Tom Izzo best coach

[tomdalton22]

1 ACC title and bounced from the tourney in the first round 3 times in the last 9 years.

2 titles in those 9 years. The other 7 were sub par by their standards.

Since Izzo has been at MSU

MSU

1 Title
1 runner up
7 final 4
9 elite 8
13 sweet 16

Duke

3 Titles
1 Runner up
5 final 4
7 elite 8
14 sweet 16

 

[Spartanmack]

This might be the dumbest thing I ever heard.

Apparently you don't read any of your own posts. How can you pass judgement on something you're too stupid to even understand?

 

[Spartanmack]

I certainly think that most people consider both Izzo and Coach K great coaches...but there is no doubt that Coach K is better. The 5 championships confirm this.

I don't think you can just say Coach K has 5 titles therefore he's a better coach. The talent level of his players probably accounts for a big chunk of that difference in tournament wins and titles. He gets exponentially better recruits - it's not even close. Coach K routinely gets classes as good or better than Izzo's best. I'm not saying that accounts for everything - if it was only about player talent, Calipari would win the title every other year - or that he's not a better coach. But, it's my opinion that if you could quantify the impact of the player talent differential, I bet they're very close - and guys like Calipari, Bill Self and even Roy Williams wouldn't be top 5, maybe not even top 10.

 

[dubbsco]

But you cannot fault Coach K and other programs for getting that talent. That part of the argument is lost on me. Recruiting is one of the biggest components of college basketball. And that is where Izzo has fallen relatively short lately.

More power to him for staying clean and not going for the one and dones, but if you want to beat the best teams you need to land several big fish.

Remember, Duke used to recruit those guys that would play through their junior and senior years. Coach K adjusted with the times and starting doing a little bit of what Kentucky is doing, and it has paid off for him.

 

[Spartanmack]

But you cannot fault Coach K and other programs for getting that talent. That part of the argument is lost on me. Recruiting is one of the biggest components of college basketball. And that is where Izzo has fallen relatively short lately.

More power to him for staying clean and not going for the one and dones, but if you want to beat the best teams you need to land several big fish.

Remember, Duke used to recruit those guys that would play through their junior and senior years. Coach K adjusted with the times and starting doing a little bit of what Kentucky is doing, and it has paid off for him.

no one is "faulting" him for getting great recruits. I'm clearly acknowledging that it's a big part of a coaches job and also acknowledging that Coack K, among others is better at recruiting than Izzo (although I doubt very much that all of them do it cleanly so it may be a stretch to say some of them are better recruiters). And Coach K has been recruiting one-and-dones before Calipari even got to Kentucky. He's been more of an leader/innovator than a follower/adapter in that regard.

My point in that post is that if you could do a "sum-of-the-parts" analysis of coaching (somehow objectively evaluate and quantify different aspect of the job) and then controlled for the player talent differential or other "General Manager" type skills, I bet Izzo and Coach K are very close in actual coaching skills.

 

[dubbsco]

I think Izzo is a master motivator. In terms of the pure Xs and Os, I'm not too sure. There were times throughout the regular season that some fans (not you guys specifically) were calling for Izzo to retire. It's probably damn near impossible to diagnose, but there is a heavy reliance on the outside shot, basically neck and neck with Michigan (which surprised me to see statistically). He's better at the intangible stuff of the game in terms of getting his guys to clean up the boards.

He always somehow finds that one guy to step up and carry a team in the postseason. This time around it was Trice.

 

[MSUMatt28]

The bottom line is recruiting is a part of coaching. We can argue whether Izzo does more with less than Coach K and if that means he is a better coach. But one might then argue whether Bo Ryan does more with even LESS than Izzo and whether he is in fact a better coach, and I don't think that's a question that people are prepared to answer.

Izzo's recruiting took a big hit the past couple of years because he went hard after those one and done types that Duke, UK, and Kansas are consistently landing and he lost, and it left him scramblling for whoever was left after that. He's probably better off getting those kids in the 20-50 range, like Kalin Lucas, Appling, and Payne were, mix in a few top 20 guys like Gary Harris and Dawson. I don't think it necessarily means you shy away from the top 5-10 one and dones, especially if you've got one in your back yard, but I tend to think that those players are more trouble than they're worth. Sure you gets the guys like Jabari Parker, or Anthony Davis, Okafor and some of the Kentucky kids who are worth it, but then you also might be dealing with a Cliff Alexander or Josh Selby or any number of kids to have gone to UCLA and/or Baylor, led their teams to the NCAA bubble and then left just as quickly before really accomplishing anything.

 

[dubbsco]

But it will be REALLY difficult to win a title without getting those guys. It's just such a different landscape today. I think Izzo did the right thing with going all out to land those top 5 guys.

I forgot what the stat was on the radio yesterday, but UCONN was basically one of the only teams that won a title without a top all-american player.

 

[MSUMatt28]

You need NBA talent to win a title, no doubt. But whether that talent is developed (like Michigan has done) or it comes off the shelf is irrelevant. NBA talent that is developed is more likely to be successful in college because it speaks to work ethic that it took for the player to get to that point (case in point, the tranformation of Stauskas from his freshman year to soph). Some one and done talents are great kids. Others act entitled and are just biding their time until the NBA draft and are not likely to contribute a ton to team success.

Let's look at the NCAA champions in the one and done era:

Duke - 3 one and done freshmen, but not the norm even for Duke.
UConn - Experienced team with a senior leading the way.
Louisville - Another experienced team with mostly Jrs and Srs in key roles (Siva, Smith, Dieng).
UK - Had Anthony Davis and MKG but also solid experienced guys after that.
UConn - Kemba Walker, a junior
Duke - An experienced group: Scheyer, Nolan Smith, Singler, Zoubek, etc.
UNC - Hansbrough, Lawson, Ellington, Greene. All Jrs. and Srs.
Kansas - One soph (Darrell Arthur), then 2 Jrs (Rush, Chalmers), 2 Srs.
Florida - Repeat champs, all Juniors
Florida - All sophomores, none were High School All America's.

I see basically 2 teams that were led primarily by one and done freshmen. This year's Duke and 2012 Kentucky.

 

[tomdalton22]

You need NBA talent to win a title, no doubt. But whether that talent is developed (like Michigan has done) or it comes off the shelf is irrelevant. NBA talent that is developed is more likely to be successful in college because it speaks to work ethic that it took for the player to get to that point (case in point, the tranformation of Stauskas from his freshman year to soph). Some one and done talents are great kids. Others act entitled and are just biding their time until the NBA draft and are not likely to contribute a ton to team success.

Let's look at the NCAA champions in the one and done era:

Duke - 3 one and done freshmen, but not the norm even for Duke.
UConn - Experienced team with a senior leading the way.
Louisville - Another experienced team with mostly Jrs and Srs in key roles (Siva, Smith, Dieng).
UK - Had Anthony Davis and MKG but also solid experienced guys after that.
UConn - Kemba Walker, a junior
Duke - An experienced group: Scheyer, Nolan Smith, Singler, Zoubek, etc.
UNC - Hansbrough, Lawson, Ellington, Greene. All Jrs. and Srs.
Kansas - One soph (Darrell Arthur), then 2 Jrs (Rush, Chalmers), 2 Srs.
Florida - Repeat champs, all Juniors
Florida - All sophomores, none were High School All America's.

I see basically 2 teams that were led primarily by one and done freshmen. This year's Duke and 2012 Kentucky.

You are going to have a hard time finding classes that are led primarily by one and done freshmen. Honestly, there just aren't that many of them. 2014 only 11 freshmen were drafted, 8 in 2013, 9 in 2012

 

[Spartanmack]

The bottom line is recruiting is a part of coaching. We can argue whether Izzo does more with less than Coach K and if that means he is a better coach. But one might then argue whether Bo Ryan does more with even LESS than Izzo and whether he is in fact a better coach, and I don't think that's a question that people are prepared to answer.

Izzo's recruiting took a big hit the past couple of years because he went hard after those one and done types that Duke, UK, and Kansas are consistently landing and he lost, and it left him scramblling for whoever was left after that. He's probably better off getting those kids in the 20-50 range, like Kalin Lucas, Appling, and Payne were, mix in a few top 20 guys like Gary Harris and Dawson. I don't think it necessarily means you shy away from the top 5-10 one and dones, especially if you've got one in your back yard, but I tend to think that those players are more trouble than they're worth. Sure you gets the guys like Jabari Parker, or Anthony Davis, Okafor and some of the Kentucky kids who are worth it, but then you also might be dealing with a Cliff Alexander or Josh Selby or any number of kids to have gone to UCLA and/or Baylor, led their teams to the NCAA bubble and then left just as quickly before really accomplishing anything.

The thread started w/ a study that just rates coaches tournament performances. So what's the harm in parsing it a little further? The whole argument based on just about any criteria is conjecture. There is no way accurately quantify/rank any of this unless you just focus on very narrow criteria. People make legitimate arguments for/against a particular coach and why they are or not in their top 5. Making a legitimate point about one coach doesn't invalidate anything about another. I'm not saying that recruiting should be taken out of the equation - it's a huge part of the job. I just think there's more to it than wins, losses and championships or there's more than x's and o's behind those wins, losses and championships - if Izzo and MSU had the cache that K and dook have or conversely, if coach K was consistently coaching players equal to what Izzo does, I don't think the title count would be 5 to 1 in K's favor.

 

[Spartanmack]

But it will be REALLY difficult to win a title without getting those guys. It's just such a different landscape today. I think Izzo did the right thing with going all out to land those top 5 guys.

I forgot what the stat was on the radio yesterday, but UCONN was basically one of the only teams that won a title without a top all-american player.

I read somewhere (probably a thread here for all I know) that no one has ever won a championship without at least 1 McDonald's All American on the roster.

 

[dubbsco]

That is what I may have heard on the radio.

 

[tomdalton22]

I just think there's more to it than wins, losses and championships.

I think that is all it is about...wins, loses and championships.

 

[Spartanmack]

I think that is all it is about...wins, loses and championships.

Not according to the study posted by the OP that has coach K ranked as the 20th best tournament coach, which I've been saying all along, is ridiculous. Obviously wins and championships are what everyone is trying to maximize but when you compare coaches, trying to do it on a more "apples to apples" basis or isolating different aspects of the job isn't an unreasonable exercise and makes for an interesting conversation.

 

[tomdalton22]

Not according to the study posted by the OP. Obviously wins and championships are what everyone is trying to maximize but when you compare coaches, trying to do it on a more "apples to apples" basis isn't an unreasonable exercise and makes for an interesting conversation.

but what do fans want? They want a coach that wins.

 

[Spartanmack]

but what do fans want? They want a coach that wins.

of course they do and they want players that win too. Every coach that ever gets mentioned in any top 5 list is a proven winner.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Apparently you don't read any of your own posts. How can you pass judgement on something you're too stupid to even understand?

Sorry but yours is still tops..

 

[Spartanmack]

Sorry but yours is still tops..

Ooh zing. You got me there. Some of your best trolling yet. Come on kid, we both know you don't understand it and you probably don't even know where I stand on the issue. But nobody expects much from Grand Valley State's best and brightest so how about you just go back to your shift doing inside sales for Enterprise Rent a Car or State Farm, or CDW or whatever.

 

[tomdalton22]

But nobody expects much from Grand Valley State's best and brightest so how about you just go back to your shift doing inside sales for Enterprise Rent a Car or State Farm, or CDW or whatever.

This sounds like it could be coming from one of those arrogant UM grads that looks down their nose at anybody that didn't graduate from that fine institution.

People should not judge someone else based on their education level or where they went to school. My cousin went to MIT. She is literally a rocket scientist. However, she has no common sense and no people skills. My step father was one of 15 kids. He grew up in CA and had to drop out of school before the 8th grade so he could work and help support the family. He never went to high school. However, he created a fake HS diploma and somehow got into Cal Poly. He graduated with a mechanical engineering degree. My uncle went to university of Toledo...not your most prestigious school. He may be the smartest person I know but my grandparents couldn't afford to send him anywhere else. He got a chemical engineering degree and went on to be an executive at Ford. He is now worth millions. My father in law went to MSU and is an accountant. Another millionaire. I know doctors that went to OSU and sales reps that aren't really very successful that went to UM.

Some of the best and brightest go to, or went to, "shitty" institutions. Some true morons have diplomas from UM and other "prestigious" universities. I just get tired of the "I went to school X so I am superior to you" shit.

OK...rant over.