MUScoop

After that mediocre perofrmance it is time to put out where we are headed:
~~UNC: 7 McDonald's All Americans; MU none
~~Buzz: An adequate job this year. Trending down, but next year is the final evaluation year. Lots of people want to throw big$$$ at him, but until he recruits some big time players, do not do it. Give him a 1 year extension with a little more juice and load the contract with incentives.
~~Post Play: We just made Zeller look like all world. We did that with Plumlee also. Otule is not the answer. He is a back up. Get that through your brain pattern. Gardner is the future. Buzz must get a Big/PF that has potential, to better our chances.
~~Cadougan and Gardner are the future, until Buzz lands some big time talent.
~~Recruiting: Next year's class has more switchables, and is not that highly regarded. If we want to comptete at the next level, Buzz better get his ass in gear, and get some big time post talent. We also need one down town shooter.
~~ Start scheduling better NC games to build for the next level.
~~PG: There is no problem with Cadougan--he can play in the open court, and will run the show for the next two years.
This year was very frustraing, but this game exposed all the weaknesses.

If UNC can have 7 McDonald's all americans, why can't we have one?

Did we just lose in the Sweet 16 of the NIT?

We were in the freaking Sweet 16.  That defines a frustrating season for you?  Would I like more?  Of course I would.  All but 1 team would like more at the end of the year.  But we were in the Sweet 16 this year.  One of the final 16 teams playing, out of 360+ Division 1 teams. You sound like we had the season DePaul did.

And believe me, I'm as frustrated as the next at how this game went, and I've been very hard on Buzz and some of the players this year.  But this was a successful year and I'm looking forward to the future (hopefully) with Buzz.

Quote from: willie warrior on March 25, 2011, 10:25:58 PM


If UNC can have 7 McDonald's all americans, why can't we have one?

Partly because to become a McDonald's All American they routinely look to where you signed to play ball.  If you choose Duke, UNC, UCLA, Kentucky, Kansas you suddenly seem to get honored as a McDonald's All American.  Or at least it seems this way.

You're delusional and possibly intoxicated.

Butler, DJO, Crowder and (potentially) Gardner are "big time players.

We made Zeller look all world because Otule is basically a freshman and Gardner IS a freshman, you boob. Our passing into the post was terrible. Otule will be a borderline force by the time he's a senior and if Gardner can control himself at the dinner table he'll be all Big East...maybe next year. Write that down.

Where do you get Cadougan is "the future?" I have to say, where we're lacking is at point guard. I like Junior and he seems like he's working to get better, but he's not a big time player. He cannot and is afraid to shoot, which is death. He was so over matched tonight is wasn't even funny.  We had some good looks, but my God we were over our head at the point guard position.

PS: McDonald's All Amercians are about as over rated as the Zack Greinke acquisition by the Brewers.



I read your post and I realize you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

took you long enough tonight wee willie.   ::)

Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on March 25, 2011, 10:40:38 PM
Where do you get Cadougan is "the future?" I have to say, where we're lacking is at point guard. I like Junior and he seems like he's working to get better, but he's not a big time player. He cannot and is afraid to shoot, which is death. He was so over matched tonight is wasn't even funny.  We had some good looks, but my God we were over our head at the point guard position.

Cadougan took 8 shots and scored 10 points in 20 minutes. 1 TO . he has become much more agressive and better defensively over the course of the season. We are set at point next year.

Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on March 25, 2011, 10:40:38 PM
Our passing into the post was terrible.

Our passing into the post is terrible when Chris Otule is in the post because the only passes he can catch are lob passes.  Throw it hard, he can't catch it.  Drive and dish, he can't catch it.  The thing that drove me nuts tonight is that we kept trying to feed him the ball when EVERY SINGLE TIME we did it was as good as a turnover.

The comments on the passes into our post players makes me realize there are many posters who have no idea what they're watching.

I agree the passes into the post weren't good at all, buta lot of that has to do with the fact that against a good aggressive big defense there are no passes that he can catch.  He is a terrible receiver of the ball.  I have spent a season watching him fumble basketballs put right into his lap for dunks and lay-ups and the only passes I have seen him catch are lobs when he knows they are coming.  We had less trouble getting the ball to Gardner when he was in there because they threw the ball harder to him.

Quote from: CTWarrior on March 25, 2011, 11:00:33 PM
I agree the passes into the post weren't good at all, buta lot of that has to do with the fact that against a good aggressive big defense there are no passes that he can catch.  He is a terrible receiver of the ball.  I have spent a season watching him fumble basketballs put right into his lap for dunks and lay-ups and the only passes I have seen him catch are lobs when he knows they are coming.  We had less trouble getting the ball to Gardner when he was in there because they threw the ball harder to him.

Can we argue about our post passing in ONE thread instead of TWO?

Quote from: warriors1991 on March 25, 2011, 11:01:35 PM
Can we argue about our post passing in ONE thread instead of TWO?

Fair enough.  I've got nothing to add anyway other than repeating myself.

Quote from: willie warrior on March 25, 2011, 10:25:58 PM
If UNC can have 7 McDonald's all americans, why can't we have one?

Because the last coach we had who had the ability to recruit players of that caliber was Al McGuire. And he's no longer available.

Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on March 25, 2011, 10:40:38 PM
You're delusional and possibly intoxicated.

Butler, DJO, Crowder and (potentially) Gardner are "big time players.

We made Zeller look all world because Otule is basically a freshman and Gardner IS a freshman, you boob. Our passing into the post was terrible. Otule will be a borderline force by the time he's a senior and if Gardner can control himself at the dinner table he'll be all Big East...maybe next year. Write that down.

Where do you get Cadougan is "the future?" I have to say, where we're lacking is at point guard. I like Junior and he seems like he's working to get better, but he's not a big time player. He cannot and is afraid to shoot, which is death. He was so over matched tonight is wasn't even funny.  We had some good looks, but my God we were over our head at the point guard position.

I completely agree with you about point guard. Cadougan has shown flashes of promise, but really good teams in college basketball need consistent PG play as much as any other thing. Erratic play at PG leads to erratic team play as much as any other factor in college ball and Cadougan was the definition of erratic most of the season.

Look at tonight. When everything is crashing down for a team, especially against a pressure defense with lots of length, it's vital to have a reliable PG to run some good offensive sets, not turn the ball over, and keep an offense calm.

Cadougan didn't get to play much as a freshman and maybe next year he can be much more consistent, but i certainly wouldn't count on it. For anyone to say we have no problem with Cadougan, i agree with you that it's hard envision what willie was watching. Besides maybe simply more skilled size, PG is without question my most important concern for next year. Very erratic point guard play hurt us as much this year than anything else.

Willie - I assume that by this year being "frustrating" you mean for you since you had to endure a Marquette Sweet 16 for only the third time in 34 years?

I believe you are forgetting almost all of your audience is rooting FOR Marquette when they play basketball, therefore the rest of us would NOT be frustrated by going to the Sweet 16.

However, you may want to reread your post because I believe you accidentally complemented an MU player.  I am sure you simply left out some "not" references between words because as you wrote it a reader is going to misunderstand and think that you actually intended to complement Junior Cadougan.  I am sure you believe he is as terrible as you believe all the other MU players and coaches to be.

It is funny to juxtapose Pitino practically saying that Buzz prepares his teams better than any other coach in the country with your expert opinion, but you posts do provide a nice escape from reality, so thanks for coming back to post!

Look out, Chicos! Willie aiming for your top spot as the "Most Ignored"!!!

Found this on another board

# of NCAA tourney wins since 2000,  # of McDonald's All Americans since 2000

1.  Duke, 31, 22
2.  Kansas, 30, 12
3.  UNC, 29, 22
3.  Mich St, 29, 7
5. UConn, 23, 6
5. Florida, 23, 8
7. UCLA, 21, 8
8. Kentucky, 20, 9
8. Arizona, 20, 5
10. Wisconsin, 18, 1
10. Texas, 18, 11
12. Pitt, 15, 1
13. Memphis, 14, 6

Confirms also what I said the other day about Pitt and Wisconsin overachieving.  They do more with less and then when they get to the tournament and lose, people pile on.  Simply put, they don't have the same talent as everyone else and the numbers above bear that out.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 26, 2011, 09:52:25 AM
Found this on another board

# of NCAA tourney wins since 2000,  # of McDonald's All Americans since 2000

1.  Duke, 31, 22
2.  Kansas, 30, 12
3.  UNC, 29, 22
3.  Mich St, 29, 7
5. UConn, 23, 6
5. Florida, 23, 8
7. UCLA, 21, 8
8. Kentucky, 20, 9
8. Arizona, 20, 5
10. Wisconsin, 18, 1
10. Texas, 18, 11
12. Pitt, 15, 1
13. Memphis, 14, 6

Confirms also what I said the other day about Pitt and Wisconsin overachieving.  They do more with less and then when they get to the tournament and lose, people pile on.  Simply put, they don't have the same talent as everyone else and the numbers above bear that out.

Given that in a previous post on this very thread, you state that McDAA status comes from choice of college, You are not making any sense.  Wi and Pitt get very few McDAA because NC, Duke aand Kansas get them all (by your opinion).

Are you talking out of your azz again?

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 26, 2011, 09:52:25 AM
Confirms also what I said the other day about Pitt and Wisconsin overachieving.  Simply put, they don't have the same talent as everyone else and the numbers above bear that out.

You're oversimplifying in another effort to pat yourself on the a$$.  There is nothing above that 'confirms' over-achievement.  You'd have to get a lot deeper in order to make any correlation.

This post answers a lot about Willie Warrior.

There were still questions?    Character revealed. 

I am not saying we should have won the game, but the game plan was bad. I understand what Buzz was trying to do. Avoid taking threes that could end up in fast breaks and force the ball inside. However, the flaw in that plan was without taking threes the middle gets clogged up. MU really faultered when they had several attempted passes to Otule stolen and when they actually got the ball to Otule he did not score. I think he must of forbidden Buyckes from shooting. I think Buyckes took only took two shots. We needed to take three point shots to have a chance in that game and the plan was designed not to take three point shots. Given that North Carolina had two bigmen to defend on the inside, it was a flawed plan to continuously try to feed Otule the ball.

Quote from: ringout on March 26, 2011, 10:02:23 AM
Given that in a previous post on this very thread, you state that McDAA status comes from choice of college, You are not making any sense.  Wi and Pitt get very few McDAA because NC, Duke aand Kansas get them all (by your opinion).

Are you talking out of your azz again?

Nope, this is another classic case of people not reading or merely getting lazy and not reading the entire thing.  It's ok, many here do it so don't feel like you are singled out.

Let me help you out with the KEY words.  I'll bold, blue and underline it for you.

"Partly because to become a McDonald's All American they routinely look to where you signed to play ball.  If you choose Duke, UNC, UCLA, Kentucky, Kansas you suddenly seem to get honored as a McDonald's All American.  Or at least it seems this way."

