SportsCenter discussion on greatest coaches ever....

[vtinct]

I'm going to be preaching to choir here but I needed to vent a little and am interested in others opinion...

In light of Popovich's 1000 win last night, they were the discussing greatest coaches ever in every sport on ESPN. The list included Pop, Belicheck, Geno, Nick Saban and Coach K. Now, it's obviously an honor for Geno to be included on the list but it's also just plainly obvious that Geno should be included on the list. Of the panel of four, not one choose Geno as the greatest ever. This didn't surprise me and when they did discuss him, they said the level of competition just didn't compare to the level of other leagues. True.
However, what I think they fail to recognize and what I think so many people who ask this question fail to recognize is that the level of competition is only small factor in what Geno has done. The fact that these "experts" rarely recognize how he has built the program from scratch, how he has masterfully crafted player after player to perform at their ultimate level, how he constantly demands the highest level of play, how he is the king at preparing and playing in large games i.e. last night (and I could continue) seems to be lost on so many. And yes, in a world where women's sports is still considered a joke to many, it can be a fine line for the folks at ESPN to highly regard a women's program on a show dominated by male viewership but It would be nice if the mastermind that is Geno Auriemma was more vocally recognized by those who discuss sports on a national scale. Although I'm sure Geno doesn't give a hoot either way.

 

[EricLA]

It's a mantra that people will be singing for as long as they keep track of records. I would say that Pat's record is subject to the same problems as Geno's. When her teams were at their peaks, there were very few teams who could beat them, even in their own league. I could argue this till I'm blue in the face but people who have their minds made up will never be swayed. By they way, a year or 2 back I looked up UCONN's SOS over the past 15 years and it was a top 10 SOS literally every year, often times in the top 5. So the whole "easy schedule" line is a load of crap, but it gets whined about often enough that by sheer volume, some buy into it.

So I'll point to 1 other statistic. In 1 vs. 2 games, Geno is 17-3. That is a .850 winning percentage, and guess what? His all time wining % is about .870. Hmm. Given the plethora of teams he's played in the top 10, and top 25 over the years, it's unfair and flat out wrong to say his % is so high because the schedule was easy. If the schedule were easy, it's only because UCONN is just so much better than everyone else all the time. Heck, they have the most undefeated seasons in the history of the game. I think there were a few tough teams in there.

 

[Shenandoah]

It has been an honor and a pleasure watching this program grow through the years. In Geno's first year at UConn, I was a student there, studying Sports Medicine/Athletic Training. We had to take various "Sports Technique" courses. I took basketball as one of my electives, and it was taught by a little Italian guy, new to campus. We had to go to one of their games at the Field House, and write a paper on our observations as part of our grade. Even back then, one could tell that he "got it"...

 

[Striper69]

I'm going to be preaching to choir here but I needed to vent a little and am interested in others opinion...

In light of Popovich's 1000 win last night, they were the discussing greatest coaches ever in every sport on ESPN. The list included Pop, Belicheck, Geno, Nick Saban and Coach K. Now, it's obviously an honor for Geno to be included on the list but it's also just plainly obvious that Geno should be included on the list. Of the panel of four, not one choose Geno as the greatest ever. This didn't surprise me and when they did discuss him, they said the level of competition just didn't compare to the level of other leagues. True.
However, what I think they fail to recognize and what I think so many people who ask this question fail to recognize is that the level of competition is only small factor in what Geno has done. The fact that these "experts" rarely recognize how he has built the program from scratch, how he has masterfully crafted player after player to perform at their ultimate level, how he constantly demands the highest level of play, how he is the king at preparing and playing in large games i.e. last night (and I could continue) seems to be lost on so many. And yes, in a world where women's sports is still considered a joke to many, it can be a fine line for the folks at ESPN to highly regard a women's program on a show dominated by male viewership but It would be nice if the mastermind that is Geno Auriemma was more vocally recognized by those who discuss sports on a national scale. Although I'm sure Geno doesn't give a hoot either way.

They don't give Geno/UCONN/WBB nearly enough credit. Those other coaches probably couldn't do what he did TBH. IMO he has a niche in sports that no other can fill now that Pat Summit is retired.
There was a magazine on the stands this Fall listing the greatest dynasties in sports. UCONN wasn't included. UCONN and Geno belong with the Celts, Wooden and whomever else you care to put up there.
ESPN's PTI mentioned last night's game at the end of the show for about ten seconds, if that.

 

[vtinct]

My main issue is that people refuse to acknowledge the greatness of Geno and UConn because it's not as competitive, quick, exciting or whatever as men's sports. But comparing the two is like comparing Mercedes to BMW's. They're both great cars and both have features and qualities that should be appreciated for what they are. And for people to refuse to recognize or downplay what he has done because he coaches a women's sport is ridiculous.

