I understand what you are getting at and kind of agree with you, especially when you bring up it should go to "the best all-around coach in the nation or the conference." and then mention "Regardless of the talent they bring in and put on the court.".
I disagree with where you are kind of contradicting yourself when previously stating it should go to a "coach from one of the top teams in the conference".
I tend to believe the award should go to the coach that does the most with what he has, whether that's delivering with better talent than most teams, overcoming diversity due to injuries/illness, or exceeding expectations the most. ie what coach prevailed the most given their circumstances.