Why waiting 5 years to completely judge is just prudent

[jesmu84]

So after his first year, when you were making Buzz out to be a god, were you brain dead?

Let's just call this what it is . . .

When you and others were running around here declaring that Buzz was a god because the first season he took the Amigos and went 25-10, and at the same time declaring that Crean was a failure and would be out within three years because he went 6-25, Chicos at the time provided a voice of reason on the topic which was that you have to wait to see what a coach can do with his own recruits.

Now the arguments against him have boiled down to this:

1.  False precision--he initially said five years, thus any example where a trend is exposed in three or four years "proves" him wrong.

2.  False use of examples using hindsight--Brad Stevens and Shaka Smart were oustanding their first year, and since turned out to be good beyond that you don't need to see their subsequent performance.

Its time for everyone to admit that Chicos' comment was a comment sense and normal approach for evaluating ANY coach.

What you're really objecting to here is that Chicos made it . . . not that the comment has no validity.

no. no no no. It has everything to do with judging a coach before the 5 year mark. Aside from some big scandal or rule/law breaking, you've gotta wait 5 years, according to Chicos' theory. If you can't crown a coach, you can't condemn a coach before the 5 year mark.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

This is the first thread I can remember that is Crean-oriented where Chicos apparently has been made silence.

[Skatastrophy]

I don't think you can judge coaches before they've passed away. Until then they might still eff up on you.

[The Equalizer]

Exactly.  That is exactly the point.  You oftentimes don't need five years....in fact most of the time you don't.  

That's why the comment was wrong to begin with.

Here's the list of coaching changes from 2011.  These coaches all have 3 years of peformance.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=4980452

Think you can get anywhere near 100% if you guessed today who is still on the job at the start of the 2015-16 season?

Lets just start with the 4 big east coaches on the lst--can you, right now, claim with any sense of certainy, whether these four hires are here for the long term--say past the 2016 season?  

Kevin Willard: No NCAA tournament, best finish was 10th place. He hasn't had success yet, but he's shown promise.  Is that enough time? Should Willard be shown the door?  I don't think so--I think everyone would acknowledge that he needs more time.  But two more lower-division finishes?  Probably time to make a change.

Oliver Purnell:  Purnell hasn't improved EePaul--they were dreadful when he came in, and still a last place team.  No progress yet.  But I don't think you can judge Purnell right now--he inherited a very bad situation. but deserves a chance to recruit now that their stadium situation has been resolved.  If he still can't pull in top Chicago recruits, you'll know.

Steve Lavin: Yes, he's vastly improved recruiting, but the w/l record vastly underperfoming the talent, and harkens back to his teams' chronic underperformance at UCLA.   Jury is definitely still out.

Greg McDermott: Pro--strong performance last several years:  Con--is success all because of Doug? Worst incoming recruiting class in NBE.  McDermott is probably safe . . . but can you really say you know that the success was because of him?  Until Creighton wins without Doug, the jury will be out on Greg.

So there you have four out of four Big East coaches with 3 years experience where you really do need at least two more years (five total) before passing judgement.

[Lennys Tap]

So after his first year, when you were making Buzz out to be a god, were you brain dead?

Let's just call this what it is . . .

When you and others were running around here declaring that Buzz was a god because the first season he took the Amigos and went 25-10, and at the same time declaring that Crean was a failure and would be out within three years because he went 6-25, Chicos at the time provided a voice of reason on the topic which was that you have to wait to see what a coach can do with his own recruits.

More hyperbole from the Cisco Kid's loyal Poncho. I didn't make Buzz out to be a "god" after year one. I said (quite accurately) that he coached Crean's players better than Crean ever did. Anybody not you, Chicos or Joani who watched any games would have figured that out. Our final record was 25-10, but we were what, 21-2 and ranked #8 when DJ got hurt? As to your claim that I ever said Crean would be out within 3 (or any amount of) years? Total lie on your part.

[GGGG]

Here's the list of coaching changes from 2011.  These coaches all have 3 years of peformance.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=4980452

Think you can get anywhere near 100% if you guessed today who is still on the job at the start of the 2015-16 season?

I don't know anywhere near enough about their programs to make such a judgement.  On the outside, with a limited knowledge, it looks like a few guys are clearly in good positions (Altman, Hoiberg), a couple that clearly aren't (Bzdelik), and a bunch I know nothing about.

I bet you that if you picked one random program on that list, and followed it closely enough, I would have a pretty damn good reading on where it was heading.

And that really is the point.  You didn't need five years to judge Buzz.  I could tell he was a good coach in year one...could tell that he could change his coaching depending on the style of the team in year two...and that he could coach his own guys in year three.

