Tom Izzo and Coach K

[CharlestonDave]

A friend of mine who is neither a Michigan State fan or a Duke hater claims that Tom Izzo is a better tournament coach than Coach K. He is actually a Williams grad so he has no bias whatsoever.

He understands that Coach K has won more championships and probably has more Final 4 appearances but his argument is that Izzo's teams do not get knocked out in the first and second rounds the way Duke has in recent times and cited losses to VCU, Lehigh and Mercer as evidence.

He says that when Michigan State makes the tournament they are better prepared than Duke is especially in recent years.

I defer to those more knowledgable than me to answer this discussion as I do not have the facts to refute or agree with him. .

[Duvall]

Michigan State teams rarely get to play low seeds in the tournament, because they blow too many games during the regular season.

[downeastdad]

This is a topic that is near and dear to my heart, not necessarily about the coaching but the recruiting philosophy. My daughter is a Duke grad, and is dating a MSU grad. BTW, I'm a Lehigh grad and a Duke fan, but my loyalties were with the Engineers in 2012.
I am increasingly concerned about Duke's recruiting of one-and-doners, and that, although their play is pretty spectacular, they seem to contribute little to the success of the program overall. Michael (daughter's boyfriend) claims that Izzo will not sign anyone who will not commit to four years at MSU. As a casual observer, it seems that Izzo is able to build seriously better teams, with seriously less talent, than K is able to do.
Flame me. Comments?

[CDu]

A friend of mine who is neither a Michigan State fan or a Duke hater claims that Tom Izzo is a better tournament coach than Coach K. He is actually a Williams grad so he has no bias whatsoever.

He understands that Coach K has won more championships and probably has more Final 4 appearances but his argument is that Izzo's teams do not get knocked out in the first and second rounds the way Duke has in recent times and cited losses to VCU, Lehigh and Mercer as evidence.

He says that when Michigan State makes the tournament they are better prepared than Duke is especially in recent years.

I defer to those more knowledgable than me to answer this discussion as I do not have the facts to refute or agree with him. .

Depends. If you look at tourney performance relative to seed since 1999, then your friend probably has a case. If you look at their entire careers, it probably swings back in Duke's favor. Our tourney success from 1986-2004 is pretty much off the charts (10 final fours, 3 titles). But over the last 10-15 years it might lean in Izzo's favor.

[tommy]

A friend of mine who is neither a Michigan State fan or a Duke hater claims that Tom Izzo is a better tournament coach than Coach K. He is actually a Williams grad so he has no bias whatsoever.

He understands that Coach K has won more championships and probably has more Final 4 appearances but his argument is that Izzo's teams do not get knocked out in the first and second rounds the way Duke has in recent times and cited losses to VCU, Lehigh and Mercer as evidence.

He says that when Michigan State makes the tournament they are better prepared than Duke is especially in recent years.

I defer to those more knowledgable than me to answer this discussion as I do not have the facts to refute or agree with him. .

In the last 13 years, Izzo's Spartans have been knocked out of the tournament in the first round three times, and in the second round two more times. They've reached the Sweet 16 three more times, so that makes 8 times in the last 13 years they've gone no further than the Sweet 16. Of those three Sweet 16 losses, in one of them they were a #1 seed, and in another (last year) they were a #3 seed, and lost to . . . Duke.

In the same span, Duke has also lost its first tournament game three times, and lost its second game once.

I'd like to see this guy's fact-based case as to why he thinks Izzo's record in the tournament is superior to Krzyzewski's.

[CDu]

This is a topic that is near and dear to my heart, not necessarily about the coaching but the recruiting philosophy. My daughter is a Duke grad, and is dating a MSU grad. BTW, I'm a Lehigh grad and a Duke fan, but my loyalties were with the Engineers in 2012.
I am increasingly concerned about Duke's recruiting of one-and-doners, and that, although their play is pretty spectacular, they seem to contribute little to the success of the program overall. Michael (daughter's boyfriend) claims that Izzo will not sign anyone who will not commit to four years at MSU. As a casual observer, it seems that Izzo is able to build seriously better teams, with seriously less talent, than K is able to do.
Flame me. Comments?

