College Coach (currently in college) to win 1 game in March

[ChiShankCity]

Who do you take?

Personally for me....

1. Calipari
2. Pitino

Rest are miles away including Izzo and K.

With Cal, you're guaranteed almost to have the best talent in March.

Pitino seemingly can win with anything.

 

[Detroit Heel]

What kind of talent are we talking about here? Regardless, I'm probably taking Izzo without a second thought.

 

[tarh33ls]

Depends what you're talking about here, with about equal talent in the tourny I think Izzo and Pitino have show to be quite adept. Obviously recruiting is a huge part of being a college coach but the thread title is a little unclear. If we are talking just coaching prowess I think it is the 2 aforementioned coaches and then K, Cal and the rest. Cal will usually have the most talent, so obviously they stand a good chance of winning but that is on Cal as a recruiter, not an in-game coach...Cal is not a horrible in-game coach, just not as good as Izzo and Pitino, who often step up their game in March/April.

 

[thaUNCshow]

Lol Calipari? I dont think Im ever taking him if both teams have equal talent. Izzo or K is by far the best in game coach. Pitino is there too

 

[Detroit Heel]

Yeah, he wasn't clear at all with the criteria. I mean this MSU team has no business being in the S16 with a good chance at an E8. Give Cal this roster and does he do the same? I, personally don't think so. This is Jung though...he could be trolling us. He seems to always bring up duke/k or UK.

 

[Detroit Heel]

Elite 8 with this MSU team just reaffirms that I'd take Izzo over Cal, equal talent, without blinking.

 

[ChiShankCity]

Originally posted by Detroit Heel:
Elite 8 with this MSU team just reaffirms that I'd take Izzo over Cal, equal talent, without blinking.

But the talent is never equal. That's why I'd take Calipari. He's always going to have more talent.

 

[Detroit Heel]

So then, you're not talking about actual coaching?

 

[ChiShankCity]

Originally posted by Detroit Heel:
So then, you're not talking about actual coaching?

I think recruiting is a very important part of coaching in college.

 

[tarh33ls]

It's still unclear what you mean here...in 2012 Cal had the top recruiting class as usual, a team with quite a bit of talent/potential yet they flamed out and went to the NIT. That was after they started the season #3 and lost 6 games in the SEC. I know they lost Nerlens Noel to injury but they were well on their way down before that but Izzo for instance has not seen an NIT appearance in 20 years (only in his first 2 seasons at MSU). MSU does not recruit as well as UK does and plays in what is historically a much tougher conference.

From 1974 until he retired Dean didn't miss the tournament, even in an era where it was more difficult to make the tournament. Nearly 30 years for K, not counting his "back injury" season...Cal is great in this one and done era and he usually gets the most talent but even that has not prevented him from missing the tournament or some bad losses when he had the best team or the most talent...

His title win came with a generational talent in Anthony Davis...4 guys in the 1st round, 6 guys total. I don't know what the criteria are here because arguably Cal should have a couple of titles since he's been at UK already. In this era, with the one and done he's almost untouchable in terms of talent but it's unclear what argument you're trying to make. Yes, UK will be consistently good as long as they are able to recruit the best talent and Cal has built the brand at UK so that kids see that as their path of least resistance to the NBA. It was an intelligent move by Cal and it works for him and for UK. Eventually he was going to get some high recruits like the Harrisons and Poythress who underperformed relative to their rankings so he was able to have some depth and experience to blend with the new crop of one and dones. Just like he had Miller, Jones and Lamb with his title team, along with MKG, Teague and Davis. If your point is that UK will be stocked with talent as long as Cal is there, then yes you're right. However, you're acting like he's some sort of great tournament coach, when the reality is that he usually just has the most talent...As I noted, I get that recruiting talent is a huge part of being a college coach but I think there is a massive difference to be made between recruiting and coaching. Coaching involves teaching, instructing, strategy, Xs and Os. There have been very good recruiters who have been poor coaches and vice-versa. Cal is a good coach but the best recruiter by a wide margin, the greatest factor in his success is not his ability to teach the game, it is his ability to assemble the best young talent. If you think Cal would have ever seen this success in the pre one and done era, you're wrong.

