18 replies to this topic

[BSLChrisStoner]

The most accomplished basketball coaches of the last 30 years... How do you compare?

If you take K over Geno because Men's Basketball is harder to win in than the Women's game... do you have to take Pop or Phil over K?

[SportsGuy]

Why?  That's assuming its harder to win in the NBA.  Not sure I agree with that.

 

What Geno has done is remarkable but the talent just isn't that spread out in the women's game and that puts him a distant 4th in this conversation.

[You Play to Win the Game]

Geno isn't even in the conversation. If he is, you may as well put D2 football coaches and D1 Lacrosse and other sports in the debate as well. Let's be real here.

Anywho, I do think it's harder to win in the NBA given the cap and the fact that at the highest level the talent is spread more equally (relatively speaking). And there's no chance at having 6 great post season games and becoming the champion. In the NBA you have to win 28 games to win the title. That's after enduring an 82 game schedule in the regular season.

Give me Pop.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Check Phil vs Pop in the playoffs before you decide. Just sayin.

[BSLMikeLowe]

The common thread among all four of those coaches is that they had a wealth of elite talent (for the level they coached at) to work with. But if it came down to having all of them working equally with the best players in the world, I'd go with Pop. And, perhaps surprisingly, I might go with K over Phil.

[You Play to Win the Game]

Ehh... I'm not well versed enough to really have the Phil vs. Pop debate so I'll bow out on that. But the Geno thing annoys me to no end. Women's hoops just isn't remotely relevant. I don't give a shit what ESPN tries to tell me.

[bnickle]

Larry Brown

[bnickle]

No, I think Larry Brown is very good but let's get serious. Pop, K, and Phil are all up relatively equal. No doubt in my mind K would be a good NBA coach. I think Pop, in particular, would be a good college coach. Gun to my head it's Pop.

[Mike in STL]

If we are ranking them, I guess you go the pro coaches first then K. Just because the pro coaches have to win against the best talent on the planet. Then again, K coaches the Olympic team full of pros, so where does that fit in among Phil and Pop?

[BSLMikeLowe]

If we are ranking them, I guess you go the pro coaches first then K. Just because the pro coaches have to win against the best talent on the planet. Then again, K coaches the Olympic team full of pros, so where does that fit in among Phil and Pop?

 

 

The college vs pro level has reached the point where it is practically apples vs oranges, so measuring the best college coaches directly vs NBA is too difficult. But based on his work with Team USA, K is probably among the very, very few college coaches who could be that successful on both levels. Nickle mentioned Larry Brown, and while I wouldn't put him on a Mt Rushmore, I think he gets overlooked some because he's been such a vagabond.

[SportsGuy]

Mike and I were talking about this recently on our show and the idea stemmed from a similar conversation Mike and Mike were having.

You can mention the salary cap in the NBA but in college you have the NCAA and their horrible rules plus scholarship restrictions(which is basically a salary cap).

I don't think it matters that the NBA is a higher level. That doesn't mean it's harder to win. It's all relative.

I would say there is more pure coaching and teaching in college than in the NBA. In the NBA, there is more massaging egos, getting players to listen, etc...

I don't really know how you can determine who is better. I know Geno isn't on their level but the other 3 can be put in any order imo.

[Pedro Cerrano]

It's obnoxious when people cite Phil's talent on his teams. Pop had some serious talent too.

[SportsGuy]

It's obnoxious when people cite Phil's talent on his teams. Pop had some serious talent too.

Agreed. Great coaches have great players.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Phil was better than Pop head to head. So he wins there. It comes down to Phil vs K and they are pretty even IMO. Both are excellent at what they have to do to be successful at their respective levels (ego massaging vs instruction etc)

[BSLChrisStoner]

Mike and I were talking about this recently on our show and the idea stemmed from a similar conversation Mike and Mike were having.

You can mention the salary cap in the NBA but in college you have the NCAA and their horrible rules plus scholarship restrictions(which is basically a salary cap).

I don't think it matters that the NBA is a higher level. That doesn't mean it's harder to win. It's all relative.

I would say there is more pure coaching and teaching in college than in the NBA. In the NBA, there is more massaging egos, getting players to listen, etc...

I don't really know how you can determine who is better. I know Geno isn't on their level but the other 3 can be put in any order imo.

 

One devil's advocate point for Geno... If it doesn't matter that the NBA is a higher level, it doesn't matter that Men's CBB is higher then Women's CBB.

Then if you say that you say the deciding factor for K over Geno is that it's harder to win in Men's CBB... we get back to the previous point / question you posed... is it harder to win in the NBA over Men's CBB? 

 

With a salary cap, everyone relatively starts at the same point.

 

Operating with Duke's resources (even once factoring in their academic restrictions... realizing they have some leeway as a private institution which can adjust their own criteria) would be like an NBA team having extra cap room imo. 

 

I think the last line you had is the correct one. You can't really determine who is better. You know they are each the best of their respective games... but their challenges differ.

Would be cool to see what Geno would do with a Men's program, or what K would do in the NBA... or if Pop or Phil would build and have sustained success in college...

 

My sense is (not now due to their respective ages), but if they had those different challenges as younger guys... each would have made the necessary adjustments to be successful.... but who knows for sure?

[SportsGuy]

The debate for WCB makes sense because even though it's easier to win, the reason is because the talent only goes to a few schools.

So, it's not even competitive.

The UCONN won by an average of 40+ points a game this year.

If I kept changing 18-22 year olds and played against a bunch of 12 year olds every year and sustained that success for 20 years, that wouldn't make me a great coach.

That is essentially what Geno has done.

[Pedro Cerrano]

UConn is the Ky of WCB. Except in the women's game the difference in talent between the top and the rest is much much greater.

[BSLChrisStoner]

The debate for WCB makes sense because even though it's easier to win, the reason is because the talent only goes to a few schools.

So, it's not even competitive.

The UCONN won by an average of 40+ points a game this year.

If I kept changing 18-22 year olds and played against a bunch of 12 year olds every year and sustained that success for 20 years, that wouldn't make me a great coach.

That is essentially what Geno has done.

 

I do happen to agree.

 

Also, while I think he would adjust if he was in the Men's game... if he didn't, I wonder how his style would play.

 

If he took over a Men's Program today, would he have that instant level of respect he has now from every female youth basketball player in the country?

[BSLMikeLowe]

There is no one in the present day men's game that compares with UConn women. The closest thing in MBB to what they are was UCLA under Wooden.