Who did Crean / Deane / KO target in CA but DIDN'T land?

[77ncaachamps]

May I suggest that if you don't want to read another discussion about Tom Crean, then perhaps you shouldn't create a post hat specifically asks about Tom Crean?

As for CA recruits, Crean was recruiting Justin Hawkins, who ended up at Utah then New Mexico State and Renaldo Woolridge, who ended up at Tennessee. Scout says MU offered Elston Turner (Washington), but I don't remember that. May be true, I just don't recall.

I expected the eternal Crean hate debate to steer clear of a straightforward question thread, but MAN, WAS I WRONG!

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I know this has been through before, but since the same issues are being raised again, let's not forget that MU announced it was joining the Big East in November 2003, so Crean had 4+ years - essentially half his tenure - to sell the conference affiliation to recruits. However, with the possible exception of the 2005 class, his recruiting really never got any better despte getting in the door a lot easier.
Likewise, the Al was opened in October 2003 - and in the works at least a couple years before - so he also had elite facilities to pitch for 4+ years, and the promise of elite facilities long before that. And again, the recruiting never markedly improved. In fact, it's hard to argue that Crean's best class wasn't his first when he was recruiting for "a little CUSA school that had been to the Sweet 16 one time in the previous 20 years."

Seriously, Tom Crean did a lot of good things at MU, and I've never been among his strident bashers around here. But why do you always need to bend over backwards, often twisting logic and obscuring facts in the process, to defend and/or excuse his shortcomings? Is it just that you're obsessed with downplaying what Buzz has accomplished since he wasn't your guy?

I'm sorry, but this is a misconception that needs to go away.

Here is the thread where it was discussed more in depth. Enjoy.

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21528.msg233556#msg233556

Back to your regularly schedule Buzz vs Crean vs KO thread.

[Pakuni]

I'm sorry, but this is a misconception that needs to go away.

Here is the thread where it was discussed more in depth. Enjoy.

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21528.msg233556#msg233556

Back to your regularly schedule Buzz vs Crean vs KO thread.

So, wait .... you're arguing that the group of Dameon Mason, Brandon Bell, Dominic James, Wes Matthews, Jerel McNeal, Lazar Hayward, Trevor Mbakwe, Tyshawn Taylor and Nick Williams was a "marked improvement" over Odartey Blankson, Dwyane Wade, Scott Merritt, Travis Diener, Ron Howard, Steve Novak and Karon Bradley (not to mention Todd Townsend and Joe Chapman)?
Especially in light of the criteria laid out in this discussion (on-court results, not recruiting rankings)?

I doubt very much that many MU fans would agree with that position.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

So, wait .... you're arguing that the group of Dameon Mason, Brandon Bell, Dominic James, Wes Matthews, Jerel McNeal, Lazar Hayward, Trevor Mbakwe, Tyshawn Taylor and Nick Williams was a "marked improvement" over Odartey Blankson, Dwyane Wade, Scott Merritt, Travis Diener, Ron Howard, Steve Novak and Karon Bradley (not to mention Todd Townsend and Joe Chapman)?
Especially in light of the criteria laid out in this discussion (on-court results, not recruiting rankings)?

I doubt very much that many MU fans would agree with that position.

We need to separate "on court performance" vs "recruiting".

Crean's recruiting numbers were better (higher ranked players) after he had the Al and the Big East.

The actual performance of those recruits might not have met expectations, but we're not talking about that.

We're talking about the ability to recruit highly ranked players.


EDIT: Just to be clear: We're not talking about which teams were better, we're talking about where players were ranked when they signed with MU. That's really the only way to compare pre-al vs post-al recruiting.

