Buzz comes in at #20. Discuss.
http://www.athlonsports.com/college-basketball/ranking-nations-top-college-basketball-coaches
Anything that says that Bo Ryan is better than Jim Calhoun...or Mike Montgomery is better than Buzz Williams....is extremely suspect.
When I saw that Tom Izzo was ranked number one I burst out laughing. for a split second I was irate, then realized this ranking system is flawed and not worth my time.
My favorite part was this quote:
"Michigan State has continued a run of 15 consecutive NCAA Tournaments despite producing only one lottery pick since 2001 and no first round picks since 2006."
Way to quantify lack of NBA draft success as your selling point. Lack of actual NBA talent is an even worse issue.
Way to quantify lack of NBA draft success as your selling point. Lack of actual NBA talent is an even worse issue.
You just don't get it!! The comment means he's done quite well with players NOT rated as future NBA guys or high draft choices. It is a compliment to his coaching and ability to get the guys to play together. Kentucky and Ohio State aught to be winning titles and advancing far based on your analysis, but good and great college players don't always make great NBA guys and great NBA players may not be on winning teams in college.
It is still a team game and Izzo's teams have done well against teams with more highly rated personnel.
Yeah, I think Izzo is a damn good coach. Better than Coach K? I don't think so, but I would be hard pressed to name more than one better than him.
I think NBA draft is an awful way to evaluate college talent. There are a laundry list of fantastic college players who don't play in the NBA. Our own Jerel McNeal is a prime example.
Quote from: axaguy on July 31, 2012, 10:18:38 AM
Way to quantify lack of NBA draft success as your selling point. Lack of actual NBA talent is an even worse issue.
You just don't get it!! The comment means he's done quite well with players NOT rated as future NBA guys or high draft choices. It is a compliment to his coaching and ability to get the guys to play together. Kentucky and Ohio State aught to be winning titles and advancing far based on your analysis, but good and great college players don't always make great NBA guys and great NBA players may not be on winning teams in college.
It is still a team game and Izzo's teams have done well against teams with more highly rated personnel.
Izzo has had plenty of top rated talent to work with. However, his inability to get guys into the NBA I think will start to take a toll on recruiting. Calipari should be #1
Quote from: LAZER on July 31, 2012, 10:30:58 AM
Izzo has had plenty of top rated talent to work with. However, his inability to get guys into the NBA I think will start to take a toll on recruiting. Calipari should be #1
We aren't talking about the best salesmen. We are talking about coaches. As far as I am concerned, it should be Tom Izzo #1, and Coach K #2.
The real issue with this list is that it feeds into a bigger problem... the false NCAA narrative that college coaches (mainly football & basketball) are "teachers" first. These sacred cows mold their players into strong young men. You know, by "doing it the right way", putting the classroom and academics first.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on July 31, 2012, 10:35:05 AM
We aren't talking about the best salesmen. We are talking about coaches. As far as I am concerned, it should be Tom Izzo #1, and Coach K #2.
I'm talking about coaches doing their actual job...winning.
Quote from: LAZER on July 31, 2012, 10:30:58 AM
Izzo has had plenty of top rated talent to work with. However, his inability to get guys into the NBA I think will start to take a toll on recruiting. Calipari should be #1
Izzo's had 10 McDonald's AAs in 17 seasons. Lots of talent, sure, but nothing close to the likes of UNC, Duke, Kansas, Kentucky and UCLA. Even Texas and Ohio State have had several more.
That said, has any team been to more Final Fours over the past 15 years?
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on July 31, 2012, 10:35:05 AM
We aren't talking about the best salesmen. We are talking about coaches. As far as I am concerned, it should be Tom Izzo #1, and Coach K #2.
If starting tomorrow, I had my choice of a coach to run Marquette's program, based on nothing but results...it's Calipari, and I don't think there's a close second. Recruiting is at least half the battle in NCAA hoops and Cal is an underrated in game coach in addition. He gets the best players and he gets them to buy in and play, I think he's an easy number 1.
The intro says that they take into account all aspects of the job, including recruiting. If that's the case Calipari has to be #1 right now.
I think Buzz could probably be ranked ahead of a few people, like John Beilein and Mike Montgomery. Then again I'm not so sure I'd rank him ahead of Calhoun, Brey or Painter.
I can't believe that this list has been posted here for over an hour and nobody has mentioned that Crean is rated above Buzz.
Quote from: BrewCity BallCrusher on July 31, 2012, 11:14:23 AM
I can't believe that this list has been posted here for over an hour and nobody has mentioned that Crean is rated above Buzz.
Based on credentials, I don't see anything wrong with that.
Quote from: LAZER on July 31, 2012, 10:51:43 AM
If starting tomorrow, I had my choice of a coach to run Marquette's program, based on nothing but results...it's Calipari, and I don't think there's a close second. Recruiting is at least half the battle in NCAA hoops and Cal is an underrated in game coach in addition. He gets the best players and he gets them to buy in and play, I think he's an easy number 1.
You're missing a major piece of the puzzle regarding Cal... Having your school's wins, tournament success and championships vacated due to NCAA violations. Happened at UMass and Memphis, and I have no doubt that it will happen at Kentucky as well. Oh, and when those sanctions drop, I can guarantee you that Cal will be long gone from Lexington.
nm
I have no problem with Izzo at one.
