For Silky - 2006 versus 2010 comparision

[Marquette84]

I'll start a new thread on this, since it was getting off the original topic--I think a comparision of situations between 2006 and 2010 is valid.

Sikly, PRN and other think that it's an "agenda" if we compare the two seasons and hold Crean and Buzz to similar results. 

As I'll discuss below, there are reasons why we are much better positioned from a talent and competitive perspective.

While some accuse me of holding an "agenda" for expecting similar results as we had in 2006, those people just haven't taken the time to actually compare the situation.  They're showing THEIR own agenda by making excuses in advance.  They downplay 2010 expectations because they dont' want to hold Buzz to the same standards that Crean was held to. 

Whatever your agenda is, I think its fair to compare Crean's results in what is a very similar environment in 2006 to what Buzz will deliver this year.  In short, I think it's entirely reasonable to be optimistic that in 2010 we can equal our 2006 season.

No, you aren't fooling anyone.  You clearly stated that if we don't finish better than 4 years ago, it's a disappointment.  Never mind the fact faulty comparisons like that never take into consideration the schedule, injuries and competition of the league or not having 3 experienced seniors from a Final Four team. 

You have an agenda and you know it.  And everyone else is figuring it out also. 

Let me start by asking three questions:

1.  Do you think we are better coached now than we were in 2006? 

2.  Do we have a quality big that we lacked in 2006?

3.  Have we recruited more Big East quality talent?
 
I'm guessing, but I think you'd answer yes to all three.

Personally I would say yes to #2 and #3, and that the jury is out on #1. 



***Never mind the fact faulty comparisons like that never take into consideration the schedule, injuries and competition of the league

I actually did take these into account--I'm wondering if you did, or this is just excuse making in advance.

In 2006 the Big East had two #1 seeds in the NCAA tournament, and eight teams in overall.  You probably forgot that Villanova and UConn were both #1 seeds, and tied for the league championship with 14-2 records.

For 2010, I only see Villanova as a potential #1 seed, and West Virginia as a 2 or a 3 seed.  Syracuse, UConn, Louisville and Pitt all lost too much to be projected as top 4 seeds, and I see only Cincy now with Lance Stephenson that perhaps improved enough to move up.  Providence, ND, and Georgetown didn't improve themselves to warrant a top 16 ranking.   

Andy Katz only has four big east teams in his final pre-summer top 25--only Villanova in the top 8 (WVU 9, Georgetown 18, and UCOnn 25).  I think that's fair.  The league is simply not as strong as it was in 2006.

Injuries?

In 2006 Wes Matthews missed 11 games because of a broken foot (after starting the first 13 games of the season) and Kinsella only played 14 games because of his injuries.  And we STILL finished tied for 4th.

If your angle was that we have to give Buzz a pass because he MIGHT have some injuries this coming season, you're barking up the wrong tree.  He would have to have two players (including a starter) miss significant time before he gets to use the injury card as an excuse.



*** 3 experienced seniors from a Final Four team. 

Hmm.  I thought the only reason we were in the Final Four was Dwayne Wade.     

Now, all of a sudden, Grimm, Chapman and Novak were also important.

Seriously, though, I do take returning talent into consideration.  Did you?  Really?

1.  Chris Grimm.  I can't even believe you brought him up.  Really, do you honestly expect me to believe that Grimm was a significant contributor to our final four run?   I believe that Maymon is going to prove to be a better player in his first game than Grimm was as a senior.  I also think he'll be better as a frosh than Amo and Barro were as sophs. 

2.  Joe Chapman.  Joe is a nice player, but he was not quite where Jimmy Butler is at right now.  Butler is a better shooter, better scorer and better rebounder.  I'd give Chapman the edge on defense.  Season long, Butler's stats compare favorably with Chapman's junior season, and if you compare just Butler's last 10 games, it's not even close--Butler is just a more complete player.

3.  Steve Novak. I'll admit this is a close comparision, but I think one can make the argument that Lazar Hayward is every bit as valuable as Novak.  While Novak was a better pure shooter, it might surprise you that Hayward actually shot better than Novak from beyond the arc during their junior years: 46.9% versus 46.1%.   Novak was clearly the better FT shooter (93% to 82%).   However, Novak was arguably worse on defense and rebounding, not as quick, and certainly and not as versatile.  Hayward can play the 3, the 4, or the 5.  Novak was a 3 or a 4--but could not play the 5.  Novak was a 2nd rounder in the NBA draft, and that's where Hayward is projected to be.   

The other returning players?  Barro and Amo, both sophs, and Kinsella, who was a junior.  As compared to Otule, Fulce and Cubillan.  Not much difference, in my opinion.  Probably more upside on 2010 based on the early reports on Otule.

You are clearly overplaying the "returning talent" argument--we started 3 freshman in 2006, and will probably start 3 newcomers in 2010.   The other returning starters for 2010 of Butler & Hayward are no worse than Chapman & Novak from 2006.


Newcomers?

No comparison--the 2010 newcomers are better as a group than 2006. 

We had 7 in 2006, just like we have this year:
Burke, McNeal, James, Matthews, Fitzgerald (transfer), Mortensen (redshirt) and Lott (JC transfer).

Buycks, Cadougan and DJO are on paper equal to the three amigos.  The question is whether Buzz can get them ready early in the year for significant roles.  The advantage he has is that Buycks and DJO have already played a season at a higher level.  All 3 frosh in 2006 were brand new to the college game.

Maymon is easlily better than Burke or Lott.  From day 1.

Erik Williams is easily better on paper than Fitzgerald was.

Mbao and Roseboro don't have to do much to give us more than Mortenson did.

We have a stronger group of newcomers, period, no comparison.


***You have an agenda and you know it.  And everyone else is figuring it out also. 

Its not called an "agenda".  Its called an opinion.  I guess if my opinion differs, then it's an agenda.

At least I'm upfront about my opinion, and can defend it:  Crean was a better coach than many give him credit for being, and that the jury is still out on Buzz. 

I think your opinion is that you don't like Crean and thus find it impossible to give him credit--even begrudgingly-- for the job he did in 2006.  I further think that making excuses in advance for Buzz is simply because you want him to seem better by comparison and not hold him to the same level of accomplishment we saw with Crean.

If you strip away all personal feelings for Buzz and Crean, and actually look at the overall situation--the talent coming back, the quality of the newcomers, and the talent in the league overall--I see no reason to think that expectations shouldn't mirror the 2006 results.
 

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Seriously...what are you talking about?

People aren't accusing you of holding an "agenda" for expecting similar results as 2006. They're accusing you because EVERY FREAKING POST YOU MAKE IS A DESPERATE PLEA FOR ATTENTION FOR CREAN!!

Please, SHUT UP!!

[SaintPaulWarrior]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQiJdf-ebIs

[Marquette84]

Seriously...what are you talking about?

People aren't accusing you of holding an "agenda" for expecting similar results as 2006. They're accusing you because EVERY FREAKING POST YOU MAKE IS A DESPERATE PLEA FOR ATTENTION FOR CREAN!!

Please, SHUT UP!!

Honestly, is your agenda any different? Every freaking post you make is a desperate plea for attention for Crean.  The only difference is that you want it to be negative attention and I don't.

I put a very simple premise out there--which you conveniently sidestepped:

--We have significantly stronger talent this year than in 2006. 
--We play in a slightly weaker league this year than in 2006.
--You seem to think we have better coaching now than in 2006.

For some reason you have lower expectations this year.  What possible factor explains that?  Can you explain yourself?

For the record, I actually do have lower expectations for 2010--but that's because I don't think Buzz has proven that he is as good of a coach as Crean.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Honestly, is your agenda any different? Every freaking post you make is a desperate plea for attention for Crean.  The only difference is that you want it to be negative attention and I don't.

Fantastic response. I just checked my history. Of my last 25 posts, the only ones that reference our former coach are responses to your breathless Penthouse Forum postings.

"I'm a fan of a Big East college basketball program and I never thought I'd be writing to you..."

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

ummm... you posted this 2 hours earlier. I think this qualifies, right?

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=15056.msg140674#msg140674

I think the shreik of frustration occured when one of his brothers-in-law stopped sodomizing him.

*Now back you your regularly scheduled pissing match*

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

ummm... you posted this 2 hours earlier. I think this qualifies, right?

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=15056.msg140674#msg140674



*Now back you your regularly scheduled pissing match*

Oh yeah...that's one out of 25. And that was clearly a joke. Or was it?

[MuMark]

A couple of thoughts.

1. I'm not sure any big on our current roster is better or has proven to be better then Barro was in 2006. It could turn out that way but as of right now we have no proven commodity at the 5.

What we have is 2 big guys with potential.



2. Hayward did not shoot 46.9 beyond the arc last year.....53-148  .358 were his actual numbers.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Oh yeah...that's one out of 25. And that was clearly a joke. Or was it?

I dunno man, I'll let you guys fight this one out.

I just read you post minutes earlier... so I pointed it out.

I have no comment on this argument, I don't really think anybody is going to win this one (which technically is a comment, so I'm going to stop typing).

[ChicosBailBonds]

Oh yeah...that's one out of 25. And that was clearly a joke. Or was it?

Make it 2 of 25.   