[jmayer1]

What point blank question have I not answered?  Is it that last question?  I've said time and time again, I don't believe in class ratings...it's about what you get done on the court.  Steve Lavin had the number one recruiting class 3 times in his career and a top 5 another time...I rest my case.  Secondly, one year's top 10 class could be ranked 25th the year later with the same kids...each year is different based on what is at hand in that particular class.  Now, you may not like that answer, but I've certainly given you an answer.  I also think that when you're in that long at a certain position you do plateau...I believe Lenny is right.  That's also why I say time and time again not to pass judgment on someone 2 years in.  Will Buzz "plateau" in year 5 or 6?  Do any of you know?  Of course not.  Yet you're judging people on an oranges to cadillacs comparison.  Both in terms of what they had to work with and in terms of where they are in their cycle of coach.  Why did Bob Knight recruit much worse AFTER three national titles then when he was winning them?  Just one example of many.

I did not rally to HIS defense....if you READ what I wrote, I spoke of all THREE previous administrations/coaches...TC, MD, KO...yet YOU read that as me coming to TC's defense.  This is some of the nonsense I talk of.  Some of you literally can't read what I write and assume something that isn't there.  Was I just defending TC?  Nope.  Did you accuse me of that?  You sure as hell did.

I'

Yes, you defended all of the prior coaches in this particular thread I should have made that distinction, but my point still stands. You are almost always one of the first to defend TC.

I don't think I mentioned recruiting rankings in my posts, I'm not sure exactly what that has to do with this argument.  I referred to the success of the classes, not the rankings. The point still stands and is one I still don't think you have fully refuted (I don't care about Lavin or Knight, I'm talking about TC in particular). TC, when he had all those disadvantages in recruiting, had better on the court results than when he didn't. Why was that? If your simple answer is that he plateaued, then you should have been one of the first ones in line calling for his head, unless you think that MU's ceiling is never getting past the first weekend of the tournament.

My personal take it that his recruiting (based on rankings) did markedly improve over time due to better name recognition, facilities, conference, recent success..etc (BMA has pointed this out in a previous thread). The only reason our on the court results were better in the 3rd and 4th years is that we got unbelievably lucky that we had one of the best basketball players in the planet fall into our laps (prop 48, lightly recruited). Of course, you disagree and only go by on the court results, regardless of what the rankings may say. 

That's fine, but you can't have both sides of the coin.  You can't point out all these great advantages Buzz has as one of the major reasons he is getting some pretty good recruits but then deny that the opposite was true of Crean--he had better results when none of those advantages were in place.

[Pakuni]

We need to separate "on court performance" vs "recruiting".

Crean's recruiting numbers were better (higher ranked players) after he had the Al and the Big East.

The actual performance of those recruits might not have met expectations, but we're not talking about that.

We're talking about the ability to recruit highly ranked players.

EDIT: Just to be clear: We're not talking about which teams were better, we're talking about where players were ranked when they signed with MU. That's really the only way to compare pre-al vs post-al recruiting.

 

YOU might be talking about rankings, but that's not what WE'RE talking about. If you read through the thread  - perhaps even before declaring what is and isn't a misconception - you would see that the discussion had centered around on-court performance.
To quote Chico's post that I replied to: "As for Crean's recruiting....I look at results Pakuni, not what a recruiting class is ranked."


EDIT ... to add to the discussion, I think it's really quite foolish to judge a coach's recruiting success based on where his players ranked on the RSCI, how many stars they get from Rivals and Scout, etc. Isn't identifying and evaluating players - irrelgardless of what Dave Telep and Bob Gibbons think - an essential part of being a good recruiter? How many here think Jeronne Maymon (RSCI 73, four stars) was a better recruit for Marquette than one-star recruit Jimmy Butler? Or for that matter, RSCI 71 Dameon Mason better than Lazar Hayward? It's really a silly way to judge one's recruiting ability.

[StillAWarrior]

Yes, you defended all of the prior coaches in this particular thread I should have made that distinction, but my point still stands. You are almost always one of the first to defend TC.

He's got more than 8,000 posts.  With all due respect to Chicos (who has been a friend for 20+ years), he's "almost always one of the first" to post about anything.

[Marquette84]

YOU might be talking about rankings, but that's not what WE'RE talking about. If you read through the thread  - perhaps even before declaring what is and isn't a misconception - you would see that the discussion had centered around on-court performance.
To quote Chico's post that I replied to: "As for Crean's recruiting....I look at results Pakuni, not what a recruiting class is ranked."

