Auburn targeting Tubby?

Donate To GopherHole
"Obviously, it's just talk," Smith said. "I'm very pleased with what we've done here, and I'm looking forward to coming back next year." - Pioneer Press
 

Maximus said:
Historic arena: Guessing to most 17-18 year olds....historic just means old.
Storied history: People always say that....but what's so storied? We are 9th in the Big Ten with six NCAA appearances....Wisconsin is eighth with 15 appearances. We have more NIT appearances than any other Big Ten team. Only Iowa and Northwestern have longer Big Ten title droughts.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I believe you are right in regards to this, unless the recruit happened to grow up here. Many kids just want to have access to the newest and nicest facilities with all the bells and whistles such as players lounges.
 


Maximus said:
Historic arena: Guessing to most 17-18 year olds....historic just means old.

Storied history: People always say that....but what's so storied? We are 9th in the Big Ten with six NCAA appearances....Wisconsin is eighth with 15 appearances. We have more NIT appearances than any other Big Ten team. Only Iowa and Northwestern have longer Big Ten title droughts.
Click to expand...

Historic and old go hand in hand ;)
 

Maximus said:
"Obviously, it's just talk," Smith said. "I'm very pleased with what we've done here, and I'm looking forward to coming back next year." - Pioneer Press
Click to expand...

If you heard all the post game questions and responses, he wasn't very convincing and never flat-out denied the rumors.
 


About the Wisconsin-Minnesota debate, they are a lot like each other but there is 100x more things to do in the TC's then in Madison, and the talent pool in the TC's is better then the Milwaukee area.
 

panndder said:
Monson also had one arm tied behind his back for most of his tenure. Minnesota is an excellent school with a historic arena and storied history.
Click to expand...

Can you please explain the storied history? NCAA titles? No. Multiple Big Ten Championships over the last 60 years? No. Multiple NCAA bids? No. Multiple final 4's? No.

I get the football tradition argument even though it has done nothing to help the program in the last 50 years. It is at least factual to talk about the grand old 30's and 40's.

But this great mythical basketball tradition is simply not there. Unless the tradition is scandal and getting put on probabtion after every good run, albeit short run, in the last 40 years.

Wisconsin has been to 12 NCAA tournamnts in a row, which is more then Minnesota has been to in the history of their program. That is better tradition right there. Throw in that crucial National Title in '41 and it is a slam dunk.
 

GVBadger said:
Can you please explain the storied history? NCAA titles? No. Multiple Big Ten Championships over the last 60 years? No. Multiple NCAA bids? No. Multiple final 4's? No.

I get the football tradition argument even though it has done nothing to help the program in the last 50 years. It is at least factual to talk about the grand old 30's and 40's.

But this great mythical basketball tradition is simply not there. Unless the tradition is scandal and getting put on probabtion after every good run, albeit short run, in the last 40 years.

Wisconsin has been to 12 NCAA tournamnts in a row, which is more then Minnesota has been to in the history of their program. That is better tradition right there. Throw in that crucial National Title in '41 and it is a slam dunk.
Click to expand...

These are solid points for the earlier debate about the Wisky job being better than the MN one.
 

GVBadger said:
Can you please explain the storied history? NCAA titles? No. Multiple Big Ten Championships over the last 60 years? No. Multiple NCAA bids? No. Multiple final 4's? No.

I get the football tradition argument even though it has done nothing to help the program in the last 50 years. It is at least factual to talk about the grand old 30's and 40's.

But this great mythical basketball tradition is simply not there. Unless the tradition is scandal and getting put on probabtion after every good run, albeit short run, in the last 40 years.

Wisconsin has been to 12 NCAA tournamnts in a row, which is more then Minnesota has been to in the history of their program. That is better tradition right there. Throw in that crucial National Title in '41 and it is a slam dunk.
Click to expand...

The fact is, while neither school is a basketball powerhouse Minnesota has seen more sustained success. The higher winning percentage is a pretty good indicator of this. Couple that with the school being located in a much more desirable area and you have your argument. It's not clear-cut one way or the other (obviously) but it's much easier to point out why a coach would want to work in Minneapolis than Madison.
 



GVBadger said:
Can you please explain the storied history? NCAA titles? No. Multiple Big Ten Championships over the last 60 years? No. Multiple NCAA bids? No. Multiple final 4's? No.

I get the football tradition argument even though it has done nothing to help the program in the last 50 years. It is at least factual to talk about the grand old 30's and 40's.

