Gottleib: Boeheim "very good, not great"

[Room 914]

I would agree.

 

[Scooch]

They are indicators of great coaches. But that doesn't mean you have to be "yes" to them to be a great coach. To me that does not show that Boeheim is not a great coach --- it's that he is unique.

I'm going to disagree.

How does not going on probation indicate one is a great coach? Many a terrible coach was never put on probation.

How does being imitated indicate one is a great coach? Lots of people have aped Tony Sparano's Wildcast scheme, and I don't think a soul would argue he's a great coach.

How does having successful pros indicate one is a great coach? Does this mean Lebron's high school coach was great? Dwight Howard's? Kobe's?

I mean the idea that JB could win 900 games and not be "great" is laughable on its face. That's like arguing that the company sales guy who has generated the most revenue for 35 years running is not a great salesman. Just because people don't care for the method that causes success doesn't invalidate said success. I will agree that JB wins in a unique way, and THAT is an indicator of his greatness. The criteria are garbage.

 

[jncuse]

I'm going to disagree.

How does not going on probation indicate one is a great coach? Many a terrible coach was never put on probation.

How does being imitated indicate one is a great coach? Lots of people have aped Tony Sparano's Wildcast scheme, and I don't think a soul would argue he's a great coach.

How does having successful pros indicate one is a great coach? Does this mean Lebron's high school coach was great? Dwight Howard's? Kobe's?

I mean the idea that JB could win 900 games and not be "great" is laughable on its face. That's like arguing that the company sales guy who has generated the most revenue for 35 years running is not a great salesman. Just because people don't care for the method that causes success doesn't invalidate said success. I will agree that JB wins in a unique way, and THAT is an indicator of his greatness. The criteria are garbage.

Wow, I guess I did not make the point the way I wanted to.

My intended point was that there are many reasons you can be considered a great coach. Getting your players ready, running a squeaky clean program, being imitated can all be considered good reasons for a coach to be considered great (of course context needs to be considerd)... but my point is that reasons for being great, are far more reaching than those outlined by Gottlieb, and you don't need to hit all the possible reasons to be a great coach. Boeheim is a great coach.

 

[suthrills]

Bob Knight's players generally didn't do well in the NBA- must not be great a great coach
Jim Calhoun's program is on probation and frankly he makes JB look like a saint-must not be a great coach
John Cheney employed a matchup zone that few people imitated-must not be great

Gottlieb is ridiculous and clearly doing this for a ratings boost.

The only thing even arguable is the lack of deep runs but the man DID win it all- that counts for something. We have become a society where one isn't enough anymore I guess.

 

[orangefan13]

I was only taking issue your statement that "How evolved your players are and how good your team is, is 100% luck." That suggests that all teams have an equal chance of making the NCATT and winning a title.

I think you're really trying to say that the element of luck plays a significant role in how far good teams advance, and that the most you can ask of a coach is to put his team in an advantageous position for a deep run. That I can agree with, and in that sense JB has done an excellent job.

Good post. Elite 8 takes ALL luck outside of one team each year. No coach outside of one and in some rare cases 2 know they have a preseason final four team.

And Anything outside of the final four is Very Good and not Great by Gottliebs standards. If you want to play the Very Good Great game then you are crowning a bunch of hoping coaches and a few lucky ones that are preseason number one.

 

[Marsh01]

keith smart's shot goes in because boeheim didn't pick up full court and go man he let smart dribble up unguarded and do what he does/ surprised gotleig wasnt deleted

Um...no. Dementia is setting in old man. Time to head south because you are dead wrong on this one.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

He and John Feinstein do a "thought of the day thing that turns up on the score. He said that there are four ways to judge a coach:

1) Do you compete for national championships on a regular basis?

2) How well do your players do in the pros?

3) Do you stay off of probation?

4) Does anyone imitate your style?

Since he's been to only 4 Final Fours, (actually it's three, Doug, as a head coach), his players don't do well in the pros, he was on probation and no one imitates him, he's very good but not great, according to Doug.

Fire away.

That list is made up as a way to try to esclude JB, whom Feinstein has never, ever liked.

 

[br801]

Um...no. Dementia is setting in old man. Time to head south because you are dead wrong on this one.

Florida... where the days are warm, the living is easy and Internet service is very unreliable when SU is winning.

 

[CorduroyG]

while 3 final fours is a little weak, 3 national championship game appearances is pretty good. hes that close to having 3 titles. how many coaches have made it to more than 3 championship games?

but anyone who says jb isnt a great coach is an idiot.

 

[Scooch]

That list is made up as a way to try to esclude JB, whom Feinstein has never, ever liked.

Bingo. I suspect if they were talking about Coach K criteria #2 and #4 would not be used, because they sure don't support his cause.

 

[CorduroyG]

I guess to play devil's advocate, the Kansas game in 2003 was really close. (well, at the end. We were comfortably in control most of the night( One or two plays go the other way in the last few minutes and JB has 0 titles.

In college, with the single elimination title, the rings are great, but also I think you should put some emphasis on stuff like regular season conference titles.

ehhh, kansas cut it to 3 early in the 2nd half and again late in the 2nd half, but i dont think anyone got the sense we were ever losing that game, we were in control all the way. in '87 we had the lead most of the game and choked it away at the line at the end. we were alot closer to winning in '87 than kansas was in '03.