Here's the context and sequence:

Pakuni:"with the possible exception of the 2005 class, [Crean's] recruiting really never got any better despte [sic] getting in the door a lot easier." and  "the recruiting never markedly improved."

Chicos' response: "As for Crean's recruiting....I look at results Pakuni, not what a recruiting class is ranked."

Clearly Chico's had the better argument---performance in 2006-08 was decidedly better than 2004 and 2005, Therefore, Chico's point is that the Big East resulted in an improvement in recruiting.

Later in the thread, 2002 points out that if we use BMA's analysis using RSCI and top 100 rankings, recruiting improved.

Amazingly, you now pull out Chico's quote to claim we weren't talking about the rankings, we were talking about on-court performance!

The bottom line is that whether we use performance (as Chicos argues) or rankings (as 2002 argues), our recruiting improved after we joined the Big East.  Your claim that we saw no improvement is false.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

YOU might be talking about rankings, but that's not what WE'RE talking about. If you read through the thread  - perhaps even before declaring what is and isn't a misconception - you would see that the discussion had centered around on-court performance.
To quote Chico's post that I replied to: "As for Crean's recruiting....I look at results Pakuni, not what a recruiting class is ranked."


EDIT ... to add to the discussion, I think it's really quite foolish to judge a coach's recruiting success based on where his players ranked on the RSCI, how many stars they get from Rivals and Scout, etc. Isn't identifying and evaluating players - irrelgardless of what Dave Telep and Bob Gibbons think - an essential part of being a good recruiter? How many here think Jeronne Maymon (RSCI 73, four stars) was a better recruit for Marquette than one-star recruit Jimmy Butler? Or for that matter, RSCI 71 Dameon Mason better than Lazar Hayward? It's really a silly way to judge one's recruiting ability.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

RSCI is not a perfect science as you have shown. But, from a macro level, I feel it's really the best way to compare coaches and/or different recruiting classes. Diamonds in the rough (jimmy, Wade, etc.) are always going to pop up from time to time. But, if you look at the top teams in the country every year, they have a lot of highly ranked players. I don't think that is a coincidence. In my mind, coaches who can bring in highly ranked players have the best chance of winning.

Again, that's just my opinion, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Pakuni]

Here's the context and sequence:

Pakuni:"with the possible exception of the 2005 class, [Crean's] recruiting really never got any better despte [sic] getting in the door a lot easier." and  "the recruiting never markedly improved."

Chicos' response: "As for Crean's recruiting....I look at results Pakuni, not what a recruiting class is ranked."

Clearly Chico's had the better argument---performance in 2006-08 was decidedly better than 2004 and 2005, Therefore, Chico's point is that the Big East resulted in an improvement in recruiting.

Later in the thread, 2002 points out that if we use BMA's analysis using RSCI and top 100 rankings, recruiting improved.

Amazingly, you now pull out Chico's quote to claim we weren't talking about the rankings, we were talking about on-court performance!

The bottom line is that whether we use performance (as Chicos argues) or rankings (as 2002 argues), our recruiting improved after we joined the Big East.  Your claim that we saw no improvement is false.

Good old SJS, never misses a chance to misstate another's position.
Pray tell ...

1. When did I ever state or even imply my comments on recruiting were based rankings? In fact, prior to 2002, when did anyone else say that was the basis of the discussion? The only one who ever differentiated was Chico's, and he said results, not rankings, and when he did, I responded with the same argument based on results.

How else do we know I wasn't discussing rankings? Even before you posted, I wrote here that I considered judging recruiting classes just on rankings as "silly" and "foolish." Or are you thinking I somehow anticipated your post and beat you to the punch, so to speak. Well, it is true that I'm remarkably prescient, but still ....

2. When did Chico's - or anyone else - limit his pre BE recruiting  evaluation to the classes that produced the 2004/05 seasons (as opposed to oh, I don't know, a Final Four team with the greatest player in Marquette history)? I'm sure you didn't intentionally leave that out or anything.

As for your "fact" (love it when people state their opinions as fact and dead on right, as if it somehow wins the argument), it's simply not fact. It's an opinion, and a lousy one at that.

Crean's four classes pre-Big East included three NBA players, the best player in Marquette history, teams that earned three and five seeds in the NCAA tourney, a conference championship team and a Final Four team.

His five classes thereafter included two NBA players, no conference champs (albeit partially in an obviously more challenging conference), teams that earned six, seven and eight seeds and teams that never got past the second round of the tournament. And most of the success Crean's post-BE classes was due to a pre-BE player (Novak) and one particular class, which I noted as a possible exception of the five.

Is it possible some might think the latter group was somehow better? I suppose if they don't like deep tournament runs, more NBA players in fewer years, conference titles and higher tourney seeds. But I think a lot of Marquette fans would take the magic of a Final Four run (and a certain Talented Mr. Wade) over a bunch of first- and second-round exits. Maybe not you, I guess.

[Pakuni]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

RSCI is not a perfect science as you have shown. But, from a macro level, I feel it's really the best way to compare coaches and/or different recruiting classes. Diamonds in the rough (jimmy, Wade, etc.) are always going to pop up from time to time. But, if you look at the top teams in the country every year, they have a lot of highly ranked players. I don't think that is a coincidence. In my mind, coaches who can bring in highly ranked players have the best chance of winning.

Again, that's just my opinion, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I don't disagree that higher ranked players generally turn out to be better players. Nothing to agree to disagree on that.

I do disagree that the way to evaluate a recruiting class - especially long after it's left campus - is based on where the RSCI rated them as high schoolers.

[Marquette84]

Good old SJS, never misses a chance to misstate another's position.
Pray tell ...

Actually you never stated your position until you edited a post AFTER I started writing my response.

Making an unambiguous initial post, not correcting it over the course five additional responses, then editing a comment after the fact doesn't mean I misstated your position--it means you didn't state it clearly the first, second, third, fourth, or fifth time.

Editing your sixth post--and assuming that I hadn't started my response until after you made the edit--is on you, not me.

1. When did I ever state or even imply my comments on recruiting were based rankings? In fact, prior to 2002, when did anyone else say that was the basis of the discussion? The only one who ever differentiated was Chico's, and he said results, not rankings, and when he did, I responded with the same argument based on results.

This is the problem.  You didn't say WHAT you based your comments initially.

What you DID do is continue to argue with Chicos after he clearly claimed he based his comments on performance.

Only in an edit to your sixth post on the topic do we learn that, lo and behold, you actually agree with Chicos.   I didn't get that impression from your early posts.

2. When did Chico's - or anyone else - limit his pre BE recruiting  evaluation to the classes that produced the 2004/05 seasons (as opposed to oh, I don't know, a Final Four team with the greatest player in Marquette history)? I'm sure you didn't intentionally leave that out or anything.

Because, unlike you, I don't feel that we recruited the greatest player MU history--we recruited a player that wasn't even a consensus top 100 player and developed him to the greatest player.

I think even you would have to acknowledge that there was a bit of luck involved in landing Wade.

And I think you would have to acknowledge that we were a more consistently high performing team once we reached the Big East.

As for your "fact" (love it when people state their opinions as fact and dead on right, as if it somehow wins the argument), it's simply not fact. It's an opinion, and a lousy one at that.

Not sure what you're referring to--the word "fact" did not appear in my post.

Crean's four classes pre-Big East included three NBA players, the best player in Marquette history, teams that earned three and five seeds in the NCAA tourney, a conference championship team and a Final Four team.

These all seem like various forms of rankings.

His five classes thereafter included two NBA players, no conference champs (albeit partially in an obviously more challenging conference),

Crean only had 3 Big East classes---not five.

Maybe the common ground is that prior to the Big east, our recruiting was inconsistent--we ranged from Final Four to NIT.  After we joined, our recruiting improved to the point where we were not reliant on a single player, and we began a streak of five straight NCAA tournaments based on recruits we only landed after joining the Big East.

[ChicosBailBonds]

That's fine, but you can't have both sides of the coin.  You can't point out all these great advantages Buzz has as one of the major reasons he is getting some pretty good recruits but then deny that the opposite was true of Crean--he had better results when none of those advantages were in place.

As someone already pointed out, that is factually incorrect.  Crean's recruiting got BETTER after those same advantages.  I don't know why you and some others keep saying it didn't.  The top 4 scorers in MU history came AFTER the Final Four, the Big East, etc.  Mbakwe, Taylor (both gone but top 100 recruits) also came after.  Hell, even Damian Saunders....ranked 70th right now in the upcoming NBA Draft prospects.  http://www.draftexpress.com/rankings/Top-100-Prospects/

I'm not having two sides of the coin at all.  Your reasoning that his recruiting didn't get better is fundamentally flawed.  It certainly proved out on the court, in the statistical all time rankings, in wins and losses, and in a tougher conference.

[Pakuni]

Actually you never stated your position until you edited a post AFTER I started writing my response.

After you started writing your post? Good God, are you serious? Are you implying I somehow sensed you were writing a response and my Spidey sense started?
What a ridiculous statement.

Editing your sixth post--and assuming that I hadn't started my response until after you made the edit--is on you, not me.

Ha. You're right, I should always assume you're in the midst of responding to one of my posts. How silly of me not to.

This is the problem.  You didn't say WHAT you based your comments initially.

Didn't feel I need to. But you're lying mistaken about when I based my argument on results. My third post in the thread - second if you're not counting a "+ alot" on KO's role in rebuilding the program - states "Fair enough. Look at results. The results show that some of Crean's best recruiting took place early in his MU tenure ...". I go on to note that the team's on-court success didn't improve with conditions. Unless, I suppose, we don't count the Final Four year.
Anyhow, it's pretty obvious that I was making a case based on results. I said I was making a case based on results. In my second post about Crean's situation, not sixth.

Because, unlike you, I don't feel that we recruited the greatest player MU history--we recruited a player that wasn't even a consensus top 100 player and developed him to the greatest player.

Another laugher. Fine, Dwyane Wade - first team all-state in a great 2000 Illinois class - would probably be playing in Turkey or Japan (if he were lucky) without the development he received at Marquette. But I've got to ask, if Crean and staff managed to develop a non top 100 player into the greatest in school history, why couldn't they pull off any similar miracles at MU?
(hint: Because there was no miracle. Wade would have been great regardless.)

I think even you would have to acknowledge that there was a bit of luck involved in landing Wade.

So, do you agree with those who don't give Crean much credit for landing Wade, and, by extension, the Final Four run? It being the result of luck and all.

Not sure what you're referring to--the word "fact" did not appear in my post.

I didn't say you used the word "fact" I said you stated something "as fact." When one states "The bottom line is ..." they're stating something as a final result, i.e. fact.

Crean only had 3 Big East classes---not five.

Marquette officially announced its Big East membership in November 2003, and word of its likely membership had been around for months prior. Do you really believe Crean didn't sell Big East membership to his 2004 and 2005 classes? Probably his 2003 class as well? I suspect that a guy who sold kids on being the next Dwyane Wade probably also sold them on playing in the Big East one or two years down the line. And isn't that what the discussion was about ... that Crean somehow was handicapped because all he could offer kids was CUSA? Officially beginning Nov. 4, 2003 (and unofficially before that) he could sell kids on the Big East. So he had at least five classes to which he could pitch the conference.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I don't disagree that higher ranked players generally turn out to be better players. Nothing to agree to disagree on that.

I do disagree that the way to evaluate a recruiting class - especially long after it's left campus - is based on where the RSCI rated them as high schoolers.

I like evaluating recruiting based upon ranking because I feel it's the best vacuum.

How a team actually performed adds so many variables (player development, x and o's, coaching, tournament draws, luck, etc.).

Ultimately, it's all about success. But, if we're talking about recruiting, I like to use the evaluations from the time when the player was actually recruited, as it creates the most level playing ground for evaluating different coaches and different seasons.

How the team actually performed is great to see if the coach can actually coach and/or develop/maximize talent.

[Pakuni]

As someone already pointed out, that is factually incorrect.  Crean's recruiting got BETTER after those same advantages.  I don't know why you and some others keep saying it didn't.  The top 4 scorers in MU history came AFTER the Final Four, the Big East, etc.  Mbakwe, Taylor (both gone but top 100 recruits) also came after.

Wait... did the guy who previously said it's all about results, not rankings, just use rankings to support his argument?
I think an excellent case can be made for the better - and at very worst equal -teams were recruited before the Big East. Certainly the best team and best players came as a result of those teams. The greatest tournament success - by leaps and bounds - came as a result of one those teams. The only conference title. The best tournament seedings. Plenty of factors weigh in their favor.

Not to dismiss the significant achievements of McNeal, DJ and Lazar, but wouldn't it be fair to say their scoring numbers were greatly enhanced by opportunity and games played (opportunity and games played at least somewhat the result of poor recruiting in previous years)?
For example, McNeal played in 130 games, to Wade 65 and George Thompson's 87. And he took 1,650 shots, compared the Travis Diener's 1,228 and Butch Lee's 1,403.
Again, I'm not saying this to play down what those guys did, just pointing out that they had certain advantages that inflated their numbers.

Lastly, unless you think George Thompson was recruited in the Big East era, you may want to revise that remark about the top 4 scorers.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Wait... did the guy who previously said it's all about results, not rankings, just use rankings to support his argument?

Huh?  Did I use scoring rankings (which equate to actual on the court results and ability) vs some "guru's" evaluation rankings while they are in high school against mostly subpar competition...yes.  Are you equating the two as somehow equal?  One based on an actual body of work and one based on what a guy thinks someone rates among thousands of other high school players?  Really?  Really?

[Pakuni]

Huh?  Did I use scoring rankings (which equate to actual on the court results and ability) vs some "guru's" evaluation rankings while they are in high school against mostly subpar competition...yes.  Are you equating the two as somehow equal?  One based on an actual body of work and one based on what a guy thinks someone rates among thousands of other high school players?  Really?  Really?

Um, no, you used the recruiting rankings of Taylor and Mbakwe in support of your argument. You, the guy who believes rankings are irrelevant.

Your quote ... " Mbakwe, Taylor (both gone but top 100 recruits) also came after."

[ChicosBailBonds]

Um, no, you used the recruiting rankings of Taylor and Mbakwe in support of your argument. You, the guy who believes rankings are irrelevant.

Your quote ... " Mbakwe, Taylor (both gone but top 100 recruits) also came after."

That is correct....and if you read earlier in this thread I said that I prefer on the court results, but even if you use these rankings that some of you love so much, they were doing BETTER regardless of what you choose to use as your criteria.  Personally, I don't like the rankings and have said that consistently for years.  In this case, because Taylor never played for MU and Mbakwe barely did (as did Saunders), there isn't any on the court results to look at...which would have been my preferred evaluation criteria.

It remains that this myth that some of you guys have that recruiting got worse or whatever is just that, a myth.

[jmayer1]

As someone already pointed out, that is factually incorrect.  Crean's recruiting got BETTER after those same advantages.  I don't know why you and some others keep saying it didn't.  The top 4 scorers in MU history came AFTER the Final Four, the Big East, etc.  Mbakwe, Taylor (both gone but top 100 recruits) also came after.  Hell, even Damian Saunders....ranked 70th right now in the upcoming NBA Draft prospects.  http://www.draftexpress.com/rankings/Top-100-Prospects/

I'm not having two sides of the coin at all.  Your reasoning that his recruiting didn't get better is fundamentally flawed.  It certainly proved out on the court, in the statistical all time rankings, in wins and losses, and in a tougher conference.

Our on the court results from players recruited from November 2003 through the end of the TC era were better than the on the court results from players brought into the program before then?  Is that really what you believe? If you do, then there is nothing to argue, we just have to vehmently agree to disagreed.

In your eyes, on the court results are the thing that matters so I have no idea why in the heck you would bring up Taylor, Mbakwe, or Saunders since none of those guys produced on the court results for MU (and haven't done much for anybody else either with the possible exception of Saunders at a mid-major school). To bring up their recruiting ranking or draft ranking on some website doesn't make much sense now because that is a completely different debate.

I think you meant to say 4 of the top 10 scorers in MU history, but regardless, I don't think any of those 4 ranks in the top 10 PLAYERS in MU history.  The fact is, those 4 guys combined for exactly 2 wins in the NCAA tournament and couldn't muster a single top 3 conference finish.  I'll take the 03-04 teams accomplishments over a combined ten of the teams those guys were on.  Not to mention the 02-03 team was also better than any of those teams as well, despite the NCAA flameout.

No one has factually proven that MU's on the court results got better, because that would be an impossible argument to make since it simply isn't true. I have already said that according to the rankings, our recruiting did get better.  But that is not the argument you have been trying to make this whole time so I don't know why you are relying on other people's opinion on that matter.

Have a good weekend.

[Marquette84]

Another laugher. Fine, Dwyane Wade - first team all-state in a great 2000 Illinois class - would probably be playing in Turkey or Japan (if he were lucky) without the development he received at Marquette. But I've got to ask, if Crean and staff managed to develop a non top 100 player into the greatest in school history, why couldn't they pull off any similar miracles at MU?
(hint: Because there was no miracle. Wade would have been great regardless.)

Here's what I said "I don't feel that we recruited the greatest player MU history--we recruited a player that wasn't even a consensus top 100 player and developed him to the greatest player."

Let's break down how you twisted this argument

• First, you posted a consistent (but seemingly contradictory) fact--Wade was first team all-state in Illinois. 
  Fine-no argument from me.  Of course, first team all-state in llinois in 2000 put Wade outside the top 100--which is what I said.
• Second, you create a straw man:  If Wade didn't come to MU he'd be playing in Turkey or Japan. 
  I never said or implied any such thing.
• Third, you post an unrelated question-- Why didn't Crean develop other players? 
  That's a different issue--but not one related to whether Wade was already great in HS.
• Fourth, you challenge an irrelevant fact:  You claim MU didn't develop Wade--Wade developed regardless. 
  So what?  Even if Wade did it all on his own, he hadn't done so yet in HS, therefore, he was not yet the greatest player in MU history at the time he was recruited.
  

None of your arguments address my main point--Wade was not the greatest player in MU history at the time he was recruited. 

Therefore I find your argument that Wade is evidence of great recruiting to be exceedingly weak.

Marquette officially announced its Big East membership in November 2003, and word of its likely membership had been around for months prior. Do you really believe Crean didn't sell Big East membership to his 2004 and 2005 classes? Probably his 2003 class as well? I suspect that a guy who sold kids on being the next Dwyane Wade probably also sold them on playing in the Big East one or two years down the line. And isn't that what the discussion was about ... that Crean somehow was handicapped because all he could offer kids was CUSA? Officially beginning Nov. 4, 2003 (and unofficially before that) he could sell kids on the Big East. So he had at least five classes to which he could pitch the conference.

Of course I believe the class of 2005 was influenced by the Big East--the Amigos were part of the HS class of 2005.

But 2003 class?  You're insane.  You really think all those players who signed in November 2002 or May 2003 used their "spidey sense" to know that six to twelve months in the future Marquette would receive an invitation to the Big East?

Absolutely ridiculous.  The announcement had zero influence on the class of 2003.  None. Nada  Zip.  Zilch.  In fact, the only thing that might have influenced the class of 2003 were the rumors swirling of Crean's imminent departure for Illinois

The first class that MIGHT have been influenced were the class of 2004.  Of course, by November 2003, many of the better HS players in the 2003-04 class had already picked a college.  Many others had developed a short list of finalists. I don't believe that a player who gave an early verbal to Pitt or Georgetown or Villanova would renege on that commitment based on the mere announcement that MU was going to join the conference two years down the road.

Also the promise of playing in the Big East in the future is simply not as strong as the immediate opportunity offered by any team already in the Big East:

• Crean's message:  "Come to MU instead of Villanova--you'll only have one year of CUSA play, and you'll be in the Big East by the time you're a sophomore"
• Jay Wright's message: "Come to VU and you'll be in the Big East right away." 
  

Hmm.  One of those arguments is far more compelling to a player who wants to play in the Big East. In fact, the harder Crean sold the Big East, the more likely it was that he'd drive that recruit to an actual Big East team--and away from a CUSA team that would eventually be part of the Big East. 

And if you look at the recruits from 2004 and 2005, you see the obvious: The 2004 HS class (Amo, Barro, Berkowitz) was not as strong as the 2005 class (Amigos). 

Maybe you think Crean took his Underdog super energy recruiting pill after the 2004 recruiting year that magically caused his recruiting to improve between 2004 and 2005. 

I credit Big East membership.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Our on the court results from players recruited from November 2003 through the end of the TC era were better than the on the court results from players brought into the program before then?  Is that really what you believe? If you do, then there is nothing to argue, we just have to vehmently agree to disagreed.



In your eyes, on the court results are the thing that matters so I have no idea why in the heck you would bring up Taylor, Mbakwe, or Saunders since none of those guys produced on the court results for MU (and haven't done much for anybody else either with the possible exception of Saunders at a mid-major school). To bring up their recruiting ranking or draft ranking on some website doesn't make much sense now because that is a completely different debate.

I think you meant to say 4 of the top 10 scorers in MU history, but regardless, I don't think any of those 4 ranks in the top 10 PLAYERS in MU history.  The fact is, those 4 guys combined for exactly 2 wins in the NCAA tournament and couldn't muster a single top 3 conference finish.  I'll take the 03-04 teams accomplishments over a combined ten of the teams those guys were on.  Not to mention the 02-03 team was also better than any of those teams as well, despite the NCAA flameout.

No one has factually proven that MU's on the court results got better, because that would be an impossible argument to make since it simply isn't true. I have already said that according to the rankings, our recruiting did get better.  But that is not the argument you have been trying to make this whole time so I don't know why you are relying on other people's opinion on that matter.

Have a good weekend.

Prior to 2003....2 NCAA bids
Post 2003....5 NCAA bids

What is there to disagree on?


I've always said from when time began ( ) that the NCAA is a crapshoot once you are in it. So how far they went is a ton of luck (do you get 3 straight double digit seeds like Wisconsin did), where you play (play Stanford out west), and who you play, who is hurt (McNeil).   So yes, I think our OVERALL success was better AFTER 2003 than prior.  You disagree, that's fine.  One Final Four, to me, doesn't replace 5 straight NCAA appearances, one of only 3 programs in the Big East to have 10+ wins in conference each of those years, amazing individual attributes (4 top 10 scorers), etc, etc.  I just don't believe one Final Four wipes all that out.  Just my opinion. 

The Final Four was insanely great.  We got lucky as hell to get someone like Wade who flew under the radar. Kudos for Buckley and Crean for landing him (for which they should get credit), but no one thought he would be that good.  Not top 5 draft pick good...not top 5 player in the world good.  Throw in Jackson, who wasn't even recruited, and it was a very nice team.

From a consistency perspective, my belief is we were better year in and year out after 2003 then 1999-2003 that included one great team and one really good team.  From 2004-2010 (I use some years where Buzz is coach but driven by Crean's players), there were more good teams year in and year out with much tougher schedules, etc.  Just my opinion.

Very happy Buzz is keeping it going but I disagree with this myth that recruiting didn't get better after the Big East. I find that laughable.  Look at our latest recruits OWN WORDS..."Regardless of the fact the Pac-10 is my home conference, I wanted something new, and the Big East is the best conference in the nation."  Or, “The Big East is the best conference in the nation, and I’m going to take advantage of the opportunity."

The Big East has been HUGE for MU.  And huge for recruiting.