MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on February 19, 2018, 07:42:43 PM
-
https://painttouches.com/2018/02/19/a-brief-history-of-the-modern-college-basketball-rebuild/
Inspired by some of the pre-Creighton discussion I decided to get more data on the questions "how long should a rebuild take?" Here is what I came up with.
-
Good research report.
PS no need to rip on AAC and call them a mid major conference . They are a legit high major conference .
-
Good research report.
PS no need to rip on AAC and call them a mid major conference . They are a legit high major conference .
No, they are not
-
The AAC is seventh in conference RPI. They are closer to fifth (P12) and sixth (B10) than they are to eighth (A10).
-
Good research report.
PS no need to rip on AAC and call them a mid major conference . They are a legit high major conference .
I mean this with 100% sincerity, I was not ripping them. I was stating a fact and making people understood it in the context of the study. A bunch of data from the likes of ECU, Tulane, UCF, etc....would have skewed the study.
The AAC is seventh in conference RPI. They are closer to fifth (P12) and sixth (B10) than they are to eighth (A10).
And the Atlantic 10 has been rated #6 in conference RPI before and the Mountain West has been rated #1 both in the last 5 years....and they are still mid-majors.
The American has never been rated higher than #7 in conference RPI and some years have been rated #8. They are another version of the Atlantic 10/WCC/MWC. I don't see any data driven argument to say they are a high major conference.
-
All the Wojo haters should be required reading!
-
I mean this with 100% sincerity, I was not ripping them. I was stating a fact and making people understood it in the context of the study. A bunch of data from the likes of ECU, Tulane, UCF, etc....would have skewed the study.
And the Atlantic 10 has been rated #6 in conference RPI before and the Mountain West has been rated #1 both in the last 5 years....and they are still mid-majors.
The American has never been rated higher than #7 in conference RPI and some years have been rated #8. They are another version of the Atlantic 10/WCC/MWC. I don't see any data driven argument to say they are a high major conference.
The problem with the conference mid major label insinuates the programs are mid major and Cincy, Memphis, UConn, Temple, WSU, and maybe Houston are most certainly not.
-
Whoa. Whoa. Whoa.
Many experts on this board, with self-proclaimed vast knowledge of college bball, have definitively stated that a rebuild, in this era and featuring long term success, should absolutely NOT have taken this long.
Your research, and all the data associated with it, is WRONG! FAKE NEWS!
-
NCAA Tournament Bids (Past 4 Years)
AAC: 2, 4. 2, 4 = 12 Total
A-10: 3, 3, 3, 6 = 15 Total
The American may have programs that have been traditionally strong in men's basketball - Memphis, UConn, Cincinnati, Temple, Wichita State, Tulsa. However, if they have so many strong men's programs, why do they have fewer bids than the A-10 (a true mid-major conference)? Why don't these historically strong programs continue to win in this new conference?
The answer is because they always have a bottom quadrant that is truly awful. The grouping of ECU, Tulane, USF, UCF (historically) and SMU (now that Larry Brown is gone) has really dragged down the perception of the basketball programs. This was what Marquette and the C7 desperately tried to avoid when we were looking at a new Big East. Look at what happened to UConn and Cincinnati. They now play a national schedule in smaller gyms in recruiting areas that are no longer Midwest/East coast-based.
The AAC is not in the same grouping of ACC/Big 12/B1G/PAC/SEC/BE. It is its own tweener distinction with the A-10.
-
NCAA Tournament Bids (Past 4 Years)
AAC: 2, 4. 2, 4 = 12 Total
A-10: 3, 3, 3, 6 = 15 Total
The American may have programs that have been traditionally strong in men's basketball - Memphis, UConn, Cincinnati, Temple, Wichita State, Tulsa. However, if they have so many strong men's programs, why do they have fewer bids than the A-10 (a true mid-major conference)? Why don't these historically strong programs continue to win in this new conference?
The answer is because they always have a bottom quadrant that is truly awful. The grouping of ECU, Tulane, USF, UCF (historically) and SMU (now that Larry Brown is gone) has really dragged down the perception of the basketball programs. This was what Marquette and the C7 desperately tried to avoid when we were looking at a new Big East. Look at what happened to UConn and Cincinnati. They now play a national schedule in smaller gyms in recruiting areas that are no longer Midwest/East coast-based.
The AAC is not in the same grouping of ACC/Big 12/B1G/PAC/SEC/BE. It is its own tweener distinction with the A-10.
Remember when the MWC and MVC were part of that tweener group? Talk about conferences that fell hard.
-
ROI analysis?
-
Jesmu
You make this board very difficult to read/follow. I will not ignore any poster, because I think different opinions are a good thing. That said, you really bring little to the table, and IMO, your posts diminish the quality of Scoop and fellow posters with similar opinions as yours. I do not agree with everyone on here, but never outright disliked a fellow scooper. Find this hard to say during Lent, but you might have broken the string for me.
Silver lining, I am very thankful that I only need to read your posts and do not have interaction with you in real life.
-
Jesmu
You make this board very difficult to read/follow. I will not ignore any poster, because I think different opinions are a good thing. That said, you really bring little to the table, and IMO, your posts diminish the quality of Scoop and fellow posters with similar opinions as yours. I do not agree with everyone on here, but never outright disliked a fellow scooper. Find this hard to say during Lent, but you might have broken the string for me.
Silver lining, I am very thankful that I only need to read your posts and do not have interaction with you in real life.
Here's the thing, I have no problem with different opinions. Seriously, I don't. But when someone's POV is shown to be incorrect/false by research/data/stats, and they refuse to accept it or double down on that POV without any evidence to support it, I think it's a little ridiculous.
Some people wish we still had Buzz as a coach. Fine.
Some people wish we'd spend less on the program. Fine.
Some people wish we'd play less of rowsey/Howard together. Fine.
Etc etc. It's not the differing opinions I mind. It's those that refuse to acknowledge that theirs might be incorrect that bother me. Especially when they condescend to others about their lack of knowledge or what have you.
Ironic that you think differing opinions are a good thing, but don't want to hear mine. We have legit trolls on this board. We have posters who insult coaches, awful or recruits. We have posters who have legitimately horrible personal opinions like it's okay to have intentionally unprotected sex with a girl if she's drunk. But I'm the villain here. Okay.
Further, thanks for the personal shot. I can say that (mostly) when it comes to those posters that I continually disagree with or outright dislike, that I imagine we'd manage to enjoy a good beer summit together. Because I'm not so judgemental to think I can determine someone's whole being/personality/worth from (mostly) anonymous message board posts.
-
Could Bennets' teams play defense?
-
ROI analysis?
Isn't there more to life and basketball than ROI?
-
I mean this with 100% sincerity, I was not ripping them. I was stating a fact and making people understood it in the context of the study. A bunch of data from the likes of ECU, Tulane, UCF, etc....would have skewed the study.
And the Atlantic 10 has been rated #6 in conference RPI before and the Mountain West has been rated #1 both in the last 5 years....and they are still mid-majors.
The American has never been rated higher than #7 in conference RPI and some years have been rated #8. They are another version of the Atlantic 10/WCC/MWC. I don't see any data driven argument to say they are a high major conference.
"SKEWED DATA" good going, I suggest you do a little more to clarify your point. I need a pie chart.
-
5 years 2 judge
-
Isn't there more to life and basketball than ROI?
I am sure there are. Let's stay on topic, please.
Here is what's generally in common. Previous head coaching success and/or NBA ties. Schools go out and spend for those traits and expect the ROI.
-
I've been reflecting on the Cuonzo issue over the past couple of days.
I really wanted him over Wojo at the time. But when I see what he did at Cal, and what he is doing at Mizzou, I really think that would have been a bad choice. He's trying to do the one-and-done thing, but he's never going to attract enough talent to make that work. And he's not as good as Coach K or Coach Cal.
So he's probably going to end up like Gottfried did at NC State. Recruit well enough to get the locals excited, and maybe they make a S16 run, but it's not a sustainable model. There will be just as many disappointments as there are successes.
Well here's praying that Wojo isn't the next Herb Sendek...
-
jesmu
I did not know, nor care, what camp you believe I am in, but would like to state my opinion to clarify myself to you. It is as follows:
1. I am not anti, nor pro Wojo at the moment. Would add that I am skeptical if he has it takes to achieve the success I hope the university wants from the program.
2. I could not care less who the coach is, provided he meets the expectations set forth by the university.
3. I am a fan/supporter that has high hopes and expectations for the program. Provided the university wants an upper level team, my hopes are they are a year in and year out top twenty program.
4. As for investment in the program, I could not care less if they are middle of the road or highest budget in college basketball. It is not my money and only comment on it because it is mentioned often on here.
5. Follow up on the ball budget, if the budget is simply to make money for the university, great job is being done. If it is to field an upper level program, it fails IMO. My only issue has been, and remains, is what the university's objective is on having big budget program.
6. Lastly, I have my preference, but could not care less if they play zone, man to man, walk it up the court, full court press, traditional's vs. non traditional's , student scholars vs. struggling JUCO's, play at new arena or The Al, wear powder blue or gold, play in ACC, BE or MAC as long they compete on the national scene. If MU brass is happy with the state of the program, while I would disagree, I am very happy the university is happy. If they are not, I hope they accomplish what the their expectations for the program are in their overall agenda.
So, as for this guy, I will always support the program. If they want to be Kentucky or Bradley, I will be watching. Again, my preference is to compete on the national scene, not getting jacked up over stealing one in Omaha to keep the bubble dream alive.
-
I am sure there are. Let's stay on topic, please.
Here is what's generally in common. Previous head coaching success and/or NBA ties. Schools go out and spend for those traits and expect the ROI.
ROI does not apply, can't be used in this analysis. ROI is a profit analysis. MU is a non-profit. There are many non economic benefits to a college basketball program which are not included in an ROI analysis.
-
Jesmu
You make this board very difficult to read/follow. I will not ignore any poster, because I think different opinions are a good thing. That said, you really bring little to the table, and IMO, your posts diminish the quality of Scoop and fellow posters with similar opinions as yours. I do not agree with everyone on here, but never outright disliked a fellow scooper. Find this hard to say during Lent, but you might have broken the string for me.
Silver lining, I am very thankful that I only need to read your posts and do not have interaction with you in real life.
Grist for the mill for those who believe in the psychological projection theory.
Staying on topic, the rebuild is fine. Every basketball person I come across on the high school scene here in Jersey absolutely loves the Marquette program and Wojo. Recognizes it's steady building on firm ground.
-
jesmu
I did not know, nor care, what camp you believe I am in, but would like to state my opinion to clarify myself to you. It is as follows:
1. I am not anti, nor pro Wojo at the moment. Would add that I am skeptical if he has it takes to achieve the success I hope the university wants from the program.
2. I could not care less who the coach is, provided he meets the expectations set forth by the university.
3. I am a fan/supporter that has high hopes and expectations for the program. Provided the university wants an upper level team, my hopes are they are a year in and year out top twenty program.
4. As for investment in the program, I could not care less if they are middle of the road or highest budget in college basketball. It is not my money and only comment on it because it is mentioned often on here.
5. Follow up on the ball budget, if the budget is simply to make money for the university, great job is being done. If it is to field an upper level program, it fails IMO. My only issue has been, and remains, is what the university's objective is on having big budget program.
6. Lastly, I have my preference, but could not care less if they play zone, man to man, walk it up the court, full court press, traditional's vs. non traditional's , student scholars vs. struggling JUCO's, play at new arena or The Al, wear powder blue or gold, play in ACC, BE or MAC as long they compete on the national scene. If MU brass is happy with the state of the program, while I would disagree, I am very happy the university is happy. If they are not, I hope they accomplish what the their expectations for the program are in their overall agenda.
So, as for this guy, I will always support the program. If they want to be Kentucky or Bradley, I will be watching. Again, my preference is to compete on the national scene, not getting jacked up over stealing one in Omaha to keep the bubble dream alive.
No argument or disagreement about any of this. Thanks for providing your viewpoint
-
Excellent article, TAMU. Thanks for sharing. I think this also does a good job of showing that Marquette is doing okay as far as the timeline goes but it is probably too soon to consider Wojo's tenure decisively a success or failure. If we get in this year and have the expected results the next two years (improvement to the 4-7 line in 2019 and a protected seed in 2020 with the appearance of sustainability) it will be a success. If we miss this year and are a bubble team next year, then it might be Herb Sendek time.
I may be applauding this because it reinforces my preconceived beliefs, but regardless I am glad for the effort and feel it is an accurate assessment of things as they stand.
-
Whoa dude....
This article was the bees knees! Very well written. I have been a strong supporter of Wojo and am looking forward to what he does here. There have definitely been times this year though that I have found myself exhausted in my attempts to defend him because even I am getting a bit burnt out on the "no no no, he's got this..." line of thinking.
Having said that, I think he's got this.
Time will tell...
-
Great job. Fascinating data.
-
Now that Golden and the Jersey high school scene has put stamp of approval on the condition of program and rebuild, I think we all can rest easy. Thank you, Golden and the Jersey high school scene for bringing closure to the discussion.
