So much for that!

[savagerube]

Fact is, 50% of Tubby's NCAA bids were undeserved, and the other was as a low
seed going nowhere, and finishing in the lower half of the conf. And while it's conjecture not fact, all appearances are that no more will be forthcoming.
Certainly not this season, and not any time soon with the alibi king at the helm.

Oh so the NCAA appearances weren't meeting your "quality" requirements. So NCAA tourney births only count if you're a higher seed and you finish in the top half of the conference. Priceless...

 

[Whathavewedone]

Of course it is. I just mentioned three games which were winnable and would have put us in a position where we would need two wins in our last six to get to 10-8.

You mentioned games that in your fevered imagnination would be winnable, not
3 games that have a likelihood of being won in reality. There are 2 winnable games left,
@NW, home to Neb. And I don't give a road win a 50/50 proposition even at NW.

 

[savagerube]

Not changing the argument at all. I responded to a poster who compared the various former coaches big 10 records by saying one of those records was achieved via cheating. Responded directly to a point made by someone else.

My bad sher215, I quoted the wrong post. It was in response to gopherinpain. My apologies.

 

[scher215]

My bad sher215, I quoted the wrong post. My apologies.

No problem!

 

[Whathavewedone]

Oh I agree with you, his argument is invalid. My point is that saying the Gopher's lack of success boils down to them being a young team is stupid. Minnesota has, give or take 1-2, just as many upperclassmen as most teams in the Big Ten. The problem is that, at least to date, the upperclassmen have not progressed enough throughout their careers, with the exception of Mbakwe, to have an All Big Ten impact. It's not just about having upperclassmen, it's about having upperclassmen that play like upperclassmen.

Hmmmm, players don't develop under coach Smith. Now WHY does that sound familiar?

 

[SelectionSunday]

. ... Fact is that Tubby has gotten in twice at 9-9 by the grace of weak fields and a prayer shot by Hoff. No matter how much sugar you pour on his record it still is weak and is not at all unlike Monson's record in winning percentage in conference and in NCAA appearances/ success.

A couple factual things, BGA, comparing Tubby and Dan's first 4 years.

(1) We didn't make the NCAA Tournmament the year Hoff hit his miracle shot.

(2) True, Tubby and Dan have the same amount of NCAA tourney wins (0) through 4 years. That's a bummer. However, the NCAA-appearances count through 4 seasons favors Tubby 2-0. I'd call that a significant uptick.

(3) Agree that we're not where we should be in Tubby's fifth year, and that the gap between their records should be greater. I think any sane person would acknowledge that. However, the numbers still favor Tubby.

Monson's First 4 Years (Big 10 regular season): 26-38 (40.6%)
Tubby's First 4 Years (Big 10 regular season): 32-40 (44.4%)

Monson's First 4 years (Big 10 regular season + Big Ten Tournament): 27-42 (39.1%)
Tubby's First 4 Years (Big 10 regular season + BTT): 38-44 (46.3%)

(4) And if your argument is that Tubby got in because of weak fields, then one could argue Monson benefitted from the same thing in 2005 with his only NCAA team in 7+ seasons. The Gophers had one of the weaker resumes I've ever seen for a 10-6 Big Ten team. They were 2-7 vs. teams that made the NCAA field (1 of which was 7-9 Iowa), and both wins vs. the NCAA qualifiers came at The Barn. We pretty much got in because we won our last 4 regular-season games & because we won 2 of 3 from a middlin' ("We're the 4 seed") Indiana team. That's it.

(5) And these are the most important numbers for me, ones that show how much better we're competing vs. quality competition since Tubby took over.

Monson vs. NCAA qualifiers first 4 years: 13-40 (24.5%)
Tubby vs. NCAA qualifiers first 4 years: 20-35 (36.4%)

And most importantly,

Monson vs. NCAA qualifiers first 4 years (road/neutral): 0-26 (0%)
Tubby vs. NCAA qualifiers first 4 years (road/neutral): 9-22 (29%)

Bottom line? We're all tired of being a competitive but still slightly under-.500 Big Ten program. It's a grind.

 

[Whathavewedone]

Oh so the NCAA appearances weren't meeting your "quality" requirements. So NCAA tourney births only count if you're a higher seed and you finish in the top half of the conference. Priceless...

While getting a bid is superior to not, what's the real value of a bid that you back into as the team annually fades down the home stretch. And what is the satisfaction in a bid, when you brought in a coach who was supposed to start making the program competitive in the B1G? Seems like it would be reasonable to want a big time coaching hire to come in and show an arc of progression. Go from losing to winning. Go from winning to getting NCAA bids. From getting bids to competing for the top of the conference. It's been FIVE YEARS, and it's basically a broken record. Rack up non-con wins against nobodies, get in to the conference and fade away. End the season without an NCAA bid, or barely sneaking in to one. And rolling out the alibi du jour, or more accurately I suppose du annum.

 

[scher215]

Oh I agree with you, his argument is invalid. My point is that saying the Gopher's lack of success boils down to them being a young team is stupid. Minnesota has, give or take 1-2, just as many upperclassmen as most teams in the Big Ten. The problem is that, at least to date, the upperclassmen have not progressed enough throughout their careers, with the exception of Mbakwe, to have an All Big Ten impact. It's not just about having upperclassmen, it's about having upperclassmen that play like upperclassmen.

I agree with this overall premise, that yes you do need upperclassmen who actually play like upperclassmen. I disagree with it applying to the Gophers throughout Tubby's tenure. This year and last, you can make that argument. Trevor has played like an upperclassmen, Rodney is starting too, even Bo thinks so (He's a JR tho). Al has played like an upperclassmen, Damien Johnson played like an upperclassmen, Blake Hoffarber played like an upperclassmen, Westbrook played like an upperclassmen, so much so, they beat your Badgers 3 straight times.

However, you kind of contradict the point you made here in a post below.

The Badgers have 5 (Upperclassmen). JT and Rob Wilson, a seldom-played 2 guard, are the only seniors.

The Buckeyes have 2. William Buford and some junior named Evan Ravenel, I don't know, he rarely plays.

Michigan State has 6, but two of the players average less than a minute per game.


The point is, winning with a young team is very possible. Look at Purdue a few years back when Hummell, Moore, Johnson and Kramer were underclassmen, they went 15-3 in conference and it's not like Purdue is some blue-blood basketball school that constantly reloads with high school All Americans.

It's about player development and good coaching. When looking at the Gopher squads under Tubby, it really hasn't mattered how old the team is/was.

2007-2008: 7 upperclassmen (10 including rsSophs); 20-14 (8-10)
2008-2009: 7 upperclassmen; 22-11 (9-9) record
2009-2010: 7 upperclassmen; 21-14 (9-9) record
2010-2011: 5 upperclassmen; 17-14 (6-12) record
2011-2012: 4 upperclassmen (2 JUCO) 17-8 (5-7) record so far.



Every year the Gophers are good for about 20 wins and a near .500 Big Ten record. I'm not saying that is the Gopher's ceiling at all, just what they've been averaging consistently for a while now. They are habitually on the bubble come March.

You said the Gophers have one quality upperclassmen right now, Trevor who is out for the season. Then point out, the Badgers only have one quality upperclassmen too, Jordan Taylor. When he is out for the season, as the only senior leadership on the team, how do you think that plays out? If Taylor tore his ACL game 5 of the season, where do you think the Badgers are right now? Losing their senior point guard none-the-less.

If Tubby hasn't developed upperclassmen well this year, then I sure hate to think how you feel about Bo's job this season only having developed one as well. You knock Tubby for not recruiting and developing players to be good upperclassmen outside of Trevor and then talk about how the Badgers have no good upperclassmen outside of Taylor.

Fact of the matter is, the Badgers senior leader is still playing. The Gophers' is on the sideline.

Also, that Purdue class was very highly ranked. I like to think that if the Gophers were playing Nolen, Hoff, Royce, Trev, and Rodney ... they'd have had a similar season to that Purdue team. Unfortunatley, the Gophers best recruit stole pants from MOA and assaulted a security guard and the other sat out the year for a different crime accusation. Purdue's best recruiting class stayed out of trouble and contributed for 4 years, how much blame/credit does Painter get if Johnson is charged with assault and Hummel is suspended for the year?

 

[savagerube]

While getting a bid is superior to not, what's the real value of a bid that you back into as the team annually fades down the home stretch. And what is the satisfaction in a bid, when you brought in a coach who was supposed to start making the program competitive in the B1G? Seems like it would be reasonable to want a big time coaching hire to come in and show an arc of progression. Go from losing to winning. Go from winning to getting NCAA bids. From getting bids to competing for the top of the conference. It's been FIVE YEARS, and it's basically a broken record. Rack up non-con wins against nobodies, get in to the conference and fade away. End the season without an NCAA bid, or barely sneaking in to one. And rolling out the alibi du jour, or more accurately I suppose du annum.

How is getting to the B1G tournament championship game backing into the NCAA Tournament?

 

[Whathavewedone]

Replacing Tubby is not an option until we get a new AD and at least fund the new practice facility...otherwise our marginal facilities and average pay will not attract a top up and coming talent.

I am extremely frustrated as well and not a huge Tubby fan...but am being realistic. The loss of Mbakwe was the difference in both IA games, last nights game, any hope we have against MSU. We don't stand a chance against tOSU even with Trevor. But this teams beats IA twice and splits with Sconnie and we are safely in the dance...Trevor alone could have carried those three victories.

We have no chance of getting over the top until we can recruit a Top 50 recruit every other year...something we have never been able to do. But no Asst coach at Duke or NC or Syracuse is going to come to MN until we have facilities and an AD that is committed to winning!

By a top up and coming talent I suppose you mean a Brad Stevens type. Well of course that would be desirable. But why not the next notch down. A young coach at a lower profile program with a lot
of fire and promise? One that would jump at the chance for a B1G job even wit the current facilities,
and even IF he was viewing it as a stepping stone? Even if he left after 2 years, it would have to be because he demonstrated great progress, which would in turn show that this HC position isn't a backwater deadend.

 

[scher215]

By a top up and coming talent I suppose you mean a Brad Stevens type. Well of course that would be desirable. But why not the next notch down. A young coach at a lower profile program with a lot
of fire and promise? One that would jump at the chance for a B1G job even wit the current facilities,
and even IF he was viewing it as a stepping stone? Even if he left after 2 years, it would have to be because he demonstrated great progress, which would in turn show that this HC position isn't a backwater deadend.

With a "next notch down" guy you have to deal with poor recruiting for a little while.

If he is a solid coach, he will win with 2-star talent and then to 3-star, and then to 4-star, and finally to 5-star.

I think people overlook how many recruits even consider Minnesota because Tubby Smith is the head coach.

Some nobody is going to have a harder time of that. He'd have to start winning with in-state talent, the guys who'd come to the U regardless of coach. Like Kill is trying to do, lucky for Kill, he came into one of the best classes MN has had in a long time and he got those kids to recruit each other as well it was a great job by him, however in basketball they are usually not that highly ranked here in MN. He'd have to spend 3 years developing those MN kids and they'd be competitive (.500 in the B1G) years 3 and 4. You have to hope that during these growing pains, other MN kids want to come here and develop so that after the first batch graduate, you have people to step in and so on. Eventually you hope for a Royce-ish class to come along (2014) and hope that they have enough home-town pride to come to a school that hasn't even been .500 in awhile.

