The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

One element that you might consider if you revisit and revise the formula in the future might be a 'coaching tree' -- which coaches were good at training other people to be good coaches (who perhaps in turn also were good at training even more people to be good coaches....). This is not a knock or a criticism, merely a suggestion, and it sounds like you already have the data on hand....

I thought about this before coming up with the formula. It is doable, but very difficult to get an accurate tree. Do we remember who Emil Iverson's assistants were? Were they assistants elsewhere before coming to Minnesota? Is it just assistants that we look at, or do we also look at players they coached that ultimately became coaches? We could probably get some incomplete trees for a lot of the coaches, but I don't know how comfortable I would be with including incomplete trees in the formula.

It would be fun to do just to see some of the trees though.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

So I really appreciate that this system has no obvious time or school bias built in.

As people will most definitely bring up, there is a time bias for those who coached pre-NCAA. There were some great coaches in the first half of the 20th Century who will not be on this list. From '48-present though, it does a pretty good job...not sure if that is what you were saying in your post.

 

[alfablue]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

As people will most definitely bring up, there is a time bias for those who coached pre-NCAA. There were some great coaches in the first half of the 20th Century who will not be on this list. From '48-present though, it does a pretty good job...not sure if that is what you were saying in your post.

I do mean 1948 to present- and fully recognize that it's virtually impossible to define before that.... (but if anyone can, PLEASE do- I, for one, would be interested in the history- not much to do over here until October, anyway)

On that time frame- since you have been doing the research- was there any "normalization" of the rules at that time?

The reason I ask- looking at the UM history wall- it's pretty interesting to note the size of the teams before '48- at least two of the "offical" teams UM fielded, there were only 6 skaters + a goalie.... So was there any agreement to team size and rules (IIRC, there was a time that only backwards passing was allowed).

 

[bothman]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

By all means, come up with your own ranking system and post it here.

In my ranking, the two were extremely close, and it wasn't until this season that Umile overtook Cleary (by less than a half of a point), despite the fact that Umile has won more than 150 games than Cleary, has been to nearly twice as many NCAA Tournaments, and has coached 10 more All-Americans. Umile also has a better overall winning percentage, and their NCAA Tournament winning percentage is nearly identical.

Dick Umile took a program in New Hampshire that had been dormant for years, and turned them into a college hockey power. He's been voted by his peers in Hockey East as the best coach in the league 6 times, along with winning a Spencer Penrose National Coach of the Year in 1999. You can belittle Umile all you want, but the fact is, he has just as much of an argument to be where he is as Cleary.

The problem with your methodology is that you wear thick Crimson goggles. If Cleary had coached New Hampshire and Umile had coached Harvard, and the results were different you would be moaning about how great Umile was.

I do wear crimson colored glasses, but would be the first to say that guys like Parker & York far outclass Bill Cleary. Dick Umile? No way.

Talk to people who have lived & breathed New England hockey for the last 50 yrs and I don't think that my sentiment would be as crimson-colored as you state.

I think this is a great effort and I whole-heartedly applaud it, but there needs to be some sanity checking. Does this output make sense?

Perhaps I should start a thread on a Dick Umile - Bill Cleary question and see if we can get some of the New England faithful to weigh in?

 

[bothman]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

By all means, come up with your own ranking system and post it here.

In my ranking, the two were extremely close, and it wasn't until this season that Umile overtook Cleary (by less than a half of a point), despite the fact that Umile has won more than 150 games than Cleary, has been to nearly twice as many NCAA Tournaments, and has coached 10 more All-Americans. Umile also has a better overall winning percentage, and their NCAA Tournament winning percentage is nearly identical.

Dick Umile took a program in New Hampshire that had been dormant for years, and turned them into a college hockey power. He's been voted by his peers in Hockey East as the best coach in the league 6 times, along with winning a Spencer Penrose National Coach of the Year in 1999. You can belittle Umile all you want, but the fact is, he has just as much of an argument to be where he is as Cleary.

The problem with your methodology is that you wear thick Crimson goggles. If Cleary had coached New Hampshire and Umile had coached Harvard, and the results were different you would be moaning about how great Umile was.

One other point on some of your methodology:
1) You mention that Umile coached 10 more All Americans. Does your formula factor in that Harvard's recruiting pool is about 1/10 the size of UNH's and that there is talent that Harvard can't even sniff at because of academic thresholds? This also has implications on NCAA tourney entries and performance. Tough to win without the horses and difference makers. Look at what Harvard has done (NOT DONE) since Cleary left the helm.

Do you think UNH would miss much of a beat if Umile left?

I could argue that Harvard in the 1980s was just about the best 10 year stretch in hockey given the backdrop that I mentioned above around recruiting - it's an anomaly that an Ivy League team won't ever duplicate. Harvard could have easily won 3 NCAA titles, and should have won 2 (Denver injured Hobey Baker winner Scott Fusco in the semis of the 1986 tourney and Harvard didn't have his services in a heartbreaking 6-5 loss to Michigan State).

 

[motox]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

One other point on some of your methodology:
1) You mention that Umile coached 10 more All Americans. Does your formula factor in that Harvard's recruiting pool is about 1/10 the size of UNH's and that there is talent that Harvard can't even sniff at because of academic thresholds? This also has implications on NCAA tourney entries and performance. Tough to win without the horses and difference makers. Look at what Harvard has done (NOT DONE) since Clearly left the helm.

I could argue that Harvard in the 1980s was just about the best 10 year stretch in hockey given the backdrop that I mentioned above around recruiting - it's an anomaly that an Ivy League team won't ever duplicate. Harvard could have easily won 3 NCAA titles, and should have won 2 (Denver injured Hobey Baker winner Scott Fusco in the semis of the 1986 tourney and Harvard didn't have his services in a heartbreaking 6-5 loss to Michigan State).

You're really coming off in a way I don't think you intend, but to each their own.

Maybe this ranking should create a comprehensive list and rank what college hockey players major in and then give more points to coaches who are at schools that don't emphasize the top majors as much as others, does that really sound reasonable? I wonder how FS23 can incorporate "heartbreaking loss" into the formula since I'm sure that has only happened to Harvard. You're obviously partial to the Crimson, understood and that isn't the issue, but you're picking out some pretty subjective areas and then trying to cast doubt on the entire process.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

I do wear crimson colored glasses, but would be the first to say that guys like Parker & York far outclass Bill Cleary. Dick Umile? No way.

Talk to people who have lived & breathed New England hockey for the last 50 yrs and I don't think that my sentiment would be as crimson-colored as you state.

I think this is a great effort and I whole-heartedly applaud it, but there needs to be some sanity checking. Does this output make sense?

Perhaps I should start a thread on a Dick Umile - Bill Cleary question and see if we can get some of the New England faithful to weigh in?

I don't think its that big of a deal to say the 2 are a coin flip.

Umile Cleary
Years 21 19
Wins 484 325
Losses 245 200
Ties 84 22
Win% 0.647 0.614
Conf RS 7 6
Conf PO 2 2
NCAAs 17 9
Frozen4s 4 6
Title Gs 2 3
Champs 0 1

Conf PO 2 2
NCAAs 17 9
F4 4 6
Title Gs 2 3
Champs 0 1

 

[CLS]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

Half the fun of these things is coming up with a formula and then standing back to watch how everything shakes out. I doubt we've seen the last 'controversy' - but that's what makes these things worth watching.

Spot on.

What I like about this string is that FS23 developed a reasonable algorithm, stuck with it, and published the results, leaving himself open to criticism. Now if the result is that the top three coaches of all time turn out to be Dean Blais, Gino Gasparini, and Dave Hakstol, I’d be a little suspicious that the algorithm was rigged to yield a specific result. But I doubt that’s going to happen.

“Sanity checking” is what gave us the abomination known as the BCS formula.

Every school has some recruiting advantages that the coach needs to exploit and disadvantages that the coach needs to overcome, and in the case of Harvard, the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. The name brand is a huge plus. A prime source of hockey talent in New England is the prep schools. And when Cleary was coaching, Harvard had an enormous advantage in that market. Headmasters were judged on how many kids they got into Harvard, and the goal of most of the student body was to get into Harvard. Look at a few names of Belmont Hill School hockey captains: Bill Cleary, Bob Cleary, Mark Fusco, Scott Fusco. I suspect that Cleary had an inside track on recruiting those two future Hobeys.

