All I care about is the name on the front of the jersey IDC who coaches them or who the best is!
Roy > Dean?
- Thread starter bleeduncblue
- Start date
Again: There is no such thing as a solid statistical debate over this. Different eras, different number of available games, literally regional tourney seeds unlike today (which made it an annual cakewalk for UCLA in the west to get to the Final Four), etc etc.
Dean made hay in the more modernized 80s/90s system. But before then, back in the 60s/70s when it was painfully hard for any ACC team to even get into the dance, his making it and getting as far as he did back then was a testimony in and of itself... and something you can never fairly compare Roy to. In other words, the math doesn't validly correlate.
And Dean's (actually by likely only one possession) prematurely going to the Corners in 77 was not a "choke" by any stretch of the imagination --- it was a miscalculation based on the fact it had worked so well against Vegas AND that Marquette was killing us inside with Toone and Ellis. Yes, he absolutely in retrospect should have waited at least one more possession so as to do it with a lead to draw them away from the paint. Credit McGuire for not biting. If we had the lead, Al would have had no choice. But hell, if Dean wasn't playing with such a wounded team it probably is not even an issue.
Different eras different coaches. Really not a credible way to compare the 2. As stated, Deans impact goes well beyond his "stats."
IMO, if you were able to give Dean and Roy the exact same players and let them play against each other, Dean would win 7 out of 10 times because he's simply a better bench coach. Also, I believe Dean was able to do more with average talent than Roy would be able to.
Some would argue we have average talent now! We can't get none of the big ones you know..
If I need a coach to step in and win one game for me, it's Dean by a mile. But Roy coaches "seasons" rather than individual games. Dean was kind of that way too - where he would sacrifice a game for a bigger learning lesson that pays off later - but Roy is much more inclined in that way.
Xs and Os, again, it's Dean. But here again, Roy's preference for putting a particular system in place and getting it to run as a well-oiled machine has served him well. And while it's maddening when it doesn't click as quickly as us fans would like it too sometimes, there's something to be said for Roy's commitment to it and the success he has realized because of it.
I'll also take Dean as a recruiter over Roy but obviously, this is pretty close.
So honestly, it's much closer than the collective fan base would like to acknowledge. But asking us to discount Dean's overall impact on the game is unrealistic and difficult to do. And because of that and the "Godfather" type status that Dean attained, he's the default choice even if Roy wins another (or more). But for as much grief as we give him (and I'm as guilty as anyone else), Roy's accomplishments speak for themselves. He's a legend. Statistically, he's a top 10 coach of all time, maybe better.
We're lucky to be discussing this. No other message board can entertain such.
Xs and Os, again, it's Dean. But here again, Roy's preference for putting a particular system in place and getting it to run as a well-oiled machine has served him well. And while it's maddening when it doesn't click as quickly as us fans would like it too sometimes, there's something to be said for Roy's commitment to it and the success he has realized because of it.
I'll also take Dean as a recruiter over Roy but obviously, this is pretty close.
So honestly, it's much closer than the collective fan base would like to acknowledge. But asking us to discount Dean's overall impact on the game is unrealistic and difficult to do. And because of that and the "Godfather" type status that Dean attained, he's the default choice even if Roy wins another (or more). But for as much grief as we give him (and I'm as guilty as anyone else), Roy's accomplishments speak for themselves. He's a legend. Statistically, he's a top 10 coach of all time, maybe better.
We're lucky to be discussing this. No other message board can entertain such.
Couldn't disagree more. I can name any number of prominent coaches that I wouldn't want representing our university. Calipari and the LOM come readily to mind.
Let me answer your question with one of my own: do you consider Michael Jordan the greatest player the NBA has ever seen? I certainly do. But he isn't the leading scorer for NBA history, nor is he the player with the most MVP awards, nor is he the winner of the most championships. And, in a few weeks, his ownership of the best regular season ever will most likely be gone. However, despite those things, the vast majority of people would call him the greatest ever. Even if Roy passes Dean in National Championships, Dean will always be the best coach in my mind. It would take Roy winning a few more down the road before I will change my mind in that one.
there are many ways to evaluate a coach's legacy. and it's about a whole lot more than winning percentage and number of championships. everybody's got their opinion so here's mine: no coach, in any sport, at any time in history, is greater than dean smith. dean smith wasn't just a great coach, he was a great man!
I agree that it is difficult but not unreasonable to have a discussion.
But a few things to ponder that haven't been mentioned previously.
