NCOY Awards Thread

[DukeUsul]

Syracuse's Jim Boeheim gets AP's NCOY award. Given that they were unranked to start the year and got as high as No 1 and had a great, unexpected year, it's understandable.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5049732

[JohnGalt]

Tough not to give Brad Stevens that award.

[theAlaskanBear]

Yeah, but no one knows who Stevens is, unfortunately. Boeheim is a good choice though!! Cant argue with that, congrats Cuse!

[JohnGalt]

Yeah, but no one knows who Stevens is, unfortunately. Boeheim is a good choice though!! Cant argue with that, congrats Cuse!

I agree. After they lost to Le Moyne I thought it would be a down year at the Cuse. I just think the Brad Stevens story is nice.

[CDu]

Tough not to give Brad Stevens that award.

The award usually goes to the coach of the team that exceeded preseason expectations the most. Butler was ranked #11 and #10 in the preseason polls. Syracuse was unranked in the AP poll and #25 in the Coaches' poll.

Given that Butler was expected to compete for an Elite-8 while Syracuse was expected to be a #7-9 seed, that's a slam dunk win for Boeheim.

I find the Coach of the Year award a bit silly, because it's almost always based on the fact that people misjudged a team coming into the season. But based on how it is generally awarded, Boeheim was the logical choice.

[greybeard]

Boehim's team was underrated because everybody undervalues the value of experience (sorry), he had 3 expienced starters and a sixth man coming back, and finally, and most importantly, because no one knew just how good a one-and-done transfer would be. Championship runs based upon one-and-done players is not the stuff upon which a COTY should be based.

If you want to talk startling turn arounds by a Big East coach who had his team singing, I'd pick JTIII.

I'd pick Huggins above both of them actually; I think he has and is doing an incredible coaching job.

However, the coaching story of this year is a runaway. That would be Mr. K.
If anyone told you that people would be singing the praises of Brian Zoubek, mentioning him as a potential first rounder, and that Brian Zoubek would be integral to this team's offense, you would have said that they were nuts. No one but K could have envisioned the exceptional roll Zoubek plays in an offense the likes of which nobody has ever seen before, nobody can practice against, and which has produced spectacularly.

K is the coach of the year. I think that he is the exception to CDu's well stated rule that "the Coach of the Year award [is] a bit silly, because it's almost always based on the fact that people misjudged a team coming into the season."

[CDu]

Boehim's team was underrated because everybody undervalues the value of experience (sorry), he had 3 expienced starters and a sixth man coming back, and finally, and most importantly, because no one knew just how good a one-and-done transfer would be. Championship runs based upon one-and-done players is not the stuff upon which a COTY should be based.

I disagree with your defining Johnson as a "one-and-done" type of guy. The guy was a talented but not spectacular player for two years at Iowa State. His emergence this year was, as you implied, a bit of a surprise. He was not some hired gun type in the sense of a Carmelo Anthony/John Wall/DeMarcus Cousins mold, where you knew he was only going to be around for a year.

Teams/coaches shouldn't be penalized for being willing to take on a transfer. Johnson spent two of the three possible years that he could spend with the Syracuse program. I see nothing wrong with that. I mean, are you going to badmouth us if Curry blows up and goes pro after next season?


If you want to talk startling turn arounds by a Big East coach who had his team singing, I'd pick JTIII.

I'd pick Huggins above both of them actually; I think he has and is doing an incredible coaching job.

WVU was just as veteran as Syracuse, and had probably had more talent on top of that. I'm not saying what Huggins has done isn't impressive, but it's not like he got more out of less.

Georgetown's team is a bit younger, but they just didn't have the consistency this year. They had plenty of big wins, but plenty of not-so-hot losses.

But I completely agree that Coach K's coaching job was the most impressive.

[greybeard]

I disagree with your defining Johnson as a "one-and-done" type of guy. The guy was a talented but not spectacular player for two years at Iowa State. His emergence this year was, as you implied, a bit of a surprise. He was not some hired gun type in the sense of a Carmelo Anthony/John Wall/DeMarcus Cousins mold, where you knew he was only going to be around for a year.

Teams/coaches shouldn't be penalized for being willing to take on a transfer. Johnson spent two of the three possible years that he could spend with the Syracuse program. I see nothing wrong with that. I mean, are you going to badmouth us if Curry blows up and goes pro after next season?



WVU was just as veteran as Syracuse, and had probably had more talent on top of that. I'm not saying what Huggins has done isn't impressive, but it's not like he got more out of less.

Georgetown's team is a bit younger, but they just didn't have the consistency this year. They had plenty of big wins, but plenty of not-so-hot losses.

But I completely agree that Coach K's coaching job was the most impressive.

Johnson played for Syracuse last year? I don't think so. I'm not hatin on anyone for taking a transfer. Heck, my boyz, that would be Cornell, played with a JC transfer. I just do not think that you win NCOTY when you "surprise" people with the performance of a transfer who was under the radar. That he is a one-and-done guy to me detracts still further from saying that what Boeheim did with his team this year was at all exceptional.

As far as Georgetwon is concerned, come on; the turn around has been remarkable, not done by the addition of a single, not one, meaningful contributor. As far as "bad" loses, everyone has them these days in college ball, everyone. I would view Kentucky's loss to W Va a worse drubbing than anything that Georgetown experienced; ditto for Duke's loss to Georgetown. That is, I would give any thought to them if I beleived that drubbings were not to be expected by every team, no matter how good, given the length and strength of schedules these days. On the other hand, if your team fails to perform several times in an important, in league contest, then we might have a different case. JTIII was playing tight to the margin with a very undersized top scoring forward who just happened to be a type I diabetic only he didn't know it. If he had a few let-down games, you can't seriously be laying that at JTIII's feet. Come on, CDu, you're usually more careful before you shoot. Then again, you are shooting at me. wink/wink.

Huggins did a masterful job when his lead guard went down, took out the odds on favorite to get to the last dance in impressive fashion, and, I hate to say it, might well walk away with all the hardware. He has fashioned a team of interchangeable parts, features an innovative offense that wears teams out in a fashion similar to Duke's which, like Duke's, was tailor made and realtered by Huggins to fit his personnel. He had a brilliant, and I do not use that word as oosely as usual, game plan against Kentucky. Brilliant. If anybody thinks that guard was taking it coast-to-coast against a team of greyhounds on his own whim they better think again. Tore the heart out of Kentucky's "pro" guards, beat those young stars silly at their own game. At their own game! Come on, here, CDu, now that he's off the hootch, this guy is showing some brilliance.

