I wonder if he's OK. First, he honestly suggested that our previous coach should consider legally adopting recruits (or becoming a legal guardian) so he wouldn't have to waste scholarships on them. Now, he's claiming that getting to the Final Four actually hurt Marquette and Tom Crean. Apparently, the whole thing was a detriment.
The Final Four as bad for a program...that's a new one. Poor Tom Crean. Riding Wade to New Orleans actually forced him to sign guys like Blackledge, Bell, Christian, Mason, Amoroso and Berkowitz. I wonder what's forcing him to run guys back to Alabama after he's finished with them now?
I'm sure Villanova, Michigan State, UCONN and UNC will suffer similarly after this year's success.
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=415&f=2850&t=4229965&p=1 (http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=415&f=2850&t=4229965&p=1)
ahh yeah I read that to and I thought WTF!!
Getting the final four actually hurt Marquette - well that's the first time I have ever heard that.
He also stated that if Buzz is successful then all these rumors of where his next coaching gig is going to hamper recruiting. This conclusion is inherintly flawed too since you can publicly deny the rumors or you cannot feed the lunatics at ESPN with information while attempting to market yourself to every school out there. Tom Crean rarley denied interest in other programs publicly.
There were other really bad arguements that he made up too buts its not worth the time or effort to go into it.
Don't feel bad for Marquette84 - I sure don't!!
I just wasted two minutes of my life!
Rican, I can honestly see 84's point. MU was hurt by going to the FF. By doing so, it took 5 more years to get the slimy, snakeoil salesman out of here. Had Wade not carried us to New Orleans, perhaps Cords would have seen the light and canned his heine before 2008.
Quote from: thatman32 on April 17, 2009, 09:16:38 PM
Getting the final four actually hurt Marquette - well that's the first time I have ever heard that.
I didn't say it hurt Marquette.
I said it hurt MU's ability to recruit elite level players. Which it did.
I base this opinion on my observing a pattern than has affected virtually every other similar level program that has had similar success.
Quote from: thatman32 on April 17, 2009, 09:16:38 PM
He also stated that if Buzz is successful then all these rumors of where his next coaching gig is going to hamper recruiting.
It will. You can choose not to believe me. But I've seen enough programs that have had the same trouble recruiting after a hot young coach has some initial success and tries to stay.
I point out programs like Xavier, Gonzaga, Villanova, George Mason, Davidson, MU under O'Neill, etc. etc. etc. who have failed to leverage their high level success with stellar recruiting over the next several years.
You say I'm wrong, but you don't offer any counterpoints--where is the laundry list of programs you can offer as counter examples?
Quote from: thatman32 on April 17, 2009, 09:16:38 PM
This conclusion is inherintly flawed too since you can publicly deny the rumors or
You mean publicly deny like Sean Miller and Mark Few?
Miller's denial further eroded the trust in such denials, and Few has been making the same denials for years in complete futility.
Regardless of public denials, it never stops the rumors and reporting. Mark Few has been making the same annual denial eight consecutive seasons. What happens this year? A ton of stories about how Few is Arizona's #1 choice.
The only thing inherently flawed is the argument that you can stop the rumors by making a public denial.
But let me ask you this--if my argument is truly flawed, why can't Mark Few land more than two top 100 recruits over the course of the last four years? He makes the required public denials.
Quote from: thatman32 on April 17, 2009, 09:16:38 PM
you cannot feed the lunatics at ESPN with information while attempting to market yourself to every school out there.
You mean just like Mark Few feeds the lunatics every year?
No. Wait. Mark Few makes the public denials every year. And somehow, the lunatics at ESPN managed to link Few to the Arizona job this year. And the Indiana job last year. And the year before that. And the Washington job before that. And the UCLA job before that.
I'd love for you to explain this: The lunatics at ESPN that ignore Mark Few's (and Sean Miller's) denials make the same statements about Crean, but only because Crean told them?
Or how about this one: Do you honestly believe that Crean didn't have ways of getting the message to Kentucky or Indiana or UCLA or Kansas that he was interested in those jobs without resorting to ESPN?
Or how about this one: Do you honestly believe that the ADs at UK, UK, KU, or UCLA sit around listening to ESPN to figure out who might be interested in their open coaching job?
Or how about this one: Do you honestly believe that the lunatics at ESPN are unable to figure out who might be a candidate for a high level coaching job without that coach tipping them off?
If you're brutally honest these answers are obvious--unfortunately they get in the way of your rant.
Quote from: thatman32 on April 17, 2009, 09:16:38 PM
Tom Crean rarley denied interest in other programs publicly.
As I said, such public denials have been violated so often as to have no meaning anymore. Again, witness how many times Few denies interest in other jobs, only to be completely ignored again this year.
And if these denials are ignored by the lunatics at ESPN, do you honestly think that a HS kid and his coaches and parents believe them?
Quote from: thatman32 on April 17, 2009, 09:16:38 PM
There were other really bad arguements that he made up too buts its not worth the time or effort to go into it.
No, let's get into them. Its the off season. We don't have a game to discuss. The schedule is not out yet. We have plenty of time to go into it.
My guess is that your real motivation is that you know I'm right, but you simply don't like the truth.
You may not agree with Marquette84, but he almost always backs up his opinions with a strong case of facts or reasoned logic. Again, doesn't make him always right, but his remarks are usually well thought out and grounded.
Would you consider Michigan State, Texas, Ohio State, Memphis, Syracuse, UConn, Florida, Louisville, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, and Cincy (Huggy years) as similar level programs? Those are off the top of my head in less than 5 minutes.
I do agree that negative recruiting is used against coaches after big success, however I do not necessarily agree that it outweighs the positive affects from the national exposure and respect it commands. The programs I have listed above had all had success in the past 10 years or so, yet have still been able to bring in top recruits.
I think the impact of the trend you are seeing all depends on the coach. We all know that Crean comes off as a salesman as soon as you meet him, so maybe the negative recruiting did impact him more than others...however, there are a lot of coaches from the schools listed who rose above. How often has Izzo been rumored to the NBA or Arizona? The Donovan fiasco with UK. Does Roy Williams count when he was at Kansas? Coach K is rumored to the NBA every once in a while. Pitino to the NBA or back to UK? I don't know if people were after Huggy or not, I did not pay as close attention to off the court stuff as I do now. Everyone knows Matta will take a better gig if he can get it. Bill Self at Illinois continuously brought in big talent, even when he was looking for a better job! Schools have had to contact Rick Barnes on openings with the success he has had at Texas...maybe not though.
I think it all depends on the coach. All of the coaches and schools I have listed are possibly better recruiters than Crean, Sorry if this is slightly incoherent, it has been a long night of studying.
Quote from: Marquette84 on April 17, 2009, 11:23:30 PM
Villanova....who have failed to leverage their high level success with stellar recruiting over the next several years.
Whoa...back up there. Getting 5 McDonalds All Americans and 9 consensus top 100 players isn't leveraging your success? You've got to be f'n kidding. Villanova's recruiting after Wright's initial high level of success in the 2005-06 season was better than at any point since he took over in 2001, and probably better than any period since Rollie was the coach.
Since their Elite Eight in 2005-06, which was the high point of the Wright era until this year:
2006: Scottie Reynolds(Top 40, McDonald's All American). Antonio Pena(Top 75)
2007: Corey Stokes(Top 30, McD's AA) Corey Fischer(Top 35)
2008: Taylor King(Top 25 and McD's AA in 2007 as a transfer)
2009: Dominic Cheek(Top 10, McD's AA), Malik Wayns(Top 20, McD's AA), Isaiah Armwood(Top 35), Mouph Yarou(Top 35), Taylor King
And that's not even counting guys like Reggie Redding and Malcolm Grant who each made 3 top 100 lists but weren't ranked highly enough to finish in the top 100 consensus rankings, or 2010 recruit James Bell who has already made Rivals top 100. The notion that Villanova didn't leverage recruiting after their run is not only false, it is the
exact opposite of what actually happened.
Quote from: Marquette84 on April 17, 2009, 11:23:30 PM
MU under O'Neill, etc. etc. etc. who have failed to leverage their high level success with stellar recruiting over the next several years.
O'Neill left MU after his first season high level of success in 1994. Even if you want to generously count the 1993 season when MU won a tournament game as high level success, your statement is still incorrect. O'Neill's 1993 class had two top 100 players in Pieper and Crawford, and his 1994 class had three in Hutchins, McCall and Shaw.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 17, 2009, 11:29:36 PM
You may not agree with Marquette84, but he almost always backs up his opinions with a strong case of facts or reasoned logic. Again, doesn't make him always right, but his remarks are usually well thought out and grounded.
What about the notion that a coach might become the legal guardian of a player, thereby avoding the need to provide the player a scholarship? I don't think that's well thought out or grounded!
might have a precedent - Anson Dorance-Mia Hamm UNC soccer.
Quote from: ATWizJr on April 18, 2009, 06:30:00 AM
might have a precedent - Anson Dorance-Mia Hamm UNC soccer.
Or a MU accounting professor with Dwayne Johnson at St. John's in Delafield.
Tarkanian, I believe, had one of his assistants "adopt" Lloyd Daniels to get him into UNLV. I;'m sure any one of 100 NCAA coaches would have tried to adopt LeBron James had he decided to play college ball. Hell, while at Creighton Willis Reed had an affair with Benoit Benjamin's mother during the recruiting process.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on April 18, 2009, 06:05:15 AM
What about the notion that a coach might become the legal guardian of a player, thereby avoding the need to provide the player a scholarship? I don't think that's well thought out or grounded!
That's his creative side, thinking outside the box. ;)
Quote from: Tmreddevil on April 18, 2009, 12:41:53 AM
Would you consider Michigan State, Texas, Ohio State, Memphis, Syracuse, UConn, Florida, Louisville, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, and Cincy (Huggy years) as similar level programs? Those are off the top of my head in less than 5 minutes.
No most of those are not similar level programs.
Most of those are football schools with larger attendance and fan bases. Most are public and get state funding to support their athletics program via construction of venues, tuition (MU's athletic scholarships are assigned to the AD budget, not so at many state programs). Some are their state's flagship programs and have a natural built in following among the general public.
On top of being a football school, Cincy traded basketball success for players of marginal character. Any program could do the same if they adopted those standards. Ditto with Memphis.
I would suggest that Wake Forest is probably the only comparable school on your list, but unfortunately when you look at them, they're another example of a coach unable to sustain early success. After landing a slew of top 50 and top 100 recruits in 2001 through 2003, and taking Wake to a top 10 rank and #2 seed in 2003, Prosser was identified as a leading candidate for the Pitt job. From that point the recruiting pipe dried up (zero top 100 recruits in 2004), and despite continued success getting a #2 seed in 2005 (and getting the school's first #1 ranking), Prosser was only able to land 2 RCSI top 100 players in 2005--both ranking in the 70's, and neither a concensus top 100.
So in 2005 Prosser had plenty of playing time to offer with 4 graduating seniors and Chris Paul leaving for the NBA. This resulted in a disastrous 2006 season--just 3-13 i the ACC.
Quote from: Tmreddevil on April 18, 2009, 12:41:53 AM
I do agree that negative recruiting is used against coaches after big success, however I do not necessarily agree that it outweighs the positive affects from the national exposure and respect it commands.
And yet, there are very few coaches at programs like MU who improve their recruiting after their first tournament success.
Quote from: Tmreddevil on April 18, 2009, 12:41:53 AM
he programs I have listed above had all had success in the past 10 years or so, yet have still been able to bring in top recruits.
Except for Wake, those programs aren't like MU.
And wake did have a pretty serious dropoff in recruiting.
Quote from: Tmreddevil on April 18, 2009, 12:41:53 AM
I think the impact of the trend you are seeing all depends on the coach. We all know that Crean comes off as a salesman as soon as you meet him, so maybe the negative recruiting did impact him more than others...however, there are a lot of coaches from the schools listed who rose above. How often has Izzo been rumored to the NBA or Arizona? The Donovan fiasco with UK. Does Roy Williams count when he was at Kansas? Coach K is rumored to the NBA every once in a while. Pitino to the NBA or back to UK?
Fair question.
I think the answer is that a HS recruit would be more willing to take a chance at a place like MSU because of the likelihood of an excellent replacement stepping in.
The fundamental questions:
What type of coach could MSU hire if Izzo left? What type of coach would MU if Buzz left?
If Izzo left, they probably are able to replace him with a coach that has Sweet 16 or better experience. Hell, if he had left between 2003 and 2007, it likely would have been Crean, with final four experience or Stan Heath with Sweet 16 experience.
Ask yourself which is more conceivable: MSU making a play to hire Buzz Willams to replace Izzo? Or MU making a play to hire Tom Izzo to replace Buzz?
Frankly, MU has never been able to hire a guy with that level of experience. Deane had one NCAA win. Mike Newell--who turned MU down, also had one. Bob Dukiet reached the NCAA, but lost in the first round. McGuire wasn't in the tournament--NIT or NCAA--prior to MU. Kevin O'Neill, Tom Crean, Rick Majerus, and Hank Raymonds were unproven assistants. In MU's most recent search the most well known candidates--Sean MIller, Mark Few, Tony Bennett--turned MU down.
In fact, Miller and Bennett helped define MU's place in the pecking order based on where they landed after turning us down.
So if you're a top recruit, your thought process is this: "If Izzo leaves, I know MSU will get a great coach to replace him. If Buzz leaves MU, I don't know who they could get--but it will be somebody lower than Sean Miller or Tony Bennett. He probably won't be someone as good as MSU would hire."