As an aside, do you consider Phil Jackson to be a better coach than Pop? Jackson was a hell of a coach but he also had the best talent. Pop had some tremendous talent but not to the same level and has won a lot less (relatively speaking). I still think Pop is the better coach of the game, he has adapted his team to play to their strengths and to adapt to the changing NBA, whereas Jackson always ran the same system with the biggest stars. Phil like Cal had the best talent and knew how to manage his relationships with these talented stars. I understand that college coaches must recruit well to be successful but to act like they are synonymous belittles what being a coach means...hell look at what Brad Stevens did at Butler, I'd say that was a hell of a coaching job.





This post was edited on 3/28 2:11 AM by tarh33ls

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

Depends if the game is against the Heels... If it is, Izzo will crap his pants as usual and I'd prefer anyone else. If not against UNC, give me Izzo

 

[mikeirbyusa]

Originally posted by Hark_The_Sound_2010:
Depends if the game is against the Heels... If it is, Izzo will crap his pants as usual and I'd prefer anyone else. If not against UNC, give me Izzo

I'll take Roy who has NEVER lost in the 1st round and owns Izzo.

 

[Tru Blu Tar Heel]

Between Cal and Pitino? Equal talent I'm taking Pitino. Cal is what he is because he can recruit a super team every year and convince them to buy in. Pitino?has proven he can adapt and overcome regardless of personnel.

 

[WoadBlue]

Originally posted by Tru Blu Tar Heel:
Between Cal and Pitino? Equal talent I'm taking Pitino. Cal is what he is because he can recruit a super team every year and convince them to buy in. Pitino?has proven he can adapt and overcome regardless of personnel.

Cal is able to recruit as he does because World Wide Wes buys 'em for him.

 

[mikeirbyusa]

BINGO!

 

[gunslingerdick]

If you give each coach the pick of the litter for talent and had to win one game, I'll take Roy over Cal.

If you give each coach marginal talent, I'll take Izzo.

But if you allow me to pick from coaches - current or retired - in any scenario, I'll take Dean.

 

[Detroit Heel]

Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
If you give each coach the pick of the litter for talent and had to win one game, I'll take Roy over Cal.

If you give each coach marginal talent, I'll take Izzo.

But if you allow me to pick from coaches - current or retired - in any scenario, I'll take Dean.

Agreed but you have to remember who started this thread. SJung seems to have a hard-on for all things duke and kentucky. What's the criteria SJung? It's been asked a few times now and you haven't answered? I mean, Izzo, is in the FF with a team that many thought would be in the NIT halfway through the season.

 

[ChiShankCity]

Originally posted by Detroit Heel:

Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
If you give each coach the pick of the litter for talent and had to win one game, I'll take Roy over Cal.

If you give each coach marginal talent, I'll take Izzo.

But if you allow me to pick from coaches - current or retired - in any scenario, I'll take Dean.

Agreed but you have to remember who started this thread. SJung seems to have a hard-on for all things duke and kentucky. What's the criteria SJung? It's been asked a few times now and you haven't answered? I mean, Izzo, is in the FF with a team that many thought would be in the NIT halfway through the season.

There's no checklist of requirements. Whatever is important to you in terms of what a college coach's responsibilities are, you rank from there. Personally, recruiting is the most important thing to me and I value Cal's in game coaching enough for him to be #1 by some distance to me.

I'll take Pitino #2... This year was unbelievable. I've heard his players can't stand one another and Pitino really didn't like his team either, but he was able to get them to an elite 8.

Part of my reason for knocking down Izzo some (I know it looks bad today) is he probably isn't the ace recruiter that Cal is, and to me, recruiting is the most important part of being a college coach.

And yes, I can confirm that I have a hard on right now because I'm talking about Kentucky. lol.

 

[Detroit Heel]

Originally posted by SJung851:

Originally posted by Detroit Heel:

Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
If you give each coach the pick of the litter for talent and had to win one game, I'll take Roy over Cal.

If you give each coach marginal talent, I'll take Izzo.

But if you allow me to pick from coaches - current or retired - in any scenario, I'll take Dean.

Agreed but you have to remember who started this thread. SJung seems to have a hard-on for all things duke and kentucky. What's the criteria SJung? It's been asked a few times now and you haven't answered? I mean, Izzo, is in the FF with a team that many thought would be in the NIT halfway through the season.