Boeheim showed the same-old-same-old, with the addition of a player that surprised people with his star quality. The player deserves mention as NPOTY; Boeheim did his usual fine job, which gets esceptional when he gets a one-and-doner. Not a COTY performance to be had in this; just Boeheim's usual great job.

[CDu]

Johnson played for Syracuse last year? I don't think so. I'm not hatin on anyone for taking a transfer. Heck, my boyz, that would be Cornell, played with a JC transfer. I just do not think that you win NCOTY when you "surprise" people with the performance of a transfer who was under the radar. That he is a one-and-done guy to me detracts from saying that what Boeheim did with his team this year was at all exceptional.

I said he was AT Syracuse for two of the three years he could be at Syracuse. He spent last year redshirting with Syracuse. So yes, he was in fact at Syracuse for two years. He could only have played one more year.

When you say "one-and-doner" the implication is the same as John Wall or Carmelo Anthony. Wes Johnson isn't remotely the same. They fully believed he'd spend his redshirt year practicing with the team (and that's very much a part of the team) and then two years playing for the team. That's very different than the concept of a one-and-doner.

I'm willing to agree that Boeheim may or may not have deserved Coach of the Year and obviously the fact that Johnson was a surprisingly great player had a lot to do with the Award. I guess we should go ahead and say that Coach K doesn't deserve a shot at Coach of the Year next year if Curry blows up, right? (and for the record, if you believe that as well, that's fine. I'm just looking for consistency there)

For the record, I think the coach of the year award concept is silly, because there's no good measure. It's subjective based on people's misjudgement of the team's quality. Also, it's impossible to distinguish what constitutes great coaching. You can use any number of criteria to define what you think is the best coach, and using that set of criteria you could come up with many different answers. My only beef is with the use of the term "one-and-doner" with regard to Johnson.

[CDu]

As far as Georgetwon is concerned, come on; the turn around has been remarkable, not done by the addition of a single, not one, meaningful contributor. As far as "bad" loses, everyone has them these days in college ball, everyone. I would view Kentucky's loss to W Va a worse drubbing than anything that Georgetown experienced; ditto for Duke's loss to Georgetown. That is, I would give any thought to them if I beleived that drubbings were not to be expected by every team, no matter how good, given the length and strength of schedules these days. On the other hand, if your team fails to perform several times in an important, in league contest, then we might have a different case. JTIII was playing tight to the margin with a very undersized top scoring forward who just happened to be a type I diabetic only he didn't know it. If he had a few let-down games, you can't seriously be laying that at JTIII's feet. Come on, CDu, you're usually more careful before you shoot. Then again, you are shooting at me. wink/wink.

Come on, greybeard. I think it is YOU that can do better than this. Georgetown had several losses to teams that weren't at-large quality teams: USF (at home), Ohio, Rutgers. They got embarassed by Notre Dame (at home) without Harangody. They lost by 17 to Syracuse. Those are definitely worse losses than Kentucky losing to WVU and us losing on the road to Georgetown. Surely you don't believe a 7-point loss to a #2 seed or a 12-point loss on the road to an eventual #3 seed is worse than a 14-point loss to a #14 seed, do you? And moreover, Georgetown lost ten times. It's hard to argue that they were some magical story.

Further, you talk about what Thompson has done with largely the same team as last year (minus Summers of course). Well, how do you know that's not a function of the key pieces of the team just being together for a year more? Further, this is a Georgetown team that underachieved last year. So it's not like he took a team of nobodies and turned them around. One could argue that he did a poor job last year, and this year just got the ship back on track. Was it Thompson's brilliance as a coach that led to Freeman getting in shape and becoming a star, or was it Freeman finally figuring it out for himself?

As I said, the criteria for coach of the year is nebulous. You (and I) can spin nearly any story we want for why (or why not) a coach should get coach of the year.


Huggins did a masterful job when his lead guard went down, took out the odds on favorite to get to the last dance in impressive fashion, and, I hate to say it, might well walk away with all the hardware. He has fashioned a team of interchangeable parts, features an innovative offense that wears teams out in a fashion similar to Duke's which, like Duke's, was tailor made and realtered by Huggins to fit his personnel. He had a brilliant, and I do not use that word as oosely as usual, game plan against Kentucky. Brilliant. If anybody thinks that guard was taking it coast-to-coast against a team of greyhounds on his own whim they better think again. Tore the heart out of Kentucky's "pro" guards, beat those young stars silly at their own game. At their own game! Come on, here, CDu, now that he's off the hootch, this guy is showing some brilliance.

And I see it as Huggins got fortunate that his players made a ridiculous (for them) percentage of 3s, while WVU begged UK to shoot 3s in return. And UK basically beat themselves by not making shots. Had UK hit even 25% of their open threes, they win, and nobody is talking about Huggins's brilliance.

Was it Huggins's brilliance that got Mazzulla to more than double his season output, or just Mazzulla stepping up and having a great game? Was it Huggins's brilliance that caused WVU to hit 10% better on 3s than they have all season? Was it Huggins's brilliance that caused UK to shoot 4-32 on 3s (20% below their average), when most were fairly open?

You've chosen to spin it as Huggins's brilliance. I can choose to spin it as good fortune at the right time.

[BD80]

I would submit that Huggins, like Calipari, should be ineligible for any COLLEGE coaching awards because of their indifference to academics. I admit that I may be relying on old data with respect to Huggy, but I don't anticipate WVU's academic performance will improve under Huggy. As for Cal, I expect to soon see reports that at least several of the KY players have totally ignored classes this semester.

I am amazed how dramatically my opinion of Boeheim has changed. Apparently he has gone through quite a personal transformation and the results are noticeable.

In large part, this is a lifetime achievement award for Boeheim and a recognition of his transformation, and I'm OK with that. He also lost some serious talent from last year and still won the Big East (not that that ever helped Coach K).

[greybeard]

I said he was AT Syracuse for two of the three years he could be at Syracuse. He spent last year redshirting with Syracuse. So yes, he was in fact at Syracuse for two years. He could only have played one more year.

When you say "one-and-doner" the implication is the same as John Wall or Carmelo Anthony. Wes Johnson isn't remotely the same. They fully believed he'd spend his redshirt year practicing with the team (and that's very much a part of the team) and then two years playing for the team. That's very different than the concept of a one-and-doner.

I'm willing to agree that Boeheim may or may not have deserved Coach of the Year and obviously the fact that Johnson was a surprisingly great player had a lot to do with the Award. I guess we should go ahead and say that Coach K doesn't deserve a shot at Coach of the Year next year if Curry blows up, right? (and for the record, if you believe that as well, that's fine. I'm just looking for consistency there)

For the record, I think the coach of the year award concept is silly, because there's no good measure. It's subjective based on people's misjudgement of the team's quality. Also, it's impossible to distinguish what constitutes great coaching. You can use any number of criteria to define what you think is the best coach, and using that set of criteria you could come up with many different answers. My only beef is with the use of the term "one-and-doner" with regard to Johnson.

Where we part company is your assessment of how good Syracuse was and how much Boeheim did that was exceptional. Syracuse was not the team that the pundits were making them. A close friend of mine is a Georgetown fanatic, and follows the Big East closely. He tagged Syracuse as overrated early on and his take was very convincing; said, and I've seen nothing to disprove it, that they road the shoulders of only one real player, the transfer, and the two pounders, who were only as good as the refs permitted.

If Johnson's transfer did not come on the heals of Boeheim's having rented Mello's services for a year I might give Boeheim some credit for how J performed this season. It still wouldn't change that he has won by adding a one-and-done transfer; if the kid wasn't as good as he is, we aren't having this conversation. Nothing in this worthy of special recognition, at least by me.

Now, had K landed Wall and chosen to deploy similarly to last year with Jon on the wing and running more, which would have relegated Z to an afterthought, I most certainly would not be giving him no luv as COTY. Absolutely not.

As for Curry, if he explodes and has a great season next year that will be nice. But, got news for you, if he don't, Duke will be stacked at guard next year, stacked! Tell you what, if you could buy a ticket for practice, watching the guard play would be better than watching guard play in just about any other venue. Boeheim's team bombs this season without the transfer. Different, in my view, in terms of COTY honors.

I am not a Duke grad and rooted for UNC as a kid because half the guys who I knew who could play were either coached by or had played against Larry Brown and because the best player my school produced captained the '63 UNC team (okay it stunk but Brian, with his 3.9 average, we're talking grades here now CDu, captained em).

So, my take on K's performance this year is based upon his development of talent and leadership and his extraordinary innovations which worked out spectacularly.

Heck, the blocking, er, screening schemes that seem often to be game specific could as well have earned him the Vince Lombardi award for coaching an offensive line, as any award for coaching basketball. He developed talent, made room for Zoubek to emerge as both a talent and leader, let Jon find his potency by putting him at the helm, and has helped Singler to develop skills that will serve him incredibly well in the years to come, all the while taking Duke back to the dance. I base my assessments on what I see and appreciate about the game. K was exceptional.

Ditto for JTIII, in my view, and I'm coming to believe, for Huggins as well. How can I say otherwise. My friend Kauf was all over both from the start.

[CDu]

Where we part company is your assessment of how good Syracuse was and how much Boeheim did that was exceptional. Syracuse was not the team that the pundits were making them. A close friend of mine is a Georgetown fanatic, and follows the Big East closely. He tagged Syracuse as overrated early on and his take was very convincing; said, and I've seen nothing to disprove it, that they road the shoulders of only one real player, the transfer, and the two pounders, who were only as good as the refs permitted.

If Johnson's transfer did not come on the heals of Boeheim's having rented Mello's services for a year I might give Boeheim some credit for how J performed this season. It still wouldn't change that he has won by adding a one-and-done transfer; if the kid wasn't as good as he is, we aren't having this conversation. Now, had K landed Wall and had played similarly to when G was here and relegated Z to an afterthought, I most certainly would not be giving him no luv as COTY. Absolutely not. On the other hand, if Curry explodes next season that will be nice. But, got news for you, if he don't, Duke will be stacked at guard next year, stacked! Tell you what, if you could buy a ticket for practice, watching the guard play would be better than watching guard play in just about any other venue.

I think you missed my point. I don't have an opinion one way or the other on the coaches actual success. My only beef was with the classification of Johnson as one-and-done.

I think the entire attempt at awarding a coach of the year award is misguided, because nobody is accurately able to assess how much of the team's success is due to the coach, and how much is due to the player. It's further muddled when you consider all the areas that you could consider to be part of coaching (i.e., recruiting, practice, in-game, etc). The award is highly subjective.

Boeheim won the award because people thought his team would be a borderline top-25 team, and it ended up a Top-5 team. People expected Georgetown to be a top-20 team, and they slightly exceeded expectations to be a top-15 team. People expected WVU to be a top-10 team, and they also exceeded expectations to be a top-5 team.

I don't have an opinion of whether Boeheim deserved the award or not (Coach of the Year, by the subjective nature of the award, is an award I just don't care much about). But that's why he won it, and that's why Huggins and Thompson didn't win it. Boeheim's team exceeded expectations much more than Huggins team or Thompson's team.

[brevity]

No one seems to have mentioned that Jim Boeheim had never won a national Coach of the Year award before this year*, which is ridiculous. Even if you thought that Boeheim and Coach K were on equal footing this season (which they weren't), you have to factor this in.

* He did win this award (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Bee_Coach_of_the_Year_Award) in 2000. It's national, but it's not performance-based.

[greybeard]

I think you missed my point. I don't have an opinion one way or the other on the coaches actual success. My only beef was with the classification of Johnson as one-and-done.

I think the entire attempt at awarding a coach of the year award is misguided, because nobody is accurately able to assess how much of the team's success is due to the coach, and how much is due to the player. It's further muddled when you consider all the areas that you could consider to be part of coaching (i.e., recruiting, practice, in-game, etc). The award is highly subjective.

Boeheim won the award because people thought his team would be a borderline top-25 team, and it ended up a Top-5 team. People expected Georgetown to be a top-20 team, and they slightly exceeded expectations to be a top-15 team. People expected WVU to be a top-10 team, and they also exceeded expectations to be a top-5 team.

