How would you rate Pitino ayear and a half in?

[Otis]

24.

Also, this thread is ridiculous/hilarious. I could hear arguments for a 6 or maybe even a 7 (if you're the world's biggest homer/sycophant), but all of these 9s and 10s? For a guy who has as many career Tournament appearances as I do? Thanks as always for providing the fuel that allows me to laugh myself to sleep.

You really think he should have made the tournament with that group? Which included and injured Andre. I'm just saying he hasn't made any mistakes so far. What could he have possibly done better? Given head to Reid and the other three to come to Minnesota? He never had a shot with those guys because as the De LaSalle coach said "He made up alot of ground from where Tubby had Minnesota with Reid."

 

[dpodoll68]

I'm just saying he hasn't made any mistakes so far. What could he have possibly done better?

Aside from going to the Tournament and not losing 10 Big Ten games?

Given head to Reid and the other three to come to Minnesota?

Classy.

He never had a shot with those guys because as the De LaSalle coach said "He made up alot of ground from where Tubby had Minnesota with Reid."

Since you brought up Tubby and your continued obsession with him, I would be remiss in failing to mention that Tubby (whose alleged weakness was recruiting) signed a 5-star and a 4-star in his 2009 class. Meanwhile, the alleged master recruiter has a class that is good and solid, particularly by Minnesota standards, but pretty underwhelming by master recruiter standards. How has the master recruiter not signed a 5-star yet?

How long does the "blame Tubby" game get to go on? Tubby inherited a 9-win team and took the school to the Tournament in his 2nd year. The master recruiter inherited a 21-win team (that had a Tournament win, the school's first in 23 years) and took it to a consolation championship. If he fails to make the Tournament for a 2nd straight year, I suppose that will be Tubby's fault too?

 

[Otis]

Aside from going to the Tournament and not losing 10 Big Ten games?



Classy.



Since you brought up Tubby and your continued obsession with him, I would be remiss in failing to mention that Tubby (whose alleged weakness was recruiting) signed a 5-star and a 4-star in his 2009 class. Meanwhile, the alleged master recruiter has a class that is good and solid, particularly by Minnesota standards, but pretty underwhelming by master recruiter standards. How has the master recruiter not signed a 5-star yet?

How long does the "blame Tubby" game get to go on? Tubby inherited a 9-win team and took the school to the Tournament in his 2nd year. The master recruiter inherited a 21-win team (that had a Tournament win, the school's first in 23 years) and took it to a consolation championship. If he fails to make the Tournament for a 2nd straight year, I suppose that will be Tubby's fault too?

How man wins did Tubby get out of that 5 star? (I assume you mean Royce) How did he do developing the 4 star's offensive game? It may have gotten more offensive! Did you really see any improvement in Ralph Sampson while he was here? Look at how much better Colton did after tansferring.

There is lots of evidence to support Tubby's neglect at player development. This is usually due to bad assstant coaches. And who picked them?

Trying to get back to the tournament after losing Mbawkwe was going to be a uphill battle for Tubby. I'm sure he wouldn't have made since Mo would probably still weigh 350 lbs and wouldn't have been near as effective as he was last year!

Tubby's best years came with Monson's recruits.

 

[dpodoll68]

I'm sure he wouldn't have made since Mo would probably still weigh 350 lbs and wouldn't have been near as effective as he was last year!

I think he would've been All-Big Ten. Both statements are equally provable.

Tubby's best years came with Monson's recruits.

Oh really? How many Monson recruits were on the 2012-13 team that won a Tournament game? That was Tubby's best year.

 

[Gophers7NatTitlesBadgers0]

How man wins did Tubby get out of that 5 star? (I assume you mean Royce) How did he do developing the 4 star's offensive game? It may have gotten more offensive! Did you really see any improvement in Ralph Sampson while he was here? Look at how much better Colton did after tansferring.

There is lots of evidence to support Tubby's neglect at player development. This is usually due to bad assstant coaches. And who picked them?

Trying to get back to the tournament after losing Mbawkwe was going to be a uphill battle for Tubby. I'm sure he wouldn't have made since Mo would probably still weigh 350 lbs and wouldn't have been near as effective as he was last year!

Tubby's best years came with Monson's recruits.

This. All the Tubby a$$ kissers seem to forget we lost arguably the team's MVP to graduation, Andre would continue to play out of position, no Mathieu to run the offense, and was going to bring in a couple of very borderline recruits. The Gophers would have been fortunate to qualify for the NIT under those circumstances.

 

[dpodoll68]

This. All the Tubby a$$ kissers seem to forget we lost arguably the team's MVP to graduation, Andre would continue to play out of position, no Mathieu to run the offense, and was going to bring in a couple of very borderline recruits. The Gophers would have been fortunate to qualify for the NIT under those circumstances.

I say he would've signed a class full of 5-stars and won the national championship. Both statements are equally provable.

I love how not thinking that the former coach is a piece of human garbage makes me a "Tubby ass kisser".

 

[Gophers7NatTitlesBadgers0]

I say he would've signed a class full of 5-stars and won the national championship. Both statements are equally provable.

I love how not thinking that the former coach is a piece of human garbage makes me a "Tubby ass kisser".

We were never going to sign any 5-star recruits and we had reasonable opportunity to do that in Tubby's last year here. That's a big reason why he was fired.

 

[dpodoll68]

We were never going to sign any 5-star recruits and we had reasonable opportunity to do that in Tubby's last year here.

Tubby did sign a 5-star recruit.

That's a big reason why he was fired.

Athletic directors make hiring and firing decisions on the basis of recruiting speculation? Prove it.

 

[Otis]

I say he would've signed a class full of 5-stars and won the national championship. Both statements are equally provable.

I love how not thinking that the former coach is a piece of human garbage makes me a "Tubby ass kisser".

I happen to think you are a dumbass for your blind defense of Tubby. This is easily provable.

how's he doing down in Texas? You should cheer for them!

 

[Gophers7NatTitlesBadgers0]

Tubby did sign a 5-star recruit.



Athletic directors make hiring and firing decisions on the basis of recruiting speculation? Prove it.

He wasn't going to sign Vaughn or Travis was my point. If you think that indication were that they were leaning towards Minnesota and Tubby still was fired, you're delusional.

Edit: We were never in the running for Jones seriously so I didn't include him.

 

[Otis]

Tubby did sign a 5-star recruit.



Athletic directors make hiring and firing decisions on the basis of recruiting speculation? Prove it.

I'd say the fact that his "big" recruits got kicked off the team under his supervision (or lack). Several transfered out and did much better elsewhere. (Colton, Cobbs, Royce, etc..)
Also the lack of player development in the ones that stayed. (Sampson, Williams)
But your right! He and his DUI assistant coaches were awesome!

 

[cjbfbp]

I voted with the plurality: 8. I'm really happy with his enthusiasm and his recruiting to date and I hope he stays here a long time, but I think he has to be rated in the context of a Big Ten coach. Unlike the conference's recent struggles in football, this conference is still one of the best in terms of recruiting and the performances of its teams in basketball. On the whole, this conference has more than its fair share of elite coaches and recruiters.

 

[dpodoll68]

I happen to think you are a dumbass for your blind defense of Tubby.

I happen to know that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. My defense of Tubby isn't blind, but rather backed by facts and statistics. The only attacks all of you have are based on conjecture and besmirching his supposed lack of effort, because you know you can't refute the actual facts.

how's he doing down in Texas? You should cheer for them!

I don't care. I'm a Gopher fan.

You should cheer for them!

Why would I do that? I'm a Gopher fan. You're the one constantly bringing up Tubby on a Gophers message board.

 

[dpodoll68]

He wasn't going to sign Vaughn or Travis was my point.

I say he was.

And either way, coaches are retained on the basis of wins and losses (unless the AD didn't hire you), not recruiting.

 

[cjbfbp]

Oh really? How many Monson recruits were on the 2012-13 team that won a Tournament game? That was Tubby's best year.

I respect Tubby's contribution at Minnesota (although I'm glad we have Pitino now), but if you're serious about that statement, then you must have missed numerous Gopher Big Ten games that season. The team started 15-1 but really struggled after that and managed to put in only one really good performance from that point on (the win over Indiana) in the conference. They were lucky to face another disintegrating team in the NCAA tournament, UCLA, that had lost its best player in the conference tournament. Their coach also got fired after that season despite making the NCAA tournament.

 

[Gophers7NatTitlesBadgers0]

I say he was.

And either way, coaches are retained on the basis of wins and losses (unless the AD didn't hire you), not recruiting.

It's official: You are delusional. I would say future course of the program plays a huge role in retaining a coach or not.

 

[dpodoll68]

It's official: You are delusional.

Oh no! An anonymous poster on a Gophers message board has called me a name! However will I go on? Goodbye, cruel world!

I would say future course of the program plays a huge role in retaining a coach or not.

Sure it does. "Future course of the program" ≠ the projected/perceived ability to sign or not sign three very specific recruits that may or may not be good in college.

 

[John Galt]

24.

Also, this thread is ridiculous/hilarious. I could hear arguments for a 6 or maybe even a 7 (if you're the world's biggest homer/sycophant), but all of these 9s and 10s? For a guy who has as many career Tournament appearances as I do? Thanks as always for providing the fuel that allows me to laugh myself to sleep.

I'm not a Tubby fan, but this is spot on and shows how delusional this board is. Let's review the facts:

1. Tubby went 21-13 his last year, 8-10 in the B1G, wins 1 NCAA tournament game, and he's fired. Pitino goes 25-13, (which includes 4-0 in exhibition games), 8-10 in the B1G, and he's one of the best coaches in college basketball? So Pitino wins 4 more games overall with the same number of losses, and has the same B1G record.
2. In Tubby's 1st year, he inherited a team that had gone 9-22, 3-13 in the B1G. He went 20-14, 8-10 in the B1G. So while Pitino in year 1 had an almost identical record to the previous year, Tubby had a dramatic improvement.
3. Pitino fails to land any of the Big 3. I'm not blaming him for this as he came in late, but wouldn't a truly great recruiter have been able to land at least 1?
4. For the 2015 class, he lands (in all likelihood) 1 of 2 MN kids, and loses the other to a rival. His biggest splash on the recruiting trail, Dorsey, is a comparable recruit to Andre and Austin Hollins.

I like Pitino and think he could be very good, but anyone rating him an 8+ right now is doing so based on potential, not on what he's actually done.

 

[HOOP DREAMS]

I like Pitino and think he could be very good, but anyone rating him an 8+ right now is doing so based on potential, not on what he's actually done.

I'd bive him a 7.5-8 based on what he has actually done since he has been here.

Like I thought you wrote, he did bring in DeAndre, hope some of his other targets are home runs too. Good thing people didn't get ahead of themselfs on Mathieu at the beginning of the year, he was only our MVP.

Some of you are getting a little ahead of yourselves on Mathieu

 

[tikited]

I like Pitino and think he could be very good, but anyone rating him an 8+ right now is doing so based on potential, not on what he's actually done.

I gave him a 8 because of what he did with last years team. Tubby doesn't come into play with my evaluation. Only what was done last season. He brought in very good player in Little Dre. He took a team with zero depth, awkward balance, unfortunate injury to their best player, and low expectations to a positive end. He over achieved imo and the 8 represents that. If I felt that the team should have been a tourney team, he would have gotten a 4 or 5. Since I thought they were going to be flat out bad.....8.

