Thinking out loud here ....
We have played 10 currently ranked teams in the last 16. (and I noted before, for comparison, Wisconsin played 2 ranked teams in the last 16).
Consequently, we are on national TV virtually every game. What was the last game that was not nationally televised? I cannot remember.
Would it be better if MU was only televised nationally every third or fourth game. Then guys like Chicos (and me) would only see a fraction of the games and have a different prospective AND ... less time invested in this team and not so emotional.
Are we a victim of our success and BE schedule?
People are upset because that's all they can be.
I'm much happier being .500 in the Big East and playing against 10 currently ranked teams then losing to Memphis, DePaul, Charlotte, UAB, TCU, & SLU like we did in '04-'05 to go 7-9 in conference.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 13, 2011, 02:58:32 PM
Thinking out loud here ....
We have played 10 currently ranked teams in the last 16. (and I noted before, for comparison, Wisconsin played 2 ranked teams in the last 16).
Consequently, we are on national TV virtually every game. What was the last game that was not nationally televised? I cannot remember.
Would it be better if MU was only televised nationally every third or fourth game. Then guys like Chicos (and me) would only see a fraction of the games and have a different prospective AND ... less time invested in this team and not so emotional.
Are we a victim of our success and BE schedule?
No, I don't think it's that at all. I think there is talent on this team and people are frustrated watching us play wonderful basketball for 32 minutes or 35 minutes or 37 minutes but having periods in the game it all goes to hell. The worst part, WE ALL KNOW IT"S COMING BEFORE IT EVEN HAPPENS.
The frustration is knowing the talent is there, the willingness is there, the effort is there, the results are NOT there. That's the frustration.
Lets face it, this team has only one guy ion his 3rd year (discouting Fulce du to injuries). The 10 losses have been to the following teams as ranked by Pomeroy:
3-Duke
5-Pitt
6-UW
13-Nova
14-G-Town
17-ND
21-Ville
23-UConn
26-Vandy
48-Gonzaga
8 games have been on the road.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2011, 03:02:38 PM
No, I don't think it's that at all. I think there is talent on this team and people are frustrated watching us play wonderful basketball for 32 minutes or 35 minutes or 37 minutes but having periods in the game it all goes to hell. The worst part, WE ALL KNOW IT"S COMING BEFORE IT EVEN HAPPENS.
The frustration is knowing the talent is there, the willingness is there, the effort is there, the results are NOT there. That's the frustration.
This I can agree with.
Quote from: Nukem2 on February 13, 2011, 03:03:02 PM
The 10 losses have been to the following teams as ranked by Pomeroy:
3-Duke
5-Pitt
6-UW
13-Nova
14-G-Town
17-ND
21-Ville
23-UConn
26-Vandy
48-Gonzaga
8 games have been on the road.
All except
Vandy Gonzaga is ranked this week.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 13, 2011, 03:09:31 PM
All except Vandy is ranked this week.
Vandy is ranked... and they will be ranked higher on monday.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 13, 2011, 03:10:39 PM
Vandy is ranked... and they will be ranked higher on monday.
He meant Zaga.
I guess I don't understand the Wisconsin comparison, either. To date, they have still played a tougher schedule then we have per Ken Pom. People get caught up in the AP ranking numbers, but overall to date their schedule has been ranked tougher. Their games are also on national tv on the Big Ten Network.
I think the hardest part is that most of us had unrealistic expectations for this team.
Fulce- most thought he would be the guy he was last Feb. We could have really used his experience against a team like Gonzaga early. Hopefully he finishes strong as a senior.
Blue- Most thought he would put it together in the Big East and break players down off the dribble. He has a long way to go on offense.
Cadougan- Most thought we were getting Mark Jackson reincarnated.
DJO- slow start, but has turned into the player we thought.
Williams/Jones/Smith- many thought one of these guys would at least give us spot minutes.
There are some bright spots like Gardner, Otule, and Crowder, but this team just does not have the firepower to keep up with some teams this year. And they have not played together long enough to play strong team defense.
