http://bleacherreport.com/articles/222628-college-basketballs-top-25-of-the-last-decade#page/1
Great step, now let's build on that this decade with Buzz.
Bucky was 12th...Shows how good college basketball is in the state of Wisconsin considering people outside the state don't think much of it.
Pretty cool slide show
Quote from: MUFan11 on May 14, 2010, 04:55:45 PM
Bucky was 12th...Shows how good college basketball is in the state of Wisconsin considering people outside the state don't think much of it.
I agree that is pretty impressive considering the population in Wisconsin.
Crazy, I could have sworn we had a mediocre decade based on the chirpings here.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 14, 2010, 05:34:36 PM
Crazy, I could have sworn we had a mediocre decade based on the chirpings here.
C'mon dude... do you really have to poke at the bee hive like that?
Quote from: 2002MUalum on May 14, 2010, 05:35:38 PM
C'mon dude... do you really have to poke at the bee hive like that?
Absolutely, especially when it comes from another source, and a credible one at that. The hope is somewhere, sometime, somehow, the light goes on their heads and the only way that will happen is if that light is universally on and they can't avoid it. These people are in a cave, a very dark cave with no light.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 14, 2010, 05:42:00 PM
Absolutely, especially when it comes from another source, and a credible one at that.
Smh @ Bleacher Report being a credible source. Here is the esteemed author of that piece's bio:
Craig Meyer
I'm a lifetime sports junkie from Louisville, Kentucky, who spends a fair portion of the year in New England as a student at Boston University. I have always seen sports as an outlet for true passion and as a grand stage for true artistry at its finest.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 14, 2010, 05:42:00 PM
Absolutely, especially when it comes from another source, and a credible one at that. The hope is somewhere, sometime, somehow, the light goes on their heads and the only way that will happen is if that light is universally on and they can't avoid it. These people are in a cave, a very dark cave with no light.
Fair enough.
I'm afraid this thread is going to devolve quickly.
Have fun everybody.
I have no idea how we are ranked higher than a number of those teams 19 and up. I'd trade records/Dances with a number of them.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on May 14, 2010, 06:37:58 PM
I have no idea how we are ranked higher than a number of those teams 19 and up. I'd trade records/Dances with a number of them.
Right. Georgetown, Villanova and Pitt were surprises to see behind us. Though, Wade was that special and his time at MU is remembered a lot more based on his NBA success. Not many other schools can say that they have an All-NBA player as their alum, especially with the skip college generation dominating the NBA right now.
MU is 19th over last decade in Top 25 AP rankings. Also, ahead of Georgetown and Memphis.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/rankings/report_most_in_the_top/2000-2001
Over the past 62 years, MU is the 14th all-time highest ranked school (oh, for the dark Dukiet years or MU would be Top 10). So, at 19 vs. 14, does that make the Crean/Buzz combo "underachieving" by 36%? ;D
http://statsheet.com/mcb/rankings/report_most_in_the_top/1948-1949
Quote from: Cooby Snacks on May 14, 2010, 05:45:30 PM
Smh @ Bleacher Report being a credible source. Here is the esteemed author of that piece's bio:
Craig Meyer
I'm a lifetime sports junkie from Louisville, Kentucky, who spends a fair portion of the year in New England as a student at Boston University. I have always seen sports as an outlet for true passion and as a grand stage for true artistry at its finest.
If you don't like Bleacher Report, there are many others (ESPN, Sporting News, SI, etc) that say the same thing
In the 10 year period there are only 8 teams that made the final 4 more than once.
4 times North Carolina and Michigan St.
3 times Florida Kansas and UCLA
2 times Maryland, Uconn and Duke
1 time 17 teams
The key is consistency. While some teams may have stellar exceptional years, other years they may be bad. Hence over a long decade time period, a consistent good team such as Marquette will be ranked pretty high.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 14, 2010, 05:42:00 PM
The hope is somewhere, sometime, somehow, the light goes on their heads and the only way that will happen is if that light is universally on and they can't avoid it.
Chicos, let me explain to you one last time.
I haven't seen many posters claim we didn't experience some success under Crean. I'm not sure who you're arguing with. We all can't stand the guy because he's a phony, success manual reading, posing, self-tanning, D-list celebrity chasing douche bag. He always was and he always will be. Given his track record, I'm even convinced he married his wife because she was from a well-known family. He's that big of a dick.
Nothing you say can change this. You can keep citing his record. Keep talking about DWade. Keep talking about "players swearing by him" (a total stretch), but at the end of the day he's still going to be the same absolute tool he was when he left here. And I don't care how he left...I'm just glad he did. It's almost as if you are in denial about this. WE DON'T LIKE HIM! It has nothing to do with his record!
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on May 15, 2010, 06:44:01 AM
Chicos, let me explain to you one last time.
I haven't seen many posters claim we didn't experience some success under Crean. I'm not sure who you're arguing with. We all can't stand the guy because he's a phony, success manual reading, posing, self-tanning, D-list celebrity chasing douche bag. He always was and he always will be. Given his track record, I'm even convinced he married his wife because she was from a well-known family. He's that big of a dick.
Nothing you say can change this. You can keep citing his record. Keep talking about DWade. Keep talking about "players swearing by him" (a total stretch), but at the end of the day he's still going to be the same absolute tool he was when he left here. And I don't care how he left...I'm just glad he did. It's almost as if you are in denial about this. WE DON'T LIKE HIM! It has nothing to do with his record!
There people around here that don't like Tom Crean? I never noticed.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on May 15, 2010, 06:44:01 AM
Chicos, let me explain to you one last time.
I haven't seen many posters claim we didn't experience some success under Crean. I'm not sure who you're arguing with. We all can't stand the guy because he's a phony, success manual reading, posing, self-tanning, D-list celebrity chasing douche bag. He always was and he always will be. Given his track record, I'm even convinced he married his wife because she was from a well-known family. He's that big of a dick.
Nothing you say can change this. You can keep citing his record. Keep talking about DWade. Keep talking about "players swearing by him" (a total stretch), but at the end of the day he's still going to be the same absolute tool he was when he left here. And I don't care how he left...I'm just glad he did. It's almost as if you are in denial about this. WE DON'T LIKE HIM! It has nothing to do with his record!
Plenty of posters say we didn't have success PRN, you just aren't paying attention. Just in the last month alone, so please don't pretend it's not there and not there OFTEN.
We get it, he's a tool..to suggest I haven't noticed those feelings from you and SOME others would put me in a vegetative state...guess what, there were other tools also like KO...an even bigger tool. But there is a cottage industry developed toward this guy. Fun to watch, a study is psychosemantics if I ever saw one.
Underacheiving is subjective. If you think that the Al years are the standard of what MU should be, then we have not lived up to it every year. I think most people would consider this a good decade, but I would personally like to see a better one for the "teens" (if that is what you call 2011-2020?). MU has invested in coaching and facilities. We also are in the best conference we have been in.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 15, 2010, 10:29:35 AM
Plenty of posters say we didn't have success PRN, you just aren't paying attention. Just in the last month alone, so please don't pretend it's not there and not there OFTEN.
We get it, he's a tool..to suggest I haven't noticed those feelings from you and SOME others would put me in a vegetative state...guess what, there were other tools also like KO...an even bigger tool. But there is a cottage industry developed toward this guy. Fun to watch, a study is psychosemantics if I ever saw one.
Please name the "plenty" to whom you refer. If you cite me as an example I'll point to several posts to prove you wrong. For what it's worth, PRN summed up my opinion of Tom Crean to a t.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 14, 2010, 05:42:00 PM
Absolutely, especially when it comes from another source, and a credible one at that. The hope is somewhere, sometime, somehow, the light goes on their heads and the only way that will happen is if that light is universally on and they can't avoid it. These people are in a cave, a very dark cave with no light.
Just because I think (and many others) that Buzz is a better coach, recruiter, and person than is Tom Crean - that doesn't mean we don't recognize the decade of 2000-2009 as being a successful period of MU basketball. We had a once-in-a-program player in D-Wade that catapulted us to the Final Four, and a total of 7 appearances in the NCAA. Granted we haven't really gone anywhere in 6 of those 7 NCAA appearances, but there was still a level of consistency sans the 2 NIT seasons after the Final Four Season. Tom Crean deserves credit for his role in this, just a Buzz Williams does. My personal belief is just that Buzz has a higher ceiling than does Tom Crean - time shall tell - and I put Buzz's ceiling quite high..I believe he can be an elite-level coach/recruiter. Tom Crean on the other hand, I'd say is a good coach, and good recruiter..and right now I'd say Buzz has a bigger upside than TC.
Guys, know I'm a pollyanna, but the ranking is absolutely deserved. For the fans that insist that only a Final Four is a successful year, bilsu has pointed out that only 8 teams made it more than once, so even if that were your only criteria, we'd rank between 9th and 25th along with the other teams who have made it once.
As I pointed out before, we are one of only 11 teams that have made the tournament the last 5 years running. Think about that for a second, that includes teams with easy chances for automatic qualifiers.
As Dr. Blackheart points out, MU ranks 19th based on AP rankings.
What criteria can you possibly use to NOT have Marquette right around where he ranks them? Sure you can argue under one method that a few teams are ahead or behind, and using another method that it's other teams that are ahead or behind, but the bottom line is I think some of our fans are spoiled by success and just don't realize that more than 300 teams would gladly trade with us for our last 10 years.
Now Buzz, take us one step further!
Quote from: bamamarquettefan on May 15, 2010, 09:43:21 PM
Guys, know I'm a pollyanna, but the ranking is absolutely deserved. For the fans that insist that only a Final Four is a successful year, bilsu has pointed out that only 8 teams made it more than once, so even if that were your only criteria, we'd rank between 9th and 25th along with the other teams who have made it once.
As I pointed out before, we are one of only 11 teams that have made the tournament the last 5 years running. Think about that for a second, that includes teams with easy chances for automatic qualifiers.
As Dr. Blackheart points out, MU ranks 19th based on AP rankings.
What criteria can you possibly use to NOT have Marquette right around where he ranks them? Sure you can argue under one method that a few teams are ahead or behind, and using another method that it's other teams that are ahead or behind, but the bottom line is I think some of our fans are spoiled by success and just don't realize that more than 300 teams would gladly trade with us for our last 10 years.
Now Buzz, take us one step further!
+1 to all the above...what is sad is that the Big 3 held so much promise, and we had the Jerel injury sophomore year, and then the Dominic injury senior year. Really believe the Big 3's senio year + Lazar and Jimmy were an Elite 8 level team>>I think that is the area some MU fans have regarding the frustration over our post season performances in the decade of 2000-2009
Quote from: bamamarquettefan on May 15, 2010, 09:43:21 PM
Guys, know I'm a pollyanna, but the ranking is absolutely deserved. For the fans that insist that only a Final Four is a successful year...
Um. No one does that. If you said "win a game in the NCAAs" then many would agree.
And everyone has a sliding scale. Except UK, UNC, Kansas, Duke fans.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 15, 2010, 02:37:08 PM
Please name the "plenty" to whom you refer. If you cite me as an example I'll point to several posts to prove you wrong. For what it's worth, PRN summed up my opinion of Tom Crean to a t.
OMG. Are you serious. Everything from people bitching about the Final Four because we lost big to KU, to the team was terrible except for one year and ONLY because of Wade (as if Novak, Diener, Merritt, etc didn't exist), to people bitching about the Big 3.
You are living in a cave if you don't think there have been people here constantly saying we were mediocre or "just good enough" (I love that comment).
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 16, 2010, 12:01:16 PM
OMG. Are you serious. Everything from people bitching about the Final Four because we lost big to KU, to the team was terrible except for one year and ONLY because of Wade (as if Novak, Diener, Merritt, etc didn't exist), to people bitching about the Big 3.
Chicos - The reality is that in the 2003-2004 season, we had Novak, Diener and Merritt we lost to TCU in the first round of the CUSA tourney, and were an NIT team that finished 19-12. Sure Robert Jackson was important, but D-Wade was the X-Factor that took us on the Final Four run. Every player returned, other than Wade and R-Jack and we were a shell of the 2003 team in 2004...we didn't beat 1 ranked team in all of 2003/2004 season. Same story in 2004/2205 with both Novak and Diener - no wins over a Top 25 team, and first round loss to TCU in C-USA tourney. We lost Merritt, but still had Chapman, Townsend as holdovers from the Final Four Team. It almost defeats your central argument about the quality of coach that Tom Crean was - as once he lost Wade, he couldn't get his team back to the NCAA with 2 future NBA'ers in Novak and Diener (or Merritt), or Townsend, Chapman, and any of his additional recruits...all while playing in the C-USA.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 16, 2010, 12:01:16 PM
OMG. Are you serious. Everything from people bitching about the Final Four because we lost big to KU, to the team was terrible except for one year and ONLY because of Wade (as if Novak, Diener, Merritt, etc didn't exist), to people bitching about the Big 3.
You are living in a cave if you don't think there have been people here constantly saying we were mediocre or "just good enough" (I love that comment).
I address your complaints one by one:
1. People bitch about our loss to KU in the final four. Why not? It was an embarassing loss on the biggest of stages in MU's most important game in decades. The team looked flat and unprepared. When we looked flat against DePaul last year you posted several times about your embarassment and you LOVE Buzz.
2.The team was terrible every year but one under TC. Anybody who says this needs their head examined. That said, I don't recall reading that anytime from ANYONE on this board. Unless you can provide proof I'll put this down as an example of something made up or imagined by you.
3.Wade was the only reason for MU's success. Teams don't go to the final 4 with only one good player so this is nonsense. That said, Tom Crean himself is on record as saying that Wade would "have crawled on his hands and knees through broken glass to Bloomington" had IU offered him a scholarship. Had he been a qualifier academically there's no way he goes to MU. Since to some degree Wade fell into TC's lap (assist to FR Wild), it's not unfair to speculate where MU and Crean would have been without him. Answer: OK, but not great.
4.People bitch about the Big 3. I assume this is the three amigos. These guys were great competitors for and representatives of Marquette U. and some of the criticism of them on this board is unfair. What is not unfair is to state the TRUTH that their stats were padded because they played huge minutes from start to finish. That's because there was very little in the backcourt at MU when they arrived and not much in the way of competition/back up while they were here. And that speaks to one of TC's failings as a recruiter - he could sell minutes but not the "program".
5.People "constantly" saying that under TC we were mediocre or "just good enough". I guess this is as opposed to those view the TC era as a return to "seashells and balloons". One great year, 4 good years and 4 mediocre years make the truth for me somewhere in between.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 16, 2010, 04:27:16 PM
I address your complaints one by one:
1. People bitch about our loss to KU in the final four. Why not? It was an embarassing loss on the biggest of stages in MU's most important game in decades. The team looked flat and unprepared. When we looked flat against DePaul last year you posted several times about your embarassment and you LOVE Buzz. OMFG you have to be kidding me. First, we came out with the game tied with 12 minutes to go in the first half, we hardly came out flat. Did you watch the game? And yes, we lost to one of the best teams in the country. Please, God, tell me you aren't comparing that loss to one of the top 5 teams in the nation to losing to a DePaul team in which we had more fans in THEIR building then they did, to a team that has won ONE...ONE...ONE Big East Regular season game in over 700 days. ONE.
2.The team was terrible every year but one under TC. Anybody who says this needs their head examined. That said, I don't recall reading that anytime from ANYONE on this board. Unless you can provide proof I'll put this down as an example of something made up or imagined by you. It won't matter, if I list 4 guys, you'll say it's not enough. If I list 10 guys you'll make up some other excuse. Not worth the effort Dr.
3.Wade was the only reason for MU's success. Teams don't go to the final 4 with only one good player so this is nonsense. That said, Tom Crean himself is on record as saying that Wade would "have crawled on his hands and knees through broken glass to Bloomington" had IU offered him a scholarship. Had he been a qualifier academically there's no way he goes to MU. Since to some degree Wade fell into TC's lap (assist to FR Wild), it's not unfair to speculate where MU and Crean would have been without him. Answer: OK, but not great. Of course it's nonsense, and we have more than a few nonsensical people here that make that claim that MU made the Final Four because of one thing....Dwyane Wade. We agree, it's nonsense, but unfortunately all too many jaghoffs feel this way and they all have the same agenda (I know because I play a psychiatrist on a message board and can read their minds).
4.People bitch about the Big 3. I assume this is the three amigos. These guys were great competitors for and representatives of Marquette U. and some of the criticism of them on this board is unfair. What is not unfair is to state the TRUTH that their stats were padded because they played huge minutes from start to finish. That's because there was very little in the backcourt at MU when they arrived and not much in the way of competition/back up while they were here. And that speaks to one of TC's failings as a recruiter - he could sell minutes but not the "program". So you're telling me that people like Diener, Novak, etc, came here because he could sell minutes and not the program. ::)
5.People "constantly" saying that under TC we were mediocre or "just good enough". I guess this is as opposed to those view the TC era as a return to "seashells and balloons". One great year, 4 good years and 4 mediocre years make the truth for me somewhere in between. That's a better run then we had since "seashells and balloons" so I can imagine some people probably did say that. The reality is, the first two years we were left with absolutely nothing so to call them mediocre is fine in looking at the record, the fact we got out of those two years without a losing record tells me it was something a bit more than mediocre.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 16, 2010, 11:03:12 PM
Could you address my previous post -seems you haven't been able to rebut many of my posts lately. Can't really excuse your way out of questions/data like below:
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 16, 2010, 12:01:16 PM
OMG. Are you serious. Everything from people bitching about the Final Four because we lost big to KU, to the team was terrible except for one year and ONLY because of Wade (as if Novak, Diener, Merritt, etc didn't exist), to people bitching about the Big 3.
Chicos - The reality is that in the 2003-2004 season, we had Novak, Diener and Merritt we lost to TCU in the first round of the CUSA tourney, and were an NIT team that finished 19-12. Sure Robert Jackson was important, but D-Wade was the X-Factor that took us on the Final Four run. Every player returned, other than Wade and R-Jack and we were a shell of the 2003 team in 2004...we didn't beat 1 ranked team in all of 2003/2004 season. Same story in 2004/2205 with both Novak and Diener - no wins over a Top 25 team, and first round loss to TCU in C-USA tourney. We lost Merritt, but still had Chapman, Townsend as holdovers from the Final Four Team. It almost defeats your central argument about the quality of coach that Tom Crean was - as once he lost Wade, he couldn't get his team back to the NCAA with 2 future NBA'ers in Novak and Diener (or Merritt), or Townsend, Chapman, and any of his additional recruits...all while playing in the C-USA.
(http://wombat.arawakcity.org/files/images/InternetToughGuy.preview.jpg)
Quotestory in 2004/2205 with both Novak and Diener - no wins over a Top 25 team, and first round loss to TCU in C-USA tourney
Have you totally forgotten that Diener was injured in 2004-05? The team was 9-0 with a win over #22 Wisconsin prior to his first injury, and they were 18-8 with a shot at making the NCAAs before he went down for good in February.
Quote from: bma725 on May 17, 2010, 01:41:38 PM
Have you totally forgotten that Diener was injured in 2004-05? The team was 9-0 with a win over #22 Wisconsin prior to his first injury, and they were 18-8 with a shot at making the NCAAs before he went down for good in February.
Diener's MU legacy was definitely helped by that injury. The fact that a mediocre team became a bad team in his absense made many people overrate Diener's abilities. Had he remained healthy, MU likely would have continued down their self-destructing, bubble-bursting path and I believe many fans' opinions of Diener would be quite different.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on May 17, 2010, 01:30:36 PM
I don't want facts to get in the way of an impassioned argument, but getting to the sweet 16 was thanks to Diener.
1st round MU v Holy Cross: (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=234000055) Diener puts up 29 points.
2nd round v Missouri (http://espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=234000056): Diener puts up 26 points on 8/12 shooting. Merritt had 18 going 8 for 11. DWade threw up 24, but shot 9 for 23... ouch
Wade turned into a buzzsaw in our game against Pittsburgh the next weekend obviously followed by his brilliant performance against Kentucky in the Elite 8.
No doubt Diener was critical to the success in us advancing out of Round 1 and 2, but the amount of great looks D-Wade created for his teammates, as well as the amount of attention D-Wade commanded, certainly made the game a lot easier for Diener, Novak and Merritt.
Quote from: bma725 on May 17, 2010, 01:41:38 PM
Have you totally forgotten that Diener was injured in 2004-05? The team was 9-0 with a win over #22 Wisconsin prior to his first injury, and they were 18-8 with a shot at making the NCAAs before he went down for good in February.
How could I forget seeing Marcus Jackson serving as our point guard? Yes, I do remember!! Yes, it definitely hurt losing Diener - were 14-4 at the time of his injury, but, up to that point we didn't beat any quality opponents, Wisconsin was not ranked in the ESPN poll. That said, this still doesn't excuse the results of the 2003-2004 team, which had a healthy team all year with Diener, Novak, Merritt, Chapman, Townsend...and were a 19-12 team.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 16, 2010, 04:27:16 PM
I address your complaints one by one:
1. People bitch about our loss to KU in the final four. Why not? It was an embarassing loss on the biggest of stages in MU's most important game in decades. The team looked flat and unprepared. When we looked flat against DePaul last year you posted several times about your embarassment and you LOVE Buzz.
Chico is right that MU did not come out flat (but the game was tied with 14 minutes to play, not 12). The main problem with the loss was that TC thought MU could run with Kansas and they clearly could not. That was a massive miscalculation.
Wisconsin was #22 in the AP poll the day we beat them, finished 18th in the RPI, and made the Elite Eight that year, I think you can say pretty easily that it was a quality win.
Quote from: bma725 on May 17, 2010, 02:46:43 PM
Wisconsin was #22 in the AP poll the day we beat them, finished 18th in the RPI, and made the Elite Eight that year, I think you can say pretty easily that it was a quality win.
I didn't research it that far, but I stand corrected. That said, do you have a justification as to how the 2003-2004 team with Diener, Novak, Merritt, Chapman and Townsend failed to beat a ranked team all year, and failed to make the NCAA, finished 19-12, coming off of a 27-7 Final Four appearance - other than to say they lost D-Wade? Therefore, it is pretty safe to draw the conclusion that the difference between MU being a Final Four team in 2003 and being an NIT team in 2004 and 2005 with virtually the same personnel - was D-Wade.
Quote from: Ners on May 17, 2010, 02:53:41 PM
I didn't research it that far, but I stand corrected. That said, do you have a justification as to how the 2003-2004 team with Diener, Novak, Merritt, Chapman and Townsend failed to beat a ranked team all year, and failed to make the NCAA, finished 19-12, coming off of a 27-7 Final Four appearance - other than to say they lost D-Wade? Therefore, it is pretty safe to draw the conclusion that the difference between MU being a Final Four team in 2003 and being an NIT team in 2004 and 2005 with virtually the same personnel - was D-Wade.
But,,,
They also lost Jackson, Novak was no longer an unknown commodity and garnered a little more attention outside.
Quote from: Ners on May 17, 2010, 02:53:41 PM
I didn't research it that far, but I stand corrected. That said, do you have a justification as to how the 2003-2004 team with Diener, Novak, Merritt, Chapman and Townsend failed to beat a ranked team all year, and failed to make the NCAA, finished 19-12, coming off of a 27-7 Final Four appearance - other than to say they lost D-Wade? Therefore, it is pretty safe to draw the conclusion that the difference between MU being a Final Four team in 2003 and being an NIT team in 2004 and 2005 with virtually the same personnel - was D-Wade.
Robert Jackson was easily the second-most important player on that team. Losing a lottery pick and legit big man are significant losses...but the 03-04 still should have been better than they were.
Quote from: Ners on May 17, 2010, 01:11:35 PM
Could you address my previous post -seems you haven't been able to rebut many of my posts lately. Can't really excuse your way out of questions/data like below:
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 16, 2010, 12:01:16 PM
OMG. Are you serious. Everything from people bitching about the Final Four because we lost big to KU, to the team was terrible except for one year and ONLY because of Wade (as if Novak, Diener, Merritt, etc didn't exist), to people bitching about the Big 3.
