MUScoop

What grade do you give?

I voted for C and I think that's generous following a 6th place finish and a first round bloodbath.

Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on March 19, 2007, 03:06:17 PM
I voted for C and I think that's generous following a 6th place finish and a first round bloodbath.

If you think that's generous why did you give them a 'C'? Shouldn't you have graded them as you saw fit?

Alright, who gave the F? Show yourself.

In the spirit of MU academics shouldn't we have an AB BC option?

I gave them a B.  It was a good season, not a great one.  Of course this is all based on my expectations.  My expectations had been to make it to the second round, but when McNeal went down, I was happy to just be dancing.  After seeing SU not make it at all, it looks like it was a closer call than I would have thought.  Next year, it's sweet 16 or better or bust.  A FF would earn an A, an elite 8, would be an AB, a sweet 16 would be a B, anything less would be disappointing.  We are losing nothing of substance going into next year.  Most players make a pretty big jump between their sophomore and junior years.  Sometimes I think people around here forget that we relied heavily on underclassmen this year.  Last year's team had more leadership in the upper classes than did this one and we got significant contributions from Novak and Chapman. 

Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on March 19, 2007, 03:06:17 PM
I voted for C and I think that's generous following a 6th place finish and a first round bloodbath.

Not surprised.  

Based on that rationale and taking your generousity out the window, I guess 1984 to 1992, 1995, 1997 to 2002, 2004 and 2005 must have been straight Fs.  Leaving 1983, 1993, 1996 and 2006 as what a D.  With 1994 as a B maybe.  And 2003, well, while most of us were thrilled, my guess is that you would grade that as no better than a C.  Wow. You are one tough grader.  Looks like the only way MU gets a good grade in your books would be if we changed our nickname but that would be way too petty for anyone to even think that a nickname is that significant.   ;D
1994

If that's the case, PRN is a tougher grader than when Dr. Naylor was at Marquette.

Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on March 19, 2007, 03:06:17 PM
I voted for C and I think that's generous following a 6th place finish and a first round bloodbath.

Actually MU finished in a tie for 5th place.  Much like when MU finished in a tie for 4th last season with GU -- tiebreakers in MU's favor last year but not this year.   ;)

And you have to remember that our 5th place finish was with the unbalanced schedule working against us.

I gave them a "C", because the team finished slightly below expectations for me (see below).  Had they won on the first day, the team would have received a B.  A sweet sixteen berth would have resulted in an A.

====
Henry's Expectations from the beginning of the season:  Maintain a presence in the rankings (15-25) for most of the year.  A win on the first day of the tournament is expected, and a sweet sixteen run is possible if the draw is right.
====

Quote from: MUDish on March 19, 2007, 03:34:30 PM
If that's the case, PRN is a tougher grader than when Dr. Naylor was at Marquette.

Phil Naylor is gone???

I heard he left a year or two ago. Someone on campus can probably verify that a lot better than I can from my cubicle, but I swear I remember that being the case.

EDIT: I am wrong, I checked MU's site, and he's on there. Did he take a sabitical maybe? I have no idea why I thought that he was gone.

Quote from: mufanatic on March 19, 2007, 03:32:42 PM
Based on that rationale and taking your generousity out the window, I guess 1984 to 1992, 1995, 1997 to 2002, 2004 and 2005 must have been straight Fs.  Leaving 1983, 1993, 1996 and 2006 as what a D.  With 1994 as a B maybe.  And 2003, well, while most of us were thrilled, my guess is that you would grade that as no better than a C.  Wow. You are one tough grader.  Looks like the only way MU gets a good grade in your books would be if we changed our nickname but that would be way too petty for anyone to even think that a nickname is that significant.   ;D
1994

Yes, of course. Since I gave this year's team a "C" it would stand to reason that I would give our Final Four team a "C."

Exactly what rationale can you use to give this team anything other than an average grade? What did they do that "stood out" as "above average?" Losing to NDSU and two other teams at home? Getting taken to OT against Idaho St.? Getting crushed in the first round of the NCAA? Horrible shooting from the floor and the free throw line? Based on expectations, this team gets an average grade. Period.

I would have to go through my notebook in order to grade all those seasons, though I do recall that both the 2004 and 2005 were damn close to F's based on some of the fanny whippings we took. Unwatchable, really. And like it or not, those teams were closer to Bob Dukiet's teams than some people want to acknowledge. I don't recall Bob getting beat by 47 points.

Last year was an A in my book. 1994 was also an A.

I will say that the 1989-90 season was a nice one. Probably a C+. Making the NIT back then was actually interesting, though losing to Penn State was not. That team overachieved, Tony Smith was absolutely phenomenal and it was kind of a fun team to watch.

You're right about one thing, MU would improve its grades in my book by restoring its nickname.

Quote from: Avenue Commons on March 19, 2007, 03:03:17 PM
What grade do you give?

