Michael Rand: Tubby vs. Monson. How much improvement?

Donate To GopherHole

The bottom line is always winning but some of that stuff can get spun in a variety of different ways.

How would their records measure up against each other playing ranked teams, top 10 teams, division two teams, non conference, and the like. I'm certainly no expert on Gophers history but I have a feeling Tubby's record is a bit better.
 

Feelings, excuses, next year...this is what it has come to with Tubby. Congratulations to Tubby on edging out Monson.
 

The real problem is that the comparison is actually a legitimate point of conversation. Tubby's record is a bit better, but not a lot and that's a major disappointment.
 

As I menion in another thread, Monson's good years are marginally better than Tubby's. The problem was his bad years were AWFUL.
 


minngg said:
Feelings, excuses, next year...this is what it has come to with Tubby. Congratulations to Tubby on edging out Monson.
Click to expand...

You piss and moan about Tubby all the time, what exactly do you want to be done? Fired?
 

Winnipegopher said:
As I menion in another thread, Monson's good years are marginally better than Tubby's. The problem was his bad years were AWFUL.
Click to expand...

Winnie- that's actually not true. Monson had a 10-6 Big ten record and a 9-7 Big ten record. Tubby has never surpassed .500 in Big ten play. The fact that the selection committee passed over one of the Monson teams and Tubby got in once probably as the last team or two in with a lesser record in conference does not make Tubby's record better.

What you say that is true is that Monson's bad years were worse than the bad Tubby years. No argument there.
 

I think the real question should be, is it better to get better recruits and lose a number of them to transfer or never get the better recruits at all? Would the Gophers be BETTER off right now if Royce, Devoe, Cobbs, Paul Carter, et al had never set foot on campus?

The turmoil, drama, and the revolving door at Williams is getting REALLY old...
 

bga1 said:
Winnie- that's actually not true. Monson had a 10-6 Big ten record and a 9-7 Big ten record. What you say that is true is that Monson's bad years were worse than the bad Tubby years. No argument there.
Click to expand...

I dunno.

I did say Monson's good years were marginally better so I guess we are disagreeing on the definition of marginal. I was more trying to point out that record-wise, Monson was nowhere near as bad as people seem to think. They seem to assume every year was 3-13.
 



Ogee Oglethorpe said:
I think the real question should be, is it better to get better recruits and lose a number of them to transfer or never get the better recruits at all? Would the Gophers be BETTER off right now if Royce, Devoe, Cobbs, Paul Carter, et al had never set foot on campus?

The turmoil, drama, and the revolving door at Williams is getting REALLY old...
Click to expand...

Absolutely it would be better if the transfers never came but how can you plan for that? Only White was a known risk of the transfer group. It's kind of interesting how Smith's program has become the opposite of Monson. Smith has good players transfer out while Monson had marginal players transfer in. Neither is a good way to build a program.

Tubby needs to have no transfers this year.
 

bga1 said:
Winnie- that's actually not true. Monson had a 10-6 Big ten record and a 9-7 Big ten record. Tubby has never surpassed .500 in Big ten play. The fact that the selection committee passed over one of the Monson teams and Tubby got in once probably as the last team or two in with a lesser record in conference does not make Tubby's record better.

What you say that is true is that Monson's bad years were worse than the bad Tubby years. No argument there.
Click to expand...

I will say, that while I wish tubby had a better conference record I'll take tournament appearances (and wins please) over any record. Badger fans love to tout that Ryan is better than Izzo due to big 10 record, but I'll take Izzo every time and I think you'd agree as well, just wanted to point that out. While tubby NEEDS to win tourney games, and soon, the fact he is making it at least is better than a lot of coaches we've had.
 

Winnipegopher said:
Absolutely it would be better if the transfers never came but how can you plan for that? Only White was a known risk of the transfer group. It's kind of interesting how Smith's program has become the opposite of Monson. Smith has good players transfer out while Monson had marginal players transfer in. Neither is a good way to build a program.

Tubby needs to have no transfers this year.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Any significant transfers this year without a stud replacement and then we have a problem.
 




