Bobby Hurley is a 1000% better basketball mind than Steve Lavin. That cannot be argued. His pedigree is outstanding. Is he experienced? No. Have his results so far been impressive? Yes. Would I trust him running my team? Absolutely.
His results prove nothing. What results, he is 25-11 in a 1 bid conference? What pedigree? The one that has led Johnny Dawkins to 7 nondescript years at Stanford. How about Quinn Snyder? How about Tommy Amaker? Cut and ran from SHU and then spent what 6 years at Michigan failing to make 1 NCAA.
Please.
Comparing bobby Hurley to the other former dukies you mentioned is silly.
The other guys you mentioned were all long time assistants under coach K whose FIRST coaching gig was in a big time conference. None of them worked themselves up the ladder without the help of coach K so it is possible they got better jobs than they deserved solely because of coach Ks success.
Bobby worked under his brother at Wagner and URI and then his first head coaching job was at buffalo. He rolled up his sleeves. He's proven himself on his own.
That's the first thing that should give you more confidence that bobby will not be like them.
And for the record amaker seems like a great coach. I think if another big time job came his way that he wanted he would succeed.
First off he used the term pedigree. That means Duke and Coach K, guy.
Secondly you made my other point. The idea that 2 years at a 1 bid mid major gives you the warm and fuzzies as opposed to coaching directly at a major, congrats.
He has barely recruited his own players and has not graduated one of his own recruits.
Right he is so much more qualified because he coached 2 years at Buffalo then Dawkins is now at Stanford. Right.
By the way how do you explain Amaker at Michigan after SHU?
It boggles my mind when seemingly intelligent people who have seen the Amazing job amaker has done at Harvard somehow think Michigan proves he can't hack it.
First, amaker took over a terrible team. Second, in amakers second year there, Michigan self imposed probation and sanctions due to the Ed Martin scandal. Then the NCAA doubled those penalties so it appeared 2003-04 would be no playoffs either. It was later overturned. How easy do you think recruiting was during that time? Even the posters who were the biggest anti norm guys gave him a bit of a break his first few years. Amaker didn't know he was going to be coaching at a school w all those sanctions and probation. It happened in year 2. If anyone deserves a reprieve on their head coaching stint at a major school it's tommy amaker and Michigan. Come on, "guy".
Next, I didn't realize the term pedigree meant coach K. Wait it doesn't, and in this instance it would be referring to his father, his brother, and coach K. And whatever he meant it, Hurley was never an assistant at Duke like the guys you mentioned. You know who else wasnt an assistant at Duke before coaching? Current Duke assiatant Jeff Capel who succeeded at VCU and then has an elite 8 run at Oklahoma. Why'd you leave him out? He also has the pedigree from his own father and brother. If anyone would be a good Hurley comparison from Duke its him.
Finally I never said bobby Hurley is more qualified than Johnny Dawkins. If you are looking for a respectable mediocre coach who will get you to a sweet 16/ncaa once every five years Johnny is your guy. Not too dissimilar from coach lavin.
Bobby is all about projecting potential. Same with Danny. Guys like lavin and Dawkins have already proven their ceiling isn't annual ncaa appearances and extremely well coached teams.
Do you really not get the difference?