Terry_Tate;1584851 wrote:The best way to put it is Bo Ryan has NEVER beaten a top 4 seed at Wisconsin. Not one single time in 12 years has Wisconsin beaten a "top 16" team in the NCAA tournament. Duke doesn't usually beat teams seeded above them because they are almost always a 1 or 2 seed. Sometimes a 3 seed but Duke has had way fewer chances than Wisconsin. Bo Ryan is 0-6 against teams seeded 4 or better.

I'd call a lot of that the side effect of, as has been said, his desire to go after 4-year guys instead of athletes. That's great for getting wins in the early/mid season because you'll have the experience and cohesiveness. But if you have great athletes and a reasonably decent coach, those teams will gain experience and get cohesive together as the season goes on, so by the postseason, the experienced team's edge in that category is lessened...but the more athletic team will still have that advantage.

Since Coach K's been brought up as a comparison, there's probably a reason why, after going so long being reluctant to chase guys who are looking at the 1-and-done approach to playing in college, he's embraced it. You just can't win titles with a group of 3/4-year strong fundamental guys who are lacking in overall physical ability in today's game, it seems. You either roll the dice and hope those 5-star hotshots can bond and make it a special season or you peak at being a good regional power that probably will need a good draw and/or upsets in their bracket to make it past the Sweet 16.

The best way to put it is Bo Ryan has NEVER beaten a top 4 seed at Wisconsin. This is a decent criteria for gauging Ryan's tournament prowess.

Prescott;1584821 wrote:I am not sure that this is correct criteria for judging Ryan.The same could be said for many coaches who are considered good , if not great tournament coaches.

Most, me included, consider Coach K to be a great tournament coach. His titles prove that. His teams have failed to live up to their seed in many tournaments.I went back 10 years and checked Duke's tournament record.As a #2 seed they have lost to a #15(Lehigh),#3('Nova),and a #7(WVU). As a #1 seed they have lost to #5 twice('Zona)(Sparty), a #4 seed(LSU) and a #2(no biggie). As a #6 seed Duke lost to a 11 seed(VCU).

Defeating a higher seed is tough when your team is always seeded in the top 20 or so.I think many coaches fall under this umbrella of failure.

This is actually an excellent point. As great a tournament coach as Coach K has been over his career, due to his tremendous regular-season success, Duke hasn't beaten a higher seed in the NCAA Tournament in 20 years. Duke's last win over a higher came in 1994 against Purdue. As Ahdonis said, it's hard to beat seeds higher than you when you ​are the higher seed so often.

Bo Ryan's tournament seeds and results.

2013: 5 (0-1)
2012: 4 (2-1)
2011: 4 (2-1)
2010: 4 (1-1)
2009: 12 (1-1)
2008: 3 (2-1)
2007: 2 (1-1)
2006: 9 (0-1)
2005: 6 (3-1)
2004: 6 (1-1)
2003: 5 (2-1)
2002: 8 (1-1)

So, upon closer examination, we see that Ryan, relative to Wisconsin's seedings over the years, has pretty much won and lost the games that he was supposed to, thus coaching to the level of expectations most seasons. And in some cases (i.e. the 2005 Elite Eight trip as a 6 seed) even outperformed expectations.

Heretic;1584873 wrote:Since Coach K's been brought up as a comparison, there's probably a reason why, after going so long being reluctant to chase guys who are looking at the 1-and-done approach to playing in college, he's embraced it. You just can't win titles with a group of 3/4-year strong fundamental guys who are lacking in overall physical ability in today's game, it seems. You either roll the dice and hope those 5-star hotshots can bond and make it a special season or you peak at being a good regional power that probably will need a good draw and/or upsets in their bracket to make it past the Sweet 16.

Unlike Coach K, I'm not sure Ryan has the luxury of deciding what types of players he wants to target. Wisconsin, despite its great success, is not exactly a basketball factory -- and North Pole South is not an attractive destination, either. Ultimately, the major difference between guys like K and Bill Self and Roy Williams and a guy like Bo Ryan is that the first three are in a position to consistently recruit 5-star talent. While they might still underperform in the NCAAs some years, over time that talent has won out enough to achieve some amazing post-season results.

