Big East COY

[bilsu]

Syracuse was picked number 1 preseason, because Boheim put together the talent to be a number 1 team. How can you not give him credit for that. Especially, when talent (Uconn) does not always win.

[Hards Alumni]

USF is 71 on Kenpom and has an RPI of 50

this is their team profile.  Lunardi doesn't even have them in the tourney.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/team/_/id/58/south-florida-bulls

To say that Heath deserves anything above a WHISPER for COY in the BEAST is unconscionable.

Beat someone who matters, then tell me about it.

[brewcity77]

USF is 71 on Kenpom and has an RPI of 50

this is their team profile.  Lunardi doesn't even have them in the tourney.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/team/_/id/58/south-florida-bulls

To say that Heath deserves anything above a WHISPER for COY in the BEAST is unconscionable.

Beat someone who matters, then tell me about it.

I agree that right now they aren't in the tourney, but it's not Heath's fault that 'Nova and Pitt both have had their worst seasons in probably a decade or more and were two of their three mirror opponents. If they get the double-bye, that's a damn impressive feat, especially considering that their only games against Marquette, Syracuse, Georgetown, Louisville, and Notre Dame (the other 5 teams in the top-6 of the Big East) all are on the road. In addition, if Pittsburgh had swept USF instead of the other way around, the Panthers would still be in the mix for an at-large.

It's still too early to give it to Heath, but if he beats Cincy and WVU at home and secures 12-6 and a double-bye, that's really impressive, especially at a school where they've never had a winning Big East record before. If I had a vote, I'd give it to him for that, regardless of what Buzz, Boeheim, and Brey did with teams that were picked to finish in the top half of the league.

[dwaderoy2004]

I agree that if they go 12-6 and secure the double bye, he should certainly be in the discussion.  I just thought it was premature to definitively state Heath is COY (as AnotherMU84 did) when it is entirely conceivable they finish 10-8.

[MU82]

A coach who employs exclusively a 2-3 zone should never receive any attention for coach of the year - especially when the team has as much athleticism and depth as SU.

This is just silly. One could argue that a coach who employs a defense every other coach knows but still repeatedly beats all those other coaches is doing a lot right. The coach still has to have his players executing that defense well, both individually and collectively. When Bobby Knight was winning championships, he played nothing but man-to-man. So he wasn't a great coach because he refused to switch defenses and he successfully recruited studs? Oy.

Docking a coach for having great players also is silly. Who ultimately is responsible for bringing those players to his school? And who gets blamed if he fails to bring top players in?

That being said, Boeheim almost surely won't get COY because in all sports at all levels, the award tends to go to those who exceed expectations. For example, Phil Jackson won 11 NBA titles but never was coach of the year!

Only 4 will be seriously considered: Williams, Brey, Heath and Thompson. Feeling here is Brey will win it.

ND wasn't supposed to be especially good even with Abromaitis yet Brey was able to overcome an injury to one of the league's best players. Along the way, Brey gave Syracuse its only loss and also scored several other impressive wins, including a beat-down of Marquette.

[Golden Avalanche]

It's clearly Brey.

First, he has a track record of winning it. Second, ND was picked mediocre and they will likely finish second. Third, ND's best player featured in a whopping two games. Finally, the Irish winning streak is a much sexier story than Marquette's play.

[jesmu84]

Who ultimately is responsible for bringing those players to his school? And who gets blamed if he fails to bring top players in?

Deep pocketed boosters?

For example, Phil Jackson won 11 NBA titles but never was coach of the year!

Not true. Jackson received COY during the Bulls' 95-96 season when they posted a 72-10 record. (so ridiculous that the guy only received it once and it had to be the record breaking season. deserved it many times)

[MU82]

My bad on Jackson in 95-96. Good catch. Point still valid, though.

[Hoopaloop]

In the past I've kiddingly called you the Plato to his Socrates. But this is really getting creepy. You've become the Smithers to his Mr. Burns.

Not creepy.  Creepy would be constantly bringing up the guy a year later.  We all know if he wrote something anti-MU you would be the first here to trash him.  He writes something positive about Buzz and you find it creepy. 

