Program's identity...

[Hards Alumni]

Seems to me we have no problem running off players even when we don't have classes that big, and that includes both the current regime and the previous one.  Size of class be damned.

You're right, I miss the good old days.

This is the face of college basketball, I wouldn't expect it to change.

[Marquette84]

And? When you have wildly unbalanced classes like that you ride a constant rollercoaster between no upperclassmen to lead and no underclassmen in the pipeline. St. John's is having a very good year being led by 8 or 9 seniors, but suffered for 3 years getting here. And their 9 man freshman class next year will be awesome, but unless Lavin runs several of them off the same thing will happen again. 

Why would you worry about a big freshman class?  40% of freshman transfer. That's what Buzz says, anyway.

So if you bring in 6 frosh last year and 6 more this year, it means you'd have the chance to replace five of them over the next two seasons anyway--only 7 of the 12 would make it to their junior and senior year based on Buzz's cited 40% figure.  

Attempting to bring in Juco's to "balance" classes means that you're always have to "re-balance" because you have to replace not only the two-year JUCOs every two years, but the 40% of the frosh and sophs who leave.

[4everwarriors]

No question about it...then again, I recall seeing on numerous threads here that JFB was going to make the NBA after this year.  I laughed then, I still laugh now at that.

So, have we got a bet this year or not?

[ChicosBailBonds]

So, have we got a bet this year or not?

Nah, I only bet on Crean's recruits to the NBA...don't you know that? 

[NersEllenson]

I said the Big East was down last year AND it was a very soft bubble.  Incredibly, the bubble is even softer this year, which is hard to imagine.  The Big East is certainly better this year but is ranked between 1 and 2 depending on the rating system.  Ken Pom has Big East #2 for example.  http://www.kenpom.com/conf.php?c=BE

Of course, what doesn't fall in line for you is how we've done OUT OF CONFERENCE (let's take the Big East out of the equation)....we lost to a Gonzaga team that is hanging on for dear life, barely beat UW-Milwaukee during a stretch when they lost 5 of 7 games and 6 of 9, lost to Vanderbilt, lost to Duke, etc.  Are those bad losses?  They certainly aren't at all, well maybe the Gonzaga loss. But much like we've done in conference, we've also done the same thing out of conference.  That is, not be able to play consistently and win the games we've been accustomed to winning in the past few years.

In almost every other year in the past 5 we've had signature out of conference and conference wins.  Duke, Oklahoma State, Wisconsin, Xavier, etc, etc.  Its been our bugaboo this year, despite having all this talent. 

I only hope it's due to inexperience.  My worry is that it's tied to having great talent at certain positions but subpar talent at perhaps the most critical position in the college game.  If that's the case, you might as well have a Ferrari in your garage but no fuel anywhere to be able to drive it.

I agree about the lack of quality point guard play on this years team - definitely hurting our results.  However, if you want to debate the nonconference results - I'll propose that Duke on a neutral court is a bigger challenge than Xavier or Michigan were last year.  Let's keep in mind Duke was the defending national champion (unliike when they were "struggling in the 2004-2008 years - by their standards.)  I'd also submit that playin  AT Vanderbilt - where Vandy wins roughly 91% of their games - has been one of the stiffest non-conference tests MU has scheduled in awhile.

Also, I believe in years past we've lost to a South dakota State claiber team in the non-conference portion of the season.  Just depends on how you want to look at it - as Buzz said - his first team had 18 years D1 experience, 2nd team 12 years D1 experience, this years team had 9 years of D1 experience coming into the season.  Clearly experience at the D1 level counts for something - which is why we have some mid-major teams advance to Sweet 16's every year - and beyond.  Here's where you want to go interject your JUCO argument..but due to the coaching change  - MU was able to sustain a decent level of play - by signing a Jimmy B and DJO and Buycks..

[Marquette84]

I agree about the lack of quality point guard play on this years team - definitely hurting our results.  However, if you want to debate the nonconference results - I'll propose that Duke on a neutral court is a bigger challenge than Xavier or Michigan were last year.  Let's keep in mind Duke was the defending national champion (unliike when they were "struggling in the 2004-2008 years - by their standards.)  I'd also submit that playin  AT Vanderbilt - where Vandy wins roughly 91% of their games - has been one of the stiffest non-conference tests MU has scheduled in awhile.

