COY

[Eagledom]

I think people who on one hand praise Don for cleaning house and on the other hand say that it's an impediment that should be considered in the COY are funny.

There, I said it.

Did we ever definitively figure out why Rakim left? I mean, there's a difference between Donahue saying

"Rakim, you're fat, get the hell out",

and him saying

"Rakim, you're carrying some extra weight. We need to hit that cardio hard in the offseason."

I'm willing to bet it was more along the lines of the 2nd statement, in which case it's perfectly rational to say "Rakim was a good player who could have helped this team" and to praise the Don for trying to force him to get into the shape to do so, even if he was unsuccessful.

This is as good argument as I've read in this thread, but I still think it's pretty tenuous. Part of a coach's responsibility to make sure everyone is on the same page. There will always be a variety of personalities and levels of motivation. A good leader is able to relate to everyone and provide the type of guidance that precipitates the success of each individual (which then leads to the success of the whole). Whether intended or unintended, Donahue lost Sanders, Ravanel, and the entire recruiting class. Some of these guys decidedly could have helped the team in the short-term, even if the chain of events that led to their departures is good for the program in the long-term. I'm not so much assessing blame for the stuff that happened nine months ago as I'm saying that the coach is responsible for all aspects of the program. Whether or not you think that "cleaning house" was smart, it's contradictory to praise him for the decision and argue that it was major impediment. It was a conscious decision.

You are missing the point. The talent level is an impediment now and it would have been an impediment had everyone stayed on board. No one is saying donahue should be COY because we lost Ravenel and Sanders. They are saying he should be COY because he has done more with less...and arument that wouldn't change even if Sanders and Ravenel were still here.

i know i don't understand a lot of things, but how is your above statement NOT saying that the team would not be any better with rakim sanders on it?

Current Team = Less talent than top 1/2 of ACC
Current Team + Sanders = slightly more talent than current team, but STILL less talent than top 1/2 of ACC.

[pick6pedro]

I think people who on one hand praise Don for cleaning house and on the other hand say that it's an impediment that should be considered in the COY are funny.

There, I said it.

Did we ever definitively figure out why Rakim left? I mean, there's a difference between Donahue saying

"Rakim, you're fat, get the hell out",

and him saying

"Rakim, you're carrying some extra weight. We need to hit that cardio hard in the offseason."

I'm willing to bet it was more along the lines of the 2nd statement, in which case it's perfectly rational to say "Rakim was a good player who could have helped this team" and to praise the Don for trying to force him to get into the shape to do so, even if he was unsuccessful.

This is as good argument as I've read in this thread, but I still think it's pretty tenuous. Part of a coach's responsibility to make sure everyone is on the same page. There will always be a variety of personalities and levels of motivation. A good leader is able to relate to everyone and provide the type of guidance that precipitates the success of each individual (which then leads to the success of the whole). Whether intended or unintended, Donahue lost Sanders, Ravanel, and the entire recruiting class. Some of these guys decidedly could have helped the team in the short-term, even if the chain of events that led to their departures is good for the program in the long-term. I'm not so much assessing blame for the stuff that happened nine months ago as I'm saying that the coach is responsible for all aspects of the program. Whether or not you think that "cleaning house" was smart, it's contradictory to praise him for the decision and argue that it was major impediment. It was a conscious decision.

You are missing the point. The talent level is an impediment now and it would have been an impediment had everyone stayed on board. No one is saying donahue should be COY because we lost Ravenel and Sanders. They are saying he should be COY because he has done more with less...and arument that wouldn't change even if Sanders and Ravenel were still here.

i know i don't understand a lot of things, but how is your above statement NOT saying that the team would not be any better with rakim sanders on it?

Current Team = Less talent than top 1/2 of ACC
Current Team + Sanders = slightly more talent than current team, but STILL less talent than top 1/2 of ACC.

What about the other 4 (or is it 5?) scholly players that were replaced with walk-ons and mid-major guys?

[bignick33]

That would be a good point if anyone were arguing that.

Of course they are. The "cupboard was bare" argument is prevalent. You often use it yourself to disparage our former coach. Here is one example of that argument in this very thread.

That leaves the race between Ratface and the Don, and that isn't a close call. The Don lost Sanders (11 and 7), Ravenel (a big body behind Southern) and Roche (20 mins and 7 pts per game). The Don lost the entire recruiting class, including MN Mr. B B. He replaced those holes with two walk-ons and great coaching. While we had the core of the team returning, minus Sanders (he was more flabber than core), they underperformed as compared to this year. Even Biko has played much bettter, particularly before his injury. He has bested the projected finish by far (likely 4 vs 10 finish), and has us perched on the verge of a tournament berth for the first time in three years.

[twballgame9]

Coach K is the best coach in the country. Those two Miami losses are going to cost Donahue coach of the year. Voting will go something like this:

(1) Coach K (60%)
(2) Donahue (25%)
(3) Brownell (15%)

This. Completely disregarding that the coach brought in the talent and weighing mostly on improvement is silly.

So the guy that wins the most games is always the best coach? I can see the correlation between winning and coaching, but I think this takes it too far. You get a title for winning the most games - the best coach should be the guy that coaches the best, whether that be overcoming injury, taking over a new program, turning around a bad record, while winning a lot of games. I would go Brownell, Don, K (mostly because of what he did when Irving went down, not just because of his record).

Show me where I said the guy who wins the most is always the best coach. Thanks.

If you are the best in game coach, best gameplanner (my two criteria) and the best recruiter, and you don't have the best record, would you be in the discussion? What is your point about K then? Guy's a good coach. We say he also has the best talent. You elevate him over the other guys because he brought in the great talent. If that is your criteria, wouldn't he by definition have to win the most games? Or would you go with the guy that does everything the best except comes in second? By factoring in everything that goes into being a head coach, including recruiting, you are basically doing nothing more than reciting the standings. If the guy is the best on the court, on the chalkboard and in the recruit's homes, then he better have the best record.

Bringing in the talent as a factor in who should win the coach of the year is basically equating wins to good coaching. By ignoring that factor, you seek to eliminate the advantages of coaching at certain schools, and try to assess the abilities of the coach, all other things being equal. If a guy has been there for 6 years, has crappy talent, but goes 10-6, I suppose you could say "well he should have brought in better talent." But an inanimate object could recruit top players to Duke or UNC at this point. And Brownell and the Don haven't had the luxury of getting full recruiting classes on campus yet.

