Coach K

[FWHORN]

Serious question, now that he has passed Dean Smith and with Bobby Knight in his sights for most all time wins does Coach K have a legitimate claim to being second best college coach ever. 4 NC's, double digit final fours, an olympic and world championship gold medal; the resume certainly puts him in top two all time.

I start of course from the assumption that Wooden is the best ever which may be a questionable one (edit: please see my response to texdoc below on this point) but assuming that, is Coach K now a clear second?

 

[Texdoc]

You had me until the word "questionable".
When someone else wins 7 national titles in a row, or 9 in 10 years, I will accept that possibility.

Although it doesn't seem possible, he may have been an ever better human being than he was a coach,and while the cliche is obviously overused, Coach Wooden would appear to truly be in a class by himself.

HOOK 'EM,
Texdoc

 

[FWHORN]

Texdoc, I actually agree that Wooden is unquestioned number one but wanted to at least acknowledge the argument that Wooden won all those NC's in an era when college basketball was not nearly as deep as it is today and the tourney had 32 or 48 teams rather than the current 68 making for an easier run. I disagree with that argument, but it is out there.

 

[salonghorn-70]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[South Austin]

To answer the OP's original question, yes, I think that Coach K has a more than legitimate claim to being the 2nd best coach of all time. Putting aside the wins, he has more titles than Dean Smith (2) and Bobby Knight (3), and more Final Four appearances (11) than Knight (5) and the same as Smith. He has coached in what is consistently the toughest conference in basketball.

(I also have a personal bias toward Coach K since I attended his basketball camp in high school and on the last day he was cool enough to take the time for a picture with me in an empty Cameron Indoor Stadium.)

Regarding the Wooden comparisons, you can argue that his teams played in a different era and he had the luxury of having the best players. But 10 titles in 12 years and 7 in a row are phenominal accomplishments no matter the era. He is still the standard.

 

[yelladawgdem]

When you hear Wooden's former players speak of him, they talk about the man, not the coach. Henry Iba was in that group also.

 

[tejas77]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[BornOrange]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Bob in Houston]

What makes that era different to you? (We may agree... I'm just wondering.)

 

[BornOrange]

The tournament was completely different back then. Since only one team from each conference could make the tournament, there were sometimes as much as half the Top Ten teams absent.

We've had years when a conference would get 3 #1 seeds. In Wooden's day, two of those teams wouldn't be in the tournament. So two of the top four teams in the country wouldn't be in the tournament at all.

Back then they adheredd to actual geographic locations when placing teams in regionals, so the westernmost schools were in the West Region. Even more than now, basketball was stronger in the east, so UCLA had an easier trip to the Final Four. Beat BYU, beat Long Beach State and you're in the Final Four.

Again, I say Wooden was the best basketball coach ever, college or pro. He may very well be the best coach ever, regardless of sport. He was definitely one of the best people I have ever heard of.

I'm just saying it was easier to win titles when the tournament just had 22-25 teams, with one team per conference, and geographically correct regions.

 

[BevoNation]

I don't like the comparisons, personally. I think both of them will go down as the best of their respective eras.. So, to me, there's really no reason to compare the two. Both are outstanding men and coaches and, in my eyes, are 1a and 1b.