K vs Dean vs Wooden (front page)

[Lord Ash]

I am glad that DBR not only states that K has just about passed Dean, but that an argument could be made that he is on par with John Wooden. While I do appreciate and respect Wooden, he coached in a VERY different day against, generally, much inferior teams, and on top of that had the best team money could buy. While he certainly won a lot of NCAA titles, I don't think he is necessarily any better than Coach K. So kudos to DBR to bringing that conversation to the table.

[slower]

I am glad that DBR not only states that K has just about passed Dean, but that an argument could be made that he is on par with John Wooden. While I do appreciate and respect Wooden, he coached in a VERY different day against, generally, much inferior teams, and on top of that had the best team money could buy. While he certainly won a lot of NCAA titles, I don't think he is necessarily any better than Coach K. So kudos to DBR to bringing that conversation to the table.

There was no "just about passed Dean" statement. He has already passed him.

[Lord Ash]

I only included that in deference to the record that will hopefully be passed this year. I agree with you.

[slower]

I only included that in deference to the record that will hopefully be passed this year. I agree with you.

gotcha - sorry if I misinterpreted your post :)

[4decadedukie]

Recognizing that Coach Smith is not a universal favorite on DBR, I want to offer an observation concerning Wooden, Knight, Smith and K. ALL four have made truly outstanding contributions to intercollegiate basketball, appropriate to the era in which they coached. I would respectfully suggest that K's multi-decade body-of-work is unique and superior; however, his achievements are clearly founded on his predecessors' accomplishments, including Knight, Wooden and Smith.

To illustrate, would the ACC, in which Coach K has excelled, have the same college hoops recognition and stature had Smith (among others) not essentially lead the conference for many years? I doubt it. Similarly, would men's college basketball have the same reputation and unequaled draw (March Madness) without Coach Wooden. I, also, doubt this. Further, if men's intercollegiate basketball were "just another college sport" and if the ACC were "just another conference," would K's reputation be as stellar as it is?

Life is not a "zero sum game." There is plenty of (really unlimited) merited recognition, without diminishing others. K is arguably best collegiate men's basketball coach in history, but that does not mean that others (including Wooden, Knight and Smith) aren't as critical to the sport's continuous improvement, nor does it mean that they would not have excelled were they to have coached in the same era (with identical circumstances, advantages, and disadvantages).

[killerleft]

Recognizing that Coach Smith is not a universal favorite on DBR, I want to offer an observation concerning Wooden, Knight, Smith and K. ALL four have made truly outstanding contributions to intercollegiate basketball, appropriate to the era in which they coached. I would respectfully suggest that K's multi-decade body-of-work is unique and superior; however, his achievements are clearly founded on his predecessors' accomplishments, including Knight, Wooden and Smith.

To illustrate, would the ACC, in which Coach K has excelled, have the same college hoops recognition and stature had Smith (among others) not essentially lead the conference for many years? I doubt it. Similarly, would men's college basketball have the same reputation and unequaled draw (March Madness) without Coach Wooden. I, also, doubt this. Further, if men's intercollegiate basketball were "just another college sport" and if the ACC were "just another conference," would K's reputation be as stellar as it is?

Life is not a "zero sum game." There is plenty of (really unlimited) merited recognition, without diminishing others. K is arguably best collegiate men's basketball coach in history, but that does not mean that others (including Wooden, Knight and Smith) aren't as critical to the sport's continuous improvement, nor does it mean that they would not have excelled were they to have coached in the same era (with identical circumstances, advantages, and disadvantages).

Excellent post! I would add that Both K and Dean had an obstacle the others never had: both had to regularly coach against the other.

To your point, maybe coaching against each other was the positive that propelled them to the heights they have attained.

Sigh. I'm at the age when I constantly confuse myself.

[tieguy]

Wooden... had the best team money could buy.

I used to say similar things, but after I read this article (http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1153) I stopped; it is long but really gives a lot of context and information I didn't previously have in one place. Worth reading for anyone interested in the history of the game.

[JimBD]

I used to say similar things, but after I read this article (http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1153) I stopped; it is long but really gives a lot of context and information I didn't previously have in one place. Worth reading for anyone interested in the history of the game.

Would any team that had a benefactor like Gilbert under today's rules be able to keep its wins/titles or would they have to be vacated? Wooden was a great coach, but I'm still convinced he had lots of help getting stars to UCLA.

[JimBD]

Recognizing that Coach Smith is not a universal favorite on DBR, I want to offer an observation concerning Wooden, Knight, Smith and K. ALL four have made truly outstanding contributions to intercollegiate basketball, appropriate to the era in which they coached. I would respectfully suggest that K's multi-decade body-of-work is unique and superior; however, his achievements are clearly founded on his predecessors' accomplishments, including Knight, Wooden and Smith.

To illustrate, would the ACC, in which Coach K has excelled, have the same college hoops recognition and stature had Smith (among others) not essentially lead the conference for many years? I doubt it. Similarly, would men's college basketball have the same reputation and unequaled draw (March Madness) without Coach Wooden. I, also, doubt this. Further, if men's intercollegiate basketball were "just another college sport" and if the ACC were "just another conference," would K's reputation be as stellar as it is?

Life is not a "zero sum game." There is plenty of (really unlimited) merited recognition, without diminishing others. K is arguably best collegiate men's basketball coach in history, but that does not mean that others (including Wooden, Knight and Smith) aren't as critical to the sport's continuous improvement, nor does it mean that they would not have excelled were they to have coached in the same era (with identical circumstances, advantages, and disadvantages).