 

[60's Guy]

I'm not a Tubby fan, but this is spot on and shows how delusional this board is. Let's review the facts:

1. Tubby went 21-13 his last year, 8-10 in the B1G, wins 1 NCAA tournament game, and he's fired. Pitino goes 25-13, (which includes 4-0 in exhibition games), 8-10 in the B1G, and he's one of the best coaches in college basketball? So Pitino wins 4 more games overall with the same number of losses, and has the same B1G record.
2. In Tubby's 1st year, he inherited a team that had gone 9-22, 3-13 in the B1G. He went 20-14, 8-10 in the B1G. So while Pitino in year 1 had an almost identical record to the previous year, Tubby had a dramatic improvement.
3. Pitino fails to land any of the Big 3. I'm not blaming him for this as he came in late, but wouldn't a truly great recruiter have been able to land at least 1?
4. For the 2015 class, he lands (in all likelihood) 1 of 2 MN kids, and loses the other to a rival. His biggest splash on the recruiting trail, Dorsey, is a comparable recruit to Andre and Austin Hollins.

I like Pitino and think he could be very good, but anyone rating him an 8+ right now is doing so based on potential, not on what he's actually done.

You know I read some really dumb things on here. I'd even agree I write some of them. But the premise that Tubby's first season is somehow better than Pitino's first season is utter mindless stupidity. Tubby inherited a team with talent on the roster that lost zero contributors. It returned the top 9 players. Then Monson recruited Hoffarber and Nolen so now they have a point guard and another shooter that Tubby is the beneficiary of. How in the world does that situation compare to what Pitinio walked into? Pitino inherited a team that lost 50% of it's scoring and 55% of it's rebounding. How is Pitino's team somehow the same team that Tubby coached to an NCAA win to you guys???? Pitino inherited no incoming Tubby recruits. In the spring period starting after every school in the nation has picked over the avaible potential recruits, he added Mathieu, Malik Smith, D McNeil and King to the roster before the fall season. He added these parts by necessity because of what he inherited.
He did not have the top nine players returning and two excellent recruits that fit the needs of the team like Tubby. Pitino was forced to scramble. In addition he convinced Mo to lose weight and become a contributor. Mo played 6 minutes a game for Tubby. He made the best of Oto and he played 18 minutes a game out of necessity again because of what he inherited after Oto barely playing for Tubby. How in the world can you argue Tubby was a better coach in year one? WHY is it even a comparison???
We play in the Big Ten. Pitino was a miracle worker. Pitino inherited two players and a clumsy tall guy who played his best basketball ever under Pitino. Comparing the records without comparing the circumstances is really, really stupid. Pitino had a fabulous first season! (you guys got your opinion and that's mine)

 

[Maroon Shower]

You know I read some really dumb things on here. I'd even agree I write some of them. But the premise that Tubby's first season is somehow better than Pitino's first season is utter mindless stupidity. Tubby inherited a team with talent on the roster that lost zero contributors. It returned the top 9 players. Then Monson recruited Hoffarber and Nolen so now they have a point guard and another shooter that Tubby is the beneficiary of. How in the world does that situation compare to what Pitinio walked into? Pitino inherited a team that lost 50% of it's scoring and 55% of it's rebounding. How is Pitino's team somehow the same team that Tubby coached to an NCAA win to you guys???? Pitino inherited no incoming Tubby recruits. In the spring period starting after every school in the nation has picked over the avaible potential recruits, he added Mathieu, Malik Smith, D McNeil and King to the roster before the fall season. He added these parts by necessity because of what he inherited.
He did not have the top nine players returning and two excellent recruits that fit the needs of the team like Tubby. Pitino was forced to scramble. In addition he convinced Mo to lose weight and become a contributor. Mo played 6 minutes a game for Tubby. He made the best of Oto and he played 18 minutes a game out of necessity again because of what he inherited after Oto barely playing for Tubby. How in the world can you argue Tubby was a better coach in year one? WHY is it even a comparison???
We play in the Big Ten. Pitino was a miracle worker. Pitino inherited two players and a clumsy tall guy who played his best basketball ever under Pitino. Comparing the records without comparing the circumstances is really, really stupid. Pitino had a fabulous first season! (you guys got your opinion and that's mine)

+1

 

[John Galt]

You know I read some really dumb things on here. I'd even agree I write some of them. But the premise that Tubby's first season is somehow better than Pitino's first season is utter mindless stupidity. Tubby inherited a team with talent on the roster that lost zero contributors. It returned the top 9 players. Then Monson recruited Hoffarber and Nolen so now they have a point guard and another shooter that Tubby is the beneficiary of. How in the world does that situation compare to what Pitinio walked into? Pitino inherited a team that lost 50% of it's scoring and 55% of it's rebounding. How is Pitino's team somehow the same team that Tubby coached to an NCAA win to you guys???? Pitino inherited no incoming Tubby recruits. In the spring period starting after every school in the nation has picked over the avaible potential recruits, he added Mathieu, Malik Smith, D McNeil and King to the roster before the fall season. He added these parts by necessity because of what he inherited.
He did not have the top nine players returning and two excellent recruits that fit the needs of the team like Tubby. Pitino was forced to scramble. In addition he convinced Mo to lose weight and become a contributor. Mo played 6 minutes a game for Tubby. He made the best of Oto and he played 18 minutes a game out of necessity again because of what he inherited after Oto barely playing for Tubby. How in the world can you argue Tubby was a better coach in year one? WHY is it even a comparison???
We play in the Big Ten. Pitino was a miracle worker. Pitino inherited two players and a clumsy tall guy who played his best basketball ever under Pitino. Comparing the records without comparing the circumstances is really, really stupid. Pitino had a fabulous first season! (you guys got your opinion and that's mine)

People can speculate forever re: how good a team "should" be based on who is returning. A lot of teams defy this and end up being good when people predict it will be a down year because they lost so-and-so. The fact is that Tubby improved the Gophers significantly in year 1 when measuring the only thing that objectively matters: wins and losses. The same improvement wasn't seen under Pitino. You can like Pitino because he's young, because he's a good face for the program, because you like his style of play, because he's bringing in East Coast players, or because you think he overachieved compared to what you "thought" our record would be. Yet at the end of the day, Tubby's improvement in year 1, compared to the previous season under Monson/Molinari, was without question better than Pitino's based on the only measuring stick that really matters: wins and losses.

 

[shickmyjanski]

People can speculate forever re: how good a team "should" be based on who is returning. A lot of teams defy this and end up being good when people predict it will be a down year because they lost so-and-so. The fact is that Tubby improved the Gophers significantly in year 1 when measuring the only thing that objectively matters: wins and losses. The same improvement wasn't seen under Pitino. You can like Pitino because he's young, because he's a good face for the program, because you like his style of play, because he's bringing in East Coast players, or because you think he overachieved compared to what you "thought" our record would be. Yet at the end of the day, Tubby's improvement in year 1, compared to the previous season under Monson/Molinari, was without question better than Pitino's based on the only measuring stick that really matters: wins and losses.

So we would have needed to win like 35 games for Pitino's first year to be better that Tubby's?

 

[tikited]

People can speculate forever re: how good a team "should" be based on who is returning. A lot of teams defy this and end up being good when people predict it will be a down year because they lost so-and-so. The fact is that Tubby improved the Gophers significantly in year 1 when measuring the only thing that objectively matters: wins and losses. The same improvement wasn't seen under Pitino. You can like Pitino because he's young, because he's a good face for the program, because you like his style of play, because he's bringing in East Coast players, or because you think he overachieved compared to what you "thought" our record would be. Yet at the end of the day, Tubby's improvement in year 1, compared to the previous season under Monson/Molinari, was without question better than Pitino's based on the only measuring stick that really matters: wins and losses.

Then I'll give Tubby a 9 for his first season and keep the 8 for Pitino since that is what he deserved imo.

 

[XMan]

I'm not a Tubby fan, but this is spot on and shows how delusional this board is. Let's review the facts:

1. Tubby went 21-13 his last year, 8-10 in the B1G, wins 1 NCAA tournament game, and he's fired. Pitino goes 25-13, (which includes 4-0 in exhibition games), 8-10 in the B1G, and he's one of the best coaches in college basketball? So Pitino wins 4 more games overall with the same number of losses, and has the same B1G record.
2. In Tubby's 1st year, he inherited a team that had gone 9-22, 3-13 in the B1G. He went 20-14, 8-10 in the B1G. So while Pitino in year 1 had an almost identical record to the previous year, Tubby had a dramatic improvement.
3. Pitino fails to land any of the Big 3. I'm not blaming him for this as he came in late, but wouldn't a truly great recruiter have been able to land at least 1?
4. For the 2015 class, he lands (in all likelihood) 1 of 2 MN kids, and loses the other to a rival. His biggest splash on the recruiting trail, Dorsey, is a comparable recruit to Andre and Austin Hollins.

I like Pitino and think he could be very good, but anyone rating him an 8+ right now is doing so based on potential, not on what he's actually done.

I think this is fair, other than item #3. It is not fair to put missing out on the big three on Pitino. He came in so late on that issue.

 

[DeathClutch]

The thing people are forgetting when comparing lil Pitino to Tubby is age. Being the third youngest HC in all of CB and having the season he did is pretty impressive. Not to mention the stunning turnaround in one year of a decimated FIU team. And he is admittedly still learning. He was a few points away from an NCAA berth in his first year, and an Andre Hollins injury away from making the tourney last year.

 

[60's Guy]

So we would have needed to win like 35 games for Pitino's first year to be better that Tubby's?

John Galt, your logic is so convoluted I hesitate to reply but can't help myself. You say it's about winning. Is that correct? You can't see the difference in returning the top 9 players and having two quality recruits in place to join the team, as opposed to losing 5 of the top players and no recruits in place. I believe that does make the starting line in a vastly different place...much, much farther back to be clear. Tubby had a huge headstart.
Evidently post season wins are not a factor in your equation? Tubby with the vastly superior first season in your eyes loses his first round NIT game and Pitino wins the NIT championship!! But Tubby had the better year??
"I strenuously object"

 

[SelectionSunday]

I think a lot of you are suffering from a severe case of amnesia. Tubby inherited a freaking dumpster fire of a program. Have you forgotten the 2006-07 nightmare? I haven't. The single worst season in my 22 years as a season-ticket holder. I think it's the only Gopher season where I was glad it (mercifully) came to an end. To downplay what Tubby accomplished in his first year is pure lunacy.

No disrespect at all to what Pitino accomplished in Year 1, but he didn't inherit anything close to a dumpster fire. Pitino said as much prior to last season. He made a point of saying on at least a couple occasions that Tubby left him some good players.

 

[cjbfbp]

People can speculate forever re: how good a team "should" be based on who is returning. A lot of teams defy this and end up being good when people predict it will be a down year because they lost so-and-so. The fact is that Tubby improved the Gophers significantly in year 1 when measuring the only thing that objectively matters: wins and losses. The same improvement wasn't seen under Pitino. You can like Pitino because he's young, because he's a good face for the program, because you like his style of play, because he's bringing in East Coast players, or because you think he overachieved compared to what you "thought" our record would be. Yet at the end of the day, Tubby's improvement in year 1, compared to the previous season under Monson/Molinari, was without question better than Pitino's based on the only measuring stick that really matters: wins and losses.

I would expect that viewpoint from someone who calls himself "John Galt," the hero of one of the most turgid and inane fantasies written in the 20th century.