MU #18 team of the past decade

[ChicosBailBonds]

All of this may be true but the fact remains teams clearly game planned on how to stop Wade.  He was the focus.  If Diener, Novak, Merritt, Chapman and Townsend were a talented enough group without Wade, then how could they not beat a Top 25 team the following year and lose in the NIT's 3rd round.  I respect your knowledge and input on this site consistently, but in this regard I'm going to have to disagree with you.  

Lord God in Heaven.....because Merritt was injured and recovering from shoulder surgery, Diener was injured most of the year with the leg and wrist (missing a number of games), the conference was much better, Novak was only a sophomore and still learning to be a player to be counted on (didn't occur until his senior year), etc, etc,.

DO YOU BOTHER TO READ???  

Are you doing this just to be obtuse?   Seriously Ners, you seem like a nice guy, but Christ almighty I cannot for the life of me imagine someone that is this far out to lunch on the players of that team or that era.

[NersEllenson]

You start a lot of posts with the words "All of this may be true,........". Do you realize that?

It pretty much means that when your always faulty arguments are shot down by multiple credible posters, you should stop your responses after those six little words. May has been a tough month.

Further, to consistently claim as you do that the only reason Diener had those monster performances the first weekend was solely because of Dwyane Wade is insulting.

Basically I'm not going to discount someone else's OPINION as entirely 100% false.  We are debating here, and I will acknowledge someone else's good points.  Some here, perhaps yourself included, are too ignorant to acknowledge someone else's opinion that - while it may differ from your own - may also have some merit.  Bottom line is what did Travis Diener led teams do after D-Wade left?  I realize Travis is a GOD among Wisconsinites, and he was a good player for sure, but the reality is he never led his team to the NCAA once Wade was gone..yes he got hurt his senior season, but his junior season he had more talent on the MU roster, and "his" team didn't make the NCAA.  Travis was a great complimentary player that benefited greatly from playing with D-Wade.  He put up good numbers without D-Wade as well, but his team's didn't perform all that well once D-Wade was gone.

[NersEllenson]

Lord God in Heaven.....because Merritt was injured and recovering from shoulder surgery, Diener was injured most of the year with the leg and wrist (missing a number of games), the conference was much better, Novak was only a sophomore and still learning to be a player to be counted on (didn't occur until his senior year), etc, etc,.

DO YOU BOTHER TO READ???  

Are you doing this just to be obtuse?   Seriously Ners, you seem like a nice guy, but Christ almighty I cannot for the life of me imagine someone that is this far out to lunch on the players of that team or that era.

Your excuses as to why the 2003-2004 team didn't perform well,  are flat out wrong.  Diener, Merritt, Novak, Townsend, Jackson, Sanders, Chapman all played in 31 games, Karon Bradley in 26 - the same held true in 2004-2005 with all of the above players other than Diener who played 23 and Bradley who transferred.

DO YOU BOTHER TO DO ANY RESEARCH BEFORE YOU POST???  And yes, I do read what everyone posts, including you, 84, Sultan and others I disagree with consistently.

See below links for proof of my above point:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/teams/stats?teamId=269&year=2004

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/teams/stats?teamId=269&year=2005

[Hards Alumni]

Basically I'm not going to discount someone else's OPINION as entirely 100% false.  We are debating here, and I will acknowledge someone else's good points.  Some here, perhaps yourself included, are too ignorant to acknowledge someone else's opinion that - while it may differ from your own - may also have some merit.  Bottom line is what did Travis Diener led teams do after D-Wade left?  I realize Travis is a GOD among Wisconsinites, and he was a good player for sure, but the reality is he never led his team to the NCAA once Wade was gone..yes he got hurt his senior season, but his junior season he had more talent on the MU roster, and "his" team didn't make the NCAA.  Travis was a great complimentary player that benefited greatly from playing with D-Wade.  He put up good numbers without D-Wade as well, but his team's didn't perform all that well once D-Wade was gone.