[cvilleagle]

I think people who on one hand praise Don for cleaning house and on the other hand say that it's an impediment that should be considered in the COY are funny.

There, I said it.

Did we ever definitively figure out why Rakim left? I mean, there's a difference between Donahue saying

"Rakim, you're fat, get the hell out",

and him saying

"Rakim, you're carrying some extra weight. We need to hit that cardio hard in the offseason."

I'm willing to bet it was more along the lines of the 2nd statement, in which case it's perfectly rational to say "Rakim was a good player who could have helped this team" and to praise the Don for trying to force him to get into the shape to do so, even if he was unsuccessful.

This is as good argument as I've read in this thread, but I still think it's pretty tenuous. Part of a coach's responsibility to make sure everyone is on the same page. There will always be a variety of personalities and levels of motivation. A good leader is able to relate to everyone and provide the type of guidance that precipitates the success of each individual (which then leads to the success of the whole). Whether intended or unintended, Donahue lost Sanders, Ravanel, and the entire recruiting class. Some of these guys decidedly could have helped the team in the short-term, even if the chain of events that led to their departures is good for the program in the long-term. I'm not so much assessing blame for the stuff that happened nine months ago as I'm saying that the coach is responsible for all aspects of the program. Whether or not you think that "cleaning house" was smart, it's contradictory to praise him for the decision and argue that it was major impediment. It was a conscious decision.

This is a good argument. To a large extent, it's true. I hesitate to criticize Donahue too much for Rakim's leaving, though, because in the end there are some people that even the best motivators/teachers can't reach. I don't blame Skinner for losing because I'm pretty sure he did everything in his power to get him on track. Now, you could say "well if was that big of a problem, Skinner should have never recruited him." I would disagree, since it's difficult to know how someone is going to function in a college environment until they get there. In Rakim's case, this argument is not compelling. The Don didn't recruit this guy. He inherited him, and he had a tough choice to make (again, I'm making some assumptions here, since to my knowledge we don't have too much insider info about what actually happened). Either you push the guy in the best way you know how, adapting to his personality/level of motivation to get ready to play the new team style, or you exempt him from the workouts and treat him differently. I think everyone can see why the second one's a problem. The first one you can do with terrific precision and sometimes the guy's still going to leave.

That doesn't explain why the whole recruiting class left. I'm willing to bet Ravenel's leaving was for similar reasons, though. Noreen, I think he was kind of looking around anyways and took the excuse to jump. Heslip and Papa I'm less clear about, although I'm also less clear on whether they would have been any help this year, especially Papa.

[pick6pedro]

Coach K is the best coach in the country. Those two Miami losses are going to cost Donahue coach of the year. Voting will go something like this:

(1) Coach K (60%)
(2) Donahue (25%)
(3) Brownell (15%)

This. Completely disregarding that the coach brought in the talent and weighing mostly on improvement is silly.

So the guy that wins the most games is always the best coach? I can see the correlation between winning and coaching, but I think this takes it too far. You get a title for winning the most games - the best coach should be the guy that coaches the best, whether that be overcoming injury, taking over a new program, turning around a bad record, while winning a lot of games. I would go Brownell, Don, K (mostly because of what he did when Irving went down, not just because of his record).

Show me where I said the guy who wins the most is always the best coach. Thanks.

If you are the best in game coach, best gameplanner (my two criteria) and the best recruiter, and you don't have the best record, would you be in the discussion? What is your point about K then? Guy's a good coach. We say he also has the best talent. You elevate him over the other guys because he brought in the great talent. If that is your criteria, wouldn't he by definition have to win the most games? Or would you go with the guy that does everything the best except comes in second? By factoring in everything that goes into being a head coach, including recruiting, you are basically doing nothing more than reciting the standings. If the guy is the best on the court, on the chalkboard and in the recruit's homes, then he better have the best record.

Bringing in the talent as a factor in who should win the coach of the year is basically equating wins to good coaching. By ignoring that factor, you seek to eliminate the advantages of coaching at certain schools, and try to assess the abilities of the coach, all other things being equal. If a guy has been there for 6 years, has crappy talent, but goes 10-6, I suppose you could say "well he should have brought in better talent." But an inanimate object could recruit top players to Duke or UNC at this point. And Brownell and the Don haven't had the luxury of getting full recruiting classes on campus yet.

Teddy, I admire your attempts, but you seem to be trying to stuff words in my mouth. You're right, if you are the best of all 3, you should clearly be at the top of the standings and COY - and if you are not, then you should not be COY. Unfortunately we live in a world where it's very rare that a coach is #1 at all 3. That's why you're looking to see who is the best combination of all 3. And that doesn't mean you are at the top of the standings - for various reasons that I shouldn't have to state. My point was that best turnaround can mean a bunch of things - and you need to see what it was actually about as to how you factor that in to a COY discussion. It could mean you were terrible last year because of your own doing. It could mean you are picking up the pieces from a previous failure. It could mean the conference had a down year and you happened to put it all together. It could mean major injuries allowed you to catapult ahead of some programs. It could mean a couple close games tipped in your favor. It could mean the hardest games you had were good matchups for you. It could mean you took advantage of an unbalanced schedule. It could mean any combination of the above and more.

An inanimate object could recruit top players at Duke or UNC, but to ignore the fact that they are bringing in talent, even with the advantages (especially in Duke's case where the advantages are due to Coach K himself) is basically saying that if the most talented team has the most wins then the coach can't be COY. I would disagree with that. Saying best turnaround should be the best coach would also say a coach who is always in the top 2 could never win COY. I would disagree with that.

And I never said I elevated him over the other guys because he brought in great talent - I just agreed that what eepstein said would happen. I'm saying it shouldn't be excluded as a factor.

[twballgame9]

Coach K is the best coach in the country. Those two Miami losses are going to cost Donahue coach of the year. Voting will go something like this:

(1) Coach K (60%)
(2) Donahue (25%)
(3) Brownell (15%)

This. Completely disregarding that the coach brought in the talent and weighing mostly on improvement is silly.

So the guy that wins the most games is always the best coach? I can see the correlation between winning and coaching, but I think this takes it too far. You get a title for winning the most games - the best coach should be the guy that coaches the best, whether that be overcoming injury, taking over a new program, turning around a bad record, while winning a lot of games. I would go Brownell, Don, K (mostly because of what he did when Irving went down, not just because of his record).

Show me where I said the guy who wins the most is always the best coach. Thanks.

