Quote:
Originally posted by tomegun
This is something I always get blasted for; the great coach comment makes me cringe. Great recruiter, yes. Great coach, it depends on how many other coaches would be considered great coaches. To me, it doesn't take a great coach to win with great talent. Plus, great coaches win (it all) with great talent. I just have not seen anything from Duke that could make him any more great than Calhoun, Tubby Smith or Nolan Richardson. I mean, they both won it all when they had the talent.
|
So, it doesn't take a great coach to win with great talent. Okay. Here's a little fact-finding mission for you: Check out how often the most talented team wins the NCAA tournament. Almost never happens. Why? Because it's just damn hard, and statistically incredibly unlikely, to win six games in a row, five of which are going to be against decent-to-outstanding teams. No matter how good your coach is, the odds are stacked heavily against you.
Is Calhoun as good as Dean because each won two national championships? Does Dean's extended era of excellence not outweigh Calhoun's spotty greatness at UConn? There's a reason you get blasted when you make this argument. It's because your argument is garbage.
So, to recap, it doesn't matter that you haven't been consistently great. It doesn't matter that you can only make it to the promised land when you have all the horses. The only thing that matters is that when you've had them, you've won. Got it.
Mike Krzyzewski: 31 seasons, 10 Final Fours. 3 titles
Jim Calhoun: 34 seasons, 2 Final Fours. 2 titles
Beyond absurd.