JB responds to Gottlieb comment

[Orangeyes]

http://www.syracuse.com/axeman/index.ssf/2012/12/post_107.html

 

[CuseTroop]

"I dont think he knows what he's talking about"

Get em JB

 

[armory]

Gottlieb before he came up with this arbitrary checklist: "What are the 4 biggest knocks on the Syracuse program... and how can I phrase them into questions for defining success?"

 

[jekelish]

Gottlieb forgot the 5th point about why he thinks Jim is only good and not great: "He failed to give me a scholarship."

 

[SUMBA]

I generally like Gottlieb as an analyst. He is always prepared and usually has an informed opinion. However, on this point I don't agree with any of his criteria.

"In college basketball you are judged by four things. 1.Do you compete consistently for a national title? I can't think of anyone this side of John Wooden who does this.

2. How do your players play in the pros? Why on earth is this important? JB is a college coach and his job is to get the most out of his players in college.

3. Do you stay clean of NCAA infractions? This one is the most fair. Unfortunately, JB did have some (questionable) infractions. I can't believe some schools who have coaches with a history of NCAA infractions and a whole lot of one and done mercenaries aren't guilty of some infractions. No names please....

4. Is your style replicable because imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? It seems to me that if a coach has a style that wins and can't be replicated is kind of a genius...

 

[hburgcuse]

Gottlieb vs. Gottlieb:

Using Doug Gottlieb's own criteria, Doug Gottlieb was a horrible college basketball player.

Final 4's: None. Just one elite 8 appearance.

Pro Career: Pretty much non-existent.

Out of Trouble: Expelled from Notre Dame!

Imitation of Style: When is the last time you heard 2 kids playing on a court and one says "You're Kobe Bryant, I'm Doug Gottlieb?"

It doesn't matter that Gottlieb is one of the all-time assist leaders in history...only those 4 areas of criteria count. He failed miserably at his own criteria!

 

[Knicks411]

I definitely feel like he kinda made up that criteria on the spot

 

[CuseTroop]

Gottlieb vs. Gottlieb:

Using Doug Gottlieb's own criteria, Doug Gottlieb was a horrible college basketball player.

Final 4's: None. Just one elite 8 appearance.

Pro Career: Pretty much non-existent.

Out of Trouble: Expelled from Notre Dame!

Imitation of Style: When is the last time you heard 2 kids playing on a court and one says "You're Kobe Bryant, I'm Doug Gottlieb?"

It doesn't matter that Gottlieb is one of the all-time assist leaders in history...only those 4 areas of criteria count. He failed miserably at his own criteria!

You need to send that to him lol

 

[stumpy78]

One of the things that is never brought out, is that for years we had second tier talent except for a few guys on the team. I think Boeheim has done more with less when compared to Knight and Coach K. The John Wallace team was considered barely top 20 that year and they go to the finals. Our talent level in the past 4 or 5 years is way better than before that. I used to say one year we had the backcourt and them we had the front court, never putting the it all together. Can't say that anymore.

 

[KingOtis]

One of the things that is never brought out, is that for years we had second tier talent except for a few guys on the team. I think Boeheim has done more with less when compared to Knight and Coach K. The John Wallace team was considered barely top 20 that year and they go to the finals. Our talent level in the past 4 or 5 years is way better than before that. I used to say one year we had the backcourt and them we had the front court, never putting the it all together. Can't say that anymore.

Like the 2003 team, the '96 squad was unranked going into the season.

 

[Eric15]

When is the last time you heard 2 kids playing on a court and one says "You're Kobe Bryant, I'm Doug Gottlieb?"

I literally LOLed at this.

 

[CorduroyG]

I literally LOLed at this.

im still LOL'ing at it, one of the funniest things ive read on here.

 

[MyMeloMyMan]

I hate when JB stoops to his level and defends his record, ncaa defeats, etc. He's above that.

Let the talkers talk JB...you just keep winning.

 

[jekelish]

I hate when JB stoops to his level and defends his record, ncaa defeats, etc. He's above that.

Let the talkers talk JB...you just keep winning.

Agreed. 900 wins and a fantastic winning percentage, along with multiple final four trips, should say everything that needs to be said.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

I generally like Gottlieb as an analyst. He is always prepared and usually has an informed opinion. However, on this point I don't agree with any of his criteria.

I don't mind Gottlieb as an analyst, but i don't care for him as a 'person' or as a 'journalist.' He has a bias and an agenda and neither of them serve objectivity. That said, i wholeheartedly agree with what he's saying, but only in part because of his four-part outline.

I think you're judged on other matters, but whatever. No 1 — sure, that's valid. But, 3 Championship Games is nothing to sneeze at. However, in 40 years, i'm underwhelmed by the number of Elite 8s.

No. 2 — I agree this is a consideration. A coach is charged with DEVELOPING players. And, if they come into a program at a certain level, and perhaps manage to contribute at a college level but do not progress beyond that, that is a fault in development. It's not enough that they are 'good enough' to help our system. Greatness implies a larger responsibility and capability.

