I don't agree with them, they are jilted lovers and treat Buzz like many here treat Crean. Nevertheless, interesting psychology at work.
http://forums.neworleans.com/showthread.php?t=2749
wow after reading some of the other threads those guys really hate buzz and monarch (buzzard and mini-buzzard)
UNO has a basketball team?
Who cares what they say.
+1
I could care less about what a second rate (which is being incredibly generous) thinks about our current and their former head coach. Buzz has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he's a solid coach and while many people may not like his approach in respect to timeouts, his bench management has been phenomenal by anyones standards.
I'd venture to guess the feeling is mutual.
But thanks for the monthly update on what New Orleans fans have to say about Buzz.
Who else in the world would make that post but chicos?? For no other reason but to illustrate we are acting the same way about his lover. Expect more posts like this from this loser since IU's season is over.
Quote from: CAINMUTINY on March 14, 2009, 10:08:19 AM
I could care less about what a second rate . . .
I cannot help myself: It is my pet peeve, and no offense intended, but my one man fight to eradicate the illogical phrase must go on --------> The phrase is "I could NOT care less"! Please think about it.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on March 14, 2009, 10:51:31 AM
Who else in the world would make that post but chicos?? For no other reason but to illustrate we are acting the same way about his lover. Expect more posts like this from this loser since IU's season is over.
IU's season is over? You mean he can't get the NIT to bring Western Michigan to Bloomington?
Quote from: Coach Norman Dale on March 14, 2009, 11:32:30 AM
I cannot help myself: It is my pet peeve, and no offense intended, but my one man fight to eradicate the illogical phrase must go on --------> The phrase is "I could NOT care less"! Please think about it.
Another one: It's "a lot" not alot. No such word, unless you're misspelling "allot." Sorry, it's the MU Journalism degree making me do it.
Quote from: CAINMUTINY on March 14, 2009, 10:08:19 AM
+1
I could care less about what a second rate (which is being incredibly generous) thinks about our current and their former head coach. Buzz has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he's a solid coach and while many people may not like his approach in respect to timeouts, his bench management has been phenomenal by anyones standards.
Really, by winning some regular season games with three 4th year starters and one 3rd year starter Buzz has 'PROVED' that he is a solid coach? Bench management? Phenomenal? You mean not playing anyone but butler or acker? Sounds really hard.
I like buzz and agreethat he looks like he'll be solid. But to insinuate that it would be unreasonable to think that buzz has some work to do before he 'Proves' it is crazy.
Has he proved he can recruit a winning team?
Has he proved he can develop young players? (Like these young big men that everyone is so impressed with, if crean brought a 7 foot canadian hockey player to inidiana everyone on this board would be making fun of him)
Has he proved he can out coach anyone?
Did we win a single game this season we shouldn't have won? (He hasn't even shown that he can pull an upset.)
Has he proved he can overcome the loss of a key player late in the season? (that one is a bit unfair, i know.)
If i'm ever accused of a crime i would not want someone with your definition of a reasonable doubt on my jury.
Hasn't Buzz been here long enough that we can evaluate him based on our own perceptions as opposed to what New Orlean's fans think of him?
I wonder what Siena fans thought of Mike Deane?
::)
Quote from: MuMark on March 14, 2009, 12:52:44 PM
I wonder what Siena fans thought of Mike Deane?
Belmont Abbey and Al? ;-)
Quote from: RawdogDX on March 14, 2009, 12:20:11 PM
Really, by winning some regular season games with three 4th year starters and one 3rd year starter Buzz has 'PROVED' that he is a solid coach? Bench management? Phenomenal? You mean not playing anyone but butler or acker? Sounds really hard.
I like buzz and agreethat he looks like he'll be solid. But to insinuate that it would be unreasonable to think that buzz has some work to do before he 'Proves' it is crazy.
Has he proved he can recruit a winning team?
Has he proved he can develop young players? (Like these young big men that everyone is so impressed with, if crean brought a 7 foot canadian hockey player to inidiana everyone on this board would be making fun of him)
Has he proved he can out coach anyone?
Did we win a single game this season we shouldn't have won? (He hasn't even shown that he can pull an upset.)
Has he proved he can overcome the loss of a key player late in the season? (that one is a bit unfair, i know.)
If i'm ever accused of a crime i would not want someone with your definition of a reasonable doubt on my jury.
To answer your questions:
1.Asking if someone has proven he can do something he has not been given the opportunity to do is to ask the impossible. Doesn't get any more biased or unfair than that.
2.Jimmy Butler was viewed as a wasted scholarship by many of those who saw him in November and December. He has developed into a key contributor who plays big minutes. To say he has "developed" under Buzz is an understatement.
3.Again, asking if anyone has "proven" he can out coach anyone strikes me as unfair. He has beaten Bo Ryan, Bob Huggins, John Thomson III (twice} and Jay Wright. Can I "prove" he outcoached these guys? No more than you can "prove" he was outcoached in our losses.
4.Yes. We upset Notre Dame and Geogetown on the road this year. Please don't say that YOU don't consider these upsets. The professionals in Las Vegas qualify as expert witnesses on this subject. You don't.
5.As you say, this is another unfair question. I don't recall Bob Knight, Al McGuire or even the great TC doing this. Does it diminish their careers?
Your agenda is as clear as your bias, but dissing Buzz by asking him to prove the unproveable represents a new low point in these discussions.
Quote from: romey on March 14, 2009, 12:03:35 PM
Another one: It's "a lot" not alot. No such word, unless you're misspelling "allot." Sorry, it's the MU Journalism degree making me do it.
what year romey?
Quote from: RawdogDX on March 14, 2009, 12:20:11 PM
Really, by winning some regular season games with three 4th year starters and one 3rd year starter Buzz has 'PROVED' that he is a solid coach?
yeah, you're right. Easy to win with experienced talented players. Just ask John Thompson III or Mike Brey. After all, we were predicted to finish behind them, with all their talent.
1983 (old guy here) ;)
I think the key phrase was "beyond a reasonable doubt." I have been pleased with what I have seen, but until he can recruit and win with his guys at this level, then I have my doubts...and they certainly are reasonable. The coaching ranks are filled with coaches who have stepped into good situations only to fritter it away in a few years. I hope Buzz isn't *that* coach, but I'm sure people felt positive about coahes like Steve Lavin at one point too.
?-( normally when I'm this annoyed with someone's inability to understand a post I count to ten before responding, but I'm in a hurry.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 14, 2009, 01:36:39 PM
Quote from: RawdogDX on March 14, 2009, 12:20:11 PM
To answer your questions:
1.Asking if someone has proven he can do something he has not been given the opportunity to do is to ask the impossible. Doesn't get any more biased or unfair than that. - my point was that he hasn't done it YET!!! I wasn't ASKING HIM TO DO ANYTHING or saying that he should have.
2.Jimmy Butler was viewed as a wasted scholarship by many of those who saw him in November and December. He has developed into a key contributor who plays big minutes. To say he has "developed" under Buzz is an understatement.
- Find a person who was saying Butler was a wasted scholarship in December. I never saw that, do some searches, find it and i'll send you a dollar by paypal. And one player having two good games doesn't prove a future trend.
3.Again, asking if anyone has "proven" he can out coach anyone strikes me as unfair. He has beaten Bo Ryan, Bob Huggins, John Thomson III (twice} and Jay Wright. Can I "prove" he outcoached these guys? No more than you can "prove" he was outcoached in our losses. - No, there are times when a superior game plan overcomes another team's superior talent. I can't think of a game where that was true this season. I think all opportunities happened after dj was gone. I bet that you could think of a few games where Crean was 'outcoached'
4.Yes. We upset Notre Dame and Geogetown on the road this year. Please don't say that YOU don't consider these upsets. The professionals in Las Vegas qualify as expert witnesses on this subject. You don't.
Oh please, do you know the lines on those games? As someone who lives in vegas and spends 10-20 hours a week in a casino I can tell you that a 5 point dog winning a game doesn't count as an upset.
5.As you say, this is another unfair question. I don't recall Bob Knight, Al McGuire or even the great TC doing this. Does it diminish their careers?
I was asking what he has done to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was a good coach, he had an opportunity to do this and didn't..
Your agenda is as clear as your bias, but dissing Buzz by asking him to prove the unproveable represents a new low point in these discussions.
Oh, my agenda is clear is it? Pray tell what do you think it is? If you think it's: To wait a few years and then evaluate Buzz after seeing him work with his own team. You are correct. Yeah that makes me a huge dick.
BIAS? That poster said beyond a reasonable doubt, I brought up reasons for a reasonable doubt, doubt of something that I THINK IS TRUE. That isn't bias, did you go to MU? Do you understand what critical thinking is?
A new low point? Seriously. That post was a new low point? Someone comes on here and says we should fire the guy but I'm actually lower than him because I said that I THINK he's good but think that he still has some work to do to PROVE IT? Stupid.
I'm sorry that it takes more than ONE season (in which no 'special' wins occurred) TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. You are f'ing insane if you think that post showed any sort of agenda or bias. Stop polishing buzz's nob for a second and try and understand what posters are saying. I wasn't saying that he SHOULD have proved any of that. I wasn't saying that he had an OPPORTUINTY to. And I certainty wasn't saying that he has proved that he wasn't a good coach. I don't know why it would be unfair to say that a coach needs to recruit his own team and win some games that matter for him to be 'Proven.'
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 14, 2009, 01:36:39 PM
Quote from: RawdogDX on March 14, 2009, 12:20:11 PM
To answer your questions:
1.Asking if someone has proven he can do something he has not been given the opportunity to do is to ask the impossible. Doesn't get any more biased or unfair than that.
2.Jimmy Butler was viewed as a wasted scholarship by many of those who saw him in November and December. He has developed into a key contributor who plays big minutes. To say he has "developed" under Buzz is an understatement.
3.Again, asking if anyone has "proven" he can out coach anyone strikes me as unfair. He has beaten Bo Ryan, Bob Huggins, John Thomson III (twice} and Jay Wright. Can I "prove" he outcoached these guys? No more than you can "prove" he was outcoached in our losses.
4.Yes. We upset Notre Dame and Geogetown on the road this year. Please don't say that YOU don't consider these upsets. The professionals in Las Vegas qualify as expert witnesses on this subject. You don't.
5.As you say, this is another unfair question. I don't recall Bob Knight, Al McGuire or even the great TC doing this. Does it diminish their careers?
Your agenda is as clear as your bias, but dissing Buzz by asking him to prove the unproveable represents a new low point in these discussions.
Now to address some of your statements.
1. The initial post that Rawdog responded to claimed that Buzz had "proven beyond a reasonable doubt," that he was a "solid" coach. Rawdog is simply saying that Buzz hasn't really proven himself yet. I don't think he ever stated that Buzz has proven he isn't a solid coach. He is actually agreeing with you. Buzz hasn't had the opportunity to prove he is a solid coach yet and so it is a bit of a stretch to claim that he has.
2. Who thought Jimmy Butler was a wasted scholarship? Some posters on MUscoop? What makes them credible talent evaluators? Isn't it just as likely that the people who thought Jimmy was a wasted scholarship simply misjudged his ability as it is that Buzz took a borderline D1 prospect and turned him into a solid contributor? If Buzz has that ability then why have we gotten nothing out of Otule, Fulce, and Hazel? Again, I think it is safe to say the jury is still out on Buzz's ability to develop players. Let's reserve judgement for a few years.
3. Again, Rawdog never asked Buzz to prove he could out coach anyone. He simply pointing out one indicator of a "solid" coach and stating that Buzz has yet to display that trait.
4. First off, calling ND and GTown upsets is at least up for debate. Second, calling Vegas experts is a little bit of a stretch. Are they right more than they are wrong? Sure. Do they always know early in a season which teams are better than others? No way. Take a look at the odds Vegas puts on some teams at the beginning of a season. Vegas gets things wrong all the time, especially in college sports because there are so many teams to track. To claim that the Vegas spread is the sole indicator of when a win is an upset is a little ridiculous IMO. Any sane fan of college basketball would now agree that MU is clearly better than ND and GTown.
5. One more time, Rawdog didn't ask Buzz to prove anything. He is simply pointing out that Buzz really hasn't proven anything. Buzz has shown signs of ability and made some mistakes. Rawdog's only agenda, if there is one, is to point out that Buzz has a long way to go before we can say that he is, without a doubt, a good coach.
I see Rawdog already came to his own defense. I'll leave my post up just to pile on.
Anybody know how what the fans of the University of New Orleans are thinking right now? Specifically about Buzz. Could someone post to it if they do?
Thanks in advance!
Rawdog, you may have to pony up a dollar.
I do remember at least one poster claiming that we wasted a scholarship on Butler after a scrimage or an exhibition.
I'm sure that person has years of experience in evaluating talent and his evaluation must have been accurate. Therefore, Buzz took that waste of a scholarship and molded him into a solid player. There is no way that some irrational MU fan saw one or two bad outings from a young player not used to playing at the D1 level and leapt to the conclusion that he was not worthy of a scholarship.
Quote from: DamonKeysContactLens on March 14, 2009, 04:16:27 PM
Anybody know how what the fans of the University of New Orleans are thinking right now? Specifically about Buzz. Could someone post to it if they do?
Thanks in advance!
If you go to the IU board, they reference our board often. Wanting to know if what they see is part of something new or something that has been going on a long time at the previous place of employment.
But hey, next time Crean loses at IU, I'm sure we won't see anything about it here on this board...... :o
Quote from: RawdogDX on March 14, 2009, 12:20:11 PM
Really, by winning some regular season games with three 4th year starters and one 3rd year starter Buzz has 'PROVED' that he is a solid coach? Bench management? Phenomenal? You mean not playing anyone but butler or acker? Sounds really hard.
I like buzz and agreethat he looks like he'll be solid. But to insinuate that it would be unreasonable to think that buzz has some work to do before he 'Proves' it is crazy.
Generally, you're correct. Buzz still has a lot to prove. That said, I do take issue with a few of your points down below.
QuoteHas he proved he can recruit a winning team?
I believe it's been stated that he recruited eight of the top nine players on last year's Texas A&M squad that won 25 games and came
this close to knocking off UCLA in the second round of the tourney. This year's Aggies' squad has won 23 games and is projected as a tourney lock. Also led by players recruited by Buzz.
So, in that sense, the answer to your question is a resounding "YES", Buzz Williams has proven he can recruit a winning team.
Can he do it at Marquette? Remains to be seen. But it would be hard to argue he isn't off to a good start. Jimmy Butler appears to be a great find. The book is still out on Otule and Fulce. And next year's class is ranked in the top 20-25.
QuoteHas he proved he can out coach anyone?
See: Ryan, Bo.
See: Davis, Keno.
QuoteHas he proved he can overcome the loss of a key player late in the season? (that one is a bit unfair, i know.)
Very unfair ... but I would argue that, to a large degree, he has.
Whether anyone wants to admit it, this team is playing about as well - if not better - as one could expect given the circumstances. I think one only need look at what UNC has done without Ty Lawson to see how difficult it is to overcome the loss of a quality point guard, especially late in the season. Or how UConn fell apart in the tournament last year when AJ Price got hurt.
At Pitt, at Louisville and Villanova on a neutral court are all games that MU would have been an underdog and expected to lose
with DJ. They were home dogs to UConn
with DJ.
Despite not having DJ, they hung tough for 30+ minutes with Pitt and UConn and had legit chances to win at UL, vs Syracuse (who, you may have noticed, is playing pretty darn well these days) and against VU in the tournament. The fact that they've remained so competitive is, first, a testament to the players, but also speaks very well for the coaching they've received. We may, fairly at times, complain about Buzz's tactics, but his ability to keep these kids focused, playing hard and not quitting when it would be easy to do so has been impressive, to say the least.
I understand that staying competitive is not winning. But staying this competitive against truly elite teams when you're playing without a huge component of what you're trying to do offensively and defensively is an achievement in its own right.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 14, 2009, 06:01:52 PM
Generally, you're correct. Buzz still has a lot to prove. That said, I do take issue with a few of your points down below.
I believe it's been stated that he recruited eight of the top nine players on last year's Texas A&M squad that won 25 games and came this close to knocking off UCLA in the second round of the tourney. This year's Aggies' squad has won 23 games and is projected as a tourney lock. Also led by players recruited by Buzz.
So, in that sense, the answer to your question is a resounding "YES", Buzz Williams has proven he can recruit a winning team.
Can he do it at Marquette? Remains to be seen. But it would be hard to argue he isn't off to a good start. Jimmy Butler appears to be a great find. The book is still out on Otule and Fulce. And next year's class is ranked in the top 20-25.
See: Ryan, Bo.
See: Davis, Keno.
Very unfair ... but I would argue that, to a large degree, he has.
Whether anyone wants to admit it, this team is playing about as well - if not better - as one could expect given the circumstances. I think one only need look at what UNC has done without Ty Lawson to see how difficult it is to overcome the loss of a quality point guard, especially late in the season. Or how UConn fell apart in the tournament last year when AJ Price got hurt.
At Pitt, at Louisville and Villanova on a neutral court are all games that MU would have been an underdog and expected to lose with DJ. They were home dogs to UConn with DJ.
Despite not having DJ, they hung tough for 30+ minutes with Pitt and UConn and had legit chances to win at UL, vs Syracuse (who, you may have noticed, is playing pretty darn well these days) and against VU in the tournament. The fact that they've remained so competitive is, first, a testament to the players, but also speaks very well for the coaching they've received. We may, fairly at times, complain about Buzz's tactics, but his ability to keep these kids focused, playing hard and not quitting when it would be easy to do so has been impressive, to say the least.
I understand that staying competitive is not winning. But staying this competitive against truly elite teams when you're playing without a huge component of what you're trying to do offensively and defensively is an achievement in its own right.
I think you are over simplifying the recruiting question. Can he recruit a winning team outside of Texas? As a head coach? Without Gillespie? In the Big East? Again, I don't think you can say Buzz has proven himself yet.
I have two issues with your out coaching examples. One, he had a better team in both instances. Does anyone think we are equal to Wisconsin or Providence? Two, the sample size is awfully small to call it proof. Buzz was an unknown this year. Who knew what his style or philosophy was going to be? What will happen when other coaches become familiar with Buzz? One more time, I think it is a little early to say he has proved that he can out coach other top coaches.
I hope Buzz turns out to be a great coach for MU but I am going to reserve judgement for a few years. The arguments being made to prove that Buzz has proven himself are a little weak IMO.
Quote from: MUSF on March 14, 2009, 06:38:52 PM
I think you are over simplifying the recruiting question. Can he recruit a winning team outside of Texas? As a head coach? Without Gillespie? In the Big East? Again, I don't think you can say Buzz has proven himself yet.
I'm not oversimplfying the question. You're changing the question the suit your position.
The question
was "Has he proved he can recruit a winning team?"
The answer is yes.
Since you apparently aren't satisfied with that answer, you've
changed the question to "Can Buzz recruit a winning team outside of the state of Texas, inside the Big East, as a head coach, without Billy Gillespie?"
OK, fair enough. He hasn't proven that. Which is exactly what I said.
Of course, he hasn't had an opportunity to prove that. Might as well ask whether Buzz has proven he can win back-to-back games against Wisconsin. Makes about as much sense.
QuoteI have two issues with your out coaching examples. One, he had a better team in both instances. Does anyone think we are equal to Wisconsin or Providence? Two, the sample size is awfully small to call it proof. Buzz was an unknown this year. Who knew what his style or philosophy was going to be? What will happen when other coaches become familiar with Buzz? One more time, I think it is a little early to say he has proved that he can out coach other top coaches.
Once again, you're changing the question.
Apparently, it's your position that the coach of a more talented team can never outcoach an opponent. Fair enough. Then you would have to agree that Buzz clearly was never outcoached this season by Jim Calhoun, Jamie Dixon, Jim Boeheim, Rick Pitino or Jay Wright. Because all those guys had better talent. And it's likely, by your logic, Roy Williams never will outcoach anyone. At least this year or last year. Because no one has had more talent.
