EVALUATING Big 12 Coaches

[jwg]

What criteria should be used in judging coaches. I believe they should be
Sweet 16's ,Elite 8's , Final 4's, National Championships, Conference championships, Conference tournament championships Other than Kansas coaches, I think there have been 5 quality teaches in the period between the Iba, Allen, Drake era and the present roughly 1970 to 2005

Hartman, Stewart , Tubbs, Samson, Sutton There records at K-state,Mo, OU, and Osu are

Hartman 6 4 0 0 3 2
Stewart 5 2 0 0 8 6
Tubbs 4 2 1 0 4 3
Samson 3 2 1 0 1 3
Sutton 6 3 2 0 2 3

As coaches Sutton and Hartman have extensive records at other schools and are not compiled.

Of contemporary coaches only Self has , as yet, a comparable record. Of the coaches listed I was suprized by Hartman's tournament record , and Stewart's conference record. The only coach affected by the absence of the tournament was Hartman.

In evaluating coaches especially current coaches another criteria might be NCAA tournaments or % of NCAA tournaments made,

 

[DenverSooner]

I am a bit old school but I think 20 wins and making the NCAA Tournament virtually every year is a sign of an above average coach. Not many can actually do this. Rather they tend to have a season here or there but not the consistency of being one of the better teams in the conference, even in down years. Sampson and Tubbs both did this. Sutton did it at OSU. Norm Stewart did it at Missouri. A&M has done this the last several years under two coaches. Syracuse's coach has done this (and ultimately won it all).

Guys like Self, Roy Williams, Coach K and a few others take it to another level.

 

[Big Old Booger]

I am a bit old school but I think 20 wins and making the NCAA Tournament virtually every year is a sign of an above average coach. Not many can actually do this. Rather they tend to have a season here or there but not the consistency of being one of the better teams in the conference, even in down years. Sampson and Tubbs both did this. Sutton did it at OSU. Norm Stewart did it at Missouri. A&M has done this the last several years under two coaches. Syracuse's coach has done this (and ultimately won it all).

Guys like Self, Roy Williams, Coach K and a few others take it to another level.

Johnny Orr at ISU did this, too. I think he was very underrated and had he been at a better school, he would have really won some big games. As it is, he made ISU into a basketball school.

 

[ByronHoustonsSweatyPalms]

20 wins and making the tourney is not much of a barometer of a coaches ability in todays world. Most can win 20 with little effort.

Ford scheduled 12 nonconference wins and most people on here thought he was "horrible". If he finishes 8-8 he'll have 20 wins before the conference tourney. Not as tough to when 20 as win Sutton and Billy were battling.

 

[jerry]

20 wins and making the tourney is not much of a barometer of a coaches ability in todays world. Most can win 20 with little effort.

Ford scheduled 12 nonconference wins and most people on here thought he was "horrible". If he finishes 8-8 he'll have 20 wins before the conference tourney. Not as tough to when 20 as win Sutton and Billy were battling.

All I know if we talk in the now: Capel and Pat Knight are the 2 worst in the Big 12

 

[bocabull]

I agree with this methodology.

 

[OUsky]

All I know if we talk in the now: Capel and Pat Knight are the 2 worst in the Big 12

I agree with this.

 

[DenverSooner]

20 wins and making the tourney is not much of a barometer of a coaches ability in todays world. Most can win 20 with little effort.

Ford scheduled 12 nonconference wins and most people on here thought he was "horrible". If he finishes 8-8 he'll have 20 wins before the conference tourney. Not as tough to when 20 as win Sutton and Billy were battling.

I said 20 and making the tournament. If you schedule weak, you are not going to consistantly make the tournament. Rather you are going to consistanly be a bubble team and make it half the time.

I completely disagree that it is not that hard to do this year in and year out. Who does it? Name 20 programs that do this consistantly over a 20 year period.

KU, Duke, North Carolina (but they are down two years in a row), Kentucky, Michigan State, Texas (about 10 or so years), OSU (but they had a small down period under Sean Sutton), OU (currently missing with Capel), Indiana, Syracuse, Connetticut and who else? It is not easy by any stretch of the imagination.

In the Big XII lets look at the schools that can't do it: ISU, KSU, CU, Nebraska, Baylor, A&M (they have been lately), and Tech. It takes a good coach to bring that type of consistancy to a program.

 

[campbest]

If you're consistently winning 20+ AND making the tourney, that's really impressive.

 

[oSuJeff97]

If you're consistently winning 20+ AND making the tourney, that's really impressive.

This. I don't think people really realize how hard it is to make the tournament on a year-in, year-out basis.

Consider - there are only 12 schools that have made the Tournament for at least 5 years in a row:

• Kansas (21)
• Duke (15)
• Michigan State (13)
• Gonzaga (12)
• Texas (12)
• Wisconsin (12)
• Pittsburgh (9)
• Villanova (6)
• Marquette (5)
• Tennessee (5)
• Texas A&M (5)
• Xavier (5)

And two of those schools have the advantage of dominating a relatively weak conference (Gonzaga and Xavier).

Missouri and OSU are the only other Big 12 that have a current streak of more than 1 year... they have both been 2 years in a row.

In fact, if you take out the Robert Morrises and East Tennessee States of the world (the teams that dominate the low-mid-major conferences) there are only 6 teams, other than the ones listed above, that have made the tournament for just three years in a row:

• BYU (4)
• Louisville (4)
• Purdue (4)
• Clemson (3)
• Temple (3)
• West Virginia (3)

 

[DenverSooner]

Additionally, five years is a short period of time. I bet the list of teams that has made the NCAA Tournament 15 times in the last 20 years is pretty short. If you go to 80% over the last 20 years both OU and OSU fall of the list. It is hard to consistently win.