SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,747
|
Post by SFHoya99 on May 31, 2007 18:33:09 GMT -5
HSB,
The Donovan argument goes like this. If you include recruiting, development, game prep, and in game strategy -- all inclusive, that is -- then the coach that wins is the best. The only things I would adjust for is how much the program helps/hurts the coach (easier to win at UNC than UNC-Wilmington) and to be biased towards a longer consistent history of success.
But if you're saying that Corey Brewer beat us, not Donovan, Donovan still wins because he evaluated Brewer, successfully recruited him, developed him, prepped him for the game and put him in a place to beat us.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,309
|
Post by prhoya on May 31, 2007 18:40:11 GMT -5
Donovan has accepted the Magic's offer.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on May 31, 2007 18:43:33 GMT -5
Solid points SF.
I would counter in saying that despite all of the analysis what we can contribute, sometimes sports are pretty simple. In baseball they often say that it simply comes down to what type of game the pitchers bring on a given night. Of course, there are myriad other variables, and ways in which managers can affect the game. But in many cases, most of the success/ failure simply depends on what type of stuff your pitcher(s) bring.
In basketball, a lot comes down to guys simply hitting shots or not. Sure, coaches can recruit, instruct on fundamentals, install a quality offense, etc. But in the end, a lot of games are decided the way that '06 Gtown-UF NCAA game was decided: Brewer hit a nice shot, and DJ Owens missed a great open look. If DJ had made that shot, it wouldn't make JT III a better coach. And it also wouldn't be Donovan's fault- his defender fell down.
Basketball is a sport dominated by players, on every level. So, to me it's not wrong to say that game came down to Brewer hitting a nice shot and DJ missing one. That's what it's all about.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,747
|
Post by SFHoya99 on May 31, 2007 20:11:12 GMT -5
I was presenting the Billy Donovan argument, which is a hard one to fight against.
Personally, after the whole Esherick era, I came up with a very long and detailed set of criteria to evaluate a coach, anticipating that after three or four years we really wouldn't have a definite answer yet on Thompson. Of course, I wasted my time. The guy's a great coach.
Rivals placed him at #3 in their pre-season power rankings. With Billy D jumping ship, he heads to #2, with only Thad Matta ahead of him. Results-based, it is hard to argue that (although Matta is only 1-1 versus Thompson).
[Other items of note in the Rivals ranking -- Hibbert is the #1 C and Jon Wallace the #9 PG. Suspiciously absent to me is Summers at the SF position. He may not be Top 10, but he's better than half their Top 10.]
|
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on May 31, 2007 20:44:05 GMT -5
yeah my point was just what hoya love said. I was the one who brought up donovan in the first place as having an argument for being the best college coach. I just don't think the head to head stat is a useful one in this instance. that is all. You make a very good point though.
|
|
