MU #18 team of the past decade

[NersEllenson]

oversimplification.

obtuse.

shall we continue?

Sure your highness, please, let's continue.  You are the all-knowing, omniscient, GOD of all things MU basketball.  I appreciate your judgements and approval/disapproval.  I come here to be validated by you.  Your opinions are the only opinions with any merit on this board.  So please, go ahead and set me straight.  Thank you in advance.

[ChicosBailBonds]

2003-04 Conference USA   6 NCAA bids  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_NCAA_Men%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament

TIED WITH THE MOST BIDS OF ANY CONFERENCE IN THE COUNTRY


YES....LOADED  SEC, Big East and ACC also had 6.  The Big Ten had....THREE.  Yes, LOADED


Cincinnati
Memphis
Charlotte 
UAB 
DePaul
Louisville


In comparison, yes, ABSOLUTELY LOADED and the fact that you continue to ignore this shows how one dimensional you are in trying to make your claim of luck/Wade only (now Jackson, too) were the reason.  Just as if you put this year's MU team in LAST year's Big East, they wouldn't make the NCAA tournament.  Different years, different competition, different teams.  This very basic concept continues to elude you, despite the facts continually presented to you.

[Lennys Tap]

CUSA was LOADED in 2003-04? Yes, they got 6 teams in the tournament. That's the good news.

Not so good news? Final coaches poll: ZERO top 10 teams. ONE top 25 team. The six tourney teams were seeded 4,7, 7, 9, 9, and 10. The conference had an overall tournament record of 5-6. ONE team advanced to the sweet 16, ZERO to the elite 8 or final 4.

Sounds like they had more GOOD teams than usual, one very good team (#12 Cincinnati) and zero great or almost great teams. LOADED? Maybe by CUSA and Chicos standards but not by mine.

[NersEllenson]

2003-04 Conference USA   6 NCAA bids  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_NCAA_Men%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament

TIED WITH THE MOST BIDS OF ANY CONFERENCE IN THE COUNTRY


YES....LOADED  SEC, Big East and ACC also had 6.  The Big Ten had....THREE.  Yes, LOADED


Cincinnati
Memphis
Charlotte 
UAB 
DePaul
Louisville


In comparison, yes, ABSOLUTELY LOADED and the fact that you continue to ignore this shows how one dimensional you are in trying to make your claim of luck/Wade only (now Jackson, too) were the reason.  Just as if you put this year's MU team in LAST year's Big East, they wouldn't make the NCAA tournament.  Different years, different competition, different teams.  This very basic concept continues to elude you, despite the facts continually presented to you.

I think we can see that the teams CUSA put in the tourney in 2004 weren't regarded very highly based on seeding..  that said, which one is it?  Was Tom Crean a poor coach whou couldn't guide a talented squad of players such as Travis, Novak, Merritt, Chapman, Townsend, Mason, Bradley to an NCAA bid due to this "stiff" competition in CUSA in 2004, or, was the loss of DWADE and Robert Jackson so significant that we went from a Final four team, to an NIT team in one season?

[MedicineHatSpanker]

WE DON'T LIKE HIM! It has nothing to do with his record!

The Nightmare tells it like it is. We abhor Tanned Tommy, the person. A consummate tool!

[ChicosBailBonds]

CUSA was LOADED in 2003-04? Yes, they got 6 teams in the tournament. That's the good news.

Not so good news? Final coaches poll: ZERO top 10 teams. ONE top 25 team. The six tourney teams were seeded 4,7, 7, 9, 9, and 10. The conference had an overall tournament record of 5-6. ONE team advanced to the sweet 16, ZERO to the elite 8 or final 4.

Sounds like they had more GOOD teams than usual, one very good team (#12 Cincinnati) and zero great or almost great teams. LOADED? Maybe by CUSA and Chicos standards but not by mine.

Yes, you're right.  Earning a NCAA bid, all the money, recruiting advantages, prestige, etc, is certainly of less value than getting that coveted Coaches Poll ranking.  The poll that some coaches admit (including MU's own Rick "the towel crapper" Majerus) they don't even vote in and have the SID, an assistant coach or even the secretary vote in.   http://www.thelantern.com/2.1351/disregard-college-basketballpoll-winners-decided-on-court-1.97323

Yup, 6 bids, the chance to play for the NCAA title, the chance to go deep into the tournament, the ability to be on television and part of March Madness.....no good.  Earning that Coaches Poll final season ranking, that's where it's at.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

The Nightmare tells it like it is. We abhor Tanned Tommy, the person. A consummate tool!

