We have been in the Big East for three years.
In what catagory would you put the coaches.
Catagory 1. Great recruiter
Catogory 2. Great coach
Catagory 3. Great coach and recruiter
I think I woud get no argument about putting Rick Pitino in catagory 3.
I would think I would get some argument about putting Boheim and Calhoun in catagory 1. I think Boheim underachieves with the talent he has. Calhoun is a little tougher, because he has won 3 national titles and has a lot of players in the NBA. Before we were in the Big East, I thought he was a great coach. Our first Big East game we beat them when they had all of those great players. After watching them more closely, I have come to the conclusion he wins based on talent. Maybe that is not a fair criticism, because at some point you may only be able to get talent by letting players play instead of regimenting their skills like Georgetown's Thompson does. Anyways this is how I rate the coaches.
Louisville/Pitino 3
Connecticut/Calhoun 1
Syracuse/Boheim 1
Georgetown/Thompson 3
West Virginia/Huggins 2
DePaul/Wainright 1-I felt this years team was more talented than MU's. They had an early lead and got cocky. Had a 9 point lead and a steal for a break away layup, when the player who had a break away layup threw it off the back board so the trailing player could dunk. They blew the sure two points. I saw no reaction from Wainright and MU came back and beat them. This is a classic example of a coach that just lets his players play. DePaul definately underachieved.
Notre Dame/Brey 2- I see him more as a developer of players than a recruiter.
Pittsburg/Dixon 2- Same as Brey
Rutgers/Hill-Hard to say because the team was so bad. He might turn out to be a three. Rutgers won at Pittsburg this year and seems to be upgrading the talent level. My gut feeling is he is turning the Rutger's program around.
Seton Hall/Gonzalez 2-since I do not see him as a recruiter
Villanova/Wright 3 I think he gets enough good players to be rated a recruiter and I think he is a good coach. Has had very young teams the last two years. Perhaps the program we should compare our team to. Had a great experience guard orientated team two years ago and has been rebuilding since, but managed to get to sweet 16 this year.
Cincinnati/Cronin 2- has not shown me enough in recruiting. Did pretty well in Big East this year with the talent he had.
St. John's/Roberts 1 only because I think his talent was better than his record. Or in other words he can't coach.
South Florida/McCallum 2 This one is actually a tough call. Poor career record. I think based on the talent he had he gave MU more trouble than he should have.
New coaches
Providence 2-Shown he can coach, but can he recruit?
Marquette 1-Shown he can recruit, but can he coach?
It will be interesting to see how these two coaches careers work out.
Providence- I believe they hired a coach versus a recruiter.
We appreciate your opinion but how the hell can you tell if he is a great coach if he has had only one year of coaching and none with his own players. The same goes for KEno Davis. sure he had a good year this year but maybe he is a good recruiter as well if given the chance. You can't rank 1st year coaches in this way. Also if you don't think Jim Boeheim can coach then you don't know COllege basketball. He has to teach the 2-3 zone to every single kid that comes into the program.
I asked for your opinion, not your criticism. As far as Boheim he has had great success, but it is based on talent. He has consistantly under performed in NCAA tournament and has consistantly played a weak non-conference schedule (very similar to tom Crean), which has led his team to being odd man out two years in a row at selection time. Certainly has not had the success that Calhoun has had, but Calhoun has had even more talent.
I think you are underestimating Brey as a recruiter, and overrating him as a coach.
That team had a boatload of top 100 kids on the roster, including a McDonald's All American, more ranked guys than MU, DePaul etc. If anything he's a recruiter who can't coach, because a lot of the talented guys he's brought in(Torin Francis, Luke Zeller etc) have ended up being disappointments who never live up to their talent.
Gonzo...I don't think he's a great anything. In fact I'm surprised he still has a job to be honest.
Also, McCullum hasn't been the coach at South Florida in over a year. They've got Stan Heath the guy that took Kent State to the Elite 8 and was the coach at Arkansas. He's definitely a 1. He got a lot of very talented kids to go to Arkansas, only to go 20-11 or something around that every year, because he can't coach his way out of a wet paper bag. His teams always looked lost in close situations, but were talented enough to at least get to the tournament.
this 3 opton system doesn't work for me. Why can't we say good recruiter/crappy coach vs below avg recruiter/awesome coach. It seems like you are forced into a lot of jumping to conclusions on the newer coaches this way.
Quote from: bilsu on April 16, 2008, 09:25:05 AM
I asked for your opinion, not your criticism. As far as Boheim he has had great success, but it is based on talent. He has consistantly under performed in NCAA tournament and has consistantly played a weak non-conference schedule (very similar to tom Crean), which has led his team to being odd man out two years in a row at selection time. Certainly has not had the success that Calhoun has had, but Calhoun has had even more talent.
If you are not open to critisim then why are you posting on a message board. Kingdom of the Critical. I think Boeheim has been jsut as successful if not more sucessful then Calhoun. He has been doing it longer and has done
Jim Boeheim's Coaching Career 771-277
Jim Calhoun's Coaching Career 773-337
That seems pretty comproable to me the major difference is the National titles which Calhoun has an advantage