Marquette All-Time Rankings
5th, Points (1,691)
3rd, Assists (617)
10th (tie), Steals (158)
2nd, Three Point Field Goals Made (284)
2nd, Three Point Field Goals Attempted (687)
5th, Three Point Field Goal Percentage (min. 200 att.) (41.3%)
8th, Free Throws Made (385)
3rd, Free Throw Percentage (min. 200 att.) (83.7%)

2004 Pepsi Blue & Gold Classic MVP
2003-04 All-Conference USA First Team
2004-05 All-Conference USA First Team
2004-05 AP Honorable Mention All-American

You're right, he was terrible... except for all of the evidence to the contrary.

Travis didn't have Robert Jackson for his Junior and Senior year... Maybe it is just me, but I think you are GREATLY undervaluing Robert Jackson's contributions to the 2002-2003 year.  I think maybe you didnt realize that Travis had to carry the entire team on his back... something Wade was never expected to do.  After Wade left, and Robert Jackson graduated, TD added 7 more points per game his Jr year, and then another 0.9 points per game for his Senior year.  We are talking about a kid who had to do it all with very little help (yes, I know Novak was there, but he didn't truly blossom until his Senior year with the 3A.).

The hole keeps getting bigger for you, buddy.

[NersEllenson]

Marquette All-Time Rankings
5th, Points (1,691)
3rd, Assists (617)
10th (tie), Steals (158)
2nd, Three Point Field Goals Made (284)
2nd, Three Point Field Goals Attempted (687)
5th, Three Point Field Goal Percentage (min. 200 att.) (41.3%)
8th, Free Throws Made (385)
3rd, Free Throw Percentage (min. 200 att.) (83.7%)

2004 Pepsi Blue & Gold Classic MVP
2003-04 All-Conference USA First Team
2004-05 All-Conference USA First Team
2004-05 AP Honorable Mention All-American

You're right, he was terrible... except for all of the evidence to the contrary.

Travis didn't have Robert Jackson for his Junior and Senior year... Maybe it is just me, but I think you are GREATLY undervaluing Robert Jackson's contributions to the 2002-2003 year.  I think maybe you didnt realize that Travis had to carry the entire team on his back... something Wade was never expected to do.  After Wade left, and Robert Jackson graduated, TD added 7 more points per game his Jr year, and then another 0.9 points per game for his Senior year.  We are talking about a kid who had to do it all with very little help (yes, I know Novak was there, but he didn't truly blossom until his Senior year with the 3A.).

The hole keeps getting bigger for you, buddy.

No buddy - the hole doesn't keep getting bigger for me.  Don't post things I've never posted - NEVER posted Travis was "terrible."  Nothing of the sort.  Travis put up great numbers, said he was a good player.  The fact you and some others are trying to discount that D-Wade was the primary, if not only reason we went on the Final Four Run, is ridiculous.  D-Wade made everyone around him significantly better.

Your arguments about Travis having to carry the entire team on his back when he had the whole roster of a Final Four team sans Wade and Jackson returning, is a little weak.  Sure Travis points per game increased after WAde and DJack left - more shots available, plus most players numbers improve as they get older/more experienced.  I posted earlier that Novak blew up as a senior once the Big 3 arrived (who were able to consistently beats their man on dribble drive penetration) and got torn up for that...yet you acknowledge Novak blew up as a senior with the Big 3...is it just because Novak was 8 months to 1-year older..or did the players around him (James, Matthews, McNeal) help him become a better player by creating better looks through drive and kick?  Travis wasn't a great penetrator, that's just a fact.  He was a great shooter, good passer, who got the absolute most out of his talent - and had a great career at MU.  I don't hate the kid at all, but you need to re-evaluate his post-Wade legacy.  Robert Jackson had a nice career at MU for sure, but he also had the benefit of playing with both DWade and Diener, who accounted for about 10 assists per game combined, of which RJack was the great beneficiary. 

[Hards Alumni]

Robert Jackson and Dwyane Wade were the two main reasons that MU went to the Final Four in 2002-2003.  When you say things like, "Your arguments about Travis having to carry the entire team on his back when he had the whole roster of a Final Four team sans Wade and Jackson returning, is a little weak".  I have to really wonder if you realize how OBTUSE (as Chicos put it) you really sound.

Additionally, I never tore you up for for stating that the 3A helped make Novak the player he was, in fact, I wholly agree with that assessment.  Certainly, experience helped, but having the 3A completely changed the way MU ran their offense.

