Whos on your coaching Mt. Rushmore?

[gtcam]

You aren't seriously bringing up academics as a feather in Dean Smith's cap are you? Been following the news lately? All that crap started under him - and who knows what he might have getting away with before that.

To me, there are arguments for and against him as a coach. For long term consistent excellence, he's up there with the best. Maybe deserving of the top four. UNC was a top 10 team for the better part of 20 years. That's hard to do. For achieving what he should with the teams he had, his resume comes up a little short. I thought about Bobby Cox as a comparison - had the best team in baseball for a decade and won once - but that's selling him short since Cox gets little respect. Maybe Don Shula is better - did get to the winning circle twice (consecutively) but came up short for 12 years with Marino and is probably behind some combination of Lombardi, Noll, Belichick, Parcells, Landry and Walsh.

Smith's two titles are remembered more for what the other guys did (Brown to Worthy, Webber timeout) than what UNC did, fairly or unfairly. But that makes it hard to consider either of those wins a signature coaching achievement.

Spot on - My point about his two wins - both came at the expense of two fluke events
Besides, if the players weren't going to Kentucky or UCLA - they went to UNC
I'm not saying the guy couldn't coach or wasn't loved but the more things that come out, the more tarnished he looks - maybe everyone has those skeletons

 

[weyuo]

• Wooden: Should be at the top of anyone's list with 10 titles, 4 perfect seasons

• Auriemma: 9 NCAA titles, 6 times Coach of the Year, 5 perfect seasons

• Summit: 8 time NCAA champion, 7 times NCAA Coach of the Year

• Rupp: Was an early innovator of the fast break and set offense. His offense consisted of 10-15 set plays (with variations for each), complete with extensive offensive movement and screening. Early basketball innovations such as the "guard around" play and inside screen were first developed by Rupp in the 1930s. Likewise, he was an early proponent of the fast break, which his Kentucky teams utilized at every opportunity throughout his career. In addition, for most of his coaching career Rupp's defensive philosophy was largely exclusive, as he preferred only a tight man-to-man defense. However, during the 1963-64 season, Rupp became one of the first coaches to begin experimenting with the trapping 1-3-1 zone defense, and his Kentucky teams utilized this defense at times for the remainder of his career.(from Wikipedia)

 

[msgordon]

Calhoun was a fantastic coach, who took a sleeping giant all the way to the top. But don't kid yourself: if it wasn't Calhoun, it would've been somebody else. Connecticut was just itching to explode onto the scene as a member of the Big East, while being a couple hours from the media capital of the world. Hell, if you could ask coach Calhoun himself, he'd just say "I'm just flattered to have my name mentioned in the same sentence as Dean Smith's".

this is a pretty bizarre take. are you childhood friends with dean smith or something?

 

[uconnbill]

Wooden, Knight, JC, and K would be my top four and of all time.

Dean would have been there if not for the academic scandal, but that taints his accomplishments imho

 

[CallMeBruce]

If we're bumping people for cheating, how does Wooden get on there? Did he have any players who weren't paid?

 

[tzznandrew]

If we're bumping people for cheating, how does Wooden get on there? Did he have any players who weren't paid?

This is right.

But I'm not bumping Smith for any (potential) involvement in the UNC academic scandal. I'm bumping him because, relative to those 4, he achieved less.

 

[TheChamps990411]

Geno, Pat Summit, Sylvia Hatchell and Muffet McGraw

We`re talking about real basketball coaches.

 

[CallMeBruce]

This is right.

But I'm not bumping Smith for any (potential) involvement in the UNC academic scandal. I'm bumping him because, relative to those 4, he achieved less.

I'm not arguing with that. I don't know if he makes mine or not, but I can certainly see the argument for not including him.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

Calhoun was a fantastic coach, who took a sleeping giant all the way to the top. But don't kid yourself: if it wasn't Calhoun, it would've been somebody else. Connecticut was just itching to explode onto the scene as a member of the Big East, while being a couple hours from the media capital of the world. Hell, if you could ask coach Calhoun himself, he'd just say "I'm just flattered to have my name mentioned in the same sentence as Dean Smith's".

Ms. Smith, I understand this has been a difficult few weeks for you, so maybe posting on internet message board isn't the best way to channel your grief.

 

[mauconnfan]

We`re talking about real basketball coaches.

Oh my bad

 

[champs99and04]

The best comparison for Dean Smith would be Joe Paterno. Both guys coached for a billion years and were really good at what they did, but neither reached the pinnacle of the profession enough to be considered among the top four ever, IMO.

