With Texas now 5-4 and with difficult games coming up against Michigan State and North Carolina, could this be Rick Barnes last year? Or too early to speculate?
I ask because we all know that if that position becomes available, a certain you-know-who will probably be one of the top names of replacements.
I'm done worrying about it. Buzz has given enough reason in recent years for me to believe he'll stay after not leaving for the likes of A&M, Oklahoma, and the SMU money. If he eventually goes, he goes, and we find a new guy. Right now I love this year's team and its promise and am going to enjoy watching them grow in the next 4 months.
Things have been crazy lately with conference re-alignment, so haven't gone through the whole "what will Buzz do next year," but as our conference disintegrates and if the Texas position opens, how could he not consider it?
If so, we should be thankful for the awesome run, focus on finding the next guy to lead us forward.
And be thankful we have a young, up and coming assistant on staff.....
Honestly, while I love Buzz and think he is a great coach.
I'm not certain Texas taps him if they do get rid of Barnes. They very well might, but they are a top tier team that could also go after more established names.
Texas has a very young team, so you should expect them to struggle. I do not see them firing Barnes yet.
Also, Texas' best player has yet to hit the floor. I don't think Barnes is going anywhere quite yet.
Quote from: speri on December 09, 2012, 03:34:58 PM
Also, Texas' best player has yet to hit the floor. I don't think Barnes is going anywhere quite yet.
+1
Barnes has earned a little more rope than to get canned after this year.
A bad year doesnt mean Barnes is gone...look how many years Crean got before he made what he promised a reality. ouch, that hurt my soul to type that.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on December 09, 2012, 04:24:08 PM
+1
Barnes has earned a little more rope than to get canned after this year.
Yep. Texas has all frosh and sophs with no juniors and the 2 seniors are lucky to see the court. Barnes has time.
Quote from: forgetful on December 09, 2012, 01:52:17 PM
Honestly, while I love Buzz and think he is a great coach.
I'm not certain Texas taps him if they do get rid of Barnes. They very well might, but they are a top tier team that could also go after more established names.
I do not believe there would be many more well-established names than Buzz Williams -- who has won a ton of games at a good Big East school while exceeding the accomplishments of pretty much every predecessor not named Al.
Unless a Coach K or a Roy or a Cal suddenly decides he'd rather be at Texas -- not too likely, huh? -- who would be a "more established name" than Buzz, who also happens to be from the state and has recruited there?
Jim Calhoun is the only guy I can even think of, and one would think a school like Texas would prefer a coach younger than Methuselah.
Shaka.
Quote from: buzzchiapet on December 09, 2012, 07:48:47 PM
Shaka.
Shaka is an "established name" and Buzz isn't? Wow.
I think he meant Shaka to replace Buzz. No?
And it MU loses 12 games this year, you think Texas jumps at Buzz?
Hiring an established coach is about having an emotional reaction to someone that did well their last five games. See John Groce oh sweet Sixteen Ohio and now Ill. Most of the time it doesn't work out as they bought at the high. Something it does, again see John Groce again (maybe?)
Would Josh Pastner be an option for Texas? Buzz has a slightly better resume right now, but Pastner might have better connections in Texas than even Buzz, and is arguably a better recruiter.
Quote from: GoldenZebra on December 09, 2012, 04:28:53 PM
A bad year doesnt mean Barnes is gone...look how many years Crean got before he made what he promised a reality. ouch, that hurt my soul to type that.
That's a really poor comparison on many levels.
Quote from: MU82 on December 09, 2012, 07:45:46 PM
I do not believe there would be many more well-established names than Buzz Williams -- who has won a ton of games at a good Big East school while exceeding the accomplishments of pretty much every predecessor not named Al.
Unless a Coach K or a Roy or a Cal suddenly decides he'd rather be at Texas -- not too likely, huh? -- who would be a "more established name" than Buzz, who also happens to be from the state and has recruited there?
Jim Calhoun is the only guy I can even think of, and one would think a school like Texas would prefer a coach younger than Methuselah.
You're likely correct. My initial instinct was there had to be others out there, but when I try to come up with some I come up empty handed.
I do agree with others though that Barnes will be given some more leash. If he doesn't perform next year though, I think that could do him in.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 09, 2012, 11:04:19 PM
That's a really poor comparison on many levels.
Agreed. The situation was completely different at Indiana. Crean didn't really have any expectations coming in.
I don't see why you'd take the Texas job if you were Buzz.
1) Successfully recruiting Texas is a trait that, outside of Texas, schools will pay for. Anyone coaching the Longhorns gets their pick of top in-state talent. Buzz's Texas recruiting prowess is a differentiator in the Big East, but won't be at UT.
2) Way less control than he has now over his program.... football is king especially in Texas.
3) He'd take a pay cut
4) His assistants would take a pay cut
5) His program would take a cut in investment compared to MU http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/news/2012/03/13/many-top-ncaa-tournament-teams-spent.html
I can see that if you grow up cheering for UT there might be a personal goal to coach there. If so, God Bless Buzz I hope he gets the job; he'd be giving up a ton for it.
Quote from: sixstrings03 on December 10, 2012, 12:15:21 PM
I don't see why you'd take the Texas job if you were Buzz.
1) Successfully recruiting Texas is a trait that, outside of Texas, schools will pay for. Anyone coaching the Longhorns gets their pick of top in-state talent. Buzz's Texas recruiting prowess is a differentiator in the Big East, but won't be at UT.
2) Way less control than he has now over his program.... football is king especially in Texas.
3) He'd take a pay cut
4) His assistants would take a pay cut
5) His program would take a cut in investment compared to MU http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/news/2012/03/13/many-top-ncaa-tournament-teams-spent.html
I can see that if you grow up cheering for UT there might be a personal goal to coach there. If so, God Bless Buzz I hope he gets the job; he'd be giving up a ton for it.
The only thing holding back Texas is Rick Barnes. Simply, Texas has a much higher ceiling than MU.
With the right coach, Texas could be a basketball power at a football school, similar to Florida.
Quote from: sixstrings03 on December 10, 2012, 12:15:21 PM
I don't see why you'd take the Texas job if you were Buzz.
