Discussion in 'Colorado Basketball Message Board' started by Goose, Aug 2, 2012.
LOL, Montgomery at #1
That's just stupid.
Not worth worrying about Goose.
This strikes me as another one of those "purist" who thinks that nobody from CU or Utah deserve any recognition until they have been "part of the league" long enough to satisfy their sense of indignancy about having to deal with "change."
I have come to the conclusion that lots of people in the sportswriting business are at heart lazy as a turd on a lawn. They don't bother to do research outside of the cumpulosory look at a few easy to find numbers and instead prefer to just spout some crap of the top of their heads and hope for a reaction. (See Kizla, Reilly, etc.)
Add to that the writers personal biases and you end up with something not worth reading.
This guy is clearly a Cal lover despite this coach having a history of underachieving. Miller is hard to argue with based on prior history and his current recruiting. Howland has one of college basketballs legendary programs and done almost nothing with it, ask the UCLA fans if they think he is one of the top three coaches in the league.
Rant over. The piece is a piece, nuf said.
You never go full retard.
I agree with the top 6 and bottom 6 assuming they're in no particular order. It's a top-heavy league for sure with some great coaches in the first tier. Give Tad some time to develop a body of work as a coach at this level and his stock will rise. 4 of the guys above him have been to an Elite 8 and Altman took a team to the postseason 15 consecutive seasons with a couple of those being years in which his Creighton teams advanced to the 2nd round. Tad's the new kid in town in head coaching circles so give him time to get noticed. Meanwhile appreciate that Pac-12 basketball should also be on its way up in national attention soon as those bottom half coaches are dismissed and more prominent, talented men are called to replace them.
*cues the failhorn*
Guess we'll just have to win the Pac-12 again.
lol Athlon Sports. Frankly, I'm surprised they correctly identified all 12 Pac-12 coaches... :lol:
I can see Altman, Miller and Romar being ranked higher, but the biggest mistake is Howland. In fact if I was a Washington fan, I would be pissed at Romar being so low, they guy has been killing it at Washington.
I just scrolled down and clicked on "100 hottest Olympians of 2012" thanks for the link Goose.
Tad Boyle built up UNC from a Division II have not to a good Division I school that won the Big Sky crown the year after he left and now he has led CU to two very good seasons. Boyle clearly can coach...I wonder if Athlon got the message. I don't think I bought an Athlon mag this year and this only reinforces my disdain for Athlon.
Althon ranks Pac-12 Coaches
No way Boyle is #6....top 3 for sure
there is an echo in here
Mountain has a point. It seems that todays writers and on-air personalities throw half-added junk out to the public, and then wait for readers and listeners to do the research.
I don't like it, but I get it.....purely based on career W-L and the fact that compared to the others in the upper half he doesn't have big enough numbers on the left....YET!
Until he does, which he will, it is just more fuel for the fire.
I really hope they didn't use career records as a baseline because Tad's is very deceiving. No god damn way is he 6th.
"Note: Coaches are ranked on a mix of past accomplishments with consideration for career trajectory over the next five seasons or so. Rankings take Xs and Os acumen and recruiting prowess into account along with success in the regular season and postseason."
These kind of rankings tend to be very stupid as they don't take into account recruiting based on location. By that, I mean Howland gets great recruits to come to UCLA at least in part because he coaches at UCLA (and not necessarily because he's a great recruiter).
True. I could probably sign a Top 25 class at UCLA. Top 10 with the right assistants.
fify. 11 Natties goes a long way.
Pretty much just have to walk them through the trophy room at the end of the tour.
So far I would venture to say that Boyle is proving himself to be a Top 3 Pac coach easily. I'm not sure what his ceiling is but I'm glad he's at CU, he will do great things in Boulder. I know there will always be a lot of biases from writers.
Sean Miller can recruit, but I still haven't seen enough of him to see why he's so highly regarded. With regard to Cal? Coach might be good but they still don't have the results you would expect with a #1 coach rating.
As a Husky homer, I still haven't seen a coach I'd rather have than Romar at UW. I hope he's a lifer...
I could see Montgomery at #1 during his Stanford years. Not now.
Miller hasn't done much yet. An Elite 8 run and a #1 recruiting class are impressive, but is there ever an excuse to miss the Dance when you're at Zona?
With Howland, I have mad respect for 3 straight Final Fours and the job he did building Pitt into a national power inside a brutal Big East conference. But is there ever an excuse to miss the Dance 2 of the last 3 years when you're at UCLA?
With Romar, we're actually talking about one of my favorite coaches. But I'm starting to see a guy become a victim of his success. He's been just good enough to land an elite player every so often, but not so good that he can pick and choose. This has resulted in some years with amazing talent and bad team chemistry as he's allowed some prima donnas into his program. This is a lesson that Tad needs to take to heart. Better to have a roster of Cory Higgins types than take the same roster and throw a Tony Wroten into the mix.
I don't know the writer but it was an awesome article...well researched and and thought out. opcorn:
Here's another link to a coaching and development article I enjoyed. LINK. I'm quite sure if Boyle was at CU for longer he'd be near the top.
I do think Romar is somewhat a victim of his own success in that he took Washington (a perennial loser in men's basketball for the most part) and has made them a consistently solid team. Washington could win a national title and would still not pull in the recruits of UCLA or Arizona, although a national title would close the gap with Arizona somewhat. Without a title in the near future by others, UCLA and Arizona will always pull in better recruits than most in the Pac. There are Husky fans that want a new coach because Romar has not done more. The reality is he took a weak program and has turned them into a perennial Top 25 squad, and getting recruits to the Northwest is not an easy task for anyone. It would probably be hard for Calipari quite frankly. I don't see how any coach could be a better fit for UW. Romar is an upstanding guy who won't do the dirty little things that programs do to win titles. That's fine by me. His teams are usually fun to watch, and I don't think UW could ask for more with any basketball coach than what Romar has accomplished.
I would disagree with Romar letting many prima donnas into his program though. I really can't think of any off the top of my head. Wroten was a special situation growing up in Seattle, and he's a talent that no program would likely turn down. If there is a perception of Tony being a prima donna, it's probably because he was a true freshman and had unrealistic expectations placed on him, and he was counted on to be a leader at age 18. That's tough. UW lost Isaiah Thomas a year early to the NBA and Suggs should have been a senior guard to lead the team last year, until he went out with a season-ending injury in preseason (4/5 starters from the prior year were lost). That left the ball in Tony's hands, and his supporting cast was inexperienced during the rebuild last year. If Tony had come in with a Nate Robinson, Isaiah Thomas or Brandon Roy he would have been a better fit in his role.
And team chemistry for UW is usually quite good. Romar does not tolerate athletes who don't buy into his philosophies or team approach, and he won't recruit them. Last year was a very weird year, and it probably had more to do with team youth than anything. It was one of the worst "teams" I've seen Romar field. They didn't have an identity, and they couldn't defend, both usually hallmarks of a team under Romar. The only thing last year's UW team had was raw talent, and raw it was.
Sorry for the Romar rant. It makes me laugh when Romar (or Boyle for that matter) are rated so low. Both coaches seem to me to be outstanding and perfect fits at schools that are not traditionally great in basketball. Anyone can recruit to UCLA and Arizona. Great coaches can go to non-basketball schools and make them relevant and competitive.
If I had to pick one other Pac-12 coach to take the reigns at CU, it would be Romar, hands down. What he's done in turning Washington around and maintaining success there would certainly be most applicable to CU.
Separate names with a comma.