As a MU alum in Cincy wanted to get the opinion on MU vs Xavier as each program currently stands. Certainly MU more history but XU probably better recent history...
Next - thanks for driving thru
I'm not against starting a series with Xavier. Not a priority but not against it.
yeah youre right gepsguys
Refresh my memory - when was the last time XU was in the Final 4?
Seriously, Sean Miller had a nice run there, but that is over now.
Quote from: 94Warrior on June 30, 2009, 11:06:33 PM
Refresh my memory - when was the last time XU was in the Final 4?
Seriously, Sean Miller had a nice run there, but that is over now.
They were good before Miller, too. Bobinski is a good AD. They play in a competitive league but not a meat grinder. Great on campus facility and in a city that doesn't have the NBA. Xavier has a lot going for them, though Skyline chili is second rate compared to Real Chili. ;)
MU does hold a commanding head to head lead against Xavier, something like 44 to 15 or around there. I'd bet if MU was in the A-10 that MU would do similarly to what Xavier would do in the Big East, but as a result of the conferences we are in, I think Xavier sometimes gets a better seed due to an inflated record based on the competition.
Overall, Xavier has done quite well. Tip of the hat to them.
I heard one of the Xavier players was at the open gym the other day.
Quote from: mviale on June 30, 2009, 10:15:54 PM
Next - thanks for driving thru
I don't understand this response? Is this subject beneath you?
I think it's a good question. Frankly, I think Xavier has absolutely had more CONSISTENT success than MU. We keep holding up our Final Four appearance, but couldn't they follow that up by talking about our subsequent NIT bids and relative lack of NCAA success since?
As memory serves, they were in a Elite 8 recently and have had a couple of Sweet 16s.
I've always liked the Musketeers!
I think Xavier is just a step below Marquette. MU has a better history, and that is what got us into the BE, but Xavier has a very nice program that just hasn't gotten over the hump into the Final Four.
Xavier is a step above MU, based on NCAA success over the last several years.
Xavier has been a beneficiary of a relatively weak conference schedule that has enabled them to have high seeds in the NCAA tourney which in turn has given them opportunities for relatively easy paths in the first two rounds of the NCAA tourney. Because they dominate their conference they will benefit from seeding in the NCAA tourney like Memphis and Gonzaga.
While Chris Mack is a good guy, (I have known him for a long time), his recruiting ability is debatable. He may have been responsible for landing Frease, but he will be challenged to recruit the same caliber of player/athlete as Miller and Matta, especially because his AAU ties are weak and his top assistant has a pedigree too much like him (Kelsey--he should have made Book his top assistant). I also dont think he has the support of many alumni yet, despite his deep Cincinnati roots and being a Xavier alum. Accordingly I think he enters on a short leash.
By the way, I think the Cintas center is overrated--although its nice that is on campus.
Unless Xavier can break free of the A10 I see a return of Xavier to the days of Tay Baker.
Xavier made the Elite 8 in 2004 and 2008. They made the sweet sixteen last year. I'd say that's better than us. I don't care what conference they play in. Are you guys kidding?
Shouldn't the A-10 be more of a detriment to XU's efforts than a help? I thought us getting in the Big East was a good thing, I find it interesting how people use it as both a positive and a negative so they can always shape their arguements.
as an additional point of referrence on this: during MUs post TC coaching search, Sean Miller's name was mentioned, but several columnists, reporters, and people close to Xavier's program said Miller saw MU at best as a lateral move, if not a slight step down.
We definitely have the long term history- but aside from Wade's magical run- Xavier has definitely been better in the Tourney over the past 20 years.
And it wasn't just Sean Miller- Pete Gillen, Skip Prosser, Thad Matta have all had success. I have no doubt Mack will keep them a top 20 program.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on July 01, 2009, 06:27:01 AM
I don't understand this response? Is this subject beneath you?
I think it's a good question. Frankly, I think Xavier has absolutely had more CONSISTENT success than MU. We keep holding up our Final Four appearance, but couldn't they follow that up by talking about our subsequent NIT bids and relative lack of NCAA success since?
As memory serves, they were in a Elite 8 recently and have had a couple of Sweet 16s.
I've always liked the Musketeers!
Don't over think it, Mviale is being a jacka$$.
I have a lot of respect for Xavier - they've been a consistently good program for years, and as far as I know, they've been a clean program with players that do a good job representing its university. Should conferences realign, I'd hope that Marquette and Xavier would be in the same conference as they're seem to be a lot of similarities b/c the schools.
I love the Warriors, but I have to admit that the Muskateers have had a better run over the past few years than Marquette.
I will always remember that 2nd round game that Xavier had with The Ohio State University a couple of years ago. The Muskateers had that game, but then blew it. Gus Johnson was going nuts, as he always does.
Quote from: hdog1017 on July 01, 2009, 11:39:50 AM
I love the Warriors, but I have to admit that the Muskateers have had a better run over the past few years than Marquette.
I will always remember that 2nd round game that Xavier had with The Ohio State University a couple of years ago. The Muskateers had that game, but then blew it. Gus Johnson was going nuts, as he always does.
They blew it with the help of the gutless official who called a common foul on Oden instead of the obvious intentional. Reverse the jerseys and the seeds and that's an intentional every time.
Quote from: The Lens on July 01, 2009, 08:29:05 AM
Shouldn't the A-10 be more of a detriment to XU's efforts than a help? I thought us getting in the Big East was a good thing, I find it interesting how people use it as both a positive and a negative so they can always shape their arguements.
Great question, but to answer that depends on where you're coming from. Moving to the Big East was a good thing coming from CUSA. But it can also be a negative due to it's size and greatness because of the amount of losses that will pile on to your slate.
Yes, it can be both good and bad....it's not an absolute. The A-10 is great for Xavier because they load up each year and win it. CUSA for Memphis. WCC for Gonzaga. The answer is fairly simple that if you put Xavier, Memphis or Gonzaga in the Big East, they would all finish about where Marquette did. If you put Marquette in their conferences, MU would win those conferences. Yet when it came to seeding time, who got the benefits...Marquette or those other teams?
Advancing in the NCAAs is a lot about seeding. The better seed, the farther you go. When MU is getting seeds of 5 through 9 because they play in the Big East, that's are harder road then getting seeds 2 through 4.
So yes, the Big East is very good for MU considering where we came from and allowing Milwaukee to get excited about it (Milwaukee was not going to games with CUSA schools coming in), but there is the other side of the equation, too.
Quote from: robertoc on July 01, 2009, 08:44:48 AM
as an additional point of referrence on this: during MUs post TC coaching search, Sean Miller's name was mentioned, but several columnists, reporters, and people close to Xavier's program said Miller saw MU at best as a lateral move, if not a slight step down.
We definitely have the long term history- but aside from Wade's magical run- Xavier has definitely been better in the Tourney over the past 20 years.
And it wasn't just Sean Miller- Pete Gillen, Skip Prosser, Thad Matta have all had success. I have no doubt Mack will keep them a top 20 program.
Part of that is also because Miller looked at his own sweet gig, knowing who he has to face in the A-10 vs having to go through the meet grinder that is the Big East. Miller wasn't the only coach to say it's too tough a job, our AD and President mentioned that multiple candidates expressed those concerns (one has to assume that was Miller and Bennett).
No doubt the Big East is a meat grinder, but didn't two of our teams make it the Final Four with four in the Elite 8?
I believe our president and AD are both full of it on the people turning us down because it's too tough, by the way. I believe people may have used words "tough" when describing our conference, but perhaps it was something called "negotiation"...a process we seem to have difficulty with.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on July 01, 2009, 01:40:07 PM
I believe our president and AD are both full of it on the people turning us down because it's too tough, by the way.
Especially with Bennett taking the UVa job the next year. Much tougher job than MU expectation-wise.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 01, 2009, 12:42:43 PM
Great question, but to answer that depends on where you're coming from. Moving to the Big East was a good thing coming from CUSA. But it can also be a negative due to it's size and greatness because of the amount of losses that will pile on to your slate.
Yes, it can be both good and bad....it's not an absolute. The A-10 is great for Xavier because they load up each year and win it. CUSA for Memphis. WCC for Gonzaga. The answer is fairly simple that if you put Xavier, Memphis or Gonzaga in the Big East, they would all finish about where Marquette did. If you put Marquette in their conferences, MU would win those conferences. Yet when it came to seeding time, who got the benefits...Marquette or those other teams?
Advancing in the NCAAs is a lot about seeding. The better seed, the farther you go. When MU is getting seeds of 5 through 9 because they play in the Big East, that's are harder road then getting seeds 2 through 4.
So yes, the Big East is very good for MU considering where we came from and allowing Milwaukee to get excited about it (Milwaukee was not going to games with CUSA schools coming in), but there is the other side of the equation, too.
Dayton beat us pretty good last year and they are in the A-10. I do not think we would have won the A-10.
After that Dayton game, I recall some on this board dismissing it as "one of those games." If you ask me, they were just a better team than we were last year.
Quote from: bilsu on July 01, 2009, 01:47:20 PM
Dayton beat us pretty good last year and they are in the A-10. I do not think we would have won the A-10.
Perhaps, but Dayton also lost some pretty wicked games too. It could have been just one of those days for us.
Let's put it this way, if we swapped spots with Xavier I don't think we would finish 5th in the A-10 like we did in the Big East. Nor do I think Xavier would finish first in the Big East as they did in the A-10.
As for the Virginia job and those expectations, I don't agree. Bennett is coming into a nice spot there. UVa is in the dumper and has been for awhile, you can only go up. If you were a coach looking to come to MU where many perceived us to be at our ceiling, which job has more upside potential? For the new UVa coach, the goal is to get to the NCAA tournament consistently, something they've struggled with of late. For the new MU coach, the expecations at the very least keeping pace with what Crean did and possibly taking that next step. Which is harder? I'm guessing Bennett and Miller thought the MU job is harder to reach those goals.....let's not forget that this recent run by Crean hadn't been duplicated by anyone not named Al McGuire, whereas the periodic runs by UVa been been accomplished by multiple coaches.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 01, 2009, 02:14:08 PM
As for the Virginia job and those expectations, I don't agree. Bennett is coming into a nice spot there. UVa is in the dumper and has been for awhile, you can only go up. If you were a coach looking to come to MU where many perceived us to be at our ceiling, which job has more upside potential? For the new UVa coach, the goal is to get to the NCAA tournament consistently, something they've struggled with of late. For the new MU coach, the expecations at the very least keeping pace with what Crean did and possibly taking that next step. Which is harder? I'm guessing Bennett and Miller thought the MU job is harder to reach those goals.....let's not forget that this recent run by Crean hadn't been duplicated by anyone not named Al McGuire, whereas the periodic runs by UVa been been accomplished by multiple coaches.
I don't think you know UVa fans enough if you think that their expectations are merely getting to the NCAA tournament consistently.
Quote from: Stone Cold on June 30, 2009, 10:45:43 PM
I'm not against starting a series with Xavier. Not a priority but not against it.
We played them often in the 70's. I would not mind a series with them, good program.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 01, 2009, 02:21:32 PM
I don't think you know UVa fans enough if you think that their expectations are merely getting to the NCAA tournament consistently.
I know expectations are high at UVa, I'm looking at it from the perspective of what can be accomplished. Is there more upside at UVa in their present state or at MU's state last year? In my opinion (and from the sounds of it...Miller and Bennett), the upside was elsewhere.
It's easier to come in to a place when the chips are down then to keep something going at a high level, especially if it's been decades since that high level had been reached. Just human nature. I think there's a significant reason why we landed an assistant coach and not an experienced one.....the assistant coach was willing to take it.
PRN mentioned that two of the Big East teams made it to the Final Four, very true. It's not like it can't happen at MU, of course it can. But both of those Big East teams had top 3 seeds. UCONN, who just missed on the Final Four, also had a top 3 seed. Let's also not forget that Nova played their first two games in their own city. Seeding is key....can MU make a big enough breakthrough to get a top 3 seed in the NCAAs while playing in the Big East?
Don't want to turn this Xavier thread into a UVa thread but I must admit that I was surprised about the Bennett to UVa new and I don't see either party as ending up statisfied. I for one think Bennett is pretty over rated. He had a couple of good years ,mostly with his Father's talent. He has not proven that he can recruit the kind of talent necessary to compete in the ACC (and sometimes I wonder if he even WHATS to recruit that kind of talent). Based on what I have seen of Buzz particularly his recruiting I would not trade coaches with UVa right now.
As for Bennett's prospective I think its tougher to be a mid level team in the ACC than in the BE. First of all you can pretty much count on UNC and Duke being top 10 teams every year as long as Roy and Coach K are there. Even teams like UConn and Pitt have off years. Second the ACC does not have the 4 or so bottom feeders that a mid level team can pretty much count as wins. NC State, G-Tech, Miami are all "improving". At this point UVa IS THE bottom feeder in the ACC.
I see Bennett pulling a few upsets but never having the talent to get above 500 in the ACC. Therefore no NCAA tourn trips and eventually he'll leave (or be fired) and go to a mid major where he can win with average talent and play the role of giant killer from time to time.
Quote from: NotAnAlum on July 01, 2009, 03:51:08 PM
Don't want to turn this Xavier thread into a UVa thread but I must admit that I was surprised about the Bennett to UVa new and I don't see either party as ending up statisfied. I for one think Bennett is pretty over rated. He had a couple of good years ,mostly with his Father's talent. He has not proven that he can recruit the kind of talent necessary to compete in the ACC (and sometimes I wonder if he even WHATS to recruit that kind of talent). Based on what I have seen of Buzz particularly his recruiting I would not trade coaches with UVa right now.
As for Bennett's prospective I think its tougher to be a mid level team in the ACC than in the BE. First of all you can pretty much count on UNC and Duke being top 10 teams every year as long as Roy and Coach K are there. Even teams like UConn and Pitt have off years. Second the ACC does not have the 4 or so bottom feeders that a mid level team can pretty much count as wins. NC State, G-Tech, Miami are all "improving". At this point UVa IS THE bottom feeder in the ACC.
I see Bennett pulling a few upsets but never having the talent to get above 500 in the ACC. Therefore no NCAA tourn trips and eventually he'll leave (or be fired) and go to a mid major where he can win with average talent and play the role of giant killer from time to time.
Could very well be, but as you said it....UVa is at the bottom already. Only place to go is up. Some coaches see that as an opportunity rather than trying to maintain something at a school that hasn't been done for decades (some coaches perceive what happened at MU to be all because of Crean and not institutional).
Hopefully it works out for all parties, especially MU.
I also beleive that UVa GROSSLY overpaid for Bennett but I guess there is no connection between salary and value when it comes to coaches. Maybe Tony knows the odds are long against him but by the time the powers that be figure that out he'll have made enough to set himself up for life.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 01, 2009, 01:42:44 PM
Especially with Bennett taking the UVa job the next year. Much tougher job than MU expectation-wise.
I think expectations are lower at Virginia.
10+ conferences wins and 20+ overall wins and a 3rd or 4th place ACC finish would make their fans overjoyed.
Similar performance at MU will begin to create problems for Buzz. 4th place in the Big East would be considered a underachivement--especially with the talent Buzz has recruited.
I think its going to be easier for Bennett to finish 3rd or 4th in the ACC than it will be for Buzz to do the same in the Big East--and their fans will be more forgiving of a finish behind UNC and Duke than ours will for a finish behind Villanova and UConn.
Quote from: Marquette84 on July 01, 2009, 05:20:42 PM
Similar performance at MU will begin to create problems for Buzz. 4th place in the Big East would be considered a underachivement--especially with the talent Buzz has recruited.
WHAT?!? If we finish 4th in the Big East next year Buzz should be national coach of the year!
4th place! An underachievement?
Are you having some kind of breakdown?
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on July 01, 2009, 01:40:07 PM
No doubt the Big East is a meat grinder, but didn't two of our teams make it the Final Four with four in the Elite 8?
I believe our president and AD are both full of it on the people turning us down because it's too tough, by the way. I believe people may have used words "tough" when describing our conference, but perhaps it was something called "negotiation"...a process we seem to have difficulty with.
You really think Wild and Cottingham lied about that perception in the press conference and post interviews weeks later? Why, to what benefit?
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on July 01, 2009, 07:29:31 PM
WHAT?!? If we finish 4th in the Big East next year Buzz should be national coach of the year!
4th place! An underachievement?
Are you having some kind of breakdown?
I base my comment on past history.
In 2006 with a largely freshman team we finished tied for fourth, and yet a significant number of people
to this day complain that we had no big east calibre players, we were poorly coached, and we underachieved.
With the #1 recruiting class and a player from the 2009 USA Men's World University Games Team, I would think that 2006 performance (tied for 4th place) would represent the floor for expectations for this year's team. I have to think that most would expect league championships after that, with the talent coming in for next year.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on July 01, 2009, 07:29:31 PM
WHAT?!? If we finish 4th in the Big East next year Buzz should be national coach of the year!
4th place! An underachievement?
Are you having some kind of breakdown?
I base my comment on past history.
In 2006, with a largely freshman team, we finished tied for fourth, and yet a significant number of people
to this day complain that we had no big east calibre players, we were poorly coached, and we underachieved.
With the #1 recruiting class and a player from the 2009 USA Men's World University Games Team, I would think that 2006 performance (tied for 4th place) would represent the
floor for expectations for this year's team. I have to think that most would expect league championships after that with the talent coming in for next year.
The expectations from MU fans are far higher than they are at Virginia.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 01, 2009, 07:41:32 PM
You really think Wild and Cottingham lied about that perception in the press conference and post interviews weeks later? Why, to what benefit?
I think you know the answer to that. They "misled" people because they knew a HUGE majority of people were stunned at the hiring "process" and they were trying to save face. There is no chance they had meaningful discussions with people in the timeframe. Buzz was a Strong hire. They couldn't exactly say that.
To suggest that Tony Bennett didn't want to coach at Marquette because it was too hard is ridiculous. You know that!
Agenda alert! You are so predictable.
Quote from: Marquette84 on July 01, 2009, 05:20:42 PM
I think expectations are lower at Virginia.
10+ conferences wins and 20+ overall wins and a 3rd or 4th place ACC finish would make their fans overjoyed.
Similar performance at MU will begin to create problems for Buzz. 4th place in the Big East would be considered a underachivement--especially with the talent Buzz has recruited.
I think its going to be easier for Bennett to finish 3rd or 4th in the ACC than it will be for Buzz to do the same in the Big East--and their fans will be more forgiving of a finish behind UNC and Duke than ours will for a finish behind Villanova and UConn.
Tony Bennett did not want to coach at MU. End of story.
Quote from: Marquette84 on July 01, 2009, 08:10:22 PM
I base my comment on past history.
In 2006 with a largely freshman team we finished tied for fourth, and yet a significant number of people to this day complain that we had no big east calibre players, we were poorly coached, and we underachieved.
With the #1 recruiting class and a player from the 2009 USA Men's World University Games Team, I would think that 2006 performance (tied for 4th place) would represent the floor for expectations for this year's team. I have to think that most would expect league championships after that, with the talent coming in for next year.
Is this another one of your posts where you have no agenda and are not trying to bait people?
Just when I think you've hit rock bottom...you pull out the pick axe and get back to work!!
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on July 01, 2009, 08:20:32 PM
I think you know the answer to that. They "misled" people because they knew a HUGE majority of people were stunned at the hiring "process" and they were trying to save face. There is no chance they had meaningful discussions with people in the timeframe. Buzz was a Strong hire. They couldn't exactly say that.
To suggest that Tony Bennett didn't want to coach at Marquette because it was too hard is ridiculous. You know that!
Perhaps, but it does not strike me as odd in the least that they (perspective coaches alledgedly interviewed) would feel MU was at it's ceiling. I believe it was Mike DeCourcey or some other national sportswriter that said the same thing when it came to analyzing MU's coaching search and the upside/downside. I guess we'll never truly know. In my mind, I could see the rationale by some coaches saying it's easier to win at a place like UVa then at MU....but I could also see a coach saying the exact opposite. It's not a cut and dry position in my view.
Decourcey? If we're listening to the freaking MEDIA! about the appeal of our head coaching job as a certain somebody is texting every last jerkoff with a media pass about how he'd "taken them as far as he could" then we have some real problems.
You realize that's what happened here, don't you? It might be a little more publicly palatable than O'Neill's comments on his way out the door, but no less damning!
I didn't like the hire of Buzz Williams and I still don't. But I will bet you that he never pulls anything like that.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on July 01, 2009, 08:31:40 PM
Decourcey? If we're listening to the freaking MEDIA! about the appeal of our head coaching job as a certain somebody is texting every last jerkoff with a media pass about how he'd "taken them as far as he could" then we have some real problems.
You realize that's what happened here, don't you? It might be a little more publicly palatable than O'Neill's comments on his way out the door, but no less damning!
I didn't like the hire of Buzz Williams and I still don't. But I will bet you that he never pulls anything like that.
I don't recall who it was, but a reporter that claimed to have part of the inside scoop. If I find it, I'll post it. It may have been DeCourcey.
Quote from: Silky on July 01, 2009, 08:21:09 PM
Agenda alert! You are so predictable.
I state that MU fans have higher expectations fans than Virginia fans, and to you that represents an agenda? ::)
I think I could state the court is 94 feet long and you'd prance around shouting "agenda! agenda!".
Quote from: Marquette84 on July 01, 2009, 08:12:06 PM
I base my comment on past history.
In 2006, with a largely freshman team, we finished tied for fourth, and yet a significant number of people to this day complain that we had no big east calibre players, we were poorly coached, and we underachieved.
I'd like to see anyone make the argument that DJ, Jerel, Wes, or Novak were not Big East-caliber players. For that matter, Chapman and Fitz were respectable coming off the bench. Big men, well, that's a different argument with Barro and Amo as sophomores and Kinsella and Grimm being the experienced big men.
Also... who the hell claimed we overachieved in 05-06, and what were they smoking?
Quote from: Marquette84 on July 01, 2009, 08:12:06 PM
With the #1 recruiting class and a player from the 2009 USA Men's World University Games Team, I would think that 2006 performance (tied for 4th place) would represent the floor for expectations for this year's team. I have to think that most would expect league championships after that with the talent coming in for next year.
You don't think the hyperbole is just a touch thick here?
Quote from: Marquette84 on July 01, 2009, 08:12:06 PM
The expectations from MU fans are far higher than they are at Virginia.
If those were truly your expectations based upon the arguments you set forth, you'd probably fit in much better as a Kentucky fan.
No, you aren't fooling anyone. You clearly stated that if we don't finish better than 4 years ago, it's a disappointment. Never mind the fact faulty comparisons like that never take into consideration the schedule, injuries and competition of the league or not having 3 experienced seniors from a Final Four team.
You have an agenda and you know it. And everyone else is figuring it out also.
Quote from: Marquette84 on July 01, 2009, 10:05:08 PM
I state that MU fans have higher expectations fans than Virginia fans, and to you that represents an agenda? ::)
I think I could state the court is 94 feet long and you'd prance around shouting "agenda! agenda!".
Quote from: Marquette84 on July 01, 2009, 08:12:06 PM
I base my comment on past history.
In 2006, with a largely freshman team, we finished tied for fourth, and yet a significant number of people to this day complain that we had no big east calibre players, we were poorly coached, and we underachieved.
With the #1 recruiting class and a player from the 2009 USA Men's World University Games Team, I would think that 2006 performance (tied for 4th place) would represent the floor for expectations for this year's team. I have to think that most would expect league championships after that with the talent coming in for next year.
The expectations from MU fans are far higher than they are at Virginia.
Villanova and Uconn recruiting classes are ranked higher than ours. We are picked to finished 12th in some preseason polls. I do not know where we are going to finish, but I expect it is closer to 12th than 4th. I will predict with confidence that DePaul finishes 16th, so the worst we will be is 15th.
Quote from: bilsu on July 02, 2009, 08:37:28 AM
Villanova and Uconn recruiting classes are ranked higher than ours. We are picked to finished 12th in some preseason polls. I do not know where we are going to finish, but I expect it is closer to 12th than 4th. I will predict with confidence that DePaul finishes 16th, so the worst we will be is 15th.
According to this site, we are #1, Villanova #4, UConn not in the top 20.
http://www.hoopscooponline.com/visitors/free-visitors.html
Back to the topic title, in my opinion Xavier is the better program in the last 15 years.
MU has reached higher peaks as it relates to accomplishments (Final Four) and hype (Dwyane Wade) but head-to-head Xavier blows MU out of the water in terms of NCAA Tournament appearances and achievements; NBA-produced players; Coaching talent, etc.
Quote from: Marquette84 on July 01, 2009, 08:12:06 PM
I base my comment on past history.
In 2006, with a largely freshman team, we finished tied for fourth, and yet a significant number of people to this day complain that we had no big east calibre players, we were poorly coached, and we underachieved.
With the #1 recruiting class and a player from the 2009 USA Men's World University Games Team, I would think that 2006 performance (tied for 4th place) would represent the floor for expectations for this year's team. I have to think that most would expect league championships after that with the talent coming in for next year.
The expectations from MU fans are far higher than they are at Virginia.
Getting a dobule bye in next year's BE tourney would be the FLOOR for our expectations?! Wow, I'll have what you're drinking/smoking...
Quote from: Marquette84 on July 01, 2009, 10:05:08 PM
I think I could state the court is 94 feet long and you'd prance around shouting "agenda! agenda!".
You would never make such a statement. It would be something along the lines of:
"The court in the sparkling Al McGuire Center, one of the top practice facilities in the country, is 94 feet long. This was a facility years in the making and, for some reason, was not built during the coaching careers of Kevin O'Neill or Mike Deane."
I'm absolutely stunned you can see your computer screen when your head is encased in Tom Crean's discarded leopard print bikini briefs.
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on July 02, 2009, 09:20:56 AM
Back to the topic title, in my opinion Xavier is the better program in the last 15 years.
MU has reached higher peaks as it relates to accomplishments (Final Four) and hype (Dwyane Wade) but head-to-head Xavier blows MU out of the water in terms of NCAA Tournament appearances and achievements; NBA-produced players; Coaching talent, etc.
Which would you prefer though? If you could go back 15 years, would you rather take the Final Four run and the disappointment that followed, or a handful of Sweet 16/Elite 8 appearances but no Final Four.
I'd take Marquette's last 15 years. Wouldn't trade that Final Four for anything outside of a championship.
Two Elite 8 appearances might actually be better than one Final Four. It's debatable, especially given our performance in New Orleans.
I am blanking on XU players in the Association other than David West, who else??
From Google:
Braggs, Torraye 2003-
Chalmers, Lionel 2004-
Grant, Brian 1994-2005
Hawkins, Michael 1996-2000
Hill, Tyrone 1990-2003
Kimbrough, Stan 1989-1992
Posey, James 1999-2007
Strong, Derek 1991-2000
Sykes, Larry 1995-1995
West, David 2003-2007
Williams, Aaron 1993-2007
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 02, 2009, 10:19:22 AM
Which would you prefer though? If you could go back 15 years, would you rather take the Final Four run and the disappointment that followed, or a handful of Sweet 16/Elite 8 appearances but no Final Four.
I'd take Marquette's last 15 years. Wouldn't trade that Final Four for anything outside of a championship.
That's a great point.
I'd argue that XU has been more successful on the whole, but I'm not sure I'd trade a final 4 for 2 or even 3 elite 8 appearances... so maybe MU has been better... hmmmm.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 02, 2009, 10:19:22 AM
Which would you prefer though? If you could go back 15 years, would you rather take the Final Four run and the disappointment that followed, or a handful of Sweet 16/Elite 8 appearances but no Final Four.
I'd take Marquette's last 15 years. Wouldn't trade that Final Four for anything outside of a championship.
I'd rather have two Elite 8's and a handful of sweet 16's. It's consistent success rather than a single run. Since 2001, XU failed the make the tourney only once (8 of the past 9 years). When they made it, they won their first game all but twice. Then they have two Elite Eights and a Sweet Sixteen.
Consistent success.
Quote from: 2002mualum on July 02, 2009, 10:35:04 AM
That's a great point.
I'd argue that XU has been more successful on the whole, but I'm not sure I'd trade a final 4 for 2 or even 3 elite 8 appearances... so maybe MU has been better... hmmmm.
So you'd rather have George Mason's results than those of Xavier?
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on July 02, 2009, 10:46:43 AM
So you'd rather have George Mason's results than those of Xavier?
Yes. I would. Yeah we sucked in the Final Four, but I wouldn't trade the joy of the UK win for anything. Two losses at that stage would be a big disappointment.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on July 02, 2009, 10:46:43 AM
So you'd rather have George Mason's results than those of Xavier?
Good point... i dunno.
But, the fact that george mason is now "on the map" is because of the final 4.
Multiple elite 8's probably wouldn't have done them as much good. But who knows?
Also, MU is not George Mason (a complete underdog from a small conference). MU has some tradition, so making the final 4 has a different impact on MU.
To be honest, I really don't know what I'd rather have... its an interesting discussion.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on July 01, 2009, 02:12:54 PM
After that Dayton game, I recall some on this board dismissing it as "one of those games." If you ask me, they were just a better team than we were last year.
After the Dayton Marquette game in December, I told you that you would not be embarassed to have lost to UD by the end of the season. We will be just as good this coming year. UD and X will probably be the teams to beat in the A10 this year, with about 3 other teams in contention. The bottom of the A10 is weak, but there are usually about 8 teams that can give anyone a headache and a loss. These are not names you hear much, but I think Richmond, Duquesne and LaSalle will all be dangerous next year. Charlotte has some talent, and UMass and Temple will be a bit down. Saint Joe's will be way down for a year or two, but they have good recruits on the way. I think Saint Louis is on the cusp of getting good again. They started from scratch when Majerus came, but he can recruit. It just takes time for the recruits to mature. Another year, and they will be contending in the A10, IMO. Gregory is building something at Dayton. As long as he is around, we are going to be making some noise.