There's no checklist of requirements. Whatever is important to you in terms of what a college coach's responsibilities are, you rank from there. Personally, recruiting is the most important thing to me and I value Cal's in game coaching enough for him to be #1 by some distance to me.

I'll take Pitino #2... This year was unbelievable. I've heard his players can't stand one another and Pitino really didn't like his team either, but he was able to get them to an elite 8.

Part of my reason for knocking down Izzo some (I know it looks bad today) is he probably isn't the ace recruiter that Cal is, and to me, recruiting is the most important part of being a college coach.

And yes, I can confirm that I have a hard on right now because I'm talking about Kentucky. lol.

So, you start a "best coach to win one game in March thread" without a criteria? That's a huge fail on your part. You should have clarified a little bit. Does he get the best talent around (maybe because of outside influences?) Sure. Is he this great coach that squeezes ever ounce of potential out of what he has? Not sure. I mean he did go to a NIT just a few years ago with tons of talent. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that.

 

[Deacon Jim]

Originally posted by WoadBlue:

Originally posted by Tru Blu Tar Heel:
Between Cal and Pitino? Equal talent I'm taking Pitino. Cal is what he is because he can recruit a super team every year and convince them to buy in. Pitino?has proven he can adapt and overcome regardless of personnel.

Cal is able to recruit as he does because World Wide Wes buys 'em for him.

I wonder why you and Mike Irby has this figured out and the ncaa hasn`t ? The only thing I can think of that`s saving us is they have been spending all their time in Chapel Hill instead of Lexington.

 

[Blue2010]

Originally posted by SJung851:
Who do you take?

Personally for me....

1. Calipari
2. Pitino

Rest are miles away including Izzo and K.

With Cal, you're guaranteed almost to have the best talent in March.

Pitino seemingly can win with anything.

Are you serious? When ND hit that 3 last night to go up 6pts, Cal looked like he was literally about to vomit and sh!t himself at the same time. The guy lives on his ability to sell players on the one and done routine, and then try to make us believe he doesn't like that system. If A.Harrison wasn't a complete "gamer" at Tourney time, I don't think KY - even with all that talent - gets out of the first weekend last year and definitely not past ND last night.

To answer this question -- I'll take Roy (no, seriously). I'm not one to fall into the "Prisoner of the Moment" syndrome. We're a Kendall Marshall injury away from likely having 3 Nat. Championships in a 10 year span under Roy. If I had to choose someone else, give me Izzo...that guy gets his team further with less talent than anyone else I can think of. No matter how down of a year they have had, they always seem to be playing down to the wire with a trip to the FF on the line.









This post was edited on 3/29 10:31 PM by Blue2010

 

[Old_School59]

With the same team, give me K first then Izzo.

 

[coachdubausee]

Izzo all day.

 

[GoNtheDistance]

Izzo all damn day. Frankly, I'd take Izzo over Roy right now. Most of the Final 4's that Izzo has been to has been with teams that frankly, didn't look like they could fight their way out of a wet paper bag. It's remarkable what he does with his teams.

 

[gteeitup]

it's down to izzo, cal, and k for me...i guess izzo

 

[mikeirbyusa]

Izzo sure is glad Wisky knocked us out.

Tom is good people.

 

[JohnKBA]

It's been 10 years since Calipari lost to a team more than one spot below him on the seed line (the NIT notwithstanding.)

The guy absolutely is immune to the big upset. Yeah, he normally has teams out talented, but so do schools like MSU, Duke, UNC, U of L, etc in the tournament.

Of course 2008 technically didnt happen, but;

2006 (1 seed - Lost in Elite 8 to a 2 seed)

2007 (2 seed - Lost in Elite 8 to a 1 seed)

2008 (1 seed - Lost in NC game to a 1 seed)

2009 (2 seed - Lost in Sweet Sixteen to a 3 seed)

2010 (1 seed - Lost in Elite 8 to a 2 seed)

2011 (4 seed - Lost in FF to a 3 seed)

2012 (1 seed - NC)

2013 (NIT - N/A)

2014 (8 seed - Lost in NC game to a 7 seed)

2015 (1 seed - TBD)

 

[mikeirbyusa]

Originally posted by GoNtheDistance:
Izzo all damn day. Frankly, I'd take Izzo over Roy right now. Most of the Final 4's that Izzo has been to has been with teams that frankly, didn't look like they could fight their way out of a wet paper bag. It's remarkable what he does with his teams.

