PDA

View Full Version : Second best coach



Olympic Fan
08-05-2010, 11:25 AM
Provocative title to this thread, which I assume was started to praise Izzo for having the balls to boot a productive player.

I'd feel a lot more comfortable praising him for this if I knew what Allen did. On the surface, it appears to be gutsy to dismiss a player who might make the difference between winning a national title or falling short. But if we knew the reasons behind it, we might say he had no choice (perhaps multiple failed drug tests) or that Izzo overreacted (maybe he thought Allen was a cancer in locker room and pushed him out -- although the kid's classy reaction to his dismissal makes me doubt that).

The point is that we don't know. I would tend to give Izzo the benefit of the doubt because as far as I know, he's been a straight shooter. Even if it was a no-brainer, there are coaches wouldn't wouldn't have acted correctly (and, yes, I'm talking to you Jim Calhoun).

That aside, there's the issue of the second-best coach alive. It's probably worth another whole thread to debate this question. I actually think the question should be rephrased:

(1) First, to say the second-best men's Division 1 coach alive -- to avoid all side arguments about Pat Summitt, Gino Aueri-however-you-spell-it, etc.

(2) Second, it should be the second-best ACTIVE Division 1 coach. Bob Knight is the second best living men's college basketball. And, whether we like him or not, Dean Smith is third. Actually, K was the second greatest living men's college coach before John Wooden's recent death.

Okay, now that we've defined terms, does Izzo rank second to K?

Good question and worthy of debate. Let's see, if you rank it by national titles:

4 -- K
2 -- Roy Williams, Jim Calhoun, Billy Donovan
1 -- Tom Izzo, Jim Boeheim, Rick Pitino, Tubby Smith, Gary Williams, Bill Self, Steve Fisher

I may have missed one, but I think that's all the active coaches with titles. Let's go to Final Fours:

11 -- Mike Krzyzewski (all at Duke)
7 -- Roy Williams (four at Kansas; three at UNC)
6 -- Tom Izzo (all at MSU)
5 -- Rick Pitino (one at Providence, three at Kentucky, one at Louisville
3 -- Billy Donovan (all at Florida), Jim Calhoun (all at UConn)

NCAA wins

77 -- Mike Krzyzewski
55 -- Roy Williams
44 -- Jim Boeheim
43 -- Jim Calhoun
38 -- Rick Pitino
35 -- Tom Izzo

Overall wins

868 -- K
829 -- Boeheim
823 -- Calhoun
670 -- Huggins
649 -- Gary Williams
only active coaches in the top 30 alltime ... also:
614 -- Roy Williams
572 -- Rick Pitino
364 -- Tom Izzo

One more note --
With his dismal 2010 season, Roy Williams lost his spot as the top active coach in terms of winning percentage. He fell to .798 (614-155) behind Mark Few .804 (291=73). For the record, Coach K is seventh on this list and Izzo doesn't make the top 15 (neither do Calhoun or Boeheim).

So putting it together, what do we get?

Personally, I wouldn't include a cheating scumbag in the calculations (and, yes, I still mean you Jim Calhoun). But I think most of the other coaches on the list have been reasonably straight shooters (notice that with his two vacated Final Fours, a certain Kentucky coach doesn't even get in the discussion).

I think the debate for the second-best active men's coach comes down to Boeheim or Roy Williams -- ahead of Izzo.

I know somebody will argue for Izzo's recent 12-year-NCAA run -- commentators like to make a lot of the fact that he's reached the Final Four six times in the last 12 years. That is impressive.

But what if we accept that 12-year timetable and rank coaches according to their NCAA success over the last 12 years -- which has got to be the most favorable way to measure Izzo.

He does have those six Final Fours -- more than any other coach. But Roy has five Final Fours in that span (two at Kansas and three at UNC). K has four Final Fours.

And both K and Roy have two national titles in that span (so do Calhoun and Donovan) -- twice as many as Izzo. Both K and Roy have more NCAA wins that Izzo over that 12-year span. K has more Sweet 16s than any other coach in that period.