I don't have an opinion of whether Boeheim deserved the award or not (Coach of the Year, by the subjective nature of the award, is an award I just don't care much about). But that's why he won it, and that's why Huggins and Thompson didn't win it. Boeheim's team exceeded expectations much more than Huggins team or Thompson's team.

First, let me say that Kentucky's loss to W Va and Duke's loss to Georgetown were much worse losses than those you mentioned by Georgetown. Absolutely.

Kentucky's loss was by much more than 7. They were had, beaten seven ways from Sunday. They were assembled to win a championship and could not think their way out of anything that Huggins' team threw at them. They were defeated at all aspects of the game, with the exception of Cousin's inside play. They got whipped badly; Joe-Mizzola-going-coast-to-coast-multiple-times-with-no-one-putting-a-glove-within-ten-feet-of-him whipped. Missing-wide-open-threes-by-the-bucketful whipped because the defense dictated which spots those shots could come from and Kentucky's stars were incapable of playing when the defense dictated to them. Incapable of adjusting when the Show was on the line.

By contrast, K had Zoubek and Miles prepared to catch high in the paint or on the foul line and distribute. You see that before the Baylor game. Nope. Somehow, without the multiple screen game to set up beating the defense to the offensive boards, Duke had how many offensive rebounds? Coaching.

K did not give Z the determination to perform like a madman, just the opportunity. An opportunity that Z took to and became a fan hero and a difference maker. Just a lucky guess by you.

Singler was playing terribly from a classic exterior set up for a 3 and K changed it. Had him running inside out like nobody's business, like nobody in the game but Rip Hamilton, and it just happens to work. Lucky again. Jezz, let's take him to Vegas, not Indianappolis.

Now, except for my belief that K deliberately undervalued Georgetown because he WANTED Georgia Tech, by any measure Duke got undressed by Georgetown. There was NOTHING that Duke could do to stop Georgetown from scoring anyway they wanted. NOTHING. They were helpless. Again, I think that K knows that getting amped for a game can and almost certainly will in mid-season cost you the next game with big time schedules being the way they are and was happy to present his players with the opportunity to just play and see what happens against Georgetown. He wanted Georgia Tech. But, if you discount that, Georgetown dominated Duke, dominated them. No ifs, ands, or buts. I think K strategically treated it like a throw away game, and had his team ready to thrown down on the bullies of the ACC and they did, serving notice on the likes of Miami, Clemson, State, etc, that there was a new toughest guy in town. Coaching!

I didn't follow your list of Georgetown losses but those games were meaningless in the context of a team that couldn't get arrested the second half of the season last year, lost its leading scorer, and had no one of note coming in. Georgetown played great ball, albeit with let downs, throughout the season, including I think was a five-game losing streak, or effectively so, when its leading scorer was finding out that he was a type 1 diabetic. Sorry, amazing coaching job here, CDu, no other way to understand it.

I am not putting Boeheim down, nor am I putting down the one-and-doner. I think the latter was the best player in the Big East and Boeheim year in and year out one of its best coaches.

For the things that I like about the game, JTIII is probably my pick for the best coach in the game. Sue me. I'm in the bag for him. I think he coached like it this season. I think that K did better.

You think that Syracuse plays it straight up: I don't. I think that it infects every sport that they do well or want to. Boeheim wins a championship with Mello; the LAX coach gets to activate a guy who is academically ineligible until the school year ends and the kid wins them a national championship. I don't know what to say about the Paulus thing, I really don't. I better not try.

So, maybe Johnson really is part of the Syracuse program and not a hired gun. Who knows and who cares. When someone buys a Championship one time, one time is enough for me. I am glad that Syracuse didn't win again. I don't think that they were that good, that they performed that well, or that they were particularly well coached. Heck, even their fabled Syracuse zone was demonstrably subpar, and they lost early in the two tournaments that are the showcase for a successful season. that, to me, is the list.

[CDu]

first, let me say that Kentucky's loss to W Va and Duke's loss to Georgetown were much worse losses than those you mentioned by Georgetown. Absolutely.

You are simply not going to convince me that a 7-point loss (or even a 16-point loss, which was the largest margin) to an elite team like WVU is worse than a 14-point loss (or 17-point loss, which was the largest margin) to a #14 seed. Sorry, that just does not compute.

Similarly, it's not worse than losing by 8, at home, to a team that doesn't make the tournament (USF) - especially when you led by 9 at the half! It's also not worse than losing by 14 at home to a mediocre team (Notre Dame) playing without their best player. It's also not worse than losing to a team that went under .500 this year (Rutgers).

Yes, the UK loss was a terrible game by UK. And we had a terrible game at Georgetown. Those four losses I presented above for Georgetown are as bad or worse (mostly worse). When you consider margin of victory (or largest in-game margin), quality of opponent, and location of game played, I honestly don't see a reasonable argument in your favor on this one.


You think that Syracuse plays it straight up: I don't.

I don't know why you'd conclude I think Syracuse plays it straight up. I've never suggested anything like that. I've never said anything either way about how Syracuse plays it. All I said that I don't think it's fair to say that Johnson was a hired gun, any moreso than it is to say that Curry is a hired gun. You've made an assumption about my opinion of Boeheim/Syracuse that is faulty. Georgetown comes out worst on at least 2 of 3 in each of those categories across the board in any comparison other than the Rutgers game, and I'm giving a huge penalty because it is a terrible Rutgers team.

[greybeard]

Well done, CDu, a pleasure kicking it around with you. I thought Georgetown was done before the season. Didn't know that the experts had them as a top 20.

While Monroe has many talents, he has no, and I do mean no, jump shot. He cannot catch in the low post with his back to the basket, fake going to his right, pivot on his left foot, and hit a 7 foot jump shot. Every center in high school has that shot. He doesn't. Nor can he shoot facing up, from any distance.

Who else did Georgetown have. Freeman showed the previous year as an overweight, out of position, over-hyped guard. Their point, I'm blocking here, seemed to have no feel for the passing game, a scoring guard in the body of a free safety, but too short to play the 2. The sophomore guard as a freshman could not dribble it up the court under pressure, and could not make a layup. That was all they had, and all they had coming back.