Agreed that tournament bids matter but one needs to understand that at-large bids are subjective and Monson had two teams that got jobbed.

Monson's 2001-2002 team was 9-7 in conference. Problem was they played too tough a non-conference schedule (a nice problem to have as a fan). They played at Wake Forest, Texas Tech, and Gerogia (lost all three) and also played Oregon and Nebrsaka at home (won both). They also lost at home to NC-Wilimington who were a 13 seed that upset USC in the NCAA tournament.

The 2002-2003 team played at Nebraska and at Oregon (lost both) and home to Georgia, Georgia tech and Texas Tech (beat Georgia and Georgia tech).

Tubby's two tournament teams played only three BCS non-conference each year and two of the three were neutral site.
 

Winnipegopher said:
I dunno.

I did say Monson's good years were marginally better so I guess we are disagreeing on the definition of marginal. I was more trying to point out that record-wise, Monson was nowhere near as bad as people seem to think. They seem to assume every year was 3-13.
Click to expand...

Sorry Winne- I misread your post. You are right both ways. I agree.
 

Winnipegopher said:
Absolutely it would be better if the transfers never came but how can you plan for that? Only White was a known risk of the transfer group. It's kind of interesting how Smith's program has become the opposite of Monson. Smith has good players transfer out while Monson had marginal players transfer in. Neither is a good way to build a program.

Tubby needs to have no transfers this year.
Click to expand...

At the minimum we need to have no transfers that are able to be effective at this level. Without naming names - there are two transfers I could live with if the kids involved decided that they want to be a starter at a lower level. But no transfers would probably be best for the program at this point- all things considered.
 

Winnipegopher said:
I dunno.

I did say Monson's good years were marginally better so I guess we are disagreeing on the definition of marginal. I was more trying to point out that record-wise, Monson was nowhere near as bad as people seem to think. They seem to assume every year was 3-13.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand why 2006-2007 3-13 conference record isn't on Monson? if that's factored in, which it arguably should be since it was his team and players that year, his conference record would be 47-81 which better reflects Dan Monson.
 

No matter what you all say, the Big Ten today is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar better than the Big at any point during Monson's tenure.
 

No matter what you all say, the Big Ten today is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar better than the Big at any point during Monson's tenure.
Click to expand...

Off the top of my head the 2005-2006 season was pretty good top to bottom.

1 Ohio State University 12–4 (23–4)
2 University of Iowa 11–5 (22–8)
3 University of Illinois 11–5 (25–5)
4 University of Wisconsin 9–7 (19–10)
5 Indiana University 9–7 (17–10)
6 Michigan State University 8–8 (20–10)
7 University of Michigan 8–8 (18–9)
8 Penn State University 6–10 (14–13)
9 Northwestern University 6–10 (14–14)
10 University of Minnesota 5–11 (14–13)
11 Purdue University 3–13 (9–17)

Only one team under .500. 6 NCAA bids. 3 NIT bids. That should be about the same for this year looking at the standings.
 

gopherinpain said:
Off the top of my head the 2005-2006 season was pretty good top to bottom.

1 Ohio State University 12–4 (23–4)
2 University of Iowa 11–5 (22–8)
3 University of Illinois 11–5 (25–5)
4 University of Wisconsin 9–7 (19–10)
5 Indiana University 9–7 (17–10)
6 Michigan State University 8–8 (20–10)
7 University of Michigan 8–8 (18–9)
8 Penn State University 6–10 (14–13)
9 Northwestern University 6–10 (14–14)
10 University of Minnesota 5–11 (14–13)
11 Purdue University 3–13 (9–17)

Only one team under .500. 6 NCAA bids. 3 NIT bids. That should be about the same for this year looking at the standings.
Click to expand...

All those records off the top of your head is quite impressive.
 

bga1 said:
The fact that the selection committee passed over one of the Monson teams and Tubby got in once probably as the last team or two in with a lesser record in conference does not make Tubby's record better.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's exactly what it does. Whether or not you feel the selection committee erred in bypassing Monson's squad while inviting Tubby's squad is immaterial. The fact that Tubby has 2 NCAA Tournament bids to Monson's 1, along with a higher winning percentage both inside and outside the conference are exactly what make Tubby's record better.
 

CrocShots said:
No matter what you all say, the Big Ten today is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar better than the Big at any point during Monson's tenure.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go THAT far, but I do agree, the conference is better quality right now than we've seen in quite a while.

Anyway, Monson started quite decent actually. It's amazing to me that things seemed to regress when he actually got his full allotment of scholarships and when you would have thought things would have started to rise. The NCAA season was nice, but nothing was sustained. I remember going into the next year with some hopes, but that team just didn't come together at all.

The key issue with Monson, also, was the issue of quality vs. quantity. Monson didn't exactly have a lot of quality wins. It felt like we hardly won on the road/neutral, ranked opponents (especially later in his tenure). With Tubby, that has definitely improved, no doubt about it. He has built teams much more equipped to compete against higher level talent and there are some wins to show for that. But all the transfers, injuries, and general turmoil are just killing this program. We hope every year for a "drama-free" season, or at least one with more minor setbacks, but it hasn't happened in three years. All we can do is hope next year is that year....
 

gopherinpain said:
Off the top of my head the 2005-2006 season was pretty good top to bottom.

1 Ohio State University 12–4 (23–4)
2 University of Iowa 11–5 (22–8)
3 University of Illinois 11–5 (25–5)
4 University of Wisconsin 9–7 (19–10)
5 Indiana University 9–7 (17–10)
6 Michigan State University 8–8 (20–10)
7 University of Michigan 8–8 (18–9)
8 Penn State University 6–10 (14–13)
9 Northwestern University 6–10 (14–14)
10 University of Minnesota 5–11 (14–13)
11 Purdue University 3–13 (9–17)

Only one team under .500. 6 NCAA bids. 3 NIT bids. That should be about the same for this year looking at the standings.
Click to expand...
Whew, you are wasting your time on a Gopher forum. Remembering #'s like that, you better get to Vegas! Very impressive.
 

Monty519 said:
I wouldn't go THAT far, but I do agree, the conference is better quality right now than we've seen in quite a while.

Anyway, Monson started quite decent actually. It's amazing to me that things seemed to regress when he actually got his full allotment of scholarships and when you would have thought things would have started to rise. The NCAA season was nice, but nothing was sustained. I remember going into the next year with some hopes, but that team just didn't come together at all.

The key issue with Monson, also, was the issue of quality vs. quantity. Monson didn't exactly have a lot of quality wins. It felt like we hardly won on the road/neutral, ranked opponents (especially later in his tenure). With Tubby, that has definitely improved, no doubt about it. He has built teams much more equipped to compete against higher level talent and there are some wins to show for that. But all the transfers, injuries, and general turmoil are just killing this program. We hope every year for a "drama-free" season, or at least one with more minor setbacks, but it hasn't happened in three years. All we can do is hope next year is that year....
Click to expand...

Excellent analysis. I'd guess that, if you looked at RPI or similar measures, it's Tubby by a good margin as well. As someone else noted, today's Big Ten is better than the one against which Monson compiled the 9-7 record.

Of course, where it gets to be a complicated comparison is the factor of the sanctions - so a handicapping of their respective plights. The sanctions on one hand versus Tubby's injury bug on the other.
 

In terms of RPI and postseason appearances. ...

here are the numbers for Monson and Smith in their first 5 years only, as that's where we are in Smith's tenure.

Monson's 1st season (1999-00): 114
Smith's 1st season (2007-08): 101 (NIT)

Monson's 2nd season (2000-01): 73 (NIT)
Smith's 2nd season (2008-09): 42 (NCAA)

Monson's 3rd season (2001-02): 71 (NIT) -- IMO, Monson's most dangerous/talented team in his tenure.
Smith's 3rd season (2009-10): 62 (NCAA)

Monson's 4th season (2002-03): 71 (NIT)
Smith's 4th season (2010-11): 85 -- IMO, Smith's most dangerous/talented team before Nolen went down (even w/o Joseph)

Monson's 5th season (2003-04): 156
Smith's 5th season (2011-12): currently 65 (postseason?)
 