Quote from: bma725 on April 18, 2009, 12:59:57 AM
O'Neill left MU after his first season high level of success in 1994. Even if you want to generously count the 1993 season when MU won a tournament game as high level success, your statement is still incorrect. O'Neill's 1993 class had two top 100 players in Pieper and Crawford, and his 1994 class had three in Hutchins, McCall and Shaw.
As I recall, Pieper snuck in with a 94 or 96 ranking. I don't recall Crawford being ranked.
Nonetheless, Curry, Key, McIlvaine, Logtermann and Miller are significantly stronger recruits as a group as compared to Hutchins, Pieper, Crawford, Mccall and Shaw.
Compare player for player. Maybe--just maybe--the only argument is that Pieper was as good as Logtermann. Otherwise, there is a decline in quality.
Doesn't it seem strange to you that O'Neill couldn't equal his early recruiting after he started to demonstrate his ability to win? What possible factor (other than fear of departure) would have kept O'Neill from matching the proven quality of his early recruiting?
Quote from: bma725 on April 18, 2009, 12:43:39 AM
Whoa...back up there. Getting 5 McDonalds All Americans and 9 consensus top 100 players isn't leveraging your success? You've got to be f'n kidding. Villanova's recruiting after Wright's initial high level of success in the 2005-06 season was better than at any point since he took over in 2001, and probably better than any period since Rollie was the coach.
Since their Elite Eight in 2005-06, which was the high point of the Wright era until this year:
2006: Scottie Reynolds(Top 40, McDonald's All American). Antonio Pena(Top 75)
2007: Corey Stokes(Top 30, McD's AA) Corey Fischer(Top 35)
2008: Taylor King(Top 25 and McD's AA in 2007 as a transfer)
2009: Dominic Cheek(Top 10, McD's AA), Malik Wayns(Top 20, McD's AA), Isaiah Armwood(Top 35), Mouph Yarou(Top 35), Taylor King
The notion that Villanova didn't leverage recruiting after their run is not only false, it is the exact opposite of what actually happened.
What
actually happened is that Jay Wright landed 4 top 100 players in 2002 and two more in 2003, and took them to the Sweet 16 in 2005. He leveraged that 2005 success by landing . . . nobody of note in the 2005 recruiting class.
So Villanova, having been to five straight NITs, then gets to a Sweet 16, and Wright winds up striking out that year recruiting.
And a year after that--in 2006--he did two top 100 players--but really only one of them was on par with the four in his 2002 class. Let's be honest. Top 75 Pena is not quite equal to top 5 Jason Fraser, is he?
As I said, it took Wright until 2009 to match his 2002 recruting success, and recruiting hit bottom immediately after the first big tournament success.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 18, 2009, 09:46:48 AM
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on Today at 06:05:15 AM
What about the notion that a coach might become the legal guardian of a player, thereby avoding the need to provide the player a scholarship? I don't think that's well thought out or grounded!
That's his creative side, thinking outside the box. ;)
I didn't see this before, because I'm ignoring PRN.
But in the interest of putting all the facts on the table, I raised this as part of a laundry list of ideas to refute PRN's idiotic notion that there was no way to address an overcommitment of scholarships. I asked the question because Barro actually did have his HS coach to serve as his US guardian. As others have pointed out, it's not without precedent. BTW, no thanks to PRN, someone researched the question, and the answer is yes a coach can become the legal guardian of a player. However, if the player is not on athletic scholarship Barro would not have been eligible for any extras offered to scholarship athletes--like summer workouts or athletic housing.
What most don't realize is that PRN was equally unhinged that I suggested an MU player might pay his own way and walk on. He had forgotten that John Mueller walked on at MU rather than take a scholarship at NIU, and Andy Freund walked on rather than take a scholrship to Butler.
Of course, he then modified his argument to say that nobody would pay after receiving a scholarship for a year. Within days, Taylor Roschtie announced he was doing just that at WSU to give Tony Bennett an extra scholarship at WSU.
We don't hear much about this one anymore.
Quote from: Marquette84 on April 18, 2009, 04:10:47 PM
I didn't see this before, because I'm ignoring PRN.
But in the interest of putting all the facts on the table, I raised this as part of a laundry list of ideas to refute PRN's idiotic notion that there was no way to address an overcommitment of scholarships.
Right...I said there is "no way" to address an overcommitment of scholarships. Exactly. That definitely sounds like something I would say.
Well thought out, indeed.
New head coaches who come from a successful program either as an assistant or HC often are able to recruit a real good class that first full year------e.g. Ed Hickey, O'Neil, TC, and Buzz are MU coaching ezamples-----but in each case that first class was the best one they ever had (school still out on Buzz).
Quote from: Marquette84 on April 18, 2009, 03:17:28 PM
No most of those are not similar level programs.
Most of those are football schools with larger attendance and fan bases. Most are public and get state funding to support their athletics program via construction of venues, tuition (MU's athletic scholarships are assigned to the AD budget, not so at many state programs). Some are their state's flagship programs and have a natural built in following among the general public.
Definitely not on the same level. Unfortunately MU is not a destination school while a majority on that list are closer to that designation. When was the last time Boeheim or Calhoun were reported by the media as coaches who might be interested in another job? Fact of the matter is, both made their programs as destination programs due to the number of years they stayed at their respective schools so negative recruiting has not been a factor. They are able to reload on a yearly basis while programs like Marquette have to over pay coaches who are successful at MU so that they don't bolt and even that has not been enough.
Incidently, Gonzaga and Few might finally be over that hump. If Few hasn't left for any of the plum vacancies by now, he might never leave and his recruiting might get a whole lot better.
Quote from: Marquette84 on April 18, 2009, 03:17:28 PM
As I recall, Pieper snuck in with a 94 or 96 ranking. I don't recall Crawford being ranked.
Nonetheless, Curry, Key, McIlvaine, Logtermann and Miller are significantly stronger recruits as a group as compared to Hutchins, Pieper, Crawford, Mccall and Shaw.
Compare player for player. Maybe--just maybe--the only argument is that Pieper was as good as Logtermann. Otherwise, there is a decline in quality.
Pieper was #89 by Bob Gibbons, Crawford was #98.
Significantly stronger in terms of results, sure. But not in terms of rankings, and that's what was being discussed. Miller was not a top 100 recruit that year. He had been when he was a sophomore, but by the time his senior year came around he'd fallen off the lists. Hutch was the highest ranked, followed by Key and McCall then Will Gates. Then came McIlvaine. Shaw and Logterman were ranked in the same range, the end of the top 100. I'd be happy to provide the data, but I'm saving it for a CS post next week.
QuoteDoesn't it seem strange to you that O'Neill couldn't equal his early recruiting after he started to demonstrate his ability to win? What possible factor (other than fear of departure) would have kept O'Neill from matching the proven quality of his early recruiting?
What seems strange is defining 11-18 and 16-13 records as demonstrating his ability to win or using your previous definition, "high level of success". His first NCAA appearance was 1993, and following that he signed 5 top 100 recruits in two classes. In fact his recruiting actually
improved following his first success, since he'd only signed 4 top 100 recruits prior to that. In fact, given that his high level of success was the 1994 Sweet Sixteen and he left after that, using him as an example at all doesn't hold any water.
Quote
What actually happened is that Jay Wright landed 4 top 100 players in 2002 and two more in 2003, and took them to the Sweet 16 in 2005. He leveraged that 2005 success by landing . . . nobody of note in the 2005 recruiting class.
So Villanova, having been to five straight NITs, then gets to a Sweet 16, and Wright winds up striking out that year recruiting.
And a year after that--in 2006--he did two top 100 players--but really only one of them was on par with the four in his 2002 class. Let's be honest. Top 75 Pena is not quite equal to top 5 Jason Fraser, is he?
As I said, it took Wright until 2009 to match his 2002 recruting success, and recruiting hit bottom immediately after the first big tournament success.
You didn't say first success, you said high level of success, now you're changing your argument. Wright's high level was the Elite 8 in 2006, just like Crean's high level was the 2003 Final Four, not the first round loss in 2002. Since the Elite Eight, he's signed 9 consensus top 100 players, two other players that were near consensus.
Quote from: Marquette84 on April 18, 2009, 04:10:47 PM
I didn't see this before, because I'm ignoring PRN.
I would never ignore you!
Friendly piece of advice...that other board is full of unbalanced oddballs. I'm talking about the kind of people who post thoughts on religion and family and turn right around and use foul language to attack you personally when you don't agree with their opinions. You cannot win with these people because they're delusional about not just their opinions, but about themselves. These are the people you should be ignoring.
I'm just a guy who thinks your Crean worship is over the top.
edited. This post has no value other than one long personal attack.
Quote from: bma725 on April 18, 2009, 08:29:23 PM
You didn't say first success, you said high level of success, now you're changing your argument. Wright's high level was the Elite 8 in 2006, just like Crean's high level was the 2003 Final Four, not the first round loss in 2002. Since the Elite Eight, he's signed 9 consensus top 100 players, two other players that were near consensus.
I'm not changing anything in my argument.
I'm not sure you fully understand it. Let me repeat it for you:
1. A once proud but now struggling program below the level college basketball's elites hires a hot young (and unproven) coach in an attempt to regain lost glory.
2. That hot, young (and unproven) coach has blockbuster recruiting his first year or two.
3. Within 3 or 4 seasons, that team improves significantly over the preceding coach's performance (Sweet 16, elite eight, final four--the specifics aren't as important as the fact that his success is obvious, measurable, and noticed by the media).
3a. Most people think that this success will help recruiting.4. That hot, young (and now proven) coach finds his name floated as a candidate for higher level programs.
4a. My central theory is that this hurts recruiting as recruits believe the coach will leave.
5. The recruiting classes immediately following the success in #3 above are generally not as good as those cited in point #2. In my opinion, this tends to validate point 4a and tends to dismiss point 3a.
6. The coach either leaves, or if he sticks around after several years, the hot, young coach is finally able to land a recruiting class that equals or exceeds the quality cited in point #2.
6a. Some people use this later success to argue that I was wrong and point #4 had no impact on recruiting.
Applied to Wright:
1. Hiring Jay Wright from Hofstra--consistent with point #1
2. 2002 recruiting class ranked top 5 consistent with point #2.
3. Getting Villanova to a Sweet 16 in 2005 after five straight NITs is fully consistent with point #3
4. Wright starts to be cited as a candidate for top jobs after the sweet sixteen consistent with point 4.
5. No top 100 recruits in 2005, and only 2 each in 2006 and 2006 consistent with point #5
6. 2009 Villanova has another top 5 class--consistent with point #6
Applied to Crean:
1. Hiring Tom Crean with no head coaching experience.
2. Early recruiting includes Scott Merrit, Travis Diener, Dwyane Wade, Odartey Blankson,
3. Returned MU to tournament in 2002, and final four in 2003
4. Crean identified as a candidate at Illinois
5. 2003 and 2004 recruiting classes are not considered as good as early recruiting.
6. 2005 lands the 3 amigos.
Applied to O'Neill
1. Hired Kevin O'Neill w/no head coaching experience.
2. Lands Key, McIlvaine, Logterman, Curry, Miller, Stewart, etc.
3. Returned MU to tournament w/in 4 years, sweet 16 the next year.
4. O'Neill identified as a possible candidate at Vanderbilt in 1993, takes Tennessee job in 2005
5. 2003 and 2004 recruiting classes filled with undersized or risky recruits not coveted by major programs.
6. N/A--O'Neill didn't stick around.
We could do this all day. My narrative almost always fits.
This was a simple observation of mine: Wright proved himself as a good coach by 2005, yet none of Wright's recruiting classes from the years from 2005 through 2008 were as good as 2002.
Your counter to that is that collectively from 2005 through 2009, Wright brought in more top 100 recruits. You are essentially making an argument under point 6a.
Well, that may be true.
But what is
also true is that the 2005 class was not as good as 2002.
The 2006 class was not as good as 2002.
The 2007 class was not as good as 2002.
The 2008 class was not as good as 2002.
It took until 2009 for Jay Wright to land a class that equalled the quality of his early recruiting.
Quote from: Marquette84 on April 19, 2009, 10:09:52 PM
I'm not changing anything in my argument.
I'm not sure you fully understand it. Let me repeat it for you:
1. A once proud but now struggling program below the level college basketball's elites hires a hot young (and unproven) coach in an attempt to regain lost glory.
2. That hot, young (and unproven) coach has blockbuster recruiting his first year or two.
3. Within 3 or 4 seasons, that team improves significantly over the preceding coach's performance (Sweet 16, elite eight, final four--the specifics aren't as important as the fact that his success is obvious, measurable, and noticed by the media). 3a. Most people think that this success will help recruiting.
4. That hot, young (and now proven) coach finds his name floated as a candidate for higher level programs.
4a. My central theory is that this hurts recruiting as recruits believe the coach will leave.
5. The recruiting classes immediately following the success in #3 above are generally not as good as those cited in point #2. In my opinion, this tends to validate point 4a and tends to dismiss point 3a.
6. The coach either leaves, or if he sticks around after several years, the hot, young coach is finally able to land a recruiting class that equals or exceeds the quality cited in point #2.
6a. Some people use this later success to argue that I was wrong and point #4 had no impact on recruiting.
Applied to Wright:
1. Hiring Jay Wright from Hofstra--consistent with point #1
2. 2002 recruiting class ranked top 5 consistent with point #2.
3. Getting Villanova to a Sweet 16 in 2005 after five straight NITs is fully consistent with point #3
4. Wright starts to be cited as a candidate for top jobs after the sweet sixteen consistent with point 4.
5. No top 100 recruits in 2005, and only 2 each in 2006 and 2006 consistent with point #5
6. 2009 Villanova has another top 5 class--consistent with point #6
Applied to Crean:
1. Hiring Tom Crean with no head coaching experience.
2. Early recruiting includes Scott Merrit, Travis Diener, Dwyane Wade, Odartey Blankson,
3. Returned MU to tournament in 2002, and final four in 2003
4. Crean identified as a candidate at Illinois
5. 2003 and 2004 recruiting classes are not considered as good as early recruiting.
