Better Next Year or Hit With Rebuilding?

[Kramerica]

It was YOUR expectations that were far outside of the bell curve and some of the information you used to justify them (refering to MU's recruiting class as #1 in the country) was called "purposeful misinformation" by none other than MU Scoop recruiting guru BMA725. Why would you use "purposeful misinformation" to set the bar as high as possible for this year's team? Even Chicos in his silly foil hat knows the answer to that one.

Ummm...maybe its because he is a fan of Marquette and is optimistic?  Jesus, what is the deal with everyone accusing everyone else of having some Anti-Buzz/Pro-Crean agenda whenever you post anything on this board. 

Mention the "soft bubble" this year? You must hate Buzz and love Tom Crean.
Had higher expectations than most people this year? Well it must be because in some twisted way you hate Buzz Williams. 

Holy crap you people are ridiculous. Its almost like the Nixon White House with some of the Buzz defenders around here.  Everyone has an agenda and they're all out to get Buzz.

[NersEllenson]

BEFORE Cadougan and OTule were injured and BEFORE Maymon left the team:1.ESPN said MU would be "as good as their freshmen" and picked them 11th in the BEast 2. Yahoo.com also said 11th 3. Big East coaches had MU 12th and 4.Rivals.com had MU #83 in the nation, 20 spots behind UWM and a mere 43 places ahead of Indiana. I saw ZERO predictions from anyone even tangentially connected to college bball that had MU higher than 10th in the conference. My expectations were not "low balled" or "biased" any more than those of Rivals, Yahoo, ESPN, coaches and the rest who make their living covering college basketball were.

It was YOUR expectations that were far outside of the bell curve and some of the information you used to justify them (refering to MU's recruiting class as #1 in the country) was called "purposeful misinformation" by none other than MU Scoop recruiting guru BMA725. Why would you use "purposeful misinformation" to set the bar as high as possible for this year's team? Even Chicos in his silly foil hat knows the answer to that one.

+1 on this - I think MU84 laid out a good case, but it is very true that his case/opinion was at the far end of the bell curve.  I don't think MU84 is a Buzz hater at all, but he is a staunch supporter of Tom Crean, and that's okay.  TC deserves some credit and respect for what he did at MU - though the more I learned of him, the more disenchanted I became with regard to the esteem with which I held TC.

[PGsHeroes32]

DJO and Butler play 40 minutes a game if they are able and not in foul trouble. Everyone else does a Pitino/Tubby style rotation. Give everyone their shots to prove themselves. Junior may need alot of minutes and the only pt runner. Blue will play a solid amount as will buycks. I doubt we find time for smith and newbill. otule,Crowder,Fulce and Jones need to battle it out in 2 man rotations. Find everyone minutes but leave JB and DJO out there.

[Golden Avalanche]

I wouldnt expect much out of Jones next year...probably similar to what we are seeing with EWill this year.

Interesting comment seeing as though it's over eight months until this player will even put on a Warriors uniform.

[Marquette84]

BEFORE Cadougan and OTule were injured and BEFORE Maymon left the team:1.ESPN said MU would be "as good as their freshmen" and picked them 11th in the BEast 2. Yahoo.com also said 11th 3. Big East coaches had MU 12th and 4.Rivals.com had MU #83 in the nation, 20 spots behind UWM and a mere 43 places ahead of Indiana. I saw ZERO predictions from anyone even tangentially connected to college bball that had MU higher than 10th in the conference. My expectations were not "low balled" or "biased" any more than those of Rivals, Yahoo, ESPN, coaches and the rest who make their living covering college basketball were.

It was YOUR expectations that were far outside of the bell curve and some of the information you used to justify them (refering to MU's recruiting class as #1 in the country) was called "purposeful misinformation" by none other than MU Scoop recruiting guru BMA725. Why would you use "purposeful misinformation" to set the bar as high as possible for this year's team? Even Chicos in his silly foil hat knows the answer to that one.

