Seriously??
- Thread starter TheC
- Start date
Was Calhoun the guy who brought transcripts of two players and asked if they would get into NU? Told no. he then just pulled out the possibly of coaching at NU.
I get your point, but that was pre-Rose bowl and right in the middle of the dark ages when we were a national laughing stock. The recent-ish success of the football team and the new arena and upgrade in facilities makes this job slightly more attractive. Not much, but more so than 1986. Not to mention that we finally got to the tourney which shows it’s somewhat possible not to be a dumpster fire.
HOW would they have 2 more wins? HOW would they positively implement their system and overcome the learning curve that slows down athletes when they are learning a new system all while in the midst of playing two or more games a week? Neither coach would even have time to understand what sets work with what combination of players...which is the thing you always rant about.
If they had time to implement their system over an off-season and to recruit towards that system, completely different story.
I respect both Izzo and Painter's in-game adjustments, but there's so much more that goes into "Good coaches win. Bad coaches lose."
I disagree with the idea that an already well-established coach would automatically do markedly better than Collins, but I also disagree that an in-prime Jim Calhoun would have been a loser at Northwestern.
They also spent decades in the Horizon League, an even lower-ranked conference. And yet, after Gene Sullivan left after the 1989 season, they went through 4 different coaches and 16 losing seasons in 22 years, never sniffing a conference title, before they hired Moser. So for a long time, Loyola didn't do any better. Then they finally found the right coach.
This is a layup.
Win #1 - we would beaten Wake Forest.
Win #2 - we would have beaten Penn State
Win #3? If Izzo is coaching us, then he isn't coaching Michigan State and we beat them too.
You give Izzo or Painter our roster in early November, they use the out-of-conference schedule to try different combinations, different approaches and figure out what works best. Much of it is readily apparent to good coaches. I still can't shake the comment of John Beilein as a Big Ten analyst in the first half of one of our early games last year "Well obviously you'd prefer to be playing Young at center and Nance at power forward."
I respect what you post here, but I'm very surprised you are pursuing this line of argument.
The fact is that Matt Painter and Tom Izzo both worked their way up thru the coaching ranks. Izzo played point guard at Northern Michigan University, then coached high school hoops at Ishpeming High School. Then hired as assistant coach at NMU for a few years, before being hired as an assistant at Michigan State. After 12 years under Jud Heathcote, Izzo was handed the reins.
For the next 25 years MSU did not have a single season below 0.500 in the Big Ten.
Matt Painter was an assistant at Washington & Jefferson College, Barton College, Eastern Illinois, Southern Illinois (under Bruce Weber) became SIU head coach in 2003, won the conference with a 17-1 record, went to NCAA as an 8 seed. Then his alma mater (Purdue) hired him to replace Gene Keady as their head coach after a 3-13 season in the Big Ten. In Painter's 2nd season Purdue was back in the NCAA tournament.
Chris Collins was an assistant in the WNBA for a season, then an assistant to fellow Dukie Tommy Amaker at Seton Hall for two years before returning to Duke under Coach K in the year 2000, where he was an assistant for 13 years before getting his first head coaching job at Northwestern.
Here's Tom Izzo, back in the day
https://nmu.prestosports.com/general/2013-14/releases/Izzo_TBT.jpg?max_width=650
I always found it odd it took him 13 years as an assistant (at Duke) to get his first HC gig.
I like specifics and dislike generalities. But in this case generalities apply. We are talking about (arguably) two of the best coaches in the world. Izzo being less arguably. We can probably agree the best in the world will do better. And that’s not, in itself, something that means CC (or some other coach) is bad at his job.
Amaker, with transcripts for Laettner and Hurley, as the story goes.
Yup! Because Grant Hill was actually a stud in the classroom and on the court. I’ve never understood how Amaker succeeded at Seton Hall and Harvard but flamed out so badly at Michigan
That’s because the vast majority of the time good players win games and bad players lose games.
Wrong. The gulf between being "a loser" and winning national championships and being elected to the Basketball Hall of Fame is substantial. Jim Calhoun wanted to be the latter. I doubt he would have had the immense level of success he had at UConn, but that doesn't mean he couldn't have won games at Northwestern.
Did you mean to reply to me? Your post doesn't seem responsive to what I said.
Sorry, PWB, you missed the layup.
You didn't answer the question "Why?" at all. You didn't offer a hint of basketball analysis. You just quoted their bios and offered "because I think so."
What is the strategy they would have employed that would have been more successful with this roster? What kind of offensive action would they run that would increase offensive efficiency? Why would the defensive rotations be better and lead to more stops?
You don't install a new system during non-con, dude. You don't have the practice time once games have already started to communicate how to counter what the next team up does while simultaneously teaching the team a whole new way to play on both ends (and that's what it would be with either Izzo's or Painter's system.) The offense would be turnover central. The defense would be torched and look like it was playing in quicksand. It would be a disaster because the players would by necessity be thinking about their responsibilities instead of just reacting. These are real people...not NBA 2K.
Those coaches would be fantastic given time to implement their system and recruit their type of player, but not with this roster with no time to transition.
He flat out said he couldn’t win at NU. Parse that how you want as to how many wins that could have been, but that’s not the point - he turned us down because he recognized he would be held back for reasons we all know.
Why would they need to implement their system in a week? Why couldn’t they just make changes to lineups? To rotations? To what plays are called and when? And progress with some changes gradually? Why couldn’t they have an impact in the confidence of the players? Why couldn’t they make a million little adjustments that take no time, say they way one guards a pick and roll? Why couldn’t they have not played zone against Providence? Why couldn’t they let Young close a game? Why couldn’t they have a positive effect in Audige’s game? Even make him a 6th man? Reign in his bad instincts?
