Mount Rushmore of Coaches

[BYU 14]

With the passing of coach Wooden I commented he had a spot, which got me thinking who else I would include.

My four

John Wooden
Vince Lombardi
Paul Brown
Red Auerbach


Honorable mention

Bear Bryant
Phil Jackson
John McGraw
Tony LaRussa
Tom Landry
George Halas
Eddie Robinson
Don Shula
Joe Paterno
Dean Smith
Dan Gable
Scotty Bowman

[RedKingGold]

Bill Walsh?

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Bill Walsh?

Bad oversight there, definitely belongs in the HM, close to the mountain. Forgot Coach K too.

[Big Fo]

Sir Alex Ferguson

[MrBug708]

John Wooden
Vince Lombardi
Al Scates
Pat Summitt

[rowech]

I think it's all but impossible to choose just four...that said...

College basketball -- comes down to Coach K versus Wooden. Given the massive differences in the way the tournament is setup, I contend that K's resume is every bit as good as Wooden's. In addition, there have never been any kind of recruiting violations associated with Duke or coach K like there were with UCLA's program and their boosters. I go with Coach K.

College football -- I'm not sure any of them go on the mount. Bear Bryant and Paterno being the natural choices. I'll have to think about this more...

Pro football -- Don Shula, Vince Lombardi, and Paul Brown is the battle here. The innovations of Brown are outstanding. Shula's numbers speak for him. Lombardi is the most iconic of the three in my mind.

Pro basketball -- Phil Jackson and Red Auerbach. I go with Phil anymore. I know he's had great players but he's shown over and over the ability to win titles.

Hockey -- Scotty Bowman

Baseball -- don't think any basetball manager belongs on the statue. I don't believe managers have that big of an impact on the teams as far as motivation, etc. Instead, they're people managers...not so much coaches in the context I think of.

Other -- Pat Summit...she's a machine. One of the few women I think that could coach mens' basketball. I'd love to see her try. Anson Dorrance -- I believe he now has the most titles of any coach in any sport ever.

So...I'll go with...

Coach K, Wooden, Lombardi, Phil Jackson

Paterno or Bryant are the tough ones for me to leave off.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by rowech

I think it's all but impossible to choose just four...that said...

College basketball -- comes down to Coach K versus Wooden. Given the massive differences in the way the tournament is setup, I contend that K's resume is every bit as good as Wooden's. In addition, there have never been any kind of recruiting violations associated with Duke or coach K like there were with UCLA's program and their boosters. I go with Coach K.

Um...what?

[rowech]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Um...what?

What what?

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by rowech

What what?

Was it the 21 game win streak in the Final Four, the 12 championship appearances, or the 10 titles which makes you think that Coach K had a better record?

As for recruiting violations?

[rowech]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Was it the 21 game win streak in the Final Four, the 12 championship appearances, or the 10 titles which makes you think that Coach K had a better record?

As for recruiting violations?

Like I said...the tournament wasn't even close to the way it is today.

1. Far fewer teams meaning less games needed to be won. (including many byes)

2. Far less traveling becaue the tournament was actually regional in nature.

3. The regional nature gave UCLA an automatic final four every year because there wasn't a school in the Western half of the US that was even close.


As for the violations...

"If the UCLA teams of the late 1960s and early 1970s were subjected to the kind of scrutiny Jerry Tarkanian and his players have been, UCLA would probably have to forfeit about eight national titles and be on probation for the next 100 years." -- Bill Walton

Do a search for Sam Gilbert to find out all about it.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by rowech

As for the violations...

"If the UCLA teams of the late 1960s and early 1970s were subjected to the kind of scrutiny Jerry Tarkanian and his players have been, UCLA would probably have to forfeit about eight national titles and be on probation for the next 100 years." -- Bill Walton

Do a search for Sam Gilbert to find out all about it.

There is an article by Dan Wetzel of Yahoo, the same writer that Bug was just saying was so good in the USC thread, where he talks about the dirty atmosphere at UCLA in the Wooden era (although he says that UCLA boosters were just doing what they had to in order to keep up with everyone else)

Everyone loves a winner - College Basketball - Rivals.com

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by rowech

Like I said...the tournament wasn't even close to the way it is today.

1. Far fewer teams meaning less games needed to be won. (including many byes)

2. Far less traveling becaue the tournament was actually regional in nature.

3. The regional nature gave UCLA an automatic final four every year because there wasn't a school in the Western half of the US that was even close.

Less games needed to win, but do you think any of those UCLA teams would have lost to Coll of Charlestown, Wintrop, or UT-Chat? I agree that the western half was terrible, but everyone complains that expanding the tournament further dilutes it. Wooden was beating the best teams in the Final Four.

As for the violations...

"If the UCLA teams of the late 1960s and early 1970s were subjected to the kind of scrutiny Jerry Tarkanian and his players have been, UCLA would probably have to forfeit about eight national titles and be on probation for the next 100 years." -- Bill Walton

And that quote would be from the book On the Road with the Portland Trail Blazers, right? That's a horrible book to start quoting. But at least you also didn't quote a equally terrible Dan Wetzel article

Do a search for Sam Gilbert to find out all about it.

I'm aware of Sam Gilbert

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

There is an article by Dan Wetzel of Yahoo, the same writer that Bug was just saying was so good in the USC thread, where he talks about the dirty atmosphere at UCLA in the Wooden era (although he says that UCLA boosters were just doing what they had to in order to keep up with everyone else)

Everyone loves a winner - College Basketball - Rivals.com

Good to see someone actually wrote about it. Wooden is a great man and a great coach. I have three of his books and while coaching soccer, was obsessed with him and other coaches and how they went about doing things. Ultimately, Ithink he belongs on the mount which is why I put him there even though I put coach K ahead of him. But this image of the UCLA program under him that some people have is naive at best.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Yahoo has credibility in the sports world, expect with USC fans. I believe they broke the UConn violations. THey broke the Bush case and Bush has since paid off both Michaels and Lake. I'd say they have been vindicated

Hmm. Dan Wetzel is only credible when he is hammering USC and not UCLA?


Anyway, to get back on topic, this is an interesting discussion. My four:

Phil Jackson
Vince Lombardi
Bear Bryant
Casey Stengel

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by rowech

Good to see someone actually wrote about it. Wooden is a great man and a great coach. I have three of his books and while coaching soccer, was obsessed with him and other coaches and how they went about doing things. Ultimately, Ithink he belongs on the mount which is why I put him there even though I put coach K ahead of him. But this image of the UCLA program under him that some people have is naive at best.

It's a terrible article actually, as I alluded to in my previous post.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by rowech

Good to see someone actually wrote about it. Wooden is a great man and a great coach. I have three of his books and while coaching soccer, was obsessed with him and other coaches and how they went about doing things. Ultimately, Ithink he belongs on the mount which is why I put him there even though I put coach K ahead of him. But this image of the UCLA program under him that some people have is naive at best.

Not saying he was a saint, though he certainly seemed like a man of integrity. I am sure a lot of what went on back then was easier to hide, not only from the public, but Coach Wooden as well. The media back then was not as critical as it is now and would actually go out of it's way in some cases to protect iconic figures in sports.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Hmm. Dan Wetzel is only credible when he is hammering USC and not UCLA?

First, my quote was about Yahoo Sports in general. Second, Dan Wetzel has a financial motive in going after John Wooden. I don't see the same correlation with USC football or UConn basketball.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Not saying he was a saint, though he certainly seemed like a man of integrity. I am sure a lot of what went on back then was easier to hide, not only from the public, but Coach Wooden as well. The media back then was not as critical as it is now and would actually go out of it's way in some cases to protect iconic figures in sports.

No UCLA fan doubts Sam Gilbert was involved in with the UCLA program at an uncomfortable level. But it was mostly things like letting kids eat at his house for thanksgiving.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

First, my quote was about Yahoo Sports in general. Second, Dan Wetzel has a financial motive in going after John Wooden. I don't see the same correlation with USC football or UConn basketball.

Of course, he has a financial motive in going after USC and UConn as well. More big stories equals more hits to his writing equals more money for him, regardless of whether or not he has all the facts, which he clearly didn't when he said he guaranteed that USC was getting hammered and the report was being released yesterday. It is why we've seen shoddy writing throughout the media including most recently web site(s) prematurely calling Coach Wooden's death.