Dean Smith was a great coach. But when I was at Duke, the most highly regarded coach in the ACC was Vic Bubas, not Dean Smith. So under the same logic, which I agree with, Dean Smith owes some of his success to the contributions made by Vic Bubas.

[Lord Ash]

I used to say similar things, but after I read this article (http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1153) I stopped; it is long but really gives a lot of context and information I didn't previously have in one place. Worth reading for anyone interested in the history of the game.

Great link, thanks. I guess I see it as relevant in that had some other team had those sort of "resources" Wooden would have had a harder time winning all those titles... it doesn't seem like it was really an even playing field.

[SCMatt33]

Would any team that had a benefactor like Gilbert under today's rules be able to keep its wins/titles or would they have to be vacated? Wooden was a great coach, but I'm still convinced he had lots of help getting stars to UCLA.

As much as I love Coach K, I fully believe that John Wooden is not only the best coach in college basketball history, but in American sports history. Coaches are measured across sports on many factors, but the most important is always how you perform under the brightest lights. In college basketball, that means championship games. In a sport where upsets are more common than almost any other, Wooden went 10-0 in championship games. You can talk about easier paths to the final four or not having as much competition, but that goes away when you get to the title game. Wooden beat historic programs like Duke, UNC, and Kentucky in the finals, as well as some other very good programs in Michigan and Villanova. You can take coaches from any other major sport, and none have gone undefeated in championship games/series over that many tries. Vince Lombardi lost an NFL title game. Scotty Bowman lost in the Stanley Cup finals. Red Auerbach and Phil Jackson have each lost the NBA finals. There is even less of a comparison in his own sport, where greats like Coach K and Dean Smith are at or below .500 in title games. I don't care if you hand pick your starting 5 on NBA salaries before giving anyone else a shot at players, 10-0 in NCAA championship games might be the greatest coaching achievement ever.

[uh_no]

As much as I love Coach K, I fully believe that John Wooden is not only the best coach in college basketball history, but in American sports history. Coaches are measured across sports on many factors, but the most important is always how you perform under the brightest lights. In college basketball, that means championship games. In a sport where upsets are more common than almost any other, Wooden went 10-0 in championship games. You can talk about easier paths to the final four or not having as much competition, but that goes away when you get to the title game. Wooden beat historic programs like Duke, UNC, and Kentucky in the finals, as well as some other very good programs in Michigan and Villanova. You can take coaches from any other major sport, and none have gone undefeated in championship games/series over that many tries. Vince Lombardi lost an NFL title game. Scotty Bowman lost in the Stanley Cup finals. Red Auerbach and Phil Jackson have each lost the NBA finals. There is even less of a comparison in his own sport, where greats like Coach K and Dean Smith are at or below .500 in title games. I don't care if you hand pick your starting 5 on NBA salaries before giving anyone else a shot at players, 10-0 in NCAA championship games might be the greatest coaching achievement ever.

if we had a system like wooden's....we'd likely have as many championships....it would be interesting for someone to go year by year and take the best 16 teams by region and put together a tournament to see how many we could have reasonably expected

if we played against the best team from the west in the national title game each time we got there.....

[4decadedukie]

Dean Smith was a great coach. But when I was at Duke, the most highly regarded coach in the ACC was Vic Bubas, not Dean Smith. So under the same logic, which I agree with, Dean Smith owes some of his success to the contributions made by Vic Bubas.


True, without question.

[hurleyfor3]

if we had a system like wooden's....we'd likely have as many championships....it would be interesting for someone to go year by year and take the best 16 teams by region and put together a tournament to see how many we could have reasonably expected


For starters, you'd have to take the 1991 title away from K and '93 away from Dean. Neither team won the conference tournament. Roy would still be stuck on zero titles. Calhoun gets to keep both of his, but wouldn't have gone through K in 2004. I think Knight keeps all his too (they were a 1 seed in '87).

I don't think it's possible to corner the market on talent anymore the way Wooden did, Sam Gilbert or no. There are just too many good players, and too many good programs out there for all of them to end up in one place. Most of the teams since Wooden that have featured concentrated talent have NOT won titles (Houston early '80s, Fab Five, UNC '94, Duke '99, Kentucky 2010).

[Olympic Fan]

if we had a system like wooden's....we'd likely have as many championships....it would be interesting for someone to go year by year and take the best 16 teams by region and put together a tournament to see how many we could have reasonably expected

if we played against the best team from the west in the national title game each time we got there.....

Just to be precise, Wooden never competed in a 16-team tournament.

His first championship (in 1964) was in a 26-team tournament. I think where the confusion occurs was that in that era, six teams were given byes into the reguional semifinals -- so that UCLA only had to win four games to win the national title. To be fair, Duke was also given a bye in 1964, so the team UCLA beat in the finals was also three wins from the title.

Balancing the different eras is difficult. Wooden benefited from the smaller tournament (nine of his title teams had to win four games to win the title; his last one had to win five games). He also benefited from an unbalanced field -- teams from the stronger, East, South and Midwest were never moved out west. And before 1974, the semifinal matchups were always East vs. Mideast (which includfed the great bulk of the power teams) and the Midwest vs. West. Interesting that in 1974, when they switched the semifinal matchups for the first time, UCLA was beaten in the semifinals by Eastern champ N.C. State (if they had played Midwest champ Kansas, they would have had a cakewalk to the title game).