Quote from: RJax55 on July 31, 2012, 11:24:36 AM
You're missing a major piece of the puzzle regarding Cal... Having your school's wins, tournament success and championships vacated due to NCAA violations. Happened at UMass and Memphis, and I have no doubt that it will happen at Kentucky as well. Oh, and when those sanctions drop, I can guarantee you that Cal will be long gone from Lexington.
I don't care about vacated wins. Give me NBA talent.
Quote from: RJax55 on July 31, 2012, 11:24:36 AM
You're missing a major piece of the puzzle regarding Cal... Having your school's wins, tournament success and championships vacated due to NCAA violations. Happened at UMass and Memphis, and I have no doubt that it will happen at Kentucky as well. Oh, and when those sanctions drop, I can guarantee you that Cal will be long gone from Lexington.
That's why I said "based on nothing but results" and also, I don't think this piece used integrity as a criteria.
Quote from: frozena pizza on July 31, 2012, 11:08:48 AM
The intro says that they take into account all aspects of the job, including recruiting. If that's the case Calipari has to be #1 right now.
I think Buzz could probably be ranked ahead of a few people, like John Beilein and Mike Montgomery. Then again I'm not so sure I'd rank him ahead of Calhoun, Brey or Painter.
I'd definitely put him ahead of Brey, Painter, and Montgomery. Not Calhoun and prob not Beilein.
Quote from: Blue Horseshoe on July 31, 2012, 11:29:53 AM
I don't care about vacated wins. Give me NBA talent.
Well, I care quite a bit about vacated wins. And I do understand that some of the problems weren't necessarily his direct fault, but I wouldn't want Coach Cal at Marquette for anything.
Quote from: LAZER on July 31, 2012, 10:30:58 AM
Izzo has had plenty of top rated talent to work with. However, his inability to get guys into the NBA I think will start to take a toll on recruiting. Calipari should be #1
Doesn't Izzo have the same NBA connections Crean has?
This article would have fit in just as well on Bleacher Report, arguably even better. So a coach with zero Final Fours is in the top-ten and a coach with two NCAA appearances and fewer than 100 wins is in the top-12, but a coach with two Final Fours at different schools and over 600 wins can't crack the top-15 and a coach with three national titles isn't in the top-20?
Dumb with a capital D. Nice to see Buzz get some acclaim, but this article is Bleacher Report quality, and Athlon should be embarrassed for publishing it, even on their website.
I thought one aspect of the ranking was also to point out career trajectory - i.e. a newcomer with some solid success might be placed over an oldtimer with significant success who is at the end of his game....might explain why he's got Calhoun on the back side. Despite winning the championship the last year, to me it seems he's gonna be out of the game in 1-2 years and this guy might have been reflecting that a bit. If you want a "ranking" of coaches that simply looks at wins and championships, you really don't need a list like this guy put together, just go look at the current active coaching record books - so, its not
Quote from: Blue Horseshoe on July 31, 2012, 11:29:53 AM
I don't care about vacated wins. Give me NBA talent.
So your ranking of coaches favors those who cheat?
Quote from: sixstrings03 on July 31, 2012, 12:17:00 PM
So your ranking of coaches favors those who cheat?
My ranking of coaches would favor those with the best talent and wins. It's no secret that most of these guys are complete jerks. Do you really think coaches don't care about winning? I don't want some phony fable about how great they are at teaching and making an impact on their campus or society. As a basketball coach you have one job: WIN. To white wash this with NCAA integrity is insulting.
I'm with Lazar on Coach Cal. If I could pick one guy that would bring exciting style of play and AA's to MU it would be Cal. Say what you want about the guy but he is still around and winning.
Quote from: CAGASS24 on July 31, 2012, 12:08:46 PM
I thought one aspect of the ranking was also to point out career trajectory - i.e. a newcomer with some solid success might be placed over an oldtimer with significant success who is at the end of his game....might explain why he's got Calhoun on the back side. Despite winning the championship the last year, to me it seems he's gonna be out of the game in 1-2 years and this guy might have been reflecting that a bit. If you want a "ranking" of coaches that simply looks at wins and championships, you really don't need a list like this guy put together, just go look at the current active coaching record books - so, its not
The problem with this is it DOES still include career accolades.
Is Coach K going to retire in the next 5 years? Hard to say, but if the answer is no, or even maybe, there's is no possible way to rank Izzo ahead of him.
How could anyone justify Bo Ryan, who seems like he might be within 5 years of retirement, being ranked ahead of Thad Matta or Bob Huggins, neither of whom seem that close to retirement, have vastly more impressive career accolades, and at least as bright a future in the short term?
Shaka Smart at 12? Unless he's going to 4 Final Fours and winning 2 titles in the next 5 years, a guy with 84 wins and 3 NCAA appearances doesn't belong on this list, much less at #12. I like Smart, but this puts way too much emphasis on one Cinderella run. If Smart is in the top-12, Jim Larranaga should be top-10.
Jim Calhoun at 22? A joke. Okay, fine, maybe his career trajectory isn't that high, but this also factors in past accomplishments. And outside of Coach K, no one on this list has a better resume of past accomplishments. Smart 10 spots ahead of him is outrageous, but also having Bo Ryan, Jamie Dixon, Sean Miller, and Buzz ahead of him, all four of whom COMBINED have fewer wins than Calhoun and have zero Final Fours between them is an absolute joke.
And finally...Rick Majerus? Really? I love Rick, but a top-30 coach? Okay, he has some decent career accomplishments, but he's not a top-30 coach. He's retired twice already, has 1 NCAA appearance in the past 9 seasons, and hasn't been past the first weekend of the NCAAs in the past 14 seasons. Does anyone believe he's trending upward in the next 5 years enough to offset that?