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=15041.msg140620#msg140620

[rocky_warrior]

While some accuse me of holding an "agenda" for expecting similar results as we had in 2006, those people just haven't taken the time to actually compare the situation.  They're showing THEIR own agenda by making excuses in advance.  They downplay 2010 expectations because they don't' want to hold Buzz to the same standards that Crean was held to. 

Whoa.  I've read your posts on this matter several times.  Perhaps I lost a year of my life, but I don't remember anybody expecting Crean to win in 2006.  Most expected it to be a long year, with a good group of recruits with a ton of potential.

I do expect the same this year - that we'll be inconsistent, with flashes of big talent.  Thats where my expectations end though.  To expect the same record/position in conference is crazy.   To come up with that answer I'd need to see you do a detailed comparison of each big east team, and whether we have the same, better, or worse chance of beating them this coming year.  Basketball isn't just about the team you put on the floor, but also includes variables such as the other team, and locations of the game.  Your comparison of MU's team (and coach) only is too simplistic.

Perhaps an interesting exercise, but I don't have the ambition to do it now.  I'd rather just enjoy the games, and hope 2010 is as (or more) successful than 2006.

I'm sure you'll say I'm being easier on Buzz.  But I think I had the same expectation of Crean in 2006.  I guess I was making excuses for him too - huh?  Show me proof that people expected a 4th place finish, and I'll understand why your making this argument.  Otherwise, I just don't understand what you're getting at.

[NotAnAlum]

84 This is how I would answer your questions

1.  Do you think we are better coached now than we were in 2006?
TC was entering his 5th year as head coach after just winning 4 games in the NCAA tournament.  With only 1 year under his belt in which he coached a senior dominated team there is no way anyone could argue that Buzz has proven he is a better coach.  He may prove that later but to state it as fact now is crazy.  

2.  Do we have a quality big that we lacked in 2006?
I can't say that Otule has proven he is any better than Barro.  Given the 06 team also had Amo and a 6'10" Novak I'd have to give the edge (starting the season) to the 06 team.  Freshman big men nearly always struggle and the kid from Senegal may not even be cleared to play.

3.  Have we recruited more Big East quality talent?
You could argue that there is more incoming talent in the Fall 09 class.  However prospective talent does not always translate into immediate college success.  The fact that all 3 amigos played GREAT as freshman is very, very unusual.  Also while its nice to have depth 2 good players do not = 1 great player.  In Novak and the 3 amigos you had 4 great players.  Having 1 great (Lazar) + 6 good players may not give you as good initial results because you can only have 5 guys on the court at once.  Long term if all those players develop you will be better off BUT we're talking about 09-10 results not long term.

A lot of stuff had to go right for that 06 team to finish 4th.  Is it possible for it to happen again OF COURSE!  Is it very likely to the point that we should be disappointed if it doesn't. NO WAY.

[Marquette84]

Whoa.  I've read your posts on this matter several times.  Perhaps I lost a year of my life, but I don't remember anybody expecting Crean to win in 2006.  Most expected it to be a long year, with a good group of recruits with a ton of potential.

I do expect the same this year - that we'll be inconsistent, with flashes of big talent.  Thats where my expectations end though.  To expect the same record/position in conference is crazy.   To come up with that answer I'd need to see you do a detailed comparison of each big east team, and whether we have the same, better, or worse chance of beating them this coming year.  Basketball isn't just about the team you put on the floor, but also includes variables such as the other team, and locations of the game.  Your comparison of MU's team (and coach) only is too simplistic.

Perhaps an interesting exercise, but I don't have the ambition to do it now.  I'd rather just enjoy the games, and hope 2010 is as (or more) successful than 2006.

I'm sure you'll say I'm being easier on Buzz.  But I think I had the same expectation of Crean in 2006.  I guess I was making excuses for him too - huh?  Show me proof that people expected a 4th place finish, and I'll understand why your making this argument.  Otherwise, I just don't understand what you're getting at.

I don't think anybody expected us to do well in 2006.  But we didn't have anything to compare to, as we do now.  We had not previously played in the Big East, and we didn't have a a comparable recruiting class.

Now we do. 

In isolation you can argue that a team with two returning starters and a highly ranked group of newcomers might raise questions.

But when you compare the 2006 team to the 2010 team, the opposite side of the argument can be made.

84 This is how I would answer your questions

1.  Do you think we are better coached now than we were in 2006?
TC was entering his 5th year as head coach after just winning 4 games in the NCAA tournament.  With only 1 year under his belt in which he coached a senior dominated team there is no way anyone could argue that Buzz has proven he is a better coach.  He may prove that later but to state it as fact now is crazy.   

2.  Do we have a quality big that we lacked in 2006?
I can't say that Otule has proven he is any better than Barro.  Given the 06 team also had Amo and a 6'10" Novak I'd have to give the edge (starting the season) to the 06 team.  Freshman big men nearly always struggle and the kid from Senegal may not even be cleared to play.

3.  Have we recruited more Big East quality talent?
You could argue that there is more incoming talent in the Fall 09 class.  However prospective talent does not always translate into immediate college success.  The fact that all 3 amigos played GREAT as freshman is very, very unusual.  Also while its nice to have depth 2 good players do not = 1 great player.  In Novak and the 3 amigos you had 4 great players.  Having 1 great (Lazar) + 6 good players may not give you as good initial results because you can only have 5 guys on the court at once.  Long term if all those players develop you will be better off BUT we're talking about 09-10 results not long term.

A lot of stuff had to go right for that 06 team to finish 4th.  Is it possible for it to happen again OF COURSE!  Is it very likely to the point that we should be disappointed if it doesn't. NO WAY.

Those are fair responses.  It means you'll probably be accused of being a Crean apologist.   

All kidding aside, the purpose of this argument is to take a shot at all those people out there who have been saying for months how much better our recruiting is under Buzz and how much better our coaching is under Buzz. 

Well if both recruiting and coaching have improved, and the competition hasn't, shouldn't the W/L record follow?






 

[Lennys Tap]

84 thinks we should EXPECT Buzz to match the RESULTS from the ONE year in TEN as a head coach that TC's regular season RESULTS wildly exceeded EXPECTATIONS. Certainly no agenda here, folks.

[Silky]

You are one strange guy 84.  Ever leave the basement?  Who in the world expected that 2006 team to finish 4th?  I didn't.  They were picked 12th!  

Didn't Grimm shut down Tucker in a non-conf game vs UW?  Steve Novak was known as one of the top shooters in the country that year.   Anyone this year have that skill or another dominant skill like that?  Did anyone expect the Amigos to have as much success as they did?  Anyone predict one of them would be the all-time leader scorer at MU?  My point is that they were even better than advertised, which is kudos to the kids and Crean for finding them.  I'm sure someone of your Rainman like abilities knows that recruiting means nothing until the players step on the court (see MU's class of Christian, etc).  We know nothing if this class will be as great as the Amigos or will flame out.

I have nothing against Tom Crean.  I supported him when he was here and was glad he was our coach.  I have something against you because you have a wierd agenda of consistently trying to trump up Crean's accomplishments by tearing down Buzz or anyone else associated with MU not named Tom Crean.  

I'll start a new thread on this, since it was getting off the original topic--I think a comparision of situations between 2006 and 2010 is valid.

Sikly, PRN and other think that it's an "agenda" if we compare the two seasons and hold Crean and Buzz to similar results. 

As I'll discuss below, there are reasons why we are much better positioned from a talent and competitive perspective.

While some accuse me of holding an "agenda" for expecting similar results as we had in 2006, those people just haven't taken the time to actually compare the situation.  They're showing THEIR own agenda by making excuses in advance.  They downplay 2010 expectations because they dont' want to hold Buzz to the same standards that Crean was held to. 

Whatever your agenda is, I think its fair to compare Crean's results in what is a very similar environment in 2006 to what Buzz will deliver this year.  In short, I think it's entirely reasonable to be optimistic that in 2010 we can equal our 2006 season.


Let me start by asking three questions:

1.  Do you think we are better coached now than we were in 2006? 

2.  Do we have a quality big that we lacked in 2006?

3.  Have we recruited more Big East quality talent?
 
I'm guessing, but I think you'd answer yes to all three.

Personally I would say yes to #2 and #3, and that the jury is out on #1. 



***Never mind the fact faulty comparisons like that never take into consideration the schedule, injuries and competition of the league

I actually did take these into account--I'm wondering if you did, or this is just excuse making in advance.

In 2006 the Big East had two #1 seeds in the NCAA tournament, and eight teams in overall.  You probably forgot that Villanova and UConn were both #1 seeds, and tied for the league championship with 14-2 records.

For 2010, I only see Villanova as a potential #1 seed, and West Virginia as a 2 or a 3 seed.  Syracuse, UConn, Louisville and Pitt all lost too much to be projected as top 4 seeds, and I see only Cincy now with Lance Stephenson that perhaps improved enough to move up.  Providence, ND, and Georgetown didn't improve themselves to warrant a top 16 ranking.   

Andy Katz only has four big east teams in his final pre-summer top 25--only Villanova in the top 8 (WVU 9, Georgetown 18, and UCOnn 25).  I think that's fair.  The league is simply not as strong as it was in 2006.

Injuries?

In 2006 Wes Matthews missed 11 games because of a broken foot (after starting the first 13 games of the season) and Kinsella only played 14 games because of his injuries.  And we STILL finished tied for 4th.

If your angle was that we have to give Buzz a pass because he MIGHT have some injuries this coming season, you're barking up the wrong tree.  He would have to have two players (including a starter) miss significant time before he gets to use the injury card as an excuse.



*** 3 experienced seniors from a Final Four team. 

Hmm.  I thought the only reason we were in the Final Four was Dwayne Wade.     

Now, all of a sudden, Grimm, Chapman and Novak were also important.

Seriously, though, I do take returning talent into consideration.  Did you?  Really?

1.  Chris Grimm.  I can't even believe you brought him up.  Really, do you honestly expect me to believe that Grimm was a significant contributor to our final four run?   I believe that Maymon is going to prove to be a better player in his first game than Grimm was as a senior.  I also think he'll be better as a frosh than Amo and Barro were as sophs. 

2.  Joe Chapman.  Joe is a nice player, but he was not quite where Jimmy Butler is at right now.  Butler is a better shooter, better scorer and better rebounder.  I'd give Chapman the edge on defense.  Season long, Butler's stats compare favorably with Chapman's junior season, and if you compare just Butler's last 10 games, it's not even close--Butler is just a more complete player.

3.  Steve Novak. I'll admit this is a close comparision, but I think one can make the argument that Lazar Hayward is every bit as valuable as Novak.  While Novak was a better pure shooter, it might surprise you that Hayward actually shot better than Novak from beyond the arc during their junior years: 46.9% versus 46.1%.   Novak was clearly the better FT shooter (93% to 82%).   However, Novak was arguably worse on defense and rebounding, not as quick, and certainly and not as versatile.  Hayward can play the 3, the 4, or the 5.  Novak was a 3 or a 4--but could not play the 5.  Novak was a 2nd rounder in the NBA draft, and that's where Hayward is projected to be.   

The other returning players?  Barro and Amo, both sophs, and Kinsella, who was a junior.  As compared to Otule, Fulce and Cubillan.  Not much difference, in my opinion.  Probably more upside on 2010 based on the early reports on Otule.

You are clearly overplaying the "returning talent" argument--we started 3 freshman in 2006, and will probably start 3 newcomers in 2010.   The other returning starters for 2010 of Butler & Hayward are no worse than Chapman & Novak from 2006.


Newcomers?

No comparison--the 2010 newcomers are better as a group than 2006. 

We had 7 in 2006, just like we have this year:
Burke, McNeal, James, Matthews, Fitzgerald (transfer), Mortensen (redshirt) and Lott (JC transfer).

Buycks, Cadougan and DJO are on paper equal to the three amigos.  The question is whether Buzz can get them ready early in the year for significant roles.  The advantage he has is that Buycks and DJO have already played a season at a higher level.  All 3 frosh in 2006 were brand new to the college game.

Maymon is easlily better than Burke or Lott.  From day 1.

Erik Williams is easily better on paper than Fitzgerald was.

Mbao and Roseboro don't have to do much to give us more than Mortenson did.

We have a stronger group of newcomers, period, no comparison.


***You have an agenda and you know it.  And everyone else is figuring it out also. 

Its not called an "agenda".  Its called an opinion.  I guess if my opinion differs, then it's an agenda.

At least I'm upfront about my opinion, and can defend it:  Crean was a better coach than many give him credit for being, and that the jury is still out on Buzz. 

I think your opinion is that you don't like Crean and thus find it impossible to give him credit--even begrudgingly-- for the job he did in 2006.  I further think that making excuses in advance for Buzz is simply because you want him to seem better by comparison and not hold him to the same level of accomplishment we saw with Crean.

If you strip away all personal feelings for Buzz and Crean, and actually look at the overall situation--the talent coming back, the quality of the newcomers, and the talent in the league overall--I see no reason to think that expectations shouldn't mirror the 2006 results.
 

[The Lens]

Joanie, get off the Internet, your kids need a Mom.

[Marquette84]

Who in the world expected that 2006 team to finish 4th?  I didn't.  They were picked 12th!  

Nobody predicted it, but we did finish tied for 4th.  In my mind it means we must have had either some outstanding recruiting or some excellent coaching.  Maybe both.  

This board is filled with statements like this one from Lenny's Tap: "Recruiting and coaching were the most important factors in determining this success. Buzz has proven to my satisfaction he is TC's superior in both of these."

So that certainly leaves the impression that we should be better than we were under Crean.  If we fail, it can only be due to two things:  Talent, or Coaching.

If we lack the talent to duplicate the performance, then Buzz didn't recruit as well as Crean did.  

If we lack the coaching , well then the 2006 team was better coached.

I just cannot understand those who claim that we've improved our recruiting, that Buzz is a better coach, but we'll be hard pressed to hit .500.

I have nothing against Tom Crean.  I supported him when he was here and was glad he was our coach.  I have something against you because you have a wierd agenda of consistently trying to trump up Crean's accomplishments by tearing down Buzz or anyone else associated with MU not named Tom Crean.  

And I have nothing against Buzz Williams.

In fact, I was among his first defenders on this board:
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=9116.msg77093#msg77093

Check the date--back in May of 2008 I was defending MU's hire of Buzz, and stating that he was my pick ahead of Brad Brownell, Jim Less, Chris Lowery and all the other names that were bandied about.  

So for you to accuse me of trying to undercut Buzz shows you have no clue as to what you're talking about.

I supported Buzz long before most here did. I said flat out he was a better choice than the mid-major retreads many seemed to be in love with.

But I'm not ready to annoint him as Crean's superior--at least not until he demonstrates that he can match or surpass Crean's performance.  

That's not a pro-Crean agenda.  That's not an anti-Buzz agenda.  That's just common sense.

This year Buzz has circumstances VERY SIMILAR to what Crean had in 2006.   Let's see what Buzz can do with it.  If he's everything he's supposed to be, we should have no problem equalling what Crean did in 2006.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'll vouch for that.  84 took me and others to task for questioning the Buzz hire, he hasn't been anti-Buzz at all.  And his comments just now in light of so many people saying how much better Buzz is as a coach and recruiter are dead on.  If that's the case, no reason why he shouldn't be light years (or at the very worst, EVEN) with what Crean (the HORRIBLE recruiter and terrible game coach .... plus douche) did.

I mean, that's only logic 101.   With the schedule coming out today, looks like things are setup very nicely for Buzz and MU.  9-9 looks to be about the worst of it.  Maybe another double digit wins season in the league, something we've done every year since our acceptance into the league.

[bilsu]

The biggest reason you should not expect a fourth place finish this year is that the three amigos could not finish that high the next three years after doing it their first year. This shows that their fisrt year was an outlying year. I think this occurred for two reasons. The biggest was that MU was new to the conference, so the coaches were not as familiar with MU and Crean as they were after they had coached against MU the first year. Second we were able to blow out Uconn in our fisrt game, because they had no respect for MU and expected to beat us by just showing up. MU will not be looked past by any team now.

[Lennys Tap]

Only someone with a major agenda would insist that an apples to oranges comparison (TC's 2006 team vs Buzz's 2009 team) is a fair way to measure the two coaches when we already have an apples to apples one available. Before losing DJ to injury, Buzz had MU ranked #8 in the country and tied for 1st in the Big East. With basically the same team in 2007 (+Fitz and Barro - Butler), TC had them ranked in the 20-30 range for the entire season. Oh, and by the way, Buzz did it in a vastly better version of the Big East, one Vitale and Bilas said might be the strongest conference  EVER. To anyone but those with an AGENDA, Williams clearly  coached the SAME players better than Crean did.

But 84 is not interested in comparing TC's coaching of DJ, Jerel, Wes and co. with Buzz's coaching of that same group. The results don't fit his agenda. Crean has had ONE team in TEN years as a head coach that vastly exceeded preseason conference expectations. Buzz would have accomplished that last year but for a late season injury. To suggest he needs to do it again this year to be TC's equal is nonsense. But I think 84 already knows that.

[Silky]

Where have I ever said anything about Buzz being a better coach or recruiter?

If you think the "base" was 4th place in 2006, than Crean vastly underachieved in 2007 and 2008 with 6th places finishes.  Buzz righted the ship with a 5th place finish, only after being tied for first until DJ was hurt. 

I realize that is a very stupid argument on my part as  it is different years and different moving parts within the team and competition.  But not as stupid and simple as your agenda driven forecast of 4th place of bust for Buzz this coming.

Even Murf/Gr8 one is saying a .500 record in the league is great!

Nobody predicted it, but we did finish tied for 4th.  In my mind it means we must have had either some outstanding recruiting or some excellent coaching.  Maybe both.  

This board is filled with statements like this one from Lenny's Tap: "Recruiting and coaching were the most important factors in determining this success. Buzz has proven to my satisfaction he is TC's superior in both of these."

So that certainly leaves the impression that we should be better than we were under Crean.  If we fail, it can only be due to two things:  Talent, or Coaching.

If we lack the talent to duplicate the performance, then Buzz didn't recruit as well as Crean did.  

If we lack the coaching , well then the 2006 team was better coached.

I just cannot understand those who claim that we've improved our recruiting, that Buzz is a better coach, but we'll be hard pressed to hit .500.




And I have nothing against Buzz Williams.

In fact, I was among his first defenders on this board:
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=9116.msg77093#msg77093

Check the date--back in May of 2008 I was defending MU's hire of Buzz, and stating that he was my pick ahead of Brad Brownell, Jim Less, Chris Lowery and all the other names that were bandied about.  

So for you to accuse me of trying to undercut Buzz shows you have no clue as to what you're talking about.

I supported Buzz long before most here did. I said flat out he was a better choice than the mid-major retreads many seemed to be in love with.

But I'm not ready to annoint him as Crean's superior--at least not until he demonstrates that he can match or surpass Crean's performance.  

That's not a pro-Crean agenda.  That's not an anti-Buzz agenda.  That's just common sense.

This year Buzz has circumstances VERY SIMILAR to what Crean had in 2006.   Let's see what Buzz can do with it.  If he's everything he's supposed to be, we should have no problem equalling what Crean did in 2006.

[Marquette84]

Where have I ever said anything about Buzz being a better coach or recruiter?

I keep asking you this, but you won't answer.  I'll try again--two simple questions:

• Do you think Buzz is a better coach?
• Do you think Buzz is a better recruiter?

These are pretty simple yes-or-no questions. 

I am directing this argument to the significant number of people on this board who answer YES to both questions If you're not one of them, I don't understand why you keep debating the point.

I want THOSE people to explain how they can simultaneously think that Crean underachived, but Buzz shouldn't perform at least as well.

If you think the "base" was 4th place in 2006, than Crean vastly underachieved in 2007 and 2008 with 6th places finishes.  Buzz righted the ship with a 5th place finish, only after being tied for first until DJ was hurt. 

This seems to be the general consensus on this board, doesn't it?   According to many (generally, those who think Buzz is a significant upgrade in both coaching and recruiting), Crean vastly underachieved -- and they say it is because he's a poor coach and a poor recruiter.

I disagree with their premise. But for the sake of argument, I'll accept it.

With that assumption, if you think 4th/5th place in the Big East was underachieving due to poor coaching and poor recruiting, and we get a new coach with better coaching and better recruiting--then shouldn't we expect better performance?

The logical answer is "yes."

I realize that is a very stupid argument on my part as  it is different years and different moving parts within the team and competition.  But not as stupid and simple as your agenda driven forecast of 4th place of bust for Buzz this coming.

Well it is a stupid argument on your part because its based on a false assumption.

I am not forecasting 4th place.  I'm questioning why those who said Crean underachieved haven't adopted Crean's performance as their minimum standard.

Big difference. 

 

[Marquette84]

Only someone with a major agenda would insist that an apples to oranges comparison (TC's 2006 team vs Buzz's 2009 team) is a fair way to measure the two coaches when we already have an apples to apples one available. Before losing DJ to injury, Buzz had MU ranked #8 in the country and tied for 1st in the Big East. With basically the same team in 2007 (+Fitz and Barro - Butler), TC had them ranked in the 20-30 range for the entire season. Oh, and by the way, Buzz did it in a vastly better version of the Big East, one Vitale and Bilas said might be the strongest conference  EVER. To anyone but those with an AGENDA, Williams clearly  coached the SAME players better than Crean did.

Was it coaching?  

Or would one expect that when you return your entire starting lineup that there should be some improvement?  

I'll say this much--if Crean turned in last season's results, you'd be ripping him a new one because you would have EXPECTED that a 5th place Big East team that came within a point of the Sweet 16 and returns all 5 starters to have an improved performance.

But 84 is not interested in comparing TC's coaching of DJ, Jerel, Wes and co. with Buzz's coaching of that same group. The results don't fit his agenda. Crean has had ONE team in TEN years as a head coach that vastly exceeded preseason conference expectations. Buzz would have accomplished that last year but for a late season injury. To suggest he needs to do it again this year to be TC's equal is nonsense. But I think 84 already knows that.

Lenny--get with the program.  I'm comparing Crean's 2006 team to Buzz's 2010 team--NEXT season, not LAST season.  
Here are the similarities:

--both teams had 7 newcomers
--both teams had 2 decent returning players.
--both teams play similar competition (Big East conference)

You're on record saying that Buzz is a better recruiter and a better coach.  

We know what Crean did in 2006.  

My question to you:  Do you expect Buzz to demonstrate his superior recruiting and coaching ability in 2010?   How will you know if he demonstrated it?

[Lennys Tap]

Was it coaching?  

Or would one expect that when you return your entire starting lineup that there should be some improvement?  

I'll say this much--if Crean turned in last season's results, you'd be ripping him a new one because you would have EXPECTED that a 5th place Big East team that came within a point of the Sweet 16 and returns all 5 starters to have an improved performance.


Lenny--get with the program.  I'm comparing Crean's 2006 team to Buzz's 2010 team--NEXT season, not LAST season.  
Here are the similarities:

--both teams had 7 newcomers
--both teams had 2 decent returning players.
--both teams play similar competition (Big East conference)

You're on record saying that Buzz is a better recruiter and a better coach.  

We know what Crean did in 2006.  

My question to you:  Do you expect Buzz to demonstrate his superior recruiting and coaching ability in 2010?   How will you know if he demonstrated it?

Barro was our starting center for our non cupcake games and NOBODY that has seen both he and Burke play would say Burke was better. Saying we returned our entire starting lineup is what I'd expect somrone with an agenda to say.

I've never "ripped Crean a new one" over his coaching, and I certainly wouldn't criticize him if he had the team picked to finish 6th by the coaches on the verge of a Big East championship before DJ's injury. On the contrary, I would have been praising him for his best coaching job ever. But since Buzz was the one who did that and not TC, I decided to praise Buzz instead.

Finally, I won't "get with the program" because your apples to oranges  comparison is inherently flawed and unfair. But I don't doubt for a minute that you have known that all along.

[Marquette84]

Barro was our starting center for our non cupcake games and NOBODY that has seen both he and Burke play would say Burke was better. Saying we returned our entire starting lineup is what I'd expect somrone with an agenda to say.

A bit disingenuous.  Burke started over Barro in 17 games, which included some cupcakes, but also included games against Oklahoma State, Duke, Wisconsin, Louisville, Notre Dame, WVU, Seton Hall, Providence, Seton Hall & Cincinnati (page 115 of the 2008 media guide).  Those don't sound like cupcakes to me.

Barro started 15 games, and that included Rutgers, Florida Gulf Coast and Savannah State.

Finally, I won't "get with the program" because your apples to oranges  comparison is inherently flawed and unfair. But I don't doubt for a minute that you have known that all along.

If such a comparison is "inherently flawed and unfair" how can you conclude that Buzz is a better coach and recruiter? 

[Lennys Tap]

A bit disingenuous.  Burke started over Barro in 17 games, which included some cupcakes, but also included games against Oklahoma State, Duke, Wisconsin, Louisville, Notre Dame, WVU, Seton Hall, Providence, Seton Hall & Cincinnati (page 115 of the 2008 media guide).  Those don't sound like cupcakes to me.

Barro started 15 games, and that included Rutgers, Florida Gulf Coast and Savannah State.




If such a comparison is "inherently flawed and unfair" how can you conclude that Buzz is a better coach and recruiter? 

Barro was in Crean's doghouse early but was the starter for the stretch run, the Big East tournament and the NCAA tournament. Anyone interested in a fair discussion would concede he was the better player and played more when it mattered. Someone with an agenda would argue technicalities.

Again, I conclude Buzz is the better coach by comparing the way he and Crean coached the SAME players not players with made up and subjective similarities. Crean had two great recruiting classes in his nine years at MU while Buzz is one for one. I like his batting average better.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I swore I wouldn't get in this discussion... but one thing jumps out at me:

If "person A" likes Tom Crean and thinks he was a good coach, person A probably going to point to evidence that supports that.

If "person B" likes Buzz Williams and thinks he's a better coach, person B is going to look at the same evidence and say that Buzz Williams is better.

The Barro thing is a good example.

All of these accusations about "agendas" is hypocrisy at its finest. TC is the most polarizing figure in recent MU history, everybody has an agenda or a bias for and/or against TC.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Barro was in Crean's doghouse early but was the starter for the stretch run, the Big East tournament and the NCAA tournament. Anyone interested in a fair discussion would concede he was the better player and played more when it mattered. Someone with an agenda would argue technicalities.

Again, I conclude Buzz is the better coach by comparing the way he and Crean coached the SAME players not players with made up and subjective similarities. Crean had two great recruiting classes in his nine years at MU while Buzz is one for one. I like his batting average better.

I'm just curious, but doesn't it matter when in their careers they were coached?  In other words, coaching DJ, Wes, and McNeal as Freshmen-Juniors is different than coaching them as Seniors....or is it?

[ChicosBailBonds]

I swore I wouldn't get in this discussion... but one thing jumps out at me:

If "person A" likes Tom Crean and thinks he was a good coach, person A probably going to point to evidence that supports that.

If "person B" likes Buzz Williams and thinks he's a better coach, person B is going to look at the same evidence and say that Buzz Williams is better.

The Barro thing is a good example.

All of these accusations about "agendas" is hypocrisy at its finest. TC is the most polarizing figure in recent MU history, everybody has an agenda or a bias for and/or against TC.

+1

84 is making legit arguments and seems to have stumped some other people that seem to have the agendas (i.e....they hate Crean...that's fine, lots of people do).   84 asks some legit questions which never seem to be answered.

[bamamarquettefan]

You make a good argument, however I disagree on one key point.  Even if the three new guards are in fact better than the Three Amigos, I do not expect any of them to have the freshman year that DJ had.  If you read the various draft predictions, etc., you will see comments such as that after DJs freshman year everyone just assumed he would work out a few shooting kinks and be a lottery pick in a couple of years.  His numbers actually went down each year after that freshman year so it may well be that any or all of the three new guards have a better career than DJ did, but I don't believe any of them will have a better freshman year than DJ did in 2006.

I mean, you throw a freshman on the court to run the point with two other freshman guards playing with him, and he puts in 473 points, 140 rebounds, 167 assists and 50 steals, even blocks 12 shots?  Jerel steps on the court and is one the top 50 steals guys in the country despite playing in a league that commits very few turnovers (see www.kenpom.com), and all three would have been classified as "Major Contributors" if Matthews hadn't broken his foot.

I agree with some of the ways Lazar can be better than Novak was in 2006, but again looking at kenpom.com, Novak was actually rated as the No. 1 offensive player in the country that year.

In short, I think all your arguments are valid for why this class can achieve much more than the 2006 class over the course of their careers, but I would really be shocked if they finished in the Top 4 in the Big East.  I think they could be anywhere between the 2006 year and the 1991 year, which was also an excellent set of newcomers in Key, McIlvaine, Curry and Logterman, but still went 11-18 out of the gates, followed by 16-13, 20-8 (NCAA bid) and 24-9 (Sweet 16).  I certainly hope we don't start 11-18, but we need to be prepared for the logical progression of great freshman making a lot of mistakes and getting better and better over time.  I really don't think we can expect anyone to step on the court and do what DJ did as a freshman, and I do expect a lot of early season turnovers from the three new guards.  My hope is that the team hits stride by January, and improves enough as the season goes on to sneak into the tourney and by then has improved enough to pull a couple of upsets by the end of the year.  But still, I expect a middle of the pack Big East season due to some early losses.

Hope I'm wrong and you are right and the gel immediately.

[Marquette84]

Again, I conclude Buzz is the better coach by comparing the way he and Crean coached the SAME players not players with made up and subjective similarities. Crean had two great recruiting classes in his nine years at MU while Buzz is one for one. I like his batting average better.

You state once again that Buzz has proven himself a better coach.  You think he's a better recruiter.

Yet is is somehow unfair to expect that he would merely match the performance of his predecessor in a similar situation.  Too subjective you say.

So the question becomes--if it is too subjective to set expectations based on past performance, what rational basis will you have to know whether Buzz meets expectations?

[Marquette84]

You make a good argument, however I disagree on one key point.  Even if the three new guards are in fact better than the Three Amigos, I do not expect any of them to have the freshman year that DJ had.  If you read the various draft predictions, etc., you will see comments such as that after DJs freshman year everyone just assumed he would work out a few shooting kinks and be a lottery pick in a couple of years.  His numbers actually went down each year after that freshman year so it may well be that any or all of the three new guards have a better career than DJ did, but I don't believe any of them will have a better freshman year than DJ did in 2006.

I mean, you throw a freshman on the court to run the point with two other freshman guards playing with him, and he puts in 473 points, 140 rebounds, 167 assists and 50 steals, even blocks 12 shots?  Jerel steps on the court and is one the top 50 steals guys in the country despite playing in a league that commits very few turnovers (see www.kenpom.com), and all three would have been classified as "Major Contributors" if Matthews hadn't broken his foot.

I agree with some of the ways Lazar can be better than Novak was in 2006, but again looking at kenpom.com, Novak was actually rated as the No. 1 offensive player in the country that year.

In short, I think all your arguments are valid for why this class can achieve much more than the 2006 class over the course of their careers, but I would really be shocked if they finished in the Top 4 in the Big East.  I think they could be anywhere between the 2006 year and the 1991 year, which was also an excellent set of newcomers in Key, McIlvaine, Curry and Logterman, but still went 11-18 out of the gates, followed by 16-13, 20-8 (NCAA bid) and 24-9 (Sweet 16).  I certainly hope we don't start 11-18, but we need to be prepared for the logical progression of great freshman making a lot of mistakes and getting better and better over time.  I really don't think we can expect anyone to step on the court and do what DJ did as a freshman, and I do expect a lot of early season turnovers from the three new guards.  My hope is that the team hits stride by January, and improves enough as the season goes on to sneak into the tourney and by then has improved enough to pull a couple of upsets by the end of the year.  But still, I expect a middle of the pack Big East season due to some early losses.

Hope I'm wrong and you are right and the gel immediately.

I think the consideration you're overlooking is that we aren't putting three frosh in the backcourt. 

We are putting one frosh (Cadougan), one soph (DJO) and one junior (Buycks). 

If we have freshman-like performance from DJO and Buycks, I'll be very disappointed.  They ought to be able to gel more quickly than the amigos did on the basis that two of them have already stepped up to a higher level of play.

KenPom's offensive rankings is an interesting tool, did you know Jimmy Butler was ranked 4th nationally last year?  I think I've underestimated him in the direct comparison with Joe Chapman. 

[Lennys Tap]

You state once again that Buzz has proven himself a better coach.  You think he's a better recruiter.

Yet is is somehow unfair to expect that he would merely match the performance of his predecessor in a similar situation.  Too subjective you say.

So the question becomes--if it is too subjective to set expectations based on past performance, what rational basis will you have to know whether Buzz meets expectations?

Next year TC returns a bunch of starters (all 5?) and welcomes a top 5 recruiting class. Buzz returns one starter and an outstanding class regarded as almost Indiana's equal. Slight edge to IU, but wouldn't this result in a better comparison of Crean vs Buzz than the bizzare back to the future scenario you propose? Of couse it would, but it might not fit your agenda as well.

[Lennys Tap]

I swore I wouldn't get in this discussion... but one thing jumps out at me:

If "person A" likes Tom Crean and thinks he was a good coach, person A probably going to point to evidence that supports that.

If "person B" likes Buzz Williams and thinks he's a better coach, person B is going to look at the same evidence and say that Buzz Williams is better.

The Barro thing is a good example.

All of these accusations about "agendas" is hypocrisy at its finest. TC is the most polarizing figure in recent MU history, everybody has an agenda or a bias for and/or against TC.

84 was the one who said Buzz had the entire 2007 starting lineup back. Everyone that follows MU basketball knows that Barro was our starting center and played the majority of the minutes in the games that counted the most. This has nothing to do with TC for me. It has to do with 84 making misleading statements that put TC in the most favorable light and Buzz in the least favorable.

As a fence straddler who leans heavily to the pro TC side, what do you consider a fair characterization of the Barro/Burke situation in 2007? While your at it, please point out any examples of the hypocrisy (at its finest) in my posts. Thanks.

[Lennys Tap]

+1

84 is making legit arguments and seems to have stumped some other people that seem to have the agendas (i.e....they hate Crean...that's fine, lots of people do).   84 asks some legit questions which never seem to be answered.

Which "legitimate questions" remain unanswered? If your asking do I think Buzz has to coach next year's team to a 4th place finish in the BEast to be the equal of TC, the answer is obviously an emphatic NO. His apples to tangerines, back to the futre scenario is as absurd as it is disingenuous. Is there anything else I missed?

[Silky]

I will be glad to answer those questions if you can give me some clarity on a few things:
-can you please share and come clean on what your relationship with Tom Crean or the Harbaugh family is?
-By better coach, are you saying X's and O's?  Player relationships?  Development of players?

As far as recruiting, Tom Crean has 10 years of a track record, so I would say he is better.  But that's like saying a 15 year boy can throw the ball faster than a 5 year old due to him being older and doing it longer.  It's way too early to give a fair assessment.

How about a comparison of Tom Crean's first year and 2nd year vs. Buzz's?  Crean was obviously a better coach in year 9  than year 1, correct?

Thanks.

I keep asking you this, but you won't answer.  I'll try again--two simple questions:

• Do you think Buzz is a better coach?
• Do you think Buzz is a better recruiter?

These are pretty simple yes-or-no questions.  

I am directing this argument to the significant number of people on this board who answer YES to both questions If you're not one of them, I don't understand why you keep debating the point.

I want THOSE people to explain how they can simultaneously think that Crean underachived, but Buzz shouldn't perform at least as well.


This seems to be the general consensus on this board, doesn't it?   According to many (generally, those who think Buzz is a significant upgrade in both coaching and recruiting), Crean vastly underachieved -- and they say it is because he's a poor coach and a poor recruiter.

I disagree with their premise. But for the sake of argument, I'll accept it.

With that assumption, if you think 4th/5th place in the Big East was underachieving due to poor coaching and poor recruiting, and we get a new coach with better coaching and better recruiting--then shouldn't we expect better performance?

The logical answer is "yes."



Well it is a stupid argument on your part because its based on a false assumption.

I am not forecasting 4th place.  I'm questioning why those who said Crean underachieved haven't adopted Crean's performance as their minimum standard.

Big difference.  

 

[Marquette84]

I will be glad to answer those questions if you can give me some clarity on a few things:
-can you please share and come clean on what your relationship with Tom Crean or the Harbaugh family is?

I have absolutely no relationship with Tom Crean or the Harbaugh family aside from sitting in the audience at several coaching luncheons over the years.  Sorry to disappoint you. 
 
Why do you think I would be here if I did have any relationship?  I can't imagine a place I would care about less than this board if I weren't an MU fan. 

Apparently, because I never developed the same level of hatred toward Crean as others, I have an "agenda'. 

-By better coach, are you saying X's and O's?  Player relationships?  Development of players?

Sounds like you have doubts.  Welcome to the club. 

Let me warn you though--because you didn't instantly say that Buzz is a better recruiter and coach, you obviously have an agenda.

As far as recruiting, Tom Crean has 10 years of a track record, so I would say he is better. 

Gee--do you have a relationship with Tom Crean or the Harbaugh family?  Only someone with an agenda would make this claim, or so I'm told.

I'l note that this puts you at odds with guys like Lenny and plenty of others on this board, who have already concluded that Buzz is better. 

 But that's like saying a 15 year boy can throw the ball faster than a 5 year old due to him being older and doing it longer.  It's way too early to give a fair assessment.

That's exactly my position--"Jury is still out" were the words I used in a previous posts--and thats proof that I have an "agenda."  I guess you share it.

How about a comparison of Tom Crean's first year and 2nd year vs. Buzz's?  Crean was obviously a better coach in year 9  than year 1, correct?

Thanks.

I think I made it pretty clear why I chose the 2006 versus 2010 comparison.

Same league:  The Big East
Same quality based on projections for 2010.
Same number of Starters returning:  2
Same number of potential NBA draft picks:  1
Similar quality in a direct comparison of Novak versus Hayward
Similar quality in a direct comparison of Chapman versus Butler
Same number of newcomers:  7
Same number of newcomers who were top 100 ranked freshmen:  3
Same number of transfers (from Juco/4 year programs) 2

I don't think we'll see



***How about a comparison of Tom Crean's first year and 2nd year vs. Buzz's?  Crean was obviously a better coach in year 9  than year 1, correct?


I'm assuming that anyone who feels Buzz is ALREADY better than Crean was in his 9th season would also feel Buzz is better than Crean was in his first or second season. 

I choose 2006 versus 2010 because it will probably be as close as a comparison as we're ever likely to see.  Same makeup of the team.  Roughly the same quality of returning players.  Same numbers of returning and newcomers.  You can't ask for a closer comparision.

[bilsu]

Since the Crean & Buzz will never coach the exact same team, you can only judge who is better after five years or so. Even then the better recruiter might have more success, but not be the better game coach. The reality is in the next 10 years Kansas, Kentucky and North Carolina are going to win most of the NCAA championships.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

84 was the one who said Buzz had the entire 2007 starting lineup back. Everyone that follows MU basketball knows that Barro was our starting center and played the majority of the minutes in the games that counted the most. This has nothing to do with TC for me. It has to do with 84 making misleading statements that put TC in the most favorable light and Buzz in the least favorable.

As a fence straddler who leans heavily to the pro TC side, what do you consider a fair characterization of the Barro/Burke situation in 2007? While your at it, please point out any examples of the hypocrisy (at its finest) in my posts. Thanks.

This is the hypocrisy that I see.

Barro was in Crean's doghouse early but was the starter for the stretch run, the Big East tournament and the NCAA tournament. Anyone interested in a fair discussion would concede he was the better player and played more when it mattered. Someone with an agenda would argue technicalities.

Again, I conclude Buzz is the better coach by comparing the way he and Crean coached the SAME players not players with made up and subjective similarities. Crean had two great recruiting classes in his nine years at MU while Buzz is one for one. I like his batting average better.

You've already made up your mind that Buzz is a better coach, so it really doesn't matter what MU84 says about 2010, you are going to say that you think Buzz is better and find evidence that supports this belief. I'm not against your logic (it makes some sense), but you've already made up your mind, so it's hypocritical to attack somebody for having an "agenda" when you already have some strong beliefs about Buzz being a better coach.

MU84 has shown he is partial to TC, so he is going to look at that same evidence and find something that shows Crean was a good coach.

You guys are really similar, but just playing opposite sides of the fence.

I'm not against the discussion, but let's drop the whole "so and so has an agenda" bit. We all have biases and "agendas" based upon what we believe.

[Lennys Tap]

This is the hypocrisy that I see.


You've already made up your mind that Buzz is a better coach, so it really doesn't matter what MU84 says about 2010, you are going to say that you think Buzz is better and find evidence that supports this belief. I'm not against your logic (it makes some sense), but you've already made up your mind, so it's hypocritical to attack somebody for having an "agenda" when you already have some strong beliefs about Buzz being a better coach.

MU84 has shown he is partial to TC, so he is going to look at that same evidence and find something that shows Crean was a good coach.

You guys are really similar, but just playing opposite sides of the fence.

I'm not against the discussion, but let's drop the whole "so and so has an agenda" bit. We all have biases and "agendas" based upon what we believe.

There is a difference between forming an opinion and having an agenda. A fair person forms an opinion based on the data available, applying fair and impartial principles (logic). This opinion necessarily evolves as the "facts on the ground" change. Someone with an agenda  considers his opinion inviolate and is only interested in defending it, even if it means twisting or misrepresenting the facts.

I have never been a basher of Crean the coach or recruiter. I am on record agreeing with Chicos that the Crean era was the second most successful one in MU history. Then last year I watched our new guy coach TC's players better than TC did, so I concluded that Buzz was a better coach. In his first year as a recruiter I watched our new guy equal or surpass TC's best years, and I formed an opinion about that too. I don't pretend to speak ex cathedra, and I reserve the right to change my opinions as the facts change. I also do not hide the fact that I consider Buzz to be far superior to TC as a human being. The more I know him the more I like him. Unfortunately, I found the opposite to be true about TC.

84 plays fast and loose with the facts and concocts oddball scenarios to compare TC and Buzz because he has an agenda -to put anything and everything from the Tom Crean era in the most positive light possible, even if the truth needs to be stretched or disregarded.

If you think I'm a hypocrite for recognizing 84's agenda so be it. I strongly disagree with you but it's refreshing to see you out on the limb expressing an opinion as it seems that you often twist yourself into a pretzel avoiding it.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

There is a difference between forming an opinion and having an agenda. A fair person forms an opinion based on the data available, applying fair and impartial principles (logic). This opinion necessarily evolves as the "facts on the ground" change. Someone with an agenda  considers his opinion inviolate and is only interested in defending it, even if it means twisting or misrepresenting the facts.

I have never been a basher of Crean the coach or recruiter. I am on record agreeing with Chicos that the Crean era was the second most successful one in MU history. Then last year I watched our new guy coach TC's players better than TC did, so I concluded that Buzz was a better coach. In his first year as a recruiter I watched our new guy equal or surpass TC's best years, and I formed an opinion about that too. I don't pretend to speak ex cathedra, and I reserve the right to change my opinions as the facts change. I also do not hide the fact that I consider Buzz to be far superior to TC as a human being. The more I know him the more I like him. Unfortunately, I found the opposite to be true about TC.

84 plays fast and loose with the facts and concocts oddball scenarios to compare TC and Buzz because he has an agenda -to put anything and everything from the Tom Crean era in the most positive light possible, even if the truth needs to be stretched or disregarded.

If you think I'm a hypocrite for recognizing 84's agenda so be it. I strongly disagree with you but it's refreshing to see you out on the limb expressing an opinion as it seems that you often twist yourself into a pretzel avoiding it.

Maybe hypocrisy is too strong of a term, because people have such a negative connotation to it.

MU84 believes his opinions are based in fact and conclusions just like you do. You may disagree, but he does provide the background for all of his conclusions. (his posts are notoriously long, but do provide rationale)

I bring up the Barro situation because you both are looking at the exact same thing, but forming different conclusions.

I don't think either of you have a real "agenda", I think you both just have different opinions and feelings about TC and/or Buzz, and thus it can influence each of your abilities to truly look at the situation objectively (we all have that, including me).

If you really want my opinion, well, I think you have to give Buzz 4 of 5 years before you can judge him. Also, TC really doesn't have anything to do with the Buzz Williams era. Buzz is Buzz.

Comparisons (although inevitable) are most likely unfair to both coaches as we (fans) don't have all of the inside information to truly evaluate a coach's performance.

So, in short, I think you are both crazy for debating this in July after Buzz's first year.  

[Lennys Tap]

Maybe hypocrisy is too strong of a term, because people have such a negative connotation to it.

MU84 believes his opinions are based in fact and conclusions just like you do. You may disagree, but he does provide the background for all of his conclusions. (his posts are notoriously long, but do provide rationale)

I bring up the Barro situation because you both are looking at the exact same thing, but forming different conclusions.

I don't think either of you have a real "agenda", I think you both just have different opinions and feelings about TC and/or Buzz, and thus it can influence each of your abilities to truly look at the situation objectively (we all have that, including me).

If you really want my opinion, well, I think you have to give Buzz 4 of 5 years before you can judge him. Also, TC really doesn't have anything to do with the Buzz Williams era. Buzz is Buzz.

Comparisons (although inevitable) are most likely unfair to both coaches as we (fans) don't have all of the inside information to truly evaluate a coach's performance.

So, in short, I think you are both crazy for debating this in July after Buzz's first year.  

OMG. You are even super nuanced regarding hypocrisy, suggesting that it's some vaguely neutral quality given a bad name because "some people have such a negative connotation to it". Please enlighten me regarding the possible positive (or neutral for that matter) connotations for hypocrisy. While you're at it, give me a positive way to spin bigotry and cruelty.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

OMG. You are even super nuanced regarding hypocrisy, suggesting that it's some vaguely neutral quality given a bad name because "some people have such a negative connotation to it". Please enlighten me regarding the possible positive (or neutral for that matter) connotations for hypocrisy. While you're at it, give me a positive way to spin bigotry and cruelty.

Woah.

Here's some clarification:

People often automatically turn defensive when the term hypocrite or hypocritical is used. It's something nobody wants to be accused of, and often will argue very vehemently against.

So, although it might be accurate (in my estimation), it was still a poor choice of words (by me) because it can create a fight rather than a discussion.

I don't want to sound like such a peace loving freak, but I'd rather have an open discussion, rather than attack and retort thread. I'm guilty of getting into plenty of those, and I've rarely found them to be worthwhile. Just turns into a pissing match.

I have stated my opinion for all to read, and I have nothing else meaningful to add.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Next year TC returns a bunch of starters (all 5?) and welcomes a top 5 recruiting class.

I hear Furman returns all five starters this year, too, so look out...they're headed to the NCAAs (despite their 7-23 record last year).      Just because a team returns all 5 starters doesn't mean a thing, especially when several of those players are not starting players but only by necessity (they needed bodies) were they starting.  If your 5 starters suck at hoops, then giving them another year doesn't mean they are great players....it means they are more experienced sucking players.  IU's starting five last year was devoid of talent.  MU still has more talent 1 through 12 then IU does and that will be the case for one more year until IU can purge and replace more players.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Which "legitimate questions" remain unanswered? If your asking do I think Buzz has to coach next year's team to a 4th place finish in the BEast to be the equal of TC, the answer is obviously an emphatic NO. His apples to tangerines, back to the futre scenario is as absurd as it is disingenuous. Is there anything else I missed?

This one, for example, which you haven't responded to yet.


"I'm just curious, but doesn't it matter when in their careers they were coached?  In other words, coaching DJ, Wes, and McNeal as Freshmen-Juniors is different than coaching them as Seniors....or is it?"

[ChicosBailBonds]

There is a difference between forming an opinion and having an agenda. A fair person forms an opinion based on the data available, applying fair and impartial principles (logic). This opinion necessarily evolves as the "facts on the ground" change. Someone with an agenda  considers his opinion inviolate and is only interested in defending it, even if it means twisting or misrepresenting the facts.

I have never been a basher of Crean the coach or recruiter. I am on record agreeing with Chicos that the Crean era was the second most successful one in MU history. Then last year I watched our new guy coach TC's players better than TC did, so I concluded that Buzz was a better coach. In his first year as a recruiter I watched our new guy equal or surpass TC's best years, and I formed an opinion about that too. I don't pretend to speak ex cathedra, and I reserve the right to change my opinions as the facts change. I also do not hide the fact that I consider Buzz to be far superior to TC as a human being. The more I know him the more I like him. Unfortunately, I found the opposite to be true about TC.

84 plays fast and loose with the facts and concocts oddball scenarios to compare TC and Buzz because he has an agenda -to put anything and everything from the Tom Crean era in the most positive light possible, even if the truth needs to be stretched or disregarded.

If you think I'm a hypocrite for recognizing 84's agenda so be it. I strongly disagree with you but it's refreshing to see you out on the limb expressing an opinion as it seems that you often twist yourself into a pretzel avoiding it.

Good grief, he doesn't have an agenda.  He's asking pointed questions, that's all.  I come back to the same question on the statement you made....you said Buzz coached the same players that TC coached better....were they the same players?  Is coaching Wes, DJ and McNeal as seniors different than having to mold them as Freshmen through Juniors?  I think there is a big difference coaching Seniors then others, you don't seem to factor that in at all.

Let me flip the question on you....since Crean was able to coach a Sr. (Novak) and three freshman to the NCAAs as an inferior coach and recruiter, shouldn't Buzz (as a better coach and recruiter) be able to do the same thing?   I don't think the answer or question is that black and white, but that's the type of thing you're putting out there based on your statement that you've already concluded one guy is the better coach because of how he handled a senior laden class.

[bilsu]

Crean's recruiting short comings have to do with not putting together back to back classes and recruiting bigmen to go along with very talented guards. Right now Buzz has one class that is good on paper. Until they play, we will not know how good this class really is. I believe Buzz will do a good job coaching them, but success will depend on how much real talent they have, how hard they are willing to work and the injury bug. So far Buzz has not had to much luck with the injury bug. He has already lost McMorrow and problably Fulce for this year. Otule brook his foot last year. So far only Butler has made it through a season.

[Lennys Tap]

I hear Furman returns all five starters this year, too, so look out...they're headed to the NCAAs (despite their 7-23 record last year).      Just because a team returns all 5 starters doesn't mean a thing, especially when several of those players are not starting players but only by necessity (they needed bodies) were they starting.  If your 5 starters suck at hoops, then giving them another year doesn't mean they are great players....it means they are more experienced sucking players.  IU's starting five last year was devoid of talent.  MU still has more talent 1 through 12 then IU does and that will be the case for one more year until IU can purge and replace more players.

Pritchard would have been MU's starting center.

[Lennys Tap]

Good grief, he doesn't have an agenda.  He's asking pointed questions, that's all.  I come back to the same question on the statement you made....you said Buzz coached the same players that TC coached better....were they the same players?  Is coaching Wes, DJ and McNeal as seniors different than having to mold them as Freshmen through Juniors?  I think there is a big difference coaching Seniors then others, you don't seem to factor that in at all.

Let me flip the question on you....since Crean was able to coach a Sr. (Novak) and three freshman to the NCAAs as an inferior coach and recruiter, shouldn't Buzz (as a better coach and recruiter) be able to do the same thing?   I don't think the answer or question is that black and white, but that's the type of thing you're putting out there based on your statement that you've already concluded one guy is the better coach because of how he handled a senior laden class.

You're right. They weren't the same players. Wes flatlined for three years under TC, then took a quantum leap under Buzz. But don't take my word for it. Ask him. DJ's game regressed every year under Crean and he reversed that trend when Buzz got through to him that he wasn't the #1 offensive option. Only McNeal had the normal learning curve you would expect under both coaches. These guys were 4 year starters who had 100+ games under their belts when Buzz took over. The "leap" from junior to senior is largely a myth for players with that much experience.

Do I think Buzz could have coached Novak and the three amigos to the NCAA tourney? You bet. Will this year's team make it? Who knows. It's a flawed and unfair comparison. Where guys are "rated" out of high school and how they perform is not science. Brandon Bell was rated higher coming out of high school than Wade. Did Crean under achieve in his coaching of Bell? Of course not. But you guys want to compare a team with an 3rd year NBA player and three guys who are all over MU's record book with next year's group of Lazar and a group of highly rated question marks. That's insane. But I think you already knew that.

[Lennys Tap]

This one, for example, which you haven't responded to yet.


"I'm just curious, but doesn't it matter when in their careers they were coached?  In other words, coaching DJ, Wes, and McNeal as Freshmen-Juniors is different than coaching them as Seniors....or is it?"

Junior to senior doesn't matter much for players with 100+ games as a starter under their belt. If a 4 year starter "breaks out" his senior year it's most likely due to some odd situation ( Mathews taking shots away from DJ in Buzz's offense for example)

[Lennys Tap]

Woah.

Here's some clarification:

People often automatically turn defensive when the term hypocrite or hypocritical is used. It's something nobody wants to be accused of, and often will argue very vehemently against.

So, although it might be accurate (in my estimation), it was still a poor choice of words (by me) because it can create a fight rather than a discussion.

I don't want to sound like such a peace loving freak, but I'd rather have an open discussion, rather than attack and retort thread. I'm guilty of getting into plenty of those, and I've rarely found them to be worthwhile. Just turns into a pissing match.

I have stated my opinion for all to read, and I have nothing else meaningful to add.

So you think I'm a hypocrite,(accurate in your estimation) but you wish you had chosen some synonym for hypocrite that I might not have considered quite so offensive? Trust me, it's not your choice of words I find offensive. It's the lack of logic and facts you rely on to reach your conclusions.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

So you think I'm a hypocrite,(accurate in your estimation) but you wish you had chosen some synonym for hypocrite that I might not have considered quite so offensive? Trust me, it's not your choice of words I find offensive. It's the lack of logic and facts you rely on to reach your conclusions.

That pretty much sums it up.

People (including me sometimes) take our opinions and posts so personally that some threads degenerate from an interesting basketball discussion to a pissing match about a subject (most of the time that subject is TC). We've all been guilty of this.

I know you disagree with my logic in previous posts, but that's cool. We can still be friends.


EDIT: I wrote WAY too much before.

[dsfire]

Next year TC returns a bunch of starters (all 5?) and welcomes a top 5 recruiting class. Buzz returns one starter and an outstanding class regarded as almost Indiana's equal. Slight edge to IU, but wouldn't this result in a better comparison of Crean vs Buzz than the bizzare back to the future scenario you propose? Of couse it would, but it might not fit your agenda as well.

Not that it really has any bearing on the argument, but since a couple other people have commented...

• Taber graduated, I believe (started 23 games, 60% minutes)
• Williams transferred (started 29 games, 66% minutes)
• I think Malik Story transferred as well (3 starts, 45% minutes)

A couple of their other starters will be competing with new players for play time as well, from what I can gather - for example, it looks like Jones will be up against Jeremiah Rivers and #74 RSCI Jordan Hulls at point guard.

Like I said, doesn't really matter for this topic but I found it interesting.
(sources: statsheet, kenpom, scholarship grid, RSCI)

[ChicosBailBonds]

Junior to senior doesn't matter much for players with 100+ games as a starter under their belt. If a 4 year starter "breaks out" his senior year it's most likely due to some odd situation ( Mathews taking shots away from DJ in Buzz's offense for example)

You're right, Novak was as good his junior year as his senior year.    Diener was as good his junior year as senior year.    Wes Matthews was as good his junior year as senior year.     Chris Crawford was as good his junior year as his senior year.    Etc, etc (Eford, McCaskill, Pieper).   Many of our players over the years (who didn't have Crean for you to blame), had break out years and I don't agree with you that it's simply because they were taking shots away from someone else.  They're more mature, they're fully committed (it's their last year, giving it their all to make the association or play their final year of organized ball), etc.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.  Give me talented seniors over talented juniors every day of the week!!!  Easier to coach, more developed, more mature, more committed, more experienced, etc, etc.

[Lennys Tap]

You're right, Novak was as good his junior year as his senior year.    Diener was as good his junior year as senior year.    Wes Matthews was as good his junior year as senior year.     Chris Crawford was as good his junior year as his senior year.    Etc, etc (Eford, McCaskill, Pieper).   Many of our players over the years (who didn't have Crean for you to blame), had break out years and I don't agree with you that it's simply because they were taking shots away from someone else.  They're more mature, they're fully committed (it's their last year, giving it their all to make the association or play their final year of organized ball), etc.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.  Give me talented seniors over talented juniors every day of the week!!!  Easier to coach, more developed, more mature, more committed, more experienced, etc, etc.

Since you either didn't read my post or didn't understand it allow me to repeat it with explanations:

Junior to senior doesn't matter much for players with 100+ games as a starter under their belt. (THIS MEANS PLAYERS GOOD ENOUGH AND MATURE ENOUGH TO BE STARTERS FROM DAY ONE). This eliminates EVERY SINGLE ONE of your examples EXCEPT Mathews who happens to be MY example. Novak, Diener, Crawford, Eford, Crawford and McCaskill improving or not improving are irrelevant as they don't meet the criteria in my statement.

Now I was kidding about you not reading or understanding my post. My point is that you don't address my statement. You make a speech that pretends to address my statement. This is what's known as having an agenda.

[Marquette84]

Do I think Buzz could have coached Novak and the three amigos to the NCAA tourney? You bet. Will this year's team make it? Who knows. It's a flawed and unfair comparison. Where guys are "rated" out of high school and how they perform is not science. Brandon Bell was rated higher coming out of high school than Wade. Did Crean under achieve in his coaching of Bell? Of course not. But you guys want to compare a team with an 3rd year NBA player and three guys who are all over MU's record book with next year's group of Lazar and a group of highly rated question marks. That's insane. But I think you already knew that.

You refuse to answer this question because you are afraid Buzz's recruits might not turn out to be as good as Crean's?

Now I've heard everything.  

You argue--apparently with a straight face--that a recruiter who has brought in a bunch of what you yourself call question marks is ALREADY far superior to a guy who brought in a "3rd year NBA player" "3 guys who are all over MU's record books," and a guy currently projected as a first round draft pick next season.  Not to mention MU's best player of all time, and another 4 year NBA player.

A fair opinion would be to state--as I have repeatedly--that the jury is still out on Buzz's recruiting until his recruits demonstrate that they can match the performance of those recruited by Crean.  

This seems like a no-brainer to me.

Yet in this insane asylum, expecting that Buzz's recruiting to actually demonstrate superiority BEFORE declaring him a superior recruiter is considered as "having an agenda."

And making a declaration of recruiting superiority based on landing what is described as a bunch of "question marks" is normal and expected.

[Lennys Tap]

You refuse to answer this question because you are afraid Buzz's recruits might not turn out to be as good as Crean's?

Now I've heard everything.  

You argue--apparently with a straight face--that a recruiter who has brought in a bunch of what you yourself call question marks is ALREADY far superior to a guy who brought in a "3rd year NBA player" "3 guys who are all over MU's record books," and a guy currently projected as a first round draft pick next season.  Not to mention MU's best player of all time, and another 4 year NBA player.

A fair opinion would be to state--as I have repeatedly--that the jury is still out on Buzz's recruiting until his recruits demonstrate that they can match the performance of those recruited by Crean.  

This seems like a no-brainer to me.

Yet in this insane asylum, expecting that Buzz's recruiting to actually demonstrate superiority BEFORE declaring him a superior recruiter is considered as "having an agenda."

And making a declaration of recruiting superiority based on landing what is described as a bunch of "question marks" is normal and expected.

I'll try to speak slowly so you'll understand.  Crean had 9 years at MU and had major successes and major failures as a recruiter. Buzz's 1st class is rated by the "experts" to be as good or better than any of Crean's. In other words. he fared better going up against the big boys than Crean usually and maybe ever did. Hence I hold the opinion that he is a better recruiter. I apologize ahead of time for you not being able to understand this.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'll try to speak slowly so you'll understand.  Crean had 9 years at MU and had major successes and major failures as a recruiter. Buzz's 1st class is rated by the "experts" to be as good or better than any of Crean's. In other words. he fared better going up against the big boys than Crean usually and maybe ever did. Hence I hold the opinion that he is a better recruiter. I apologize ahead of time for you not being able to understand this.

The final RSCI actually shows Crean's class of DJ, Wes, Jerel to be ranked higher than Buzz's class....though both are excellent.  And to be fair, in either case we shouldn't be comparing Buzz's class to Crean's class anyway because each year is different...the 2005 class of all recruits may have been "weaker" then the 2009 class, though ultimately we will not be able to judge any of these things until they are all done playing, not based on "experts" evaluations.

The experts, most of them anyway, didn't have D-Wade as a consensus pick (while some had him as a top 25 player).  Careful with what the experts are saying.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather judge a recruiter by the successes they actually have on the court not on how they slot in on a piece of paper or a website by some recruiting expert.  We'll know in a few years for sure, anything else is purely a guess.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Since you either didn't read my post or didn't understand it allow me to repeat it with explanations:

Junior to senior doesn't matter much for players with 100+ games as a starter under their belt. (THIS MEANS PLAYERS GOOD ENOUGH AND MATURE ENOUGH TO BE STARTERS FROM DAY ONE). This eliminates EVERY SINGLE ONE of your examples EXCEPT Mathews who happens to be MY example. Novak, Diener, Crawford, Eford, Crawford and McCaskill improving or not improving are irrelevant as they don't meet the criteria in my statement.

Now I was kidding about you not reading or understanding my post. My point is that you don't address my statement. You make a speech that pretends to address my statement. This is what's known as having an agenda.

That's your opinion and we will have to agree to disagree.  I'm sorry, but I don't see how it eliminates any of the examples I gave.  Are you really saying that Diener, who played in 97 games prior to his senior season had huge improvements to make because he was 3 games short of the magical 100 marker you've given?  I don't know if Diener started all 97 games (Henry started at the PG position), but he played at least 24 minutes a game his Freshman year on.  Yet he was a better senior then any other year, despite being injured.   I'm sorry, but regardless of how many starts or games that they played, those examples I gave still showed they had fantastic senior years whether it was their first time in that role as the Senior stud or whether they had been major contributors since their freshman year or sophmore year.  Diener just one example.

Incidentally, your example, did not play 100+ games coming into his senior year.  Matthews played 92 games prior to his senior year and had a terrific senior season.  Almost the same number of games that Diener had.

I'll take Steve Novak the senior over Steve Novak the junior because he was more aggressive, more confident, more mature and was playing out his last year.  Seniors rise to the occassion, I find it surprising that you seem to be ignoring this fact or somehow chalking it up to them filling in for someone that just graduated.  In some cases, yes, stats will balloon because they become "the man".  But, there are also numerous cases where these guys finally reach the apex and know what they are doing through the entire process by virtue of coaching, maturity, etc.   Case in point, Travis Diener actually played less minutes per game his senior year than his junior year, yet had better statistics in most major categories.  Other players get additional minutes because they are filling that void you were talking about.  There are examples to justify both points of view.

But I still contend that coaching the big three as seniors compared to coaching them in their first three years is a difference.



Give me talented seniors over talented juniors every day of the week.

[Marquette84]

I'll try to speak slowly so you'll understand.  Crean had 9 years at MU and had major successes and major failures as a recruiter. Buzz's 1st class is rated by the "experts" to be as good or better than any of Crean's. In other words. he fared better going up against the big boys than Crean usually and maybe ever did. Hence I hold the opinion that he is a better recruiter. I apologize ahead of time for you not being able to understand this.

I'll make this clear so you can understand:

If this year's team can't equal or surpass the 2006 team's results, then maybe Buzz's recruiting and/or coaching is not as superior as you claim.