"Average Al" Skinner

[buconvict]

How is it arbitrary? Most coaches are given 5 year contracts, judged in 5 year clumps... players are recruited, signed, perform, and graduate over a 5 year period.

I think 5 years is as good a timetable as any to judge a coach. Gary Williams won a NC, now he's on the hotseat because he hasn't had recent success.

[Eagledom]

How is it arbitrary? Most coaches are given 5 year contracts, judged in 5 year clumps... players are recruited, signed, perform, and graduate over a 5 year period.

I think 5 years is as good a timetable as any to judge a coach. Gary Williams won a NC, now he's on the hotseat because he hasn't had recent success.

Al has been coaching for 13 or 14 years. If you are going to be stupid enough to compare him to Coach Ratface, then do it over those 13-14 years. Otherwise, STFU. Over the last 5 years, Duke's performance has been average. But any fucking idiot could look at his whole body of work and see that there are multiple NATIONAL TITLES, FINAL FOURS, and CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIPS on his resume. Al doesn't even come close. Thanks for playing.

[EaglesTalon]

Since the beginning of the 2004/05 season, Coach K has won 139 out of a possible 169 games. But, according to the definition of an average coach above, Coach K is unarguably an average coach over that time period.

You are missing the point. In 13 years, Al has one conference championship, 1 sweet 16 appearance, no final 4s, and no national titles. What does coach K have in those 4 categories over that SAME time? Answer that question, and then tell me by the same standards that they are comparable. Then shut up.

OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS, is Coach K an average coach or not? According to your definition, he is an average coach.

your arbitrary selection of "5 years" makes your point idiotic.

What's the average tenure of a college head coach at any specific school? 5 years seems like a perfectly reasonable time frame to judge a college coach.

[EaglesTalon]

How is it arbitrary? Most coaches are given 5 year contracts, judged in 5 year clumps... players are recruited, signed, perform, and graduate over a 5 year period.

I think 5 years is as good a timetable as any to judge a coach. Gary Williams won a NC, now he's on the hotseat because he hasn't had recent success.

Al has been coaching for 13 or 14 years. If you are going to be stupid enough to compare him to Coach Ratface, then do it over those 13-14 years. Otherwise, STFU. Over the last 5 years, Duke's performance has been average. But any fucking idiot could look at his whole body of work and see that there are multiple NATIONAL TITLES, FINAL FOURS, and CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIPS on his resume. Al doesn't even come close. Thanks for playing.

But earlier, you said that if Al had more success 8 years ago (when BC had its highest ever seed in the NCAA) what happened 8 years ago wouldn't impact what you thought of him today.

[Eagledom]

Since the beginning of the 2004/05 season, Coach K has won 139 out of a possible 169 games. But, according to the definition of an average coach above, Coach K is unarguably an average coach over that time period.

You are missing the point. In 13 years, Al has one conference championship, 1 sweet 16 appearance, no final 4s, and no national titles. What does coach K have in those 4 categories over that SAME time? Answer that question, and then tell me by the same standards that they are comparable. Then shut up.

OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS, is Coach K an average coach or not? According to your definition, he is an average coach.

your arbitrary selection of "5 years" makes your point idiotic.

What's the average tenure of a college head coach at any specific school? 5 years seems like a perfectly reasonable time frame to judge a college coach.

And I repeat.....
Al has been coaching for 13 or 14 years. If you are going to be stupid enough to compare him to Coach Ratface, then do it over those 13-14 years. Otherwise, STFU. Over the last 5 years, Duke's performance has been average. But any fucking idiot could look at his whole body of work and see that there are multiple NATIONAL TITLES, FINAL FOURS, and CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIPS on his resume. Al doesn't even come close. (Oh, and as an aside, Duke has 3x as many sweet 16s as Al over your little 5 year period). Thanks for playing.

[EaglesTalon]

Since the beginning of the 2004/05 season, Coach K has won 139 out of a possible 169 games. But, according to the definition of an average coach above, Coach K is unarguably an average coach over that time period.

You are missing the point. In 13 years, Al has one conference championship, 1 sweet 16 appearance, no final 4s, and no national titles. What does coach K have in those 4 categories over that SAME time? Answer that question, and then tell me by the same standards that they are comparable. Then shut up.

OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS, is Coach K an average coach or not? According to your definition, he is an average coach.

your arbitrary selection of "5 years" makes your point idiotic.

What's the average tenure of a college head coach at any specific school? 5 years seems like a perfectly reasonable time frame to judge a college coach.

And I repeat.....
Al has been coaching for 13 or 14 years. If you are going to be stupid enough to compare him to Coach Ratface, then do it over those 13-14 years. Otherwise, STFU. Over the last 5 years, Duke's performance has been average. But any fucking idiot could look at his whole body of work and see that there are multiple NATIONAL TITLES, FINAL FOURS, and CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIPS on his resume. Al doesn't even come close. Thanks for playing.

And I repeat ...

college coaches are typically hired to five year contracts. The above average ones get those five year contracts extended every year. Five years is a perfectly adequate time frame to evaluate any college coach, especially under the ever-popular "what have you done for me lately" basis of judgement.

And over the past five years, Duke has over an 80% winning percentage, has spent who knows how many weeks as the #1 team in both the AP and the coaches poll. But, as we learned from you, the ONLY way you can evaluate a college coach is to look at the NCAA tournament. So, judging by YOUR standards on what makes a coach average, OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS, Coach Mike Krzyzewski is undoubtedly an AVERAGE coach. But you'll do anything and everything to say that.

So, would you like to redefine what makes an average coach?

Over the same time frame Gary Williams at Maryland has won 114 games. Over that same time period, Gary Williams has yet to coach a game during the second weekend of the NCAA tournament. Is Gary Williams an average coach, over that time period?

[Eagledom]

Since the beginning of the 2004/05 season, Coach K has won 139 out of a possible 169 games. But, according to the definition of an average coach above, Coach K is unarguably an average coach over that time period.

You are missing the point. In 13 years, Al has one conference championship, 1 sweet 16 appearance, no final 4s, and no national titles. What does coach K have in those 4 categories over that SAME time? Answer that question, and then tell me by the same standards that they are comparable. Then shut up.

OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS, is Coach K an average coach or not? According to your definition, he is an average coach.

your arbitrary selection of "5 years" makes your point idiotic.

What's the average tenure of a college head coach at any specific school? 5 years seems like a perfectly reasonable time frame to judge a college coach.

And I repeat.....
Al has been coaching for 13 or 14 years. If you are going to be stupid enough to compare him to Coach Ratface, then do it over those 13-14 years. Otherwise, STFU. Over the last 5 years, Duke's performance has been average. But any fucking idiot could look at his whole body of work and see that there are multiple NATIONAL TITLES, FINAL FOURS, and CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIPS on his resume. Al doesn't even come close. Thanks for playing.

And I repeat ...

college coaches are typically hired to five year contracts. The above average ones get those five year contracts extended every year. Five years is a perfectly adequate time frame to evaluate any college coach, especially under the ever-popular "what have you done for me lately" basis of judgement.

And over the past five years, Duke has over an 80% winning percentage, has spent who knows how many weeks as the #1 team in both the AP and the coaches poll. But, as we learned from you, the ONLY way you can evaluate a college coach is to look at the NCAA tournament. So, judging by YOUR standards on what makes a coach average, OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS, Coach Mike Krzyzewski is undoubtedly an AVERAGE coach. But you'll do anything and everything to say that.

So, would you like to redefine what makes an average coach?

Over the same time frame Gary Williams at Maryland has won 114 games. Over that same time period, Gary Williams has yet to coach a game during the second weekend of the NCAA tournament. Is Gary Williams an average coach, over that time period?

A. Average teams get average seeds in the tournament. Good teams get good seeds.
B. Gary Williams has won a national title.

do you notice a difference between the coaches you are comparing with Al? I don't think you do...they have had post season success. 1,000 X more success than Average Skinner.

[EaglesTalon]

you really don't understand the concept of OVER FIVE YEARS, do you?

[Eagledom]

you really don't understand the concept of OVER FIVE YEARS, do you?

I do - its the time limit you need to establish to even pretend you have some sort of point. Glad you are happy with mediocrity. Let's hope we get to another tourney this year and lose on the first weekend....that's all we need at BC!!!!

[EaglesTalon]

you really don't understand the concept of OVER FIVE YEARS, do you?

I do - its the time limit you need to establish to even pretend you have some sort of point.

OJ, I know that you're not capable of hypotheticals anyway, but I'll give this question a shot:

Suppose BC fires Al Skinner. His successor (who would probably be hired to a five year contract) finishes his first season with a losing record. He follows that with a losing record in his second year, his third, his fourth, his fifth, his sixth, etc.

At what point would an average fan hope that BC makes another coaching hire?

My answer is that after three years, the coaching seat would be warm. The fourth year, the seat would be hot. And the fifth year, people would be ready for a new coach. Do you agree or disagree with that time frame?

If you agree, then a five year period is a perfectly reasonable time frame to make a judgement. If you disagree, then give me your timeline as to when the coach should be shown the door.

[Eagledom]

you really don't understand the concept of OVER FIVE YEARS, do you?

I do - its the time limit you need to establish to even pretend you have some sort of point.

OJ, I know that you're not capable of hypotheticals anyway, but I'll give this question a shot:

Suppose BC fires Al Skinner. His successor (who would probably be hired to a five year contract) finishes his first season with a losing record. He follows that with a losing record in his second year, his third, his fourth, his fifth, his sixth, etc.

At what point would an average fan hope that BC makes another coaching hire?

My answer is that after three years, the coaching seat would be warm. The fourth year, the seat would be hot. And the fifth year, people would be ready for a new coach. Do you agree or disagree with that time frame?

If you agree, then a five year period is a perfectly reasonable time frame to make a judgement. If you disagree, then give me your timeline as to when the coach should be shown the door.

do any of the coaches in this thread have a losing record over a 5 year period? No, I don't think they do. If coach A has a 3 sweet 16s in 5 years, has multiple national titles, and multiple final 4s and conference championships on his resume in the 10 years before that....he is not Al. If Coach B has no sweet 16s in 5 years but has 5 sweet 16 appearances in 15 years, a final 4 and a national title...he is not Al. Coach C has 1 sweet 16 appearance in the last 5 years, but not a single sweet 16, final 4, or national championship prior to that...that's Al.

What you don't seem to understand is that Elite 8s, final4s, and NATIONAL TITLES lend you some credibility. You do that, and a few down years are OK. When you prove over a course of 13 years that you are completely incapable of any of that, your time is up...unless fans like you are perfectly ok with continued medicrity. You are just the typical "we are what we are" basketball "fan".

If the last 5 years were the only years I had to go on and that was the extent of Al's tenure at BC, I wouldn't think he should be fired. But there are 8 more years before that to look at.

[EaglesTalon]

you really don't understand the concept of OVER FIVE YEARS, do you?

I do - its the time limit you need to establish to even pretend you have some sort of point.

OJ, I know that you're not capable of hypotheticals anyway, but I'll give this question a shot:

Suppose BC fires Al Skinner. His successor (who would probably be hired to a five year contract) finishes his first season with a losing record. He follows that with a losing record in his second year, his third, his fourth, his fifth, his sixth, etc.

At what point would an average fan hope that BC makes another coaching hire?

My answer is that after three years, the coaching seat would be warm. The fourth year, the seat would be hot. And the fifth year, people would be ready for a new coach. Do you agree or disagree with that time frame?

If you agree, then a five year period is a perfectly reasonable time frame to make a judgement. If you disagree, then give me your timeline as to when the coach should be shown the door.

do any of the coaches in this thread have a losing record over a 5 year period? No, I don't think they do. If coach A has a 3 sweet 16s in 5 years, has multiple national titles, and multiple final 4s and conference championships on his resume in the 10 years before that....he is not Al. If Coach B has no sweet 16s in 5 years but has 5 sweet 16 appearances in 15 years, a final 4 and a national title...he is not Al. Coach C has 1 sweet 16 appearance in the last 5 years, but not a single sweet 16, final 4, or national championship prior to that...that's Al.

Is it REALLY that fucking difficult for you to look at a five year window? You're from Northern Virginia, right? Do you know any Maryland grads that have grown tired of Gary Williams over the past five years?

I just want to know why it's impossible for you to admit that OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS, Gary Williams and Coach K fit into your criteria of "average."

[Eagledom]

you really don't understand the concept of OVER FIVE YEARS, do you?

I do - its the time limit you need to establish to even pretend you have some sort of point.

