Todd Mayo is no longer with Marquette!

[Lennys Tap]

Well....Buzz proved to be a man of his word in that account.  And I also think Buzz knew a large part of the fanbase was beyond miffed with his choice in the backcourt - and he egotistically either felt he was a good enough coach to win and overcome that and could give those critical of him in the fanbase a big F You - or, if he didn't win, it was still an F You, I'm in control here and this is my team.

This is why I can no longer take you seriously. You think that a guy with back to back to back S16,S16, E8 seasons should give a crap if you and Willie Warrior are "miffed" about the lineup he chooses to play? Really? One last time. He didn't play Derrick 30 minutes a game because he owed him or wanted to egotistically tell the world F you. He was trying to win games and from what he saw (and the numbers bear him out) Derrick was the best of a lot of substandard options available. He tried John D, Jamil and Todd at the point, all to no avail. The numbers prove JD wasn't ready, and as Henry has pointed out in the past, a 10 mpg guy likely gets even LESS efficient with more PT. Your "we couldn't have been much worse with Dawson" may be right from a won/loss standpoint, I suppose. Buzz could have thrown in the towel, sat Derrick and turned those heartbreaking OT losses down the stretch into blow out losses, but he was still trying to win games.

You accuse me of being anti Dawson and saying he'll never be good. That's an outright lie. I think he could BECOME a very good player. But NO WAY was he ready as a freshman.

[Lennys Tap]

 Deonte couldn't exceed 12 and he virtually dominated every game he was put in.

Right. He dominated every game he played.

[NersEllenson]

This is why I can no longer take you seriously. You think that a guy with back to back to back S16,S16, E8 seasons should give a crap if you and Willie Warrior are "miffed" about the lineup he chooses to play? Really? One last time. He didn't play Derrick 30 minutes a game because he owed him or wanted to egotistically tell the world F you. He was trying to win games and from what he saw (and the numbers bear him out) Derrick was the best of a lot of substandard options available. He tried John D, Jamil and Todd at the point, all to no avail. The numbers prove JD wasn't ready, and as Henry has pointed out in the past, a 10 mpg guy likely gets even LESS efficient with more PT. Your "we couldn't have been much worse with Dawson" may be right from a won/loss standpoint, I suppose. Buzz could have thrown in the towel, sat Derrick and turned those heartbreaking OT losses down the stretch into blow out losses, but he was still trying to win games.

You accuse me of being anti Dawson and saying he'll never be good. That's an outright lie. I think he could BECOME a very good player. But NO WAY was he ready as a freshman.

LOL - Pomroy doesn't even assign an O Rating to a guy who plays less than 10 minutes in a game as he deems it statistically irrelevant...and for the year, Dawson averaged 10 minutes per game.  Thus, Dawson's O-Rating for the year in Pomroy and Sugar's view essentially is statistically irrelevant.  Dawson played more than 10 minutes in just 11 games - so his ratings that Sugar cites were built off of 11 out of 32 games.

If you want to get a little more relevant...look at Dawson's ratings where he got 13+ minutes per game - oddly in those 6 games is O-Rating was 97.42 - well above the 85 for the season - yet that is playing more 3+ minutes more per game - according to you and Sugar - ratings come down when a player plays more minutes?  Odd.

In the 5 games Dawson played between 10-13 minutes his rating was O Rating was 76.  Hmm.  Odd.

That was my point all year....give the guy more playing time...more run...and you'll get more.  You agree Dawson has basketball talent, so the more time on the court, the more likely that talent eventually will surface.  Just as it did in the Georgetown game on the road.  Dawson was OK during regulation, but Buzz stuck with him, and he put up 7 points in Overtime in those 5 minutes.  The talent eventually leads to performance.