We play at Wisconsin every other year, and the Kohl is arguably a tougher venue than Vanderbilt.

Also, I believe in years past we've lost to a South dakota State claiber team in the non-conference portion of the season.  Just depends on how you want to look at it - as Buzz said - his first team had 18 years D1 experience, 2nd team 12 years D1 experience, this years team had 9 years of D1 experience coming into the season.  Clearly experience at the D1 level counts for something - which is why we have some mid-major teams advance to Sweet 16's every year - and beyond.  Here's where you want to go interject your JUCO argument..but due to the coaching change  - MU was able to sustain a decent level of play - by signing a Jimmy B and DJO and Buycks..

MU could have sustained that level of play by signing freshmen of equal quality.

Look, Buzz was credited with finding and recruiting Acie Law to A&M and Tyshawn Taylor to MU.  So he's clearly capable of identifying and recruiting players who are good enough to start as a frosh at a high-major level.

[NersEllenson]

We play at Wisconsin every other year, and the Kohl is arguably a tougher venue than Vanderbilt.


MU could have sustained that level of play by signing freshmen of equal quality.

Look, Buzz was credited with finding and recruiting Acie Law to A&M and Tyshawn Taylor to MU.  So he's clearly capable of identifying and recruiting players who are good enough to start as a frosh at a high-major level.

It really is pointless debating with you.  Look - NO coach bats 100% of the recruits they sign.  You win some/lose some with regard to Top 100 kids - being immediate contributors.  Buzz has had 2 years (basically to recruit high school kids - with this upcoming class being his 3rd)  2009 and 2010.  Early returns don't look great on Cadougan and Williams, and maybe even Blue - but let's not jump the gun and conclude Blue, Cadougan, Jones, Blue, Gardner, Otule won't evolve into major contributors.

[Marquette84]

It really is pointless debating with you.  Look - NO coach bats 100% of the recruits they sign.  You win some/lose some with regard to Top 100 kids - being immediate contributors.  Buzz has had 2 years (basically to recruit high school kids - with this upcoming class being his 3rd)  2009 and 2010.  Early returns don't look great on Cadougan and Williams, and maybe even Blue - but let's not jump the gun and conclude Blue, Cadougan, Jones, Blue, Gardner, Otule won't evolve into major contributors.

I understand that no coach bats 100%.  But that goes for JUCOs and HS players alike.

In fact, you were one of the biggest supporters of the belief that one can't count on JUCOs in their first year in D1.  You're the one who thought that 12th place was a reasonable finish because of the number of JUCOs without much D1 experience.

In my opinion, a top 100 frosh is no less likely to turn in a performance like DJO or Buycks did last year.  We've seen it from the Amigos, from Hayward, from Diener, from Mason, from Novak, and from teams across the conference, from guys like Polee at St. Johns or Lubick from Georgetown, or Melvin from DePaul.

So as I see it, your argument that we HAD to recruit JUCOs is flawed from two perspectives:
1.  based on historical performance, we could have expected just as much from true freshmen
2.  you never expected that the JUCOs would actually help us maintain that level in the first place--you are a firm believer that we overachieved.

Finally, I don't understand your excuses about "only" two or three years.  Lavin isn't making excuses about how he can't get good HS players and needs JUCOS--he simply went out and signed great HS players.  

Same with Kevin O'Neill.  He didn't need a bunch of JUCOs.  He took D-1 transfers his first year, and added 4 top 100 HS players his second.  Yeah, they didn't all work out and we saw Stewart and Brakes leave--but the core of Key, Mac, Logtermann and Curry were solid for the next 3-4 years.

And I know you don't like Crean comparisons, but he went out and got ODB, Wade, Merritt, and Sanders--not a JUCO in the bunch.  

Lavin, O'Neill and Crean didn't NEED jucos--and neither did Buzz.  It was a CHOICE.

[NersEllenson]

I understand that no coach bats 100%.  But that goes for JUCOs and HS players alike.

In fact, you were one of the biggest supporters of the belief that one can't count on JUCOs in their first year in D1.  You're the one who thought that 12th place was a reasonable finish because of the number of JUCOs without much D1 experience.

In my opinion, a top 100 frosh is no less likely to turn in a performance like DJO or Buycks did last year.  We've seen it from the Amigos, from Hayward, from Diener, from Mason, from Novak, and from teams across the conference, from guys like Polee at St. Johns or Lubick from Georgetown, or Melvin from DePaul.

So as I see it, your argument that we HAD to recruit JUCOs is flawed from two perspectives:
1.  based on historical performance, we could have expected just as much from true freshmen
2.  you never expected that the JUCOs would actually help us maintain that level in the first place--you are a firm believer that we overachieved.

Finally, I don't understand your excuses about "only" two or three years.  Lavin isn't making excuses about how he can't get good HS players and needs JUCOS--he simply went out and signed great HS players.  

Same with Kevin O'Neill.  He didn't need a bunch of JUCOs.  He took D-1 transfers his first year, and added 4 top 100 HS players his second.  Yeah, they didn't all work out and we saw Stewart and Brakes leave--but the core of Key, Mac, Logtermann and Curry were solid for the next 3-4 years.

And I know you don't like Crean comparisons, but he went out and got ODB, Wade, Merritt, and Sanders--not a JUCO in the bunch.  

Lavin, O'Neill and Crean didn't NEED jucos--and neither did Buzz.  It was a CHOICE.

So you are saying the situations Lavin, Crean and O'Neill walked into exactly mirroed what was going on at MU when Buzz arrived?  I'm going to disagree.I'v eneversupported the notion that one can't count on a JUCO in their first year - but yes, i didn't think last year's team would perform roughly the same as The Big 3's senior year - thought losing 3 of the Top 10 scorers in program history (with very little talent behind them recruited by TC on the roster when Buzz took over) - would result in a drop off from a 4th place Big East finish - maybe to 8th or 9th or 10th.

Let's not forget O'Neill and Crean weren't competing in anything CLOSE to the Big East at the time of their arrivals.  I have a strong feeling that if MU were currently in a conference like the Great Midwest or even C-USA, their record would be significantly better and by virttue of that - most fans would be pleased.

[Marquette84]

So you are saying the situations Lavin, Crean and O'Neill walked into exactly mirroed what was going on at MU when Buzz arrived? 

Buzz arguably had significant advantages over all three. 

First off, he had a year of head coaching experience--something that O'Neill and Crean both lacked.    I know you love to point out how little experience Buzz has--but lets be honest here, the day that Crean and O'Neill took over, they had less experience than Buzz.

Lavin's prior head coaching experience at UCLA was characterized by consistent underperformance, and his stint ended poorly.  Furthermore, he hadn't coached at any level for seven years before taking the St. Johns job. 

And none of the three were already recruiting for the program they took over (as Buzz was). 

I'm going to disagree.I'v eneversupported the notion that one can't count on a JUCO in their first year - but yes, i didn't think last year's team would perform roughly the same as The Big 3's senior year - thought losing 3 of the Top 10 scorers in program history (with very little talent behind them recruited by TC on the roster when Buzz took over) - would result in a drop off from a 4th place Big East finish - maybe to 8th or 9th or 10th.

Earlier in the thread you said "- MU was able to sustain a decent level of play - by signing a Jimmy B and DJO and Buycks.."

Now you're saying that you expected us to fall to 8th, 9th or 10th?

If you really expected a drop to 8th, 9th or 10th, we could have done that with Freshmen, and then have them for three more years.

Let's not forget O'Neill and Crean weren't competing in anything CLOSE to the Big East at the time of their arrivals.  I have a strong feeling that if MU were currently in a conference like the Great Midwest or even C-USA, their record would be significantly better and by virttue of that - most fans would be pleased.

Yes.  Thank you for reminding me.  Yet ANOTHER recruiting advantage for Buzz. 

[El Duderino]

The JUCO kids on the roster aren't anywhere near the problem with this team, it's the clear strength.

The problem is that highly ranked high school recruits like Junior, Vander, and E.Williams haven't been productive this season. If these guys were being productive like their recruiting rankings, the team would be better than 16-11.

For whatever reason, Buzz has done a fabulous job finding JUCO kids who have been very productive, but his best high school recruits have disappointed so far on the court at least.