6. 2005 lands the 3 amigos.
Applied to O'Neill
1. Hired Kevin O'Neill w/no head coaching experience.
2. Lands Key, McIlvaine, Logterman, Curry, Miller, Stewart, etc.
3. Returned MU to tournament w/in 4 years, sweet 16 the next year.
4. O'Neill identified as a possible candidate at Vanderbilt in 1993, takes Tennessee job in 2005
5. 2003 and 2004 recruiting classes filled with undersized or risky recruits not coveted by major programs.
6. N/A--O'Neill didn't stick around.
We could do this all day. My narrative almost always fits.
This was a simple observation of mine: Wright proved himself as a good coach by 2005, yet none of Wright's recruiting classes from the years from 2005 through 2008 were as good as 2002.
Your counter to that is that collectively from 2005 through 2009, Wright brought in more top 100 recruits. You are essentially making an argument under point 6a.
Well, that may be true.
But what is also true is that the 2005 class was not as good as 2002.
The 2006 class was not as good as 2002.
The 2007 class was not as good as 2002.
The 2008 class was not as good as 2002.
It took until 2009 for Jay Wright to land a class that equalled the quality of his early recruiting.
Dude. if people just don't get it, stop wasting your time trying to make them understand. for me i'd rather focus on the future than our past (good things & bad).
You are referencing Villanova's 2005 success in the tournament, then reference their 2005 class as not very good. Wouldn't that class have been signed prior to the tournament run?
Also, IMHO, the reason Crean's recruiting went downhill right after the Final Four is that he spent too much time trying to land the big name recruits and therefore lost out on the recruits in the 50-100 range.
Quote from: rugbydrummer on April 22, 2009, 12:17:06 AM
Dude. if people just don't get it, stop wasting your time trying to make them understand. for me i'd rather focus on the future than our past (good things & bad).
I think this topic
does affect our future. If Buzz gets to a Sweet 16 or better over the next several seasons, he's going to be named as a potential candidate for some other job. I would think the impact this has on future recruiting would be a valid point of discussion on a basketball message board.
What I am most disappointed about about is the response, ranging from unsubstantiated denial to insults and namecalling.
Bma came closest--but even he seems unable to admit that a class of #37, #75 and a couple bubbling under the top 100 isn't as good as a class with #5, #39, #42, and #56.
If Wright's 2002 class was an A+, his 2006 class was a solid B. My argument is that "solid B is a decline from A+, and it took three more years to get another A+" BMA's counter is that "solid B is still pretty good so your facts are wrong. Besides, he did have another A+ class in 2009."
Sorry--my facts aren't wrong, and no matter how good you think the 2006 class was, it wasn't as good as 2002. Why can't we agree on that?
And it DID take three more years to get another A+ class. Why couldn't he land that class right away?
Here's where I thought the opening for further comment would be: Why is it a young and unproven coach can land #5, #39, #42, and #56 his first year before anybody knows what he can do with them? Why can't he seem to improve (or even equal) that level after he proves himself? Why did it take four more seasons to build on it?
Now, let's turn to Buzz this year: #53 Cadougan #84 Maymon and #90 Williams, two top 10 JUCOs.
Verbals for the future include: Aaron Bowen, who is not presently in Scout's top 100 for the 2010 class and Monterale Clark who was ranked #109 out of HS--just under the top 100, and not yet proven as a top 10 Juco. Solid recruits, yes, but not quite as good.
Maybe they'll both surprise and move up in the rankings. Maybe they'll both move down.
This is a really interesting discussion.
Have you considered that a great recruiting class makes it difficult to recruit another great recruiting class as spots are generally filled on the team. For example, having a proven point guard hang around for 2-4 years might impact a coach's abillity to recruit another top flight point guard. If a recruit (say, Shumpert), wants playing time ASAP, won't he consider schools with teams not having great point guards that he might have to play behind?
Again, Shumpert is just used as a general example as he had other reasons for picking a school. In general, I think that unless you are a Kansas, NC or Duke, it is hard to bring in A+ classes every year or even every other year. If you are Kansas, NC or Duke, there is a good chance that the great player(s) in front of you will be leaving for the NBA and not staying around as long as say players from a school like Marquette.
IS MArquette84 Tom Crean? Sure seems to sound that way, but then maybe not if it was tom Crean i would imagine his screen name would be Marquette77, because we all know those were his first memories of college basketball and fell in love with Al McGuire and the Warriors as his first memories of college basketball. or was that the year before?
Excuses are for losers.
Repeat after me...Tom Crean's recruiting suffered because he burned bridges everywhere he went:
First we were in Chicago, then Michigan, then Minnesota, then NJ, then Texas.
The fact that after his first Chicago wave (Wade, ODB, Howard, Chapman) we only got McNeal & Mason is very telling.
PS...SJS isn't Tom Crean. Tom Crean is a Twitter Man. SJS is Joanie.
Say hi to your Dad Joanie, hope he's surviving without his MU gig.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on April 22, 2009, 12:41:10 PM
IS MArquette84 Tom Crean? Sure seems to sound that way, but then maybe not if it was tom Crean i would imagine his screen name would be Marquette77, because we all know those were his first memories of college basketball and fell in love with Al McGuire and the Warriors as his first memories of college basketball. or was that the year before?
Excuses are for losers.
Just curious, Hayward, what is your obsession with Tom Crean. Almost EVERYTHING you post is somehow related to Crean!
To say you're obsessed with the man is an understatement.
This thread is a pefect example. I've tried to keep this as a basketball discussion in general. To the extend that Tom Crean is a basketball coach, yes, the discussion involves him. But it also includes many other coaches, including Mark Few, Sean Miller, Kevin O'Neill, Jay Wright, Skip Prosser, and Buzz Williams. I can include Phil Marinelli, Bob McKilllop, Jim Larranga, Brad Brownell, Tony Bennett, and dozens upon dozens of other coaches who have not translated on-court success into immediate recruiting success.
It seems to me that you have a serious issue trying to separate Tom Crean from your life.
I know several times you've been asked for specific examples as to why you have this obsession--your typical response is to run and hide, only to resurface in another thread, bringing up the same subject again.
For some reason, everything on this board seems to remind you of him. For some reason, we can't raise a single subject without you finding a way to bring Crean into this. You need help.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on April 22, 2009, 12:41:10 PM
Excuses are for losers.
Quote from: The Lens on April 22, 2009, 01:14:03 PM
Repeat after me...Tom Crean's recruiting suffered because he burned bridges everywhere he went:
First we were in Chicago, then Michigan, then Minnesota, then NJ, then Texas.
The fact that after his first Chicago wave (Wade, ODB, Howard, Chapman) we only got McNeal & Mason is very telling.
Ya know, I think I've finally figured out why I disagree with both of you almost all of the time.
You guys just speak in such absolute certainties that I can't possibly agree with you.
Hayward: No excuses? Then Buzz has no excuse for not getting to the sweet 16, right? (even though DJ being hurt was a big factor). There are circumstances at every program for every coach.
DKC: You might actually be right with some of this "burned bridge" stuff (seriously)... but if Crean is successful at IU, what then? You'll probably say something about how he's just tricking everybody again... but could it be that he hasn't burned all of the bridges as you say?
It seems like everything is all or nothing with you guys. You guys hate Crean, therefore, MU84 must actually BE CREAN. C'mon.
The guy wasn't perfect, but you guys act like he's the Charles Manson of MU hoops, when in reality he's just kinda douchy and not the perfect basketball coach.
Quote from: 2002mualum on April 22, 2009, 02:45:18 PM
Ya know, I think I've finally figured out why I disagree with both of you almost all of the time.
You guys just speak in such absolute certainties that I can't possibly agree with you.
Hayward: No excuses? Then Buzz has no excuse for not getting to the sweet 16, right? (even though DJ being hurt was a big factor). There are circumstances at every program for every coach.
DKC: You might actually be right with some of this "burned bridge" stuff (seriously)... but if Crean is successful at IU, what then? You'll probably say something about how he's just tricking everybody again... but could it be that he hasn't burned all of the bridges as you say?
It seems like everything is all or nothing with you guys. You guys hate Crean, therefore, MU84 must actually BE CREAN. C'mon.
The guy wasn't perfect, but you guys act like he's the Charles Manson of MU hoops, when in reality he's just kinda douchy and not the perfect basketball coach.
1) TC has a little more margin for error at a state school that is also one of the top 6 jobs in America. Heck even Bo Ryan can p!ss off a WI HS hoops coach or too and not feel the ramifications. At MU, you can't do that, from what I've heard, TC did. That all being said, if laying money, I would go on the he'll be fired in 5-6 years side.
2) I don't think TC's an all bad coach. I think he's one of the hardest working in the country, I think he game preps as well as anyone and I think he has an encyclopedic brain for plays, sets etc. I just don't think he walks on water and I have a hard time with the fact so many people wanted to Canonize him while he was at MU. There were obvious flaws that were just overlooked. I like what he did for the program, I'm glad Cords hired him in '99. I just think we can succeed without him.
3) Agree with you on absolutes. I'll try and tone down my rhetoric a bit.
4) This board is a better place with PRN back in the fold.
Its very hard if not impossible for most schools to have great recruiting classes year after year. NC can do it. Duke, Kansas and a few others but thats about it.
Look at Georgetown. Went to the final 4 a few years ago. Landed a great class last year....this year....1 4 star recruit in Hollis Thompson and 2 under the radar guys that just commited in the last few days.
No rumors of JT3 going anywhere.
Bo Ryan is as entrenched as they come at UW.....no great recruiting class there at least not this year.
The key for me is not necessarily to have back to back top 10-20 classes year after year but to have a great class every 2-4 years and to get a least a player or 2 that can contribute and maybe eventually start in the other years.
The washout classes is what have hurt us. It has killed our depth.
Highly recruited players are willing to sit on the bench for a year or 2 at the elite schools but playing time becomes a factor when deciding where to go among the 20-30 best programs outside of the top 7 or 8 schools.
So it doesn't matter if Buzz is pursued or not in the future, He will not be able to recruit a roster filled with only top 80 kids.
Fortunately for us he can still build a top 25 program without great classes every year.
Quote from: The Lens on April 22, 2009, 01:14:03 PM
Repeat after me...Tom Crean's recruiting suffered because he burned bridges everywhere he went:
First we were in Chicago, then Michigan, then Minnesota, then NJ, then Texas.
The fact that after his first Chicago wave (Wade, ODB, Howard, Chapman) we only got McNeal & Mason is very telling.
Yes, because we all know that consistency that O'Neill, Deane and Buzz have shown in landing Chicago area recruits. Wisconsin recruits as well, for that matter.
When after Kevin O'Neill landed the first wave of Key, McIlvane and Logterman, Craig Aamont and Shannon Smith, how many Wisconsin players did he land? How many illinois players?
Lets see. We had Shane Littles from GA, Zach McCall from MA, Dwyane Streeter and Amal McCaskill from the St. Louis area, Abel Joseph from Canada, Faisal Abraham from the Virgin Islands, Chris Crawford from Michigan, Aaron Hutchins from Ohio.
Doesn't look like a deep roster from Chicago.
Over his five years, Mike Deane landed two Chicago area recruits--Cordell Henry and Brian Wardle. Where were the others? Diggs from Dayton, Nnamka from Sweeden, Harris from metro St. Louis, Shaw from Canada, Mueller from Milwaukee, Clausen from Dixon IL, Cliff from Decatur, Minor from Texas, Miller from Kentucky, Bargen from Nebraska, Lovette from upstate Wisconsin, Polonowski form Michigan. Hester from Indianapolis.
BTW, is Buzz is already turning to Canada (McMorrow), Florida (Bowen), North Carolina (Johnson-Odom) and Pennsylvania (Roseboro).
Of course to those obsessed with Crean, pointing out the obvious--that his recruiting style is no different than other recent MU coaches--well it must be that I'm married to the guy. That's the ONLY reason one might point out the similar national recruiting strategies.
To the obsessed, pointing out that Crean is exactly like his predecessors and successor in that he pursued recruits from around the country is simply making excuses.
To the rest of us, MU's national reputation is an obvious point of strength that Crean, Deane, O'neill and now Buzz have all used in their recruiting.
Comparing a legend like Crean to mere mortals like Deane-o and KO, shame on you SJS. TC belongs compared with the legends...Roy, Coach K, Knight and of course, Stew.
Besides, I didn't point out he used the whole country I pointed out that he jumped from one region to another and rarely went back. Two possible scenarios: 1) Burned bridges or 2) b/c of assistant coaches turnover and they worked their regions. The latter would seem odd for a man so praised for his recruiting acumen.
Quote from: The Lens on April 22, 2009, 01:14:03 PM
Repeat after me...Tom Crean's recruiting suffered because he burned bridges everywhere he went:
First we were in Chicago, then Michigan, then Minnesota, then NJ, then Texas.
The fact that after his first Chicago wave (Wade, ODB, Howard, Chapman) we only got McNeal & Mason is very telling.
bingo+100000 the unsufferable ass wore out his welcome...notice this years recruits alabama and indiana
Marqueete 84 this argument...i will call it an excuse is sooooo weak I have to laugh at your rational. first of all as has been pointed out yet you refuse to address is all these great examples of yours are all mid major non BCS schools. jay wright has been brought into the conversation yet he completely refutes you theory. Again all your examples are mid major non BCS schools. Mid majors dont land top 100 kids year after year, they might land a couple and Duh!! those typically carry those teams far but I gives no guarantee they will get more like being a BE does helps to do.