So after about 4 years, if you hired the right coach, you'd be right back where we are now. If you hired the wrong coach, we'd be even further back than we are now and looking for yet another "next notch down" guy. Personally, I don't want Maturi finding that diamond in the rough. That's why if you make any move (which I don't think you do anyways) you wait until the new AD is in place and make this his "signature hire"

 

[Moses87]

A couple factual things, BGA, comparing Tubby and Dan's first 4 years.

(1) We didn't make the NCAA Tournmament the year Hoff hit his miracle shot.

(2) True, Tubby and Dan have the same amount of NCAA tourney wins (0) through 4 years. That's a bummer. However, the NCAA-appearances count through 4 seasons favors Tubby 2-0. I'd call that a significant uptick.

(3) Agree that we're not where we should be in Tubby's fifth year, and that the gap between their records should be greater. I think any sane person would acknowledge that. However, the numbers still favor Tubby.

Monson's First 4 Years (Big 10 regular season): 26-38 (40.6%)
Tubby's First 4 Years (Big 10 regular season): 32-40 (44.4%)

Monson's First 4 years (Big 10 regular season + Big Ten Tournament): 27-42 (39.1%)
Tubby's First 4 Years (Big 10 regular season + BTT): 38-44 (46.3%)

(4) And if your argument is that Tubby got in because of weak fields, then one could argue Monson benefitted from the same thing in 2005 with his only NCAA team in 7+ seasons. The Gophers had one of the weaker resumes I've ever seen for a 10-6 Big Ten team. They were 2-7 vs. teams that made the NCAA field (1 of which was 7-9 Iowa), and both wins vs. the NCAA qualifiers came at The Barn. We pretty much got in because we won our last 4 regular-season games & because we won 2 of 3 from a middlin' ("We're the 4 seed") Indiana team. That's it.

(5) And these are the most important numbers for me, ones that show how much better we're competing vs. quality competition since Tubby took over.

Monson vs. NCAA qualifiers first 4 years: 13-40 (24.5%)
Tubby vs. NCAA qualifiers first 4 years: 20-35 (36.4%)

And most importantly,

Monson vs. NCAA qualifiers first 4 years (road/neutral): 0-26 (0%)
Tubby vs. NCAA qualifiers first 4 years (road/neutral): 9-22 (29%)

Bottom line? We're all tired of being a competitive but still slightly under-.500 Big Ten program. It's a grind.

To be fair, Monson took over the program on probation and was severely limited by lack of scholarships and the post-season ban. Tubby inherited a program that was free of any probation and had a full allotment of scholies...I think players actually improved more under Monson but Tubby did slightly better job of recruiting. All in all, its essentially a wash for me. Neither has achieved enough.

 

[SelectionSunday]

. ... Rack up non-con wins against nobodies.

Louisville (Dec. 2008)? Ended up NCAA Tournament's #1 overall seed, advanced to Elite 8.

Butler (Nov. 2009)? Ended up in NCAA title game.

North Carolina (Nov. 2010)? Ended up in Elite 8.

West Virginia (Nov. 2010) ? Ended up in 3rd round (round of 32).

Got it, 10-4 good buddy. A bunch of nobodies. ... all programs that have played in the Final 4 within the last 7 seasons. Definitely sound like nobodies to me.

Yes, historically the Gopher program has registered wins like that all the time. (tongue in cheek)

 

[savagerube]

Louisville (Dec. 2008)? Ended up NCAA Tournament's #1 overall seed, advanced to Elite 8.

Butler (Nov. 2009)? Ended up in NCAA title game.

North Carolina (Nov. 2010)? Ended up in Elite 8.

West Virginia (Nov. 2010) ? Ended up in 3rd round (round of 32).

I got it, a bunch of nobodies. ... all programs that have played in the Final 4 within the last 7 seasons. Definitely sound like nobodies to me.

Yes, historically the Gopher program has registered wins like that all the time. (tongue in cheek)

+1

 

[fan of Ray Williams]

Louisville (Dec. 2008)? Ended up NCAA Tournament's #1 overall seed, advanced to Elite 8.

