Re: March Madness: The Thread

[JimSorgi]

I don't understand what Coach K did to inspire such hatred either.

 

Coach K's evil deeds are pretty well documented.

[Exile on Waveland]

Oh, I forgot to ask: does anyone want to reconvene the Izzo-is-better-than-Coach K argument?

[SouthSideRyan]

Oh, I forgot to ask: does anyone want to reconvene the Izzo-is-better-than-Coach K argument?

 

I'll stand by my argument that that there's no comparison between the 2 when it comes to actual coaching.

[Exile on Waveland]

Oh, I forgot to ask: does anyone want to reconvene the Izzo-is-better-than-Coach K argument?

 

I'll stand by my argument that that there's no comparison between the 2 when it comes to actual coaching.

 

I'd say you're right. Coach K is clearly better.

[illiniguy]

Oh, I forgot to ask: does anyone want to reconvene the Izzo-is-better-than-Coach K argument?

 

I'll stand by my argument that that there's no comparison between the 2 when it comes to actual coaching.

 

I'd say you're right. Coach K is clearly better.

Because he had the easiest region compared to the others and coached a team full of McDonalds All Americans to a title, while getting the benefit of the doubt on calls the entire way?

[illiniguy]

Oh, I forgot to ask: does anyone want to reconvene the Izzo-is-better-than-Coach K argument?

 

I'll stand by my argument that that there's no comparison between the 2 when it comes to actual coaching.

Coach K does have the market cornered on having his players coached up to hack the crap out of a ballhandler yet not get a foul called. If Izzo masters that, look out.

[Guest]

Oh, I forgot to ask: does anyone want to reconvene the Izzo-is-better-than-Coach K argument?

 

If we're talking in tournament results, it's still Izzo by a decent margin.

 

Coach K: 30 years, 11 Final Fours, 4 National Titles.

Izzo: 15 years, 5 Final Fours, 1 National Title.

 

However, Michigan State has been a No. 1 seed only three times under Izzo and they made the Final Four all three times and they've been a top-four seed only two other times (No. 4 in 1998, Sweet 16 and No. 2 last year when they made the title game). Each time Izzo's been a favorite to make the Final Four, Michigan State has and they've also made the Final Four twice as a No. 5 seed.

 

Duke's been a No. 1 seed 11 times, a No. 2 seed another seven times and a No. 3 seed five times. They missed the Final Four five times as a No. 1 seed and only made the Final Four once when seeded lower than No. 2 (and that was as a No. 3).

 

In terms of seed and how the team was expected to do.

 

Izzo: Overperformed five times, played to seed six times, underperformed twice (as a No. 6 and 7 seed) in 13 tournament appearances.

Coach K: Overperformed 6 times (though not since 1994), played to seed seven times and underperformed 13 times in 26 tournament appearances. Duke lost in the second round twice as a No. 2 seed and in the Sweet 16 four times as a No. 1 seed. That's six times they lost two rounds sooner than their seed would dictate.

 

So Coach K's teams have done worse than their seed said they would every other time they appeared in the tournament.

 

If we're looking at regular season stuff, then it's tough to tell because then you get into which school can get and does get the better recruits and whether those recruits did better or worse than expected during the season. Obviously Coach K's teams have done a hell of a lot better during the regular season which is why they get a top three seed nearly every year. But my original statement was just about tournament performances and there's no doubt in my mind that Izzo does a better job come tournament time.

Edited April 6, 2010 by soccer10k

[illiniguy]

Oh, I forgot to ask: does anyone want to reconvene the Izzo-is-better-than-Coach K argument?

 

If we're talking in tournament results, it's still Izzo by a decent margin.

 

Coach K: 30 years, 11 Final Fours, 4 National Titles.

Izzo: 15 years, 5 Final Fours, 1 National Title.

 

However, Michigan State has been a No. 1 seed only three times under Izzo and they made the Final Four all three times and they've been a top-four seed only two other times (No. 4 in 1998, Sweet 16 and No. 2 last year when they made the title game). Each time Izzo's been a favorite to make the Final Four, Michigan State has and they've also made the Final Four twice as a No. 5 seed.

