PAC-12 Coaches Ranking 1-12

[DefenseBB]

As we get hyped up over the 2021-22 Season, I thought I would do a "ranking" of the P5+Big East Coaches. I am starting off with the PAC-12 for 2 reason:
1. They are the best basketball conference
2. Our esteemed colleague, @CocoHusky and I are in a tiny disagreement over the proper designation of Cori Close's coaching acumen, which had me wondering where the word "mediocre" would place a coach within their relative conference or among the whole of D1. I have Cori at #5 in the PAC-12 and her "trend" as flat. At 213 wins and only 110 losses with a 115-63 conference record, I view that as good. Plus, she's qualified for 6 NCAA Tournaments out of 9 years. She would have qualified in 2020 for 7/10 and she did win the WNIT! Her fame is as a recruiter but she did beat Maryland AT Maryland in the 2019 NCAAT 2nd round game so her x's and o's are better than Brenda's. That said, she only belongs in the "Good" category.

Below, I have listed my ranking of the coaches 1-12 with an associated "category" option of "Elite", "Very Good", "Good" and "Suspect". For clarity- my "Elite designation" follows "Webster's" definition

"a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society". I am using "ELITE" across ALL of society (all D1 schools) so that only a "handful" of coaches can meet this criteria-Tara (shown below), Geno (duh!), Kim and Dawn. This fits nicely given the multiple NCAA Titles and Conference titles each has won and the domination they have exerted on the rest of the teams in their conferences.

Listed is the Rank, Name, years as a PAC-12 Coach, PAC-12 overall/conference record, All schools record, # post-season tournaments, other division records/post-season. I also added a “trend” comment based on their last few years with "up" meaning a good year this year could elevate them next year, "down" means they could be demoted to the rank below, "flat means they either show no signs of improvement or are already in the last designation. For example, JR Payne needs to show something as she's 25-63 in the PAC-12 without an NCAAT appearance.
Elite
1. Tara VanDerveer-Stanford 35 yrs. 973-204, 531-91, 152-51 35 NCAAT, 3 Champions 1 AIAW (no need to comment on this all-time great)
Very Good
2. Scott Rueck-Oregon State 11 yrs 240-113, 121-70, 7 NCAAT, 1 WNIT; D-3: 288-88, 178-50, 7 NCAAT/1 D2 Title (trend is down as he has to show he can coach an offense to compete in 2022, defense can only go so far)
3. Kelly Graves-Oregon 7 yrs. 172-62, 82-43, 382-162, 12 NCAAT, 5 WNIT (trend is flat)
Good
4. Adia Barnes-Arizona 6 yrs 89-66, 39-50 1 NCAA, 1 WNIT (trend is up)
5. Cori Close-UCLA 10 yrs 213-110, 115-63, 6 NCAAT, 1 WNIT (trend is flat)
6. Charlie Turner-Thorne Arizona State 24 yrs 476-280, 243-181, 40-40, 14 NCAAT, 5 WNIT (trend is down)
7. Tina Langley-Washington 0 yrs. 126-61 68-31 1-NCAAT, 2 WNIT, 1 WBI (trend is unknown)
Suspect
8. Lindsey Gottlieb-USC 8 yrs, 179-89, 86-58, 7 NCAAT, 8 WNIT (She has a talented USC team but her last years at Cal weren’t good, trend is flat)
9. Kamie Ethridge-WSU 3 yrs. 32-53 17-38; 83-44 2-NCAAT; 1 WNIT (trend is flat, last year started great but finished poorly)
10. Lynn Roberts-Utah 6 yrs. 91-78, 40-68; 96-121, 7-WNIT; D-2 86-31, 4 NCAA (trend is flat)
11. JR Payne-Colorado 5 yrs. 72-75, 25-63; 101-113; 3-WNIT (trend is flat)
12. Charmin Smith-Cal 2 YRS. 13-35, 4-27 (trend is unknown but likely flat)

Open the discussion-particularly our few OSU, UW and Stanford fans.

PS. Cheer up Coco, I still think the world of you on almost all other things!

 

[undersized]

Big Ten is at least equal to the Pac-12 this year, and by your own definition Brenda Frese deserves Elite ranking.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Yes I pretty much agree. Adia is on the border with very good, if you factor in the intangibles of her coaching, I think. Arizona was awful when she took over. The biggest question - can she sustain good things without the star that started it (Aari)? I think she can. We will see.

The lower half of the conference isn't good.

 

[visitingcock]

Yes I pretty much agree. Adia is on the border with very good, if you factor in the intangibles of her coaching, I think. Arizona was awful when she took over. The biggest question - can she sustain good things without the star that started it (Aari)? I think she can. We will see.

