Coaching Comparisons: K v. Roy [Archive]

flyingdutchdevil

07-30-2013, 11:41 AM

Moderator Note: This is an interesting topic that started in the PJ Hairston thread. It has evolved into an interesting discussion that warrants its own thread. If you're new to the thread, do read it because the discussion morphs a bit from this post. Enjoy!

Roy is a "player's coach" much like a parent who tries to be best friends with their kid. That almost always results in the kid pushing as far as they can to get away with as much as possible, with the parent constantly adjusting to keep the friendship and the kid not really respecting the parent.

K's relationship with his players is much more like the parent who treats their kids with respect, but also demands respect and acts like a parent.

I think this is incredibly unfair to Roy. Do I think Coach K is a better mentor and coach? Of course, I went to Duke (twice) and a lot of literature out there repeats the same conclusion (that Coach K is the best mentor out there).

But I also think Roy is a coach who respects his players and his players respect him. Having a different style of coaching does not mean that there is a lack of respect amongst the the stakeholders. I think that players can absolutely respect and love "player's coaches" just as much as the next. Look at Doc Rivers, probably the quintessential player's coach in the NBA. He garners the respect of his team just as much as old guard, like Greg Popovich.

I think the issue with Roy is that he is willing to take any talent, regardless of their personality. Duke has had their fair share of insubordinate players (or players who got in trouble), but Coach K mitigates that by minimizing recruiting these types of players. Most of the time, for Roy, these recruits are low maintenance. Sometimes, as with the case of PJ, they can be more trouble then they are worth.

FerryFor50

07-30-2013, 11:48 AM

I think this is incredibly unfair to Roy. Do I think Coach K is a better mentor and coach? Of course, I went to Duke (twice) and a lot of literature out there repeats the same conclusion (that Coach K is the best mentor out there).

But I also think Roy is a coach who respects his players and his players respect him. Having a different style of coaching does not mean that there is a lack of respect amongst the the stakeholders. I think that players can absolutely respect and love "player's coaches" just as much as the next. Look at Doc Rivers, probably the quintessential player's coach in the NBA. He garners the respect of his team just as much as old guard, like Greg Popovich.

I think the issue with Roy is that he is willing to take any talent, regardless of their personality. Duke has had their fair share of insubordinate players (or players who got in trouble), but Coach K mitigates that by minimizing recruiting these types of players. Most of the time, for Roy, these recruits are low maintenance. Sometimes, as with the case of PJ, they can be more trouble then they are worth.

The Doc Rivers and Gregg Poppovich examples are precisely what I am talking about. They are cut from the same cloth as K. They get respect from players by being hard nosed, not by being buddies with their players. They have more in common with K than with Roy.

Roy's approach is to be a buddy coach and then throw his players under the bus through the media from what I've seen. What happens behind closed doors, who knows. But the public persona screams "buddy coach."

Wheat/"/"/"

07-30-2013, 11:57 AM

I agree that there is such a thing as a "player's coach" that exists across sports. I take this to mean a Coach that is a little more on the level of the players, someone who approaches them more as an equal rather than as an authority figure. Tony Dungy is supposed to be a player's coach. Bill Belicheck is not. It's a separate quality from how good of a Coach they are, and has more to do with personality and style. Mike D'Antoni says that he never plays ball with or even shoots around with his players, because he wants to maintain a psychogical barrier between them, so they see him as their coach and not a teammate.

Is Roy more of a "player's coach" than Coach K? I would probably agree to that. But I don't think that's necessarily a negative reflection on Coach K - obviously all of his players respect him immensely, have forged deep and life-long personal relationships with him, and love playing for him. This is true from the bench warmers to the NBA superstars who he coaches on the national team.

But Roy is a guy who dances with the players at their Midnight madness (and makes a damn fool of himself doing so) and runs a looser ship. That's his style. What often happens at the professional level is that the "player's coach" lets things go too far and the players assume too much power. That appears to be what has happened here, unless Roy actually ALLOWED PJ's posse of drug dealers to play Xbox in the player's lounge and scrimmage in the dean dome after hours. If that's the case then the inmates are already running the asylum.

This is pretty much what I was thinking with my previous post, ...regarding coaching styles.

I don't necessasarily think players have assumed too much power, or that inmates are running the asylum, I think PJ is a screw up and has taken advantage of Roy's trust.

Roy has had very few problems with past players and is highly respected by all of them as far as I can tell.

It's a fair criticism of Roy that he may have to do a better job of monitoring players, I'll agree, but I'll also give him a break when he has a knucklehead like PJ who can't seem to learn from his mistakes.

sagegrouse

07-30-2013, 12:07 PM

The Doc Rivers and Gregg Poppovich examples are precisely what I am talking about. They are cut from the same cloth as K. They get respect from players by being hard nosed, not by being buddies with their players. They have more in common with K than with Roy.

Roy's approach is to be a buddy coach and then throw his players under the bus through the media from what I've seen. What happens behind closed doors, who knows. But the public persona screams "buddy coach."

I have some fun with Roy's idiosyncracies, such as his public statements (Haiti comparison, etc.), his failure to use timeouts, and his somewhat open criticism of his players. But I have no doubt he is a heckuva coach and a great recruiter. Then there is that membership in the HOF.

sagegrouse

OldPhiKap

07-30-2013, 12:13 PM

I also don't think this is Roy's fault. I think he does care about his players. I just think his approach is easily taken advantage of by players like PJ.

Maybe, maybe not. Didn't he come in and get McCancer in the fold after the players forced D'oh out?

(It has been awhile, I may be wrong about that).

I think we both agree that Roy needs to tighten up the ship. But I suspect he is just getting closer to throwing up his hands, moving out to Folly Beach full time, and making a tee time for Saturday.

Wheat/"/"/"

07-30-2013, 12:20 PM

I think the issue with Roy is that he is willing to take any talent, regardless of their personality. Duke has had their fair share of insubordinate players (or players who got in trouble), but Coach K mitigates that by minimizing recruiting these types of players. Most of the time, for Roy, these recruits are low maintenance. Sometimes, as with the case of PJ, they can be more trouble then they are worth.

I think coaches make mistakes evaluating player personalities all the time. All coaches. That's why we see so many transfers.

I can't agree that Roy takes just any top talent, regardless of their personality. He's passed on lots of talented players over the years because he just didn't think they'd fit.

But, he probably does take more chances than coach K would.....

roywhite

07-30-2013, 12:21 PM

I think we both agree that Roy needs to tighten up the ship. But I suspect he is just getting closer to throwing up his hands, moving out to Folly Beach full time, and making a tee time for Saturday.

And these considerations may be affected by the state of the rivalry with Duke. The Blue Devils have been gettiing the best of it over the last few years, and Coach K seems to be recruiting at a very high level. That must not have been a good feeling for Ole Roy to get thrashed in the Dean Dome this last season. Is he willing to dig in and muster a counter-offensive that may take a few years to reach full strength?

BD80

07-30-2013, 12:37 PM

... I think the issue with Roy is that he is willing to take any talent, regardless of their personality. Duke has had their fair share of insubordinate players (or players who got in trouble), but Coach K mitigates that by minimizing recruiting these types of players. Most of the time, for Roy, these recruits are low maintenance. Sometimes, as with the case of PJ, they can be more trouble then they are worth.

Duke and unc recruit many of the same players. There are so few "bad apples" in either bunch that is ludicrous to draw conclusions as to the entire universe of players for either coach. I love ripping ol' roy, but save it for the plentiful incidents for which there is cause ...

*** cough *** 2 championships with squads laden with AFAM "majors" *** cough ****

Duke recruited Chris Weber harder than just about any player ever. Well spoken, academically successful at a prestigious private school, top recruit in one of the best recruiting years ... and a total asshat. Now maybe he would have matured into a better person under Coach K's tutelage rather than under Steve Fisher (a players' coach if there ever was one), but he was sure one egotistical, rotten apple.

Mike Corey

07-30-2013, 01:47 PM

CDu

07-30-2013, 03:34 PM

Briefly on Roy Will, I think he is one of the best, non-money-paying recruiters in college basketball.

And when he has a Porsche at point guard, I think he is an excellent coach.

And yet, I think his best coaching came in the 2005-06 season when he had to rely on a freshman Tyler Hansbrough and without a true PG.

I agree on Williams' recruiting chops (though more recently he's struggled a bit in that area, landing plenty of not-so-great recruits). I tend to believe he's a bit inflexible in his approach, which is a limitation. Of course, as you mention, that's what makes his 2005-06 season so impressive. He took an inexperienced team without a great PG and made them very competitive.

My main knocks on Coach Williams are that he doesn't adapt to his team's strengths and that he appears to put the best interests of the players second to the best interests of his program (see Bullock; McAdoo; repeatedly blaming the players - sometimes by name - whenever the team struggles). But he's a good and successful coach and has tended to be a good-to-great recruiter.

To keep it relevant, I think he's handled the Hairston situation very poorly. The "we don't need to discipline him right now" argument was always weak, and Hairston's follow-up brush with the law (minor as it may be in isolation) just illustrates that fact. I have my doubts that he'll kick Hairston off the team, though, unless the NCAA comes knocking hard about the rental car mess or Hairston gets publicly in trouble with the law again. Based on how he's handle the situation so far, it doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to suspect that Roy will do what's best for his win/loss record unless push really comes to shove.

FerryFor50

07-30-2013, 03:38 PM

I agree on Williams' recruiting chops (though more recently he's struggled a bit in that area, landing plenty of not-so-great recruits). I tend to believe he's a bit inflexible in his approach, which is a limitation. Of course, as you mention, that's what makes his 2005-06 season so impressive. He took an inexperienced team without a great PG and made them very competitive.

My main knocks on Coach Williams are that he doesn't adapt to his team's strengths and that he appears to put the best interests of the players second to the best interests of his program (see Bullock; McAdoo; repeatedly blaming the players - sometimes by name - whenever the team struggles). But he's a good and successful coach and has tended to be a good-to-great recruiter.

Co-sign on this.

I'd add that his recruiting really benefits from being able to sell basketball powerhouses that he didn't have to build up himself like K had to at Duke.

KU had Phog Allen and Larry Brown to build the program up to national recognition and make a college in the middle of nowhere a hotbed for recruits in college bball.

UNC of course had Dean to build the college up.

I'd imagine I could recruit pretty well at both of those universities.

Mike Corey

07-30-2013, 04:29 PM

That's an excellent point and one I wholeheartedly agree with: Roy-Will's skills don't extend far beyond the basketball court, IMO, and his role as public commenter whenever he's needed to comment on something beyond the game itself...well, in that role, he has struggled.

That's one of the many reasons he's not the GOAT.

His mishandling of the Hairston situation has been painful to watch--er, read about.

Kedsy

07-30-2013, 04:47 PM

I'd add that his recruiting really benefits from being able to sell basketball powerhouses that he didn't have to build up himself like K had to at Duke.

KU had Phog Allen and Larry Brown to build the program up to national recognition and make a college in the middle of nowhere a hotbed for recruits in college bball.

UNC of course had Dean to build the college up.

This is not entirely accurate. Duke was a national powerhouse in the '60s with Vic Bubas, made the championship game under Bill Foster in 1978 and the Elite Eight in 1980, the year before K came on board.

