Every once a while, posters (mainly Chicos) will take a shot at MU but saying "UW has been better than last 10 years." The implication is MU has somehow failed because UW is better.
Here are some KenPom Rankings
Year UW MU UNC
2011 (a/o Mar 3) 7 32 11
2010 9 33 60
2009 29 19 1
2008 5 11 4
2007 6 38 1
2006 48 28 8
2005 16 93 20
2004 5 80 10
2003 11 16 59
In order to have better than UW over the last several years, we would have to be better than UNC.
* UW has had 5 better years than UNC (2011, 2010, 2005, 2004, 2003)
* UW had 3 worse years than UNC (2009, 2007, 2006) In 2007 UW was 6 and UNC was 1 ... is that really "worse"?
* UW and UNC had 1 effective tie, 2008, when UW was 5 and UNC was 4
Since 2003 UW had 5 top 10 finishes, UNC had 4.
No shame in saying we were worse than UW. So was UNC. So has probably everyone save Duke. Give them their due, thy are having a great run.
So how come UW's top recruit doesn't have live broadcasts of their announcements? They are actually located in Wisconsin and have been a better program seasons than UNC.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 04, 2011, 11:01:48 AM
Every once a while, posters (mainly Chicos) will take a shot at MU but saying "UW has been better than last 10 years." The implication is MU has somehow failed because UW is better.
Here are some KenPom Rankings
Year UW MU UNC
2011 (a/0 Mar 3) 7 32 11
2010 9 33 60
2009 29 19 1
2008 5 11 4
2007 6 38 1
2006 48 28 8
2005 16 93 20
2004 5 80 10
2003 11 16 59
In order to have better than UW over the last several years, we would have to be better than UNC.
* UW has had 5 better years than UNC (2011, 2010, 2005, 2004, 2003)
* UW had 3 worse years than UNC (2009, 2007, 2006) In 2007 UW was 6 and UNC was one ... is that really "worse"?
* UW and UNC had 1 effective tie, 2008, when UW was 5 and UNC was 4
Since 2003 UW had 5 top 10 finishes, UNC had 4.
No shame in saying we were worse than UW. So was UNC. So has probalby everyone save Duke. Give them their due, thy are having a great run.
So how come UW's top recruit doesn't have live broadcasts of their announcements? They are actually located in Wisconsin and have been a better program than UNC.
Did they make it to the Elite 8 in that run once? You realize UNC won 2 National Championships in that time, right? Or that in 03, 04, and 05, all years where UW finished "better" than UNC, Roy Williams wasn't at UNC, right? So they have really finished higher than them in 1 year, last year, and are currently higher than them but very well may not be when they bow out in the 2nd round like they always do. Good try though.
Yikes.
I can't imagine a single objective observer - including Ken Pomeroy - arguing that Wisconson is a better basketball program than UNC.
Making said argument based exclusively on Pomeroy ratings - while ignoring trivial considerations like Final Fours, championships, players sent to the NBA, national attention, tradition, etc. - is ridiculous.
Quote from: wadesworld on March 04, 2011, 11:04:53 AM
Did they make it to the Elite 8 in that run once? You realize UNC won 2 National Championships in that time, right? Or that in 03, 04, and 05, all years where UW finished "better" than UNC, Roy Williams wasn't at UNC, right? So they have really finished higher than them in 1 year, last year, and are currently higher than them but very well may not be when they bow out in the 2nd round like they always do. Good try though.
You changed the question to who did better in the NCAA tourney. That is another way of looking at it.
I answered who had a overall better season over the last several years, regardless of coach, using KenPom data.
I'm trying to show how well UW was doing in the last several years so when Chicos takes a shot at us by saying "UW is better" that by this measure UW was also better than UNC.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 04, 2011, 11:12:58 AM
Yikes.
I can't imagine a single objective observer - including Ken Pomeroy - arguing that Wisconson is a better basketball program than UNC.
Making said argument based exclusively on Pomeroy ratings - while ignoring trivial considerations like Final Fours, championships, players sent to the NBA, national attention, tradition, etc. - is ridiculous.
So the data doesn't give you the conclusion you want so we should keep changing the parameters until it does?
I base a team's success of off NCAA Tournament results.
So why get all worked up about our 18 - 12 record? As long as we get in, this is just a giant preseason.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 04, 2011, 11:15:24 AM
So the data doesn't give you the conclusion you want so we should keep changing the parameters until it does?
So wait .... are you suggesting championships, tournament success, national standing, players in the NBA, etc. are not relevant factors in determining whether one program is better than another?
You really can't be serious.....Ken Pom numbers determining that UW is a better team than UNC?
Actually Roy was at UNC for 2003-2004 and played with a team mostly inherited from Matt Doherty's failed tenure as HC... that said the very next year in 2005 he won the National championship with many of those players plus a few of his own like Marvin Williams.
His UNC resume follows:
2003–2004 North Carolina 19–11 8–8 6th NCAA 2nd Round
2004–2005 North Carolina 33–4 14–2 1st NCAA Champions
2005–2006 North Carolina 23–8 12–4 2nd NCAA 2nd Round
2006–2007 North Carolina 31–7 11–5 T-1st NCAA Elite Eight
2007–2008 North Carolina 36–3 14–2 1st NCAA Final Four
2008–2009 North Carolina 34–4 13–3 1st NCAA Champions
UNC has played with 13 NEW players since the 2009 NC team....no other coach at any major program has had to replace 13 players in two years due to graduation, leaving for draft or transfer. This year's team is very young....two true freshmen are starting along with two sophomores and a junior. The first two people off the bench are another true freshman and sophomore.
2009–2010 North Carolina 20-17 5-11 T-9th NIT Runner-Up
2010–2011 North Carolina 23-6 13-2 1st
During that tenure I'd put the competition top to bottom, day in and day out in the ACC ahead of the Big 10.....look at the two routs over the Big Ten's best MSU in 2009 including the national championship game if you need more proof. This year was admittedly a down year for the ACC but the historically good teams are very young but talented....look for the league to be much tougher next year.
