Here We Go Again ... Breathless Media Reports That Buzz Is Leaving For Texas A&M

[4everwarriors]

For the record, my original post described Crean as a donkey's bottom oriface, and not as a "pretty boy."

[NersEllenson]

Where do you get 16 years from?  2003 to 2011 is just 8 years.  We did have to go through the Sweet 16 en route to the Final Four.
This is a nice throwaway statement.  I'd like to dig one layer deeper:

Last year we finished tied with Louisville and ahead of Cincy, St. Johns and Notre Dame.  None of these teams were ranked in the final AP poll last year, and we had a combined 4-1 record against them.

This year, those same four teams became six ranked games on this year's schedule, and our record against them was just 1-5.

So as I see it, it wasn't our choice to simply schedule more ranked teams.  As I see it, our conference opponents improved themselves more than we did--going from unranked to ranked and passing us in the standings.

When I wrote our talent took us to our SECOND Sweet 16 in 16 years...that included the 2003 team's Sweet 16 appearance.  But I was aware that to advance to a Final Four you did need to be a Sweet 16 team - but thanks for the clarification on that anyway.

And you other arugument is just ridiculous...that we went 4-1 against teams that were unranked in 2010, but only went 1-5 against those same teams..this year...so that must imply that we regressed as a team last season??  Well no two teams are the same from year to year.  St. John's returned more 4-year program guys than any team in the conference.  MU returned its fewest years of D-1 experience in any of Buzz's 3 years at MU.  Pitino and Brey have been at their xchools for 10+ years, Cronin 5.  Far from apples to apples situations/roster complexion.  But again...anything you can do to discredit the job Buzz has done and this year's Sweet 16.  Pathetic.

[Lennys Tap]

I didn't see it as a failure or underachievement that we beat Uconn.  
I see it as a failure or underachievement that we could beat UConn but couldn't beat Seton Hall.

BTW, I think UConn lost too many games given their talent as well.  And every UConn fan I've spoken with has agreed with me on that point.  They don't view it as a "knock" on their coach.  They have the same frustration.

So I answer your foolish statement and you follow up by going off on another tangent. You are simply too much.

[Marquette84]

And you other arugument is just ridiculous...that we went 4-1 against teams that were unranked in 2010, but only went 1-5 against those same teams..this year...so that must imply that we regressed as a team last season??  Well no two teams are the same from year to year.  St. John's returned more 4-year program guys than any team in the conference.  MU returned its fewest years of D-1 experience in any of Buzz's 3 years at MU.  Pitino and Brey have been at their xchools for 10+ years, Cronin 5.  Far from apples to apples situations/roster complexion.  But again...anything you can do to discredit the job Buzz has done and this year's Sweet 16.  Pathetic.

Funny you single out D-1 experience given your previously stated preference for JUCO talent..  We clearly had more JUCO experience than in any of Buzz's 3 years at MU--which as recently as January 11th you claimed was likely more beneficial than 4-year players:

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=23496.msg260517#msg260517
"I do agree that a player being in the MU system for 4 years definitely has its benefits to both the player and program - but to me the benefit likely does not exceed the type of production we are seeing from our current crop of JUCO's as 1st, 2nd and 3rd year players."

So, even though St. Johns had more 4-year players returning, we had five 1st, 2nd and 3rd year JUCOs--four of them returning for a 2nd or 3rd year.  According to your comment from January 11th, that should be a benefit to us.

You have previously well-documented your view that there was significant improvement in the strength of the conference overall.  That improvement should have affected all teams equally--so if one team improves and one doesn't, its a reflection of the team.  

• St. Johns: Improved from 13th place in 2010 to a tie for 3rd in 2011.
• Cincinnati: Improved from a tie for 12th place to a tie for 6th place.  
• Notre Dame: Improved from a tie for 7th place to 2nd place.
• Louisville: Improved from being tied with Marquette for 5th place last year into a tie for 3rd.
  

