Coaching, coaching, coaching

[ccbird]

Gary has always had one of the worst grad rates in the ACC, maybe even the country. There were people complaining a decade ago how poor Gary's grad rates were. I certainly agree that the system is flawed and biased, but it's not irrelevant. A very high % of the DI coaches in power conferences are in the same position as Gary and have graduated their kids at a better rate. Schools take grad rates of their student athletes seriously. Now, I would be lying if I said I've ever concerned myself with how many people Gary graduates but that doesn't mean it should have been as bad as it was for as long as it was. Read into this as much as you will, but Gary in one of his more recent contract extensions had a nice incentive clause tied to his graduation rate and unsurprisingly his rate has improved in recent years. I absolutely believe that when coach emphasizes academics to his players that his grad rate will be better and I think Gary has done that in recent years.

[Lucky Jim]

Gary has always had one of the worst grad rates in the ACC, maybe even the country. There were people complaining a decade ago how poor Gary's grad rates were. I certainly agree that the system is flawed and biased, but it's not irrelevant. A very high % of the DI coaches in power conferences are in the same position as Gary and have graduated their kids at a better rate. Schools take grad rates of their student athletes seriously. Now, I would be lying if I said I've ever concerned myself with how many people Gary graduates but that doesn't mean it should have been as bad as it was for as long as it was. Read into this as much as you will, but Gary in one of his more recent contract extensions had a nice incentive clause tied to his graduation rate and unsurprisingly his rate has improved in recent years. I absolutely believe that when coach emphasizes academics to his players that his grad rate will be better and I think Gary has done that in recent years.

Tread carefully. Reason is disfavored in these parts. Likely because these folks left college early for a lucrative contract overseas.

[Sports Guy]

Again, I don't care about pure talent, at least not the way you define it. It doesn't matter much who has the most pure talent when a guy averaging 5 and 5 ranks higher according to you than the two best players in the league.

I don't think using pure talent the way you do is a good way of arguing that Gary does more with less. What matters is how good the players are, not how much pure talent they have given the way you evaluate that. Greivis and Hayes don't have a ton of pure talent, but one is a great player and the other is a good player. Jordan Williams may not be as talented as Plumbee, but he is better player as of right now.

Again, i don't care how YOU define it!

I stand by my statement..MD isn't usually one of the most talented teams...They don't usually have NBA level players on their roster like many of the other coaches do...But Gary wins more than them because he is a way better coach.

Define it how you want..I could care less...The bottom line is the same.

[Sports Guy]

Tread carefully. Reason is disfavored in these parts. Likely because these folks left college early for a lucrative contract overseas.

When you start using some, let me know.

You can worry about it all you want...But its meaningless.

If MD went to the NIT 5 years in a row but graduated 100% of their kids, you wouldn't be pimping Gary for that.

[Lucky Jim]

When you start using some, let me know.

You can worry about it all you want...But its meaningless.

I think you've finally struck upon something here. You're so unfamiliar with reason that you actually need someone to let you know when it's been used. Nice catch.

[Sports Guy]

I think you've finally struck upon something here. You're so unfamiliar with reason that you actually need someone to let you know when it's been used. Nice catch.

Yea and I suppose an oversensitive, tree hugging lawyer is going to show me? LOL Spare me.

[ccbird]

Again, I don't care about pure talent, at least not the way you define it. It doesn't matter much who has the most pure talent when a guy averaging 5 and 5 ranks higher according to you than the two best players in the league.

I don't think using pure talent the way you do is a good way of arguing that Gary does more with less. What matters is how good the players are, not how much pure talent they have given the way you evaluate that. Greivis and Hayes don't have a ton of pure talent, but one is a great player and the other is a good player. Jordan Williams may not be as talented as Plumbee, but he is better player as of right now.

