The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

[manurespreader]

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?

While this is true, just because a school has high academic standards does not mean they must then be mediocre on the ice. I would contend that RPI for instance has equal academic standards to the ivey's and in some cases higher, yet they seem to be doing pretty well lately. A case could be made for Michigan as well. They are no slouches academically either, yet seem to find more than their share of success on the ice.
While the ivey's are nice, to be honest, and no offense intended but sometimes it seems they are schools where rich kids go to become lawyers. Why else would the first question asked by the admissions officer be. " so son, who in your family has attended Harvard?"

 

[bothman]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

While this is true, just because a school has high academic standards does not mean they must then be mediocre on the ice. I would contend that RPI for instance has equal academic standards to the ivey's and in some cases higher, yet they seem to be doing pretty well lately. A case could be made for Michigan as well. They are no slouches academically either, yet seem to find more than their share of success on the ice.
While the ivey's are nice, to be honest, and no offense intended but sometimes it seems they are schools where rich kids go to become lawyers. Why else would the first question asked by the admissions officer be. " so son, who in your family has attended Harvard?"

Couple of responses:
1) 40 yrs ago - absolutely on the rich kid, alumni thing. Not so much these days.
2) RPI does does put together a Final 4 contender once a decade, like Harvard does (RPI is certainly on the upswing). Neither team has come close to sniffing the trophy in over 20 yrs

All I am saying is that teams like North Dakota, Minny, etc - come out of the womb with major advantages. To have done more with more than someone who has done less with less, how does the methodology account for that?

 

[Bakunin]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

It'd be difficult to account for all the advantages that different programs enjoy:
- location in a hotbed of D-I ready talent
- arena size / amenities
- television exposure
- training facilities
- academic standards / lack thereof

Even after identifying all of the factors, you'd also have to account for the fact that many of them change over time. MN wasn't widely televised until the late '80s(?) on MSC (and later FSN). While MN has always produced hockey talent, the amount has varied over the years and the competition for it has increased (5 D-I programs in the state now). Arenas didn't really become recruiting tools as far as I know until the '90s (new Mariucci was built in the early '90s - and has since been followed by CC, DU, UMD, UND, UW, and BSU all building new arenas - though UW's is a dual use facility geared toward bouncy ball).

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

#17 - George Gwozdecky
Coached at Miami from 1989-1994
Coached at Denver from 1994-2011
George Gwozdecky comes in at #17. Coach Gwoz first became a D-1 coach at Miami, and led the Redskins to the 1993 NCAA Tournament. It was a tremendous, and quick turnaround. In Gwoz's first season at Miami, the Redskins only won 12 games, followed up by only 5 in his second. However, when George left the program in 1994, they had three straight winning seasons and back to back 20 win seasons. Gwoz left Miami to go to Denver. When Gwoz came to the Mile High City, Denver was a great program that was dormant. Gwozdecky immediately paid dividends, leading the Pioneers to the NCAA Tournament his first season. In his 17 seasons at DU, Gwoz has led the Pioneers to 15 winning seasons, 14 20 win seasons, 10 NCAA trips, and 2 National Championships in 2 Frozen Four appearances. Gwozdecky joins Barry Thorndycraft as the only two coaches in the top-25 to be undefeated at the Frozen Four, going 4-0. Coach Gwoz should have the opportunity to coach several more seasons, so he could very well be moving up this list. For now, George Gwozdecky sits at #17.

Points: 129.47

 

[ecbrevik]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

All I am saying is that teams like North Dakota, Minny, etc - come out of the womb with major advantages. To have done more with more than someone who has done less with less, how does the methodology account for that?

How does the methodology account for Harvard being in the middle of the hockey-rich Boston metro and having the ability to market a nationally-known name, while coaches at Denver have somehow managed to put together 7 national titles at a school located in a virtual hockey wasteland and lacking major national recognition? Maybe DU coaches should get some kind of bonus over Harvard coaches for managing this increadible feat!

We can argue this "intangibles" angle up, down, left, right, and upside down. The bottom line is every school has its advantages and disadvantages that you can't assign numbers to.

 

[bothman]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

How does the methodology account for Harvard being in the middle of the hockey-rich Boston metro and having the ability to market a nationally-known name, while coaches at Denver have somehow managed to put together 7 national titles at a school located in a virtual hockey wasteland and lacking major national recognition? Maybe DU coaches should get some kind of bonus over Harvard coaches for managing this increadible feat!

We can argue this "intangibles" angle up, down, left, right, and upside down. The bottom line is every school has its advantages and disadvantages that you can't assign numbers to.

Totally agree with your point on DU.

And why can't you come up with a system that takes into effect the advantages? Every player on a roster can be given a ranking (ie, #1 if NHL First Round Draft pick, #10 if a non-schollie, walk-on). Take a weighted average for every team to account for roster size disparities.

Hypothetically, let's say you did that for Minny (score of 3.4) and RIT (score of 7.5). You could come up with a resasonable system that handicaps each team based on the talent on the roster. It could get to a point, where even though Minny's winning % was much higher than RIT in a season, RIT's coach is better because he won more than he should have given the talent he had to work with (and I understand you'd also have to handicap the fact that RIT plays worse competition than does Minny)

Same can be said for NCAA performance. Based on the talent disparity, RIT winning 1 game in the NCAAs could be given a better ranking than Minny winning 3 games.

When you just look at output (Winning %, NCAA titles, Reg Season Titltes, # of All Americans coahced, etc) - you make a huge assumption that Minny & RIT start from a level playing field and that if both are trying to recruit Danny Kristo or Phil Kessel, they both have the same oppty to land such difference makers who lead to NCAA titles, Winning %, and # of All Americans coached, etc

Again, FS23 has done a great job. I just think if you really want to peel back the onion in order to truly capture and rank coaches based on their performance as skippers, then you need to go one or two clicks deeper than what this analysis has considered.

 

[KnowItAll]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

Totally agree with your point on DU.

And why can't you come up with a system that takes into effect the advantages? Every player on a roster can be given a ranking (ie, #1 if NHL First Round Draft pick, #10 if a non-schollie, walk-on). Take a weighted average for every team to account for roster size disparities.

Hypothetically, let's say you did that for Minny (score of 3.4) and RIT (score of 7.5). You could come up with a resasonable system that handicaps each team based on the talent on the roster. It could get to a point, where even though Minny's winning % was much higher than RIT in a season, RIT's coach is better because he won more than he should have given the talent he had to work with.

Same can be said for NCAA performance. Based on the talent disparity, RIT winning 1 game in the NCAAs could be given a better ranking than Minny winning 3 games.

When you just look at output (Winning %, NCAA titles, Reg Season Titltes, # of All Americans coahced, etc) - you make a huge assumption that Minny & RIT start from a level playing field and that if both are trying to recruit Danny Kristo or Phil Kessel, they both have the same oppty to land such difference makers who lead to NCAA titles, Winning %, and # of All Americans coached, etc

Again, FS23 has done a great job. I just think if you really want to peel back the onion in order to truly capture and rank coaches based on their performance as skippers, then you need to go one or two clicks deeper than what this analysis has considered.

don't forget other important factors:
1--family obligations and school work-- if a coach has to deal with a player who recently went to a family funeral AND won that week, that should count in the coach's favor
if a player had an especially long paper to work on, pop quiz, or even a girlfriend break up that week
2--astrological cumbersomeness--- can YOU imagine what it would be like to start a Libra goalie while Mars is transiting Jupiter, or if your top line had someone born in the year of the lemur while Venus was nowhere near closest convergence
3--global warming--- surely this has got to affect different people differently... not sure how, but some politician will win a Nobel prize describing it in a way that non-scientists will eat right up.

you add those factors and I am sure you will see who the best coach really is.... that and winning percentage in big games

 

[KnowItAll]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

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

did Gwoz get major points for turning Denver around and did Timmy lose points for alienating Maine's second most precious natural resource, next to Homarus Americanus..... Mens Magnissimus Maioribus Hockiensus,

more commonly known as Lobster and Grant Standbrook

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Totally agree with your point on DU.

And why can't you come up with a system that takes into effect the advantages? Every player on a roster can be given a ranking (ie, #1 if NHL First Round Draft pick, #10 if a non-schollie, walk-on). Take a weighted average for every team to account for roster size disparities.

Hypothetically, let's say you did that for Minny (score of 3.4) and RIT (score of 7.5). You could come up with a resasonable system that handicaps each team based on the talent on the roster. It could get to a point, where even though Minny's winning % was much higher than RIT in a season, RIT's coach is better because he won more than he should have given the talent he had to work with (and I understand you'd also have to handicap the fact that RIT plays worse competition than does Minny)

Same can be said for NCAA performance. Based on the talent disparity, RIT winning 1 game in the NCAAs could be given a better ranking than Minny winning 3 games.

When you just look at output (Winning %, NCAA titles, Reg Season Titltes, # of All Americans coahced, etc) - you make a huge assumption that Minny & RIT start from a level playing field and that if both are trying to recruit Danny Kristo or Phil Kessel, they both have the same oppty to land such difference makers who lead to NCAA titles, Winning %, and # of All Americans coached, etc

Again, FS23 has done a great job. I just think if you really want to peel back the onion in order to truly capture and rank coaches based on their performance as skippers, then you need to go one or two clicks deeper than what this analysis has considered.

So we should completely disregard a coach's ability to recruit? IMO, and as you said, that is one of the biggest reasons coaches have success. You are only looking at your particular school's disadvantages. Do you think it is easy to recruit kids to Grand Forks, ND over cities like Boston, Denver or Minneapolis? As has been said numerous times, each school has their advantages and disadvantages. We shouldn't punish coaches for having the ability to better highlight their advantages to recruits.

 

[Sean Pickett]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

And why can't you come up with a system...