Kansas hadn't been a powerhouse since the '50s until Larry Brown came on board. Brown made the Final Four a couple times (including a championship) but left the program on probation when Williams took the job.

Frankly, K's situation when he got to Duke and Roy's situation when he got to Kansas seem pretty similar to me. If anything, Roy had it a little worse since he was on probation.

TexHawk

07-30-2013, 05:13 PM

Frankly, K's situation when he got to Duke and Roy's situation when he got to Kansas seem pretty similar to me. If anything, Roy had it a little worse since he was on probation.

Roy's first few KU teams were extremely fun. He actually had to try back then. After a couple Final Four runs with less-than-McDAA talent in the early 90s, he started reading his own press clippings. Top 10 talent started showing up with guys like Paul Pierce, Raef LaFrentz, and Jacque Vaughn. Very successful regular seasons, but he did go 9 straight years without a Final Four. After the lottery talent left, there were a couple poor seasons where he almost missed the tournament, then Hinrich-Collison-Gooden arrived.

Wheat/"/"/"

07-30-2013, 05:19 PM

It's a funny thing...all coaches seem to be a whole lot better when they have talented players.

Indoor66

07-30-2013, 06:09 PM

It's a funny thing...all coaches seem to be a whole lot better when they have talented players.

You separate the wheat from the chaff when you perform can with less than elite talent. That is when Roy seems to REALLY struggle.

Jim3k

07-30-2013, 06:28 PM

Co-sign on this.

I'd add that his recruiting really benefits from being able to sell basketball powerhouses that he didn't have to build up himself like K had to at Duke.

KU had Phog Allen and Larry Brown to build the program up to national recognition and make a college in the middle of nowhere a hotbed for recruits in college bball.

UNC of course had Dean to build the college up.

I'd imagine I could recruit pretty well at both of those universities.

I dunno if this sort of distinction really flies historically. Phog Allen stopped coaching in 1956. Larry Brown didn't show up until 1983. That interlude covered the KU coaching of Dick Harp and Ted Owens, 27 years of good, but not great coaches. Allen's success was not any basis for Brown's success.

Similarly, at UNC, one could say that Deano's success was based on Frank McGuire's, but that Roy Williams's success was not based on Deano's. There were two coaches in the interim, one of whom got fired for screwing up the system. That was a 6-year interregnum. I don't really see how Williams benefited from Deano's success. Roy was handed a bagful of smelly fish and had to start over. But... if your point is that UNC still had a college basketball brand to build on, Williams was in far better shape than Brown was when he took over at KU.

But how different was K's situation in 1980 when he first arrived? Well, Duke was a pretty good brand. In 1978, Bill Foster's Duke team was in the national title game. The main highlights previously were during the 10-year Vic Bubas regime, where the team had gone to the final four three times: the national title game once and finished third the other two times. He'd also been in one regional championship game. Not chopped liver for basketball branding. In fact, when Foster took over, Duke was one of only eight schools with over 1000 victories.

Foster took the reins after a one-year hiatus under Neill McGeachy. No such hiatus for Krzyzewski who took it straight from Foster, though he had left the cupboard partially bare, leaving K no time to recruit.

Still, upon their hire, which of these three had the worst branding problem and which had the branding issue working the best? Brown after Phog's 27-year absence? Williams following UNC 's 6-year lack of attendance? Or the Duke situation where K arrived behind two successful spells not far apart?

Frankly, I'd say that K's situation may actually have been the best of the three. I'm not for a minute suggesting it wasn't a difficult position. It was. But Kansas really wasn't on the national radar before Brown arrived except for Wilt's years and UNC had been handed a leg up by McGuire. So the McGuire-Smith era had a 45 year foundation for its brand before the 6 year break to disaster mainly caused by Doherty. That 45 year foundation had cemented the UNC brand. It would be a hard one to break from a recruiting standpoint

Duke's brand was certainly solid. But of the three, did K have the worst history to overcome? I don't think so even though K himself was an unknown. I'd conclude that of the three, Brown had the hardest row to hoe. Twenty-seven years of mediocrity easily wipes out all excellence that has gone before. I do think it's a close call whether K's situation in 1980 was better than Williams's in 2003. At least K didn't have to deal with a fouled pool even if he had been handicapped by timing. Still, that 45 year foundation kept Williams afloat. Duke's brand in 1980 was excellent despite his personal anonymity. Remember his second recruiting class: Johnny Dawkins, Mark Alarie, David Henderson, Jay Bilas and Weldon Williams. That class speaks for itself. Duke's brand was better than just good. So I think historically K's initial position upon hire was the easiest of the three. Not that any of the three had it easy, of course, just relatively speaking.

FerryFor50

07-30-2013, 06:30 PM

I dunno if this sort of distinction really flies historically. Phog Allen stopped coaching in 1956. Larry Brown didn't show up until 1983. That interlude covered the KU coaching of Dick Harp and Ted Owens, 27 years of good, but not great coaches. Allen's success was not any basis for Brown's success.

Similarly, at UNC, one could say that Deano's success was based on Frank McGuire's, but that Roy Williams's success was not based on Deano's. There were two coaches in the interim, one of whom got fired for screwing up the system. That was a 6-year interregnum. I don't really see how Williams benefited from Deano's success. Roy was handed a bagful of smelly fish and had to start over. But... if your point is that UNC still had a college basketball brand to build on, Williams was in far better shape than Brown was when he took over at KU.

But how different was K's situation in 1980 when he first arrived? Well, Duke was a pretty good brand. In 1978, Bill Foster's Duke team was in the national title game. The main highlights previously were during the 10-year Vic Bubas regime, where the team had gone to the final four three times: the national title game once and finished third the other two times. He'd also been in one regional championship game. Not chopped liver for basketball branding. In fact, when Foster took over, Duke was one of only eight schools with over 1000 victories.

Foster took the reins after a one-year hiatus under Neill McGeachy. No such hiatus for Krzyzewski who took it straight from Foster, though he had left the cupboard partially bare, leaving K no time to recruit.

Still, upon their hire, which of these three had the worst branding problem and which had the branding issue working the best? Brown after Phog's 27-year absence? Williams following UNC 's 6-year lack of attendance? Or the Duke situation where K arrived behind two successful spells not far apart?

Frankly, I'd say that K's situation may actually have been the best of the three. I'm not for a minute suggesting it wasn't a difficult position. It was. But Kansas really wasn't on the national radar before Brown arrived except for Wilt's years and UNC had been handed a leg up by McGuire. So the McGuire-Smith era had a 45 year foundation for its brand before the 6 year break to disaster mainly caused by Doherty. That 45 year foundation had cemented the UNC brand. It would be a hard one to break from a recruiting standpoint

Duke's brand was certainly solid. But of the three, did K have the worst history to overcome? I don't think so even though K himself was an unknown. I'd conclude that of the three, Brown had the hardest row to hoe. Twenty-seven years of mediocrity easily wipes out all excellence that has gone before. I do think it's a close call whether K's situation in 1980 was better than Williams's in 2003. At least K didn't have to deal with a fouled pool even if he had been handicapped by timing. Still, that 45 year foundation kept Williams afloat. Duke's brand in 1980 was excellent despite his personal anonymity. Remember his second recruiting class: Johnny Dawkins, Mark Alarie, David Henderson, Jay Bilas and Weldon Williams. That class speaks for itself. Duke's brand was better than just good. So I think historically K's initial position upon hire was the easiest of the three. Not that any of the three had it easy, of course, just relatively speaking.

Fair enough. My Duke/college bball history extends back to around 1985 or so, when I was old enough to start following it, so forgive my ignorance. :)

Wheat/"/"/"

07-30-2013, 07:03 PM

You separate the wheat from the chaff when you perform can with less than elite talent. That is when Roy seems to REALLY struggle.

Recent history, (or Roy's entire history for that matter), just doesn't back you up on that.

He took last years team to a very respectable 25-11 record with far from "elite" players. They were good, but not elite.

... And he didn't have a speedy all world pg that some seem to think he has to have. He started a freshman that needed time to grow.

He's a very good coach and has earned his respect in the college basketball community.

oldnavy

07-30-2013, 07:42 PM

arnie

07-30-2013, 07:51 PM

It's a funny thing...all coaches seem to be a whole lot better when they have talented players.

Yes, Roy and the talented 2010 team advanced far into the NIT.

Wheat/"/"/"

07-30-2013, 07:55 PM

Ok...raise you one Lehigh. :)

Duvall

07-30-2013, 08:03 PM

Ok...raise you one Lehigh. :)

We're having a conversation about the coaching ability of Roy Williams, and you think bringing up the topic of NCAA upsets will *help* your case?

arnie

07-30-2013, 08:03 PM

Ok...raise you one Lehigh. :)

Good try, but K didn't go 5-11 in conference with 7 McD studs- yes the UNC site shows 7 - McDonalds all Americans on that roster. No decent coach takes that talent and fails miserably.

Wheat/"/"/"

07-30-2013, 08:21 PM

I was just funnin ya with the Lehigh reminder....you can't convince me or the hall of fame guys that ol' Roy's not a good coach so let's just move along, shall we?

dball

07-30-2013, 08:27 PM

Similarly, at UNC, one could say that Deano's success was based on Frank McGuire's, but that Roy Williams's success was not based on Deano's. There were two coaches in the interim, one of whom got fired for screwing up the system. That was a 6-year interregnum. I don't really see how Williams benefited from Deano's success. Roy was handed a bagful of smelly fish and had to start over. But... if your point is that UNC still had a college basketball brand to build on, Williams was in far better shape than Brown was when he took over at KU.

Gut had the heels in the Final Four twice during his 3 year stint so it's not as if they had disappeared. I believe Dean gets some credit with Roy in that he recruited him for the job and Roy was an assistant for 11 years or so. While Doh was a mess, his excellent recruiting class in 2002 was the basis of Roy's first championship team. Roy can also thank assistant Doh's superior recruiting skills for Pierce, Gooden and Hinrich at Kansas.

K's inherited really good players for his first year were upperclassmen so he had a much leaner "cupboard". Plus, I believe that the poster was referencing the brand and you only need to say "Michael Jordan" to show how strong the UNC brand was (and still is). Despite Doh's relative failures (his two winning seasons, 1 in NCAA and 1 in NIT would have kept him employed at quite a number of schools) UNC was not a tough sell and most thought they just needed the "right" family member at the helm.

But how different was K's situation in 1980 when he first arrived? Well, Duke was a pretty good brand. In 1978, Bill Foster's Duke team was in the national title game. The main highlights previously were during the 10-year Vic Bubas regime, where the team had gone to the final four three times: the national title game once and finished third the other two times. He'd also been in one regional championship game. Not chopped liver for basketball branding. In fact, when Foster took over, Duke was one of only eight schools with over 1000 victories.

Foster took the reins after a one-year hiatus under Neill McGeachy. No such hiatus for Krzyzewski who took it straight from Foster, though he had left the cupboard partially bare, leaving K no time to recruit.

While Duke was one of eight with a thousand, both Kansas and UNC had considerably more wins; both were--at the time of Roy's hire-- and are top 3 all time. Actually, I believe as luck would have it, both schools may have been number two when Roy arrived.