I don't think its a stretch to say that a) I knew more about the MU returning players better than ESPN, Yahoo, Rivals, etc.  b) researched the quality of the incoming players more than most of the other services and c) put it in context of both the schedule and the changes around the rest of the league.

For example, you claim ESPN says our team would be based on the quality of the freshmen?  Apparently they didn't know about Lazar Hayward or Jimmy Butler.  And you cite them as your 'expert' rebuttal?

Most of the services did nothing more than a perfunctory analysis--they simply looked at the seniors leaving and concluded "boy, MU is really going to suck".  I truly don't think they did anything deeper than that.

The other thing to keep in mind is that you had a much higher opinion of Buzz's coaching and recruiting ability than any of those services you cited.  If ESPN and others thought we were 10th best, one would expect you to pick us higher given your belief that they undervalued Buzz as a coach and recruiter.



Second, BMA called used the "purposeful misinformation" because he personally doesn't trust Hoopscoop.

That does not mean we were not rated #1 by them:
http://www.hoopscooponline.com/members/toprecruitingclasses-classof2009.asp

Here's what BMA said at the time:
"One service believes MU has the #1 recruiting class, and it's the least respected of all the services.  The ranking is based on their ranking of JUCO players, which history has shown is marginally accurate at best."  

Those JUCOs were DJO and Buycks.  

So in hindsight, Hoopscoop was right and BMA was wrong.  

Maybe in the past Hoopscoop was not reputable, but I trust that as more time passes, BMA would look at Hoopscoop's more recent JUCO evaluations (A rating of 6 for Butler and 4 for Fulce in 2008, ratings of 8 each for Buycks and DJO in 2009) and revise his conclusion--their more recent ratings certainly seem to be pretty reasonable over the past two seasons.

[RawdogDX]

Ummm...maybe its because he is a fan of Marquette and is optimistic?  Jesus, what is the deal with everyone accusing everyone else of having some Anti-Buzz/Pro-Crean agenda whenever you post anything on this board. 

Mention the "soft bubble" this year? You must hate Buzz and love Tom Crean.
Had higher expectations than most people this year? Well it must be because in some twisted way you hate Buzz Williams. 

Holy crap you people are ridiculous. Its almost like the Nixon White House with some of the Buzz defenders around here.  Everyone has an agenda and they're all out to get Buzz.

By everyone do you have anyone in mind other than Lenny and Hayward?  Honest question.

Does anyone on here other than those two think any 100+ posters are actually 'buzz bashers'?  I know there are a few people on the fence but I don't think 'basher' applies to anyone other than a few <20 post trolls who showed up a few times.

[rocky_warrior]

Before you all crown 84 as a great analyst, remember, he also said the floor for Marquette was 4th place in the BE this year, but then backed down form it saying that 'Of course I was being sarcastic!" and only really expected a .500 or better finish.

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=15286.msg144715#msg144715

I think it's really about 84 throwing enough sh1t against the wall....some HAS to stick.

[Hards Alumni]

Before you all crown 84 as a great analyst, remember, he also said the floor for Marquette was 4th place in the BE this year, but then backed down form it saying that 'Of course I was being sarcastic!" and only really expected a .500 or better finish.

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=15286.msg144715#msg144715

I think it's really about 84 throwing enough sh1t against the wall....some HAS to stick.

This is my opinion as well.  The same really applies with most people around here.  Make a lot of predictions so when one of them is right a few months down the line, you can post a link to it and pat yourself on the back.

I'll be honest, I have no idea what I predicted this team to do.  None. 

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Before you all crown 84 as a great analyst, remember, he also said the floor for Marquette was 4th place in the BE this year, but then backed down form it saying that 'Of course I was being sarcastic!" and only really expected a .500 or better finish.

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=15286.msg144715#msg144715

I think it's really about 84 throwing enough sh1t against the wall....some HAS to stick.

Touche.

Maybe I shouldn't have given him credit.

I just remember laughing at his prediction, and then, magically, MU is much better than we all thought.

