Frank Ben-Eze is headed to Harvard....

[augoman]

I'm a little surprised that FBE didn't more strongly consider Northwestern, as they have a top engine school (with numerous areas of specialization) and facility second to none.  Also, he would have had a better chance at bball notoriety/exposure there.

[MUinCO]

Sure no one says no to Harvard, but that's normal folk not D-1 athletes.

Marquette v. Harvard...guess it depends where you want to work after you graduate. 

You want to make millions in the NBA...you go to Marquette.  If you know in your heart that the best you can be is a good college athlete and go no further, then Harvard is the no brainer. 

Clearly Ben-Eze either didn't see himself as a premier D-1 athlete or just didn't love the the game enough.

[bma725]

Sure no one says no to Harvard, but that's normal folk not D-1 athletes.

Marquette v. Harvard...guess it depends where you want to work after you graduate. 

You want to make millions in the NBA...you go to Marquette.  If you know in your heart that the best you can be is a good college athlete and go no further, then Harvard is the no brainer. 

Clearly Ben-Eze either didn't see himself as a premier D-1 athlete or just didn't love the the game enough.

If you are good enough, the NBA will find you no matter where you play.  Why not take the chance to go to one of the top 2-3 academic schools in the country if you have the ability?

Choosing Harvard over MU really says nothing about his basketball dreams or opinions of his game.

[MUinCO]

Yeah, lots of first round draft choices coming out of the Ivy League. 

He made the best choice for Ben-Eze, and that's great, but I believe his choice of Harvard over a Big East basketball school speaks volumes about his basketball dreams.  He clearly has other dreams on his mind.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Yeah, lots of first round draft choices coming out of the Ivy League.  I believe his choice of Harvard over a Big East Basketball school speaks volumes in and of itself.

Speaks volumes about what? That he's smarter than you?

In the last 30 years, how many first round draft picks have come out of Marquette?

One.

[MUinCO]

Yeah, he's probably smarter than me, I didn't get into Harvard.  Just a crappy little school in Baltimore called Johns Hopkins (after MU).

Nevertheless, I'm willing to bet more 1st rounders came out of MU over the last 30 years than Harvard and given the quality of recruits coming into the program now you can expect a lot more.  Sure, it's possible he goes to the NBA out of Harvard, but not likely. 

I'm not saying he made a bad choice, I'm saying if were an apples to apples choice that's one thing...he chose orange, which to my mind says basketball and a future career in basketball are not his priority.

[Murffieus]

To followup on my post above where I say that we aren't going to get a quality postup recruit at #5 until TC
integrates a big into the offense more-----you guys come back at me by bringing up R/Jax. First of all that's going on 5 years ago now-----and secondly, R/Jax didn't develop here as he was an all SE conference player as a sophomore at Miss State----he improved his attitude & effort a great deal here but didn't develop mechanically that much -----was tweaked and that's about it.

The coaches can talk all they want about R/Jax, but IMO to have credibility they have to have a #5 (a center) RIGHT NOW to showcase----- who is developed and doing more than just setting screens in the offense. 

That's fine that TC adjusts his offense to his talent----but in addition to that he needs in some cases to develop talent to FIT AN OFFENSE-----and an offense can't inhibit a certain position year after year and expect to attract 4 & 5 star recruits to that position.

Don't think that the other coaches aren't telling recruits this!

[4everwarriors]

as advertised, he'll still play in the Association with a degree from Harvard. Foyle from Colgate played for several years and Colgate ain't the Crimson.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Nobody turns down Harvard.

Plenty of people turn down Harvard, MIT, Stanford, etc.....this kid did not.  "NOBODY" = hyperbole

[ToddPacker]

Yeah, lots of first round draft choices coming out of the Ivy League.  I believe his choice of Harvard over a Big East Basketball school speaks volumes in and of itself.

Speaks volumes about what? That he's smarter than you?