Tom Crean had way more on his side to help him sign good recruits that being a final 4 and the Big east. nevertheless apart from hayward and arguably Mbakwe he signed one poor player after another. Now you can come up with one lame hypothesis after another but they simply hold no water. Crean had the Final Four, the Al, the BE, and on top of it all DWADe and signed one poor recruit after another. It came down to his burning bridges with coaches at the HS and AAU level and his assistants leaving avery year after one year and the lack of continuity with recruits. Your hypothesis holds no water your are comparing midmajor coaches with a high major prorgam, he has no excuses but he failed.
LAstly, your Kevin Oneil argument is simply terrible, now it does fit in with the other coaches as i will Agree Mu circa 1992 was akin to a St. Joes today. But to say that his recruiting fell off after his first class is a complete joke. Were you paying attention? his last two classes were extremely talented. In fact the team in 1994 was possibly as good as any team in recent memory except for the Final 4 team. You probably dont recall but that team was really good and earned a 4 seed and was playing as well as anyone in the country before having a cold shooting night against Arkansas. highest MU seed since seeding started except for the 3 seed in 2003. Those were Oneil recruits that led that team all signed in his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th classes.
the following year we were pretty good too Comference USA champs and completely carried by kids in his 3rd and 4th classes, including a Pro in Crawford. Yes his first class was good but all 4 classes were very good and one could always make the argumnet that his first class put up such big numbers do to the fact that they were instant starters due to a dearth of talent when they came in. Guys like Hutchins, Crawford, etc. had to share time or bide their time becuase of experienced talent ahead of them.
Oneill blew Creans doors off in the regards to recruiting. I wonder how many berkowitzs, blacledges, lotts, kinsellas and Chrsitopherson's and on and on Buzz will sign...just wondering...it must be cause of some hypothesis
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on April 22, 2009, 05:46:11 PM
LAstly, your Kevin Oneil argument is simply terrible, now it does fit in with the other coaches as i will Agree Mu circa 1992 was akin to a St. Joes today. But to say that his recruiting fell off after his first class is a complete joke. Were you paying attention? his last two classes were extremely talented. In fact the team in 1994 was possibly as good as any team in recent memory except for the Final 4 team. You probably dont recall but that team was really good and earned a 4 seed and was playing as well as anyone in the country before having a cold shooting night against Arkansas. highest MU seed since seeding started except for the 3 seed in 2003. Those were Oneil recruits that led that team all signed in his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th classes.
Mr Hayward meant 1996, but his point is well taken.
Hayward, PRN, DKCL, 4Ever & EAT. We stick together!
SJS/MU84 is mistaken when he says that the final 4 hurt/retarded recruiting. It isn't the final 4 which does the recruiting ----it's human being who do the recruiting-----so if we didn't recruit as well immediately after the final 4 it was due to human error-----Crean not knowing how to market that success so as to create an impression that he knew how to build a winner direct to the final 4----that he had the secret formula.
Instead what he did is he used D Wade too much. At the time MU84/SJS went round and round on this (MU84/SJS saying Crean should use Wade for all it's worth)----Murf saying not to mention Wade so much in recruitment -----but communicate to recruits that HE (Crean) was the guy who made it all happen-----and that he could make it happen again. Instead he continually used Wade in recruiting-----but Wade had graduated so how was he going to help new recruits and how was DW going to help MU get to another final 4?
This inappropriate DW recruiting appraoach reached its peak at MM madness in October 2007 when DW came in with Schmpert in attendance------DW couldn't talk to Schmpert but kept winking at him------big mistake as Schmpert wasn't coming to MU to play for Wade-----but for Crean. Would have taken an idiot recruit to fall for that one----all style and no substance!
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on April 22, 2009, 05:46:11 PM
Marqueete 84 this argument...i will call it an excuse is sooooo weak I have to laugh at your rational. first of all as has been pointed out yet you refuse to address is all these great examples of yours are all mid major non BCS schools.
And what, pray tell, do you think that were we in 2002 and 2003 and 2004 when the classes you complain so much about were being recruited?
The announcement that we were joining the Big East did not occur until
November 4 2003!All of the 2003 class--the one you think was influenced by the attraction of playing in the Big East--were enrolled in school TWO MONTHS BEFORE the annoucment was made.
Lens Baby,
"Hayward, PRN, DKCL, 4Ever & EAT. We stick together!"
You sure about EAT? Otherwise we all be brothers.
Wade was the equivalent of the winning Powerball ticket for Crean. When do you suppose will be the next time MU will battle Illinois State for an unranked (consensus anyway) partial qualifier who turns out to be one of the best players of all time? Without Wade it's still likely that TC would no longer be at Marquette, but it would not be by his choice.
Quote from: Murffieus on April 22, 2009, 06:26:33 PM
SJS/MU84 is mistaken when he says that the final 4 hurt/retarded recruiting. It isn't the final 4 which does the recruiting ----it's human being who do the recruiting-----so if we didn't recruit as well immediately after the final 4 it was due to human error-----Crean not knowing how to market that success so as to create an impression that he knew how to build a winner direct to the final 4----that he had the secret formula.
Instead what he did is he used D Wade too much. At the time MU84/SJS went round and round on this (MU84/SJS saying Crean should use Wade for all it's worth)----Murf saying not to mention Wade so much in recruitment -----but communicate to recruits that HE (Crean) was the guy who made it all happen-----and that he could make it happen again. Instead he continually used Wade in recruiting-----but Wade had graduated so how was he going to help new recruits and how was DW going to help MU get to another final 4?
This inappropriate DW recruiting appraoach reached its peak at MM madness in October 2007 when DW came in with Schmpert in attendance------DW couldn't talk to Schmpert but kept winking at him------big mistake as Schmpert wasn't coming to MU to play for Wade-----but for Crean. Would have taken an idiot recruit to fall for that one----all style and no substance!
I don't like your insinuation that Nick Williams, Tyshawn Taylor, Erik Williams Joe Fulce and Chris Otule are idiots becuase they signed (or verballed) to MU.
BTW, does this same excuse hold for Majerus? He never managed to land a player equal to Andre Miller or Keith Van Horn after getting to a final four.
I guess he didn't know how to market that succeess either.
dead on lenny Mu84 wants to use some stupid hypothesis and then back it up with some mid major examples. I have said fro years Crean owes 95% of his salary to Dwade. If not for Dwade Crean is fired in year 5 having never reached an NCAA tourney. His recruitng sucked in 7 of 9 years and he had all the resources anyone could ever ask for.
truly great recruiters like Kevin Oneill sold a program that had nothing and signed 4 good classes in a row that produced as many NBA players in 4 years as Crean got in 9, Oneil did this with the old gym and the MCC!! He could sell ice to an eskimo!!
Buzz williams signed pros at CSU and then did the same at Texas A&M texas A&M has been to 3 straight NCAA tourneys after being the laughing stock doormat of the BIG 12 for years...did it on Buzz's recruits. buzz could sell wool sweaters on a 100 degree day in texas. Buzz then signed the #1 class in the country deaspite no one even knowing who the hell he was and having on 4 of them never coached a game at the school he was bringing them to. Great recruiters simply recruit great players.
Now even after you have read the article on Clark and Mark Millers article about BOwen blowing up you will still find some way to argue how this gclass will be worse, sign aother great recruit for 2010 and it will still be worse beacuse it was only 3 deep.
Quote from: Marquette84 on April 22, 2009, 08:21:28 PM
I don't like your insinuation that Nick Williams, Tyshawn Taylor, Erik Williams Joe Fulce and Chris Otule are idiots becuase they signed (or verballed) to MU.
BTW, does this same excuse hold for Majerus? He never managed to land a player equal to Andre Miller or Keith Van Horn after getting to a final four.
I guess he didn't know how to market that succeess either.
I really think MU84 is truly dense. Here he throws out another mid major non BCS school. Maybe not mid major but not BCS and no where near the history of MU or in the BE.
MU your retarded hypothesis is all wrong...Utah went to the Final 4 for the first time since Brigham Young played becuase they had two great players...to then expect a cinderella non BCS school to repeat that is purely senseless. that is why they call them cinderellas becuase they are once in a generation and that is why big time recruits dont flock there year after year becuase they know that!! You cant do it at a non BCS type school. To use that as an excuse why a coach at a BE program with all the advantages tom Crean had is terribly off base.
next week Mu84 will argue all the reasons the New york Yankees cannot be expected to win Pennent.
coo koo
Im gonna have to side with hayward on this topic.
plus idk how if your not Duke, UNC, or Kansas why someone would think we could have a top recruiting class year after year, its makes no sense. The final four did not hurt us, the person who did the recruiting hurt us. To think making the FF hurt our recruiting is ridiculous
Quote from: 4everwarriors on April 22, 2009, 07:12:56 PM
Lens Baby,
"Hayward, PRN, DKCL, 4Ever & EAT. We stick together!"
You sure about EAT? Otherwise we all be brothers.
ZFB DBA EAT loves us.
Also Murff is dead on. I've seen this in business where one client is always name dropped and other clients eventually just want to hear about themselves. Everyone has an ego, especially top athletes, at the end of the day their affinity for an NBA star takes 2nd place to their belief in their own abilities.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on April 22, 2009, 08:35:25 PM
I really think MU84 is truly dense. Here he throws out another mid major non BCS school. Maybe not mid major but not BCS and no where near the history of MU or in the BE.
MU your retarded hypothesis is all wrong...Utah went to the Final 4 for the first time since Brigham Young played becuase they had two great players...to then expect a cinderella non BCS school to repeat that is purely senseless. that is why they call them cinderellas becuase they are once in a generation and that is why big time recruits dont flock there year after year becuase they know that!! You cant do it at a non BCS type school. To use that as an excuse why a coach at a BE program with all the advantages tom Crean had is terribly off base.
next week Mu84 will argue all the reasons the New york Yankees cannot be expected to win Pennent.
coo koo
You know, Hayward, here's the most pathetic thing about you:
YOU DON"T EVEN KNOW WHAT CONFERENCE WE WERE IN IN 2003!!!
You are OBVIOUSLY not a Marquette fan--true Marquette fans know that our first season in the Big East didn't occur until 2006.
Instead, every disadvantage you apply to Utah applies equally to Marquette:
***.Utah went to the Final 4 for the first time since Brigham Young played
And the last time MU went to the Final 4 was about the time Gerald Ford was handing power to Jimmy Carter.
***becuase they had two great players
And so did MU. Three if you count Novak.
***.to then expect a cinderella
Which is exactly what MU was called in 2003.
***non BCS school.
Conference USA was about as "non-BCS as you can get.
***to repeat that is purely senseless.
So why are you so upset with MU's post-2003 performance?
*** that is why they call them cinderellas becuase they are once in a generation
1977 to 2003: 26 years--almost exactly one generation had passed since MU's last final 4.
****and that is why big time recruits dont flock there year after year becuase they know that!!
And yet, you ripped on Crean incessantly for the 2003 recruiting class, even though you admit that big time recruits don't flock to cinderella, once-in-a-generation, non-BCS schools.
*** To use that as an excuse why a coach at a BE program with all the advantages tom Crean had is terribly off base.
MU was not a BE program
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on April 22, 2009, 08:29:24 PM
truly great recruiters like Kevin Oneill sold a program that had nothing and signed 4 good classes in a row that produced as many NBA players in 4 years as Crean got in 9, Oneil did this with the old gym and the MCC!! He could sell ice to an eskimo!!
Can't let these mistakes go:
First, O'Neill coached MU for five seasons--not four.
Second, MU was in the Great Midwest for 3 of O'Neill's 5 seasons (60%)
Crean only had the Big East for 3 of his 9 seasons (33%)
Third, it's a bit premature to conclude that Crean had the same number of NBA players as O'Neill. McNeal, Matthews, James, and Hayward have NBA possibilities.
Quote from: Marquette84 on April 22, 2009, 03:13:04 PM
Yes, because we all know that consistency that O'Neill, Deane and Buzz have shown in landing Chicago area recruits. Wisconsin recruits as well, for that matter.
When after Kevin O'Neill landed the first wave of Key, McIlvane and Logterman, Craig Aamont and Shannon Smith, how many Wisconsin players did he land? How many illinois players?
Lets see. We had Shane Littles from GA, Zach McCall from MA, Dwyane Streeter and Amal McCaskill from the St. Louis area, Abel Joseph from Canada, Faisal Abraham from the Virgin Islands, Chris Crawford from Michigan, Aaron Hutchins from Ohio.
Doesn't look like a deep roster from Chicago.
Amal McCaskill was from Chicago. As was William Gates. And Charles Brakes. Ronald Curry was from the Bloomington/Normal area. O'Neill did just fine with Illinois players.
I'm not one who believes MU must focus its recruiting on Illinois and Wisconsin in order to succeed, but the fact of the matter is O'Neill did seem to do that. By my count, of the 23 scholarship players he brought to Marquette, 12 of them were from Wisconsin or Illinois (Stewart, Zavada, Brakes, Key, McIlvaine, Logtermann, Curry, McCasskill, Gates, Smith, Streater, Pieper) .
Quote from: Pakuni on April 22, 2009, 09:38:41 PM
Amal McCaskill was from Chicago. As was William Gates. And Charles Brakes. Ronald Curry was from the Bloomington/Normal area. O'Neill did just fine with Illinois players.