Yeah we got that, try drinking some more of that Seattle coffee up there and catch up, we've known this for a long time.   

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think we can see that the teams CUSA put in the tourney in 2004 weren't regarded very highly based on seeding..  that said, which one is it?  Was Tom Crean a poor coach whou couldn't guide a talented squad of players such as Travis, Novak, Merritt, Chapman, Townsend, Mason, Bradley to an NCAA bid due to this "stiff" competition in CUSA in 2004, or, was the loss of DWADE and Robert Jackson so significant that we went from a Final four team, to an NIT team in one season?

Really.  Interesting.  5 of the 6 teams were single digit seeds, but hey, that's cool.  Let's ignore that 6 teams from a non BCS conference got in, the most in NCAA history that has not been repeated, yes let's ignore that.  Let's ignore that with 6 bids, they had the most (tied) bids of any conference in the country with leagues like the ACC, SEC and Big East.  Or that they had double the bids of the Big Ten.  Yes, let's ignore all that evidence, pretend it didn't happen, and let's analyze the seeds.  That's the ticket.

Wow, just wow.

I think more than enough knowledgeable people on this board have shown you why we didn't make the NCAAs that year.  Merritt playing injured, Diener banged up, very tough conference, loss of Wade and Jackson, Merritt playing a different position, etc.   Of course, your answer is Tom Crean.  Of course 2 years later when we were picked 12th and went to the NCAAs, well that was luck also, this time because the big 3 landed in his lap I suppose?

I will be thrilled if Buzz can duplicate what that really piss poor coach Crean did.  Should be no trouble at all based on the expectations you've set.

[romey]

I've been sitting on the sidelines (end of the bench?) observing this exchange as hundreds of other "scoopers" have been waiting for an end to it.  I can tell you this for what it's worth.  I grew up watching Warrior basketball, witnessed the Al years first hand - my father's season tickets.  ALL of my buddies weere envious of me.  I honestly had kids schmoozing with me in hopes that I'd pick them to use the extra ticket eor the next game.  In 6th grade our team ran "the wheel" like the Warriors did.  MU hoops was the be all and end all in Wisconsin basketball.  I went to MU, graduated in 83 and moved to Florida.  Soon, MU hoops was irrelevant on the national scene.  I never saw any games (except MU UNC) and was lucky to catch a score.  I moved to Atlanta a few years later - same thing.  Then we hired e new young coach and suddenly I hear rumblings again.  MU regains national prominence.  You can't tell us it was as simple as "DWade."  That's all I have to say about it and I think a lot of posters would agree.

[StillAWarrior]

I've been sitting on the sidelines (end of the bench?) observing this exchange as hundreds of other "scoopers" have been waiting for an end to it.  I can tell you this for what it's worth.  I grew up watching Warrior basketball, witnessed the Al years first hand - my father's season tickets.  ALL of my buddies weere envious of me.  I honestly had kids schmoozing with me in hopes that I'd pick them to use the extra ticket eor the next game.  In 6th grade our team ran "the wheel" like the Warriors did.  MU hoops was the be all and end all in Wisconsin basketball.  I went to MU, graduated in 83 91 and moved to FloridaOhio.  Soon, MU hoops was irrelevant on the national scene.  I never saw any games (except MU UNC) and was lucky to catch a score.  I moved to Atlanta a few years later - same thing.  Then we hired e new young coach and suddenly I hear rumblings again.  MU regains national prominence.  You can't tell us it was as simple as "DWade."  That's all I have to say about it and I think a lot of posters would agree.

What romey said...sort of.

[Lennys Tap]

Yes, you're right.  Earning a NCAA bid, all the money, recruiting advantages, prestige, etc, is certainly of less value than getting that coveted Coaches Poll ranking.  The poll that some coaches admit (including MU's own Rick "the towel crapper" Majerus) they don't even vote in and have the SID, an assistant coach or even the secretary vote in.   http://www.thelantern.com/2.1351/disregard-college-basketballpoll-winners-decided-on-court-1.97323

Yup, 6 bids, the chance to play for the NCAA title, the chance to go deep into the tournament, the ability to be on television and part of March Madness.....no good.  Earning that Coaches Poll final season ranking, that's where it's at.  

