[Stardust]

No, UK does not have a better shot. Minnesota has a top 15 RPI rank. UK ranks in the mid-40s despite playing most of the season with Noel. Without Noel, Kentucky may need a win over Florida to clinch a bid because of its extremely weak schedule, lack of quality wins. and absence of Noel from the lineup. Tubby needs one quality win and the Gophers will probably be in - and he will have more opportunities to get that win because of the number of ranked teams in the Big 10.

may get in and Minnesota may not, but Kentucky is facing much longer odds without Noel. If either or neither get into the tournament, it will not be because either team has a horrible coach. Terrible coaches do not win national championships or take teams like UMass or Tulsa deep into the NCAA tournament.

I am the proud coach of 4 straight Bluegrass state championships & 5 out of 6 years total. It was because of 1-Div. 1 Basketball player, 1-Div. 1 Soccer Player, 1-Div. Football player, 2-Div. 2 Football Players, 3-Div. 2 Baseball players, 1-NAIA Baseball player. Talent WINS championships. And the team with the most talent wins! Talent can make any coach look like they deserve to be in the HOF!

[Westside]

No he's not a good coach. He can't teach the game, he doesn't recruit well, and he accepts almost no accountability always throwing his team under
the bus. That is NOT what makes up a good coach.FACE REALITY.

Yea, he's only 508-222 in his career with three of his coaching stops being at basketball powerhouses Tulsa, Georgia, and Minnesota. He wins no matter where he's at.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Tuck Fubby.

[Hoot Gibson]

I am the proud coach of 4 straight Bluegrass state championships & 5 out of 6 years total. It was because of 1-Div. 1 Basketball player, 1-Div. 1 Soccer Player, 1-Div. Football player, 2-Div. 2 Football Players, 3-Div. 2 Baseball players, 1-NAIA Baseball player. Talent WINS championships. And the team with the most talent wins! Talent can make any coach look like they deserve to be in the HOF!

I agree but only to a point. If you were a horrible coach, you would have no titles, regardless of talent. A great coach will win more games with average talent than a bad coach will win with great talent.

I was channel hopping last night and watched most of the second half of the Saint Louis-Butler game. Saint Louis won a close game but it appeared to me that they have far more talent than Butler. It is amazing to me how Brad Stevens manages to hang close or beat teams with much bigger, deeper, and athletic players. (I thought Saint Louis played like a well coached team, but Butler just seems to have a knack of making games ugly when they are physically over matched and forcing opponents out of their normal flow.)

When Stevens decides that it is time to take over one of the country's elite basketball programs (my money is on IU), it will shake up the basketball world.

[Stardust]

I agree but only to a point. If you were a horrible coach, you would have no titles, regardless of talent. A great coach will win more games with average talent than a bad coach will win with great talent.

I was channel hopping last night and watched most of the second half of the Saint Louis-Butler game. Saint Louis won a close game but it appeared to me that they have far more talent than Butler. It is amazing to me how Brad Stevens manages to hang close or beat teams with much bigger, deeper, and athletic players. (I thought Saint Louis played like a well coached team, but Butler just seems to have a knack of making games ugly when they are physically over matched and forcing opponents out of their normal flow.)

When Stevens decides that it is time to take over one of the country's elite basketball programs (my money is on IU), it will shake up the basketball world.

We are not disagreeing at all. A great coach can win with any talent. However, it does not take a great coach to win with GREAT talent. That's been my argument from day one. Brad Steven's in the epitome of a great coach! He is a great X's and O's coach, a great Motivator, and a great Salesman! Some coaches are great salesmen and can "buy" themselves to the top. We all compare coaches to John Wooden. I do believe he was a great X's & O's guy that won by be smarter than the opposing coach. Then, the lure of Westwood landed Hollywood level talent that made it IMPOSSIBLE to lose! If Brad Stevens was at a school that could recruit because of the name on the front of the jersey, like IU, he could become one of the greatest coaches to ever be on the sidelines (if he isn't already).

[Observing]

Yea, he's only 508-222 in his career with three of his coaching stops being at basketball powerhouses Tulsa, Georgia, and Minnesota. He wins no matter where he's at.

Do you know why Minnesota hired Tubby? They had a decent
basketball pedigree, even met UK in the FF in the not so distant
past. And they wanted a coach to get them into contention
for Big 10 titles and maybe make decent run from time to time
in the NCAA. They now desperately want rid of him because
they see he cannot do that.

As I said above, it's not accurate to say he's terrible, but it's also
not accurate to say he's "good" unless you equate that with
mediocrity. With all UK's advantages, he was driving the
program in to the ground. And now at UMinn, he "wins"
against pedestrian nonconference competition then can't
compete in his conference.

