1998-OTS's first season....with Pitino's boys. Hmmm, Let's see a national championship and a sparkling 35-4 record. Don't mention that this team had been in the title game in both 96 and 97. I could have led them to this title.

I seriously doubt it. I'm not sure Pitino would have won a national title with that team ... he would have had to make some style-of-play changes. Tubby made some subtle changes that paid off with a national title.

2002-"Ten-loss Tubby" was born as UK lost 10 games once again, winning 22. Loses included Western KY, and 4 other unranked teams. UK was beaten in the sweet 16 by a very good Maryland squad.

A national championship Maryland squad that beat Kentucky by 10 points and won its next/final three games by 8, 9 and 12 points.

Discounting the 98 and 99 teams which had plenty of talent left from the Pitino era, Tubby only had 3 seasons of great success at UK, with the best overall efforts leading to Elite 8 runs.

Tubby had a national championship and four other Elite 8 appearances in 10 seasons ... by any standard, that's impressive.

He got very lucky on Tayshaun Prince, Chuck Hayes and Jodie Meeks.

You say lucky ... some would say it was shrewd recruiting. You can't blast him for his failures and discount his successes by calling him "lucky."

But, he also filled his roster with many players who aren't really even mid-major worthy which include:

Saul Smith, Myron Anthony, Ryan Hogan, Todd Tackett, Corey Sears, Josh Carrier, Adam Chiles, Brandon Stockton, Benard Cote, Preston Lemaster, Sherray Thomas, Orbzut and Alleyene, Jared Carer, Mike Williams.

Some of those guys were walk-ons, and some were reaches. And some you're just insulting. Smith was a decent player who had the misfortune of not being a star for his father.

 

Chiles ... not mid-major worthy? Bull ... Murray State never gets to the NCAA in 2004 without Chiles. He was a quality point guard who let off-the-court problems derail his career.

 

And I suspect a lot of those guys were recruited and offered by high-major schools, too.

Lazy recruiting put UK in this position. Only extreme luck allowed UK to have their 3 big seasons in the middle of OTS run. Players like Chuck Hayes, Gerald Fitch and Auzibuike ended up being better players than their star rating had suggested.

Again, some would attribute that to shrewd recruiting and/or solid coaching and player development.

 

If you're going to hammer his mistakes, you've got to credit his successes.

Edited March 23, 200917 yr by westsider

I seriously doubt it. I'm not sure Pitino would have won a national title with that team ... he would have had to make some style-of-play changes. Tubby made some subtle changes that paid off with a national title.

Tubby had a national championship and four other Elite 8 appearances in 10 seasons ... by any standard, that's impressive.You say lucky ... some would say it was shrewd recruiting. You can't blast him for his failures and discount his successes by calling him "lucky."

Some of those guys were walk-ons, and some were reaches. And some you're just insulting. Smith was a decent player who had the misfortune of not being a star for his father.

 

Chiles ... not mid-major worthy? Bull ... Murray State never gets to the NCAA in 2004 without Chiles. He was a quality point guard who let off-the-court problems derail his career.

 

And I suspect a lot of those guys were recruited and offered by high-major schools, too.

Again, some would attribute that to shrewd recruiting and/or solid coaching and player development.

 

If you're going to hammer his mistakes, you've got to credit his successes.

 

Well, actually, he only had 3 elite 8 appearences after the national title.

Well, actually, he only had 3 elite 8 appearences after the national title.

Still impressive in my book ...

Westsider, to your points I offer the following

 

Pitino wouldn't have won a title with that team? I think '96 and '97 beg to differ.

 

Yes the loss was to Maryland the eventual national champ.

 

Tubby's title is up for debate, whether it was his team or not he still did a nice job. The Elite 8's are nice but nothing to celebrate about. We are UK, I think every year we should be a threat for the Sweet 16 or Elite 8. Thats not too much to ask. Other teams like UNC and Memphis are.

 

Chuck Hayes was pure luck. It was a great find. You can't tell me that Tubby thought he was recruiting a future starting PF in the NBA when he signed Chuck Hayes. He was a 6-6 power forward with average athleticism.

 

Saul Smith was not good by any stretch of the imagination. He wasn't UK material period.

 

Chiles was big for Murray, I will give you that.

 

As for a lot of them being high majors with a lot of offers I think we beat out some mid-majors for Alleyne and Carter was offered a walk-on spot at UNC I believe.