You're suggesting Buzz's coaching success is due, or at least partially due, to opponents not knowing him and what he's going to do? Before the invention of film, your argument might hold some water. The Providence game was MU's 18th of the season. Pretty sure Keno had an inkling by then what MU is all about.
If you really believe that Bo and Keno weren't outcoached in those games, you simply weren't paying attention. MU came back from significant deficits in both games because of moves Buzz made and the lack of moves those coaches made in response.
As for the sample size, not sure how that's relevant. The question was "Has he proved he can out coach anyone?" It wasn't "Has he proved he can outcoach 14 different coaches in games in which those other coaches had more talent?"
QuoteThe arguments being made to prove that Buzz has proven himself are a little weak IMO.
Fine. I'm not making that argument. In fact, I said Buzz still has a lot to prove.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 14, 2009, 07:21:13 PM
I'm not oversimplfying the question. You're changing the question the suit your position.
The question was "Has he proved he can recruit a winning team?"
The answer is yes.
Since you apparently aren't satisfied with that answer, you've changed the question to "Can Buzz recruit a winning team outside of the state of Texas, inside the Big East, as a head coach, without Billy Gillespie?"
OK, fair enough. He hasn't proven that. Which is exactly what I said.
Of course, he hasn't had an opportunity to prove that. Might as well ask whether Buzz has proven he can win back-to-back games against Wisconsin. Makes about as much sense.
Once again, you're changing the question.
Apparently, it's your position that the coach of a more talented team can never outcoach an opponent. Fair enough. Then you would have to agree that Buzz clearly was never outcoached this season by Jim Calhoun, Jamie Dixon, Jim Boeheim, Rick Pitino or Jay Wright. Because all those guys had better talent. And it's likely, by your logic, Roy Williams never will outcoach anyone. At least this year or last year. Because no one has had more talent.
You're suggesting Buzz's coaching success is due, or at least partially due, to opponents not knowing him and what he's going to do? Before the invention of film, your argument might hold some water. The Providence game was MU's 18th of the season. Pretty sure Keno had an inkling by then what MU is all about.
If you really believe that Bo and Keno weren't outcoached in those games, you simply weren't paying attention. MU came back from significant deficits in both games because of moves Buzz made and the lack of moves those coaches made in response.
As for the sample size, not sure how that's relevant. The question was "Has he proved he can out coach anyone?" It wasn't "Has he proved he can outcoach 14 different coaches in games in which those other coaches had more talent?"
Fine. I'm not making that argument. In fact, I said Buzz still has a lot to prove.
Buzz Williams is currently a head coach. When someone makes a statement that he hasn't proven that he can recruit a winning team, I think it is safe to assume that they are talking about his ability as a head coach. You brought that up yourself. I think it goes beyond just the "as a head coach," angle into many other variables which I listed. To your point, yes, I guess I am changing the literal question but it is playing coy to address only the literal question and not the obvious implication.
Example: Bill Belicheck proved that he was an outstanding offensive coach as an assistant at Minnesota. When he went to Baltimore as a head coach, his offenses usually struggled His ability as an assistant didn't translate to his ability as a head coach. Was he really a great offensive coach? Did he simply have superior talent with Moss, Carter, Reed, Culpepper, and Smith? Did he have other great coaches around him? Who knows, but for whatever reason, his abilities as an assistant didn't translate to HC. In the end, all he proved in Minnesota was that he was a great offensive coordinator. Nothing more nothing less.
As for the lack of opportunity, you are exactly right. I have not, nor has Rawdog, demanded that Buzz prove anything. He hasn't had the opportunity to prove a lot of things which is why I have said numerous times, that I am going to reserve judgement on his ability as a HC.
It is not my position that a more talented team can never out coach an opponent. However, I think evenly matched teams or upset victories would provide the best case study to determine whether one coach out coached another coach. I also was trying to make the point that I don't think one game proves much of anything in terms of coaching ability. When attempting to prove that a drug cures cancer, do you stop after the first test? Or do you conduct more trials with different controls and variables? If Bo Ryan beats Buzz for the next 7 years, would you still say that he has proved that he could out coach Bo? Or, would you say that he beat Bo with a talented bunch of seniors when Wisconsin was having a down year?
I do think that Buzz being new has a certain advantage. 10 years from now other coaches may know that Buzz has never changed his motion offense or used a 3-2 zone but right now, they have to be prepared for almost anything.
Let me say again, I think Buzz did an adequate to good job this year. I think he has shown potential for greatness at times this season and made some rookie mistakes. I will make my judgement on his abilities and true potential after a few years.
Quote from: DamonKeysContactLens on March 14, 2009, 11:55:36 AM
IU's season is over? You mean he can't get the NIT to bring Western Michigan to Bloomington?
I understand the banner is being manufactured as we type.
Quote from: RawdogDX on March 14, 2009, 03:57:50 PM
?-( normally when I'm this annoyed with someone's inability to understand a post I count to ten before responding, but I'm in a hurry.
Oh, my agenda is clear is it? Pray tell what do you think it is? If you think it's: To wait a few years and then evaluate Buzz after seeing him work with his own team. You are correct. Yeah that makes me a huge dick.
BIAS? That poster said beyond a reasonable doubt, I brought up reasons for a reasonable doubt, doubt of something that I THINK IS TRUE. That isn't bias, did you go to MU? Do you understand what critical thinking is?
A new low point? Seriously. That post was a new low point? Someone comes on here and says we should fire the guy but I'm actually lower than him because I said that I THINK he's good but think that he still has some work to do to PROVE IT? Stupid.
I'm sorry that it takes more than ONE season (in which no 'special' wins occurred) TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. You are f'ing insane if you think that post showed any sort of agenda or bias. Stop polishing buzz's nob for a second and try and understand what posters are saying. I wasn't saying that he SHOULD have proved any of that. I wasn't saying that he had an OPPORTUINTY to. And I certainty wasn't saying that he has proved that he wasn't a good coach. I don't know why it would be unfair to say that a coach needs to recruit his own team and win some games that matter for him to be 'Proven.'
Rawdog,
I'll address your personal insults first and then discuss some of our substantive disagreements.
1.I don't think that I'm "f'ing insane". At least I've never been institutionalized and therefore have never been judged to be "beyond a reasonable doubt".
2.I have never "polished Buzz's knob". I have, in fact, never even met him. I can't prove this but am willing to take a polygraph if you'll pay for it.
3. I may indeed be "stupid" though I think most reasonable people would want more "proof" of this than your opinion however informed you may think it is.
4.I did indeed attend MU and, as much as it may shock you, graduated. This I can prove beyond "a shadow of a doubt" as I have "papers" to prove it.
5.I am told by some that "critical thinking" is one of my strong points. I don't for a minute expect you to accept this as "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", but I respectfully submit that your assertions to the contrary are, at most, informed opinions.
Regarding more substantive matters, I'd like to begin with the first poster you attacked. His statement was that Buzz had proven to be a "solid coach" beyond a reasonable doubt. I agree with him that Buzz has proven at least solid at coaching the game of basketball. Nothing more, nothing less. Everyone and his brother acknowledges his career will ultimately hinge on whether he can "recruit a winning team" and that time alone can answer that question.
On your second point, I stand by my statement that Butler has developed under Buzz. I can't PROVE it to you any more than you can PROVE he hasn't developed. If you really believe he hasn't your in an extremely small minority. I can PROVE to you that you are wrong about people calling Butler a wasted scholarship but my time is worth more than the $1 incentive you offer. You can look it up yourself.
Your 3rd point is that Buzz hasn't outcoached anyone. That's your OPINION. Others have a different OPINION. Since it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove either way it is meaningless.
Finally, you say he hasn't pulled any upsets. Proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt" says you are wrong, yet you have the temerity to suggest that when a 5 point UNDERDOG beats the FAVORITE it's not an upset. And you know this why? Because you live in Vegas and spend 10-20 hours a week in casinos? Congrats on what must be your only hobby, but I'm guessing if Vegas will let me bet the money line pay me $1.70 or so for each $1 I bet on a 5 pt dog they think it's an upset.
Quote from: MUSF on March 14, 2009, 08:28:46 PM
Example: Bill Belicheck proved that he was an outstanding offensive coach as an assistant at Minnesota. When he went to Baltimore as a head coach, his offenses usually struggled His ability as an assistant didn't translate to his ability as a head coach. Was he really a great offensive coach? Did he simply have superior talent with Moss, Carter, Reed, Culpepper, and Smith? Did he have other great coaches around him? Who knows, but for whatever reason, his abilities as an assistant didn't translate to HC. In the end, all he proved in Minnesota was that he was a great offensive coordinator. Nothing more nothing less.
Two points:
Bill B. never coached in Minnesota or Baltimore. I think you're referring to Brian Billick, who is an entirely different type of coach.
Regardless, I think your comparison is weak. Buzz had a great year-- a better year than Crean had last year-- with the same talent. IMO, he can coach. He's proven that he can-- and he's also proven that he can recruit based on the results from his years as an assistant and the rankings of the guys coming in next year.
I agree with all of Pakuni's statements.
While he might not be Bellichek, he's certainly better than Billick.
Quote from: MUSF on March 14, 2009, 08:28:46 PM
Buzz Williams is currently a head coach. When someone makes a statement that he hasn't proven that he can recruit a winning team, I think it is safe to assume that they are talking about his ability as a head coach. You brought that up yourself. I think it goes beyond just the "as a head coach," angle into many other variables which I listed. To your point, yes, I guess I am changing the literal question but it is playing coy to address only the literal question and not the obvious implication.
Example: Bill Belicheck proved that he was an outstanding offensive coach as an assistant at Minnesota. When he went to Baltimore as a head coach, his offenses usually struggled His ability as an assistant didn't translate to his ability as a head coach. Was he really a great offensive coach? Did he simply have superior talent with Moss, Carter, Reed, Culpepper, and Smith? Did he have other great coaches around him? Who knows, but for whatever reason, his abilities as an assistant didn't translate to HC. In the end, all he proved in Minnesota was that he was a great offensive coordinator. Nothing more nothing less.
As for the lack of opportunity, you are exactly right. I have not, nor has Rawdog, demanded that Buzz prove anything. He hasn't had the opportunity to prove a lot of things which is why I have said numerous times, that I am going to reserve judgement on his ability as a HC.
It is not my position that a more talented team can never out coach an opponent. However, I think evenly matched teams or upset victories would provide the best case study to determine whether one coach out coached another coach. I also was trying to make the point that I don't think one game proves much of anything in terms of coaching ability. When attempting to prove that a drug cures cancer, do you stop after the first test? Or do you conduct more trials with different controls and variables? If Bo Ryan beats Buzz for the next 7 years, would you still say that he has proved that he could out coach Bo? Or, would you say that he beat Bo with a talented bunch of seniors when Wisconsin was having a down year?
I do think that Buzz being new has a certain advantage. 10 years from now other coaches may know that Buzz has never changed his motion offense or used a 3-2 zone but right now, they have to be prepared for almost anything.
Let me say again, I think Buzz did an adequate to good job this year. I think he has shown potential for greatness at times this season and made some rookie mistakes. I will make my judgement on his abilities and true potential after a few years.
That paragraph about "Bill Belicheck"(sic) cracks me up. Your great assistant coach (who won nothing at Minnesota) goes on to be a failure as a head coach (winning the Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer at QB). By the way, his name is Brian Billeck. Other than that you're spot on.
Maybe you should stay within the realm of your expertise.That would be college/Marquette basketball,right? [/color]
Quote from: bartmiller#1 on March 15, 2009, 01:21:03 AM
Two points:
Bill B. never coached in Minnesota or Baltimore. I think you're referring to Brian Billick, who is an entirely different type of coach.
Regardless, I think your comparison is weak. Buzz had a great year-- a better year than Crean had last year-- with the same talent.
He has not had a better year than Crean had last year. He may yet if they get to the Sweet 16, but Crean went further into the BE tournament.
Quote from: romey on March 14, 2009, 12:03:35 PM
Another one: It's "a lot" not alot. No such word, unless you're misspelling "allot." Sorry, it's the MU Journalism degree making me do it.
And of course, the old standby: a personal pronoun in the objective case used as the subject of a sentence. Arrrrrgh!
Quote from: The Wizard of West Salem on March 15, 2009, 07:23:18 AM
He has not had a better year than Crean had last year. He may yet if they get to the Sweet 16, but Crean went further into the BE tournament.
I guess if progress in the BE tournament is your lone measure of success, then you're correct.
Buf for those of us willing to gauge success by more than just having one more game in the conference tourney, then, by and large (and particularly before DJ's injury), this team has performed better than last year's. And, arguably, with less with which to work. Certainly less depth, and less ability in the post.
A coach's success is ultimately determined by how far he gets his team in the NCAA tournament. Beyond that, you have to look at conference tournaments and overall record.
Last year's team had seven conference losses...this one had six. Non-conference, last year MU only lost to Duke by four points. It can be argued that they had roughly the same regular seasons. Last year's team upset ND in the BE quarters though...this team didn't pull off the same type of upset.
So IMO it comes down to the NCAA's. Get into the Sweet 16 and Buzz has had a better year. And yeah, I understand that DJ's injury throws a wrench into the equation, but MU and Crean had a very good year last year. Buzz has not exceeded that yet.
Quote from: wildbill sb on March 15, 2009, 07:45:19 AM
And of course, the old standby: a personal pronoun in the objective case used as the subject of a sentence. Arrrrrgh!
I'll remember that in the future. Thank you.
Quote from: The Wizard of West Salem on March 15, 2009, 08:56:14 AM
So IMO it comes down to the NCAA's. Get into the Sweet 16 and Buzz has had a better year. And yeah, I understand that DJ's injury throws a wrench into the equation, but MU and Crean had a very good year last year. Buzz has not exceeded that yet.
DJ's injury does more than "throw a wrench" into the equation. It blows up the equation. Last year's team - with DJ and Ooze - was better, probably much better, than the team Buzz will take into the tournament.
To say - now - that the only true comparison between their respective coaching jobs is how far their
different teams go into the tourney is patently inaccurate.
It's like arguing whether Bill Self did a better job coaching last year or this year. By your logic, it clearly was last year. After all, Kansas won the national championship. And yet Self already has won (at least) two national coach of the year awards for his work with a team this year probably will not win the national championship.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 15, 2009, 10:27:23 AM
DJ's injury does more than "throw a wrench" into the equation. It blows up the equation. Last year's team - with DJ and Ooze - was better, probably much better, than the team Buzz will take into the tournament.
Without DJ...yes. But that has only been the last few games. I think this team, with the big three having one more year and will Jimmy Butler, is better than last year's team. I liked Ooze, but he hardly was the difference maker that Butler is.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 15, 2009, 03:48:21 AM
Quote from: MUSF on March 14, 2009, 08:28:46 PM
That paragraph about "Bill Belicheck"(sic) cracks me up. Your great assistant coach (who won nothing at Minnesota) goes on to be a failure as a head coach (winning the Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer at QB). By the way, his name is Brian Billeck. Other than that you're spot on.
Maybe you should stay within the realm of your expertise.That would be college/Marquette basketball,right? [/color]
Ok, I got it, it's Billeck (sp?). My bad.
Now, you are all missing the point. I never said Billick was a failure as a head coach, and I never said he won anything in Minnesota. The initial point was about Buzz proving his ability to recruit a winning team at A&M, which by the way, if we use your standard for winning, Buzz's A&M recruits, "never won anything," because they didn't win an NCAA championship. See, that Minnesota Vikings team lost one regular season game, won their division, and went to the NFC championship game. So, if they didn't win anything, then what did Buzz's A&M teams win?
To the point, we were discussing a specific part of the college game, recruiting. I compared that to another specific part of the NFL game, offense. Buzz has proved, as an assistant, that he had skill in that specific area. Billick proved that he had skill as an offensive coordinator. Billick's offensive abilities as an assistant didn't translate in that specific area when he became a head coach. He won a Super Bowl with one of the best defenses in the history of the NFL and a pretty pedestrian offense. Time will tell if Buzz's ability to recruit a winning team as an assistant will translate to the same success as a head coach.
You know what, let's use an example that is a little closer to home.
There is absolutely no question that Crean proved he could recruit a winning team at MSU. His recruits at MSU won a national championship and multiple Big Ten titles. That's a little better than Buzz's resume as an assistant.
Now, there are many people here that would claim that TC didn't display the same recruiting ability at MU. If you believe that TC was not a great recruiter at MU then you must admit that what he proved as an assistant didn't mean much in terms of head coaching ability.
You can hand the keys to the castle over to Buzz right now if you want. I'm going to wait and see.
Quote from: MUSF on March 15, 2009, 12:37:28 PM
You can hand the keys to the castle over to Buzz right now if you want. I'm going to wait and see.
Oh, please. Nobody is handing anybody the keys to the castle.
The vast majority of posters here - including those that like Buzz and think he's performed well - agree he still has much to prove.
OT: Dear all - esp Lenny & MUSF,
Please make sure you start typing your post under the line that says [/quote]
It will make responses much easier to read.
Thank you.
Quote from: The Wizard of West Salem on March 15, 2009, 12:11:57 PM
Without DJ...yes. But that has only been the last few games. I think this team, with the big three having one more year and will Jimmy Butler, is better than last year's team. I liked Ooze, but he hardly was the difference maker that Butler is.
Before DJ went down, this team was 24-5, 12-2 in conference and ranked in the top 10. They were in far better position and performing far better than they had the previous year.
Jimmy Butler is not a difference maker, at least not this year. He's a luxury.
If given a choice for this team, I'd take Ooze over Jimmy without thinking twice. Not because Ooze is the better
player - he's not -but because he fills a far greater need. With Ooze, MU had a small semblance of a post threat, a guy who could give you 6-12 points on a given night along with a steady 6+ boards every night. And he could give the team some defense - and five more fouls - against the likes of Blair (who scored eight points in two games against MU last year), Thabeet, etc. Right now, all MU has is Burke, who's not bad defensively, but is a major, major liability on the offensive side of the court. MU might as well be playing 4-on-5 when he's out there.
Again, I'm not arguing who's the better player. But the team would be better off with a guy like Ooze simply because they're so soft in the middle and get so little out of the post position.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 15, 2009, 01:22:41 PM
Oh, please. Nobody is handing anybody the keys to the castle.
The vast majority of posters here - including those that like Buzz and think he's performed well - agree he still has much to prove.
Then why take issue with Rawdog or me? That is all either of us has been saying. When Rawdog claimed that Buzz had much to prove, Lenny went off on Rawdog's "anti-Buzz agenda." You started pointing to all the ways that Buzz has already proven himself then attached the disclaimer that you think he still has much to prove.
I like Buzz and think he has performed well but there is no way that Buzz has proved, "beyond a reasonable doubt," that he is a "solid" coach. Those comments sound to me like someone who has already made up their mind and is ready to hand the keys over to Buzz. That is what Rawdog and I were taking issue with.
Quote from: MUSF on March 15, 2009, 01:43:30 PM
Then why take issue with Rawdog or me? That is all either of us has been saying. When Rawdog claimed that Buzz had much to prove, Lenny went off on Rawdog's "anti-Buzz agenda." You started pointing to all the ways that Buzz has already proven himself then attached the disclaimer that you think he still has much to prove.
I've never suggested either of you have an anti-Buzz agenda, so I can't speak to that. But what I did was answer/take issue with the obviously rhetorical questions Rawdog had asked regarding what had Buzz proven. Because his clear implication was that Buzz had proven nothing - including the things he brought up. Because, contrary to what he was implying, Buzz has outcoached someone(s) and Buzz had recruited a winning team. I'm not sure why there's an argument, because the facts are there for all to see. I suspect you agree, because you went about changing Rawdog's questions.
Is it not possible to believe Buzz has proven some things, and yet still has much to prove? To the best of my knowledge, those aren't mutually exclusive propositions.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 15, 2009, 03:06:48 PM
I've never suggested either of you have an anti-Buzz agenda, so I can't speak to that. But what I did was answer/take issue with the obviously rhetorical questions Rawdog had asked regarding what had Buzz proven. Because his clear implication was that Buzz had proven nothing - including the things he brought up. Because, contrary to what he was implying, Buzz has outcoached someone(s) and Buzz had recruited a winning team. I'm not sure why there's an argument, because the facts are there for all to see. I suspect you agree, because you went about changing Rawdog's questions.
