MUScoop

Buzz Williams to remain at Marquette as head coach

Written by: noreply@blogger.com (muwarrior92)

According to reports today, Buzz Williams will remain as head coach at Marquette and have his salary bumped above $2 million per year.  That salary would put Williams in the top 20 salaries in college basketball and increased expectations that accompany it.

Buzz Williams to return to Marquette (http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-basketball/2011/3/27/2075075/buzz-williams-marquette-basketball-coach)

http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2011/03/buzz-williams-to-remain-at-marquette-as.html

OK. If he is getting 2 million a year, then we should compete for BEast titles--not settle for 10th place, make deep runs in the dance at least every third year, be ranked in top 25 consistently, and recruit big time players. No more excuses like:
~~Our players lack experience
~~Wisky beat us because they were lucky
~~The successful coaches in BEast have all been there for years
~~Our guys ran out of gas
~~We are only a post player away
~~We need a PG who can shoot
~~You can't recruit talent to Milwaukee (By the way, they do it at Butler, they do it at Syracuse, they do it at UConn, etc.)
And so on.

If Buzz is here for the long haul, I am confident that he can do it.

Willie---I agree expectations should be higher and support should be higher if all this is true. Time to go to next level as program if spending this kind of dough.

Willie, just stfu.

Great day for MU and its future.

Quote from: willie warrior on March 27, 2011, 01:48:07 PM
OK. If he is getting 2 million a year, then we should compete for BEast titles--not settle for 10th place, make deep runs in the dance at least every third year, be ranked in top 25 consistently, and recruit big time players. No more excuses like:
~~Our players lack experience
~~Wisky beat us because they were lucky
~~The successful coaches in BEast have all been there for years
~~Our guys ran out of gas
~~We are only a post player away
~~We need a PG who can shoot
~~You can't recruit talent to Milwaukee (By the way, they do it at Butler, they do it at Syracuse, they do it at UConn, etc.)
And so on.

If Buzz is here for the long haul, I am confident that he can do it.

Just out of curiosity, you do undersand that Buzz is building the program, right? After all of TC's recruits left, he did what he had to to keep us above water. Like his methods or not, they worked. Our NCAA streak is intact, and now his own recruits are ready to step to the forefront. We were never likely to win a title in Buzz's third year. I think when you look at the team, we are on the right track. We have the talent level, the balance in classes, and hopefully the coach that can coach them down the path to the Final Four. I know you have a lot of question marks, and I know that everything hasn't been perfect, but I think the silver lining on the job Buzz has done so far (even before the S16 run) is pretty blatantly obvious.

Though all that said, I am glad to see you are confident he can do it. I'm with you there.

Quote from: Ruby on March 27, 2011, 01:58:58 PM
Willie, just stfu.

Great day for MU and its future.

Agreed.

Congrats to Buzz and his family. Well deserved.
I am glad though they set expectations higher.

Guys---It is a great day for program if the deal gets signed and MU is equally protected. But, it does raise the bar to some extent. If you are paying your coach top 20 pay then performance must match. It is no different than any other job except.

Quote from: willie warrior on March 27, 2011, 01:48:07 PM
OK. If he is getting 2 million a year, then we should compete for BEast titles--not settle for 10th place, make deep runs in the dance at least every third year, be ranked in top 25 consistently, and recruit big time players. No more excuses like:
~~Our players lack experience
~~Wisky beat us because they were lucky
~~The successful coaches in BEast have all been there for years
~~Our guys ran out of gas
~~We are only a post player away
~~We need a PG who can shoot
~~You can't recruit talent to Milwaukee (By the way, they do it at Butler, they do it at Syracuse, they do it at UConn, etc.)
And so on.

If Buzz is here for the long haul, I am confident that he can do it.

That's a lot of wasted keystrokes.

I expect national titles. That's it. The rest is just window dressing.

Quote from: Ruby on March 27, 2011, 01:58:58 PM
Willie, just stfu.

Great day for MU and its future.

(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRfyaTn7ljuYKHVqATdIfQ5k3b1lzO-Yn-6MfxPUwfZBSiFS1KJ_w)

Quote from: Goose on March 27, 2011, 02:07:45 PM
Guys---It is a great day for program if the deal gets signed and MU is equally protected. But, it does raise the bar to some extent. If you are paying your coach top 20 pay then performance must match. It is no different than any other job except.

I'm fine with it raising the bar, but am not so delusional as to put specific criteria on it, especially criteria that has not been matched at MU since the tournament expanded in the mid-80s. Yes, it would be the highest salary MU has ever paid to a coach, but that is what it takes to be competitive in our milieu.

Furthermore, WW's list of proffered excuses, as far as I'm aware, have never been made by the coaching staff or administration. ((With the only possible exception being the DI experience issue - I know Buzz has stressed this, I just don't recall the specific context))

Before a deal is even reached, WW seems to be trying to frame what the future debate will be on the merits of Buzz as a coach. I don't take kindly to that. I do not agree with his criteria, and I do not agree with his outlook.
It smacks of someone furthering an agenda.

Like many others, my expectations are raised, but raised based on another year of experience, another year of recruiting, another year of fantastic exposure to the nation. They have very little to do with the amount of money being paid to the coach. As some like to say, "That is the cost of doing business."

NCAA Rules---I would say your point is well stated. I think it is time to look at expectations for the position and not the person in the position. If we were looking at another school hiring another coach at $2 million we would think expectations are high at that school. TC is hired at IU for a ton of money and many on here think he should be fired because of lack of victories. We are tough on other coaches in our league and less so on our coach. If he is paid big boy pay I think the bar should be high.

My only gripe on the site or MU fans is we are tough critics of other programs than our own. My goal would be to see us worry about our success and hold the HC position and AD position accountable. I believe Buzz can get it done and believe with new contract he has to get done.

yeah this notion that the top 20 coaches should have the top 20 teams is ridiculous.  MU needs to be able to pay a coach who can overcome some of the unique challenges that the program presents (we have talked about them ad nauseum), and I believe Buzz is a great guy to overcome many of those.  If a coach takes little ole MU and makes them perennially in the national consideration, you don't think that's worth as much financially as a guy who keeps UNC competitively?  We would say that the MU coach has the harder job and has done more with less, so why not compensate him more?

MUBurrow--You really think keeping UNC on top is easy? Pretty sure they had a couple of dud hires along the way. If you believe MU has to overpay to overcome our weaknesses we have ZERO chance to be big time. Buzz is not being paid big money to offset the limitations you implied. He might be getting paid big money because MU got scared but not limitations.

With your thought process the biggest limitations are fans that have bar set too low. I believe we can a national championship. Schools with limitations cannot say that. In a year with VCU and Butler playing big how can you mention our "challenges"?

Quote from: Goose on March 27, 2011, 02:50:52 PM
MUBurrow--You really think keeping UNC on top is easy? Pretty sure they had a couple of dud hires along the way. If you believe MU has to overpay to overcome our weaknesses we have ZERO chance to be big time. Buzz is not being paid big money to offset the limitations you implied. He might be getting paid big money because MU got scared but not limitations.

With your thought process the biggest limitations are fans that have bar set too low. I believe we can a national championship. Schools with limitations cannot say that. In a year with VCU and Butler playing big how can you mention our "challenges"?

How bad was North Carolina really under their "dud hires"? They are at a different level.

Quote from: Goose on March 27, 2011, 02:07:45 PM
Guys---It is a great day for program if the deal gets signed and MU is equally protected. But, it does raise the bar to some extent. If you are paying your coach top 20 pay then performance must match. It is no different than any other job except.

We are paying him like a top 20 guy and he just had us as one of the last 16 teams playing:  
In his 3rd year.
With no true seniors or juniors.  

What is the point of complaining about other fans expectations in every thread?  We get it.  You want Buzz on the hot seat.  We should all demand that over the next three years, if we don't finish top 3 in the big east every year and make sweet 16s 2 out of our next 3 years.  And if he doesn't live up then he should be gone because that is how you "run it like a business."  

N

Devil's advocate.

Yes more money means higher expectations.

If Buzz is now one of the 20 highest paid coaches.  Then should we expect a top 20 team?

Here is how Buzz's previous three seasons have ranked ...

                 KenPom    Sagarin
2010/2011      31             25
2009/2010      33             36
2008/2009      19             20

Looks like we are not that far away right now.  And considering what Buzz was paid his first three years, we were probably underpaying him to begin with.

We are not necessarily "overpaying" Buzz based on what he did.

Rawdog---I do not want Buzz on hot seat at all. I want all the fans in BC seat next season. The school ponies up and I want fans to do the same. If we are big time program, which I believe, we need to be big time across the board. More students and less no shows at BC would be nice.

So, my point is I want the fans on the hot seat.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 27, 2011, 02:55:35 PM
Devil's advocate.

Yes more money means higher expectations.

If Buzz is now one of the 20 highest paid coaches.  Then should we expect a top 20 team?

Here is how Buzz's previous three seasons have ranked ...

                 KenPom    Sagarin
2010/2011      31             25
2009/2010      33             36
2008/2009      19             20

Looks like we are not that far away right now.  And considering what Buzz was paid his first three years, we were probably underpaying him to begin with.

We are not necessarily "overpaying" Buzz based on what he did.

