According to Grant Hughes of 247Sports. His list is partly laughable. CMP easily falls in the top 15 of these names, and probably the top 10.
Top 15 Coaches - No CMP
Top 15 Coaches - No CMP
CMP not a top 15 coach
- Thread starter KenTre1983
- Start date
I think that Grant Hughes is the answer to a question nobody asked.
Where is Shaka Smart? Asking for a friend!!!😀
Looking at the list, I had Painer in the top 5. And top 10 at worst. Sorry, but I don’t put 1-2 year wonders in any top 20 list. I also don’t include has beens who haven’t done anything in the past 5 years. Calipari offered Kentucky the opportunity to match his Arkansas offer. They refused and said good bye! If they really wanted him, he would never have left. And Pitino? Maybe 10-15 years ago, but today?
Hopefully you don’t have Rick Barnes or Bruce Pearl in yours.
In the last 7 years…painter and Purdue:
- 4 BIG titles, 2 were back to back by multiple games which hadn’t been done since 1976
- 1 BTT
- 7 straight NCAAT appearances (currently their streak is at 9, which is 4th best in the country)
- 5 S16s
- 2 E8s
- 1 F4
- NC Runner Up
- Ranked 1 overall 3 straight years —first time a B1G team had ever done that
- Developed a top 100 recruit into a top 5 lotto pick
- developed (with the help of Brantley) the 437th recruit into a 2x POTY (with tons of other awards)
- undefeated in regular season against P6 non conf teams and only 1 loss to one (if you include the tourney) in the last 3 years
So 10th at worst?? Can we see your list?
Who the hell is Grant freeking Hughes? He is obviously an idiot. Did he go to IU? CMP was right on with comments about journalists. Hughes is either an idiot, dumbass, moron or all three rolled into one.
Looking at the list I can understand the first 7.
After that, Rick Barnes at 8?? What? Rick Barnes isn't even top 20.
The rest after only Calipari is defendable. The rest are kinda crazy. Not just for Painter but for some other coaches not even listed.
Are these 15 coaches better than Painter?
Hurley: sure; he has the hardware even if he's a douche.
Self: absolutely
Drew: ok; he's won a natty and brought Baylor back from a worse spot than Purdue was at in '05.
Sampson: probably. Questionable ethics but the man wins everywhere he goes.
Few: sure. 25 straight tournaments and 9 straight Sweet 16s is remarkable, for anybody.
Pitino: in the 90s and 00s, hell yeah. But, he hasn't been past the first weekend since 2015 and hasn't done it legally since 2009.
Izzo: overall yes, but that tide is definitely turning. Purdue has won 9 of the past 12 v. MSU and has been become the better program.
Barnes: maybe, but only because of longevity. Painter has more conference titles and as many final fours in 20 years as Barnes has in 37.
Bennett: maybe. He has a natty. But if March flameouts are a black mark against Painter they're at least as bad for Bennett.
Calipari: probably, but similar to Pitino and Izzo. They've all had better overall careers, but I'd take Painter over any of them now.
Oates: not to this point. But he is an up-and-coming coach.
Davis: not at this point but another rising star.
Mussleman: no. He's been solid before this year but not demonstrably better than Painter.
Larranaga: highly unlikely. Like Barnes, he's been around forever. But he's also had 3* more losing seasons than Painter.
Scheyer: no way. Check back in 10 years.
So, I guess I would probably put Painter no lower than 11th and maybe higher depending on how we rate three guys who have had phenomenal careers but now seem to be on a downward arc (Pitino, Izzo, Calipari).
Hurley: sure; he has the hardware even if he's a douche.
Self: absolutely
Drew: ok; he's won a natty and brought Baylor back from a worse spot than Purdue was at in '05.
Sampson: probably. Questionable ethics but the man wins everywhere he goes.
Few: sure. 25 straight tournaments and 9 straight Sweet 16s is remarkable, for anybody.
Pitino: in the 90s and 00s, hell yeah. But, he hasn't been past the first weekend since 2015 and hasn't done it legally since 2009.
Izzo: overall yes, but that tide is definitely turning. Purdue has won 9 of the past 12 v. MSU and has been become the better program.
Barnes: maybe, but only because of longevity. Painter has more conference titles and as many final fours in 20 years as Barnes has in 37.
Bennett: maybe. He has a natty. But if March flameouts are a black mark against Painter they're at least as bad for Bennett.
Calipari: probably, but similar to Pitino and Izzo. They've all had better overall careers, but I'd take Painter over any of them now.
Oates: not to this point. But he is an up-and-coming coach.
