Anyone listen to Crean's radio show??

[Final Four or Bust]

I'm not arguing Deane was winning with his own players AND I would agree that the program was trending down AND I would agree that TC has done a good job.  I just was contesting Chico's point that TC took over a pitiful program.

Same here -- I expect results at the highest level and he wasn't producing them, so a change was in order.  That said, the program wasn't on its last gasps.

[ecompt]

We all know that Deane's record wasn't the only reason he was let go.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

We all know that Deane's record wasn't the only reason he was let go.

BINGO.

Remember, it's about a PROGRAM, not just W's and L's.

Crean has built a pretty good program in all aspects and it has significantly benefited MU with higher donations, enrollment, attendance, etc. etc.

I like Deane as an X and O guy, and I chatted with him a couple of times. He was a cool guy and a good coach. But, he just wasn't as into all of the other aspects of the job like Crean seems to be. Can't say I blame Deane because he was hired to be a basketball coach, not a salesman. It's a tough gig.

I give Crean a lot of credit. He has done a good job promoting the program and recruiting better than every MU coach not named "Al".

[NCMUFan]

I like putting things in perspective.  I say lets get rid of Crean when we can find a coach that will guarantee every year 25 wins, 12 Big East conference wins , a top 15 ranking and a NCAA berth.  Until then, live in reality.

[Final Four or Bust]

I like putting things in perspective.  I say lets get rid of Crean when we can find a coach that will guarantee every year 25 wins, 12 Big East conference wins , a top 15 ranking and a NCAA berth.  Until then, live in reality.

I only care about one of those things -- NCAA berths.  Regular NCAA berths is not something that shouldn't be expected most years at a program with the money we are putting into it.  Its certainly been pretty regular for UW these last years.

[Marquette84]

I only care about one of those things -- NCAA berths.  Regular NCAA berths is not something that shouldn't be expected most years at a program with the money we are putting into it.  Its certainly been pretty regular for UW these last years.

I think you realize UW and MU is an apples to oranges comparision.  We can pay twice as much for our coach, but that still leaves us without an Ag School or Culinary Program--to name two programs who have recently attracted top recruits to Wisconsin. 

As I see it, we pay our coach more so we don't wind up falling to the depths that, say, Loyola or DePaul or St. Johns or Providence or SLU have slipped. 

So let's limit the comparison to Cathoic schools. 

We could be like Gonzaga--regularly get to the NCAA on the basis of being top dog in a lousy conference.  In a really good year make a sweet 16.  Get a ranked home opponent one or twice a decade.

Or we could be like DePaul, Providence or Georgeotwn--play in a major conference and get to the NCAA about half the time, reach the sweet 16 in a good year, but go through rebuilding stretches with losing seasons and coaching changes two or three times each decade.

Or we could be like Xavier or Butler, more successful than average, lesser conferences, but also content to be a stepping stone program with coaches that stay for a few years, then leave.

Or we could be like MU--a team with a solid chance to get to the NCAA every year, at worst will win close to 20 games and make the NIT--at best get to the final four--sends players regularly to the NBA--plays in a major conference, regularly plays in elite tournaments like Alaska and Maui, has national recognition.

Can you tell me that you'd trade places with Creighton?  Creighton has been to 6 of the last 8 NCAAs.  Do you sense that they have more national respect than MU right now?  Creighton's performance sounds like its exactly what you want--yet there is no exitement over their program.

Tell me ONE other Catholic school you'd rather trade places with.  I don't see any.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

I'd say it's more than a little arrogant to suggest a trip to the Sweet 16 for Marquette wouldn't be a really good year. We had a great run in 2003. Other than that, we've got 1994 and that's it in recent memory.

Also, this 20 win plateau that is continually cited around here is completely old fashioned. 20 wins signifies nothing.

Of our current 13 wins, nine include wins versus Hillsdale, Idaho St. (barely), Eastern Michigan, Northwestern St., Delaware St., UMBC, Oakland, Morgan St. and Savannah St. I'm not sure anybody on this board couldn't get almost halfway to 20 wins with that schedule. We have decent wins over Texas Tech, Duke, Valpo and UCONN. We're going to need more than 7 more wins to get to the tournament.

[Sir Lawrence]

[  We can pay twice as much for our coach, but that still leaves us without an Ag School or Culinary Program--to name two programs who have recently attracted top recruits to Wisconsin. 



Tell me ONE other Catholic school you'd rather trade places with.  I don't see any.



[/quote]

We don't have a culinary program?  I thought that's where the chefs at Real Chili came from.

One Catholic school I'd trade places with?  Not even Notre friggin' Dame!

[rocky_warrior]

Also, this 20 win plateau that is continually cited around here is completely old fashioned. 20 wins signifies nothing.

Signifies nothing?  Only 62 out of 334 programs won at least 20 games last year.

You'll really say anything to try to justify your "our schedule sucks" mantra - eh?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I only care about one of those things -- NCAA berths.  Regular NCAA berths is not something that shouldn't be expected most years at a program with the money we are putting into it.  Its certainly been pretty regular for UW these last years.

I think you realize UW and MU is an apples to oranges comparision.  We can pay twice as much for our coach, but that still leaves us without an Ag School or Culinary Program--to name two programs who have recently attracted top recruits to Wisconsin. 

As I see it, we pay our coach more so we don't wind up falling to the depths that, say, Loyola or DePaul or St. Johns or Providence or SLU have slipped. 

So let's limit the comparison to Cathoic schools. 

We could be like Gonzaga--regularly get to the NCAA on the basis of being top dog in a lousy conference.  In a really good year make a sweet 16.  Get a ranked home opponent one or twice a decade.

Or we could be like DePaul, Providence or Georgeotwn--play in a major conference and get to the NCAA about half the time, reach the sweet 16 in a good year, but go through rebuilding stretches with losing seasons and coaching changes two or three times each decade.

Or we could be like Xavier or Butler, more successful than average, lesser conferences, but also content to be a stepping stone program with coaches that stay for a few years, then leave.

Or we could be like MU--a team with a solid chance to get to the NCAA every year, at worst will win close to 20 games and make the NIT--at best get to the final four--sends players regularly to the NBA--plays in a major conference, regularly plays in elite tournaments like Alaska and Maui, has national recognition.

Can you tell me that you'd trade places with Creighton?  Creighton has been to 6 of the last 8 NCAAs.  Do you sense that they have more national respect than MU right now?  Creighton's performance sounds like its exactly what you want--yet there is no exitement over their program.

Tell me ONE other Catholic school you'd rather trade places with.  I don't see any.

Can't agree with you more. We have more in common with SJU, Villanova, St. Louis, DePaul, Creighton, BC and Georgetown than UNC, Kansas, UW, U of I, UCLA, Arizona, etc. etc.

It is VERY hard for smaller schools to consistantly compete at a high major level. All the the private schools previously mentioned have a pretty good tradition (some outstanding), but you will have a hard time finding a private school that has the success of the large public schools. Obviously Duke has been able to do it, but I can name 100 private schools that haven't been able to.

Should MU's goal be to compete at a very high level? Absolutley.

But, let's also realize that expectations shouldn't be so out of whack that people aren't appreciating or enjoying what is right in front of their face!

[Untucked]

2002mualum said it best.

It's all about the program.

Crean is not a very good bench coach or a X and O guy, but he runs the program the correct way. Marquette is on the national college basketball radar once again. Deane recruited "regional" players, Crean has made the national recruits take notice of Marquette(although hasn't landed many of them).

Let's give Crean the credit that he deserves.

One more thing about Deane. His teams at Lamar and Wagner (going down the coaching ladder) are not good. I don't think he should be referred to as a good coach.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Also, this 20 win plateau that is continually cited around here is completely old fashioned. 20 wins signifies nothing.

Signifies nothing?  Only 62 out of 334 programs won at least 20 games last year.

You'll really say anything to try to justify your "our schedule sucks" mantra - eh?

rocky -- I am simply stating facts. We currently have 14 wins. If we were to win 6 more games, we'd finish 20-11, an overall record which looks decent on paper, but which is, in fact, a lousy record considering our schedule. Do you actually deny that? Twenty wins used to mean a near automatic bid into the tournament. If we reached exactly 20 wins, there's no way we'd get in and 21 we'd be borderline for sure. What is to debate?

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Deane recruited "regional" players, Crean has made the national recruits take notice of Marquette(although hasn't landed many of them).

Signing people who played high school ball outside of the midwest does not make them "national recruits" any more than recruiting somebody like Novak (who was recruited by several out of region schools) was a "regional recruit." For instance, I would not call Burke a "national recruit." Nor would I necessarily call Cubillan a "national recruit." Brian Butch was a national recruit. In fact, I think Crean should continue to establish Marquette as a "go to" destination for Wisconsin and Illinois preps before he signs another kid from St. Benedict's.

