USA today Poll: Coach K greatest coach ever?

[bigeastfan]

There's a poll on USA Today that asks if Coach K is the greatest coach ever:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2011/03/mike-krzyzewski-bob-knight-dean-smith-eye-opener-is-mike-krzyzewski-the-greatest-basketball-coach-ever-/1

As my moniker implies I'm a Big East fan (NYC native) and I'm also a UNC alums so naturally I hate Duke.

But I voted "Maybe his resume puts him in the discussion."

John Wooden, Red Auerbach and Phil Jackson also have to be in the discussion and maybe Dean Smith and Bob Knight.

If I had to choose the best coach I would probably have a toss up between Wooden and Jackson.

I don't think COach K is the best because he never established the dynasties that Wooden, Auerbach or Jackson did.

What do others think?

[uh_no]

There's a poll on USA Today that asks if Coach K is the greatest coach ever:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2011/03/mike-krzyzewski-bob-knight-dean-smith-eye-opener-is-mike-krzyzewski-the-greatest-basketball-coach-ever-/1

As my moniker implies I'm a Big East fan (NYC native) and I'm also a UNC alums so naturally I hate Duke.

But I voted "Maybe his resume puts him in the discussion."

John Wooden, Red Auerbach and Phil Jackson also have to be in the discussion and maybe Dean Smith and Bob Knight.

If I had to choose the best coach I would probably have a toss up between Wooden and Jackson.

I don't think COach K is the best because he never established the dynasties that Wooden, Auerbach or Jackson did.

What do others think?

I wonder what you call 7 final 4s in 9 years...

[TonyWR]

There's a poll on USA Today that asks if Coach K is the greatest coach ever:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2011/03/mike-krzyzewski-bob-knight-dean-smith-eye-opener-is-mike-krzyzewski-the-greatest-basketball-coach-ever-/1

As my moniker implies I'm a Big East fan (NYC native) and I'm also a UNC alums so naturally I hate Duke.

But I voted "Maybe his resume puts him in the discussion."

John Wooden, Red Auerbach and Phil Jackson also have to be in the discussion and maybe Dean Smith and Bob Knight.

If I had to choose the best coach I would probably have a toss up between Wooden and Jackson.

I don't think COach K is the best because he never established the dynasties that Wooden, Auerbach or Jackson did.

What do others think?

What do I think? Uh well first I think we have a tarhole that's trying to dis-credit the best college coach in the nation. You say "I don't think coach K is the best because he never established the dynasties that Wooden, Auerbach or Jackson did". LMAO, but you mention Dean prior to that as being on the list with Wooden? typical hole. K has twice the national titles, more acc titles and more overall wins than deano but yet you believe he is better than K? Coach K has created solid dynasties at Duke and continues to do so, why is that so hard for you haters to admit? Wooden was great no doubt, as was Jackson but K is hands down the best, period.

[bigeastfan]

I wonder what you call 7 final 4s in 9 years...

I call it great and enough to put him in the conversation but not better than 2 NBA three-peats and working on a third (Jackson), 10 national championships in 12 years (Wooden), or 8 straight NBA championships (Auerbach).

Still I put him in the conversation because his record is very impressive. I just don't think it matches the other 3 guys I mentioned above.

[bigeastfan]

What do I think? Uh well first I think we have a tarhole that's trying to dis-credit the best college coach in the nation. You say "I don't think coach K is the best because he never established the dynasties that Wooden, Auerbach or Jackson did". LMAO, but you mention Dean prior to that as being on the list with Wooden? typical hole. K has twice the national titles, more acc titles and more overall wins than deano but yet you believe he is better than K? Coach K has created solid dynasties at Duke and continues to do so, why is that so hard for you haters to admit? Wooden was great no doubt, as was Jackson but K is hands down the best, period.

I never said Dean was better than Coach K, only that he too could be in the conversation. If I had to pick one I would Pick Coach K over Dean. Truth be told I never was a big Dean Smith fan. Growing up I didn't like the Tarheels with their 4-corners and all. Remember I'm a Big East fan. After I went to UNC for graduate school I became a convert.

Still, Dean belongs in the conversation. He certainly produced some great NBA players ;o)

[dukebluesincebirth]

There's a poll on USA Today that asks if Coach K is the greatest coach ever:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2011/03/mike-krzyzewski-bob-knight-dean-smith-eye-opener-is-mike-krzyzewski-the-greatest-basketball-coach-ever-/1

As my moniker implies I'm a Big East fan (NYC native) and I'm also a UNC alums so naturally I hate Duke.

But I voted "Maybe his resume puts him in the discussion."

John Wooden, Red Auerbach and Phil Jackson also have to be in the discussion and maybe Dean Smith and Bob Knight.

If I had to choose the best coach I would probably have a toss up between Wooden and Jackson.

I don't think COach K is the best because he never established the dynasties that Wooden, Auerbach or Jackson did.

What do others think?

I have to disagree with the "maybe" part of your choice. I don't think there's a shadow of a doubt that Coach K is in the discussion. It's just very hard to compare K to Wooden (very different basketball eras, rules), and harder to compare K to Jackson (college game vs. NBA game). The other part of the debate is that 2 out of these three are still coaching and thus still creating their legacies. The book isn't totally written yet. If I had to break it down:

Phil Jackson vs. Coach K: I just feel like in the NBA, the ultimate superstars (like Jordan/Bryant) end up coaching the team as much as the coach. It takes away from Phil's accomplishments so therefore I give the advantage here to K.

John Wooden vs. Coach K: Wooden doesn't have as many wins, but has more titles. However, he didn't have to win as many games in a NCAAT to win the title (not as many teams in the field), which saved him from potential 2nd round nightmares like Duke nearly had with Michigan last week. I also think Coach K has to contend with a more competitive field of teams than UCLA did. This is the closest contest in my opinion, but I still give the advantage to Coach K.

Bob Knight vs. Coach K: Easy decision. Both coached only college bball, K will end up with more wins and more titles. End of discussion. Advantage K.

Dean vs. Coach K: Even though I hate UNC I've always had respect for Dean, but Coach K has surpassed him right now, and K is still coaching. Advantage K.

I understand all of this is debatable on a few levels, but I'm a little biased... COACH K is the best coach ever!

[ChillinDuke]

I think it's silly to compare Phil Jackson or Red Auerbach to Coach K.

The two coached a different game in the NBA vs. college and had rosters that didn't turnover each year. And Phil Jackson had the single greatest player in the NBA (maybe in NBA history) on his roster for those two 3-peats (and arguably the greatest player right now).

The college game is simply different and not conducive to building a "dynasty" in this day and age. Wooden was able to do it in a different era.

I think the discussion is simply between K and Wooden. And the debate is a good one. JMO

- Chillin

EDIT: DBSB beat me to it.

[The Gordog]

I call it great and enough to put him in the conversation but not better than 2 NBA three-peats and working on a third (Jackson), 10 national championships in 12 years (Wooden), or 8 straight NBA championships (Auerbach).

Still I put him in the conversation because his record is very impressive. I just don't think it matches the other 3 guys I mentioned above.

Different eras and/or leagues = different challenges = different degrees of difficulty.

Wooden? He only had to win 4 games (or was it 3?) for some of his titles, the regions were not mixed (he could get to the Final Four without playing anybody from the East) and he did not have to deal with early entry to the NBA.

Auerbach? His championships were with the same main characters year after year.

Jackson? I'd rate him the best of those 3 in that he has done it with Jordan and then with Kobe.

[bigeastfan]

I have to disagree with the "maybe" part of your choice. I don't think there's a shadow of a doubt that Coach K is in the discussion. It's just very hard to compare K to Wooden (very different basketball eras, rules), and harder to compare K to Jackson (college game vs. NBA game). The other part of the debate is that 2 out of these three are still coaching and thus still creating their legacies. The book isn't totally written yet. If I had to break it down:

Phil Jackson vs. Coach K: I just feel like in the NBA, the ultimate superstars (like Jordan/Bryant) end up coaching the team as much as the coach. It takes away from Phil's accomplishments so therefore I give the advantage here to K.

John Wooden vs. Coach K: Wooden doesn't have as many wins, but has more titles. However, he didn't have to win as many games in a NCAAT to win the title (not as many teams in the field), which saved him from potential 2nd round nightmares like Duke nearly had with Michigan last week. I also think Coach K has to contend with a more competitive field of teams than UCLA did. This is the closest contest in my opinion, but I still give the advantage to Coach K.

Bob Knight vs. Coach K: Easy decision. Both coached only college bball, K will end up with more wins and more titles. End of discussion. Advantage K.

Dean vs. Coach K: Even though I hate UNC I've always had respect for Dean, but Coach K has surpassed him right now, and K is still coaching. Advantage K.

I understand all of this is debatable on a few levels, but I'm a little biased... COACH K is the best coach ever!

It is true that Wooden did not have to go through as many rounds to win the title. But that doesn't necessarily mean it was easier. THis also means that tough opponents were also less likely to be knocked out in earlier rounds. Moreover, there were fewer at large bids so it was harder for UCLA to make the tournament in the first place. So I'm not so sure Coach K has the advantage?

What about Auerbach?

[moonpie23]

also have to be in the discussion and maybe Dean Smith and Bob Knight.



PLEASE enlighten us...... how does deano get in the discussion.....

[bigeastfan]

Different eras and/or leagues = different challenges = different degrees of difficulty.

Wooden? He only had to win 4 games (or was it 3?) for some of his titles, the regions were not mixed (he could get to the Final Four without playing anybody from the East) and he did not have to deal with early entry to the NBA.

Auerbach? His championships were with the same main characters year after year.

Jackson? I'd rate him the best of those 3 in that he has done it with Jordan and then with Kobe.

I'm not sure why not having to deal with early entry to the NBA made it easier for Wooden. WOuldn't this apply to Wooden's rivals too?

[moonpie23]

I'm not sure why not having to deal with early entry to the NBA made it easier for Wooden. WOuldn't this apply to Wooden's rivals too?

only because they stayed.....

[Indoor66]

It is true that Wooden did not have to go through as many rounds to win the title. But that doesn't necessarily mean it was easier. THis also means that tough opponents were also less likely to be knocked out in earlier rounds. Moreover, there were fewer at large bids so it was harder for UCLA to make the tournament in the first place. So I'm not so sure Coach K has the advantage?

What about Auerbach?

There was no seeding for Wooden. Teams played ONLY in their region. East - MidEast - MidWest - West. Then in the final four, East played MidEast and West played MidWest. Then East played West in the finals. This meant no balance or parity as the East was always the far more difficult route.

Wooden was a great recruiter and coach but to compare his era with modern coaching accomplishments is way off base. Players were different, freshmen were ineligible, all stayed four years unless they transferred (rare) or became ineligible for grades or discipline. It is a completely different world.

[bigeastfan]

PLEASE enlighten us...... how does deano get in the discussion.....

879 career wins, 11 Final Fours, coached later NBA stars later Michael Jordan, Larry Brown, James Worthy, Sam Perkins, Phil Ford, Bob McAdoo, Billy Cunningham, Kenny Smith, Walter Davis, Jerry Stackhouse, Antawn Jamison, Rick Fox, Vince Carter and Rasheed Wallace. I think this is his most impressive trait. ALthough it could be argued that a college coach's job is not to produce NBA superstars. Still this reflects favorably on him.

In the end I would not vote for Dean SMith and would vote for Coach K over Dean, but I think Dean can be in the discussion.

[JRH1010]

What do I think? Uh well first I think we have a tarhole that's trying to dis-credit the best college coach in the nation. You say "I don't think coach K is the best because he never established the dynasties that Wooden, Auerbach or Jackson did". LMAO, but you mention Dean prior to that as being on the list with Wooden? typical hole. K has twice the national titles, more acc titles and more overall wins than deano but yet you believe he is better than K? Coach K has created solid dynasties at Duke and continues to do so, why is that so hard for you haters to admit? Wooden was great no doubt, as was Jackson but K is hands down the best, period.

Coach K passed Dean in wins this year, but passed him in losses 4 years ago. But K is a great coach, none the less. To define greatest is futile. Most wins does not equal greatest just like fewer losses does not. There is an elite group of coaches that have come through college basketball and Duke and UNC have had some of the best.