• Marquette: Facing the exact same Big East competitive situation as the four teams above, and tied with Louisville--dropped from a 5th place tie down to a 9th place tie.

In light of the fact that St. Johns, Cincy, ND and UL all managed to find a way to improve in the very same league you claim was just to difficult or strong for us to stay even--forgive me for questioning your argument.

That leaves us back to the original question:  
Do you think that we had too much talent to lose 15 games this year (9 in conference) and finish in 9th place?

[tower912]

No.    Point guard play matters and ours was inconsistent for a lot of the year.   On-court leadership matters, see above.   I said in November before the Duke game that we could get rolled in both games and still be dangerous in March.   I said that with only 4 players with >100 minutes of D1 experience, that the team would take time to find itself.   Very little this past season, with the exception of the Louisville meltdown, was different than my expectations.    Lots of talent, but no clear leadership from the guard position, and it takes time to put all of those new pieces together.   I always felt we had Sweet 16 ability, but wasn't sure it would fit together correctly.    It was a very near thing.  

Edit:  BEast team with the second best post-season record.   

[NersEllenson]

84 - You are impossible to debate with.  My comment about JUCO's was written to say they are more "in the door" ready to contribute than most freshman players MU lands.  Having 1 or 2 years of JUCO experience helps them be able to contribute more from Day 1 - which is absolutely what we HAD to have to stay competitive in the Big East.  Takeaway Jimmy, DJO, Buycks and Jae, and replace them with guys who essentially would have been a freshman (Crowder's spot), sophomores (Buycks and DJO's spot) and a junior (Jimmy's spot), and our struggles were going to be magnified.

Buzz had 1 year of head coaching experience to sell kids on the recruiting trail - and it was a losing season at New Orleans.  Pretty hard to walk in and get Top 100 kids immediately without any track record.

Now, had there never been a coaching change, and we didn't have the roster turmoil associated with that change (much like Tom Crean had to deal with at Indiana with transfers, etc upon his arrival), I would say that developing HS kids 4-years in the MU program would result in them likely being slightly better contributors by their Junio/Senior years, than the kids who went through the JUCO route...because those kids certainly aren't getting the same strength/conditioning/diet/facility access, etc...that kids get at MU.  Most all agree that you'd prefer to have 4-year program players than a roster full of JUCO transfers - and ironically, Buzz hasn't signed a JUCO in this class....just 1 transfer and 3 HS kids...I wonder why??  Maybe because his roster is in much better shape now than it was than when he arrived.

[Lennys Tap]

You have previously well-documented your view that there was significant improvement in the strength of the conference overall.  That improvement should have affected all teams equally--so if one team improves and one doesn't, its a reflection of the team.  

I've read this paragraph a couple of times trying to make some (any) sense of it. I can't because it doesn't - make sense that is. If a conference is stronger in 2010 than it was in 2009 each team should have improved equally? What? Huh?

[Marquette84]

I've read this paragraph a couple of times trying to make some (any) sense of it. I can't because it doesn't - make sense that is. If a conference is stronger in 2010 than it was in 2009 each team should have improved equally? What? Huh?

I'll simplify for you with one example:
MU and Cincy both faced the same BE opposition in both 2009 and 2010. 

Cincy improved from 12th place in 2009 to 6th place in 2010.
MU dropped from 5th place in 2009 to 9th place in 2010.

You said:
"I think that someone who fairly considers ALL the facts and not just one of them would never conclude. . . that MU took a step back last year. To the contrary, all things considered I think we had a remarkable year in 2010-11."

So let me ask you this.  When you consider the fact that Cincy was able to improve 6 places in the standings facing the same change in competitive situation we did, do you still think its remarkable to slip from 5th place to 9th?

[brewcity77]

Still going on? Is it too much just to ask people to stop arguing with 84 in here? He's completely owning the discussion and the only one who is consistently posting a solid, logical argument. No one will convince anyone of anything, and it's pretty clear that Buzz isn't leaving for Texas A&M.

[NersEllenson]

Still going on? Is it too much just to ask people to stop arguing with 84 in here? He's completely owning the discussion and the only one who is consistently posting a solid, logical argument. No one will convince anyone of anything, and it's pretty clear that Buzz isn't leaving for Texas A&M.

Really??  Wow.  Brew - Usually agree with your takes on a lot of matters - but am surprised to find that you believe 84's agenda driven posts are solid and logical...

We just saw this example of "logic" from 84:

I'll simplify for you with one example:
MU and Cincy both faced the same BE opposition in both 2009 and 2010. 

Cincy improved from 12th place in 2009 to 6th place in 2010.
MU dropped from 5th place in 2009 to 9th place in 2010.

So...essentially 84 is saying MU and Cincinnati played the exact sdame conference schedule/mirror oppenents (which did NOT happen)..and that both teams chances for "improvement" were the same yet 1 team finished 5th in 2009 and another 12th in 2009?  Seems the team who finished in 12th could improve 11 spots, whereas the team who finished 5th could only improve 4 spots.  By my logic that says Cincy had a 275% greater chance at improvement than did MU.  Am I missing something??

[Hards Alumni]

I'll simplify for you with one example:
MU and Cincy both faced the same BE opposition in both 2009 and 2010. 

Cincy improved from 12th place in 2009 to 6th place in 2010.
MU dropped from 5th place in 2009 to 9th place in 2010.

You said:
"I think that someone who fairly considers ALL the facts and not just one of them would never conclude. . . that MU took a step back last year. To the contrary, all things considered I think we had a remarkable year in 2010-11."

So let me ask you this.  When you consider the fact that Cincy was able to improve 6 places in the standings facing the same change in competitive situation we did, do you still think its remarkable to slip from 5th place to 9th?

Thanks for oversimplifying the situation.  Hilaroius, dude.

[Marquette84]

84 - You are impossible to debate with. 

My comment about JUCO's was written to say they are more "in the door" ready to contribute than most freshman players MU lands.  Having 1 or 2 years of JUCO experience helps them be able to contribute more from Day 1 - which is absolutely what we HAD to have to stay competitive in the Big East. 

Takeaway Jimmy, DJO, Buycks and Jae, and replace them with guys who essentially would have been a freshman (Crowder's spot), sophomores (Buycks and DJO's spot) and a junior (Jimmy's spot), and our struggles were going to be magnified.

Buzz had 1 year of head coaching experience to sell kids on the recruiting trail - and it was a losing season at New Orleans.  Pretty hard to walk in and get Top 100 kids immediately without any track record.

Now, had there never been a coaching change, and we didn't have the roster turmoil associated with that change (much like Tom Crean had to deal with at Indiana with transfers, etc upon his arrival), I would say that developing HS kids 4-years in the MU program would result in them likely being slightly better contributors by their Junio/Senior years, than the kids who went through the JUCO route...because those kids certainly aren't getting the same strength/conditioning/diet/facility access, etc...that kids get at MU.  Most all agree that you'd prefer to have 4-year program players than a roster full of JUCO transfers - and ironically, Buzz hasn't signed a JUCO in this class....just 1 transfer and 3 HS kids...I wonder why??  Maybe because his roster is in much better shape now than it was than when he arrived.

If I net this out, you seem to be concluding that we lost 15 games because we lacked talent this year. 

We lacked talent because Buzz is too inexperienced and and therefore not yet a good enough recruiter to stay ahead of or even with the likes of Cronin, Brey, Lavin or Pitino. 

Buzz brought in JUCOS because they're better in year 1. 

However, the downside is that because Jimmy, DJO, Buycks, Jae and Joe had less D1 experience, they are a downgrade from the 4-year players at UC, ND, UL or Cincy. 

And the fact that the 4-year talent at those schools trumps the JUCOs talent Buzz landed explains why we dropped from 5th to 9th in the standings while UC, ND, UL and Cincy all improved--even though we all faced the same improving fortunes of the Big East.

Is this pretty much it? 

[Marquette84]

Thanks for oversimplifying the situation.  Hilaroius, dude.

I'm dealing with Lenny.  My fear is that I haven't oversimplified enough yet.  We'll see.

[Hards Alumni]

I'm dealing with Lenny.  My fear is that I haven't oversimplified enough yet.  We'll see.

This made my day.

[Marquette84]

Really??  Wow.  Brew - Usually agree with your takes on a lot of matters - but am surprised to find that you believe 84's agenda driven posts are solid and logical...

We just saw this example of "logic" from 84:

I'll simplify for you with one example:
MU and Cincy both faced the same BE opposition in both 2009 and 2010. 

Cincy improved from 12th place in 2009 to 6th place in 2010.
MU dropped from 5th place in 2009 to 9th place in 2010.

So...essentially 84 is saying MU and Cincinnati played the exact sdame conference schedule/mirror oppenents (which did NOT happen)..and that both teams chances for "improvement" were the same yet 1 team finished 5th in 2009 and another 12th in 2009?  Seems the team who finished in 12th could improve 11 spots, whereas the team who finished 5th could only improve 4 spots.  By my logic that says Cincy had a 275% greater chance at improvement than did MU.  Am I missing something??

Obviously I didn't simplify enough for you.  Lets try again:

Cincy got better.
We got worse.

I have to admit, you did make one point on an imbalance I didn't consider:

Cincy got to play a declining MU team.  
We had to play an improving UC team.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I wonder is Buzz and Tom read these threads and laugh about it together.

[Pakuni]

Obviously I didn't simplify enough for you.  Lets try again:

Cincy got better.
We got worse.

I have to admit, you did make one point on an imbalance I didn't consider:

Cincy got to play a declining MU team.  
We had to play an improving UC team.

Cincy played the easier conference schedule. Its mirrors were St. John's, Georgetown (without Chris Wright for three of the four halves) and DePaul, to MU's Uconn, Notre Dame and Seton Hall.
Or, to simplify, MU's mirrors were 30-24 in conference play. Cincy's were 23-31 ... and that's being generous considering how poorly G'town played once Wright went down.

Cincy returned eight of its top nine scorers.
MU lost three of its top five scorers.

Under those circumstances, why should it surprise anyone that Cincy improved while MU took a small step back?

[Dr. Blackheart]

According to Pomeroy:

• UC had the easiset conference SOS
• MU had the 2nd hardest

http://kenpom.com/conf.php?c=BE

[ATL MU Warrior]

Cincy played the easier conference schedule. Its mirrors were St. John's, Georgetown (without Chris Wright for three of the four halves) and DePaul, to MU's Uconn, Notre Dame and Seton Hall.
Or, to simplify, MU's mirrors were 30-24 in conference play. Cincy's were 23-31 ... and that's being generous considering how poorly G'town played once Wright went down.

Cincy returned eight of its top nine scorers.
MU lost three of its top five scorers.

Under those circumstances, why should it surprise anyone that Cincy improved while MU took a small step back?

It shouldn't.  84 is once again displaying his enormous intellect and intelligence for the benefit of the board.  Thanks 84!  You make our days brighter by enabling us all to feel a whole lot better about ourselves.  You're the man!

[MuMark]

Best post of the thread right here......

Cincy played the easier conference schedule. Its mirrors were St. John's, Georgetown (without Chris Wright for three of the four halves) and DePaul, to MU's Uconn, Notre Dame and Seton Hall.
Or, to simplify, MU's mirrors were 30-24 in conference play. Cincy's were 23-31 ... and that's being generous considering how poorly G'town played once Wright went down.

Cincy returned eight of its top nine scorers.
MU lost three of its top five scorers.
Under those circumstances, why should it surprise anyone that Cincy improved while MU took a small step back?

[NersEllenson]

Cincy played the easier conference schedule. Its mirrors were St. John's, Georgetown (without Chris Wright for three of the four halves) and DePaul, to MU's Uconn, Notre Dame and Seton Hall.
Or, to simplify, MU's mirrors were 30-24 in conference play. Cincy's were 23-31 ... and that's being generous considering how poorly G'town played once Wright went down.

Cincy returned eight of its top nine scorers.
MU lost three of its top five scorers.

Under those circumstances, why should it surprise anyone that Cincy improved while MU took a small step back?

According to Pomeroy:

• UC had the easiset conference SOS
• MU had the 2nd hardest

http://kenpom.com/conf.php?c=BE

I look forward to 84's rebuttal on these facts.  Should be a fun one with even more twisting, and falsely drawn, illogical conclusions than he's already purported in this thread - anything he can do to discredit this year's team and its Sweet 16. 

[Pakuni]

I wonder is Buzz and Tom read these threads and laugh about it together.

I suspect there's not much on this or any other Internet message board they wouldn't laugh about.
Unless you think head coaches at major Division I programs cruise message boards looking for credible insight and strategies they and their assistants just can't get anywhere else.

[NersEllenson]

If I net this out, you seem to be concluding that we lost 15 games because we lacked talent this year. 

For the last freakin time - if you net everything I've said out - I said we lost 15 games because we played the most difficult schedule in MU's history.  Great opposition leads to greater chance of defeat.  Amazing logic, right??  Yet you want to sit here and continue to harp that we went from 5th place to 9th place (by stating "we faced the same conference opposition (with regard to jersey names and no other factors taken into consideration - graduations/returning starters, strength of conference schedule/mirror opponents?").  Comical.

Was MU more talented than it was in 2009-2010?  Yes.  Did it lose more regular season games than 2009-2010?  Yes?  Did it play a harder schedule with more ranked oppenents?  Yes.  Did it also win 2 NCAA tourney games, as opposed to not winning any like the 2009-2010?  Yes.

[bilsu]

In most cases our 15 losses were to more talented teams, so yes our losses ar due to having less talent. I think we play with great effort and Buzz does a good job coaching. The only stinker I see last year, was losing at Seton Hall. Given the lead we had, I do not like the Louisville loss, but they overall were the better team and they were playing at home. The interesting part of that game that I do not think anyone has pointed out, was that Louisville's run essentially started when Jennings and their freshmen center fouled out and Louisville went to a smaller line up.

[Marquette84]

Cincy played the easier conference schedule. Its mirrors were St. John's, Georgetown (without Chris Wright for three of the four halves) and DePaul, to MU's Uconn, Notre Dame and Seton Hall.

Was there a reason you made it a point to note that UC played Georgetown without Chris Wright but omitted that we played Notre Dame without Carleton Scott? 

Or, to simplify, MU's mirrors were 30-24 in conference play. Cincy's were 23-31 ...

I'll grant you that Seton Hall was better than DePaul. 

Otherwise, the record of MU's other two mirrors was 23-13, UC's was 22-14. 

You're overstating the difference in schedule strength.

and that's being generous considering how poorly G'town played once Wright went down.

Cincinnati was beating Georgetown 43-29 before Chris Wright left the game in their first matchup. 

Cincy returned eight of its top nine scorers.

Deonta Vaughn and Lance Stephenson were the #1 and #2 scorers for Cincy in 2010.  Neither returned for 2011--Vaughn graduated, Stephenson went to the NBA.

Under those circumstances, why should it surprise anyone that Cincy improved while MU took a small step back?

Because our best returning players (Butler, DJO, Buycks) outperformed UC's best returning players (Gates, Bishop, Wright) in 2010, and our recruiting class (14th in Scout, 17th in ESPN) was better than UC's recruiting class (unranked in both).