MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: GGGG on October 27, 2014, 01:54:21 PM
-
Buzz never was a maniacal with his subbing patterns in any of his previous 5 years as he was last year.
So I went back and looked at the 18 conference games in both 2012-13 (Conference championship and Elite 8 year) and 2013-14. I used the "substitutions in" stat found on the play-by-play page on Marquette's statsheet site.
Number of substitutions per game:
2012-13: 42.8
2013-14: 43.2
So unless your definition of "maniacal" is one additional substitution every two and a half games, Buzz was substituting no differently last year than the year before. If someone wants to look up the figures for his previous years, go right ahead.
-
So I went back and looked at the 18 conference games in both 2012-13 (Conference championship and Elite 8 year) and 2013-14. I used the "substitutions in" stat found on the play-by-play page on Marquette's statsheet site.
Number of substitutions per game:
2012-13: 42.8
2013-14: 43.2
So unless your definition of "maniacal" is one additional substitution every two and a half games, Buzz was substituting no differently last year than the year before. If someone wants to look up the figures for his previous years, go right ahead.
I agree with NersEllenson, Buzz was "maniacal". I don't think that necessarily relates to rate rather it relates to intent. In particular I felt JJJ felt the brunt of it.
-
OK, I guess if people aren't shown to be objectively right, they can always fall back on his subjective "intent" for his substitutions patterns. Which is (conveniently) impossible to prove or disprove....
-
Sultan,
Do they give a conference or D1 average to compare that too?
-
I agree with NersEllenson, Buzz was "maniacal". I don't think that necessarily relates to rate rather it relates to intent. In particular I felt JJJ felt the brunt of it.
I don't want to seem a Buzz defender, but this is ridiculous. How do you prove intent or that JJJ somehow was subbed more than anyone else....pretty sure Ners would fight you on this as Dawson was jerked around way more than JJJ was.
-
Sultan,
Do they give a conference or D1 average to compare that too?
I found this as part of my search.
http://www.nycbuckets.com/2013/12/army-lafayette-push-substitutions-limit/
Marquette would undoubtedly be in the top quarter or third of all teams based in this. This one has Marquette at 37.3, but that is based on the games last year through Dec. 22. Essentially the non-conference season where Buzz was rarely subbing in end of games situations like he did later on.
-
I don't want to seem a Buzz defender, but this is ridiculous. How do you prove intent or that JJJ somehow was subbed more than anyone else....pretty sure Ners would fight you on this as Dawson was jerked around way more than JJJ was.
I felt Dawson was jerked around too. He had fewer chances to play than JJJ so he got jerked around less.
-
So I went back and looked at the 18 conference games in both 2012-13 (Conference championship and Elite 8 year) and 2013-14. I used the "substitutions in" stat found on the play-by-play page on Marquette's statsheet site.
Number of substitutions per game:
2012-13: 42.8
2013-14: 43.2
So unless your definition of "maniacal" is one additional substitution every two and a half games, Buzz was substituting no differently last year than the year before. If someone wants to look up the figures for his previous years, go right ahead.
Thanks for taking the time to tally all of those - must be a slow day at the office. ;D
I stand corrected. Oddly with what appears to be the same rates of substitutions between 2013 and 2014 seasons, Buzz refused to substitute out the 2 biggest liabilities on that team, but instead gave them more minutes than any other players. That was the beef...he jacked around minutes of everyone on the roster other than Derrick and Jake!
-
My guess is the frustration was not about the number of substitutions, but who was being substituted. It's a corollary to the "its not what is said here, but who says the what."
-
Thanks for taking the time to tally all of those - must be a slow day at the office. ;D
I stand corrected. Oddly with what appears to be the same rates of substitutions between 2013 and 2014 seasons, Buzz refused to substitute out the 2 biggest liabilities on that team, but instead gave them more minutes than any other players. That was the beef...he jacked around minutes of everyone on the roster other than Derrick and Jake!
Definition of Maniacal per Webster Dictionairy: affected with or suggestive of madness .
Giving minutes to Jake and Derrick at the expense of winning was certainly evidence of madness.
-
Thanks for taking the time to tally all of those - must be a slow day at the office. ;D
I stand corrected. Oddly with what appears to be the same rates of substitutions between 2013 and 2014 seasons, Buzz refused to substitute out the 2 biggest liabilities on that team, but instead gave them more minutes than any other players. That was the beef...he jacked around minutes of everyone on the roster other than Derrick and Jake!
To be fair, the standard deviation of the 2012-13 data was 7.8, while the standard deviation for 2013-14 was 10.3.
What does that mean? It means that in 2012-13, the number of substitutions was much more consistent from game to game. There was one at 62, two in the 50s. The smallest was 34 - three times.
In 2013-14, there was one at 63, three in the 50s, but the smallest was 26 and another at 29.
So in 2013-14, he substituted a lot more in some games...but he also substituted less in others.
-
Buzz coached the same way in 2013-2014 that he did in all the previous seasons of his tenure.
Only difference is that it didn't work this time, so we got sick of it.
He had to choose between doubling down on what he knew or risk trying something new. In hindsight, he made the wrong choice. But if we had won, we would have called him a genius.
-
Look, no one is questioning the number of substitutions. heck, Half of them probably were Oxtule changes.
What I did have a problem with was when it became apparent the season was lost, there was no effort to get experience for our freshmen for this year. I thought with six or seven games left, while most of this board was thinking "NCAA," I was thinking 2014-2015. I was hoping that Jujuan, for instance, would have more time. I was hoping John Dawson could make his mistakes last year.
When I think maniacal substitutions, that's what I think.
-
To be fair, the standard deviation of the 2012-13 data was 7.8, while the standard deviation for 2013-14 was 10.3.
What does that mean? It means that in 2012-13, the number of substitutions was much more consistent from game to game. There was one at 62, two in the 50s. The smallest was 34 - three times.
In 2013-14, there was one at 63, three in the 50s, but the smallest was 26 and another at 29.
So in 2013-14, he substituted a lot more in some games...but he also substituted less in others.
The standard deviations are useful, but interpreting them must involve a thinking of why there were games with "a lot more" substitutions. I wonder if that plays into the idea that Buzz really was trying to win games, as we were losing a helluva lot more during games in the 13-14 season. Was he possibly substituting more to try to find a combination that would work? Or, as conspiracists might postulate, was he actually 'throwing' games with the substitutions (or lack thereof, in regards to Jake and Derrick)?
-
Buzz coached the same way in 2013-2014 that he did in all the previous seasons of his tenure.
Only difference is that it didn't work this time, so we got sick of it.
He had to choose between doubling down on what he knew or risk trying something new. In hindsight, he made the wrong choice. But if we had won, we would have called him a genius.
Exactly.
-
It also "skews" the data from last year when you consider the quality of subs (compared to the previous year).
-
Look, no one is questioning the number of substitutions. heck, Half of them probably were Oxtule changes.
