hey defenders of Roy

[TheCusian]

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.

Underachieving relative to their talent.

 

[Doc5120]

(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).

So we agree on K being a great coach and on Self underachieving when it comes to FF appearances. I guess we agree to disagree on Roy and Cal. I loathe Cal, but 4 out of 7 seasons in the FF is as much as you can ask for, IMO.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Ugh. Four pages of me white knighting Roy f#$king Williams

 

[br801]

Ugh. Four pages of me white knighting Roy f#$king Williams

I didn't go quite that far and I still feel dirty and hate myself.

 

[TheCusian]

Ugh. Four pages of me white knighting Roy f#$king Williams

Walked right into it

 

[Louie and Bouie]

Underachieving relative to their talent.

He's in 4th place in tourney winning % of active coaches and 5th all time. Not an underachiever. No context needed.

 

[TheCusian]

He's in 4th place in tourney winning % of active coaches and 5th all time. Not an underachiever. No context needed.

Context is always needed. With the talent he's had he should never miss the tourney. Ever. That doesn't show up on his tourney winning %, eh?

 

[Louie and Bouie]

Context is always needed. With the talent he's had he should never miss the tourney. Ever. That doesn't show up on his tourney winning %, eh?

He has made the tourney 26 of 28 seasons coached. Highest % of any active coach and Top 3 all-time.

Question his game decisions all you want but statistical analysis is not your friend in this argument.

 

[TheCusian]

He has made the tourney 26 of 28 seasons coached. Highest % of any active coach and Top 3 all-time. Question his game decisions all you want but statistical analysis is not your friend in this argument.

You should probably go back and read where I said I'm not putting actual numbers to it - as its not black and white, it's kinda like Pron "I know it when I see it"... (I didn't want to get into a statistical analysis type debate because it's inconclusive.)

Just making the tourney with the talent he's had is way below the baseline, especially in the SEC.

This started as a way of saying that if you get the best players every year you can't lean on talent being the reason you don't make a FF. If you have the very best talent, 5-6 NBA players - the line you need to reach to make good on that talent it way, way out from where it is for the other 300+ schools. Expectations are a b*#%+.

Unless luck is a bigger part of the overall equation, not making a FF is the result of a talent deficit, a coaching deficit or a bit of both. If you have the best talent? Is it not fair to question the coaching?

 

[br801]

Unless luck is a bigger part of the overall equation, not making a FF is the result of a talent deficit, a coaching deficit or a bit of both. If you have the best talent? Is it not fair to question the coaching?

Come on, you know damn well that luck plays a significant role in how far a team advances in a single elimination tournament, to say nothing of the vagaries of matchups.

 

[two3zone]

Calipari 100% should have more than 1 championship with the talent and teams he's had. Last year's Final Four against Wisconsin Bo Ryan coached circles around him down the stretch.

That scrappy Bo Ryan, beat the evil empire with just his gritty players and amazing coaching. Never mind the front court of a lottery pick and a top 20 pick who had more experience together than the entire Kentucky starting lineup combined.

I guess Calipari must not have faced any other good coaches that year, you figure one of the other 39 guys he beat that one of them would have been a good enough coach to beat him.

 

[TheCusian]

Come on, you know damn well that luck plays a significant role in how far a team advances in a single elimination tournament, to say nothing of the vagaries of matchups.

Agreed. Luck plays a part.

But I'm not willing to ascribe all of Cal's losses in tournaments to luck. I just think he's an elite recruiter and a good coach. No shame in that. But as I've shared earlier: when your recruits are better than your coaching chops, that's labeled as underachieving. Self, Cal, Williams - all get to carry that label. (And they probably don't care. Talent gets you more wins than coaching anyways.)

 

[Ward]

That scrappy Bo Ryan, beat the evil empire with just his gritty players and amazing coaching. Never mind the front court of a lottery pick and a top 20 pick who had more experience together than the entire Kentucky starting lineup combined.

I guess Calipari must not have faced any other good coaches that year, you figure one of the other 39 guys he beat that one of them would have been a good enough coach to beat him.

Sooo you're saying a team with a lottery pick and a top 20 pick is definitely enough to beat a Calipari coached team of 6-8 draft picks including 4-5 lottery picks and a guy who many think is going to run the NBA some day. And I'm the one not giving him enough credit as a coach?

 

[HOFCeluck]

Sooo you're saying a team with a lottery pick and a top 20 pick is definitely enough to beat a Calipari coached team of 6-8 draft picks including 4-5 lottery picks and a guy who many think is going to run the NBA some day

Yes?

 

[Ward]

Yes?

I guess ironically enough I was actually overestimating his coaching abilities.