TAMU
Great work. That said, you should have received Golden’s stamp approval first and saved yourself a lot of work.
-
trying to read that article required a flow-chart but a great read nonetheless tamu-good find! hopefully it will talk a few off the ledge. gee, i coulda sworn chicos said something to this same effect multiple times and got his a$$ kicked by the usual internet hoop brainiacs. 4-5 years or so...oh well, goose just made this "message board" a little more enjoyable again-thanks man!
-
Rocket
Anything to keep the faithful on board. Everyone has a right to opinion. Mine is consistent and honest, I want MU ball to be big time.
-
trying to read that article required a flow-chart but a great read nonetheless tamu-good find! hopefully it will talk a few off the ledge. gee, i coulda sworn chicos said something to this same effect multiple times and got his a$$ kicked by the usual internet hoop brainiacs. 4-5 years or so...oh well, goose just made this "message board" a little more enjoyable again-thanks man!
TAMU, wanna draw up a spreadsheet of data for us? Or send me your notes and I can try to make something, though it might not be til the offseason.
-
Rocket
Anything to keep the faithful on board. Everyone has a right to opinion. Mine is consistent and honest, I want MU ball to be big time.
no arguments there my man-i know you been through some warrior thick and thin goose-always enjoy reading your stuff
-
ND sucks
-
TAMU, wanna draw up a spreadsheet of data for us? Or send me your notes and I can try to make something, though it might not be til the offseason.
Andrei put a little something together on the twitta: https://twitter.com/PaintTouches/status/966060860073537536
This isn't everything but it maps all the "successful" rebuilds
-
Now that Golden and the Jersey high school scene has put stamp of approval on the condition of program and rebuild, I think we all can rest easy. Thank you, Golden and the Jersey high school scene for bringing closure to the discussion.
Glad that the movers and shakers on the Jersey High school scene are gaga over Wojo - when are they going to send him a 5*? Or even a walk on?
-
Lenny
I was thinking the exact same thing.
-
What would Art Rooney do? The guy was famous for giving his coaches wide latitude for the sake of stability...and that has helped the Steelers own more Super Bowls than any other franchise.
I'm not sold on Wojo yet but I'd say the good outweighs the bad and justifies applying Rooney-style patience. The outcome may be that we have a few more middling seasons and then move on. But it could also be this: a slower build establishes a more solid, stable, and deep foundation for MU to grow into a truly elite program.
Let's win tonight.
-
What would Art Rooney do? The guy was famous for giving his coaches wide latitude for the sake of stability...and that has helped the Steelers own more Super Bowls than any other franchise.
I'm not sold on Wojo yet but I'd say the good outweighs the bad and justifies applying Rooney-style patience. The outcome may be that we have a few more middling seasons and then move on. But it could also be this: a slower build establishes a more solid, stable, and deep foundation for MU to grow into a truly elite program.
Let's win tonight.
To be fair though, we don't really know if the Steelers would have done better had they been more aggressive with switching coaches. They have only won two Super Bowls post-Noll. Would they have been more successful had they moved on from Cowher or Tomlin sooner?
-
To be fair though, we don't really know if the Steelers would have done better had they been more aggressive with switching coaches. They have only won two Super Bowls post-Noll. Would they have been more successful had they moved on from Cowher or Tomlin sooner?
We can't know, but the franchise gave them both stability and security as some of the longest-tenured NFL coaches of the past few decades, and each of them had winning seasons nearly every year (in an era when that's really, really hard to do).
So the point is that while stability may not be the only reason for Pittsburgh's success, it provided the breeding ground for sustained, long-term winning. Reasonable minds can differ but I think the program should offer Wojo the same breeding ground - the potential payoff could be massive.
-
What would Art Rooney do? The guy was famous for giving his coaches wide latitude for the sake of stability...and that has helped the Steelers own more Super Bowls than any other franchise.
I'm not sold on Wojo yet but I'd say the good outweighs the bad and justifies applying Rooney-style patience. The outcome may be that we have a few more middling seasons and then move on. But it could also be this: a slower build establishes a more solid, stable, and deep foundation for MU to grow into a truly elite program.
Let's win tonight.
I'm in general agreement with you. If you've hired the right (or even semi-right) guy, you hang with him through ups and downs and allow him to grow in the job.
If you've hired the wrong guy, though, the quicker you cut bait the better (remember Bob Dukiet?).
-
(http://goingconcern.com/wp-content/uploads/files/big-4-pay-bay-area-mad-as-hell.gif)
Some people in this thread apparently.
-
Glad that the movers and shakers on the Jersey High school scene are gaga over Wojo - when are they going to send him a 5*? Or even a walk on?
Read the article from ESPN on Villanova. Wright had his worst seasons when he started chasing 5 star recruits..... because none of them fit his system!! Wojo needs best and most talented players that fit his system. Butler has been doing it that way for over a decade too, looking at their roster over the years. It certainly hasn't been a who's who of 5 star prospects.
-
Awesome article and lots of good research. One of the things that stood out to me in the earlier success stories vs the later success stories was the reputation (quality? history? funding?) of the programs that were able to rebuild more quickly compared to those that took some time. I think I could even argue that some of the longer-term rebuilds weren't rebuilds at all; they were simply building a strong program at a school with a limited history of basketball success. And yes, there are examples that don't fit the narrative of my summary, but I was trying to look at the majority of schools looked like in each bucket presented.
It seems like the quicker success stories (1-2 years) were typically bigger schools with a good overall athletic program or good basketball reputation - Kentucky, Cal, Tennessee, OK State, USC, Oklahoma. The rebuilds here seemed to be more about getting back on track to where they had been in prior years. These are big time programs with big time expectations and big time money on the line. I don't see these fanbases as the patient types.
Looking at the schools that took longer (5 years), they tended to be more in the mid-major camp and don't have the same kind of athletic programs and/or basketball history as the earlier success stories - Wichita State, SLU, New Mexico, Utah. Smaller schools like this typically don't expect to make the tournament every year. I've got to think the expectations from fans and the admins are much different than those above. Looking at WSU and SLU, neither program had much of a track record for being big time basketball schools prior to the arrival of Marshall and Majerus, so these might even just be considered program building success stories. Yes, WSU had one nice tournament run in their lone appearance in the 15 years or so leading up to Marshall's tenure.
Those that have complained about the pace of the MU rebuild, like myself, probably think that MU could have been able to be in the first camp given our track record prior to Wojo's arrival. Given the information laid out in the article, I don't think that's unreasonable. Those that are comfortable with a 5 year plan obviously have some very good examples of sustained success to point to to show that things are still OK, and the sky isn't falling. Given the information laid out in the article, I would also conclude that opinion is reasonable.
-
https://painttouches.com/2018/02/19/a-brief-history-of-the-modern-college-basketball-rebuild/
Inspired by some of the pre-Creighton discussion I decided to get more data on the questions "how long should a rebuild take?" Here is what I came up with.
Got a lot out of your article, TAMU. Thanks for taking the time to do the research, and thanks for sharing the link.
I'm in the "patient" camp, and I like the progress of our program. I certainly don't fault those who wish the progress had come quicker ... but in general I can do without a "we are doomed!" attitude every time we lose a game.
Again, great work.
-
Got a lot out of your article, TAMU. Thanks for taking the time to do the research, and thanks for sharing the link.
I'm in the "patient" camp, and I like the progress of our program. I certainly don't fault those who wish the progress had come quicker ... but in general I can do without a "we are doomed!" attitude every time we lose a game.
Again, great work.
I posited a theory with my pod partner about this after the St John's game. I really think that instant reaction/doom and gloom culture that MU fandom generally and the MU active social media types specifically has seemingly cultivated has created an inability to see the forest for the trees.
By no means do I think it's a #donedeal that Wojo is a create coach and will take us to the promised land, but it is certainly no more a #donedeal that he sucks or this rebuild has gone off the tracks.
For me, next year is the year I can put a marker down and say whether or not Wojo is the long term answer.
-
I posited a theory with my pod partner about this after the St John's game. I really think that instant reaction/doom and gloom culture that MU fandom generally and the MU active social media types specifically has seemingly cultivated has created an inability to see the forest for the trees.
This isn't something unique to MU. This is how sports fans react all over. I think the thread showing the Creighton message board's response to Saturday's game shows that. Videos of Steelers fans breaking their TVs when they lost to Jacksonville in the playoffs would also show that. Remember when Cleveland fans lit their Lebron jerseys on fire when he left?
Fans are often on an emotional rollercoaster based on their team's success. Some might say that's over the top, but some might say that's the beauty of sports. I think you might see that some of the gloomiest fans after losses might also be the happiest fans after wins. Some people just don't do middle ground well when it comes to their teams. And that is definitely not unique to Marquette.
-
This isn't something unique to MU. This is how sports fans react all over. I think the thread showing the Creighton message board's response to Saturday's game shows that. Videos of Steelers fans breaking their TVs when they lost to Jacksonville in the playoffs would also show that. Remember when Cleveland fans lit their Lebron jerseys on fire when he left?
Fans are often on an emotional rollercoaster based on their team's success. Some might say that's over the top, but some might say that's the beauty of sports. I think you might see that some of the gloomiest fans after losses might also be the happiest fans after wins. Some people just don't do middle ground well when it comes to their teams. And that is definitely not unique to Marquette.
That's all reasonable, of course. Fans are fanatics, etc.
But the part I bolded doesn't seem to be the case here very often. We have some folks who are absolutely miserable after a loss, and seemingly determined to make sure everybody feels equally miserable. But after a win, even a great win ... crickets.
I won't drone on, don't want to turn this into yet another "we" vs. "them" thread. I like TAMU's article. Even though it's not scientific research, it is interesting. And I also think it should give some hope to those who believe that Wojo somehow is hopelessly behind the curve of the typical rebuild.
Year 2 - 20 wins ... Year 3 - NCAA bid ... Year 4 - maybe a small step back (but maybe not; still too soon to tell) ... Year 5 - great recruiting class to bolster a young, improving team, and sights on bigger and better things.
Maybe I should make that my Scoop tag line!
-
That's all reasonable, of course. Fans are fanatics, etc.
But the part I bolded doesn't seem to be the case here very often. We have some folks who are absolutely miserable after a loss, and seemingly determined to make sure everybody feels equally miserable. But after a win, even a great win ... crickets.
People like to vent and complain. Misery loves company, and all. That seems to be the way of the internet. Read the comments of any news story online, and they're mostly negative, often filled with frustration over all sorts of things. I think a lot of people just have more to say about things that upset them or go wrong than things that go right.
I would guess that if we went back to Wichita State's message boards (assuming they exist) in the early Marshall years, there would be a ton of fans that were upset with him. They would look at their lone tournament run as proof that the program is capable of success, and say Marshall wasn't doing things right at first. Now that they're perennial contenders, you'll probably find fans frustrated when the team dropped a few spots in the rankings, even though the team is doing extremely well overall. It's probably not rational, but sports fans aren't exactly known for that kind of behavior.
-
Think where there is conflicting opinion on the concept of the Marquette "rebuild" is that Wojo walked into a program that made the NCAA in 5 of 6 years, 3 of the last 4 which were Sweet 16, Sweet 16, Elite 8, and inherited 8 Top 100 recruits. Does that really qualify as a rebuild?
Furthermore, where some discord lies, is that Wojo like Hank, had a hard act to follow. We didn't skip a beat with Buzz, and he inherited a train wreck of a roster Year 2 of his tenure.
-
Think where there is conflicting opinion on the concept of the Marquette "rebuild" is that Wojo walked into a program that made the NCAA in 5 of 6 years, 3 of the last 4 which were Sweet 16, Sweet 16, Elite 8, and inherited 8 Top 100 recruits. Does that really qualify as a rebuild?
Furthermore, where some discord lies, is that Wojo like Hank, had a hard act to follow. We didn't skip a beat with Buzz, and he inherited a train wreck of a roster Year 2 of his tenure.
In year two of Buzz's tenure, he had two future NBA first round draft picks on his roster, one of whom has become a four time NBA All-Star and Olympic gold medal winner. In addition, two other players from that roster have earned NBA minutes, including one who is currently in the league.
No one on Wojo's first roster has played even one minute in the NBA.
-
In year two of Buzz's tenure, he had two future NBA first round draft picks on his roster, one of whom has become a four time NBA All-Star and Olympic golf medal winner. In addition, two other players from that roster have earned NBA minutes, including one who is currently in the league.
No one on Wojo's first roster has played even one minute in the NBA.
Derrick Wilson will get there he just needs time
-
In year two of Buzz's tenure, he had two future NBA first round draft picks on his roster, one of whom has become a four time NBA All-Star and Olympic gold medal winner. In addition, two other players from that roster have earned NBA minutes, including one who is currently in the league.
No one on Wojo's first roster has played even one minute in the NBA.
Who brought those players to MU? Didn't Wojo get Henry Ellenson to MU as well in Year 2? Reality is, the program was far from a trainwreck when Wojo walked in the door. All "rebuilds" are not equal.
-
Who brought those players to MU? Didn't Wojo get Henry Ellenson to MU as well in Year 2? Reality is, the program was far from a trainwreck when Wojo walked in the door. All "rebuilds" are not equal.
Are we going back to that old "Top 100 recruits" saw that always comes out? Juan, Sandy, and Steve were not high major players. Duane, JJ, and Deonte were decent role-players, but certainly not the players they would later develop into. Luke and Matt Carlino were the only two players on the roster that were viably high-major starters that year. That's it.
So Wojo came in with one high-major starter who wouldn't be eligible until the year was half-gone. It was an absolute trainwreck and it was that way because that's what Buzz built.
And sure, Buzz brought in some nice JUCO talent that second year, but he had three starters that were inherited. One was the second all-time scorer in school history (Hayward) and two were guards that he tried desperately and repeatedly to run off (Acker and Cubillan). Yes, having DJO, Jimmy, and Buycks helped, but if not for those other three inherited players, that team goes nowhere.
-
Are we going back to that old "Top 100 recruits" saw that always comes out? Juan, Sandy, and Steve were not high major players. Duane, JJ, and Deonte were decent role-players, but certainly not the players they would later develop into. Luke and Matt Carlino were the only two players on the roster that were viably high-major starters that year. That's it.
Steve Taylor ended up being a pretty darn good player in his senior year. I don't care where you do it, averaging a double-double shows that you can play. I think we may have missed an opportunity with him. Deonte showed promise, but he didn't seem to be a Wojo program kind of guy. I would have liked to have kept him around as well.
I think the larger point that the program wasn't in bad shape is still very true, even if the roster at the time was sub-par. The reputation of MU hoops, great facilities, lots of resources (no bagdrops, though), solid NBA connections - those were all things that made Marquette a good program that didn't change when we had a year or two of iffy rosters. That definitely helps in a rebuild.
-
TAMU, great work. Effort like this is why Scoop is really an amazing community. Thank you.
My quibble...
How many of those programs had made 7 of 8 tourneys and finished 9-9 in conf the year before? We can argue all day long about the cupboard but I think we can all agree the name on the front of the jersey was one that had enjoyed considerable very recent success...
7 of 8 NCAAs
3 S16s in the past 4 years
1 E8 only 12 months ago
9-9 in conf that season
All those things point to what should be an easier rebuild. Apathy had yet to set in.
-
Steve Taylor ended up being a pretty darn good player in his senior year. I don't care where you do it, averaging a double-double shows that you can play. I think we may have missed an opportunity with him. Deonte showed promise, but he didn't seem to be a Wojo program kind of guy. I would have liked to have kept him around as well.
I think the larger point that the program wasn't in bad shape is still very true, even if the roster at the time was sub-par. The reputation of MU hoops, great facilities, lots of resources (no bagdrops, though), solid NBA connections - those were all things that made Marquette a good program that didn't change when we had a year or two of iffy rosters. That definitely helps in a rebuild.
The first bolded is simply revisionist history. Deonte left because of the tragedy of his mom and what turned out to be depression. It had nothing to do with him not being a "Wojo guy". To say otherwise belies an obvious agenda.
As to the second bolded, the Philadelphia basketball scene would like to have a word with you.
Overall, we live in a what have you done for me lately society so having a year or two of crappy basketball because of bad rosters can absolutely negatively impact MU's ability to recruit. And no matter how good the program is that doesn't put years of experience on the roster which we've so badly needed.
-
It was only a matter of time before "the program actually was doing fine when Wojo arrived" folks got their say. Which is OK.
I happen to disagree, but we've all got opinions here.
-
Think where there is conflicting opinion on the concept of the Marquette "rebuild" is that Wojo walked into a program that made the NCAA in 5 of 6 years, 3 of the last 4 which were Sweet 16, Sweet 16, Elite 8, and inherited 8 Top 100 recruits. Does that really qualify as a rebuild?
Furthermore, where some discord lies, is that Wojo like Hank, had a hard act to follow. We didn't skip a beat with Buzz, and he inherited a train wreck of a roster Year 2 of his tenure.
FS, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question. Find me a coach that took over a program that missed the NIT, lost 6 of its 7 top players (in terms of minutes), and all but one player in the incoming recruiting class and still managed to make the NCAA the following year. Bonus points if you can find one where the one returning top player (in terms of minutes) is a Derrick Wilson caliber player.
It was a rebuild.
-
The first bolded is simply revisionist history. Deonte left because of the tragedy of his mom and what turned out to be depression. It had nothing to do with him not being a "Wojo guy". To say otherwise belies an obvious agenda.
As to the second bolded, the Philadelphia basketball scene would like to have a word with you.
Overall, we live in a what have you done for me lately society so having a year or two of crappy basketball because of bad rosters can absolutely negatively impact MU's ability to recruit. And no matter how good the program is that doesn't put years of experience on the roster which we've so badly needed.
For Deonte, his family and internal issues definitely played a big, big role in him leaving, but I still think if he were part of a program he liked at the time, he might have stayed. Call it an agenda, if you want. He still wanted to play basketball, but he wanted a different environment to do it in. Being a Milwaukee kid, I would think in a lot of ways, there would have been plenty of non-basketball reasons for him to want to stay close to home. I can understand the stated reason for leaving that he wanted a change of scenery, but to say that changes to the program didn't have any impact on his decision to leave seems to also "belie an obvious agenda."
As for Marquette's status as a good program, we'll just agree to disagree. Banners don't fall down from the rafters when a bad roster steps out onto the court.
-
TAMU, great work. Effort like this is why Scoop is really an amazing community. Thank you.
My quibble...
How many of those programs had made 7 of 8 tourneys and finished 9-9 in conf the year before? We can argue all day long about the cupboard but I think we can all agree the name on the front of the jersey was one that had enjoyed considerable very recent success...
7 of 8 NCAAs
3 S16s in the past 4 years
1 E8 only 12 months ago
9-9 in conf that season
All those things point to what should be an easier rebuild. Apathy had yet to set in.
Fair question. I'll answer you question with another question.
How does making previous postseasons (more than a year before Wojo took over) make the roster Wojo inherited in year one better? Especially considering that the only "contributor" from any of those teams left was Derrick Wilson.
I put this argument into the same category as those who want to quote high school rankings of upperclassmen who have already proved that they are not as good as the expectations their rankings gave them. Why would use data from two, three, four years ago when there is more recent and relevant data?
The last season is the one that matters. Missed the NIT. Lost 6 of 7 top players (in terms of minutes). Lost entire recruiting class except for one. Only returning player who averaged more than 13.5 minutes a game was Derrick Wilson. These facts matter a lot more than "two years ago we made the Elite 8."
-
Who brought those players to MU? Didn't Wojo get Henry Ellenson to MU as well in Year 2? Reality is, the program was far from a trainwreck when Wojo walked in the door. All "rebuilds" are not equal.
YOU were the one who said the year 2 roster was a "trainwreck." It wasn't.
-
FS, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question. Find me a coach that took over a program that missed the NIT, lost 6 of its 7 top players (in terms of minutes), and all but one player in the incoming recruiting class and still managed to make the NCAA the following year. Bonus points if you can find one where the one returning top player (in terms of minutes) is a Derrick Wilson caliber player.
It was a rebuild.
Why is Year 1 the only year of relevance? Why not Year 2? And in Year 3, he made the NCAA tourney, albeit with healthy contributions from the empty cupboard garbage of Duane, JJJ, Luke that was left behind from the previous coach. Now in Year 4, we are a bubble team at best.
Agree to disagree on the what defines a "rebuild." However, to answer your question Cuonzo Martin is doing quite well at Mizzou in Year 1, and he came into a program that was 8-24 last year and ranked 156th. He's also had a number of injuries to deal with and transfer. Buzz walked into a program that was 9-22 and 174th in the country and hadn't sniffed an NCAA tournament in years.
Call me crazy but those qualify as rebuilds to me, much more than what Wojo encountered upon arriving in MU. (As Lens also pointed out). But, nice research nonetheless. Unfortunately it is flawed from the start by calling the MU program/job a rebuild.
-
For Deonte, his family and internal issues definitely played a big, big role in him leaving, but I still think if he were part of a program he liked at the time, he might have stayed. Call it an agenda, if you want. He still wanted to play basketball, but he wanted a different environment to do it in. Being a Milwaukee kid, I would think in a lot of ways, there would have been plenty of non-basketball reasons for him to want to stay close to home. I can understand the stated reason for leaving that he wanted a change of scenery, but to say that changes to the program didn't have any impact on his decision to leave seems to also "belie an obvious agenda."
He literally said he had to get away from Milwaukee multiple times, all of his non-basketball reasons were to leave Milwaukee. Again, I'm not advancing this as an opinion, this is stuff Deonte himself said on multiple occasions including when he announced he was diagnosed with clinical depression. I have no reason to believe he hated Wojo but is also going out of his way to cover up this "fact".
-
Steve Taylor ended up being a pretty darn good player in his senior year. I don't care where you do it, averaging a double-double shows that you can play. I think we may have missed an opportunity with him.
Taylor had better accumulation stats because he played more. He would have been backing up Fischer and Ellenson. He would have been a nice back up and that's about it.
-
YOU were the one who said the year 2 roster was a "trainwreck." It wasn't.
What part of "inherited a train wreck" of a roster don't you understand? Buzz had scraps to work with in Year 2 from the previous administration. He went out and got a couple of difference makers, coached them up, and made the NCAA tournament as a 6 seed. Far cry from missing the NIT in Year 2.
-
Why is Year 1 the only year of relevance? Why not Year 2? And in Year 3, he made the NCAA tourney, albeit with healthy contributions from the empty cupboard garbage of Duane, JJJ, Luke that was left behind from the previous coach. Now in Year 4, we are a bubble team at best.
Agree to disagree on the what defines a "rebuild." However, to answer your question Cuonzo Martin is doing quite well at Mizzou in Year 1, and he came into a program that was 8-24 last year and ranked 156th. He's also had a number of injuries to deal with and transfer. Buzz walked into a program that was 9-22 and 174th in the country and hadn't sniffed an NCAA tournament in years.
Call me crazy but those qualify as rebuilds to me, much more than what Wojo encountered upon arriving in MU. (As Lens also pointed out). But, nice research nonetheless. Unfortunately it is flawed from the start by calling the MU program/job a rebuild.
How many bags has Cuonzo dropped at Mizzou?
Also some of the explanation for the "see-saw" in outcomes over the last season can be attributed to the Ellensons. We put a big hole in our roster experience-wise because we tried to band-aid with a one and done. Not saying we shouldn't have done it, but it contributes significantly to the young roster this year.
-
Players inherited in Year 2:
Buzz: Acker, Cubillan, Hayward, Otule
Wojo: Duane, Sandy, Johnson, Luke
Doesn't seem like a substantial difference to me. Buzz just did a better job of surrounding his inherited guys with good players - all of whom were Jucos. And he's a better coach.
-
Why is Year 1 the only year of relevance? Why not Year 2?
Okay. Find me one who did it in year one or year two.
And in Year 3, he made the NCAA tourney, albeit with healthy contributions from the empty cupboard garbage of Duane, JJJ, Luke that was left behind from the previous coach. Now in Year 4, we are a bubble team at best.
Who called them garbage? They were who they were. And even as seniors, the best they amounted to was a 10 seed in the NCAA.
However, to answer your question Cuonzo Martin is doing quite well at Mizzou in Year 1, and he came into a program that was 8-24 last year and ranked 156th.
Sorry that answer is not correct. Cuonzo got to keep 5 out Mizzou's 7 top players. He also hired the dad of two All Americans in order to secure their commitments (though the better of the two never got to play).
However, to answer your question...Buzz walked into a program that was 9-22 and 174th in the country and hadn't sniffed an NCAA tournament in years.
Sorry this answer is also incorrect. Buzz kept 4/7 of VT's top players and got to take his recruiting class from Marquette with him. Still he needed 3 years in order to get back to the tournament.
Agree to disagree on the what defines a "rebuild."
Call me crazy but those qualify as rebuilds to me, much more than what Wojo encountered upon arriving in MU. (As Lens also pointed out). But, nice research nonetheless. Unfortunately it is flawed from the start by calling the MU program/job a rebuild.
If all you are trying to say is that not all rebuilds are created equal than yes, of course that is true. I would even agree that both Cuonzo and Buzz walked into more difficult situations than Wojo did. Buzz is doing a fantastic job at Virginia Tech. Cuonzo is having a good year at Mizzou though I will withhold judgement for a few years. He took a smoking dump on Cal's program in his three years there. None of those things mean that Marquette didn't need to rebuild after Buzz left. Because if it wasn't a rebuild....why hasn't any other coach in modern history managed to turn around a situation similar to Wojo's in 1 or 2 years?
-
I think some people are of the opinion that a "rebuild" and what I call a "reload" are the same thing. IMO if the new head coach has already been with the program, it cannot be considered a "rebuild". Gard is not rebuilding at UW, Jordan is not rebuilding at Butler, even though he was away from the program for a while, Buzz did not have to rebuild at MU. The system that the teams play may alter under the new coach, ie. Buzz and JUCOs, but the new coach is already familiar with the players/organization.
