(03-07-2017 03:47 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 03:26 PM)bluebacker Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 02:06 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 10:03 AM)gusrob Wrote:  

(03-06-2017 11:42 PM)tiger2000 Wrote:  Jeez you guys are old. No wonder the only people I see in the forum are blue hairs.

Half the people complaining about tubby are his age or more. Invite him to your table as Perkins, maybe he will win you over.

They're old enough to have watched his history. History repeats itself more so than not. Kentucky and Minnesota cheered his departure just like we cheered Pastner's. Pastner has a solid career W-L record. Guess he's a Hall of Famer too. Few people know bball like Tubby, but he's not the best recruiter, speaker, motivator or marketer. Unfortunately it takes a lot to make a program successful. I'm staying hopeful---otherwise I'd give up sports all together---but reality is that we will most likely be a 20-10 team for all of Tub's tenure.

Minnesota - 3 trips in 6 years. At friggin Minnysoda. UK - 10 trips in 10 years. I hope history repeats itself.

BTW, after they ran him off, the Minny AD admitted they didn't do him right. And UK put him in their HOF.

I guess we'll find out if the old horse has one more race left in him.

If history is any indicator it will come on the heels of a .500 or worse conference finish and a first game exit in the NCAAt.

Allsome!

Again, what history you looking at? Not ours or Tubby's. Or are you one just picking the past few years and calling it history?

(03-07-2017 04:13 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 03:47 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 03:26 PM)bluebacker Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 02:06 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 10:03 AM)gusrob Wrote:  They're old enough to have watched his history. History repeats itself more so than not. Kentucky and Minnesota cheered his departure just like we cheered Pastner's. Pastner has a solid career W-L record. Guess he's a Hall of Famer too. Few people know bball like Tubby, but he's not the best recruiter, speaker, motivator or marketer. Unfortunately it takes a lot to make a program successful. I'm staying hopeful---otherwise I'd give up sports all together---but reality is that we will most likely be a 20-10 team for all of Tub's tenure.

Minnesota - 3 trips in 6 years. At friggin Minnysoda. UK - 10 trips in 10 years. I hope history repeats itself.

BTW, after they ran him off, the Minny AD admitted they didn't do him right. And UK put him in their HOF.

I guess we'll find out if the old horse has one more race left in him.

If history is any indicator it will come on the heels of a .500 or worse conference finish and a first game exit in the NCAAt.

Allsome!

Again, what history you looking at? Not ours or Tubby's. Or are you one just picking the past few years and calling it history?

Whatever happened after 2004-5 seems to be the norm. The genesis of "Ten Loss Tubby."

89-121 in conference since then.

One can certainly see a dividing line in his results. Going from finishing 1st or 2nd in the SEC to finishing 3rd and 4th in the DIVISION the last two years.

At some point recent history is a better indicator than ancient history.

(03-07-2017 04:25 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 04:13 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 03:47 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 03:26 PM)bluebacker Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 02:06 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  Minnesota - 3 trips in 6 years. At friggin Minnysoda. UK - 10 trips in 10 years. I hope history repeats itself.

BTW, after they ran him off, the Minny AD admitted they didn't do him right. And UK put him in their HOF.

I guess we'll find out if the old horse has one more race left in him.

If history is any indicator it will come on the heels of a .500 or worse conference finish and a first game exit in the NCAAt.

Allsome!

Again, what history you looking at? Not ours or Tubby's. Or are you one just picking the past few years and calling it history?

Whatever happened after 2004-5 seems to be the norm. The genesis of "Ten Loss Tubby."

89-121 in conference since then.

One can certainly see a dividing line in his results. Going from finishing 1st or 2nd in the SEC to finishing 3rd and 4th in the DIVISION the last two years.

At some point recent history is a better indicator than ancient history.

So a cherry picker, then. Of course we already knew, but big of you to admit it. Let me find that analysis...

True, he had a 33% conference record for 3 years at TT. Of course, the three years before he got there, they had a 17% record.

True, he had a 43% conference record over 6 years at Minny. Of course, the 6 years before and 3 years since, they had a 36% record.

At UK, he had a 75% conference record over 10 years. The 10 years before and 9 years since, they had a 75% conference record - even with the wins Cal is piling up.

And you obviously don't want to talk about Tulsa or Georgia.

Perspective. It's easy to exclude data when you're driving an agenda. Pick the schools who are bottom tier schools in very tough leagues, using the justification of "recent history".

It's not an agenda, it is just taking the most recent work.

There's really no other way to put it. Like Bruce Weber. In the last 10 years he's been markedly worse than the previous 6-7 years.

He gets a new job, are you banking on the 2001-2006 Weber or the late Illinois/K-State Weber?

Rick Barnes, too.

Is Tennessee getting 1994-2007 Rick or 2008-2014 Rick.

Same human, different results.

(03-07-2017 05:26 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 04:25 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 04:13 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 03:47 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 03:26 PM)bluebacker Wrote:  I guess we'll find out if the old horse has one more race left in him.

If history is any indicator it will come on the heels of a .500 or worse conference finish and a first game exit in the NCAAt.

Allsome!

Again, what history you looking at? Not ours or Tubby's. Or are you one just picking the past few years and calling it history?

Whatever happened after 2004-5 seems to be the norm. The genesis of "Ten Loss Tubby."

89-121 in conference since then.

One can certainly see a dividing line in his results. Going from finishing 1st or 2nd in the SEC to finishing 3rd and 4th in the DIVISION the last two years.

At some point recent history is a better indicator than ancient history.

So a cherry picker, then. Of course we already knew, but big of you to admit it. Let me find that analysis...

True, he had a 33% conference record for 3 years at TT. Of course, the three years before he got there, they had a 17% record.

True, he had a 43% conference record over 6 years at Minny. Of course, the 6 years before and 3 years since, they had a 36% record.

At UK, he had a 75% conference record over 10 years. The 10 years before and 9 years since, they had a 75% conference record - even with the wins Cal is piling up.

And you obviously don't want to talk about Tulsa or Georgia.

Perspective. It's easy to exclude data when you're driving an agenda. Pick the schools who are bottom tier schools in very tough leagues, using the justification of "recent history".

The last 10 years of data is the last 10 years of data.

That's a freaking decade. I'd say the last 10 years are more indicative of who / what Tubby is TODAY as a head coach than the earlier part of his career.

(03-06-2017 10:50 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  The Tigers were last ranked (in men's basketball) March 10, 2014

Five longest AP Poll droughts in past 45 years:

1) 5 years, 6 months (April 1996-October 2001)

2) 5 years, 1 week (January 1977-February 1982)

3) 3 years, 0 months (March 2014-present)

4) 2 years, 10 months (Dec 1992-October 1995)

5) 2 years, 9 months (January 1990-October 1992)

So according to these numbers, we were only ranked in the AP Poll six months from January 1990 to October 2001? Six months in 11 1/2 years! I remember those being some lean years, but ouch! Lorenzen and the boys were fun to watch though!

Ranked--Nov. 92, Nov.95-March. 96

(03-07-2017 05:26 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 04:25 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 04:13 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 03:47 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 03:26 PM)bluebacker Wrote:  I guess we'll find out if the old horse has one more race left in him.

If history is any indicator it will come on the heels of a .500 or worse conference finish and a first game exit in the NCAAt.

Allsome!

Again, what history you looking at? Not ours or Tubby's. Or are you one just picking the past few years and calling it history?

Whatever happened after 2004-5 seems to be the norm. The genesis of "Ten Loss Tubby."

89-121 in conference since then.

One can certainly see a dividing line in his results. Going from finishing 1st or 2nd in the SEC to finishing 3rd and 4th in the DIVISION the last two years.

At some point recent history is a better indicator than ancient history.

So a cherry picker, then. Of course we already knew, but big of you to admit it. Let me find that analysis...

True, he had a 33% conference record for 3 years at TT. Of course, the three years before he got there, they had a 17% record.

True, he had a 43% conference record over 6 years at Minny. Of course, the 6 years before and 3 years since, they had a 36% record.

At UK, he had a 75% conference record over 10 years. The 10 years before and 9 years since, they had a 75% conference record - even with the wins Cal is piling up.

And you obviously don't want to talk about Tulsa or Georgia.