This is not to downgrade anything Bill Cleary did as a hockey coach. I’m surprised that he came out behind Umile and I suspect there will be other coaches whose standing on the list will be even more shocking. But the fact that there are some placements that don’t make sense to me doesn’t invalidate the exercise.

 

[bothman]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

You're really coming off in a way I don't think you intend, but to each their own.

Maybe this ranking should create a comprehensive list and rank what college hockey players major in and then give more points to coaches who are at schools that don't emphasize the top majors as much as others, does that really sound reasonable? I wonder how FS23 can incorporate "heartbreaking loss" into the formula since I'm sure that has only happened to Harvard. You're obviously partial to the Crimson, understood and that isn't the issue, but you're picking out some pretty subjective areas and then trying to cast doubt on the entire process.

I hope I'm not coming off like a jerk cause not my intention. And I am sure that every school could point out a crack or two like I did for Harvard above. I think this is a great effort by Fighting Sioux 23 (please don't think anything else), I'm just trying to point out some realistic factors (un-level playing fields) that significantly influence his methodology.

 

[bothman]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

Spot on.

What I like about this string is that FS23 developed a reasonable algorithm, stuck with it, and published the results, leaving himself open to criticism. Now if the result is that the top three coaches of all time turn out to be Dean Blais, Gino Gasparini, and Dave Hakstol, I’d be a little suspicious that the algorithm was rigged to yield a specific result. But I doubt that’s going to happen.

“Sanity checking” is what gave us the abomination known as the BCS formula.

Every school has some recruiting advantages that the coach needs to exploit and disadvantages that the coach needs to overcome, and in the case of Harvard, the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. The name brand is a huge plus. A prime source of hockey talent in New England is the prep schools. And when Cleary was coaching, Harvard had an enormous advantage in that market. Headmasters were judged on how many kids they got into Harvard, and the goal of most of the student body was to get into Harvard. Look at a few names of Belmont Hill School hockey captains: Bill Cleary, Bob Cleary, Mark Fusco, Scott Fusco. I suspect that Cleary had an inside track on recruiting those two future Hobeys.

This is not to downgrade anything Bill Cleary did as a hockey coach. I’m surprised that he came out behind Umile and I suspect there will be other coaches whose standing on the list will be even more shocking. But the fact that there are some placements that don’t make sense to me doesn’t invalidate the exercise.

Well put!

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

Spot on.

What I like about this string is that FS23 developed a reasonable algorithm, stuck with it, and published the results, leaving himself open to criticism. Now if the result is that the top three coaches of all time turn out to be Dean Blais, Gino Gasparini, and Dave Hakstol, I’d be a little suspicious that the algorithm was rigged to yield a specific result. But I doubt that’s going to happen.

“Sanity checking” is what gave us the abomination known as the BCS formula.

Every school has some recruiting advantages that the coach needs to exploit and disadvantages that the coach needs to overcome, and in the case of Harvard, the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. The name brand is a huge plus. A prime source of hockey talent in New England is the prep schools. And when Cleary was coaching, Harvard had an enormous advantage in that market. Headmasters were judged on how many kids they got into Harvard, and the goal of most of the student body was to get into Harvard. Look at a few names of Belmont Hill School hockey captains: Bill Cleary, Bob Cleary, Mark Fusco, Scott Fusco. I suspect that Cleary had an inside track on recruiting those two future Hobeys.

This is not to downgrade anything Bill Cleary did as a hockey coach. I’m surprised that he came out behind Umile and I suspect there will be other coaches whose standing on the list will be even more shocking. But the fact that there are some placements that don’t make sense to me doesn’t invalidate the exercise.

That is my trick at the end. Dave Hakstol is such a great coach that he's not only in the top 3, but also in the Honorable Mention

And I agree with the rest of your post. Harvard is not the little sisters of the poor.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

Harvard is not the little sisters of the poor.

