Serious Bar Room Talk - Best Coaches!

It’s time for some bar room talk. This will be a very long sports related post. Given that I tend to cater to politics and world events here, this may seem way too long for something so unimportant. But, this is fun. Sports are great to talk about. And maybe I'll spark some good discussion.

This year is ESPN's 25th year on the air and they are having a year long celebration full of interesting retrospectives and Top 25 lists of the "ESPN Era." I think ESPN is as good at self promotion as any single brand out there, but in this case, defining something as the ESPN Era, while immodest, is actually pretty accurate. Sports have changed significantly (both for the good and the bad) in the era of 24 hour national sports coverage and a lot of that is due to ESPN's various innovations in covering sports.

I'm TiVo'ing the ESPN25 "Who's #1" episodes. Sports talk has always thrived on lists and barroom debates over who was better than who, so this show is no different. These lists are apparently compiled by a panel of ESPN experts and have been interesting, insightful, and often totally full of crap. These list are far from perfect. And the suits at ESPN would probably love to know that I'm using valuable bandwidth to gripe about their selections. Even bad PR, is still PR you know.

So, let's talk coaches and my single biggest gripe about their lists. I finally got around to watching the 25 Best Coaches episode I had on TiVo a couple of night's ago. Let's take a look at how Stuart Scott introduces the ground rules:

These are the best 25 of the ESPN era as decided by our panel of experts. Reminder, the listing reflects those whose biggest accomplishments occurred during the past 25 years.

After hearing that statement, I think I would be led to believe the following:

1. These are the best 25 coaches OF THE LAST 25 YEARS.

2. Moreover, these coaches BIGGEST accomplishments would have occurred DURING the last 25 years.

Also, the coaches are limited in scope to having coached in North America. As you know, from previous comments, the fact that Atlanta Braves manager Bobby Cox is not on the list strikes me as just a bit off. Actually, I think it is a jaw dropping omission. I could scream (north) East Coast bias, but I know that's not it. The problems with the “experts’” choices are threefold:

1. Their choices, in fact, were not judged by who had the biggest accomplishments of the last 25 years
2. They equated college sports with pro sports
3. They felt the need to include big accomplishments in minor sports in the sporting equivalent of political correctness. They didn't want to seem biased towards the big 4 sports.

The coaches I think should have been included are Bobby Cox, Jim Calhoun, and Bill Belichick. I think Dick Vermeal, Mike Shanahan, Lou Piniella and Tom Kelly might be close as well. I also think consideration should have been given to, Marv Levy, Dan Reeves and Rick Pitino though I can see why they wouldn't be included or would be borderline. 1980 USA Hockey coach Herb Brooks should also have been given a look too, though that's barely in the ESPN era.

The coaches I do not think should have been included are North Carolina women's soccer coach Anson Dorrance, Iowa Wrestling coach Dan Gable, Miami Dolphins head Coach Don Shula and Grambling head coach Eddie Robinson.

I think Bill Walsh should be higher. I thing Paterno should be lower. I also think the two women's basketball coaches should be much lower, though I think they should be on the list (more on that in a minute).

I do not mean to demean these secondary college sports. I do not mean to imply that they aren't challenging. I do not mean to imply that the coaches listed are not good coaches. I merely contend that the bigger the sport, the more high dollar the sport, the more competitive it will be and therefore more difficult to sustain success and keep your job.

I believe coaching at the pro level is the absolute pinnacle of accomplishment. I do not mean to make a blanket statement that pro sports are always more competitive and therefore more challenging than college or amateur sports, but I do think they get the benefit of the doubt. I have no problem with college football or college basketball (both men's and women's) being listed because they are high dollar and highly competitive. No, the players are not getting paid with money (not legally anyway) but the players do get certain benefits that have value (fame, popularity with the ladies, a free education, and at least the chance to go pro and get at least one big payday, etc.). The myth of the “pure” amateur athlete is just that, a myth. And since schools and the coaches they hire are dealing in millions of dollars, dollars that depend on wins and losses, that competitive pressure leads to excellence. It also leads to low job security (more so in the pro sports). However, and this is a big however: College sports, particularly college football and basketball, can be highly dependent on individual talents that are far greater than their peers on the field. The marginal difference in great pro athletes and their peers is much lower than in college sports. I think this increases the challenge for pro coaches.

We have seen short quarterbacks with speed totally dominate college games. We have seen running backs run for 250 yards in a game with regularity. We have seen wide receivers dominate games all the while they are running back kicks for touchdowns as well. You simply don't see this in the NFL. Individual players excel disproportionately in college games. This doesn't discount the coaches who recruit those players, but it does put some of that in perspective.

Another reason I put a premium on the high dollar sports is this: the high dollar sports get the lion's share of the best athletes. In any sample of athletes, probably 8 out 10 in the U.S. will choose to specialize in the big 3. In Canada, it's probably a similar ratio for hockey alone (with baseball and basketball getting the most of the remainder). So, in the secondary sports, you have a smaller sample to choose from. I contend, though I have no actual proof, that in these secondary sports (wrestling, soccer, and up until recently, women's basketball), if one program becomes dominant, it can very quickly get a Yankee's aura about it. I would bet that if you wrestle and the Iowa program (which has won something like 75% of the championships in the last 20 years) comes calling, you don't say no. Ditto women's soccer and North Carolina. I understand that the coaches deserve some credit for this, but I also don't think it's fair to say that a guy with 9 NCAA women's soccer NCAA championships is a better coach than anyone who wins even one Super Bowl, World Series or even a men's college basketball championship. Is this a bias? You bet. And it's a bias that most of these ESPN panel of experts hold too if you forced them to say so. But, they wanted to make sure they seemed fair and balanced so to speak. Fair enough. I just don't buy it.

College football coaches also have some luxuries that their professional counterparts (in all sports) do not. They can schedule cupcakes. In super conferences like the SEC & Big 12, this is becoming less prevalent. And at Notre Dame, they intentionally schedule tough games, when, being independent, they do not have to. But, the cupcake scheduling still exists. And even in the SEC, you get Vanderbilt. Moreover, what dictates a national champion in NCAA football has been determined by its own panel of experts, a.k.a. the Sportswriters of America. In the BCS era, it's a panel of experts, coaches with huge conflicts of interest, and complicated computer programs with some truly dumb parameters that dictate whose champion. Pardon me if I don't treat each college football championship as equal.

Men's College Basketball coaches work in an environment which has as close to professional level competition as any college sport. They have a regular season that matters, even with the cupcake scheduling. But, most importantly, men's college basketball has two levels of the postseason, each of which mostly requires a certain level of success to proceed to the next. And the NCAA basketball tournament leaves little doubt about who is the number one team in the land, or at least it's as credible a champion as you can get at the college level. So, NCAA title in men's basketball is a huge coaching accomplishment. Final Four appearances are too. And, with the increasing exodus of quality players to the NBA at an ever younger age (with some of the best talent never even touching foot on a college campus), you are seeing a level of parity that makes coaching that much more important.

Women's college basketball, with apologies to the WNBA, is the premium women's team sport in America. And it isn’t even close. With this has come television dollars and a higher level of quality female athlete. Women's basketball at the college level is the most competitive of the women's sports, though I think Pat Summit and Gene Auriemma benefit in much the same way that the secondary sport coaches do. Once the program establishes a successful track record, they have an increasing returns type of success. They get the pick of the best athletes with less recruiting effort than their counterparts. This is why I would rank Summit and Ariemma lower, though no doubt they are great “x's & o's” coaches and deserve a large amount of credit for women's basketball's success.

Professional sports are the pinnacle of competitiveness. They have the most skilled athletes. Due to each sport’s attempt to force some sort of parity, the most skilled players tend not to get bunched together on the same team (except somewhat in baseball). I think enduring success at the pro ranks is superior, more often than not, to any accomplishments at the college level. I think it is tougher to sustain championship level success in the pros than in college. I think college basketball is more competitive than college football but only by a hair.

Also, in terms of difficulty and skill, coaching in the NFL is easily the most difficult task, especially in the free agency/salary cap era (i.e. since roughly '94 or '95). I honestly don't know which is more difficult between hockey, baseball and basketball. Individual talent still excels in the NBA and has probably a bigger impact on team's success. That sounds like "well, duh." I mean a SINGLE great player makes a bigger difference in a team's success in basketball than it does in baseball. However, coaching a SINGLE basketball game is probably more difficult than coaching a SINGLE baseball game. But, baseball is a marathon as many others have said, and there is strategic thinking in baseball that causes game time decisions have an impact over multiple games. I don't think this exists as greatly in basketball. I have no idea about hockey. I'm just assuming that the pro ranks are competitive and that it's at least as difficult to coach as basketball, but I have no idea. I'll take ESPN at their word on the hockey coaches.

So, this brings me to Bobby Cox. Somehow, Cox winning ONE world championship is treated as the equivalent to winning NONE. He's managed a division winner 13 years in a row. Whether it was the old 6-team NL West (with 3 west coast teams) or the current 5-team NL East, the result was the same. They went to the NL Championship series in 10 of those years. They won the NL pennant 5 of those years. They lost 4 World Series. They lost 2 of those World Series in 6 games, they were swept once. They lost twice to the Yankees dynasty. They capped off one of the greatest World Series ever in 1991 by losing by ONE run in the 10th inning in a stadium with one of the most extreme home field advantages in the sport. Losing a World Series by one run is still losing. But, combine it with one World Championship, 5 pennants, 13 divisions; I think it matches up pretty well with two championships in another sport (assuming a lack of comparable non-championship success).

On ESPN's list, their were 2 coaches with 1 championship under their belt: Steve Spurrier and Tony LaRussa. Larry Brown won one at the college level and finally this year, he won one at the pro level. I think Cox's achievements in pro baseball are at least not too far behind Tom Osborne's 2 championships at Nebraska.

LaRussa is the most comparable to Cox. He also has one world championship, with 3 pennants. He's won a little over half as many divisions as Cox. So, why is he in there and not Cox? It is because he's credited with creating the modern bullpen. LaRussa was the first guy who regularly would bring in one guy to face one hitter (usually based on whether the hitter was left or right handed) and also use the closer strictly for the 9th inning. Many people will argue over whether this is a good or bad innovation, but he gets the credit for it, so it's his thing. Still, his career winning percentage is lower than Cox's (.532 to Cox's .565).

LaRussa was ranked 25th on ESPN's list. Theoretically, Cox could have been #26 and they gave it to LaRussa for the bullpen innovation. Fair enough. I disagree with it though. Cox has simply been more successful than LaRussa. Moreover, Cox was the General Manager of the Braves before this run began. He accumulated the players (Glavine, Smoltz, Chipper Jones, Ryan Klesko, Javy Lopez, Steve Avery, etc.) that kicked off the string of 13 division titles. Clearly, Braves management deserves credit for keeping it going as well. But, many critics have been saying, it's easy to to win with Maddux, Smoltz and Glavine. Except Glavine left. They still won. Maddux left, and there they sit, 4 1/2 up in a division every expert predicted belonged to the Phillies or MAYBE the Marlins. No one thought the Braves would be here. But, here they sit. I don't know if it will last, because I honestly don't see how they are doing it either, but the fact is they are in first, by a pretty good clip. John Smoltz, of the aforementioned big-3 pitchers, hasn't started a game in over 3 years. Their pitching staff is a bunch of no-names (plus overpaid Mike Hampton), yet it's near the top in ERA. Again. They lost the second best powerhitting catcher in the majors and one of the best hitting right fielders in the game over the off-season. And they lost some serious production at 3rd base. But here they sit, #5 in the NL in runs scored. Cox and the coaching staff he assembled is the constant.

I respect Tony LaRussa. But, Cox is the better manager. Hands down. And he's definitely a better "coach" than the Iowa wrestling coach, the North Carolina soccer coach. He's certainly more accomplished than Steve Spurrier. Yes, Florida wasn't on the football map before he came. Take a look at the mid to late 80's Braves and let's make a comparison to who sucked worse. Cox initially built the farm system as GM and then he created the magic touch that has that allows the Braves to continuing winning, somehow despite all the "on paper" predictions that they shouldn't. Remember, the Braves run has been predicted to end for at least the last 3 years. And the '99 team that got swept by the Yankees was a team that had battled major injuries all year and had no business even being in the World Series when you see the product the Braves put on the field that October. Somehow, I don't know how, Cox understands how to get the players to perform over a 162 game season. He's not as good come the postseason for whatever reason. Rob Neyer at ESPN.com has noted that baseball is the only sport in which the game's postseason does NOT mirror the regular season. Playing small ball matters more in the postseason than the regular season (something I don't think the baseball sabremetricians appreciate). You have a 3 man rotation instead of 5 man. You tend to use your closers and setup guys for 2-inning stretches instead of 1. It's a genuinely different game. So, what you got to the postseason may not work when the postseason starts. So, Cox is clearly not Joe Torre. But, on this list, he's definately in the top 25 (probably #20 or #21).

OK, enough of Bobby Cox. What else did I dislike about the list? Don Shula doesn't belong. By the criteria Stuart Scott mentioned, he does not belong. He did not achieve his greatest accomplishments during the 25 years between 1979-2004. He went to two Super Bowls and lost, in one case badly. He's the only one on the list who did not win some sort of championship during the 25 year period. Clearly he's on the list for his career accomplishments. He's the NFL's leader in victories, many of which were achieved during those 25 years. But, his "greatest" accomplishments were not achieved during those 25 years. His greatest accomplishments would be the 3 Super Bowls he won with the Colts & Dolphins 6 years before ESPN ever hit the air waves. His GREATEST accomplishment would have to be the 1972 season, where his team went undefeated. Again, that's 7 years before the ESPN era. Shula is on the list simply because ESPN's panel wanted to give a career achievement nod and ignore their own rules. That would be fine if they said so, but they didn't.

I don't think Steve Spurrier should be on the list or at least not ranked higher than some coaches left off the list, especially after he failed so spectacularly in the NFL. He won one NCAA championship and a handful of SEC championships. He made Florida a national contender, which it was not before. He had a unique high powered offense. But, outside of his high profile trash talking, is he really better than Phil Fulmer at Tennessee, or Lou Holtz or any of the Miami coaches not included on the list? I don't know. Just asking.

Eddie Robinson, of Grambling, also got the career achievement treatment. He has coached for 50 years. He has coached several future NFL hall of famers. None of these were in the last 25 years. He has won 8 black college championships, three in the last 25 years. I don't mean to be politically incorrect, but three black college championships in the last 25 years is no better than winning multiple WAC championships. Since the big schools, particularly the southern schools, started accepting black athletes, then they got the lion's share of quality talent. I'm sure there are a few Division I capable players who attend Grambling because of it's heritage and Robinson's reputation, but I simply don't see his accomplishments in the 25 years as being comparable to the other guys on the list. If ESPN hadn't defined what the list was supposed to be at the beginning of the show, I wouldn't have the problem of giving Robinson his due (or Shula or Paterno). And Robinson is credited as being a molder of men, a teacher, as much as a coach. That's great. That's important. But, he's not the only one who does that. His longevity is admirable. I just don't put it in the same class of "coaching" as the other guys on the list.

Lastly, my biggest problem with the list is Bill Walsh at #6. That, not to put to fine a point on it, is a joke. He should be #1. He would be #2 at worst. No single person (outside of Paul Tagliabue) has had a bigger impact on the NFL in the last 25 years. Hell, in the entire history of the NFL, he's probably in the top 5 in terms of the impact on the game. He won three Super Bowls. He turned a perennial doormat in San Fran into a perennial powerhouse during nearly the entire ESPN era. His West Coast offense has remained the scheme du jour for much of the last 25 years. Around a 4th of NFL coaches hired the last few years are either one or two degrees separated from Bill Walsh (they worked for him, or worked for a Walsh protégé like Mike Holmgren or Dennis Green). What's coaching if it's not teaching others how to coach. He innovated the passing game from a down field home run style play to a ball control offense that is perfectly balanced between running and passing. As I said before, NFL football is the most complicated sport to successfully coach in my opinion. And Walsh has clearly been the best of the last 25 years.

I have plenty of respect for Dean Smith and Coach K. I certainly believe they are top 10 and probably top 5. I believe the sport they coach has a pro-level of difficulty and competitiveness. Their sustained excellence is impressive. But, job security on a college campus, particularly when you've had any success is much higher than in the pro game. You get a longer leash to prove your methods are correct and occasional failure is more forgivable. And they both get credit for recruiting quality players with high character. Dean Smith's 95% graduation rate is astonishing as is Coach K's winning percentage in the most difficult conference in the country. And both have spawned other successful coaches. But, it's not Bill Walsh. It's not the NFL.

OK, without further ado, here are MY top 25 coaches of the last 25 years (i.e. the ESPN era).

1. Bill Walsh
2. Scotty Bowman - I know nothing about hockey, but he won 9 Stanley Cups with 3 teams. Nearly all of them were in the last 25 years. I don't think any other hockey coach is even close.
3. Phil Jackson - Yes, he had Jordon, Kobe and Shaq. Yes, he picked his situations. But other coaches had the same players and did NOT win.
4. Jimmy Johnson - Won an NCAA championship at Miami. Won 2 Super Bowls. Completely reconstructed the Cowboys from a 1-15 doormat back to America's team. Barry Switzer's Super Bowl victory with the same team also should be credited to Johnson. NOTE: I hate the Cowboys.
5. Mike Krzyzewski (a.k.a. Coach K) - The level of success in the 25 year period is amazing. Plays in the toughest conference in America. Still succeeds with players leaving early.
6. Dean Smith - An all timer. Won 2 championships. Smith protégé’s Larry Brown is also on the list and Roy Williams would be if he could win the big one.
7. Pat Riley - coached Lakers to several championships (I think they beat Bird's Celtics and Dr. J's Sixers to get those rings). Made the Knicks and Heat respectable.
8. Joe Gibbs - Now we get to see if he can do it in the salary cap era.
9. Joe Torre - Yes, his owner spends way more than everybody else. But, he just wins. Steady as they go. They are never out of any game. I hate the Yankees, but I respect the hell out of Joe Torre (and he's a former Brave!)
10. Bobby Bowden - Made Florida State a football powerhouse. He's all time winningest coach in Division I and he did that almost entirely in the last 25 years. He puts as many quality players into the NFL as anyone.
11. Bill Parcells. He just wins. Of course, as good as he is, he hasn't won a Super Bowl convincingly since '87. He won in '91 because of his opponents missing a field goal. Still, everywhere he goes, he turns bad teams into Super Bowl contenders.
12. Pat Summit - She's in the basketball Hall of Fame for good reason.
13. Larry Brown - Won championships at the college and pro level. Turned several bad teams into title contenders (and he made the Clippers a playoff team). And coached the biggest upset in a very long time this past year. His team actually caused me to watch 2 full NBA games for the first time in years.
14. Tom Osborne - Coached the only sport that mattered in Nebraska. Now he's in Congress!
15. Joe Paterno - 2 championships during the time period, though I worry he's not going to retire gracefully.
16. Bob Knight - A true bastard. But, a bastard who wins (or at least used to). And most former players will swear by him (Stockholme syndrome probably).
17. Jim Calhoun - How he wasn't on the list I still don't know. Was UConn anything when he wasn't their?
18. Geno Auriemma - UConn women keep winning and seem to go undefeated. That's all I know.
19. Al Arbour – Won several Stanley Cups with the New York Islanders. I’ll trust EPSN on this one.
20. Bill Belichick - Won 2 Super Bowls with the Patriots and without the star QB he inherited. He is commonly referred to as the best defensive mind in the game. He has his team perfectly positioned to win a 3rd Super Bowl. All this, in the salary cap forced parity era. Dynasties were supposedly dead. His team is as close to a dynasty as we have in the NFL. And, oh yeah, most of those great Bill Parcell's Teams? He was Defensive Coordinator when they were winning.
21. Bobby Cox - I've said enough about him already. He belongs. Trust me.
22. Tony LaRussa - I've probably said enough about him too.
23. Dick Vermeal - Tears and all. Has taken 2 teams to Super Bowls, one of which was an NFL joke when he came their. He mastered the most explosive offensive scheme since the West Coast offense in St. Louis. And he is now duplicating it in Kansas City.
24. Steve Spurrier - OK, I'll leave him on the list. Still, let's revile in the thought: "Steve Spurrier - NFL Flunkie."
25. Bela Karolyi - I'll leave him on the list. I won't comment on the validity of his sport (which is judged). But, he has coached several American Olympic medalist over several Olympics. That's something I suppose.

Please rant freely in the comments. If you made it this far, I thank you for your patience. There’s nothing like a good ol' sports debate.

Comments

[40_llamas]

1. Bear Bryant – I know what you’re thinking, but his last championship was in 1979 which happens to be within the last 25 years. Yes, I know he died in ’83, but you have to give a nod to his unique ability to coach from beyond the grave. The paychecks may say Mike Shula, but come on; we know who’s really coaching.
2. Mike Ditka – If you guys are going to bend the “25 year rule” then I can to. Besides, he was a great subject on SNL in the 90’s (or was that the 80’s –eek).
3. Jerry Tarkanian – He cheated, we know he cheated –but he got away with it somehow.
4. Frank Beamer – Speaking of getting away with it. How are you (money) going to (money) convince a top athlete (money) to play (money) in Blacksburg, VA (aka. the middle of nowhere -oh, and money) over Southern CA, et al (money).
5. Peter Nowak – [Coach of DC United, that’s a soccer team; MLS, you know.] Pete stepped in and improved our record from Last place in 2003 to …well second to last place in 2004. But you’re supposed to rout for your hometown coaches, so there he is.
6. Joe Gibbs – speaking of hometown coaches. They say he was really good once and everyone here is excited. Whatever, we’ll still loose to the freeking cowboys.
7. Chris Carmichael – [coach of Tour de France champ Lance Armstrong] This one may have to come off if the doping rumors are untrue
8. Michelle Kwan – She’s her own coach, dude. Hey, I’ll have you know that figure skating is the number three spectator sport in the world and a very respectable one at that.

And that’s all you get because I was doing research on Olympians and ran across this story and couldn’t continue:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/espn25/story?page=moments/94

[T-Mo]

Honorable Mentions:
Jack Mckeon- fired from the lowley Reds, picked up by FLA and wins World Series. Good story if nothing else (see Eddie Robinson)
Rick Pitino- Providence Final 4 appearance - Knicks turnaround- takes UK from NOTHING, then .500 team, then to the greatest game in CBB history and a near-miss to Final 4. Final 4 next year, Title in 96, overtime loss in Title game in '97 and Title in 98 (Tubby Smith coached, but effectively his team) Seven 20+ win seasons out of Eight with UK(Three 30+ win seasons included) Three Final 4 (2 seasons of probation early on). Falls prey to "college-to-pro Bust" (see Spurrier) We don't talk about his accomplishments at the junior college of Kentucky.
(Can you tell yet that I like UK?)
Tommy Lasorda- 2 World Series titles (1981,88) in 4 appearances- 2000 Olympic Gold Medal manager- Slim Fast Spokesman (what more do you need?)
Pete Rose- 87% correct on over-under bets placed on the Reds- Gamblers Anynomous "1986 Most Successful Failure" award winner- 3 consectutive "Cincinnati Inner-City Blackjack Champion"- Record 7 straight trifecta "hits" at Turfway Park.

[Marty Douglas]

First, let me agree with the Chicken Man on Bobby Cox. I have never said he was not a great manager only that he has been out-coached by even better managers in the World Series and Playoffs and that this "out-coaching" has lost Atlanta world championships they should have won.

My major gripe; Womens' Sports? Soccer played in the USA? Give me a break. These sports do not have the competitive environment of the big money sports and should not be included, you can argue with me all you want to. You stand a better chance of getting me to vote Democrat than you do getting me to consider a coach in one of these sports for this list. I am not saying they are not competive sports its just like Chicken said one or two teams ususally dominate and get all the great players. None of them have the huge following that leads to the amount of athletes that compete for the college/pro level like the big sports do.

On the same level I understand putting college and pro coaches in the big time sports on this list but I am not entirely comfortable with that either. First do you rank coaches in college based on winning or on graduating and preparing the players for life after the sport. My personal opinion is that the guys that do both should get top billing Holtz, Dean Smith etc. In the pros it's all about winning.

So what am I saying, yes, I agree with our faithful pundit on Bobby, ugh. The womens' and secondary sports, get them out they do not belong. A womens' basketball coach in the same list with Joe Gibbs and Joe Torre, give me a break. If we include these sports where are the great Rugby coaches from the schools in the North East. What about Harvard's rowing team's coach? I remember one time a college table tennis team was coming to the University of Alabama for a demonstration and that they had never lost a match. And for you soccer fans out there don't even try that one. It has never caught on in the USA and it never ever will because it is B. O. R. I. N. G. BORING!!!! Did I just relate soccer to Ping Pong? Yes, are the same athletically of course not, but come on to include a soccer coach and Bill Walsh in the same list? That is totally absurd.

ESPN should change their letters to PCAAN the Politically Correct Athletes Apologist Network. Their constant bias towards to teams in the North East is more than blatant and to quote Snake Davis on WGST, they are constantly toweling DNA off their faces after they interview cotroversial athletes that deserve hard questions AKA Ray Lewis.

I was going to make a list but I am not up on history and stats like the Great Chicken and his list probably reflects what I would put other than the exclusions I mentioned above. I will get a huge argument here but if one championship is enough and we are mixing college and pro, where is Gene Stallings (you can't see me but I am holding up my hand acting like Kramer to keep you from going off at me)? What he did with his tenure at the University of Alabama was amazing. He won a National Championship with defense in the day of the Fun and Gun. He took a team over that was in shambles because of Alumni interference and in just a few years embarressed a Miami team that might as well have been playing on Sundays instead of Saturday. I think he was also was .500 against Spurrier who is on the list. The fact that a Womens' Basketball coach makes the list and a former Junction Boy with a National Championship under his belt is not shows that ESPN is more concerned about being politically correct than really evaluating sports.

[Sean Kestler]

Well, the cincinnati kid would like to make a few comments regarding this issue. I did not see the show nor remember everybody that was on the list, but do recall some key people that should be on and off. Bobby Cox has been consistent for along time and should be ahead of Tony Larussa. It may be stretching the 25 year mark but Sparky Anderson won in 84 with the Tigers, should I repeat the Motor City Kitties. He has three world series rings and a winning percentage of .545. He's also the only manager to record 500 wins in each league and a world series ring in each league. However, the 25 year criteria might have kept him off the list.
Russ, you spoke of Iowa's Dan Gable and said he should'nt be on. I think he does because the professional level is where the elite are and i don't consider the WWE OR NWA as professional wrestling. College wrestling is real and not rehearsed. He's a motivator and a winner and earns his place on the list. Thanks for listening, the Braves are for real once again, simply amazing!! Later K

[Darren]

Very well-reasoned and thought-out opinion on ESPN's list. The omission of Bobby Cox from the list is glaring, as you noted. Keep up the good work!

[Derek]

you are retarded thinking Dan Gable should be taken off the list, you obviously are not versed well enough in all sports to know what you are talking about

[John]

Very nice site. Will sure visit again.

[Dissertation Examples]

Blogs are so interactive where we get lots of informative on any topics nice job keep it up !!