 

[Huskies Rule]

My main issue is that people refuse to acknowledge the greatness of Geno and UConn because it's not as competitive, quick, exciting or whatever as men's sports. But comparing the two is like comparing Mercedes to BMW's. They're both great cars and both have features and qualities that should be appreciated for what they are. And for people to refuse to recognize or downplay what he has done because he coaches a women's sport is ridiculous.

Well said, V. The explanation is really quite simple, pick one- gender bias, gender discrimination, sexism, male chauvinism. All reflections of IGNORANCE.

 

[rocky rococo]

I find it rather telling that these panelists propose to discuss the "greatest coaches ever' and then promptly proceed to exclude names like Wooden, Auerbach, Lombardi and Landry. Their myopia of Geno as a coach in women's sports is matched by their dismissal or ignorance of pre-cable coaches. Their frame of reference is one narrowly shaped by their medium.

 

[Husky25]

I find it rather telling that these panelists propose to discuss the "greatest coaches ever' and then promptly proceed to exclude names like Wooden, Auerbach, Lombardi and Landry. Their myopia of Geno as a coach in women's sports is matched by their dismissal or ignorance of pre-cable coaches. Their frame of reference is one narrowly shaped by their medium.

They were talking about active coaches (at least on Mike & Like). By virtue of passing on, Wooden, Auerbach, Lombardi, and Landry are most decidedly not active and not eligible for the discussion.

 

[rocky rococo]

Ah, I didn't know that from this discussion, thank you!

 

[Jeff H]

Lot's of coaches are left off because of ignorance. Anson Dorrance (UNC women's soccer) has a 719-39-24 record and 20 national championships. Basically he's the Geno of women's college soccer. Probably most of those "panelists" never heard of him. On a side note, after years of unbelievable dominance by UNC there is now reasonable parity among the top 8-10 programs. Maybe someday we'll see that in women's basketball, although I'm perfectly comfortable with UCONN dominating as long as possible.

 

[triaddukefan]

My main issue is that people refuse to acknowledge the greatness of Geno and UConn because it's not as competitive, quick, exciting or whatever as men's sports. But comparing the two is like comparing Mercedes to BMW's. They're both great cars and both have features and qualities that should be appreciated for what they are. And for people to refuse to recognize or downplay what he has done because he coaches a women's sport is ridiculous.

Im sure if the Mercedes vs a BMW comparison is the best.

 

[vtinct]

Im sure if the Mercedes vs a BMW comparison is the best.

I think you meant to say that you aren't sure it's the best comparison?
Maybe it's not but I think one can infer my point.

 

[CL82]

They don't give Geno/UCONN/WBB nearly enough credit. Those other coaches probably couldn't do what he did TBH. IMO he has a niche in sports that no other can fill now that Pat Summit is retired.
There was a magazine on the stands this Fall listing the greatest dynasties in sports. UCONN wasn't included. UCONN and Geno belong with the Celts, Wooden and whomever else you care to put up there.
ESPN's PTI mentioned last night's game at the end of the show for about ten seconds, if that.

They had it on today, whether the SC victory was "something or nothing." They both said it was something, but noted that while few teams are going to go to Storrs and get a way with a victory, SC came in undefeated and ranked #1 and left with neither.

Here's the thing, a lot of guys discount woman's sports because the level difference in the level of athleticism between the two. I view that as largely an irrelevancy. It's like knocking Tiger Woods because of his time in the 50 yard dash, or criticizing Al Unser because he couldn't hit a fastball.

The women can only compete against the other teams that exist when they are playing, same with Tennessee's run, same with Wooden, although less so given the number of teams in the post season. Any other comparisons are meaningless.

I post this from time to time. Jim Calhoun was asked whether Geno could coach a men's team. Jim said "I'd like to see it" and everyone laughed. But Calhoun said "No seriously, I'd like to see it. Geno's smart. He knows the game and he's a winner. I'd like to see what he would do as a men's coach." Now Jim and Geno weren't best friends, but clearly Jim, who is a pretty successful guy in his own right, respected what Geno built here. That's good enough for me.

 

[triaddukefan]

I think you meant to say that you aren't sure it's the best comparison?
Maybe it's not but I think one can infer my point.

Yeah... thats what I meant.

I would have said perhaps a Mercedes to a Honda.... but I get your point.

 

[j66kicker]

Well said, V. The explanation is really quite simple, pick one- gender bias, gender discrimination, s e xism, male chauvinism. All reflections of IGNORANCE.

