Grades

[mu_hilltopper]

Sammy: A
Rowsey: B+ (A+ offense, D defense)
Howard: B+
Sacar: C+
Elliott: C
Heldt: C
Cain: C-
Theo: C-
Froling: D

I'd say you've nailed it here.  The only quibbles I might have is to bring both Theo and Jamal up to C's as I think they improved significantly towards the back third of the year.  Their B-'s on the final exam, if you will, earned them C's.  But pretty spot on assessment IMO.

Another vote for these grades.

I think I'd also bump Sacar up a full grade.  B-.  Theo a half grade to a flat C.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Dgies,

Beating 9 big East teams isn't loading up on Horton Roe classes. That's signing up for senior level classes as an underclassmen. Your analogy is way off. If our team was a college student applying for a job, it would be a sophomore who took on a tougher classload than they could handle but showed a lot of promise and drive. I would hire a student like that without thinking about it.

[dgies9156]

Dgies,

Beating 9 big East teams isn't loading up on Horton Roe classes. That's signing up for senior level classes as an underclassmen. Your analogy is way off

Brother TAMU, I understand your belief, but keep in mind that we lost to DePaul, St. John's and Georgia this year. Those aren't senior level classes. Professor Jean Lenti-Ponsetto is a notorious easy grader.

I agree we had some senior level classes. Xavier, Villanova and Purdue come to mind.  Those are like taking Organic Chemistry if you're pre-Med or pre-Dent. You either pass the class or find another major. We did not pass any of them.

And we played a number of cupcakes early in the season -- those are the Horton Roe classes.   

The core curriculum was the Big East season and, we were at best a "C" student. Average. 

[Its DJOver]

The NCAA selection committee thought we were somewhere in the mid 70s range, however if you take out the mid majors that we were better than, we likely end up in the low 60s high 50s.  Kenpom had us in the 50s.  Looking at a standard bell curve and knowing that we were approximately 50-60 out of 350, I'd say the overall grade would be in the B range.  If C is average, then by definition we are well above average.  Some players on our team are above average, some are below, some aspects of coaching is above average, some is below, but overall Marquette is an above average team, so any final grades should, as a whole, be no lower than a C.

[MUBBau]

Offense: A
Defense: C-
Coaching: B-
Excitement/Frustration: A+
Expectations: Met (thought NIT, hoped NCAA)
Future: Bright

[Pakuni]

One other thought about grades.

Let's suppose you had a job candidate who came to you full of personality, energy and enthusiasm. You sat down with her and, after a lengthy interview, you thought, "wow, this person is pretty good."  You  finish by asking her for a copy of her transcript from Marquette.

A week later, the official copy comes. She has a solid "C" average. But she did it by loading up on Horton Roe classes, speech classes and Theology of Marriage classes. She had a couple of "D"s in core classes that were red flags.

How many of you would hire her?

That's my point about our basketball team. There were a couple of bright spots. The team is likable. But the body of work was weak. We did not accomplish what other candidates did and so we were passed over.

What part of that performance merits a "B" or an "A"?

Marquette played the 34th toughest schedule in the country.
If that's a bunch of Horton Roe classes, what say you about the 317 schools that played softer schedules?

[5DollarPitcher]

One other thought about grades.

Let's suppose you had a job candidate who came to you full of personality, energy and enthusiasm. You sat down with her and, after a lengthy interview, you thought, "wow, this person is pretty good."  You  finish by asking her for a copy of her transcript from Marquette.

A week later, the official copy comes. She has a solid "C" average. But she did it by loading up on Horton Roe classes, speech classes and Theology of Marriage classes. She had a couple of "D"s in core classes that were red flags.

How many of you would hire her?

That's my point about our basketball team. There were a couple of bright spots. The team is likable. But the body of work was weak. We did not accomplish what other candidates did and so we were passed over.

What part of that performance merits a "B" or an "A"?

Nailed it.  Everyone in here moaning that some of us are "too harsh" with our grades.  Unbelievable.  We literally failed at the one important thing that was extremely reasonably attainable.  If you are giving grades and your team average (coaches+players divided by total grades given) is higher than a B-, you are unquestionably wrong. 

A's are reserved for above and beyond, excellent effort, exceeding expectations.
B's are for very solid, did your job, everything went well.
C's are for meh, could see some improvement, not quite where we want you to be. 
D's are for poor progress toward goals, needs significant improvement, not acceptable.
F's are for you completely missed the mark consistently throughout the year.

