hey defenders of Roy

[Doc5120]

for the blue blood programs you put more weight on national titles. roy williams has coached 28 seasons for 2 blue blood programs, kansas and north carolina, and "only" has 2 titles. yea he has more titles than boeheim but the talent hes had at kansas and unc doesnt compare to the talent boeheim has gotten at cuse. i put duke, north carolina, kansas and kentucky on a different level and higher standards. those teams get the best of the best recruits just about every year. i think bill self deserves to take some criticism, his elite 8 record is terrible.

In those 28 years - Roy has won 2 titles, the blue bloods (Duke, UNC, Kansas & Kentucky) have won an additional 9, which means 11 titles in 28 years. So 4 programs have won roughly 40% of the titles. If we throw Louisville & UCLA into the mix, that figure becomes 13 of 28, meaning 46% of titles have been won by blue blood programs. So basically every other year a blue blood is winning it. I think you're being pretty tough on Roy. Not to mention Uconn has 4 in that time frame and Arizona has one. Those programs have to considered top 10-12 programs. The fact is, there just aren't enough championships to go around. I don't know about you, but I'd "settle" for 2 titles in 28 years.

 

[HOFCeluck]

In those 28 years - Roy has won 2 titles, the blue bloods (Duke, UNC, Kansas & Kentucky) have won an additional 9, which means 11 titles in 28 years. So 4 programs have won roughly 40% of the titles. If we throw Louisville & UCLA into the mix, that figure becomes 13 of 28, meaning 46% of titles have been won by blue blood programs. So basically every other year a blue blood is winning it. I think you're being pretty tough on Roy. Not to mention Uconn has 4 in that time frame and Arizona has one. Those programs have to considered top 10-12 programs. The fact is, there just aren't enough championships to go around. I don't know about you, but I'd "settle" for 2 titles in 28 years.

In the history of NCAA basketball, UNC has five titles.

So Roy has won 40% of UNC's titles.

But hey, that's still better than Kansas (three titles in their entire history)

 

[Doc5120]

In the history of NCAA basketball, UNC has five titles.

So Roy has won 40% of UNC's titles.

But hey, that's still better than Kansas (three titles in their entire history)

Roy has won as many as Dean Smith. Smith coached for 36 years and Roy has coached UNC for 13. I'd say he's doing OK.

 

[Ward]

So what's the narrative when we lose to a URI, or Richmond, or Minnesota, or Vermont, or Butler? Is Boeheim an underacheiver? Is it bad luck?

I'm not saying he should have the same results as K, JC, or Roy. But it seems that underchieving is underachieving.

Well the Butler loss I specifically cited injuries causing for factors out of the coach's control so not sure why you included that one. Even if you do want to include it, in hindsight that upset isn't really as crazy as once thought. Butler had more pros and a head coach who arguably is the hottest name in basketball regardless of level right now.

Admittedly, I'm relatively younger so don't have great context around some of the losses mentioned but I'm not sure you understand the point I was making. Obviously each coach is going to have years where upsets happen. Izzo was upset this year and underachieved in the tournament but his overall body of work and the numerous times he's overachieved tend to outweigh that. There are people who probably do think JB underachieves and probably can give some good arguments as to why. I don't know what that has to do with my post. Do you think JB is an underachiever?

Roy and Calipari have had teams that underachieved and I don't really recall them having many teams that overachieved. They can still be good coaches but reality is they haven't been able to maximize talent that has been on their teams and the times they did win titles their teams did not win because of great coaching but superior talent. Which you have to give them credit for because they brought it in and is part of what makes them a good coach.

 

[Dave85]

Roy and Calipari have had teams that underachieved and I don't really recall them having many teams that overachieved.

That's a great point.

I think what determines how good a coach is winning with lesser talent and adversity. JB made a brilliant move in calling for the press against Gone-zaga. There's a lot to coaching especially how well the coach uses timeouts to affect the game. One thing JB is really good at is being patient and not calling timeout. And the timing of substitutions is very important. And saying just the right thing in a press conference to motivate his players. Coaching is very hard. I had no idea until I started coaching my boys BB teams.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Well the Butler loss I specifically cited injuries causing for factors out of the coach's control so not sure why you included that one. Even if you do want to include it, in hindsight that upset isn't really as crazy as once thought. Butler had more pros and a head coach who arguably is the hottest name in basketball regardless of level right now.

Admittedly, I'm relatively younger so don't have great context around some of the losses mentioned but I'm not sure you understand the point I was making. Obviously each coach is going to have years where upsets happen. Izzo was upset this year and underachieved in the tournament but his overall body of work and the numerous times he's overachieved tend to outweigh that. There are people who probably do think JB underachieves and probably can give some good arguments as to why. I don't know what that has to do with my post. Do you think JB is an underachiever?

Roy and Calipari have had teams that underachieved and I don't really recall them having many teams that overachieved. They can still be good coaches but reality is they haven't been able to maximize talent that has been on their teams and the times they did win titles their teams did not win because of great coaching but superior talent. Which you have to give them credit for because they brought it in and is part of what makes them a good coach.