To me the word program encompasses a team entire body of work, including everything Pakuni mentioned.
Roy Williams > Bo Ryan
UNC History > Wisconsin History
UNC BBall Alums > UW BBall Alums
UNC Championships > UW Championships
UNC passes the eye test a to a greater degree that UW.
like Chicos said, UNC is basketball Blue Blood, while I don't really understand the cliche, I agree with him. UNC is a top tier program.
You cats are are missing the big picture. It's not about the program or school per se. Tokoto and his camp decided that UNC and Roy gives him the best shot at makin' a kazillion dollars in the Association. End of story.
I never said "program" that evolved out of later posts. I compared the final end of seasons rankings and over the last 9 years, on balance UW has had better seasons than UNC. Not hard to understand because it is straightforward and true.
Yes I think it's true. And my original point was the next time Chicos wants to take a shot at MU by saying "UW is better" I'm just pointing out that for MU to on balance have had better seasons than UW they would have also had to have better seasons than UNC over the last 9 years.
Better way to argue against his is to say I looked at the past, who will be better going forward? MU and UNC will be better next year. If Barnes stays at UNC, they could be preseason #1 next year. If Taylor come out early at UW, and I think he will/should, UW is not a tourney team next year.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 04, 2011, 11:54:17 AM
I never said "program" that evolved out of later posts.
From your first post in this subject: "They are actually located in Wisconsin and have been a better program than UNC."
ok, I fixed it ... now everyone agrees with me?
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 04, 2011, 11:01:48 AM
Every once a while, posters (mainly Chicos) will take a shot at MU but saying "UW has been better than last 10 years." The implication is MU has somehow failed because UW is better.
No, the implication is not that MU has failed. That's your defensive Radar going up. If Miss Texas loses to Miss California, is Miss Texas a failure or is she still a hot ass?
The fact of the matter is, under ANY MEASUREMENT, UW has been more successful than MU since 2000. That does NOT mean MU has failed....you went there, not me.
Secondly, UW has certainly been more consistent year in and year out than UNC...in that time period. It all comes down to what you judge....is the NCAA Tournament considered separate..a crapshoot? Or are you putting all the eggs into that tournament? That will determine a lot of where this discussion goes.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 04, 2011, 12:33:39 PM
No, the implication is not that MU has failed. That's your defensive Radar going up. If Miss Texas loses to Miss California, is Miss Texas a failure or is she still a hot ass?
The fact of the matter is, under ANY MEASUREMENT, UW has been more successful than MU since 2000. That does NOT mean MU has failed....you went there, not me.
Who cares about UW or UNC. I am far more concerned with MU. Way to many MU fans are hung up on UW. I could care less about UW. they are in the same state, that is about all both schools have in common. Way to much wisconsin obbsession.
And Chicos, I agree with you. No question UW has been more successful for a long time, both head to head historically and in respective league and post season play.
They are a rival, and thus we pay attention to them. It's never good when your rival is doing better than you, especially when we are spending a crap load more money on basketball than they are and supposedly recruiting better both quantity and quality. I think it's an important discussion to have and ask why we aren't getting the same ROI.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 04, 2011, 01:08:06 PM
They are a rival, and thus we pay attention to them. It's never good when your rival is doing better than you, especially when we are spending a crap load more money on basketball than they are and supposedly recruiting better both quantity and quality. I think it's an important discussion to have and ask why we aren't getting the same ROI.
We had several threads about money. Functionally their is no way to tell how much money a team with a football program spends on basketball. They can divide common costs any way they want and they all do it differently. And they have a lot of overlap.
So we really don't know what UW or most schools actually spend. We don't know if it is more or less than MU.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 04, 2011, 01:08:06 PM
They are a rival, and thus we pay attention to them. It's never good when your rival is doing better than you, especially when we are spending a crap load more money on basketball than they are and supposedly recruiting better both quantity and quality. I think it's an important discussion to have and ask why we aren't getting the same ROI.
There's the type of Chico post that we've all come to love! Let's all please take a step back and not turn this into another "Chicos vs the world" thread. Please...pretty please...with sugar on top.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 04, 2011, 11:54:17 AM
I never said "program" that evolved out of later posts. I compared the final end of seasons rankings and over the last 9 years, on balance UW has had better seasons than UNC. Not hard to understand because it is straightforward and true.
If you want to completely discount post-season success, specifically winning National Championships, then you could argue that UW has been better than UNC over the past 9 regular season based on Kenpom figures. However, I don't understand why anyone would want to throw out championships when comparing the success rates of two teams. For example, the Bears had a better regular season record than the Packers this past season. Would you then make the case that the Bears were more successful than the Super Bowl Champions?
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on March 04, 2011, 01:26:33 PM
There's the type of Chico post that we've all come to love! Let's all please take a step back and not turn this into another "Chicos vs the world" thread. Please...pretty please...with sugar on top.
Thought it was a fair question. I agree with Another that dollars can be hidden in terms of what goes to football and basketball, etc. However, they all have their own budgets and budgets can certainly be shared. All that being said, we do not hide from the fact that we put major dollars into our basketball program...it's something we're proud of. It shows our level of interest, our commitment to the game. That's a positive.
It's never going to be an apples to apples comparison...different conferences, different schedules, state school vs private school, urban vs "semi-urban", religious vs public, etc, I think we all get that, but that doesn't change the reality they have great consistency, tremendous results in a power conference with less talent (quantity and quality). I hate their style, I think Bo is a prick (but a great coach) but I respect what they do and how they do it.
I hope we can get to a place where we are that consistent.
That's the point of this entire thread ... as I said in the first post ...