I'm not one who believes MU must focus its recruiting on Illinois and Wisconsin in order to succeed, but the fact of the matter is O'Neill did seem to do that. By my count, of the 23 scholarship players he brought to Marquette, 12 of them were from Wisconsin or Illinois (Stewart, Zavada, Brakes, Key, McIlvaine, Logtermann, Curry, McCasskill, Gates, Smith, Streater, Pieper) .
I'd consider Brakes and Curry part of the first group of recruits--and I think its a stretch to include Bloomington as part of "Chicago."
I stand corrected on McCaskill.
Meanwhile, of the 12 players from Wisconsin or Illinois, only one of them (Pieper) was from his final two recruiting classes.
I think you'd agree that there was a shift away from Wisconsin and Illinois later in O'Neill's tenure. Whether it was intentional on O'Neill's part, or a reaction of the local community, I only post that observation to counter the comment that a shift of recruiting focus away from Illinois was a a sign of poor recruiting by one particular coach.
Rather, a shift to a national recruiting base is something that MU coaches have worked for 20+ years.
Quote from: The Lens on April 22, 2009, 02:57:08 PM
1) TC has a little more margin for error at a state school that is also one of the top 6 jobs in America. Heck even Bo Ryan can p!ss off a WI HS hoops coach or too and not feel the ramifications. At MU, you can't do that, from what I've heard, TC did. That all being said, if laying money, I would go on the he'll be fired in 5-6 years side.
Now it's 5-6 years? A few months ago you said 4-5 years....are you getting soft in your old age? ;)
Quote from: Marquette84 on April 22, 2009, 11:17:00 PM
I'd consider Brakes and Curry part of the first group of recruits--and I think its a stretch to include Bloomington as part of "Chicago."
Huh? Where did I say Bloomington/Normal was part of Chicago?
Read again:
" Ronald Curry was from the Bloomington/Normal area. O'Neill did just fine with
Illinois players."
This was in response to your question:
"How many
illinois players?"
Quote from: Pakuni on April 22, 2009, 09:38:41 PM
Amal McCaskill was from Chicago. As was William Gates. And Charles Brakes. Ronald Curry was from the Bloomington/Normal area. O'Neill did just fine with Illinois players.
I'm not one who believes MU must focus its recruiting on Illinois and Wisconsin in order to succeed, but the fact of the matter is O'Neill did seem to do that. By my count, of the 23 scholarship players he brought to Marquette, 12 of them were from Wisconsin or Illinois (Stewart, Zavada, Brakes, Key, McIlvaine, Logtermann, Curry, McCasskill, Gates, Smith, Streater, Pieper) .
McCasskill was a throw in player essentially in a package deal. Let's also not forget, as so many here do, that UW-Madison was an absolute joke for 50+ years until they finally made the NCAAs in 1994. So picking up Key, Logterman, MacIlvaine, Pieper and others were a LOT easier back then because there was no competition in state. Illinois was also on a slide when 1990 rolled around. The 1990-91 season was the last in which they won 20 games for 5 years...including two years while KO was at MU where the Illini didn't make any tournament at all. The competition for Wisconsin and Illinois players was much different than it has been the last decade.
Quote from: Marquette84 on April 22, 2009, 08:21:28 PM
I don't like your insinuation that Nick Williams, Tyshawn Taylor, Erik Williams Joe Fulce and Chris Otule are idiots becuase they signed (or verballed) to MU.
BTW, does this same excuse hold for Majerus? He never managed to land a player equal to Andre Miller or Keith Van Horn after getting to a final four.
I guess he didn't know how to market that succeess either.
Nick Williams signed because of Crean having coached D Wade and already has become disillusioned and has left Crean after only one year----so that Wade bond wasn't very strong at all. Crean brought D Wade to Madness in October 2007 to recruit Schmpert, but instead came away with Erik Williams-----we'll see how that works out.
Taylor didn't sign because Crean coached Wade or he would have followed him to Indiana-----ditto for Fulce and Otule.
I think Rick's problem at Utah in the last few years was health-----didn't have the same energy level-----Rick never was a great recruiter-----his forte is developing players.
BTW-----Final 4s didn't seem to bother programs with great recruiters like Memphis, UCONN, Kansas, UCLA, UNC, Duke, etc------along with generally having to have very good players to reach the final 4 you also have to have some good fortune as well!
Quote from: Pakuni on April 23, 2009, 12:39:16 AM
Huh? Where did I say Bloomington/Normal was part of Chicago?
Read again:
" Ronald Curry was from the Bloomington/Normal area. O'Neill did just fine with Illinois players."
This was in response to your question:
"How many illinois players?"
Whatever.
It hardly changes the fact that O'Neill's recruiting changed significantly later in his tenure.
I think you're just looking for ways to disagree.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on April 22, 2009, 07:44:16 PM
Without Wade it's still likely that TC would no longer be at Marquette, but it would not be by his choice.
Oh c'mon.
Hyperbole at it's finest.
Even before Wade started a game (and everybody saw how good he was) Crean had already landed
- Diener (future NBA player)
- Merrit (one of the higher ranked recruits MU had seen in a while)
- Blankson (very good college player)
- Sanders (good role player)
- and was close to landing Steve Novak (future NBA player) (not sure when Steve verbaled).
Wade certainly has helped Crean a ton... but to think that Crean would have been fired without him is one of the dumber things I've read.
Even without Wade, that's still a pretty good selection of talent that would have been better than anything MU had seen since 94. Certainly Crean would have been solid enough to not get fired (especially coming off of Deane).
Guys, don't let your dislike of the guy cloud your judgment of his ability to coach college basketball.
Quote from: Murffieus on April 23, 2009, 05:46:56 AM
BTW-----Final 4s didn't seem to bother programs with great recruiters like Memphis, UCONN, Kansas, UCLA, UNC, Duke, etc------along with generally having to have very good players to reach the final 4 you also have to have some good fortune as well!
Well this is the point, isn't it? Marquette isn't a Duke or UNC or UCLA-type program. Marquette was a stepping stone program, unable to hold onto a coach.
Those type of schools can reload. Marquette wasn't in that situation in 2003.
--We were non-BCS school.
--The conference we DID play in was not perceived highly by our own fans, no less possible recruits.
--26 years between final four appearances.
--coach in his 5th year, where the average coaching tenure over the previous generation was just over 4 years.
That doesn't quite fit Duke or UNC, does it?
But as I say----the reason Crean didn't "reload" after the final 4 was because he showcased Wade's abilities rather than his own!
If I'm being recruited I want to know how and what a coach /school is going to do for ME to get to the NBA-----not what he did for someone who had extraordinary largely unduplicable abilities in the first place!
Quote from: Murffieus on April 23, 2009, 08:37:00 AM
But as I say----the reason Crean didn't "reload" after the final 4 was because he showcased Wade's abilities rather than his own!
If I'm being recruited I want to know how and what a coach /school is going to do for ME to get to the NBA-----not what he did for someone who had extraordinary largely on duplicable abilities in the first place!
Didn't Wade, himself, say Crean was a great coach? Diener as well? So if those guys are saying that, then it's an endorsement for additional recruiting. In other words, certainly he's selling Wade's abilities, but Wade is selling Crean's as well. Wade was a better player when he left then when he came. So was Diener, Novak and many others.
Quote from: Marquette84 on April 22, 2009, 09:09:19 PM
You know, Hayward, here's the most pathetic thing about you:
YOU DON"T EVEN KNOW WHAT CONFERENCE WE WERE IN IN 2003!!!
You are OBVIOUSLY not a Marquette fan--true Marquette fans know that our first season in the Big East didn't occur until 2006.
Instead, every disadvantage you apply to Utah applies equally to Marquette:
***.Utah went to the Final 4 for the first time since Brigham Young played
And the last time MU went to the Final 4 was about the time Gerald Ford was handing power to Jimmy Carter.
***becuase they had two great players
And so did MU. Three if you count Novak.
***.to then expect a cinderella
Which is exactly what MU was called in 2003.
***non BCS school.
Conference USA was about as "non-BCS as you can get.
***to repeat that is purely senseless.
So why are you so upset with MU's post-2003 performance?
*** that is why they call them cinderellas becuase they are once in a generation
1977 to 2003: 26 years--almost exactly one generation had passed since MU's last final 4.
****and that is why big time recruits dont flock there year after year becuase they know that!!
And yet, you ripped on Crean incessantly for the 2003 recruiting class, even though you admit that big time recruits don't flock to cinderella, once-in-a-generation, non-BCS schools.
*** To use that as an excuse why a coach at a BE program with all the advantages tom Crean had is terribly off base.
MU was not a BE program
MU 84 your defense and hypothesis to defend Creans recruiting is simply pathetic....i do know what year Mu joined the BE...
let me ask this why do you keep referring to recruitng during and before 2003.
Explain his recruitng classes 2004 thru 2008. they were simply horrendous, apart from Hayward and Mbakwe i think a legitiamate argumane tcan be made that we simply should not have offered a single one of those other kids. And all those kids knew they were signing with a final 4 coach, to play in the BE, Dwade etc at the BC and at the Al.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on April 23, 2009, 10:10:44 AM
MU 84 your defense and hypothesis to defend Creans recruiting is simply pathetic....i do know what year Mu joined the BE...
let me ask this why do you keep referring to recruitng during and before 2003.
Explain his recruitng classes 2004 thru 2008. they were simply horrendous, apart from Hayward and Mbakwe i think a legitiamate argumane tcan be made that we simply should not have offered a single one of those other kids. And all those kids knew they were signing with a final 4 coach, to play in the BE, Dwade etc at the BC and at the Al.
Yeah the class of DJ, 'Rel, and Matthews = simply horrendous and should not have been offered. :o
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 23, 2009, 09:44:02 AM
Didn't Wade, himself, say Crean was a great coach? Diener as well? So if those guys are saying that, then it's an endorsement for additional recruiting. In other words, certainly he's selling Wade's abilities, but Wade is selling Crean's as well. Wade was a better player when he left then when he came. So was Diener, Novak and many others.
Wade's improvement at MU pales in comparison to the strides he's made since he went to the NBA. The 5th player taken in the 2003 draft, he is now one of the top 3 players in the world, the best to come out of the college ranks since Shaq. He'll likely go down as one of 20 best in NBA history, light years ahead of where he projected based on his play at MU. That's on Wade (and maybe a little Riley) not TC.
Quote from: reinko on April 23, 2009, 10:30:18 AM
Yeah the class of DJ, 'Rel, and Matthews = simply horrendous and should not have been offered. :o
I have acknowledged Crean signed two good classes I am referring to the classes he signed since we annouced the BE deal sans the on good class he signed in those periods. Sad thing is he wasted those three simply a criminal waste of those three byt signeing Horizon level classes year after year despite all of the luxuires of a BE BCS program. To try to imagine what type of classes oneil would have signed with those luxuries is mind blowing hard to imagine...oh wait no it;s not Buzz just did it. ANd like Oneill is following it up with another outstanding class.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on April 23, 2009, 10:42:51 AM
Wade's improvement at MU pales in comparison to the strides he's made since he went to the NBA. The 5th player taken in the 2003 draft, he is now one of the top 3 players in the world, the best to come out of the college ranks since Shaq. He'll likely go down as one of 20 best in NBA history, light years ahead of where he projected based on his play at MU. That's on Wade (and maybe a little Riley) not TC.
Well of course. At MU or any NCAA school, you're limited to practice time each week. In the NBA, you do nothing but play basketball 24/7. By the comparison you are using, Michael Jordan excelled tremendously when he left North Carolina so does that make Dean Smith a lousy coach? I can't think of an elite player in the NBA that isn't better or significantly better in the NBA then he was in college.
Almost every player gets better individually when they go to the NBA because that is their sole focus on life.
By the way, this image that I see everyday is absolutely beautiful
(http://i44.tinypic.com/2eoyyp3.gif)
(http://i44.tinypic.com/2eoyyp3.gif)
(http://i44.tinypic.com/2eoyyp3.gif)
(http://i44.tinypic.com/2eoyyp3.gif)
Quote from: Lennys Tap on April 23, 2009, 10:42:51 AM
Wade's improvement at MU pales in comparison to the strides he's made since he went to the NBA. The 5th player taken in the 2003 draft, he is now one of the top 3 players in the world, the best to come out of the college ranks since Shaq. He'll likely go down as one of 20 best in NBA history, light years ahead of where he projected based on his play at MU. That's on Wade (and maybe a little Riley) not TC.
C'mon Lenny.
Crean is not perfect, but to say he didn't help Wade develop at all is almost as stupid as your last comment.
I mean, by your logic, every player who exceeds expectations (ie draft position) in the NBA must have had a crappy college coach that didn't develop that player.
That's ridiculous. Just stop and think about it for a second.
For the 1,000 time. I get that coach Crean rubbed some people the wrong way, but the conclusions some of you jump to in an effort to discredit him are illogical.
Was the original argument that success in the torunament is bad for recruiting at Marquette (and other schools not named Kentucky, Kansas, NC, Duke, UCLA, and Indiana) because of the negative recruiting by other schools saying your coach is going to leave?
MU84, are you saying that is the primary factor why Coach Crean could not land a decent class immediately following the 03 Final Four?
Quote from: 2002mualum on April 23, 2009, 08:25:01 AM
Oh c'mon.
Hyperbole at it's finest.
Even before Wade started a game (and everybody saw how good he was) Crean had already landed
- Diener (future NBA player)
- Merrit (one of the higher ranked recruits MU had seen in a while)
- Blankson (very good college player)
- Sanders (good role player)
- and was close to landing Steve Novak (future NBA player) (not sure when Steve verbaled).
Wade certainly has helped Crean a ton... but to think that Crean would have been fired without him is one of the dumber things I've read.
