Gottleib: Boeheim "very good, not great"

[MyMeloMyMan]

Gottlieb says Boeheim was a 5+ point favorite in 90% of his games. But, doesn't he get some credit for recruiting to gain these point spread advantages?

 

[Knicks411]

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.

Definitely agree that 87 was closer than 03. We really did control most of the 03 game, like I said. more playing devils advocate than anything else.

3 championship game appearances is very impressive. Trying to think of currentish guys with 3 or more. Roy (4 I think?), K (not even going to bother to count) Calhoun (3), Donovan has 3. Does Izzo just have 2000 and 2009? I'm sure I'm missing one or two others? Bill Self just has 08 and 12 if I recall. Pitino only 96 and 97?

Edit: Forgot Steve Fisher with 3.

To bring it back to the Gottlieb thread and something that has been mentioned here many times; we need another FF or two, even without a title, to get some respect at the super elite level. Obviously another title totally changes things, but even another FF gives Boeheim 4 of them (in 4 different decades, pretty amazing) and combine that with a few more elite 8's and I think that will change the perception of the program.

We really were in a rut from the year after the title to about 09 or so. We had really good team in 05 that won the BET, but even that year, we finished tied for 3rd in the BE, which was our best finish in the league from 04-09. A lot of 10-6, 11-5 seasons during that era (or worse) which is good, but nothing that screams elite. Since 2010 we've been elite, with 2 regular season BE titles and finally last year breaking through with the elite 8, but a final four would go a long way to cementing us as one of the elite programs of the last few years. TItle would be even better, of course.

 

[br801]

Gottlieb says Boeheim was a 5+ point favorite in 90% of his games. But, doesn't he get some credit for recruiting to gain these point spread advantages?

He really said that? 90%? I'm calling bullshit.

I find it hard to believe SU has even been favored in 90% of JB's games, let alone a 5+ point favorite.

 

[longtimefan]

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.

The first I heard of a related matter was a couple of summers ago, when Calipari stated that his priority was getting his players ready for the NBA. All part of his recruiting pitch, and I think he has since publicly changed his tune.

 

[ORRange]

He really said that? 90%? I'm calling bullshit.

I find it hard to believe SU has even been favored in 90% of JB's games, let alone a 5+ point favorite.

Total BS. So, the dweeb is saying if we play 30 games we would be a 5 point chalk in 27 of those? And would be an underdog in only 3 of them, if at all. Wow, I guess we are as big a favorite as the Globetrotters all the time. His fact checker obviously is an Orangefan.

 

[cusetown1]

He really said that? 90%? I'm calling bullshit.

I find it hard to believe SU has even been favored in 90% of JB's games, let alone a 5+ point favorite.

It's true. 5 plus part is made up. At least the past 3 yrs we were favored every game but 2 or 3 a year.

 

[Fjoinkay]

Gottlieb takes emotional positions, personal biases, and then he creates detailed but bizarre rationales to back them up. His thinking comes out of left field, sounds rational, and some people just go along for the ride...until they wake up. By then Gottlieb has moved on to a new topic, but he follows the same old script creating a maze of blind rationalizations of his biases.

Gottlieb will probably never win a single game as a Div. 1 college coach.

 

[moqui]

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

poppy, your biases are showing.

you can't give St. Wooden a 10 on character. forget the propaganda and dig into the muck and mire of his good friend Sam Gilbert.

I am a K fan, but you can't give him a 10 on that score, either.

I don't think you can accurately gauge any modern coaches against Wooden, anyway. The modern era is so different. In Wooden's day, all the good basketball teams were concentrated in the East, but the NCAA made no attempt to balance the regions - if you were an Eastern team, you played in the East or you played in the NIT, period. So, Wooden faced a weaker field than the great teams back east. Plus, remember that you only had to win 2 games to get to the Final Four. While the great teams east of the Rockies were beating each other up, Wooden was tuning his team up against the likes of Pacific and Santa Clara. I don't mean to diminish the UCLA titles, because once they got to the FF they still had to win, but you can't compare that era to the modern days.

 

[PoppyHart]

poppy, your biases are showing.

you can't give St. Wooden a 10 on character. forget the propaganda and dig into the muck and mire of his good friend Sam Gilbert.

I am a K fan, but you can't give him a 10 on that score, either.

