Big Ten Coaching Efficiency Ratings

Donate To GopherHole
M

Moses87

Banned
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
2,695
Reaction score
0
Points
36
It's almost unfair to look at the winning percentages or Big Ten titles won when considering top coaches. Certain coaches like Matta or Izzo have a huge advantage with the talent pool they inherited in their particular regions. MSU and OSU will always get better talent than Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Penn State or Purdue. So, which coach has gotten the best results with his mediocre recruiting classes? Here is my list of coaches who are the most efficient at winning basketball games with the least amount of talent.

1)Bo Ryan...It's not really close in the Big Ten. His record in the NCAA hasn't been great but nobody gets more done in the conference with less. I hate them, yet I love them. I hate the flopping and holding the ball for 33 seconds and yet I love how they never turn it over and play scrappy defense.

2)John Beilein - It's a minor miracle that he got a share of the Big Ten title this season when you consider he started a freshman PG and has players like Novak, Douglas and Morgan playing huge minutes. Nobody got more from less for this one year. National Coach of the year by far in my opinion and the future looks bright for him.

3)Matt Painter - He's done a great job at getting Purdue back to the upper echelon of the conference after the program lost its luster in the final Keady years. It looks like he'll be faced with a difficult task in 2012/2013 though. His teams have done a solid job of playing smart basketball and they play solid defense and smart offense. Efficient stuff from Painter, but I fear he could be heading the wrong way. Sorry Boilers, I think they'll slip to 7th next year behind IU, MSU, Mich, OSU, Minn, Wisc.

4)Izzo - Yes, he's had talent but he's not top bringing in top 5 in the nation kinda talent. He really did a great job of developing the likes of Nix and Payne this year and got smart, solid play from Thornton. The future looks a little scary without Green next year, considering their mediocre guard play. With a great recruiting class coming in, combined with 2 dominant big men, I wouldn't count Izzo out for the Big Ten title in 2012/2013.

5)Carmody - Beat MSU and nearly had his team in the big dance with perhaps the lowest rated recruits in the conference.

6)Fran - Iowa made a solid leap up the ladder this past season with a more up-tempo style of play. I was very impressed with their improvement as the season progressed. Moving forward, I think he'll miss Gatens a ton, but there's a chance the Hawkeyes return to the dance next year.

7)Crean - Came into a rough situation and finally turned it around this past season. He's gotten good performances from lightly recruited Sheehy and Hulls, though IU's rapid ascent was mostly the result of Cody Zeller showing up on campus.

8)Matta - Shoulda won another title by 3 games but his team seems to under-achieve at times. Another Final Four and perhaps a national championship to boot...Solid stuff from Matta in the NCAA Tourney but very poor in the conference.

9)Tubby Smith - He's had poor results and perhaps the worst luck of any coach in the conference, losing 2 key guards last year and Mbakwe this year. He does however deserve a huge share of the blame for the lack of improvement of Sampson and slow development of Rodney Williams. Both had NBA potential and barely showed it while in Minneapolis. Tubby deserves the blame for that and having a team that commits 17 turnovers per game.

10, 11, 12 incompletes...Lets see how Miles and Croce fair...the PSU coach(too lazy to look up name) looks to be in over his head so far.


It might seem weird timing to knock Tubby but I'm mostly referring to his team's performances in conference play over his duration in Minnesota.
 


I had never seen but it pretty much agrees with my conference rankings...I think it over-rated Tubby's recruiting.
 

I am positively stunned that Moses has Tubby near the bottom. I did not see that coming.

"Solid stuff from Matta in the NCAA Tourney but very poor in the conference."

Huh?

At least up until this past weekend, the other way around makes much more sense?
 

Moses87 said:
it pretty much agrees with my conference rankings
Click to expand...

What? No, it doesn't.

Good list vs. yours

Matta 1 vs. 8
Ryan 2 vs. 1
Beilein 3 vs. 2
Izzo 4 vs. 4
Smith 5 vs. 9
Painter 6 vs. 3
Crean 7 vs. 7
Carmody 9 vs. 5

You hit on Izzo and Crean. Other than that, your list was all over the place. Why didn't you just title the thread "Inventing New Ways to Hate Tubby"?
 


Matta has 2 Final Fours now and his teams have never been knocked out in the first round....I think they've been 4 sweet 16's in 5 years...that is solid, no?

But barely scraping out a tie for the conference title with his talent this year, was a massive under achievement.

Regarding Tubby, I know he's had some poor luck regarding injuries and suspensions...But player development has been pretty poor. I also mark him down for losing players like White, Cobbs, Iverson, Joseph who went on to produce elsewhere. A huge part of development in coaching is knowing how to handle people and student athletes...Defining roles, setting standards, holding kids accountable and building them up...Tubby has either recruited poor characters or he's done a poor job of dealing with human beings and making them want to buy in.
 

