Has anyone seen any data on which coaches make the most in the win column with lower level recruits. ie. a coach who routinely wins 20 games but on average gets 3 star recruits vs. a coach who gets 5 star recruits but struggles to get into the NCAA tourney
Wins and recruiting: who makes the most with the least.
- Thread starter I-M-UR
- Start date
I don't know those stats, but UR has 5 quality players that most teams would want.
Mooney should apologize to Terry Allen for what he has (not) accomplished with him.
Mooney should apologize to Terry Allen for what he has (not) accomplished with him.
Well here is someone who has won a lot in a short time, although I think he just got an extension. Maybe until 2021?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Underwood
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Underwood
I think you have to consider the level of competition...in this case, the Southland isn't a bastion of basketball prowess.
I think it would be really difficult to compare coaches with so many variables. A Better measure might be program turnaround or sustained success.
Well, the question was wins with less than major recruits.
SFA has been pretty well ranked/rated by KenPom for 4 seasons, Although the coach has been there for only two.
But he has 4 more seasons to show results. You can show strategic ability at lower programs, not sure how you can show recruiting ability at lower programs.
Yeah, maybe I misunderstood the question. I haven't seen any stats like that. I'm not sure how meaningful it is at some point mostly because of the stratification of talent across conferences and the propensity for quality of recruits within conferences to be comparatively narrow.
I was looking for some quantitative way to measure coaches so I thought maybe avg recruit rating with team results. A leader in my opinion would have to be great at finding diamonds in the rough or coach well enough to improve players or systems to make them successful.
I agree Tarrant had a bunch; Springer, Winiecki, Kelvin J, English, and others. Later Belien, Skyrocki, Gonzalvez I remember Beilien talking about working or a players shot mechanics, use of using their foot to block bounce passes, blocking out etc. Lots of players come in with significant physical advantages, (height, quickness) which allowed them to star in high school but needed to work on skill improvement once they got to the college level. Especially the players we can recruit.
To answer the question posed by this thread: Tony Shaver at W & M makes as much out of nothing as any basketball Coach that I know of. W& M has a very limited BB tradition, a terrible facility, small basketball budget, small fan base, high entry standards, play in a 1-bid league, have no access to 3,4,5 star recruits, and on and on. Yet, Shaver has taken a program that was near the trash heap and made them very competitive. They have been on the verge of earning their 1st NCAA appearance ever several years in a row now.
Shaver is no one trick pony that happened to get an exceptional player. He has been highly successful at every stop. Even if you have never watched Shaver Coach a game, like John Beilein, the history of success at multiple levels and multiple venues proves that they are a cut above. Yes, a better than average player can make a difference for a year or two, but the best Coaches make the magic happen over & over again wherever they find themselves.
Shaver is no one trick pony that happened to get an exceptional player. He has been highly successful at every stop. Even if you have never watched Shaver Coach a game, like John Beilein, the history of success at multiple levels and multiple venues proves that they are a cut above. Yes, a better than average player can make a difference for a year or two, but the best Coaches make the magic happen over & over again wherever they find themselves.
I understand your point here, but it's hard to ignore that Shaver is about 50 games under .500 in his time at W&M.
My first thought was what Jeff Jones did while he was at American U.
Who could forget the two miracles of coaching Dick Tarrant pulled off. Bill Flye and Jeff Pehl.
I think Mark Few of Gonzaga does a great job recruiting, especially internationally. He doesn't get many of the most highly recruited American players, but he seems to find real gems overseas and in Canada. I think given UR's reputation and status for International Studies and study abroad, we would be in a great position to recruit more international players. Martel was a decent player, and even though he didn't do much while at UR, Josh Duinker has had an outstanding pro career in Europe and Down Under. We should cast a wider recruiting net if you ask me.
I think Martel falls into that TD, DT category of being excellent athletes but not basketball players.
The perception is that Dick Tarrant's teams most all overachieved based on their talent. On the other hand, Mooney's team (this year anyway) seems to be underachieving. Why the difference, I don't know. But it always felt like Tarrant had his players believing that they could win. I'm not sure about Mooney's teams, especially this one.
K, I saw a study recently that said (seriously, dude), that people who use emoji's are more sexual and have better sex lives!
Sorry, I haven't had much time to post lately.
12%+ of the school is international already and have no idea what basketball or football are. Lol
According to GW there is a at least one student from Denmark, Argentina, and Japan who do...
Pretty sure McKillop would be the winner in this regard. The thing to remember is that the competition in the SoCon was really bad. He got tons of auto-bids to the NCAA tournament, but the only time he actually won a game was in 2008 with Steph Curry, so he needed the best shooter in the history of the game to be competitive against NCAA teams.
Tarrant was a good recruiter when he was here, he sent 2 players to the NBA.
I don't get your beef with mckillop. Of course he didn't win many tourney games because he had to play as a 14 seed with SoCon players against a top 15 or 20 team.
And the guy did recruit Steph Curry and helped develop him.
And the guy did recruit Steph Curry and helped develop him.
I don't have a beef with McKillop, he is by all accounts a very good person and a good coach. I do think people give him more praise than he is due. Here are the seeds he got besides the 2008 season: 10, 11, 12, 13, 13, 14, 15, 16. Yes he shouldn't have that many wins with those seeds, but you would think he would have at least one.
Last edited:
I dont think so. Success is success imo. Coaching is coaching. He is under the same limitations as other coaches in his conference and has beaten his competition thoroughly. Honestly, do you think CM would have the same level of success at SFA as Underwood?
The thing to take away here is that he got to the NCAA's. I haven't gone back to check stats, but using your stats I count 9 times. I'd say that, in itself should give the man his due.
I also haven't done a relative comparison on years in coaching to NCAA bids but would curious how the above # bids stacks up against CM (Richmond & prior position). Keep in mind that since we moved to A-10 years prior to Davidson doing this, we had added advantage of being in a multi-bid league. If one takes that into account, it makes the Davidson's bids look even more impressive.
That is really tough to say. Really anything 13 and up is extremely unlikely with 4-1 seeds winning 80-90-95 and 100% of the time. So he had really 3 opportunities to win a game and in each the odds were against him. When he had the better team he made the Elite 8.
If you want to go with historical seed win percentages he should have won ~2 games with those seeds:
16 seed: 0% win chance
15 seed: 6% win chance
14 seed: 15% win chance
13 seed: 31% win chance
12 seed: 34% win chance
11 seed: 34% win chance
10 seed: 40% win chance
Expected wins: 1.9
Probability of at least 1 win: 90%
What effect does the strength of your opponents have on your team's KenPom rankings? What were Davidson final KenPom ranking each of the 12 seasons prior to joining the A-10?
Of course there is still the factor of elasticity. Performance against better or worse teams doesn't vary in a straight line.
Not sure where u got those percentages but over history 13 seeds have won 25 and lost 95, a 20% win rate.
Awesome record for sure but to keep it honest one of the wins was against Rider another 12 seed.
