50 Greatest Coaches (all sports) of All Time

[bags27]

clickbait and a bit silly, but interesting.
Weird that Geno is 36, Jim Calhoun is 34, Pat Summit is 13, John Wooden is #1.
Some great, great college basketball coaches missing, though I do like that they include Pete Newell.
I think the way to look at this is to see all 50 as great, without ranking them: they all deserve to be there.

Sporting News ranks the 50 greatest coaches of all time

 

[HoopsFan21]

Geno is top 10 and top WCBB coach.

 

[tomcat]

Can't help but wonder what this list will look like in, say, four or five years. I'd bet that Geno cracks the Top 20, much closer to, or even higher than Summit.

 

[Mdoggie]

Morgan Wooten.

 

[HoopsFan21]

Can't help but wonder what this list will look like in, say, four or five years. I'd bet that Geno cracks the Top 20, much closer to, or even higher than Summit.

How is Geno not considered a better coach than Pat? You have a must win game and can choose between Pat or Geno at their best. Who do you pick to coach your team?

 

[chrissaran]

Geno is 4-0 against Pat in the championship game.

 

[EricLA]

How is Geno not considered a better coach than Pat? You have a must win game and can choose between Pat or Geno at their best. Who do you pick to coach your team?

It's not even a question of who would you pick, but rather he has eclipsed Pat in EVERY measurable category except total wins. He's done more in less years with greater competition. The list is rather amusing. One man's silly opinion.

 

[chrissaran]

Don't agree with the list at all. It's an opinion. What was the criteria? With an 11-0 championship record and with enough streaks and awards to fill a warehouse, Geno deserves to be in the top ten without question. We all know how great he is. Hopefully time will prove it true to the rest of the sporting world.

 

[BroadwayVa]

Geno is top 10 and top WCBB coach.

AND---Geno does not coach WOMEN---he coaches Basketball PLAYERS.
Is there a bit of Gender Bias in this listing?? (and I'm a male Chauvinist)

 

[CL82]

These lists are silly when they compare against different sports and different eras. It's just not an apple to apples comparison.

That said, I don't think under any reasonable metric you can rate Summitt ahead of Geno at this point. Yeah, she's got him on total wins but he's got her on natties (the most important metric in my view) and percentage.

Likewise how can you rate Dean Smith and Bobby Knight ahead of Calhoun? Coach K I can see, though it is fairly close. Head to head in a big game, I'd pick Calhoun for my coach.

Wooden came out as #1. Check out the narrative as to why:

No coach ever compiled as dominant a period as Wooden from 1962 to 1975, when his UCLA Bruins missed the Final Four only twice in 14 seasons. There were only seven unbeaten NCAA champions in men’s basketball, and Wooden coached four of them. From 1972 to 1974, his teams won 88 consecutive games. Wooden believed in building on the simplest concepts and considered himself a teacher – which he was at the very start of his career. He won an NCAA championship in the final game of his career, leading one of his less imposing teams to a victory over Kentucky and then retiring just short of his 65th birthday. — ​

If you edit that to Geno's numbers, then should he be number 1?

 

[BroadwayVa]

clickbait and a bit silly, but interesting.
Weird that Geno is 36, Jim Calhoun is 34, Pat Summit is 13, John Wooden is #1.
Some great, great college basketball coaches missing, though I do like that they include Pete Newell.
I think the way to look at this is to see all 50 as great, without ranking them: they all deserve to be there.

Sporting News ranks the 50 greatest coaches of all time

Thanks Bags---This would be a great list--but for US Uconn Fans it looks like Gender bias and complete
disregard for the Women's programs---Albeit Pat was overly rated probably because of the 1000 plus wins
ignoring 11 Championships (which encompassed 4 wins in the NC's by Geno over Pat). I'm the last person to say Pat does not deserve to be on the list--in every way possible she and her teams were Champions--in the days of building WBB.

 

[BroadwayVa]

These lists are silly when they compare against different sports and different eras. It's just not an apple to apples comparison.

That said, I don't think under any reasonable metric you cannot rate Summitt ahead of Geno at this point. Yeah, she's got him on total wins but he's got her on natties (the most important metric in my view) and percentage.

Likewise how can you rate Dean Smith and Bobby Knight ahead of Calhoun? Coach K I can see, though it is fairly close. Head to head in a big game, I'd pick Calhoun for my coach.

Wooden came out as #1. Check out the narrative as to why:

No coach ever compiled as dominant a period as Wooden from 1962 to 1975, when his UCLA Bruins missed the Final Four only twice in 14 seasons. There were only seven unbeaten NCAA champions in men’s basketball, and Wooden coached four of them. From 1972 to 1974, his teams won 88 consecutive games. Wooden believed in building on the simplest concepts and considered himself a teacher – which he was at the very start of his career. He won an NCAA championship in the final game of his career, leading one of his less imposing teams to a victory over Kentucky and then retiring just short of his 65th birthday. — ​

If you edit that to Geno's numbers, then should he be number 1?

In basketball I rate Wooden along side of Jame A. Naismith. Where does he rank among other Coaches of other sports??
I am not qualified to say--other than the emotional beliefs.

Also I am not qualified to judge the bias I believe is in this list. Should a coach be judged on his or her win/ loss / Championships records alone. Does her/his Status among peer coaches enter into the analysis? Does the
Sport (football/baseball/basketball/tennis ) have an impact on where that coach belong on the list??