So even if we restrict it to Izzo's best 12-year run, he still finishes behind K and Roy ... and that discounts two national titles and seven Final Fours for K and two extra Final Fours for Roy.

If I'm ranking active men's college coaches, based on their career accomplishments, I'd rank:

(1) Coach K
(2) Roy Williams
(3) Jim Beoheim
(4) Tom Izzo
(5) (hold my nose for the next two picks) Rick Pitino
(6) Jim Calhoun
(7) Billy Donovan
(8) Gary Williams

Jay Wright is a promising up-and-comer. So is Mark Few, Brad Stevens and Bruce Pearl. I like and respect them all. If you were asking who I would hire today to run my program, I'd have a different list (probably Stevens would be my first pick).

But in terms of career accomplishments, they don't enter the discussion.

-jk
08-05-2010, 11:57 AM
OF's right - it deserves it's own thread, removed from the Allen/Izzo discussion.

-jk

jipops
08-05-2010, 04:16 PM
Is there any way to measure a list of best coaches besides numbers in titles, wins, Sweet 16 appearances, etc...? This obviously gets to subjectiveness but as an example: how many of you here would NOT take the coaching mind and abilities of Gary Williams over that of Roy Williams? I think my point is, there are coaches out there with greater abilities and less accomplishments than those with greater accomplishments based on more glamorous criteria.

sagegrouse
08-06-2010, 09:03 AM
Is there any way to measure a list of best coaches besides numbers in titles, wins, Sweet 16 appearances, etc...? This obviously gets to subjectiveness but as an example: how many of you here would NOT take the coaching mind and abilities of Gary Williams over that of Roy Williams? I think my point is, there are coaches out there with greater abilities and less accomplishments than those with greater accomplishments based on more glamorous criteria.

Yep. The problem is that Boeheim has been a head coach since the 1970s; ditto K. Roy since the late 1980s. I would standardize a ranking of head coaches today, while many are still in their prime, by looking at the last ten or 12 years.

Now after all current coaches have retired, it would be OK to look at lifetime accomplishments.

sagegrouse

Duvall
08-06-2010, 09:05 AM
Is there any way to measure a list of best coaches besides numbers in titles, wins, Sweet 16 appearances, etc...? This obviously gets to subjectiveness but as an example: how many of you here would NOT take the coaching mind and abilities of Gary Williams over that of Roy Williams? I think my point is, there are coaches out there with greater abilities and less accomplishments than those with greater accomplishments based on more glamorous criteria.

You can look at whatever time horizon you like. But unless you limit it to one year, I'm not sure you'll find one that supports your preference for Gary Williams over Roy Williams. Recruiting is the most important part of college basketball coaching, and Roy is much better at it than Gary, and that's why he's won more.

Olympic Fan
08-06-2010, 09:57 AM
You can look at whatever time horizon you like. But unless you limit it to one year, I'm not sure you'll find one that supports your preference for Gary Williams over Roy Williams. Recruiting is the most important part of college basketball coaching, and Roy is much better at it than Gary, and that's why he's won more.

Duvall, excellent point.

It's always amazed me when fans try to define coacing to one part of the job.

Yes, Gary is a better x and o guy than Roy. But Roy is a much better recruiter than Gary. And John Calipari is a better recruiter than Roy.

So what?

I'm not sure who is the best teacher. Who is the best manager? Who is the best at inspiring the best from his players?

Coaching involves a lot of skills and the best coaches are the ones who understand their strengths and weaknesses and use their staffs to strengthen their weak spots.

So how do we determine who is the "best" coach?

All I can go by are results -- and by that measure, Roy Williams is the second best coach working today. Sagegrouse, you suggest that longevity gives guys like K and Roy and Boeheim an edge -- and you're right. But when you suggest a 10-12 year period, I'm not sure that changes much -- especially in regard to Roy Williams and Gary Williams.

