HMMM... This Game Answered a Lot

[Lennys Tap]

So the guy who says recruiting rankings don't matter to him is judging the QUALITY of a player not only by whether or not he was RSCI top 100, but where on the RSCI top 100 he landed? As if there's some massive gap between the 68th ranked player and the 81st ranked player?
Mr. Consistency.

Putting your logic to work, Kennedy Winston, Daniel Horton, Sean Dockery, Elijah Ingram and Bryan Hopkins were point guards of greater QUALITY in the class of 2002 than Deron Williams. After all, that's what the RSCI says.
That's totally irrelevant to the discussion. If your claim is that Wisconsin does more with lesser players, then kids who never actually played - or didn't play long enough to make an impact - don't belong in the discussion. The only players that matter are the ones who actually play. This shouldn't even be a matter of debate.
But again, you have an agenda.

Game, set...

[Lennys Tap]

Losing to #20 is an upset when you're #5, I'd say. As much an upset as Marquette over Syracuse or Kentucky over Ohio State. All I'm saying is that cone tourney time, Bo doesn't elevate his team. Four of the past five years they've list games they should have won. He's a regular season maestro, but when people try to say he's one of the best coaches in the country, I don't even laugh, I just shake my head in bewilderment. And he has no one to blame for the talent level but himself, so that's a completely hollow excuse. He recruited all of these players, and it's a very tough sell to say his style of play doesn't keep him from getting better recruits. They don't even need highly-rated recruits (though it's a joke if anyone really believes JPT ever seriously considered them) but rather just a few true athletes. Could Bo have recruited a Juan Anderson, a Jamil Wilson, or a DJO?

As much as you contend Buzz needs more "traditionals", Bo needs "switchables" and athletes if they ever want to take the next step. Honestly, while they are generally ahead of us in conference play, MU is way closer to actual NCAA success than UW is. And whether you want to use seeds or kenpom, that's something Bo has simply never had.

Match.

[ChicosBailBonds]

So the guy who says recruiting rankings don't matter to him is judging the QUALITY of a player not only by whether or not he was RSCI top 100, but where on the RSCI top 100 he landed? As if there's some massive gap between the 68th ranked player and the 81st ranked player?
Mr. Consistency.

Putting your logic to work, Kennedy Winston, Daniel Horton, Sean Dockery, Elijah Ingram and Bryan Hopkins were point guards of greater QUALITY in the class of 2002 than Deron Williams. After all, that's what the RSCI says.
That's totally irrelevant to the discussion. If your claim is that Wisconsin does more with lesser players, then kids who never actually played - or didn't play long enough to make an impact - don't belong in the discussion. The only players that matter are the ones who actually play. This shouldn't even be a matter of debate.
But again, you have an agenda.

I only brought up RSCI because you did originally when you went down this path a few months ago.  So your point is lame, quite frankly.   You decided several months ago to go down this path of top 100 RSCI players.  You were then trumped by the information I came up with.  I didn't start the RSCI nonsense, you did.

Would you like the original post so we can go down memory lane together again?

Ah...."didn't play long enough to make an impact"....and prey tell who decides how long that is and what the "impact" was.  Let me guess...YOU.  LOL.  Who has the agenda.  Classic.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Losing to #20 is an upset when you're #5, I'd say. As much an upset as Marquette over Syracuse or Kentucky over Ohio State. All I'm saying is that cone tourney time, Bo doesn't elevate his team. Four of the past five years they've list games they should have won. He's a regular season maestro, but when people try to say he's one of the best coaches in the country, I don't even laugh, I just shake my head in bewilderment. And he has no one to blame for the talent level but himself, so that's a completely hollow excuse. He recruited all of these players, and it's a very tough sell to say his style of play doesn't keep him from getting better recruits. They don't even need highly-rated recruits (though it's a joke if anyone really believes JPT ever seriously considered them) but rather just a few true athletes. Could Bo have recruited a Juan Anderson, a Jamil Wilson, or a DJO?

As much as you contend Buzz needs more "traditionals", Bo needs "switchables" and athletes if they ever want to take the next step. Honestly, while they are generally ahead of us in conference play, MU is way closer to actual NCAA success than UW is. And whether you want to use seeds or kenpom, that's something Bo has simply never had.

