Was discussing this with a UK buddy of mine over lunch today... Tubby was effectively run out of town, I think we can all agree on that. Why is Cal worshipped for having the same amount of success in the same amount of time? Is it just because of the high caliber of recruits he brings in? Because he has a couple more Final Fours? I'm interested to hear what some of you have to say.

These 2 have very little to compare from '96 to present. Cal vs Pitino (Lots) Cal vs 10 loss Tubby (not so much)

They really haven't had anywhere close to the same level of success.

 

Cal has been far more successful, and I loved Tubby, and was not happy when he left.

Tubby Smith had a .760 winning percentage in 10 years at Kentucky. John Calipari has an .825 winning percentage.

 

Tubby Smith was 23-9 in the NCAA Tournament with 1 championship and 1 Final Four. John Calipari is 26-6 in the NCAA Tournament with 1 championship and 4 Final Fours.

 

I'm not sure that is "the same amount of success in the same amount of time."

Tubby Smith had a .760 winning percentage in 10 years at Kentucky. John Calipari has an .825 winning percentage.

 

Tubby Smith was 23-9 in the NCAA Tournament with 1 championship and 1 Final Four. John Calipari is 26-6 in the NCAA Tournament with 1 championship and 4 Final Fours.

 

I'm not sure that is "the same amount of success in the same amount of time."

 

So the three Final Fours and a handful more wins is the difference between worship and being run out? I'm just trying to understand.

After eight seasons both had 5 SEC Regular Season titles. Tubby had 5 tournament titles, Cal has 4.

They really haven't had anywhere close to the same level of success.

 

Cal has been far more successful, and I loved Tubby, and was not happy when he left.

 

How though? Outside of recruiting, of course. Three more FF's is far more successful overall?

So the three Final Fours and a handful more wins is the difference between worship and being run out? I'm just trying to understand.

 

I'd imagine so, yes. The lack of Final Fours was always the criticism of Tubby.

 

And while there was disgruntlement among the fan base, Tubby left voluntarily. I think this goes to a 10-year rule where many fans start to get antsy about the program. This is Calipari's ninth year. If you'll notice, there has been more criticism of Calipari (coaching, recruiting, one-and-done) this year than in years past. However, I do believe Cal's postseason success buys him a little more leeway than Smith had.

I also think Cal vs. UK Pitino is a much better comparison than Cal vs. Tubby. While Cal & Tubby both have the one title, Cal has been to the Final Fours half the years he's coached here. I do think what Deuce asked about the talent Cal brings in has a lot to do with it. Cal has brought in a huge haul of talent in his eight years, whereas Tubby brought in solid talent, but not nearly on the same level.

 

The major factor, though, is that Tubby's time as an elite coach had passed. I've said it before, but if Tubby was the coach people thought he was at the time left UK, he would've gone to the Minnesota Timberwolves & not the Minnesota Golden Gophers. And then consider that he's had two additional stops since then, and has done very, very little since leaving UK.

 

A ton of schools would love to have Cal right now. The same could not be said for Tubby Smith right now. I thought Tubby was the right person to replace Rick in 1997, and I still think he was the right person. UK should hire him all over again if we could go back in time. But in 2007, when he left UK, he was nowhere near what he was ten years prior.

 

Cal is still among the top coaches in college basketball nearly ten years after coming to UK.

How though? Outside of recruiting, of course. Three more FF's is far more successful overall?

 

Has won at a better clip, and in 2 fewer seasons has 4x as many FF appearances. It's not even remotely close IMO.

Has won at a better clip, and in 2 fewer seasons has 4x as many FF appearances. It's not even remotely close IMO.

 

So I'm sensing based on you GCHS's responses that the FF's are the difference.

How though? Outside of recruiting, of course. Three more FF's is far more successful overall?

 

Personal opinion: If Tubby had three Final Fours in ten years and Calipari had six, their success is fairly similar. Because Tubby had one and Cal has four, the gap between their success is fairly wide.

 

Bottom line, fair or not, success at a handful of programs will always been measured by Final Fours. If you don't go, you'll hear criticism.

So I'm sensing based on you GCHS's responses that the FF's are the difference.

 

I think so. Seems most of the elite schools consider a final four as a successful season.

How though? Outside of recruiting, of course. Three more FF's is far more successful overall?

 

Lets try to compare the total body of work (UMass vs Ga and Tulsa) (Memphis vs Memphis), (UK vs UK). These 2 guys are not comparable. At UK Tubby was left a decent team for year 1, CAL starts from scratch. By year 3 Tubby's Cats were almost irrelevent. If not for the Bogans team, irrelevence was the norm. Other than 1 season to date CAL's teams have been in the mix for at least having a shot at the title

I think so. Seems most of the elite schools consider a final four as a successful season.

 

Well sure. I guess for me personally a Final Four is no different than an Elite Eight if you don't win the whole thing. I'd rather not get there, than get there and lose.