Anyway, back on topic. Others that would get honorable mention from me:

Coach K, Coach Wooden, Don Shula, and Paul Brown.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

No UCLA fan doubts Sam Gilbert was involved in with the UCLA program at an uncomfortable level. But it was mostly things like letting kids eat at his house for thanksgiving.

Are you serious? That's hysterical.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Hmm. Dan Wetzel is only credible when he is hammering USC and not UCLA?


Anyway, to get back on topic, this is an interesting discussion. My four:

Phil Jackson
Vince Lombardi
Bear Bryant
Casey Stengel

I really went back and forth between Bryant and Brown on my list, gave the nod to Brown on innovation, but definitely very close.

Interesting pick with Stengel. He crossed my mind, but I think it is hard to decipher whether he was truly a good manager or lucked into a good situation. He got the Yankees job mainly on the strength of two minor league titles after failing miserably with the Boston Braves and Brooklyn Dodgers between 1934 and 1943. I throw out his record with the Mets because they were just horrid.

I guess you could make the case that his skills improved over the years in New York, but I am curious what your deciding factors were in including him in the top 4?

[rowech]

What sports and at what level do coaches have the most impact?

I mentioned this before but I really would be hard pressed to put a baseball manager into this club. I've never seen their job as being a coach in my image of a coach.

I also think (and I think most probably do) that college coaches have a much bigger impact than a pro coach does.

Should this topic be broken down into college coaches and pro coaches to create two Mount Rushmores?

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Of course, he has a financial motive in going after USC and UConn as well. More big stories equals more hits to his writing equals more money for him, regardless of whether or not he has all the facts, which he clearly didn't when he said he guaranteed that USC was getting hammered and the report was being released yesterday. It is why we've seen shoddy writing throughout the media including most recently web site(s) prematurely calling Coach Wooden's death.

I'm confused. Are we talking about sources being wrong? Or lazy journalism? You've jump from side to side a couple times in the this thread already.

Back to Wetzel, he wrote an autobiography with Tarkanian in which the description includes and what he really thought and believes about the iconic John Wooden and his unparalleled success at UCLA. Pretty much takes away any sort of integrity when writing about Wooden, especially without much evidence other then what Tark thought. I suppose with Tark's record, he of all people, should be given the benefit of the doubt

[RedKingGold]

Really MrBug? Really?

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by rowech

Are you serious? That's hysterical.

More or less. Maybe paid for a haircut or two. It makes total sense for UCLA to be paying players yet Wooden was going to cut the 2 time POTY for not having a shaved beard. One of the videos you can watch about Wooden is where he talks about needing to work two jobs at one point (as a Milkman as well as UCLA coach).

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I guess you could make the case that his skills improved over the years in New York, but I am curious what your deciding factors were in including him in the top 4?

I firmly believe that talent is the primary factor in winning at the professional level and higher college levels. Stengel didn't have the talent until he got to the Yankees and he was fortunate to get that job, but 5 straight Championships, 7 in a decade are very convincing to me. I believe one of the most important skills of a manager/coach is to manage all of the personalities on a team and Stengel did that extremely well. Also, his tactical skills were important in 1949 when the Yankees had a large number of injuries and he used a lot of platooning. He also made some great tactical decisions in 1951.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Really MrBug? Really?

I can keep going about the Wetzel article if you want? I just talked about his financial reasoning and not the actual errors in the article

[RedKingGold]

Every writer who is paid to write an article has "financial reasoning".

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by rowech

What sports and at what level do coaches have the most impact?

I also think (and I think most probably do) that college coaches have a much bigger impact than a pro coach does.

I would agree there, High School and College coaches have a bigger impact both on and off the field than pro coaches.

So to break it down between College and Pro

Pro
Vince Lombardi
Paul Brown
Red Auerbach
Phil Jackson

College
John Wooden
Bear Bryant
Dean Smith
*Joe Paterno

*I was tempted to give Dan Gable the 4th spot. What other coach has been as dominant in any sport. 355-21-5 in duel meets, 21 big ten titles and 15 national titles. He really gets overlooked because Wrestling is not a glamour sport.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

*I was tempted to give Dan Gable the 4th spot. What other coach has been as dominant in any sport. 355-21-5 in duel meets, 21 big ten titles and 15 national titles. He really gets overlooked because Wrestling is not a glamour sport.