I mean REALLY, is it unfair to think that if he really was a
"good" coach, that in 6 years he couldn't get his team
into the upper half of the conference?

[Observing]

We are not disagreeing at all. A great coach can win with any talent. However, it does not take a great coach to win with GREAT talent. That's been my argument from day one. Brad Steven's in the epitome of a great coach! He is a great X's and O's coach, a great Motivator, and a great Salesman! Some coaches are great salesmen and can "buy" themselves to the top. We all compare coaches to John Wooden. I do believe he was a great X's & O's guy that won by be smarter than the opposing coach. Then, the lure of Westwood landed Hollywood level talent that made it IMPOSSIBLE to lose! If Brad Stevens was at a school that could recruit because of the name on the front of the jersey, like IU, he could become one of the greatest coaches to ever be on the sidelines (if he isn't already).

Something that puzzles me is that people(not just here) can't seem
to make a distinction in degree. It's all or nothing. It's either great or
awful. I've never said Cal was the greatest coach EVER, but defend
his ability a little and people say you're elevating him above Wooden
and Rupp. I've said mulitple times in this thread that Tubby isn't
afwul/terrible, just that he's nowhere near the HOF'er his admirers
proclaim him, that he's mediocre. Yet people say I'm declaring
him the worst ever. I can and do make multiple levels of distinction,
why can't most others? Do their amplifiers just have a 1 and a 10,
with no volume setting in between?

[Hoot Gibson]

Something that puzzles me is that people(not just here) can't seem
to make a distinction in degree. It's all or nothing. It's either great or
awful. I've never said Cal was the greatest coach EVER, but defend
his ability a little and people say you're elevating him above Wooden
and Rupp. I've said mulitple times in this thread that Tubby isn't
afwul/terrible, just that he's nowhere near the HOF'er his admirers
proclaim him, that he's mediocre. Yet people say I'm declaring
him the worst ever. I can and do make multiple levels of distinction,
why can't most others? Do their amplifiers just have a 1 and a 10,
with no volume setting in between?

You complain that people can't make distinctions in degrees, yet you are labeling a coach with a career record of 508-222 mediocre. Step back and appreciate the irony of your proclamation.:biggrin:

Out of 730 games, a mediocre coach would win somewhere around 365 games, give or take a couple of dozen. Tubby Smith's career winning percentage is exactly the same as Denny Crum's at 69.59%. He is 0,1% behind Jim Calhoun and 1% behind Bobby Knight. Yet, in your opinion, Tubby Smith is a mediocre coach. Like Dusty said, most of Tubby's time as head coach has been spent at schools that have never been and will never be basketball powerhouse programs - yet he has won everywhere that he has coached.

Mediocre? :biglmao:

[TidesHoss32]

You complain that people can't make distinctions in degrees, yet you are labeling a coach with a career record of 508-222 mediocre. Step back and appreciate the irony of your proclamation.:biggrin:

Out of 730 games, a mediocre coach would win somewhere around 365 games, give or take a couple of dozen. Tubby Smith's career winning percentage is exactly the same as Denny Crum's at 69.59%. He is 0,1% behind Jim Calhoun and 1% behind Bobby Knight. Yet, in your opinion, Tubby Smith is a mediocre coach. Like Dusty said, most of Tubby's time as head coach has been spent at schools that have never been and will never be basketball powerhouse programs - yet he has won everywhere that he has coached.

Mediocre? :biglmao:

And he will continue to win everywhere he goes. Minnesota needs to remember just how awful they were before he got there, and realize how fortunate they were to get Tubby. An 8-22 team in the Big 10 wont reel in many prime candidates, and if they run off Tubby, they'll sink right back down to that level.

[Fatt Jones]

Looks like the folks up in the Great North Woods area have finally
faced harsh reality and are up in arms wanting rid of Tubby. No injuries,
no transfers, no excuses and ANOTHER dismal collapse in the Big 10
in the 6th straight season has finally penetrated thru the frozen Gopher skulls
and they are calling for his scalp.

Amongst other brilliant observations, he can't recruit, he can't
keep his players, he can't run an offense, he alibis and excuses,
he throws his players under the bus. Gee HOW could they have been
expected to see THOSE things coming. Afterall he only had about
an 8 year record of doing exactly the same things at his previous
job.

Now the only mystery left is where have all the people in Ky. gone
that were saying Tubby was a Hall of Fame coach, he just got
tired at UK, or he didn't get supported and the racists ran him
off? Somehow I just don't see them stepping forward to admit
they were wrong, even though a 6 year stint at another school
cements it in no uncertain terms.

I am trying to understand your reference "the folks up in the GREAT NORTH WOODS being up in arms wanting to get rid of Tubby". Smith signed a 3 year extension last summer that would keep him in Minnesota through 2016-17. Has the administration made comments regarding this matter or has this been surmised from the mostly incoherent babble of a few "frozen skulled Gopher fanatics gossiping on the internet? I'm guessing the latter!