But this great mythical basketball tradition is simply not there. Unless the tradition is scandal and getting put on probabtion after every good run, albeit short run, in the last 40 years.

Wisconsin has been to 12 NCAA tournamnts in a row, which is more then Minnesota has been to in the history of their program. That is better tradition right there. Throw in that crucial National Title in '41 and it is a slam dunk.
Click to expand...

So did the world of athetics begin before 1994 or not? I thought Bucky fans always swore it didn't?

In any case, no one is arguing that Wisconsin hasn't been better the last decade. We are simply stating that MN has better long-term potential.

#1. We are not a football school, where basketball will always come second. That may not bother Bo Ryan. It does bother some larger-ego, power coaches. I dare say if Wisconsin had been open in 2007, they wouldn't have gotten Tubby Smith

#2. Minnesota has produced as much or more talent then Wisconsin in recent years.

#3. There is no Marquette in Minnesota to fight for recruits. Further there are no UW-Milwaukee's or GB's to pick off the 10-12 guys on the bench.

#4. For whatever Madison's charms, it's generally easier to recruit to a large city that has everything Minneapolis has to offer. It's also easier to be right in the middle of your recruiting base, rather then a couple hours away.
 

98VQueens said:
If you heard all the post game questions and responses, he wasn't very convincing and never flat-out denied the rumors.
Click to expand...

you are just trying to stir the pot. i watched the post game news conference and heard the three questions asked about it. your account of the tone of his responses is mis-leading and just plain wrong.

p.s. your moniker is lame too.
 

Hates Monikers said:
True, but this report goes far beyond the rumors and potential interest we've heard about with other job openings. Whether there's any substance behind this report, who knows? But the words are more ominous than we've heard before.

As for a coach stating that he likes his job ... that is meaningless in sports today.
Click to expand...

No offense, but anyone can write things that sound ominous. Doesn't make them worth believing.
 

panndder said:
The fact is, while neither school is a basketball powerhouse Minnesota has seen more sustained success. The higher winning percentage is a pretty good indicator of this. Couple that with the school being located in a much more desirable area and you have your argument. It's not clear-cut one way or the other (obviously) but it's much easier to point out why a coach would want to work in Minneapolis than Madison.
Click to expand...

Please point out the better sustained success that Minnesota has had.

Wisconsin has been to 12 NCAA tournaments in a row. Minnesota has never come close to having that type of sustatined success in the entire history of the program.
 



howeda7 said:
So did the world of athetics begin before 1994 or not? I thought Bucky fans always swore it didn't?

In any case, no one is arguing that Wisconsin hasn't been better the last decade. We are simply stating that MN has better long-term potential.

#1. We are not a football school, where basketball will always come second. That may not bother Bo Ryan. It does bother some larger-ego, power coaches. I dare say if Wisconsin had been open in 2007, they wouldn't have gotten Tubby Smith

#2. Minnesota has produced as much or more talent then Wisconsin in recent years.

#3. There is no Marquette in Minnesota to fight for recruits. Further there are no UW-Milwaukee's or GB's to pick off the 10-12 guys on the bench.

#4. For whatever Madison's charms, it's generally easier to recruit to a large city that has everything Minneapolis has to offer. It's also easier to be right in the middle of your recruiting base, rather then a couple hours away.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing that basketball did not exist prior to 1994. I am arguing that the Gophers do not have any better of a tradition prior to 1994 then the Badgers. Sure, over the prior 50 years they may have won a few more games, but there is no grand tradition of Gophers Basketball in the 30's and 40's and 50's like there is in football. Add in the fact that the Badgers have an NCAA championship and the Gophers don't (and we all know how much you guys like those arguments) and the whole tradition argument is a bunch of garbage.

1. Nobody would argue the Gophers are a football school. That is clear. To call Wisconsin a football school where basketball takes a back seat is silly. The success the Badgers have had over the last 12 years can be matched by very few schools in the country. It does not take a back seat to anything that is happening on that campus.

2. The talent goes in cycles. Minnesota and Wisconsin both produce good talent and the number that can play D1 ball is growing each year. As good as '09 was in Minnesota, '10 and '11 are not nearly as strong. Wisconsin was good in '10, '11 does not look strong and '12 looks very good.

3. Very true. Definite advantage for Minnesota. Weird how they have not been able take advantage of it over the last 75 years.

4. If it is so easy to recruit to Minnesota, why have the Gophers won 3 Big Ten titles in 40 years, one of which does not even count?
 

The Ghost of Bierman said:
your account of the tone of his responses is mis-leading and just plain wrong. p.s. your moniker is lame too.
Click to expand...

Nailed me. Pretty lame.

Coaches speak, he could be on a plane out to a press conference this week. It wasn't convincing either way, I think he will be here for another couple seasons, but I'm not going to be surprised when and if he takes another gig.
 

GVBadger said:
I am not arguing that basketball did not exist prior to 1994. I am arguing that the Gophers do not have any better of a tradition prior to 1994 then the Badgers. Sure, over the prior 50 years they may have won a few more games, but there is no grand tradition of Gophers Basketball in the 30's and 40's and 50's like there is in football. Add in the fact that the Badgers have an NCAA championship and the Gophers don't (and we all know how much you guys like those arguments) and the whole tradition argument is a bunch of garbage.

1. Nobody would argue the Gophers are a football school. That is clear. To call Wisconsin a football school where basketball takes a back seat is silly. The success the Badgers have had over the last 12 years can be matched by very few schools in the country. It does not take a back seat to anything that is happening on that campus.

2. The talent goes in cycles. Minnesota and Wisconsin both produce good talent and the number that can play D1 ball is growing each year. As good as '09 was in Minnesota, '10 and '11 are not nearly as strong. Wisconsin was good in '10, '11 does not look strong and '12 looks very good.

3. Very true. Definite advantage for Minnesota. Weird how they have not been able take advantage of it over the last 75 years.

4. If it is so easy to recruit to Minnesota, why have the Gophers won 3 Big Ten titles in 40 years, one of which does not even count?
Click to expand...

You're sure trumpeting that 1941 title aren't you? Fine. Minnesota was retroactively awarded two national titles in basketball. I believe for 1902 and 1903. So we have twice as many. And they're equally (ir)relevant as yours.

I think the point is that Minnesota has had sustained periods of success over last 4 decades. In the 1970's we had Mussleman, won a Big 10 Title and may well have won a national title in 1977 if we'd been eligable. In the 1980's we won a Big 10 title and made a Sweet 16. In the 1990's we won a Big 10 title and made 2 Sweet 16's and Final 4. Hopefully we are on our way to similar success once again.

Wisconsin on the other hand, had some great sucess in 1941 and 1994 to the present. But not much in between.
 

bottom line is that as long as Joel maturi is in charge and this administraion makes a half hearted commitment to athletics, Minnesota will always be a mid to lower tier Big 10 school. Maturi is a light weight who is over matched and should be an AD at a Div 2 school. Look at his hires, extensions , and results. Yes he hired Tubby! Give him credit. But he also extended Borton (took a final 4 team to number 11 in the Big10), the Hockey program is in shambles, We cant even sell out a new Football stadium, and he has ambiguous rules for player misconduct--case in point Mabwke vs Whaley in football. As long as Joel Maturi is in place and this Administration does not focus on Athletics as a priority, then we will be relegated to the bottom.Hey all the sports that lose money are winning...yea!!..........unfortunately, unless you have a relative who participates or are a feel good UofM booster, no-one cares! Sorry to be blunt....but I call it as I see it.......

Tubby may or may not leave this year, but rest assured, with Maturi at the helm I have zero confidence he would be aggressive or suave enough to keep him .
 

howeda7 said:
I think the point is that Minnesota has had sustained periods of success over last 4 decades. In the 1970's we had Mussleman, won a Big 10 Title and may well have won a national title in 1977 if we'd been eligable. In the 1980's we won a Big 10 title and made a Sweet 16. In the 1990's we won a Big 10 title and made 2 Sweet 16's and Final 4. Hopefully we are on our way to similar success once again.
Click to expand...

Haskins and Musselman cheated and both left the program on probation.
 

howeda7 said:
I think the point is that Minnesota has had sustained periods of success over last 4 decades. In the 1970's we had Mussleman, won a Big 10 Title and may well have won a national title in 1977 if we'd been eligable. In the 1980's we won a Big 10 title and made a Sweet 16. In the 1990's we won a Big 10 title and made 2 Sweet 16's and Final 4. Hopefully we are on our way to similar success once again.
Click to expand...

IMO, it was not sustained success, just a good two-three years, then a couple poor ones...

There were some highs no doubt though...
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom