Jimmy Butler Makes Rivals.com 2010-11 Second Team All-Senior Team

[ChicosBailBonds]

+1 - Aint nobody going to change 84s illusionary mind.  What is being overlooked is that 84 continues to point out how talented DJO and Jimmy Butler are, yet fails to recognize that the previous coach in season 5 at the helm, following a Final Four year team, had recruited less talent to campus, than has an unheard of 2nd year, career assistant.  Furthermore, if Buzz had brought in players of the caliber of Mike Kinsella and Trend Blackledge, this discussion wouldn't even be happening.

Uhm, hasn't 84 been saying for, I don't know, half a year now that this 2010 team was more talented than the 2004 team?

[Lennys Tap]

Uhm, hasn't 84 been saying for, I don't know, half a year now that this 2010 team was more talented than the 2004 team?

To the best of my knowledge he's only been saying it for a couple of days. But how long he's been saying has no effect on its substance. It would have been silly six months ago and it's still silly now.

[Lennys Tap]

Why even bother? 

Rican, you're absolutely right. You start out answering one of 84's preposterous statements and pretty soon he's gone you off on so many tangents (Lloyd Moore, Manute Bol, Chuck Nevitt, etc.,etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum) and contradictions you don't know which ridiculous statement to address next. On a positive note, I do admire his tenacity.

[ChicosBailBonds]

To the best of my knowledge he's only been saying it for a couple of days. But how long he's been saying has no effect on its substance. It would have been silly six months ago and it's still silly now.

Why?  Based on actual results, not on projections by talent scouts that see a kid play 2 or 3 times total, he was right.  That's the danger of relying on prognostications on what a player will be like.

Look at what those experts had for Dwyane Wade.  One rating had him top 50, three others not even top 200. 

[Marquette84]

Rican, you're absolutely right. You start out answering one of 84's preposterous statements and pretty soon he's gone you off on so many tangents (Lloyd Moore, Manute Bol, Chuck Nevitt, etc.,etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum) and contradictions you don't know which ridiculous statement to address next. On a positive note, I do admire his tenacity.

Just curious--what do you have to say to Ners, given that he agrees with me that 2010 was more talented.

Do you find his statement ridiculous as well?

And I'm waiting for him to call you out for failing to realize that.

The reason why I bring up the examples I cited was to show your faulty logic.

You claimed that we were under-talented because of our size.  The examples of Chuck Nevitt and Manute Bol were meant to show that size and talent aren't related.

I brought up Lloyd Moore because you still insist that HS rankings have more validity than actual play.  He's an example of a guy who's actual play didn't measure up to HS rank.  You are still maintaining that Scott Merritt is more talented than Jimmy Butler because of a HS rank comparision--ignoring everything that happened since they left High School. 

[NersEllenson]

Just curious--what do you have to say to Ners, given that he agrees with me that 2010 was more talented.

Do you find his statement ridiculous as well?

And I'm waiting for him to call you out for failing to realize that.

Actually, where did I write that 2010 team was more talented than 2004?  I got roasted on another thread for arguing Wade was the catalyst for the Final Four team, and that I discounted the importance/talent of Novak, Diener, Merritt, et al.  All of those Top 100 recruits returned in 2004 and we went to the NIT - we underperformed.   You are arguing that DJO and Butler are more/as talented as Diener/Merritt....at the end of their MU careers it may turn out that way...my original point was that you were focusing on two of Buzz's recruits, yet have offered up no defense or reason as to why our 2004 team could be so "talent challenged," (at least in your words compared to the 2010 team..which I disagree with) when that was TC's 5th year at the helm?  How could we be in a situation with such a marginally talented team at that point...the year after the same team (without DWade and RJack) was in the Final Four?

[Lennys Tap]

Why?  Based on actual results, not on projections by talent scouts that see a kid play 2 or 3 times total, he was right.  That's the danger of relying on prognostications on what a player will be like.

Look at what those experts had for Dwyane Wade.  One rating had him top 50, three others not even top 200. 

I'm on record several times as saying scouts make mistakes. Jimmy Butler was one, though he wasn't exactly a stud immediately upon arrival. In fact he looked so lost initially that some on this board were calling him a wasted scholarship.

I know you are a staunch believer that college bball is a guard's game. I happen to agree with you. Our point and 2 last year were Mo Acker and David Cubillan. Both were recruited to be back ups. Neither had done anything in their college careers to dispel that assessment. In addition, both were undersized. From a pure talent standpoint I would rate them significantly below average starters for a high major program. A lot of factors resulted in them outperforming their "talent" last year, among them hard work, experience, and a system that accentuated their strengths (ball handling and open 3 point shooting) and minimized their weaknesses (inability to finish, no mid range game, lack of size, strength and therefore lack of defensive ability).

You said yourself that if Buzz Williams could get last year's team to 9-9 in the Big East and/or make the NCAA he should be coach of the year. You reiterated those sentiments midway through the season. Have you changed your mind and do you now take the 84 position that their is no such thing as over or under achieving and that a team's final record is automatically equivalent to it's talent? That MU had the 5th or 6th most talent in the Big East and UCONN had the 11th or 12th most?

No one argues that Duke and Butler weren't deserving of playing for the national championship last year, but you could combine their rosters and not have the talent of 2010 Kentucky. You'll be watching KU's players prove it over the next 10 years in the NBA. I know you and every poster on this board can cite numerous instances in sport of superior talent falling. Until 84 informed us that by definition it can't happen, that is.

[Marquette84]

I'm on record several times as saying scouts make mistakes. Jimmy Butler was one, though he wasn't exactly a stud immediately upon arrival. In fact he looked so lost initially that some on this board were calling him a wasted scholarship.

This is a stretch on the "wasted scholarship" claim.  The board history is available--I looked it up.  You've used "wasted scholarship" more times in this thread alone than it was ever used to describe Butler.

The discussion you reference was one person who thought Fulce showed more than Butler at the Midnight Madness scrimmage--and he never used the term "wasted scholarship"--that came after the fact.  http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=13490.msg121255#msg121255

I know you are a staunch believer that college bball is a guard's game. I happen to agree with you. Our point and 2 last year were Mo Acker and David Cubillan. Both were recruited to be back ups. Neither had done anything in their college careers to dispel that assessment.

I disagree.  I think the way Acker played last eight games of the 2009 season (five of them against Elite Eight teams) showed that he performed well enough to dispel the assessment that he couldn't play the point for MU adequately.

In addition, both were undersized. From a pure talent standpoint I would rate them significantly below average starters for a high major program.

Henry was undersized.  Hutch was undersized.  DJ was undersized.  I simply don't buy into the argument that undersized means overmatched.

A lot of factors resulted in them outperforming their "talent" last year, among them hard work, experience, and a system that accentuated their strengths (ball handling and open 3 point shooting) and minimized their weaknesses (inability to finish, no mid range game, lack of size, strength and therefore lack of defensive ability).

Nobody can "outperform" their talent.  If they can't hit 3 point shots, they won't make them--no matter what type of system is put in place.  If they can't handle the ball well enough or see the court well enough to have a 2:1 assist to TO ratio, they won't, no matter how much a coach tries to minimize the weaknesses.   If they can't judge where the ball is going or time their jump, they can't rebound.

The best a coach can do is not suppress those talents. 

But he can't create what isn't there in the first place.

You said yourself that if Buzz Williams could get last year's team to 9-9 in the Big East and/or make the NCAA he should be coach of the year. You reiterated those sentiments midway through the season. Have you changed your mind and do you now take the 84 position that their is no such thing as over or under achieving and that a team's final record is automatically equivalent to it's talent? That MU had the 5th or 6th most talent in the Big East and UCONN had the 11th or 12th most?

I didn't make the "coach of the year" statement--it was made in response to me by those who thought a 9-9 minimum was setting expectations too high.

The summary of the conversation went like this:
Me:  9-9 should be the floor for this year's team
Others:  If Buzz goes 9-9 he deserves to be coach of the year.

As for Uconn, I'll repeat for you:  there are several other factors--maturity, head cases, injuries--that affect outcomes.  "Automatically" is your choice of words, not mine. 

No one argues that Duke and Butler weren't deserving of playing for the national championship last year, but you could combine their rosters and not have the talent of 2010 Kentucky. You'll be watching KU's players prove it over the next 10 years in the NBA. I know you and every poster on this board can cite numerous instances in sport of superior talent falling. Until 84 informed us that by definition it can't happen, that is.

I would never make such a comparison based on one game.

----------

I think the capstone for this argument is that it becomes very difficult to filter every opinion through your prism of "How Does This Make Buzz Look Good In Comparison to Crean".

You so wanted to hype Buzz's coaching in 2010 that you had to trash his recruiting.

Think about it:  You argue that 2004--arguably Crean's least talented team--had more talent than Buzz's team in 2010.  What does that say about Buzz's recruiting?   

If you truly believe that nobody expected DJO, Buycks or Butler to perform as well as they did, then you have to admit that Buzz simply lucked into those players--just like the way you argue that Crean lucked into Wade.

[Lennys Tap]

Just curious--what do you have to say to Ners, given that he agrees with me that 2010 was more talented.

Do you find his statement ridiculous as well?

And I'm waiting for him to call you out for failing to realize that.

The reason why I bring up the examples I cited was to show your faulty logic.

You claimed that we were under-talented because of our size.  The examples of Chuck Nevitt and Manute Bol were meant to show that size and talent aren't related.

I brought up Lloyd Moore because you still insist that HS rankings have more validity than actual play.  He's an example of a guy who's actual play didn't measure up to HS rank.  You are still maintaining that Scott Merritt is more talented than Jimmy Butler because of a HS rank comparision--ignoring everything that happened since they left High School. 

1.Where does Ners say that the 2010 team was more talented? Hard for me to call something "ridiculous" that he never said. (Though I know that's a favorite tack of your's - see#2)
2.I never said we were "under-talented because of our size". I pointed out that we were undersized IN ADDITION to being under-talented. Please read what I actually write not what you want to argue with. But since you bring up Nevitt and Bol and how bad they were - my guess is we could have found a spot in the rotation last year for either guy since they managed to collect 19 years worth of NBA paychecks between them.
3.I'm not insisting "that HS rankings have more validity than actual play". I do insist insist that a team with higher rated players out of high school (in some cases hundreds of spots higher) at each rotation spot AND signicantly greater success as ACTUAL high major players (Diener, Merritt, Novack, Townsend, Chapman vs Hayward, Butler, Acker and Cubillan) indicates a talent gap favoring the 2004 team.

The funniest part of this whole topic is how ferociously you argue contradictory positions in an effort to advance your pro TC, anti Buzz agenda. Before last season started you went on record saying it was totally fair and proper to hold the 2010 team to the same standards as the 2006 team before 2010 had even played a game. Anything short of that would be a failure - ironically your opinion was based to a great extent on what scouts said about players you had never seen. Now you're saying it's totally unfair to hold a team to any standards - there is no such thing as failure. Your record = your talent. Oh, and by the way,those scouts whose evaluations I used to saddle the 2010 team with high expectations really aren't worth anything. Bottom line: If MU does as well as the experts figured even BEFORE Cadougan, Otule and Maymon were lost, Buzz is a failure. And if MU, AFTER Cadougan, Otule and Maymon were lost exceeds even your expectations? No big deal, they just had the outstanding talent that TC was missing the year after the final 4. But what's a few contradictions in a story that fits your preferred narrative so nicely?

[GoldenWarrior]

That's awesome for Jimmy

[NersEllenson]

1.Where does Ners say that the 2010 team was more talented? Hard for me to call something "ridiculous" that he never said.