+1

We've been very fair to Buzz.   I think expectations should go up slightly, NIT allowable once, maybe twice.  Otherwise we should be making the tourney.   I agree with others that price of business at MU is a little higher to maintain coaches.  No built in recruiting advantages, climate, etc.

Quote from: Goose on March 27, 2011, 02:59:27 PM
Rawdog---I do not want Buzz on hot seat at all. I want all the fans in BC seat next season. The school ponies up and I want fans to do the same. If we are big time program, which I believe, we need to be big time across the board. More students and less no shows at BC would be nice.

So, my point is I want the fans on the hot seat.

says the guy who was  bragging about dropping his season tickets 2 days ago.   ::)

Quote from: Stone Cold on March 27, 2011, 03:01:34 PM
We've been very fair to Buzz.   I think expectations should go up slightly, NIT allowable once, maybe twice.  Otherwise we should be making the tourney.   I agree with others that price of business at MU is a little higher to maintain coaches.  No built in recruiting advantages, climate, etc.

Agree with this.  I do, though, want to see how Buzz does recruiting coming off the Sweet 16 and a renewed commitment to MU.  He has been trying to get some of the elite players the past two years (Black, Dawson - please chico's no more Dawson comments  ::)).  I am hoping this gives him enough amunition to close some of these.

Quote from: Stone Cold on March 27, 2011, 03:01:34 PM
agree with others that price of business at MU is a little higher to maintain coaches.  No built in recruiting advantages, climate, etc.

What makes Syracuse, Uconn, Kansas, Mich State, Kentucky or Louisville America's paradise?

Basketball has shown weather is not an issue (side note, weather appears to be a huge issue in football recruiting which is killing the B10 and ND).  City is not an issue.  If the Coach is good, even an armpit like Lansing Michigan becomes desirable.

Located in a ghetto, some weird dude driving around with signs all over his car, no rep for hot tail, not dominant alumni base even in our city and its suburbs.    Wisconsin isn't for a lot of people, probably has a worse rep among males than most of those other places.

But you're right, climate is minor mostly, unless with southern guys.  More recruiting since MPS doesn't qualify their kids, lots of competition in Chicago, no in state pressure to go to MU, like with the crazies in Louisiana, Indiana or Kentucky etc.

Quote from: Stone Cold on March 27, 2011, 03:16:23 PM
Located in a ghetto, some weird dude driving around with signs all over his car, no rep for hot tail, not dominant alumni base even in our city and its suburbs.

The only way you can think MU is located in a ghetto is you're a white guy that has spent way too much time in the suburbs.  Or, you don't know what the definition of Ghetto means.  Uconn, Seton Hall, SJU, Louisville, Nova, Cincy, Xavier (or Harvard or Yale for that fact)) or most any other urban school fit your description.

The rest is a pretty good description of Louisville, Syracuse,  Mich State and Kansas.

My point is MU has no disadvantage, other than not enough Wisconsin players to pick from.  Get a good coach and everyone will come to you.  Again, see Louisville and Lansing Michigan (or New Haven) why people even stop to get gas and go to the bathroom in these towns is beyond me.

Is there a list of the top 20 coaches and what they make?

Well I am white and grew up in the suburbs.   Did sleep at a Howard Johnson last night though.

Quote from: Stone Cold on March 27, 2011, 03:01:34 PM
We've been very fair to Buzz.   I think expectations should go up slightly, NIT allowable once, maybe twice.  Otherwise we should be making the tourney.   I agree with others that price of business at MU is a little higher to maintain coaches.  No built in recruiting advantages, climate, etc.

Wrong on expectations going up slightly. The kind of jack he is making, then the expectations should go up considerably. Excuses must be ignored, by admin and fans. We have  quality facilities, play in a top conference, and can offer a quality education. I am amazed that some people still offer the excuse, not much quality tail/hotties, or not very good weather in Milwaukee. Bogus! Look at Butler, look at Syracuse, etc. for how their programs are doing.

Everything is now in place for us to take off. We need to start landing big time players.

If the market is $2 mil, we pay $2 mil.

I think heightened expectations are a given.

KC---It would be the first time expectations were a given. I would bet 70% of the posters would be happy to continue our NCAA run with similar results. Funny thing is when a Kansas or big school loses we try and lump them back with us. Expectations have been missing for a long time.

I would be willing to bet that internal expectation is for men's basketball to generate enough revenue to pay for all non-revenue sports and have some left over. That is fine goal, but no need to spend a ton of money to do it.

Quote from: willie warrior on March 27, 2011, 03:35:50 PM
Wrong on expectations going up slightly. The kind of jack he is making, then the expectations should go up considerably. Excuses must be ignored, by admin and fans. We have  quality facilities, play in a top conference, and can offer a quality education. I am amazed that some people still offer the excuse, not much quality tail/hotties, or not very good weather in Milwaukee. Bogus! Look at Butler, look at Syracuse, etc. for how their programs are doing.

Everything is now in place for us to take off. We need to start landing big time players.

Willie, I love your logic.  If it holds true every BCS school should be in the final four right now, as if VCU and Butler can do it, they certainly should.  It's just plain dumb.  If you want to be VCU or Butler, than copy their "business plan."  Personally, I'll take a pass.  You like to talk about expectations, and I expect you have no idea of who/what will allow MU to meet those expecatations.  If you think there's a better coach out there for the $$$, that would come to MU, toss some names out there.  If not, you pay what you have to, to keep your current coach.  I'm curious as to what $500,000 means as far as expectations, and I'm curious as to why you feel the need to point to any other indicator than wins and losses.  It shows flaws in your logic and rationalization. 

Avid--Would you be disappointed if Cottingham said the following when announcing the new contract:

"We understand the long and rich history that basketball has played at MU. The sport has been an outstanding ambassador for the school over the years. We are proud to announce that Buzz Williams contract has been extended. We decided that the time was right because we believe Buzz is right guy to take the program to the next level. We want our alumni and fans to know that the contract is in the highest level of all coaches in NCAA ball and we want to compete at that level. Our goal moving forward is to continue to grow the brand of MU ball. Our goal is to win a national championship."

By willie's expectations, Calipari is a failure.  He' the highest paid coach in basketball and zero titles = failure.

Another thought.  I think it's not a stretch to say we are a top 30 program right now.  Buzz is about to be a top 20 paid coach.  In a year, he'll probably be a top 30 coach next year.  Might be top 25 paid coach in about 3 weeks when all the other positions (including OU) are filled.

So what heightened expectations should a top 30 program have when they pay a coach top 20 to 30 money?

Again, my point is he's not overpayed.

AnotherMU---FF is far different than an occasional S16. Coach Cal has pretty much delivered 97% of the goods. If Buzz has 3/4 of the NCAA success that Cal has I will be more than satisfied. Pay Buzz whatever it takes to be FF contender every year as far as I am concerned.

Why do people care how much he makes?  I certainly don't.  I'm not paying it.  I am just glad that he's staying.  If it took $2 million...then pay him $2 million.  If it took $5 million...then pay him $5 million.

Quote from: Goose on March 27, 2011, 04:37:36 PM
AnotherMU---FF is far different than an occasional S16. Coach Cal has pretty much delivered 97% of the goods. If Buzz has 3/4 of the NCAA success that Cal has I will be more than satisfied. Pay Buzz whatever it takes to be FF contender every year as far as I am concerned.

Even if it's with Cal's baggage?  According to the NCAA, he's never been to the Final Four.  Each have been vacated.

Calipari has never "officially" made the Final Four.  His two trips have been vacated by the NCAA for cheating.

1996 with Umass because of Marcus Camby
2008 with Memphis because of Derrick Rose

So Calipari is still waiting for his first.

And if Kentucky wins today, will it be his first or will this too be vacated next year?

No.  I'd be disappointed if he told Buzz that he demanded he land recruits like JP, and told him not to use the excuse of bad weather when missing out on recruits (not like he ever has).  First, I think the program has to have goals/expectations, and that doesn't just fall on Buzz.  Second, I think MU needs to understand that just because they pay well doesn't mean they'll achieve what UNC, Kentucky, Kansas, etc. does.  You talk about expectations a lot, and I expect MU to do what they have to do to put the best coach they can at MU.  I think they've done that, and I that meets my expectations.  I'm not knowledgeable enough about basketball to think I can judge Buzz based on how he recruits (I would have fired Bo Ryan years ago), but I think NCAA appearances are solid for MU...most years that means they're in the top half of the BEAST, and that means you're capable of making a run like UCONN has when you land that special player like Kemba.    

Quote from: Goose on March 27, 2011, 04:27:39 PM
Avid--Would you be disappointed if Cottingham said the following when announcing the new contract:

"We understand the long and rich history that basketball has played at MU. The sport has been an outstanding ambassador for the school over the years. We are proud to announce that Buzz Williams contract has been extended. We decided that the time was right because we believe Buzz is right guy to take the program to the next level. We want our alumni and fans to know that the contract is in the highest level of all coaches in NCAA ball and we want to compete at that level. Our goal moving forward is to continue to grow the brand of MU ball. Our goal is to win a national championship."

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 27, 2011, 04:41:31 PM
Why do people care how much he makes?  I certainly don't.  I'm not paying it.  I am just glad that he's staying.  If it took $2 million...then pay him $2 million.  If it took $5 million...then pay him $5 million.

+1

We always hear MU will pay the market for their coach and that they will not lose him due to money.  They stepped up and paid Buzz what they believed was the market - for Buzz.  Happy to see that!

