OT: Worst coach to ever win a major championship?

Submitted by M-Wolverine on

I had on the radio, and they were kind of making fun of Doc Rivers, who won an NBA Championship as coach of the Celtics. And it got me to thinking....who IS the worst coach to ever win a major championship...who can't you believe got a ring...?  Their team had to be really good to carry him (or her), or the competition had to collapse and open the way, something happened that this person won one or more championships coaching their team...but you never felt they were particularly good at it.  

I'm thinking winning it all, in any sport...not someone lucks into a Big Ten Championship because they don't play Michigan or Ohio State that year...really accomplished something.  But still having very little to do with that accomplishment.  Who would you nominate, who drives you crazy that they've won it all?

kdhoffma

May 7th, 2010 at 5:14 PM ^

Larry Coker was the first name that popped into my head.  Lucked into being able to coach that 2001 Miami team... Matt Millen could have guided that team to a National Title.

Beavis

May 7th, 2010 at 5:59 PM ^

Switzer has a winning record at least. 

You can make the talent argument all you want, but he still has a winning record.

There are coaches out there that have won championships but have LOSING records.  So all this "Les Miles, Sweatervest, Larry Coker, Barry Switzer" stuff is garbage.

If you want to talk just football, then yeah I see it.  But basketball expands the horizons greatly.  Just look at Paul Westhead.

[Edit: Westhead is one of five NBA coaches with championships with losing records throughout their career, two of the five are super old and probably don't matter, but Dick Motta (Wash - '78), Westhead (LA - '80), and Bill Fitch (Bos - '81) all did it.  Aka the poo-poo platter for the NBA.  I say Westhead is worst because he had Magic and had the worst career record of the three.]

Beavis

May 7th, 2010 at 6:02 PM ^

Agreed - anyone who said Switzer should be negged into oblivion. 

Why?

HE WON THREE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS IN COLLEGE FOOTBALL!!! And a Super Bowl!  Who cares whose players he did it with.  Four championships. 

Also, the question wasn't "What NFL or college football head coach is the worst to win a championship?".  It was about all sports in general. 

snowcrash

May 7th, 2010 at 6:18 PM ^

at least in terms of wins and losses. He was a bad NFL coach. Head coach in the NFL is a very different position from college head coach--you don't need to know how to recruit or manage a bunch of 18-22 year olds, but you need to run more complex schemes and deal with subordinates who often make more money than you do.

He had one good season with the team Jimmy Johnson built, and then things started to unravel. Bill Callahan had one good season with the team Jon Gruden built, but that doesn't make him a successful NFL coach.

Beavis

May 7th, 2010 at 6:25 PM ^

So if he's a good college coach, but a bad NFL coach (yet still won a super bowl) how is he the worst coach to win a championship?

His resume is better than Pete Carroll's and nobody would dare bring up his name.  It seems like this thread has gotten a lot of short-sighted comments.

PurpleStuff

May 7th, 2010 at 6:42 PM ^

Switzer is one of the greatest college coaches of all time (I think he ranks 4th in winning percentage).  He lost 29 games in 16 years at OU, won three national titles, won 7 major bowl games, and finished in the top-ten 12 times.

In four years in the NFL, he won a Super Bowl and won his division three times.  He had one losing season as the players who made up the Cowboys dynasty got old/injured/retired and they haven't been as good at any point since he left as they were with him as the coach. 

Watts Club Moz…

May 7th, 2010 at 8:03 PM ^

Which has more to do with the retirements of Aikman, Emmit and Irvin than it does with Barry Switzer. Read "Boys Will Be Boys" by Jeff Pearlman. The man was an awful coach in Dallas. Winning at OU doesn't change the fact that by the time he was with the Cowboys, he was the worst coach to win a championship.

PurpleStuff

May 7th, 2010 at 8:28 PM ^

The earlier poster said Switzer was "a good college coach."  This is an enormous understatement (he was one of the very best ever).  He also said that Switzer only had one good season in Dallas, which is not true.  In his first year the team went to the NFC championship game and lost to the eventual Super Bowl champions (what I would call a damn good season), in his second they won the Super Bowl (awesome season), and in his third they won their division at 10-6 and won a playoff game (a pretty decent season for most teams).  In his fourth year the team had a losing record with aging players, lots of injuries, and a very combustible locker room situation, and he left. 

Those teams were very talented in Dallas and maybe other coaches could have equaled those accomplishments but I can't think of many who would have surpassed them.  Obviously whatever he was doing worked out pretty well.  For a guy with that level of success at multiple stops, it is going to take more than some sportswriter's opinion to convince me that he was not a very good coach.

DaytonBlue

May 7th, 2010 at 8:48 PM ^

while a great team, was out of control institutionally.  believe they're the only team ever to win the natl championship while on ncaa probabtion.  there were rapes and shootings in the athletics dorms.  he got the kind of help i imagine carroll did out at usc before he ran off to seattle.

Raback Omaba

May 7th, 2010 at 5:20 PM ^

My main hate for Tressel stems from the fact that he is the coach of OSU. Other than that, I think he's proven that he is at least a good, maybe even great coach.

 

You can't argue with the success that he's had...his track record is basically the same as Coach Carr's - Early NC, solid play in conference and Big Ten titles, and then flopping in Bowl games on the national stage. 

 

Sounds like Lloyd Carr's Wolverines, and I thought Carr was a great coach.

jmblue

May 7th, 2010 at 6:01 PM ^

It pains me to say it, but Tressel is better than Carr (and not just because of the head-to-head record).  Tressel won four I-AA national titles.  He has gone on to appear in the I-A national title game three times.  He's a Hall of Fame coach.

WolvinLA2

May 7th, 2010 at 7:31 PM ^

I don't think Tressel is a bad coach at all.  I actually never made a comment at all about Tressel's ability to coach.  I was trying to make a joke about how I didn't want to hear good things about Ohio State (which, like, hello).  If I were to read a blog for Washington State soccer, I could be completely objective, but at the end of the say I'm a Michigan fan and I don't intend to "get over my bias."

I'm sorry if I offended you guys.  I didn't realize throwing in an OSU jab was out of bounds now.  

PurpleStuff

May 7th, 2010 at 6:31 PM ^

Tressel's resume in nine years at OSU: 1 outright national title, a share of 6 Big Ten championships, 7 BCS bowl appearances, 4 BCS bowl wins, 8-1 against UM (including 6-1 against Carr)

Carr's resume in thirteen years at UM: 1 split national title, a share of 5 Big Ten championships, 5 BCS bowl appearances, 2 BCS bowl wins, 6-7 against OSU (including 1-6 against Tressel)

It isn't much of a contest unless you are wearing the most Maize and Blue of glasses.

WolvinLA2

May 7th, 2010 at 6:50 PM ^

I was saying it because, truth or not, you just don't say something like that around here.  I don't hang out in Long Island saying "you know Hitler was actually a really smart guy."

And Lloyd only went to 4 BCS bowls and won 1 (The Brady-Terrell Orange Bowl).  

EDIT:  I'm guessing you were thinking of the 98 Rose Bowl.  That was before the BCS.

maizenbluenation

May 7th, 2010 at 5:16 PM ^

but I would throw Phil Jackson in the mix.  I think I could win championships if I had tandems like MJ and Scottie Pippen or Kobe and Shaq playing for me.  Besides, all of his zen teaching stuff really creeps me out. (I realize he won a title after shaq left)

WolvinLA2

May 7th, 2010 at 5:30 PM ^

Joe Torre I agree with.  He had an all-star line-up and only won the World Series every now and then.  He had the best team in the league for the last 10 years he was there and only won the series once in that stretch.

OTOH, when Phil had an all-star team, he won the title almost every time.

Blue boy johnson

May 7th, 2010 at 7:09 PM ^

Joe Torre managed 4 World Series Champions and came within one win of 4 World Series titles in a row. The Yankees lost twice in the world series during Torre's reign as manager.

Winning at least 3 World Series in a row hadn't been done since the early 70's Oakland A's, and has only been done 2 other times; Yankees (5) in the 50's and (4) in the 30's. Helluva record for the worst coach to ever win a major championship

WolvinLA2

May 7th, 2010 at 7:19 PM ^

But with the lack of salary cap in MLB, there were only a handful of teams each year during Torre's career at NY that could come close to beating the Yanks in a series.  They had the best record either in the AL or the MLB for most of the last decade and had little to show for it until last year.  