When a thin team transforms into a team that can take down Duke, Syracuse, Villinova, and other Big East powers, I'm not buying that their losses to lesser teams in the pressure cooker of a Big East season has any bearing on whether their coach did a stellar job, especially given Freeman's illness which I'm sure had impact way before he crashed. Nor do I think that those losses were seen by the experts as being of moment. Georgetown did get a 3 seed.

On the other hand, your perspectives are always grounded in a heavy dose of imperical analysis, which, from what little I know of it, puts you more in line with how most coaches function than anything that I put forth. I see how players and teams present, for lack of a better term, thematically--what is it about a player or team's approach that strikes me as effective.

Sorry for putting words in your mouth. Interesting to see how I can misunderstand clearly presented ideas when presented by someone who thinks in terms, in a language if you will, that is different than mine.

In no small part because of folks like you, I would really like to see Duke win this thing. Later.

[CDu]

Who else did Georgetown have. Freeman showed the previous year as an overweight, out of position, over-hyped guard. Their point, I'm blocking here, seemed to have no feel for the passing game, a scoring guard in the body of a free safety, but too short to play the 2. The sophomore guard as a freshman could not dribble it up the court under pressure, and could not make a layup. That was all they had, and all they had coming back.

Georgetown wasn't deep, but their top-4 were all very strong. And they had a couple of decent role players.

Chris Wright was one of the best players in the Big East. He was a very good player as a sophomore, and an even better player as a junior. The guy averaged 16 points, 4 assists, 3 rebounds, and 1.5 steals per game, with a 1.79 A/TO ratio. When he played with confidence, the guy was as good as any PG in the conference.

Monroe couldn't shoot. But he could do just about everything else extremely well. He could beat you off the dribble like a guard. He could finish around the rim. He could pass as well as any big man in college basketball. He could rebound with the best of them. You've focused on his one limitation, but neglected all of his strengths.

Freeman went from being talented but out of shape to really dedicating himself this season. The results showed. He was a force all season. The kid could shoot (44% from 3, 52.5% overall). At 6'3" 225, he's not small for a SG (at least at the college level). It's a shame that he has developed diabetes, though that's not the death knell of a career that it maybe used to be. With diet, exercise and/or medicine, there's no reason he can't continue to be a top division-1 athlete.

Clark is a quick wing with great shooting touch (42% 3s, 47% fg) and double-digit scoring (10.5 ppg), and a penchant for steals. As a fourth option, they don't come much better.

And they got solid contributions from role players Vaughn and Thompson. Those guys didn't put up huge numbers, but you don't need double-digit scorers when you have two All-Big East players, a third guy who could make a case for the honor, and a fourth double digit scorer.


When a thin team transforms into a team that can take down Duke, Syracuse, Villinova, and other Big East powers, I'm not buying that their losses to lesser teams in the pressure cooker of a Big East season has any bearing on whether their coach did a stellar job, especially given Freeman's illness which I'm sure had impact way before he crashed. Nor do I think that those losses were seen by the experts as being of moment. Georgetown did get a 3 seed.

I'd think that every game has bearing on how a coach did as a coach. Those losses definitely factored into the committee's votes. Georgetown had the marquee wins to have been a #1 or #2 seed had they not had down games against inferior opponents.

I'm not saying Thompson did a terrible job. I'm not making any grade on Thompson's performance. I'm just saying that those losses (along with the blowout loss to Ohio) were as bad or worse than the UK loss to WVU and Duke's loss to Georgetown. We can disagree on whether you think Thompson did a fantastic coaching job. That's your opinion, and as I said the topic is so subjective anyway. But empirically speaking, those four losses were as bad or worse than the UK and Duke losses you referenced.

[greybeard]

I don't discount all the things that Monroe does terrifically well.

The one thing that he didn't provide was a bail out player as the shot ran down because he had a subpar low post game. They had no one else to go to down low to bang in points when the guys on the exterior were off or smothered. Also, unlike Jeff Green, he had no off hand to speak of, and without a jump shot from 17, he was also not a reliable bail out guy from that position either, although he got to the basket amazingly well.

I suppose that's what I meant by being thin, that and no scorer to bring off the bench.

BTW, picture Monroe shooting a foul shot and recall how much he cocks his head to look at the basket. That can't help but throw his weight back on his heals. Shooting coaches try to compensate by having such shooters plant their year foot further back than normal. I think that Monroe would be helped dramatically if he could address, with some assistance, the head-cock issue directly. It might give him the possibility of the jump shot he lacks.

[Devilsfan]

I watched Boeheim after his ouster from the tournament. He seemed to snub the opposing coach. I heard where one of the coaches in the tournament had family members including a young son yell obsenities when things didn't go there way but I thought that was someone in the South region. If this were the case Boeheim's actions are understandable. If not why would he appear as such a jerk on National TV?

[BD80]

I watched Boeheim after his ouster from the tournament. He seemed to snub the opposing coach. I heard where one of the coaches in the tournament had family members including a young son yell obsenities when things didn't go there way but I thought that was someone in the South region. If this were the case Boeheim's actions are understandable. If not why would he appear as such a jerk on National TV?

He shook the coach's hand. Any time the coaches spend chatting delays the handshake line and the celebration by the winning team.

[greybeard]

Georgetown wasn't deep, but their top-4 were all very strong. And they had a couple of decent role players.



Most of what you say about the players, the strong four, proves my point.

Wright is a scorer with a good, not great shot, whose biggest strength is his extraoridinary strength and ability to get to the basket off the bounce. HOWEVER, in my opinion, he lacks the intuition/vision to utilize and create space and is subpar as a passer. These deficiencies are masked by his experience in the Princeton aspects of the offense, which he utilizes somewhat woodenly but, in doing so, can join in a team game. NOT the player whom you would want occupying the ball, but made passable (pun intended) by great coaching.

Freeman sees/creates and utilizes space to advantage himself and others extremely well, but not great. He is only a so so passer, but that might be because he emerged as a scorer extraordinaire for his size and position (forward) and JTIII desparately needed his scoring. A liability on defense and could be shut down by length and smarts. A team like SF predicably would create problems for him which would require JTIII to be pretty inventive to shake him free. Much better as a two, but that's all they got.