 

[bozophobe]

If Boeheim is great, it's only because of what he added in the past decade; as the nicest, most recent addition to things he's added every decade.

There's another thread about Louie McCroskey, which reminded me of quite a few questionable recruitment choices he's made over the years - and he's made a lot.

But then I think about that old tv trick David Copperfield tried, where he claims he makes the Statue of Liberty disappear. In reality, the statue didn't move, but the people did, because the audience was unknowingly seated on a giant disc that revolved too slowly for them to notice. So, when the sheet was removed, the statue was concealed behind one of the columns that had previously bookended the visible statue in between, moments before.

The people themselves had gradually moved - Bud Poliquin made a point today that Boeheim's probable average record after this year over the last 37 years (25-8 or so) will disappoint or anger people from now on. How spoiled are we.

And yeah, Bud does sometimes nail it, despite being near the top of Satan's accounts receivable ledger in bright red Sharpie.

 

[longtimefan]

longevity alone and not necessarily skill can get you some lofty numbers. question then becomes why are you so longe?

You don't get longevity if you don't win.

 

[SWC75]

Um...no. Dementia is setting in old man. Time to head south because you are dead wrong on this one.

When JB won his 600th game, he had 200 losses. Igor posted: "If I were a fighter with 800 fights and had lost 200 times would anybody think I was a good fighter?"

I posted "If I had 800 fights, I'd probably make a post like that one."

 

[SWC75]

Here is D Bag Doug

Boeheim probably didn't take him because, having been on probation, he couldn't afford any more trouble.

 

[72Cuse]

Unfortunately there are 3 things that pundits look at that hold weight more than anything.

1. How many final fours have you been too?
2. How many titles have you won?
3. How many of your players are successful in the NBA?

Thats it. Had Keith Smart's shot not gone in and JB wins 2 titles as opposed to just one they are putting him on Mt. Rushmore.

Yes, with any luck at all JB would have three titles by now. A far better measure is how he is held by his peers: you can BS the fans, but you cannot BS the players.

 

[Scooch]

Yes, with any luck at all JB would have three titles by now. A far better measure is how he is held by his peers: you can BS the fans, but you cannot BS the players.

Yep, seeing as Coach K basically had his choice of most any college coach in America to join him in running Team USA, the fact he chose JB speaks volumes.

 

[PoppyHart]

JB is certainly "great" in my book. To say he's one of the 5 best EVER, as Dakich did, is a big stretch.

As to the criteria, I'd create four buckets

1. Excellence (NCAA success, Conference Tourney success, Regular season conference finishes, etc...) 40%
2. Consistency (winning seasons, protected seeds, etc...) 30%
3. Longevity 20%
4. Character (Disciplinary issues, probation, reputation among peers, etc...) 10%

Rate them on a 1-10 scale (whole numbers only for ease of use), multiply by the % and add em up.

In my book, for example, and without extensive research,
JB: 8, 10, 10, 6 = 2.8 + 3 + 2 + .6 = 8.8
K: 10, 10, 10, 10 = 10
Wooden: 10, 10, 10, 10 = 10
Cal: 8, 9, 9, 2 = 3.2 + 2.7 + 1.8 + .2 = 7.9
Self: 9, 10, 8, 8 = 3.2 + 3+ 1.6 + .8 = 8.6
JTIII: 6 + 8 + 7 + 10 = 2.4 + 2.4 + 1.4 + 1 = 7.2
Stevens: 9 + 8 + 4 + 10 = 3.6 + 2.4 + .8 + 1 = 7.8

 

[midloviking]

In 50 years JB's name will still be talked about, Gottlieb's won't.

 

[Jeremy L.]

I'll just leave this here.

 

[stuckinbig11]

How about #5: Having the best basketball mind in existence?

 

[jekelish]

Cowheard talked about this too. Says its not JB's job to make players good in the pros, his job is to make players good in Syracuse. He asked When Duke had a great player in the pros. In regards to #4, Cowheard mention that Coach K has running the zone (I havent watched Duke play much this year, so IDK if he was talking about USA basketball, or Duke)

I haven't read the rest of the posts yet, but this is exactly right. Doesn't it also make someone a better college coach if they are consistently winning 20-30 games WITHOUT a ton of pro talent? It's easy to pile up lots of wins when you've got four lottery picks, not so much when you've got maybe one or two guys who will become NBA role players.

 

[CuseTroop]

I haven't read the rest of the posts yet, but this is exactly right. Doesn't it also make someone a better college coach if they are consistently winning 20-30 games WITHOUT a ton of pro talent? It's easy to pile up lots of wins when you've got four lottery picks, not so much when you've got maybe one or two guys who will become NBA role players.

Exactly

 

[Sgt Cuse]

Unfortunately there are 3 things that pundits look at that hold weight more than anything.

1. How many final fours have you been too?
2. How many titles have you won?
3. How many of your players are successful in the NBA?

Thats it. Had Keith Smart's shot not gone in and JB wins 2 titles as opposed to just one they are putting him on Mt. Rushmore.

This is the first I have heard of #3 as a criteria for for evaluating how good college coaches are.

Earlier this year I was surprised to hear of this criteria being mentioned by many as relevant to being assessed as an elite program.

I don't agree with either assessment. However, I find myself now rooting for really good careers out of Dion and MCW. Might as well get another ridiculous criticism off the table.

 

[orangenirvana]

I hope Gottlieb is right. That will mean we'll be just fine when Boeheim retires.