2009 team?

 

[SpartanJD]

Originally posted by mikeirbyusa:

Originally posted by GoNtheDistance:
Izzo all damn day. Frankly, I'd take Izzo over Roy right now. Most of the Final 4's that Izzo has been to has been with teams that frankly, didn't look like they could fight their way out of a wet paper bag. It's remarkable what he does with his teams.

2009 team?

Yeah we beat #1 seed Ville and #1 seed Uconn before running into that juggernaut UNC team that was on a mission that year just destroying teams all tourney long.

I believe UNC won every tourney game by double digits and scored over 80 in 5 of the 6 games.

In 2005, we beat #1 seed Duke with Reddick, Shelden Williams, etc in the S16 and #2 seed UK in the E8. We were pretty talented. Paul Davis, Drew Neitzel, Maurice Ager, Shannon Brown, Alan Andersen.

I believe we had UNC down at the half but Sean May, Felton, etc just took over in the second.

Honestly this is the only Final Four Izzo has made with not much talent. Although the 2005 and 2010 Final Fours were with 5 seeds, both teams had talent. A 5 seed doesn't mean you are garbage.

 

[mikeirbyusa]

Thank you Spartan for the clarification.

Izzo is just a likeable guy, hope y'all beat the dukies.

 

[GoNtheDistance]

Mich stAte always had talent. I didn't mean to infer that. What I meant was that Izzo routinely gets a team that isn't a top seed, hell isn't a top 2 or 3 seed and gets them to the final 4 regardless of who's in front of them. This year has been remarkable honestly. I thought Mich state was tough as a 7 but not very good in the grand scheme of things and they are still playing.

 

[ROYANDDEAN]

Originally posted by Detroit Heel:

Originally posted by SJung851:

Originally posted by Detroit Heel:

Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
If you give each coach the pick of the litter for talent and had to win one game, I'll take Roy over Cal.

If you give each coach marginal talent, I'll take Izzo.

But if you allow me to pick from coaches - current or retired - in any scenario, I'll take Dean.

Agreed but you have to remember who started this thread. SJung seems to have a hard-on for all things duke and kentucky. What's the criteria SJung? It's been asked a few times now and you haven't answered? I mean, Izzo, is in the FF with a team that many thought would be in the NIT halfway through the season.

There's no checklist of requirements. Whatever is important to you in terms of what a college coach's responsibilities are, you rank from there. Personally, recruiting is the most important thing to me and I value Cal's in game coaching enough for him to be #1 by some distance to me.

I'll take Pitino #2... This year was unbelievable. I've heard his players can't stand one another and Pitino really didn't like his team either, but he was able to get them to an elite 8.

Part of my reason for knocking down Izzo some (I know it looks bad today) is he probably isn't the ace recruiter that Cal is, and to me, recruiting is the most important part of being a college coach.

And yes, I can confirm that I have a hard on right now because I'm talking about Kentucky. lol.

So, you start a "best coach to win one game in March thread" without a criteria? That's a huge fail on your part. You should have clarified a little bit. Does he get the best talent around (maybe because of outside influences?) Sure. Is he this great coach that squeezes ever ounce of potential out of what he has? Not sure. I mean he did go to a NIT just a few years ago with tons of talent. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that.

yeah not really a great question by any means

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

This is just a very vague question, so I'm guessing that's what's causing some of the questions and debate.

You ask the question of which current college coach would you take to win 1 game in March. That's really the only criteria/insight you give to the question.

Are we saying, pick a coach at the start of the tournament, have them randomly assigned to team A, and have them win their first game? (pretty much just a straight up question of who you think the best in-game coach is).