What I did have a problem with was when it became apparent the season was lost, there was no effort to get experience for our freshmen for this year. I thought with six or seven games left, while most of this board was thinking "NCAA," I was thinking 2014-2015. I was hoping that Jujuan, for instance, would have more time. I was hoping John Dawson could make his mistakes last year.
When I think maniacal substitutions, that's what I think.
I understand the logic, but its "fan" logic, not "coach" logic. There are no draft picks in college basketball. You play to win every game until there is 0% chance you can earn an at large bid. And even then, you prepare for the conference tournament because you could run the table there. As CGandA brought up in another thread, game time accounts for less than 1% of the basketball development that our players do. Sure it probably helps more than any other 1%, but it is such a small part of their growth and development. Coaches are willing to sacrifice that 1% of development if they think it means a better chance at the big dance. After all, there are countless examples of players who turned into studs despite limited playing time in previous years (Think Frank Kaminsky). There are no provable cases of studs who only became studs because they got big minutes the previous season.
-
Dawson was what he needed to be as a freshman. A back up PG. Compared to the starter, he had more turnovers per minute. He was not as good defensively. He exceeded my expectations.
JJJ showed flashes early, but as Mayo got more minutes as the season progressed, there were less for JJJ. Again, typical for a freshman. Buzz was coaching to win every game last year. IMO, he believed going into the BEast tourney that this team could get hot and steal a bid. His substitution patterns looked the same. The substitutes were different and the results were different. IMO, he should have started Burton sooner and ended Oxtule much sooner. He didn't. His reasons were his reasons but I categorically reject all of the conspiracy theories.
-
Dawson was what he needed to be as a freshman. A back up PG. Compared to the starter, he had more turnovers per minute. He was not as good defensively. He exceeded my expectations.
JJJ showed flashes early, but as Mayo got more minutes as the season progressed, there were less for JJJ. Again, typical for a freshman. Buzz was coaching to win every game last year. IMO, he believed going into the BEast tourney that this team could get hot and steal a bid. His substitution patterns looked the same. The substitutes were different and the results were different. IMO, he should have started Burton sooner and ended Oxtule much sooner. He didn't. His reasons were his reasons but I categorically reject all of the conspiracy theories.
I tend to agree with you. As far as JJJ is concerned, lets see how he plays this season. If he lights it up, then it might be fair to question why he hardly played last season. If he is a bust, then perhaps Buzz was correct and many heads will explode.
-
I understand the logic, but its "fan" logic, not "coach" logic. There are no draft picks in college basketball. You play to win every game until there is 0% chance you can earn an at large bid. And even then, you prepare for the conference tournament because you could run the table there. As CGandA brought up in another thread, game time accounts for less than 1% of the basketball development that our players do. Sure it probably helps more than any other 1%, but it is such a small part of their growth and development. Coaches are willing to sacrifice that 1% of development if they think it means a better chance at the big dance. After all, there are countless examples of players who turned into studs despite limited playing time in previous years (Think Frank Kaminsky). There are no provable cases of studs who only became studs because they got big minutes the previous season.
Perhaps.
But where I differ from you thought process was that the season was a loss by Valentine's Day, maybe sooner. Thinking Marquette was somehow going to steal a bid in the Big East tournament is like thinking the Chicago Bears at this point in the season are going to make the playoffs. Neither was or is likely. At this point, the only reason you don't play for tomorrow (as in next year) is if you don't think there's going to be a next year. Perhaps either Buzz was going to be gone or Jujuan was going to be gone? Ya think he knew?
-
Perhaps.
But where I differ from you thought process was that the season was a loss by Valentine's Day, maybe sooner. Thinking Marquette was somehow going to steal a bid in the Big East tournament is like thinking the Chicago Bears at this point in the season are going to make the playoffs. Neither was or is likely. At this point, the only reason you don't play for tomorrow (as in next year) is if you don't think there's going to be a next year. Perhaps either Buzz was going to be gone or Jujuan was going to be gone? Ya think he knew?
I don't think many coaches by Valentine's Day play for next year. I think most of them play to win the games right in front of them.
-
Look, no one is questioning the number of substitutions. heck, Half of them probably were Oxtule changes.
What I did have a problem with was when it became apparent the season was lost, there was no effort to get experience for our freshmen for this year. I thought with six or seven games left, while most of this board was thinking "NCAA," I was thinking 2014-2015. I was hoping that Jujuan, for instance, would have more time. I was hoping John Dawson could make his mistakes last year.
When I think maniacal substitutions, that's what I think.
This basically boils down to two schools of thought....by the last three weeks of the season were we playing for a tourney spot or were we out.
If we thought we were out of the tournament than yes, playing the younger players makes all the sense in the world and I would openly advocate for such a move (assuming the players were staying...more on this in a minute),
If we were competing to win a tournament spot the conclusion is more murky. At that point it comes down to opinion of who gives you a better chance to win, veteran but limited players or unproven, but potentially more talented players? Buzz always went with veteran over unproven, like it or not that's they way he rolled.
Throw in their by the end of the season, we know players were planning to leave, if Buzz had any thought that he was staying why would you play players that are going to leave and might or might not help you in the here and now?
-
I tend to agree with you. As far as JJJ is concerned, lets see how he plays this season. If he lights it up, then it might be fair to question why he hardly played last season. If he is a bust, then perhaps Buzz was correct and many heads will explode.
I think it would be fair to question why he hardly played, but not necessarily the reason.
It could also be that he had a strong offseason and drastically improved his game. Maybe extra time in the weight room. Maybe a different culture under Wojo helped to "unlock" him. There could be several reasons as to why he hardly played, rather than he deserved to but Buzz just didnt.
I'm not saying that you were assuming that, just wanted to point it out.
-
I don't have any numbers to back this up, but I think the difference was in the type of substitutions. In previous years, he'd often do "line changes" - substituting more guys at once, but keeping them in longer. Last season, line changes were infrequent (I honestly don't recall a single one), but there seemed to be more instances of guys getting on the court and then pulled quickly.
Not saying one is necessarily better or worse - depends on your personnel - but that's what I saw...
-
Providence. Spent the first half and (if IIRC) the start of the second half running 4-5 guys out there at once to wear down the only-6-deep Friar team.
-
For 2013-14, the high in substitutions was 63 @ DePaul (overtime win). We also had 59 @ Xavier (loss), 57 against Georgetown (win), and 53 v. Providence (win). The 26 was the blowout win v. Butler, and 29 in the win v. Xavier.
For 2012-13, the high was 62 in the overtime win @ Pitt. 53 in the loss @ Louisville. 52 sub game was the overtime loss @ Cincy.
-
Thanks for taking the time to tally all of those - must be a slow day at the office. ;D
I stand corrected. Oddly with what appears to be the same rates of substitutions between 2013 and 2014 seasons, Buzz refused to substitute out the 2 biggest liabilities on that team, but instead gave them more minutes than any other players. That was the beef...he jacked around minutes of everyone on the roster other than Derrick and Jake!
