I thought you brought up JB having Melo when you were talking about having one of the best players. I mentioned Jordan i think once. That isn't keep citing but whatever. And Michael Jordan was Michael Jordan at UNC. He just had to share that with other great players. Sam Perkins. James Worthy. We have never had a team with that much talent.
I would include the addition of the Big East as much as the Dome. but regardless, JB was at the helm when it happened. And in 40 years in the Big East, a great hoop conference, we had the best record. And it wasn't all that close. The reason, we really never slipped far from the top. If your argument is that jb hasn't been a legendary coach, I think you are wrong. You, I'm sure, are not alone in that judgment. I think the numbers say otherwise.
I don't want to review, but i believe someone—in response to my comment—noted that Smith had Jordan, which diminished Smith's championships/minimized Smith's 'legendaryness.'
Great point about us having the best record in the Big East.
My argument is not that JB is or isn't a "legendary" coach. It's that the answer depends on who you are, and that there isn't a "true" answer, as so many of his fans seem to demand there be. Also, that it's not about numbers. It's a matter of perception, and the perception nationally is very different from the one in this forum among his most ardent supporters. We're also talking about "legacy," which factors in time and history.
The other thing is that people get extremely sensitive about discussions where they seem to have personal identity wrapped up in the items being discussed. If you go to a bar, and some stranger blurts out "Syracuse sucks," you might end up in an argument. Because you've somehow felt insulted. If you and another alum and friend have a discussion and he says the same thing, there's likely to be a different response, because identity has been somewhat removed since you both share that identity. Point being that some of us can be critical of something and that doesn't mean we 'hate' it. We can be at varying points on a linear scale of feeling about something, and not feel it necessary to be binary/all or nothing. It's as if, too often here, that an effort to be objective is characterized as "negative," when those who are "positive" are clearly working with primarily subjective fighting points. And if you try to adopt the perspective of an outsider, they can't understand that you don't necessarily espouse all of those views—just that they are valid toward contributing to a more objective discussion.
Maybe the bottom line to all of this is to establish what "legendary" means. How many coaches can be considered "legendary?" If it's a Mt Rushmore thing, and you get 4, is JB on the mountain? Do you get 10? 20?
But, hey—as i said, i don't dole out such words willy nilly. I even cringe when someone calls himself an "artist." You ask me how many "legendary" coaches i could name, and there might only be 3 or 4. And i have no idea how many games any of them have won.