ESPNU's The Experts to discuss Marquette next

[GGGG]

Again, if Buzz doesn't punish them, none of this comes up. In other words, you are better off not disciplining your players. What a great message to send to college coaches. Don't try to instill discipline, because if you do, it will just subject you to scrutiny.

This is exactly what I think.  I mean, they broke rules *internal* to the program right?  Certainly not the law....certainly not NCAA rules...  So how do these people know what the rules are?  How do they know what the consequences are?  Hell, they don't even know what they did!

It very well could be that Buzz has said "If you do x, you will get benched for half of a game."  Then the players did x...and they faced the punishment that HIS rules called for.

Very odd criticism.  It would be like me telling my neighbor that I sent my kids to their rooms for 30 minutes for something they did...but never disclosed exactly what they did.  Only to have my neighbors say "Who only sends their kids to their rooms for 30 minutes?  Kids must be sent to their room for one hour increments."

[Spotcheck Billy]

You actually can play the game with only 5 players eligible. If one fouls out, you only have four on the court.  It happened to MU in the NIT in the 80's against Indiana when we only had 4 players on the court at the end of the game due to fouls.

very true but who wants to risk going down that hole on the road in the 1st half?

[Marqevans]

I know it's semantics, but if Buzz labels it as a "benched" instead of "suspended" we're not having this discussion.

Then again, this is a stupid discussion that we shouldn't have to be having anyway.  Buzz can discipline his team however he likes and Andy Katz can deal with it.

That is it in a nutshell!  Why can't I bench a player at my descretion for half a game? These "talking heads" having nothing else to talk about.

[CTWarrior]

I don't get it at all.  How can anybody discuss whether or not the punishment fits the crime when they don't know what the crime is?  It boggles my mind.

+1,000,000.  

Plus, I'm guessing that whatever the transgression was, 98% of D-1 coaches wouldn't use game punishment at all.  

[TJ]

This is exactly what I think.  I mean, they broke rules *internal* to the program right?  Certainly not the law....certainly not NCAA rules...  So how do these people know what the rules are?  How do they know what the consequences are?  Hell, they don't even know what they did!

It very well could be that Buzz has said "If you do x, you will get benched for half of a game."  Then the players did x...and they faced the punishment that HIS rules called for.

Very odd criticism.  It would be like me telling my neighbor that I sent my kids to their rooms for 30 minutes for something they did...but never disclosed exactly what they did.  Only to have my neighbors say "Who only sends their kids to their rooms for 30 minutes?  Kids must be sent to their room for one hour increments."

I agree with this.  While I don't understand why, I believe the pundits are getting tripped up on the word "suspension" and taking it to mean that it must have been something more serious than it really was.

[lab_warrior]

First, Katz rips Buzz for only suspending the 4 players for only a half.
Miles Simon says "he didn't get it."  The players should have been out for the entire game, not just a half.
Paul Biancardi says it was a minor violation but called the half suspensions "strange."
Katz then compares MU's situation to Alabama's and says it pales in comparison.
Joe Lunardi finally defends Buzz and says 'we don't know what the transgressions were.'
Adrian Branch says Buzz runs a clean program & earned the right to suspend players as he sees fit.

Then they discussed the dance.
Paul B says he has a problem with it and Buzz should have done the dance in the locker room.
Simon says he's OK with Buzz dancing.
Lunardi liked the dance too.

As for Marquette's tourney chances:
Lunardi says Marquette could be a #2 seed if they win out.  Right now between 8 & 9 on S-curve.

So, to summarize: Andy Katz, Miles Simon, Adrian Branch, Paul Biancardi, and Joe Lunardi engaged in an hour long circle jerk, with some commercial breaks.  Good God, I am sorry you had to watch that.  A cage of primates hurling their own feces at each other may have been more informative.

Katz is comparing nothing he knows to nothing he knows. 

This could basically describe everything Katz does at ESPN.  And we still have his bulls*** rumor-gasming to deal with  in the offseason, where he'll be wrong about Buzz being considered/hired at "University X" for the millionth time.

[96warrior]

Did Buzz ever use the word suspension himself? For all we know, the official announcement from Buzz's staff was that "three players are sitting out the first half, one player is sitting out the second half" and then the media and whoever is doing the typing for the screenshots for TV used "suspensions".

Sultan, your analogy is spot on.

[AlumKCof93]

If MU loses the game, how would that change this conversation?  Instead of being criticized by certain media members for being too soft, he would be getting praised for sticking to his rules and putting that over his desire to win.  Wtihout knowing the story of what occurred that lead to the suspensions, I don't know how anyone can truly judge the punishment.  But Buzz did hand down a fairly stiff penalty prior to a critical game and shouldn't be criticized because Crowder bailed the team out.  

[The Equalizer]

very true but who wants to risk going down that hole on the road in the 1st half?

Someone who wants to avoid sending the impression to ESPN that winning is more important than punishment.

Before anyone jerks their knee, I'm not arguing that I thought Buzz was wrong. He can dole out the suspensions any way he wants. I'm just looking at how someone outside of MU might view the situation (or dare I say how we would view the situation of any other coach tried the same thing against us).

If our team rule is that a player gets punished for one-half game for that particular rule violation, delaying the punishment for one player just to avoid having no subs avaialble is going to look bad. Not only that, but it looks like the criteria to select the one player for delayed suspension was based on ensuring the best players were available for a 2nd half comeback.

