Question of the day: Was Larry Shyatt as bad a head coach as most people believe?
Probably seems like the question comes out of nowhere, but it dawned on me after reading that Shyatt appears to be a candidate to take the reins at Wyoming.
I haven't seen Shyatt's name mentioned for the high-profile openings that are out there, but UW surely still has him on their list.
Shyatt, who will turn 60 years old next month, hasn't commented on his interest in the position, but several sources close to him or the process have told me that he is interested.
After serving as UW's head coach for the 1997-98 season, leading the team to 19-9 mark and the National Invitation Tournament, Shyatt left to take the head coaching position at Clemson.
He was there from 1998 until 2003 and has been an assistant to Billy Donovan since.
UW fans remember him for a solid season as well stocking the cupboard for winning campaigns after he left, but they also remember him for a messy breakup.
At Clemson, the popular belief is that Shyatt was a terrible coach who left this program in terrible shape. In other words, Shyatt happened.
The numbers create a bit of a stench: 70-84 overall in five seasons, 21-62 in the ACC, 9-40 on the road. And aside from Sharrod Ford, who's now a star overseas, Shyatt didn't leave much in the cupboard for Oliver Purnell.
Before this goes any further, I'm not advocating the belief that he gets a bad rap and was actually a very good head coach. The purpose of this dispatch is simply to propose the question and examine things a little more deeply.
We know Shyatt has a good reputation now, having coached a long time under Billy Donovan at Florida. The Gators have been very successful during his time there, and Donovan holds him in high regard.
We know Shyatt had a good reputation before he arrived at Clemson, made clear most recently in this excellent profile of John Calipari by SI writer S.L. Price.
Here's an excerpt that looks back to UMass' search for a basketball coach a long time ago:
UMass was a basketball backwater then, with a tradition that began and ended with Julius Erving, but Rick Pitino was an alum and the search committee's headhunter. He suggested four men: New Mexico assistant Larry Shyatt; Stu Jackson, Pitino's assistant with the Knicks; George Mason head coach Rick Barnes; and Calipari.
It should also be noted that the ACC during Shyatt's time at Clemson might've been a good deal tougher than it is now.
Until Florida State advanced to the NCAA Tournament's Round of 16 this season, the ACC's only luminaries for a long stretch were North Carolina and Duke.
Thinking back to the Shyatt Era, it was more than just two teams. Maryland was really good, winning the national title in 2002 and advancing to the national semifinals in 2001. Wake Forest was a power as Skip Prosser took over for Dave Odom. N.C. State was good enough under Herb Sendek to start making regular NCAA Tournament appearances. Georgia Tech, under a bright young coach named Paul Hewitt, was building to its 2004 Final Four run. Virginia was a 5 seed in the tournament in 2001 under Pete Gillen.
North Carolina was good in 1999 (3 seed), 2000 (8 seed) and 2001 (2 seed) before falling off the map in 2002 and 2003. Duke won a national title and played for another during Shyatt's time, totaling four 1 seeds and a 3 seed.
Bottom line, it was a deep and rugged conference back then. Deeper and more rugged than it has been for a number of years.
If Shyatt does become a head coach again, whether it's a return to Wyoming or elsewhere, it'll be interesting to follow him and see how he does.
Maybe he ends up flourishing somewhere before he walks off into the sunset of retirement. Or maybe he struggles and reinforces the notion that some assistant coaches are just made to be assistant coaches.
But for now, in light of Shyatt's success before and after Clemson, it's reasonable to ask the question: Is his tenure here viewed too harshly?
I'm guessing most of you will say no. Interested to read some thoughts on this, though.
LW
No comments:
Post a Comment