Diamond Stone

[JakeBarnes]

Keefe's contention (I think) is that it's hard to call Alford an "underachiever" professionally when he's just landed one of the top jobs in his profession. That doesn't mean he's not an a$$hole and a despicable person. Our previous coach is living proof that the two aren't mutually exclusive.

It's super exciting to see your last name all over a thread and then weird when you realize no one is talking about you. Ok.carry on.

This Stone guy is supposed to be sort of good at being talland such, right?

[keefe]

Keefe's contention (I think) is that it's hard to call Alford an "underachiever" professionally when he's just landed one of the top jobs in his profession. That doesn't mean he's not an a$$hole and a despicable person. Our previous coach is living proof that the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Thank you, Leonard.

[rocky_warrior]

Not at all. Tom Crean introduced Hyperbaric chambers to the Marquette basketball program. Dr. Perlmutter is a proponent of that technology.

Well, actually I think TC likes the hypobaric/hypoxic (low oxygen) chamber for training.  In contrast, a hyperbaric chamber has lots of oxygen and should be good for recovery, but I don't think Marquette ever used one of those.

[keefe]

Well, actually I think TC likes the hypobaric/hypoxic (low oxygen) chamber for training.  In contrast, a hyperbaric chamber has lots of oxygen and should be good for recovery, but I don't think Marquette ever used one of those.

Well, either way it's horsesh1t. Gimmicks suggest desperation. Focus on the basics and build from there. Buzz is genuine. Refreshing.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Well, either way it's horsesh1t. Gimmicks suggest desperation. Focus on the basics and build from there. Buzz is genuine. Refreshing.

They used to say that about weight lifting and conditioning, too.

http://www.boston.com/sports/other_sports/articles/2007/10/19/up_and_coming_method/?page=full

[keefe]

They used to say that about weight lifting and conditioning, too.

http://www.boston.com/sports/other_sports/articles/2007/10/19/up_and_coming_method/?page=full

And Air Power was a defensive weapon. Crean as Douhet, Mitchell, Geiger, and Warden as landmark theorist?

[Dawson Rental]

Do not confuse the issue. The point under consideration is strictly a man's professional stature. And if he were genuinely the ethical miscreant some here have suggested, with no empiricism mind you, I am confident UCLA's screening methodology would have investigated that with greater insight and precision than any Scoop poster.

Perhaps you missed this nugget from another thread.

Article from Wed. on controversy at UCLA from hiring Alford...
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/alford-533943-guerrero-wrote.html

[GGGG]

Keefe's contention (I think) is that it's hard to call Alford an "underachiever" professionally when he's just landed one of the top jobs in his profession. That doesn't mean he's not an a$$hole and a despicable person. Our previous coach is living proof that the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Charlie Weis landed one of the top jobs in his profession...that doesn't mean he was a good football coach.

Just because someone manages their career path well and does just enough to land that next job, that doesn't make them accomplished.  It makes them a good salesman.  Keefe can rip Tom Crean up and down, but he is more "accomplished" than Alford on the court, and much less despicable off the court. 

[4everwarriors]

Charlie Weis landed one of the top jobs in his profession...that doesn't mean he was a good football coach.

Just because someone manages their career path well and does just enough to land that next job, that doesn't make them accomplished.  It makes them a good salesman.  Keefe can rip Tom Crean up and down, but he is more "accomplished" than Alford on the court, and much less despicable off the court. 

At the risk of bein' labelled a "one trick pony," I'll let someone else rip this argument to shreds.

[willie warrior]

At the risk of bein' labelled a "one trick pony," I'll let someone else rip this argument to shreds.

Debatable that Crean is more "accomplished" than Alford on the court. Yeah, Crean made a FF--or better yet Wade got Crean to the FF. Alford accomplishments speak for themselves. Crean's FF appearance: about a 33 point blowout from Kansas. That is underachieving. How many of the Alford detractors that blast him as despicable or a prick even know the guy? Probably 1%. I have heard that comment a number of times over the years. I don't know Alford either--maybe he is a prick--but why judge him as such if you have not met him, and know him.

Yeah, I guess Alford is a good salesman: He sold himself to become an All American; he sold himself to become an Olympian; he sold himself to become the Coach at Iowa; he sold himself to become the Head Coach at UCLA; he sold himself to Looney; he should go to work as a used car salesman with that record.

[Golden Avalanche]

Debatable that Crean is more "accomplished" than Alford on the court. Yeah, Crean made a FF--or better yet Wade got Crean to the FF. Alford accomplishments speak for themselves. Crean's FF appearance: about a 33 point blowout from Kansas. That is underachieving. How many of the Alford detractors that blast him as despicable or a prick even know the guy? Probably 1%. I have heard that comment a number of times over the years. I don't know Alford either--maybe he is a prick--but why judge him as such if you have not met him, and know him.

