As the other thread noted, Texas A&M head Coach Mark Turgeon left Texas A&M for Maryland.
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=26976.0
So, now we have the tweets in overtime TODAY that Buzz is interested in A&M.
BeerGuyTX John Stempien
@richardjustice @TheBigLead Rumor has it Buzz has exemptions in his buyout for certain TX schools, A&M included.
richardjustice Richard Justice
RT @BrentZwerneman: Coaching contact tells me there's likely real interest on the part of Buzz Williams in the A&M gig -- and John Reese would factor in.
-----
Comments about the above ... the tweets about Buzz's interest the buyout exemption reminds me of all the incorrect and flat wrong comments out of Oklahoma about Buzz's buyout. The Norman/Oklahoma City/Dallas sports reporters embarrassed themselves about how off-base and wrong their speculation abut Buzz to OK was. Now it the College Station/Houston sports reporters turn to show they too can impressively get things wrong too.
Only one guy had it correct, Todd Rosiak. What is Todd saying?
Todd_Rosiak Todd Rosiak
@michaellocicero Wouldn't surprise me if A&M looks into Buzz. Not sure what the buyout is in the new deal. But would be shocked if he left.
If Rosiak does not know what the terms of the buyout are, then you can bet some tweeter in Texas knows far less.
Rosiak knows Buzz well so when he says "would be shocked if he left" when he never said that about Ark or OK, it means something to me.
This is unrelated to the breathless media reports, but real reports said Turgeon thought the fan base was unappreciating of the program, his coaching, and the team. Not somewhere that I would want to go.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on May 10, 2011, 01:08:23 PM
If Rosiak does not know what the terms of the buyout are, then you can bet some tweeter in Texas knows far less.
Rosiak knows Buzz well so when he says "would be shocked if he left" when he never said that about Ark or OK, it means something to me.
Or perhaps Rosiak does know what the buyout is (just isn't saying) and knowing such, would be shocked if A&M would pay it.
Quote from: Andrew Siciliano's Ear on May 10, 2011, 02:35:34 PM
This is unrelated to the breathless media reports, but real reports said Turgeon thought the fan base was unappreciating of the program, his coaching, and the team. Not somewhere that I would want to go.
How do you think Buzz feels after the student section booing the boys during the last couple home games?
Quote from: Skatastrophy on May 10, 2011, 02:38:26 PM
How do you think Buzz feels after the student section booing the boys during the last couple home games?
How can you be certain they weren't yelling...
"Bluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuue", "Bluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuue"
;)
Is anyone really worried? It would be pretty classless to leave now in my opinion. Would hope we gave a big contract to someone of high level of integrity and this is non issue.
If we still have Buzz next season after Oklahoma, Arkansas, and A&M came calling, I feel pretty good that we won't have to go through this again for a long time. Maybe UT some day, but Buzz would face some stiff competition for that job.
Quote from: Goose on May 10, 2011, 02:49:08 PM
Is anyone really worried? It would be pretty classless to leave now in my opinion. Would hope we gave a big contract to someone of high level of integrity and this is non issue.
Character revealed.
That school in that town in that league? Buzz isn't that dumb.
Quote from: Litehouse on May 10, 2011, 02:50:06 PM
If we still have Buzz next season after Oklahoma, Arkansas, and A&M came calling, I feel pretty good that we won't have to go through this again for a long time. Maybe UT some day, but Buzz would face some stiff competition for that job.
+1
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on May 10, 2011, 01:08:23 PM
richardjustice Richard Justice
RT @BrentZwerneman: Coaching contact tells me there's likely real interest on the part of Buzz Williams in the A&M gig -- and John Reese would factor in.
-----
Brent Zwerneman, is Don Zwernemans kid, a lawyer/friend of over 20 years. Brent tried to get the sports Info director job at AM, and instead runs the ultimate aggie inf website...he has very good access to insiders at AM. Richard Jutice is a Houston Chronicle writer, who covers baseball best, and came to Houston fron Dallas Morning news. He is not on the inside of much viz colleg ball, so far.
Here is Brent's posting in the Houston Chronicle, that Buzz is the no.1 target of AM.:
http://blog.chron.com/aggies/2011/05/buzz-in-aggies-sights/
Goin', goin',..............................
(http://www.pokerforums.org/attachments/online-poker-room-discussion/1689d1232478718-legit-site-her_name_is_rio_aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg)
I hope Buzz remains at MU for a long, long time and I think he will.
That said, if he wants to go to a school closer to home that would pay him more money, I have no problem with that...as long as he makes sure that team hears it from him, not from ESPN.
If Buzz doesn't want to leave, why doesn't he just say so publically right now?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on May 10, 2011, 03:59:48 PM
If Buzz doesn't want to leave, why doesn't he just say so publically right now?
Sometimes your humor is so dry that I am sure that 90% of people don't get it.
Conspiracy theory. Buzz told Erik to annouce he is transferring now back to Texas, so Buzz cannot be accused of stealing him when Buzz follows him to A&M.
Seriously, I do not think Buzz is going anywhere.
I really think he is gone this time. it would be devastating to see as I would guess most of the recruits would look elsewhere (especially Juan, as I have already talked to him about it). Buzz is a future star in the coaching world and if we are able to keep him here after all the openings that were available this past offseason, I feel great about Buzz being here for a long time
Quote from: fanofTR on May 10, 2011, 04:21:41 PM
I really think he is gone this time. it would be devastating to see as I would guess most of the recruits would look elsewhere (especially Juan, as I have already talked to him about it). Buzz is a future star in the coaching world and if we are able to keep him here after all the openings that were available this past offseason, I feel great about Buzz being here for a long time
Why are you talking to recruits? Or do you just like to name-drop?
Not really trying to be a dick, but then again, I'm not trying that hard.
Reality check... I'm sure that Buzz is A & M's first choice.. but does anyone remember who A& M's first choice was back when they had to settle for grabbing Mark Turgeon away from Wichita State?
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 10, 2011, 04:00:43 PM
Sometimes your humor is so dry that I am sure that 90% of people don't get it.
I doubt that 4ever would get it himself without the nitrous oxide.
Quote from: LancesOtherNut on May 10, 2011, 04:24:39 PM
Why are you talking to recruits? Or do you just like to name-drop?
Not really trying to be a dick, but then again, I'm not trying that hard.
Seriously. Between this and the assistant coach conversation, this board has managed to bury the needle on the BS meter today.
I want Buzz to stay, but there has just been too much smoke.
This situation aligns as the perfect storm for his departure. Having a history with Texas A&M, both his wife and himself being from the area, and having a solid recruiting base already established in Texas all dont bode well here.
Also, another factor to consider is the viablility of MU in the big east. There are just too many rumors now that the football members of the big east want to split----possibly allowing Georgetown, St. Johns, Villanova, and Notre Dame to join them for hoops.
If this happens MU will wind up in a good conference----the history--the name----nice size market all bode well.
I really want Buzz to stay---but this time I am not as confident that he will.
Quote from: LancesOtherNut on May 10, 2011, 04:24:39 PM
Why are you talking to recruits? Or do you just like to name-drop?
Not really trying to be a dick, but then again, I'm not trying that hard.
trying to figure out if your serious with that comment or not.. Anyways, we just talk on twitter and respond to eachother when it involves basketball related things. Not that big of a deal there bud
Quote from: fanofTR on May 10, 2011, 04:32:23 PM
trying to figure out if your serious with that comment or not.. Anyways, we just talk on twitter and respond to eachother when it involves basketball related things. Not that big of a deal there bud
I've been led to believe that it is a big deal. Like an NCAA violation-type of big deal.
Quote from: houwarrior on May 10, 2011, 03:08:35 PM
Brent Zwerneman, is Don Zwernemans kid, a lawyer/friend of over 20 years. Brent tried to get the sports Info director job at AM, and instead runs the ultimate aggie inf website...he has very good access to insiders at AM. Richard Jutice is a Houston Chronicle writer, who covers baseball best, and came to Houston fron Dallas Morning news. He is not on the inside of much viz colleg ball, so far.
Here is Brent's posting in the Houston Chronicle, that Buzz is the no.1 target of AM.:
http://blog.chron.com/aggies/2011/05/buzz-in-aggies-sights/
Two pearls of wisdom from Brent Zwerneman's article:
1. Buzz now plans on recruiting by hiring a recruit's dad (and high school coach), and
2. Buzz can't wait to jump at the job that "Mark Turgeon was aiming to get out of..."
The above doesn't really ring true to me.
Quote from: jefffla01 on May 10, 2011, 04:32:05 PM
I want Buzz to stay, but there has just been too much smoke.
This situation aligns as the perfect storm for his departure. Having a history with Texas A&M, both his wife and himself being from the area, and having a solid recruiting base already established in Texas all dont bode well here.
Also, another factor to consider is the viablility of MU in the big east. There are just too many rumors now that the football members of the big east want to split----possibly allowing Georgetown, St. Johns, Villanova, and Notre Dame to join them for hoops.
If this happens MU will wind up in a good conference----the history--the name----nice size market all bode well.
I really want Buzz to stay---but this time I am not as confident that he will.
The perfect storm would have been if the job openned up before he signed the new contract. I have not been to either university, but my belief is the Oklahoma is a more desirable job than A&M and Buzz did not take that job.
Consider this, A&M's football coach only makes $1.8 million: http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/6514/big-12-head-coaches-score-five-of-17-top-salaries-in-college-football
I doubt that they will pay their hoops coach more than their football coach. They'd have to give both big raises along with paying Buzz's buyout.
If Buzz leaves for A&M, that's too bad. I'd prefer he remain a candidate for a larger job like the Texas one or another Big 12 program. A&M seems like a revolving door.
I love everything he has done for this program and everything Buzz is about, but I would be actually pretty angry if he ended up leaving for AnM.. The only job I could really understand and give him best wishes for would be Texas. Other than that, I would be pretty pissed if he left Marquette
Quote from: rocky_warrior on May 10, 2011, 02:46:38 PM
How can you be certain they weren't yelling...
"Bluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuue", "Bluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuue"
;)
That's the beauty of next year, when they yell ORANGE, ORANGE it cannot be mistaken for Boos
As an A&M fan invading your board, I would have to say that you are not in trouble of losing your coach. However, I do disagree with the sentiment that Buzz does not want the A&M job. He does, but we are not going to overpay him. If we were to give him 2.5 million a year then he would be gone 100%. The noise in College Station is that we are looking to pay about what Turgeon was making (1.8 million). I also do not believe in honesty or "good people" in college basketball, because Turgeon has been a saint the last 4 years at A&M, turning down Oregon, NC State, Tennessee, and a few other programs that offered him more money, a year before he goes to a worse team for a 500k raise. So don't believe everything about integrity in college hoops, there is none.
Quote from: LittleMurs on May 10, 2011, 04:38:42 PM
Two pearls of wisdom from Brent Zwerneman's article:
1. Buzz now plans on recruiting by hiring a recruit's dad (and high school coach), and
2. Buzz can't wait to jump at the job that "Mark Turgeon was aiming to get out of..."
The above doesn't really ring true to me.
I should amend--Brent Zwerneman notes himself as the Aggie beat writer for Houston Chronicle and for San Antonio Express.
He certainly is the writer with the most inside Aggie sources and info., ...His list of candidates is :
Early names I'm getting courtesy of a coaching contact: Doc Sadler(Nebraska), Buzz Williams, Gregg Marshall(Wichita State) and Tad Boyle(Colorado)
Quote from: cgt399 on May 10, 2011, 06:39:46 PM
As an A&M fan invading your board, I would have to say that you are not in trouble of losing your coach. However, I do disagree with the sentiment that Buzz does not want the A&M job. He does, but we are not going to overpay him. If we were to give him 2.5 million a year then he would be gone 100%. The noise in College Station is that we are looking to pay about what Turgeon was making (1.8 million). I also do not believe in honesty or "good people" in college basketball, because Turgeon has been a saint the last 4 years at A&M, turning down Oregon, NC State, Tennessee, and a few other programs that offered him more money, a year before he goes to a worse team for a 500k raise. So don't believe everything about integrity in college hoops, there is none.
Buzz does revival type talks here at MU and he's hooked some people.
people still want to believe big money college coaching isn't a dirty profession.
Quote from: cgt399 on May 10, 2011, 06:39:46 PM
As an A&M fan invading your board, I would have to say that you are not in trouble of losing your coach. However, I do disagree with the sentiment that Buzz does not want the A&M job. He does, but we are not going to overpay him. If we were to give him 2.5 million a year then he would be gone 100%. The noise in College Station is that we are looking to pay about what Turgeon was making (1.8 million). I also do not believe in honesty or "good people" in college basketball, because Turgeon has been a saint the last 4 years at A&M, turning down Oregon, NC State, Tennessee, and a few other programs that offered him more money, a year before he goes to a worse team for a 500k raise. So don't believe everything about integrity in college hoops, there is none.
Maryland may be a "worse team" but a much better job. That's not a slight against A&M...Maryland is a better job than Marquette as well.
Integrity in college basketball is hard to find. I don't agree there is none, but it's hard to find and permeates everything from high school, to AAU, to the sneaker companies, to the universities....it's unfortunate but there are some quality people out there if you look hard enough. I actually believe Turgeon is one of them from everything I've heard about him through my KU contacts and such. He just took a better job.
Tennessee, Oregon, NC State...not sure those are better jobs....Maryland is.
Instead of the "breathless", knee jerk reports...here is a more resonable take from Matt Norlander of CBS.com:
..."So let's talk candidates. That's the next step, of course. The Aggies job isn't as good as the Maryland one (obviously; after all, Turgeon left), but it still is a fairly decent Big 12 gig. Location is an issue, and A&M is going to have to chase a guy it can give a significant raise to -- they do have some money to do this -- and lure away from a mid-major program that's in a good situation. It's not going to be easy, and I suspect the hiring process will take longer than Maryland's, which lasted all of five days, start to finish.
A&M brass isn't in the position to pluck a coach from another major conference, in my opinion. Marquette's Buzz Williams' name has been thrown out there, but he signed on for more years and money in Milwaukee six weeks ago. Williams is a Texas guy; that's the only reason he's being tossed into this discussion. I'll remove him until evidence shows he's willing to listen. And forget Josh Pastner. Don't know when or how his name came up, but there's zero chance that guy leaves Memphis to coach in College Station. So, a list of five prospective are below, and I'll add that it's likely/possible a number of guys I don't have here could enter. There's a wide range of possibilities for this job and it could get very fluid.
•Stew Morrill. Coaches a different kind of Aggie. The Utah State poo-bah could get hired for the same reason Turgeon did at Maryland: copious amounts of winning, even if that hasn't led to success in the NCAAs. Morrill has won consistently but is a fairly stubborn man. He's not prone to challenge his team, schedule-wise, because he hasn't been able to get big boys to come play in Logan. Ironic but true: If he were to take the job he wouldn't come anywhere close to the homecourt advantage he and his Utah State team currently inherit.
•Johnny Jones. The North Texas coach is more than a dark horse, even if you're not that familiar with his work. The man has won 20 more or more games the past five years and knows the Texas recruiting scene. If they want to stay local, this is a good option.
•Scott Spinelli. Who? He's the associated head coach at A&M and has done a solid job recruiting since Turgeon took over for Billy Gillispie in 2007. An in-house hire wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. In my opinion, Spinelli's the only non-head-coach candidate A&M should consider.
•Gregg Marshall. This man is most intriguing because many in the business -- coaching and media, both -- believe Marshall's bound for a BCS job in the next two years. Could it be the next two weeks? Marshall was considered for Tennessee earlier this year. The unfortunate coincidence here: Marshall coaches at Wichita State, where A&M plucked Turgeon four years ago. The Shockers may get pilfered again.
•Fran Fraschilla. His name didn't even flicker in my mind originally, but a few on Twitter brought him up -- and I love the possibility. The ESPN analyst is a terrific X-and-O coach who deserves another chance, one last one. He's been a coach at New Mexico, Manhattan and St. John's, but Texas is the state he calls home. It's all about him wanting and desiring to coach the college game again. He's quite comfortable in his chair at the Worldwide Leader.
The school and Aggies AD Bill Byrne won't face the public pressure to make a hire by weekend's end, but the sooner the better. Recruits hang in the balance ...."
Brent Zwerneman tweeted this 20 mins ago
http://twitter.com/#!/BrentZwerneman/status/68101271973937152
A&M's next basketball coach will not be Buzz Williams, verified. He's making too much at Marquette. Search continues. #mysa #houstonchron
@Chicos
I agree that Maryland is a better job. I am just saying that we will have a better team next season. Don't get me wrong Turgeon was great, a real classy guy. It is just such a shock that he, of all people, would leave us in such a horrible position. He would get another job next year if he really wanted out. He has been quoted as saying the only job he would ever leave for is the Kansas job (his alma mater), and we took him at his word...
Quote from: Ari Gold on May 10, 2011, 07:18:18 PM
Brent Zwerneman tweeted this 20 mins ago
http://twitter.com/#!/BrentZwerneman/status/68101271973937152
A&M's next basketball coach will not be Buzz Williams, verified. He's making too much at Marquette. Search continues. #mysa #houstonchron
Whew!!
I'd consider that reliable, and concluding of this thread..
..time to cede it over to the various off point digressions sure to follow.
@4ever
Dodged another s h i t flinging. Maybe time to salute Cottingham, Wild, et al for knowing WTF they're doin'. Hope Pilarz gets with da program as well.
Quote from: houwarrior on May 10, 2011, 07:28:13 PM
Whew!!
I'd consider that reliable, and concluding of this thread..
..time to cede it over to the various off point digressions sure to follow.
OK, I was not looking forward to the Bruce Pearl to MU threads.
He will absolutely not be the next coach at Texas A&M. Everything I'm hearing is that there were three main targets, Josh Pastner of Memphis (who quickly shot down the rumor), Buzz, and a mystery third candidate that the AD is keeping close to his chest. Many think the third guy is Doc Sadler, the current man at Nebraska, or the Wichita State head coach because that worked out so well last time.
How many more Big 12 And SEC teams can we rumor about Buzz before Midnight Madness in October? So far my count is:
Big 12
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Missouri
Texas A&M
SEC
Arkansas
Tennessee
Quote from: cgt399 on May 10, 2011, 07:22:14 PM
@Chicos
I agree that Maryland is a better job. I am just saying that we will have a better team next season. Don't get me wrong Turgeon was great, a real classy guy. It is just such a shock that he, of all people, would leave us in such a horrible position. He would get another job next year if he really wanted out. He has been quoted as saying the only job he would ever leave for is the Kansas job (his alma mater), and we took him at his word...
Understand. My guess is he, like many others, view some of these opportunities as once in a lifetime chances and better to jump at them now while you know they have him. Maryland is potentially a huge job when things are going good.
The timing absolutely sucks for you guys....at least he left for a better gig. Rick Majerus left us in the Summer as a head coach to become an assistant coach with the Milwaukee Bucks...and he was A MARQUETTE ALUM. Talk about kicking a school in the balls and leaving them high and dry.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on May 10, 2011, 07:36:17 PM
@4ever
Dodged another s h i t flinging. Maybe time to salute Cottingham, Wild, et al for knowing WTF they're doin'. Hope Pilarz gets with da program as well.
We'll know in a few more years. If we consistently finish 4th through 6th, then they know what they're doing. If we're fighting to get into the NCAAs in the last week of the season....eh.
3....2....1.....here come the attacks
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 10, 2011, 07:52:12 PM
We'll know in a few more years. If we consistently finish 4th through 6th, then they know what they're doing. If we're fighting to get into the NCAAs in the last week of the season....eh.
3....2....1.....here come the attacks
At least you now recognize when you are trying to stir the pot. As if any of us here need you to spell it out..but thanks anyway.
Quote from: cgt399 on May 10, 2011, 06:39:46 PMAs an A&M fan invading your board, I would have to say that you are not in trouble of losing your coach. However, I do disagree with the sentiment that Buzz does not want the A&M job. He does, but we are not going to overpay him. If we were to give him 2.5 million a year then he would be gone 100%. The noise in College Station is that we are looking to pay about what Turgeon was making (1.8 million). I also do not believe in honesty or "good people" in college basketball, because Turgeon has been a saint the last 4 years at A&M, turning down Oregon, NC State, Tennessee, and a few other programs that offered him more money, a year before he goes to a worse team for a 500k raise. So don't believe everything about integrity in college hoops, there is none.
No attack intended here, I'm glad for the info and opinions from your side of the fence, but I simply think this is a good indicator that you don't know Buzz. I'm not saying there aren't jobs out there that could lure him away, but I don't think A&M is one of them. From the sounds of things, your athletic department is in some dire financial straits, which Buzz would be familiar with considering his own connections there and his relationship with Gillispie. Second, basketball will always be second fiddle down there, whereas here Buzz doesn't have to compete. Further, his mannerisms, faith, and general demeanor fit Marquette perfectly. Seriously, the last time we had a coach that seemed to match our program so well was a guy named Al.
Again, I'm not saying that the perfect storm couldn't exist to lure Buzz away, but considering you are a football first school that won't be willing to outbid Marquette and have financial troubles as opposed to our own basketball budget, which is second only to Duke's, I think it's safe to say A&M was never a real threat, and I think that even if you tossed 2.5M his way, he still would have said no.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 10, 2011, 06:18:07 PM
That's the beauty of next year, when they yell ORANGE, ORANGE it cannot be mistaken for Boos
Hahaha! Vander ORANGE! Just like what the guy he clocked called him! That's hilarious! You should post this like 10-12 times on different threads on here to show everyone how funny you are. What? You already did that? OK. Nevermind.
Buzz may not trash Texas A&M. If you ask him about the school, he would probably compliment it. However, that is just who Buzz is. He is nice to everyone and has nothing but positive things to say about everything. That does not mean that he is interested in taking the job at A&M.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 10, 2011, 07:50:15 PM
Understand. My guess is he, like many others, view some of these opportunities as once in a lifetime chances and better to jump at them now while you know they have him. Maryland is potentially a huge job when things are going good.
The timing absolutely sucks for you guys....at least he left for a better gig. Rick Majerus left us in the Summer as a head coach to become an assistant coach with the Milwaukee Bucks...and he was A MARQUETTE ALUM. Talk about kicking a school in the balls and leaving them high and dry.
I was under the impression that the alumni ran Rick out of town.
A&M's financial situation is on the upswing as we are getting a $10 million a year raise from the Big 12-2. We finish in the red in a season where only 14 athletic departments made money (2009) and we are in dire financial straits? Football will always be #1 here but BBall has been revitalized as well. Combine that with the fact the Buzz is from Texas and was an assistant under Billy G... Let's just say that if we came calling in March that the deal would be done. Not trying to sound like a prick. I have enjoyed the pleasant discourse with you guys and wish you well in the future.
Quote from: cgt399 on May 11, 2011, 10:15:31 AM
A&M's financial situation is on the upswing as we are getting a $10 million a year raise from the Big 12-2. We finish in the red in a season where only 14 athletic departments made money (2009) and we are in dire financial straits? Football will always be #1 here but BBall has been revitalized as well. Combine that with the fact the Buzz is from Texas and was an assistant under Billy G... Let's just say that if we came calling in March that the deal would be done. Not trying to sound like a prick. I have enjoyed the pleasant discourse with you guys and wish you well in the future.
If it makes you feel better to believe this go right on ahead.
Quote from: cgt399 on May 11, 2011, 10:15:31 AM
A&M's financial situation is on the upswing as we are getting a $10 million a year raise from the Big 12-2. We finish in the red in a season where only 14 athletic departments made money (2009) and we are in dire financial straits? Football will always be #1 here but BBall has been revitalized as well. Combine that with the fact the Buzz is from Texas and was an assistant under Billy G... Let's just say that if we came calling in March that the deal would be done. Not trying to sound like a prick. I have enjoyed the pleasant discourse with you guys and wish you well in the future.
Every alumni at every school has great pride in the their alma mater - by no means surprising that you would think if A&M came calling in March...Buzz would have left MU. Think about it this way, however: Native Texan Billy G chose to leave A&M for Kentucky (a college basketball blue blood), yet Buzz Williams wasn't offered the head coaching position at A&M upon Billy's departure. Fast forward 2 years - Tom Crean leaves Marquette for Indiana ( a college basketball blue blood) and Buzz Williams - with only 1 year on MU's assistant coaching staff, gets named Head Coach at Marquette. Quite sure this fact is not lost on Buzz, and given his very spiritual/religious ways - Marquette fits him quite well - so not so sure it would have been a done deal in March...
Quote from: cgt399 on May 11, 2011, 10:15:31 AM
A&M's financial situation is on the upswing as we are getting a $10 million a year raise from the Big 12-2. We finish in the red in a season where only 14 athletic departments made money (2009) and we are in dire financial straits? Football will always be #1 here but BBall has been revitalized as well. Combine that with the fact the Buzz is from Texas and was an assistant under Billy G... Let's just say that if we came calling in March that the deal would be done. Not trying to sound like a prick. I have enjoyed the pleasant discourse with you guys and wish you well in the future.
If that makes you feel better, enjoy. I believe that Buzz didn't even consider coaching anywhere but Marquette in 2011/12, and wouldn't have but for the few jobs he would be crazy to pass on (Texas, Duke, UNC, KU, UK, UCLA, maybe a few more). In a few years things might change, but that's the current situation.
It doesn't. I'm not really sure why we do this. We become obsessed with hiring old assistants because you know there has never been a good coach that hasn't at some point been an assistant at Texas A&M.
Also to your point buzz wasn't offered 4 years ago because he was coming off a 14-17 showing as a first year head coach at a low-major.
Quote from: cgt399 on May 11, 2011, 10:15:31 AM
A&M's financial situation is on the upswing as we are getting a $10 million a year raise from the Big 12-2. We finish in the red in a season where only 14 athletic departments made money (2009) and we are in dire financial straits? Football will always be #1 here but BBall has been revitalized as well. Combine that with the fact the Buzz is from Texas and was an assistant under Billy G... Let's just say that if we came calling in March that the deal would be done. Not trying to sound like a prick. I have enjoyed the pleasant discourse with you guys and wish you well in the future.
Not trying to sound like a prick .... but these are almost identical to the comments we read from Oklahoma fans, after they did come calling in March. And while one can debate whether OU or TAMU is the better program, Buzz had the opportunity to "go home" then and chose instead to stay at Marquette.
And, honestly, if Buzz really, really wanted the TAMU job as y'all claim, he doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who would chose to stay in Milwaukee for a few hundred thousands dollars more. Either way, he was going to be rich beyond his expectations, so why not be rich in the job of his choosing?
Or maybe, just maybe, Marquette is his job of choosing, and rather than fessing up that they got rejected by their first choice, your school's administrators are leaking that it was all about the money.
Quote from: cgt399 on May 11, 2011, 10:31:02 AM
Also to your point buzz wasn't offered 4 years ago because he was coming off a 14-17 showing as a first year head coach at a low-major.
A&M had the chance to hire Buzz after Billy left - he was on staff for 2 years under Billy Clyde - and they didn't offer him the job..so Buzz left for New Orleans were he went 14-17. MU hired him after only 1 season as an assistant at MU, and WITH knowledge he went 14-17 at UNO.
Quote from: TJ on May 11, 2011, 10:28:30 AM
If that makes you feel better, enjoy. I believe that Buzz didn't even consider coaching anywhere but Marquette in 2011/12, and wouldn't have but for the few jobs he would be crazy to pass on (Texas, Duke, UNC, KU, UK, UCLA, It's Indiana, It's Indiana maybe a few more). In a few years things might change, but that's the current situation.
Fixed
Your timeline is wrong he left the year before Billy G
Quote from: cgt399 on May 11, 2011, 10:38:35 AM
Your timeline is wrong he left the year before Billy G
My bad - didn't realize that - Buzz left in spring 2006 for New Orleans, Billy left A&M Spring of 2007. Needless to say Buzz was back on the market around that time but A&M didn't take him with his 14-17 resume. Can't necessarily say I blame A&M - but Marquette after observing him for 1 year as an assistant...and knowing he went 14-17 at UNO - gave him the keys/head coaching position to a Top 20 program. A leap of faith to a degree - but when it is pretty evident early on in dealing with Buzz Williams to figure out he's got "it."
In the sense of fairness here.....and not trying to throw a wet blanket on all this MU fervor but we need to take the time to remove our blue and gold glasses and try to get some objectivity here.
First of all, before I moved to Dallas 31 years ago I had NO idea about what being "Texan" means and after 31 years I think I am only now coming to fully understand it. I've never seen anything like it anywhere else in the world. FACT: If you meet a Texan anywhere in the world when asked where they are from they will answer Texas, not the USA. Texans are VERY proud of the fact that their state flag is the ONLY flag allowed to fly at the same height as a US flag....it goes on and on....The current Governor was talking secession quite seriously a few years ago.
You are ALL kidding yourselves if you don't think that Buzz had a moment of pause when learning that the A&M job had opened. Let's not forget that A&M gave him a chance to return to Texas after taking his first Div 1 asst position at Colorado State. He might still be there if Billy Clyde hadn't gambled on the Kentucky job and if Billy Clyde had stayed then left for another job a few years later Buzz might have been their man.
You guys talk about A&M as if it was some small podunk school....you couldn't be more wrong. A&M is a MAJOR research university with over 49,000 students; its main campus sits on over 5200 acres and its endowment is in excess of $5.6 billion. It's home to the George H W Bush Library, has a medical, dental and veterinary school along with a top undergrad business school and engineering school. While there are plenty of "Aggie" jokes that float around here....similar to Polish jokes, there's a lot of truth to this: Question: What do you call an Aggie in 20 years? Answer: Boss.
I honestly believe that had A&M been calling when OU and others were in March, Buzz would have really had to think hard about leaving. I applaud his sense of loyalty to MU for giving him the opportunity that we did, but if A&M had been calling his answer might have been quite different. "Coming home" means a lot to a native Texan.
I hope Buzz stays at MU for a very long time but am not naive enough to ignore the deep seeded Texas roots that run through every inch of his sometimes considerable girth. Let's just hope that the UT and A&M jobs stayed filled for a long time because after making what he's currently making for a few more years, he could easily "afford" a pay cut to under $2 million to come back home...housing is less expensive and gives you far more amenities here and there are no state or city income taxes here so that salary nets him more here as well.
just my $0.02
Not trying to be like F*ckin', but why can't we all be friends? I'm certain the Aggies will fall on their feet.
Quote from: texaswarrior74 on May 11, 2011, 11:16:47 AMYou guys talk about A&M as if it was some small podunk school....you couldn't be more wrong. A&M is a MAJOR research university with over 49,000 students; its main campus sits on over 5200 acres and its endowment is in excess of $5.6 billion. It's home to the George H W Bush Library, has a medical, dental and veterinary school along with a top undergrad business school and engineering school.
It's worth pointing out that these are all possible reasons why Buzz would want to stay at Marquette.
As my Texas friend says "A&M...where the men are men and the sheep are scared."
Quote from: texaswarrior74 on May 11, 2011, 11:16:47 AM
You guys talk about A&M as if it was some small podunk school....you couldn't be more wrong. A&M is a MAJOR research university with over 49,000 students; its main campus sits on over 5200 acres and its endowment is in excess of $5.6 billion. It's home to the George H W Bush Library, has a medical, dental and veterinary school along with a top undergrad business school and engineering school. While there are plenty of "Aggie" jokes that float around here....similar to Polish jokes, there's a lot of truth to this: Question: What do you call an Aggie in 20 years? Answer: Boss.
I honestly believe that had A&M been calling when OU and others were in March, Buzz would have really had to think hard about leaving. I applaud his sense of loyalty to MU for giving him the opportunity that we did, but if A&M had been calling his answer might have been quite different. "Coming home" means a lot to a native Texan.
So, having re-read the entire thread, I see nowhere that it's said or implied that A&M is a small podunk school, lacking in students or endowment. Or that Buzz wouldn't have thought really hard about the job there,whether now or in March.
But when all is said and done, Buzz has had opportunities in recent months to "come home" - or darn near it - and it seems he's turned them all down.
Doesn't that count for something? And why is pointing that out somehow a swipe at A&M?
My apologies to FF03, Merrits, South Wayne, etc, who noticed my impatience, and impertenence in the locked thread of Buzz is staying put. The tone and choice of words were poorly chosen...I do know better, and will treat it as a lesson learned. Sorry again.
Quote from: cgt399 on May 11, 2011, 10:29:09 AM
there has never been a good coach that hasn't at some point been an assistant at Texas A&M.
John Calipari, Billy Donovan, Bill Self, Thad Matta, Jim Calhoun, Rick Pitino, Roy Williams, Rick Barnes, Tom Izzo, Ben Howland, Tom Crean, Mike Krzyzewski, Jim Boeheim, Lute Olson, Bobby Knight...
CGT, thanks for visiting and thanks for the insight. You are rightfully proud of your school. But you need to understand context. Buzz has expressed repeatedly how grateful he is to MU for taking a chance on him. He has expressed repeatedly how well his values mesh with Marquette's Jesuit mission. He has said that he will coach at MU until we don't want him anymore. His salary at MU is in the top 10% of college hoops. The AD has bumped his pay after every season, over doubling it in 3 years. The AD wanted, and Buzz agreed to, an obscenely high buyout. Of note, it apparently was higher on his last contract, as Oklahoma found out. What does this mean? Marquette wants Buzz and is willing to pay to keep him, and Buzz likes Marquette enough to have these impediments built into his contract. It probably isn't impossible to get him, but your opening bid had better be >$4 million (Buyout + First year salary) with an annual salary approaching $3 million and you had better have a program that is better than an upper tier BEast team. I am not being critical of TAMU or Oklahoma to say that neither has a basketball program that is a noticeable step up from MU. And FWIW, it would have cost you roughly the same (higher buyout, lower salary) to get him 6 weeks ago.
Quote from: texaswarrior74 on May 11, 2011, 11:16:47 AM
In the sense of fairness here.....and not trying to throw a wet blanket on all this MU fervor but we need to take the time to remove our blue and gold glasses and try to get some objectivity here.
First of all, before I moved to Dallas 31 years ago I had NO idea about what being "Texan" means and after 31 years I think I am only now coming to fully understand it. I've never seen anything like it anywhere else in the world. FACT: If you meet a Texan anywhere in the world when asked where they are from they will answer Texas, not the USA. Texans are VERY proud of the fact that their state flag is the ONLY flag allowed to fly at the same height as a US flag....it goes on and on....The current Governor was talking secession quite seriously a few years ago.
You are ALL kidding yourselves if you don't think that Buzz had a moment of pause when learning that the A&M job had opened. Let's not forget that A&M gave him a chance to return to Texas after taking his first Div 1 asst position at Colorado State. He might still be there if Billy Clyde hadn't gambled on the Kentucky job and if Billy Clyde had stayed then left for another job a few years later Buzz might have been their man.
You guys talk about A&M as if it was some small podunk school....you couldn't be more wrong. A&M is a MAJOR research university with over 49,000 students; its main campus sits on over 5200 acres and its endowment is in excess of $5.6 billion. It's home to the George H W Bush Library, has a medical, dental and veterinary school along with a top undergrad business school and engineering school. While there are plenty of "Aggie" jokes that float around here....similar to Polish jokes, there's a lot of truth to this: Question: What do you call an Aggie in 20 years? Answer: Boss.
I honestly believe that had A&M been calling when OU and others were in March, Buzz would have really had to think hard about leaving. I applaud his sense of loyalty to MU for giving him the opportunity that we did, but if A&M had been calling his answer might have been quite different. "Coming home" means a lot to a native Texan.
I hope Buzz stays at MU for a very long time but am not naive enough to ignore the deep seeded Texas roots that run through every inch of his sometimes considerable girth. Let's just hope that the UT and A&M jobs stayed filled for a long time because after making what he's currently making for a few more years, he could easily "afford" a pay cut to under $2 million to come back home...housing is less expensive and gives you far more amenities here and there are no state or city income taxes here so that salary nets him more here as well.
just my $0.02
Summary: Gentleman, lend me your ears! Take off your silly "blue and gold glasses" and put on these "maroon and white" ones (for the purpose of greater
objectivity).
Quote from: cgt399 on May 11, 2011, 10:15:31 AM
Let's just say that if we came calling in March that the deal would be done.
You could be right, which actually reminds me to thank the MU AD and President for locking Buzz up with another generous contract shortly after the season.
Truth be told, MU is probably overpaying a little bit now to protect themselves from being robbed in a situation like this.
Given that hoops is very, very important to MU (especially with the conference realignment BS), I think it's the smart move.
Best of luck to A&M.
Quote from: sixstrings03 on May 11, 2011, 12:22:27 PM
John Calipari, Billy Donovan, Bill Self, Thad Matta, Jim Calhoun, Rick Pitino, Roy Williams, Rick Barnes, Tom Izzo, Ben Howland, Tom Crean, Mike Krzyzewski, Jim Boeheim, Lute Olson, Bobby Knight...
Excellent work on refuting his sincere argument.
One thing that is interesting that more of the High Major's are going after other HM's and driving up the price. When one turns it down they always seem to get a bump and if they do hire them they also get a bump. I think just 5 years ago the going rate for a good coach was 1 Mil now its 2 Mil. If HM's would hire good Mid Majors right off the bat they would not be creating a market that takes 2.5 Mil to get a good (not Great) coach.
Texas A&M... the Ivy of the Southwest.
More accurately...middle of the road.
Thank you Drew M for pointing out that we have sarcasm in Texas. Apparently Buzz has a speaking engagement at a Marquette alumni event in Chicago tonight. The question will likely come up in some way or another of his interest (Apparently negotiations are still going on for some reason) at which time he will likely put them to rest. I wouldn't bother holding your breath as this situation will be ending (in your favor of course) in several hours.
Anyone else feel like this was a huge offseason to get through with Buzz staying on board? I feel that the Sweet Sixteen appearance coupled with Buzz staying and the preseason rankings for next year (heightened expectations) will really create a lot of excitement around the team and increase attendance.
Also, I am happy that so many schools went after him this offseason. If this many schools think of him that highly, it must mean that they think he's destined to be a great coach. His salary and buyout also means he's not going anywhere unless one of only a few schools comes calling (which would hurt but I would be able to live with).
This was going to be a big year for Buzz regardless, need to reverse our trend in Big East play of losing spots in conference.
But his name being out there and MU coming out on top is positive exposure for us and recruits (and their coaches) pick up on this.
Quote from: Stone Cold on May 11, 2011, 07:10:43 PM
This was going to be a big year for Buzz regardless, need to reverse our trend in Big East play of losing spots in conference.
But his name being out there and MU coming out on top is positive exposure for us and recruits (and their coaches) pick up on this.
Agree completely about not losing spots in conference and I believe it will definitely be reversed this year.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 11, 2011, 07:37:23 AM
I was under the impression that the alumni ran Rick out of town.
If you think the alumni ran Rick our of town in the Summer prior to the season....uhm...NO. Yeah, there were alums pressuring him but Rick caved into that pressure. No way MU wanted Rick gone in the Summer knowing we could get no one to replace him, which is exactly what ended up happening.
Rick caved
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 10, 2011, 09:57:07 PM
Hahaha! Vander ORANGE! Just like what the guy he clocked called him! That's hilarious! You should post this like 10-12 times on different threads on here to show everyone how funny you are. What? You already did that? OK. Nevermind.
10-12 times?
A simple search shows I've said it three times with one simply a rehash of what other students will say based on other boards, but facts were never your strong point.
By all means, do the search yourself....it's not hard or frightening, I promise
Quote from: texaswarrior74 on May 11, 2011, 11:16:47 AM
In the sense of fairness here.....and not trying to throw a wet blanket on all this MU fervor but we need to take the time to remove our blue and gold glasses and try to get some objectivity here.
First of all, before I moved to Dallas 31 years ago I had NO idea about what being "Texan" means and after 31 years I think I am only now coming to fully understand it. I've never seen anything like it anywhere else in the world. FACT: If you meet a Texan anywhere in the world when asked where they are from they will answer Texas, not the USA. Texans are VERY proud of the fact that their state flag is the ONLY flag allowed to fly at the same height as a US flag....it goes on and on....The current Governor was talking secession quite seriously a few years ago.
As a born Texan and resident several times during my life....I concur. It's a different mentality. From the history of it's roots, to the politics of independence, to the geographic size of the footprint. Fiercely independent people...love it.
AMERICAN BY BIRTH, TEXAN BY THE GRACE OF GOD is a common saying
Quote from: Jay Bee on May 11, 2011, 02:04:52 PM
Texas A&M... the Ivy of the Southwest.
Texas A&M is ranked higher than us academically by US News. Do I think US News is a great barometer? Nope...but MU has no problem using it to compare and contracts schools.
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/spp%2B50/page+2
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 12, 2011, 09:04:03 AM
Texas A&M is ranked higher than us academically by US News. Do I think US News is a great barometer? Nope...but MU has no problem using it to compare and contracts schools.
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/spp%2B50/page+2
Don't you mean compare and
contrast?
LOOK EVERYBODY! I GOT CHICOS! I GOT CHICOS!!!!
Quote from: Ners on May 10, 2011, 08:38:08 PM
At least you now recognize when you are trying to stir the pot. As if any of us here need you to spell it out..but thanks anyway.
No Ners, I've been consistent from the day he was hired on my expectations. All I want is someone to repeat what the last guy did in terms of results on and off the court (graduation rates, etc)....if anything I'm giving Buzz a huge mulligan. I've been told here time and time again he's a better recruiter, better coach so merely lowering my expectations to only duplicate what the "poorer recruiter and poorer coach" accomplished could be deemed as lowering expectations by some. We'll see if he can keep it going, we took a step back this past season (lower division finish for the first time ever in Big East play) and apparently that was all due to the previous guy (as was the delay in killing Bin Laden and the still unfound cure for the common cold). Fortunately we have a Sweet 16 moment to build off and a solid, top 25 team coming back this year.
The future looks bright, I'm glad he's staying because we cannot afford the silly dance MU has gone through so many times with coaches bolting. People talk about whether MU is a destination job....in our history apparently few coaches have felt that way since only once did a guy find is desirable enough to stick around more than 15 years. Hope Buzz breaks that trend....we need it.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 12, 2011, 09:01:26 AM
As a born Texan and resident several times during my life....I concur. It's a different mentality. From the history of it's roots, to the politics of independence, to the geographic size of the footprint. Fiercely independent people...love it.
If by "independent" you mean "annoying and pompous" then yes...I would agree.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 12, 2011, 09:16:22 AM
If by "independent" you mean "annoying and pompous" then yes...I would agree.
Agree!
Circle gets the square!
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 12, 2011, 09:11:35 AM
No Ners, I've been consistent from the day he was hired on my expectations. All I want is someone to repeat what the last guy did in terms of results on and off the court (graduation rates, etc)....if anything I'm giving Buzz a huge mulligan. I've been told here time and time again he's a better recruiter, better coach so merely lowering my expectations to only duplicate what the "poorer recruiter and poorer coach" accomplished could be deemed as lowering expectations by some. We'll see if he can keep it going, we took a step back this past season (lower division finish for the first time ever in Big East play) and apparently that was all due to the previous guy (as was the delay in killing Bin Laden and the still unfound cure for the common cold). Fortunately we have a Sweet 16 moment to build off and a solid, top 25 team coming back this year.
The future looks bright, I'm glad he's staying because we cannot afford the silly dance MU has gone through so many times with coaches bolting. People talk about whether MU is a destination job....in our history apparently few coaches have felt that way since only once did a guy find is desirable enough to stick around more than 15 years. Hope Buzz breaks that trend....we need it.
Tom Crean has won exactly 1 NCAA tournament game without Dwyane Wade playing for him in an 11 year career. However, he did guide us to 3 Top 6 finishes in the Big East, only to get bounced in the first round of the NCAA 2 of the 3 years. Personally, I'd take a 9th place finish and a Sweet 16 instead of a 4th, 5th or 6th Big East finish and first round NCAA exit.
But yes, I do agree that looking at their recruiting results at MU...Buzz Williams is a better recruiter than TC, and thus should get better results on the court.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 12, 2011, 08:57:01 AM
10-12 times?
A simple search shows I've said it three times with one simply a rehash of what other students will say based on other boards, but facts were never your strong point.
By all means, do the search yourself....it's not hard or frightening, I promise
So that's just 3 times too many, not 10 or 12 times too many. Just stop.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 12, 2011, 09:11:35 AM
No Ners, I've been consistent from the day he was hired on my expectations. All I want is someone to repeat what the last guy did in terms of results on and off the court (graduation rates, etc)....if anything I'm giving Buzz a huge mulligan. I've been told here time and time again he's a better recruiter, better coach so merely lowering my expectations to only duplicate what the "poorer recruiter and poorer coach" accomplished could be deemed as lowering expectations by some. We'll see if he can keep it going, we took a step back this past season (lower division finish for the first time ever in Big East play) and apparently that was all due to the previous guy (as was the delay in killing Bin Laden and the still unfound cure for the common cold). Fortunately we have a Sweet 16 moment to build off and a solid, top 25 team coming back this year.
The future looks bright, I'm glad he's staying because we cannot afford the silly dance MU has gone through so many times with coaches bolting. People talk about whether MU is a destination job....in our history apparently few coaches have felt that way since only once did a guy find is desirable enough to stick around more than 15 years. Hope Buzz breaks that trend....we need it.
You say that you're okay with Buzz matching Crean's overall record at Marquette, which you inaccurately equate to a 4th-6th place finish each year in the Big East. A finish that high would mean an NCAA tournament berth EVERY year, and TC was only 5 for 9.
So if Buzz makes the tournament twice in the next six years and wins 2 tournament games over that span you will be happy since he will have matched Crean's record over nine years at MU (5 NCAA tourneys and 5 NCAA wins). I think he's a better coach and recruiter so I expect more. I'm willing to back up my opinion with my wallet. Any interest?
Quote from: texaswarrior74 on May 11, 2011, 11:16:47 AM
In the sense of fairness here.....and not trying to throw a wet blanket on all this MU fervor but we need to take the time to remove our blue and gold glasses and try to get some objectivity here.
First of all, before I moved to Dallas 31 years ago I had NO idea about what being "Texan" means and after 31 years I think I am only now coming to fully understand it. I've never seen anything like it anywhere else in the world. FACT: If you meet a Texan anywhere in the world when asked where they are from they will answer Texas, not the USA. Texans are VERY proud of the fact that their state flag is the ONLY flag allowed to fly at the same height as a US flag....it goes on and on....The current Governor was talking secession quite seriously a few years ago.
You are ALL kidding yourselves if you don't think that Buzz had a moment of pause when learning that the A&M job had opened. Let's not forget that A&M gave him a chance to return to Texas after taking his first Div 1 asst position at Colorado State. He might still be there if Billy Clyde hadn't gambled on the Kentucky job and if Billy Clyde had stayed then left for another job a few years later Buzz might have been their man.
You guys talk about A&M as if it was some small podunk school....you couldn't be more wrong. A&M is a MAJOR research university with over 49,000 students; its main campus sits on over 5200 acres and its endowment is in excess of $5.6 billion. It's home to the George H W Bush Library, has a medical, dental and veterinary school along with a top undergrad business school and engineering school. While there are plenty of "Aggie" jokes that float around here....similar to Polish jokes, there's a lot of truth to this: Question: What do you call an Aggie in 20 years? Answer: Boss.
I honestly believe that had A&M been calling when OU and others were in March, Buzz would have really had to think hard about leaving. I applaud his sense of loyalty to MU for giving him the opportunity that we did, but if A&M had been calling his answer might have been quite different. "Coming home" means a lot to a native Texan.
I hope Buzz stays at MU for a very long time but am not naive enough to ignore the deep seeded Texas roots that run through every inch of his sometimes considerable girth. Let's just hope that the UT and A&M jobs stayed filled for a long time because after making what he's currently making for a few more years, he could easily "afford" a pay cut to under $2 million to come back home...housing is less expensive and gives you far more amenities here and there are no state or city income taxes here so that salary nets him more here as well.
just my $0.02
Well Said. Texas is different from all other states in the union...from the beginning. After gaining independence from Mexico, it formed its own separate country, the Republic of Texas. When joining the union of the United states, it still had big war debts...which the USA would have had to assume and take over...if the USA took sovereign rights over Texas land. Accordingly, the United States did not take on these debts, and Texas, joined, while still RETAINING rights of sovereignty over its own land....to this day.
Its worked out well. 60 years later, oil was found, and on all Texas state owned lands, the oil revenue funded the Permanent University Fund ("PUF"), which generated billions, and well funded UT and TAMU, with endowment $$. The USA does not own any mineral rights on any public lands in Texas--they are all ours.
Sooo. when you hear the arrogant and pompous Texans talking about secession...its because, as the only state which remains sovereign over its lands....Texas actually could secede.
Dont worry though, until some Texas school lands Buzz Williams as its coach, the Texas voters will never approve any secession from the USA. (sorry Texas arrogance, and pomposity overtook me for a moment-lol)
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 12, 2011, 09:16:22 AM
If by "independent" you mean "annoying and pompous" then yes...I would agree.
Agree 100%
I have to go to Dallas & Houston for work 3-4 times per year. The people I deal with in Dallas are for the most part insufferable. I like the folks in Houston much better.
Quote from: houwarrior on May 12, 2011, 12:25:22 PM
Well Said. Texas is different from all other states in the union...from the beginning. After gaining independence from Mexico, it formed its own separate country, the Republic of Texas. When joining the union of the United states, it still had big war debts...which the USA would have had to assume and take over...if the USA took sovereign rights over Texas land. Accordingly, the United States did not take on these debts, and Texas, joined, while still RETAINING rights of sovereignty over its own land....to this day.
Its worked out well. 60 years later, oil was found, and on all Texas state owned lands, the oil revenue funded the Permanent University Fund ("PUF"), which generated billions, and well funded UT and TAMU, with endowment $$. The USA does not own any mineral rights on any public lands in Texas--they are all ours.
Sooo. when you hear the arrogant and pompous Texans talking about secession...its because, as the only state which remains sovereign over its lands....Texas actually could secede.
Dont worry though, until some Texas school lands Buzz Williams as its coach, the Texas voters will never approve any secession from the USA. (sorry Texas arrogance, and pomposity overtook me for a moment-lol)
I say secede, then we will invade and conquer and take your lands. 8-)
PS: Just came across on the google image, and chuckled.
(http://www.cardcow.com/images/set65/card00132_fr.jpg)
Texas lawmakers complaining about Rick Barnes getting a $200k raise to $2.4M. I imagine A&M paying up for Buzz wouldn't have gone over well, especially with a possible $27B state budget deficit.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news?slug=ap-texas-barnesraise
Quote from: Ners on May 12, 2011, 09:42:10 AM
Tom Crean has won exactly 1 NCAA tournament game without Dwyane Wade playing for him in an 11 year career. However, he did guide us to 3 Top 6 finishes in the Big East, only to get bounced in the first round of the NCAA 2 of the 3 years. Personally, I'd take a 9th place finish and a Sweet 16 instead of a 4th, 5th or 6th Big East finish and first round NCAA exit.
Personally, I'll take a Final Four over a Sweet 16.
Nonetheless, if you take all your usual emotion out of it, you simply can't count on 9th place finishes making the tournament every year.
I also think that you can't count on as favorable pairings in the tournament as we had this year. Our biggest weakness was 3 point defense--and Xavier was ranked a lowly 240th in the NCAA/11th in the A10 in 3 point shooting. The second round was against a team we already beat this year.
(BTW, still waiting for your explanation as to why Missouri was as tough a matchup as Stanford.)
Quote from: Ners on May 12, 2011, 09:42:10 AM
But yes, I do agree that looking at their recruiting results at MU...Buzz Williams is a better recruiter than TC, and thus should get better results on the court.
The problem is that we aren't
consistently seeing better results on the court. You can pull out the Sweet 16 this year all you want, I don't see that you can argue that we consistently played at the level of a Sweet 16 team.
I cannot logically understand how you can argue that we are better at recruiting while at the same time get mad at the opinion that we had too much talent to lose 15 games.
I'm very happy with a Sweet 16 this year--I'm not happy with how we got there and believe that if this were a normal season we would have been an NIT team.
Most likely this is all sound & fury signifying nothing. Even if so..MU survived Al's retirement. If Buzz leaves...life will go on...
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 14, 2011, 10:58:49 AM
I cannot logically understand how you can argue that we are better at recruiting while at the same time get mad at the opinion that we had too much talent to lose 15 games.
Don't oversimplify "15 losses." We both know that those 15 losses translate to 8 or 9 losses for any other power conference team not in the Big East. We played in the best college basketball conference in quite possibly the HISTORY OF THE WORLD.
Quote from: windyplayer on May 14, 2011, 11:46:31 AM
Don't oversimplify "15 losses." We both know that those 15 losses translate to 8 or 9 losses for any other power conference team not in the Big East. We played in the best college basketball conference in quite possibly the HISTORY OF THE WORLD.
This past year's Big East wasn't even as good as the Big East of several years ago when we placed three #1 seeds.
Quote from: windyplayer on May 14, 2011, 11:46:31 AM
Don't oversimplify "15 losses." We both know that those 15 losses translate to 8 or 9 losses for any other power conference team not in the Big East. We played in the best college basketball conference in quite possibly the HISTORY OF THE WORLD.
Don't overestimate the individual strength of our opponents.
I think we had enough talent to beat St. Johns and Cincinnati at home, hang onto a 17 point lead against Louisville, duplicate a blowout win against Notre Dame, and most certainly had enough talent to beat Seton Hall on the road.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 14, 2011, 11:48:09 AM
This past year's Big East wasn't even as good as the Big East of several years ago when we placed three #1 seeds.
Certainly top heavy in 2009, but the conference only (relatively speaking) sent seven teams to the dance.
84 - You continue to just get more ridiculous. You say I need to take my emotions out of things? Really?? People here call you Joanie Crean - due to your complete love fest and obsession with Tom Crean. So this Years Sweet 16 team was due to lucky matchups in Xavier and Syracuse? Okay - what else can you do to take away from Buzz Williams teams?
Buzz is in Year 3. Period. Give the guy 9 years at MU like his predecessor and VERY confident he'll have more NCAA tourney wins, more consistent deep runs, and most likely a Final Four. The reality is that TC has won 1 NCAA tourney game in an 11 year head coaching career without D-Wade (An all-world caliber talent)
As for Missouri vs Stanford - I believe both were 3 seeds - so thought of equally by the committee. Stanford was NOT athletic, and only went 7 deep. Poor guard play. Mizzou was 11 deep, long, athletic, and their bigs were equally skilled as the Lopez twins. Keep in mind Buzz didn't have the luxury of having Dominic James to play against Mizzou - yet Crean had his whole lineup together against Stanford and couldn't get it done.
And as for our future under Buzz Williams, if you'd like to wager on this upcoming season - I'd be happy to bet that we won't be a 9th place finisher in the Big East - as you seem so concerned with. I see a lot of Top 5 finishees on teh horizon under Buzz.
Quote from: Ners on May 14, 2011, 02:51:19 PM
Buzz is in Year 3. Period. Give the guy 9 years at MU like his predecessor and VERY confident he'll have more NCAA tourney wins, more consistent deep runs, and most likely a Final Four. The reality is that TC has won 1 NCAA tourney game in an 11 year head coaching career without D-Wade (An all-world caliber talent)
Probably...then again....make him start with a team that isn't even in the NIT and see what happens. You continue to compare apples to snails and I don't know why. The reality is that Buzz Williams has won zero games in the NCAA tournament without future NBA players. Guess what, great players help to win games in the NCAA tournament. Let's switch the argument, somehow WITHOUT Dwyane Wade Crean was able to never finish worse than 5th in the Big East....yet someone else managed to not accomplish that feat already. See, we can play these games all you want.
At the end of the day, comparing the two is stupid. One took over a team that wasn't even in the NIT and had to rebuild it, played in CUSA, had the Old Gym to practice in, had about 10,000 people attending games, etc. The other started with someone a little shinier, a little nicer....thus your comparisons are ridiculous
Quote from: windyplayer on May 14, 2011, 02:28:44 PM
Certainly top heavy in 2009, but the conference only (relatively speaking) sent seven teams to the dance.
Yup, but there were also fewer NCAA teams in general back then going to the tournament (less bids), the quality of college basketball stronger, etc.
If someone can show me where any real expert, college basketball analyst stated the Big East this past year was the greatest single conference in history, I'll bite. In 2009, you can find about 30 experts saying that.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 14, 2011, 04:27:00 PM
Probably...then again....make him start with a team that isn't even in the NIT and see what happens. You continue to compare apples to snails and I don't know why. The reality is that Buzz Williams has won zero games in the NCAA tournament without future NBA players. Guess what, great players help to win games in the NCAA tournament. Let's switch the argument, somehow WITHOUT Dwyane Wade Crean was able to never finish worse than 5th in the Big East....yet someone else managed to not accomplish that feat already. See, we can play these games all you want.
At the end of the day, comparing the two is stupid. One took over a team that wasn't even in the NIT and had to rebuild it, played in CUSA, had the Old Gym to practice in, had about 10,000 people attending games, etc. The other started with someone a little shinier, a little nicer....thus your comparisons are ridiculous
Post wade, Crean managed to go to the NIT twice with two future NBA players on his team. He managed to lose in the first round with 3. He got to the second round with4. And he couldn't do well enough in CUSA with two NBA players. If Buzz goes to the NIT in years 5 and 6 with all of his own players, two of whom will be in the NBA, will you defend him as strongly 7 years later?
Quote from: Ners on May 14, 2011, 02:51:19 PM
84 - You continue to just get more ridiculous. You say I need to take my emotions out of things? Really?? People here call you Joanie Crean - due to your complete love fest and obsession with Tom Crean.
Clearly I overestimated your willingness and ability to engage in adult discussion. When your best response is to go childish with the namecalling and personal attacks, I think it says a lot about you.
Quote from: Ners on May 14, 2011, 02:51:19 PM
So this Years Sweet 16 team was due to lucky matchups in Xavier and Syracuse? Okay - what else can you do to take away from Buzz Williams teams?
Yes! For God's sake, how can look at potential 6 seed potential opponents--Xavier, Cincinnati, St. Johns, and Georgetown--and NOT say that we got the lucky draw? All three of the other 6 seeds soundly defeated us--two of them at home. And we can easily compare Cincy to Xavier--Cincy won the head to head matchup by 20 points!
So, HELL YES we got a lucky draw. I would take Xavier as an opponent any day of the week as opposed to GU, Cincy or SJU. Any day of the week. And I suspect that every other MU fan as well.
Quote from: Ners on May 14, 2011, 02:51:19 PM
Buzz is in Year 3. Period. Give the guy 9 years at MU like his predecessor and VERY confident he'll have more NCAA tourney wins, more consistent deep runs, and most likely a Final Four.
Well he damn well should. He didn't have to rebuild from a losing program, he didn't have to deal with recruiting into CUSA, and in his 3rd year received a contract that places him among the nation's elite coaches taking away any argument that other programs would hire him away.
Quote from: Ners on May 14, 2011, 02:51:19 PM
As for Missouri vs Stanford - I believe both were 3 seeds so thought of equally by the committee. Stanford was NOT athletic, and only went 7 deep. Poor guard play. Mizzou was 11 deep, long, athletic, and their bigs were equally skilled as the Lopez twins. Keep in mind Buzz didn't have the luxury of having Dominic James to play against Mizzou - yet Crean had his whole lineup together against Stanford and couldn't get it done.
So what if they were both 3 seeds? As I pointed out above, there can be a huge difference at the same seed line--head-to-head Cincy was 20 points better than Xavier even though they were the same seed.
Stanford had poor guard play? What do you base that on? I see that Stanford was slightly better than us on A/T ratio (1.2 compared to 1.1), nearly tied us in assists (14.6 APG compared to our 14.7), and they protected the ball better (only 12.3 TO's per game compared to MU's 12.9). In other words--they neutralized OUR biggest advantage, and their biggest strength played directly against our weakness.
Atleticism? So what? If the more athletic team always wins, how do you explain our 15 losses? We should have been undefeated.
And unless I missed two lottery picks out of Mizzou in the 2009 NBA draft (and there weren't), your claim that Missouri's bigs were equally skilled as the Lopez twins isn't supportable.
Meanwhile, in 2009 we were every bit as long and athletic as Missouri was--neutralizing that advantage. And you must have forgotten that Buzz had the luxury of Acker coming off the bench--and didn't have to face a nightmare matchup with two 7-footers.
BTW, against MU Stanford played 8 players at least 10 minutes each--same as Missouri. The "depth" you talk about amounts to two deep bench players from Missouri getting token minutes with no points, no attempts, no FTs.
Quote from: Ners on May 14, 2011, 02:51:19 PM
And as for our future under Buzz Williams, if you'd like to wager on this upcoming season - I'd be happy to bet that we won't be a 9th place finisher in the Big East - as you seem so concerned with. I see a lot of Top 5 finishees on teh horizon under Buzz.
Well, we shouldn't have been a ninth place team this year either.
In fact, you said so at the start of the year, predicting a fifth place finish--just as I did.
We were arguably more talented that Cincy, St. Johns, and Seton Hall at a bare minimum. We were far more athletic than ND and should have easily beat them after blowing them out at home. We simply should not have fallen to 9th place.
84 - Why are so hell bent on defending Tom Crean's teams? What's the deal? And did you really bring up the fact Acker was coming off the bench against Mizzou?? Dominic James played what - 5 minutes in that game -and him playing was more symbolic than anything? Pretty sure the 2009 team was about 6.5 players deep at the end of the season.
But since you are so hell bent on defending the Crean legacy - what is your take on his 3 Top 6 Big East finishes that led to 2 first round NCAA tourney defeats in 3 tries? What is your take on the fact TC won 1 NCAA tourney game in his now 11 year head coaching career without Dwyane Wade? How do you reconcile that we went from a Final Four team to an NIT first round loser the next year when we returned the entire Final Four team except D-WAde and RJax...and had 2 NBA players in Diener and Novak?
We can agree that Crean did a very good job turning the program around from what he inherited - and for that I'll always be grateful. But to contiunue to herald him when he bolted on MU and his Big 3 going into their senior seasons - and the way in which the news broke - while continuing to downplay the accomplishments of Buzz is extremely disingenious. Tom Crean's biggest contribution to MU very likely will be bringing Buzz Williams to MKE - he deserves a lot of credit for that too.
Seriously, his best move was to get the hell out of town since it was clear he thought he was superior to us here and was just threading water while building his resume.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 14, 2011, 05:14:05 PM
Clearly I overestimated your willingness and ability to engage in adult discussion. When your best response is to go childish with the namecalling and personal attacks, I think it says a lot about you.
Thank God you're above namecalling and personal attacks. Guess looking down your nose at someone as you call him childish is a compliment in your world. Too funny.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 12, 2011, 08:57:01 AM
10-12 times?
A simple search shows I've said it three times with one simply a rehash of what other students will say based on other boards, but facts were never your strong point.
By all means, do the search yourself....it's not hard or frightening, I promise
Some things never change. How many times are you going to go back to your literal interpretation well? Every time you do it, it makes you seem more and more petty. Most intelligent people would realize when someone is clearly exaggerating to make a point. For example, if it was a hot day and someone said, "It's a million degrees outside," would you think that they truly believe the temperature to be 1,000,000? Probably not...although it wouldn't surprise me if you tried to start a debate with that person given the unhealthy desire for attention that you display on these boards.
Quote from: Ners on May 14, 2011, 05:24:38 PM
84 - Why are so hell bent on defending Tom Crean's teams? What's the deal?
Probably because you're so hell bent on attacking them.
Quote from: Ners on May 14, 2011, 05:24:38 PM
And did you really bring up the fact Acker was coming off the bench against Mizzou?? Dominic James played what - 5 minutes in that game -and him playing was more symbolic than anything? Pretty sure the 2009 team was about 6.5 players deep at the end of the season.
I can see where you may have drawn that conclusion. My point, however, was that we had a damn fine PG to come off the bench for the final 8 games of the season. Very few point guards would have put up a 2:1 A/T ratio against that competition. I'm tired of you crapping all over Acker for no other reason that he was Crean's recruit. He proved himself more than worthy in those last 8 games in 2009 and throughout 2010.
Quote from: Ners on May 14, 2011, 05:24:38 PM
But since you are so hell bent on defending the Crean legacy - what is your take on his 3 Top 6 Big East finishes that led to 2 first round NCAA tourney defeats in 3 tries?
I was pleased with our regular season performance, and disappointed we didn't go further in the tournament. I'm disappointed that McNeal was injured in 2007 (just as I'm disappointed James was injured in 2009). I'm disappointed that Lopez hit an incredible shot in 2008-just as i'm disappointed that Poindexter did the same in 2010.
Quote from: Ners on May 14, 2011, 05:24:38 PM
What is your take on the fact TC won 1 NCAA tourney game in his now 11 year head coaching career without Dwyane Wade?
My take is that making the Final Four makes up for the disappointment of McNeal's injury in 2007, Lopez' impossible buzzer beater in 2008, Diener's injury in 2005, Novak's missed wide open 3 in 2006, and even the NIT followup to the NCAA in 2004.
Quote from: Ners on May 14, 2011, 05:24:38 PM
How do you reconcile that we went from a Final Four team to an NIT first round loser the next year when we returned the entire Final Four team except D-WAde and RJax...and had 2 NBA players in Diener and Novak?
I reconcile it based on the fact that we went to a Final Four.
Quote from: Ners on May 14, 2011, 05:24:38 PM
We can agree that Crean did a very good job turning the program around from what he inherited - and for that I'll always be grateful.
I'd hate you see you when you're not grateful.
Quote from: Ners on May 14, 2011, 05:24:38 PM
But to contiunue to herald him when he bolted on MU and his Big 3 going into their senior seasons - and the way in which the news broke - while continuing to downplay the accomplishments of Buzz is extremely disingenious.
Crean left MU for Indiana. Buzz left UNO for Marquette. Coaches leave all the time. It happens.
Both coaches left their teams for another career opportunity, leaving players behind.
I'm not criticizing Buzz for leaving UNO--he saw a better career opportunity and took it. Can't blame him. It was a benefit to MU. It would be hypocritical to turn around criticize Crean for doing the same thing.
Quote from: Ners on May 14, 2011, 05:24:38 PM
Tom Crean's biggest contribution to MU very likely will be bringing Buzz Williams to MKE - he deserves a lot of credit for that too.
I think the legacy would have to be 1) the final four; 2) recruiting great players like Wade, Diener, Novak, McNeal, Matthews, Hayward, James 3) leading us into the Big East 4) getting the Al built and 5) hiring Buzz--in that order.
Quote from: Ners on May 14, 2011, 02:51:19 PM
As for Missouri vs Stanford - I believe both were 3 seeds - so thought of equally by the committee. Stanford was NOT athletic, and only went 7 deep. Poor guard play. Mizzou was 11 deep, long, athletic, and their bigs were equally skilled as the Lopez twins. Keep in mind Buzz didn't have the luxury of having Dominic James to play against Mizzou - yet Crean had his whole lineup together against Stanford and couldn't get it done.
Were you the kid that didn't have to take logic at MU but they let graduate anyway? ;D
So a 3 seed in one year is the same as a 3 seed in another year....that's what you are saying because they are "thought of equally". WOW. I mean, WOW!! Uhm, the committee this year doesn't give a bum's ass what seed some team was 3 or 6 or 18 years ago, nor are they comparing them against one another. The committee seeds teams based on THIS YEAR vs the teams that played THIS YEAR.
In other words, by your logic, all #1 seeds are the same year to year to year. Same quality, same acumen, same ability, etc. Come on ners. Save yourself before you really get hung to drive on this one.
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/aggies/entries/2011/05/14/aggies_closing_in_on_their_coa.html
Aggies closing in on their coach
By Randy Riggs | Saturday, May 14, 2011, 04:28 PM
It appears the Aggies' search for their new men's basketball coach is down to two men — Billy Kennedy of Murray State and Ben Jacobson of Northern Iowa.
