Top 50 coaches in the NCAA

Dave Rose was not listed. Fair? Not Fair? There's no denying that Dave Rose is a fantastic regular season coach, but it's also undeniable that he has a terrible post season record. Is that enough to leave him off the list of top 50 coaches?



http://athlonsports.com/college-basketball/ranking-top-50-college-basketball-coaches-2015-16" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Larry Krystkowiak of Utah is ranked #22.

I'm going to say it's pretty lame. To be making the tourney consistently with the recruiting limitations of BYU, which most would agree is a football-first school, should be enough to put him in. EDIT-- I'd put him at 37.

Please add where you would rank Rose in your replies. I'll go first. 43.

Schmoe wrote:
I'm going to say it's pretty lame. To be making the tourney consistently with the recruiting limitations of BYU, which most would agree is a football-first school, should be enough to put him in.

Obviously we'd all like to see better post season results. I think we're going to start to see that. But first we had to get to the tournament more often, and Rose has done that: 8/10 years. It's easy to forget how that was not even close to the norm for BYU before he got here. Next, we had to break the 18 year NCAA tournament win drought. And he's done that with 4 wins in the last 4 tournament appearances. What even BYU fans sometimes seem to forget is that Rose now has more NCAA tournament victories than anyone who has ever coached at BYU -- well, tied for 4 with Stan Watts anyway. He hasn't lost as many games as Watts did though. And he's done that in HALF the number of seasons.



But I love what Rose has said his expectations are and what he just said this week:

"It was really important to me when I took this job 10 years ago that we didn't just have good teams but have a great program," Rose said. "We wanted to be consistent year after year and not just plan for a big year. We're still looking for that really big year, but we also want to be consistently good."



I remember right before Steve Cleveland left, that he commented about how high expectations were at BYU and basically how expecting to get to the NCAA tournament every year was basically too much to expect. I like Coach Cleveland, but I didn't really care much for that comment, nor did I think it was true. Dave Rose has shown that BYU can get there almost every year. He has set a higher bar, and with the multiple 4* recruits who will start to load up our roster over the next few years, I think we're going to get to where Rose has always wanted to take this program. If you project future rosters and look to see who is coming into the program and back from missions, there could actually be as many as seven or eight 4* players on the team at the same time around 2017 or 2018. That is pretty amazing. Imagine how good the football team would be if 2/3rds of the roster were 4* talent!

hawkwing wrote:
Please add where you would rank Rose in your replies. I'll go first. 43.

I'd say that until BYU wins more than 2 games in the NCAA 43 is as high as I'd go. I hope that come March we can revise that down into the single digits. I think the talent is there.

Unfair. He's easily top 25. And how does Utah's coach get so high? Thay guy has a losing conference record, a losing post season record, and is 4 games (2 wins) over 500 for his career. To put it in perspective, Rose would have to lose every game for the next 5 years before he'd have Larry Krystkowiak's current winning percentage.



The list is stupid

ABYUFAN wrote:
Unfair. He's easily top 25. And how does Utah's coach get so high? Thay guy has a losing conference record, a losing post season record, and is 4 games (2 wins) over 500 for his career. To put it in perspective, Rose would have to lose every game for the next 5 years before he'd have Larry Krystkowiak's current winning percentage.



The list is stupid

Valid points. Krystkowiak is a good coach, but he hasn't done enough to deserve to be that high. Also, Steve Alford and Steve Fisher making the list but Rose not is kind of funny. Who was winning the conference almost every year when all three of those guys were coaching in the same league? It wasn't SDSU or UNM. Also, no one ever fired Dave Rose, unlike those guys. I'm not saying they aren't good coaches, but neither is way better than Rose. But with the players we have coming in over the next few years I'll predict now that future lists like this will find it impossible to keep Rose off.

nuk13 wrote:

Please add where you would rank Rose in your replies. I'll go first. 43.

I'd say that until BYU wins more than 2 games in the NCAA 43 is as high as I'd go. I hope that come March we can revise that down into the single digits. I think the talent is there.

I'd like to see Fisher and Alford win more NCAA tournament games before ranking them above Rose. It would also help the argument if they had won more MWC championships than BYU when all three were in the same league, but that didn't happen.

BlueK wrote:

Unfair. He's easily top 25. And how does Utah's coach get so high? Thay guy has a losing conference record, a losing post season record, and is 4 games (2 wins) over 500 for his career. To put it in perspective, Rose would have to lose every game for the next 5 years before he'd have Larry Krystkowiak's current winning percentage.