If a coach is an outside hire, then they could be facing a rebuild. This would mean that Wojo had a rebuild, Crean had one at I4, and Buzz had one at VT. This idea of rebuilds is even true for some blue bloods. Cal had a rebuild at UK, although with his recruiting abilities it was fast. Self had a rebuild at KU, although with his recruiting abilities it was fast. Alford had a rebuild at UCLA, and even with his recruiting abilities, he is still rebuilding. Some coaching changes that fall under the rebuild category take no time at all, KU and UK. Just because a rebuild is happening at a blue blood, does not mean it happens fast. Even with his S16's, I bet many UCLA fans think that Alford is underachieving, because he hasn't gotten further, just the same way the MU fans thing Wojo is underachieving.
I'm sure that there is some example that suggests opposite of my idea, but for the most part, familiarity with the system/organization allows for transitions to be easier. The point is, that as TAMU pointed out, no rebuild is the same, and IMO a rebuild is different than a reload, and should thus be treated differently in expectations.
-
Players inherited in Year 2:
Buzz: Acker, Cubillan, Hayward, Otule
Wojo: Duane, Sandy, Johnson, Luke
Doesn't seem like a substantial difference to me. Buzz just did a better job of surrounding his inherited guys with good players - all of whom were Jucos. And he's a better coach.
Interesting to look back. What I did was immediately go to "who would I pick?" if you could pick a hybrid? (Btw, Sandy was a Wojo recruit as he resigned under Wojo after decommitting).
I would pick Duane, JJJ, Luke and Zar as the core. The sum of the pieces of that Buzz team plus the JUCO's were a result of a magical piece of rebuilding and coaching.
Wojo had to go to the rent a player approach early and it wasn't very effective in terms of program building. JUCOs weren't an option. As I said before, it would have been a quicker rebuild for Wojo to have Pole Axed from the get go to get his guys in here. Thus, we are in Year 2 of the Wojo rebuild.
-
Wojo had to go to the rent a player approach early and it wasn't very effective in terms of program building. JUCOs weren't an option. As I said before, it would have been a quicker rebuild for Wojo to have Pole Axed from the get go to get his guys in here. Thus, we are in Year 2 of the Wojo rebuild.
I was skeptical when you first said this, but I see what you mean now. It would have meant even worse performances in year 1 and 2 and likely no postseason in year 3, but we likely could have started a tournament streak in year 4 and been done with the rebuild by now. Instead we got slightly better (but not great basketball) in years 1-3 and have to wait until year 5 for the rebuild to be done.
-
What part of "inherited a train wreck" of a roster don't you understand? Buzz had scraps to work with in Year 2 from the previous administration. He went out and got a couple of difference makers, coached them up, and made the NCAA tournament as a 6 seed. Far cry from missing the NIT in Year 2.
I was amongst those calling quite loudly for Ners to be banned from this site.
This Floorslapper person, however, seemed OK.
A friendly suggestion: Don't revert to Ners.
-
Fair question. I'll answer you question with another question.
How does making previous postseasons (more than a year before Wojo took over) make the roster Wojo inherited in year one better? Especially considering that the only "contributor" from any of those teams left was Derrick Wilson.
I'll using a doctor analogy...
Getting a guy who has a heart attack back on his feet is a lot easy that getting a guy who died back on his feet. Some rebuilds are resurrection projects. The team would have slipped so far out of the national limelight that getting recruits, fans, media to care is a big deal. Take for instance what KO did.
-
Players inherited in Year 2:
Buzz: Acker, Cubillan, Hayward, Otule
Wojo: Duane, Sandy, Johnson, Luke
Doesn't seem like a substantial difference to me. Buzz just did a better job of surrounding his inherited guys with good players - all of whom were Jucos. And he's a better coach.
Fair point. Especially agree with the bolded.
-
I would pick Duane, JJJ, Luke and Zar as the core. The sum of the pieces of that Buzz team plus the JUCO's were a result of a magical piece of rebuilding and coaching.
I'd pick Acker, Lazar, Luke, and JJ. But that said, Lazar is a spectacular outlier on that list. I think you can pretty safely say Lazar Hayward is one of the 20 best players in Marquette history. If we were all making All-American style first, second, and third all-Marquette teams, Lazar would land on a ton of lists. In terms of both offense and defense, he was a fantastic college player. Nothing against those other 7 players, but they have absolutely nothing on Lazar.
-
I'd pick Acker, Lazar, Luke, and JJ. But that said, Lazar is a spectacular outlier on that list. I think you can pretty safely say Lazar Hayward is one of the 20 best players in Marquette history. If we were all making All-American style first, second, and third all-Marquette teams, Lazar would land on a ton of lists. In terms of both offense and defense, he was a fantastic college player. Nothing against those other 7 players, but they have absolutely nothing on Lazar.
Honestly, I think it depends on who's coaching: Buzz or Wojo. If it's Buzz I take Duane, Johnson, Hayward, and Otule....If Wojo I take Acker, Hayward, Luke and Duane.
-
I'd pick Acker, Lazar, Luke, and JJ. But that said, Lazar is a spectacular outlier on that list. I think you can pretty safely say Lazar Hayward is one of the 20 best players in Marquette history. If we were all making All-American style first, second, and third all-Marquette teams, Lazar would land on a ton of lists. In terms of both offense and defense, he was a fantastic college player. Nothing against those other 7 players, but they have absolutely nothing on Lazar.
A reminder that Buzz kicked 'Lil Bit off the team during that offseason and he tried to railroad Cooby off.
-
I believe that players tend to commit to a coach rather than a school/program. Assuming this is true, it makes sense that new outside hires are typically facing an uphill battle at the start (because the current players/recruits don't know them) This is even more true if it is their first head coaching job as they have no previous recruiting class to try and transition with them.
If you believe the above, then, yes, Marquette has history. Even recent success before wojo got here. And great resources. But that matters little once wojo was selected to run the show until he's able to get the program in motion from the screeching halt that happened.
Players followed Buzz. Players transferred. It happens.
I believe buzz is a better coach.
I believe wojo's rebuild was harder than Buzz's (at VT) from a roster/career standpoint. Yes, MU has more resources and more historical tradition, but that doesn't hold significant importance for players who commit to coaches first/programs second.
-
I believe that players tend to commit to a coach rather than a school/program. Assuming this is true, it makes sense that new outside hires are typically facing an uphill battle at the start (because the current players/recruits don't know them) This is even more true if it is their first head coaching job as they have no previous recruiting class to try and transition with them.