The lower half of the conference isn't good.

Her recruiting prowess certainly appears to be top notch and was looking good even before this year’s tournament run. Why do girls want to go to the desert? I think it’s her. She may have to rebuild some to get back to this year’s level but I think the rebuilding pains will be relatively short

 

[DefenseBB]

I was hoping for a bit more response from some of our "known" PAC-12 fans but I also knew that the board is littered with SEC and ACC fans and why I may even delay those posts a few more days out to see if we can garner input from the two under-represented fan based PAC and Big Ten teams.

Where art thou @nwhoopfan @LoTrader and @TheFarmFan as I did this with your input in mind? Heck I would even settle for @Plebe post in this thread! Hello? Is this mic on? Don't forget to to tip your waiters and waitresses...I will be here all week.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Sorry @DefenseBB , I can't really add much or take exception to anything. Well except maybe listing Ethridge's trend as flat. Even tailing off down the stretch last year, it was a huge improvement from her previous seasons, or any time during the Daugherty era. This year is the key, can they build off it and take another step forward?

 

[Txhoopsalot]

Good
4. Adia Barnes-Arizona -- Agree with those who consider her VERY GOOD. Before Barnes, Arizona as a program was never better than average that I recall.

Suspect
9. Kamie Ethridge-WSU 3 yrs. 32-53 17-38; 83-44 2-NCAAT; 1 WNIT (trend is flat, last year started great but finished poorly) - Prior to Washington State, Ethridge took Northern Colorado to its first ever NCAA tournament. That was her first head coaching job. Last year, in her third year as head coach at WSU, she led the program to its first tournament in 30 seasons. That is flat out impressive. Questions I have. Will Ethridge ever be able to recruit? How much of the recruiting issue is WSU and how much is Ethridge and her style of coaching or play?

 

[nwhoopfan]

Before Barnes, Arizona as a program was never better than average that I recall.

They had a few good years when Barnes was their star player, and they had a immovable object in the post in Shawntinice Polk. Went to the Tourney 7 out of 9 years from '97 to '05. When Polk tragically died, seemed like the program was never going to recover from that shock. Until Barnes arrived to rescue them again.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Questions I have. Will Ethridge ever be able to recruit? How much of the recruiting issue is WSU and how much is Ethridge and her style of coaching or play?

I think it's WSU, not Ethridge. It's a hard sell. Middle of nowhere, most remote and rural campus in the Pac 12. Most cash strapped athletic department in the conference as well I think. I can't recall any coach who has recruited well there. They've been going largely the international route long before it became en vogue.

 

[willtalk]

Yes people should also consider location and the school involved in respect to being able to recuit players. They level of players also impacts how well your team does. I think the same type of Mulligan should be considered for Roberts of Utah. While not quite as isolated It also is not considered a great location. She was doing well before her top players started to transfer out. I think with the lessened transfer rules, we are going to see more players using less desirable colleges as a jump off point to major programs.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Uh...SLC is a fairly metropolitan area, has multiple pro sports franchises. I don't see how the city can be considered a negative for recruiting purposes. It's not LA, but seems like it should stack up decently compared to cities like Boulder, Eugene, Tucson. Firmly middle of the road for Pac schools I would think.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Uh...SLC is a fairly metropolitan area, has multiple pro sports franchises. I don't see how the city can be considered a negative for recruiting purposes. It's not LA, but seems like it should stack up decently compared to cities like Boulder, Eugene, Tucson. Firmly middle of the road for Pac schools I would think.

There is that whole LDS thing, though. I did 2 business trips to SLC (or maybe 3). Folks in the movie business were the other end of the spectrum from LDS, of course. More smokers than any other area among the management (I smoked at the time, so I did notice), of course they all had to work Sunday which kind of limited the pool.

From my brief times in the area, which did not include any touring, I found it quite unexciting. I didn't do a lot of west coast audits (I hated flying and don't fly anymore) but I liked the Seattle area quite a bit (4 or 5 visits), Boise not so much. Liked Dallas more than Houston. Texas was as far west as I went by choice.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Admittedly I haven't been in all the Pac 12 cities. Have lived in Seattle area about half my lifetime, so I've got that one covered. Have been in Corvallis a number of times. My mom is from Springfield, right next door to Eugene. Have had family there my entire life, so I know that area well enough. Passed thru Pullman once.

So yeah, can't speak about SLC from any actual experience. Only time in Utah was a week in St. George, enjoyed my time there but that's not relevant. Maybe there is a cultural difference. Haven't been in Boulder but spent about a week in Estes Park, not that far away. Been in LA and the Bay Area a little from time to time. Never Phoenix (other than connecting flight thru there).