North Carolina's Woman's Soccer coach probably can claim that. 20 National Titles in 28 years of existence.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Every writer who is paid to write an article has "financial reasoning".

Um, thanks?

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Um, thanks?

Just pointing out it was a stupid argument, that's all.

[spleen1015]

Coach K
Joe Gibbs
Wooden
Phil Jackson

Joe Gibbs because he's won 5 championships across 2 sports.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Just pointing out it was a stupid argument, that's all.

Vendetta, Bias, I could have used any of the terms, but I do appreciate your concerns! You can go back to throwing on kids now!

[rowech]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

More or less. Maybe paid for an aborition or two.

Fixed

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by rowech

Fixed

Touche'

[Eaglesfan27]

Bug, what is Bill Walton's motivation for throwing his alma mater under the bus with the book? Is he just a lazy as well?

[rowech]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Touche'

I'm guessing you're a UCLA fan...I really have no idea. Appreciate the accomplishments of him and the program. Even with booster problems, etc. many programs can't put that kind of run together. But don't look the other way when it comes to this stuff. Walton has talked pretty openly about a lot of what took place. Guys were getting cars, airline tickets, money, etc. and were getting "discounts" on a lot of other stuff. To pretend otherwise is naive.

You don't have your #1 booster be a money launderer and have him only giving players dinners.

They were still great teams and he's still a great coach.

[stevew]

Chuck Noll?

[rowech]

If I'm allowed to break things up college/pro:

College: Wooden, Coach K, Paterno, Bryant

Pro: Phil Jackson, Red Aurebach, Lombardi, Paul Brown

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by rowech

I'm guessing you're a UCLA fan...I really have no idea. Appreciate the accomplishments of him and the program. Even with booster problems, etc. many programs can't put that kind of run together. But don't look the other way when it comes to this stuff. Walton has talked pretty openly about a lot of what took place. Guys were getting cars, airline tickets, money, etc. and were getting "discounts" on a lot of other stuff. To pretend otherwise is naive.

You don't have your #1 booster be a money launderer and have him only giving players dinners.

They were still great teams and he's still a great coach.

I am a UCLA fan. I'm not sure why you would think I'm being naive?

[rowech]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

I am a UCLA fan. I'm not sure why you would think I'm being naive?

Your posts make it seem you don't believe the impact Gilbert had on the program and players during that era. Or you want to at least sweep it under the rug.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by rowech

Your posts make it seem you don't believe the impact Gilbert had on the program and players during that era. Or you want to at least sweep it under the rug.

I'm sure he had some level of involvement, but since both Wooden and Gilbert are both gone, there really isn't much more then speculation

[mckerney]

Worth consideration with other college football coaches mentioned, Bernie Bierman. Five national titles in eight years while also the only division 1a coach to win three consecutive national championships.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Worth consideration with other college football coaches mentioned, Bernie Bierman. Five national titles in eight years while also the only division 1a coach to win three consecutive national championships.

If there wasn't that snowstorm, Minnesota would have had both Bierman AND Wooden

[MJ4H]

John Wooden
Vince Lombardi
Bear Bryant
Phil Jackson

others not close imo

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

John Wooden
Vince Lombardi
Bear Bryant
Phil Jackson

others not close imo

Any list that doesn't include Scotty Bowman is simply wrong.

Please revise.

[cougarfreak]

John Wooden
Joe Paterno
John McGraw
Paul Brown

[Scarecrow]

College
Joe Paterno
John Wooden
Pat Summit
Mike Candrea

Pro
Casey Stengel
Bill Walsh
Phil Jackson
Scott Bowman

Reasoning: Each of these coaches had teams that a) were near impossible to beat and b) there was never a sign that the team was going to be anything other than a dynasty in the future.


(also, forgive me father Bill (Snyder) for leaving you off the list; your accomplishments are for building a team, not for the # of titles)

[MrBug708]

Candrea is a good one, he has done a fin job at Arizona