MU mentions on chicagohoops.com

[Pakuni]

From 5/29:

David Brown (Rockton Hononegah) of the Illinois Warriors may well be the hottest prospect in the Illinois Class of 2009. Depaul, Oklahoma State, Northwestern and Marquette are all among his high-major admirers. On any given day, Brown is as good as any player in the Illinois Class of 2010, and can be expected to become a Top 75 prospect nationally in very short order.

Tony Benford of Marquette University is top notch. Look for Benford, new head coach Buzz Williams, and Marquette University to continue to have the Golden Eagles strongly in the hunt for prospects throughout the state of Illinois.

http://www.chicagohoops.com/articles1/brianstinnette163.html

[Daniel]

I like that we are getting some attention now - very nice to see - great for Marquette

[Big Papi]

Its really starting to look like the Benford hire was a great hire.

[mviale]

Buzz and company cannot see the ceiling. Crean and Company had bumps on their heads.

[Daniel]

TC on the way out to Buzz: "Watch your head on the ceiling."
Buzz to TC: "What ceiling?"

[downtown85]

TC on the way out to Buzz: "Watch your head on the ceiling."
Buzz to TC: "What ceiling?"

+1.  I couldn't agree more!  MU has a lot to offer.  1) so  an upper tier BE team with a lot of national exposure.  2) Buzz (or TC for that matter while he was here) has nothing to lose.  For example, why is MU any better or worse than Memphis?  It all comes down to the coach.  TC was MU's ceiling.  Buzz may or may not be.

[79Warrior]

Buzz and company cannot see the ceiling. Crean and Company had bumps on their heads.

Yep, the first Final Four appearance since Al MaGuire was quite a ceiling.  You  sound like a bunch of guys dumped by their girlfriend. Move the F on.

[mviale]

we have moved on and Buzz is moving at lightening speed to put us back on track with 2003

[jce]

we have moved on and Buzz is moving at lightening speed to put us back on track with 2003

This is just too much.  Since being named head coach, Buzz has gotten one good player and now he's the best coach around?  C'mon...perspective guys.  He has yet to coach a game.

[muarmy81]

He has yet to coach a game.

Exactly, which is why I don't understand how everyone immediately thinks he's a bad hire or a good hire when we haven't even seen him on the MU sidelines in an actual game...

[Pakuni]

This is just too much.  Since being named head coach, Buzz has gotten one good player and now he's the best coach around?  C'mon...perspective guys.  He has yet to coach a game.

I'd say two, maybe three, good players (keeping E. Williams, signing Jimmy Butler) but otherwise, you're point is dead on. Despite many rushes to judgment, we won't know any sooner than next March if this is a bad hire, and won't know whether it's a good hire until at least 2010.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

we won't know any sooner than next March if this is a bad hire, and won't know whether it's a good hire until at least 2010.

Agree 100%.

I've been very pro-Buzz in other threads, but I have to be fair that one good recruit doesn't make him great... just like one bad interview (or whatever) doesn't make him terrible.

[Avenue Commons]

This is just too much.  Since being named head coach, Buzz has gotten one good player and now he's the best coach around?  C'mon...perspective guys.  He has yet to coach a game.

+1. Seriously. Crean, more than anyone else, always talked about Marquette being a destination and a place where a top-notch program could be built. See: Al McGuire Center, Al McGuire Court at the Bradley Center, etc.

[79Warrior]

+1. Seriously. Crean, more than anyone else, always talked about Marquette being a destination and a place where a top-notch program could be built. See: Al McGuire Center, Al McGuire Court at the Bradley Center, etc.

Completely agree.Crean did his job at MU. The fact that the topic won't die reveals quite a bit. Crean was a tireless worker on behalf of MU. bummer he left. The morons who keep ripping him and his family demean MU. The guy left, so what. Lets hope Buzz can get it done. If not, we will be looking again in 3 or 4 years.

[mviale]

Exactly, which is why I don't understand how everyone immediately thinks he's a bad hire or a good hire when we haven't even seen him on the MU sidelines in an actual game...

I totally discount coach crean's impact on coaching games, so getting players is enough for me now.

[nola03]

I totally discount coach crean's impact on coaching games, so getting players is enough for me now.