That's how these grades are presented in (non-comm) college classes.  Take a look at those descriptions and YOU tell ME which one this team as a whole earned.

B's and A's for certain components of this team make no sense whatsoever.  That's the type of contentedness that will get us stuck with an NIT 2-seed mixed in with a tournament appearance every 3 years.

[Its DJOver]

Nailed it.  Everyone in here moaning that some of us are "too harsh" with our grades.  Unbelievable.  We literally failed at the one important thing that was extremely reasonably attainable.  If you are giving grades and your team average (coaches+players divided by total grades given) is higher than a B-, you are unquestionably wrong. 

A's are reserved for above and beyond, excellent effort, exceeding expectations.
B's are for very solid, did your job, everything went well.
C's are for meh, could see some improvement, not quite where we want you to be. 
D's are for poor progress toward goals, needs significant improvement, not acceptable.
F's are for you completely missed the mark consistently throughout the year.

That's how these grades are presented in (non-comm) college classes.  Take a look at those descriptions and YOU tell ME which one this team as a whole earned.

B's and A's for certain components of this team make no sense whatsoever.  That's the type of contentedness that will get us stuck with an NIT 2-seed mixed in with a tournament appearance every 3 years.

So if Nova losses in the Final Four they would only get a B by your standards.  That does not exceed expectations considering they were top 5 most of they year, they just did their job and everything went well.  They would have failed at the thing that was extremely attainable, to use your words.

[5DollarPitcher]

So if Nova losses in the Final Four they would only get a B by your standards.  That does not exceed expectations considering they were top 5 most of they year, they just did their job and everything went well.  They would have failed at the thing that was extremely attainable, to use your words.

Apples and Oranges - even with a stacked roster like Nova, a FF is VERY hard to get to and you should know that.

So your argument is that it is as attainable for Nova to get to the FF as it is for us to get a bid to the NCAA tourney???  So Nova getting to the FF is just as difficult as us beating DePaul away or Georgia at home?

Even with this ridiculous comparison, I would grade Nova's season a B+ or A- if they reach the FF and lose right away.  Anything before that should be a B or B- on the merit of not winning the BEAST regular season (winning the BET does provide a boost if they are ousted in the Sweet Sixteen IMO).

[Its DJOver]

Apples and Oranges - even with a stacked roster like Nova, a FF is VERY hard to get to and you should know that.

So your argument is that it is as attainable for Nova to get to the FF as it is for us to get a bid to the NCAA tourney???  So Nova getting to the FF is just as difficult as us beating DePaul away or Georgia at home?

Even with this ridiculous comparison, I would grade Nova's season a B+ or A- if they reach the FF and lose right away.  Anything before that should be a B or B- on the merit of not winning the BEAST regular season (winning the BET does provide a boost if they are ousted in the Sweet Sixteen IMO).

A consensus top 5 team getting to the FF vs a top 50-60 team getting an at large.  I'd say that's about on par. 

Beating Georgia or DePaul does not get us in.  Beating both would have, but not just one.

Giving a B to any team that gets to a FF is pretty ridiculous no matter who the team is. 

[f/k/a humanlung]

None of this matters until the Gol_en Eagles finally get some "d".  Way too many instances last night of PSU players going up for a shot and the MU defenders didn't even contest it - staying on the ground with hands down.  And the rebounding problems continue, as they have all season.

I admit I am very frustrated right now.  I was a big advocate for Ben Howland when we hired Wojo and I watched Mississippi State pull apart a talented Louisville team by playing great defense and pairing it with a well rounded offense.  MU is a great offensive team but that is only 50% of the puzzle.  It is maddening that we cannot play defense this far into Wojo's tenure.

And before everyone gets on me as new to the board: 1) add 3.000 to my post count since this is a new login, and; 2) I am not a Wojo-hater, just thought there was a much better option at the time of his hire.  I have stated that if I turn out wrong on that I will post the admission of my error in judgement on here for everyone to see without complaint.  I just wish I had reason to do that at this point...

[MUBBau]

Nova didn't win the BE regular season, C at best, right?

[5DollarPitcher]

Nova didn't win the BE regular season, C at best, right?

Let's assume:
>Very good season record
>Does not win BEAST regular season
>Wins BEAST tournament in overtime
>Loses in Sweet Sixteen (assumption, obviously)

For me, that's about a B- season.  They don't dip into C territory because of the BEAST tourney title which is at least a half letter grade boost.  Good season, record-wise. Went well given the team they had, did not achieve multiple attainable team goals (BEAST title, FF or even EE).  I'm sure no Nova fans would be happy with their season if they lost to West Virginia.

In the same vein - what do you grade Virginia's season?

[WayOfTheWarrior]

TAMU probably had the best first go at it IMO.

Trying to figure out if I should grade based on expectations or against a scale conference-wide / nationally.

Good example is Matt. I'd say if I was grading against what I would expect of him he'd be a B/B+ but on the grading scale compared to other centers nationally he'd be a C at best since he can't guard versatile big men and just serves as a station to station screener who occasionally makes a basket.

[Its DJOver]

No one game defines a season, although tourney games are obviously more important.  If Nova were to lose to WVA they'd still get an A IMO.  Virginia gets an A- IMO.  UMBC is bad, but that shouldn't take away from what they did in the ACC regular season/ conference tourney.

[Dr. Blackheart]

As part of any performance review is whether the group meet expectations or not?  Then, they are rated/calibrated on potential. 

Some folks here are rating on a F4 run as their expectation and some on their pre-season expectation.  I think we have to rate on the latter. 

Under that scenario, this team met expectations for me if not slightly beat them.  I was hoping for 7-8 BE wins and an NIT.  Check.

As to exceeding expectations....I think only Sam and Andrew beat expectations. 

Meeting expectations: Markus, Sacar, Matt, Jamal. Expectations are different for each but they were all sturdy in their roles.

Developing:  Greg and Theo. I think most frosh would go here.  These two were up and down on consistency whether injuries or performance or both. There are signs.

Did not meet:  Haanif, Harry

On the potential scores to carry team forward.

High:  Sam and Markus
Above:  Jamal
Mid: Theo and Greg
Well placed:  Sacar and Matt
Below: Harry

Conclusion:  The majority of higher potential players are to come:  Ed, Bailey, Joey, 2 TBD. Ike is TBD. In other words, a lot of unknowns but roster balance and more physicalness coming.

[5DollarPitcher]

No one game defines a season, although tourney games are obviously more important.  If Nova were to lose to WVA they'd still get an A IMO.  Virginia gets an A- IMO.  UMBC is bad, but that shouldn't take away from what they did in the ACC regular season/ conference tourney.

Do you realize there is no higher grade than an A? So losing in the Sweet Sixteen and not even winning your regular season conference merits the highest POSSIBLE grade in the ledger? I wish I had some of you in my high school courses - then I could have gone to Penn and I’d at least be cheering for a tourney team.

[tower912]

As part of any performance review is whether the group meet expectations or not?  Then, they are rated/calibrated on potential. 

Some folks here are rating on a F4 run as their expectation and some on their pre-season expectation.  I think we have to rate on the latter. 

Under that scenario, this team met expectations for me if not slightly beat them.  I was hoping for 7-8 BE wins and an NIT.  Check.

As to exceeding expectations....I think only Sam and Andrew beat expectations. 

Meeting expectations: Markus, Sacar, Matt, Jamal. Expectations are different for each but they were all sturdy in their roles.

Developing:  Greg and Theo. I think most frosh would go here.  These two were up and down on consistency whether injuries or performance or both. There are signs.

Did not meet:  Haanif, Harry

On the potential scores to carry team forward.

High:  Sam and Markus
Above:  Jamal
Mid: Theo and Greg
Well placed:  Sacar and Matt
Below: Harry

Conclusion:  The majority of higher potential players are to come:  Ed, Joey, 2 TBD. Ike is TBD. In other words, a lot of unknowns but roster balance and more physicalness coming.

Agree with most of this.  My preseason expectations were bubble team.  I lowered them when Haanif left. 

[MUfan12]

High:  Sam and Markus
Above:  Jamal
Mid: Theo and Greg
Well placed:  Sacar and Matt
Below: Harry

Conclusion:  The majority of higher potential players are to come:  Ed, Joey, 2 TBD. Ike is TBD. In other words, a lot of unknowns but roster balance and more physicalness coming.

I'd agree with this.

Big offseason for MH. Has to be better with the ball, and show some ability to run an offense. Tough to stick in the league as 5-10 two guard with limited quickness.

[WayOfTheWarrior]

Do you realize there is no higher grade than an A? So losing in the Sweet Sixteen and not even winning your regular season conference merits the highest POSSIBLE grade in the ledger? I wish I had some of you in my high school courses - then I could have gone to Penn and I’d at least be cheering for a tourney team.

I think you're using a different scale than everyone. Your "A" seems to be a national championship (based on final outcome, not the road to get there), so your grades make sense in that regard. Just a lot of ways to look at it, not all are based on final outcomes.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Agree with most of this.  My preseason expectations were bubble team.  I lowered them when Haanif left.

That's been the difference between you and me all season. I raised them when he left.

How would we rate Wojo? I would rate Met and Developing.  The defensive holes and roster deficiencies (balance, athleticsm) are improvement areas.  It is a critical year for him upcoming as has been repeated to death here.

[5DollarPitcher]

My first or second post in this thread I said that if everyone on MU filled their role to an A grade, we would be a Sweet Sixteen or Elite Eight team.  So no, A does not equal National Championship (unless you are Nova, Virginia, etc.).

My argument is that most in this thread are too soft (A for Nova even if they lose to WVA, B+ for MU based on their body of work, etc.).  Why are we so nice with our grading system here?  The object would be to be critical.  If we start lining up a B+ season as NIT Elite Eight, we will soon become accustomed to that, Wojo will get extended on two NCAA first round oustings, and MUBB will become that.

IMO we are on the precipice of "rebuild" and "this is what we are now".  Next year will determine, for certain, if "this is what we are now".  Wojo was a nice transitional coach that cleaned up the program and bridged the gap between the Old Big East and the Catholic 10 for MU, but we now need to compete - like NOW.

[Its DJOver]

Do you realize there is no higher grade than an A? So losing in the Sweet Sixteen and not even winning your regular season conference merits the highest POSSIBLE grade in the ledger? I wish I had some of you in my high school courses - then I could have gone to Penn and I’d at least be cheering for a tourney team.

I am aware of how the grading system works.

Let me propose a question for you.

It is pretty well established that Marquette was the second best program in the country in the 70s. However, Al only won one national title. That means that eight other years he did not win a post season tournament. What grade would you give Al?
Think very carefully because if it's not the first letter of the alphabet, some posters may be a little upset considering his name is on our court.

Nova received a 1 seed. That means through the first 30+ games of the year they were one of the 4 best teams in the country. I think that is worth an A regardless of if they lose Friday.

[Pakuni]

As part of any performance review is whether the group meet expectations or not?  Then, they are rated/calibrated on potential. 

Some folks here are rating on a F4 run as their expectation and some on their pre-season expectation.  I think we have to rate on the latter. 

Under that scenario, this team met expectations for me if not slightly beat them.  I was hoping for 7-8 BE wins and an NIT.  Check.

As to exceeding expectations....I think only Sam and Andrew beat expectations. 

Meeting expectations: Markus, Sacar, Matt, Jamal. Expectations are different for each but they were all sturdy in their roles.

Developing:  Greg and Theo. I think most frosh would go here.  These two were up and down on consistency whether injuries or performance or both. There are signs.

Did not meet:  Haanif, Harry

On the potential scores to carry team forward.

High:  Sam and Markus
Above:  Jamal
Mid: Theo and Greg
Well placed:  Sacar and Matt
Below: Harry

Conclusion:  The majority of higher potential players are to come:  Ed, Joey, 2 TBD. Ike is TBD. In other words, a lot of unknowns but roster balance and more physicalness coming.

Well done.
I think this team ended up where most reasonable expectations had them.
I think the conflict here is largely a result of perspective ... some are grading on the basis of expectations for this year, while others are grading on the basis of expectations for this program.
I think we all have higher expectations for the program, but most of us saw this roster in the preseason, the strength of the schedule and recognized that an NCAA bid was far from a lock.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

I find this thread interesting for the different grading systems used.  A lot of people grading on a curve and/or factoring in their frustration.  Most of them probably think they're "right" because everyone should think like them.  I'm not going to say they are wrong, I just disagree with their opinion.

My opinion most closely aligns with TAMU.  One difference is that I only give Sam an A-.  His usage rate was sub-20% when he should be 25-30%.

Sam's usage rate was about the same as Anim when he should have been closer to Howard and Rowsey, both just above 30% usage.  I would have preferred all three between 24-27% usage.

Coaching gets a C+. The plus is for modest in season improvement by Anim and the frosh.  Otherwise, the quintessential average coaching job.

Overall, this season met my expectations.  But next year I will raise my expectations.  I expect to make the tournament with a single digit seed (7-9).

I know others will have higher expectations.  I think those expectations are partly based on their desire for the team to be better than it is.  But I think beating my expectation requires either a returning player making a big jump, an incoming player being better than expected, or Wojo adding a very good guard for next year.

That is possible but a best case scenario.  Best case scenario is not my expectation.  I'm sure others disagree.