Mark Few, who has the uncanny knack to consistently overachieve with his team in the NCAA's Seriously? Over the past eight seasons Gonzaga has averaged 26 wins and only made it to the Sweet 16 three times, and two of those were in Few's first two seasons. Those years (2000, 2001) were definitely over-achievements - advancing as a 10 seed and a 12 seed, respectively; but since then, I haven't seen any evidence of Gonzaga overachieving. In 2002, they lost in the first round as a 6 seed (underachieving). In 2003, they lost in the second round as a 9 seed (as expected). In 2004, they lost in the second round as a 2 seed (substantially underachieving). In 2005, they lost in the second round as a 3 seed (underachieving). In 2006, they lost in the Sweet 16 as a 3 seed (not disgraceful, but definitely not overachieving). And in 2007, they lost in the first round as a 10 seed (as expected). It seems to me that Mark Few's team hasn't overachieved in the NCAA tournament in some time. To rate him as a consistent overachiever is a mistake.
What on earth is this dude thinkin? 1 thing he should defianly have Bob Night on the list and another why is Roy Williams #2? Roy is a good coach dont get me wrong, but the reason unc has been so succesful is becuase they got mad depth and talent in their players. There second stringers could be the starting lineup for half the NCAA. Bob Night is still deserving to be on that list because hes got a small team that doesnt really pose a threat at first glance than you see Bob and things change. Wasnt for Bob Texas A&M wouldnt be squat.
First, it's Bob Knight; second, he works for Texas Tech, not Texas A & M.
Although Few's Bulldog squads have met with very limited success in the tournament I would think with a record of 211 and 52 he might have at least made the top ten of active coaches. He does quite a bit with athletes that aren't all blue chippers. And this year to win the admittidely weak WCC proves that he gets his kids to buy what he's selling. They just choke a bit. OK, maybe more than a bit.
Yup: SI, where "basketball" means "men's basketball". lbb, what's your beef with the article? And I swear, this is asked without an ounce of sarcasm - purely curiosity and clarification. Is that that the writer didn't specify "men's basketball" and made the article sound like he was talking about "all" of college basketball but proceeded to only include men's coaches? Or is it that you feel he is obligated to include women's team's coaches in this article? Regardless, I wish an article about the top women's coaches was done. Granted, the names at the top of the list are probably those that everyone knows, but seeing a number of lesser-known coaches detailed could possibly generate more attention for the entire sport amongst fans of all interest levels. I know I'd read such an article. As for the folks listed, I was surprised that Boeheim wasn't given a higher rank. And although the team is usually boring as hell, Bo Ryan should be getting some props. But, at least they were mentioned in the article and not totally snubbed. Man, I could've sworn a few years that Steve Alford would've been on a list like this - I whiffed on that one.
As for the folks listed, I was surprised that Boeheim wasn't given a higher rank. Me too. I'd take him over Calipari or Thad Matta any day of the week and eight hundred times on Sundays. And this is coming from a Georgetown fan.
Is that that the writer didn't specify "men's basketball" and made the article sound like he was talking about "all" of college basketball but proceeded to only include men's coaches? Or is it that you feel he is obligated to include women's team's coaches in this article? If it really was just about "basketball" -- if the author really had been considering coaches of both men's and women's teams -- do you honestly think Pat Summit would have been excluded?
If it really was just about "basketball" -- if the author really had been considering coaches of both men's and women's teams -- do you honestly think Pat Summit would have been excluded? I must not've posed my question to you properly. I absolutely don't think Summit would've been excluded if the author intended to consider both men's and women's teams. So, the question is, are you ticked because you feel he should have considered both sports within the same article - or because he had the oversight or arrogance to not say literally "top coaches of MEN'S basketball"? I was just curious, but it's probably immaterial. It goes back to my point that it'd be cool for someone to write an article about women's coaches. (but perhaps this guy doesn't feel qualified to do so - in which case, he's not obligated to include women's coaches in his article, but he should've made it clear at the beginning he was focusing solely on men's coaches).
I'd take him over Calipari or Thad Matta any day of the week and eight hundred times on Sundays. And this is coming from a Georgetown fan. As an OSU fan, I wanted to take exception to Matta being included in this. But ... while there's no doubt the guy can recruit and motivate as well or better than anyone, there were a few instances throughout the last half of the year that I questioned his mid-game strategies and adjustments. On the other hand, given his success at every school he's touched, you'd have to talk to me long and hard before convincing me that he doesn't deserve to be in this list (partially on the expectation that there's nothing to hint that he can't keep on this pace).
So, the question is, are you ticked because you feel he should have considered both sports within the same article - or because he had the oversight or arrogance to not say literally "top coaches of MEN'S basketball"? Oh, the latter, absolutely. I have no beef whatsoever with his choice of subject; it's how he labels it that I find problematic. Granted it's a common usage now, but these things can and do change if people are conscientious -- and those who are given a forum to express themselves in print are strongly positioned to change things in exactly this way.
Wonder why Pat Summit didn't make the list? Or Geno Auriemma? If we're past the omission of the word "Men's" it is possible to discuss the placement of those coaches you mention. It's tough to try to compare because those programs are in a class that is well above most other schools...something that is not as prevalent on the Men's side of the game. The top 4 listed can't be touched and are pretty tightly bunched. Plus, they all have individual strengths, Calhoun (1) - building players, Krzyzewski (2) and Williams (3) - consistency, Donovan (4) - recent success. Getting there, I'd place Summit (5) and Auriemma (6). Their championship success has to place them ahead of the other candidates.
Oh crap thanks The_Black_hand i wuz in a hurry and didnt take time to proof read and my appoligiez.