[toussaints]

This is the last time I'm posting this:

Tubby Smith is a great coach, but couldn't match the expectations Kentucky's fan base had for the team. Kentucky is not an easy place to coach at. Coach always makes a lot of money, 23,000 rabid fans show up for every home game, no matter how bad the season is. And you can't just win here, you have to dominate every aspect of the game.

Tubby is a great coach, he just wasn't what UK wanted.

[Fatt Jones]

Do you know why Minnesota hired Tubby? They had a decent
basketball pedigree, even met UK in the FF in the not so distant
past. And they wanted a coach to get them into contention
for Big 10 titles and maybe make decent run from time to time
in the NCAA. they now desperatly want rid of him because
they see he cannot do that.

As I said above, it's not accurate to say he's terrible, but it's also
not accurate to say he's "good" unless you equate that with
mediocrity. With all UK's advantages, he was driving the
program in to the ground. And now at UMinn, he "wins"
against pedestrian nonconference competition then can't
compete in his conference.

I mean REALLY, is it unfair to think that if he really was a
"good" coach, that in 6 years he couldn't get his team
into the upper half of the conference?

Again, I like to be informed on these subjects. Where are you getting this information? I would like to read up on this.

[LOOKAYANNER]

Oh, quit dreaming. The Big 10 is a far better conference than the SEC. Outside of UF and UK, how many teams have had an Elite 8 in the last 10-15 years?

Ohio State- runner up and an Elite 8 to my knowledge
Michigan State- no stats needed, we know how good they are
Indiana- had a runner up and will probably go far this year.
Wisconsin- I believe they had an least two Elite 8's.
Illinois- had a runner-up and probably more

Outside of UK and UF, I cant remember another Final 4 team. Maybe one of Pearl's UT teams.

In the last 20 years the SEC has won 6 NCAA national championships with 3 teams. During that same time span the Big Ten has won 1 title (Michigan State).

[Fatt Jones]

In the last 20 years the SEC has won 6 NCAA national championships with 3 teams. During that same time span the Big Ten has won 1 title (Michigan State).

Don't forget the 3 runner-up finishes. So in the past 19 NCAA championships the SEC has been represented nearly 50% of the time!

:notbad:

[Hoot Gibson]

In the last 20 years the SEC has won 6 NCAA national championships with 3 teams. During that same time span the Big Ten has won 1 title (Michigan State).

True, but those facts do nothing to dispel the fact that the SEC is and has been very top-heavy for decades. Kentucky and Florida (mostly Kentucky) has dominated their basketball opponents. The Big Ten is and has been much more balanced, and this season the Big Ten is a much stronger conference top to bottom. UK would be battling Minnesota among the also-rans in the Big Ten this season. Florida is probably the only SEC team that would be above .500 in the Big 10 this season.

Barring a total collapse, Minnesota will be getting an at large bid this season and Kentucky is still sitting on the bubble. An upset over Florida should seal the deal, but that will take an even better game than Kentucky played last night.

[Warthog]

Tubby is great for Minnesota
No so good for UK

[LOOKAYANNER]

True, but those facts do nothing to dispel the fact that the SEC is and has been very top-heavy for decades. Kentucky and Florida (mostly Kentucky) has dominated their basketball opponents. The Big Ten is and has been much more balanced, and this season the Big Ten is a much stronger conference top to bottom. UK would be battling Minnesota among the also-rans in the Big Ten this season. Florida is probably the only SEC team that would be above .500 in the Big 10 this season.

Barring a total collapse, Minnesota will be getting an at large bid this season and Kentucky is still sitting on the bubble. An upset over Florida should seal the deal, but that will take an even better game than Kentucky played last night.

Actually in most seasons in the Big 10 once you get past Michigan State, Ohio State, and I would have to add a re-energized Indiana, the Big 10 is top heavy too. This year is the first time in many years that Michigan has been relevant. Purdue and Wisconsin have had a few above average years, but in most years they have so-so teams as well. I don't consider Northwestern, Illinois, Penn State, Minnesota or Nebraska powerhouses in basketball. Year in and year out the SEC matches up fairly well with the Big 10. This year is an exception.

[Hoot Gibson]

Actually in most seasons in the Big 10 once you get past Michigan State, Ohio State, and I would have to add a re-energized Indiana, the Big 10 is top heavy too. This year is the first time in many years that Michigan has been relevant. Purdue and Wisconsin have had a few above average years, but in most years they have so-so teams as well. I don't consider Northwestern, Illinois, Penn State, Minnesota or Nebraska powerhouses in basketball. Year in and year out the SEC matches up fairly well with the Big 10. This year is an exception.

I disagree. Purdue has won more Big 10 championships than any team in the conference, the last one in 2010. Purdue won three straight titles while Bobby Knight was at Indiana and the so-called Fab Five played for Michigan. Wisconsin has won 17 titles (three less than Indiana and Ohio State), the last one coming in 2008. The Big 10 has never been dominated by one or two schools the way that the SEC has. The best of the SEC has generally been better than the best of the Big 10, but the Big 10 is a much more balanced basketball conference. For most schools and fans, the SEC is a year round football conference.

[Westside]

Do you know why Minnesota hired Tubby? They had a decent
basketball pedigree, even met UK in the FF in the not so distant
past. And they wanted a coach to get them into contention
for Big 10 titles and maybe make decent run from time to time
in the NCAA. They now desperately want rid of him because
they see he cannot do that.

As I said above, it's not accurate to say he's terrible, but it's also
not accurate to say he's "good" unless you equate that with
mediocrity. With all UK's advantages, he was driving the
program in to the ground. And now at UMinn, he "wins"
against pedestrian nonconference competition then can't
compete in his conference.

I mean REALLY, is it unfair to think that if he really was a
"good" coach, that in 6 years he couldn't get his team
into the upper half of the conference?

I always figured they hired him because he's a good coach. I'm not saying he's an elite coach, but he is a good coach. He's won at least 20 games a season 18 times and over 30 games twice. How could you say he's not a good coach.

[vundy33]

I think you Tubby haters are in the minority here.

[Fatt Jones]

Often times we the fans, along with the media are guilty of overstating the facts. For instance, a few UK fans have recently been grumbling about this years team being on the bubble. I could start a thread on this site stating that "UK fans are unhappy with Coach Cals' recruiting one and dones". This would be overstating the facts! I don't believe that the University Of Minnesota, or a large portion of Gopher fans are unhappy with Tubby running their program, if so I can not find any evidence to support this.

[FBALL]

Tubby is the MAN!!!

[RunItUpTheGut]

I think you Tubby haters are in the minority here.

Just on this site.....

We seem to attract all the loonies here.

[FBALL]

Tubby, Tubby, Tubby!!!

[RunItUpTheGut]

[Image: http://gifsection.com/wp-content/uploads...-15-13.gif]

[Stardust]

Just on this site.....

We seem to attract all the loonies here.

[Image: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_x9TJVHQ_1OM/S8...Stupid.jpg]

[Observing]

I always figured they hired him because he's a good coach. I'm not saying he's an elite coach, but he is a good coach. He's won at least 20 games a season 18 times and over 30 games twice. How could you say he's not a good coach.

That's NOT what they said when they hired him. And you've got
a really odd fixation on 20 wins(which all Tubby fans do) 20 wins
a year [which of course come with the obligatory 12-4 losses]
don't mean that much when you can't compete in your conference.
BTW, did you notice that Cal didn' have any Pitino players
for any of his 30 win seasons here? And none of his 30 win teams
got SMOKED out of the NCAA either.

[Observing]

Tubby is great for Minnesota
No so good for UK

Maybe if you want to see UMinn continue to struggle.

[Observing]

You complain that people can't make distinctions in degrees, yet you are labeling a coach with a career record of 508-222 mediocre. Step back and appreciate the irony of your proclamation.:biggrin:

Out of 730 games, a mediocre coach would win somewhere around 365 games, give or take a couple of dozen. Tubby Smith's career winning percentage is exactly the same as Denny Crum's at 69.59%. He is 0,1% behind Jim Calhoun and 1% behind Bobby Knight. Yet, in your opinion, Tubby Smith is a mediocre coach. Like Dusty said, most of Tubby's time as head coach has been spent at schools that have never been and will never be basketball powerhouse programs - yet he has won everywhere that he has coached.

Mediocre? :biglmao:

There's no irony at all. Only your inability to look beyond the face
of numbers. All the coaches you mention had superior ability that
Tubby just does not have. They could TEACH the game effectively,
they helped players get better. They could adjust to what happened to their teams during games. They took responsibilty for their teams. To be more than a mediocrity as a coach you have to be able to do some of these things.

[Observing]

Is maybe semantics getting in the way of the debate here?

Just off the cuff I'd rank coaches as great, good, mediocre,
bad or awful. I think great and awful speak for themselves,
and mediocre would be what you should expect from any
average run of the mill coach. That leaves good and bad which I'd
define in a mirror. A good coach would get a little better performance
out of the same material as a mediocre coach, and a bad one the
reverse.

That's why I don't call Tubby a "good" coach. I'd call him a mediocre
coach, who is inept at developing players individually. He doesn't get
any more out of his teams than I'd expect 60% of coaches to do in the
same circumstance.