1) Successfully recruiting Texas is a trait that, outside of Texas, schools will pay for. Anyone coaching the Longhorns gets their pick of top in-state talent. Buzz's Texas recruiting prowess is a differentiator in the Big East, but won't be at UT.
2) Way less control than he has now over his program.... football is king especially in Texas.
3) He'd take a pay cut
4) His assistants would take a pay cut
5) His program would take a cut in investment compared to MU http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/news/2012/03/13/many-top-ncaa-tournament-teams-spent.html
I can see that if you grow up cheering for UT there might be a personal goal to coach there. If so, God Bless Buzz I hope he gets the job; he'd be giving up a ton for it.
I hope that you are right, but this really seems like wishful thinking to me. If Texas replaces Barnes, it seems to me that they will be in a very favorable position to provide any coach that they choose to pursue with what ever program enhancements that coach would want, and would be inclined to do so. Both the financial ability to upgrade and the inclination to do so should be supplied by the Longhorn Network.
Quote from: MU82 on December 09, 2012, 07:54:53 PM
Shaka is an "established name" and Buzz isn't? Wow.
No. Im saying I think Texas would look at Shaka and he would leave for Texas. Texas would obviously look at Buzz as well.
Let's just get this over now. Fire Buzz and let the Jerry Wainwright era begin!!!!
Maybe it's just me, but I'm not at all sold on Shaka at the high major level. It seems a lot of his success comes from scrappiness and disruption. He thrives with those underrated energy types (much like Buzz, but without a pro-style offense). I haven't seen near enough to believe he can recruit at a BCS level, which requires the ability to get guys into te league, at least if you're talking about a Texas type job. He might be young and exciting, but 4 wins in March, even as impressive as that run was, doesn't automatically mean you'll have success at a true high-major.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 10, 2012, 01:52:59 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I'm not at all sold on Shaka at the high major level. It seems a lot of his success comes from scrappiness and disruption. He thrives with those underrated energy types (much like Buzz, but without a pro-style offense). I haven't seen near enough to believe he can recruit at a BCS level, which requires the ability to get guys into te league, at least if you're talking about a Texas type job. He might be young and exciting, but 4 wins in March, even as impressive as that run was, doesn't automatically mean you'll have success at a true high-major.
Young and exciting often does well in recruiting. I think he would do very well recruiting wise at a school like Texas.
The State of TEXAS had 4 5 star player in both 2012 and 2013 and 9 (2012) 7 (2013) 4 star player's. That is why Buzz would go.
Big question for Buzz is whether his system and style would work with 5 star guys.....
Quote from: Nukem2 on December 10, 2012, 02:16:57 PM
Big question for Buzz is whether his system and style would work with 5 star guys.....
Ahh...yes....if the guy can take 2-3 star players and get them to the league....chances are he'd stand a great chance at getting the 5 star guys. Buzz's players love playing for him. It's wishful thinking to think that because he pushes guys hard, they wouldn't want to play for him. Most 5 stars didn't become 5 stars without having a good work ethic as it is..
If Buzz were coach at Texas he would land 4 and 5 star studs. If he can recruit the way he does here I would think much higher ceiling at Texas. Lets hope Barnes turns things around and then no need to discuss that opening.
Quote from: Goose on December 10, 2012, 03:19:57 PM
If Buzz were coach at Texas he would land 4 and 5 star studs. If he can recruit the way he does here I would think much higher ceiling at Texas. Lets hope Barnes turns things around and then no need to discuss that opening.
Yep....and he'd be able to do it with probably 75% less effort than he has to expend at MU. That's why the argument that MU will be fine with any coach, simply because MU spends so much on the basketball program/recruiting/etc., that by virtue of that alone, MU will land players. The reality is, is that most big time programs have a big budget for their basketball coach to recruit with...a lot more challenging to recruit to Marquette than say Texas, or Indiana for that matter - hell look what Crean is doing at IU...he's getting all kinds of guys he'd finish the bridesmaid for at MU.
Quote from: Ners on December 10, 2012, 03:40:06 PM
Yep....and he'd be able to do it with probably 75% less effort than he has to expend at MU. That's why the argument that MU will be fine with any coach, simply because MU spends so much on the basketball program/recruiting/etc., that by virtue of that alone, MU will land players. The reality is, is that most big time programs have a big budget for their basketball coach to recruit with...a lot more challenging to recruit to Marquette than say Texas, or Indiana for that matter - hell look what Crean is doing at IU...he's getting all kinds of guys he'd finish the bridesmaid for at MU.
He's getting all kinds of kids at IU because Indiana is loaded with talent, the state that is. Plus they are one of the blue bloods in this country. It doesn't hurt that he landed a bunch of NBA guys at MU as well...sure he finished bridesmaid, but also landed 7 NBA guys here. Mbakwe (he'll get drafted for 2013), Diener, Wade, Hayward, Novak, McNeal and Matthews. I don't disagree with you that it is harder to recruit at MU, but Crean proved it can be done and so did K.O. and Buzz. Three of the previous four coaches have recruited well at MU....6 of the previous 8 coaches if we go back far enough.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 10, 2012, 03:47:28 PM
He's getting all kinds of kids at IU because Indiana is loaded with talent, the state that is. Plus they are one of the blue bloods in this country. It doesn't hurt that he landed a bunch of NBA guys at MU as well...sure he finished bridesmaid, but also landed 6 NBA guys here. Mbakwe, Diener, Wade, Hayward, Novak, McNeal. I don't disagree with you that it is harder to recruit at MU, but Crean proved it can be done and so did K.O. and Buzz. Three of the previous four coaches have recruited well at MU....6 of the previous 8 coaches if we go back far enough.
All true...but generally it was very hard for TC to stack back to back to back really strong recruiting classes together...as he is now doing at IU...which is what it takes to be a consistent, year in, year out National Championship contender. Yes, Indiana has more hoops talent than WI, but he's also getting kids from Oak Hill Academy, and others outside the state. A huge reason he left MU for IU was because he felt it would be easier to land players/easier to consistently compete for National Championships at IU...and I certainly don't fault him for that...and his recruiting and on court results are showing as much..