In the last 30 years, how many first round draft picks have come out of Marquette?

One.

The initial poster said BE, not Marquette to be completely fair.  How many first round picks have come out of the BE in the last 30 years?  Also, MU has had 2 second round picks in the last 3 years.  Not first round picks, but in the top 5 or so of the second round is not shabby.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

To followup on my post above where I say that we aren't going to get a quality postup recruit at #5 until TC
integrates a big into the offense more-----you guys come back at me by bringing up R/Jax. First of all that's going on 5 years ago now-----and secondly, R/Jax didn't develop here as he was an all SE conference player as a sophomore at Miss State----he improved his attitude & effort a great deal here but didn't develop mechanically that much -----was tweaked and that's about it.

The coaches can talk all they want about R/Jax, but IMO to have credibility they have to have a #5 (a center) RIGHT NOW to showcase----- who is developed and doing more than just setting screens in the offense. 

That's fine that TC adjusts his offense to his talent----but in addition to that he needs in some cases to develop talent to FIT AN OFFENSE-----and an offense can't inhibit a certain position year after year and expect to attract 4 & 5 star recruits to that position.

Don't think that the other coaches aren't telling recruits this!

Murf, once again I think there is some truth to what you are saying, poor writing skills and misuse of logic are hurting you.

Here's the problem:

In your first post, you say that the problem is that MU doesn't feature the center position enough, and therefore can't attract recruits at that position. (this is the base of your argument)

I responded and said MU does feature a center when there is one with quality talent. (My rebuttal to your argument)

To which you respond that MU didn't develop him (Jackson) and that's why MU can't attract future recruits. (This is where you changed your argument)

You changed your initial assertion "that MU doesn't feature the center position enough to attract talent" to "MU can't attract talent because they haven't developed a big man"

Again, I think you do know a lot about basketball, but think its getting lost here because your logic changes too often.


I've posted quotes out of your posts below for reference:

"We''re not apt to get quality bigs (non projects) at #5 until TC adapts his offense to better accomodatea postup's talents. If I'm a top big I wouldn't want to be in a guard orientated offense where all i do is set picks for them or hide behind the backboard waiting for dishoffs----i would want to be able to display my abilities with my back to the hoop -----ala Harengody!"

To which I replied:

"What about Robert Jackson and Merrit?

Both were featured pretty extensively.

I'm not exactly sure why the shortage of big men at MU, but I do know that most coaches (probably all) design/run their offenses to fit their talents."

Then you respond with your post above about how Jackson wasn't developed by Crean.

[Ready2Fly]

Yeah, lots of first round draft choices coming out of the Ivy League.  I believe his choice of Harvard over a Big East Basketball school speaks volumes in and of itself.

Speaks volumes about what? That he's smarter than you?

In the last 30 years, how many first round draft picks have come out of Marquette?

One.

How many players has Harvard put in the NBA? 

Three.

The first was in 1947, the last was in 1953.

Marquette put people in the NBA from three consecutive recruiting classes, and people like Chris Grimm and Joe Chapman are playing overseas for some pretty nice scratch.  Hell, even Kinsella is playing semi-pro ball.

The point is, if you have dreams of making the NBA, you play against the best competition in the best basketball conference.

If you plan on being a nuclear physicist for a career, you go to Harvard.

There's nothing wrong with either decision.

[MUinCO]

I guess that put the Rican's lame attempt at an insult to rest.

Look, if someone wanted an Ivy League education AND wanted to play some serious ball, you don't go to Harvard.  In 2 decades, only two Ivy League teams have sniffed the post season and neither were the crimson who is typically at the bottom of the conference. 

In fact, his presence alone is probably not enough to get Harvard to a point where they could challenge the only two schools who have mattered in Ivy League basketball for over 20 years, Penn and Princeton.  That being said, one could argue that even the most prolific of NBA scouts won't sniff him out there; and if anyone thinks his post skills will improve banging in the Ivy League vice the BE, you're crazy.  That is why I believe basketball doesn't matter to this guy, which of course is fine, but...

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it begs the question.  How much time and resources did Crean spend recruiting a guy who clearly doesn't have a desire to play competitive D1 ball?  Was it just bad luck or did Crean fail to weed him out early?

[bma725]

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it begs the question.  How much time and resources did Crean spend recruiting a guy who clearly doesn't have a desire to play competitive D1 ball?  Was it just bad luck or did Crean fail to weed him out early?

There was nothing to weed out.  According to an insider at Va. Tech, Ben-Eze had actually eliminated Harvard as a choice quite awhile ago, and as recently as last week, he was still planning on choosing between MU and Va. Tech.  In fact, he had even planned on making his decision a few weeks earlier, and the expectation by the Va. Tech guys was that it would probably be MU....there was even a thought that he would announce a MU verbal last weekend when Crean was in town at his high school for a coaches clinic.

But somehow, that didn't happen.  Harvard which according to those in contact with FBE had actually been unofficially eliminated, somehow became the top choice early this week.

It's not something that TC or any other coach could have figured out, because even FBE really didn't know what he was doing until a day or two before he made the decision.

[MUinCO]

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it begs the question.  How much time and resources did Crean spend recruiting a guy who clearly doesn't have a desire to play competitive D1 ball?  Was it just bad luck or did Crean fail to weed him out early?

There was nothing to weed out.  According to an insider at Va. Tech, Ben-Eze had actually eliminated Harvard as a choice quite awhile ago, and as recently as last week, he was still planning on choosing between MU and Va. Tech.  In fact, he had even planned on making his decision a few weeks earlier, and the expectation by the Va. Tech guys was that it would probably be MU....there was even a thought that he would announce a MU verbal last weekend when Crean was in town at his high school for a coaches clinic.

But somehow, that didn't happen.  Harvard which according to those in contact with FBE had actually been unofficially eliminated, somehow became the top choice early this week.

It's not something that TC or any other coach could have figured out, because even FBE really didn't know what he was doing until a day or two before he made the decision.

Went from big-time recruit to basically giving it up.  Very interesting, I wonder what changed his mind. 

[Murffieus]

mu2002alum------you say:

["You changed your initial assertion "that MU doesn't feature the center position enough to attract talent" to "MU can't attract talent because they haven't developed a big man" "].

That shouldn't be confusing in the least in that both parts of that statement are correct. MU doesn't develop bigs at the #5 position and MU doesn't feature bigs in the offense at the #5 position----all they are is cannon fodder for the guards (setting screens for them and standing underneath waiting for the guards to dump off to them).

Any quality big at #5 in demand who is informed on this (and other coaches are informing them) isn't going to want to come here as they want to be a legitimate part of the offense----wouldn't you?

I repeat on Jackson----he was an all SE conference pick as a soph-----you don't get that in that conference unless you have some developed skills-----now i do give TC a lot of credit for straightening out his attitude & effort----but I saw him play before he came to MU and early in the year he had to sit out while here-----and believe me he had the skills already!

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

mu2002alum------you say:

["You changed your initial assertion "that MU doesn't feature the center position enough to attract talent" to "MU can't attract talent because they haven't developed a big man" "].

That shouldn't be confusing in the least in that both parts of that statement are correct. MU doesn't develop bigs at the #5 position and MU doesn't feature bigs in the offense at the #5 position----all they are is cannon fodder for the guards (setting screens for them and standing underneath waiting for the guards to dump off to them).

Any quality big at #5 in demand who is informed on this (and other coaches are informing them) isn't going to want to come here as they want to be a legitimate part of the offense----wouldn't you?

I repeat on Jackson----he was an all SE conference pick as a soph-----you don't get that in that conference unless you have some developed skills-----now i do give TC a lot of credit for straightening out his attitude & effort----but I saw him play before he came to MU and early in the year he had to sit out while here-----and believe me he had the skills already!

ok, I'll try again.

A lot of what you say is true, however you frame up your arguments so poorly it makes it tough for me to agree with you.

Is MU hurt in the area of recruiting because it hasn't developed a NBA center and because the guards seem to dominate the offense.

Yes. I can agree with that statement.

BUT, when you simply state:

"If I'm a top big I wouldn't want to be in a guard orientated offense where all i do is set picks for them or hide behind the backboard waiting for dishoffs----i would want to be able to display my abilities with my back to the hoop -----ala Harengody!"

That's when I think you go wrong.

MU does feature a center in the offense if they have a player of Jackson's caliber. Now TC just needs to get another player of his caliber.

ALSO: This whole discussion could be moot if Mbakwe blows up. I'm not saying he will, but if he turns out to be all big east... well, then the "MU can't land a big man" thing is over.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

mu2002alum------you say:

["You changed your initial assertion "that MU doesn't feature the center position enough to attract talent" to "MU can't attract talent because they haven't developed a big man" "].

That shouldn't be confusing in the least in that both parts of that statement are correct. MU doesn't develop bigs at the #5 position and MU doesn't feature bigs in the offense at the #5 position----all they are is cannon fodder for the guards (setting screens for them and standing underneath waiting for the guards to dump off to them).

Any quality big at #5 in demand who is informed on this (and other coaches are informing them) isn't going to want to come here as they want to be a legitimate part of the offense----wouldn't you?

I repeat on Jackson----he was an all SE conference pick as a soph-----you don't get that in that conference unless you have some developed skills-----now i do give TC a lot of credit for straightening out his attitude & effort----but I saw him play before he came to MU and early in the year he had to sit out while here-----and believe me he had the skills already!

According to Crean, Robert Jackson couldn't walk and chew gum until he arrived at Marquette.

[4thAndState]

PRN -- Let's be fair. RJ devleoped into a better player in his time at MU. If RJ was was such a force at Miss. St., why would KU center Estill not even recall playing against him two years prior to the FF game? RJ acknowledges his game improved under Crean.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Au contraire


http://scouthoops.scout.com/a.z?s=75&p=9&c=11&cfg=bb&pid=-1&iSchoolStateProvinceId=-1&iRatingValue=-1&yr=2008&iGetJUCOFlag=-1&iCommitFlag=-1&iGroupbyPosition=0&toinid=456&iInterestLevelId=-1&iOffer=-1&iRecruitVisitFlag=-1&OrderbyColumn=RatingValue

[Murffieus]

2002mualum-------looak, i frame my opinions perfectly clear------people disagree with me, but I've never in 8 years on these boards been accused of "framing arguments wrong".

Jackson was a once in a generation stroke of luck----here's a guy already from Milwaukee who was a top 50 player in HS and who was an all SE conference player as a soph. Then he gets kicked off the team for insubordination and he's got only one year left-----he comes back to Milwaukee and it's between MU and UWM----Mu wins. Jackson didn't have to be developed----tweaked here yes but not developed(already with 3 years experience) ------differentiate that from a HS big who needs to be developed so that he can be integrated into the offense as a POSTUP----not as I say just cannofodder for the guards!

Jackson was hardly "featured" at MU---the feature was a guard (DW)-----however I will grant you that he was featured more than any other #5 Crean has had here in 8 years. So what are the coaches going to do, show tape of a guy from 5 years ago? I mean these guys want to see where they fit NOW not where they would have fit 5 years ago.

I repeat----if I'm a quality big with a number of BE & ACC teams after me, am I going to go to school where they play a good postup game NOW----or am I going to go to a school where a guy with 3 years prior experience played a decent postup role 5 years ago (just one year out of eight years in that program)-----the choice would be to go to a school where postups are primary to or at least equal to guards in the offense RIGHT NOW-----I mean these guys have NBA ambitions coming out of HS-----they don't want to waste that opportunity being surrogates for guards!