I don't think you can accurately gauge any modern coaches against Wooden, anyway. The modern era is so different. In Wooden's day, all the good basketball teams were concentrated in the East, but the NCAA made no attempt to balance the regions - if you were an Eastern team, you played in the East or you played in the NIT, period. So, Wooden faced a weaker field than the great teams back east. Plus, remember that you only had to win 2 games to get to the Final Four. While the great teams east of the Rockies were beating each other up, Wooden was tuning his team up against the likes of Pacific and Santa Clara. I don't mean to diminish the UCLA titles, because once they got to the FF they still had to win, but you can't compare that era to the modern days.

Of course Wooden is an outlier. I included him b/c of Dakich's comment about all-time best coaches. It would be nearly as difficult to compare a Dean Smith and impossible for an Adolph Rupp, but I think the consensus is that they are on the short list too.

I don't think they are biases, though I admit to not knowing the dirty laundry of UCLA under the wizard. My understanding (and that's why I said w/out extensive research) was that these allegations or reputation knocks were not contemporaneous to his coaching. As to K, he certainly has not not had any probationary issues, and he has a stellar reputation among his peers. As for disciplinary issues, I suppose you could knock him for Maggette, but I can't recall many (or any) players running afoul of the law or embarrassing the university while enrolled.

BTW, another sub-criteria which I think would be appropriate to judge a coach (and I would file under "character") would be their respective coaching trees.

 

[sufandu]

Sorry if someone already said this, but I'd like to know what Gottlieb says about Eddie Sutton. I'm pretty sure he has nothing but praise for him. Sutton's career numbers are similar to JB's except fewer wins, no title, and he's had losing seasons. He even managed to lose at Kentucky.

 

[SWC75]

poppy, your biases are showing.

you can't give St. Wooden a 10 on character. forget the propaganda and dig into the muck and mire of his good friend Sam Gilbert.

I am a K fan, but you can't give him a 10 on that score, either.

I don't think you can accurately gauge any modern coaches against Wooden, anyway. The modern era is so different. In Wooden's day, all the good basketball teams were concentrated in the East, but the NCAA made no attempt to balance the regions - if you were an Eastern team, you played in the East or you played in the NIT, period. So, Wooden faced a weaker field than the great teams back east. Plus, remember that you only had to win 2 games to get to the Final Four. While the great teams east of the Rockies were beating each other up, Wooden was tuning his team up against the likes of Pacific and Santa Clara. I don't mean to diminish the UCLA titles, because once they got to the FF they still had to win, but you can't compare that era to the modern days.

Reading aobut Gilbert, he seems more like a racketeer who ingratiated himself into an already successful program than the "real reason" for it's success. Wooden had already won two national titles and recruited the Alcindor group before Gilbert even showed up. I've heard Wooden wanted him out and it says here that Bartow was afraid of him and Larry Brown left after clashing with him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Gilbert_(businessman)
I think crediting Gilbert with Wooden's success is a stetch at best.

 

[moqui]

Reading aobut Gilbert, he seems more like a racketeer who ingratiated himself into an already successful program than the "real reason" for it's success. Wooden had already won two national titles and recruited the Alcindor group before Gilbert even showed up. I've heard Wooden wanted him out and it says here that Bartow was afraid of him and Larry Brown left after clashing with him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Gilbert_(businessman)
I think crediting Gilbert with Wooden's success is a stetch at best.

I didn't credit him with the success . . . I said you can't give Wooden a "10" on the character scale because of his association with Gilbert

 

[igor]

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

in 36 of 37 years, disappointment, in 03 i said early on we'd win it all because carmelo could not be stopped. that's the only time i ever said that. we're talented and deep, more so than any year since, but no player to offset the boeheim factor. carter williams is close, but i now don't root for him. inexcuseable

 

[moqui]

in 36 of 37 years, disappointment, in 03 i said early on we'd win it all because carmelo could not be stopped. that's the only time i ever said that. we're talented and deep, more so than any year since, but no player to offset the boeheim factor. carter williams is close, but i now don't root for him. inexcuseable

translation: Igor thinks that Syracuse has a real shot this year, so he wants to invalidate it before hand, by de-legitimizing the star player. this is an interesting twist on how he tries to invalidate the 2003 title, by over-legitimizing the star player.

 

[orangefan13]

Just wanted to bump. Half of the time there is only one shoe in for the elite 8. In some rare cases there is 2. You have to get to the elite 8 to be great. And those coaches could be considered "Very Good but not Great" 1. because their Jr's and Seniors should be in the NBA instead if the coach was "Great" and 2. Becuase its the players not the coach that make those teams preseason favorites.

