Wrong board brah. And this is coming from a State grad and fan.
Jerry Meyer Just Crystal Balled Josh Jackson To MSU
- Thread starter I Am The 1 And Only
- Start date
Wrong board brah. And this is coming from a State grad and fan.
Glad you asked.
MSU - 2 FF, E8, 2 Sweet 16s, 2nd round
UK - NATIONAL TITLE, 3 FF, E8, NIT
Probably should have a couple more titles, and we could have realistically had 4 more titles, because we had the talent with those recruiting classes.
2010 - Wall Cousins Bledsoe
2011 - Knight Jones Lamb (loss of 3rd overall NBA pick Kanter) 1 point loss to UCONN to play Butler
2014 - Too many to list (key injury to WCS)
2015- Too many to list (key injury to Poythress)
How many titles could you guys have realistically won?
2010 FF? Not really, you guys beat a 12 seed, a 4, 5, and 6 and then that 10-loss team lost to Butler...
2015 FF?? Obviously not, lost by 20 points. In a final four game?
Thus all UK has to show for those classes are an additional FF4 and a National championship along with the realistic opportunity to have won 4 more.
I will take that over your record during this time and oh yeah, Izzo's title?
Going on 16 years ago...
Last edited:
That's my take too.
If not, we have enough returning players to keep us from being 2013 bad. Matthews, Mulder, Humphries, and Wynyard are back for sure. Remember, we had one player back with playing experience on that 2013 team.
We already have a 5-star big man coming in as well.
Add Fox, Monk, and Simmons to that bunch and we are contenders:
Starters
G Fox
G Monk
G Matthews
F Killeya-Jones
F Humphries
Key Reserves
G Simmons
G Mulder
F Wynyard
Definitely could use another big or Lee back, but we would be fine. There's a good chance someone reclassifies.
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
This response will be long and broken-up into several parts.
Response-Post, Part 1 of 3 (or 4):
When comparing Cal and Izzo's careers, overall, I don't think many on here will be happy with a simple statistical analysis (I know a lot of you only want to look at part of the results).
Again, I'm just the messenger here, and I've already given you-all lots of time to think-through your responses.
This is a VERY long post, true, but obviously not too long, because it eventually and cleary helps solve the burning question so many of you have here of who the better coach is & has been -- Coach Cal or Izzo. I will help you find your answers, using the coaching records (various types), assets, strengths, consistency and weaknesses of both coaches.
I realize that the data may be tedious to the impatient, but if you choose to skip any of the info., you'll risk not getting possibly a very clear picture of who the better coach has been -- according to these various statistics -- and that's an answer each of you must decide for yourselves, because there are so many variables, and, of course, each person has the right to weigh each variable differently.
I just ask everyone to, please, as they read the numbers, TRY to remain objective. Most likely, as a reporter, MY opinions can't help but become evident...but at least my opinions will be numerically supported, unlike so many of the baseless opinions in this thread.
In general, statistics can sure cause arguments (true), however, stats tend to keep tons of silly arguments from 'ever seeing the light of day'. Unfortunately, this thread's already full of silly arguments which will be easily refuted with the following numerical comparisons.
To the lazy and/or impatient here, summary attempts always sell data short, so I won't do it (dot-dot-dot) or will I??
Finally, although the data below begin with items you may've seen from me recently, as you keep reading, you'll soon see new & very interesting (imo) data.
--
THE DATA:
MSU (under Izzo) vs UK (vs. any UK coach since 95-96 [which was Izzo's first season]):
Izzo's beaten UK five out of seven games.
--
Coach Cal vs. Izzo: head-to-head record:
Near as I can tell, looking all the way back to Coach Cal's UMASS days and Izzo's first season at MSU (1995-96), the two coaches have only played each other twice, and split those two games:
Nov. 2013, MSU (Izzo) beat UK (Cal)
March 2008, Cal & Memphis beat MSU (Izzo)
--
The following coaches' 5-best seasons' avg. KenPom final rank (2001-02 to 2014-15)(the lower # the better):
1) Coach K: 1.6
********************2) Coach Cal: 1.8
3) Williams: 2.4
4) Self: 2.8
4) Donovan: 2.8
6) Pitino: 3.8
6) Matta: 3.8
7) Ryan: 5.4 (of these coaches, usually has, by far, the least heralded recruits)
*********************8) Izzo: 6.2
9) Boeheim: 7.6
10) Barnes: 9.4
11) Few: 11
12) Marshall: 14
--
The following coaches' teams' average season-ending KenPom ranking over their 10-best of past-14 seasons (per KenPom) (regardless of where they coached during that time)(the lower data # the better):
1) Coach K: 3.9
2) Self: 5.4
3) Williams: 5.6
***********************4) Calipari: 6.3
5) Ryan: 8.0
6) Pitino: 9.2
7) Donovan: 9.5
8) Matta: 10.8
************************9) Izzo: 11.4
10) Boeheim:14.8
11) Few: 18.8
12) Wright: 20.5
13) Beilein: 32.6
--
Coach Cal's past-14, KenPom, final, overall rankings:
2015: 1
2014: 11
2013: 67
2012: 1
2011: 5
2010: 3 (Cal's 1st season @ Kentucky)
2009: 2 (Cal's last season @ Memphis)
2008: 2
2007: 9
2006: 5
2005: 46
2004: 31
2003: 24
2002: 38
Average ranking from above (#s above added, then divided by 14 data-points)
= 17.500 = Coach Cal's teams' avg, season-ending, KenPom ranking, past-14 seasons.
--
Izzo's past-14, KenPom, final, overall rankings:
2015: 15
2014: 9
2013: 9
2012: 3
2011: 46
2010: 21
2009: 6 (Runner-up)
2008: 17
2007: 18
2006: 32
2005: 4
2004: 30
2003: 12
2002: 34
Average ranking from above (#s above added, then divided by 14 data-points)
= 18.285 = Izzo's teams' avg, season-ending, KenPom ranking, past-14 seasons.
--
Response-Post, Part 2 of 3 (or 4):
A huge factor, imo, is this next-one:
Strength-Of-Schedule for both coaches, over 14 seasons:
KenPom SOS rankings for Coach Cal:
2015: 31
2014: 3
2013: 71
2012: 28
2011: 15
2010: 53 (Cal's 1st season @ Kentucky)
2009: 70 (Cal's last season @ Memphis)
2008: 67
2007: 109
2006: 85
2005: 91
2004: 63
2003: 86
2002: 101
Cal's average, strength-of-schedule ranking (873 total, divided by 14)
= 62.357
Cal's Results:
Top-5 schedules: 1 / 14
Top-10 schedules: 1
Top-15 schedules: 2
Top-20 schedules: 2
Top-25 schedules: 2
Top-30 schedules: 3
Top-40 schedules: 4 / 14
Top-50 schedules: 4
Top-60 schedules: 5
Top-70 schedules: 8
Top-80 schedules: 9 / 14
Top-90 schedules: 11
Top-100 schedules: 12
Top-110 schedules: 14 / 14
---
Izzo's KenPom SOS rankings:
2015: 5
2014: 6
2013: 1
2012: 2
2011: 1
2010: 21
2009: 2
2008: 25
2007: 25
2006: 21
2005: 37
2004: 14
2003: 10
2002: 21
Izzo's average, strength-of-schedule ranking (191 total, divided by 14)
= 13.642 (compared to 62.357 for CoachCal)
Izzo's results:
Best schedule in ncaa: 2 times / 14
Top-2 schedules in ncaa: 4 times
Top-5 schedules: 5
Top-10 schedules: 7
Top-15 schedules: 8
Top-20 schedules: 8
Top-25 schedules: 13
Top-30 schedules: 13
Top-40 schedules: 14 / 14
Izzo's 14-season SOS has been in the top-25 13 of 14 seasons, with the outlier season ranking 37th, whereas, Coach Cal's SOS has been ranked lower than 37th place (Izzo's worst season) 10 of 14 seasons. No way around it -- that's a huge discrepancy.