I personally believe (opinion) that the list would have more value had it selected a sport and listed the coaches in that sport by values that are used to determine rankings.

Some of this seems to be comparing apples and ingots.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Arbitrary and all that, but some nice inclusions. Joe McCarthy, indeed. Connie Mack an interesting choice, I thought. Toe Blake. Hit a lot of buttons.

That said, and I've always said, it is difficult to compare different eras in the same sport, never mind a whole bunch of sports.

 

[Kaizen]

It was Jun. 29, 2016 news.
And who is Ryan Fagan ???

 

[RockyMTblue2]

These lists are silly when they compare against different sports and different eras. It's just not an apple to apples comparison.

That said, I don't think under any reasonable metric you can rate Summitt ahead of Geno at this point. Yeah, she's got him on total wins but he's got her on natties (the most important metric in my view) and percentage.

Likewise how can you rate Dean Smith and Bobby Knight ahead of Calhoun? Coach K I can see, though it is fairly close. Head to head in a big game, I'd pick Calhoun for my coach.

Wooden came out as #1. Check out the narrative as to why:

No coach ever compiled as dominant a period as Wooden from 1962 to 1975, when his UCLA Bruins missed the Final Four only twice in 14 seasons. There were only seven unbeaten NCAA champions in men’s basketball, and Wooden coached four of them. From 1972 to 1974, his teams won 88 consecutive games. Wooden believed in building on the simplest concepts and considered himself a teacher – which he was at the very start of his career. He won an NCAA championship in the final game of his career, leading one of his less imposing teams to a victory over Kentucky and then retiring just short of his 65th birthday. — ​

If you edit that to Geno's numbers, then should he be number 1?

Yup, one very skewed list.

 

[vtcwbuff]

How is Geno not considered a better coach than Pat? You have a must win game and can choose between Pat or Geno at their best. Who do you pick to coach your team?

Pat's dead - Geno ain't.

 

[tomcat]

How is Geno not considered a better coach than Pat? You have a must win game and can choose between Pat or Geno at their best. Who do you pick to coach your team?

While I might not agree with it, I can see several factors that would make voters choose Pat over Geno, for now:
-- Pat is generally regarded as the person who contributed most to the growth of WCBB back in the day. No matter how much we value Geno's contributions now, you can't take that away from her.
-- In 2017, Pat has not been gone for more than a couple of years;
-- The old Tennessee record still is in the minds of voters.

In 4 or 5 years, Pat will be a fond memory while, presumably, Geno's teams will continue to win. The way they are going, Tennessee's reputation as a leader in WCBB will also be long gone. The votes will change.

 

[willtalk]

I think the myth is often greater than the reality. Most of Pats coaching days were against lesser competition in respect to both teams she competed against in games and in recruiting. There was even less competition in respect to other good WCBB coaches. Most of the coaches in WCBB were ex players and being that far fewer women played the game even in comparison to todays standards the pool of coaches was really small. It wasn't until Title Nine that WCBB was brought up to the level where a good coach that was not an ex WCBB player would even take a Womens coaching job. People chase the money. That is no longer true and there are plenty of good coaches in the game today. I always considered Geno as the vanguard of the new era of women's coaches. I really believe that the old standards for excellent coaches was relatively low and that tended to inflate the value of what ever good coaches there were. In their day coaches such as Tara and Pat were standouts. I wouldn't consider them that in todays field of coaches.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I think the myth is often greater than the reality. Most of Pats coaching days were against lesser competition in respect to both teams she competed against in games and in recruiting. There was even less competition in respect to other good WCBB coaches. Most of the coaches in WCBB were ex players and being that far fewer women played the game even in comparison to todays standards the pool of coaches was really small. It wasn't until Title Nine that WCBB was brought up to the level where a good coach that was not an ex WCBB player would even take a Womens coaching job. People chase the money. That is no longer true and there are plenty of good coaches in the game today. I always considered Geno as the vanguard of the new era of women's coaches. I really believe that the old standards for excellent coaches was relatively low and that tended to inflate the value of what ever good coaches there were. In their day coaches such as Tara and Pat were standouts. I wouldn't consider them that in todays field of coaches.

A lot of what you say is true, but I disagree with some of it.

- You can only play who you can play. Everyone else in the early days were playing the same folks. Pat, Kay Yow, Vivian, Sue Gunter, Sonja Hogg, Leon Barmore etc . . . did it better than the others in their era(s). Pat did very well in the early days and quite well through about 2008, certainly against many of the coaches you would consider part of today's field. In that respect, I would argue that longevity and coaching from the early days did, indeed, help Pat's win total, but that is far different from either devaluing the wins or or coaching ability.
- Tara is a very good coach. No one is suggesting she is the best coach ever, but she has had long term consistent success. Have coaches over the years become better - yes. Are there younger coaches that are probably every bit as "good" - however you would measure that - as she is, yes, sure. But I would again argue that she would remain in the upper echelons of women's coaches today.
- There are few coaches that to my mind are "elite" - Tara, Muffet would be among them. Mulkey, maybe. None of these other coaches with the high wins and long pedigrees - Hatchell, Vivian, Conradt, etc. do I put in that group. Very fine coaches indeed, but elite, not so much. Long careers, yes.

 

[BigBird]

The Sporting News is a very baseball-centered publication that sells to old men and is written by old men. Expecting them to actually know anything about women's basketball is, methinks, expecting too much.