I think it's silly.
You can't base someone is best coach ever by simply pointing at wins versus one type of sports.
I think Coach K is sensational coach, but one can argue against him...
I think Coach K and Duke is like Coach Cal and Kentucky. But main reason for his success is being a great coach backed up by school commitment.
What if coach k coached in this generation of instant expectation? His first 4 season he gathered double digit loss, with that comes huge amount of pressure and criticism. Not sure he would have survived early in his career at high end college. Which would have resulted in getting fired.
Also, he also benefited of being satisfied being a college coach. Should we penalize other coaches for trying different coaching at different level? Think about Pitino, Coach Cal, and Stevens. Would they be considered greatest of all time had pitino stayed at UK, Coach Cal was asked to Coach right after his NBA stunt, or Stevens coming back to college after his stint at Celtics? (i'm rushing with Stevens here...not justified, just talking about a point).
Remember Coach Cal has the two winningest team. 38 - 2. Doesn't that suggest that he is bigger winner than other coaches? What if Coach Cal got lucky and invited to coach UK after Nets? Wouldn't he already have 2 or 3 championship...Think about John Wall's class, added with Xavier Henry, or some other shooters?
Coach K is definitely amazing. But i think he's one of the great coaches of college. The list includes in this generation, Pitino, Cal, Calhoun, and K. I think Donovan can join if he improves slightly, but i think he's notch below.