Somebody posted some stats on 3rd year coaches......

Buzz is in the league with the top 10 coaches of all time most successful starts......

I know that is hard to believe.....But it is what it is.....

Buzz is growing and improving....

Improvement every year in recruiting, B.E. standings, and game coaching and strategy.....

A little at a time.....to make this program what it can be.....

Quote from: burger on March 27, 2011, 04:55:13 PM
Somebody posted some stats on 3rd year coaches......

Buzz is in the league with the top 10 coaches of all time most successful starts......

I know that is hard to believe.....But it is what it is.....

Buzz is growing and improving....

Improvement every year in recruiting, B.E. standings, and game coaching and strategy.....

A little at a time.....to make this program what it can be.....

Sorry, you are a little loose with the facts. Recruiting is not improving. This class he is completing is not as highly regarded as prior. he has not improved in BEast standings, this year was the worst of the 3--trending down. game coaching and strategy--jury is out--otherwise how do you explain the losses this year to Wisky, Louisville, twice, St. John's, Cincy, blowout to UNC, etc.
The only that has grown is his salary. Now we need to see better results!!!

Any word on if the buyout was increased, maintained or decreased? It was at $3.8 mil, right?

Buzz Williams to remain at Marquette as head coach

I enjoyed reading this Threadline, especially, after the weeks of speculations, , rumor mongering, and concerns on the alternatives.

I am very happy for Buzz, his family, his players, and for the program. All of them richly deserve all we can give them, whether in the form of support, or monetary renumeration (within NCAA rules-lol)

As a fan, I am very happy to see coaching stability and the possibilities of the future.

I am pretty sure Buzz already gives his all, his best, and pushes the team to give their best, all the time---its why he and MU has a nationwide reputation, for being a high energy team that makes all opponents work for it.

More salary and some tourney success dont/cant equate to trying even harder, or being better---if you beleive as I do, they werent holding back before.

I place zero expectations based on salary. Paying a higher salary merely is MU recognizing the competition, esp. in the Texas area,  likes what they see Buzz doing and are willing to try to out bid MU, for his efforts. He and MU have kept it going here--good for us.


With the tourney success, and our popular, more recognized coach staying, recruits who considered others should now more seriously think of committing to us---- to a true BE, and national, up and comer program. With good coaching stability, we are maturing back toward a program that expects, rankings , and big game success. MU just took a big step, today in the right direction.

Thank you.

Quote from: Goose on March 27, 2011, 04:05:21 PM
I would be willing to bet that internal expectation is for men's basketball to generate enough revenue to pay for all non-revenue sports and have some left over. That is fine goal, but no need to spend a ton of money to do it.

That is quite a heady expectation, given that no basketball-only school in division I (read as non-football) has posted a net revenues since 2004. (data current as of end of 2009).

Again, some degree of raised expectations is fine, but I wish people would stop projecting specific criteria for success onto the program (unless you have insider knowledge, in which case - please share).

"• No athletics program in this subdivision has reported net generated
revenues since 2005, while one reported small net revenues for 2004.
The median negative net generated revenue (expenses in excess of
generated revenues) in 2009 was $8,340,000. The net losses have
increased steadily over the five year period, from $5,367,000 in
2004. (5.5)"

Great news for Marquette.   The sweet 16 run and the perception of long term stability should be a boon to recruiting.    One schollie left for this year, one for next.     Few impact bigs still available this year.

Quote from: willie warrior on March 27, 2011, 05:04:15 PM
Sorry, you are a little loose with the facts. Recruiting is not improving. This class he is completing is not as highly regarded as prior. he has not improved in BEast standings, this year was the worst of the 3--trending down. game coaching and strategy--jury is out--otherwise how do you explain the losses this year to Wisky, Louisville, twice, St. John's, Cincy, blowout to UNC, etc.
The only that has grown is his salary. Now we need to see better results!!!

I think that's all rather arbitrary. First, the recruiting. Just because Buzz had higher rated players doesn't mean they are necessarily better. Anderson comes from an area constantly ignored in recruiting ratings that are largely compiled by East Coast scouting services. How else can one explain Derrick Williams of Arizona? He was a three-star recruit, and incidentally was offered by Buzz. Might Anderson be the next Williams? Derrick Wilson and Todd Mayo are both being regarded as late-bloomers. Wilson is a first team Class AA New England player, Mayo was regarded as the second best player in the recent Prep National Championship, outshining some top 50 recruits including his own teammate. Considering his bloodline, it's possible that he will end up a 4-star when final ratings come out. In addition, we have another scholarship. With the coaching carousel, it's possible he could add a 4 or even 5 star player.

As far as on-court results, it's all relative. We had exactly zero four-year seniors on this team, and only one of our top players is leaving in JFB. Willie, I have to imagine that even you are expecting better things in the next 2-3 years when you consider who is graduating as opposed to the general trending development we cn expect from recruits like Blue, Cadougan, Wilson, and Gardner. Pointing to only wins and losses without taking anything else into account is as arbitrary as judging recruiting classes only on one recruiting service. Two years ago, we lost four of our five starters to graduation. Last year we lost three starters to graduation. Next year, we lose two, but I think most would argue that Cadougan is already likely to be a notable improvement over Buycks. The decline we've seen should have been predictable, just like improvement would be predictable.

Again, I know that you are expecting improvement, but I think it's a bit narrow to judge Buzz negatively simply because our results have gone down. He's kept us above water. I agree that it's now time to find out if he will sink or swim, but I think continued NCAA appearances have bought him the benefit of the doubt.

Expectations should go up, but based on what Buzz is now being paid. It should be based on making the sweet 16 and all of the press he got. That should help his recruiting. However, it really will not help this class as most players have already committed. I think the boost comes with the 2013 class as most of the ground work has already been made for the 2012 classes. The next issue is whether we lose any of our current players. Consistancy comes from developing players. Williams, Cadougan Gardner and Otule are showing improvement. Add in Wilson and Singleton into the mix with DJO and Crowder and we have a nice nucleous.

jerry seinfeld  "That's a shame"

What? This story is clearly wrong. The Tulsa World National Daily Post Times had an unnamed source that said Buzz to Oklahoma was a "looking good."

Quote from: Stone Cold on March 27, 2011, 03:30:09 PM
Well I am white and grew up in the suburbs.   Did sleep at a Howard Johnson last night though.

Sh it that's roughin' it. Hope you left the bedbugs behind.

I am still of the 4 year mindset.  It takes 4 years to completely judge a coach.  I'm glad MU kept Buzz, and we'll see what he does is year 4.

Quote from: willie warrior on March 27, 2011, 05:04:15 PM
Sorry, you are a little loose with the facts. Recruiting is not improving. This class he is completing is not as highly regarded as prior. he has not improved in BEast standings, this year was the worst of the 3--trending down. game coaching and strategy--jury is out--otherwise how do you explain the losses this year to Wisky, Louisville, twice, St. John's, Cincy, blowout to UNC, etc.
The only that has grown is his salary. Now we need to see better results!!!

This is where you are so ignorant.  You see worse recruiting because of how the classes were ranked, and the majority will actually wait to see how the classes perform.  Heck, I doubt you even understand how the rating system works or what rating system you're referencing.

This was the worst of 3 years in the BEAST, it was also MU's youngest team and it can be argued the BEAST's strongest year.

Then you say he's a bad game coach because he lost to five NCAA teams (Seaton Hall was his worse loss by far). 

I never felt TC was a great game coach, and it was fun to debate what he could do differently; however, when actually being serious about evaluating him....I figured I was only qualified to evaluate based upon wins and losses.

Quote from: avid1010 on March 27, 2011, 04:19:32 PM
Willie, I love your logic.  If it holds true every BCS school should be in the final four right now, as if VCU and Butler can do it, they certainly should.  It's just plain dumb.  If you want to be VCU or Butler, than copy their "business plan."  Personally, I'll take a pass.  You like to talk about expectations, and I expect you have no idea of who/what will allow MU to meet those expecatations.  If you think there's a better coach out there for the $$$, that would come to MU, toss some names out there.  If not, you pay what you have to, to keep your current coach.  I'm curious as to what $500,000 means as far as expectations, and I'm curious as to why you feel the need to point to any other indicator than wins and losses.  It shows flaws in your logic and rationalization. 

Keep accepting mediocrity. Ignore.

Quote from: willie warrior on March 27, 2011, 09:08:44 PM
Keep accepting mediocrity. Ignore.

Lame.

Quote from: martyconlonontherun on March 27, 2011, 03:26:28 PM
Is there a list of the top 20 coaches and what they make?

The lists that are generated have to be somewhat looked at with a grain of salt.  I almost posted it in CS, but decided not to.  The reason is that some "official" salaries are a joke in terms of what their true salary is.  Boeheim is a classic example of this.  What a coach's salary is and what their true total compensation from all sources of income are two different things.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 27, 2011, 04:41:31 PM
Why do people care how much he makes?  I certainly don't.  I'm not paying it.  I am just glad that he's staying.  If it took $2 million...then pay him $2 million.  If it took $5 million...then pay him $5 million.

Actually you are to a degree, through ticket prices, etc.  We all pay for it.  Costs are born by the fans.

Expectations will go up.  The salary will not be an issue unless we plateau out or struggle.  One only needs to visit what certain posters said here numerous occasions about the previous guy's salary and not getting "far enough".  Comes with the territory.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 27, 2011, 10:18:11 PM
Actually you are to a degree, through ticket prices, etc.  We all pay for it.  Costs are born by the fans.

Not sure how much of the difference is from fans and from boosters.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 27, 2011, 10:18:11 PM
Actually you are to a degree, through ticket prices, etc.  We all pay for it.  Costs are born by the fans.

I go to about one game a year.  Fine...an extra $5.  I still don't get worked up over the size of the contract and I can't say that my expectations have changed at all because it is bigger.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 27, 2011, 10:18:11 PM
Actually you are to a degree, through ticket prices, etc.  We all pay for it.  Costs are born by the fans.

Is that why MU ticket prices went down when TC left :D

Quote from: avid1010 on March 27, 2011, 07:43:17 PM
This is where you are so ignorant.  You see worse recruiting because of how the classes were ranked, and the majority will actually wait to see how the classes perform.  Heck, I doubt you even understand how the rating system works or what rating system you're referencing.

This was the worst of 3 years in the BEAST, it was also MU's youngest team and it can be argued the BEAST's strongest year.

I don't know why this issue of use being "young" keeps coming up.  Our primary rotation consisted of 3 seniors (Fulce, Butler & Buycks), 2 juniors (Crowder & DJO), and a 3rd year soph (Otule), a true soph (Cadougan) and one frosh (Blue).  Two others--Williams (a soph) and Gardner (a frosh) played somewhat less.

But what's even more funny about how this keeps coming up is that its not even relevant . . . take a wild guess as to the youngest team in the Big East.

Here's a hint--they're the only team in the league still playing.

Quote from: Marquette84 on March 28, 2011, 09:19:29 AM
I don't know why this issue of use being "young" keeps coming up.  Our primary rotation consisted of 3 seniors (Fulce, Butler & Buycks), 2 juniors (Crowder & DJO), and a 3rd year soph (Otule), a true soph (Cadougan) and one frosh (Blue).  Two others--Williams (a soph) and Gardner (a frosh) played somewhat less.

But what's even more funny about how this keeps coming up is that its not even relevant . . . take a wild guess as to the youngest team in the Big East.

Here's a hint--they're the only team in the league still playing.

I think by young they mean inexperienced.

Jae came into the season with no D-1 experience.
Chris came into the season with 85 minutes under his belt and missed significant practice time to injury.
Junior came in with 47 minutes played and missed significant practice time to injury.
DJO and had only one season of D-1 experience.
Even among the seniors, none were four-year kids.

Essentially, of MU's top 10 players, only two had played D-1 ball for two seasons or more. On the other hand, five of them had less than one season experience. That's actually comparable to UConn, whose rotation this year included three players with 2+ years experience, two with a full season and four with less than one season experience.
Maybe not as young in terms of class, but certainly in terms of experience.

By the way, Gardner played more games and minutes than Fulce this year, so I'm, not sure why you'd consider Joe part of the regular rotation but Davante someone who played "somewhat less."

Storrs has a ghetto?

Buzz uses 'young'.    Substitute 'inexperienced'.   At the start of the season,  4 guys with >100 minutes of D1 experience, one of whom was Fulce.     Next season, DJO, Junior, Blue, Crowder, Otule, JWilson, Chris Singleton, EWill, and DG will all have > 100 minutes D1 experience.

Quote from: tower912 on March 28, 2011, 10:46:21 AM
Buzz uses 'young'.    Substitute 'inexperienced'.   At the start of the season,  4 guys with >100 minutes of D1 experience, one of whom was Fulce.     Next season, DJO, Junior, Blue, Crowder, Otule, JWilson, Chris Singleton, EWill, and DG will all have > 100 minutes D1 experience.

Jamail Jones has 111 minutes.  Last year EWill had 106.

EWill had 106 minutes in 09-10?   Missed that.   

Quote from: tower912 on March 28, 2011, 11:16:42 AM
EWill had 106 minutes in 09-10?   Missed that.   

I was surprised at both his minutes and JJ's.  Would not have thought either was over 100.

Quote from: MUMac on March 28, 2011, 11:32:36 AM
I was surprised at both his minutes and JJ's.  Would not have thought either was over 100.

The majority of these minutes were earned before the Big East season began. Jamail Jones did not see action in 18 games this year while Erik Williams never got off the bench in 13 games.

Willie Warrior seems to think we should be recruiting like North Carolina and Kentucky and signing only 4 & 5 star high school All-Americans. In other words, pretend nothing has changed over the last 3 1/2 decades in the college basketball landscape and Al McGuire is still here. That would be nice, but it simply isn't reality. 

And if you disagree with what willie says, he puts you on ignore.

Quote from: Pakuni on March 28, 2011, 09:35:54 AM
I think by young they mean inexperienced.

Jae came into the season with no D-1 experience.

And 2 years of JUCO experience. Doesn't that count for something?  Or are you going to make the argument that Jae and Jamail had nearly identical experience levels the day they set foot on MU's campus?

Quote from: Pakuni on March 28, 2011, 09:35:54 AM
Chris came into the season with 85 minutes under his belt and missed significant practice time to injury.

I think you overstate how much time Chris actually missed:
11/14/08:  Injured
12/19/08:  First game appearance.  
Missed about one month of practice in 2008-09

11/24/08:  Reported injury (3 games into the season)
2/9/08:  Reported to have returned to practice with the team
Missed about 2 1/2 months.

So over 24+ months from September 2008 to November 2010, that's about 3 1/2 months total missed.  He participated in all of the pre-season work over the course of 3 seasons (10/15 through first game in 2008, 2009, and 2010), plus had all of the off season camps, summer sessions, weight room work, film sessions, etc. over that time.

Quote from: Pakuni on March 28, 2011, 09:35:54 AM
Junior came in with 47 minutes played and missed significant practice time to injury.

Junior was cleared to play by 1/18 his freshman year.  That's still 2 months of his freshman season.  Plus the weight training, film sessions, off-season camps and workouts, summer between frosh and soph seasons, etc.

Quote from: Pakuni on March 28, 2011, 09:35:54 AM
DJO and had only one season of D-1 experience.

And one season of JUCO experience.  

Quote from: Pakuni on March 28, 2011, 09:35:54 AM
Even among the seniors, none were four-year kids.

All were four year kids--its just that the four years weren't at Marquette.

Its pretty arrogant to think that DJO or Jae or Joe or  Dwight didn't develop during their years in JUCO.

One more question--if Scott Monarch didn't help give Jimmy or Joe experience while he was a JUCO coach at Tyler JC, why did Buzz hire him as his assistant at Marquette?

Quote from: Pakuni on March 28, 2011, 09:35:54 AM
Essentially, of MU's top 10 players, only two had played D-1 ball for two seasons or more. On the other hand, five of them had less than one season experience. That's actually comparable to UConn, whose rotation this year included three players with 2+ years experience, two with a full season and four with less than one season experience.
Maybe not as young in terms of class, but certainly in terms of experience.

Only if you completely disregard JUCO experience.

Quote from: Pakuni on March 28, 2011, 09:35:54 AM
By the way, Gardner played more games and minutes than Fulce this year, so I'm, not sure why you'd consider Joe part of the regular rotation but Davante someone who played "somewhat less."

Don't forget that Fulce missed time early this year with injury, so I would expect his overall totals would be down.

In conference play, Fulce appeared in all 18 games and had 168 minutes, Gardner played in 16 games and netted 102 minutes.

My perception is that Fulce played more minutes in clutch games, and Gardner played more minutes when the outcome wasn't in doubt.  Statsheet backs this up with Fulce listed for 6 clutch games and 426 clutch seconds.  Gardner with zero clutch games/seconds.  

Regarding Willie's posts, for the most part I agree with his logic. It seems that many Warrior fans are thin skinned and eager to defend anything and everything about the program. I love the team and school enough to know some things need to change. With change comes different set of expectations. IMO the following are some small issues that makes us look small time:
1. We need a better station to carry games. I love 540 but it is hardly a flagship station. Not enough of the population can get the games.
2. Attendance. We need students in the barn and alumni to show up. Announced attendance is great but people in BC makes a difference. Much easier to impress recruit with big crowds.
3. JS coverage. If MU needs to advertise to get better print space than they have to do it. I did not see mention of new Buzz contract in the paper today. Is that not local news worthy?
4. Getting the word out in general. Buzz and school has to promote better. The BBQ is nice but only geared towards diehards.

If MU does a better overall job of showcasing the entire program it will pay dividends to the school. I think many fans have become complacent due to general lack of local excitement surrounding program. The 50 people seeing team off is perfect example.

I believe that if every fan was more vested in the program we would be wanted better things. Basically we go at it half assed and hope for the best.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 28, 2011, 11:58:55 AM
And if you disagree with what willie says, he puts you on ignore.

Sorry Sultan, once again you are wrong. If I put the people on ignore that disagreed, I would not have too many posts to read. The ones that get my ignore button are the name callers--and believe me, they are out there.

Goose, the only point I am going to address is the attendance issue.  Our attendance is great.  Last year we were 10th in the country, with eight of the schools in front of us being large, public universities.  (Syracuse was the only private school ahead of us.)  The problem is we are playing in a building that is too large for our crowd.