Is it not possible to believe Buzz has proven some things, and yet still has much to prove? To the best of my knowledge, those aren't mutually exclusive propositions.
It is quite possible, and quite true, that Buzz has proven some things. I do agree, and I acknowledged "changing" the question, because I think there was a clear implication that Rawdog was speaking about Buzz as a head coach/our head coach.
I don't think there was a clear implication from Rawdog's post that Buzz had proven nothing. I think his post was quite clear in stating that Buzz has not yet proven himself in the specific areas listed and that overall Buzz has not proven himself to be a solid coach beyond a reasonable doubt, as others have claimed.
So, since you disagree with the specific points Rawdog raised and you take issue with my position on the matter, I wonder, in what areas do you think Buzz still has much to prove? I don't know what could be left to prove since he has proven that he can recruit a winning team, he can out coach other good coaches, and he can beat teams with superior talent.
Grow up or move to Indiana and get a Crean and Crimson sweat shirt. I don't agree with them but the psychology is interesting? You sir are an idiot.
well said lcdutchman he reaLLY IS i can only imagine how many times someone has kicked the s#!t out of him.
LOL. Nope, never has happened but if you want to go toe to toe Joey I'm up for it.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 15, 2009, 01:38:43 PM
Before DJ went down, this team was 24-5, 12-2 in conference and ranked in the top 10. They were in far better position and performing far better than they had the previous year.
Jimmy Butler is not a difference maker, at least not this year. He's a luxury.
If given a choice for this team, I'd take Ooze over Jimmy without thinking twice. Not because Ooze is the better player - he's not -but because he fills a far greater need. With Ooze, MU had a small semblance of a post threat, a guy who could give you 6-12 points on a given night along with a steady 6+ boards every night. And he could give the team some defense - and five more fouls - against the likes of Blair (who scored eight points in two games against MU last year), Thabeet, etc. Right now, all MU has is Burke, who's not bad defensively, but is a major, major liability on the offensive side of the court. MU might as well be playing 4-on-5 when he's out there.
Again, I'm not arguing who's the better player. But the team would be better off with a guy like Ooze simply because they're so soft in the middle and get so little out of the post position.
Well, we were 12-2 in conference and went 0-4 afterwards not just because DJ was hurt, but because those were four of the toughest teams on our entire schedule.
And I'm having trouble figuring out something. You seem to be saying that last year's team was more talented, or at least more complete. I guess I don't buy that. This year's team was expected to do more than what last year's team did. To me, unless they get to the Sweet 16, I really don't know if you can say that Buzz did better than TC this year.
Quote from: The Wizard of West Salem on March 15, 2009, 04:47:03 PM
Well, we were 12-2 in conference and went 0-4 afterwards not just because DJ was hurt, but because those were four of the toughest teams on our entire schedule.
And I'm having trouble figuring out something. You seem to be saying that last year's team was more talented, or at least more complete. I guess I don't buy that. This year's team was expected to do more than what last year's team did. To me, unless they get to the Sweet 16, I really don't know if you can say that Buzz did better than TC this year.
This year's team was ranked #16 at the start of the season and picked #6 in the Big East by the coaches. Last year's team was rated #11 and picked #3 inthe Big East. You may have expected MU to do better this year, but the experts (writers and coaches) didn't.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 15, 2009, 05:14:48 PM
Quote from: The Wizard of West Salem on March 15, 2009, 04:47:03 PM
Well, we were 12-2 in conference and went 0-4 afterwards not just because DJ was hurt, but because those were four of the toughest teams on our entire schedule.
And I'm having trouble figuring out something. You seem to be saying that last year's team was more talented, or at least more complete. I guess I don't buy that. This year's team was expected to do more than what last year's team did. To me, unless they get to the Sweet 16, I really don't know if you can say that Buzz did better than TC this year.
This year's team was ranked #16 at the start of the season and picked #6 in the Big East by the coaches. Last year's team was rated #11 and picked #3 inthe Big East. You may have expected MU to do better this year, but the experts (writers and coaches) didn't.
The writers and coaches also picked Notre Dame and Georgetown to make the NCAAs this year.....Notre Dame even got one vote to win the Big East. Preseason picks mean nothing.
Chicos,
The Wizard said that this year's team was EXPECTED to be better than last. By definition EXPECTATIONS precede the actual event. You can scream all you want that EXPECTATIONS mean nothing. As you are fond of saying, you are entitled to your opinion but not your facts. And the fact is that our expectations were lower based on the views of the basketball writers, the coaches who vote in the ESPN poll and the Big East coaches.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 15, 2009, 06:22:58 PM
Chicos,
The Wizard said that this year's team was EXPECTED to be better than last. By definition EXPECTATIONS precede the actual event. You can scream all you want that EXPECTATIONS mean nothing. As you are fond of saying, you are entitled to your opinion but not your facts. And the fact is that our expectations were lower based on the views of the basketball writers, the coaches who vote in the ESPN poll and the Big East coaches.
Problem is that comparing one year's picks and the next year's picks is flawed, completely flawed.
We could be an average team and picked to go 5th on year but then be a sensational team the next year and still be picked 5th because it depends how the rest of the conference is.
This year, MU is better than last year, but the conference is WAY BETTER than last year and as such, that's why the "expectations" should not be compared from one year to the next. They are totally different because you have 15 other variables (i.e., the other Big East teams)
Quote from: Pakuni on March 15, 2009, 03:06:48 PM
I've never suggested either of you have an anti-Buzz agenda, so I can't speak to that. But what I did was answer/take issue with the obviously rhetorical questions Rawdog had asked regarding what had Buzz proven. Because his clear implication was that Buzz had proven nothing - including the things he brought up. Because, contrary to what he was implying, Buzz has outcoached someone(s) and Buzz had recruited a winning team. I'm not sure why there's an argument, because the facts are there for all to see. I suspect you agree, because you went about changing Rawdog's questions.
Is it not possible to believe Buzz has proven some things, and yet still has much to prove? To the best of my knowledge, those aren't mutually exclusive propositions.
What a load of BS P. I came up with some things buzz hasn't done yet. He had one pretty good year where he won 2 more conference games than i thought he would. (then again i thought GT and ND would be good teams this year) And he wasn't really embaressed once during conference play, something i can't say about a single Crean year. The fact is that anyone who posts something as non-confrontational as "our first year coach has a few things to do before convincing me he's a good coach, beyond a shadow of a doubt." will get jumped on by Buzzes jersey chases that are on this board.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 15, 2009, 01:11:25 AM
Finally, you say he hasn't pulled any upsets. Proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt" says you are wrong, yet you have the temerity to suggest that when a 5 point UNDERDOG beats the FAVORITE it's not an upset. And you know this why? Because you live in Vegas and spend 10-20 hours a week in casinos? Congrats on what must be your only hobby, but I'm guessing if Vegas will let me bet the money line pay me $1.70 or so for each $1 I bet on a 5 pt dog they think it's an upset.