One year hiatus? Bucky Waters says hi. Before '78, the last Duke Final Four appearance was 1966 (when Verga's illness probably cost the Devils the title).

Duke was two years out of the Final Four but UNC was just three. Foster's last year, Duke tied for 6th in an eight team conference, granted with a 7-7 record.

Still, upon their hire, which of these three had the worst branding problem and which had the branding issue working the best? but Brown after Phog's 27-year absence? Williams following UNC 's 6-year lack of attendance? Or the Duke situation where K arrived behind two successful spells not far apart?

Frankly, I'd say that K's situation may actually have been the best of the three. I'm not for a minute suggesting it wasn't a difficult position. It was. But Kansas really wasn't on the national radar before Brown arrived except for Wilt's years and UNC had been handed a leg up by McGuire. So the McGuire-Smith era had a 45 year foundation for its brand before the 6 year break to disaster mainly caused by Doherty. That 45 year foundation had cemented the UNC brand. It would be a hard one to break from a recruiting standpoint

Kansas not on national radar? What basketball fan hasn't heard of Naismith or one of the winningest programs of all time? Kansas and Kentucky were trading places for most wins all time. In the early 70s, they were in the Final Four a couple of times. This was not that long before Brown's arrival.

I'm still not sure how Brown was even added to this. He was a good coach winning 75% of his games at Kansas. Of course, the guy he replaced had won 73%. You make it sound as if Kansas was floundering during the years between Phog Allen's retirement and Brown's arrival. They weren't.

Williams didn't arrive after a 6 year anything. Carolina was two years out of the NCAA, three years out of the Final Four.

I believe Roy was given good opportunities at well-established basketball powers and made the most of it. But to characterize it as a harder hill to climb than K is just off base in my opinion.

OldPhiKap

07-30-2013, 08:30 PM

I dunno if this sort of distinction really flies historically. Phog Allen stopped coaching in 1956. Larry Brown didn't show up until 1983. That interlude covered the KU coaching of Dick Harp and Ted Owens, 27 years of good, but not great coaches. Allen's success was not any basis for Brown's success.

Similarly, at UNC, one could say that Deano's success was based on Frank McGuire's, but that Roy Williams's success was not based on Deano's. There were two coaches in the interim, one of whom got fired for screwing up the system. That was a 6-year interregnum. I don't really see how Williams benefited from Deano's success. Roy was handed a bagful of smelly fish and had to start over. But... if your point is that UNC still had a college basketball brand to build on, Williams was in far better shape than Brown was when he took over at KU.

But how different was K's situation in 1980 when he first arrived? Well, Duke was a pretty good brand. In 1978, Bill Foster's Duke team was in the national title game. The main highlights previously were during the 10-year Vic Bubas regime, where the team had gone to the final four three times: the national title game once and finished third the other two times. He'd also been in one regional championship game. Not chopped liver for basketball branding. In fact, when Foster took over, Duke was one of only eight schools with over 1000 victories.

Foster took the reins after a one-year hiatus under Neill McGeachy. No such hiatus for Krzyzewski who took it straight from Foster, though he had left the cupboard partially bare, leaving K no time to recruit.

Still, upon their hire, which of these three had the worst branding problem and which had the branding issue working the best? Brown after Phog's 27-year absence? Williams following UNC 's 6-year lack of attendance? Or the Duke situation where K arrived behind two successful spells not far apart?

Frankly, I'd say that K's situation may actually have been the best of the three. I'm not for a minute suggesting it wasn't a difficult position. It was. But Kansas really wasn't on the national radar before Brown arrived except for Wilt's years and UNC had been handed a leg up by McGuire. So the McGuire-Smith era had a 45 year foundation for its brand before the 6 year break to disaster mainly caused by Doherty. That 45 year foundation had cemented the UNC brand. It would be a hard one to break from a recruiting standpoint

Duke's brand was certainly solid. But of the three, did K have the worst history to overcome? I don't think so even though K himself was an unknown. I'd conclude that of the three, Brown had the hardest row to hoe. Twenty-seven years of mediocrity easily wipes out all excellence that has gone before. I do think it's a close call whether K's situation in 1980 was better than Williams's in 2003. At least K didn't have to deal with a fouled pool even if he had been handicapped by timing. Still, that 45 year foundation kept Williams afloat. Duke's brand in 1980 was excellent despite his personal anonymity. Remember his second recruiting class: Johnny Dawkins, Mark Alarie, David Henderson, Jay Bilas and Weldon Williams. That class speaks for itself. Duke's brand was better than just good. So I think historically K's initial position upon hire was the easiest of the three. Not that any of the three had it easy, of course, just relatively speaking.

All true, but let me add one wrinkle.

In K's early years, Dean was the master of the conference. Lefty was a legend. Terry Holland owned Food Lion. (Okay, I might have that one wrong). Valvano was the young guy with a NC. Bobby C. was the best recruiter in the conference.

Duke was a good brand, but not sure there was a tougher place for a young guy with an unpronounceable last name from a service school to survive.

Not sure Roy or Dean had such competition within conference.

FerryFor50

07-30-2013, 08:43 PM

Gut had the heels in the Final Four twice during his 3 year stint so it's not as if they had disappeared. I believe Dean gets some credit with Roy in that he recruited him for the job and Roy was an assistant for 11 years or so. While Doh was a mess, his excellent recruiting class in 2002 was the basis of Roy's first championship team. Roy can also thank assistant Doh's superior recruiting skills for Pierce, Gooden and Hinrich at Kansas.

K's inherited really good players for his first year were upperclassmen so he had a much leaner "cupboard". Plus, I believe that the poster was referencing the brand and you only need to say "Michael Jordan" to show how strong the UNC brand was (and still is). Despite Doh's relative failures (his two winning seasons, 1 in NCAA and 1 in NIT would have kept him employed at quite a number of schools) UNC was not a tough sell and most thought they just needed the "right" family member at the helm.

While Duke was one of eight with a thousand, both Kansas and UNC had considerably more wins; both were--at the time of Roy's hire-- and are top 3 all time. Actually, I believe as luck would have it, both schools may have been number two when Roy arrived.

One year hiatus? Bucky Waters says hi. Before '78, the last Duke Final Four appearance was 1966 (when Verga's illness probably cost the Devils the title).

Duke was two years out of the Final Four but UNC was just three. Foster's last year, Duke tied for 6th in an eight team conference, granted with a 7-7 record.

Kansas not on national radar? What basketball fan hasn't heard of Naismith or one of the winningest programs of all time? Kansas and Kentucky were trading places for most wins all time. In the early 70s, they were in the Final Four a couple of times. This was not that long before Brown's arrival.

I'm still not sure how Brown was even added to this. He was a good coach winning 75% of his games at Kansas. Of course, the guy he replaced had won 73%. You make it sound as if Kansas was floundering during the years between Phog Allen's retirement and Brown's arrival. They weren't.

Williams didn't arrive after a 6 year anything. Carolina was two years out of the NCAA, three years out of the Final Four.

I believe Roy was given good opportunities at well-established basketball powers and made the most of it. But to characterize it as a harder hill to climb than K is just off base in my opinion.

A lot of good knowledge on this thread!

Mods, can we branch this out into another thread discussing Roy Williams coaching acumen and whether or not his recruiting was more about circumstance? :)

CDu

07-30-2013, 09:34 PM

I was just funnin ya with the Lehigh reminder....you can't convince me or the hall of fame guys that ol' Roy's not a good coach so let's just move along, shall we?

Note as well that Lehigh had arguably the best player on the floor in that game in CJ McCollum (Rivers had better pedigree and hype, but McCollum was probably more developed at that point). While the result was certainly an upset, it was not nearly the upset many would like to suggest.

I do agree that Williams is a good coach. Probably overrated by some, underrated by others. Not as good a coach as Coach K, but that's not exactly an exclusive club. He's still done quite well for himself, his inability to keep his foot out of his mouth notwithstanding.

moonpie23

07-30-2013, 09:35 PM

ForkFondler

07-30-2013, 09:38 PM

BD80

07-30-2013, 09:41 PM

ok, wheat.....your entire family fortune and assets are bet on one game of completely unknown but respectable players vs. another team of unknown but equally talented players...the coach will get 1 month to prepare the team....

you lose, you're broke forever.....you win and life is good....

roy or k?

I would guess it is not enjoyable for Wheat to take on the entire DBR community mano a mano. He is a Carolina fan, but he is a reasonable guy with an interesting perspective that understandably differs from most of us.

How about we quit poking him?

Wheat/"/"/"

07-30-2013, 09:47 PM

ok, wheat.....your entire family fortune and assets are bet on one game of completely unknown but respectable players vs. another team of unknown but equally talented players...the coach will get 1 month to prepare the team....

you lose, you're broke forever.....you win and life is good....

roy or k?

Not enough info....so it depends....

Is there a real post player on my roster?

I can handle these odds, BD80, but thanks for the kind thought :)

moonpie23

07-30-2013, 09:49 PM

based on the info that you have.....no more, no less...

arnie

07-30-2013, 09:51 PM

based on the info that you have.....no more, no less...

I think he really wants to know if Roy's players drive their own cars.

OldPhiKap

07-30-2013, 10:09 PM

I think he really wants to know if Roy's players drive their own cars.

"Baby, you can drive my car.
Yes, you're gonna be a star.
Baby, you can drive my car,
'Cause baby you're PJ...."

Jim3k

07-30-2013, 10:11 PM

Not enough info....so it depends....

Is there a real post player on my roster?

I can handle these odds, BD80, but thanks for the kind thought :)

You know I don't rag you Wheat, but I'd give you the G-Man as your post. Whattya think?

Wander

07-30-2013, 10:16 PM

This is not entirely accurate. Duke was a national powerhouse in the '60s with Vic Bubas, made the championship game under Bill Foster in 1978 and the Elite Eight in 1980, the year before K came on board.

Kansas hadn't been a powerhouse since the '50s until Larry Brown came on board. Brown made the Final Four a couple times (including a championship) but left the program on probation when Williams took the job.

Frankly, K's situation when he got to Duke and Roy's situation when he got to Kansas seem pretty similar to me. If anything, Roy had it a little worse since he was on probation.

I dunno if this sort of distinction really flies historically. Phog Allen stopped coaching in 1956. Larry Brown didn't show up until 1983. That interlude covered the KU coaching of Dick Harp and Ted Owens, 27 years of good, but not great coaches. Allen's success was not any basis for Brown's success.

Similarly, at UNC, one could say that Deano's success was based on Frank McGuire's, but that Roy Williams's success was not based on Deano's. There were two coaches in the interim, one of whom got fired for screwing up the system. That was a 6-year interregnum. I don't really see how Williams benefited from Deano's success. Roy was handed a bagful of smelly fish and had to start over. But... if your point is that UNC still had a college basketball brand to build on, Williams was in far better shape than Brown was when he took over at KU.

I think you guys are making this a little too complicated. Kansas had 2 national championships and 8 Final Fours before Roy. UNC had 3 national championships and 15 Final Fours before Roy. Duke had 0 national championships and 4 Final Fours before K.

Don't get me wrong, Duke was a good program before Coach K. He didn't build it from nothing. Our pre-K program is probably underrated by most people, but it's also probably a little overrated by some people here. Duke was definitely behind UNC and Kansas. And that's the biggest knack on Roy in coaching circles - that he's gotten to spend his entire career at historical powerhouses.

Wheat/"/"/"

07-30-2013, 10:20 PM

You know I don't rag you Wheat, but I'd give you the G-Man as your post. Whattya think?

Give me him and I'll coach that team and they'll play tough. I always thought he was a great player.

...can I have Tinker Bell too?

dpslaw

07-30-2013, 11:58 PM

Give me him and I'll coach that team and they'll play tough. I always thought he was a great player.

...can I have Tinker Bell too?

Only if you take Makhtar.

Jim3k

07-31-2013, 12:05 AM

I think you guys are making this a little too complicated. Kansas had 2 national championships and 8 Final Fours before Roy. UNC had 3 national championships and 15 Final Fours before Roy. Duke had 0 national championships and 4 Final Fours before K.

Don't get me wrong, Duke was a good program before Coach K. He didn't build it from nothing. Our pre-K program is probably underrated by most people, but it's also probably a little overrated by some people here. Duke was definitely behind UNC and Kansas. And that's the biggest knack on Roy in coaching circles - that he's gotten to spend his entire career at historical powerhouses.

Look...we can all agree with what you say here. But you and some others have changed the question: Which was: Which of Brown, Williams and K had the best advantage at the time they were hired based on basketball reputation? That was not my question, it was Ferryfor50's. He asserted:

Originally Posted by FerryFor50 http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?p=660656#post660656)

I'd add that his recruiting really benefits from being able to sell basketball powerhouses that he didn't have to build up himself like K had to at Duke.

KU had Phog Allen and Larry Brown to build the program up to national recognition and make a college in the middle of nowhere a hotbed for recruits in college bball.

UNC of course had Dean to build the college up.

That was the question--not who is the better coach or whose program is or was the best at the time of the coaching change. It was which coach at that moment had the better school brand allowing him to successfully recruit after the coaching change. That's why Bucky (my ole Speedball coach) was omitted and led to other omissions as well. Nor did he call for comparing KU under Roy with UNC under Roy. Neither did it really deal with the coaches' personalities/recruiting skills. You could call it school cred if you want. But he chose Allen-Brown, Smith-(skipping 6 years)-Williams and K's 1980 hire. There are a lot of inconsistencies in his selections. But if you accept his proposal, as I tried to do, then the other stuff becomes irrelevant.

Obviously there can be disagreement in such circumstances, but let's acknowledge that when you change the question, the answers get changed and you don't get debate points for changing the premise.

And, I understood all along that KU's 27 year hiatus between Allen and Brown covered a lot of territory beyond simple years. But if you look at the record over that time you still get Allen at .729 (520-219) (39 years) compared to Harp .677 (121-82) (8 yerars) and Owens .657 (348-182) (19 years). So for a total of 27 years after Allen, the supposedly legendary KU really had only decent, not dominant, success. Perhaps 'under the radar' was a bit harsh, but if it had truly maintained legendary status, there would have been more FFs and NCs than there were. Given that Allen can legitimately be said to be the father of modern NCAA basketball, that's probably how Kansas history should be.

FerryFor50

07-31-2013, 12:15 AM

Look...we can all agree with what you say here. But you and some others have changed the question: Which was: Which of Brown, Williams and K had the best advantage at the time they were hired based on basketball reputation? That was not my question, it was Ferryfor50's. He asserted:

That was the question--not who is the better coach or whose program is or was the best at the time of the coaching change. It was which coach at that moment had the better school brand allowing him to successfully recruit after the coaching change. That's why Bucky (my ole Speedball coach) was omitted and led to other omissions as well. Nor did he call for comparing KU under Roy with UNC under Roy. Neither did it really deal with the coaches' personalities/recruiting skills. You could call it school cred if you want. But he chose Allen-Brown, Smith-(skipping 6 years)-Williams and K's 1980 hire. There are a lot of inconsistencies in his selections. But if you accept his proposal, as I tried to do, then the other stuff becomes irrelevant.

Obviously there can be disagreement in such circumstances, but let's acknowledge that when you change the question, the answers get changed and you don't get debate points for changing the premise.

And, I understood all along that KU's 27 year hiatus between Allen and Brown covered a lot of territory beyond simple years. But if you look at the record over that time you still get Allen at .729 (520-219) (39 years) compared to Harp .677 (121-82) (8 yerars) and Owens .657 (348-182) (19 years). So for a total of 27 years after Allen, the supposedly legendary KU really had only decent, not dominant, success. Perhaps 'under the radar' was a bit harsh, but if it had truly maintained legendary status, there would have been more FFs and NCs than there were. Given that Allen can legitimately be said to be the father of modern NCAA basketball, that's probably how Kansas history should be.

Yep. My point was that KU had more tradition before Roy ever got there than Duke had when K got there. Phog Allen and Larry Brown were examples because of Allen's legendary status and Brown's NCAA tournament win. Duke had never won a natty prior to K. UNC and Kansas both had multiple championships by the time Roy showed up. I didn't really care how much time had passed between Allen and Williams because Allen was still a legend and had put KU on the map.

My Duke history began with K, so I can't comment on the history prior to K, but I do know that KU was much more of a household name than Duke.

The main point was that while people tout Roy's recruiting, I think it had more to do with *where* he was recruiting moreso than his recruiting acumen. I wonder how Roy would have done had he started out at a mid-major like Butler instead of nationally recognized blue blood programs?

Kedsy

07-31-2013, 12:51 AM

Yep. My point was that KU had more tradition before Roy ever got there than Duke had when K got there. Phog Allen and Larry Brown were examples because of Allen's legendary status and Brown's NCAA tournament win. Duke had never won a natty prior to K. UNC and Kansas both had multiple championships by the time Roy showed up. I didn't really care how much time had passed between Allen and Williams because Allen was still a legend and had put KU on the map.

My Duke history began with K, so I can't comment on the history prior to K, but I do know that KU was much more of a household name than Duke.

The main point was that while people tout Roy's recruiting, I think it had more to do with *where* he was recruiting moreso than his recruiting acumen. I wonder how Roy would have done had he started out at a mid-major like Butler instead of nationally recognized blue blood programs?

If you can't comment about Duke's history prior to K, why are you still talking about it? So, Kansas had multiple "natties" (a grand total of two, one in 1952, and one in 1988, which was somewhat of a fluke as they came out of a #6 seed) before Williams showed up there? So did Oklahoma State, San Francisco, NC State, and Cincinnati. Were all those programs "more of a household name than Duke"?

In the 30 years before Roy got to Kansas, the school had been to four Final Fours (one championship game). In the 30 years before K got to Duke, the school had been to four Final Fours (two championship games). The programs were pretty close to the same place. Just because Jim Naismith and Phog Allen coached at Kansas a million years ago didn't make recruiting all that much (if any) easier for Roy Williams.

And we obviously have no idea how Roy would've done if he started out at a mid-major, but we do know Coach K started out at Army and he only did so-so (73-59, including a 9-17 record the year before Duke hired him). What does that prove?

Anyway, my point is that we don't like it when people spout unsubstantiated nonsense about Duke or our players or Coach K, right? So why can't we refrain from doing the same about UNC? Roy isn't as good as Coach K, but he's a Hall of Fame coach who has consistently recruited well and had great coaching success for decades. Why can't we just leave it at that?

gumbomoop

07-31-2013, 01:29 AM

Roy-Will's skills don't extend far beyond the basketball court, IMO, and his role as public commenter whenever he's needed to comment on something beyond the game itself...well, in that role, he has struggled.

That's one of the many reasons he's not the GOAT.

His mishandling of the Hairston situation has been painful to watch--er, read about.

This raises, for me, the most interesting larger point in the [re]new[ed], relevant tangent that this thread has taken: Roy v. K.

Actually this larger issue merits its own thread, but I hesitate to start one because it might be seen as too delicate, or possibly too harsh toward Roy. But EK is for mature audiences. [Unlike, for example, IC and probably most message boards.] The issue is implicit - and close to explicit - in MC's observation about Roy's limitations and current struggles "beyond the basketball court."

Straightforwardly put, K is considerably more intellectually and culturally curious than is Roy. I suppose the most obvious example is K's Sirius XM program, "Basketball and Beyond with Coach K." K is way, way "beyond" basketball. His focus on leadership only begins to get at his interests, and at his mind. IMO, the reason K and USA BBall is working for him and the NBA guys is that they are enthralled by the breadth and depth of K's mind. For his part, K is delighted to be working with, exchanging ideas with, slightly older players, sophisticated guys, some of them. He sees stuff - complicated stuff - they don't, or haven't, or just haven't paid much attention to; and they're kind of surprised, often initially taken aback, by him. They can't quite believe how interesting he is. By contrast, Roy isn't that interesting. He's not that complex, intellectually and culturally. He's a very nice guy, a straightforward "lifer," very good coach, possibly even an underrated coach because such a strong recruiter. But he's not deep intellectually; he's not broadly curious.

A [not all that much] lesser example may be seen in the difference between K's and Roy's weekly TV show during the season. Roy's, I think, is pretty standard coach-speak-game-highlights. K's is much different, thematically based, few highlights, focused on "beyond" last week's games.

Roy's adult life seems to be basketball and some golf. He's a lifer, one of many, many in the coaching profession. It's what he does, usually very well. PJ's immaturity has thrown him a major league cultural curveball [Is that right? Not sure.....], and Roy the lifer, as MC notes, is definitely having trouble with the curve.

oldnavy

07-31-2013, 08:10 AM

Ok...raise you one Lehigh. :)

I'll see your Lehigh, and raise you a Texas (and give you 17 points).

UrinalCake

07-31-2013, 08:15 AM

He's a very good coach and has earned his respect in the college basketball community.

You mean the community of his peers that voted him the most overrated coach in the country?

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/eye-on-college-basketball/19753693/critical-coaches-who-is-the-most-overrated-coach-in-the-country

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

wsb3

07-31-2013, 08:42 AM

Kedsy

07-31-2013, 11:04 AM

I don't know which coach took over the more difficult job but Coach K had it very hard. I believe Foster knew he was leaving well ahead of his exit and he did not recruit well. Maybe Vince Taylor was the last blue chip recruit. By the time of Foster's exit it was too late to recruit.

Well, when Williams came on board at Kansas, he took over a team that lost by far its best player, whose returning players weren't nearly as good as Banks/Dennard/Taylor and company, and was on NCAA probation. Like Foster, Larry Brown hadn't recruited very hard the previous season. Of Kansas' two freshmen the year before Williams took over, one didn't play much and transferred before Williams got on board and the other (Mike Maddox) wasn't nearly as good as Duke's Taylor. Pretty hard to recruit under those circumstances, too, right?

Williams's first season, Kansas went 19-12 while on probation, not too different from Duke's 17-13 in K's first year. But while K struggled to 10-17 and 11-17 records his second and third seasons at Duke, Williams went 30-5 and 27-8 and made the Final Four his third season at Kansas.