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 10, 2012, 03:47:28 PM
He's getting all kinds of kids at IU because Indiana is loaded with talent, the state that is. Plus they are one of the blue bloods in this country. It doesn't hurt that he landed a bunch of NBA guys at MU as well...sure he finished bridesmaid, but also landed 6 NBA guys here. Mbakwe, Diener, Wade, Hayward, Novak, McNeal.
Does Mbakwe play for his NBA team in between his Gopher games?
TC is doing something at IU that he never could have done at MU. I give him credit for putting himself in that situation. Recruiting IU vs recruiting MU is not even a debate. I would add if Buzz were at blue blood school or in a recruiting hotbed he would be picking kids and not chasing kids. For him to recruit at the level he has at MU is beyond surprising to me. TC worked his ass off recruiting for MU and always was in the running for kids and kudo's for that. If Buzz were at Texas he would have top ten classes on regular basis with a lot less work to do so.
No question the recruiting would be easier...the thing, though, is wether Buzz could get buy in from these guys for his style...Buzz is not going to change........
Nobody knows whether Buzz would be able to land five-star guys at a bigger program, or how he would fare with those guys.
Certainly the college hoops landscape is littered with examples of guys who made that kind of jump and crashed, i.e. Billy Clyde Gillispie, Tommy Amaker, Trent Johnson, Matt Doherty, Dan Monson, etc.
Let's hope we don't have to find out.
Pakuni
Of course no one say with complete certainty that Buzz or anyone can land five stars. IMO his track record at MU would be basis for a Texas or another top school to believe he could land them. One thing is for certain, you have to work pretty damn hard to outwork Buzz and that is why he is great candidate for an job. In addition, the kids love him.
Quote from: Nukem2 on December 10, 2012, 04:09:46 PM
No question the recruiting would be easier...the thing, though, is wether Buzz could get buy in from these guys for his style...Buzz is not going to change........
Do you think all 5-stars somehow have less work ethic or drive than 2-3 stars? Buzz's players pretty much swear by him, would run through a wall for him...regardless of star rating.
What about Buzz's style makes you think a 5-star wouldn't buy in?
Quote from: Goose on December 10, 2012, 04:32:27 PM
Pakuni
Of course no one say with complete certainty that Buzz or anyone can land five stars. IMO his track record at MU would be basis for a Texas or another top school to believe he could land them. One thing is for certain, you have to work pretty damn hard to outwork Buzz and that is why he is great candidate for an job. In addition, the kids love him.
I'm not suggesting anything different. Just pointing out that several guys have landed at big schools with similar track records and, for a variety of reasons, flopped.
Failing to land five-stars, IMO, wouldn't be an issue for Buzz. Coaching kids who view themselves - sometimes correctly - as NBA ready, and college basketball as a brief and mandatory detour on their way to the pros, could be.
All I know is I hope to hell we never find out if Buzz can recruit 5 stars at Texas or anywhere else.
Here is something that makes MU more attractive than Texas - although Texas draws fairly well at home in Austin - but this was pretty bad:
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger/struggling-ucla-texas-play-inside-nearly-empty-reliant-003412765--ncaab.html
Quote from: Ners on December 10, 2012, 04:36:24 PM
Do you think all 5-stars somehow have less work ethic or drive than 2-3 stars? Buzz's players pretty much swear by him, would run through a wall for him...regardless of star rating.
What about Buzz's style makes you think a 5-star wouldn't buy in?
It's not a matter less work ethic, it's a matter of being a different kind of player/person.
Buzz has succeeded largely by landing overlooked kids who come in with a chip on their shoulder knowing the
only way they'll succeed is by outworking everyone else, because they can't do it on talent alone. An athletic 6-foot-10 McDonald's AA projected as a lottery pick since his junior year of high school isn't going to arrive on campus with the same attitude. It's literally impossible for him to have the same attitude.
This doesn't mean the kid will or won't gel with Buzz. Just that it's a different dynamic, the result of which is not necessarily predictable.
I'd suggest the "run through a wall for him" says as much about the type of person Buzz recruits as it does about what Buzz does to them once they get on campus.
You clowns are fucking kidding yourselves if you think Buzz would have trouble attracting, or motivating, five star talent in Austin or any other higher class program than Marquette.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 10, 2012, 04:03:34 PM
Does Mbakwe play for his NBA team in between his Gopher games?
And has McNeal played a minute in the NBA?
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on December 10, 2012, 05:11:09 PM
You clowns are fracking kidding yourselves if you think Buzz would have trouble attracting, or motivating, five star talent in Austin or any other higher class program than Marquette.
... said absolutely no one.
Quote from: Pakuni on December 10, 2012, 05:29:46 PM
... said absolutely no one.
Then can you clarify what the point of this post was??
Quote from: Pakuni on December 10, 2012, 04:52:25 PM
It's not a matter less work ethic, it's a matter of being a different kind of player/person.
Buzz has succeeded largely by landing overlooked kids who come in with a chip on their shoulder knowing the only way they'll succeed is by outworking everyone else, because they can't do it on talent alone. An athletic 6-foot-10 McDonald's AA projected as a lottery pick since his junior year of high school isn't going to arrive on campus with the same attitude. It's literally impossible for him to have the same attitude.
This doesn't mean the kid will or won't gel with Buzz. Just that it's a different dynamic, the result of which is not necessarily predictable.
I'd suggest the "run through a wall for him" says as much about the type of person Buzz recruits as it does about what Buzz does to them once they get on campus.
Which was basically in response to the original premise and post of Nukem
Quote from: Nukem2 on December 10, 2012, 04:09:46 PM
No question the recruiting would be easier...the thing, though, is wether Buzz could get buy in from these guys for his style...Buzz is not going to change........
Quote from: Ners on December 10, 2012, 06:00:36 PM
Then can you clarify what the point of this post was??
Which was basically in response to the original premise and post of Nukem
Really?
You need clarification of the statement:
"Just that it's a different dynamic, the result of which is not necessarily predictable."
OK. I'll go s-l-o-w.
It is not known how Buzz would fare with NBA ready/bound McDonald's AAs.
It is not known because he's never coached NBA ready/bound McDonald's AAs.
"It is not known" does not mean he would or would not succeed. It does not mean he would have trouble. It means "it is not known."
Clear enough?
