Those #'s do not include a 38-2 season, which has been vacated.

 

If you include that season, Cal's career record is 473 - 141, a 77% winning percentage.

 

Most of Howland's wins and losses also came in the Big East and Pac-10. While the Pac-10 is way down this year, year in year out both of those league's dwarf any league Cal coached in before that year. Though Cal did a good job of playing tough non conference at Memphis.

So was he a good/great coach after April of 2008, but lost that title in April (or whenever) of 2009?

 

In the books or not, you and I know he got two teams to the Final Four and has a good chance of getting another this year. Take the glasses off.

 

The glasses are long off. I'm sorry that's just my criteria. Too many coaches have final four's on their resume to let a coach in the "elite" category without one. Every year 4 teams make it that far. Some years 1 or 2 of them have to vacate the wins. But most decade's you have 20 to 30 coaches get a final four on their resume, and that is a low ball number. You could get 35 coaches in a decade with a final four on their record, unlikely, but it could happen.

 

And when he get's there with this team I'll put him in the elite list, but gotta get there first.

The glasses are long off. I'm sorry that's just my criteria. Too many coaches have final four's on their resume to let a coach in the "elite" category without one. Every year 4 teams make it that far. Some years 1 or 2 of them have to vacate the wins. But most decade's you have 20 to 30 coaches get a final four on their resume, and that is a low ball number. You could get 35 coaches in a decade with a final four on their record, unlikely, but it could happen.

 

And when he get's there with this team I'll put him in the elite list, but gotta get there first.

 

So making a Final Four puts a coach on the list? Does that make Larranaga from George Mason an elite coach? Do you take someone like Steve Fisher off of the list? Your judgment goes strictly by the "official" book?

Most of Howland's wins and losses also came in the Big East and Pac-10. While the Pac-10 is way down this year, year in year out both of those league's dwarf any league Cal coached in before that year. Though Cal did a good job of playing tough non conference at Memphis.

 

Howland got 10 more wins during his tenure in the Big East than during his tenure in the Big Sky. He was also at Pittsburgh before the Big East expanded and became the super-conference that it is today. Cal did most of his work while Cincinnati & Louisville were in Conference USA. With that said, I'd still say that the Big East was a better basketball conference. The point remains that the Big East was not as good as it is now and Conference USA was not as bad as it is today.

 

Howland also went 14-18 this year.

So making a Final Four puts a coach on the list? Does that make Larranaga from George Mason an elite coach? Do you take someone like Steve Fisher off of the list? Your judgment goes strictly by the "official" book?

 

It doesn't by itself put one on the elite list, you need Cal's win percentage too in my opinion. But a final four takes you above just a good coach. The truly great coaches win in the regular season and the postseason. It takes both to be in the "elite" category. You can be in the good or really good, or great category on winning%. But the elite category to me is reserved for those that have done it all. Honestly I probably should narrow my elite list down more than I have, it's not fair to talk about Coach K in the same sentence with Ben Howland or even Gary Williams. I mean Williams really only had one 5 year run.

Howland got 10 more wins during his tenure in the Big East than during his tenure in the Big Sky. He was also at Pittsburgh before the Big East expanded and became the super-conference that it is today. Cal did most of his work while Cincinnati & Louisville were in Conference USA. With that said, I'd still say that the Big East was a better basketball conference. The point remains that the Big East was not as good as it is now and Conference USA was not as bad as it is today.

 

Howland also went 14-18 this year.

 

Oh ya, C-USA was regular a 3,4,5 bid league in those days.

It doesn't by itself put one on the elite list, you need Cal's win percentage too in my opinion. But a final four takes you above just a good coach. The truly great coaches win in the regular season and the postseason. It takes both to be in the "elite" category. You can be in the good or really good, or great category on winning%. But the elite category to me is reserved for those that have done it all. Honestly I probably should narrow my elite list down more than I have, it's not fair to talk about Coach K in the same sentence with Ben Howland or even Gary Williams. I mean Williams really only had one 5 year run.

 

So now your list contains strictly Hall of Fame Coaches and a coach who had an awesome 3-4 year stretch at Florida, missed the NCAA tournament after his championship season and then barely squeaked in the following year.

Oh ya, C-USA was regular a 3,4,5 bid league in those days.

 

When Ben Howland was in the Big East...

 

There was no:

Cincinnati

Depaul

Louisville

Marquette; or

South Florida

So now your list contains strictly Hall of Fame Coaches and a coach who had an awesome 3-4 year stretch at Florida, missed the NCAA tournament after his championship season and then barely squeaked in the following year.

 

Missed it twice after the title, before squeaking in this year.

 

Man, I'm on a roll.

So now your list contains strictly Hall of Fame Coaches and a coach who had an awesome 3-4 year stretch at Florida, missed the NCAA tournament after his championship season and then barely squeaked in the following year.

 

He has a 3rd NCAA title game/Final Four to his resume too. I mean you can say what you want about how Donovan follows up. He followed up 2000 with a lot of first round losses. But he's done it more than once. If you take Cal has one of the elite you have to take Donovan. Only coach to beat UK 8 or 9 straight times whatever it wound up being.

I mean bottom line, you can say Cal is an elite coach, I just don't think he is until he get's a final four that he can have stay on his resume. I mean you criticize some of my choices on my list and looking back you are probably right to criticize them. But they all have things Cal doesn't right now, and that's a final four on the books.

Despite being in the A-10, if you believe UMass were an easy situations to walk in to, then you are not well versed on college basketball.

 

We can debate all day long of how players got on his teams or vacated wins, but I think it is comical to say he is not one of the best in the business when it comes to production on the court.

Despite being in the A-10, if you believe UMass were an easy situations to walk in to, then you are not well versed on college basketball.

 

We can debate all day long of how players got on his teams or vacated wins, but I think it is comical to say he is not one of the best in the business when it comes to production on the court.

 

Does being one of the best in the business make you an all time elite. That's more or less what I'm saying. I don't think he is yet.

Does being one of the best in the business make you an all time elite. That's more or less what I'm saying. I don't think he is yet.

 

You can't say "all-time" right now. That list would include Rupp, Wooden, Smith, etc.

 

But to say he isn't "elite" in today's game is dumb. He has five straight thirty win seasons.

Does being one of the best in the business make you an all time elite. That's more or less what I'm saying. I don't think he is yet.

Well considering the list of "All Time Elite" consists of probably Rupp, Wooden, Smith, K, Allen, and Knight, I guess he is not on that list.