I'm biased, but to me, Calhoun is as much as a lock as anybody else. His biography will be limited relative to some of the other greats in part because it took him so long to get to where he did, and even after he got there, it was a long building process to elevate the program to a level of sustained excellence. He won despite some major recruiting obstacles, fought through a variety of health problems, and even handpicked a successor who won a title two years after he retired. He is the best program builder ever.

I have Rupp on there, too. The fact that he won in an era of segregation doesn't really make his accomplishments less impressive to me - everybody was playing by the same rules. He is the founding father of what most consider to be the best college basketball program ever, so it is tough to justify leaving him off.

My other two would be K and Wooden. If K wins tonight, it will be hard to argue that he isn't the greatest ever.

Narrowly missing the cut is Bob Knight.

 

[BLUEDOGHOUSE]

The best comparison for Dean Smith would be Joe Paterno. Both guys coached for a billion years and were really good at what they did, but neither reached the pinnacle of the profession enough to be considered among the top four ever, IMO.

I'm biased, but to me, Calhoun is as much as a lock as anybody else. His biography will be limited relative to some of the other greats in part because it took him so long to get to where he did, and even after he got there, it was a long building process to elevate the program to a level of sustained excellence. He won despite some major recruiting obstacles, fought through a variety of health problems, and even handpicked a successor who won a title two years after he retired. He is the best program builder ever.

I have Rupp on there, too. The fact that he won in an era of segregation doesn't really make his accomplishments less impressive to me - everybody was playing by the same rules. He is the founding father of what most consider to be the best college basketball program ever, so it is tough to justify leaving him off.

My other two would be K and Wooden. If K wins tonight, it will be hard to argue that he isn't the greatest ever.

Narrowly missing the cut is Bob Knight.

Don't see Duke winning...but

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Calipari, Coach K, Lappas, Jarvis

And 3 trucks full of explosives

Lappas & Jarvis kind of blew themselves up.

 

[TheRealKBuks]

Ted Williams' job was to hit the baseball. He did that incredibly well. Dean Smith's job was win titles. He did that very well, but not as well as the 4 others people mentioned. The HOF can elect unlimited numbers of people. A Mt. Rushmore can only do 4 people. It isn't apples to apples.

You could also say that Ted Williams job was to win World Series which he failed to do, or that deans job was to win basketball games. Dean smith certainly deserves to be on any men's BBall mt Rushmore

 

[champs99and04]

You could also say that Ted Williams job was to win World Series which he failed to do, or that deans job was to win basketball games. Dean smith certainly deserves to be on any men's BBall mt Rushmore

If we're going to use wins as our criteria let's go ahead and give Boeheim a spot.

 

[TheRealKBuks]

If we're going to use wins as our criteria let's go ahead and give Boeheim a spot.

I would like to retract my statement

 

[tzznandrew]

Baseball has 9 players on the field at any one time. You could play the whole game in the outfield and, theoretically, never have the ball get to you. You could hit a home run every at bat, and still have your team lose. It isn't remotely the same as a coach, particularly college basketball where you build the roster.

 

[PcketknfNiels]

Not including Dean Smith on the the Mt. Rushmore of CBB coaches for not winning enough titles is pretty much on the same track as not including Ted Williams on the Mt. Rushmore of baseball for not having won a World Series. The guy was the epitome of head coaches, and if you were to poll the current D1 coaches, I'd guess he'd win "most revered" by a landslide. That's got to speak volumes..

Dude's greatest contributions to the game are coaching (stifling?) MJ for 2 years and inventing stalling in basketball.

Rushmore should be: Wooden, K, JC, Knight in that order.

 

[CallMeBruce]

Baseball has 9 players on the field at any one time. You could play the whole game in the outfield and, theoretically, never have the ball get to you. You could hit a home run every at bat, and still have your team lose. It isn't remotely the same as a coach, particularly college basketball where you build the roster.

I don't understand how this is escaping people.

 

[boog204]

Dude's greatest contributions to the game are coaching (stifling?) MJ for 2 years and inventing stalling in basketball.

Rushmore should be: Wooden, K, JC, Knight in that order.

Why JC over Knight? Knight has more wins, same 'ships, a gold medal, and an additional final four. He has the last undefeated team and was an injury away from maybe having back to back undefeated teams. Is is just bias or is there something else you are basing it on? Obviously love JC, he took us to places none of us ever dreamed of, but I can't definitively say that he was better than Knight.

Also on the Dean Smith argument, he won 2 titles and went to 11 final fours. Not sure how that is "not achieving" or "reaching the pinnacle of their profession." If he wins another more title he does jump JC and Knight? Seems ridiculous to me that Dean Smith doesn't make the "Mount Rushmore." During my indoctrination into college bball in the mid 1980s Dean, Knight, and John Thompson were the big 3. Thompson obviously fades out but Knight and Dean were still pretty much the top until the early 90s when they are replaced by Coach K and later JC.