 

[two3zone]

Sooo you're saying a team with a lottery pick and a top 20 pick is definitely enough to beat a Calipari coached team of 6-8 draft picks including 4-5 lottery picks and a guy who many think is going to run the NBA some day. And I'm the one not giving him enough credit as a coach?

I see you ignored the experience part.

 

[Ward]

I see you ignored the experience part.

In most cases it probably plays a a big role but I'm not sure it plays out that way here to override the huge gap in talent.

The Harrison twins as true freshmen beat the same back court the year before in the Final Four and made a lot of clutch plays in doing so. Cauley-Stein was a junior and top 6 pick. Dakari Johnson and Marcus Lee were on a team that made the national championship and played key minutes the year before so they're experienced. Towns and Booker are both studs and probably going to be perennial all stars with Towns probably an NBA MVP at some point so experience isn't as big a factor with guys that talented or else Melo would've cracked at some point in '03, Okafor last year, etc.

Then the other two guys in Kentucky's rotation were Tyler Ulis who everyone says plays years older than he is but I'm not going to pretend that means something tangible for this argument and Lyles who was a lottery pick.

I'm not by any means trying to play Wisconsin off as Robert Morris but more saying that Kentucky team was historically loaded and Calipari was outcoached by Bo Ryan in the Final Four.

 

[two3zone]

In most cases it probably plays a a big role but I'm not sure it plays out that way here to override the huge gap in talent.

The Harrison twins as true freshmen beat the same back court the year before in the Final Four and made a lot of clutch plays in doing so. Cauley-Stein was a junior and top 6 pick. Dakari Johnson and Marcus Lee were on a team that made the national championship and played key minutes the year before so they're experienced. Towns and Booker are both studs and probably going to be perennial all stars with Towns probably an NBA MVP at some point so experience isn't as big a factor with guys that talented or else Melo would've cracked at some point in '03, Okafor last year, etc.

Then the other two guys in Kentucky's rotation were Tyler Ulis who everyone says plays years older than he is but I'm not going to pretend that means something tangible for this argument and Lyles who was a lottery pick.

I'm not by any means trying to play Wisconsin off as Robert Morris but more saying that Kentucky team was historically loaded and Calipari was outcoached by Bo Ryan in the Final Four.

Because a coach was out coached for a game all season doesn't make him a bad coach.

 

[Ward]

Because a coach was out coached for a game all season doesn't make him a bad coach.

I've said Calipari is a good coach in 2-3 different posts on this thread...

 

[two3zone]

I've said Calipari is a good coach in 2-3 different posts on this thread...

Wasn't calling you out, know I quoted your post but wasn't directed to you. Talking in general to the crazies that don't think Roy and Cal aren't good coaches.

 

[TheCusian]

Because a coach was out coached for a game all season doesn't make him a bad coach.

Ain't nobody here said he was a bad coach.

Underachieving relative to his talent.

 

[Doc5120]

youre comparing the talent boeheim gets to the talent williams gets at kansas and north carolina?

Isn't that the definition of "bad" in this case? Someone who gets lower results than they should. How can he be a good coach if he isn't achieving what he should be?

For the record, as I've stated, I think Roy is a very good coach. Out of curiosity, who do you think isa good coach if these guys aren't? Who is doing more with less?

 

[721Comstock]

Isn't that the definition of "bad" in this case? Someone who gets lower results than they should. How can he be a good coach if he isn't achieving what he should be?

For the record, as I've stated, I think Roy is a very good coach. Out of curiosity, who do you think isa good coach if these guys aren't?
Who is doing more with less?

Izzo, consistently.
Brad Stevens did, now he gone.
JB has, of late.
Pitino generally does - he doesn't get a ton of future Pros, but they've had very good success in the Tourney.

 

[PoppyHart]

That scrappy Bo Ryan, beat the evil empire with just his gritty players and amazing coaching. Never mind the front court of a lottery pick and a top 20 pick who had more experience together than the entire Kentucky starting lineup combined.

I guess Calipari must not have faced any other good coaches that year, you figure one of the other 39 guys he beat that one of them would have been a good enough coach to beat him.

If he goes 40-0 he has "achieved". Anything else and he's "under-achieved" I guess.

I heard an even funnier line of reasoning from one of the board gurus last year. Basically, the logic was a team needs to finish THAT season better than the recruiting rank for the incoming class. So, if you had the 4th best recruiting class, regardless of whoever else was on the roster, and you failed to make the Final Four, you under-achieved.

The top coaches apparently should have won 20 of the last 10 national titles.

 

[br801]

Izzo, consistently.
Brad Stevens did, now he gone.
JB has, of late.
Pitino generally does - he doesn't get a ton of future Pros, but they've had very good success in the Tourney.

It really is amazing how well those guys have done, considering the table scraps they generally have to work with.