No. 3 — No comment.

No. 4 — The matter is misstated. If your (winning) style is NOT replicable, that's a testament to your coaching. If it IS replicable, but no one chooses to replicate it, that's a knock on your coaching. Commentators love to talk about the 2-3 zone. Because it's a quick, easy talking-point. Doesn't mean any more than that, although the orange faithful lap it up like... like Cream Ale. Boeheim is NOT smarter than everyone else. Even if he were, everyone else is still smart enough to copy something that works. That's why every phone looks like an iPhone now.

The reason we've won 'so many games' isn't because of the zone. Unless you consider that JB seems to have forgotten how to coach man, so maybe it is because of the zone... The reason we win, when we win, is because we have more talent than the opposition on 95% of game days. I don't think this is even remotely debatable. And, yet, we don't win 95% of games. So, there's that.

No. 5 — There is a need to define "great," as JB noted. How many coaches have been "great?" In any case, i don't put JB there. He doesn't transform, like a Brad Stevens. He doesn't overcome. He doesn't motivate. What he does well is put enough good players in orange uniforms, and then minimize his coaching responsibilities. Fewer plays. He says it's because we can't remember more plays. Everyone else does, though... Zone. Because the other kids can't shoot. Until they do, and Joe Nobody puts in 8 catch-and-shoot 3s against us. But, we win that game, because it was against. 8 Joe Nobodies, and commentators and fans say, yeah, Joe 1 went nuts, but we wanted that, and we contained everyone else. All the other Nobodies couldn't beat our McD players... You give JB a team of non-top 50 players — even guys who play his style, and have his reputed "body type" — and he doesn't win with them.

No. 6 — Everyone ignores the power of the Dome and/or contrives an invalid causal relationship between JB's success and the Dome. JB would not have been nearly as successful if we played in a 12,000 seat, typical gym. Period. His recruiting and consistency and resulting longevity are all tied into the allure of the Dome. Success follows and self-perpetuates, but only in the shadow of The Dome. We had a name with Manley, certainly. But, it would take a lot of fingers and toes to count the number of programs that had 'names' at one point, but could not sustain it. We surely would have fallen into that category without the 30k.

No. 7 — Everyone seems to have a short memory. It was only a few years ago that we ended a significant streak of being on the NCAA bubble. "Will we get in?"

 

[Col. Bleep]

I generally like Gottlieb as an analyst. He is always prepared and usually has an informed opinion. However, on this point I don't agree with any of his criteria.

"In college basketball you are judged by four things. 1.Do you compete consistently for a national title? I can't think of anyone this side of John Wooden who does this.

2. How do your players play in the pros? Why on earth is this important? JB is a college coach and his job is to get the most out of his players in college.

3. Do you stay clean of NCAA infractions? This one is the most fair. Unfortunately, JB did have some (questionable) infractions. I can't believe some schools who have coaches with a history of NCAA infractions and a whole lot of one and done mercenaries aren't guilty of some infractions. No names please....

4. Is your style replicable because imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? It seems to me that if a coach has a style that wins and can't be replicated is kind of a genius...

Gottlieb generally is a very strong analyst.
But he's shoveling here.
Two of his four criteria make no sense for judging collegiate coaching success.

 

[br801]

The reason we win, when we win, is because we have more talent than the opposition on 95% of game days. I don't think this is even remotely debatable. And, yet, we don't win 95% of games. So, there's that.

I'd say your point is very debatable. Since Boeheim has coached approximately 1200 games, by your reckoning his teams have had less talent than the opposition only 60 times in 36+ years. That's pure folly, and you know it.

By your standards, John Wooden's career must be viewed as an abject failure since he only won 80% of his games.

 

[Knicks411]

I'd say your point is very debatable. Since Boeheim has coached approximately 1200 games, by your reckoning his teams have had less talent than the opposition only 60 times in 36+ years. That's pure folly, and you know it.

I wonder what the number really is? 95% is obviously too high, right? If we play 35 games a year, that's 33 games where we have more talent than the other team. It's possible the last few years it's been true (but still not necessarily), but how about from 2006-2008? Or in the post probation years? Hell, even the year we won the title; UConn had 2 lottery picks on their team, Kansas had a ton of really good players; etc.

 

[moqui]

You give JB a team of non-top 50 players — even guys who play his style, and have his reputed "body type" — and he doesn't win with them."

Wes Johnson - 2 star recruit +
Andy Rautins - 2 star recruit +
Arinze Onuaku - 3 star recruit +
Brandon Triche - 3 star recruit +
Kris Joseph - consensus rank 56 +
Rick Jackson - consensus rank 56 +
Scoop Jardine - consensus rank 48 =
30 wins, #1 ranking, #1 seed

I agree with some of what you posted here, Zelda, but that statement is what the kids call an EPIC FAIL

 

[CorduroyG]

Zelda is the same guy who said something like "looking at our non conference schedule its easy to see why jb has 900 wins." Lol. Not even gottlieb would say something as stupid as that. How bout playing in the best conference in the country the last 30 years? Still easy to see? Zelda is the new poppy.

Sent from my SCH-R720 using Tapatalk 2

 

[moqui]

I wonder what the number really is? 95% is obviously too high, right? If we play 35 games a year, that's 33 games where we have more talent than the other team. It's possible the last few years it's been true (but still not necessarily), but how about from 2006-2008? Or in the post probation years? Hell, even the year we won the title; UConn had 2 lottery picks on their team, Kansas had a ton of really good players; etc.

in conference play, I would estimate that SU has had more talent about 60% of the time, roughly equal talent 30% of the time, and less talent 10% of the time. So, superior talent 60% and a winning percentage over 65%.

in NCAA play, maybe its 55/30/15 . . . and the winning percentage is 64%

 

[br801]

I wonder what the number really is? 95% is obviously too high, right? If we play 35 games a year, that's 33 games where we have more talent than the other team. It's possible the last few years it's been true (but still not necessarily), but how about from 2006-2008? Or in the post probation years? Hell, even the year we won the title; UConn had 2 lottery picks on their team, Kansas had a ton of really good players; etc.

If I had to guess, I'd estimate the actual number over 36 years falls between 70% and 80%, with individual seasons ranging between 60% and 95%.

 

[Madbiker]

If you consistently win 75% of your games with rosters with few future NBA players that indicates a really good coach. Anyone can win with a roster full of future NBA greats...makes it LESS of an accomplishment.

 

[CuseGrad94]

I don't mind Gottlieb as an analyst, but i don't care for him as a 'person' or as a 'journalist.' He has a bias and an agenda and neither of them serve objectivity. That said, i wholeheartedly agree with what he's saying, but only in part because of his four-part outline.

I think you're judged on other matters, but whatever. No 1 — sure, that's valid. But, 3 Championship Games is nothing to sneeze at. However, in 40 years, i'm underwhelmed by the number of Elite 8s.

No. 2 — I agree this is a consideration. A coach is charged with DEVELOPING players. And, if they come into a program at a certain level, and perhaps manage to contribute at a college level but do not progress beyond that, that is a fault in development. It's not enough that they are 'good enough' to help our system. Greatness implies a larger responsibility and capability.

No. 3 — No comment.

No. 4 — The matter is misstated. If your (winning) style is NOT replicable, that's a testament to your coaching. If it IS replicable, but no one chooses to replicate it, that's a knock on your coaching. Commentators love to talk about the 2-3 zone. Because it's a quick, easy talking-point. Doesn't mean any more than that, although the orange faithful lap it up like... like Cream Ale. Boeheim is NOT smarter than everyone else. Even if he were, everyone else is still smart enough to copy something that works. That's why every phone looks like an iPhone now.

The reason we've won 'so many games' isn't because of the zone. Unless you consider that JB seems to have forgotten how to coach man, so maybe it is because of the zone... The reason we win, when we win, is because we have more talent than the opposition on 95% of game days. I don't think this is even remotely debatable. And, yet, we don't win 95% of games. So, there's that.

No. 5 — There is a need to define "great," as JB noted. How many coaches have been "great?" In any case, i don't put JB there. He doesn't transform, like a Brad Stevens. He doesn't overcome. He doesn't motivate. What he does well is put enough good players in orange uniforms, and then minimize his coaching responsibilities. Fewer plays. He says it's because we can't remember more plays. Everyone else does, though... Zone. Because the other kids can't shoot. Until they do, and Joe Nobody puts in 8 catch-and-shoot 3s against us. But, we win that game, because it was against. 8 Joe Nobodies, and commentators and fans say, yeah, Joe 1 went nuts, but we wanted that, and we contained everyone else. All the other Nobodies couldn't beat our McD players... You give JB a team of non-top 50 players — even guys who play his style, and have his reputed "body type" — and he doesn't win with them.

No. 6 — Everyone ignores the power of the Dome and/or contrives an invalid causal relationship between JB's success and the Dome. JB would not have been nearly as successful if we played in a 12,000 seat, typical gym. Period. His recruiting and consistency and resulting longevity are all tied into the allure of the Dome. Success follows and self-perpetuates, but only in the shadow of The Dome. We had a name with Manley, certainly. But, it would take a lot of fingers and toes to count the number of programs that had 'names' at one point, but could not sustain it. We surely would have fallen into that category without the 30k.

No. 7 — Everyone seems to have a short memory. It was only a few years ago that we ended a significant streak of being on the NCAA bubble. "Will we get in?"

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[realorange]

I hate when JB stoops to his level and defends his record, ncaa defeats, etc. He's above that.

Let the talkers talk JB...you just keep winning.

I would hardly call JBs remarks defending his record. You need to read it again. He states he is happy being called a good coach. He has always downplayed his coaching abilities. And yes, he Is without question, above that.