If you believe the above, then, yes, Marquette has history. Even recent success before wojo got here. And great resources. But that matters little once wojo was selected to run the show until he's able to get the program in motion from the screeching halt that happened.
Players followed Buzz. Players transferred. It happens.
I believe buzz is a better coach.
I believe wojo's rebuild was harder than Buzz's (at VT) from a roster/career standpoint. Yes, MU has more resources and more historical tradition, but that doesn't hold significant importance for players who commit to coaches first/programs second.
Well said jes. Fair points you raise. Happen to disagree with last paragraph non-bolded, but the above bolded is valid.
-
I believe that players tend to commit to a coach rather than a school/program. Assuming this is true, it makes sense that new outside hires are typically facing an uphill battle at the start (because the current players/recruits don't know them) This is even more true if it is their first head coaching job as they have no previous recruiting class to try and transition with them.
Some might be very focused on the coach. But it sure seems like ADs are placing some pretty hefty bets that recruits will care a lot about what the school/program have to offer looking at all the money schools pour into state of the art practice facilities and locker rooms. One of the most extreme examples I can think of is the new Texas football facility. You know recruits go through a building like that and want to experience that kind of environment every day.
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/64/03/74/13647678/3/920x920.jpg)
-
Some might be very focused on the coach. But it sure seems like ADs are placing some pretty hefty bets that recruits will care a lot about what the school/program have to offer looking at all the money schools pour into state of the art practice facilities and locker rooms. One of the most extreme examples I can think of is the new Texas football facility. You know recruits go through a building like that and want to experience that kind of environment every day.
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/64/03/74/13647678/3/920x920.jpg)
Football and basketball are different animals entirely.
However, if you believe that players commit to a program/resources, then why are there so many decommits and transfers that occur when coaches leave? Especially so when the new coach is an outside here?
-
I'd pick Acker, Lazar, Luke, and JJ. But that said, Lazar is a spectacular outlier on that list. I think you can pretty safely say Lazar Hayward is one of the 20 best players in Marquette history. If we were all making All-American style first, second, and third all-Marquette teams, Lazar would land on a ton of lists. In terms of both offense and defense, he was a fantastic college player. Nothing against those other 7 players, but they have absolutely nothing on Lazar.
Agreed. I think Lazar has gotten unfairly overlooked. Maybe it's because he crapped out of the NBA.
-
Agreed. I think Lazar has gotten unfairly overlooked. Maybe it's because he crapped out of the NBA.
Think he would've been better in a different system? He never really got a run with MN or OKC
-
Think he would've been better in a different system? He never really got a run with MN or OKC
Well he was an undersized guy who couldn't shoot well enough at the NBA level.
-
Well he was an undersized guy who couldn't shoot well enough at the NBA level.
Seems to work ok for Crowder
-
Football and basketball are different animals entirely.
However, if you believe that players commit to a program/resources, then why are there so many decommits and transfers that occur when coaches leave? Especially so when the new coach is an outside here?
I don't have the data on this, but don't the majority of players stay when a coach leaves? Not sure about commits, but I'd think that might be 50/50. For those that leave, I think the shiny things that seem impressive when you're 18 don't feel as impressive when you experience it day in and day out, so when there's a changing of the guard, the focus is more on what the new culture will be. And for others that leave, they might have been coach first guys all along. I'm sure on our current roster, some committed to Wojo and some committed to Marquette. That's probably true all over. What the proportion is, I have no idea.
-
Seems to work ok for Crowder
Jae was a much, much better on ball defender.
-
I'm just trying to figure out how many threads in the last 4 years have either started out as or morphed into debates about whether Wojo had the more difficult rebuild at MU than Buzz did at VT.
10? 50? 100?
With every debater sure that he/she is right every time.
Maybe we can bring KO into it, too. That's always a pretty popular one.
-
TAMU, great work. Effort like this is why Scoop is really an amazing community. Thank you.
My quibble...
How many of those programs had made 7 of 8 tourneys and finished 9-9 in conf the year before? We can argue all day long about the cupboard but I think we can all agree the name on the front of the jersey was one that had enjoyed considerable very recent success...
7 of 8 NCAAs
3 S16s in the past 4 years
1 E8 only 12 months ago
9-9 in conf that season
All those things point to what should be an easier rebuild. Apathy had yet to set in.
Apathy may not have set in, but it didn't help that when coach left, he trashed the league (which proved to be completely wrong in his prediction), took some recruits and others decided to go elsewhere. That's not a good way to start a rebuild, especially when the guy leaving goes to a program considered a level or two below ours.
-
A reminder that Buzz kicked 'Lil Bit off the team during that offseason and he tried to railroad Cooby off.
Yup. He had to go back and beg Acker to come back, and his story about how he tried to run Cooby off is insane. Amazing that David stuck around considering how Buzz pretty much tried force him to quit every single day.
Jae was a much, much better on ball defender.
Jae also has a ridiculous motor. I don't know that I've ever seen a player with a more competitive edge to them. Lazar was a very good player, but Jae was the guy who was first to the floor on ever play, diving out of bounds to save balls, and just outworked everyone that came up against him. I think that served him well at the next level.
-
Apathy may not have set in, but it didn't help that when coach left, he trashed the league (which proved to be completely wrong in his prediction), took some recruits and others decided to go elsewhere. That's not a good way to start a rebuild, especially when the guy leaving goes to a program considered a level or two below ours.
Back with your typical BS, Chico. Still waiting for those other shoes to drop (that never will).
-
Back with your typical BS, Chico. Still waiting for those other shoes to drop (that never will).
Is this a thing? You called Billy Hoyle this same thing when I praised Coach Buzz last week, why do you call posters this? Inside joke you wish to let us in on? Several others doing it.
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=55605.msg989578#msg989578
Buzz is a great coach, tremendous respect for him. He did take shots at the Big East when he left and did go to a lower level status job for less money according to his AD. What did I say that you are arguing with?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2017/03/29/coach-salary-database-buzz-williams-virginia-tech/99640588/
-
Good work, TAMU. I think you have done enough to show that this MU experience could be characterized as a "rebuild." You have investigated all the hires and found the "best fit" comparison.
As for whether Buzz is a better coach than Woj, I'd have to (for the time being) side with Buzz. I was very impressed with how he had the midgets slow things down - that was terrific. I think his input in that regard saved the season.
There were times during Buzz's tenure that I thought he would need to improve as an in-game coach - and he did. Likewise, we have seen lately wide dissemination of the MU defensive data relative to Rowsey/Howard being on the floor together. It may have been imposed on Woj after the Markus injury, but the data seemed definitive. We'll have to see if he can evaluate the data/recent results and see what he does going forward.