In fact, I looked at the last 12 years (because that's the time period when Tom Izzo has excelled) and found that the three most successful coaches over that period are (in order) 1- Coach K; 2 - Roy Williams; 3-Tom Izzo. If I took it farther, I'd probably go 4 - Calhoun; 5 - Donovan; 6 - Boeheim; 7 - Gary Williams (I admit that the last two are very close, but Boeheim has been a bit more consistent).

Yes, Gary Williams gets more for less ... but it's ridiculous how much less he has. Maryland should be bringing in much more talent than it does, especially in the wake of their 2002 national title. Gary gets as much blame for his mediocre recruiting as he does for his excellent "coaching".

dougc33
08-06-2010, 12:18 PM
Even bigger than longitudinal issues is the geography issues, specifically:

- How easy is it to recruit to MSU v Syracuse v UNC v Duke? and the corallary,
- What role did the coach in question have in establishing that ease?





Duvall, excellent point.

It's always amazed me when fans try to define coacing to one part of the job.

Yes, Gary is a better x and o guy than Roy. But Roy is a much better recruiter than Gary. And John Calipari is a better recruiter than Roy.

So what?

I'm not sure who is the best teacher. Who is the best manager? Who is the best at inspiring the best from his players?

Coaching involves a lot of skills and the best coaches are the ones who understand their strengths and weaknesses and use their staffs to strengthen their weak spots.

So how do we determine who is the "best" coach?

All I can go by are results -- and by that measure, Roy Williams is the second best coach working today. Sagegrouse, you suggest that longevity gives guys like K and Roy and Boeheim an edge -- and you're right. But when you suggest a 10-12 year period, I'm not sure that changes much -- especially in regard to Roy Williams and Gary Williams.

In fact, I looked at the last 12 years (because that's the time period when Tom Izzo has excelled) and found that the three most successful coaches over that period are (in order) 1- Coach K; 2 - Roy Williams; 3-Tom Izzo. If I took it farther, I'd probably go 4 - Calhoun; 5 - Donovan; 6 - Boeheim; 7 - Gary Williams (I admit that the last two are very close, but Boeheim has been a bit more consistent).

Yes, Gary Williams gets more for less ... but it's ridiculous how much less he has. Maryland should be bringing in much more talent than it does, especially in the wake of their 2002 national title. Gary gets as much blame for his mediocre recruiting as he does for his excellent "coaching".

greybeard
08-06-2010, 12:24 PM
Yes, Gary Williams gets more for less ... but it's ridiculous how much less he has. Maryland should be bringing in much more talent than it does, especially in the wake of their 2002 national title. Gary gets as much blame for his mediocre recruiting as he does for his excellent "coaching".

I agree that Gary probably could have done better, but I would not say he is to blame for having not. I do not think that "Maryland should be bringing in much more talent than it does." But for the Lefty years, and then only his heyday, Maryland has never attracted super talent. Steve Francis was the one true super talent in the Williams era, save for Joe Smith, who was probably more surprise than anything.

Even Lefty, take away "the Elmore, McMillian, Lucas, Davis" cluster of years, and "Albert and Buck" mini cluster, and there really wasn't much there there even in Lefty's years when you think about it.

Never been to Chappel Hill or Duke, but they have to be nicer than College Park. Can we say "ugly campus" boys and girls. And, the new on-campus facility isn't actually on campus; that has to detract significantly from its appeal to recruits, at least I should think.

So, all-in-all, recruiting for Maryland as against many schools that present more attractively as a living environment/community, I think that you overestimate the extent to which Gary is actually falling short of where one would think a coach of his caliber should be in recruiting.

Especially in a world so fraught with potential poison as the current basketball environment poses, and Gary's aversion to getting too close to the fire, I think that he has performed as a steller coach, as the results of his last year's team evidences.

BD80
08-06-2010, 12:44 PM
...

So how do we determine who is the "best" coach?

All I can go by are results -- and by that measure, Roy Williams is the second best coach working today. ...