Of course, which the Sultan conveniently ignores, to preserve his theory that he is the one and only original thinker. The beef was that Derrick was hurting the team by Buzz's "maniacal" insistence that he was "elite" and a "game changer", which any logical original thinker would call "BS" in a minute, except Sultan. Sultan just proved that he will do anything to defend Buzz on that by digging up the above irrelevant data.
-
My guess is the frustration was not about the number of substitutions, but who was being substituted. It's a corollary to the "its not what is said here, but who says the what."
Exactly--and thank you for that original thought.
-
Exactly--and thank you for that original thought.
But that wasn't the theory that was put forward. Here is what Ners said. Nowhere does it mention who was being subbed. Just the subbing patterns in general.
"This simply is not true. Buzz never was a maniacal with his subbing patterns in any of his previous 5 years as he was last year. Buzz also never "lost" any of his previous teams, yet it is well known there were plenty of locker room issues with last year's team - and I don't think for one second those issues weren't the result of the players being beyond frustrated with their erratic roles.
Buzz did do some offense/defense subbing with Otule and Gardner historically - but that was very situational specific and player specific. Buzz also would do "line changes" in non conference play, but never once conference play started would be sub 9 different guys into a game in a 3 minute stretch...at least not that I recall...and if he did historically...it was quite rare..and it didn't happen with near the frequency of what we saw last year. Never in 30 years of playing/watching basketball closely had I ever seen coaching as bizarre as what we saw last year."
-
Sultan,
Do they give a conference or D1 average to compare that too?
According to this article, the average number of substitutions in a college basketball game is 32, which puts Brent's numbers at the maniacal end of the scale.
http://www.nycbuckets.com/2013/12/army-lafayette-push-substitutions-limit/ (http://www.nycbuckets.com/2013/12/army-lafayette-push-substitutions-limit/)
-
But that wasn't the theory that was put forward. Here is what Ners said. Nowhere does it mention who was being subbed. Just the subbing patterns in general.
"This simply is not true. Buzz never was a maniacal with his subbing patterns in any of his previous 5 years as he was last year. Buzz also never "lost" any of his previous teams, yet it is well known there were plenty of locker room issues with last year's team - and I don't think for one second those issues weren't the result of the players being beyond frustrated with their erratic roles.
Buzz did do some offense/defense subbing with Otule and Gardner historically - but that was very situational specific and player specific. Buzz also would do "line changes" in non conference play, but never once conference play started would be sub 9 different guys into a game in a 3 minute stretch...at least not that I recall...and if he did historically...it was quite rare..and it didn't happen with near the frequency of what we saw last year. Never in 30 years of playing/watching basketball closely had I ever seen coaching as bizarre as what we saw last year."
I felt Buzz did do more subbing last season in conference play than I recalled in prior years..yet your data shows otherwise. What is mind numbing in light of the data...and was last year...was that through even all of those substitutions Buzz could never seem to get over the idea that he had to have Derrick and Jake on the floor 30+ in 90% of our games...and often times on the floor together...which was a HUGE flaw. You cannot have a backcourt where one guy is ZERO threat to score from 3, and the other guys is a ZERO threat to score from 2. What did Jake have, 9 made 2 point FGs in an entire season? That's insanely horrific for a starting 2 Guard.
-
According to this article, the average number of substitutions in a college basketball game is 32, which puts Brent's numbers at the maniacal end of the scale.
http://www.nycbuckets.com/2013/12/army-lafayette-push-substitutions-limit/ (http://www.nycbuckets.com/2013/12/army-lafayette-push-substitutions-limit/)
Interesting article. So as of December 22, 2013 MU averaged 37 substitutions per game..still quite high...yet during conference play (per Sultan's data) that number escalated to 43 per game...the exact opposite of what most coaches tend to do....which is to shorten the rotation as the season goes on. Buzz definitely was on the far end of the bell curve...and it is quite odd considering he had his most veteran team at MU, and didn't have to deal with any injuries.
-
Interesting article. So as of December 22, 2013 MU averaged 37 substitutions per game..still quite high...yet during conference play (per Sultan's data) that number escalated to 43 per game...the exact opposite of what most coaches tend to do....which is to shorten the rotation as the season goes on. Buzz definitely was on the far end of the bell curve...and it is quite odd considering he had his most veteran team at MU, and didn't have to deal with any injuries.
Man Ners, why would you put in something like that, an original thought, to put doubt on the Sultan's theory?
-
But that wasn't the theory that was put forward. Here is what Ners said. Nowhere does it mention who was being subbed. Just the subbing patterns in general.
"This simply is not true. Buzz never was a maniacal with his subbing patterns in any of his previous 5 years as he was last year. Buzz also never "lost" any of his previous teams, yet it is well known there were plenty of locker room issues with last year's team - and I don't think for one second those issues weren't the result of the players being beyond frustrated with their erratic roles.
Buzz did do some offense/defense subbing with Otule and Gardner historically - but that was very situational specific and player specific. Buzz also would do "line changes" in non conference play, but never once conference play started would be sub 9 different guys into a game in a 3 minute stretch...at least not that I recall...and if he did historically...it was quite rare..and it didn't happen with near the frequency of what we saw last year. Never in 30 years of playing/watching basketball closely had I ever seen coaching as bizarre as what we saw last year."
Sultan--do everybody a favor--quit defending the phony cowboy--he has been shown the door. Time to turn the page to new chapter. AB--after Buzz
-
Going back to what Buzz said about his best defenders not being his best offensive players and vice versa. Oxtule alone was probably good for at least a dozen. Sultan documented how many times that Deonte was subbed in and out during the last 7:30 of the Xavier game when the perception was that he sat the whole time. If anything, it says that the coach never found a rotation he was comfortable with or enough players he could count on game in and game out.
-
Going back to what Buzz said about his best defenders not being his best offensive players and vice versa. Oxtule alone was probably good for at least a dozen. Sultan documented how many times that Deonte was subbed in and out during the last 7:30 of the Xavier game when the perception was that he sat the whole time. If anything, it says that the coach never found a rotation he was comfortable with or enough players he could count on game in and game out.
You can't count on guys game in and game out when you yank their minutes and role all over the place. Yet, Buzz refused to change the role of the two guys 90 percent of the fanbase felt were obvious candidates. That was the ultimate irony of last season's "coaching" job.
-
Sultan--do everybody a favor--quit defending the phony cowboy--he has been shown the door. Time to turn the page to new chapter. AB--after Buzz
Sorry but if someone is going to state something that is objectively wrong, I am going to correct it. You can put me on ignore if that bothers you.
-
Interesting article. So as of December 22, 2013 MU averaged 37 substitutions per game..still quite high...yet during conference play (per Sultan's data) that number escalated to 43 per game...the exact opposite of what most coaches tend to do....which is to shorten the rotation as the season goes on. Buzz definitely was on the far end of the bell curve...and it is quite odd considering he had his most veteran team at MU, and didn't have to deal with any injuries.
You can shorten the rotation and still have more substitutions. I interpret it as more substitutions due to closer games.
-
Look, no one is questioning the number of substitutions. heck, Half of them probably were Oxtule changes.
What I did have a problem with was when it became apparent the season was lost, there was no effort to get experience for our freshmen for this year. I thought with six or seven games left, while most of this board was thinking "NCAA," I was thinking 2014-2015. I was hoping that Jujuan, for instance, would have more time. I was hoping John Dawson could make his mistakes last year.
When I think maniacal substitutions, that's what I think.
Complaint #1: Buzz intentionally threw games by playing Derrick and Jake.
Complaint #2: Buzz tried too hard to win games by playing Derrick and Jake .
Didn't try hard enough, tried too hard at the expense of this year. When you don't win, you can't win.
-
You can't count on guys game in and game out when you yank their minutes and role all over the place. Yet, Buzz refused to change the role of the two guys 90 percent of the fanbase felt were obvious candidates. That was the ultimate irony of last season's "coaching" job.
And we are back to the chicken or the egg argument. Did Buzz not play Dawson and JJJ more because he didn't think they were good enough, or were they not good enough because he wouldn't play them more?
-
My guess is the frustration was not about the number of substitutions, but who was being substituted. It's a corollary to the "its not what is said here, but who says the what."
LOL. There's been a lot of debate here about just what happened last season. Some of it's been angry and heated, but not once have I heard anyone on either side cop a whiny, I'm a victim, it's not what I said, you're picking on me attitude. That's been your exclusive province and it knows no corollary.
-
I don't care. All I want to know is how well Wojo coaches and we play this season.
-
And we are back to the chicken or the egg argument. Did Buzz not play Dawson and JJJ more because he didn't think they were good enough, or were they not good enough because he wouldn't play them more?
There may be validity to your point, yet Burton was named All Big East freshman team and only averaged 12 minutes per game, or 7 less than the next closest freshman on that team. Burton was probably ready to play from Day 1 of the season, yet he struggled to get time.
Mayo could have been given more minutes prior to the last 8 games of the season when Buzz finally let him play through mistakes etc.
Maybe neither Dawson nor JJJ were going to be better options than Derrick/Jake...yet I certainly would have liked to see more of them to see what they could do if/when given 30 minutes a game like Derrick and Jake got game after game after game.
At minimum if not that, Buzz never should have paired Derrick and Jake together for 30 a game..
-
Pomeroy has an algorithm termed "Most Frequent Line-Ups Last 5 Games" that he introduced in 2014 (no history). Since these games are generally reflective of teams' best line-ups as they try to finish the season on a high note, these should be representative of of how a coach plays to win via substitution patterns--one might assume (KPom lists the top 10 line-ups).
>>Marquette's top two line-ups played 33.1% of the minutes. Steve Taylor and JJJ (as well as Duane, and McKay) were not even noted in the top 10 combos. So, only nine players for Buzz to willingly choose from, as we know now, ST. and JJJ were out the door.
>>Of the Top 15 Pomeroy teams, the average of the top two line-ups was 41.1% of the minutes. So, top teams play a more set line-up. Florida (28.8%), Kansas (30.9%), Nova (33.0%), Witchita State (34.6%) and Louisville (35.5%) were all in MU's range, however. Common among these: All are deep and like to play full pressure (pressing) defense unlike MU, so deeper bench and more of a need for breathers.
>>Common among the Top 15 teams, all are excellent at defensive possession length (way above average in forcing opponents to use the clock). MU's defense also was way above average on this, but their offensive possessions were way shorter than average (18.9 seconds on defense, 17.2 on offense--a significant 1.7 difference).
>>My conclusion: Buzz was trying to win by defense by subbing offense for defense. On offense, he was trying to win by playing Mayo more to hit the seams quicker, by loading it up to Gardner in the paint to be fouled, and also subbing in Burton on offense to flash the paint.
Good strategy on paper, choppy substitution patterns, with mediocre/poor results because of the low usage guys.
-
According to this article, the average number of substitutions in a college basketball game is 32, which puts Brent's numbers at the maniacal end of the scale.
http://www.nycbuckets.com/2013/12/army-lafayette-push-substitutions-limit/ (http://www.nycbuckets.com/2013/12/army-lafayette-push-substitutions-limit/)
So, Buzz substituted "at the maniacal end of the scale" in 2012-13 and in 2013-14, and in the former case it lead to a NCAA elite eight berth while in the later case it led to a team missing both the NCAA and the NIT. With such divergent results, how can labeling his substitution frequency as "at the maniacal end of the scale" have any meaning at all?
-
My guess is the frustration was not about the number of substitutions, but who was being substituted. It's a corollary to the "its not what is said here, but who says the what."
Please reacquaint yourself with the meaning of corollary as your corollary is giving me a coronary.
-
There may be validity to your point, yet Burton was named All Big East freshman team and only averaged 12 minutes per game, or 7 less than the next closest freshman on that team. Burton was probably ready to play from Day 1 of the season, yet he struggled to get time.
Mayo could have been given more minutes prior to the last 8 games of the season when Buzz finally let him play through mistakes etc.
Maybe neither Dawson nor JJJ were going to be better options than Derrick/Jake...yet I certainly would have liked to see more of them to see what they could do if/when given 30 minutes a game like Derrick and Jake got game after game after game.
At minimum if not that, Buzz never should have paired Derrick and Jake together for 30 a game..
I see it this way, Ners. Buzz was well aware that the chips were stacked against him playing Derrick and Jake as much as he did. But when he put the freshmen guards out there they made a lot of defensive mistakes. So, when Buzz continued with heavy minutes for Derrick and Jake it was because he preferred to lose a close game (with a possibility of lucking into a win) to being blown out.
-
Buzz coached the same way in 2013-2014 that he did in all the previous seasons of his tenure.
Only difference is that it didn't work this time, so we got sick of it.
He had to choose between doubling down on what he knew or risk trying something new. In hindsight, he made the wrong choice. But if we had won, we would have called him a genius.
I won't argue with this. All I'll say is that a good coach is capable of altering his strategy as situations dictate.
Don Shula lived to run the football. He was all about Csonka up the middle, Morris right and Kiick left. He'd run on third-and-8. Griese threw 11 passes in SB7 and 7 in SB8. Can you imagine any quarterback throwing only 7 passes in any game, let alone a Super Bowl? Yes, those were different times, but no other SB QB threw 18 passes in two games!
Then Shula drafted Marino. Shula surrounded him with great receivers and the Dolphins started throwing the ball 30, 40, 50 times a game.
Oh, and Shula benched the NFL player of the year during a playoff game that was tied at halftime. And he repeatedly benched his starting quarterback during the 1982 season, which ended with the Super Bowl.
Great coaches do what they have to do to win. Buzz did what he wanted to do, or maybe it was the only thing he knew how to do. It was a flaw of his. And remember, I was an ardent Buzz supporter until well into last January; I think I was the first guy willie ever accused of being a "slurper." But I can change when necessary, too!
-
I see it this way, Ners. Buzz was well aware that the chips were stacked against him playing Derrick and Jake as much as he did. But when he put the freshmen guards out there they made a lot of defensive mistakes. So, when Buzz continued with heavy minutes for Derrick and Jake it was because he preferred to lose a close game (with a possibility of lucking into a win) to being blown out.
I'd be fine with this theory and if that was Buzz's approach - yet my beef was that he basically REFUSED to deviate from it, and even give the freshman a legitimate game or two of real experience, and a real ability to play through mistakes. Nothing erodes your confidence faster than a coach who yanks you out after 1 mistake...and if you begin to realize "I'll be yanked if I screw up once," you play tight, and that alone leads to poor play.
I felt Buzz had enough data to show that we weren't going to win many games, or beat anyone of consequence if he continued down the max minute Derrick and Jake path.
What's crazy about last year's substitution patterns compared to Elite 8 year....is that he subbed just as much as he did during the great season, yet basically refused to sub for the two guys who were the weakest links on last year's team!! So he's making all these lineup tinkers last season...without addressing the two that were plain as day to everyone that were the source of the problem.
Maybe Dawson wasn't the answer...and perhaps the team could have been a winner if Buzz at least surrounded Derrick with guys that could all score...Mayo, Burton, Jamil, Gardner....yet he limited Burton and Mayo's minutes on a team that was starved for offense...and Mayo at least is a good defender, and Burton was a very disruptive defender..yet perhaps not the best on ball..
-
I won't argue with this. All I'll say is that a good coach is capable of altering his strategy as situations dictate.
Don Shula lived to run the football. He was all about Csonka up the middle, Morris right and Kiick left. He'd run on third-and-8. Griese threw 11 passes in SB7 and 7 in SB8. Can you imagine any quarterback throwing only 7 passes in any game, let alone a Super Bowl? Yes, those were different times, but no other SB QB threw 18 passes in two games!
Then Shula drafted Marino. Shula surrounded him with great receivers and the Dolphins started throwing the ball 30, 40, 50 times a game.
Oh, and Shula benched the NFL player of the year during a playoff game that was tied at halftime. And he repeatedly benched his starting quarterback during the 1982 season, which ended with the Super Bowl.
Great coaches do what they have to do to win. Buzz did what he wanted to do, or maybe it was the only thing he knew how to do. It was a flaw of his. And remember, I was an ardent Buzz supporter until well into last January; I think I was the first guy willie ever accused of being a "slurper." But I can change when necessary, too!
I don't disagree that a coach has to be able to adapt. Clearly, Buzz needed to do a better job last season mixing and matching to get better performance out of his guards. We can agree on that.
But, at the time, Buzz was employing the same technique that had worked for him in the past. We all cheered when his loyalty to trent was rewarded. What if Vander's shot(s) in March had rolled off of the rim? Would we have been ripping Buzz back then? Such a fine line, especially that season.
I'm just rambling on because some people wanted to crown Buzz the king of MU hoops when he was winning, but then when he lost, they want him run out of town. I think that's unfair. He coached the same way last season.
He should've adapted, and that's a fair critique... but I don't think he went from an amazing coach to a terrible coach. His moves worked out in previous years. Last year, they didn't. It happens.
-
He should've adapted, and that's a fair critique... but I don't think he went from an amazing coach to a terrible coach. His moves worked out in previous years. Last year, they didn't. It happens.
On this, we can agree 100%.
Buzz was never a great coach. He certainly was never a bad coach. For the most part, he did a good to very good job and gave us some fun teams to watch.
-
On this, we can agree 100%.
Buzz was never a great coach. He certainly was never a bad coach. For the most part, he did a good to very good job and gave us some fun teams to watch.
Ya, totally fair.
I'm just fighting against the "canonization" and then "villainization" of Buzz Williams.
Same guy. Same moves.
-
Ya, totally fair.
I'm just fighting against the "canonization" and then "villainization" of Buzz Williams.
Same guy. Same moves.
Well, considering this fanbase has done so well regarding the bolded and Tom Crean your job will be easy with Buzz.
-
On this, we can agree 100%.
Buzz was never a great coach. He certainly was never a bad coach. For the most part, he did a good to very good job and gave us some fun teams to watch.
Only a select few are "great". Right now Buzz is the second best in Marquette history behind our one great coach, Al McGuire. Let's hope Wojo moves him down to third.
-
Only a select few are "great". Right now Buzz is the second best in Marquette history behind our one great coach, Al McGuire. Let's hope Wojo moves him down to third.
LOL
-
LOL. There's been a lot of debate here about just what happened last season. Some of it's been angry and heated, but not once have I heard anyone on either side cop a whiny, I'm a victim, it's not what I said, you're picking on me attitude. That's been your exclusive province and it knows no corollary.
No Lenny, no one here feels like they are picked on, least of all me. My point has always been, the username of the person stating it automatically brings out a defense mechanism amongst some of the more immature here. An easy test can be done to prove this out and has taken place. Many here have validated the hypothesis.
So you are wrong sir....it's not the debate or the context, but often who mentions one of the items of the debate. If someone else said the exact same thing, totally different reaction.
Have a wonderful day.
-
LOL
I'm confused as to why this is a lol. I fully expect you to argue for crean but just curious for an explanation as to what makes either Raymonds, Oneil, deane, or crean better than Buzz. Personally I review great as sustained success in the tournament, consistent regular season winning, and getting guys to the NBA. (I'm sure there are more ways you can think of that I'll be open to hearing).
-
This has nothing to do with Buzz, but I do not understand why a coach takes a player out who just scored the basket?
-
A fine tradition starting under Mike Deane. Of course, he also subbed out anybody who gave up a basket, particularly down low.
-
My guess is the frustration was not about the number of substitutions, but who was being substituted. It's a corollary to the "its not what is said here, but who says the what."
It took you 23 minutes to try to make this thread all about you. Good effort.
-
It took you 23 minutes to try to make this thread all about you. Good effort.
Wasn't about me at all.
6 of your last 11 posts mention me, you seem to be in love. Good effort, but I'm married happily. Hoping the lets you down easy.
-
I'm confused as to why this is a lol. I fully expect you to argue for crean but just curious for an explanation as to what makes either Raymonds, Oneil, deane, or crean better than Buzz. Personally I review great as sustained success in the tournament, consistent regular season winning, and getting guys to the NBA. (I'm sure there are more ways you can think of that I'll be open to hearing).
I agree and would like to see Chico's answer.
Buzz had a better winning percentage even though his strength of schedule was much more difficult (7.88 vs. 6.39 using Sports Reference's ratings system), obviously because Buzz was in the Big East the whole time he was there.
Buzz appeared in 5 NCAAs in 6 years, Crean 5 in 9 years. Buzz was 8-5 in the NCAAs, Crean 5-5. Buzz had three tourney runs that got past the first weekend, Crean one.
Crean's crew made the 2003 Final Four, and I'll always be grateful for that. And yes, in my mind that might earn some extra "points" when comparing the two. But Buzz did go S16-S16-E8, the kind of sustained success that would make most coaches envious; Crean is among many peers that didn't accomplish that.