Butler (Nov. 2009)? Ended up in NCAA title game.

North Carolina (Nov. 2010)? Ended up in Elite 8.

West Virginia (Nov. 2010) ? Ended up in 3rd round (round of 32).

I got it, a bunch of nobodies. ... all programs that have played in the Final 4 within the last 7 seasons. Definitely sound like nobodies to me.

Yes, historically the Gopher program has registered wins like that all the time. (tongue in cheek)

You are too kind to him SS. For the life of me I just don't get why a Kentucky fan will spend this much time on a Gopher forum. Strange world I guess.

 

[Whathavewedone]

How is getting to the B1G tournament championship game backing into the NCAA Tournament?

I call it backing in when you fade away in the rankings and standings and sneak in
from the bubble. A 3 game tnmt. run notwithstanding, you can't say they were playing well as the conf. season progressed.

 

[Whathavewedone]

Louisville (Dec. 2008)? Ended up NCAA Tournament's #1 overall seed, advanced to Elite 8.

Butler (Nov. 2009)? Ended up in NCAA title game.

North Carolina (Nov. 2010)? Ended up in Elite 8.

West Virginia (Nov. 2010) ? Ended up in 3rd round (round of 32).

Got it, 10-4 good buddy. A bunch of nobodies. ... all programs that have played in the Final 4 within the last 7 seasons. Definitely sound like nobodies to me.

Yes, historically the Gopher program has registered wins like that all the time. (tongue in cheek)

My gosh yes, I see it now. 4 wins in 5 seasons erase the fact that those gaudy preconf. records and appearances in the polls are almost exclusively the result of beating up on no-names. And those sterling 12-2 starts end up in 20-12 alsoran status. Excuse me. I forgot how inpressive his NBA like schedule in Nov-Dec usually is.

 

[Whathavewedone]

You are too kind to him SS. For the life of me I just don't get why a Kentucky fan will spend this much time on a Gopher forum. Strange world I guess.

Anyone else see the intellectual bankruptcy in Tubby apologists automatically calling Tubby critics
Kentucky fans. And vice versa in Tubby critics automatically calling defenders Donna?

 

[GophersInIowa]

I would recommend the great "spam" filter they have here on gopherhole. It totally cleans up the threads.

This message is hidden because Whathavewedone is on your ignore list.

 

[SelectionSunday]

I call it backing in when you fade away in the rankings and standings and sneak in
from the bubble.

You mean sorta' like VCU last year? Unranked, finished ho-hum 5-5 in its final 10 games prior to the CAA Tournament, snuck in from the bubble, then viciously ridiculed by many including the likes of Jay Bilas, then went all the way to the Final 4? Do you mean that kind of sneaking in?

Do you realize what a complete and udder (and I mean udder, not utter) tool you are?

 

[GophersInIowa]

The Badgers have 5. JT and Rob Wilson, a seldom-played 2 guard, are the only seniors.

The Buckeyes have 2. William Buford and some junior named Evan Ravenel, I don't know, he rarely plays.

Michigan State has 6, but two of the players average less than a minute per game.


The point is, winning with a young team is very possible. Look at Purdue a few years back when Hummell, Moore, Johnson and Kramer were underclassmen, they went 15-3 in conference and it's not like Purdue is some blue-blood basketball school that constantly reloads with high school All Americans.

It's about player development and good coaching. When looking at the Gopher squads under Tubby, it really hasn't mattered how old the team is/was.

2007-2008: 7 upperclassmen (10 including rsSophs); 20-14 (8-10)
2008-2009: 7 upperclassmen; 22-11 (9-9) record
2009-2010: 7 upperclassmen; 21-14 (9-9) record
2010-2011: 5 upperclassmen; 17-14 (6-12) record
2011-2012: 4 upperclassmen (2 JUCO) 17-8 (5-7) record so far.



