Who are the top coaches (besides Geno)?

[JordyG]

As we try to assess coaching, whether we like it or not, recruiting is #1 as a skill. Mulkey has 2 titles and numerous league titles. Aston has made Texas relevant again after the eroding that Conradt and Gail G let spiral down. Location is only a part of the draw. How well you “click” with the coach and the team and oh yeah-the academics. Most top kids are indifferent to locale. Dawn has now built 2 programs and made them relevant (more so than Tanya has at Temple-though I do root for her). Brenda does do well despite our micro-picking of her flaws and has won quite a few league titles as well as getting far into numerous tournaments. On the one hand you mention Walz with aiding her but yet discount what Vic did with Gary Blair at Texas A&M when they won a title. And to be fair, Walz has been outstanding at Louisville so I do think he has the coaching chops and maybe this year will get him back to the Final Four. Again, I do appreciate the dialogue and mostly agree with all of it, just wanted to give you some “food for thoughts” on my perspective.

I don't disagree at all that recruting is a skill. But a players greatness in college and the pros is defined by championships. In the pros as well, and in every sport. But for WCBB we need to grade on a curve.? Why should WCBB be any diffferent?

Yeah, you have to have horses to run the courses, but I've seen Bruno do so much more with less, and Mulkey do so much less with more, and just last year. If positions were reversed does anyone really think Doug would have won only one title with Briner? Do you really believe that Baylor and Texas' location isn't just as important a reason as the coaches for keeping homegrown talent in Texas? Or UCLA or California, or SCar, or Walz? Yeah coaches cast a wide net. But the standards at Stanford are so rigid it keeps more local talent out than lets them in. Yet much of theirs is still homegrown. Depaul, UConn, ND, and yes Frese, have to work, pitch and babysit harder and longer.

No one discounts what Vic did in TAand M, or what Walz did at Maryland. In my view Blair and Frese should share their championships with them. Which lowers my view of Blair and Frese as coaches and raises my opinion of Walz and Vic as assistants. But it's a whole new world when you're the coach,.

Yeah, I'm sorry, but like players I think coaches should be held to the same standard and be defined by championshps, not effort, likability, a new relevancy, recruiting prowess or their choice of assistants. All this stuff is part of being head coach. Head coach is a juggler, always seeking to strike a balance that assistants never have to. Again, as I've said, I think Vic, Walz, Mulkey, Aston (whom I've long touted), Dawn (whom I love), Rueck (whom I love), Close, Graves and many others are very good coaches, but after my top goup of Geno, Muffet, Tara and Bruno there is the field. Get back to me after some of them do more with far less or win their first championship.

 

[ed4ourgirls]

Kevin Borseth at Green Bay. Hardly gets anywhere near a top recruit and puts out a Top team almost every year.

Kind of a curious parallel between Kevin Borseth and Matt Bollant.
Each was very successful at Green Bay but failed when they went to
the Big 10, Borseth at Michigan and Bollant at Illinois.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I'm sorry, but to those of you who only measure by championships, or want it to count extra -
- Linda K. Sharp
- Carolyn Peck
- Sonja Hogg
- Marsha Sharp
etc.

If I am ranking coaches, I may want to include winning a championship (or 2) as a "+" factor, but, I won't use it as the determining factor.

When you get in Geno air, with number of championships and winning percentage, yeah, its easy.

Getting to Final Four's or Sweet 16's even, as well as Conference championships or runner up - and the more the merrier - good factors. But simply winning the Natty - not so much to my mind.

 

[nwhoopfan]

and Bruno there is the field. Get back to me after some of them do more with far less or win their first championship.

Not sure why you're so high on Bruno. I looked at his coaching record on google. Plenty of wins. Barely any league titles, and none when the Big East was really the Big East. Winning that league now is nothing, and C-USA or Great Midwest titles aren't impressive either. Hasn't been beyond the Sweet 16. What am I missing? I'd take Rueck (program first Final 4, won the Pac 12 3 straight years) or Graves (Elite 8 at 2 different schools, including a mid major) ahead of him in a heartbeat.

