Catcountry21

The rating is based on five categories: winning percentage, NBA players, federal graduation rate, U.S. News and World Report academic reputation and program cleanliness.

http://uvmathletics.com/news/2012/11...102123934.aspx

Also head coach John Becker was voted 23rd in the head coach rankings, ahead of John Calipari (Kentucky), Sean Miller (Arizona) and Josh Pastner (Memphis).

__________________
"Everybody pulls for David, nobody roots for Goliath." -- Wilt Chamberlain

Catcountry21

Full article from Basketball Times....

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcon...ack_styczynski

__________________
"Everybody pulls for David, nobody roots for Goliath." -- Wilt Chamberlain

TheSeawolf Roar

A team (from a league rated 15th best in the nation)is rated top 30 ahead of multiple teams with numerous league championships and NCAA appearances??? Where's the logic in that? And Becker ahead of coaches with multiple national championships. I'm not going to waste a second of my time reading something that ridiculous.

Catcountry21

So if SBU was on this list it would still be ridiculous and you probably wouldn't mention it either right?

__________________
"Everybody pulls for David, nobody roots for Goliath." -- Wilt Chamberlain

TheSeawolf Roar

Absolutely. This is completely ridiculous.

TheSeawolf Roar

Can anyone give a good reason why Becker is ahead of 3 national championship winning coaches?

BU Fan 84

They were drunk when compiling the list. Or they are intellectually disabled. Possibly both.

GoCatsGo

He's ahead of Calipari...which, judging by the article, is based on a group of panelists adjudicating one's "suitability to guide young men" (I did not make that phrase up).

You say he's ahead of 3 national championship winning coaches...who are the other 2? Because I don't think Blaine Taylor, John Groce, Sean Miller, David Carter, Dave Rice, Rob Senderoff, Chris Mack, Josh Pastner, or Kevin Ollie have won national championships. If they are national championship winning coaches *not* on the list, it's because their school did not win 2/3 of their games over the prescribed time frame.

Overall, let's just call this what it is: one person's idea of what makes a proper college basketball program: the ability to win games, and produce individual talent, doing so not only within the confines of your academic environment, but succeeding within that academic environment, all while projecting the "perception" of "cleanliness" (again, their words).

That's all: it's what this guy thinks is important.

Vermonster

Steve Pikiell probably can.

hoopcat

The first criterion for his rankings is you had to win 67% of your games over the last 10 years. That is the only reason UVM is on the list and why there are only 30 teams included on the list. For the coach to be included, the team needed to meet the criterion, regardless of whether the coach was responsible for the wins or not.

List aside, pretty amazing that UVM has been able to win 67% of their games over the past ten years. That's a pretty good run...

umainealum

That was a pretty strange article IMO...basically, they just figured out which programs met their criteria (33 teams), then put them & their coaches in rank order. I'm guessing if you include all 330+ Division I teams, the coaching ranks would be vastly different. Anyway, just another "writer" creating his/her own unique guidelines to rank teams.

__________________
UMaine - the epitome of mediocrity

Proud supporter of an AMERICA EAST team that made a coaching change...

Nostrajimus

30 out of 33 is the bottom 10%