Give me a break. Athlon Sports is the new Bleacher Report.
Wouldn't it be right to determine how you should rank coaches first?
Wins?
Recruiting?
S16, Elite 8, FF, Ships won?
Salary, Facilities?
Upside, downside?
How would you put these in order first of all, and what out weighs the other and why?
Quote from: JDuquaine on July 31, 2012, 12:42:12 PMWouldn't it be right to determine how you should rank coaches first?
Wins?
Recruiting?
S16, Elite 8, FF, Ships won?
Salary, Facilities?
Upside, downside?
How would you put these in order first of all, and what out weighs the other and why?
And that's another problem with this.
"
Coaches are ranked on a mix of past accomplishments with consideration for career trajectory over the next five seasons or so. Rankings take Xs and Os acumen and recruiting prowess into account along with success in the regular season and postseason."
First of all, any criteria using "or so" is probably just some subjective pretty boy's list. Second, HOW does it rank the past compared to the trajectory, how does the author assign values to Xs and Os acumen, quite simply, how are the "rankings" determined?
There is nothing here to indicate this article is anything other than the author saying "Uhh...I like these guys best, then these guys, then I'll throw in some names as filler and drop a few worthy guys really low to create controversy."
Merit = zero
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 31, 2012, 12:46:54 PM
And that's another problem with this.
"Coaches are ranked on a mix of past accomplishments with consideration for career trajectory over the next five seasons or so. Rankings take Xs and Os acumen and recruiting prowess into account along with success in the regular season and postseason."
First of all, any criteria using "or so" is probably just some subjective pretty boy's list. Second, HOW does it rank the past compared to the trajectory, how does the author assign values to Xs and Os acumen, quite simply, how are the "rankings" determined?
There is nothing here to indicate this article is anything other than the author saying "Uhh...I like these guys best, then these guys, then I'll throw in some names as filler and drop a few worthy guys really low to create controversy."
Merit = zero
^ This, concur.
Quote from: Blue Horseshoe on July 31, 2012, 12:29:54 PM
My ranking of coaches would favor those with the best talent and wins. It's no secret that most of these guys are complete jerks. Do you really think coaches don't care about winning? I don't want some phony fable about how great they are at teaching and making an impact on their campus or society. As a basketball coach you have one job: WIN. To white wash this with NCAA integrity is insulting.
I don't like phony fables either, but it isn't about NCAA integrity...it is about playing within the rules that have been established. And twice Cal has lead a program that has had trouble staying within those rules. Therefore I wouldn't want him here unless he can proves that he can win without his program playing outside the rules.
Winning while cheating in my opinion isn't really winning at all.
To me what really matters is NCAA tournament wins and winning percentage. Buzz just has not been around long enough to be accurately ranked. I excluded all coaches who have less than 20 NCAA tournament games. Dividing their tournament wins by their losses plus ncaa titkes gives the average tournament wins per year of tournament participation. I think coach K has 4 titles, but he may have 5. Coach K 79-24. 24 + 4 titles =28. 79/28=2.82 wins per year. Five titles 79-29=2.72 wins per tournament (wpt).
Izzo 37/(14+1)=2.47 wpt
Calipari 38/(13+1)=2.71 wpt
Self 33/(13+1)=2.36 wpt
Pitino 42/(16+1)=2.47 wpt
Roy Williams 61 (20+2) =2.77 wpt
Donovan 28/(10+2)=2.33 wpt
Matta 20/10=2.0 wpt
Calhoun 51/(20+3)=2.22 wpt
Howland 19/9=2.11 wpt
The rest win on the average less than 2 games a tournament. This includes Huggins 1.35, Boeheim 1.66, Mongomery 1.13, Few 1.08 and Ryan 1.45.
Given their all-time wins both Huggins and Boeheim have been busts in the NCAA tournament.
Quote from: RJax55 on July 31, 2012, 11:24:36 AM
You're missing a major piece of the puzzle regarding Cal... Having your school's wins, tournament success and championships vacated due to NCAA violations. Happened at UMass and Memphis, and I have no doubt that it will happen at Kentucky as well. Oh, and when those sanctions drop, I can guarantee you that Cal will be long gone from Lexington.
So, all those fans who had a blast celebrating wins, conference championships, Final Fours and a national championship now look back at those days with sadness because there was a (gasp!) ineligible player?
I kinda doubt it.
Like him or not, Coach K is #1. Cal and Izzo are 2-3 or 3-2 depending on your appetite for slime. TC had to have the biggest move up, with his Sweet 16 last year and his preseason #1 this year. Can't imagine he was in the top 30 before that. Buzz is #3 among the coaches of his generation behind Stevens and Smart - agree on A but not on B. Calhoun is easily top 10, probably top 5.
Quote from: BrewCity BallCrusher on July 31, 2012, 11:14:23 AM
I can't believe that this list has been posted here for over an hour and nobody has mentioned that Crean is rated above Buzz.
Dammit man, and we were doing so well!
Quote from: LAZER on July 31, 2012, 10:51:43 AM
If starting tomorrow, I had my choice of a coach to run Marquette's program, based on nothing but results...it's Calipari, and I don't think there's a close second. Recruiting is at least half the battle in NCAA hoops and Cal is an underrated in game coach in addition. He gets the best players and he gets them to buy in and play, I think he's an easy number 1.