 

[JordyG]

Not sure why you're so high on Bruno. I looked at his coaching record on google. Plenty of wins. Barely any league titles, and none when the Big East was really the Big East. Winning that league now is nothing, and C-USA or Great Midwest titles aren't impressive either. Hasn't been beyond the Sweet 16. What am I missing? I'd take Rueck (program first Final 4, won the Pac 12 3 straight years) or Graves (Elite 8 at 2 different schools, including a mid major) ahead of him in a heartbeat.

I like Bruno because I can't remember a time when he's had any real talent, yet he still somehow manages to get his team ranked. Doing more with sometimes nothing. Like this year. Both of the coaches you've mentioned have had the talent. Rueck won with Sidney and Jaime. Right now his team has more than Doug. How's he doing in a weak Pac 10 this year? Bruno has never had talent like that. Also neither of those coaches have coached in a division as tough as the old Big East. Let's see how Rueck and Kelly would fare in a conference with UConn, ND, and Louisville. Think they'd win any conference titles?

 

[Mdoggie]

Brian Chrichlow!

 

[nwhoopfan]

I like Bruno because I can't remember a time when he's had any real talent, yet he still somehow manages to get his team ranked. Doing more with sometimes nothing. Like this year. Both of the coaches you've mentioned have had the talent. Rueck won with Sidney and Jaime. Right now his team has more than Doug. How's he doing in a weak Pac 10 this year? Bruno has never had talent like that. Also neither of those coaches have coached in a division as tough as the old Big East. Let's see how Rueck and Kelly would fare in a conference with UConn, ND, and Louisville. Think they'd win any conference titles?

Well the Pac 12 (it hasn't been the Pac 10 since 2011...) hasn't started yet, so Rueck is tied w/ everybody else at 0-0. So...

Yeah the old Big East was brutal. Explain only 4 league titles for Bruno in 16 years of the North Star (I didn't even know that was a thing), Great Midwest and C-USA. I'll guarantee you none of those league was anything like the Pac 12 the last 3 seasons.

You say that Sydney and Jamie were talented in hindsight. I'm pretty sure none of OSU's players were ranked in the top 50 coming out of HS until Pivec signed. Anyway Allie Quigley seems to be a way better than average player, Bruno had her at DePaul. Jessica January was a nice player. I think you are way overestimating the talent disparity between OSU and DePaul over the years.

 

[JordyG]

I'm sorry, but to those of you who only measure by championships, or want it to count extra -
- Linda K. Sharp
- Carolyn Peck
- Sonja Hogg
- Marsha Sharp
etc.

If I am ranking coaches, I may want to include winning a championship (or 2) as a "+" factor, but, I won't use it as the determining factor.

When you get in Geno air, with number of championships and winning percentage, yeah, its easy.

Getting to Final Four's or Sweet 16's even, as well as Conference championships or runner up - and the more the merrier - good factors. But simply winning the Natty - not so much to my mind.

Which is why I don't consider Blair, Frese, Mulkey, Dawn, or any you've mentioned great coaches.

Yet some here would throw out the idea of titles as a referendum completely on the basis of what amounts to one or maybe two good recruiting class. Or some would include others simply because they beat UConn. Coaching is a lot of factors of which titles is, although to me critical, just one factor. Yeah recruiting, the ability to constantly refresh, is another very important factor. Tara is a great coach because she recruits smartly, unlike Walz's throw it against the wall technique, and she has done a lot with less. Yet some would say location is secondary to the coaches recruiting personality. Look at the rosters of Oregon, OSU, California, UCLA, Texas, Baylor, and Louisville then look at the rosters for UConn and ND. See who has to cast a wider net for talent outside or beyond contiguous states. A guy like Bruno has to recruit lesser talent locally and still remains relevant, and Tara remains hindered by her colleges rigorous standards. No, titles is not the only critical factor, but when a player or coach retires people won't ask Jewel Loyd or Graves how many conference titles or E8's he or she made.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Oh, this is getting good! The state of Connecticut might not produce much top end D1 talent, but it's close enough to plenty of recruiting hot beds. Not to mention because of everything Geno and UConn have accomplished, he can get his foot in the door w/ pretty much any prospect in the country. He gets to pluck top players from places like California, Texas, Georgia etc. Many coaches and programs don't have that luxury. Look at Oregon's roster. One third of them are international. Europe and Australia aren't very close to Eugene.