Why is it a fact that Travis wasn't a great penetrator?  I have a feeling tht this is just something we will just agree to disagree on.

[NersEllenson]

Robert Jackson and Dwyane Wade were the two main reasons that MU went to the Final Four in 2002-2003.  When you say things like, "Your arguments about Travis having to carry the entire team on his back when he had the whole roster of a Final Four team sans Wade and Jackson returning, is a little weak".  I have to really wonder if you realize how OBTUSE (as Chicos put it) you really sound.

Additionally, I never tore you up for for stating that the 3A helped make Novak the player he was, in fact, I wholly agree with that assessment.  Certainly, experience helped, but having the 3A completely changed the way MU ran their offense.

Why is it a fact that Travis wasn't a great penetrator?  I have a feeling tht this is just something we will just agree to disagree on.

My guess is that my obtuseness comes from having to respond to the illogical arguments you and Chicos set forth at times.  Most MU fans can agree that D-Wade was the single most important player that lead us to the Final Four appearance.  (Notice I've never even argued his performances in the Pitt and Kentucky games in this whole thread - whereas you have selected the Holy Cross and Mizzou games to focus on)  His greatness elevated everyone else's game SIGNIFICANTLY.  Some things didn't show up in the box office and can't be quantified, such as even when he statistically didn't have a great game -what impact did he have ON the game? I'm not taking away from Travis scoring 28 against Holy Cross - without him we wouldn't have advanced.  I get that.  But, his 28 came alot easier playing alongside Wade, than if Wade wasn't on that team.   All I know is we were 25-7 and a 5 seed in DWade's sophomore year, (without Robert Jackson, Steve Novak, ) and 27-7 and a 3 seed in DWade's junior year (with R-Jack and Novak).  Conversely, in Travis's junior year we were 19-12, and NIT entrant, and the same record in Travis's senior year (granted he only played in 23 of 31 games that year).

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

My guess is that my obtuseness comes from having to respond to the illogical arguments you and Chicos set forth at times.  Most MU fans can agree that D-Wade was the single most important player that lead us to the Final Four appearance.  (Notice I've never even argued his performances in the Pitt and Kentucky games in this whole thread - whereas you have selected the Holy Cross and Mizzou games to focus on)  His greatness elevated everyone else's game SIGNIFICANTLY.  Some things didn't show up in the box office and can't be quantified, such as even when he statistically didn't have a great game -what impact did he have ON the game? I'm not taking away from Travis scoring 28 against Holy Cross - without him we wouldn't have advanced.  I get that.  But, his 28 came alot easier playing alongside Wade, than if Wade wasn't on that team.   All I know is we were 25-7 and a 5 seed in DWade's sophomore year, (without Robert Jackson, Steve Novak, ) and 27-7 and a 3 seed in DWade's junior year (with R-Jack and Novak).  Conversely, in Travis's junior year we were 19-12, and NIT entrant, and the same record in Travis's senior year (granted he only played in 23 of 31 games that year).

You're missing a few key details here:

#1 The 2002 team had cordell henry as a senior (nice player), Olumna Nnamaka (solid) and Jon Harris (solid). Wade was still the key player, but those guys were solid players on that team, which helped Dwyane (it's a 2 way street).

#2 The reason the Holy Cross game is brought up is because there is no Kentucky game without Travis in the Holy Cross game. The sum is greater than it's parts. Travis helped Dwyane, Dwyane helped Travis. Tough to separate that. Again, it's a 2 way street. If Travis got hurt that season instead of his senior year... there might not have been any final 4. 

#3 Travis played 23 games his senior year, but it's not like he played the last 23 games. He played the first 23. Big difference in how good the team is/was. If he missed the first 8 games of the season, it wouldn't have been nearly as bad as losing him for the last 8 games of the season. College basketball schedules are tremendously back-loaded. So, it's only fair to clearly point out that he missed the last 8 games of the year.

Put it this way: Imagine on this years team if Lazar was hurt for the last 8 games. That would have been a huge blow. A much bigger blow than losing him for the first 8 games. It wouldn't take anything away from Lazar's career if he got hurt and the team nose dived. It would be understandable. Same thing for Travis.

