Buzz .. 20th best Coach..?

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

I don't care about vacated wins. Give me NBA talent.

So your ranking of coaches favors those who cheat?

[Blue Horseshoe]

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.

[Goose]

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.

[brewcity77]

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.

[JD]

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?

[brewcity77]

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?

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

[JD]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[bilsu]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[Aughnanure]

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!

[Aughnanure]

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.

[LAZER]

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)

[ringout]

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?

[JD]

Bo Ryan has to be top 5, he "does things the right way"  Unlike everyone else, especially MU....

[leever]

Buzz would certainly be rated higher if he could just recruit some bigs and practice free throws!

[MarsupialMadness]

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.

[RushmoreAcademy]

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.

[wyzgy]

brad stevens needs to be in the top 5, if not top 3

[The Equalizer]

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 Programs^TM[/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.

[Goose]

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.

[Pakuni]

Well, he did get SLU--the official MUScoop Gold Benchmark of Failed Programs^TM[/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."

[CTWarrior]

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.

[Abode4life]

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.