Sports

Hoops America: Who really holds the key?

Good coaches seen as necessary to winning, but results rest on players’ shoulders

The news on Monday of Alabama head coach Mark Gottfried’s supposed “resignation” raises more than a few questions. Did he really willingly quit a job where he made millions? It also seems strangely coincidental that the resignation came a week after star player Ronald Steele left the team under questionable circumstances. As Alabama searches for a new coach, many big names are sure to pop up as the athletic department would certainly love a marquee coach to jump-start the program.

But will that fix it?

It’s an age-old debate in basketball: who matters to winning more, a good coach or quality players? Arguments can be made in favor of both sides, but in the end, it’s the players who define a program, not the coach.

Here’s my basic logic: plenty of unheralded coaches have succeeded with rosters loaded with talent, and plenty of good coaches have failed with players that just weren’t good enough (See: Bo Ryan and this year’s edition of the Badgers). On the other hand, good coaches have had stacked rosters that underachieved and had seasons that ended in disappointment. In the end, it’s the players that mattered.

For example, Buzz Williams’ Marquette squad sits atop the Big East, though the current roster can be attributed to former coach Tom Crean. While Williams deserves credit for not trying to fix what’s not broken, Marquette’s success can be traced to a core of Lazar Hayward, Jerel McNeal, Wesley Matthews and Dominic James, all of whom are upperclassmen and Crean’s recruits. This experienced group of starters already had chemistry, which made Williams’ transition much easier than his predecessor’s move to Indiana.

Crean epitomizes the flip side of the issue. He took over an Indiana program that was in a state of disarray for much of 2008 following Kelvin Sampson’s fall from grace, as well as the departure of most of its scholarship players. This season’s Hoosiers have limped to a 5-13 overall record, proving that without the right players, teams just can’t win. Crean has the credentials of a winner — in his nine seasons at Marquette, he turned the Golden Eagles into a perennial top 25 team. But with only two returning players from last year’s squad, he simply does not have the personnel to succeed yet. It’s tough to win when over half your squad consists of walk-ons and all of your own recruits are first year players.

Looking at it that way, there doesn’t appear to be a debate, but that’s hardly the case. Enter Tubby Smith. Now in his second year as Minnesota’s head coach, he was a marquee signing with an unheralded program. Having won a national championship and five SEC titles while at Kentucky, Smith brought Minnesota basketball a coach with a pedigree, but what he really gave them was a face. Instead of being a downtrodden team still reeling from a 1999 academic scandal, Minnesota instantly became legitimate as soon as it became Tubby’s team.

Smith’s mere presence at the head of the Minnesota basketball program played a part in his first recruiting class being ranked 27th in the nation by Scout.com. As of now, Scout has the Gophers’ 2009 recruiting class ranked no. 13, something impressive for a Big Ten team, let alone Minnesota. It can be argued that these players aren’t so much playing for Minnesota as they are playing for Tubby Smith — who happens to be at Minnesota.

Smith guided the Gophers to a 20-13 record in his first year, a remarkable improvement from their 8-22 record the year before. This was done before his own recruits could make any contributions, pointing to the effect a good coach has on a team. However, with the addition of his own players to the squad this season, Smith’s team has so far compiled a 17-3 record and was ranked for the first time in a decade, showing the importance of players to winning.

A coach whose reputation precedes him rarely has trouble recruiting good players. This would seem to point to the man in charge when looking for a catalyst for success, but that reputation has to be built up and the fame has to start somewhere. Smith’s road to recognition arguably began at Kentucky, where he won the 1998 national championship in his first season. What tends to be overlooked is that 12 of the players on that team had experience on the ‘96 team that also won it all, and the ‘97 team that lost in the championship game.

This is no knock against Smith. Kentucky did not win that title only because they had experienced players; Kentucky wasn’t even in the preseason top 25 that year. However, it’s important to note that Smith was able to show what he could do as a coach because he had a strong base of players to build from. However, it’s hard to doubt that had he accepted a head coaching spot at Wofford or Providence instead of Kentucky, the road to success would have been much tougher.

There’s a certain circular logic that can be applied here in that good players make good coaches, who attract good players who make good coaches … and so on. Avoid that. Every coach will be defined by their players, and while they don’t necessarily have to be McDonald’s All-Americans, they do have to be the right players.

So as Alabama turns its attention to finding a permanent successor to Gottfried, it would be wise for them not to expect an immediate miracle turnaround, regardless of whom they sign. The foundation for winning is the athletes themselves, and unless someone can attract the right ones to Tuscaloosa, it won’t matter if they get John Wooden to come out of retirement.