Izzo has had early entry guys before (Zach Randolph anyone?). And he was VERY heavily recruiting likely one-and-done candidate Jabari Parker (most experts had him deciding between Duke and MSU). So I don't think that recruiting philosophy is a sound argument in this case.

[nmduke2001]

Since Izzo's championship, coach K, Jim Calhoun, billy Donavan and Roy Williams all have two. If anything, I think Izzo is overrated and riding the wave of the single championship.

[CDu]

In the last 13 years, Izzo's Spartans have been knocked out of the tournament in the first round three times, and in the second round two more times. They've reached the Sweet 16 three more times, so that makes 8 times in the last 13 years they've gone no further than the Sweet 16. Of those three Sweet 16 losses, in one of them they were a #1 seed, and in another (last year) they were a #3 seed, and lost to . . . Duke.

In the same span, Duke has also lost its first tournament game three times, and lost its second game once.

I'd like to see this guy's fact-based case as to why he thinks Izzo's record in the tournament is superior to Krzyzewski's.

I will make their case. Since 1999, MSU has made more Elite-8s (7 to 5) and more Final Fours (6 to 4) than Duke. And they have done so despite having a lower average seed than Duke over that span. I think it is quite easy to make the case that Izzo's teams from 1999 to 2014 have outperformed Coach K's teams in the tourney over that span (especially when seed is taken into account).

[nmduke2001]

I will make their case. Since 1999, MSU has made more Elite-8s (7 to 5) and more Final Fours (6 to 4) than Duke. And they have done so despite having a lower average seed than Duke over that span. I think it is quite easy to make the case that Izzo's teams from 1999 to 2014 have outperformed Coach K's teams in the tourney over that span (especially when seed is taken into account).

Couldn't you also make the case that MSU underperforms during the regular season and that's why they receive lower seeds?

[ice-9]

I will make their case. Since 1999, MSU has made more Elite-8s (7 to 5) and more Final Fours (6 to 4) than Duke. And they have done so despite having a lower average seed than Duke over that span. I think it is quite easy to make the case that Izzo's teams from 1999 to 2014 have outperformed Coach K's teams in the tourney over that span (especially when seed is taken into account).

Another cut of the same time period (inclusive of 1999) is that michigan state won 37 tournament games while duke won 39. This year the Spartans will tie or pass that record.

Pretty close call.

[CDu]

Couldn't you also make the case that MSU underperforms during the regular season and that's why they receive lower seeds?

Sure. But good luck proving it. That is part of the gray area of the discussion.

[tommy]

I will make their case. Since 1999, MSU has made more Elite-8s (7 to 5) and more Final Fours (6 to 4) than Duke. And they have done so despite having a lower average seed than Duke over that span. I think it is quite easy to make the case that Izzo's teams from 1999 to 2014 have outperformed Coach K's teams in the tourney over that span (especially when seed is taken into account).

The OP's friend's argument was that MSU doesn't get knocked out in the first and second rounds as often as Duke has in recent years (not sure how "recent" is to be defined), and he is incorrect as to that assertion, per the numbers.

Also, the argument you are making, which is a different one in any event, touches on the issue of seeding. Part of the reason that Michigan State has often performed well relative to its seeding is that they have underperformed massively in the regular season relative to their preseason ratings and expectations, and gotten lower seedings as a result. In the last 13 years, Izzo has lost double digit games six times (always at least 12 losses, with a high of 15). And in three other seasons they've lost nine. So the not uncommon practice is to have high preseason expectations based on their talent, experience, etc., underperform during the regular season and lose a bunch of games they probably shouldn't, get a lower seed, then turn it on come tournament time, making Izzo look like some kind of a miracle worker instead of a guy who couldn't get his team to maximize its potential for much of the year. He's a very good coach, don't get me wrong, but given the record I just cited, plus the fact that he's only won one championship, and it was 14 years ago, he can't carry Coach K's clipboard.

