January 14, 200917 yr Author I don't think a top 100 loss is concidered a really bad loss by the Selection Committee. Top 100 no, sub-100 is not great. That's why I'm talking about it hovering around there.
January 14, 200917 yr I know it only his second season, but it really does seem like that. Maybe the first half of the year is just about conditioning then he starts to focus more on game strategy. If I recall, Meeks could not have played 39 minutes earlier in the year. In the first five games of the year he played 34, 39, 37, 30 and 39.
January 15, 200917 yr Don't you just love how Tubby couldn't recruit talent??? Let it die. Tubby would have also played him 26 minutes and we would have scored 29 points!! He would never have been in shape enough to do what he did!
January 15, 200917 yr Let it die. Tubby would have also played him 26 minutes and we would have scored 29 points!! He would never have been in shape enough to do what he did! He wouldn't have been in shape and he would have never developed enough to have been able to score 54. Tubby would have been too busy coming up with some strategy to get back in the game with 5 minutes left.
January 15, 200917 yr You would still be wrong about PP being Tubby's recruit. Billy signed him and he should get credit for it. But trust me on this one (from close personal sources in WV), Patterson was coming to UK for Tubby. When OTS left, he was about to change his mind, but Billy did a great job in re-recruiting him and landing him. So while yes, he would have been here anyway, ... Billy Clyde should get credit. And all that should really matter is that he is a Cat!
January 15, 200917 yr Let it die. Tubby would have also played him 26 minutes and we would have scored 29 points!! He would never have been in shape enough to do what he did! Sounds like you won't let it die either. You are assuming something while at least LBBC is at least stating a fact. Tubby got no credit for winning a title with Rick's players, even though he did so with less talent. Yet Billy Clyde is getting credit for Meeks even though he was an OTS recruit. Where is the logic? I wish both sides would let it die, but if it keeps coming up, I can't keep my fool mouth shut.
January 15, 200917 yr Why does a thread about a great game by our Cats and an incredible performance by Meeks have to get hijacked and turned into a Tubby arguement.
January 15, 200917 yr In the first five games of the year he played 34, 39, 37, 30 and 39. Maybe it was last year or in the pre-season I remember hearing that Meeks was not in that great of shape and BG had got on him about it.
January 15, 200917 yr Why does a thread about a great game by our Cats and an incredible performance by Meeks have to get hijacked and turned into a Tubby arguement. :ylsuper:
January 15, 200917 yr Guys, come on now. Tubby is a great coach. To most, he didn't particularly fit the perception of a "Kentucky" coach, but he has proven he is great. He was a big part of the Wildcat family for many years and we should love him as part of that tradition. I wish Tubby all the best and I would love to see him in a national semifinal (on the opposite side of the Cats, of course). As for Gillispie, he is going to do great things for the Wildcat family, as well. It just so happens that his coaching philosophy strays from the norm a little. I have no problem with that at all if it leads to the greater good of the program. I think he is already showing that his philophy and methods are very successful.
January 15, 200917 yr Don't you just love how Tubby couldn't recruit talent??? Something I loved even more was how he couldn't coach talent...
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.