[leever]

Not creepy.  Creepy would be constantly bringing up the guy a year later.  We all know if he wrote something anti-MU you would be the first here to trash him.  He writes something positive about Buzz and you find it creepy. 

And yet, you just brought him up - - -  - again

[Tugg Speedman]

I agree that if they go 12-6 and secure the double bye, he should certainly be in the discussion.  I just thought it was premature to definitively state Heath is COY (as AnotherMU84 did) when it is entirely conceivable they finish 10-8.

My post above was poorly worded ... I meant to say if USF gets a double-bye that Heath s/b BE COY.

[Lennys Tap]

Not creepy.  Creepy would be constantly bringing up the guy a year later.  We all know if he wrote something anti-MU you would be the first here to trash him.  He writes something positive about Buzz and you find it creepy. 

Of course I never said I found the article (or anything else ever written by Chicos) creepy. Viscious, venal, anti Marquette garbage? Maybe, but not creepy. What I find creepy is your lap dog, synchophantic hero worship of the guy.

You are constantly complaining that people around here are obsessed with Tom Crean and Chicos. Meanwhile you talk about them more than anyone else. Awhile back you wrote: "Let's obsess about winning". I saluted your post and said I would drop Tom Crean as a topic of discussion if you would. You never replied, but are still all over the topic. I make the same offer regarding Chicos. What do you say?

[karavotsos]

This is just silly. One could argue that a coach who employs a defense every other coach knows but still repeatedly beats all those other coaches is doing a lot right. The coach still has to have his players executing that defense well, both individually and collectively. When Bobby Knight was winning championships, he played nothing but man-to-man. So he wasn't a great coach because he refused to switch defenses and he successfully recruited studs? Oy.

Docking a coach for having great players also is silly. Who ultimately is responsible for bringing those players to his school? And who gets blamed if he fails to bring top players in?

That being said, Boeheim almost surely won't get COY because in all sports at all levels, the award tends to go to those who exceed expectations. For example, Phil Jackson won 11 NBA titles but never was coach of the year!

Only 4 will be seriously considered: Williams, Brey, Heath and Thompson. Feeling here is Brey will win it.

ND wasn't supposed to be especially good even with Abromaitis yet Brey was able to overcome an injury to one of the league's best players. Along the way, Brey gave Syracuse its only loss and also scored several other impressive wins, including a beat-down of Marquette.

Why is it silly?  Teaching a team the one most basic defense and nothing else is lazy and the easiest way out as a coach. Its silly to compare teaching a team to play good man-to-man defense to teaching a team to play a 2-3 zone.

Also, its silly only to teach a team to play 2-3 zone when you have athletes like Jim Boeheim has because if you can only play 2-3 zone you have no way to speed a game up when you're down 10 or more in the second half.  See the Butler game in the NCAA tournament two years ago.  I think its silly to lose a game like that and to come back the next year without a solution when that happens again.  Yet Boeheim has done it for 30 years.

Also, coaching is coaching.  Recruiting is recruiting.  I'm missing the difficulty in distinguishing the two. 

[Hoopaloop]

Awhile back you wrote: "Let's obsess about winning". I saluted your post and said I would drop Tom Crean as a topic of discussion if you would. You never replied, but are still all over the topic. I make the same offer regarding Chicos. What do you say?

I am on board with it, as long as you get the rest of your posse on board.  Deal? 


I am of the belief that most posters here are not perfect. They have good things to offer and sometimes incoherent, poor things to offer. If they believe them, however, then that’s their right and their opinion.  Murffius was a great example.  People bash(ed) him all the time but he has some very sound principled ideas on basketball and other topics.  Chicos was another.  BMA was another.  Tower said it best the other day, you got the good with the bad with some of these guys.  Can’t we all get along as 4ever would say?

The problem, as I see it, is how certain people here react to it.  There are a group of users here that focus like a laser beam ready to pounce the moment someone on their watch list says something they don’t agree with.  Then they go into destroy mode.  If you don’t agree with their opinion, say it and move on. That's not what you guys do.  There are others that take the good with the bad and recognize that people have differing opinions and ignore those they don't care for.