Bill Self.
For the sake of argument(if anyone cares), I'd go:
1. Calipari 2. Coach K 3. Self. 4. Izzo 5. Pitino 6. Boeheim 7. Roy Williams 8. Donovan and the rest(but Bo Ryan sure as hell isn't 9)
Quote from: LAZER on July 31, 2012, 01:30:42 PM
For the sake of argument(if anyone cares), I'd go:
1. Calipari 2. Coach K 3. Self. 4. Izzo 5. Pitino 6. Boeheim 7. Roy Williams 8. Donovan and the rest(but Bo Ryan sure as hell isn't 9)
If Bo isn't #9, then its gotta be Stew Morrill, aina?
Bo Ryan has to be top 5, he "does things the right way" Unlike everyone else, especially MU.... ;D
Buzz would certainly be rated higher if he could just recruit some bigs and practice free throws!
Quote from: leever on July 31, 2012, 02:50:12 PM
Buzz would certainly be rated higher if he could just recruit some bigs and practice free throws!
But you have got to love the intensity of his practices. Oftentimes MU's shootarounds have a higher energy than most team's games.
I wish I could have found out the coach listed at #30.... as much as I may have disagreed with anybody on the list or their spot, I could at least go on, but once I got to the Maj at #29 I had to stop.
brad stevens needs to be in the top 5, if not top 3
Quote from: RushmoreAcademy on July 31, 2012, 09:21:23 PM
I wish I could have found out the coach listed at #30.... as much as I may have disagreed with anybody on the list or their spot, I could at least go on, but once I got to the Maj at #29 I had to stop.
Well, he did get SLU--the official
MUScoop Gold Benchmark of Failed ProgramsTM[/sup]--ranked ahead of MU in the early polls going into this season.
One would think that alone would earn him a place on the list of best coaches.
I think regardless of Buzz being #10 or #20 it should be a statement that we have a top shelf program. The guy has earned high praise and MU has a coveted coach. Lets keep it that way until Buzz cracks the top 10 or higher.
As for Rick, his colleagues think very highly of his coaching and not surprised by the ranking. He can quit six teams and take off part of seasons but it does diminish the fact he can coach at high level. He has done some unreal things at Ball St and Utah and probably will at SLU if motivation is there.
Quote from: The Equalizer on August 01, 2012, 08:51:03 AM
Well, he did get SLU--the official MUScoop Gold Benchmark of Failed ProgramsTM[/sup]--ranked ahead of MU in the early polls going into this season.
One would think that alone would earn him a place on the list of best coaches.
Nothing quite says coaching greatness like "Being ranked ahead of Marquette in a poll taken six months before any games are played."
Quote from: LAZER on July 31, 2012, 01:30:42 PM
For the sake of argument(if anyone cares), I'd go:
1. Calipari 2. Coach K 3. Self. 4. Izzo 5. Pitino 6. Boeheim 7. Roy Williams 8. Donovan and the rest(but Bo Ryan sure as hell isn't 9)
If your list is "who would I want to take over my program right now" that's a good list, thoug I'd lower Coach K, Boeheim and maybe Pitino a few notches solely due to age. If it's just best job coaching the players you have I don't think Boeheim should be in there. If it's just who's been the best coach over their career Calhoun has to fall in right behind Coach K and maybe Izzo. Despite living in CT I'm not a huge fan, but what he's done at UConn is unmistakeably remarkable.
Given the challanges that Marquette faces compared to the bigger state schools, I'm not sure how much better any of those guys would be at Marquette than Buzz. OTOH, I don't think Buzz would be as successful at those bigger programs as those guys are.
Quote from: CTWarrior on August 01, 2012, 12:59:03 PM
Given the challanges that Marquette faces compared to the bigger state schools, I'm not sure how much better any of those guys would be at Marquette than Buzz. OTOH, I don't think Buzz would be as successful at those bigger programs as those guys are.
I would argue that most of those guys (minus Calipari, Pitino, and Roy Williams) made those schools what they are today. Yes Duke and MSU had pretty good success before the current coaches, but not much better than MU. I would say the success of those programs is due to the coaches, not necessarily anything that the school inherently provides. MU has just as big a basketball budget as a lot of other top programs.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 01, 2012, 12:07:38 PM
Nothing quite says coaching greatness like "Being ranked ahead of Marquette in a poll taken six months before any games are played."
Aha, but getting
St. Louis ranked that high . . . .
On top of a championship game, an elite eight, two sweet 16s. . . :D
Quote from: The Equalizer on August 01, 2012, 04:16:13 PM
Aha, but getting St. Louis ranked that high . . . .
On top of a championship game, an elite eight, two sweet 16s. . . :D
In roughly a 30 year career compared to 5 for Buzz...nice try 84.
Quote from: wyzgy on August 01, 2012, 07:00:17 AM
brad stevens needs to be in the top 5, if not top 3
Based on two runs with senior laden teams with stars who moved on to the NBA? If he was top 3, his team this year shouldn't have missed the tournament, much less the NIT. He's a rising star, but 2 years does not a top 5 coach make. Same with people anointing Shaka Smart already.
Quote from: JWags85 on August 02, 2012, 10:01:22 AM
Based on two runs with senior laden teams with stars who moved on to the NBA? If he was top 3, his team this year shouldn't have missed the tournament, much less the NIT. He's a rising star, but 2 years does not a top 5 coach make. Same with people anointing Shaka Smart already.
