To determine whether he's "overrated," you have to have a consensus on where he is "rated." I don't think there's an accepted ranking of coaches, only of 'program success,' and that doesn't factor in all the various reasons for those successes.
If you were to ask me the original question, I'd say, unequivocally, 'yes.' And, i base this on what i think other coaches would be able to do WITH THE SAME TEAMS AND PLAYERS. I have never felt JB gets the best performances from the talent we've had. He doesn't motivate them as well as other coaches.
Saying 'we could have made this final four or that final four IF' is a losing argument from the start. Other teams can make the same claims. Saying we could have done something IF AO weren't hurt or IF Fab were eligible is worthy of argument and speculation, but it isn't fact. And, if you allow that, you also have to allow that we would have been bounced before the 96 final IF either Wallace's pass or Cipolla's shot were off by a centimeter. You want to argue we could have 2 NCs IF Coleman makes one more free throw?
What i look at is where we finish within our conference on an average, and in the past 15 years, that's not the top four or five. Not sure how you consider a coach 'elite' if the average conference performance isn't elite.
There are a lot of 'stats' that put conventional thoughts into fans' heads. Total wins, for example. Fans and apologists of the guy will cite that, and his HOF status. But, objective observers aren't putting Lenny Wilkins into similar discussions. Longevity should be valued, but if JB takes his vitamin Gummi every day and coaches another 30 years, does his win total make him even more impressive? At some point, don't you have to watch what he actually DOES? Wins are important. Wins against cupcakes when you recruit with the Carrier Dome... not so impressive.
Look at the schedule every year, and factor in the types of recruits we get. How many of those games SHOULD we win? How often do we actually beat a team with more talent, versus lose to a team with less? In my memory (since the 85-86 season) the skew is not positive. Doesn't mean JB is a bad coach. He's clearly above average. How far above seems to be the crux of the argument. I've never liked JB's style or tactics, and that's only grown worse over time as he's changed to a strictly zone guy. The yearly results range from surprising to maddening. When the team is good, i think the TEAM is good. When the team is bad, sometimes i attribute it to the team and sometimes i consider it's JB not adjusting to what he has.
Let's ask a different question. You're an AD of a university. You have your choice of coaches. You can poach ANY coach you want. How many knowledgeable fans across the country — out of 100 — do you think would choose JB? You've got some people who would choose K or Calipari or Roy, to do the most with the top talent. Guys like Brad Stevens to do the most with the least. Guys like Izzo to maximize talent and play an intense schedule... How many would say i want a guy who will institute an unwavering zone, schedule 'light,' finish from 4th-7th in the conference but occasionally field an exceptional team and bristle with media when asked typical questions.
Don't look at it from a position of insecurity. "Oh, it's upstate new york. He's more than we could ever expect." The college powers in the last 25 years are not from LA, NYC, Miami, Chicago, etc. They're from bumsuck North Carolina. Kentucky. Kansas. East Lansing. Louisville. These are not glam locales, and i would assert that The Dome gives us an advantage over all of those other destinations.