[jmayer1]

So, Marquette is supposed to feature guys like Lott, Barro, and Burke in the post?  You can't feature a guy until you get the talent.  Again, its a question of developing a system before you get the talent or getting the talent and then developing a system around him.  I'm sure if Marquette would get a talented big he would be featured, hopefully Trevor will be that guy.

And 2002mualum is right; you kinda do frame your arguments like $hit!!!

[Marquette84]

I repeat----if I'm a quality big with a number of BE & ACC teams after me, am I going to go to school where they play a good postup game NOW----or am I going to go to a school where a guy with 3 years prior experience played a decent postup role 5 years ago (just one year out of eight years in that program)-----the choice would be to go to a school where postups are primary to or at least equal to guards in the offense RIGHT NOW-----I mean these guys have NBA ambitions coming out of HS-----they don't want to waste that opportunity being surrogates for guards!

First, you're making the amazing suggestion that Crean should favor the fourth or fifth best player on the team this year in an effort to attract someone who will be eligible a couple of years down the road.

What happens when a blue-chipper wonders why he should attend MU when the offense seems to feature less talented players?  What would go through the mind of the next Dwyane Wade if he sees a lineup of James, McNeal and Matthews not getting their fair share of plays while we run an increasing number through Barro in hope of landing a big?  The knife cuts both ways. You can't snub your best players to "show off" an offense for a player you don't have.

Top players expect that you're going to run more of your plays through them--if Crean does anything differently, he's not going to attract top players for ANY position.  They'll see that he runs an offense for players he doesn't have--not those he does.


Second, your dodging of points is getting tiresome.  Crean has used big men in the offense--both Merrit and Jackson were cited as examples where they were used extensively--not as extensively as Dwayne Wade, but certainly more than you're implying.  You didn't like the answer, so you switched the subject to whether or not Crean can develop players.

Third, if you doubt Crean's ability to develop, don't argue about Robert Jackson, but rather, look at the progress made by Ousmane Barro--here's a guy who didn't play at all in HS, and he's starting for a top 10 team with a shot at a final four.  The argument is that if Crean can do what he's done with talent as raw as Ousmane, imagine what he'll be able to do with a guy who is more prepared for college.

Fourth, if you believe that "developing bigs" is the secrect to recruiting them, how in the hell do you explain Bo Ryan?  Ryan, by all rights, shouldn't have had a single decent big recruit once Mike Wilkenson left--he's made a mess of every top big he's brought in save Landry.  And give him time, he might ruin Landry as well.

Fifth, while you claim that bigs today "don't want to be surrogates for guards," I think that shows you're not following them very closely.  Very few of them them want to play in the "wide post" like you're suggesting--most want to be 6'10 or 7'0' "point forwards"

[Murffieus]

I didn't say to "favor Barro or Lott"-----what you need is balance and we don't have balance (we hide our postups behind the hoop)and that's why numerous bigs have said "thanks but no thanks" to MU over the course of the Crean era.

The problem is that the "balance factor" is way out of whack at MU-----way too much emphasis on guard play. If Crean wants to hang his hat on guards that's fine (ticket for limitations IMO)-----but then don't complainwhen we can't recruit quality bigs which are necessary in order to reach the promised land!

You're wrong when you suggest that balance would hurt recruiting-----if that were the case most of the top 10 teams wouldn't be able to recruit worth a damn -----but yet, that's how the got to be top 10 in most cases --------because of a balance attact!

Look at GT and Louisville----both utilize a very good postup game within a balanced attack! OSU & Florida from last year as well.  None of those schools have any difficulty recruiting!

[Marquette84]

I didn't say to "favor Barro or Lott"-----what you need is balance and we don't have balance (we hide our postups behind the hoop)and that's why numerous bigs have said "thanks but no thanks" to MU over the course of the Crean era.