Bottom line, Bo Ryan has performed in the NCAA Tournament about how one would have expected him to given his seedings and the caliber of his teams.

reclegend22;1585035 wrote:

This is actually an excellent point. As great a tournament coach as Coach K has been over his career, due to his tremendous regular-season success, Duke hasn't beaten a higher seed in the NCAA Tournament in 20 years. Duke's last win over a higher came in 1994 against Arkansas. As Ahdonis said, it's hard to beat seeds higher than you when you ​are the higher seed so often.

Bo Ryan's tournament seeds and results.

2013: 5 (0-1)
2012: 4 (2-1)
2011: 4 (2-1)
2010: 4 (1-1)
2009: 12 (1-1)
2008: 3 (2-1)
2007: 2 (1-1)
2006: 9 (0-1)
2005: 6 (3-1)
2004: 6 (1-1)
2003: 5 (2-1)
2002: 8 (1-1)

So, upon closer examination, we see that Ryan, relative to Wisconsin's seedings over the years, has pretty much won and lost the games that he was supposed to, thus coaching to the level of expectations most seasons. And in some cases (i.e. the 2005 Elite Eight trip as a 6 seed) even outperformed expectations.




Unlike Coach K, I'm not sure Ryan has the luxury of deciding what types of players he wants to target. Wisconsin, despite its great success, is not exactly a basketball factory -- and North Pole South is not an attractive destination, either. Ultimately, the major difference between guys like K and Bill Self and Roy Williams and a guy like Bo Ryan is that the first three are in a position to consistently recruit 5-star talent. While they might still underperform in the NCAAs some years, over time that talent has won out enough to achieve some amazing post-season results.

That E8 trip isn't that impressive. They beat 3 double digit seeds.

I agree that it's tough to beat higher seeded teams, but it isn't like he has them as 1/2 every year. He has had ample chances to beat good teams in March. It's been 12 years and he has been a 2 seed once. While
it is impressive to "do what you are supposed to do" not advancing further at all is concerning IMO. A resume like that in thre regular season with no success in March would have him fired really quick at A LOT of schools...not just the blue bloods.

Lol I think its hilarious Ryan has ONE elite eight appearance

SportsAndLady;1585039 wrote:Lol I think its hilarious Ryan has ONE elite eight appearance

You are totally missing the point, but again, based on tournament seedings and quality of his talent, Ryan has actually done a fair job of meeting -- and even surpassing -- expectations.

reclegend22;1585043 wrote:You are totally missing the point, but again, based on tournament seedings and quality of his talent, Ryan has actually done a fair job of meeting -- and even surpassing -- expectations.

I'm not debating that. I think he's a good coach. Just crazy when you think about that.

reclegend22;1585043 wrote:You are totally missing the point, but again, based on tournament seedings and quality of his talent, Ryan has actually done a fair job of meeting -- and even surpassing -- expectations.

Not really though...

SportsAndLady;1585045 wrote:I'm not debating that. I think he's a good coach. Just crazy when you think about that.

I would agree that it's surprising he's only been to one Elite Eight, for as great a coach he is. But when the numbers are broken down and the caliber of his players are considered, it at least makes more sense.

Like most coaches, there is no doubt that Ryan's many successes have also been met with some disappointments.

Laley23;1585048 wrote:Not really though...

Bo Ryan's tournament seeds and results.

2013: 5 (0-1)
2012: 4 (2-1)
2011: 4 (2-1)
2010: 4 (1-1)
2009: 12 (1-1)
2008: 3 (2-1)
2007: 2 (1-1)
2006: 9 (0-1)
2005: 6 (3-1)
2004: 6 (1-1)
2003: 5 (2-1)
2002: 8 (1-1)

For the most part, I would say he's done a fair job of meeting expectations. So, in that respect, it is inaccurate to label Ryan a bad or unprepared tournament coach. At worst, he's been average. Relatively speaking, however, Ryan has done what is expected of him and his teams.

Look at the seeds of who he has played. You can't just go off of rounds advanced. I'm not impressed with his E8 run at all. He beat 3 double digit seeds.

reclegend22;1585049 wrote:I would agree that it's surprising he's only been to one Elite Eight, for as great a coach he is. But when the numbers are broken down and the caliber of his players are considered, it at least makes more sense.