As usual, you attempt to bolster your arguement by misrepresenting mine. You claimed that C USA was LOADED (you supplied both capital letters and red ink) in 2003-04 based soley on the number of NCAA bids received (6). I provide context, citing other factors such as rankings, seedings and actual tournament performance which provide evidence that the conference was good but hardly loaded. You respond with an intellectually dishonest post reducing the discussion to a "which is more important, bids or the coaches poll?". Weak but unfortunately not surprising.

[Hards Alumni]

As usual, you attempt to bolster your arguement by misrepresenting mine. You claimed that C USA was LOADED (you supplied both capital letters and red ink) in 2003-04 based soley on the number of NCAA bids received (6). I provide context, citing other factors such as rankings, seedings and actual tournament performance which provide evidence that the conference was good but hardly loaded. You respond with an intellectually dishonest post reducing the discussion to a "which is more important, bids or the coaches poll?". Weak but unfortunately not surprising.

Lenny, honestly, we all know you have a strong distaste for CBB, but he is right.  Citing the Coaches poll is like citing Wikipedia.

And Ners, the reason I said you are oversimplifying is because you are.  The reason we didn't get to the NCAA tournament isn't THIS or THAT.  It is a combination of all of those things.  To pin an entire season's success or failure on one person is a complete oversimplification.  Get it? 

I'm not an MU basketball genius or whatever you called me (sarcasitically), but I do know what a silly argument looks like.

[Lennys Tap]

Lenny, honestly, we all know you have a strong distaste for CBB, but he is right.  Citing the Coaches poll is like citing Wikipedia.

And Ners, the reason I said you are oversimplifying is because you are.  The reason we didn't get to the NCAA tournament isn't THIS or THAT.  It is a combination of all of those things.  To pin an entire season's success or failure on one person is a complete oversimplification.  Get it? 

I'm not an MU basketball genius or whatever you called me (sarcasitically), but I do know what a silly argument looks like.

Sorry, but I think where teams are ranked AFTER THE SEASON IS OVER are pretty accurate as to how they performed that year. If you have examples of them being otherwise please share. My problem with Chicos, though, isn't about whether post season polls are accurate or not. It's about how he distorts people's statements by reducing them to what he wants to argue about instead of addressing them in totum.

[NersEllenson]

I think more than enough knowledgeable people on this board have shown you why we didn't make the NCAAs that year.  Merritt playing injured, Diener banged up, very tough conference, loss of Wade and Jackson, Merritt playing a different position, etc. 

No - what some have shown is that to dismiss the contributions and talent of Novak, Merritt, Diener, RJack, Chapman, Townsend and the rest of the Final Four team - is to disrespect them and do them a great disservice. We've had Hards argue what a great player Diener was, you made an excuse for Novak saying that as a sophomore he'd become more of a focal point of defenses - so was neutralized in his improvement that should have occurred from going from being a freshman to a sophomore.  You have falsely stated Diener missed games in 2003-2004, and made  excuses that he had shin splints - yet he played all 31 games and averaged 34 minutes per game.  The point:  You can't argue about the talent of all of these players, and then argue that they weren't good enough to make the NCAA in 2003-2004 due to tougher conference/debatable injuries, etc.  If they were supremely talented in the Final four season and didn't really benefit from playing with DWade - then they should have been equally or more talented a year later?  Which one is it?  Or was it poor coaching?

[NersEllenson]

And Ners, the reason I said you are oversimplifying is because you are.  The reason we didn't get to the NCAA tournament isn't THIS or THAT.  It is a combination of all of those things.  To pin an entire season's success or failure on one person is a complete oversimplification.   Get it? 
I'm not an MU basketball genius or whatever you called me (sarcasitically), but I do know what a silly argument looks like.

Yes, last I checked basketball was a team sport that involved 5 players playing together.  Last I checked the best players tend to will their teams to championships/victories, while having decent supporting casts.  Last I checked there are certain players who transcend their teams and get the majority of accolades for the results of their teams.  Last I checked when Michael Jordan retired the first time, after winning 3 rings, his same team with the same cast of characters, couldn't advance out of Round 2 in the playoffs.  It is this same effect DWade had on the Final Four team/MU program.  It's not to say Pippen, Grant, Cartwright, weren't talented players - but you take away Jordan, and these guys couldn't win at nearly the level they did with Jordan.  I'm not sure why you and Chicos are going to great lengths to deny the importance of DWade, and will not acknowledge that once he was gone (along with RJack) that the team the next year sorely missed DWade and couldn't even muster an appearance in the NCAA tourney.  So, either DWade was the reason..OR...the supporting cast you mention wasn't as talented as you would make them up to be;OR the supporting cast wasn't coached very well, as to not make the NCAA with that type of talent is underperforming.