When you're #5 out of 347 playing #20 out of 347....do the statistical comparison.  The difference is so small...they're both in the 90th percentile. I think you put way too much stock in the difference between #5 and #20. 

I don't disagree with you at all about Bo needing more switchables.  If MU and UW-madison could merger their rosters, they would insanely good.  Unfortunately it seems both coaches are so stubborn on their "systems" that they each have a gaping weakness they refuse to address.  

[Goose]

Chico's--I am not so sure MU is locked into a system just yet. Buzz is reloading a rooster with kids he likes. Bo is a guy who sticks with his system and it has worked for him. I am hoping that Buzz is more flexible than Bo down the road.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chico's--I am not so sure MU is locked into a system just yet. Buzz is reloading a rooster with kids he likes. Bo is a guy who sticks with his system and it has worked for him. I am hoping that Buzz is more flexible than Bo down the road.

Lord knows I hope so as well...let's call it locked into a "philosophy" of player types.  That's what scares me.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Lol

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21880.msg239083#msg239083


"I'm calling the kid (Zeller) overhyped because I believe he, like his brothers, has been overhyped."  Buzz Williams and MU might differ.

What would Lenny say right now....game, set....

[ChicosBailBonds]

Here you go Pakuni...this is where you started going down this path with the RSCI numbers...you were presented with more complete info then and again today.  I'm sorry you don't like it, but them is the facts.  You're entitled to your opinions but not your own set of facts.  Remember when you decided to only use 2000 to 2008...because YOU have an agenda.  

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=23089.msg254661#msg254661


"Yes they do. From 2000 to 2008, MU landed eight RSCI top 100 players. Wisconsin landed nine RSCI top 100 players."
-Pakuni


Then reality had to be presented, including quality and quantity.  Again..YOU brought up the RSCI numbers, not me!

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=23089.msg254771#msg254771


And as mentioned then and again today, I don't care for the RSCI ratings but YOU brought them into the arena

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=23089.msg254994#msg254994

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=23089.msg255173#msg255173

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=23089.msg255177#msg255177

(Lenny, please...chime in with your graceful comments...ouch)  Game, set, match...indeed.

[brewcity77]

When you're #5 out of 347 playing #20 out of 347....do the statistical comparison.  The difference is so small...they're both in the 90th percentile. I think you put way too much stock in the difference between #5 and #20.

Hmm...if you put it like that, yes. But that's assuming there's equal gaps. Is the difference between the 5th best team and the 20th best team the same as the 323rd best team and the 338th best team? I don't think so. I think the gaps expand exponentially. Just my opinion.

But either way, I'm not saying it's an upset, I'm saying that they lost to a team that paper says they should have beat, and more important, saying that they have never beaten a team that they shouldn't have beat. It stands out far more that they have never beaten a team above a 5-seed and never beaten a team in the tourney that was rated higher than them by kenpom. What I'm trying to say is that Bo has never shown the capability to coach his teams to play above their level, whereas many other coaches that have played them have done exactly that.

You can't put him in the "top coaches" tier until he proves that his teams can either at least perform at their seed level (or computer ratings level, if you'd rather) and occasionally overachieve. Stevens, Izzo, and this year even Buzz did that. And more than anything, I think that Bo's tourney record points to how well he does in the regular season. When you get to the tourney every year, you're going to have some years when the pieces fall right and allow you to advance. Their large sample size virtually guarantees an Elite 8 and a few Sweet 16s. I'm pretty sure that of all the teams to have the kind of streak UW has in terms of appearances, only Pitt has fewer wins over the past decade. Yes, he gets there, but they have never overachieved and never put together a run that would be considered anything other than predictable.

One last question, would you agree that Buzz's win over 3-seed and kenpom #10 Syracuse was better than any win Bo has ever had? If not, what has he done in his 10 years of NCAA history that outdid that game?

[Pakuni]

Lol

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21880.msg239083#msg239083


"I'm calling the kid (Zeller) overhyped because I believe he, like his brothers, has been overhyped."  Buzz Williams and MU might differ.

What would Lenny say right now....game, set....