Perspective. It's easy to exclude data when you're driving an agenda. Pick the schools who are bottom tier schools in very tough leagues, using the justification of "recent history".

Pitino isn't coming here to prep another team for Tubby. Tulsa played nobody. Georgia was probably his best work. I'm betting he won't become as energetic as he was from 91-97. Yeah I'd say the last 20 years (minus the Pitino recruited and coached players) is the best predictor. GOD I HOPE I'M WRONG. Time will tell.

(03-07-2017 06:51 PM)bluebacker Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 05:26 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 04:25 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 04:13 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 03:47 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  If history is any indicator it will come on the heels of a .500 or worse conference finish and a first game exit in the NCAAt.

Allsome!

Again, what history you looking at? Not ours or Tubby's. Or are you one just picking the past few years and calling it history?

Whatever happened after 2004-5 seems to be the norm. The genesis of "Ten Loss Tubby."

89-121 in conference since then.

One can certainly see a dividing line in his results. Going from finishing 1st or 2nd in the SEC to finishing 3rd and 4th in the DIVISION the last two years.

At some point recent history is a better indicator than ancient history.

So a cherry picker, then. Of course we already knew, but big of you to admit it. Let me find that analysis...

True, he had a 33% conference record for 3 years at TT. Of course, the three years before he got there, they had a 17% record.

True, he had a 43% conference record over 6 years at Minny. Of course, the 6 years before and 3 years since, they had a 36% record.

At UK, he had a 75% conference record over 10 years. The 10 years before and 9 years since, they had a 75% conference record - even with the wins Cal is piling up.

And you obviously don't want to talk about Tulsa or Georgia.

Perspective. It's easy to exclude data when you're driving an agenda. Pick the schools who are bottom tier schools in very tough leagues, using the justification of "recent history".

The last 10 years of data is the last 10 years of data.

That's a freaking decade. I'd say the last 10 years are more indicative of who / what Tubby is TODAY as a head coach than the earlier part of his career.

Great to hear logic! Hope he has his best career results in Memphis, but the data is the data.

(03-08-2017 09:26 AM)gusrob Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 06:51 PM)bluebacker Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 05:26 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 04:25 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 04:13 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  Again, what history you looking at? Not ours or Tubby's. Or are you one just picking the past few years and calling it history?

Whatever happened after 2004-5 seems to be the norm. The genesis of "Ten Loss Tubby."

89-121 in conference since then.

One can certainly see a dividing line in his results. Going from finishing 1st or 2nd in the SEC to finishing 3rd and 4th in the DIVISION the last two years.

At some point recent history is a better indicator than ancient history.

So a cherry picker, then. Of course we already knew, but big of you to admit it. Let me find that analysis...

True, he had a 33% conference record for 3 years at TT. Of course, the three years before he got there, they had a 17% record.

True, he had a 43% conference record over 6 years at Minny. Of course, the 6 years before and 3 years since, they had a 36% record.

At UK, he had a 75% conference record over 10 years. The 10 years before and 9 years since, they had a 75% conference record - even with the wins Cal is piling up.

And you obviously don't want to talk about Tulsa or Georgia.

Perspective. It's easy to exclude data when you're driving an agenda. Pick the schools who are bottom tier schools in very tough leagues, using the justification of "recent history".

The last 10 years of data is the last 10 years of data.

That's a freaking decade. I'd say the last 10 years are more indicative of who / what Tubby is TODAY as a head coach than the earlier part of his career.

Great to hear logic! Hope he has his best career results in Memphis, but the data is the data.

No, it's not logic. It's a shallow presentation of data and logic. You pick 2 bottom feeders in tough leagues - but throw out the majority of the resume. That's not logical at all. That's selective use of evidence.

And the failure to benchmark results at those bottom feeders is perspective distortion. Even if you want to throw out the other 15 years of his resume and just pick those last 10 - those last 10 are overperforming the norm at those programs. Their norm is not equal to our norm.

(03-08-2017 12:52 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 09:26 AM)gusrob Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 06:51 PM)bluebacker Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 05:26 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 04:25 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  Whatever happened after 2004-5 seems to be the norm. The genesis of "Ten Loss Tubby."

89-121 in conference since then.

One can certainly see a dividing line in his results. Going from finishing 1st or 2nd in the SEC to finishing 3rd and 4th in the DIVISION the last two years.

At some point recent history is a better indicator than ancient history.

So a cherry picker, then. Of course we already knew, but big of you to admit it. Let me find that analysis...

True, he had a 33% conference record for 3 years at TT. Of course, the three years before he got there, they had a 17% record.

True, he had a 43% conference record over 6 years at Minny. Of course, the 6 years before and 3 years since, they had a 36% record.

At UK, he had a 75% conference record over 10 years. The 10 years before and 9 years since, they had a 75% conference record - even with the wins Cal is piling up.

And you obviously don't want to talk about Tulsa or Georgia.

Perspective. It's easy to exclude data when you're driving an agenda. Pick the schools who are bottom tier schools in very tough leagues, using the justification of "recent history".

The last 10 years of data is the last 10 years of data.

That's a freaking decade. I'd say the last 10 years are more indicative of who / what Tubby is TODAY as a head coach than the earlier part of his career.

Great to hear logic! Hope he has his best career results in Memphis, but the data is the data.

No, it's not logic. It's a shallow presentation of data and logic. You pick 2 bottom feeders in tough leagues - but throw out the majority of the resume. That's not logical at all. That's selective use of evidence.

And the failure to benchmark results at those bottom feeders is perspective distortion. Even if you want to throw out the other 15 years of his resume and just pick those last 10 - those last 10 are overperforming the norm at those programs. Their norm is not equal to our norm.

Pick the best season and worst season from each place - toss it.

What does the rest look like on average?

That's a better indicator IMO.

Just eyeballing, I'd say Tubby is about a 24-8 to 22-10 coach with NCAA appearance to Sweet 16 ceiling on average.

(03-07-2017 06:34 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  It's not an agenda, it is just taking the most recent work.

There's really no other way to put it. Like Bruce Weber. In the last 10 years he's been markedly worse than the previous 6-7 years.

He gets a new job, are you banking on the 2001-2006 Weber or the late Illinois/K-State Weber?

You're not excluding 6 years - you're excluding 15 years of a 25 year career. That's a little more significant.

If we want the most recent work, then let's just look at last year. He went to the NCAA, won the B12 COY, and was offered a big raise. Boom.

Couldn't care less about Weber. But if we want to throw out random examples, let's look at Pearl over the last 5 years. I guess he's a big old loser, too. There's no doubt the last 5 years are different from the rest of his resume. Something must have changed.

(03-08-2017 01:00 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 06:34 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  It's not an agenda, it is just taking the most recent work.

There's really no other way to put it. Like Bruce Weber. In the last 10 years he's been markedly worse than the previous 6-7 years.

He gets a new job, are you banking on the 2001-2006 Weber or the late Illinois/K-State Weber?

You're not excluding 6 years - you're excluding 15 years of a 25 year career. That's a little more significant.

If we want the most recent work, then let's just look at last year. He went to the NCAA, won the B12 COY, and was offered a big raise. Boom.

Couldn't care less about Weber. But if we want to throw out random examples, let's look at Pearl over the last 5 years. I guess he's a big old loser, too. There's no doubt the last 5 years are different from the rest of his resume. Something must have changed.

And that is fair. The question is if Pearl were cut loose this weekend (because a new AD wanted to bring in his own guy, not for ethics reasons) would Pearl be a commodity?

Would people judge him on his record from 2012 and earlier or his Auburn years?

That is perfectly fine to do so because there is a clear division there.

That's the same with Tubby.

Mark Gottfried is another one. Three strong years at Murray. A great start at Bama then fizzled. A great start at NC St then fizzled.

(03-08-2017 01:00 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 06:34 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  It's not an agenda, it is just taking the most recent work.

There's really no other way to put it. Like Bruce Weber. In the last 10 years he's been markedly worse than the previous 6-7 years.

He gets a new job, are you banking on the 2001-2006 Weber or the late Illinois/K-State Weber?

You're not excluding 6 years - you're excluding 15 years of a 25 year career. That's a little more significant.

If we want the most recent work, then let's just look at last year. He went to the NCAA, won the B12 COY, and was offered a big raise. Boom.

Couldn't care less about Weber. But if we want to throw out random examples, let's look at Pearl over the last 5 years. I guess he's a big old loser, too. There's no doubt the last 5 years are different from the rest of his resume. Something must have changed.

Weber is anything bur "random." He was a guy that was succeeding at a lower program and took over a high major with a lot of pieces in place from the previous coach who went on to bigger things (Self). He took those players to great heights (NC game) and then slowly came back to earth until he was fired.

His rep was that he was a great guy, is one of the best basketball minds out there, but doesn't really get at in well in recruiting. He's not much of a "gray area" guy and wants kids that fit his particular style.

He went to KSU and did well with some of Frank Martin's guys and has slowly fallen back to earth, with recruiting still being a thorn in his side.

If he is let go, should a program look to Weber, who in the past had a six year run (over two programs) with two S16's and a NC runner up and four 1st place conference finishes?

Or should they look at the guy who, in the last 10 years, has gone to four NCAA's and only won 1 game?

(03-08-2017 12:59 PM)HoopDreams Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 12:52 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 09:26 AM)gusrob Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 06:51 PM)bluebacker Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 05:26 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  So a cherry picker, then. Of course we already knew, but big of you to admit it. Let me find that analysis...

True, he had a 33% conference record for 3 years at TT. Of course, the three years before he got there, they had a 17% record.

True, he had a 43% conference record over 6 years at Minny. Of course, the 6 years before and 3 years since, they had a 36% record.

At UK, he had a 75% conference record over 10 years. The 10 years before and 9 years since, they had a 75% conference record - even with the wins Cal is piling up.

And you obviously don't want to talk about Tulsa or Georgia.

Perspective. It's easy to exclude data when you're driving an agenda. Pick the schools who are bottom tier schools in very tough leagues, using the justification of "recent history".

The last 10 years of data is the last 10 years of data.

That's a freaking decade. I'd say the last 10 years are more indicative of who / what Tubby is TODAY as a head coach than the earlier part of his career.

Great to hear logic! Hope he has his best career results in Memphis, but the data is the data.

No, it's not logic. It's a shallow presentation of data and logic. You pick 2 bottom feeders in tough leagues - but throw out the majority of the resume. That's not logical at all. That's selective use of evidence.

And the failure to benchmark results at those bottom feeders is perspective distortion. Even if you want to throw out the other 15 years of his resume and just pick those last 10 - those last 10 are overperforming the norm at those programs. Their norm is not equal to our norm.

Pick the best season and worst season from each place - toss it.

What does the rest look like on average?

That's a better indicator IMO.

Just eyeballing, I'd say Tubby is about a 24-8 to 22-10 coach with NCAA appearance to Sweet 16 ceiling on average.

Fair enough, though I would disagree on ceiling. He has 18 appearances in 25 seasons with a 30-17 record. He took Minny to the round of 32 and Tulsa to the S16. Ceiling should be higher here.

(03-08-2017 12:52 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 09:26 AM)gusrob Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 06:51 PM)bluebacker Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 05:26 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 04:25 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  Whatever happened after 2004-5 seems to be the norm. The genesis of "Ten Loss Tubby."

89-121 in conference since then.

One can certainly see a dividing line in his results. Going from finishing 1st or 2nd in the SEC to finishing 3rd and 4th in the DIVISION the last two years.

At some point recent history is a better indicator than ancient history.

So a cherry picker, then. Of course we already knew, but big of you to admit it. Let me find that analysis...

True, he had a 33% conference record for 3 years at TT. Of course, the three years before he got there, they had a 17% record.

True, he had a 43% conference record over 6 years at Minny. Of course, the 6 years before and 3 years since, they had a 36% record.

At UK, he had a 75% conference record over 10 years. The 10 years before and 9 years since, they had a 75% conference record - even with the wins Cal is piling up.

And you obviously don't want to talk about Tulsa or Georgia.

Perspective. It's easy to exclude data when you're driving an agenda. Pick the schools who are bottom tier schools in very tough leagues, using the justification of "recent history".

The last 10 years of data is the last 10 years of data.

That's a freaking decade. I'd say the last 10 years are more indicative of who / what Tubby is TODAY as a head coach than the earlier part of his career.

Great to hear logic! Hope he has his best career results in Memphis, but the data is the data.

No, it's not logic. It's a shallow presentation of data and logic. You pick 2 bottom feeders in tough leagues - but throw out the majority of the resume. That's not logical at all. That's selective use of evidence.

And the failure to benchmark results at those bottom feeders is perspective distortion. Even if you want to throw out the other 15 years of his resume and just pick those last 10 - those last 10 are overperforming the norm at those programs. Their norm is not equal to our norm.

I didn't pick anything to do with the last 10 years of Tubby's coaching career. He did that all by himself. If you squint your eyes at it and play around with 'norms' at this school vs. that school then you can turn Mr. Toad into Cinderella. It's kinda like how 'pretty' all the strippers look at 2 AM after a couple of six packs with the lights real low.

Now, the above analogy is way too harsh at this point. Barring a Tic Price like incident, Tubby's here for at least 3 more years. He's going to get a chance to build it his way.

No matter what any of us on this message board think or don't think; he's here for at least 3 more years.

(03-07-2017 04:25 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  Whatever happened after 2004-5 seems to be the norm. The genesis of "Ten Loss Tubby."

89-121 in conference since then.

One can certainly see a dividing line in his results. Going from finishing 1st or 2nd in the SEC to finishing 3rd and 4th in the DIVISION the last two years.

At some point recent history is a better indicator than ancient history.

Last ten years Pazner was 90-46 in conference. You one of those "rue the day" posters? I mean, if context doesn't count and numbers are all that matter. Can't have it both ways.

(03-08-2017 06:39 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 04:25 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  Whatever happened after 2004-5 seems to be the norm. The genesis of "Ten Loss Tubby."

89-121 in conference since then.

One can certainly see a dividing line in his results. Going from finishing 1st or 2nd in the SEC to finishing 3rd and 4th in the DIVISION the last two years.

At some point recent history is a better indicator than ancient history.

Last ten years Pazner was 90-46 in conference. You one of those "rue the day" posters? I mean, if context doesn't count and numbers are all that matter. Can't have it both ways.

He's only been a coach 8 years.

But, you do make my point:

Pastner's first four years (CUSA): 52-12
Pastner's last four years (AAC & ACC): 38-34

Which Pastner of a coach are you getting?

(03-09-2017 11:46 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 06:39 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 04:25 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  Whatever happened after 2004-5 seems to be the norm. The genesis of "Ten Loss Tubby."

89-121 in conference since then.

One can certainly see a dividing line in his results. Going from finishing 1st or 2nd in the SEC to finishing 3rd and 4th in the DIVISION the last two years.

At some point recent history is a better indicator than ancient history.

Last ten years Pazner was 90-46 in conference. You one of those "rue the day" posters? I mean, if context doesn't count and numbers are all that matter. Can't have it both ways.

He's only been a coach 8 years.

But, you do make my point:

Pastner's first four years (CUSA): 52-12
Pastner's last four years (AAC & ACC): 38-34

Which Pastner of a coach are you getting?

I'm making your point? Pastner was better after going 38-34 than he was after going 52-12. What is it Macgar always says to Penny Lane at this point in a post?

(03-09-2017 07:11 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  

(03-09-2017 11:46 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 06:39 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 04:25 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  Whatever happened after 2004-5 seems to be the norm. The genesis of "Ten Loss Tubby."

89-121 in conference since then.

One can certainly see a dividing line in his results. Going from finishing 1st or 2nd in the SEC to finishing 3rd and 4th in the DIVISION the last two years.

At some point recent history is a better indicator than ancient history.

Last ten years Pazner was 90-46 in conference. You one of those "rue the day" posters? I mean, if context doesn't count and numbers are all that matter. Can't have it both ways.

He's only been a coach 8 years.

But, you do make my point:

Pastner's first four years (CUSA): 52-12
Pastner's last four years (AAC & ACC): 38-34

Which Pastner of a coach are you getting?

I'm making your point? Pastner was better after going 38-34 than he was after going 52-12. What is it Macgar always says to Penny Lane at this point in a post?

How great thou art?