Quote from: WarriorHal on March 28, 2011, 11:57:25 AM
Willie Warrior seems to think we should be recruiting like North Carolina and Kentucky and signing only 4 & 5 star high school All-Americans. In other words, pretend nothing has changed over the last 3 1/2 decades in the college basketball landscape and Al McGuire is still here. That would be nice, but it simply isn't reality. 

So why cannot we do it??????? Al Mcguire, who you brought up, was able to do it, coming from a Hick school like Belmont. Shureshefski is able to do it--I believe his first or second year, he was about 13-18. I am not saying that everybody has to be a McDonald's All American, but if Duke and NC can have 5 to 7 on their roster, we should get one ocassionally. When was the last time we did? Not sure if we ever had one. Last Parade All American was probably Kerry Trotter.
Too many people on this board offer excuses why we cannot--I prefer to challenge that thinking/excuse making with why not? We have excellent facilities, play in an NBA arena, the best/top 2 Conference in the Country, get great YV coverage with satellite, have a conference tourney in a Mecca of college BBall, have a storied History, some history of players making pros, even recently with Wade/Hayward/Diener/Mathews/Novak, etc.

How many Burger Boys are from WISC?  Not many. Maybe 1 every 3 or 4 years.   If you lived in Indiana which has about quite a few every year and you got offer's from Duke, NC, IU, OHIO ST, UCLA, FL, KENT, TEXAS, ZONA, and Marquette were would you go? 

I think 2 Mil for a team that goes to the NCAA every year is about right.  My bar is set at no more Bubble teams. 

Also Private schools do not have to report how much they pay Coach's and I'm not sure if some of the Coach's on the list get money from other places that is not included.  Speaking Engagments, TV shows, Shoe deals Etc. 

Willie---I am with you across the board. Way too many excuses across the board. We have all the tools to be elite, yet so many fand accept bubble program. I said in earlier post that The AL was built to get J.P. Tokoto's of the world, not host a HS holiday tourney.

Time is now to raise the bar and expect bigger things from program.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 28, 2011, 09:03:29 AM
Is that why MU ticket prices went down when TC left :D

Did they?

Quote from: Marquette84 on March 28, 2011, 12:00:37 PM
And 2 years of JUCO experience. Doesn't that count for something?  Or are you going to make the argument that Jae and Jamail had nearly identical experience levels the day they set foot on MU's campus?

Holy smokes. More straw men in this reply than a Broadway production of 'The Wiz.'
Yes, two years of JUCO count for something. No, it is nothing akin to playing D-I ball. In fact, the level of competition Crowder played against in JUCO was close to - and quite possibly worse than -  what Jones faced at Montverde Academy.
None of which changes my point ... Crowder had no D-I experience coming into this season.
Is it so hard for you to admit this reality, rather than create an irrelevant comparison to Jones?

Quote
I think you overstate how much time Chris actually missed:
11/14/08:  Injured
12/19/08:  First game appearance.  
Missed about one month of practice in 2008-09

11/24/08:  Reported injury (3 games into the season)
2/9/08:  Reported to have returned to practice with the team
Missed about 2 1/2 months.

No, I'm not misstating or overstating anything.
True or false, Chris Otule had played 85 minutes of college basketball coming into this season? True.
True or false, Chris Otule had missed significant practice time due to injury? True.

And your attempt to compare summer sessions, weightlifting, etc., to actual in-season practice time is utter nonsense. Though I'm wondering what's the difference between offseason camps and summer workouts.

QuoteIts pretty arrogant to think that DJO or Jae or Joe or Dwight didn't develop during their years in JUCO.

(http://www.brainygamer.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/08/14/oz_scarecrow_1.jpg)

QuoteOne more question--if Scott Monarch didn't help give Jimmy or Joe experience while he was a JUCO coach at Tyler JC, why did Buzz hire him as his assistant at Marquette?

(http://www.brainygamer.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/08/14/oz_scarecrow_1.jpg)

QuoteOnly if you completely disregard JUCO experience.

Nobody is disregarding it, but rather pointing out that it's nothing akin to D-I experience, especially these days.

QuoteIn conference play, Fulce appeared in all 18 games and had 168 minutes, Gardner played in 16 games and netted 102 minutes.
My perception is that Fulce played more minutes in clutch games, and Gardner played more minutes when the outcome wasn't in doubt.  Statsheet backs this up with Fulce listed for 6 clutch games and 426 clutch seconds.  Gardner with zero clutch games/seconds.  

How convenient that your "perception" of what counts of being part of the rotation meets such a narrowly defined set of parameters established only after you're proven wrong.

Apparently none of Gardner's 15 minutes against Duke count as clutch time. Or his 18 against Wisconsin. Or 16 in the BE tournament against WVU. Or 33 against Xavier and UNC in the tournament.
Statsheet sure seems like a reliable site.

Wouldn't it just be easier to say "You know, I was wrong. Gardner was as much a part of the rotation as Joe Fulce" than to try these kinds of shenanigans?

Quote from: willie warrior on March 28, 2011, 01:29:27 PM
So why cannot we do it??????? Al Mcguire, who you brought up, was able to do it, coming from a Hick school like Belmont. Shureshefski is able to do it--I believe his first or second year, he was about 13-18. I am not saying that everybody has to be a McDonald's All American, but if Duke and NC can have 5 to 7 on their roster, we should get one ocassionally. When was the last time we did? Not sure if we ever had one. Last Parade All American was probably Kerry Trotter.
Too many people on this board offer excuses why we cannot--I prefer to challenge that thinking/excuse making with why not? We have excellent facilities, play in an NBA arena, the best/top 2 Conference in the Country, get great YV coverage with satellite, have a conference tourney in a Mecca of college BBall, have a storied History, some history of players making pros, even recently with Wade/Hayward/Diener/Mathews/Novak, etc.

Regarding MU's ability today to recruit Rivals.com 5-star, high school All-American types: Yes, Al McGuire was able to recruit those types of players and turn a small private Catholic school like Marquette into a super-elite program because he was a super-elite coach. He was in the same league as John Wooden, Bobby Knight, Dean Smith...because he was among the all-time greats. Those guys come along once in a lifetime. When Al retired, our recruiting immediately dropped off and within two years, Ray Meyer & DePaul became the top independent in the Midwest. DePaul did it by keeping the Chicago talent home...Aguirre, Cummings ect...the type of players that Al always signed. The point is, Marquette's status as one of the giants in the college basketball world was due almost entirely to one man.

Odds are that we're never gonna have another Al McGuire and we're never gonna be a member of the super-elite again. But with modern facilities, a supportive administration, and a very good coach, I do agree that there is no reason why we can't land a top national prospect once every few years. Actually, Vander Blue is supposed to be one of those guys...he was a rivals.com 5-star his senior year. In next season's class, Juan Anderson is a 4-star. So I would say that buzz is showing promise as very good recruiter.

Problem is, Buzz faces far more hurdles than Al did during his reign. Al had little competition for the top talent in Wis. & Ill. --Marquette was by far and away the top program in the region with only ND to beat in the recruiting wars. That's not the case today. Al could even go into metro New York and get super-star talent--George Thompson was the #2 player in NYC after Lew Alcindor. There was Dean the Dream, Earl Tatum, Butch Lee, and Bernard Toone. Now, the long-time Big East schools have that area wrapped up and we're shut out of New York and the rest of the East Coast. Villanova largely has Philly & NJ; Gtown & Maryland have DC as local recruiting grounds.

I wish things were the way they used to be, too, but there are legit reasons why MU is no longer among the super-elite and is highly unlikely to get back to that status anytime soon.

Great to hear, the program needs stability to thrive so long as the head coach is getting quality results.

WarriorHal--The past will not be repeated, times indeed have changed. However I do not believe MU cannot be super elite again. The path to get there is different one than we had with Al, agreed. MU basketball or any other school commited to winning has the ability to be super elite in 2011.

I will not never agree that something is impossible in today's world. It will be tough to get there but it can be done.

Quote from: willie warrior on March 28, 2011, 01:29:27 PM
So why cannot we do it??????? Al Mcguire, who you brought up, was able to do it, coming from a Hick school like Belmont. Shureshefski is able to do it--I believe his first or second year, he was about 13-18. I am not saying that everybody has to be a McDonald's All American, but if Duke and NC can have 5 to 7 on their roster, we should get one ocassionally. When was the last time we did? Not sure if we ever had one. Last Parade All American was probably Kerry Trotter.
Too many people on this board offer excuses why we cannot--I prefer to challenge that thinking/excuse making with why not? We have excellent facilities, play in an NBA arena, the best/top 2 Conference in the Country, get great YV coverage with satellite, have a conference tourney in a Mecca of college BBall, have a storied History, some history of players making pros, even recently with Wade/Hayward/Diener/Mathews/Novak, etc.

Al was able to do it pre Big East and pre television explosion.  That changed the landscape considerably.  Big East players came to MU prior to the Big East.  Now they stay home.  Television has been a great equalizer for many programs.  Also, scholarship reductions have spread the wealth.  The expansion of the tournament also means more successful programs to choose from for the student athletes.

Quote from: Goose on March 28, 2011, 03:08:26 PM
WarriorHal--The past will not be repeated, times indeed have changed. However I do not believe MU cannot be super elite again. The path to get there is different one than we had with Al, agreed. MU basketball or any other school commited to winning has the ability to be super elite in 2011.