Sigh ... Zeller developed much better this year than nearly anyone expected. In that regard, I was wrong about him.
But at the time I made the statement, I was correct: he had not lived up to his expectations. In two seasons at UNC, he had averaged 7.1 ppg and 3.7 rpg. Are those typical expectations for a McDonald's AA or would you agree with me that he hadn't lived up to expectations?

Of course, what this has to do with Bo Ryan and his recruiting, I'm not sure.
I will now go in search of Chico's posts crowing about what a great hire Providence made in 2008.  

Hey ... look what I found:

"Great hire by Providence College, imagine if Marquette had put a little effort into it."

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=8690.msg71656#msg71656

"Give Providence credit, they kept swinging and all it did was land them the NCAA National Coach of the Year....wow, they sure did terrible.   Roll Eyes"

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=8694.msg71776#msg71776

"Providence just got tougher....think about it ..... PROVIDENCE hires a coach out of the midwest with a very strong basketball background.  Providence."

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=8694.msg71654#msg71654


Shall we continue with this nonsense all day? It's true, I've been wrong before. You busted me.

[Pakuni]

Here you go Pakuni...this is where you started going down this path with the RSCI numbers...you were presented with more complete info then and again today.  I'm sorry you don't like it, but them is the facts.  You're entitled to your opinions but not your own set of facts.  Remember when you decided to only use 2000 to 2008...because YOU have an agenda.  

Sorry, Chico's, but this fails to help your cause.
You've repeatedly stated that you believe rankings are meaningless. Whether or not I was the first to raise the RSCI shouldn't change that. And yet your argument here is that those rankings - the ones you call meaningless - determine the quality of a player. Whether I mentioned RSCI or not four months ago doesn't correct your inconsistency.
Once again, you're the only one in this discussion who has associated RSCI rankings with the quality of the player.

Nor does it change the facts, which you're trying to obfuscate with a bunch of red herrings.
 
And the facts remain that in the Bo Ryan era, the two teams have had the same number of RSCI top 100 players who've played enough to have an impact on a team's success.
Even if you don't like that disclaimer - even if you want to play by the inane notion that Mbakwe, Maymon and D. Williams somehow impacted their respective teams success the past nine seasons, that makes the number 11 MU to 10 UW. Hardly the "far cry" you've touted, wouldn't you say?

As for the 2000-08 thing, I thought it made sense that if we were talking about the respective teams' success in the prior decade, or at least in the Ryan era, it made sense to compare players who'd actually played in the decade. This, as opposed to including 2009 and 2010 recruits who, at best, had one year on their teams at the time.
To me, that seemed logical. Tou you, I suppose, logic dicates that Vander Blue and Jamail Jones have had greater impact on MU over that time frame than Travis Diener and Scott Merritt.
So it goes.

But as I've said, even if we go from Bo's first class to the present, the numbers are the same.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Hmm...if you put it like that, yes. But that's assuming there's equal gaps. Is the difference between the 5th best team and the 20th best team the same as the 323rd best team and the 338th best team? I don't think so. I think the gaps expand exponentially. Just my opinion.

Great question but going back and looking at it, I think it just strengthens my argument.  Pom uses a Pythagorean scoring system to rate each team.  Let's look at that 5 vs 20 again, but by the actual rating system.

They seem to be evenly distributed from team 1 to team 345.  It seems to me that his teams are distributed along those lines. 

Looking at the ratings, by the way, Wisconsin was at a .9791 while Davidson at a .9487.  Very closely bunched.

Or, in 2005 Wisconsin at a .9499 and NC State at .9412.  I mean, we're talking nearly DEAD EVEN yet the seeds say 6 beat a 10.

But either way, I'm not saying it's an upset, I'm saying that they lost to a team that paper says they should have beat, and more important, saying that they have never beaten a team that they shouldn't have beat.

Again, don't agree.  Should have beat?  Some of those games Pom would have 50-50 toss ups. 

One last question, would you agree that Buzz's win over 3-seed and kenpom #10 Syracuse was better than any win Bo has ever had? If not, what has he done in his 10 years of NCAA history that outdid that game?

Interesting question.  First, I think the quality of college basketball today is a far cry from what it was even a few years ago and definitely different than 10 years ago.  So it's tough to compare a #10 Syracuse 3 seed of 2011 vs the same seed and ranking say 7 years ago.  Teams just aren't as good.... BUT HEY, I have an AGENDA (even though just about every college basketball expert in the land says college basketball teams are not even close to as good as they have been earlier in the decade)...that was not directed at you by the way.