... I looked at the last 12 years (because that's the time period when Tom Izzo has excelled) and found that the three most successful coaches over that period are (in order) 1- Coach K; 2 - Roy Williams; 3-Tom Izzo. If I took it farther, I'd probably go 4 - Calhoun; 5 - Donovan; 6 - Boeheim; 7 - Gary Williams (I admit that the last two are very close, but Boeheim has been a bit more consistent). ...

Ol' roy was born on third and acts like he has hit a triple.

Great recruiter? Maybe. Where has he had to convince the kids to come?

KU and UNC.

Ever hear a question of whether a kid will qualify academically at either school?

Any question that KU boosters helped with recruiting?

I've heard it said that the mere image of MJ brings in kids to chapel hill.

Ol' roy's first title was hand delivered to him, he didn't recruit even one of those kids. 80% of the active coaches would have won the title with that team. The second title was deserved, but was due to three upperclassmen who should have / would have been gone.

Ol' roy has never "built" a program, he has taken over the helm of a couple of world class yachts and steered them to the finish line.

Even Calhoun deserves more credit than ol' roy. Boeheim deserves to be #3 - ever experience a winter in Syracuse? He built that program, and he doesn't have the proximity to NYC and ESPN that uCon has. Donovan got something started, but must prove it wasn't just a flash in the pan. Williams had to rebuild, but MD had some serious bball history and has rich recruiting grounds, he belongs at the bottom of this group.

Izzo has only won one title, but he was greatly responsible for the one credited to Heathcote (still alive). Izzo helped build the MSU program under Heathcote and has since turned it into a top 10 progam nationally. Izzo survived UM buying the best players in the area, and he recruits to a school with awful winters and is 1,000 miles from the nearest beach. Clearly #2 in my book.

just_wondering
08-06-2010, 03:27 PM
http://www.admissions.umd.edu/admissions/pdf/OUA_Campus_Map.pdf

You might argue that the city of College Park isn't attractive but the campus of the University is very attractive. According to the latest Princeton Review the athletic facilities are the best in the country. It has the longest on campus mall of any school in the country




I agree that Gary probably could have done better, but I would not say he is to blame for having not. I do not think that "Maryland should be bringing in much more talent than it does." But for the Lefty years, and then only his heyday, Maryland has never attracted super talent. Steve Francis was the one true super talent in the Williams era, save for Joe Smith, who was probably more surprise than anything.

Even Lefty, take away "the Elmore, McMillian, Lucas, Davis" cluster of years, and "Albert and Buck" mini cluster, and there really wasn't much there there even in Lefty's years when you think about it.

Never been to Chappel Hill or Duke, but they have to be nicer than College Park. Can we say "ugly campus" boys and girls. And, the new on-campus facility isn't actually on campus; that has to detract significantly from its appeal to recruits, at least I should think.

So, all-in-all, recruiting for Maryland as against many schools that present more attractively as a living environment/community, I think that you overestimate the extent to which Gary is actually falling short of where one would think a coach of his caliber should be in recruiting.

Especially in a world so fraught with potential poison as the current basketball environment poses, and Gary's aversion to getting too close to the fire, I think that he has performed as a steller coach, as the results of his last year's team evidences.

greybeard
08-06-2010, 05:58 PM
http://www.admissions.umd.edu/admissions/pdf/OUA_Campus_Map.pdf

You might argue that the city of College Park isn't attractive but the campus of the University is very attractive. According to the latest Princeton Review the athletic facilities are the best in the country. It has the longest on campus mall of any school in the country

I went to a school with a beautiful campus and have seen many. I've been on the Maryland campus. It is unattractive; it's buildings are bland and the campus itself lacks cohession and interest. Except for the golf course, which is okay, it lacks trees, interesting fauna, streams, interesting paths. There is not a building on the campus that one would rate in the top one thousand buildings on the top 100 campuses (in terms of beauty) in the nation. As for the academic facilities, if you are a basketball player, you have to take a bus if you don't have a car. Can't walk into the gym to work out between classes; can't walk out of practice and see your friends walking by, pop into the Library or student union.