Clark I like a lot, but he was so terrible his freshman year and still has perspective and poise deficiencies that again JTIII did a great job of buffering. I think that Clark is a poor man's Nolan Smith, whom, contrary to conventional wisdom, I think sees the possibilities in the passing game and utilizes space on an extremely, extremely high leve. As nuts as I am for Singler, when it's all done, Smith might be the very best pro produced by Duke in many years. Clark, on the other hand, has the ability to lose concentration, as he did in the final moments of the Big East tournament when he shot a pro 3 early in the clock because he was hot and lost it to addrenilin. He missed badly and the game was lost.

So, how did JTIII make up for these deficiencies, why he took his center away from the basket even when he didn't want to and had Monroe create. Monroe sees the game, utilizes and creates space, has imagination to see the possible for others before they do and lead them to it, better than any big in the game and as well as anyone of any size, Wall included (no, I did not say that he is Wall's equal as a playmaker).

But, JTIII could not deploy Monroe as a high post center in the traditional Princeton way, see Jeff Green, because Monroe had no shot and could not go right.

So, how JTIII coached em up to have Monroe play with such diversity within each set as the situation dictated and to have everyone on the same page beats me and just about every high-end team that Georgeotown played.

He did it with players not one of whom besides Monroe would have started for Duke, Maryland, GT, and every other power team in the Big East. Not one of them on not one of those teams. This is a pretty remarkable achievement.

CDu, you still fail to account for Freeman's illness. How many of those losses would you think were affected by Freeman's failing health before he knew about it and his adjustment to his new life on metabolic roller coaster?

Finally, I think JTIII and his team wanted the Big East Championship, and wanted it very badly. Unless he was dellussional, he knew his team had no shot at the final four or anywhere close. He set his sights on the Big East title and you will recall what my take is when a team gets so amped for any single game.

That Big East final might well be the best-played game by both teams involved thus far in the season, which is pretty far done. Georgetown was there at the end against a team that I long have had being the last team standing, that's my head talking, in April. But for an addrenilin rush by a sophomore who, in the best of all worlds, would not have even been on the floor in such a moment, Georgetown might well have pulled it off and beat West Virginia which has not played as well since, Kentucky included.

In sum, JTIII did a terrific job in taking a team that was a complete mess at the end of last season and with shoe strings and wire cobbled together a group who on any given night could take anyone down. They did, felling any number of top 10teams, including Boeheim's Syracuse who, despite their experienced make up, got outmaneuvered down the stretch. Give the guy the luv he deserves.

[CDu]

Most of what you say about the players, the strong four, proves my point.


I think you're underrating the talent (and the combination of talent) on Georgetown, and as such overrating the performance coach. He's a very good coach, but Georgetown also has very good talent. I think you're being deceived by what was an underachieving team last year finding itself this year. This was a team with top-20 talent that ended the season with a top-15 result. Last year, it was a team with at least top-20 talent that happened to underachieve to basically a .500 season.

And I believe I mentioned Freeman's illness in each of my previous posts, so no I did not fail to account for it. Was the diabetes a major factor in the losses? I'd say maybe the Notre Dame loss and the WVU loss (in which he didn't play). But his performance in the USF game was terrific, and he was solid in the Rutgers loss as well. And he'd been diagnosed, presumably began treatment, and had 2-3 weeks before the Ohio loss. There are many many athletes that compete at a high level with diabetes. And he'd played well in games following the diagnosis. So no, I don't believe it was a major factor in the team's losses to USF, Rutgers, or Ohio.

Obviously, this discussion isn't going to go anywhere. As I said, measuring a coach's performance is just so subjective that there's no right answer - just opinions. So I'll leave it at that.

[greybeard]

I think you're underrating the talent (and the combination of talent) on Georgetown, and as such overrating the performance coach. He's a very good coach, but Georgetown also has very good talent. I think you're being deceived by what was an underachieving team last year finding itself this year. This was a team with top-20 talent that ended the season with a top-15 result. Last year, it was a team with at least top-20 talent that happened to underachieve to basically a .500 season.

And I believe I mentioned Freeman's illness in each of my previous posts, so no I did not fail to account for it. Was the diabetes a major factor in the losses? I'd say maybe the Notre Dame loss and the WVU loss (in which he didn't play). But his performance in the USF game was terrific, and he was solid in the Rutgers loss as well. And he'd been diagnosed, presumably began treatment, and had 2-3 weeks before the Ohio loss. There are many many athletes that compete at a high level with diabetes. And he'd played well in games following the diagnosis. So no, I don't believe it was a major factor in the team's losses to USF, Rutgers, or Ohio.

Obviously, this discussion isn't going to go anywhere. As I said, measuring a coach's performance is just so subjective that there's no right answer - just opinions. So I'll leave it at that.

So, which top four team in the Big East does anybody but Monroe start for? Which ACC team, Duke, Maryland, Georgia Tech. Name a single player. Name a bench player on Georgetown that gets a minute on any of those teams.

You do not address this issue but insist that the personnel is better than I say.

Who is anything remotely like a one guard who plays for Georgetown accept Monroe? Who is an above average passer. Where is the foot speed at the forward position? Rebounding? Who is a great shooter? Who is among the top 10 as a shooter in the Big East. Overrated my foot.

I know the problem, you can't take a compliment.

Is Chris Wright in the same universe as Nolan? Freeman outplayed Singler. You want to trade? Tell me really that Clark and Scheyer belong in the same sentence. After that, the comparisons get downright laughable. Vaughn does not make the Duke varsity. Not on the team. He starts for Georgetown and gets huge minutes. Somebody on their bench compare, no wrong word, belongs on the court with either Plumlee, Dawkins, or Ryan, all of whom start for Georgetown and probably two of whom lead it in scoring.

Done being nice, CDu. Duke's second team, you take Monroe away, beats Georgetown 9 out of 10. Done.

[CDu]

So, which top four team in the Big East does anybody but Monroe start for? Which ACC team, Duke, Maryland, Georgia Tech. Name a single player. Name a bench player on Georgetown that gets a minute on any of those teams.

Freeman could start for Pittsburgh and West Virginia. Both would kill for his shooting touch. Wright would start for Syracuse, Pitt, or West Virginia, none of whom start a PG in his caliber. In the ACC, either of those two could start for Maryland or Georgia Tech easily (but likely not both together).