Even without Wade, that's still a pretty good selection of talent that would have been better than anything MU had seen since 94. Certainly Crean would have been solid enough to not get fired (especially coming off of Deane).
Guys, don't let your dislike of the guy cloud your judgment of his ability to coach college basketball.
Crean's record in his first 4 years at MU without Wade was 68-52. His Conference USA record was 32-32, with no NCAA tournament bids and 3 NIT bids (2-3 record with home court wins vs. Toledo and Boise St. and losses at home to Xavier and W. Michigan and at Iowa St.) With Wade, MU was 26-7 and 27-6 including a 1st round NCAA loss and a final 4. Without Wade I think it's fair to say that those teams are in the 20-11 range, borderline NCAA/NIT teams.
That would make TC 108-74 through 6 seasons and with little or no postseason success. When year 6 concluded with a 19-12 record, including a 7-9 CUSA slate, 1st round elimination in the CUSA tourney and a 1st round home court annihilation at the hands of Western Michigan, I'd say there's a good chance TC would have been let go. If you think that's one of the dumber things you've ever read so be it.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 23, 2009, 11:12:09 AM
Well of course. At MU or any NCAA school, you're limited to practice time each week. In the NBA, you do nothing but play basketball 24/7. By the comparison you are using, Michael Jordan excelled tremendously when he left North Carolina so does that make Dean Smith a lousy coach? I can't think of an elite player in the NBA that isn't better or significantly better in the NBA then he was in college.
Almost every player gets better individually when they go to the NBA because that is their sole focus on life.
Of course they get better. But Wade got WAY BETTER, beyond the bell curve better. The same is true for Jordan. I never said Dean Smith was a lousy coach, but MJ was going to become MJ regardless of what school he attended. Same with Wade.
Quote from: indeelaw90 on April 23, 2009, 11:32:52 AM
Was the original argument that success in the torunament is bad for recruiting at Marquette (and other schools not named Kentucky, Kansas, NC, Duke, UCLA, and Indiana) because of the negative recruiting by other schools saying your coach is going to leave?
MU84, are you saying that is the primary factor why Coach Crean could not land a decent class immediately following the 03 Final Four?
In following this thread, I think his argument is that once we got to the Final Four, rumors were rampant in the media and by other coaches that Crean would leave soon (just like every other MU coach in the previous 20 years). That doesn't help recruiting. Going to a Final Four, IMO, helps the school and can help the coach DEPENDING on what school we're talking about. For Duke, UNC, UCLA, etc coaches don't leave those programs and as such those Final Fours just keep on helping.
But I think MU84's point is (he can correct me if I'm wrong), that when you accomplish this at a school that had only one Sweet 16 the previous 25 years, well it becomes conventional wisdom that the guy is leaving any second now and that hampers recruiting MORE than the benefit of getting to the Final Four. At least that's how I interpret his comments.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on April 23, 2009, 11:33:23 AM
Crean's record in his first 4 years at MU without Wade was 68-52. His Conference USA record was 32-32, with no NCAA tournament bids and 3 NIT bids (2-3 record with home court wins vs. Toledo and Boise St. and losses at home to Xavier and W. Michigan and at Iowa St.) With Wade, MU was 26-7 and 27-6 including a 1st round NCAA loss and a final 4. Without Wade I think it's fair to say that those teams are in the 20-11 range, borderline NCAA/NIT teams.
That would make TC 108-74 through 6 seasons and with little or no postseason success. When year 6 concluded with a 19-12 record, including a 7-9 CUSA slate, 1st round elimination in the CUSA tourney and a 1st round home court annihilation at the hands of Western Michigan, I'd say there's a good chance TC would have been let go. If you think that's one of the dumber things you've ever read so be it.
What kind of team did Mike Deane hand over to Crean to muddy that record? If I recall, it was a team that had a losing record, couldn't even make the NIT and the one recruit coming in was a guy named Krunti Hester who ended averaging about 7 points a game at Lamar.
So as much as you are assigning Wade for the success of the program you are equally ignoring what an inexperienced and realitvely untalented team he inherited. Seems like you are cherry picking only one side of the reality to make your case.
I'm also keep forgetting, who landed Wade? I always thought the coach that lands the recruits gets credit for such achievement? Yet with some of you that doesn't apply to Crean. Instead it's "he won the lottery" exception. I suppose I don't understand the double standard at play? Didn't Buzz "win the lottery" with Maymon because the school he wanted to go to (Wisconsin) was not interested with him and didn't bother to offer? Or does the "luck" only apply to one coach?
I'll tell you what, I'm glad Buzz got that break with Maymon and I'm glad Crean got that break with Wade. Either way, at the end of the day they landed those players and they get the credit for that....INCLUDING any success on the basketball court that followed as a result of landing said players. Recruiting, afterall, is a huge part of coaching at the collegiate ranks (that's why we hired Crean and that's why we hired Buzz)
Quote from: 2002mualum on April 23, 2009, 11:29:28 AM
C'mon Lenny.
Crean is not perfect, but to say he didn't help Wade develop at all is almost as stupid as your last comment.
I mean, by your logic, every player who exceeds expectations (ie draft position) in the NBA must have had a crappy college coach that didn't develop that player.
That's ridiculous. Just stop and think about it for a second.
For the 1,000 time. I get that coach Crean rubbed some people the wrong way, but the conclusions some of you jump to in an effort to discredit him are illogical.
First of all, please read and try to comprehend my posts before you respond. Nowhere do I say that TC "didn't help Wade develop at all".
Second, you make up stuff and try to pass it off as "my logic".
Third, for the 1,000th time, I'm not "jumping to conclusions" in an effort to discredit TC. He never rubbed me at all, let alone the wrong way. I just happen to believe that if DWade had never met TC he'd still be an NBA superstar and that if TC had never met DWade he would not be at Indiana (and maybe not at Marquette)
Fourth, acting in a condescending manner towards opinions you either disagree with or misinterpret is unseemly. It might surprise you to know that I find your postings less than illuminating but I would never call you stupid even if the shoe fit.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on April 23, 2009, 12:23:29 PM
I just happen to believe that if DWade had never met TC he'd still be an NBA superstar and that if TC had never met DWade he would not be at Indiana (and maybe not at Marquette)
I completely agree with this.
Does anyone have any evidence showing where Crean lost a PF/Center Recruit because the recruit thought Crean was going to jump ship?
Of course it would have nothing to do that Crean's offense was guard oriented.
in fact he would probably be at a place like Wagner. Apart from DWade can you really argue Crean was any better than Deane.
I will give him the area of marketing himself...but in the area of basketball coaching was Crean really any better than Deane sans Wade maybe just a little.
Meanwhile MU84 continues to blame guys like Berkowitz, Blackledge, lott, Kinsella, Hazell, etc on our BE confernce affiliation and the Final four. WOW!!
Quote from: indeelaw90 on April 23, 2009, 12:35:20 PM
Does anyone have any evidence showing where Crean lost a PF/Center Recruit because the recruit thought Crean was going to jump ship?
Of course it would have nothing to do that Crean's offense was guard oriented.
Take it one further witht he no DWade scenario, if rober t JAckson does not have the carpet pulled out from under him and is not from Milwaukee how good are we in that year take away 2002 and 2003 with out a Dwade and rober t Jackson and we are a 4-6 year NIT program and Crean is probably fired. Crean got hit by lightning...his inabilities will bear out at Indiana and he will be coaching Western Kentucky within 5 years.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on April 23, 2009, 12:27:18 PM
I completely agree with this.
Life is all about timing, no exception with coaching. Lenny might be dead on right about this. But with most young coaches who fail or succeed, you can usually tie it back to a great recruit or great break that launches them. For Crean it was Wade. For Buzz, it might be taking over a stacked team his first year.
Timing is everything. I just don't understand why we penalize Crean for "lucking out" or his timing yet we give other guys a free pass? Seems odd and a double standard to me. As far as I'm concerned, whomever is the MU coach I hope the luck \ breaks continue.
Quote from: indeelaw90 on April 23, 2009, 12:35:20 PM
Does anyone have any evidence showing where Crean lost a PF/Center Recruit because the recruit thought Crean was going to jump ship?
Of course it would have nothing to do that Crean's offense was guard oriented.
Early in his tenure, his offense was not guard oriented. He went that direction after failing to land some of the big men that we kept finishing second to in the recruiting battles. But I don't see how anyone can say we were a guard oriented team that first 4 years...we had size, post up players, etc.
And how would one come up with this evidence? Is there a website that breaks down the true reasons why a player chooses one school / coach that is unfiltered and has the true reasons? I don't think so. It's typically the same standard "I liked all the programs, they're all great schools, I just felt the most comfortable playing for XYZ coach"
Maybe we can start a waterboarding post recruit commitment interrogation seminar to find out why someone went where they went. ;) Were they negatively recruited, what was really promised to them to come to a certain school, how hot the girls were, etc. That could be fun.
not sure what is sadder with chicos his comments or that he actually beleives them?
But with most young coaches who fail or succeed, you can usually tie it back to a great recruit or great break that launches them. For Crean it was Wade. For Buzz, it might be taking over a stacked team his first year.
Sorry there Chicos but Buzz as everyone especially you have said Buzz will not be judged by this year. he will ultimately be judged by more of what he does, he has started by recruiting the #1 class in the nation. Buzz does not need your back handed complimnts...and by stacked do you mean no BE caliber player over 6'5"?
or this one....Early in his tenure, his offense was not guard oriented.
Chicos are you really this dumb? i guess Brian Wardle and John cliff being basically our entire offense constitutes not being guard oreintated early in his tenure. boy you are a baffoon.
Well, you're basically saying MU84 is full of beans, since there is no proof to show that a recruit actually chose another school for this sole reason. There are alot of reasons why a kid chooses a school (just call me Mr Obvious, here). I would argue the negative recruiting by another coach saying Crean was leaving would be waay down the list of why he did not pick Marquette. After all, Crean would just have to tell the kid "Recruit X, I am staying at Marquette for a long time, my contract runs thorugh 2015, don't listen to that Grinch looking MF'er"
Other reasons:
Playing Time
Style of Offense
The ability to showcase me, get me to the NBA
Climate
Academics
Signing Bonus
Hey, I like Crean, and still run into him occasionally. He has always treated me nicely. But saying the Final Four/Coaching Carousel rumors was the primary source of recruiting drop is just comical.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on April 23, 2009, 12:23:29 PM
First of all, please read and try to comprehend my posts before you respond. Nowhere do I say that TC "didn't help Wade develop at all".
"He'll likely go down as one of 20 best in NBA history, light years ahead of where he projected based on his play at MU. That's on Wade (and maybe a little Riley) not TC."
I apologize if this wasn't you saying Crean didn't help wade develop, but how else am I supposed to interpret that?
Second, you make up stuff and try to pass it off as "my logic".
Third, for the 1,000th time, I'm not "jumping to conclusions" in an effort to discredit TC. He never rubbed me at all, let alone the wrong way. I just happen to believe that if DWade had never met TC he'd still be an NBA superstar and that if TC had never met DWade he would not be at Indiana (and maybe not at Marquette)
ok, well, I won't get into the semantics of it all, but in a previous post you didn't say "maybe" TC wouldn't be at MU, but that "Without Wade it's still likely that TC would no longer be at Marquette, but it would not be by his choice."[/color]
I don't want to argue about "likely" vs "maybe"... *shrug* but they mean different things to me. We can agree to disagree.
I have no idea if Crean would have been great without Wade, but you've made a bold statement that TC likely would have been fired if he didn't get Wade. I just think that's a HUGE conclusion to jump to given the amount of other talented players Crean had besides Wade.
Fourth, acting in a condescending manner towards opinions you either disagree with or misinterpret is unseemly. It might surprise you to know that I find your postings less than illuminating but I would never call you stupid even if the shoe fit.
Fine.
Quote from: indeelaw90 on April 23, 2009, 01:00:34 PM
Well, you're basically saying MU84 is full of beans, since there is no proof to show that a recruit actually chose another school for this sole reason. There are alot of reasons why a kid chooses a school (just call me Mr Obvious, here). I would argue the negative recruiting by another coach saying Crean was leaving would be waay down the list of why he did not pick Marquette. After all, Crean would just have to tell the kid "Recruit X, I am staying at Marquette for a long time, my contract runs thorugh 2015, don't listen to that Grinch looking MF'er"
Other reasons:
Playing Time
Style of Offense
The ability to showcase me, get me to the NBA
Climate
Academics
Signing Bonus
Hey, I like Crean, and still run into him occasionally. He has always treated me nicely. But saying the Final Four/Coaching Carousel rumors was the primary source of recruiting drop is just comical.
I didn't say I endorsed his idea, I said I think this is what he's saying. I do believe the rumors don't help. The Final Four should help conceptually, but then again that's up for debate as he's shown. Has George Mason benefitted? UCLA went to three straight Final Fours and sucked ass this year, shouldn't they have benefitted from the last several? As you pointed out, there are number of factors one chooses a school or coach just as there are a number of factors into what benefits a school. He brings up an interesting point, however, that success at a non-BCS school that had clearly become a stepping stone school could lead to thoughts by players that the coach was not long for this locale.
I guess the question back to you would be, if you were a player and wanted to play for a coach but felt the likelihood of him leaving was greater due to his recent success, would it impact your decision? My guess is that it would, maybe you disagree.
I believe many, if not most, of these kids sign up to play for a specific coach, not the school. As a result, if the coach is portrayed to have one foot out the door because of the success he had at a "smaller, stepping stone" school (which we clearly were at the time) I don't see how those rumors help in recruiting. I believe that's what MU84 is trying to say, but I could be wrong.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 23, 2009, 01:14:45 PM
II guess the question back to you would be, if you were a player and wanted to play for a coach but felt the likelihood of him leaving was greater due to his recent success, would it impact your decision? My guess is that it would, maybe you disagree.