Even if I allow that it's close -- heck, even if I allow that Crean is slightly better on the back of the Final Four (I don't, but even if I did) -- it's certainly not "LOL" to suggest that Buzz had a better run at Marquette than Crean did.
Oh, and as an aside ...
Nobody over the age of 25 should use "LOL"!
-
I agree and would like to see Chico's answer.
Buzz had a better winning percentage even though his strength of schedule was much more difficult (7.88 vs. 6.39 using Sports Reference's ratings system), obviously because Buzz was in the Big East the whole time he was there.
Buzz appeared in 5 NCAAs in 6 years, Crean 5 in 9 years. Buzz was 8-5 in the NCAAs, Crean 5-5. Buzz had three tourney runs that got past the first weekend, Crean one.
Crean's crew made the 2003 Final Four, and I'll always be grateful for that. And yes, in my mind that might earn some extra "points" when comparing the two. But Buzz did go S16-S16-E8, the kind of sustained success that would make most coaches envious; Crean is among many peers that didn't accomplish that.
Even if I allow that it's close -- heck, even if I allow that Crean is slightly better on the back of the Final Four (I don't, but even if I did) -- it's certainly not "LOL" to suggest that Buzz had a better run at Marquette than Crean did.
Oh, and as an aside ...
Nobody over the age of 25 should use "LOL"!
I'm 25 and use lol regularly ;D
My guess is that Chico's argument would be that Buzz had a much better starting point than Crean. I think he would also argue that Crean was less squirmy.
They're are legit arguments. Personally I would rank Buzz as number 2 and Crean as number 3. With Al being the far and away number 1 and KO being close to Crean.
-
Well, one thing's for sure - Buzz's substitution pattern and personnel usage were not affected at all by his concern for "next year."
-
I really think Buzz's problem was he had the most talented bench he ever had and didn't know how to deal with it.
-
Same story different year (thank god its the last year).... Derrick Wilson = Good Kid........ Just Not a good Basketball player period...
-
I really think Buzz's problem was he had the most talented bench he ever had and didn't know how to deal with it.
I think this is going to be the most interesting thing about this season....we will find out for sure if there was talent on the bench. Wojo has no choice but to play the players Buzz wouldn't.
-
I'm 25 and use lol regularly ;D
My guess is that Chico's argument would be that Buzz had a much better starting point than Crean. I think he would also argue that Crean was less squirmy.
They're are legit arguments. Personally I would rank Buzz as number 2 and Crean as number 3. With Al being the far and away number 1 and KO being close to Crean.
I think this is a good discussion and one I struggle with. Crean was the right coach at the time just like Buzz was the right coach at the time and I believe Wojo to be the right coach at the time.
When Crean came in, we needed to be rebuilt and enthusiasm generated, something a used car salesman is pretty good at. There wasn't much downside risk and only upside potential. Once Crean left we needed a legitimate basketball coach who could take the team to another level which Buzz was able to do.
Buzz for all his faults was able to sustain the enthusiasm with his quirk while recruiting some very talented players that he was able to coach up. I also think Buzz was able to recognize a trend in basketball before others did that he exploited, but others have since caught up. I think Buzz is a supernova, burns white hot for a while but burns everyone out pretty quick. We had some downside risk, but could take a chance to sustain success to build a platform for the next coach.
Now in comes Wojo, who likely is here for 5-8 years of sustained success with tremendous potential to take the school back to the Final Four. At least on the surface he seems the steadiest of the coaches in 30 years, and will likely provide a steady climb for the team, we shouldn't see a lot of dramatic swings.
Each coach really was the coach for their time, so how do you rank them? Having said that, I would put Buzz ahead of Crean simply because with Buzz we can eliminate a "flash in the pan" or single player as the reason for his success unlike a somewhat legitimate argument against Crean.
-
I think this is a good discussion and one I struggle with. Crean was the right coach at the time just like Buzz was the right coach at the time and I believe Wojo to be the right coach at the time.
When Crean came in, we needed to be rebuilt and enthusiasm generated, something a used car salesman is pretty good at. There wasn't much downside risk and only upside potential. Once Crean left we needed a legitimate basketball coach who could take the team to another level which Buzz was able to do.
Buzz for all his faults was able to sustain the enthusiasm with his quirk while recruiting some very talented players that he was able to coach up. I also think Buzz was able to recognize a trend in basketball before others did that he exploited, but others have since caught up. I think Buzz is a supernova, burns white hot for a while but burns everyone out pretty quick. We had some downside risk, but could take a chance to sustain success to build a platform for the next coach.
Now in comes Wojo, who likely is here for 5-8 years of sustained success with tremendous potential to take the school back to the Final Four. At least on the surface he seems the steadiest of the coaches in 30 years, and will likely provide a steady climb for the team, we shouldn't see a lot of dramatic swings.
Each coach really was the coach for their time, so how do you rank them? Having said that, I would put Buzz ahead of Crean simply because with Buzz we can eliminate a "flash in the pan" or single player as the reason for his success unlike a somewhat legitimate argument against Crean.
I was on campus for Deane & Crean, and while I understand why people don't like Tom now, I can tell you he was a HUGE help to the program.
I know that sounds like hyperbole, but I can tell you that students were absolutely apathetic about the program, we always showed up late for games, (if we showed up at all). I watched powerhouse programs like UNC-Charlotte run MU off of the floor. It was embarrassing. There wasn't a lot of pride or ownership in the program from the students.
Road games were rarely televised. The players were overmatched, and the students who actually were fans of the program dreamed about the NIT, not the NCAA. We thought 16K for a game looked "full".
Crean is a salesman, and he correctly identified that he needed better talent and better student support. If you go back and look at what the guy did, it's very smart. He went waaaay out of his way to include students. He greeted people around campus, he bought pizza for students at a road games, he delivered doughnuts, he shook hands in the dorm lobbies, etc. etc. etc. He marketed the hell out of himself and the program. It was stuff Deane and KO never dreamed of doing (or wanted to do quite frankly).
So, while Crean has earned his fair share of criticism, (we all know what they are) I can tell you, first hand, that the guy did a GREAT job breathing some life into MU hoops. He had big picture perspective for MU, and he pushed and pushed and took MU to places it hadn't been in a loooong time.
-
I was on campus for Deane & Crean, and while I understand why people don't like Tom now, I can tell you he was a HUGE help to the program.
I know that sounds like hyperbole, but I can tell you that students were absolutely apathetic about the program, we always showed up late for games, (if we showed up at all). I watched powerhouse programs like UNC-Charlotte run MU off of the floor. It was embarrassing. There wasn't a lot of pride or ownership in the program from the students.
Road games were rarely televised. The players were overmatched, and the students who actually were fans of the program dreamed about the NIT, not the NCAA. We thought 16K for a game looked "full".
