"The Experts" will be discussing Marquette on ESPNU after the commercial break. Tune in if you can. I'll try to recap what 'The Experts' said here when they're done.
First, Katz rips Buzz for only suspending the 4 players for only a half.
Miles Simon says "he didn't get it." The players should have been out for the entire game, not just a half.
Paul Biancardi says it was a minor violation but called the half suspensions "strange."
Katz then compares MU's situation to Alabama's and says it pales in comparison.
Joe Lunardi finally defends Buzz and says 'we don't know what the transgressions were.'
Adrian Branch says Buzz runs a clean program & earned the right to suspend players as he sees fit.
Then they discussed the dance.
Paul B says he has a problem with it and Buzz should have done the dance in the locker room.
Simon says he's OK with Buzz dancing.
Lunardi liked the dance too.
As for Marquette's tourney chances:
Lunardi says Marquette could be a #2 seed if they win out. Right now between 8 & 9 on S-curve.
Who the h*ll made Andy Katz the moral watchdog of College Basketball? Geez Louise.....
Get off your high horse, esp when you don't know the facts, Andy. Buzz can do his minor suspensions however he wants. 99% of the other coaches would have skipped it entirely and no one would have been the wiser.
Thanks, Joe Lunardi, for having some common sense.
Hey, can we talk about the team now and how it is PLAYING the games????
Quote from: KC_Warrior on February 28, 2012, 01:09:30 PM
Then they discussed the dance.
Every ESPN show discussed it yesterday. They just want controversy no matter how small.
I don't get it at all. How can anybody discuss whether or not the punishment fits the crime when they don't know what the crime is? It boggles my mind.
Quote from: KC_Warrior on February 28, 2012, 01:09:30 PM
Katz then compares MU's situation to Alabama's and says it pales in comparison.
Katz is comparing nothing he knows to nothing he knows. The reasons for suspension at both MU and Alabama have not been disclosed.
I normally think he's OK, but this is just a moment of stupidity.
The next time a player is late to a practice and isn't suspended by some other team, will ESPN discuss it and have a problem with it? Of course not.
The next time a player is late to a practice and doesn't start but comes in at the first media time out, will ESPN discuss it and have a problem with it?
Of course not.
Just ESPN hot air hosts trying to find something to talk about and make it sound controversial.
I think that if the same thing happens next year when we have 13 scholarship players plus Thomas that it would be a full game suspension. Can't be done when you are only dressing 9. That is how some of the other guys get hurt. He wanted to send a message but simply didn't have enough bodies. So he ends up with that half-game suspension oddity.
Quote from: tower912 on February 28, 2012, 01:31:12 PM
I think that if the same thing happens next year when we have 13 scholarship players plus Thomas that it would be a full game suspension. Can't be done when you are only dressing 9. That is how some of the other guys get hurt. He wanted to send a message but simply didn't have enough bodies. So he ends up with that half-game suspension oddity.
If it was that serious, he could have split the suspensions - 2 sit for WV, 2 sit for Cincy.
Quote from: tower912 on February 28, 2012, 01:31:12 PM
I think that if the same thing happens next year when we have 13 scholarship players plus Thomas that it would be a full game suspension. Can't be done when you are only dressing 9. That is how some of the other guys get hurt. He wanted to send a message but simply didn't have enough bodies. So he ends up with that half-game suspension oddity.
I have said this so many times i just got tired of typing it!
Meh, just another example of Buzz's idiosyncracies. Now it's over as far as the team is concerned and it has given the chatterati a reason (along with the West Virginia Waltz) to talk about MU.
Major slip up by Katz here. It's not fair to criticize the coach when we don't know what happened. Judging by the fact that it was only a one half suspension, I think it's fair to assume that they were probably late to a meeting, practice, shoot around, something of the nature. College students sleep too late all the time. Buzz realizes whatever they did was a minor slip up and he saw it was fair to suspend them one half and even better to keep it to himself. It's not our business what happened behind closed doors and Katz shouldn't be calling him out on it unless he knows what happened.