 

Duke's been a No. 1 seed 11 times, a No. 2 seed another seven times and a No. 3 seed five times. They missed the Final Four five times as a No. 1 seed and only made the Final Four once when seeded lower than No. 2 (and that was as a No. 3).

 

In terms of seed and how the team was expected to do.

 

Izzo: Overperformed five times, played to seed six times, underperformed twice in 13 tournament appearances.

Coach K: Overperformed 6 times (though not since 1994), played to seed seven times and underperformed 13 times in 26 tournament appearances.

 

So Coach K's teams have done worse than their seed said they would every other time they appeared in the tournament.

 

If we're looking at regular season stuff, then it's tough to tell because then you get into which school can get and does get the better recruits and whether those recruits did better or worse than expected during the season. Obviously Coach K's teams have done a hell of a lot better during the regular season which is why they get a top three seed nearly every year. But my original statement was just about tournament performances and there's no doubt in my mind that Izzo does a better job come tournament time.

The regular season is also skewed by Duke never playing true road games.

[NCCubFan]

This is the 4th time in the history of the tournament that different schools from the same state have won in back-to-back years: Ohio State (1960) followed by Cincinnati (1961, 1962), North Carolina (1982) followed by NC State (1983), Duke (1991, 1992) followed by North Carolina (1993), and North Carolina (2009) followed by Duke (2010).

[Exile on Waveland]

Oh, I forgot to ask: does anyone want to reconvene the Izzo-is-better-than-Coach K argument?

 

I'll stand by my argument that that there's no comparison between the 2 when it comes to actual coaching.

 

I'd say you're right. Coach K is clearly better.

Because he had the easiest region compared to the others and coached a team full of McDonalds All Americans to a title, while getting the benefit of the doubt on calls the entire way?

 

Again, a lot of them are McDonalds All Americans because they're going to Duke, not because they're actually that good (with some obvious exceptions). This is one of the least talented teams to win the title in recent memory.

 

I'm not going to get into an officiating argument, though I definitely have Duke officiating wounds from 1992.

[illiniguy]

Oh, I forgot to ask: does anyone want to reconvene the Izzo-is-better-than-Coach K argument?

 

I'll stand by my argument that that there's no comparison between the 2 when it comes to actual coaching.

 

I'd say you're right. Coach K is clearly better.

Because he had the easiest region compared to the others and coached a team full of McDonalds All Americans to a title, while getting the benefit of the doubt on calls the entire way?

 

Again, a lot of them are McDonalds All Americans because they're going to Duke, not because they're actually that good (with some obvious exceptions). This is one of the least talented teams to win the title in recent memory.

 

I'm not going to get into an officiating argument, though I definitely have Duke officiating wounds from 1992.

I would still take Izzo to run my program. He's cutting the nets down if Lucas doesn't get hurt this year. So I guess Kalin Lucas being hurt is the reason you think that K is the better coach.

[Exile on Waveland]

Oh, I forgot to ask: does anyone want to reconvene the Izzo-is-better-than-Coach K argument?

 

If we're talking in tournament results, it's still Izzo by a decent margin.

 

Coach K: 30 years, 11 Final Fours, 4 National Titles.

Izzo: 15 years, 5 Final Fours, 1 National Title.

 

However, Michigan State has been a No. 1 seed only three times under Izzo and they made the Final Four all three times and they've been a top-four seed only two other times (No. 4 in 1998, Sweet 16 and No. 2 last year when they made the title game). Each time Izzo's been a favorite to make the Final Four, Michigan State has and they've also made the Final Four twice as a No. 5 seed.

 

Duke's been a No. 1 seed 11 times, a No. 2 seed another seven times and a No. 3 seed five times. They missed the Final Four five times as a No. 1 seed and only made the Final Four once when seeded lower than No. 2 (and that was as a No. 3).

 

In terms of seed and how the team was expected to do.

 

Izzo: Overperformed five times, played to seed six times, underperformed twice (as a No. 6 and 7 seed) in 13 tournament appearances.

