COACHING CAROUSEL 2021

[youthathletics]

On the MARGIN a great coach can have a meaningful impact on recruiting, but a team's baseline and ceiling are both set by the school's pedigree and the administration's support of the program - which to me answers ggaits question

Please explain this one to me.

I understand how UMD Tillman is going to be more successful than Harvard Tillman. Not because of Tillman but because in mlax UMD >> Harvard.

But why is UMD Tillman so much better than UMD Cottle?

UMD only started to get serious about mlax when it hired Tillman? So they would have gotten the same results if they had just kept Cottle and given him the extra resources? So they were willing to resource Tillman, but for some reason refused to resource Cottle?

I'm listening.

P.S. Alabama Saban is obviously more successful than LSU Saban or MSU Saban. But why is Alabama Saban soooo much better than the 7 Alabama HCs that came between Bear Bryant and Saban?

P.P.S. UVA hoops Tony Bennett is better than WSU Tony Bennett. But why is UVA Bennett sooo much better than all previous UVA hoops coaches in history?

Simple...the sport has evolved on many levels, but in short,
From his BIO "Tillman's formula came to ultimate fruition in 2017 when Maryland captured its first NCAA National Championship since 1975".

Arguably, Tillman could be the reason the NCAA has the shot clock, he played much like Cottle with stall ball, possession shooting etc. Tillman openly verbalized he changed in 2017 and Rambo/Heacock where the reasons why. He finally listened to his players, instead of trying to control everything. You could also argue that had he put down his tablet and coached/encouraged the men in real time....things may have been different, again, this year.

[DocBarrister]

On the MARGIN a great coach can have a meaningful impact on recruiting, but a team's baseline and ceiling are both set by the school's pedigree and the administration's support of the program - which to me answers ggaits question

Please explain this one to me.

I understand how UMD Tillman is going to be more successful than Harvard Tillman. Not because of Tillman but because in mlax UMD >> Harvard.

But why is UMD Tillman so much better than UMD Cottle?

UMD only started to get serious about mlax when it hired Tillman? So they would have gotten the same results if they had just kept Cottle and given him the extra resources? So they were willing to resource Tillman, but for some reason refused to resource Cottle?

I'm listening.

P.S. Alabama Saban is obviously more successful than LSU Saban or MSU Saban. But why is Alabama Saban soooo much better than the 7 Alabama HCs that came between Bear Bryant and Saban?

P.P.S. UVA hoops Tony Bennett is better than WSU Tony Bennett. But why is UVA Bennett sooo much better than all previous UVA hoops coaches in history?

No one can tell me that Alabama would have won the 2018 CFP title game if Saban hadn’t benched starting QB Jalen Hurts for TRUE freshman Tua Tagovailoa. The Tide were only trailing by 13 points at the half and Hurts had won a lot of games for Alabama in his career.

The move had to be Saban’s, ultimately. It wasn’t a matter of talent. Both Hurts and Tagovailoa were extremely talented. But they were very different quarterbacks. Saban made a half-time decision that Tua was likely to have more success against Georgia and made the switch.

THAT was pure coaching. Indeed, one of the greatest coaching decisions in the modern history of college football.

DocBarrister

[a fan]

Thank you very much for breaking my thoughts down to make them easier to understand, Homer. Appreciated.

I'd break A Fan's position down into three different assertions:

1. Team success is overwhelmingly determined by player quality.

#1 is about minimizing x's and o's: the team that has the more skilled players the moment they take the field is overwhelmingly likely to win, because coaches' tactical competence varies only minimally, at least at the top of the sport.

Personally, I think #1 might be mostly right,

Thank you.

2. Player quality is overwhelmingly determined by recruiting.

#2 is about minimizing "player development": the team that has objectively better players the moment said players arrive on campus is overwhelmingly likely to have a better roster down the line, because coaches' ability to encourage and facilitate player growth varies only minimally, at least at the top of the sport.

#2 is probably wildly wrong,

What makes you say that? If you think it's wrong, this means that you think that, for example, Jared Bernhardt would not be the player he is, if he had been coached by Breschi, or Desko, or Tambroni et. al. I think that every single one of those coaches would have given you the Jared Bernhardt that we all saw on Memorial Day. And I'm surprised that anyone would say otherwise.

3. Recruiting is overwhelmingly determined by factors beyond the coach's control.


#3 is about minimizing recruiting, as a repeatable coach's skill: the school that has more features appealing to recruits the moment they hear its name is overwhelmingly likely to gather a more capable group of players, because coaches' ability to identify and attract talent varies only minimally, at least at the top of the sport.