Who assisted in recruiting some of those players to UNC? Roy was an assistant during some phenomenal talent coming to UNC. Judging by his recruiting and eye for talent, I would guess he played a big part in recruiting.
How would Dean be effected by today all inclusive access to everything? I don't know but I think Roy deals with it extremely well.
Don't forget that when Roy came back, I believe we were teetering on a big downslide no matter what talent was there. In fact, looking back at a few of those players and issues arising after they left, I would say Roy did a masterful job of utilizing and managing that talent.
Last thought about both of these guys.
Dean would say Roy is better and deflect any praise from himself. Roy would tell you that if you insist on saying he is better than Dean he will have to kick you in the dadgum blankety blank! Lucky to have both as coaches. I am struggling to think of another university that has had 2 coaches as successful as these two. I think when Roy does retire I will take my cue from what he said when Tyler graduated. I am going someplace to sit and reflect on his time here.
But a few things to ponder that haven't been mentioned previously.
Who assisted in recruiting some of those players to UNC? Roy was an assistant during some phenomenal talent coming to UNC. Judging by his recruiting and eye for talent, I would guess he played a big part in recruiting.
How would Dean be effected by today all inclusive access to everything? I don't know but I think Roy deals with it extremely well.
Don't forget that when Roy came back, I believe we were teetering on a big downslide no matter what talent was there. In fact, looking back at a few of those players and issues arising after they left, I would say Roy did a masterful job of utilizing and managing that talent.
Last thought about both of these guys.
Dean would say Roy is better and deflect any praise from himself. Roy would tell you that if you insist on saying he is better than Dean he will have to kick you in the dadgum blankety blank! Lucky to have both as coaches. I am struggling to think of another university that has had 2 coaches as successful as these two. I think when Roy does retire I will take my cue from what he said when Tyler graduated. I am going someplace to sit and reflect on his time here.
I still think you can say Dean was one of the greatest coaches, and even argue for him being the best overall full season coach and developer of young men as a coach…. and yet have an honest debate comparing the results of Dean to results of Roy in achieving an ultimate basketball competition goal of a national championship.
Both have two titles.
I went back and looked at how each performed (ie – did they over-or under-perform regarding their seed vs. who they were beaten by, in the tourney: example: UNC as a 1 beaten by Texas as a 4 would be an underperform, UNC as a 6 beaten by Nova as a 3 would be overperform) in the NCAA tourney in comparison to their seeding they earned during regular season.
If you pull out each’s championship years, and the NIT year, here is how each fared (since 1981, at UNC ONLY)
Dean (17 years 81-97): underperform 9, overperform or even 6; 2 title years
Roy (12 years 04-16): underperform 4 overperform or even 5; 2 title years; 1 NIT year
I realize this is giving a lot of credence to seedings, and doesn’t reflect injuries, etc….. but it shows that Roy has done pretty well for UNC in the tourney.
I just started at 1981 because that is when I can remember starting to watch and like them. We’ve talked about bad fortune of injuries, but what is particularly disappointing to me (probably all fans) is:
years of 83-91 with a lot of good to nearly great players, but only one Final Four and no tile
years of 94-97 ( and98 if you include Guthridge); where during this time you had 2-3 of these guys on the roster {Stackhouse, Wallace, Carter, Jamison, supported by Shammond, MicInnis, Okalaja) but we didn’t get a title or even get to a title game. Depressing.
Roy and Dean are alike in many ways and philosophies. One way I see them as being different: Roy gets so emotional and fired up on the sidelines I think it is nearly damaging to his health. I think it works to project emotion and intensity into his team, and fun, together emotion into them when they win.
I recall being bothered that toward the end of Dean’s career, (maybe all through it?)…. people referred to the UNC program as “big blue – as in IBM. Cold, calculating, a machine, but no emotion.” It seemed like sometimes when it then came to emotion, hustle, grit, intensity plays at the end, the other team would beat UNC if UNC didn’t have any emotion or intensity. (Yet I will be the first to say screaming and acting out for emotions sake alone, if you can’t play, is worthless). That lack of emotion or intensity really carried over to Guthridge as well.
This is my personal preference: I will be the first to say I believe Roy is the greatest college bb coach ever at UNC, and in the top 2 all time with Wooden. I would leave it at that. Hard to compare across sports or levels (like NBA).