I agree. Not to sound cliched but basketball is a team game and the team that executes, gels and plays better as a team is what's important. Individual talent can only take you so far, especially if the talent isn't exceptionally better than your opponents. Sure, we can debate the overall talent of Maryland compared to other ACC schools this year but it was pretty marginal IMO. Personally, I think too much emphasis is put on athleticism, which is too often related to being more talented. FOr example, many bigs were ranked higher and are more athletic than Williams coming out last year. Williams however has the better skill set. He has back to the bucket moves, boxes out on rebounds, and is the better player overall. Sure, if those athletic big men ranked higher than him are able to find a comparable skill set the'll probably end up the better player. However, developing a good skill set is something that a lot of these kids aren't able to do. How many times do you see a player come in raw and leave polished. It's a pretty uncommon thing.

[Sports Guy]

I agree. Not to sound cliched but basketball is a team game and the team that executes, gels and plays better as a team is what's important. Individual talent can only take you so far, especially if it's not exceptionally better than your opponents. Too much emphasis is put on athleticism anyway, which is too often related to being more talented. FOr example, many bigs were ranked higher and more athletic than Williams coming out last year. Williams however has the better skill set. He has back to the bucket moves, boxes out on rebounds, and is the better player overall. Sure, if those athletic big men ranked higher than him are able to find a comparable skill set the'll probably end up the better player. However, developing a good skill set is something that a lot of these kids aren't able to do. How many times do you see a player come in raw and leave polished. It's a pretty uncommon thing.

Thanks for making the argument about why it was always so poor to bash Gary and ask for him to be fired.

[Mike B]

Been talking a lot about this with some friends the last few days...Instead of posting this in the NCAA thread, I figured I would post this in this thread since their has been so much angst towards Gary over the years.

Since MD won their title, they have the third most ACC wins...Trailing Duke and UNC.

Now, in those years, how many times has MD had top 3 talent? Hell, top 5? They aren't one of the top 5 most talented teams in the ACC THIS year and they won 13 games...Why? GARY WILLIAMS.

Look at the coaches in the conference...Purnell, Gaudio, Hamilton, Lowe, etc...They are all pretty bad coaches that don't do enough with their teams and programs...Yes, Purnell's teams win 20 games but they don't win in the tourney and they are far too inconsistent.

I like Paul Hewitt and think he is a decent coach but he is another guy that always has good talent but doesn't seem to do quite enough with it.

Seth Greenburg is a good coach and does a good job with less talent than most but his teams also seem to lose some games they shouldn't lose and that ends up costing them a tourney appearance. Al Skinner is a pretty good coach but not at the level of the top 3.

When I watch these tourney games, coaching becomes even more obvious...The longer timeouts gives coaches more time to game plan on the fly.

I don't think many MD fans understand how lucky they are to have Gary.

Now, is Gary as good a recruiter as many of the coaches? No, he isn't...But Gary also has a history of doing more with less, so that mark against him only means so much.

Of all the major college and pro sports, I don't think coaching is more important than it is in college basketball.

Great post SG. I really believe Gary is one of the top game and system coaches in America. He makes in game adjustments second to none. He gets a lot of heat for his emotional sideline style but IMO he is very calculating on the sideline. When was the last time gary got a T like the young coach at UVA got that cost his team a game. How many T's does Gary get?? Last night when the first 10 minutes looked like a street game, Gary was calm, called timeout and got the Terps to run the offense and got the game under control. His teams get better as the year goes on. He is a HOF coach.

[Lucky Jim]

Yea and I suppose an oversensitive, tree hugging lawyer is going to show me? LOL Spare me.

Nicely played! Good one.

If MD went to the NIT 5 years in a row but graduated 100% of their kids, you wouldn't be pimping Gary for that.

FYI, this would be an example of a logical fallacy.

Hints:

Logic:

: a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning

Fallacy:

2. a false or mistaken idea <popular fallacies> b : erroneous character : erroneousness

3 : an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference

Not to be confused with being phallus-y. Something I'm sure you're intimately familiar with.