As I recall, most of the talent on the Butler team - Hayward, Howard and Shelvin Mack were not recruited by Brad Stevens...he inherited them...so not sure we still have a true reflection of Stevens overall coach profile - X's and O's good? Absolutely? Can he recruit to keep program an NCAA power? Remains to be seen but missing the NIT last year was pretty bad.
Quote from: The Equalizer on August 01, 2012, 04:16:13 PM
Aha, but getting St. Louis ranked that high . . . .
On top of a championship game, an elite eight, two sweet 16s. . . :D
By those standards, we probably need to get Jim O'Brien, Richard Williams, Bobby Cremins and Jim Harrick on the list.
Those guys also had some nice runs 15 years ago.
Rick has earned his place in coaching ranks. The three last stops were hardly basketball blue bloods and he has found ways to get very good results. Biggest rip on Rick from my side is he likes coaching more than recruiting. It seems as if he likes winning with lesser guys and never quite got that. Understand he has coached NBA guys but just seems that he would prefer the Pat Foley types.
Quote from: Ners on August 02, 2012, 10:21:17 AM
As I recall, most of the talent on the Butler team - Hayward, Howard and Shelvin Mack were not recruited by Brad Stevens...he inherited them...so not sure we still have a true reflection of Stevens overall coach profile - X's and O's good? Absolutely? Can he recruit to keep program an NCAA power? Remains to be seen but missing the NIT last year was pretty bad.
Stevens has been head coach since 2007, so every key player on the two Final Four teams would have been recruited when he was head coach.
Also, in response to the earlier post about those being "senior laden" teams ... the squad that lost to Duke in the finals 2010 game was led by three sophomores (Hayward, Nored and Mack) and a junior (Howard). Only one starter was a senior, and the first two guys off the bench were juniors. By no measure was that a "senior laden" team.
On the next year's squad, three seniors played more than 5 mpg. Again, not exactly "senior laden."
Quote from: Pakuni on August 02, 2012, 10:26:35 AM
By those standards, we probably need to get Jim O'Brien, Richard Williams, Bobby Cremins and Jim Harrick on the list.
Those guys also had some nice runs 15 years ago.
Yeah, but did they also bring success to
St. Louis? ::)
Maybe you've just missed all the threads here that define St. Louis as the low-level, minor-league type of program we stand to become if all the Armegeddon/Hiroshima/Larry Williams stuff comes to pass.
If Majerus can a) bring such a low-level, minor-league program to near-parity with Marquette has he did last year and b) convince most experts that they are going to be better than us going into this season, just maybe he deserves some credit for the accomplishment.
Equalizer
I was the most vocal on MU becoming SLU guy on here. Just because Rick has done a good job there does not make it a program to become. Rick is not paid a ton, they have little national visibility, crappy conference (at least TV wise) and not highly respected program. I think Rick is a great coach and gets the most out of what he is dealt. He could win NCAA at SLU and still would not be a program to copy.
Quote from: The Equalizer on August 02, 2012, 11:26:38 AM
Yeah, but did they also bring success to St. Louis? ::)
Maybe you've just missed all the threads here that define St. Louis as the low-level, minor-league type of program we stand to become if all the Armegeddon/Hiroshima/Larry Williams stuff comes to pass.
If Majerus can a) bring such a low-level, minor-league program to near-parity with Marquette has he did last year and b) convince most experts that they are going to be better than us going into this season, just maybe he deserves some credit for the accomplishment.
On what planet is the St. Louis program on - or near - par with Marquette?
Please cite for us all the many factors (other than supposed preseason polls taken months before any meaningful play) that lead you to make such a palpably ridiculous statement.
And who are these many experts convinced St. Louis is better than MU?
p.s. Charlie Spoonhour and, to a lesser extent, Lorenzo Romar had success at St. Louis. It's hardly unheard of.
This is all true about Stevens...who is obviously a good coach. But top 2 or 3? No way.
I wouldn't even consider dropping Buzz for him for instance.
Quote from: JWags85 on August 02, 2012, 10:01:22 AM
Based on two runs with senior laden teams with stars who moved on to the NBA? If he was top 3, his team this year shouldn't have missed the tournament, much less the NIT. He's a rising star, but 2 years does not a top 5 coach make. Same with people anointing Shaka Smart already.
2 years in a row to championship game with cast-offs. shoulda/coulda won 2011. how many can say this? he will be back
Cast offs??? He had a future NBA lottery pick on the first team, and a guard who was drafted on both of them...as well as Matt Howard, who was a damn good college player. (Undersized for the NBA.)
He had plenty of talent on that team.
Quote from: The Equalizer on August 02, 2012, 11:26:38 AM
Yeah, but did they also bring success to St. Louis? ::)
Maybe you've just missed all the threads here that define St. Louis as the low-level, minor-league type of program we stand to become if all the Armegeddon/Hiroshima/Larry Williams stuff comes to pass.
I can't figure out if you think MU is already at the SLU level or you think it would be an acceptable and minor drop for MU to get there. Either way I think you're off base.
Quote from: wyzgy on August 02, 2012, 12:10:31 PM
2 years in a row to championship game with cast-offs. shoulda/coulda won 2011. how many can say this? he will be back
Unless he can translate that into future recruiting classes it doesn't mean a whole lot in the long run.
Quote from: Bocephys on August 02, 2012, 01:18:53 PM
Unless he can translate that into future recruiting classes it doesn't mean a whole lot in the long run.
He's already translated it into a pretty significant upgrade in conference affiliation.
