Geno Is Closing In on an Obscure World Record | The Boneyard
.-.

Geno Is Closing In on an Obscure World Record

Joined
Oct 24, 2025
Messages
80
Reaction Score
580
This record is so obscure that I may be the only one aware of it. I now share.

The record is: The Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame inductee who continued working in his or her enshrinement category for the most years after induction?

Whew! Maybe we could call this the Naismith Afterlife Record (NAR).

There are five Naismith enshrinement categories: player, coach, referee, team, and contributor.

Players can’t be inducted until after they retire, so none of them can win the NAR.

Combing through the names in the other four enshrinement categories (with some assistance from consistently wrong AI, which I had to keep correcting), I find four NAR candidates.

- Dick Vitale: Inducted in 2008 as a contributor for his combined service as a coach and broadcaster, he is still under ESPN contract at age 86. NAR years = 17 and ongoing.

- Hubie Brown: Inducted as a contributor in 2005 for his combined service as a coach and broadcaster, he called his final game in 2025. NAR years = 20.

- Geno Auriemma: Inducted as a coach in 2006, he will coach at least until 2026. NAR years = 20 and ongoing.

- Mike Krzyzewski: Inducted as a coach in 2001, he retired in 2022. NAR years = 21.

So, if Geno coaches until 2028, he will pass Coach K and become the world record holder for the NAR.

And if Geno gets the NAR after 22 years (or more), no coach will likely ever pass him. That’s because, as of the Naismith class of 2020, a coach must be at least 60 years old to be eligible for induction.

Could Geno’s 22(+) year NAR be passed by a referee or contributor inductee? There’s no minimum age requirement for referees, but they are eligible only after reffing for 25 years, so it’s very unlikely that anyone would continue to ref for 22(+) years after induction. So far, all the refs have been inducted only after they had already retired.

Contributor induction requirements are more ambiguous. There are no minimum age or years-of-service requirements, but most contributors seem to be inducted late in life after many years of basketball-related service.

With one notable exception: Rebecca Lobo was inducted as a contributor in 2017 when she was 43 years old. Unable to qualify as a player, Lobo qualified in the contributor category based on a combination of her college play, Olympic team membership, basketball media work, and her “tireless devotion” to promoting and supporting women’s basketball “around the world.” So, if Rebecca continues her basketball media work until her late 60’s, she has a shot at bagging the NAR.

This all may be uninteresting, but grant that it’s as advertised . . . obscure.
 
Speaking of Geno records, ever since Geno took over the most career wins last season, have the network broadcasts stopped including his NCAA leading win percentage record? I decided to Google it last week just to make sure it was still a Geno record.
Ummm, wrong
1000002343.jpg
 
Last edited:
Speaking of Geno records, ever since Geno took over the most career wins last season, have the network broadcasts stopped including his NCAA leading win percentage record? I decided to Google it last week just to make sure it was still a Geno record.
Ummm, wrong
View attachment 113337
Yep, apparently this AI doesn't know that .884 is better than .835!
 
This record is so obscure that I may be the only one aware of it. I now share.

The record is: The Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame inductee who continued working in his or her enshrinement category for the most years after induction?

Whew! Maybe we could call this the Naismith Afterlife Record (NAR).

There are five Naismith enshrinement categories: player, coach, referee, team, and contributor.

Players can’t be inducted until after they retire, so none of them can win the NAR.

Combing through the names in the other four enshrinement categories (with some assistance from consistently wrong AI, which I had to keep correcting), I find four NAR candidates.

- Dick Vitale: Inducted in 2008 as a contributor for his combined service as a coach and broadcaster, he is still under ESPN contract at age 86. NAR years = 17 and ongoing.

- Hubie Brown: Inducted as a contributor in 2005 for his combined service as a coach and broadcaster, he called his final game in 2025. NAR years = 20.

- Geno Auriemma: Inducted as a coach in 2006, he will coach at least until 2026. NAR years = 20 and ongoing.

- Mike Krzyzewski: Inducted as a coach in 2001, he retired in 2022. NAR years = 21.

So, if Geno coaches until 2028, he will pass Coach K and become the world record holder for the NAR.

And if Geno gets the NAR after 22 years (or more), no coach will likely ever pass him. That’s because, as of the Naismith class of 2020, a coach must be at least 60 years old to be eligible for induction.

Could Geno’s 22(+) year NAR be passed by a referee or contributor inductee? There’s no minimum age requirement for referees, but they are eligible only after reffing for 25 years, so it’s very unlikely that anyone would continue to ref for 22(+) years after induction. So far, all the refs have been inducted only after they had already retired.

Contributor induction requirements are more ambiguous. There are no minimum age or years-of-service requirements, but most contributors seem to be inducted late in life after many years of basketball-related service.

With one notable exception: Rebecca Lobo was inducted as a contributor in 2017 when she was 43 years old. Unable to qualify as a player, Lobo qualified in the contributor category based on a combination of her college play, Olympic team membership, basketball media work, and her “tireless devotion” to promoting and supporting women’s basketball “around the world.” So, if Rebecca continues her basketball media work until her late 60’s, she has a shot at bagging the NAR.