But using the information we have, yes, I would say that win over Syracuse is better than any win that Bo Ryan has had in the NCAA Tournament.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Sigh ... Zeller developed much better this year than nearly anyone expected. In that regard, I was wrong about him.
But at the time I made the statement, I was correct: he had not lived up to his expectations. In two seasons at UNC, he had averaged 7.1 ppg and 3.7 rpg. Are those typical expectations for a McDonald's AA or would you agree with me that he hadn't lived up to expectations?

Of course, what this has to do with Bo Ryan and his recruiting, I'm not sure.
I will now go in search of Chico's posts crowing about what a great hire Providence made in 2008.  

Hey ... look what I found:

"Great hire by Providence College, imagine if Marquette had put a little effort into it."

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=8690.msg71656#msg71656

"Give Providence credit, they kept swinging and all it did was land them the NCAA National Coach of the Year....wow, they sure did terrible.   Roll Eyes"

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=8694.msg71776#msg71776

"Providence just got tougher....think about it ..... PROVIDENCE hires a coach out of the midwest with a very strong basketball background.  Providence."

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=8694.msg71654#msg71654


Shall we continue with this nonsense all day? It's true, I've been wrong before. You busted me.

That's the best you can do...I've had some whoppers MUCH worse than that Pakuni...come on.  LOL

[ChicosBailBonds]

Sorry, Chico's, but this fails to help your cause.
You've repeatedly stated that you believe rankings are meaningless. Whether or not I was the first to raise the RSCI shouldn't change that. And yet your argument here is that those rankings - the ones you call meaningless - determine the quality of a player. Whether I mentioned RSCI or not four months ago doesn't correct your inconsistency.
Once again, you're the only one in this discussion who has associated RSCI rankings with the quality of the player.

Nor does it change the facts, which you're trying to obfuscate with a bunch of red herrings.
 
And the facts remain that in the Bo Ryan era, the two teams have had the same number of RSCI top 100 players who've played enough to have an impact on a team's success.
Even if you don't like that disclaimer - even if you want to play by the inane notion that Mbakwe, Maymon and D. Williams somehow impacted their respective teams success the past nine seasons, that makes the number 11 MU to 10 UW. Hardly the "far cry" you've touted, wouldn't you say?

As for the 2000-08 thing, I thought it made sense that if we were talking about the respective teams' success in the prior decade, or at least in the Ryan era, it made sense to compare players who'd actually played in the decade. This, as opposed to including 2009 and 2010 recruits who, at best, had one year on their teams at the time.
To me, that seemed logical. Tou you, I suppose, logic dicates that Vander Blue and Jamail Jones have had greater impact on MU over that time frame than Travis Diener and Scott Merritt.
So it goes.

But as I've said, even if we go from Bo's first class to the present, the numbers are the same.

WOW, just wow.  You seem to be saying "don't use my own words against me Chico..". 

Yes or no, is there a difference between a top 100 player in terms of quality?  In other words are some "top" players significantly better than other top 100 players?  Let's start there, shall we.  I believe this is where your greatest flaw is in this "discussion".  You brought up the RSCI stuff to try and use a system that takes some of the impartial rhetoric out of it.  I realize you don't love the system, and neither do I, but that's where you went.

Now you want to decide if someone only played for awhile before they left, they don't count.  OK.

Now you don't want to acknowledge that using that SAME SYSTEM THAT YOU BROUGHT UP shows that MU's players were rated SIGNIFICANTLY higher in that list than UW's.  Of UW's 10 players (using your new numbers) 60% were rated worse than 85th or another way to say it...THEY BARELY MADE THE TOP 100.  Two were ranked in the top 60. 

MU, by contrast, had only TWO players worse than 85th out of the 11 (using YOUR new numbers).  Does QUALITY not matter?  Of course it does.  How many top 60 players did MU have using this system YOU chose?  SIX.  Six for us, two for UW.  We also had a player ranked 61st. 