Well, yes, you are saying exactly that. 

The only way MU could have acheived balance last season is to favorved Barro and Lott more and the three best players on the team less.   

***The problem is that the "balance factor" is way out of whack at MU-----way too much emphasis on guard play. If Crean wants to hang his hat on guards that's fine (ticket for limitations IMO)-----but then don't complainwhen we can't recruit quality bigs which are necessary in order to reach the promised land!

It's appropriate given the talent levels on the team.  When we've had better 4's and 5's (Novak, Jackson, Merrit), they were featured more in the offense.

But let's assume you're right.  Let's do a head-to-head comparison using Barro's stats to Hibbert:

MPG: 
Barro 27.0
Hibbert:  26.1

Comment:  A wash.  Nobody can complain that Crean is stiffing his bigs for minutes.



FGA:
Barro:  118-199 over 34 games--5.9 attempts per game
Hibbert: 186-277 over 37 games--7.5 attempts per game

A difference of just ONE POINT SIX shot attempts per game. 

Now, before the knee jerk "Barro only got putbacks" it's fair to compare those opportunities.  A putback requires an offensive board.  Lets compare:

Offenseive Rebounds (a proxy for "putbacks):
Barro:  103, or 3.0 per game
Hibbert:  100, or 2.7 per game

This is one of Murff's typical arguments--that MU's bigs only score when they get "putbacks".  That requires an offensive board. 

Comparing offensive boards, Barro and Hibbert were pretty close.   We can draw a couple of conclusions, depending on what you want to assume about Barro's ability to finish a putback compared to Hibbert.

--If you belive that Barro is every bit as good as Hibbert at finishing, then the "putback" factor is a wash, then Barro had about the same number of opportunities as Hibbert.

--If you believe that Hibbert is better at "putbacks" than Barro, then a good portion of their difference in the box score is not how much more Hibbert was used in the offense, but because he's better than Barro at putbacks. 

Either way, the story isn't as bad for MU nor as good for Georgetown as Murff makes it out to be.

For you to believe Murrf's point that "putbacks" is a significant difference means you have to beleive that HIbbert is very effective at structured offense, but Barro is much beter at turning offensive rebounds into points.  I don't think anyone actually believes that.

FG%
Barro:  .599
Hibbert:  .671

Significant advantage to Hibbert.  Perhaps this may explains why Hibbert gets about 1.6 more offensive set per game. 

Then again, it might be this:

Assists & Turnovers:
Barro:  12 assists, 59 turnovers   71 total pass opportunites (2.1 per game).  17% wound up with points on the board.
Hibbert:  39 assists, 46 turnovers  85 total pass opportunites (2.3 per game), 45% wound up with points on the board

Interesting.  IF the ball goes inside and there's no opportunity to shoot, Barro is 3 times less likely to make an assist, and 3 times more likely to turn the ball over.

This ALSO might explain the reason that Hibbert gets about 1.6 more offensive sets per game

Summary:
Despite your protests that MU lacks "balance" and doesn't use it's bigs in the lineup, Barro's stats were surprising close to Hibbert--especially so considering how many more turnovers, fewer assists, and lower shooting percentage that Barro showed.  I"m willing to go on record suggesting that had Barro equalled HIbbert's shooting percentage and A to T ratio, he'd have easily made up that 1.6 difference in attempts with an additional play or two per game.


If Crean is ever confronted by a recruit that protests that MU doesn't feature bigs, Crean can always turn to the stats that show he uses Barro almost as much as Georgetown features Hibbert, despite the fact that Hibbert was one of Georgetown's two best players and NBA lock, while Barro was no better than 4th or 5th on the MU depth chart. 

If anything, the argument should be to look at how few opportunites Georgetown gives Hibbert, given his talent.  If you're a prospective NBA player, JT3 gives you just 1.6 more sets per game than Crean is giving a guy who didn't even play ball in HS.  Says something about Thompson.