To me Pullman and Corvallis are the two clear outliers, both relatively smaller cities and somewhat isolated (although Pullman to a much greater extent). Everything else is at least mid sized cities or large metro areas, and not really too far "out there."


Happy now @DefenseBB ? We've totally sidetracked your thread from coaches to locations. Be careful what you wish for!

 

[LoTrader]

I was hoping for a bit more response from some of our "known" PAC-12 fans but I also knew that the board is littered with SEC and ACC fans and why I may even delay those posts a few more days out to see if we can garner input from the two under-represented fan based PAC and Big Ten teams.

Where art thou @nwhoopfan @LoTrader and @TheFarmFan as I did this with your input in mind? Heck I would even settle for @Plebe post in this thread! Hello? Is this mic on? Don't forget to to tip your waiters and waitresses...I will be here all week.

I think we'll use your post as the baseline for the upcoming season. I found it reasonable.

 

[jonson]

Admittedly I haven't been in all the Pac 12 cities. Have lived in Seattle area about half my lifetime, so I've got that one covered. Have been in Corvallis a number of times. My mom is from Springfield, right next door to Eugene. Have had family there my entire life, so I know that area well enough. Passed thru Pullman once.

So yeah, can't speak about SLC from any actual experience. Only time in Utah was a week in St. George, enjoyed my time there but that's not relevant. Maybe there is a cultural difference. Haven't been in Boulder but spent about a week in Estes Park, not that far away. Been in LA and the Bay Area a little from time to time. Never Phoenix (other than connecting flight thru there).

To me Pullman and Corvallis are the two clear outliers, both relatively smaller cities and somewhat isolated (although Pullman to a much greater extent). Everything else is at least mid sized cities or large metro areas, and not really too far "out there."


Happy now @DefenseBB ? We've totally sidetracked your thread from coaches to locations. Be careful what you wish for!

I think Pullman actually deserves a category all its own. Corvallis, small as it is, is very close to I-5 and only an hour or so from Portland. Getting to and from Pullman, on the other hand--with the latter maybe even a bigger issue than the former for players on the school's various teams--is a considerable challenge.

 

[MK74]

Rankings are very reasonable and probably fairly accurate in the eyes of this Oregon fan. The only quibbles might be Katie/WSU and JR/Colorado - both seem to have their teams on upward paths compared to what they walked into. Good job!

 

[BruinGold]

As we get hyped up over the 2021-22 Season, I thought I would do a "ranking" of the P5+Big East Coaches. I am starting off with the PAC-12 for 2 reason:
1. They are the best basketball conference
2. Our esteemed colleague, @CocoHusky and I are in a tiny disagreement over the proper designation of Cori Close's coaching acumen, which had me wondering where the word "mediocre" would place a coach within their relative conference or among the whole of D1. I have Cori at #5 in the PAC-12 and her "trend" as flat. At 213 wins and only 110 losses with a 115-63 conference record, I view that as good. Plus, she's qualified for 6 NCAA Tournaments out of 9 years. She would have qualified in 2020 for 7/10 and she did win the WNIT! Her fame is as a recruiter but she did beat Maryland AT Maryland in the 2019 NCAAT 2nd round game so her x's and o's are better than Brenda's. That said, she only belongs in the "Good" category.

Below, I have listed my ranking of the coaches 1-12 with an associated "category" option of "Elite", "Very Good", "Good" and "Suspect". For clarity- my "Elite designation" follows "Webster's" definition

"a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society". I am using "ELITE" across ALL of society (all D1 schools) so that only a "handful" of coaches can meet this criteria-Tara (shown below), Geno (duh!), Kim and Dawn. This fits nicely given the multiple NCAA Titles and Conference titles each has won and the domination they have exerted on the rest of the teams in their conferences.