BUT, maybe I'm only remembering part of the thread.

[bma725]

Second, BMA called used the "purposeful misinformation" because he personally doesn't trust Hoopscoop.

No, that had nothing to do with it.

I called it purposeful misinformation because you kept referring to it as the #1 recruiting class in the country without qualifying the ranking by stating that it only came from HoopScoop and no other service had MU nearly that high. 

When people on this site talk about recruiting rankings, 99% of the time they are talking about consensus opinion, not that of just one site.  So when you make a statement like "MU has the #1 recruiting class in the country" without acknowledging that only one service made that judgement, a lot of people are going to assume that consensus opinion had MU as the #1 class, when in reality no other service had MU nearly that high.  Pointing out that Scout or Rivals or whomever didn't have MU as highly ranked wouldn't have fit the argument you were trying to make, so you just left it out.

[Marquette84]

Before you all crown 84 as a great analyst, remember, he also said the floor for Marquette was 4th place in the BE this year, but then backed down form it saying that 'Of course I was being sarcastic!" and only really expected a .500 or better finish.

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=15286.msg144715#msg144715

I think it's really about 84 throwing enough sh1t against the wall....some HAS to stick.

You pulled a quote out of context that was a response to Lenny, who tried to suggest that my view was that 4th place was the floor for this year's team.  What I said in that thread was that Lenny himself should have used 4th place as the floor, since Crean finished 5th--and we know that Lenny think Buzz is a better coach and recruiter.

I've been 100% consistent that .500 was the floor and 5th or 6th not unreasonable--in fact, if you read some of my other posts in that thread you linked to, you may have found these statements:

"I get that a lot of people like to set expectations low--but a 12th place finish is as unrealistic as expecting a championship.  We brought in experienced JUCO players so that we don't have a dropoff into the dregs of the league.  This team absolutely should not finish below 8th place, and with a relatively easy draw on the mirror games, one could make the case that we should be competitive for 5th or 6th. "

"So that's eight teams right there where there is a more-than-reasonable case to be made that we should be expected to finish ahead of. "

"I get that a lot of people like to set expectations low--but a 12th place finish is as unrealistic as expecting a championship.  We brought in experienced JUCO players so that we don't have a dropoff into the dregs of the league.  This team absolutely should not finish below 8th place, and with a relatively easy draw on the mirror games, one could make the case that we should be competitive for 5th or 6th."

"I don't think its unreasonable to expect that a #1 recruiting class with two solid returnees should be expected to be a top-half team in our league."

You will not find any post of mine where I agreed that 12th place (or even bottom half of the league) was a reasonable explanation.

Sorry, Rocky, but you're way off base here.

[Lennys Tap]

No, that had nothing to do with it.

I called it purposeful misinformation because you kept referring to it as the #1 recruiting class in the country without qualifying the ranking by stating that it only came from HoopScoop and no other service had MU nearly that high. 

When people on this site talk about recruiting rankings, 99% of the time they are talking about consensus opinion, not that of just one site.  So when you make a statement like "MU has the #1 recruiting class in the country" without acknowledging that only one service made that judgement, a lot of people are going to assume that consensus opinion had MU as the #1 class, when in reality no other service had MU nearly that high.  Pointing out that Scout or Rivals or whomever didn't have MU as highly ranked wouldn't have fit the argument you were trying to make, so you just left it out.

84 is not content to just misrepresent the facts to fit his narrative. He also insists on consistantly misrepresenting what those who disagree with him say.

[Marquette84]

No, that had nothing to do with it.

I called it purposeful misinformation because you kept referring to it as the #1 recruiting class in the country without qualifying the ranking by stating that it only came from HoopScoop and no other service had MU nearly that high. 

Here's the quote:  "I don't think its unreasonable to expect that a #1 recruiting class with two solid returnees should be expected to be a top-half team in our league."

I referred to it as "a #1 recruiting class: not "the #1 recruiting class."   Hoopscoop DID have us ranked #1.  I never said that it was a consensus ranking.
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=15175.msg143038#msg143038


Frankly, I've let you play rope-a-dope too long on this. Substituting "consensus top 20" for "a #1" hardly undermines the case that we had significantly better incoming players than almost every other Big East team--certainly better than at least 12 other BE teams.  The only debatable classes were Pitt, Villanova and Uconn--and there is no concensus that any of them were better than us.    

And I disagree with your point that it is "purposeful misinformation" to use the highest ranking. Its actually common practice. Look at how many people refer to Vander Blue as a top 30 player.  Yet his current "consensus" on RSCI is 53rd.  

I think you even used isolated top 100 rankings (rather than consensus) to determine who should be included in your analysis of top 100 players over the years.

Finally, you specifically claimed that Hoopscoop was unreliable "based on their rankings of JUCO players."  That has not proven to be the case.  

 

[LON]

This thread has turned into one big slap-fight.

[Marquette84]

84 is not content to just misrepresent the facts to fit his narrative. He also insists on consistantly misrepresenting what those who disagree with him say.

I built a solid case that included FAR more than MU having a #1 class in one service.  

You seem to think the the fact that it was #1 in one service, but only 8th in another, 11th in a third, 14th in a fourth, 17th in a fifth makes a huge difference.  If you average our ranking with all the other services for every other Big East team, we're in the top 3 in conference.

Frankly, while I respect BMA's research, I think he's wrong on this point.  He specifically said that the basis for him declaring that Hoopscoop was unreliable was because of their JUCO rankings.

At the end of the season, I think its only fair to ask who turned out to be correct?

Were DJO and Buycks worthy of the ranking they received in Hoopscoop?  

I say yes--what do you think?  

[bma725]

Oh please, you know damn well that the moment you say the phrase #1 recruiting class people are going to assume you mean the #1 recruiting class unless you qualify the statement by providing the source.  By not pointing out that it was merely one service's opinion, you give off the impression that it was the consensus opinion on our class.  No one who reads that statement is going to think that you were talking about the ratings of only one service unless you specifically state that you were doing so, which you did not.

And I disagree with your point that it is "purposeful misinformation" to use the highest ranking. Its actually common practice. Look at how many people refer to Vander Blue as a top 30 player.  Yet his current "consensus" on RSCI is 53rd.  

It's purposeful misinformation given your history on these boards going back several years.  If you were actually interested in making an accurate point, you would report the whole scope of the rankings, but clearly you didn't want to do that.  It's merely misinformation when others do it as they have been convinced by shoddy reporting in the JS and elsewhere that the numbers they are talking about are the consensus numbers.

I think you even used isolated top 100 rankings (rather than consensus) to determine who should be included in your analysis of top 100 players over the years.

I used isolated rankings only when there was no consensus ranking, and when I did so I pointed out that they were isolated rankings by only one service, not consensus rankings.  I never tried to pass off the thoughts of one analyst as the consensus thought as you have done.  Further, given that I was looking at rankings going back to 1980 and the RSCI did not exist until 1998, there was no such thing as the consensus ranking for much of the period I was discussing.

Finally, you specifically claimed that Hoopscoop was unreliable "based on their rankings of JUCO players."  That has not proven to be the case.  

I claimed HoopScoop was unreliable for a number of reasons, the overvaluing of JUCOs was simply a part of it, as was the fact that he ranks more than 100 players in his top 100 and the fact that he gives too much weight to quantity over quality.  Given the performance of the recruiting classes this year, you can very clearly see that despite HoopScoop's getting it right on DJO, MU's class was not deserving of the ranking they achieved.  

[Blackhat]

TF

have you diaper droops done to this thread?

[Marquette84]

Oh please, you know damn well that the moment you say the phrase #1 recruiting class people are going to assume you mean the #1 recruiting class unless you qualify the statement by providing the source.  By not pointing out that it was merely one service's opinion, you give off the impression that it was the consensus opinion on our class.  No one who reads that statement is going to think that you were talking about the ratings of only one service unless you specifically state that you were doing so, which you did not.

You're focusing on two words out of a 400 word post.  If I substitute "One of the best in the NCAA" or "Top 20 in everyone's list" for "a #1 recruiting class", it doesn't change a thing.  It supports my point just as much--no "purposeful misreprentation" was made.

We had an outstanding recruiting class.  Period.
 

I claimed HoopScoop was unreliable for a number of reasons, the overvaluing of JUCOs was simply a part of it, as was the fact that he ranks more than 100 players in his top 100 and the fact that he gives too much weight to quantity over quality.

Actually, you focused primarily on one reason (highlighted below in your response in its entirety):

One service believes MU has the #1 recruiting class, and it's the least respected of all the services.  The ranking is based on their ranking of JUCO players, which history has shown is marginally accurate at best.  They give the same ranking to Dwight Buycks and DJO that they gave to Marcus Jackson, Ousmane Barro, Mike Kinsella and Jamil Lott.  You need to look at the other services to get a more accurate reading.  Scout has MU at #18.  ESPN has MU at #14.  Rivals has MU at #17.   Good, but not #1, not even close.

To continue to refer the class as the #1 recruiting class is purposeful misinformation and you know it.

As for your other complaints, they don't hold much water.

Hoopscoop incorporates jucos, while the others services only rate frosh.  Of course there are more players when you include both JUCOs and Frosh.  Hoopscoop normalizes it so that, say, a 71-100 player in his rating is equivalent to someone who has freshmen only.   Otherwise, Rivals would might have a guy rated 100, and the same exact player might be 150 on Hoopscoop. 

As far as the quantity vs. quality, every service take both into account.  Hoopscoop is transparent with their formula--the others are not.  Given the formulas are not public, I'm curious as to how you know that Hoopscoop relies too much on quantity. 

 Given the performance of the recruiting classes this year, you can very clearly see that despite HoopScoop's getting it right on DJO, MU's class was not deserving of the ranking they achieved. 

Shame on you.  You of all people should know the value of a class is not fully reflected in the first year.  Remember this comment?
"Chris Crawford - I'm sure there will be many that disagree with me, especially those that watched Crawford play his first two years. But I'd argue that his final two years, and his pre-injury NBA career point to the fact that the experts got it right."
http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2009/05/look-back-marquettes-history-with-top.html

If you're willing to give Crawford until his junior and senior year, why are you now drawing a conclusion after just one season?

Frankly, not only is it not clear this class isn't deserving of its rank, its impossible to tell.  Cadougan was injured, Maymon transferred, Mboa was (like Crawford) a project. 

[bma725]

You're focusing on two words out of a 400 word post.  If I substitute "One of the best in the NCAA" or "Top 20 in everyone's list" for "a #1 recruiting class", it doesn't change a thing.  It supports my point just as much--no "purposeful misreprentation" was made.

No, actually it doesn't.  If the other rankings or wording supported the point you were trying to make in that thread just as well, then you would have used them.  But the truth is they don't.  Saying MU had the #1 recruiting class with no qualifiers on it versus saying they were #17 or whatever it was on Rivals doesn't help the point you were making as much. 

Further, when you say someone has the #1 recruiting class, people react to it and interpret it very differently than if you say "a top recruiting class" or a Top 20 recruiting class.  There's a change in the expectations that comes with it and a change in the expectations for the incoming players.  There's an implication in that statement that a consensus of thought has been reached, and the experts believe a certain thing about MU's incoming class when clearly that wasn't the case. 

As far as the quantity vs. quality, every service take both into account.  Hoopscoop is transparent with their formula--the others are not.  Given the formulas are not public, I'm curious as to how you know that Hoopscoop relies too much on quantity.

