So, I'm watching the Yankees wax that ass today and I see a flashback to the late 80's Pirates and Jim Leyland leading the way. The same Jim Leyland I might add who has lead an otherwordly resurrection in Detroit. I never really did think a baseball manager did dick -- after all, check out Joe Torre's rap sheet before he had all that talent with the Yanks -- but Leyland got me thinking a little harder. You got your Bill Parcells in football. You got your Pat Riley in basketball. And you got your, I guess, Scottie Bowman or a Mike Keenan in hockey. So, it got me to wondering, in which one of these sports is the Head MuthaFucka In Charge really making the biggest difference?
My pick? Football. No question.
College Basketball, less so. But football, definitely.
You get a small number of games to figure it out.
Hit or miss. Great or who cares.
You're either Bill Belichick or you're Sam Wyche.
Or you're some guy on the internet.
Posted by: Scottie | August 13, 2006 at 03:32 AM
I'll definatly co-sign to the college basketball coach makin a big difference idea. A great example is my Washington Huskies, we have always been known as a football school and as a basketball doormat to the PAC10. We get Lorenzo Romar, a Husky alum and up and coming coach and this cat has fliiped the script to the point where the AD has locked him up for like 10yrs. We were a bad call from the elite eight last season and we've been to the sweet 16 two yrs in a row. Now Romar has one of the top 5 kids of his recruting class in Spencer Hawes and the program is just sky's the limit, and in a matter of 5yrs UW is now known as a powerhouse in our conference. Hell UCLA the team in the Final against Florida was our bitch last season, we beat 'em here and there, and we've owned Arizona the last couple seasons. So college basketball is probably the place where a coach can make the biggest impact, in my opinion.
Posted by: The big O | August 14, 2006 at 07:33 PM
In college hoops, do you really think it's the actual coaching, or maybe just the better recruiting that can come with a new coach?
(Was meant to focus on pro sports here, but obviously, things are open to whatever.)
Posted by: jackie | August 16, 2006 at 01:49 AM
Good point Jackie, but I think it's both. Romars success came from keeping the instate talent, that usually leaves, at home. His up-tempo, defense heavy system, kinda like how the Supersonics played in the mid 90's, trap defense, fast breaks and good passing, is one that kids like to play so they were excited to play for him. So yeah it's both but a good coach has to be able to recruit, so he can turn a program around quickly (these days you only get like 3 yrs, which isn't even enough time to get your own recruits in the gym). His system is fool proof though but he had to have time to get the kids to buy into it and trust him. The turning point came about 3yrs ago in a game @ Oregon St, we were down by 20 going into the second half and you could tell Romar had their attention at halftime and they came back and won. Since that time they are something like 60-14, with 2 sweet 16 berths. The Jury is still out on Willingham however, he's still working with the previous sad-sack coaches recruits. But it's nice that we are the only division 1 school with a black head coach in both football & basketball (although that is really fucked up that in 2006 there is only one school that can say that).
Posted by: The big O | August 16, 2006 at 11:41 AM
didn't Sam Wyche lead thye Bengals to 2 Super Bowls? I think David Shula would have been a better choice as crappy coach, or any Lions coach since at least Wayne Fontes.
Posted by: BillCross | August 16, 2006 at 12:12 PM