Are we saying, pick a coach at the start of the tournament, coaching their own team, and have them win their first game? (a question of the best combination of talent recruiter and in-game coaching)

Are we saying, pick a coach at the start of the season that you think has the best chance to win their first game in the NCAA tourney that year? (now we'd need to evaluate how coaches grow teams over the course of a season, and prepare them for the tournament, and where you think those teams will get seeded [aka - who they'll get matched up with])

Are we saying, pick a coach today, that you think has the best chance to win their first game in the NCAA tourney in 3 years? (now we'd need to evaluate how a coach grows his program, and recruits to fill needs, and how they coach in game, etc.).

What if for each of the above scenarios it wasnt the first game in the tournament that you were referring to when you said "win 1 game in March"? What if you were referring to an elite 8 game (or if they weren't technically in April, a FF or Champ game). Now we'd need to start evaluating how these coaches deal with pressure and big game situations.

Too vague a question to get meaningful answers IMO...

 

[JohnKBA]

The way I took the question was based on current situation, which coach would you take to win a game in the NCAA tourney with his own team as things stand today. By that criteria, I think it's Cal and it isn't close.

If the question is simply which coach is least likely to get "outcoached" by a team with similar or less talent, then it opens up pretty wide. This scenario has happened to K, Self, and Wright a few times each it seems. I think in this scenario, it comes down to Pitino, Donovan, Izzo and Williams. I'd be happy with any of those 4.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Originally posted by JohnKBA:
The way I took the question was based on current situation, which coach would you take to win a game in the NCAA tourney with his own team as things stand today. By that criteria, I think it's Cal and it isn't close.

If the question is simply which coach is least likely to get "outcoached" by a team with similar or less talent, then it opens up pretty wide. This scenario has happened to K, Self, and Wright a few times each it seems. I think in this scenario, it comes down to Pitino, Donovan, Izzo and Williams. I'd be happy with any of those 4.

I agree on both points.

 

[2 skerz 3]

Originally posted by GoNtheDistance:
Mich stAte always had talent. I didn't mean to infer that. What I meant was that Izzo routinely gets a team that isn't a top seed, hell isn't a top 2 or 3 seed and gets them to the final 4 regardless of who's in front of them. This year has been remarkable honestly. I thought Mich state was tough as a 7 but not very good in the grand scheme of things and they are still playing.

How come most people (not just you) assume MSU always overachieves? 2 months ago they were on the bubble because they were as big of an UNderachiever as their was in the country. Now they finally pull their heads out and people label it as "Izzo has done it again" He is a HOF coach but his teams generally underachieve in the regular season and it makes Izzo look better at the end.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

Originally posted by JohnKBA:
The way I took the question was based on current situation, which coach would you take to win a game in the NCAA tourney with his own team as things stand today. By that criteria, I think it's Cal and it isn't close.

If the question is simply which coach is least likely to get "outcoached" by a team with similar or less talent, then it opens up pretty wide. This scenario has happened to K, Self, and Wright a few times each it seems. I think in this scenario, it comes down to Pitino, Donovan, Izzo and Williams. I'd be happy with any of those 4.

Good post, and I agree with the second paragraph.

As for the first, this is the interpretation that I anticpated SJung intended when he posted, but I think its not getting at the desired point. Isn't this interpretation of the question the same as, which team would you take to win one game in March? What does the coach actually have to do with it then? Like if I had to take one coach to win one game in this year's tournament, yes I would have chosen Cal. Not because Cal is a good coach, but because his team is the UK Wildcats, and was favored by like 40 points in their first game. In this interpretation we're not asking who the best coach is, we're asking who the best team is.

I would take myself as the coach to win one game in March if I was coaching that UK team (even I can't blow a 40 point spread, right?) - doesn't mean I'm a better coach than other coaches. I think it would have been a more interesting question if we somehow took out the variable of the talent of the team itself.

Unless we're trying to figure out which coach does the best job overall (one full cycle - recruiting trail, to opening practices, to scrimmages, to OOC, to conference, to conference tourney, to NCAA), in which case it'd be choosing a coach today, to win their first round game in March 2016. Would you take Cal? Maybe, but there are a lot of uncertainties with who will leave, who will come in, how they'll gel, etc. Would I take Roy? Maybe, he's most likely going to have his whole team back as a potential top 5 preseason team. They'll be experienced (3 Sr, 1 Jr, 1 So.) - so if I had to take a team now to win a game in March, maybe it'd be them.