[dukebluesincebirth]

And how does the ability to lead college kids to titles AND the ability to lead the NBA's best to gold medals in the Olympics weigh into the discussion? I can't recall Wooden or Jackson ever doing this? Again, advantage: Coach K.

[J4Kop99]

Phil Jackson is number 1 and those of you trying to discredit him because he coached great players are ridiculous. Which of the coaches in the discussion weren't/aren't constantly coaching great players?

After that, it get's very hard. Aurbach, RMK, Coach K and Wooden are all in the discussion. My only problem with Aurbach(and somewhat with Wooden) is that they were not coaching in what I would consider modern times. For Aurbach, winning 8 NBA championships in a row shows how good you were, but I also believe it shows how bad, or maybe, different, the league was. The seasons were shorter, there were less teams and the playoffs were different. There is just no way that any NBA or NCAA team could go on the runs that Aurbach and Wooden did. I think that hurts their case more than it helps them.


The fact that Coach K has won twice in the early 90's, then again in 2001 and most recently in 2010 says a lot about how great he is. Nobody else has won like that.

[J4Kop99]

Coach K passed Dean in wins this year, but passed him in losses 4 years ago. But K is a great coach, none the less. To define greatest is futile. Most wins does not equal greatest just like fewer losses does not. There is an elite group of coaches that have come through college basketball and Duke and UNC have had some of the best.

Ol' Roy probably coming in at #1.

[moonpie23]

coached later NBA stars later Michael Jordan, Larry Brown, James Worthy, Sam Perkins, Phil Ford, Bob McAdoo, Billy Cunningham, Kenny Smith, Walter Davis, Jerry Stackhouse, Antawn Jamison, Rick Fox, Vince Carter and Rasheed Wallace. I think this is his most impressive trait.

sorry, you don't get to use these as examples of dean's inclusion. These guys would have ALL been in the pros if they'd gone to coastal carolina....notice how, when discussing K, there's a lot more about his coaching rather than players who have gone on to other accolades...

now, if you want to put him in a TOP TEN list.....by all means...

K has left everyone in the rearview excpet Red, Phil and John. Let's keep in mind, K is still going...

[bigeastfan]

And how does the ability to lead college kids to titles AND the ability to lead the NBA's best to gold medals in the Olympics weigh into the discussion? I can't recall Wooden or Jackson ever doing this? Again, advantage: Coach K.
That is impressive.

One knock on Coach K is that his players while successful in the NBA rarely achieve superstar status. Certainly Duke's players have not had the NBA success that UCLA (Wooden) or UNC(Smith) have had.

On these measures I would give the advantage to Wooden and Smith. One could argue that he's a college coach, but if he is developing each player to their fullest potential why the underwhelming NBA performance?

It's not like Duke doesn't get top high school ball players. Again, I am not saying DUke players are not solid NBA players. Just that few turn into superstars or even stars.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

There's a poll on USA Today that asks if Coach K is the greatest coach ever:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2011/03/mike-krzyzewski-bob-knight-dean-smith-eye-opener-is-mike-krzyzewski-the-greatest-basketball-coach-ever-/1

As my moniker implies I'm a Big East fan (NYC native) and I'm also a UNC alums so naturally I hate Duke.

But I voted "Maybe his resume puts him in the discussion."

John Wooden, Red Auerbach and Phil Jackson also have to be in the discussion and maybe Dean Smith and Bob Knight.

If I had to choose the best coach I would probably have a toss up between Wooden and Jackson.

I don't think Coach K is the best because he never established the dynasties that Wooden, Auerbach or Jackson did.

What do others think?
You make valid points and I'm glad the moderators have taken out the insults.

I voted for K based on my bias, and am glad that an overwhelming majority voted either for K or that he is in the discussion (as you did). Those that vote that he's not in the discussion are clearly biased against him and are voting their ignorance.

I think K gets the nod over John Wooden because K's era is tougher, spanning the last 30+ years and the totality of his record, both regular season and in the tournament, including Final Fours and number of Championships, puts him #1. Wooden's NC's are incredible, no doubt about it, and he won them against some great teams in those Final Fours, including Duke in the 60's, but getting there was so much easier for his teams as has been pointed out.

Versus Red Auerbach and Phil Jackson? I saw Jackson play for the Knicks back in the late 60's and early 70's and he wore the original Tom Sellick mustache even back then. :cool: Wasn't much of a player though... They are both great coaches - figure out that debate and then put the winner up against K if you want. And throw in a baseball manager or two if you want just to spice it up even more... Nah - that would be a complete waste of time!

[moonpie23]

On these measures I would give the advantage to Wooden and Smith. One could argue that he's a college coach, but if he is developing each player to their fullest potential why the underwhelming NBA performance?

It's not like Duke doesn't get top high school ball players. Again, I am not saying DUke players are not solid NBA players. Just that few turn into superstars or even stars.


Are we discussing how well K does as a college coach? 4 titles.
Are discussing how well K does in with NBA SUPERSTARS? GOLD!
Are we discussing how well K does with NBA NON-SUPERSTARS? gold.

it's a fallacy to connect how good a coach is to how the players do LATER...Deano didn't make michael jordan into michael jordan, Phil did....

the fact that K has been so much better in college coaching WITHOUT nba all stars kind of defeats your argument...Give Deano K's players and he doesn't sniff a natty...Give K your team from last year and he definitely doesn't go to the NIT...

[J4Kop99]

That is impressive.

One knock on Coach K is that his players while successful in the NBA rarely achieve superstar status. Certainly Duke's players have not had the NBA success that UCLA (Wooden) or UNC(Smith) have had.

On these measures I would give the advantage to Wooden and Smith. One could argue that he's a college coach, but if he is developing each player to their fullest potential why the underwhelming NBA performance?

It's not like Duke doesn't get top high school ball players. Again, I am not saying DUke players are not solid NBA players. Just that few turn into superstars or even stars.

I think in regards to developing a college player into an NBA superstar, you are putting wayyyy too much importance on the coach.

As stated earlier, all of these big name players that Dean or Wooden coached would have turned into the same thing no matter where they went to school. We are talking about guys like Jordan, kareem, Walton, Worthy, etc. These guys make themselves great, no college coach does that for them. Smith and Wooden definitely helped them out, but you can't possibly argue that those two coaches are the reason that the aforementioned list of players became so great.

[Kfanarmy]

I call it great and enough to put him in the conversation but not better than 2 NBA three-peats and working on a third (Jackson), 10 national championships in 12 years (Wooden), or 8 straight NBA championships (Auerbach).

Still I put him in the conversation because his record is very impressive. I just don't think it matches the other 3 guys I mentioned above.

K also has
2006 FIBA World Championship, gold medals 2007 FIBA Americas Championship, the 2010 FIBA World Championship, and 2008 Summer Olympics with a 35-1 international record...

[bigeastfan]

Are we discussing how well K does as a college coach? 4 titles.
Are discussing how well K does in with NBA SUPERSTARS? GOLD!
Are we discussing how well K does with NBA NON-SUPERSTARS? gold.

it's a fallacy to connect how good a coach is to how the players do LATER...Deano didn't make michael jordan into michael jordan, Phil did....

the fact that K has been so much better in college coaching WITHOUT nba all stars kind of defeats your argument...Give Deano K's players and he doesn't sniff a natty...Give K your team from last year and he definitely doesn't go to the NIT...

Whether or not this defeats my argument depends on how you interpret the facts. One interpretation is that the players who attend Duke, while good, are not the best and K gets them to overachieve. This is what I used to think, but I am less partial to this argument now. Many of K's recruits are McDonalds all americans and highly heralded. They would also appear to have the skills to have outstanding NBA careers (e.g. Laetner, G. Hill, Deng, Reddick, Boozer, Maggette). Except for Hill their NBA careers are good but not outstanding.

My take is that Coach K is the supreme motivator, but his players' performance drops off without him. This is both a tribute to him (he gets them to excel) but also a knock, he doesn't provide transferable skills or motivation.

[flyingdutchdevil]

K also has
2006 FIBA World Championship, gold medals 2007 FIBA Americas Championship, the 2010 FIBA World Championship, and 2008 Summer Olympics with a 35-1 international record...

I'm going to play a little devil's advocate here. From a coaching standpoint, I really don't think that Coach K's Team USA Championships or wins are that impressive. When you think about the Top 20 players in the NBA, how many are American? 18 (Gasol and Ginobs)? 19? Isn't Team USA expected to win FIBA and the Olympics year in and year out?

What I think is impressive is the commitment that Coach K made to Team USA. By doing so, he and Colangelo created a sustainable program so that Team USA would no longer to led by meat heads like Iverson and Marbury. That is impressive from a managerial perspective. But from a coaching perspective, coaching American All-Stars to win game after game isn't as impressive as the record indicates. IMO, the US is still leagues ahead of any of its competition.

[4decadedukie]

There's a poll on USA Today that asks if Coach K is the greatest coach ever:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2011/03/mike-krzyzewski-bob-knight-dean-smith-eye-opener-is-mike-krzyzewski-the-greatest-basketball-coach-ever-/1

As my moniker implies I'm a Big East fan (NYC native) and I'm also a UNC alums so naturally I hate Duke.

But I voted "Maybe his resume puts him in the discussion."

John Wooden, Red Auerbach and Phil Jackson also have to be in the discussion and maybe Dean Smith and Bob Knight.

If I had to choose the best coach I would probably have a toss up between Wooden and Jackson.

I don't think COach K is the best because he never established the dynasties that Wooden, Auerbach or Jackson did.

What do others think?



To begin, I believe you need to refine this discussion substantially. Do you really mean the greatest basketball coach, or the greatest men’s basketball coach, or the greatest men’s college basketball coach, or the greatest men’s Division I basketball coach, or the greatest men’s US Olympic basketball coach, the greatest men’s Division I intercollegiate coach during the modern era, and so forth? This enhancement, in my opinion, is critical, because if the issue remains too broad and too ill defined, resolution will be even “more impossible” then it will be if the question is reasonably constrained.

Simply stated, I believe Coach K is the finest, modern era, men’s intercollegiate, Division I basketball coach. I will not squander your time by delineating all his specific accomplishments – these are readily apparent to anyone who wishes to analyze the record – except to add two frequently unaddressed points:
1. Exceptional academic performance and graduation rates, from a very scholastically demanding university;
2. Essentially no behavioral, illicit conduct, major NCAA violation, or criminal issues (including coaches, players, staff, etc.).

You specifically mention that K has not established “a dynasty.” I believe that is both erroneous and fallacious. Modern Division I college basketball is much larger and has far greater parity then it had five decades ago. Coach Wooden was (in my opinion) a superb leader, coach, teacher, strategist and so forth. However, when he led UCLA’s program, the number of competitive universities was MUCH smaller. The fact is, Coach Krzyzewski has created a dynasty in the modern context:
CONSISTENCY: While other teams “come and go” (Kentucky during the last decade and UNC last year as well as during much Doherty’s tenure, are examples) hardly a season elapses where Duke is not ranked among the elite programs that are seriously contending for the National Championship;
PERFORMANCE: Repeated #1 seeds, Final Four appearances, ACC Championships, 30+ game seasonal wins (and with very few “cupcake” adversaries), lengthy Cameron winning streaks, and so forth epitomize his – and Duke’s – peerless accomplishments.
LONGEVITY: This pattern has now endured for 30+ years, it is not a transitory phenomenon, it includes players and teams over four decades, and it has prevailed despite many social/economic changes that have significantly altered Division I hoops (including, ones-and-dones and ludicrous academic standards).

None of this suggests that there have not been other truly eminent Division I Men’s coaches, such as Wooden, Smith, etc. However, none has had the consistency, the performance and the longevity that Duke/Coach K have created throughout the modern epoch.

[dukebluesincebirth]

Whether or not this defeats my argument depends on how you interpret the facts. One interpretation is that the players who attend Duke, while good, are not the best and K gets them to overachieve. This is what I used to think, but I am less partial to this argument now. Many of K's recruits are McDonalds all americans and highly heralded. They would also appear to have the skills to have outstanding NBA careers (e.g. Laetner, G. Hill, Deng, Reddick, Boozer, Maggette). Except for Hill their NBA careers are good but not outstanding.