Wow.

So the fact that he averaged 23 wins the last three years with no discernible offensive presence at the 5 had nothing to do with coaching.

[mviale]

On the contrary - the 1 post-season victory over the last 5 years, makes me think Crean was lacking in coaching.

[ChicosBailBonds]

On the contrary - the 1 post-season victory over the last 5 years, makes me think Crean was lacking in coaching.

At least be accurate...MU had three post season victories in the last five years, not one.

I'm sure the losses had nothing to do with his two best players out for two of those other years (Diener and McNeal). 

Some of you guys are really setting up Buzz for some interesting benchmarks.  As I asked before and no one answered, if Crean was such a lousy coach and recruiter, then really Buzz has to do better then him to be a success in your eyes...right?

[mviale]

At least be accurate...MU had three post season victories in the last five years, not one.

I'm sure the losses had nothing to do with his two best players out for two of those other years (Diener and McNeal). 

Some of you guys are really setting up Buzz for some interesting benchmarks.  As I asked before and no one answered, if Crean was such a lousy coach and recruiter, then really Buzz has to do better then him to be a success in your eyes...right?

let me clarify - 1 ncaa win over the last 5 years.

[77ncaachamps]

On the contrary - the 1 post-season victory over the last 5 years, makes me think Crean was lacking in coaching.

His game-time coaching was decent...but he just didn't recruit the talent to put everything together in the postseason (READ: lack of quality big men).

Robert Jackson was a GIFT to Crean that year. RJax was really needed to pound the ball hard to the hole and offset Merritt's seemingly exclusive outside game.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

His game-time coaching was decent...but he just didn't recruit the talent to put everything together in the postseason (READ: lack of quality big men).

Robert Jackson was a GIFT to Crean that year. RJax was really needed to pound the ball hard to the hole and offset Merritt's seemingly exclusive outside game.

Not to get into a robert jackson debate... but had Wade come back the following year... MU would have had the best back court in the country (diener and Wade), plus Novak, Merrit, Chapman, Townsend, D. Mas, etc.

Not a lot of power players in that bunch... but certainly a formidable team with Wade and Diener leading the charge.

I guess my point is, while big men are certainly valuable, special talent can overcome just about anything. Diener, Wade, Novak in 2003-2004 would have been pretty special.

[4thAndState]

Great point, 2002mualum. I believe you can do very well in power conferences and the tourney with great guards and decent/serviceable bigs. Don't think it works the other way. That's why I'm optimistic about 08-09.

[wadesworld]

Great point, 2002mualum. I believe you can do very well in power conferences and the tourney with great guards and decent/serviceable bigs. Don't think it works the other way. That's why I'm optimistic about 08-09.

Hate to bring it up, but didn't Stanford vs. Marquette  in the 2nd round of this year's NCAA Tournament kind of prove that point to be wrong?  I'd like to think we had great guards and decent bigs, and Stanford had the opposite and came out on top.  Jackson was by far the 2nd most valuable player on the 2003 team.  You need balance to go deep into the tournament.  It may be more important to have great guards than it is to have great bigs, but you need good, not just decent, bigs.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Hate to bring it up, but didn't Stanford vs. Marquette  in the 2nd round of this year's NCAA Tournament kind of prove that point to be wrong?  I'd like to think we had great guards and decent bigs, and Stanford had the opposite and came out on top.  Jackson was by far the 2nd most valuable player on the 2003 team.  You need balance to go deep into the tournament.  It may be more important to have great guards than it is to have great bigs, but you need good, not just decent, bigs.

Agreed... and I don't think I was being very clear in my previous post.

Some people claim that Jackson was a "gift" and that without him MU wouldn't have been nearly as successful. I agree with this statement.

However, let's temper the love for Jackson, because I'd argue that a 2003-2004 team with Wade (who had left early) might have been better than the final 4 team with Jackson. 

Now, I understand the "What-if" game is pointless, I'm just trying to illustrate that Crean did recruit a number of talented players, and had the most talented one stayed another year... then Jackson's impact might not look so huge because the team would have been VERY good in 2003-2004.

If Robert Jackson never stepped foot on campus, they still would have been good in 2003, and maybe even better in 2004 (if wade stayed).

I hope I'm making sense here.

