I question how valuable it is to compare coaches in general. The hard numbers of wins and losses, especially under one and done scenarios, do have value, but I think there are other values that are more important. Things such as luck in recruiting players who are good for the system, regardless of "stars", success in player development, in game adjustments, clock and rotation management, are subjective and not so clearly analyzed. I think the most important factor for a successful coach is establishing a coherent team culture where the player's personalities and character mesh well inside a system, concept, and coach they believe in. Being able to recruit highly rated players is definitely a plus and having talent throughout a roster is obviously a large factor in success. But as we have seen time and time again such factors as having a solid group of seniors who know each other and the system and play well together have led to some success for mid major teams whose coaches most often have tweener talent but excel in the intangible qualities I mentioned. Sure the Big schools with the big coaches and the big talent usually win out but a well coached veteran team can make enough noise to raise some eyebrows and start getting better players as a result. Minnesota plays in a power conference and decently talented players will want to come here simply because they want to play at the highest level, to have national exposure with media and pro scouts. There will always be some who will play here regardless of our recent history of wins and losses. If we look back 10 to 15 years we see that we have recruited plenty of 4 star and several 5 star players. 5 star guys are always one and done possibilities and unless your name is Calipari and can recruit such players yearly I'm not sure 5 star players really help your program long term. Did Joel Pryzbilla, Rick Richert and Kris Humphries really help this program grow all that much. One factor I haven't heard discussed much is keeping players in the system. This is partly a function of recruiting the wrong players but there are also factors a coach can't control. A kid who thinks he wants to go far away from home realizes he made a mistake and wants to go back. A kid whose ego is bigger than his ability who wants immediate playing time and is not willing to develop into a RS JR or Sr contributor. A kid Fraks up and does something stupid. I think a hugely underrated circumstance was this year's Mc Neil screw up. He was our best on ball perimeter defender and we all know that good back court scorers have been eating us up. And Martin was supposed to supply some muscle, defense and rebounding in an already thin front line. These were not starters but were being looked upon as significant contributors. And yes, Mathieu and Eliason have either regressed or got into Pitino's doghouse. Austin Hollins carried us with leadership and performance, both on O and D, especially in the NIT. He is missed more than anybody imagined. I always feel a coach should be given at least 5 or 6 years to get a team that is made up completely of his recruits with his system and culture established. Its fine to criticize and I too am disappointed in this year's team overall. Plenty of that is on the coach. But I was willing to even give Brewster 5 years, which shows how much Kool Aid and hot chili I consumed. So what do I know? But I do think my points are valid.