I will say this, I work in collegiate athletics (not at Marquette), and occasionally the reason for a suspension leaks among the people working at a game or the press at that game, but is still never made public. It's like an unspoken rule that if you hear something you won't go blabbing about it. I'll give Katz this, he may know something we don't, but if he doesn't it's not fair to criticize without the facts.
Well...what do you expect from a UW alum.
I have seen coaches suspend players from the starting lineup and then they play a few minutes into a game. The criticism is full of bullcrap.
Half game, quarter game, not starting the first series, are all punishments curently in use in many sports. This is not unusual. Get over it.
I know it's semantics, but if Buzz labels it as a "benched" instead of "suspended" we're not having this discussion.
Then again, this is a stupid discussion that we shouldn't have to be having anyway. Buzz can discipline his team however he likes and Andy Katz can deal with it.
Quote from: TJ on February 28, 2012, 02:43:23 PM
I know it's semantics, but if Buzz labels it as a "benched" instead of "suspended" we're not having this discussion.
This.
Quote from: Warrior1214 on February 28, 2012, 01:42:41 PM
College students sleep too late all the time.
They may have been late for a meeting or practice, but I doubt all 4 of them slept too late! Unless, of course, they were sleeping together, in which case we really do have a story.
Quote from: TJ on February 28, 2012, 02:43:23 PMBuzz can discipline his team however he likes and Andy Katz can deal with it.
Exactly, andy katz or anyone else
I have to admit that a half game suspension seems odd so you've got to expect these lame brains to talk about it. Note that I said ODD which does not mean wrong.
I assume that Buzz realized that he could not play the game with 5 players eligible. Someone likely would have fouled out and then what do you do, play with 4? Unsuspend someone?
Expect people outside the program to claim that it was self serving, allowing his starters to "ride the the rescue" in the second half. To that I counter. "So What! Buzz didn't have to suspend anybody for any amount of time since this is just team rules"
Not to bring up a sore point but remember the team we play next, suspended a guy for I think only 6 games for what was effectively criminal battery committed on the court. I don't think we need to apologize for anything.
Again, if Buzz doesn't punish them, none of this comes up. In other words, you are better off not disciplining your players. What a great message to send to college coaches. Don't try to instill discipline, because if you do, it will just subject you to scrutiny.
LAME.
Oh, and Andy Katz is a putz.
Quote from: MUCam on February 28, 2012, 02:54:51 PM
Again, if Buzz doesn't punish them, none of this comes up. In other words, you are better off not disciplining your players. What a great message to send to college coaches. Don't try to instill discipline, because if you do, it will just subject you to scrutiny.
LAME.
Oh, and Andy Katz is a putz.
Exactly. To some creating the (patently false) impression that your kids never screw up is preferable to holding them accountable. Don't think Buzz much cottons to that "perception is reality" bunch.
The Dance was on ATH yesterday too and they talked about it for two minutes total and all three (Woody Paige was eliminated) just said they thought it was funny and he had balls to do it.
Quote from: SacWarrior on February 28, 2012, 03:11:07 PM
The Dance was on ATH yesterday too and they talked about it for two minutes total and all three (Woody Paige was eliminated) just said they thought it was funny and he had balls to do it.
Saw it. The only bothered by it was the female sportswriter (Mc Mullen?) from Boston.
Quote from: NotAnAlum on February 28, 2012, 02:54:15 PM
I have to admit that a half game suspension seems odd so you've got to expect these lame brains to talk about it. Note that I said ODD which does not mean wrong.
I assume that Buzz realized that he could not play the game with 5 players eligible. Someone likely would have fouled out and then what do you do, play with 4? Unsuspend someone?
Expect people outside the program to claim that it was self serving, allowing his starters to "ride the the rescue" in the second half. To that I counter. "So What! Buzz didn't have to suspend anybody for any amount of time since this is just team rules"
Not to bring up a sore point but remember the team we play next, suspended a guy for I think only 6 games for what was effectively criminal battery committed on the court. I don't think we need to apologize for anything.
You actually can play the game with only 5 players eligible. If one fouls out, you only have four on the court. It happened to MU in the NIT in the 80's against Indiana when we only had 4 players on the court at the end of the game due to fouls.
Quote from: MUCam on February 28, 2012, 02:54:51 PM
Again, if Buzz doesn't punish them, none of this comes up. In other words, you are better off not disciplining your players. What a great message to send to college coaches. Don't try to instill discipline, because if you do, it will just subject you to scrutiny.
This is exactly what I think. I mean, they broke rules *internal* to the program right? Certainly not the law....certainly not NCAA rules... So how do these people know what the rules are? How do they know what the consequences are? Hell, they don't even know what they did!
It very well could be that Buzz has said "If you do x, you will get benched for half of a game." Then the players did x...and they faced the punishment that HIS rules called for.
Very odd criticism. It would be like me telling my neighbor that I sent my kids to their rooms for 30 minutes for something they did...but never disclosed exactly what they did. Only to have my neighbors say "Who only sends their kids to their rooms for 30 minutes? Kids must be sent to their room for one hour increments."
Quote from: The Equalizer on February 28, 2012, 03:22:27 PM
You actually can play the game with only 5 players eligible. If one fouls out, you only have four on the court. It happened to MU in the NIT in the 80's against Indiana when we only had 4 players on the court at the end of the game due to fouls.
very true but who wants to risk going down that hole on the road in the 1st half?
Quote from: TJ on February 28, 2012, 02:43:23 PM
I know it's semantics, but if Buzz labels it as a "benched" instead of "suspended" we're not having this discussion.
Then again, this is a stupid discussion that we shouldn't have to be having anyway. Buzz can discipline his team however he likes and Andy Katz can deal with it.
That is it in a nutshell! Why can't I bench a player at my descretion for half a game? These "talking heads" having nothing else to talk about.
Quote from: I don't care on February 28, 2012, 01:22:27 PM
I don't get it at all. How can anybody discuss whether or not the punishment fits the crime when they don't know what the crime is? It boggles my mind.
+1,000,000.
Plus, I'm guessing that whatever the transgression was, 98% of D-1 coaches wouldn't use game punishment at all.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 28, 2012, 03:22:45 PM
This is exactly what I think. I mean, they broke rules *internal* to the program right? Certainly not the law....certainly not NCAA rules... So how do these people know what the rules are? How do they know what the consequences are? Hell, they don't even know what they did!
It very well could be that Buzz has said "If you do x, you will get benched for half of a game." Then the players did x...and they faced the punishment that HIS rules called for.
Very odd criticism. It would be like me telling my neighbor that I sent my kids to their rooms for 30 minutes for something they did...but never disclosed exactly what they did. Only to have my neighbors say "Who only sends their kids to their rooms for 30 minutes? Kids must be sent to their room for one hour increments."
I agree with this. While I don't understand why, I believe the pundits are getting tripped up on the word "suspension" and taking it to mean that it must have been something more serious than it really was.
Quote from: KC_Warrior on February 28, 2012, 01:09:30 PM
First, Katz rips Buzz for only suspending the 4 players for only a half.
Miles Simon says "he didn't get it." The players should have been out for the entire game, not just a half.
Paul Biancardi says it was a minor violation but called the half suspensions "strange."
Katz then compares MU's situation to Alabama's and says it pales in comparison.
Joe Lunardi finally defends Buzz and says 'we don't know what the transgressions were.'
Adrian Branch says Buzz runs a clean program & earned the right to suspend players as he sees fit.
Then they discussed the dance.
Paul B says he has a problem with it and Buzz should have done the dance in the locker room.
Simon says he's OK with Buzz dancing.