As for the bench, Vaughn got minutes when he was at FSU as a freshman, and would certainly get 15-20 minutes for Maryland. He might even break into the rotation at Duke as well - he's in about the same category as Miles. He's certainly not needed at Duke or Georgia Tech, but that's a function of positional needs rather than his ability.


Who is anything remotely like a one guard who plays for Georgetown accept Monroe? Who is an above average passer.

Chris Wright is very much like a PG and definitely an above average passer (4.1 assists per game, 1.79 A/TO).


Who is a great shooter? Who is among the top 10 as a shooter in the Big East. Overrated my foot.

Clark (42% 3pt), Freeman (44% 3pt), and Thompson (44% 3pt) are, I'm quite sure, among the top 3pt shooters in the Big East. You don't have a leg to stand on here, greybeard. Georgetown was a terrific shooting team.


Is Chris Wright in the same universe as Nolan? Freeman outplayed Singler. You want to trade? Tell me really that Clark and Scheyer belong in the same sentence. After that, the comparisons get downright laughable. Vaughn does not make the Duke varsity. Not on the team. He starts for Georgetown and gets huge minutes. Somebody on their bench compare, no wrong word, belongs on the court with either Plumlee, Dawkins, or Ryan, all of whom start for Georgetown and probably two of whom lead it in scoring.

I don't want to trade Singler for Freeman or Smith for Wright. But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Just because I'd take our wings over their wings doesn't mean that Georgetown didn't have very good talent. We had arguably the best trio of wing players in the country. I think perhaps that is the problem - you're setting a very high bar of comparison by comparing to Duke's wings. Wright and Freeman are REALLY good players, and would start and make a big impact on most teams in the country (even the really good ones).

And Vaughn absolutely makes Duke's team and pretty much every team in the ACC. And he absolutely challenges for minutes. The only reason he wouldn't in the ACC is because we have so many very good big men. But he is an athletic 6'10" big who can score around the basket and block shots.

As I said, I think you are underrating the talent on Georgetown. Moreover, you're ignoring the way the talent fits well together (good lead guard who can create for others and himself, great shooters on the wings, incredibly talented big man who can score inside, drive from the perimeter, or create for others).

I'm sorry that you don't see it.


Done being nice, CDu. Duke's second team, you take Monroe away, beats Georgetown 9 out of 10. Done.

I'm not sure why it matters that Duke's second team beats Georgetown 9 out of 10. Neither team really plays their second team.

But regardless, I'm done talking about this with you. It's a waste of my time arguing about our perceptions of a player and coach that I really don't care that much about.

[greybeard]

Freeman could start for Pittsburgh and West Virginia. Both would kill for his shooting touch. Wright would start for Syracuse, Pitt, or West Virginia, none of whom start a PG in his caliber. In the ACC, either of those two could start for Maryland or Georgia Tech easily (but likely not both together)..

Cool aid. Real nonsense.


As for the bench, Vaughn got minutes when he was at FSU as a freshman, and would certainly get 15-20 minutes for Maryland. He might even break into the rotation at Duke as well - he's in about the same category as Miles. He's certainly not needed at Duke or Georgia Tech, but that's a function of positional needs rather than his ability.

He was dreadful his first year and scored the ballsome this year but only in games when no one guarded him because people were tripling on Monroe. He had some decent games but as a reliable player was a no show. Miles shoots the ball a million times better than Vaughn. In fact, I believe that if Miles does not hit that jump shot 2 or 3 times tonight, Duke is in trouble, but that is beside the point. He is a very good jump shooter for a center; just does not get a chance to show it in this offense, in my opinion. Miles gets off the floor at least 20 inches higher than Vaughn, and has forgotten more about the game than Vaughn knows. Once Duke's offense goes conventional next year, I expect that even you will eat your words, which is saying something.



Chris Wright is very much like a PG and definitely an above average passer (4.1 assists per game, 1.79 A/TO).

The mindless and disingenuous use of statistic that proves exactly nothing. Anyone who takes it to the hole as much as Wright will of necessity lay it off for easy baskets. That has nothing to do with being able to pass the ball in the flow of an offense, something which every guard at Maryland was very good at, Greivis great at, when he was a mind to be. Wright does not understand that part of the game. He was an undersized 2 in high school, remained that in college even when JTIII had to give the ball to Sapp to run the show as his only other option. You sure you are not just arguing for the sake of it?



Clark (42% 3pt), Freeman (44% 3pt), and Thompson (44% 3pt) are, I'm quite sure, among the top 3pt shooters in the Big East. You don't have a leg to stand on here, greybeard. Georgetown was a terrific shooting team.

In an offense like the Princeton that is built on the 3-ball and on a team like Georgetown which was built around Monroe, a great set up passer and drawer of double teams, they could shoot. My bad for overstating the case. I saw too often all three of the starters miss key 3s to be impressed with them as shooters. Score one for you., sort of. Yeah, they could shoot in Duke's offensive scheme only Wright could not play in it (see comments about his lack of aptitude for the passing game) and the kid plays too loose. Freeman could contribute and would be valuable as a bench player, perhaps extremely.

JTIII took four players who couldn't get arrested for stealing last year, that would be in order of ineptitude, Vaughn, Clark, Freeman, and Wright, and found a way to deploy them that had them shinning against some of the very best teams in the nation, which is why I found his performance this year as a coach up there with the best.


I don't want to trade Singler for Freeman or Smith for Wright. But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Just because I'd take our wings over their wings doesn't mean that Georgetown didn't have very good talent. We had arguably the best trio of wing players in the country. I think perhaps that is the problem - you're setting a very high bar of comparison by comparing to Duke's wings. Wright and Freeman are REALLY good players, and would start and make a big impact on most teams in the country (even the really good ones).

And Vaughn absolutely makes Duke's team and pretty much every team in the ACC. And he absolutely challenges for minutes. The only reason he wouldn't in the ACC is because we have so many very good big men. But he is an athletic 6'10" big who can score around the basket and block shots.

As I said, I think you are underrating the talent on Georgetown. Moreover, you're ignoring the way the talent fits well together (good lead guard who can create for others and himself, great shooters on the wings, incredibly talented big man who can score inside, drive from the perimeter, or create for others). .