Look, Buzz can do it whatever way he wants--but I can also see where the announcers are coming from.

[StillAWarrior]

If our team rule is that a player gets punished for one-half game for that particular rule violation, delaying the punishment for one player just to avoid having no subs avaialble is going to look bad. Not only that, but it looks like the criteria to select the one player for delayed suspension was based on ensuring the best players were available for a 2nd half comeback.

I can definitely see how people would think that, and it might be right.  My first thought was that he let Mayo have the start since he was back at home and had lots of friends/family in attendance.  Who knows?

[Scooter22]

The talking heads have to have something to talk about.  Logically, it's ridiculous to criticize a 1/2 game suspension without knowing what rules were violated and what penalties have been associated with that violation.  Why is one game the gold standard of suspensions?

Buzz could have suspended all four for the entire game, which would have left us with 5 players.  We probably would have lost (but I'm not conceding it).  He's the coach - let him run the program.

Regarding the dance - it was in bad form, he apologized, end of story.  That's why most teams don't play their song when they lose.    

[TJ]

I can definitely see how people would think that, and it might be right.  My first thought was that he let Mayo have the start since he was back at home and had lots of friends/family in attendance.  Who knows?

He didn't want three guys used to less than 10 minutes a game to be forced to play the entire 20 minute first half.  He didn't want to put the team in a situation where an injury meant either playing with 4 or playing a guy being punished.  Given all this, he chose to make the starters sit out the first half as a punishment of "not starting".  He didn't want to punish the rest of the team and leave them with little chance of winning over a minor infraction by 4 players.  And so on...

[Goose]

I thought the suspensions were silly after the fact. We are deep into the season and think if only minor infractions it could be handled differently. If Georegtown or ND had similar suspensions I would not believe the minor infraction line.

This goes back to my comment of Buzz and program being watched differently this year. I think Buzz is doing to be cute, and yes coaches get pissed at their bosses, or he is being extra careful. Suspensions for any reason always look bad to the outside world because we all believe the worst today.

It is very strange to me that we have the sudden rash of issues this year and I am a fan. I cannot fault the talking heads for discussing it, it looks fishy on the surface. Buzz is running the program his way and I respect that, but sometimes I think these coaches make emotional decisions to one up their bosses. No need to hold guys for minor infractions this deep in the year.

[MU82]

If MU loses the game, how would that change this conversation?  Instead of being criticized by certain media members for being too soft, he would be getting praised for sticking to his rules and putting that over his desire to win.  Wtihout knowing the story of what occurred that lead to the suspensions, I don't know how anyone can truly judge the punishment.  But Buzz did hand down a fairly stiff penalty prior to a critical game and shouldn't be criticized because Crowder bailed the team out.  

Well, for one thing, if MU loses the game a lot of people on this board might not be defending Buzz so fervently!

[Warriors10]

To go along with everybody, Katz shouldn't talk about stuff he doesn't know about; But hey, he's made a living on ESPN talking about stuff he knows nothing about...

[The Process]

To go along with everybody, Katz shouldn't talk about stuff he doesn't know about; But hey, he's made a living on ESPN talking about stuff he knows nothing about...

ESPN makes a living talking about stuff they know nothing about...

[Ellenson Guerrero]

ESPN makes a living talking about stuff they know nothing about...

In Katz defense, who knows if he had a producer in his ear telling him what position to take on this issue. I think it is pretty common for these minor story discussions to be scripted to ensure there is actually some level of debate. Its pretty much Skip Bayless's job to come out and take whatever contrarian position the production staff can think up.

[The Process]

In Katz defense, who knows if he had a producer in his ear telling him what position to take on this issue. I think it is pretty common for these minor story discussions to be scripted to ensure there is actually some level of debate. Its pretty much Skip Bayless's job to come out and take whatever contrarian position the production staff can think up.

Proving my point about ESPN making a living talking about things they know nothing about 

[MU82]

In Katz defense, who knows if he had a producer in his ear telling him what position to take on this issue. I think it is pretty common for these minor story discussions to be scripted to ensure there is actually some level of debate. Its pretty much Skip Bayless's job to come out and take whatever contrarian position the production staff can think up.

I doubt Katz, a "real" journalist before he became a TV yakker, wouldn't let a producer tell him what position to take. And if he did, that would be no defense at all.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

I doubt Katz, a "real" journalist before he became a TV yakker, wouldn't let a producer tell him what position to take. And if he did, that would be no defense at all.

Is it annoying that "journalists" do this on TV all the time? Yes. Is it reality? Yes. Would I do it too if ESPN paid me a six figure salary to talk basketball? In a heartbeat.

[MUFC9295]

In Katz defense, who knows if he had a producer in his ear telling him what position to take on this issue. I think it is pretty common for these minor story discussions to be scripted to ensure there is actually some level of debate. Its pretty much Skip Bayless's job to come out and take whatever contrarian position the production staff can think up.

+1!!!  Finally.

Han't anyone watched TV before?  It doesn't make for a show if everyone knows the facts, recites the facts, and agrees on the facts.  Remember Comp 101 at school - dilectic something or other - where you take opposing opinions.  That's all it is here.  Katz could give a shite.  For that matter, Lunardi doesn't care either.  They're just reading copy.