---
Coach Cal's and Izzo's NCAA Tournament, appearances and finishes comparison:
Cal:
2015: Final Four Semis
2014: Runner-Up
2013: *NIT first-round
2012: Champion
2011: Final Four Semis
2010: Elite Eight
2009: Sweet-16
2008: Runner-Up (vacated)
2007: Elite Eight
2006: Elite Eight
2005: *NIT semifinals
2004: 2nd Round
2003: 1st Round
2002: *NIT champions
Cal Summary:
NIT: 3 times (including NIT Champion)
NCAA 1st Round: 1
2nd Round: 1
Sweet-16: 1
Elite Eight: 3
Final Four Semis: 2
Runner-Up: 2,with one of those vacated
Champion: 1
Cal Regular-Season Conference Championships, past 14 seasons: 9, with one of those vacated =
3 at UK (in six seasons), plus 6 @ memphis (in eight seasons), with one of those vacated
--
Cal Conference Tourney Championships, past-14 seasons: 7, with one of those vacated =
3 at UK (in six seasons) and 4 at Memphis (in eight seasons), with one of those vacated
----
A huge factor, imo, is this next-one:
Strength-Of-Schedule for both coaches, over 14 seasons:
KenPom SOS rankings for Coach Cal:
2015: 31
2014: 3
2013: 71
2012: 28
2011: 15
2010: 53 (Cal's 1st season @ Kentucky)
2009: 70 (Cal's last season @ Memphis)
2008: 67
2007: 109
2006: 85
2005: 91
2004: 63
2003: 86
2002: 101
Cal's average, strength-of-schedule ranking (873 total, divided by 14)
= 62.357
Cal's Results:
Top-5 schedules: 1 / 14
Top-10 schedules: 1
Top-15 schedules: 2
Top-20 schedules: 2
Top-25 schedules: 2
Top-30 schedules: 3
Top-40 schedules: 4 / 14
Top-50 schedules: 4
Top-60 schedules: 5
Top-70 schedules: 8
Top-80 schedules: 9 / 14
Top-90 schedules: 11
Top-100 schedules: 12
Top-110 schedules: 14 / 14
---
Izzo's KenPom SOS rankings:
2015: 5
2014: 6
2013: 1
2012: 2
2011: 1
2010: 21
2009: 2
2008: 25
2007: 25
2006: 21
2005: 37
2004: 14
2003: 10
2002: 21
Izzo's average, strength-of-schedule ranking (191 total, divided by 14)
= 13.642 (compared to 62.357 for CoachCal)
Izzo's results:
Best schedule in ncaa: 2 times / 14
Top-2 schedules in ncaa: 4 times
Top-5 schedules: 5
Top-10 schedules: 7
Top-15 schedules: 8
Top-20 schedules: 8
Top-25 schedules: 13
Top-30 schedules: 13
Top-40 schedules: 14 / 14
Izzo's 14-season SOS has been in the top-25 13 of 14 seasons, with the outlier season ranking 37th, whereas, Coach Cal's SOS has been ranked lower than 37th place (Izzo's worst season) 10 of 14 seasons. No way around it -- that's a huge discrepancy.
---
Coach Cal's and Izzo's NCAA Tournament, appearances and finishes comparison:
Cal:
2015: Final Four Semis
2014: Runner-Up
2013: *NIT first-round
2012: Champion
2011: Final Four Semis
2010: Elite Eight
2009: Sweet-16
2008: Runner-Up (vacated)
2007: Elite Eight
2006: Elite Eight
2005: *NIT semifinals
2004: 2nd Round
2003: 1st Round
2002: *NIT champions
Cal Summary:
NIT: 3 times (including NIT Champion)
NCAA 1st Round: 1
2nd Round: 1
Sweet-16: 1
Elite Eight: 3
Final Four Semis: 2
Runner-Up: 2,with one of those vacated
Champion: 1
Cal Regular-Season Conference Championships, past 14 seasons: 9, with one of those vacated =
3 at UK (in six seasons), plus 6 @ memphis (in eight seasons), with one of those vacated
--
Cal Conference Tourney Championships, past-14 seasons: 7, with one of those vacated =
3 at UK (in six seasons) and 4 at Memphis (in eight seasons), with one of those vacated
----
Reponse-Post, Part 3 of 3 (or 4):
Izzo:
2015: Final Four Semis
2014: Elite Eight
2013: Sweet-16
2012: Sweet-16
2011: 1st Round
2010: Final Four Semis
2009: Runner-Up
2008: Sweet-16
2007: 2nd Round
2006: 1st Round
2005: Final Four Semis
2004: 1st Round
2003: Elite Eight
2002: 1st Round
Izzo Ncaa Tourney Summary:
NIT: 0
NCAA 1st Round: 4
2nd Round: 1
Sweet-16: 3
Elite Eight: 2
Final Four Semis: 3
Runner-Up: 1
Champion: 0 in past-14 seasons, yet won championship in the year 2000
--
NIT appearances: Cal 3; Izzo 0 (Izzo hasn't missed the NCAA tournament these past-14 seasons. In fact, he's been to the ncaa tourney 18 seasons, in-a-row. [He missed, and went to the NIT, his first-two seasons as a head-coach.] Yes, I totally understand that it's not about where you WERE, as a coach, but, rather, where you are NOW, however, it should be noted that Coach Cal has missed the ncaa tournament 7 of his 22 collegiate coaching seasons [compared to Izzo's missing 2 of his 20].)