Now, perhaps I simply lack your omniscience when it comes to these things. But until proven otherwise, I stand by my statement. And, please, try to keep up.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 10, 2012, 03:47:28 PM
He's getting all kinds of kids at IU because Indiana is loaded with talent, the state that is. Plus they are one of the blue bloods in this country. It doesn't hurt that he landed a bunch of NBA guys at MU as well...sure he finished bridesmaid, but also landed 6 NBA guys here. Mbakwe, Diener, Wade, Hayward, Novak, McNeal.
Mbakwe is still in College (Minnesota). I do not believe McNeal has played a minute in the NBA.
On the other side you forgot to mention Matthews.
Other than that, this is a pretty good list.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 10, 2012, 04:03:34 PM
Does Mbakwe play for his NBA team in between his Gopher games?
:D I'm going out on a limb that sure as water is wet, he will be in the Association next year. Well, at least he has the talent. Unfortunately for him he finds himself in trouble a lot which may get in the way, but I'll go on a limb and say he makes it. All three mock draft sites that are "semi-relevant" have him going early second round.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 10, 2012, 05:14:16 PM
And has McNeal played a minute in the NBA?
Three games, all preseason. He has also signed a contract, which by NBA stats means he is an official NBA player, he just doesn't have an official stat line but was on a NBA roster.
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/jerel_mcneal/
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/raptors-sign-g-jerel-mcneal-191140808--nba.html
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on December 10, 2012, 06:31:56 PM
Mbakwe is still in College (Minnesota). I do not believe McNeal has played a minute in the NBA.
On the other side you forgot to mention Matthews.
Other than that, this is a pretty good list.
You are right, how I forgot Matthews is crazy...I'll go edit.
Preseason games now count as being an NBA player?
Trevor might not be as sure as you think.....bad character history, knee trouble and has the size of an NBA 3 but the skill set of an NBA 4/5.
Throw in that he is soon to be 24 years old trying to break into a league that typically drafts guys on potential
Might make it but hardly a sure thing.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 10, 2012, 06:53:16 PM
Yes. He is an official NBA player. Played in 3 games....two in 2009-10 and one last year.
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/jerel_mcneal/
McNeal has played in three
preseason games per NBA.com. Maybe some disagree, but I think until he plays a regular season minute, he's not a NBA player.
Quote from: Pakuni on December 10, 2012, 06:11:37 PM
Really?
You need clarification of the statement:
"Just that it's a different dynamic, the result of which is not necessarily predictable."
OK. I'll go s-l-o-w.
It is not known how Buzz would fare with NBA ready/bound McDonald's AAs.
It is not known because he's never coached NBA ready/bound McDonald's AAs.
"It is not known" does not mean he would or would not succeed. It does not mean he would have trouble. It means "it is not known."
Clear enough?
Now, perhaps I simply lack your omniscience when it comes to these things. But until proven otherwise, I stand by my statement. And, please, try to keep up.
I have no desire to "keep up," with your dimwit pretzel logic. So just to clarify: You have questions/hesitations as to if Buzz could recruit and be successful with 5-star players at a place like Texas - all based on the fact that Buzz has never had 5-star talent to work with, and by your assumption because they are 5 star talent they may not "come in with a chip on their shoulder knowing they'll have to outwork everyone else?" Okay.
If you would, try to make a relevant and valid point every once in awhile...you are in big slump of late.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 10, 2012, 06:53:16 PM
Three games, all preseason. He has also signed a contract, which by NBA stats means he is an official NBA player, he just doesn't have an official stat line but was on a NBA roster.
Just as auditing a 1 hour music appreciation class can "technically" make one an MU alum (something I learned from you) so (I guess) can signing a contract but never playing a minute make one "technically" an NBA player. Of course any real alum or NBA player would fall over laughing at the claim, but what do they know?
Quote from: Ners on December 10, 2012, 07:57:25 PM
I have no desire to "keep up," with your dimwit pretzel logic. So just to clarify: You have questions/hesitations as to if Buzz could recruit and be successful with 5-star players at a place like Texas - all based on the fact that Buzz has never had 5-star talent to work with, and by your assumption because they are 5 star talent they may not "come in with a chip on their shoulder knowing they'll have to outwork everyone else?" Okay.
If you would, try to make a relevant and valid point every once in awhile...you are in big slump of late.
Oh, irony.
Quote from: Ners on December 10, 2012, 07:57:25 PM
I have no desire to "keep up," with your dimwit pretzel logic. So just to clarify: You have questions/hesitations as to if Buzz could recruit and be successful with 5-star players at a place like Texas - all based on the fact that Buzz has never had 5-star talent to work with, and by your assumption because they are 5 star talent they may not "come in with a chip on their shoulder knowing they'll have to outwork everyone else?" Okay.
I think Pakuni has a point. Ben Howland succeeded at Pitt by doing much of the same thing Buzz is doing now...recruiting second and third-tier talent and "busting their balls." Everyone thought he would succeed at UCLA - imagine the talent that UCLA gets meshing with Howland's coaching ability!!!!
Well it hasn't quite worked out that way.
So maybe it works...maybe it doesn't. So for Pakuni to say "it is not known," I think that is a very valid statement to make.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 11, 2012, 07:49:38 AM
I think Pakuni has a point. Ben Howland succeeded at Pitt by doing much of the same thing Buzz is doing now...recruiting second and third-tier talent and "busting their balls." Everyone thought he would succeed at UCLA - imagine the talent that UCLA gets meshing with Howland's coaching ability!!!!
Well it hasn't quite worked out that way.
So maybe it works...maybe it doesn't. So for Pakuni to say "it is not known," I think that is a very valid statement to make.
It is known.
Every big school that hires a successful coach from a small school/small conference thinks: "He will be even better when he has a larger budget and bigger name to sell."
It's never guaranteed. Lots of factors. Lots of variables. Lots of examples of coach's who didn't improve with a bigger name and bigger budget.
Now, this is not a direct commentary upon Buzz and UT, but rather the notion that it's simply a lock that Buzz would automatically be more successful at UT.
Quote from: MuMark on December 10, 2012, 06:59:27 PM
Preseason games now count as being an NBA player?
Trevor might not be as sure as you think.....bad character history, knee trouble and has the size of an NBA 3 but the skill set of an NBA 4/5.
Throw in that he is soon to be 24 years old trying to break into a league that typically drafts guys on potential
Might make it but hardly a sure thing.
Signing a contract with a team is what counts. If you are the backup QB on the Green Bay Packers and you never play one snap, are you not a NFL player?
I spoke to my guy over at Elias Sports Bureau today and asked the simple question...when is a player considered officially in the league (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, etc). He laughed..."when he signs a contract and is on a roster. period. He can never get an at bat, never play a minute, never take a snap, but at that point he is officially in the league and recognized as such"
Sorry this disappoints so many of you that one of our guys made the NBA with all his hard work and you don't want to acknowledge that because he got into a game. Fact is, the NBA acknowledges it and we should as well. Strange that some here don't.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 11, 2012, 08:29:23 AM
Based on????
Sorry. My post really had nothing to do with the comment.
Its a quote... I won't go into it since it is stupid.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 11, 2012, 07:49:38 AM
I think Pakuni has a point. Ben Howland succeeded at Pitt by doing much of the same thing Buzz is doing now...recruiting second and third-tier talent and "busting their balls." Everyone thought he would succeed at UCLA - imagine the talent that UCLA gets meshing with Howland's coaching ability!!!!
Well it hasn't quite worked out that way.
So maybe it works...maybe it doesn't. So for Pakuni to say "it is not known," I think that is a very valid statement to make.
Well hopefully Buzz stays at MU for another 5 years, and we can see what he does with next year's class of 4, 4-star talents. If I were a betting man, I'd go heavy that Buzz would do even better if he had consistent classes of 4 and 5 star talent. The Howland example is a good one - so I'll give you that. Nonetheless, I get the feeling players relate to Buzz a little better than a guy like Howland...
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 11, 2012, 07:49:38 AM
I think Pakuni has a point. Ben Howland succeeded at Pitt by doing much of the same thing Buzz is doing now...recruiting second and third-tier talent and "busting their balls." Everyone thought he would succeed at UCLA - imagine the talent that UCLA gets meshing with Howland's coaching ability!!!!
Well it hasn't quite worked out that way.
So maybe it works...maybe it doesn't. So for Pakuni to say "it is not known," I think that is a very valid statement to make.
I think calling out Howland is a stretch.
Howland did very well energizing the program early on in reaching three Final Fours in consecutive years. Recruited some ridiculous NBA talent. Once revived, Adidas sniffed the return of a sleeping giant and has forced some bad kids on him of late these past four seasons.
Even very good coaches can't overcome every obstacle in their path. I'd still say Howland has succeeded at UCLA. Then again, in today's society, memory is short and accomplishments are always attained with an asterisk so no surprise some feel he has failed.
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on December 11, 2012, 09:07:18 AM
I think calling out Howland is a stretch.
Howland did very well energizing the program early on in reaching three Final Fours in consecutive years. Recruited some ridiculous NBA talent. Once revived, Adidas sniffed the return of a sleeping giant and has forced some bad kids on him of late these past four seasons.
Even very good coaches can't overcome every obstacle in their path. I'd still say Howland has succeeded at UCLA. Then again, in today's society, memory is short and accomplishments are always attained with an asterisk so no surprise some feel he has failed.
How about some other examples I mentioned, like Billy Gillespie or Trent Johnson?
Given his success at UTEP and Texas A&M, and his pedigree as a longtime Bill Self guy, nobody thought he'd flop with greater resources and more talent at Kentucky. But he did flop, and flop spectacularly.
And Johnson, after having success at Nevada and Stanford, went to a bigger program with greater resources, a better tradition of success and a far better recruiting base (lots of talent in Louisiana and East Texas), but couldn't come close to replicating his success.
In no way am I suggesting Buzz
wouldn't succeed at a place like Texas. Just that we don't know what would happen.
Quote from: Pakuni on December 11, 2012, 09:46:57 AM
How about some other examples I mentioned, like Billy Gillespie or Trent Johnson?
Given his success at UTEP and Texas A&M, and his pedigree as a longtime Bill Self guy, nobody thought he'd flop with greater resources and more talent at Kentucky. But he did flop, and flop spectacularly.
And Johnson, after having success at Nevada and Stanford, went to a bigger program with greater resources, a better tradition of success and a far better recruiting base (lots of talent in Louisiana and East Texas), but couldn't come close to replicating his success.
In no way am I suggesting Buzz wouldn't succeed at a place like Texas. Just that we don't know what would happen.
Right.
And, if you want to lower the bar down, look at guys like Mike Deane or Jerry Wainwright. I'm sure both DePaul and MU thought those coaches would be able to raise their own recruiting profile and success with a larger program, better market, and more money.
Didn't exactly happen that way.
Buzz Williams MIGHT be awesome at UT... but it's not a lock.
Quote from: Pakuni on December 11, 2012, 09:46:57 AM
How about some other examples I mentioned, like Billy Gillespie or Trent Johnson?
Billy Gillespie had an alchohol problem that progressed until it did him in. Other than 1 year with the Lopez twins (28-8, Sweet 16), Johnson was a .500 coach at Nevada/Stanford (106-105). Given that resume, a 67-62 record at LSU shouldn't surprise anyone - he was just never that good.
I think McDonald's Americans do have a different attitude and Buzz would have to adjust his coaching style to be successful with them. The more talent you have the faster it turns over (see Kentucky) and you keep starting over. It is the equivalent of breaking several thoroughbred race horses every year. By the time you get them trained they are moving on. Given Buzz's statement about freshmen not getting it, it would be hard to imagine Buzz wanting to coach a Kentucky type team every year. It just does not seem to fit his personality. From that standpoint it would not fit Bo Ryan's personality either.
I think we are all missing something. If Barnes gets canned this year because he struggled with a young team, then Texas is unstable. Barnes successor will last only a few seasons before he struggles and gets canned. It will be a revolving door.
Nova is correct to stick with Jay Wright. UNC was correct to not can Roy two years ago after they finished 16-16. Texas will stick with Barnes as it would hurt them long-term if they can him now.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 11, 2012, 10:25:58 AM
Billy Gillespie had an alchohol problem that progressed until it did him in.
Or, maybe his struggles and the pressure at Kentucky led to and/or exacerbated his drinking problem.
