Gopher Teeth
Fear the Teeth
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,217
- Reaction score
- 1,054
- Points
- 113
Let me start by saying I have not been in the pitchfork crowd, but this season convinced me to at least consider picking-up a rake, well one of those cheap plastic ones.
Let's look at some facts, which I feel, are quite convincing. I decided to compare Monson's tenure to that of Tubby's tenure. In my mind the firing of Monson was a no brainer. I wanted to see how far Tubby was from the clear "no brainer", I was a bit surprised. I felt by comparing Monson's time at Minnesota vs. Tubby's time at Minnesota you can eliminate all these stupid excuses that always get thrown in; excuses like facilities, cold, 9th best job in B1G, facilities, etc. Both coaches dealt with these same variables so using them as excuses goes out the window in this comparison. Oh by the way, Monson should actually be given a handicap because he had to coach through the sanction years.
If you look at the average B1G finish for both coaches you don't see a big difference:
Monson years avg finish in the B1G: 7.857
Tubby years avg finish in the B1G: 7.333
So on average Tubby "improved" the program a 1/2 positional improvement in final B1G standings. To me that is devastating. On top of that Monson's contract was less than $500,000 /yr, whereas Tubby was getting just below $2,000,000. That means the U dished out an additional $1,250,000 ~ for a 1/2 of standing position improvement, again, devastating.
So in the end those people that are saying, "Oh you will be sorry now, because you got rid of Tubby. Now who are you going to get?" Well apparently we could get Dan Monson again, pay him a 1/3 of what we were paying Tubby and finish about the same. I guess I fail to see the big risk here.
Did anyone see where I put my rake?
Let's look at some facts, which I feel, are quite convincing. I decided to compare Monson's tenure to that of Tubby's tenure. In my mind the firing of Monson was a no brainer. I wanted to see how far Tubby was from the clear "no brainer", I was a bit surprised. I felt by comparing Monson's time at Minnesota vs. Tubby's time at Minnesota you can eliminate all these stupid excuses that always get thrown in; excuses like facilities, cold, 9th best job in B1G, facilities, etc. Both coaches dealt with these same variables so using them as excuses goes out the window in this comparison. Oh by the way, Monson should actually be given a handicap because he had to coach through the sanction years.
If you look at the average B1G finish for both coaches you don't see a big difference:
Monson years avg finish in the B1G: 7.857
Tubby years avg finish in the B1G: 7.333
So on average Tubby "improved" the program a 1/2 positional improvement in final B1G standings. To me that is devastating. On top of that Monson's contract was less than $500,000 /yr, whereas Tubby was getting just below $2,000,000. That means the U dished out an additional $1,250,000 ~ for a 1/2 of standing position improvement, again, devastating.
So in the end those people that are saying, "Oh you will be sorry now, because you got rid of Tubby. Now who are you going to get?" Well apparently we could get Dan Monson again, pay him a 1/3 of what we were paying Tubby and finish about the same. I guess I fail to see the big risk here.
Did anyone see where I put my rake?