OJ, I know that you're not capable of hypotheticals anyway, but I'll give this question a shot:

Suppose BC fires Al Skinner. His successor (who would probably be hired to a five year contract) finishes his first season with a losing record. He follows that with a losing record in his second year, his third, his fourth, his fifth, his sixth, etc.

At what point would an average fan hope that BC makes another coaching hire?

My answer is that after three years, the coaching seat would be warm. The fourth year, the seat would be hot. And the fifth year, people would be ready for a new coach. Do you agree or disagree with that time frame?

If you agree, then a five year period is a perfectly reasonable time frame to make a judgement. If you disagree, then give me your timeline as to when the coach should be shown the door.

do any of the coaches in this thread have a losing record over a 5 year period? No, I don't think they do. If coach A has a 3 sweet 16s in 5 years, has multiple national titles, and multiple final 4s and conference championships on his resume in the 10 years before that....he is not Al. If Coach B has no sweet 16s in 5 years but has 5 sweet 16 appearances in 15 years, a final 4 and a national title...he is not Al. Coach C has 1 sweet 16 appearance in the last 5 years, but not a single sweet 16, final 4, or national championship prior to that...that's Al.

Is it REALLY that fucking difficult for you to look at a five year window? You're from Northern Virginia, right? Do you know any Maryland grads that have grown tired of Gary Williams over the past five years?

I just want to know why it's impossible for you to admit that OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS, Gary Williams and Coach K fit into your criteria of "average."

No, I am not from Virginia....and read the last sentence again:

do any of the coaches in this thread have a losing record over a 5 year period? No, I don't think they do. If coach A has a 3 sweet 16s in 5 years, has multiple national titles, and multiple final 4s and conference championships on his resume in the 10 years before that....he is not Al. If Coach B has no sweet 16s in 5 years but has 5 sweet 16 appearances in 15 years, a final 4 and a national title...he is not Al. Coach C has 1 sweet 16 appearance in the last 5 years, but not a single sweet 16, final 4, or national championship prior to that...that's Al.

What you don't seem to understand is that Elite 8s, final4s, and NATIONAL TITLES lend you some credibility. You do that, and a few down years are OK. When you prove over a course of 13 years that you are completely incapable of any of that, your time is up...unless fans like you are perfectly ok with continued medicrity. You are just the typical "we are what we are" basketball "fan".

If the last 5 years were the only years I had to go on and that was the extent of Al's tenure at BC, I wouldn't think he should be fired. But there are 8 more years before that to look at.

[apbc12]

Might as well leave it alone, Talon. OJ has no concept of time. As far as he's concerned, the world stopped when "Birth of a Nation" came out.

[EaglesTalon]

I'm going to go out and drink some beer and kill enough brain cells so that talking to you is more of an even discussion, but over the entirety of Al Skinner's career, in my opinion, he is a GOOD coach who has underachieved in March.

You want to call him AVERAGE, not GOOD, but you can't even define what an AVERAGE coach is without having to change your definition to avoid putting other GOOD to GREAT coaches in the category of AVERAGE.

[Eagledom]

I'm going to go out and drink some beer and kill enough brain cells so that talking to you is more of an even discussion, but over the entirety of Al Skinner's career, in my opinion, he is a GOOD coach who has underachieved in March.

You want to call him AVERAGE, not GOOD, but you can't even define what an AVERAGE coach is without having to change your definition to avoid putting other GOOD to GREAT coaches in the category of AVERAGE.

this coming from the guy who creates his own timeline and ignores ANTHING priot to that so he can structure an argument.

[EaglesTalon]

No, I am not from Virginia....and read the last sentence again:

So you're back to denying that you post as Domino12 again? I can't keep all your usernames straight.

[Eagledom]

No, I am not from Virginia....and read the last sentence again:

So you're back to denying that you post as Domino12 again? I can't keep all your usernames straight.

No, I do post as Domino12, but I'm not from virginia

[twballgame9]

Since the beginning of the 2004/05 season, Coach K has won 139 out of a possible 169 games. But, according to the definition of an average coach above, Coach K is unarguably an average coach over that time period.

You are missing the point. In 13 years, Al has one conference championship, 1 sweet 16 appearance, no final 4s, and no national titles. What does coach K have in those 4 categories over that SAME time? Answer that question, and then tell me by the same standards that they are comparable. Then shut up.

OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS, is Coach K an average coach or not? According to your definition, he is an average coach.

your arbitrary selection of "5 years" makes your point idiotic.