I think it becomes harder for me to say overall he was a great man, say in the form of Abraham Lincoln or George Washington. Dean certainly was great in the courage and strength and justice to desegregate areas he came in contact with, on and off the court. Some of the views and people he ardently supported later in life after retiring…. lets just say its very open to debate, how great those political and social views are. Which is fine for him to have those views, I just don’t think they lend themselves to him being a consensus great man to everyone, off the court.
And for people that say: “there is no debate on Roy vs. Dean. Dean was, is, and always will be the greatest. Why? Because I said so. Case closed. So don’t even ask or try to debate”. OK – fine for a chat board, but that is about the weakest line of argument, that would certainly get routed in a court room or in competitive debate / logic circles.
Both have two titles.
I went back and looked at how each performed (ie – did they over-or under-perform regarding their seed vs. who they were beaten by, in the tourney: example: UNC as a 1 beaten by Texas as a 4 would be an underperform, UNC as a 6 beaten by Nova as a 3 would be overperform) in the NCAA tourney in comparison to their seeding they earned during regular season.
If you pull out each’s championship years, and the NIT year, here is how each fared (since 1981, at UNC ONLY)
Dean (17 years 81-97): underperform 9, overperform or even 6; 2 title years
Roy (12 years 04-16): underperform 4 overperform or even 5; 2 title years; 1 NIT year
I realize this is giving a lot of credence to seedings, and doesn’t reflect injuries, etc….. but it shows that Roy has done pretty well for UNC in the tourney.
I just started at 1981 because that is when I can remember starting to watch and like them. We’ve talked about bad fortune of injuries, but what is particularly disappointing to me (probably all fans) is:
years of 83-91 with a lot of good to nearly great players, but only one Final Four and no tile
years of 94-97 ( and98 if you include Guthridge); where during this time you had 2-3 of these guys on the roster {Stackhouse, Wallace, Carter, Jamison, supported by Shammond, MicInnis, Okalaja) but we didn’t get a title or even get to a title game. Depressing.
Roy and Dean are alike in many ways and philosophies. One way I see them as being different: Roy gets so emotional and fired up on the sidelines I think it is nearly damaging to his health. I think it works to project emotion and intensity into his team, and fun, together emotion into them when they win.
I recall being bothered that toward the end of Dean’s career, (maybe all through it?)…. people referred to the UNC program as “big blue – as in IBM. Cold, calculating, a machine, but no emotion.” It seemed like sometimes when it then came to emotion, hustle, grit, intensity plays at the end, the other team would beat UNC if UNC didn’t have any emotion or intensity. (Yet I will be the first to say screaming and acting out for emotions sake alone, if you can’t play, is worthless). That lack of emotion or intensity really carried over to Guthridge as well.
This is my personal preference: I will be the first to say I believe Roy is the greatest college bb coach ever at UNC, and in the top 2 all time with Wooden. I would leave it at that. Hard to compare across sports or levels (like NBA).
I think it becomes harder for me to say overall he was a great man, say in the form of Abraham Lincoln or George Washington. Dean certainly was great in the courage and strength and justice to desegregate areas he came in contact with, on and off the court. Some of the views and people he ardently supported later in life after retiring…. lets just say its very open to debate, how great those political and social views are. Which is fine for him to have those views, I just don’t think they lend themselves to him being a consensus great man to everyone, off the court.
And for people that say: “there is no debate on Roy vs. Dean. Dean was, is, and always will be the greatest. Why? Because I said so. Case closed. So don’t even ask or try to debate”. OK – fine for a chat board, but that is about the weakest line of argument, that would certainly get routed in a court room or in competitive debate / logic circles.
The ACCT back in the day when only the champ went to the NCAAT was a huge negative for ACC teams. All the great moo teams under Case always flamed out early in the NCAAT , yet they dominated many national powers in the old Dixie classic. The '57 Heels were the first to have any success in the NCAAT. The ACCT drained teams.
that is quite true. on the other hand, the acc tournaments where 3 or 4 top 20 teams fought tooth and nail for one ncaa invitation were among the most exciting sporting events EVER. many years the acc tournament was more exciting than the ncaa tourn, especially when the ucla dynasty made the ncaa tourn. a boring foregone conclusion.
THIS is what I was hoping for when I posed the question: healthy, rational discourse over a valid and relevant topic. As opposed to the "HOW DARE YOU even THINK about asking this" approach.
Thanks to those of you who are open minded and logical enough to discuss it! Some very ingesting stuff here. GO HEELS
Thanks to those of you who are open minded and logical enough to discuss it! Some very ingesting stuff here. GO HEELS