[muarmy81]

Hate to bring it up, but didn't Stanford vs. Marquette  in the 2nd round of this year's NCAA Tournament kind of prove that point to be wrong?  I'd like to think we had great guards and decent bigs, and Stanford had the opposite and came out on top.  Jackson was by far the 2nd most valuable player on the 2003 team.  You need balance to go deep into the tournament.  It may be more important to have great guards than it is to have great bigs, but you need good, not just decent, bigs.

How much further did Stanford progress?  Not far...a 20 point drubbing by Texas which includes a pair of stellar guards in Augustine and AJ Abrahms.

While great post play helps you go further in the tournament I would argue that guard play is more important.  Sure a quality big man helps but if you only have a strong inside game you don't necessarily win in today's uptempo game.  Throw a zone against a big man or double down each time (which we failed to do against Stanford) and make shaky guards beat you from the perimeter.  Now if you only have quality guards you can double but they'll tend to set up their teammates for easier shots (ie dunks and layups) where a quality big man can only set up his guards with open perimeter shots.  Look at each of the final four teams:  Some of them had quality bigs (Hansborough, Love, maybe even include Dorsey) but in the end it was the guards who elevated their teams to the finals (Chalmers, Rose, Douglas-Roberts, Rush, etc)

[4thAndState]

Hate to bring it up, but didn't Stanford vs. Marquette  in the 2nd round of this year's NCAA Tournament kind of prove that point to be wrong?  I'd like to think we had great guards and decent bigs, and Stanford had the opposite and came out on top.  Jackson was by far the 2nd most valuable player on the 2003 team.  You need balance to go deep into the tournament.  It may be more important to have great guards than it is to have great bigs, but you need good, not just decent, bigs.

Yes and no if using the Stanford game as the example. If McNeal would have hit one of his last shots or Lopez would have missed his last shot then my theory would be correct? The game proved that great guards can still give you an opportunity to beat a high-seed team and, in fact, come within a bounce of winning. I still stand by my statement that great guards and decent bigs are one recipe for power conference and tourney success.

[bilsu]

We lost to Stanford because of coaching. Crean let it be a half court game, which favored Stanford's bigmen. We needed to press them and force the tempo. Stanford's weakness was turning the ball over. We did not turn them over, because Crean coached the team not to lose instead of playing to win. If we would have went at them like we did against Wisconsin we would have won that game. Crean's poor march record was due to the fact he aways coached differently in March.

[wadesworld]

How much further did Stanford progress?  Not far...a 20 point drubbing by Texas which includes a pair of stellar guards in Augustine and AJ Abrahms.

While great post play helps you go further in the tournament I would argue that guard play is more important.  Sure a quality big man helps but if you only have a strong inside game you don't necessarily win in today's uptempo game.  Throw a zone against a big man or double down each time (which we failed to do against Stanford) and make shaky guards beat you from the perimeter.  Now if you only have quality guards you can double but they'll tend to set up their teammates for easier shots (ie dunks and layups) where a quality big man can only set up his guards with open perimeter shots.  Look at each of the final four teams:  Some of them had quality bigs (Hansborough, Love, maybe even include Dorsey) but in the end it was the guards who elevated their teams to the finals (Chalmers, Rose, Douglas-Roberts, Rush, etc)

Your point about great guard play being more important is one that I made in my post.  I agree that great guards are MORE important than great bigs, but you can't have just DECENT bigs to make a Final Four (or guards, for that...you need BALANCE, as I said).  Texas wasn't just great guards.    Damion James was a stud forward and Connor Atchley averaged 10 ppg and 6 rpg, GOOD, but not GREAT, numbers.  ALL of the Final Four teams had VERY good bigs and VERY good guards, altogether making VERY good BALANCE.  Darrell Arthur, Darnell Jackson, and Sasha Kahn the bigs for Kansas, Luc Richard Mbah a Moute and Kevin Love for UCLA, Robert Dozier and Joey Dorsey for Memphis, and Tyler Hansbrough and Deon Thompson.  Then they had the guards to go with the bigs.  Balance is my point...not one or the other but both.

[muarmy81]

Well I guess i ranted a bit too long...my point was that if I had to choose between either great guards or great big men I'd choose great guards every time because i think you can get further and have more success than you can with only great big men.  (See Michael Beasley, harangody, etc)

[bilsu]

Truly great bigmen are one and done. Year after year consistancy has to come from the guard spots. I agree you will not make the final four without a very good power player.

[ChicosBailBonds]

We lost to Stanford because of coaching. Crean let it be a half court game, which favored Stanford's bigmen. We needed to press them and force the tempo. Stanford's weakness was turning the ball over. We did not turn them over, because Crean coached the team not to lose instead of playing to win. If we would have went at them like we did against Wisconsin we would have won that game. Crean's poor march record was due to the fact he aways coached differently in March.

We were ranked 25th in the nation playing a top 10 team, in the state of California and lost in OT on a miracle shot and we lost because of coaching.  Uhm, ok. 

Exactly how did he coach the team "not to lose".  I'm also curious, were you impressed by our win two days prior against Kentucky?

[Nukem2]

Chicos, have to dsagree with you here.  MU most definitely lost that game due to coaching decisions.  How can one let Mitch Johnson (who is a rather average or slightly above average Div I player) get 16 ( yes, 16...!!) assists while standing close to the right sideline and repeatedly lobbing passes in to the Lopezii.  All TC had to do was have DJ play Johnson tighter.  But, no.....  Loved TC, but he truly was not one of the game's giants when it came to in-game coaching.  Terrific at preparation and motivation, but not so good at adapting to the situation at hand (particalarly on defense).. Look at the Kentucky game in the 1st round as well in terms of adapting on defense on the Ky guards. 

[muarmy81]

Chicos,
I tend to agree with a lot of what you say and I actually think TC did a great job at MU but the simple fact that he refused to FRONT the post at any point in the game leads me to believe he was not watching the same game.  Like Nukem mentions he could have tried to have the guys apply more pressure on the entry passes or at least have our post defenders front the low post rather than allow easy entry pass after easy entry pass to a 7 ft clown 3 feet from the basket.  I don't blame burke, ooze, or even trend for not fronting as it is pretty evident they were being told to play 3/4...ugh just talking about it now is driving me nuts!!

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos,
I tend to agree with a lot of what you say and I actually think TC did a great job at MU but the simple fact that he refused to FRONT the post at any point in the game leads me to believe he was not watching the same game.  Like Nukem mentions he could have tried to have the guys apply more pressure on the entry passes or at least have our post defenders front the low post rather than allow easy entry pass after easy entry pass to a 7 ft clown 3 feet from the basket.  I don't blame burke, ooze, or even trend for not fronting as it is pretty evident they were being told to play 3/4...ugh just talking about it now is driving me nuts!!

We fronted at first and got destroyed trailing 9-2 I believe before that was scrapped. 

The reason Mitch Johnson had 16 assists was because they had two NBA players down low making everything = many assists.  Quite frankly, I'm surprised the game was even as close as it was, I expected we would be blown out.  Stanford was the ONE team that was going to give us problems in the second round....they were the only 3 seed that was problematic and MU lost with a second left in OT.  Great game, heartbreaking loss.


The reason I ask about the Kentucy game is that Buzz was in charge of that game in terms of scouting, prep, etc.  I actually thought we played much better in the Stanford game then the Kentucky game.

[nola03]

The reason I ask about the Kentucy game is that Buzz was in charge of that game in terms of scouting, prep, etc.  I actually thought we played much better in the Stanford game then the Kentucky game.

Is that true about Buzz being the prep man for Kentucky?

I'm still waiting for someone to guard Joe Crawford.

[muarmy81]

We fronted at first and got destroyed trailing 9-2 I believe before that was scrapped. 

The reason Mitch Johnson had 16 assists was because they had two NBA players down low making everything = many assists.  Quite frankly, I'm surprised the game was even as close as it was, I expected we would be blown out.  Stanford was the ONE team that was going to give us problems in the second round....they were the only 3 seed that was problematic and MU lost with a second left in OT.  Great game, heartbreaking loss.

That may be true as I was watching the scores on my blackberry for the 1st half. (returning from my in-laws)  But weren't we ahead at the 1/2?  I was basing my opinion off of the 2nd 1/2 and OT...soooo frustrating.