The funniest part of this whole topic is how ferociously you argue contradictory positions in an effort to advance your pro TC, anti Buzz agenda. Before last season started you went on record saying it was totally fair and proper to hold the 2010 team to the same standards as the 2006 team before 2010 had even played a game. Anything short of that would be a failure - ironically your opinion was based to a great extent on what scouts said about players you had never seen. Now you're saying it's totally unfair to hold a team to any standards - there is no such thing as failure. Your record = your talent. Oh, and by the way,those scouts whose evaluations I used to saddle the 2010 team with high expectations really aren't worth anything. Bottom line: If MU does as well as the experts figured even BEFORE Cadougan, Otule and Maymon were lost, Buzz is a failure. And if MU, AFTER Cadougan, Otule and Maymon were lost exceeds even your expectations? No big deal, they just had the outstanding talent that TC was missing the year after the final 4. But what's a few contradictions in a story that fits your preferred narrative so nicely?

+1 to all of this.  Never said 2010 team was more talented than 2004.  Always have contended that 2004 team underperformed.  Was crucified just a week ago for minimizing the talent of Diener, Novak, Merritt,  by saying DWade was the catalyst and primary reason we went to the Final Four.  Never said those Top 100 recruits weren't great players or talented..but as Chicos supplied they were victim to a tough C-USA, games lost due to injury by Diener (whcihc didn't happen his junior year).  Now we've got 84 arguing that these same players weren't that talented as compared to  Buzz's recruits of DJO, Buycks, Jimmy butler. 

[Lennys Tap]

This is a stretch on the "wasted scholarship" claim.  The board history is available--I looked it up.  You've used "wasted scholarship" more times in this thread alone than it was ever used to describe Butler.

The discussion you reference was one person who thought Fulce showed more than Butler at the Midnight Madness scrimmage--and he never used the term "wasted scholarship"--that came after the fact.  http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=13490.msg121255#msg121255

I disagree.  I think the way Acker played last eight games of the 2009 season (five of them against Elite Eight teams) showed that he performed well enough to dispel the assessment that he couldn't play the point for MU adequately.

Henry was undersized.  Hutch was undersized.  DJ was undersized.  I simply don't buy into the argument that undersized means overmatched.


Nobody can "outperform" their talent.  If they can't hit 3 point shots, they won't make them--no matter what type of system is put in place.  If they can't handle the ball well enough or see the court well enough to have a 2:1 assist to TO ratio, they won't, no matter how much a coach tries to minimize the weaknesses.   If they can't judge where the ball is going or time their jump, they can't rebound.

The best a coach can do is not suppress those talents. 

But he can't create what isn't there in the first place.


I didn't make the "coach of the year" statement--it was made in response to me by those who thought a 9-9 minimum was setting expectations too high.

The summary of the conversation went like this:
Me:  9-9 should be the floor for this year's team
Others:  If Buzz goes 9-9 he deserves to be coach of the year.

As for Uconn, I'll repeat for you:  there are several other factors--maturity, head cases, injuries--that affect outcomes.  "Automatically" is your choice of words, not mine. 

I would never make such a comparison based on one game.

----------

I think the capstone for this argument is that it becomes very difficult to filter every opinion through your prism of "How Does This Make Buzz Look Good In Comparison to Crean".

You so wanted to hype Buzz's coaching in 2010 that you had to trash his recruiting.

Think about it:  You argue that 2004--arguably Crean's least talented team--had more talent than Buzz's team in 2010.  What does that say about Buzz's recruiting?   

If you truly believe that nobody expected DJO, Buycks or Butler to perform as well as they did, then you have to admit that Buzz simply lucked into those players--just like the way you argue that Crean lucked into Wade.

Why are you taking my response to one of Chico's posts and replying as if it was in response to one of yours? He's the 9-9, coach of the year guy I'm talking to -not you. You've been perilously close before but are you now totally unhinged? Oh, and please stop with your outright lies. Where have I EVER trashed Buzz's recruiting? I'll answer for you - nowhere.
The over-achievers under Buzz were actually Crean recruits - Mo and Cuby.

