So coaches aren't usually much better [AT WHAT?] than their players.
If you're going to say that coaches aren't better than players, then you are comparing the two.
For the comparison to make sense, you have compare same or similar attributes that apply to both coaches and players.
For the comparison to matter, you have to compare things that relate to college basketball.
So far, you haven't done either in any meaningful way. I do not expect you to do so, and it doesn't matter enough for me to pursue it further.
I'll offer my own belief that there is only one relevant way in which coaches and players
could be compared as you persist in arguing, but my opinion is that a comparison would be meaningless, so I won't weigh in on whether I agree with it or not:
"Coaches aren't usually better at doing what coaches do than their players are at doing what players do."
You may be satisfied with the premise of such a comparison, and hold the belief that your evaluation of it is correct. Fair enough.
In 8th grade, my friend Gerry was fond of asking classmates, "Do you walk to school or bring your lunch?" or, "Is it closer to New York than by bus?" Both exhibited nascent attainment of the psychological development stage called "formal operations." At this stage a person can not only consider things sequentially and logically toward individual or collaborative problem-solving, but can also veer off that course and playfully manipulate things to allow for the possibility of a sense of humor expressing itself through use of illogic, irony, sarcasm, non sequiturs, absurdities, word play, and such. By those standards, I have no doubt that you are right.
Savor the day.