Dawson got 1 game of 30+ minutes.  His rating:  148.  And to give you an example of how low minutes radically skew guys O Ratings...in 11 minutes against St. John's Dawson had a rating of 21 - totally terrible, right??  What were his numbers in that game??  0-1 shooting, 2 rebounds, 1 foul. No turnovers, no assists.  For context, how many 11 minute segments this past season do you think Derrick compiled similar numbers??  Now in 12 minutes against DePaul he gets a 174 rating for 5 points, on 1 of 1 shooting from 3 point line, and 1 of 2 from 2.  1 rebound, 1 assist, 2 personal fouls...and I don't feel that is an amazing stat line either.

For the last time...a PG that doesn't need to be defended other than 2 feet from the goal that causes you to play 4 on 5 is NOT your best option.  Period.  Get over Buzz.  He sucked last year.  Your defense of him is as lame and ridiculous as is Chico's over Tom Crean.  Makes you look just as dumb.
  

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Can you two get a room or PM each other?  What does this have to do with Todd....

[Lennys Tap]

Me too.

I can count the number of classes I missed per week on one hand.

OK, maybe two hands.

Jeezus H ... how the hell did I graduate?

I had similar issues. After the first couple of weeks freshman year I'm sure I never went a week without cutting at least a couple of classes. Even got a "B" once in a Horton Roe class due to cuts.

[real chili 83]

Can you two get a room or PM each other?  What does this have to do with Todd....

+1

Ners, I know you are going to say Lenny baited you in discussing D&D, but wasn't Rocky's warning clear enough for you?

I respect your opinions, but you've gone waaaaay to far on D&D.  And don't blame others for baiting you.

[LAMUfan]

shenanigans

[TSmith34, Inc.]

The biggest key for them to get through the first 8 games is rebounding. Steve, Juan, and Deonte have to hit the glass hard. Guards will have to chip in as well.

The one thing STJr and Juan have shown they are good at is rebounding, particularly Steve.  I think, however, the problem is we'll be extremely offensively challenged upfront.  He's hoping Steve build upon his Freshman year and forgets all about last year.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

And btw, let me guess, you were in band in high school?  Or were you the water boy for the basketball team?

This isn't the first time you've used this line. I was in the band in high school. I played in the Marquette band for a bit too. What is your point? Because you played basketball in high school while I played my baritone you somehow know more about basketball now?

You and I and most scoopers are all students of the game. Other than the handful of former college athletes here, none of us deserve anymore credibility (about on the court play) than anyone else. Your opinion, my opinion, Chico's opinion, Willie's opinion, MU82's opinion, Lenny's opinion, Sultan's opinion, Wojo's Mojo's opinion, are all equally valid. None of us can claim to know anymore about playing college basketball.

I respect your opinion. Please respect mine, and others.

[bilsu]

This is why I can no longer take you seriously. You think that a guy with back to back to back S16,S16, E8 seasons should give a crap if you and Willie Warrior are "miffed" about the lineup he chooses to play? Really? One last time. He didn't play Derrick 30 minutes a game because he owed him or wanted to egotistically tell the world F you. He was trying to win games and from what he saw (and the numbers bear him out) Derrick was the best of a lot of substandard options available. He tried John D, Jamil and Todd at the point, all to no avail. The numbers prove JD wasn't ready, and as Henry has pointed out in the past, a 10 mpg guy likely gets even LESS efficient with more PT. Your "we couldn't have been much worse with Dawson" may be right from a won/loss standpoint, I suppose. Buzz could have thrown in the towel, sat Derrick and turned those heartbreaking OT losses down the stretch into blow out losses, but he was still trying to win games.

You accuse me of being anti Dawson and saying he'll never be good. That's an outright lie. I think he could BECOME a very good player. But NO WAY was he ready as a freshman.

I think Buzz was always trying to do what he thought was best to win games. However, I also think he got stubborn and it colored his vision. The more people complained about Wilson vs. Dawson (which became who was smarter Buzz or MU scoop) playing time the more Buzz got stubborn about the situation. There is no other way I can explain how Dawson could be the hero against Georgetown and then virtually not play the next game. Dawson simply having a great game was giving MU Scooper's the upper hand and I actually think that threaten Buzz's ego. What I found even more interesting is that at some point during the Big East season Buzz for a couple of games actually started JJJ and Burton. Then Burton continued to play and JJJ fell off the map. I am purely guessing here, but I think Buzz started JJJ to try to make him happy so he would not transfer and then decided JJJ was going to transfer anyways so he stopped playing him.

[MUfan12]

The one thing STJr and Juan have shown they are good at is rebounding, particularly Steve.  I think, however, the problem is we'll be extremely offensively challenged upfront.  He's hoping Steve build upon his Freshman year and forgets all about last year.

Can definitely see that being an issue. My hope is that with Carlino, Duane, JJJ, and Dawson getting more run, the outside shooting threat will open the floor up for more drives/dump offs to the post.

Last year's team was abysmal at forcing help off the dribble. Probably the worst I've seen in the 25 years I've watched MU.

[NersEllenson]

+1

Ners, I know you are going to say Lenny baited you in discussing D&D, but wasn't Rocky's warning clear enough for you?

I respect your opinions, but you've gone waaaaay to far on D&D.  And don't blame others for baiting you.

It's a message board Chili, and the threads evolve that generate additional debate and conversation.  Why am I not able to counterpoint a position I disagree with?  I was adding context to the discussion with the analysis of O-Ratings and how they are constructed, and rebutting the point that the more minutes a player plays, that the rating generally goes down.  It didn't in Dawson's case.  There was a pretty significant difference in rating 97 in games over 13 minutes, and 78 in games between 10 and 13 minutes over the 11 game sample size Pomroy assigned ratings too.  It's a valid point to consider.  

I'm not disrespecting Rocky's warning, anymore than is Lenny or the others in debating their position...

[NersEllenson]

This isn't the first time you've used this line. I was in the band in high school. I played in the Marquette band for a bit too. What is your point? Because you played basketball in high school while I played my baritone you somehow know more about basketball now?

You and I and most scoopers are all students of the game. Other than the handful of former college athletes here, none of us deserve anymore credibility (about on the court play) than anyone else. Your opinion, my opinion, Chico's opinion, Willie's opinion, MU82's opinion, Lenny's opinion, Sultan's opinion, Wojo's Mojo's opinion, are all equally valid. None of us can claim to know anymore about playing college basketball.

I respect your opinion. Please respect mine, and others.

I wouldn't think for a second to form opinions on someone playing the baritone - something I know virtually nothing about...as I've never played it.  Same with piano players.  Yes, I can recognize some play beautifully, but since I've never played either, I can't really comment on the nuances.  

And for what it is worth, I played a ton with all the guys on the team back in my day in the offseason, along with some Milwaukee Bucks, coached at all of MU's basketball camps while Mike Deane was there, as I always balled with Mike Rice and the guys on the team - and they knew I wasn't a stiff  - which is why they had me coaching at their camps.  No, it doesn't make me a D-1 college ballplayer, but it does give one a little better understanding of the game than one who hasn't played it a ton.

That said it doesn't mean you or the others don't make good points at times, nor does it mean you don't add value here - you guys do.  As you know I just refuse to believe Buzz did a good job last year, nor do I believe he truly was doing his best to win games.

[jesmu84]

It's a message board Chili, and the threads evolve that generate additional debate and conversation.  Why am I not able to counterpoint a position I disagree with?  I was adding context to the discussion with the analysis of O-Ratings and how they are constructed, and rebutting the point that the more minutes a player plays, that the rating generally goes down.  It didn't in Dawson's case.  There was a pretty significant difference in rating 97 in games over 13 minutes, and 78 in games between 10 and 13 minutes over the 11 game sample size Pomroy assigned ratings too.  It's a valid point to consider.  

I'm not disrespecting Rocky's warning, anymore than is Lenny or the others in debating their position...