[Nukem2]

This is a really interesting thread about Jimmy Butler.....

[HouWarrior]

As to Butler-- this is nice to see. I was a fan back in McGuire days when he advocated a star system...the seniors were the promoted stars. This rating is a nice nod to program's quality and profile. I doubt if he were buried here on Univ of Houston roster that he'd get the same profile/recognition. Seems the MU program quality/BE status contributes to his getting noticed---good for us, thanks Buzz, and recent teams

[Marquette84]

Where have I EVER trashed Buzz's recruiting? I'll answer for you - nowhere.

You're wrong.  I'll give you the answer:  This thread.

You made multiple posts where you argue quite vehemently that Buzz's 2010 class is less talented than Crean's class of 2004.

And we all know that 2004 is Crean's least talented team.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You're wrong.  I'll give you the answer:  This thread.

You made multiple posts where you argue quite vehemently that Buzz's 2010 class is less talented than Crean's class of 2004.

And we all know that 2004 is Crean's least talented team.

LOL

Well played


And yes, this is a nice honor for Jimmy Butler. 

[Marquette84]

Actually, where did I write that 2010 team was more talented than 2004? 

Right here:

What is being overlooked is that 84 continues to point out how talented DJO and Jimmy Butler are, yet fails to recognize that the previous coach in season 5 at the helm, following a Final Four year team, had recruited less talent to campus, than has an unheard of 2nd year, career assistant. 

As I said above, not only do I not "fail to realize" this observation--it formed the central thesis of my post. 


I'll take a shot at this since I didn't do so above . . .

Furthermore, if Buzz had brought in players of the caliber of Mike Kinsella and Trend Blackledge, this discussion wouldn't even be happening.

You must mean that if he had players like Kinsella and Blackledge instead of Mbao and Roseboro, it would be obvious to even Lenny that 2010 had more talent.

 You are arguing that DJO and Butler are more/as talented as Diener/Merritt....at the end of their MU careers it may turn out that way...my original point was that you were focusing on two of Buzz's recruits, yet have offered up no defense or reason as to why our 2004 team could be so "talent challenged," (at least in your words compared to the 2010 team..which I disagree with) when that was TC's 5th year at the helm?  How could we be in a situation with such a marginally talented team at that point...

I gave you four bullet-pointed reasons in this thread.  Go back and look them up if you want the details.

[NersEllenson]

This is amazing.

On one side, I've got Lenny criticizing me because I put for the argument that 2010 had more talent than 2004.

I now have Ners criticizing me for "failing to recognize" that 2010 had more talent than 2004.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Ners, but I most certainly HAVE recognized that 2010 had more talent than 2004--that is EXACTLY my point.

Which means that you and I share the exact same opinion.     

No.  You and I never share the exact same opinion.  I've said that you failed to recognize that after 5 seasons on the job, by YOUR estimation, Tom Crean had recruited less talent to MU, than had Buzz Williams in just his 2nd year on the job..with the additions of Jimmy Butler and DJO and throw in Buycks for good measure.  None of these guys were Top 100 guys in High School, yet you argue that Diener, Merritt, and Novak (all Top 100 guys)team of 2004 wasn't as talented...That said, I haven't seen where you've bullet pointed 4 reasons why Tom Crean had so little "talent" at MU his 5th year.  I personally think he had good talent in 2004, but couldn't coach it or motivate it properly to get it to the NCAA, and the 2004 team underperformed significantly..while the 2010 team overachieved significantly by every objective and rational person's opinion (which excludes your opinion as clearly you cannot get past your love of Tom Crean to see it for what it was.)

[ChicosBailBonds]

The 2010 team overachieved, no question, at least based on projections.  The reality is, the talent was better than the prognosticators thought.  That's typically how teams overachieve, because the talent rises, people have career years, the competition is down, a combination of them all.

As for 2004, can you explain (NERS and Lenny) why you think they underachieved?  With losing Wade and Jackson, Merritt's surgery, a brutal conference (most NCAA berths by a non BCS conference in NCAA history) how they underachieved?  I keep waiting for that answer but haven't seen it yet, at least not a coherent one.

