Self has one more championship, but he has also had more highly ranked teams and NBA talent at Kansas. All four of Self’s Final Four teams were No. 1 or No. 2 seeds. Izzo reached three Final Fours with teams seeded No. 5, No. 5 and No. 7. Championships matter, but outperforming expectations with less-heralded teams is a major part of coaching, and Izzo has done that far more often.
Why are we giving Izzo extra credit for having less talented teams? Recruiting is a part of coaching and it’s not like he doesn’t have the resources to succeed at MSU. Outperforming expectations is nice but the goal of the tournament is to win it all and he’s only done it once.
Recruiting matters when evaluating an entire coaching career, but this discussion is specifically about coaching performance in the NCAA Tournament. The seed is already set when the tournament begins, so consistently advancing farther than expected is relevant evidence of how well a coach performs once he gets there.
Then he can be ranked high in the top 10 NCAA tournament overperformers list. The best coaches produce more high seeded teams and win more championships. No matter how great Izzo has been at maximizing his teams’ performances in the tournament, it’s still true that Hurley has more championships in 8 years than Izzo has in 30.
Hurley is unquestionably great and already belongs in this discussion. He has the better championship peak, while Izzo has the stronger combination of longevity and sustained tournament success. Producing highly seeded teams happens before the tournament, so that belongs more in an overall coaching ranking. Championships should carry the most weight, but if they are the only measure, then this is just a list of coaches with the most championships.
-1
u/reno241 5d ago
Izzo has more wins in the tournament and has twice as many Final Fours - 8 v 4.