Indiana at Wisconsin tonight ESPN

[Lennys Tap]

All but one?  I didn't realize everyone chimed in, must be like "vast majority".

Perfect example of why we have so many disagreements. When I said "all but one" I was referring to those taking part in the discussion. In your eyes "all but one" evidently means either all but one who has ever posted here or all but one in the whole wide world - don't know which. I think either is an unreasonable interpretation of what I said.

[mviale]

Beating anyone anywhere is a significant win these days for the Crimson and Crean

Isnt this the Year that Buzz is supposed to be 1-4 without any of Crean's players.  Looks like Crean can only win with a  Top 5 NBA pick. Those dont come along much.

[warthog-driver]

Isnt this the Year that Buzz is supposed to be 1-4 without any of Crean's players.  Looks like Crean can only win with a  Top 5 NBA pick. Those dont come along much.

1-4? Are you speaking of Indiana?

[jmayer1]

We went through this the other day in the RSCI posts...it's not even close.  You're using one scouting service, Scout, to make your argument.  RSCI uses all the major scouting services.  The RSCI numbers showed MU has not only landed more in Quantity of RSCI top 100 players but also better Quality of RSCI top 100 players (i.e. more players ranked higher).  The problem is that we've had a lot of them leave and not stick around.

I'm happy to past the link for you again.

Could you please post that link?  I haven't seen the analysis, but I don't read every thread.  Thanks in advance.

I used scout since I think it's the most well regarded and was the easiest and quickest to use for my analysis.

[77ncaachamps]

We went through this the other day in the RSCI posts...it's not even close.  You're using one scouting service, Scout, to make your argument.  RSCI uses all the major scouting services.  The RSCI numbers showed MU has not only landed more in Quantity of RSCI top 100 players but also better Quality of RSCI top 100 players (i.e. more players ranked higher).  The problem is that we've had a lot of them leave and not stick around.

I'm happy to past the link for you again.

I wonder how many of those highly rated players stayed at MU? At Madison?
How many McD AAs Wisconsin has had compared to MU?

Back to the first question, I can think of some rated players that have left, which should drop the overall talent rating for MU.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Could you please post that link?  I haven't seen the analysis, but I don't read every thread.  Thanks in advance.

I used scout since I think it's the most well regarded and was the easiest and quickest to use for my analysis.

Sure

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=23089.msg254771#msg254771

[ChicosBailBonds]

A little ironic that the guy who repeatedly says he finds star rankings and the like meaningless is basing his entire argument about UW's recruiting on the RSCI rather than ... oh, I don't know ... how well the players actually performed.
Again, read the names of the players who've been on Bo's roster over the last decade and try to tell us he succeeds with "lesser" talent.
Lesser than Duke, I suppose. But not lesser than the great majority of his competition.

Not ironic at all, the poster was using ratings to show how good Wisconsin players were and I was using more COMPLETE ratings to show that MU players have been rated much higher.

Doesn't change the fact that I think the ratings game is complete BS, but I was playing in the same sandbox in terms of the conversation...you should try it sometime.

Again, look at the names on the rosters of the players at MU and UW-madison and tell us who the better athletes were, who went on to play professionally, who were supposedly better out of high school, etc, etc and it's clearly MU....yet somehow UW-madison has by ALL MEASUREMENTS been a better basketball program than MU since 2000.  It's not close.

[Pakuni]

yet somehow UW-madison has by ALL MEASUREMENTS been a better basketball program than MU since 2000.  It's not close.

Not close? Really?
Well, I admit a couple of NIT seasons by a certain former coach really dragged MU down this decade, but even then the gap's not nearly wide as you wish it to be.
Since Bo became its head coach, UW is 231-86, an impressive .729 winning pct.
Over the same time frame, MU is 220-96, a .696 winning pct.
To put that in perspective, in order to equal UW's clip over the last decade, MU would have needed 10 more wins - or one win more per season.
So, there you have it - in the Bo Ryan era, UW has been one win per season better than Marquette.
Yep, not even close.
Bo's certainly had a more tournament success. His tournament record is 12-9. MU's over that period is 6-7. Then again, has Bo ever knocked off a higher-seeded team?

Curious, though ... if  MU has:
- recruited better players, as you claim
- and sent more players to the NBA (by a whopping 4-3 margin)
- had fewer players run afoul of the law
- done a better job graduating players
Can you still say UW has been better by ALL MEASUREMENTS?