 

[CallMeBruce]

Why JC over Knight? Knight has more wins, same 'ships, a gold medal, and an additional final four. He has the last undefeated team and was an injury away from maybe having back to back undefeated teams. Is is just bias or is there something else you are basing it on? Obviously love JC, he took us to places none of us ever dreamed of, but I can't definitively say that he was better than Knight.

Also on the Dean Smith argument, he won 2 titles and went to 11 final fours. Not sure how that is "not achieving" or "reaching the pinnacle of their profession." If he wins another more title he does jump JC and Knight? Seems ridiculous to me that Dean Smith doesn't make the "Mount Rushmore." During my indoctrination into college bball in the mid 1980s Dean, Knight, and John Thompson were the big 3. Thompson obviously fades out but Knight and Dean were still pretty much the top until the early 90s when they are replaced by Coach K and later JC.

Knight didn't build Indiana; he inherited it from (effectively) Branch McCracken. That's the difference. That he and Calhoun have even comparable accomplishments tells me how much better Calhoun was.

 

[boog204]

Knight didn't build Indiana; he inherited it from (effectively) Branch McCracken. That's the difference. That he and Calhoun have even comparable accomplishments tells me how much better Calhoun was.

Indiana definitely had had success prior to Knight. However, 5 of the 8 previous years they were under .500 under McCracken and others. Knight takes them to a final four in year two, undefeated champions by year 5. This is 10 or so years before I was born so I'm just going on records. Can't argue w/ JCs program building resume.

 

[joober jones]

Tubby Smith, Tubby Smith, Tubby Smith, and Tubby Smith

 

[CallMeBruce]

Indiana definitely had had success prior to Knight. However, 5 of the 8 previous years they were under .500 under McCracken and others. Knight takes them to a final four in year two, undefeated champions by year 5. This is 10 or so years before I was born so I'm just going on records. Can't argue w/ JCs program building resume.

I'm not saying that Knight didn't do anything, but recruiting to Indiana in the 70s was nothing like recruiting to UConn in the late 80s. Indiana had gone through a rough patch, but they were still considered a blueblood program. Also, it's Indiana, the basketballiest basketball state in the country (pre-Calhoun).

 

[Inyatkin]

If you guys wanna be tricky, you can run at em' with a Calhoun.

This will never not be great.

 

[superjohn]

K, Wooden, Calhoun, Knight, Pitino, Dean Smith, Mike Jarvis.

 

[CTBasketball]

This will never not be great.

I'm surprised that only one person found this amusing. It was an all-time WTF call...

 

[PcketknfNiels]

Knight didn't build Indiana; he inherited it from (effectively) Branch McCracken. That's the difference. That he and Calhoun have even comparable accomplishments tells me how much better Calhoun was.

This, and the fact that Calhoun did it all in the 64 team/3 pt era. A lot of Knight's damage came before that and even by the 90s hadn't really been doing that much.

 

[PcketknfNiels]

Why JC over Knight? Knight has more wins, same 'ships, a gold medal, and an additional final four. He has the last undefeated team and was an injury away from maybe having back to back undefeated teams. Is is just bias or is there something else you are basing it on? Obviously love JC, he took us to places none of us ever dreamed of, but I can't definitively say that he was better than Knight.

Also on the Dean Smith argument, he won 2 titles and went to 11 final fours. Not sure how that is "not achieving" or "reaching the pinnacle of their profession." If he wins another more title he does jump JC and Knight? Seems ridiculous to me that Dean Smith doesn't make the "Mount Rushmore." During my indoctrination into college bball in the mid 1980s Dean, Knight, and John Thompson were the big 3. Thompson obviously fades out but Knight and Dean were still pretty much the top until the early 90s when they are replaced by Coach K and later JC.

Also on top of mine/Bruce answer Re: Knight, I kind of need more than 2 titles out of Dean when he had far and away the greatest overall collection of talent ever. I can't imagine it being as difficult as it is to recruit now in his heyday, and with that UNC platform and ridiculous amount of talent he brought in, he really SHOULD have had like 4 titles. He would be my #5 but could you imagine any of Wooden/K/Calhoun/Knight not doing better if in the exact same situation? Him and Knight are essentially contemporaries, but even without considering the talent each had to work with, I'm more impressed by 3 titles and a perfect season than I am by 2 titles and 11 final 4 trips. When you consider that Dean had way more talent to work with than Knight, I can't help but be more impressed by what Knight did.

 

[8893]

I think Calhoun may be better suited to be featured as the coaching Crazy Horse Memorial.