No shame in saying we were worse than UW. So was UNC. So has probably everyone save Duke. Give them their due, thy are having a great run.
Chicos, you're taking the negative ... what's wrong with us that we cannot get UW post 2000 results.
Praise UW, don't bash MU.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 04, 2011, 12:33:39 PM
No, the implication is not that MU has failed. That's your defensive Radar going up. If Miss Texas loses to Miss California, is Miss Texas a failure or is she still a hot ass?
The fact of the matter is, under ANY MEASUREMENT, UW has been more successful than MU since 2000. That does NOT mean MU has failed....you went there, not me.
I wish I had $100 for every "UW has been more successful than MU since 2000" post you have made. You state it over and over and over again as if it has been a major controversy on the board. Who exactly are you arguing with? A poll on the subject would be virtually unanimous with the exception of people who just wanted to pull your chain - okay, so maybe a poll would be skewed towards inaccuracy and isn't a good idea. But what say we get off the past and talk about the future.
Your position on Bo Ryan is clear. He's a hall of fame coach who has won and will continue to win at an outstanding rate as long as he coaches. His system has and will continue to thrive and overcome whatever perceived talent deficiencies his players have. Your position on Buzz is much more confusing. You originally considered him to be one of the worst 45 coaches in D1 basketball. Your feelings now are a more mixed, wait and see, so far so "kinda" good, but he's certainly a far cry from St. Bo.
Given all that, I'm willing to offer you the opportunity of a lifetime. Beginning next year, you can have the hall of famer and his team for the remainder of his tenure vs Buzz and the Warriors over that same span. We can bet whatever number you're comfortable with, and at the conclusion of the wager (whenever Bo retires or Buzz is canned or quits, whichever comes first) I'll let YOU determine which program was better over that span and therefore who won the bet.
Pretty sweet, no? You get a guy who will win every year and I get a huge ? coaching in college basketball's toughest conference. AND I let you decide who wins the bet at its conclusion. I'll hang up and wait for your answer.
Seriously, this is a complete waste of time. I saw a number of people claiming this while surveying the UW Scout board last night. "Our coach is better, we win more games, we are a better program, JP is an idiot for going there..."
Then one UW fan came out with this gem that really summed it all up, and accurately, at that:
"In the past six years, UNC has won two championships. NATIONAL championships. There really is no comparison."
UW cannot hold UNC's jock. A few seasons of being considered the top 10 by Pomeroy does not put them over the history and tradition that is UNC hoops, a program that wins at least one championship per decade since the 70s. How many Final Fours do the Badgers have since Roy got his three with UNC? How many national titles do they have? I'm sorry, but anyone insinuating this is simply ignorant of this little thing called reality.
UW isn't better than UNC. UW isn't equal to UNC. UW isn't even remotely in UNC's zip code. If they manage to go to 4 final fours in the next 10 years and win two championships, they STILL won't be the equivalent of UNC. If they manage to go to 10 Final Fours and win 5 national championships in the next 25 years, they'll only just be STARTING to get to that level. UNC is a true college basketball blue blood. Like Kansas. Like Kentucky. Like Duke. Like UCLA. Honestly, UW isn't even the equivalent of Indiana. Both Badger fans and Marquette fans may hate to hear it, but schools like that are simply on a different level, and even a decade-long layoff won't be enough to put some formerly crappy school with a pleasant little run like UW has had for the past 15 or so years doesn't change that.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 04, 2011, 11:54:17 AM
And my original point was the next time Chicos wants to take a shot at MU by saying "UW is better" I'm just pointing out that for MU to on balance have had better seasons than UW they would have also had to have better seasons than UNC over the last 9 years.
You need to put Chico's on ignore.
It looks like you are just making up stuff to be mad at him about.
UW has been consistently better than MU. It hurts me to say it, but it's true. Oh the horror. I must hate MU, right?
Chico's has said some douchy stuff, but this ain't one of them.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 04, 2011, 12:33:39 PM
If Miss Texas loses to Miss California, is Miss Texas a failure or is she still a hot ass?
Miss Texas (left) vs. Miss California (right)
(http://esocialworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/ashleymelnickmissgrapevineswimsuit.jpg)(http://img3.allvoices.com/thumbs/event/598/486/70753413-arianna-afsar.jpg)
84 --- answer me this:
In 2003 Marquette was ranked lower than UW, however MU went on to the final four that year. Would you still state that UW had a better year that year?
Numbers are numbers, I get it you're a stat guy, But you can't tell me honestly that UW had a better year that year! Doesn't pass the eyeball test.
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 04, 2011, 02:20:56 PM
Seriously, this is a complete waste of time. I saw a number of people claiming this while surveying the UW Scout board last night. "Our coach is better, we win more games, we are a better program, JP is an idiot for going there..."
Their coach is better? How many final fours did Roy take Kansas to after he took over when they were on probation?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 04, 2011, 02:03:36 PM
I wish I had $100 for every "UW has been more successful than MU since 2000" post you have made. You state it over and over and over again as if it has been a major controversy on the board. Who exactly are you arguing with? A poll on the subject would be virtually unanimous with the exception of people who just wanted to pull your chain - okay, so maybe a poll would be skewed towards inaccuracy and isn't a good idea. But what say we get off the past and talk about the future.
Apparently it is because whenever I say it there seems to be a rush of people that are in denial and don't agree.
Based on a search of the last three years, you would have $900 in your pocket....don't spend it all in one place.
Quote from: MikeyT42 on March 04, 2011, 04:09:07 PM
84 --- answer me this:
In 2003 Marquette was ranked lower than UW, however MU went on to the final four that year. Would you still state that UW had a better year that year?
Numbers are numbers, I get it you're a stat guy, But you can't tell me honestly that UW had a better year that year! Doesn't pass the eyeball test.
I completely understand what you're saying and I assume you're saying KenPom is not wrong.
All I'm trying to say is UW has had seasons better (or I'll give you "on Par") with UNC for several years now. So when Chicos tries to bash MU by saying "we are not as good as UW" we would have to consistently be a top 10 team to have been better than UW over the last several years ... something even UNC could not do. Yes, Chicos, you say this over and over to bash MU.
That said, this is a look at the past. I think UW good run ends now, especially if Taylor comes out earlier (he should). They are an NIT team next year. We could be a ranked team next year and UNC could be #1.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 04, 2011, 04:14:49 PMTheir coach is better? How many final fours did Roy take Kansas to after he took over when they were on probation?
It was simply ridiculous. You'd think that he had went to play for Centenary when he had an offer from John Wooden's UCLA on the table. The delusion on the Badger Scout board the other night was probably the most complete I've ever seen in my life.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on March 04, 2011, 03:03:00 PM
Miss Texas (left) vs. Miss California (right)
(http://esocialworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/ashleymelnickmissgrapevineswimsuit.jpg)(http://img3.allvoices.com/thumbs/event/598/486/70753413-arianna-afsar.jpg)
Chicos can do better than either of these two.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 04, 2011, 01:44:57 PM
That's the point of this entire thread ... as I said in the first post ...
No shame in saying we were worse than UW. So was UNC. So has probably everyone save Duke. Give them their due, thy are having a great run.
Chicos, you're taking the negative ... what's wrong with us that we cannot get UW post 2000 results.
Praise UW, don't bash MU.
I'm taking the reality. It's funny how many people juxtapose negative with reality. The economy sucks balls...is this negative or reality? James Franco was a poor host for the Academy Awards...negative or reality?
What's wrong with us that we can't get post UW 2000 results? Maybe we will get there...we're working on what, 6 straight NCAA appearances? That's quite good, which is why I take exception to you saying I believe MU is failing. I do not, but I do think UW-madison is performing better year in and year out.
Here would be my initial list of why we have trailed them in this century
- We seem to not have an identity. I know exactly what Wisconsin hoops is and will always be under that coach....everyone in the country knows. For MU, it changes year to year and that can be problematic in terms of recruiting, teaching, etc. What is our identity?
- We have too many transfers this decade under both Crean and Buzz....lack of stability
- My belief is we need more 4 year players because that leads to more stability
- We have no Chicago area kids right now on the roster which is a bit troubling
- Both head coaches have missed on some recruits that we landed and turned out not to be that good
- I worry about our Midwest recruiting base. Our "Texas connection" goes away when Buzz goes away...are we maintaining strong enough in-roads in the Midwest where our natural recruiting base is?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 04, 2011, 04:26:30 PM
Here would be my initial list of why we have trailed them in this century
- We seem to not have an identity. I know exactly what Wisconsin hoops is and will always be under that coach....everyone in the country knows. For MU, it changes year to year and that can be problematic in terms of recruiting, teaching, etc. What is our identity?
This was the case. It was Crean's fault (a problem he is having with IU as well). Buzz is creating an identity (athletic switchables). But I'll give you that UW has one of the strongest identities in country ... slow and white.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 04, 2011, 04:26:30 PM
- We have too many transfers this decade under both Crean and Buzz....lack of stability
Welcome to 2011. 600 kids transferred this year, a record, broke the record of last year. 40% of Freshman transferred according to Jay Bilas.
It's a fact of life that affects a number of teams ... even final four teams.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 04, 2011, 04:26:30 PM
- My belief is we need more 4 year players because that leads to more stability
Haven't this been covered a thousand times already? Buzz needed to balance the classes. Done. Next year has no Jucos so far. This you're wrong about becuase Jucos filled an immediate need.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 04, 2011, 04:26:30 PM
- We have no Chicago area kids right now on the roster which is a bit troubling
When did Chicago become a must for this team? I guess the good take away from this is your not bashing Buzz over letting Wisconsin kids get away as that does not seem to be the case anymore.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 04, 2011, 04:26:30 PM
- Both head coaches have missed on some recruits that we landed and turned out not to be that good
Their are 345 D1 schools and I'm going to guess that has happened at 345 schools.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 04, 2011, 04:26:30 PM
- I worry about our Midwest recruiting base. Our "Texas connection" goes away when Buzz goes away...are we maintaining strong enough in-roads in the Midwest where our natural recruiting base is?
Time will tell.
First I agree UW has been better then MU during the Crean years and Buzz Years. Using rankings and records are misleading since the BEast has definitely been the strongest conference in the country since Buzz has been at the reigns and some of Creans years. If UW was in the BEast they would have another 3 or 3 losses if not more. They dont have the scoring depth to battle the BEast schedule. So using records when in different conferences is not a true comparison. Takes more of an overall view and then an open minded do they pass the smell test.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 04, 2011, 04:15:17 PM
Apparently it is because whenever I say it there seems to be a rush of people that are in denial and don't agree.
Based on a search of the last three years, you would have $900 in your pocket....don't spend it all in one place.
So please point out this "rush of people" in this thread who are in denial and don't agree with you.
Still waiting for you to accept my offer and name your number on our wager.
Quote from: muball on March 04, 2011, 04:57:33 PMFirst I agree UW has been better then MU during the Crean years and Buzz Years. Using rankings and records are misleading since the BEast has definitely been the strongest conference in the country since Buzz has been at the reigns and some of Creans years. If UW was in the BEast they would have another 3 or 3 losses if not more. They dont have the scoring depth to battle the BEast schedule. So using records when in different conferences is not a true comparison. Takes more of an overall view and then an open minded do they pass the smell test.