Recruiting ranks IMO mean much less than I used to think after seeing Vander this year...FWIW. Gardner was our worst rated recruit this year, and with that one move last night with that footwork, and the fake pass to do it up on Zeller I saw the one thing I needed to see to make me think he is the smartest, and most polished of the recruits that came in this year by far

Quote from: bilsu on March 26, 2011, 10:26:16 AM
I am not saying we should have won the game, but the game plan was bad. I understand what Buzz was trying to do. Avoid taking threes that could end up in fast breaks and force the ball inside. However, the flaw in that plan was without taking threes the middle gets clogged up. MU really faultered when they had several attempted passes to Otule stolen and when they actually got the ball to Otule he did not score. I think he must of forbidden Buyckes from shooting. I think Buyckes took only took two shots. We needed to take three point shots to have a chance in that game and the plan was designed not to take three point shots. Given that North Carolina had two bigmen to defend on the inside, it was a flawed plan to continuously try to feed Otule the ball.

If that was indeed his plan his coaching acumen would have to be questioned.   Attack Zeller and Henson (the DPY) with Otule and Gardner??   I'd much rather do what we had done the whole year and focus on the drive and score, drive and dish, paint touches....might have "out-thunk" ourselves.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 26, 2011, 09:52:25 AM
Confirms also what I said the other day about Pitt and Wisconsin overachieving.  They do more with less and then when they get to the tournament and lose, people pile on. 

Not to Highjack the Thread but Bo Ryan's record in the tournement has been astounding.  Since 2003 he has 13 wins BUT ONLY ONE HAS BEEN OVER A LOWER SEEDED (better) TEAM.  That was the win in 2009 as a twelve over a 5.  By contrast Buzz has 3 tournement wins and 2 (the two this year) are over teams with a lower seed.  Now to keep that in prospective this thread is prompted by MU's loss to a TWO SEED.  The lowest seeded team the great Bo Ryan has ever beaten in 9 years of tournement experience is a Five seed (they've done it twice including this year).  What would the opinion of Buzz been if we had just been beaten by a 8 seed?

Quote from: NotAnAlum on March 26, 2011, 12:21:42 PM
Not to Highjack the Thread but Bo Ryan's record in the tournement has been astounding.  Since 2003 he has 13 wins BUT ONLY ONE HAS BEEN OVER A LOWER SEEDED (better) TEAM.  That was the win in 2009 as a twelve over a 5.  By contrast Buzz has 3 tournement wins and 2 (the two this year) are over teams with a lower seed.  Now to keep that in prospective this thread is prompted by MU's loss to a TWO SEED.  The lowest seeded team the great Bo Ryan has ever beaten in 9 years of tournement experience is a Five seed (they've done it twice including this year).  What would the opinion of Buzz been if we had just been beaten by a 8 seed?

I think it is more astounding how poorly he has done against HIGHER SEEDED (worse) teams.  I know I would have higher expectations if MU made the tournament 14 times in a row.  They have had some great seedings and done nothing with them.  I am ecstatic that MU outperformed their seed this year.

I was having a conversation with a BADger backer yesterday.  This guy absolutely has never said a cross word about BoBo before.  He is sick of the underperformance EVERY year.

Quote from: ringout on March 26, 2011, 01:03:13 PM
I think it is more astounding how poorly he has done against HIGHER SEEDED (worse) teams.  I know I would have higher expectations if MU made the tournament 14 times in a row.  They have had some great seedings and done nothing with them.  I am ecstatic that MU outperformed their seed this year.

I was having a conversation with a BADger backer yesterday.  This guy absolutely has never said a cross word about BoBo before.  He is sick of the underperformance EVERY year.

You assume because a team is HIGHER SEEDED they are "worse" and that's your flaw in your argument.

Sure, teams seeded 13-16 are worse teams because they are auto qualifiers from low conferences.  But anything from 12 and better does not mean they are a worse team.  VCU, as an 11 seed, will try to get to the Final Four tomorrow....are they a worse team?  Are they playing like a worse team?

Look at UK and OSU....is UK really a 4 seed?  Of course not...I said that day one when the tournament seedings came out.  Ridiculous to have UK a 4 and Florida a 2....so this idea that teams are "worse" or "better" solely by what the committee decides their seedings to be is an argument full of holes.  Sometimes the committee gets it right but often they overseed or underseed teams in the tournament. 

Quote from: ringout on March 26, 2011, 01:03:13 PM
I think it is more astounding how poorly he has done against HIGHER SEEDED (worse) teams.  I know I would have higher expectations if MU made the tournament 14 times in a row.  They have had some great seedings and done nothing with them.  I am ecstatic that MU outperformed their seed this year.

I was having a conversation with a BADger backer yesterday.  This guy absolutely has never said a cross word about BoBo before.  He is sick of the underperformance EVERY year.

In Ryan's defense, many of those higher-seeded teams had already upset someone else.  

This year Butler may have been the higher-seeded team, but Butler already beat #1 seed Pitt.  A few years ago they lost as a 3 seed to 10 seed Davidson, but Davidson already beat the #2 seed Georgetown.

Its not like they were Xavier this year, who lost their opening round game to a higher seeded team.

Quote from: Marquette84 on March 26, 2011, 01:24:25 PM
In Ryan's defense, many of those higher-seeded teams had already upset someone else.  

This year Butler may have been the higher-seeded team, but Butler already beat #1 seed Pitt.  A few years ago they lost as a 3 seed to 10 seed Davidson, but Davidson already beat the #2 seed Georgetown.

Its not like they were Xavier this year, who lost their opening round game to a higher seeded team.

Exactly!!

People look at the seeding but not the results or the quality of the team. 

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 26, 2011, 09:52:25 AM
Found this on another board

# of NCAA tourney wins since 2000,  # of McDonald's All Americans since 2000

1.  Duke, 31, 22
2.  Kansas, 30, 12
3.  UNC, 29, 22
3.  Mich St, 29, 7
5. UConn, 23, 6
5. Florida, 23, 8
7. UCLA, 21, 8
8. Kentucky, 20, 9
8. Arizona, 20, 5
10. Wisconsin, 18, 1
10. Texas, 18, 11
12. Pitt, 15, 1
13. Memphis, 14, 6

Confirms also what I said the other day about Pitt and Wisconsin overachieving.  They do more with less and then when they get to the tournament and lose, people pile on.  Simply put, they don't have the same talent as everyone else and the numbers above bear that out.

All that bears out is that Pitt and Wisconsin are the major exceptions, not the rule, and both Pitt/Wisky have never been able to reach Final Fours while all those other teams with the McDonald's All Americans have been able to. Multiple times in many cases.

Talent in all sports is what wins big, great coaching can only take limited talent just so far before that talent shortage loses out.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 26, 2011, 01:25:42 PM
Exactly!!

People look at the seeding but not the results or the quality of the team. 

Sorry but its pretty tough to say that for 8 out of 9 years the Badgers have been the victim of bad seeding.  It sounds like using your logic any team you lost to was by definition better than you and therefore you should have lost.  If it was anybody else other than Bo the word would be "can't win the big games" and the fans would be pissed.  But with Bo there is always a logic explanation that keeps his reputation intact.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 26, 2011, 09:52:25 AM
Found this on another board

# of NCAA tourney wins since 2000,  # of McDonald's All Americans since 2000

1.  Duke, 31, 22
2.  Kansas, 30, 12
3.  UNC, 29, 22
3.  Mich St, 29, 7
5. UConn, 23, 6
5. Florida, 23, 8
7. UCLA, 21, 8
8. Kentucky, 20, 9
8. Arizona, 20, 5
10. Wisconsin, 18, 1
10. Texas, 18, 11
12. Pitt, 15, 1
13. Memphis, 14, 6

Confirms also what I said the other day about Pitt and Wisconsin overachieving.  They do more with less and then when they get to the tournament and lose, people pile on.  Simply put, they don't have the same talent as everyone else and the numbers above bear that out.

How much of this is a simple product of appearances? Pitt and Wisconsin have been in every tournament over that time period. So I'm assuming this is an 11-year comparison, or does it include this year (making it 12 years?). That means that in 22 years of tournaments for the two teams, they won a combined 33 games, roughly 1.5 per year. Is that overachieving for teams that are usually seeded 6 or higher? I'd say that's probably par for the course, and considering the number of times both teams have been top-4 seeds, it's probably underachieving.

McDonald's All-Americans is a nice stat and all, but we all know (and you yourself have discussed recently) how much of a factor the final school choice is. Duke, UNC, Kansas, and Kentucky recruits are far more likely to be named to the McD's team than similarly ranked recruits at other schools. Will JP Tokoto be a McD's AA now that he committed to UNC? I'll bet any money his odds improved when he picked them over UW and MU.

But I digress. The simple truth is that these teams have a number of wins because they get there every year. Both Dixon and Bo have done an excellent job of managing their regular season schedules, especially in conference, but haven't replicated that success in the tournament. You can argue all you want, but UW hasn't come close to reaching expectations in March. 11-2 against double-digit seeds, 3-8 against single-digit seeds. Seeds matter.

And no, Kentucky is not better than a 4, they are a 4. This isn't Highlander (as mentioned elsewhere). Chicos, you yourself said that the Selection Committee is the ultimate arbiter of seeds, and that what they say is the final determination. That may not be the exact wording, and I don't have the time or motivation to dig up the quote, but that is what you meant. So yes, Kentucky's a 4, Butler's an 8, and the Badgers suck against single-digit seeds.

Furthermore, Bo's best win is against a 5-seed. Buzz's best win is against a 3-seed. Buzz has already bested Bo's biggest tourney accomplishment in terms of beating seeds. I realize they have lost to 1-seeds, but if they were truly living up to their hype, once in awhile they would actually beat a top-4 seed. They aren't and never have been a true title contender under Bo.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 26, 2011, 01:22:18 PM
You assume because a team is HIGHER SEEDED they are "worse" and that's your flaw in your argument.

Sure, teams seeded 13-16 are worse teams because they are auto qualifiers from low conferences.  But anything from 12 and better does not mean they are a worse team.  VCU, as an 11 seed, will try to get to the Final Four tomorrow....are they a worse team?  Are they playing like a worse team?

Look at UK and OSU....is UK really a 4 seed?  Of course not...I said that day one when the tournament seedings came out.  Ridiculous to have UK a 4 and Florida a 2....so this idea that teams are "worse" or "better" solely by what the committee decides their seedings to be is an argument full of holes.  Sometimes the committee gets it right but often they overseed or underseed teams in the tournament. 

Chicos, I'd buy your BS if this were a one year issue.  BoBo has lost to lesser seeds consistently for 10 years.  I find it hilarious the extent to which you defend the coach of our largest in-state rival.  Truly epic.

Bo is a system coach who does really well in his league.  When he needs to game plan for something different, he's out of his depth.  We have a 10 year track record to evaluate.  

Quote from: ringout on March 26, 2011, 03:34:19 PM
Chicos, I'd buy your BS if this were a one year issue.  BoBo has lost to lesser seeds consistently for 10 years.  I find it hilarious the extent to which you defend the coach of our largest in-state rival.  Truly epic.