Every service looks at quantity, but they don't give credit to you for having a larger class like Francis does.  Since you're so curious to find out how they do it, perhaps you should do what I did.  Spend over a decade corresponding with the guys that run those services and pick their brains about how they evaluate talent, what they look for when they watch players and how they come up with their numbers.  You'd learn quite a bit about what actually goes into this stuff, and why some services are worth paying for and others aren't worth the bandwith they occupy.

Regardless, you don't need to know a thing about the other services to realize that HoopScoop's way of calculating rank is biased towards larger classes.  That's why he puts information on the average talent ranking in the class right next to the rank, so that you can tell when a class is artificially high simply because of volume. 

[Lennys Tap]

I built a solid case that included FAR more than MU having a #1 class in one service.  

You seem to think the the fact that it was #1 in one service, but only 8th in another, 11th in a third, 14th in a fourth, 17th in a fifth makes a huge difference.  If you average our ranking with all the other services for every other Big East team, we're in the top 3 in conference.

Frankly, while I respect BMA's research, I think he's wrong on this point.  He specifically said that the basis for him declaring that Hoopscoop was unreliable was because of their JUCO rankings.

At the end of the season, I think its only fair to ask who turned out to be correct?

Were DJO and Buycks worthy of the ranking they received in Hoopscoop?  

I say yes--what do you think?  

I would say yes also. Actually DJO might have been deserving of an even higher rating.

Now let me ask you a question. If you would have known before the season started that we would get NOTHING out of Maymon, Cadougan and OTule where would you have projected this team's floor and ceiling?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Let's face it, Lenny must be Mrs. Buzz Williams



Kidding...kidding.   Of course 84 was called Joanie Crean on here by many so the irony is rather symbolic.

[Lennys Tap]

Let's face it, Lenny must be Mrs. Buzz Williams



Kidding...kidding.   Of course 84 was called Joanie Crean on here by many so the irony is rather symbolic.

No irony with 84 or myself. We may disagree, but we mean what we say and say what we mean. You acknowledge that Crean is a total douche yet defend him with the ferocity of a pit bull. You "love" Buzz but nitpick everything he says and does. Sometimes you even go for the "two-fer" as in "Boy, if Tom Crean (the douche) would have just done what Buzz Williams (whom I absolutely love) did this board would crucify him". Calling people hypocrits while displaying your own. Now that's irony.

[Marquette84]

No, actually it doesn't.  If the other rankings or wording supported the point you were trying to make in that thread just as well, then you would have used them.  But the truth is they don't.  Saying MU had the #1 recruiting class with no qualifiers on it versus saying they were #17 or whatever it was on Rivals doesn't help the point you were making as much.  

Further, when you say someone has the #1 recruiting class, people react to it and interpret it very differently than if you say "a top recruiting class" or a Top 20 recruiting class.  There's a change in the expectations that comes with it and a change in the expectations for the incoming players.  There's an implication in that statement that a consensus of thought has been reached, and the experts believe a certain thing about MU's incoming class when clearly that wasn't the case.  

What's funny about this is that I used that #1 ranking as evidence to support MY OWN PREDICTION!!!  If Hoopscoop were really that inaccurate, my prediction would have been wrong, and Lenny would have me eating crow for predicting that we would be at least a .500/top-half team.    

Say whatever you want about Hoopscoop--I put myself out there with a prediction using them (and others) as support.  

You've said several times you respect Rivals.  I could have made the same exact point with them:  Rivals ranked our 2005 class (with the Amigos) 23rd. For the 2009 class, Rivals (same more accurate, more reliable serivce) had us at 17th.  Seeing as how the 2005 class (paired with one good returnee in Novak) led us to a 4th place finish in the Big East, I think its reasonable to think that with two strong returnees (Butler & Hayward) and an EVEN BETTER set of recruits--we might be able to muster at least an 8th place finish.

As I said, it doesn't change a thing.  I thought we should be at least a top half team.  I happened to use Hoopscoop to support that prediction.  I could have used Rivals.  It doesn't matter--its was still my prediction.

Since you're so curious to find out how they do it, perhaps you should do what I did.  Spend over a decade corresponding with the guys that run those services and pick their brains about how they evaluate talent, what they look for when they watch players and how they come up with their numbers.  You'd learn quite a bit about what actually goes into this stuff, and why some services are worth paying for and others aren't worth the bandwith they occupy.

Too bad you didn't have the class or the common decency to actually explain this back then. You have some secret/private information that you gained in 10 years of personal research.  Wonderful.  How was I to know that?  

You know what?  Write a WIKI page that outlines the different methodologies--why you think one serivce is better than another.  THAT would be helpful to all of us.

Ripping into me because I used the Hoopscoop number is not helpful.

I used the Hoopscoop ranking to justify my personal prediction (WHICH WAS CORRECT!!!!!), and you're still trying to make the case that I was trying to mislead the board?  Sorry--I don't get it.  How did I "mislead" anyone?   Did anyone make the wrong call on where MU would finish because they read my post and believed it?  

People could either agree or disagree with my prediction.  Mostly they disagreed.   Sucks for them--if they had agreed with me, they would have been correct as well.  Some--like you--thought I was wrong to use Hoopscoops ranking to justify my prediction.  Well, I did use them.  And I was right.  That's what's great about America--we can all make our own choices.

What I don't understand is why you made this a personal attack.  Where do you get off saying it was "misleading"?

Regardless, you don't need to know a thing about the other services to realize that HoopScoop's way of calculating rank is biased towards larger classes.  That's why he puts information on the average talent ranking in the class right next to the rank, so that you can tell when a class is artificially high simply because of volume.  

Without resorting to another personal attack, perhaps you could put your 10 years of research to good use and explain to me how much of the difference between Rival's rank of #17 and Hoopscoops Rank of #1 is based on larger classes (as you claim now) and how much is because of the JUCOS (which you claimed last fall).

And perhaps you could also outline what Rivals saw in this years class that caused them to think that they would be significantly better than the class anchored by the Amigos.

[Rocco]

No irony with 84 or myself. We may disagree, but we mean what we say and say what we mean. You acknowledge that Crean is a total douche yet defend him with the ferocity of a pit bull. You "love" Buzz but nitpick everything he says and does. Sometimes you even go for the "two-fer" as in "Boy, if Tom Crean (the douche) would have just done what Buzz Williams (whom I absolutely love) did this board would crucify him". Calling people hypocrits while displaying your own. Now that's irony.

Post of the century.  Sorry Chicos, we mended our fences, but he is spot on.  This thread has turned into an unbelievable bitchfest.  I thought I was petty! LOL

[Marquette84]

Post of the century.  Sorry Chicos, we mended our fences, but he is spot on.  This thread has turned into an unbelievable bitchfest.  I thought I was petty! LOL

You're not the one getting dumped on!

There must be something in the air today.

First, I have Rocky, who claims I was only right in predicting our success "throwing sh*t agianst the wall to see what sticks".  I challenged him to find even one post where I wasn't consistent with my "at-least-top-half/upside of 5th/6th" prediction.  He hasn't replied yet, so I assume he's still scouring the archives.

Then I have BMA, who is upset because I justified my pre-season top-half prediction using <gasp!> Hoopscoop's class ranking.  He claims I "purposefully misled" the board into believing an ultimately correct pre-season prediction.  So to everyone: I apologize for attempting to purposefully mislead you into thinking that we were better than 12th place. 

Then I have Lenny--who owns the world biggest pro-Buzz/anti-Crean agenda.   Yet he still thinks that I have an anti-Buzz agenda even though I was probably the first (and perhaps only) person in April of 2008 applauding Steve Cottingham and defending his interview process and hiring decision.   

Then again, I knew it was going to be a long strange trip when Murff was the only person at the start of the season that agreed with me. 

Who would have guessed that I could make a prediction at the start of the year; Murff of all people would agree with me; virtually every other person would not just disagree with me, but violently disagree with every fiber of the being; and at the end of the season my prediction would turn out to be true!