If you are the best in game coach, best gameplanner (my two criteria) and the best recruiter, and you don't have the best record, would you be in the discussion? What is your point about K then? Guy's a good coach. We say he also has the best talent. You elevate him over the other guys because he brought in the great talent. If that is your criteria, wouldn't he by definition have to win the most games? Or would you go with the guy that does everything the best except comes in second? By factoring in everything that goes into being a head coach, including recruiting, you are basically doing nothing more than reciting the standings. If the guy is the best on the court, on the chalkboard and in the recruit's homes, then he better have the best record.

Bringing in the talent as a factor in who should win the coach of the year is basically equating wins to good coaching. By ignoring that factor, you seek to eliminate the advantages of coaching at certain schools, and try to assess the abilities of the coach, all other things being equal. If a guy has been there for 6 years, has crappy talent, but goes 10-6, I suppose you could say "well he should have brought in better talent." But an inanimate object could recruit top players to Duke or UNC at this point. And Brownell and the Don haven't had the luxury of getting full recruiting classes on campus yet.

Teddy, I admire your attempts, but you seem to be trying to stuff words in my mouth. You're right, if you are the best of all 3, you should clearly be at the top of the standings and COY - and if you are not, then you should not be COY. Unfortunately we live in a world where it's very rare that a coach is #1 at all 3. That's why you're looking to see who is the best combination of all 3. And that doesn't mean you are at the top of the standings - for various reasons that I shouldn't have to state. My point was that best turnaround can mean a bunch of things - and you need to see what it was actually about as to how you factor that in to a COY discussion. It could mean you were terrible last year because of your own doing. It could mean you are picking up the pieces from a previous failure. It could mean the conference had a down year and you happened to put it all together. It could mean major injuries allowed you to catapult ahead of some programs. It could mean a couple close games tipped in your favor. It could mean the hardest games you had were good matchups for you. It could mean you took advantage of an unbalanced schedule. It could mean any combination of the above and more.

An inanimate object could recruit top players at Duke or UNC, but to ignore the fact that they are bringing in talent, even with the advantages (especially in Duke's case where the advantages are due to Coach K himself) is basically saying that if the most talented team has the most wins then the coach can't be COY. I would disagree with that. Saying best turnaround should be the best coach would also say a coach who is always in the top 2 could never win COY. I would disagree with that.

And I never said I elevated him over the other guys because he brought in great talent - I just agreed that what eepstein said would happen. I'm saying it shouldn't be excluded as a factor.

Fair point on nobody being the best at all three. But let's say you rate the coaches 1-12 in each of the three categories and take the average (or total). I would think it is fair to say that the guys that have the lowest total would be the guys that also have the most wins. K, for example, would be in the top 3-4 in every category, and his team has the most wins. Roy is #1 in recruiting, and probably top 2-3 in gameplanning, and though I would put him 7-8 in in-game coaching in this conference of pretty bad coaches, he would still score well.

But doesn't this unfairly discriminate against the guys that haven't been there long enough to get their guys on campus? For those that have been there for 4+ years, not having talent could be construed as a negative. Having talent, as you suggest, is a positive. But how do you credit, or discredit guys for talent when they are not responsible for bringing it there?

I prefer to take the recruiting aspect out of the equation, and merely examine the talent as a variable that allows for a better evaluation of the other two criteria. For example, if you have great talent, it is tough to tell how great of a coach you actually are. You have to actually watch the games and see how the team is prepared and how well the coach adjusts in game. K clearly scores well when you watch Duke (I won't get into Roy, who has his teams ready, but is retarded in game). But if your talent blows, and you win 20 games, then you really know what you are doing.

[pick6pedro]

Coach K is the best coach in the country. Those two Miami losses are going to cost Donahue coach of the year. Voting will go something like this:

(1) Coach K (60%)
(2) Donahue (25%)
(3) Brownell (15%)

This. Completely disregarding that the coach brought in the talent and weighing mostly on improvement is silly.

So the guy that wins the most games is always the best coach? I can see the correlation between winning and coaching, but I think this takes it too far. You get a title for winning the most games - the best coach should be the guy that coaches the best, whether that be overcoming injury, taking over a new program, turning around a bad record, while winning a lot of games. I would go Brownell, Don, K (mostly because of what he did when Irving went down, not just because of his record).

Show me where I said the guy who wins the most is always the best coach. Thanks.

If you are the best in game coach, best gameplanner (my two criteria) and the best recruiter, and you don't have the best record, would you be in the discussion? What is your point about K then? Guy's a good coach. We say he also has the best talent. You elevate him over the other guys because he brought in the great talent. If that is your criteria, wouldn't he by definition have to win the most games? Or would you go with the guy that does everything the best except comes in second? By factoring in everything that goes into being a head coach, including recruiting, you are basically doing nothing more than reciting the standings. If the guy is the best on the court, on the chalkboard and in the recruit's homes, then he better have the best record.

Bringing in the talent as a factor in who should win the coach of the year is basically equating wins to good coaching. By ignoring that factor, you seek to eliminate the advantages of coaching at certain schools, and try to assess the abilities of the coach, all other things being equal. If a guy has been there for 6 years, has crappy talent, but goes 10-6, I suppose you could say "well he should have brought in better talent." But an inanimate object could recruit top players to Duke or UNC at this point. And Brownell and the Don haven't had the luxury of getting full recruiting classes on campus yet.

Teddy, I admire your attempts, but you seem to be trying to stuff words in my mouth. You're right, if you are the best of all 3, you should clearly be at the top of the standings and COY - and if you are not, then you should not be COY. Unfortunately we live in a world where it's very rare that a coach is #1 at all 3. That's why you're looking to see who is the best combination of all 3. And that doesn't mean you are at the top of the standings - for various reasons that I shouldn't have to state. My point was that best turnaround can mean a bunch of things - and you need to see what it was actually about as to how you factor that in to a COY discussion. It could mean you were terrible last year because of your own doing. It could mean you are picking up the pieces from a previous failure. It could mean the conference had a down year and you happened to put it all together. It could mean major injuries allowed you to catapult ahead of some programs. It could mean a couple close games tipped in your favor. It could mean the hardest games you had were good matchups for you. It could mean you took advantage of an unbalanced schedule. It could mean any combination of the above and more.

An inanimate object could recruit top players at Duke or UNC, but to ignore the fact that they are bringing in talent, even with the advantages (especially in Duke's case where the advantages are due to Coach K himself) is basically saying that if the most talented team has the most wins then the coach can't be COY. I would disagree with that. Saying best turnaround should be the best coach would also say a coach who is always in the top 2 could never win COY. I would disagree with that.

