Coach of the Year discussion

saw some of this bandied about the tweeter last night. Cal vs Cuonzo for COTY. As much as it makes me vomit I think Cal certainly deserves to be in the convo because he certainly did recruit all that talent and does a nice job of motivating and managing egos, but what's more deserving? Doing what Cal has done or what Cuonzo has done, coming into a situation with players who were already here and doing what he's done? Maybe I'm a homer but I've always tended to favor the less-with-more-and-unexpected-results guys with these awards. anyways I'd like to see what y'all think.

Edit: add any other names to the discussion if you see fit, just the discussion last night re: Cal and Cuonzo is what piqued my interest.

 

It's got to be Cal. Even though in some ways it highlights the job Coach Martin has done, the blemishes in December have to be taken into consideration here. Kentucky has just been that incredible.

 

Cal. It should be, and it will be.

 

Martin has done well, but I think people will still look at him taking over a team that went to the tourney six straight years.

 

He had a star fall into his lap at Christmas, too.

I like the job Martin is doing, but the vote has to go to the coach that is #1 in the country and undefeated in the conference after losing 3 players and an interpreter to the NBA last year.

 

No, they won't. That's like saying they'll look at Cal for coaching a team that's won 40+ conference titles. They'll look at Cuonzo as a coach that got his team to achieve much more than people thought possible.

 

Cal will win it. But think of how many coaches could win with that roster.

 

I don't disagree, but I have a hard time holding the ability to get good players on your team against a guy.

 

I agree with that. Recruiting is part of coaching. But, I'm not sure if that's generally the criteria used for COTY.

 

It depends on the "they" you're talking about. The people who are really paying a lot of attention, absolutely. Somebody who's focused on their own team and paying a cursory glance at the rest of the conference? They see a team that underachieved drastically early and is just now getting back to where they should've been all season. More than once in the last couple weeks have I gone to an opposing team's blog and seen some variation on that theme in the Tennessee preview. It's ignorant, but that doesn't mean a lot of people don't think it.

 

I don't think anyone will think that. The general consensus from those "who didn't pay much attention," was that Tennessee had one of the worst rosters in major division 1 and picked us to finish 11th in the SEC. So, now they're going to do a complete 180 and decide we actually just underachieved most of the year? That makes absolutely no sense.

 

It doesn't make sense, but that doesn't mean people aren't already saying it.

 

Didn't you just hold it against Martin by saying, "He had a star fall into his lap at Christmas, too."? Maybe I'm just misinterpreting it, but why would you not just use the same argument against Cal and say, "Well he had a bunch of super stars fall into his lap..."

(BTW, I don't think that having good players should work against a coach)

 

No discussion, imo jmo.

If it was limited to college teams and didn't include super freaking loaded god damn I hate Kentucky teams from Lexington, KY, then sure, Martin hands down.

 

I haven't heard it, and if people are saying that, they're idiots.

 

Is it at all valid to say that the current play of the team against the contrast of the early losses can be used an argument for Martin, based on improvement, acclimation to the system, etc?


I think this is s really interesting debate because I think there's a strong argument to be made for each guy, but I think Cal will win it.

 

Sure, but the point remains that the Vols have been solid lately. He didn't exactly pull us out of the abyss like Bruce did. Despite him overachieving, we are still having our worst season in a good while. Meanwhile UK is having their best in a long time. I'm not saying Martin isn't doing a good job, but that is the way I think it will appear to the cursory glance most are going to give to UT.

 

Sure. I'm not arguing that Cal shouldn't win it. I'm simply arguing that people aren't going to say that Tennessee actually underachieved most of the year and came on strong late.

 

Yes, the early losses make Martin look better in my eyes, but i would say they hurt him in the race for coach of the year.

 

I don't think your average joe is going to think we overachieved all that much, though. If we close strong then we'll have done what Tennessee is used to doing. If not, we'll fall a little short. So I think the two big routes to CoY are total domination or drastic improvement. Pearl had that drastic improvement in 05-06. Martin's isn't as dramatic and I don't think the perception is nearly as good. Regardless, I'd say our degree of improvement falls short of Cal's degree of dominance.