There are a variety of reasons to be frustrated as a fan, but I think a lot of it comes from unrealistic expectations on certain players. I think we may see Fulce step up and come up with some big hustle plays and hopefully be the difference in beating Cincy and SJU. But I don't see Cadougan or Blue giving any more than they have given this year.
It's like we're the Washington Generals for ESPN.
Quote from: HoopsMalone on February 13, 2011, 03:15:10 PM
I think the hardest part is that most of us had unrealistic expectations for this team.
Fulce- most thought he would be the guy he was last Feb. We could have really used his experience against a team like Gonzaga early. Hopefully he finishes strong as a senior.
Blue- Most thought he would put it together in the Big East and break players down off the dribble. He has a long way to go on offense.
Cadougan- Most thought we were getting Mark Jackson reincarnated.
DJO- slow start, but has turned into the player we thought.
Williams/Jones/Smith- many thought one of these guys would at least give us spot minutes.
There are some bright spots like Gardner, Otule, and Crowder, but this team just does not have the firepower to keep up with some teams this year. And they have not played together long enough to play strong team defense.
There are a variety of reasons to be frustrated as a fan, but I think a lot of it comes from unrealistic expectations on certain players. I think we may see Fulce step up and come up with some big hustle plays and hopefully be the difference in beating Cincy and SJU. But I don't see Cadougan or Blue giving any more than they have given this year.
The irony is that those of us who didn't have quite those high of expectations are called haters (note, I still said MU would make the NCAAs in preseason and still believe they will, but warned many folks here that Vander was going to need some time).
My question is, why did so many people, in your opinion, have unrealistic expectations?
I have some theories, and they start every year with the little stars next to the recruits we sign. Then we get the reports from the off season workouts that player X and player Y are now totally ripped and playing incredible basketball, etc, etc. When others here questioned who was going to be the PG, we were told to shut up. When some folks here asked why Buzz's defense has struggled year in and year out, regardless of where he has coached...
You get the idea. So why the unrealistic expectations?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2011, 03:14:27 PM
I guess I don't understand the Wisconsin comparison, either. To date, they have still played a tougher schedule then we have per Ken Pom. People get caught up in the AP ranking numbers, but overall to date their schedule has been ranked tougher. Their games are also on national tv on the Big Ten Network.
That's not what I said and you know it. I said their last 16 games (which goes back to the Wisconsin game) and includes 12 conference games.
Since MU got into conference play, their have an incredibly difficult schedule. And the last few non-conference games includes Vandy and Wisc.
I used Wisconsin for comparison purposes so one can see how many ranked teams nonBE teams have played in the last two months. I could have picked Duke as they are about the same.
IF MU was in the B12 or ACC this year, they would have a much easier schedule and be in 3 or 4 fourth place and probably ranked.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2011, 03:21:17 PM
My question is, why did so many people, in your opinion, have unrealistic expectations?
I agree that you are someone who sets reasonable expectations. Two years ago you set them at 9-9 in conference and we finished 12-6. Had DJ not been hurt 14-4 would have been likely. Last year you again set expectations fairly (especially without Junior or Maymon) at 12th in the BEast and again we blew them away, finished 5th and got a 6 seed in the tournament. After Buzz demolished fair expectations two years in a row is it any secret why many MU fans would expect the projections of 8-10th place to be surpassed again? People get spoiled and develop a feeling of entitlement. As simple as it is unfair.
The real irony is how critical you've been about the guy who's blown away your fair and balanced expectations in two seasons and met them in his third. Any ideas as to why that is?
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 13, 2011, 03:24:41 PM
That's not what I said and you know it. I said their last 16 games (which goes back to the Wisconsin game) and includes 12 conference games.
Since MU got into conference play, their have an incredibly difficult schedule. And the last few non-conference games includes Vandy and Wisc.
I used Wisconsin for comparison purposes so one can see how many ranked teams nonBE teams have played in the last two months. I could have picked Duke as they are about the same.
IF MU was in the B12 or ACC this year, they would have a much easier schedule and be in 3 or 4 fourth place and probably ranked.
Got it, sorry if I misunderstood.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on February 13, 2011, 03:55:03 PM
The real irony is how critical you've been about the guy who's blown away your fair and balanced expectations in two seasons and met them in his third. Any ideas as to why that is?
I didn't realize just how good Crean's leftover players were that would carry Buzz. Now with only Buzz's players it seems I have it locked in. ;) It's a joke, it's a joke.
Let's flip the question....after hearing for the last three years how terrible of a coach we used to have and how terrible of a recruiter he was, then to hear we have more top 100 RSCI players on the roster than EVER before, how much better of a coach we have now (your words) why are we struggling to finish middle of the pack when we always did better with the awful guy prior? Maybe the expectations were set by you and others that were based on some bias...that Coach TC sucked balls and Coach BW is so great how could he ever finish in the lower half of the Big East, something we've never done before. Just a guess...as good as any. Funny how these things have a way of working both ways...isn't?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2011, 04:25:33 PM
I didn't realize just how good Crean's leftover players were that would carry Buzz. Now with only Buzz's players it seems I have it locked in. ;) It's a joke, it's a joke.
Let's flip the question....after hearing for the last three years how terrible of a coach we used to have and how terrible of a recruiter he was, then to hear we have more top 100 RSCI players on the roster than EVER before, how much better of a coach we have now (your words) why are we struggling to finish middle of the pack when we always did better with the awful guy prior? Maybe the expectations were set by you and others that were based on some bias...that Coach TC sucked balls and Coach BW is so great how could he ever finish in the lower half of the Big East, something we've never done before. Just a guess...as good as any. Funny how these things have a way of working both ways...isn't?
Why is this a Buzz vs TC argument? ::)
Seriously, Chicos, ease up a bit. You complain that every topic on this site turns into a TC bash, but using this thread as an example, you are the only one driving towards TC as a point of interest. Lennys specifically focused on the years under Buzz and didn't at all lead the conversation towards Crean. Your response pretty much dove head first into the old saw of Buzz vs TC. Give it a rest. Threads won't turn into Crean-bashing sessions if you don't bring Crean into the debate.
Quote from: brewcity77 on February 13, 2011, 04:38:04 PM
Why is this a Buzz vs TC argument? ::)
Seriously, Chicos, ease up a bit. You complain that every topic on this site turns into a TC bash, but using this thread as an example, you are the only one driving towards TC as a point of interest. Lennys specifically focused on the years under Buzz and didn't at all lead the conversation towards Crean. Your response pretty much dove head first into the old saw of Buzz vs TC. Give it a rest. Threads won't turn into Crean-bashing sessions if you don't bring Crean into the debate.
I assume you will insert that same sentence of condemnation toward these posters in these posts for bringing up that argument
just in the last few days.I only ask for consistency. If you're going to call someone out, then you should call others out, especially those that are far greater at inserting said person into these threads. I don't think I'm asking for anything outlandish. 9 threads with said coach, I inserted him into 1 while someone else did in the others. I'll bet someone thinks 1 of 9 is VAST MAJORITY. :D
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=24416.msg271536#msg271536
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=24314.msg270271#msg270271
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=24298.msg270269#msg270269
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=24298.msg270365#msg270365
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=24355.msg270827#msg270827
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=24348.msg270764#msg270764
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=24354.msg270841#msg270841
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=24329.msg270416#msg270416
Quote from: brewcity77 on February 13, 2011, 04:38:04 PM
Why is this a Buzz vs TC argument? ::)
Seriously, Chicos, ease up a bit. You complain that every topic on this site turns into a TC bash, but using this thread as an example, you are the only one driving towards TC as a point of interest. Lennys specifically focused on the years under Buzz and didn't at all lead the conversation towards Crean. Your response pretty much dove head first into the old saw of Buzz vs TC. Give it a rest. Threads won't turn into Crean-bashing sessions if you don't bring Crean into the debate.
Chicos doesn't realize that a lot of his thin-veiled insults at the program often point back to TC. After they point back to TC and someone calls him out he has nothing to do with it, but he must come and defend TC.
But he never starts it.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2011, 04:48:44 PM
I assume you will insert that same sentence of condemnation toward these posters in these posts for bringing up that argument just in the last few days.
I only ask for consistency. If you're going to call someone out, then you should call others out, especially those that are far greater at inserting said person into these threads. I don't think I'm asking for anything outlandish. 9 threads with said coach, I inserted him into 1 while someone else did in the others. I'll bet someone thinks 1 of 9 is VAST MAJORITY. :D
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=24416.msg271536#msg271536
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=24314.msg270271#msg270271
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=24298.msg270269#msg270269
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=24298.msg270365#msg270365
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=24355.msg270827#msg270827
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=24348.msg270764#msg270764
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=24354.msg270841#msg270841
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=24329.msg270416#msg270416
Okay, I'll go through them all...
1) Your reference
2) While the comparison is there, I'm specifically talking about threads shifting gears to TC. Hard to argue that when the only person mentioning him is the thread-starter.
3) Avalanche is talking about the time when Crean left and Buzz arrived, not trying to start a comparison of the two.
4) ?-( Same thread as #3, and only referencing what was said in #3; don't get where you're going with this.
5) Agreed completely, no reason at all for Navin to bring up Crean or Indiana, though my guess is he did it specifically to take a jab at you.
6) Disagree, this is simply referencing recruiting battles we lost. Yes, Crean was involved, but it's not like tower is trying to use Crean to digress.
7) Again, no reason for Navin to bring up Crean.
8) Tower's not trying to start a TC argument, just using TC as a point of reference in terms of time. If a new problem cropped up in 2009 and was still going in 2014, I imagine he'd have said "This problem goes back to Buzz's early days".
So for the most part, you singled out two users in your eight examples, with cameos by Avalanche and Lennys. Maybe it's personal opinion, but I don't think either Avalanche or tower are trying to turn the thread towards Crean. And Lennys is only responding to Avalanche by saying that not everyone was against Crean. I will agree that Navin is bashing Crean, which wasn't really called for in either thread. But in terms of the thread as a whole, he wasn't trying to turn Crean into a point of interest, rather just taking jabs where he could. I'll agree that it's kind of a prick move, but it's not a change of topic. You specifically said "Let's flip the question..." and then tried to turn this thread into Buzz vs TC. I don't think I'm stating anything outlandish by pointing out that what you do here and what took place in the other examples is vastly different.
Quote from: brewcity77 on February 13, 2011, 05:14:28 PM
Okay, I'll go through them all...
1) Your reference
2) While the comparison is there, I'm specifically talking about threads shifting gears to TC. Hard to argue that when the only person mentioning him is the thread-starter.
3) Avalanche is talking about the time when Crean left and Buzz arrived, not trying to start a comparison of the two.
4) ?-( Same thread as #3, and only referencing what was said in #3; don't get where you're going with this.
5) Agreed completely, no reason at all for Navin to bring up Crean or Indiana, though my guess is he did it specifically to take a jab at you.
6) Disagree, this is simply referencing recruiting battles we lost. Yes, Crean was involved, but it's not like tower is trying to use Crean to digress.
7) Again, no reason for Navin to bring up Crean.
8) Tower's not trying to start a TC argument, just using TC as a point of reference in terms of time. If a new problem cropped up in 2009 and was still going in 2014, I imagine he'd have said "This problem goes back to Buzz's early days".
So for the most part, you singled out two users in your eight examples, with cameos by Avalanche and Lennys. Maybe it's personal opinion, but I don't think either Avalanche or tower are trying to turn the thread towards Crean. And Lennys is only responding to Avalanche by saying that not everyone was against Crean. I will agree that Navin is bashing Crean, which wasn't really called for in either thread. But in terms of the thread as a whole, he wasn't trying to turn Crean into a point of interest, rather just taking jabs where he could. I'll agree that it's kind of a prick move, but it's not a change of topic. You specifically said "Let's flip the question..." and then tried to turn this thread into Buzz vs TC. I don't think I'm stating anything outlandish by pointing out that what you do here and what took place in the other examples is vastly different.
So the vast majority of Chico's examples are inappropriate. I'm shocked.
without reading this when things started getting dirty - cuz i dont really give a damn - i think that the unfairly high expectations set for Vander is the number one reason for the remarkably high expectations of the team.
I think Vander was expected to solve a lot of the problems that have arisen this season, including defense and point guard responsibilities (even if we didnt expect him to PLAY the 1, I think that many just sort of assumed he would make distribution issues go away) Fact is, he is a freshman and needs time to develop. His athleticism is there and so are the skills, but he's not ready to carry the traditionally veteran roles of ball possession/care/distribution and defensive identity.
Quote from: MUBurrow on February 13, 2011, 06:00:31 PM
without reading this when things started getting dirty - cuz i dont really give a damn - i think that the unfairly high expectations set for Vander is the number one reason for the remarkably high expectations of the team.
I think Vander was expected to solve a lot of the problems that have arisen this season, including defense and point guard responsibilities (even if we didnt expect him to PLAY the 1, I think that many just sort of assumed he would make distribution issues go away) Fact is, he is a freshman and needs time to develop. His athleticism is there and so are the skills, but he's not ready to carry the traditionally veteran roles of ball possession/care/distribution and defensive identity.
Unfair?
How can you have "unfairly" high expectations for a guy who was hyped as the best freshman we've recruited since Doc Rivers and Kerry Trotter? A guy who was mentioned in the same breath as Joe Wolf and Caron Butler. Go back to the threads from the time of his recruitment and commitment. He was universally hailed as the type of player that we have not landed in decades and evidence of our significantly improved recruiting. Some even went so far as to call him a one-and-done player.
Frankly, the expectations of some here was that he would be the starter on Day 1, and many others thought he'd be starting by the time conference play rolled around.
I think fair is to say that he should be equal to slightly better than the Amigos, Hayward, Diener, Pieper, Novak, Key, Mac, Logerman, Eford, Henry, etc. etc. etc.
Quote from: Marquette84 on February 13, 2011, 06:13:42 PM
Unfair?
Frankly, the expectations of some here was that he would be the starter on Day 1, and many others thought he'd be starting by the time conference play rolled around.
I think fair is to say that he should be equal to slightly better than the Amigos, Hayward, Diener, Pieper, Novak, Key, Mac, Logerman, Eford, Henry, etc. etc. etc.
[/b]
Why is this?
Chicos...Give it a rest. Seriously.
I challenge you to not mention Crean in one thread this week. One. Regardless if you're egged on by another poster. Just pretend that Lent came early for ya.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 13, 2011, 02:58:32 PM
Thinking out loud here ....
We have played 10 currently ranked teams in the last 16. (and I noted before, for comparison, Wisconsin played 2 ranked teams in the last 16).
Consequently, we are on national TV virtually every game. What was the last game that was not nationally televised? I cannot remember.
Would it be better if MU was only televised nationally every third or fourth game. Then guys like Chicos (and me) would only see a fraction of the games and have a different prospective AND ... less time invested in this team and not so emotional.
Are we a victim of our success and BE schedule?
Is it really that hard to understand why people are frustrated? Read this again and pretend Chicos didn't write it:
QuoteNo, I don't think it's that at all. I think there is talent on this team and people are frustrated watching us play wonderful basketball for 32 minutes or 35 minutes or 37 minutes but having periods in the game it all goes to hell. The worst part, WE ALL KNOW IT"S COMING BEFORE IT EVEN HAPPENS.
The frustration is knowing the talent is there, the willingness is there, the effort is there, the results are NOT there. That's the frustration.
It's as simple as that. I don't know why people keep asking about why people are frustrated.
I have low expectations. I just hope he isn't Mike Deane v.2
Mike Deane
21-12 NIT
23-8 NCAA 2nd
22-9 NCAA 1st
20-11
14-15 Fired
Buzz
25-10 NCAA 2nd
22-12 NCAA 1st
15-9 ?
Quote from: MUBurrow on February 13, 2011, 06:00:31 PMwithout reading this when things started getting dirty - cuz i dont really give a damn - i think that the unfairly high expectations set for Vander is the number one reason for the remarkably high expectations of the team.
Personally, I wouldn't say so. I didn't think Vander would contribute much, maybe 10-15 minutes. I think he's done more than I expected personally. I think my expectations were higher because I expected Crowder to do what he's done, DJO to do about what he's done (or a little better), but expected Fulce and Butler to be better. I thought Fulce could become a reliable 20 mpg guy who gave us 10 points and 7 rebounds, and I thought Butler would take that next step to being an 18 ppg and 8 rpg type guy, while also coming through in the clutch. I also admit I expected less from Buycks, more from Cadougan, and more consistency from Otule. Erik Williams was another guy I thought could break into the rotation this year and really contribute. Him not doing that has been a real disappointment.
I did hope for a bit more offense from Vander in the Big East season, but considering our depth, he was never that likely to be a starter from the get-go. He's done fine.
Quote from: groove on February 13, 2011, 08:07:22 PM
I have low expectations. I just hope he isn't Mike Deane v.2
Mike Deane
21-12 NIT
23-8 NCAA 2nd
22-9 NCAA 1st
20-11
14-15 Fired
Buzz
25-10 NCAA 2nd
22-12 NCAA 1st
15-9 ?
Deane wasn't bringing in great talent year after year. Remember Krunti Hester? Lets also not forget the conference difficulty was a bit less back then. That comparison isn't very fair cause its far from apples to apples.
Quote from: JWags85 on February 14, 2011, 09:27:22 AM
Deane wasn't bringing in great talent year after year. Remember Krunti Hester? Lets also not forget the conference difficulty was a bit less back then. That comparison isn't very fair cause its far from apples to apples.
great talent? we will see about the recruiting classes and see if the final product matches up with the number of stars they came in with.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on February 13, 2011, 06:34:33 PM
[/b]
Why is this?
Blue was widely reported as the best HS player we've recruited in 25 years.
Quote from: JWags85 on February 14, 2011, 09:27:22 AM
Deane wasn't bringing in great talent year after year. Remember Krunti Hester? Lets also not forget the conference difficulty was a bit less back then. That comparison isn't very fair cause its far from apples to apples.
but the tourny results have been the same. first round loss and second round loss.
I know why I am upset. We are good enough to absolutely control a majority of the game against pretty good teams and still lose. That pretty damn frustrating.
Regardless of all of this season, I still think we are going to be really good next season.
Quote from: Marquette84 on February 14, 2011, 09:37:40 AM
Blue was widely reported as the best HS player we've recruited in 25 years.
Based on his ranking by the scouting services?
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on February 14, 2011, 12:57:03 PMBased on his ranking by the scouting services?
Safe to say, the only ones that really widely report high school player ratings are scouting services.
I think there's a disconnect here...
According to many on this board we're supposed to consider preseason expectations for the team to be the measuring stick by which we determine whether the team has performed well or not, regardless of how accurate those expectations were with hindsight.
And...
I'm inferring from two posts above that apparently we cannot measure the effectiveness of an individual player based on his preseason ranking coming in.
I understand that it's not apples to apples because one is a whole team and the other is just one player, but it also seems like we're picking and choosing how we want to measure things based on the situation.
Quote from: brewcity77 on February 14, 2011, 01:50:20 PM
Safe to say, the only ones that really widely report high school player ratings are scouting services.
The reason I asked is because I'm not sure comparing recruits' rankings across multiple years is relevant.
Is the 20th ranked player in the 2010 class as good as the 20th ranked player in the 2009 class because they are ranked the same? Is that same 2010 player better than the 30th or 40th ranked player in some other class based on his ranking in
his class? Some years yes, some years probably no.
I don't know...it seems there are such wide disparities between classes, depth at the various positions, etc that it makes it a tricky comparison. Not to mention the various biases that exist within the rankings themselves.
As a result, I'm not sure what his point is, but I am sure he'll very thoroughly explain it to me. ;)
Quote from: Wade for President on February 13, 2011, 07:49:05 PM
Chicos...Give it a rest. Seriously.
I challenge you to not mention Crean in one thread this week. One. Regardless if you're egged on by another poster. Just pretend that Lent came early for ya.
Happy to...let's make it a full telethon and make sure everyone does the same thing.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2011, 04:48:44 PM
I assume you will insert that same sentence of condemnation toward these posters in these posts for bringing up that argument just in the last few days.