[ccbird]

Thanks for making the argument about why it was always so poor to bash Gary and ask for him to be fired.

Anybody with common sense doesn't want Gary fired and even last year when everything was going wrong there weren't many calling for his head. The complaint has always been and will always be that Gary should be recruting better. The problem is when Gary runs into an exceptionally more talented team. He hasn't and isn't going to beat that team very often in the tournament. Sure, he has a knack for knocking off better teams and competing in the ACC with marginal talent but outside of '01 and '02 when he had 5 eventual NBA players on his team he hasn't got past the Sweet 16. I made this comparison with Gary before, Gary is the kid I watch play baseball who has so much talent but is too lazy to take his game to the next level by working hard at all aspects of his game. He's content to be good when he could be great.

[mweb]

Again, i don't care how YOU define it!

I stand by my statement..MD isn't usually one of the most talented teams...They don't usually have NBA level players on their roster like many of the other coaches do...But Gary wins more than them because he is a way better coach.

Define it how you want..I could care less...The bottom line is the same.

Wow, the logic is truly astounding. Hey, I'm not defining it, but the point is pure talent is a poor way to evaluate what teams are better. This is college basketball, this isn't about who has the best NBA prospects. Any logic that states that a team of Plumlee caliber players as freshman is better sans coaching than a team of Vasquez or Scheyer caliber players is just wrong. This isn't about how guys are projected to be in the future either. When talking about a team overachieving in a given year, what matters is how good those guys are that year, not their potential or pure talent.

MD has a team that may not be great in pure talent, whatever that means, but their roster for this year is in upper echelon in the ACC in terms of how good the players actually are and their experience.

[mweb]

I agree. Not to sound cliched but basketball is a team game and the team that executes, gels and plays better as a team is what's important. Individual talent can only take you so far, especially if the talent isn't exceptionally better than your opponents. Sure, we can debate the overall talent of Maryland compared to other ACC schools this year but it was pretty marginal IMO. Personally, I think too much emphasis is put on athleticism, which is too often related to being more talented. FOr example, many bigs were ranked higher and are more athletic than Williams coming out last year. Williams however has the better skill set. He has back to the bucket moves, boxes out on rebounds, and is the better player overall. Sure, if those athletic big men ranked higher than him are able to find a comparable skill set the'll probably end up the better player. However, developing a good skill set is something that a lot of these kids aren't able to do. How many times do you see a player come in raw and leave polished. It's a pretty uncommon thing.

Yeah, it's brilliant to compare teams without considering how players have refined their talent and skills along with how experienced they are. Oh, and also there's this little thing called production. Yeah, great, Plumlee likely has a higher ceiling than Vasquez or Scheyer, but what does that mean for this year? Not much at all.

[Sports Guy]

Wow, the logic is truly astounding. Hey, I'm not defining it, but the point is pure talent is a poor way to evaluate what teams are better. This is college basketball, this isn't about who has the best NBA prospects. Any logic that states that a team of Plumlee caliber players as freshman is better sans coaching than a team of Vasquez or Scheyer caliber players is just wrong. This isn't about how guys are projected to be in the future either. When talking about a team overachieving in a given year, what matters is how good those guys are that year, not their potential or pure talent.

MD has a team that may not be great in pure talent, whatever that means, but their roster for this year is in upper echelon in the ACC in terms of how good the players actually are and their experience.

Good thing I didn't do that..Please read and comprehend what is being said and then come back and talk.

I don't even know why you are wasting time on this argument...No one is even making these points.

[mweb]

Good thing I didn't do that..Please read and comprehend what is being said and then come back and talk.

Haha, sure SG. You're using it as a way to say MD overachieved in terms of their standings. So that means you're saying pure talent should equal being better unless they overachieve. You're saying they weren't a top 5 talented team this year, but Gary got them into a tie for first. The problem with that is what I've said. Pure talent is a poor way to evaluate if a team overachieved in a given year or not. But ok, play the that's not what I said even though it is card.