The list is stupid

Valid points. Krystkowiak is a good coach, but he hasn't done enough to deserve to be that high. Also, Steve Alford and Steve Fisher making the list but Rose not is kind of funny. Who was winning the conference almost every year when all three of those guys were coaching in the same league? It wasn't SDSU or UNM. Also, no one ever fired Dave Rose, unlike those guys. I'm not saying they aren't good coaches, but neither is way better than Rose. But with the players we have coming in over the next few years I'll predict now that future lists like this will find it impossible to keep Rose off.

I think he has done enough to make the list. He took a program that was completely in the tanks and turned them around to a sweet 16 team in just a matter of a year or two.

hawkwing wrote:

ABYUFAN wrote:
Unfair. He's easily top 25. And how does Utah's coach get so high? Thay guy has a losing conference record, a losing post season record, and is 4 games (2 wins) over 500 for his career. To put it in perspective, Rose would have to lose every game for the next 5 years before he'd have Larry Krystkowiak's current winning percentage.



The list is stupid

Valid points. Krystkowiak is a good coach, but he hasn't done enough to deserve to be that high. Also, Steve Alford and Steve Fisher making the list but Rose not is kind of funny. Who was winning the conference almost every year when all three of those guys were coaching in the same league? It wasn't SDSU or UNM. Also, no one ever fired Dave Rose, unlike those guys. I'm not saying they aren't good coaches, but neither is way better than Rose. But with the players we have coming in over the next few years I'll predict now that future lists like this will find it impossible to keep Rose off.

I think he has done enough to make the list. He took a program that was completely in the tanks and turned them around to a sweet 16 team in just a matter of a year or two.

It was four years. #23 is still too high. BYU was a 9 win team when Rose took over and won 20 games in his first year. Utah was still bad for a couple of years before they started winning. Utah's coach is good, but it's far from a given that he's way better than Rose. Let's see what happens between BYU and Utah over the next few years. I believe BYU is about to take things up a couple of levels.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Krystkowiak" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let me add this observation I have about Coach Rose. I think his track record shows he's the kind of coach who gets the absolute max out of the talent of his players, and then some. It's the sign of this kind of coach when you see them walk into a team that is losing and suddenly they turn it around big time in the very first year. BYU was 9-20 the year before Rose took over. Then in his first year he won 20. There wasn't much turnover in talent from 2005 to 2006.



Gradually BYU got a little better each year until we won 30 games in 2010 and finally ended the ugly 18 year no NCAA wins drought. Then it peaked with the 2011 team and sweet 16 year. And we've all wondered what might have happened without Davies getting suspended.



Now if we really want to try hard to diminish what that accomplishment really was we can always try to say it was because of Jimmer, but that's not really fair. He was a 2-star recruit out of HS with no major offers. Jimmer worked super hard to become the college player he did. But he did that under coach Rose. Also, the farther removed we are from that season and the longer we see him struggle to catch on in the NBA I think it becomes more and more apparent that Rose gets a ridiculous amount of success out of his players relative to their natural talent. Making it in the NBA is primarily about having the talent, although there will always be a place for the work ethic along with that, of course. But seeing Jimmer struggle to catch on there only shows that the recruiting services that gave him 2 stars weren't necessarily wrong about him as far as pure NBA raw talent goes. Neither were the blue chip schools who only sign 4 and 5 star players who passed on him. No question Jimmer has an incredible drive and work ethic. But Coach Rose was able to see that and also knew how to get the most out of a guy like Jimmer (and basically most everyone else who plays for him). Brandon Davies is another example of unheralded recruit working hard enough to develop into a player who could make the NBA for a couple of years.



I think this even extends to marginal college players. Take a look at Skyler Halford from junior year to senior year. Going back a few years, there were fans who liked to bag on Keena Young when he was a sophomore, but as a senior he was a very good player. He wasn't great as a soph because he didn't have superstar talent. But he made the very most out what he had. Anson Winder -- I remember earlier in his career BYU fans posting garbage like he was one of the worst recruits ever. Uh yeah, that changed, and again, under the tutelage of Dave Rose.



So why the dropoff after 2011? I think it's because while Coach Cleveland was a good recruiter and Rose was able to get the most of his recruits, it took him a few years to bring his recruiting in line with his other coaching talents. Because of missions, everything happens a few years down the road, and as the Jimmer era players graduated, we got a little thin on talent over the last 2-3 years as a direct result of some less productive recruiting dating back to Rose's earlier years. But this has been corrected in a big way.



I think Eric Mika was Rose's first 4-star recruit, although it could have been Tyler Haws, I'm not totally sure of that. But we saw what he did right away as a freshman. Now we're soon going to have others like Emery, TJ Haws, Payton Dastrup, Gavin Baxter, Connor Harding and Yoeli Childs. The bar on talent has been raised, and the idea of combining a higher level of talent along with how much Rose gets out of his talent has me the most excited I've been about BYU basketball since the days when within a couple of years they signed players like Ainge, Roberts, Durrant, Kite, Trumbo, etc., -- yes, I am old.

I don't disagree that Rose has been good. He did take a team that had only won 9 games and has turned them into a consistent 24 win team. I think that's likely his ceiling. He hasn't improved as a coach since his 2nd year of coaching even though playing inferior competition in the WCC. That's why I'd say he's a mid-40 level coach.



Krystkowiak on the other hand has improved every year at Utah and got to the sweet 16 in 4 years. Some are even predicting the Utes to win the Pac12 this year and another deep tournament run. He may be ranked too high at 22, but he's earned it with his improving record in a tougher conference.

Actually, BYU has won more than 24 games 7 of the 10 years Rose has been here, so a consistent 24 can't really be the ceiling, as far as I interpret that word. Looking at the number of wins per year over his 10 years, the median is actually 26. Not improving after his second year? I don't get it from looking at the numbers. if you look at the influx of talent over the next couple of years, Rose hasn't even come close to his ceiling, IMO,



Yes, we did take a dip since the Jimmer era guys graduated. And we moved into the WCC at that same time. And I know it's hard for fans to remember past a couple of years. But I think this is explained by the fact that at BYU the impact of recruiting classes doesn't really hit until 3-4 years later and while he got more out of Cleveland's talent in the first few years, his own recruiting took a couple of years to really take off. I do think he had to grow into the recruiting part of his job. But I think he has, and with a vengeance. With what he has coming off of missions starting this year and the additional talent after that, you haven't seen anything yet. Logically, the only way you can really say BYU won't get any better than they have been, you have to predict that the 4-star guys BYU has started to bring in regularly now aren't really any better than the 3 and 2 star guys they've been playing with up to this point. I know recruiting services sometimes miss on a player here and there, but in large part I think they're usually fairly accurate, barring stuff like injuries.



And yeah, Utah is in a better league, but you have to also take into account the fact that for the last 4 years their non-conference schedule has been beyond horrible while BYU's have been pretty tough. By any objective SOS measure, at best, Utah's overall SOS for the season hasn't been any better than ours, even with being in the P12. This year Utah upgraded their non-conference schedule by quite a bit, so yeah, this year theirs is going to be tougher. We'll see how that goes. I think they've become the trendy pick for a lot of media folks because they suddenly got good. But looking beyond the surface and at their personnel for this season, I think they'll still be good this year, but not as good as last year. I think the loss of Delon Wright is huge. He made everyone on the team better. Who they have to replace him will be adequate, but not NBA level talent. They're not going to make a deep tournament run this year, IMO, but they'll be a good win for us. We'll be a much tougher matchup for them this season than we have been because we're going to be a lot more balanced.



Also, take a look below at what both teams have in the immediate recruiting pipeline. And then keep in mind that Utah doesn't have the influx of RMs coming home like we will have on top of that. I"m way bullish on BYU basketball for the near future -- way more than for football.



BYU 2016 recruiting class -- three 4* commits:

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/basketball/recruiting/databaseresults?firstname=&lastname=&collegeid=252&class=2016&position=&state=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Utah -- nothing yet

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/basketball/recruiting/databaseresults?firstname=&lastname=&collegeid=254&class=2016&position=&state=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



BYU wins per year under Rose:

2006: 20

2007: 25

2008: 27

2009: 25

2010: 30

2011: 32

2012: 26

2013: 24

2014: 23

2015: 25

I'd say 30.



This is hard to judge. Using post season success as the primary factor I can see why Rose is off the list. If you use winning percentage and consistency then it's hard to understand why Rose isn't on the list. There are coaches on that list that have not gotten to the Dance as consistently as Rose has. They may have had a decent run or two in the last few years, but then they fall off the radar. To me, that says the success of the team is more about the players than the coaches, or the coach isn't as good at getting the most out of his players.



We're lucky to have Rose.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I'd rank him #57.



I love Coach Rose. He has brought me great joy each year from November through February. Unfortunately, in college basketball only one month really matters: March.



Zero conference tournament championships.



4-8 NCAA tournament record.



56 CURRENT coaches have better tournament winning percentages than Rose (minimum 10 tournament games played).

mormonrasta wrote:
I'd rank him #57.



I love Coach Rose. He has brought me great joy each year from November through February. Unfortunately, in college basketball only one month really matters: March.



Zero conference tournament championships.



4-8 NCAA tournament record.



56 CURRENT coaches have better tournament winning percentages than Rose (minimum 10 tournament games played).

So you cannot be a top 50 coach until your team has 10 tournament games played? Also, under this system a coach that has a good class of guys that stay for two years and make the final four twice and leave and the guy coaches ten years with 8 years of no NCAA appearances, this guys is a "better" coach than one that makes the NCAA every year, but doesn't go far. I can't buy into that rating system.

ABYUFAN wrote:

I'd rank him #57.



I love Coach Rose. He has brought me great joy each year from November through February. Unfortunately, in college basketball only one month really matters: March.



Zero conference tournament championships.



4-8 NCAA tournament record.



56 CURRENT coaches have better tournament winning percentages than Rose (minimum 10 tournament games played).

So you cannot be a top 50 coach until your team has 10 tournament games played? Also, under this system a coach that has a good class of guys that stay for two years and make the final four twice and leave and the guy coaches ten years with 8 years of no NCAA appearances, this guys is a "better" coach than one that makes the NCAA every year, but doesn't go far. I can't buy into that rating system.

I agree. I'd also add that a coach at say, Duke, North Carolina, etc. gets much better players than a coach at BYU. So, to simply rank coaches on their ability by tournament winning percentage alone would be erroneous.

ABYUFAN wrote:

I'd rank him #57.



I love Coach Rose. He has brought me great joy each year from November through February. Unfortunately, in college basketball only one month really matters: March.



Zero conference tournament championships.



4-8 NCAA tournament record.



56 CURRENT coaches have better tournament winning percentages than Rose (minimum 10 tournament games played).

So you cannot be a top 50 coach until your team has 10 tournament games played? Also, under this system a coach that has a good class of guys that stay for two years and make the final four twice and leave and the guy coaches ten years with 8 years of no NCAA appearances, this guys is a "better" coach than one that makes the NCAA every year, but doesn't go far. I can't buy into that rating system.

Something that fans have a tendency to do when a coach or team or program sets a new standard is to come to expect it and/or minimize the accomplishment over time because the good coach has made it look easy. Until now, BYU has never had a stretch in its history where they've made the tournament 8 times in a decade. But for some that's even a bad thing because we've only won 4 games in that stretch. Of course we all want even more. That's natural. But no one remembers that Hall of Famer Stan Watts only had 4 NCAA tournament wins in 20 years, and Rose has equaled that number of wins in half the time and with fewer NCAA tourney losses. Rose has never had a season with a losing record. Watts had quite a few of those. The game has changed and expectations have changed, making comparisons even within the same program difficult over time.



But with the 7 or 8 4-star recruits in the pipeline over the next 3 or 4 years which is totally unprecedented at BYU when it comes to recruiting, I really believe we're about to see the program far exceed anything it's done so far, and these kinds of discussions regarding Coach Rose are soon going to be moot.



And I certainly understand the reluctance of some to get too excited. People are afraid to be let down and have the tendency to rely on "history" a little too much. History is only a good predictor if the conditions are similar. The thing is, BYU has never been able to recruit so many players of this level (4-star, top 100, etc) in this short amount of time. So anyone who is still a doubter who expects more of the same, logically HAS to believe the incoming talent really isn't going to be any better as a whole than what we've had here before -- and therefore the recruiting services were right about the previous talent but wrong about the talent coming in. That would be more likely if we were only talking about pinning our hopes on 1 or 2 guys. It's less likely when in the next 2-3 years we'll be having about two-thirds of the team being that level of recruit.

Rose has brought BYU to new heights in the regular season. This along with the expansion of the tournament have made Coach Rose the most successful coach in BYU history in making the tournament. This is absolutely a tremendous accomplishment and why I'm grateful to have Coach Rose.



But he hasn't raised the bar for BYU IN the tournament. And that is saying something considering BYU's tournament history is weak for the caliber of the program that we have had over the years.



Rose has never defeated a single digit seed in the tournament. Something that Watts, Arnold, Andersen and Reed have all managed to do.



Rose has never won as a lower seed in the tournament. Something that Arnold, Andersen and Reed have done.



Rose made it to a Sweet 16, but so has Arnold and Watts and they have made it to an elite 8.



I realize the tournament is a different animal than it was in Watts' day. So it isn't an apples to apples comparison. But it is not unfair to label Rose's tournament performance disappointing. He can and should have done better to this point.



73 programs have made the Elite 8 since our last Elite 8 appearance yet only 21 of those schools have as many or more NCAA tournament appearances as BYU. 88 teams have made the Final 4, but BYU has none. BYU is a top 20 program all-time in wins and a top 25 program all time in making the tournament. This unquestionably makes us a top notch program, but it is time to start acting like a top notch program in March.