Is it the program or the coach?

I have a lot of casual basketball fans ask me a question that is actually tricky to answer: When a school has a successful basketball era, or a longer chain of runs, is it the coach or the program that breeds success?

It's a case-by-case thing. And it's usually a tangled web because one coach usually builds a program into a powerhouse.

Example of "It's the program": Kentucky -- the winningest program in college hoops history. It started, of course, with Adolph Rupp, but the Wildcats have been winning -- for the most part -- for their entire existence. The winning tradition started with E.R. Sweetland in 1912. Sweetland helped UK to a 9-0 record. JJ Tigert, Alpha Brummage and James Park coached Kentucky to a 32-16 record over four years. Only three coaches out of seven over the next 11 years had losing records. Then Rupp came and went 876-190, winning four national titles.

But Rupp's retirement didn't end Kentucky's ongoing success. Joe Hall won 297 games and a title in 1978. Hall's Wildcats made it to the finals in 1975 and a Final Four in 1984. Eddie Sutton was 88-39, but left the school in controversy and scandal without ever reaching a Final Four. Then, Rick Pitino and Tubby Smith each won titles.

And while Billy Gillispie has struggled in his first few season, and Smith struggled toward the end of his time there, Kentucky is still a program built over a century by numerous coaches, most influential being Rupp, Hall and Pitino.

Others that "are the program" include Duke, Syracuse, Indiana (although Bob Knight, like Jim Boeheim at 'Cuse, really helps the Hoosiers make a good "It's the coach" argument), UCLA, Kansas, Louisville and St. John's.

"It's the coach" caveat: There are a lot of schools that have become superpowers because of a coach -- Arizona and UConn come to mind. But also, college basketball is such a young sport that many of these schools just hadn't plugged into the game until the '60s, '70s or later. Others, however, were good, but then became great.

Take UConn, for example, where Hugh Greer (wish I was related to him, but I'm not) guided the program to 286 wins through 1963, but for 23 years, UConn was irrelevant. Then Jim Calhoun came and made it a superpower.

Here's a good "It's the coach" example: Look no farther than a pair of A-10 teams for "It's the coach." John Calipari (pictured at the top) took UMass from obscurity (except for the Julius Erving years) to significance in a very short amount of time. Calipari was 193-71 in nine seasons at UMass, which included a Final Four trip and a No. 1 ranking.

At Temple, John Chaney won 724 games and made 30 trips to postseason play. For the most part, Temple was nothing before Chaney came. Temple is struggling to reach the same level of relevance in modern days.

DePaul is another good example of "It's the coach," but we'll throw in, "the coach's family." Ray Meyer coached the Blue Demons to 37 winning seasons, 12 20-win seasons and a pair of Final Fours. Meyer retired in 1984, and his son, Joey, took over the reins. Joey Meyer took DePaul to seven NCAA tournaments, but DePaul hasn't been near those levels since Joey left in 1997.

Overall, it's really hard to define many programs as "just the coach" or "a sustained winner as a program." Almost every school has had a few coaches with blips of success, but very few have had consistent brand names as winners. Some schools, like Arizona, Connecticut and Gonzaga, will grow into sustained programs for a while. Pitt, thanks to Ben Howland his predecessor, Jamie Dixon, will probably develop into a decent, sustained winner in the future.