Read Article Below: Does the Coach Really Influence Winning?

by **Ace Dad** » March 29th, 2013, 3:33 pm

http://t.foxsports.msn.com/fgcu-shows-c ... everything

**Sponsor**

by **rlh04d** » March 29th, 2013, 3:43 pm

Players have a major role. But as fans of so-called "mid-major" programs, I think we all know how important the coaches are. There's a reason that George Mason went to the Final Four, and suck now that they've lost their coach, while suddenly Miami is at the top of the ACC with their old coach. There's a reason a lot of mid-major programs that get to the Sweet 16 or Elite 8 have their coach hired away and then fall back to earth.

I don't think it takes much coaching to win at Kentucky, Duke, UNC, etc. You recruit 5* who want to win championships at legendary programs to make the NBA, and their talent dominates ... essentially coaching those guys is just being a babysitter that keeps them focused.

Different story entirely when you don't have the resources or name recognition to attract the best talent. They can say FGCU proves the lie ... but maybe it just proves that their coach has developed a different system that also works. Regardless, the coach handles all of the in-game coaching, the training, the staff hires, the recruiting, and on, and on, and on. You can have a couple of good years just by lucking into some talent, but any level of consistent success has to be on the coach, whether for on-the-court strategy or just recruiting and development.

by **PantherSigEp** » March 29th, 2013, 6:38 pm

Unless a coach simply releases the hounds and let's his kids play street ball for 40 mins...no subs, no plays, no discussions, nothing, then of course they do. You can argue to what degree, but clearly they play a part. Look at some of the talent that Drake had with Phelps

by **DUBulldog** » March 29th, 2013, 6:54 pm

PantherSigEp wrote:Unless a coach simply releases the hounds and let's his kids play street ball for 40 mins...no subs, no plays, no discussions, nothing, then of course they do. You can argue to what degree, but clearly they play a part. Look at some of the talent that Drake had with Phelps

Exactly. With Drake's talent level, no way they should have been a Thursday night team 5 years in a row.

Regarding the article, FGCU is playing free and easy, but its not like they're not being coached. It was similar to DU in 2008. Because of Keno's philosophy, the guys played real loose, but its not like Keno just sat back and let them play.

I really wish more college coaches wouldn't micromanage so much.

by **indymoon** » March 30th, 2013, 8:53 am

How much of winning is due to the coach's success through actual coaching and how much is due to the coach's success in recruiting?

by **Deanthonybowdenfan** » March 30th, 2013, 9:27 am

indymoon wrote:How much of winning is due to the coach's success through actual coaching and how much is due to the coach's success in recruiting?

Good call. If your looking at the whole package (recruiting and coaching) which is both under the coaching STAFF'S control, coaching is HUGE. If we are talking about just the coaching, and not the coaching staff's recruiting, IMO it still has a pretty significant impact. Coaching is HUGE. If it weren't for Gregg Marshall, WSU would definately not be in the Elite 8, they would of actually not made the Tournament IMO. If it weren't for Dana Altman's influence, Creighton would probably have made the NCAA 1/4 of the amount of times as they have. After losing pretty much everyone at Oregon in his first year.....just a couple years later he is already in the Sweet 16, and had to go up against probably the best team in CBB just yesterday. Coaching is huge, obviously. You can have a bunch of good ball players, but without a coach, they could be very average. WSU as an example, they have some good players (Hall, Armstead, and Baker), but without coaching they wouldn't be in the Dance to begin with. Obviously you need some players, but its a mix. I would say its 50% coaching, and 50% players.