[NersEllenson]

You're missing a few key details here:

#1 The 2002 team had cordell henry as a senior (nice player), Olumna Nnamaka (solid) and Jon Harris (solid). Wade was still the key player, but those guys were solid players on that team, which helped Dwyane (it's a 2 way street).

#2 The reason the Holy Cross game is brought up is because there is no Kentucky game without Travis in the Holy Cross game. The sum is greater than it's parts. Travis helped Dwyane, Dwyane helped Travis. Tough to separate that. Again, it's a 2 way street. If Travis got hurt that season instead of his senior year... there might not have been any final 4. 

#3 Travis played 23 games his senior year, but it's not like he played the last 23 games. He played the first 23. Big difference in how good the team is/was. If he missed the first 8 games of the season, it wouldn't have been nearly as bad as losing him for the last 8 games of the season. College basketball schedules are tremendously back-loaded. So, it's only fair to clearly point out that he missed the last 8 games of the year.

Put it this way: Imagine on this years team if Lazar was hurt for the last 8 games. That would have been a huge blow. A much bigger blow than losing him for the first 8 games. It wouldn't take anything away from Lazar's career if he got hurt and the team nose dived. It would be understandable. Same thing for Travis.

All valid points, though you do not have a defense for the teams performance in 2003-2004 - Travis healthy the entire year, all supporting cast back - other than DWade and RJack, and a 19 (2 of those wins in NIT)-12 finish with no wins over Top 25 teams (Coaches Poll).  Nonetheless, I think this debate has run its course.  Travis is an all-time program great and contributed a lot to the MU basketball program - however, he wasn't great enough to carry his team to the NCAA his junior (with Dameon Mason and all other above mentioned supporting cast) and senior seasons..we were 2-3 in Conference USA before Travis got hurt..we'd lost to Memphis, DePaul and Charlotte - it was highly questionable how we would have finished out that year with Travis as our end record was 7-9 in CUSA

[Hards Alumni]

All valid points, though you do not have a defense for the teams performance in 2003-2004 - Travis healthy the entire year, all supporting cast back - other than DWade and RJack, and a 19 (2 of those wins in NIT)-12 finish with no wins over Top 25 teams (Coaches Poll).  Nonetheless, I think this debate has run its course.  Travis is an all-time program great and contributed a lot to the MU basketball program - however, he wasn't great enough to carry his team to the NCAA his junior (with Dameon Mason and all other above mentioned supporting cast) and senior seasons..we were 2-3 in Conference USA before Travis got hurt..we'd lost to Memphis, DePaul and Charlotte - it was highly questionable how we would have finished out that year with Travis as our end record was 7-9 in CUSA

Go look up obtuse, that is a good starting point for you.

Secondly, I didn't mention anywhere in anything I wrote about the Holy Cross game or the Mizzou game.

Pay attention.

[ChicosBailBonds]

All valid points, though you do not have a defense for the teams performance in 2003-2004 - Travis healthy the entire year, all supporting cast back - other than DWade and RJack, and a 19 (2 of those wins in NIT)-12 finish with no wins over Top 25 teams (Coaches Poll).  Nonetheless, I think this debate has run its course.  Travis is an all-time program great and contributed a lot to the MU basketball program - however, he wasn't great enough to carry his team to the NCAA his junior (with Dameon Mason and all other above mentioned supporting cast) and senior seasons..we were 2-3 in Conference USA before Travis got hurt..we'd lost to Memphis, DePaul and Charlotte - it was highly questionable how we would have finished out that year with Travis as our end record was 7-9 in CUSA

Ners, fundamentally do you believe teams are different year to year in a dramatic way or just slightly?

[NersEllenson]

Ners, fundamentally do you believe teams are different year to year in a dramatic way or just slightly?

Yes, I believe when you lose a player of Dwayne Wade's caliber, the team will be dramatically different the next year.  I've been providing evidence of that all thread long.  And yes, we lost Robert Jackson too..but also gained Dameon Mason...yet the two teams that followed the Final Four team had poor (NIT) seasons with basically the same personnel - and anyone who is going to argue losing Robert Jackson was a big part of the reason the team fell off in 2004 and 2005 is ridiculous.  Losing DWade is the reason.  Period.  The record of the team with Travis at the helm is what it is - doesn't mean he wasn't a great player - it simply illustrates how critical DWade was to the Final Four team (regardless if he had "off" games against Holy Cross or Mizzou.)

I can't debate with you and Hards Alumni..because y'all have jumped down my throat for saying DWAde was the reason the 2003 team made the Final Four..and that I've discounted the value of Travis Diener and the rest of the cast.  Yet in another post Hards Alumni posts:

Robert Jackson and Dwyane Wade were the two main reasons that MU went to the Final Four in 2002-2003.  When you say things like, "Your arguments about Travis having to carry the entire team on his back when he had the whole roster of a Final Four team sans Wade and Jackson returning, is a little weak".  I have to really wonder if you realize how OBTUSE (as Chicos put it) you really sound.

And Chicos - You posted the below..which was completely FALSE - so it is very difficult to debate with people rebut an argument with false statements such as what you offered up below:

Lord God in Heaven.....because Merritt was injured and recovering from shoulder surgery, Diener was injured most of the year with the leg and wrist (missing a number of games), the conference was much better, Novak was only a sophomore and still learning to be a player to be counted on (didn't occur until his senior year), etc, etc,. (The above is virtually all false, and making excuses for Diener and Merritt - yet the both played in every game that season and averaged 30+ minutes - certainly couldn't have been too hurt.)
DO YOU BOTHER TO READ???  

Are you doing this just to be obtuse?   Seriously Ners, you seem like a nice guy, but Christ almighty I cannot for the life of me imagine someone that is this far out to lunch on the players of that team or that era.

Yet as you write above...I'm that "far out to lunch" on the players of that team or that era.  Thanks for the cheap shot..when it is actually you who was totally "out to lunch" on the players of that era.  Not much worse than trash talking someone, only to find out that what you accuse another of...you are the actual only guilty party of violating.  Ironic.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

... And yes, we lost Robert Jackson too..but also gained Dameon Mason...

...and anyone who is going to argue losing Robert Jackson was a big part of the reason the team fell off in 2004 and 2005 is ridiculous.  Losing DWade is the reason.  Period.

Marquis Estill is that you?

[NersEllenson]

Marquis Estill is that you?

Yes, it is, myself and our coaching staff were doing everything we could to stop Dwyane Wade, and we had no solution - he still went off for a triple double, even though we rotated all kinds of help to his defender (myself included) which freed up Mr. Jackson for multiple easy looks.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Yes, it is, myself and our coaching staff were doing everything we could to stop Dwyane Wade, and we had no solution - he still went off for a triple double, even though we rotated all kinds of help to his defender (myself included) which freed up Mr. Jackson for multiple easy looks.

See, the problem is that I really just think you are discounting some players far too much.

Wade didn't play at Mississippi State and Jackson was a very effective player there. In fact his career highs in points and rebounds both came while he was there. Who was the defense concentrating on back then?

Also, you stated it yourself earlier... Wade's soph. year he led the team to a 5 seed and a first round exit. With the arrival of Jackson, Novak and the improvement of Diener, the team was able to get a 3 seed and get hot in the tournament.

If Dwyane is the only reason they were good, he should have gone farther as a soph., no?

[NersEllenson]

See, the problem is that I really just think you are discounting some players far too much.

Wade didn't play at Mississippi State and Jackson was a very effective player there. In fact his career highs in points and rebounds both came while he was there. Who was the defense concentrating on back then?

Also, you stated it yourself earlier... Wade's soph. year he led the team to a 5 seed and a first round exit. With the arrival of Jackson, Novak and the improvement of Diener, the team was able to get a 3 seed and get hot in the tournament.

If Dwyane is the only reason they were good, he should have gone farther as a soph., no?

I've never said DWade is the only reason the 2003 team was good, I've just said that he was the X-factor, the catalyst, the key reason why the team made the Final Four...and his departure subsequently caused the next 2 years teams to miss the NCAA.  DWades incremental gains as a player year over year from sophomore to junior year to his first in the NBA showed how high of ceiling he had.  Yes DWade was much better as a junior at MU than a sophomore.  Travis was better as a sophomore too.  What part of this whole debate can you not understand that once DWade left..(along with RJack to an extent)..Travis and the entire rest of the Final Four team + Dameon Mason in 2004 season, couldn't make the NCAA tourney?  Travis was a year older, Novak a year older, and by virtue of that their ability/contributions/skills should have been better, right?  So, you would think that based on everyone (Diener, Novak, Merritt, Chapman, Townsend, Sanders, Bradley) being a year older, plus adding a highly regarded recruit in Dameon Mason - that the team should have been able to make the NCAA's, right? 

I can't believe we are really even debating the importance of Dwayne Wade to the Final Four team.  Maybe a better way of looking at it would be does a team of: Diener, Robert Jackson, Scott Merritt, Joe Chapman, Townsend, Bradley, Sanders make the NCAA?  And if so, how far does that team go?  Obviously losing Wades 21.5ppg, 6.5 rpg, 4.6 apg, 2.1 steals per game, 1.5 blocks per game certainly was a lot to replace.

[Hards Alumni]

I've never said DWade is the only reason the 2003 team was good, I've just said that he was the X-factor, the catalyst, the key reason why the team made the Final Four...and his departure subsequently caused the next 2 years teams to miss the NCAA.  DWades incremental gains as a player year over year from sophomore to junior year to his first in the NBA showed how high of ceiling he had.  Yes DWade was much better as a junior at MU than a sophomore.  Travis was better as a sophomore too.  What part of this whole debate can you not understand that once DWade left..(along with RJack to an extent)..Travis and the entire rest of the Final Four team + Dameon Mason in 2004 season, couldn't make the NCAA tourney?  Travis was a year older, Novak a year older, and by virtue of that their ability/contributions/skills should have been better, right?  So, you would think that based on everyone (Diener, Novak, Merritt, Chapman, Townsend, Sanders, Bradley) being a year older, plus adding a highly regarded recruit in Dameon Mason - that the team should have been able to make the NCAA's, right? 

I can't believe we are really even debating the importance of Dwayne Wade to the Final Four team.  Maybe a better way of looking at it would be does a team of: Diener, Robert Jackson, Scott Merritt, Joe Chapman, Townsend, Bradley, Sanders make the NCAA?  And if so, how far does that team go?  Obviously losing Wades 21.5ppg, 6.5 rpg, 4.6 apg, 2.1 steals per game, 1.5 blocks per game certainly was a lot to replace.

You can't lose your best player (Wade) and your best inside presence (Jackson) and expect the same results.

If MU keeps Jackson for another year, they make the tourney EASILY.  I'm not discounting Wade at all.  I love the guy and he has been awesome for Marquette.  But Jackson was a lot more special than people give him credit for... only playing for 1 year had that effect on him.

[NersEllenson]

You can't lose your best player (Wade) and your best inside presence (Jackson) and expect the same results.

If MU keeps Jackson for another year, they make the tourney EASILY.  I'm not discounting Wade at all.  I love the guy and he has been awesome for Marquette.  But Jackson was a lot more special than people give him credit for... only playing for 1 year had that effect on him.

I would agree that Jackson was the 2nd most important player on the Final Four team...then Diener..then Merritt..then Novak.  I think if Jackson had 1 more year of eligibility, yes, the team makes the NCAA tourney - however, I don't see that team advancing out of the round of 32 and definitely not past the round of 16.  I just don't see that hypothetical team having enough athleticism to advance very far.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yes, I believe when you lose a player of Dwayne Wade's caliber, the team will be dramatically different the next year.  I've been providing evidence of that all thread long.  And yes, we lost Robert Jackson too..but also gained Dameon Mason...yet the two teams that followed the Final Four team had poor (NIT) seasons with basically the same personnel - and anyone who is going to argue losing Robert Jackson was a big part of the reason the team fell off in 2004 and 2005 is ridiculous.  Losing DWade is the reason.  Period.  The record of the team with Travis at the helm is what it is - doesn't mean he wasn't a great player - it simply illustrates how critical DWade was to the Final Four team (regardless if he had "off" games against Holy Cross or Mizzou.)

I can't debate with you and Hards Alumni..because y'all have jumped down my throat for saying DWAde was the reason the 2003 team made the Final Four..and that I've discounted the value of Travis Diener and the rest of the cast.  Yet in another post Hards Alumni posts:

And Chicos - You posted the below..which was completely FALSE - so it is very difficult to debate with people rebut an argument with false statements such as what you offered up below:

Yet as you write above...I'm that "far out to lunch" on the players of that team or that era.  Thanks for the cheap shot..when it is actually you who was totally "out to lunch" on the players of that era.  Not much worse than trash talking someone, only to find out that what you accuse another of...you are the actual only guilty party of violating.  Ironic.

False, what the hell are you talking about.  It's not false at all.  Good Lord.  What the hell did I write was false about that situation?


The reason I asked the question if teams are fundamentally different was to lead you to a few more questions.


2nd Question.  If a team loses no one and comes back in tact the next year, is it the same team?

3rd question, do you ever account for injuries, schedule, competition, etc?


Answer those questions, if you would (along with telling me what was false about my other statement which I  can tell you right now you're dead wrong on that accusation) and we can go from there.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I've never said DWade is the only reason the 2003 team was good, I've just said that he was the X-factor, the catalyst, the key reason why the team made the Final Four...and his departure subsequently caused the next 2 years teams to miss the NCAA. 

You sure you want to stand by that statement, or are you saying only in this one thread did you not makes those statements.   Hint hint....search function...cough cough

[Hards Alumni]

I would agree that Jackson was the 2nd most important player on the Final Four team...then Diener..then Merritt..then Novak.  I think if Jackson had 1 more year of eligibility, yes, the team makes the NCAA tourney - however, I don't see that team advancing out of the round of 32 and definitely not past the round of 16.  I just don't see that hypothetical team having enough athleticism to advance very far.

I doubt you will find anyone to argue with that.

Though, I'd swap Novak with Merrit.

[NersEllenson]

False, what the hell are you talking about.  It's not false at all.  Good Lord.  What the hell did I write was false about that situation?

along with telling me what was false about my other statement which I  can tell you right now you're dead wrong on that accusation) and we can go from there.

You really are a major league tool - funny how you just took out the part of my post that showed you completely got caught with your pants down in a lie (about Diener and Merritt having injuries and missing games in 2003-2004 season) which I provided links to the stats of the 2003-2004 team that showed games played:  Just go back and visit post #52 in this thread..it's all right there..a flat our lie and false statement on your part...yes..we can go from there...what's your excuse this time Chicos?

[ChicosBailBonds]

You really are a major league tool - funny how you just took out the part of my post that showed you completely got caught with your pants down in a lie (about Diener and Merritt having injuries and missing games in 2003-2004 season) which I provided links to the stats of the 2003-2004 team that showed games played:  Just go back and visit post #52 in this thread..it's all right there..a flat our lie and false statement on your part...yes..we can go from there...what's your excuse this time Chicos?

I said that he (Merritt) had offseason shoulder surgery and that he wasn't 100%....that it affected his play in that year.  Other posters said the same thing.  Merritt, himself, said that in several interviews that year.  I don't recall saying Merritt missed any games like you are accusing me of.  If I did, show me and I'll apologize.

For Travis, you are correct, the games he missed were his Senior year not 03-04.  Not a lie Ners, lies are intentional....just a mixing up of years on my part.  Touche to you for getting it half right (Diener and not Merritt), but certainly no lie.  However, Travis did play the year with severe shin splints and missed parts of several games due to injury.   Of course at the end of the year I believe he broke his leg or something to that affect (ankle) against Iowa State.  So you are correct, he didn't miss any games, but he was hobbled at times and missed parts of games.  He played less time per game in 03-04 then he did in 02-03 despite a lot more help in 02-03.

What you don't seem to account for at all in your diatribe is that Conference USA was a ton better that year than in 02-03.  It's as if this major component, your schedule, is not part of your evaluation at all.  CUSA was loaded in 03-04 and was rather anemic in 02-03.  Just as this year's Big East was nowhere near as good as last year's Big East.  Competition changes, schedules are different, games you had at home this year are on the road next year, etc, etc.  And now, after being humbled by 10 other posters on Jackson, you finally come around to admitting that Jackson was a major player.  You don't seem to recognize that Merritt played the 4 position in 02-03, but he had to play the 5 in 03-04.  I don't see where this even goes into your evaluation.

Teams are different each year even if the exact same personnel returns, which of course never happens in college hoops.  In 02-03 we were highly ranked but a surprise Final Four team. Do you think in 03-04 a lot of teams were probably gunning for us because we were in last year's Final Four?  I'd say so.  That makes life harder for teams, especially when your top 2 guys are gone, your strong forward is moving to center and playing hurt, your point guard (though not missing any games) is playing banged up (shin splints), etc.   

If I were Miss Cleo Lenny, I'd say you clearly have an intent to paint one coach as being lucky to have had this talent (of course, who recruited them....never mind) and implying when said talent is gone that suddenly he couldn't coach again.  The irony of that is another coach had 4 of the top 9 scorers in MU history land on his lap, but apparently luck is not applicable there.

Guess what Ners, coaches with talent win more often than coaches without.  But it's not that simple, you also have to factor in schedule, experience of players, where games are played, conference brethren, injuries, and a number of other factors which you seem to just say don't count or are only a small part of the equation.

[NersEllenson]

CUSA was loaded in 03-04 and was rather anemic in 02-03.   And now, after being humbled by 10 other posters on Jackson, you finally come around to admitting that Jackson was a major player.  That makes life harder for teams, especially when your top 2 guys are gone, your strong forward is moving to center and playing hurt, your point guard (though not missing any games) is playing banged up (shin splints), etc.   

If I were Miss Cleo Lenny, I'd say you clearly have an intent to paint one coach as being lucky to have had this talent (of course, who recruited them....never mind) and implying when said talent is gone that suddenly he couldn't coach again.  The irony of that is another coach had 4 of the top 9 scorers in MU history land on his lap, but apparently luck is not applicable there.

Guess what Ners, coaches with talent win more often than coaches without.  But it's not that simple, you also have to factor in schedule, experience of players, where games are played, conference brethren, injuries, and a number of other factors which you seem to just say don't count or are only a small part of the equation.

Did you really say Conference USA was "loaded?"  so a point guard who plays in all 31 games of his teams games, and averages 34 minutes per game, was clearly hobbled with shin splints? Did my original question to you in Post #24 not mention that we lost DWade and Robert Jackson.anybody can realize Jackson was an effective player on the Final Four team..but DWade was the MAN.

Yes, I agree Buzz was lucky to walk into a situation where he inherited4 of the Top 10 scorers in history of MU hoops.  He basically took those players minus Dominic James (and Ousmane Barro) just as far as his predecessor did the year before..a first round win, and a 2nd round heartbreaker.

Lots of excuse making in your reply Chicos - I felt that the 2003-2004 team had enough talent to make the NCAA...as they only lost DWade and RJack..and added Dameon Mason.  Bottom line...the fact the 2003-2004 team didn't make the NCAA says that:  Either Tom Crean isn't a very good coach, OR, Travis Diener, Steve Novak and Scott Merritt weren't that talented..and their appearance in the 2003 NCAA and Final Four was largely duee to DWade

[Hards Alumni]

Did you really say Conference USA was "loaded?"  so a point guard who plays in all 31 games of his teams games, and averages 34 minutes per game, was clearly hobbled with shin splints? Did my original question to you in Post #24 not mention that we lost DWade and Robert Jackson.anybody can realize Jackson was an effective player on the Final Four team..but DWade was the MAN.

Yes, I agree Buzz was lucky to walk into a situation where he inherited4 of the Top 10 scorers in history of MU hoops.  He basically took those players minus Dominic James (and Ousmane Barro) just as far as his predecessor did the year before..a first round win, and a 2nd round heartbreaker.

Lots of excuse making in your reply Chicos - I felt that the 2003-2004 team had enough talent to make the NCAA...as they only lost DWade and RJack..and added Dameon Mason.  Bottom line...the fact the 2003-2004 team didn't make the NCAA says that:  Either Tom Crean isn't a very good coach, OR, Travis Diener, Steve Novak and Scott Merritt weren't that talented..and their appearance in the 2003 NCAA and Final Four was largely duee to DWade

oversimplification.

obtuse.

shall we continue?