And his incoming group includes the 79th ranked player (ESPN) in the class of 2012.
FWIW, the uber talented guys that led Butler to back-to-back Final Fours (Mack, Hayward, Howard) weren't top 150 players.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 02, 2012, 11:51:49 AM
On what planet is the St. Louis program on - or near - par with Marquette?
Please cite for us all the many factors (other than supposed preseason polls taken months before any meaningful play) that lead you to make such a palpably ridiculous statement.
And who are these many experts convinced St. Louis is better than MU?
p.s. Charlie Spoonhour and, to a lesser extent, Lorenzo Romar had success at St. Louis. It's hardly unheard of.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 02, 2012, 12:36:47 PM
I can't figure out if you think MU is already at the SLU level or you think it would be an acceptable and minor drop for MU to get there. Either way I think you're off base.
Never mind. You guys apparently don't read the board regularly enough to recall the "Under Larry Williams we might become St. Louis threads.
Quote from: The Equalizer on August 02, 2012, 03:00:06 PM
Never mind. You guys apparently don't read the board regularly enough to recall the "Under Larry Williams we might become St. Louis threads.
Just trying to understand your comment that St. Louis' basketball program is "near-parity" with that of Marquette. The basis for that is what?
NCAA appearances? Nope.
Postseason success? Nope.
Championships? Nope.
Attendance? Nope.
Conference affiliation? Nope.
National attention? Nope.
Television appearances? Nope.
Professional success of former players? Nope.
Individual player accolades? Nope.
Quote from: The Equalizer on August 02, 2012, 03:00:06 PM
Never mind. You guys apparently don't read the board regularly enough to recall the "Under Larry Williams we might become St. Louis threads.
Actually, apparently you just aren't very bright. Is Creighton at near-parity with Kansas since they are ranked ahead of them in one presason poll? That's just a very dumb comment.
http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2012-05-22/college-basketball-rankings-2012-13-top-25-mike-decourcy (http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2012-05-22/college-basketball-rankings-2012-13-top-25-mike-decourcy)
Quote from: Pakuni on August 02, 2012, 04:21:16 PM
Just trying to understand your comment that St. Louis' basketball program is "near-parity" with that of Marquette. The basis for that is what?
NCAA appearances? Nope.
Postseason success? Nope.
Championships? Nope.
Attendance? Nope.
Conference affiliation? Nope.
National attention? Nope.
Television appearances? Nope.
Professional success of former players? Nope.
Individual player accolades? Nope.
Round of 16 vs. Round of 32. Ranked ahead of us in the pre-season 2013 polls. That's near parity
performance.
Considering the context of threads like this:
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=32554.msg394099#msg394099
where the general consensus is that Marquette has a far superior
program to SLU, an SLU coach that can deliver near-parity
performance must be pretty damn good at his job.
Quote from: The Equalizer on August 02, 2012, 05:17:12 PM
Round of 16 vs. Round of 32. Ranked ahead of us in the pre-season 2013 polls. That's near parity performance.
Considering the context of threads like this:
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=32554.msg394099#msg394099
where the general consensus is that Marquette has a far superior program to SLU, an SLU coach that can deliver near-parity performance must be pretty damn good at his job.
Try again Stevie, you're still not close.
I'll let Coach K know that Mark Gotfried (NC State) is a better coach than he is.
Quote from: jmayer1 on August 02, 2012, 05:26:03 PM
I'll let Coach K know that Mark Gotfried (NC State) is a better coach than he is.
I'm not sure what point you're possibly trying to make.
I'm no Majerus fan--I think he screwed us worse than any other MU coach in our history--but give the man his due on what he's done since:
--He brought the first and only real success to Ball State in their 90 years of basketball.
--He took Utah to their first final four in over 30 years.
--He brought St. Louis back into the national spotlight after a decade of CUSA and A10 futility.
If Majeurs can come into a moribund 2nd tier program like St. Louis (which many here on this board use as the benchmark of a failed program) and revive it to the point where they damn near make a Sweet 16 last year by taking #1 seed MSU to the wire, and and then return almost everyone to start the following year ranked ahead of us, then I think you can make a pretty good case that he's one of the 30 top coaches in the game today.
Three turnarounds at non-BCS programs getting each to the NCAA in my opinion justifies of putting him among a list of the top 30 coaches in the game today. If you disagree, then name the coaches not on the list that you think deseve it ahead of him.
Quote from: The Equalizer on August 02, 2012, 09:37:12 PM
I'm not sure what point you're possibly trying to make.
I'm no Majerus fan--I think he screwed us worse than any other MU coach in our history--but give the man his due on what he's done since:
--He brought the first and only real success to Ball State in their 90 years of basketball.
--He took Utah to their first final four in over 30 years.
--He brought St. Louis back into the national spotlight after a decade of CUSA and A10 futility.
If Majeurs can come into a moribund 2nd tier program like St. Louis (which many here on this board use as the benchmark of a failed program) and revive it to the point where they damn near make a Sweet 16 last year by taking #1 seed MSU to the wire, and and then return almost everyone to start the following year ranked ahead of us, then I think you can make a pretty good case that he's one of the 30 top coaches in the game today.
Three turnarounds at non-BCS programs getting each to the NCAA in my opinion justifies of putting him among a list of the top 30 coaches in the game today. If you disagree, then name the coaches not on the list that you think deseve it ahead of him.