My take is that Coach K is the supreme motivator, but his players' performance drops off without him. This is both a tribute to him (he gets them to excel) but also a knock, he doesn't provide transferable skills or motivation.

He doesn't provide transferable skills or motivation? Did you happen to read the recent op-ed by Grant Hill up there in the New York Times?

[wilson]

My take is that Coach K is the supreme motivator, but his players' performance drops off without him. This is both a tribute to him (he gets them to excel) but also a knock, he doesn't provide transferable skills or motivation.


He doesn't provide transferable skills or motivation? Did you happen to read the recent op-ed by Grant Hill up there in the New York Times?Grant Hill's recent on-court renaissance also belies the fallacy that Coach K "doesn't provide transferable skills." He has remade his basketball persona as an elite defender and a cerebral practitioner of basketball subtleties, and in the process extended his NBA career.
Shane Battier, who has won immense respect throughout the NBA by playing in much the same way, would also beg to differ. How many 10-point, 5-rebound players become perennial starters in the NBA and have New York Times Magazine cover pieces written about them?
Answer: Basically, one.

[bigeastfan]

Grant Hill's recent on-court renaissance also belies the fallacy that Coach K "doesn't provide transferable skills." He has remade his basketball persona as an elite defender and a cerebral practitioner of basketball subtleties, and in the process extended his NBA career.
Shane Battier, who has won immense respect throughout the NBA by playing in much the same way, would also beg to differ. How many 10-point, 5-rebound players become perennial starters in the NBA and have New York Times Magazine cover pieces written about them?
Answer: Basically, one.

No doubt Coach K has done a great job. But we're talking about the greatest basketball coach ever. That's the USA today question (i did not design the question). On that question I think the good, but not outstanding, performance of Duke players in the NBA is a mark against K at least when compared to Wooden or Smith.

[weezie]

Shane Battier, who has won immense respect throughout the NBA by playing in much the same way, would also beg to differ. How many 10-point, 5-rebound players become perennial starters in the NBA and have New York Times Magazine cover pieces written about them?
Answer: Basically, one.

Basically, one, so far, I think you meant to say Wilson.

And the thread is beginning to turn into another "humor the tarhole to show we are all-inclusive" exercises.

[dukebluelemur]

...coached later NBA stars ...

Wait, so Calipari is in the discussion too?

[wilson]

No doubt Coach K has done a great job. But we're talking about the greatest basketball coach ever. That's the USA today question (i did not design the question). On that question I think the good, but not outstanding, performance of Duke players in the NBA is a mark against K at least when compared to Wooden or Smith.As others have said, I think that Duke players' performance in the NBA is mostly immaterial to the discussion of K's coaching accomplishments. I was merely responding to your claim that he doesn't impart "transferable skills," which I believe to be resoundingly erroneous.

[moonpie23]

actually, with all the natural talent deano had, it's a knock against him that he only won two titles....and they weren't back to back...

[Eternal Outlaw]

No doubt Coach K has done a great job. But we're talking about the greatest basketball coach ever. That's the USA today question (i did not design the question). On that question I think the good, but not outstanding, performance of Duke players in the NBA is a mark against K at least when compared to Wooden or Smith.

Please explain why Dean should get so much credit for Jordan. Why not his HS coach? Didn't that guy get him started on the path to UNC so he could go to the NBA from there? Dean wasn't the first or last coach to help Jordan with skills or motivation yet Dean gets credit for his great NBA career?

[phaedrus]

I have to disagree with the "maybe" part of your choice. I don't think there's a shadow of a doubt that Coach K is in the discussion.

If you look at the poll, the choice is not "Maybe his resume puts him in the discussion.", it's "Maybe. His resume puts him in the discussion".

[JRH1010]

Are we discussing how well K does as a college coach? 4 titles.
Are discussing how well K does in with NBA SUPERSTARS? GOLD!
Are we discussing how well K does with NBA NON-SUPERSTARS? gold.

it's a fallacy to connect how good a coach is to how the players do LATER...Deano didn't make michael jordan into michael jordan, Phil did....

the fact that K has been so much better in college coaching WITHOUT nba all stars kind of defeats your argument...Give Deano K's players and he doesn't sniff a natty...Give K your team from last year and he definitely doesn't go to the NIT...

There is no way that last paragraph is accurate. Suspect speculation with a ton of bias at best.

[JRH1010]

I think in regards to developing a college player into an NBA superstar, you are putting wayyyy too much importance on the coach.

As stated earlier, all of these big name players that Dean or Wooden coached would have turned into the same thing no matter where they went to school. We are talking about guys like Jordan, kareem, Walton, Worthy, etc. These guys make themselves great, no college coach does that for them. Smith and Wooden definitely helped them out, but you can't possibly argue that those two coaches are the reason that the aforementioned list of players became so great.

If that is the case than paulus should have been great too considering where he was ranked.

[dcdevil2009]

I call it great and enough to put him in the conversation but not better than 2 NBA three-peats and working on a third (Jackson), 10 national championships in 12 years (Wooden), or 8 straight NBA championships (Auerbach).

Sorry for being OCD about this, but doesn't Jackson have 4 three-peats and is working on a 4th (2 w/bulls 1 w/lakers). I think it's apples and oranges comparing career pro coaches with career college coaches, so I don't like to compare the two, but I think both Jackson and K are the best at their respective levels. Jackson might not be the best Xs and Os coach in the NBA, but to be able to keep three different teams mentally focused to win three different three-peats is unreal. Just ask the Eric Spoelstra(sp?) how hard it is to get that level of talent to mesh for a season, let alone three.

Conversely, I think Coach K is the best college coach of all time and one of the best Xs and Os guys in the NCAA. To win four championships in 20 years and go to countless final fours running different systems with teams that weren't always considered the most talented in the country is unprecedented. Look how many Calipari and Roy Williams teams have looked like the best on paper, but lose when they meet less talented but better prepared teams.