Like most coaches, there is no doubt that Ryan's many successes have also been met with some disappointments.

This is becoming tiresome. How are his players of bad caliber when they constantly win all season long???

Laley23;1585053 wrote:Look at the seeds of who he has played. You can't just go off of rounds advanced. I'm not impressed with his E8 run at all. He beat 3 double digit seeds.

You keep mentioning this, but I don't find that to mean as much as you seem to inference.

Take Billy Donovan's last two Elite Eight runs, for instance. They came against a combination of 10, 15, 3, 14, 11 and 15 seeds. Should we disregard those appearances simply because he faced so many lower seeds? I certainly don't.

I'm too lazy to do the research, but I'd bet that many more examples of a similar nature can be found.

reclegend22;1585057 wrote:You keep mentioning this, but I don't find that to mean as much as you seem to inference.

Take Billy Donovan's last two Elite Eight runs, for instance. They came against a combination of 10, 15, 3, 14, 11 and 15 seeds. Should we disregard those appearances simply because he faced so many lower seeds? I certainly don't.

I'm too lazy to due the research, but I'd bet that many more examples of a similar nature can be found.

I guess it depends on what has happened in the past...

Billy Donovan has proven himself already. No Ryan has not. Until he does, I just can't get past his lackluster performances.

As for Floridas last two runs, no, not really impressive. I would say it would've been bad had Florida lost before the E8 to those teams (not the 3 seed game)

And let's not act like these kinda if players/teams can't make runs. It happens all the time. Go zags has better success. Wisconsin BEFORE Ryan made it to a final four. Butler recently. Davidson (though Steph is just a freak). Lots of teams without any athletes or 5*s make runs. Bo hasn't had one in 12 years, unless you count a year he beat 3 double digit seeds.

Laley23;1585055 wrote:This is becoming tiresome. How are his players of bad caliber when they constantly win all season long???

I have already answered this in previous posts and I have never once claimed Ryan to have "bad" players. What I have said is that he doesn't consistently field the kinds of teams with elite, five-star talent that are often required to advance to Final Fours and win national championships, which is a good explanation for why why he's never done so.

See my post addressed to you on the other page if you want a more in-depth response. I am also tired of this argument. Neither of us are going to budge, so once again, we will agree to disagree.

Laley23;1585062 wrote:And let's not act like these kinda if players/teams can't make runs. It happens all the time. Go zags has better success. Wisconsin BEFORE Ryan made it to a final four. Butler recently. Davidson (though Steph is just a freak). Lots of teams without any athletes or 5*s make runs. Bo hasn't had one in 12 years, unless you count a year he beat 3 double digit seeds.

You have just pointed out that there are exceptions to every rule. They are, however, exceptions.

reclegend22;1585065 wrote:You have just pointed out that there are exceptions to every rule. They are, however, exceptions.

And you don't find it a bit odd that the most consistent and best of that type of team isn't one of those exceptions...not once??

It doesn't matter. When Wisconsin losses this year in the 2nd round you will be on our side.

Laley23;1585075 wrote:And you don't find it a bit odd that the most consistent and best of that type of team isn't one of those exceptions...not once??

It doesn't matter. When Wisconsin losses this year in the 2nd round you will be on our side.

He actually was an exception to the rule once. In 2005, when he went to the Elite Eight as a six seed. (Yes, yes, I know, he beat a bunch of 16 seeds to get there).

And we shall see!

Laley23;1585075 wrote:And you don't find it a bit odd that the most consistent and best of that type of team isn't one of those exceptions...not once??

It doesn't matter. When Wisconsin losses this year in the 2nd round you will be on our side.

So true. Wisconsin, Missouri, Gonzaga, and whatever team Steve Alford is coaching are the easiest ones to predict in the tournament.

UNLV and Georgetown are IMO the easiest of all, especially considering the court jesters they currently have running their teams.

Knew I was forgetting Georgetown. By far the easiest there, can't believe I forgot about them. It would suck to be a Georgetown fan in March.

Terry_Tate;1585102 wrote:It would suck to be a Georgetown fan in March.

It would be like being a Browns fan in January-December.

If you beat a few teams that pulled upsets into the elite 8.... You did a better job of coaching than the coaches that lost to those same teams.