A&M athletic director Bill Byrne met with Kennedy early Saturday at an out-of-state location. And Texags.com's Billy Liucci is reporting Byrne is scheduled to meet tonight with Jacobson in Fargo, N.D., near Jacobson's hometown.
Northern Iowa athletic director Troy Dannen told the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier that, "I'm aware of A&M's interest in Jake (Jacobson), and Jake and I have talked about the position over the past several days."
After flirtations early in the search for Mark Turgeon's successor with Marquette's Buzz Williams and NBA coaching veteran Jeff Van Gundy, the Aggies appear to have honed in on two mid-major coaches who have enjoyed considerable success, especially in recent seasons.
Kennedy, 47, recently completed his fifth season at Murray State. An assistant at A&M in 1990-91 under Kermit Davis, he has guided the Racers to consecutive Ohio Valley Conference regular-season titles, and recently received a raise and one-year extension on his contract after a 23-9 record. In 2009-10, the Racers were 31-5. They upset Vanderbilt in the first round of the NCAA tournament and lost to eventual national finalist Butler by two points in the second round.
Jacobson, 40, has coached UNI for five years, getting promoted to the head-coaching spot when Greg McDermott left for Iowa State. He's posted a 109-56 mark, highlighted by a 30-4 record two years ago when the Panthers reached the Sweet 16 after a first-round upset of Kansas.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 14, 2011, 10:41:21 PM
Come on ners. Save yourself before you really get hung to drive on this one.
Since you've taken yet another thread far off topic, can you learn me some of that there vocabulary of yours?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 14, 2011, 10:41:21 PM
Were you the kid that didn't have to take logic at MU but they let graduate anyway? ;D
So a 3 seed in one year is the same as a 3 seed in another year....that's what you are saying because they are "thought of equally". WOW. I mean, WOW!! Uhm, the committee this year doesn't give a bum's ass what seed some team was 3 or 6 or 18 years ago, nor are they comparing them against one another. The committee seeds teams based on THIS YEAR vs the teams that played THIS YEAR.
In other words, by your logic, all #1 seeds are the same year to year to year. Same quality, same acumen, same ability, etc. Come on ners. Save yourself before you really get hung to drive on this one.
Your right that #3 seeds aren't all created equal. The Missouri team that beat Buzz's boys in 2009 was much better than the Stanford team that beat TC's team in 2008 and they proved it in the tournament. After beating MU, Missouri routed #2 seeded Memphis before losing a close one to #1 seeded UCONN. Post MU, Stanford was annihilated by #2 seeded Texas (by 20). Texas was subsequently crushed by #1 seeded Memphis by 19.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 14, 2011, 04:27:00 PM
Probably...then again....make him start with a team that isn't even in the NIT and see what happens. You continue to compare apples to snails and I don't know why. The reality is that Buzz Williams has won zero games in the NCAA tournament without future NBA players. Guess what, great players help to win games in the NCAA tournament. Let's switch the argument, somehow WITHOUT Dwyane Wade Crean was able to never finish worse than 5th in the Big East....yet someone else managed to not accomplish that feat already. See, we can play these games all you want.
At the end of the day, comparing the two is stupid. One took over a team that wasn't even in the NIT and had to rebuild it, played in CUSA, had the Old Gym to practice in, had about 10,000 people attending games, etc. The other started with someone a little shinier, a little nicer....thus your comparisons are ridiculous
Tower - Thank you very much your below reply to the above garbage. Chico's any reason why chose to ignore answering the questions Tower posed?? (Wait, I think I know, because there is no logical explanation - yet I'm illogical by pointing out we actually beat a 3 seed in the NCAA tourney this year..which 84 wants to dismiss as being an insignificant accomplishment because Syracuse was a "bad" 3 seed??)
Post wade, Crean managed to go to the NIT twice with two future NBA players on his team. He managed to lose in the first round with 3. He got to the second round with4. And he couldn't do well enough in CUSA with two NBA players. If Buzz goes to the NIT in years 5 and 6 with all of his own players, two of whom will be in the NBA, will you defend him as strongly 7 years later?
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 14, 2011, 10:58:49 AM
Personally, I'll take a Final Four over a Sweet 16.
Once again Joanie lays it on the line and tells it like it is!
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 14, 2011, 04:27:00 PM
At the end of the day, comparing the two is stupid. One took over a team that wasn't even in the NIT and had to rebuild it, played in CUSA, had the Old Gym to practice in, had about 10,000 people attending games, etc. The other started with someone a little shinier, a little nicer....thus your comparisons are ridiculous
C'mon Cheek, the shameful manner of Tanned Tommy's departure sent recruits scurrying, players thought of bailing, and staff running for cover. Buzz did not inherit Tiffany cuff links. He had to eat a shyte sandwich first. He has ultimately crapped out some Tiffany's but The Bronzed Beast left him a program in shambles.
May Tanned Tommy burn in Hades.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 15, 2011, 10:44:06 AM
Your right that #3 seeds aren't all created equal. The Missouri team that beat Buzz's boys in 2009 was much better than the Stanford team that beat TC's team in 2008 and they proved it in the tournament. After beating MU, Missouri routed #2 seeded Memphis before losing a close one to #1 seeded UCONN. Post MU, Stanford was annihilated by #2 seeded Texas (by 20). Texas was subsequently crushed by #1 seeded Memphis by 19.
I'm not sure I would say they were much better. Stanford was 14th in the 2008 RPI, Missouri 10th in 2009. That's pretty close to a crap shoot.
I don't know whether 2008 Stanford would beat 2009 Missouri. Missouri lost a number of games to teams they were supposedly "better" than--Nebraska, Illinois, Xavier, Kansas State, Texas A&M.
I guess my view is that if merely decent inside play from guys with size like Mike Davis and Mike Tisdale can neutralize Missouri's DeMarre Carroll (average 16.6 ppg, 7.2 rpg) to just 6 points and 1 rebound on any given day, then I believe the Lopez twins might have been able to do the same.
Finally, I hardly believe that one game (ie. ", Stanford was annihilated by Texas by 20) can be used by itself as a benchmark. For example, we annihilated Notre Dame by 22. A couple weeks later, we lost to the same team by 5. Later we nearly knocked off Louisville, losing by 1. A few weeks later, we were annihilated by the same team by 25.
Quote from: Ners on May 15, 2011, 11:23:04 AM
Tower - Thank you very much your below reply to the above garbage. Chico's any reason why chose to ignore answering the questions Tower posed?? (Wait, I think I know, because there is no logical explanation - yet I'm illogical by pointing out we actually beat a 3 seed in the NCAA tourney this year..which 84 wants to dismiss as being an insignificant accomplishment because Syracuse was a "bad" 3 seed??)
I didn't say that Syracuse was a "bad" 3 seed. I said it was a very favorable matchup for us in that we beat them earlier in the year.
Perhaps you would like to make the argument that you would have rather faced BYU--5th in the nation in 3 pointers made. Wow, that would be smart--given that we ranked 254th nationally (and 15th in the BE) on defending the 3 point shot.
Or perhaps you would have rather faced UConn--who would have had Calhoun back on the bench calling the shots rather than George Blainey.
Quote from: Ners on May 15, 2011, 11:23:04 AM
Post wade, Crean managed to go to the NIT twice with two future NBA players on his team. He managed to lose in the first round with 3. He got to the second round with4. And he couldn't do well enough in CUSA with two NBA players. If Buzz goes to the NIT in years 5 and 6 with all of his own players, two of whom will be in the NBA, will you defend him as strongly 7 years later?
I promise that if Buzz recruits a player like Wade and reaches a Final Four, I won't crap on him the way you crap on Crean.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 15, 2011, 01:47:42 PM
I didn't say that Syracuse was a "bad" 3 seed. I said it was a very favorable matchup for us in that we beat them earlier in the year.
I promise that if Buzz recruits a player like Wade and reaches a Final Four, I won't crap on him the way you crap on Crean.
So by virtue of beating a team earlier in the year (that was ranked most of the season in the Top 15), that makes for a "very favorable matchup?"
As for crapping on Crean - I've long appreciated the job he did at Marquette - but your (and Chicos)continued belittling of the accomplishments of the teams under Buzz...results in the endless Crean vs Buzz threads. The day you stop belittling what the teams under our CURRENT coach accomplish, is the day I'll stop crapping on Tom Crean.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 15, 2011, 01:47:42 PM
I guess my view is that if merely decent inside play from guys with size like Mike Davis and Mike Tisdale can neutralize Missouri's DeMarre Carroll (average 16.6 ppg, 7.2 rpg) to just 6 points and 1 rebound on any given day, then I believe the Lopez twins might have been able to do the same.
Should one game - in this case Carroll's against Illinois - be used by itself as a benchmark?
QuoteFinally, I hardly believe that one game (ie. ", Stanford was annihilated by Texas by 20) can be used by itself as a benchmark.
Good answer.
Recruit a guy like Wade and u will stop knocking Buzz. Well Crean picked up Wade and when he did no one even Crean had any idea how good he would be as he blewup late. Wasnt that Crean out recruited everyone, case of filling a spot with what was to be a good player. Major schools were not after Wade and MU was fortunate and took a risk and it turned out into a miracle. One of top 5 players in the world and chances of Buzz getting lucky and landing a late bloomer without competition is unlikely.
Quote from: warthog-driver on May 15, 2011, 12:30:38 PM
C'mon Cheek, the shameful manner of Tanned Tommy's departure sent recruits scurrying,
Don't exagerate. Two (of four) recruits left...and none because of *how* he left. (Considering one of them followed him to Indiana.)
Quote from: Ners on May 15, 2011, 03:45:21 PM
As for crapping on Crean - I've long appreciated the job he did at Marquette - but your (and Chicos)continued belittling of the accomplishments of the teams under Buzz...results in the endless Crean vs Buzz threads. The day you stop belittling what the teams under our CURRENT coach accomplish, is the day I'll stop crapping on Tom Crean.
Lets keep in mind that YOU are the one who keeps introducing Crean into these threads:
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=26980.msg304949#msg304949 (http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=26980.msg304949#msg304949)
My initial point (in another thread) was that we had
too much talent to lose 15 games this past year.
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=26973.msg304584#msg304584 (http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=26973.msg304584#msg304584)
For some reason, you seem to think that the inconsistent play of our 2011 team is somehow tied to the NCAA record of a coach who left three years ago.
As I see it, there are three choices here: Either you think we completely deserved the Sweet 16--which means that we shouldn't have lost 15 games. Or our talent was consistent with a .500 league team, and we got lucky to get as far as we did. Or some combination of those two.
I think its a combination--I think with our talent we should have beaten St. Johns and Cincy at home--and taken Seton Hall on the road. That gives us a 12-6 record--tied for 3rd with Syracuse and Lousiville.
Of course, neither of those are 100% positive for Buzz--which probably explains why you'd rather change the subject to Crean's NCAA record.
So how about discussing--
without mentioning Crean--the inconsistency of the 2011 team.
If we had finished 3rd or 4th in conference,
then made the Sweet 16--I could see a valid argument that we played the season to our talent and made the Sweet 16 without the benefit of luck or favorable matchups.
But as I see it, 15 losses and a 9th place finish is not consistent with the talent level we had.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 15, 2011, 05:29:35 PM
If we had finished 3rd or 4th in conference, then made the Sweet 16--I could see a valid argument that we played the season to our talent and made the Sweet 16 without the benefit of luck or favorable matchups.
But as I see it, 15 losses and a 9th place finish is not consistent with the talent level we had.
This must explain the rioting in Storrs after UConn won the title. Fans were angry that their team's 9th place conference finish was not consistent with the talent level they had. Which clearly means they went on to a national championship with the benefit of luck or favorable matchups (including a second-round matchup against a team they'd already beaten and then a game with an 8 seed for the title).
Quote from: Pakuni on May 15, 2011, 05:46:51 PM
This must explain the rioting in Storrs after UConn won the title. Fans were angry that their team's 9th place conference finish was not consistent with the talent level they had. Which clearly means they went on to a national championship with the benefit of luck or favorable matchups (including a second-round matchup against a team they'd already beaten and then a game with an 8 seed for the title).
Correct, clearly MU84 knows more than all the BEAST coaches that talk about how good the top 10 or so teams are in the league. The difference between finishing 3-4 in the BEAST or finishing 8-9 is so minimal, and ultimately the great thing about the BEAST is that it prepares you for the tourney. Unless we win the BEAST, I don't really care where we finishin in it, as long as we're in the tourney. I'd rather finish 10th and make the Sweet 16 than finish 3rd and exit in the first round. MU is drawing good crowds and they're making some decent $$ with tourney wins. I'm happy with that.
There is one reason and one reason only that 84 puts so much stock in MU tying National Champion UCONN for 9th place in the Big East - anything to try to knock Buzz.
And folks say MUScoop has become unreadable.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 15, 2011, 06:31:56 PM
There is one reason and one reason only that 84 puts so much stock in MU tying National Champion UCONN for 9th place in the Big East - anything to try to knock Buzz.
So when people use facts and make factual statements...statements of truth...they are only there for sinister reasons and not as intended, statements of fact? Am I readin that correctly?
Moving forward should we not use statements of fact? Sort of like you do when evaluating other coaches or other posters....ahem..."vast majority"
Quote from: reinko on May 15, 2011, 06:51:58 PM
And folks say MUScoop has become unreadable.
+1.
Can this be merged into some sort of permanent Crean vs. Buzz pissing match thread?
I know...months after being banned, the same tired bunch is engaging in the same tired debate.
Quote from: reinko on May 15, 2011, 06:51:58 PM
And folks say MUScoop has become unreadable.
+3
Because I'm counting Sultan's comment as +2 ;)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 15, 2011, 08:33:16 PM
So when people use facts and make factual statements...statements of truth...they are only there for sinister reasons and not as intended, statements of fact? Am I readin that correctly?
Moving forward should we not use statements of fact? Sort of like you do when evaluating other coaches or other posters....ahem..."vast majority"
Fact #1: Due to Crean's April 2008 departure our entire senior and junior classes last year were jucos.
Fact#2: Despite having to cable last year's team together on the run (just as TC had to do at IU) MU tied national champion UCONN in the Big East standings.
Fact#3: Marquette advanced to the Sweet Sixteen for the second time in what, 16 or 17 years?
I have nothing against discussing any of those facts, but I do take exception to drawing false conclusions (opinions, not facts) from them. I think that someone who fairly considers ALL the facts and not just one of them would never conclude (as you and 84 do) that MU took a step back last year. To the contrary, all things considered I think we had a remarkable year in 2010-11.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 15, 2011, 08:46:02 PM
I know...months after being banned, the same tired bunch is engaging in the same tired debate.
Fair point - if only we didn't have 2 resident posters here who were hell bent on belittling the accomplishments of our CURRENT coaching staff and players. Just hard to understand how 2 fans could be so consumed and complimentary about the past and so cynical and critical about the present.
Quote from: Ners on May 15, 2011, 09:20:00 PM
Fair point - if only we didn't have 2 resident posters here who were hell bent on belittling the accomplishments of our CURRENT coaching staff and players. Just hard to understand how 2 fans could be so consumed and complimentary about the past and so cynical and critical about the present.
Those posters are sad, attention-starved people. Just don't play their games.
Quote from: Ners on May 15, 2011, 09:20:00 PM
Fair point - if only we didn't have 2 resident posters here who were hell bent on belittling the accomplishments of our CURRENT coaching staff and players. Just hard to understand how 2 fans could be so consumed and complimentary about the past and so cynical and critical about the present.
So don't afford them the circle.
no one wins, and it just clogs the board with nonsense.
As much as this thread is well off-topic and barely readable anymore, MUScoop wouldn't be as much fun without 84 and CBB. For all the arguments that they may end up in, it's because they have no problem arguing the minority point of view, and when you are patient with the debates, both can be fairly reasonable.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 15, 2011, 04:04:33 PM
Don't exagerate. Two (of four) recruits left...and none because of *how* he left. (Considering one of them followed him to Indiana.)
Precisely. Nick Williams scurried like a rat to II, II. And look at how his loyalty to the Bronzed Beast of Bloomington was repaid.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 15, 2011, 09:16:43 PM
Fact #1: Due to Crean's April 2008 departure our entire senior and junior classes last year were jucos.
Fact#2: Despite having to cable last year's team together on the run (just as TC had to do at IU) MU tied national champion UCONN in the Big East standings.
Fact#3: Marquette advanced to the Sweet Sixteen for the second time in what, 16 or 17 years?
I have nothing against discussing any of those facts, but I do take exception to drawing false conclusions (opinions, not facts) from them. I think that someone who fairly considers ALL the facts and not just one of them would never conclude (as you and 84 do) that MU took a step back last year. To the contrary, all things considered I think we had a remarkable year in 2010-11.
If you wanted to deal with facts, you'd admit that Buzz had only two scholarships to give his first year, and he filled them with Butler and McMorrow.
If you wanted to deal with facts:
--you'd admit that the departure of Hazel (who would have been a senior) had absolutely nothing to do with Crean.
--the departure of Mbakwe and Christopherson were at least a shared responsibility of Buzz--he was their assistant for their freshman year.