 

[bbsamjj]

I don't have a strong opinion on Mulkey, except that if people want to hold it against her for only winning one title with Griner (and it should be noted, Geno and Pat are the only WCBB coaches to win multiple titles in a row in the past 25 years), they also need to give her credit for winning a national title years before Griner showed up on campus. 2013 is the year they should have won again when Griner was a senior but Louisville played out of their minds and that was that. Her freshman year she lost to a Charles/Moore team in the semis, and her soph year she lost to A&M (national champs) in the elite 8 (and having to play a conference team in your regional final is very, very tough).

 

[shizam]

Muffett is my #2. Does more with less and her teams have been phenomenal the last 6-7 season’s.

Dawn is absolutely a top 5 coach too. I think some people omit her or put her lower due to the fact that she won a title without having to face Connecticut. Yes, it was a major stroke of luck, but her teams have been consistently in the top 5 for several years now and the turnaround job she did at Temple too was fantastic. Her teams do not play pretty basketball, but her players make big improvements during their time at SC and they’re regularly in the title hunt.

Rueck is one of the best up and coming coaches in the game. He led a massive turnaround at the D2 level and has done the same at Oregon State. If he can start landing consistent talent, OSU could be a real title threat.

Schaefer is one who might be a top coach. Curious to see how he does in the seasons going forward, but he’s impressed me with his body of work the last 3 years.

Tara is a top coach. Her program may be losing steam but she is a phenomenal game planner.

Brenda Frese isn’t a top coach, but she’s better than a lot of people give her credit for. She’s done a fantastic job the last 4-5 years at Maryland and has put together great teams after underwhelming showings from 2007-2013.

I do think Walz, Mulkey and Coale are some of the most overrated coaches in the game today. Sherri has made Final Fours in the past but I think her teams usually fail to live up to expectations. Mulkey has been a prime example of doing less with more the last 5 years despite being a heck of a recruiter. And Walz has the 2 title game runs but he’s never been able to get Louisville to be a team that’s a national power or regular top 5 team. This year might be the turning point for him, but aside from the runs in 2009 and 2013 I’ve been underwhelmed by him.

Walz way overrated last three years

 

[DallasBUFan]

I don't have a strong opinion on Mulkey, except that if people want to hold it against her for only winning one title with Griner (and it should be noted, Geno and Pat are the only WCBB coaches to win multiple titles in a row in the past 25 years), they also need to give her credit for winning a national title years before Griner showed up on campus. 2013 is the year they should have won again when Griner was a senior but Louisville played out of their minds and that was that. Her freshman year she lost to a Charles/Moore team in the semis, and her soph year she lost to A&M (national champs) in the elite 8 (and having to play a conference team in your regional final is very, very tough).

Very good point about the four years of Griner. Mulkey is in her 18th season at Baylor and when she arrived it was the bottom of the barrel. In that short time she has over 500 (517 or close as of tonight) wins with less than 100 losses (97 I think) not to mention 2 National Championships, 8 Big 12 regular season titles 7 in a row, 8 tournament championships. Not to mention the one of the titles was 40-0 which is something not many coaches have done or can do. Geno and Pat of course the legends, but for her to be in the middle of her 18th season to have one of the highest wining percentage behind Geno. Yet she's not a top coach blows my mind, literally blows it.

Geno had only won 3 national titles within his first 17 seasons and won his fourth in 18th. So if she somehow wins it this year then that would be 3. So how many other coaches could boast that? Tara has only won 2 in all the years at Stanford and hasn't won one since early 90's. Muffet has won one. All 3 of these coaches have over 30 years of experience and she hasn't even been a head coach for 20.

The numbers should say a lot. Of course Mulkey has been out coached some games and others have just been a fluke (Lousieville's upset). When she has lost it has been at the helm of the other greats she will or has joined. Muffet, Geno, Pat, etc has been the ones to beat her at the end of the year. All with many more years of experience. Geno will ultimately be one of the greatest coaches of any sport all time. But if I'm an AD and Kim Mulkey is looking I would be calling.

 

[Bayareahusky]

Head coaches? well i like Muffet and Scott R..... it said "coaches" so have to include CD

 

[jonson]

Oh, this is getting good! The state of Connecticut might not produce much top end D1 talent, but it's close enough to plenty of recruiting hot beds. Not to mention because of everything Geno and UConn have accomplished, he can get his foot in the door w/ pretty much any prospect in the country. He gets to pluck top players from places like California, Texas, Georgia etc. Many coaches and programs don't have that luxury. Look at Oregon's roster. One third of them are international. Europe and Australia aren't very close to Eugene.