Moses87 said:
I had never seen but it pretty much agrees with my conference rankings...I think it over-rated Tubby's recruiting.
Click to expand...
Tubby's recruiting brought in guys that have had significant contributions during the course of this year in Dre, Coleman, and EE. You just under value Tubby's recruiting.
NVM I see now that you are taking things into account in recruiting that you really shouldn't. You are accounting for players lost from the team in previous years into this year's information. You should not. These losses can be used as reasons for the team's lack of success, but the rankings of recruitment and development should not be effected by them.
 

I don't deny he landed some good kids...But remember the title of the post contains "efficiency" as in how efficient was he at getting results with the talent level he brought in...he got 6 conference wins with talent that probably suggests they should have done better.
 

Moses87 said:
I don't deny he landed some good kids...But remember the title of the post contains "efficiency" as in how efficient was he at getting results with the talent level he brought in...he got 6 conference wins with talent that probably suggests they should have done better.
Click to expand...

nm
 



But barely scraping out a tie for the conference title with his talent this year, was a massive under achievement.
Click to expand...

Getting a share of the conference title in the best conference in the country is not "a massive under achievement."
 

Moses87 said:
Matta has 2 Final Fours now and his teams have never been knocked out in the first round....I think they've been 4 sweet 16's in 5 years...that is solid, no?

But barely scraping out a tie for the conference title with his talent this year, was a massive under achievement.
Click to expand...

First things first. You need to make sure your facts are straight when you're making an argument.

Correction #1 Matta while at OSU has indeed been knocked out in the first round, vs. Siena (in Dayton, no less) in 2009.

Correction #2 OSU has been to 3 Sweet 16's (or better) in the last 5 years, not 4.

I also find it interesting that you infer Matta has been an underachiever during the regular season, simply because you think the Buckeyes should have run away with the title this year. The facts are, Matta has won or shared 5 B1G regular-season championships (including 3 straight) and won 3 B1G Tournament titles. If that spells underachievement, sign me up.

Yet, you don't apply your definition of underachievement to Matta in the NCAA Tournament, where it's pretty obvious he's underachieved much moreso than during the regular season. On 3 occasions (2006, 2010 and 2011) his teams received a #1 or #2 seed, yet none of those teams even made it to the Elite 8. And one of 'em, 2006, didn't even make it to the Sweet 16 despite the benefit of playing the first 2 rounds in nearby Dayton.
 

Matta has had the top recruiting classes...of course he's winning titles...But he shouldn't be splitting titles with a team using Stu Douglas and Novak for 75 minutes per game. I'm sorry! He's under-achieved in the conference for my money. In the tourney he's gotten to 2 final fours now and 3 sweet 16's...I rank 2 final fours as better results than sharing a title.
 

Thanks for the laugh Moses, you're always good for a few. (I'm still waiting for the Broncos to move Weber to TE) Anyhow, just a few points to be made:

1. Take a look at Matta's roster for his first Big Ten championship team in 2005-06; hardly a collection of NBA talent.

2. If Matta's underachieved, Izzo must be on the hot seat. While Matta's Buckeyes have won or tied for first in the Big Ten five of his eight seasons; Izzo has won or shared the Big Ten title seven of his twenty seasons-in fact, he had seven consecutive seasons where the Spartans did not win the BT title plus 2010-11 was a very disappointing year for Michigan State. Yet, he's ranked at #4 in your ranking while Matta is #8; it seems that you've ignored much of Izzo's conference work and rewarded his NCAA tourney appearances while claiming you concentrated on the BT record for Matta and looked at NCAA play secondary.

3. Crean at #7 ahead of Matta and Tubby; hmmmm. After disastrous seasons that had whispers of Crean being on the hot seat, he's had one solid Big Ten season due in large part to a stud post player. I'd like to see a larger sample size before ranking him above the two mentioned earlier. To any argument you try advancing on this note-how'd life at Oklahoma work out for Jeff Capel after Blake Griffin left?

4. Ditto for McCaffery at #6. Seems to have Iowa pointed in the right direction, but too early to proclaim him as having achieved anything at Iowa.

5. Pat Chambers is the head coach at Penn State (took me five seconds to google and I'm not bothering to do a Big Ten coach's efficiency rating).
 




I don't think it's right to put a lot of weight on deep NCAA tourney runs. The reality is only one team wins the tournament (i.e., there's only one "best" team), and unless you're that team the length of your run will be at most as long as it takes until you meet the winner. Which is to say there are some draws that are better than others. To treat every F4 run and every failure to make the F4 as equal is unfair. You had an OSU team last year that was better than the OSU team this year, but this team made the F4 whereas last year they lost in the S16. Why? The draw was a lot better this year. On the flipside, VCU and Butler wouldn't have made the F4 last year if they had to go through UConn, UK or OSU to get there. Not all regions are equal - in fact, sometimes the champion of one region is much worse than the team it meets in the F4/NC game. Luck of the draw plays a big part in how far you go in the tournament (for a typical team).
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom