Doogie: Jimmy Williams wins 1.2 million dollars

[RodentRampage]

He's 59 years old which means that nobody else is going to pay him $2.3M. Sorry, that's reality.

That's a definate minority opinion. Most people think that if he were to leave, there would be a lot of checkbooks opening up at a number of colleges.

He's taken players from previous coaches and improved them. He's had 1A and 1B tier success with his own players. He's better than Monson but the success he's had at the U has been with Monson's players.

He took a team at rock bottom, and led them to three 20-win seasons, and two NCAA appearances. That he did it with Monson's players (who were not highly regarded) just makes him look better.

 

[jamiche]

That's a definate minority opinion. Most people think that if he were to leave, there would be a lot of checkbooks opening up at a number of colleges.




He took a team at rock bottom, and led them to three 20-win seasons, and two NCAA appearances. That he did it with Monson's players (who were not highly regarded) just makes him look better.

He certainly can and could get other jobs. Nobody is going to pay him what he currently gets. He's a very good coach who is being paid at an elite level.


There's no way to know how much of a difference coaching made since these players were all basically newcomers when Monson left. They probably play better defense than they might have under Monson but Tubby's perimeter weave based offensive system is basically the same as Monson's.

 

[Roy Christensen]

I wonder what role the University's insurance carrier had in the decision to fight Williams in court rather than settle out of court.

 

[RodentRampage]

GL: Since it was basically a "he said, he said" story and the jury found in favor of Williams that means, by inference, that it did not find Tubby's version of events to be credible.

No, you can't infer this. To win a civil lawsuit, the jury has to find your version of events more credible than the other sides. It in no way implies that the jury has decided that one side has lied.

 

[RodentRampage]

There's no way to know how much of a difference coaching made since these players were all basically newcomers when Monson left. They probably play better defense than they might have under Monson but Tubby's perimeter weave based offensive system is basically the same as Monson's.

Not many people find your version credible. Does that mean that you are lying?

 

[Friend Of Tubby]

He certainly can and could get other jobs. Nobody is going to pay him what he currently gets. He's a very good coach who is being paid at an elite level.

There's no way to know how much of a difference coaching made since these players were all basically newcomers when Monson left. They probably play better defense than they might have under Monson but Tubby's perimeter weave based offensive system is basically the same as Monson's.

Tubby ranks in the Top 15 (active coaches) in overall W-L (%) record and 11th in W-L (%) in NCAA games.

That's (roughly) Top 5% in each category. Where do you define Elite and Very Good levels?

 

[jamiche]

Not many people find your version credible. Does that mean that you are lying?

Weak example.

 

[jamiche]

No, you can't infer this. To win a civil lawsuit, the jury has to find your version of events more credible than the other sides. It in no way implies that the jury has decided that one side has lied.

If the jury thought that Tubby had given an accurate version of events it would have voted accordingly. They either believed Williams' story or Tubby's, since the two differed. When I read the excepts from Tubby's pretrial deposition when he couldn't "remember" all kinds of things I knew that it wasn't going to go well for him.

 

[RodentRampage]

If the jury thought that Tubby had given an accurate version of events it would have voted accordingly. They either believed Williams' story or Tubby's, since the two differed. When I read the excepts from Tubby's pretrial deposition when he couldn't "remember" all kinds of things I knew that it wasn't going to go well for him.

That's not how a civil lawsuit works. You are accusing him of perjury, which is a very serious offense. In a civil lawsuit, the jury just has to find your case more compelling than the other side's case, it in no way implies that the jury decides if anyone is lying.

 

[dpodoll68]

If the jury thought that Tubby had given an accurate version of events it would have voted accordingly. They either believed Williams' story or Tubby's, since the two differed. When I read the excepts from Tubby's pretrial deposition when he couldn't "remember" all kinds of things I knew that it wasn't going to go well for him.

So, not being able to remember is lying now? Your logic continues to astound.

If I can't remember what I ate for dinner last Thursday, and I say, "I can't remember", is that lying? The lie would be to tell you that I ate mac and cheese when I have absolutely no recollection of what it really was.

 

[RodentRampage]

Weak example.

Actually, it's very strong. You've claimed that if a jury in a civil court rules for one side, that means that the jury found the other side to be lying. If we apply your own reasoning, since your statement "There's no way to know how much of a difference coaching made since these players were all basically newcomers when Monson left" is found credibly by exceedingly few people, that must mean that those who do not find it compelling must find you a liar.

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

I wonder what role the University's insurance carrier had in the decision to fight Williams in court rather than settle out of court.

Insurance policies typically provide that the insurer controls the right to settle within the policy limit, but that can be impacted by the size of the “deductible” or self-insured portion of the liability exposure. I don’t know what that was here. Even if the insurer controls the purse strings, the will of the insured can have a large impact on what decisions are made.

The fact that an award was made here doesn't surprise me after what I read about Tubby's deposition, but the size of the award seems on the high end of what might be expected based on the (limited) facts that I know. It may well be that the University/insurer figured that this was a case that they would probably lose and should try to settle, but evaluated the damages exposure at something much less than $1M. I don't know whether there are any viable appellate issues to be raised, but I would not be surprised if the U asked the Court to reduce the size of the verdict (called remittitur). Hard to win that type of motion, but if the U makes post-trial motions and/or raises appellate issues that seem to have some merit, they may still be able to settle for something less than the current verdict amount.

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

If the jury thought that Tubby had given an accurate version of events it would have voted accordingly. They either believed Williams' story or Tubby's, since the two differed.

I think you are absolutely wrong on this point, although I agree that Tubby’s deposition was the turning point. Tubby’s inability to remember allowed the jury to side with Jimmy without having to conclude that either of them were lying. That’s a huge distinction for a lot of jurors–especially when they like both parties involved. This is all based on what I have read in the media and could therefor be wrong or incomplete, but to side with Tubby the jury would have had to conclude that Jimmy was lying because Jimmy was adamant about the specific details of their communications. It either happened the way he says or he was making it up. To side with Jimmy, on the other hand, they could simply have concluded that Tubby, who was starting a new job and was apparently traveling to or from a visit with his ailing father, was too distracted or imprecise in his communications with Jimmy and that led Jimmy to believe more than Tubby intended. That may make Tubby negligent, but not a liar. Jimmy says that A, B and C happened. Tubby says he doesn’t remember. The jury finds that A, B and C happened. Both Jimmy and Tubby could well be telling the truth–Jimmy that A, B and C happened and Tubby that he doesn’t remember.

 

[jamiche]

So, not being able to remember is lying now? Your logic continues to astound.

If I can't remember what I ate for dinner last Thursday, and I say, "I can't remember", is that lying? The lie would be to tell you that I ate mac and cheese when I have absolutely no recollection of what it really was.

His memory loss was way too convenient especially since it became an issue right away. If someone contests something that happened three years ago, yes, I might not remember absolutely everything. In this case, Williams lodged a complaint almost immediately. The memory loss didn't pass the common sense threshold.

Assembling a staff is a critical part of the process of starting a new job. It wouldn't make sense for Tubby not to remember what happened.

 

[jamiche]

Actually, it's very strong. You've claimed that if a jury in a civil court rules for one side, that means that the jury found the other side to be lying. If we apply your own reasoning, since your statement "There's no way to know how much of a difference coaching made since these players were all basically newcomers when Monson left" is found credibly by exceedingly few people, that must mean that those who do not find it compelling must find you a liar.

No, it just means that you can't prove the unproveable. It's was speculation and never presented as fact. I suspect that you speculate all the time. Should I call you a liar every time you offer an opinion on something?

In the case of the trial there was more evidence that backed up Williams's story (the Maturi email, etc.) than Tubby's. If I'm on the jury and the stories diverge I have to go with the one that was credible as opposed to the one that wasn't. (I didn't say credible and more credible, I said credible and non credible.)

I'm not an attorney and I suspect that you are. If you want to take the word "liar" out of the discussion and substitute a euphemism that's fine. But, it is what it is.

 

[RodentRampage]

No, it just means that you can't prove the unproveable. It's was speculation and never presented as fact. I suspect that you speculate all the time. Should I call you a liar every time you offer an opinion on something?

If I apply your standards, yes.

In the case of the trial there was more evidence that backed up Williams's story (the Maturi email, etc.) than Tubby's. If I'm on the jury and the stories diverge I have to go with the one that was credible as opposed to the one that wasn't. (I didn't say credible and more credible, I said credible and non credible.)

I'm not an attorney and I suspect that you are. If you want to take the word "liar" out of the discussion and substitute a euphemism that's fine. But, it is what it is.

I'm not a lawyer, I just have a moderate idea of what a civil lawsuit involves. You can say credible and non-credible all you want, but that's now how it works. The jury doesn't decide that one sides case is not credible, only that one sides case is more credible than the other.

And it is not what it is not. The jury did not find Tubby to have lied. If he had lied, he'd be facing a perjury charge.

 

[Friend Of Tubby]

If I apply your standards, yes.



I'm not a lawyer, I just have a moderate idea of what a civil lawsuit involves. You can say credible and non-credible all you want, but that's now how it works. The jury doesn't decide that one sides case is not credible, only that one sides case is more credible than the other.

And it is not what it is not. The jury did not find Tubby to have lied. If he had lied, he'd be facing a perjury charge.

Or be impeached.

Ah did naht have...

 

[jamiche]

If I apply your standards, yes.



I'm not a lawyer, I just have a moderate idea of what a civil lawsuit involves. You can say credible and non-credible all you want, but that's now how it works. The jury doesn't decide that one sides case is not credible, only that one sides case is more credible than the other.

And it is not what it is not. The jury did not find Tubby to have lied. If he had lied, he'd be facing a perjury charge.

You are not a lawyer and I am not a basketball coach. You have offered an opinion on how a jury interprets the case just as I offered an opinion on Monson's players. Since, using your logic, I am a liar, then I guess you are as well.

If someone "forgets" an inconvenient fact or occurence what does that make them? To use an extreme example, if I robbed a store, got caught on camera, and on the witness stand claimed that I didn't remember doing it (not that I didn't do it) is the jury going to regard me as truthful?

Finally, if it was really a matter of "credible" versus "more credible" the award would have been a token. The jury was sending a message.

 

[GopherLady]

GL: Since it was basically a "he said, he said" story and the jury found in favor of Williams that means, by inference, that it did not find Tubby's version of events to be credible.

I don't necessarily believe that. Like I said, I did not see the transcripts, so I have no idea what Tubby said in his defense. They could have believe everything he said, and not thought he was a liar - but just thought it wasn't a good enough rationale. Doesn't mean Tubby wasn't credible, just means that his case may not have been strong enough.

 

[jamiche]

I don't necessarily believe that. Like I said, I did not see the transcripts, so I have no idea what Tubby said in his defense. They could have believe everything he said, and not thought he was a liar - but just thought it wasn't a good enough rationale. Doesn't mean Tubby wasn't credible, just means that his case may not have been strong enough.

OK, fair enough. I didn't read the transcripts either. But I don't think that if it was a case of credible versus more credible the jury would have awarded as much as it did.

 

[RodentRampage]

You are not a lawyer and I am not a basketball coach. You have offered an opinion on how a jury interprets the case just as I offered an opinion on Monson's players. Since, using your logic, I am a liar, then I guess you are as well.

I may not be a lawyer, but any lawyer would tell you the same thing. I have <i>not</i> called you a liar. You claim that if a jury rules for one side in a civil suit, that means that the jury considers one side to be a liar. The "jury of basketball" has ruled against your assessment of Tubby Smith pulling the Gophers out of the ditch. It is your logic that would imply that you are a liar, not mine. I am not calling you a liar.

If someone "forgets" an inconvenient fact or occurence what does that make them? To use an extreme example, if I robbed a store, got caught on camera, and on the witness stand claimed that I didn't remember doing it (not that I didn't do it) is the jury going to regard me as truthful?

It might make them perhaps.. forgetful? A person might well forget details of a conversation they had, but it would be just about impossible to forget as major a thing as whether or not you robbed a bank. And it should be noted that there is nothing in this case remotely analogous to getting caught on camera.

Finally, if it was really a matter of "credible" versus "more credible" the award would have been a token. The jury was sending a message.

If the jury had intended to send a message, they would have given Williams more than settlement offer he had given the U.

 

[jamiche]

I may not be a lawyer, but any lawyer would tell you the same thing. I have <i>not</i> called you a liar. You claim that if a jury rules for one side in a civil suit, that means that the jury considers one side to be a liar. The "jury of basketball" has ruled against your assessment of Tubby Smith pulling the Gophers out of the ditch. It is your logic that would imply that you are a liar, not mine. I am not calling you a liar.



It might make them perhaps.. forgetful? A person might well forget details of a conversation they had, but it would be just about impossible to forget as major a thing as whether or not you robbed a bank. And it should be noted that there is nothing in this case remotely analogous to getting caught on camera.



If the jury had intended to send a message, they would have given Williams more than settlement offer he had given the U.

Just about any basketball coach will tell you that much of Tubby's initial success was due to Monson's players. Your suggestion that I lied about that is easily refutable by the stats alone. I would guess, however, that there are many attorneys who would disagree with your position.

When I make an important business decision, as Tubby did in assembling his staff, I remember everything about it because there is a helluva lot of thought that goes into it.

Do we know if the jury was aware of the settlement offer? Wouldn't that prejudice its deliberations?

 

[RodentRampage]

Just about any basketball coach will tell you that much of Tubby's initial success was due to Monson's players. Your suggestion that I lied about that is easily refutable by the stats alone.

You attempted to dismiss what Tubby has done here by claiming that he had just been handed a boatload of talent from the previous coach. It's true, Tubby did take the players that were available and get three consecutive 20 win seasons and two consecutive NCAA appearances out of them. But the talent handed to him by the previous coach was not considered to be expecially great. Your dismissal of what he has accomplished is not widely shared.

And again, I have not claimed or suggested that you lied.

I would guess, however, that there are many attorneys who would disagree with your position.

You would guess wrong.

 

[jamiche]

You attempted to dismiss what Tubby has done here by claiming that he had just been handed a boatload of talent from the previous coach. It's true, Tubby did take the players that were available and get three consecutive 20 win seasons and two consecutive NCAA appearances out of them. But the talent handed to him by the previous coach was not considered to be expecially great. Your dismissal of what he has accomplished is not widely shared.

And again, I have not claimed or suggested that you lied.



You would guess wrong.

Since you are so knowledgeable about these matters, was the jury aware of the settlement offer prior to or during its deliberations?

 

[SelectionSunday]

"You attempted to dismiss what Tubby has done here by claiming that he had just been handed a boatload of talent from the previous coach. It's true, Tubby did take the players that were available and get three consecutive 20 win seasons and two consecutive NCAA appearances out of them. But the talent handed to him by the previous coach was not considered to be expecially great."

Well said RodentRampage. Pre-Tubby's first season, Jamiche was far from alone here (including yours truly) when he was expressing his opinion about the (less than stellar) roster Tubby inherited from Dan Monson. Yet now, in essence, Jamiche is poo-pooing what Tubby accomplished in his first couple years on the job because the success was largely due to "Monson's players" (his words)? Which is it? Should Tubby be credited or discredited for winning with "Monson's players"?

Next year at this time if the Gophers have an unimpressive season and someone wants to question Tubby's ability to "get it out of 'his guys'", I'll listen. Next year pretty much will be Tubby's roster other than Blake and Al (Monson recruits, though they didn't play for him), correct? But until then -- and I have confidence next year won't be the lost season so many are convinced we'll have -- looking at the grand scope of things, I'm still impressed at the turn-around Tubby has brought to this moribund, dead-in-the-water program in three short years.

 

[underground629]

Considering Tubby's first year was all Monson's players, I'd say you're right. However, he was more successful the next season when he lost 3 Monson recruits and brought in 5 of his own. 4 of those players played significant minutes and the team made the tournament with them. Was that success due to Monson's players? I think most coaches would tell you that his success was due to recruits from both coaches.

Just about any basketball coach will tell you that much of Tubby's initial success was due to Monson's players.

 

[jamiche]

"You attempted to dismiss what Tubby has done here by claiming that he had just been handed a boatload of talent from the previous coach. It's true, Tubby did take the players that were available and get three consecutive 20 win seasons and two consecutive NCAA appearances out of them. But the talent handed to him by the previous coach was not considered to be expecially great."

Well said RodentRampage. Pre-Tubby's first season, Jamiche was far from alone here (including yours truly) when he was expressing his opinion about the (less than stellar) roster Tubby inherited from Dan Monson. Yet now, in essence, Jamiche is poo-pooing what Tubby accomplished in his first couple years on the job because the success was largely due to "Monson's players" (his words)? Which is it? Should Tubby be credited or discredited for winning with "Monson's players"?

Next year at this time if the Gophers have an unimpressive season and someone wants to question Tubby's ability to "get it out of 'his guys'", I'll listen. Next year pretty much will be Tubby's roster other than Blake and Al (Monson recruits, though they didn't play for him), correct? But until then -- and I have confidence next year won't be the lost season so many are convinced we'll have -- looking at the grand scope of things, I'm still impressed at the turn-around Tubby has brought to this moribund, dead-in-the-water program in three short years.

SS: I never said that it wasn't a definite upgrade. He took the program from nowhere to somewhere. My point is that he has improved the program using four of Monson's players as starters. Honestly, given Tubby's reputation, I thought the program would be even farther along at the end of year three and that Monson's players would be waving towels on the bench.

It turned out that Monson's players were pretty good. Coaching? An eye for talent? Dumb luck? Who knows? That's why I'm not too concerned about this year's recruiting class. You never know how guys are going to turn out.

I stopped bowing at the altar of college basketball coaches after Clem. People speak of Tubby the same way they spoke of Clem at the height of his popularity and we know how that turned out. It's a dirty business and, while not everyone is a scoundrel, there are no princes.

 

[Ogee Ogilthorpe]

Just about any basketball coach will tell you that much of Tubby's initial success was due to Monson's players. Your suggestion that .... ?

Not to nit-pick here but let's face it, isn't the initial success of virtually EVERY new coach largely due to the previous coach's players? By that I mean, a huge percentage of his roster, and subsequently the playing time, is comprised of players from the previous regime.

Even this last year, in his 3rd year, one could resonably expect juniors and seniors to shoulder a large majority of the load. Tubby's guys were sophomores and freshmen.

I guess I would liken your argument to the oft-cited statistic in regards to seat belts; "XX% of all accidents happen within just a couple of miles of your house!" I hate that "statistic" and I think it's slightly misleading because no sh!t; 90% of the DRIVING that you do is within a close proximity of your own house, so it would make sense that that's where most of your accidents occur.

The statistic implies that the most dangerous driving is near your house and that's ridiculous.

Similarly here, no doubt most of the Gophers' success in Tubby's first year was due to Monson's guys; it should have been because they were the seniors, juniors and sophomores on the roster. Makes sense to me...

 

[jamiche]

Not to nit-pick here but let's face it, isn't the initial success of virtually EVERY new coach largely due to the previous coach's players? By that I mean, a huge percentage of his roster, and subsequently the playing time, is comprised of players from the previous regime.

Even this last year, in his 3rd year, one could resonably expect juniors and seniors to shoulder a large majority of the load. Tubby's guys were sophomores and freshmen.

I guess I would liken your argument to the oft-cited statistic in regards to seat belts; "XX% of all accidents happen within just a couple of miles of your house!" I hate that "statistic" and I think it's slightly misleading because no sh!t; 90% of the DRIVING that you do is within a close proximity of your own house, so it would make sense that that's where most of your accidents occur.

The statistic implies that the most dangerous driving is near your house and that's ridiculous.





Similarly here, no doubt most of the Gophers' success in Tubby's first year was due to Monson's guys; it should have been because they were the seniors, juniors and sophomores on the roster. Makes sense to me...

Monson's guys turned out better than we thought and Tubby hasn't brought in anybody who has been able to take their jobs away.