The end result is what matters. You can argue that Pearl keeps out coaching Calipari but if he keeps on getting better results than Pearl, then that's all that matters.
The end result is what matters. You can argue that Pearl keeps out coaching Calipari but if he keeps on getting better results than Pearl, then that's all that matters.
One thing I have learned from this board is that no matter what you post someone out there will interpret it in a different way than what you were meaning it in. It's just how it is.
I voted Stallings. He does more with less. Calipari gets outcoached by Pearl every time, but in the end the talent was toom much for the coaching 3 out of 5 times. Stallings has never had huge recruits until his last class and he constantly out coaches Pearl.
I believe Stallings will get a huge gig some day after Vandy.
It is. You're presumably asking who is the best at drawing up little X's and O's on chalkboards and diagramming plays, which would be meaningful if that were a useful disembodied skill independent of the players involved. The problem is that the Xs and Os represent wildly varying players of vastly different skill levels, and selecting and recruiting those players is at least as important as what you do with them once you've got them. You could match the world chess champion against some random eighth-grader, and if the eighth grader has five queens then the champion's going to lose every time. Asking who the "best coach" is while ignoring roster-building is a meaningless question.