I will not never agree that something is impossible in today's world. It will be tough to get there but it can be done.

Nobody is saying it's impossible, just very unlikely. There is a reason that that roughly the same 5-10 programs have been the elite programs for a long time in both college basketball and football, it's extremely hard to become one of them for a myriad of reasons.

Quote from: Pakuni on March 28, 2011, 01:54:47 PM
Holy smokes. More straw men in this reply than a Broadway production of 'The Wiz.'
Yes, two years of JUCO count for something. No, it is nothing akin to playing D-I ball. In fact, the level of competition Crowder played against in JUCO was close to - and quite possibly worse than -  what Jones faced at Montverde Academy.
None of which changes my point ... Crowder had no D-I experience coming into this season.
Is it so hard for you to admit this reality, rather than create an irrelevant comparison to Jones?

LOL!  You accuse me of creating straw men, but then turn around and post two whoppers of your own!  JUCO is "nothing akin" to D1?  Top-level JUCO competition is worse than Florida prep school leagues?  Where did you pull those out of?  

JUCO is much more akin to D1 than any HS program is; and the level of competition Jones faced at Montverde paled in comparision to the much higher level Howard College played.  

As far as the "irrelevant" comparison to Jones, I'll simply point out that YOU put them both in the same "inexperienced" category.  If YOU didn't think they're comparable, then YOU shouldn't have compared them in the first place.

And I'll simply ask this:  If Jones had faced same or tougher competition as Crowder--and put up similar numbers-- why did Crowder come in and average nearly 30 minutes every game, while Jones managed 8 minutes in only half our games?

Why is is so hard for you to admit that JUCO experience might be more relevant than HS experience?  

Quote from: Pakuni on March 28, 2011, 01:54:47 PM
No, I'm not misstating or overstating anything.
True or false, Chris Otule had played 85 minutes of college basketball coming into this season? True.
True or false, Chris Otule had missed significant practice time due to injury? True.

Of course you overstated Otule's "inexperience."  The points I added were just as relevant to Otule's overall experience level, and you didn't say one word about them.  You implied that the totality of the experience was minutes played--not months of practice.

True or false, Chris Otule was healthy for all but 3 1/2 of the 24+ months since arriving at MU?  True.
True or false, Otule had access to coaching, weights, team practice etc. during that time?  True.
True or false, Otule participated in pre-season and post-season practice and camps in each of the past 3 years?  True.

Think those latter three truths might have have given Chris more than "85 minutes" of experience?  

Why can't you just admit that you didn't tell the whole story?  

Quote from: Pakuni on March 28, 2011, 01:54:47 PM
And your attempt to compare summer sessions, weightlifting, etc., to actual in-season practice time is utter nonsense. Though I'm wondering what's the difference between offseason camps and summer workouts.

I never made a comparision of summer sessions and weight sessions, etc. to in-season practice.    

I compared having access to summer sessions, weight sessions, etc., to coming in straight out from HS and NOT having access to such development.

Quote from: Pakuni on March 28, 2011, 01:54:47 PM
How convenient that your "perception" of what counts of being part of the rotation meets such a narrowly defined set of parameters established only after you're proven wrong.

And how convenient for you to twist it your way.  

Its exceptionally dishonest of you to cite he number of games played as a factor when you KNOW that Fulce missed games early in the season with injuries.  

In conference play--when both players were healthy and equally available, three undeniable facts emerge:
--Who played more clutch minutes?  Fulce
--Who played more clutch games?  Fulce
--Who palyed more BE minues?  Fulce

Quote from: Pakuni on March 28, 2011, 01:54:47 PM
Wouldn't it just be easier to say "You know, I was wrong. Gardner was as much a part of the rotation as Joe Fulce" than to try these kinds of shenanigans?

No, because when conference play started--when both Fulce and Gardner were available--Fulce got more of his minutes with the game on the line, and Gardner was anywhere but the floor when the game was on the line.

Here are the conference games where Gardner played during the last five minutes:
Notre Dame (22 point win)
DePaul (30 point win)
Providence (24 point win)
Provicence (BET) (19 point win)
Louisville (24 point loss)
UNC (18 point loss)

And Fulce was part of the rotation in the last five minutes during these games:
Pitt (9 point loss)
Louisville (1 point loss)
Notre Dame (5 point win)
Villanova (5 point loss)
USF (1 pont win)
Seton Hall (9 point win)
Xavier (11 point win)
Syracuse (4 point win)

So, no, I don't think Gardner was viewed by Buzz as significant part of the rotation as Fulce.

Quote from: Goose on March 28, 2011, 12:10:21 PM
Regarding Willie's posts, for the most part I agree with his logic. It seems that many Warrior fans are thin skinned and eager to defend anything and everything about the program. I love the team and school enough to know some things need to change. With change comes different set of expectations. IMO the following are some small issues that makes us look small time:
1. We need a better station to carry games. I love 540 but it is hardly a flagship station. Not enough of the population can get the games.
2. Attendance. We need students in the barn and alumni to show up. Announced attendance is great but people in BC makes a difference. Much easier to impress recruit with big crowds.
3. JS coverage. If MU needs to advertise to get better print space than they have to do it. I did not see mention of new Buzz contract in the paper today. Is that not local news worthy?
4. Getting the word out in general. Buzz and school has to promote better. The BBQ is nice but only geared towards diehards.

If MU does a better overall job of showcasing the entire program it will pay dividends to the school. I think many fans have become complacent due to general lack of local excitement surrounding program. The 50 people seeing team off is perfect example.

I believe that if every fan was more vested in the program we would be wanted better things. Basically we go at it half assed and hope for the best.

All of your points speak to making Marquette the biggest thing in Milwaukee..nice... but none are relavent to improving recruiting or program profile on a national stage...beyond the radio tower reach of 540--lol ,

Quote from: Marquette84 on March 28, 2011, 05:32:34 PM
LOL!  You accuse me of creating straw men, but then turn around and post two whoppers of your own!  JUCO is "nothing akin" to D1?  Top-level JUCO competition is worse than Florida prep school leagues?  Where did you pull those out of?  

JUCO is much more akin to D1 than any HS program is; and the level of competition Jones faced at Montverde paled in comparision to the much higher level Howard College played.  

With all due respect, you're displaying your ignorance on this subject here. Clearly you know nothing about Montverde Academy if you think all they do play in Florida prep school leagues.
Besides playing  Florida schools, they travel the country, not unlike an Oak Hill or Montrose, to play the best prep teams nationwide, teams loaded with D-1 players in the making.
Last year's schedule included two games against Findlay Prep (#3 in the country last year, per ESPN, and featuring two kids who started for Texas this year) and games with St. Benedict (#4), Westchester (#6), Providence (#8), Patterson (#31) and twice against Montrose, which is #3 in the nation this year. They also played twice against Winter Park (#11 in the nation last year, #14 this year, including the top player in the class of 2011).
So, yeah, I'd say those games feature more talented players than you're likely to come across in the Texas JUCO ranks.

QuoteAs far as the "irrelevant" comparison to Jones, I'll simply point out that YOU put them both in the same "inexperienced" category.  If YOU didn't think they're comparable, then YOU shouldn't have compared them in the first place.

I never mentioned Jones. It's you who brought him into the discussion.
Reading is a skill.

QuoteOf course you overstated Otule's "inexperience."  The points I added were just as relevant to Otule's overall experience level, and you didn't say one word about them.  You implied that the totality of the experience was minutes played--not months of practice.

I implied no such thing. I stated his minutes played and in-season practice time lost, which are by far the most important means of gaining experience. You think summer and off-season time is comparable. So be it.
I suspect if we took a poll, the vast majority of MU fans would agree that Chris Otule was a very inexperienced player at the start of the season. You'd obviously think otherwise.

HouWarrior--More publicity does not improve recruiting? With fans like you I understand our place in the food chain.

Quote from: Goose on March 28, 2011, 07:43:57 PM
HouWarrior--More publicity does not improve recruiting? With fans like you I understand our place in the food chain.

Not to the point, but nice dig to me, on the kind of fan  I am though--lol.

Milwaukee publicity, profile/support assists Marquette with: 1) tickets sales and attendance; 2) donations/ alumni support, and is, as I noted, "nice"

But better local press/ stations, etc. only go so far. Wisconsin is not such a hotbed of HS BB talent,that MU can afford to only recruit in Milwaukee.

Ultimately,on court success, such as a few Sweet 16s, will solv the above two points, AND it will reach beyond Milwaukee, and build the recognition needed to jump recruiting and the program to the next level. In NCCA ball, it starts with a coaching "name", good facilities, a BCS conference level, and good consistent recruiting.

Improved Milwaukee publicity should be enjoyed by you, and others, but it is just "nice",  in comparison to the above bigger elements.

HouWarrior---Possibly a sold out BC might lead to more W's and national attention. Local media is needed to get the story out. I would have to think making BC a snakepit does help all aspects of the program. I see very few elite programs on page 3 of local paper the night after a home game with 7,000 empty seats.

Guess we just disagree on the this topic. I had also mentioned none of points were deal breakers, but needed to be addressed. LOL

Quote from: Pakuni on March 28, 2011, 06:17:34 PM
With all due respect, you're displaying your ignorance on this subject here. Clearly you know nothing about Montverde Academy if you think all they do play in Florida prep school leagues.
Besides playing  Florida schools, they travel the country, not unlike an Oak Hill or Montrose, to play the best prep teams nationwide, teams loaded with D-1 players in the making.
Last year's schedule included two games against Findlay Prep (#3 in the country last year, per ESPN, and featuring two kids who started for Texas this year) and games with St. Benedict (#4), Westchester (#6), Providence (#8), Patterson (#31) and twice against Montrose, which is #3 in the nation this year. They also played twice against Winter Park (#11 in the nation last year, #14 this year, including the top player in the class of 2011).
So, yeah, I'd say those games feature more talented players than you're likely to come across in the Texas JUCO ranks.

Gotta love how you've switched from the blanket statement "the level of competition Crowder played against in JUCO was close to - and quite possibly worse" to singling out a handful of teams that might have some individual future D1 players.  I'll bet Crowder ran into a few future D1 players in his JUCO playing days as well.

So at best, over the course of the season, maybe Jones saw a handful of players who individually were better than the best guy Crowder saw.  Or maybe not.  But that doesn't mean that the overall level of competition was better.

But that doesn't matter anyway, because the bottom line is that Jones came in and largely sat on the bench, while Crowder came in and played every game--nearly 30 minutes a game. 

Tells me that there might be more to JUCO experience that you're willing to admit.

Quote from: Pakuni on March 28, 2011, 06:17:34 PM
I never mentioned Jones. It's you who brought him into the discussion.
Reading is a skill.

No, actually, you DID bring him into the discussion:

"Essentially, of MU's top 10 players, only two had played D-1 ball for two seasons or more. On the other hand, five of them had less than one season experience."

Jones and Crowder were two of those five that you brought into the discussion as having the same experience level.

Quote from: Pakuni on March 28, 2011, 06:17:34 PM
I stated his minutes played and in-season practice time lost, which are by far the most important means of gaining experience. You think summer and off-season time is comparable. So be it.

Reading is a skill.

I never made a comparision of summer sessions and weight sessions, etc. to in-season practice as the most important means of gaining experience.   

I compared having 21+ months of in-season practice, pre-season practice, summer sessions, weight sessions, etc., to coming in straight out from HS and NOT having access to any such development.

Meawhile, I think Buzz has said pre-season practice is the most important means of gaining experience.  If you miss pre-season, its almost impossible for a player to catch up.

And it makes sense. By the time you're playing a regular cadence of in-seaons games, practice is mostly game prep for a specific upcoming opponent--not focused on long-term development.  In the pre-season is when you develop the fundamental understanding of the coach's overall offense and defense.  In the off-season is when you do your conditioning and boot camp.

Player development is a year-round activity.  Missing one month doesn't negate the other 11.

Quote from: Marquette84 on March 28, 2011, 09:14:26 PM
But that doesn't matter anyway, because the bottom line is that Jones came in and largely sat on the bench, while Crowder came in and played every game--nearly 30 minutes a game. 
Tells me that there might be more to JUCO experience that you're willing to admit.

I'm done with this discussion after this and you can have the last word if you must, but I feel compelled to answer a couple of completely wrong statements.
First, the notion that Crowder must have played more because he was more experienced, not because he was better.
This, obviously, is ridiculous and utterly illogical.
What does it mean when a freshman plays more than a senior, which happens at many if not most programs every year? Using your logic, it must be a sign that somehow, someway, that freshman had more experience. How else could one explain the fact he played more? Couldn't be that he's a better player, right?

Quote

No, actually, you DID bring him into the discussion:

"Essentially, of MU's top 10 players, only two had played D-1 ball for two seasons or more. On the other hand, five of them had less than one season experience."

Jones and Crowder were two of those five that you brought into the discussion as having the same experience level.
 
Reading is a skill.

Yes, a skill with which you seem to struggle.
I said five of MU's top 10 players had less than one year experience.
MU's top 10, both in minutes and points scored (you choose which matters more here), were:
DJO
Butler
Crowder
Buycks
Otule
Blue
Gardner
Cadougan
Fulce
Williams

I've bolded the ones with less than a full season's D-I experience. Do the math. Get back to me about how I brought Jones into the discussion.

QuoteMissing one month doesn't negate the other 11.

Now it's one month out of 12?
That's funny, because last year Chris didn't play any of MU's 31 games in December, January, February or March.
Apparently there's been some calendar consolidation of which I've been previously unaware.

QuoteI never made a comparision of summer sessions and weight sessions, etc. to in-season practice as the most important means of gaining experience.   

Previous post:

"The points I added were just as relevant to Otule's overall experience level"


No, no comparison at all. You called them "just as relevant" to his experience but that doesn't make for a comparison, I guess. After all, who would use a phrase like "just as relevant" when making a comparison?

Quote from: Pakuni on March 28, 2011, 09:40:41 PM
First, the notion that Crowder must have played more because he was more experienced, not because he was better.
This, obviously, is ridiculous and utterly illogical.

Of course it is. Which makes is the perfect straw man.  Problem is, I never said or implied it.

The suggestion was that Crowder's experience made him better, which explains his additional playing time vis-a-vis Jones.

Quote from: Pakuni on March 28, 2011, 09:40:41 PM
What does it mean when a freshman plays more than a senior, which happens at many if not most programs every year? Using your logic, it must be a sign that somehow, someway, that freshman had more experience. How else could one explain the fact he played more? Couldn't be that he's a better player, right?

How do you reconcile Jones tallying 16 points and 6 boards against what you argue is superior competition, while Crowder puts up similar numbers (19 points and 9 boards) against what you claim is weaker competition, and yet when they both get to D1, Crowder gets about 10x the minutes?

I think its that the experience of two more years out of HS at the JUCO level is more important and relevant that you are willing to concede.  

Quote from: Pakuni on March 28, 2011, 09:40:41 PM

I said five of MU's top 10 players had less than one year experience.
MU's top 10, both in minutes and points scored (you choose which matters more here), were:
DJO
Butler
Crowder
Buycks
Otule
Blue
Gardner
Cadougan
Fulce
Williams

I've bolded the ones with less than a full season's D-I experience. Do the math. Get back to me about how I brought Jones into the discussion.

Your list is wrong. Otule had two seasons of D1 experience at the start of the year.  Cadougan had one.  Just because they spent part of their time injured doesn't mean they did not gain D1 experience.

The five players on MU's roster for 2010-11 with less than a full season's worth of D1 experience were 1. Crowder, 2. Jones, 3. Blue, 4. Gardner and 5. Smith.   I chose to compare Crowder to Jones.

I'm sorry--I didn't realize that you were basing your statement on factually incorrect information.

Quote from: Pakuni on March 28, 2011, 09:40:41 PM
Now it's one month out of 12?
That's funny, because last year Chris didn't play any of MU's 31 games in December, January, February or March.
Apparently there's been some calendar consolidation of which I've been previously unaware.

The calendar you were previously unaware of was the one in use for the 2008-09 season:

11/14/08:  Injured
12/19/08:  First game appearance.  
Missed about one month of practice in the 2008-09 season

So, from September 1 2008 through August 30 2009 (that's a 12 month period, Pakuni) Otule missed about one month of practice.  As I said, you want to argue that the 11 months he was there is negated by the 1 month he was unable to participate fully in practice.

Do you need me to walk you through the 2009-10 season as well, or can you figure that one out on your own?    

Quote from: Pakuni on March 28, 2011, 09:40:41 PM

"The points I added were just as relevant to Otule's overall experience level"


No, no comparison at all. You called them "just as relevant" to his experience but that doesn't make for a comparison, I guess. After all, who would use a phrase like "just as relevant" when making a comparison?

Nope, not a comparison.

If I were to say that food and shelter are both just as relevant to your survival, I'm not making a comparison BETWEEN food and shelter or saying that one is better for survival than the other.  Both can be relevant without being directly comparable.

Similarly, I never compared Boot Camp, summer practice, individual coaching workouts, etc. to in-season practice--but merely pointed out that they are just as relevant to adding to the experience profile of a returning player.

What exactly is the main point trying to be achieved between Marquette84 and Pakuni's arguing?

That 84 is implying maybe Marquette as a team this year should have won an extra game or two, even though the bottom line of MU still making the big dance and then the Sweet 16 pretty much would have rendered that extra win or two irrelevant?

It just strikes me as they are having this long argument over semantics which are largely unimportant anyways. Oh well, to each their own i guess.

Quote from: El Duderino on March 29, 2011, 12:08:10 AM
What exactly is the main point trying to be achieved between Marquette84 and Pakuni's arguing?

That 84 is implying maybe Marquette as a team this year should have won an extra game or two, even though the bottom line of MU still making the big dance and then the Sweet 16 pretty much would have rendered that extra win or two irrelevant?

It just strikes me as they are having this long argument over semantics which are largely unimportant anyways. Oh well, to each their own i guess.

+1

I have no idea what the point of it is. Seems like it's gotten to the point of arguing for arguing's sake.

Quote from: El Duderino on March 29, 2011, 12:08:10 AM
What exactly is the main point trying to be achieved between Marquette84 and Pakuni's arguing?

That 84 is implying maybe Marquette as a team this year should have won an extra game or two, even though the bottom line of MU still making the big dance and then the Sweet 16 pretty much would have rendered that extra win or two irrelevant?