 

Either way, even if these players were mid-major worthy they aren't the types of classes the CONTENDERS PULL IN.

 

Look at UCLA they bring in future pro's every year. Same with Carolina, Memphis, UConn. Duke, U of L, Syracuse all bring in good players. Look at football schools like Oklahoma and Texas who are bringing in McDonald's All-Americans. Of all major schools, for the past few years UK has consistently recruited the worst. When a highly touted player is making his list of schools now he isn't thinking of UK. We get what? one a year if that? That is sad.

 

As for his successful seasons in the middle of his run, that started with his half-time speech vs. Vandy when they just started playing lights out. He found something that worked with those group of players and it allowed them to dominate the weak SEC. Yes, I know UF won two titles in a row, and UT is up and coming, but no one else is consistent or good. LSU made a nice final four run with Big Baby and Tyrus Thomas only to fall off the face of the earth the next year.

 

Player development? Not always. Rondo and Morris got worse here. Auzibuike is better in the NBA. He could develop average talent I will give you that, but future NBA players for the most part were wasted here. Tayshaun is the exception of course, but I think he would have been great anywhere. Chuck Hayes is in the NBA because of defense and hustle but never developed an offensive game at UK. Bogans improvement curve flattened out from his sophomore year until mid-way through his Senior season.

 

Coaching? I think Tubby makes good adjustments in game, but he isn't suited for the big time. He is better off at a school like Minnesota or Georgia, where he doesn't need to go to the final four, recruit All-Americans, and thinks that go along with being an annual contender. To compete at an Elite level, you need a better recruiter. You need a Pitino, a Calipari, a Roy Williams, a Ben Howland. BCG may not fit into that category, but Tubby definitely did not.

 

UK got worse during his tenure, IMO. Pitino had UK as "THE TEAM" in college basketball. We are not that today, and never were after 1998. Even our team that went through the SEC undefeated didn't have that appeal. UK is no longer a dream destination for recruits, it was during the 90's. This team was left with no plan for the future. Virtually no shooters were on the roster.

 

Once again your opinion is your opinion mine is mine.

Vince Carter, Stackhouse, Rasheed Wallace and Michael Jordan were better in the NBA....I guess Dean Smith was good at player development either.

Pitino wouldn't have won a title with that team? I think '96 and '97 beg to differ.

Different teams ... it's just my opinion. Take it for what it's worth.

Tubby's title is up for debate, whether it was his team or not he still did a nice job. The Elite 8's are nice but nothing to celebrate about. We are UK, I think every year we should be a threat for the Sweet 16 or Elite 8. Thats not too much to ask. Other teams like UNC and Memphis are.

No program gets to that level every year. There are only eight Elite 8 spots out there every year, and it's a crowded field of contenders.

Chuck Hayes was pure luck. It was a great find. You can't tell me that Tubby thought he was recruiting a future starting PF in the NBA when he signed Chuck Hayes. He was a 6-6 power forward with average athleticism.

It wasn't Tubby's job to find an NBA starter. He was looking for players to help him win games at Kentucky, and he obviously saw something in Hayes that made him feel he was that kind of player.

Saul Smith was not good by any stretch of the imagination. He wasn't UK material period.

He was a serviceable guard, but because he wasn't a star and he was the coach's son, a lot of fans were unreasonably harsh in their assessment of him.

As for a lot of them being high majors with a lot of offers I think we beat out some mid-majors for Alleyne and Carter was offered a walk-on spot at UNC I believe.

I wasn't referring to any specific player. But of all of those guys you mentioned, I have a hard time believing that none of them received offers from high-major schools.

As for his successful seasons in the middle of his run, that started with his half-time speech vs. Vandy when they just started playing lights out. He found something that worked with those group of players and it allowed them to dominate the weak SEC. Yes, I know UF won two titles in a row, and UT is up and coming, but no one else is consistent or good. LSU made a nice final four run with Big Baby and Tyrus Thomas only to fall off the face of the earth the next year.

So now you're even discounting his good years ... that pretty much shows your position on the matter.

Player development? Not always. Rondo and Morris got worse here. Auzibuike is better in the NBA. He could develop average talent I will give you that, but future NBA players for the most part were wasted here. Tayshaun is the exception of course, but I think he would have been great anywhere. Chuck Hayes is in the NBA because of defense and hustle but never developed an offensive game at UK. Bogans improvement curve flattened out from his sophomore year until mid-way through his Senior season.