This all may be uninteresting, but grant that it’s as advertised . . . obscure.
I think it should just be for coaches who win it and keep on coaching. Being A broadcaster is a whole different thing.
 
I think it should just be for coaches who win it and keep on coaching. Being A broadcaster is a whole different thing.

That suggestion makes sense. It's hard to tell if broadcasters and other "contributors" have been continuously on the basketball job for every year after induction, and even if their jobs are full-time, part-time or seasonal. All the coaches in contention have been continuously coaching since induction.

As far as I can tell, the coaches behind Krzyzewski's 21 years of NAR and Geno's 20 years as of April 2026 are:

- Jim Boeheim: Inducted in 2005 and retired in 2023. NAR years = 18.

- Bob Knight: Inducted in 1991 and retired in 2008. NAR years = 17.

I'll do some looking to see what WBB coaches are behind Geno in NAR years. Just curious.
 
.-.
Yep, apparently this AI doesn't know that .884 is better than .835!
AI is worse at math than one might expect. I had a friend explain it to me, so it does make sense, but it seems easily fixable.
 
Speaking of obscure, some twit, or romance language speaker, might reconfigure NAR as Record After Naismith, or RAN.

That would give us Mike Krzyzewski, Geno, and the Also RANs.

Hiding under desk. 🥹
 
I asked ChatGPT what coaches have coached the longest time after being inducted into the NBHOF. I was pretty sure I knew the answers already. It said X, which was wrong. I said "what about Y?" It said, "Sorry, you are right, Y has the most years." But that was wrong. Then I asked about Z, etc.

I asked about referees. It said Earl Strom reffed for a year after being inducted in 1995. He died in 1994 and was inducted posthumously.

Google AI was just as bad. AI is developing, but I don't trust it. It's just a computer program scanning arbitrary and limited databases under interpretation rules given it by human programmers, and is hence subject to the oldest computer programming adage: "Garbage in, garbage out."
 
I asked ChatGPT what coaches have coached the longest time after being inducted into the NBHOF. I was pretty sure I knew the answers already. It said X, which was wrong. I said "what about Y?" It said, "Sorry, you are right, Y has the most years." But that was wrong. Then I asked about Z, etc.

I asked about referees. It said Earl Strom reffed for a year after being inducted in 1995. He died in 1994 and was inducted posthumously.

Google AI was just as bad. AI is developing, but I don't trust it. It's just a computer program scanning arbitrary and limited databases under interpretation rules given it by human programmers, and is hence subject to the oldest computer programming adage: "Garbage in, garbage out."
If you look at Chemistry, those "feeding the internet" are the D students in college courses. I assume it is to drive other student's performance down to their level. I always advised my students that the Chemistry material on the internet is in error 72.16% of the time, but you do not know just how wrong it is. However, it will be scored on the quizzes and tests, just so you know.

I am reasonably sure that ChatGPT never scored on free response Chemistry & Physics problems on exams, as my exams have one or two words different to fundamentally change the answer and all numbers are different, so you cannot just memorize answers. It's all about the process.
 
.-.
I think it based it on Mens then Womens.
That's likely, but the presentation leaves something to be desired, as there is no hint that they did it that way. Plus, even if you do, you should have:
Men
#1
Women
#1.
Listing Geno with #2 makes no sense.
 
Interesting to see that of the leaders in percentage wins in WCBB, the top five are all active:
Wins Name Years Wins Losses Win% Schools

1 Geno Auriemma 41 1,254 165 .884 UConn

41 Brian Morehouse 29 732 103 .877 Hope DIII

29 Mark Campbell 26 775 120 .866 Union (TN) DII

93 G. P. Gromacki 24 621 96 .866 St. Lawrence, Hamilton, Amherst DIII

34 Kim Mulkey 25 754 124 .859 Baylor (2000–2021), LSU (2021–)
 
I asked ChatGPT what coaches have coached the longest time after being inducted into the NBHOF. I was pretty sure I knew the answers already. It said X, which was wrong. I said "what about Y?" It said, "Sorry, you are right, Y has the most years." But that was wrong. Then I asked about Z, etc.

I asked about referees. It said Earl Strom reffed for a year after being inducted in 1995. He died in 1994 and was inducted posthumously.

Google AI was just as bad. AI is developing, but I don't trust it. It's just a computer program scanning arbitrary and limited databases under interpretation rules given it by human programmers, and is hence subject to the oldest computer programming adage: "Garbage in, garbage out."

Good point. AI? Yeah, Artificial Ignorance.

I'm reminded of the 1930's Frankenstein movies. The monster didn't even learn to talk until the sequel.
 

Online statistics

Members online
313
Guests online
4,985
Total visitors
5,298

Forum statistics

Threads
165,240
Messages
4,426,583
Members
10,266
Latest member
LBSC


Top Bottom