Yeah, I guess Alford is a good salesman: He sold himself to become an All American; he sold himself to become an Olympian; he sold himself to become the Coach at Iowa; he sold himself to become the Head Coach at UCLA; he sold himself to Looney; he should go to work as a used car salesman with that record.

Stop.

[Lennys Tap]

Charlie Weis landed one of the top jobs in his profession...that doesn't mean he was a good football coach.

You can say a lot of negative things about Charlie Weis. Arrogant? Yes. Slovenly and undisciplined regarding his personal habits? Absolutely. The right guy to send into recruits living rooms and be the face of a university? No friggin' way.

As far as being a good football coach, though, his long and very successful career in the NFL would say yes. Bill Bellichek (sp?), arguably the best football coach of his generation, hired him twice and he was his Offensive Coordinator for three Super Bowl champions. I trust that Bill thought Charlie was pretty good at coaching football. Who are we to argue?

[MerrittsMustache]

Charlie Weis landed one of the top jobs in his profession...that doesn't mean he was a good football coach.
 

Prime example of the Peter Principle.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Crean's FF appearance: about a 33 point blowout from Kansas. That is underachieving

Never quite understood this logic.  So in beating 2 seed Pittsburgh, that is over achieving?  Beating #1 seed and overall #1 team in the country Kentucky 6 days earlier, that would also be over achieving?

[GGGG]

Yeah, I guess Alford is a good salesman: He sold himself to become an All American; he sold himself to become an Olympian; he sold himself to become the Coach at Iowa; he sold himself to become the Head Coach at UCLA; he sold himself to Looney; he should go to work as a used car salesman with that record.

The only response I am going to have to this is that I am not sure why people keep bringing up his on court achievements as a player.  He was clearly a very good college basketball player and those accomplishments speak for themselves.

And again, I have not said he is a bad coach.  Just an underachieving one.  I'm not sure why this statement makes people so upset.

And yeah 4ever....Tom Crean has accomplished more as a college coach.  It actually isn't really all that close.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Prime example of the Peter Principle.

Sometimes the situations don't line up right either.  See Bill Bellichek at Cleveland Browns. 

[brewcity77]

Crazy the direction this thread about Diamond Stone has taken. A couple thoughts...

First, Charlie Weis was a very good coordinator, not so much a head man. One can be a good assistant and not a good boss. I think the points raised by Sultan and Lenny are both accurate, depending on the lens you are looking through.

As far as Crean vs Alford, I don't see any way you can't consider Crean to be a more successful NCAA coach. It's not even really debatable. Crean has a Final Four and two Sweet 16s, whereas Alford has one Sweet 16 dating back before Crean's career even started. 10 wins in March to 3. And in 5 years, Crean has more Big 10 titles than Alford had in 8 years at Iowa. Yes, Alford had great regular season success at UNM, but it still only translated to 3 NCAA berths in 6 years and 3 losses to double-digit seeds. I mean...even Bo can beat double-digit seeds.

[Galway Eagle]

Crazy the direction this thread about Diamond Stone has taken. A couple thoughts...

First, Charlie Weis was a very good coordinator, not so much a head man. One can be a good assistant and not a good boss. I think the points raised by Sultan and Lenny are both accurate, depending on the lens you are looking through.

As far as Crean vs Alford, I don't see any way you can't consider Crean to be a more successful NCAA coach. It's not even really debatable. Crean has a Final Four and two Sweet 16s, whereas Alford has one Sweet 16 dating back before Crean's career even started. 10 wins in March to 3. And in 5 years, Crean has more Big 10 titles than Alford had in 8 years at Iowa. Yes, Alford had great regular season success at UNM, but it still only translated to 3 NCAA berths in 6 years and 3 losses to double-digit seeds. I mean...even Bo can beat double-digit seeds.

I think Georgetown would happily tell you how scary playing double digit seeds can be . 

[Pakuni]

Crazy the direction this thread about Diamond Stone has taken. A couple thoughts...

First, Charlie Weis was a very good coordinator, not so much a head man. One can be a good assistant and not a good boss. I think the points raised by Sultan and Lenny are both accurate, depending on the lens you are looking through.

As far as Crean vs Alford, I don't see any way you can't consider Crean to be a more successful NCAA coach. It's not even really debatable. Crean has a Final Four and two Sweet 16s, whereas Alford has one Sweet 16 dating back before Crean's career even started. 10 wins in March to 3. And in 5 years, Crean has more Big 10 titles than Alford had in 8 years at Iowa. Yes, Alford had great regular season success at UNM, but it still only translated to 3 NCAA berths in 6 years and 3 losses to double-digit seeds. I mean...even Bo can beat double-digit seeds.

You know the Tom Crean hate runs deep (and delusional) when the character and coaching record of Steve Alford is compared favorably to his.

Some seem to be forgetting that Alford landed the UCLA job in no small measure because other coaches wanted to part of that environment.

[brewcity77]

You know the Tom Crean hate runs deep (and delusional) when the character and coaching record of Steve Alford is compared favorably to his.

Some seem to be forgetting that Alford landed the UCLA job in no small measure because other coaches wanted to part of that environment.

Very true. The expectations there are ridiculous, as evidenced by Howland getting ousted after 3 Final Fours and coming off a conference title. I also get the sense many of the UCLA boosters still think it's the Wooden days, not realizing that schools like Duke and Kentucky have surpassed them in the tactics that led to their dominance in the 1970s.

UCLA can still be a good program, but there's a reason guys like Stevens, Smart, and Buzz had zero interest when the Bruins came calling. Alford was basically the least objectionable guy that would take the job. If UCLA could have somehow nabbed Crean from IU, they would have taken him 100,000 times before even interviewing Alford.

[willie warrior]

Never quite understood this logic.  So in beating 2 seed Pittsburgh, that is over achieving?  Beating #1 seed and overall #1 team in the country Kentucky 6 days earlier, that would also be over achieving?

Sorry--making a point with hyperbole toward Sultan who started the debate about Alford being an underachiever. That was my point.

[Lennys Tap]

.

As far as Crean vs Alford, I don't see any way you can't consider Crean to be a more successful NCAA coach. It's not even really debatable. Crean has a Final Four and two Sweet 16s, whereas Alford has one Sweet 16 dating back before Crean's career even started. 10 wins in March to 3. And in 5 years, Crean has more Big 10 titles than Alford had in 8 years at Iowa. Yes, Alford had great regular season success at UNM, but it still only translated to 3 NCAA berths in 6 years and 3 losses to double-digit seeds. I mean...even Bo can beat double-digit seeds.

I agree that TC is more successful, primarily based on his 9-10 NCAA tournament record with a Final Four and and 2 Sweet 16s versus Alford's 4-7 record with one Sweet 16. It should be noted, though, that Marquette and Indiana are much easier places to have NCAA tournament success than SW Missouri St, Iowa and New Mexico. Still, I give the edge to TC.

There are those, though, who dismiss tournament success (the crapshoot crowd - okay, it's kind of a small crowd) and base most of their opinion on games prior to the NCAAs. Here Alford fares much better - more wins (463 to 235), higher winning % (.663 to .606), more conference regular season titles (4-2) and more conference post season titles (2 to zero).

So through your lens and mine it's Crean, through the crapshoot lens it's Alford.

[willie warrior]

You know the Tom Crean hate runs deep (and delusional) when the character and coaching record of Steve Alford is compared favorably to his.

Some seem to be forgetting that Alford landed the UCLA job in no small measure because other coaches wanted to part of that environment.

What is a Big 10 title--regular season or conference tourney? I believe that Alford won two big 10 tourneys. Last time I looked Big 10 tourney winner gets the NCAA berth. You really do not know that other coaches "wanted no part of that environment". And that argument could apply in a number of cases. There are always guys that want or do not want those types of jobs for a variety of reasons. You also do not know the character of Alford or Crean for that matter. Only what you have heard.

[willie warrior]

I agree that TC is more successful, primarily based on his 9-10 NCAA tournament record with a Final Four and and 2 Sweet 16s versus Alford's 4-7 record with one Sweet 16. It should be noted, though, that Marquette and Indiana are much easier places to have NCAA tournament success than SW Missouri St, Iowa and New Mexico. Still, I give the edge to TC.

There are those, though, who dismiss tournament success (the crapshoot crowd - okay, it's kind of a small crowd) and base most of their opinion on games prior to the NCAAs. Here Alford fares much better - more wins (463 to 235), higher winning % (.663 to .606), more conference regular season titles (4-2) and more conference post season titles (2 to zero).

So through your lens and mine it's Crean, through the crapshoot lens it's Alford.

I guess Lenny has pointed out ways that it is debatable.

[Lennys Tap]

Some seem to be forgetting that Alford landed the UCLA job in no small measure because other coaches wanted to part of that environment.

Agree, and some seem to be forgetting that Crean landed the Indiana job in no small measure because other coaches wanted no part of that environment.