All arguable, but all things that could win games we have lost.
Last edited:
I'm not making the rules. I'm just responding to the claim that was made.
There are reasons why college coaches don't get hired off the street mid-season. The foremost amongst them is that there's no time to implement something new in the 20 hours of countable activity (which includes games).
Parsing?
You just don't like the suggestion that someone could possibly do the job better than CCC. Super interesting that the only part of my comments that you protest is the idea that a Hall of Fame coach who won multiple nattys wouldn't be "a loser" at Northwestern.
I think you are way overrating the disruption of a “system”. Especially when you consider that “system” might not work. I suspect the main reason there are little to no coaching changes mid season is that there are not many coaches available.
It’s impossible to go after someone who has a job mid season.
So you are left with the unemployed. From which, there might not be a single one you feel good about. And if there is, he might not be interested. All this while trying to keep it all a secret because no one likes a program who is publicly humiliating its coach.
Loser was your word, so just trying to understand what you mean by it. I don’t think Calhoun would have had an overall winning record at NU. His style was much more like Kevin O’Neill; and he had at least one suspension for a recruiting violation - not a good fit. Of course, hard to know what would have happened.Parsing?
You just don't like the suggestion that someone could possibly do the job better than CCC. Super interesting that the only part of my comments that you protest is the idea that a Hall of Fame coach who won multiple nattys wouldn't be "a loser" at Northwestern.
I think you don't understand what makes guys like Izzo and Painter successful and are way underrating the importance of the system they use to achieve success.
As for mid-season replacements...I think you got that wrong, too. There are many programs each year that know they are going to fire their coach by this point in the season. And there are always strong coaches who could replace them waiting in the wings. The reason they don't make the change is that it isn't effective for either the program or the coach.
So, I'm parsing my own words? That's a silly assertion.
I disagree that Calhoun would have had a losing record at NU. Just as I disagree if you were to suggest that Matt Painter or Tom Izzo would have a losing record at NU. I disagree with the idea that these guys would just waltz in midseason and turn this roster into a tournament team, but if they had time to implement the way that they prefer to play, they would be very successful.
And how was Jim Calhoun's style like Kevin O'Neill's?
I don’t doubt the systems coaches use are very important. For me, after recruiting, the most important part of their success.
But I don’t think that’s what the argument was about. It was whether these coaches could swing a few wins mid season or not. Assuming they couldn’t is, IMO, believing they are not more brilliant than others in anything other than said systems. I think they are, tactics wise Izzo a lot more than Painter.
What strong (debatable who is strong, of course) coaches are waiting on the shelf right now? The only one I can think of is Turgeon. The others were on the shelf during the off season and, for different reasons, did not join any program. I’m thinking Beilen or Matta.
Your belief seems to be that all coaching takes place in the sixish weeks of preseason practice.
Substitution patterns, motivation, defensive tactics, scouting, practice emphasis all have nothing to do with it.
You answered the question about what you think loser means for Calhoun. You are done parsing. We can agree to disagree on these coaches’ potential records at NU. And Calhoun was a bully, foul-mouthed and at times a cheater, despite being a successful coach.
And BTW - you no longer are finding my blogs dull and boring?
And BTW - you no longer are finding my blogs dull and boring?
I'm going to take this to a "whole nutha level" and assert that Izzo, specifically, could walk into our locker room at halftime, say "I got the 2nd half, Coach Collins" and we'd be fairly likely to play better.
This is a pretty goofy thread and I know I started it, but obviously there are "widely varying" opinions.
I'm going to watch us beat Ohio State now.
This is a pretty goofy thread and I know I started it, but obviously there are "widely varying" opinions.
I'm going to watch us beat Ohio State now.
Watching EJ Liddell be left open at the top of the key over and over and over and over to the tune of 17 pts in five minutes is only proving you are probably correct. Inexplicable lol
I'm not sure why you think that is the case because that's not what I'm saying at all. It's a helluva lot more than six weeks.
A lot of coaching at the college level is in recruiting. And good programs recruit players to fit the way they play. Then they teach said players to fit their skills within the way the coach wants them to play. At that point, they can start making adjustments to how they utilize said players. There are NBA ready players who can transcend these realities with their elite athleticism and skill, but generally it takes time for players to adjust to what their college coach is trying to do. And Northwestern doesn't have those NBA ready players who can transcend that learning curve.
So, sure, there is a lot of significant coaching that happens between games and in games, but it's all built upon the hard work of putting that foundation together. You seem to think Izzo would just come here and say "play harder, rebound better, and run that play where we score" and the team would magically be win games. That ain't how it works at this level.
I think you underestimate the impact that personnel management has on games. Especially for a team like NU that has a bunch of "good" guys but no true stars who can just play hero ball or call an iso play when you need a bucket. In game substitutions, defesnive schemes (staying in zone, switching to man etc.) matter. NU is not getting blown out, they are consistently losing close games and there are many who criticize Collins for who he puts out on the floor and his in-game substitution patterns (Beran and Boo play too much, Young/Berry play too little, Free Nicholson etc.) I don't know who is right in these specific debates, but I do know that in-game coaching and minute distribution matters and has an impact on the game; this is an area where Collins seems to struggle.
Northwestern is 1-5 in games decided by fewer than ten points this season.
Northwestern was 5-8 in such games last season.
Northwestern was 3-11 in such games the previous season.
I haven’t looked up such records for any other coaches, but I presume their winning percentages are better than 27% (9-24). I welcome you to look up Izzo or Painter or PSU or Nebraska , which have both fired their coaches in this time. They’re probably all better than Northwestern.
Note: this does not include Radford, which beat NU by 11.
Last edited:
Similar threads
