Who is left

[Marquette84]

Just so we're dealing with facts, neither WVU's 2009 or 2010 classes were ranked in the top 25 by ESPN or Rivals. MU's were ranked 17th and 14th by ESPN and 14th and 17th by Rivals. To suggest Huggins has been picking up young talent on par with Marquette is plainly wrong.
. . .
I also think we need be cognizant of the fact that back-to-back-to-back top 25 classes would be an significant feat for this program, probably one never accomplished since people started tracking these things.

Imagine my surprise to see you of all people claim that Buzz is outrecruiting Huggins based on a comparison of rankings!!! 

Did you forget that just 11 days ago you wrote that you considered judging recruiting classes on the basis of rankings to be "silly" and "quite foolish"? 

Did you forget that you agreed with Chico's argument of "Results, not rankings"?

... to add to the discussion, I think it's really quite foolish to judge a coach's recruiting success based on where his players ranked on the RSCI, how many stars they get from Rivals and Scout, etc. Isn't identifying and evaluating players - irrelgardless of what Dave Telep and Bob Gibbons think - an essential part of being a good recruiter? How many here think Jeronne Maymon (RSCI 73, four stars) was a better recruit for Marquette than one-star recruit Jimmy Butler? Or for that matter, RSCI 71 Dameon Mason better than Lazar Hayward? It's really a silly way to judge one's recruiting ability.

and

When did I ever state or even imply my comments on recruiting were based rankings? In fact, prior to 2002, when did anyone else say that was the basis of the discussion? The only one who ever differentiated was Chico's, and he said results, not rankings, and when he did, I responded with the same argument based on results.

Looks like it will be hard for you to pull your usual argument that you never stated or implied that you think it's really quite foolish to judge a coach's recruiting success based on where his players ranked. 

I'm sure you'll give it a good college try, though. 

[Pakuni]

Awesome. I have a stalker.

[Marquette84]

Maybe because of the recent MU recruiting classes and the depth of the roster, the 2011 potential recruits may be looking at the roster and saying where's the playing time for me.  The top ranked recruits have been told since the seventh grade that they are good enough for the NBA, are on national level AAU circuit teams and some have "advisors or mentors" guiding them.  If a recruit is considering MU, here's the 2011 playing time scenario.  

Yes, I realize there will be potential transfers and injuries, but the top ranked recruit will probably not be looking in that direction.  They are 17 and 18 year olds and they believe and have been told to believe they are the best. The top ranked kids want to play. The BE conference and national television exposure helps and Buzz would also explain the hardest workers get the playing time and some positions are interchangeable, but MU is a young team and maybe is having some PT issues with these recruits.

PG: Junior two years left
     Smith three years left

SG: DJO one year left
     Blue three years left
     Jones three years left

SF: Wilson three years left
     Anderson four years left

PF: Crowder one year left

Center : Otule two years left
           Gardner three years left

Bench: Williams two years left at either SF or PF

A recruit like Shaw or another big SF/PF should see that MU will be looking for a bigger forward subsequent to Crowder and a center because of a project like Otule and the uncertainty of Gardner.  

Your argument is based on two conflicting premises:

• The players being recruited have been told they are "the best" at every level they've ever competed.
  
• 
  The players being recruited are afraid that they won't get playing time.
  

The players we're considering actually have been the best on whatever team they've played, probably since the 4th or 5th grade.  And at every level, they've sought out the highest levels of competition.  

At the AAU and prep levels, you don't see a top ranked players choosing a school based on the ease of earning minutes.  They pick St. Anthony or Whitney Young.  They pick the top AAU teams.  Their families even go so far as to move to get into a better basketball district (Dameon Mason's family moving into the West Aurora district).

Top players don't normally seek out less talented teams because there's an easier path to playing time.  They seek out the best teams because then earning minutes or winning a starting slot actually means something.