The Wooden era was before my time and I tend to be biased towards what I remember, so I give K the nod over Wooden because of degree of difficulty. Size of the tournament and number of games aside, the number of teams and the depth of talent is greater in today's college game. Granted more players go to the NBA and spend less time in college, but basketball is much more popular now than it was then and more of the best athletes are playing basketball now whereas they would have been playing football or baseball in the 60s. If you've watched the Tobacco Road documentary HBO did a couple years ago, it's pretty clear that the time and money schools put into building their basketball programs in the Wooden era isn't nearly what it was today. UCLA's success was built on great talent, combined with great coaching, but I don't think Wooden would be able to blend the recruiting and coaching aspects of the game the way K has been able to do in a period where more players aren't as interested in building programs and dynasties and staying for multiple seasons and basketball is a bigger focus for many school's athletic departments.

There's no way to know if either coach could replicate the other's accomplishments if they switched places, but if I had to bet on one being able to, I think K would come closer to matching Wooden than the other way around.

[-bdbd]

A few quick thoughts and answers:
- The question was "who is the greatest coach?" Not, whose players do better in pros or very different Q/answer, "Who has the most NBA Superstars?" So, irrelevant to the original Q asked. Also presumes equal talent coming in, which in the Smith-K sidebar is not the case.
- Very hard to compare coaches who play/coach entirely different games - kind of like including Pat Summit or a D2 coach in the "total wins" discussion. Why not include Joe Torre, Vince Lombardi, Joe Gibbs, etc.? The pro and college games are just totally different, with different metrics, challenges and accomplishments.
- There is no purely objective way to answer the Q. Even with just D1 College MBB coaches, they coached in different eras and had different challenges. Also, do we include "side" measurements such as "the cleanliness of their program?" (That knocks out Rupp and Wooden.)


...And the thread is beginning to turn into another "humor the tarhole to show we are all-inclusive" exercises. That was absolutely a LOL, ROWL!!! .....And true. :rolleyes:


As others have said, I think that Duke players' performance in the NBA is mostly immaterial to the discussion of K's coaching accomplishments. I was merely responding to your claim that he doesn't impart "transferable skills," which I believe to be resoundingly erroneous. Agree 101%. I follow recruiting, a lot, have done so for 25+ years, and for a very long time Duke did not bring in the top-tier talented supers that came to UK under Rupp, UCLA under Wooden and NC under Smith. A big part of that is simple era differences, b/c since around the early 80's 'parity' has ensured that the concentration of the very TOP players (as well as the next tier down) is nothing like the 60's, 70's and early 80's. Note to BigEastFan: it is ridiculous to just count numbers of McD AA's -- that means, regarding talent coming in, you are counting Jordan. Worthy, The Black Pigeon, exactly the same as Quinn Snyder, Wojo and Greg Koubek. Pretty silly. Over time, K has not had the "supers" as Wooden or Dean did (kids heads-and-shouldser abover their peers, think top 3-5 kids in a class, depending on the class) - there's a lot more recruiting competition now vs back then. But, as you alluded, K has had kids greatly overachieve in college (example: go back and look at recruiting rankings circa '88 to '90 -- while Duke recruited well, there's no way you overall rank Duke ahead of everyone else; yet K wins NC's in '91 and '92 and goes to a couple other FF's during that timeframe).


No doubt Coach K has done a great job. But we're talking about the greatest basketball coach ever. That's the USA today question (i did not design the question). On that question I think the good, but not outstanding, performance of Duke players in the NBA is a mark against K at least when compared to Wooden or Smith. And yet you keep bringing up player play AFTER they leave the coaches in question. (1) Post-departure performance irrelevant to a college coach's success (or do you regard Calipari as one of the greatest ever??). Many things happen post-player-departure that have zero to do with the coach in question. (2) As above, Rupp, Smith and Wooden had, on average, relatively higher rated starting material vs K. (3) How do you factor in injuries - or is that the coach's fault too? Duke has been fairly unlucky in this regard as possibly the MOST talented kids coming into the program had subsequent injuries that either limited or ended their pro careers -- think Hill, Jay Williams, Elton Brand, Christian Laettner (though he wasn't really a top-3 type recruit), and some might point to Bobby Hurley. (3) Different eras, where the top few programs just domininated the super-star talent pool, much like Womens' BB today. (4) BTW, the lack of going-pro-early trends in those eras (for Rupp, Wooden and most of Smith) was a factor b/c, as long as you could pull in one of those "supers" (think Bill Walton and Lew Alcindor) then you had a significant advantage for 3-4 years instead of just one or two as they do today. So it DID help those top few programs more.


I'm going to play a little devil's advocate here. From a coaching standpoint, I really don't think that Coach K's Team USA Championships or wins are that impressive. When you think about the Top 20 players in the NBA, how many are American? 18 (Gasol and Ginobs)? 19? Isn't Team USA expected to win FIBA and the Olympics year in and year out? ...What I think is impressive is the commitment that Coach K made to Team USA. By doing so, he and Colangelo created a sustainable program so that Team USA would no longer to led by meat heads like Iverson and Marbury. That is impressive from a managerial perspective. But from a coaching perspective, coaching American All-Stars to win game after game isn't as impressive as the record indicates. IMO, the US is still leagues ahead of any of its competition. I agree that K's greatest accomplishment for the national team is establishing sustainability. But don't forget that the two preceding National teams had failed badly - both coached by Kerlina coaching tree guys (Karl and Brown). And Karl and Brown had great players too. So K does deserve credit at least for re-establishing US pre-eminence on the Heels of repeated failures.

[uh_no]

My take on the national team success:

Coach K could have won with the north alaska state basketball team, and the national team could have won with me coaching. Phenomenal coach and phenomenal players can be equally responsible for delivering the goods.

Coach K did a great job coaching the best players in the world, and that's all there is to it.

[SoCalDukeFan]

That is impressive.

One knock on Coach K is that his players while successful in the NBA rarely achieve superstar status. Certainly Duke's players have not had the NBA success that UCLA (Wooden) or UNC(Smith) have had.

On these measures I would give the advantage to Wooden and Smith. One could argue that he's a college coach, but if he is developing each player to their fullest potential why the underwhelming NBA performance?