I disagree with the gender bias thing. I think there's another explanation besides gender. WBB just hasn't developed to the point where there is any broad-based competition/parity. I mean, last night UCONN annihilated the alleged #1 team by 25. Pat, in her day, and now Geno, just had much easier roads to building their dynasties than did the legendary coaches in more competitive sports. No value judgment, nobody's fault, just the way it is.

 

[Brochacho]

It's a mantra that people will be singing for as long as they keep track of records. I would say that Pat's record is subject to the same problems as Geno's. When her teams were at their peaks, there were very few teams who could beat them, even in their own league. I could argue this till I'm blue in the face but people who have their minds made up will never be swayed. By they way, a year or 2 back I looked up UCONN's SOS over the past 15 years and it was a top 10 SOS literally every year, often times in the top 5. So the whole "easy schedule" line is a load of crap, but it gets whined about often enough that by sheer volume, some buy into it.

I don't think it is an issue of playing a weak schedule, it is more of a fact that the top teams are weak relative to UConn. 14 losses in the past 7 seasons, and then this season to make 8. UConn is just too good for the rest of college basketball which is what tends to draw attention away from his accomplishments, which ironically is a result of Geno's elite coaching and recruiting.

But as far as the coaches listed, I have Pop and Belicheck 1 and 2. It is much harder to maintain a level of success that they have had considering the financial side of the game involved. This is an advantage K, Geno, and Saban have; they can have as many elite players as they can get their hands on. Pro coaches? They certainly have to put in more effort to developing and assembling a team.

I would have Coach K at 3, since he is basically doing what Geno is doing on the men's side. 1,000+ wins with 11 final fours and 4 championships is just crazy on the men's side. He also had a stretch of 5 consecutive final fours. Secondly, keeping talent in school is a whole different ball game. Like if you were to compare Jahlil Okafor and Breanna Stewart for example, if Coach K could even get a Final Four out of Okafor before he leaves for the NBA that would mark his short tenure as a success. But if you look at Stewart on the other hand, it would seem almost disappointing at this point in her career if she does not get 4 NCs.

Geno is at 4. Could talk forever about how good he is. But the facts are that he gets to keep his players for 4 years (as opposed to 1-2 years on the men's side) and teams are rarely able to compete with him these days, and struggled to in the past. I'm willing to bet he will retire with at least a dozen NCs, and will be in the Final Four each season from 2008 until whenever he retires.

Finally as far as Saban, I have him at 5. He is obviously a great coach. But before our little CFB playoff system, he benefited from the SEC bias that allowed for him to just walk into the championship. Had great teams and is an excellent recruiter and coach, but the culture of the top SEC team being a lock for the title game knocks him down for me. I told a friend this and I'll say it again, but I do not believe Nick Saban will win a championship under the new playoff system.

 

[watanabe]

Yeah... thats what I meant.

I would have said perhaps a Mercedes to a Honda.... but I get your point.

nah, apples to oranges not good vs cheap(er). There is always an argument that oranges/apples are better than apples/oranges, but I think I'd always choose the mercedes over the honda.... I'm just sayin.

 

[Striper69]

They had it on today, whether the SC victory was "something or nothing." They both said it was something, but noted that while few teams are going to go to Storrs and get a way with a victory, SC came in undefeated and ranked #1 and left with neither.

Here's the thing, a lot of guys discount woman's sports because the level difference in the level of athleticism between the two. I view that as largely an irrelevancy. It's like knocking Tiger Woods because of his time in the 50 yard dash, or criticizing Al Unser because he couldn't hit a fastball.

The women can only compete against the other teams that exist when they are playing, same with Tennessee's run, same with Wooden, although less so given the number of teams in the post season. Any other comparisons are meaningless.

I post this from time to time. Jim Calhoun was asked whether Geno could coach a men's team. Jim said "I'd like to see it" and everyone laughed. But Calhoun said "No seriously, I'd like to see it. Geno's smart. He knows the game and he's a winner. I'd like to see what he would do as a men's coach." Now Jim and Geno weren't best friends, but clearly Jim, who is a pretty successful guy in his own right, respected what Geno built here. That's good enough for me.

Interesting post.

Yeah, I watch PTI a lot and saw that. They should've had Geno on to interview him. IMO

The "athleticism" of women's BB is very high. They just don't have many who can "dunk" and that's what I think keeps men away from the game. Guys want to see other guys do what they can't do. Most of these women are better BB players than most guys ever dreamt of being.
To be fair though- you have to be "into" women's BB if you're a guy.

I'd like to hear what people say is what made Wooden's UCLA teams so dominant. I know for one thing he had Jabbar and Walton but there were other great players even then.