The point wrt Boeheim is that you can make the SAME arguement about underachieving in the tournament. How many times, especially early in his career did he lose in the first weekend of the tournament with a top three seed? If you think Roy and JC underacheived with their talent level, why don't you think JB underacheived with his?

The problem with your third paragraph is that if you're the coach of a blueblood program how do you overachieve? You get top talent every year so if you win a title or go the final four, it's expected. If you don't , your a CHOKER. Guess you can argue that Roy coached up his 1991 KU and 2006 UNC teams, but other than that I've got nothing.

BTW, what do you think of the job JC did while at UMass?

 

[TheCusian]

No one thinks Boeheim is a "bad" coach. No one. If you mean "overrated," or "not great/elite," that's not the same thing.

They're all subjective measures. But "overrated" is my fav. It's subjective AND has a straw man element.

 

[TheCusian]

Man alive. Seriously? "good gawd is hilarious how people need to rush" to 'bash' "dudes like Roy" who earned a No. 1 seed and took a team to the National Championship, and came within a miracle of winning. Again. How is your need to diminish him any different than the 'need' to defend him? Personally, i find far more grace and valor in defending someone we don't care about than in hacking on someone, but hey — maybe that's your bag and it boosts you in some way. Whatever. Your 'arguments' sorta assume Villanova had nothing to do with the outcome. As if Carolina could just impose its will. Nova had players, too. And they were fully aware of the obvious strategies you think should have been employed. Nova was a '1.5' seed, and you give them no credit. Carolina wasn't the juggernaut people like Kenny would have the masses believe. They weren't an all-time great team. Expecting them to roll over everyone is just silly, especially when they were up against a Nova team that was absolutely rolling through the entire tournament. Is Bill Self also a hack coach? Nova beat them, too. Is Izzo 'bad at his job?' He 'did worse' than Roy this year. Your math just doesn't add up.

Self is kind of like Roy, only without regular season competition.

 

[TheCusian]

You say Williams and Self should have more titles. Only 1 guy can win a title each year. And if they should have more titles, should Calipari and Coach K have more titles? After all, they're getting the elite of the elite talent year after year. It's much more difficult than people make it out to be. Not only do you have to be very good, you also need a little bit of luck. Some people are killing these guys. I don't think it's fair. They've won a lot of tournament games and made deep runs. Only one guy can win each year. I wouldn't put Roy Williams or Bill Self in my top 5 coaches, but I think they're very good coaches.

They should all get to the FF more. Cal, K, Williams and Self.

I'd say this. Recruiting is a big part of coaching. Some are better at that part of their jobs as the other parts.

 

[Easy Goer]

Difference is cuse played good D on the final possession, smart just hit a tough shot. Unc played awful D, didnt guard the inbounds and didnt pressure the ball, thats all on roy.

And when does Syracuse guard the inbounds and pressure the ball coming up?

 

[HOFCeluck]

They should all get to the FF more. Cal, K, Williams and Self.

I'd say this. Recruiting is a big part of coaching. Some are better at that part of their jobs as the other parts.

...and if they got to the final four more, you'd say they need more titles.

 

[longtimefan]

And when does Syracuse guard the inbounds and pressure the ball coming up?

Sitting back in the zone and tagging a couple of shooters could not have been worse than what UNC did.

It was either a lousy scheme or a good scheme badly communicated to the players. In either case, bad coaching.

 

[Ward]

The point wrt Boeheim is that you can make the SAME arguement about underachieving in the tournament. How many times, especially early in his career did he lose in the first weekend of the tournament with a top three seed? If you think Roy and JC underacheived with their talent level, why don't you think JB underacheived with his?

The problem with your third paragraph is that if you're the coach of a blueblood program how do you overachieve? You get top talent every year so if you win a title or go the final four, it's expected. If you don't , your a CHOKER. Guess you can argue that Roy coached up his 1991 KU and 2006 UNC teams, but other than that I've got nothing.

BTW, what do you think of the job JC did while at UMass?

You keep bringing up JB and him being an underachiever and why I don't have the same standard for him but I haven't said I didn't. I could see the argument for both sides in calling JB and underachiever and then saying he isn't. I don't recall Roy or Calipari having runs like the one we just had where a very limited team made the Final Four. I also think there are definitely years where JB had teams that didn't accomplish quite as much as you'd expect. It's not an absolute thing.

The difference is that JB didn't have teams filled with future pros that made the NIT, Roy and Cal both have, and I don't know if JB has ever had the consistently loaded rosters year after year that Roy and Cal have had either. Like I've said though you have to give them credit because they assemble the talent and are great recruiters recruiting to a great brand.

I think JC did a really good job at UMass. How does that mean he hasn't underachieved with some of the teams he's had at Kentucky?

 

[TheCusian]

...and if they got to the final four more, you'd say they need more titles.

Nope. As you said - only one champ a year.

But wherever you place the finish line, they've had the best racers and have come up short relative to their talent.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Nope. As you said - only one champ a year.

But wherever you place the finish line, they've had the best racers and have come up short relative to their talent.

So what would be an acceptable number of final fours for you?