Were they expected to finish first that year in CUSA or something?  They underachieved based on what criteria exactly?  I'm simply asking, not trying to piss in anyone's cheerios, just asking what criteria you are using....and please don't say some recruiting analysts who sees players play 2 or 3 times a year.  I'm talking TEAM underachievement, by whom, etc.

Much appreciated.

[Marquette84]

No.  You and I never share the exact same opinion.  I've said that you failed to recognize that after 5 seasons on the job, by YOUR estimation, Tom Crean had recruited less talent to MU, than had Buzz Williams in just his 2nd year on the job..with the additions of Jimmy Butler and DJO and throw in Buycks for good measure. 

You're not making any sense.  

Help me understand where you're coming from.  Which side of the argument do you agree with:

A) Buzz recruited better talent than Crean's worst team (my point).
B) Buzz recruited worse talent than Crean's worst team (Lenny's point).

Now, Lenny's agenda is such that he thinks that if sandbags the quality of Buzz's recruits, he can talk up Buzz's coaching ability.  

Until I point out the obvious--Buzz recruited most of the 2010 team. So when Lenny argues that we were talent-limited in 2010, it reflects poorly on Buzz the recruiter.

You're sounding like you want to sandbag the 2010 team as well.  You claimed "none of these guys were top 100 in High School" but omitted that they were JUCO All-Americans before they arrived at Marquette.  

[Lennys Tap]

The 2010 team overachieved, no question, at least based on projections.  The reality is, the talent was better than the prognosticators thought.  That's typically how teams overachieve, because the talent rises, people have career years, the competition is down, a combination of them all.

As for 2004, can you explain (NERS and Lenny) why you think they underachieved?  With losing Wade and Jackson, Merritt's surgery, a brutal conference (most NCAA berths by a non BCS conference in NCAA history) how they underachieved?  I keep waiting for that answer but haven't seen it yet, at least not a coherent one.

Were they expected to finish first that year in CUSA or something?  They underachieved based on what criteria exactly?  I'm simply asking, not trying to piss in anyone's cheerios, just asking what criteria you are using....and please don't say some recruiting analysts who sees players play 2 or 3 times a year.  I'm talking TEAM underachievement, by whom, etc.

Much appreciated.

MU was top 25 (AP - I've learned my lesson about using the coaches poll Cincy and Louisville were also in the lower third of the top 25 and Memphis was just out of it. So it's fair to say we were expected to finish between 1st and 4th. Of the top 10 in minutes played we returned 8. Dameon Mason (top 50 and starter as a frosh) and Juco AA Marcus Jackson were the key newcomers.

With the loss of Wade and RJax there were a lot of numbers that needed to be replaced (though not as many as in 2010). The simple fact is that nobody other than Diener really stepped up. Merritt put up similar numbers to go with a poorer shooting % and more than double the turnovers. Novak basically doubled his minutes and his scoring/rebounds (a push) but his overall shooting% fell from 50.6 to 40.7 and his 3pt% fell from 51.5 to 43.0. Townsend actually dropped from 5.3 pts and 2.6 rbs to 1.8 and 0.9 as his shooting % fell on 2's (44.1 to 34.6) and 3's (37.5 to 22.3).

I won't bore you with any more numbers but again basically Diener elevated his game and the rest of the team didn't. When that many players level off or regress it's a guarantee for disappointment. I certainly fault the players first but the leader bears some responsibility. I think TC was an overall above average coach at MU, but 2004 was one of two I'd rate sub par.

Thanks for your civil request even if you end up disagreeing with everything I say.

[Lennys Tap]

You're wrong.  I'll give you the answer:  This thread.

You made multiple posts where you argue quite vehemently that Buzz's 2010 class is less talented than Crean's class of 2004.

And we all know that 2004 is Crean's least talented team.