[Hards Alumni]

Sorry, but I think where teams are ranked AFTER THE SEASON IS OVER are pretty accurate as to how they performed that year. If you have examples of them being otherwise please share. My problem with Chicos, though, isn't about whether post season polls are accurate or not. It's about how he distorts people's statements by reducing them to what he wants to argue about instead of addressing them in totum.

Oh, of course, I know he plays the 'look over here' game all the time.  I am just backing him that the coaches poll is mostly garbage... now, had you said the AP poll... 

[Hards Alumni]

Yes, last I checked basketball was a team sport that involved 5 players playing together.  Last I checked the best players tend to will their teams to championships/victories, while having decent supporting casts.  Last I checked there are certain players who transcend their teams and get the majority of accolades for the results of their teams.  Last I checked when Michael Jordan retired the first time, after winning 3 rings, his same team with the same cast of characters, couldn't advance out of Round 2 in the playoffs.  It is this same effect DWade had on the Final Four team/MU program.  It's not to say Pippen, Grant, Cartwright, weren't talented players - but you take away Jordan, and these guys couldn't win at nearly the level they did with Jordan.  I'm not sure why you and Chicos are going to great lengths to deny the importance of DWade, and will not acknowledge that once he was gone (along with RJack) that the team the next year sorely missed DWade and couldn't even muster an appearance in the NCAA tourney.  So, either DWade was the reason..OR...the supporting cast you mention wasn't as talented as you would make them up to be;OR the supporting cast wasn't coached very well, as to not make the NCAA with that type of talent is underperforming.

Well the supporting cast became the featured cast.  Obviously that had something to do with it.  I have not gone to any lengths to deny the importantacne of DWade.  However, I have gone to great lengths to show you that Robert Jackson and Travis Diener were INTEGRAL parts of that Final Four team.  If the team is missing ONE of those 3 they don't get out of the first round.  Losing two of them next year, of course, will have a direct impact on the season's result. 

What you seem to have been saying (from your initial posts, you have altered your argument), was that DWade could have carried any team to the Final Four, or at the least a Diener-less, or Jackson-less team.  That is how I, and others have interpreted what you initially said.  I assume you will deny this, or say that all of us misinterpreted what you said.  We won't believe you, and this thread will keep going.

Tom Crean didn't become a worse coach one year later.  He simply didn't have the talent, and played in a tougher conference.  To say that the results the next season was 100% because of DWade's absence is an oversimplification.

And that is simply the bottom line.

[NersEllenson]

Well the supporting cast became the featured cast.  Obviously that had something to do with it.  I have not gone to any lengths to deny the importantacne of DWade.  However, I have gone to great lengths to show you that Robert Jackson and Travis Diener were INTEGRAL parts of that Final Four team.  If the team is missing ONE of those 3 they don't get out of the first round.  Losing two of them next year, of course, will have a direct impact on the season's result.  

What you seem to have been saying (from your initial posts, you have altered your argument), was that DWade could have carried any team to the Final Four, or at the least a Diener-less, or Jackson-less team.  That is how I, and others have interpreted what you initially said.  I assume you will deny this, or say that all of us misinterpreted what you said.  We won't believe you, and this thread will keep going.

Tom Crean didn't become a worse coach one year later.  He simply didn't have the talent, and played in a tougher conference.  To say that the results the next season was 100% because of DWade's absence is an oversimplification.

And that is simply the bottom line.

