MU #18 team of the past decade

[Lennys Tap]

Interesting that you think that we had enough talent to make the tournament in 2004, but make the case about how under-talented we were this past year.

Forget the comparisons with 2006.  Let's compare the talent level in 2004 to this past season. No matter how you want to spin it, Crean had less overall talent in 2004 than Buzz did last year--but your expectations don't seem to reflect that disparity. 

• Anyone as good as Hayward on Crean's 2004 team?  Nope.  Best was Novak (a sophomore to be) and Diener (a junior-to-be).   Both were good--but neither had the combination of shooting touch, athleticism, speed and most importantly the experience of Hayward. 
• Buzz's best outside shooter turned out to be Acker--the same Acker (and not Novak) who holds the MU senior-season record for 3 point shooting.  And I think he probably handled the ball (and possibly even defended) better than Novak as a soph. I don't know if I'd take Acker over Novak now that Novak is fully developed--but Acker's performance as a 5th year senior is arguably superior to Novak's sophomore season.
• I think by any reasonable argument, DJO came in this year with the same reputation for shooting that Diener had (without Diener's reputation for lack of speed, athleticism or explosiveness).  Diener saw the floor better than DJO--but I think if you compare DJO's soph season with Diener's junior year, you'd have to say they're pretty damn close--possibly a slight edge, but certainly not a huge advantage to Diener.
• Butler's offense (coming into the year ranked as the #4 offensive player the year before) has got to be considered a bit stronger than Merritt, Chapman or Townsend.

By any measure, Buzz had a much stronger lineup this year than Crean had in 2004.

I'm not sure why you mention their future NBA success--neither Diener nor Novak exhibited NBA talent yet in 2004.  They later developed that talent, but they were no more NBA players than Jim McIlvaine, Tony Smith, Amal McCaskill, or Chris Crawford were before their senior seasons.

The only fair argument here is Crean took a less talented team to the NIT in 2004, and Buzz took a more talented team to the NCAA in 2010.   

Any way you spin it Crean had less TALENT than Buzz did last year? I don't need to spin it. Let's look at the TALENT level as evaluated by  IMPARTIAL professional observers. The guys that even coaches pay for their opinions.

The 2004 team had 4 starters (Diener, Novak, Merritt and Mason) who were consensus top 100 players. Their 5th starter (Sanders) was a highly rated prep school player who was deemed a top 100 guy by a service that included "preps". Sixth man was Joe Chapman (100-150) and the rotation was filled out by juco all American (Marcus Jackson) and final four team starter Todd Townsend.

Last year's team had 1 starter (Hayward) who was a consensus top 100 player. DJO might  have been close, maybe bma725 can help with that. Acker had nothing higher than mid major offers. Cubillan wasn't in the top 200. Butler wasn''t in the top 300. Sixth man Fulce came via junior college through University of New Orleans. Buycks best D1 offer was Bradley.

In addition to being rated much higher on a TALENT basis, the 2004 team starters were 6'10", 6'10", 6'8", 6'5" and 6'1". The balance of the rotation stood 6'8", 6'7" and 6'4". Last years team? 6'6'', 6'6", 6'3", 5'11", and 5'8" with backups at 6'7" and 6'2". That's 5 inches PER MAN.

So you can argue that BY ANY MEASURE last year's team PERFORMED better than the 2004 team. That's a fact. It's also a fact that last year's team was physically puny compared to the 2004 squad. And that the talent on the 2004 team was rated higher AT EVERY POSITION by the scouts. I fully acknowledge that scouts make mistakes, but this many would be the perfect storm of perfect storms.

Given all these facts a fair and logical person might conclude that the 2010 team was much better coached than the 2004 team. Since that conclusion doesn't fit your preferred narrative (i.e.,agenda) I won't hold my breath waiting for your agreement.

[Marquette84]

What's sad is you minimize the talent of Diener and Novak (as junior and sophomores), yet they were key ingredients to MU's Final Four Run the year before...but take away DWade..and now all of a sudden they aren't as talented as MU's 2010 team? 

I made the point that Hayward as a senior was better than Novak as a sophomore or Diener as a junior. 

Given how often you complain how your comments are twisted, I expect better of you than  twisting my observation into "minimizing the talent of Diener and Novak. 

I compared the 2004 team (including Diener and Novak at a certain point in their development) to the 2010 team. 

but take away DWade..and now all of a sudden they aren't as talented as MU's 2010 team? 