It is valid to consider. Also valid to consider that maybe he only got 10-13 minutes BECAUSE he was playing poorly. And he got >13 minutes BECAUSE he was playing well. The jump-to-conclusions can go both ways

[Lennys Tap]

It is valid to consider. Also valid to consider that maybe he only got 10-13 minutes BECAUSE he was playing poorly. And he got >13 minutes BECAUSE he was playing well. The jump-to-conclusions can go both ways

Exactly. if a guy normally plays 10 minutes, of course on those rare occasions when he is playing very well he'll get more minutes. DUH! A crummy starting pitcher will get his max (100 pitches?) if he's having one of his rare good days. Doesn't mean you don't yank him in the third inning after 60 pitches if he's getting torched. In every sport, the unproven player has a shorter leash. You EARN a longer one, and it doesn't happen in one or two games.

[NersEllenson]

It is valid to consider. Also valid to consider that maybe he only got 10-13 minutes BECAUSE he was playing poorly. And he got >13 minutes BECAUSE he was playing well. The jump-to-conclusions can go both ways

As I pointed out...Dawson got a rating of 21 in 11 minutes in a performance that was 0-1 shooting, 2 rebounds, no fouls, no assists...is that really playing poorly...compared to what we were getting from the guy in front of him??

Furthermore, it is really hard to tell if a guy is playing "good" when you typically play him for 2 to 3 minute stints at a time.  That is what may be hard for those of you who have never played the game at a decent level can't understand - you don't automatically come into a game and within 2 or 3 minutes make an impact.  Hard to rack up any kind of numbers in that type of usage.  Period.

Exactly. if a guy normally plays 10 minutes, of course on those rare occasions when he is playing very well he'll get more minutes. DUH! A crummy starting pitcher will get his max (100 pitches?) if he's having one of his rare good days. Doesn't mean you don't yank him in the third inning after 60 pitches if he's getting torched. In every sport, the unproven player has a shorter leash. You EARN a longer one, and it doesn't happen in one or two games.

Let's just be real....the leash for one guy was so incredibly long last season it defied explanation...and the leash for his backup??  Incredibly short.  I'm curious what you feel Derrick did to earn that incredibly long leash?  And if it were true that you earn more leash with better performance, why after Dawson performed so well on the road at Georgetown...why did Buzz only give him 8 minutes against Nova in the next game??

As I said before Lenny - your ridiculous defenses of Buzz make you look as dumb as Chicos and his taking up for Tom Crean.  Please don't be that guy for the next 6 years.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

And for what it is worth, I played a ton with all the guys on the team back in my day in the offseason, along with some Milwaukee Bucks, coached at all of MU's basketball camps while Mike Deane was there, as I always balled with Mike Rice and the guys on the team - and they knew I wasn't a stiff  - which is why they had me coaching at their camps.  No, it doesn't make me a D-1 college ballplayer, but it does give one a little better understanding of the game than one who hasn't played it a ton.

Ners...this post exposes you as much bigger dork than any "water boy" or band member (I love the band) could ever hope to be. What a loser.

[Lennys Tap]

As I said before Lenny - your ridiculous defenses of Buzz make you look as dumb as Chicos and his taking up for Tom Crean.  Please don't be that guy for the next 6 years.

Ding, ding, ding. Finally, something I can agree with - you HAVE said this before. Over and over and over and over again. You're smart, anyone who doesn't agree with you (poster's, basketball writers, our former head coach, etc.) is dumb. Stubbornly, intentionally dumb. So dumb that you feel terrible and beg them to cease with their dumbness. I'm humbled by your concern over my dumbness and will sincerely try not to remain so dumb going forward. Thank you.

[GooooMarquette]

And for what it is worth, I played a ton with all the guys on the team back in my day in the offseason, along with some Milwaukee Bucks, coached at all of MU's basketball camps while Mike Deane was there, as I always balled with Mike Rice and the guys on the team - and they knew I wasn't a stiff  - which is why they had me coaching at their camps.  No, it doesn't make me a D-1 college ballplayer, but it does give one a little better understanding of the game than one who hasn't played it a ton.