It just strikes me as they are having this long argument over semantics which are largely unimportant anyways. Oh well, to each their own i guess.

If I may, I suggest you use the Ignore feature on MU84.  He's usually the one that perpetuates these ridiculous arguments that go on and on forever with no obvious point other than MU84 trying to display his "superior" b-ball intellect.  They are utterly pointless and I don't know whether to admire Pakuni for calling BS or feeling bad for him that he gets involved.

That has saved me stress.   Every few weeks I take him off of 'ignore', and then he usually goes back on within a day or two.   

Quote from: El Duderino on March 29, 2011, 12:08:10 AM
What exactly is the main point trying to be achieved between Marquette84 and Pakuni's arguing?

That 84 is implying maybe Marquette as a team this year should have won an extra game or two, even though the bottom line of MU still making the big dance and then the Sweet 16 pretty much would have rendered that extra win or two irrelevant?

It just strikes me as they are having this long argument over semantics which are largely unimportant anyways. Oh well, to each their own i guess.

You're correct, it is a silly, semantical argument over ultimately trivial issues, and I get dragged (or drag myself) into such things too frequently.
Bottom line: MU84 thinks Marquette ran an experienced lineup out onto the court this season. I disagree.

Warrior Hal:

More excuses being offered up. Al did not get the pick of the crop in Wisconsin. He was always up against UW back in the day, and UW got their share of the Wsoconsin crop.

There is no reason we should not get some studs, which is my point. I hope Juan Anderson turns out special, but is he a HS all american?

We have the facilities, the conference, the tradition, etc. to get some studs periodically, and I for one will expect In Buzz We Trust to do just that. 2.3 to 2.5 million is not chump change. Cuonzo Marting just got about 1.3 million to go to Tennessee, which is about half of Buzz's. So we should expect a big time program, and quickly!

Willie---You will have hard time getting support on here, but you got mine. Too many excuses for too long. If Buzz is making this kind of money I expect high school All Americans not ranked 80 guys. For too long excuses are made on why we do not get guys.

In addition, you are 100% correct on Al's WI recruiting. Virtually every player he recruited from WI was a complimentary player, not a stud. In today's game every kid in the country is fair game. It is time for MU fans to expect an elite program on the court.

Anybody that compares college basketball and recruiting from 35 years ago Needs to get with the Times.  Recruiting has changed and the number of Top teams that you have to compete with in regard to recruits has gone up greatly.  If you are a at large team that means you are a top 45 program in the country.  So if you look at our seeds over the last 3 years we would average out about a 7 which would mean were 28th on average.  If People expect us to be top 10 every year you will be very disappointed.  I'm not saying that with a little luck and a few solid hits on the recruiting front we cannot be some years but not every year.  North Carolina could not even do it.

I do not think anybody said we should be in the top 10 every year in recruiting, but we should be able to ocassionally get a big time stud. Again, look at UNC and Duke, 5 to 7 on their roster every year. We have none. Buzz is now making that kind of money, so he should be periodically landing some, or at least be landing us players to be in top 4 or 5 of Beast and make deep tourney runs periodically---and it should be better than 9th place in BEast and making a sweet 16 run every 10 years or so.

Quote from: Goose on March 29, 2011, 08:59:05 AM

In addition, you are 100% correct on Al's WI recruiting. Virtually every player he recruited from WI was a complimentary player, not a stud. In today's game every kid in the country is fair game. It is time for MU fans to expect an elite program on the court.

Wisconsin high school basketball pretty much sucked back then and so did UW-Madison. Al filled out the bench with kids from Wis. But he wasn't losing "studs" to UW-Madison. There weren't any. At least not compared to the players he was bringing in from NY & Ill. Marquette wasn't losing recruiting battles to UW-Madison. We were a top-10 national program and they were pretty much a second-division team in the Big 10.

I would think that Vander would be considered a Big time recruit.  he may have fallen off a bit his senior year, but when he signed he had offer's from UCLA and FLA and might have had more if he was not committed to UW.  Also Wilson was recruited nationally as well. 

Obviously VB and Jamil were big time recruits. We were referring to Al's era and we did little recruiting locally.

Quote from: kmwtrucks on March 29, 2011, 02:55:48 PM
I would think that Vander would be considered a Big time recruit.  he may have fallen off a bit his senior year, but when he signed he had offer's from UCLA and FLA and might have had more if he was not committed to UW.  Also Wilson was recruited nationally as well. 

You are entitled to think that. IMO he was vastly overrated--he did not even win Mr. basketball in Wisconsin. And his performance this year showed how he was overrated. Not saying he is a crummy player--just saying he has not shown his alleged high rating. What was Jeremy Lamb rated?

Quote from: willie warrior on March 29, 2011, 10:22:39 AM
I do not think anybody said we should be in the top 10 every year in recruiting, but we should be able to ocassionally get a big time stud. Again, look at UNC and Duke, 5 to 7 on their roster every year. We have none. Buzz is now making that kind of money, so he should be periodically landing some, or at least be landing us players to be in top 4 or 5 of Beast and make deep tourney runs periodically---and it should be better than 9th place in BEast and making a sweet 16 run every 10 years or so.

5-7 studs every year?  I didn't realize Duke had 24 scholarship players on their team.

Quote from: RawdogDX on March 29, 2011, 05:16:52 PM
5-7 studs every year?  I didn't realize Duke had 24 scholarship players on their team.

Duke has made a commitment to be Elite.

willie--You cannot pick and chose after kids are signed. VB was highly rated and could have picked most top schools in the country. Granted he up and down year but you cannot take away his HS rank and his potential. Barnes of UNC was preseason AA and ended up Honorable Mention, does that lower his rank?


I think it is reasonable for MU to be in on top 40 kids every year and steal 1 or 2 every couple of years. To believe we cannot McDonald's AA is crazy. It can be done.

Rawdog---MU is making commitment to be Elite with signing of Buzz. I can almost guarantee we could get a new up and comer every 3-5 years as coach and match this season's BE record. Those guys get a mil a year. Obviously the school and heavy hitters are playing for keeps.

Quote from: RawdogDX on March 29, 2011, 05:16:52 PM
5-7 studs every year?  I didn't realize Duke had 24 scholarship players on their team.

Maybe you should read and comprehend!!! You can have 5 to 7 on your roster each year, because they are there for 4 years. Do the math!!!!!

Quote from: Goose on March 29, 2011, 05:25:52 PM
I can almost guarantee we could get a new up and comer every 3-5 years as coach and match this season's BE record.

Keno Davis would like to interview with you.

Quote from: willie warrior on March 29, 2011, 06:05:42 PM
Maybe you should read and comprehend!!! You can have 5 to 7 on your roster each year, because they are there for 4 years. Do the math!!!!!

I know Rawdog: Touche.

Rocky--Get the point but the jobs are apples and oranges. Keno Davis could be 9th place at MU in my opinion. My point is simply MU made a call to keep the guy they believe will deliver the goods.

Quote from: El Duderino on March 29, 2011, 12:08:10 AM
What exactly is the main point trying to be achieved between Marquette84 and Pakuni's arguing?

That 84 is implying maybe Marquette as a team this year should have won an extra game or two, even though the bottom line of MU still making the big dance and then the Sweet 16 pretty much would have rendered that extra win or two irrelevant?

It just strikes me as they are having this long argument over semantics which are largely unimportant anyways. Oh well, to each their own i guess.

My beef is with those who repeatedly trot out "we were young" or "we were inexperienced" to make excuses.

As I said before, we had a primary rotation of 3 seniors, 2 juniors, 1 3rd year soph, 1 soph and 1 frosh as the main rotation, plus one more frosh and one more soph getting less meaningful minutes.  We were not a young/inexperienced team this year.

Pakuni feels that a player that misses one or two months of practice gained no meaningful experience in the other 10 or 11 months of the year and should be lumped together with incoming freshmen in a "less than one year of D1 experience" category  I disagree--I think a player gains quite a bit of experience even if he misses a month or two of practice.  Pakuni also feels that JUCO experience doesn't count--and that some HS leagues provide better experience.  Again, I disagree, citing a comparison of Crowder versus Jones.

MU Atl is still upset over the fact that I dared to question his "universally accepted truth" that young teams improve more than mature teams over the course of a season.  I merely pointed UConn--youngest in the league--as an example of a team that started with a 10 game winning streak (including MSU and Kentucky) despite their youth.  I also pointed out that some very experienced teams (Villanova, one of the most experienced teams in the league) managed to get worse as the season progressed, while other experienced teams (St. Johns) showed a significant amount of in-season improvement.   

And why did MU Atl get involved initially?  Because I commented that if Buzz had the team playing like they did against Xavier and Syracuse in the NCAA tournament, we would have contended for the Big East title. 

Apparently, it was too much to think that Buzz actually motivated and prepared and coached us to better performance in the tournament--because it means he didn't do it earlier in the season and therefore might bear some of the responsibility for the  losses.

Much better to pretend that it was our "youth" and "inexperience" that limited us early in the year, because that's the only way to  absolve coaching from bearing any of the responsibility. 

Quote from: willie warrior on March 29, 2011, 06:05:42 PM
Maybe you should read and comprehend!!! You can have 5 to 7 on your roster each year, because they are there for 4 years. Do the math!!!!!

But 40% will transfer, so you need 5 to 7 a year as frosh in order to have 3 or 4 make it to senior year.