So yeah, K had it hard. Williams had it hard too, probably harder, and did pretty well for himself. I don't particularly like Roy Williams, and I think Coach K is by far the better coach, but let's not pretend Roy can't recruit or win basketball games.

BD80

07-31-2013, 11:21 AM

Well, when Williams came on board at Kansas, he took over a team that lost by far its best player, whose returning players weren't nearly as good as Banks/Dennard/Taylor and company, and was on NCAA probation. Like Foster, Larry Brown hadn't recruited very hard the previous season. Of Kansas' two freshmen the year before Williams took over, one didn't play much and transferred before Williams got on board and the other (Mike Maddox) wasn't nearly as good as Duke's Taylor. Pretty hard to recruit under those circumstances, too, right?

Williams's first season, Kansas went 19-12 while on probation, not too different from Duke's 17-13 in K's first year. But while K struggled to 10-17 and 11-17 records his second and third seasons at Duke, Williams went 30-5 and 27-8 and made the Final Four his third season at Kansas.

So yeah, K had it hard. Williams had it hard too, probably harder, and did pretty well for himself. I don't particularly like Roy Williams, and I think Coach K is by far the better coach, but let's not pretend Roy can't recruit or win basketball games.

There is no place for such fair-mindedness on the internet!

Well, ... maybe here

MCFinARL

07-31-2013, 11:22 AM

This raises, for me, the most interesting larger point in the [re]new[ed], relevant tangent that this thread has taken: Roy v. K.

Actually this larger issue merits its own thread, but I hesitate to start one because it might be seen as too delicate, or possibly too harsh toward Roy. But EK is for mature audiences. [Unlike, for example, IC and probably most message boards.] The issue is implicit - and close to explicit - in MC's observation about Roy's limitations and current struggles "beyond the basketball court."

Straightforwardly put, K is considerably more intellectually and culturally curious than is Roy. I suppose the most obvious example is K's Sirius XM program, "Basketball and Beyond with Coach K." K is way, way "beyond" basketball. His focus on leadership only begins to get at his interests, and at his mind. IMO, the reason K and USA BBall is working for him and the NBA guys is that they are enthralled by the breadth and depth of K's mind. For his part, K is delighted to be working with, exchanging ideas with, slightly older players, sophisticated guys, some of them. He sees stuff - complicated stuff - they don't, or haven't, or just haven't paid much attention to; and they're kind of surprised, often initially taken aback, by him. They can't quite believe how interesting he is. By contrast, Roy isn't that interesting. He's not that complex, intellectually and culturally. He's a very nice guy, a straightforward "lifer," very good coach, possibly even an underrated coach because such a strong recruiter. But he's not deep intellectually; he's not broadly curious.

I see your point, but really, how do you know this unless you know these coaches personally? Granted, K is clearly a lot more media savvy than Roy, and he has created an area of expertise for himself beyond basketball [but still, essentially, based on and connected to his work in basketball], in leadership, which Roy has not. But I'm not sure either of these clearly indicates intellectual or cultural curiosity as such. And while there is no evidence from his public persona that Roy is intellectually or culturally curious, we don't actually know what is on his bedside table or whether he goes to the symphony from time to time--or at least I don't.

I think K is a great coach, and he seems to be a dynamic and effective person more broadly as well, and I am very glad he is Duke's coach. But I think we sometimes tend to indulge in a bit of hagiography with K, which I am not sure is completely healthy.

OldPhiKap

07-31-2013, 11:30 AM

Well, when Williams came on board at Kansas, he took over a team that lost by far its best player, whose returning players weren't nearly as good as Banks/Dennard/Taylor and company, and was on NCAA probation. Like Foster, Larry Brown hadn't recruited very hard the previous season. Of Kansas' two freshmen the year before Williams took over, one didn't play much and transferred before Williams got on board and the other (Mike Maddox) wasn't nearly as good as Duke's Taylor. Pretty hard to recruit under those circumstances, too, right?

Williams's first season, Kansas went 19-12 while on probation, not too different from Duke's 17-13 in K's first year. But while K struggled to 10-17 and 11-17 records his second and third seasons at Duke, Williams went 30-5 and 27-8 and made the Final Four his third season at Kansas.

So yeah, K had it hard. Williams had it hard too, probably harder, and did pretty well for himself. I don't particularly like Roy Williams, and I think Coach K is by far the better coach, but let's not pretend Roy can't recruit or win basketball games.

I agree, but again say that the records in the first few years are somewhat skewed by the fact that K joined the ACC at its arguably strongest point, and was surrounded by some of the best ever to coach in the ACC. I am not sure Roy's competition was as strong. (Maybe it was, I was a victim of east coast bias back then and there were precious few nationally televised games).

Kedsy

07-31-2013, 11:57 AM

I agree, but again say that the records in the first few years are somewhat skewed by the fact that K joined the ACC at its arguably strongest point, and was surrounded by some of the best ever to coach in the ACC. I am not sure Roy's competition was as strong. (Maybe it was, I was a victim of east coast bias back then and there were precious few nationally televised games).

OK, maybe the competition wasn't as strong -- although Roy's conference (the Big Eight, soon to become Big Twelve) did place both teams in the national championship game and had a third team get to the Elite Eight the year before Roy came on board, so his competition was still pretty darn strong. But accepting your premise could the strength disparity possibly be enough to explain the difference between 11-17 and 30-5?

Anyway, my intent is absolutely not to denigrate Coach K, or to say Roy Williams is better (because I categorically believe K is better), but to combat the silly and tired Roy-can't-coach-or-recruit-and-his-success-is-purely-because-of-where-he-was-hired trope that often pervades this board.

gumbomoop

07-31-2013, 12:03 PM

I see your point, but really, how do you know this unless you know these coaches personally? Granted, K is clearly a lot more media savvy than Roy, and he has created an area of expertise for himself beyond basketball [but still, essentially, based on and connected to his work in basketball], in leadership, which Roy has not. But I'm not sure either of these clearly indicates intellectual or cultural curiosity as such. And while there is no evidence from his public persona that Roy is intellectually or culturally curious, we don't actually know what is on his bedside table or whether he goes to the symphony from time to time--or at least I don't.

I think K is a great coach, and he seems to be a dynamic and effective person more broadly as well, and I am very glad he is Duke's coach. But I think we sometimes tend to indulge in a bit of hagiography with K, which I am not sure is completely healthy.

Very important and fair point. Hagiography is definitely not healthy. But I have intermittently posted criticisms of K's warts, especially his chip-on-shoulder responses to media, who might sometimes deserve his scorn, but it's still a weakness. [My first post on EK, literally, was about "chippy K," which got me branded a troll. That I might be a troll doesn't excuse his occasional unbecoming chippiness.]

As to K's intellectual and cultural curiosity, maybe that's not the right assessment, but until someone can pin it down better for me, I say his Sirius XM thing suggests some pretty broad interests. That it is media savvy doesn't preclude its being substantive.

As I noted in my post above, the comparison between K and Roy is a delicate topic, but Mike Corey's post struck me as raising an interesting issue. [He's not responsible for where I took it.] I think it's a legitimate issue, the differences between K and Roy. Each is undoubtedly better, more effective, than the other in some ways. FAIK, Roy is just a nicer guy. But I do think we have circumstantial hints that K thinks more broadly - than lots of folks, not just Roy.

I think some of the USA BBall NBA guys have been dumbstruck just by how interesting K is, his approach, his perspective, his mind. Plenty of stories about NBA guys who talk about K's breadth and depth.

Also his humor. Dry, sarcastic, sometimes even self-effacing [but not "Ol' K"]. Which, as I have also noted, trolling regularly through EK and life, is among K's most winning attributes. Not incidentally, his humor is different from Roy's. Circumstantially speaking.

TexHawk

07-31-2013, 12:03 PM

I agree, but again say that the records in the first few years are somewhat skewed by the fact that K joined the ACC at its arguably strongest point, and was surrounded by some of the best ever to coach in the ACC. I am not sure Roy's competition was as strong. (Maybe it was, I was a victim of east coast bias back then and there were precious few nationally televised games).
It wasn't great, but not overly terrible either. Oklahoma still had Billy Tubbs, Norm Stewart was still around being annoying, Eddie Sutton was just getting started, a young Dana Altman was at KSU, and Johnny Orr was still kicking at Iowa State.

That time period was probably one of the best for elite "name" coaches in the old Big 8, but the teams weren't fantastic year to year by that point. 1990 was probably the best year, with OU (#1 seed), KU (#2 seed), and Missouri (#3 seed). But they all missed the 2nd weekend of the tourney.

Edit: MU and OU were both Top 5 teams in 1989, Roy's first year (probation). But that season never happened.

allenmurray

07-31-2013, 12:07 PM

Roy . . . we don't actually know what is on his bedside table.

I think that would be a Coke.

3511

OldPhiKap

07-31-2013, 12:43 PM

I think that would be a Coke.

3511

I always figured that Roy was an RC Cola, moonpie, BC powder kinda guy.

Wander

07-31-2013, 01:17 PM

Pretty hard to recruit under those circumstances, too, right?

At Kansas? No, not really.

Kedsy

07-31-2013, 01:25 PM

At Kansas? No, not really.

Oh, please. When Williams took over Kansas on probation, I'm not sure how many top tier coaches even wanted the job (probably not many, or they wouldn't have given it to a guy with zero head coaching experience). Rick Pitino initially had a hard time recruiting when he took over a program on probation at Kentucky. Do you really feel the Kansas brand in 1989 was that much stronger than the Duke brand in 1981?

FerryFor50

07-31-2013, 01:35 PM

Oh, please. When Williams took over Kansas on probation, I'm not sure how many top tier coaches even wanted the job (probably not many, or they wouldn't have given it to a guy with zero head coaching experience). Rick Pitino initially had a hard time recruiting when he took over a program on probation at Kentucky. Do you really feel the Kansas brand in 1989 was that much stronger than the Duke brand in 1981?

I think several posters on this board believe the Kansas brand was stronger in 1989. And obviously, several believe the opposite. I'd also argue that Kentucky on probation was a stronger brand than 1981 Duke. I'm in the camp that believes that Coach K *made* Duke what it is and I think it's easy to lose sight of that fact since he's been around for so long.

Guess that's why they call 'em opinions. :)

Wander

07-31-2013, 01:38 PM

Do you really feel the Kansas brand in 1989 was that much stronger than the Duke brand in 1981?

Well, I don't know how much is "that much," but it was absolutely stronger, yes. I don't think you're giving proper weight to the fact that Kansas won a national championship the year before Roy Williams started, and you're overrating the long term effect that probation has on powerhouse programs.

Roy had an easier career path than most college basketball coaches. He doesn't need to apologize for that and it doesn't imply he's not a very good coach - he wouldn't have had as much success as he's had if he was a poor one - but that he had an easier time starting out is a pretty commonly-held and non-controversial opinion, shared by plenty of people in college basketball.

TexHawk

07-31-2013, 01:41 PM

At Kansas? No, not really.