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR ME LATELY FUCKWAD?

[RyanBC]

I just wanted to take a look at Al Skinner's record this decade:

If you compare all the Big East teams in Al Skinner's last five seasons in the Big East, take the average # of conference wins per team and list them from best to worst, you get this:

Pittsburgh 11.6
Syracuse 11.2
Connecticut 11.2
Boston College 11
Notre Dame 9.8
Villanova 8.2
Providence 8
Georgetown 7.4
Seton Hall 7.2
Miami 6.25
West Virginia 5.8
St. John's 5.6
Rutgers 4.8
Virginia Tech 4

Then, if you compare all the ACC teams in Al Skinner's first four seasons in the ACC, take the average # of conference wins per team and list them from best to worst, you get this:

North Carolina 12.5
Duke 11.5
Boston College 8.5
Clemson 8.25
Florida State 8.25
Maryland 8.25
Virginia Tech 7.5
Virginia 6.75
Miami 6.5
Wake Forest 6.5
NC State 6.25
Georgia Tech 5.25


Fourth best team in the Big East over a period of five years and the third best team in the ACC over a period of four years. That's "average?"

now list the number of sweet 16 appearances of all of those teams over the last 15 years.

Interesting that you used only the last 5 years in the big east instead of 4 or 6, or 7. Is it because perhaps it would have changed the results? Didn't want to include an 11-19 season in there, did 'ya. Pretty easy to make stats tell whatever story you want, isn't it?

go die you 74

[RyanBC]

I'm going to go out and drink some beer and kill enough brain cells so that talking to you is more of an even discussion, but over the entirety of Al Skinner's career, in my opinion, he is a GOOD coach who has underachieved in March.

You want to call him AVERAGE, not GOOD, but you can't even define what an AVERAGE coach is without having to change your definition to avoid putting other GOOD to GREAT coaches in the category of AVERAGE.

this coming from the guy who creates his own timeline and ignores ANTHING priot to that so he can structure an argument.

go die mother fucker

[EaglesTalon]

Okay, my brain cells are still kind of fried, but I just still can't grasp my head around the concept that it's IMPOSSIBLE to look at the five most recent of a person's job performance and re-evaluate a performance.

Take Jerry York, for example. His team missed the NCAAs last year. No big deal, right? He can't go to the Frozen Four every year. There's bound to be a down year every now and then (he also missed the tournament in 2002). Other than that, he's got a pretty good track record.

But what if Jerry York's teams missed the NCAA tournament five years in a row. Now, I'm saying that an evaluation of someone over their five most recent years is possible. If Jerry York went five straight years of having the pick of the litter of recruits and missed the tournament for five straight years, I'd think "he was once a great coach, but now, he's not what he once was." You'd say, "It's impossible to look at the five most recent years of a person's job."

And it doesn't even have to be coaching. Suppose I worked as a salesman and I sold scientific, engineering and technology applications. Suppose that ten years ago, I was routinely the best salesman at the company. Suppose that for the last five years, my sales numbers have been no where near the top, and have been in the middle of the pack, when compared to the other salesmen at the company. Now, if it was me, I'd be worried that the five most recent years of my job performance might anger my boss, or at the very least, cause my boss to call me into his office and find out what's going on. But in your world, it's IMPOSSIBLE to ever judge anybody's job performance over the five most recent years.

To dumb it down for you, because you've proven time and time again that you're a complete and total moron incapable of logical thought:

• Over the entirety of his career, Coach K is a GREAT coach.
• Over the last five years, Coach K has still been a VERY GOOD coach. He has won over 80% of his games and he has spent who knows how many weeks coaching the #1 team in the country in both polls. Despite not advancing past the second weekend of the tournament, he is not an AVERAGE coach.
• Over the entirety of his career, Coach Gary Williams is a GREAT coach.
• Over the last five years, Coach Gary Williams has still been a GOOD coach. He hasn't been past the second round in that time frame, but he still puts his team in the top half of the ACC and makes the NCAA tournament more often than not. Gary Williams is above an AVERAGE coach.

with which of these above bullet points do disagree?

[Eagledom]

Okay, my brain cells are still kind of fried, but I just still can't grasp my head around the concept that it's IMPOSSIBLE to look at the five most recent of a person's job performance and re-evaluate a performance.

