bball: coaching vs. recruiting?

[charsibb]

 

 

 

Well, I know what a top 25 class is capable of on its own with not to good coaching, so I'm going to say coaching beats recruiting.

 

2/5ths of that top 25 class took a red shirt. And lets be real, there's a big difference between the top 25 class we pulled in and getting 6 of the top 25 high school kids in the country.

 

And 3/5 of that class lost to Detroit, who's 2013 class was unranked since it fell outside of the top 179.

 

 

In reality, it was only 2/5 of the class that lost to Detroit. Josh didn't play .... but still definitely a game they should have won regardless.

 

 

The real headshakers, and those that prove the point that coaching trumps talent, were the two games in Vegas. I would LOVE to know what the players were doing when they weren't playing (basketball, that is).

 

I think the coaches lost control of the players that weekend. We should have won both those games going away. Even worse losses than Detroit, IMO.

[Apis Bull]

 

 

Coaching trumps recruiting.

 

On occasion, a highly talented team can beat a well-coached on talent alone.

 

Quite often, a disciplined well-coached team can beat a more talented team by proper execution.

 

As it was said about Bear Bryant, "He'll beat your'n with hiz'n, then turn around and beat hiz'n with your'n"

 

I don't think that's as true in basketball.  A bad coach can get in his players way.

 

 

And how does that contradict what I said? Good coaches improve players, bad coaches destroy them...

 

 

What I meant, is if you have superior talent and are an average coach, but know to let your players play, you can beat a lot of teams with, well coached, "lower talent" players.

 

Just my opinion.

[charsibb]

 

 

 

Coaching trumps recruiting.

 

On occasion, a highly talented team can beat a well-coached on talent alone.

 

Quite often, a disciplined well-coached team can beat a more talented team by proper execution.

 

As it was said about Bear Bryant, "He'll beat your'n with hiz'n, then turn around and beat hiz'n with your'n"

 

I don't think that's as true in basketball.  A bad coach can get in his players way.

 

 

And how does that contradict what I said? Good coaches improve players, bad coaches destroy them...

 

 

What I meant, is if you have superior talent and are an average coach, but know to let your players play, you can beat a lot of teams with, well coached, "lower talent" players.

 

Just my opinion.

 

 

Sounds good in theory, but in practice, we're talking, what, 2% of teams or summat?

[NCBull]

Well, I know what a top 25 class is capable of on its own with not to good coaching, so I'm going to say coaching beats recruiting.

2/5ths of that top 25 class took a red shirt. And lets be real, there's a big difference between the top 25 class we pulled in and getting 6 of the top 25 high school kids in the country.

And 3/5 of that class lost to Detroit, who's 2013 class was unranked since it fell outside of the top 179.

In reality, it was only 2/5 of the class that lost to Detroit. Josh didn't play .... but still definitely a game they should have won regardless.

The real headshakers, and those that prove the point that coaching trumps talent, were the two games in Vegas. I would LOVE to know what the players were doing when they weren't playing (basketball, that is).

I think the coaches lost control of the players that weekend. We should have won both those games going away. Even worse losses than Detroit, IMO.

Really good question...and I bet someone on this board knows...

Spill it!

[smazza]

easy question

 

talent all the way

 

 

not even close

 

 

• a great coach with no talent doesn't win!!

[Vega]

You have to have talent to win no matter who the head coach is.