Chicos - The reality is that in the 2003-2004 season, we had Novak, Diener and Merritt we lost to TCU in the first round of the CUSA tourney, and were an NIT team that finished 19-12. Sure Robert Jackson was important, but D-Wade was the X-Factor that took us on the Final Four run. Every player returned, other than Wade and R-Jack and we were a shell of the 2003 team in 2004...we didn't beat 1 ranked team in all of 2003/2004 season. Same story in 2004/2205 with both Novak and Diener - no wins over a Top 25 team, and first round loss to TCU in C-USA tourney. We lost Merritt, but still had Chapman, Townsend as holdovers from the Final Four Team. It almost defeats your central argument about the quality of coach that Tom Crean was - as once he lost Wade, he couldn't get his team back to the NCAA with 2 future NBA'ers in Novak and Diener (or Merritt), or Townsend, Chapman, and any of his additional recruits...all while playing in the C-USA.
Uhm, Diener was hurt all season long with two injuries, one of which made him miss multiple games.
Merritt's shoulder injury. Novak no longer just a role player but having to learn how to play with someone in his grill.
Secondly, the conference was a crapload better in 2003-04 than 2002-03. In 03-04, CUSA sent 5 teams to the NCAA Tournament. They only sent 3 the year prior when we made the Final Four.
Key injuries, much tougher conference, loss of Jackson and Wade....please, get real. For you to make your comparisons is beyond ridiculous. That was a good team when they were healthy, but by no means a great team. They had a small margin for error and when Diener went down, that was it. Plus the increased level of the conference really broke them down.
If you wonder why I'm not responding to some of your posts, there isn't a reason to. Your comment "I stand corrected" should be in your signature, quite frankly. Your analysis has gaping holes, glosses over realities, ignores completely other realities.
Quote from: Ners on May 17, 2010, 02:53:41 PM
I didn't research it that far, but I stand corrected. That said, do you have a justification as to how the 2003-2004 team with Diener, Novak, Merritt, Chapman and Townsend failed to beat a ranked team all year, and failed to make the NCAA, finished 19-12, coming off of a 27-7 Final Four appearance - other than to say they lost D-Wade? Therefore, it is pretty safe to draw the conclusion that the difference between MU being a Final Four team in 2003 and being an NIT team in 2004 and 2005 with virtually the same personnel - was D-Wade.
Your forgetting what else happened between 2002-03 and 2003-04. They lost Robert Jackson, and Marcus Jackson sprained his ankle so badly that he was never really effective his first year. That forced the post load to be solely on Merritt, who was coming off shoulder surgery that summer, and he did well, but he couldn't do it alone.
What made the 2002-03 team so effective wasn't just Wade, it was that if you tried to stop Wade, the other guys could still beat you. The 2003-04 team didn't have that.
Quote from: bma725 on May 17, 2010, 03:09:08 PM
Your forgetting what else happened between 2002-03 and 2003-04. They lost Robert Jackson, and Marcus Jackson sprained his ankle so badly that he was never really effective his first year. That forced the post load to be solely on Merritt, who was coming off shoulder surgery that summer, and he did well, but he couldn't do it alone.
What made the 2002-03 team so effective wasn't just Wade, it was that if you tried to stop Wade, the other guys could still beat you. The 2003-04 team didn't have that.
A F(&#$# MEN
That's exactly right, but it doesn't fit the agenda that it "WAS ALL WADE and MU\CREAN LUCKED OUT IN HAVING HIM LAND IN THEIR LAP"
Quote from: bma725 on May 17, 2010, 03:09:08 PM
Your forgetting what else happened between 2002-03 and 2003-04. They lost Robert Jackson, and Marcus Jackson sprained his ankle so badly that he was never really effective his first year. That forced the post load to be solely on Merritt, who was coming off shoulder surgery that summer, and he did well, but he couldn't do it alone.
What made the 2002-03 team so effective wasn't just Wade, it was that if you tried to stop Wade, the other guys could still beat you. The 2003-04 team didn't have that.
All of this may be true, but the reality is that nobody could stop Wade off the dribble, and he could get to anywhere on the floor he wanted to go and once he collapsed the defense..wide open shots for Diener and Novak. It was so frustrating watching the Diener led teams struggle to break down anyone off the dribble - Travis couldn't do it, Chapman couldn't, Townsend couldn't, Novak couldn't, Merritt couldn't, etc...it was this element that led to the 2004 and 2205 teams not being able to make the NCAA - a healthy Marcus Jackson wouldn't have made a difference. Ironically, the team got good again once we had guys who could beat their man off the dribble - Dominic, Jerel and Wes to an extent.
Quote from: Ners on May 17, 2010, 03:17:15 PM
All of this may be true, but the reality is that nobody could stop Wade off the dribble, and he could get to anywhere on the floor he wanted to go and once he collapsed the defense..wide open shots for Diener and Novak. It was so frustrating watching the Diener led teams struggle to break down anyone off the dribble - Travis couldn't do it, Chapman couldn't, Townsend couldn't, Novak couldn't, Merritt couldn't, etc...it was this element that led to the 2004 and 2205 teams not being able to make the NCAA - a healthy Marcus Jackson wouldn't have made a difference. Ironically, the team got good again once we had guys who could beat their man off the dribble - Dominic, Jerel and Wes to an extent.
no.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 17, 2010, 03:21:48 PM
no.
Can you elaborate on why you disagree? Did you think Travis was a guy who could take people off the dribble and create for others or himself? He was a very good player, but this was not a strength of his...and the 2004, 2005 teams really lacked this element. Ironically once you put Novak with Dominic, Wes and Jerel - they make the NCAA tourney.
Quote from: Ners on May 17, 2010, 03:28:03 PM
Can you elaborate on why you disagree? Did you think Travis was a guy who could take people off the dribble and create for others or himself? He was a very good player, but this was not a strength of his...and the 2004, 2005 teams really lacked this element. Ironically once you put Novak with Dominic, Wes and Jerel - they make the NCAA tourney.
I just think you have been very selective. You present one opinion, it gets shot down, and then you try to state another.
Travis could take people off the dribble. Yes. I was there for 3 of his 4 years. The kid could play basketball, and that is why he plays in the NBA to this day. Now, was it he strength? No, he was a shooter, and could run the offense. That being said, I'd take TD off the dribble over most of the guys he was going against.
You try to oversimplify everything here way too much. Novak was a senior with the 3A. TD was a Senior when Novak was just a soph. TD and all of the 3A were totally different players. Wade was a great player, we all know it. But to just dismiss TD is a mistake, and a ridiculous one at that.
Do you see what I mean? I'd just be rather sure of my arguments if I was going to post something, since people here (and on the internet in general) like to tear people apart who claim to know something, and then are wrong.
Quote from: Ners on May 17, 2010, 03:17:15 PM
All of this may be true, but the reality is that nobody could stop Wade off the dribble, and he could get to anywhere on the floor he wanted to go and once he collapsed the defense..wide open shots for Diener and Novak. It was so frustrating watching the Diener led teams struggle to break down anyone off the dribble - Travis couldn't do it, Chapman couldn't, Townsend couldn't, Novak couldn't, Merritt couldn't, etc...it was this element that led to the 2004 and 2205 teams not being able to make the NCAA - a healthy Marcus Jackson wouldn't have made a difference. Ironically, the team got good again once we had guys who could beat their man off the dribble - Dominic, Jerel and Wes to an extent.
I think you're confusing the player Wade is now with the player he was in 2002-03. He was not unstoppable off the dribble back then, not even close.
Dayton shut down his drives and turned him into a jumpshooter, leading to a 8-23 night. The only reason MU didn't get killed that night was because they pounded it inside to Merritt and Jackson who scored a combined 35 points.
St. Louis shut him down twice, both driving and shooting, despite the fact that they had no one who could come close to him athletically. The first game he went 3-10, but MU won because Jackson and Merritt went 10 of 18 and combined for 27 points. The second game he went 3-17, but MU won because of Diener's pull up jumpers and pounding it inside to RJax.
Wake Forest(Josh Howard essentially) shut down his driving, but MU won again because Jackson and Merritt combined for 35 points.
Louisville stopped him in the first game leading to a 3-13 night, but MU almost won because Diener and Jackson were great.
Holy Cross made him turn in an abysmal performance, but MU was able to advance because Diener was spectacular, and Chapman and Novak went 4-5 from beyond the arc.
Now you might say his scoring got shut down, but he was able to help out by being a distributor...unfortunately the games and the stats don't really bear that out. Against Dayton, he had 3 assists. In the two games against SLU, he had 6 combined. Against Wake, 2 again. Against Louisville, 2 more. Against Holy Cross, 4.
You do a major disservice to the players on that team, and show quite a lack of knowledge about that team when you attribute their success solely to Wade. They were a talented enough group to play well even when he was playing terribly and not contributing much at all.
Quote from: bma725 on May 17, 2010, 03:54:57 PM
I think you're confusing the player Wade is now with the player he was in 2002-03. He was not unstoppable off the dribble back then, not even close.
Dayton shut down his drives and turned him into a jumpshooter, leading to a 8-23 night. The only reason MU didn't get killed that night was because they pounded it inside to Merritt and Jackson who scored a combined 35 points.
St. Louis shut him down twice, both driving and shooting, despite the fact that they had no one who could come close to him athletically. The first game he went 3-10, but MU won because Jackson and Merritt went 10 of 18 and combined for 27 points. The second game he went 3-17, but MU won because of Diener's pull up jumpers and pounding it inside to RJax.
Wake Forest(Josh Howard essentially) shut down his driving, but MU won again because Jackson and Merritt combined for 35 points.
Louisville stopped him in the first game leading to a 3-13 night, but MU almost won because Diener and Jackson were great.
Holy Cross made him turn in an abysmal performance, but MU was able to advance because Diener was spectacular, and Chapman and Novak went 4-5 from beyond the arc.
Now you might say his scoring got shut down, but he was able to help out by being a distributor...unfortunately the games and the stats don't really bear that out. Against Dayton, he had 3 assists. In the two games against SLU, he had 6 combined. Against Wake, 2 again. Against Louisville, 2 more. Against Holy Cross, 4.
You do a major disservice to the players on that team, and show quite a lack of knowledge about that team when you attribute their success solely to Wade. They were a talented enough group to play well even when he was playing terribly and not contributing much at all.
All of this may be true but the fact remains teams clearly game planned on how to stop Wade. He was the focus. If Diener, Novak, Merritt, Chapman and Townsend were a talented enough group without Wade, then how could they not beat a Top 25 team the following year and lose in the NIT's 3rd round. I respect your knowledge and input on this site consistently, but in this regard I'm going to have to disagree with you.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 17, 2010, 03:39:42 PM
I just think you have been very selective. You present one opinion, it gets shot down, and then you try to state another.
Travis could take people off the dribble. Yes. I was there for 3 of his 4 years. The kid could play basketball, and that is why he plays in the NBA to this day. Now, was it he strength? No, he was a shooter, and could run the offense. That being said, I'd take TD off the dribble over most of the guys he was going against.
You try to oversimplify everything here way too much. Novak was a senior with the 3A. TD was a Senior when Novak was just a soph. TD and all of the 3A were totally different players. Wade was a great player, we all know it. But to just dismiss TD is a mistake, and a ridiculous one at that.
Do you see what I mean? I'd just be rather sure of my arguments if I was going to post something, since people here (and on the internet in general) like to tear people apart who claim to know something, and then are wrong.
I liked Travis as a player for sure, but honestly, Travis is basically Steve Kerr - great shooter, but nowhere near as quick as most point guards. As for the statement in bold we all post opinions here, and everyone always thinks their opinion is "right." I am quite sure of my arguments, which is why I post them. Just as I disagree with your posted opinion, you disagree with mine. Fair enough. So, for as much as you feel I'm wrong and claim to not know something, I feel the same way toward you and your opinion on this matter.
Quote from: Ners on May 17, 2010, 04:34:20 PM
All of this may be true but the fact remains teams clearly game planned on how to stop Wade. He was the focus. If Diener, Novak, Merritt, Chapman and Townsend were a talented enough group without Wade, then how could they not beat a Top 25 team the following year and lose in the NIT's 3rd round. I respect your knowledge and input on this site consistently, but in this regard I'm going to have to disagree with you.
Again you need to do some more research before making statements like that, because once again you're just flat out wrong. They beat Notre Dame, ranked #23 in the AP the day they beat them. They beat Louisville, ranked #25 in the AP the day they beat them.
As for why the finished the way they did, it's pretty simple. Those guys went from being option #3-7, to #1-5. Merritt, coming of a shoulder surgery was forced to play out of position due to the injury to Marcus Jackson, and as a result he wasn't able to use game to it's full abilities. Terry Sanders, who should have been the back up was forced into a starting role because of the injury to Jackson. Novak became a starter because of Townsend's complete meltdown, a role he was not ready for, and he was able to produce what was needed in order to keep up.
Quote from: bma725 on May 17, 2010, 06:06:35 PM
Again you need to do some more research before making statements like that, because once again you're just flat out wrong. They beat Notre Dame, ranked #23 in the AP the day they beat them. They beat Louisville, ranked #25 in the AP the day they beat them.
As for why the finished the way they did, it's pretty simple. Those guys went from being option #3-7, to #1-5. Merritt, coming of a shoulder surgery was forced to play out of position due to the injury to Marcus Jackson, and as a result he wasn't able to use game to it's full abilities. Terry Sanders, who should have been the back up was forced into a starting role because of the injury to Jackson. Novak became a starter because of Townsend's complete meltdown, a role he was not ready for, and he was able to produce what was needed in order to keep up.
Again, you are using the AP rankings, and I've been going by the Coaches Poll or ESPN rankings. According to ESPN rankings, neither Notre Dame or Lousiville were ranked, and even in the AP..23 and 25 are pretty much as low as you can get. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point, I think D-Wade was hugely responsible for the Final Four run, and feel at best even without he and Robert Jackson - there is no way a team should go from Final Four to 19-12 and NIT 3rd round defeat the following year..when you basically return the rest of a Final Four team that features 2 future NBA'ers that it shouldn't make the NCAA. I still feel Travis was a great college player, but both he and Novak benefited hugely by playing with DWade.
Quote from: Ners on May 17, 2010, 04:57:10 PM
I liked Travis as a player for sure, but honestly, Travis is basically Steve Kerr - great shooter, but nowhere near as quick as most point guards. As for the statement in bold we all post opinions here, and everyone always thinks their opinion is "right." I am quite sure of my arguments, which is why I post them. Just as I disagree with your posted opinion, you disagree with mine. Fair enough. So, for as much as you feel I'm wrong and claim to not know something, I feel the same way toward you and your opinion on this matter.
You start a lot of posts with the words "All of this may be true,........". Do you realize that?
It pretty much means that when your always faulty arguments are shot down by multiple credible posters, you should stop your responses after those six little words. May has been a tough month.
Further, to consistently claim as you do that the only reason Diener had those monster performances the first weekend was solely because of Dwyane Wade is insulting.
Quote from: Ners on May 17, 2010, 04:34:20 PM
All of this may be true but the fact remains teams clearly game planned on how to stop Wade. He was the focus. If Diener, Novak, Merritt, Chapman and Townsend were a talented enough group without Wade, then how could they not beat a Top 25 team the following year and lose in the NIT's 3rd round. I respect your knowledge and input on this site consistently, but in this regard I'm going to have to disagree with you.
Lord God in Heaven.....because Merritt was injured and recovering from shoulder surgery, Diener was injured most of the year with the leg and wrist (missing a number of games), the conference was much better, Novak was only a sophomore and still learning to be a player to be counted on (didn't occur until his senior year), etc, etc,.
DO YOU BOTHER TO READ???
Are you doing this just to be obtuse? Seriously Ners, you seem like a nice guy, but Christ almighty I cannot for the life of me imagine someone that is this far out to lunch on the players of that team or that era.
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on May 17, 2010, 07:02:01 PM
You start a lot of posts with the words "All of this may be true,........". Do you realize that?
It pretty much means that when your always faulty arguments are shot down by multiple credible posters, you should stop your responses after those six little words. May has been a tough month.
Further, to consistently claim as you do that the only reason Diener had those monster performances the first weekend was solely because of Dwyane Wade is insulting.
Basically I'm not going to discount someone else's OPINION as entirely 100% false. We are debating here, and I will acknowledge someone else's good points. Some here, perhaps yourself included, are too ignorant to acknowledge someone else's opinion that - while it may differ from your own - may also have some merit. Bottom line is what did Travis Diener led teams do after D-Wade left? I realize Travis is a GOD among Wisconsinites, and he was a good player for sure, but the reality is he never led his team to the NCAA once Wade was gone..yes he got hurt his senior season, but his junior season he had more talent on the MU roster, and "his" team didn't make the NCAA. Travis was a great complimentary player that benefited greatly from playing with D-Wade. He put up good numbers without D-Wade as well, but his team's didn't perform all that well once D-Wade was gone.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 18, 2010, 01:05:45 AM
Lord God in Heaven.....because Merritt was injured and recovering from shoulder surgery, Diener was injured most of the year with the leg and wrist (missing a number of games), the conference was much better, Novak was only a sophomore and still learning to be a player to be counted on (didn't occur until his senior year), etc, etc,.
DO YOU BOTHER TO READ???
Are you doing this just to be obtuse? Seriously Ners, you seem like a nice guy, but Christ almighty I cannot for the life of me imagine someone that is this far out to lunch on the players of that team or that era.
Your excuses as to why the 2003-2004 team didn't perform well, are flat out wrong. Diener, Merritt, Novak, Townsend, Jackson, Sanders, Chapman all played in 31 games, Karon Bradley in 26 - the same held true in 2004-2005 with all of the above players other than Diener who played 23 and Bradley who transferred.
DO YOU BOTHER TO DO ANY RESEARCH BEFORE YOU POST??? And yes, I do read what everyone posts, including you, 84, Sultan and others I disagree with consistently.
See below links for proof of my above point:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/teams/stats?teamId=269&year=2004
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/teams/stats?teamId=269&year=2005
Quote from: Ners on May 18, 2010, 10:21:05 AM
Basically I'm not going to discount someone else's OPINION as entirely 100% false. We are debating here, and I will acknowledge someone else's good points. Some here, perhaps yourself included, are too ignorant to acknowledge someone else's opinion that - while it may differ from your own - may also have some merit. Bottom line is what did Travis Diener led teams do after D-Wade left? I realize Travis is a GOD among Wisconsinites, and he was a good player for sure, but the reality is he never led his team to the NCAA once Wade was gone..yes he got hurt his senior season, but his junior season he had more talent on the MU roster, and "his" team didn't make the NCAA. Travis was a great complimentary player that benefited greatly from playing with D-Wade. He put up good numbers without D-Wade as well, but his team's didn't perform all that well once D-Wade was gone.
Marquette All-Time Rankings
5th, Points (1,691)
3rd, Assists (617)
10th (tie), Steals (158)
2nd, Three Point Field Goals Made (284)
2nd, Three Point Field Goals Attempted (687)
5th, Three Point Field Goal Percentage (min. 200 att.) (41.3%)
8th, Free Throws Made (385)
3rd, Free Throw Percentage (min. 200 att.) (83.7%)
2004 Pepsi Blue & Gold Classic MVP
2003-04 All-Conference USA First Team
2004-05 All-Conference USA First Team
2004-05 AP Honorable Mention All-American
You're right, he was terrible... except for all of the evidence to the contrary.
Travis didn't have Robert Jackson for his Junior and Senior year... Maybe it is just me, but I think you are GREATLY undervaluing Robert Jackson's contributions to the 2002-2003 year. I think maybe you didnt realize that Travis had to carry the entire team on his back... something Wade was never expected to do. After Wade left, and Robert Jackson graduated, TD added 7 more points per game his Jr year, and then another 0.9 points per game for his Senior year. We are talking about a kid who had to do it all with very little help (yes, I know Novak was there, but he didn't truly blossom until his Senior year with the 3A.).
The hole keeps getting bigger for you, buddy.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 18, 2010, 10:45:27 AM
Marquette All-Time Rankings
5th, Points (1,691)
3rd, Assists (617)
10th (tie), Steals (158)
2nd, Three Point Field Goals Made (284)
2nd, Three Point Field Goals Attempted (687)
5th, Three Point Field Goal Percentage (min. 200 att.) (41.3%)
8th, Free Throws Made (385)
3rd, Free Throw Percentage (min. 200 att.) (83.7%)
2004 Pepsi Blue & Gold Classic MVP
2003-04 All-Conference USA First Team
2004-05 All-Conference USA First Team
2004-05 AP Honorable Mention All-American
You're right, he was terrible... except for all of the evidence to the contrary.
Travis didn't have Robert Jackson for his Junior and Senior year... Maybe it is just me, but I think you are GREATLY undervaluing Robert Jackson's contributions to the 2002-2003 year. I think maybe you didnt realize that Travis had to carry the entire team on his back... something Wade was never expected to do. After Wade left, and Robert Jackson graduated, TD added 7 more points per game his Jr year, and then another 0.9 points per game for his Senior year. We are talking about a kid who had to do it all with very little help (yes, I know Novak was there, but he didn't truly blossom until his Senior year with the 3A.).
The hole keeps getting bigger for you, buddy.
No buddy - the hole doesn't keep getting bigger for me. Don't post things I've never posted - NEVER posted Travis was "terrible." Nothing of the sort. Travis put up great numbers, said he was a good player. The fact you and some others are trying to discount that D-Wade was the primary, if not only reason we went on the Final Four Run, is ridiculous. D-Wade made everyone around him significantly better.
Your arguments about Travis having to carry the entire team on his back when he had the whole roster of a Final Four team sans Wade and Jackson returning, is a little weak. Sure Travis points per game increased after WAde and DJack left - more shots available, plus most players numbers improve as they get older/more experienced. I posted earlier that Novak blew up as a senior once the Big 3 arrived (who were able to consistently beats their man on dribble drive penetration) and got torn up for that...yet you acknowledge Novak blew up as a senior with the Big 3...is it just because Novak was 8 months to 1-year older..or did the players around him (James, Matthews, McNeal) help him become a better player by creating better looks through drive and kick? Travis wasn't a great penetrator, that's just a fact. He was a great shooter, good passer, who got the absolute most out of his talent - and had a great career at MU. I don't hate the kid at all, but you need to re-evaluate his post-Wade legacy. Robert Jackson had a nice career at MU for sure, but he also had the benefit of playing with both DWade and Diener, who accounted for about 10 assists per game combined, of which RJack was the great beneficiary.
Robert Jackson and Dwyane Wade were the two main reasons that MU went to the Final Four in 2002-2003. When you say things like, "Your arguments about Travis having to carry the entire team on his back when he had the whole roster of a Final Four team sans Wade and Jackson returning, is a little weak". I have to really wonder if you realize how OBTUSE (as Chicos put it) you really sound.
Additionally, I never tore you up for for stating that the 3A helped make Novak the player he was, in fact, I wholly agree with that assessment. Certainly, experience helped, but having the 3A completely changed the way MU ran their offense.
Why is it a fact that Travis wasn't a great penetrator? I have a feeling tht this is just something we will just agree to disagree on.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 18, 2010, 11:23:25 AM
Robert Jackson and Dwyane Wade were the two main reasons that MU went to the Final Four in 2002-2003. When you say things like, "Your arguments about Travis having to carry the entire team on his back when he had the whole roster of a Final Four team sans Wade and Jackson returning, is a little weak". I have to really wonder if you realize how OBTUSE (as Chicos put it) you really sound.
Additionally, I never tore you up for for stating that the 3A helped make Novak the player he was, in fact, I wholly agree with that assessment. Certainly, experience helped, but having the 3A completely changed the way MU ran their offense.
Why is it a fact that Travis wasn't a great penetrator? I have a feeling tht this is just something we will just agree to disagree on.
My guess is that my obtuseness comes from having to respond to the illogical arguments you and Chicos set forth at times. Most MU fans can agree that D-Wade was the single most important player that lead us to the Final Four appearance. (Notice I've never even argued his performances in the Pitt and Kentucky games in this whole thread - whereas you have selected the Holy Cross and Mizzou games to focus on) His greatness elevated everyone else's game SIGNIFICANTLY. Some things didn't show up in the box office and can't be quantified, such as even when he statistically didn't have a great game -what impact did he have ON the game? I'm not taking away from Travis scoring 28 against Holy Cross - without him we wouldn't have advanced. I get that. But, his 28 came alot easier playing alongside Wade, than if Wade wasn't on that team. All I know is we were 25-7 and a 5 seed in DWade's sophomore year, (without Robert Jackson, Steve Novak, ) and 27-7 and a 3 seed in DWade's junior year (with R-Jack and Novak). Conversely, in Travis's junior year we were 19-12, and NIT entrant, and the same record in Travis's senior year (granted he only played in 23 of 31 games that year).
Quote from: Ners on May 18, 2010, 01:30:18 PM
My guess is that my obtuseness comes from having to respond to the illogical arguments you and Chicos set forth at times. Most MU fans can agree that D-Wade was the single most important player that lead us to the Final Four appearance. (Notice I've never even argued his performances in the Pitt and Kentucky games in this whole thread - whereas you have selected the Holy Cross and Mizzou games to focus on) His greatness elevated everyone else's game SIGNIFICANTLY. Some things didn't show up in the box office and can't be quantified, such as even when he statistically didn't have a great game -what impact did he have ON the game? I'm not taking away from Travis scoring 28 against Holy Cross - without him we wouldn't have advanced. I get that. But, his 28 came alot easier playing alongside Wade, than if Wade wasn't on that team. All I know is we were 25-7 and a 5 seed in DWade's sophomore year, (without Robert Jackson, Steve Novak, ) and 27-7 and a 3 seed in DWade's junior year (with R-Jack and Novak). Conversely, in Travis's junior year we were 19-12, and NIT entrant, and the same record in Travis's senior year (granted he only played in 23 of 31 games that year).
You're missing a few key details here:
#1 The 2002 team had cordell henry as a senior (nice player), Olumna Nnamaka (solid) and Jon Harris (solid). Wade was still the key player, but those guys were solid players on that team, which helped Dwyane (it's a 2 way street).
#2 The reason the Holy Cross game is brought up is because there is no Kentucky game without Travis in the Holy Cross game. The sum is greater than it's parts. Travis helped Dwyane, Dwyane helped Travis. Tough to separate that. Again, it's a 2 way street. If Travis got hurt that season instead of his senior year... there might not have been any final 4.
#3 Travis played 23 games his senior year, but it's not like he played the last 23 games. He played the first 23. Big difference in how good the team is/was. If he missed the first 8 games of the season, it wouldn't have been nearly as bad as losing him for the last 8 games of the season. College basketball schedules are tremendously back-loaded. So, it's only fair to clearly point out that he missed the last 8 games of the year.
Put it this way: Imagine on this years team if Lazar was hurt for the last 8 games. That would have been a huge blow. A much bigger blow than losing him for the first 8 games. It wouldn't take anything away from Lazar's career if he got hurt and the team nose dived. It would be understandable. Same thing for Travis.
Quote from: 2002MUalum on May 18, 2010, 02:05:58 PM
You're missing a few key details here:
#1 The 2002 team had cordell henry as a senior (nice player), Olumna Nnamaka (solid) and Jon Harris (solid). Wade was still the key player, but those guys were solid players on that team, which helped Dwyane (it's a 2 way street).
#2 The reason the Holy Cross game is brought up is because there is no Kentucky game without Travis in the Holy Cross game. The sum is greater than it's parts. Travis helped Dwyane, Dwyane helped Travis. Tough to separate that. Again, it's a 2 way street. If Travis got hurt that season instead of his senior year... there might not have been any final 4.
#3 Travis played 23 games his senior year, but it's not like he played the last 23 games. He played the first 23. Big difference in how good the team is/was. If he missed the first 8 games of the season, it wouldn't have been nearly as bad as losing him for the last 8 games of the season. College basketball schedules are tremendously back-loaded. So, it's only fair to clearly point out that he missed the last 8 games of the year.
Put it this way: Imagine on this years team if Lazar was hurt for the last 8 games. That would have been a huge blow. A much bigger blow than losing him for the first 8 games. It wouldn't take anything away from Lazar's career if he got hurt and the team nose dived. It would be understandable. Same thing for Travis.
All valid points, though you do not have a defense for the teams performance in 2003-2004 - Travis healthy the entire year, all supporting cast back - other than DWade and RJack, and a 19 (2 of those wins in NIT)-12 finish with no wins over Top 25 teams (Coaches Poll). Nonetheless, I think this debate has run its course. Travis is an all-time program great and contributed a lot to the MU basketball program - however, he wasn't great enough to carry his team to the NCAA his junior (with Dameon Mason and all other above mentioned supporting cast) and senior seasons..we were 2-3 in Conference USA before Travis got hurt..we'd lost to Memphis, DePaul and Charlotte - it was highly questionable how we would have finished out that year with Travis as our end record was 7-9 in CUSA
Quote from: Ners on May 18, 2010, 04:04:16 PM
All valid points, though you do not have a defense for the teams performance in 2003-2004 - Travis healthy the entire year, all supporting cast back - other than DWade and RJack, and a 19 (2 of those wins in NIT)-12 finish with no wins over Top 25 teams (Coaches Poll). Nonetheless, I think this debate has run its course. Travis is an all-time program great and contributed a lot to the MU basketball program - however, he wasn't great enough to carry his team to the NCAA his junior (with Dameon Mason and all other above mentioned supporting cast) and senior seasons..we were 2-3 in Conference USA before Travis got hurt..we'd lost to Memphis, DePaul and Charlotte - it was highly questionable how we would have finished out that year with Travis as our end record was 7-9 in CUSA
Go look up obtuse, that is a good starting point for you.
Secondly, I didn't mention anywhere in anything I wrote about the Holy Cross game or the Mizzou game.
Pay attention.
Quote from: Ners on May 18, 2010, 04:04:16 PM
All valid points, though you do not have a defense for the teams performance in 2003-2004 - Travis healthy the entire year, all supporting cast back - other than DWade and RJack, and a 19 (2 of those wins in NIT)-12 finish with no wins over Top 25 teams (Coaches Poll). Nonetheless, I think this debate has run its course. Travis is an all-time program great and contributed a lot to the MU basketball program - however, he wasn't great enough to carry his team to the NCAA his junior (with Dameon Mason and all other above mentioned supporting cast) and senior seasons..we were 2-3 in Conference USA before Travis got hurt..we'd lost to Memphis, DePaul and Charlotte - it was highly questionable how we would have finished out that year with Travis as our end record was 7-9 in CUSA
Ners, fundamentally do you believe teams are different year to year in a dramatic way or just slightly?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 18, 2010, 08:14:59 PM
Ners, fundamentally do you believe teams are different year to year in a dramatic way or just slightly?
Yes, I believe when you lose a player of Dwayne Wade's caliber, the team will be dramatically different the next year. I've been providing evidence of that all thread long. And yes, we lost Robert Jackson too..but also gained Dameon Mason...yet the two teams that followed the Final Four team had poor (NIT) seasons with basically the same personnel - and anyone who is going to argue losing Robert Jackson was a big part of the reason the team fell off in 2004 and 2005 is ridiculous. Losing DWade is the reason. Period. The record of the team with Travis at the helm is what it is - doesn't mean he wasn't a great player - it simply illustrates how critical DWade was to the Final Four team (regardless if he had "off" games against Holy Cross or Mizzou.)
I can't debate with you and Hards Alumni..because y'all have jumped down my throat for saying DWAde was the reason the 2003 team made the Final Four..and that I've discounted the value of Travis Diener and the rest of the cast. Yet in another post Hards Alumni posts:
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 18, 2010, 11:23:25 AM
Robert Jackson and Dwyane Wade were the two main reasons that MU went to the Final Four in 2002-2003. When you say things like, "Your arguments about Travis having to carry the entire team on his back when he had the whole roster of a Final Four team sans Wade and Jackson returning, is a little weak". I have to really wonder if you realize how OBTUSE (as Chicos put it) you really sound.
And Chicos - You posted the below..which was completely FALSE - so it is very difficult to debate with people rebut an argument with false statements such as what you offered up below:
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 18, 2010, 01:05:45 AM
Lord God in Heaven.....because Merritt was injured and recovering from shoulder surgery, Diener was injured most of the year with the leg and wrist (missing a number of games), the conference was much better, Novak was only a sophomore and still learning to be a player to be counted on (didn't occur until his senior year), etc, etc,. (The above is virtually all false, and making excuses for Diener and Merritt - yet the both played in every game that season and averaged 30+ minutes - certainly couldn't have been too hurt.)
DO YOU BOTHER TO READ???
Are you doing this just to be obtuse? Seriously Ners, you seem like a nice guy, but Christ almighty I cannot for the life of me imagine someone that is this far out to lunch on the players of that team or that era.
Yet as you write above...I'm that "far out to lunch" on the players of that team or that era. Thanks for the cheap shot..when it is actually you who was totally "out to lunch" on the players of that era. Not much worse than trash talking someone, only to find out that what you accuse another of...you are the actual only guilty party of violating. Ironic.
Quote from: Ners on May 19, 2010, 08:57:56 AM
... And yes, we lost Robert Jackson too..but also gained Dameon Mason...
...and anyone who is going to argue losing Robert Jackson was a big part of the reason the team fell off in 2004 and 2005 is ridiculous. Losing DWade is the reason. Period.
Marquis Estill is that you?
Quote from: 2002MUalum on May 19, 2010, 09:15:53 AM
Marquis Estill is that you?
Yes, it is, myself and our coaching staff were doing everything we could to stop Dwyane Wade, and we had no solution - he still went off for a triple double, even though we rotated all kinds of help to his defender (myself included) which freed up Mr. Jackson for multiple easy looks.
Quote from: Ners on May 19, 2010, 09:46:21 AM
Yes, it is, myself and our coaching staff were doing everything we could to stop Dwyane Wade, and we had no solution - he still went off for a triple double, even though we rotated all kinds of help to his defender (myself included) which freed up Mr. Jackson for multiple easy looks.
See, the problem is that I really just think you are discounting some players far too much.
Wade didn't play at Mississippi State and Jackson was a very effective player there. In fact his career highs in points and rebounds both came while he was there. Who was the defense concentrating on back then?
Also, you stated it yourself earlier... Wade's soph. year he led the team to a 5 seed and a first round exit. With the arrival of Jackson, Novak and the improvement of Diener, the team was able to get a 3 seed and get hot in the tournament.
If Dwyane is the only reason they were good, he should have gone farther as a soph., no?
Quote from: 2002MUalum on May 19, 2010, 10:02:58 AM
See, the problem is that I really just think you are discounting some players far too much.
Wade didn't play at Mississippi State and Jackson was a very effective player there. In fact his career highs in points and rebounds both came while he was there. Who was the defense concentrating on back then?
Also, you stated it yourself earlier... Wade's soph. year he led the team to a 5 seed and a first round exit. With the arrival of Jackson, Novak and the improvement of Diener, the team was able to get a 3 seed and get hot in the tournament.
If Dwyane is the only reason they were good, he should have gone farther as a soph., no?
I've never said DWade is the only reason the 2003 team was good, I've just said that he was the X-factor, the catalyst, the key reason why the team made the Final Four...and his departure subsequently caused the next 2 years teams to miss the NCAA. DWades incremental gains as a player year over year from sophomore to junior year to his first in the NBA showed how high of ceiling he had. Yes DWade was much better as a junior at MU than a sophomore. Travis was better as a sophomore too. What part of this whole debate can you not understand that once DWade left..(along with RJack to an extent)..Travis and the entire rest of the Final Four team + Dameon Mason in 2004 season, couldn't make the NCAA tourney? Travis was a year older, Novak a year older, and by virtue of that their ability/contributions/skills should have been better, right? So, you would think that based on everyone (Diener, Novak, Merritt, Chapman, Townsend, Sanders, Bradley) being a year older, plus adding a highly regarded recruit in Dameon Mason - that the team should have been able to make the NCAA's, right?
I can't believe we are really even debating the importance of Dwayne Wade to the Final Four team. Maybe a better way of looking at it would be does a team of: Diener, Robert Jackson, Scott Merritt, Joe Chapman, Townsend, Bradley, Sanders make the NCAA? And if so, how far does that team go? Obviously losing Wades 21.5ppg, 6.5 rpg, 4.6 apg, 2.1 steals per game, 1.5 blocks per game certainly was a lot to replace.
Quote from: Ners on May 19, 2010, 11:03:08 AM
I've never said DWade is the only reason the 2003 team was good, I've just said that he was the X-factor, the catalyst, the key reason why the team made the Final Four...and his departure subsequently caused the next 2 years teams to miss the NCAA. DWades incremental gains as a player year over year from sophomore to junior year to his first in the NBA showed how high of ceiling he had. Yes DWade was much better as a junior at MU than a sophomore. Travis was better as a sophomore too. What part of this whole debate can you not understand that once DWade left..(along with RJack to an extent)..Travis and the entire rest of the Final Four team + Dameon Mason in 2004 season, couldn't make the NCAA tourney? Travis was a year older, Novak a year older, and by virtue of that their ability/contributions/skills should have been better, right? So, you would think that based on everyone (Diener, Novak, Merritt, Chapman, Townsend, Sanders, Bradley) being a year older, plus adding a highly regarded recruit in Dameon Mason - that the team should have been able to make the NCAA's, right?
I can't believe we are really even debating the importance of Dwayne Wade to the Final Four team. Maybe a better way of looking at it would be does a team of: Diener, Robert Jackson, Scott Merritt, Joe Chapman, Townsend, Bradley, Sanders make the NCAA? And if so, how far does that team go? Obviously losing Wades 21.5ppg, 6.5 rpg, 4.6 apg, 2.1 steals per game, 1.5 blocks per game certainly was a lot to replace.
You can't lose your best player (Wade) and your best inside presence (Jackson) and expect the same results.
If MU keeps Jackson for another year, they make the tourney EASILY. I'm not discounting Wade at all. I love the guy and he has been awesome for Marquette. But Jackson was a lot more special than people give him credit for... only playing for 1 year had that effect on him.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 19, 2010, 11:14:52 AM
You can't lose your best player (Wade) and your best inside presence (Jackson) and expect the same results.
If MU keeps Jackson for another year, they make the tourney EASILY. I'm not discounting Wade at all. I love the guy and he has been awesome for Marquette. But Jackson was a lot more special than people give him credit for... only playing for 1 year had that effect on him.
I would agree that Jackson was the 2nd most important player on the Final Four team...then Diener..then Merritt..then Novak. I think if Jackson had 1 more year of eligibility, yes, the team makes the NCAA tourney - however, I don't see that team advancing out of the round of 32 and definitely not past the round of 16. I just don't see that hypothetical team having enough athleticism to advance very far.
Quote from: Ners on May 19, 2010, 08:57:56 AM
Yes, I believe when you lose a player of Dwayne Wade's caliber, the team will be dramatically different the next year. I've been providing evidence of that all thread long. And yes, we lost Robert Jackson too..but also gained Dameon Mason...yet the two teams that followed the Final Four team had poor (NIT) seasons with basically the same personnel - and anyone who is going to argue losing Robert Jackson was a big part of the reason the team fell off in 2004 and 2005 is ridiculous. Losing DWade is the reason. Period. The record of the team with Travis at the helm is what it is - doesn't mean he wasn't a great player - it simply illustrates how critical DWade was to the Final Four team (regardless if he had "off" games against Holy Cross or Mizzou.)
I can't debate with you and Hards Alumni..because y'all have jumped down my throat for saying DWAde was the reason the 2003 team made the Final Four..and that I've discounted the value of Travis Diener and the rest of the cast. Yet in another post Hards Alumni posts:
And Chicos - You posted the below..which was completely FALSE - so it is very difficult to debate with people rebut an argument with false statements such as what you offered up below:
Yet as you write above...I'm that "far out to lunch" on the players of that team or that era. Thanks for the cheap shot..when it is actually you who was totally "out to lunch" on the players of that era. Not much worse than trash talking someone, only to find out that what you accuse another of...you are the actual only guilty party of violating. Ironic.
False, what the hell are you talking about. It's not false at all. Good Lord. What the hell did I write was false about that situation?
The reason I asked the question if teams are fundamentally different was to lead you to a few more questions.
2nd Question. If a team loses no one and comes back in tact the next year, is it the same team?
3rd question, do you ever account for injuries, schedule, competition, etc?
Answer those questions, if you would (along with telling me what was false about my other statement which I can tell you right now you're dead wrong on that accusation) and we can go from there.
Quote from: Ners on May 19, 2010, 11:03:08 AM
I've never said DWade is the only reason the 2003 team was good, I've just said that he was the X-factor, the catalyst, the key reason why the team made the Final Four...and his departure subsequently caused the next 2 years teams to miss the NCAA.
You sure you want to stand by that statement, or are you saying only in this one thread did you not makes those statements. Hint hint....search function...cough cough
Quote from: Ners on May 19, 2010, 11:56:55 AM
I would agree that Jackson was the 2nd most important player on the Final Four team...then Diener..then Merritt..then Novak. I think if Jackson had 1 more year of eligibility, yes, the team makes the NCAA tourney - however, I don't see that team advancing out of the round of 32 and definitely not past the round of 16. I just don't see that hypothetical team having enough athleticism to advance very far.
I doubt you will find anyone to argue with that.
Though, I'd swap Novak with Merrit.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 19, 2010, 12:20:28 PM
False, what the hell are you talking about. It's not false at all. Good Lord. What the hell did I write was false about that situation?
along with telling me what was false about my other statement which I can tell you right now you're dead wrong on that accusation) and we can go from there.
You really are a major league tool - funny how you just took out the part of my post that showed you completely got caught with your pants down in a lie (about Diener and Merritt having injuries and missing games in 2003-2004 season) which I provided links to the stats of the 2003-2004 team that showed games played: Just go back and visit post #52 in this thread..it's all right there..a flat our lie and false statement on your part...yes..we can go from there...what's your excuse this time Chicos?
Quote from: Ners on May 19, 2010, 02:39:41 PM
You really are a major league tool - funny how you just took out the part of my post that showed you completely got caught with your pants down in a lie (about Diener and Merritt having injuries and missing games in 2003-2004 season) which I provided links to the stats of the 2003-2004 team that showed games played: Just go back and visit post #52 in this thread..it's all right there..a flat our lie and false statement on your part...yes..we can go from there...what's your excuse this time Chicos?
I said that he (Merritt) had offseason shoulder surgery and that he wasn't 100%....that it affected his play in that year. Other posters said the same thing. Merritt, himself, said that in several interviews that year. I don't recall saying Merritt missed any games like you are accusing me of. If I did, show me and I'll apologize.
For Travis, you are correct, the games he missed were his Senior year not 03-04. Not a lie Ners, lies are intentional....just a mixing up of years on my part. Touche to you for getting it half right (Diener and not Merritt), but certainly no lie. However, Travis did play the year with severe shin splints and missed parts of several games due to injury. Of course at the end of the year I believe he broke his leg or something to that affect (ankle) against Iowa State. So you are correct, he didn't miss any games, but he was hobbled at times and missed parts of games. He played less time per game in 03-04 then he did in 02-03 despite a lot more help in 02-03.
What you don't seem to account for at all in your diatribe is that Conference USA was a ton better that year than in 02-03. It's as if this major component, your schedule, is not part of your evaluation at all. CUSA was loaded in 03-04 and was rather anemic in 02-03. Just as this year's Big East was nowhere near as good as last year's Big East. Competition changes, schedules are different, games you had at home this year are on the road next year, etc, etc. And now, after being humbled by 10 other posters on Jackson, you finally come around to admitting that Jackson was a major player. You don't seem to recognize that Merritt played the 4 position in 02-03, but he had to play the 5 in 03-04. I don't see where this even goes into your evaluation.
Teams are different each year even if the exact same personnel returns, which of course never happens in college hoops. In 02-03 we were highly ranked but a surprise Final Four team. Do you think in 03-04 a lot of teams were probably gunning for us because we were in last year's Final Four? I'd say so. That makes life harder for teams, especially when your top 2 guys are gone, your strong forward is moving to center and playing hurt, your point guard (though not missing any games) is playing banged up (shin splints), etc.
If I were Miss Cleo Lenny, I'd say you clearly have an intent to paint one coach as being lucky to have had this talent (of course, who recruited them....never mind) and implying when said talent is gone that suddenly he couldn't coach again. The irony of that is another coach had 4 of the top 9 scorers in MU history land on his lap, but apparently luck is not applicable there.
Guess what Ners, coaches with talent win more often than coaches without. But it's not that simple, you also have to factor in schedule, experience of players, where games are played, conference brethren, injuries, and a number of other factors which you seem to just say don't count or are only a small part of the equation.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 19, 2010, 03:30:19 PM
CUSA was loaded in 03-04 and was rather anemic in 02-03. And now, after being humbled by 10 other posters on Jackson, you finally come around to admitting that Jackson was a major player. That makes life harder for teams, especially when your top 2 guys are gone, your strong forward is moving to center and playing hurt, your point guard (though not missing any games) is playing banged up (shin splints), etc.
If I were Miss Cleo Lenny, I'd say you clearly have an intent to paint one coach as being lucky to have had this talent (of course, who recruited them....never mind) and implying when said talent is gone that suddenly he couldn't coach again. The irony of that is another coach had 4 of the top 9 scorers in MU history land on his lap, but apparently luck is not applicable there.
Guess what Ners, coaches with talent win more often than coaches without. But it's not that simple, you also have to factor in schedule, experience of players, where games are played, conference brethren, injuries, and a number of other factors which you seem to just say don't count or are only a small part of the equation.
Did you really say Conference USA was "loaded?" so a point guard who plays in all 31 games of his teams games, and averages 34 minutes per game, was clearly hobbled with shin splints? Did my original question to you in Post #24 not mention that we lost DWade and Robert Jackson.anybody can realize Jackson was an effective player on the Final Four team..but DWade was the MAN.
Yes, I agree Buzz was lucky to walk into a situation where he inherited4 of the Top 10 scorers in history of MU hoops. He basically took those players minus Dominic James (and Ousmane Barro) just as far as his predecessor did the year before..a first round win, and a 2nd round heartbreaker.
Lots of excuse making in your reply Chicos - I felt that the 2003-2004 team had enough talent to make the NCAA...as they only lost DWade and RJack..and added Dameon Mason. Bottom line...the fact the 2003-2004 team didn't make the NCAA says that: Either Tom Crean isn't a very good coach, OR, Travis Diener, Steve Novak and Scott Merritt weren't that talented..and their appearance in the 2003 NCAA and Final Four was largely duee to DWade
Quote from: Ners on May 19, 2010, 03:50:31 PM
Did you really say Conference USA was "loaded?" so a point guard who plays in all 31 games of his teams games, and averages 34 minutes per game, was clearly hobbled with shin splints? Did my original question to you in Post #24 not mention that we lost DWade and Robert Jackson.anybody can realize Jackson was an effective player on the Final Four team..but DWade was the MAN.
Yes, I agree Buzz was lucky to walk into a situation where he inherited4 of the Top 10 scorers in history of MU hoops. He basically took those players minus Dominic James (and Ousmane Barro) just as far as his predecessor did the year before..a first round win, and a 2nd round heartbreaker.
Lots of excuse making in your reply Chicos - I felt that the 2003-2004 team had enough talent to make the NCAA...as they only lost DWade and RJack..and added Dameon Mason. Bottom line...the fact the 2003-2004 team didn't make the NCAA says that: Either Tom Crean isn't a very good coach, OR, Travis Diener, Steve Novak and Scott Merritt weren't that talented..and their appearance in the 2003 NCAA and Final Four was largely duee to DWade
oversimplification.
obtuse.
shall we continue?
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 19, 2010, 03:57:07 PM
oversimplification.
obtuse.
shall we continue?
Sure your highness, please, let's continue. You are the all-knowing, omniscient, GOD of all things MU basketball. I appreciate your judgements and approval/disapproval. I come here to be validated by you. Your opinions are the only opinions with any merit on this board. So please, go ahead and set me straight. Thank you in advance.
2003-04 Conference USA 6 NCAA bids http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_NCAA_Men%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament
TIED WITH THE MOST BIDS OF ANY CONFERENCE IN THE COUNTRY
YES....LOADED SEC, Big East and ACC also had 6. The Big Ten had....THREE. Yes, LOADED
Cincinnati
Memphis
Charlotte
UAB
DePaul
Louisville
In comparison, yes, ABSOLUTELY LOADED and the fact that you continue to ignore this shows how one dimensional you are in trying to make your claim of luck/Wade only (now Jackson, too) were the reason. Just as if you put this year's MU team in LAST year's Big East, they wouldn't make the NCAA tournament. Different years, different competition, different teams. This very basic concept continues to elude you, despite the facts continually presented to you.
CUSA was LOADED in 2003-04? Yes, they got 6 teams in the tournament. That's the good news.
Not so good news? Final coaches poll: ZERO top 10 teams. ONE top 25 team. The six tourney teams were seeded 4,7, 7, 9, 9, and 10. The conference had an overall tournament record of 5-6. ONE team advanced to the sweet 16, ZERO to the elite 8 or final 4.
Sounds like they had more GOOD teams than usual, one very good team (#12 Cincinnati) and zero great or almost great teams. LOADED? Maybe by CUSA and Chicos standards but not by mine.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 19, 2010, 04:22:53 PM
2003-04 Conference USA 6 NCAA bids http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_NCAA_Men%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament
TIED WITH THE MOST BIDS OF ANY CONFERENCE IN THE COUNTRY
YES....LOADED SEC, Big East and ACC also had 6. The Big Ten had....THREE. Yes, LOADED
Cincinnati
Memphis
Charlotte
UAB
DePaul
Louisville
In comparison, yes, ABSOLUTELY LOADED and the fact that you continue to ignore this shows how one dimensional you are in trying to make your claim of luck/Wade only (now Jackson, too) were the reason. Just as if you put this year's MU team in LAST year's Big East, they wouldn't make the NCAA tournament. Different years, different competition, different teams. This very basic concept continues to elude you, despite the facts continually presented to you.
I think we can see that the teams CUSA put in the tourney in 2004 weren't regarded very highly based on seeding.. that said, which one is it? Was Tom Crean a poor coach whou couldn't guide a talented squad of players such as Travis, Novak, Merritt, Chapman, Townsend, Mason, Bradley to an NCAA bid due to this "stiff" competition in CUSA in 2004, or, was the loss of DWADE and Robert Jackson so significant that we went from a Final four team, to an NIT team in one season?
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on May 15, 2010, 06:44:01 AM
WE DON'T LIKE HIM! It has nothing to do with his record!
The Nightmare tells it like it is. We abhor Tanned Tommy, the person. A consummate tool!
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 19, 2010, 05:30:31 PM
CUSA was LOADED in 2003-04? Yes, they got 6 teams in the tournament. That's the good news.
Not so good news? Final coaches poll: ZERO top 10 teams. ONE top 25 team. The six tourney teams were seeded 4,7, 7, 9, 9, and 10. The conference had an overall tournament record of 5-6. ONE team advanced to the sweet 16, ZERO to the elite 8 or final 4.
Sounds like they had more GOOD teams than usual, one very good team (#12 Cincinnati) and zero great or almost great teams. LOADED? Maybe by CUSA and Chicos standards but not by mine.
Yes, you're right. Earning a NCAA bid, all the money, recruiting advantages, prestige, etc, is certainly of less value than getting that coveted Coaches Poll ranking. The poll that some coaches admit (including MU's own Rick "the towel crapper" Majerus) they don't even vote in and have the SID, an assistant coach or even the secretary vote in. http://www.thelantern.com/2.1351/disregard-college-basketballpoll-winners-decided-on-court-1.97323
Yup, 6 bids, the chance to play for the NCAA title, the chance to go deep into the tournament, the ability to be on television and part of March Madness.....no good. Earning that Coaches Poll final season ranking, that's where it's at. ::)
Quote from: MedicineHatSpanker on May 19, 2010, 08:43:39 PM
The Nightmare tells it like it is. We abhor Tanned Tommy, the person. A consummate tool!
Yeah we got that, try drinking some more of that Seattle coffee up there and catch up, we've known this for a long time. ;D
Quote from: Ners on May 19, 2010, 06:55:06 PM
I think we can see that the teams CUSA put in the tourney in 2004 weren't regarded very highly based on seeding.. that said, which one is it? Was Tom Crean a poor coach whou couldn't guide a talented squad of players such as Travis, Novak, Merritt, Chapman, Townsend, Mason, Bradley to an NCAA bid due to this "stiff" competition in CUSA in 2004, or, was the loss of DWADE and Robert Jackson so significant that we went from a Final four team, to an NIT team in one season?
Really. Interesting. 5 of the 6 teams were single digit seeds, but hey, that's cool. Let's ignore that 6 teams from a non BCS conference got in, the most in NCAA history that has not been repeated, yes let's ignore that. Let's ignore that with 6 bids, they had the most (tied) bids of any conference in the country with leagues like the ACC, SEC and Big East. Or that they had double the bids of the Big Ten. Yes, let's ignore all that evidence, pretend it didn't happen, and let's analyze the seeds. That's the ticket.
Wow, just wow.
I think more than enough knowledgeable people on this board have shown you why we didn't make the NCAAs that year. Merritt playing injured, Diener banged up, very tough conference, loss of Wade and Jackson, Merritt playing a different position, etc. Of course, your answer is Tom Crean. Of course 2 years later when we were picked 12th and went to the NCAAs, well that was luck also, this time because the big 3 landed in his lap I suppose?
I will be thrilled if Buzz can duplicate what that really piss poor coach Crean did. Should be no trouble at all based on the expectations you've set.
I've been sitting on the sidelines (end of the bench?) observing this exchange as hundreds of other "scoopers" have been waiting for an end to it. I can tell you this for what it's worth. I grew up watching Warrior basketball, witnessed the Al years first hand - my father's season tickets. ALL of my buddies weere envious of me. I honestly had kids schmoozing with me in hopes that I'd pick them to use the extra ticket eor the next game. In 6th grade our team ran "the wheel" like the Warriors did. MU hoops was the be all and end all in Wisconsin basketball. I went to MU, graduated in 83 and moved to Florida. Soon, MU hoops was irrelevant on the national scene. I never saw any games (except MU UNC) and was lucky to catch a score. I moved to Atlanta a few years later - same thing. Then we hired e new young coach and suddenly I hear rumblings again. MU regains national prominence. You can't tell us it was as simple as "DWade." That's all I have to say about it and I think a lot of posters would agree.
Quote from: romey on May 20, 2010, 08:15:11 AM
I've been sitting on the sidelines (end of the bench?) observing this exchange as hundreds of other "scoopers" have been waiting for an end to it. I can tell you this for what it's worth. I grew up watching Warrior basketball, witnessed the Al years first hand - my father's season tickets. ALL of my buddies weere envious of me. I honestly had kids schmoozing with me in hopes that I'd pick them to use the extra ticket eor the next game. In 6th grade our team ran "the wheel" like the Warriors did. MU hoops was the be all and end all in Wisconsin basketball. I went to MU, graduated in 83 91 and moved to FloridaOhio. Soon, MU hoops was irrelevant on the national scene. I never saw any games (except MU UNC) and was lucky to catch a score. I moved to Atlanta a few years later - same thing. Then we hired e new young coach and suddenly I hear rumblings again. MU regains national prominence. You can't tell us it was as simple as "DWade." That's all I have to say about it and I think a lot of posters would agree.
What romey said...sort of.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 20, 2010, 01:23:21 AM
Yes, you're right. Earning a NCAA bid, all the money, recruiting advantages, prestige, etc, is certainly of less value than getting that coveted Coaches Poll ranking. The poll that some coaches admit (including MU's own Rick "the towel crapper" Majerus) they don't even vote in and have the SID, an assistant coach or even the secretary vote in. http://www.thelantern.com/2.1351/disregard-college-basketballpoll-winners-decided-on-court-1.97323
Yup, 6 bids, the chance to play for the NCAA title, the chance to go deep into the tournament, the ability to be on television and part of March Madness.....no good. Earning that Coaches Poll final season ranking, that's where it's at. ::)
As usual, you attempt to bolster your arguement by misrepresenting mine. You claimed that C USA was LOADED (you supplied both capital letters and red ink) in 2003-04 based soley on the number of NCAA bids received (6). I provide context, citing other factors such as rankings, seedings and actual tournament performance which provide evidence that the conference was good but hardly loaded. You respond with an intellectually dishonest post reducing the discussion to a "which is more important, bids or the coaches poll?". Weak but unfortunately not surprising.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 20, 2010, 08:32:15 AM
As usual, you attempt to bolster your arguement by misrepresenting mine. You claimed that C USA was LOADED (you supplied both capital letters and red ink) in 2003-04 based soley on the number of NCAA bids received (6). I provide context, citing other factors such as rankings, seedings and actual tournament performance which provide evidence that the conference was good but hardly loaded. You respond with an intellectually dishonest post reducing the discussion to a "which is more important, bids or the coaches poll?". Weak but unfortunately not surprising.
Lenny, honestly, we all know you have a strong distaste for CBB, but he is right. Citing the Coaches poll is like citing Wikipedia.
And Ners, the reason I said you are oversimplifying is because you are. The reason we didn't get to the NCAA tournament isn't THIS or THAT. It is a combination of all of those things. To pin an entire season's success or failure on one person is a complete oversimplification. Get it?
I'm not an MU basketball genius or whatever you called me (sarcasitically), but I do know what a silly argument looks like.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 20, 2010, 08:45:42 AM
Lenny, honestly, we all know you have a strong distaste for CBB, but he is right. Citing the Coaches poll is like citing Wikipedia.
And Ners, the reason I said you are oversimplifying is because you are. The reason we didn't get to the NCAA tournament isn't THIS or THAT. It is a combination of all of those things. To pin an entire season's success or failure on one person is a complete oversimplification. Get it?
I'm not an MU basketball genius or whatever you called me (sarcasitically), but I do know what a silly argument looks like.
Sorry, but I think where teams are ranked AFTER THE SEASON IS OVER are pretty accurate as to how they performed that year. If you have examples of them being otherwise please share. My problem with Chicos, though, isn't about whether post season polls are accurate or not. It's about how he distorts people's statements by reducing them to what he wants to argue about instead of addressing them in totum.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 20, 2010, 01:30:19 AM
I think more than enough knowledgeable people on this board have shown you why we didn't make the NCAAs that year. Merritt playing injured, Diener banged up, very tough conference, loss of Wade and Jackson, Merritt playing a different position, etc.
No - what some have shown is that to dismiss the contributions and talent of Novak, Merritt, Diener, RJack, Chapman, Townsend and the rest of the Final Four team - is to disrespect them and do them a great disservice. We've had Hards argue what a great player Diener was, you made an excuse for Novak saying that as a sophomore he'd become more of a focal point of defenses - so was neutralized in his improvement that should have occurred from going from being a freshman to a sophomore. You have falsely stated Diener missed games in 2003-2004, and made excuses that he had shin splints - yet he played all 31 games and averaged 34 minutes per game. The point: You can't argue about the talent of all of these players, and then argue that they weren't good enough to make the NCAA in 2003-2004 due to tougher conference/debatable injuries, etc. If they were supremely talented in the Final four season and didn't really benefit from playing with DWade - then they should have been equally or more talented a year later? Which one is it? Or was it poor coaching?
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 20, 2010, 08:45:42 AM
And Ners, the reason I said you are oversimplifying is because you are. The reason we didn't get to the NCAA tournament isn't THIS or THAT. It is a combination of all of those things. To pin an entire season's success or failure on one person is a complete oversimplification. Get it?
I'm not an MU basketball genius or whatever you called me (sarcasitically), but I do know what a silly argument looks like.
Yes, last I checked basketball was a team sport that involved 5 players playing together. Last I checked the best players tend to will their teams to championships/victories, while having decent supporting casts. Last I checked there are certain players who transcend their teams and get the majority of accolades for the results of their teams. Last I checked when Michael Jordan retired the first time, after winning 3 rings, his same team with the same cast of characters, couldn't advance out of Round 2 in the playoffs. It is this same effect DWade had on the Final Four team/MU program. It's not to say Pippen, Grant, Cartwright, weren't talented players - but you take away Jordan, and these guys couldn't win at nearly the level they did with Jordan. I'm not sure why you and Chicos are going to great lengths to deny the importance of DWade, and will not acknowledge that once he was gone (along with RJack) that the team the next year sorely missed DWade and couldn't even muster an appearance in the NCAA tourney. So, either DWade was the reason..OR...the supporting cast you mention wasn't as talented as you would make them up to be;OR the supporting cast wasn't coached very well, as to not make the NCAA with that type of talent is underperforming.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 20, 2010, 09:14:01 AM
Sorry, but I think where teams are ranked AFTER THE SEASON IS OVER are pretty accurate as to how they performed that year. If you have examples of them being otherwise please share. My problem with Chicos, though, isn't about whether post season polls are accurate or not. It's about how he distorts people's statements by reducing them to what he wants to argue about instead of addressing them in totum.
Oh, of course, I know he plays the 'look over here' game all the time. I am just backing him that the coaches poll is mostly garbage... now, had you said the AP poll... ;)
Quote from: Ners on May 20, 2010, 10:51:05 AM
Yes, last I checked basketball was a team sport that involved 5 players playing together. Last I checked the best players tend to will their teams to championships/victories, while having decent supporting casts. Last I checked there are certain players who transcend their teams and get the majority of accolades for the results of their teams. Last I checked when Michael Jordan retired the first time, after winning 3 rings, his same team with the same cast of characters, couldn't advance out of Round 2 in the playoffs. It is this same effect DWade had on the Final Four team/MU program. It's not to say Pippen, Grant, Cartwright, weren't talented players - but you take away Jordan, and these guys couldn't win at nearly the level they did with Jordan. I'm not sure why you and Chicos are going to great lengths to deny the importance of DWade, and will not acknowledge that once he was gone (along with RJack) that the team the next year sorely missed DWade and couldn't even muster an appearance in the NCAA tourney. So, either DWade was the reason..OR...the supporting cast you mention wasn't as talented as you would make them up to be;OR the supporting cast wasn't coached very well, as to not make the NCAA with that type of talent is underperforming.
Well the
supporting cast became the
featured cast. Obviously that had something to do with it. I have not gone to any lengths to deny the importantacne of DWade. However, I have gone to great lengths to show you that Robert Jackson and Travis Diener were INTEGRAL parts of that Final Four team. If the team is missing ONE of those 3 they don't get out of the first round. Losing two of them next year, of course, will have a direct impact on the season's result.
What you seem to have been saying (from your initial posts, you have altered your argument), was that DWade could have carried any team to the Final Four, or at the least a Diener-less, or Jackson-less team. That is how I, and others have interpreted what you initially said. I assume you will deny this, or say that all of us misinterpreted what you said. We won't believe you, and this thread will keep going.
Tom Crean didn't become a worse coach one year later. He simply didn't have the talent, and played in a tougher conference. To say that the results the next season was 100% because of DWade's absence is an oversimplification.
And that is simply the bottom line.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 20, 2010, 11:21:04 AM
Well the supporting cast became the featured cast. Obviously that had something to do with it. I have not gone to any lengths to deny the importantacne of DWade. However, I have gone to great lengths to show you that Robert Jackson and Travis Diener were INTEGRAL parts of that Final Four team. If the team is missing ONE of those 3 they don't get out of the first round. Losing two of them next year, of course, will have a direct impact on the season's result.
What you seem to have been saying (from your initial posts, you have altered your argument), was that DWade could have carried any team to the Final Four, or at the least a Diener-less, or Jackson-less team. That is how I, and others have interpreted what you initially said. I assume you will deny this, or say that all of us misinterpreted what you said. We won't believe you, and this thread will keep going.
Tom Crean didn't become a worse coach one year later. He simply didn't have the talent, and played in a tougher conference. To say that the results the next season was 100% because of DWade's absence is an oversimplification.
And that is simply the bottom line.
Yet you don't rebut any of the points I just posted above about the analogy of the Final four team to Jordan's Bulls. And hTom Crean didnt' have talent on 2003-2004 team?? You just got done telling me how good Diener was, and Novak? And here was my initial post...that started this whole debate...and note I mentioned we lost RJack seveeral times..well also stating that we had 2 NBA talents on the 2003-2004 team in Novak and Diener (yet still didn't make the NCAA). You tried to argue that I was minimizing Diener's talent..yet in my very first post on this topic...i call Diener an NBA talent (albeit, he hasn't done much of anything in the NBA..he is a Steve Kerr like talent)
Chicos - The reality is that in the 2003-2004 season, we had Novak, Diener and Merritt we lost to TCU in the first round of the CUSA tourney, and were an NIT team that finished 19-12. Sure Robert Jackson was important, but D-Wade was the X-Factor that took us on the Final Four run. Every player returned, other than Wade and R-Jack and we were a shell of the 2003 team in 2004...we didn't beat 1 ranked team in all of 2003/2004 season. Same story in 2004/2205 with both Novak and Diener - no wins over a Top 25 team, and first round loss to TCU in C-USA tourney. We lost Merritt, but still had Chapman, Townsend as holdovers from the Final Four Team. It almost defeats your central argument about the quality of coach that Tom Crean was - as once he lost Wade, he couldn't get his team back to the NCAA with 2 future NBA'ers in Novak and Diener (or Merritt), or Townsend, Chapman, and any of his additional recruits...all while playing in the C-USA
Quote from: Ners on May 20, 2010, 01:17:03 PM
Yet you don't rebut any of the points I just posted above about the analogy of the Final four team to Jordan's Bulls. And hTom Crean didnt' have talent on 2003-2004 team?? You just got done telling me how good Diener was, and Novak? And here was my initial post...that started this whole debate...and note I mentioned we lost RJack seveeral times..well also stating that we had 2 NBA talents on the 2003-2004 team in Novak and Diener (yet still didn't make the NCAA). You tried to argue that I was minimizing Diener's talent..yet in my very first post on this topic...i call Diener an NBA talent (albeit, he hasn't done much of anything in the NBA..he is a Steve Kerr like talent)
Chicos - The reality is that in the 2003-2004 season, we had Novak, Diener and Merritt we lost to TCU in the first round of the CUSA tourney, and were an NIT team that finished 19-12. Sure Robert Jackson was important, but D-Wade was the X-Factor that took us on the Final Four run. Every player returned, other than Wade and R-Jack and we were a shell of the 2003 team in 2004...we didn't beat 1 ranked team in all of 2003/2004 season. Same story in 2004/2205 with both Novak and Diener - no wins over a Top 25 team, and first round loss to TCU in C-USA tourney. We lost Merritt, but still had Chapman, Townsend as holdovers from the Final Four Team. It almost defeats your central argument about the quality of coach that Tom Crean was - as once he lost Wade, he couldn't get his team back to the NCAA with 2 future NBA'ers in Novak and Diener (or Merritt), or Townsend, Chapman, and any of his additional recruits...all while playing in the C-USA
Forgive me if I'm being a little dumb here, but what exactly is everybody debating again?
I don't think any topic is being debated anymore, I think people are just trying to piss on each other.
- I think everybody will acknowledge that Wade was the key driver behind the Final 4. He was the key player with several good players around him.
- I think everybody can acknowledge that Diener and Jackson were key players on that team as well.
- I think everybody can acknowledge that travis was a great player, but that the last 2 teams he played on were disappointments (variety of reasons, injuries, depth, inexperience, etc.), but weren't necessarily Travis' fault
- Tom Crean was a key player in re-igniting the MU franchise. He recruited well and caught lighting in a bottle with Wade.
What is everybody disagreeing on again? I feel like everybody (including me) is saying the same thing in different ways and then debating that.
Quote from: 2002MUalum on May 20, 2010, 01:38:37 PM
Forgive me if I'm being a little dumb here, but what exactly is everybody debating again?
I don't think any topic is being debated anymore, I think people are just trying to piss on each other.
- I think everybody will acknowledge that Wade was the key driver behind the Final 4. He was the key player with several good players around him.
- I think everybody can acknowledge that Diener and Jackson were key players on that team as well.
- I think everybody can acknowledge that travis was a great player, but that the last 2 teams he played on were disappointments (variety of reasons, injuries, depth, inexperience, etc.), but weren't necessarily Travis' fault
- Tom Crean was a key player in re-igniting the MU franchise. He recruited well and caught lighting in a bottle with Wade.
What is everybody disagreeing on again? I feel like everybody (including me) is saying the same thing in different ways and then debating that.
I think you have summarized the debate in perfect and concise fashon. I can agree with every one of your above points, and that is basically all I have ever posted on this topic, and the topic of Tom Crean and his contributions to the MU program. I've said Tom Crean was a good coach and good recruiter - but feel Wade was catching lightening in a bottle or a little lucky - sorry if the word lucky offends some, but we were very fortunate to have a player of DWade's caliber suit up at MU..and his prodcution certainly exceeded greatly, the expectations of him at the time he was signed. Who would have thought he would become a Top 5 player in the NBA, at the time we beat Bradley out for his services?
Quote from: Ners on May 20, 2010, 02:32:12 PM
I think you have summarized the debate in perfect and concise fashon. I can agree with every one of your above points, and that is basically all I have ever posted on this topic, and the topic of Tom Crean and his contributions to the MU program. I've said Tom Crean was a good coach and good recruiter - but feel Wade was catching lightening in a bottle or a little lucky - sorry if the word lucky offends some, but we were very fortunate to have a player of DWade's caliber suit up at MU..and his prodcution certainly exceeded greatly, the expectations of him at the time he was signed. Who would have thought he would become a Top 5 player in the NBA, at the time we beat Bradley out for his services?
Great.
We can all move along now.
Quote from: 2002MUalum on May 20, 2010, 01:38:37 PM
Forgive me if I'm being a little dumb here, but what exactly is everybody debating again?
I don't think any topic is being debated anymore, I think people are just trying to piss on each other.
- I think everybody will acknowledge that Wade was the key driver behind the Final 4. He was the key player with several good players around him.
- I think everybody can acknowledge that Diener and Jackson were key players on that team as well.
- I think everybody can acknowledge that travis was a great player, but that the last 2 teams he played on were disappointments (variety of reasons, injuries, depth, inexperience, etc.), but weren't necessarily Travis' fault
- Tom Crean was a key player in re-igniting the MU franchise. He recruited well and caught lighting in a bottle with Wade.
What is everybody disagreeing on again? I feel like everybody (including me) is saying the same thing in different ways and then debating that.
If the debate is over and we all agree does it mean that Chicos has admitted that C USA was at least a tad less than RED CAPITAL LETTERS LOADED in 2003-4? Oh, and where and when is the group hug?
Quote from: romey on May 20, 2010, 08:15:11 AM
I've been sitting on the sidelines (end of the bench?) observing this exchange as hundreds of other "scoopers" have been waiting for an end to it. I can tell you this for what it's worth. I grew up began watching Warrior basketball, witnessed the Al years first hand - my father's season tickets in 1987 and would return home to Los Angeles where UCLA was still a program of power. ALL of my buddies weere envious of me would chuckle at what a has been program Marquette was. I honestly had kids schmoozing with me in hopes that I'd pick them to use the extra ticket eor the next game. In 6th grade our team ran "the wheel" like the Warriors did. MU hoops was the be all and end all in Wisconsin basketball. I went to MU, graduated in 83 and moved to Florida. We were totally irrelevant nationally and the locals didn't want to admit it. Then KO came along and put a small boost of excitement into the program but left as soon as we hit the Sweet 16 and crapped on MU during the entire 5 years. Soon, MU hoops was irrelevant on the national scene again. I never saw any games (except MU UNC) and was lucky to catch a score. I moved to Atlanta a few years later - same thing. Then we hired a new young coach and suddenly I hear rumblings again. MU regains national prominence. I moved back to Los Angeles and after a few years, people actually started saying Marquette is a damn good team, not the typical "where is Marquette, is that in Michigan or Canada"? You can't tell us it was as simple as "DWade." That's all I have to say about it and I think a lot of posters would agree.
Similar
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 20, 2010, 09:14:01 AM
My problem with Chicos, though, isn't about whether post season polls are accurate or not. It's about how he distorts people's statements by reducing them to what he wants to argue about instead of addressing them in totum.
The irony of that coming from you when you have gone on several screeds claiming to know what a poster's intent is in their posts. Claiming that people have an agenda. Etc, etc.
It's remarkable you could write that paragraph and not fall off your seat.
Quote from: Ners on May 20, 2010, 02:32:12 PM
I think you have summarized the debate in perfect and concise fashon. I can agree with every one of your above points, and that is basically all I have ever posted on this topic, and the topic of Tom Crean and his contributions to the MU program. I've said Tom Crean was a good coach and good recruiter - but feel Wade was catching lightening in a bottle or a little lucky - sorry if the word lucky offends some, but we were very fortunate to have a player of DWade's caliber suit up at MU..and his prodcution certainly exceeded greatly, the expectations of him at the time he was signed. Who would have thought he would become a Top 5 player in the NBA, at the time we beat Bradley out for his services?
Was Buzz lucky for landing a gig with 4 of MU's top 10 scorers of all time? I'm just trying to calibrate what luck means to you.
Thanks
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 20, 2010, 02:52:25 PM
If the debate is over and we all agree does it mean that Chicos has admitted that C USA was at least a tad less than RED CAPITAL LETTERS LOADED in 2003-4? Oh, and where and when is the group hug?
Sure, as soon as we also all agree that CUSA was the best non BCS conference in modern history that year which had a sizable impact on our performance, along with Wade leaving, Jackson leaving, Merritt playing hurt and out of position, Diener playing hurt. Sure, I'm all for it.....oh an also admitting that determining a team's performance on a coach's poll (in which many coaches don't even vote) at the end of the season may be close to the gayest thing said since Liberace was playing the piano in Vegas
One of the most ridiculous things out of your mouth Lenny, and that's saying something. In 2002-03 three CUSA teams finished ranked in the coaches poll but only 3 went to the NCAAs. So by your logic, that year the conference was better than in 2003-04 when 6 teams went to the NCAA but only one was ranked (despite others ranked at #27, etc).
I hear media guides around the country are being changed to downplay NCAA tournament participation and instead to hype up their Coaches Poll ranking.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 20, 2010, 03:06:29 PM
Was Buzz lucky for landing a gig with 4 of MU's top 10 scorers of all time? I'm just trying to calibrate what luck means to you.
Thanks
Absolutely lucky!! For sure...that is a great situation for any coach to walk into. What wasn't so lucky was the lack of talent left at MU after the Big 3 graduated. Always tough when a coach leaves, as usually his recruits do, and the LOI's that were to attend said departing coaches team. Crean dealt with this same issue at Indiana with the departure of Jordan Crawford and Armon Bassett. Buzz did a great job of recruiting well to replace the transfers and broken LOI's with Jimmy Butler, DJO, Buycks - and he was able to extract enough out of Mo and Cooby to have a successful Year 2 at MU..and appears primed to have a bright future at MU.
It should be noted that this fantastic recruiting class we have coming in this year, very well might not see a lot of minutes..due to their being a decent amount of talent above them...this type of thing hapens when you recruit consistently well...which didn't happen the 2 years after the Final Four (which lead to a situation where the Big 3 had to play big minutes from Day 1, as there was so little talent on the roster. That said, when you play more games than any other players in program history, and more minutes, in the era of the 3 point shot...it woud stand to reason those 3 players should be in the Top 10 of program history.
Quote from: Ners on May 20, 2010, 02:32:12 PM
I think you have summarized the debate in perfect and concise fashon. I can agree with every one of your above points, and that is basically all I have ever posted on this topic, and the topic of Tom Crean and his contributions to the MU program. I've said Tom Crean was a good coach and good recruiter - but feel Wade was catching lightening in a bottle or a little lucky - sorry if the word lucky offends some, but we were very fortunate to have a player of DWade's caliber suit up at MU..and his prodcution certainly exceeded greatly, the expectations of him at the time he was signed. Who would have thought he would become a Top 5 player in the NBA, at the time we beat Bradley out for his services?
Going back and reading all of your posts, I am glad to see that your point of view has morphed into the rest of our points of view.
thanks!
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 20, 2010, 03:58:05 PM
Going back and reading all of your posts, I am glad to see that your point of view has morphed into the rest of our points of view.
thanks!
You strike me as the dude who was always picked last....and what's worse is you strike me as the type who was a sore loser too. You cannot give credit to others were credit is due. You cannot acknowledge other viewpoints that differ from your own as having any merit. You are quite aloof and arrogant, and fit the exact profile and sterotype, non-MU alums have, of Marquette alums. The arguments you make are often contradictory...arguing the talent of Travis Diener, Novak - but yet defnd the coach and/or these talented players for not making the NCAA tourney. You fabricate things to try to make your argument have more effectiveness in asserting your point (such as posting that I posted Travis Diener was "terrible," which never happened."
And lastly, my agreement with 2002's post doesn't reflect that I've morphed my point of view to match the "rest of your points of view." 2002 stated alot of what I'd ben posting in each and every one of my posts...that Wade was the key factor behind our fnal four appearance, that the two teams that followed Wade were disappointments, that Travis was talented, and had talent around him (Novak, Dameon Mason, Chapman, Merritt), etc...but..with that kind of talent, it is only fair to say that the disappointment of thosse 2 teams had to have been due coaching. If we give Crean the credit for the Final Four with DWade, we must also hold him accountable for the huge drop off after DWade left, while still having 2 NBA players on his roster.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 20, 2010, 03:17:50 PM
Sure, as soon as we also all agree that CUSA was the best non BCS conference in modern history that year which had a sizable impact on our performance, along with Wade leaving, Jackson leaving, Merritt playing hurt and out of position, Diener playing hurt. Sure, I'm all for it.....oh an also admitting that determining a team's performance on a coach's poll (in which many coaches don't even vote) at the end of the season may be close to the gayest thing said since Liberace was playing the piano in Vegas
One of the most ridiculous things out of your mouth Lenny, and that's saying something. In 2002-03 three CUSA teams finished ranked in the coaches poll but only 3 went to the NCAAs. So by your logic, that year the conference was better than in 2003-04 when 6 teams went to the NCAA but only one was ranked (despite others ranked at #27, etc).
I hear media guides around the country are being changed to downplay NCAA tournament participation and instead to hype up their Coaches Poll ranking.
To steal a phrase from our late president Ronald Reagan, "There you go again..." Whether it's taking something out of context, omitting facts and/or statements germaine to the discussion, or (intentionally, I can only assume) distorting what others say, you are the best, numero uno, the undisputed heavyweight champ. You like to call me names like "Miss Cleo" and mock me by calling me a "mind reader" but I only know what you do - I've no idea why you do it.
Some of the people on the board who know you personally vouch for the fact that you're a good guy in "real life". I'm sure they're right and I should do a better job of remebering that. While trying to concentrate on that I'm calling a time out on myself from all things Chicos. I'll still read the board and respond to others, but a sabbatical from these seemingly endless and oft times pointless skirmishes seems in order.
Quote from: Ners on May 20, 2010, 04:31:51 PM
You strike me as the dude who was always picked last....and what's worse is you strike me as the type who was a sore loser too. You cannot give credit to others were credit is due. You cannot acknowledge other viewpoints that differ from your own as having any merit. You are quite aloof and arrogant, and fit the exact profile and sterotype, non-MU alums have, of Marquette alums. The arguments you make are often contradictory...arguing the talent of Travis Diener, Novak - but yet defnd the coach and/or these talented players for not making the NCAA tourney. You fabricate things to try to make your argument have more effectiveness in asserting your point (such as posting that I posted Travis Diener was "terrible," which never happened."
And lastly, my agreement with 2002's post doesn't reflect that I've morphed my point of view to match the "rest of your points of view." 2002 stated alot of what I'd ben posting in each and every one of my posts...that Wade was the key factor behind our fnal four appearance, that the two teams that followed Wade were disappointments, that Travis was talented, and had talent around him (Novak, Dameon Mason, Chapman, Merritt), etc...but..with that kind of talent, it is only fair to say that the disappointment of thosse 2 teams had to have been due coaching. If we give Crean the credit for the Final Four with DWade, we must also hold him accountable for the huge drop off after DWade left, while still having 2 NBA players on his roster.
Well as a matter of fact, I was VP of my senior class, officer in several high school clubs, and on prom court as a Junior in HS. So, wrong, on all accounts. I never ran for anything outside of HS because I was too busy having 'fun' in college.
I'm not a sore loser, I just don't like to let people get away with BS. I am more than glad to give credit where it is due, and you just aren't due any in this situation. I disagree with you, I can disagree with you, but simply because we disagree doesn't negate the fact that you have altered your 'opinion' throughout this thread.
Oh, and I am arrogant when I know I am right. I am also humble when I am wrong. If you look through the threads on the board you will see I have been wrong plenty of times and admitted it even! Something you refuse to do. I assure you, I am not the stereotypical MU alum. I paid for my own schooling, come from a somewhat humble background and I am not even Catholic.
I don't see where I have contradicted myself anywhere. It is possible to argue that the team has great players without the team being great... which is precisely what I did. As for the 'terrible' comment, it was clearly hyperbole. You said:
QuoteBottom line is what did Travis Diener led teams do after D-Wade left? I realize Travis is a GOD among Wisconsinites, and he was a good player for sure, but the reality is he never led his team to the NCAA once Wade was gone..yes he got hurt his senior season, but his junior season he had more talent on the MU roster, and "his" team didn't make the NCAA. Travis was a great complimentary player that benefited greatly from playing with D-Wade. He put up good numbers without D-Wade as well, but his team's didn't perform all that well once D-Wade was gone.
This is a joke. He had more talent on the MU roster his Junior year than the previous year? More talent than his Senior year? It doesn't matter which you pick now, because the team was clearly the weakest his Junior year. Travis was a complimentary player who earned all of the accolades I posted? WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM? This is what I mean when I ask if you take seriously what you post.
I mean, I am not trying to be a dick here, I just hate it when people try to bend the truth in plain sight.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 20, 2010, 04:46:37 PM
Some of the people on the board who know you personally vouch for the fact that you're a good guy in "real life". I'm sure they're right and I should do a better job of remebering that. While trying to concentrate on that I'm calling a time out on myself from all things Chicos. I'll still read the board and respond to others, but a sabbatical from these seemingly endless and oft times pointless skirmishes seems in order.
Likewise I hear similar things about you. Message boards, or any written words can be taken out of context or read in a way that is not the intent of the writer. Thus the danger of the written word vs the spoken word.
A break sounds good.
I do want to say one important thing. I really like Buzz Williams and wish you would accept this as fact. I think he's done a very good job so far.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 20, 2010, 03:58:05 PM
Going back and reading all of your posts, I am glad to see that your point of view has morphed into the rest of our points of view.
thanks!
LOL. Well played
Quote from: Ners on May 20, 2010, 04:31:51 PM
You strike me as the dude who was always picked last....and what's worse is you strike me as the type who was a sore loser too.
(http://i41.tinypic.com/2vb3ec7.jpg)
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 20, 2010, 07:42:18 PM
Well as a matter of fact, I was VP of my senior class, officer in several high school clubs, and on prom court as a Junior in HS. So, wrong, on all accounts. I never ran for anything outside of HS because I was too busy having 'fun' in college.
I'm not a sore loser, I just don't like to let people get away with BS. I am more than glad to give credit where it is due, and you just aren't due any in this situation. I disagree with you, I can disagree with you, but simply because we disagree doesn't negate the fact that you have altered your 'opinion' throughout this thread.
Oh, and I am arrogant when I know I am right. I am also humble when I am wrong.
This is a joke. He had more talent on the MU roster his Junior year than the previous year? More talent than his Senior year? It doesn't matter which you pick now, because the team was clearly the weakest his Junior year. Travis was a complimentary player who earned all of the accolades I posted? WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM? This is what I mean when I ask if you take seriously what you post.
did you really just give us a rundown of your high school accomplishments?? I'm not surprised you were a student council member in High School. You strike me as the oeverachiever type. It does not surprise me that you didn't list any athletic accomplishments. You do realize tht in your own mind, you are right but not necessarily the minds of others - so when you celebrate your being right in your own mind with arrogance....well...that makes you arrogant in the eyes of many others. More talent on the team his junior year, than senior year (Merritt), although you could argue that Dameon Mason was a talent. It's funny that the quote of mine you selected about Travis..what I wrote wasn't false, nor does it mean Travis wasn't a great player..but the fact remains his teams as a junior and senior..he didn't lead to the NCAA (or was the victim of poor coaching by TC) which is what I'm most inclined to believe was the case..and was really the original focus of my point.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 20, 2010, 07:42:18 PM
I mean, I am not trying to be a dick here, I just hate it when people try to bend the truth in plain sight.
Here's something ironic for you - don't bend the truth in plain sight, and accuse others of doing it..when you yourself are guilty.
My quote:
Bottom line is what did Travis Diener led teams do after D-Wade left? I realize Travis is a GOD among Wisconsinites, and he was a good player for sure, but the reality is he never led his team to the NCAA once Wade was gone..
yes he got hurt his senior season, but his junior season he had more talent on the MU roster, and "his" team didn't make the NCAA. Travis was a great complimentary player that benefited greatly from playing with D-Wade. He put up good numbers without D-Wade as well, but his team's didn't perform all that well once D-Wade was gone.
And from you: This is a joke. He had more talent on the MU roster his Junior year than the previous year? More talent than his Senior year? It doesn't matter which you pick now, because the team was clearly the weakest his Junior year.
My rebuttal: (Where do I write Travis team his junior year had more talent than his sophomore year?) As you write below..he had more talent on the team his junior year than previous year?) Please show me where I wrote that or implied that? I'd say you just bent the truth...I'd expect better from a VP of his senior class, and officer of several high school clubs, and particularily more from a prom court member.
Quote from: Ners on May 20, 2010, 08:00:10 PM
did you really just give us a rundown of your high school accomplishments?? I'm not surprised you were a student council member in High School. You strike me as the oeverachiever type. It does not surprise me that you didn't list any athletic accomplishments. You do realize tht in your own mind, you are right but not necessarily the minds of others - so when you celebrate your being right in your own mind with arrogance....well...that makes you arrogant in the eyes of many others. More talent on the team his junior year, than senior year (Merritt), although you could argue that Dameon Mason was a talent. It's funny that the quote of mine you selected about Travis..what I wrote wasn't false, nor does it mean Travis wasn't a great player..but the fact remains his teams as a junior and senior..he didn't lead to the NCAA (or was the victim of poor coaching by TC) which is what I'm most inclined to believe was the case..and was really the original focus of my point.
Yes, I did, you attacked me personally (The sign of a desperate argument, strangely the same thing HAYWARD does a lot... but according to him, I am an underachiever... you guys really have me pegged!) so I rebutted. So, first you said I was a sore loser, and that I was picked last, and then you said I didn't mention my athletic 'credentials'. Since you are so interested in my history, I was a 3 time varsity letterman in wrestling. There goes that argument I guess.
I am right in my own mind, and what seems like the concensus of others here Ners... It isn't as if I am going it alone here. Are you arguing that Diener had more talent his Junior year? Really? I'd argue that his senior year he had Novak as a Junior. He didn't have Merrit (11.2 / 7.1), but he had an improved Mason, Novak, and Chapman. Additionally, Marcus Jackson made up for Merrit's rebounding. The teams were at best, similar, but Diener's senior year they were more experienced, and then the season went to hell when Diener got injured. Plus CUSA wasn't as strong Diener's senior year.
And your original quote is what makes my argument, buddy. It shows your old position versus your new one. It is as plain as day.
Quote from: Ners on May 20, 2010, 08:09:58 PM
Here's something ironic for you - don't bend the truth in plain sight, and accuse others of doing it..when you yourself are guilty.
My quote:
Bottom line is what did Travis Diener led teams do after D-Wade left? I realize Travis is a GOD among Wisconsinites, and he was a good player for sure, but the reality is he never led his team to the NCAA once Wade was gone..yes he got hurt his senior season, but his junior season he had more talent on the MU roster, and "his" team didn't make the NCAA. Travis was a great complimentary player that benefited greatly from playing with D-Wade. He put up good numbers without D-Wade as well, but his team's didn't perform all that well once D-Wade was gone.
And from you: This is a joke. He had more talent on the MU roster his Junior year than the previous year? More talent than his Senior year? It doesn't matter which you pick now, because the team was clearly the weakest his Junior year.
My rebuttal: (Where do I write Travis team his junior year had more talent than his sophomore year?) As you write below..he had more talent on the team his junior year than previous year?) Please show me where I wrote that or implied that? I'd say you just bent the truth...I'd expect better from a VP of his senior class, and officer of several high school clubs, and particularily more from a prom court member.
I didn't catch that you claimed he had more talent his Junior year; it was a serious question. There was no bending of the truth, it was a simple mistake. Additionally, the last line you quoted is the money line... it doesn't matter which you said, his Junior year his team was the weakest.
Please stop with the personal attacks, they really only make you look like a fool and they weaken your argument... Unless you think HAYWARD has strong arguments when he resorts to calling people names. If you want to be like him, be my guest, but expect to be respected like him.
edit: I am done with this thread, taunt me, do whatever you'd like, I'm out. :)
Quote from: Ners on May 20, 2010, 03:52:03 PM
Absolutely lucky!! For sure...that is a great situation for any coach to walk into. What wasn't so lucky was the lack of talent left at MU after the Big 3 graduated.
One stubborn fact is that on the day Buzz was hired, he inherited balanced classes-
4 juniors to be
3 sophs
3 frosh
3 players under signed LOI.
You continue to misrepresent the roster as completely depleted after the first two seasons--the fact of the matter is there were nine players who presumably
could have continued on with MU.
Players left for one of three reasons: Buzz chose not renew their scholarships. Or Buzz was unable to convince them to stay and play under him. Or they had an injury.
None of those reasons can rightly be blamed on the previous coach.
If Crean had left a roster with 8 seniors, 3 juniors 1 soph and 1 incoming freshman, you would have a point. But that wasn't the roster, that Buzz inherited, was it?
Meanwhile, if Tom Crean had decided to run off or not been unable to convince guys like David Diggs or Cordell Henry or John Harris or Odartey Blankson to stay with the program, he would had the same "year 2" issues--and it would have been his fault--not Mike Deane's.
Quote from: Ners on May 20, 2010, 03:52:03 PM
Always tough when a coach leaves, as usually his recruits do, and the LOI's that were to attend said departing coaches team.
It sure sounds like you're just making this up to support your case. Looking back at the coaching changes over the years, we've lost very few incoming recruits when a coaching change occurs. Most recruits stick with the program.
Crean? No. The only incoming recruit (Krunti Hester) signed by Deane stayed with the team. No other players transferred. Hester left a year later.
Deane? No. All recruits remained committed to MU. No returning players transferred.
O'Neill? Mixed. Dukeit had no incoming recruits. O'Neill ran off a number of Dukiet's returning players.
Dukiet? Yes. Roman Mueller decommitted and followed Rick to Ball State. Also lost John Jimmerson and Ken Rice--although they may have left before Majerus left and not a result of Dukeit's hiring. Dukeit managed to keep Tony Smith, the best of Majerus' signed players.
Majerus? No. All incoming recruits remained committed and to my knowledge all players returned.
So where is your evidence to support the contention that "usually recruits leave" when a coach leaves. I certainly don't see that has been the case.
Quote from: Ners on May 20, 2010, 03:52:03 PM
Crean dealt with this same issue at Indiana with the departure of Jordan Crawford and Armon Bassett.
The difference is that Crean wasn't the assistant who recruited Crawford and Bassett to IU, nor was he on staff there. Our incoming recruits and returning players were familiar with Buzz--they were either recruited by him or worked with him in practice for the previous season.
Quote from: Ners on May 20, 2010, 03:52:03 PM
It should be noted that this fantastic recruiting class we have coming in this year, very well might not see a lot of minutes..due to their being a decent amount of talent above them...
Actually, we had a good recruiting class because there is the perception that we have a lot of minutes to offer--both immediately and within one season. We're losing 93 minutes per game right away, and the perception is that we didn't have a lot on the bench that could easily pick that up. We lose another 57 minutes per game after this season.
For example, Crowder--with only two years of eligibility--didn't come to MU because he was willing to wait his time behind Willams, Otule, (at the time) Mbao--each with three years of eligiblity remaining. He came because he thinks he's going to beat them for his fair share minutes right away.
Blue came because there's an opportunity to compete for the 30 minutes we lose from Cubillan this year. Some think he might be a PG as well, which means he could compete for the 30 minutes that lost from Acker as well. A year from now, another 24 minutes from Buycks opens up.
Quote from: Ners on May 20, 2010, 03:52:03 PM
this type of thing hapens when you recruit consistently well...which didn't happen the 2 years after the Final Four (which lead to a situation where the Big 3 had to play big minutes from Day 1, as there was so little talent on the roster.
And the underlying reason we had a dip in recruiting was that recruits didn't believe Crean would be with MU.
Its funny--above you claim that when a coach leaves, his recruits want to go elsewhere. But then you argue just the opposite when you claim that the post-final-four rumors about Crean headed to Illinois or elsewhere had nothing to do with a poor post-final-four recruiting class.
We're starting to see those same type of rumors have started to swirl around Buzz (Oregon, Iowa, etc.). My guess is that those rumors are going to be even stronger next year--especially if we do well. We'll see how it impacts his recruiting.
Quote from: Ners on May 20, 2010, 03:52:03 PM
That said, when you play more games than any other players in program history, and more minutes, in the era of the 3 point shot...it woud stand to reason those 3 players should be in the Top 10 of program history.
Waving off the accomplishments of McNeal, James, Matthews and Hayward is downright petty, especially when the reason is because you're afraid it might reflect positively on the coach that recruited them.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 21, 2010, 08:04:26 AM
Since you are so interested in my history, I was a 3 time varsity letterman in wrestling. There goes that argument I guess.
I am right in my own mind, and what seems like the concensus of others here Ners... It isn't as if I am going it alone here. Are you arguing that Diener had more talent his Junior year? Really? I'd argue that his senior year he had Novak as a Junior. He didn't have Merrit (11.2 / 7.1), but he had an improved Mason, Novak, and Chapman. Additionally, Marcus Jackson made up for Merrit's rebounding. The teams were at best, similar, but Diener's senior year they were more experienced, and then the season went to hell when Diener got injured. Plus CUSA wasn't as strong Diener's senior year.
And your original quote is what makes my argument, buddy. It shows your old position versus your new one. It is as plain as day.
I wouldn't expect a Wrestler to have good sense regarding basketball - and your arguments illustrate your lack of basketball intelligence. I feel completely cheesy citing my high school accomplishments, but...I was a 2-time letter winner in basketball, and was asked to coach andcoached at Marquette Basketball camps during the Mike Deane years. I can't imagine getting on a wrestling message board, and claiming absolute intelligence and "rightness," when wrestling wasn't my primary sport of focus.The "consensus" you mention is you, and Chicos (who routinely disagrees with me, and likewise I routinely disagree with him.) Could you clarify how my original quote makes your argument, buddy? What was my old position versus my new one? You've confused me for sure.
Quote from: Ners on May 21, 2010, 02:27:14 PM
I wouldn't expect a Wrestler to have good sense regarding basketball - and your arguments illustrate your lack of basketball intelligence. I feel completely cheesy citing my high school accomplishments, but...I was a 2-time letter winner in basketball, and was asked to coach andcoached at Marquette Basketball camps during the Mike Deane years. I can't imagine getting on a wrestling message board, and claiming absolute intelligence and "rightness," when wrestling wasn't my primary sport of focus.The "consensus" you mention is you, and Chicos (who routinely disagrees with me, and likewise I routinely disagree with him.) Could you clarify how my original quote makes your argument, buddy? What was my old position versus my new one? You've confused me for sure.
Okay, out of retirement for one last go 'round.
Would you accused a Jew who studys Christianity, of knowing nothing about Christianity simply because he is a Jew? Because that is pretty much what you are doing. Anyone can go to games, watch, and follow stats. It doesn't matter if you coached. What if you were a terrible coach? You coached children? CONGRATS, YOU TAUGHT DRILLS!!! Clearly, you know more than anyone on the board because of your vast coaching experience. Who is arrogant now? LOL.
I am not going to clarify anything to you since no matter how hard anyone (Me, Chicos, Marquette84, romey, StillAWarrior, 2002MUalum, et al.) tries, you just ignore, change your stance, and then name call.
It is pointless. So forgive me, I'M DONE TALKING TO A WALL.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 21, 2010, 02:43:13 PM
Okay, out of retirement for one last go 'round.
Would you accused a Jew who studys Christianity, of knowing nothing about Christianity simply because he is a Jew? Because that is pretty much what you are doing. Anyone can go to games, watch, and follow stats. It doesn't matter if you coached. What if you were a terrible coach? You coached children? CONGRATS, YOU TAUGHT DRILLS!!! Clearly, you know more than anyone on the board because of your vast coaching experience. Who is arrogant now? LOL.
I am not going to clarify anything to you since no matter how hard anyone (Me, Chicos, Marquette84, romey, StillAWarrior, 2002MUalum, et al.) tries, you just ignore, change your stance, and then name call.
It is pointless. So forgive me, I'M DONE TALKING TO A WALL.
You can't clarify anything, because I never changed my stance. I can't have a rational debate with a wrestler, over a basketball matter. There's a reason you were a wrestler, and I was a basketball player. There is a reason former basketball players NEVER become wrestling coaches, and former wrestlers never become basketball coaches. There is a reason former basketball players become basketball coaches. Just aas there is a reason former wrestlers become wrestling coaches. You should have quit a lot earlier in this thread. Your admission of being a wretler diminshes your credibility significantly.
Quote from: Ners on May 21, 2010, 03:10:02 PM
You can't clarify anything, because I never changed my stance. I can't have a rational debate with a wrestler, over a basketball matter. There's a reason you were a wrestler, and I was a basketball player. There is a reason former basketball players NEVER become wrestling coaches, and former wrestlers never become basketball coaches. There is a reason former basketball players become basketball coaches. Just aas there is a reason former wrestlers become wrestling coaches. You should have quit a lot earlier in this thread. Your admission of being a wretler diminshes your credibility significantly.
You are dumber than I thought you were.
Quote from: Ners on May 21, 2010, 03:10:02 PM
You can't clarify anything, because I never changed my stance. I can't have a rational debate with a wrestler, over a basketball matter. There's a reason you were a wrestler, and I was a basketball player. There is a reason former basketball players NEVER become wrestling coaches, and former wrestlers never become basketball coaches. There is a reason former basketball players become basketball coaches. Just aas there is a reason former wrestlers become wrestling coaches. You should have quit a lot earlier in this thread. Your admission of being a wretler diminshes your credibility significantly.
This is simply not true on so many levels. Look at all the non-basketball players that have been great basketball coaches during the years. Or players of other sports growing up that became coaches in different sports.
Because you played, sure you have a perspective on how you think things should be done. But other players, who were coached differently may have a completely counter view to yours, yet you both played. Just as someone who wasn't a player can still be an outstanding coach or aficionado on a subject, including basketball.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 21, 2010, 03:19:06 PM
You are dumber than I thought you were.
So, considering you just attacked me personally, you acknowledge you are getting desperate in your argument? Correct? I don't blame you, you should be getting desperate, considering your pedigree.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 21, 2010, 08:04:26 AM
Yes, I did, you attacked me personally (The sign of a desperate argument, strangely the same thing HAYWARD does a lot... but according to him, I am an underachiever... you guys really have me pegged!) so I rebutted.
Wow...five pages and I still can't figure out whose d*#k is bigger.
Quote from: Ners on May 21, 2010, 03:40:55 PM
So, considering you just attacked me personally, you acknowledge you are getting desperate in your argument? Correct? I don't blame you, you should be getting desperate, considering your pedigree.
No, you've flown completely off the handle, and are just throwing insults.
To call you stupid at this juncture is beyond name calling, it is simlpy a fact.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on May 21, 2010, 03:53:18 PM
Wow...five pages and I still can't figure out whose d*#k is bigger.
What was this thread about?
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 21, 2010, 03:54:39 PM
No, you've flown completely off the handle, and are just throwing insults.
To call you stupid at this juncture is beyond name calling, it is simlpy a fact.
I rest my case:
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 21, 2010, 08:04:26 AM
Yes, I did, you attacked me personally (The sign of a desperate argument)
Quote from: MU B2002 on May 21, 2010, 04:04:28 PM
What was this thread about?
It should be re-named when good basketball debates go bad, due to the involvement of wrestlers.
Quote from: Ners on May 21, 2010, 03:10:02 PM
I can't have a rational debate with a wrestler, over a basketball matter. There's a reason you were a wrestler, and I was a basketball player. There is a reason former basketball players NEVER become wrestling coaches, and former wrestlers never become basketball coaches. There is a reason former basketball players become basketball coaches. Just aas there is a reason former wrestlers become wrestling coaches.
By that logic, any former athlete should probably stay out of message board debates.
I'm gonna' pretend you two weren't just slinging insults (one of the few things against the rules here...), and leave this thread stand. But the fact that you''re debating how well athletes of other sports can even possibly understand the game of basketball, tells me that you're NOT talking about "MU #18 team of the past decade".
So, for that reason, I think you should probably just drop it.
p.s. - I also think some of you have WAY too much free time...but as a guy with over 74 hours on the board...I'm hardly one to judge
I'm glad that you've at least convinced yourself. Anyone here agreeing with Ners? I'm waiting for SOMEONE.
I'll wait.
I'm afraid I can't comment because I didn't coach children at a basketball clinic - but I DID stay at a Holiday inn Express last night.
I would only note that Badgermaniac, the guy who runs Badgernation, also coached kids (girls).
I cannot offer more conclusive proof that just because someone coached kids it does not extrapolate to mean they have a clue on anything in life, including basketball. ;)
In the NBA (of the 27 teams with head coaches currently) Only 4 didn't play professionally, and of those 4, 3 at least played at the college level, and only 1 (Stan Van Gundy) didn't play at the college level. Pretty conclusive evidence that former players are thought to have the best understanding of the game.
Other than Chicos (who to no surprise takes an adversarial position to my point), no one here disputes that former basketball players, tend to have more knowledge about the game of basketball than those who didn't play the game..at least at the minimum of the high school level. Chicos, Hards, Romey - feel free to ridicule my having coached at MU basketball camps during the Deane years - the reality is that they don't invite complete basketball morons, or those without any basketball skill to coach at camp.
I apologize to any Scoopers who were non-baskeball players if I offended them with my argument over the merits of a former wrestlers point of view vs. my own.
A former Warrior once told me he didn't care much for Crean since he never played the game.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on May 22, 2010, 01:40:12 PM
A former Warrior once told me he didn't care much for Crean since he never played the game.
What is the highest level of ball that Buzz played at?
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on May 22, 2010, 08:19:34 PM
What is the highest level of ball that Buzz played at?
I believe Buzz, like Crean, ended his playing days in High School. I'm pretty sure neither Buzz nor TC were 3-time letter winners in wrestling during their High School years. But, I'd put my money on Buzz in a wrestling match against TC. ;)
Ners...Nobody cares what you did in high school.
Quote from: GOMU1104 on May 23, 2010, 10:21:39 AM
Ners...Nobody cares what you did in high school.
I agree - probably didn't need to share that with the entire board, but after HardsAlumni trotted out his VP of senior class, officer of several clubs, member of prom court...AND being a 3-time letter winner in wrestling...felt it necessary to rebut with my being a high school basketball player, and shape my argument based on my basketball background vs. his wrestling background. (I did spare y'all with the rest my high school accomplishments, and wrote that I felt cheesy for even listing that I played high school ball.)
Quote from: 4everwarriors on May 22, 2010, 01:40:12 PM
A former Warrior once told me he didn't care much for Crean since he never played the game.
Funny, since Buzz didn't play either, at least not at a high level.
Quote from: Ners on May 22, 2010, 12:23:54 PM
In the NBA (of the 27 teams with head coaches currently) Only 4 didn't play professionally, and of those 4, 3 at least played at the college level, and only 1 (Stan Van Gundy) didn't play at the college level. Pretty conclusive evidence that former players are thought to have the best understanding of the game.
Other than Chicos (who to no surprise takes an adversarial position to my point), no one here disputes that former basketball players, tend to have more knowledge about the game of basketball than those who didn't play the game..at least at the minimum of the high school level. Chicos, Hards, Romey - feel free to ridicule my having coached at MU basketball camps during the Deane years - the reality is that they don't invite complete basketball morons, or those without any basketball skill to coach at camp.
Ironic, again. I've seen you on several occasions here mention how terrible certain coaches are, yet those guys were invited to more than just coach at a basketball camp...in fact, they have coached for years (decades often). Seems to shoot your own argument right in the head. If they are terrible, your words, yet they have coached for decades at high levels (college, JUCOs, high school) then how on earth can you square that with your argument that just because you helped assist coach in some basketball camps your acumen is somehow superior?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 23, 2010, 11:28:41 AM
Funny, since Buzz didn't play either, at least not at a high level.
No, but his wife did. Does that count? ;D
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 23, 2010, 11:38:36 AM
Ironic, again. I've seen you on several occasions here mention how terrible certain coaches are, yet those guys were invited to more than just coach at a basketball camp...in fact, they have coached for years (decades often). Seems to shoot your own argument right in the head. If they are terrible, your words, yet they have coached for decades at high levels (college, JUCOs, high school) then how on earth can you square that with your argument that just because you helped assist coach in some basketball camps your acumen is somehow superior?
You continue to amaze me with your inability to make good points. Which coaches have I mentioned were terrible? Can you search my whole post history and please find where I've said a coach is terrible, or even bad for that matter? You are the idiot who tried to rebut my post that there is a reason former basketball players become basketball coaches, and why former wrestlers become wrestling coaches by writing the below (yet funny that of the 27 NBA coaches, 23 played in the NBA 3 in college, and 1 no college experience)
ChicosBailBonds
Registered User
All American
Posts: 7377
Re: MU #18 team of the past decade
« Reply #118 on: May 21, 2010, 03:27:46 PM » Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Ners on May 21, 2010, 03:10:02 PM
You can't clarify anything, because I never changed my stance. I can't have a rational debate with a wrestler, over a basketball matter. There's a reason you were a wrestler, and I was a basketball player. There is a reason former basketball players NEVER become wrestling coaches, and former wrestlers never become basketball coaches. There is a reason former basketball players become basketball coaches. Just aas there is a reason former wrestlers become wrestling coaches. You should have quit a lot earlier in this thread. Your admission of being a wretler diminshes your credibility significantly.
This is simply not true on so many levels. Look at all the non-basketball players that have been great basketball coaches during the years. Or players of other sports growing up that became coaches in different sports.
Because you played, sure you have a perspective on how you think things should be done. But other players, who were coached differently may have a completely counter view to yours, yet you both played. Just as someone who wasn't a player can still be an outstanding coach or aficionado on a subject, including basketball
Ners, I have to believe that you know that coaching in the NBA is a club and they take care of their own, especially in the last few years.
For some reason I thought we were having a discussion on coaching at a basketball camp meant you were more likely to make an informed basketball decision than someone who didn't. Did I miss that claim, because it sure sounded to me that your entire point in this ridiculous thread was your ability to see what others can't who haven't been able to coach.
Yes or no?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 23, 2010, 10:23:19 PM
Ners, I have to believe that you know that coaching in the NBA is a club and they take care of their own, especially in the last few years.
For some reason I thought we were having a discussion on coaching at a basketball camp meant you were more likely to make an informed basketball decision than someone who didn't. Did I miss that claim, because it sure sounded to me that your entire point in this ridiculous thread was your ability to see what others can't who haven't been able to coach.
Yes or no?
No Chicos, once again you misinterpret what I write to fit your own agenda. The point I made was that as a former high school basketball player, and a very good one at that, that was asked to coach at MU's basketball camps for 2 years - my experience and understanding of the game, is highly likely to be more astute/advanced than a 3-time letter winner in wrestling. We can look at NCAA Division 1 basketball coaches if you want - my hunch is that 75% of them played college ball, we can look to the NFL, MLB and again, my guess is 75% or more played their respective sport.. .professionally or semi-pro at minimum..
ANd..the original point of this thread...that got distorted by you, Hards was that the two NIT teams that followed the Final Four team greatly underperformed after Wade left...and that was most likely the result of poor coaching. I gave Wade most of the credit for the Final Four..adn then got ripped for discounting the value of Diener, Novak, Jackson Chapman, etc...yet...with all but DDWaade and RJack returning...Tom Crean couldn't lead a team with 2 NBA'ers (Novak, Diener) to the NCAA...and you argued..falsely..that Diener missed games due to injury his junior year, that the conference was tougher, etc...
Quote from: Ners on May 24, 2010, 08:30:13 AM
No Chicos, once again you misinterpret what I write to fit your own agenda. The point I made was that as a former high school basketball player, and a very good one at that, that was asked to coach at MU's basketball camps for 2 years - my experience and understanding of the game, is highly likely to be more astute/advanced than a 3-time letter winner in wrestling. We can look at NCAA Division 1 basketball coaches if you want - my hunch is that 75% of them played college ball, we can look to the NFL, MLB and again, my guess is 75% or more played their respective sport.. .professionally or semi-pro at minimum..
ANd..the original point of this thread...that got distorted by you, Hards was that the two NIT teams that followed the Final Four team greatly underperformed after Wade left...and that was most likely the result of poor coaching. I gave Wade most of the credit for the Final Four..adn then got ripped for discounting the value of Diener, Novak, Jackson Chapman, etc...yet...with all but DDWaade and RJack returning...Tom Crean couldn't lead a team with 2 NBA'ers (Novak, Diener) to the NCAA...and you argued..falsely..that Diener missed games due to injury his junior year, that the conference was tougher, etc...
Really though. You honestly think that 2 years of high school basketball, and coaching a camp for kids makes you a better analyst of college basketball?
Please don't act like basketball is difficult to understand. It isn't.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 24, 2010, 09:36:43 AM
Really though. You honestly think that 2 years of high school basketball, and coaching a camp for kids makes you a better analyst of college basketball?
Please don't act like basketball is difficult to understand. It isn't.
Yes, I do think as a former basketball player, my insight into the game is going to be better than a former wrestlers. Additionally, you come on here and act like the judge and jury of my points -which is really funny considering your wrestling background. I'll look forward to the next time I hear a WWE wrestler acting as the color man during a college or NBA basketball game. The fact you tried to argue Travis Diener was a good penetrating point guard illustrates your lack of insight. Travis's strength was not that of a penetrator - he virtually never finished at the basket after beating his man off the dribble. He was an excellent pick and roll point guard, great at hitting the perimeter shot off the pick. I don't recall Travis even having a running floater in his game, and he certainly didn't have the elevation to finish at the basket.
Quote from: Ners on May 24, 2010, 10:41:34 AM
Yes, I do think as a former basketball player, my insight into the game is going to be better than a former wrestlers. Additionally, you come on here and act like the judge and jury of my points -which is really funny considering your wrestling background. I'll look forward to the next time I hear a WWE wrestler acting as the color man during a college or NBA basketball game. The fact you tried to argue Travis Diener was a good penetrating point guard illustrates your lack of insight. Travis's strength was not that of a penetrator - he virtually never finished at the basket after beating his man off the dribble. He was an excellent pick and roll point guard, great at hitting the perimeter shot off the pick. I don't recall Travis even having a running floater in his game, and he certainly didn't have the elevation to finish at the basket.
lol, so rediculous. I managed to graduate from MU and go to law school, but I can't understand basketball because I was a wrestler.
Just hilarious.
Quote from: Ners on May 24, 2010, 10:41:34 AM
Yes, I do think as a former basketball player, my insight into the game is going to be better than a former wrestlers. Additionally, you come on here and act like the judge and jury of my points -which is really funny considering your wrestling background. I'll look forward to the next time I hear a WWE wrestler acting as the color man during a college or NBA basketball game. The fact you tried to argue Travis Diener was a good penetrating point guard illustrates your lack of insight. Travis's strength was not that of a penetrator - he virtually never finished at the basket after beating his man off the dribble. He was an excellent pick and roll point guard, great at hitting the perimeter shot off the pick. I don't recall Travis even having a running floater in his game, and he certainly didn't have the elevation to finish at the basket.
Travis got to the rim more than you think. He would run baseline and finish with a reverse layup all the time.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 24, 2010, 10:57:00 AM
lol, so rediculous. I managed to graduate from MU and go to law school, but I can't understand basketball because I was a wrestler.
Just hilarious.
Ners is so out to lunch on this. Red Auerbach, who never played in the NBA, must be spinning in his grave.
Of course, Ners also fails to respond to all the crappy coaches out there that did play but still failed just as there are great coaches out there that never played. Go figure.
Quote from: marqptm on May 24, 2010, 11:59:36 AM
Travis got to the rim more than you think. He would run baseline and finish with a reverse layup all the time.
Running the baseline isn't the same as breaking someone down off the dribble, or being a penetrator that can penetrate and attack from the the top of the key. Yes, it does count as getting to the basket, however.
Quote from: Ners on May 24, 2010, 12:26:32 PM
Running the baseline isn't the same as breaking someone down off the dribble, or being a penetrator that can penetrate and attack from the the top of the key. Yes, it does count as getting to the basket, however.
Agreed.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 24, 2010, 10:57:00 AM
lol, so rediculous. I managed to graduate from MU and go to law school, but I can't understand basketball because I was a wrestler.
Just hilarious.
Not surprised to hear you are a lawyer..it explains your judge and jury mentality. Out of curiousity, can you let me know the last time we had a wrestler as a color commentator during an MU basketball game? Or NBA game? Or any other level of basketball?
Quote from: Ners on May 24, 2010, 12:29:58 PM
Not surprised to hear you are a lawyer..it explains your judge and jury mentality. Out of curiousity, can you let me know the last time we had a wrestler as a color commentator during an MU basketball game? Or NBA game? Or any other level of basketball?
Never said I graduated, but I am glad that you jumped to another incorrect conclusion. ;)
And who said that color commentators are knowledgable? Len Elmore, anyone? :-P
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 24, 2010, 12:11:56 PM
Ners is so out to lunch on this. Red Auerbach, who never played in the NBA, must be spinning in his grave.
Of course, Ners also fails to respond to all the crappy coaches out there that did play but still failed just as there are great coaches out there that never played. Go figure.
Funny - you accuse me of calling coaches terrrible..I ask you to quote me when/where I said that...you fail to do so...now, you mention all of the "crappy coaches out there that did play but still failed." And, the only one out to lunch on this is you Chicos - only you would argue against the fact that 26 of the current 27 NBA coaches played at the college/pro level (24 at pro level).
I guess we'll just have to assume you know more than the General Managers of all NBA teams, because ironically, if one "crappy" coach is fired, they are usually replaced with another former player.
And Chicos, would you answer my question - did the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 teams underachieve (or at least go from being a Final Four caliber team, to an NIT participant) due to a lack of talent, or due to poor coaching, or due to the loss of DWade, or due to the monster schedule they played in C-USA..which included losing to TCU in the conference tourney BOTH years..a veryy lowly regarded TCU team.
Quote from: Ners on May 24, 2010, 12:38:55 PM
And Chicos, would you answer my question - did the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 teams underachieve (or at least go from being a Final Four caliber team, to an NIT participant) due to a lack of talent, or due to poor coaching, or due to the loss of DWade, or due to the monster schedule they played in C-USA..which included losing to TCU in the conference tourney BOTH years..a veryy lowly regarded TCU team.
As I have said from the beginning, it is a combonation of all of those, not one in particular that led to result of those seasons.
You need to stop talking in absolute terms here. This is what I was talking about when I called you obtuse a while back.
Replace the ORs in your statement with ANDs.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 24, 2010, 12:32:20 PM
Never said I graduated, but I am glad that you jumped to another incorrect conclusion. ;)
And who said that color commentators are knowledgable? Len Elmore, anyone? :-P
So basically you spent $30,000 per year on law school, to only find out you didn't want to be a lawyer or practice a career in law? That doesn't reek of intelligence, nor do your arugments here. Up to this point you've basically argued:
1) Losing DWade wasn't the reason we didn't return to the NCAA tournament in 2004, 2005
2) That Travis Diener's team as a junior (with Scott Merritt) was less talented than Travis's senior year team ( minus Merritt + Dameon Mason) (Incidentally, I disagree.)
3) That Travis was a very good penetrating point guard
4) That as a 3-time letter winning wrestler in high school, your analysis of basketball is 100% more correct than mine, someone who has a track record of playing/coaching basketball - and that I am 100% wrong in all of my basketball analysis.
Quote from: Ners on May 24, 2010, 12:51:47 PM
So basically you spent $30,000 per year on law school, to only find out you didn't want to be a lawyer or practice a career in law? That doesn't reek of intelligence, nor do your arugments here.
Congrats, jag POTD.
Quote from: marqptm on May 24, 2010, 11:59:36 AM
Travis got to the rim more than you think. He would run baseline and finish with a reverse layup all the time.
Travis was a great shooter and an outstanding passer. He had a very good handle and excellent court vision. As D1 point guards go, though, he was only slightly above average as a penetrator and below average as a finisher.
QuoteSo basically you spent $30,000 per year on law school, to only find out you didn't want to be a lawyer or practice a career in law? That doesn't reek of intelligence, nor do your arugments here. Up to this point you've basically argued:
So I guess I have to set you straight again. I left law school after a semester and a half. I was very much interested in it, but I did not like the person I would have to be to be a successful lawyer. It isn't that I couldn't cut it, it isn't that I got lazy, it isn't the ten other conclusions you would jump to. Realistically, it doesn't matter why I left.
I won't go into statistics about turn over in the law profession... suffice it to say, that I got out before I got in over my head in debt. Did I make a mistake in going? Yes! Sometimes you have to make mistakes to learn. At least one of us can admit they have made mistakes. ::)
Quote1) Losing DWade wasn't the reason we didn't return to the NCAA tournament in 2004, 2005
Actually, I argued that losing DWade PLUS Robert Jackson was the reason we didn't return to the NCAA tournament in 2004, and 2005.
Quote2) That Travis Diener's team as a junior (with Scott Merritt) was less talented than Travis's senior year team ( minus Merritt + Dameon Mason) (Incidentally, I disagree.)
Yes, I argued that, and I stand by my stronger argument. Where I base my assessment with statistics. On the other hand, your argument is that you are right because you played basketball and coached some kids at an MU bball camp.
Quote3) That Travis was a very good penetrating point guard
I never said that he was very good! I said it
wasn't his strength, but that I would still take him off the dribble over other CUSA players!
Quote4) That as a 3-time letter winning wrestler in high school, your analysis of basketball is 100% more correct than mine, someone who has a track record of playing/coaching basketball - and that I am 100% wrong in all of my basketball analysis.
What I am saying is that it doesn't matter. You don't just win every basketball related argument because you played and were a coach. I said that you were being obtuse and trying to alter your arguments to fit the information people had added to the argument. Specifically, you added that Robert Jackson was a factor in the poor seasons after the Final Four run after others had mentioned it. That is called back pedaling.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 24, 2010, 01:16:22 PM
I said that you were being obtuse and trying to alter your arguments to fit the information people had added to the argument. Specifically, you added that Robert Jackson was a factor in the poor seasons after the Final Four run after others had mentioned it. That is called back pedaling.
For the last time, go back to Page 1, post 24..my original post..here it is again..and it was written in rebuttal to Chicos who tried to discount Wade's importance to the Final Four team. Between the two of you, you both twisted and turned every point I made to fit your own agenda. Did I really not include Robert Jackson in my original point???? No, once again, you are wrong..I didn't backpedal.:
Chicos - The reality is that in the 2003-2004 season, we had Novak, Diener and Merritt we lost to TCU in the first round of the CUSA tourney, and were an NIT team that finished 19-12.
Sure Robert Jackson was important, but D-Wade was the X-Factor that took us on the Final Four run. Every player returned, other than Wade and R-Jack and we were a shell of the 2003 team in 2004...we didn't beat 1 ranked team in all of 2003/2004 season. Same story in 2004/2205 with both Novak and Diener - no wins over a Top 25 team, and first round loss to TCU in C-USA tourney. We lost Merritt, but still had Chapman, Townsend as holdovers from the Final Four Team. It almost defeats your central argument about the quality of coach that Tom Crean was - as once he lost Wade, he couldn't get his team back to the NCAA with 2 future NBA'ers in Novak and Diener (or Merritt), or Townsend, Chapman, and any of his additional recruits...all while playing in the C-USA.
Quote from: Ners on May 17, 2010, 02:53:41 PM
I didn't research it that far, but I stand corrected. That said, do you have a justification as to how the 2003-2004 team with Diener, Novak, Merritt, Chapman and Townsend failed to beat a ranked team all year, and failed to make the NCAA, finished 19-12, coming off of a 27-7 Final Four appearance - other than to say they lost D-Wade? Therefore, it is pretty safe to draw the conclusion that the difference between MU being a Final Four team in 2003 and being an NIT team in 2004 and 2005 with virtually the same personnel - was D-Wade.
This was what I was referring to. I'll give you that you mentioned him, and even went as far as to say he was 'important'. You mentioned Robert Jackson, but you made it sound as though he was an after thought. In many people's opinion he was as big of a reason for the Final Four run as DWade. Count me as one of those people.
Don't get me wrong, DWade against UK was as unreal of a performance as I have seen, but to discount Jackson in any way really cheapens how much he did that year.
Also, I don't have an adgenda. If you've read anything I've written on this board you'd know that I don't hold TC on any sort of pedastal.
I'm not really looking to jump into the fray on the 2003/2004/2005 seasons, but does this basketball/wrestler thing mean that from here on out Murph automatically wins all basketball debates? I'm going to go out on a limb and assume he's got more basketball experience than any 10 of the rest of us combined.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on May 24, 2010, 01:58:19 PM
I'm not really looking to jump into the fray on the 2003/2004/2005 seasons, but does this basketball/wrestler thing mean that from here on out Murph automatically wins all basketball debates? I'm going to go out on a limb and assume he's got more basketball experience than any 10 of the rest of us combined.
I'd be inclined to agree if it had been Murph..., but only based on the half of his posts that I agreed with.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 24, 2010, 01:39:06 PM
This was what I was referring to. I'll give you that you mentioned him, and even went as far as to say he was 'important'. You mentioned Robert Jackson, but you made it sound as though he was an after thought. In many people's opinion he was as big of a reason for the Final Four run as DWade. Count me as one of those people.
Don't get me wrong, DWade against UK was as unreal of a performance as I have seen, but to discount Jackson in any way really cheapens how much he did that year.
Also, I don't have an adgenda. If you've read anything I've written on this board you'd know that I don't hold TC on any sort of pedastal.
As a four year varsity wrestler myself I'm bending over backward to agree with you but when you say that "In many people's opinion he (Jackson) was AS BIG a reason for that final four run as Dwyane Wade" you lose me. Important and even indespensible? Yes. As important to the run as Wade? No way, no how, no chance.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 24, 2010, 01:39:06 PM
This was what I was referring to. I'll give you that you mentioned him, and even went as far as to say he was 'important'. You mentioned Robert Jackson, but you made it sound as though he was an after thought. In many people's opinion he was as big of a reason for the Final Four run as DWade. Count me as one of those people.
Don't get me wrong, DWade against UK was as unreal of a performance as I have seen, but to discount Jackson in any way really cheapens how much he did that year.
Also, I don't have an adgenda. If you've read anything I've written on this board you'd know that I don't hold TC on any sort of pedastal.
Truly, I don't undervalue Robert Jackson's contribution to the Final Four team, have acknowledged that he was 2nd most important player on that team, then followed by Diener. The biggest point I've been trying to make is that it is almost incalcuable to determine how valuable DWade was to that team..and that while RJack was important, it still shouldn't result in the team the following years missing the NCAA tourney with the talent they had returning. In my attempt to illustrate how important Wade was...I pointed out/or asked what Travis Diener led teams accomplished..which then got twisted into me saying Travis Diener was terrible..not the point..again..going back to my original point..I was more questioning Tom Crean's coaching in the 2004, 2005 teams..in my original post..as I felt with the talent of Diener, Novak, Merritt, Chapman, Townsend...that that team should have been good enough to go to the NCAA...either that..or it illustrated how valuable DWade was to that team...as..he did lead the 2002 team to the NCAA without Robert Jackson....
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 24, 2010, 02:45:19 PM
As a four year varsity wrestler myself I'm bending over backward to agree with you but when you say that "In many people's opinion he (Jackson) was AS BIG a reason for that final four run as Dwyane Wade" you lose me. Important and even indespensible? Yes. As important to the run as Wade? No way, no how, no chance.
I guess I should have said it that way.
Quote from: Ners on May 24, 2010, 02:58:44 PM
Truly, I don't undervalue Robert Jackson's contribution to the Final Four team, have acknowledged that he was 2nd most important player on that team, then followed by Diener. The biggest point I've been trying to make is that it is almost incalcuable to determine how valuable DWade was to that team..and that while RJack was important, it still shouldn't result in the team the following years missing the NCAA tourney with the talent they had returning. In my attempt to illustrate how important Wade was...I pointed out/or asked what Travis Diener led teams accomplished..which then got twisted into me saying Travis Diener was terrible..not the point..again..going back to my original point..I was more questioning Tom Crean's coaching in the 2004, 2005 teams..in my original post..as I felt with the talent of Diener, Novak, Merritt, Chapman, Townsend...that that team should have been good enough to go to the NCAA...either that..or it illustrated how valuable DWade was to that team...as..he did lead the 2002 team to the NCAA without Robert Jackson....
Interesting that you think that we had enough talent to make the tournament in 2004, but make the case about how under-talented we were this past year.
Forget the comparisons with 2006. Let's compare the talent level in
2004 to this past season. No matter how you want to spin it, Crean had less overall talent in 2004 than Buzz did last year--but your expectations don't seem to reflect that disparity.
- Anyone as good as Hayward on Crean's 2004 team? Nope. Best was Novak (a sophomore to be) and Diener (a junior-to-be). Both were good--but neither had the combination of shooting touch, athleticism, speed and most importantly the experience of Hayward.
- Buzz's best outside shooter turned out to be Acker--the same Acker (and not Novak) who holds the MU senior-season record for 3 point shooting. And I think he probably handled the ball (and possibly even defended) better than Novak as a soph. I don't know if I'd take Acker over Novak now that Novak is fully developed--but Acker's performance as a 5th year senior is arguably superior to Novak's sophomore season.
- I think by any reasonable argument, DJO came in this year with the same reputation for shooting that Diener had (without Diener's reputation for lack of speed, athleticism or explosiveness). Diener saw the floor better than DJO--but I think if you compare DJO's soph season with Diener's junior year, you'd have to say they're pretty damn close--possibly a slight edge, but certainly not a huge advantage to Diener.
- Butler's offense (coming into the year ranked as the #4 offensive player the year before) has got to be considered a bit stronger than Merritt, Chapman or Townsend.
By any measure, Buzz had a much stronger lineup this year than Crean had in 2004.
I'm not sure why you mention their
future NBA success--neither Diener nor Novak exhibited NBA talent yet in 2004. They later developed that talent, but they were no more NBA players than Jim McIlvaine, Tony Smith, Amal McCaskill, or Chris Crawford were before their senior seasons.
The only
fair argument here is Crean took a less talented team to the NIT in 2004, and Buzz took a more talented team to the NCAA in 2010.
Quote from: Ners on May 24, 2010, 12:38:55 PM
Funny - you accuse me of calling coaches terrrible..I ask you to quote me when/where I said that...you fail to do so...now, you mention all of the "crappy coaches out there that did play but still failed." And, the only one out to lunch on this is you Chicos - only you would argue against the fact that 26 of the current 27 NBA coaches played at the college/pro level (24 at pro level).
I guess we'll just have to assume you know more than the General Managers of all NBA teams, because ironically, if one "crappy" coach is fired, they are usually replaced with another former player.
And Chicos, would you answer my question - did the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 teams underachieve (or at least go from being a Final Four caliber team, to an NIT participant) due to a lack of talent, or due to poor coaching, or due to the loss of DWade, or due to the monster schedule they played in C-USA..which included losing to TCU in the conference tourney BOTH years..a veryy lowly regarded TCU team.
Why do you put words in my mouth? Did I ever say playing at higher levels HINDERS you? Of course not. What I DID SAY was that just because one hasn't played at those levels doesn't disqualify them to be successful coaches. This is why you keep losing me and others with your argument.
Does being a great CEO require you have a MBA? No. Does being a great NBA coach require you be a former player? No. Is it nice to have? Sure. Is it a guarantee of success? HELL NO.
That is the rub. Just because you coached at a clinic and played ball doesn't mean you have the market cornered on analysis. That is all we've been saying. You want to make it a zero sum argument, which it clearly isn't.
I'm just worried after all your ranting how good Buzz is going to be, considering he didn't play in the NBA or in college. Should we be worried that Buzz won't have what it takes?
And no, I don't think the 2003-04 team underachieved considering what they lost. You do, I don't. Much stronger conference that year, loss of Wade, loss of Jackson, Merritt coming off shoulder surgery and playing a different position, Diener playing hurt, target on our back all year.....ALL OF THOSE THINGS together did not surprise me that we were a NIT team that year.
Finally, on your comments about other coaches. Despite your denial that you've never said a coach was terrible, etc, you have indeed made such comments:
"they were coached by JERRY WAINWRIGHT who was a
TERRRIBLE coach" January 21, 2010
That took me about 20 seconds to find. Should I continue? Of course you've said it about other coaches from time to time as well. It's ok, in fact in this case you are right. He did not do a good job at DePaul. Just don't deny that you have used that terminology in the past because you clearly have.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 24, 2010, 05:16:01 PM
And no, I don't think the 2003-04 team underachieved considering what they lost. You do, I don't. Much stronger conference that year, loss of Wade, loss of Jackson, Merritt coming off shoulder surgery and playing a different position, Diener playing hurt, target on our back all year.....ALL OF THOSE THINGS together did not surprise me that we were a NIT team that year.
Finally, on your comments about other coaches. Despite your denial that you've never said a coach was terrible, etc, you have indeed made such comments:
"they were coached by JERRY WAINWRIGHT who was a TERRRIBLE coach" January 21, 2010
That took me about 20 seconds to find. Should I continue?
Yes, please do find other examples where I have said coaches are terrible. Also, please let me know when the last time a color commentator or analyst for a basketball game, or football game, or baseball game...was someone other than a former player in that sport? Unless you have been an absolute gym rat, such as Buzz, and probably Crean...the average ordinary joe/pedestrian fan who hasn't played basketball at a minimum of the high school level, probably isn't going to be quite as knowledgeable as one who has. does that make me 100% in all of my opinions...NO..and I acknowledge when others make a good point that counters my point of view, or conflicts with my point of view. In fact I've been ridiculed in this thread for starting some of my posts with an "I stand corrected," or which you ridiculed me for...and The Golden Avalanche with his dig that I wrote "All of this may be true.."
So, when someone makes a good point, I will acknowledge it, but as is the case with you 90% of your points I find to be poorly thought out...just as you feel the same toward me. Difference of opinions for sure...and that doesn't make you a bad guy or me a bad guy..just convicted.
But please..stop making excuses for the 2003-2004 team..Diener played in every game, just as Merrit did..and both logged big minutes 30+ minutes per game...acknowledge that DWAde was the huge catalyst and reason for our Final Four year/run..and I'm good
MUScoop research finding #68: Wrestlers and basketball players can't get along.
Huh....who knew.
Quote from: marqptm on May 24, 2010, 11:59:36 AM
Travis got to the rim more than you think.
I have heard he had quite the stable while at Marquette. I have to believe he "took it to the rim" with incredible frquency, at least if he was taking care of business properly
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 24, 2010, 05:09:19 PM
Interesting that you think that we had enough talent to make the tournament in 2004, but make the case about how under-talented we were this past year.
Forget the comparisons with 2006. Let's compare the talent level in 2004 to this past season. No matter how you want to spin it, Crean had less overall talent in 2004 than Buzz did last year--but your expectations don't seem to reflect that disparity.
- Anyone as good as Hayward on Crean's 2004 team? Nope. Best was Novak (a sophomore to be) and Diener (a junior-to-be). Both were good--but neither had the combination of shooting touch, athleticism, speed and most importantly the experience of Hayward.
- Buzz's best outside shooter turned out to be Acker--the same Acker (and not Novak) who holds the MU senior-season record for 3 point shooting. And I think he probably handled the ball (and possibly even defended) better than Novak as a soph. I don't know if I'd take Acker over Novak now that Novak is fully developed--but Acker's performance as a 5th year senior is arguably superior to Novak's sophomore season.
- I think by any reasonable argument, DJO came in this year with the same reputation for shooting that Diener had (without Diener's reputation for lack of speed, athleticism or explosiveness). Diener saw the floor better than DJO--but I think if you compare DJO's soph season with Diener's junior year, you'd have to say they're pretty damn close--possibly a slight edge, but certainly not a huge advantage to Diener.
- Butler's offense (coming into the year ranked as the #4 offensive player the year before) has got to be considered a bit stronger than Merritt, Chapman or Townsend.
By any measure, Buzz had a much stronger lineup this year than Crean had in 2004.
I'm not sure why you mention their future NBA success--neither Diener nor Novak exhibited NBA talent yet in 2004. They later developed that talent, but they were no more NBA players than Jim McIlvaine, Tony Smith, Amal McCaskill, or Chris Crawford were before their senior seasons.
The only fair argument here is Crean took a less talented team to the NIT in 2004, and Buzz took a more talented team to the NCAA in 2010.
We can spin it like this: 2004 = Tom Crean's 5th year at the helm. 2010 = Buzz Williams 2nd year at the helm. I strongly believe Buzz won't be in such a "talent-less" (as you put it) situation with his roster in Year 5. No matter how hard-headed you are, Buzz had to deal with transfer of Christopherson and Mbawke (players he had no part in recruiting), the LOI defection of Nick Williams (who he had no part recruiting), the LOI defection of Tyshawn Taylor (who he had a small role recruiting), transfer and injury to his top 2 recruits (put the Maymon transfer on Buzz), the loss of Pat Hazel due to violating a program rules.
What's sad is you minimize the talent of Diener and Novak (as junior and sophomores), yet they were key ingredients to MU's Final Four Run the year before...but take away DWade..and now all of a sudden they aren't as talented as MU's 2010 team?
You asked me to point out where you said a coach was terrible. I did. Now you want me to do it again for you? And when does that stop, until finally I can't find anymore after say 4 or 7 or 9 times? I'm just asking because I delivered on your request and now you want more. You sound like my wife. ;)
Again, I am not disputing that playing ball could be an advantage to coaching (or announcing, etc). I'm not sure why you continue to go in that direction. What people are saying is that it's not required or the only linkage to success. In fact, plenty of former players have sucked at coaching.l
We have a Supreme Court nominee that has never been a judge. Most Supreme Court justices have been judges, but does that mean this woman can't be a fine justice on her own? That is what we are saying and it applies not only justice or business but to basketball coaching as well.
I think that is where the disconnect is between you and a number of other posters on this thread. It's not a zero sum situation.
Now you're saying "the average joe pedestrian fan". You seem to continue to move the goal posts. Of course the avg pedestrian fan won't know, but we're not talking about average fans in this situation.
Quote from: Ners on May 23, 2010, 10:40:06 AM
I agree - probably didn't need to share that with the entire board, but after HardsAlumni trotted out his VP of senior class, officer of several clubs, member of prom court...AND being a 3-time letter winner in wrestling...felt it necessary to rebut with my being a high school basketball player, and shape my argument based on my basketball background vs. his wrestling background. (I did spare y'all with the rest my high school accomplishments, and wrote that I felt cheesy for even listing that I played high school ball.)
Seriously, either of you 2 dudes on the Pom Pom Squad in high school?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 24, 2010, 08:05:13 PM
You asked me to point out where you said a coach was terrible. I did. Now you want me to do it again for you? And when does that stop, until finally I can't find anymore after say 4 or 7 or 9 times? I'm just asking because I delivered on your request and now you want more. You sound like my wife. ;)
Again, I am not disputing that playing ball would be a hindrance to coaching (or announcing, etc). I'm not sure why you continue to go in that direction. What people are saying is that it's not required.
We have a Supreme Court nominee that has never been a judge. Most Supreme Court justices have been judges, but does that mean this woman can't be a fine justice on her own? That is what we are saying and it applies not only justice or business but to basketball coaching as well.
I think that is where the disconnect is between you and a number of other posters on this thread. It's not a zero sum situation.
Now you're saying "the average joe pedestrian fan". You seem to continue to move the goal posts. Of course the avg pedestrian fan won't know, but we're not talking about average fans in this situation.
Funny about your wife. Well played. The reason I asked for more instances of where I called a coach terrible - was 1) because you offered, 2) because you alleged that in your first post that I called many coaches terrible, and 3) because other than Jerry Wainwright, I don't think I've called/referred to a coach as terrible.
I do feel you are the one trying to make this a zero sum situation..or an all or nothing. I'm happy to say there are exceptions to the rule or norm -such as guys like Buzz or Tom Crean - but those guys are exceptions, just as Stan Van Gundy is in the NBA. I'm not saying a wrestler cannot be a basketball fan or have a degree of insight into the game of basketball - I'm just saying that in most cases, people who have played the game, and coached it, tend to see things in a little bit different and in most cases more informed perspective...which again, is why most color commentators are guys who played the game.
Lastly, I don't want to come off as a complete douche..touting my basketball playing days, since they did end in High School. It's not like I was some D-1 player. However, I did play a lot of pick up games with the team from 1993-1997, which is how I got asked to be a camp coach...and I do feel that my experience as a player gives me a pretty good perspective on the game. Many of you here could run circles around me in other sports, or topics such as technology, finance, law, medicine, engineering, etc...I just feel very strongly about my analysis of basketball.
Incidentally, I tend to agree with a lot of Lenny's Tap analysis..and we just learned he was a 4-year letter winning wrestler.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on May 24, 2010, 09:16:47 PM
Seriously, either of you 2 dudes on in the Pom Pom Squad in high school?
I can't answer for Hards, but yes for me, and quite frequently.
Quote from: Ners on May 24, 2010, 09:19:33 PM
Funny about your wife. Well played. The reason I asked for more instances of where I called a coach terrible - was 1) because you offered, 2) because you alleged that in your first post that I called many coaches terrible, and 3) because other than Jerry Wainwright, I don't think I've called/referred to a coach as terrible.
I do feel you are the one trying to make this a zero sum situation..or an all or nothing. I'm happy to say there are exceptions to the rule or norm -such as guys like Buzz or Tom Crean - but those guys are exceptions, just as Stan Van Gundy is in the NBA. I'm not saying a wrestler cannot be a basketball fan or have a degree of insight into the game of basketball - I'm just saying that in most cases, people who have played the game, and coached it, tend to see things in a little bit different and in most cases more informed perspective...which again, is why most color commentators are guys who played the game.
Lastly, I don't want to come off as a complete douche..touting my basketball playing days, since they did end in High School. It's not like I was some D-1 player. However, I did play a lot of pick up games with the team from 1993-1997, which is how I got asked to be a camp coach...and I do feel that my experience as a player gives me a pretty good perspective on the game. Many of you here could run circles around me in other sports, or topics such as technology, finance, law, medicine, engineering, etc...I just feel very strongly about my analysis of basketball.
Incidentally, I tend to agree with a lot of Lenny's Tap analysis..and we just learned he was a 4-year letter winning wrestler.
What would ever make you think that you come off that way? Don't be silly...
Quote from: Ners on May 24, 2010, 09:19:33 PM
Lastly, I don't want to come off as a complete douche.......
Epic fail.
But don't stop believing.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 24, 2010, 05:09:19 PM
Interesting that you think that we had enough talent to make the tournament in 2004, but make the case about how under-talented we were this past year.
Forget the comparisons with 2006. Let's compare the talent level in 2004 to this past season. No matter how you want to spin it, Crean had less overall talent in 2004 than Buzz did last year--but your expectations don't seem to reflect that disparity.
- Anyone as good as Hayward on Crean's 2004 team? Nope. Best was Novak (a sophomore to be) and Diener (a junior-to-be). Both were good--but neither had the combination of shooting touch, athleticism, speed and most importantly the experience of Hayward.
- Buzz's best outside shooter turned out to be Acker--the same Acker (and not Novak) who holds the MU senior-season record for 3 point shooting. And I think he probably handled the ball (and possibly even defended) better than Novak as a soph. I don't know if I'd take Acker over Novak now that Novak is fully developed--but Acker's performance as a 5th year senior is arguably superior to Novak's sophomore season.
- I think by any reasonable argument, DJO came in this year with the same reputation for shooting that Diener had (without Diener's reputation for lack of speed, athleticism or explosiveness). Diener saw the floor better than DJO--but I think if you compare DJO's soph season with Diener's junior year, you'd have to say they're pretty damn close--possibly a slight edge, but certainly not a huge advantage to Diener.
- Butler's offense (coming into the year ranked as the #4 offensive player the year before) has got to be considered a bit stronger than Merritt, Chapman or Townsend.
By any measure, Buzz had a much stronger lineup this year than Crean had in 2004.
I'm not sure why you mention their future NBA success--neither Diener nor Novak exhibited NBA talent yet in 2004. They later developed that talent, but they were no more NBA players than Jim McIlvaine, Tony Smith, Amal McCaskill, or Chris Crawford were before their senior seasons.
The only fair argument here is Crean took a less talented team to the NIT in 2004, and Buzz took a more talented team to the NCAA in 2010.
Any way you spin it Crean had less TALENT than Buzz did last year? I don't need to spin it. Let's look at the TALENT level as evaluated by IMPARTIAL professional observers. The guys that even coaches pay for their opinions.
The 2004 team had 4 starters (Diener, Novak, Merritt and Mason) who were consensus top 100 players. Their 5th starter (Sanders) was a highly rated prep school player who was deemed a top 100 guy by a service that included "preps". Sixth man was Joe Chapman (100-150) and the rotation was filled out by juco all American (Marcus Jackson) and final four team starter Todd Townsend.
Last year's team had 1 starter (Hayward) who was a consensus top 100 player. DJO might have been close, maybe bma725 can help with that. Acker had nothing higher than mid major offers. Cubillan wasn't in the top 200. Butler wasn''t in the top 300. Sixth man Fulce came via junior college through University of New Orleans. Buycks best D1 offer was Bradley.
In addition to being rated much higher on a TALENT basis, the 2004 team starters were 6'10", 6'10", 6'8", 6'5" and 6'1". The balance of the rotation stood 6'8", 6'7" and 6'4". Last years team? 6'6'', 6'6", 6'3", 5'11", and 5'8" with backups at 6'7" and 6'2". That's 5 inches PER MAN.
So you can argue that BY ANY MEASURE last year's team PERFORMED better than the 2004 team. That's a fact. It's also a fact that last year's team was physically puny compared to the 2004 squad. And that the talent on the 2004 team was rated higher AT EVERY POSITION by the scouts. I fully acknowledge that scouts make mistakes, but this many would be the perfect storm of perfect storms.
Given all these facts a fair and logical person might conclude that the 2010 team was much better coached than the 2004 team. Since that conclusion doesn't fit your preferred narrative (i.e.,agenda) I won't hold my breath waiting for your agreement.
Quote from: Ners on May 24, 2010, 07:22:17 PM
What's sad is you minimize the talent of Diener and Novak (as junior and sophomores), yet they were key ingredients to MU's Final Four Run the year before...but take away DWade..and now all of a sudden they aren't as talented as MU's 2010 team?
I made the point that Hayward as a senior was better than Novak as a sophomore or Diener as a junior.
Given how often you complain how your comments are twisted, I expect better of you than twisting my observation into "minimizing the talent of Diener and Novak.
I compared the 2004 team (including Diener and Novak at a certain point in their development) to the 2010 team.
Quote from: Ners on May 24, 2010, 07:22:17 PM
but take away DWade..and now all of a sudden they aren't as talented as MU's 2010 team?
Yep. Thats my argument. I supported it too. More than I can say for your rebuttal--which was basically to twist my argument out of context.
I'm not comparing what Novak or Diener eventually developed into--I'm talking how they actually were in 2004. Hell, throw in Chapman, Merritt and whoever else you want. Do a fair comparison of the talent as it was--not as some scout projected three years prior.
This is your chance, Mr. Self-Professed Basketball Expert. You played the game in HS. You coached in Deane's summer camp. Evaluate Steve Novak's 2004 season and Lazar Haywards' performance in 2010, and tell me EXACTLY why I'm out of line for suggesting that Hayward's performance was the better of the two.
Tell me EXACTLY why my comparison of DJO and Diener is off the mark.
Tell me EXACTLY why you discount Acker's 50% 3 point shooting compared to Novak's 43%.
Tell me EXACTLY who in 2004 was even close to the offensive efficiency of Butler.
My guess that you can't--or more precisely you won't. You won't because if you actually do the comparison of rosters in those specific years you'll be forced to admit that I'm right.
What you'll do is resort to things like HS rankings from services that don't rank JUCOs--that way you can claim that players in 2004 were ranked in or near the top 100, but DJO, Buycks, and Butler were unranked--even though they were Juco All-Americans.
You'll resort to argument along the lines of: "Because Novak
eventually developed into an NBA player, he must have been better in 2004 also even though a fair comparison of his stats or his performance dictate otherwise."
One more thought--what if Hayward and DJO eventually make NBA rosters? What will you do then?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 24, 2010, 10:25:33 PM
Any way you spin it Crean had less TALENT than Buzz did last year? I don't need to spin it. Let's look at the TALENT level as evaluated by IMPARTIAL professional observers. The guys that even coaches pay for their opinions.
Most of those guys don't rate JUCOs, and many don't rate 5th year players, which makes your comparison suspect.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 24, 2010, 10:25:33 PM
The 2004 team had 4 starters (Diener, Novak, Merritt and Mason) who were consensus top 100 players. Their 5th starter (Sanders) was a highly rated prep school player who was deemed a top 100 guy by a service that included "preps".
In a recurring theme, the question is what is your basis to compare top 100 players to JUCO All-Americans?
Where does a 1st team JUCO AA rank in terms of top 100 players?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 24, 2010, 10:25:33 PM
Last year's team had 1 starter (Hayward) who was a consensus top 100 player.
And four players that were JUCO 1st, 2nd or 3rd team All-Americans.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 24, 2010, 10:25:33 PM
DJO might have been close, maybe bma725 can help with that.
Don't need him--it's right here:
http://tinyurl.com/29thdmc
Buycks & DJO--first team NCJAA.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 24, 2010, 10:25:33 PM
Acker had nothing higher than mid major offers.
And in his sophomore year, Michael Jordan was cut from his HS team.
So what? Making a point of how good a player was five years before we're making the comparision is a bit unfair.
In 2010, Acker improved to the point where he set the senior season 3 point shooting record. It doesn't matter who recruited him out of HS--it matters how good he was last year.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 24, 2010, 10:25:33 PM
Cubillan wasn't in the top 200. Butler wasn''t in the top 300.
According to Rivals, Cubillan was recruited by Rutgers, Villanova, and St. Johns
Butler was a 3rd team JUCO All American.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 24, 2010, 10:25:33 PM
Sixth man Fulce came via junior college through University of New Orleans.
And Texas A&M. And he was a 2nd team JUCO All American.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 24, 2010, 10:25:33 PM
Buycks best D1 offer was Bradley.
Thats interesting--according to ESPN he picked MU over Memphis, Tennessee, Kentucky and Illinois.
http://tinyurl.com/278deuu
Caught you red handed using outdated information. Buycks best D1 offer out of HS was Bradley--mostly because he wasn't going to qualify. By the time he was done with JUCO, the offers were from a slightly better quality of program.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 24, 2010, 10:25:33 PM
In addition to being rated much higher on a TALENT basis,
Only if we choose to pretend that JUCO All-American status means nothing
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 24, 2010, 10:25:33 PM
the 2004 team starters were 6'10", 6'10", 6'8", 6'5" and 6'1". The balance of the rotation stood 6'8", 6'7" and 6'4". Last years team? 6'6'', 6'6", 6'3", 5'11", and 5'8" with backups at 6'7" and 6'2". That's 5 inches PER MAN.
Please provide your extended analysis on how Manute Bol and Chuck Nevitt were the dominant college players of their day.
What do LaSalle, UNC, Utah, UC Davis, Wyoming and Fresno State have in common? They were all among the 10 tallest teams in effective height.
Oh, and they missed the NCAA tournament.
Meanwhile teams like MU and Butler, Oklahoma State and Marquette made the tourney despite a lack of height.
This is an irrelevant argument.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 24, 2010, 10:25:33 PM
I fully acknowledge that scouts make mistakes, but this many would be the perfect storm of perfect storms.
Not really.
Most scouts provide no basis to compare HS top 100 to JUCO all-Americans.
Yet, those who did rank DJO and Bucyks rated them very favorably to other top 100 players. Buycks was rated 94 by ESPN, and 8.0 by Hoopscoop, and you sit here and pretend that he hadn't changed since HS when he was recruited by Bradley.
In reality, he was good enough to be recruited by UK, Illinois, Tennessee, etc.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 24, 2010, 10:25:33 PM
Given all these facts a fair and logical person might conclude that the 2010 team was much better coached than the 2004 team. Since that conclusion doesn't fit your preferred narrative (i.e.,agenda) I won't hold my breath waiting for your agreement.
Its hard to say given the difference in talent.
Given that you have to resort to comparing Novak's HS rank to Hayward, rather than their' actual performance, I suspect that you are not that fair and logical person who should be making this comparison.
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on May 24, 2010, 09:37:27 PM
Epic fail.
But don't stop believing.
Last I checked, nobody from New Jersey should be the judge of douchiness. And particularily not you.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 25, 2010, 02:34:44 AM
Most of those guys don't rate JUCOs, and many don't rate 5th year players, which makes your comparison suspect.
In a recurring theme, the question is what is your basis to compare top 100 players to JUCO All-Americans?
Where does a 1st team JUCO AA rank in terms of top 100 players?
And four players that were JUCO 1st, 2nd or 3rd team All-Americans.
Don't need him--it's right here:
http://tinyurl.com/29thdmc
Buycks & DJO--first team NCJAA.
And in his sophomore year, Michael Jordan was cut from his HS team.
So what? Making a point of how good a player was five years before we're making the comparision is a bit unfair.
In 2010, Acker improved to the point where he set the senior season 3 point shooting record. It doesn't matter who recruited him out of HS--it matters how good he was last year.
According to Rivals, Cubillan was recruited by Rutgers, Villanova, and St. Johns
Butler was a 3rd team JUCO All American.
And Texas A&M. And he was a 2nd team JUCO All American.
Thats interesting--according to ESPN he picked MU over Memphis, Tennessee, Kentucky and Illinois.
http://tinyurl.com/278deuu
Caught you red handed using outdated information. Buycks best D1 offer out of HS was Bradley--mostly because he wasn't going to qualify. By the time he was done with JUCO, the offers were from a slightly better quality of program.
Only if we choose to pretend that JUCO All-American status means nothing
Please provide your extended analysis on how Manute Bol and Chuck Nevitt were the dominant college players of their day.
What do LaSalle, UNC, Utah, UC Davis, Wyoming and Fresno State have in common? They were all among the 10 tallest teams in effective height.
Oh, and they missed the NCAA tournament.
Meanwhile teams like MU and Butler, Oklahoma State and Marquette made the tourney despite a lack of height.
This is an irrelevant argument.
Not really.
Most scouts provide no basis to compare HS top 100 to JUCO all-Americans.
Yet, those who did rank DJO and Bucyks rated them very favorably to other top 100 players. Buycks was rated 94 by ESPN, and 8.0 by Hoopscoop, and you sit here and pretend that he hadn't changed since HS when he was recruited by Bradley.
In reality, he was good enough to be recruited by UK, Illinois, Tennessee, etc.
Its hard to say given the difference in talent.
Given that you have to resort to comparing Novak's HS rank to Hayward, rather than their' actual performance, I suspect that you are not that fair and logical person who should be making this comparison.
I continue to argue apples to apples while you want to argue apples to pommegranites.
I repeat: Every starter on MU's 2004 team WENT TO COLLEGE rated higher than his counterpart on the 2010 team. Ditto for the reserves. (if they didn't develop that's on TC,no?) In addition to being more talented they were also much bigger. Size in and of itself is meaningless (good small players are preferred over bad big players) but please cite examples of coaches who would prefer a 5'8"' 150lb point guard who's rated 300th in his class to a 6'1" 175lb guy rated 50th. Or a 5'11" 170lb 2 guard rated 250th in his class to a 6'5" 190lb rated 60th. Or a 6'3" 3 rated between 150-200 to someone 6'10" rated between 50-60. Or a 6'6" 4 not in the top 300 to a 6'8" top 150 guy. Or a 6'6" 5 rated 80th over a 6'10" guy also rated 80th.
So if the 2004 players came out of high school much bigger and better (more talented) than the 2010 players, What happened? The 2004 team was a preseason top 25 club expected to battle Cincinnati, Louisville and Memphis for the conference title. Their key players missed no time due to injury. They underperformed their talent, finished in the middle of the pack (.500, 7th,8th or 9th) and went to the loser's tournament.
The 2010 team, conversely, was rated between #65-85 preseason, 12th in the Big East. And that was before disaster struck. Their top 50 point guard was injured and his season was lost. Same thing for their starting center. Finally, their top 60 recruit and 6th man left the team just prior to the start of the conference season. With all the pieces in place for a complete meltdown, the team got off the mat to finish 11-7, 5th in the Big East with an NCAA tournament bid. In the process, experts (Frischilla) and coaches (Calhoun) marveled at their cohesion and the way they brought it every night. Calhoun, in fact, gave them the ultimate backhanded compliment:"They're not especially talented, they just play harder and more together than their opponents"
So in the face of a mountain of evidence from multiple sources that Buzz simply developed and coached his talent better than TC did his in 2004 you remain unconvinced. Just like the people who think the moon landing was staged and that George Bush blew up the twin towers, your entitled to your own opinion - however uninformed and prejudiced it might be.
Quote from: Ners on May 25, 2010, 10:47:45 AM
Last I checked, nobody from New Jersey should be the judge of douchiness. And particularily not you.
Stay Classy New Jersey. In addition to bringing us Golden Avalanche, Jersey Shore, we also have New Jersey proudly being represented by:
PHILADELPHIA --
A 21-year-old New Jersey man pleaded guilty Tuesday to vomiting on another spectator and his 11-year-old daughter in the stands during a Philadelphia Phillies game.Matthew Clemmens, of Cherry Hill, N.J., pleaded guilty to one count each of simple assault, disorderly conduct and harassment for his conduct during an April 14 Phillies-Nationals game at Citizens Bank Park.
Clemmens stuck his fingers down his throat and vomited on Michael Vangelo, an off-duty Easton police captain, and one of Vangelo's daughters after Clemmens' companion was ejected from the park, assistant district attorney Patrick Doyle said.
Clemmens
Clemmens and his friend were spilling beer, cursing and heckling Vangelo and his daughters from the time they arrived at their seats, according to a statement of facts read in court.
Vangelo's 15-year-old daughter asked the pair to stop the profanity, and Vangelo complained to security that Clemmens' friend was spitting, with some of it hitting his 11-year-old daughter, Doyle said.
After the friend was ejected, Clemmens was sitting alone behind the Vangelos when he answered his cell phone and said, "I need to do what I need to do. I'm going to get sick," the prosecutor said.
Clemmens then put his fingers down his throat and threw up on the father, with vomit splashing onto Vangelo's younger daughter, Doyle said.
He then punched the father several times in the head before other fans in the stands subdued him, the prosecutor said. He screamed expletives at the crowd as he was led out of the park, Doyle said.
Clemmens' mug shot showed him with a swollen black eye, and authorities acknowledged he was hit as he was being subdued. No one else was charged in the case.
In exchange for Clemmens' guilty pleas, charges including reckless endangerment and corruption of minors were dropped.
Doyle said the Vangelos were satisfied with the case's resolution and plan to attend Clemmens' sentencing, which Family Court Judge Kevin Dougherty scheduled for July 30. Sentencing guidelines call for Clemmens to get probation, Doyle said.
Dressed in a navy suit and accompanied by his parents, the defendant appeared nervous as the charges against him were read. He did not address the judge beyond quietly replying, "Yes," as the description of events was read.
Public defender Richard Hark said his client has had no prior run-ins with the law and his behavior, which outraged fans in Philadelphia and beyond, was out of character.
"It's probable he consumed too much alcohol," Hark said, adding that Clemmens only turned 21 in March. "It's not a justification for his behavior, just an explanation."
Neither Clemmens nor his parents would comment as they left the courthouse.
Texas has brought us some people and things that weren't always spectacular either. And I say that as a big fan of the Republic of Texas. Stay classy....indeed
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 25, 2010, 02:38:51 PM
Texas has brought us some people and things that weren't always spectacular either. And I say that as a big fan of the Republic of Texas. Stay classy....indeed
One thing Texas doesn't bring is massive state deficits, and excessive state income tax. Though cliche' God has Blessed Texas. Very reasonable cost of living, diverse economic base, pro-business climate, fiscal conservative policy-making, and a general degree of commons sense and can do spirit.
Chicos, whenever you get tired of paying the luxury tax of living in CA, we'll keep a spot open for you over here. For that 9% you giveaway in state income tax, you could pretty much afford to take 2 nice family of 4 vacations to Mexico for a week at a time OR allocate that for half of your annual housing burden for a modern 2700 square foot house in a nice suburb with great schools. We've welcomed many California rejects over here in the past decade and will even take you. :)
Quote from: Ners on May 25, 2010, 03:20:12 PM
One thing Texas doesn't bring is massive state deficits, and excessive state income tax. Though cliche' God has Blessed Texas. Very reasonable cost of living, diverse economic base, pro-business climate, fiscal conservative policy-making, and a general degree of commons sense and can do spirit.
Chicos, whenever you get tired of paying the luxury tax of living in CA, we'll keep a spot open for you over here. For that 9% you giveaway in state income tax, you could pretty much afford to take 2 nice family of 4 vacations to Mexico for a week at a time OR allocate that for half of your annual housing burden for a modern 2700 square foot house in a nice suburb with great schools. We've welcomed many California rejects over here in the past decade and will even take you. :)
I can see that this thread is clearly off topic at this point.
Quote from: Ners on May 25, 2010, 03:20:12 PM
One thing Texas doesn't bring is massive state deficits, and excessive state income tax. Though cliche' God has Blessed Texas. Very reasonable cost of living, diverse economic base, pro-business climate, fiscal conservative policy-making, and a general degree of commons sense and can do spirit.
Chicos, whenever you get tired of paying the luxury tax of living in CA, we'll keep a spot open for you over here. For that 9% you giveaway in state income tax, you could pretty much afford to take 2 nice family of 4 vacations to Mexico for a week at a time OR allocate that for half of your annual housing burden for a modern 2700 square foot house in a nice suburb with great schools. We've welcomed many California rejects over here in the past decade and will even take you. :)
Ners, I'm from Texas originally....before you were even in diapers. Trust me, I get it. And I already have my retirement parcel outside of California, because I get what it's like to live here, too.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 25, 2010, 11:06:50 AM
I repeat: Every starter on MU's 2004 team WENT TO COLLEGE rated higher than his counterpart on the 2010 team.
That's a choice set of weasel words you use there.
I note you don't use the term "ARRIVED AT MARQUETTE rated higher than his counterpart on the 2010 team."
That's because you know it isn't true. Even you would admit that a 1st team JUCO is probably equal to a freshman ranked 35 to 50th.
2004 had more HS ranked starters. 2010 had more JUCO AA starters.
You claim Jimmy Butler was a sub-300 HS-senior. I claim he was a JUCO all-American. Who is more honest? Who is using the more up-to-date information?
And that doesn't even get into the fact that a non top 100 senior just might be a bit better than a top 100 senior due to his experience. That top 100 HS player will see that his time eventually comes--but he's not expected to perform like a senior during his freshman or sophomore year.
Let me put it in terms you might understand:
Erik Williams was a top 100 player out of HS. Jimmy Butler "wasn't in the top 300." (your words--not mine).
Who played more last year? Which player exhibited more talent in 2010?
If you were playing fantasy basketball, would you rather take Erik Williams based on his HS rank? Or Jimmy Butler?
I guess it never occurred to you that Butler didn't arrive at MU as a sub 300 college freshman, but rather as a JUCO all-American. Not only that, but he had two years of experience on Williams.
NOW do you get the comparison of Novak as a sophomore versus Hayward as a senior?
If you can get your head around that one, come back and talk to me about the 2004/2010 comparison. Maybe then we'll have an honest discussion.
Lenny, query for you. Why are you including where a team was picked to be in the conference or what their rating is i high school? Those are all just guesses and have little to do with reality when kids actually play.
Shouldn't we be dealing with actual data results and not predictions by some, so called expert(s) who have admitted in their own publications that the difference between the 55th best player and the 85th best player is often nothing at all, but they needed to slot them somewhere.
Or another way to frame it, if someone is picked as the 55th best high school player but plays like the 30th best, is this because he was coached up or mis-evaluated by the gurus? Furthermore, how do you compare one year's ratings to the next? If someone in 2010 is rated 50th best in that high school class but would have been 20th best in the class of 2003-04 because the talent that year was different, how are you compensating for this?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 25, 2010, 03:54:41 PM
Ners, I'm from Texas originally....before you were even in diapers. Trust me, I get it. And I already have my retirement parcel outside of California, because I get what it's like to live here, too.
I was giving very serious consideration to relocating to Manhattan Beach as I have 2 very close friends there, but I just cannot justify/rationalize the tax burden I'd incur, nor does the prospect of a $2M mortgage carry too much appeal. That said, it is beautiful out there and I hope you take full advantage of your surroundings. My hope is to save enough by living here, to eventually be able to retire in SoCal.
And didn't know you were a Texan..nor did I think you were and older dude - thought you passed through MU in the late 90s, early 200s?
Quote from: Ners on May 25, 2010, 04:31:25 PM
I was giving very serious consideration to relocating to Manhattan Beach as I have 2 very close friends there, but I just cannot justify/rationalize the tax burden I'd incur, nor does the prospect of a $2M mortgage carry too much appeal. That said, it is beautiful out there and I hope you take full advantage of your surroundings. My hope is to save enough by living here, to eventually be able to retire in SoCal.
And didn't know you were a Texan..nor did I think you were and older dude - thought you passed through MU in the late 90s, early 200s?
Older, yes. Old....that's a state of mind. ;)
Yes, west Texas...Midland-Odessa originally. Also lived in Houston for some time. As we like to say, American by birth, Texan by the Grace of God. GO Cowboys!!
Yes, lovely state with lovely weather, if only there weren't so many (fill in the blank...people - both legal and not so legal, taxes, high priced goods, and on and on)
Quote from: Ners on May 25, 2010, 10:47:45 AM
Last I checked, nobody from New Jersey should be the judge of douchiness. And particularily not you.
Check again, Obi-Wan.
If anyone is qualified to call out douchiness, it's a Joiseyan. Unfortunately, we invented that crap.
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on May 25, 2010, 08:33:32 PM
Check again, Obi-Wan.
If anyone is qualified to call out douchiness, it's a Joiseyan. Unfortunately, we invented that crap.
Most people can't escape the traits and characteristics that are a product of their environment. The worst kind of douche is one who doesn't even recognize himself as a douche.
Quote from: Ners on May 25, 2010, 08:41:04 PM
Most people can't escape the traits and characteristics that are a product of their environment. The worst kind of douche is one who doesn't even recognize himself as a douche.
That was deep.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 25, 2010, 04:05:07 PM
Lenny, query for you. Why are you including where a team was picked to be in the conference or what their rating is i high school? Those are all just guesses and have little to do with reality when kids actually play.
Shouldn't we be dealing with actual data results and not predictions by some, so called expert(s) who have admitted in their own publications that the difference between the 55th best player and the 85th best player is often nothing at all, but they needed to slot them somewhere.
Or another way to frame it, if someone is picked as the 55th best high school player but plays like the 30th best, is this because he was coached up or mis-evaluated by the gurus? Furthermore, how do you compare one year's ratings to the next? If someone in 2010 is rated 50th best in that high school class but would have been 20th best in the class of 2003-04 because the talent that year was different, how are you compensating for this?
84 states that by any fair measure the 2010 team was more TALENTED than the 2004 team. I believe we were a better team but not a more talented one. I base this both on impartial "expert" testimony and what I saw with my own two eyes. Since 84 would undoubtably shoot down my own observations as prejudiced, I decided to base my arguement solely on the people who get paid to evaluate talent.
Scouts/gurus first. Are they infallible? No. Is the #80 guy often better than the #50 guy? You bet. But coaches pay them for their opinions so I think it's pretty safe to say that a high school senior rated #50 is more TALENTED than a high school senior rated #300. Can a #300 guy work hard, be coached up and become a better player than a disinterested, poorly coached #50 guy? Sure. Just watch UCONN most years. We're rarely if ever as TALENTED as them but we're often a better team.
College writers/preseason rankings next. Again more than fallible, but their job is to evaluate returning and incoming TALENT and make projections based on those evaluations. No Kool Aid, no pro or anti TC or Buzz agendas.
So EVERY scout, writer and coach thought that MU had more talent and therefore higher expectations in 2004 than 2010. Maybe all of them were wrong. But I don't think so.
Guys, knock it off. I realize we've let a ton of personal attacks go in this thread, mainly due to inattentiveness.
Enough.