UW is 18-1 against teams 51+ in the RPI, and only 5-5 against teams in the top 50. In conference play, they are 9-1 against teams that are 51+, whereas Marquette is 5-0 in such games. Give them another 5 games against top teams and you would probably add another 2-3 losses to their resume, especially when you consider that Bo's teams are only 2-4 against the Big East in the past 4 seasons, with both wins coming against Marquette.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 04, 2011, 04:40:27 PM
This was the case. It was Crean's fault (a problem he is having with IU as well). Buzz is creating an identity (athletic switchables). Is this a good identity to have? A bunch of guys that all do the same thing? Do we have any defensive specialists? Any outstanding point guards? Several consistent outside shooters?
But I'll give you that UW has one of the strongest identities in country ... slow and white...you forgot...winners...and smart basketball IQ...and solid defense...and solid rebounders...and consistent as hell...and never lose at home....
Welcome to 2011. 600 kids transferred this year, a record, broke the record of last year. 40% of Freshman transferred according to Jay Bilas.
It's a fact of life that affects a number of teams ... even final four teams. Doesn't affect Wisconsin nearly to the same level, that's why I said in comparison to THEM, they have an advantage. Their kids rarely leave.
Haven't this been covered a thousand times already? Buzz needed to balance the classes. Done. Next year has no Jucos so far. This you're wrong about becuase Jucos filled an immediate need. He's looking at more JUCOS right now. I don't think he's able to get off the JUCO love and we'll continue to have more JUCOs than the average top 40 team and certainly more than the team I was comparing us to...wasn't that what this exercise was about...comparing us to UW-madison? Since when can't freshmen high school kids fit an immediate need? What is this love affair that ONLY JUCO players can?
When did Chicago become a must for this team? I guess the good take away from this is your not bashing Buzz over letting Wisconsin kids get away as that does not seem to be the case anymore. Marquette has had a strong Chicago connection through many years in this program. It's a bit startling that we have no one on the roster from the Chicago area where this once was a main recruiting enclave for us.
Their are 345 D1 schools and I'm going to guess that has happened at 345 schools.
Time will tell.
Quote from: Doris Burkes Thong on March 04, 2011, 04:25:37 PM
Chicos can do better than either of these two.
Nah, but at least I recognize them both as good looking. JayBee would still be vacillating on that decision.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 04, 2011, 05:02:54 PM
So please point out this "rush of people" in this thread who are in denial and don't agree with you.
Still waiting for you to accept my offer and name your number on our wager.
In this thread? No. In other threads over the last few years...plenty. What offer and wager...I skim through your stuff nowadays if I bother to read it at all.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 04, 2011, 05:24:07 PM
In this thread? No. In other threads over the last few years...plenty. What offer and wager...I skim through your stuff nowadays if I bother to read it at all.
Skim through? That's pretty funny. You already replied to part of the post that contains my offer.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 04, 2011, 05:39:44 PM
Skim through? That's pretty funny. You already replied to part of the post that contains my offer.
LOL...the exact definition of skimming, ace...I read PART of your post and replied to that PART. That's skimming.
So what's your bet and offer because I obviously didn't skim THAT PART....which is exactly what I said in the first place.
rocky' edit: remove pic
About the whole 600 kids transfer statistic....they don't leave the good programs...the stable programs...anywhere near the rate that they leave the bad programs with the sucky coach that just got fired.
The fact is, we need to recruit kids that don't leave. Will they occasionally? Of course. However Buzz has had way too many. We have had eight players who either transferred, or who have signed LOIs here and never played, who are no longer with the program less than three years of when Buzz took over. That isn't good and needs to stop if we expect to have long-term stability.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on March 04, 2011, 03:03:00 PM
Miss Texas (left) vs. Miss California (right)
(http://esocialworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/ashleymelnickmissgrapevineswimsuit.jpg)(http://img3.allvoices.com/thumbs/event/598/486/70753413-arianna-afsar.jpg)
I'm figuring' BeeJay doesn't think either one is the tits.
All you need to know to understand.....
http://sports.espn.go.com/travel/news/story?id=6062971
Be sure to check the photo gallery embedded in the article
Then there's this:
http://sports.espn.go.com/travel/news/story?id=3881951
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 04, 2011, 09:40:02 PM
About the whole 600 kids transfer statistic....they don't leave the good programs...the stable programs...anywhere near the rate that they leave the bad programs with the sucky coach that just got fired.
The fact is, we need to recruit kids that don't leave. Will they occasionally? Of course. However Buzz has had way too many. We have had eight players who either transferred, or who have signed LOIs here and never played, who are no longer with the program less than three years of when Buzz took over. That isn't good and needs to stop if we expect to have long-term stability.
Nice Rationalization ....
Just this year, Are these stable programs? I see a lot more Georgetown, UCLA, Kentucky and UNC (a lot!) on this year's list than MU.
Name Pos Ht/Wt Year To From
Omar Wattad F 6-5/225 Jr Chattanooga Georgetown
Olek Czyz PF 6-7/240 So Nevada Duke
Quintrell Thomas PF 6-8/245 So UNLV Kansas
Drew Gordon PF 6-9/245 Jr New Mexico UCLA
Diamond Taylor SG 6-4/175 Fr Southern Ill. Wisconsin
Kevin Galloway F 6-7/215 Sr Texas Southern Kentucky
Scottie Haralson SG 6-4/220 So Tulsa Connecticut
Nikita Meshcharakov PF 6-7/215 Jr Wake Forest Georgetown
Twany Beckham SG 6-5/195 Mississippi State Kentucky
Darnell Dodson SG 6-7/215 Kentucky Southern Mississippi
Reggie Smith PG 6-0/175 Marquette UNLV
David Wear PF 6-10/225 North Carolina UCLA
Travis Wear PF 6-10/220 North Carolina UCLA
Jamil Wilson SF 6-7/210 Oregon Marquette
Matt Carlino SG 6-1/170 BYU UCLA
Larry Drew PG 6-2/180 ???? North Carolina
Will Graves SF 6-6/235 ???? North Carolina
Korie Lucious PG 5-11/170 Iowa State Michigan State
Shawn Williams SF 6-6/225 Texas Southern Methodist
AddWhy did Buzz keep "playing nice" with Tokoto even after he knew he was not coming to MU? Because 40% transfer, even from UNC and as I wrote in another thread, their is a 40% chance he transfers (40% chance everyone transfers). It's the way the world works now.
Wow. UNC with 4 transfers in 6 months? Is there any place more "unstable"? How could Tokoto possibly opt for a program like that?
So of the "600 transfers per year," you pick out 20 from stable programs that is that supposed to prove something? And if you subtract that ones that occured with a coaching change or because the kid got suspended, it is even less.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 05, 2011, 08:42:58 AM
So of the "600 transfers per year," you pick out 20 from stable programs that is that supposed to prove something? And if you subtract that ones that occured with a coaching change or because the kid got suspended, it is even less.
You said,
they don't leave the good programs...the stable programs...anywhere near the rate that they leave the bad programs with the sucky coach that just got fired.So unless you consider Kentucky, UCLA, Georgetown and UNC bad programs, this statement is wrong.
You're using a dated idea of how the college basketball world works. Welcome to 2011 where kids transfer like we change underwear. It says nothing about the programs, it's just the way the world works now. So, your highlighted statement above is a dated perception of what transferring means.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 05, 2011, 08:42:58 AM
So of the "600 transfers per year," you pick out 20 from stable programs that is that supposed to prove something? And if you subtract that ones that occured with a coaching change or because the kid got suspended, it is even less.
It just shows that we are no more or less stable than these programs. Sure, Maymon, Mbao, and Smith left. It happens, and not just to us but
to plenty of top schools. And did I miss the coaching change at UNC, Duke, or Kentucky? All he's saying is that we're not in dire straits.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 05, 2011, 08:59:14 AM
You said, they don't leave the good programs...the stable programs...anywhere near the rate that they leave the bad programs with the sucky coach that just got fired.
So unless you consider Kentucky, UCLA, Georgetown and UNC bad programs, this statement is wrong.
You're using a dated idea of how the college basketball world works. Welcome to 2011 where kids transfer like we change underwear. It says nothing about the programs, it's just the way the world works now. So, your highlighted statement above is a dated perception of what transferring means.
Is Wisconsin a good program...what's their transfer rate? Go through your data over the last 10 years and I'll bet you find many other good programs with far less transfers. Good for you that you found some that had some transfers, that's not the whole story though is it?
Secondly, is it any wonder UNC has struggled the last few years...when you're stable you tend to do better. When you're having to constantly replace players with new players, you have a greater chance to skip a beat.
I'll bet over the long haul Sultan is right and the transfer rates at the good, stable programs are lower. You can't just pick one year and claim this is the norm. Doesn't work that way.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 05, 2011, 08:42:58 AM
So of the "600 transfers per year," you pick out 20 from stable programs that is that supposed to prove something? And if you subtract that ones that occured with a coaching change or because the kid got suspended, it is even less.
With all due respect, Sultan, at least 84 attempted to provide some data - which is out there for all to see - supporting his side of the debate. You, on the other hand, offered a blanket statement, i.e. "transfers don't leave good, stable programs" yet provided no support for that whatsoever. Maybe 600 names is a bit much to go through, but shouldn't you at least try to support your claim?
I don't think anyone here is arguing that a large number of transfers is a great thing. But if you're going to claim they only - or mostly - occur at bad, unstable programs, try to back it up, rather than mocking those who at least make an effort. Who knows, you may be able to prove yourself correct.
What we can say for sure is that last year alone, about 125 programs - more than a third Division I teams - had multiple players transfer. These included good, stable programs (that didn't undergo a coaching change) such as UNC, Wisconsin, UCLA, UConn, Michigan State, Missouri, Illinois, Gonzaga, Florida and Washington.
Make of it what you will, but transfers - and yes, multiple transfers - are not necessarily a reflection of significant upheaval.
I do find it ironic that some of the same people here defending transfers were so up in arms about transfers in the previous administration. Interesting to say the least.
I'm guessing you weren't up in arms about the transfers under the previous administration - even defended them? Yet now you think they're abominable and tow the UW party line on every controversial issue? Interesting to say the least?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 05, 2011, 10:10:25 AM
I do find it ironic that some of the same people here defending transfers were so up in arms about transfers in the previous administration. Interesting to say the least.
Who might that be?
And I find it ironic that you, of all people, would point out that irony.
Quote from: Jamailman on March 05, 2011, 10:18:24 AM
I'm guessing you weren't up in arms about the transfers under the previous administration - even defended them? Yet now you think they're abominable and tow the UW party line on every controversial issue? Interesting to say the least?
Tow the UW party line...you make it sound like I'm a fan of theirs. Good grief, I think UW fans can tell you I despise them. That doesn't mean I can't recognize that their stability, consistency, style of play has led to them being an incredible program.
Did I defend some transfers in the past..yup, sure did. Did I also say that transfers under Buzz AND Crean lead to instability...yup, sure did. I've criticized
both.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 05, 2011, 10:24:12 AM
Who might that be?
And I find it ironic that you, of all people, would point out that irony.
Who might that be....really Pakuni? Really?
Remember, according to you, someone can't change their mind and their beliefs apparently burned into their souls at a certain age never to be altered again...I'm exaggerating, of course, but you've often questioned people here that come to new conclusions over the years. Ironic..yes. Am I one of those people...yup. I've admitted it, as well.
Would you like some of those references...happy to dig them up for you, but it will be later today. I'm off to my son's Little League game...big game early in the season against the Yankees and the two undefeated teams remaining. Need to figure out how we're going to beat a squad with three sons of former NFL players on it....these 12 year olds are the size of 16 year olds. Should be fun.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 05, 2011, 10:06:55 AM
Maybe 600 names is a bit much to go through, but shouldn't you at least try to support your claim?
What we can say for sure is that last year alone, about 125 programs - more than a third Division I teams - had multiple players transfer. These included good, stable programs (that didn't undergo a coaching change) such as UNC, Wisconsin, UCLA, UConn, Michigan State, Missouri, Illinois, Gonzaga, Florida and Washington.
Make of it what you will, but transfers - and yes, multiple transfers - are not necessarily a reflection of significant upheaval.
600 came from article by Jay Bilas about two months ago (which I cannot find at the moment). He noted that each of the last three years has set a new record. So, Chicos, your argument about the last 10 years is not the correct way to look at it. Bilas said the world changed about 3 to 5 years ago and now transfers occur at all levels all the time. Need to look at the last 5 years and you'll see plenty of transfers at any school you look at.
This is based on all 345 D1 schools so that averaged about 1.5 per school per year. And as you point out 125 had multiple transfers (which is at least 250).
I think we're getting it that transfers are the "new normal."
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 05, 2011, 08:14:30 AM
Wow. UNC with 4 transfers in 6 months? Is there any place more "unstable"? How could Tokoto possibly opt for a program like that?
The list is incorrect...UNC has had three transfers...Will Graves is not a transfer, he was cut from the team by Roy for violating team rules. He had been suspended by Roy in 2009 also for violating rules, came back last year and got strike three this year. Speculation is that the kid liked the wacky tobaccy too much....
Larry Drew's recent departure has been the best thing to happen in terms of team chemistry and success on the court.....they've lost one game since freshman Kendall Marshall replaced him as the starting point guard. As to negatives, it leaves them with depth issues especially since F Reggie Bullock is finished for the year with a knee injury.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 05, 2011, 10:33:35 AM
Who might that be....really Pakuni? Really?
Remember, according to you, someone can't change their mind and their beliefs apparently burned into their souls at a certain age never to be altered again...I'm exaggerating, of course, but you've often questioned people here that come to new conclusions over the years. Ironic..yes. Am I one of those people...yup. I've admitted it, as well.
Would you like some of those references...happy to dig them up for you, but it will be later today. I'm off to my son's Little League game...big game early in the season against the Yankees and the two undefeated teams remaining. Need to figure out how we're going to beat a squad with three sons of former NFL players on it....these 12 year olds are the size of 16 year olds. Should be fun.
Really, Chico's, really.
And yes, I've frequently stated that people can never change their minds and their beliefs are burned into their souls from childhood. It's long been my motto. In fact, I have it tattooed across my back. I'll send you a jpeg some time.
I do find it interesting, however, that your philosophical change on transfers happened to coincide with a coaching change that didn't go the way you wanted.
If only Cottingham had listened to Chico's and made a strong play for Keno Davis or Tony Bennett ...
Quote from: texaswarrior74 on March 05, 2011, 10:40:32 AM
The list is incorrect...UNC has had three transfers...Will Graves is not a transfer, he was cut from the team by Roy for violating team rules. He had been suspended by Roy in 2009 also for violating rules, came back last year and got strike three this year. Speculation is that the kid liked the wacky tobaccy too much....
Graves is leaving and going to another school. That is the definition of a transfer. I'm sure they all have individual reasons but issue here is the number of transfers and if they reflect poorly on a school. I say no because EVERYONE has them ... including UNC.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 05, 2011, 10:10:25 AM
I do find it ironic that some of the same people here defending transfers were so up in arms about transfers in the previous administration. Interesting to say the least.
Other than yourself, who are these people who are/were "up in arms" about tranfers in one administration and okay with it in another? Irony, indeed.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 05, 2011, 08:59:14 AM
You said, they don't leave the good programs...the stable programs...anywhere near the rate that they leave the bad programs with the sucky coach that just got fired.
So unless you consider Kentucky, UCLA, Georgetown and UNC bad programs, this statement is wrong.
Really? Posting a few kids who transfer from top programs means that they transfer "at the same rate?" Do you understand what "at the same rate" means???
Quote from: Pakuni on March 05, 2011, 10:06:55 AM
With all due respect, Sultan, at least 84 attempted to provide some data - which is out there for all to see - supporting his side of the debate. You, on the other hand, offered a blanket statement, i.e. "transfers don't leave good, stable programs"
You snipped my quote too early...I said good stable programs *at the same rate.* Transfers happen. 8 transfers in less than three years don't happen at good, stable programs.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 05, 2011, 12:48:46 PM
Really? Posting a few kids who transfer from top programs means that they transfer "at the same rate?" Do you understand what "at the same rate" means???
You snipped my quote too early...I said good stable programs *at the same rate.* Transfers happen. 8 transfers in less than three years don't happen at good, stable programs.
7 of those transfers were in the first two years of a new coach and 6 were "the other guy's players". That is fairly common and history. This year we have one transfer which is less than UNC, GU UCLA and Kentucky. And this does not even count the number of kids that come out early from these prgrams (see Kentucky last year). Add this in and UCLA, UNC and Kentucky typically turnover half their roster every year. By Sutlan's dated view of the world, these programs are highly unstable and should frequently lose.
Let give you the bottom line. Expect two transfers a year. We had one at mid-season. Expect another after the season ends. As long as it is two year or less, the program is stable. If it is more than two ince the coach has his own players (this year for Buzz), then we can ask if the program is unstable. But only then.
Again Sultan, welcome to 2011 when everyone has two transfers a year.
Seriously guys, there's lots of good basketball today - stop multitasking with the silly posts and pay attention to the games :)
Or, maybe think about MU's upcoming game today.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 05, 2011, 10:43:39 AM
Graves is leaving and going to another school. That is the definition of a transfer. I'm sure they all have individual reasons but issue here is the number of transfers and if they reflect poorly on a school. I say no because EVERYONE has them ... including UNC.