[Marquette84]

I'd say it's more than a little arrogant to suggest a trip to the Sweet 16 for Marquette wouldn't be a really good year. We had a great run in 2003. Other than that, we've got 1994 and that's it in recent memory.

What I think you're missing is that none of the other schools Catholic schools have had a 2003-like run in the last 15 - 20 years.  

Some have had a 1994-like run.  


So the question--which you still haven't answered--is what you would want?

Would you like to be like Creighton--a nice consistent NCCA team that nobody cares about?  

Would you like to be like Gonzaga--for all your beefs about the schedule MU has had more good games at the BC in the last year than you'll see in a lifetime in Spokane.  

Would you like to be like DePaul--a sweet 16 every once in a while, puncuated by long stretches of futility.

Would you like to be like Loyola--a mere shadow of past greatness currently in its 25th year of rebuilding?  

Also, this 20 win plateau that is continually cited around here is completely old fashioned. 20 wins signifies nothing.

My guess is that the fans of last season's 12-15 DePaul, Providence or St. Johns teams would disagree with you.  Or maybe 13-17 Dayton.  Or 16-13 SLU.   Or 3-24 Duquesne.  or 16-16 Fordam.   What about 14-16 Detroit?  Or 17-11 Loyola?

Do you really think fans of those teams would agree that 20 wins signifies nothing?

Now, let me ask you another question.  In the Big 6 conferences, how many 20+ game winning teams  do you think missed the NCAA tourney--over the last eight years?

Three!  Just three!  

Colorado in 2006
Syracuse in 2002
Alabama in 2001

Difference between MU and these three?  Considering just our decent wins over Texas Tech and Duke, we have more decent non-conference wins than these three teams . . . .COMBINED.

And, no, I didn't include Ohio State--who won 20 games but was banned from the tourney..  

Still going to maintain 20 wins means nothing?

Of our current 13 wins, nine include wins versus Hillsdale, Idaho St. (barely), Eastern Michigan, Northwestern St., Delaware St., UMBC, Oakland, Morgan St. and Savannah St. I'm not sure anybody on this board couldn't get almost halfway to 20 wins with that schedule. We have decent wins over Texas Tech, Duke, Valpo and UCONN. We're going to need more than 7 more wins to get to the tournament.

Past history suggests otherwise.  Just three 20 game winning teams from a big 6 conference in the past 8 years haven't made the tourney.

[Marquette84]

rocky -- I am simply stating facts. We currently have 14 wins. If we were to win 6 more games, we'd finish 20-11, an overall record which looks decent on paper, but which is, in fact, a lousy record considering our schedule. Do you actually deny that? Twenty wins used to mean a near automatic bid into the tournament. If we reached exactly 20 wins, there's no way we'd get in and 21 we'd be borderline for sure. What is to debate?

Actually, its obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

But go ahead--find me all those 20-11 teams from Big 6 conferences that were left out despite schedules stronger than ours.

In fact, find me all of those borderline 21-game winners. 

I'd love to see your lists.

[rocky_warrior]

What is to debate?

Well, for one, Marquette went to the NCAA tourney last year with only 19 wins
(Lewis game didn't count)

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Last year we had 10 conference wins. Finishing with 20 wins this year would be a 7-9 Big East record. 21 wins would be an 8-8 conference record.

[Harrison]

i do not completely disagree with what PRN is saying.  I stated the other day that Creans 13-14 preconferecne wins when compared to what other Mu coaches did was apples to oranges as they typically, especially Pre- C-USa days played very difficult scheduels in Novemeber and December.  Nevertheless, we go 8-8 and we are in.  21 wiins and .500 in conference and we are in amy be aan 8-9-10 seed but we are in.  The 20 wins in a BCS conference has long been a standard and as has been shown the three that missed had preconference schedules that did not hold a candle to ours.  Not saying ours was great or anything in that order, but we beat Texas Tech both who will probably finish top 50 rpi...good enough. Those three schools were all like 0-10 against the top 100 rpi in those three years and that is precisely why they did not get in and if I recall had losing conference records. 

[Big Papi]

2002mualum said it best.

It's all about the program.

Crean is not a very good bench coach or a X and O guy, but he runs the program the correct way. Marquette is on the national college basketball radar once again. Deane recruited "regional" players, Crean has made the national recruits take notice of Marquette(although hasn't landed many of them).

Let's give Crean the credit that he deserves.

One more thing about Deane. His teams at Lamar and Wagner (going down the coaching ladder) are not good. I don't think he should be referred to as a good coach.

Furthermore. we don't have to worry about scandals, players being academically ineligible and shoes being discounted inappropriately.