College Park itself is uninspiring to say the least. It has one main road, that would be route one, which for miles in either direction is completely uninspiring. And, the DC area in terms of weather is far from a selling point. Winter is wintery without the fun of real winter, and the humidity, traffic congestion, lack of good eateries, lack of interesting stores, combine to make the school a tough sell from a physical point of view. Of course, it is a fine university academically, but I think a tough sell as compared to many top basketball schools. If I am wrong about this, then Gary probably should do better recruiting than he has in terms of getting blue chippers.

On the other hand, it has many excellent academic programs. It is a top school. But, I do not see the campus or its basketball facility as a selling point. If I am misstaken, I'd it is otherwise, then I'd have to say that in terms of a campus that inspires, not me it don't.

Duvall
08-06-2010, 06:01 PM
I agree that Gary probably could have done better, but I would not say he is to blame for having not. I do not think that "Maryland should be bringing in much more talent than it does." But for the Lefty years, and then only his heyday, Maryland has never attracted super talent. Steve Francis was the one true super talent in the Williams era, save for Joe Smith, who was probably more surprise than anything.

Even Lefty, take away "the Elmore, McMillian, Lucas, Davis" cluster of years, and "Albert and Buck" mini cluster, and there really wasn't much there there even in Lefty's years when you think about it.

Never been to Chappel Hill or Duke, but they have to be nicer than College Park. Can we say "ugly campus" boys and girls. And, the new on-campus facility isn't actually on campus; that has to detract significantly from its appeal to recruits, at least I should think.

So, all-in-all, recruiting for Maryland as against many schools that present more attractively as a living environment/community, I think that you overestimate the extent to which Gary is actually falling short of where one would think a coach of his caliber should be in recruiting.

Oh, I disagree. Maryland's campus may not win any prizes for beauty, but it's perfectly fine. South Carolina, that's an ugly campus; Maryland is far better. And Comcast Center is on the edge of campus, but absolutely on campus.

And even then, there's no facility disadvantage that could possibly outweigh Maryland's massive advantage in being located a short drive from both Washington and Baltimore. The Terps *ought* to be one of the powers of the sport; it's baffling to see ACC, Big East and even Big 12 schools snag the best players from the Baltimore-Washington corridor.

77devil
08-06-2010, 10:20 PM
I went to a school with a beautiful campus.

It's no Gothic Wonderland. I've been there and I'd take U Md. in January anytime.

G man
08-06-2010, 10:58 PM
A moderator or someone who knows how should add a poll so we can vote on who we think the seconded best coach is.


My vote is for Izzo followed by Williams.

just_wondering
08-06-2010, 11:01 PM
If I am a basketball player and I go to Maryland: I can practice in the North Gym in the summer, I have decent dining options on campus; I have decent ways to amuse myself at the Student Union; I can go to a performance at the Clarice Smith Performing Arts facility; I can run on the Golf Course; I can run on the Paint Branch Trail; I can use the Campus Recreation Center. Life is easy.
I live in the Washington area. I work downdown near the mall and monuments. Yet I spend a lot of time running, swimming and working out at Maryland because the facilities are nice. Do I use those facilities more often than I visit museums and the monuments? Yes of course. Have I seen hawks and woodpeckers and herons while was running on the campus trail? All the time
Is Maryland one of the prettiest campuses in the country? I wouldn't know. Is it one of the best places to visit in the Washington area? No question about it it is.





I went to a school with a beautiful campus and have seen many. I've been on the Maryland campus. It is unattractive; it's buildings are bland and the campus itself lacks cohession and interest. Except for the golf course, which is okay, it lacks trees, interesting fauna, streams, interesting paths. There is not a building on the campus that one would rate in the top one thousand buildings on the top 100 campuses (in terms of beauty) in the nation. As for the academic facilities, if you are a basketball player, you have to take a bus if you don't have a car. Can't walk into the gym to work out between classes; can't walk out of practice and see your friends walking by, pop into the Library or student union.

College Park itself is uninspiring to say the least. It has one main road, that would be route one, which for miles in either direction is completely uninspiring. And, the DC area in terms of weather is far from a selling point. Winter is wintery without the fun of real winter, and the humidity, traffic congestion, lack of good eateries, lack of interesting stores, combine to make the school a tough sell from a physical point of view. Of course, it is a fine university academically, but I think a tough sell as compared to many top basketball schools. If I am wrong about this, then Gary probably should do better recruiting than he has in terms of getting blue chippers.

On the other hand, it has many excellent academic programs. It is a top school. But, I do not see the campus or its basketball facility as a selling point. If I am misstaken, I'd it is otherwise, then I'd have to say that in terms of a campus that inspires, not me it don't.

greybeard
08-07-2010, 10:32 AM
If I am a basketball player and I go to Maryland: I can practice in the North Gym in the summer, I have decent dining options on campus; I have decent ways to amuse myself at the Student Union; I can go to a performance at the Clarice Smith Performing Arts facility; I can run on the Golf Course; I can run on the Paint Branch Trail; I can use the Campus Recreation Center. Life is easy.
I live in the Washington area. I work downdown near the mall and monuments. Yet I spend a lot of time running, swimming and working out at Maryland because the facilities are nice. Do I use those facilities more often than I visit museums and the monuments? Yes of course. Have I seen hawks and woodpeckers and herons while was running on the campus trail? All the time
Is Maryland one of the prettiest campuses in the country? I wouldn't know. Is it one of the best places to visit in the Washington area? No question about it it is.

I suppose that my defense of Gary as a recruiter will have to be moderated; maybe he should do far better, but not because he recruited you; you put the lie to the notion that Gary just recruits ballplayers. Well written; descriptive of the place from the inside out, not the outside in. Persuaive without being too aggressive. While I used to golf there for years every weekend, and attended lots of soccer games, and drive route one often, my time spent meandering the campus has been minimal. I stand corrected.

jipops
08-07-2010, 10:03 PM
Gary gets as much blame for his mediocre recruiting as he does for his excellent "coaching".

I don't feel like there is enough true info available to make such a sweeping statement. The past relationship with Yow makes me wonder if there might be more to it. And as far as recruiting results, I don't care how good Roy is at it, he has the foundation that Dean created to thank for a large majority of it. There is 36 years of info to back that up.

As for simply getting results your list may be valid. But as far as actual coaching knowledge and skill for the players that are on the floor my opinion is that list gets all jumbled up. Yes, recruiting is an enormous part of college basketball and the coaching profession in general. But I have a heck of a lot more interest in the finer points of the coaching that happens in games than the finer points of what a coach does when he recruits.

stuckinOHdukefan
08-08-2010, 02:31 AM
Let's be honest, second best coach still in the game today should go to Tom Izzo. He has a tough recruiting market (its a lot tougher to bring a guy to Lansing, Michigan than Miami, Florida) and has done a great job the RIGHT way (aka the complete opposite of Calipari). On another note, I know I'm a little bit biased as an Ohio guy but I do think Thad Matta should get a little love for the job hes done at OSU. IMHO a top 5 guy

Indoor66
08-08-2010, 07:39 AM
Let's be honest, second best coach still in the game today should go to Tom Izzo. He has a tough recruiting market (its a lot tougher to bring a guy to Lansing, Michigan than Miami, Florida) and has done a great job the RIGHT way (aka the complete opposite of Calipari). On another note, I know I'm a little bit biased as an Ohio guy but I do think Thad Matta should get a little love for the job hes done at OSU. IMHO a top 5 guy

What, exactly, has he done at Ohio State? I see an underachieving program, based on the hype they get every year for the so called terrific recruiting.

BattierBattalion
08-08-2010, 11:40 AM
What, exactly, has he done at Ohio State? I see an underachieving program, based on the hype they get every year for the so called terrific recruiting.

Evan Turner was ranked quite low entering college. Thad saw something in him and was clever enough to use him as a point forward, which Turner excelled in. Not too many coaches would have figured that out. When Thad recruited Oden, Conley, Cook, and that super class, they went all the way to the NCAA finals. That's gotta mean something, right?