Look at the prediction ;)
http://247sports.com/Player/Diamond-Stone-20022
Done deal.
Nope not a done deal but a good sign! But thank you for bringing your negativity into every single thread, we really appreciate it.
Quote from: GoldenBoy16 on November 02, 2013, 02:07:14 PM
Nope not a done deal but a good sign! But thank you for bringing your negativity into every single thread, we really appreciate it.
? You said it was a done deal. He was just going through his recruitment to please his father. Right?
Negativity into every thread? Well, you're welcome, I guess.
Goldenboy...any word on the '16 recruit?
I like the prediction but how much weight can we put behind a recruiting insider who has less twitter followers than I do? He has 1% of the followers of Jerry Mayer. Has anyone ever heard of Matt Gravett before?
C'mon Lens...you got some eyes n ears over Stone's way. Whats the word?
16 recruit said he may not announce because hes having some family issues.
Quote from: wadesworld on November 02, 2013, 01:58:54 PM
Done deal.
If Golden Boy ends up correct about Stone, I hope that you eat some well deserved crow. At the point that Diamond commits to MU, (assuming that that happens) saying that Golden Boy really didn't know and got lucky will be a cop out, IMHO.
Quote from: LittleMurs on November 02, 2013, 06:16:12 PM
If Golden Boy ends up correct about Stone, I hope that you eat some well deserved crow. At the point that Diamond commits to MU, (assuming that that happens) saying that Golden Boy really didn't know and got lucky will be a cop out, IMHO.
So you really think Stone has his mind already made up?
Quote from: wadesworld on November 02, 2013, 06:26:56 PM
So you really think Stone has his mind already made up?
No, or he would announce. But, that doesn't mean that MU couldn't be a strong leader for him right now.
One prediction a year early means nothing. While I think we're at least in decent shape, this recruitment won't mean much until Duke, Kentucky, and Kansas get involved. Then we'll know how solidly we are in there. Nothing wrong with hoping for Stone, but thinking that this has the slightest bit of meaning is just silly.
I'd love to get Stone...but let's remember how well predictions work out. A few days ago, most people (outside of Madison, at least) were pretty sure Looney would be committed to Duke by now....
I hope that young Mr. Stone makes the choice that is in his best interest. I have my opinion of where I think that is. But whatever his choice is, good luck.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on November 02, 2013, 08:12:06 PM
I'd love to get Stone...but let's remember how well predictions work out. A few days ago, most people (outside of Madison, at least) were pretty sure Looney would be committed to Duke by now....
As almost everyone involved has said, Looney's decision followed a very unusual path.
Sure did, but makin' a bad decision was not an option. Just some better than others and a lot to take into consideration. I can divulge that Kevon's choice was not solidified until Wednesday night. Kept goin' back and forth between Duke, Florida, Tennessee, and UCLA.
I give Steve Alford a lot of credit. He absolutely sold Looney on UCLA during his official visit. Alford comes across to most as rather pompous, but, I'm told, is really down to earth and a good family man. It's a new beginnin' with Kevon the focal point of his first recruitin' class. Great school, great campus, great facilities, great tradition. It's all good and of the 6 finals for Kevon's services, I think he made a terrific choice to help prepare for the next level. I, and others ;), expect him to play only one season of college ball before declaring for the Association. Yes folks, he's that good.
BTW, I'm thinkin' 'bout providin' Kevon with Chicos' cell number just in case he needs a good home cooked meal from time to time.
Quote from: 4everwarriors link=topic=40336.msg526701
BTW, I'm thinkin' 'bout providin' Kevon with Chicos' cell number just in case he needs a good home cooked meal from time to time.
/quote]
better be sure kevon likes crow first.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on November 03, 2013, 06:55:52 AM
Sure did, but makin' a bad decision was not an option. Just some better than others and a lot to take into consideration. I can divulge that Kevon's choice was not solidified until Wednesday night. Kept goin' back and forth between Duke, Florida, Tennessee, and UCLA.
I give Steve Alford a lot of credit. He absolutely sold Looney on UCLA during his official visit. Alford comes across to most as rather pompous, but, I'm told, is really down to earth and a good family man. It's a new beginnin' with Kevon the focal point of his first recruitin' class. Great school, great campus, great facilities, great tradition. It's all good and of the 6 finals for Kevon's services, I think he made a terrific choice to help prepare for the next level. I, and others ;), expect him to play only one season of college ball before declaring for the Association. Yes folks, he's that good.
BTW, I'm thinkin' 'bout providin' Kevon with Chicos' cell number just in case he needs a good home cooked meal from time to time.
Kevon is welcome anytime. With my wife's German blood and both her parents from Wisconsin, we have plenty of Wisconsin type home cooked grub here. :D
Quote from: 4everwarriors on November 03, 2013, 06:55:52 AM
I give Steve Alford a lot of credit. He absolutely sold Looney on UCLA during his official visit. Alford comes across to most as rather pompous, but, I'm told, is really down to earth and a good family man.
BTW, I'm thinkin' 'bout providin' Kevon with Chicos' cell number just in case he needs a good home cooked meal from time to time.
Doc, you are dead wrong. The world's expert on everything, Mr Sultan, has a very different opinion of Steve Alford. Let's face it - Sultan knows better than one of the nation's most storied basketball programs which entrusted its future to Mr Alford. Sultan knows better than UCLA. Hell, Sultan knows better than everyone.
Quote from: keefe on November 03, 2013, 11:51:58 AM
Doc, you are dead wrong. The world's expert on everything, Mr Sultan, has a very different opinion of Steve Alford. Let's face it - Sultan knows better than one of the nation's most storied basketball programs which entrusted its future to Mr Alford. Sultan knows better than UCLA. Hell, Sultan knows better than everyone.
That's some aggressive passive aggressiveness.
I feel like that Kevon's usage rate as a freshman may be only 19%. Diamond I will go with 24%.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 03, 2013, 10:02:43 AM
Kevon is welcome anytime. With my wife's German blood and both her parents from Wisconsin, we have plenty of Wisconsin type home cooked grub here. :D
You guys packin' some extra pounds, der hey?
Quote from: Aughnanure on November 03, 2013, 11:57:42 AM
That's some aggressive passive aggressiveness.
Just a wee bit obsessive.
Quote from: keefe on November 03, 2013, 12:03:08 PM
You guys packin' some extra pounds, der hey?
Doing ok, actually. I'm down 15 from about 2 years ago. Lots of exercise and stress will do that. ;)
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 03, 2013, 12:34:33 PM
Just a wee bit obsessive.
LOL...I wasn't even posting in this thread too. But I have decided to change my sig in honor of keefe.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 03, 2013, 12:56:05 PM
Doing ok, actually. I'm down 15 from about 2 years ago. Lots of exercise and stress will do that. ;)
Beer helps one keep a trim figure too, I am told.
Quote from: keefe on November 03, 2013, 11:51:58 AM
Doc, you are dead wrong. The world's expert on everything, Mr Sultan, has a very different opinion of Steve Alford. Let's face it - Sultan knows better than one of the nation's most storied basketball programs which entrusted its future to Mr Alford. Sultan knows better than UCLA. Hell, Sultan knows better than everyone.
Two things, Keefe, you should be well aware that history is full of bad or incompetent individuals that through the gift of tongue are able to convince people to follow them or let them run things.
Popular opinion does not make one a good person/competent.
As for Alford, actions speak louder than words. He may be able to convince many that he is a good christian family man that you want in charge of your program/kid. His actions however fairly well indicate that one should steer clear of him.
He was not well liked in Ames, I am told, because he projected that family image and the reality was quite different.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 03, 2013, 12:56:05 PM
Doing ok, actually. I'm down 15 from about 2 years ago. Lots of exercise and stress will do that. ;)
Read "Grain Brain."
Quote from: Gato78 on November 03, 2013, 02:18:37 PM
He was not well liked in Ames, I am told, because he projected that family image and the reality was quite different.
He probably wasn't well liked in Ames, because he coached the HAWKEYES. ;D
I just realized this thread was about Diamond Stone. Who knew?
I would love to see Stone stay home to play with Ahmed and Duane.
Quote from: 94Warrior on November 03, 2013, 03:30:38 PM
He probably wasn't well liked in Ames, because he coached the HAWKEYES. ;D
LOL....I was going to say the same thing.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on November 03, 2013, 03:28:43 PM
Read "Grain Brain."
I'm skeptical. Every few years a new idea like this comes about. My doctor now telling me don't take fish oil after for years everyone was throwing that stuff down. Low fat, low carbs, now more fat, etc.
A lot of stuff out there with a bunch of differing expert opinions. I don't know who to trust anymore.
http://www.examiner.com/article/grain-brain-controversy-should-we-eat-grains-is-this-science-or-rhetoric
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 03, 2013, 03:38:28 PM
I'm skeptical. Every few years a new idea like this comes about. My doctor now telling me don't take fish oil after for years everyone was throwing that stuff down. Low fat, low carbs, now more fat, etc.
A lot of stuff out there with a bunch of differing expert opinions. I don't know who to trust anymore.
yea. agreed. how about this for a lifestyle... everything in moderation. don't smoke. exercise a few times a week. eat small(er) portions. 99% of the time, that will be plenty healthy living
Screw your croaker. Listen to me. I've got your best interests at the forefront.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on November 03, 2013, 03:42:04 PM
Screw your croaker. Listen to me. I've got your best interests at the forefront.
I have no doubt you do. I sincerely mean that. I'm just skeptical of things that come out so often and are so contradictory to one another where I believe many of those folks had nothing but the best intentions also.
I honestly don't know what to believe anymore, so much confusion, so many different expert opinions.
Simple answer, take the time and investigate for yourself.
Quote from: forgetful on November 03, 2013, 01:39:38 PM
Two things, Keefe, you should be well aware that history is full of bad or incompetent individuals that through the gift of tongue are able to convince people to follow them or let them run things.
Popular opinion does not make one a good person/competent.
As for Alford, actions speak louder than words. He may be able to convince many that he is a good christian family man that you want in charge of your program/kid. His actions however fairly well indicate that one should steer clear of him.
I have no idea as to Alford's personality or personal belief system. Nor do I have any notion of his popularity. And the fact is that no one here does either. But that is not the point.
What is empirically evident is that Steve Alford was an All-American basketball player who has reached the pinnacle of the college basketball coaching profession.
I am amazed that people of slender (if any) accomplishment belittle those who have achieved genuine professional success. I would submit that the fact that he has been hired by UCLA is greater validation of his professional abilities than the personal opinion of some frustrated guy in Indiana pontificating on a message board.
I would further submit that the criticisms aimed at the student athletes by people of little (if any) athletic ability is more troubling. I cringe when I read some of the garbage posted here about our Marquette players.
Steve Alford was not hired to be anyone's best friend; he was hired to win basketball games. And remember, even Tom Landry was fired.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 03, 2013, 03:38:28 PM
I'm skeptical. Every few years a new idea like this comes about. My doctor now telling me don't take fish oil after for years everyone was throwing that stuff down. Low fat, low carbs, now more fat, etc.
A lot of stuff out there with a bunch of differing expert opinions. I don't know who to trust anymore.
http://www.examiner.com/article/grain-brain-controversy-should-we-eat-grains-is-this-science-or-rhetoric
Sounds like Tom Crean is a Perlmutter disciple:
"Perlmutter is no stranger to controversy since he is a leader in the usage of hyperbaric oxygen ..."
Keefe, I am sure you realize that your previous two posts contradict each other in tone and philosophy.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 03, 2013, 03:38:28 PM
I'm skeptical. Every few years a new idea like this comes about. My doctor now telling me don't take fish oil after for years everyone was throwing that stuff down. Low fat, low carbs, now more fat, etc.
A lot of stuff out there with a bunch of differing expert opinions. I don't know who to trust anymore.
http://www.examiner.com/article/grain-brain-controversy-should-we-eat-grains-is-this-science-or-rhetoric
You are right to be skeptical, frankly the anti-grain movement is pseudo-science and people like Perimutter are strictly in the business of making money instead of improving peoples health.
His contentions and others within the anti-grain movement that grains cause illnesses like ADHD, dementia and alzheimer's is frankly ridiculous and ignore everything that we know about cell biology, metabolism and the illnesses themselves.
Second, if grains did negatively effect the brain and to counter it, the best option is fats and cholesterol, then you are destroying your heart and cardiovascular system. Hard for your brain to function well without blood flowing to it.
As someone already noted, the prudent thing is to eat a healthy well balance diet.
So you're telling me the Kevin Trudeau diet is a sham?
Quote from: keefe on November 03, 2013, 03:52:49 PM
I am amazed that people of slender (if any) accomplishment belittle those who have achieved genuine professional success. I would submit that the fact that he has been hired by UCLA is greater validation of his professional abilities than the personal opinion of some frustrated guy in Indiana pontificating on a message board.
So you gauge the value of people merely based on where they are in their respective professional arenas? A piece of s**t CEO is a better person than a genuinely kind, generous, faithful fast food worker?
Quote from: forgetful on November 03, 2013, 04:20:38 PM
You are right to be skeptical, frankly the anti-grain movement is pseudo-science and people like Perimutter are strictly in the business of making money instead of improving peoples health.
His contentions and others within the anti-grain movement that grains cause illnesses like ADHD, dementia and alzheimer's is frankly ridiculous and ignore everything that we know about cell biology, metabolism and the illnesses themselves.
Second, if grains did negatively effect the brain and to counter it, the best option is fats and cholesterol, then you are destroying your heart and cardiovascular system. Hard for your brain to function well without blood flowing to it.
As someone already noted, the prudent thing is to eat a healthy well balance diet.
Said the guy that goes by the name forgetful. Hmmm...
Quote from: Slim on November 03, 2013, 04:35:51 PM
Said the guy that goes by the name forgetful. Hmmm...
Touche...the name is an homage to the fact that when I first made an account on here I could never remember my login name or password, so I created that name so that I would never forget.
Quote from: jesmu84 on November 03, 2013, 04:25:51 PM
So you gauge the value of people merely based on where they are in their respective professional arenas? A piece of s**t CEO is a better person than a genuinely kind, generous, faithful fast food worker?
Do not confuse the issue. The point under consideration is strictly a man's professional stature. And if he were genuinely the ethical miscreant some here have suggested, with no empiricism mind you, I am confident UCLA's screening methodology would have investigated that with greater insight and precision than any Scoop poster.
Quote from: tower912 on November 03, 2013, 04:08:00 PM
Keefe, I am sure you realize that your previous two posts contradict each other in tone and philosophy.
Not at all. Tom Crean introduced Hyperbaric chambers to the Marquette basketball program. Dr. Perlmutter is a proponent of that technology.
As far as Crean goes, my wife and I both had first hand experience with him. My wife was a living saint who understood and accepted human fraility. But even she was forced to say Tom Crean was the most thoughtless, disingenuous, self-centered person she had ever met. As a Microsoft person she encountered jack a$$es daily so that is saying a lot.
There is a difference between what you know and what you wish you knew.
Quote from: keefe on November 03, 2013, 04:39:14 PM
Do not confuse the issue. The point under consideration is strictly a man's professional stature. And if he were genuinely the ethical miscreant some here have suggested, with no empiricism mind you, I am confident UCLA's screening methodology would have investigated that with greater insight and precision than any Scoop poster.
This is the same UCLA that hired Jim Harrick and Rick Neuheisel, right?
And let's not forget the shady recruiting of Shabazz Muhammad.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 03, 2013, 04:47:18 PM
This is the same UCLA that hired Jim Harrick and Rick Neuheisel, right?
And let's not forget the shady recruiting of Shabazz Muhammad.
NM
Quote from: jesmu84 on November 03, 2013, 04:25:51 PM
So you gauge the value of people merely based on where they are in their respective professional arenas? A piece of s**t CEO is a better person than a genuinely kind, generous, faithful fast food worker?
Keefe's contention (I think) is that it's hard to call Alford an "underachiever" professionally when he's just landed one of the top jobs in his profession. That doesn't mean he's not an a$$hole and a despicable person. Our previous coach is living proof that the two aren't mutually exclusive.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 03, 2013, 04:56:12 PM
Keefe's contention (I think) is that it's hard to call Alford an "underachiever" professionally when he's just landed one of the top jobs in his profession. That doesn't mean he's not an a$$hole and a despicable person. Our previous coach is living proof that the two aren't mutually exclusive.
It's super exciting to see your last name all over a thread and then weird when you realize no one is talking about you. Ok.carry on.
This Stone guy is supposed to be sort of good at being talland such, right?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 03, 2013, 04:56:12 PM
Keefe's contention (I think) is that it's hard to call Alford an "underachiever" professionally when he's just landed one of the top jobs in his profession. That doesn't mean he's not an a$$hole and a despicable person. Our previous coach is living proof that the two aren't mutually exclusive.
Thank you, Leonard.
Quote from: keefe on November 03, 2013, 04:43:48 PM
Not at all. Tom Crean introduced Hyperbaric chambers to the Marquette basketball program. Dr. Perlmutter is a proponent of that technology.
Well, actually I think TC likes the hypobaric/hypoxic (low oxygen) chamber for training. In contrast, a hyperbaric chamber has lots of oxygen and should be good for recovery, but I don't think Marquette ever used one of those.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on November 03, 2013, 10:06:25 PM
Well, actually I think TC likes the hypobaric/hypoxic (low oxygen) chamber for training. In contrast, a hyperbaric chamber has lots of oxygen and should be good for recovery, but I don't think Marquette ever used one of those.
Well, either way it's horsesh1t. Gimmicks suggest desperation. Focus on the basics and build from there. Buzz is genuine. Refreshing.
Quote from: keefe on November 03, 2013, 10:22:35 PM
Well, either way it's horsesh1t. Gimmicks suggest desperation. Focus on the basics and build from there. Buzz is genuine. Refreshing.
They used to say that about weight lifting and conditioning, too.
http://www.boston.com/sports/other_sports/articles/2007/10/19/up_and_coming_method/?page=full
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 03, 2013, 10:47:25 PM
They used to say that about weight lifting and conditioning, too.
http://www.boston.com/sports/other_sports/articles/2007/10/19/up_and_coming_method/?page=full
And Air Power was a defensive weapon. Crean as Douhet, Mitchell, Geiger, and Warden as landmark theorist?
Quote from: keefe on November 03, 2013, 04:39:14 PM
Do not confuse the issue. The point under consideration is strictly a man's professional stature. And if he were genuinely the ethical miscreant some here have suggested, with no empiricism mind you, I am confident UCLA's screening methodology would have investigated that with greater insight and precision than any Scoop poster.
Perhaps you missed this nugget from another thread.
Quote from: Litehouse on November 01, 2013, 08:14:39 PM
Article from Wed. on controversy at UCLA from hiring Alford...
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/alford-533943-guerrero-wrote.html
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 03, 2013, 04:56:12 PM
Keefe's contention (I think) is that it's hard to call Alford an "underachiever" professionally when he's just landed one of the top jobs in his profession. That doesn't mean he's not an a$$hole and a despicable person. Our previous coach is living proof that the two aren't mutually exclusive.
Charlie Weis landed one of the top jobs in his profession...that doesn't mean he was a good football coach.
Just because someone manages their career path well and does just enough to land that next job, that doesn't make them accomplished. It makes them a good salesman. Keefe can rip Tom Crean up and down, but he is more "accomplished" than Alford on the court, and much less despicable off the court.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on November 04, 2013, 06:59:20 AM
Charlie Weis landed one of the top jobs in his profession...that doesn't mean he was a good football coach.
Just because someone manages their career path well and does just enough to land that next job, that doesn't make them accomplished. It makes them a good salesman. Keefe can rip Tom Crean up and down, but he is more "accomplished" than Alford on the court, and much less despicable off the court.
At the risk of bein' labelled a "one trick pony," I'll let someone else rip this argument to shreds.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on November 04, 2013, 08:11:02 AM
At the risk of bein' labelled a "one trick pony," I'll let someone else rip this argument to shreds.
Debatable that Crean is more "accomplished" than Alford on the court. Yeah, Crean made a FF--or better yet Wade got Crean to the FF. Alford accomplishments speak for themselves. Crean's FF appearance: about a 33 point blowout from Kansas. That is underachieving. How many of the Alford detractors that blast him as despicable or a prick even know the guy? Probably 1%. I have heard that comment a number of times over the years. I don't know Alford either--maybe he is a prick--but why judge him as such if you have not met him, and know him.
Yeah, I guess Alford is a good salesman: He sold himself to become an All American; he sold himself to become an Olympian; he sold himself to become the Coach at Iowa; he sold himself to become the Head Coach at UCLA; he sold himself to Looney; he should go to work as a used car salesman with that record.
Quote from: willie warrior on November 04, 2013, 09:05:17 AM
Debatable that Crean is more "accomplished" than Alford on the court. Yeah, Crean made a FF--or better yet Wade got Crean to the FF. Alford accomplishments speak for themselves. Crean's FF appearance: about a 33 point blowout from Kansas. That is underachieving. How many of the Alford detractors that blast him as despicable or a prick even know the guy? Probably 1%. I have heard that comment a number of times over the years. I don't know Alford either--maybe he is a prick--but why judge him as such if you have not met him, and know him.
Yeah, I guess Alford is a good salesman: He sold himself to become an All American; he sold himself to become an Olympian; he sold himself to become the Coach at Iowa; he sold himself to become the Head Coach at UCLA; he sold himself to Looney; he should go to work as a used car salesman with that record.
Stop.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on November 04, 2013, 06:59:20 AM
Charlie Weis landed one of the top jobs in his profession...that doesn't mean he was a good football coach.
You can say a lot of negative things about Charlie Weis. Arrogant? Yes. Slovenly and undisciplined regarding his personal habits? Absolutely. The right guy to send into recruits living rooms and be the face of a university? No friggin' way.
As far as being a good football coach, though, his long and very successful career in the NFL would say yes. Bill Bellichek (sp?), arguably the best football coach of his generation, hired him twice and he was his Offensive Coordinator for three Super Bowl champions. I trust that Bill thought Charlie was pretty good at coaching football. Who are we to argue?
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on November 04, 2013, 06:59:20 AM
Charlie Weis landed one of the top jobs in his profession...that doesn't mean he was a good football coach.
Prime example of the Peter Principle.
Quote from: willie warrior on November 04, 2013, 09:05:17 AM
Crean's FF appearance: about a 33 point blowout from Kansas. That is underachieving
Never quite understood this logic. So in beating 2 seed Pittsburgh, that is over achieving? Beating #1 seed and overall #1 team in the country Kentucky 6 days earlier, that would also be over achieving?
Quote from: willie warrior on November 04, 2013, 09:05:17 AM
Yeah, I guess Alford is a good salesman: He sold himself to become an All American; he sold himself to become an Olympian; he sold himself to become the Coach at Iowa; he sold himself to become the Head Coach at UCLA; he sold himself to Looney; he should go to work as a used car salesman with that record.
The only response I am going to have to this is that I am not sure why people keep bringing up his on court achievements as a player. He was clearly a very good college basketball player and those accomplishments speak for themselves.
And again, I have not said he is a bad coach. Just an underachieving one. I'm not sure why this statement makes people so upset.
And yeah 4ever....Tom Crean has accomplished more as a college coach. It actually isn't really all that close.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on November 04, 2013, 09:56:29 AM
Prime example of the Peter Principle.
Sometimes the situations don't line up right either. See Bill Bellichek at Cleveland Browns.
Crazy the direction this thread about Diamond Stone has taken. A couple thoughts...
First, Charlie Weis was a very good coordinator, not so much a head man. One can be a good assistant and not a good boss. I think the points raised by Sultan and Lenny are both accurate, depending on the lens you are looking through.
As far as Crean vs Alford, I don't see any way you can't consider Crean to be a more successful NCAA coach. It's not even really debatable. Crean has a Final Four and two Sweet 16s, whereas Alford has one Sweet 16 dating back before Crean's career even started. 10 wins in March to 3. And in 5 years, Crean has more Big 10 titles than Alford had in 8 years at Iowa. Yes, Alford had great regular season success at UNM, but it still only translated to 3 NCAA berths in 6 years and 3 losses to double-digit seeds. I mean...even Bo can beat double-digit seeds.
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 04, 2013, 10:28:10 AM
Crazy the direction this thread about Diamond Stone has taken. A couple thoughts...
First, Charlie Weis was a very good coordinator, not so much a head man. One can be a good assistant and not a good boss. I think the points raised by Sultan and Lenny are both accurate, depending on the lens you are looking through.
As far as Crean vs Alford, I don't see any way you can't consider Crean to be a more successful NCAA coach. It's not even really debatable. Crean has a Final Four and two Sweet 16s, whereas Alford has one Sweet 16 dating back before Crean's career even started. 10 wins in March to 3. And in 5 years, Crean has more Big 10 titles than Alford had in 8 years at Iowa. Yes, Alford had great regular season success at UNM, but it still only translated to 3 NCAA berths in 6 years and 3 losses to double-digit seeds. I mean...even Bo can beat double-digit seeds.
I think Georgetown would happily tell you how scary playing double digit seeds can be .
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 04, 2013, 10:28:10 AM
Crazy the direction this thread about Diamond Stone has taken. A couple thoughts...
First, Charlie Weis was a very good coordinator, not so much a head man. One can be a good assistant and not a good boss. I think the points raised by Sultan and Lenny are both accurate, depending on the lens you are looking through.
As far as Crean vs Alford, I don't see any way you can't consider Crean to be a more successful NCAA coach. It's not even really debatable. Crean has a Final Four and two Sweet 16s, whereas Alford has one Sweet 16 dating back before Crean's career even started. 10 wins in March to 3. And in 5 years, Crean has more Big 10 titles than Alford had in 8 years at Iowa. Yes, Alford had great regular season success at UNM, but it still only translated to 3 NCAA berths in 6 years and 3 losses to double-digit seeds. I mean...even Bo can beat double-digit seeds.
You know the Tom Crean hate runs deep (and delusional) when the character and coaching record of Steve Alford is compared favorably to his.
Some seem to be forgetting that Alford landed the UCLA job in no small measure because other coaches wanted to part of that environment.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 04, 2013, 10:42:20 AM
You know the Tom Crean hate runs deep (and delusional) when the character and coaching record of Steve Alford is compared favorably to his.
Some seem to be forgetting that Alford landed the UCLA job in no small measure because other coaches wanted to part of that environment.
Very true. The expectations there are ridiculous, as evidenced by Howland getting ousted after 3 Final Fours and coming off a conference title. I also get the sense many of the UCLA boosters still think it's the Wooden days, not realizing that schools like Duke and Kentucky have surpassed them in the tactics that led to their dominance in the 1970s.
UCLA can still be a good program, but there's a reason guys like Stevens, Smart, and Buzz had zero interest when the Bruins came calling. Alford was basically the least objectionable guy that would take the job. If UCLA could have somehow nabbed Crean from IU, they would have taken him 100,000 times before even interviewing Alford.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 04, 2013, 10:16:35 AM
Never quite understood this logic. So in beating 2 seed Pittsburgh, that is over achieving? Beating #1 seed and overall #1 team in the country Kentucky 6 days earlier, that would also be over achieving?
Sorry--making a point with hyperbole toward Sultan who started the debate about Alford being an underachiever. That was my point.
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 04, 2013, 10:28:10 AM
.
As far as Crean vs Alford, I don't see any way you can't consider Crean to be a more successful NCAA coach. It's not even really debatable. Crean has a Final Four and two Sweet 16s, whereas Alford has one Sweet 16 dating back before Crean's career even started. 10 wins in March to 3. And in 5 years, Crean has more Big 10 titles than Alford had in 8 years at Iowa. Yes, Alford had great regular season success at UNM, but it still only translated to 3 NCAA berths in 6 years and 3 losses to double-digit seeds. I mean...even Bo can beat double-digit seeds.
I agree that TC is more successful, primarily based on his 9-10 NCAA tournament record with a Final Four and and 2 Sweet 16s versus Alford's 4-7 record with one Sweet 16. It should be noted, though, that Marquette and Indiana are much easier places to have NCAA tournament success than SW Missouri St, Iowa and New Mexico. Still, I give the edge to TC.
There are those, though, who dismiss tournament success (the crapshoot crowd - okay, it's kind of a small crowd) and base most of their opinion on games prior to the NCAAs. Here Alford fares much better - more wins (463 to 235), higher winning % (.663 to .606), more conference regular season titles (4-2) and more conference post season titles (2 to zero).
So through your lens and mine it's Crean, through the crapshoot lens it's Alford.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 04, 2013, 10:42:20 AM
You know the Tom Crean hate runs deep (and delusional) when the character and coaching record of Steve Alford is compared favorably to his.
Some seem to be forgetting that Alford landed the UCLA job in no small measure because other coaches wanted to part of that environment.
What is a Big 10 title--regular season or conference tourney? I believe that Alford won two big 10 tourneys. Last time I looked Big 10 tourney winner gets the NCAA berth. You really do not know that other coaches "wanted no part of that environment". And that argument could apply in a number of cases. There are always guys that want or do not want those types of jobs for a variety of reasons. You also do not know the character of Alford or Crean for that matter. Only what you have heard.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 04, 2013, 11:03:50 AM
I agree that TC is more successful, primarily based on his 9-10 NCAA tournament record with a Final Four and and 2 Sweet 16s versus Alford's 4-7 record with one Sweet 16. It should be noted, though, that Marquette and Indiana are much easier places to have NCAA tournament success than SW Missouri St, Iowa and New Mexico. Still, I give the edge to TC.
There are those, though, who dismiss tournament success (the crapshoot crowd - okay, it's kind of a small crowd) and base most of their opinion on games prior to the NCAAs. Here Alford fares much better - more wins (463 to 235), higher winning % (.663 to .606), more conference regular season titles (4-2) and more conference post season titles (2 to zero).
So through your lens and mine it's Crean, through the crapshoot lens it's Alford.
I guess Lenny has pointed out ways that it is debatable.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 04, 2013, 10:42:20 AM
Some seem to be forgetting that Alford landed the UCLA job in no small measure because other coaches wanted to part of that environment.
Agree, and some seem to be forgetting that Crean landed the Indiana job in no small measure because other coaches wanted no part of that environment.
I'll put this another way....
If Crean wanted the UCLA job, which coach do you think they hire? Crean or Alford? I'm about 95% sure that it would be the former.
So....how about that Diamond Stone? I hear he's good at basketball.
I hear he is really tall too. Some may even refer to him with that ever allusive term know as a quality big.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 04, 2013, 12:04:20 PM
So....how about that Diamond Stone? I hear he's good at basketball.
But, more importantly, is he better at playing basketball than Crean or Alford are at coaching basketball?
Quote from: real chili 83 on November 04, 2013, 12:09:34 PM
I hear he is really tall too. Some may even refer to him with that ever allusive term know as a quality big.
Does Willie approve? Is he on a grain free diet?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 04, 2013, 11:03:50 AM
It should be noted, though, that Marquette and Indiana are much easier places to have NCAA tournament success than SW Missouri St, Iowa and New Mexico. Still, I give the edge to TC.
Alford inherited a relatively good program from Tom Davis, and really took Iowa down the shitter. During the Davis Era (86-99), Iowa had 9 NCAA appearance, missing the post-season, an elite 8 and two sweet sixteens during that time.
Alford coached Iowa for 8 seasons, making the tournament just 3 times, and winning 1 NCAA game. I'd say Alford inherited quite a better program at Iowa than Crean inherited from Mike Deane. For as much as people hate Crean, he's the coach that turned our program around.
I think Stone deserves a better thread, and since I'm too busy to split all the OT stuff off, this one just gets to die a silent death.