Bo is a system coach who does really well in his league.  When he needs to game plan for something different, he's out of his depth.  We have a 10 year track record to evaluate.  

+1

Bo is not losing to North Carolina who overwhelmed a team or Stanford who had two big NBA ready trees to beat us in the last second.  Bo is not losing in the Final Four to an experienced Kansas team with a lot of NBA players on it.

Context does not help Bo.  Hope that MU starts catching some breaks in the next few years.

Quote from: NotAnAlum on March 26, 2011, 03:28:43 PM
Sorry but its pretty tough to say that for 8 out of 9 years the Badgers have been the victim of bad seeding.  It sounds like using your logic any team you lost to was by definition better than you and therefore you should have lost.  If it was anybody else other than Bo the word would be "can't win the big games" and the fans would be pissed.  But with Bo there is always a logic explanation that keeps his reputation intact.

Hardly.  Look how many years they beat those lower seeds. I think people here actually believe the first lower seed that team has played they lost to, which is almost never the case.  Usually they have defeated at lease one if not 3 lower seeds in a tournament before bowing out.

Every time one of those lower seeds advances, doesn't it further dilute the seeding they were given?  Was Kentucky really a 4 seed?  Was VCU really an 11 seed?  They certainly don't play like it in the tournament. 

Ultimately what I never understand with this argument is at what point do we forget the little number by the team in the bracket and say, WOW that team is good.  Butler is down 1 point at half right now trying to go to the Final Four BACK TO BACK YEARS.  Something tells me they are a pretty damn good team this time of year and the little 8 by their seed means a hill of beans...it's why they are playing to go to the FINAL FOUR.

Quote from: ringout on March 26, 2011, 03:34:19 PM
Chicos, I'd buy your BS if this were a one year issue.  BoBo has lost to lesser seeds consistently for 10 years.  I find it hilarious the extent to which you defend the coach of our largest in-state rival.  Truly epic.

Bo is a system coach who does really well in his league.  When he needs to game plan for something different, he's out of his depth.  We have a 10 year track record to evaluate.  

Wrong...but we'll get to that in a minute.

Can I ask a question Ringout....does it matter that he's a coach for our in-state rival?  What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?  If he were the coach of Washington State I'd say the same thing.  He's a class a prick but a damn good coach and does a lot with talent he doesn't have.

You're right, he's lost to lesser seeds in the last 10 years, but not consistently....what you keep ignoring is that they have beaten more of those seeds than they've lost to.  I'd take their record in a heartbeat over the next 10 years in the NCAA. We would dream of having the success they are having because we haven't had it since McGuire.

By the way, get your facts straight (you've been off your game several times in the last few days), he's lost to more "better" seeds than lower seeds.  6 of the last 10 exits have been to better seeds.  Four have been to lower seeds.  I fail to see how 40% of the time is "consistently" losing to a lesser seed.

2010-11, lost to a lower seed after beating two other lower seeds
2009-10, lost to a lower seed after beating a lower seed
2008-09, lost to a higher seed in 2nd  (after beating another higher seed)
2007-08, lost to a lower seed after beating two other lower seeds
2006-07, lost to a lower seed after beating a lower seed
2005-06, lost to a higher seed
2004-05, lost to a higher seed after beating three lower seeds
2003-04, lost to a higher seed after beating a lower seed
2002-03, lost to a higher seed after beating two lower seeds
2001-02, lost to a higher seed after beating a lower seed

At what point do you say, that "lesser" seeded team is a good team and made it to the Elite 8, Final Four, Sweet 16?  I guess I never hear anyone say that and do not understand that lack of logic.  I also never here about all the lower seeded teams they have defeated...weird that people try to have it both ways.

At any rate, God help us if he ever gets good recruits because he does more with less than most coaches in this country.  That data provided earlier just another example showing the success they have had with that system.  

Quote from: brewcity77 on March 26, 2011, 03:30:53 PM

Furthermore, Bo's best win is against a 5-seed. Buzz's best win is against a 3-seed. Buzz has already bested Bo's biggest tourney accomplishment in terms of beating seeds. I realize they have lost to 1-seeds, but if they were truly living up to their hype, once in awhile they would actually beat a top-4 seed. They aren't and never have been a true title contender under Bo.

That's exactly where I'm going with this.  Do you really believe Syracuse should have been a 3 seed?  Sorry, I don't buy it but that's where the committee put them.  Overseeded.  The seeding is not the end all be all of evaluating how good a team is.  If the seeding was, then all the proper seeds would win their games and upsets wouldn't happen.  There's a reason why VCU, an 11 seed, is playing for the Final Four tomorrow...because the 11 by their name means absolutely nothing.  It doesn't judge the true quality of their team but is instead a seeding number assigned by a committee that largely screws things up every year.  I find it interesting that so many people here are attaching themselves to these seeds and many of these same people think the committee sucks balls....yet it's the COMMITTEE that assigns these arbitrary seeds. Doesn't that strike any of you as patently absurd to support the committee's seeding but rip them at the same time for their choices?   :o

That is correct Brew, I did say they are the ultimate arbiter of the seeds....because they are the ONLY arbiter of the seeds.  If you look at what I said in that statement had to do with us being one of the last 6 teams in and where our seed was.  The seeding is the seeding because only that group of dopes can make it so.  It doesn't make them right....HUGE DIFFERENCE.

And sorry, I thought then and continue to think now that a 4 seed for Kentucky was absurd.  Jay Bilas agreed again last night with me as did just about every Ohio State fan.  But the committee, in their wisdom said they were.  Kentucky a 4 but BYU a 3....I'd take Kentucky over BYU 90 games out of 100.  Kentucky a 4 but Syracuse a 3...I'd take Kentucky 75 games out of 100 over Syracuse.  Kentucky a 4 but Notre Dame a 2....laughable.  There's a reason why Kentucky destroyed Notre Dame this year.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 26, 2011, 04:44:37 PM
Can I ask a question Ringout....does it matter that he's a coach for our in-state rival?  What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?  If he were the coach of Washington State I'd say the same thing.  He's a class a prick but a damn good coach and does a lot with talent he doesn't have.

At any rate, God help us if he ever gets good recruits because he does more with less than most coaches in this country.  That data provided earlier just another example showing the success they have had with that system.  

It matters that he coaches our in-state rival to those of us who have to suffer BADger BS all year long.  That's all.  You would hum a different tune if you lived here.

An isolated year of upset is one thing.  Bo has underperformed for 10 years.  You can use your tortured barroom lawyer logic all you want to twist my words.  If you can honestly say that Bo has not underperformed in the NCAA tournament, I know some BADger fans that will disagree with you.   

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 26, 2011, 04:44:37 PM


At any rate, God help us if he ever gets good recruits because he does more with less than most coaches in this country.  That data provided earlier just another example showing the success they have had with that system.

Yes, Bo Ryan is a fabulous basketball coach at getting the best out of the talent he recruits. One of the best in the nation at it. As a fan of Wisconsin athletics, more hockey/football, but also basketball behind Marquette though, i appreciate what he's done for the program.

That said, he's been there over a decade now and has never shown to be a great recruiter. Very solid recruiter, but that's it. Mix in that i think it should be obvious now that really athletic, skilled, and highly recruited black wings and PF type of players seem to have no desire to play in Ryan's system, i highly doubt that he'll ever be able to recruit up to his coaching abilities.

So while history would suggest the odds are high that Bo will continue churning out 20-20 plus win seasons and big dance bids, i'll also bet against him making deep advances into the tournament even when things shake out favorably for him as it has multiple times. Come deep into the tournament time though is generally where the overall lack of talent, athletic ability, and an offense without diversity hurts him.

[quote author=ChicosBailBonds link=topic=26489.msg295978#msg295978 date=1301175877

At any rate, God help us if he ever gets good recruits because he does more with less than most coaches in this country.  That data provided earlier just another example showing the success they have had with that system.  

[/quote]

Since when does Bo not get good recruits?  His last two classes have not been too exciting, but the upperclassman he had out there were good recruits.  The Hughes/Bohannon team had mostly top recruits playing.  Butch was a high level recruit.

He is not getting Calipari or Roy recruits, sure.  But he has had equal or better talent coming in there for years.

So since we made the sweet 16 we were "underseeded" and deserved a 3 or 4 seed (where a team between 9-16 belongs) even though we're not as good as last year? Seems contradictory.

Quote from: El Duderino on March 26, 2011, 05:03:48 PM

That said, he's been there over a decade now and has never shown to be a great recruiter. Very solid recruiter, but that's it. Mix in that i think it should be obvious now that really athletic, skilled, and highly recruited black wings and PF type of players seem to have no desire to play in Ryan's system, i highly doubt that he'll ever be able to recruit up to his coaching abilities.

Not a great recruiter compared to what?

Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 26, 2011, 05:06:58 PM
So since we made the sweet 16 we were "underseeded" and deserved a 3 or 4 seed (where a team between 9-16 belongs) even though we're not as good as last year? Seems contradictory.

Chicos? contradictory?  Nah, can't be. 

God, I'd hate to be a co-worker.  Can you imagine all the wasted energy he uses at work for things that really matter?

Quote from: El Duderino on March 26, 2011, 05:03:48 PM
That said, he's been there over a decade now and has never shown to be a great recruiter. Very solid recruiter, but that's it. Mix in that i think it should be obvious now that really athletic, skilled, and highly recruited black wings and PF type of players seem to have no desire to play in Ryan's system, i highly doubt that he'll ever be able to recruit up to his coaching abilities.

Can't believe I'm going to defend Bo, but .... Alando Tucker? Marcus Landry? Boo Wade? Even Ray Nixon?

Not that I disagree with your point entirely ... highly athletic kids generally want to play in more uptempo systems that utilize and accentuate their talents, and Bo's system ain't it. But I'm not sure what being highly recruited or black has to do with it. Do athletic white kids love Bo's system?

Quote from: HoopsMalone on March 26, 2011, 05:07:30 PM
Not a great recruiter compared to what?

That should be obvious. Compared to better recruiters than Bo. Coaches that consistently bring in high end talent.

I'm not saying that's east to do given it is not. It also is true that Bo isn't just bringing in 2 star recruits and winning 20 plus games a year. Except for Brian Butch, Ryan generally recruits many 3 star types with a few 4 star kids thrown in which certainly is solid. He also recruits to his system. Take just one look at the bigs he goes after pretty much every year. Big white guys who can shoot jumpers. That's what he wants. He generally always also ends up having a black PG who develops into a better player under his system than that kid had stars before his name in high school.

It's mostly the wings area that kills him IMO. Besides Tucker years ago, Bo hasn't had another really athletic and skilled SG/SF who can create his own shot and be a lock down defender. Those type of kids seem to want no part of playing for Ryan and thus instead he ends up with Tim Jarmusz or Jason Bohannon types. Not bad players, but limited players. Can catch and shoot. Try hard defenders, but limited defenders. Can't create their own shot if their life depended on it.