On the other hand, a lot of other coaches had the same advantages and didn't win 10 titles. Adolph Rupp only had to win three games to claim his first two NCAA ttiles and four games to win his last two ... Dean Smith had plenty of chances to win four games a title and never won one (he won five to win his first title in '982, six to get his second in '93).

Do those advantages cancel out Wooden's 10 titles vs. K's 4 championships? I honestly don't think so ... although I do believe the margin is not as wide as the raw numbers 10 vs. 4 would suggest. Shouldn't you also add Coach K's Olympic Gold medal and his World Championship -- Wooden not only refused to participate in USA Basketball, he discouraged his own players from playing for the US too (both Alcindor in '68 and Walton in '72 were famous absentees).

I don't think it's outrageous to equate K's two international titles with NCAA titles in camparing the two coaches ... If you do that you get 10 vs. six, which is a great deal closer ... again, I'm not sure if that totally closes the gap. But if K adds another NCAA title and another Gold Medal in the next two years -- plus passes Knight as the winningest college coach of all time, I think you can make a case for K as the greatest college coach of all time,

PS I'm not sure how to factor in Sam Gilbert. For the record, he didn't start funneling money to Wooden's players until Alcindor, so Wooden's first two titles were untainted. After that, it's impossible to know how much inpact Gilbert had -- he was never directly involved with Wooden (who knew about Gilbert and tried to warn his players to stay away from him, but never took decisive action to cut Gilbert out of his program). Still, you have to think prospective recruits were told by the players on campus that if they came to UCLA, they would be "taken care of."

Wooden's wishy-washy response to Gilbert's involvement is one reason I would never suggest he's the greatest coach in American sports history.

[miramar]

It seems that some people think UCLA used to have an easy road to the Final Four. I recall that I heard that recently about Duke and I didn't believe it that time either.

No matter how they got to the NCAAs, UCLA won 38 straight tournament games, and I don't see how anyone will ever get close to that number.

Regional tournaments are of course very different from what we have today, but at the end (the only years I remember clearly) UCLA got past some really good Cal State Long Beach teams coached by our old friend Jerry Tarkanian. Not to mention that teams could not get to the tournament unless they won their conference, and in 1971 UCLA did it by beating the #2 team in the country twice (USC, who went 24-2 that year).

Another way of looking at it is that Coach Wooden had four undefeated NCAA champtionship teams, which is the same total of championships of the two outstanding coaches who are (temporarily) tied for second place.

[miramar]

Wooden not only refused to participate in USA Basketball, he discouraged his own players from playing for the US too (both Alcindor in '68 and Walton in '72 were famous absentees).



I may be wrong, but I think that when Pete Newell retired from coaching after winning the Olympic gold in 1960, Henry Iba became a fixture as the coach of the US Olympic team (1964, 1968, and 1972), which of course ended with the controversial loss in 1972. Coach Wooden had to retire from coaching under doctor's orders in 1975, so he never got the opportunity to coach in the Olympics in 1976 and so they had to hire some flunkie as the new coach.

I also believe that Lew Alcindor's and Bill Walton's decisions to skip the Olympics were personal protests and had nothing to do with Coach Wooden.

[davekay1971]

I wholeheartedly agree with the theme in this thread that the success of these coaches, and the recognition they have received, is interconnected. There were several posts recognizing the importance of the development of the ACC as a basketball powerhouse. For anyone who hasn't yet read it, I highly recommend Al Featherston's marvelous book, Tobacco Road: Duke, Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest, and the History of the Most Intense Backyard Rivalries in Sports

Coach K's success at Duke and the national recognition of what he has done in the ACC is intimately connected to the contributions of Dean Smith, Vic Bubas, and, perhaps most of all, Everett Case. We can at least thank Case for all those nets we've cut down :cool:

All that being said, I agree with the argument that Coach K has surpassed every other coach in Men's Division 1 basketball history with the possible exception of Wooden. Could Wooden have won 10 championships in the 1990-2010 basketball era? Absolutely not...but I'm not going to say he couldn't have won four.

[moonpie23]

first of all, i respect JW tremendously.....and the system was different back then. There were lots of teams (my gamecocks in 1970 included) that had a pretty decen shot at taking them OUT, but never got the chance to play them because they didn't win the ACC tourny..

that's a difference.......BUT.......10 titles? wow....

[77devil]

Recognizing that Coach Smith is not a universal favorite on DBR, I want to offer an observation concerning Wooden, Knight, Smith and K. ALL four have made truly outstanding contributions to intercollegiate basketball, appropriate to the era in which they coached. I would respectfully suggest that K's multi-decade body-of-work is unique and superior; however, his achievements are clearly founded on his predecessors' accomplishments, including Knight, Wooden and Smith.

I think you are giving Dean too much credit. There were plenty of great coaches that proceeded him, Case, Bubas, McKinney, and others such as Lefty and Norm Sloan who helped give the league a high profile.


I wholeheartedly agree with the theme in this thread that the success of these coaches, and the recognition they have received, is interconnected. There were several posts recognizing the importance of the development of the ACC as a basketball powerhouse. For anyone who hasn't yet read it, I highly recommend Al Featherston's marvelous book, Tobacco Road: Duke, Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest, and the History of the Most Intense Backyard Rivalries in Sports

Coach K's success at Duke and the national recognition of what he has done in the ACC is intimately connected to the contributions of Dean Smith, Vic Bubas, and, perhaps most of all, Everett Case. We can at least thank Case for all those nets we've cut down :cool:

All that being said, I agree with the argument that Coach K has surpassed every other coach in Men's Division 1 basketball history with the possible exception of Wooden. Could Wooden have won 10 championships in the 1990-2010 basketball era? Absolutely not...but I'm not going to say he couldn't have won four.