Davis: not at this point but another rising star.
Mussleman: no. He's been solid before this year but not demonstrably better than Painter.
Larranaga: highly unlikely. Like Barnes, he's been around forever. But he's also had 3* more losing seasons than Painter.
Scheyer: no way. Check back in 10 years.
So, I guess I would probably put Painter no lower than 11th and maybe higher depending on how we rate three guys who have had phenomenal careers but now seem to be on a downward arc (Pitino, Izzo, Calipari).
Last edited:
My list had Few, Self, Painter, Sampson and Hurley. I had Izzo in the top 10. As I said, my list doesn’t include has beens like Calipari or Pintino. It doesn’t include 1-2 year wonders and it doesn’t include cheaters. Bennett is a decent coach and runs a clean program. I don’t like his offense but he must be a good coach to be able to win using it. I know Sampson was sanctioned but that was for talking on the phone which seemed like a stupid sanction.
Last edited:
One of the reasons I rate Painter in the top 5 is to look at his accomplishments over the last 10 years and to look at the level of talent he has had and how he developed it. He has had players win player of the year for 3 years. He has had only 1 player who became a significant player in the NBA. Basically he keeps winning with college kids.
Hurley I can see at #1.
Self probably gets an edge on Painter, but a lot of his success has been the result of being at Kansas.
Few I might give a slight edge over Painter as well, because of his sustained success, but it is very close.
Painter belongs on the same tier as Drew, Samson, and Bennett. Maybe put Calipari in there as well.
If this is a career accomplishment list, Pitino and Izzo should be top 5, but I feel like they have slipped a bit and I’d argue, based on recent success, that Painter has passed them up. Right now, I would put them on a tier slightly behind Painter with Oates and Musselman.
Barnes, Davis, Scheier, and Laranaga are overrated on the list.
There maybe other coaches that I am missing, but I definitely think that Painter belongs in the top 10 and possibly in the top 5.
Self probably gets an edge on Painter, but a lot of his success has been the result of being at Kansas.
Few I might give a slight edge over Painter as well, because of his sustained success, but it is very close.
Painter belongs on the same tier as Drew, Samson, and Bennett. Maybe put Calipari in there as well.
If this is a career accomplishment list, Pitino and Izzo should be top 5, but I feel like they have slipped a bit and I’d argue, based on recent success, that Painter has passed them up. Right now, I would put them on a tier slightly behind Painter with Oates and Musselman.
Barnes, Davis, Scheier, and Laranaga are overrated on the list.
There maybe other coaches that I am missing, but I definitely think that Painter belongs in the top 10 and possibly in the top 5.
Didn't he get busted with a hooker or something several years ago?
I saw a list ranking B1G coaches now with all the new teams and Muss was 3rd behind Painter and Izzo. I don't see it. Dusty May was 7th and I don't see that either.
He needs to take the basketball test.
Not sure. He’s a recruiter of one-and-done NBA talent more than a coach.
I may disagree. I would argue that he would be better off if he developed a program like Painter. But he's trying too much to get the 1-and-done talent, that many times doesn't want to listen to even a good coach. We'll see if things change at Arkansas.
That was ages ago.....you've never had your parsnip pulling you for a proper rogering with a tidy tart?
Not trying to pick a fight, but didn't you once claim that cheating didn't matter?
Yes and no. Cheating doesn’t matter in the eyes of the NCAA because they basically take no action against cheaters. So if you want a level playing field, if every other team cheats, you look rather foolish if you are not doing the same thing? My comments were made before NIL became legal and schools were paying players under the table to play for their team. So currently those coaches no longer need to cheat.
As for cheating, the question asked my opinion of the ability of coaches. To me, a coach is smarter and better if he doesn’t need to cheat. That’s a different question and has a different answer.
Is Self a better coach than Painter? The NCAA put it in writing that SELF is not a cheater. We may have a differing viewpoint. But legally, SELF was acquitted. Is Self ethical? does he run a clean program? Legally the answer is yes. The same is true with Sampson, Pitino and Calipari. And whoever is coaching Arizona.
When it comes to cheating, if you are not punished, are you a cheater? And going back to my original comments made many years ago, if the NCAA is going to take zero action against you, then why not have all coaches do the same thing? Additionally my comments were made in reference to being successful rather than running an ethical program.
And now you no longer have to illegally pay a player. You just find someone else to do it for you.
As for rating a coach, he can have zero ethics, but still be an awesome coach. Were Adolph Rupp and Bobby Knight awesome coaches? Most people would say yes. I prefer Wooden.