--the injury and redshirt keeping Otule (who would have been a junior) from being a junior this year had nothing to do with Crean.
--McMorrow's (would have been a junior) medical condition had nothing to do with Crean.
--the decision to sign Fulce in 2008 instead of a HS senior (who would be a junior) had nothing to do with the departure of Crean.
The only one of these facts that is open to any debate at all is the 2nd--and we'll probably always disagree on that. I continue to think that because Buzz was on MU's staff for the 2007-2008 season, he had enough time to develop a coaching relationship with those players that should have been strong enough to convince them to stay when he was promoted to head coach.
I don't see any evidence to think their decision to leave was related to Crean's departure. Neither player followed Crean. Mbakwe stayed with the team another five months after Crean's departure.
If you want my opinion, my view is that after going through summer camps and sessions, Mbakwe decided that he didn't want to play for Buzz.
And I think Buzz thought he could do better than Christopherson and told told Scott that his scholarship wasn't going to be renewed. Depending on whether you think that he used Scott's scholie for Butler or McMorrow, he either made a genius decision to grab Butler ahead of Kentucky or Iowa Sate, or took a gamble and failed on an unknown big out of Canada. Either way, it ceased being Crean's issue the minute that the scholarship was filled.
Quote from: avid1010 on May 15, 2011, 06:09:57 PM
Correct, clearly MU84 knows more than all the BEAST coaches that talk about how good the top 10 or so teams are in the league.
Are you saying that when I look at all the great talent that Buzz has brought in, that I don't realize that there are 10 league teams that are outrecruiting him?
Quote from: avid1010 on May 15, 2011, 06:09:57 PM
The difference between finishing 3-4 in the BEAST or finishing 8-9 is so minimal,
The difference between the 9th and 3rd this year was 3 games--and only 2 games difference between 9th and 12th.
Quote from: avid1010 on May 15, 2011, 06:09:57 PM
and ultimately the great thing about the BEAST is that it prepares you for the tourney.
First, this is an interesting comment in light of the fact that only 2 out of 9 possible Big East teams made it past the first weekend. And yes, I know that we had 11 teams in the tournament--but two would have been eliminated in head-to-head play before the Sweet 16.
BTW, what is your opinion on the tourney preparation afforded by, say, the Horizon? Or the Colonial?
Quote from: avid1010 on May 15, 2011, 06:09:57 PM
I'd rather finish 10th and make the Sweet 16 than finish 3rd and exit in the first round.
The problem with this logic is that you seldom get the chance to even participate if you finish 10th.
Quote from: Ners on May 15, 2011, 09:20:00 PM
Fair point - if only we didn't have 2 resident posters here who were hell bent on belittling the accomplishments of our CURRENT coaching staff and players. Just hard to understand how 2 fans could be so consumed and complimentary about the past and so cynical and critical about the present.
I guess I just don't understand how you can be so praiseworthy regarding Buzz's recruiting, then get mad if I suggest that perhaps we had too much talent to lose 15 games.
For example, here's one of many of your posts praising Buzz on the talent he recruited:
Quote from: Ners on April 14, 2010, 09:03:53 PM
Agree 100% - Unless all of the recruiting services are way off on Vander, Reggie and Jamail..and assuming the recruiting services/rankings have overlooked DJ to an extent since he wasn't a big AAU circuit kid..along with the addition of Crowder...WOW!! Think of the complexion of next years roster:
JUCO National Player of the Year - Crowder
3 First Team All American JUCOs - Buycks, DJO and I think Fulce?
2nd Team All Big East - Jimmy Butler
Top 100 rated recruits:
Junior Cadougan, Erik Williams, Vander Blue, Jamail Jones, Reggie Smith (105, but close enough)
Thats 10 players with major accolades and you add DJ Newbill, state player of the year in his Division of basketball in PA...not sure MU has ever assembled this kind of talent??.Thanks BUZZ and staff!
I can't reconcile your prior quote with your current anger over my statement that we had too much talent to lose 15 games and finish in a tie for 9th.
In the context of the above quote from you . . . is it really so unreasonable to have the opinion that we had too much talent to wind up with 15 losses on the year?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 15, 2011, 06:31:56 PM
There is one reason and one reason only that 84 puts so much stock in MU tying National Champion UCONN for 9th place in the Big East - anything to try to knock Buzz.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 15, 2011, 09:16:43 PM
Fact#2: Despite having to cable last year's team together on the run (just as TC had to do at IU) MU tied national champion UCONN in the Big East standings.
So let me get this straight. . .
If *I* point out that we tied national champ UConn, its a knock on Buzz.
If *you* point out that we tied national champ UConn, its no knock on Buzz.
Quote from: Ners on May 15, 2011, 09:20:00 PM
Fair point - if only we didn't have 2 resident posters here who were hell bent on belittling the accomplishments of our CURRENT coaching staff and players.
Honestly, who cares? When posters such as yourself rush in to defend Buzz's honor at every turn, you simply perpetuate the problem.
Quote from: brewcity77 on May 15, 2011, 09:40:38 PM
As much as this thread is well off-topic and barely readable anymore, MUScoop wouldn't be as much fun without 84 and CBB. For all the arguments that they may end up in, it's because they have no problem arguing the minority point of view, and when you are patient with the debates, both can be fairly reasonable.
+1
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 15, 2011, 11:36:32 PM
I guess I just don't understand how you can be so praiseworthy regarding Buzz's recruiting, then get mad if I suggest that perhaps we had too much talent to lose 15 games.
For example, here's one of many of your posts praising Buzz on the talent he recruited:
I can't reconcile your prior quote with your current anger over my statement that we had too much talent to lose 15 games and finish in a tie for 9th.
In the context of the above quote from you . . . is it really so unreasonable to have the opinion that we had too much talent to wind up with 15 losses on the year?
Well, the assembled talent last year did take us to our 2nd Sweet 16 in 16 years - so the talent Buzz has brought in, in just 3 short years has performed well. Yet you want to keep harping on the negative of 15 losses....yet we had 9 league losses - the same as the eventual National Champion. Marquette played more ranked teams than EVER in its history last year..and I b elieve more ranked teams than any school in the country last year - so guess what - you stand a greater chance of losing when you square off against Top 25 teams. Genius point, I know.
As I've said about 3 times already in the this thread...I'd rather go to Sweet 16's than finish in the Top 6 of the Big East...only to gedt bounced in the first round of the NCAA tourney.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 16, 2011, 12:00:11 AM
So let me get this straight. . .
If *I* point out that we tied national champ UConn, its a knock on Buzz.
If *you* point out that we tied national champ UConn, its no knock on Buzz.
You think tying UCONN constitutes a failure or underachievement. Therefore it is a criticism or "knock" on Buzz.
I don't see it as either a failure or an underachievement. Therefore it is not a criticism or "knock" on Buzz.
Hope you are able to grasp the concept as it is as elementary as it gets.
Crean was, is, and will always be a complete, self-absorbed, self-promoting, egotistical pretty boy in my unbiased opinion.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on May 16, 2011, 10:28:09 AM
Crean was, is, and will always be a complete, self-absorbed, self-promoting, egotistical pretty boy in my unbiased opinion.
Agreed...but he also helped bring Marquette basketball back into the national spotlight. I'm not going to discredit what he accomplished at MU simply because I don't care for him as a person. Honestly, I think it worked out best for all parties that he is currently coaching elsewhere.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 16, 2011, 10:52:34 AM
Agreed...but he also helped bring Marquette basketball back into the national spotlight. I'm not going to discredit what he accomplished at MU simply because I don't care for him as a person. Honestly, I think it worked out best for all parties that he is currently coaching elsewhere.
+1.
Considering the deification that typically occurs with a smaller school fanbase like ours, it's no shock that certain guys develop a healthy ego.
That said, you cannot rationally deny the man his accomplishments. Sadly, it seems few can handle both outcomes.
Quote from: Ners on May 16, 2011, 09:00:06 AM
Well, the assembled talent last year did take us to our 2nd Sweet 16 in 16 years - so the talent Buzz has brought in, in just 3 short years has performed well.
Where do you get 16 years from? 2003 to 2011 is just 8 years. We did have to go through the Sweet 16 en route to the Final Four.
Quote from: Ners on May 16, 2011, 09:00:06 AM
yet we had 9 league losses - the same as the eventual National Champion.
I think the difference is that most UConn fans--probably even Calhoun himself--agrees with the statement that UConn had too much talent to lose 9 games.
The UConn fans I spoke with will readily admit their frustration. None of them view it as a personal affront to their coach to suggest that the team didn't play to their talent level. They're happy with the end result, but not happy with way it happened.
Quote from: Ners on May 16, 2011, 09:00:06 AM
Marquette played more ranked teams than EVER in its history last year..and I b elieve more ranked teams than any school in the country last year - so guess what - you stand a greater chance of losing when you square off against Top 25 teams. Genius point, I know.
This is a nice throwaway statement. I'd like to dig one layer deeper:
Last year we finished tied with Louisville and ahead of Cincy, St. Johns and Notre Dame. None of these teams were ranked in the final AP poll last year, and we had a combined 4-1 record against them.
This year, those same four teams became six ranked games on this year's schedule, and our record against them was just 1-5.
So as I see it, it wasn't our choice to simply schedule more ranked teams. As I see it, our conference opponents improved themselves more than we did--going from unranked to ranked and passing us in the standings.
You can either argue (as I do) that we had enough talent, and for some reason we didn't get the job done on the court in the regular season.
Or you can argue that we had a talent deficiency vis-a-vis our league opposition.
Either way, the importance of finishing better in league standings than we did this year is that we cannot depend on the Big East getting 9 bids every year. It has happened only once in the last six seasons. I think we need to find a way to finish reliably no worse than the top half.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 16, 2011, 10:19:04 AM
You think tying UCONN constitutes a failure or underachievement. Therefore it is a criticism or "knock" on Buzz.
I don't see it as either a failure or an underachievement. Therefore it is not a criticism or "knock" on Buzz.
Hope you are able to grasp the concept as it is as elementary as it gets.
I didn't see it as a failure or underachievement that we beat Uconn.
I see it as a failure or underachievement that we could beat UConn but couldn't beat Seton Hall.
BTW, I think UConn lost too many games given their talent as well. And every UConn fan I've spoken with has agreed with me on that point. They don't view it as a "knock" on their coach. They have the same frustration.
For the record, my original post described Crean as a donkey's bottom oriface, and not as a "pretty boy."
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 16, 2011, 11:29:29 AM
Where do you get 16 years from? 2003 to 2011 is just 8 years. We did have to go through the Sweet 16 en route to the Final Four.
This is a nice throwaway statement. I'd like to dig one layer deeper:
Last year we finished tied with Louisville and ahead of Cincy, St. Johns and Notre Dame. None of these teams were ranked in the final AP poll last year, and we had a combined 4-1 record against them.
This year, those same four teams became six ranked games on this year's schedule, and our record against them was just 1-5.
So as I see it, it wasn't our choice to simply schedule more ranked teams. As I see it, our conference opponents improved themselves more than we did--going from unranked to ranked and passing us in the standings.
When I wrote our talent took us to our SECOND Sweet 16 in 16 years...that included the 2003 team's Sweet 16 appearance. But I was aware that to advance to a Final Four you did need to be a Sweet 16 team - but thanks for the clarification on that anyway.
And you other arugument is just ridiculous...that we went 4-1 against teams that were unranked in 2010, but only went 1-5 against those same teams..this year...so that must imply that we regressed as a team last season?? Well no two teams are the same from year to year. St. John's returned more 4-year program guys than any team in the conference. MU returned its fewest years of D-1 experience in any of Buzz's 3 years at MU. Pitino and Brey have been at their xchools for 10+ years, Cronin 5. Far from apples to apples situations/roster complexion. But again...anything you can do to discredit the job Buzz has done and this year's Sweet 16. Pathetic.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 16, 2011, 11:42:08 AM
I didn't see it as a failure or underachievement that we beat Uconn.
I see it as a failure or underachievement that we could beat UConn but couldn't beat Seton Hall.
BTW, I think UConn lost too many games given their talent as well. And every UConn fan I've spoken with has agreed with me on that point. They don't view it as a "knock" on their coach. They have the same frustration.
So I answer your foolish statement and you follow up by going off on another tangent. You are simply too much.
Quote from: Ners on May 16, 2011, 01:56:42 PM
And you other arugument is just ridiculous...that we went 4-1 against teams that were unranked in 2010, but only went 1-5 against those same teams..this year...so that must imply that we regressed as a team last season?? Well no two teams are the same from year to year. St. John's returned more 4-year program guys than any team in the conference. MU returned its fewest years of D-1 experience in any of Buzz's 3 years at MU. Pitino and Brey have been at their xchools for 10+ years, Cronin 5. Far from apples to apples situations/roster complexion. But again...anything you can do to discredit the job Buzz has done and this year's Sweet 16. Pathetic.
Funny you single out D-1 experience given your previously stated preference for JUCO talent.. We clearly had more JUCO experience than in any of Buzz's 3 years at MU--which as recently as January 11th you claimed was likely
more beneficial than 4-year players:
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=23496.msg260517#msg260517 (http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=23496.msg260517#msg260517)
"I do agree that a player being in the MU system for 4 years definitely has its benefits to both the player and program - but to me the benefit likely does not exceed the type of production we are seeing from our current crop of JUCO's as 1st, 2nd and 3rd year players."So, even though St. Johns had more 4-year players returning, we had five 1st, 2nd and 3rd year JUCOs--four of them returning for a 2nd or 3rd year. According to your comment from January 11th, that should be a benefit to us.
You have previously well-documented your view that there was significant improvement in the strength of the conference overall. That improvement should have affected all teams equally--so if one team improves and one doesn't, its a reflection of the team.
- St. Johns: Improved from 13th place in 2010 to a tie for 3rd in 2011.
- Cincinnati: Improved from a tie for 12th place to a tie for 6th place.
- Notre Dame: Improved from a tie for 7th place to 2nd place.
- Louisville: Improved from being tied with Marquette for 5th place last year into a tie for 3rd.
- Marquette: Facing the exact same Big East competitive situation as the four teams above, and tied with Louisville--dropped from a 5th place tie down to a 9th place tie.
In light of the fact that St. Johns, Cincy, ND and UL all managed to find a way to improve in the very same league you claim was just to difficult or strong for us to stay even--forgive me for questioning your argument.
That leaves us back to the original question:
Do you think that we had too much talent to lose 15 games this year (9 in conference) and finish in 9th place?
No. Point guard play matters and ours was inconsistent for a lot of the year. On-court leadership matters, see above. I said in November before the Duke game that we could get rolled in both games and still be dangerous in March. I said that with only 4 players with >100 minutes of D1 experience, that the team would take time to find itself. Very little this past season, with the exception of the Louisville meltdown, was different than my expectations. Lots of talent, but no clear leadership from the guard position, and it takes time to put all of those new pieces together. I always felt we had Sweet 16 ability, but wasn't sure it would fit together correctly. It was a very near thing.
Edit: BEast team with the second best post-season record.
84 - You are impossible to debate with. My comment about JUCO's was written to say they are more "in the door" ready to contribute than most freshman players MU lands. Having 1 or 2 years of JUCO experience helps them be able to contribute more from Day 1 - which is absolutely what we HAD to have to stay competitive in the Big East. Takeaway Jimmy, DJO, Buycks and Jae, and replace them with guys who essentially would have been a freshman (Crowder's spot), sophomores (Buycks and DJO's spot) and a junior (Jimmy's spot), and our struggles were going to be magnified.
Buzz had 1 year of head coaching experience to sell kids on the recruiting trail - and it was a losing season at New Orleans. Pretty hard to walk in and get Top 100 kids immediately without any track record.
Now, had there never been a coaching change, and we didn't have the roster turmoil associated with that change (much like Tom Crean had to deal with at Indiana with transfers, etc upon his arrival), I would say that developing HS kids 4-years in the MU program would result in them likely being slightly better contributors by their Junio/Senior years, than the kids who went through the JUCO route...because those kids certainly aren't getting the same strength/conditioning/diet/facility access, etc...that kids get at MU. Most all agree that you'd prefer to have 4-year program players than a roster full of JUCO transfers - and ironically, Buzz hasn't signed a JUCO in this class....just 1 transfer and 3 HS kids...I wonder why?? Maybe because his roster is in much better shape now than it was than when he arrived.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 16, 2011, 04:27:51 PM
You have previously well-documented your view that there was significant improvement in the strength of the conference overall. That improvement should have affected all teams equally--so if one team improves and one doesn't, its a reflection of the team.
I've read this paragraph a couple of times trying to make some (any) sense of it. I can't because it doesn't - make sense that is. If a conference is stronger in 2010 than it was in 2009 each team should have improved equally? What? Huh?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 16, 2011, 07:46:59 PM
I've read this paragraph a couple of times trying to make some (any) sense of it. I can't because it doesn't - make sense that is. If a conference is stronger in 2010 than it was in 2009 each team should have improved equally? What? Huh?
I'll simplify for you with one example:
MU and Cincy both faced the same BE opposition in both 2009 and 2010.
Cincy improved from 12th place in 2009 to 6th place in 2010.