Coach K: Overperformed 6 times (though not since 1994), played to seed seven times and underperformed 13 times in 26 tournament appearances. Duke lost in the second round twice as a No. 2 seed and in the Sweet 16 four times as a No. 1 seed. That's six times they lost two rounds sooner than their seed would dictate.

 

So Coach K's teams have done worse than their seed said they would every other time they appeared in the tournament.

 

If we're looking at regular season stuff, then it's tough to tell because then you get into which school can get and does get the better recruits and whether those recruits did better or worse than expected during the season. Obviously Coach K's teams have done a hell of a lot better during the regular season which is why they get a top three seed nearly every year. But my original statement was just about tournament performances and there's no doubt in my mind that Izzo does a better job come tournament time.

 

Izzo's current stretch in the tournament may be about the best stretch of tournament coaching ever.

 

However, that cannot be the only analysis. For one, this is Izzo at his peak. At Coach K's peak, he went to seven Final Fours in nine years and won two titles. It's not as easy to say Izzo has done x in 15 years, he'll do the same x in the next 15 and match/trump Coach K. Coaches have peaks just like players, and Coach K is past his. Izzo has been a better tournament coach over the past 15 years, I'd say, yet Coach K has won more titles and only been to two less Final Fours during that time period. It's also salient that Michigan State was preseason No. 2, while Duke was No. 9. So Duke has a better regular season, Michigan State underachieves (albeit injuries were a factor) and Izzo gets credit for overachieving in the tournament (which they did)?

 

Finally, I know everyone likes to believe Duke is always ridiculously talented -- and they certainly are sometimes, e.g., 1991-92, 1999 -- but that's not always the case. Coach K was extremely successful in the mid to late 80s with what I don't think can be considered overwhelming talent. Same with this year.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Exile on Waveland

[Exile on Waveland]

I would still take Izzo to run my program. He's cutting the nets down if Lucas doesn't get hurt this year. So I guess Kalin Lucas being hurt is the reason you think that K is the better coach.

 

First, I missed this point: Duke may have been in the easiest region, but they still had arguably a tougher path to the Final Four than Michigan State. Michigan State played Nos. 12, 4, 9, and 6. Duke played Nos. 16, 8, 4, and 3. So you can knock Duke's region, but Michigan State didn't have to go through Kansas-Ohio State. Other teams did the heavy lifting for them in the region.

 

Second, I simply do not agree that Michigan State wins the title if Lucas plays. This is a ridiculous leap in logic that (i) they automatically win; (ii) a title this year makes Izzo better than Coach K; and (iii) this year is the only reason I think Coach K is better. As to the last point, I think Coach K is better because he's had more sustained success than Izzo.

[illiniguy]

I would still take Izzo to run my program. He's cutting the nets down if Lucas doesn't get hurt this year. So I guess Kalin Lucas being hurt is the reason you think that K is the better coach.

 

First, I missed this point: Duke may have been in the easiest region, but they still had arguably a tougher path to the Final Four than Michigan State. Michigan State played Nos. 12, 4, 9, and 6. Duke played Nos. 16, 8, 4, and 3. So you can knock Duke's region, but Michigan State didn't have to go through Kansas-Ohio State. Other teams did the heavy lifting for them in the region.

 

Second, I simply do not agree that Michigan State wins the title if Lucas plays. This is a ridiculous leap in logic that (i) they automatically win; (ii) a title this year makes Izzo better than Coach K; and (iii) this year is the only reason I think Coach K is better. As to the last point, I think Coach K is better because he's had more sustained success than Izzo.

Well we have to agree to disagree. I think that what Izzo has done has been much more impressive considering I think the deck is always stacked for K and Duke. The ACC has basically had to apologize two different times for referees blatantly giving games to Duke on the road in conference play.

[Exile on Waveland]

I would still take Izzo to run my program. He's cutting the nets down if Lucas doesn't get hurt this year. So I guess Kalin Lucas being hurt is the reason you think that K is the better coach.