I don't want to derail the thread, but recruiting at KU is not as easy as the other bluebloods, and I don't think most would disagree. It's not *hard*, exactly, it's obviously easier than 300+ other D1 schools. But coaches are perpetually fighting the "stuck out there", "wizard of oz", "flat with nothing to do" stereotypes with the high-end talent. Bill Self, arguably one of the best recruiters in America, initially signed two fantastic classes, but since then has had multiple years w/o a single McDAA. (The 2013 class is obviously fantastic). And of the three McDAAs who came between 2008 and 2012, one did so because his dad was a legacy (Xavier Henry), and another came because he is from Wichita (Perry Ellis).

Roy's first recruiting class at KU had verbal commitments from Adonis Jordan, Thomas Hill (http://www.hoopszone.net/Kansas/Kansas/Coaches/Williams-roy.htm), and Harold Miner. The latter two jumped when probation came down. But that was back when Roy was "trying", as he later became famous for taking years off from recruiting. That was always the draw to UNC, that place *usually* recruits itself, so Roy could play lots of golf.

CameronBlue

07-31-2013, 02:46 PM

My friends the nice comments about Roy are not warranted here. Put it in another forum. The comments about Coach K being chippy are not appreciated by myself. Another forum and I will argue this point. Let me educate you some. Coach K is a West Pointer. That should suffice. He got his start from something I admire and respect. To become an Army officer from this avenue should help you in your understanding. The rearing is something not many of you can appreciate.
Now what is going on with PJ, nice day my dear friends

It's ironic that you're forcing me to defend Roy against every impulse in my body. The service academies are not the only repositories of disciplined, dedicated and hard-working professionals. I guarantee you, having seen first hand basketball coaches in practice, the film-room at 2 am, sleeping in their offices That even moderately successful college basketball coaches have those qualities in ample supply. I will assume that you also have a measure of respect for doctors, lawyers, Writers, actors and anyone else who has the ability to muster the effort it takes to be successful and rise to the top of their profession. Otherwise I will assume that your statement is biased, which you've admitted, and myopic in which case I'll get my education elsewhere thanks.

flyingdutchdevil

07-31-2013, 02:55 PM

I don't want to derail the thread, but recruiting at KU is not as easy as the other bluebloods, and I don't think most would disagree. It's not *hard*, exactly, it's obviously easier than 300+ other D1 schools. But coaches are perpetually fighting the "stuck out there", "wizard of oz", "flat with nothing to do" stereotypes with the high-end talent. Bill Self, arguably one of the best recruiters in America, initially signed two fantastic classes, but since then has had multiple years w/o a single McDAA. (The 2013 class is obviously fantastic). And of the three McDAAs who came between 2008 and 2012, one did so because his dad was a legacy (Xavier Henry), and another came because he is from Wichita (Perry Ellis).

Roy's first recruiting class at KU had verbal commitments from Adonis Jordan, Thomas Hill (http://www.hoopszone.net/Kansas/Kansas/Coaches/Williams-roy.htm), and Harold Miner. The latter two jumped when probation came down. But that was back when Roy was "trying", as he later became famous for taking years off from recruiting. That was always the draw to UNC, that place *usually* recruits itself, so Roy could play lots of golf.

How is this different from Kentucky or Indiana? Or Duke or UNC for that matter? Lawrence has a population of 90,000, which is more than Bloomington (81,000) or Chapel Hill (58,000). And while Lexington is significantly larger (300,000), Lawrence is only a 40 minute drive to Kansas City, which is pretty massive (2.4 mil).

From a geographic perspective, KU doesn't really have it that bad. However, the stigma of Kansas may be a slight negative, but I'm not sure that it's as strong as the stigma for a lot of other blue bloods (Duke being a school for white players, UNC's insane expectations of landing the next MJ, UI's poor recent history, etc).

I really think it comes down to the coach. Self can recruit fairly well, but his ability to dominate throughout the season is the main draw for recruits.

Kfanarmy

07-31-2013, 03:41 PM

subzero02

07-31-2013, 04:07 PM

How is this different from Kentucky or Indiana? Or Duke or UNC for that matter? Lawrence has a population of 90,000, which is more than Bloomington (81,000) or Chapel Hill (58,000). And while Lexington is significantly larger (300,000), Lawrence is only a 40 minute drive to Kansas City, which is pretty massive (2.4 mil).

From a geographic perspective, KU doesn't really have it that bad. However, the stigma of Kansas may be a slight negative, but I'm not sure that it's as strong as the stigma for a lot of other blue bloods (Duke being a school for white players, UNC's insane expectations of landing the next MJ, UI's poor recent history, etc).

I really think it comes down to the coach. Self can recruit fairly well, but his ability to dominate throughout the season is the main draw for recruits.

It's IU if you are referring to Indiana University. I do feel that KU has the biggest hurdle to overcome amongst the blue bloods in terms of negative geography stigmas.

CameronBlue

07-31-2013, 04:21 PM

you had me right up until you threw actors on your list...

AEA requirement. (Though I'm no longer a member in good standing.).

Kedsy

07-31-2013, 04:47 PM

I don't think you're giving proper weight to the fact that Kansas won a national championship the year before Roy Williams started, and you're overrating the long term effect that probation has on powerhouse programs.

In 2011, UConn won the national championship, its third national championship in the lifetime of current recruits (something Kansas in 1989 couldn't come close to saying). And yet, the imminent departure of its coach and the threat of probation hanging over Storrs seemed to have an effect. In the next two years, UConn successfully recruited zero (0) top 30 recruits and only two (2) top 100 recruits, combined.

Also, I was talking about the short term effect of probation, not the long-term effect. Williams took a team that'd lost its coach and its top players and was going on probation and a year later won 30 games and the next year won 27 and made the Final Four. That's way better than K did early in his Duke career and could not have been accomplished without Roy being both a really good recruiter and a pretty good coach.

That's all I'm saying.

OldPhiKap

07-31-2013, 06:08 PM

Glad this discussion was moved to its own thread, thanks to the mod(s) that went to the effort to cull these all out.

I think the biggest difference between the two is that Roy was voted most overrated by his own peers. K, by contrast, is recognized by his peers as an outstanding coach. That has to count for something.

Roy did a wonderful job at Kansas and as good a job in Dean's shadow as one could at UNC. He is a good recruiter, and runs a system that as extremely effective if it has the personnel. His hoarding of time outs and his rotations (pulling the hot shooter) baffle me.

dball

07-31-2013, 07:54 PM

In 2011, UConn won the national championship, its third national championship in the lifetime of current recruits (something Kansas in 1989 couldn't come close to saying). And yet, the imminent departure of its coach and the threat of probation hanging over Storrs seemed to have an effect. In the next two years, UConn successfully recruited zero (0) top 30 recruits and only two (2) top 100 recruits, combined.

Not sure if the comparison is apt. In 1989, it was common for guys to play four years. Even superstars (MJ) often played three. Now in the age of 1 'n done, it wouldn't make sense to go to a school on probation if that were the only year you planned to be in school.

Also, I was talking about the short term effect of probation, not the long-term effect. Williams took a team that'd lost its coach and its top players and was going on probation and a year later won 30 games and the next year won 27 and made the Final Four. That's way better than K did early in his Duke career and could not have been accomplished without Roy being both a really good recruiter and a pretty good coach.

That's all I'm saying.

While the loss of Manning was huge, I don't think you can say Kansas lost its top players. The other top scorers were both back and Newton led the team in scoring for Roy's first year as I recall. Plus--and it's a big plus--Mark Randall was returning from his medical redshirt year. Randall was a terrific player and one K recruited hard. Believe JUCO West also arrived that year.

This is not to denigrate Roy's coaching. I do believe he got great opportunities at well-established programs and took advantage of it.

vick

07-31-2013, 08:07 PM

Not sure if the comparison is apt. In 1989, it was common for guys to play four years. Even superstars (MJ) often played three. Now in the age of 1 'n done, it wouldn't make sense to go to a school on probation if that were the only year you planned to be in school.

If recruits in the 31-100 range are thinking one-and-done (and so wouldn't go to a team on probation), someone needs to sit them down and tell them how few people actually make that jump each year.

MartyClark

07-31-2013, 08:10 PM

Thanks for the context. I watched Mark Randall play when he was in high school. I see him occasionally at one of the Denver 24 Hour Fitness centers. I've never talked to him but, now, I think I'll ask him why the heck he didn't go to Duke.

While the loss of Manning was huge, I don't think you can say Kansas lost its top players. The other top scorers were both back and Newton led the team in scoring for Roy's first year as I recall. Plus--and it's a big plus--Mark Randall was returning from his medical redshirt year. Randall was a terrific player and one K recruited hard. Believe JUCO West also arrived that year.

This is not to denigrate Roy's coaching. I do believe he got great opportunities at well-established programs and took advantage of it.[/QUOTE]

DukeAlumBS

08-01-2013, 03:42 AM

It's ironic that you're forcing me to defend Roy against every impulse in my body. The service academies are not the only repositories of disciplined, dedicated and hard-working professionals. I guarantee you, having seen first hand basketball coaches in practice, the film-room at 2 am, sleeping in their offices That even moderately successful college basketball coaches have those qualities in ample supply. I will assume that you also have a measure of respect for doctors, lawyers, Writers, actors and anyone else who has the ability to muster the effort it takes to be successful and rise to the top of their profession. Otherwise I will assume that your statement is biased, which you've admitted, and myopic in which case I'll get my education elsewhere thanks.

CameronBlue, Let me educate you once more. What you said above is wrong. The service academies especially West Point give us much more. Each has their own traits and request of each student. West Point and the Army it is Honor, Courage and Integrity. The most important building block out of West Point is LEADERSHIP! This is why this leader coaches the Olympics. This is why he talks to corporations about winning and leadership. Coach K again is a winner and LEADER. You do not get this anywhere else. It is known in military circles what comes out of West Point. Leaders. Nice day my friends, Jimmy

wsb3

08-01-2013, 07:17 AM

Duke lost G-Man who was pretty darn good.

Mike Corey

08-01-2013, 08:54 AM

Recent history, (or Roy's entire history for that matter), just doesn't back you up on that.

He took last years team to a very respectable 25-11 record with far from "elite" players. They were good, but not elite.

... And he didn't have a speedy all world pg that some seem to think he has to have. He started a freshman that needed time to grow.

He's a very good coach and has earned his respect in the college basketball community.

Far from elite players?

McDonald's All-Americans on that roster: Paige, Hairston, Bullock, McAdoo, Strickland.

That's elite talent, daggum it, including one--McAdoo--who bypassed the NBA Draft to return for another season.

Your PG was the top PG recruit in his class in the ESPN rankings.

Last year was one of Roy-Will's worst coaching efforts.

Yes, he's a very good coach, but his inability to adapt to the skillset of his players is also acknowledged in the college basketball community.

jipops

08-01-2013, 09:09 AM

DukeAlumBS

08-01-2013, 10:29 AM

The K vs. Dean comparison seems like a better argument than this one. While Roy is an excellent coach it seems universal among long time UNC fans I've talked with that Dean was superior in every facet to Roy. Again, I do have a level of respect for him as a coach, but I think we're downgrading K a little by comparing him with Roy.

Sure Roy took over at UNC when the program had hit a rough patch. But the UNC brand was there and it was created by Dean. Just as K has molded the powerhouse brand that is Duke, regardless of the successes of Bubas and Foster before him.