Yep.  Thats my argument.  I supported it too.   More than I can say for your rebuttal--which was basically to twist my argument out of context.

I'm not comparing what Novak or Diener eventually developed into--I'm talking how they actually were in 2004.  Hell, throw in Chapman, Merritt and whoever else you want.  Do a fair comparison of the talent as it was--not as some scout projected three years prior. 

This is your chance, Mr. Self-Professed Basketball Expert.  You played the game in HS.  You coached in Deane's summer camp.  Evaluate Steve Novak's 2004 season and Lazar Haywards' performance in 2010, and tell me EXACTLY why I'm out of line for suggesting that Hayward's performance was the better of the two. 

Tell me EXACTLY why my comparison of DJO and Diener is off the mark.

Tell me EXACTLY why you discount Acker's 50% 3 point shooting compared to Novak's 43%.

Tell me EXACTLY who in 2004 was even close to the offensive efficiency of Butler.

My guess that you can't--or more precisely you won't.  You won't because if you actually do the comparison of rosters in those specific years you'll be forced to admit that I'm right. 

What you'll do is resort to things like HS rankings from services that don't rank JUCOs--that way you can claim that players in 2004 were ranked in or near the top 100, but DJO, Buycks, and Butler were unranked--even though they were Juco All-Americans.

You'll resort to argument along the lines of: "Because Novak eventually developed into an NBA player, he must have been better in 2004 also even though a fair comparison of his stats or his performance dictate otherwise."   

One more thought--what if Hayward and DJO eventually make NBA rosters?  What will you do then? 

[Marquette84]

Any way you spin it Crean had less TALENT than Buzz did last year? I don't need to spin it. Let's look at the TALENT level as evaluated by  IMPARTIAL professional observers. The guys that even coaches pay for their opinions.

Most of those guys don't rate JUCOs, and many don't rate 5th year players, which makes your comparison suspect.

The 2004 team had 4 starters (Diener, Novak, Merritt and Mason) who were consensus top 100 players. Their 5th starter (Sanders) was a highly rated prep school player who was deemed a top 100 guy by a service that included "preps".

In a recurring theme, the question is what is your basis to compare top 100 players to JUCO All-Americans? 

Where does a 1st team JUCO AA rank in terms of top 100 players?

Last year's team had 1 starter (Hayward) who was a consensus top 100 player.

And four players that were JUCO 1st, 2nd or 3rd team All-Americans.

DJO might  have been close, maybe bma725 can help with that.

Don't need him--it's right here:
http://tinyurl.com/29thdmc
Buycks & DJO--first team NCJAA.

Acker had nothing higher than mid major offers.

And in his sophomore year, Michael Jordan was cut from his HS team.

So what?  Making a point of how good a player was five years before we're making the comparision is a bit unfair.

In 2010, Acker improved to the point where he set the senior season 3 point shooting record.  It doesn't matter who recruited him out of HS--it matters how good he was last year.

Cubillan wasn't in the top 200. Butler wasn''t in the top 300.

According to Rivals, Cubillan  was recruited by Rutgers, Villanova, and St. Johns

Butler was a 3rd team JUCO All American.

Sixth man Fulce came via junior college through University of New Orleans.

And Texas A&M.  And he was a 2nd team JUCO All American.

Buycks best D1 offer was Bradley.

Thats interesting--according to ESPN he picked MU over Memphis, Tennessee, Kentucky and Illinois.
http://tinyurl.com/278deuu

Caught you red handed using outdated information.  Buycks best D1 offer out of HS was Bradley--mostly because he wasn't going to qualify.  By the time he was done with JUCO, the offers were from a slightly better quality of program.

In addition to being rated much higher on a TALENT basis,

Only if we choose to pretend that JUCO All-American status means nothing

the 2004 team starters were 6'10", 6'10", 6'8", 6'5" and 6'1". The balance of the rotation stood 6'8", 6'7" and 6'4". Last years team? 6'6'', 6'6", 6'3", 5'11", and 5'8" with backups at 6'7" and 6'2". That's 5 inches PER MAN.

Please provide your extended analysis on how Manute Bol and Chuck Nevitt were the dominant college players of their day.

What do LaSalle, UNC, Utah, UC Davis, Wyoming and Fresno State have in common?  They were all among the 10 tallest teams in effective height.

