[ChosenChildren]

In college basketball at the highest level, I think in-game coaching is tremendously overrated. In fact, in my mind it is irrelevant. Here is what matters:

1. Recruiting 75%
2. Ability to relate to and motivate players 20%
3. In-game coaching (Xs and Os) 5%

There is no doubt in my mind Fran is excellent at #2 and #3. The jury is still out on #1 - way too early to tell.

Without horses, there is no horse race. We need more horses.

[hawkfan33]

Recruiting is obviously number one but to say in game coaching is irrelevant is completely ignorant.

[GoHawks24]

I agree that recruiting is #1, but you're not giving in-game coaching enough credit, at all.

[frank]

rick barnes, scott drew, calipari beg to differ

[hawkfan33]

This might be one of the dumbest posts I've ever seen on here.

[GoHawks24]

Originally Posted by hawkfan33

This might be one of the dumbest posts I've ever seen on here.

It's pretty ridiculous, but there's been much worse, to be honest. See: "We need to hire somebody from Nebraska's staff as DC" thread.

[atxhawk]

5% is a better reflection of how much time they spend actually coaching a game.

[rchawkeye]

I would say 60%, 20%, 20% is more accurate. I think in game coaching is much more important in football.

If you have 1 and 2 in basketball, you are going to win a lot of games.

[MNHawkeyeFreak]

This thread must be the "more" of tickets and more.

[koralakers]

Originally Posted by ChosenChildren

In college basketball at the highest level, I think in-game coaching is tremendously overrated. In fact, in my mind it is irrelevant. Here is what matters:

1. Recruiting 75%
2. Ability to relate to and motivate players 20%
3. In-game coaching (Xs and Os) 5%

There is no doubt in my mind Fran is excellent at #2 and #3. The jury is still out on #1 - way too early to tell.

Without horses, there is no horse race. We need more horses.

+1. I totally agree. Very unlike football when its like 30% recruit 10% motivation, 20% player developement over 5 yrs, 40% in-game coaching,game planning

[drew003]

I think in-game coaching is close to irrelevant. Once you are at the game, there is so much you can do and buttons you can push. What is more relevant is the out-of-game coaching. How you run practice, what you get out of practice, your scouting and gameplanning ability. Good coaches have their teams as prepared as possible to play.

I'll agree, however, recruiting is the biggest part of the puzzle. All the great practice, gameplanning doesn't mean anything is the other teams players are considerably better than yours.

Football is a game where scheming, fundamentals, discipline, ect... can neutralize talent difference. Basketball is not, generally the more talented team wins. Lick actually tried to play a style of basketball that neutralizes talent difference (long possessions to shorten the game, half-court game, 3-point shooting), but Fran wants to play a wide-open, up-temp game. You need the horses to win with that style of ball.

[ajbrand33]

If talent level and recruiting are all that matter, how do you explain March Madness?

[hawkfan33]

Originally Posted by drew003

I think in-game coaching is close to irrelevant. Once you are at the game, there is so much you can do and buttons you can push. What is more relevant is the out-of-game coaching. How you run practice, what you get out of practice, your scouting and gameplanning ability. Good coaches have their teams as prepared as possible to play.

I'll agree, however, recruiting is the biggest part of the puzzle. All the great practice, gameplanning doesn't mean anything is the other teams players are considerably better than yours.

Football is a game where scheming, fundamentals, discipline, ect... can neutralize talent difference. Basketball is not, generally the more talented team wins. Lick actually tried to play a style of basketball that neutralizes talent difference (long possessions to shorten the game, half-court game, 3-point shooting), but Fran wants to play a wide-open, up-temp game. You need the horses to win with that style of ball.

The same goes for basketball. We see it every year in the NCAA tournament.

Recruiting is a huge, huge part of a team's success. But coaching makes a huge difference. Look at guys like Rick Barnes, for all the talent he's brought through Austin they have one final four appearance to show for it and each year there are only a handful of games at most where they are not the most talented team.

[burky247]

Originally Posted by hawkfan33

This might be one of the dumbest posts I've ever seen on here.

Ostrich

[IowaTeddy]

I posted this exact same thing on a different forum...

As bad as things can seem Lick vs Fran

So I agree with your ranking of the three, although your percentage distribution is too dramatic. And I disagree on your comments about Fran. In fact, I would say the opposite. He has proven he can recruit, some might dispute this, but the class he has right now is impressive for a mediocre program. He hasn't proven he can coach well in game, the team doesn't do anything strategically. And to address #2, the team looks flat a lot of the time. So I actually think he has proven he can recruit, and not the other two.