I have no idea. Neither do you.
QuoteOther than 1 year with the Lopez twins (28-8, Sweet 16), Johnson was a .500 coach at Nevada/Stanford (106-105). Given that resume, a 67-62 record at LSU shouldn't surprise anyone - he was just never that good.
Johnson took over a Nevada program that had been to the tournament only twice ever, the last time 15 years before his arrival. From there, he built a program that made four straight tourneys and produced multiple NBA players (Snyder, Fazekas, Sessions, etc.). Again, this was a program with virtually no tradition to speak of before he arrived, and he made it one that made regular tournament appearances and recruited NBA talent.
But yeah .... not good.
And enough with the ridiculous claim that a coach's accomplishments should be minimized if he wins with talented players. A coach's most important job is to recruit talented players. Johnson should be lauded for getting the Lopez twins to Stanford when they could have gone to any basketball power they wanted. Dismissing a coach's success because he has good players is stupid and misses the point of what being a college basketball coach is all about.
If having a roster with NBA talent minimizes a coach's success, ought we not be making less a big deal about Buzz's two Sweet Sixteens? That first team, after all, had at least three future NBA players on its roster.
I don't believe that we should do that, but your logic here and elsewhere (i.e. Crean w/out Wade) kinda dictates it.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on December 11, 2012, 09:59:25 AM
Right.
And, if you want to lower the bar down, look at guys like Mike Deane or Jerry Wainwright. I'm sure both DePaul and MU thought those coaches would be able to raise their own recruiting profile and success with a larger program, better market, and more money.
Didn't exactly happen that way.
Buzz Williams MIGHT be awesome at UT... but it's not a lock.
I'd bet on a guy who has accomplished 5 straight NCAA tournaments, and 2 consecutive Sweet 16's at MU to improve on that performance if he went to a Top 7 school in the country like UT. I'd never bet a whole lot on a low major coach, moving up to high major ranks to automatically consider they would continue the same level of success. It's a HUGE reach to think that. Totally different ball game. The competition for high major (Top 25 program recruits) is a hell of a lot stiffer, than it is recruiting for Siena, or UNC Wilmington or Richmond for that matter.
Quote from: Ners on December 11, 2012, 11:25:57 AM
I'd bet on a guy who has accomplished 5 straight NCAA tournaments, and 2 consecutive Sweet 16's at MU to improve on that performance if he went to a Top 7 school in the country like UT. I'd never bet a whole lot on a low major coach, moving up to high major ranks to automatically consider they would continue the same level of success. It's a HUGE reach to think that. Totally different ball game. The competition for high major (Top 25 program recruits) is a hell of a lot stiffer, than it is recruiting for Siena, or UNC Wilmington or Richmond for that matter.
That's right, it's different.
But, the idea that a coach will suddenly improve with a better school, athletic department, and more money is the same.
When Deane was hired, do you think Cords was hoping he would stay at the exact same level, or was MU betting with a promotion that Deane might even be better?
I don't say any of this as a knock on Buzz. I think he would be great at UT.
But, it's not without risk. Sometimes guys don't translate well for a variety of reasons.
Quote from: Pakuni on December 11, 2012, 11:18:04 AM
Or, maybe his struggles and the pressure at Kentucky led to and/or exacerbated his drinking problem.
I have no idea. Neither do you. Stop pretending otherwise.
Billy Clyde had an alcohol problem long prior to his arrival at UK...as someone who lives in Texas, and knows Texas, and knows a woman who dated Billy Clyde for awhile during his A&M days - Lenny is absolutely right, and you are absolutely wrong.
Tech rolled the dice on Billy Clyde because he is a West Texan...think the pressure at Tech also unraveled Billy - or once again did Billy's demons unvravel him...as they did at UK?
Quote from: Ners on December 11, 2012, 11:25:57 AM
I'd bet on a guy who has accomplished 5 straight NCAA tournaments, and 2 consecutive Sweet 16's at MU to improve on that performance if he went to a Top 7 school in the country like UT. I'd never bet a whole lot on a low major coach, moving up to high major ranks to automatically consider they would continue the same level of success. It's a HUGE reach to think that. Totally different ball game. The competition for high major (Top 25 program recruits) is a hell of a lot stiffer, than it is recruiting for Siena, or UNC Wilmington or Richmond for that matter.
Texas is not a top 7 school.
Texas has the same number of tournament appearances as Marquette, fewer Sweet Sixteens than Marquette, the same number of Final Fours as Marquette (and only one in the last 65 years) and fewer titles than Marquette.
Its size, resources and talent base make Texas a potentially better situation than MU, but they're far from the elite of college basketball.
Which of these four programs do you consider Texas better than:
Duke, North Carolina, Kansas, UCLA, Louisville, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan State, Syracuse, Arizona.
And, FWIW, Wainwright came to DePaul from Richmond, which is not a low major program.
Quote from: Ners on December 11, 2012, 11:33:21 AM
Billy Clyde had an alcohol problem long prior to his arrival at UK...as someone who lives in Texas, and knows Texas, and knows a woman who dated Billy Clyde for awhile during his A&M days - Lenny is absolutely right, and you are absolutely wrong.
Tech rolled the dice on Billy Clyde because he is a West Texan...think the pressure at Tech also unraveled Billy - or once again did Billy's demons unvravel him...as they did at UK?
You're trying to have it both ways.
You can't say he was a terrible drunk in Texas while having great success, and then say being the same terrible drunk in Kentucky is the reason he flopped.
Quote from: Pakuni on December 11, 2012, 11:43:36 AM
You're trying to have it both ways.
You can't say he was a terrible drunk in Texas while having great success, and then say being the same terrible drunk in Kentucky is the reason he flopped.
Ever heard of a functional alcoholic? Ever heard of someone having an addiction and issue, who's issue becomes more and more serious, and eventually derails them? It happens...sometimes a slow downward spiral, sometimes rapid, but always inevitable.
Quote from: Ners on December 11, 2012, 11:47:01 AM
Ever heard of a functional alcoholic? Ever heard of someone having an addiction and issue, who's issue becomes more and more serious, and eventually derails them? It happens...sometimes a slow downward spiral, sometimes rapid, but always inevitable.
Tell me more, Dr. Drew.