 

First, I missed this point: Duke may have been in the easiest region, but they still had arguably a tougher path to the Final Four than Michigan State. Michigan State played Nos. 12, 4, 9, and 6. Duke played Nos. 16, 8, 4, and 3. So you can knock Duke's region, but Michigan State didn't have to go through Kansas-Ohio State. Other teams did the heavy lifting for them in the region.

 

Second, I simply do not agree that Michigan State wins the title if Lucas plays. This is a ridiculous leap in logic that (i) they automatically win; (ii) a title this year makes Izzo better than Coach K; and (iii) this year is the only reason I think Coach K is better. As to the last point, I think Coach K is better because he's had more sustained success than Izzo.

Well we have to agree to disagree. I think that what Izzo has done has been much more impressive considering I think the deck is always stacked for K and Duke. The ACC has basically had to apologize two different times for referees blatantly giving games to Duke on the road in conference play.

 

It's subjective, but maybe you're right and Duke does get all the breaks now. However, do you believe that's always been the case? I mean, the second Coach K stepped onto Duke's campus they got all the calls (despite records of 17-13, 10-17, 11-17)? Surely not; so, at some point, he had to be winning without the help.

[illiniguy]

I would still take Izzo to run my program. He's cutting the nets down if Lucas doesn't get hurt this year. So I guess Kalin Lucas being hurt is the reason you think that K is the better coach.

 

First, I missed this point: Duke may have been in the easiest region, but they still had arguably a tougher path to the Final Four than Michigan State. Michigan State played Nos. 12, 4, 9, and 6. Duke played Nos. 16, 8, 4, and 3. So you can knock Duke's region, but Michigan State didn't have to go through Kansas-Ohio State. Other teams did the heavy lifting for them in the region.

 

Second, I simply do not agree that Michigan State wins the title if Lucas plays. This is a ridiculous leap in logic that (i) they automatically win; (ii) a title this year makes Izzo better than Coach K; and (iii) this year is the only reason I think Coach K is better. As to the last point, I think Coach K is better because he's had more sustained success than Izzo.

Well we have to agree to disagree. I think that what Izzo has done has been much more impressive considering I think the deck is always stacked for K and Duke. The ACC has basically had to apologize two different times for referees blatantly giving games to Duke on the road in conference play.

 

It's subjective, but maybe you're right and Duke does get all the breaks now. However, do you believe that's always been the case? I mean, the second Coach K stepped onto Duke's campus they got all the calls (despite records of 17-13, 10-17, 11-17)? Surely not; so, at some point, he had to be winning without the help.

No, you are right early to mid 90's K was a great coach. I don't think he has been very good since. In fact I think that he had a team with Brand and the boys that only a bafoon could have messed up, and he did. He is also horrible now at using his post players. Christian I can't spell his name,Laetner? wouldn't be effective for him anymore becuase he has fased the post player as an offensive force out of his system.

[Andy]

No, you are right early to mid 90's K was a great coach. I don't think he has been very good since. In fact I think that he had a team with Brand and the boys that only a bafoon could have messed up, and he did. He is also horrible now at using his post players. Christian I can't spell his name,Laetner? wouldn't be effective for him anymore becuase he has fased the post player as an offensive force out of his system.

You expect him to make a post force out of that oaf Zoubek? My guess is he'd find some room for a big-time post player in his system if he managed to recruit one.

[illiniguy]

No, you are right early to mid 90's K was a great coach. I don't think he has been very good since. In fact I think that he had a team with Brand and the boys that only a bafoon could have messed up, and he did. He is also horrible now at using his post players. Christian I can't spell his name,Laetner? wouldn't be effective for him anymore becuase he has fased the post player as an offensive force out of his system.

You expect him to make a post force out of that oaf Zoubek? My guess is he'd find some room for a big-time post player in his system if he managed to recruit one.

Right like he used Boozer? Or Josh McRoberts? Or Shavlik Randolph? Hell even all of Shelden Williams' offense came off second chances and the such cause they were busy drawing up every play for Redick. This year he did a nice job, but he has had talent in the post there recently and hasn't done squat with them. Thus why no good post player wants to go there now.

