[CTcard]

Well, Montgomery is right below Bob Knight (3 championships) and two places ahead of Lute Olson (1 championship).

I don't doubt the veracity of the data or analysis, but I, too, am not sure about the conclusions to be drawn. ...

Not being sure about the conclusions is way to mild.

I don't doubt he plugged the numbers into his computer correctly, but I doubt that rubric is particularly closely related to being a good tournament coach.

Of course it is not unrelated. You cannot do well on it without winning a lot of tournament games.

On the other hand, if you coach your team well in the regular season, always enter the tournament with a #1 seed, then it is inherently impossible to have a positive number on this rubric - even if you then win every single tournament. It's not quite clear where a zero puts you - but probably below 100th.

Another way to be at the top of the list is to have a team with tons of talent that you coach poorly so that they have a lower seed each year than they ought to have. Then you win games over expectation. It doesn't really make you a good coach in any meaningful way - beyond being able to recruit that talent.

One thing seems true, the actual good coaches probably dominate the outer tails of the distribution. Since you can't be at the top of the list without winning a lot of tournament games, those guys are probably pretty good. Since you cannot be at the bottom of the list without consistently having a very high seeding, those guys are probably pretty good. Most of the guys who always come in with 8-12 seeds are probably near the middle and a zero "wins over expectation".

[CTcard]

Well, Montgomery is right below Bob Knight (3 championships) and two places ahead of Lute Olson (1 championship).

I don't doubt the veracity of the data or analysis, but I, too, am not sure about the conclusions to be drawn. ...

Not being sure about the conclusions is way to mild.

I don't doubt he plugged the numbers into his computer correctly, but I doubt that rubric is particularly closely related to being a good tournament coach.

Of course it is not unrelated. You cannot do well on it without winning a lot of tournament games.

On the other hand, if you coach your team well in the regular season, always enter the tournament with a #1 seed, then it is inherently impossible to have a positive number on this rubric - even if you then win every single tournament. It's not quite clear where a zero puts you - but probably below 100th.

Another way to be at the top of the list is to have a team with tons of talent that you coach poorly so that they have a lower seed each year than they ought to have. Then you win games over expectation. It doesn't really make you a good coach in any meaningful way - beyond being able to recruit that talent.

One thing seems true, the actual good coaches probably dominate the outer tails of the distribution. Since you can't be at the top of the list without winning a lot of tournament games, those guys are probably pretty good. Since you cannot be at the bottom of the list without consistently having a very high seeding, those guys are probably pretty good. Most of the guys who always come in with 8-12 seeds are probably near the middle and a zero "wins over expectation".