Fact is, you have no idea to what extent drinking played a role in Gillespie's failures at UK, or how much (or whether) the unique situation at UK played a part in exacerbating those problems. The record reflects that his problems there went far beyond drinking.
I know you like to pretend to know things you don't (like how Larry Williams was forcing Buzz to suspend players and how the Chicago Tribune was conspiring with DePaul to destroy Marquette), but you don't.
Quote from: Pakuni on December 11, 2012, 11:35:30 AM
Texas is not a top 7 school.
Texas has the same number of tournament appearances as Marquette, fewer Sweet Sixteens than Marquette, the same number of Final Fours as Marquette (and only one in the last 65 years) and fewer titles than Marquette.
Its size, resources and talent base make Texas a potentially better situation than MU, but they're far from the elite of college basketball.
Which of these four programs do you consider Texas better than:
Duke, North Carolina, Kansas, UCLA, Louisville, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan State, Syracuse, Arizona.
And, FWIW, Wainwright came to DePaul from Richmond, which is not a low major program.
Wainwright was 50-42 in 3 seasons at Richmond and 14-15 in his last. Richmond is not a high major program...it's a mid major. Wainwright was a Chicago guy, which is why DePaul took the chance on him.
Lastly, MU as an institution didn't get itself to the Sweet 16s, Final Four, National Championships...its coaches did. Period. Al. Tom. Buzz. Football is king at Texas, but you have a lot more talent to recruit in Texas, to the school that is the flagship school in the state, huge athletic budget/resources...so combine that platform, with a guy like Buzz who has done it at a school/state with a lot less to offer...in the way of talent/school draw appeal.
I'd make the argument that Texas has an equal if not greater upside than do Louisville, Arizona, and Syracuse. And just to be clear, the university doesn't set the "program," it's all a function of the head coach. All of the schools you listed have/have had an iconic, longstanding coach who set the course.
On another note - how do you invest your money?? Do you just keep it in CD's where you have a guaranteed rate of return? Because clearly, you have a very difficult time looking at trends/projecting into the future based on past performance, and evaluating basic fundamental foundations...
Just to put this one to bed once and for all. Since I have a weekly call with the sports leagues anyway, the timing was great with our call with the NBA today. Told them I had an interesting question to which they chuckled...."this sounds like someone is trying to win a bet." :D
Question: "When is a player in the NBA officially considered a NBA player by the NBA. If they play a preseason game? If they are on a regular season roster? Do they have to actually play a possession?"
Here was their response...this is directly from Brett Cicchillo and subsequently confirmed by Adam Silver (who is going to be the new David Stern after he retires next season).
"That person is considered an NBA player as he made the team.....regardless of whether he plays or not, he will still be in the records on a regular season roster. As long as you are on a regular season roster, you are a player......regardless of whether you ever played a minute. As long as you are on a roster, you are considered a NBA player. Nothing to do with playing time."
Jerel McNeal was on TWO regular season rosters by signing two 10 day contracts. According to the NBA, he is an NBA player.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 11, 2012, 12:02:20 PM
Just to put this one to bed once and for all. Since I have a weekly call with the sports leagues anyway, the timing was great with our call with the NBA today. Told them I had an interesting question to which they chuckled...."this sounds like someone is trying to win a bet." :D
Question: "When is a player in the NBA officially considered a NBA player by the NBA. If they play a preseason game? If they are on a regular season roster? Do they have to actually play a possession?"
Here was their response...this is directly from Brett Cicchillo and subsequently confirmed by Adam Silver (who is going to be the new David Stern after he retires next season).
"That person is considered an NBA player as he made the team.....regardless of whether he plays or not, he will still be in the records on a regular season roster. As long as you are on a regular season roster, you are a player......regardless of whether you ever played a minute. As long as you are on a roster, you are considered a NBA player. Nothing to do with playing time."
Jerel McNeal was on TWO regular season rosters by signing two 10 day contracts. According to the NBA, he is an NBA player.
Even when I agree with you, you're annoying.
Quote from: Pakuni on December 11, 2012, 11:55:55 AM
Tell me more, Dr. Drew.
Fact is, you have no idea to what extent drinking played a role in Gillespie's failures at UK, or how much (or whether) the unique situation at UK played a part in exacerbating those problems. The record reflects that his problems there went far beyond drinking.
I know you like to pretend to know things you don't (like how Larry Williams was forcing Buzz to suspend players and how the Chicago Tribune was conspiring with DePaul to destroy Marquette), but you don't.
YOU were the one who brought up Billy Gillespie. Using him as an example without any context (his alcoholism) is just plain stupid.
It also stupid to view coaching/recruiting without any context. Getting a once in a lifetime guy when your stiffest competition is Illinois St because BCS schools are prohibited from recruiting him carries an asterisk. I was at Richards High School when Tom Crean himself said that DWade would have crawled on his hands and knees through broken glass all the way to Bloomington to play at Indiana rather than go to Marquette. I'm sure the same thing applied to the 60 or so other BCS schools who couldn't take him.
I can't believe that one as articulate as you can sometimes be is so hostile to considering events/occurances in some sort of factual/historical context, but there you go.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 11, 2012, 12:02:20 PM
Just to put this one to bed once and for all. Since I have a weekly call with the sports leagues anyway, the timing was great with our call with the NBA today. Told them I had an interesting question to which they chuckled...."this sounds like someone is trying to win a bet." :D
Question: "When is a player in the NBA officially considered a NBA player by the NBA. If they play a preseason game? If they are on a regular season roster? Do they have to actually play a possession?"
Here was their response...this is directly from Brett Cicchillo and subsequently confirmed by Adam Silver (who is going to be the new David Stern after he retires next season).
"That person is considered an NBA player as he made the team.....regardless of whether he plays or not, he will still be in the records on a regular season roster. As long as you are on a regular season roster, you are a player......regardless of whether you ever played a minute. As long as you are on a roster, you are considered a NBA player. Nothing to do with playing time."
Jerel McNeal was on TWO regular season rosters by signing two 10 day contracts. According to the NBA, he is an NBA player.
Thank God, Chicos, that you "know a guy who knows a guy". Now we can all comfortably flush all common sense down the toilet and accept the preposterous idea that Jerel McNeal is not only an NBA player but a veteren of TWO franchises.