I also believe that Graves currently holds the record for NCAA tournament wins by a coach of a team seeded 10 or lower. That seems to me a significant accomplishment.

 

[DefenseBB]

I don't disagree at all that recruting is a skill. But a players greatness in college and the pros is defined by championships....
Doug Bruno does not have any championships but yet you claim him as great because he does more with less. Both Men's and Women's BB at DePaul drive the bus. Doug needs to leverage his Olympic Assistancy and get better players. Until he makes a final four, to me he's behind Dawn, Kim, Brenda and Jeff.

Yeah, you have to have horses to run the courses, but I've seen Bruno do so much more with less, and Mulkey do so much less with more, and just last year. If positions were reversed does anyone really think Doug would have won only one title with Briner?
I hear what your saying but again, recruiting is the key part of the job, Doug couldn't get Griner so he needs to get an assistant who can recruit.
Do you really believe that Baylor and Texas' location isn't just as important a reason as the coaches for keeping homegrown talent in Texas? You can't tell me Waco is better than Chicago. And like I said, Gail couldn't keep recruits in Texas and while Houston and SMU are on the upswing, other Texas schools can't keep local talent. I don't really buy the whole "local thing for Texas" considering its size and crummy towns like Waco or College Station.
Or UCLA or California, or SCar, or Walz? Close at UCLA is doing great, Lindsay has lost her bloom so to say and I think her program has peaked especially considering the Oregon/OSU improvement along with ASU and aforementioned UCLA.
Yeah coaches cast a wide net. But the standards at Stanford are so rigid it keeps more local talent out than lets them in. The academics help recruit that top talent especially considering WBB doesn't really pay for mid to lower talent levels of the pros. It helps in all their women's sports and is why that is the top female sports university.
Yet much of theirs is still homegrown. Depaul, UConn, ND, and yes Frese, have to work, pitch and babysit harder and longer. I don't think ND and UConn have to work that hard anymore. Any top recruit will automatically be thrilled to hear from either one. ND has more cache than anyone east of Stanford (sorry Duke).

Yeah, I'm sorry, but like players I think coaches should be held to the same standard and be defined by championshps, not effort, likability, a new relevancy, recruiting prowess or their choice of assistants. Get back to me after some of them do more with far less or win their first championship. So Kim has 2 NC as Head, 1 as AsstC and 2 as a player, I think her X's and O's are pretty good. She's always in the dialogue for her team to win it all (like this year). Dawn has also won an NC as a coach and a few Olympic titles as both a player and an assistant coach so her X's and O's must also be pretty good. Brenda has made 2 additional Final Fours after Jeff Walz so she must know something. So yes, I root for Doug and while I think he's a good coach, he's made 4 Sweet 16's, that's it. So I guess I am at a loss for your high opinion of him as he doesn't have the qualification of a championship and I suspect he will never get to a Final Four unless he strengthens up his Achilles heel and gets better recruits (like Geno and CD did).

Jordy- I appreciate the dialogue and am enjoying it, however I guess we are going to disagree on what qualifies as "skills of coaching" strengths. X's and O's are required and no college coach would have a top program if they couldn't do it (even Holly has some! But I digress) and while some are stronger than others, you still need talented players to teach the X's and O's to. I have put in my two cents on your various points above in red (more of a pinkish). Again, thanks for the dialogue but even my wife of 25 years disagrees with me (fairly frequently) so you are in good steed.

 

[RSHERMVIKES]

For those BONEYARDERS that don't like my ranking of WCBB coaches, that's MY OPINION. I don't comment on who you pick or ranked because that's YOUR OPINION and you're welcome to it!
What makes the Boneyard so darn interesting is it may be the only site in WBB that values the individuals opinion! And we can thank our Mods for that! Go on VOLNATION and give your opinion that Geno Auriemma is the greatest WBB coach of all time and see what those fans say!
I ranked my 22 coaches by the way I feel about or how much I respect them! I stated some of the reasons for my placement, which is more than you complainers did. I put myself on the line because I believe in my values and ranked accordingly!
If WINS were so darn important in ranking a WCBB head coach then I guess Sylvia Hatchell is one of the 4 greatest coaches of all time! I don't know too many WBB fans that would rank SH in the top 4 of any greatest coaches lists! She's coached 43 years and has 1,000 wins but I don't even consider her a lower level coach! She's a good recruiter and it ends with that! Her great line at a 1/2 time interview losing to UCONN by 22 at the time, with 21 turnovers in the 1st 1/2 was, "I don't care if we make 100 TO's as long as we play fast!" NoCar lost that game by 30+ points!
So please don't sprout your opinion of my opinions it doesn't apply to anything but YOUR bias!

