Katz on coaches who never played ball

[NYWarrior]

a PRN special, I'm guessin!   

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=katz_andy&id=3045864

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

I have been saying for YEARS that his lack of a basketball playing background affects how he relates to players and his situational thought process. I'm not saying we need an NBA player or a former All-American, but somebody who at least played high school basketball would be preferred (at least for me). Izzo is a perfect example.

That said...and before you all start to freak out...I think Crean is a decent coach. It's just that he's the most overrated (and overpaid) coach in college basketball. Milwaukee is the classic big fish/small pond scenario for a small town guy like Crean. He'd be barbequed in a bigger market.

[Coobeys Oil Depot]

Out of curiousity, does having assistants who have basketball playing experience negate Crean's lack of playing experience?

In most set-ups, the assistants are the ones who foster the relationships and bonds with the kids and help guide them along when the head coach rips their ass.

As for the small/large market, Crean isn't exactly loved in Milwaukee in some spots. On a public scale, he got a pretty good ripping for years for the UWM fiasco and seeing as how Milwaukee is plum full of Badger alums Crean certainly gets roasted a bit but maybe not barbequed like you'd want.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I have been saying for YEARS that his lack of a basketball playing background affects how he relates to players and his situational thought process. I'm not saying we need an NBA player or a former All-American, but somebody who at least played high school basketball would be preferred (at least for me). Izzo is a perfect example.

That said...and before you all start to freak out...I think Crean is a decent coach. It's just that he's the most overrated (and overpaid) coach in college basketball. Milwaukee is the classic big fish/small pond scenario for a small town guy like Crean. He'd be barbequed in a bigger market.

PRN isn't it people that relate to people ultimately?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I have been saying for YEARS that his lack of a basketball playing background affects how he relates to players and his situational thought process. I'm not saying we need an NBA player or a former All-American, but somebody who at least played high school basketball would be preferred (at least for me). Izzo is a perfect example.

That said...and before you all start to freak out...I think Crean is a decent coach. It's just that he's the most overrated (and overpaid) coach in college basketball. Milwaukee is the classic big fish/small pond scenario for a small town guy like Crean. He'd be barbequed in a bigger market.

How did you survive the years between Al and Crean?

As much as I love Hank and Rick... they (or any other MU coach not named Al) haven't been nearly as successful as Crean.

How can he be overrated?

You can hate the guy... but his track record is impressive and is still getting better.

[muwarrior87]

especially since now it looks like he's recruiting players that fit into the style of play MU has more and also is starting to come up with a style of play.

[The Lens]

I have been saying for YEARS that his lack of a basketball playing background affects how he relates to players and his situational thought process. I'm not saying we need an NBA player or a former All-American, but somebody who at least played high school basketball would be preferred (at least for me). Izzo is a perfect example.

That said...and before you all start to freak out...I think Crean is a decent coach. It's just that he's the most overrated (and overpaid) coach in college basketball. Milwaukee is the classic big fish/small pond scenario for a small town guy like Crean. He'd be barbequed in a bigger market.

How did you survive the years between Al and Crean?

 

Well I know I chose to go to MU in the winter of 1992/93 and I graduated in 1997.  In those 5 years, MU went to 4 NCAAs and an NIT Championship Game.  It was tough, but I survived.

 

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I have been saying for YEARS that his lack of a basketball playing background affects how he relates to players and his situational thought process. I'm not saying we need an NBA player or a former All-American, but somebody who at least played high school basketball would be preferred (at least for me). Izzo is a perfect example.

That said...and before you all start to freak out...I think Crean is a decent coach. It's just that he's the most overrated (and overpaid) coach in college basketball. Milwaukee is the classic big fish/small pond scenario for a small town guy like Crean. He'd be barbequed in a bigger market.

How did you survive the years between Al and Crean?

 

Well I know I chose to go to MU in the winter of 1992/93 and I graduated in 1997.  In those 5 years, MU went to 4 NCAAs and an NIT Championship Game.  It was tough, but I survived.

 

Very true... but are you also calling our current coach (who has been very successful) "the most overrated (and overpaid) coach in college basketball."?

The program is reaching heights it hasn't seen since the 70's.

How can Crean be overrated?

A little annoying? Maybe

Weird dresser? Maybe

Demanding? Definitely

Second best coach at MU? Sure is looking like it

Overrated? Probably not

[ChicosBailBonds]

I have been saying for YEARS that his lack of a basketball playing background affects how he relates to players and his situational thought process. I'm not saying we need an NBA player or a former All-American, but somebody who at least played high school basketball would be preferred (at least for me). Izzo is a perfect example.

That said...and before you all start to freak out...I think Crean is a decent coach. It's just that he's the most overrated (and overpaid) coach in college basketball. Milwaukee is the classic big fish/small pond scenario for a small town guy like Crean. He'd be barbequed in a bigger market.

How did you survive the years between Al and Crean?

 

Well I know I chose to go to MU in the winter of 1992/93 and I graduated in 1997.  In those 5 years, MU went to 4 NCAAs and an NIT Championship Game.  It was tough, but I survived.

 

I was there 1987-1992....one NIT first round loss, three losing seasons, and a fourth season with a winning record and no tournament of any kind.  It was a blast....eh NY Warrior?

[4everwarriors]

Kansas handing his butt to him on a silver platter for all the world to see, what has he done in 8 years?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Kansas handing his butt to him on a silver platter for all the world to see, what has he done in 8 years?

Wow. I'm glad you asked.

To save time, I'm simply going to recycle a post I wrote previously (below).

You and another poster seem to hold Crean solely responsible for a lot and/or most negative things that happen at MU. My response is below (I've bolded the key points to save everybody some time).

Feel free to provide some more of your insightful and much needed thoughts.

I look forward to reading your well thought out response and additional posts on this board.

Thanks.

My point is not about having a hole in the lineup...it's about over booking scholarships. I don't know what you want in a program, but I don't want my school offering people scholarships and than reneging on the offer.

And, despite his record of showing up with teams completely unprepared to play in the post season (see Tulsa, Holy Cross, Kansas, Alabama, MSU, Western Michigan), I don't think Crean is a particularly "lousy coach." I just think he's a complete tool.

We know you think he is a tool... and I appreciate the full disclosure so at least we can take that into consideration.

Now, as I've said in the past, if you are going to hold the coach solely accountable for every loss or everything that you don't like about the program (press conferences, radio interviews, recruiting, schedule, gold t-shirts, losses)... you need to give him full credit for all of the good things he has done and big wins he has had.

While I will agree that sometimes Coach can come off a little bit "salesmen like", I also have to admit that his overall track record at MU is pretty damn good. (wins at the GAS x2, wins at the coaches vs cancer thing last year, beat cinci for the conf. title, beat mizzou, PITT, and UK on the way to the final 4, recruited 3 NBA players, help launch team into the big east, helped get the AL built, donated money to the new soccer stadium, does a great job with Al's run etc. etc.)

There isn't a problem with you blaming the coach for everything that goes wrong... but then you have to give him FULL CREDIT when things go right.

If you don't, well, then you just appear like a dude who hates Crean (for some reason) and your opinions just appear way too slanted.

Crean is not perfect, nor is he above criticism, but your dislike of him personally clouds your judgment of what he has accomplished.

[The Lens]

Consider me one Crean Critic who will never ever bring up the KU game.  After beating #1 UK, everything was gravy.  I'll never understand the fascination with the KU game.  Similarily I'll never understand how people seem ok with the blank check mentality towards Coach Crean.  An entire class of MU students have come and gone and we didn't win a NCAA game.  I'm not advocating getting rid of him but some checks and balances (ie a real AD) would be nice.

[muhoosier260]

Kansas handing his butt to him on a silver platter for all the world to see, what has he done in 8 years?

why do you even watch MU bball or talk about it if its so forgettable and bad? do us all a favor and just not post on this board. better yet, is there a way we can filter posts so we don't have to read certain posters messages? ahem

[NYWarrior]

I was there 1987-1992....one NIT first round loss, three losing seasons, and a fourth season with a winning record and no tournament of any kind.  It was a blast....eh NY Warrior?

that was a rough era, no question!

[Murffieus]

There are two seasons at MU since TC has been here:

Starting with the first conference game in January through the first loss in February MU is 50 wins and 20 losses in the previous 8 seasons. Starting with that first loss in February through the end of the season we're 35 wins and 44 losses under Crean those 8 seasons.

We run out of gas! Players worked too hard?????

[Marquette84]

There are two seasons at MU since TC has been here:

Starting with the first conference game in January through the first loss in February MU is 50 wins and 20 losses in the previous 8 seasons. Starting with that first loss in February through the end of the season we're 35 wins and 44 losses under Crean those 8 seasons.

We run out of gas! Players worked too hard?????

Did you forget that the schedule typically gets tougher for MU at the end of the year--like last season when those last few games included @Notre Dame (where EVERYONE lost last year), Georgetown, Louisvlle, 2x vs. Pitt, etc.

Nothing like a half-truth, eh, Murff?  Tell the WHOLE story next time. 

[Schoolyard]

There are two seasons at MU since TC has been here:

Starting with the first conference game in January through the first loss in February MU is 50 wins and 20 losses in the previous 8 seasons. Starting with that first loss in February through the end of the season we're 35 wins and 44 losses under Crean those 8 seasons.

We run out of gas! Players worked too hard?????

Did you forget that the schedule typically gets tougher for MU at the end of the year--like last season when those last few games included @Notre Dame (where EVERYONE lost last year), Georgetown, Louisvlle, 2x vs. Pitt, etc.

Nothing like a half-truth, eh, Murff?  Tell the WHOLE story next time. 

So you're saying CvC opponents, UW, GAS opponents, CBE opponents etc aren't tough?  I guarantee you we win the Maui this year and then I'm pretty confident we won't play to our seed in the BET or the NCAA.  Fact is TC's teams play worse down the stretch*.  It doesn't matter if the teams are Michigan State or Western Michigan.

*2003 is an obvious exception, thank you.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Kansas handing his butt to him on a silver platter for all the world to see, what has he done in 8 years?

I thought Kansas handed our entire team on a silver platter....I was there about 6 rows up behind the basket.  Of course the preceding 3 weeks all the world saw us beat #1 Kentucky, top 5 Pittsburgh, top 25 Missouri, Cincinnati, Louisville, Wake Forest, etc.

And of course since then 20 wins in the Big East (only two other teams have accomplished that), etc, etc, etc.

But hey, we've had this discussion so many times.  You can be bitter through life or enjoy the ride.  I'm going to enjoy it because he's here for the next decade.

[muhoosier260]

" But hey, we've had this discussion so many times.  You can be bitter through life or enjoy the ride.  I'm going to enjoy it because he's here for the next decade. "
AMEN

[Murffieus]

SJS/84----there isn't a great deal of difference in the quality of the schedule between with the first game after January 1 to the first loss in February------and between the first loss in February and the last game of the season!

It's just that we are a significantly better team in the first segment than we are in the last segment of the schedule!

Furthermore even if the quality of the schedule was better in the last segment, it wouldn't account for the difference between 50 & 20 and 35 & 44 !

[Schoolyard]

IMHO it comes down to the fact that TC never played the game even at a HS level and he just doesn't know when to lay off the gas. You can do Tae Kwon Do, talk to Tony LaRussa till he's sober and audit a Bill Parcells practice all you want but there is something to be said for having a little game experience.  He is all book knowledge...I remember a coach who once preached about street smarts.

This is a big year...i we play to our seed in the BET / NCAAs a lot of perceptions can change.  I hope we do, I hope I'm proven wrong.

[Marquette84]

SJS/84----there isn't a great deal of difference in the quality of the schedule between with the first game after January 1 to the first loss in February------and between the first loss in February and the last game of the season!

Thats simply not true on multiple aspects. 

Just once I'd like you to explain how you can staight faced say that the 2005 team "ran out of gas".  That year MU lost seven of nine games in January and early February, but recovered to win four of the last five regular season games.  I call that a late season improvement.  What do you call it? 

In 1999, MU started conference play with an 0-5 record, but improved to finish the year 6-5.  Once again, this doesn't sound like a team that "ran out of gas."

Then, you blithely ignore examples like last season where we had an 8 game win streak where the opponents RPI averaged 108, while the last 8 games (and 3-5 record) the opponents averaged RPI of 38.  yet you claim "there isn't a great deal of difference.  Yeah, right.  38 to 105 is a hell of a difference in anyone's book.  Except yours.

In 2002, 2 late season losses were to the #3 rpi team in Cincinnati.  And if you want to argue that the upset by East Carolina was due to "Running out of Gas", then you'll have to explain two things:  First, how did that "out of gas" team manage to blow-out DePaul the very next game, and b) how did next year's MU final four "fresh" team lose an early season matchup to the same ECU team at the same venue?

Your post is riddled with half truths and inaccuracies.  They say that figures don't lie and liars do figure.  Your convoluted "first loss in February" manipulations don't reflect the accuracy of the situation, no matter how many times you repeat it.

If you want to explain that you really think 38 to 105 RPI refelcts no difference, then make the case.  If you want to explain how losing five games in a row to start the year, then finishing 6-5 is "running out of gas", I'm all ears.

So far, you keep repeating the same argument, and I keep repeating the same flaws in your argument.  That you can't dismiss my flaws with any semi-rational argument is proof enough that you are intellectually bankrupt on this one.

[Murffieus]

50 wins vs 20 losses in the first half of conference play (70 games)-----against 35 wins vs 44 losses in the rest of conference play/postseason is not a "half truth or inaccuracy"!

Look up the record!

[Marquette84]

50 wins vs 20 losses in the first half of conference play (70 games)-----against 35 wins vs 44 losses in the rest of conference play/postseason is not a "half truth or inaccuracy"!

Look up the record!

Yes, yes--we all know the record.  You've repeated it dozens of times.  It's still a half truth.   See my post above for some examples why.

[Knight Commission]

this coming from an ESPN analyst who never played the game--not many exist.

[NYWarrior]

this coming from an ESPN analyst who never played the game--not many exist.

Andy Glockner, Kyle Whelliston, Mark Schlabach,Tim Kurkjian, Peter Gammons, Matthew Berry, Jayson Stark, Jerry Crasnick, Jim Caple, John Clayton, Seth Wickersham, Buster Olney, Bruce Feldman

 

[Schoolyard]

SJS...typical form by you...ignoring my argument and only attacking the low hanging fruit.  How do you defend TC's nearly perfect record in pre conf tourneys, many against high profile, high powered teams?

[muarmy81]

this coming from an ESPN analyst who never played the game--not many exist.

Andy Glockner, Kyle Whelliston, Mark Schlabach,Tim Kurkjian, Peter Gammons, Matthew Berry, Jayson Stark, Jerry Crasnick, Jim Caple, John Clayton, Seth Wickersham, Buster Olney, Bruce Feldman

 

John Clayton didn't play pro football?  I could have swore he played offensive line for the chicago bears... http://www.theonion.com/content/from_print/1985_photo_reveals_espns

 

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

IMHO it comes down to the fact that TC never played the game even at a HS level and he just doesn't know when to lay off the gas. You can do Tae Kwon Do, talk to Tony LaRussa till he's sober and audit a Bill Parcells practice all you want but there is something to be said for having a little game experience.  He is all book knowledge...I remember a coach who once preached about street smarts.

This is a big year...i we play to our seed in the BET / NCAAs a lot of perceptions can change.  I hope we do, I hope I'm proven wrong.

I can see how you would think that (seems to make some sense on the surface)... but here is something to chew on:

Crean has already proven that he is a pretty good coach (one of the better ones in D1). Now, you can argue that he isn't an elite coach (yet) for the reasons you stated above.

However, I think the logic then becomes something like "Crean cannot be (or isn't) an elite coach because he never played highschool basketball."

I'm just not sure that lack of playing experience at the high school or even college level is limiting his ability to become an elite coach. He may or may not become an elite coach... but I don't think playing time when he was 17 really makes a difference.

Now, if he couldn't coach at all... and MU was terrible... then I think the experience thing could come into play.

[ChicosBailBonds]

SJS...typical form by you...ignoring my argument and only attacking the low hanging fruit.  How do you defend TC's nearly perfect record in pre conf tourneys, many against high profile, high powered teams?

Pre-conference tournaments are a mix of good, average and bad teams.   Some of those tournaments we've played games on our home court.  The NCAAs are packed with elite teams all on neutral sites.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

"I remember a long time ago that Fran Fraschilla [now an ESPN analyst and another former coach who didn't play] told me that when you're starting out as a coach, you're two laps ahead from the guys who are [still] playing," Crean said.

This really rings true. As an example, I listen to a lot of music -- both live and recorded. And, although I do not play any instruments, my passion is talking to people about how to properly play guitar and suggesting ways they might improve. They always appreciate it.

In fact, I have a friend who's a golf coach and he can't break 110. But he's watched the Masters every year since 1986. He's in high demand.

Oh, and I write letters to people. Did you know that?

[jmayer1]

"I remember a long time ago that Fran Fraschilla [now an ESPN analyst and another former coach who didn't play] told me that when you're starting out as a coach, you're two laps ahead from the guys who are [still] playing," Crean said.

This really rings true. As an example, I listen to a lot of music -- both live and recorded. And, although I do not play any instruments, my passion is talking to people about how to properly play guitar and suggesting ways they might improve. They always appreciate it.

In fact, I have a friend who's a golf coach and he can't break 110. But he's watched the Masters every year since 1986. He's in high demand.

Oh, and I write letters to people. Did you know that?

(Rolling Eyes)

[muwarrior87]

SJS...typical form by you...ignoring my argument and only attacking the low hanging fruit.  How do you defend TC's nearly perfect record in pre conf tourneys, many against high profile, high powered teams?

Pre-conference tournaments are a mix of good, average and bad teams.   Some of those tournaments we've played games on our home court.  The NCAAs are packed with elite teams all on neutral sites.

well, as neutral as the tourney selection committee wants.  It still is an advantage to be a top seed playing close to home even if it is on a 'neutral' court

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

"I remember a long time ago that Fran Fraschilla [now an ESPN analyst and another former coach who didn't play] told me that when you're starting out as a coach, you're two laps ahead from the guys who are [still] playing," Crean said.

This really rings true. As an example, I listen to a lot of music -- both live and recorded. And, although I do not play any instruments, my passion is talking to people about how to properly play guitar and suggesting ways they might improve. They always appreciate it.

In fact, I have a friend who's a golf coach and he can't break 110. But he's watched the Masters every year since 1986. He's in high demand.

Oh, and I write letters to people. Did you know that?

Do you think Crean would be a better coach if he played 8 mins/game as a 17year old on a crappy high school team?

He's already proven he's one of the better coaches in the country, while somebody like Clyde Drexler has VERY limited success.

Hell, even Bo Ellis' track record as a head coach isn't too impressive.

[Murffieus]

I defiinetly think TC would be a better caoch had he played at a high level in college. His learning curve has been greater as a result of not having had that experience. He's locked into the "school of hard knocks" as a result, which has lengthened his learning curve.

Case in point----had he been an athlete he would understand that players are human beings and not machines and then they would have a great deal more gas left in the tank in the last month of the season if he would pace them----he works them too hard early on!

Outside of that----he does a good job in the first 2/3 to 3/4 of the season!

[77fan88warrior]

Since when is good top 20? I don't think Bill Russell would say top 20 ='s good. Me thinks top 50 is good.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

"I remember a long time ago that Fran Fraschilla [now an ESPN analyst and another former coach who didn't play] told me that when you're starting out as a coach, you're two laps ahead from the guys who are [still] playing," Crean said.

This really rings true. As an example, I listen to a lot of music -- both live and recorded. And, although I do not play any instruments, my passion is talking to people about how to properly play guitar and suggesting ways they might improve. They always appreciate it.

In fact, I have a friend who's a golf coach and he can't break 110. But he's watched the Masters every year since 1986. He's in high demand.

Oh, and I write letters to people. Did you know that?

Do you think Crean would be a better coach if he played 8 mins/game as a 17year old on a crappy high school team?

He's already proven he's one of the better coaches in the country, while somebody like Clyde Drexler has VERY limited success.

Yes, I do think he'd be a better coach if he'd played 8 minutes a game on a crappy high school team.

Drexler was a bad coach because he put no effort into recruiting.

[Marquette84]

SJS...typical form by you...ignoring my argument and only attacking the low hanging fruit.  How do you defend TC's nearly perfect record in pre conf tourneys, many against high profile, high powered teams?

I ignored your argument because it's equally false.  You want to be attacked?  Fine--here are the flaws wiich make your argument just as weak as Murffs:

MU had a 12-2 record overall, but only 3 of the 12 were in the RPI top 50 (so much for your argument of  "many high powered, high-profile" games).  MU did win those 3 games against the top 50 (Duke in 07, Indiana and Gonzaga in 02).  But lost two of the 9 others (Oklahoma State, South Alabama).

99:  Hawaii:  Lost to Oklahoma State, Beat Nicholls State
00:  No pre-season tourmament
01:  Lost to South Alabama, 1st game of NIT
02:  Great Alaska Shootout--beat NIT team Tennesse, Gonzaga, Indiana
03:  CVC:  Beat NIT team Villanova
04:  no pre-season tournament
05:  no pre-season tournament
06:  Great Alaska Shootout--beat three marginal teams: South Carolina, EWU, and ORU
07:  Beat two marginal teams--Idaho State and Detroit--and Duke and Texas Tech.


Next, even those wins against those "high powered, high profile" teams arent' really as tough as the teams MU lost to later in the year.  For example,  you can't argue that MU should have beat Louisville, Georgetown and Alabama in late 2006 because they beat EWU, South Carolina and ORU early in the year--especially considering that losses to Winthrop and Nebraska flanked that GAS championship. 

You can't even argue that Duke and Texas Tech in 2007 would top Georgetown, ND, Louisville or Pitt in terms of how impressive the teams played during the year.   

And even at that, you're cherry picking by including only the non-conference tournaments.  Along with the wins over Duke and Texas Tech last season were losses to Wisconsin and North Dakota State.  Don't those losses count?

Along witht the GAS championship in 02 were losses to Wisconsin and Wake Forest.  So even in the non-conference slate, the record was hardly "nearly perfect" as you suggest.

The bottom line is that MU didn't play any worse at the end of the season as they did at the beginning. 

[Murffieus]

Only SJS/84 would argue that MU plays as well the last 1/4 of the season as it does prior to that. Never mind the fact that MU is 50-20 from Jan 2 just prior to the first loss in February and only 35 - 44 with the first loss
in February to the end of the season.

 

[Marquette84]

Only SJS/84 would argue that MU plays as well the last 1/4 of the season as it does prior to that. Never mind the fact that MU is 50-20 from Jan 2 just prior to the first loss in February and only 35 - 44 with the first loss
in February to the end of the season.
 

Only Murff would argue that starting the confernce season 4-7 is playing BETTER than finishing 4-1.

Or that starting a season 0-5 is playing BETTER than finishing 5-4.

Or that there is no difference at all between 8 teams with an average RPI rank of 105 and 8 teams with an average of 38.

As long as you exclude these relevant factors, then your argument is a half-truth.  No matter how many times you repeat it. 

Frankly, if you want to talk about late season folds, no era is worse than MU in the 1950's. 

You want a late season fold--start talking about about the 1957 team, which had ZERO wins after the first loss in February.  Worst performance of any MU team in history. 

Or how about 1955?  Which started the year 22-1, but lost HALF of its games starting with the first loss in Feburary. 

Or 1956--which was 3-6 starting with the first loss in February?  Or 1958 which was 2-4 starting with the first loss in Feburary? 


 

[Murffieus]

I'm not saying that other era's at MU or other programs didn't or don't have their swoons at year end (you talk like since it happens elsewhere it's OK)-----but over the last 8 years there is a pattern here at MU----there is a HUGE difference between 50 wins & 20 losses-----and 35 wins & 45 losses (last 1/4 of the season)!

Take out the 2003 season when we had the super star and the swoon is much worse collectively!

[Marquette84]

I'm not saying that other era's at MU or other programs didn't or don't have their swoons at year end (you talk like since it happens elsewhere it's OK)-----but over the last 8 years there is a pattern here at MU----there is a HUGE difference between 50 wins & 20 losses-----and 35 wins & 45 losses (last 1/4 of the season)!

Take out the 2003 season when we had the super star and the swoon is much worse collectively!

Your conclusion that 2003 is the only year MU did not swoon requires one to suspend all rational belief. 

In other words, to conclude that a team "swooned" or "ran out of gas" you have to believe:

. . .that there is no difference between a team ranked 38th and one ranked 105th (as in 2007)

. . .that starting 0-5 then finishing 6-5 is a swoon--a decline in performance. (as in 1999)

. . .that starting 4-7, then finishing 4-1 is "running out of gas." (as in 2004)

. . . that starting conference play 6-5, then finihsing 4-1 to take a 1st round bye in the BET is a swoon (as in 2006)

So far, you haven't been able to explain ANYTHING about the 2007, 2006, 2004, or 1999 seasons. 

Instead, you just keep averaging good and bad seasons together, and then calling them all bad.

What you are doing is akin is averaging Al McGuire's .787  winning percentage with Bob Dukiet's .459, and declaring that neither coach was very good.

If you want to single out the 2001 or 2001 seasons and say that the team ran out of gas in THOSE seasons, you'd get no argument from me.  The facts would support that conclusion.

But as I said, you have to suspend disbelief to conclude that there was a swoon in 1999, 2004, 2006, or 2007.

The fact that you can't talk about individual years--you can only talk about  all the years averaged together--shows me that you simply don't care about the truth.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

"I remember a long time ago that Fran Fraschilla [now an ESPN analyst and another former coach who didn't play] told me that when you're starting out as a coach, you're two laps ahead from the guys who are [still] playing," Crean said.

This really rings true. As an example, I listen to a lot of music -- both live and recorded. And, although I do not play any instruments, my passion is talking to people about how to properly play guitar and suggesting ways they might improve. They always appreciate it.

In fact, I have a friend who's a golf coach and he can't break 110. But he's watched the Masters every year since 1986. He's in high demand.

Oh, and I write letters to people. Did you know that?

Do you think Crean would be a better coach if he played 8 mins/game as a 17year old on a crappy high school team?

He's already proven he's one of the better coaches in the country, while somebody like Clyde Drexler has VERY limited success.

Yes, I do think he'd be a better coach if he'd played 8 minutes a game on a crappy high school team.

Drexler was a bad coach because he put no effort into recruiting.

Ok, we can agree to disagree.

I think he is already one of the better coaches in college hoops, so I don't think that him playing high school hoops 20 years ago would make him any better now.

[Murffieus]

Having played college BB would have taught TC one very important lesson that he hasn't learned yet-----and that is that players are human beings and not machines and therefore a coach needs to pace human beings during the seasons so that they have plenty of gas left in the tank going into the last 1/4 of the season, which is the most important part of the season.

TC does a lot of things well, but needs to better understand the physical limits of his "troops"!

[mviale]

Murf pulls a lot of stuff out of his ..., but Murf may have something here.  Seems like other teams grow to a peak later in the year, while we always look very good prior to March.

However, blame is never 100%.  These players need to get behind a leader.  Novak could only take a group of FRosh so far.  Diener was always hurt towards the end.  Wade was a leader.

[Marquette84]

Seems like other teams grow to a peak later in the year, while we always look very good prior to March.

I'll give you the same challenge I gave murff--Year by year, tell me why you think the four seasons I listed above--1999, 2004, 2006 and 2007--represented a late season decline.  Because I think three of them--99, 04 and 06--were tremendous improvements, and 2007 is more a result of schedule (and injury) than declining performance.

Take last season:  do you really think we were better than Georgetown--that losing to them was a fade after beating Providence and Seton Halll?  Do you really think that we could have been the one team in conference to win at ND?  Do you really think that UL without Charachter is the same team with him?  Or can you agree that is there some validity to the fact that the schedule got a tad bit harder at the end of the year.

Do you really think that in 2006, when we were mired in the middle of the Big East pack with a 6-5 record, that our 4-1 finish to take a first round bye wasn't the peak of the season? 

Do you really think that in 2004, when MU started 4-7 in conferecne that our 4-1 finish wasn't a peak from earlier play?  Granted, because of the earlier problems that finish only brought us to 8-8, but the end was still better than the start.

Murffs problem is that he comes to his conclusion first, then force fits data to make that conclusion sound plausible, no matter how wrong it might be.  In this case, he has a convoluted "first loss in February" statistic, which is ludicrous.  For example, under his stat, that 4-1 finish doesn't matter, becuase in the first two weeks in February MU had a four game losing streak. Most people would look at the end of January/start of February as the low point of the season.  Not Murff--it doesnt' matter to him that MU lost most of their conference games before the middle of February--he wants to make it sound like the team collapsed at the end of the year--even though they recovered and played well at at the end.

Furthermore, his manuplation is specifically designed to count any early february losses as a late season loss, but exclude all early-february wins.

So in 2005, the February 2nd loss to UAB is evidence of a pattern of late season collapse.  But in 2007 wins against Providence on 2/3 and Rutgers on 2/7 don't count. 

Don't fall in to his trap.

As I said, if he accurately pointed out that in 2000 and 2001 MU faded down the strecth, he'd have a valid point.  The problem is he's been saying the same thing since 2001--even though the probem has long since been corrected.  There is no eight year "pattern" of late season collapse.

[Murffieus]

35 wins against 44 losses beginning with the first loss in February collectively over the past 8 seasons is hardly a "manipulation". SJS can always find an exception to the rule and usually bases his arguments on that exception.

But the overall record for roughly the last 1/4 of the season collectively over the past 8 seasons of 35 wins vs 44 losses is what it is!

[ecompt]

You're unbelievable, Murff. Would you at least admit that losing the best all-around guard in MU history hurt us one year and losing our best all-around player last year MIGHT have had something to do with our late-season record? And you've NEVER attended a late-season practice, so you don't know what they are like. Bobby Knight's practices probably TC's look like choir rehearsal.   

[Marquette84]

35 wins against 44 losses beginning with the first loss in February collectively over the past 8 seasons is hardly a "manipulation". SJS can always find an exception to the rule and usually bases his arguments on that exception.

But the overall record for roughly the last 1/4 of the season collectively over the past 8 seasons of 35 wins vs 44 losses is what it is!

Look, you can repeat the numbers as much as you want.  I've already told you how it's a manuplated number (you count early Feburary losses, but not early February wins).  An honest comparison would include ALL games in February--but you won't do that becasue it doesn't give you the conclusion you want.

So fine--with your manipulation, your numbers are accurate.  Howver, the conclusion you draw from those numbers is false.  Period.

There are only two seasons (2000, 2001) out of the last nine where there has been a real decline when taking SOS into account

In three others, the team was consistent at the end of the year (2003, 1999, 2005)--no better or no worse.

In at least three seasons (1999, 2004, 2006) the team improved measurably toward the end of the year.

In one season (2007), the record declined, however the schedule was SIGNIFICANTLY more difficult (105 RPI vs 38 RPI).

You can repeat your statement of "35 wins against 44 losses beginning with the first loss in February collectively over the past 8 seasons" all you want.  Collectively, using your manipulated forumula the numbers are correct.  Season by season, however, your conclusion has been proven false. 

There is NO pattern of decline. 


Lets agree on this:  If a team has 2 years of decline, 3 years of improvement, 3 flat seasons, and one year with a much more difficult schedule, they will wind up with a late season record of 35 wins against 44 losses beginning ewith the first loss in February.  Any other conclusion is wrong.



 

[Murffieus]

ecompt----I talk to people about the practices.

You talk about injuries -----everyteam has injuries----have to have someone ready to replace guys that can't go. Last year we had Kinsella, Cubilan, and Fitz step up and ..who more than made up for the loss of McNeal. Remember that with McNeal we had lost 4 of 5 games immediately before he went down late last year!

Why hide this under the rug-----needs to be talked about as we are going no where until this is corrected.

[Marquette84]

ecompt----I talk to people about the practices.

You talk about injuries -----everyteam has injuries----have to have someone ready to replace guys that can't go. Last year we had Kinsella, Cubilan, and Fitz step up and ..who more than made up for the loss of McNeal. Remember that with McNeal we had lost 4 of 5 games immediately before he went down late last year!

Why hide this under the rug-----needs to be talked about as we are going no where until this is corrected.

Furhtermore, I think you're the only one here brushing things under the rug.  I'd love to talk about MU's late season performance in each of the last several years, but you refuse!!  You can only add all the numbers together and talk collectively.  Thats like throwing Al McGuire in with Bob Dukiet and saying that MU just had average coaching.  Sometimes you have to dig a bit deeper.

Let's talk about 2007, with a difference in schedule that has been calculated for us:  105 RPI versus 38.  As long as the league makes the end of the season 3 times more difficult than the start, we'll probably see more losses late in the season.  What is your solution, Murff?  Should we hope that we get all the dogs of the league at the end of the season?  That might cost us some TV games.  Are you all right with that? 

Lets talk about the 2006 season, when the team finsished 4-1 to finish with a first round bye in the Big East tournament.  What is your solution to the problem?  In fact, why do you think that's a problem?  Are you ONLY going to be satisified if MU ends the season on a five game winning streak?  Not even FLORIDA was undefeated in their last five conference games each the last two years. In fact, using your "first loss in Feburary" guide, they were much worse than they were early in their conference play.  17-2 in the first part of the conference season, then just 7-7 in conference play the remainder of the conference season.  So lets have it--you've pointed out the problem--maybe the problme is that 4-1 over the last five games is TOO good.  Perhaps if we only played .500 ball we might win an NCAA championship.  Is that your theory  Let's have at it.



Next, If Kinsella, Cubilan, and Fitz "more than made  up for McNeal" we would have won more games down the stretch.  I don't think any of them come close to being the #1 defensive player in the Big East, therefore we didn't win those games.  It's especially difficult given that the schedule got much tougher, so even if McNeal were playing there's no way to know if we would have won more games against the tougher shcedule..

And, finally, you're wrong on every team having injuries.  I don't think Georgetown had any injuries to one of their top 3 down the stretch.  I don't think Ohio State lost anyone late in the year.  I don't believe FLorida lost anyone.  Sometimes there's a luck factor.  If Ohio State had lost Oden at the end of the year rather than the start, do you think they'd be in the Final Four?  I don't think so.  If FLorida had lost Horford at the start of March, would the rest of the team "more than made up" the differece?   Who knows.  One thing for sure--you're in no position to know if McNeal was effectively replaced, because we didn't play a stretch of games that difficult with McNeal in the lineup.

[jmayer1]

ecompt----I talk to people about the practices.

You talk about injuries -----everyteam has injuries----have to have someone ready to replace guys that can't go. Last year we had Kinsella, Cubilan, and Fitz step up and ..who more than made up for the loss of McNeal. Remember that with McNeal we had lost 4 of 5 games immediately before he went down late last year!

Why hide this under the rug-----needs to be talked about as we are going no where until this is corrected.

I think this has been discussed plenty and you have basically been proven wrong.  Some years MU has finished strong, some years they have finished weak, some years they have basically stayed the same.

Saying those guys more than made up for the loss of McNeal, MU's best all around player, is ridiculous.  Do you think MU is better-off without McNeal?  I sure hope not or you will cause others to question your basketball knowledge; which you have tried to lead us all to believe is vast.

[Murffieus]

Meyer----the only time we have finished strong is 2003 when we had the super star. We were 9-3 that year with the first loss in February-----without that year the situation is even much worse----like 26 wins and 41 losses with that first loss in February.

Then look at postseason play as well----haven't looked recently but recall that in the past 8 years we are something like 10 wins and 13 losses in the postseason.

Also we weren't going anywhere with McNeal last year as we lost 4 of 5 games right before his injury! With McNeal out we finally had some trey shooting----Kinsella, Fitz, and Cubilan picking up the slack---only one guy can handle the ball at a time so you don't need 3 penetrators on the floor at the same time since only one guy can penetrate at a time-----better to have 2 trey shooters on the floor to go with 2 penetrators------also please recall that by February, McNeal's steals were way down while his TOs remained at a high level!

[jmayer1]

Mirf, it is Mayer not Meyer.

We actually finished strong in 1999, 2004, and 2006 as well.  Granted that did not translate into postseason success, but MU definitely finished the regular season strong.  As shown already, your little stat does not mean jack and is convoluted by using the total of all data rather than going through year by year.

Your comment about last year is stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (see, I can use ! as well)
Do you think Crean should kick McNeal off the team this year so that MU will be better, as McNeal definitely drags our team down in your eyes.  Or do you just think the big 3 should never be on the floor together?  Or should Crean put McNeal in the wide post? 

I think Crean tries to coach to his talent rather than forcing his talent into a system (it is debateable how well he does this); a concept you seem unable to grasp.

I guess I have just one simple question for you: Do you think Marquette did not finish strong in 1999, 2004, and 2006?

[Schoolyard]

SJS...typical form by you...ignoring my argument and only attacking the low hanging fruit.  How do you defend TC's nearly perfect record in pre conf tourneys, many against high profile, high powered teams?

I ignored your argument because it's equally false.  You want to be attacked?  Fine--here are the flaws wiich make your argument just as weak as Murffs:

MU had a 12-2 record overall, but only 3 of the 12 were in the RPI top 50 (so much for your argument of  "many high powered, high-profile" games).  MU did win those 3 games against the top 50 (Duke in 07, Indiana and Gonzaga in 02).  But lost two of the 9 others (Oklahoma State, South Alabama).

99:  Hawaii:  Lost to Oklahoma State, Beat Nicholls State
00:  No pre-season tourmament
01:  Lost to South Alabama, 1st game of NIT
02:  Great Alaska Shootout--beat NIT team Tennesse, Gonzaga, Indiana
03:  CVC:  Beat NIT team Villanova
04:  no pre-season tournament
05:  no pre-season tournament
06:  Great Alaska Shootout--beat three marginal teams: South Carolina, EWU, and ORU
07:  Beat two marginal teams--Idaho State and Detroit--and Duke and Texas Tech.


Next, even those wins against those "high powered, high profile" teams arent' really as tough as the teams MU lost to later in the year.  For example,  you can't argue that MU should have beat Louisville, Georgetown and Alabama in late 2006 because they beat EWU, South Carolina and ORU early in the year--especially considering that losses to Winthrop and Nebraska flanked that GAS championship. 

You can't even argue that Duke and Texas Tech in 2007 would top Georgetown, ND, Louisville or Pitt in terms of how impressive the teams played during the year.   

And even at that, you're cherry picking by including only the non-conference tournaments.  Along with the wins over Duke and Texas Tech last season were losses to Wisconsin and North Dakota State.  Don't those losses count?

Along witht the GAS championship in 02 were losses to Wisconsin and Wake Forest.  So even in the non-conference slate, the record was hardly "nearly perfect" as you suggest.

The bottom line is that MU didn't play any worse at the end of the season as they did at the beginning. 

FALSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SJS, how can I believe one word you write when you blantantly leave out the thrilling BCA Championship (04-05) and the win over St John's in the CvC (03-04)?

[MUDPT]

I wasn't around in 1999, although in the '98-'99 season Deane was still coach.

In 2004, they won some games at the end, but were still an 8? seed in the C-USA tournament.  They then won two NIT games against Toledo and Boise St. at home, before losing at Iowa St..  That's an in betweener.  Two NIT wins is good, but they were at home.

In 2006, they lost their first Big East tournament game and their NCAA tournament game.

I have not attended a Crean practice, but I saw the practice schedule when they were in the Old Gym and it was pretty much the maximum that they could practice.  It didn't really change from months before that.

The problem here and I think we should all agree is that MU has no conference tournament wins since a semi-final win over Houston in 2002.  It is debateable if that is important or not.  And there are no NCAA tournament wins since 2003.  If that is from wearing down or preparation or whatever, it is still a problem and only will be solved when they do win a game.

[bma725]

The problem here and I think we should all agree is that MU has no conference tournament wins since a semi-final win over Houston in 2002. 

They beat St. Johns in the conference tournament last year.

[Murffieus]

Mayer, I don't like the 3 guard offense where none of the three are consistent or quality trey shooters----if one of them is fine----but to have 3 penetrators on the floor at the same time forcing you're #4 to be the trey specialist isn't ordinarily functional-----as the #4 has to also be an interior defender, rebounder, and ideally an inside threat as well----that total package is very difficult to find in a #4 and certinly only fits Fitz insofar as trey shooting is concerned.

Nova had a lot of success with the 3 guard offense a few years back----but 2 of those 3 guards could hit the trey----ditto for Illinois a few years back!

[Pardner]

I enjoy the back and forth actually--good points...to me, we should at least be winning some post season games where we are higher seeds.  Too many early dismissals lately.  I think another factor here not discussed is that the second time around the BE, great coaches adjust their match-ups.  The fact is, late in the season, we haven't matched up very well on our personnel.  When teams are tired and you play a lot of games in a row and on the road, you need a big to help you slog you through a down game.  Getting points on the line gives you a rest as well, and gets you out of a funk.  I think our depth gives TC a lot more flex this year.  If we have an early exit this year, then we can lay the blame on...but I don't expect it. 

In 2003, we beat the teams we matched up well against (Rjax was a huge lift for us).  Kansas was a superior team--whether we lost by 8 or got blown out.  We did not match up well with them, and they took us out of our game early with D.

[MUDPT]

Ah, good point about this year, totally blocked that one out.