On a more important issue, can you put me in touch with someone who can get me into heaven on a technicality?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 11, 2012, 02:01:25 PM
Thank God, Chicos, that you "know a guy who knows a guy". Now we can all comfortably flush all common sense down the toilet and accept the preposterous idea that Jerel McNeal is not only an NBA player but a veteren of TWO franchises.
On a more important issue, can you put me in touch with someone who can get me into heaven on a technicality?
Nothing to do with knowing a guy that knows a guy. This is part of my job to work with these people on a daily basis. It is what it is.
No technicality, you guys were just wrong. You make a NBA roster in the regular season, you are a NBA player. Again, this is really strange that some of you have a problem with this. I can't help but think the reason why is very clear considering the group that is questioning whether he was a NBA player.
The guy reaches his dream of making the NBA, for however long, and you question it. When I was with the Angels and Ducks, we had guys come up for a cup of coffee that never got in to play and then sent back to the minors...some never got back up to the bigs. Guess what, they were Major Leaguers and NHL Players and recognized as such by MLB and the NHL...they made it to the Show and they are recognized in that special fraternity by the leagues themselves. Now you want to dismiss his achievement of making two NBA rosters as a technicality when the very leagues in question confirm your original interpretation was flat out wrong? Again, strange and sad. McNeal busted his arse to make it, just as those minor league ballplayers did. Sure it would have been great for him to get into a game, but he was in uniform, on the bench, ready to be called to play. Just like the 3rd string QB that may never play one snap all year long, he's still on a roster, still recognized by the only folks that matter...the leagues.
When he gets his NBA pension check each year (which for him will be very small because he only had two stints...about $306.34 per month) he will be reminded when that Jerry West logo appears on the check that he sure as hell was a NBA player. Along with the memories, the uniform, the stories (however brief) that he was in the Association. Good for him.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-25/sports/ct-spt-0626-nba-draft-fringe-prospect20110625_1_nba-lockout-marquette-free-agents
Somehow I doubt even Jerel thinks of himself as an NBA player.
Love the kid and it's nice he gets a pension(hard to believe this is true) but even MU isn't selling Jerel as one of its NBA players .....
You are spinning because you didn't realize when you posted the link that those were pre-season games.
Players play.....Jerel has never played in an NBA game.....being on a roster for a few games is nice....congrats to him.
ps. As I suspected you were wrong on the pension....Jerel has a long way to go to qualify for it
The N.B.A.'s pension program is seen as one of the most reliable in professional sports. A player qualifies — or becomes vested — for his pension after three seasons, when he is on a team's active roster for at least 50 percent of the season's games or is on the roster by Feb. 2 of that season, according to Tim Frank, a league spokesman. Players with 11 or more years of service retiring at age 62 would receive the federally mandated maximum annual benefit, $195,000.
Chicos,
You bring good info. Drop the "strange and sad" from your post(s).
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 11, 2012, 08:11:23 PM
Nothing to do with knowing a guy that knows a guy. This is part of my job to work with these people on a daily basis. It is what it is.
No technicality, you guys were just wrong. You make a NBA roster in the regular season, you are a NBA player. Again, this is really strange that some of you have a problem with this. I can't help but think the reason why is very clear considering the group that is questioning whether he was a NBA player.
The guy reaches his dream of making the NBA, for however long, and you question it. When I was with the Angels and Ducks, we had guys come up for a cup of coffee that never got in to play and then sent back to the minors...some never got back up to the bigs. Guess what, they were Major Leaguers and NHL Players and recognized as such by MLB and the NHL...they made it to the Show and they are recognized in that special fraternity by the leagues themselves. Now you want to dismiss his achievement of making two NBA rosters as a technicality when the very leagues in question confirm your original interpretation was flat out wrong? Again, strange and sad. McNeal busted his arse to make it, just as those minor league ballplayers did. Sure it would have been great for him to get into a game, but he was in uniform, on the bench, ready to be called to play. Just like the 3rd string QB that may never play one snap all year long, he's still on a roster, still recognized by the only folks that matter...the leagues.
When he gets his NBA pension check each year (which for him will be very small because he only had two stints...about $306.34 per month) he will be reminded when that Jerry West logo appears on the check that he sure as hell was a NBA player. Along with the memories, the uniform, the stories (however brief) that he was in the Association. Good for him.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-25/sports/ct-spt-0626-nba-draft-fringe-prospect20110625_1_nba-lockout-marquette-free-agents
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 11, 2012, 08:11:23 PM
No technicality, you guys were just wrong. You make a NBA roster in the regular season, you are a NBA player. Again, this is really strange that some of you have a problem with this. I can't help but think the reason why is very clear considering the group that is questioning whether he was a NBA player.
Just as an actor who's never appeared in a movie isn't a "movie actor", so a basketball player who's never appeared in an NBA game isn't an "NBA basketball player". Simple, common sense. The fact that you think people here are denying Jerel his status as an NBA guy because he played for Crean is paranoid and delusional.
McNeal is less of an NBA player than Adam Greenberg is an MLB player. At least Greenberg got hit in the head by a pitch in a game.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 12, 2012, 09:36:13 AM
Just as an actor who's never appeared in a movie isn't a "movie actor", so a basketball player who's never appeared in an NBA game isn't an "NBA basketball player". Simple, common sense. The fact that you think people here are denying Jerel his status as an NBA guy because he played for Crean is paranoid and delusional.
Lennys, I know this is hard for you to admit, but you are simply wrong and Chicos is correct. According to the NBA's standards, McNeal is/was an NBA player.
According to the NBA's collective bargaining agreement, any person who signs a uniform player contract with an NBA team is, by definition, an NBA player, at least for the duration of his contract.
So, regardless of what anyone else thinks, both the NBA and the NBA Players Association would define McNeal - at least for a brief time - as an NBA player.
https://www2.bc.edu/~yen/Sports/NBA%20CBA.pdf
McNeal probably got paid ~$40k to suit up and travel with two teams for 20 days. That's nice coin for his time. I'm sure he wishes it was for longer, but he was an NBA player for 20 days and I really hope he gets another call up, even if it's only a 10 day stint to ride the pine. One of my all time favorites.