What grade would you give the 2006-2007 Marquette team?

[Avenue Commons]

What grade do you give?

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

I voted for C and I think that's generous following a 6th place finish and a first round bloodbath.

[Coobeys Oil Depot]

I voted for C and I think that's generous following a 6th place finish and a first round bloodbath.

If you think that's generous why did you give them a 'C'? Shouldn't you have graded them as you saw fit?

[NavinRJohnson]

Alright, who gave the F? Show yourself.

[DoubleMU0609]

In the spirit of MU academics shouldn't we have an AB BC option?

[ToddPacker]

I gave them a B.  It was a good season, not a great one.  Of course this is all based on my expectations.  My expectations had been to make it to the second round, but when McNeal went down, I was happy to just be dancing.  After seeing SU not make it at all, it looks like it was a closer call than I would have thought.  Next year, it's sweet 16 or better or bust.  A FF would earn an A, an elite 8, would be an AB, a sweet 16 would be a B, anything less would be disappointing.  We are losing nothing of substance going into next year.  Most players make a pretty big jump between their sophomore and junior years.  Sometimes I think people around here forget that we relied heavily on underclassmen this year.  Last year's team had more leadership in the upper classes than did this one and we got significant contributions from Novak and Chapman. 

[Big Papi]

I voted for C and I think that's generous following a 6th place finish and a first round bloodbath.

Not surprised.  

Based on that rationale and taking your generousity out the window, I guess 1984 to 1992, 1995, 1997 to 2002, 2004 and 2005 must have been straight Fs.  Leaving 1983, 1993, 1996 and 2006 as what a D.  With 1994 as a B maybe.  And 2003, well, while most of us were thrilled, my guess is that you would grade that as no better than a C.  Wow. You are one tough grader.  Looks like the only way MU gets a good grade in your books would be if we changed our nickname but that would be way too petty for anyone to even think that a nickname is that significant.  
1994

[Dish]

If that's the case, PRN is a tougher grader than when Dr. Naylor was at Marquette.

[NYWarrior]

I voted for C and I think that's generous following a 6th place finish and a first round bloodbath.

Actually MU finished in a tie for 5th place.  Much like when MU finished in a tie for 4th last season with GU -- tiebreakers in MU's favor last year but not this year.   

[DoubleMU0609]

And you have to remember that our 5th place finish was with the unbalanced schedule working against us.

[Henry Sugar]

I gave them a "C", because the team finished slightly below expectations for me (see below).  Had they won on the first day, the team would have received a B.  A sweet sixteen berth would have resulted in an A.

====
Henry's Expectations from the beginning of the season:  Maintain a presence in the rankings (15-25) for most of the year.  A win on the first day of the tournament is expected, and a sweet sixteen run is possible if the draw is right.
====

[NateDoggMarq]

If that's the case, PRN is a tougher grader than when Dr. Naylor was at Marquette.

Phil Naylor is gone???

[Dish]

I heard he left a year or two ago. Someone on campus can probably verify that a lot better than I can from my cubicle, but I swear I remember that being the case.

EDIT: I am wrong, I checked MU's site, and he's on there. Did he take a sabitical maybe? I have no idea why I thought that he was gone.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Based on that rationale and taking your generousity out the window, I guess 1984 to 1992, 1995, 1997 to 2002, 2004 and 2005 must have been straight Fs.  Leaving 1983, 1993, 1996 and 2006 as what a D.  With 1994 as a B maybe.  And 2003, well, while most of us were thrilled, my guess is that you would grade that as no better than a C.  Wow. You are one tough grader.  Looks like the only way MU gets a good grade in your books would be if we changed our nickname but that would be way too petty for anyone to even think that a nickname is that significant.  
1994

Yes, of course. Since I gave this year's team a "C" it would stand to reason that I would give our Final Four team a "C."

Exactly what rationale can you use to give this team anything other than an average grade? What did they do that "stood out" as "above average?" Losing to NDSU and two other teams at home? Getting taken to OT against Idaho St.? Getting crushed in the first round of the NCAA? Horrible shooting from the floor and the free throw line? Based on expectations, this team gets an average grade. Period.

I would have to go through my notebook in order to grade all those seasons, though I do recall that both the 2004 and 2005 were damn close to F's based on some of the fanny whippings we took. Unwatchable, really. And like it or not, those teams were closer to Bob Dukiet's teams than some people want to acknowledge. I don't recall Bob getting beat by 47 points.

Last year was an A in my book. 1994 was also an A.

I will say that the 1989-90 season was a nice one. Probably a C+. Making the NIT back then was actually interesting, though losing to Penn State was not. That team overachieved, Tony Smith was absolutely phenomenal and it was kind of a fun team to watch.

You're right about one thing, MU would improve its grades in my book by restoring its nickname.

[Wade for President]

What grade do you give?

I'm a little disappointed you aren't offering the traditional MU grading system, because I would be voting a 'BC'.

[muPARTY]

I gave them a "C".  
the sophmore trio wasn't the juggernaut that was assumed.  David Cubillan was the big bright spot.  Dominic actually became a liability.  another season in which the post game was non-existent.  Ous had some good games, but was a C+ at best.  the free-throw shooting picked up at the end of the yr, but was pathetic for most of it.  they had inability to maintain leads and win the games they should have won.

Crean and Dominic shoulder much of the blame.  in DJ's case, he went away from playing to his strengths:  driving the lane and creating shots for others.  his desire to fire 3s and insist on creating his own shot from 22ft out cost the team.
and for TC, coaching FTs in the first 2/3 of the season, questionable substitutions (a problem i've seen for 3yrs now), keeping in players who were preforming (began to change at the end of the season).

[IAmMarquette]

What grade do you give?

I'm a little disappointed you aren't offering the traditional MU grading system, because I would be voting a 'BC'.

Ditto. In my system of grading, I start with an A and work down. This year's squad was docked for the following:
-Loss to NDSU (at home in our own tournament. don't care who it is. shouldn't happen)
-Losing two very winnable games to start the conference season
-The three-game conference losing streak
-The NCAA flame-out and overall late-season swoon (based strictly on record, not taking into account opponents, venues, players injured, etc)

Wouldn't call the season a disappointment overall, but I did expect more. 12-4 BE record was very much a possibility, and the NCAA performance was a bit of a letdown [/understatement]. No question this team will be better next season. Looking forward to 07-08, but in the meantime, GO BREWERS!

[Mayor McCheese]

Based on that rationale and taking your generousity out the window, I guess 1984 to 1992, 1995, 1997 to 2002, 2004 and 2005 must have been straight Fs.  Leaving 1983, 1993, 1996 and 2006 as what a D.  With 1994 as a B maybe.  And 2003, well, while most of us were thrilled, my guess is that you would grade that as no better than a C.  Wow. You are one tough grader.  Looks like the only way MU gets a good grade in your books would be if we changed our nickname but that would be way too petty for anyone to even think that a nickname is that significant.   
1994

Yes, of course. Since I gave this year's team a "C" it would stand to reason that I would give our Final Four team a "C."

Exactly what rationale can you use to give this team anything other than an average grade? What did they do that "stood out" as "above average?" Losing to NDSU and two other teams at home? Getting taken to OT against Idaho St.? Getting crushed in the first round of the NCAA? Horrible shooting from the floor and the free throw line? Based on expectations, this team gets an average grade. Period.

I would have to go through my notebook in order to grade all those seasons, though I do recall that both the 2004 and 2005 were damn close to F's based on some of the fanny whippings we took. Unwatchable, really. And like it or not, those teams were closer to Bob Dukiet's teams than some people want to acknowledge. I don't recall Bob getting beat by 47 points.

Last year was an A in my book. 1994 was also an A.

I will say that the 1989-90 season was a nice one. Probably a C+. Making the NIT back then was actually interesting, though losing to Penn State was not. That team overachieved, Tony Smith was absolutely phenomenal and it was kind of a fun team to watch.

You're right about one thing, MU would improve its grades in my book by restoring its nickname.

The rationale I would give for them receiving a B, which I gave them is this

Won the CBE Classic
Beat Louisville on the Road
Beat Pitt on the Road, and at Home
finished 10-6 in a tough conference

so they had some sidesteps in the year... show me one team that didn't?  Georgetown lost to Old Dominion, but now everyone has them slotted as the best team, every team has bad games, except for PRN's 4th grade rec team that he coaches is my guess 

[NYWarrior]

I will say that the 1989-90 season was a nice one. Probably a C+. Making the NIT back then was actually interesting, though losing to Penn State was not. That team overachieved, Tony Smith was absolutely phenomenal and it was kind of a fun team to watch.

if a season with a first-round NIT loss qualifies as a C+ while a 24-win season in the Big East (against the league's second-toughest schedule) is a C......um, that's odd odd logic.

btw, that 89-90 team did not overachieve.  Tony Smith overachieved, the team did not -- shoulda been better considering Dukiet led them to 13 wins the year before and this bunch eeked out 15 with the same players returning in a piss poor league. That is a team that was swept by Bucky, lost 2 of three games to Evansville, gakked at home to X and Virginia & threw away a win at ND.  Hardly over-achieving.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Mayor, I would add the 3 of our losses were without out best player.  We also played the 14th toughest schedule in America and the 2nd toughest Big East schedule.  24 wins is very good.  10 in conference is very good.

I gave us a B for the reasons you stated.

[Eye]

Well, I'm probably going to get crucified for this, but I voted C in the poll, and it would have been a C- had that been an option. I actually called MU's regular-season right on the button, 23-8 overall, 10-6 conference, 1-1 BET, either here or on the Scout board when that was being discussed in the first week of November. An F on the final exam drops the overall grade to a C-.

That being said, the margin between a C- and a B+ or so isn't too much, which is where the grade would have been about six weeks ago after the Rutgers game. So the grade dropped from a B+ to a C- in the last six weeks.

[DJO's Pump Fake]

The team gets an A for talent, a B for output and an F for coaching

(Dr. Naylor is still here with his awesome hat he wears around too)

[SoCalwarrior]

The team gets an A for talent, a B for output and an F for coaching

Wow, B for output and F for coaching?  Not sure that I can wrap my head around the logic of that.  So output is in no way dependant on coaching?  Please explain.

[mu_hilltopper]

OOC: Wins over TT and Duke, losses to NDSU and UW.  B-

BE: 10-6, could have been 8-8, could have been 12-4.  B+

BET: 1-1, flat out C-, grading on a curve, B

NCAA: 0-1, flat out D .. grading on a curve C-

Overall .. B-.

[DJO's Pump Fake]

The team gets an A for talent, a B for output and an F for coaching

Wow, B for output and F for coaching?  Not sure that I can wrap my head around the logic of that.  So output is in no way dependant on coaching?  Please explain.

The output the team had was dependent on their talent and the coaching job done with them was horrific.  If the coach ran an offense and had set plays for his players the output would have been greater.  The output we had was on the players being able to make something on their own, not on the terrible coaching.