Thank you for this. I felt that when in the other forum when I saw K and Roy compared to each other. Roy was ranked by his peers as the most overrated coach and also inadequate. FUI we have a unique thing in Coach K. And that is why we have what we have. His education at West Point set the groundwork. Coach K speaks to top corporations on winning and leadership. He speaks at our law school the very same. He speaks at the Terry Sanford school of public policy on winning and leadership. Again top corporations on winning and leadership. There has never been a coach such as this ever. And not one who was a West Pointer! My honest feeling is that Coach K is what all other coaches wish to be like and to have accomplished what he did. He set the STANDARD! Nice day my friends, Jimmy

FerryFor50

08-01-2013, 10:42 AM

Thank you for this. I felt that when in the other forum when I saw K and Roy compared to each other. Roy was ranked by his peers as the most overrated coach and also inadequate. FUI we have a unique thing in Coach K. And that is why we have what we have. His education at West Point set the groundwork. Coach K speaks to top corporations on winning and leadership. He speaks at our law school the very same. He speaks at the Terry Sanford school of public policy on winning and leadership. Again top corporations on winning and leadership. There has never been a coach such as this ever. And not one who was a West Pointer! My honest feeling is that Coach K is what all other coaches wish to be like and to have accomplished what he did. He set the STANDARD! Nice day my friends, Jimmy

This wasn't really about K vs Roy from a coaching standpoint. This was K vs Roy as in who had it easier when they first started coaching, from a recruiting standpoint.

sagegrouse

08-01-2013, 11:09 AM

Duvall

08-01-2013, 11:24 AM

OldPhiKap

08-01-2013, 11:33 AM

I am reminded of a story. Jim Valvano was the brand new coach at State. He was getting a haircut and talking hoops with the barber, who clearly thought Dean Smith was beyond compare. "Well," asked Jim, "what about Norm Sloan? He went 27-0 one year and won a national championship the next?" "Well," said the barber, "Just think what Dean Smith would have done with those teams."

In that regard, Ol' Roy has won two NC's in his ten years at UNC. Dean won two in 35 years.

sagegrouse

IIRC, Roy's two NCs came in years where they won the regular season but did not win the conference tournament. So, under the rules in place for a good part of Dean's years, they would not have made the NCAA Tournament.

sagegrouse

08-01-2013, 11:47 AM

IIRC, Roy's two NCs came in years where they won the regular season but did not win the conference tournament. So, under the rules in place for a good part of Dean's years, they would not have made the NCAA Tournament.

OTOH, if winning were essential, Roy might have paid more attention to the ACC's -- like in playing Ty Lawson in the 2009 event.

sagegrouse

jipops

08-01-2013, 12:38 PM

I am reminded of a story. Jim Valvano was the brand new coach at State. He was getting a haircut and talking hoops with the barber, who clearly thought Dean Smith was beyond compare. "Well," asked Jim, "what about Norm Sloan? He went 27-0 one year and won a national championship the next?" "Well," said the barber, "Just think what Dean Smith would have done with those teams."

In that regard, Ol' Roy has won two NC's in his ten years at UNC. Dean won two in 35 years.

sagegrouse

Good point, is this now morphing into Roy vs. Dean? I'm totally screwing up this thread. But in response: would Roy have those 2 national championships at UNC if Dean had never been there? Would he have 2 national titles at all?

If you had to choose between Roy and Dean (in his coaching years) to coach one big game to win it all, which would you choose? Between both UNC and Duke fan bases I think there would be an overwhelming choice. Which puts me back to the Dean vs. K argument.

OldPhiKap

08-01-2013, 12:40 PM

OTOH, if winning were essential, Roy might have paid more attention to the ACC's -- like in playing Ty Lawson in the 2009 event.

sagegrouse

Serious question -- does Roy really mean that, or does he just say it because he gets pwned by K?

I am sure that the NCAA tournament is more important than the ACC tourney to both Roy and to K. The big difference is that K makes no bones about wanting to win everything, every time. I find it hard to believe that Roy ins't trying his best in the ACC Tourney, and given his background the ACC title has to mean something to him as well. Even if all he cares about is the NCAA, seeding considerations would dictate that you try to win. Plus there are the banners to hang, which is a big thing apparently over at the University of Non Compliance.

Put another way, if his coaching philosophy is truly that he doesn't care whether he wins the confernece tournmanent or not, that seems to me to be a poor choice.

WRT Lawson, I think K and Roy would both sit an injured player and let them get some healing rest. K kept Kyrie out through the first two games of the NCAA's (maybe three -- kind of runs together) even though Kyrie said he thought he was ready to go.

OldPhiKap

08-01-2013, 12:44 PM

Good point, is this now morphing into Roy vs. Dean? I'm totally screwing up this thread. But in response: would Roy have those 2 national championships at UNC if Dean had never been there? Would he have 2 national titles at all?

If you had to choose between Roy and Dean (in his coaching years) to coach one big game to win it all, which would you choose? Between both UNC and Duke fan bases I think there would be an overwhelming choice. Which puts me back to the Dean vs. K argument.

Arguably, he would not have won his first title if it were not for Doh! recruiting Felton, Mays, and McCants.

TexHawk

08-01-2013, 02:23 PM

Serious question -- does Roy really mean that, or does he just say it because he gets pwned by K?

I stopped following Roy's every word when he left for UNC, but he was banging the "cocktail party" and "I hate conference tournaments" line all the way back to the late 90s at KU (http://newsok.com/tournament-time-or-turmoil-time-ku-a-party-pooper-others-need-a-favor/article/2604764).

DukieInKansas

08-01-2013, 02:44 PM

TexHawk

08-01-2013, 03:41 PM

When Roy took the head coaching job at KU, he had been an assistant coach under Dean Smith for 10 years. In contrast, Coach Krzyzewski was an assistant under Bobby Knight for just 1 year and then was a head coach at Army for 5 years. I think this gave an advantage to Roy as he was part of the Dean Smith coaching tree - giving him ties to UNC and to KU. I don't know how much of an advantage this truly gave him in the early years at KU over Coach K's early years at Duke, but I think it would be some.

In Roy's first 3 years or so, he did EVERYTHING that Dean Smith's coaching style required. From same plays with the same names, all the way to the "standing up when a guy gets subbed" thing, same hand signals, etc. I'm sure there were also other things behind the scenes that we never saw. I wonder if that had something to do with that initial success. Like a ready-made box of coaching tips to apply to every situation. After a while, that doesn't fly anymore, you are on your own, sink or swim. Roy obviously succeeded, but it may explain why guys like Eddie Fogler, Buzz Peterson, and Doherty had some initial success, only to fall flat in the long run.

I don't know K's early history very well, but did Bob Knight have anything to do with his hiring at Duke? KU approached Deano to take over for Larry Brown, he offered up Roy instead. So, at least in that sense, Roy would not have had that first job at all without Dean.

OldPhiKap

08-01-2013, 04:17 PM

In Roy's first 3 years or so, he did EVERYTHING that Dean Smith's coaching style required. From same plays with the same names, all the way to the "standing up when a guy gets subbed" thing, same hand signals, etc. I'm sure there were also other things behind the scenes that we never saw. I wonder if that had something to do with that initial success. Like a ready-made box of coaching tips to apply to every situation. After a while, that doesn't fly anymore, you are on your own, sink or swim. Roy obviously succeeded, but it may explain why guys like Eddie Fogler, Buzz Peterson, and Doherty had some initial success, only to fall flat in the long run.

I don't know K's early history very well, but did Bob Knight have anything to do with his hiring at Duke? KU approached Deano to take over for Larry Brown, he offered up Roy instead. So, at least in that sense, Roy would not have had that first job at all without Dean.

I believe that our AD Tom Butters called Knight to see if he was interested in the job, and Knight told him that Duke should hire K.

flyingdutchdevil

08-01-2013, 04:23 PM

I believe that our AD Tom Butters called Knight to see if he was interested in the job, and Knight told him that Duke should hire K.

If I'm not mistaken, according to Gene Wojciechowski, Butters called Knight to ask who Knight would recommend. Knight gave the name of another coach. When Butters asked about Coach K, Knight said he's one of the best coaches out there.

Bob Knight works in mysterious ways.

OldPhiKap

08-01-2013, 04:35 PM

If I'm not mistaken, according to Gene Wojciechowski, Butters called Knight to ask who Knight would recommend. Knight gave the name of another coach. When Butters asked about Coach K, Knight said he's one of the best coaches out there.

Bob Knight works in mysterious ways.

Had not heard it that way, but interesting. Could be.

Bobby Knight is an enigma, wrapped in a riddle, esconced in bacon. ymmm, bacon . . . .

flyingdutchdevil

08-01-2013, 05:31 PM

Had not heard it that way, but interesting. Could be.

Bobby Knight is an enigma, wrapped in a riddle, esconced in bacon. ymmm, bacon . . . .

It's from Gene Wojo's latest book, "The Last Great Game".

Wheat/"/"/"

08-01-2013, 07:57 PM

Far from elite players?

McDonald's All-Americans on that roster: Paige, Hairston, Bullock, McAdoo, Strickland.

That's elite talent, daggum it, including one--McAdoo--who bypassed the NBA Draft to return for another season.

Your PG was the top PG recruit in his class in the ESPN rankings.

Last year was one of Roy-Will's worst coaching efforts.

Yes, he's a very good coach, but his inability to adapt to the skillset of his players is also acknowledged in the college basketball community.

I'll argue that was elite potential you saw last season. It takes time with some players to become elite talent, no matter what some recruiting service says.

Roy surely has had some breaks that most coaches don't get. That's why he topped that stupid "most overrated" coach poll. It smacks of jealousy in my book.

But there are plenty of stories out there where people screw up great situations they've stepped into. He still works as hard as any coach at recruiting, and he does get quality players, the ones everybody else was after too. That's a big part of coaching, and he excels at it. Always has.

When people say he can't win without great players, they forget that no coach can. Players play and coaches coach. It's ridiculous to think less of him because he can get great players.

At the end of the day, his coaching stands on his record and how his players respect him and play for him. And I'd say that's been pretty impressive.

OldPhiKap

08-01-2013, 08:38 PM

At the end of the day, his coaching stands on his record and how his players respect him and play for him. And I'd say that's been pretty impressive.

You had me until this.

Roy has had several teams just give up on him. PJ obviously does not respect Roy or PJ would have taken his warnings seriously.

Wheat/"/"/"

08-01-2013, 09:12 PM

You had me until this.

Roy has had several teams just give up on him. PJ obviously does not respect Roy or PJ would have taken his warnings seriously.

PJ is PJ,...and one player. And I'm not convinced his respect or lack of respect of Roy has anything to do with his issues. I doubt his thinking ever got to that level...

What team gave up on Roy?

OldPhiKap

08-01-2013, 09:20 PM

PJ is PJ,...and one player. And I'm not convinced his respect or lack of respect of Roy has anything to do with his issues. I doubt his thinking ever got to that level...

What team gave up on Roy?

2009-2010.

2010-11 until Roy finally woke up and benched LdII.

With Roy talking about how players didn't get it despite it being practice #42 or whatever -- is that a sign of respect?