I'm a little disappointed you aren't offering the traditional MU grading system, because I would be voting a 'BC'.

I gave them a "C".  
the sophmore trio wasn't the juggernaut that was assumed.  David Cubillan was the big bright spot.  Dominic actually became a liability.  another season in which the post game was non-existent.  Ous had some good games, but was a C+ at best.  the free-throw shooting picked up at the end of the yr, but was pathetic for most of it.  they had inability to maintain leads and win the games they should have won.

Crean and Dominic shoulder much of the blame.  in DJ's case, he went away from playing to his strengths:  driving the lane and creating shots for others.  his desire to fire 3s and insist on creating his own shot from 22ft out cost the team.
and for TC, coaching FTs in the first 2/3 of the season, questionable substitutions (a problem i've seen for 3yrs now), keeping in players who were preforming (began to change at the end of the season).

Quote from: Wade for President on March 19, 2007, 04:39:20 PM

Quote from: Avenue Commons on March 19, 2007, 03:03:17 PM
What grade do you give?

I'm a little disappointed you aren't offering the traditional MU grading system, because I would be voting a 'BC'.

Ditto. In my system of grading, I start with an A and work down. This year's squad was docked for the following:
-Loss to NDSU (at home in our own tournament. don't care who it is. shouldn't happen)
-Losing two very winnable games to start the conference season
-The three-game conference losing streak
-The NCAA flame-out and overall late-season swoon (based strictly on record, not taking into account opponents, venues, players injured, etc)

Wouldn't call the season a disappointment overall, but I did expect more. 12-4 BE record was very much a possibility, and the NCAA performance was a bit of a letdown [/understatement]. No question this team will be better next season. Looking forward to 07-08, but in the meantime, GO BREWERS!

Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on March 19, 2007, 04:36:53 PM

Quote from: mufanatic on March 19, 2007, 03:32:42 PM
Based on that rationale and taking your generousity out the window, I guess 1984 to 1992, 1995, 1997 to 2002, 2004 and 2005 must have been straight Fs.  Leaving 1983, 1993, 1996 and 2006 as what a D.  With 1994 as a B maybe.  And 2003, well, while most of us were thrilled, my guess is that you would grade that as no better than a C.  Wow. You are one tough grader.  Looks like the only way MU gets a good grade in your books would be if we changed our nickname but that would be way too petty for anyone to even think that a nickname is that significant.   ;D
1994

Yes, of course. Since I gave this year's team a "C" it would stand to reason that I would give our Final Four team a "C."

Exactly what rationale can you use to give this team anything other than an average grade? What did they do that "stood out" as "above average?" Losing to NDSU and two other teams at home? Getting taken to OT against Idaho St.? Getting crushed in the first round of the NCAA? Horrible shooting from the floor and the free throw line? Based on expectations, this team gets an average grade. Period.

I would have to go through my notebook in order to grade all those seasons, though I do recall that both the 2004 and 2005 were damn close to F's based on some of the fanny whippings we took. Unwatchable, really. And like it or not, those teams were closer to Bob Dukiet's teams than some people want to acknowledge. I don't recall Bob getting beat by 47 points.

Last year was an A in my book. 1994 was also an A.

I will say that the 1989-90 season was a nice one. Probably a C+. Making the NIT back then was actually interesting, though losing to Penn State was not. That team overachieved, Tony Smith was absolutely phenomenal and it was kind of a fun team to watch.

You're right about one thing, MU would improve its grades in my book by restoring its nickname.

The rationale I would give for them receiving a B, which I gave them is this

Won the CBE Classic
Beat Louisville on the Road
Beat Pitt on the Road, and at Home
finished 10-6 in a tough conference

so they had some sidesteps in the year... show me one team that didn't?  Georgetown lost to Old Dominion, but now everyone has them slotted as the best team, every team has bad games, except for PRN's 4th grade rec team that he coaches is my guess  ;)

Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on March 19, 2007, 04:36:53 PM
I will say that the 1989-90 season was a nice one. Probably a C+. Making the NIT back then was actually interesting, though losing to Penn State was not. That team overachieved, Tony Smith was absolutely phenomenal and it was kind of a fun team to watch.

if a season with a first-round NIT loss qualifies as a C+ while a 24-win season in the Big East (against the league's second-toughest schedule) is a C......um, that's odd odd logic.

btw, that 89-90 team did not overachieve.  Tony Smith overachieved, the team did not -- shoulda been better considering Dukiet led them to 13 wins the year before and this bunch eeked out 15 with the same players returning in a piss poor league. That is a team that was swept by Bucky, lost 2 of three games to Evansville, gakked at home to X and Virginia & threw away a win at ND.  Hardly over-achieving.

Mayor, I would add the 3 of our losses were without out best player.  We also played the 14th toughest schedule in America and the 2nd toughest Big East schedule.  24 wins is very good.  10 in conference is very good.

I gave us a B for the reasons you stated.