My point was that Phil Jackson's teams were loaded with talent, but they won a championship more often than not.  Joe Torre's teams were even more loaded with talent (compared to the opposition) and outside of the 3 in a row in the late 90's, he didn't do much at all.  

He pulled the same stunt last fall in LA.  His team had the best record in the NL (despite playing without Manny for 50 games) and he got smoked in the NLDS.  Not a good coach.

WolvinLA2

May 7th, 2010 at 7:27 PM ^

I don't want to dismiss it at all, but look at the teams he was leading, they were always better than the team they played.  If he won the World Series half of the seasons he managed the Yankees it wouldn't be enough.  

My point wasn't to dismiss the 3 in a row, it was to discuss Torre as a manager after that.  Would it have been better if I said he was a good manager in the 90's and a bad one in the 2000's?  In any other sport, those 3 would be good enough to make him great.  But unfortunately the playing field isn't even in baseball.  That Yankees were an all-star team the last 15 years, and didn't have as much to show for it as they should.

WolvinLA2

May 7th, 2010 at 7:39 PM ^

See, for any other sport I would agree with you.  But I think about half the men who have managed in the MLB in the last 15 years could have won as many World Series titles in that period as Torre did.  

This post was about the worst coaches who have won titles, not the worst coaches period.  

Torre did the least with the most.  

WolvinLA2

May 7th, 2010 at 8:05 PM ^

We're not bypassing those.  They are a requisite for the topic.  We're not bring up coaches who never sniffed a title because they don't qualify for the thread.  

You seem to see "number of titles" as the only stat that counts.  The Yankees' talent (and their payroll, not coincidentally) was so far above the rest of the MLB for most of the Torre years, yet they only won the WS 4 times in about 15 years, and none in the last 9.  To me, that's not a great coach.  Perhaps you disagree.

Michigan Arrogance

May 7th, 2010 at 8:32 PM ^

I'm not a mod.

 

You think the yankees should have won at least half the WS over the last 15 years b/c they have the largest payroll in the game. it's baseball, man. the yankees could play the mud hens 10 times and win only 8. that's the nature of the game.

 

you compare that to Phil jacksons teams. it's apples and oranges. there should be no comparison. the nature of the games are different.

 

the yankees have the largest payroll. as a result, they made the post season 15 consecutive years. in baseball, the playoffs are a crapshoot. 6 teams make it. even with best of 7 series', the odds aren't much better than 1 in 6, maybe one in 5 for the most talented team.

 

stop hating on the yankees b/c they play the game better than most.

WolvinLA2

May 7th, 2010 at 8:41 PM ^

They might beat the Mudhens 8 out of 10 times, but in a 7 game series they would almost never lose.  If the playoffs really are the crapshoot you claim they are, then why did the Yankees go to the playoffs so many years in a row and not win the Series more times?  

Or if it really is a crapshoot, then the only reason they won 3 in a row was because of luck then, right?  You can't claim the wins because they are so good, and the losses because "it's  a crapshoot anyay."

8 teams make the playoffs.

And people don't hate the Yankees because they play the game better than most.  People hate the Yankees because they pay their team 5 times more than whatever other team those people cheer for and because of that they win a lot.  If it was fair (salary cap) like in other sports, people wouldn't hate them so much, but then they probably wouldn't win so much either.

PurpleStuff

May 7th, 2010 at 8:47 PM ^

He won four world series in twelve seasons with the yankees.  That is 33% when the crapshoot odds are 12.5% just for teams that make the playoffs (and high payroll doesn't necessarily guarantee a playoff spot).  He also made the world series in half his seasons in NY.  He just happened to win his titles in one bunch, but I think it says something that his most successful teams were filled with more homegrown players and that the big payroll rosters with Jeter, Giambi, etc. are the ones that didn't win.

Michigan Arrogance

May 7th, 2010 at 8:56 PM ^

then why did the Yankees go to the playoffs so many years in a row and not win the Series more times? 

b/c their payroll produces a better than 90% chance that they make the playoffs and due to the small sample size of baseball playoffs and the nature of the game, they don't have a much better chance than one in 8 (yeah, why i thought 6 i have no idea) once they get there.

If it was fair...

lol. there's no crying. there's no crying in baseball. / Hanks