No. You're wrong. Buzz had 1 recruiting class and 1 late signing period on last year's team. So that's what, maybe 1.25 classes. It produced Butler, Buycks and DJO along with injured Otule and Cadougan, plus potential stud E Williams.
Crean's 2.75 classes left us one stud and two pint sized career back ups. But calling last year's team Buzz's class is typical of your style. Everything from distortions to outright lies. Thanks for staying consistent.

[ChicosBailBonds]

MU was top 25 (AP - I've learned my lesson about using the coaches poll Cincy and Louisville were also in the lower third of the top 25 and Memphis was just out of it. So it's fair to say we were expected to finish between 1st and 4th. Of the top 10 in minutes played we returned 8. Dameon Mason (top 50 and starter as a frosh) and Juco AA Marcus Jackson were the key newcomers.

With the loss of Wade and RJax there were a lot of numbers that needed to be replaced (though not as many as in 2010). The simple fact is that nobody other than Diener really stepped up. Merritt put up similar numbers to go with a poorer shooting % and more than double the turnovers. Novak basically doubled his minutes and his scoring/rebounds (a push) but his overall shooting% fell from 50.6 to 40.7 and his 3pt% fell from 51.5 to 43.0. Townsend actually dropped from 5.3 pts and 2.6 rbs to 1.8 and 0.9 as his shooting % fell on 2's (44.1 to 34.6) and 3's (37.5 to 22.3).

I won't bore you with any more numbers but again basically Diener elevated his game and the rest of the team didn't. When that many players level off or regress it's a guarantee for disappointment. I certainly fault the players first but the leader bears some responsibility. I think TC was an overall above average coach at MU, but 2004 was one of two I'd rate sub par.

Thanks for your civil request even if you end up disagreeing with everything I say.

OK, fair enough, but I do have a follow-up.  Aren't pre-season polls also just projections based on nothing truly concrete?  They're just projections, they don't factor in injuries, etc.  And the writers are often lazy and simply look at where teams finished the previous year and slot them in the next.

If not, how does one explain this year's preseason top 25?  I mean, if they missed that badly on these teams, why would we give them any credence to their preseason predictions?  They seem pretty horrible at it, don't you agree?  

Do you think getting 60% correct is good?


AP Preseason Picks 2009-10 Season (actual finish in top 25)

#3 Texas (actual - no top 25 finish)
#6 North Carolina  (actual - no NCAA tournament - no top 25)
#12 UCONN  (actual - no NCAA tournament - no top 25)
#13 California  (actual - one of last teams to make NCAA - no top 25)
#15 Michigan  (actual - no NCAA tournament - no top 25)
#17 Oklahoma  (actual - no NCAA tournament - no top 25)
#18 Mississippi State  (actual - no NCAA tournament - no top 25)
#21 Dayton  (actual - no NCAA tournament - no top 25)
#23 Illinois (actual - no NCAA tournament - no top 25)
#25 Minnesota (actual - one of last teams to make NCAA - no top 25)

So the AP missed on 40% of their predictions preseason.  That's pretty bad, why again are we using them as experts to determine if a team is going to be good at such an abysmal rate?  Why shouldn't we basing it on actual performance, which is what I think MU84 is saying (you can join me in that crowd as well).

Seems prognostications are great, but when you have a national group like writers who only see one particular team play so many times a year, they are largely going on last year's performance.  Rosiak is a voter, he sees MU play every game, but how often does he see the other 342 teams play?  What does he use to decide his preseason top 25?  I'll bet dollars to donuts it's how last year's team finished. I'll also bet that his top 25 picks are a lot better 2 months into the season with ACTUAL playing rather than guess work in October prior to a season starting.

[Lennys Tap]

OK, fair enough, but I do have a follow-up.  Aren't pre-season polls also just projections based on nothing truly concrete?  They're just projections, they don't factor in injuries, etc.  And the writers are often lazy and simply look at where teams finished the previous year and slot them in the next.

If not, how does one explain this year's preseason top 25?  I mean, if they missed that badly on these teams, why would we give them any credence to their preseason predictions?  They seem pretty horrible at it, don't you agree?  