And I never said I elevated him over the other guys because he brought in great talent - I just agreed that what eepstein said would happen. I'm saying it shouldn't be excluded as a factor.

Fair point on nobody being the best at all three. But let's say you rate the coaches 1-12 in each of the three categories and take the average (or total). I would think it is fair to say that the guys that have the lowest total would be the guys that also have the most wins. K, for example, would be in the top 3-4 in every category, and his team has the most wins. Roy is #1 in recruiting, and probably top 2-3 in gameplanning, and though I would put him 7-8 in in-game coaching in this conference of pretty bad coaches, he would still score well.

But doesn't this unfairly discriminate against the guys that haven't been there long enough to get their guys on campus? For those that have been there for 4+ years, not having talent could be construed as a negative. Having talent, as you suggest, is a positive. But how do you credit, or discredit guys for talent when they are not responsible for bringing it there?

I prefer to take the recruiting aspect out of the equation, and merely examine the talent as a variable that allows for a better evaluation of the other two criteria. For example, if you have great talent, it is tough to tell how great of a coach you actually are. You have to actually watch the games and see how the team is prepared and how well the coach adjusts in game. K clearly scores well when you watch Duke (I won't get into Roy, who has his teams ready, but is retarded in game). But if your talent blows, and you win 20 games, then you really know what you are doing.

Hey stat geek - stop trying to make each of the three criteria equally valued, not only with respect to the other criteria, but across the board for each coach in a different situation, tenure level, et al. (just had to get that in there)

Wouldn't it equally discriminate against guys who have top talent if you just eliminate the recruiting aspect altogether? Why is it so hard to evaluate coaching ability when they have great talent? You're saying right there that you can do it. I think I can too. The people who vote for these awards are getting paid to watch these games, so I believe they can too.

On the whole, you can't just take those two factors and make all else equal - because they just aren't. Everything needs to be considered. Some will feel those factors lean towards the Don. Some feel a guy who doesn't get a bye can't be seriously considered (same people who say MLB MVP can't be a non-playoff team player). I'd rather weigh all factors and adjust them accordingly per the situation than eliminate some to the detriment of a set of coaches.

[bignick33]

Coach K is the best coach in the country. Those two Miami losses are going to cost Donahue coach of the year. Voting will go something like this:

(1) Coach K (60%)
(2) Donahue (25%)
(3) Brownell (15%)

This. Completely disregarding that the coach brought in the talent and weighing mostly on improvement is silly.

So the guy that wins the most games is always the best coach? I can see the correlation between winning and coaching, but I think this takes it too far. You get a title for winning the most games - the best coach should be the guy that coaches the best, whether that be overcoming injury, taking over a new program, turning around a bad record, while winning a lot of games. I would go Brownell, Don, K (mostly because of what he did when Irving went down, not just because of his record).

Show me where I said the guy who wins the most is always the best coach. Thanks.

If you are the best in game coach, best gameplanner (my two criteria) and the best recruiter, and you don't have the best record, would you be in the discussion? What is your point about K then? Guy's a good coach. We say he also has the best talent. You elevate him over the other guys because he brought in the great talent. If that is your criteria, wouldn't he by definition have to win the most games? Or would you go with the guy that does everything the best except comes in second? By factoring in everything that goes into being a head coach, including recruiting, you are basically doing nothing more than reciting the standings. If the guy is the best on the court, on the chalkboard and in the recruit's homes, then he better have the best record.

Bringing in the talent as a factor in who should win the coach of the year is basically equating wins to good coaching. By ignoring that factor, you seek to eliminate the advantages of coaching at certain schools, and try to assess the abilities of the coach, all other things being equal. If a guy has been there for 6 years, has crappy talent, but goes 10-6, I suppose you could say "well he should have brought in better talent." But an inanimate object could recruit top players to Duke or UNC at this point. And Brownell and the Don haven't had the luxury of getting full recruiting classes on campus yet.

Teddy, I admire your attempts, but you seem to be trying to stuff words in my mouth. You're right, if you are the best of all 3, you should clearly be at the top of the standings and COY - and if you are not, then you should not be COY. Unfortunately we live in a world where it's very rare that a coach is #1 at all 3. That's why you're looking to see who is the best combination of all 3. And that doesn't mean you are at the top of the standings - for various reasons that I shouldn't have to state. My point was that best turnaround can mean a bunch of things - and you need to see what it was actually about as to how you factor that in to a COY discussion. It could mean you were terrible last year because of your own doing. It could mean you are picking up the pieces from a previous failure. It could mean the conference had a down year and you happened to put it all together. It could mean major injuries allowed you to catapult ahead of some programs. It could mean a couple close games tipped in your favor. It could mean the hardest games you had were good matchups for you. It could mean you took advantage of an unbalanced schedule. It could mean any combination of the above and more.

An inanimate object could recruit top players at Duke or UNC, but to ignore the fact that they are bringing in talent, even with the advantages (especially in Duke's case where the advantages are due to Coach K himself) is basically saying that if the most talented team has the most wins then the coach can't be COY. I would disagree with that. Saying best turnaround should be the best coach would also say a coach who is always in the top 2 could never win COY. I would disagree with that.

And I never said I elevated him over the other guys because he brought in great talent - I just agreed that what eepstein said would happen. I'm saying it shouldn't be excluded as a factor.

Fair point on nobody being the best at all three. But let's say you rate the coaches 1-12 in each of the three categories and take the average (or total). I would think it is fair to say that the guys that have the lowest total would be the guys that also have the most wins. K, for example, would be in the top 3-4 in every category, and his team has the most wins. Roy is #1 in recruiting, and probably top 2-3 in gameplanning, and though I would put him 7-8 in in-game coaching in this conference of pretty bad coaches, he would still score well.

But doesn't this unfairly discriminate against the guys that haven't been there long enough to get their guys on campus? For those that have been there for 4+ years, not having talent could be construed as a negative. Having talent, as you suggest, is a positive. But how do you credit, or discredit guys for talent when they are not responsible for bringing it there?

I prefer to take the recruiting aspect out of the equation, and merely examine the talent as a variable that allows for a better evaluation of the other two criteria. For example, if you have great talent, it is tough to tell how great of a coach you actually are. You have to actually watch the games and see how the team is prepared and how well the coach adjusts in game. K clearly scores well when you watch Duke (I won't get into Roy, who has his teams ready, but is retarded in game). But if your talent blows, and you win 20 games, then you really know what you are doing.