I would ask the Coach point blank, and if I did not get a good feel from his answer, it would give me second thoughts...but then again If I didn't trust the coach, I wouldn't play for him anyway.
I guess neither side is going to convince either side (not saying you are on one side or another). I just feel the reason for Crean not landing a big man had very little to do with the rumors of Crean leaving, and a lot to do with the style of Offense Crean ran.
Quote from: 2002mualum on April 23, 2009, 01:06:28 PM
2002mualum,
You conveniently omitted the first sentence in my post-"Wades IMPROVEMENT at MU pales IN COMPARISON to the strides he made since he went to the NBA". Tranlation: While Wade improved (developed) under TC at MU, he made a quantum, off the charts leap AFTER he left MU. He (and to a lesser extent, Riley) gets credit for that, not TC.
You "have no idea if Crean would have been great without Wade". I do. Look at his numbers without Wade. They were anything but great.
I concede your point on the likely/possible issue. I'll restate: Without Wade, there is NO chance TC is at IU. There is a good possibility (50-50 maybe) he would be gone from MU, but not of his own choosing. Just look at his first 4 years at MU without DW and guesstimate what 2001-2 and 2002-3 would have been without DW. At best TC would have entered year 7 on the hot seat - Quite possibly wouldn't have made it.
Look, I've lost all respect for TC, but we've been the third-most successful team in the Big East since we joined, and it's all been due to Crean recruits.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on April 23, 2009, 02:19:49 PM
2002mualum,
You conveniently omitted the first sentence in my post-"Wades IMPROVEMENT at MU pales IN COMPARISON to the strides he made since he went to the NBA". Tranlation: While Wade improved (developed) under TC at MU, he made a quantum, off the charts leap AFTER he left MU. He (and to a lesser extent, Riley) gets credit for that, not TC.
You "have no idea if Crean would have been great without Wade". I do. Look at his numbers without Wade. They were anything but great.
I concede your point on the likely/possible issue. I'll restate: Without Wade, there is NO chance TC is at IU. There is a good possibility (50-50 maybe) he would be gone from MU, but not of his own choosing. Just look at his first 4 years at MU without DW and guesstimate what 2001-2 and 2002-3 would have been without DW. At best TC would have entered year 7 on the hot seat - Quite possibly wouldn't have made it.
Fair enough on your first point. I still think Crean deserves some credit for helping Wade along, but we can agree to disagree.
As far as Crean without Wade, here is where I'm coming from:
Crean landed the following recruits before Wade ever played a min.:
Blankson
Merrit
Diener
Townsend
Sanders
He was close to signing:
Novak
Chapman
Karon Bradley
Now, I will not say that this is a national championship team. BUT, I will say that even without Wade, this team would have been competitive in 2003 and 2004 especially if Blankson is there (which, without Wade is entirely possible).
I know you are looking at records before and after Wade, but I think you have to look at the projected team in the years when Wade actually played because several of the other players were in their peak years as well (Henry, Harris, Nnamaka, and then you have Blankson as a Jr. and Sr. to go along with Travis as a jr. and Steve as a soph. in 2003-2004
Look, I agree that Tom Crean received a great boost in the arm from landing DW. He has been shrewd enough to capitalize on it in almost every way possible. And, you're right, without DW, Crean isn't at IU. I realize that.
However, to think that he would have been fired in a few years without Wade is quite a jump in my opinion. There were 2 NBA players coming in and some other decent role players as well. Would MU have gone to the final 4? most likely, no. Would MU have been terrible and Crean been fired? In my opinion, no. MU was still WAY better than anything Deane (just better players, look at it!) had done and MU would have given Crean a significant leash to try and prove himself. Probably would have been a slow building process rather than the rocket ship rise MU had.
Could Crean have landed McNeal, or Matthews james without Wade? Probably not all 3, but it's possible that he would have had a shot with Matthews (somewhat local kid) and McNeal (underrated Chicago kid).
Quote from: Lennys Tap on April 23, 2009, 02:19:49 PM
You "have no idea if Crean would have been great without Wade". I do. Look at his numbers without Wade. They were anything but great.
Huh? I don't recall Dwyane Wade playing 1 minute in the Big East yet I recall those TC teams finishing in the top half of the league all 4 years in the Big East (yes, Buzz coached that last year but they were Crean's players), making the NCAAs all four years and winning the 2nd or 3rd most conference games in that time period...more than UCONN, more than Syracuse, etc, etc.
Am I missing something here? Anything but great? Well, what exactly were they? Anything short of very good would be startling.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 23, 2009, 03:30:21 PM
Huh? I don't recall Dwyane Wade playing 1 minute in the Big East yet I recall those TC teams finishing in the top half of the league all 4 years in the Big East (yes, Buzz coached that last year but they were Crean's players), making the NCAAs all four years and winning the 2nd or 3rd most conference games in that time period...more than UCONN, more than Syracuse, etc, etc.
Am I missing something here? Anything but great? Well, what exactly were they? Anything short of very good would be startling.
I agree with you.
But, for the sake of argument I'm trying to paint the picture like Wade never arrived. I hesitate to use the 3 amigos as examples because it will inevitably get the response of "Crean wouldn't have gotten them without Wade".
I'm looking at players MU had already signed or was close to signing before Wade even played 1 game.
With just those players, I'm think MU would have been competitive and Crean would have been able to keep his job.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 23, 2009, 03:30:21 PM
Huh? I don't recall Dwyane Wade playing 1 minute in the Big East yet I recall those TC teams finishing in the top half of the league all 4 years in the Big East (yes, Buzz coached that last year but they were Crean's players), making the NCAAs all four years and winning the 2nd or 3rd most conference games in that time period...more than UCONN, more than Syracuse, etc, etc.
Am I missing something here? Anything but great? Well, what exactly were they? Anything short of very good would be startling.
Tom Crean's record at Marquette without DWade was 137-83 (.622). He was 1-3 (.250) in the NCAA tournament and 2-3 (.400) in the NIT. "Greatness" is a somewhat subjective term and I guess you're entitled to your opinion of what constitutes it. A little worse than Mike Deane (100-55, .655 with a better postseason record) is anything but great to me.
I do confess that I wish my old teachers' definition of greatness was similar to yours.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on April 23, 2009, 04:15:29 PM
Tom Crean's record at Marquette without DWade was 137-83 (.622). He was 1-3 (.250) in the NCAA tournament and 2-3 (.400) in the NIT. "Greatness" is a somewhat subjective term and I guess you're entitled to your opinion of what constitutes it. A little worse than Mike Deane (100-55, .655 with a better postseason record) is anything but great to me.
I do confess that I wish my old teachers' definition of greatness was similar to yours.
I think if you asked a DePaul fan if they thought going to 4 straight NCAA's would be great, they would say "yes!".
So, from where MU started (obviously not as bad as DePaul, but pretty bad), Crean's tenure was successful. Very successful in fact.
If Buzz has those same numbers, I might be a little more critical because he inherited more.
Quote from: 2002mualum on April 23, 2009, 04:32:42 PM
I think if you asked a DePaul fan if they thought going to 4 straight NCAA's would be great, they would say "yes!".
So, from where MU started (obviously not as bad as DePaul, but pretty bad), Crean's tenure was successful. Very successful in fact.
If Buzz has those same numbers, I might be a little more critical because he inherited more.
Deane's last year at MU was bad (14-15) but his overall record (100-55, 2 NCAAs and 2 NITs) was hardly the disaster that has been DePaul. In fact, it's better than TC's without Wade.
By the way, I never suggested TC wasn't "successful". For me, it's a cross country journey from successful to greatness and TC falls far short of that.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on April 23, 2009, 04:15:29 PM
Tom Crean's record at Marquette without DWade was 137-83 (.622). He was 1-3 (.250) in the NCAA tournament and 2-3 (.400) in the NIT. "Greatness" is a somewhat subjective term and I guess you're entitled to your opinion of what constitutes it. A little worse than Mike Deane (100-55, .655 with a better postseason record) is anything but great to me.
I do confess that I wish my old teachers' definition of greatness was similar to yours.
I've stated here many times that I break the season into segments. The NCAAs I break out from the regular season because it's a crapshoot of who you play, what your seed is, where you play, etc. Our NCAA records have not been great for the last 25 years with only two exceptions. 1994 when we were 2-1. And 2003 when we were 4-1. Every other year was .500 or less.
But there were many very good regular seasons (some even great). I guess it comes down to how much you value you put on each portion of the season.
But I think you're also not factoring who we played. You mentioned that Deane's overall record was better than Crean's without Wade. Well, ok, but it's like comparing oranges to garden hoses. Deane was in CUSA and not even the good version of CUSA (typically sent 3 teams to the dance in those years) Crean was in the mature CUSA that sent more teams than even the Big Ten to the dance, plus he coached those years in the Big East (which Deane never did). Shouldn't that be factored in? Are all records created equal?
And just to be clear, I don't think Crean is a great coach....though some of his former players have used those words. But he is the 2nd best coach we've had at Marquette based on results. By your comments, what you're really saying is that in all the years of MU coaches, there's only been one great coach. That's the only conclusion I can get from your comments. That may be the case. Let's assume it is, I'd argue we've had several very good coaches and would put Crean in there for a number of reasons (Final Four, Big East, NBA players, etc).
I'll settle for more very good coaches since we've only had one "great" coach in our history. ;)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 23, 2009, 09:44:02 AM
Didn't Wade, himself, say Crean was a great coach? Diener as well? So if those guys are saying that, then it's an endorsement for additional recruiting. In other words, certainly he's selling Wade's abilities, but Wade is selling Crean's as well. Wade was a better player when he left then when he came. So was Diener, Novak and many others.
Wouldn't you expect Wade and Diener to say that----i wouldn't look at that as a valid endorsement. Knowing him, Crean probably had letters and videos from/of former star players that he shoved down recruit's throats-----of course all very positive about him. The media guide was filled with Crean glorifications.
The way to handle the Wade factor IMO was to use the indirect approach only answering questions about him not offering anything about him unless asked------Crean didn't do that----he wore Wade on his sleeve.
BTW-----Endorsements from current players are always better than from former players because they are in the present.
Quote from: Murffieus on April 23, 2009, 06:13:36 PM
Wouldn't you expect Wade and Diener to say that----i wouldn't look at that as a valid endorsement. Knowing him, Crean probably had letters and videos from/of former star players that he shoved down recruit's throats-----of course all very positive about him. The media guide was filled with Crean glorifications.
The way to handle the Wade factor IMO was to use the indirect approach only answering questions about him not offering anything about him unless asked------Crean didn't do that----he wore Wade on his sleeve.
BTW-----Endorsements from current players are always better than from former players because they are in the present.
I don't agree with your last comment necessarily. There were plenty of bosses or teachers that I had who "in the present" I didn't care for or felt weren't up to snuff. It was years later that I look back and understand now what they were trying to accomplish, why they made me do what I did, etc.
Every media guide of recent vintage I've seen is a ringing endorsement of the coach, whether it's MU, Syracuse, Illinois, Wisconsin-Madison, etc. That's how it's done these days.
As for Wade and Diener's comments....I don't know what to expect from them. I suspect Crean won't use any Todd Townsend remarks....not all players like their coach, respect him, etc. It seems to me that those that stuck around and worked their tails off, more often than not benefitted. Those that left, almost all of them burned out and didn't play that well at their other institutions. That's a broad statement, I realize, but it does seem interesting to me that some of the big time transfers went to other schools and didn't do much (or had their stats slightly inflated by the weaker competition they were playing).
JD, we've only had one legendary coach, however.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on April 23, 2009, 07:21:25 PM
JD, we've only had one legendary coach, however.
;D
Actually, I'd say more than that.
Tex Winter is a legendary coach (only thing is that we didn't have him during his legendary days)
Al for sure
Type in "legendary" with Rick Majerus and see how often that comes back....maybe Legendary is just over used for coaches that lived in the state of Utah. ;)
We'll see years from now where Crean, Buzz, etc. shake out
Quote from: 4everwarriors on April 23, 2009, 07:21:25 PM
JD, we've only had one legendary coach, however.
Given that Eddie Hickey is in the Basketball Hall of Fame, I'd say we had more than one legendary coach.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 23, 2009, 07:06:11 PM
I don't agree with your last comment necessarily. There were plenty of bosses or teachers that I had who "in the present" I didn't care for or felt weren't up to snuff. It was years later that I look back and understand now what they were trying to accomplish, why they made me do what I did, etc.
Every media guide of recent vintage I've seen is a ringing endorsement of the coach, whether it's MU, Syracuse, Illinois, Wisconsin-Madison, etc. That's how it's done these days.
As for Wade and Diener's comments....I don't know what to expect from them. I suspect Crean won't use any Todd Townsend remarks....not all players like their coach, respect him, etc. It seems to me that those that stuck around and worked their tails off, more often than not benefitted. Those that left, almost all of them burned out and didn't play that well at their other institutions. That's a broad statement, I realize, but it does seem interesting to me that some of the big time transfers went to other schools and didn't do much (or had their stats slightly inflated by the weaker competition they were playing).
I believe it would be important for media guides to build up coaches who haven't accomplished anything----but for someone who has had success let the success speak for you not hype. I have always been under the persuasion that in order to be successful one should talke a different route than the crowd.
There's a difference between Diener/Wade and Townsend------the former were very successful so we know what they are going to say about their coach----in Townsends case, he left a lot on the table and won't be very enthusiastic about endorsing Crean.
BTW-----I didn't think Crean did a good job with Townsend who IMO had outstanding ability.
Quote from: Murffieus on April 24, 2009, 07:38:38 AM
I believe it would be important for media guides to build up coaches who haven't accomplished anything----but for someone who has had success let the success speak for you not hype. I have always been under the persuasion that in order to be successful one should talke a different route than the crowd.
Which is why Duke's media guide devotes 8 pages to Mike Krzysyzewski. I guess Duke is still in need of building up a coach who hasn't accomplished anything.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on April 23, 2009, 10:10:44 AM
MU 84 your defense and hypothesis to defend Creans recruiting is simply pathetic....i do know what year Mu joined the BE...
The facts suggest otherwise.
When talking about the recruting right after the final four, in two separate posts mentioned that Crean had the advantages of the Big East.
Recuriting for the 2003 and 2004 classes were over by the time the Big East annoucement came. 2003 signed in the fall of 2002 or spring of '03, and they were already two months in school. By October 23 2003, 92 of the top 100 HS recruits had made verbal commitments.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on April 23, 2009, 10:10:44 AM
let me ask this why do you keep referring to recruitng during and before 2003.
Because the 2003 and 2004 clases were those most impacted by the rumors of Crean's departure, which was largely based on getting to the final four.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on April 23, 2009, 10:10:44 AM
Explain his recruitng classes 2004 thru 2008. they were simply horrendous, apart from Hayward and Mbakwe i think a legitiamate argumane tcan be made that we simply should not have offered a single one of those other kids. And all those kids knew they were signing with a final 4 coach, to play in the BE, Dwade etc at the BC and at the Al.
That's easy to explain. You're simply wrong.
2005: James, McNeal, Mathews.
2006: Hayward
2007: Mbakwe, Christopherson
2008: Tyshawn Taylor, Nick Williams
2009: Erik Williams
I think that is a fine top 8 for 2008, and Erik Williams was a good start on 2009.
You seem to be upset about the guys who had to be recruited as two and three year backups. Care to list the point guards Crean should have recruited in 2006 instead of Aacker or Cubillan to back up James for 3 years? Care to list the wings that would be content to sit behind McNeal and Matthews?
Didn't think so.
Yeah, it would have been nice to have a quality big man in 2006--we landed Mbakwe in 2007.
I guess your argument is that those classes weren't as good as you would have liked. So what? My point is that 2005 onward were all better than 2003 and 2004, and the reason 2003 and 2004.
Your obsession with Crean blinds you from that obvious fact.
Wow Mu84 you have said some real head scrathchers but this one has to take the cake.....
That's easy to explain. You're simply wrong.
2005: James, McNeal, Mathews.
2006: Hayward
2007: Mbakwe, Christopherson
2008: Tyshawn Taylor, Nick Williams
2009: Erik Williams
I think that is a fine top 8 for 2008, and Erik Williams was a good start on 2009.
Wow that is a perfect argument for someone living in a freaking dreamworld, but since when does a team get to perform on the court with 5 recruiting classes. So to use your number you can either lop off the 2005 class or the 2009 class. That leaves you with Crean recruitng either 5 big east caliber players over 4 years or that leaves crean with recruitng 7 big east caliber players over 4 years.
Additonally let get freaking real to add Scott Chrositopherson as a BE caliber player is to simply lie to ones self he had nothing of BE caliber except for his jump shot and dribbled with his left hand like a 6 year old girl. Please that leaves crean with 4 big east caliber players or 6 depending on what recruitng class you want to eliminate.
So you are telling me that that is good!! Additionally his flaws were he recruited no height. Also, he better than anyone should have known players would leave so was he not cutting it mighty thin here? Addionally there are 13 shcolarship players on a roster. Why sign NAIA calibe rplayers with the other 9 to 7 schollies. Buzz is not resorting to that? Oneill never did that.
Bottom line Crean signed Dwade and managed to sign another good class in the 3 amigos apart form that his recruitng and bench coaching absolutely sucked despite having every resource out thaere that you want to somehow spin as a negative. I guess Buzz has out recruited crean nuts off becuase he did not have the Final 4 to hold him back. so tupid maybe he like oneil just got it done. excuses are for losers
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on April 24, 2009, 09:33:52 AM
Wow Mu84 you have said some real head scrathchers but this one has to take the cake.....
That's easy to explain. You're simply wrong.
2005: James, McNeal, Mathews.
2006: Hayward
2007: Mbakwe, Christopherson
2008: Tyshawn Taylor, Nick Williams
2009: Erik Williams
I think that is a fine top 8 for 2008, and Erik Williams was a good start on 2009.
Wow that is a perfect argument for someone living in a freaking dreamworld, but since when does a team get to perform on the court with 5 recruiting classes. So to use your number you can either lop off the 2005 class or the 2009 class.
Let me go real slow for you:
2003 and 2004 classes committed before we announced we joined the big east. Every year after that (including 2009) we were in the Big East.
We had 8 pretty good players on board for the 2008 season. We had a good head start for 2009 with Williams.
I didn't think I had to spell this out for you, but Williams was recruited to be one member of the class that would replace James, McNeal, Matthews and Burke. Just because Erik Williams couldn't play with the 2005 class doesn't mean Crean didn't recruit him!
Something else I didn't think I had to spell out, but Crean had three more scholarships to go--before any departures. While you were ready to close the book on Crean, I think we would have landed at least two more top 100 players--probably Jamil Wilson and Maurice Creek. I don't think we were out of the loop on Christan Watford, so that would have been four quality players.
So if you want to limit it to 4 years at a time, he would have recruited 8 quality players for 2005-2008; 9 for 2006-2009.
As for your conclusion on Christopherson, he was injured. It would be like declaring Fulce or Otule to be NAIA players after this past year. You claim the only thing he had was a jump shot--well we sure could have used that this year. He would have been a nice complement to James in the backcourt for his shooting touch.
once again you show your ignorance by the christopherson statemnt. playrs earn time thru there ability to defend. No way to win or play if you cannot defend. great defense creates stops and easy baskets going the other way. Scott schristopherson had a good vertical but otherwise had no where near the athleticism to play at the BE level his career will be a disappointment at ISU as he has bit off more than he can chew. He lacked BE athleticism before he ever got hurt and never had a BE handle before he got hurt. "nice compliment to james in the backcourt" are so freaking serious?....seriously....you mean taking minutes away from jerel or Wes or Butler...really ....seriously....the guy cannot even hold cubi or Ackers jock but he would be a nice compliment....i mean there are dumb comments but then there is the dumb comment encyclopdia written by MU84!!!
Mu 84 has to be Joanie or somother girl who knows nothing about bball, it must be Tommy Naismiths mother!!
Fast approaching the 20 marker.....two more to go!
(http://i39.tinypic.com/152mhok.jpg)
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on April 24, 2009, 01:47:03 PM
once again you show your ignorance by the christopherson statemnt. playrs earn time thru there ability to defend. No way to win or play if you cannot defend.
I think the only one showing ignorance is you. Christopherson was injured for most of the pre-season and first half dozen games. That affected his play significantly. As we saw with Hayward two years ago, Mbakwe last year, Fulce and Otule this year--if you miss pre-season practice, you never catch up. Judging him from the 2007 season is an exercise in futility.
You say that players earn minutes based on their ability to defend--yet Novak and Diener were not known for their defensive prowess. If, as you say, they earn time by their ability to defend, then neither would have seen a minute of play. Both saw significant minutes at MU and are playing at the next level based on their shooting--not defensive--ability.
Christopherson may have lacked BE athleticism and quickness--but so did Diener. So did Novak. He was a great player in HS, would have played a much greater role in 2007 had he been healthy, and in 2008 had he been here.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 24, 2009, 03:36:32 PM
Fast approaching the 20 marker.....two more to go!
(http://i39.tinypic.com/152mhok.jpg)
I'm a little disappointed no one has ignored The Lens...
C_B_B, thanks for the kind words yesterday...in this little internet world, it's fun to tweak but I think we know that we're all pretty much good dudes (and women, Joanie).
A little insight on Christopherson...
If he was/is? that good, then why was Iowa State article about their "resurgence" say NOTHING about Christopherson?
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090424/SPORTS05/90424059/1003/
Probably because he's not THAT good. You'd think he'd have shown them something, but they're talking about Chris Colvin in the article not SC.
Diener WAS GOOD. Scott, not close at all.
Heck, the ISU messageboard has NO CLUE about SC's game: http://www.cyclonefanatic.com/forum/mens-basketball/56275-christopherson.html
SC is, according to one poster, 'rumored to be ISU's best guard.' Wow. That says a lot about the Cyclones program.
Travis was a Top 40 recruit by a few services. He absolutely owned the AAU circuit. His rise to the NBA is not that much of a surprise based on his AAU exploits. In fact, if he was black and from a city school, his NBA career would have been a foregone conclusion. However, since he's white, it is seen as TC brought him out of the sticks of FDL and turned water into wine.
Quote from: The Lens on April 25, 2009, 12:25:15 AM
Travis was a Top 40 recruit by a few services. He absolutely owned the AAU circuit. His rise to the NBA is not that much of a surprise based on his AAU exploits. In fact, if he was black and from a city school, his NBA career would have been a foregone conclusion. However, since he's white, it is seen as TC brought him out of the sticks of FDL and turned water into wine.
Let's not forget that Wisconsin didn't offer until late (chose MU over Utah, SLU and UW-Madison). UW-Madison at first didn't think he was Big Ten tough to handle the rigors of the conference. I don't recall any draft board that had Diener on until his senior year (in other words, future mock NBA draft boards did not think he was NBA caliber).
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 25, 2009, 12:41:15 AM
Let's not forget that Wisconsin didn't offer until late (chose MU over Utah, SLU and UW-Madison). UW-Madison at first didn't think he was Big Ten tough to handle the rigors of the conference. I don't recall any draft board that had Diener on until his senior year (in other words, future mock NBA draft boards did not think he was NBA caliber).
Such are the perils of being a white kid. His resume reads of a 1st round pick. He OWNED the AAU curcuit.
Quote from: The Lens on April 24, 2009, 10:02:50 PM
I'm a little disappointed no one has ignored The Lens...
C_B_B, thanks for the kind words yesterday...in this little internet world, it's fun to tweak but I think we know that we're all pretty much good dudes (and women, Joanie).
At one point at least 23 Pollyannas had me ignored.
At the time, I think there were only 25 people on the site.
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on April 24, 2009, 11:54:22 PM
A little insight on Christopherson...
If he was/is? that good, then why was Iowa State article about their "resurgence" say NOTHING about Christopherson?
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090424/SPORTS05/90424059/1003/
Probably because he's not THAT good. You'd think he'd have shown them something, but they're talking about Chris Colvin in the article not SC.
Hmm. That's not the tune you were singing in March of 2007:
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=2622.0 (http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=2622.0)
You implied he was "Mr Versatile." Back then you said "But he CAN shoot. I wish I can say that about DJ."
Perhaps back then you were influenced by articles like this from the era:
http://www.journaltimes.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=11548 (http://www.journaltimes.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=11548)
http://marquette.scout.com/2/602928.html (http://marquette.scout.com/2/602928.html)
http://www.tomahjournal.com/articles/2006/12/11/sports/04boys.txt (http://www.tomahjournal.com/articles/2006/12/11/sports/04boys.txt)
And this one, which you actually linked to in that MU scoop I linked above
http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2007/03/16/newsupdate/2update.txt
Now you ask why if he was that good, he didn't appear in an Iowa State article--well I can counter with this: If he were THAT bad, how did he EVER get on UNC's radar?
http://home.comcast.net/~tonyhutchens/uncrecruiting.html
Here's the reason: At the time he was recruited, out of HS, he was a good player. Even YOU agreed back then--nearly everybody else did.
He was injured for pre-season practice. While you belive that any post-injury play is an accurate representation of how a player will perform for the rest of his career, I don't. I think Mbakwe has demonstrated tremendous improvement over his frehsman year. I think Fulce and Otule should not be judged on this past season, and I think Christopherson deserves to have judgement withheld until he actually plays in a season he could prepare for.
Let me ask you this: have you written off Fulce and Otule as well? Or will you give them the benefit of the doubt since they missed pre-season practice? If you give them the benefit of the doubt, why so down on Scott?
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on April 24, 2009, 11:54:22 PM
Heck, the ISU messageboard has NO CLUE about SC's game: http://www.cyclonefanatic.com/forum/mens-basketball/56275-christopherson.html
SC is, according to one poster, 'rumored to be ISU's best guard.' Wow. That says a lot about the Cyclones program.
You were pretty impressed by Scott back in 2007, as were most who posted here. Nobody said he shouldn't have been recruited, and the nearly universal sentiment was that he provided shooting which the rest of the team lacked.
Quote from: The Lens on April 25, 2009, 12:55:00 AM
Such are the perils of being a white kid. His resume reads of a 1st round pick. He OWNED the AAU curcuit.
True, I agree with you there. Where we disagree is that he was an NBA player any time before his junior year. As it was, he didn't get drafted until the second round after his Senior year. He improved each year.
Actually, I don't think his game really improved, I just think his responsibility did.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 25, 2009, 12:41:15 AM
Let's not forget that Wisconsin didn't offer until late (chose MU over Utah, SLU and UW-Madison). UW-Madison at first didn't think he was Big Ten tough to handle the rigors of the conference.
That's not true. It was spin for years that Bennett didn't offer Diener because he he was too small, when the reality is that he did offer him a scholarship early and went after him very hard, but Diener wasn't interested because of Bennett's slow down style of basketball and told him as much. UW finished fourth in his top 4, and that was only because like most northern Wisconsin kids he had an affinity for the university.