You already seem to have done so. Now instead of trying to get FS23 to do all the work and research required to come up with the results why don't you go and do it?

Sean

 

[walrus]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

did Gwoz get major points for turning Denver around and did Timmy lose points for alienating Maine's second most precious natural resource, next to Homarus Americanus..... Mens Magnissimus Maioribus Hockiensus,

more commonly known as Lobster and Grant Standbrook

Looks like Dean Blais and Jeff Jackson are going to be ahead of Timmay, how can that be true?, we've been told for years those guys were chumps compared to Timmay

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

#16 - Len Ceglarski
Coached at Clarkson from 1958-1972
Coached at Boston College from 1972-1992
Len Ceglarski comes in at #16. Ceglarski is the highest ranked coach that does not have a national title as a coach (Ceglarski won a title with the '49 BC team). Len joined the D-1 coaching ranks in 1958 at Clarkson. Ceglarski led the Golden Knights to 4 Frozen Fours and 3 National Title game, but was unable to win the big one. In his 14 seasons at Clarkson, Ceglarski had only 1 losing season, and managed to win 20 or more games 6 times. Following the '71-'72 season, Ceglarski returned to his alma mater Boston College and led the Eagles for 20 seasons. In those 20 years, he led the Eagles to 17 winning seasons, 11 20+ win seasons, 9 NCAA Tournaments, 4 Frozen Fours, and 1 National Title game. All together, Ceglarski coached for 34 years, made 13 NCAA Tournaments, 8 Frozen Fours, and 4 National Title games. He only had 4 losing seasons, and compiled nearly 700 wins (672). His .659 winning percentage is top-10, and the 28 All-Americans that he coached is 5th best amongst the coaches in the top-25.

Points: 130.16

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

#16 Len Ceglarski
#17 George Gwozdecky
#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

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

You could come up with a resasonable system that handicaps each team based on the talent on the roster. It could get to a point, where even though Minny's winning % was much higher than RIT in a season, RIT's coach is better because he won more than he should have given the talent he had to work with

One might reply that part of a coach's talents include recruiting, finding players that fit his system so that they can mesh as a competent team....

I get what you are going at however you also are introducing another level of complexity to a recreational enterprise that is partially already covered by the existing formulae. After all, another person might reply that talent eventually rises to the top, so that the best coaches will eventually be recognized by personnel directors around the country and be offered the best jobs....and their passion for excellence will inspire the best recruits to play for them....etc. so that the existing formula does have some room for what you are asking through the back door so to speak....

 

[acs64]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

Looks like Dean Blais and Jeff Jackson are going to be ahead of Timmay, how can that be true?, we've been told for years those guys were chumps compared to Timmay

Having Timmay's name even listed with these other people is an insult to all the other real coaches on this list....(excluding the Umiliator of course. )

 

[Sean Pickett]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

Having Timmay's name even listed with these other people is an insult to all the other real coaches on this list....(excluding the Umiliator of course. )

I was just curious where he would be on the list. Without him being ranked all I know is he hasn't been good enough to crack the top 25, but that he is in the top fifty. FS23 stated he will give the rankings for all the coaches once the top 25 countdown is completed.

Sean

 

[buoldtimer]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

Looks like Dean Blais and Jeff Jackson are going to be ahead of Timmay, how can that be true?, we've been told for years those guys were chumps compared to Timmay

Can you cite a specific example of someone making this statement?

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

I was just curious where he would be on the list. Without him being ranked all I know is he hasn't been good enough to crack the top 25, but that he is in the top fifty. FS23 stated he will give the rankings for all the coaches once the top 25 countdown is completed.

Sean

Correct. There were 75 coaches nominated in all (some more seriously nominated than others). When I'm done I'll post the full list with point values.

 

[bothman]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

So we should completely disregard a coach's ability to recruit? IMO, and as you said, that is one of the biggest reasons coaches have success. You are only looking at your particular school's disadvantages. Do you think it is easy to recruit kids to Grand Forks, ND over cities like Boston, Denver or Minneapolis? As has been said numerous times, each school has their advantages and disadvantages. We shouldn't punish coaches for having the ability to better highlight their advantages to recruits.

Yeah - because RIT had a shot at any of the Top 20 recruits in any given season?

Take the Top 15-20 recruits in any given season, and there are about 5-7 schools that have a realistic chance of getting these kids. Occasionally, there is an anomaly (ie, Louis Leblanc going to Harvard comes to mind), but these are few and far between. So if Lucia lands more than Eaves, then good for Minny and good for Lucia's ranking...but does that mean that the RIT coach gets the shaft because these Top 20 kids have never heard of RIT?

I'm using an extreme example I know, but it paints the picture I am getting across.

 

[bothman]

Re: The Greatest Coaches of All-Time

You already seem to have done so. Now instead of trying to get FS23 to do all the work and research required to come up with the results why don't you go and do it?

Sean

Fair enough...perhaps I will revisit this when FF23 is done and attempt to do an analysis that goes one step deeper than just looking at the results....