Our team fell apart in the last four minutes in OT especially on O once Lazar fouled out........ which gives some pause to how we will adapt next year
Some concerns:
*DJO seems to lack a mental toughness at times which pops up at the FT line, imo.
* Youth usually sucks, at least inititally.
*Our one "big" is gone, anyone on our roster who can rebound as well as Zar next year????
I'm the last person who should be prognosticating on next year seeing as this year I felt we would be bottom dwellers in rebuilding mode.....but next year could be a true rebuilding year despite our influx of "talent".
Talent coming in is better than that talent leaving. Besides, seniors lead any team.
Oh come on don't use one game to guess about next year's team. Don't we even remember the Louisville game anymore where Butler and Hayward got hit with early fouls and our team not only held together but thrived.
We will miss Lazar, but as with every year the team next year will just have a different make-up, you can't think about next year's team just as minus Lazar. The team will adjust...Butler wasn't a big part of our offense last year because we didn't need him to be in our offensive strategy/game planning, but now he is crucial.
No way. We have Blue, Smith and Jones coming in. Crowder should be a help rebounding if we get him good PT. Butler is obviously going to be solid. Fulce is showing promise of being very productive next year. DJO will only be more experienced. Junior will be healthy from injury. Otule will be back to rebound. We should be very solid.
Don't under estimate Buycks next season.
i am certainly more confident going into next year than this year. but that being said, i dont think we move up, and possibly move down a spot or two. not that i dont agree that the talent coming in is promising, but i still dont think next years roster looks like a team that will beat top echelon teams. a couple of the perennial powerhouses will still sport better squads, which puts us fighting for that top spot in the next level of the BE. (4th, 5th ish) still not a bad spot to be in though. very MU. :)
I agree to an extent, but i think we can still compete. Nova will lose Reynolds so whose knows how good they will be without him. Cuse will lose alot, WVU loses some most importantly Butler. So clearly those teams will also add on alot but i dont think it can be said that we wont knock them off. If Monroe stays for some reason, Gtown will be scary.
If Hazell stays for some reason Seton Hall will be scary too. Also don't sleep on Providence they lose nothing from their team and have a good recruiting class they could be a suprise. Syracuse loses alot but they have alot coming in. I think their recruiting class is the only one better than ours in the BEast. I think if the talent we have Blue,most importantly, performs like they can then we may improve.
BETTER. The team is going to get better for the forseeable future.. Jimmy will get drafted. He's that good.
Quote from: Tulsa Warrior on March 07, 2010, 05:31:01 PM
Don't under estimate Buycks next season.
+1 Buycks has put up some pretty decent numbers this season. If he keeps working on improving his shot selection and cutting down the turnovers, he should be a big help. Fulce's continuing improvement is encouraging, as well.
Quote from: MU Curler on March 07, 2010, 05:55:46 PM
+1 Buycks has put up some pretty decent numbers this season. If he keeps working on improving his shot selection and cutting down the turnovers, he should be a big help. Fulce's continuing improvement is encouraging, as well.
Buycks and Fulce will have a much larger impact as seniors. Keep in mind that this is their 1st year as D1 players. The talent is in place.
I think we are going to be the same, maybe a step back and a true bubble team next year. Hayward and Acker will be hard to replace. Wow didn't think I would be saying that about Acker but his 3 point shooting and ball handling has been clutch. I don't expect Vander or Junior to be a perimeter threat and with no inside threat, I expect our offense to really struggle at times. Good news is that EWill, Otule and Fulce will be better and so will DJO. Crowder looks like he might be able to defend down low but I think his offense might be more perimeter oriented but that is based on some stats and what Crowder and his coaches have said about his game. We will be deeper and hopefully instead of slowing down the game, we speed it up with more traps seeing that we will be a lot more athletic and longer.
I don't want to sound sappy, but that's why college basketball is so much fun and why I enjoy Senior Day so much.
You remember when these guys first joined the team as freshman or as transfers and you see their progression. One advantage of not being the kind of school that generally attracts "one and dones" gives us an opportunity to have players progress year over year. David and Acker are prime examples (Lazar, less so because he was solid from the start).
We might not win 11 games in the Big East, but we'll be fine next year!
Quote from: 4everwarriors on March 07, 2010, 05:16:34 PM
Talent coming in is better than that talent leaving. Besides, seniors lead any team.
+1 to suggest that the additions of Blue, Jones, Crowder, Newbill and Smith this year won't make up for or surpass the contributions of Cooby Aker and Lazar (and Maymon) this year is ridiculous.
Even if Newbill and Smith statistically equal Cooby and Aker in their first years, Blue Crowder and Jones will easily statistically compensate for Lazar.
Assume that other players on the team will have a year of progression in them, I think it's safe to speculate that next years team will be better than this.
Key is will our big man be healthy...we need 25 minutes a game from Otule..not a lot of pts but at least 8-9 rebs. A big man that can eat minutes & grab rebs will go a long way in stabalizing a team in transition.
Next year's team will miss Mo Acker more than what most of us would have ever thought. Mo has been great at running the team, and no one that will replace him will be near the threat from 3 point land. This year's team has been a joy to watch with their unselfishness. Hopefully next year's team can duplicate that, though I don't see next year's team shooting it nearly as well from the 3. Buycks, Butler, DJO, Fulce and Crowder will be critical to the teams success. I'm not expecting much from any of the freshman, including Vander Blue - I don't see Vander averaging anymore than 6-10 points per game.
It will be interesting to see how Buzz uses his bench/depth. 8 man rotation? 9 man? 10 man? I hope he plays hockey basketball to where develops a 2nd line and isn't afraid to rotate players in/out 5 at a time, and play 40 minutes of hell type ball.
I expect us to be top 4 in the BE next year with Cuse, Nova, and Pitt.
We already have two guys who are tough matchups, and DJO and Butler should actually improve. There is no pressue on the freshman next year. DJO should also get better. He is more talented than his output bc he only catches and shoots or gets all the way to the hoop. Once he figures out a midrange game, he will be solid.
We get bigger at guard next year and will significantly upgrade at the 2. Replacing Cubillan with Blue, Buycks, or Newbill is huge. Acker is hot and takes care of the ball, but gets abused on D. Otule and Fulce will give us some size.
We had a nice group of 8 guys in the Amigos, Hayward, Burke, Barro, Acker, and Cubillan. I appreciated their effort. They did a lot to establish Marquette as a consistent tournament team, or at least a bubble team. Now, I think we take a step forward by finishing better in conference and making more noise in March.
I think we'll finish somewhere between 4 and 6.
Freshmen suck in the BE. The Stephenson kid on Cincy wasnt exactly dominate. He'll be good next year, but he had some very "freshman-like" games.
Syracuse will lose Onuaku, Rautins and most likely Johnson (though he said he was coming back...which is what they all say). But they will add an All-American center to replace Onuaku and I have heard that their team next year will be taller and longer than this year - a key element for their zone.
Quote from: HoopsMalone on March 07, 2010, 06:51:51 PM
I expect us to be top 4 in the BE next year with Cuse, Nova, and Pitt.
We already have two guys who are tough matchups, and DJO and Butler should actually improve. There is no pressue on the freshman next year. DJO should also get better. He is more talented than his output bc he only catches and shoots or gets all the way to the hoop. Once he figures out a midrange game, he will be solid.
We get bigger at guard next year and will significantly upgrade at the 2. Replacing Cubillan with Blue, Buycks, or Newbill is huge. Acker is hot and takes care of the ball, but gets abused on D. Otule and Fulce will give us some size.
We had a nice group of 8 guys in the Amigos, Hayward, Burke, Barro, Acker, and Cubillan. I appreciated their effort. They did a lot to establish Marquette as a consistent tournament team, or at least a bubble team. Now, I think we take a step forward by finishing better in conference and making more noise in March.
I think being less Senior heavy next year will make for the two halves of the season to be quite different. My early guess would be we're worse in first half (compared to this year), but about the same if not better in the second half (again compared to this year). That equals bubble territory next year but we will be playing our best ball at the end of the year.
Those who are saying Buycks will be much improved next year get a +1. I think he will take his game offensively and defensively to the next level.
Quote from: Big Daddy Z on March 07, 2010, 06:46:42 PM
Key is will our big man be healthy...we need 25 minutes a game from Otule..not a lot of pts but at least 8-9 rebs. A big man that can eat minutes & grab rebs will go a long way in stabalizing a team in transition.
You expected 8-9 rebounds per game from Otule? Wow....
Quote from: Ners on March 07, 2010, 06:49:13 PM
I hope he plays hockey basketball to where develops a 2nd line and isn't afraid to rotate players in/out 5 at a time, and play 40 minutes of hell type ball.
Sounds fun...but rarely is that effective.
Big guy, we had arguably one of th best backcourts in the nation last year and lost that all. Not to mention this year were in a position no one thought wed be., thanks Buzz.
Quote from: Big Daddy Z on March 07, 2010, 06:46:42 PM
Key is will our big man be healthy...we need 25 minutes a game from Otule..not a lot of pts but at least 8-9 rebs. A big man that can eat minutes & grab rebs will go a long way in stabalizing a team in transition.
You're kidding, right?
Here is the list of current players in the conference who average between 8-9 rebounds per game.
Wes Johnson
Devin Ebanks
Luke Harangody
Greg Monroe
Herb Pope
Jamine Peterson
Mac Koshwal
Less than half the teams in the BE have a guy that grabs 8 or more rebounds per game.
Think about it this way- we lost a whole lot more last year than we're going to lose this year and I don't know if you can definitively say we've gotten any worse off. Next year we have the best recruit in years coming to Milwaukee, a solid JUCO veteran, solid recruits in Newbill and Reggie Smith to back up the guard positions, and not to mention my favorite member of the recruiting class- 6'6" 210 forward Jamail Jones all the way from Monteverde, Florida.
The biggest question I have out of the upcoming class is what nickname we give Jones. His friends apparently call him "Mellow," but I personally like JaMail Man
Quote from: SacWarrior on March 07, 2010, 07:29:35 PM
Think about it this way- we lost a whole lot more last year than we're going to lose this year and I don't know if you can definitively say we've gotten any worse off. Next year we have the best recruit in years coming to Milwaukee, a solid JUCO veteran, solid recruits in Newbill and Reggie Smith to back up the guard positions, and not to mention my favorite member of the recruiting class- 6'6" 210 forward Jamail Jones all the way from Monteverde, Florida.
The biggest question I have out of the upcoming class is what nickname we give Jones. His friends apparently call him "Mellow," but I personally like JaMail Man
I wouldnt expect much out of Jones next year...probably similar to what we are seeing with EWill this year.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on March 07, 2010, 06:58:25 PM
I think being less Senior heavy next year will make for the two halves of the season to be quite different. My early guess would be we're worse in first half (compared to this year), but about the same if not better in the second half (again compared to this year). That equals bubble territory next year but we will be playing our best ball at the end of the year.
We will have Jimmy, Fulce, and Buycks as seniors and Crowder and DJO as juniors. Those 5 (if Crowder plays like he is scouted and Buycks handles it ok) could start and be effective. We will bring some experience next year so that the talented freshmen do not have to play right away. If Fulce has truly figured it out, we could be really strong all season.
We had an awful first half as far as wins/losses this year. Can't see that being worse.
Quote from: goodgreatgrand on March 07, 2010, 07:17:44 PM
You're kidding, right?
Here is the list of current players in the conference who average between 8-9 rebounds per game.
Wes Johnson
Devin Ebanks
Luke Harangody
Greg Monroe
Herb Pope
Jamine Peterson
Mac Koshwal
Less than half the teams in the BE have a guy that grabs 8 or more rebounds per game.
Don't think Otule gets it... but I think Jimmy Butler has a legitimate shot at 7-8 rebounds per game, for sure. His knack for finding the ball, especially on the offensive glass.
If JC is "all that", we'll be fine. If he isn't, then next year could be a little bumpy. Tremendous talent coming in, bu they'll be freshmen which makes them unpredictable. I think the key is the point guard position and how well that position is played next year.
I think we will get about 10-11 big east wins next year, we are loosing a lot of experience (Lazar, Acker, Cooby) and we are bringing in a lot of inexperienced talent. I think replacing Acker will be tough. He does get abused on defense, but he is great at taking care of the basketball and not turning it over. I think we can expect a lot of turnovers next year with a young back court. Also the only true point guard we have is Cadougan. From what I understand Smith, Blue, and Newbill are all shooting guards.
The ceiling is higher and the floor is lower. Assuming normal progressions of players, the 6 returning who are playing right now will be solid. Otule in November was about where EWill is now. That is 7 that can be good. Assuming Blue and Crowder are as advertised, we have a decent 9 man rotation going in. Assumptions all, but not reaches. We now know what Buzz does with TC's players, and we know how he coaches when he has an underdog team. I am looking forward to see what he does with a full roster with talent. And I dream of the day that he has a full roster of talent with dependable bigs.
Otule has his work cut out for him, have we forgotten about Mbao :)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 07, 2010, 11:55:28 PM
If JC is "all that", we'll be fine. If he isn't, then next year could be a little bumpy. Tremendous talent coming in, bu they'll be freshmen which makes them unpredictable. I think the key is the point guard position and how well that position is played next year.
+1 - We agree on something Chicos??!!
IMO guard play will be the key, more so than post play. Our key to success this year has been the low turnover rate and the steady play of the senior guards. The newcomers may be better players and more explosive than Cubillian and Acker, but as freshmen they will make mistakes and turn the ball over. Cadougan may be the most important piece next year. If he can effectively keep the turnovers down, make good decisions and manage the game, we will be better in 2010-11.
We have all-Big East candidates on each wing next year in Jimmy and DJO if Buzz goes that way.
The more and more this season went on the more happy I am with the players coming in next year.
That said, I also off set that optimism with how much I think we are going to miss Hayward next year. Sure, his rebounds may be picked up by a combo of Crowder and Otule, but I don't see both of them combining to match his points. And, I don't think either will be as versatile as Hayward. Crowder sounds like he could be, but Lazar just brings so much I think.
I'm actually more worried about making up for what we lost from Lazar than I was for what we lost from the big three coming into this season.
PG play will be huge too. We really could not have asked for more from Acker this season and turnovers will be a big growing pain next year. Combine young PGs and losing Lazar and I think we temper our expectations for next year. I think we'll be 7-9 in the conference and I'm fine with that all things considered. I don't think we are pre-season top 25 or anything. That will have to play itself out.
Either way, I think things continue to look up for the Warriors under Buzz and if we make a small step back next year, so be it.
The guy we all should be asking is Marquette84.
I believe he "called" this season pretty well, and was laughed at and ripped on.
I thought he was nuts at the time, but apparently he knew something most of us didn't.
Quote from: g0warriors1 on March 08, 2010, 08:30:01 AM
Otule has his work cut out for him, have we forgotten about Mbao :)
There is some speculation that Mbao will not be back next year. Was he at the game on Saturday?
Yes. I swore I saw him on the bench. I know he was there for Louisville.
I saw Mbao today with a suitcase so i'm assuming he's heading to the Big East tourney also
Quote from: 2002MUalum on March 08, 2010, 09:38:26 AM
The guy we all should be asking is Marquette84.
I believe he "called" this season pretty well, and was laughed at and ripped on.
I thought he was nuts at the time, but apparently he knew something most of us didn't.
84 "called" this season by comparing 2005-06 to 2009-10. In both years we had a stud returning along with talented role players and highly rated newcomers. In both years we were picked 12th by the writers and coaches. Since Tom Crean (in what was his best coaching job at MU) could win 10 Big East games under those circumstances then so should Buzz. The logic had more holes than Albert Hall but it served the purpose of setting up Buzz for a fall (especially once it became clear MU would get nothing this year from its freshman class). Unfortunately for 84, Buzz "coached up" this team of average talent and no size and led them to the NCAA tournament, thereby denying 84 the bogus "I told you so" moment he hoped for and expected.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 08, 2010, 11:04:16 AM
84 "called" this season by comparing 2005-06 to 2009-10. In both years we had a stud returning along with talented role players and highly rated newcomers. In both years we were picked 12th by the writers and coaches. Since Tom Crean (in what was his best coaching job at MU) could win 10 Big East games under those circumstances then so should Buzz. The logic had more holes than Albert Hall but it served the purpose of setting up Buzz for a fall (especially once it became clear MU would get nothing this year from its freshman class). Unfortunately for 84, Buzz "coached up" this team of average talent and no size and led them to the NCAA tournament, thereby denying 84 the bogus "I told you so" moment he hoped for and expected.
If he was really looking for an "I told you so", he's got an even better one now because he told us that they would be good and everybody laughed at him (including me).
I know several people will accuse him of a conspiracy theory, but he called it, and it wasn't a wild guess either. He even told everybody how he came to the conclusion.
I gotta give him credit.
Quote from: 2002MUalum on March 08, 2010, 11:12:42 AM
If he was really looking for an "I told you so", he's got an even better one now because he told us that they would be good and everybody laughed at him (including me).
I know several people will accuse him of a conspiracy theory, but he called it, and it wasn't a wild guess either. He even told everybody how he came to the conclusion.
I gotta give him credit.
+1
In Lenny's world no matter what some of us say, we're either "setting up Buzz" or don't worship at the altar so you can't win either way. 84 used reasonable logic, unlike how it was portrayed by Lenny, and he nailed it. Good for 84. Tip of the hat to him.
Despite the conspiracy theories, 84 and others don't want Buzz to fail. Why on earth would anyone? All it does is set the program back.
Quote from: 2002MUalum on March 08, 2010, 11:12:42 AM
If he was really looking for an "I told you so", he's got an even better one now because he told us that they would be good and everybody laughed at him (including me).
I know several people will accuse him of a conspiracy theory, but he called it, and it wasn't a wild guess either. He even told everybody how he came to the conclusion.
I gotta give him credit.
I'm not a conspiracy theory freak by any stretch of the imagination. I'm a boring guy who believes Oswald shot Kennedy, Al Quaeda (not GWB) brought down the twin towers and that BO is a U.S. citizen. But if you and Chicos (surprise, surprise) can't see what 84 was up to you're either incapable or unwilling to connect the most rudimentary of dots. Since I think that you at least attempt some intellectual honesty regarding these matters do me a favor. Go back to the threads in question and reread them. It's clear to anyone with an open mind.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 08, 2010, 11:59:05 AM
I'm not a conspiracy theory freak by any stretch of the imagination. I'm a boring guy who believes Oswald shot Kennedy, Al Quaeda (not GWB) brought down the twin towers and that BO is a U.S. citizen. But if you and Chicos (surprise, surprise) can't see what 84 was up to you're either incapable or unwilling to connect the most rudimentary of dots. Since I think that you at least attempt some intellectual honesty regarding these matters do me a favor. Go back to the threads in question and reread them. It's clear to anyone with an open mind.
I hear ya, and I know how it looks.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Here's my take:
Marquette84 was labeled as a TC apologist by some.
Marquette84 predicts (given the roster) that MU should just as good as the frosh. year team from 2005-2006.
Some people jump to the conclusion that Marquette84 is just "setting Buzz up" because he loves TC.
BUT...
Here's the thing. Marquette84 has never really been a Buzz hater or Buzz basher. There are a good handful of those guys around, just check out the threads after any loss. Marquette84 isn't the guy leading the charge on the Buzz hate, so I can't just jump to the conclusion that he is "setting up Buzz" by predicting that they be a good team.
IF Marquette84 was constantly gunning on Buzz and finding faults, I think your theory would be accurate. But, I just haven't seen that.
I don't think that liking TC makes him dislike Buzz, and I think that's the conclusion several people are jumping to, and thus the "theory" that he is "setting Buzz up".
Anyways, I apologize in advance for the thread jack, everybody.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 08, 2010, 11:59:05 AM
I'm not a conspiracy theory freak by any stretch of the imagination. I'm a boring guy who believes Oswald shot Kennedy, Al Quaeda (not GWB) brought down the twin towers and that BO is a U.S. citizen. But if you and Chicos (surprise, surprise) can't see what 84 was up to you're either incapable or unwilling to connect the most rudimentary of dots. Since I think that you at least attempt some intellectual honesty regarding these matters do me a favor. Go back to the threads in question and reread them. It's clear to anyone with an open mind.
The irony is that you are so patently biased that you felt you had to lowball expectations. I find it funny that you'd even attempt to bring it up.
Did you offer any analysis? And data? Any insight? Nope--you just declared--before the season started--that Buzz was a better coach and recruiter, but how dare I suggest that he actually, you know, be held accountable and actually win the games.
Before the season began I provided extensive detail on why I thought most were underestimating this year's team, and it starts with the returning talent:
--Hayward was a stud and everyone should have known that coming in.
--Acker did a more-than-admirable job against the last eight opponents, which included five of last year's elite eight. Any PG that can put up a 2.5 to 1 a/t ratio against
that opposition is solid.
--Butler was underutilized in an environment that had him behind Matthews and Hayward in the depth chart--anyone who looked closely realized the talent he was. His performance this year is absolutely ZERO surprise to me--not with his #4 in the nation offensive rating last year and his solid play in the conference season.
--DJO and Buycks were 1st team JUCO all-Americans. 1st team. Watching the way coaches like Bob Huggins reloaded with this type of player, there was no reason NOT to expect that they could at least equal the type of performance that Mcneal or Matthews did in their frosh season.
--The schedule gave MU an absolute gift with 2 games against Depaul and 2 against PC. The home/road schedule was favorable as well, as more of the middle of the pack games were at home (GU, ND, USF, UL) while the bottom-half teams were on the road (SH, SJU, UConn, Cincy).
If you're going to talk about intellectual honesty, then just admit that you wanted to lowball expectations for Buzz, so that you could proclaim his coaching "superiority" regardless of how the team actually performed.
All I said was that given the very obvious similar circumstances, Buzz
should be able to replicate what Tom Crean did. Apparently, that now passes for a pro-Crean "agenda." Somehow, you feel it is "intellectually dishonest" to have similar expectations for Buzz and Crean under very similar circumstances.
I'm not like you--I'm not going to hold Buzz and Crean to two different standards simply because I like one of them better.
Apparently YOU have formed your opinion not based on fact or analysis, but because your agenda is that you want Buzz to be superior to Crean in every way. What the hell is that if not intellectually dishonest?
So please, stop lecturing me about having an open mind. YOU are far more biased in your thinking. YOUR mind was made up in advance that Buzz MUST be a better coach and a better recruiter. Therefore, you sandbagged the season with low-ball expectations that were not based on any rational analysis.
Quote from: 2002MUalum on March 08, 2010, 12:53:44 PM
I hear ya, and I know how it looks.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Here's my take:
Marquette84 was labeled as a TC apologist by some.
Marquette84 predicts (given the roster) that MU should just as good as the frosh. year team from 2005-2006.
Some people jump to the conclusion that Marquette84 is just "setting Buzz up" because he loves TC.
BUT...
Here's the thing. Marquette84 has never really been a Buzz hater or Buzz basher. There are a good handful of those guys around, just check out the threads after any loss. Marquette84 isn't the guy leading the charge on the Buzz hate, so I can't just jump to the conclusion that he is "setting up Buzz" by predicting that they be a good team.
IF Marquette84 was constantly gunning on Buzz and finding faults, I think your theory would be accurate. But, I just haven't seen that.
I don't think that liking TC makes him dislike Buzz, and I think that's the conclusion several people are jumping to, and thus the "theory" that he is "setting Buzz up".
Anyways, I apologize in advance for the thread jack, everybody.
Thank you.
For those like Lenny who seem to think I have some anti-Buzz agenda, please go back to the archives in April of 2008 and look at who was among Cottingham's staunchest defenders on his hiring process and the decision to hire Buzz.
You just might be surprised at what you find.
Can't we all just play nice?
Don't present Lenny with the facts, he's got a good thing going on and he looks awesome in aluminum foil.
(http://riverdaughter.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/tinfoil.jpg)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 08, 2010, 01:48:25 PM
Don't present Lenny with the facts, he's got a good thing going on and he looks awesome in aluminum foil.
(http://riverdaughter.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/tinfoil.jpg)
Thanks for sharing your family Christmas card with the board.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 08, 2010, 01:48:25 PM
Don't present Lenny with the facts, he's got a good thing going on and he looks awesome in aluminum foil.
(http://riverdaughter.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/tinfoil.jpg)
Free your mind and the rest will follow
Be colorblind don't be so shallow
/yeah, I just posted En Vogue lyrics on a basketball message board
//deal with it
Quote from: Marquette84 on March 08, 2010, 01:37:04 PM
The irony is that you are so patently biased that you felt you had to lowball expectations. I find it funny that you'd even attempt to bring it up.
Did you offer any analysis? And data? Any insight? Nope--you just declared--before the season started--that Buzz was a better coach and recruiter, but how dare I suggest that he actually, you know, be held accountable and actually win the games.
Before the season began I provided extensive detail on why I thought most were underestimating this year's team, and it starts with the returning talent:
--Hayward was a stud and everyone should have known that coming in.
--Acker did a more-than-admirable job against the last eight opponents, which included five of last year's elite eight. Any PG that can put up a 2.5 to 1 a/t ratio against that opposition is solid.
--Butler was underutilized in an environment that had him behind Matthews and Hayward in the depth chart--anyone who looked closely realized the talent he was. His performance this year is absolutely ZERO surprise to me--not with his #4 in the nation offensive rating last year and his solid play in the conference season.
--DJO and Buycks were 1st team JUCO all-Americans. 1st team. Watching the way coaches like Bob Huggins reloaded with this type of player, there was no reason NOT to expect that they could at least equal the type of performance that Mcneal or Matthews did in their frosh season.
--The schedule gave MU an absolute gift with 2 games against Depaul and 2 against PC. The home/road schedule was favorable as well, as more of the middle of the pack games were at home (GU, ND, USF, UL) while the bottom-half teams were on the road (SH, SJU, UConn, Cincy).
If you're going to talk about intellectual honesty, then just admit that you wanted to lowball expectations for Buzz, so that you could proclaim his coaching "superiority" regardless of how the team actually performed.
All I said was that given the very obvious similar circumstances, Buzz should be able to replicate what Tom Crean did. Apparently, that now passes for a pro-Crean "agenda." Somehow, you feel it is "intellectually dishonest" to have similar expectations for Buzz and Crean under very similar circumstances.
I'm not like you--I'm not going to hold Buzz and Crean to two different standards simply because I like one of them better.
Apparently YOU have formed your opinion not based on fact or analysis, but because your agenda is that you want Buzz to be superior to Crean in every way. What the hell is that if not intellectually dishonest?
So please, stop lecturing me about having an open mind. YOU are far more biased in your thinking. YOUR mind was made up in advance that Buzz MUST be a better coach and a better recruiter. Therefore, you sandbagged the season with low-ball expectations that were not based on any rational analysis.
BEFORE Cadougan and OTule were injured and BEFORE Maymon left the team:1.ESPN said MU would be "as good as their freshmen" and picked them 11th in the BEast 2. Yahoo.com also said 11th 3. Big East coaches had MU 12th and 4.Rivals.com had MU #83 in the nation, 20 spots behind UWM and a mere 43 places ahead of Indiana. I saw ZERO predictions from anyone even tangentially connected to college bball that had MU higher than 10th in the conference. My expectations were not "low balled" or "biased" any more than those of Rivals, Yahoo, ESPN, coaches and the rest who make their living covering college basketball were.
It was YOUR expectations that were far outside of the bell curve and some of the information you used to justify them (refering to MU's recruiting class as #1 in the country) was called "purposeful misinformation" by none other than MU Scoop recruiting guru BMA725. Why would you use "purposeful misinformation" to set the bar as high as possible for this year's team? Even Chicos in his silly foil hat knows the answer to that one.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 08, 2010, 04:37:33 PM
It was YOUR expectations that were far outside of the bell curve and some of the information you used to justify them (refering to MU's recruiting class as #1 in the country) was called "purposeful misinformation" by none other than MU Scoop recruiting guru BMA725. Why would you use "purposeful misinformation" to set the bar as high as possible for this year's team? Even Chicos in his silly foil hat knows the answer to that one.
Ummm...maybe its because he is a fan of Marquette and is optimistic? Jesus, what is the deal with everyone accusing everyone else of having some Anti-Buzz/Pro-Crean agenda whenever you post anything on this board.
Mention the "soft bubble" this year? You must hate Buzz and love Tom Crean.
Had higher expectations than most people this year? Well it must be because in some twisted way you hate Buzz Williams.
Holy crap you people are ridiculous. Its almost like the Nixon White House with some of the Buzz defenders around here. Everyone has an agenda and they're all out to get Buzz.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 08, 2010, 04:37:33 PM
BEFORE Cadougan and OTule were injured and BEFORE Maymon left the team:1.ESPN said MU would be "as good as their freshmen" and picked them 11th in the BEast 2. Yahoo.com also said 11th 3. Big East coaches had MU 12th and 4.Rivals.com had MU #83 in the nation, 20 spots behind UWM and a mere 43 places ahead of Indiana. I saw ZERO predictions from anyone even tangentially connected to college bball that had MU higher than 10th in the conference. My expectations were not "low balled" or "biased" any more than those of Rivals, Yahoo, ESPN, coaches and the rest who make their living covering college basketball were.
It was YOUR expectations that were far outside of the bell curve and some of the information you used to justify them (refering to MU's recruiting class as #1 in the country) was called "purposeful misinformation" by none other than MU Scoop recruiting guru BMA725. Why would you use "purposeful misinformation" to set the bar as high as possible for this year's team? Even Chicos in his silly foil hat knows the answer to that one.
+1 on this - I think MU84 laid out a good case, but it is very true that his case/opinion was at the far end of the bell curve. I don't think MU84 is a Buzz hater at all, but he is a staunch supporter of Tom Crean, and that's okay. TC deserves some credit and respect for what he did at MU - though the more I learned of him, the more disenchanted I became with regard to the esteem with which I held TC.
DJO and Butler play 40 minutes a game if they are able and not in foul trouble. Everyone else does a Pitino/Tubby style rotation. Give everyone their shots to prove themselves. Junior may need alot of minutes and the only pt runner. Blue will play a solid amount as will buycks. I doubt we find time for smith and newbill. otule,Crowder,Fulce and Jones need to battle it out in 2 man rotations. Find everyone minutes but leave JB and DJO out there.
Quote from: GOMU1104 on March 07, 2010, 07:40:29 PM
I wouldnt expect much out of Jones next year...probably similar to what we are seeing with EWill this year.
Interesting comment seeing as though it's over eight months until this player will even put on a Warriors uniform.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 08, 2010, 04:37:33 PM
BEFORE Cadougan and OTule were injured and BEFORE Maymon left the team:1.ESPN said MU would be "as good as their freshmen" and picked them 11th in the BEast 2. Yahoo.com also said 11th 3. Big East coaches had MU 12th and 4.Rivals.com had MU #83 in the nation, 20 spots behind UWM and a mere 43 places ahead of Indiana. I saw ZERO predictions from anyone even tangentially connected to college bball that had MU higher than 10th in the conference. My expectations were not "low balled" or "biased" any more than those of Rivals, Yahoo, ESPN, coaches and the rest who make their living covering college basketball were.
It was YOUR expectations that were far outside of the bell curve and some of the information you used to justify them (refering to MU's recruiting class as #1 in the country) was called "purposeful misinformation" by none other than MU Scoop recruiting guru BMA725. Why would you use "purposeful misinformation" to set the bar as high as possible for this year's team? Even Chicos in his silly foil hat knows the answer to that one.
I don't think its a stretch to say that a) I knew more about the MU returning players better than ESPN, Yahoo, Rivals, etc. b) researched the quality of the incoming players more than most of the other services and c) put it in context of both the schedule and the changes around the rest of the league.
For example, you claim ESPN says our team would be based on the quality of the freshmen? Apparently they didn't know about Lazar Hayward or Jimmy Butler. And you cite them as your 'expert' rebuttal?
Most of the services did nothing more than a perfunctory analysis--they simply looked at the seniors leaving and concluded "boy, MU is really going to suck". I truly don't think they did anything deeper than that.
The other thing to keep in mind is that you had a much higher opinion of Buzz's coaching and recruiting ability than any of those services you cited. If ESPN and others thought we were 10th best, one would expect you to pick us higher given your belief that they undervalued Buzz as a coach and recruiter.
Second, BMA called used the "purposeful misinformation" because he
personally doesn't trust Hoopscoop.
That does not mean we were not rated #1 by them:
http://www.hoopscooponline.com/members/toprecruitingclasses-classof2009.asp
Here's what BMA said at the time:
"One service believes MU has the #1 recruiting class, and it's the least respected of all the services. The ranking is based on their ranking of JUCO players, which history has shown is marginally accurate at best." Those JUCOs were DJO and Buycks.
So in hindsight, Hoopscoop was right and BMA was wrong.
Maybe in the past Hoopscoop was not reputable, but I trust that as more time passes, BMA would look at Hoopscoop's more recent JUCO evaluations (A rating of 6 for Butler and 4 for Fulce in 2008, ratings of 8 each for Buycks and DJO in 2009) and revise his conclusion--their more recent ratings certainly seem to be pretty reasonable over the past two seasons.
Quote from: Kramerica on March 08, 2010, 04:52:57 PM
Ummm...maybe its because he is a fan of Marquette and is optimistic? Jesus, what is the deal with everyone accusing everyone else of having some Anti-Buzz/Pro-Crean agenda whenever you post anything on this board.
Mention the "soft bubble" this year? You must hate Buzz and love Tom Crean.
Had higher expectations than most people this year? Well it must be because in some twisted way you hate Buzz Williams.
Holy crap you people are ridiculous. Its almost like the Nixon White House with some of the Buzz defenders around here. Everyone has an agenda and they're all out to get Buzz.
By everyone do you have anyone in mind other than Lenny and Hayward? Honest question.
Does anyone on here other than those two think any 100+ posters are actually 'buzz bashers'? I know there are a few people on the fence but I don't think 'basher' applies to anyone other than a few <20 post trolls who showed up a few times.
Before you all crown 84 as a great analyst, remember, he also said the floor for Marquette was 4th place in the BE this year, but then backed down form it saying that 'Of course I was being sarcastic!" and only really expected a .500 or better finish.
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=15286.msg144715#msg144715
I think it's really about 84 throwing enough sh1t against the wall....some HAS to stick.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on March 08, 2010, 11:51:10 PM
Before you all crown 84 as a great analyst, remember, he also said the floor for Marquette was 4th place in the BE this year, but then backed down form it saying that 'Of course I was being sarcastic!" and only really expected a .500 or better finish.
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=15286.msg144715#msg144715
I think it's really about 84 throwing enough sh1t against the wall....some HAS to stick.
This is my opinion as well. The same really applies with most people around here. Make a lot of predictions so when one of them is right a few months down the line, you can post a link to it and pat yourself on the back.
I'll be honest, I have no idea what I predicted this team to do. None.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on March 08, 2010, 11:51:10 PM
Before you all crown 84 as a great analyst, remember, he also said the floor for Marquette was 4th place in the BE this year, but then backed down form it saying that 'Of course I was being sarcastic!" and only really expected a .500 or better finish.
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=15286.msg144715#msg144715
I think it's really about 84 throwing enough sh1t against the wall....some HAS to stick.
Touche.
Maybe I shouldn't have given him credit.
I just remember laughing at his prediction, and then, magically, MU is much better than we all thought.
BUT, maybe I'm only remembering part of the thread.
Quote from: Marquette84 on March 08, 2010, 06:33:32 PM
Second, BMA called used the "purposeful misinformation" because he personally doesn't trust Hoopscoop.
No, that had nothing to do with it.
I called it purposeful misinformation because you kept referring to it as the #1 recruiting class in the country without qualifying the ranking by stating that it only came from HoopScoop and no other service had MU nearly that high.
When people on this site talk about recruiting rankings, 99% of the time they are talking about consensus opinion, not that of just one site. So when you make a statement like "MU has the #1 recruiting class in the country" without acknowledging that only one service made that judgement, a lot of people are going to assume that consensus opinion had MU as the #1 class, when in reality no other service had MU nearly that high. Pointing out that Scout or Rivals or whomever didn't have MU as highly ranked wouldn't have fit the argument you were trying to make, so you just left it out.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on March 08, 2010, 11:51:10 PM
Before you all crown 84 as a great analyst, remember, he also said the floor for Marquette was 4th place in the BE this year, but then backed down form it saying that 'Of course I was being sarcastic!" and only really expected a .500 or better finish.
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=15286.msg144715#msg144715
I think it's really about 84 throwing enough sh1t against the wall....some HAS to stick.
You pulled a quote out of context that was a response to Lenny, who tried to suggest that my view was that 4th place was the floor for this year's team. What I said in that thread was that Lenny himself should have used 4th place as the floor, since Crean finished 5th--and we know that Lenny think Buzz is a better coach and recruiter.
I've been 100% consistent that .500 was the floor and 5th or 6th not unreasonable--in fact, if you read some of my other posts in that thread you linked to, you may have found these statements:
"I get that a lot of people like to set expectations low--but a 12th place finish is as unrealistic as expecting a championship. We brought in experienced JUCO players so that we don't have a dropoff into the dregs of the league. This team absolutely should not finish below 8th place, and with a relatively easy draw on the mirror games, one could make the case that we should be competitive for 5th or 6th. "
"So that's eight teams right there where there is a more-than-reasonable case to be made that we should be expected to finish ahead of. "
"I get that a lot of people like to set expectations low--but a 12th place finish is as unrealistic as expecting a championship. We brought in experienced JUCO players so that we don't have a dropoff into the dregs of the league. This team absolutely should not finish below 8th place, and with a relatively easy draw on the mirror games, one could make the case that we should be competitive for 5th or 6th."
"I don't think its unreasonable to expect that a #1 recruiting class with two solid returnees should be expected to be a top-half team in our league."
You will not find any post of mine where I agreed that 12th place (or even bottom half of the league) was a reasonable explanation.
Sorry, Rocky, but you're way off base here.
Quote from: bma725 on March 09, 2010, 08:44:16 AM
No, that had nothing to do with it.
I called it purposeful misinformation because you kept referring to it as the #1 recruiting class in the country without qualifying the ranking by stating that it only came from HoopScoop and no other service had MU nearly that high.
When people on this site talk about recruiting rankings, 99% of the time they are talking about consensus opinion, not that of just one site. So when you make a statement like "MU has the #1 recruiting class in the country" without acknowledging that only one service made that judgement, a lot of people are going to assume that consensus opinion had MU as the #1 class, when in reality no other service had MU nearly that high. Pointing out that Scout or Rivals or whomever didn't have MU as highly ranked wouldn't have fit the argument you were trying to make, so you just left it out.
84 is not content to just misrepresent the facts to fit his narrative. He also insists on consistantly misrepresenting what those who disagree with him say.
Quote from: bma725 on March 09, 2010, 08:44:16 AM
No, that had nothing to do with it.
I called it purposeful misinformation because you kept referring to it as the #1 recruiting class in the country without qualifying the ranking by stating that it only came from HoopScoop and no other service had MU nearly that high.
Here's the quote: "I don't think its unreasonable to expect that a #1 recruiting class with two solid returnees should be expected to be a top-half team in our league."
I referred to it as "
a #1 recruiting class: not "
the #1 recruiting class." Hoopscoop DID have us ranked #1. I never said that it was a consensus ranking.
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=15175.msg143038#msg143038
(http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=15175.msg143038#msg143038)
Frankly, I've let you play rope-a-dope too long on this. Substituting "consensus top 20" for "a #1" hardly undermines the case that we had significantly better incoming players than almost every other Big East team--certainly better than at least 12 other BE teams. The only debatable classes were Pitt, Villanova and Uconn--and there is no concensus that any of them were better than us.
And I disagree with your point that it is "purposeful misinformation" to use the highest ranking. Its actually common practice. Look at how many people refer to Vander Blue as a top 30 player. Yet his current "consensus" on RSCI is 53rd.
I think you even used isolated top 100 rankings (rather than consensus) to determine who should be included in your analysis of top 100 players over the years.
Finally, you specifically claimed that Hoopscoop was unreliable "based on their rankings of JUCO players." That has not proven to be the case.
This thread has turned into one big slap-fight.
(http://warmowski.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/slapfight.jpg)
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 09, 2010, 09:33:50 AM
84 is not content to just misrepresent the facts to fit his narrative. He also insists on consistantly misrepresenting what those who disagree with him say.
I built a solid case that included FAR more than MU having a #1 class in one service.
You seem to think the the fact that it was #1 in one service, but only 8th in another, 11th in a third, 14th in a fourth, 17th in a fifth makes a huge difference. If you average our ranking with all the other services for every other Big East team, we're in the top 3 in conference.
Frankly, while I respect BMA's research, I think he's wrong on this point. He specifically said that the basis for him declaring that Hoopscoop was unreliable was
because of their JUCO rankings.
At the end of the season, I think its only fair to ask who turned out to be correct?
Were DJO and Buycks worthy of the ranking they received in Hoopscoop?
I say yes--what do you think?
Oh please, you know damn well that the moment you say the phrase #1 recruiting class people are going to assume you mean
the #1 recruiting class unless you qualify the statement by providing the source. By not pointing out that it was merely one service's opinion, you give off the impression that it was the consensus opinion on our class. No one who reads that statement is going to think that you were talking about the ratings of only one service unless you specifically state that you were doing so, which you did not.
QuoteAnd I disagree with your point that it is "purposeful misinformation" to use the highest ranking. Its actually common practice. Look at how many people refer to Vander Blue as a top 30 player. Yet his current "consensus" on RSCI is 53rd.
It's purposeful misinformation given your history on these boards going back several years. If you were actually interested in making an accurate point, you would report the whole scope of the rankings, but clearly you didn't want to do that. It's merely misinformation when others do it as they have been convinced by shoddy reporting in the JS and elsewhere that the numbers they are talking about are the consensus numbers.
QuoteI think you even used isolated top 100 rankings (rather than consensus) to determine who should be included in your analysis of top 100 players over the years.
I used isolated rankings only when there was no consensus ranking, and when I did so I pointed out that they were isolated rankings by only one service, not consensus rankings. I never tried to pass off the thoughts of one analyst as the consensus thought as you have done. Further, given that I was looking at rankings going back to 1980 and the RSCI did not exist until 1998, there was no such thing as the consensus ranking for much of the period I was discussing.
QuoteFinally, you specifically claimed that Hoopscoop was unreliable "based on their rankings of JUCO players." That has not proven to be the case.
I claimed HoopScoop was unreliable for a number of reasons, the overvaluing of JUCOs was simply a part of it, as was the fact that he ranks more than 100 players in his top 100 and the fact that he gives too much weight to quantity over quality. Given the performance of the recruiting classes this year, you can very clearly see that despite HoopScoop's getting it right on DJO, MU's class was not deserving of the ranking they achieved.
(http://i40.tinypic.com/2i1pjco.jpg)
TF
have you diaper droops done to this thread?
Quote from: bma725 on March 09, 2010, 10:50:47 AM
Oh please, you know damn well that the moment you say the phrase #1 recruiting class people are going to assume you mean the #1 recruiting class unless you qualify the statement by providing the source. By not pointing out that it was merely one service's opinion, you give off the impression that it was the consensus opinion on our class. No one who reads that statement is going to think that you were talking about the ratings of only one service unless you specifically state that you were doing so, which you did not.
You're focusing on two words out of a 400 word post. If I substitute "One of the best in the NCAA" or "Top 20 in everyone's list" for "a #1 recruiting class", it doesn't change a thing. It supports my point just as much--no "purposeful misreprentation" was made.
We had an outstanding recruiting class. Period.
Quote from: bma725 on March 09, 2010, 10:50:47 AM
I claimed HoopScoop was unreliable for a number of reasons, the overvaluing of JUCOs was simply a part of it, as was the fact that he ranks more than 100 players in his top 100 and the fact that he gives too much weight to quantity over quality.
Actually, you focused primarily on one reason (highlighted below in your response in its entirety):
Quote from: bma725 on July 30, 2009, 06:19:38 PM
One service believes MU has the #1 recruiting class, and it's the least respected of all the services. The ranking is based on their ranking of JUCO players, which history has shown is marginally accurate at best. They give the same ranking to Dwight Buycks and DJO that they gave to Marcus Jackson, Ousmane Barro, Mike Kinsella and Jamil Lott. You need to look at the other services to get a more accurate reading. Scout has MU at #18. ESPN has MU at #14. Rivals has MU at #17. Good, but not #1, not even close.
To continue to refer the class as the #1 recruiting class is purposeful misinformation and you know it.
As for your other complaints, they don't hold much water.
Hoopscoop incorporates jucos, while the others services only rate frosh. Of course there are more players when you include both JUCOs and Frosh. Hoopscoop normalizes it so that, say, a 71-100 player in his rating is equivalent to someone who has freshmen only. Otherwise, Rivals would might have a guy rated 100, and the same exact player might be 150 on Hoopscoop.
As far as the quantity vs. quality, every service take both into account. Hoopscoop is transparent with their formula--the others are not. Given the formulas are not public, I'm curious as to how you know that Hoopscoop relies too much on quantity.
Quote from: bma725 on March 09, 2010, 10:50:47 AM
Given the performance of the recruiting classes this year, you can very clearly see that despite HoopScoop's getting it right on DJO, MU's class was not deserving of the ranking they achieved.
Shame on you. You of all people should know the value of a class is not fully reflected in the first year. Remember this comment?
"Chris Crawford - I'm sure there will be many that disagree with me, especially those that watched Crawford play his first two years. But I'd argue that his final two years, and his pre-injury NBA career point to the fact that the experts got it right."http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2009/05/look-back-marquettes-history-with-top.html (http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2009/05/look-back-marquettes-history-with-top.html)
If you're willing to give Crawford until his junior and senior year, why are you now drawing a conclusion after just one season?
Frankly, not only is it not clear this class isn't deserving of its rank, its impossible to tell. Cadougan was injured, Maymon transferred, Mboa was (like Crawford) a project.
QuoteYou're focusing on two words out of a 400 word post. If I substitute "One of the best in the NCAA" or "Top 20 in everyone's list" for "a #1 recruiting class", it doesn't change a thing. It supports my point just as much--no "purposeful misreprentation" was made.
No, actually it doesn't. If the other rankings or wording supported the point you were trying to make in that thread just as well, then you would have used them. But the truth is they don't. Saying MU had the #1 recruiting class with no qualifiers on it versus saying they were #17 or whatever it was on Rivals doesn't help the point you were making as much.
Further, when you say someone has the #1 recruiting class, people react to it and interpret it very differently than if you say "a top recruiting class" or a Top 20 recruiting class. There's a change in the expectations that comes with it and a change in the expectations for the incoming players. There's an implication in that statement that a consensus of thought has been reached, and the experts believe a certain thing about MU's incoming class when clearly that wasn't the case.
QuoteAs far as the quantity vs. quality, every service take both into account. Hoopscoop is transparent with their formula--the others are not. Given the formulas are not public, I'm curious as to how you know that Hoopscoop relies too much on quantity.
Every service looks at quantity, but they don't give credit to you for having a larger class like Francis does. Since you're so curious to find out how they do it, perhaps you should do what I did. Spend over a decade corresponding with the guys that run those services and pick their brains about how they evaluate talent, what they look for when they watch players and how they come up with their numbers. You'd learn quite a bit about what actually goes into this stuff, and why some services are worth paying for and others aren't worth the bandwith they occupy.
Regardless, you don't need to know a thing about the other services to realize that HoopScoop's way of calculating rank is biased towards larger classes. That's why he puts information on the average talent ranking in the class right next to the rank, so that you can tell when a class is artificially high simply because of volume.
Quote from: Marquette84 on March 09, 2010, 10:38:45 AM
I built a solid case that included FAR more than MU having a #1 class in one service.
You seem to think the the fact that it was #1 in one service, but only 8th in another, 11th in a third, 14th in a fourth, 17th in a fifth makes a huge difference. If you average our ranking with all the other services for every other Big East team, we're in the top 3 in conference.
Frankly, while I respect BMA's research, I think he's wrong on this point. He specifically said that the basis for him declaring that Hoopscoop was unreliable was because of their JUCO rankings.
At the end of the season, I think its only fair to ask who turned out to be correct?
Were DJO and Buycks worthy of the ranking they received in Hoopscoop?
I say yes--what do you think?
I would say yes also. Actually DJO might have been deserving of an even higher rating.
Now let me ask you a question. If you would have known before the season started that we would get NOTHING out of Maymon, Cadougan and OTule where would you have projected this team's floor and ceiling?
Let's face it, Lenny must be Mrs. Buzz Williams
Kidding...kidding. Of course 84 was called Joanie Crean on here by many so the irony is rather symbolic.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 09, 2010, 07:50:23 PM
Let's face it, Lenny must be Mrs. Buzz Williams
Kidding...kidding. Of course 84 was called Joanie Crean on here by many so the irony is rather symbolic.
No irony with 84 or myself. We may disagree, but we mean what we say and say what we mean. You acknowledge that Crean is a total douche yet defend him with the ferocity of a pit bull. You "love" Buzz but nitpick everything he says and does. Sometimes you even go for the "two-fer" as in "Boy, if Tom Crean (the douche) would have just done what Buzz Williams (whom I absolutely love) did this board would crucify him". Calling people hypocrits while displaying your own. Now that's irony.
Quote from: bma725 on March 09, 2010, 07:21:15 PM
No, actually it doesn't. If the other rankings or wording supported the point you were trying to make in that thread just as well, then you would have used them. But the truth is they don't. Saying MU had the #1 recruiting class with no qualifiers on it versus saying they were #17 or whatever it was on Rivals doesn't help the point you were making as much.
Further, when you say someone has the #1 recruiting class, people react to it and interpret it very differently than if you say "a top recruiting class" or a Top 20 recruiting class. There's a change in the expectations that comes with it and a change in the expectations for the incoming players. There's an implication in that statement that a consensus of thought has been reached, and the experts believe a certain thing about MU's incoming class when clearly that wasn't the case.
What's funny about this is that I used that #1 ranking as evidence to support
MY OWN PREDICTION!!! If Hoopscoop were really that inaccurate, my prediction would have been wrong, and Lenny would have me eating crow for predicting that we would be at least a .500/top-half team.
Say whatever you want about Hoopscoop--I put myself out there with a prediction using them (and others) as support.
You've said several times you respect Rivals. I could have made the same exact point with them: Rivals ranked our 2005 class (with the Amigos) 23rd. For the 2009 class, Rivals (same more accurate, more reliable serivce) had us at 17th. Seeing as how the 2005 class (paired with one good returnee in Novak) led us to a
4th place finish in the Big East, I think its reasonable to think that with two strong returnees (Butler & Hayward) and an EVEN BETTER set of recruits--we might be able to muster at least an 8th place finish.
As I said, it doesn't change a thing. I thought we should be at least a top half team. I happened to use Hoopscoop to support that prediction. I could have used Rivals. It doesn't matter--its was still
my prediction.
Quote from: bma725 on March 09, 2010, 07:21:15 PM
Since you're so curious to find out how they do it, perhaps you should do what I did. Spend over a decade corresponding with the guys that run those services and pick their brains about how they evaluate talent, what they look for when they watch players and how they come up with their numbers. You'd learn quite a bit about what actually goes into this stuff, and why some services are worth paying for and others aren't worth the bandwith they occupy.
Too bad you didn't have the class or the common decency to actually explain this back then. You have some secret/private information that you gained in 10 years of personal research. Wonderful. How was I to know that?
You know what? Write a WIKI page that outlines the different methodologies--why you think one serivce is better than another. THAT would be helpful to all of us.
Ripping into me because I used the Hoopscoop number is not helpful.
I used the Hoopscoop ranking to justify my personal prediction (WHICH WAS CORRECT!!!!!), and you're still trying to make the case that I was trying to mislead the board? Sorry--I don't get it. How did I "mislead" anyone? Did anyone make the wrong call on where MU would finish because they read my post and believed it?
People could either agree or disagree with my prediction. Mostly they disagreed. Sucks for them--if they had agreed with me, they would have been correct as well. Some--like you--thought I was wrong to use Hoopscoops ranking to justify my prediction. Well, I did use them. And I was right. That's what's great about America--we can all make our own choices.
What I don't understand is why you made this a personal attack. Where do you get off saying it was "misleading"?
Quote from: bma725 on March 09, 2010, 07:21:15 PM
Regardless, you don't need to know a thing about the other services to realize that HoopScoop's way of calculating rank is biased towards larger classes. That's why he puts information on the average talent ranking in the class right next to the rank, so that you can tell when a class is artificially high simply because of volume.
Without resorting to another personal attack, perhaps you could put your 10 years of research to good use and explain to me how much of the difference between Rival's rank of #17 and Hoopscoops Rank of #1 is based on larger classes (as you claim now) and how much is because of the JUCOS (which you claimed last fall).
And perhaps you could also outline what Rivals saw in this years class that caused them to think that they would be significantly better than the class anchored by the Amigos.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 09, 2010, 09:34:09 PM
No irony with 84 or myself. We may disagree, but we mean what we say and say what we mean. You acknowledge that Crean is a total douche yet defend him with the ferocity of a pit bull. You "love" Buzz but nitpick everything he says and does. Sometimes you even go for the "two-fer" as in "Boy, if Tom Crean (the douche) would have just done what Buzz Williams (whom I absolutely love) did this board would crucify him". Calling people hypocrits while displaying your own. Now that's irony.
Post of the century. Sorry Chicos, we mended our fences, but he is spot on. This thread has turned into an unbelievable bitchfest. I thought I was petty! LOL
Quote from: Rocco on March 09, 2010, 09:48:47 PM
Post of the century. Sorry Chicos, we mended our fences, but he is spot on. This thread has turned into an unbelievable bitchfest. I thought I was petty! LOL
You're not the one getting dumped on!
There must be something in the air today.
First, I have Rocky, who claims I was only right in predicting our success "throwing sh*t agianst the wall to see what sticks". I challenged him to find even one post where I wasn't consistent with my "at-least-top-half/upside of 5th/6th" prediction. He hasn't replied yet, so I assume he's still scouring the archives.
Then I have BMA, who is upset because I justified my pre-season top-half prediction using <gasp!>
Hoopscoop's class ranking. He claims I "purposefully misled" the board into believing an ultimately
correct pre-season prediction. So to everyone:
I apologize for attempting to purposefully mislead you into thinking that we were better than 12th place. Then I have Lenny--who owns the world biggest pro-Buzz/anti-Crean agenda. Yet he still thinks that I have an anti-Buzz agenda even though I was probably the first (and perhaps only) person in April of 2008 applauding Steve Cottingham and defending his interview process and hiring decision.
Then again, I knew it was going to be a long strange trip when Murff was the only person at the start of the season that agreed with me.
Who would have guessed that I could make a prediction at the start of the year; Murff of all people would agree with me; virtually every other person would not just disagree with me, but violently disagree with every fiber of the being; and at the end of the season my prediction would turn out to be true!
Im not dumping on you at all. Im agreeing with the analysis of Chicos by Lenny. I actually agree with you, to throw my 2 cents in!
Quote from: Rocco on March 09, 2010, 10:32:54 PM
Im not dumping on you at all. Im agreeing with the analysis of Chicos by Lenny. I actually agree with you, to throw my 2 cents in!
Sorry--I thought I was the target of the "bitchfest' comment.
Quote from: Marquette84 on March 09, 2010, 10:27:07 PM
First, I have Rocky, who claims I was only right in predicting our success "throwing sh*t agianst the wall to see what sticks". I challenged him to find even one post where I wasn't consistent with my "at-least-top-half/upside of 5th/6th" prediction. He hasn't replied yet, so I assume he's still scouring the archives.
I apologize - I'm just challenged to try to keep up with the rate of posts lately. No need to scour, you clearly stated that you expected a top 4 or higher finish, then backed down from it with the sarcasm argument. We've already had the debate, you disagree, I'm not going to rehash it. You can go back and re-read the pre-season thread I linked to. Rinse and repeat if needed, it'll save both of us a lot of posting.
Quote from: Rocco on March 09, 2010, 10:32:54 PM
Im not dumping on you at all. Im agreeing with the analysis of Chicos by Lenny. I actually agree with you, to throw my 2 cents in!
Damn, you mean I have to take Lenny off of ignore now to read it? Nah....not going to do it. Same old song and dance from him, always playing the psychiatrist and deciding what people think or what their intentions are. No thanks.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 10, 2010, 12:51:22 AM
Damn, you mean I have to take Lenny off of ignore now to read it? Nah....not going to do it. Same old song and dance from him, always playing the psychiatrist and deciding what people think or what their intentions are. No thanks.
As opposed to the pot stirrer?
Quote from: rocky_warrior on March 10, 2010, 12:07:12 AM
I apologize - I'm just challenged to try to keep up with the rate of posts lately. No need to scour, you clearly stated that you expected a top 4 or higher finish, then backed down from it with the sarcasm argument. We've already had the debate, you disagree, I'm not going to rehash it. You can go back and re-read the pre-season thread I linked to. Rinse and repeat if needed, it'll save both of us a lot of posting.
The problem is you linked to the wrong thread. You should have linked to this one--where I actually made the comment (Not the first time you took it out of context):
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=15041.msg140586#msg140586
In that thread, I was implying that those same MU fans who ripped Crean for chronic underperformance with his 4th and 5th place finishes would set THEIR expectations at no worse than 4th. Especially guys like Lenny, who feel we've improved both our recruiting and coaching. If Crean, with his perceived faults, can finish 5th, I would expect that the floor for Buzz would be 4th.
Unfortunately, I can't count on people to take things in context--I guess I needed to spell it out precicesly: "I would expect the floor (FOR GUYS LIKE LENNY WHO THINK WE"VE IMPROVED OUR COACHING AND RECRUITING) would 4th place, because that is one spot better than Crean's AVERAGE performance of 5th.
Despite being corrected, and despite multiple other posts where my own predictions (top half/.500 at worst) were stated directly, you're still using this one post out of context again. I hope I've cleared it up for you this time.
Whats missing is that you (like BMA) miss the forest for the trees--even if I had consistently predicted a top 4 finish, I would still a LOT closer to the truth than those who agreed with the 12th place prediction. One missed basket by WVU or Villanova in the waning seconds and we actually are tied for 4th. Thats how close we were.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 09, 2010, 09:34:09 PM
No irony with 84 or myself. We may disagree, but we mean what we say and say what we mean. You acknowledge that Crean is a total douche yet defend him with the ferocity of a pit bull. You "love" Buzz but nitpick everything he says and does. Sometimes you even go for the "two-fer" as in "Boy, if Tom Crean (the douche) would have just done what Buzz Williams (whom I absolutely love) did this board would crucify him". Calling people hypocrits while displaying your own. Now that's irony.
Well, I can't speak for Chico's, but I will say this:
Several posters disliked Tom Crean to the millionth degree. It didn't matter what the man did, he would be ripped. If he showed up early to a press conference, he'd be called a brown-nosing media whore. If he showed up late, it's because he has a huge ego and couldn't make time for people.
I'm not saying that neither of those things are true (that's not the point). My point is that there is a section of posters out there who were always looking to spin everything he did into some sort of proof that he was a bad person and a bad coach.
I often challenged those posters with questions about "proof" or the consistency of their logic, and I was subsequently labeled a "Joanie" or some sort of apologist. Similar things have happened to Chicos and Marquette84.
Now, as far as "hypocrisy", let's just take an honest look at the situation and try to remove biases.
Buzz Williams is given the "benefit of the doubt" by some of the same posters who used to blast the former coach. Why? Well, I would contend its because they "like" Buzz better. I'm inclined to agree that Buzz SEEMS like a better guy (that's awesome), but my primary measurement of a coach is not if I "like" him. It's if he wins, represents the University well, and runs a clean program (no bias in that evaluation).
So far, Buzz is scoring very well on my scorecard, and so did the former coach.
Quote from: LancesOtherNut on March 09, 2010, 10:13:58 AM
This thread has turned into one big slap-fight.
(http://warmowski.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/slapfight.jpg)
Scanning through this thread made me come to the conclusion that this picture needed a bump.
Carry on.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on March 10, 2010, 08:21:14 AM
As opposed to the pot stirrer?
I'll gladly take the role of pot stirrer then play psychologist and determine what someone is feeling or thinking. Determining someones intent is a folly that is based on ones own inherent bias, thus the irony.
This brings up an interesting question - what does hoopscoop have this year's class ranked? We have a high quantity of recruits again, together with a high-quality JUCO. I'm mostly curious as to where Crowder is ranked.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 10, 2010, 12:51:22 AM
Damn, you mean I have to take Lenny off of ignore now to read it? Nah....not going to do it. Same old song and dance from him, always playing the psychiatrist and deciding what people think or what their intentions are. No thanks.
[/quote
Psychiatrists don't "decide what people think or what their intentions are". They treat and usually medicate people with mental illnesses. I'm certainly not qualified to determine whether one would be appropriate in your case.
I can, however, read and comprehend at a relatively high level. Nothing more required here.
Sorry you're so defensive about it, but closing your eyes real tight and putting your hands over your ears (i.e.,"ignoring") doesn't alter the truth.
Quote from: Ready2Fly on March 10, 2010, 09:57:13 AM
This brings up an interesting question - what does hoopscoop have this year's class ranked? We have a high quantity of recruits again, together with a high-quality JUCO. I'm mostly curious as to where Crowder is ranked.
We're 4th, but he still has Monterale Clark as part of the class. So when you subtract him out of there we drop to 10th. In terms of individual rankings, he has the players ranked like this:
Vander Blue - 8 Points - 11-40
Jae Crowder - 6 Points - 41-70
Reggie Smith - 3 Points - 101-300
Jamail Jones - 3 Points - 101-300
DJ Newbill - 3 Points - 101-300
He had Clark as a 6 point player, a drop from his previous status of an 8 point player. For whatever reason he just refuses to take him out of there.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 09, 2010, 07:50:23 PM
Let's face it, Lenny must be Mrs. Buzz Williams
Kidding...kidding. Of course 84 was called Joanie Crean on here by many so the irony is rather symbolic.
I thought 2002alum was Joanie, or Riley.
Quote from: mu-rara on March 10, 2010, 10:50:01 AM
I thought 2002alum was Joanie, or Riley.
Nope.
They did a blood test on Maury.
In the case of 2002MUAlum....Tom Crean is.... (dramatic maury pause) NOT the father.
Then we all dance around.
I'm excited to see Chris Otule next year. Buzz said he improved a lot over summer. Also, no one talks about E. Will. Hoping he will be a late bloomer.
Quote from: mikem91288 on March 10, 2010, 11:48:35 AM
I'm excited to see Chris Otule next year. Buzz said he improved a lot over summer. Also, no one talks about E. Will. Hoping he will be a late bloomer.
I just hope Otule can stay healthy for a whole year. Even if he hasn't improved much, just having a big body to throw out there occasionally would be nice.
Quote from: mikem91288 on March 10, 2010, 11:48:35 AM
I'm excited to see Chris Otule next year. Buzz said he improved a lot over summer. Also, no one talks about E. Will. Hoping he will be a late bloomer.
I was wondering when someone would bring up EW. He's going to be a MIP candidate next year.
Quote from: 2002MUalum on March 10, 2010, 11:17:38 AM
Nope.
They did a blood test on Maury.
In the case of 2002MUAlum....Tom Crean is.... (dramatic maury pause) NOT the father.
Then we all dance around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg7eStnlTwQ