Hey stat geek - stop trying to make each of the three criteria equally valued, not only with respect to the other criteria, but across the board for each coach in a different situation, tenure level, et al. (just had to get that in there)

Wouldn't it equally discriminate against guys who have top talent if you just eliminate the recruiting aspect altogether? Why is it so hard to evaluate coaching ability when they have great talent? You're saying right there that you can do it. I think I can too. The people who vote for these awards are getting paid to watch these games, so I believe they can too.

On the whole, you can't just take those two factors and make all else equal - because they just aren't. Everything needs to be considered. Some will feel those factors lean towards the Don. Some feel a guy who doesn't get a bye can't be seriously considered (same people who say MLB MVP can't be a non-playoff team player). I'd rather weigh all factors and adjust them accordingly per the situation than eliminate some to the detriment of a set of coaches.

TW's metric is kind of like OPS.

I couldn't resist.

[twballgame9]

Coach K is the best coach in the country. Those two Miami losses are going to cost Donahue coach of the year. Voting will go something like this:

(1) Coach K (60%)
(2) Donahue (25%)
(3) Brownell (15%)

This. Completely disregarding that the coach brought in the talent and weighing mostly on improvement is silly.

So the guy that wins the most games is always the best coach? I can see the correlation between winning and coaching, but I think this takes it too far. You get a title for winning the most games - the best coach should be the guy that coaches the best, whether that be overcoming injury, taking over a new program, turning around a bad record, while winning a lot of games. I would go Brownell, Don, K (mostly because of what he did when Irving went down, not just because of his record).

Show me where I said the guy who wins the most is always the best coach. Thanks.

If you are the best in game coach, best gameplanner (my two criteria) and the best recruiter, and you don't have the best record, would you be in the discussion? What is your point about K then? Guy's a good coach. We say he also has the best talent. You elevate him over the other guys because he brought in the great talent. If that is your criteria, wouldn't he by definition have to win the most games? Or would you go with the guy that does everything the best except comes in second? By factoring in everything that goes into being a head coach, including recruiting, you are basically doing nothing more than reciting the standings. If the guy is the best on the court, on the chalkboard and in the recruit's homes, then he better have the best record.

Bringing in the talent as a factor in who should win the coach of the year is basically equating wins to good coaching. By ignoring that factor, you seek to eliminate the advantages of coaching at certain schools, and try to assess the abilities of the coach, all other things being equal. If a guy has been there for 6 years, has crappy talent, but goes 10-6, I suppose you could say "well he should have brought in better talent." But an inanimate object could recruit top players to Duke or UNC at this point. And Brownell and the Don haven't had the luxury of getting full recruiting classes on campus yet.

Teddy, I admire your attempts, but you seem to be trying to stuff words in my mouth. You're right, if you are the best of all 3, you should clearly be at the top of the standings and COY - and if you are not, then you should not be COY. Unfortunately we live in a world where it's very rare that a coach is #1 at all 3. That's why you're looking to see who is the best combination of all 3. And that doesn't mean you are at the top of the standings - for various reasons that I shouldn't have to state. My point was that best turnaround can mean a bunch of things - and you need to see what it was actually about as to how you factor that in to a COY discussion. It could mean you were terrible last year because of your own doing. It could mean you are picking up the pieces from a previous failure. It could mean the conference had a down year and you happened to put it all together. It could mean major injuries allowed you to catapult ahead of some programs. It could mean a couple close games tipped in your favor. It could mean the hardest games you had were good matchups for you. It could mean you took advantage of an unbalanced schedule. It could mean any combination of the above and more.

An inanimate object could recruit top players at Duke or UNC, but to ignore the fact that they are bringing in talent, even with the advantages (especially in Duke's case where the advantages are due to Coach K himself) is basically saying that if the most talented team has the most wins then the coach can't be COY. I would disagree with that. Saying best turnaround should be the best coach would also say a coach who is always in the top 2 could never win COY. I would disagree with that.

And I never said I elevated him over the other guys because he brought in great talent - I just agreed that what eepstein said would happen. I'm saying it shouldn't be excluded as a factor.

Fair point on nobody being the best at all three. But let's say you rate the coaches 1-12 in each of the three categories and take the average (or total). I would think it is fair to say that the guys that have the lowest total would be the guys that also have the most wins. K, for example, would be in the top 3-4 in every category, and his team has the most wins. Roy is #1 in recruiting, and probably top 2-3 in gameplanning, and though I would put him 7-8 in in-game coaching in this conference of pretty bad coaches, he would still score well.

But doesn't this unfairly discriminate against the guys that haven't been there long enough to get their guys on campus? For those that have been there for 4+ years, not having talent could be construed as a negative. Having talent, as you suggest, is a positive. But how do you credit, or discredit guys for talent when they are not responsible for bringing it there?

I prefer to take the recruiting aspect out of the equation, and merely examine the talent as a variable that allows for a better evaluation of the other two criteria. For example, if you have great talent, it is tough to tell how great of a coach you actually are. You have to actually watch the games and see how the team is prepared and how well the coach adjusts in game. K clearly scores well when you watch Duke (I won't get into Roy, who has his teams ready, but is retarded in game). But if your talent blows, and you win 20 games, then you really know what you are doing.

Hey stat geek - stop trying to make each of the three criteria equally valued, not only with respect to the other criteria, but across the board for each coach in a different situation, tenure level, et al. (just had to get that in there)

Wouldn't it equally discriminate against guys who have top talent if you just eliminate the recruiting aspect altogether? Why is it so hard to evaluate coaching ability when they have great talent? You're saying right there that you can do it. I think I can too. The people who vote for these awards are getting paid to watch these games, so I believe they can too.

On the whole, you can't just take those two factors and make all else equal - because they just aren't. Everything needs to be considered. Some will feel those factors lean towards the Don. Some feel a guy who doesn't get a bye can't be seriously considered (same people who say MLB MVP can't be a non-playoff team player). I'd rather weigh all factors and adjust them accordingly per the situation than eliminate some to the detriment of a set of coaches.

I don't think it does discriminate against coaches that have top talent. As you note, people watch the games. I can tell Coach K would be a good coach regardless of whether he brings in talent. I just don't think that considering the talent as part of the equation is relevent to coaching - I think it is merely a good way to evaluate coaching.

I see it like evaluating salesmen from one company to the next. Is the guy who is given the best product and makes the most sales the best at selling? Possibly. But is the quality of the product relevant to that determination? Only to the extent that you acknowledge it is easier for him to sell than the guy with the bad product. Sure, you can tell the other guy "make a better product", but is that relevant to his ability to makes sales? If he sells as much with a lesser product, can you not arrive at the conclusion that he might be better at selling?

For me, bringing in the talent is part of the job, but not part of "coaching." I don't think the award should go to the best all-around job, but to the guy that is the best at the actual coaching aspect of the job. Part of the job is to sell the program and put asses in the seats, but few would suggest that as a criteria for determining COY. I feel the same about recruiting, though I recognize that recruiting has a more direct correlation to on-court success.

And my number thing was an attempt to simplfy, not quantify.

[pick6pedro]

Coach K is the best coach in the country. Those two Miami losses are going to cost Donahue coach of the year. Voting will go something like this:

(1) Coach K (60%)
(2) Donahue (25%)
(3) Brownell (15%)

This. Completely disregarding that the coach brought in the talent and weighing mostly on improvement is silly.

So the guy that wins the most games is always the best coach? I can see the correlation between winning and coaching, but I think this takes it too far. You get a title for winning the most games - the best coach should be the guy that coaches the best, whether that be overcoming injury, taking over a new program, turning around a bad record, while winning a lot of games. I would go Brownell, Don, K (mostly because of what he did when Irving went down, not just because of his record).

Show me where I said the guy who wins the most is always the best coach. Thanks.

If you are the best in game coach, best gameplanner (my two criteria) and the best recruiter, and you don't have the best record, would you be in the discussion? What is your point about K then? Guy's a good coach. We say he also has the best talent. You elevate him over the other guys because he brought in the great talent. If that is your criteria, wouldn't he by definition have to win the most games? Or would you go with the guy that does everything the best except comes in second? By factoring in everything that goes into being a head coach, including recruiting, you are basically doing nothing more than reciting the standings. If the guy is the best on the court, on the chalkboard and in the recruit's homes, then he better have the best record.

Bringing in the talent as a factor in who should win the coach of the year is basically equating wins to good coaching. By ignoring that factor, you seek to eliminate the advantages of coaching at certain schools, and try to assess the abilities of the coach, all other things being equal. If a guy has been there for 6 years, has crappy talent, but goes 10-6, I suppose you could say "well he should have brought in better talent." But an inanimate object could recruit top players to Duke or UNC at this point. And Brownell and the Don haven't had the luxury of getting full recruiting classes on campus yet.

Teddy, I admire your attempts, but you seem to be trying to stuff words in my mouth. You're right, if you are the best of all 3, you should clearly be at the top of the standings and COY - and if you are not, then you should not be COY. Unfortunately we live in a world where it's very rare that a coach is #1 at all 3. That's why you're looking to see who is the best combination of all 3. And that doesn't mean you are at the top of the standings - for various reasons that I shouldn't have to state. My point was that best turnaround can mean a bunch of things - and you need to see what it was actually about as to how you factor that in to a COY discussion. It could mean you were terrible last year because of your own doing. It could mean you are picking up the pieces from a previous failure. It could mean the conference had a down year and you happened to put it all together. It could mean major injuries allowed you to catapult ahead of some programs. It could mean a couple close games tipped in your favor. It could mean the hardest games you had were good matchups for you. It could mean you took advantage of an unbalanced schedule. It could mean any combination of the above and more.

An inanimate object could recruit top players at Duke or UNC, but to ignore the fact that they are bringing in talent, even with the advantages (especially in Duke's case where the advantages are due to Coach K himself) is basically saying that if the most talented team has the most wins then the coach can't be COY. I would disagree with that. Saying best turnaround should be the best coach would also say a coach who is always in the top 2 could never win COY. I would disagree with that.

And I never said I elevated him over the other guys because he brought in great talent - I just agreed that what eepstein said would happen. I'm saying it shouldn't be excluded as a factor.

Fair point on nobody being the best at all three. But let's say you rate the coaches 1-12 in each of the three categories and take the average (or total). I would think it is fair to say that the guys that have the lowest total would be the guys that also have the most wins. K, for example, would be in the top 3-4 in every category, and his team has the most wins. Roy is #1 in recruiting, and probably top 2-3 in gameplanning, and though I would put him 7-8 in in-game coaching in this conference of pretty bad coaches, he would still score well.

But doesn't this unfairly discriminate against the guys that haven't been there long enough to get their guys on campus? For those that have been there for 4+ years, not having talent could be construed as a negative. Having talent, as you suggest, is a positive. But how do you credit, or discredit guys for talent when they are not responsible for bringing it there?

I prefer to take the recruiting aspect out of the equation, and merely examine the talent as a variable that allows for a better evaluation of the other two criteria. For example, if you have great talent, it is tough to tell how great of a coach you actually are. You have to actually watch the games and see how the team is prepared and how well the coach adjusts in game. K clearly scores well when you watch Duke (I won't get into Roy, who has his teams ready, but is retarded in game). But if your talent blows, and you win 20 games, then you really know what you are doing.

Hey stat geek - stop trying to make each of the three criteria equally valued, not only with respect to the other criteria, but across the board for each coach in a different situation, tenure level, et al. (just had to get that in there)

Wouldn't it equally discriminate against guys who have top talent if you just eliminate the recruiting aspect altogether? Why is it so hard to evaluate coaching ability when they have great talent? You're saying right there that you can do it. I think I can too. The people who vote for these awards are getting paid to watch these games, so I believe they can too.

On the whole, you can't just take those two factors and make all else equal - because they just aren't. Everything needs to be considered. Some will feel those factors lean towards the Don. Some feel a guy who doesn't get a bye can't be seriously considered (same people who say MLB MVP can't be a non-playoff team player). I'd rather weigh all factors and adjust them accordingly per the situation than eliminate some to the detriment of a set of coaches.

I don't think it does discriminate against coaches that have top talent. As you note, people watch the games. I can tell Coach K would be a good coach regardless of whether he brings in talent. I just don't think that considering the talent as part of the equation is relevent to coaching - I think it is merely a good way to evaluate coaching.

I see it like evaluating salesmen from one company to the next. Is the guy who is given the best product and makes the most sales the best at selling? Possibly. But is the quality of the product relevant to that determination? Only to the extent that you acknowledge it is easier for him to sell than the guy with the bad product. Sure, you can tell the other guy "make a better product", but is that relevant to his ability to makes sales? If he sells as much with a lesser product, can you not arrive at the conclusion that he might be better at selling?

For me, bringing in the talent is part of the job, but not part of "coaching." I don't think the award should go to the best all-around job, but to the guy that is the best at the actual coaching aspect of the job. Part of the job is to sell the program and put asses in the seats, but few would suggest that as a criteria for determining COY. I feel the same about recruiting, though I recognize that recruiting has a more direct correlation to on-court success.

And my number thing was an attempt to simplfy, not quantify.

I know, you know I absolutely had to go there though.

See, the explanation above suggests to me that you're not eliminating recruiting/talent altogether, but adjusting for each coached based on it. I think the difference lies in the fact that you only use talent as a basis for adjustment of the game coaching skill (in-game and prep), whereas I not only adjust game coaching skill using it, I also give some credit for getting the talent in there in the first place.

The media members who are voting could have this same argument about what criteria they use - hence some voting for different guys. It actually makes me curious what guidelines they are given and whether if given any at all, some don't follow it. My guess is most have predetermined who gets their vote before that little card comes in the mail (or however the ACC does it) and that many use whatever they think the award means. All this still leads me to believe Coach K walks away with that award despite what the Don has done.

[Bumpers]

Coach K is the best coach in the country. Those two Miami losses are going to cost Donahue coach of the year. Voting will go something like this:

(1) Coach K (60%)
(2) Donahue (25%)
(3) Brownell (15%)

This. Completely disregarding that the coach brought in the talent and weighing mostly on improvement is silly.

So the guy that wins the most games is always the best coach? I can see the correlation between winning and coaching, but I think this takes it too far. You get a title for winning the most games - the best coach should be the guy that coaches the best, whether that be overcoming injury, taking over a new program, turning around a bad record, while winning a lot of games. I would go Brownell, Don, K (mostly because of what he did when Irving went down, not just because of his record).

Show me where I said the guy who wins the most is always the best coach. Thanks.

If you are the best in game coach, best gameplanner (my two criteria) and the best recruiter, and you don't have the best record, would you be in the discussion? What is your point about K then? Guy's a good coach. We say he also has the best talent. You elevate him over the other guys because he brought in the great talent. If that is your criteria, wouldn't he by definition have to win the most games? Or would you go with the guy that does everything the best except comes in second? By factoring in everything that goes into being a head coach, including recruiting, you are basically doing nothing more than reciting the standings. If the guy is the best on the court, on the chalkboard and in the recruit's homes, then he better have the best record.

Bringing in the talent as a factor in who should win the coach of the year is basically equating wins to good coaching. By ignoring that factor, you seek to eliminate the advantages of coaching at certain schools, and try to assess the abilities of the coach, all other things being equal. If a guy has been there for 6 years, has crappy talent, but goes 10-6, I suppose you could say "well he should have brought in better talent." But an inanimate object could recruit top players to Duke or UNC at this point. And Brownell and the Don haven't had the luxury of getting full recruiting classes on campus yet.

Teddy, I admire your attempts, but you seem to be trying to stuff words in my mouth. You're right, if you are the best of all 3, you should clearly be at the top of the standings and COY - and if you are not, then you should not be COY. Unfortunately we live in a world where it's very rare that a coach is #1 at all 3. That's why you're looking to see who is the best combination of all 3. And that doesn't mean you are at the top of the standings - for various reasons that I shouldn't have to state. My point was that best turnaround can mean a bunch of things - and you need to see what it was actually about as to how you factor that in to a COY discussion. It could mean you were terrible last year because of your own doing. It could mean you are picking up the pieces from a previous failure. It could mean the conference had a down year and you happened to put it all together. It could mean major injuries allowed you to catapult ahead of some programs. It could mean a couple close games tipped in your favor. It could mean the hardest games you had were good matchups for you. It could mean you took advantage of an unbalanced schedule. It could mean any combination of the above and more.

An inanimate object could recruit top players at Duke or UNC, but to ignore the fact that they are bringing in talent, even with the advantages (especially in Duke's case where the advantages are due to Coach K himself) is basically saying that if the most talented team has the most wins then the coach can't be COY. I would disagree with that. Saying best turnaround should be the best coach would also say a coach who is always in the top 2 could never win COY. I would disagree with that.

And I never said I elevated him over the other guys because he brought in great talent - I just agreed that what eepstein said would happen. I'm saying it shouldn't be excluded as a factor.

Fair point on nobody being the best at all three. But let's say you rate the coaches 1-12 in each of the three categories and take the average (or total). I would think it is fair to say that the guys that have the lowest total would be the guys that also have the most wins. K, for example, would be in the top 3-4 in every category, and his team has the most wins. Roy is #1 in recruiting, and probably top 2-3 in gameplanning, and though I would put him 7-8 in in-game coaching in this conference of pretty bad coaches, he would still score well.

But doesn't this unfairly discriminate against the guys that haven't been there long enough to get their guys on campus? For those that have been there for 4+ years, not having talent could be construed as a negative. Having talent, as you suggest, is a positive. But how do you credit, or discredit guys for talent when they are not responsible for bringing it there?

I prefer to take the recruiting aspect out of the equation, and merely examine the talent as a variable that allows for a better evaluation of the other two criteria. For example, if you have great talent, it is tough to tell how great of a coach you actually are. You have to actually watch the games and see how the team is prepared and how well the coach adjusts in game. K clearly scores well when you watch Duke (I won't get into Roy, who has his teams ready, but is retarded in game). But if your talent blows, and you win 20 games, then you really know what you are doing.

Hey stat geek - stop trying to make each of the three criteria equally valued, not only with respect to the other criteria, but across the board for each coach in a different situation, tenure level, et al. (just had to get that in there)

Wouldn't it equally discriminate against guys who have top talent if you just eliminate the recruiting aspect altogether? Why is it so hard to evaluate coaching ability when they have great talent? You're saying right there that you can do it. I think I can too. The people who vote for these awards are getting paid to watch these games, so I believe they can too.

On the whole, you can't just take those two factors and make all else equal - because they just aren't. Everything needs to be considered. Some will feel those factors lean towards the Don. Some feel a guy who doesn't get a bye can't be seriously considered (same people who say MLB MVP can't be a non-playoff team player). I'd rather weigh all factors and adjust them accordingly per the situation than eliminate some to the detriment of a set of coaches.

I don't think it does discriminate against coaches that have top talent. As you note, people watch the games. I can tell Coach K would be a good coach regardless of whether he brings in talent. I just don't think that considering the talent as part of the equation is relevent to coaching - I think it is merely a good way to evaluate coaching.

I see it like evaluating salesmen from one company to the next. Is the guy who is given the best product and makes the most sales the best at selling? Possibly. But is the quality of the product relevant to that determination? Only to the extent that you acknowledge it is easier for him to sell than the guy with the bad product. Sure, you can tell the other guy "make a better product", but is that relevant to his ability to makes sales? If he sells as much with a lesser product, can you not arrive at the conclusion that he might be better at selling?

For me, bringing in the talent is part of the job, but not part of "coaching." I don't think the award should go to the best all-around job, but to the guy that is the best at the actual coaching aspect of the job. Part of the job is to sell the program and put asses in the seats, but few would suggest that as a criteria for determining COY. I feel the same about recruiting, though I recognize that recruiting has a more direct correlation to on-court success.

And my number thing was an attempt to simplfy, not quantify.

I know, you know I absolutely had to go there though.

See, the explanation above suggests to me that you're not eliminating recruiting/talent altogether, but adjusting for each coached based on it. I think the difference lies in the fact that you only use talent as a basis for adjustment of the game coaching skill (in-game and prep), whereas I not only adjust game coaching skill using it, I also give some credit for getting the talent in there in the first place.

The media members who are voting could have this same argument about what criteria they use - hence some voting for different guys. It actually makes me curious what guidelines they are given and whether if given any at all, some don't follow it. My guess is most have predetermined who gets their vote before that little card comes in the mail (or however the ACC does it) and that many use whatever they think the award means. All this still leads me to believe Coach K walks away with that award despite what the Don has done.

As is often predictable in these discussions, the difference in analysis turns on the difference in definitions. What does the COY award seek to reward?

IMO, it is the coach in the purest sense; the person who maximizies the individual ability of the members who make up the team, and who most closely actualizes the team's potential. In the case of "teams" made up of a bunch of star indidivuals, this can be "making more with more." In this instance, it takes a true "coach" to get them to gel through motivation and comraderie. Coach K does that, sure.

But then there is the case of the team made up of misfits, role players and a good but not great player. That's the coach who "makes more with less." That, to me, is the tougher job becasue it involves not just motivation but a firm grasp of teaching and schemeing that is more in need than in the case of a bunch of stars who need motivation over teaching and scheming, becasue their raw ability can often mask inadequate coaching.

That's why COY should be known as the "Buttermaker Award."





The Don wins this hands down. Give that man a BUd!

[Harry Seaward]

Let me get this straight:

BC "improved" from being an 8th place team in the ACC to a 6th place team in the ACC. BC "improved" from being a .500 team (well, technically they were 0.483870967741935%) to being a bubble team (although I doubt BC would even be a bubble team this year if the NCAA tournament field was the same size as last year).

And that "improvement" is worthy of receiving a COY award?

[Harry Seaward]

And discounting Coach Ratface from COY consideration is the same bullshit reasoning behind the fact that Jerry York has only won the Hockey East COY once.

[RedBaron67]

Let me get this straight:

BC "improved" from being an 8th place team in the ACC to a 6th place team in the ACC. BC "improved" from being a .500 team (well, technically they were 0.483870967741935%) to being a bubble team (although I doubt BC would even be a bubble team this year if the NCAA tournament field was the same size as last year).

And that "improvement" is worthy of receiving a COY award?

Your argument is unconvincing because you've left out a great many facts. BC has improved over last year from .484 to (at the moment) .621. It has done this with last year's personnel minus one starter (Sanders), one occasional starter (Roche), and one bench contributor (Ravenel), and plus one marginally useful scholarship freshman (Moton), one preferred walk-on freshman who contributed for a while but is now riding the bench (Rubin), and one senior walk-on recruited from the women's practice opposition team (Cahill). If this substantial improvement is not attributable to a major improvement in coaching, what mysterious power are we to attribute it to? I won't get into (probably irresolvable) arguments over whether Donahue "should" be COY, but given the team's improvement measured against its personnel and preseason expectations, it seems ridiculous not to acknowledge him as a plausible candidate.

[Harry Seaward]

"substantial improvement?"

you're making it sound like Donahue took BC from first to worst.

[twballgame9]

And discounting Coach Ratface from COY consideration is the same bullshit reasoning behind the fact that Jerry York has only won the Hockey East COY once.

No one left Ratface out.

[SJeagle09]

Think ratface still walks away with it?

UNC 5-11 to 14-2. Roy for COY?

[eepstein0]

Think ratface still walks away with it?

UNC 5-11 to 14-2. Roy for COY?

That's as ridicuous as Paul Hewitt ever winning COY.

[BCEagles25]

Roy should be in the discussion. And what about FSU's Hamilton?

[eepstein0]

Roy should be in the discussion. And what about FSU's Hamilton?

I'm on board with Lenoard Hamilton possibly. He's done a really nice job this year with FSU and actually changed by perception of him as a coach. I'd still love to see Donahue win it though.

[BC923]

Roy should be in the discussion. And what about FSU's Hamilton?

Watching UNC yesterday, they only run an offense <25% of the time, the rest of the time he just lets them play. He's successful doing it but that isn't exactly coaching.

[SJeagle09]

Think ratface still walks away with it?

UNC 5-11 to 14-2. Roy for COY?

That's as ridicuous as Paul Hewitt ever winning COY.

He has won coach of the year awards before...I'm not arguing for him, I'm just saying I'd imagine he's going to get major consideration.

[tailgater94]

Do they vote for this before or after the ACC tournament?

[SJeagle09]

From Seth Davis of SI:

Coach of the Year: Roy Williams, North Carolina
I would have picked Williams even if the Tar Heels had lost to Duke on Saturday, but that win made him an especially easy choice. This team finished ninth in the conference last season and got off to a shaky start, yet Williams righted the ship and piloted the Heels to an outright ACC regular season title. Before this season, no team that had finished below sixth in the league came back to win the conference the following year.

just sayin'

[twballgame9]

Davis is a clown, just like Williams. Just sayin.

[angrychicken]

Davis is a clown, just like Williams. Just sayin.

Agreed, but what do you think about gas prices?

[twballgame9]

Davis is a clown, just like Williams. Just sayin.

Agreed, but what do you think about gas prices?

Expensive. Taxes suck too.