Quote from: El Duderino on March 26, 2011, 05:28:46 PM
That should be obvious. Compared to better recruiters than Bo. Coaches that consistently bring in high end talent.

I'm not saying that's east to do given it is not. It also is true that Bo isn't just bringing in 2 star recruits and winning 20 plus games a year. Except for Brian Butch, Ryan generally recruits many 3 star types with a few 4 star kids thrown in which certainly is solid. He also recruits to his system. Take just one look at the bigs he goes after pretty much every year. Big white guys who can shoot jumpers. That's what he wants. He generally always also ends up having a black PG who develops into a better player under his system than that kid had stars before his name in high school.

It's mostly the wings area that kills him IMO. Besides Tucker years ago, Bo hasn't had another really athletic and skilled SG/SF who can create his own shot and be a lock down defender. Those type of kids seem to want no part of playing for Ryan and thus instead he ends up with Tim Jarmusz or Jason Bohannon types. Not bad players, but limited players. Can catch and shoot. Try hard defenders, but limited defenders. Can't create their own shot if their life depended on it.

Hughes, Nankivil, Leuer, J-Bo were all 4 stars.  Krabenhoft and Butch were 5 stars.  Landry, Flowers, and Jordan Taylor were 3-stars. 

Over the last three or four seasons, who else has really played for them?  In almost every game, Bo's team took the floor with higher level recruits or equal compared to the opponent. 

Say what you want about Bo.  He is a good coach.  They are lucky to have him and most programs would too.  But, he has had talent in there.  Let's not pretend he is taking an intramural team out there.

Quote from: Pakuni on March 26, 2011, 05:19:24 PM
Can't believe I'm going to defend Bo, but .... Alando Tucker? Marcus Landry? Boo Wade? Even Ray Nixon?

Not that I disagree with your point entirely ... highly athletic kids generally want to play in more uptempo systems that utilize and accentuate their talents, and Bo's system ain't it. But I'm not sure what being highly recruited or black has to do with it. Do athletic white kids love Bo's system?

I also said highly recruited. Tucker was a fabulous college player, but Bo wasn't fighting a bunch of big schools to land Tucker, he was simply under valued coming out of high school. Carl Landry wasn't much of an athlete, he was more cerebral and skilled than athlete. Nixon i'll grant was very athletic.

That said, we are talking about over a decade of Ryan recruits and you can pull out less than 5 examples of what i mentioned. I know race is a touchy subject, but it certainly is true that Ryan in most years fields one of if not the the whitest top 20teams in the country. That isn't just pure coincidence, nor am i saying it's wrong of Ryan to do. I'm also not implying that Bo doesn't recruit black players because obviously he does.

I'm simply saying that the fact that nearly all his bigs end up being white and so do most of his wings/SG/SF, it's not a fluke. I think it's a mix of the type of players he recruits for his system and some black players simply not interested in playing in that system, especially really athletic slashing types who want to run. 

So, did Wisconsin lose to a lesser seed or did they lose to a FINAL FOUR participant?

Again, the seed means jack.  You have to look at what the team actually does and how they perform.  Wisconsin lost to a Final Four participant...we may end up doing the same thing if UNC can win tomorrow.


Right on Cue Butler...thank you!    ;D

Quote from: ringout on March 26, 2011, 05:00:24 PM
It matters that he coaches our in-state rival to those of us who have to suffer BADger BS all year long.  That's all.  You would hum a different tune if you lived here.

An isolated year of upset is one thing.  Bo has underperformed for 10 years.  You can use your tortured barroom lawyer logic all you want to twist my words.  If you can honestly say that Bo has not underperformed in the NCAA tournament, I know some BADger fans that will disagree with you.   

How many times are you going to get your facts wrong...they've been bounced 6 times in the last 10 years by a "better seed" using YOUR criteria.  Using your OWN criteria you're wrong.  Priceless.

Quote from: HoopsMalone on March 26, 2011, 05:06:24 PM
[quote author=ChicosBailBonds link=topic=26489.msg295978#msg295978 date=1301175877

At any rate, God help us if he ever gets good recruits because he does more with less than most coaches in this country.  That data provided earlier just another example showing the success they have had with that system.  



Since when does Bo not get good recruits?  His last two classes have not been too exciting, but the upperclassman he had out there were good recruits.  The Hughes/Bohannon team had mostly top recruits playing.  Butch was a high level recruit.

He is not getting Calipari or Roy recruits, sure.  But he has had equal or better talent coming in there for years.

We went through this a few months ago...he's had some good recruits, but a far cry from what we get at MU.  Furthermore, looking at that list of McDonald's All Americans, UW-madison and Pittsburgh get almost none, yet go to the NCAAs every year and have won a lot of NCAA games in the last ten years.  They do more with less talent than just about anyone in the country.  But yes, they get a few recruits but not the quality or quantity that other schools do with lesser results (Conference titles, regular season wins, tournament wins, etc)

Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 26, 2011, 05:06:58 PM
So since we made the sweet 16 we were "underseeded" and deserved a 3 or 4 seed (where a team between 9-16 belongs) even though we're not as good as last year? Seems contradictory.

Contradictory...hardly.  Funny seeing ringout's response when he has had so many problems with facts the last 18 hours.  LOL.

I would say we were seeded just about right....Syracuse was overseeded and Xavier overseeded.  Bracket Project agrees with me, both had them seeded in a consensus lower (worse) than what the committee put them at.

We played two teams we can handle...got a great draw against teams that can't shoot very well from the outside, our biggest Achilles heel.  All about matchups, Lenny, and we got great matchups.  Buzz did a great job of exploiting those matchups.

Xavier 239th in 3 pt shooting
Syracuse 118th in 3 pt shooting 


Great matchups for us....kudos to Buzz and the boys for making the most of them.  Sad part is that North Carolina is 223rd in 3 point shooting...should have zoned all game long.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 26, 2011, 06:02:17 PM
So, did Wisconsin lose to a lesser seed or did they lose to a FINAL FOUR participant?

Again, the seed means jack.  You have to look at what the team actually does and how they perform.  Wisconsin lost to a Final Four participant...we may end up doing the same thing if UNC can win tomorrow.


Right on Cue Butler...thank you!    ;D

Seriously, Chico's, what's with the need to prop up UW at all times? It's one thing to respect the program, it's another to incessantly lavish praise on them and defend them from any and all criticism, deserved or not.
It's pathological and, quite frankly, it's abnormal. Are people on the Georgetown boards constantly talking about how great Jim Boeheim is? Do Auburn fans defend everything Nick Saban does? Are their posters on the UNC board today saying "You know, over the past decade Duke has been the better program."
It is not normal.

Yeah, Butler is going to the Final Four. Congrats to them. And their road included last-second wins against ODU, Pitt and Florida in extremely tight contests in which plenty of breaks fell their way  .... and then a complete beatdown of Bucky.
Seems to me UW was the Bulldogs' least difficult speed bump on the road to the Final Four.
Maybe their making up the T-shirts in Madison right now to celebrate their loss to a Final Four team.

Quote from: HoopsMalone on March 26, 2011, 05:39:37 PM

Over the last three or four seasons, who else has really played for them?  In almost every game, Bo's team took the floor with higher level recruits or equal compared to the opponent.  

What criteria and what time period are you using?  RSCI has them 6th in their own conference, not even in the top half.  So how can you make the statement that "in almost every game, Bo's team took the floor with higher level recruits or equal compared to the opponent".  We've already shown here several months ago that MU has had far more RSCI top 100 recruits and better quality (more top 75 guys where UW's are mostly 75 to 100)

Numbers below are interesting, especially when you translate that talent and see how many wins each program has earned.  Again, who is doing more with less?  I'm presenting data, I'd love to see a few other people present some rather than just yelling "YOU'RE WRONG"


Total RSCI Top 100 Big Ten recruits per team since Bo's first recruiting class arrived:

MSU - 21     (12 top 50 recruits)
OSU - 17     (10)
Illinois - 14     (8)
Indiana - 13     (5)
Michigan - 11     (5)
UW - 10     (3)
Minn - 7     (3)
Purdue - 7     (3)
Iowa - 5     (1)
PSU - 1     (0)
NW - 0     (0)

Note:  RSCI Top 100 commits to each school, not necessarily who finished at each school.

Total Wins in Big Ten games since Bo's first recruiting class arrived  (as of 2/18/11):

UW  -  105
MSU  -  98
OSU  -  94
Illinois  -  92
Purdue  -  82
Indiana  -  68
Michigan  -  65
Iowa  -  63
Minn  -  61
NW  -  46
PSU  -  41

Quote from: Pakuni on March 26, 2011, 06:22:26 PM
Seriously, Chico's, what's with the need to prop up UW at all times? It's one thing to respect the program, it's another to incessantly lavish praise on them and defend them from any and all criticism, deserved or not.
It's pathological and, quite frankly, it's abnormal. Are people on the Georgetown boards constantly talking about how great Jim Boeheim is? Do Auburn fans defend everything Nick Saban does? Are their posters on the UNC board today saying "You know, over the past decade Duke has been the better program."
It is not normal.

Yeah, Butler is going to the Final Four. Congrats to them. And their road included last-second wins against ODU, Pitt and Florida in extremely tight contests in which plenty of breaks fell their way  .... and then a complete beatdown of Bucky.
Seems to me UW was the Bulldogs' least difficult speed bump on the road to the Final Four.
Maybe their making up the T-shirts in Madison right now to celebrate their loss to a Final Four team.

It's not propping up UW-madison, it's blowing away this stupid theory on "lesser" seeds as if the committee's seeding system is the end all be all determining who the best teams are.  It's laughable.  I find it incredible that the same people blasting the committee as idiots are also the same people essentially saying the seedings (given to us by the same incompetent committee that they rip) are the true measure of how good a basketball team is.  With logic like this it's amazing this country isn't in a full depression at this point.

Quote from: ringout on March 26, 2011, 05:18:16 PM
Chicos? contradictory?  Nah, can't be. 

God, I'd hate to be a co-worker.  Can you imagine all the wasted energy he uses at work for things that really matter?

Come on down sometime and talk to those co-workers.  It would just be the 5th or 6th thing you've been wrong about in the last 18 hours.  You are on quite a roll ringout.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 26, 2011, 06:17:24 PM
Contradictory...hardly.  Funny seeing ringout's response when he has had so many problems with facts the last 18 hours.  LOL.

I would say we were seeded just about right....Syracuse was overseeded and Xavier overseeded.  Bracket Project agrees with me, both had them seeded in a consensus lower (worse) than what the committee put them at.

We played two teams we can handle...got a great draw against teams that can't shoot very well from the outside, our biggest Achilles heel.  All about matchups, Lenny, and we got great matchups.  Buzz did a great job of exploiting those matchups.

Xavier 239th in 3 pt shooting
Syracuse 118th in 3 pt shooting 


Great matchups for us....kudos to Buzz and the boys for making the most of them.  Sad part is that North Carolina is 223rd in 3 point shooting...should have zoned all game long.