JB's teams usually don't blow people out in march. Not to be a igor but thats the facts. The 2003, 87, 96 teams didn't dominate their way to the final four. JB's zone requires more catagories to be dominant. Against man to man sometimes you don't find open shots, against the 2-3 zone you can always find a open outside shot for a split second. It may be from the corner, way outside, or a late(keyword) hand in your face but its there.

With man to man you can play your best defenders against their best scorers. With zone thats not so much the case and they can get open sometimes. You need a guard who can extend in the zone, a Forward with superior lateral quickness to get to the perimeter, a super shotblocker, and a dominant board eraser to make up for the lack of boxing out, and that still leaves open one guard and forwards assigned zone position on the court. With m2m when you put your best two defenders on their best two scorers tight and stop screens leading to drives from the midpost you can blow a team out. Sometimes you can't find any shot against a good m2m. Against a zone you can always find a tough one.

 

[SWC75]

I didn't credit him with the success . . . I said you can't give Wooden a "10" on the character scale because of his association with Gilbert

Was he associated with Gilbert or did Gilbert associate with his players?

 

[moqui]

Was he associated with Gilbert or did Gilbert associate with his players?

Wooden always tried to play Pollyanna, but he was hooked at the hip with Gilbert. Every year he gave his players - many of whom were delivered to Wooden by Gilbert's machinations - a wink-wink/nudge-nudge "warning" about associating with him, a warning which they all understood was to be ignored.

Woodenphiles can't have it both ways - they can't tell us this man was the architect of a dynasty and the driving moral influence in all his players lives (as people like Bill Walton still try to peddle), and yet claim he was utterly ignorant of the payoffs, parties and even abortions that Gilbert provided to those players.

 

[dasher]

in 36 of 37 years, disappointment, in 03 i said early on we'd win it all because carmelo could not be stopped. that's the only time i ever said that. we're talented and deep, more so than any year since, but no player to offset the boeheim factor. carter williams is close, but i now don't root for him. inexcuseable

Fact. You never said that. That is a lie you have told so many times I believe you might actually believe it. Listen, you said that we would win it all if we played man. That a zone team could never win the N.C.. That is what you said. And we were in man when Smart hit that shot. Jb had Douglas guard Alvord to stop him from beating us. and Alvord never touched the ball. Those are the facts.

 

[sufandu]

in 36 of 37 years, disappointment, in 03 i said early on we'd win it all because carmelo could not be stopped. that's the only time i ever said that. we're talented and deep, more so than any year since, but no player to offset the boeheim factor. carter williams is close, but i now don't root for him. inexcuseable

Seriously, 36 years of disappointment? Try some perspective. You'll be a happier person.

 

[Knicks411]

Wooden always tried to play Pollyanna, but he was hooked at the hip with Gilbert. Every year he gave his players - many of whom were delivered to Wooden by Gilbert's machinations - a wink-wink/nudge-nudge "warning" about associating with him, a warning which they all understood was to be ignored.

Woodenphiles can't have it both ways - they can't tell us this man was the architect of a dynasty and the driving moral influence in all his players lives (as people like Bill Walton still try to peddle), and yet claim he was utterly ignorant of the payoffs, parties and even abortions that Gilbert provided to those players.

Yeah, even if Wooden didn't associate with Gilbert, he had to be aware of what was going on. He could've stopped it if he wanted to.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

in 36 of 37 years, disappointment, in 03 i said early on we'd win it all because carmelo could not be stopped. that's the only time i ever said that. we're talented and deep, more so than any year since, but no player to offset the boeheim factor. carter williams is close, but i now don't root for him. inexcuseable

If Melo is so great, why has he never won in the NBA?

Sent from my Vortex using Tapatalk 2

 

[Room 914]

If Melo is so great, why has he never won in the NBA?

Sent from my Vortex using Tapatalk 2

Nobody wins alone. And Melo hasn't had nearly a good enough team around him to win.

 

[TinyManInside]

Gottlieb says Boeheim was a 5+ point favorite in 90% of his games. But, doesn't he get some credit for recruiting to gain these point spread advantages?

If you were a 5+ point favorite in 90% of your games and you only win 75% of them, then you would be a pretty sucky coach.

There is no way that number is right. No possible way.