Andy Glockner says no. We respond.
http://painttouches.com/2013/09/23/is-marquette-a-top-20-program/
Hard to argue with much of what he has to say-- it isn't that negative. Strotty makes a storng case in response, but it is hard to judge (as Strotty acknowledges) until we see who is ahead of MU. I would think that MU should be top 15 to 18, but we shall see...
Quote from: LloydMooresLegs on September 23, 2013, 06:16:10 PM
Hard to argue with much of what he has to say-- it isn't that negative. Strotty makes a storng case in response, but it is hard to judge (as Strotty acknowledges) until we see who is ahead of MU. I would think that MU should be top 15 to 18, but we shall see...
Strotty didn't write that one.
You have to almost ignore recent history to put UCLA in front of Marquette. On the other hand, their past is the gold standard for basketball programs.
Thank god that ability/inclination to land a four or five star big man wasn't a part of the criteria!
I'm having a really hard time coming up with 20 programs in front of MU. I also don't see the point in using hypotheticals to make your case.
Quote from: LittleMurs on September 23, 2013, 06:59:53 PM
You have to almost ignore recent history to put UCLA in front of Marquette. On the other hand, their past is the gold standard for basketball programs.
Thank god that ability/inclination to land a four or five star big man wasn't a part of the criteria!
How recent? UCLA has three Final Fours in the last 7 years and four conference championships....that seems pretty recent.
UCLA also has a good chance at recruiting a McDonals's all-american. The biggest argument I would have that MU is not a top 20 program is the fact that they virtually never have any interest from a potential McDonald's all-american. That might change in the future if Buzz can keep his success going, but right we have not been able to recruit a top 25 player.
Recent history doesn't mean anything. We are the only team from 2003 to not make it back to the final 4, I believe. What does that mean? Nothing.
My guess is his top 20 are in no order
Duke
NC
Kentucky
AZ
Kansas
Michigan
Michigan State
OSU
Wisconsin
IU
Florida
Louisville
Syracuse
Memphis
UConn
Gonzaga
Georgetown
Illinois
UCLA
Nova
15 seem pretty obvious to me....the last 5 or so could easily include Marquette but he has us at 21 or 22 which is no big slight
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 23, 2013, 07:47:47 PM
How recent? UCLA has three Final Fours in the last 7 years and four conference championships....that seems pretty recent.
I stand corrected.
Quote from: MuMark on September 23, 2013, 08:40:25 PM
My guess is his top 20 are in no order
Duke
NC
Kentucky
AZ
Kansas
Michigan
Michigan State
OSU
Wisconsin
IU
Florida
Louisville
Syracuse
Memphis
UConn
Gonzaga
Georgetown
Illinois
UCLA
Nova
15 seem pretty obvious to me....the last 5 or so could easily include Marquette but he has us at 21 or 22 which is no big slight
That seems to be the most likely. I have a tough time with Memphis, Illinois, Villanova and maybe Gonzaga.
I look at conference affiliation. We don't register when it comes to head-to-head against Big East teams. No one cares about our history when it comes to conferences. Just a fact.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 23, 2013, 07:47:47 PM
How recent? UCLA has three Final Fours in the last 7 years and four conference championships....that seems pretty recent.
True Dat. Its laughable to place UCLA behind MU.
I think we are omitted because of two things:
1. Glockner doesn't buy into the new Big East. (Though I think its funny that he counts it as a strength for Creighton)
2. He also believes that Buzz will leave after this season
Even with these possibilities I think we are a top 15 program in recent history. But I wear some mega blue and gold goggles
This the most asinine thing I have ever read. We've made 3 straight Sweet 16's and an Elite 8 and own the nation's SIXTH longest NCAA tourney appearance streak. And we made all those NCAA's playing in the nation's most difficult conference.
So he's not sold on the NBE...so his perception of current is heavily based on future? Even still, our recruiting class in 2013 was ranked 12th - so we have some future upside too. I just don't get this.
An awful lot in the article is based on Buzz's possible (perhaps even imminent) departure.
Quote from: MU82 on September 24, 2013, 09:50:19 AM
An awful lot in the article is based on Buzz's possible (perhaps even imminent) departure.
Which at this point is ridiculous. I'm not saying he stays, but he's turned down job after job for years. I know...none of those jobs were Texas, but they were Oklahoma, Oregon, Arkansas, and Texas A&M, all significantly larger schools with more money than Marquette has. And by the same token, Texas isn't Indiana, Duke, Kansas, or UNC.
Regardless, this program survived the loss of Crean and could survive the loss of Buzz. The budget, facilities, and proven track record of success over 2 coaches shows this program can succeed at a high level. With Buzz, we are definitely top-20, especially when you factor in future potential. Even without him, I still think you can argue us ahead of Maryland, Illinois, Gonzaga, and the other schools fighting for those last spots.
IMO we are somewhere between 15 and 20. I think we reached the top 20 (as a program) last year or the year before.
I'm kind of contradicting myself here, but maybe we shouldn't be in the top 20. Last year ESPN ranked their top 50 programs of all time. We were ranked 17th. I remember thinking "yep, that's about where we are at." That ranking was including when were dominant in the 70s. So if you take out the 70s, is it really that surprising that someone would perceive us as top 25 rather than top 20?
I guess I need to see the list of who's above us before I can make a judgement.
IF you take all the modern multiple tournament winners:
UCLA 11
Kentucky 8
Indiana 5
North Carolina 5
Duke 4
Connecticut 3 1
Kansas 3
Louisville 3
Florida 2
Michigan State 2
North Carolina State 2
(11 teams)
which means throwing out Oklahoma A&M, Cincy, and USF because they're not "modern" multiple winners,
Then add the "modern" single winners:
Syracuse
Maryland
Arizona
Arkansas
michigan
Villanova
NC State
Michigan State
Marquette
excluding UNLV, of course, because they "might" have cheated,
THEN you have the real TOP 20.
It's based on results... not based on if your coach might leave next year!
Eh, I don't think this is so bad. When ESPN put out it's 50 in 50, they had us at #17, which is probably about right. Glockner seems to have moved us down a few slots because of the uncertainty of the new conference and Buzz's future at MU. Whether there is anything to these concerns, I do think many national analysts view Marquette as having a lower ceiling than most of the programs that will be listed in the top 20.
Yes, in 2003, we made it to the Final Four and had a lottery pick who became a NBA superstar. We love to talk about our run of tournament appearances and sweet sixteens, but Memphis and Illinois have appeared in title games since our 2003 run. Villanova has a final four and a #1 seed since then. Gonzaga was ranked #1 going into the tournament last year. Yes, we have had good recruiting classes, but it's not like we are getting MD All-Americans. Just saying it's a close call and whether we come in #18 or #22 in one person's list doesn't really matter.
Memphis should be ahead of us. Illinois not at all
Quote from: jtbh6b1 on September 24, 2013, 10:46:07 AM
IF you take all the modern multiple tournament winners:
UCLA 11
Kentucky 8
Indiana 5
North Carolina 5
Duke 4
Connecticut 3 1
Kansas 3
Louisville 3
Florida 2
Michigan State 2
North Carolina State 2
(11 teams)
which means throwing out Oklahoma A&M, Cincy, and USF because they're not "modern" multiple winners,
Then add the "modern" single winners:
Syracuse
Maryland
Arizona
Arkansas
michigan
Villanova
NC State
Michigan State
Marquette
excluding UNLV, of course, because they "might" have cheated,
THEN you have the real TOP 20.
It's based on results... not based on if your coach might leave next year!
Modern to me would be champions after the tournament went to a field of 64.
Quote from: KenoshaWarrior on September 24, 2013, 11:10:52 AM
Memphis should be ahead of us. Illinois not at all
I don't think either should.
Pastner's future is just as big of a question mark as Buzz without as much proven success. They play in a worse conference and their program was built by a coach who is no longer there. Both schools have great fanbases and big budgets, but if Pastner leaves, I think that program is in worse shape than MU.
Yo Dre (in my best Easy-E voice), great article. Way to rep
disagree; Memphis has huge town support, have been good for over 30 years and has more recent big time success.
Illinois has no reason to be ahead of us.
Quote from: KenoshaWarrior on September 24, 2013, 11:44:46 AM
disagree; Memphis has huge town support, have been good for over 30 years and has more recent big time success.
Illinois has no reason to be ahead of us.
Illinois had 1690 wins vs MU's 1520 wins.
Quote from: bilsu on September 24, 2013, 12:05:48 PM
Illinois had 1690 wins vs MU's 1520 wins.
That means absolutely nothing. See list below indicating why...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_teams_with_the_most_victories_in_NCAA_Division_I_men's_college_basketball (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_teams_with_the_most_victories_in_NCAA_Division_I_men's_college_basketball)
Quote from: jtbh6b1 on September 24, 2013, 10:46:07 AM
IF you take all the modern multiple tournament winners:
UCLA 11
Kentucky 8
Indiana 5
North Carolina 5
Duke 4
Connecticut 3 1
Kansas 3
Louisville 3
Florida 2
Michigan State 2
North Carolina State 2
(11 teams)
which means throwing out Oklahoma A&M, Cincy, and USF because they're not "modern" multiple winners,
Then add the "modern" single winners:
Syracuse
Maryland
Arizona
Arkansas
michigan
Villanova
NC State
Michigan State
Marquette
excluding UNLV, of course, because they "might" have cheated,
THEN you have the real TOP 20.
It's based on results... not based on if your coach might leave next year!
You included Michigan St twice.
You left out Georgetown and our 1984 championship
These are the teams to win Championships going backwards from last year until we reach 20 teams:
Louisville
Kentucky
Uconn
Duke
UNC
Kansas
Florida
Syracuse
Maryland
Michigan St
Arizona
UCLA
Arkansas
UNLV
Michigan
Indiana
Villanova
Georgetown
NC St
Marquette
Ok just found 20-16
http://college-basketball.si.com/2013/09/24/college-basketballs-20-best-current-programs-16-20/ (http://college-basketball.si.com/2013/09/24/college-basketballs-20-best-current-programs-16-20/)
20. Gonzaga
19. Illinois
18. Michigan
17. Georgetown
16. Texas
Ok this list is a joke.
He really thinks the move to fox is a bad thing. And really doesn't think much of the Big East. I can't imagine Villanova being higher than Georgetown which would mean he doesn't even think they're in the top 35, but that seems even crazier so he must have Villanova higher than Georgetown.
Quote from: hoyasincebirth on September 24, 2013, 01:18:12 PM
Ok just found 20-16
http://college-basketball.si.com/2013/09/24/college-basketballs-20-best-current-programs-16-20/ (http://college-basketball.si.com/2013/09/24/college-basketballs-20-best-current-programs-16-20/)
20. Gonzaga
19. Illinois
18. Michigan
17. Georgetown
16. Texas
Ok this list is a joke.
He really thinks the move to fox is a bad thing. And really doesn't think much of the Big East. I can't imagine Villanova being higher than Georgetown which would mean he doesn't even think they're in the top 35, but that seems even crazier so he must have Villanova higher than Georgetown.
I can't imagine anyone from the New Big East being ahead of Georgetown. Which means that he thinks there is only 1 top 20 program in our conference....and only two others deserve honorable mentions. I suppose I shouldn't be this surprised
Quote from: windyplayer on September 24, 2013, 01:02:33 PM
That means absolutely nothing. See list below indicating why...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_teams_with_the_most_victories_in_NCAA_Division_I_men's_college_basketball (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_teams_with_the_most_victories_in_NCAA_Division_I_men's_college_basketball)
Illinois .650 winning percentage all-time vs MU's .622
Everything is arguable and I am not saying that Illinois should be ranked ahead of MU, but to say there is no reason that Illinois should be is a false statement.
Quote from: bilsu on September 24, 2013, 01:43:45 PM
Illinois .650 winning percentage all-time vs MU's .622
Everything is arguable and I am not saying that Illinois should be ranked ahead of MU, but to say there is no reason that Illinois should be is a false statement.
Gonzaga making the top 20 is a joke. They beat up on a bunch of nobodies in the conference and are lauded for it...and then they crash and burn in the NCAA Tournament.
Glockner is a known MU hater. He'll always deny it but it's true.
Absolutely false.....
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on September 24, 2013, 02:19:11 PM
Glockner is a known MU hater. He'll always deny it but it's true.
Quote from: MuMark on September 24, 2013, 02:26:48 PM
Absolutely false.....
Then show me his support. Because I've been on more than one twitter argument with him for saying negative things about MU.
Quote from: bilsu on September 24, 2013, 01:43:45 PM
Illinois .650 winning percentage all-time vs MU's .622
Everything is arguable and I am not saying that Illinois should be ranked ahead of MU, but to say there is no reason that Illinois should be is a false statement.
Michigan is the most winning team in football, but to put them ahead of Alabama, LSU, and Oregon as football programs is crazy
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on September 24, 2013, 02:30:13 PM
Then show me his support. Because I've been on more than one twitter argument with him for saying negative things about MU.
You're way off. He's been great with MU fans on there. He dubbed us "Team Bubble Watch" after his SI column in 2011, since that team was entertaining, and always played close games. He's been by far the most MU friendly of the national college hoops writers.
Here's a few links off of a quick search-
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_glockner/03/01/marquette.bubble/index.html
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_glockner/08/30/teams.luck/
http://painttouches.com/2013/03/23/twitter-reactions-to-marquettes-heart-attack-inducing-win-over-butler/picture-40-6/
http://painttouches.com/2013/03/09/twitter-reactions-to-marquettes-69-67-victory-over-st-johns/picture-45/
Why is everybody head over heels for team bubble watch label? I take it as insulting that he still calls us that. I mean the 09-10 and 10-11 years ok but last year lock, year before lock, 08-09 lock, 07-08 lock like why does two years permanently get us that? And why does that mean that it's suddenly ok because it was appropriate for two years.
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on September 24, 2013, 02:51:51 PM
Why is everybody head over heels for team bubble watch label? I take it as insulting that he still calls us that. I mean the 09-10 and 10-11 years ok but last year lock, year before lock, 08-09 lock, 07-08 lock like why does two years permanently get us that? And why does that mean that it's suddenly ok because it was appropriate for two years.
Nicknames stick. Simple as that. Certainly not an insult.
Also...as bad as seeing Gonzaga and Illinois on this list is, seeing Michigan on there is arguably worse. They are here because of ONE season. Yes, they went to the final this past year, but before that had earned 3 NCAA bids in 14 years without a single trip beyond the first weekend since 1994. Honestly, none of the first five teams can compete with the success Marquette has had over the past 5 years. Maybe Michigan has a brighter future, but no other school here can really claim they are trending upwards more so than MU. The only argument for Texas is if they steal our coach.
We outspend all these programs. Our facilities are on par with or better than most of them. Our on-court success is better than all of them save Michigan's one run, and one or two years does not a program make (otherwise Butler should be in the top-10). And I'd take our coach over any of theirs.
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on September 24, 2013, 02:51:51 PM
Why is everybody head over heels for team bubble watch label? I take it as insulting that he still calls us that. I mean the 09-10 and 10-11 years ok but last year lock, year before lock, 08-09 lock, 07-08 lock like why does two years permanently get us that? And why does that mean that it's suddenly ok because it was appropriate for two years.
In Buzz's 5 years our seeds have been: 6, 6, 11, 3 and 3. I think in Crean's last 3 three years we were a 7, 8 and a 6. That's 9 straight years in the tournament and only one year as the lower seed in game one. I don't "team bubble watch" is insulting but it's inaccurate.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on September 24, 2013, 03:48:41 PM
In Buzz's 5 years our seeds have been: 6, 6, 11, 3 and 3. I think in Crean's last 3 three years we were a 7, 8 and a 6. That's 9 straight years in the tournament and only one year as the lower seed in game one. I don't "team bubble watch" is insulting but it's inaccurate.
It isn't because of the circumstances. In Buzz's second year, we were the epitome of a bubble team. On January 24, we were 2-5 in conference play with 4/5 losses to top-10 teams (missing resume-builder chances) and losing those 5 by a combined 11 points. We were squarely on the bubble on February 18 when we lost to Pitt before reeling off three straight overtime road wins. General consensus was that we didn't come off the bubble until March 2 when we beat Louisville, though we made it interesting by losing to Notre Dame in the season finale. Most bracketologists had us in the field, but the 6-seed shocked most everyone. As I recall, most expected us to be in the 9-11 range.
The year after that, we lost all 4 of our marquee non-con match-ups and were always within 2 games of being .500 in conference before finishing 9-9. If we don't beat Providence and WVU in the Big East Tournament, we probably would have missed the field and Buzz's first Sweet 16 run never would have happened, thanks to 14 losses coming into Selection Sunday.
I believe Glockner started doing his "Bubble Watch" feature in 2009, so the first two years he did it we were the poster children for the weekly feature on SI.com. The past two years we've overachieved our TBW nickname, but hopefully anyone who doesn't understand where it came from or why it was completely apt (and as I said, nicknames stick) now has a better sense of why we are, and for Glockner probably almost always will be, Team Bubble Watch.
Quote from: brewcity77 on September 24, 2013, 03:38:30 PM
Nicknames stick. Simple as that. Certainly not an insult.
Also...as bad as seeing Gonzaga and Illinois on this list is, seeing Michigan on there is arguably worse. They are here because of ONE season. Yes, they went to the final this past year, but before that had earned 3 NCAA bids in 14 years without a single trip beyond the first weekend since 1994. Honestly, none of the first five teams can compete with the success Marquette has had over the past 5 years. Maybe Michigan has a brighter future, but no other school here can really claim they are trending upwards more so than MU. The only argument for Texas is if they steal our coach.
We outspend all these programs. Our facilities are on par with or better than most of them. Our on-court success is better than all of them save Michigan's one run, and one or two years does not a program make (otherwise Butler should be in the top-10). And I'd take our coach over any of theirs.
Thank you. I was thinking I was the only one perplexed as to why Michigan gets automatically lumped in with elite programs.
Quote from: KenoshaWarrior on September 24, 2013, 02:38:17 PM
Michigan is the most winning team in football, but to put them ahead of Alabama, LSU, and Oregon as football programs is crazy
I would definitely put Michigan ahead of LSU and Oregon for football. In terms of historical program, absolutely. Oregon was dreadful out here for many years. Their surge is relatively recent with a few sprinklings of good teams here and there over the years over the decades.
Quote from: bilsu on September 24, 2013, 01:43:45 PM
Illinois .650 winning percentage all-time vs MU's .622
Everything is arguable and I am not saying that Illinois should be ranked ahead of MU, but to say there is no reason that Illinois should be is a false statement.
I never said there are no arguable reasons as to why Illinois should be ranked ahead of MU--only that winning percentage of a program is no reason to rank another team ahead of another.
I think the author of the the top 20 program was doing it looking forward more than what has happen historically. Basically where the programs are today and whether they are up trending or downtrending Over the next ten years I think it is a valid argument that Illinois, Michigan and even Gonzaga ( as long as Few stays) are expected to be top 20 programs. Marquette was not in the group, because while the author thinks MU is top 20 with Buzz, he does not think they are top 20 without Buzz.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 24, 2013, 10:04:42 PM
I would definitely put Michigan ahead of LSU and Oregon for football. In terms of historical program, absolutely. Oregon was dreadful out here for many years. Their surge is relatively recent with a few sprinklings of good teams here and there over the years over the decades.
The history of HS athletes only goes back to 2003. No body is getting all goo-goo eyed over Bo Schembekler. You, and maybe michigan fans are the only ones that would put Michigan over Oregon or LSU as who is currently a better program. LSU has one 2 NCAA titles in the past ten year. Michigan has zero. LSU has been consistently ranked in the top 10. Michigan has not.
Oregon is the cool school kids want to go to. Michigan was the cool school in 1993
Oregon is innovative and does not miss a beat with new head coaches. Michigan had an innovative coach but the administration and backers hated him because he was not a "Michigan Man" (Whatever the hell that means) and ran him out of town.
Quote from: brewcity77 on September 24, 2013, 10:20:28 AM
Which at this point is ridiculous. I'm not saying he stays, but he's turned down job after job for years. I know...none of those jobs were Texas, but they were Oklahoma, Oregon, Arkansas, and Texas A&M, all significantly larger schools with more money than Marquette has. And by the same token, Texas isn't Indiana, Duke, Kansas, or UNC.
Regardless, this program survived the loss of Crean and could survive the loss of Buzz. The budget, facilities, and proven track record of success over 2 coaches shows this program can succeed at a high level. With Buzz, we are definitely top-20, especially when you factor in future potential. Even without him, I still think you can argue us ahead of Maryland, Illinois, Gonzaga, and the other schools fighting for those last spots.
I agree, brew.
It's like trying to guess what rules Congress might change if you are investing for 20 years in the future.
We can only project the future based upon what we know. Saying Marquette ranks beneath Program X because of what Buzz might do is silly.
Andrei -- Is it not customary to cite your source or at least give a shout out?
Quote
Buzz to (insert school here) has been a talking point since 2010 and a legitimate concern since 2011. Before Texas there was Buzz to Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Illinois, SMU, UCLA, USC and even Minnesota.
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=32127.0
You're welcome, by the way. Let me know if you need any uncredited research done.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 24, 2013, 10:04:42 PM
I would definitely put Michigan ahead of LSU and Oregon for football. In terms of historical program, absolutely. Oregon was dreadful out here for many years. Their surge is relatively recent with a few sprinklings of good teams here and there over the years over the decades.
In your longer post you claim that Michigan ran the "innovative" Rich Rodriguez out of town because "he wasn't a Michigan man". I would submit that a 15-22 overall, 6-18 Big Ten record coupled with multiple violations got him (quite justifiably) fired. The "Michigan man" angle was at most a very small part of the problem with Rodriguez.
Quote from: Benny B on September 25, 2013, 08:48:51 AM
Andrei -- Is it not customary to cite your source or at least give a shout out?
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=32127.0
You're welcome, by the way. Let me know if you need any uncredited research done.
Ha, I looked everywhere on Scoop for that thread and couldn't find it so I ended up having to use the Googles myself. But I can definitely add the ones I missed and provide a hat tip. Thanks Benny.
Yes they are....plain and simple.
I say they are a top 10 when you consider who they send to the Pro's and how they develop NBA Pro players and prospects alone and great young men.
MU has really established an MU Basketball Brand and style of play all their own more than or as well any team in college basketball and on par with Duke, MSU, Kentucky Kansas and them really.
And that is not the homer in me talking either. Since Wade, or Post Wade they have been on fire...You can imagine how good they would be if they did land a Demarcus Cousins type big or Diamond Stone.
They have done it with Juco's and tweeners and switchables and all heart. With or without a particular coach the Vision, Mission, Culture and Character they build is second to none.
Recruiting guys who are long, hard working, talented, and who by and grind and stay all 4 years and take it to you on both ends.
At the draft combines during interviews and on TV you hear comments or how hard they work and how tough the MU player is...that is a rep my friends.
The Big Ten has it but they do not send as many guys to the next level WHO HAVE AN IMPACT on their teams like MU has.
This writer is delusional.
Yes they are a top 20 team. It is not debatable.
In fact I would argue they are are TOP TEN Program...men's and women's if you fact in all of their athletic teams.
But I will just stick to Basketball if you want.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on September 25, 2013, 09:15:43 AM
In your longer post you claim that Michigan ran the "innovative" Rich Rodriguez out of town because "he wasn't a Michigan man". I would submit that a 15-22 overall, 6-18 Big Ten record coupled with multiple violations got him (quite justifiably) fired. The "Michigan man" angle was at most a very small part of the problem with Rodriguez.
He was hamstrung by administration and was not allowed to get his type of players. Nowadays the new coach is allowed to recruit less than stellar students and has the backing of administration and their super weird, super stodgy alumni base
Quote from: bilsu on September 25, 2013, 08:33:18 AM
I think the author of the the top 20 program was doing it looking forward more than what has happen historically. Basically where the programs are today and whether they are up trending or downtrending Over the next ten years I think it is a valid argument that Illinois, Michigan and even Gonzaga ( as long as Few stays) are expected to be top 20 programs. Marquette was not in the group, because while the author thinks MU is top 20 with Buzz, he does not think they are top 20 without Buzz.
The problem with that is the author is also assuming Groce, Beilein, and Few stay. Groce hasn't actually shown he is willing to turn down any big money offers yet. Beilein is 60 years old and has already said he has a retirement date in mind and his current contract expires in 3 years. And as you mention...as long as Few stays. I don't think Few will leave, but he's probably running out of chances at age 50. In addition, he's only been out of the first weekend twice in the past 12 seasons and has never been beyond the Sweet 16. Gonzaga has peaked under Few. They will likely remain a perennial top-25 team that doesn't make deep runs in the tourney, whereas Buzz is constantly taking Marquette further and further. If you're looking at the future, anyone saying Gonzaga under Few (if he stays) has a brighter future than Marquette with Buzz (if he stays) is simply ignoring the trends of the programs.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on September 25, 2013, 09:15:43 AM
In your longer post you claim that Michigan ran the "innovative" Rich Rodriguez out of town because "he wasn't a Michigan man". I would submit that a 15-22 overall, 6-18 Big Ten record coupled with multiple violations got him (quite justifiably) fired. The "Michigan man" angle was at most a very small part of the problem with Rodriguez.
Lloyd Carr didn't like RichRod. He undercut him behind the scenes, with the players on the roster, and with prospective recruits. RichRod was doomed to fail at Michigan from the start. The fact that he was completely unable to coach defense while at UM may have contributed a bit, too.
Well if you weren't pissed about these rankings before you will be now:
http://college-basketball.si.com/2013/09/25/college-basketballs-best-current-programs-11-15/ (http://college-basketball.si.com/2013/09/25/college-basketballs-best-current-programs-11-15/)
#15 Memphis
#14 WISCONSIN
#13 Uconn
#12 UCLA
#11 Florida
I mean WTF how is Wisconsin 14! how are they a better program than Marquette or Georgetown?!
Quote from: hoyasincebirth on September 25, 2013, 12:07:34 PM
Well if you weren't pissed about these rankings before you will be now:
http://college-basketball.si.com/2013/09/25/college-basketballs-best-current-programs-11-15/ (http://college-basketball.si.com/2013/09/25/college-basketballs-best-current-programs-11-15/)
#15 Memphis
#14 WISCONSIN
#13 Uconn
#12 UCLA
#11 Florida
I mean WTF how is Wisconsin 14! how are they a better program than Marquette or Georgetown?!
Or UConn? Or Florida!? Jesus Christ.
Edit: Read that backwards. But still only one spot behind UConn, 2 behind UCLA?
I'm sure UCONN was dropped a few spots because of Calhoun no longer being there and having a downgrade in conference affliation.
Wisconsin has earned their place although I think he has them
a few spots too high.....but that is nitpicking.
Fans get too worked up about this stuff......So he has MU at 22 instead of 18....big deal.
ps. Anybody who thinks MU should be in the top 10 needs to put down the bottle and step away from the bar.....
Again, if you are rating this partially on the future, how long will Bo be there? You can't slam Marquette because Buzz might leave and ignore coaches like Groce or Pastner who could also leave and coaches like Beilein or Bo that are likely no more than 3-4 years away from retirement.
Quote from: brewcity77 on September 25, 2013, 10:37:58 AM
The problem with that is the author is also assuming Groce, Beilein, and Few stay. Groce hasn't actually shown he is willing to turn down any big money offers yet. Beilein is 60 years old and has already said he has a retirement date in mind and his current contract expires in 3 years. And as you mention...as long as Few stays. I don't think Few will leave, but he's probably running out of chances at age 50. In addition, he's only been out of the first weekend twice in the past 12 seasons and has never been beyond the Sweet 16. Gonzaga has peaked under Few. They will likely remain a perennial top-25 team that doesn't make deep runs in the tourney, whereas Buzz is constantly taking Marquette further and further. If you're looking at the future, anyone saying Gonzaga under Few (if he stays) has a brighter future than Marquette with Buzz (if he stays) is simply ignoring the trends of the programs.
I think the writer would believe MU is a better future program than Gonzaga, if Buzz stays long-term. However, he seems to believe Buzz will be gone in the next couple of years and MU will not likely hire as good of a coach. That of course is his opinion, but he is basing his rankings on the near future. Assuming Beilein retires or Groce leaves Illinois in his mind he probably sees those coaches leaving as less of a loss for those schools than MU losing Buzz, because he probably believes those schools will attrack top notch coaches. Viewing MU as a stepping stone university is what is coloring his projection of MU being a top 20 program.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on September 25, 2013, 09:15:43 AM
In your longer post you claim that Michigan ran the "innovative" Rich Rodriguez out of town because "he wasn't a Michigan man". I would submit that a 15-22 overall, 6-18 Big Ten record coupled with multiple violations got him (quite justifiably) fired. The "Michigan man" angle was at most a very small part of the problem with Rodriguez.
The "Michigan Man" factor was negligible in this case. Even his losing record was less a determinant than the numerous violations. As a Michigan benefactor I can tell you that the vitriol directed towards Rich Rod from the contributing alumni base was mostly due to his inability to run a compliant program. At Michigan, reputation and brand far outweigh anything else. Michigan has an impeccable record of accomplishment in both the classroom and the athletic field. Rodriguez' personal behavior was at times bizarre and his continuing problems with the NCAA made his termination necessary. The fact that he wasn't winning was a secondary consideration.
Quote from: tower912 on September 25, 2013, 10:39:35 AM
Lloyd Carr didn't like RichRod. He undercut him behind the scenes, with the players on the roster, and with prospective recruits. RichRod was doomed to fail at Michigan from the start. The fact that he was completely unable to coach defense while at UM may have contributed a bit, too.
Lloyd Carr was involved in the hire so your comment isn't quite accurate. Carr ran a very tight ship and played within the rules. Carr was an advocate for change only after Rodriguez continued to do stupid little things that brought NCAA scrutiny and began to cast the Michigan football program in a negative light. But to suggest Lloyd Carr undermined the Michigan program is beyond ridiculous.
I didn't. I said that Lloyd Carr undermined RichRod. You and I must not be talking to the same Wolverine insiders.
Quote from: tower912 on September 25, 2013, 01:38:25 PM
I didn't. I said that Lloyd Carr undermined RichRod. You and I must not be talking to the same Wolverine insiders.
As a University of Michigan Alumnus and Benefactor I can confirm that David Brandon told the contributing alumni base at a fund raising luncheon that Rodriguez' downfall was entirely due to two factors: Compliance problems with the regulatory authorities and the abysmal, degrading treatment of players.
When All-American Justin Boren transferred from Michigan to Ohio people knew there were serious problems. The fact that he never beat Ohio or MSU made it easier, perhaps, but Brandon never mentioned on-field performance.
Lloyd Carr is a decent, honorable man who bleeds Maize and Blue. To suggest that Lloyd Carr actively subverted Rodriguez is absurd. Rodriguez self-immolated for reasons of integrity, character, and personal rectitude. His behavior forced UofM to dismiss him for cause. I have no idea who your inside Wolverine source is but I doubt he knows more about the matter than David Brandon.
Quote from: bilsu on September 25, 2013, 01:27:03 PM
I think the writer would believe MU is a better future program than Gonzaga, if Buzz stays long-term. However, he seems to believe Buzz will be gone in the next couple of years and MU will not likely hire as good of a coach. That of course is his opinion, but he is basing his rankings on the near future. Assuming Beilein retires or Groce leaves Illinois in his mind he probably sees those coaches leaving as less of a loss for those schools than MU losing Buzz, because he probably believes those schools will attrack top notch coaches. Viewing MU as a stepping stone university is what is coloring his projection of MU being a top 20 program.
I get why he feels that way, but have Illinois and Michigan had a better track record of coaches over the past 15 years? Illinois was Self's stepping stone to Kansas and once his players were gone they never had any significant success under Weber. Michigan has been awful with the exception of the past couple years.
I understand his mindset. I am just saying that if you are going to knock Marquette out of the top-20 for the reasons he stated, his argument is horribly, horribly flawed. Based on the criteria given, I honestly believe there is no way anyone could argue Illinois, Michigan, or Gonzaga ahead of Marquette. If you are going to make assumptions about MU, you have to be willing to make the same assumptions about the other programs.
Quote from: KenoshaWarrior on September 25, 2013, 08:37:36 AM
The history of HS athletes only goes back to 2003. No body is getting all goo-goo eyed over Bo Schembekler. You, and maybe michigan fans are the only ones that would put Michigan over Oregon or LSU as who is currently a better program. LSU has one 2 NCAA titles in the past ten year. Michigan has zero. LSU has been consistently ranked in the top 10. Michigan has not.
Oregon is the cool school kids want to go to. Michigan was the cool school in 1993
Oregon is innovative and does not miss a beat with new head coaches. Michigan had an innovative coach but the administration and backers hated him because he was not a "Michigan Man" (Whatever the hell that means) and ran him out of town.
With all due respect, you are moving the goal posts. You originally said "Michigan is the most winning team in football, but to put them ahead of Alabama, LSU, and Oregon as football programs is crazy". Now you are saying better program and using today as the criteria. That's a little different.
I get where you are coming from, but then that all comes down to how far back do you go. Michigan is still getting 110,000 fans per game, has actually won a national title in the last 15 years (Oregon never has), etc. Oregon is definitely cool, no doubt about it, but I guess you need to decide the parameters and guidelines.
When you say it is crazy to put Michigan ahead of Oregon, it depends on what you are using as your baseline. Last 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, overall? It's hard to simply dismiss a team with more wins than any other, 100K+ attendance, national titles, conference titles (did you know Oregon has won 3 in the last 10 years...not exactly dominant), overall history, etc. Oregon is fantastic, but I need a little bigger sample size. Today, Oregon better, no question. Overall, not close. Last few decades, pretty even.
Quote from: brewcity77 on September 25, 2013, 05:38:24 PM
I get why he feels that way, but have Illinois and Michigan had a better track record of coaches over the past 15 years? Illinois was Self's stepping stone to Kansas and once his players were gone they never had any significant success under Weber. Michigan has been awful with the exception of the past couple years.
I understand his mindset. I am just saying that if you are going to knock Marquette out of the top-20 for the reasons he stated, his argument is horribly, horribly flawed. Based on the criteria given, I honestly believe there is no way anyone could argue Illinois, Michigan, or Gonzaga ahead of Marquette. If you are going to make assumptions about MU, you have to be willing to make the same assumptions about the other programs.
I think it also reflects his opinion of conferences. I.E. a Big 10 job is more desirable than a Big East job. It may or may not be true, but he did show a negative attitude towards the new Big East.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on September 25, 2013, 09:15:43 AM
In your longer post you claim that Michigan ran the "innovative" Rich Rodriguez out of town because "he wasn't a Michigan man". I would submit that a 15-22 overall, 6-18 Big Ten record coupled with multiple violations got him (quite justifiably) fired. The "Michigan man" angle was at most a very small part of the problem with Rodriguez.
I think you may have me confused with another poster. ;D Don't believe I said any of this.
Quote from: bilsu on September 25, 2013, 07:25:28 PM
I think it also reflects his opinion of conferences. I.E. a Big 10 job is more desirable than a Big East job. It may or may not be true, but he did show a negative attitude towards the new Big East.
Understandable. Until the new Big East can prove it belongs year in and year out (hopefully the case), that will be a default understanding that many writers will likely have...most fans as well.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 25, 2013, 07:16:19 PM
When you say it is crazy to put Michigan ahead of Oregon, it depends on what you are using as your baseline. Last 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, overall? It's hard to simply dismiss a team with more wins than any other, 100K+ attendance, national titles, conference titles (did you know Oregon has won 3 in the last 10 years...not exactly dominant), overall history, etc. Oregon is fantastic, but I need a little bigger sample size. Today, Oregon better, no question. Overall, not close. Last few decades, pretty even.
Well, the Ducks have Blue beat in one crucial category:
(http://www.sun-sentinel.com/media/photo/2011-01/58557663.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQzLR8ek3ClxM_BNLEFJ8uNLRHuQ-4SKV4ImQuiOtkp0Y6vISqz)
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/dam/assets/130107162947-outback-bowl-michigan-cheerleaders-159034466-10-single-image-cut.jpg)
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/dam/assets/130326141408-oregon-cheerleaders-op5y-20214-mid-single-image-cut.jpg)
(http://www.straitpinkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/oregon-ducks-cheerleaders-2012-10.jpg)
(http://sportsjabber.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/oregon-cheerleaders-18-300x215.jpg)
Keefe, one of the ladies at work was a Duck cheerleader in the late 1980's. Lovely.
The ducklings have always been very attractive, especially since over the years most of them have been from Calif.
Quote from: keefe on September 26, 2013, 02:34:16 AM
Well, the Ducks have Blue beat in one crucial category:
(http://www.sun-sentinel.com/media/photo/2011-01/58557663.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQzLR8ek3ClxM_BNLEFJ8uNLRHuQ-4SKV4ImQuiOtkp0Y6vISqz)
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/dam/assets/130107162947-outback-bowl-michigan-cheerleaders-159034466-10-single-image-cut.jpg)
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/dam/assets/130326141408-oregon-cheerleaders-op5y-20214-mid-single-image-cut.jpg)
(http://www.straitpinkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/oregon-ducks-cheerleaders-2012-10.jpg)
(http://sportsjabber.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/oregon-cheerleaders-18-300x215.jpg)
Posts like these are why it is so great to have Keefe back on the board.
In the last 25 years we've hired 4 coaches, 3 have taken us to at least the Sweet 16 - I don't get why they worry so about our coach leaving.
And the 4th coach won the post-game bar scene like no other.
Hiring coaches is our thing.
Quote from: keefe on September 26, 2013, 02:34:16 AM
Well, the Ducks have Blue beat in one crucial category:
(http://www.sun-sentinel.com/media/photo/2011-01/58557663.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQzLR8ek3ClxM_BNLEFJ8uNLRHuQ-4SKV4ImQuiOtkp0Y6vISqz)
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/dam/assets/130107162947-outback-bowl-michigan-cheerleaders-159034466-10-single-image-cut.jpg)
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/dam/assets/130326141408-oregon-cheerleaders-op5y-20214-mid-single-image-cut.jpg)
(http://www.straitpinkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/oregon-ducks-cheerleaders-2012-10.jpg)
(http://sportsjabber.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/oregon-cheerleaders-18-300x215.jpg)
Is Emily Ratajkowski in the house?
Quote from: The Lens on September 26, 2013, 12:20:35 PM
In the last 25 years we've hired 4 coaches, 3 have taken us to at least the Sweet 16 - I don't get why they worry so about our coach leaving.
And the 4th coach won the post-game bar scene like no other.
Hiring coaches is our thing.
Amen brother
Quote from: ElDonBDon on September 26, 2013, 11:17:01 AM
Posts like these are why it is so great to have Keefe back on the board.
Consider the Interwebs an open bar... you don't have to go straight for the Macallen 1949, but why one would drink the rail scotch Keefe is serving is beyond comprehension.
Quote from: keefe on September 25, 2013, 02:07:00 PM
As a University of Michigan Alumnus and Benefactor I can confirm that David Brandon told the contributing alumni base at a fund raising luncheon that Rodriguez' downfall was entirely due to two factors: Compliance problems with the regulatory authorities and the abysmal, degrading treatment of players.
When All-American Justin Boren transferred from Michigan to Ohio people knew there were serious problems. The fact that he never beat Ohio or MSU made it easier, perhaps, but Brandon never mentioned on-field performance.
Lloyd Carr is a decent, honorable man who bleeds Maize and Blue. To suggest that Lloyd Carr actively subverted Rodriguez is absurd. Rodriguez self-immolated for reasons of integrity, character, and personal rectitude. His behavior forced UofM to dismiss him for cause. I have no idea who your inside Wolverine source is but I doubt he knows more about the matter than David Brandon.
What's funny is that I am not a college football fan and particularly not a Wolverine fan. But I AM a fan of free golf at exclusive private clubs. When golfing buddies needed a 4th for a Michigan (Maize and Blue club?) fundraiser after an actual Wolverine fan dropped out, they called me. After the round, over drinks, a couple of former players under Lloyd Carr were sitting at the next table regaling each other with stories of what Lloyd had done to RichRod. They were bragging about it, as they all thought RR sucked. So, I believe that you were told that. I also know that there are stories contrary to the party line out there being told by former players.
Seth Greenberg thinks we are - "As long as Williams is the head coach of the Golden Eagles they will be a top-20 program." (ESPN article on future power rankings in CBB).
Quote from: mileskishnish72 on September 27, 2013, 06:00:52 AM
Seth Greenberg thinks we are - "As long as Williams is the head coach of the Golden Eagles they will be a top-20 program." (ESPN article on future power rankings in CBB).
Seth is a pretty smart guy.
Good lookin' daughters can make one a pretty smart guy.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on September 27, 2013, 09:18:33 AM
Good lookin' daughters can make one a pretty smart anxiety-ridden guy.
(http://nesncom.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/6a0115709f071f970b0168ea9f0702970c.jpe)
Quote from: Benny B on September 26, 2013, 02:20:21 PM
Consider the Interwebs an open bar... you don't have to go straight for the Macallen 1949, but why one would drink the rail scotch Keefe is serving is beyond comprehension.
Benny
Hailing Macallan (note spelling) as the epitome of single malts betrays your lack of sophistication in the art. Glenlivet, Glenfiddich, and Macallan are industrial offerings that are solid though not terribly distinguished products. Macallan is testament to the strength of marketing. But being mentioned by James Bond or having Annie Liebovitz photograph your product does not translate into best of breed distinction. One of the more cynical gimmicks employed by Macallan is a "special line" of product aged in bourbon casks. Aficionados, devotees, and connoisseurs rightly castigated this initiative as a bastardization of an established art. Macallan has long touted itself as a Speyside though it is not in any way connected with that region.
My rail scotch would include Oban, Lagavulin, and Laphroaig 12s and 14s which offer a depth, texture and complexity that Macallan cannot possibly match. And these are my
rail choices.
Quote from: tower912 on September 26, 2013, 04:56:32 PM
What's funny is that I am not a college football fan and particularly not a Wolverine fan. But I AM a fan of free golf at exclusive private clubs. When golfing buddies needed a 4th for a Michigan (Maize and Blue club?) fundraiser after an actual Wolverine fan dropped out, they called me. After the round, over drinks, a couple of former players under Lloyd Carr were sitting at the next table regaling each other with stories of what Lloyd had done to RichRod. They were bragging about it, as they all thought RR sucked. So, I believe that you were told that. I also know that there are stories contrary to the party line out there being told by former players.
I was at an alumni luncheon hosted by the AD a few years back and he was barraged with questions about RR. He mentioned no specifics but said clearly that Michigan demands accountability on matters involving
possible NCAA violations and treating everyone with dignity and respect. He did reference Moeller's dismissal as an example of the standard to which Michigan coaches were to be held.
Brandon was asked about Les Miles and he stated clearly that Les miles was at no time considered for the Michigan coaching job.
I am still skeptical that Lloyd Carr did anything to undermine RR. While there may be drunken banter to that effect it is hard to believe that a straight arrow like Carr would engage in anything that unseemly.
Quote from: keefe on September 26, 2013, 02:34:16 AM
Well, the Ducks have Blue beat in one crucial category:
(http://www.sun-sentinel.com/media/photo/2011-01/58557663.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQzLR8ek3ClxM_BNLEFJ8uNLRHuQ-4SKV4ImQuiOtkp0Y6vISqz)
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/dam/assets/130107162947-outback-bowl-michigan-cheerleaders-159034466-10-single-image-cut.jpg)
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/dam/assets/130326141408-oregon-cheerleaders-op5y-20214-mid-single-image-cut.jpg)
(http://www.straitpinkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/oregon-ducks-cheerleaders-2012-10.jpg)
(http://sportsjabber.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/oregon-cheerleaders-18-300x215.jpg)
Now hit me with some pics of MU girls. How do we stack up against O Ducks?
Quote from: MuMark on September 23, 2013, 08:40:25 PM
My guess is his top 20 are in no order
Duke
NC
Kentucky
AZ
Kansas
Michigan
Michigan State
OSU
Wisconsin
IU
Florida
Louisville
Syracuse
Memphis
UConn
Gonzaga
Georgetown
Illinois
UCLA
Nova
15 seem pretty obvious to me....the last 5 or so could easily include Marquette but he has us at 21 or 22 which is no big slight
People have argued about a few of the others. But until Gonzaga goes to a final 4 (nonetheless wins a championship) they have no business being in front of Marquette.