[CubbieBum]

No, you are right early to mid 90's K was a great coach. I don't think he has been very good since. In fact I think that he had a team with Brand and the boys that only a bafoon could have messed up, and he did. He is also horrible now at using his post players. Christian I can't spell his name,Laetner? wouldn't be effective for him anymore becuase he has fased the post player as an offensive force out of his system.

You expect him to make a post force out of that oaf Zoubek? My guess is he'd find some room for a big-time post player in his system if he managed to recruit one.

Right like he used Boozer? Or Josh McRoberts? Or Shavlik Randolph? Hell even all of Shelden Williams' offense came off second chances and the such cause they were busy drawing up every play for Redick. This year he did a nice job, but he has had talent in the post there recently and hasn't done squat with them. Thus why no good post player wants to go there now.

 

I agree for the most part but for fairness didn't Battier play in the post predominantly?

[illiniguy]

No, you are right early to mid 90's K was a great coach. I don't think he has been very good since. In fact I think that he had a team with Brand and the boys that only a bafoon could have messed up, and he did. He is also horrible now at using his post players. Christian I can't spell his name,Laetner? wouldn't be effective for him anymore becuase he has fased the post player as an offensive force out of his system.

You expect him to make a post force out of that oaf Zoubek? My guess is he'd find some room for a big-time post player in his system if he managed to recruit one.

Right like he used Boozer? Or Josh McRoberts? Or Shavlik Randolph? Hell even all of Shelden Williams' offense came off second chances and the such cause they were busy drawing up every play for Redick. This year he did a nice job, but he has had talent in the post there recently and hasn't done squat with them. Thus why no good post player wants to go there now.

 

I agree for the most part but for fairness didn't Battier play in the post predominantly?

Kind of, but again that's what he does now. Sticks a 3 as a post player and has him float to the perimeter.

[Exile on Waveland]

I would disagree that Coach K "messed up" the 1999/Brand team. That team went 37-2, 16-0 ACC, and lost in the title game. Their first loss was a last second full-court inbound play to a good Cincinnati team in Alaska (going off memory here), then they lost by three to an outstanding UConn team that finished 34-2. While I do believe that Duke team should have won the title, they had an amazing season and lost a close game to another really, really good team.

[Guest]

Oh, I forgot to ask: does anyone want to reconvene the Izzo-is-better-than-Coach K argument?

 

If we're talking in tournament results, it's still Izzo by a decent margin.

 

Coach K: 30 years, 11 Final Fours, 4 National Titles.

Izzo: 15 years, 5 Final Fours, 1 National Title.

 

However, Michigan State has been a No. 1 seed only three times under Izzo and they made the Final Four all three times and they've been a top-four seed only two other times (No. 4 in 1998, Sweet 16 and No. 2 last year when they made the title game). Each time Izzo's been a favorite to make the Final Four, Michigan State has and they've also made the Final Four twice as a No. 5 seed.

 

Duke's been a No. 1 seed 11 times, a No. 2 seed another seven times and a No. 3 seed five times. They missed the Final Four five times as a No. 1 seed and only made the Final Four once when seeded lower than No. 2 (and that was as a No. 3).

 

In terms of seed and how the team was expected to do.

 

Izzo: Overperformed five times, played to seed six times, underperformed twice (as a No. 6 and 7 seed) in 13 tournament appearances.

Coach K: Overperformed 6 times (though not since 1994), played to seed seven times and underperformed 13 times in 26 tournament appearances. Duke lost in the second round twice as a No. 2 seed and in the Sweet 16 four times as a No. 1 seed. That's six times they lost two rounds sooner than their seed would dictate.

 

So Coach K's teams have done worse than their seed said they would every other time they appeared in the tournament.

 

If we're looking at regular season stuff, then it's tough to tell because then you get into which school can get and does get the better recruits and whether those recruits did better or worse than expected during the season. Obviously Coach K's teams have done a hell of a lot better during the regular season which is why they get a top three seed nearly every year. But my original statement was just about tournament performances and there's no doubt in my mind that Izzo does a better job come tournament time.

 

Izzo's current stretch in the tournament may be about the best stretch of tournament coaching ever.