Do you think getting 60% correct is good?


AP Preseason Picks 2009-10 Season (actual finish in top 25)

#3 Texas (actual - no top 25 finish)
#6 North Carolina  (actual - no NCAA tournament - no top 25)
#12 UCONN  (actual - no NCAA tournament - no top 25)
#13 California  (actual - one of last teams to make NCAA - no top 25)
#15 Michigan  (actual - no NCAA tournament - no top 25)
#17 Oklahoma  (actual - no NCAA tournament - no top 25)
#18 Mississippi State  (actual - no NCAA tournament - no top 25)
#21 Dayton  (actual - no NCAA tournament - no top 25)
#23 Illinois (actual - no NCAA tournament - no top 25)
#25 Minnesota (actual - one of last teams to make NCAA - no top 25)

So the AP missed on 40% of their predictions preseason.  That's pretty bad, why again are we using them as experts to determine if a team is going to be good at such an abysmal rate?  Why shouldn't we basing it on actual performance, which is what I think MU84 is saying (you can join me in that crowd as well).

Seems prognostications are great, but when you have a national group like writers who only see one particular team play so many times a year, they are largely going on last year's performance.  Rosiak is a voter, he sees MU play every game, but how often does he see the other 342 teams play?  What does he use to decide his preseason top 25?  I'll bet dollars to donuts it's how last year's team finished. I'll also bet that his top 25 picks are a lot better 2 months into the season with ACTUAL playing rather than guess work in October prior to a season starting.

The preseason polls are projections (hence the prefix pre), but to say they're based on nothing concrete is inaccurate. They're based on past performance (concrete data on returning players and newcomers) predicting the future - which is necessarily an inexact science. Injuries, defections and changes in attitude can't be predited. Nor can anything other than normal variance and progression for individual players. When you have players whose performance doesn't match reasonable expectations (see MU in 2004 or Texas, UCONN, etc from last year) teams surprise to the downside. Conversely, when a team has players who exceed reasonable expectations (MU 2010 with Acker and Cubillan) teams surprise to the upside. 84  believes that Mo and David were elite talents held back by TC before being "unleashed" by Buzz. I think it's more likely that they gave a big effort and had their strengths accentuated and weaknesses mitigated by the system devised by Buzz.

I'm certainly not arguing that preseaon polls are more accurate than post season ones. Outcomes are easier to "predict" when one knows the final score. But try to tell people that follow N. Carolina, UCONN, Michigan, etc that they had NIT talent this year and that their teams performed to their capabilities since record = talent. 84 will find no more agreement with those fans than he finds here.

[Marquette84]

No. You're wrong. Buzz had 1 recruiting class and 1 late signing period on last year's team. So that's what, maybe 1.25 classes. It produced Butler, Buycks and DJO along with injured Otule and Cadougan, plus potential stud E Williams.

Sorry, but you are the one distorting the truth here.

The truth:
Buzz recruited 10 players on the 2010 roster.
Crean recruited 3 players on the 2010 roster.

Your distortion of using use "recruiting classes" is a last gasp attempt to mask the underlying fact: Most of the players on the 2010 team were Buzz's responsibility. So what if Buzz "only" had 1.25 recruiting classes--he brought in most of the players.  

And what you really mean by making excuses for Buzz by claiming that he "only" had 1.25 recruiting classes?  Are you suggesting that Buzz wasn't capable of recruiting quality players until the incoming class for 2011? That he got lucky with Butler and Buycks and DJO?  That his recruiting in 2009 and 2010 were total busts?

You've clearly backed yourself into a corner on this one.

You argued quite vehemently that you think that 2010 had LESS overall talent than 2004.
But that's before I reminded you that Buzz (not Crean) recruited most of the players on the 2010 team.

Hence you invent this bogus "1.25 recruiting classes" argument.  

Yet 10 players are 10 players, regardless of whether they are all in one class or spread out over four classes.  Its completely bogus to say that Buzz couldn't recruit quality because he only had 1.25 classes to do so.