Lunardi liked the dance too.
As for Marquette's tourney chances:
Lunardi says Marquette could be a #2 seed if they win out. Right now between 8 & 9 on S-curve.
So, to summarize: Andy Katz, Miles Simon, Adrian Branch, Paul Biancardi, and Joe Lunardi engaged in an hour long circle jerk, with some commercial breaks. Good God, I am sorry you had to watch that. A cage of primates hurling their own feces at each other may have been more informative.
Quote from: T-Bone on February 28, 2012, 01:24:38 PM
Katz is comparing nothing he knows to nothing he knows.
This could basically describe everything Katz does at ESPN. And we still have his bulls*** rumor-gasming to deal with in the offseason, where he'll be wrong about Buzz being considered/hired at "University X" for the millionth time.
Did Buzz ever use the word suspension himself? For all we know, the official announcement from Buzz's staff was that "three players are sitting out the first half, one player is sitting out the second half" and then the media and whoever is doing the typing for the screenshots for TV used "suspensions".
Sultan, your analogy is spot on.
If MU loses the game, how would that change this conversation? Instead of being criticized by certain media members for being too soft, he would be getting praised for sticking to his rules and putting that over his desire to win. Wtihout knowing the story of what occurred that lead to the suspensions, I don't know how anyone can truly judge the punishment. But Buzz did hand down a fairly stiff penalty prior to a critical game and shouldn't be criticized because Crowder bailed the team out.
Quote from: Homebrew101 on February 28, 2012, 03:28:28 PM
very true but who wants to risk going down that hole on the road in the 1st half?
Someone who wants to avoid sending the impression to ESPN that winning is more important than punishment.
Before anyone jerks their knee, I'm not arguing that I thought Buzz was wrong. He can dole out the suspensions any way he wants. I'm just looking at how someone outside of MU might view the situation (or dare I say how we would view the situation of any other coach tried the same thing against us).
If our team rule is that a player gets punished for one-half game for that particular rule violation, delaying the punishment for one player just to avoid having no subs avaialble is going to look bad. Not only that, but it looks like the criteria to select the one player for delayed suspension was based on ensuring the best players were available for a 2nd half comeback.
Look, Buzz can do it whatever way he wants--but I can also see where the announcers are coming from.
Quote from: The Equalizer on February 28, 2012, 04:25:43 PM
If our team rule is that a player gets punished for one-half game for that particular rule violation, delaying the punishment for one player just to avoid having no subs avaialble is going to look bad. Not only that, but it looks like the criteria to select the one player for delayed suspension was based on ensuring the best players were available for a 2nd half comeback.
I can definitely see how people would think that, and it might be right. My first thought was that he let Mayo have the start since he was back at home and had lots of friends/family in attendance. Who knows?
The talking heads have to have something to talk about. Logically, it's ridiculous to criticize a 1/2 game suspension without knowing what rules were violated and what penalties have been associated with that violation. Why is one game the gold standard of suspensions?
Buzz could have suspended all four for the entire game, which would have left us with 5 players. We probably would have lost (but I'm not conceding it). He's the coach - let him run the program.
Regarding the dance - it was in bad form, he apologized, end of story. That's why most teams don't play their song when they lose.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on February 28, 2012, 04:32:58 PM
I can definitely see how people would think that, and it might be right. My first thought was that he let Mayo have the start since he was back at home and had lots of friends/family in attendance. Who knows?
He didn't want three guys used to less than 10 minutes a game to be forced to play the entire 20 minute first half. He didn't want to put the team in a situation where an injury meant either playing with 4 or playing a guy being punished. Given all this, he chose to make the starters sit out the first half as a punishment of "not starting". He didn't want to punish the rest of the team and leave them with little chance of winning over a minor infraction by 4 players. And so on...
I thought the suspensions were silly after the fact. We are deep into the season and think if only minor infractions it could be handled differently. If Georegtown or ND had similar suspensions I would not believe the minor infraction line.