And to be clear, I have been semi-defending Roy on this thread. Great recruiter, impressive results. Disagree with the qualities you highlight, though.

How have they shown respect for Roy?

Wheat/"/"/"

08-01-2013, 10:07 PM

2009-2010.

2010-11 until Roy finally woke up and benched LdII.

With Roy talking about how players didn't get it despite it being practice #42 or whatever -- is that a sign of respect?

And to be clear, I have been semi-defending Roy on this thread. Great recruiter, impressive results. Disagree with the qualities you highlight, though.

How have they shown respect for Roy?

I don't think any team has ever "given up" on Roy. Never seen even a hint of anything like that.

Roy is not afraid to say what's on his mind, that's for sure. It's his way of motivating his team when he calls them out for not "getting it". Not "getting it" is not a show of disrespect from the players, just a show of players that need coaching.

It's pretty rare for a former player to say anything negative about Roy.

OldPhiKap

08-01-2013, 10:20 PM

I don't think any team has ever "given up" on Roy. Never seen even a hint of anything like that.

Roy is not afraid to say what's on his mind, that's for sure. It's his way of motivating his team when he calls them out for not "getting it". Not "getting it" is not a show of disrespect from the players, just a show of players that need coaching.

It's pretty rare for a former player to say anything negative about Roy.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=1905457

Wheat/"/"/"

08-01-2013, 11:51 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=1905457

Really? McCants is what you've got? LD II is next I'm sure. Those kids had issues that would have made Ghandi slap them.

I said criticism of Roy is rare, not non existent. If i wanted to hunt, i could find stuff where a player criticizes any coach.

Let's face it, coaches have to make decisions that don't please everyone.

OldPhiKap

08-02-2013, 12:10 AM

Really? McCants is what you've got? LD II is next I'm sure. Those kids had issues that would have made Ghandi slap them.

I said criticism of Roy is rare, not non existent. If i wanted to hunt, i could find stuff where a player criticizes any coach.

Let's face it, coaches have to make decisions that don't please everyone.

Yeah, disregard the folks who dump on Roy and what do you have?

Roy is super, as long as you disregard those who played for him and think otherwise.

McCants didn't think UNC was jail because of a coach's decision. He played major minutes.

The players who spoke openly about the problems with the program while LDII started over an empirically better player did not crab because Roy was the respected ruler of the program. They openly squawked because Roy continued to play the worst pg option.

Again, I am not saying that Roy is not a very good coach. I am saying that respect from his players is not the hill I would die on if I were a Carolina fan. His players show him little respect in relation to similar coaches.

I ask again: when have players shown him respect?

matt1

08-02-2013, 01:02 AM

I don't know that the 2010 team gave up on Roy as much as Roy gave up on the 2010 team. With all of those McDonald's All-Americans, there had to be some way he could adapt. If the players had given up on him, they would not have had their NIT run (while we were winning a different tournament).

Wheat/"/"/"

08-02-2013, 07:10 AM

I ask again: when have players shown him respect?

Every time one of those Micky D's signs their letter of intent and chooses to play for him?

LDII was a pretty good PG, as was shown with his play at UCLA. As a Jr. It wasn't an easy call to replace him with a freshman early in the season. Other players weren't playing their best and Roy gave the benefit of seniority to him. When it became clear that the bigs reacted better to the chemistry KM brought to the table, he made a move.

You're not alone thinking he should have made it earlier, a lot of UNC fans thought the same. I wasn't one of them because I think he was coaching his team and was trying to balance keeping LDII's confidence up and prepare KM at the same time. I thought it would come, but I try not to second guess coaches, mainly because I'm not in the locker room or practice and don't know the whole story.

Mike Corey

08-02-2013, 07:19 AM

I'll argue that was elite potential you saw last season. It takes time with some players to become elite talent, no matter what some recruiting service says.

Roy surely has had some breaks that most coaches don't get. That's why he topped that stupid "most overrated" coach poll. It smacks of jealousy in my book.

But there are plenty of stories out there where people screw up great situations they've stepped into. He still works as hard as any coach at recruiting, and he does get quality players, the ones everybody else was after too. That's a big part of coaching, and he excels at it. Always has.

When people say he can't win without great players, they forget that no coach can. Players play and coaches coach. It's ridiculous to think less of him because he can get great players.

At the end of the day, his coaching stands on his record and how his players respect him and play for him. And I'd say that's been pretty impressive.

So on the one hand, it's unfair to criticize Roy for not winning with 5 players with elite potential, but on the other, it's unfair to judge Roy Williams if he doesn't have those players at that potential in a given season?

No.

Great coaches adapt to the skillset--elite and otherwise--to maximize what a given team can do. That is not one of Roy-Will's skills. Nor is the English language. Nor tact.

Tremendous recruiter. And he does it without paying recruits or their handlers. I will always respect Roy-Will for that. Definitely part of his skillset as being a great coach.

But as a tactician, his limitations are abundantly clear. And that's okay: no coach is perfect. Some are just closer to perfect than others.

OldPhiKap

08-02-2013, 07:48 AM

Every time one of those Micky D's signs their letter of intent and chooses to play for him?

Ah, I see the disconnect. You are talking about the respect recruits have before they actually play for Roy. I am talking about the lack of respect they show him after they actually play for the guy.

LDII was a pretty good PG, as was shown with his play at UCLA. As a Jr. It wasn't an easy call to replace him with a freshman early in the season. Other players weren't playing their best and Roy gave the benefit of seniority to him. When it became clear that the bigs reacted better to the chemistry KM brought to the table, he made a move.

LDII was a pretty good pg, but Roy only has one formula. Rather than adapt to what he had on the floor, Roy kept trying to force square pegs into round holes. This seemed obvious to everyone but Roy, who I suspect was trying to keep his relations with big LD and let that override what was otherwise obvious.

You're not alone thinking he should have made it earlier, a lot of UNC fans thought the same. I wasn't one of them because I think he was coaching his team and was trying to balance keeping LDII's confidence up and prepare KM at the same time. I thought it would come, but I try not to second guess coaches, mainly because I'm not in the locker room or practice and don't know the whole story.

Fair enough, there are two sides to the question.

TexHawk

08-02-2013, 11:13 AM

He still works as hard as any coach at recruiting, and he does get quality players, the ones everybody else was after too.

I don't want to disagree with you, because he hasn't been my coach in 10 years, but Roy never made it a secret that he was not a fan of recruiting while he was at KU. Unfortunately I cannot find a link to the history of his KU recruiting classes, but towards the end you could very easily see a "every other year" pattern. His mid-90s teams were more spread out, but his last 5 years were Hinrich/Collison/Gooden--golf--Miles/Langford/Simien/Lee--golf--Giddens/Padgett/Wilkes.

He did work hard at finding some horses, don't get me wrong, but in his "off" seasons, he would put all of his eggs in one basket and shrug it off on the back 9 if he lost. Baron Davis is the most famous example, and he had no backup option.

FerryFor50

08-02-2013, 11:22 AM

Duvall

08-02-2013, 11:57 AM

Des Esseintes

08-02-2013, 12:49 PM

I don't want to disagree with you, because he hasn't been my coach in 10 years, but Roy never made it a secret that he was not a fan of recruiting while he was at KU. Unfortunately I cannot find a link to the history of his KU recruiting classes, but towards the end you could very easily see a "every other year" pattern. His mid-90s teams were more spread out, but his last 5 years were Hinrich/Collison/Gooden--golf--Miles/Langford/Simien/Lee--golf--Giddens/Padgett/Wilkes.

He did work hard at finding some horses, don't get me wrong, but in his "off" seasons, he would put all of his eggs in one basket and shrug it off on the back 9 if he lost. Baron Davis is the most famous example, and he had no backup option.

I was living in Kansas back then, and I remember the dynamic you describe, both Roy's complaints and the alternating years of talent. However, wasn't that also a pretty good recruiting paradigm in that era? I know that for quite some time Duke tended to recruit in big "waves" followed by a year or two in which only supplementary or truly elite talents were added. In the present environment, a team must constantly reload, but back then you could expect 2-3 years from the very best players, so it wasn't a bad strategy to bring a bunch of guys to crest at the same time. In any case, Roy complains, but his results have proven him to be a fantastic recruiter over the years. He's had some misses lately, and some other guys he hauled in haven't panned out, though, so let's hope that trend continues.

As far as the thread as a whole thread, I really don't see what everyone is arguing about. Roy is an excellent coach, not nearly as good as K, but better than all but a handful of other college basketball coaches around the country. Do don't win two national titles on institutional momentum. You just don't. He's benefited from Carolina and KU, but Carolina and KU definitely have benefited from him. The whole question of a which coach had a 2 oz. greater burden to bear at the outset of his term at a major program is so hair-splitting I'm kind of amazed to watch it persist.

Wheat/"/"/"

08-02-2013, 01:21 PM

77devil

08-02-2013, 04:58 PM

Had not heard it that way, but interesting. Could be.

Bobby Knight is an enigma, wrapped in a riddle, esconced in bacon. ymmm, bacon . . . .

Speaking of bacon, I'm pretty upset that a Chinese company is trying to acquire Smithfield Foods. Hope the Feds block the deal. Either that or the government needs to increase the strategic bacon reserve.

Furthermore, I'm befuddled that this thread is still active. K. vs Roy, well that's decided after one post. Ol' Roy just isn't interesting enough to command 6 pages.

OldPhiKap

08-02-2013, 05:14 PM

Speaking of bacon, I'm pretty upset that a Chinese company is trying to acquire Smithfield Foods. Hope the Feds block the deal. Either that or the government needs to increase the strategic bacon reserve.

Furthermore, I'm befuddled that this thread is still active. K. vs Roy, well that's decided after one post. Ol' Roy just isn't interesting enough to command 6 pages.

We will never match the size of the Canadian Bacon strategic reserve, unfortunately.

To be fair to all the posters, the question is really how far Roy is behind K, and in what specific measures.

The season can't get here soon enough. Except that I am looking forward to football.

Dukeford

08-03-2013, 08:49 PM

All true, but let me add one wrinkle.

Terry Holland owned Food Lion.

I get it! (the joke)
I remember thinking the same thing back then...Terry Holland = Tom Smith (Food Lion CEO...many TV commercials during the games)

TexHawk

08-04-2013, 01:19 PM

One of the greatest challenges all college coaches have is juggling recruiting and player chemistry for their programs. To be successful, it takes a lot of foresight, intuition, skill evaluation, salesmanship and a bit of a gamblers mentality.

There's so many variables for them to consider when trying to build the best team they can...how will a kid develop, potential injuries, how to keep good team chemistry, early entry to the NBA ect..

Their job is pretty darn tough...and everything is always a moving target.

My post was not meant to disparage Roy's recruiting at KU, it was entirely in response to your assertion that he works as hard as anybody. His results spoke for themselves, and WE certainly didn't have a problem with it, as he won a crap-ton of basketball games. Like I said, he may have changed his attitude once he got back to Chapel Hill, I no longer follow him closely.

There were a lot of words/phrases you could use to describe Roy's recruiting at KU, and maybe one of those was "smart". But "hard-working" doesn't make the Top 10, as the caddies at Alvamar could tell you.