I can't see that attitude changing to such an extent that they'd fear the #71 or #94 or 100+ ranked players.  They want to play at the next level, and they know that they're going to have to beat out players better than Gardner or Smith or Otule to have a shot at the league.

[77ncaachamps]

Anderson's a great get.

He WANTS to be here; he is highly regarded; he WANTS to do the hard work; and he hails from a region MU can tap into each year: CA/West Coast.

Those other kids who don't want to commit want the easy road...
No challenges...
Spoonfed...

If they question their need to work hard and bring it every day, they don't belong at MU.

Anderson's made his commitment and Tweeted if anyone else wants to join him...
We'll see who wants to be coached rather than being told what to do.

'Nuff said.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

 WE WANT WARRIORS!

[MarkCharles]

Those other kids who don't want to commit want the easy road...
No challenges...
Spoonfed...

The only logical explanation

[TedBaxter]

The only logical explanation

Maybe they just don't want to go to Marquette.  There are so many factors that affect a college decision other than basketball and you just don't know which thing will be the reason they go to or don't go to Marquette.  

Marquette, with Anderson's verbal, now have 11 kids who are slated to be back next year who could be rotation players, so there's a lot of experience returning and let's not overlook the current 5 man freshman class of Vander Blue, Davante Gardner, Jamail Jones, Reggie Smith and Jamil Wilson (redshirt). I think that has factored in with some kids as well.

[GGGG]

Anderson's a great get.

He WANTS to be here; he is highly regarded; he WANTS to do the hard work; and he hails from a region MU can tap into each year: CA/West Coast.

Those other kids who don't want to commit want the easy road...
No challenges...
Spoonfed...

If they question their need to work hard and bring it every day, they don't belong at MU.

Anderson's made his commitment and Tweeted if anyone else wants to join him...
We'll see who wants to be coached rather than being told what to do.

'Nuff said.

Are you chanelling your inner willie warrior here or something?  This is the lamest thing I have ever heard

[PBRme]

hermit

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Awesome. I have a stalker.

Nice redirect.

Well played. 

[Pakuni]

Nice redirect.

Well played. 

You'd prefer a futile, peripheral and sure to get unpleasant semantical debate over whether there are differences between player and class rankings, the value of rankings for classes that played 10 years ago versus those who have yet to play a game, what I meant, what he meant, what Chico's meant, etc.?
Does that add a lot of value to the site?
I've decided it doesn't and therefore chosen not to engage in his gamemenship. If that disappoints you, sorry.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

You'd prefer a futile, peripheral and sure to get unpleasant semantical debate over whether there are differences between player and class rankings, the value of rankings for classes that played 10 years ago versus those who have yet to play a game, what I meant, what he meant, what Chico's meant, etc.?
Does that add a lot of value to the site?
I've decided it doesn't and therefore chosen not to engage in his gamemenship. If that disappoints you, sorry.

I wholeheartedly agree that those types of discussions are pointless.

However, I believe you can have an opinion and a debate/discussion without it being futile, and unpleasant. If it does start to get chippy, then agree to disagree and leave it alone.

In this case, you and I will probably have to agree to disagree, and I can live with that.

[Pakuni]

I wholeheartedly agree that those types of discussions are pointless.

However, I believe you can have an opinion and a debate/discussion without it being futile, and unpleasant. If it does start to get chippy, then agree to disagree and leave it alone.

In this case, you and I will probably have to agree to disagree, and I can live with that.

Fair enough.
Let's just say I'm not sure I've had a discussion with this one particular poster that hasn't gotten chippy, personal and, ultimately, futile. I'm clearly not blameless for that. Try as I might, I'll probably get involved with that sort of thing again, but for now I'm doing my best to avoid it.
And considering this has nothing to do with "who is left" or anything else Marquette basketball related, I'll stop now.

[NersEllenson]

Fair enough.
Let's just say I'm not sure I've had a discussion with this one particular poster that hasn't gotten chippy, personal and, ultimately, futile. I'm clearly not blameless for that. Try as I might, I'll probably get involved with that sort of thing again, but for now I'm doing my best to avoid it.
And considering this has nothing to do with "who is left" or anything else Marquette basketball related, I'll stop now.

Singed.  +1.  I've been doing my best to avoid the bait of 84.  It really is an exercise in futility...

[Lennys Tap]

Fair enough.
Let's just say I'm not sure I've had a discussion with this one particular poster that hasn't gotten chippy, personal and, ultimately, futile. I'm clearly not blameless for that. Try as I might, I'll probably get involved with that sort of thing again, but for now I'm doing my best to avoid it.
And considering this has nothing to do with "who is left" or anything else Marquette basketball related, I'll stop now.

+1. It's hard to "agree to disagree" with someone who doesn't fight fair (takes things out of context, twists or misrepresents your opinions, etc.).

[chapman]

Fair enough.
Let's just say I'm not sure I've had a discussion with this one particular poster that hasn't gotten chippy, personal and, ultimately, futile. I'm clearly not blameless for that. Try as I might, I'll probably get involved with that sort of thing again, but for now I'm doing my best to avoid it.
And considering this has nothing to do with "who is left" or anything else Marquette basketball related, I'll stop now.

Singed.  +1.  I've been doing my best to avoid the bait of 84.  It really is an exercise in futility...

+1. It's hard to "agree to disagree" with someone who doesn't fight fair (takes things out of context, twists or misrepresents your opinions, etc.).

Might I suggest:



Sometimes I'm convinced I'd click even if it brought me to a screen that made me put in my credit card info and charged $9.95.

[Strokin 3s]

Not what he said. 

Actually it was what he said.  Reading comprehension here.  "I think Buzz will probably whiff on a lot of the names we are hearing".

So if Buzz signs one of the players we are hearing of did he by definition then miss on a lot?  We have heard a lot of names.  Buzz recruits many more that we haven't heard of I am sure they will be quality players.  But to say he will whiff on a lot that we are hearing of is to have your head buried in the sand.

[HoopsMalone]

Actually it was what he said.  Reading comprehension here.  "I think Buzz will probably whiff on a lot of the names we are hearing".

So if Buzz signs one of the players we are hearing of did he by definition then miss on a lot?  We have heard a lot of names.  Buzz recruits many more that we haven't heard of I am sure they will be quality players.  But to say he will whiff on a lot that we are hearing of is to have your head buried in the sand.

He just isn't confident in the names talked about frequently on the board like Faust, Shaw, Miller.  I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish by picking apart what he said and giving it some meaning that isn't there. 

[Henry Sugar]

Actually it was what he said.  Reading comprehension here.  "I think Buzz will probably whiff on a lot of the names we are hearing".

So if Buzz signs one of the players we are hearing of did he by definition then miss on a lot?  We have heard a lot of names.  Buzz recruits many more that we haven't heard of I am sure they will be quality players.  But to say he will whiff on a lot that we are hearing of is to have your head buried in the sand.

Are you trying to pick a fight about semantics?  I already clarified this yesterday.

"To be explicit, I don't expect us to get a commitment from Faust, Shaw, or Hood.  I'm still not worried even if we don't."

[Golden Avalanche]

Kilicli and Jennings are centers, not forwards.  Pepper is a shooting guard, not a forward. 

That's a playing a bit loose with the facts...

Bryant was a 3-star prospect that made a grand total of one Top 100 list, if that's well regarded then so was Karon Bradley.  Additionally, Mazzulla was not the starting PG when Bryant committed to WVU.  The starter that year was Darris Nichols, a senior, and Bryant was recruited with the opportunity to win the starting job.  Also, Cottrill is 2010, Bryant was 2008, that's not successive classes. 

Jennings is a forward. Pepper is as much a guard as Hayward was a center. This will just be semantics since the 2/3 have become blurred over the last decade but Pepper will line up along the backcourt, not in the backcourt. You call him a wing guard, I'll call him a wing forward. Same deal.

Bryant was well regarded out here. From St. Ray's in the city, most anyone with a brain who follows NYC hoops knew he was one of the best prospects in the northeast. Again, these rankings are notorious for their irrelevance. Sorry for stating Mazzulla was the starter. I should have just left it that he had two years left. I didn't write Cottrill came back to back with Bryant. I wrote that Cottrill was brought in only to be followed by two highly regarded PGs.

This is a language discussion that bypasses the main point: Huggins is an elite recruiter who can stack talent regardless of what was brought in previously. That's the excuse that is bullshit for MU. And today, Huggy Bear adds another forward/wing forward/wing guard (whatever the hell you want to term him) in Keaton Miles. Huggins' week blows away anything we've seen since McNeal/James.

[NersEllenson]

This is a language discussion that bypasses the main point: Huggins is an elite recruiter who can stack talent regardless of what was brought in previously. That's the excuse that is bullcrap for MU. And today, Huggy Bear adds another forward/wing forward/wing guard (whatever the hell you want to term him) in Keaton Miles. Huggins' week blows away anything we've seen since McNeal/James.

Gonna have to disagree with you here Lanche - Huggins landed the 4th rated class in 2008 per ESPN with Ebanks, Jones and Dar Tucker..but WVU was not rated in the top 25 in 2009 or 2010.  Now for the 2011 class he has them rated 10th.  As you say he is an elite recruiter..this just points to the fact it IS very hard to string together back to back to back classes when your jersey doesn't say UNC, Duke, Kentucky or Kansas.

Huggins also has his name, and long career going for him..plus he generally doesn't worry about the academic progress of his recruits, and thereby every recruit is in play for him, whereas Buzz does do a little bit of weeding out.  I have no qualms about MU's recruiting under Buzz..best its been since the days of Al..2009 class rated 14th, 2010 class rated 17th, and he's at least landed us one Top 100 kid this year in Juan Anderson.

[Marquette84]

Fair enough.
Let's just say I'm not sure I've had a discussion with this one particular poster that hasn't gotten chippy, personal and, ultimately, futile. I'm clearly not blameless for that. Try as I might, I'll probably get involved with that sort of thing again, but for now I'm doing my best to avoid it.
And considering this has nothing to do with "who is left" or anything else Marquette basketball related, I'll stop now.

And I'm not blameless either, but let's not ignore what happened in this case.

My first post pointed out that regardless of whether we use Chico's measure (on court performance) or 2002's argument (HS rankings), recruiting was arguably better in the 2006-2008 period than the years immedeaetly preceding:
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21605.msg234758#msg234758


There was nothing in my post that particularly "chippy" or "personal."  I don't even think there was anything taken out of context.  I cited two posters--both of whom agreed (with different basis) our later recruiting was better than earlier.  I questioned you for using one of those two to refute the other, given that they both had the same conclusion.

The same cannot be said for your reply.  Virtually every paragraph of your response included some sort of personal insult.   If your only argument is sarcasm and insults, no wonder you think the debate is futile. 
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21605.msg234767#msg234767

I believe that you knew that your initial posts weren't written clearly enough  because you went back and edited one of them to clarify. I hadn't seen that edit when I was writing my post.  It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that if you had included that clarity in your initial post, I wouldn't have even made my initial post.

And then, even when I did try and bring the argument back to a fact-based argument that countered several of your logical flaws, straw men, and errors in your argument (and, more importantly, didn't attack you personally), you completely ignored it:
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21605.msg234926#msg234926

Given the sarcastic, personal, snide, and even "chippy" manner in which you informed me that you believed using rankings to judge recruiting was silly and foolish, you bet I was going to call you out when you the exact opposite argument.

But here's my offer--and I'm completely sincere on this:

I'm willing to let bygones be bygones.  I'd love to go back and engage on a fact-based and non-personal basis to both this thread and the one from earlier this month.

• Explain to me--with out getting chippy--how you reconcile using rankings in this thread after saying you thought they were foolish and silly in the last thread.  Its not a futile argument to ask you about this seemingly opposite argument
• Go back to my last post in the other thread and find a flaw in each the four points that rebutted your argument on Wade.  Do you concede any of them?  All of them?
• Go back to the other thread and either agree that you were incorrect on the 2003 recruiting class being influenced by the Big East announcement, or come up with a logical explanation as to how players who signed LOIs in Nov 2002 or May 2003 would be influenced by our Big East announcement made in November of 2003.
• Instead of accusing me of twisting your words, how about considering the notion that you weren't clear enough in your initial communications?  Obviously you felt that you needed to post a clarification.  Why do you insist I knew what you meant before you wrote it.
  

I am absolutely sincere on this--I think we can disagree without the nastiness.  Chicos and I disagree on issues ranging from the nickname to whether or not we should have hired Buzz--and yet we never get into the same sort of name calling or sarcasm or "chippiness" that you inserted into that thread back on October 8th.

So how about it?  I'm extending the olive branch here--do you think you can stop with the personal attacks? 

Balls in your court.

[SalsaMan]

And I'm not blameless either, but let's not ignore what happened in this case.My first post pointed out that regardless of whether we use Chico's measure (on court performance) or 2002's argument (HS rankings), recruiting was arguably better in the 2006-2008 period than the years immedeaetly preceding:http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21605.msg234758#msg234758There was nothing in my post that particularly "chippy" or "personal."  I don't even think there was anything taken out of context.  I cited two posters--both of whom agreed (with different basis) our later recruiting was better than earlier.  I questioned you for using one of those two to refute the other, given that they both had the same conclusion.The same cannot be said for your reply.  Virtually every paragraph of your response included some sort of personal insult.   If your only argument is sarcasm and insults, no wonder you think the debate isfutile. I believe that you knew that your initial posts weren't written clearly enough  because you went back and edited one of them to clarify. I hadn't seen that edit when I was writing my post.  It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that if you had included that clarity in your initial post, I wouldn't have even made my initial post. And then, even when I did try and bring the argument back to a fact-based argument that countered several of your logical flaws, straw men, and errors in your argument (and, more importantly, didn't attack you personally), you completely ignored it:[url=http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21605.msg234926#msg234926]http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21605.msg234926#msg234926Given the sarcastic, personal, snide, and even "chippy" manner in which you informed me that you believed using rankings to judge recruiting was silly and foolish, you bet I was going to call you out when you the exact opposite argument.But here's my offer--and I'm completely sincere on this:I'm willing to let bygones be bygones.  I'd love to go back and engage on a fact-based and non-personal basis to both this thread and the one from earlier this month.

• Explain to me--with out getting chippy--how you reconcile using rankings in this thread after saying you thought they were foolish and silly in the last thread.  Its not a futile argument to ask you about this seemingly opposite argument
• Go back to my last post in the other thread and find a flaw in each the four points that rebutted your argument on Wade.  Do you concede any of them?  All of them?
• Go back to the other thread and either agree that you were incorrect on the 2003 recruiting class being influenced by the Big East announcement, or come up with a logical explanation as to how players who signed LOIs in Nov 2002 or May 2003 would be influenced by our Big East announcement made in November of 2003.
• Instead of accusing me of twisting your words, how about considering the notion that you weren't clear enough in your initial communications?  Obviously you felt that you needed to post a clarification.  Why do you insist I knew what you meant before you wrote it.
  

I am absolutely sincere on this--I think we can disagree without the nastiness.  Chicos and I disagree on issues ranging from the nickname to whether or not we should have hired Buzz--and yet we never get into the same sort of name calling or sarcasm or "chippiness" that you inserted into that thread back on October 8th.

So how about it?  I'm extending the olive branch here--do you think you can stop with the personal attacks? 

Balls in your court.

Unbelieveable

[Marquette84]

+1. It's hard to "agree to disagree" with someone who doesn't fight fair (takes things out of context, twists or misrepresents your opinions, etc.).

The problem with you, Lenny, is you think its unfair or misrepresenting your opinion if I merely point out an inconsistency between two of your statements, or one of your statements and a known fact.

Meanwhile, virtually every one of your posts to me includes some sort of personal attack.  Accusations of conspiratorial agendas.  Straw man arguments.  Changes of subject. And the very misrepresentations and unfair arguments you accuse me of making.

Let's take, for example, your vehement opposition to my statement that we had more talent this past season than we had in 2004.  As part of my justification, I cited Butler's Juco AA status and performance his first year at MU, where he was one of the best rated offensive players in the Big East and in Division 1.   You countered by citing Butler's high school ranking.  

And you get equally mad when I cite what appear to be your completely inconsistent statements.  You claim that Buzz is a much better recruiter than Crean.  Then you turn around and claim that Crean's least talented team in 2004 had more talent than any of Buzz's teams.  Pointing out this obvious inconsistency is not an agenda, not unfair, not taking anything out of context, or not misrepresenting anything.  

Meanwhile, I get called for some "agenda" for pointing out that Buzz hasn't surpassed 5th place in the Big East or gotten past the first weekend of the NCAA--therefore, I don't see that he has surpassed Crean's performance yet.  And I question how you can claim that he has.  5th place in the Big Easts was where Crean brought us.  1st and 2nd round NCAA exits are what Crean gave us.  

For some reason, you think its an insult if I say that Buzz has done a great job to continue the level of success we enjoyed under Crean.  

Nonetheless, Lenny, I'll extend the same olive branch to you. If you can avoid the wild accusations of agendas, and keep the debates fact-based, I'd be happy to engage with you.  I won't promise to agree with you, and I will continue to call you on any inconsistencies.

[SalsaMan]

The problem with you, Lenny, is you think its unfair or misrepresenting your opinion if I merely point out an inconsistency between two of your statements, or one of your statements and a known fact.Meanwhile, virtually every one of your posts to me includes some sort of personal attack.  Accusations of conspiratorial agendas.  Straw man arguments.  Changes of subject. And the very misrepresentations and unfair arguments you accuse me of making.Let's take, for example, your vehement opposition to my statement that we had more talent this past season than we had in 2004.  As part of my justification, I cited Butler's Juco AA status and performance his first year at MU, where he was one of the best rated offensive players in the Big East and in Division 1.   You countered by citing Butler's high school ranking.  And you get equally mad when I cite what appear to be your completely inconsistent statements.  You claim that Buzz is a much better recruiter than Crean.  Then you turn around and claim that Crean's least talented team in 2004 had more talent than any of Buzz's teams.  Pointing out this obvious inconsistency is not an agenda, not unfair, not taking anything out of context, or not misrepresenting anything.   Meanwhile, I get called for some "agenda" for pointing out that Buzz hasn't surpassed 5th place in the Big East or gotten past the first weekend of the NCAA--therefore, I don't see that he has surpassed Crean's performance yet.  And I question how you can claim that he has.  5th place in the Big Easts was where Crean brought us.  1st and 2nd round NCAA exits are what Crean gave us.  For some reason, you think its an insult if I say that Buzz has done a great job to continue the level of success we enjoyed under Crean.   Nonetheless, Lenny, I'll extend the same olive branch to you. If you can avoid the wild accusations of agendas, and keep the debates fact-based, I'd be happy to engage with you.  I won't promise to agree with you, and I will continue to call you on any inconsistencies.

Joanie tells it like it is, all the while extending the olive branch to her sworn enemies. Joanie 84 - the Le Duc Tho of MU Scoop!