Crean is a salesman, and he correctly identified that he needed better talent and better student support. If you go back and look at what the guy did, it's very smart. He went waaaay out of his way to include students. He greeted people around campus, he bought pizza for students at a road games, he delivered doughnuts, he shook hands in the dorm lobbies, etc. etc. etc. He marketed the hell out of himself and the program. It was stuff Deane and KO never dreamed of doing (or wanted to do quite frankly).
So, while Crean has earned his fair share of criticism, (we all know what they are) I can tell you, first hand, that the guy did a GREAT job breathing some life into MU hoops. He had big picture perspective for MU, and he pushed and pushed and took MU to places it hadn't been in a loooong time.
That's why I lobbied so hard with the administration to change the student ticketing to first come, first serve. We were able to do that before I left. It took about a year of meetings with students, administration, Bradley Center, etc, etc. Students not showing up, gaping holes in their sections, etc. It was controversial, but we got it pushed through. As a result, you now have kids showing up at 5:00am for a weekend game and they get the best seats. Proud that we changed that, and thrilled the juniors and seniors took a bit of sacrifice and did what was ultimately best for the program and the environment to give up their allocated seats and fight for them game day like everyone else.
Crean would do anything I asked of him around excitement in the program. Anything. As you correctly state, that wasn't always the case with others.
-
I'm 25 and use lol regularly ;D
My guess is that Chico's argument would be that Buzz had a much better starting point than Crean. I think he would also argue that Crean was less squirmy.
They're are legit arguments. Personally I would rank Buzz as number 2 and Crean as number 3. With Al being the far and away number 1 and KO being close to Crean.
I'll let you guys figure this out. For the #2 coach in Marquette history to just walk out the door, not be saved and to go to powerhouse Virginia Tech (when the supposedly less heralded coaches at MU went to Tennessee, Indiana, etc) should tell you everything you need to know.
Too many people here look only at W's and L's, not at what else was going on, what their starting points were, incidents off the court, etc. It's a whole package.
It's pretty amazing that the supposed #2 coach in MU history, a history that is very rich, would just be able to walk away and land such a prestigious coaching job.....unless one takes off the beer goggles and examines the entirety of the situation. Of course, too many people don't have the information to do that, or those that do and just don't care and subscribe to the JUST WIN BABY attitude.
There's a reason why the "#2 coach in MU history" isn't at MU any longer and is in Blacksburg, VA.
-
That's why I lobbied so hard with the administration to change the student ticketing to first come, first serve. We were able to do that before I left. It took about a year of meetings with students, administration, Bradley Center, etc, etc. Students not showing up, gaping holes in their sections, etc. It was controversial, but we got it pushed through. As a result, you now have kids showing up at 5:00am for a weekend game and they get the best seats. Proud that we changed that, and thrilled the juniors and seniors took a bit of sacrifice and did what was ultimately best for the program and the environment to give up their allocated seats and fight for them game day like everyone else.
Crean would do anything I asked of him around excitement in the program. Anything. As you correctly state, that wasn't always the case with others.
Did that include fellatio in the athletic department offices?
-
There's a reason why the "#2 coach in MU history" isn't at MU any longer and is in Blacksburg, VA.
Thanks for acknowledging that the #2 coach in MU history is in Blacksburg, VA.. Marquette fans everywhere agree!
-
So, Buzz substituted "at the maniacal end of the scale" in 2012-13 and in 2013-14, and in the former case it lead to a NCAA elite eight berth while in the later case it led to a team missing both the NCAA and the NIT. With such divergent results, how can labeling his substitution frequency as "at the maniacal end of the scale" have any meaning at all?
"Maniacal end of the scale" refers to the fact Brent substituted more frequently per game than the NCAA average. How you take that as a comment on the team's performance I don't know.
-
I'll let you guys figure this out. For the #2 coach in Marquette history to just walk out the door, not be saved and to go to powerhouse Virginia Tech (when the supposedly less heralded coaches at MU went to Tennessee, Indiana, etc) should tell you everything you need to know.
Too many people here look only at W's and L's, not at what else was going on, what their starting points were, incidents off the court, etc. It's a whole package.
It's pretty amazing that the supposed #2 coach in MU history, a history that is very rich, would just be able to walk away and land such a prestigious coaching job.....unless one takes off the beer goggles and examines the entirety of the situation. Of course, too many people don't have the information to do that, or those that do and just don't care and subscribe to the JUST WIN BABY attitude.
There's a reason why the "#2 coach in MU history" isn't at MU any longer and is in Blacksburg, VA.
I think the bigger issue people had with your statement Chico's, is that your response was "LOL", as in, how could that even be considered.
I could hear an argument for TC as the #2 coach in MU history. I personally probably think Buzz is, but I can understand arguments against him. In no way is considering Buzz the #2 coach, a laughable item that does not warrant any consideration.
-
I'll let you guys figure this out. For the #2 coach in Marquette history to just walk out the door, not be saved and to go to powerhouse Virginia Tech (when the supposedly less heralded coaches at MU went to Tennessee, Indiana, etc) should tell you everything you need to know.
Too many people here look only at W's and L's, not at what else was going on, what their starting points were, incidents off the court, etc. It's a whole package.
It's pretty amazing that the supposed #2 coach in MU history, a history that is very rich, would just be able to walk away and land such a prestigious coaching job.....unless one takes off the beer goggles and examines the entirety of the situation. Of course, too many people don't have the information to do that, or those that do and just don't care and subscribe to the JUST WIN BABY attitude.
There's a reason why the "#2 coach in MU history" isn't at MU any longer and is in Blacksburg, VA.
I mean as a coach I feel like the main job is A) win B) player development
I'm confused are you trying to say we shouldn't care about him winning or not to base our decision on who was second best?
-
I mean as a coach I feel like the main job is A) win B) player development
I'm confused are you trying to say we shouldn't care about him winning or not to base our decision on who was second best?
I'll ask again, from a highly regarded program like Marquette basketball, why is it that the "#2 coach in the history of MU basketball" was allowed to walk away and landed that major job with powerhouse Virginia Tech.
The job is more than to win.....there's a reason he's not at MU and he's at Va. Tech.
-
There are three former head MU basketball coaches (and guessing soon to be four) in the Hall of Fame not named Crean or Williams.
-
There are three former head MU basketball coaches (and guessing soon to be four) in the Hall of Fame not named Crean or Williams.
Dr. Blackheart comes in like
(http://media.giphy.com/media/H3yqUOP8rVjBm/giphy.gif)
-
There are three former head MU basketball coaches (and guessing soon to be four) in the Hall of Fame not named Crean or Williams.
Yeah. But only one of them is in the HOF because of their work with Marquette. Tex Winter is in there because of his time with Kansas State and the Chicago Bulls (and inventing the triangle offense). Eddie Hickey is in there because of his time with Creighton and SLU. Rick Majerus is the one I assume you are saying will be the fourth and he is known for his time with Utah. Only Al is really associated with Marquette.