It's not like Duke doesn't get top high school ball players. Again, I am not saying DUke players are not solid NBA players. Just that few turn into superstars or even stars.

Kobe's high school coach at Lower Merion.

To me player success in the NBA is a complete non factor when looking at a college coach. The name of the game is "college basketball", not "pre NBA basketball."

I certainly agree that comparing Jackson to Wooden to K is like comparing apples to oranges to peaches or something. Each is the greatest in their own situation. I would put K at the top because he transcended the college game with the Olympics etc. We don't know if Jackson could recruit or deal with college players.

Wooden accomplishments are the greatest but we also don't know how we would handle early entry to the NBA. I think we can assume that K would do just fine if players had to stay 4 years and we know K can work with pros. Sam Gilbert also casts a shadow on Wooden.

SoCal

[wilson]

...the national team could have won with me coaching.This is a commonly stated fallacy. No offense to you, uh_no, but I'm fairly certain that Larry Brown and George Karl are better coaches than you, and they both failed to get the job done with similar rosters (in somewhat spectacular fashion, I might add). K, on the other hand, completely revamped the culture of USA Basketball and got NBA megastars to buy into a team and program (that, to me, is the key element here) culture in a way that no other coach could do with so many egos in the room. In the aftermath, he left every single player on the team positively gushing about his leadership and talent, as they enjoyed the gold medals hanging around their necks (and briefly, hanging around K's neck). He then backed up his coaching accomplishment by winning yet another NCAA title and then winning the basketball World Championships, a tournament generally held in higher international regard than the Olympics, with basically an entirely different crop of NBA stars, whom he also had to educate in USA Basketball's new culture and on-court approach.
The notion that Joe Schmoe could have won the past couple of major international basketball competitions, with whatever roster, just doesn't hold water to me.

[InSpades]

This is a commonly stated fallacy. No offense to you, uh_no, but I'm fairly certain that Larry Brown and George Karl are better coaches than you, and they both failed to get the job done with similar rosters (in somewhat spectacular fashion, I might add). K, on the other hand, completely revamped the culture of USA Basketball and got NBA megastars to buy into a team and program (that, to me, is the key element here) culture in a way that no other coach could do with so many egos in the room. In the aftermath, he left every single player on the team positively gushing about his leadership and talent, as they enjoyed the gold medals hanging around their necks (and briefly, hanging around K's neck). He then backed up his coaching accomplishment by winning yet another NCAA title and then winning the basketball World Championships, a tournament generally held in higher international regard than the Olympics, with basically an entirely different crop of NBA stars, whom he also had to educate in USA Basketball's new culture and on-court approach.
The notion that Joe Schmoe could have won the past couple of major international basketball competitions, with whatever roster, just doesn't hold water to me.

It should be clear to anyone who paid any attention to US basketball results pre-Colangelo/K that victory was far from assured. Additionally I'd like to point out that K was sort of in a no win situation. If you win as coach of US basketball everyone says "of course they won, they have the most talent". However if you lose as coach of US basketball you must have done something wrong. It's a tough situation to be in when success is expected and failure is unacceptable.

[bigeastfan]

Obviously you cannot definitively compare college coaches to pro coaches, coaches from different eras, etc. But this is just a fun bar-room type debate. A way to waste time at work instead of doing what I really should be doing. The relevant criteria are whatever we say they are.

So we have to make up the rules as we go along.

In determining who is the greatest coach EVER, is the performance of his players pot graduation relevant? I can see why some would argue no. But I lean toward thinking it is relevant. If Coach K's players never graduated, were arrested, were deadbeats, etc. that would be a knock on him. The fact that most of his players seem to be level headed and decent guys is a plus for him. Likewise, if he recruited unheralded guys who went on to become NBA superstars would be a plus for him.

Duke's players do pretty good in the NBA and generally I would say their post-college performance is a plus. But when you are comparing him to 1 or 2 of the all time greats the standard is higher and I think he loses points here. THere may be only 1 or 2 coaches of all time he would lose points to on this criteria. But the comparison we are making is to the 1 or 2 all time greats so he loses point here, in my opinion.

[jv001]

There's a poll on USA Today that asks if Coach K is the greatest coach ever:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2011/03/mike-krzyzewski-bob-knight-dean-smith-eye-opener-is-mike-krzyzewski-the-greatest-basketball-coach-ever-/1

As my moniker implies I'm a Big East fan (NYC native) and I'm also a UNC alums so naturally I hate Duke.
But I voted "Maybe his resume puts him in the discussion."

John Wooden, Red Auerbach and Phil Jackson also have to be in the discussion and maybe Dean Smith and Bob Knight.

If I had to choose the best coach I would probably have a toss up between Wooden and Jackson.

I don't think COach K is the best because he never established the dynasties that Wooden, Auerbach or Jackson did.

What do others think?

You being a unc alum and a Big East fan. You take an entire conference(big east) over Duke. Most unc fans hate Duke so that's not surprising. As for the poll, Coach K is the best coach as he's coached college players, pro players and at a military school(Army). He learned under the 2nd or 3rd best coach(Knight). Hard to choose between Knight and Wooden for 2nd place. As for college coaches, dean is in the top 10 of all time. But he won many games using the four corners which brought on the shot clock. I couldn't vote for deano because of the four corners. That style of basketball was the worst thing to happen to college basketball since Billy Packer and Lenny Wirtz(paid unc ref). Go Duke!

[NSDukeFan]

I'm going to play a little devil's advocate here. From a coaching standpoint, I really don't think that Coach K's Team USA Championships or wins are that impressive. When you think about the Top 20 players in the NBA, how many are American? 18 (Gasol and Ginobs)? 19? Isn't Team USA expected to win FIBA and the Olympics year in and year out?
I'll play a little coach K's advocate. Dirk Nowitzki and Steve Nash say hi. Yes, Team USA is expected to win FIBA and the Olympics most years. As followers of college basketball have learned, sometimes it is not the team that wins the recruiting rankings and has the most talent that wins, as coaches sometimes do a bit more than roll the ball out on the floor. Also, playing together can sometimes have an impact, which is the advantage that many of the other teams have over the US team. I believe there is more to basketball than assembling the best talent. I think the team has to play together and figure a way to beat the other team using its talent. Certainly the more talent, the better chance at victory, and USA will be favored in the near term for that reason.