So, yes, I did use YOUR system of choice.  MU not only has LANDED more top 100 players...15 to 10, but KEPT more top 100 players (11 to 10) and the quality of those top 100 players (using YOUR system) destroys the quality that UW-madison has gathered.  It's not even in the same ballpark in terms of lopsided comparison.

[Blackhat]

You fellas are as crazy as a pet coon.   

[brewcity77]

Or, in 2005 Wisconsin at a .9499 and NC State at .9412.  I mean, we're talking nearly DEAD EVEN yet the seeds say 6 beat a 10.

I don't get why you keep referencing NC State. Wisconsin beat them. The only argument you have is that they were incorrectly seeded. I don't believe I argued that, making it an irrelevant point. But if you want to point out that kenpom was rated slightly better, I agree. And if that means that they would have been favorites, even it if was a 50.1/49.9 which was rounded to 50/50. Yes, it's a very close game, but the bottom line is UW would have been slight favorites, and they won. How does that strengthen your argument? It's basically reinforcing exactly what I said.

Again, don't agree.  Should have beat?  Some of those games Pom would have 50-50 toss ups.

Not Davidson. Not even close. Look at Kentucky and West Virginia this year. 15 spot difference in kenpom. Similar difference in points to UW/Davidson. Maybe not quite as stark, but Kentucky was a 65.3% favorite to win. Even if Wisconsin wouldn't have been as big of favorites, I find it hard to believe that the difference wouldn't have been 60% or more. It's farcical to suggest that a gap that big on a neutral court would have been a 50-50 toss up.

Interesting question.  First, I think the quality of college basketball today is a far cry from what it was even a few years ago and definitely different than 10 years ago.  So it's tough to compare a #10 Syracuse 3 seed of 2011 vs the same seed and ranking say 7 years ago.  Teams just aren't as good.... BUT HEY, I have an AGENDA (even though just about every college basketball expert in the land says college basketball teams are not even close to as good as they have been earlier in the decade)...that was not directed at you by the way.

But using the information we have, yes, I would say that win over Syracuse is better than any win that Bo Ryan has had in the NCAA Tournament.

Quality may be relative, but that goes both ways. Wisconsin's foes may have been better then, but so were they, and Marquette's teams today are comparably "worse" just as their opponents are. UW's best ever win against that NC State team was as a team with a 0.9499 rating against a team with a 0.9412, as you pointed out, whereas Buzz's win was as a team with a 0.8843 rating against a 0.9408. Nearly identical in terms of opponent beat, but with a much lower rated team.

And quite simply, there's no argument that can be made in favor of Bo actually coaching his team "up" at any point of his career. The only time he beat a higher seed was as a 12 against 5-seed FSU, but according to kenpom, UW was actually the favorite (rated 29 to 36). And as I pointed out, he's never beaten a team rated higher by kenpom, and 4 times has lost to a team rated lower. 50-50 or not, great coaches find ways to win 50-50 games. Bo, on the other hand, doesn't.

[Lennys Tap]

(Lenny, please...chime in with your graceful comments...ouch)  Game, set, match...indeed.

Here's my "chime". It's impossible to have a real discussion with you because you don't fight fair. On one hand, you'll say that RSCI rankings don't mean much and that there's no difference between, say, a guy rated 40th and 80th. That's when you're playing apologist for Bo the recruiter. Then you use the same numbers (and dishonestly include players never even enrolled at Marquette) to "prove" Bo the great does more with less.

Same stuff with the seeds. UW gets good seeds because they "earn" them. When they lose to lower seeds, those lower seeds didn't "earn" theirs, they were misjudged and underseeded by the SC. Marquette gets poorer seeds because they "earn" them. When they beat higher seeds it's no great accomplishment because those higher seeds were misjudged and "overseeded" by the SC.

In your "objectivity" Wisconsin's accomplishments are praised and their failures excused. Marquette's failures are harshly criticized and their accomplishments minimized and denigrated. I expect that from Badgermaniac. I don't expect that from one of ours.

[ringout]

Chicos is like my 18 year old daughter.  Never gets tired of an argument.  Doesn't matter how much logic you apply.   She'll just keep arguing as long as I do.

Brew and I have been arguing the same points with slightly different angles, using differing levels of detail in our presentations, and Chicos keeps going and going and going.  I'm tired.  I'm retiring.  Best of luck to Brew and Lenny.