Final fours are obviously far more decorative than elite eights, but in reality they are just as arbitrary as elite eights or sweet sixteen's or anything else that isn't the number one goal, a national championship. And while I concede that Izzo is a better tournament coach, perhaps by a significant margin, there is more to team building than that.
The ability to recruit and develop talent is something I feel Izzo could be better at. When have you ever watched a Michigan State team and said, "damn, this team is loaded"? That's admittedly a subjective qualification, especially since the tournament results confirm that he has built some very good teams. Very good is a long way from great, though, and despite the seven final four appearances, I can't neglect the fact that when they get to the big stage they frequently get punked. Simply put, Spartan rosters rarely feature the sort of unbridled talent that you need to win games against Duke, UNC, etc. At some point, that falls on the head coach.
Look at the last six years. In my opinion, Boeheim could have conceivably won a title with four of them. Some would say that reflects poorly on his ability to maximize his opportunities. I say he maximized his opportunities by building great teams. The fact that he only brought one of those teams to the final four doesn't mean much to me in the grand scheme.
Go back seven years, and MSU has been to three final fours. That's impressive. Go back to 2005 and he's been to four. Undoubtedly, these numbers validate him as a great coach. Does it make him a better coach than Boeheim? Eh, maybe to some.
Boeheim's had some great teams that lost by two or three points in the sweet sixteen or elite eight. Izzo's had some really good teams that lost by a thousand in the final four. At some point, you're either national champs or you're not. Izzo gets credit, justifiably, for getting his teams close. I'm just not sure they've been any closer than Boeheim's.
Those things have nothing to do with football.