OK..We get it now.

Becky loses because they have the misfortune of playing better teams that were incorrectly seeded(for 10 years).  Marquette wins because they have the great fortune of playing against teams that they match up with.

That sounds like Badger fan logic.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 26, 2011, 06:17:24 PM
Contradictory...hardly.  Funny seeing ringout's response when he has had so many problems with facts the last 18 hours.  LOL.

I would say we were seeded just about right....Syracuse was overseeded and Xavier overseeded.  Bracket Project agrees with me, both had them seeded in a consensus lower (worse) than what the committee put them at.

Chicos, I'm calling shenanigans. You say that we were seeded about right, Syracuse and Xavier were overseeded because of what Bracket Project said? Yet you said that Butler was underseeded. But Bracket Project had them at an 11, so they were actually overseeded.

Again, you can't have it both ways. If you're going to use Bracket Project, you have to use it equally with all teams. That means we were underseeded (BP had us as a 9) and Butler was overseeded (11).

I must have been sleeping or drunk, so we lost to UW last night?  Bo Ryan out coached Buzz?  Wow, I can't believe I missed that one.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 26, 2011, 06:27:31 PM

Total RSCI Top 100 Big Ten recruits per team since Bo's first recruiting class arrived:

MSU - 21     (12 top 50 recruits)
OSU - 17     (10)
Illinois - 14     (8)
Indiana - 13     (5)
Michigan - 11     (5)
UW - 10     (3)
Minn - 7     (3)
Purdue - 7     (3)
Iowa - 5     (1)
PSU - 1     (0)
NW - 0     (0)

Note:  RSCI Top 100 commits to each school, not necessarily who finished at each school.

Your list is a fair point.  But, I would guess that on average, only MSU and OSU take the floor with better players because they are very good at reloading their one and done players.

Illinois-  Most of their top recruits were early in the decade and most played on their team that made the finals.

Indiana-  No reason to go there.  But, players like Jared Jeffries and Eric Gordon did not take the floor against Bo too often.

Michigan/Minnesota-  I consider that to be within the realm of equal talent as it is off by one player.

Hughes/J-Bo/Butch/Krabbenhoft/Leuer/Nankivil etc. are all 4-stars/top100 on Rivals (not sure what they are on the one you used).  They all stayed four years and took the floor many times for Bo.  He has always had talent, and it probably has been on average equal or better than the competition. 

Many of the players Bo recruited were when MU's success in the Big East was uncertain, Iowa was in the crapper, and Tubby was not at Minnesota.  Wisconsin was a good destination for a while, but that has all changed.  I think Bo is a better recruiter than people give him credit for though.  He does not have some secret formula where he takes a bunch of nobodies to all these wins. 

Quote from: ringout on March 26, 2011, 06:57:31 PM
OK..We get it now.

Becky loses because they have the misfortune of playing better teams that were incorrectly seeded(for 10 years).  Marquette wins because they have the great fortune of playing against teams that they match up with.

That sounds like Badger fan logic.

How many posts in a row now are you going to be wrong?

Let's try AGAIN.  The last 10 years, using YOUR OWN CRITERIA, Wisconsin has lost SIX TIMES to teams seeded BETTER THAN THEM. 

So I have to ask you, why post after post after post you keep going down this logic as if all 10 years they were bounced by a lesser seed?  Not only hasn't that happened, it hasn't happened even HALF THE TIME. 

Facts man, try to grab a few.

Quote from: brewcity77 on March 26, 2011, 07:11:01 PM
Chicos, I'm calling shenanigans. You say that we were seeded about right, Syracuse and Xavier were overseeded because of what Bracket Project said? Yet you said that Butler was underseeded. But Bracket Project had them at an 11, so they were actually overseeded.

Again, you can't have it both ways. If you're going to use Bracket Project, you have to use it equally with all teams. That means we were underseeded (BP had us as a 9) and Butler was overseeded (11).

I actually don't recall saying Butler was underseeded...if I did, please point it out and I'll gladly admit it.  I commented on the overseeding of Xavier, Syracuse, Wisconsin, etc but don't recall talking about Butler's 8 seed.  I think I said their 8 seed means a hill of beans because of how they play this time of year, but don't recall saying whether they were over or under seeded like I did with other squads.

You guys see Wisconsin losing to an 8 seed and say it's a bad loss because the committee said Wisconsin was a 4 (which was an OVERSEED in my opinion) and Butler an 8 (which seems about right to me considering how they came into the tournament) and you believe UW-madison underachieved.  I see it as UW-madison lost to a back to back Final Four team and any "shame" or whatever people see in losing to a "lesser" seed just isn't there.

I guess it's all in POV.

Again, I'll happily admit I was wrong if I said Butler was under or overseeded, but I don't recall saying that about Butler but instead commented on other teams seeds.  With my advanced age, however, there's no doubt I could have and forgotten already.   ;)

Quote from: MUMac on March 26, 2011, 07:54:57 PM
I must have been sleeping or drunk, so we lost to UW last night?  Bo Ryan out coached Buzz?  Wow, I can't believe I missed that one.

Chicos does have a bizarre fascination with guys like Crean, and Ryan especially who never even coached at MU. Plus, except for a high school player here and there from Wisconsin, Buzz and Bo don't even recruit against each other much.

Yet, Chico will make one post after another trying to argue about how great Crean and Bo are, but not comment in most other threads say about players on the team, recruits coming in, or any number of topics not related to Crean, Bo, or Buzz being way overrated by most on the forum. If though he starts a thread about Crean, Bo, or Buzz being way overrated by most on the forum and/or a thread has an opening for him to make it about those three topics, he'll be all over it with a bunch of posts.

Not sure i've ever seen anything like it on any other sports forum i've been on. The only time i see a poster like that, they'll tend to be a troll from another team. It does get him lots of attention, so i'm sure it factors into his agenda.

Since this has come up a number of times, here is this year's team. UNC did well again.

http://www.mcdonaldsallamerican.com/2011_BoysRosterAlph.pdf

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 26, 2011, 08:38:22 PMI actually don't recall saying Butler was underseeded...if I did, please point it out and I'll gladly admit it.  I commented on the overseeding of Xavier, Syracuse, Wisconsin, etc but don't recall talking about Butler's 8 seed.  I think I said their 8 seed means a hill of beans because of how they play this time of year, but don't recall saying whether they were over or under seeded like I did with other squads.

I found what I was thinking of...a bit more vague than I recall, anyway, here's the quote:

Quote from: ChicosBailBondsWhat you are arguing is that they are under performing based on their seed....fine.  I won't deny that, but if you really think the NCAA committed gets these seeds correct you're nuts.  If Butler ends up in the Final Four again, does that mean every team that lost to them in the tournament "underperformed"?  Really?  Or is it that Butler was a good team and seeded incorrectly?  Or was it that Wisconsin and the teams they played were OVERSEEDED?  Your argument lies SOLELY on the idea of what a committee assigned a seed to and ignores the reality of what happens on the court.

To be accurate (as I initially wasn't completely accurate) you use Butler as an example of potentially bad seeding. Does it say that Wisconsin is overseeded or Butler was underseeded, or that the SC gets them wrong? Personally, I don't think they do get them wrong.

Underseeding and overseeding can only occur if the better team wins on every given night. Not "any given night", but EVERY given night. Was Wisconsin overseeded? Absolutely not. Look at their resume and it's clear that they deserve a 4-seed. In fact, they were probably one of the easiest teams in the country to seed outside of tOSU and Kansas. In Bracket Project, I counted 79/89 brackets that had them as a 4-seed. There's simply no way they were seeded incorrectly.

However, that doesn't mean they will beat every team seeded below them and lose to every team seeded above them. They beat tOSU and lost to UNLV during the regular season. Or look at Pitt. They lost at home to Tennessee. But if you look at resumes, Pitt's a pretty clear #1, while UT is a pretty clear 8-9. Sometimes it's all match-ups.

I know you talk about how important match-ups are, and I agree with that. But I think that seed matters as well. Remember that the SC sometimes has to move teams up or down a line, possibly (rarely) even 2 lines to get the scheduling right. So seeing Syracuse or Xavier one line off what Bracket Project indicated isn't really bad seeding, it's a slight difference from what was expected. Was Marquette underseeded? If so, probably not by more than a line or two, which means they weren't really underseeded. Could Marquette have been a 10 and Xavier a 7? Sure. That's still a first-round match-up. The only difference is UNC smacks us in the second round instead of the Sweet 16.

However, in regard to NCAA coaching, great coaches are recognized for performing above their seeding, or equal to their seeding if they are consistently given high seeds. Guys like Brad Stevens and Tom Izzo have produced results regardless of their seed. Then you have Coach K and Roy Williams that deliver in accordance with their high seeds.

Bo is the opposite of this. 11-2 against double-digit seeds. 3-8 against single-digit seeds. 4 of the last 5 seasons have ended to lower-seeded teams. When he gets a high-seed, like a 2 or 3, they seem to lose to lower seeded teams. When they get a mid-level seed, they cannot rise above their seed to beat higher-seeded teams. His best win ever in the NCAA Tournament, in 11 years, is a 5-seed. Once as a 12-seed, once as a 4-seed. That's not impressive, and that's not good NCAA Tourney coaching. Once is chance. Twice is coincidence. Eleven times, well that's way beyond a trend, that's just how it is.

In Bo's career, he has one Elite 8 and three Sweet 16s. Do you know how many single-digit seeds he has beaten in the 9 victories those seasons? Only one, Kansas State this year. They have only found success against lower level teams. And yes, they have been eliminated by better teams, including some 1-seeds. But I'm not focusing on who took them out. Everyone's season ends in a loss, except for the NCAA and NIT champs. They go out to higher and lower seeds about evenly. But I'm talking about the specific records against single and double-digit seeds. 11-2 and 3-8. They perform against one level, they flub against the other. The 11-2 mark is fine. But 3-8? Especially as none of the wins are against anything better than a 5, and the losses include 7s and 8s? If he were a great NCAA coach, he would have scalped at least one 1-seed or 2-seed by now. I'd even take a 3, which Buzz did this year. But nothing better than a 5? Sorry, I'm not impressed.

Their record is strictly a product of playing low-seeded teams and having a great regular season record so they make the tourney every year. It's not overperforming on talent, it's not brilliant coaching, it's playing lots of bad teams because they earn high seeds and luck out some years. They're like blind squirrels that happen to find quite a few nuts. Basically, the blind squirrels that fell into a Planters factory. Gotta figure that eventually karma will chase them out.

Quote from: Marquette84 on March 26, 2011, 01:24:25 PM
In Ryan's defense, many of those higher-seeded teams had already upset someone else.  This year Butler may have been the higher-seeded team, but Butler already beat #1 seed Pitt.  A few years ago they lost as a 3 seed to 10 seed Davidson, but Davidson already beat the #2 seed Georgetown.

Its not like they were Xavier this year, who lost their opening round game to a higher seeded team.

Duh, the only way you get to play a 9-16 seed outside of the 1st round is if they 'had already upset someone else.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 26, 2011, 08:33:24 PM
How many posts in a row now are you going to be wrong?

Let's try AGAIN.  The last 10 years, using YOUR OWN CRITERIA, Wisconsin has lost SIX TIMES to teams seeded BETTER THAN THEM. 

So I have to ask you, why post after post after post you keep going down this logic as if all 10 years they were bounced by a lesser seed?  Not only hasn't that happened, it hasn't happened even HALF THE TIME. 

Facts man, try to grab a few.

Chicos, even bolding and capitalizing doesn't make your twisted logic work.   Try reading BrewCity's excellent effort at describing that which you have, so far anyway, been unable to comprehend.

Did you pass PHIL 001?  I'm sure you had to take it.

Quote from: ringout on March 26, 2011, 10:47:43 PM
Chicos, even bolding and capitalizing doesn't make your twisted logic work.   Try reading BrewCity's excellent effort at describing that which you have, so far anyway, been unable to comprehend.

Did you pass PHIL 001?  I'm sure you had to take it.

Ringout....when you say they have CONSISTENTLY been knocked out the last ten years by lesser seeds and it happens not even half the time, how on earth can you call your comments knowledgeable?  I'd really like to know.  Do you have a different definition of CONSISTENTLY than the rest of the western world?

It's ok to admit an error, it really is.

Yes, took PHIL 001 and PHIL 050 along with two other Phil courses.

Brew....I appreciate your posts here more than most because you come with some data and an opinion without the name calling.  Well done.

I don't agree with you, but I still respect your opinion.   :D

Thank you for making me feel a little less old.  I didn't think I had stated anything about Butler being under or over seeded and I'm glad that was proven out.

Now, here's where I have a few issues.  As an example, you state that "Their record is strictly a product of playing low-seeded teams and having a great regular season record so they make the tourney every year. It's not overperforming on talent, it's not brilliant coaching, it's playing lots of bad teams because they earn high seeds and luck out some years[/b]"

With all due respect, I think "bad" teams is way overboard.  I believe you are a Ken Pom fan.  I know AnotherMU84 is as well as a number of posters

Belmont...19th in Ken Pom this year.  Is that a Bad Team?  That is considerably higher than Marquette and I don't think you would label MU a bad team.  I KNOW AnotherMU84 wouldn't.

Kansas State..27th in Ken Pom this year....again...bad team?
UW-madison lost to 37th Butler...a Final Four team. 

Let's look at years past

Last year lost to #52 Cornell...not a great team, but a bad team?  Gonzaga, for example, was rated 57th.  New Mexico, a 3 seed last year...54th.  Wake Forest, a 9 seed, 59th

Let's continue to year prior.  Knocked out by Ken Pom 20th ranked Xavier.  Bad team?  Of course not and they were a better seed than Wisconsin....but doesn't that get to the point. Xavier was clearly a better team than Wisconsin and beat them.  I don't know why anyone would expect them to beat Xavier.

The year prior to that, lost to Davidson...#20 Ken Pom (this is after Wisconsin beat #17 Kansas State who you labeled as a bad team).  Now you're saying #20 Davidson is a "bad team" because of their seed, when in reality they were a very good team per Ken Pom.

Let's go further...losing to #42 UNLV.  I can't begin to tell you how happy I was that tournament.  Butch got hurt and it really hurt UW-madison.  I was very nervous they were on their way back to the Final Four.  At any rate...42 is a bad team?  That 42 ranking gave them a 7 seed yet Virginia at #45 got a 4 seed.  Gonzaga, Stanford, BYU, BC, Nevada, etc, etc, all got at large bids despite being ranked behind #42.  Bad team?

Let's go further...in the Elite 8 run.  NC State was a Ken Pom #20 yet got a ridiculous 10 seed.  To show you how absurd that was, only two teams in the Ken Pom top 25 got a double digit seed...Utah State (comes from a terrible conference so their Ken Pom number is inflated) and NC State.  The majority had 4 seeds or higher with a few sprinklings of a 5, 6 and a 9.

I think you get my point.  It's easy to look at the seedings and say "bad teams" but I don't think that's what you meant.  These are NCAA Tournament teams and in most cases, very solid rankings in the RPI, Ken Pom, etc.  UW-madison didn't just build up their resume in the NCAA on cupcakes or bad teams. 

It seems to me that people get way to cavalier with the seedings as if having a 12 seed means they suck or something. Hell, a 12 seed means you are likely one of the top 45 teams in the country but we get into this mode of compartmentalizing and not understanding how good these at-large teams are (I'm not talking about the auto qualifiers from the low conferences).

Peace

Agreed, Chicos. I enjoy the good discussions we get out of this place too  8-)

But again, I beg to differ. Okay, I'll agree that they weren't "bad" teams. But they were significantly below the level of team UW should have been beating. And my guess is kenpom will bear that out as well. I'll go back to 2003, since that's how far kenpom.com goes back:

2003 UW #11: Beat 85 Weber State, beat 43 Tulsa, lost to 2 Kentucky
2004 UW #5: Beat 41 Richmond, lost to 4 Pittsburgh
2005 UW #16: Beat 61 Northern Iowa, 106 Bucknell, 20 NC State, lost to 1 North Carolina
2006 UW #48: Lost to 21 Arizona
2007 UW #8: Beat 124 TAMU-CC, Lost to 42 UNLV
2008 UW #5: Beat 111 Cal St. Fullerton, 17 Kansas St., Lost to 20 Davidson
2009 UW #29: Beat 36 Florida State, Lost to 20 Xavier
2010 UW #9: Beat 79 Wofford, Lost to 52 Cornell
2011 UW #7: Beat 19 Belmont, 27 Kansas State, Lost to 37 Butler

Again, they are just beating teams they should beat. Based on kenpom numbers, Bo Ryan has never scored an upset in the tournament. Never. And in 4 of the past 5 years, have lost to a team ranked significantly lower than they are in kenpom. The closest of those four losses was Davidson, who is 15 spots behind them.

His record against lower-ranked kenpom teams is 13-4. Against higher ranked kenpom teams they are 0-5. Almost half the time (and 80% of the past 5 years) they have been beaten by "worse" teams according to kenpom. I'm just saying those numbers are not those of a great NCAA coach but one that took advantage of the competition.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 26, 2011, 06:08:11 PM
We went through this a few months ago...he's had some good recruits, but a far cry from what we get at MU. 

This is only true if you count kids who signed at MU but didn't play a full season there (i.e. Taylor, Nick Williams, Maymon, Mbakwe), something one might do if they, you know, had an agenda.
If you only include kids who actually played at their respective schools long enough to have actually had an impact on wins and losses, you're absolutely wrong.
Since Bo's first full recruiting class (2002), UW and MU have eached landed nine RSCI top 100 players MU who actually played there long enough to have had an impact.
MU = Novak, Mason, James, McNeal, Matthews, Cadougan, E. Williams, Blue, Jones.
UW = Wade, Butch, Stiemsma, Krabbenhoft, Bohannon, Hughes, Leuer, Berggren, Anderson.

Even if you want to count Maymon and Mbakwe (and therefore DeAaron Williams), the number is 11 to 10 ... hardly the "far cry" which you're proclaiming. And given that three of MU's 11 were for all intents freshmen this year (compared to one for UW), it's a little too soon to judge their impact.

But again, if one were to have an agenda, they could argue MU has had one more RSCI top 100 player than UW during the Bo Ryan era.

Not only more RSCI players, Pakuni, but QUALITY.  Now, if someone had an agenda they might just want to say the numbers are pretty close in the top 100 RSCI, but without looking at the details of where in the top 100 they might just leave it at that and not explore top 75 vs say 75-100.  Quality vs Quantity.

That is if someone had an agenda.   :o


Is it Wisconsin's fault their kids don't leave?  Seems to me that's a problem WE have and need to deal with it...a problem that has gone on for a decade or more.  Next thing you know someone will put up a poll asking who is going to transfer next because it has become so routine.

Thanks Brew.  We'll just have to agree to disagree.  I believe the NCAA Tournament is a crapshoot.  Games are on "neutral" courts (I use that loosely because it's not always the case).  Anything can happen

I don't see losing to a team that is 20th in the Ken Pom as an "upset" and I certainly don't think the seedings for teams like NC State (10 seed but 20th Ken Pom) Davidson (10 seed but 20th Ken Pom), etc, etc make any sense whatsoever.  Those are good teams. 

Considering who Wisconsin has on their roster in terms of quality and quantity, they are doing something right.  Hopefully they never figure out the full recruiting angle.  Some years they've had a lot of good players, but typically they have a few with some nice complimentary players that execute very well.

Peace...have a good day.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 27, 2011, 11:00:42 AM
  Next thing you know someone will put up a poll asking who is going to transfer next because it has become so routine.

Point, CBB!  :D

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 27, 2011, 11:00:42 AM
Not only more RSCI players, Pakuni, but QUALITY.  Now, if someone had an agenda they might just want to say the numbers are pretty close in the top 100 RSCI, but without looking at the details of where in the top 100 they might just leave it at that and not explore top 75 vs say 75-100.  Quality vs Quantity.

So the guy who says recruiting rankings don't matter to him is judging the QUALITY of a player not only by whether or not he was RSCI top 100, but where on the RSCI top 100 he landed? As if there's some massive gap between the 68th ranked player and the 81st ranked player?
Mr. Consistency.

Putting your logic to work, Kennedy Winston, Daniel Horton, Sean Dockery, Elijah Ingram and Bryan Hopkins were point guards of greater QUALITY in the class of 2002 than Deron Williams. After all, that's what the RSCI says.

QuoteIs it Wisconsin's fault their kids don't leave?  Seems to me that's a problem WE have and need to deal with it...a problem that has gone on for a decade or more.

That's totally irrelevant to the discussion. If your claim is that Wisconsin does more with lesser players, then kids who never actually played - or didn't play long enough to make an impact - don't belong in the discussion. The only players that matter are the ones who actually play. This shouldn't even be a matter of debate.
But again, you have an agenda.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 27, 2011, 11:12:18 AMThanks Brew.  We'll just have to agree to disagree.  I believe the NCAA Tournament is a crapshoot.  Games are on "neutral" courts (I use that loosely because it's not always the case).  Anything can happen

I don't see losing to a team that is 20th in the Ken Pom as an "upset" and I certainly don't think the seedings for teams like NC State (10 seed but 20th Ken Pom) Davidson (10 seed but 20th Ken Pom), etc, etc make any sense whatsoever.  Those are good teams.

Losing to #20 is an upset when you're #5, I'd say. As much an upset as Marquette over Syracuse or Kentucky over Ohio State. All I'm saying is that cone tourney time, Bo doesn't elevate his team. Four of the past five years they've list games they should have won. He's a regular season maestro, but when people try to say he's one of the best coaches in the country, I don't even laugh, I just shake my head in bewilderment. And he has no one to blame for the talent level but himself, so that's a completely hollow excuse. He recruited all of these players, and it's a very tough sell to say his style of play doesn't keep him from getting better recruits. They don't even need highly-rated recruits (though it's a joke if anyone really believes JPT ever seriously considered them) but rather just a few true athletes. Could Bo have recruited a Juan Anderson, a Jamil Wilson, or a DJO?

As much as you contend Buzz needs more "traditionals", Bo needs "switchables" and athletes if they ever want to take the next step. Honestly, while they are generally ahead of us in conference play, MU is way closer to actual NCAA success than UW is. And whether you want to use seeds or kenpom, that's something Bo has simply never had.

Quote from: Pakuni on March 27, 2011, 11:24:51 AM
So the guy who says recruiting rankings don't matter to him is judging the QUALITY of a player not only by whether or not he was RSCI top 100, but where on the RSCI top 100 he landed? As if there's some massive gap between the 68th ranked player and the 81st ranked player?
Mr. Consistency.

Putting your logic to work, Kennedy Winston, Daniel Horton, Sean Dockery, Elijah Ingram and Bryan Hopkins were point guards of greater QUALITY in the class of 2002 than Deron Williams. After all, that's what the RSCI says.
That's totally irrelevant to the discussion. If your claim is that Wisconsin does more with lesser players, then kids who never actually played - or didn't play long enough to make an impact - don't belong in the discussion. The only players that matter are the ones who actually play. This shouldn't even be a matter of debate.
But again, you have an agenda.

Game, set...

Quote from: brewcity77 on March 27, 2011, 12:51:00 PM
Losing to #20 is an upset when you're #5, I'd say. As much an upset as Marquette over Syracuse or Kentucky over Ohio State. All I'm saying is that cone tourney time, Bo doesn't elevate his team. Four of the past five years they've list games they should have won. He's a regular season maestro, but when people try to say he's one of the best coaches in the country, I don't even laugh, I just shake my head in bewilderment. And he has no one to blame for the talent level but himself, so that's a completely hollow excuse. He recruited all of these players, and it's a very tough sell to say his style of play doesn't keep him from getting better recruits. They don't even need highly-rated recruits (though it's a joke if anyone really believes JPT ever seriously considered them) but rather just a few true athletes. Could Bo have recruited a Juan Anderson, a Jamil Wilson, or a DJO?

As much as you contend Buzz needs more "traditionals", Bo needs "switchables" and athletes if they ever want to take the next step. Honestly, while they are generally ahead of us in conference play, MU is way closer to actual NCAA success than UW is. And whether you want to use seeds or kenpom, that's something Bo has simply never had.

Match.

Quote from: Pakuni on March 27, 2011, 11:24:51 AM
So the guy who says recruiting rankings don't matter to him is judging the QUALITY of a player not only by whether or not he was RSCI top 100, but where on the RSCI top 100 he landed? As if there's some massive gap between the 68th ranked player and the 81st ranked player?
Mr. Consistency.

Putting your logic to work, Kennedy Winston, Daniel Horton, Sean Dockery, Elijah Ingram and Bryan Hopkins were point guards of greater QUALITY in the class of 2002 than Deron Williams. After all, that's what the RSCI says.
That's totally irrelevant to the discussion. If your claim is that Wisconsin does more with lesser players, then kids who never actually played - or didn't play long enough to make an impact - don't belong in the discussion. The only players that matter are the ones who actually play. This shouldn't even be a matter of debate.
But again, you have an agenda.

I only brought up RSCI because you did originally when you went down this path a few months ago.  So your point is lame, quite frankly.   You decided several months ago to go down this path of top 100 RSCI players.  You were then trumped by the information I came up with.  I didn't start the RSCI nonsense, you did.

Would you like the original post so we can go down memory lane together again?

Ah...."didn't play long enough to make an impact"....and prey tell who decides how long that is and what the "impact" was.  Let me guess...YOU.  LOL.  Who has the agenda.  Classic.

Quote from: brewcity77 on March 27, 2011, 12:51:00 PM
Losing to #20 is an upset when you're #5, I'd say. As much an upset as Marquette over Syracuse or Kentucky over Ohio State. All I'm saying is that cone tourney time, Bo doesn't elevate his team. Four of the past five years they've list games they should have won. He's a regular season maestro, but when people try to say he's one of the best coaches in the country, I don't even laugh, I just shake my head in bewilderment. And he has no one to blame for the talent level but himself, so that's a completely hollow excuse. He recruited all of these players, and it's a very tough sell to say his style of play doesn't keep him from getting better recruits. They don't even need highly-rated recruits (though it's a joke if anyone really believes JPT ever seriously considered them) but rather just a few true athletes. Could Bo have recruited a Juan Anderson, a Jamil Wilson, or a DJO?

As much as you contend Buzz needs more "traditionals", Bo needs "switchables" and athletes if they ever want to take the next step. Honestly, while they are generally ahead of us in conference play, MU is way closer to actual NCAA success than UW is. And whether you want to use seeds or kenpom, that's something Bo has simply never had.

When you're #5 out of 347 playing #20 out of 347....do the statistical comparison.  The difference is so small...they're both in the 90th percentile. I think you put way too much stock in the difference between #5 and #20. 

I don't disagree with you at all about Bo needing more switchables.  If MU and UW-madison could merger their rosters, they would insanely good.  Unfortunately it seems both coaches are so stubborn on their "systems" that they each have a gaping weakness they refuse to address.  

Chico's--I am not so sure MU is locked into a system just yet. Buzz is reloading a rooster with kids he likes. Bo is a guy who sticks with his system and it has worked for him. I am hoping that Buzz is more flexible than Bo down the road.

Quote from: Goose on March 27, 2011, 01:14:23 PM
Chico's--I am not so sure MU is locked into a system just yet. Buzz is reloading a rooster with kids he likes. Bo is a guy who sticks with his system and it has worked for him. I am hoping that Buzz is more flexible than Bo down the road.

Lord knows I hope so as well...let's call it locked into a "philosophy" of player types.  That's what scares me.

Lol

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21880.msg239083#msg239083


"I'm calling the kid (Zeller) overhyped because I believe he, like his brothers, has been overhyped."  Buzz Williams and MU might differ.

What would Lenny say right now....game, set....

Here you go Pakuni...this is where you started going down this path with the RSCI numbers...you were presented with more complete info then and again today.  I'm sorry you don't like it, but them is the facts.  You're entitled to your opinions but not your own set of facts.  Remember when you decided to only use 2000 to 2008...because YOU have an agenda.  

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=23089.msg254661#msg254661


"Yes they do. From 2000 to 2008, MU landed eight RSCI top 100 players. Wisconsin landed nine RSCI top 100 players."
-Pakuni


Then reality had to be presented, including quality and quantity.  Again..YOU brought up the RSCI numbers, not me!

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


And as mentioned then and again today, I don't care for the RSCI ratings but YOU brought them into the arena

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=23089.msg254994#msg254994

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=23089.msg255173#msg255173

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=23089.msg255177#msg255177

(Lenny, please...chime in with your graceful comments...ouch)  Game, set, match...indeed.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 27, 2011, 01:09:36 PMWhen you're #5 out of 347 playing #20 out of 347....do the statistical comparison.  The difference is so small...they're both in the 90th percentile. I think you put way too much stock in the difference between #5 and #20.

Hmm...if you put it like that, yes. But that's assuming there's equal gaps. Is the difference between the 5th best team and the 20th best team the same as the 323rd best team and the 338th best team? I don't think so. I think the gaps expand exponentially. Just my opinion.

But either way, I'm not saying it's an upset, I'm saying that they lost to a team that paper says they should have beat, and more important, saying that they have never beaten a team that they shouldn't have beat. It stands out far more that they have never beaten a team above a 5-seed and never beaten a team in the tourney that was rated higher than them by kenpom. What I'm trying to say is that Bo has never shown the capability to coach his teams to play above their level, whereas many other coaches that have played them have done exactly that.

You can't put him in the "top coaches" tier until he proves that his teams can either at least perform at their seed level (or computer ratings level, if you'd rather) and occasionally overachieve. Stevens, Izzo, and this year even Buzz did that. And more than anything, I think that Bo's tourney record points to how well he does in the regular season. When you get to the tourney every year, you're going to have some years when the pieces fall right and allow you to advance. Their large sample size virtually guarantees an Elite 8 and a few Sweet 16s. I'm pretty sure that of all the teams to have the kind of streak UW has in terms of appearances, only Pitt has fewer wins over the past decade. Yes, he gets there, but they have never overachieved and never put together a run that would be considered anything other than predictable.

One last question, would you agree that Buzz's win over 3-seed and kenpom #10 Syracuse was better than any win Bo has ever had? If not, what has he done in his 10 years of NCAA history that outdid that game?

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 27, 2011, 01:16:14 PM
Lol

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21880.msg239083#msg239083


"I'm calling the kid (Zeller) overhyped because I believe he, like his brothers, has been overhyped."  Buzz Williams and MU might differ.

What would Lenny say right now....game, set....

Sigh ... Zeller developed much better this year than nearly anyone expected. In that regard, I was wrong about him.
But at the time I made the statement, I was correct: he had not lived up to his expectations. In two seasons at UNC, he had averaged 7.1 ppg and 3.7 rpg. Are those typical expectations for a McDonald's AA or would you agree with me that he hadn't lived up to expectations?

Of course, what this has to do with Bo Ryan and his recruiting, I'm not sure.
I will now go in search of Chico's posts crowing about what a great hire Providence made in 2008.  ;)

Hey ... look what I found:

"Great hire by Providence College, imagine if Marquette had put a little effort into it."

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=8690.msg71656#msg71656

"Give Providence credit, they kept swinging and all it did was land them the NCAA National Coach of the Year....wow, they sure did terrible.   Roll Eyes"

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=8694.msg71776#msg71776

"Providence just got tougher....think about it ..... PROVIDENCE hires a coach out of the midwest with a very strong basketball background.  Providence."

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=8694.msg71654#msg71654


Shall we continue with this nonsense all day? It's true, I've been wrong before. You busted me.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 27, 2011, 01:23:31 PM
Here you go Pakuni...this is where you started going down this path with the RSCI numbers...you were presented with more complete info then and again today.  I'm sorry you don't like it, but them is the facts.  You're entitled to your opinions but not your own set of facts.  Remember when you decided to only use 2000 to 2008...because YOU have an agenda.  

Sorry, Chico's, but this fails to help your cause.
You've repeatedly stated that you believe rankings are meaningless. Whether or not I was the first to raise the RSCI shouldn't change that. And yet your argument here is that those rankings - the ones you call meaningless - determine the quality of a player. Whether I mentioned RSCI or not four months ago doesn't correct your inconsistency.
Once again, you're the only one in this discussion who has associated RSCI rankings with the quality of the player.

Nor does it change the facts, which you're trying to obfuscate with a bunch of red herrings.

And the facts remain that in the Bo Ryan era, the two teams have had the same number of RSCI top 100 players who've played enough to have an impact on a team's success.
Even if you don't like that disclaimer - even if you want to play by the inane notion that Mbakwe, Maymon and D. Williams somehow impacted their respective teams success the past nine seasons, that makes the number 11 MU to 10 UW. Hardly the "far cry" you've touted, wouldn't you say?

As for the 2000-08 thing, I thought it made sense that if we were talking about the respective teams' success in the prior decade, or at least in the Ryan era, it made sense to compare players who'd actually played in the decade. This, as opposed to including 2009 and 2010 recruits who, at best, had one year on their teams at the time.
To me, that seemed logical. Tou you, I suppose, logic dicates that Vander Blue and Jamail Jones have had greater impact on MU over that time frame than Travis Diener and Scott Merritt.
So it goes.

But as I've said, even if we go from Bo's first class to the present, the numbers are the same.

Quote from: brewcity77 on March 27, 2011, 01:27:24 PM
Hmm...if you put it like that, yes. But that's assuming there's equal gaps. Is the difference between the 5th best team and the 20th best team the same as the 323rd best team and the 338th best team? I don't think so. I think the gaps expand exponentially. Just my opinion.

Great question but going back and looking at it, I think it just strengthens my argument.  Pom uses a Pythagorean scoring system to rate each team.  Let's look at that 5 vs 20 again, but by the actual rating system.

They seem to be evenly distributed from team 1 to team 345.  It seems to me that his teams are distributed along those lines. 

Looking at the ratings, by the way, Wisconsin was at a .9791 while Davidson at a .9487.  Very closely bunched.

Or, in 2005 Wisconsin at a .9499 and NC State at .9412.  I mean, we're talking nearly DEAD EVEN yet the seeds say 6 beat a 10.

Quote from: brewcity77 on March 27, 2011, 01:27:24 PM

But either way, I'm not saying it's an upset, I'm saying that they lost to a team that paper says they should have beat, and more important, saying that they have never beaten a team that they shouldn't have beat.

Again, don't agree.  Should have beat?  Some of those games Pom would have 50-50 toss ups. 

Quote from: brewcity77 on March 27, 2011, 01:27:24 PM


One last question, would you agree that Buzz's win over 3-seed and kenpom #10 Syracuse was better than any win Bo has ever had? If not, what has he done in his 10 years of NCAA history that outdid that game?

Interesting question.  First, I think the quality of college basketball today is a far cry from what it was even a few years ago and definitely different than 10 years ago.  So it's tough to compare a #10 Syracuse 3 seed of 2011 vs the same seed and ranking say 7 years ago.  Teams just aren't as good.... BUT HEY, I have an AGENDA (even though just about every college basketball expert in the land says college basketball teams are not even close to as good as they have been earlier in the decade)...that was not directed at you by the way.

But using the information we have, yes, I would say that win over Syracuse is better than any win that Bo Ryan has had in the NCAA Tournament.

Quote from: Pakuni on March 27, 2011, 02:18:31 PM
Sigh ... Zeller developed much better this year than nearly anyone expected. In that regard, I was wrong about him.
But at the time I made the statement, I was correct: he had not lived up to his expectations. In two seasons at UNC, he had averaged 7.1 ppg and 3.7 rpg. Are those typical expectations for a McDonald's AA or would you agree with me that he hadn't lived up to expectations?

Of course, what this has to do with Bo Ryan and his recruiting, I'm not sure.
I will now go in search of Chico's posts crowing about what a great hire Providence made in 2008.  ;)

Hey ... look what I found:

"Great hire by Providence College, imagine if Marquette had put a little effort into it."

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=8690.msg71656#msg71656

"Give Providence credit, they kept swinging and all it did was land them the NCAA National Coach of the Year....wow, they sure did terrible.   Roll Eyes"

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=8694.msg71776#msg71776

"Providence just got tougher....think about it ..... PROVIDENCE hires a coach out of the midwest with a very strong basketball background.  Providence."

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=8694.msg71654#msg71654


Shall we continue with this nonsense all day? It's true, I've been wrong before. You busted me.

That's the best you can do...I've had some whoppers MUCH worse than that Pakuni...come on.  LOL

Quote from: Pakuni on March 27, 2011, 02:37:22 PM
Sorry, Chico's, but this fails to help your cause.
You've repeatedly stated that you believe rankings are meaningless. Whether or not I was the first to raise the RSCI shouldn't change that. And yet your argument here is that those rankings - the ones you call meaningless - determine the quality of a player. Whether I mentioned RSCI or not four months ago doesn't correct your inconsistency.
Once again, you're the only one in this discussion who has associated RSCI rankings with the quality of the player.

Nor does it change the facts, which you're trying to obfuscate with a bunch of red herrings.

And the facts remain that in the Bo Ryan era, the two teams have had the same number of RSCI top 100 players who've played enough to have an impact on a team's success.
Even if you don't like that disclaimer - even if you want to play by the inane notion that Mbakwe, Maymon and D. Williams somehow impacted their respective teams success the past nine seasons, that makes the number 11 MU to 10 UW. Hardly the "far cry" you've touted, wouldn't you say?

As for the 2000-08 thing, I thought it made sense that if we were talking about the respective teams' success in the prior decade, or at least in the Ryan era, it made sense to compare players who'd actually played in the decade. This, as opposed to including 2009 and 2010 recruits who, at best, had one year on their teams at the time.
To me, that seemed logical. Tou you, I suppose, logic dicates that Vander Blue and Jamail Jones have had greater impact on MU over that time frame than Travis Diener and Scott Merritt.
So it goes.

But as I've said, even if we go from Bo's first class to the present, the numbers are the same.

WOW, just wow.  You seem to be saying "don't use my own words against me Chico..". 

Yes or no, is there a difference between a top 100 player in terms of quality?  In other words are some "top" players significantly better than other top 100 players?  Let's start there, shall we.  I believe this is where your greatest flaw is in this "discussion".  You brought up the RSCI stuff to try and use a system that takes some of the impartial rhetoric out of it.  I realize you don't love the system, and neither do I, but that's where you went.

Now you want to decide if someone only played for awhile before they left, they don't count.  OK.

Now you don't want to acknowledge that using that SAME SYSTEM THAT YOU BROUGHT UP shows that MU's players were rated SIGNIFICANTLY higher in that list than UW's.  Of UW's 10 players (using your new numbers) 60% were rated worse than 85th or another way to say it...THEY BARELY MADE THE TOP 100.  Two were ranked in the top 60. 

MU, by contrast, had only TWO players worse than 85th out of the 11 (using YOUR new numbers).  Does QUALITY not matter?  Of course it does.  How many top 60 players did MU have using this system YOU chose?  SIX.  Six for us, two for UW.  We also had a player ranked 61st. 

So, yes, I did use YOUR system of choice.  MU not only has LANDED more top 100 players...15 to 10, but KEPT more top 100 players (11 to 10) and the quality of those top 100 players (using YOUR system) destroys the quality that UW-madison has gathered.  It's not even in the same ballpark in terms of lopsided comparison.

You fellas are as crazy as a pet coon.   

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 27, 2011, 03:11:39 PMOr, in 2005 Wisconsin at a .9499 and NC State at .9412.  I mean, we're talking nearly DEAD EVEN yet the seeds say 6 beat a 10.

I don't get why you keep referencing NC State. Wisconsin beat them. The only argument you have is that they were incorrectly seeded. I don't believe I argued that, making it an irrelevant point. But if you want to point out that kenpom was rated slightly better, I agree. And if that means that they would have been favorites, even it if was a 50.1/49.9 which was rounded to 50/50. Yes, it's a very close game, but the bottom line is UW would have been slight favorites, and they won. How does that strengthen your argument? It's basically reinforcing exactly what I said.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 27, 2011, 03:11:39 PMAgain, don't agree.  Should have beat?  Some of those games Pom would have 50-50 toss ups.

Not Davidson. Not even close. Look at Kentucky and West Virginia this year. 15 spot difference in kenpom. Similar difference in points to UW/Davidson. Maybe not quite as stark, but Kentucky was a 65.3% favorite to win. Even if Wisconsin wouldn't have been as big of favorites, I find it hard to believe that the difference wouldn't have been 60% or more. It's farcical to suggest that a gap that big on a neutral court would have been a 50-50 toss up.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 27, 2011, 03:11:39 PMInteresting question.  First, I think the quality of college basketball today is a far cry from what it was even a few years ago and definitely different than 10 years ago.  So it's tough to compare a #10 Syracuse 3 seed of 2011 vs the same seed and ranking say 7 years ago.  Teams just aren't as good.... BUT HEY, I have an AGENDA (even though just about every college basketball expert in the land says college basketball teams are not even close to as good as they have been earlier in the decade)...that was not directed at you by the way.

But using the information we have, yes, I would say that win over Syracuse is better than any win that Bo Ryan has had in the NCAA Tournament.

Quality may be relative, but that goes both ways. Wisconsin's foes may have been better then, but so were they, and Marquette's teams today are comparably "worse" just as their opponents are. UW's best ever win against that NC State team was as a team with a 0.9499 rating against a team with a 0.9412, as you pointed out, whereas Buzz's win was as a team with a 0.8843 rating against a 0.9408. Nearly identical in terms of opponent beat, but with a much lower rated team.

And quite simply, there's no argument that can be made in favor of Bo actually coaching his team "up" at any point of his career. The only time he beat a higher seed was as a 12 against 5-seed FSU, but according to kenpom, UW was actually the favorite (rated 29 to 36). And as I pointed out, he's never beaten a team rated higher by kenpom, and 4 times has lost to a team rated lower. 50-50 or not, great coaches find ways to win 50-50 games. Bo, on the other hand, doesn't.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 27, 2011, 01:23:31 PM


(Lenny, please...chime in with your graceful comments...ouch)  Game, set, match...indeed.

Here's my "chime". It's impossible to have a real discussion with you because you don't fight fair. On one hand, you'll say that RSCI rankings don't mean much and that there's no difference between, say, a guy rated 40th and 80th. That's when you're playing apologist for Bo the recruiter. Then you use the same numbers (and dishonestly include players never even enrolled at Marquette) to "prove" Bo the great does more with less.

Same stuff with the seeds. UW gets good seeds because they "earn" them. When they lose to lower seeds, those lower seeds didn't "earn" theirs, they were misjudged and underseeded by the SC. Marquette gets poorer seeds because they "earn" them. When they beat higher seeds it's no great accomplishment because those higher seeds were misjudged and "overseeded" by the SC.

In your "objectivity" Wisconsin's accomplishments are praised and their failures excused. Marquette's failures are harshly criticized and their accomplishments minimized and denigrated. I expect that from Badgermaniac. I don't expect that from one of ours.

Chicos is like my 18 year old daughter.  Never gets tired of an argument.  Doesn't matter how much logic you apply.   She'll just keep arguing as long as I do.

Brew and I have been arguing the same points with slightly different angles, using differing levels of detail in our presentations, and Chicos keeps going and going and going.  I'm tired.  I'm retiring.  Best of luck to Brew and Lenny.