.
    This raises, for me, the most interesting larger point in the [re]new[ed], relevant tangent that this thread has taken: Roy v. K.

    Actually this larger issue merits its own thread, but I hesitate to start one because it might be seen as too delicate, or possibly too harsh toward Roy. But EK is for mature audiences. [Unlike, for example, IC and probably most message boards.] The issue is implicit - and close to explicit - in MC's observation about Roy's limitations and current struggles "beyond the basketball court."

    Straightforwardly put, K is considerably more intellectually and culturally curious than is Roy. I suppose the most obvious example is K's Sirius XM program, "Basketball and Beyond with Coach K." K is way, way "beyond" basketball. His focus on leadership only begins to get at his interests, and at his mind. IMO, the reason K and USA BBall is working for him and the NBA guys is that they are enthralled by the breadth and depth of K's mind. For his part, K is delighted to be working with, exchanging ideas with, slightly older players, sophisticated guys, some of them. He sees stuff - complicated stuff - they don't, or haven't, or just haven't paid much attention to; and they're kind of surprised, often initially taken aback, by him. They can't quite believe how interesting he is. By contrast, Roy isn't that interesting. He's not that complex, intellectually and culturally. He's a very nice guy, a straightforward "lifer," very good coach, possibly even an underrated coach because such a strong recruiter. But he's not deep intellectually; he's not broadly curious.

    A [not all that much] lesser example may be seen in the difference between K's and Roy's weekly TV show during the season. Roy's, I think, is pretty standard coach-speak-game-highlights. K's is much different, thematically based, few highlights, focused on "beyond" last week's games.

    Roy's adult life seems to be basketball and some golf. He's a lifer, one of many, many in the coaching profession. It's what he does, usually very well. PJ's immaturity has thrown him a major league cultural curveball [Is that right? Not sure....], and Roy the lifer, as MC notes, is definitely having trouble with the curve.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Wheat/"/"/" View Post
    Ok...raise you one Lehigh.
    I'll see your Lehigh, and raise you a Texas (and give you 17 points).

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Wheat/"/"/" View Post
    He's a very good coach and has earned his respect in the college basketball community.
    You mean the community of his peers that voted him the most overrated coach in the country?

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegebask...in-the-country

    Sorry, couldn't help myself.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Carolina Beach

    Duke Brand

    I don't know which coach took over the more difficult job but Coach K had it very hard. I believe Foster knew he was leaving well ahead of his exit and he did not recruit well. Maybe Vince Taylor was the last blue chip recruit. By the time of Foster's exit it was too late to recruit. Yes Banks and Dennard were around for one season but that was hardly a stellar team.

    The 70's were not exactly a great decade of basketball for Duke. Yes 1978 was a magical season. I believe when they won the ACC championship it was the first one since 66 and that was with an 8 and 7 team conference.

    Coach K's second season was the worse Duke team I can recall or want too. The next season while not any better was at least with hope as my favorite recruiting class were freshman.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by wsb3 View Post
    I don't know which coach took over the more difficult job but Coach K had it very hard. I believe Foster knew he was leaving well ahead of his exit and he did not recruit well. Maybe Vince Taylor was the last blue chip recruit. By the time of Foster's exit it was too late to recruit.
    Well, when Williams came on board at Kansas, he took over a team that lost by far its best player, whose returning players weren't nearly as good as Banks/Dennard/Taylor and company, and was on NCAA probation. Like Foster, Larry Brown hadn't recruited very hard the previous season. Of Kansas' two freshmen the year before Williams took over, one didn't play much and transferred before Williams got on board and the other (Mike Maddox) wasn't nearly as good as Duke's Taylor. Pretty hard to recruit under those circumstances, too, right?

    Williams's first season, Kansas went 19-12 while on probation, not too different from Duke's 17-13 in K's first year. But while K struggled to 10-17 and 11-17 records his second and third seasons at Duke, Williams went 30-5 and 27-8 and made the Final Four his third season at Kansas.

    So yeah, K had it hard. Williams had it hard too, probably harder, and did pretty well for himself. I don't particularly like Roy Williams, and I think Coach K is by far the better coach, but let's not pretend Roy can't recruit or win basketball games.
    Last edited by Kedsy; 07-31-2013 at 11:10 AM.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deeetroit City
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Well, when Williams came on board at Kansas, he took over a team that lost by far its best player, whose returning players weren't nearly as good as Banks/Dennard/Taylor and company, and was on NCAA probation. Like Foster, Larry Brown hadn't recruited very hard the previous season. Of Kansas' two freshmen the year before Williams took over, one didn't play much and transferred before Williams got on board and the other (Mike Maddox) wasn't nearly as good as Duke's Taylor. Pretty hard to recruit under those circumstances, too, right?

    Williams's first season, Kansas went 19-12 while on probation, not too different from Duke's 17-13 in K's first year. But while K struggled to 10-17 and 11-17 records his second and third seasons at Duke, Williams went 30-5 and 27-8 and made the Final Four his third season at Kansas.