 

However, that cannot be the only analysis. For one, this is Izzo at his peak. At Coach K's peak, he went to seven Final Fours in nine years and won two titles. It's not as easy to say Izzo has done x in 15 years, he'll do the same x in the next 15 and match/trump Coach K. Coaches have peaks just like players, and Coach K is past his. Izzo has been a better tournament coach over the past 15 years, I'd say, yet Coach K has won more titles and only been to two less Final Fours during that time period. It's also salient that Michigan State was preseason No. 2, while Duke was No. 9. So Duke has a better regular season, Michigan State underachieves (albeit injuries were a factor) and Izzo gets credit for overachieving in the tournament (which they did)?

 

Finally, I know everyone likes to believe Duke is always ridiculously talented -- and they certainly are sometimes, e.g., 1991-92, 1999 -- but that's not always the case. Coach K was extremely successful in the mid to late 80s with what I don't think can be considered overwhelming talent. Same with this year.

 

No doubt that stretch of 7 FFs in 9 years is mightily impressive and I'm not taking away from Coach K but I'm not saying that just because Izzo did what he's done the past 15 years that he's a lock to do it for the next 15 years.

 

We were talking about what both coaches have done up to this point and to me, what Izzo's done is more impressive. Obviously, as you said, Izzo's at his peak and who knows what he's going to do in the next 10-15 years. Unfortunately for Coach K, he's not at his peak anymore and those six times Duke was a top-2 seed and got bounced two rounds earlier than their seed dictated count against him. I don't think you can knock Izzo for only winning one title in the past 15 years while Coach K has won two because Duke has had many more shots at it. Like I said, MSU has been a No. 1 or 2 seed four times and made the final four on each occasion. Duke has been a No. 1 or 2 seed 16 times and made the FF only eight times.

 

Again, that all comes down to talent and how good each team was expected to be. As you pointed out for this year, MSU was the preseason No. 2 and underperformed a bit. But I'm far from an expert in all of those past years so I can't comment on whether or not Duke and MSU over or underperformed in the regular season which led to the seed that they got. All I'm going off of is where the teams were seeded in the tournament and how far they advanced.

[Exile on Waveland]

That's all fair. I don't disagree with any of it really. My initial post wasn't directed at people claiming Izzo to be the more successful tournament coach over the past 15 years, instead it was directed at people claiming Izzo is better overall or has been better overall the past 15 years (outside of the tournament).

[CubbieBum]

No, you are right early to mid 90's K was a great coach. I don't think he has been very good since. In fact I think that he had a team with Brand and the boys that only a bafoon could have messed up, and he did. He is also horrible now at using his post players. Christian I can't spell his name,Laetner? wouldn't be effective for him anymore becuase he has fased the post player as an offensive force out of his system.

You expect him to make a post force out of that oaf Zoubek? My guess is he'd find some room for a big-time post player in his system if he managed to recruit one.

Right like he used Boozer? Or Josh McRoberts? Or Shavlik Randolph? Hell even all of Shelden Williams' offense came off second chances and the such cause they were busy drawing up every play for Redick. This year he did a nice job, but he has had talent in the post there recently and hasn't done squat with them. Thus why no good post player wants to go there now.

 

I agree for the most part but for fairness didn't Battier play in the post predominantly?

Kind of, but again that's what he does now. Sticks a 3 as a post player and has him float to the perimeter.

 

Gene Keady did that a lot as well. A lot of coaches do because it is hard to find a great true center because there are so few of them. However, playing a big 3/4 at center creates a mismatch against most teams.

[illiniguy]

I would disagree that Coach K "messed up" the 1999/Brand team. That team went 37-2, 16-0 ACC, and lost in the title game. Their first loss was a last second full-court inbound play to a good Cincinnati team in Alaska (going off memory here), then they lost by three to an outstanding UConn team that finished 34-2. While I do believe that Duke team should have won the title, they had an amazing season and lost a close game to another really, really good team.

Man that UCONN team didn't have near the depth of talent though that the Duke team did. Corey Maggette was buried on the bench. Give K credit though he bought....Myron Piggie sold him...he put that team together. :P