Oh, how the worm can turn.

[bilsu]

Fixed.  I meant Juan not Joe.

Just to show how absurd these rankings can be......the ultimate crapshoot.....Matt Heldt 96 RSCI.  Sam Hauser 94 RSCI.

They are dependent on the talent level of that particular class.  A 60th rated guy one year could be 90th the following year or 30th depending on the talent levels of that crop of talent.  Plus you get into so much subjectivity.  I've said before, the RSCI is fine directionally and normally very good for the top of the top, but once  you get past a certain number (20's or 30's), the subjectivity factor looms ever larger.

A 50th ranked player that has peaked is not as good as a 100th rank player that is still rising. As fans we only see the rankings. Coaches have a better idea of who is improving and what they can do to help a player improve his game.

I watched Heldt play in a summer tournament and I could not believe that Bo would not offer him a scholarship. Apparently, Bo could see what I could not.

[Dr. Blackheart]

You'll notice the sentence you quoted said how good Juan Anderson was. Players do improve after they graduate.

Juan Toscano

[Lennys Tap]

Luke sitting out due to transfer rules aside, if they were so talented why couldn't Buzz (generally regarded as a better coach) win with them?

Juan Anderson played on a S16 and E8 team. Steve Taylor on an E8 team. Buzz never coached Luke and Sandy. Buzz only coached Duane, JJJ and Deonte when they were freshman. (And according to Chicos, Buzz wasn't even trying that year LOL).

[Its DJOver]

Juan Anderson played on a S16 and E8 team. Steve Taylor on an E8 team. Buzz never coached Luke and Sandy. Buzz only coached Duane, JJJ and Deonte when they were freshman. (And according to Chicos, Buzz wasn't even trying that year LOL).

Juan and Teve combined to score 5 ppg that year, and were getting less minutes that Derrick and Jake respectively.  To credit them for the E8 would be similar to crediting Jamal Ferguson or Dylan Flood.

Take the names (and the bias that those names carry) out, and look at it objectively.  Coach A had 7 top 100 guys that he couldn't win with.  Therefore coach A must be a bad coach.  That's a reasonable take, if that's all the info you had.  The majority of those guys were also on a team with another top 100 recruit and future NBA player as well as two other above average collegiate players that went on to play professionally.  Most importantly they had coach B who was more experienced and almost universally considered better, and the team still couldn't win.  If coach A can't win with them, and coach B can't win with them, maybe it's them and not the coach.   

Edit: Went through the Box Score's from that E8 run that Juan and Steve were a part of.  Despite both appearing in all 4 games, and Juan starting in all 4 games, they combined to score 0 points on 0-8 shooting. 

Went through the S16 run that Juan was a part of too.  Despite appearing in 6 career NCAA tournament games, Juan Anderson has never scored a point.  Rob Frozena has a higher ppg in the tounrey that Juan does.

[Cheeks]

A 50th ranked player that has peaked is not as good as a 100th rank player that is still rising. As fans we only see the rankings. Coaches have a better idea of who is improving and what they can do to help a player improve his game.

I watched Heldt play in a summer tournament and I could not believe that Bo would not offer him a scholarship. Apparently, Bo could see what I could not.

Billie, you may be right.  I don't know if the spread is that big, but certainly get your point and it is valid POV.

[Cheeks]

Juan Anderson played on a S16 and E8 team. Steve Taylor on an E8 team. Buzz never coached Luke and Sandy. Buzz only coached Duane, JJJ and Deonte when they were freshman. (And according to Chicos, Buzz wasn't even trying that year LOL).

LOL.  Should we rattle off some others that played on those teams, including walk-ones.

The point is and shall remain, the RSCI has some value, but it is limited.  Arbitrary and subjective ratings by people and orgs, not all of which even see all of these players.  The number of busts just at MU alone in the 50 to 100 list is sizable just as the list of guys that never made the RSCI but did great things is material.  Take these ratings for what they are worth.  Whether they played for Buzzard, Crean, Wojo, KO or anyone else is moot....the ratings have plenty of examples of great and poor predictions on level of play.  I don't understand why you roll out the RSCI top 100 players argument when so many of them were avg players in the final analysis.