Oh, and they missed the NCAA tournament.

Meanwhile teams like MU and Butler, Oklahoma State and Marquette made the tourney despite a lack of height.

This is an irrelevant argument.

I fully acknowledge that scouts make mistakes, but this many would be the perfect storm of perfect storms.

Not really. 

Most scouts provide no basis to compare HS top 100 to JUCO all-Americans. 

Yet, those who did rank DJO and Bucyks rated them very favorably to other top 100 players.  Buycks was rated 94 by ESPN, and 8.0 by Hoopscoop, and you sit here and pretend that he hadn't changed since HS when he was recruited by Bradley.

In reality, he was good enough to be recruited by UK, Illinois, Tennessee, etc.

Given all these facts a fair and logical person might conclude that the 2010 team was much better coached than the 2004 team. Since that conclusion doesn't fit your preferred narrative (i.e.,agenda) I won't hold my breath waiting for your agreement.

Its hard to say given the difference in talent.

Given that you have to resort to comparing Novak's HS rank to Hayward, rather than their' actual performance, I suspect that you are not that fair and logical person who should be making this comparison.

[NersEllenson]

Epic fail.

But don't stop believing.

Last I checked, nobody from New Jersey should be the judge of douchiness.  And particularily not you.

[Lennys Tap]

Most of those guys don't rate JUCOs, and many don't rate 5th year players, which makes your comparison suspect.


In a recurring theme, the question is what is your basis to compare top 100 players to JUCO All-Americans? 

Where does a 1st team JUCO AA rank in terms of top 100 players?



And four players that were JUCO 1st, 2nd or 3rd team All-Americans.



Don't need him--it's right here:
http://tinyurl.com/29thdmc
Buycks & DJO--first team NCJAA.


And in his sophomore year, Michael Jordan was cut from his HS team.

So what?  Making a point of how good a player was five years before we're making the comparision is a bit unfair.

In 2010, Acker improved to the point where he set the senior season 3 point shooting record.  It doesn't matter who recruited him out of HS--it matters how good he was last year.


According to Rivals, Cubillan  was recruited by Rutgers, Villanova, and St. Johns

Butler was a 3rd team JUCO All American.


And Texas A&M.  And he was a 2nd team JUCO All American.



Thats interesting--according to ESPN he picked MU over Memphis, Tennessee, Kentucky and Illinois.
http://tinyurl.com/278deuu

Caught you red handed using outdated information.  Buycks best D1 offer out of HS was Bradley--mostly because he wasn't going to qualify.  By the time he was done with JUCO, the offers were from a slightly better quality of program.


Only if we choose to pretend that JUCO All-American status means nothing


Please provide your extended analysis on how Manute Bol and Chuck Nevitt were the dominant college players of their day.

What do LaSalle, UNC, Utah, UC Davis, Wyoming and Fresno State have in common?  They were all among the 10 tallest teams in effective height.

Oh, and they missed the NCAA tournament.

Meanwhile teams like MU and Butler, Oklahoma State and Marquette made the tourney despite a lack of height.

This is an irrelevant argument.





Not really. 

Most scouts provide no basis to compare HS top 100 to JUCO all-Americans. 

Yet, those who did rank DJO and Bucyks rated them very favorably to other top 100 players.  Buycks was rated 94 by ESPN, and 8.0 by Hoopscoop, and you sit here and pretend that he hadn't changed since HS when he was recruited by Bradley.

In reality, he was good enough to be recruited by UK, Illinois, Tennessee, etc.



Its hard to say given the difference in talent.

Given that you have to resort to comparing Novak's HS rank to Hayward, rather than their' actual performance, I suspect that you are not that fair and logical person who should be making this comparison.

I continue to argue apples to apples while you want to argue apples to pommegranites.

I repeat: Every starter on MU's 2004 team WENT TO COLLEGE rated higher than his counterpart on the 2010 team. Ditto for the reserves. (if they didn't develop that's on TC,no?) In addition to being more talented they were also much bigger. Size in and of itself is meaningless (good small players are preferred over bad big players) but please cite examples of coaches who would prefer a 5'8"' 150lb point guard who's rated 300th in his class to a 6'1" 175lb guy rated 50th. Or a 5'11" 170lb 2 guard rated 250th in his class to a 6'5" 190lb rated 60th. Or a 6'3" 3 rated between 150-200 to someone 6'10" rated between 50-60. Or a 6'6" 4 not in the top 300 to a 6'8" top 150 guy. Or a 6'6" 5 rated 80th over a 6'10" guy also rated 80th.

So if the 2004 players came out of high school much bigger and better (more talented) than the 2010 players, What happened? The 2004 team was a preseason top 25 club expected to battle Cincinnati, Louisville and Memphis for the conference title. Their key players missed no time due to injury. They underperformed their talent, finished in the middle of the pack (.500, 7th,8th or 9th) and went to the loser's tournament.

The 2010 team, conversely, was rated between #65-85 preseason, 12th in the Big East. And that was before disaster struck. Their top 50 point guard was injured and his season was lost. Same thing for their starting center. Finally, their top 60 recruit and 6th man left the team just prior to the start of the conference season. With all the pieces in place for a complete meltdown, the team got off the mat to finish 11-7, 5th in the Big East with an NCAA tournament bid. In the process, experts (Frischilla) and coaches (Calhoun) marveled at their cohesion and the way they brought it every night. Calhoun, in fact, gave them the ultimate backhanded compliment:"They're not especially talented, they just play harder and more together than their opponents"

So in the face of a mountain of evidence from multiple sources that Buzz simply developed and coached his talent better than TC did his in 2004 you remain unconvinced. Just like the people who think the moon landing was staged and that George Bush blew up the twin towers, your entitled to your own opinion - however uninformed and prejudiced it might be.

[NersEllenson]

Last I checked, nobody from New Jersey should be the judge of douchiness.  And particularily not you.

Stay Classy New Jersey.  In addition to bringing us Golden Avalanche, Jersey Shore, we also have New Jersey proudly being represented by:

PHILADELPHIA -- A 21-year-old New Jersey man pleaded guilty Tuesday to vomiting on another spectator and his 11-year-old daughter in the stands during a Philadelphia Phillies game.
Matthew Clemmens, of Cherry Hill, N.J., pleaded guilty to one count each of simple assault, disorderly conduct and harassment for his conduct during an April 14 Phillies-Nationals game at Citizens Bank Park.

Clemmens stuck his fingers down his throat and vomited on Michael Vangelo, an off-duty Easton police captain, and one of Vangelo's daughters after Clemmens' companion was ejected from the park, assistant district attorney Patrick Doyle said.


Clemmens

Clemmens and his friend were spilling beer, cursing and heckling Vangelo and his daughters from the time they arrived at their seats, according to a statement of facts read in court.

Vangelo's 15-year-old daughter asked the pair to stop the profanity, and Vangelo complained to security that Clemmens' friend was spitting, with some of it hitting his 11-year-old daughter, Doyle said.

After the friend was ejected, Clemmens was sitting alone behind the Vangelos when he answered his cell phone and said, "I need to do what I need to do. I'm going to get sick," the prosecutor said.

Clemmens then put his fingers down his throat and threw up on the father, with vomit splashing onto Vangelo's younger daughter, Doyle said.

He then punched the father several times in the head before other fans in the stands subdued him, the prosecutor said. He screamed expletives at the crowd as he was led out of the park, Doyle said.

Clemmens' mug shot showed him with a swollen black eye, and authorities acknowledged he was hit as he was being subdued. No one else was charged in the case.

In exchange for Clemmens' guilty pleas, charges including reckless endangerment and corruption of minors were dropped.

Doyle said the Vangelos were satisfied with the case's resolution and plan to attend Clemmens' sentencing, which Family Court Judge Kevin Dougherty scheduled for July 30. Sentencing guidelines call for Clemmens to get probation, Doyle said.

Dressed in a navy suit and accompanied by his parents, the defendant appeared nervous as the charges against him were read. He did not address the judge beyond quietly replying, "Yes," as the description of events was read.

Public defender Richard Hark said his client has had no prior run-ins with the law and his behavior, which outraged fans in Philadelphia and beyond, was out of character.

"It's probable he consumed too much alcohol," Hark said, adding that Clemmens only turned 21 in March. "It's not a justification for his behavior, just an explanation."

Neither Clemmens nor his parents would comment as they left the courthouse.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Texas has brought us some people and things that weren't always spectacular either.  And I say that as a big fan of the Republic of Texas.  Stay classy....indeed  

[NersEllenson]

Texas has brought us some people and things that weren't always spectacular either.  And I say that as a big fan of the Republic of Texas.  Stay classy....indeed  

One thing Texas doesn't bring is massive state deficits, and excessive state income tax.  Though cliche' God has Blessed Texas.  Very reasonable cost of living, diverse economic base, pro-business climate, fiscal conservative policy-making, and a general degree of commons sense and can do spirit.

Chicos, whenever you get tired of paying the luxury tax of living in CA, we'll keep a spot open for you over here.  For that 9% you giveaway in state income tax, you could pretty much afford to take 2 nice family of 4 vacations to Mexico for a week at a time OR allocate that for half of your annual housing burden for a modern 2700 square foot house in a nice suburb with great schools.  We've welcomed many California rejects over here in the past decade and will even take you.   

[Hards Alumni]

One thing Texas doesn't bring is massive state deficits, and excessive state income tax.  Though cliche' God has Blessed Texas.  Very reasonable cost of living, diverse economic base, pro-business climate, fiscal conservative policy-making, and a general degree of commons sense and can do spirit.

Chicos, whenever you get tired of paying the luxury tax of living in CA, we'll keep a spot open for you over here.  For that 9% you giveaway in state income tax, you could pretty much afford to take 2 nice family of 4 vacations to Mexico for a week at a time OR allocate that for half of your annual housing burden for a modern 2700 square foot house in a nice suburb with great schools.  We've welcomed many California rejects over here in the past decade and will even take you.   

I can see that this thread is clearly off topic at this point.

[ChicosBailBonds]

One thing Texas doesn't bring is massive state deficits, and excessive state income tax.  Though cliche' God has Blessed Texas.  Very reasonable cost of living, diverse economic base, pro-business climate, fiscal conservative policy-making, and a general degree of commons sense and can do spirit.

Chicos, whenever you get tired of paying the luxury tax of living in CA, we'll keep a spot open for you over here.  For that 9% you giveaway in state income tax, you could pretty much afford to take 2 nice family of 4 vacations to Mexico for a week at a time OR allocate that for half of your annual housing burden for a modern 2700 square foot house in a nice suburb with great schools.  We've welcomed many California rejects over here in the past decade and will even take you.   

Ners, I'm from Texas originally....before you were even in diapers.  Trust me, I get it.  And I already have my retirement parcel outside of California, because I get what it's like to live here, too.

[Marquette84]

I repeat: Every starter on MU's 2004 team WENT TO COLLEGE rated higher than his counterpart on the 2010 team.

That's a choice set of weasel words you use there.

I note you don't use the term "ARRIVED AT MARQUETTE rated higher than his counterpart on the 2010 team."

That's because you know it isn't true.  Even you would admit that a 1st team JUCO is probably equal to a freshman ranked 35 to 50th.

2004 had more HS ranked starters.  2010 had more JUCO AA starters.  

You claim Jimmy Butler was a sub-300 HS-senior.  I claim he was a JUCO all-American.    Who is more honest?  Who is using the more up-to-date information?

And that doesn't even get into the fact that a non top 100 senior just might be a bit better than a top 100 senior due to his experience.  That top 100 HS player will see that his time eventually comes--but he's not expected to perform like a senior during his freshman or sophomore year.  

Let me put it in terms you might understand:  Erik Williams was a top 100 player out of HS.  Jimmy Butler "wasn't in the top 300." (your words--not mine).

Who played more last year? Which player exhibited more talent in 2010?

If you were playing fantasy basketball, would you rather take Erik Williams based on his HS rank?  Or Jimmy Butler?

I guess it never occurred to you that Butler didn't arrive at MU as a sub 300 college freshman, but rather as a JUCO all-American.  Not only that, but he had two years of experience on Williams.

NOW do you get the comparison of Novak as a sophomore versus Hayward as a senior?  

If you can get your head around that one, come back and talk to me about the 2004/2010 comparison.   Maybe then we'll have an honest discussion.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Lenny, query for you.  Why are you including where a team was picked to be in the conference or what their rating is i high school?  Those are all just guesses and have little to do with reality when kids actually play.

Shouldn't we be dealing with actual data results and not predictions by some, so called expert(s) who have admitted in their own publications that the difference between the 55th best player and the 85th best player is often nothing at all, but they needed to slot them somewhere.

Or another way to frame it, if someone is picked as the 55th best high school player but plays like the 30th best, is this because he was coached up or mis-evaluated by the gurus?   Furthermore, how do you compare one year's ratings to the next?  If someone in 2010 is rated 50th best in that high school class but would have been 20th best in the class of 2003-04 because the talent that year was different, how are you compensating for this?

[NersEllenson]

Ners, I'm from Texas originally....before you were even in diapers.  Trust me, I get it.  And I already have my retirement parcel outside of California, because I get what it's like to live here, too.

I was giving very serious consideration to relocating to Manhattan Beach as I have 2 very close friends there, but I just cannot justify/rationalize the tax burden I'd incur, nor does the prospect of a $2M mortgage carry too much appeal.  That said, it is beautiful out there and I hope you take full advantage of your surroundings.  My hope is to save enough by living here, to eventually be able to retire in SoCal.

And didn't know you were a Texan..nor did I think you were and older dude - thought you passed through MU in the late 90s, early 200s?

[ChicosBailBonds]

I was giving very serious consideration to relocating to Manhattan Beach as I have 2 very close friends there, but I just cannot justify/rationalize the tax burden I'd incur, nor does the prospect of a $2M mortgage carry too much appeal.  That said, it is beautiful out there and I hope you take full advantage of your surroundings.  My hope is to save enough by living here, to eventually be able to retire in SoCal.

And didn't know you were a Texan..nor did I think you were and older dude - thought you passed through MU in the late 90s, early 200s?

Older, yes.  Old....that's a state of mind.      

Yes, west Texas...Midland-Odessa originally.  Also lived in Houston for some time.  As we like to say, American by birth, Texan by the Grace of God.    GO Cowboys!!

Yes, lovely state with lovely weather, if only there weren't so many (fill in the blank...people - both legal and not so legal, taxes, high priced goods, and on and on)

[Golden Avalanche]

Last I checked, nobody from New Jersey should be the judge of douchiness.  And particularily not you.

Check again, Obi-Wan.

If anyone is qualified to call out douchiness, it's a Joiseyan. Unfortunately, we invented that crap.

[NersEllenson]

Check again, Obi-Wan.

If anyone is qualified to call out douchiness, it's a Joiseyan. Unfortunately, we invented that crap.

Most people can't escape the traits and characteristics that are a product of their environment.  The worst kind of douche is one who doesn't even recognize himself as a douche.

[Golden Avalanche]

Most people can't escape the traits and characteristics that are a product of their environment.  The worst kind of douche is one who doesn't even recognize himself as a douche.

That was deep.

[Lennys Tap]

Lenny, query for you.  Why are you including where a team was picked to be in the conference or what their rating is i high school?  Those are all just guesses and have little to do with reality when kids actually play.

Shouldn't we be dealing with actual data results and not predictions by some, so called expert(s) who have admitted in their own publications that the difference between the 55th best player and the 85th best player is often nothing at all, but they needed to slot them somewhere.

Or another way to frame it, if someone is picked as the 55th best high school player but plays like the 30th best, is this because he was coached up or mis-evaluated by the gurus?   Furthermore, how do you compare one year's ratings to the next?  If someone in 2010 is rated 50th best in that high school class but would have been 20th best in the class of 2003-04 because the talent that year was different, how are you compensating for this?

84 states that by any fair measure the 2010 team was more TALENTED than the 2004 team. I believe we were a better team but not a more talented one. I base this both on impartial "expert" testimony and what I saw with my own two eyes. Since 84 would undoubtably shoot down my own observations as prejudiced, I decided to base my arguement solely on the people who get paid to evaluate talent.

Scouts/gurus first. Are they infallible? No. Is the #80 guy often better than the #50 guy? You bet. But coaches pay them for their opinions so I think it's pretty safe to say that a high school senior rated #50 is more TALENTED than a high school senior rated #300. Can a #300 guy work hard, be coached up and become a better player than a disinterested, poorly coached #50 guy? Sure. Just watch UCONN most years. We're rarely if ever as TALENTED as them but we're often a better team.

College writers/preseason rankings next. Again more than fallible, but their job is to evaluate returning and incoming TALENT and make projections based on those evaluations. No Kool Aid, no pro or anti TC or Buzz agendas.

So EVERY scout, writer and coach thought that MU had more talent and therefore higher expectations in 2004 than 2010. Maybe all of them were wrong. But I don't think so.

[mu_hilltopper]

Guys, knock it off.  I realize we've let a ton of personal attacks go in this thread, mainly due to inattentiveness.  

Enough.