--
Izzo Regular-Season Conference Championships, past-14 seasons: 3
Izzo Conference Tourney Championships, past-14 seasons: 2
Cal-Izzo talent-level comparisons (using Rivals, bc it's an easy-to-use website): (Ps, due to various transfers and de-commitments, this list may not be all-inclusive/totally accurate, however, it's very close to accurate and still easily gets the point across [the point of this post] -- for anyone who cares to dig deep enough to try to understand all these #s):
Calipari recruits' Rivals rankings (not including 2015 class, bc no season results & comparisons have been yielded):
Class of 2014:
5-stars: 3
4-stars: 1
2013:
5-stars: 6
4-stars: 0
2012:
5-stars: 3
4-stars: 1
2011:
5-stars: 4
4-stars: 0
2010:
5-stars: 4
4-stars: 2
2009 (Cal's very-own, first UK class):
5-stars: 4
4-stars: 2
2008 UK (2006-2008 = top players who Cal used at UK, during his first UK season, even though he didn't recruit them):
5-stars: 0
4-stars: 2
2008 Memphis (top players who Cal recruited & uses at Memphis, till end of 2009 season):
5-stars: 1
4-stars: 4
UK 2007:
5-stars: 1 (used in 09-10 season)
4-stars: 0
Memphis 2007:
5-stars: 1
4-stars: 1
UK 2006:
5-stars: 0
4-stars: 1 (used in 09-10 season)
Memphis 2006:
5-stars: 0
4-stars: 2
Memphis 2005:
5-stars: 1
4-stars: 4
Memphis 2004:
5-stars: 2
4-stars: 0
Memphis 2003:
5-stars: 1
4-stars: 1
Memphis 2002:
5-stars: 0
4-stars: 0
--
Mini-Total: Coach Cal's past-6 seasons' new recruits totals (but not 2015):
Rivals 5-stars: 24
Rivals 4-stars: 6
Past-6 seasons' combined 4&5-stars: 30
--
Total: Cal's 2002-2014 Memphis AND UK Rivals rankings totals:
5-stars: 31
4-stars: 21
Combined 4&5-stars: 52
--
Izzo's recruits' Rivals rankings:
2014:
5-stars: 0
4-stars: 1
2013:
5-stars: 0
4-stars: 0
2012:
5-stars: 1
4-stars: 2
2011:
5-stars: 1
4-stars: 1
2010:
5-stars: 1
4-stars: 1
2009:
5-stars: 0
4-stars: 2
2008:
5-stars: 1
4-stars: 1
2007:
5-stars: 0
4-stars: 3
2006:
5-stars: 0
4-stars: 2
2005:
5-stars: 0
4-stars: 0
2004:
5-stars: 1
4-stars: 1
2003:
5-stars: 1
4-stars: 1
2002 (2002 is as far back as Rivals goes):
5-stars: 1
4-stars: 0
Izzo's totals:
5-stars: 7
4-stars: 15
Combined 4&5-stars, 2002-2014: 22
--
So, over the past 14 seasons, Coach Cal has had approximately* 52 '4-OR-5-star players' at Memphis AND UK, and Izzo has had 22 (or two and-a-third times fewer) 4-OR-5-star players. Coach Cal has had 31 5-star players in 14 seasons, whereas Izzo's only had 7 5-star players (or four and-a-half times fewer).
In summary, compare:
*what both coaches have accomplished, overall, in the regular season, ncaa tournament, and conference tournaments;
*their huge talent discrepancy;
*their huge strength-of-schedule discrepancy
Again, I may weigh some of the factors differently than you, but some the answers of "Who's been the better coach?" are clearly evident/can't easily be argued.
Coach Cal's fairly good SOS has been greatly bolstered by his many deep tournament runs -- not by his non-con and regular-season schedules -- and, as well as Tubby scheduled during his final-six UK seasons, Izzo has actually scheduled equally well or slightly better (than Tubby), and for over twice as long.
Cal has sure recruited amazingly well and has achieved amazing, unparalleled success, but if Izzo, on the other hand, were to somehow get the #1 class, for multiple years in-a-row, then, the data show that his accomplishments would possibly be even better, maybe even much better (as difficult as that may be to comprehend).
Izzo:
2015: Final Four Semis
2014: Elite Eight
2013: Sweet-16
2012: Sweet-16
2011: 1st Round
2010: Final Four Semis
2009: Runner-Up
2008: Sweet-16
2007: 2nd Round
2006: 1st Round
2005: Final Four Semis
2004: 1st Round
2003: Elite Eight
2002: 1st Round
Izzo Ncaa Tourney Summary:
NIT: 0
NCAA 1st Round: 4
2nd Round: 1
Sweet-16: 3
Elite Eight: 2
Final Four Semis: 3
Runner-Up: 1
Champion: 0 in past-14 seasons, yet won championship in the year 2000
--
NIT appearances: Cal 3; Izzo 0 (Izzo hasn't missed the NCAA tournament these past-14 seasons. In fact, he's been to the ncaa tourney 18 seasons, in-a-row. [He missed, and went to the NIT, his first-two seasons as a head-coach.] Yes, I totally understand that it's not about where you WERE, as a coach, but, rather, where you are NOW, however, it should be noted that Coach Cal has missed the ncaa tournament 7 of his 22 collegiate coaching seasons [compared to Izzo's missing 2 of his 20].)
--
Izzo Regular-Season Conference Championships, past-14 seasons: 3
Izzo Conference Tourney Championships, past-14 seasons: 2
Cal-Izzo talent-level comparisons (using Rivals, bc it's an easy-to-use website): (Ps, due to various transfers and de-commitments, this list may not be all-inclusive/totally accurate, however, it's very close to accurate and still easily gets the point across [the point of this post] -- for anyone who cares to dig deep enough to try to understand all these #s):
Calipari recruits' Rivals rankings (not including 2015 class, bc no season results & comparisons have been yielded):
Class of 2014:
5-stars: 3
4-stars: 1
2013:
5-stars: 6
4-stars: 0
2012:
5-stars: 3
4-stars: 1
2011:
5-stars: 4
4-stars: 0
2010:
5-stars: 4
4-stars: 2
2009 (Cal's very-own, first UK class):
5-stars: 4
4-stars: 2
2008 UK (2006-2008 = top players who Cal used at UK, during his first UK season, even though he didn't recruit them):
5-stars: 0
4-stars: 2
2008 Memphis (top players who Cal recruited & uses at Memphis, till end of 2009 season):
5-stars: 1
4-stars: 4
UK 2007:
5-stars: 1 (used in 09-10 season)
4-stars: 0
Memphis 2007:
5-stars: 1
4-stars: 1
UK 2006:
5-stars: 0
4-stars: 1 (used in 09-10 season)
Memphis 2006:
5-stars: 0
4-stars: 2
Memphis 2005:
5-stars: 1
4-stars: 4
Memphis 2004:
5-stars: 2
4-stars: 0
Memphis 2003:
5-stars: 1
4-stars: 1
Memphis 2002:
5-stars: 0
4-stars: 0
--
Mini-Total: Coach Cal's past-6 seasons' new recruits totals (but not 2015):
Rivals 5-stars: 24
Rivals 4-stars: 6
Past-6 seasons' combined 4&5-stars: 30
--
Total: Cal's 2002-2014 Memphis AND UK Rivals rankings totals:
5-stars: 31
4-stars: 21
Combined 4&5-stars: 52
--
Izzo's recruits' Rivals rankings:
2014:
5-stars: 0
4-stars: 1
2013:
5-stars: 0
4-stars: 0
2012:
5-stars: 1
4-stars: 2
2011:
5-stars: 1
4-stars: 1
2010:
5-stars: 1
4-stars: 1
2009:
5-stars: 0
4-stars: 2
2008:
5-stars: 1
4-stars: 1
2007:
5-stars: 0
4-stars: 3
2006:
5-stars: 0
4-stars: 2
2005:
5-stars: 0
4-stars: 0
2004:
5-stars: 1
4-stars: 1
2003:
5-stars: 1
4-stars: 1
2002 (2002 is as far back as Rivals goes):
5-stars: 1
4-stars: 0
Izzo's totals:
5-stars: 7
4-stars: 15
Combined 4&5-stars, 2002-2014: 22
--
So, over the past 14 seasons, Coach Cal has had approximately* 52 '4-OR-5-star players' at Memphis AND UK, and Izzo has had 22 (or two and-a-third times fewer) 4-OR-5-star players. Coach Cal has had 31 5-star players in 14 seasons, whereas Izzo's only had 7 5-star players (or four and-a-half times fewer).
In summary, compare:
*what both coaches have accomplished, overall, in the regular season, ncaa tournament, and conference tournaments;
*their huge talent discrepancy;
*their huge strength-of-schedule discrepancy
Again, I may weigh some of the factors differently than you, but some the answers of "Who's been the better coach?" are clearly evident/can't easily be argued.
Coach Cal's fairly good SOS has been greatly bolstered by his many deep tournament runs -- not by his non-con and regular-season schedules -- and, as well as Tubby scheduled during his final-six UK seasons, Izzo has actually scheduled equally well or slightly better (than Tubby), and for over twice as long.
Cal has sure recruited amazingly well and has achieved amazing, unparalleled success, but if Izzo, on the other hand, were to somehow get the #1 class, for multiple years in-a-row, then, the data show that his accomplishments would possibly be even better, maybe even much better (as difficult as that may be to comprehend).
Last edited:
How the hell did you post a thesis paper worth of words in an ostensible attempt towards objectivity but still make the same mistake as simpleton Louisville fans do when comparing "number of five star players"?
Yes, Cal has surely had more talent than Izzo, but that argument exaggerates the point in an (at best) ignorant or (at worst) dishonest way.
it's embarrassing to put the coaches' total number of 4/5 stars over a certain span next to each other as if that means anything. In doing so, you're accounting only for the input of the system, which renders your entire last post essentially meaningless.
Imagine Coach A vs Coach B - Coach A gets exactly 4 times as many star players as Coach B over a given span. Does that mean that Coach A has four times as much talent on the court?
Well, to determine that, you have to look at context. Assuming Coach B has a full roster each season, there probably aren't enough spaces for all of Coach A's recruits at once - this is why we need to look at the output.
Say Coach B has a roster of all five stars - 3 freshmen, 3 sophs, 3 juniors, and 3 seniors. Only his seniors ever depart the program, and every off-season he lands 3 five-star recruits.
Coach A has a roster of all five stars, as well - all 12 are freshmen who leave after the season. Every off-season he lands 12 more five-star recruits.
Over the course of a decade, Coach A has literally landed 4 times as many star players as Coach B. But is it at all fair or reasonable to insinuate that he's had rosters with 4 times as much talent? Of course not. In this extreme example, Coach B has actually had better rosters, because he's got the same average star level and also upperclassmen.
So whether you intend to do so or not, with your raw comparison of number of 4/5 star players between the two programs, you make the quality of roster gap sound much wider than it actually is. The same is true when you compare Cal to any other coach in the country over the past 5 years. If you just go by sheer number of top-level recruits, you can make it look like Cal has had twice as much talent as Bill Self, for goodness sake. Does anybody believe that is the case? Of course not - you just take one look at the star average across the roster and you see that Self and Cal have both been absolutely loaded to the gills.
And yes, again, if you did the more honest "star average" comparison with Izzo and Cal, it would still be unmistakably evident that Cal has had more talent. But if you don't think that he could do serious damage with the likes of upperclassman Adrian Payne or Draymond Green, you are sorely mistaken.
Yes, Cal has surely had more talent than Izzo, but that argument exaggerates the point in an (at best) ignorant or (at worst) dishonest way.
it's embarrassing to put the coaches' total number of 4/5 stars over a certain span next to each other as if that means anything. In doing so, you're accounting only for the input of the system, which renders your entire last post essentially meaningless.
Imagine Coach A vs Coach B - Coach A gets exactly 4 times as many star players as Coach B over a given span. Does that mean that Coach A has four times as much talent on the court?
Well, to determine that, you have to look at context. Assuming Coach B has a full roster each season, there probably aren't enough spaces for all of Coach A's recruits at once - this is why we need to look at the output.
Say Coach B has a roster of all five stars - 3 freshmen, 3 sophs, 3 juniors, and 3 seniors. Only his seniors ever depart the program, and every off-season he lands 3 five-star recruits.
Coach A has a roster of all five stars, as well - all 12 are freshmen who leave after the season. Every off-season he lands 12 more five-star recruits.
Over the course of a decade, Coach A has literally landed 4 times as many star players as Coach B. But is it at all fair or reasonable to insinuate that he's had rosters with 4 times as much talent? Of course not. In this extreme example, Coach B has actually had better rosters, because he's got the same average star level and also upperclassmen.
So whether you intend to do so or not, with your raw comparison of number of 4/5 star players between the two programs, you make the quality of roster gap sound much wider than it actually is. The same is true when you compare Cal to any other coach in the country over the past 5 years. If you just go by sheer number of top-level recruits, you can make it look like Cal has had twice as much talent as Bill Self, for goodness sake. Does anybody believe that is the case? Of course not - you just take one look at the star average across the roster and you see that Self and Cal have both been absolutely loaded to the gills.
And yes, again, if you did the more honest "star average" comparison with Izzo and Cal, it would still be unmistakably evident that Cal has had more talent. But if you don't think that he could do serious damage with the likes of upperclassman Adrian Payne or Draymond Green, you are sorely mistaken.
Congrats on the longest post and screen name ever. I didn't make it through either
His post was very insightful and confirmed what I already knew. Tom Izzo is a superior coach over coach Cal. Read his post carefully and it's undeniable who the better coach is. You would have to be blind to not see Izzo > Cal. Izzo does way more with less and is a brilliant X's and O's coach. Take your blue colored glasses off and be honest with yourselves. The previous post regarding Izzo and Cal comparison was very detail oriented and clearly shows Izzo is the better coach of the two.
Caught ya. You've been pretending for so long to be some strange, possibly autistic UK fan who regards every thread as an invitation to long-form comparison and is unable to comprehend why people don't engage (putting aside the fact that most of these posts share that common thread of dishonesty sneakily shoved a couple thousand paragraphs back).
Thank you for finally sacking up and admitting to your trollishness. Still not sure whether you're a Jayhawk or something else.
You were getting a little cocky there, leaving a logical hole the size of an aircraft carrier right in the middle of that argument. Sloppy work, my friend.
As for that last guy, all full of confirmation bias and eating it all up - man, do you look silly.
Gotta wonder if he knows what "more with less" actually means. For starters, you have to do more. Nobody has ever done more than Cal has in their first 6 years at a new school, and Izzo's production hasn't been in the same universe. Since they've both been at big boy schools, Cal has done way, way more with more.
Could Izzo do more with the same talent? Maybe - you can make the argument, though that hypothetical won't help him reach a championship sooner than Cal (which was the original dispute).
You say "more with less". I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.
Izzo is one of those coaches that won't handle a bunch of highly rated kids like this in their freshman year. Give him 3 years with the same group and odds are he will have them in the final four. None of us KY fans think Izzo is a bad coach. We all know the man is one of the best in the game. With his style of play and mindset to recruiting, even with him being a great coach, he wouldn't last 5 years here at Kentucky before fans Wanting a change. It's great to make final fours, but if you know before the final four tips off you're always at a disadvantage talent wise as the other 3 schools in the final four, it would suck. I don't think Izzo is the man to Play for if you want to be great in just one year before heading to the NBA. His method of coaching kids up for years until they make a run, these kids will learn quickly they chose the wrong program to make their one year in college basketball special. When I say this, I'm talking about a possible Bridges and Jackson duo. Those other kids, they will developed just fine and are your typical Izzo type of talent that Know they have to put a few years in before the NBA. I think the comment about being the highest rated 4 star was a good one for a good laugh. May fans will obviously not agree, but if they end up with the hyped class they are depending on, don't be surprised when these highly rated kids are not looking like guys rated near the same under Cal. It's not as easy as Cal and K make it look.
Hmmm. Well, obviously u still don't understand what-the-hell I'm talking about, & what-the-hell the data means, yet think I don't know what-the-hell I'm talking about.
We're making lots of progress!...
...which makes me
a
very
sad
pan
da.
...
And, your whole "'output" theory rrroxxx, too; it's very relevant. :-D
❗️
It doesn't matter who is the better Xs and Os coach.. Cal has better results.. All the data you can come up with can't refute that.. In the end,, results are what counts.. Especially since about 2006.. 3 sweet 16s,, an elite eight,, 5 final fours,, a runner up and a championship for Cal.. To Izzos 7 sweet sixteens,, 3 final fours and a runner up..
This guy reminds me of Louisville fans.
'WE DON'T WANT ONE AND DONES WE DO IT THE RIGHT WAY AROUND HERE!1!"
Then they get one or two, and act like they're the greatest thing since sliced bread and run around to other teams' message boards and troll.
'WE DON'T WANT ONE AND DONES WE DO IT THE RIGHT WAY AROUND HERE!1!"
Then they get one or two, and act like they're the greatest thing since sliced bread and run around to other teams' message boards and troll.
Well the last 2 of his long posts can be looked at a few different ways. 1. that whole SOS thing...is a bunch of media garbage. The B10 every year is hyped up, have like 8 teams in the tourney and end up having 1 making the Elite 8 if they are lucky. The last few years the SEC probably hasn't appeared great in the regular season, but the funny thing is come tourney time the SEC has had more teams in the S16 than the B10...so I'm not so sure Izzo's SOS isn't inflated by the B10 hype.
2. Thing when you are comparing 5 star recruits, etc. Yes, it is great to have talent and your own coach has said what I'm about to say....getting those 5 star talents to join together and play like upperclassmen in a matter of months is special. Izzo has said that no one does that better than Cal. So Izzo's player stay for 4 years...we know that because he had a streak there where like every player he coached played in a final 4. If you have a team full of seniors and juniors and are a decent size program, then I would hope you have one of the better teams in the country. Anthony Davis was a phenomenal player, but even his freshman year there were some seniors who gave Davis all he wanted. So to act like having a team full of 3 and 4 star seniors isn't as good as having a team full of 5 star 18 year olds is just insane. Example even though we hate them is UL a few years ago...no great talent on that team, but they were older and had played together for years.
2. Thing when you are comparing 5 star recruits, etc. Yes, it is great to have talent and your own coach has said what I'm about to say....getting those 5 star talents to join together and play like upperclassmen in a matter of months is special. Izzo has said that no one does that better than Cal. So Izzo's player stay for 4 years...we know that because he had a streak there where like every player he coached played in a final 4. If you have a team full of seniors and juniors and are a decent size program, then I would hope you have one of the better teams in the country. Anthony Davis was a phenomenal player, but even his freshman year there were some seniors who gave Davis all he wanted. So to act like having a team full of 3 and 4 star seniors isn't as good as having a team full of 5 star 18 year olds is just insane. Example even though we hate them is UL a few years ago...no great talent on that team, but they were older and had played together for years.
As a MSU fan I have no idea where these MSU trolls are coming from posting all this shit. Usually we just sit around and bicker with each other on Spartan Tailgate. I think maybe a few of their moms got faster cable internet flowing to the family basement so they created like 5 accounts each on here and are having a field day.
Same source that told you Harrisons were going to Maryland?
We do not forget anything here you vagabond.
Not quite. Sweet 16 teams since 2010: Big Ten - 17 / SEC - 11
And lucky to get one Elite 8 team each year? There have been eight Big Ten Elite 8 teams in the last three years. The problem with the Big Ten is that no team ever brings home the championship.
I am not buying the prediction either. Izzo seems to never land the 1-and-done types. And his more recent Final Four teams always seem to missing that one super elite player who can will them to the championship.