 

[HuskyNan]

Am surprised no one has mentioned Courtney Banghart of Princeton. Her winning percentage is 70% plus. I suspect that she could do very well coaching a perennial powerhouse but one can understand spending ones life coaching the kind of kids Princeton attracts.

Yes, thanks - you beat me to it. I'd love to see what Banghart could do with a team with a couple elite players. She has has offers and hasn't taken the jobs so she must be happy at Princeton.

Did anyone mention USF's Jose Fernandez? He's another one I'd like to see with an improved roster. Look at how well USF did with Courtney Williams.

Carla Berube is Div III but she's a great coach that took Tufts to a couple championship games. Her team is current ranked #1 and is 9-0 on the season. She, like Banghart, has had higher level offers but is happy where she is.

 

[sharris952]

Which is why I don't consider Blair, Frese, Mulkey, Dawn, or any you've mentioned great coaches.

Yet some here would throw out the idea of titles as a referendum completely on the basis of what amounts to one or maybe two good recruiting class. Or some would include others simply because they beat UConn. Coaching is a lot of factors of which titles is, although to me critical, just one factor. Yeah recruiting, the ability to constantly refresh, is another very important factor. Tara is a great coach because she recruits smartly, unlike Walz's throw it against the wall technique, and she has done a lot with less. Yet some would say location is secondary to the coaches recruiting personality. Look at the rosters of Oregon, OSU, California, UCLA, Texas, Baylor, and Louisville then look at the rosters for UConn and ND. See who has to cast a wider net for talent outside or beyond contiguous states. A guy like Bruno has to recruit lesser talent locally and still remains relevant, and Tara remains hindered by her colleges rigorous standards. No, titles is not the only critical factor, but when a player or coach retires people won't ask Jewel Loyd or Graves how many conference titles or E8's he or she made.

Well I think Muffet is one of the great coaches because she has consistently kept Notre Dame in the top five despite injuries. Also Dawn is imo a definitively top 5 coach. She has built two programs from being the bottom of their leagues to multiple team and conference champions. First at Temple, but more impressively, she is on run of 4 consecutive SEC titles which is even a greater feat given the traditional teams and programs she had to overcome to reach this level of dominance. She has also experienced similar type of success in every USA basketball team she has led which is not a foregone conclusion with our developmental teams given some recent disappointments. Finally, imo coaches know coaches and despite some's disdain for her style, Geno and Pat summit endorsed her coaching acumen in differing ways as she has progressed through her career. Her numbers rival a lot of the top coaches at this stage of her career.

 

[JordyG]

Jordy- I appreciate the dialogue and am enjoying it, however I guess we are going to disagree on what qualifies as "skills of coaching" strengths. X's and O's are required and no college coach would have a top program if they couldn't do it (even Holly has some! But I digress) and while some are stronger than others, you still need talented players to teach the X's and O's to. I have put in my two cents on your various points above in red (more of a pinkish). Again, thanks for the dialogue but even my wife of 25 years disagrees with me (fairly frequently) so you are in good steed.

I guess we're even then. My buddy disagrees with me, and my dog is looking at me kinda funny.

I gotta say though, I love this thread!

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I guess we're even then. My buddy disagrees with me, and my dog is looking at me kinda funny.

I gotta say though, I love this thread!

Yes - one of the good things is it is looking at who's good and still coaching, not trying to compare across different eras and (even worse) different sports.

Opinions vary, because everyone named here and claimed good is good - this is about separating the good and the better and the best (not named Geno).

Incidentally, I think CVS deserves her due as a good coach, as well. Her winning percentage and NCAA successes are no worse than others of the "good" coaches, and she deserves credit for her defensive innovations and building of multiple programs in different eras and in her prime she was an excellent recruiter.