Listed is the Rank, Name, years as a PAC-12 Coach, PAC-12 overall/conference record, All schools record, # post-season tournaments, other division records/post-season. I also added a “trend” comment based on their last few years with "up" meaning a good year this year could elevate them next year, "down" means they could be demoted to the rank below, "flat means they either show no signs of improvement or are already in the last designation. For example, JR Payne needs to show something as she's 25-63 in the PAC-12 without an NCAAT appearance.
Elite
1. Tara VanDerveer-Stanford 35 yrs. 973-204, 531-91, 152-51 35 NCAAT, 3 Champions 1 AIAW (no need to comment on this all-time great)
Very Good
2. Scott Rueck-Oregon State 11 yrs 240-113, 121-70, 7 NCAAT, 1 WNIT; D-3: 288-88, 178-50, 7 NCAAT/1 D2 Title (trend is down as he has to show he can coach an offense to compete in 2022, defense can only go so far)
3. Kelly Graves-Oregon 7 yrs. 172-62, 82-43, 382-162, 12 NCAAT, 5 WNIT (trend is flat)
Good
4. Adia Barnes-Arizona 6 yrs 89-66, 39-50 1 NCAA, 1 WNIT (trend is up)
5. Cori Close-UCLA 10 yrs 213-110, 115-63, 6 NCAAT, 1 WNIT (trend is flat)
6. Charlie Turner-Thorne Arizona State 24 yrs 476-280, 243-181, 40-40, 14 NCAAT, 5 WNIT (trend is down)
7. Tina Langley-Washington 0 yrs. 126-61 68-31 1-NCAAT, 2 WNIT, 1 WBI (trend is unknown)
Suspect
8. Lindsey Gottlieb-USC 8 yrs, 179-89, 86-58, 7 NCAAT, 8 WNIT (She has a talented USC team but her last years at Cal weren’t good, trend is flat)
9. Kamie Ethridge-WSU 3 yrs. 32-53 17-38; 83-44 2-NCAAT; 1 WNIT (trend is flat, last year started great but finished poorly)
10. Lynn Roberts-Utah 6 yrs. 91-78, 40-68; 96-121, 7-WNIT; D-2 86-31, 4 NCAA (trend is flat)
11. JR Payne-Colorado 5 yrs. 72-75, 25-63; 101-113; 3-WNIT (trend is flat)
12. Charmin Smith-Cal 2 YRS. 13-35, 4-27 (trend is unknown but likely flat)

Open the discussion-particularly our few OSU, UW and Stanford fans.

PS. Cheer up Coco, I still think the world of you on almost all other things!

This is a bit of a weird place for a first post, but as a UCLA Homer, I thought I would weigh in on Coach Close.

I'm not sold on her x's and o's. Her offense really seems a bit disjointed at times and relies on the creativity of the players, as far as I can see. Sometimes that is great and free-flowing, but at other times confusion reigns. Also, the team has a history of having highly rated players show up who absolutely disappear on offense, sometimes for their entire careers. (Ashley Hearn, Dominique Williams, Mariah Williams... all looked like they had never seen a basket) You could say that there is a "motion" philosophy there, but it clearly didn't work for some of the players. The offense gets bailed out quite a bit by having some brilliant players on the floor (Monique Billings, Jordan Canada, Nirra Fields, Kennedy Burke, Michaela Onyenwere) who are capable of getting hot and blowing the doors off another team. But, that is more a function of talent, and not coaching (unless getting out of the way counts... which, maybe, it does).

Her defensive trademarks are pressure, cutting off passing lanes, and crashing the boards. This is consistent and effective with varying rosters and schemes. UCLA defense is clearly organized, with an effective philosophy that seems to be well understood by the players. Players earn playing time with their defensive intensity and lose it with defensive lapses (except for a couple of point guards, here and there). Success on the defensive end has clearly been the result of effective coaching.

It's interesting that you say that she has a reputation as a good recruiter. She has clearly brought in some great players and classes, but has failed to close on quite a few players. UCLA is, very often, the runner-up for numerous high level recruits. The Bruins have whiffed on entire classes often enough that recruiting momentum seems to sputter with top classes being immediately followed by one or two years of barrel scrapings. So, for recruiting, is UCLA the attraction? Or is Coach Close? I can't answer that. It is interesting that Close has parleyed her international coaching duties into a string of foreign recruits recently, but it seems like a desperation move for when domestic recruiting doesn't pan out as hoped.

Close's best coaching trait is her relentless emphasis on culture. She definitely has a focus which is probably very appealing to some families (and much less appealing to others). It's both very Christian and evocative of Coach Wooden, but also fairly accepting (we don't appear to put off gay players, even with the religious emphasis). Mick Cronin, on the Men's side, is a very different person, but there seems to be some synergy between the two programs, right now.

I'm going to agree that Close is good, but needs an assistant who can be more creative offensively to move the program to an elite status. I don't really see her getting there, herself.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Her offense really seems a bit disjointed at times and relies on the creativity of the players, as far as I can see. Sometimes that is great and free-flowing, but at other times confusion reigns.

I thought the offense was mostly based off of grabbing O boards until a shot finally goes in. It seems to work fairly well.


Welcome to the board, stick around, there's a handful of fans of various Pac 12 schools here.

 

[baggerbob]

This is a bit of a weird place for a first post, but as a UCLA Homer, I thought I would weigh in on Coach Close.

