I tend to be a bit confused by the argument about whether to attribute a team's success to the coach or to the players. We all agree it's both, right?
First, the players. Geno himself has said (rightly and hilariously, in my view) that "there are two kinds of coaches: coaches who have great players, and ex-coaches." Obviously UConn has had incredible players, and I doubt many people here would disagree with the view that those great players were absolutely essential to the team's success. When Geno has (rarely!) had less talent, he's won less.
Second, the coach. To begin with, the coach brings in the players. UConn didn't get this kind of talent until Geno arrived. So the coach is essential as a recruiter. Beyond that, the coach plays a major role in developing the players. Geno has an amazing track record at this: It seems to me that a much higher percentage of top recruits become stars and superstars at UConn than elsewhere, although I haven't made a rigorous study of that. In any event, clearly Geno has done great at helping elite talents reach their potential. In addition, the coach crafts the team's offense and defense, teaching the players how to play as a unit on both ends. And the coach motivates the team and makes all sorts of important decisions about playing time, matchups, dealing with foul trouble, etc. There is no question in the world that all those things are a ton more likely to result in success when you're doing them with talented players than with average players. But there's also no question that even talented players are much more likely to have success as a team if their coach is great instead of average.
If there were a single game between (#1) a team with talented players and an average coach and (#2) a team with average players and a talented coach, I'd bet on the team with talented players. But college basketball isn't a single game. The coach brings in the talented players, helps them reach their potential, and teaches them to work together on offense and defense. The players deserve massive credit for buying in, sacrificing, and doing so much work, as well as for having the natural gifts to make it all pay off. And the coach deserves massive credit for attracting the players and turning their efforts into major team success.
I doubt anyone on either side of the "talent vs. coaching" debate would disagree with anything I said here. So is there really any need for a debate? We're probably all on the same page.