MU dropped from 5th place in 2009 to 9th place in 2010.
You said:
"I think that someone who fairly considers ALL the facts and not just one of them would never conclude. . . that MU took a step back last year. To the contrary, all things considered I think we had a remarkable year in 2010-11."So let me ask you this. When you consider the fact that Cincy was able to improve 6 places in the standings facing the same change in competitive situation we did, do you still think its remarkable to slip from 5th place to 9th?
Still going on? Is it too much just to ask people to stop arguing with 84 in here? He's completely owning the discussion and the only one who is consistently posting a solid, logical argument. No one will convince anyone of anything, and it's pretty clear that Buzz isn't leaving for Texas A&M.
Quote from: brewcity77 on May 17, 2011, 09:12:17 AM
Still going on? Is it too much just to ask people to stop arguing with 84 in here? He's completely owning the discussion and the only one who is consistently posting a solid, logical argument. No one will convince anyone of anything, and it's pretty clear that Buzz isn't leaving for Texas A&M.
Really?? Wow. Brew - Usually agree with your takes on a lot of matters - but am surprised to find that you believe 84's agenda driven posts are solid and logical...
We just saw this example of "logic" from 84:
I'll simplify for you with one example:
MU and Cincy both faced the same BE opposition in both 2009 and 2010.
Cincy improved from 12th place in 2009 to 6th place in 2010.
MU dropped from 5th place in 2009 to 9th place in 2010.
So...essentially 84 is saying MU and Cincinnati played the exact sdame conference schedule/mirror oppenents (which did NOT happen)..and that both teams chances for "improvement" were the same yet 1 team finished 5th in 2009 and another 12th in 2009? Seems the team who finished in 12th could improve 11 spots, whereas the team who finished 5th could only improve 4 spots. By my logic that says Cincy had a 275% greater chance at improvement than did MU. Am I missing something??
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 17, 2011, 08:57:54 AM
I'll simplify for you with one example:
MU and Cincy both faced the same BE opposition in both 2009 and 2010.
Cincy improved from 12th place in 2009 to 6th place in 2010.
MU dropped from 5th place in 2009 to 9th place in 2010.
You said:
"I think that someone who fairly considers ALL the facts and not just one of them would never conclude. . . that MU took a step back last year. To the contrary, all things considered I think we had a remarkable year in 2010-11."
So let me ask you this. When you consider the fact that Cincy was able to improve 6 places in the standings facing the same change in competitive situation we did, do you still think its remarkable to slip from 5th place to 9th?
Thanks for oversimplifying the situation. Hilaroius, dude.
Quote from: Ners on May 16, 2011, 07:25:10 PM
84 - You are impossible to debate with.
My comment about JUCO's was written to say they are more "in the door" ready to contribute than most freshman players MU lands. Having 1 or 2 years of JUCO experience helps them be able to contribute more from Day 1 - which is absolutely what we HAD to have to stay competitive in the Big East.
Takeaway Jimmy, DJO, Buycks and Jae, and replace them with guys who essentially would have been a freshman (Crowder's spot), sophomores (Buycks and DJO's spot) and a junior (Jimmy's spot), and our struggles were going to be magnified.
Buzz had 1 year of head coaching experience to sell kids on the recruiting trail - and it was a losing season at New Orleans. Pretty hard to walk in and get Top 100 kids immediately without any track record.
Now, had there never been a coaching change, and we didn't have the roster turmoil associated with that change (much like Tom Crean had to deal with at Indiana with transfers, etc upon his arrival), I would say that developing HS kids 4-years in the MU program would result in them likely being slightly better contributors by their Junio/Senior years, than the kids who went through the JUCO route...because those kids certainly aren't getting the same strength/conditioning/diet/facility access, etc...that kids get at MU. Most all agree that you'd prefer to have 4-year program players than a roster full of JUCO transfers - and ironically, Buzz hasn't signed a JUCO in this class....just 1 transfer and 3 HS kids...I wonder why?? Maybe because his roster is in much better shape now than it was than when he arrived.
If I net this out, you seem to be concluding that we lost 15 games because we lacked talent this year.
We lacked talent because Buzz is too inexperienced and and therefore not yet a good enough recruiter to stay ahead of or even with the likes of Cronin, Brey, Lavin or Pitino.
Buzz brought in JUCOS because they're better in year 1.
However, the downside is that because Jimmy, DJO, Buycks, Jae and Joe had less D1 experience, they are a downgrade from the 4-year players at UC, ND, UL or Cincy.
And the fact that the 4-year talent at those schools trumps the JUCOs talent Buzz landed explains why we dropped from 5th to 9th in the standings while UC, ND, UL and Cincy all improved--even though we all faced the same improving fortunes of the Big East.
Is this pretty much it?
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 17, 2011, 09:40:03 AM
Thanks for oversimplifying the situation. Hilaroius, dude.
I'm dealing with Lenny. My fear is that I haven't oversimplified enough yet. We'll see.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 17, 2011, 09:45:36 AM
I'm dealing with Lenny. My fear is that I haven't oversimplified enough yet. We'll see.
This made my day.
Quote from: Ners on May 17, 2011, 09:31:06 AM
Really?? Wow. Brew - Usually agree with your takes on a lot of matters - but am surprised to find that you believe 84's agenda driven posts are solid and logical...
We just saw this example of "logic" from 84:
I'll simplify for you with one example:
MU and Cincy both faced the same BE opposition in both 2009 and 2010.
Cincy improved from 12th place in 2009 to 6th place in 2010.
MU dropped from 5th place in 2009 to 9th place in 2010.
So...essentially 84 is saying MU and Cincinnati played the exact sdame conference schedule/mirror oppenents (which did NOT happen)..and that both teams chances for "improvement" were the same yet 1 team finished 5th in 2009 and another 12th in 2009? Seems the team who finished in 12th could improve 11 spots, whereas the team who finished 5th could only improve 4 spots. By my logic that says Cincy had a 275% greater chance at improvement than did MU. Am I missing something??
Obviously I didn't simplify enough for you. Lets try again:
Cincy got better.
We got worse.
I have to admit, you did make one point on an imbalance I didn't consider:
Cincy got to play a declining MU team.
We had to play an improving UC team.
I wonder is Buzz and Tom read these threads and laugh about it together.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 17, 2011, 09:54:05 AM
Obviously I didn't simplify enough for you. Lets try again:
Cincy got better.
We got worse.
I have to admit, you did make one point on an imbalance I didn't consider:
Cincy got to play a declining MU team.
We had to play an improving UC team.
Cincy played the easier conference schedule. Its mirrors were St. John's, Georgetown (without Chris Wright for three of the four halves) and DePaul, to MU's Uconn, Notre Dame and Seton Hall.
Or, to simplify, MU's mirrors were 30-24 in conference play. Cincy's were 23-31 ... and that's being generous considering how poorly G'town played once Wright went down.
Cincy returned eight of its top nine scorers.
MU lost three of its top five scorers.
Under those circumstances, why should it surprise anyone that Cincy improved while MU took a small step back?
According to Pomeroy:
- UC had the easiset conference SOS
- MU had the 2nd hardest
http://kenpom.com/conf.php?c=BE
Quote from: Pakuni on May 17, 2011, 10:46:23 AM
Cincy played the easier conference schedule. Its mirrors were St. John's, Georgetown (without Chris Wright for three of the four halves) and DePaul, to MU's Uconn, Notre Dame and Seton Hall.
Or, to simplify, MU's mirrors were 30-24 in conference play. Cincy's were 23-31 ... and that's being generous considering how poorly G'town played once Wright went down.
Cincy returned eight of its top nine scorers.
MU lost three of its top five scorers.
Under those circumstances, why should it surprise anyone that Cincy improved while MU took a small step back?
It shouldn't. 84 is once again displaying his enormous intellect and intelligence for the benefit of the board. Thanks 84! You make our days brighter by enabling us all to feel a whole lot better about ourselves. You're the man!
Best post of the thread right here......
Quote from: Pakuni on May 17, 2011, 10:46:23 AM
Cincy played the easier conference schedule. Its mirrors were St. John's, Georgetown (without Chris Wright for three of the four halves) and DePaul, to MU's Uconn, Notre Dame and Seton Hall.
Or, to simplify, MU's mirrors were 30-24 in conference play. Cincy's were 23-31 ... and that's being generous considering how poorly G'town played once Wright went down.
Cincy returned eight of its top nine scorers.
MU lost three of its top five scorers.
Under those circumstances, why should it surprise anyone that Cincy improved while MU took a small step back?
Quote from: Pakuni on May 17, 2011, 10:46:23 AM
Cincy played the easier conference schedule. Its mirrors were St. John's, Georgetown (without Chris Wright for three of the four halves) and DePaul, to MU's Uconn, Notre Dame and Seton Hall.
Or, to simplify, MU's mirrors were 30-24 in conference play. Cincy's were 23-31 ... and that's being generous considering how poorly G'town played once Wright went down.
Cincy returned eight of its top nine scorers.
MU lost three of its top five scorers.
Under those circumstances, why should it surprise anyone that Cincy improved while MU took a small step back?
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on May 17, 2011, 11:06:28 AM
According to Pomeroy:
- UC had the easiset conference SOS
- MU had the 2nd hardest
http://kenpom.com/conf.php?c=BE
I look forward to 84's rebuttal on these facts. Should be a fun one with even more twisting, and falsely drawn, illogical conclusions than he's already purported in this thread - anything he can do to discredit this year's team and its Sweet 16.
Quote from: 2002MUalum on May 17, 2011, 10:29:33 AM
I wonder is Buzz and Tom read these threads and laugh about it together.
I suspect there's not much on this or any other Internet message board they wouldn't laugh about.
Unless you think head coaches at major Division I programs cruise message boards looking for credible insight and strategies they and their assistants just can't get anywhere else.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 17, 2011, 09:44:48 AM
If I net this out, you seem to be concluding that we lost 15 games because we lacked talent this year.
For the last freakin time - if you net everything I've said out - I said we lost 15 games because we played the most difficult schedule in MU's history. Great opposition leads to greater chance of defeat. Amazing logic, right?? Yet you want to sit here and continue to harp that we went from 5th place to 9th place (by stating "we faced the same conference opposition (with regard to jersey names and no other factors taken into consideration - graduations/returning starters, strength of conference schedule/mirror opponents?"). Comical.
Was MU more talented than it was in 2009-2010? Yes. Did it lose more regular season games than 2009-2010? Yes? Did it play a harder schedule with more ranked oppenents? Yes. Did it also win 2 NCAA tourney games, as opposed to not winning any like the 2009-2010? Yes.
In most cases our 15 losses were to more talented teams, so yes our losses ar due to having less talent. I think we play with great effort and Buzz does a good job coaching. The only stinker I see last year, was losing at Seton Hall. Given the lead we had, I do not like the Louisville loss, but they overall were the better team and they were playing at home. The interesting part of that game that I do not think anyone has pointed out, was that Louisville's run essentially started when Jennings and their freshmen center fouled out and Louisville went to a smaller line up.
Quote from: Pakuni on May 17, 2011, 10:46:23 AM
Cincy played the easier conference schedule. Its mirrors were St. John's, Georgetown (without Chris Wright for three of the four halves) and DePaul, to MU's Uconn, Notre Dame and Seton Hall.
Was there a reason you made it a point to note that UC played Georgetown without Chris Wright but omitted that we played Notre Dame without Carleton Scott?
Quote from: Pakuni on May 17, 2011, 10:46:23 AM
Or, to simplify, MU's mirrors were 30-24 in conference play. Cincy's were 23-31 ...
I'll grant you that Seton Hall was better than DePaul.
Otherwise, the record of MU's other two mirrors was 23-13, UC's was 22-14.
You're overstating the difference in schedule strength.
Quote from: Pakuni on May 17, 2011, 10:46:23 AMand that's being generous considering how poorly G'town played once Wright went down.
Cincinnati was beating Georgetown 43-29 before Chris Wright left the game in their first matchup.
Quote from: Pakuni on May 17, 2011, 10:46:23 AM
Cincy returned eight of its top nine scorers.
Deonta Vaughn and Lance Stephenson were the #1 and #2 scorers for Cincy in 2010. Neither returned for 2011--Vaughn graduated, Stephenson went to the NBA.
Quote from: Pakuni on May 17, 2011, 10:46:23 AM
Under those circumstances, why should it surprise anyone that Cincy improved while MU took a small step back?
Because our best returning players (Butler, DJO, Buycks) outperformed UC's best returning players (Gates, Bishop, Wright) in 2010, and our recruiting class (14th in Scout, 17th in ESPN) was better than UC's recruiting class (unranked in both).
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 17, 2011, 11:50:42 AM
Was there a reason you made it a point to note that UC played Georgetown without Chris Wright but omitted that we played Notre Dame without Carleton Scott?
Maybe because I'm not foolish enough to suggest Carleton Scott was as important to Notre Dame as Wright was to Georgetown.
ND went 2-3 in Scott's absence (or partial absence), all three games they probably would have lost with him (at Syracuse, at MU, at St. John's). They knocked off UConn and beat St. John's by 15 without Scott.
Georgetown went 0-4 without Wright, losing by an average of 14.5 points. Three of those losses were at home. It's even worse if you consider their NCAA tournament game, in which Wright clearly was far from 100 percent.
QuoteI'll grant you that Seton Hall was better than DePaul.
Great.
now let's assume that instead of losing their last game at Seton Hall, MU gets another matchup with DePaul. Voila, they're 10-8 in conference. Then let's assume that instead of a second game with DePaul, Cincy has to travel to Seton Hall and matchup with a hot team (just ask Steve Lavin). Pretty good chance they're 10-8.
Still think I'm overestimating their difference in the schedule?
My bad on Vaughan.
7 of 9 top scorers back.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 17, 2011, 09:45:36 AM
I'm dealing with Lenny. My fear is that I haven't oversimplified enough yet. We'll see.
I care not at all about your personal attacks as I consider the source, but don't you find it ironic that someone who whines at the mere hint of an insult would stoop so low? Guess we can add hypocritical to your growing list of endearing attributes.
And by the way you're not just dealing with me. As witnessed by this and any number of other threads, the list of people you drive crazy is a long and distinguished one.
Quote from: Pakuni on May 17, 2011, 12:05:14 PM
Maybe because I'm not foolish enough to suggest Carleton Scott was as important to Notre Dame as Wright was to Georgetown.
ND went 2-3 in Scott's absence (or partial absence), all three games they probably would have lost with him (at Syracuse, at MU, at St. John's).
They knocked off UConn and beat St. John's by 15 without Scott.
He was a starter and their leading rebounder and shot blocker. With him in the lineup, ND was 12-1 in conference, without him (as you say) 2-3.
I think that disparity is enough to suggest that he may have been almost as important to ND and Wright was to Georgetown. It was wrong of you to highlight the absence of Wright as a factor but not the absence of Scott.
Quote from: Pakuni on May 17, 2011, 12:05:14 PM
Georgetown went 0-4 without Wright, losing by an average of 14.5 points. Three of those losses were at home. It's even worse if you consider their NCAA tournament game, in which Wright clearly was far from 100 percent.
Just as you did with ND, I could argue that Georgetown may well have lost those games without Wright anyway.
Quote from: Pakuni on May 17, 2011, 12:05:14 PM
now let's assume that instead of losing their last game at Seton Hall, MU gets another matchup with DePaul. Voila, they're 10-8 in conference. Then let's assume that instead of a second game with DePaul, Cincy has to travel to Seton Hall and matchup with a hot team (just ask Steve Lavin). Pretty good chance they're 10-8.
Still think I'm overestimating their difference in the schedule?
You've created a straw man.
Its just as likely that Cincy goes to Seton Hall and beats them as easily as they did in the first matchup, and MU comes out just as flat in the road game against DePaul as they did at Seton Hall. Pretty good chance that there is no change in the record.
Putting that aside, even if the scenario played out as your straw man suggests, year over year UC would still have improved from 12th to 7th, and we would have still declined from 5th to 7th.
Quote from: Pakuni on May 17, 2011, 12:05:14 PM
My bad on Vaughan.
7 of 9 top scorers back.
Thank you.
Do you also agree that our top 3 returning players outperformed UC's top 3 returning players in 2010? And that our recruiting class was stronger than UC's recruiting class?
Y'all have salaried positions in the working world?
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 17, 2011, 12:33:20 PM
And that our recruiting class was stronger than UC's recruiting class?
Glad to see we are treating opinions as facts.
Nobody is going to win these arguments because it is not black and white, none of this took like in a vacuum or Henry Sugar's computer. The bottom line, do you think we played better or worst than we should have this year....I think we did better than we had right to given the schedule and lack of experience.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 17, 2011, 12:33:20 PM
Its just as likely that Cincy goes to Seton Hall and beats them as easily as they did in the first matchup, and MU comes out just as flat in the road game against DePaul as they did at Seton Hall. Pretty good chance that there is no change in the record.
1. You clearly have no idea what a straw man is. Stop using terms of which you don't understand the meaning.
2. You're not only suggesting that Cincy is likely to "easily" beat a red-hot Seton Hall on the road (Note 1: Seton Hall was playing without Jeremy Hazell when they lost
at Cincy; Note 2: Nobody "easily" beat a complete Seton Hall team at home last season), but that there was "a pretty good chance" Marquette would lose to a DePaul team they'd previously beaten by 30.
