That was my first gut reaction as well, but which number do you change out with K?
Yeah, I'd put him at 3 and maybe 1. The rest I'd leave the same. Then make a 6th category for biggest asshole and give him that one too.
Pretty much. If I had to rebuild a program, a small one or major school, he'd be my 1st pick.
Wait. What? I keep reading and hearing that Cal doesn't improve his players. They are all ready super talented (17-18 years old). And most other coaches would have won at least three NCAAT with so many great (future) pro players.
Based on their history, you're right about one and wrong about the other. From what he's done in Boston, it's probably fair to assume Stevens could coach very talented kids. There's nothing in Pitinos record to indicate he could. Every once in a while he gets a highly rated recruit - one - and invariably that kid rides the bench the first year or two, developing slowly and usually not achieving what was predicted. A team full of highly rated recruits? That team under Pitino would implode and have multiple transfers. Of course, he wouldn't get them to begin with.....
Both of you are wildly, wildly underestimating the luck factor involved in a single-elimination tournament.
Between what 2 teams, the Wizards and Celtics?
i cant help but think of peter dinklage saying what you txt lol
If Stevens had stayed at Butler, the level of talent he was going to coach wasn't going to be any huge step up from what he already had, especially in 2010. I think it's a huge mistake to just assume, because of what happened in 10 and 11, that it was going to continue to happen.
See many, many examples, because the most common hiring practice for big schools is to take someone who's been successful at a smaller place and assume that they will be able to accomplish the same things or more at a bigger place. The ones who actually can (Pitino and Cal being 2 great examples, Bill Self another. And all at blue blood programs) are pretty rare.
Weighing your criteria, the best coaches in college basketball are Calipari, Krzyzewski, Roy, Izzo, in 1 order or another. Mark Few gets honorable mention, I guess. I can't group Pitino with these guys, because Pitino is a reckless program manager and a poor influence on young men. There are serious reasons to wonder if Roy might get permanently damaged by what goes down with the NCAA's investigation of academic fraud at North Carolina. In that case, Roy would also have to be seriously downgraded as a program manager. Krzyzewski is nearing the end of a spectacular coaching career, whether or not people like him. Calipari and Izzo will continue to overachieve for the foreseeable future, and others will continue to emulate them.
Pitino is joke. A fraud. He has had plenty of talent and done nothing with it. At UL he has one legit final four in 17 years. You can't count the two years he cheated where his staff paid whores to screw recruits and players. 9 out of his 17 years at UL he has either not made the tournament, gone to the NIT or not made it out of the first weekend of the tournament. That sucks. At UK he arguably had the best team in 1993 and 1995 and no title. In 1997, he lost to a lower seed in the title game. I hope he stays at UL another 10 years. That guarantees two things- UK beats UL and UL does nothing in the NCAA tournament.
Probably correctly ranked although I have always thought X's and O's is so vague it's difficult to rank. All coaches in the top group can draw up X's and O's however most of the top coaches including Cal, coach K and Roy don't X and O the players to death they focus more on techniques. Their is more of a focus on isolating the defense knowing how to break them down. Actual plays aren't really used quite as much.
