Reusse: Expectations are all over the map for Gophers athletics

The question had to do with recruiting. My point was that Pitino hasn't shown yet that he is clearly a better recruiter than Tubby. Try to read a little more closely next time.

Part of recruiting is getting players that fit; fit your coaching, fit your offense (not sure what Tubby’s was), fit your personality. Picking two players that leave the program is not a plus in regards to Tubby’s recruiting.
 

I'm just curious - why do you choose to embed the picture of a disgraced pervert, sexual harasser, and all around SOB in your posts? Is he your idol?

Lol, sorry for pointing out your flawed logic. Didn't know you'd get so upset.
 

Part of recruiting is getting players that fit; fit your coaching, fit your offense (not sure what Tubby’s was), fit your personality. Picking two players that leave the program is not a plus in regards to Tubby’s recruiting.

Well, if you're going to condemn Tubby for his defections, then you should be very critical of Pitino as well because he has his own list.
 

Lol, sorry for pointing out your flawed logic. Didn't know you'd get so upset.

My logic wasn't flawed. Your analogy was off base. A basketball player needs more than physical dimensions to be good. Bakary was usually the biggest guy on the floor but usually the worst basketball player on the floor by some margin. There are plenty of big men who have talents beyond being big.
 

My logic wasn't flawed. Your analogy was off base. A basketball player needs more than physical dimensions to be good. Bakary was usually the biggest guy on the floor but usually the worst basketball player on the floor by some margin. There are plenty of big men who have talents beyond being big.

You projected Konate's value in a hypothetical scenario where you took away his biggest asset, and seemed to use that made up version of him to prove he was worse than Oto. That doesn't make any sense. Even if you weren't comparing him to anyone, calling a player useless if you took away their biggest asset is just dumb.
 


What you said was that it was harder to win in football and basketball than other sports. I asked you why it should be harder to win in basketball than it is in baseball and you had no convincing answer to that question. Perhaps you ultimately realized that your prior statement was just a baseless opinion instead of "reality" as you initially characterized it.

Sir, it is difficult to win in any sport. 100 less teams, some of which are pretty small colleges in baseball is not a point to be dismissed. It's easier in hockey in Minnesota for all the reasons outlined. Baseball or any other non revenue sport flies under the radar of media and mostly even social media. There is almost no outside pressure to win. The fan base is tiny, the budgets are tiny. Division I basketball and football are ultra competitive. You have the best coaches to compete against. There is a lot money involved which brings increased accountability and a lot of scrutiny. If you disagree...we disagree...that's fine.

It's easier to win in basketball than it is in football. It doesn't require as many home run recruits.

You coach wrestling at any high school. I'll coach basketball. You have a losing record and nobody will care. Basketball has a poor season and there is going to be conversation. It's harder because more people have expectations in those sports. Each program realizes that and the competition reflects it on and off the court.
http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trsorbonnespeech.html
My opinion is not baseless. And yes, it is an opinion but, I have been there. Have you?
 

You projected Konate's value in a hypothetical scenario where you took away his biggest asset, and seemed to use that made up version of him to prove he was worse than Oto. That doesn't make any sense. Even if you weren't comparing him to anyone, calling a player useless if you took away their biggest asset is just dumb.

Come on, give him more credit. After all, if you cut off Kirk Cousins' right arm he would be virtually useless and worse than Spergon Wynn.
 

My logic wasn't flawed. Your analogy was off base. A basketball player needs more than physical dimensions to be good. Bakary was usually the biggest guy on the floor but usually the worst basketball player on the floor by some margin. There are plenty of big men who have talents beyond being big.

I think it would have gone better for you if you would have put it that way from the beginning.

I don't disagree with the premise. Most would likely agree that if BK were even three inches shorter he would not have been offered a scholarship to play basketball at the U. He brought height to the table, and not much else. He was a project that didn't pan out. I don't have a problem with taking on a major project player every now and then. Some of those guys end up having really good careers. Now, taking on two major projects (BK and Gas) in the same class...I don't think that is very smart.
 

Well, if you're going to condemn Tubby for his defections, then you should be very critical of Pitino as well because he has his own list.

I’m not praising Pitino for recruits that leave, that is your logic. I would never count Pitino recruits that leave the program as recruiting highlights for Pitino, that is why I would not count the same for Tubby.
 