What I think is impressive is the commitment that Coach K made to Team USA. By doing so, he and Colangelo created a sustainable program so that Team USA would no longer to led by meat heads like Iverson and Marbury. That is impressive from a managerial perspective. But from a coaching perspective, coaching American All-Stars to win game after game isn't as impressive as the record indicates. IMO, the US is still leagues ahead of any of its competition.

I agree with you that part of the great success coach K has had is making the team something that players strive for again. I would say this is somewhat analogous to recruiting in college basketball, where part of the job of the coach is getting the most talented players to play for you. But I think you are seriously discounting the role of the coach if you think that is the only role. My understanding is that team USA actually wasn't favored in the past world championships as only one of the top 20 players in the world played on that team. Yet, they still won. Sometimes, if a coach keeps winning when others in the same position don't, it may be more than a coincidence.

[bigeastfan]

You being a unc alum and a Big East fan. You take an entire conference(big east) over Duke. Most unc fans hate Duke so that's not surprising. As for the poll, Coach K is the best coach as he's coached college players, pro players and at a military school(Army). He learned under the 2nd or 3rd best coach(Knight). Hard to choose between Knight and Wooden for 2nd place. As for college coaches, dean is in the top 10 of all time. But he won many games using the four corners which brought on the shot clock. I couldn't vote for deano because of the four corners. That style of basketball was the worst thing to happen to college basketball since Billy Packer and Lenny Wirtz(paid unc ref). Go Duke!

Actually if you look at the choices it would be hard to pick anything other than "Maybe. His resume puts him in the discussion."

Here are the choices:
1. Yes. Nobody even comes close.
Can anyone really say with a straight face that no one (e.g. Wooden, Jackson) even comes close? Even if you vote for K the others are at least close.
2. Maybe. His resume puts him in the discussion.
This is my choice. There needs to be some debate and different people will weigh different things and come to different conclusions.
3. No. Not while he is 6 titles short of Wooden.
I can see someone maybe picking this. But as other have pointed out Coach K faces some obstacles Wooden did not.
4. No. There are plenty of coaches better.
Even Duke haters like myself would have to admit there are few if any coaches better than Coach K.

[moonpie23]

Actually if you look at the choices it would be hard to pick anything other than "Maybe. His resume puts him in the discussion."

Here are the choices:
1. Yes. Nobody even comes close.
Can anyone really say with a straight face that no one (e.g. Wooden, Jackson) even comes close? Even if you vote for K the others are at least close.
2. Maybe. His resume puts him in the discussion.
This is my choice. There needs to be some debate and different people will weigh different things and come to different conclusions.
3. No. Not while he is 6 titles short of Wooden.
I can see someone maybe picking this. But as other have pointed out Coach K faces some obstacles Wooden did not.
4. No. There are plenty of coaches better.
Even Duke haters like myself would have to admit there are few if any coaches better than Coach K.

notice that is says nothing about deano.....nada....

[hq2]

I think the best way to rate coaches is against their peers at the time, because all the other coaches back then/today were/are dealing with the same recruit pool/NCAA rules etc. And, in that regard, Wooden clearly stands head and shoulders above everyone. K Knight, and yes, Adolph Rupp, would get mention for maybe second. K has had a great program that has transcended nearly 30 years, but note that on a national level, Duke only dominated in a UCLA-like way between '86 and '94, and then only won two titles. The rest has been up and down, with final fours and titles spread out over the following years, to give an overall legacy of excellence, but not necessarily dominance.

[theAlaskanBear]

I'm going to play a little devil's advocate here. From a coaching standpoint, I really don't think that Coach K's Team USA Championships or wins are that impressive. When you think about the Top 20 players in the NBA, how many are American? 18 (Gasol and Ginobs)? 19? Isn't Team USA expected to win FIBA and the Olympics year in and year out?

What I think is impressive is the commitment that Coach K made to Team USA. By doing so, he and Colangelo created a sustainable program so that Team USA would no longer to led by meat heads like Iverson and Marbury. That is impressive from a managerial perspective. But from a coaching perspective, coaching American All-Stars to win game after game isn't as impressive as the record indicates. IMO, the US is still leagues ahead of any of its competition.

Well yes and no. While USA may always have the best talent, the games are played under international rules, and the foreign national teams don't have a lot of turnover, so their players REALLY know how to play with other. The Greek and Argentine teams (just as an example) have players who start playing with each at 16 yrs of age, and they will continue playing together on the national team until they get old and retire. You cant get that kind of chemistry in just a summer of practice.

[Rogue]

I feel it's a shame that we measure a coach's success so much on wins.

I like to think how great coach K is by how he teaches and his ability as a floor coach. So often Duke has a nice lead at the end of a game and his ability to "coach" the players can be over looked. He "IS" a great floor coach. Think about Christians shot at the buzzer against Conn in the East Regionals in NJ ,, he was the one throwing the ball in.. The Duhon shot at the end of the VPI game last year,, He draws up the play and the players are so well coached, they can execute.. not all shots go in,, but the play is there.. His ability to make adjustments in game,, the half time adjustments where we come out and are on fire the first 5 min..

D Smith and Wooden are, were , great floor coaches as well.. I take nothing from them. It was different eras. Half of Deanos time was in the 60's to the mid 70's where only one ACC team went to the tourney.. Wooden played out west, and I'm sorry, it was a cake walk getting past Santa Claira and Utah to reach the final four when the field was 32.. Not only that, but his conference was a cake walk..
Wooden once came to NC to play Duke two games.. back to back,, I think it was 1966.. and they lost in Charlotte then in Durham. He swore then he'd not come back to NC and play again. He didn't till he had to when the NCAA finals were in Greensboro,, yeah, he lost again. He came here every summer to coach at Campbell College Basketball Camp.

All I'm saying is it's difficult to compare coaches of different eras.

Coach K WILL be considered the GREATEST COACH OF THIS ERA.. and it's LONGER than the others "era" .. Mid 1980's through ( date unknown )