Besides his mentor, Bob Knight, the coach that Coach K acknowledges for his success at Duke is Bill Foster. K has written that Dawkins, Alarie, Bilas, and Henderson became aware and interested in Duke because of the 1978 team, and without that recruiting class he may not have survived(his words).

[davekay1971]

Besides his mentor, Bob Knight, the coach that Coach K acknowledges for his success at Duke is Bill Foster. K has written that Dawkins, Alarie, Bilas, and Henderson became aware and interested in Duke because of the 1978 team, and without that recruiting class he may not have survived(his words).

To be clear, my reference to Case was an attempt to give him credit for his pivotal role establishing Tobacco Road basketball. Your post is absolutely correct in identifying two of the men that were most vital in helping Coach K to succeed.

[Atlanta Duke]

As much as I love Coach K, I fully believe that John Wooden is not only the best coach in college basketball history, but in American sports history. Coaches are measured across sports on many factors, but the most important is always how you perform under the brightest lights. In college basketball, that means championship games. In a sport where upsets are more common than almost any other, Wooden went 10-0 in championship games. You can talk about easier paths to the final four or not having as much competition, but that goes away when you get to the title game. Wooden beat historic programs like Duke, UNC, and Kentucky in the finals, as well as some other very good programs in Michigan and Villanova. You can take coaches from any other major sport, and none have gone undefeated in championship games/series over that many tries. Vince Lombardi lost an NFL title game. Scotty Bowman lost in the Stanley Cup finals. Red Auerbach and Phil Jackson have each lost the NBA finals. There is even less of a comparison in his own sport, where greats like Coach K and Dean Smith are at or below .500 in title games. I don't care if you hand pick your starting 5 on NBA salaries before giving anyone else a shot at players, 10-0 in NCAA championship games might be the greatest coaching achievement ever.

Agreed

As was said in an obit of the great Yankees manager Casey Stengel

There is a story about a fine poker player who described a better poker player by saying, "When I have the cards, I clean the table. When he has them, he cleans the room.

From 1964 through 1975 Coach Wooden cleaned the room

[LSanders]

As the saying goes, opinions are like ......... Everyone's got one.

I've felt for a long time K was the best in history. I think you're seeing the beginning of a great run by him. One of his strengths has always been in devising a system to match his players. Who else can do that as effectively as K - now or ever? That makes him unique and explains his genius. And, he's taken a quantum leap in the past few years, at least partially attributable to the USA basketball experience that energized him and gave him renewed energy and insight.

Regarding Wooden, let's set Gilbert on the table. Maybe the whole UCLA cache would have garnered most of those players anyway. Let's face it ... LA - Beaches - Hot coeds - Hollywood - And, the chance to play for one or more championships is reason enough for top talent to venture west-wood.

BUT ... Wooden didn't have to deal with one-'n-dones or the intense level of recruiting pressure, scrutiny, and competition we have today. The combination of the popularity of college bball AND the internet has made recruiting wars worse than ever. Personally, I don't believe Wooden, as great as he was, would have been able to match where K is now if he'd coached in THIS era.

On the other hand, how many more banners would K have hanging if all players stayed for four years? Imagine 4 years of J Will, Maggette, Brand, Deng, Livingston, AND Kobe Bryant, just to name a few. Wooden never had to worry about any of that.

Coach K is an amazing man, and his strength has always been in his ability to look beyond Xs and Os. That's what Butters saw when everyone was yelling for What's-his-name's head. That was HIS genius ... To understand that coaches who see the bigger picture are rarer than unicorns. I suspect Bobby Knight saw that in K, too.

Those of the inferior blue have every right to be proud of Dean. UCLA should acclaim Wooden. I have very mixed feelings about Rupp because of his "racial issues." But, there's only one Coach K. By the time he retires, I suspect talk of comparisons will have long become moot.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Those of the inferior blue have every right to be proud of Dean. UCLA should acclaim Wooden. I have very mixed feelings about Rupp because of his "racial issues." But, there's only one Coach K. By the time he retires, I suspect talk of comparisons will have long become moot.

There was only one Wooden as well. I'm a little surprised that so many believe Coach K to be the best college bball coach ever (okay, not surprised considering that this is DBR). Many have made the argument on this thread already that Wooden isn't the best college bball coach but the BEST coach altogether.

There are a lot of factors that people have thrown around as to why Wooden's 10 championships aren't as impressive as they seem, especially in today's college basketball environment - 4 year recruits, Hollywood, no one-and-dones, easier championship routes, etc. Really? That's why Wooden's 10 championships shouldn't be held as highly? If Wooden didn't lose one-and-dones, doesn't that mean that other schools don't lose one-and-dones either, making the whole NCAA more competitive? If Hollywood was such an important factor, then why aren't UCLA or USC such high-profile schools right now? I'm pretty sure that players wanted to play for Wooden - Hollywood is just an added bonus. The same can be said for Duke - recruits want to play for Duke and the fact that Duke is a top-10 academic institute is an enormous added bonus (just ask Battier, Paulus, Langdon, etc.).

You can make the argument that Coach K is a better coach - his work with Team USA and his contributions outside of basketball are impressive (talk show, Fuqua, helping the community, etc.), but I still find it very difficult to compare Coach K with Wooden on the college basketball court. Wooden was in a league of his own. If K wins 2, maybe 3 more NCs, then this discussion certainly can hold water. But, IMO, Wooden is the best coach in any sport, American or not, that the world has ever seen.

[sagegrouse]

There was only one Wooden as well. I'm a little surprised that so many believe Coach K to be the best college bball coach ever (okay, not surprised considering that this is DBR). Many have made the argument on this thread already that Wooden isn't the best college bball coach but the BEST coach altogether.

There are a lot of factors that people have thrown around as to why Wooden's 10 championships aren't as impressive as they seem, especially in today's college basketball environment - 4 year recruits, Hollywood, no one-and-dones, easier championship routes, etc. Really? That's why Wooden's 10 championships shouldn't be held as highly? If Wooden didn't lose one-and-dones, doesn't that mean that other schools don't lose one-and-dones either, making the whole NCAA more competitive? If Hollywood was such an important factor, then why aren't UCLA or USC such high-profile schools right now? I'm pretty sure that players wanted to play for Wooden - Hollywood is just an added bonus. The same can be said for Duke - recruits want to play for Duke and the fact that Duke is a top-10 academic institute is an enormous added bonus (just ask Battier, Paulus, Langdon, etc.).

You can make the argument that Coach K is a better coach - his work with Team USA and his contributions outside of basketball are impressive (talk show, Fuqua, helping the community, etc.), but I still find it very difficult to compare Coach K with Wooden on the college basketball court. Wooden was in a league of his own. If K wins 2, maybe 3 more NCs, then this discussion certainly can hold water. But, IMO, Wooden is the best coach in any sport, American or not, that the world has ever seen.

In the 1960s there were about 30 schools with serious basketball programs. Today there are well over 100, thanks to the money from network and cable TV and the popularity of March Madness, the latter having assumed the stature of a National Lottery.

Here are some examples:


There really were only about 30 major programs at the time: four in the ACC; only Kentucky and Mississippi State in the SEC; several teams in the Big Ten; UCLA and Oregon State and occasionally Cal and USC in the West; teams that are now mid-majors like Bradley and Wichita State; Kansas and sometimes K-State in the Big Eight; nada in Texas and Oklahoma; tough Eastern schools like Villanova, NYU (early in the decade), St. Johns, and Syracuse. And Jim Sumner will point out a few that I have overlooked beyond these two dozen or so.

Duke beat UConn 101-54 in the Eastern Regional semis in 1964 (not, as the GoDuke archives have it, in the regional finals) at Reynolds. That's a 47-point whipping in the round of sixteen.

From 1954 to 1970 only Maryland (1958) won an ACC title from outside of NC.

But still, ten NCAA championships is a heckuva record under any circumstances. And, of course, only Adolph Rupp's winning 3 of 4 is in the same universe.

sagegrouse

[The Gordog]

There was only one Wooden as well. I'm a little surprised that so many believe Coach K to be the best college bball coach ever (okay, not surprised considering that this is DBR). Many have made the argument on this thread already that Wooden isn't the best college bball coach but the BEST coach altogether.

There are a lot of factors that people have thrown around as to why Wooden's 10 championships aren't as impressive as they seem, especially in today's college basketball environment - 4 year recruits, Hollywood, no one-and-dones, easier championship routes, etc. Really? That's why Wooden's 10 championships shouldn't be held as highly? If Wooden didn't lose one-and-dones, doesn't that mean that other schools don't lose one-and-dones either, making the whole NCAA more competitive? If Hollywood was such an important factor, then why aren't UCLA or USC such high-profile schools right now? I'm pretty sure that players wanted to play for Wooden - Hollywood is just an added bonus. The same can be said for Duke - recruits want to play for Duke and the fact that Duke is a top-10 academic institute is an enormous added bonus (just ask Battier, Paulus, Langdon, etc.).

You can make the argument that Coach K is a better coach - his work with Team USA and his contributions outside of basketball are impressive (talk show, Fuqua, helping the community, etc.), but I still find it very difficult to compare Coach K with Wooden on the college basketball court. Wooden was in a league of his own. If K wins 2, maybe 3 more NCs, then this discussion certainly can hold water. But, IMO, Wooden is the best coach in any sport, American or not, that the world has ever seen.

Re. "If Wooden didn't lose one-and-dones, doesn't that mean that other schools don't lose one-and-dones either, making the whole NCAA more competitive?"

This only serves to highlight the fact that while Wooden may have been the best coach of his era, his accomplishments can not be compared without adjustment to K's era.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Re. "If Wooden didn't lose one-and-dones, doesn't that mean that other schools don't lose one-and-dones either, making the whole NCAA more competitive?"

This only serves to highlight the fact that while Wooden may have been the best coach of his era, his accomplishments can not be compared without adjustment to K's era.

I fully understand the whole "era" argument. But I still believe that you can compare coaches vs coaches from different eras as you can players vs players. For instance, I feel that you can realistically compare and rank Art Heyman, Grant Hill, and Kyle Singler although these players are from three different eras (let's not get into this argument, though). Wooden had the same set of rules to follow as the next guy he was coaching against. Same with Coach K. But the rules didn't necessarily favour one coach over the next coach within any given era. The fact that Wooden kept on recruiting as he did speaks volumes about Wooden as a coach. The fact that Coach K gets on winning, regardless of talent level (that statement isn't 100%, but you get my point), because of his in-game genius speaks volumes about Coach K as a coach. But Wooden's overall profile on the basketball court, regardless of era, is more impressive than Coach K's at this point in time. Maybe, and hopefully, this will change.