After all, these are things upon which you claim to be greatly concerned, especially the latter two. And yet when comparing the respective programs' performance over the past decade, you don't even bother to give them lip service. They're not even included in your ALL MEASUREMENTS.
Hmmm.

[jmayer1]

Sure

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=23089.msg254771#msg254771

Thanks. It still looks to me that UW has had more highly recruited players in the past:

Marquette   
Scott Merritt     85
Travis Diener    40
Steve Novak    53
Wesley Matthews    61
Dominic James    36
Jerel McNeal    57
Average                55.33

Wisconsin   
Brian Butch    7
Greg Stiemsma    37
Joe Krabbenhoft    28
Jason Bohannon    62
Trevon Hughes   88
John Leuer   86
Average                 51.33


Did not stay/are not yet upperclassmen

Marquette      
Dameon Mason #71      
Trevor Mbakwe #91      
Nick Williams #88      
Tyshawn Taylor #73      
Junior Cadougan #47      
Erik Williams #67      
Jeronne Maymon #73      
Vander Blue #48      
Jamail Jones #74      

Wisconsin
Maurice Wade #90
DeAaron Williams #91
Jarred Berggren #100
Evan Anderson #95

Now, if UW does better over the next 2 years when the guys Buzz has recruited (Junior, Erik, Vander, Jamail) are clearly rated higher than the guys UW has (Berggren, Anderson) and these guys are upperclassmen, then the your previous point will be valid.  Until then, I think that your statement that UW has done it with "lesser" talent is false.

[mugrad2006]

Again, look at the names on the rosters of the players at MU and UW-madison and tell us who the better athletes were, who went on to play professionally, who were supposedly better out of high school, etc, etc and it's clearly MU....yet somehow UW-madison has by ALL MEASUREMENTS been a better basketball program than MU since 2000.  It's not close.

Not EVERY measurement.  Marquette certainly has a lot more BEAST wins over that period than UW-Madison

[NersEllenson]

Not close? Really?
Well, I admit a couple of NIT seasons by a certain former coach really dragged MU down this decade, but even then the gap's not nearly wide as you wish it to be.
Since Bo became its head coach, UW is 231-86, an impressive .729 winning pct.
Over the same time frame, MU is 220-96, a .696 winning pct.
To put that in perspective, in order to equal UW's clip over the last decade, MU would have needed 10 more wins - or one win more per season.
So, there you have it - in the Bo Ryan era, UW has been one win per season better than Marquette.
Yep, not even close.
Bo's certainly had a more tournament success. His tournament record is 12-9. MU's over that period is 6-7. Then again, has Bo ever knocked off a higher-seeded team?

Curious, though ... if  MU has:
- recruited better players, as you claim
- and sent more players to the NBA (by a whopping 4-3 margin)
- had fewer players run afoul of the law
- done a better job graduating players
Can you still say UW has been better by ALL MEASUREMENTS?

After all, these are things upon which you claim to be greatly concerned, especially the latter two. And yet when comparing the respective programs' performance over the past decade, you don't even bother to give them lip service. They're not even included in your ALL MEASUREMENTS.
Hmmm.

Yet another illustration of the classic double standard, moving target, always evolving arguments put forth by CBB to generally serve his weird agenda:  To generally paint the MU program in a negative light.

[Lennys Tap]

Including players that never enrolled at Marquette (N Williams and Taylor) is dishonest. Including players who played for less than 1/2 a season (Mbakwe and Maymon) is disingenuous. Take them (and D Mason for MU and D Williams for UW) off the list and you have a fair (and very close) comparison of the team's relative talent.

Another way of looking at it as who had the "can't miss guys". Top 10, UW 1-0. Top 30, UW 2-0. Top 40, UW 3-1, and MU's guy is last in at #40.

[Pakuni]

Now, if UW does better over the next 2 years when the guys Buzz has recruited (Junior, Erik, Vander, Jamail) are clearly rated higher than the guys UW has (Berggren, Anderson) and these guys are upperclassmen, then the your previous point will be valid.  Until then, I think that your statement that UW has done it with "lesser" talent is false.

What's false is using the RSCI - or any - ratings as the final determination of "talent."
Alando Tucker was not in the RSCI top 100. Neither was Dwyane Wade.
Dameon Mason and Greg Stiemsma were.
And yet this is the measure by which we're evaluating the respective teams' "talent?"
Seems odd to me.

[warthog-driver]

Curious, though ... After all, these are things upon which you claim to be greatly concerned, especially the latter two. And yet when comparing the respective programs' performance over the past decade, you don't even bother to give them lip service. They're not even included in your ALL MEASUREMENTS.
Hmmm.

I admire your decision to engage but the best fighter pilots know when a dogfight is futile. Arguing with CBB is that sort of engagement. He never ever gets off a shot, does little more than pop flares and chaff to obfuscate the sight picture then races for home at the speed of heat. At the end of it you realize you've just wasted a lot of gas, a couple of AIM 9s, and have an overwhelming need for three fingers of Lagavulin and a handful of Tylenol. Always keep your head up and Check Six.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Thanks. It still looks to me that UW has had more highly recruited players in the past:

Marquette   
Scott Merritt     85
Travis Diener    40
Steve Novak    53
Wesley Matthews    61
Dominic James    36
Jerel McNeal    57
Average                55.33

Wisconsin   
Brian Butch    7
Greg Stiemsma    37
Joe Krabbenhoft    28
Jason Bohannon    62
Trevon Hughes   88
John Leuer   86
Average                 51.33


Did not stay/are not yet upperclassmen

Marquette      
Dameon Mason #71      
Trevor Mbakwe #91      
Nick Williams #88      
Tyshawn Taylor #73      
Junior Cadougan #47      
Erik Williams #67      
Jeronne Maymon #73      
Vander Blue #48      
Jamail Jones #74      

Wisconsin
Maurice Wade #90
DeAaron Williams #91
Jarred Berggren #100
Evan Anderson #95

Now, if UW does better over the next 2 years when the guys Buzz has recruited (Junior, Erik, Vander, Jamail) are clearly rated higher than the guys UW has (Berggren, Anderson) and these guys are upperclassmen, then the your previous point will be valid.  Until then, I think that your statement that UW has done it with "lesser" talent is false.

Why not count the underclassmen?  Doesn't seem to make much sense to remove them and totally skews the numbers.  JC and Vander have been starters for MU but you're not factoring them in?  Huh?  Mason was a starter at times.  Williams has played here two years now.  You can't just decide which players to include in your rankings and which ones not to include just to make your thesis better.  There is absolutely no reason not to include those kids, they are playing now or did play for MU but said sayonara.

My premise was also about WHO WE HAVE LANDED, the problem has been that MU has had trouble hanging on to players and UW has not had nearly the same amount of trouble.  They get their kids and they stay usually.  We get our guys and crapload of them leave.  That says something, people can opine as to what it says.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yet another illustration of the classic double standard, moving target, always evolving arguments put forth by CBB to generally serve his weird agenda:  To generally paint the MU program in a negative light.

Not at all Ners, first it would be nice if Pakuni could follow a conversation.  I said played PROFESSIONALLY, yet he went only to the NBA.  And here I thought playing professionally included getting PAID to PLAY (that's the definition of a professional) overseas, NBDL, etc.  But in his classic way of skewing facts or lopping off definitions to suit his argument, he does.

Here's the irony, you claim I'm a big Tom Crean lover and he was the coach at MU through most of the 2000's...was he not?  So aren't I ripping on Tom Crean then if your claims of me putting MU in a bad light exist?  Don't answer that, because you know you'll have to eat crow on that one. 

[Pakuni]

Why not count the underclassmen?  Doesn't seem to make much sense to remove them and totally skews the numbers.  JC and Vander have been starters for MU but you're not factoring them in?  Huh?  Mason was a starter at times.  Williams has played here two years now.  You can't just decide which players to include in your rankings and which ones not to include just to make your thesis better.  There is absolutely no reason not to include those kids, they are playing now or did play for MU but said sayonara.

Oh, boy.
Because the whole discussion has centered around on-court success over the past decade relative to the level of talent landed by the respective programs (as measured solely by a rating system that thinks Marcus Taylor and Darius Miles were infinitely more talented than Dwyane Wade and Jameer Nelson).
How exactly can one factor in a kid like Tyshawn Taylor or Nick Williams into a discussion of Marquette's on court success since 2001? Or Jeronne Maymon, Vander Blue or Junior Cadougan, guys who've appeared in about 20 of the 316 games MU has played in that time frame?
It's an utterly assinine argument you're making.

We get our guys and crapload of them leave.  That says something, people can opine as to what it says.

Actually, MU has lost very few top 100 players. Mason, Mbakwe and Maymon. A whopping one more than Bo (Williams and Wade).
Oh wait ... are you counting kids who never actually attended Marquette and decided to go elsewhere solely because of a coaching change?
Yeah, that seems fair.

