People wouldn't all vote for the same 10. This would probably give you a list of over 200, depending upon the number of users polled.

I wouldn't use voting, it would favor people who post on the forums (or discount coaches who post on the forums, but are disliked). I've wished Wis would have done something like this, give old-timers something to shoot for. Maybe an initial class of 15 or so, then a couple additions every month. Then there could be a running discussion of who deserves to be put in next.

I have a title in each division and am better looking then the other HD coaches. Should amount to something.

TK did post a list of overall winning % leaders (active and non-active, I believe) a year or two ago.

And pork, being good-looking in Kentucky simply means you're the most coveted date to your family reunion.

I really don't think a user-voted approach is the way to go. Some people follow what other coaches do closely and some don't, so it would be skewed. How much perspective does a coach have when he's been at one school in one division for his entire HD career? Or how much does one have if they jumped to DI early in their HD careers and have never coached below that level since?

In my opinion, you need to use some form of statistical approach, that is based mostly on postseason success. I mean, that's why were here, right, to make it to the NT and win a championship. I don't think it needs to be based on the number of titles won, because that certainly isn't the only great achievement as a coach, but it should somehow be based on postseason success.

Maybe you could design a point system to tally a coach's postseason success (32 points for NT title, 16 for final game appearance, 8 for elite 8, etc). You could then divide the postseason points by the number of seasons played, because as someone pointed out, you can't disadvantage someone because they don't carry teams in 7 or 8 worlds.

Good idea on fussy, but he won't have access to worlds that the coach doesn't have an active team in. For instance, I've had a team in every world, but I don't believe he can see my E8/F4 appearances in Wooden.

I think we could do a vote and one based on a system. Obviously we will all have different views based on whom we play and know. this way we have to views. There will always be arguments but some are going to be obvious like or, gillespe, lostmyth, combalt etc. The only problem is there are worlds that are not as strong as others and how do you weigh that. like d3 iba and rupp are weak right now but 10 seasons ago? Like comparing mikan to shaq is it really possible.

davey - when I go into a company to improve operations, I first look at data that exists, before I try to invent new data. I looked at world 1 and applied various sorts to the 'alltime' coach's information. I think there is more than enough information to arrive at an alltime list in these sorts based on world, especially if you know how to move info from those sorts into excel.

I did look at all ten worlds, but looked at world 1 in some detail. One immediate observation, those coaches who stayed in d2 / d3 would kill those coaches who moved to d1, with a few exceptions

By the way, just looking at those 3 criteria (nt's won, ccoy won, and ct's won) comes up with some pretty compelling top all time coaches in each world. Also, the name Oldresorter does not pop up on any of the sorts I used, except in world 8, so I am not trying to lobby for a method that might favor myself.

the nice thing about this suggestion, is it could be written into a ticket once you trouble shot it, and HD could maintain a list, and possible break it into ten season increments (generations or eras) and into divisions (d1,d2,d3).

I did a quick look and without weighting anything, using info available & using a formula I made up, my top 3 world 1 coaches were mswilson, barretchap, and joehall - a weighting of national titles would bring combalt and clone into the discussion mighty quickly.

I think he means two ranking schemes: 1) based on a vote, and 2) based on a system (stats).

fussy,

you make some good points, though i am still undecided on whether a vote might be an interesting starting point.

i tend to agree that postseason stuff is the thing to focus on.

one thing you say at the end is something i have struggled over a bit... do you divide point totals (or nt wins or whatever) by number of seasons played? the problem there is that you could have someone who has not played the game that long... maybe 20 seasons or so. and he is very good and catches on fast and maybe gets a bit of luck on his side and next thing you know, he's got two NT's and might very likely vault to the top of the list. and, i dont know about you guys, but my intention is to select out those folks who have been really good for a real long time.

that leads us into the discussion of whether this is an "all-time" list.... or a "best of a generation" list like OR has suggested above... or a list that ranks players based on something like the last full calender year, or the last 10 seasons (if we are going world by world). might be nice to do both at some point.

I think the coaches should be ranked alphabetically

OD I meant 2 systems one a group vote and one based on a system. And how do you seprate those who have long term or past success to those that are currently succesful its a fine line. I am open to what ever you do. I do not belong but would love to give my .02

good stuff OR, as usual.

i do agree that the all time lists in each world (which, unfortunately, i dont have access to, maybe i would need to collaborate with a couple of other coaches ?) is a good starting point.

but one of the things i am leaning towrads more and more is seperating out a coaches accomplishments in each division. and that is where the existing compiled data fails me.

i guess the problem is that if i dont use existing data, then the list would be very time consuming. which is a bit of a problem for the first "edition" of the top100 (or whatever), but for subsequent lists i think it would just get more and more difficult to maintain. so i guess im stuck there a bit.

but no worries, i'll get unstuck and plow ahead momentarily. by the way.. thanks for all the feedback fellas!

Quote: Originally Posted By brianp87 on 11/06/2009 OD I meant 2 systems one a group vote and one based on a system. And how do you seprate those who have long term or past success to those that are currently succesful its a fine line. I am open to what ever you do. I do not belong but would love to give my .02

oh okay, yeah, that makes sense