I only ask for consistency. If you're going to call someone out, then you should call others out, especially those that are far greater at inserting said person into these threads. I don't think I'm asking for anything outlandish. 9 threads with said coach, I inserted him into 1 while someone else did in the others. I'll bet someone thinks 1 of 9 is VAST MAJORITY. :D
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=24416.msg271536#msg271536
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=24314.msg270271#msg270271
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=24298.msg270269#msg270269
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=24298.msg270365#msg270365
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=24355.msg270827#msg270827
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=24348.msg270764#msg270764
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=24354.msg270841#msg270841
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=24329.msg270416#msg270416
Dude, you must have some legendary indexing system for muscoop topics...I tried using the search function once to find something I posted and came up with zippo.
Quote from: groove on February 14, 2011, 09:41:03 AM
but the tourny results have been the same. first round loss and second round loss.
IMO, that's largely a crap shoot. So many variables. I've seen teams with "worse" seeds have better draws. We've had to play a lot of teams here in California or in the western US. I truly believe the year we lost to Stanford that they were about the only 2nd round team we didn't want to meet outside of the top 8 teams...and the game came down to the final second in OT.
Just as there are teams that win 2 or 3 games in the NCAA tournament but do so because they have a gift draw and really aren't that great.
Quote from: mugrad2006 on February 14, 2011, 06:42:59 PM
Dude, you must have some legendary indexing system for muscoop topics...I tried using the search function once to find something I posted and came up with zippo.
I find the search functionality here pretty darn good. The SCOUT board has no search functionality which drove me crazy. The key is to use the wildcards when doing a search here, as that will get you a lot farther in your search segments.
Wildcards?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 14, 2011, 06:39:19 PM
Happy to...let's make it a full telethon and make sure everyone does the same thing.
Crean.
That lasted 21 minutes longer than I thought it would.
Quote from: mugrad2006 on February 14, 2011, 06:56:42 PM
Wildcards?
Yeah, like if you wanted to search for something someone said you would use *chico* to search for something I said rather than typing in chicosbailbonds. Just an example. Then in your search fields, make sure the settings are not too detailed, otherwise you will limit your results. If you want something for Buzz Williams, just search Buzz because very few people put in Williams. Adjust the search by match any word instead of all words. Etc, etc.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on February 14, 2011, 07:01:30 PM
Crean.
That lasted 21 minutes longer than I thought it would.
See, now Wade for Pres is going to be upset.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 14, 2011, 07:07:14 PM
See, now Wade for Pres is going to be upset.
That's ok. He never agrees with anything I say anyway.
For the record, I'm not upset with this team. Same record next year...maybe.
Quote from: Marquette84 on February 14, 2011, 09:37:40 AM
Blue was widely reported as the best HS player we've recruited in 25 years.
I don't ever watch high school basketball so when Buzz landed Vander Blue, i heard many of the same things from high school scouting services.
Watching him play this year though, i can understand why he was a very good high school player based mainly on his athletic ability, but i am surprised at how crude his offensive skills are. I certainly expected Blue to be more advanced offensively, especially as a shooter. His jump shooting mechanics need to be addressed over the summer.
If Vander puts in a ton of work once the season ends, i still have high hopes for him, but he'll need to be super dedicated. I look at a kid like Jordan Taylor at Wisconsin, he also couldn't shoot as a freshman, but he must have really worked at it and now he's a fabulous player. High recruiting rankings only help a kid get his foot in the door at a big conference program, but then it's up to them to put in the work to improve on their shortcomings.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on February 14, 2011, 06:37:14 PM
The reason I asked is because I'm not sure comparing recruits' rankings across multiple years is relevant.
Is the 20th ranked player in the 2010 class as good as the 20th ranked player in the 2009 class because they are ranked the same? Is that same 2010 player better than the 30th or 40th ranked player in some other class based on his ranking in his class? Some years yes, some years probably no.
I don't know...it seems there are such wide disparities between classes, depth at the various positions, etc that it makes it a tricky comparison. Not to mention the various biases that exist within the rankings themselves.
As a result, I'm not sure what his point is, but I am sure he'll very thoroughly explain it to me. ;)
I'm not talking about merely rankings.
I'm talking about guys who follow MU basketball very closely--guys like Rosiak and McIlvaine--who made statements to the effect that Blue was the best recruit we've landed since Rivers and Trotter.
I'm talking about the fact that Blue was mentioned along with guys like Joe Wolf and Caron Butler as one of the best players every to come out of the state of Wisconsin.
I'm talking about the general euphoria on this board over his commitment, and the comments about how Buzz's recruiting had succeeded where prior coaches failed.
I can only surmise based on your continued line of questioning that you were not following the recruitment and commitment of Blue very closely.
People get juiced about the recruiting stars. Why? Because that's all they have. It's like a good trailer. Recruiting "experts" are not 100% right either or they would be coaches or GM's themselves. I always look at the offer list as it really tells you who really thinks these players are good.
The problem with "stars" and recruiting is that people think this is like NCAA March Madness on XBox. We have a 5 star recruit who will comes with with 80 shooting, 90 speed, 95 handles and should be awesome. And it's not that easy.
Everyone needs to lay off of Blue though. I see alot of potiental with him. If you are disappointed because you thought a 5 star should be better than take it out with the analysts that gave him 5 stars, not the player.
Quote from: Marquette84 on February 15, 2011, 08:48:43 AM
I'm not talking about merely rankings.
I'm talking about guys who follow MU basketball very closely--guys like Rosiak and McIlvaine--who made statements to the effect that Blue was the best recruit we've landed since Rivers and Trotter.
I'm talking about the fact that Blue was mentioned along with guys like Joe Wolf and Caron Butler as one of the best players every to come out of the state of Wisconsin.
I'm talking about the general euphoria on this board over his commitment, and the comments about how Buzz's recruiting had succeeded where prior coaches failed.
I can only surmise based on your continued line of questioning that you were not following the recruitment and commitment of Blue very closely.
I followed Vander's recruiting fairly closely. His consensus ranking fell significantly from his junior to senior year, and his final ranking was close to DJ's and Diener's (with an arrow pointing down) and nowhere near Doc River's (top 10, maybe top 5). He was not the Wisconsin POY and he failed to lead his heavily favored team to the state title. His play in the summer league disappointed all of the posters here and at Dodds whom I saw comment. Sure there was euphoria on message boards - he was still top 50 (barely) and an in state recruit and some may have "mentioned" him with Butler, Wolf, etc - but he had a lot of work to do when he arrived at MU. Still does.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on February 15, 2011, 10:24:31 AM
I followed Vander's recruiting fairly closely. His consensus ranking fell significantly from his junior to senior year, and his final ranking was close to DJ's and Diener's (with an arrow pointing down) and nowhere near Doc River's (top 10, maybe top 5). He was not the Wisconsin POY and he failed to lead his heavily favored team to the state title. His play in the summer league disappointed all of the posters here and at Dodds whom I saw comment. Sure there was euphoria on message boards - he was still top 50 (barely) and an in state recruit and some may have "mentioned" him with Butler, Wolf, etc - but he had a lot of work to do when he arrived at MU. Still does.
Gee you must think the guy who actually won the POY in 2011 must have been some outstanding basketball player. Too bad Buzz didn't land him, as well, right?
http://www.ny2lasports.com/article_one.aspx?articleid=505 (http://www.ny2lasports.com/article_one.aspx?articleid=505)
Quote from: Lennys Tap on February 13, 2011, 03:55:03 PM
I agree that you are someone who sets reasonable expectations. Two years ago you set them at 9-9 in conference and we finished 12-6. Had DJ not been hurt 14-4 would have been likely. Last year you again set expectations fairly (especially without Junior or Maymon) at 12th in the BEast and again we blew them away, finished 5th and got a 6 seed in the tournament. After Buzz demolished fair expectations two years in a row is it any secret why many MU fans would expect the projections of 8-10th place to be surpassed again? People get spoiled and develop a feeling of entitlement. As simple as it is unfair.
Why are the only realistic expectations those that have MU playing only .500 ball? Why is it unrealistic for people to expect growth?