Not really. Coaching and recruiting go together. A great coach who is successful can get there either by developing talent or recruiting it. The more talent he can recruit, the less he has to worry about development or scheming up ways to win via superior play calling.
True, but I would add that recruiting also reflects things like the program's prestige, its facilities, and the size of its NIL pool. Shady academic policies probably help in more than a few cases, too. None of those things necessarily reflect the coaching staff's recruiting prowess.
That's one thing that makes me respect guys like Few/Bennett/Painter. They've done well at good-but-not-great programs where they don't enjoy a ready pipeline into the most elite talent.
Duke? Coach K was an outstanding recruiter. Again this morality stuff I just don't get. There's nothing immoral about being a great recruiter. There's not even anything immoral about being a college that's easy to get into.
All I'm saying is there are some places where it's easier to get elite talent than others. It doesn't always come down to how great a recruiter the coach is. Coach K is an all all-time great, no question about it. But, you really think he wins 1200 games at West Point, or Washington State, or even Purdue?
And, I'm not really talking about morality here. Rules get bent all the time. I get that. It probably happens at Purdue. But, as far as I know, Purdue's not creating dummy classes for varsity athletes.
Duke was worse than Purdue when he got there by far and it's not like Duke is a community college.
Granted, Duke wasn't Kentucky in 1980.
But no way it was a worse program than Purdue. Duke had already been to four Final Fours and played for the national title just two years earlier in 1978.
Coach K made that program a lot better. I recognize that. I still stand by my earlier observation that a lot of factors go into recruiting beyond how good the head coach is.
Auburn football in the 80’s and 90’s was a great example of what money could buy. They bought their players and they bought their faculty to ensure their players remained eligible . And if the player had talent their admissions allowed them in. Cam r Newton played one fall for Auburn after being expelled by Florida and going to a junior college. Did he attend any classes during that first semester when he played football? He sure didn’t attend any classes his second semester.
Auburn also had an academic policy unlike Purdue. At auburn, a player who flunks out is considered academically eligible to participate in any sporting event up to the first day of the subsequent semester. In that fashion, basketball players are allowed to participate in holiday tournaments and football players are allowed to participate in bowl games.
Their actions were all considered as legal by their administration.
Auburn also had an academic policy unlike Purdue. At auburn, a player who flunks out is considered academically eligible to participate in any sporting event up to the first day of the subsequent semester. In that fashion, basketball players are allowed to participate in holiday tournaments and football players are allowed to participate in bowl games.
Their actions were all considered as legal by their administration.
Ok I was wrong that they were worse, but they weren't some recruit magnet either. I mean a lot of factors go into anything. I'm just saying the idea that you're a better coach if you improve lower ranked players than if you recruit high level players at the college level is something a lot of people want to believe that isn't true. There's multiple ways to get there. And each are equally valid.
I'm sure there are some coaches that got recruits because of money and nothing else, no one is claiming those guys are necessarily great coaches.
But there are other coaches great players want to play for, Coach K, Knight, and yes Izzo. So yeah, if one of those guys goes to a Purdue, Purdue would have done pretty well with them. IU was a good program but not anywhere near what Knight built it into. Same with MSU. Or Gonzaga.
At the pro level? It's about play calling and managing egos. At the college level, it's more varied, you can scheme your way part of the way, you can develop your way part of the way, but you can recruit your way all the way.
UCONNs dominance wasn't just coaching and development, it was recruiting and using the portal.
It's no surprise even with Painter that his best teams usually had his best recruiting classes. Because recruiting matters as much as anything else a coach does.
Football and basketball aren't quite the same beasts. Lot more money in the former, and unlike basketball, football is basically a one semester sport. So stuff like that you can pull off in football but does you no good in basketball because you need them more for the second semester.
If national titles and consistently reeling in 5-star talent are the only criteria, then there’s a rationale for excluding Matt Painter.…
By any other metric, he’s easily as good- if not better— than anyone in the country.
By any other metric, he’s easily as good- if not better— than anyone in the country.
What? Duke played in the NCAA championship game in 1978 and lost to Kentucky. During Bill Foster's tenure they also became only the 8th school to win 1000 games. In fact, Purdue beat Duke in the Elite Eight in 1980, Foster's last year. When Coach K took over in 1980 they were far from a bottom feeder.
Dude I already said I was wrong about Duke being way worse. But they certainly weren't royalty either since we finished ahead of them and had as many championships and final fours as we did to that point.
I think we can all agree that Duke was not a blue blood, prior to coach K getting there.
Similar threads
