Buzz Is Right,...

[tower912]

No, Buzz has been able to recruit an endless supply of mid-sized switchables.   He hasn't landed an elite big yet, but I bet if you combined Otule and Gardner's #'s you would have a pretty solid 5.   And you always want an elite PG.   Junior isn't one.  He is game and I appreciate his effort, but he simply hasn't turned into 'the man'.   MU has been spoiled at that position for a long time.    Put a Diener, Hutchings, or even James at the point for this team and it would be special.  Maybe Buzz should go back to recruiting JUCO's.   

[Goose]

Tower

Not sure if this team would be special with a much better PG but at least we would be in the neighborhood of special.

[MerrittsMustache]

Tower

Not sure if this team would be special with a much better PG but at least we would be in the neighborhood of special.

What if the PG can hit an outside shot? 

[ChicosBailBonds]

This statement is ridiculous. Unless your in the last 4 in, getting to the NCAA or going to the NIT is no different than it was 10 years ago. These teams don't compete in a vacuum. Just because there's less talent around doesn't make it easier (or harder) to be among the top 40 at large teams. Simple math.

Well, your second sentence you know isn't true because there are 68 teams now and 10 years ago there were 65.  So already it is easier. 

If you are a competent team today, you are in the discussion.  10 years ago, competent didn't get it done.  A lot of competent, average like teams now get in or are in the hunt to the very end.  The days of having to be elite, very good and excellent are mostly gone. Listen, I don't think that's necessary a bad thing.  Kids leaving early, transfers all over the place, scholarship dispersion, etc, have eliminated the great teams.  Now there are many good teams, some really good teams, but the elite teams are hard to find.  Maybe that's a better way to state it.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Buzz has been on better players in the past. Just hasn't closed the deal. This team looks a lot different with Deng, Harrison, even the dude at Maryland on it.
Don't know how much Cadougan's Achilles injury hampered his development, but clearly he lacks speed and quickness, among other point guard skills. Otule and Gardner clearly have limitations. Gotta bring better talent in at the 5 to have any shot in March.
I supported Wilson vs Newbill on every level. In hindsight, how does that look today? Truth is switchables is a synonym for whatever position the coach hasn't been able to recruit.

If they won last night, would any of the above be true?

I'm sorry, this just seems far too reactionary.

Should Michigan recruit better players after they were exposed at UW?

This is college hoops. Teams lose. It happens.  

[Lennys Tap]

Well, your second sentence you know isn't true because there are 68 teams now and 10 years ago there were 65.  So already it is easier. 

If you are a competent team today, you are in the discussion.  10 years ago, competent didn't get it done.  A lot of competent, average like teams now get in or are in the hunt to the very end.  The days of having to be elite, very good and excellent are mostly gone. Listen, I don't think that's necessary a bad thing.  Kids leaving early, transfers all over the place, scholarship dispersion, etc, have eliminated the great teams.  Now there are many good teams, some really good teams, but the elite teams are hard to find.  Maybe that's a better way to state it.

Please retread my post. In my first sentence I say UNLESS YOU ARE ONE OF THE LAST 4 TEAMS IN, thereby taking into account the increase from 64 to 65 to 68.

The rest of your post is silly. The talent pool may go up or down from year to year, but if the same % of schools are getting in then the difficulty in getting in remains constant. Pleas tell me you understand this - it's not that complex. Elite teams being hard to find is true but irrelevant.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Pretty sure he was talking about the BE schedule, which absolutely was soft through the first 10 games.

Absolutely...last week the conference schedule MU played was ranked 12th out of 15.  It's gone up considerably since then, of course we've lost 2 of 3 in the process which is not surprising considering the schedule got tougher.

[TJ]

If they won last night, would any of the above be true?

I'm sorry, this just seems far too reactionary.

Should Michigan recruit better players after they were exposed at UW?

This is college hoops. Teams lose. It happens.  

Our best wins are Georgetown and Pitt, right?  Did you walk away from those games thinking that the team was great?  I remember thinking that MU played very good defense and the other team had an off night.  Pitt shot 50% from the line.  Georgetown played terribly.  But who's going to come on here and post that after a win?  Why bother?

[MerrittsMustache]

Our best wins are Georgetown and Pitt, right?  Did you walk away from those games thinking that the team was great?  I remember thinking that MU played very good defense and the other team had an off night.  Pitt shot 50% from the line.  Georgetown played terribly.  But who's going to come on here and post that after a win?  Why bother?

One could say that last night Georgetown played very good defense and MU had an off night. Marquette shot 64.7% from the line.

Last night Gtown had 4 more TOs than they did in the game at the BC. They also shot a worse percentage from the floor, from 3 and from the line. Did they play terribly again?

[wojosdojo]

I thought for sure this would be a rebuilding year. Instead, we are in the Top 20 and could make the NCAA tournament. Ill take it.

Buzz doesn't accept rebuilding years.

[jmayer1]

If you are a competent team today, you are in the discussion.  10 years ago, competent didn't get it done.  A lot of competent, average like teams now get in or are in the hunt to the very end.  The days of having to be elite, very good and excellent are mostly gone. Listen, I don't think that's necessary a bad thing.  Kids leaving early, transfers all over the place, scholarship dispersion, etc, have eliminated the great teams.  Now there are many good teams, some really good teams, but the elite teams are hard to find.  Maybe that's a better way to state it.

