KBaden145
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2012
- Messages
- 2,085
- Reaction score
- 0
You're overstating the level of the program when Tubbs departed. We had missed the tourney two years in a row (and three out of four seasons) when Tubbs left, and his last team went 15-13.
Saying Sampson deserved coach of the year actually goes against your own stance. Why, with just 23 wins, did Sampson deserve coach of the year if he had taken over such a successful program and a talented team?
Because, in fact, the team had been just so-so for some years and because the talent level was down, that's why.
Continuing to just repeat the inaugural records of the two coaches proves absolutely nothing if you don't view those records in context.
I said Tubbs got us to a really high level nationally. I never said he left it that way. What I did say was he left it in much better shape than he found it. We had made the NCAA tourney once since 1947 when Tubbs took over. We had made the post-season 14 out of the previous 16 seasons (4 NITs and 10 NCAAs) when Sampson took over. That is 2 completely different levels.
Tubbs made only one NCAA in his last 4 seasons. We were in a major decline from the level of program we had been. It would be foolish to say a coach left a program in great shape when there was a good chance he might be fired.
That said, it only took Sampson's 1st season to get things going and back in the tourney, thanks to smoke and mirrors (excellent coaching), Ryan Minor, and several other solid players he was left or brought in himself. It took Tubbs 3 years to get to the tourney (it was also harder to get into prior to expanding in 1985). Sampson 2nd and 3rd teams probably wouldn't have made the tourney with their record back then.
What I say about Sampson COY matches exactly with what I've said all along. I understand a little bit about what you say with the 23 wins and COY. I think you overstate the relevance of it but that's ok. I honestly don't know why he won with only 23 wins so I will defer to your logic. I would have to see who the other candidates were to put it into context.
However, context goes out the window when you compare 9 wins to 23. That is just too big a discrepancy. If you say you have 2 fairly comparable coaches, logic says the guy with 23 wins had better players. Seems clear to me. As good a coach as Sampson is, I doubt he would have been able to make as big a difference as you seem to think. It is here where you overstate and it's ok. You're a fan of his and so am I.
Last edited: