Bo Retiring

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

**Both schools are heavily invested in basketball.
**I think UW's facilities are better for reasons I have stated
**Quality of recruits?  The recruit the same territory.  Both are heavily dependent on the coach they bring in.

You have come to a different opinion. 

Investment - MU>UW
Facilities - you're entitled to your opinion, but any quantitative measure would favor MU... but sure I'll give you this as a subjective preference
Recruits - MU's recruiting classes outrank Uw's almost every year.

Not everyone has to agree, but don't parade yours like it's from some empirical evidence.

[GGGG]

The biggest disparity is conference affiliation.  Even though Marquette is in the best conference possible given its lack of football, its still not the Big Ten with the money it brings in.  There is absolutely nothing Marquette can do about this.

BTW, why do people think Texas is such a great job?  Their basketball history is nowhere near Marquette's or UW's.  Their facility is behind both too.  I would say they have a bunch of potential, and the weather is nicer, but is it really better than MU?

[GGGG]

Investment - MU>UW
Facilities - you're entitled to your opinion, but any quantitative measure would favor MU... but sure I'll give you this as a subjective preference
Recruits - MU's recruiting classes outrank Uw's almost every year.

Not everyone has to agree, but don't parade yours like it's from some empirical evidence.

Investment is a shell game.  The studies cited aren't true apples to apples.  For instance, Marquette's "investment" includes the rent paid to the BC.  Since UW doesn't have to pay rent, there is no cost to show there.  I think it is safe to say that both schools are highly invested.

Curious, about facilities you say that "any quantitative measure would favor MU."  What "quantitative measures" are those?

And recruiting rankings are just rankings.  They don't speak to the quality of the program as much as the quality of the coaching, and who the coaches are targeting.  I mean, Buzz was outrecruiting Bo, but his players transferred, he left, and Bo developed Frank Kaminsky into the national POY.  You put both coaches into the other situation and you'd likely see the situations reversed.

And as I said above, the biggest disparity is conference affiliation and the money and exposure it brings.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

So the NBA alum metric is a good one only for comparing these two schools? Dude, that's the very definition of a bad metric!  

Not what I said.

If you want to form your own opinion, you don't need any data to back it up, but if you're going to call someone else's opinion crazy, you should have data to support your argument.

There is no singular job attractiveness ranking, but I've provided the following which I argue are related to that:

- Salary (measured in dollars) - helps candidate get wealthy
- Resources (measured in dollars) - helps candidate win
- Facilities (measured in capacity and renovation budget) - helps candidate win
- NBA sucess of players writhing past 10 years (measured in # and salary) - indicates consistency of talent coming through program (degree to which program has momentum)
- Recruiting pipeline (measured in class rankings) - also a measure of the program momentum... Meaning amount of effort required to bring in elite talent)

The objective measurements you seem to offer is that, in recent years, a HOF coach took a UW team with an uncharacteristic level of talent to two FFs. I'll remind you again, this isn't an argument that Bo is a bad coach. He's a great coach.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

Investment is a shell game.  The studies cited aren't true apples to apples.  For instance, Marquette's "investment" includes the rent paid to the BC.  Since UW doesn't have to pay rent, there is no cost to show there.  I think it is safe to say that both schools are highly invested.

Curious, about facilities you say that "any quantitative measure would favor MU."  What "quantitative measures" are those?

And recruiting rankings are just rankings.  They don't speak to the quality of the program as much as the quality of the coaching, and who the coaches are targeting.  I mean, Buzz was outrecruiting Bo, but his players transferred, he left, and Bo developed Frank Kaminsky into the national POY.  You put both coaches into the other situation and you'd likely see the situations reversed.

And as I said above, the biggest disparity is conference affiliation and the money and exposure it brings.

Quantitative measures would mean numbers, in the case of facilities, its capacity and budget for renovations/construction of athletic facilities on campus (BC bigger than Kohl, Al renovations budget, $ committed to new athletic research facility).

As for investment, MU puts more money in coach's pockets than UW. that's not a shell game, that's objective, publicly-available IRS data dating back over a decade.

We're all entitled to our opinions, but don't claim to be objective and citing clearly measurable evidence when you aren't. You're just seeing quantitative/objective areas where MU is superior and dismissing them as unimportant, while putting weight on more subjective preferences.

When you say recruiting rankings reflect the coach more than the program, I'd point to our own Tanned Tommy, who routinely pulls in stronger classes as IU than he did at MU.  The next IU coach will likely continue this trend. Similarly, three MU coaches in a row (at least? Didn't follow MU pre-Crean) have out-recruited UW.

Transfers have everything to do with the coach not the school.

[GGGG]

quantitative measures would mean numbers, in the case of facilities, its capacity and budget for renovations/construction of athletic facilities on campus.

MU puts more money in coach's pockets than UW. that's not a shell game.

We're all entitled to our opinions, but don't claim to be objective and citing clearly measurable evidence when you aren't. You're just seeing quantitative/objective areas where MU is superior and dismissing them as unimportant, while putting weight on more subjective preferences.

When you say recruiting rankings reflect the coach more than the program, I'd point to our own Tanned Tommy, who routinely pulls in stronger classes as IU than he did at MU.  The next IU coach will likely continue this trend. Similarly, three MU coaches in a row have out-recruited Bo. You're making my point for me: Bo would recruit better from MU, thus that is a strength of the MU job.

Bo Ryan makes more money than Wojo.  He makes more money than Buzz did.  Ryan was in the top 10 highest paid coaches in the country last year. 

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/mens-basketball/coach/

And actually I don't think Bo would recruit better at MU.  He would have recruited about the same.  He'd target the same type of player and play largely the same style.  And he would win with those players like he is winning at UW.

And for facilities, you keep citing objective measurements, without actually providing any numbers. 

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

Bo Ryan makes more money than Wojo.  He makes more money than Buzz did.  Ryan was in the top 10 highest paid coaches in the country last year.  

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/mens-basketball/coach/

And actually I don't think Bo would recruit better at MU.  He would have recruited about the same.  He'd target the same type of player and play largely the same style.  And he would win with those players like he is winning at UW.

And for facilities, you keep citing objective measurements, without actually providing any numbers.  

Buzz made $3.1m his last year at MU. Bo made $2.8M while going to back to back FFs as a HOF coach. Wojo is a first year coach, so of course he won't make more than Bo, but the ceiling of income is clearly higher at MU.

$3.1M is more than $2.8M, by a margin of $300k.

Facility numbers:
BC capacity: 19,000
KC capacity: 17,000
I'll save you the math: 19,000 is more than 17,000.

[brewcity77]

Not what I said.

If you want to form your own opinion, you don't need any data to back it up, but if you're going to call someone else's opinion crazy, you should have data to support your argument.

There is no singular job attractiveness ranking, but I've provided the following which I argue are related to that:

- Salary (measured in dollars) - helps candidate get wealthy
- Resources (measured in dollars) - helps candidate win
- Facilities (measured in capacity and renovation budget) - helps candidate win
- NBA sucess of players writhing past 10 years (measured in # and salary) - indicates consistency of talent coming through program (degree to which program has momentum)
- Recruiting pipeline (measured in class rankings) - also a measure of the program momentum... Meaning amount of effort required to bring in elite talent)

The objective measurements you seem to offer is that, in recent years, a HOF coach took a UW team with an uncharacteristic level of talent to two FFs. I'll remind you again, this isn't an argument that Bo is a bad coach. He's a great coach.

- Salary: Sure, but UW can pay as much or more than Marquette. Money won't be a deterring factor, and NBA salaries of former players won't play any role in the decision of a coach looking at UW as a job. And as of right now, Bo is making more than Wojo. Edge: Wisconsin
- Resources: Sure, but UW has great resources. We spend on basketball because it's our bellcow. Regardless, UW has the ability to spend more than us. They haven't had to yet, but like Va Tech luring Buzz, if it gets them a big coach, they'll commit to that extra money. Edge: Even
- Facilities: Right now, UW's are better. If we get the sports medicine institute, arena, and an athletic dorm, ours would be better. Right now, they aren't. Edge: Wisconsin
- NBA success will always be trumped by actual program success. Conference will also trump NBA success. Buzz wasn't going to go to New Mexico, Nevada, Davidson, or Butler over Va Tech just because of their NBA players. Edge: Marquette
- Recruiting pipeline: This is the most often misevaluated portion. Recruiting big names in November and April is less important than recruiting players that win in February and March. Evaluate a class 4 years after they commit and you'll have a better sense of how good that class truly was. Their pedigree over the past 10-15 years includes names like Alando Tucker, Frank Kaminsky, Jordan Taylor, Jon Leuer, Josh Gasser, Ben Brust, Jared Berggren, etc. They've recruited just fine. Edge: Even

[GGGG]

Buzz made $3.1m his last year at MU. Bo made $2.8M while going to back to back FFs as a HOF coach. Wojo is a first year coach, so of course he won't make more than Bo, but the ceiling of income is clearly higher at MU.

Facility numbers:
BC capacity: 19,000
KC capacity: 17,000
I'll save you the math: 19,000 is more than 17,000.

That's right on Buzz's salary.  I forgot that Williams, LLC had a big year his last year.  Here is the year by year.  So pretty much on par with what Bo was making.

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=47740.msg733564#msg733564

So capacity is the only number that matters in determining quality of facility?  So if Marquette has a 2/3 filled BC that doesn't matter?  Does that mean that both the BC and the KC are better than Cameron Indoor Stadium and the Phogg Allen Fieldhouse because they fit more people?

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

- Salary: Sure, but UW can pay as much or more than Marquette. Money won't be a deterring factor, and NBA salaries of former players won't play any role in the decision of a coach looking at UW as a job. And as of right now, Bo is making more than Wojo. Edge: Wisconsin
- Resources: Sure, but UW has great resources. We spend on basketball because it's our bellcow. Regardless, UW has the ability to spend more than us. They haven't had to yet, but like Va Tech luring Buzz, if it gets them a big coach, they'll commit to that extra money. Edge: Even
- Facilities: Right now, UW's are better. If we get the sports medicine institute, arena, and an athletic dorm, ours would be better. Right now, they aren't. Edge: Wisconsin
- NBA success will always be trumped by actual program success. Conference will also trump NBA success. Buzz wasn't going to go to New Mexico, Nevada, Davidson, or Butler over Va Tech just because of their NBA players. Edge: Marquette
- Recruiting pipeline: This is the most often misevaluated portion. Recruiting big names in November and April is less important than recruiting players that win in February and March. Evaluate a class 4 years after they commit and you'll have a better sense of how good that class truly was. Their pedigree over the past 10-15 years includes names like Alando Tucker, Frank Kaminsky, Jordan Taylor, Jon Leuer, Josh Gasser, Ben Brust, Jared Berggren, etc. They've recruited just fine. Edge: Even

your first two points start with "sure, but" - I wouldn't worry about anyone mistaking you for a homer, because you concede the point and then imediately defend UW and proclaim them moral victors.

For salary, the current UW coach salary is not what a new guy will necessarily get, and MU has issued bigger paydays in the past than UW football OR basketball. Edge is MU and you're embarrassing yourself by even pretending otherwise. You're saying that hypothetical potential holds more water than over a decade of actual, measurable behavior. That is absolutely asinine and I don't even have to defend MU on either of those. Hands down MU wins.

Your defenses of UW being "yea but they COULD do more!" Don't hold any water

So to summarize:
Point 1 - MU objectively wins, but I'll note you still have warm feelings for UW
Point 2 - MU objectively wins, but I'll note you don't like seeing Bucky lose
Point 3 - In the absence of any concrete argument other than your opinion, I'm not sure how to measure that... I'll grant you a tie to be generous, though in the measures I said (capacity and budget), Marquette does win.
Point 4 - you say is irrelevant, so fine I'll ignore recruiting.

Winner: MU

Now, I've shared objective support for my point, even if you just take the first two (since you dismiss the last two as irrelevant). Where are your objective statements?

Sorry for accidentally outing you as a Badger fan, it wasn't my intent.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

That's right on Buzz's salary.  I forgot that Williams, LLC had a big year his last year.  Here is the year by year.  So pretty much on par with what Bo was making.

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=47740.msg733564#msg733564

So capacity is the only number that matters in determining quality of facility?  So if Marquette has a 2/3 filled BC that doesn't matter?  Does that mean that both the BC and the KC are better than Cameron Indoor Stadium and the Phogg Allen Fieldhouse because they fit more people?

Buzz is not a HOF coach (at least as of cashing his $3.1M). Bo was, and was in the middle of the absolute pinnacle of the program's success, ever. Buzz made more.

That's not, "on par." That means that, given equal success, Wojo should expect to pocket more cash than his counterpart in Madison, to the tune of a Bentley per annum.

For facilities I conceded to you that you might not prefer the BC. I only said that any OBJECTIVE measure favors MU. I, for one, prefer the NBA arena, which has been cited regularly as a unique offering at MU that attracts recruits.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

That's right on Buzz's salary.  I forgot that Williams, LLC had a big year his last year.  Here is the year by year.  So pretty much on par with what Bo was making.

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=47740.msg733564#msg733564

So capacity is the only number that matters in determining quality of facility?  So if Marquette has a 2/3 filled BC that doesn't matter?  Does that mean that both the BC and the KC are better than Cameron Indoor Stadium and the Phogg Allen Fieldhouse because they fit more people?

BTW I'm not saying Wojo's salary is north of Bo's, but that data isn't available anywhere yet. We won't know until next year what he made this year.

[brewcity77]

your first two points start with "sure, but" - I wouldn't worry about anyone mistaking you for a homer.

For salary, the current UW coach salary is not what a new guy will necessarily get, and MU has issued bigger paydays in the past than UW football OR basketball. Edge is MU and you're embarrassing yourself by even pretending otherwise. You're saying that hypothetical potential holds not related than over a decade of actual, measurable behavior. That is absolutely asinine and I don't even have to defend MU on either of those. Hands down MU wins.

Your defenses of UW being "yea but they COULD do more!" Don't hold any water

Now, I've shared objective support for my point, even if you just take the first two (since you dismiss the last two as irrelevant). Where are your objective statements?

Money won't stop UW from hiring a coach. Simple as that. It won't stop them in terms of salary and won't stop them in terms of putting it into the program. Bo didn't demand more so they didn't give more.

The reason Marquette has had to (over)pay for their coaches to that extreme is because they were always sniffing at other jobs. That's what happens when you have guys that play out their interest publicly.

If Wojo has great success and never indicates a desire to leave, Marquette isn't going to give him silly money just for the sake of it. But if he has average (for our standards) success and is taking calls from every AD in the country, we'll overpay to keep him. That's our MO.

And the last two are not irrelevant. The NBA factor is nice, it simply pales in comparison to actual program production. And recruiting is a good indicator, but if you are going to base it on how many stars Rivals or Scout or ESPN gives to a high school kid that hasn't played a minute of college ball, your view on evaluating recruiting is inherently flawed. Which isn't a horrible thing, I think MOST fans method of evaluating recruiting is inherently flawed.

Our culture is one that demands instant satisfaction. That's why recruiting rankings for HS kids are so popular. But plenty of kids, especially in the 20-100 range, never produce the way they are expected to, and plenty of kids in the 101-250 range produce above expectations.

Who should be lauded more for their recruiting, guys like Buzz Williams that misevaluated players like Jamail Jones, Erik Williams, and Juan Anderson, or guys like Bo Ryan that consistently found less coveted but more productive players like Frank Kaminsky, Jordan Taylor, and Josh Gasser?

I would rather have a productive player that a media member has never heard of than a non-productive player that a media member calls top-100 any day of the week.

Quite simply, which of these were better "gets" for their respective programs? 2007, Trevor Mbakwe or Jon Leuer? 2009, Erik Williams or Mike Brusewitz? 2010, Vander Blue and Jamail Jones or Ben Brust and Josh Gasser? 2011, Juan Anderson and Derrick Wilson or Frank Kaminsky and Traveon Jackson?

In pretty much every case there, the Marquette guys were more highly rated. In every case there, the Wisconsin guys were more productive. So who was the one doing better recruiting? The school that got guys with more stars and less wins, or the guys that had less stars and more wins?

I'll take wins over star-rankings any day of the week.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

Money won't stop UW from hiring a coach. Simple as that. It won't stop them in terms of salary and won't stop them in terms of putting it into the program. Bo didn't demand more so they didn't give more.

The reason Marquette has had to (over)pay for their coaches to that extreme is because they were always sniffing at other jobs. That's what happens when you have guys that play out their interest publicly.

If Wojo has great success and never indicates a desire to leave, Marquette isn't going to give him silly money just for the sake of it. But if he has average (for our standards) success and is taking calls from every AD in the country, we'll overpay to keep him. That's our MO.

And the last two are not irrelevant. The NBA factor is nice, it simply pales in comparison to actual program production. And recruiting is a good indicator, but if you are going to base it on how many stars Rivals or Scout or ESPN gives to a high school kid that hasn't played a minute of college ball, your view on evaluating recruiting is inherently flawed. Which isn't a horrible thing, I think MOST fans method of evaluating recruiting is inherently flawed.

Our culture is one that demands instant satisfaction. That's why recruiting rankings for HS kids are so popular. But plenty of kids, especially in the 20-100 range, never produce the way they are expected to, and plenty of kids in the 101-250 range produce above expectations.

Who should be lauded more for their recruiting, guys like Buzz Williams that misevaluated players like Jamail Jones, Erik Williams, and Juan Anderson, or guys like Bo Ryan that consistently found less coveted but more productive players like Frank Kaminsky, Jordan Taylor, and Josh Gasser?

I would rather have a productive player that a media member has never heard of than a non-productive player that a media member calls top-100 any day of the week.

Quite simply, which of these were better "gets" for their respective programs? 2007, Trevor Mbakwe or Jon Leuer? 2009, Erik Williams or Mike Brusewitz? 2010, Vander Blue and Jamail Jones or Ben Brust and Josh Gasser? 2011, Juan Anderson and Derrick Wilson or Frank Kaminsky and Traveon Jackson?

In pretty much every case there, the Marquette guys were more highly rated. In every case there, the Wisconsin guys were more productive. So who was the one doing better recruiting? The school that got guys with more stars and less wins, or the guys that had less stars and more wins?

I'll take wins over star-rankings any day of the week.

90% of this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I'll address the one that sort of does:

You say that coaches making silly money are exclusively those who float names everywhere. Have I been missing out on the "Coach K to _____" rumors? Or the "Bill Self to _______" rumors? Sean Miller? Roy Williams? Boeheim? Calhoun? Huggins? Crean (at IU)?

Compensation is partially about retention, but also about rewarding accomplishment for the organization. It also (believe it or not) sends a message to future job candidates that "this is a place where excellence is rewarded."

Regardless of the motivation, MU pays more. When comparing two jobs, and one pays $300k more, that is a tick in the "pro" column.

Access to a private jet doesn't hurt, either.

I'm not sure who you're arguing with in the rest of your post, but I'd suggest you take it up with them.

[brewcity77]

Mostly the guy who throws stuff out there, then when his argument fails him, abandons it.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

Mostly the guy who throws stuff out there, then when his argument fails him, abandons it.

I've stayed consistent... Unless you can point out where I haven't been.

I'm noticing you keep steering things to a comparison of coaches and not jobs.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

Mostly the guy who throws stuff out there, then when his argument fails him, abandons it.

Regardless of your Badger fluffing, the fact remains that MU pays coaches more, has objectively superior facilities, and provides more resources for their program.

These aren't disputable.

Since you don't like talking about NBA alumni or recruiting trends, I'm leaving those out of he argument. Do you want to reintroduce those

Being all over the place might be more entertaining in a blog post, but it's exhausting to try and hold you to your prior statements.

Again, I await your block since you're not winning this one.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

I would say, BTW, that having a slew of successful NBA alumni at your disposal to support recruiting efforts is a "pro" for a coach.

[brewcity77]

I've stayed consistent... Unless you can point out where I haven't been.

I'm noticing you keep steering things to a comparison of coaches and not jobs.

As you said, you abandoned NBA alums. Why? Because you couldn't counter that actual production mattered more. You abandoned the recruiting angle. Why? Because you don't care to comment on my specific recruiting examples? You've drifted from the facilities argument despite me giving specific examples (newer arena, athlete specific dorm) of why UW is winning that battle.

As far as "winning this one", I suppose if you spin your argument enough different ways, avoiding the arguments you clearly lost, then yes, you can pat yourself on the back and tell yourself you're a good boy. 

[Benny B]

After reading the last few pages of nonsense, I really want to channel my inner-Rocky here, but the problem is, I don't have mod privileges (EVERY SINGLE ONE of you should be thankful for that, BTW)

So I'll just do what Keefe does:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_j7xkQHEYUok/S-PGx73bmQI/AAAAAAAAC9U/t0pY090C9TM/s400/mapplethorpe+selfportrait.jpg

[GGGG]

After reading the last few pages of nonsense, I really want to channel my inner-Rocky here, but the problem is, I don't have mod privileges (EVERY SINGLE ONE of you should be thankful for that, BTW)

So I'll just do what Keefe does:

Yeah.  I mean God forbid people debate something actually on topic - providing opinions and basis for those opinions. 

[Loose Cannon]

I enjoyed these last few pages of posts.  It was like the Title of “Kup’s show years ago “ The Lively Art of Conversation”  A big thank you for all who posted.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

As you said, you abandoned NBA alums. Why? Because you couldn't counter that actual production mattered more. You abandoned the recruiting angle. Why? Because you don't care to comment on my specific recruiting examples? You've drifted from the facilities argument despite me giving specific examples (newer arena, athlete specific dorm) of why UW is winning that battle.

As far as "winning this one", I suppose if you spin your argument enough different ways, avoiding the arguments you clearly lost, then yes, you can pat yourself on the back and tell yourself you're a good boy. 

I abandoned it because you said it was irrelevant. If you agree it's relevant we can re-include it. If we do, then that's more in the column for MU.

Would you like to do that?

Also you said recruiting rankings were unreliable and misleading. This was a compromise. We can reinclude that, but that will also skew MU.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

As you said, you abandoned NBA alums. Why? Because you couldn't counter that actual production mattered more. You abandoned the recruiting angle. Why? Because you don't care to comment on my specific recruiting examples? You've drifted from the facilities argument despite me giving specific examples (newer arena, athlete specific dorm) of why UW is winning that battle.

As far as "winning this one", I suppose if you spin your argument enough different ways, avoiding the arguments you clearly lost, then yes, you can pat yourself on the back and tell yourself you're a good boy. 

For each of these I'm doing my bet to keep on objectively verifiable items, like capacity/budget.

I don't agree that the athlete-only dorm is a benefit. I also don't agree that newness of the arena is a benefit over capacity and access to NBA facilities.

[brewcity77]

I abandoned it because you said it was irrelevant. If you agree it's relevant we can re-include it. If we do, then that's more in the column for MU.

Would you like to do that?

Also you said recruiting rankings were unreliable and misleading. This was a compromise. We can reinclude that, but that will also skew MU.

LOL

I didn't call it irrelevant, I said there were numerous more important factors, all of which you preferred to ignore. I explained why recruiting rankings were a flawed metric, you abandoned them, but seem to only want to include them if they favor Marquette and ignore them if they are actually analyzed objectively.

You must be dizzy by now from all this talking in circles you're doing.