Who cares about what those guys have done in the NBA? Tubby's job is to put a team together that can win games on the college level.

 

It always seemed to me that the "NBA talents" that didn't fulfill their potential at Kentucky were the players that weren't always ready to buy into the team concept.

UK got worse during his tenure, IMO. Pitino had UK as "THE TEAM" in college basketball. We are not that today, and never were after 1998. Even our team that went through the SEC undefeated didn't have that appeal. UK is no longer a dream destination for recruits, it was during the 90's. This team was left with no plan for the future. Virtually no shooters were on the roster.

Heck, no program can sustain the level of performance that UK did from 1996-98 ... college basketball often goes in cycles. Even North Carolina and Duke hit their low points, and their nadirs were worse than anything Kentucky has done in the last 20 years.

Different teams ... it's just my opinion. Take it for what it's worth.

No program gets to that level every year. There are only eight Elite 8 spots out there every year, and it's a crowded field of contenders.

It wasn't Tubby's job to find an NBA starter. He was looking for players to help him win games at Kentucky, and he obviously saw something in Hayes that made him feel he was that kind of player.

He was a serviceable guard, but because he wasn't a star and he was the coach's son, a lot of fans were unreasonably harsh in their assessment of him.

I wasn't referring to any specific player. But of all of those guys you mentioned, I have a hard time believing that none of them received offers from high-major schools.

So now you're even discounting his good years ... that pretty much shows your position on the matter.

Who cares about what those guys have done in the NBA? Tubby's job is to put a team together that can win games on the college level.

 

It always seemed to me that the "NBA talents" that didn't fulfill their potential at Kentucky were the players that weren't always ready to buy into the team concept.

Heck, no program can sustain the level of performance that UK did from 1996-98 ... college basketball often goes in cycles. Even North Carolina and Duke hit their low points, and their nadirs were worse than anything Kentucky has done in the last 20 years.

 

I respect your opinion and you make very good arguments. We should stop I guess. I'm not a Tubby fan I will admit that. I think his coaching style is boring, his recruiting at UK was sub-par and his overall tournament resume really isn't that good. I didn't like a lot of his players. The only thing is that I think UNC and Memphis are built to be in the Elite 8 to final four area for the concievable future. As for Saul Smith I didn't think he was good, and it had nothing to do with him being the coaches son. He just didn't really add anything to the team, IMO.

I respect your opinion and you make very good arguments. We should stop I guess. I'm not a Tubby fan I will admit that. I think his coaching style is boring, his recruiting at UK was sub-par and his overall tournament resume really isn't that good. I didn't like a lot of his players. The only thing is that I think UNC and Memphis are built to be in the Elite 8 to final four area for the concievable future. As for Saul Smith I didn't think he was good, and it had nothing to do with him being the coaches son. He just didn't really add anything to the team, IMO.

 

Saul wasn't anything special, but he was solid. I can almost guarantee you that if Saul was on this year's team they would've been playing in the NCAA not the NIT. He provided something this team desperately needs, leadership.

Saul wasn't anything special, but he was solid. I can almost guarantee you that if Saul was on this year's team they would've been playing in the NCAA not the NIT. He provided something this team desperately needs, leadership.

 

 

:thumb::thumb: I agree. I always loved Saul. No, he wasn't extremely talented, but nobody had a bigger desire to win, and he did a very good job at the point IMO. He would have started for this year's team.

Different teams ... it's just my opinion. Take it for what it's worth.

No program gets to that level every year. There are only eight Elite 8 spots out there every year, and it's a crowded field of contenders.

It wasn't Tubby's job to find an NBA starter. He was looking for players to help him win games at Kentucky, and he obviously saw something in Hayes that made him feel he was that kind of player.

He was a serviceable guard, but because he wasn't a star and he was the coach's son, a lot of fans were unreasonably harsh in their assessment of him.

I wasn't referring to any specific player. But of all of those guys you mentioned, I have a hard time believing that none of them received offers from high-major schools.

So now you're even discounting his good years ... that pretty much shows your position on the matter.

Who cares about what those guys have done in the NBA? Tubby's job is to put a team together that can win games on the college level.

 

It always seemed to me that the "NBA talents" that didn't fulfill their potential at Kentucky were the players that weren't always ready to buy into the team concept.