Actually he is not going to another school, he's playing pro ball in Japan right now.
If that's a transfer than every early entrant to the NBA is a transfer.
And the Wear twins were just that, twins. Obviously if one leaves, both leave.
Not complaining about Drew. His leaving put Carolina from on the bubble to Final Four contenders.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 05, 2011, 11:22:37 AM
Other than yourself, who are these people who are/were "up in arms" about tranfers in one administration and okay with it in another? Irony, indeed.
Lenny, I'll throw you a lifeline since you didn't join this board until January of 2009. I believe the previous administration lasted until about April 1st or 2nd of 1998. Posters that were around on that date and prior often were "up in arms" over transfers while these same posters are not today. I'm happy to provide you with a list of people, you know it's rather easy to do.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 09, 2011, 05:11:59 PM
Lenny, I'll throw you a lifeline since you didn't join this board until January of 2009. I believe the previous administration lasted until about April 1st or 2nd of 1998. Posters that were around on that date and prior often were "up in arms" over transfers while these same posters are not today. I'm happy to provide you with a list of people, you know it's rather easy to do.
I was a long time "lurker". I read Scout for a long time and started reading Scoop when I found out about it (can't recall exactly when that was). Maybe I'm wrong but I don't recall TC getting a ton of heat about transfers. Bottom line for me is this: one could make the argument that tranfers are more common and therefore more acceptable now, but I don't feel that way. I've always been ok with transfers - unhappy players should be able to look for a better fit and so should unhappy coaches.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 05, 2011, 09:16:24 AM
Is Wisconsin a good program...what's their transfer rate? Go through your data over the last 10 years and I'll bet you find many other good programs with far less transfers. Good for you that you found some that had some transfers, that's not the whole story though is it?
Secondly, is it any wonder UNC has struggled the last few years...when you're stable you tend to do better. When you're having to constantly replace players with new players, you have a greater chance to skip a beat.
I'll bet over the long haul Sultan is right and the transfer rates at the good, stable programs are lower. You can't just pick one year and claim this is the norm. Doesn't work that way.
I expect even the upper tier programs to struggle with transfers going forward for a few reasons
1. So many highly recruited kids today feel entitled to immediate playing time and being featured.
2. So many kids are delusional about their realistic chances to make the NBA, thus the first point flares up. I need to be playing right away coach or you're ruining my chances to be making millions in the association.
3. The AAU circuit is so big now with upper tier recruits. It feeds a lot of these kids minds even further into thinking they are extra special.
That's why i see the days being largely over where say a Dean Smith, Bobby Knight, or other elite coaches at top programs will be able to reel in 12 top recruits and be able to keep nearly all of them. To many top recruits today not only want to play right away, they feel entitled to playing right away. If they aren't appeased, they'll look for another program to grant their wishes.
As for why Bo has less transfers, i think that is clearly because of the type of kids he recruits. He doesn't sign many top 50ish kids. Most of his recruits as high school kids may have dreams in the back of their mind of making the NBA, but they aren't thinking it's a near sure thing i'll be in the association. He rarely is signing kids that all the top programs are after. Kids who have been told how great they are for ages and thus feel super entitled. He signs kids who often are not only not expecting immediate playing time, they'll accept being red-shirted. Those type of kids will be less inclined to transfer because they aren't starting as a freshman or playing the position they prefer.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 09, 2011, 05:31:59 PM
I was a long time "lurker". I read Scout for a long time and started reading Scoop when I found out about it (can't recall exactly when that was). Maybe I'm wrong but I don't recall TC getting a ton of heat about transfers. Bottom line for me is this: one could make the argument that tranfers are more common and therefore more acceptable now, but I don't feel that way. I've always been ok with transfers - unhappy players should be able to look for a better fit and so should unhappy coaches.
As i tried saying in the previous post, if a college coach today wants to recruit mainly from the pool of top 50-75 high school players each year, he's likely going to face a higher probability of more transfers compared to what went on in the past.
Just look at how major college recruiting is today in basketball/football compared to only say 10 years ago. Many of the elite recruits treat it like an event. Have big press conferences to announce where they'll be playing. Not only is there the high school season where college coaches fawn all over them, there is also the AAU circuit to further build up their egos.
I'd be curious if say the top 50 recruits were polled each year asking them if they thought that they'd end up in the NBA, how many not only would say yes to that, but how many thought they could be one and done guys?
FWIW, i don't begrudge teenagers from having dreams of ending up in the NBA. I also don't want to make it seem like upper tier recruits from 10-15-20 years ago never came into college ball with huge egos and thus expected immediate big roles as freshman. I just think that mentality has increased fairly significantly and the end result is it's lead to kids being quicker to transfer if their desires aren't being met in regards to playing time, what position they are asked to play, being featured, etc.
So that list showing transfers and some multiple transfers from elite programs i don't think will be an anomaly going forward. I expect it to be more common that abnormal, especially for programs who bring in lots of upper tier recruits because many of those kids simply won't be fine with waiting for their turn. The problem though for coaches is that in most cases, those are the kids they need to sign to win big and appease very impatient fan bases who are quick to pile on any coach who doesn't win every year.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 09, 2011, 05:31:59 PM
I was a long time "lurker". I read Scout for a long time and started reading Scoop when I found out about it (can't recall exactly when that was). Maybe I'm wrong but I don't recall TC getting a ton of heat about transfers. Bottom line for me is this: one could make the argument that tranfers are more common and therefore more acceptable now, but I don't feel that way. I've always been ok with transfers - unhappy players should be able to look for a better fit and so should unhappy coaches.
Crean got it all the time. "House Creaning" has been around for a long time. I would say that Crean didn't get it as bad earlier in his career so I think most posters weren't used to seeing transfers. I think after Crean people were looking for transfers more quickly and Buzz had that problem continued, hence "Buzz Cut."