Wonder why Geno and Calhoun weren't great friends? I don't think Geno would like coaching men's CBB with it being the way it is now with the best players going "one and done".

 

[Striper69]

nah, apples to oranges not good vs cheap(er). There is always an argument that oranges/apples are better than apples/oranges, but I think I'd always choose the mercedes over the honda.... I'm just sayin.

I'd take the Honda. Cheaper to maintain.

 

[rugbymate]

If the question is...where does Geno compare with Coach K, Belicheck, Pop and Saban against their historical peers in their respective sports then HE IS THE GUY. CoachK vs Wooden...no comparison. Belicheck is tied with Noll for SB victories and had the SB started 10 years earlier Lombardi would be at the top. Saban vs Bear Bryant...let the Alabama pundits sort that out and the Bear probably wins in a landslide. Pop ? No comment.
As to the issue of weak competition in WCBB, it is total nonsense. All the athletes are available to every WCBB coach in the country but Geno has done an unprecedented job of recruiting, training and mentoring which is all part of coaching. When John Wooden one 7 NC's in a row did anybody claim that his success was due to weak competition? The answer is no but he outrecruited( Alcindor, Walton Wilkes et al) out-mentored and out-trained everyone else.

 

[Striper69]

I'd take the Honda. Cheaper to maintain.

Or I'd take the Mercedes, sell it and buy a Honda (and keep the extra cash).

 

[vtinct]

I disagree with the gender bias thing. I think there's another explanation besides gender. WBB just hasn't developed to the point where there is any broad-based competition/parity. I mean, last night UCONN annihilated the alleged #1 team by 25. Pat, in her day, and now Geno, just had much easier roads to building their dynasties than did the legendary coaches in more competitive sports. No value judgment, nobody's fault, just the way it is.

I both agree and disagree with what you're saying. Gender bias definitely plays a role. Have you ever seen the comments on articles about women's sports or read tweets from people who say that they are "a joke" (which is the PG version of many of those comments)? They are plentiful on almost every article I've read. Heck, on the rare occasions when ESPN or Lebron James or whomever tweets about women's sports (LJ has, just can't remember the context) the vast majority of comments are negative towards the fact that they are tweeting about women's sports. And I think a reason that they receive so little coverage in the media, is a reflection of this negativity.

That being said, if I wasn't a UConn fan, I wouldn't watch nearly as much women's basketball as I do. I completely agree with your point about parity. If you're not a UConn fan, it may not be interesting to watch them routinely win and other teams lose playing against them. As Striper said, you have to be "into" WBB to enjoy it. Maybe with more parity someday, this will change.

Also, my original point was not to make the point that they should have picked Geno as the best coach- I couldnt agree more that the NBA and NFL have much tougher roads to travel and I think all the coaches on the list are worthy of the distinction- but that they should be focusing on what he has accomplished rather then the fact his road has been easier to travel than the other coaches.

 

[meyers7]

But as far as the coaches listed, I have Pop and Belicheck 1 and 2. It is much harder to maintain a level of success that they have had considering the financial side of the game involved. This is an advantage K, Geno, and Saban have; they can have as many elite players as they can get their hands on. Pro coaches? They certainly have to put in more effort to developing and assembling a team.

Well true about dealing with salary caps, etc. But Pro coaches can keep their team or at least major parts of it for years. Belichick has had the same guy, Brady, run his offense for around 14 years. Popovich has had the core of Duncan, Parker and Ginobli for 10+ years. Geno gets his players for 4 years, but Coach K gets 1-2 and done, Saban only gets probably 2-4 years (and only 1-2 with them as starters).

 

[mauconnfan]

Geno's fantastic, the absolute best the women's game has seen bar none, and it actually isn't close. But to even think Geno is ahead of Jim Calhoun, never mind the others on the list is downright ridiculous. Is this list the coaches "ever" or still coaching? here's why:

1) 1-2 years and done - great players leave early....he gets them ALL for 4. Huge difference

2) No way JC ever had 5-6 of the Top 10 players in any given recruiting class because of the parity of recruiting. (by no meads diminishing why the girls want to play for Geno)

3) Party is huge - I mean beating the Top 10 teams by an average of 25-30 is all you need to know. Not happening in the men's except once in a great while, never mind Top 25. 25 can beat 1 in the men's can never happen in the women's


Geno is great, his accomplishments are unbelievable. But it's a whole different world, not close sorry! This talk of him being up there is crazy but hey, everyone has an opinion.

 

[Icebear]

Once again, mau, you fail to appreciate that being different does not mean it can't be better.