[Hoopaloop]

Why is it silly?  Teaching a team the one most basic defense and nothing else is lazy and the easiest way out as a coach. Its silly to compare teaching a team to play good man-to-man defense to teaching a team to play a 2-3 zone.

Also, its silly only to teach a team to play 2-3 zone when you have athletes like Jim Boeheim has because if you can only play 2-3 zone you have no way to speed a game up when you're down 10 or more in the second half.  See the Butler game in the NCAA tournament two years ago.  I think its silly to lose a game like that and to come back the next year without a solution when that happens again.  Yet Boeheim has done it for 30 years.

Also, coaching is coaching.  Recruiting is recruiting.  I'm missing the difficulty in distinguishing the two. 

Do you view Vince Lombardi in that way because they ran the power sweep so much?  How about Bo Ryan and the Swing?  If a coach comes up with a philosophy and recruits \ teaches to that philosophy that wins how does that exclude them from Coach of the Year consideration?  Are you winning or are you not winning?

[karavotsos]

I guess if you want to look at it that simplistically you can.  I would ask something like, are you maximizing significant wins?  My answer for Boeheim is no.  For a guy who has been at a job as long as he has and has won as much as he has, he has only won 1 NCAA title.  He should have more.

If you have heard his philosophy behind the 2-3 zone, it's, have you ever heard of a good zone offense?  His answer is no.  He is counting on the zone to bring out another team's deficiencies either in lack of aggressiveness or patience to win the defensive end.  I would say that's fine against poor to mediocre teams.  However, a good offensive team will shred a zone with ease.  Look at what KU did to MSU when they played zone last night.

So, I think Boeheim takes a conservative approach to stack wins through his approach, but he sacrifices wins against better teams.  I prefer a more aggressive approach that shows more faith in your players to grow and adapt.  I think man defense demands that more.  Zone is a cop out. 

[MU82]

I respectfully disagree.

If you think a college coach -- let alone a Hall of Famer -- just shrugs his shoulders and says, "play the 2-3, boys, you're on your own," you're wrong.

The middle-school team I coached the last two years played a lot of 2-3 -- we called it "Syracuse" -- and there are a LOT of aspects to it that must be taught and mastered. All kinds of traps and movement and pressure situations.

As for "lazy" Boeheim's underachieving career because he only won 1 title ...

Al McGuire also only won 1 title. Bill Self, Rick Pitino, John Thompson and Lute Olson have won 1 apiece. Roy Williams couldn't win any at Kansas despite bringing in elite talent year after year. Lon Kruger hasn't won any titles. Eddie Sutton coached forever and never won a title. Ditto Lefty Driesell, Lou Carnesecca and Lou Henson. I could go on and on.

I'll take Jim Boeheim's 1 title and the rest of his record, too. He's forgotten more about basketball than you and I will ever know.

[jesmu84]

After last night's game, it is apparent to me that Buzz should be COY, without a doubt. Yes, USF overachieved. Yes, ND is overachieving after learning how to play without Abro (and it took them quite a while to learn how). Yes, Cuse is probably going to end with 1 loss in conference. But none of that matters to me.

MU is overachieving as well, especially if we finish 2nd (or somehow tied for 1st). That isn't the most important part though. Otule starts at center then is lost for the year. We took a small adjustment period to get used to a totally different type of center and playing style with Gardner (a period much shorter than ND). Then Gardner gets injured and we're forced into no true center (and, by extension, becoming a very small team) and we have basically no adjustment period and continue to win.

Seriously, that is such a testament to how well Buzz has coached this year (not to take away from the players executing). He's had to change styles twice, mid-season (sometimes mid-game) and continue winning while not letting the team get down on themselves.

Absolutely Buzz for COY.

[dwaderoy2004]

Unless USF wins their last three, it's between Brey and Buzz.  As well as we're playing, ND just smoked West Virginia last night.  Even with Abro, ND was picked 9th I believe, so it's a remarkable turnaround.  It may come down to who finishes 2nd and who finishes 3rd...