The team Roy Williams won it with, was more talented than the team Tubby won it with. Yeah Tubby took over UK after two straight finals. But that 1998 team was not full of stars like the two previous teams. That 1998 team definitely overachieved. They wasn't one of the top 5 most talented teams in the country that year, and maybe not even top 10. Only two players really had pro careers and that was both centers.

 

That UNC team yeah their freshman year they didn't do so well. But did you see the key word there. They were freshman and had no supporting cast with them. McCants, May, and that PG who I can't think of his name right now, were more talented than any of the guys on the 98 team for UK.

 

So if people are going to say Tubby doesn't get the credit for the 98 team because it wasn't his own players, then Roy Williams sure don't deserve the credit for the title he won since it wasn't his players.

 

I am a Roy Williams fan actually, and love how he coaches. But if people are going to use that against Tubby. Then they should also use that against him.

 

 

Big difference: They had one year of learning under Roy Williams, Tubby's players were still fresh from learning from the grand master himself: Rick Pitino.

Big difference: They had one year of learning under Roy Williams, Tubby's players were still fresh from learning from the grand master himself: Rick Pitino.

 

It dont matter. If people say that the championship dont count for Tubby since it was not his players. Then you can't say it counts for Roy because it was not his players either.

 

For the record I do think it counts for Roy, because I also think it counts for Tubby. The tournament is so hard to win, that is why we hardly ever see the actual favorite win it. Anything can happen, just one different play call. Or using the wrong sub, and you might have lost the game if it was a different coach. So that is why I give both credit for THEIR championships!

I have had many, many coaches tell me their toughest coaching jobs ever were their most talented teams. I think that argument is a joke and shows people have no idea what it takes...

It dont matter. If people say that the championship dont count for Tubby since it was not his players. Then you can't say it counts for Roy because it was not his players either.

 

For the record I do think it counts for Roy, because I also think it counts for Tubby. The tournament is so hard to win, that is why we hardly ever see the actual favorite win it. Anything can happen, just one different play call. Or using the wrong sub, and you might have lost the game if it was a different coach. So that is why I give both credit for THEIR championships!

 

Another big difference: Roy was close many times before. He has been to final fours and championship games. The closest Tubby's come before or after his gimme championship was eating dinner at Buffalo Wild Wings on game night.

Another big difference: Roy was close many times before. He has been to final fours and championship games. The closest Tubby's come before or after his gimme championship was eating dinner at Buffalo Wild Wings on game night.

 

So you saying since Roy had close before, that means that would definitely make it his championship. And since Tubby had not been as close as Roy before, that means it wasn't his championship?

 

Thats just funny. I can't believe you are trying to use that for your argument. I mean if anything maybe it just shows that Tubby maybe is a better actual coach than Roy. I mean Roy had all this experience of being there, while Tubby didn't. However Tubby just like Roy was able to win a title with players that were not his. He didn't need all that experience to get the job done.

 

Just face it you can not say it was not Tubby's championship and then turn around and say but that was Roys. Its either one way or the other in this situation.

He had the best team in the country numerous times at KU, and choked it away every time. He's had the best team in the country at UNC more than once, and has choked it away. He won his title with Matt's players. If that arguement is used against Tubby, then I'm darn sure going to use it against Roy.

 

I presented some data earlier in the thread about actual teams so I'm asking, can you point out years they were head and shoulders the best team in the nation? Can you define numerous?

 

Were they the best team in '96? (UK and UMass were)

The best team in '97? (Probably with only one loss)

The best team in '98? (Not likely with Arizona, UNC and Duke the other #1 seeds)

The best team in '03? (I think they were a 2 seed when they advanced then)

 

 

You note that he's had the best team in the country more than once at UNC, so you must feel that last year's squad was the best in the land. I can't think that to be true in Roy's other 2 years.

I presented some data earlier in the thread about actual teams so I'm asking, can you point out years they were head and shoulders the best team in the nation? Can you define numerous?

 

Were they the best team in '96? (UK and UMass were)

The best team in '97? (Probably with only one loss)

The best team in '98? (Not likely with Arizona, UNC and Duke the other #1 seeds)

The best team in '03? (I think they were a 2 seed when they advanced then)

 

 

You note that he's had the best team in the country more than once at UNC, so you must feel that last year's squad was the best in the land. I can't think that to be true in Roy's other 2 years.

 

Now you're thinking logically Hatz...

I have had many, many coaches tell me their toughest coaching jobs ever were their most talented teams. I think that argument is a joke and shows people have no idea what it takes...

 

I happen to agree that it is naive to assume that "the most talented team" should somehow be predestined to win a championship, and that only poor coaching could keep such a team from its rendevous with destiny.

Do most people know how hard it is even to make it to the Sweet 16?

I have had many, many coaches tell me their toughest coaching jobs ever were their most talented teams.

I think Rick Pitino actually stated exactly that, refering to the 96 team, in either his first book or in an interview I witnessed.

It dont matter. If people say that the championship dont count for Tubby since it was not his players. Then you can't say it counts for Roy because it was not his players either.

 

For the record I do think it counts for Roy, because I also think it counts for Tubby. The tournament is so hard to win, that is why we hardly ever see the actual favorite win it. Anything can happen, just one different play call. Or using the wrong sub, and you might have lost the game if it was a different coach. So that is why I give both credit for THEIR championships!

 

I am on your side with this debate... I think the argument that is's not your players makes no sense. You still have to coach them.

I think Rick Pitino actually stated exactly that, refering to the 96 team, in either his first book or in an interview I witnessed.

 

Unfortunately he wasn't one of the coachest that told me...:lol:

So you saying since Roy had close before, that means that would definitely make it his championship. And since Tubby had not been as close as Roy before, that means it wasn't his championship?

 

Thats just funny. I can't believe you are trying to use that for your argument. I mean if anything maybe it just shows that Tubby maybe is a better actual coach than Roy. I mean Roy had all this experience of being there, while Tubby didn't. However Tubby just like Roy was able to win a title with players that were not his. He didn't need all that experience to get the job done.

 

Just face it you can not say it was not Tubby's championship and then turn around and say but that was Roys. Its either one way or the other in this situation.

 

 

Still another big difference: Nearly every player on Tubby's team that year had been to the final game of the NCAA tournament. No one on Roy's team was close. If Tubs would have taken UK back any other time, i would put him right up there close to Roy Williams, but as of now, it's like comparing steak to poo.

I think Rick Pitino actually stated exactly that, refering to the 96 team, in either his first book or in an interview I witnessed.

 

He stated that he had Ron Mercer as a freshman and Mercer only got to play around ten minutes a game but everyone was happy with their roles. A team with that much talent can be hard to coach with only one ball to shoot. It is sometimes hard for All-Americans to come out of high school and be role players, but a great coach can do it.

 

As for this thread, I am a UNC fan, and I would not trade Coach Williams for anyone. Not that he needed to prove anything, but the year after McCants,May,Williams left I was sold that he was the right coach for UNC because no one expected anything from UNC and they had a great season considering they lost about 90% of their offense.

Even though hes started beating UK every year I have liked him more and more lately. He seems like a good guy and is a very good coach. His mains strength as a coach maybe how well he recruits.