Heck, no program can sustain the level of performance that UK did from 1996-98 ... college basketball often goes in cycles. Even North Carolina and Duke hit their low points, and their nadirs were worse than anything Kentucky has done in the last 20 years.

 

Its really quite simple. Many of these fans that can't get over Pitino leaving. So it really wouldn't matter what Tubby did here good or bad, still wouldn't like him because he was not Pitino. People seem to think of that 96 to 98 run as the rule instead of the exception.

 

I mean did Pitino do better than Tubby did while here at UK? YES!!! I mean there is no questioning that, nobody can argue that. What Pitino did while here was simply amazing, and he left while he was still on top. So people just assume it would have stayed that way with him. We over the years would have had some down years and 1st week exits under him as well. People just can't seem to realize that during his time here at UK, Pitino did something that not many in coaches in America could have done. So people just can't seem to get over that, and so no coach is going to live up to that to them. Tubby didn't stand a chance with those fans that think like that, and there seems to be a lot that think like that. That is why most people hate UK fans, because my fellow UK fans are so unrealistic.

Saul wasn't anything special, but he was solid. I can almost guarantee you that if Saul was on this year's team they would've been playing in the NCAA not the NIT. He provided something this team desperately needs, leadership.

 

I dont know if Saul would have got this team to the tournament. He honestly reminded me a lot of Porter. Except I would say he was a little bit better. He slightly better ball handler, and about the same at shooting IMO. So I don't know if he would have got us in the tournament or not. But sure would have been nice to have him, he wouldn't have hurt this team.

UK got worse during his tenure, IMO. Pitino had UK as "THE TEAM" in college basketball. We are not that today, and never were after 1998.

When you win a title in your first year as head coach, where else can you go? Except maybe win titles EVERY year and we know that isn't happening.

Its really quite simple. Many of these fans that can't get over Pitino leaving. So it really wouldn't matter what Tubby did here good or bad, still wouldn't like him because he was not Pitino. People seem to think of that 96 to 98 run as the rule instead of the exception.

 

I mean did Pitino do better than Tubby did while here at UK? YES!!! I mean there is no questioning that, nobody can argue that. What Pitino did while here was simply amazing, and he left while he was still on top. So people just assume it would have stayed that way with him. We over the years would have had some down years and 1st week exits under him as well. People just can't seem to realize that during his time here at UK, Pitino did something that not many in coaches in America could have done. So people just can't seem to get over that, and so no coach is going to live up to that to them. Tubby didn't stand a chance with those fans that think like that, and there seems to be a lot that think like that. That is why most people hate UK fans, because my fellow UK fans are so unrealistic.

 

Of course Pitino would have had down years. But you think that if he was still coaching here that we wouldn't have hung atleast 1 more title here during the last 12 years? C'mon. UK wouldn't be in the postion they are in today. No team wins a title every year, makes the final four every year, or even the Elite 8. It's really how UK was left that bothers me. Tubby wasn't able to sustain a level of bringing players in that is needed to remain near the top. C'mon we are debating how good Saul Smith was. That should tell you everything you need to know.

Of course Pitino would have had down years. But you think that if he was still coaching here that we wouldn't have hung atleast 1 more title here during the last 12 years? C'mon.

He hasn't won one in Louisville, either ... and he's had teams capable of pulling it off.

 

It's ridiculous to judge coaches solely on the number of national championships they've won. The true judge of a coach is whether he keeps his program at a national-contender level every year. Tubby fell a little short of that, but he never failed to make the NCAA tournament in 10 seasons as a coach at Kentucky, and that in itself is an accomplishment.

 

Did he get an "A" for his 10-year tenure at UK? No, but a "B" looks like a perfectly reasonable grade.

When you win a title in your first year as head coach, where else can you go? Except maybe win titles EVERY year and we know that isn't happening.

 

Scribe it's not the Championship. You can't win one every year. It's just doesn't happen. But, UK is no where near as strong a program today as it was during the 90's. UK used to mean something. People were afraid to play at Rupp. Kids outside of Kentucky had UK shirts, jerseys and wall paper, etc. We aren't a brand name any more for people outside of the Bluegrass. I don't really think anyone could disagree with that. Even when Carolina was struggling they were still the Tar Heels, you knew they would be back. I think we've fallen off the way UCLA did in the late 90's early 2000's. We are still a prestigious school, but UK doesn't hold the same swagger it used to.