[NersEllenson]

Not at all Ners, first it would be nice if Pakuni could follow a conversation.  I said played PROFESSIONALLY, yet he went only to the NBA.  And here I thought playing professionally included getting PAID to PLAY (that's the definition of a professional) overseas, NBDL, etc.  But in his classic way of skewing facts or lopping off definitions to suit his argument, he does.

Here's the irony, you claim I'm a big Tom Crean lover and he was the coach at MU through most of the 2000's...was he not?  So aren't I ripping on Tom Crean then if your claims of me putting MU in a bad light exist?  Don't answer that, because you know you'll have to eat crow on that one. 

This is why I mentioned "weird" agenda - as you celebrate Tom Crean's 200th win (or at least have knowledge of such an obscure fact - which leads one to believe you clearly follow the man's career QUITE closely - for NOT being a fan?), but then as you suggest here - you argue UW has been a better program than MU from 2000-2010 under which Tom Crean presided for 8 years - and to quote YOU:  "It's not even close."  Yet, you fail to provide any counterpoints to Pakuni's analysis between MU and UW's results over the last decade," nor do you speak to his point that UW has had MORE players in trouble with the LAW than has MU in the past 10 years, and it has graduated LESS of its players than has MU - which as everyone here knows - you constantly obsess about our programs image, graduation rate, etc...Again..it is just weird the lack of consistency in your arguments.

[Pakuni]

Not at all Ners, first it would be nice if Pakuni could follow a conversation.  I said played PROFESSIONALLY, yet he went only to the NBA.  And here I thought playing professionally included getting PAID to PLAY (that's the definition of a professional) overseas, NBDL, etc.  But in his classic way of skewing facts or lopping off definitions to suit his argument, he does.

And in his classic way of responding, Chico's chooses to level personal attacks rather than deal with the facts presented.
If you wish to research the current whereabouts of every single player who's been through either program over the past decade, be my guest. You've made the argument that MU has more former players playing professionally. Why not back it up?
I think you'll find plenty of guys like Marcus Landry, Brian Butch, Mike Wilkinson, Michael Flowers, Greg Stiemsma, etc., are all getting paid to play.
But as I said - it's your claim. Defend it.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Not close? Really?
Well, I admit a couple of NIT seasons by a certain former coach really dragged MU down this decade, but even then the gap's not nearly wide as you wish it to be.
Since Bo became its head coach, UW is 231-86, an impressive .729 winning pct.
Over the same time frame, MU is 220-96, a .696 winning pct.
To put that in perspective, in order to equal UW's clip over the last decade, MU would have needed 10 more wins - or one win more per season.
So, there you have it - in the Bo Ryan era, UW has been one win per season better than Marquette.
Yep, not even close.
Bo's certainly had a more tournament success. His tournament record is 12-9. MU's over that period is 6-7. Then again, has Bo ever knocked off a higher-seeded team?

Curious, though ... if  MU has:
- recruited better players, as you claim
- and sent more players to the NBA (by a whopping 4-3 margin)
- had fewer players run afoul of the law
- done a better job graduating players
Can you still say UW has been better by ALL MEASUREMENTS?

After all, these are things upon which you claim to be greatly concerned, especially the latter two. And yet when comparing the respective programs' performance over the past decade, you don't even bother to give them lip service. They're not even included in your ALL MEASUREMENTS.
Hmmm.

FacePalm

PROFESSIONAL, not just NBA....start counting again big guy

Let's see again this past decade...it pains me but this is reality

Three Big Ten regular season titles to one CUSA title.   UW Advantage
Two Big Ten tournament titles to zero tournament titles.  UW Advantage
One Big Ten tournament runner-up  to zero runner-up .  UW Advantage
1 Final Four to 1 Final Four.   EVEN
1 Elite Eight to 0 Eligh Eights.  UW Advantage
10 NCAA Appearances (12 in a row) to 7 NCAA Appearances.  UW Advantage
NCAA wins for UW  16, NCAA wins for MU  6.   UW Advantage
NIT 0 appearances to 2 for MU....Since UW went to the NCAA instead of the NIT = UW Advantage
NBA players 3, 4 for MU.   MU Advantage
Professional players...I count 7 for UW, I count 14....MU Advantage
RSCI top 100 players landed 10 for UW,  15 for MU.  MU Advantage
Head to head.  UW 7, MU 4.  UW Advantage
NCAA Regular Season wins 231, MU 220.   UW Advantage

 
So aside from not getting as many players in the NBA, not getting as many players playing professionally overseas or NBDL and landing fewer RSCI top 100 players, there isn't a category that UW hasn't led this past decade with something called RESULTS.  Wins, championships, NCAA tournaments, etc.

Ners, this is not to put MU in a negative light, it's all factual.  Nothing above is opinion, it's flat out facts.  It pains me to say it, but they have been the better program in ALL MEASUREMENTS the last decade.  They simply have.  Despite the fact we land better players, more of them and more go on to play professionally.  

[Lennys Tap]

Here's the irony, you claim I'm a big Tom Crean lover and he was the coach at MU through most of the 2000's...was he not?  So aren't I ripping on Tom Crean then if your claims of me putting MU in a bad light exist?  Don't answer that, because you know you'll have to eat crow on that one. 

I'll take a shot at answering this. In the first 8 years of the decade (when Tom Crean was the coach) you were a fierce defender of all things Marquette and a very harsh critic of all things UW. Whether it was accomplishments on or off the court, we could always count on you to put a pro Marquette "spin" or your arguments, on our boards or on theirs. Once Crean left, your spin took a 180 degree turn - UW became the model that MU didn't measure up to. Since MU didn't drop off and UW didn't improve in those two years, you were forced to include Crean in the comparison that showed MU to be lacking. In effect you engaged in revisionist history and became critical of Crean in many areas where you had been silent or supportive. To many this 180 that began at TC's departure/Buzz's arrival and has continued unabated for nearly 3 years smacks of an agenda.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Since Bo became its head coach, UW is 231-86, an impressive .729 winning pct.
Over the same time frame, MU is 220-96, a .696 winning pct.

By the way, I believe all schedules are not created equal as well.  Ken Pom has data going back the last 8 years (not counting this year).

Not only does UW have a better record than MU over that time period, they also played a tougher schedule than MU in 6 of those 8 years.  They are on pace to play a tougher schedule then we do this year as well.

Lip service...I tell ya, lip service.   

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'll take a shot at answering this. In the first 8 years of the decade (when Tom Crean was the coach) you were a fierce defender of all things Marquette and a very harsh critic of all things UW. Whether it was accomplishments on or off the court, we could always count on you to put a pro Marquette "spin" or your arguments, on our boards or on theirs. Once Crean left, your spin took a 180 degree turn - UW became the model that MU didn't measure up to. Since MU didn't drop off and UW didn't improve in those two years, you were forced to include Crean in the comparison that showed MU to be lacking. In effect you engaged in revisionist history and became critical of Crean in many areas where you had been silent or supportive. To many this 180 that began at TC's departure/Buzz's arrival and has continued unabated for nearly 3 years smacks of an agenda.

Odd, the first 8 years of this decade you weren't on this message board.  In fact, you weren't on this board even 3 years ago, you've been on this board for 2 years and 3 days...so at least start by getting your facts straight.
 

Second, I'm still anti UW-madison, that has never stopped and never will.  They are what I would call "new money" fans.  You know those people that never had a dime and won the lottery or got some huge cash infusion from some long lost aunt and then they just don't know how to act with it?  That's UW fandom.  They sucked balls for half a century in just about everything and now they have a 10 year run and hearing from them you think they are Duke.

That doesn't change the fact that they are the best program in the state this last decade.  All-time?  Hell no.  MU owns that but the margins are becoming thinner.  I bring it up because they continue to gain ground.  For awhile, with the Final Four run, we had something to hang over them but with each passing year that ebbs, especially with continual losses head to head, conference finishes, NCAA finishes, etc.  Part of it is luck.  They've had some God blessed seedings and we haven't, that's a crap shoot...I'm hoping we get some of that luck soon.

Lenny, trust me, it doesn't make me feel good to say it.  There is no agenda, it's reality. How can telling the truth about the state of the two programs be an agenda when it is based on facts?  You're sticking your head in the sand if you ignore the facts.

[Lennys Tap]

Odd, the first 8 years of this decade you weren't on this message board.  In fact, you weren't on this board even 3 years ago, you've been on this board for 2 years and 3 days...so at least start by getting your facts straight.
 

I've read both Scout and Scoop (and your posts under various screen names) since their inceptions - the date I started posting is irrelevant. How does that make my post "odd" or not factual?

[jmayer1]

Pakuni, I only used star ratings becuase it was easiest.  I agree with your premise.