Every year the Gophers are good for about 20 wins and a near .500 Big Ten record. I'm not saying that is the Gopher's ceiling at all, just what they've been averaging consistently for a while now. They are habitually on the bubble come March.

It certainly is possible to win with a lot of young players, but it's hardly the norm.

Just for comparison sake, 64% of their minutes and 69% of their points come from upperclassmen. For the Gophers, its 44% and 48% respectively. Wisconsin freshmen play 6.5% of their minutes, 27% for the Gophers.

Its not an excuse, its just the facts. It is harder to win with younger players. Just like in football, our problem isn't all talent, its keeping guys in the program. If we can keep these younger guys around for four or five years, I think we will see different results.

 

[savagerube]

My gosh yes, I see it now. 4 wins in 5 seasons erase the fact that those gaudy preconf. records and appearances in the polls are almost exclusively the result of beating up on no-names. And those sterling 12-2 starts end up in 20-12 alsoran status. Excuse me. I forgot how inpressive his NBA like schedule in Nov-Dec usually is.

What non-conference schedule would you like to see whathavewedone? If I remember right, the Gopher's RPI before B1G games started was #2 or #3 in the conference? I want to know because so far you should be: 1) part of the NCAA selection committee. 2)Constructing the non-conference schedule yourself. 3) The next AD so you can hire a "better" coach than Tubby. 4) Be hated by most on this board. One of these is true. Now it's your turn to ponder this question and figure out which one is factual and which scenarios are preposterous.

 

[Parski1]

The negativity in this town really sucks!

 

[SelectionSunday]

In fairness to Goober (Whathavewedone), the Gophers' nonconference schedule this season is turning out to be more like Tubby's first two seasons (not strong). Currently our nonconference SOS (according to CollegeRPI.com) has fallen to #196 in the country, a big dip from where it was prior to the start of the B1G season. Several opponents have pretty much taken a nosedive. It's killer when the opponents counted on most to provide some SOS pop (Virginia Tech & USC) go into a freefall, and another one expected to be solid (Fairfield) ends up being OK but nothing special.

Tubby's nonconference schedules his first two years were poor (#284 in his 1st season, #187 in his 2nd), however, in his 3rd and 4th seasons they ended up being respectable (#77 and #86). This season's NC sked, unfortunately, appears headed more toward his 2nd season (2008-09).

All that said, Goober chose to deflect attention away from his original point (that the Gophers only have beaten nobodies in November/December) since Tubby took over. That is simply not true. In fact, in his short tenure -- for whatever it's worth -- I'd argue Tubby already easily has won more "meaningful" nonconference games than Clem Haskins and Dan Monson, perhaps even combined. Goober, always check your facts before you use hyperbole.

 

[Maximus]

I call it backing in when you fade away in the rankings and standings and sneak in
from the bubble. A 3 game tnmt. run notwithstanding, you can't say they were playing well as the conf. season progressed.

A 3 game run? In their last 10 games prior to the NCAAs, they had three wins over top 14 opponents and also won in Champaign.

Beat No. 14 Wisconsin by 16. Beat No. 11 Michigan State by five. Beat No. 6 Purdue by 27. I think that would be the exact opposite of backing in.

 

[Whathavewedone]

A 3 game run? In their last 10 games prior to the NCAAs, they had three wins over top 14 opponents and also won in Champaign.

Beat No. 14 Wisconsin by 16. Beat No. 11 Michigan State by five. Beat No. 6 Purdue by 27. I think that would be the exact opposite of backing in.

Seems like you have a hard time seeing big pictures. Can you really not see that starting out,
what was it, 13-1 or some such, then fading to a .500 conference record is not really an impressive
NCAA resume. And don't overlook that "those last 10 games" included that 3 game stretch I'm talking about in the B1G tnmt. where they beat some of the teams you mention when those teams
had nothing to play for, and the Gophs were literally playing for their NCAA lives.

When you go from being ranked, to falling off the bubble, a hot streak in the conf. tnmt. to steal a bid, THAT is BACKING IN.

 

[Whathavewedone]

In fairness to Goober (Whathavewedone), the Gophers' nonconference schedule this season is turning out to be more like Tubby's first two seasons (not strong). Currently our nonconference SOS (according to CollegeRPI.com) has fallen to #196 in the country, a big dip from where it was prior to the start of the B1G season. Several opponents have pretty much taken a nosedive. It's killer when the opponents counted on most to provide some SOS pop (Virginia Tech & USC) go into a freefall, and another one expected to be solid (Fairfield) ends up being OK but nothing special.

Tubby's nonconference schedules his first two years were poor (#284 in his 1st season, #187 in his 2nd), but in his 3rd and 4th seasons they ended up being respectable (#77 and #86). This season's NC sked, unfortunately, appears headed more toward 2007-08 and 2008-09.

Parse and nit pick all you want. It's simple reality that each of his 5 years, Tubby has had a preconference record that simply by appearance is impressive and nets top 25 consideration, only
to end up with pedestrian .500 (or sub) conference records and falling out of the rankings, reduced
to teetering on the bubble or falling off. And those big early numbers come at the expense of teams that are overwhelmingly NOT the type of wins that garner you points in your favor when on the bubble. That is REALITY, not opinion. You were DELUDING yourself if you thought USC was going to be an impressive opponent this season.

Heck, you can take each year's conference slates, and skim out an impressive win or two to point to, but they STILL remain .500 records and below. Case in point, win at IU this year, VERY impressive standing alone. An all but certain 8-10 or worse record, NOT SO MUCH.

 

[Badger2010]

I agree with this overall premise, that yes you do need upperclassmen who actually play like upperclassmen. I disagree with it applying to the Gophers throughout Tubby's tenure. This year and last, you can make that argument. Trevor has played like an upperclassmen, Rodney is starting too, even Bo thinks so (He's a JR tho). Al has played like an upperclassmen, Damien Johnson played like an upperclassmen, Blake Hoffarber played like an upperclassmen, Westbrook played like an upperclassmen, so much so, they beat your Badgers 3 straight times.

However, you kind of contradict the point you made here in a post below.



You said the Gophers have one quality upperclassmen right now, Trevor who is out for the season. Then point out, the Badgers only have one quality upperclassmen too, Jordan Taylor. When he is out for the season, as the only senior leadership on the team, how do you think that plays out? If Taylor tore his ACL game 5 of the season, where do you think the Badgers are right now? Losing their senior point guard none-the-less.

If Tubby hasn't developed upperclassmen well this year, then I sure hate to think how you feel about Bo's job this season only having developed one as well. You knock Tubby for not recruiting and developing players to be good upperclassmen outside of Trevor and then talk about how the Badgers have no good upperclassmen outside of Taylor.

Fact of the matter is, the Badgers senior leader is still playing. The Gophers' is on the sideline.

Also, that Purdue class was very highly ranked. I like to think that if the Gophers were playing Nolen, Hoff, Royce, Trev, and Rodney ... they'd have had a similar season to that Purdue team. Unfortunatley, the Gophers best recruit stole pants from MOA and assaulted a security guard and the other sat out the year for a different crime accusation. Purdue's best recruiting class stayed out of trouble and contributed for 4 years, how much blame/credit does Painter get if Johnson is charged with assault and Hummel is suspended for the year?

I don't even know where to start with your flawed logic. One thing I will ask though, is that you don't make this into a pissing match between a Badger fan and a Gopher fan. It's not about that. The only reason the Badgers were even mentioned in my thread is because I wanted to compare the top 3 teams in the conference to the Gophers when it came to upperclassmen.

My argument is three-fold:
1) The available upperclassmen on the current Gophers squad have not progressed to the level they should have. I never blamed Tubby for this.

2) Young teams can win very regularly. In fact, if you measured the correlation between total wins and the overall experience in years of each team, I think it would be a pretty low correlation.

3) The Gophers have had a very similar level of success each of Tubby's 5 years, regardless of team's cumulative experience.

As for Bo's development of good seniors...WTF are you even talking about? Do you know how stupid you sound? There are two seniors on the current Badger team...one is a 1st team All American. That you even brought this up shows how completely incapable you are of forming a logical argument.


I never once contradicted myself. I said the argument that the youth of year's Gopher squad is to blame for this year's struggles is a flawed one. I said the available upperclassmen have not played on a All Big Ten level. Ralph Sampson and Rodney Williams were both very highly rated out of high school, but I have seen minimal development of either's game or skill set. Rodney Wiliams is shooting near 50% from the line and Ralph is still plays like a 7 foot shooting guard. Basically, they get by doing the exact same things they did when they became Gophers. Rodney has always been a freak and great around the rim. Ralph has always had a decent midrange shot, but is incredibly soft, which leads to him being abused by more physical big men.

And I don't care that the Gophers beat Wisconsin 3 times in a row or whatever the streak was at. This isn't about that. This is about the flawed logic of some people when it comes to why the Gophers have struggled.

 

[Badger2010]

It certainly is possible to win with a lot of young players, but it's hardly the norm.

Just for comparison sake, 64% of their minutes and 69% of their points come from upperclassmen. For the Gophers, its 44% and 48% respectively. Wisconsin freshmen play 6.5% of their minutes, 27% for the Gophers.

Its not an excuse, its just the facts. It is harder to win with younger players. Just like in football, our problem isn't all talent, its keeping guys in the program. If we can keep these younger guys around for four or five years, I think we will see different results.

I especially agree with your last paragraph.

I picked the aforementioned teams of OSU MSU and Wisconsin because they are the top 3 teams in the league. I'm sure there are a ton of senior-laden teams at the bottom of the conference as well.

Quick glance at the Big Ten in order of ranking:

OSU: 2 upperclassmen
MSU: 6 upperclassmen
Wisconsin: 7 upperclassmen
Michigan: 6 upperclassmen
Indiana: 9 upperclassmen
Illinois: 5 upperclassmen
Northwestern: 7 upperclassmen
Purdue: 7 upperclassmen
Minnesota: 4 upperclassmen
Iowa: 6 upperclassmen
Nebraska: 11 upperclassmen
PSU: 3 upperclassmen

I don't see much of a connection.

In fact, if you run a correlational analysis between Big Ten wins and number of upperclassmen for each team, you end up with a correlation coefficient of -.15022. For those a bit removed from their last statistics course, correlation coefficients can range between -1 and 1, with numbers greater than 0 indicating a positive correlation and negative number indicating a negative correlation. The closer the coefficient is to 1 or -1, the stronger the connection; a 0 coefficient indicates that there is no correlation at all.

Basically a -.15022 shows that in fact, right now, the more seniors there are on a team in the Big Ten, the less wins the team has. Now, a .15 or a -.15 indicates a very low level of correlation, and with the small sample size there is sure to be a lot of variance, plus some teams have played a game or two more than others, and some teams have had easier schedules, so this certainly isn't without flaw. However, looking at the hastily put together data shown, there is very little correlation at all between a team's experience and a team's wins/success. If anything, you are more likely to lose if you have more upperclassmen.

 

[savagerube]

Seems like you have a hard time seeing big pictures. Can you really not see that starting out,
what was it, 13-1 or some such, then fading to a .500 conference record is not really an impressive
NCAA resume. And don't overlook that "those last 10 games" included that 3 game stretch I'm talking about in the B1G tnmt. where they beat some of the teams you mention when those teams
had nothing to play for, and the Gophs were literally playing for their NCAA lives.

When you go from being ranked, to falling off the bubble, a hot streak in the conf. tnmt. to steal a bid, THAT is BACKING IN.

Wow! I didn't realize that playing for a B1G championship is considered "nothing to play for."