Henry Iba, Dean Smith, and Branch M. belong on that list as well ahead of Cal. Cal is a great recruiter though there's no denying that.
Are there many good coaches left?
- Thread starter fkfootball
- Start date
That’s the same Wichita State team that beat us on our home court in the NIT by double digits?
I forgot just how bad we really were.
Maybe don't base your opinions of a coach solely on record, one game, or even one season? Building a program takes time and piles up losses. Look at Coach Wright at Villinova his first 3 years. Beilein starting at every program he has been at. Coach K's first few years at Duke. There are countless examples. Add to it the talent level evening out and few exceptional players stating more than one year, and you make rebuilding a "power" that much more difficult. It really shouldn't be difficult to understand. Now, if our current coach had inherited a roster ready to compete with experience in said Coach's system....
Ah, so national championships don't matter? Cal has one of the top 3 most talented teams every year. I would argue, based on how much more talent he has to work with than anyone (the bench is a great motivator...especially for guys playing for draft position) outside of Coach K, his squad have vastly underperformed. It takes players like John Wall for him to win a championship. You think that kid improved, at all, by playing the college game or from Cal's coaching? Cal got outcoached by Crean 2 years in a row....
I heard Gene Keady respond to a question at a clinic years ago about decreasing the shot clock time (before it went from 45 to 35 or just after). He said two things that made an impression on me.
First, that reducing the time was more likely to decrease scoring than increase it because it was going to lead to more bad shots and bad possessions. Secondly, that as a coach he opposed any change that took decision making out of a coach's hands and put it in the hands of 18-20 year-old kids. He stated that it was a recipe for getting a lot of coaches fired.
In response to a follow up about a shot clock in hs basketball he said if he were a high school coach and a shot clock was instituted he would resign immediately instead of waiting for the school board to fire him for losing games because kids were taking horrible shots, or because he strangled a kid for doing so. The guy was funny as hell, but also entirely correct.
The sad fact that so many IU fans just won't accept is that college basketball coaching is more about recruiting - FAR MORE ABOUT RECRUITING- than it is about coaching. The ups and downs are happening even to the legendary coaches of the game (see Roy Williams and UNC this year) when they don't have the best players.
You don't have to look very hard on this forum to see hate/pain/vitriol spewed anytime the dreaded "star rankings" are mentioned. Many of our fans fall all over themselves trying to prove they don't matter, even though a sixth grader doing basic statistics can see the massive correlation between getting highly rated kids and getting wins.
As I've said on this board for more times than I can count...it's all about recruiting and, for whatever reason, IU has not been very successful at selling kids on B-town...and the results have, for the most part, sucked.
Recruiting relative to one’s competition has always mattered, and it always will. But coaching matters every bit as much as it ever did, even as the rules and style of the game have evolved. Good coaches have adapted to the shot clock and the three point line, just as previous generations of coaches adapted to the dunk, freshman eligibility, the one and bonus free throw rules, the block/charge semi-circle, reduced practice time, increasing travel, smaller rosters, and longer seasons. Talent matters, but it’s always mattered, just as coaching has and always will matter. Good coaches always find ways to work with the scenarios in which they find themselves while the rest struggle, even with talent.
I respect your opinion, but, again, respectfully disagree. At the highest level of the game - the NBA - coaches are essentially non-factors at this point. The college game is nearly identical to the pro game now, and coaching matters less and less. No coach, at the college or pro level, is running sets, systems or plays that any other coach isn't running or able to run. Play selection just doesn't matter any longer - the players executing the plays do. NBA players know this and are now recruiting one another to assemble their own dream teams. In college, the coach is still in charge of assembling the team and, really, that's about 90% of what results in wins or losses.
My response back would be that coaching at the NBA level is more about managing minutes, given the October through May schedule that’s comprised of 82 game of 48 minutes in duration. Further, those schedules require previous night’s residency in the city of the game, meaning travel immediately after games is often the norm. As a result, scouting reports and walk through are the norm, with little time to prepare beyond walk throughs and shootarounds. Further, injuries allow for additions and deletions to teams.
That’s not really the case in college, where practices still occur on the floor to a much greater degree, 30-35 games is the max (at 40 minutes), travel is mostly regional (and far, far less), and rosters are largely set at the beginning of the year. College rosters still vary pretty significantly in terms of talent, too, making the coach far more integral to the endeavor. Beilein’s success at UM followed by his disaster in CLE is a clear example of the differences presented. Recruiting will always be a big part of college, but it’s always been a big part of it.
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
This reminds me of that song from the 90's,"Where Have All The Cowboys Gone?" by Paula Cole?
Tony Hinkle, Ed Diddle, Doc Meanwell, Ralph Jones, Dave Glasscock. How many shall I name?
Beilein is a perfect case study;
Beilein at Michigan, when he recruited superior talent = deemed a great coach
Beilein in the NBA has inferior talent = doesn't last a full year.
My argument is that the differences between one coach and another with respect to knowledge, game management, etc. is now microscopic. The difference between skill levels among players is significantly pronounced and is the reason we see the "ups and downs" the OP started discussing.
Last edited:
Who can’t do shit without all 5* talent. An with such talent has underachieved. Besides shouldn’t you be discussing Painter..
I would agree the knowledge of coaches presents a rather small range of difference. The ability to lead, however, is always what separates the good from the great. That, plus the substantial differences between the college and pro games, are the reasons why college coaches still have great influence and are vital to winning. Suggesting that coaching doesn’t matter much really isn’t supportable.
Gritty win overcoming their own mid-game lapse, strong mid game play by pen st and Larmar Stevens being protected beyond belief.
Did he have all 5 stars at UMASS?
Was John Wooden not a good coach because he had the best players? That’s kind of the point kid.
Don’t know about you, but I don’t wanna wait for our lives to be over before IU hangs a sixth banner.
Once again, I assume your silence in regards to the short list I made of guys that coach circles around Cal is tacit acknowledgement that you are full of crap.
Others have added more names that you haven't addressed, so I think we are up to around 30.
Top 5-10
You kids and your lack of knowledge of history.
Last edited:
Kid, lol
Thanks for that son
You know as well as I he didnt win shit....Rose... He always has had someone to throw under the bus.