You seem to be saying that of you coach at one of those programs, you are underachieving by default. But I known that can't be true. Because its absurd.

 

[TheCusian]

So what would be an acceptable number of final fours for you?

You seem to be saying that of you coach at one of those programs, you are underachieving by default. But I known that can't be true. Because its absurd.

I'm avoiding putting an exact measurement on it because it's not black or white.

But I think if you talked to any fan of any top tier program - if you've got top 5 recruiting classes year after year - and you're not making the FF 2 out of 3 years, your coach is underachieving. That's the nature of the beast.

We don't think we're going to the FF every year - because the talent of our recruiting classes isn't in the top 5 most years. Different levels, different expectations.

 

[HOFCeluck]

But I think if you talked to any fan of any top tier program - if you've got top 5 recruiting classes year after year - and you're not making the FF 2 out of 3 years, your coach is underachieving. That's the nature of the beast.

JC has made 4 of 7 final fours since starting at UK. Soooo close...

 

[br801]

I'm avoiding putting an exact measurement on it because it's not black or white.

But I think if you talked to any fan of any top tier program - if you've got top 5 recruiting classes year after year - and you're not making the FF 2 out of 3 years, your coach is underachieving. That's the nature of the beast.

We don't think we're going to the FF every year - because the talent of our recruiting classes isn't in the top 5 most years. Different levels, different expectations.

Your expectations for schools that consistently bring in top 5 recruiting classes is a bit high. In fact, the math just doesn't work, unless somehow the NCAA expands the Final Four to eight teams. And I'm not sure that would even be enough.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Your expectations for schools that consistently bring in top 5 recruiting classes is a bit high. In fact, the math just doesn't work, unless somehow the NCAA expands the Final Four to eight teams. And I'm not sure that would even be enough.

A bit? Duke has been in just over one out of every three final fours since 1985. No one else is close.

 

[TheCusian]

Your expectations for schools that consistently bring in top 5 recruiting classes is a bit high. In fact, the math just doesn't work, unless somehow the NCAA expands the Final Four to eight teams. And I'm not sure that would even be enough.

The preface of "it's not black and white" and it not being used as "an exact measurement" should have helped you to know that I'm not sold on those exact numbers.

You got the premise though.

 

[TheCusian]

JC has made 4 of 7 final fours since starting at UK. Soooo close...

He's had classes that were beyond K and Self right? I'm not being exact on purpose. It's inexact.

He's a good coach, he's a great recruiter. He gets the results those two things working together get you. If you and I were Kentucky fans (ug, that hurt to type) we'd expect national championships every year if our recruiting was that good, no?

 

[HOFCeluck]

He's had classes that were beyond K and Self right? I'm not being exact on purpose. It's inexact.

He's a good coach, he's a great recruiter. He gets the results those two things working together get you. If you and I were Kentucky fans (ug, that hurt to type) we'd expect national championships every year if our recruiting was that good, no?

Yeah...But fans (especially UK fans) frequently have to recalibrate their expectations to reality. To put it nicely.

 

[Louie and Bouie]

There are 7 active coaches that average a Sweet 16 or better per year in the NCAA tournament (min. of 10 games played and > .666 win%). Williams is one of them with a 70-24 record.

The other 6 are Krzyzewski, Pitino, Calipari, Brown, Izzo and Self.

Pretty exclusive club and imo not a group to be tagging as underachievers.

Using NT championships as a measure is misguided imo.

 

[Doc5120]

They should all get to the FF more. Cal, K, Williams and Self.

I'd say this. Recruiting is a big part of coaching. Some are better at that part of their jobs as the other parts.

K has gotten there more than any other coach in history and you want him to get there more? That's asking for a bit much.
Roy has been to the 4th most FF's.
Caliapari has 6 (4 if you take away his 2 sanctioned years). He's been there 4 times in his 7 or 8 years at UK. I don't how you can do much better than that.
Self - I agree hasn't been there as often as he should have.

And if all 4 of these guys should get there more, I guess there's no room for Izzo, JB, Pitino, Jay Wright, etc etc.

 

[TheCusian]

K has gotten there more than any other coach in history and you want him to get there more? That's asking for a bit much.
Roy has been to the 4th most FF's.
Caliapari has 6 (4 if you take away his 2 sanctioned years). He's been there 4 times in his 7 or 8 years at UK. I don't how you can do much better than that.
Self - I agree hasn't been there as often as he should have.

And if all 4 of these guys should get there more, I guess there's no room for Izzo, JB, Pitino, Jay Wright, etc etc.

(I knew this would get bogged down in examples.)

This is how it's always been.

On one side you have a dial with "recruiting/best players" and the other you have "great coaching" (and maybe a third smaller one entitled "luck?"). Coaches who have the best player dial cranked to ten and the great coaching dial sitting at 7, will get labeled as underachieving. While the coaches who have the reversed will get more credit as coaches, but will win less.

The guys who have both cranked to 10 are revered: Pop, Phil Jackson (THE COACH), K, Geno A., etc.

Cal, Williams, Self - are not on that line. They are underachieving relative to their talent. (I'll give you K).