 

[Trappa]

Don't know about any of the others, but Tara casts a wide net when it comes to recruiting. They've had plenty of players from California over the years, but draw in players from all over the country routinely. I'd say the school's reputation in academics and athletics aids them in recruiting more than the fact they are in California.

Stanford’s academics also probably restrict them in some recruiting too.

 

[jdubct]

Stanford’s academics also probably restrict them in some recruiting too.

Academics restrict them a lot. Players must meet strict academic standards to be admitted to the school. Scholarships are not offered prior to admission.

 

[DefenseBB]

Yes - one of the good things is it is looking at who's good and still coaching, not trying to compare across different eras and (even worse) different sports.

Opinions vary, because everyone named here and claimed good is good - this is about separating the good and the better and the best (not named Geno).

Incidentally, I think CVS deserves her due as a good coach, as well. Her winning percentage and NCAA successes are no worse than others of the "good" coaches, and she deserves credit for her defensive innovations and building of multiple programs in different eras and in her prime she was an excellent recruiter.

You bring up an excellent point, I just looked at her coaching resume and she’s only had 3 losing seasons at 3 different programs (last year was number 5). I put her higher than Sylvia (who blew a 15 point lead against an underaged Mercer yesterday at home no less) and putting aside my animus towards her from the BE days. I agree she deserves mention as an outside consideration. I am happy to see the team start off so well this year and am rooting for he to get the 1000 this year. I politely tip my cap to her for a career well achieved!

 

[DefenseBB]

Well I think Muffet is one of the great coaches because she has consistently kept Notre Dame in the top five despite injuries. Also Dawn is imo a definitively top 5 coach. She has built two programs from being the bottom of their leagues to multiple team and conference champions. First at Temple, but more impressively, she is on run of 4 consecutive SEC titles which is even a greater feat given the traditional teams and programs she had to overcome to reach this level of dominance. She has also experienced similar type of success in every USA basketball team she has led which is not a foregone conclusion with our developmental teams given some recent disappointments. Finally, imo coaches know coaches and despite some's disdain for her style, Geno and Pat summit endorsed her coaching acumen in differing ways as she has progressed through her career. Her numbers rival a lot of the top coaches at this stage of her career.

Muffet is absolutely on the “Mount Rushmore” though her “chink in the armor” is only 1 NC despite her always being in contention. That said, SHE’s ALWAYS IN CONTENTION!
Dawn is interesting in that yes, she has built 2 programs but the jury must still be out on SC as A’ja made the really relevant. Dawn needs to sustain it and at the moment, I am unsure how the next few years will play out “post” the post p). She’s in consideration at 5/6.

 

[Gus Mahler]

Since the OP didn't specify head coaches, here's my list:

1. Tara
2. Muffet
3. Christine Dailey
4. Rueck

 

[Vowelguy]

Since the OP didn't specify head coaches, here's my list:

oh please

 

[Vowelguy]

that's MY OPINION.

Worth noting that Opinions can be wrong.

 

[Monte]

Naturally, like in any job, there are some who are better than others. And, yes, some luck is involved too. But, I believe the biggest factor is: you are only as good as your players. As has been stated many times, Geno is great at recruiting NOT necessarily, the best players, but the best ones who FIT into his program.
Some of you remember Casey Stengel, who managed those great Yankee teams of the 1950's. .........THEN, he managed the early Met teams, filled with rookies and "Over the Hill" players.
The team set a Major League record for losses.....WHY?...The players on the rosters.

 

[reno tony]

Stanford’s academics also probably restrict them in some recruiting too.

Same problem for N.D.

 

[Bigboote]

I don't feel qualified to judge the best, but:

Vic Shaefer and Doug Bruno consistently build teams that are a blast to watch. MS State play with so much defensive intensity, DePaul so much offensive intensity.

Doug Bruno and Gary Blair give great interviews. I remember when A&M were playing Baylor for the fourth time in one year, in the NCAA tourney, having lost the first three, Blair was asked how he got his players up for the game, how he convinced them they could win. He said something to the effect, these are intelligent girls, I'm not gonna lie to them and tell them we have a chance to beat Baylor, I just told 'em to go out and have fun. That wouldn't have been nearly as funny if they hadn't won the game.