I think over his career Majerus has shown he is a pretty good coach. However, this isn't the late 90's and I'm not sure he should be on a list of top 30 coaches right now. However, that wasn't really even the point I was trying to argue.
Quote from: The Equalizer on August 02, 2012, 11:26:38 AM
If Majerus can a) bring such a low-level, minor-league program to near-parity with Marquette has he did last year and b) convince most experts that they are going to be better than us going into this season, just maybe he deserves some credit for the accomplishment.
You're comparing MU to SLU simply based on last year and preseason polls for this year to say that they are at near-parity with MU. If you're going to say that, then you've got to say that NC State is at near-parity with Duke, which we all know is laughable.
On several instances you've tried to degrade those that have said they don't want MU to be like SLU, based on preseason rankings. That is simply asinine. Name one thing that SLU program has going for it over the MU program at this point--just 1.
However, since you posted it, I think I'll refute your post and point out some other inaccuracies.
I think you're over exaggerating how much he has turned around SLU and Ball State. His 1st 4 seasons at SLU were nothing special and he hasn't accomplished anything more than 2 of the 3 previous coached did at SLU. In fact, he has only 2 more conference wins over his first 5 years than Soderberg did over his 5 years before he got canned. This year will be very telling in my opinion. Can he build on their season last year? If so, then maybe he'll assert himself again as one of the country's better coaches. However, I'm not ready to put him on that list again just yet because he's made 1 NCAA appearance over the past 9 years.
As for Ball State, you said he brought their first and only real success. This is a flat-out lie.
NCAA tourney appearances before Rick: 2
NCAA tourney wins before Rick: 1
NCAA tourney appearances with Rick (only 2 years): 1
NCAA tourney wins with Rick: 1
NCAA tourney appearances after Rick: 4
NCAA tourney wins after Rick: 2 (Sweet 16 the year after he left)
Rick did a phenomenal job at Utah and I don't think anybody here can deny that (although they did make the tourney 6 times in the 12 previous season before Rick took over). However, your posts have been ingenuous and innaccurate.
Quote from: jmayer1 on August 02, 2012, 10:52:43 PM
You're comparing MU to SLU simply based on last year and preseason polls for this year to say that they are at near-parity with MU. If you're going to say that, then you've got to say that NC State is at near-parity with Duke, which we all know is laughable.
I've made it pretty clear on several occaisions that the "near-parity" comment reflected recent and curretn performance and not overall history.
I agree with you that MU has a far superior program history. SLU is nowhere near parity with MU in terms of overall marqueee value, historical program success, or other such measures. We're in a much better conference, have more fan support, more TV coverage, more wins over time, more players in the NBA, top 100 recruits, NJCAA AA recruits, more marquee opponents etc. etc. etc.
So I'll put the challenge back on you: explain how SLU--with
none of the historic advantages or program strength of Marquette---came as close to our performance as they did last year and are currently favored ahead of us this coming year?
Quote from: jmayer1 on August 02, 2012, 10:52:43 PM
Name one thing that SLU program has going for it over the MU program at this point--just 1.
Well, they are currently ranked ahead of us in the early pre-season polls. :D
But seriously, other than that, I can't. You probably can't either. Since we agree, why don't you explain your thoughts on why MU has EVERY single advantage over SLU as a
program--yet SLU is ranked ahead of us right now going into next year?
Quote from: jmayer1 on August 02, 2012, 10:52:43 PM
I think you're over exaggerating how much he has turned around SLU and Ball State. His 1st 4 seasons at SLU were nothing special and he hasn't accomplished anything more than 2 of the 3 previous coached did at SLU.
Ball State had been playing basketball since the 1920s. Contrary to your statement, they had not won an NCAA tournament game until Rick arrived. In addition, the two wins the year after Rick left were becuase of the players Majerus recruited. Therefore, the only 3 wins in program history are largely due to Majerus.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/tournament/history/_/team1/5315
Meanwhile, SLU went to the NCAA for the first time in 12 years last season and won a game for the first time in 14 years, and only the 3rd time in 50+ years. Soderberg didn't make the tournament. Romar did not win a tourney game. By winning a tournament game, Majerus accomplished something that neither of the two prior coaches did.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/tournament/history/_/team1/7480
Fundamentally if Majerus can bring success to BSU and back to SLU, and significantlly raise the level of success at Utah, he's a good coach and desreves his place on the top 30 list.
But if you disagree, why don't you name someone else who should be there in his place.
Quote from: The Equalizer on August 03, 2012, 01:27:03 AM
But seriously, other than that, I can't. You probably can't either. Since we agree, why don't you explain your thoughts on why MU has EVERY single advantage over SLU as a program--yet SLU is ranked ahead of us right now going into next year?
So, your statement that SLU is "near parity with MU" is based on nothing more than they won one fewer tournament games - as did apparently MU-like programs such as Lehigh, Norfolk State, and Murray State - and that they're ranked ahead of MU in some poll, taken 6+ months before the season begins, you've yet to produce.
Flimsiest. Argument. Ever.
The issue you're being called out here isn't you belief Rick is a good coach. It's your belief that the St. Louis basketball program is by any measure on or near par with Marquette's.
To put your silly statement in perspective, in the 2007-08 preseason poll (the real one, not the one some writer came up with in April), Marquette was ranked ahead of Duke. This came after an NCAA tournament in which the two teams exited in the same round.