This goes back to my comment of Buzz and program being watched differently this year. I think Buzz is doing to be cute, and yes coaches get pissed at their bosses, or he is being extra careful. Suspensions for any reason always look bad to the outside world because we all believe the worst today.
It is very strange to me that we have the sudden rash of issues this year and I am a fan. I cannot fault the talking heads for discussing it, it looks fishy on the surface. Buzz is running the program his way and I respect that, but sometimes I think these coaches make emotional decisions to one up their bosses. No need to hold guys for minor infractions this deep in the year.
Quote from: AlumKCof93 on February 28, 2012, 03:56:06 PM
If MU loses the game, how would that change this conversation? Instead of being criticized by certain media members for being too soft, he would be getting praised for sticking to his rules and putting that over his desire to win. Wtihout knowing the story of what occurred that lead to the suspensions, I don't know how anyone can truly judge the punishment. But Buzz did hand down a fairly stiff penalty prior to a critical game and shouldn't be criticized because Crowder bailed the team out.
Well, for one thing, if MU loses the game a lot of people on this board might not be defending Buzz so fervently!
To go along with everybody, Katz shouldn't talk about stuff he doesn't know about; But hey, he's made a living on ESPN talking about stuff he knows nothing about...
Quote from: Warriors10 on February 28, 2012, 06:24:47 PM
To go along with everybody, Katz shouldn't talk about stuff he doesn't know about; But hey, he's made a living on ESPN talking about stuff he knows nothing about...
ESPN makes a living talking about stuff they know nothing about...
Quote from: CaptainAwesome on February 28, 2012, 09:30:42 PM
ESPN makes a living talking about stuff they know nothing about...
In Katz defense, who knows if he had a producer in his ear telling him what position to take on this issue. I think it is pretty common for these minor story discussions to be scripted to ensure there is actually some level of debate. Its pretty much Skip Bayless's job to come out and take whatever contrarian position the production staff can think up.
Quote from: AWegrzyn17 on February 28, 2012, 10:23:28 PM
In Katz defense, who knows if he had a producer in his ear telling him what position to take on this issue. I think it is pretty common for these minor story discussions to be scripted to ensure there is actually some level of debate. Its pretty much Skip Bayless's job to come out and take whatever contrarian position the production staff can think up.
Proving my point about ESPN making a living talking about things they know nothing about ;)
Quote from: AWegrzyn17 on February 28, 2012, 10:23:28 PM
In Katz defense, who knows if he had a producer in his ear telling him what position to take on this issue. I think it is pretty common for these minor story discussions to be scripted to ensure there is actually some level of debate. Its pretty much Skip Bayless's job to come out and take whatever contrarian position the production staff can think up.
I doubt Katz, a "real" journalist before he became a TV yakker, wouldn't let a producer tell him what position to take. And if he did, that would be no defense at all.
Quote from: MU82 on February 29, 2012, 08:25:26 AM
I doubt Katz, a "real" journalist before he became a TV yakker, wouldn't let a producer tell him what position to take. And if he did, that would be no defense at all.
Is it annoying that "journalists" do this on TV all the time? Yes. Is it reality? Yes. Would I do it too if ESPN paid me a six figure salary to talk basketball? In a heartbeat.
Quote from: AWegrzyn17 on February 28, 2012, 10:23:28 PM
In Katz defense, who knows if he had a producer in his ear telling him what position to take on this issue. I think it is pretty common for these minor story discussions to be scripted to ensure there is actually some level of debate. Its pretty much Skip Bayless's job to come out and take whatever contrarian position the production staff can think up.
+1!!! Finally.
Han't anyone watched TV before? It doesn't make for a show if everyone knows the facts, recites the facts, and agrees on the facts. Remember Comp 101 at school - dilectic something or other - where you take opposing opinions. That's all it is here. Katz could give a shite. For that matter, Lunardi doesn't care either. They're just reading copy.