This argument is beyond bizzare. You imply by your silence that Syracuse was all that and that Boeheim was deservedly the coach of the year and yet you believe that Boeheim would have started either of these guys over Triche, Rautins, and Jackson, especially when length is key to everything that Syracuse is on defense,. Again, you cannot be serious, and must be just playing provocator, for whatever reasons. No other way to look at it. bTW, Rautins shoots with anybody and at a 6' 8" sometime point, sees and directs the game better than anybody in the big East but Monroe. Jackson is POTY material and Triche is a 6'5" warrier/athlete. Bizzare.

You similarly impy that Villinova would have broken up its backcourt for either of these guys but that is just nuts. Crazy nuts.

Who else did I mention. Oh, Maryland. Wright or Freeman are going to replace exactly whom? Hayes. Come on! The guy was a clutch three ball shooter, played wonderfully off the ball, and was the perfect complement to Vasquez. You do recall how he continually tore Duke apart by diving to the basket in off-side riffs that lead to many layups, some remarkably, remarkably clever and athletic. He was untouchable. Let me just name the others, Mosley, Bowie, and Tucker, all of whom are much longer than Wright and much, much more athletic than Freeman and who are more versatile and better rebounders and defenders than both the Georgetown guards. These gys are wonderfully athletic and sized and built to play the game in ways that Wright and Freeman simply are not, not without a coach who did a ridiculously great job in deploying them, which was and remains my point.

You have already concded that they don't hold a candle to any of the Duke 3 in any category.

If you think that Huggins would sit one of his bigs in lieu of either of these guys you simply do not understand who are what Duke is about to face. Marquez, if that how you spell his name, is a wonderful spirit, is as tough as nails, and will do whatever it takes to win. He destroyed the most vaunted backcourt in the game, and just happens to be a Duke killer, if memory serves.

As for Vaughn, he is not in the same universe as the Plumlees, forget about Duke's starters. Ryan would make him look sick.


I'm not sure why it matters that Duke's second team beats Georgetown 9 out of 10. Neither team really plays their second team..

Cute! What I said is that Duke's second team, the Plumlees, Ryan, and Dawkins, beats Georgetown's starters 9 out of 10 times, sans Monroe. In other words, JTIII did a tremendous job in coaching a team to a smashing victory against Duke when 4 of its starter get whipped by Duke's bench players.

Again, all this stems from my belief that JTIII did a tremendous job coaching this year, which you for some bizzare reason chose to take issue with and persist in pursuing even though you maintain that you don't care about the issue. Say what. Wouldn't be so bad but you go off and make wrong headed points without even attempting to connect them to the issue at hand, which is JTIII and the job he did this season.


But regardless, I'm done talking about this with you. It's a waste of my time arguing about our perceptions of a player and coach that I really don't care that much about..

Now you're done.

[CDu]

Greybeard, as I said, I'm done talking with you about this. For the reasons I've stated, I think you undervalue the talents of Georgetown's players. If you refuse to believe the stats and would rather base it solely on your subjective evaluations and your fanhood for Thompson (and he's a terrific coach, don't get me wrong), there's nothing I can do to stop you.

But please refrain, in the future, from calling my thoughts crazy nuts, nonsense, or mindless. That insults both my intelligence and knowledge/passion for the game, and it should be below you. And also, please stop misstating my posts. I didn't say Georgetown's two best wings couldn't hold a candle to our big 3. I just said ours were better. There are grays in life, greybeard. Not just extremes. Also, I believe I'm on record IN THIS THREAD as having said that the Coach's award is a silly subjective thing, and all Boeheim did was coach a team that people misevuated. I'm not sure how you've turned that into me loving what Boeheim did.

I've said from the beginning that it is impossible to evaluate a coach's performance, because so much is subjective. One key part is that subjectivity of the rating of players (where we clearly differ in our rating). I think Thompson is a terrific coach. But I also think you're undervaluing the talent he had to work with. He had two all-Big East players, a third guy who should have been all-Big East, and three solid complements to those big three.

I'll leave it at that, because from past experience nothing positive comes out of this when things get rude.

[greybeard]

Greybeard, as I said, I'm done talking with you about this. For the reasons I've stated, I think you undervalue the talents of Georgetown's players. If you refuse to believe the stats and would rather base it solely on your subjective evaluations and your fanhood for Thompson (and he's a terrific coach, don't get me wrong), there's nothing I can do to stop you.

But please refrain, in the future, from calling my thoughts crazy nuts, nonsense, or mindless. That insults both my intelligence and knowledge/passion for the game, and it should be below you. And also, please stop misstating my posts. I didn't say Georgetown's big 3 couldn't hold a candle to our big 3. I just said ours were better. There are grays in life, greybeard. Not just extremes.

I've said from the beginning that it is impossible to evaluate a coach's performance, because so much is subjective. One key part is that subjectivity of the rating of players (where we clearly differ in our rating). I think Thompson is a terrific coach. But I also think you're undervaluing the talent he had to work with. He had two all-Big East players, a third guy who should have been all-Big East, and three solid complements to those big three.

I'll leave it at that, because from past experience nothing positive comes out of this when things get rude.

If you're done, be done. I think that you have been overly aggressive about a matter that you profess not to care about and have cherry picked points that you attempt to refute by rhetorical manipulations. It's time to stop, and I am glad that you have decided to.

[CDu]

If you're done, be done. I think that you have been overly aggressive about a matter that you profess not to care about and have cherry picked points that you attempt to refute by rhetorical manipulations. It's time to stop, and I am glad that you have decided to.

I'm sorry that you take disagreement to be me being overly aggressive. I thought these boards were meant for constructive debate and sharing of ideas/opinions (even if they differ). I'm also sorry that you felt the need to insult my thoughts simply because we have a disagreement on the quality of the Georgetown players. And with that, I'm done (really done).

[greybeard]

I'm sorry that you take disagreement to be me being overly aggressive. I thought these boards were meant for constructive debate and sharing of ideas/opinions (even if they differ). I'm also sorry that you felt the need to insult my thoughts simply because we have a disagreement on the quality of the Georgetown players. And with that, I'm done (really done).

Me too. We'll do better the next time, hopefully in celebration.