Yet you don't rebut any of the points I just posted above about the analogy of the Final four team to Jordan's Bulls.  And hTom Crean didnt' have talent on 2003-2004 team?? You just got done telling me how good Diener was, and Novak?  And here was my initial post...that started this whole debate...and note I mentioned we lost RJack seveeral times..well also stating that we had 2 NBA talents on the 2003-2004 team in Novak and Diener (yet still didn't make the NCAA).  You tried to argue that I was minimizing Diener's talent..yet in my very first post on this topic...i call Diener an NBA talent (albeit, he hasn't done much of anything in the NBA..he is a Steve Kerr like talent)

Chicos - The reality is that in the 2003-2004 season, we had Novak, Diener and Merritt we lost to TCU in the first round of the CUSA tourney, and were an NIT team that finished 19-12.  Sure Robert Jackson was important, but D-Wade was the X-Factor that took us on the Final Four run.  Every player returned, other than Wade and R-Jack and we were a shell of the 2003 team in 2004...we didn't beat 1 ranked team in all of 2003/2004 season.  Same story in 2004/2205 with both Novak and Diener - no wins over a Top 25 team, and first round loss to TCU in C-USA tourney.  We lost Merritt, but still had Chapman, Townsend as holdovers from the Final Four Team. It almost defeats your central argument about the quality of coach that Tom Crean was - as once he lost Wade, he couldn't get his team back to the NCAA with 2 future NBA'ers in Novak and Diener (or Merritt), or Townsend, Chapman, and any of his additional recruits...all while playing in the C-USA

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Yet you don't rebut any of the points I just posted above about the analogy of the Final four team to Jordan's Bulls.  And hTom Crean didnt' have talent on 2003-2004 team?? You just got done telling me how good Diener was, and Novak?  And here was my initial post...that started this whole debate...and note I mentioned we lost RJack seveeral times..well also stating that we had 2 NBA talents on the 2003-2004 team in Novak and Diener (yet still didn't make the NCAA).  You tried to argue that I was minimizing Diener's talent..yet in my very first post on this topic...i call Diener an NBA talent (albeit, he hasn't done much of anything in the NBA..he is a Steve Kerr like talent)

Chicos - The reality is that in the 2003-2004 season, we had Novak, Diener and Merritt we lost to TCU in the first round of the CUSA tourney, and were an NIT team that finished 19-12.  Sure Robert Jackson was important, but D-Wade was the X-Factor that took us on the Final Four run.  Every player returned, other than Wade and R-Jack and we were a shell of the 2003 team in 2004...we didn't beat 1 ranked team in all of 2003/2004 season.  Same story in 2004/2205 with both Novak and Diener - no wins over a Top 25 team, and first round loss to TCU in C-USA tourney.  We lost Merritt, but still had Chapman, Townsend as holdovers from the Final Four Team. It almost defeats your central argument about the quality of coach that Tom Crean was - as once he lost Wade, he couldn't get his team back to the NCAA with 2 future NBA'ers in Novak and Diener (or Merritt), or Townsend, Chapman, and any of his additional recruits...all while playing in the C-USA

Forgive me if I'm being a little dumb here, but what exactly is everybody debating again?

I don't think any topic is being debated anymore, I think people are just trying to piss on each other.


- I think everybody will acknowledge that Wade was the key driver behind the Final 4. He was the key player with several good players around him.

- I think everybody can acknowledge that Diener and Jackson were key players on that team as well.

- I think everybody can acknowledge that travis was a great player, but that the last 2 teams he played on were disappointments (variety of reasons, injuries, depth, inexperience, etc.), but weren't necessarily Travis' fault

- Tom Crean was a key player in re-igniting the MU franchise. He recruited well and caught lighting in a bottle with Wade.


What is everybody disagreeing on again? I feel like everybody (including me) is saying the same thing in different ways and then debating that.

[NersEllenson]

Forgive me if I'm being a little dumb here, but what exactly is everybody debating again?

I don't think any topic is being debated anymore, I think people are just trying to piss on each other.


- I think everybody will acknowledge that Wade was the key driver behind the Final 4. He was the key player with several good players around him.

- I think everybody can acknowledge that Diener and Jackson were key players on that team as well.

- I think everybody can acknowledge that travis was a great player, but that the last 2 teams he played on were disappointments (variety of reasons, injuries, depth, inexperience, etc.), but weren't necessarily Travis' fault

- Tom Crean was a key player in re-igniting the MU franchise. He recruited well and caught lighting in a bottle with Wade.


What is everybody disagreeing on again? I feel like everybody (including me) is saying the same thing in different ways and then debating that.

I think you have summarized the debate in perfect and concise fashon.  I can agree with every one of your above points, and that is basically all I have ever posted on this topic, and the topic of Tom Crean and his contributions to the MU program.  I've said Tom Crean was a good coach and good recruiter - but feel Wade was catching lightening in a bottle or a little lucky - sorry if the word lucky offends some, but we were very fortunate to have a player of DWade's caliber suit up at MU..and his prodcution certainly exceeded greatly, the expectations of him at the time he was signed.  Who would have thought he would become a Top 5 player in the NBA, at the time we beat Bradley out for his services?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I think you have summarized the debate in perfect and concise fashon.  I can agree with every one of your above points, and that is basically all I have ever posted on this topic, and the topic of Tom Crean and his contributions to the MU program.  I've said Tom Crean was a good coach and good recruiter - but feel Wade was catching lightening in a bottle or a little lucky - sorry if the word lucky offends some, but we were very fortunate to have a player of DWade's caliber suit up at MU..and his prodcution certainly exceeded greatly, the expectations of him at the time he was signed.  Who would have thought he would become a Top 5 player in the NBA, at the time we beat Bradley out for his services?

Great.

We can all move along now.

[Lennys Tap]

Forgive me if I'm being a little dumb here, but what exactly is everybody debating again?

I don't think any topic is being debated anymore, I think people are just trying to piss on each other.


- I think everybody will acknowledge that Wade was the key driver behind the Final 4. He was the key player with several good players around him.

- I think everybody can acknowledge that Diener and Jackson were key players on that team as well.

- I think everybody can acknowledge that travis was a great player, but that the last 2 teams he played on were disappointments (variety of reasons, injuries, depth, inexperience, etc.), but weren't necessarily Travis' fault

- Tom Crean was a key player in re-igniting the MU franchise. He recruited well and caught lighting in a bottle with Wade.


What is everybody disagreeing on again? I feel like everybody (including me) is saying the same thing in different ways and then debating that.

If the debate is over and we all agree does it mean that Chicos has admitted that C USA was at least a tad less than RED CAPITAL LETTERS LOADED in 2003-4? Oh, and where and when is the group hug?

[ChicosBailBonds]

I've been sitting on the sidelines (end of the bench?) observing this exchange as hundreds of other "scoopers" have been waiting for an end to it.  I can tell you this for what it's worth.  I grew up began watching Warrior basketball, witnessed the Al years first hand - my father's season tickets in 1987 and would return home to Los Angeles where UCLA was still a program of power.  ALL of my buddies weere envious of me would chuckle at what a has been program Marquette was.  I honestly had kids schmoozing with me in hopes that I'd pick them to use the extra ticket eor the next game.  In 6th grade our team ran "the wheel" like the Warriors did.  MU hoops was the be all and end all in Wisconsin basketball.  I went to MU, graduated in 83 and moved to Florida. We were totally irrelevant nationally and the locals didn't want to admit it.  Then KO came along and put a small boost of excitement into the program but left as soon as we hit the Sweet 16 and crapped on MU during the entire 5 years.  Soon, MU hoops was irrelevant on the national scene again.  I never saw any games (except MU UNC) and was lucky to catch a score.  I moved to Atlanta a few years later - same thing.  Then we hired a new young coach and suddenly I hear rumblings again.  MU regains national prominence.  I moved back to Los Angeles and after a few years, people actually started saying Marquette is a damn good team, not the typical "where is Marquette, is that in Michigan or Canada"? You can't tell us it was as simple as "DWade."  That's all I have to say about it and I think a lot of posters would agree.

Similar

[ChicosBailBonds]

My problem with Chicos, though, isn't about whether post season polls are accurate or not. It's about how he distorts people's statements by reducing them to what he wants to argue about instead of addressing them in totum.

The irony of that coming from you when you have gone on several screeds claiming to know what a poster's intent is in their posts.  Claiming that people have an agenda.  Etc, etc.

It's remarkable you could write that paragraph and not fall off your seat.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think you have summarized the debate in perfect and concise fashon.  I can agree with every one of your above points, and that is basically all I have ever posted on this topic, and the topic of Tom Crean and his contributions to the MU program.  I've said Tom Crean was a good coach and good recruiter - but feel Wade was catching lightening in a bottle or a little lucky - sorry if the word lucky offends some, but we were very fortunate to have a player of DWade's caliber suit up at MU..and his prodcution certainly exceeded greatly, the expectations of him at the time he was signed.  Who would have thought he would become a Top 5 player in the NBA, at the time we beat Bradley out for his services?

Was Buzz lucky for landing a gig with 4 of MU's top 10 scorers of all time?  I'm just trying to calibrate what luck means to you.

Thanks