This makes absolutely no sense. It is no harder or easier to make the tournament than it's ever been since the field expanded (increase by 4 teams aside), it's very simple math.

Every year there is talk of a soft bubble, parity...etc. These are just buzz words and don't exist. On the whole,  maybe the talent is down for a year or two, or there isn't a dominant team(s); but every year teams are competing against other teams from that year only, not any other year. An argument made otherwise is done only to provide fodder for talking heads and journalists.

[Pakuni]

Our best wins are Georgetown and Pitt, right?  Did you walk away from those games thinking that the team was great?  I remember thinking that MU played very good defense and the other team had an off night.  Pitt shot 50% from the line.  Georgetown played terribly.  But who's going to come on here and post that after a win?  Why bother?

And if Rotnei Clarke doesn't hit a miracle shot and if Jake Thomas doesn't miss an open jumper MU is 19-4 and quite possibly in the top 10.
But Clarke made his shot, Thomas missed his, Pitt and G'Town apparently had "off nights" and MU is 17-6 (apparently without any "off nights." Only other teams have those, against MU).

[TJ]

One could say that last night Georgetown played very good defense and MU had an off night. Marquette shot 64.7% from the line.

Last night Gtown had 4 more TOs than they did in the game at the BC. They also shot a worse percentage from the floor, from 3 and from the line. Did they play terribly again?

I didn't think they played all that particularly well.  I thought they were certainly beatable.

[Goose]

GU was beatable last night for sure. We just played worse than they did.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Our best wins are Georgetown and Pitt, right?  Did you walk away from those games thinking that the team was great?  I remember thinking that MU played very good defense and the other team had an off night.  Pitt shot 50% from the line.  Georgetown played terribly.  But who's going to come on here and post that after a win?  Why bother?

Most of us are nerdy enough to read through the numbers and see if a team is "for real" or a "mirage". MU has been walking a tightrope most of the year. Not a secret, so your points are well taken.

But now that MU loses a game to Georgetown (ON THE ROAD) they suddenly need better players? WTF is that?

Duke/UNC/KU/UK, all have top players, but they still lose games, especially on the road.

College basketball is hard. Sometimes you lose. I don't understand how some people are so shocked by that.

[tower912]

The bottom line is that last night wasn't pretty.   I didn't feel terrible after the Butler loss or the Cinci loss.   A couple of close games, one with a great road comeback.    Very little good happened last night

[MU82]

And if Rotnei Clarke doesn't hit a miracle shot and if Jake Thomas doesn't miss an open jumper MU is 19-4 and quite possibly in the top 10.
But Clarke made his shot, Thomas missed his, Pitt and G'Town apparently had "off nights" and MU is 17-6 (apparently without any "off nights." Only other teams have those, against MU).

Here we go again with this ...

First, if Clarke doesn't make his shot, MU plays UNC and then, if we win, Illinois. Now, can we beat those teams? Sure, if we play great and they don't. Do we for sure beat those teams the way we beat the horrible Miss State and USC teams that we got to play in the loser's bracket? Please.

And where are the what-ifs surrounding Junior's shot against UConn and the missed FT by Georgetown in the game in Milwaukee?

Not to mention: What if the aircraft carrier game didn't get canceled?

The "what-if" game is silly and useless. We are 17-6 because we are a 17-6 team at this point in our schedule. I'd be thrilled if we go into the NCAAs with the same .739 winning percentage, but given our upcoming schedule that's very wishful thinking.

[Sir Lawrence]

The bottom line is that last night wasn't pretty.   I didn't feel terrible after the Butler loss or the Cinci loss.   A couple of close games, one with a great road comeback.    Very little good happened last night

How did you feel against Louisville?

[tower912]

I wasn't surprised by the score.    Beating an elite team in their gym is tough.    If the visiting team isn't perfect, it is tough to win.    MU played poorly and lost.   

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

Here I'll be more specific and then y'all can rip away:
1. Lack of team quickness, sans Blue. Everyone else is stuck in neutral.
2. Lack of shooters---guards, forwards--- it don't matter.
3. Donut defense---nothin' in the middle
4. Other than Blue and Taylor the roster is made up of mid-major talent.
5. Very weak backcourt---point guard position, I mean, really?
6. Entire team needs to grow a pair and realize the game is 40 minutes long.

You never surprise me with your idiotic comments. Mid major talent???? Clearly you dont watch much hoops besides mu. Why people on this board respect your opinion has always been a mystery to me.

[hairy worthen]

You never surprise me with your idiotic comments. Mid major talent???? Clearly you dont watch much hoops besides mu. Why people on this board respect your opinion has always been a mystery to me.

yes,  but sometimes he is funny.

[4everwarriors]

You never surprise me with your idiotic comments. Mid major talent???? Clearly you dont watch much hoops besides mu. Why people on this board respect your opinion has always been a mystery to me.

Please accept my endless apologies. My intent was not to insult a man of your extreme intelligence. It was in a moment of great idiotic thoughtlessness that I typed such utter folly. Your inciteful, constructive criticism is immensely appreciated and I thank you once again for making me aware of the stupidity of my ways. Surely I know better and rest assured my indiscretions shall not be repeated again.