[NersEllenson]

So after his first year, when you were making Buzz out to be a god, were you brain dead?

Let's just call this what it is . . .

When you and others were running around here declaring that Buzz was a god because the first season he took the Amigos and went 25-10, and at the same time declaring that Crean was a failure and would be out within three years because he went 6-25, Chicos at the time provided a voice of reason on the topic which was that you have to wait to see what a coach can do with his own recruits.

Now the arguments against him have boiled down to this:

1.  False precision--he initially said five years, thus any example where a trend is exposed in three or four years "proves" him wrong.

2.  False use of examples using hindsight--Brad Stevens and Shaka Smart were oustanding their first year, and since turned out to be good beyond that you don't need to see their subsequent performance.

Its time for everyone to admit that Chicos' comment was a comment sense and normal approach for evaluating ANY coach.

What you're really objecting to here is that Chicos made it . . . not that the comment has no validity.

Nothing wrong with Chicos approach or yours.  In fact, I appreciate it, as it's always good to know there are personality types out there who will only buy at the 52-week high.  Would be fun to evaluate your guys portfolio holdings.   

[Lennys Tap]

I don't think you can judge coaches before they've passed away. Until then they might still eff up on you.

Wait until 5 years after the funeral to avoid the possibility of posthumous eff up.

[jesmu84]

So there you have four out of four Big East coaches with 3 years experience where you really do need at least two more years (five total) before passing judgement.

ok. that's fine. but the example in the original post is of a coach fired prior to 5 years. if you're going to state you have to wait 5 years to judge a coach, then you have to wait 5 years to judge them as either bad or good.

[The Equalizer]

Nothing wrong with Chicos approach or yours.  In fact, I appreciate it, as it's always good to know there are personality types out there who will only buy at the 52-week high.  Would be fun to evaluate your guys portfolio holdings.   

Well, I appreciate the types like you that buy Enron or Worldcom because one good quarter is more than enough to make a long-term judgement.  I'm sure your portfolio would be equally fun to evaluate. 

[NersEllenson]

Well, I appreciate the types like you that buy Enron or Worldcom because one good quarter is more than enough to make a long-term judgement.  I'm sure your portfolio would be equally fun to evaluate. 

Good point - there are a lot of people who made a lot of money on Enron and Worldcom  - who were early to the party.  Those who took the wait and see approach and bought on the high got burned.  Basically, just like Chicos has gotten burned on this whole wait 5 year concept. 

Yet since you support his position of waiting 5 years, can you please go ahead and give us your assessment of Buzz's first 5 years, and based on the complexion of the roster, go ahead and give us your take on the next 5?

[jesmu84]

Well, I appreciate the types like you that buy Enron or Worldcom because one good quarter is more than enough to make a long-term judgement.  I'm sure your portfolio would be equally fun to evaluate. 

Fine. Then you/he has to amend the theory: you wait 5 years to judge if a coach is a success, but you can judge him to be a failure before that.

[The Equalizer]

I don't know anywhere near enough about their programs to make such a judgement.  

I'll accept that.

But by definition, if you don't know anywhere near enough about any individual situation, how do you know enough to support the collective claim that oftentimes (or most of the time) you don't need five years.  To me, that suggests you know enough about 70 to 90% of the situations AND could make a fair assessment in only a few years.

I bet you that if you picked one random program on that list, and followed it closely enough, I would have a pretty damn good reading on where it was heading.

I'd bet otherwise.  Most of them are still early enough in their tenure that they've either won with inherited players, or they have just started rebuilding programs and haven't had enough time to make a fair assessment.

For example, you claim Bzedelik isn't in a good place--yet a cursory glance at his roster shows that it is mostly frosh and sophs.  First year with inherited players he went 1-15 in conference.  By his third year, with his players (but still only frosh and sophs), they were 6-12.  They're young, improving, but still not a tournment team.  I say jury is still out. 

But thats one of your examples of a team you supposedly know well enough to make a judgement.

Wouldn't you admit he is a textbook example of a case where 3 years isn't enough?

Meanwhile, I singled out the 4 Big East Programs---so you can't get away with claming ingornace about their programs.  And your "damn good reading" on where they're heading is what, exactly?   Or did I nail the uncertainty spot on?

And that really is the point.  You didn't need five years to judge Buzz.  I could tell he was a good coach in year one...could tell that he could change his coaching depending on the style of the team in year two...and that he could coach his own guys in year three.

First, keep in mind that the comment was originally made when Buzz only had one year of experience--and it was mostly with inherited players.

Second,  I think the 3rd year wasn't as decisive as you suggest.  We finished 9th place in the Big East--after never finishing worst than a tie for 5th.  And as you said, it was mostly with Buzz's players, and because he brought in Jucos, they were mostly upperclassmen.  We could have just as easily finished 10th or 11th. 

Third, even if Buzz won more games in his third season and widely considered beyond reproach after only three years, he would still be a rare exception--not the rule.  Common sense dictates that you don't evaluate based on inhertied players, and you need to give a coach time to get his own recruits in the pipeline and playing. 

[mu03eng]

Third, even if Buzz won more games in his third season and widely considered beyond reproach after only three years, he would still be a rare exception--not the rule.  Common sense dictates that you don't evaluate based on inhertied players, and you need to give a coach time to get his own recruits in the pipeline and playing. 

Ergo, Kiffin should still be at USC, correct?

[NersEllenson]

Second,  I think the 3rd year wasn't as decisive as you suggest.  We finished 9th place in the Big East--after never finishing worst than a tie for 5th.  And as you said, it was mostly with Buzz's players, and because he brought in Jucos, they were mostly upperclassmen.  We could have just as easily finished 10th or 11th. 

Third, even if Buzz won more games in his third season and widely considered beyond reproach after only three years, he would still be a rare exception--not the rule.  Common sense dictates that you don't evaluate based on inhertied players, and you need to give a coach time to get his own recruits in the pipeline and playing. 

I'd also suggest Year 3 was quite an anomaly in that I believe UCONN, like us, was also 9-9 in the Big East - yet ended up winning the whole NCAA tourney, and if memory serves correctly, there were also 3 Big East teams in the Final Four that year, and I know this much is correct with regard to my memory - Buzz took us to the Sweet 16 in Year 3 - someplace we had only been 2 times (1994 and 2003) since Al left in 1977.

But of course the narrative of you and Chicos generally has always been to diminish the accomplishments of Buzz, while championing those of his predecessor who chose to leave MU.  What never gets through to you two is that most here are grateful for what Tom Crean did at MU results-wise....yet the constant belittling of the current coach is what is ridiculous to try to prop up a guy who chose to leave MU.  Should Buzz leave MU and his replacement come in and do a great/comparable job - I'm not going to bash the new guy, just because I have a man crush on Buzz - as you and Chicos do Crean!

[tower912]

Perhaps they have a point.   Coach Crean peaked in year 4.    NIT, NIT, First round NCAA, First Round NCAA, Second Round NCAA during his last 5 years at MU.   107-55 Record.  1 NCAA tourney win.   Embarrassing losses to WMU in the NIT and MSU in the NCAA.    Most thought he was awesome after year 4, but I think an argument could be made that he underachieved 4 of his next 5 years.  05-06 was a very good coaching job. 

[CTWarrior]

Here's the list of coaching changes from 2011.  These coaches all have 3 years of peformance.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=4980452

Think you can get anywhere near 100% if you guessed today who is still on the job at the start of the 2015-16 season?

Willard and Purnell will not turn those programs around.  As long as Lavin stays healthy and isn't involved in a scandal (which is true for everybody, I guess), he'll be there as long as he wants.  Don't follow Creighton enough to have an opinion about McDermott, and there are extenuating circumstances since his son is a major factor in his success thus far, it is probably fair to say the jury is out on him.  I'll add one more and say that Cooley is the real deal (after two seasons) at Providence.

[Pakuni]

I'd also suggest Year 3 was quite an anomaly in that I believe UCONN, like us, was also 9-9 in the Big East - yet ended up winning the whole NCAA tourney, and if memory serves correctly, there were also 3 Big East teams in the Final Four that year, and I know this much is correct with regard to my memory - Buzz took us to the Sweet 16 in Year 3 - someplace we had only been 2 times (1994 and 2003) since Al left in 1977.

I don't say this often, but you're dead on here, Ners.
The fact that this guy trots out the 9-9 conference record - ignoring that it may have been the most competitive conference of all time that year - as a negative while "forgetting" to mention the team's postseason accomplishments tells us all we know about the disingenuity on display here.

[The Equalizer]

I'd also suggest Year 3 was quite an anomaly in that I believe UCONN, like us, was also 9-9 in the Big East - yet ended up winning the whole NCAA tourney, and if memory serves correctly, there were also 3 Big East teams in the Final Four that year, and I know this much is correct with regard to my memory - Buzz took us to the Sweet 16 in Year 3 - someplace we had only been 2 times (1994 and 2003) since Al left in 1977.

The difference is Calhoun was in his 25th season at UConn with 2 prior championships under his belt.  Buzz had 2 seasons at MU, and for those he relied heavily on holdover players for success in those years.  His third season (first with mostly his own players) resulted in a 9th place peformance.   

As for your memory, there was only one Big East team in the final four (UConn).  Butler, VCU and Kentucky were the other three teams. 

But of course the narrative of you and Chicos generally has always been to diminish the accomplishments of Buzz, while championing those of his predecessor who chose to leave MU.  What never gets through to you two is that most here are grateful for what Tom Crean did at MU results-wise....yet the constant belittling of the current coach is what is ridiculous to try to prop up a guy who chose to leave MU.  Should Buzz leave MU and his replacement come in and do a great/comparable job - I'm not going to bash the new guy, just because I have a man crush on Buzz - as you and Chicos do Crean!

Because I don't share your man crush, you continue to interpret anything less as "belitting" or "diminishing accomplishment." 

I've long said that I think Buzz has done a great job to maintain us at the level of success that Crean brought us to.  I don't like Crean any better than Buzz over vice versa.  I just see two very equivalent coaches--each with his own style, each with simillar levels of success.

I'm sorry, but Buzz has been about the same--results wise--as Crean.

Crean as his best (2003) is a little bit better than Buzz at his (2013).
Crean at this worst (2004) is a little worse than Buzz at his (2010).

That's it.  I thought Crean did a great job.  I think Buzz is doing a great job as well.

That having been said, I still think in general, its only common sense to give a new coach a few years (and five seems better than three) to make a rational evaluation.







 

[Pakuni]

Crean at this worst (2004) is a little worse than Buzz at his (2010).

Today I learned:
19 wins, 7-9 in CUSA and an embarrassing double-digit loss at home to Western Michigan in the NIT is only "a little worse" than 22 wins, 11-7 in the Big East and a last-second loss in the NCAA tournament to an eventual Sweet Sixteen team.

[The Equalizer]

I don't say this often, but you're dead on here, Ners.
The fact that this guy trots out the 9-9 conference record - ignoring that it may have been the most competitive conference of all time that year - as a negative while "forgetting" to mention the team's postseason accomplishments tells us all we know about the disingenuity on display here.

And yet you ignore that in that very same competitive conference that very same year, St. Johns managed to find a way to improve from 6-12 the year before all the way to 12-6.  Cincinnnati managed to improve from 7-11 to 11-7.  Georgetown at least maintained a 10-8 record.  Notre Dame improved from 10-8 to 14-4.  UConn improved from 7-11 to 9-9.

Wasn't it the very same competitive situation for those teams?   Did they get to play in a difference conference?  

How do you figure that in a year when Lavin, Brey, and Cronin can post big improvments that it was just too competitive for Buzz to maintain or improve on MU's 11-7 record.  

[keefe]

Today I learned:
19 wins, 7-9 in CUSA and a embarrassing humiliating double-digit loss at home to Western Michigan in the NIT is only "a little worse" than 22 wins, 11-7 in the Big East and a last-second loss in the NCAA tournament to an eventual Sweet Sixteen team.

[GGGG]

Today I learned:
19 wins, 7-9 in CUSA and an embarrassing double-digit loss at home to Western Michigan in the NIT is only "a little worse" than 22 wins, 11-7 in the Big East and a last-second loss in the NCAA tournament to an eventual Sweet Sixteen team.

And I wouldn't call that Buzz's worst effort either.  That team had a 6'6" center, midgets in the backcourt, lost its top recruit before Christmas to transfer and lost Otule and Fulce to injury.

If anything, that year showed that Buzz could coach his ass off.  

[Nukem2]

And I wouldn't call that Buzz's worst effort either.  That team had a 6'6" center, midgets in the backcourt, lost its top recruit before Christmas to transfer and lost Otule and Fulce to injury.

If anything, that year showed that Buzz could coach his ass off.  

Yep, it was a difficult year due to size disadvantage.  But, Buzz did an admirable job getting the best out of his team.  I'll take that anytime over that Western Michigan NIT season.......

[Pakuni]

And yet you ignore that in that very same competitive conference that very same year, St. Johns managed to find a way to improve from 6-12 the year before all the way to 12-6.  Cincinnnati managed to improve from 7-11 to 11-7.  Georgetown at least maintained a 10-8 record.  Notre Dame improved from 10-8 to 14-4.  UConn improved from 7-11 to 9-9.

Ummm, yeah. Teams got better, added talent, improved coaching. Hence, the conference became more competitive.
No conference has ever had more NCAA bids than the 2011 Big East. If that's not a reflection on the quality of the conference, I'm not sure what is.