[Lennys Tap]

Juan and Teve combined to score 5 ppg that year, and were getting less minutes that Derrick and Jake respectively.  To credit them for the E8 would be similar to crediting Jamal Ferguson or Dylan Flood.

Take the names (and the bias that those names carry) out, and look at it objectively.  Coach A had 7 top 100 guys that he couldn't win with.  Therefore coach A must be a bad coach.  That's a reasonable take, if that's all the info you had.  The majority of those guys were also on a team with another top 100 recruit and future NBA player as well as two other above average collegiate players that went on to play professionally.  Most importantly they had coach B who was more experienced and almost universally considered better, and the team still couldn't win.  If coach A can't win with them, and coach B can't win with them, maybe it's them and not the coach.   

Edit: Went through the Box Score's from that E8 run that Juan and Steve were a part of.  Despite both appearing in all 4 games, and Juan starting in all 4 games, they combined to score 0 points on 0-8 shooting. 

Went through the S16 run that Juan was a part of too.  Despite appearing in 6 career NCAA tournament games, Juan Anderson has never scored a point.  Rob Frozena has a higher ppg in the tounrey that Juan does.

Your question was "Why didn't Buzz win with theses guys?". The answer remains: two of them never played for him (so, impossible), 3 only played for him as freshmen (so, unlikely). The other 2 he did win with.

Look, I'm not saying Buzz left the 1976 Indiana team behind when he left. Just that 7 rsci top 100 guys isn't nothing. How many top 100 guys did he inherit from his predecessor at VTech? Zero.

[Its DJOver]

Your question was "Why didn't Buzz win with theses guys?". The answer remains: two of them never played for him (so, impossible), 3 only played for him as freshmen (so, unlikely). The other 2 he did win with.

Look, I'm not saying Buzz left the 1976 Indiana team behind when he left. Just that 7 rsci top 100 guys isn't nothing. How many top 100 guys did he inherit from his predecessor at VTech? Zero.

And I'm saying that top 100 in high school is a pretty meaningless accomplishment when looking at a collegiate career.  What do you think is more indicative of one's ability, being one of the top 100 high school players in the country at 18, or finishing your career in the MAC.  You're the one always saying that tourney games are the only ones that should matter (or at least matter the most).  What is more indicative of a players collegiate ability, being in the top 100 high school players, or finishing 0-for in tourney games despite getting 6 attempts, 4 or which were starts.  High school ability only matters when you're in high school.  Once you get to college, it's a whole new ballgame. 

[Its DJOver]

On a side note, when looking at the Davidson game info, I had forgotten that we had 17 offensive rebounds.  That's what won it for us more than anything.  I'm sure Vander got SOTG based on the last 10 seconds, but Otule with the double double and 7 Oboards.  Very deserving.

[Cheeks]

How the F do YOU know that Rick's stress was brought on by MU fans? Source?

I would suggest reading Rick's book, My Life On A Napkin as just one source. 

There are others.

That's how the F I know.  I take Rick at his word.  I take others that knew him and I had the pleasure of working with...at their word. 

Thank you 

[Dr. Blackheart]

On a side note, when looking at the Davidson game info, I had forgotten that we had 17 offensive rebounds.  That's what won it for us more than anything.  I'm sure Vander got SOTG based on the last 10 seconds, but Otule with the double double and 7 Oboards.  Very deserving.

That kept us in the game when MU wasn't clicking for sure. No need for an Oreb though in the last two minutes

What a great game!

[Marcus92]

On a side note, when looking at the Davidson game info, I had forgotten that we had 17 offensive rebounds. That's what won it for us more than anything. I'm sure Vander got SOTG based on the last 10 seconds, but Otule with the double double and 7 Oboards. Very deserving.

This could be a key to this year's team, as well.

During the 2012-13 season, Marquette shot just 29.6% from 3-point range -- ranking 323rd in the country per KenPom. Jamil Wilson led the team at 36.0%. Nobody else was reliable from outside, far from it: Vander Blue (30.3%), Junior Cadougan (22.6%), Todd Mayo (27.9%), Juan Anderson (28.6%), etc.

Fortunately, that team ranked 1st in the Big East and 15th nationally in offensive rebounding -- led by Davante Gardner (12.5 OR%), Chris Otule (12.2%) and Steve Taylor (15.5%). So while the team's effective field goal percentage was less than stellar (49.6%, 112th in the country), MU still produced offense quite efficiently (113.2 AdjO, 24th).

MU will surely shoot far better than 30% as a team from beyond the arc. But the loss of the Hausers will almost as surely mean a step down -- from 38.8% to perhaps somewhere in the 36% range.

However, offensive rebounding will likely be a strength. Jayce (14.1%), Ed (15.5%) and Theo (11.1%) are all very effective on the offensive glass. Jamal (7.2%) and Brendan (6.5%) have shown potential here, as well. That's one of the main reasons I don't expect a significant drop-off on the offensive end.

[brewcity77]

This could be a key to this year's team, as well.

During the 2012-13 season, Marquette shot just 29.6% from 3-point range -- ranking 323rd in the country per KenPom. Jamil Wilson led the team at 36.0%. Nobody else was reliable from outside, far from it: Vander Blue (30.3%), Junior Cadougan (22.6%), Todd Mayo (27.9%), Juan Anderson (28.6%), etc.

Fortunately, that team ranked 1st in the Big East and 15th nationally in offensive rebounding -- led by Davante Gardner (12.5 OR%), Chris Otule (12.2%) and Steve Taylor (15.5%). So while the team's effective field goal percentage was less than stellar (49.6%, 112th in the country), MU still produced offense quite efficiently (113.2 AdjO, 24th).

MU will surely shoot far better than 30% as a team from beyond the arc. But the loss of the Hausers will almost as surely mean a step down -- from 38.8% to perhaps somewhere in the 36% range.

However, offensive rebounding will likely be a strength. Jayce (14.1%), Ed (15.5%) and Theo (11.1%) are all very effective on the offensive glass. Jamal (7.2%) and Brendan (6.5%) have shown potential here, as well. That's one of the main reasons I don't expect a significant drop-off on the offensive end.

One of the big reasons we won that game was the three straight threes made in the final minutes, but it's one more example of why winning that game was not a choke on Davidson's part. Even though we had those three makes, we still only shot 4/15 (26.7%) for the game, so our three point percentage was still lower than our season average despite those makes. Really just progressing to the mean.

[Cheeks]

One of the big reasons we won that game was the three straight threes made in the final minutes, but it's one more example of why winning that game was not a choke on Davidson's part. Even though we had those three makes, we still only shot 4/15 (26.7%) for the game, so our three point percentage was still lower than our season average despite those makes. Really just progressing to the mean.

.

If Wisconsin lost that way, you would say they choked.  If any of our rivals had lost that way, you would have said they choked...because they did.

[Mr. Sand-Knit]

One of the big reasons we won that game was the three straight threes made in the final minutes, but it's one more example of why winning that game was not a choke on Davidson's part. Even though we had those three makes, we still only shot 4/15 (26.7%) for the game, so our three point percentage was still lower than our season average despite those makes. Really just progressing to the mean.

Not sure davidson choked but then they did throw that long pass away right in front of me.  Worst 39 minutes followed by WTF just happened in Lexington

[Uncle Rico]

Even if you want to say Davidson "choked", Marquette still had to go win the game.  They had to make those 3's and Vander had to make the shot.

[brewcity77]

.

If Wisconsin lost that way, you would say they choked.  If any of our rivals had lost that way, you would have said they choked...because they did.

They only choked if you don't understand how math works.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Are we really having this argument for the 365th time?  Cheeks, take up postage stamp collecting or something.

[Marcus92]

Are we really having this argument for the 365th time?  Cheeks, take up postage stamp collecting or something.

Of course they're having this argument again -- an argument that can't possibly be proven one way or another, and has no discernible relevance, which makes it totally pointless. But that hasn't ever stopped anyone on Scoop before.

[Marcus92]

Credit to Its DJOver for trying to add something new to the discussion of the Davidson game -- possibly for the first time in years. But that was quickly passed over in favor of rehashing the same old tired arguments.