Sounds like you could teach Crean, Bazz, Scott Drew, Frank Martin and Mick Cronin a few things....

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

And for what it is worth, I played a ton with all the guys on the team back in my day in the offseason, along with some Milwaukee Bucks, coached at all of MU's basketball camps while Mike Deane was there, as I always balled with Mike Rice and the guys on the team - and they knew I wasn't a stiff  - which is why they had me coaching at their camps.  No, it doesn't make me a D-1 college ballplayer, but it does give one a little better understanding of the game than one who hasn't played it a ton.

IWB & Scott Kuykendall want you over in this thread

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=44506.msg641544#new

[MU82]

I had similar issues. After the first couple of weeks freshman year I'm sure I never went a week without cutting at least a couple of classes. Even got a "B" once in a Horton Roe class due to cuts.

I had friends who maybe went to class 10 times per semester. This was back n the days that profs/instructors rarely took attendance.

My deal was this: If you make your lecture or instruction interesting and mandatory for tests, I will attend. If you just lecture from the book, I don't need to go to class. And it was amazing how many profs did just that.

I didn't used to be proud of this, but I kind of am now:

I set a record that can only be tied, never be beaten (by a student who graduates in four years). I went out for beverages every night of every finals week every semester for eight semesters.

I do get an asterisk, though. One night my first semester senior year, I was sick as hell but I wanted to keep the streak going, so I went out, drank about half a beer and went home.

The rest of 'em were multiple-hour, multiple-beverage efforts, though, so I figure I was allowed that one time I was a slacker.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

I had friends who maybe went to class 10 times per semester. This was back n the days that profs/instructors rarely took attendance.

My deal was this: If you make your lecture or instruction interesting and mandatory for tests, I will attend. If you just lecture from the book, I don't need to go to class. And it was amazing how many profs did just that.

I didn't used to be proud of this, but I kind of am now:

I set a record that can only be tied, never be beaten (by a student who graduates in four years). I went out for beverages every night of every finals week every semester for eight semesters.

I do get an asterisk, though. One night my first semester senior year, I was sick as hell but I wanted to keep the streak going, so I went out, drank about half a beer and went home.

The rest of 'em were multiple-hour, multiple-beverage efforts, though, so I figure I was allowed that one time I was a slacker.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but were you a Communications major?

[TheBurrEffect]

Why is it on this forum that everyones opinion on anyone from Marquette changes 100% the second they leave?

Sure, there's some truth to this freeing up the depth for the younger guys and getting them experience, but why are we going "he was terrible anyways" "he never did anything". You all were singing a different tune last year when he was coming off the bench and lighting up the board during that terrible season. So many of you questioned why he wasn't starting, but now that hes gone everyone's declared that he was awful the entire time?

[StillAWarrior]

Why is it on this forum that everyones opinion on anyone from Marquette changes 100% the second they leave?

Because college sports fans (and to a lesser extent pro sports fans, in my opinion) are actually rooting for clothes.

[mu-rara]

I wouldn't think for a second to form opinions on someone playing the baritone - something I know virtually nothing about...as I've never played it.  Same with piano players.  Yes, I can recognize some play beautifully, but since I've never played either, I can't really comment on the nuances.  

And for what it is worth, I played a ton with all the guys on the team back in my day in the offseason, along with some Milwaukee Bucks, coached at all of MU's basketball camps while Mike Deane was there, as I always balled with Mike Rice and the guys on the team - and they knew I wasn't a stiff  - which is why they had me coaching at their camps.  No, it doesn't make me a D-1 college ballplayer, but it does give one a little better understanding of the game than one who hasn't played it a ton.

That said it doesn't mean you or the others don't make good points at times, nor does it mean you don't add value here - you guys do.  As you know I just refuse to believe Buzz did a good job last year, nor do I believe he truly was doing his best to win games.

nm.  Why fight it. 

Oh wtf.  Ners.  I'd think a guy with such a stellar background would do a better job of evaluating talent.