[sagegrouse]

I fully understand the whole "era" argument. But I still believe that you can compare coaches vs coaches from different eras as you can players vs players. For instance, I feel that you can realistically compare and rank Art Heyman, Grant Hill, and Kyle Singler although these players are from three different eras (let's not get into this argument, though). Wooden had the same set of rules to follow as the next guy he was coaching against. Same with Coach K. But the rules didn't necessarily favour one coach over the next coach within any given era. The fact that Wooden kept on recruiting as he did speaks volumes about Wooden as a coach. The fact that Coach K gets on winning, regardless of talent level (that statement isn't 100%, but you get my point), because of his in-game genius speaks volumes about Coach K as a coach. But Wooden's overall profile on the basketball court, regardless of era, is more impressive than Coach K's at this point in time. Maybe, and hopefully, this will change.

To reinforce my previous point: Did the Montreal Canadiens win more Stanley Cups when there were six teams in the NHL or when there were 30?

sagegrouse

[flyingdutchdevil]

To reinforce my previous point: Did the Montreal Canadiens win more Stanley Cups when there were six teams in the NHL or when there were 30?

sagegrouse

Point taken, but 6 is very different from the +100 (I assume - can't find the exact number) Division I teams that existed in 1970. I don't think your comparison here holds a lot of water from a mathematically point of view. It's much easier to win a lot of tournaments with a very small sample size (like 6) then a sample size in the hundreds (as I assume was in existence in the 1970. If this isn't at all true, then please ignore this post!).

In addition, as I also said earlier, in theory, the rules are in place to make every team equal and provide them with an equal opportunity to win and it's been like that for a while. Coach K could go to Davidson, bring his coaching staff, ask for a few donations to improve facilities, and make Davidson a continuous threat year after year. Legally, nothing is stopping him.

[SoCalDukeFan]

Re. "If Wooden didn't lose one-and-dones, doesn't that mean that other schools don't lose one-and-dones either, making the whole NCAA more competitive?"

This only serves to highlight the fact that while Wooden may have been the best coach of his era, his accomplishments can not be compared without adjustment to K's era.

I agree that is very difficult or impossible to compare from different eras, and probably a waste of time. I don't believe the Wooden could have won so many championships in with a seeded 64 team tournament and early entry to the NBA. However every other coach at that time had the benefit of players staying four years and a smaller tournament and none nearly as many. His team that won in 1964 beat a much taller and very talented Duke team in the finals. He was a great coach and the best of his era. Coach K is a great coach and the best of his era.

I have a cousin who is a good friend of the man who was essentially Wooden's caretaker for the last years of his life. My cousin took a basketball to his friend that I had with Coach K's autograph on it (along with Shane's and Jason's) to have Wooden sign it. Wooden said how much he admired Coach K, liked to watch Duke play, and said he thought maybe the ball would be ruined with his signature. Fortunately he signed it anyway.

SoCal

[killerleft]

I agree that is very difficult or impossible to compare from different eras, and probably a waste of time. I don't believe the Wooden could have won so many championships in with a seeded 64 team tournament and early entry to the NBA. However every other coach at that time had the benefit of players staying four years and a smaller tournament and none nearly as many. His team that won in 1964 beat a much taller and very talented Duke team in the finals. He was a great coach and the best of his era. Coach K is a great coach and the best of his era.

I have a cousin who is a good friend of the man who was essentially Wooden's caretaker for the last years of his life. My cousin took a basketball to his friend that I had with Coach K's autograph on it (along with Shane's and Jason's) to have Wooden sign it. Wooden said how much he admired Coach K, liked to watch Duke play, and said he thought maybe the ball would be ruined with his signature. Fortunately he signed it anyway.

SoCal

Now THAT'S what I call a basketball. Have you turned into Gollum yet?

[sagegrouse]

Point taken, but 6 is very different from the +100 (I assume - can't find the exact number) Division I teams that existed in 1970. I don't think your comparison here holds a lot of water from a mathematically point of view. It's much easier to win a lot of tournaments with a very small sample size (like 6) then a sample size in the hundreds (as I assume was in existence in the 1970. If this isn't at all true, then please ignore this post!).



It's not the total number of Division I teams; it is the number of teams playing high-level basketball. There are many times as many today (4X?), and it is harder to win a NC. How much harder? Who the heck knows? But ten titles in 12 years is still terrific. Is it better than four titles in 20 years with many more high-level programs? Or eleven FF's (and 8 finals) in 25 years? Probably, but one would certainly have to think about it.

sagegrouse

[Pomona]

I believe Bob Knight was the best GAME coach and best coach at preparing for his opponent. Back in the day, you did not want to play Indiana in the tourney, especially if it was the first game of the weekend and Coach Knight had a week to prepare.

[Go Blue]

Just to be precise, Wooden never competed in a 16-team tournament.

His first championship (in 1964) was in a 26-team tournament. I think where the confusion occurs was that in that era, six teams were given byes into the reguional semifinals -- so that UCLA only had to win four games to win the national title. To be fair, Duke was also given a bye in 1964, so the team UCLA beat in the finals was also three wins from the title.

Balancing the different eras is difficult. Wooden benefited from the smaller tournament (nine of his title teams had to win four games to win the title; his last one had to win five games). He also benefited from an unbalanced field -- teams from the stronger, East, South and Midwest were never moved out west. And before 1974, the semifinal matchups were always East vs. Mideast (which includfed the great bulk of the power teams) and the Midwest vs. West. Interesting that in 1974, when they switched the semifinal matchups for the first time, UCLA was beaten in the semifinals by Eastern champ N.C. State (if they had played Midwest champ Kansas, they would have had a cakewalk to the title game).

On the other hand, a lot of other coaches had the same advantages and didn't win 10 titles. Adolph Rupp only had to win three games to claim his first two NCAA ttiles and four games to win his last two ... Dean Smith had plenty of chances to win four games a title and never won one (he won five to win his first title in '982, six to get his second in '93).

Do those advantages cancel out Wooden's 10 titles vs. K's 4 championships? I honestly don't think so ... although I do believe the margin is not as wide as the raw numbers 10 vs. 4 would suggest. Shouldn't you also add Coach K's Olympic Gold medal and his World Championship -- Wooden not only refused to participate in USA Basketball, he discouraged his own players from playing for the US too (both Alcindor in '68 and Walton in '72 were famous absentees).

I don't think it's outrageous to equate K's two international titles with NCAA titles in camparing the two coaches ... If you do that you get 10 vs. six, which is a great deal closer ... again, I'm not sure if that totally closes the gap. But if K adds another NCAA title and another Gold Medal in the next two years -- plus passes Knight as the winningest college coach of all time, I think you can make a case for K as the greatest college coach of all time,

PS I'm not sure how to factor in Sam Gilbert. For the record, he didn't start funneling money to Wooden's players until Alcindor, so Wooden's first two titles were untainted. After that, it's impossible to know how much inpact Gilbert had -- he was never directly involved with Wooden (who knew about Gilbert and tried to warn his players to stay away from him, but never took decisive action to cut Gilbert out of his program). Still, you have to think prospective recruits were told by the players on campus that if they came to UCLA, they would be "taken care of."

Wooden's wishy-washy response to Gilbert's involvement is one reason I would never suggest he's the greatest coach in American sports history.

Remember also that in Wooden's era, freshmen couldn't play varsity sports. That meant that he got only 3 years out of a player, not 4. Also, when Wooden got to UCLA, basketball was an afterthought. He had to practice in a cramped gym with the wrestlers and the cheerleaders. He nicknamed it the B.O. Barn. He also never got paid close to what the coaches are paid today. There were advantages and disadvantages to both eras, which is why it's so hard to compare. But - 10 titles is 10 titles, and 7 in a row is unbelieveable. Add in the 88 game winning streak, and it's hard to vote against Wooden.

[Go Blue]

In the 1960s there were about 30 schools with serious basketball programs. Today there are well over 100, thanks to the money from network and cable TV and the popularity of March Madness, the latter having assumed the stature of a National Lottery.

Here are some examples:


There really were only about 30 major programs at the time: four in the ACC; only Kentucky and Mississippi State in the SEC; several teams in the Big Ten; UCLA and Oregon State and occasionally Cal and USC in the West; teams that are now mid-majors like Bradley and Wichita State; Kansas and sometimes K-State in the Big Eight; nada in Texas and Oklahoma; tough Eastern schools like Villanova, NYU (early in the decade), St. Johns, and Syracuse. And Jim Sumner will point out a few that I have overlooked beyond these two dozen or so.

Duke beat UConn 101-54 in the Eastern Regional semis in 1964 (not, as the GoDuke archives have it, in the regional finals) at Reynolds. That's a 47-point whipping in the round of sixteen.

From 1954 to 1970 only Maryland (1958) won an ACC title from outside of NC.

But still, ten NCAA championships is a heckuva record under any circumstances. And, of course, only Adolph Rupp's winning 3 of 4 is in the same universe.

sagegrouse

Remember, freshmen couldn't play varsity ball back then. There were separate "freshman teams." Also, I don't remember anyone redshirting back then, either. As for Rupp vs. Wooden, don't forget the 7 championships in a row.

[-jk]

Remember, freshmen couldn't play varsity ball back then. There were separate "freshman teams." Also, I don't remember anyone redshirting back then, either. As for Rupp vs. Wooden, don't forget the 7 championships in a row.

Yes, freshmen weren't eligible, but that was true for everyone. But only UCLA had Gilbert.

-jk

[-bdbd]

Remember, freshmen couldn't play varsity ball back then. There were separate "freshman teams." Also, I don't remember anyone redshirting back then, either. As for Rupp vs. Wooden, don't forget the 7 championships in a row.

I always chuckle at these "different era" arguments. That's b/c for every supposed advantage one era has over another, there is an equal/opposite DISadvantage. To the above point, yes, coaches in the 60's had to put up with Freshman ineligibility and shorter seasons; but at the same time everyone else had no freshmen too, there were maybe 1/4 as many competitive teams (i.e. much more parity now), and you didn't have to worry about your top players frequently leaving early. How many more NC's would K have if there hadn't been any early departures from his very best players (and no, all teams DON'T suffer that malady equally)? Think about it --- four years (instead of zero) from S. Livingston and Kobe Bryant, four years (instead of one full season) from Brand, Maggette, Deng, Irving? And what about four years from J. Williams, McRoberts, Dunleavy, Avery, Henderson, etc? And of course it is a LOT harder to win 6 (or 7!) straight in today's NCAAT's than 3-4 straight the NCAA Tourney required back then (conversely, fewer teams even made the tournament, and only one from any given conference). :confused:

There simply is no way to point at one era over another and say, "b/c of X this era had it easier than that one..." It's just much more complicated than that. :rolleyes:

[Go Blue]

I always chuckle at these "different era" arguments. That's b/c for every supposed advantage one era has over another, there is an equal/opposite DISadvantage. To the above point, yes, coaches in the 60's had to put up with Freshman ineligibility and shorter seasons; but at the same time everyone else had no freshmen too, there were maybe 1/4 as many competitive teams (i.e. much more parity now), and you didn't have to worry about your top players frequently leaving early. How many more NC's would K have if there hadn't been any early departures from his very best players (and no, all teams DON'T suffer that malady equally)? Think about it --- four years (instead of zero) from S. Livingston and Kobe Bryant, four years (instead of one full season) from Brand, Maggette, Deng, Irving? And what about four years from J. Williams, McRoberts, Dunleavy, Avery, Henderson, etc? And of course it is a LOT harder to win 6 (or 7!) straight in today's NCAAT's than 3-4 straight the NCAA Tourney required back then (conversely, fewer teams even made the tournament, and only one from any given conference). :confused:

There simply is no way to point at one era over another and say, "b/c of X this era had it easier than that one..." It's just much more complicated than that. :rolleyes:

I couldn't agree more that for every advantage in one era over another, there is a disadvantage. (What some call "parity" others would call "dilution.") Also agree that national seeding makes March Madness more competitive. Finally, agree that comparing eras is unbelievably (and probably hopelessly) complicated. However, let's not go overboard and say it's necessarily a LOT harder to win 6 games in the tournament than 4. Remember that a 16 seed has never beaten a 1 seed. (If you're a 1 seed, as UCLA was in most of Wooden's years, that extra game or two probably just adds to your win total - though I concede that there's always a chance a team can lose anytime it takes the court.) The second game in the tournament is generally more competitive, but not always so. Some might say it's an advantage to get your team acclimated to the tournament by playing a lesser team in the first couple of rounds, rather than going against a major conference champion right away. Also, while we think that Livingston and Kobe would have gone to Duke and would have been great on their teams, I don't think you can count on things that never happened, i.e., players that never played one game for the school. Too many variables. This is like Celtics fans counting a championship that Len Bias would have brought them.

Of course, there is no answer for all of this, and that's why it's so enjoyable to have the debate. IMO, K will probably equal or surpass Wooden, but hasn't done so yet...

[Go Blue]

Yes, freshmen weren't eligible, but that was true for everyone. But only UCLA had Gilbert.

-jk

That's an interesting thought. I'm not sure anyone can say that no other "over the line" boosters existed then. Maybe not to the same degree, but I'm guessing Gilbert didn't invent the overzealous booster persona. The NCAA was a lot less vigilant back then, that's for sure....

[Go Blue]

Remember also that in Wooden's era, freshmen couldn't play varsity sports. That meant that he got only 3 years out of a player, not 4. Also, when Wooden got to UCLA, basketball was an afterthought. He had to practice in a cramped gym with the wrestlers and the cheerleaders. He nicknamed it the B.O. Barn. He also never got paid close to what the coaches are paid today. There were advantages and disadvantages to both eras, which is why it's so hard to compare. But - 10 titles is 10 titles, and 7 in a row is unbelieveable. Add in the 88 game winning streak, and it's hard to vote against Wooden.

And, had Alcindor been eligible his freshman year, Woooden would have had 11 titles, not 10.

[Indoor66]

I couldn't agree more that for every advantage in one era over another, there is a disadvantage. (What some call "parity" others would call "dilution.") Also agree that national seeding makes March Madness more competitive. Finally, agree that comparing eras is unbelievably (and probably hopelessly) complicated. However, let's not go overboard and say it's necessarily a LOT harder to win 6 games in the tournament than 4. Remember that a 16 seed has never beaten a 1 seed. (If you're a 1 seed, as UCLA was in most of Wooden's years, that extra game or two probably just adds to your win total - though I concede that there's always a chance a team can lose anytime it takes the court.) The second game in the tournament is generally more competitive, but not always so. Some might say it's an advantage to get your team acclimated to the tournament by playing a lesser team in the first couple of rounds, rather than going against a major conference champion right away. Also, while we think that Livingston and Kobe would have gone to Duke and would have been great on their teams, I don't think you can count on things that never happened, i.e., players that never played one game for the school. Too many variables. This is like Celtics fans counting a championship that Len Bias would have brought them.

Of course, there is no answer for all of this, and that's why it's so enjoyable to have the debate. IMO, K will probably equal or surpass Wooden, but hasn't done so yet...

I generally agree with your premise. That said, I think the significant differences in the Wooden and K eras is the matter of seeding in the tournament. Prior to 1979 there was no seeding in the tournament. (http://www.tourneytravel.com/history/index.htm)Prior to 1975 only one team was permitted from each conference. 1975 was the last year Wooden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wooden) won a championship and the year that he retired. The tournament had a total of 32 teams.

Winning a championship became much more difficult after 1979 because of the seeding and the moving of team around to country to achieve the seeding. In almost all of the Wooden era he always played in the West Region and his final four opponent came from the mid-west region - the two weakest in college basketball.

I have no doubt that Wooden would have won championships in any era. I seriously question if he could have accomplished the dominance he had in the modern tournament.

Both of these changes allowed for more parity in the tournament and made winning much more difficult.