Applying Equalizer logic, the MU program was then on par with Duke's.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 03, 2012, 08:06:26 AM
So, your statement that SLU is "near parity with MU" is based on nothing more than they won one fewer tournament games - as did apparently MU-like programs such as Lehigh, Norfolk State, and Murray State - and that they're ranked ahead of MU in some poll, taken 6+ months before the season begins, you've yet to produce.
Flimsiest. Argument. Ever.
Except this isn't the argument. Those were merely two supporting facts.
MY argument is that Majerus deserves to be considered in the top 30 coaches, and was based on his current performance at St Louis combined with his success at Utah and Ball State.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 03, 2012, 08:06:26 AM
The issue you're being called out here isn't you belief Rick is a good coach. It's your belief that the St. Louis basketball program is by any measure on or near par with Marquette's.
Let me correct you one more time: I've said several times now that I believe MU is a far superior program in terms of program success, conference, fan support, TV coverage, wins over time, players in the NBA, top 100 recruits, NJCAA AA recruits, more marquee opponents etc. etc. etc.
I've also pointed out the fact that despite all of our program-level advantages, last year's SLU performance was almost as good as ours. Your counter was to point out other programs (Norfolk State, Murray State) have done the same. My response to you is that none of the programs you cite had a coach that has taken 3 different teams to the tournamnet and/or reached a final four.
I've also pointed out the fact that as of right now some of the experts think that St. Louis is better than we are. Your counter to repeatedly state things
might change by the end of the season. So what? Things might NOT change.
Meanwhile, SOMETHING caused these national basketball experts to think that way in the first place. Its a that they think St. Louis is better as of right now.
Some of those coaches get a higher ranking than the deserve because they are great recruiters-----not because they are sound fundamental BB coaches.
My top seven would be Stevens, Buzz, Pitino, Donovan, Majerus, Izzo, Bo Ryan.
Guys like Roy Williams, Boeheim, Calhoun are great recruiters, but not among the elite technical teaching BB coaches.
Quote from: Murffieus 1 on August 03, 2012, 04:09:20 PM
Some of those coaches get a higher ranking than the deserve because they are great recruiters-----not because they are sound fundamental BB coaches.
My top seven would be Stevens, Buzz, Pitino, Donovan, Majerus, Izzo, Bo Ryan.
Guys like Roy Williams, Boeheim, Calhoun are great recruiters, but not among the elite technical teaching BB coaches.
I don't think you can separate coaching from recruiting... There's nothing to say that Buzz (or many other coaches) couldn't run the same program as Bo, but then their recruiting would also dip like Bo's...it makes looking at strictly X's and O's so impossible. I hate coach Cal (and believe he still cheats), but just trying to look at the X's and O's and player development in a season, I'm not sure a coach like Bo could have gotten that group of players to a National Championship, and I'm sure Coach Cal couldn't have gotten as much out of the UW players as Bo did. Was Phil Jackson a great coach, or was he just really good at managing ego's?
Quote from: Murffieus 1 on August 03, 2012, 04:09:20 PM
Some of those coaches get a higher ranking than the deserve because they are great recruiters-----not because they are sound fundamental BB coaches.
My top seven would be Stevens, Buzz, Pitino, Donovan, Majerus, Izzo, Bo Ryan.
Guys like Roy Williams, Boeheim, Calhoun are great recruiters, but not among the elite technical teaching BB coaches.
Yes, because the 6 national championships between the three of them clearly shows they aren't the kind of guys you want running your program ::)
Being a great recruiter is part of being a great coach. The simple truth is that teams with better players have a higher chance of success, and very few teams make the Final Four or (especially) win a NC without McDonald's All-Americans. Recruiting is as important, if not sometimes even more important, than technical teaching.
I'm not minimizing the importance of recruiting-----in fact it's more than 50% of the equation-----hence 6 NCAA championships.
Roy Williams had 4 guys who did or will go in the first round and laid an egg (again)----the only time Boeheim won the NCAA was when he had a Super Star-----and Calhoun has 3 or 4 guys every year (or more) who will go in the NBA first round.
You give Buzz, Majerus, Stevens, Donovan, or Ryan that type of talent and you'll see more consistency in challenging for the NCAA title than the aforementioned recruiter coaches.
Quote from: Murffieus 1 on August 04, 2012, 01:09:06 PM
I'm not minimizing the importance of recruiting-----in fact it's more than 50% of the equation-----hence 6 NCAA championships.
Roy Williams had 4 guys who did or will go in the first round and laid an egg (again)----the only time Boeheim won the NCAA was when he had a Super Star-----and Calhoun has 3 or 4 guys every year (or more) who will go in the NBA first round.
You give Buzz, Majerus, Stevens, Donovan, or Ryan that type of talent and you'll see more consistency in challenging for the NCAA title than the aforementioned recruiter coaches.
i don't think bo ryan could have done a better job than guys like calapari, williams, or boeheim given the same talent. the guy coaches a system. donovan has proven he can win when he's able to get top talent, but then again running the basketball program at UNC is much different that running it in gainsville where the pressure is lessened due to football. just as managing the type of talent that calapari deals with is much different than the type of player bo brings in.
Given the same talent and attitude-----Bo does a better job with tempo and x & os than Calapiri. The key to Badger overachievement is their tempo and simplicity resulting in relatively few mistakes.
Quote from: Murffieus 1 on August 04, 2012, 03:15:24 PM
Given the same talent and attitude-----Bo does a better job with tempo and x & os than Calapiri. The key to Badger overachievement is their tempo and simplicity resulting in relatively few mistakes.
Too bad he's a dick and can't recruit, hey?