Overall records with Marquette:
Tex Winter: 25-25 (.500)
Eddie Hickey: 92-70 (.568)
Al McGuire: 295-80 (.787)
Rick Majerus: 56-35 (.615)
Tom Crean: 190-96 (.664)
Buzz Williams: 139-65 (.681)
-
I'll ask again, from a highly regarded program like Marquette basketball, why is it that the "#2 coach in the history of MU basketball" was allowed to walk away and landed that major job with powerhouse Virginia Tech.
The job is more than to win.....there's a reason he's not at MU and he's at Va. Tech.
I'm really not sure where you are going with this. MU wouldn't budge on their expectations for Buzz or the benefits he received. VT would give him what he wanted. So Buzz left. That's the main reason he is gone.
I also don't buy the argument that because he went to a lesser school that it somehow diminishes his record at Marquette. Is Bob Knight diminished because he went to Texas Tech?
-
I'll ask again, from a highly regarded program like Marquette basketball, why is it that the "#2 coach in the history of MU basketball" was allowed to walk away and landed that major job with powerhouse Virginia Tech.
The job is more than to win.....there's a reason he's not at MU and he's at Va. Tech.
I don't know I don't pretend to know, don't like to indulge conspiracy theories either. But I mean my original question was why did you say "lol" I mean when he took over we had 26 ncaa tournament appearances (just four more than lowely depaul still has) 13 sweet 16s (just three more than lowely depaul had). I'm not saying buzz did it right, or in the marquette way or wasn't a prick that mightve lead to us letting him walk away... but to the average uninformed MU fan or general basketball fan who looks at what they brought the program in terms of wins and losses Id be willing to bet >80% of them would say Buzz was the second best coach.
Now in terms of what you judge coaching by like I said I don't know enough of the ins and outs of the program to argue. I know a lot of players have credited buzz for being a father figure or helping them mature but that could all be a pile for I know.
-
There are three former head MU basketball coaches (and guessing soon to be four) in the Hall of Fame not named Crean or Williams.
Yup
-
I'm really not sure where you are going with this. MU wouldn't budge on their expectations for Buzz or the benefits he received. VT would give him what he wanted. So Buzz left. That's the main reason he is gone.
I also don't buy the argument that because he went to a lesser school that it somehow diminishes his record at Marquette. Is Bob Knight diminished because he went to Texas Tech?
TAMU, I believe you are missing the underlying causes. The "#2 coach" in MU history one would think the university would do everything they could to retain him, afterall he's the #2 coach in the history of the storied program....they didn't. Secondly, as the #2 coach of such a storied program like MU, he should be going to a program that has done more than go to one NCAA tournament in the last 20 years. He didn't.
There are reasons he is not at MU any longer and why he went to Va. Tech.
-
TAMU, I believe you are missing the underlying causes. The "#2 coach" in MU history one would think the university would do everything they could to retain him, afterall he's the #2 coach in the history of the storied program....they didn't. Secondly, as the #2 coach of such a storied program like MU, he should be going to a program that has done more than go to one NCAA tournament in the last 20 years. He didn't.
There are reasons he is not at MU any longer and why he went to Va. Tech.
Coaches not wanting to follow a university's expectations and demanding more benefits have nothing to do with how good the coach was. You also do not take into account that university had already bent over backwards in previous years to keep him. They were just unwilling to bend any farther.
As for your second point, irrelevant again. See Bob Knight to Texas Tech.
Finally, as sad as I am to say, Marquette is not exactly known for having storied coaches outside of Al. Not hard to be number two in this group compared to some of the elite programs.
-
I don't know I don't pretend to know, don't like to indulge conspiracy theories either. But I mean my original question was why did you say "lol" I mean when he took over we had 26 ncaa tournament appearances (just four more than lowely depaul still has) 13 sweet 16s (just three more than lowely depaul had). I'm not saying buzz did it right, or in the marquette way or wasn't a prick that mightve lead to us letting him walk away... but to the average uninformed MU fan or general basketball fan who looks at what they brought the program in terms of wins and losses Id be willing to bet >80% of them would say Buzz was the second best coach.
You clearly articulated it
-
Coaches not wanting to follow a university's expectations and demanding more benefits have nothing to do with how good the coach was. You also do not take into account that university had already bent over backwards in previous years to keep him. They were just unwilling to bend any farther.
As for your second point, irrelevant again. See Bob Knight to Texas Tech.
Finally, as sad as I am to say, Marquette is not exactly known for having storied coaches outside of Al. Not hard to be number two in this group compared to some of the elite programs.
Your first paragraph, again, misses some key components, underlying causes.
Bob Knight was fired at Indiana for doing a number of things that would not get him another job as a coach...that's why Woody Hayes never coached again. The analogy is not appropriate.
-
You clearly articulated it
Right but a vassssssssttttttttt majority of the schools students, alumni, steakholders are uninformed. So unless it comes out that his players were self taught you can't expect anyone to ever listen to vague statements about why he didn't get a better coaching gig or how he was shown the door etc.
-
Your first paragraph, again, misses some key components, underlying causes.
I am not missing anything. I'm just being purposefully vague. I still stand by my #2 statement. I have heard squirminess about every coach dating back to Al. Buzz' sh*t smells similar to the rest of the coaches. Except Dukiet, got nothing on him...maybe that's why he was terrible.
Bob Knight was fired at Indiana for doing a number of things that would not get him another job as a coach...that's why Woody Hayes never coached again. The analogy is not appropriate.
My point was that the next job does not diminish the success at the previous job. If you want to look at the entire coaching career, sure. But Buzz being the head coach at Virginia Tech does not have any affect on his standing amongst Marquette coaches.
-
I think the bigger issue people had with your statement Chico's, is that your response was "LOL", as in, how could that even be considered.
I could hear an argument for TC as the #2 coach in MU history. I personally probably think Buzz is, but I can understand arguments against him. In no way is considering Buzz the #2 coach, a laughable item that does not warrant any consideration.
This was my point, too.
Chicos, in his typically Chicosian way, dismissed the notion with a wave of his hand.
"You knaves, you dopes ... Buzz second only to Al just because of all those wins and all that sustained success? ... please ... I'm always right, everybody else is always wrong ... go back to Bumblef@ck and take your meaningless facts with you ... LOL."
-
TAMU, I believe you are missing the underlying causes. The "#2 coach" in MU history one would think the university would do everything they could to retain him, afterall he's the #2 coach in the history of the storied program....they didn't. Secondly, as the #2 coach of such a storied program like MU, he should be going to a program that has done more than go to one NCAA tournament in the last 20 years. He didn't.
There are reasons he is not at MU any longer and why he went to Va. Tech.
It really isn't that black and white.
Buzz might or might not be the #2 coach in Marquette history. Regardless, it is obvious that he was successful and that Marquette was more than satisfied with the on court performance. But they weren't comfortable with a few things ranging from Juco recruiting, to his dickish personality, to his demands that they change certain things.
Crean might or might not be #2, but he at least pretty much conducted himself off court in a manner that Marquette was comfortable with.
-
Chicos - How would you rank MU's coaches?