I'm not sold on her x's and o's. Her offense really seems a bit disjointed at times and relies on the creativity of the players, as far as I can see. Sometimes that is great and free-flowing, but at other times confusion reigns. Also, the team has a history of having highly rated players show up who absolutely disappear on offense, sometimes for their entire careers. (Ashley Hearn, Dominique Williams, Mariah Williams... all looked like they had never seen a basket) You could say that there is a "motion" philosophy there, but it clearly didn't work for some of the players. The offense gets bailed out quite a bit by having some brilliant players on the floor (Monique Billings, Jordan Canada, Nirra Fields, Kennedy Burke, Michaela Onyenwere) who are capable of getting hot and blowing the doors off another team. But, that is more a function of talent, and not coaching (unless getting out of the way counts... which, maybe, it does).

Her defensive trademarks are pressure, cutting off passing lanes, and crashing the boards. This is consistent and effective with varying rosters and schemes. UCLA defense is clearly organized, with an effective philosophy that seems to be well understood by the players. Players earn playing time with their defensive intensity and lose it with defensive lapses (except for a couple of point guards, here and there). Success on the defensive end has clearly been the result of effective coaching.

It's interesting that you say that she has a reputation as a good recruiter. She has clearly brought in some great players and classes, but has failed to close on quite a few players. UCLA is, very often, the runner-up for numerous high level recruits. The Bruins have whiffed on entire classes often enough that recruiting momentum seems to sputter with top classes being immediately followed by one or two years of barrel scrapings. So, for recruiting, is UCLA the attraction? Or is Coach Close? I can't answer that. It is interesting that Close has parleyed her international coaching duties into a string of foreign recruits recently, but it seems like a desperation move for when domestic recruiting doesn't pan out as hoped.

Close's best coaching trait is her relentless emphasis on culture. She definitely has a focus which is probably very appealing to some families (and much less appealing to others). It's both very Christian and evocative of Coach Wooden, but also fairly accepting (we don't appear to put off gay players, even with the religious emphasis). Mick Cronin, on the Men's side, is a very different person, but there seems to be some synergy between the two programs, right now.

I'm going to agree that Close is good, but needs an assistant who can be more creative offensively to move the program to an elite status. I don't really see her getting there, herself.

Her players in the WNBA have a lot of athletic ability, but it seems never took the time to learn how to shoot. Canada would be an all pro if she could consistently hit a mid range jump shot.

 

[Figurehead]

Just an interesting note in the Pac-12 in general. It seems the Arizona schools, UCLA and Oregon are all ways recruiting the same players for the most part. There are some over lap with the other Pac-12 schools but for the most part these four schools seem to be after the same players whenever you see the lists out. I like to think that Graves has done very well in recruiting when I see the Zona schools and UCLA in the mix. Stanford oh course is in the mix as well as Oregon State when it comes to these teams. Cori loses quiet a few to the Zona schools and Oregon., but maybe it just seems that way? She did however, get a great transfer in Dugalic from Oregon.

 

[Floridaduck]

Stanford oh course is in the mix as well as Oregon State when it comes to these teams.

Stanford is nearly impossible to recruit against. (See Oregon high schooler Cameron Brink). It’s Tara, of course, and the program but more significantly it’s STANFORD the academic institution.

 

[Figurehead]

Stanford is nearly impossible to recruit against. (See Oregon high schooler Cameron Brink). It’s Tara, of course, and the program but more significantly it’s STANFORD the academic institution.

Yes that is true but sometimes you land an Amari Whiting.

 

[DefenseBB]

Stanford is nearly impossible to recruit against. (See Oregon high schooler Cameron Brink). It’s Tara, of course, and the program but more significantly it’s STANFORD the academic institution.

Um, I don't know about that...otherwise Duke, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, UCLA, Cal, Michigan, UVA and Rice would have top recruits regularly. It's definitely TARA and her winning combined with the institution but TARA 1ST.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Um, I don't know about that...otherwise Duke, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, UCLA, Cal, Michigan, UVA and Rice would have top recruits regularly. It's definitely TARA and her winning combined with the institution but TARA 1ST.

Agreed. The institution certainly helps, but it's not like all of their sports programs are dominant. I think the women's volleyball is even better than women's bball (NCAA leading 9 National Titles under 3 different coaches). But other Olympic sports don't have anywhere near the same level of success, and men's hoops and football also aren't elite.

 

[Floridaduck]

But other Olympic sports don't have anywhere near the same level of success, and men's hoops and football also aren't elite.

Ummmmm…22 straight NACDA Directors Cup titles in a row until finishing second to Texas last year.

NACDA Directors' Cup - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of NCAA schools with the most NCAA Division I championships - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org