I looked it up. We were actually 2.5 and 3 point dogs. The page i pulled it up on didn't have a "money line" but i'll bet anything it wasn't +170, which is what you were trying to say. (in some awkward method)
If you think you are a few point dog and win that it is considered an upset then fine, you are one of the people who say a 9 beating an 8 is an upset. Which is lame.
Furthermore since you need to get some lessons on the spread, Home v Away in college basketball is a 9 point swing. Which means that vegas thought we were a superior team and was giving the home team their points. Sorry if that doesn't convince me beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I go hiking twice a week(red rock, mount Charleston, Zion, and the grand canyon are all easy drives from vegas), bike and take spin classes, follow MU basketball, spend a lot of time with my hot girlfriend and act as a tour guide a couple times a month for visiting friends. Pretty sure my hobby list out ranks yours.
And i notice you decided not to accuse me of bias or having an agenda, thanks appreciate that and will take it as an apology, which I don't accept.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 15, 2009, 06:39:06 PM
Problem is that comparing one year's picks and the next year's picks is flawed, completely flawed.
We could be an average team and picked to go 5th on year but then be a sensational team the next year and still be picked 5th because it depends how the rest of the conference is.
This year, MU is better than last year, but the conference is WAY BETTER than last year and as such, that's why the "expectations" should not be compared from one year to the next. They are totally different because you have 15 other variables (i.e., the other Big East teams)
Chicos,
I'm going to go through this one more time slowly. Last year we were EXPECTED to be the 11th best team in the country and this year we were EXPECTED to be the 16th best team in the country. You are free to opine that both the writers and the coaches were wrong in setting those expectations. You are not free to opine that those weren't the expectations.[this /quote]
Rawdog,
YOU were the one who said MU was a 5pt dog in those games, not me. When the underdog wins it's an upset. In fact, it's the definition of an upset. Please don't try to educate me vis-a-vis gambling with your at best rudimentary knowledge. I've forgotten more about it than you'll ever know.
You seem to be a very angry and defensive young man. You even seem angry when you talk about your "hot girlfriend" and your hobbies. That is a shame. Good luck with this in the future.
Sure I am free to opine whether the expectations by a bunch of people that randomly fill out a sheet of paper without seeing anyone play is the authority of what expectations should be. You bought into those expectations, I don't. I don't buy into ANY of those preseason expectations because they don't mean anything.
I'd like to know how many head coaches REALLY filled out those predictions and didn't have their SID or assistant coach (or wife) for that matter fill them out.
As I said, you are entitled to disagree with the basketball writers of America, the college coaches, Street and Smith, The Sporting News, Athlon, Sports Illustrated, the Blue Ribbon Yearbook and any of the other people who get payed to set team's expectations. You are not entitled to disagree with the fact that they are the recognized authorities on setting them.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 15, 2009, 05:37:56 PM
The writers and coaches also picked Notre Dame and Georgetown to make the NCAAs this year.....Notre Dame even got one vote to win the Big East. Preseason picks mean nothing.
Wrong.
Preseason predictions set expectations. And the issue Wizard was exactly that - he claims this year's team had greater expectations than last year's. It goes to the very heart of the matter. Contrary to his claim, MU's expectations for this season were, in fact, lower than they were a year ago.
We're not talking about preseason predictions as a measure of future occurrences. We're talking about expectations.
Quote from: RawdogDX on March 15, 2009, 06:43:13 PM
What a load of BS P. I came up with some things buzz hasn't done yet. He had one pretty good year where he won 2 more conference games than i thought he would. (then again i thought GT and ND would be good teams this year) And he wasn't really embaressed once during conference play, something i can't say about a single Crean year. The fact is that anyone who posts something as non-confrontational as "our first year coach has a few things to do before convincing me he's a good coach, beyond a shadow of a doubt." will get jumped on by Buzzes jersey chases that are on this board.
Since we can't all have awesome hobbies like walking - I mean, hiking - and hot girlfriends in Vegas, some of us have to become Buzzes jersey chases. ;)
Yes, you did post some things Buzz hasn't proven yet. Problem is, some of those are things he has, in fact, proven. As I illustrated. I didn't think pointing that out - in a reply, by the way, in which I said you were mostly correct - would cause such controversy.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 15, 2009, 08:32:10 PM
Rawdog,
YOU were the one who said MU was a 5pt dog in those games, not me. When the underdog wins it's an upset. In fact, it's the definition of an upset. Please don't try to educate me vis-a-vis gambling with your at best rudimentary knowledge. I've forgotten more about it than you'll ever know.
You seem to be a very angry and defensive young man. You even seem angry when you talk about your "hot girlfriend" and your hobbies. That is a shame. Good luck with this in the future.
??? What the hell? ?-( You obviously are too old to be on the internet. ::)
I think the person with a probelm is you. :-\ You see when you read posts, DO NOT attempt to insert whatever tone of voice fits your guess at people's personality. I wasn't mad when i was talking to you during the last post, i was board. ::)
Now I'm annoyed that you are going to sit there and read some sort of fury into my typed messages. >:(
I'm sorry that you can't have fun communicating with people, I'm sure that your firends and family enjoy your holier than thou, dismissive, attitude. ;) I've never seen a single post you've written that is anything more than an attack on crean or a blindly loyal defence of buzz, you add nothing, and now ignored. :P
Emotioncons added to help the elderly
Quote from: Pakuni on March 15, 2009, 09:08:34 PM
Since we can't all have awesome hobbies like walking - I mean, hiking - and hot girlfriends in Vegas, some of us have to become Buzzes jersey chases. ;)
Yes, you did post some things Buzz hasn't proven yet. Problem is, some of those are things he has, in fact, proven. As I illustrated. I didn't think pointing that out - in a reply, by the way, in which I said you were mostly correct - would cause such controversy.
I didn't have a problem with your response for three reasons:
1) You started off with "generally you are correct." (and i agree, I am. ;D )
2) You didn't accuse me of having an obvious agenda.
3) I was out of town and didn't read it till right now.
Of cousre while I was out hiking in zion national park with my hot girlfriend, I was thinking about buzz the entire time. That would be thin buzz from a year ago, not current fat ass buzz, ick.
This thread has jumped the shark.
To get back on topic:
Buzz's former team's fans are probably a little unfair and too hard on him, but you will never convince them of that.
Buzz's current team's fans are encouraged by what they see.
Crean's former team's fans are probably a little unfair and too hard on him, but you will never convince them of that.
Crean's current team's fans are encouraged by the incoming recruits.
Can we agree on that?