Take Jerry York, for example. His team missed the NCAAs last year. No big deal, right? He can't go to the Frozen Four every year. There's bound to be a down year every now and then (he also missed the tournament in 2002). Other than that, he's got a pretty good track record.

But what if Jerry York's teams missed the NCAA tournament five years in a row. Now, I'm saying that an evaluation of someone over their five most recent years is possible. If Jerry York went five straight years of having the pick of the litter of recruits and missed the tournament for five straight years, I'd think "he was once a great coach, but now, he's not what he once was." You'd say, "It's impossible to look at the five most recent years of a person's job."

And it doesn't even have to be coaching. Suppose I worked as a salesman and I sold scientific, engineering and technology applications. Suppose that ten years ago, I was routinely the best salesman at the company. Suppose that for the last five years, my sales numbers have been no where near the top, and have been in the middle of the pack, when compared to the other salesmen at the company. Now, if it was me, I'd be worried that the five most recent years of my job performance might anger my boss, or at the very least, cause my boss to call me into his office and find out what's going on. But in your world, it's IMPOSSIBLE to ever judge anybody's job performance over the five most recent years.

To dumb it down for you, because you've proven time and time again that you're a complete and total moron incapable of logical thought:

• Over the entirety of his career, Coach K is a GREAT coach.
• Over the last five years, Coach K has still been a VERY GOOD coach. He has won over 80% of his games and he has spent who knows how many weeks coaching the #1 team in the country in both polls. Despite not advancing past the second weekend of the tournament, he is not an AVERAGE coach.
• Over the entirety of his career, Coach Gary Williams is a GREAT coach.
• Over the last five years, Coach Gary Williams has still been a GOOD coach. He hasn't been past the second round in that time frame, but he still puts his team in the top half of the ACC and makes the NCAA tournament more often than not. Gary Williams is above an AVERAGE coach.

with which of these above bullet points do disagree?

the last one.

[EaglesTalon]

furthermore, as to your insistence that five years is a capricious and arbitrary time frame for me to mention:

Suppose you get your wish. Al Skinner is fired immediately. Pat Duquette is named interim head coach for the remainder of the season. In the offseason, Gene conducts a national coaching search and over the summer, the new coach is announced.

I'm not going to speculate on what the dollar amount of the contract would be, but I'm asking you what would the length of the contract be?

Me, I'd say that it would be a five year contract. You hate me saying five years. So what's your guess? How long would the contract be for?

[Eagledom]

furthermore, as to your insistence that five years is a capricious and arbitrary time frame for me to mention:

Suppose you get your wish. Al Skinner is fired immediately. Pat Duquette is named interim head coach for the remainder of the season. In the offseason, Gene conducts a national coaching search and over the summer, the new coach is announced.

I'm not going to speculate on what the dollar amount of the contract would be, but I'm asking you what would the length of the contract be?

Me, I'd say that it would be a five year contract. You hate me saying five years. So what's your guess? How long would the contract be for?

you keep forgetting the little fact that we have more than 5 years of evidence to look at with al. like I said, I would not fire him if the last 5 years is all we had to go on. But we have more than double that to look at.....

[EaglesTalon]

furthermore, as to your insistence that five years is a capricious and arbitrary time frame for me to mention:

Suppose you get your wish. Al Skinner is fired immediately. Pat Duquette is named interim head coach for the remainder of the season. In the offseason, Gene conducts a national coaching search and over the summer, the new coach is announced.

I'm not going to speculate on what the dollar amount of the contract would be, but I'm asking you what would the length of the contract be?

Me, I'd say that it would be a five year contract. You hate me saying five years. So what's your guess? How long would the contract be for?

you keep forgetting the little fact that we have more than 5 years of evidence to look at with al. like I said, I would not fire him if the last 5 years is all we had to go on. But we have more than double that to look at.....

I'm not forgetting that there are more than five years of evidence. I'm just trying to say that it's possible and realistic to take a long piece of paper of someone's entire career accomplishments, put a black piece of paper over everything but the most recent five years and reevaluate.

In my scientific, engineering and technology applications salesman example, if I went five straight years of being average when I used to be the best salesman in the company, I think the boss would call me into his office, not to fire me, but to make it clear that over a long enough period of time to make a performance reevaluation, that I need to step it up. If you were that salesman, it sounds like you'd tell your boss that you can't look at your five most recent years in vacuum and that you're still a champion salesman.