    So yeah, K had it hard. Williams had it hard too, probably harder, and did pretty well for himself. I don't particularly like Roy Williams, and I think Coach K is by far the better coach, but let's not pretend Roy can't recruit or win basketball games.
    There is no place for such fair-mindedness on the internet!

    Well, ... maybe here

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by gumbomoop View Post
    This raises, for me, the most interesting larger point in the [re]new[ed], relevant tangent that this thread has taken: Roy v. K.

    Actually this larger issue merits its own thread, but I hesitate to start one because it might be seen as too delicate, or possibly too harsh toward Roy. But EK is for mature audiences. [Unlike, for example, IC and probably most message boards.] The issue is implicit - and close to explicit - in MC's observation about Roy's limitations and current struggles "beyond the basketball court."

    Straightforwardly put, K is considerably more intellectually and culturally curious than is Roy. I suppose the most obvious example is K's Sirius XM program, "Basketball and Beyond with Coach K." K is way, way "beyond" basketball. His focus on leadership only begins to get at his interests, and at his mind. IMO, the reason K and USA BBall is working for him and the NBA guys is that they are enthralled by the breadth and depth of K's mind. For his part, K is delighted to be working with, exchanging ideas with, slightly older players, sophisticated guys, some of them. He sees stuff - complicated stuff - they don't, or haven't, or just haven't paid much attention to; and they're kind of surprised, often initially taken aback, by him. They can't quite believe how interesting he is. By contrast, Roy isn't that interesting. He's not that complex, intellectually and culturally. He's a very nice guy, a straightforward "lifer," very good coach, possibly even an underrated coach because such a strong recruiter. But he's not deep intellectually; he's not broadly curious.
    I see your point, but really, how do you know this unless you know these coaches personally? Granted, K is clearly a lot more media savvy than Roy, and he has created an area of expertise for himself beyond basketball [but still, essentially, based on and connected to his work in basketball], in leadership, which Roy has not. But I'm not sure either of these clearly indicates intellectual or cultural curiosity as such. And while there is no evidence from his public persona that Roy is intellectually or culturally curious, we don't actually know what is on his bedside table or whether he goes to the symphony from time to time--or at least I don't.

    I think K is a great coach, and he seems to be a dynamic and effective person more broadly as well, and I am very glad he is Duke's coach. But I think we sometimes tend to indulge in a bit of hagiography with K, which I am not sure is completely healthy.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Well, when Williams came on board at Kansas, he took over a team that lost by far its best player, whose returning players weren't nearly as good as Banks/Dennard/Taylor and company, and was on NCAA probation. Like Foster, Larry Brown hadn't recruited very hard the previous season. Of Kansas' two freshmen the year before Williams took over, one didn't play much and transferred before Williams got on board and the other (Mike Maddox) wasn't nearly as good as Duke's Taylor. Pretty hard to recruit under those circumstances, too, right?

    Williams's first season, Kansas went 19-12 while on probation, not too different from Duke's 17-13 in K's first year. But while K struggled to 10-17 and 11-17 records his second and third seasons at Duke, Williams went 30-5 and 27-8 and made the Final Four his third season at Kansas.

    So yeah, K had it hard. Williams had it hard too, probably harder, and did pretty well for himself. I don't particularly like Roy Williams, and I think Coach K is by far the better coach, but let's not pretend Roy can't recruit or win basketball games.
    I agree, but again say that the records in the first few years are somewhat skewed by the fact that K joined the ACC at its arguably strongest point, and was surrounded by some of the best ever to coach in the ACC. I am not sure Roy's competition was as strong. (Maybe it was, I was a victim of east coast bias back then and there were precious few nationally televised games).

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    I agree, but again say that the records in the first few years are somewhat skewed by the fact that K joined the ACC at its arguably strongest point, and was surrounded by some of the best ever to coach in the ACC. I am not sure Roy's competition was as strong. (Maybe it was, I was a victim of east coast bias back then and there were precious few nationally televised games).
    OK, maybe the competition wasn't as strong -- although Roy's conference (the Big Eight, soon to become Big Twelve) did place both teams in the national championship game and had a third team get to the Elite Eight the year before Roy came on board, so his competition was still pretty darn strong. But accepting your premise could the strength disparity possibly be enough to explain the difference between 11-17 and 30-5?

    Anyway, my intent is absolutely not to denigrate Coach K, or to say Roy Williams is better (because I categorically believe K is better), but to combat the silly and tired Roy-can't-coach-or-recruit-and-his-success-is-purely-because-of-where-he-was-hired trope that often pervades this board.

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by MCFinARL View Post
    I see your point, but really, how do you know this unless you know these coaches personally? Granted, K is clearly a lot more media savvy than Roy, and he has created an area of expertise for himself beyond basketball [but still, essentially, based on and connected to his work in basketball], in leadership, which Roy has not. But I'm not sure either of these clearly indicates intellectual or cultural curiosity as such. And while there is no evidence from his public persona that Roy is intellectually or culturally curious, we don't actually know what is on his bedside table or whether he goes to the symphony from time to time--or at least I don't.

    I think K is a great coach, and he seems to be a dynamic and effective person more broadly as well, and I am very glad he is Duke's coach. But I think we sometimes tend to indulge in a bit of hagiography with K, which I am not sure is completely healthy.
    Very important and fair point. Hagiography is definitely not healthy. But I have intermittently posted criticisms of K's warts, especially his chip-on-shoulder responses to media, who might sometimes deserve his scorn, but it's still a weakness. [My first post on EK, literally, was about "chippy K," which got me branded a troll. That I might be a troll doesn't excuse his occasional unbecoming chippiness.]

    As to K's intellectual and cultural curiosity, maybe that's not the right assessment, but until someone can pin it down better for me, I say his Sirius XM thing suggests some pretty broad interests. That it is media savvy doesn't preclude its being substantive.

    As I noted in my post above, the comparison between K and Roy is a delicate topic, but Mike Corey's post struck me as raising an interesting issue. [He's not responsible for where I took it.] I think it's a legitimate issue, the differences between K and Roy. Each is undoubtedly better, more effective, than the other in some ways. FAIK, Roy is just a nicer guy. But I do think we have circumstantial hints that K thinks more broadly - than lots of folks, not just Roy.

    I think some of the USA BBall NBA guys have been dumbstruck just by how interesting K is, his approach, his perspective, his mind. Plenty of stories about NBA guys who talk about K's breadth and depth.

    Also his humor. Dry, sarcastic, sometimes even self-effacing [but not "Ol' K"]. Which, as I have also noted, trolling regularly through EK and life, is among K's most winning attributes. Not incidentally, his humor is different from Roy's. Circumstantially speaking.

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    I agree, but again say that the records in the first few years are somewhat skewed by the fact that K joined the ACC at its arguably strongest point, and was surrounded by some of the best ever to coach in the ACC. I am not sure Roy's competition was as strong. (Maybe it was, I was a victim of east coast bias back then and there were precious few nationally televised games).
    It wasn't great, but not overly terrible either. Oklahoma still had Billy Tubbs, Norm Stewart was still around being annoying, Eddie Sutton was just getting started, a young Dana Altman was at KSU, and Johnny Orr was still kicking at Iowa State.

    That time period was probably one of the best for elite "name" coaches in the old Big 8, but the teams weren't fantastic year to year by that point. 1990 was probably the best year, with OU (#1 seed), KU (#2 seed), and Missouri (#3 seed). But they all missed the 2nd weekend of the tourney.

    Edit: MU and OU were both Top 5 teams in 1989, Roy's first year (probation). But that season never happened.

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by MCFinARL View Post
    Roy . . . we don't actually know what is on his bedside table.
    I think that would be a Coke.

    coke.jpg

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by allenmurray View Post
    I think that would be a Coke.

    coke.jpg
    I always figured that Roy was an RC Cola, moonpie, BC powder kinda guy.

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Pretty hard to recruit under those circumstances, too, right?
    At Kansas? No, not really.

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Wander View Post
    At Kansas? No, not really.
    Oh, please. When Williams took over Kansas on probation, I'm not sure how many top tier coaches even wanted the job (probably not many, or they wouldn't have given it to a guy with zero head coaching experience). Rick Pitino initially had a hard time recruiting when he took over a program on probation at Kentucky. Do you really feel the Kansas brand in 1989 was that much stronger than the Duke brand in 1981?

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Oh, please. When Williams took over Kansas on probation, I'm not sure how many top tier coaches even wanted the job (probably not many, or they wouldn't have given it to a guy with zero head coaching experience). Rick Pitino initially had a hard time recruiting when he took over a program on probation at Kentucky. Do you really feel the Kansas brand in 1989 was that much stronger than the Duke brand in 1981?
    I think several posters on this board believe the Kansas brand was stronger in 1989. And obviously, several believe the opposite. I'd also argue that Kentucky on probation was a stronger brand than 1981 Duke. I'm in the camp that believes that Coach K *made* Duke what it is and I think it's easy to lose sight of that fact since he's been around for so long.

    Guess that's why they call 'em opinions.

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Do you really feel the Kansas brand in 1989 was that much stronger than the Duke brand in 1981?
    Well, I don't know how much is "that much," but it was absolutely stronger, yes. I don't think you're giving proper weight to the fact that Kansas won a national championship the year before Roy Williams started, and you're overrating the long term effect that probation has on powerhouse programs.

    Roy had an easier career path than most college basketball coaches. He doesn't need to apologize for that and it doesn't imply he's not a very good coach - he wouldn't have had as much success as he's had if he was a poor one - but that he had an easier time starting out is a pretty commonly-held and non-controversial opinion, shared by plenty of people in college basketball.

Similar Threads

  1. Coaching Staff?
    By J.Blink in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 12-18-2009, 10:11 PM
  2. Question About Coaching Changes
    By sue71, esq in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-02-2009, 06:15 PM
  3. Season comparisons 3pt shooting, depth and efficiency
    By Kfanarmy in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-25-2009, 11:34 AM
  4. GHill/Hendo comparisons
    By DukeCO2009 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 02-13-2009, 01:33 AM
  5. Coaching Carousel
    By Ann Arbor Devil in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-07-2007, 09:12 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •