Top 5 coaches

[SoonerNorm]

We recently talked about whether or not Gary Blair is a top 5 coach. I thought it would be fun to see who everyone would put in the top 5 of active coaches, which would eliminate Pat.

Here are my 5:

1. Geno
2. Kim
3. Tara
4. Gary Blair
5. Muffet McGraw

Which coaches make your top 5?

 

[Oliver Hardy]

That would be my five.

 

[sybarite]

1. Geno
1a. Muffet McGraw
3. Sherri Coale
4. Jeff Walz
5. Brenda Frese

6. Gary Blair
7. Tara--won too many recruiting battles, but not enough games outside the Pac Twelve. I think any of the other top coaches would have done much better with her material.

Kim is on permanent probation.

 

[True Colors]

1. Geno
1a. Muffet McGraw
3. Sherri Coale
4. Jeff Walz
5. Brenda Frese

6. Gary Blair
7. Tara--won too many recruiting battles, but not enough games outside the Pac Twelve. I think any of the other top coaches would have done much better with her material.

Kim is on permanent probation.

So Tara Vandaveer has not won enough outside of conference to be a top 5 coach?

Funny, because I have heard people say the exact same thing about Sherrie Coale.

Sybarite, since you consider Coale to be a superior coach to Vandaveer, then perhaps you could provide us with a list of all of the things that Coale has been able to accomplish outside of the Big 12 that Vandaveer has been unable to accomplish outside of the Pac 12.

TC

 

[aardvarkdos]

We recently talked about whether or not Gary Blair is a top 5 coach. I thought it would be fun to see who everyone would put in the top 5 of active coaches, which would eliminate Pat.

Here are my 5:

1. Geno
2. Kim
3. Tara
4. Gary Blair
5. Muffet McGraw

Which coaches make your top 5?

Very interesting topic. I wonder if you could be more specific as to the criteria you used to generate this list. I see that each coach has won at least one natty and that they have been at the helm of successful programs over the last five years or so. Is that the criteria?

There are number of attributes that might be used:

1. Winning percentage. But some teams load up on patsies, so perhaps conference winning percentage would be better.
2. NCAA tournament winning percentage.
3. Number of sweet sixteens, elite 8s and final 4s; perhaps as a percentage of years participating in the tournament.
4. Conference coach of the year awards.
5. National Coach of the Year awards.
6. USA national and Olympic team head coaching experience.
7. Sustainability -- can any coach be in this group with less than 10 or 15 years of head coaching experience?
8. Number on players drafted by the WNBA
9. Community relations
10 Academic achievement.
11. What's the relevant time frame. Does anything accomplished prior to 2000 really count?

How would you weight the various attributes? Note that I have not mentioned recruiting, xs & os, team chemistry, in-game adjustment, etc. separately, since I feel they are captured by other factors such as winning percentage.

 

[SoonerNorm]

Very interesting topic. I wonder if you could be more specific as to the criteria you used to generate this list. I see that each coach has won at least one natty and that they have been at the helm of successful programs over the last five years or so. Is that the criteria?

There are number of attributes that might be used:

1. Winning percentage. But some teams load up on patsies, so perhaps conference winning percentage would be better.
2. NCAA tournament winning percentage.
3. Number of sweet sixteens, elite 8s and final 4s; perhaps as a percentage of years participating in the tournament.
4. Conference coach of the year awards.
5. National Coach of the Year awards.
6. USA national and Olympic team head coaching experience.
7. Sustainability -- can any coach be in this group with less than 10 or 15 years of head coaching experience?
8. Number on players drafted by the WNBA
9. Community relations
10 Academic achievement.
11. What's the relevant time frame. Does anything accomplished prior to 2000 really count?

How would you weight the various attributes? Note that I have not mentioned recruiting, xs & os, team chemistry, in-game adjustment, etc. separately, since I feel they are captured by other factors such as winning percentage.

Great question! When I picked my top 5 coaches, I did take many of the things you suggested into consideration. But, I would like for each one to choose what is most important to them in making their selections. I will say that I believe that national championships are a significant part of the criteria and I may put more emphasis on that than others do simply because I believe that should be the goal of every top coach in the country each year.

 

[aardvarkdos]

Great question! When I picked my top 5 coaches, I did take many of the things you suggested into consideration. But, I would like for each one to choose what is most important to them in making their selections. I will say that I believe that national championships are a significant part of the criteria and I may put more emphasis on that than others do simply because I believe that should be the goal of every top coach in the country each year.

Fair enough But, in order for this to be anything other than a popularity contest, you must substitute facts for impressions in ranking the coaches. Let me put out a straw man and then you can let me know how you would make modifications.

First, you seriously limit the field with the natty requirement. I believe only 7 active coaches have won a natty and I believe 3 of those were prior to 2000. Let's say that a natty, whenever won, is worth a weighting of 15%.

Then, lets say that a coach needs to have 10 years of head coaching experience to be considered.

I would give conference winning percentage over the last ten seasons a weight of 30%.

I would give NCAA winning percentage over the last 10 years a weight of 30%.

Conference Coach of the Year awards, whenever achieved, would have a weight of 5%.

National Coach of the Year awards, whenever achieved, would have a weight of 10%.

Number of WNBA players drafted over the prior 10 years would have a 10% weight.

What modifications would you make? Perhaps we could also get a consensus of what other posters believe are most important.

 

[SoonerNorm]

Fair enough But, in order for this to be anything other than a popularity contest, you must substitute facts for impressions in ranking the coaches. Let me put out a straw man and then you can let me know how you would make modifications.

First, you seriously limit the field with the natty requirement. I believe only 7 active coaches have won a natty and I believe 3 of those were prior to 2000. Let's say that a natty, whenever won, is worth a weighting of 15%.

Then, lets say that a coach needs to have 10 years of head coaching experience to be considered.

I would give conference winning percentage over the last ten seasons a weight of 30%.

I would give NCAA winning percentage over the last 10 years a weight of 30%.

Conference Coach of the Year awards, whenever achieved, would have a weight of 5%.

National Coach of the Year awards, whenever achieved, would have a weight of 10%.

Number of WNBA players drafted over the prior 10 years would have a 10% weight.

What modifications would you make? Perhaps we could also get a consensus of what other posters believe are most important.

Interesting! Just thinking out loud, I might suggest that the winning percentage in the NCAA tourney is more important than just NCAAs or conference wins. I say that because some conferences are tougher than others and some teams play an easier non-conference than other teams do.

Other than that, I would say the rest looks good.

 

[rocjunkie]

My picks

1. Geno
2. Tara
3. Muffet
4. Gary Blair
5. Andy Landers

Like Syb, Kim is on permanent probation. Sherri would be close on my list. 6th or 7th.

 

[Gator]

5. Andy Landers

I like everything I know about Landers - I just don't really pay enough attention to teams not in our conference to be a good judge of the top 5 besides putting Geno, Kim and McGraw up there. Frankly, I just can not put Tara up there too but that is because I don't like much about her - grin. When I read her book it was a turn off for me.

 

[SoonerNorm]

I like everything I know about Landers - I just don't really pay enough attention to teams not in our conference to be a good judge of the top 5 besides putting Geno, Kim and McGraw up there. Frankly, I just can not put Tara up there too but that is because I don't like much about her - grin. When I read her book it was a turn off for me.

I'm not a fan of Tara either but I think she has won 3 national championships which caused me to put her on the list, much to my chagrin.

 

[mystery32]

Geno
C VIV
kim
Tara
Sherri

 

[35TangoTango]

With Pat's retirement, Geno stands alone at the top.

Tara has to be next, then I think Muffet.

Gary is the flavor of the moment, just as Brenda Freese was several years ago. Will he be around longer? We don't know.

Kim could be added if you ignore cheating.

Andy Landers seems to me to be in the next level down; a consistent winner that can't quite get to that very top level - just like our own coach.

 

[rocjunkie]

I picked Andy Landers for two reasons.

First I had to take in to consideration 5-final fours (2-runner-up finishes), 7 SEC championships, 4 SEC tournament championships, 3 time SEC coach of the year, 4 time NCAA coach of the year, 789-246 won loss record (76.2%), and granted admission to the Women's College Hall of Fame in 2007.

Second, his name is not Kim Mulkey. Granted he doesn't have a National Title, but his accomplishments are outstanding and runs one of the cleanest programs in the country. Just a slight notch ahead of Sherri in my book.

 

[gosooner2]

It will be interesting to see how many of these coaches have a basketball camp next year!

 

[rocjunkie]

It will be interesting to see how many of these coaches have a basketball camp next year!

I agree, I will especially be looking at the Big XII during the spring semester to see if they are advertising on their women's pages about their camps. I would be willing to bet everyone except us and maybe West Virginia will be offering their camps.

 

[sybarite]

I like Landers' history, but I was thinking a bit more of who I think is most effective right now, at this moment. Right now, I think Muffet may have caught Geno. The past couple of years suggest that they are an even match right now. I think Sherri has done more with less than about anyone.

Then, there comes the decisions of who is really doing well right now. It seems to me that Louisville has made a statement. Jeff Walz seems to have built something there. They are, at least, competitive with Notre Dame and UConn. Their recruiting seems to be doing well.

I have always thought that Brenda performed over her head in winning the title. I thought we were the best team, only to fall to the miracle of the sky hook night of her life Smith. She has kept that team pretty solid.

Kentucky seems to be another team that is on the rise, as is St. Johns. We may see more of Georgetown and Miami. These are some pretty good coaches who are building the teams of tomorrow. I just think Walz is there now.

I'm not sure Tara can beat anyone in the top twenty unless she is in Palo Alto. She and Gonzaga seem to get some VERY favorable draws to get them into the Sweet Sixteen. I just don't see them as that good any more, at least not away from home. Are they in the past? With all that California talent, you would think there would be more west coast teams. Instead, the trend seems to be to the east and midlands.

 

[SoonerNorm]

If you say Sherri has done more with less, that means she does not recruit on the level with other top coaches. Since recruiting is the most important part of developing a championship team, does that not affect her ranking?

I cannot leave off Kim from one of the greats anymore than I could leave off Switzer as one of the great college football coaches.

 

[35TangoTango]

I cannot leave off Kim from one of the greats anymore than I could leave off Switzer as one of the great college football coaches.

But you well know that a lot of people around the country do omit Switzer from a list of the greats for just the same reason some of us are omitting Kim.

 

[SoonerNorm]

But you well know that a lot of people around the country do omit Switzer from a list of the greats for just the same reason some of us are omitting Kim.

If true, is that because of probation or jealousy because he won so much?