Right, none of the Ivies award [cough, cough] "scholarships," right?

Yet, if you talk to people who attended an Ivy, you may learn that they have jobs available to students, such as the infamous "dorm crew."

You would get paid $x per hour for a guaranteed minimum of yy hours each week no matter how much time you actually spent working, as long as your results were okay. While no "scholarship"-level quality athlete, I had a friend in an administrative position who needed someone reliable to keep the public areas (you know, where visiting parents stopped in and out) spotless, and so, as long as I cleaned them every day, I'd get paid for 2 hours of work that day, even if it only took me half an hour. There were similar jobs available in lots of other locations that weren't so high profile, and [surprise surprise] a large number of them were filled with athletes.

No, not a "scholarship" [clears throat] at all....

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

Right, none of the Ivies award [cough, cough] "scholarships," right?

Yet, if you talk to people who attended an Ivy, you may learn that they have jobs available to students, such as the infamous "dorm crew."

You would get paid $x per hour for a guaranteed minimum of yy hours each week no matter how much time you actually spent working, as long as your results were okay. While no "scholarship"-level quality athlete, I had a friend in an administrative position who needed someone reliable to keep the public areas (you know, where visiting parents stopped in and out) spotless, and so, as long as I cleaned them every day, I'd get paid for 2 hours of work that day, even if it only took me half an hour. There were similar jobs available in lots of other locations that weren't so high profile, and [surprise surprise] a large number of them were filled with athletes.

No, not a "scholarship" [clears throat] at all....

Don't forget that scholarships at schools like Minnesota can only equal 18 full rides total, but at an Ivy League school, need based $$$ could cover 100% of every player's schooling, not just 18 (equivalent)...that would be the more important loophole.

 

[Sean Pickett]

Ice Hockey Rules

Ice Hockey Rules

On that time frame- since you have been doing the research- was there any "normalization" of the rules at that time?

The reason I ask- looking at the UM history wall- it's pretty interesting to note the size of the teams before '48- at least two of the "offical" teams UM fielded, there were only 6 skaters + a goalie.... So was there any agreement to team size and rules (IIRC, there was a time that only backwards passing was allowed).

College hockey has followed official ice hockey rules since they started playing. American Sports Publishing Company annually published Spalding’s official rules of hockey from the beginning of the sport and by 1928-29 (the earliest guide I own) it was The Official Ice Hockey Rules of the NCAA. Sports Publishing Company published the Spalding rules and guide until 1941 when A.S. Barnes & Co. took over publishing it. They published the rules and guide until 1950, when the NCAA took over complete control and began publishing it themselves.

Regarding the size of a team, in 1928-29 it was six players on the ice and up to six substitutes (if a team had 6 substitutes available one of them should be dress in goalkeeper’s equipment). In 1931-32 the number of substitute players was increased to nine (and as long as a team had 6 substitutes one should be in goalkeeper’s dress). Also, players need not be selected in advance of entering the ice surface, so more players were allowed on the bench. In 1937-38 the rule was changed to limit the number of players in uniform to fourteen, exclusive of goalkeepers (with a substitute goalkeeper as long as there were 6 substitutes). In 1949-50 the limit was increased to fifteen, exclusive of goalkeepers. In 1962-63 the notation that one of the substitutions should be in goalkeeper’s equipment was dropped. In 1968-69 the limit was increased to seventeen, exclusive of goalkeepers. In 1974-75 the number of players was increased to eighteen, exclusive of goalkeepers. In 1981-82 the number of goalies was set at two. Before 1986-87 the number of goalies was changed to two or three.

Quick Reference Guide:
1928-29 10 skaters, 2 goalies
1931-32 13 skaters, 2 goalies (with more allowed to dress and be on the bench)
1937-38 14 skaters, 2 goalies
1949-50 15 skaters, 2 goalies
1962-63 15 skaters, 1 goalie
1968-69 17 skaters, 1 goalie
1974-75 18 skaters, 1 goalie
1981-82 18 skaters, 2 goalies
before 1986-87 18 skaters, 2 or 3 goalies

Sean

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

I am no longer surprised by fans that become upset at someone that takes the time to put togther a fun but in the end (no insult to FS23 intended) meaningless rating. Feel free to throw out counters and ideas to tweak 'the system', but go easy.

 

[bothman]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

Right, none of the Ivies award [cough, cough] "scholarships," right?

Yet, if you talk to people who attended an Ivy, you may learn that they have jobs available to students, such as the infamous "dorm crew."

You would get paid $x per hour for a guaranteed minimum of yy hours each week no matter how much time you actually spent working, as long as your results were okay. While no "scholarship"-level quality athlete, I had a friend in an administrative position who needed someone reliable to keep the public areas (you know, where visiting parents stopped in and out) spotless, and so, as long as I cleaned them every day, I'd get paid for 2 hours of work that day, even if it only took me half an hour. There were similar jobs available in lots of other locations that weren't so high profile, and [surprise surprise] a large number of them were filled with athletes.

No, not a "scholarship" [clears throat] at all....

It's not about the $$ (never has been), it's about the pastures that the Ivies can recruit from. Take North Dakota. I don't know the academic profile of the hockey team, but I'd be surprised if Harvard could have even taken considered recruiting upwards of 75% of them. That is what I am talking about.

So yes, the Harvard brand is great and makes a difference for the kids that have the academic profile to consider Harvard - however, that pool is rather small.

Let's put in in business terms. If you were starting a company and considering going after 2 markets - one market had 10 million users, the other had 1 million users. All else being equal, which market would you go after?

 

[Happy]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

It's not about the $$ (never has been), it's about the pastures that the Ivies can recruit from. Take North Dakota. I don't know the academic profile of the hockey team, but I'd be surprised if Harvard could have even taken considered recruiting upwards of 75% of them. That is what I am talking about.

So yes, the Harvard brand is great and makes a difference for the kids that have the academic profile to consider Harvard - however, that pool is rather small.

Let's put in in business terms. If you were starting a company and considering going after 2 markets - one market had 10 million users, the other had 1 million users. All else being equal, which market would you go after?

Athletes at Harvard do not have to meet the same academic standards as other students. and, hockey is not basketball, most of these kids are smart, and have good grades. But, if you want to be a pro some day, going ivy is stupid, the WCHA is the best conference for that.

 

[walrus]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

Half the fun of these things is coming up with a formula and then standing back to watch how everything shakes out. I doubt we've seen the last 'controversy' - but that's what makes these things worth watching.

Timmay makes honorable mention? That tells me all I need to know about the formula

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

#18 - Jeff Sauer
Coached at Colorado College from 1971-1982
Coached at Wisconsin from 1982-2002
Jeff Sauer comes in at #18. Sauer began his head-coaching career at his alma mater, Colorado College. In his 11 seasons with the Tigers, Sauer was fairly average. He only had two winning seasons, and only 1 trip to the NCAA tournament in 1978 (CC was co-playoff champions with Wisconsin, and received a bid that way as they were a below .500 squad. DU was the best team in the WCHA that season but sat out the NCAA Tournament.). However, Sauer's fortunes would change after the '81-'82 season when he accepted the Wisconsin job. In his first season with the Badgers, Sauer led them to the National Championship. He would lead the Badgers to another title in 1990. All together at Wisconsin, Sauer had only 4 losings seasons in 20 years at Madison. He led Wisconsin to 11 NCAA Tournaments, 3 Frozen Fours, 3 Title games and 2 National Championships. He won 655 games, and his 5-1 record at the Frozen Four is tied for 2nd best winning percentage at that stage (for coaches who coached 5+ games) behind only the legendary Herb Brooks. While Sauer retired on a down note, he is still considered a legendary coach for the Badger program.

Points: 128.99

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

#18 Jeff Sauer
#19 Rick Comley
#20 Jack Kelley
#21 Doug Woog
#22 Dick Umile
#23 Bill Cleary
#24 Cheddy Thompson
#25 Barry Thorndycraft

Honorable Mention:
Mike Eaves
Dave Hakstol
Scott Sandelin
Tim Whitehead
Enrico Blasi
Joe Marsh
Mike Schafer
Scotty Owens