These are not reasonable opinions.
Quote from: reinko on May 17, 2011, 12:46:09 PM
Y'all have salaried positions in the working world?
For a guy who continues to gripe about this thread, you sure spend a lot of time reading and commenting on it.
Just sayin'.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on May 17, 2011, 11:06:28 AM
According to Pomeroy:
- UC had the easiset conference SOS
- MU had the 2nd hardest
http://kenpom.com/conf.php?c=BE
I think you'd be willing to grant me that the important thing is the SOS number--not necessarily the rank.
MU's SOS was .8727. Cincinnati's was .8461
Remove one Seton Hall game and replace it with DePaul for MU, and our SOS would have been .8478.
Remove one DePaul game and replace it with Seton Hall for UC, and their SOS would have been .8710.
In other words, the entire SOS difference between UC and MU amounts to the fact that UC's mirror was DePaul, and ours was Seton Hall. If it were opposite, we would have had the easiest schedule in the conference, and Cincinnati would have had
Quote from: Pakuni on May 17, 2011, 12:56:51 PM
For a guy who continues to gripe about this thread, you sure spend a lot of time reading and commenting on it.
Just sayin'.
Eh, you are right, I feel a gripe for every 2 pages this thread goes on and nothing to show for it is about right.
Quote from: Pakuni on May 17, 2011, 12:51:55 PM
1. You clearly have no idea what a straw man is. Stop using terms of which you don't understand the meaning.
Sorry, but you don't understand the concept.
You created a "strawman" (the hypothetical schedule in which Cincinnati played Seton Hall twice and we played DePaul twice), and then tried to refute my argument by knocking down the fake schedule you invented (see, with that schedule their record is only 10-8, same as ours, therefore they didn't improve more than we did).
Its a textbook example of a straw man.
Quote from: Pakuni on May 17, 2011, 12:51:55 PM
2. You're not only suggesting that Cincy is likely to "easily" beat a red-hot Seton Hall on the road (Note 1: Seton Hall was playing without Jeremy Hazell when they lost at Cincy; Note 2: Nobody "easily" beat a complete Seton Hall team at home last season), but that there was "a pretty good chance" Marquette would lose to a DePaul team they'd previously beaten by 30.
These are not reasonable opinions.
1. Who's to say that the game would have been scheduled with Hazell back?
2. Even at that, given that Seton Hall was 3-4 in home games after Hazell returned, I hardly think that constitutes "red hot" performance. Especially when just 1 of the 3 wins was against a top-half team.
BTW, that supposedly "red hot" team that beat St. Johns turned around and lost to Rutgers two games later.
3. I didn't say "easily". I said "likely". Big difference.
4. I see its okay for you to propose that Cincy could blow out Seton Hall at home, then lose to them on the road. But its "not reasonable" if I said the same for MU and DePaul.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_T0HqdkLlYvE/TKe8YdT7cdI/AAAAAAAAA24/mHbSUu0BPe4/s1600/asplode.jpg)
Quote from: Ners on May 17, 2011, 09:31:06 AMSo...essentially 84 is saying MU and Cincinnati played the exact sdame conference schedule/mirror oppenents (which did NOT happen)..and that both teams chances for "improvement" were the same yet 1 team finished 5th in 2009 and another 12th in 2009? Seems the team who finished in 12th could improve 11 spots, whereas the team who finished 5th could only improve 4 spots. By my logic that says Cincy had a 275% greater chance at improvement than did MU. Am I missing something??
Everyone plays the Big East schedule. Everyone plays home and away. Maybe not every team played against UConn and ND as their mirror games, but we also played against Seton Hall.
Notre Dame played Pitt, St. John's, and us, a tougher mirror schedule than we did. St. John's played Notre Dame, Cincy, and Georgetown. Louisville played UConn, West Virginia, and Providence, probably about as tough as our mirrors. Cincy played Georgetown, St. John's, and DePaul. So of the teams he listed, all of them had at least two tourney teams in their three mirror games, as we did, and two of them had tourney teams in all three mirror games.
Listen, everyone is glad about the Sweet 16 run, and the END result of the season was our best since 2003. But for anyone to assert we had a better conference season at 9-9 than we did last year at 11-7 just doesn't make sense, especially when it's clear that other teams were able to improve despite playing a very similar conference schedule.
I think the problem is that people have years-long biases on this site. 84's name shows up on the post and he's attacked, even when he's making what is pretty much a bulletproof logical argument. When I think 84 is in the wrong, I'll call him on it and debate. But this isn't one of those cases. We weren't as good in the Big East in 2010-11 as we were in 2009-10. Asserting anything else is simply arguing for arguing's sake.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 17, 2011, 01:46:35 PM
BTW, that supposedly "red hot" team that beat St. Johns turned around and lost to Rutgers two games later.
Anyone calling that St. John's team hot is simply not looking at their body of work around that time.
@ WVU Loss
v UConn Loss
@ Rutgers Win
v Villanova Loss
@ Marquette Loss
@ Notre Dame Loss
v St. John's Win
v Marquette Win
v Rutgers Loss
Hot? They were 1-5 in the 6 games prior to the SJU win, and that one win was against lowly Rutgers. So beating one team, SJU, made them hot? And they finished the season 3-6 in their last 9 games. At no point do you call that team "hot". The closest to hot they came was a 2-game home winning streak, and then they promptly lost to one of the worst teams in the league.
Quote from: brewcity77 on May 17, 2011, 02:16:37 PM
Everyone plays the Big East schedule. Everyone plays home and away. Maybe not every team played against UConn and ND as their mirror games, but we also played against Seton Hall.
Notre Dame played Pitt, St. John's, and us, a tougher mirror schedule than we did. St. John's played Notre Dame, Cincy, and Georgetown. Louisville played UConn, West Virginia, and Providence, probably about as tough as our mirrors. Cincy played Georgetown, St. John's, and DePaul. So of the teams he listed, all of them had at least two tourney teams in their three mirror games, as we did, and two of them had tourney teams in all three mirror games.
Listen, everyone is glad about the Sweet 16 run, and the END result of the season was our best since 2003. But for anyone to assert we had a better conference season at 9-9 than we did last year at 11-7 just doesn't make sense, especially when it's clear that other teams were able to improve despite playing a very similar conference schedule.
I think the problem is that people have years-long biases on this site. 84's name shows up on the post and he's attacked, even when he's making what is pretty much a bulletproof logical argument. When I think 84 is in the wrong, I'll call him on it and debate. But this isn't one of those cases. We weren't as good in the Big East in 2010-11 as we were in 2009-10. Asserting anything else is simply arguing for arguing's sake.
I'll only speak for myself. My point was never that we had as good a Big East season last season as in 2009-10. My point was that when all factors are considered - 1. Empty junior and senior classes inherited by Buzz 2. Two Big East tournament wins and 3. Our second sweet 16 in 16 years - that last year did not represent a step backward for our program (which 84 and Chicos insist). Given #1 I think it's remakable we made the tournament and #s 2 and 3 were icing on the cake.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 17, 2011, 02:56:33 PM
I'll only speak for myself. My point was never that we had as good a Big East season last season as in 2009-10. My point was that when all factors are considered - 1. Empty junior and senior classes inherited by Buzz 2. Two Big East tournament wins and 3. Our second sweet 16 in 16 years - that last year did not represent a step backward for our program (which 84 and Chicos insist). Given #1 I think it's remakable we made the tournament and #s 2 and 3 were icing on the cake.
You can speak for me as well. Clearly a 9-9 finish vs an 11-7 finish isn't as good of record - but to really suggest the program took a step back last year, and was merely lucky to advance to the Sweet 16 due to favorable matchups - is ridiculous. (Particularily when measured against Point Number 1.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 17, 2011, 01:46:35 PM
Sorry, but you don't understand the concept.
You created a "strawman" (the hypothetical schedule in which Cincinnati played Seton Hall twice and we played DePaul twice), and then tried to refute my argument by knocking down the fake schedule you invented (see, with that schedule their record is only 10-8, same as ours, therefore they didn't improve more than we did).
Its a textbook example of a straw man.
I didn't read your post Lenny, but he seems to understand the straw man just fine.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 17, 2011, 02:56:33 PMI'll only speak for myself. My point was never that we had as good a Big East season last season as in 2009-10. My point was that when all factors are considered - 1. Empty junior and senior classes inherited by Buzz 2. Two Big East tournament wins and 3. Our second sweet 16 in 16 years - that last year did not represent a step backward for our program (which 84 and Chicos insist). Given #1 I think it's remakable we made the tournament and #s 2 and 3 were icing on the cake.
Regarding 1, I agree that Buzz did a great job with filling those classes.
But the only improvement we made on our season from 2009-10 to 2010-11 was our NCAA play. Non-conference was worse. Conference was worse. BEast Tourney (2) was the same (beat a team we should beat, beat a team we hoped to beat, lost badly) so it can't really be considered an improvement on the year before. All in all, we stepped back more than we stepped forward.
2010-11's Sweet 16 was a great accomplishment. We're all glad for it. But for the season as a whole, two steps back, one step sideways, and one step forward equals steps back. The Sweet 16 leaves a good taste in the mouth, and I think it's clear that Buzz has us pointed in a very favorable direction. But I also am positive that I felt far more aggravation in 2010-11 than I did in 2009-10. There were more things that seemed to go wrong that should have gone right, whereas the year before it seemed things that we expected to go wrong went right, especially as the season progressed.
The bottom line is that we are moving forward. Despite taking some steps back in 2010-11 I also think that it's more clear that our future is brighter than it was in a 2009-10 season that felt in many ways more magical (from November to early March) than the most recent season did (despite the excellent late March).
The end result is the only thing that was truly better. That's great, but I agree that 15 losses is far too many and that we need to do better in the future. Thankfully, I'm confident that despite quite a few hiccups throughout the past year, Buzz will build on the late-season success and hopefully next year, we'll be able to say that we've improved our non-conference season, our conference play, our Big East Tourney results, and most important, gotten even further in March.
nm
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 17, 2011, 02:56:33 PM
I'll only speak for myself. My point was never that we had as good a Big East season last season as in 2009-10. My point was that when all factors are considered - 1. Empty junior and senior classes inherited by Buzz 2. Two Big East tournament wins and 3. Our second sweet 16 in 16 years - that last year did not represent a step backward for our program (which 84 and Chicos insist). Given #1 I think it's remakable we made the tournament and #s 2 and 3 were icing on the cake.
As attached as you are with the false notion that Crean left two empty classes--what does your continued effort to blame Crean say about your belief in Buzz's ability to replace those players?
Buzz filled this year's junior and senior class with Butler and Buycks and Otule and Crowder and DJO. Yet you STILL pine for whomever Crean WOULD have had in this class.
Quote from: brewcity77 on May 17, 2011, 02:28:00 PM
Anyone calling that St. John's team hot is simply not looking at their body of work around that time.
@ WVU Loss
v UConn Loss
@ Rutgers Win
v Villanova Loss
@ Marquette Loss
@ Notre Dame Loss
v St. John's Win
v Marquette Win
v Rutgers Loss
Hot? They were 1-5 in the 6 games prior to the SJU win, and that one win was against lowly Rutgers. So beating one team, SJU, made them hot? And they finished the season 3-6 in their last 9 games. At no point do you call that team "hot". The closest to hot they came was a 2-game home winning streak, and then they promptly lost to one of the worst teams in the league.
In the game against St. John's, Seton Hall shot 64 percent from the floor and 67 percent (12-for-18) from beyond the arc. Then in the first 20 minutes against MU, they knocked down 11 of 18 threes. So, over 60 minutes of basketball, they hit an astounding 23 of 36 threes, or 64 percent.
Yep, ice cold, baby.
Never mind. This is getting too dumb for even me to participate any longer.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 17, 2011, 03:35:30 PM
I didn't read your post Lenny, but he seems to understand the straw man just fine.
,
That may be Hards, but as I didn't bring up the straw man argument I don't know what it has to do with me.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 17, 2011, 04:05:12 PM
Buzz filled this year's junior and senior class with Butler and Buycks and Otule and Crowder and DJO. Yet you STILL pine for whomever Crean WOULD have had in this class.
I don't "pine for whomever Crean would have had in this class". I just realize how hard a job both Buzz and Crean faced in the spring /summer of 2008. As you point out, Buzz filled his two empty classes with guys like Butler, Buycks, Crowder and DJO. Crean filled his with Jeremiah Rivers, Verdell Jones III, Tom Pritchard, Matt Roth and Kory Barnett. It's why after total roster turnovers in two years at both MU and IU we made the sweet 16 and they were 3-16 in the Big 10. Just one reason I think Williams did a remarkable job last year.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 17, 2011, 01:06:45 PM
I think you'd be willing to grant me that the important thing is the SOS number--not necessarily the rank.
MU's SOS was .8727. Cincinnati's was .8461
Remove one Seton Hall game and replace it with DePaul for MU, and our SOS would have been .8478.
Remove one DePaul game and replace it with Seton Hall for UC, and their SOS would have been .8710.
In other words, the entire SOS difference between UC and MU amounts to the fact that UC's mirror was DePaul, and ours was Seton Hall. If it were opposite, we would have had the easiest schedule in the conference, and Cincinnati would have had
Yes, I wil grant you that...so the Seton Hall loss becomes a DePaul win for MU...and a DePaul win becomes a SH loss for UC. Voila!...same regular season records. See how that works?
My daddy always taught me the following: "It is not how you entered a room, but how you left it". Sweet 16 is a nice "leave" behind.
Quote from: brewcity77 on May 17, 2011, 02:16:37 PM
Listen, everyone is glad about the Sweet 16 run, and the END result of the season was our best since 2003. But for anyone to assert we had a better conference season at 9-9 than we did last year at 11-7 just doesn't make sense, especially when it's clear that other teams were able to improve despite playing a very similar conference schedule.
Thank you for some level headed commentary. Agree completely.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 17, 2011, 01:46:35 PM
Sorry, but you don't understand the concept.
You created a "strawman" (the hypothetical schedule in which Cincinnati played Seton Hall twice and we played DePaul twice), and then tried to refute my argument by knocking down the fake schedule you invented (see, with that schedule their record is only 10-8, same as ours, therefore they didn't improve more than we did).
Its a textbook example of a straw man.
And then 84 submits this?? Talk about hypocritical. Funny how 84 uses Straw Man arguments, but then criticizes others for doing the same:
Insert Quote
Quote from: Marquette84 on Today at 01:06:45 PM
I think you'd be willing to grant me that the important thing is the SOS number--not necessarily the rank.
MU's SOS was .8727. Cincinnati's was .8461
Remove one Seton Hall game and replace it with DePaul for MU, and our SOS would have been .8478.
Remove one DePaul game and replace it with Seton Hall for UC, and their SOS would have been .8710.
In other words, the entire SOS difference between UC and MU amounts to the fact that UC's mirror was DePaul, and ours was Seton Hall. If it were opposite, we would have had the easiest schedule in the conference, and Cincinnati would have had
Quote from: Ners on May 17, 2011, 08:30:29 PM
And then 84 submits this?? Talk about hypocritical. Funny how 84 uses Straw Man arguments, but then criticizes others for doing the same:
Insert Quote
Quote from: Marquette84 on Today at 01:06:45 PM
I think you'd be willing to grant me that the important thing is the SOS number--not necessarily the rank.
MU's SOS was .8727. Cincinnati's was .8461
Remove one Seton Hall game and replace it with DePaul for MU, and our SOS would have been .8478.
Remove one DePaul game and replace it with Seton Hall for UC, and their SOS would have been .8710.
In other words, the entire SOS difference between UC and MU amounts to the fact that UC's mirror was DePaul, and ours was Seton Hall. If it were opposite, we would have had the easiest schedule in the conference, and Cincinnati would have had
Just for fairness' sake, a hypothetical argument
is not a straw man. It only becomes a straw man when one supplants the hypothetical for the actual argument being made.
Neither I or 84 did this, ergo neither are guilty of a straw man (despite his incorrect claim to the contrary).
Sorry for re-entering the thread .... couldn't help myself.
Quote from: Ners on May 17, 2011, 08:30:29 PM
And then 84 submits this?? Talk about hypocritical. Funny how 84 uses Straw Man arguments, but then criticizes others for doing the same:
Insert Quote
Quote from: Marquette84 on Today at 01:06:45 PM
I think you'd be willing to grant me that the important thing is the SOS number--not necessarily the rank.
MU's SOS was .8727. Cincinnati's was .8461
Remove one Seton Hall game and replace it with DePaul for MU, and our SOS would have been .8478.
Remove one DePaul game and replace it with Seton Hall for UC, and their SOS would have been .8710.
In other words, the entire SOS difference between UC and MU amounts to the fact that UC's mirror was DePaul, and ours was Seton Hall. If it were opposite, we would have had the easiest schedule in the conference, and Cincinnati would have had
You have no idea what a straw man argument is apparently.
Maybe you should concentrate on comparing a 3 seed from one year and say it's the same as a 3 seed from a different year. :D
Since we're now discussing scarecrows, I think this thread has enough pages.