[EaglesTalon]

And the entire point of the Five Year most recent window is to illustrate that according to YOU, if you take Coach K's performance over the past five years and ONLY the past five years, there is no way he can be considered anything better than an AVERAGE coach. According to you, you'd have to throw away the fact that his teams have won over 80% of their games. You'd have to throw away the fact that his teams were ranked in who knows how many polls as the #1 team in the country.

According to YOU, a coach is defined as AVERAGE based on how he performs in the NCAA tournament. But, you said you didn't disagree with me that OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS, Coach K is a VERY GOOD coach.

So, I guess that means you need to redefine "AVERAGE" to suit your argument. I don't expect you to admit that you were wrong, so I guess this conversation is over. It's been fun making you look like a jackass, again.

I'll periodically check back to see how many other people will take your side in this debate.

[Eagledom]

And the entire point of the Five Year most recent window is to illustrate that according to YOU, if you take Coach K's performance over the past five years and ONLY the past five years, there is no way he can be considered anything better than an AVERAGE coach. According to you, you'd have to throw away the fact that his teams have won over 80% of their games. You'd have to throw away the fact that his teams were ranked in who knows how many polls as the #1 team in the country.

According to YOU, a coach is defined as AVERAGE based on how he performs in the NCAA tournament. But, you said you didn't disagree with me that OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS, Coach K is a VERY GOOD coach.

So, I guess that means you need to redefine "AVERAGE" to suit your argument. I don't expect you to admit that you were wrong, so I guess this conversation is over. It's been fun making you look like a jackass, again.

I'll periodically check back to see how many other people will take your side in this debate.

Let me put it real simple - in YOUR terms so you might be able to get it through your thick skull.

In the past 5 years, Gary Williams has been a less than average coach. But he has built up enough credibility, based on his NATIONAL TITLE and FINAL FOUR, and FIVE SWEET 16s, that he has earned the right for a few more years to get back on track. Al does not have that track record. He has proven over the course of 13 years, that the last 5 years are not an anomoly. And, the Coach K example isn't even worth looking at, because over the last 5 years, he has 3X more sweet 16s than Al, let alone the proven track record prior to that.

[Eagledom]

And the entire point of the Five Year most recent window is to illustrate that according to YOU, if you take Coach K's performance over the past five years and ONLY the past five years, there is no way he can be considered anything better than an AVERAGE coach. According to you, you'd have to throw away the fact that his teams have won over 80% of their games. You'd have to throw away the fact that his teams were ranked in who knows how many polls as the #1 team in the country.

According to YOU, a coach is defined as AVERAGE based on how he performs in the NCAA tournament. But, you said you didn't disagree with me that OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS, Coach K is a VERY GOOD coach.

So, I guess that means you need to redefine "AVERAGE" to suit your argument. I don't expect you to admit that you were wrong, so I guess this conversation is over. It's been fun making you look like a jackass, again.

I'll periodically check back to see how many other people will take your side in this debate.

Let me put it real simple - in YOUR terms so you might be able to get it through your thick skull.

Guess you "checked back" and realized what an idiot you were being. Al is great! Mediocrity RULES!
In the past 5 years, Gary Williams has been a less than average coach. But he has built up enough credibility, based on his NATIONAL TITLE and FINAL FOUR, and FIVE SWEET 16s, that he has earned the right for a few more years to get back on track. Al does not have that track record. He has proven over the course of 13 years, that the last 5 years are not an anomoly. And, the Coach K example isn't even worth looking at, because over the last 5 years, he has 3X more sweet 16s than Al, let alone the proven track record prior to that.

[EIConvert]

If Duke does not advance past the sweet 16 over the next five years, would you fire Krzyzewski if you were Duke's AD?

Read the last sentence of my last post again.

If Duke does not advance past the sweet 16 over the next five years, would you fire Krzyzewski if you were Duke's AD?

I guess you were too stupid to read the last sentence of the post. When Al wins a few national titles and gets to multiple final 4s, then you can start making these comparisons. Until then, they are stupid. Not to mention you are using a different measuring stick for Al than you are for Coach K, because you know there's know way in hell Coach K goes anywhere NEAR as long as Al without reaching a sweet 16....next argument please.

Douche bag