SelectionSunday said:
here are the numbers for Monson and Smith in their first 5 years only, as that's where we are in Smith's tenure.

Monson's 1st season (1999-00): 114
Smith's 1st season (2007-08): 101 (NIT)

Monson's 2nd season (2000-01): 73 (NIT)
Smith's 2nd season (2008-09): 42 (NCAA)

Monson's 3rd season (2001-02): 71 (NIT) -- IMO, Monson's most dangerous/talented team in his tenure.
Smith's 3rd season (2009-10): 62 (NCAA)

Monson's 4th season (2002-03): 71 (NIT)
Smith's 4th season (2010-11): 85 -- IMO, Smith's most dangerous/talented team before Nolen went down (even w/o Joseph)

Monson's 5th season (2003-04): 156
Smith's 5th season (2011-12): currently 65 (postseason?)
Click to expand...

Can we forward this to Michael rand?
 

I agree with the poster who said that the fact that a comparison can be made is a pretty clear indication that Tubby hasn't met expectations in year five.

To quote my friend Bleed, you are what your record says you are.

Tubby Smith was expected to upgrade the Gophers and elevate the program to new heights. Dan Monson frequently appeared overmatched.

Tubby has improved the Gophers program, but he certainly hasn't blown the doors off of what Monson did. Tubby in year five should be far beyond a point where any comparisons with Monson can be made.

And I'm not so sure that Big Ten is so much better now than it was before. In the eight years of Monson's tenure, the Big Ten had five different schools combine to make seven Final Four appearances. In the first four years of Tubby's tenure, the Big Ten has had one school make two appearances in the Final Four. If someone wants to make the argument that there is more depth in the league, I might be willing to agree that. But the league doesn't have as much top-end/No. 1 seed/national title contender talent as it has.
 

Winnipegopher said:
Absolutely it would be better if the transfers never came but how can you plan for that? Only White was a known risk of the transfer group. It's kind of interesting how Smith's program has become the opposite of Monson. Smith has good players transfer out while Monson had marginal players transfer in. Neither is a good way to build a program.

Tubby needs to have no transfers this year.
Click to expand...

don't we need at least one transfer so Trevor can come back if given a 6th year?
 

SelectionSunday said:
here are the numbers for Monson and Smith in their first 5 years only, as that's where we are in Smith's tenure.

Monson's 1st season (1999-00): 114
Smith's 1st season (2007-08): 101 (NIT)

Monson's 2nd season (2000-01): 73 (NIT)
Smith's 2nd season (2008-09): 42 (NCAA)

Monson's 3rd season (2001-02): 71 (NIT) -- IMO, Monson's most dangerous/talented team in his tenure.
Smith's 3rd season (2009-10): 62 (NCAA)

Monson's 4th season (2002-03): 71 (NIT)
Smith's 4th season (2010-11): 85 -- IMO, Smith's most dangerous/talented team before Nolen went down (even w/o Joseph)

Monson's 5th season (2003-04): 156
Smith's 5th season (2011-12): currently 65 (postseason?)
Click to expand...

That's interesting, but pretty unfair considering the stacked deck Monson faced coming in. The loss of 5 scholarships over three years, the reduced recruiting visits, the cloud of the scandal, the heavy program oversight that likely forced Monson's hand with Pryz. Monson's early bad luck was not dissimilar- with Bickerstaff going down midseason, Pryz leaving, Rickert leaving permaturely- not due to issues with Monson but due to an inflated view of his NBA future, Bauer was constantly injured. Plus Monson had no "brand name" of his own to potentially overcome it. The crowning blow was the Illinois loss that was in the bag with 30 seconds to go and would have certainly put us in the tourney and could have provided some crucial good vibes for the program.
 

Minnesconsin fan said:
don't we need at least one transfer so Trevor can come back if given a 6th year?
Click to expand...

Cross that bridge if it happens.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom