I dropped these type of arguments years ago. Are we really going to define how good of a bench coach someone is, by whether his players make shots at the end of the game??? It is an insane argument. With every coach you can find evidence that they are not a good in game coach. For K, if he was such a good in game coach as many claim, then why is he continually losing in the first 2 rounds of the tournament to teams that are far below him in talent? Does the fact that James Young made a shot against Wich St make Cal a great bench coach, even though Young admitted that the play wasn't designed for him, and he forgot the play, so he just shot it?
Most people say that Cal is not a good bench coach, because that is the only chink in the armor that they can find, or it is a lazy excuse for why he doesn't win with what is deemed to be a superior talented roster. Most fans pile on because he doesn't do the things that fans claim is the superior choice. The problem is that we do not know the outcome of that superior choice, which could be the same. Like playing Andrew over Tyler in the final minutes of the Wisconsin game. One thing is for certain, the outcome wouldn't be worse. But the problem is that the mindset that plays Tyler over Andrew in that situation, also plays Tyler over Andrew against ND, a game Andrew makes 2 freethrows to win at the end. Now maybe Tyler gets the ball to Towns at the end of that game (as he is unlikely to get fouled driving to the basket), but Towns misses that shot, and the team never makes the final four. It isn't a vacuum, you don't get to just go change the times that UK loses, you have to change the entire season. Most and probably all the fans that think they would have made better decisions in certain games would likely be going home in the first weekend if they were actually coaching the team.