[CDu]

The OP's friend's argument was that MSU doesn't get knocked out in the first and second rounds as often as Duke has in recent years (not sure how "recent" is to be defined), and he is incorrect as to that assertion, per the numbers.

Also, the argument you are making, which is a different one in any event, touches on the issue of seeding. Part of the reason that Michigan State has often performed well relative to its seeding is that they have underperformed massively in the regular season relative to their preseason ratings and expectations, and gotten lower seedings as a result. In the last 13 years, Izzo has lost double digit games six times (always at least 12 losses, with a high of 15). And in three other seasons they've lost nine. So the not uncommon practice is to have high preseason expectations based on their talent, experience, etc., underperform during the regular season and lose a bunch of games they probably shouldn't, get a lower seed, then turn it on come tournament time, making Izzo look like some kind of a miracle worker instead of a guy who couldn't get his team to maximize its potential for much of the year. He's a very good coach, don't get me wrong, but given the record I just cited, plus the fact that he's only won one championship, and it was 14 years ago, he can't carry Coach K's clipboard.

As I said above, good luck proving that they underachieved during the regular season. And even if you did prove that, MSU still has better overall tournament results. All the underachieving would do is make their tourney path harder.

[Class of '94]

I will make their case. Since 1999, MSU has made more Elite-8s (7 to 5) and more Final Fours (6 to 4) than Duke. And they have done so despite having a lower average seed than Duke over that span. I think it is quite easy to make the case that Izzo's teams from 1999 to 2014 have outperformed Coach K's teams in the tourney over that span (especially when seed is taken into account).

Excellent points...Living in the metro Detroit area, I hear that argument about Izzo being a better coach than K alot. However, it's interesting to me that a majority of the arguments are based on March NCAAT results and rarely mentions that regular season. When you add the regular seasons and conference tournament results, I think the pendulum swings back to K. Also, it's harder for me to buy the Izzo better than K (and does a better job of prepping his teams for March than K) argument when you consider Izzo only has 1 championship, and that was over 10 years ago, compared to K having 2 since Izzo's first and only championship. I think you have to factor in the number of championships won in that same timeframe as well; and I think it brings the argument at least to a wash between K and Izzo for NCAAT success imo. Lastly, K and Roy own Izzo imo in terms of head to head match-ups both in the regular season and NCAAT. I could be wrong but I believe since 1999, K has only lost to Izzo once. And I remember reading a statement in the local paper here that Izzo was tired of losing to Duke. To me that speaks volumes about K vs Izzo imo (even if you restrict it to NCAAT success).

[SoCalDukeFan]

Couldn't you also make the case that MSU underperforms during the regular season and that's why they receive lower seeds?

but maybe Izzo is working on improving and preparing for the end of the season rather than winning early season games. Developing depth for example or experimenting with different combinations or just trying to figure out his team. It won't bother me if Duke lost half of their games in November and December if they win them all in March and April.

I also think the Committee needs to go a better job of accounting for late season form. MSU won the Big 10 tournament. Why are they seeded behind Wisconsin and Michigan.

SoCal

[CDu]

Excellent points...Living in the metro Detroit area, I hear that argument about Izzo being a better coach than K alot. However, it's interesting to me that a majority of the arguments are based on March NCAAT results and rarely mentions that regular season. When you add the regular seasons and conference tournament results, I think the pendulum swings back to K. Also, it's harder for me to buy the Izzo better than K (and does a better job of prepping his teams for March than K) argument when you consider Izzo only has 1 championship, and that was over 10 years ago, compared to K having 2 since Izzo's first and only championship. I think you have to factor in the number of championships won in that same timeframe as well; and I think it brings the argument at least to a wash between K and Izzo for NCAAT success imo. Lastly, K and Roy own Izzo imo in terms of head to head match-ups both in the regular season and NCAAT. I could be wrong but I believe since 2009, K has only lost to Izzo once. And I remember reading a statement in the local paper here that Izzo was tired of losing to Duke. To me that speaks volumes about K vs Izzo imo (even if you restrict it to NCAAT success).