Sir, it is difficult to win in any sport. 100 less teams, some of which are pretty small colleges in baseball is not a point to be dismissed. It's easier in hockey in Minnesota for all the reasons outlined. Baseball or any other non revenue sport flies under the radar of media and mostly even social media. There is almost no outside pressure to win. The fan base is tiny, the budgets are tiny. Division I basketball and football are ultra competitive. You have the best coaches to compete against. There is a lot money involved which brings increased accountability and a lot of scrutiny. If you disagree...we disagree...that's fine.

It's easier to win in basketball than it is in football. It doesn't require as many home run recruits.

You coach wrestling at any high school. I'll coach basketball. You have a losing record and nobody will care. Basketball has a poor season and there is going to be conversation. It's harder because more people have expectations in those sports. Each program realizes that and the competition reflects it on and off the court.
http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trsorbonnespeech.html
My opinion is not baseless. And yes, it is an opinion but, I have been there. Have you?

Depends on the school. There are High Schools in MN and Iowa where Wrestling is the marquee sport of the school - teams where anything less than a state title is seen as a bad year. And, in my experience, wrestling fans are very focused on their sport - more so than a lot of hoops or football fans. I know I've been to wrestling meets that had much larger crowds than basketball games at the same school.

there are also colleges where Baseball is a perennial power, while hoops may be an also-ran. It depends on the situation.

But, regardless of the sport, at the college level, the good teams tend to be good most years, and the bad teams tend to be bad most years. every now and then, a team may move up from non-contender to contender, or vice versa, but that is rare. in HS or college, winning breeds more winning. losing breeds more losing. fans follow a winner, and run from a loser. that is the way of the world.
 

It's easier to win in basketball than it is in football. It doesn't require as many home run recruits.
But if we assume a similar level of recruiting the football coach will have a better chance to develop guys that weren't highly ranked into stars. Basketball players are more developed by the time they get offers, football recruiting is much more of a guessing game.
 

I think it would have gone better for you if you would have put it that way from the beginning.

I don't disagree with the premise. Most would likely agree that if BK were even three inches shorter he would not have been offered a scholarship to play basketball at the U. He brought height to the table, and not much else. He was a project that didn't pan out. I don't have a problem with taking on a major project player every now and then. Some of those guys end up having really good careers. Now, taking on two major projects (BK and Gas) in the same class...I don't think that is very smart.

Thanks for the support. My feeling is that the meaning of the original statement should have been fairly self-evident to those who watched the two of them over the last four years (in fairness to Bakary, he did have some decent performances but he could never build upon, or even sustain, them).
 

But if we assume a similar level of recruiting the football coach will have a better chance to develop guys that weren't highly ranked into stars. Basketball players are more developed by the time they get offers, football recruiting is much more of a guessing game.

I'm not so sure about that...lots of variables like all these discussions I seem to get into. ha Take Mo Walker...absolutely he transformed himself under Pitino. Totally agree when we talk about football linemen, who they encourage to add weight of 100 pounds or more. Time and maturity important in that process everybody agrees.

But football guys start with a frame, that predicts they can get bigger/stronger/maybe faster. All football does that with linemen. But, Kill/Claeys looked for guys who would become stars in their system...they recruited late looking for the sleepers. PJ wants guys who can contribute quickly. He wants the recruits everybody wants and sells well. In Football it's more about size and strength.

Basketball it's more about skills. But you can absolutely change, improve the skills of the basketball players. McBrayer became a better shooter when healthy in year two. Curry was reported to do the same for his shot in year two. It depends on the coach, I think. There are fewer basketball players so they all rank higher and many freshman contribute. Football often they must get bigger stronger.

Quarterbacks are developed. They say they develop wide receivers...not seeing it happen so much...in part because a quarterback helps....you need an offensive line...it's more complicated. You need more pieces in football...receivers require a quarterback...a QB needs an offensive line to give him time....the team needs a running back to balance the offense and vice versa with the pass. But, outside of offensive skill positions the development is bigger, stronger, faster in football. Basketball, the emphasis is always on skills...then stronger, faster.

I think in both it requires a vision on the part of the coach who that guy can become. Then the ability to achieve the vision in development. The difference is the starting line is different in basketball and football. But, the goal is to close the starting line in your sport closer to that of the top teams.
 



Basketball it's more about skills.


Athleticism, unless your skills are really superior, is pretty important too. Steve Nash wasn't a great athlete by NBA standards but he had outstanding skills (including shooting). Evan Turner was a great college basketball player with very good skills (except shooting). He's struggled to be even an average player in the NBA because of his sub-par athleticism (and, of course, his shooting which is still fairly mediocre). Michael Hurt has fair skills and size for a wing but has really sub-par athleticism.
 

Face it, we practically invented US Hockey! The US Hall of Fame is in Eveleth for a reason. How many Minnesotans won the cup last night? At least 2 that I know of.

So, we should be good at hockey and yes, expect to go to the NCAAs every year. Men's and Women's.

Baseball is a traditionally strong sport despite all the disadvantages of being in the north. Credit Coach Anderson for pulling off a tough task. He will be near impossible to replace.

Women's Softball and Volleyball are doing very well and are largely ignored. But those coaches are definitely moving their programs up.

So why can we compete in the lesser sports when we can't compete in Basketball and football? Is there a chance that in the non-revenue sports our budgets are pretty even with the Ohio States and the Michigans? I bet they are.

We will never be in the same conversation with schools spending mad cash on football and cheating through shoe brands in basketball. That is a fact. We won't spend and every time a Minnesota school sport cheats they get caught because we don't get looked over like the blue bloods. Either that or we don't know how to cover our tracks.
 

Or we do not hire great coaches in the revenue sports.
 


Or we do not hire great coaches in the revenue sports.

This is probably true. The question is why? That likely goes back to Otis' comment on the amount of support for the program relative to their peers. (I'm not sure if that is entirely true but someone could look it up) It's hard to get a great coach to come here if you don't support the program the same way as other schools both financially and emotionally.
 

This is probably true. The question is why? That likely goes back to Otis' comment on the amount of support for the program relative to their peers. (I'm not sure if that is entirely true but someone could look it up) It's hard to get a great coach to come here if you don't support the program the same way as other schools both financially and emotionally.

Some truth to it but i have researched it and loads of basketball programs have spent far less than Minnesota and have had a ton of success. The real reason great coaches have not been hired is that the athletic directors have been atrocious. They have failed to identify coaches that had greatness written all over them before they were great. The method they used was poor as they went search firm and poor networking. The Fleck hire may work very well as well as hockey because the references for both were incredibly glowing among retired and active hall of fame coaches.
 

Some truth to it but i have researched it and loads of basketball programs have spent far less than Minnesota and have had a ton of success. The real reason great coaches have not been hired is that the athletic directors have been atrocious. They have failed to identify coaches that had greatness written all over them before they were great. The method they used was poor as they went search firm and poor networking. The Fleck hire may work very well as well as hockey because the references for both were incredibly glowing among retired and active hall of fame coaches.

Out of curiosity, when Haskins was let go who would you have liked to see the Gophers hire? At the time, I believe they considered Dan Monson from Gonzaga, Barry Collier from Butler, and former Virginia head coach Terry Holland campaigned for the job but I am not sure he was a strong candidate. There was also a push from a few of the players to hire JB Bickerstaff's dad Bernie. I can't remember who else was involved in the process, but Monson seemed like a solid get considering the circumstances at the time. With the benefit of hindsight, his tenure really hurt the program as the right hire then (or a quicker hook on Monson) could have made a big difference.
 

Bo Ryan would have taken the job. Jay Wright was looking for a big job. Many guys thought Thad Matta was headed for huge things and would have jumped at the chance.
 

Out of curiosity, when Haskins was let go who would you have liked to see the Gophers hire? At the time, I believe they considered Dan Monson from Gonzaga, Barry Collier from Butler, and former Virginia head coach Terry Holland campaigned for the job but I am not sure he was a strong candidate. There was also a push from a few of the players to hire JB Bickerstaff's dad Bernie. I can't remember who else was involved in the process, but Monson seemed like a solid get considering the circumstances at the time. With the benefit of hindsight, his tenure really hurt the program as the right hire then (or a quicker hook on Monson) could have made a big difference.

Strongly disagree that Monson hurt the program. This was an absolute trainwreck of a job when he took it. He had to right the ship both on and off the court. He righted things off the floor, and produced a somewhat respectable product on the floor. Consider that Monson had a .527 winning percentage with the Gophers vs Pitino's .536 win %...virtually the same. Monson's B1G record is actually better than Pitino's -- .393 vs .344. And this job was 10x worse when Monson took it.

His record may not have been great, and he deserved to lose his job when he did, but Dan Monson was good for Gopher basketball.
 




Top Bottom