Well, I'm probably going to get crucified for this, but I voted C in the poll, and it would have been a C- had that been an option. I actually called MU's regular-season right on the button, 23-8 overall, 10-6 conference, 1-1 BET, either here or on the Scout board when that was being discussed in the first week of November. An F on the final exam drops the overall grade to a C-.

That being said, the margin between a C- and a B+ or so isn't too much, which is where the grade would have been about six weeks ago after the Rutgers game. So the grade dropped from a B+ to a C- in the last six weeks.

The team gets an A for talent, a B for output and an F for coaching

(Dr. Naylor is still here with his awesome hat he wears around too)

Quote from: warrior55 on March 20, 2007, 12:01:50 AM
The team gets an A for talent, a B for output and an F for coaching

Wow, B for output and F for coaching?  Not sure that I can wrap my head around the logic of that.  So output is in no way dependant on coaching?  Please explain.

OOC: Wins over TT and Duke, losses to NDSU and UW.  B-

BE: 10-6, could have been 8-8, could have been 12-4.  B+

BET: 1-1, flat out C-, grading on a curve, B

NCAA: 0-1, flat out D .. grading on a curve C-

Overall .. B-.

Quote from: SoCalwarrior on March 20, 2007, 12:11:36 AM

Quote from: warrior55 on March 20, 2007, 12:01:50 AM
The team gets an A for talent, a B for output and an F for coaching

Wow, B for output and F for coaching?  Not sure that I can wrap my head around the logic of that.  So output is in no way dependant on coaching?  Please explain.

The output the team had was dependent on their talent and the coaching job done with them was horrific.  If the coach ran an offense and had set plays for his players the output would have been greater.  The output we had was on the players being able to make something on their own, not on the terrible coaching.

I give them a C because they got a D- on the final exam.

Depends on how you grade.  Compared to expectations we were a "C" during the season.  Compared to the Average Major Conference team, a "B" is clearly deserved.

Compared to expectations:

Out of conference:  BC

The loss to NDSU balances out the CBE, where I figured we'd lose once (semis or finals).  Having the loss to NDSU and the CBE championship is better than beating NDSU and losing one in the CBE, though.  Throw in the loss to UW, some less than impressive wins against lesser competition, and it was about even with expectations, but I'll go a little higher because winning a good tournament is very nice.

Big East:  B

Big East wasn't what it usually is, so at first glance 10-6 isn't so great.  But our schedule was tough, and we were a buzzer beating 20+ foot jumper away from sweeping Louisville and Pitt, and we had no real incomprehensible losses.  I'd say the loss at DePaul or home against Syracuse were probably the worst pure losses, and they really aren't so bad.  From memory, the only games where we weren't really in the hunt with less than 10 minutes to go was Providence and ND. 

BE tournament: CD

Albeit without McNeal, we beat a crappy SJU team without their best player, and not convincingly.  We hung around for a while against Pitt, but never thought we were going to win.

NCAA tournament:  F

Awful game against a solid team we should have been competitive with, if not beaten.

Quote from: CTWarrior on March 20, 2007, 12:45:50 PM
Awful game against a solid team we should have been competitive with, if not beaten.

even without their best player?

MU sh!@ the bed against MSU, but without McNeal it was an uphill fight

Quote from: NYWarrior on March 20, 2007, 12:59:13 PM
even without their best player?

MU sh!@ the bed against MSU, but without McNeal it was an uphill fight

I would say that even without McNeal we should have managed to score a basket or two in the first 9 1/2 minutes.  I finally saw the game last night (my wise-guy brother-in-law TIVO'd it for me while I was out of the country and begged me to watch it because, as he put, "it is stinking up my house").  Remember, we all thought we were a team who probably ought to have been a 6 seed.  Does losing McNeal drop our quality to a 15 seed?  Because we were outplayed like you'd expect a 15 or 16 seed to be against a 9.  I would consider arguments to any other grade but this.

Taken on the whole, it's hard to go much lower than a B-.

Considering all of the numbers hashed out here and the fact we lost Jerel for the stretch run. It was a solid "B" season after the Pitt win at home, yes? So, w/out the best player we faltered. Not that surprising.

Still, the flameout against MSU makes it seem much more like a C- season.

I think next year, however, is the first time in my 20 years of watching Marquette basketball that a run to the 16 is damn near essential. If we are going to be a true Big East player, it must be done.

We want to be on the UConn, Syracuse, Pitt side of the standings, not the Rutgers, St. John's, Providence end.

B...10 Conf wins, CBE Title & getting off the schnide in the Conf Tourney was nice. Ooze made great strides, Jerel's 3pt shot really started to come thru.  Wes was a unsung hero.  Fitz was improved and Lazar & Cooby gave solid minutes.  DJ's shot selection made me wince but his D was solid all season long.

Looking forward to next season...should return 80%-100% of our starters and youth will no longer be an issue.  A deep run certainly happen.

I would go with a BC.