Oh I agree. I am not sure that anyone has had more overall success than Duke over the past 10, 15, 20, 25, or 30 years. But in the prism of NCAA success (and specifically since 1999), Izzo has a pretty good case.

[FerryFor50]

I will make their case. Since 1999, MSU has made more Elite-8s (7 to 5) and more Final Fours (6 to 4) than Duke. And they have done so despite having a lower average seed than Duke over that span. I think it is quite easy to make the case that Izzo's teams from 1999 to 2014 have outperformed Coach K's teams in the tourney over that span (especially when seed is taken into account).

Here is MSU's NCAA tournament record since the 1998-1999 season:

1998-1999 - #1 seed; Final Four
1999-2000 - #1 seed; NC
2000-2001 - #1 seed; Final Four
2001-2002 - #10 seed; lost to 7 seed NC State in first round
2002-2003 - #7 seed; Elite 8
2003-2004 - #7 seed; lost to 10 seed Nevada in the first round
2004-2005 - #5 seed; NC title game runner up
2005-2006 - #6 seed; lost to 11 seed George Mason in the first round
2006-2007 - #9 seed; beat Marquette; lost to 1 seed UNC in the second round
2007-2008 - #5 seed; Sweet 16
2008-2009 - #2 seed; NC title game runner up
2009-2010 - #5 seed; Final Four
2010-2011 - #10 seed; lost to 7 seed UCLA in first round
2011-2012 - #1 seed; Sweet 16
2012-2013 - #3 seed; Sweet 16
2013-2014 - #4 seed; Sweet 16

Average seed: 4.8
First weekend exits (first/second round losses): 4
Sweet 16: 11
Elite 8: 7
Final Four: 6
Runner up: 2
National Champs: 1

Here is Duke's NCAA tournament record since the 1998-1999 season:

1998-1999 - #1 seed; NC title game runner up
1999-2000 - #1 seed; Sweet 16
2000-2001 - #1 seed; NC
2001-2002 - #1 seed; Sweet 16 (on a terrible missed foul call on Boozer and some Jay Williams missed FTs)
2002-2003 - #3 seed; Sweet 16
2003-2004 - #1 seed; Final Four
2004-2005 - #1 seed; Sweet 16 (lost to Mich St and PAUL FREAKIN DAVIS)
2005-2006 - #1 seed; Sweet 16
2006-2007 - #6 seed; lost in first round to #11 seed VCU
2007-2008 - #2 seed; lost in second round to WVU
2008-2009 - #2 seed; Sweet 16
2009-2010 - #1 seed, NC
2010-2011 - #1 seed; Sweet 16
2011-2012 - #2 seed; lost in first round to 15 seed Lehigh
2012-2013 - #2 seed; Elite 8
2013-2014 - #3 seed; lost in first round to Mercer

Average seed: 1.8
First weekend exits (first/second round losses): 4
Sweet 16: 12
Elite 8: 5
Final Four: 4
Runner up: 1
National Champs: 2

So since 1998-1999, Duke and MSU have the same number of first weekend exits. Duke has more Sweet 16 appearances, but fewer Elite 8 and Final Fours. Yet Duke has made the most of their fewer opportunities and won 1 more national championship over that time than Mich St.

Duke has had the higher seed by far, which means they had the better regular season record.

I think to say Izzo is definitively the better tournament coach depends on your criteria:

- Is it getting a better seed?
- Is it outperforming your seeding? (regardless of how the other dominoes fall)
- Is it getting farther in the tournament more often?
- Is it winning national championships?

To me, the goal of the NCAA tournament is winning championships. Final Fours are nice, as are the other cleverly named rounds that add more value to them then they actually deserve, but if your criteria is "gets farther in the tournament" then, yes, Izzo is winning that battle over the last 16 seasons. But only barely.

I don't think it always comes down to coaching; a lot of it is luck (what top seeds lost early?) and a lot of it is getting hot at the right time. I'd say Izzo's teams tend to play so-so during the season and then they heat up at the right time. The fact that he's done it so regularly means he's doing something right. But there is definitely value in what Duke and Coach K has done.

[Duvall]

It wouldn't make much of a difference, but why start in 1999 instead of 1998?

[Kedsy]

I will make their case. Since 1999, MSU has made more Elite-8s (7 to 5) and more Final Fours (6 to 4) than Duke. And they have done so despite having a lower average seed than Duke over that span. I think it is quite easy to make the case that Izzo's teams from 1999 to 2014 have outperformed Coach K's teams in the tourney over that span (especially when seed is taken into account).

Here's the thing about Michigan State's Final Four paths -- they've gotten pretty lucky with who they played. Here are the paths to Izzo's six Final Fours:

1999 (1-seed): 16-9-13-3
2000 (1-seed): 16-8-4-2
2001 (1-seed): 16-9-12-11
2005 (5-seed): 12-13-1-2
2009 (2-seed): 15-10-3-1
2010 (5-seed): 12-4-9-6

The only year they didn't play at least one major upset winner was in 2000, the year they were good enough to win the national championship. The good news for Izzo is when he does play a major upset winner he has made the Final Four five out of six tries (and the other time made an Elite Eight). Including 2000, since 1999 Michigan State has played a "chalk" path 9 times, and made the Final Four just the one time. This season, Michigan State will either fail to make it through a chalk path (if they lose to UVa), or will play a non-chalk path (if they beat UVa and then play either a 3-seed or a 7-seed).

In the same timeframe, Duke has played a major upset winner 5 times*, and made the Final Four in 4 of those 5. [* - this includes playing a 3 instead of a 2 in 2010 -- historically, 1-seeds that played 3-seeds made the Final Four 60% of the time, while 1-seeds that played 2-seeds only made it 48.7%. So I counted it as a "major upset"]

Historically, 1-seeds that play 5-seeds make the Final Four about the same as 1-seeds that play 4-seeds (43% to 40%), and in the '99 to present timeframe Duke has played and failed to make the Final Four on four of those paths, while Michigan State has never played such a path. For this purpose, 8-seeds and 9-seeds are even closer to equivalent, and counting them as such, Duke has played seven chalk paths since 1999 (11 if you count the 16-8-5/16-9-5 paths) and not made the Final Four in any of them (while Michigan State did get through such a path once out of 9).

I'm counting first round losses as "chalk," but if you don't want to do that, take away Duke's 3 first round losses and Michigan State's 4 first round losses (I think tommy missed one, by my count Michigan State lost in the first round in 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2011).

So, basically, cherry-picking the timeframe that starts the year Izzo made his first Final Four, the differences are that his 2000 national champions made it through a chalk path (while K hasn't done that since 1992) and that Izzo played one more non-chalk path than Coach K did in the period, giving him one more "easy" opportunity (Izzo is 5 for 6 and K is 4 for 5 on such opportunities).

They're both pretty good. In my opinion, it's hard to make the argument that one has performed significantly better than the other over the last 16 years.

[Kedsy]

Here is MSU's NCAA tournament record since the 1998-1999 season:

2001-2002 - #10 seed; lost to 7 seed NC State in first round
2003-2004 - #7 seed; lost to 10 seed Nevada in the first round
2005-2006 - #6 seed; lost to 11 seed George Mason in the first round
2006-2007 - #9 seed; beat Marquette; lost to 1 seed UNC in the second round
2010-2011 - #10 seed; lost to 7 seed UCLA in first round

First weekend exits (first/second round losses): 4 <--- Nope, 5

* * *

So since 1998-1999, Duke and MSU have the same number of first weekend exits.

Actually, Michigan State has one more "early exit" than Duke, based on your own data, above.