[/i]

It's more complicated than this, and I'm sure you know that already. We were just discussing the friendly Admin that helped Tierney at Princeton...and what happened when that friendliness went away. Or where tuition prices have landed for places like Syracuse.

And yes, obvious examples like Danowski never making the Final Four at Hofstra, while being handed a Final Four program at Duke, and continuing that success.

[Farfromgeneva]

On the MARGIN a great coach can have a meaningful impact on recruiting, but a team's baseline and ceiling are both set by the school's pedigree and the administration's support of the program - which to me answers ggaits question

Please explain this one to me.

I understand how UMD Tillman is going to be more successful than Harvard Tillman. Not because of Tillman but because in mlax UMD >> Harvard.

But why is UMD Tillman so much better than UMD Cottle?

UMD only started to get serious about mlax when it hired Tillman? So they would have gotten the same results if they had just kept Cottle and given him the extra resources? So they were willing to resource Tillman, but for some reason refused to resource Cottle?

I'm listening.

P.S. Alabama Saban is obviously more successful than LSU Saban or MSU Saban. But why is Alabama Saban soooo much better than the 7 Alabama HCs that came between Bear Bryant and Saban?

P.P.S. UVA hoops Tony Bennett is better than WSU Tony Bennett. But why is UVA Bennett sooo much better than all previous UVA hoops coaches in history?

Agree on Bennett but you can’t say he was better at Alabama then LSU where he won a title and then left for the NFL. I happen to think he’s the best college football coach in the history of the game.

[Farfromgeneva]

On the MARGIN a great coach can have a meaningful impact on recruiting, but a team's baseline and ceiling are both set by the school's pedigree and the administration's support of the program - which to me answers ggaits question

Please explain this one to me.

I understand how UMD Tillman is going to be more successful than Harvard Tillman. Not because of Tillman but because in mlax UMD >> Harvard.

But why is UMD Tillman so much better than UMD Cottle?

UMD only started to get serious about mlax when it hired Tillman? So they would have gotten the same results if they had just kept Cottle and given him the extra resources? So they were willing to resource Tillman, but for some reason refused to resource Cottle?

I'm listening.

P.S. Alabama Saban is obviously more successful than LSU Saban or MSU Saban. But why is Alabama Saban soooo much better than the 7 Alabama HCs that came between Bear Bryant and Saban?

P.P.S. UVA hoops Tony Bennett is better than WSU Tony Bennett. But why is UVA Bennett sooo much better than all previous UVA hoops coaches in history?

No one can tell me that Alabama would have won the 2018 CFP title game if Saban hadn’t benched starting QB Jalen Hurts for TRUE freshman Tua Tagovailoa. The Tide were only trailing by 13 points at the half and Hurts had won a lot of games for Alabama in his career.

The move had to be Saban’s, ultimately. It wasn’t a matter of talent. Both Hurts and Tagovailoa were extremely talented. But they were very different quarterbacks. Saban made a half-time decision that Tua was likely to have more success against Georgia and made the switch.

THAT was pure coaching. Indeed, one of the greatest coaching decisions in the modern history of college football.

DocBarrister

Watch the Hobart-Bryant NEC playoff game and tell me what you think about Raymond pulling season long starting goalie Kevin Holtby in a 1 goal game w 3 min left for a Sr backup who has logged maybe 200 career minutes...

[HooDat]

Please explain this one to me.

I understand how UMD Tillman is going to be more successful than Harvard Tillman. Not because of Tillman but because in mlax UMD >> Harvard.

But why is UMD Tillman so much better than UMD Cottle?

UMD only started to get serious about mlax when it hired Tillman? So they would have gotten the same results if they had just kept Cottle and given him the extra resources? So they were willing to resource Tillman, but for some reason refused to resource Cottle?

I'm listening.

Let's start by acknowledging that Cottle was pretty dang successful at UMD. I am not saying coaching doesn't matter (I don't buy in 100% on afan's position) I think it matters on the margin - which is my point "F". My outside observation is that Tillman does a better job on all of those roles within "F" i) building their depth charts and putting the talent in the right roles; ii) setting team culture; iii) working the administration to get their support; iv) most importantly (and back to recruiting) - understanding what kind of player will fit the three points above. Doing those four things better at a program like UMD is the difference between "always" making the tournament and the occasional final four and regularly making the final four and winning NC's.

P.S. Alabama Saban is obviously more successful than LSU Saban or MSU Saban. But why is Alabama Saban soooo much better than the 7 Alabama HCs that came between Bear Bryant and Saban?

P.P.S. UVA hoops Tony Bennett is better than WSU Tony Bennett. But why is UVA Bennett sooo much better than all previous UVA hoops coaches in history?

My answer to this is the same. The prior coaches at UVA either were simply NOT top 10 quality coaches and or more importantly they weren't the right fit for the institution. The other point I would make here (as a UVA fan) is that other than the Sampson era, UVA was not a basketball destination and probably still isn't in the way most people think of it. Realistically UVA's only benefit on the recruiting trail was/is the opportunity to play ACC basketball for kids who can't get recruited to UNC or Duke. Bennett's success has started to change that some, but not really. Bennett recruits in a different pool of talent which maximizes all those "F" qualities. He crushes it on F (iv) most importantly (and back to recruiting) - understanding what kind of player will fit.

So my big take away re: afan's argument is that it all boils down to recruiting. To me, the most important aspect a coach brings is recruiting the RIGHT players for his institution. A "name brand" program gives them more choices - and if you don't have the brand you are limited on what you will ever accomplish over the long haul. Tiffany can land the occasional Malloy or two to play at Brown - but that isn't a system that is repeatable by just anyone anywhere. Tiffany was not going to win 2 NC's in three years at Brown. He probably had less than a 1% chance of ever winning a title at Brown - nobody has a statistically relevant chance of winning a NC at Brown - not because it can't happen and not because there is anything wrong with Brown or their commitment to lacrosse, but because you have to catch lightening in a bottle to make it happen at a place like Brown even with all of its advantages and its history in lacrosse* - like Bennett did at UVA in basketball.
* what program has produced more D1 NC winning head coaches than Brown? Without looking, my guess is Hop is the only program that has a chance to have done it.

I think afan's position is that there is enough coaching talent in lacrosse that the X's and O's aspect of coaching isn't the big differentiator.

[ggait]

I think afan's position is that there is enough coaching talent in lacrosse that the X's and O's aspect of coaching isn't the big differentiator.

In-game coaching decisions usually aren't determinative, and they are a tiny piece of the job. Heck in most sports the head coach doesn't even make many of those decisions -- that's what OC and DC do.

But the stuff that happens outside of actual game time is very determinative. Coming up with the right plan and then successfully implementing and executing the plan. Belichik, Saban and Bennett are very different coaches and have very different systems. But all three are complete masters of the head coaching game and make a gigantic difference.

As a big UVA hoops fan, what Bennett has accomplished is just astonishing. His in-game decisions, imo, are often meh or worse -- really nothing special. But the vision and the system for how he wants UVA to play, and his execution of that plan, is amazing.

AFan's premise is really the exception not the rule. KU, UK and UNC hoops spring to mind. Those programs are sooo strong that a lot of coaches would be successful there. And each has had a succession of successful coaches. But because those jobs are prized, only the very very best coaches will ever get an interview. It is TBD if Duke BB without Coach K will be KU/UK/UNC. Or (more likely imo) will be UCLA without Wooden, IU without Knight, or UF without Urban Meyer.

[AreaLax]

Per IL it’s official

Breaking: Former JHU head coach Dave Pietramala has verbally agreed to become @CuseMLAX's defensive coordinator as part of Gary Gait's staff, multiple sources have told @Inside_Lacrosse. I'm told an official announcement is expected soon:

[InsiderRoll]

Back to the coaching carousel, IL confirming what most of us already knew, Petro officially headed to Cuse as the DC.

[xxxxxxx]

Back to the coaching carousel, IL confirming what most of us already knew, Petro officially headed to Cuse as the DC.

Will be very interesting to see what his boys do as UNC commits and 5 star players???

[InsiderRoll]

Back to the coaching carousel, IL confirming what most of us already knew, Petro officially headed to Cuse as the DC.

Will be very interesting to see what his boys do as UNC commits and 5 star players???

That’ll be a very interesting story line to follow. Add to it that the father will probably leave Cuse for the first ACC/B1G/upper Ivy head coaching job that comes open. That’ll likely be while they’re in school. Definitely a lot to chew on if you’re one of those two boys.

[JeremyCuse]

Back to the coaching carousel, IL confirming what most of us already knew, Petro officially headed to Cuse as the DC.

Will be very interesting to see what his boys do as UNC commits and 5 star players???

I suspect they will stay/stick with their commit to UNC. Only Dom is a 5 star, his brother is a good player but he's more of a 3 star prospect form what I can remember.

One thing that could help if Dom was to reconsider is that he is very good friends with Spallina.

[Farfromgeneva]

Please explain this one to me.

I understand how UMD Tillman is going to be more successful than Harvard Tillman. Not because of Tillman but because in mlax UMD >> Harvard.

But why is UMD Tillman so much better than UMD Cottle?

UMD only started to get serious about mlax when it hired Tillman? So they would have gotten the same results if they had just kept Cottle and given him the extra resources? So they were willing to resource Tillman, but for some reason refused to resource Cottle?

I'm listening.

Let's start by acknowledging that Cottle was pretty dang successful at UMD. I am not saying coaching doesn't matter (I don't buy in 100% on afan's position) I think it matters on the margin - which is my point "F". My outside observation is that Tillman does a better job on all of those roles within "F" i) building their depth charts and putting the talent in the right roles; ii) setting team culture; iii) working the administration to get their support; iv) most importantly (and back to recruiting) - understanding what kind of player will fit the three points above. Doing those four things better at a program like UMD is the difference between "always" making the tournament and the occasional final four and regularly making the final four and winning NC's.

P.S. Alabama Saban is obviously more successful than LSU Saban or MSU Saban. But why is Alabama Saban soooo much better than the 7 Alabama HCs that came between Bear Bryant and Saban?

P.P.S. UVA hoops Tony Bennett is better than WSU Tony Bennett. But why is UVA Bennett sooo much better than all previous UVA hoops coaches in history?

My answer to this is the same. The prior coaches at UVA either were simply NOT top 10 quality coaches and or more importantly they weren't the right fit for the institution. The other point I would make here (as a UVA fan) is that other than the Sampson era, UVA was not a basketball destination and probably still isn't in the way most people think of it. Realistically UVA's only benefit on the recruiting trail was/is the opportunity to play ACC basketball for kids who can't get recruited to UNC or Duke. Bennett's success has started to change that some, but not really. Bennett recruits in a different pool of talent which maximizes all those "F" qualities. He crushes it on F (iv) most importantly (and back to recruiting) - understanding what kind of player will fit.

So my big take away re: afan's argument is that it all boils down to recruiting. To me, the most important aspect a coach brings is recruiting the RIGHT players for his institution. A "name brand" program gives them more choices - and if you don't have the brand you are limited on what you will ever accomplish over the long haul. Tiffany can land the occasional Malloy or two to play at Brown - but that isn't a system that is repeatable by just anyone anywhere. Tiffany was not going to win 2 NC's in three years at Brown. He probably had less than a 1% chance of ever winning a title at Brown - nobody has a statistically relevant chance of winning a NC at Brown - not because it can't happen and not because there is anything wrong with Brown or their commitment to lacrosse, but because you have to catch lightening in a bottle to make it happen at a place like Brown even with all of its advantages and its history in lacrosse* - like Bennett did at UVA in basketball.
* what program has produced more D1 NC winning head coaches than Brown? Without looking, my guess is Hop is the only program that has a chance to have done it.

I think afan's position is that there is enough coaching talent in lacrosse that the X's and O's aspect of coaching isn't the big differentiator.

Bennetts father is one of the best unknown college basketball coaches in the last 40yrs. He has that benefit.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I think afan's position is that there is enough coaching talent in lacrosse that the X's and O's aspect of coaching isn't the big differentiator.

In-game coaching decisions usually aren't determinative, and they are a tiny piece of the job. Heck in most sports the head coach doesn't even make many of those decisions -- that's what OC and DC do.

But the stuff that happens outside of actual game time is very determinative. Coming up with the right plan and then successfully implementing and executing the plan. Belichik, Saban and Bennett are very different coaches and have very different systems. But all three are complete masters of the head coaching game and make a gigantic difference.

As a big UVA hoops fan, what Bennett has accomplished is just astonishing. His in-game decisions, imo, are often meh or worse -- really nothing special. But the vision and the system for how he wants UVA to play, and his execution of that plan, is amazing.

AFan's premise is really the exception not the rule. KU, UK and UNC hoops spring to mind. Those programs are sooo strong that a lot of coaches would be successful there. And each has had a succession of successful coaches. But because those jobs are prized, only the very very best coaches will ever get an interview. It is TBD if Duke BB without Coach K will be KU/UK/UNC. Or (more likely imo) will be UCLA without Wooden, IU without Knight, or UF without Urban Meyer.

Calipari has done a terrible job given the talent that has passed through UK. One title. Jim Calhoun did far more with much less…but again, Calhoun recruited to a system and style of play.

[ohmilax34]

2. Player quality is overwhelmingly determined by recruiting.

#2 is about minimizing "player development": the team that has objectively better players the moment said players arrive on campus is overwhelmingly likely to have a better roster down the line, because coaches' ability to encourage and facilitate player growth varies only minimally, at least at the top of the sport.

#2 is probably wildly wrong,

What makes you say that? If you think it's wrong, this means that you think that, for example, Jared Bernhardt would not be the player he is, if he had been coached by Breschi, or Desko, or Tambroni et. al. I think that every single one of those coaches would have given you the Jared Bernhardt that we all saw on Memorial Day. And I'm surprised that anyone would say otherwise.

I think your example is too simple. I think about it this way. If Tillman gets 10 Jared Bernhardts, how many of them will play like Bernhardt did this season? Maybe 9 out of 10. If Breschi gets 10 Jared Bernhardts, how many will play like Bernhardt played this season? Maybe 8 out of 10. If Kevin Cassesse gets 10 JBs, how many will play like Bernhardt played this season? Maybe 7 out of 10.

[MDlaxfan76]

Back to the coaching carousel, IL confirming what most of us already knew, Petro officially headed to Cuse as the DC.

Will be very interesting to see what his boys do as UNC commits and 5 star players???

That’ll be a very interesting story line to follow. Add to it that the father will probably leave Cuse for the first ACC/B1G/upper Ivy head coaching job that comes open. That’ll likely be while they’re in school. Definitely a lot to chew on if you’re one of those two boys.

I'm perhaps less confident that Dave will get offered a HC job in any of those leagues at this point, unless it was an interim move. Seems to me that an Associate Head Coach job could be plenty lucrative for him along with camps etc.

I thought a Michigan move a couple of years ago could have been a great solution for him, given other non lax issues, but other than that one, do we see something opening up in the near term? Ivies likely to open up a spot for a 54+ year old coach? I doubt my alma mater, Dartmouth, is looking to do that, thought it certainly would get a lot of attention. Elsewhere? Maybe, but I'm not aware of anywhere looking to let their current coach go. ACC, just don't know where that would be...unless a school like BC decided to start a men's program.

[ggait]

Calipari has done a terrible job given the talent that has passed through UK. One title.

Calipari has coached KY for 11 seasons. Four FFs. Whose record is better?

His predecessor (Tubby Smith) was 0-for-8.

Coach K, Roy W, Bill Self, Jay Wright, Tom Izzo, Mark Few. All have two FFs over that same period.

Calipari is sleazy as all get out. His one-and-done system is yucky, but he's mastered it. He's a fabulous coach by any measure.

Agree that Calhoun was a great coach. And UConn's performance since his departure proves the point -- the head coach really really matters. In college sports, the two most important things are (i) what's the profile of the school/program and (ii) who is the coach.

[youthathletics]

The one (or two) and done hoops, does not support any comparison with lacrosse.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/sports ... 594426001/

[a fan]

AFan's premise is really the exception not the rule. KU, UK and UNC hoops spring to mind. Those programs are sooo strong that a lot of coaches would be successful there. And each has had a succession of successful coaches. But because those jobs are prized, only the very very best coaches will ever get an interview. It is TBD if Duke BB without Coach K will be KU/UK/UNC. Or (more likely imo) will be UCLA without Wooden, IU without Knight, or UF without Urban Meyer.

My premise ONLY applies to D1 lacrosse. I don't know a thing about hoops or football....

[a fan]

I think your example is too simple. I think about it this way. If Tillman gets 10 Jared Bernhardts, how many of them will play like Bernhardt did this season? Maybe 9 out of 10. If Breschi gets 10 Jared Bernhardts, how many will play like Bernhardt played this season? Maybe 8 out of 10. If Kevin Cassesse gets 10 JBs, how many will play like Bernhardt played this season? Maybe 7 out of 10.

What is it that you think Tillman does that's so special in terms of player development?

Folks used to think that about Tierney. That he was a special mind. Have you watched DU the past few years? His defense/goalie has been average at best, and they don't have kids that can dodge and get the D rotating. So they get into the tournament, and get exposed. My theory, from watching the games? He hasn't been getting the kids...they're landing elsewhere. Result? DU has been struggling.

And when I tell folks to explain how is it Tierney isn't making Final Fours---out comes the excuses of 'the game has passed him by', and other nonsense about shot clocks. The reason Tierney won games is that he had elite players up and down the roster for over a decade. When he doesn't have them? He stops winning. I'm honestly confused as to why this is a debatable point.

Apply this idea that coaches are critical to Shay over at Yale. If Im' not mistaken, he's going to have a former championship roster that will have been gutted by graduation and the weirdness that was covid. He was the name so many wanted at Syracuse, because they think he's the best available coach.

Anyone want to make a gentleman's wager on Shay? Unless I'm missing who is eligible to play at Yale, I'm wagering he won't make a Final Four for the next four seasons, and that rosters are FAR more important than Shay's coaching. Who's in? Most of you should jump at the chance, since so many of you think that coaching trumps talent. Or, rather, that coaches are who make the talent, talented in the first place.