MUScoop

Who are we supposed to root against in this one? Unfortunately, they can't both lose.

We can root for Higgins, Driscoll and Burr to be the officiating crew.

Quote from: WarriorHal on January 20, 2011, 12:36:15 PM
Who are we supposed to root against in this one? Unfortunately, they can't both lose.

Go Big Red!  Oh, wait...

It don't matter. Crean has a better chance of getting heat stroke tonight, than of winning. F*ck'em Bucky.

The line is at UW -13.5... which is 10 minutes of basketball against the Badgers.  Not sure it'll make any difference who you root for.

When in doubt, root for the team that MU plays/played during the season...or just close your eyes and pretend the game isn't happening.

Are you sure that isn't the over/under?

Quote from: dsfire on January 20, 2011, 12:57:05 PM
The line is at UW -13.5... which is 10 minutes of basketball against the Badgers.  Not sure it'll make any difference who you root for.

I'll watch this game and sing along to Bucky's fight song. That's what I^4 makes me do

http://twitter.com/#!/TomCrean/status/28119734918578176

Ill be cheering for IU, IU.  Under no circumstances can I want the Communists of Madison to win anything.

I won't be watching the game however, won't put myself through that.

We can all hope for a THRILLING 24-22 (ENTER WINNING TEAM HERE) victory that the Big (ENTER CORRECT NUMERICAL VALUE HERE) is known for....

anyone know who will be there?

Sanders and Brandon Bell?

Look for Cords behind the IU bench.

Quote from: DJO's Pump Fake on January 20, 2011, 01:23:53 PM
Ill be cheering for IU, IU.  Under no circumstances can I want the Communists of Madison to win anything.

I won't be watching the game however, won't put myself through that.

I'm with you on this one.

This gets on ESPN?  Slow night in sports.

Quote from: NYWarrior on January 20, 2011, 01:20:19 PM
http://twitter.com/#!/TomCrean/status/28119734918578176

"If you come to our game, people might stop loathing the very ground I walk on. PLEASE COME TO OUR GAME! PLEASE!"

Agreed, very light card tonight. Arizona - Washington is a decent game, and Va Tech - MD could be all right (same time as the game in question, which I'd watch 'til the start of the U of A game if I were home). I'd rather watch South Florida and Rutgers tonight than the game in question. Well, maybe not.

Who should I pull for tonight?  My favoritest coach and best friend Tom Crean?  Or my other favoritist coach and user of traditional talent, Bo Ryan?

This one is really hard for me.


I'll give it 5 posts before someone says, "that shouldn't have been in teal"

Watch Community and 30 Rock instead. Far more entertaining, much funnier too (or at least it's humor on purpose as opposed to the big 10, um 11, um 12.............)

Quote from: warriors1991 on January 20, 2011, 04:24:02 PM
Watch Community and 30 Rock instead. Far more entertaining, much funnier too (or at least it's humor on purpose as opposed to the big 10, um 11, um 12.............)

Or, go to another college basketball game like me.

Quote from: WarriorHal on January 20, 2011, 12:36:15 PM
Who are we supposed to root against in this one? Unfortunately, they can't both lose.

During games like these I root for the meteor.

Quote from: chapman on January 20, 2011, 02:12:36 PM
This gets on ESPN?  Slow night in sports.

Definitely

Rutgers vs. USF on the Worldwide Leader at 7...

Only time I say this - Go Bo, crush that asshat...

Go Crean and Crimson!  F*ck all things Wisconsin.

Gotta root for UW-Madison.  We don't play Indiana during the season. 

Thought I saw Buzz sitting directly behind Crean but turns out it was the Wisconsin state trooper who has had his donut quota.

I'm sure this was brought up already but what did Tom Crean mean when he said former Marquette players would be in the stands at the game.. Per twitter..

Wow, why couldn't Wisconsin have played like this against us?  Not an impressive showing.

Terry Sanders is sitting behind the IU bench.

Indiana is actually playing with Wisco. Still down 6, but if they manage to pull that off, that'd have to be Crean's biggest win at IU, wouldn't it?

Quote from: brewcity77 on January 20, 2011, 09:46:50 PM
Indiana is actually playing with Wisco. Still down 6, but if they manage to pull that off, that'd have to be Crean's biggest win at IU, wouldn't it?

Beating Pittsburgh last year, beating Minnesota last year.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 20, 2011, 09:49:00 PM
Beating Pittsburgh last year, beating Minnesota last year.

Winning AT the Kohl Center would DWARF those.

I4 could not manage to handle the 2 point, 1 rebound explosion from traditional star Josh Gasser.  uw-madison wins by 9. 

Cream is definitely making an impact there

Quote from: GOMU1104 on January 20, 2011, 09:53:27 PM
Winning AT the Kohl Center would DWARF those.

Right, beating a team that went 25-9 last year and was a 3 seed would be dwarfed....whatever.  

They played better against UW-madison tonight than we did.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 20, 2011, 09:59:24 PM
Right, beating a team that went 25-9 last year and was a 3 seed would be dwarfed....whatever.  

They played better against UW-madison tonight than we did.

A little sensitive and defensive?  Think the original poster meant it sincerely that beating Wisconsin at home where it is virtually impossible to beat..would be more significant than beating Pitt - even if Pitt ENDED the season as a 3 seed.

IU played well tonight.  I was impressed with their effort and overall performance.  Hulls reminded me of Travis Diener.  Crafty, not very athletic, but very effective.

Quote from: GOMU1104 on January 20, 2011, 09:53:27 PM
Winning AT the Kohl Center would DWARF those.

Agreed.  They haven't won in Madison since 1998, and they've had some good teams the past 12 years.  That, and nobody wins in at the Kohl Center.  Crean has yet to beat Bo at IU, so I guess that's funny at least.

come on Chico's, you can rip MU and Buzz better than that...

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 20, 2011, 09:59:24 PM
Right, beating a team that went 25-9 last year and was a 3 seed would be dwarfed....whatever.  

They played better against UW-madison tonight than we did.

Crean has IU playing better. When he beat Pitt last year it was before Pitt really hit their stride. Pitt had just come off a game at home against New Hampshire where they scored 47 points. The game before they went to double OT against Duquesne.

Still an impressive win but I think beating Bo at the Kohl Center would have been bigger. IMO

As far as IU playing better against them then us.....offensively yes....defensively no....but who cares really? We have played solid to very good basketball most of the year. IU has not.

What I got a kick from was the comment made by Bardo at the start when he talked how much more talented Crean's teams at MU were then his current IU team.

TC has some talent there and more is on the way. He better start winning with it next year or his seat is going to get hot. He got dealt a tough hand there but IU's fan base isn't as patient as MU's.

157-11 at the Kohl or something like that is what I believe the graphic said since Bo has been there.  Is it just me or does that just seem WRONG - I would venture to say that no team in the last 50 years has been that dominant at home and NOT won any postseason tournament or even threatened to do so.  What conclusion can we draw from that???

Quote from: MuMark on January 20, 2011, 10:16:13 PM
Crean has IU playing better. When he beat Pitt last year it was before Pitt really hit their stride. Pitt had just come off a game at home against New Hampshire where they scored 47 points. The game before they went to double OT against Duquesne.

Still an impressive win but I think beating Bo at the Kohl Center would have been bigger. IMO

As far as IU playing better against them then us.....offensively yes....defensively no....but who cares really? We have played solid to very good basketball most of the year. IU has not.

What I got a kick from was the comment made by Bardo at the start when he talked how much more talented Crean's teams at MU were then his current IU team.

TC has some talent there and more is on the way. He better start winning with it next year or his seat is going to get hot. He got dealt a tough hand there but IU's fan base isn't as patient as MU's.

Right.  I guarantee that if you asked IU fans to project where they would be by now it would be significantly better than this including being able to absord a key injury.  His act will grow old soon enough. 

If he is such a great coach, then he has enough talent there to be better than he is.  If he is a below average coach like we all know he is, then IU is about right where they should be.  I hope they understand that there.  His record is pathetic and he can only move the goalposts for so long before they realize that he is a charismatic CEO and not a coach.  In year three, you have to have more results than this.

According to the JS article I just read, it stated that Crean is now 6-36 in Big Ten games since he took over Indiana.   
Gotta love it.....

Quote from: romey on January 20, 2011, 10:20:27 PM
157-11 at the Kohl or something like that is what I believe the graphic said since Bo has been there.  Is it just me or does that just seem WRONG - I would venture to say that no team in the last 50 years has been that dominant at home and NOT won any postseason tournament or even threatened to do so.  What conclusion can we draw from that???

That Bo is a great coach that gets a ton out of players that don't have the same talent level as other teams...and that the Kohl Center gives them that extra lift.

I mean, I find it hard to rip on UW when outside of our F4 run, they've pretty much outperformed MU on almost every level during Bo's tenure.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 21, 2011, 07:59:09 AM
I mean, I find it hard to rip on UW when outside of our F4 run, they've pretty much outperformed MU on almost every level during Bo's tenure.

Except for graduating players.

Quote from: Skatastrophy on January 21, 2011, 09:10:25 AM
Except for graduating players.

80% is good enough in my book.

What is it with some posters' insistence on continually harping on the success of Bo Ryan? Yes, we all know he's had a very fine run at UW. Who here disputes that? Bully for him, I guess.
But, sheesh, we must be the only fan base in which a cerrain segment of fans feel the need to kiss a rival coach's rear. Seriously, do Georgetown fans dedicate threads to Syracuse's success? Do Auburn football fans glowingly speak of Nick Saban? Is there a Rick Pitono lovefest over on the Kentucky boards?

Again, nobody disputes Bo is a good coach who's had a great deal of success. I just don't understand why some here believe it necessary to say it over and over and over and over again.

As for Bo winning without "having the same level of talent as other teams" has repeatedly been proven false. Bo gets plenty of talent at UW.

It's not easy watching Wisconsin play.  They play down to the opponents level.  The games are so slow that both teams look bad.  It's hard to believe that the Badgers beat Marquette as they look mediocre in every game since then.  Bo used to play at a faster pace.   This team is really slow.

Quote from: Pakuni on January 21, 2011, 09:36:41 AM
What is it with some posters' insistence on continually harping on the success of Bo Ryan? Yes, we all know he's had a very fine run at UW. Who here disputes that? Bully for him, I guess.
But, sheesh, we must be the only fan base in which a cerrain segment of fans feel the need to kiss a rival coach's rear. Seriously, do Georgetown fans dedicate threads to Syracuse's success? Do Auburn football fans glowingly speak of Nick Saban? Is there a Rick Pitono lovefest over on the Kentucky boards?

Again, nobody disputes Bo is a good coach who's had a great deal of success. I just don't understand why some here believe it necessary to say it over and over and over and over again.

As for Bo winning without "having the same level of talent as other teams" has repeatedly been proven false. Bo gets plenty of talent at UW.

Someone asked a question.  I answered it.  You don't like the answer?  Don't read it.

Let me aslo add that people shouldn't bring up the topic at all if they don't want opinions on it addressed.

Quote from: Ners on January 20, 2011, 10:03:47 PM
A little sensitive and defensive?  Think the original poster meant it sincerely that beating Wisconsin at home where it is virtually impossible to beat..would be more significant than beating Pitt - even if Pitt ENDED the season as a 3 seed.

IU played well tonight.  I was impressed with their effort and overall performance.  Hulls reminded me of Travis Diener.  Crafty, not very athletic, but very effective.

Not that Chicos can't defend himself, and sometimes I agree with CBB and sometimes I don't, but how is his comment sensitive and defensive?  Would a win last night have been bigger than the win at Pitt?  Maybe.  But it wouldn't DWARF the win at Pitt when Pitt was ranked as high as they were.

Does every post of CBB make you try to find a negative Ners?  Just sayin....

Quote from: Lighthouse 84 on January 21, 2011, 10:12:31 AM
Not that Chicos can't defend himself, and sometimes I agree with CBB and sometimes I don't, but how is his comment sensitive and defensive?  Would a win last night have been bigger than the win at Pitt?  Maybe.  But it wouldn't DWARF the win at Pitt when Pitt was ranked as high as they were.

Does every post of CBB make you try to find a negative Ners?  Just sayin....

Actually Pitt wasn't even ranked at the time IU beat them early in the 2009-2010 season (and it was a home game for IU) - they finished the season as a 3 seed, but had many problems early in 2009.  So, to answer your question - yes, beating a ranked Wisconsin team AT HOME where they are virtually unbeatable would DWARF beating Pitt in 2009.

And no - I don't TRY to find a negative in every post of CBB - but in this case he did react defensive and sensitively...when the original poster made a valid point.  You'll notice I credited his IU Hoosiers and how they played in the Wisconsin game -and didn't even disagree with his statement that IU played better against UW than we did...

It was a neutral site game in NY.

Quote from: Ners on January 21, 2011, 10:37:51 AM
Actually Pitt wasn't even ranked at the time IU beat them early in the 2009-2010 season (and it was a home game for IU) - they finished the season as a 3 seed, but had many problems early in 2009.  So, to answer your question - yes, beating a ranked Wisconsin team AT HOME where they are virtually unbeatable would DWARF beating Pitt in 2009.

And no - I don't TRY to find a negative in every post of CBB - but in this case he did react defensive and sensitively...when the original poster made a valid point.  You'll notice I credited his IU Hoosiers and how they played in the Wisconsin game -and didn't even disagree with his statement that IU played better against UW than we did...

Uhm, no, it was a NEUTRAL site game, not a HOME game.  The game was played in New York, far closer to Pittsburgh then Bloomington, on a court and stadium that Pitt is used to playing on for the Big East Tournament and against St. John's.

Pitt was 7-1 entering that game, IU was 3-4. It would be the last game Pittsburgh would lose until they got to the 15 win mark. 

I'm surprised you didn't know it was Crean's 200th win as a head coach.   ;)

Quote from: romey on January 20, 2011, 10:20:27 PM
157-11 at the Kohl or something like that is what I believe the graphic said since Bo has been there.  Is it just me or does that just seem WRONG - I would venture to say that no team in the last 50 years has been that dominant at home and NOT won any postseason tournament or even threatened to do so.  What conclusion can we draw from that???

What do you mean by post season tournament?  They've won the Big Ten conference tournament twice and also finished runner-up once.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 21, 2011, 11:14:27 AM
Uhm, no, it was a NEUTRAL site game, not a HOME game.  The game was played in New York, far closer to Pittsburgh then Bloomington, on a court and stadium that Pitt is used to playing on for the Big East Tournament and against St. John's.

Pitt was 7-1 entering that game, IU was 3-4. It would be the last game Pittsburgh would lose until they got to the 15 win mark. 

I'm surprised you didn't know it was Crean's 200th win as a head coach.   ;)

Beating Wisconin in Madison would have been a much better and more significant win. Dwarf? Maybe not. Absolutely and without question bigger for Indiana than the Pitt win.

It's wonderful for Indiana that such "what ifs" can be discussed. Beating Penn State in Bloomington would have been huge, too.

Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on January 21, 2011, 11:49:24 AM
Beating Wisconin in Madison would have been a much better and more significant win.

Beating anyone anywhere is a significant win these days for the Crimson and Crean

Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on January 21, 2011, 11:49:24 AM
Beating Wisconin in Madison would have been a much better and more significant win. Dwarf? Maybe not. Absolutely and without question bigger for Indiana than the Pitt win.

It's wonderful for Indiana that such "what ifs" can be discussed. Beating Penn State in Bloomington would have been huge, too.

Conference teams can bite someone at any time....see DePaul's lone win in 40 games.  Teams in conference know each other very well.  People expect from time to time that a conference team will beat another, just like Florida State seems to bite Duke on a semi-regular basis.  To me you get more national recognition when you're beating a national power in a cross sectional game.  Of course not everyone will agree.

Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on January 21, 2011, 11:49:24 AM
Beating Wisconin in Madison would have been a much better and more significant win. Dwarf? Maybe not. Absolutely and without question bigger for Indiana than the Pitt win.

It's wonderful for Indiana that such "what ifs" can be discussed. Beating Penn State in Bloomington would have been huge, too.

Let's see. Beating an unranked team that is struggling with the "cupcake" segment of their schedule on a neutral court vs beating a ranked team in late January in one of the most difficult road venues in all of college basketball? Tough choice.

Fortunately, they lost and continue to take solace in "close calls." My how the great Indiana Hoosiers have fallen! It's pathetic, really. In year 3 (!) they're content with close losses. Top 5 program of all time? Give me a break. They're on their way through the floor boards. Better jobs in the Big Ten: MSU, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Purdue and arguably Illinois.

Blame it all on Sampson, the guy who had them ranked in the top 5 two years after his predessor left! I'm sure that was all due to a few dozen phone calls.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 21, 2011, 11:17:57 AM
What do you mean by post season tournament?  They've won the Big Ten conference tournament twice and also finished runner-up once.

He means the postseason tournament that actually matters.

You guys mean 'little people', right?  'Dwarf' is very insensitive and politically incorrect.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 21, 2011, 02:42:19 PM
He means the postseason tournament that actually matters.

Well they made the Final Four and Elite 8 this decade...only a handful of teams in the country can say that, and they do it with players not ranked nearly as high as ours.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 21, 2011, 02:22:49 PM
Let's see. Beating an unranked team that is struggling with the "cupcake" segment of their schedule on a neutral court vs beating a ranked team in late January in one of the most difficult road venues in all of college basketball? Tough choice.

Let's see.  Beating a team that earns a #3 seed in the NCAA tournament and wins 25 games that wasn't ranked in November because we all know how great the AP and Coaches rankings are    ::)  ......

Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on January 21, 2011, 02:28:04 PM
Fortunately, they lost and continue to take solace in "close calls." My how the great Indiana Hoosiers have fallen! It's pathetic, really.

Close calls - the moral equivalent of a reach around?

RE: Pitt v IU game

Actually, Pitt was missing one player due to academics  (last game he missed) and was another player's first game back from injury. Can't recall the two players but one was a starter and the other ended up getting significant PT in BE play. As someone mentioned earlier, there was a reason Pitt went on its run after this game. Yeah, IU/Crean can point to that game as a huge win. But in reality it was a against an undermanned team.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 21, 2011, 03:46:58 PM
Well they made the Final Four and Elite 8 this decade....

No they haven't.

Quote from: pghdanno on January 21, 2011, 04:25:11 PM
RE: Pitt v IU game

Actually, Pitt was missing one player due to academics  (last game he missed) and was another player's first game back from injury. Can't recall the two players but one was a starter and the other ended up getting significant PT in BE play. As someone mentioned earlier, there was a reason Pitt went on its run after this game. Yeah, IU/Crean can point to that game as a huge win. But in reality it was a against an undermanned team.

Gilbert Brown missed that game for academic suspesion and Jermaine Dixon was coming off an injury. He played just 13 minutes, scoring no points.

But seriously, why are we debating an Indiana-Pitt game from 13 months ago?

Bo and his teams have been amazing in the Kohl Center, the record speaks for itself. Anywhere else they are nothing special though and thus it's why his postseason success is much more limited, UW doesn't get to play NCAA Tournament games at home.

Quote from: Pakuni on January 21, 2011, 04:40:25 PM
Gilbert Brown missed that game for academic suspesion and Jermaine Dixon was coming off an injury. He played just 13 minutes, scoring no points.

But seriously, why are we debating an Indiana-Pitt game from 13 months ago?

Not much debate. All but one agree with with the fact that beating an unranked  team riddled by injury and academic suspension on a neutral court in December is easier than beating an at home full strength ranked opponent in January at an arena that rates as the toughest in the Big 10.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 21, 2011, 03:46:58 PM
Well they made the Final Four and Elite 8 this decade...only a handful of teams in the country can say that, and they do it with players not ranked nearly as high as ours.

Since 2002 (the first year Scout had info):

MU - 41 players committed, 126 total stars (per scout), avg - 3.07 stars

UW - 32 players committed, 107 total stars (per scout), avg - 3.34 stars

What has been said is that UW recruiting has been slipping a bit the past few years, which it has been, at least according to the ratings, as compared to Bo's 1st 7 years, but I have already posted the support on that numerous times so there's no need to repost.

Quote from: jmayer1 on January 21, 2011, 05:32:17 PM
Since 2002 (the first year Scout had info):

MU - 41 players committed, 126 total stars (per scout), avg - 3.07 stars

UW - 32 players committed, 107 total stars (per scout), avg - 3.34 stars

What has been said is that UW recruiting has been slipping a bit the past few years, which it has been, at least according to the ratings, as compared to Bo's 1st 7 years, but I have already posted the support on that numerous times so there's no need to repost.

It's pretty obvious Bo has managed to win with a bunch of lightly recruited no talents like Devin Harris, Brian Butch, Alando Tucker, Mike Wilkinson, Marcus Landry, Trevonn Hughes, Jason Bohannon, Joe Krabbenhoft, Kirk Penney, etc.
It's a miracle he's managed 10 wins a season with those stiffs.
(Hopefully teal is unnecessary here)

Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on January 21, 2011, 04:34:37 PM
No they haven't.

Sorry, since 2000...I forgot we're in 2011.

2000 FINAL FOUR
2005 Elite 8

Quote from: jmayer1 on January 21, 2011, 05:32:17 PM
Since 2002 (the first year Scout had info):

MU - 41 players committed, 126 total stars (per scout), avg - 3.07 stars

UW - 32 players committed, 107 total stars (per scout), avg - 3.34 stars

What has been said is that UW recruiting has been slipping a bit the past few years, which it has been, at least according to the ratings, as compared to Bo's 1st 7 years, but I have already posted the support on that numerous times so there's no need to repost.

We went through this the other day in the RSCI posts...it's not even close.  You're using one scouting service, Scout, to make your argument.  RSCI uses all the major scouting services.  The RSCI numbers showed MU has not only landed more in Quantity of RSCI top 100 players but also better Quality of RSCI top 100 players (i.e. more players ranked higher).  The problem is that we've had a lot of them leave and not stick around.

I'm happy to past the link for you again.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 21, 2011, 05:02:53 PM
Not much debate. All but one agree with with the fact that beating an unranked  team riddled by injury and academic suspension on a neutral court in December is easier than beating an at home full strength ranked opponent in January at an arena that rates as the toughest in the Big 10.

All but one?  I didn't realize everyone chimed in, must be like "vast majority".

Secondly, using your logic you would say our win last year against #15 Michigan was a better win than our win against Xavier.  Afterall, Michigan had a cute little ranking number next to them in November but Xavier didn't.  Of course we all know that Michigan crapped the bed and ended up terrible and Xavier ended up going 26-9 and lost in double OT to Kansas State in the Sweet 16.   But using your logic, the Michigan win was a better one because they were ranked and Xavier wasn't at the time we played them.   Hilarity.


So far in this thread I've learned that the IU game against Pitt was in Bloomington, but it wasn't.

I've learned beating a ranked team in November is better than beating a team that ends up with seeded 3rd in the NCAA tournament and winning 25 games

I've learned that Gilbert Brown missed "that game" for academic suspension...when in fact he missed EVERY game in the Fall Semester and yet by some miracle Pitt was still able to go 10-2 without him. 

I've learned Scout really loves giving stars to Wisconsin-madison players but apparently all the other recruiting services don't.

;D

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 21, 2011, 05:57:49 PM
I've learned Scout really loves giving stars to Wisconsin-madison players but apparently all the other recruiting services don't.

A little ironic that the guy who repeatedly says he finds star rankings and the like meaningless is basing his entire argument about UW's recruiting on the RSCI rather than ... oh, I don't know ... how well the players actually performed.
Again, read the names of the players who've been on Bo's roster over the last decade and try to tell us he succeeds with "lesser" talent.
Lesser than Duke, I suppose. But not lesser than the great majority of his competition.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 21, 2011, 11:14:27 AM
Uhm, no, it was a NEUTRAL site game, not a HOME game.  The game was played in New York, far closer to Pittsburgh then Bloomington, on a court and stadium that Pitt is used to playing on for the Big East Tournament and against St. John's.

Pitt was 7-1 entering that game, IU was 3-4. It would be the last game Pittsburgh would lose until they got to the 15 win mark. 

I'm surprised you didn't know it was Crean's 200th win as a head coach.    ;)

I'm surprised considering your stated dislike for Tom Crean that you actually know such a pedestrian fact such as a coach's 200th win?  Pretty obscure accomplishment to have knowledge of for a coach one dislikes and thinks is a jerk, etc., as you've mentioned before.   :o

My bad on stating the Pitt game was at Indiana - when it was on a neutral court.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 21, 2011, 05:57:49 PM
All but one?  I didn't realize everyone chimed in, must be like "vast majority".

Perfect example of why we have so many disagreements. When I said "all but one" I was referring to those taking part in the discussion. In your eyes "all but one" evidently means either all but one who has ever posted here or all but one in the whole wide world - don't know which. I think either is an unreasonable interpretation of what I said.

Quote from: warthog-driver on January 21, 2011, 12:37:06 PM
Beating anyone anywhere is a significant win these days for the Crimson and Crean

Isnt this the Year that Buzz is supposed to be 1-4 without any of Crean's players.  Looks like Crean can only win with a  Top 5 NBA pick. Those dont come along much.

Quote from: mviale on January 21, 2011, 09:57:28 PM
Isnt this the Year that Buzz is supposed to be 1-4 without any of Crean's players.  Looks like Crean can only win with a  Top 5 NBA pick. Those dont come along much.

1-4? Are you speaking of Indiana?

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 21, 2011, 05:45:05 PM
We went through this the other day in the RSCI posts...it's not even close.  You're using one scouting service, Scout, to make your argument.  RSCI uses all the major scouting services.  The RSCI numbers showed MU has not only landed more in Quantity of RSCI top 100 players but also better Quality of RSCI top 100 players (i.e. more players ranked higher).  The problem is that we've had a lot of them leave and not stick around.

I'm happy to past the link for you again.

Could you please post that link?  I haven't seen the analysis, but I don't read every thread.  Thanks in advance.

I used scout since I think it's the most well regarded and was the easiest and quickest to use for my analysis.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 21, 2011, 05:45:05 PM
We went through this the other day in the RSCI posts...it's not even close.  You're using one scouting service, Scout, to make your argument.  RSCI uses all the major scouting services.  The RSCI numbers showed MU has not only landed more in Quantity of RSCI top 100 players but also better Quality of RSCI top 100 players (i.e. more players ranked higher).  The problem is that we've had a lot of them leave and not stick around.

I'm happy to past the link for you again.

I wonder how many of those highly rated players stayed at MU? At Madison?
How many McD AAs Wisconsin has had compared to MU?

Back to the first question, I can think of some rated players that have left, which should drop the overall talent rating for MU.

Quote from: jmayer1 on January 22, 2011, 09:58:07 AM
Could you please post that link?  I haven't seen the analysis, but I don't read every thread.  Thanks in advance.

I used scout since I think it's the most well regarded and was the easiest and quickest to use for my analysis.

Sure

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=23089.msg254771#msg254771

Quote from: Pakuni on January 21, 2011, 06:06:42 PM
A little ironic that the guy who repeatedly says he finds star rankings and the like meaningless is basing his entire argument about UW's recruiting on the RSCI rather than ... oh, I don't know ... how well the players actually performed.
Again, read the names of the players who've been on Bo's roster over the last decade and try to tell us he succeeds with "lesser" talent.
Lesser than Duke, I suppose. But not lesser than the great majority of his competition.

Not ironic at all, the poster was using ratings to show how good Wisconsin players were and I was using more COMPLETE ratings to show that MU players have been rated much higher.

Doesn't change the fact that I think the ratings game is complete BS, but I was playing in the same sandbox in terms of the conversation...you should try it sometime.

Again, look at the names on the rosters of the players at MU and UW-madison and tell us who the better athletes were, who went on to play professionally, who were supposedly better out of high school, etc, etc and it's clearly MU....yet somehow UW-madison has by ALL MEASUREMENTS been a better basketball program than MU since 2000.  It's not close.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2011, 10:27:22 AM
yet somehow UW-madison has by ALL MEASUREMENTS been a better basketball program than MU since 2000.  It's not close.

Not close? Really?
Well, I admit a couple of NIT seasons by a certain former coach really dragged MU down this decade, but even then the gap's not nearly wide as you wish it to be.
Since Bo became its head coach, UW is 231-86, an impressive .729 winning pct.
Over the same time frame, MU is 220-96, a .696 winning pct.
To put that in perspective, in order to equal UW's clip over the last decade, MU would have needed 10 more wins - or one win more per season.
So, there you have it - in the Bo Ryan era, UW has been one win per season better than Marquette.
Yep, not even close.
Bo's certainly had a more tournament success. His tournament record is 12-9. MU's over that period is 6-7. Then again, has Bo ever knocked off a higher-seeded team?

Curious, though ... if  MU has:
- recruited better players, as you claim
- and sent more players to the NBA (by a whopping 4-3 margin)
- had fewer players run afoul of the law
- done a better job graduating players
Can you still say UW has been better by ALL MEASUREMENTS?

After all, these are things upon which you claim to be greatly concerned, especially the latter two. And yet when comparing the respective programs' performance over the past decade, you don't even bother to give them lip service. They're not even included in your ALL MEASUREMENTS.
Hmmm.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2011, 10:24:13 AM
Sure

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=23089.msg254771#msg254771

Thanks. It still looks to me that UW has had more highly recruited players in the past:

Marquette   
Scott Merritt     85
Travis Diener    40
Steve Novak    53
Wesley Matthews    61
Dominic James    36
Jerel McNeal    57
Average                55.33

Wisconsin   
Brian Butch    7
Greg Stiemsma    37
Joe Krabbenhoft    28
Jason Bohannon    62
Trevon Hughes   88
John Leuer   86
Average                 51.33


Did not stay/are not yet upperclassmen

Marquette      
Dameon Mason #71      
Trevor Mbakwe #91      
Nick Williams #88      
Tyshawn Taylor #73      
Junior Cadougan #47      
Erik Williams #67      
Jeronne Maymon #73      
Vander Blue #48      
Jamail Jones #74      

Wisconsin
Maurice Wade #90
DeAaron Williams #91
Jarred Berggren #100
Evan Anderson #95

Now, if UW does better over the next 2 years when the guys Buzz has recruited (Junior, Erik, Vander, Jamail) are clearly rated higher than the guys UW has (Berggren, Anderson) and these guys are upperclassmen, then the your previous point will be valid.  Until then, I think that your statement that UW has done it with "lesser" talent is false.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2011, 10:27:22 AM
Again, look at the names on the rosters of the players at MU and UW-madison and tell us who the better athletes were, who went on to play professionally, who were supposedly better out of high school, etc, etc and it's clearly MU....yet somehow UW-madison has by ALL MEASUREMENTS been a better basketball program than MU since 2000.  It's not close.

Not EVERY measurement.  Marquette certainly has a lot more BEAST wins over that period than UW-Madison ;)

Quote from: Pakuni on January 22, 2011, 11:17:32 AM
Not close? Really?
Well, I admit a couple of NIT seasons by a certain former coach really dragged MU down this decade, but even then the gap's not nearly wide as you wish it to be.
Since Bo became its head coach, UW is 231-86, an impressive .729 winning pct.
Over the same time frame, MU is 220-96, a .696 winning pct.
To put that in perspective, in order to equal UW's clip over the last decade, MU would have needed 10 more wins - or one win more per season.
So, there you have it - in the Bo Ryan era, UW has been one win per season better than Marquette.
Yep, not even close.
Bo's certainly had a more tournament success. His tournament record is 12-9. MU's over that period is 6-7. Then again, has Bo ever knocked off a higher-seeded team?

Curious, though ... if  MU has:
- recruited better players, as you claim
- and sent more players to the NBA (by a whopping 4-3 margin)
- had fewer players run afoul of the law
- done a better job graduating players
Can you still say UW has been better by ALL MEASUREMENTS?

After all, these are things upon which you claim to be greatly concerned, especially the latter two. And yet when comparing the respective programs' performance over the past decade, you don't even bother to give them lip service. They're not even included in your ALL MEASUREMENTS.
Hmmm.

Yet another illustration of the classic double standard, moving target, always evolving arguments put forth by CBB to generally serve his weird agenda:  To generally paint the MU program in a negative light.

Including players that never enrolled at Marquette (N Williams and Taylor) is dishonest. Including players who played for less than 1/2 a season (Mbakwe and Maymon) is disingenuous. Take them (and D Mason for MU and D Williams for UW) off the list and you have a fair (and very close) comparison of the team's relative talent.

Another way of looking at it as who had the "can't miss guys". Top 10, UW 1-0. Top 30, UW 2-0. Top 40, UW 3-1, and MU's guy is last in at #40.

Quote from: jmayer1 on January 22, 2011, 11:20:49 AM
Now, if UW does better over the next 2 years when the guys Buzz has recruited (Junior, Erik, Vander, Jamail) are clearly rated higher than the guys UW has (Berggren, Anderson) and these guys are upperclassmen, then the your previous point will be valid.  Until then, I think that your statement that UW has done it with "lesser" talent is false.

What's false is using the RSCI - or any - ratings as the final determination of "talent."
Alando Tucker was not in the RSCI top 100. Neither was Dwyane Wade.
Dameon Mason and Greg Stiemsma were.
And yet this is the measure by which we're evaluating the respective teams' "talent?"
Seems odd to me.

Quote from: Pakuni on January 22, 2011, 11:17:32 AM
Curious, though ... After all, these are things upon which you claim to be greatly concerned, especially the latter two. And yet when comparing the respective programs' performance over the past decade, you don't even bother to give them lip service. They're not even included in your ALL MEASUREMENTS.
Hmmm.

I admire your decision to engage but the best fighter pilots know when a dogfight is futile. Arguing with CBB is that sort of engagement. He never ever gets off a shot, does little more than pop flares and chaff to obfuscate the sight picture then races for home at the speed of heat. At the end of it you realize you've just wasted a lot of gas, a couple of AIM 9s, and have an overwhelming need for three fingers of Lagavulin and a handful of Tylenol. Always keep your head up and Check Six.

Quote from: jmayer1 on January 22, 2011, 11:20:49 AM
Thanks. It still looks to me that UW has had more highly recruited players in the past:

Marquette   
Scott Merritt     85
Travis Diener    40
Steve Novak    53
Wesley Matthews    61
Dominic James    36
Jerel McNeal    57
Average                55.33

Wisconsin   
Brian Butch    7
Greg Stiemsma    37
Joe Krabbenhoft    28
Jason Bohannon    62
Trevon Hughes   88
John Leuer   86
Average                 51.33


Did not stay/are not yet upperclassmen

Marquette      
Dameon Mason #71      
Trevor Mbakwe #91      
Nick Williams #88      
Tyshawn Taylor #73      
Junior Cadougan #47      
Erik Williams #67      
Jeronne Maymon #73      
Vander Blue #48      
Jamail Jones #74      

Wisconsin
Maurice Wade #90
DeAaron Williams #91
Jarred Berggren #100
Evan Anderson #95

Now, if UW does better over the next 2 years when the guys Buzz has recruited (Junior, Erik, Vander, Jamail) are clearly rated higher than the guys UW has (Berggren, Anderson) and these guys are upperclassmen, then the your previous point will be valid.  Until then, I think that your statement that UW has done it with "lesser" talent is false.

Why not count the underclassmen?  Doesn't seem to make much sense to remove them and totally skews the numbers.  JC and Vander have been starters for MU but you're not factoring them in?  Huh?  Mason was a starter at times.  Williams has played here two years now.  You can't just decide which players to include in your rankings and which ones not to include just to make your thesis better.  There is absolutely no reason not to include those kids, they are playing now or did play for MU but said sayonara.

My premise was also about WHO WE HAVE LANDED, the problem has been that MU has had trouble hanging on to players and UW has not had nearly the same amount of trouble.  They get their kids and they stay usually.  We get our guys and crapload of them leave.  That says something, people can opine as to what it says.

Quote from: Ners on January 22, 2011, 11:26:00 AM
Yet another illustration of the classic double standard, moving target, always evolving arguments put forth by CBB to generally serve his weird agenda:  To generally paint the MU program in a negative light.

Not at all Ners, first it would be nice if Pakuni could follow a conversation.  I said played PROFESSIONALLY, yet he went only to the NBA.  And here I thought playing professionally included getting PAID to PLAY (that's the definition of a professional) overseas, NBDL, etc.  But in his classic way of skewing facts or lopping off definitions to suit his argument, he does.

Here's the irony, you claim I'm a big Tom Crean lover and he was the coach at MU through most of the 2000's...was he not?  So aren't I ripping on Tom Crean then if your claims of me putting MU in a bad light exist?  Don't answer that, because you know you'll have to eat crow on that one. 

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2011, 11:38:45 AM
Why not count the underclassmen?  Doesn't seem to make much sense to remove them and totally skews the numbers.  JC and Vander have been starters for MU but you're not factoring them in?  Huh?  Mason was a starter at times.  Williams has played here two years now.  You can't just decide which players to include in your rankings and which ones not to include just to make your thesis better.  There is absolutely no reason not to include those kids, they are playing now or did play for MU but said sayonara.

Oh, boy.
Because the whole discussion has centered around on-court success over the past decade relative to the level of talent landed by the respective programs (as measured solely by a rating system that thinks Marcus Taylor and Darius Miles were infinitely more talented than Dwyane Wade and Jameer Nelson).
How exactly can one factor in a kid like Tyshawn Taylor or Nick Williams into a discussion of Marquette's on court success since 2001? Or Jeronne Maymon, Vander Blue or Junior Cadougan, guys who've appeared in about 20 of the 316 games MU has played in that time frame?
It's an utterly assinine argument you're making.

QuoteWe get our guys and crapload of them leave.  That says something, people can opine as to what it says.

Actually, MU has lost very few top 100 players. Mason, Mbakwe and Maymon. A whopping one more than Bo (Williams and Wade).
Oh wait ... are you counting kids who never actually attended Marquette and decided to go elsewhere solely because of a coaching change?
Yeah, that seems fair.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2011, 11:41:22 AM
Not at all Ners, first it would be nice if Pakuni could follow a conversation.  I said played PROFESSIONALLY, yet he went only to the NBA.  And here I thought playing professionally included getting PAID to PLAY (that's the definition of a professional) overseas, NBDL, etc.  But in his classic way of skewing facts or lopping off definitions to suit his argument, he does.

Here's the irony, you claim I'm a big Tom Crean lover and he was the coach at MU through most of the 2000's...was he not?  So aren't I ripping on Tom Crean then if your claims of me putting MU in a bad light exist?  Don't answer that, because you know you'll have to eat crow on that one. 

This is why I mentioned "weird" agenda - as you celebrate Tom Crean's 200th win (or at least have knowledge of such an obscure fact - which leads one to believe you clearly follow the man's career QUITE closely - for NOT being a fan?), but then as you suggest here - you argue UW has been a better program than MU from 2000-2010 under which Tom Crean presided for 8 years - and to quote YOU:  "It's not even close."  Yet, you fail to provide any counterpoints to Pakuni's analysis between MU and UW's results over the last decade," nor do you speak to his point that UW has had MORE players in trouble with the LAW than has MU in the past 10 years, and it has graduated LESS of its players than has MU - which as everyone here knows - you constantly obsess about our programs image, graduation rate, etc...Again..it is just weird the lack of consistency in your arguments.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2011, 11:41:22 AM
Not at all Ners, first it would be nice if Pakuni could follow a conversation.  I said played PROFESSIONALLY, yet he went only to the NBA.  And here I thought playing professionally included getting PAID to PLAY (that's the definition of a professional) overseas, NBDL, etc.  But in his classic way of skewing facts or lopping off definitions to suit his argument, he does.

And in his classic way of responding, Chico's chooses to level personal attacks rather than deal with the facts presented.
If you wish to research the current whereabouts of every single player who's been through either program over the past decade, be my guest. You've made the argument that MU has more former players playing professionally. Why not back it up?
I think you'll find plenty of guys like Marcus Landry, Brian Butch, Mike Wilkinson, Michael Flowers, Greg Stiemsma, etc., are all getting paid to play.
But as I said - it's your claim. Defend it.

Quote from: Pakuni on January 22, 2011, 11:17:32 AM
Not close? Really?
Well, I admit a couple of NIT seasons by a certain former coach really dragged MU down this decade, but even then the gap's not nearly wide as you wish it to be.
Since Bo became its head coach, UW is 231-86, an impressive .729 winning pct.
Over the same time frame, MU is 220-96, a .696 winning pct.
To put that in perspective, in order to equal UW's clip over the last decade, MU would have needed 10 more wins - or one win more per season.
So, there you have it - in the Bo Ryan era, UW has been one win per season better than Marquette.
Yep, not even close.
Bo's certainly had a more tournament success. His tournament record is 12-9. MU's over that period is 6-7. Then again, has Bo ever knocked off a higher-seeded team?

Curious, though ... if  MU has:
- recruited better players, as you claim
- and sent more players to the NBA (by a whopping 4-3 margin)
- had fewer players run afoul of the law
- done a better job graduating players
Can you still say UW has been better by ALL MEASUREMENTS?

After all, these are things upon which you claim to be greatly concerned, especially the latter two. And yet when comparing the respective programs' performance over the past decade, you don't even bother to give them lip service. They're not even included in your ALL MEASUREMENTS.
Hmmm.

FacePalm

PROFESSIONAL, not just NBA....start counting again big guy

Let's see again this past decade...it pains me but this is reality

Three Big Ten regular season titles to one CUSA title.   UW Advantage
Two Big Ten tournament titles to zero tournament titles.  UW Advantage
One Big Ten tournament runner-up  to zero runner-up .  UW Advantage
1 Final Four to 1 Final Four.   EVEN
1 Elite Eight to 0 Eligh Eights.  UW Advantage
10 NCAA Appearances (12 in a row) to 7 NCAA Appearances.  UW Advantage
NCAA wins for UW  16, NCAA wins for MU  6.   UW Advantage
NIT 0 appearances to 2 for MU....Since UW went to the NCAA instead of the NIT = UW Advantage
NBA players 3, 4 for MU.   MU Advantage
Professional players...I count 7 for UW, I count 14....MU Advantage
RSCI top 100 players landed 10 for UW,  15 for MU.  MU Advantage
Head to head.  UW 7, MU 4.  UW Advantage
NCAA Regular Season wins 231, MU 220.   UW Advantage


So aside from not getting as many players in the NBA, not getting as many players playing professionally overseas or NBDL and landing fewer RSCI top 100 players, there isn't a category that UW hasn't led this past decade with something called RESULTS.  Wins, championships, NCAA tournaments, etc.

Ners, this is not to put MU in a negative light, it's all factual.  Nothing above is opinion, it's flat out facts.  It pains me to say it, but they have been the better program in ALL MEASUREMENTS the last decade.  They simply have.  Despite the fact we land better players, more of them and more go on to play professionally.  

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2011, 11:41:22 AM


Here's the irony, you claim I'm a big Tom Crean lover and he was the coach at MU through most of the 2000's...was he not?  So aren't I ripping on Tom Crean then if your claims of me putting MU in a bad light exist?  Don't answer that, because you know you'll have to eat crow on that one. 

I'll take a shot at answering this. In the first 8 years of the decade (when Tom Crean was the coach) you were a fierce defender of all things Marquette and a very harsh critic of all things UW. Whether it was accomplishments on or off the court, we could always count on you to put a pro Marquette "spin" or your arguments, on our boards or on theirs. Once Crean left, your spin took a 180 degree turn - UW became the model that MU didn't measure up to. Since MU didn't drop off and UW didn't improve in those two years, you were forced to include Crean in the comparison that showed MU to be lacking. In effect you engaged in revisionist history and became critical of Crean in many areas where you had been silent or supportive. To many this 180 that began at TC's departure/Buzz's arrival and has continued unabated for nearly 3 years smacks of an agenda.

Quote from: Pakuni on January 22, 2011, 11:17:32 AM

Since Bo became its head coach, UW is 231-86, an impressive .729 winning pct.
Over the same time frame, MU is 220-96, a .696 winning pct.

By the way, I believe all schedules are not created equal as well.  Ken Pom has data going back the last 8 years (not counting this year).

Not only does UW have a better record than MU over that time period, they also played a tougher schedule than MU in 6 of those 8 years.  They are on pace to play a tougher schedule then we do this year as well.

Lip service...I tell ya, lip service.   :P

Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 22, 2011, 12:18:16 PM
I'll take a shot at answering this. In the first 8 years of the decade (when Tom Crean was the coach) you were a fierce defender of all things Marquette and a very harsh critic of all things UW. Whether it was accomplishments on or off the court, we could always count on you to put a pro Marquette "spin" or your arguments, on our boards or on theirs. Once Crean left, your spin took a 180 degree turn - UW became the model that MU didn't measure up to. Since MU didn't drop off and UW didn't improve in those two years, you were forced to include Crean in the comparison that showed MU to be lacking. In effect you engaged in revisionist history and became critical of Crean in many areas where you had been silent or supportive. To many this 180 that began at TC's departure/Buzz's arrival and has continued unabated for nearly 3 years smacks of an agenda.

Odd, the first 8 years of this decade you weren't on this message board.  In fact, you weren't on this board even 3 years ago, you've been on this board for 2 years and 3 days...so at least start by getting your facts straight.


Second, I'm still anti UW-madison, that has never stopped and never will.  They are what I would call "new money" fans.  You know those people that never had a dime and won the lottery or got some huge cash infusion from some long lost aunt and then they just don't know how to act with it?  That's UW fandom.  They sucked balls for half a century in just about everything and now they have a 10 year run and hearing from them you think they are Duke.

That doesn't change the fact that they are the best program in the state this last decade.  All-time?  Hell no.  MU owns that but the margins are becoming thinner.  I bring it up because they continue to gain ground.  For awhile, with the Final Four run, we had something to hang over them but with each passing year that ebbs, especially with continual losses head to head, conference finishes, NCAA finishes, etc.  Part of it is luck.  They've had some God blessed seedings and we haven't, that's a crap shoot...I'm hoping we get some of that luck soon.

Lenny, trust me, it doesn't make me feel good to say it.  There is no agenda, it's reality. How can telling the truth about the state of the two programs be an agenda when it is based on facts?  You're sticking your head in the sand if you ignore the facts.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2011, 12:37:02 PM
Odd, the first 8 years of this decade you weren't on this message board.  In fact, you weren't on this board even 3 years ago, you've been on this board for 2 years and 3 days...so at least start by getting your facts straight.

I've read both Scout and Scoop (and your posts under various screen names) since their inceptions - the date I started posting is irrelevant. How does that make my post "odd" or not factual?

Pakuni, I only used star ratings becuase it was easiest.  I agree with your premise.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2011, 12:30:06 PM
By the way, I believe all schedules are not created equal as well.  Ken Pom has data going back the last 8 years (not counting this year).

Not only does UW have a better record than MU over that time period, they also played a tougher schedule than MU in 6 of those 8 years.  They are on pace to play a tougher schedule then we do this year as well.

Lip service...I tell ya, lip service.   :P

Yes, and that's almost entirely the result of MU's cupcakes being weaker than UW's cupcakes.
I daresay that since 2005, MU has played a much tougher conference schedule and I'd certainly match up our top non-conference games this year (Duke, Vandy, Gonzaga) over theirs (UNLV, Boston College, Notre Dame).

Edit: Well, I guess I'm to blame here for taking certain statements at face value. What Chico's didn't tell us here is that in several of the "tougher schedule" years for UW, the difference between the two teams' SOS is so negligible that it renders the comparison moot. We're talking thousandths of a percentage point under the Pomeroy rating system. For example, in '07 UW's schedule was given a .767 rating to MU's .761. In '08 it was .782 to .779. Another year was .770 to .733. These are hardly significant differences.
Lesson learned.

As for pros, if you only found seven former Bo players who've gotten paid to play, you sure didn't look very hard. It took me all of five minutes to find 16 of them (Tucker, Penney, Harris, Butch, Krabbenhoft, Bohannon, Wilkinson, Flowers, Stiemsma, Landry, Tayor, Nixon, Owens, Helgmik, Morely, Hughes).

Quote from: Ners on January 22, 2011, 11:52:54 AM
This is why I mentioned "weird" agenda - as you celebrate Tom Crean's 200th win (or at least have knowledge of such an obscure fact - which leads one to believe you clearly follow the man's career QUITE closely - for NOT being a fan?), but then as you suggest here - you argue UW has been a better program than MU from 2000-2010 under which Tom Crean presided for 8 years - and to quote YOU:  "It's not even close."  Yet, you fail to provide any counterpoints to Pakuni's analysis between MU and UW's results over the last decade," nor do you speak to his point that UW has had MORE players in trouble with the LAW than has MU in the past 10 years, and it has graduated LESS of its players than has MU - which as everyone here knows - you constantly obsess about our programs image, graduation rate, etc...Again..it is just weird the lack of consistency in your arguments.

LOL.  Do you know why I knew of the 200th win?  Certainly not because of some love affair. I went to game recap from the other day and it stated it in the article.  Otherwise I had no idea.  It was right in the headline of the article.  I had to do a little research because I knew Pakuni's comments that a player missed THAT GAME due to academics wasn't the complete story...which of course it wasn't, he had missed 12 games.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/gamecenter/recap/NCAAB_20091208_IN@PITT/indiana-downs-pittsburgh-at-msg-gives-crean-200th-victory



What inconsistency?  The facts are there and I've laid them out thoroughly.  Pakuni is the one that decided professional meant only NBA.  Pakuni is the one that decided comparing wins and losses straight up without looking at the schedule strengths was some how....ahem..."consistent".

No weird inconsistency at all.  You will note that TIME and TIME and TIME again I have bashed UW-madison for their multiple NCAA probations and noted we have none.  The problem is, that none of them are in basketball so they've have their successful runs without cheating on the basketball court.  Issues with the law?  Yes, they've had their share, so have we...some which never hit the press.  Unlike their football program where an arrest gets you a gatorade bath and a suspended practice, their basketball program has kicked those players to the curb.  That seems to be the right thing to do, don't you think?

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2011, 01:08:41 PM
No weird inconsistency at all.  You will note that TIME and TIME and TIME again I have bashed UW-madison for their multiple NCAA probations and noted we have none.  The problem is, that none of them are in basketball so they've have their successful runs without cheating on the basketball court.  Issues with the law?  Yes, they've had their share, so have we...some which never hit the press.  Unlike their football program where an arrest gets you a gatorade bath and a suspended practice, their basketball program has kicked those players to the curb.  That seems to be the right thing to do, don't you think?

(whispering from the bushes) There's the bait into the next topic that Chicos would like to "debate."  I can only assume that he's attempting to bring up some "inside info" that he can't share with the rest of the board. Let's watch and see how this plays out...

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 22, 2011, 02:07:45 PM
(whispering from the bushes) There's the bait into the next topic that Chicos would like to "debate."  I can only assume that he's attempting to bring up some "inside info" that he can't share with the rest of the board. Let's watch and see how this plays out...

I think we all know how this plays out....ad nauseum.   >:(

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 22, 2011, 02:07:45 PM
(whispering from the bushes) There's the bait into the next topic that Chicos would like to "debate."  I can only assume that he's attempting to bring up some "inside info" that he can't share with the rest of the board. Let's watch and see how this plays out...

+1

Can Indy beat Iowa?

Quote from: mviale on January 22, 2011, 03:04:02 PM
Can Indy beat Iowa?

No

Quote from: Pakuni on January 22, 2011, 01:03:59 PM
Yes, and that's almost entirely the result of MU's cupcakes being weaker than UW's cupcakes.
I daresay that since 2005, MU has played a much tougher conference schedule and I'd certainly match up our top non-conference games this year (Duke, Vandy, Gonzaga) over theirs (UNLV, Boston College, Notre Dame).

Edit: Well, I guess I'm to blame here for taking certain statements at face value. What Chico's didn't tell us here is that in several of the "tougher schedule" years for UW, the difference between the two teams' SOS is so negligible that it renders the comparison moot. We're talking thousandths of a percentage point under the Pomeroy rating system. For example, in '07 UW's schedule was given a .767 rating to MU's .761. In '08 it was .782 to .779. Another year was .770 to .733. These are hardly significant differences.
Lesson learned.

As for pros, if you only found seven former Bo players who've gotten paid to play, you sure didn't look very hard. It took me all of five minutes to find 16 of them (Tucker, Penney, Harris, Butch, Krabbenhoft, Bohannon, Wilkinson, Flowers, Stiemsma, Landry, Tayor, Nixon, Owens, Helgmik, Morely, Hughes).

Let's try again Pakuni.  Yes or no, did Wisconsin play tougher schedules than MU in 6 of the last 8 years?  What is factually incorrect about what I said?  I await your answer.

Quote from: mviale on January 22, 2011, 03:04:02 PM
Can Indy beat Iowa?

Yes.  Will they, who knows.  Can MU blow another double digit lead in the second half in one week's time?  Yes. 

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2011, 08:18:35 PM
Yes.  Will they, who knows.  Can MU blow another double digit lead in the second half in one week's time?  Yes. 

What does MU have to do with a Indiana-Wisconsin thread?

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 22, 2011, 09:16:39 PM
What does MU have to do with a Indiana-Wisconsin thread?

If it gives CBB an opportunity to kick our players, coaches and fans in the b*lls, everything.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 22, 2011, 09:26:48 PM
If it gives CBB an opportunity to kick our players, coaches and fans in the b*lls, everything.

Nah, our play on the court and the lack of in game adjustments does that just fine on it's own.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 22, 2011, 09:16:39 PM
What does MU have to do with a Indiana-Wisconsin thread?

Funny, I don't remember you chiming in on the other 5 or 6 tangents in this thread that had nothing to do with the IU-Wisconsin thread....hmmm.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 23, 2011, 02:34:01 AM
Funny, I don't remember you chiming in on the other 5 or 6 tangents in this thread that had nothing to do with the IU-Wisconsin thread....hmmm.

I didn't read this whole thread. I just checked in to see what direction it had gone in (though I had a pretty good idea). I'd gladly eat crow if you could bring up other examples from this thread where posters went out of their way to take shots at MU's current team.

Technically... Wasn't our largest lead in the 2nd 9pts?  Still single digits. ;-)


I was wrong.

Quote from: romey on January 20, 2011, 10:20:27 PM
157-11 at the Kohl

I would venture to say that no team in the last 50 years has been that dominant at home and NOT won any postseason tournament or even threatened to do so.  What conclusion can we draw from that???

You can come to the conclusion that we are the best team in the state, and have been for quite a while now. Some would argue that an Elite Eight and multiple Sweet Sixteens would count as threatening, but not in your book I'm sure. While I'm greedy and would prefer deeper tournament runs, we still have a real good thing going in Madison.

Quote from: OnWisconsin on January 24, 2011, 09:02:42 AM
You can come to the conclusion that we are the best team in the state, and have been for quite a while now. Some would argue that an Elite Eight and multiple Sweet Sixteens would count as threatening, but not in your book I'm sure. While I'm greedy and would prefer deeper tournament runs, we still have a real good thing going in Madison.

What exactly does the title of "Best Team in the State" get you? Do the players get rings for that? Do teams hang banners in their arenas and have victory parades?  ;)

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 24, 2011, 10:22:00 AM
What exactly does the title of "Best Team in the State" get you? Do the players get rings for that? Do teams hang banners in their arenas and have victory parades?  ;)

I understand the truly elite basketball programs take great pride in hanging banners from pre-season tournaments.

If Marquette still has those stupid things hanging in either the BC or The Al we should beseech Buzz to have them removed. Immediately. How embarassing.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 24, 2011, 10:22:00 AM
What exactly does the title of "Best Team in the State" get you? Do the players get rings for that? Do teams hang banners in their arenas and have victory parades?  ;)

I'd bet it helps to get in state recruits

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 24, 2011, 11:46:08 AM
I'd bet it helps to get in state recruits

Actually Wisconsin has always fared better with in state recruits, even when we were a national powerhouse and they were terrible.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 24, 2011, 12:01:07 PM
Actually Wisconsin has always fared better with in state recruits, even when we were a national powerhouse and they were terrible.

Always, never, vast majority.

::)


You know that is selective on your part.  KO went in and got Damon Key, Robb Logterman, and Jim MacIlvaine in the same class...all from Wisconsin. 

Crean got Novak, Diener, Sanders, Merritt

It has swung back and forth and has not ALWAYS been in Wisconsin's favor.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 24, 2011, 12:21:45 PM
Always, never, vast majority.

::)


You know that is selective on your part.  KO went in and got Damon Key, Robb Logterman, and Jim MacIlvaine in the same class...all from Wisconsin. 

Crean got Novak, Diener, Sanders, Merritt

It has swung back and forth and has not ALWAYS been in Wisconsin's favor.

My mistake, I should have said that Wisconsin has "tradionally" fared better, even when we were a national powerhouse and they were putrid. A class or a player here and there doesn't change that. The fact remains that most of their recruits are local (Wisconsin, Minnesota, some Iowa and Illinois) while ours tend to be more national. They're "done" if they can't recruit the upper midwest.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 24, 2011, 11:46:08 AM
I'd bet it helps to get in state recruits

Who cares? In the last 4-5 years, what in-state player has gone to Wisconsin who was also recruited heavily by MU? For the most part, the programs are looking for different types of players due to their vastly different playing styles.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 24, 2011, 02:34:40 PM
Who cares? In the last 4-5 years, what in-state player has gone to Wisconsin who was also recruited heavily by MU? For the most part, the programs are looking for different types of players due to their vastly different playing styles.

Nankivil, Gavinski, etc.

We're both going after Tokoto.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 24, 2011, 02:45:01 PM
Nankivil, Gavinski, etc.

We're both going after Tokoto.

Two guys who fit much better into Wisconsin's system plus and "etc." Wow. MU really needs to step up their in-state recruiting!

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 24, 2011, 02:45:01 PM
Nankivil, Gavinski, etc.

We're both going after Tokoto.

Nank yes, Gavinski, no.  Gasser, no.

Quote from: warthog-driver on January 24, 2011, 11:09:29 AM
I understand the truly elite basketball programs take great pride in hanging banners from pre-season tournaments.

If Marquette still has those stupid things hanging in either the BC or The Al we should beseech Buzz to have them removed. Immediately. How embarassing.

I understand the truly elite programs actually win those pre-season tournaments.

Quote from: Marquette84 on January 24, 2011, 07:16:21 PM
I understand the truly elite programs actually win those pre-season tournaments.

Those banners belong in Riley's room next to his well earned summer camp MVP trophies.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 24, 2011, 03:00:18 PM
Two guys who fit much better into Wisconsin's system plus and "etc." Wow. MU really needs to step up their in-state recruiting!

Are you saying we couldn't use Nankivil?

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 24, 2011, 09:56:12 PM
Are you saying we couldn't use Nankivil?

Use him? I think we're a Top 10 team with him. IIRC, we recruited him hard but I don't think we ever had much of a chance. Like most Wisconsin high school players, he grew up wanting to be a Badger.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 24, 2011, 10:04:21 PM
Use him? I think we're a Top 10 team with him. IIRC, we recruited him hard but I don't think we ever had much of a chance. Like most Wisconsin high school players, he grew up wanting to be a Badger.

Exactly, of course we could have used him....but don't you know "Two guys who fit much better into Wisconsin's system"   ::)

Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 24, 2011, 09:43:45 PM
Those banners belong in Riley's room next to his well earned summer camp MVP trophies.

I truly hate it when we try to honor our student athletes and their accomplishments.  Shame on us.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 24, 2011, 09:43:45 PM
Those banners belong in Riley's room . . .

At least he has one three, plus a final four banner.  How many does Calvin have?

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 24, 2011, 10:06:45 PM
Exactly, of course we could have used him....but don't you know "Two guys who fit much better into Wisconsin's system"   ::)

I never said MU couldn't use him. You tried to claim that's what I said which is, of course, the type of action that makes you fly off the handle and piss and moan and cry when someone does it to you. Hypocrisy fits you well though. (SEGUE!) Much like Nankivil fits well in Wisconsin's system, which doesn't mean he wouldn't be a productive player for MU. It means, quite simply, that he fits better in Wisconsin's system. Similarly, Blue fits better in MU's system but that doesn't mean he couldn't be a productive player at UW.

Now, go ahead and condescendingly spin my words to mean something else.

Quote from: Marquette84 on January 24, 2011, 07:16:21 PM
I understand the truly elite programs actually win those pre-season tournaments.

Joanie tells it like it is, as only a Harbaugh can! We should get Big Jack to repeat his story of how Stanford defeated the Mighty Trojans of USC.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 24, 2011, 09:43:45 PM
Those banners belong in Riley's room next to his well earned summer camp MVP trophies.

I wonder what the realtor will tell Joanie about those banners when it comes time to sell the home in Bloomington, you know, the whole "decluttering" thing

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 24, 2011, 10:07:10 PM
I truly hate it when we try to honor our student athletes and their accomplishments.  Shame on us.

Some things are worth honoring. This smacks of "everyone gets a trophy" which was not true in the case of Tanned Tommy's Summer of Fun where only those with the last name Crean got a trophy. At the end of ther day those stupid banners had nothing to do with the players. They were put up as tributes to The Great One with the Savage Tan

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 24, 2011, 10:38:06 PM
I never said MU couldn't use him. You tried to claim that's what I said which is, of course, the type of action that makes you fly off the handle and piss and moan and cry when someone does it to you. Hypocrisy fits you well though. (SEGUE!) Much like Nankivil fits well in Wisconsin's system, which doesn't mean he wouldn't be a productive player for MU. It means, quite simply, that he fits better in Wisconsin's system. Similarly, Blue fits better in MU's system but that doesn't mean he couldn't be a productive player at UW.

Now, go ahead and condescendingly spin my words to mean something else.

Nankivil would need to play on the blocks for MU.  Could he? / Would he?

Quote from: warthog-driver on January 25, 2011, 05:48:03 AM
Some things are worth honoring. This smacks of "everyone gets a trophy"

Right.  Because beating Duke and Gonzaga is a piece of cake.  Anyone can do it. 

Just ask Buzz.

Why don't we just cut through your crap and get right to the obvious:

You make fun of Crean's accomplishments because Buzz hasn't been able to match them.  Trust me--if Buzz were 3-0 instead of 0-3, and it was him that came up with the idea of hanging banners for those conferences, you'd be facing Milwaukee and bowing toward those banners three times a day. 

Meanwhile, nothing changes the fact that Buzz hasn't won a pre-conference tournament in three chances, and we lost two of them in embarrassing fashion (blowout loss to Dayton and blowing a 17 point lead to a second-rate ACC team.).

But at least we know what each other cares more about.  You care about banners, name calling and insulting people.  I care about Marquette winning.  That says everything we need to know.

Quote from: Marquette84 on January 25, 2011, 09:27:06 AM
Right.  Because beating Duke and Gonzaga is a piece of cake.  Anyone can do it. 

Notre Dame has already beaten 4 ranked teams this season. Should they hang a banner? After all, that's a more impressive, more difficult task than winning a pre-conference tournament.

Quote from: warthog-driver on January 25, 2011, 05:48:03 AM
Some things are worth honoring. This smacks of "everyone gets a trophy" which was not true in the case of Tanned Tommy's Summer of Fun where only those with the last name Crean got a trophy. At the end of ther day those stupid banners had nothing to do with the players. They were put up as tributes to The Great One with the Savage Tan

That's crap.  It doesn't come close to smacking that everyone gets a trophy when you are playing Gonzaga, Duke, etc for the Maui Invitational or other prestigious tournament.  Silly claim beyond belief. 

To say it had nothing to do with the players, Wiskey Tango Foxtrot are you talking about?  It was to honor the accomplishments of those kids in winning those tournaments.

Quote from: Marquette84 on January 25, 2011, 09:27:06 AM
Right.  Because beating Duke and Gonzaga is a piece of cake.  Anyone can do it. 

Right. Because the 2006 Duke team, that finished 6th in the ACC and exited in the first round of the tournament, is pretty much the same as the Duke team that MU played this year.
And Buzz had the benefit of some guy named Wade, not to mention a four-year starter at point guard, against the Zags this year.
Solid, solid comparisons.

Quote from: Marquette84 on January 24, 2011, 07:16:21 PM
I understand the truly elite programs actually win those pre-season tournaments.

and then put the banners in a drawer.

I don't care who the coach was or whose decision it was to hang those banners, IMO, it made Marquette look like a second-rate basketball program.

Imagine JP Tokoto walking into the Dean Dome and seeing all the jerseys and all the championship banners hanging from the rafters...and then coming to the BC and seeing "2002 Great Alaska Shootout Champions." It made MU look very small time.

Quote from: Marquette84 on January 25, 2011, 09:27:06 AM
You make fun of Crean's accomplishments because Buzz hasn't been able to match them.  Trust me--if Buzz were 3-0 instead of 0-3, and it was him that came up with the idea of hanging banners for those conferences, you'd be facing Milwaukee and bowing toward those banners three times a day.  But at least we know what each other cares more about.  You care about banners, name calling and insulting people.  I care about Marquette winning.  That says everything we need to know.

I care about honor, character and dignity. Crean's atrocious treatment of people was a firm statement that he did not share that belief. His supreme arrogance and gross mistreatment of others undermined his credibility as a leader. I am not at all certain what Crean "accomplished."

As for banners, I have a great deal of respect for my Squadron's Guidon. It proudly carries combat streamers from The Muese-Argonne Offensive, Belleau Wood, The Italian Campaign, Normandy, Operation Cobra, Chosin Reservoir, Operation Linebacker, and, under my watch, added Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. My perpsective is very different from yours, Joanie.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 25, 2011, 11:18:44 AM
I don't care who the coach was or whose decision it was to hang those banners, IMO, it made Marquette look like a second-rate basketball program.

Imagine JP Tokoto walking into the Dean Dome and seeing all the jerseys and all the championship banners hanging from the rafters...and then coming to the BC and seeing "2002 Great Alaska Shootout Champions." It made MU look very small time.

The Stache hits the nail squarely on the head. But then, wasn't the creative force behind those silly banners really just a small time hustler?

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 25, 2011, 10:04:14 AM
To say it had nothing to do with the players, Wiskey Tango Foxtrot are you talking about?  It was to honor the accomplishments of those kids in winning those tournaments.

Please Chico. We all know that Crean's motivation in those banners was self-aggrandizement. I refer you to The Mustache's superb articulation - the banner's were small time. I cannot think of a more succinct articulation of Tom Crean, The "Man"

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 25, 2011, 09:50:37 AM
Notre Dame has already beaten 4 ranked teams this season. Should they hang a banner? After all, that's a more impressive, more difficult task than winning a pre-conference tournament.

Do they give a trophy out for doing what Notre Dame has done?  No.

Do they give a trophy out for winning the Maui Invitational, the Great Alaska Shootout, etc?  Yes.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 25, 2011, 11:50:20 AM
Do they give a trophy out for winning the Maui Invitational, the Great Alaska Shootout, etc?  Yes.

They give out trophies. They do not give out banners to hang from the rafters. That was the brain child of The Bronzed Brazen Beast of Brookfield.

Quote from: warthog-driver on January 25, 2011, 11:44:01 AM
Please Chico. We all know that Crean's motivation in those banners was self-aggrandizement. I refer you to The Mustache's superb articulation - the banner's were small time. I cannot think of a more succinct articulation of Tom Crean, The "Man"

"We all know?"  Really?  Is that like Always, Never, Vast Majority schtick that Lenny uses?  No, we don't know.  That is YOUR OPINION.

The way you crap on those tournament championships, maybe we should go to the Al later today and have a book burn in and instead of using books, we'll burn the trophies.  After all, what's the point of having a trophy for such a lame achievement?  Right?  Or is a trophy ok but not a banner?  I'm just curious.   

While we're at it, maybe we should strip the players names off the All Tournament teams as well, I mean it's just a lame tournament.  Let's take it out of the media guides, we certainly wouldn't want to honor their achievements at all.

You do realize that other schools do this, right?  You realize that some schools, even ones like Duke, hang banners symbolizing where they finished in an AP poll.  How dare they....it smacks of everyone getting a trophy (which is ironic as hell since only the champion of these preseason tournaments actually gets a trophy). 

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 25, 2011, 11:50:20 AM
Do they give a trophy out for doing what Notre Dame has done?  No.

Do they give a trophy out for winning the Maui Invitational, the Great Alaska Shootout, etc?  Yes.

Trophy = Banner

Got it.

Needless to say, I should probably get working on that 1988 Pinewood Derby banner for my basement.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 25, 2011, 11:55:58 AM
Trophy = Banner

Got it.

Needless to say, I should probably get working on that 1988 Pinewood Derby banner for my basement.

Basement?? Fly it with pride from your front porch!

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 25, 2011, 11:54:56 AM
"We all know?"  Really?  Is that like Always, Never, Vast Majority schtick that Lenny uses?  No, we don't know.  That is YOUR OPINION.

The way you crap on those tournament championships, maybe we should go to the Al later today and have a book burn in and instead of using books, we'll burn the trophies.  After all, what's the point of having a trophy for such a lame achievement?  Right?  Or is a trophy ok but not a banner?  I'm just curious.   

While we're at it, maybe we should strip the players names off the All Tournament teams as well, I mean it's just a lame tournament.  Let's take it out of the media guides, we certainly wouldn't want to honor their achievements at all.

You do realize that other schools do this, right?  You realize that some schools, even ones like Duke, hang banners symbolizing where they finished in an AP poll.  How dare they....it smacks of everyone getting a trophy (which is ironic as hell since only the champion of these preseason tournaments actually gets a trophy). 

I realize that I could be walking into a fist, because I don't know the answer to this question, but....

Chicos, name all the top ecehlon NCAA D1 basketball programs that hang banners for pre season tournaments

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 25, 2011, 11:55:58 AM
Trophy = Banner

Got it.

Needless to say, I should probably get working on that 1988 Pinewood Derby banner for my basement.

If that's what you want to do, knock yourself out. 

The Athletic Department chose to put up banners congratulating our basketball team for winning a prestigious tournament.  Other schools do similar things.  This has more to do with hatred of a previous coach, IMO, than anything else. 

I guess I never understood why honoring REAL accomplishments of our teams is a bad thing.  What's next, are we going to ask Warthog to take off some of his kill marks off the side of his A-10?  I'm sure some people find it offensive and braggadocio by pilots....personally, I love it and hope to see my military's planes loaded with kill marks. 

Different strokes for different folks I guess, but this screams AGAIN of people just hating on one individual and not seeing the forest through the trees.  These players accomplished something pretty cool and MU chose to honor them.  Wow, what a concept.

"but this screams AGAIN of people just hating on one individual"

yes, but a dbag of an individual who came up with a douchey idea of creating banners to hang for pre-season tournaments...

what's hard to understand...

Quote from: madtownwarrior on January 25, 2011, 12:29:02 PM
"but this screams AGAIN of people just hating on one individual"

yes, but a dbag of an individual who came up with a douchey idea of creating banners to hang for pre-season tournaments...

what's hard to understand...

Some people, I would think, can separate the person from what was done.  I've said often that Crean could be a huge prick, that doesn't mean I don't tip my hat to him for bringing my university to the Final Four, getting us into the Big East, etc, etc.   There are some things he did very well and some things he didn't do well.  Some of you guys throw the baby out with the bathwater and paint everything that happened in 9 years as soiled because of your hatred of the guy.

What's hard to understand? 

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 25, 2011, 12:06:51 PM
If that's what you want to do, knock yourself out. 

The Athletic Department chose to put up banners congratulating our basketball team for winning a prestigious tournament.  Other schools do similar things.  This has more to do with hatred of a previous coach, IMO, than anything else. 

I guess I never understood why honoring REAL accomplishments of our teams is a bad thing.  What's next, are we going to ask Warthog to take off some of his kill marks off the side of his A-10?  I'm sure some people find it offensive and braggadocio by pilots....personally, I love it and hope to see my military's planes loaded with kill marks. 

Different strokes for different folks I guess, but this screams AGAIN of people just hating on one individual and not seeing the forest through the trees.  These players accomplished something pretty cool and MU chose to honor them.  Wow, what a concept.

I think it made MU look like a second rate basketball program and, as I stated previously, my opinion has nothing to do with Tom Crean.

I've stated my opinion and whether others agree or disagree, I couldn't care less...though I have a feeling that won't stop you from trying to point out how "wrong" those of us are who share this belief.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 25, 2011, 01:14:30 PM
I think it made MU look like a second rate basketball program and, as I stated previously, my opinion has nothing to do with Tom Crean.

I've stated my opinion and whether others agree or disagree, I couldn't care less...though I have a feeling that won't stop you from trying to point out how "wrong" those of us are who share this belief.

Are the banners still up at the Al and Bradley Center?

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 25, 2011, 12:37:26 PM
Some people, I would think, can separate the person from what was done.  I've said often that Crean could be a huge prick, that doesn't mean I don't tip my hat to him for bringing my university to the Final Four, getting us into the Big East, etc, etc.   There are some things he did very well and some things he didn't do well.  Some of you guys throw the baby out with the bathwater and paint everything that happened in 9 years as soiled because of your hatred of the guy.

What's hard to understand? 

Where in this conversation is anyone talking about the Final Four or the Big East? Are you going off on a tangent for a reason? People are talking about how TC, in an typical display of self aggrandizement, decided to commission and hang banners for preseason tournament success. You often claim that you think he was a douche, yet when people give examples of him acting as such you go ballistic. That's hypocritical.

Quote from: Pakuni on January 25, 2011, 10:54:38 AM
Right. Because the 2006 Duke team, that finished 6th in the ACC and exited in the first round of the tournament, is pretty much the same as the Duke team that MU played this year.
And Buzz had the benefit of some guy named Wade, not to mention a four-year starter at point guard, against the Zags this year.
Solid, solid comparisons.

Did you forget to post the similar comparison for Gonzaga, or did you intentionally ignore that comparision?

BTW, since you're crediting Wade for the win over Gonzaga, how many turnovers did Wade have that game?  Hint: 9.
Was he the even MU's leading scorer in the game? Hint: No.  

Maybe Wade, in the fifth game of his career was still closer to the promising kid who wasn't an RSCI top 100 player out of HS as opposed to a top 5 NBA draft pick.

Finally, I don't see the team being as dismissive about winning this tournament as our fans seem to be. Somebody must have forgotten to tell our guys that this tournament wasn't worth celebrating.  

(http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=414.0;attach=130)
(http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=414.0;attach=132)

Quote from: Marquette84 on January 25, 2011, 03:06:12 PM
BTW, since you're crediting Wade for the win over Gonzaga, how many turnovers did Wade have that game?  Hint: 9.
Was he the even MU's leading scorer in the game? Hint: No.  

Did I "credit" Wade for the win? Hint: No.
Am I basketball ignorant enough to think that his presence on the court - especially after he tore up Tennesee and Indiana - didn't influence Gonzaga's defense so that David Diggs and Travis Diener were left open to shoot 9-for-13 from beyond the arc that night? Hint: No.
Was Wade MVP of the tournament? Hint: Yes.

QuoteMaybe Wade, in the fifth game of his career was still closer to the promising kid who wasn't an RSCI top 100 player out of HS as opposed to a top 5 NBA draft pick.

Yes, because as we've all seen, the RSCI is the finest measure of talent.
Remind me, how did Wade do the game before against Indiana? Hint: 21 points and 8 rebounds.
How'd he do against Tennessee? Hint: 30 points, 8 rebounds, 7 assists, 5 steals and 1 block in 26 minutes.

Apparently, for a couple of nights at least, he forgot he wasn't an RSCI top 100 player out of HS.

QuoteFinally, I don't see the team being as dismissive about winning this tournament as our fans seem to be. Somebody must have forgotten to tell our guys that this tournament wasn't worth celebrating.  

Good for them. They should be proud and thrilled.
But I don't see many dismissing the tournaments or the wins. What I see is mocking the idea of hanging a banner in the Bradley Center to memorialize them.
Of course, you know that already.

Simple question....should we take down the National Catholic Champions banner?

Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 25, 2011, 02:50:59 PM
Where in this conversation is anyone talking about the Final Four or the Big East? Are you going off on a tangent for a reason? People are talking about how TC, in an typical display of self aggrandizement, decided to commission and hang banners for preseason tournament success. You often claim that you think he was a douche, yet when people give examples of him acting as such you go ballistic. That's hypocritical.

Ballistic?  Please.

You think the banners were done to display self aggrandizement and you say that as your opinion nothing more.  There is no factual evidence to support that at all.

My point in bringing up the other stuff is that people want to harp on the guy at an alarming rate for a number of things.  It seems that no achievement in those 9 years can be said without the same clowns getting their diapers soiled to remind us what a douche he was.  We get it, you don't like him.  A lot of people don't like him.  A lot of people don't like you.  A lot of people don't like me.  It is what it is.


Now, can someone answer the question I asked, are the banners still up at the Al and\or the BC?

Secondly, should we take down the National Catholic Championship banner?

Quote from: Marquette84 on January 25, 2011, 03:06:12 PM
Finally, I don't see the team being as dismissive about winning this tournament as our fans seem to be. Somebody must have forgotten to tell our guys that this tournament wasn't worth celebrating.  

Once again Joanie lays it on the line as only a Harbaugh can! Can we get Jack in here to tell us the story about little Stanford taking on the Mighty Trojans of USC?

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 25, 2011, 04:16:09 PM
Ballistic?  Please.

You think the banners were done to display self aggrandizement and you say that as your opinion nothing more.  There is no factual evidence to support that at all.

My point in bringing up the other stuff is that people want to harp on the guy at an alarming rate for a number of things.  It seems that no achievement in those 9 years can be said without the same clowns getting their diapers soiled to remind us what a douche he was.  We get it, you don't like him.  A lot of people don't like him.  A lot of people don't like you.  A lot of people don't like me.  It is what it is.


Now, can someone answer the question I asked, are the banners still up at the Al and\or the BC?

Secondly, should we take down the National Catholic Championship banner?

The banners are not up in the BC, I'm not sure about the Al; I haven't been there in a long time.

I'm not old enough to know what the significance of the National Catholic Tournement was at the time and there is very little information about it on the internet so I can't really speak to that.

Quote from: Pakuni on January 25, 2011, 03:43:19 PM
But I don't see many dismissing the tournaments or the wins. What I see is mocking the idea of hanging a banner in the Bradley Center to memorialize them.

Really?  Here's what I read.
'Some things are worth honoring. This smacks of "everyone gets a trophy"'

Clearly the poster wasn't quibbling over the format of how we honor those wins.

There's a certain irony is comparing to a tournament in which "everyone gets a trophy" since we know that neither Duke nor Gonzaga actually received a championship banner from those tournaments. 


Later, that same poster said:
"At the end of ther day those stupid banners had nothing to do with the players."

The photos suggest otherwise. 



Had Al won the 1967 Rainbow Classic in Hawaii and took home a championship banner to hang, it would be a storied tradition at MU to bring it back to MIlwaukee. 

But because Al didn't win in Hawaii, and Hank didn't win either the Rainbow or the GAS, and O'Neill didn't win anything but stories about blown out shoes in the Preseason NIT, and Deane didn't win the San Juan Shootout, and Buzz is now 0-3 in such tournaments--we NOW have to belittle the recognition of what we DID win.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 25, 2011, 04:12:32 PM


Simple question....should we take down the National Catholic Champions banner?

Why would they take that banner down? Yes, that team finished under .500 overall but they won a postseason tournament.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 25, 2011, 04:16:09 PM
Ballistic?  Please.

We get it, you don't like him.  A lot of people don't like him.  A lot of people don't like you.  A lot of people don't like me.  It is what it is.

The "vast majority" (66.6%) of your statments are correct - a lot of people don't like him or you.