AbeFroman:

They have a different level of turnover than we do.... players leaving early, etc.  It leaves them from time to time with a very down year.... gaps in the natural progression of things.  They always have talent, but sometimes they get stuck with really young or inexperienced players. 

To answer your question, there is a large discrepancy between us MU and those schools.... yes. 

Yes, I understand that.  But what good does it do a program if their not-so-spectacular freshman bank on their potential and enter the draft?  The programs that have these freshman, with some exceptions, don't generally win national championships.  Freshman talent really only gets a team so far (with very, very few notable exceptions).  So that begs the question: Would you rather have good players for four years or great players for one (ask UW which one they prefer)?  I don't think recruiting the top 20 players will win you championships.  Recruiting the 20-100 players will.

But more specific to the issue, you're claiming that year in and year out these teams recruit and get high-level commitments, so there really shouldn't be a down year, even with the turnover, should there?

ike1024:

AbeFroman:

They have a different level of turnover than we do.... players leaving early, etc.  It leaves them from time to time with a very down year.... gaps in the natural progression of things.  They always have talent, but sometimes they get stuck with really young or inexperienced players. 

To answer your question, there is a large discrepancy between us MU and those schools.... yes. 

Yes, I understand that.  But what good does it do a program if their not-so-spectacular freshman bank on their potential and enter the draft?  The programs that have these freshman, with some exceptions, don't generally win national championships.  Freshman talent really only gets a team so far (with very, very few notable exceptions).  So that begs the question: Would you rather have good players for four years or great players for one (ask UW which one they prefer)?  I don't think recruiting the top 20 players will win you championships.  Recruiting the 20-100 players will.

But more specific to the issue, you're claiming that year in and year out these teams recruit and get high-level commitments, so there really shouldn't be a down year, even with the turnover, should there?

I personally rather have 4 year guys ranked 50-100ish (even though the stud lower classmen model seems to be doing pretty well as of late.... or at least a nice mix.... UNC, Memphis, OSU, UCLA).... I certainly know someone like Bo Ryan does too (his system and philosophy obviously limits what he can get anyways).  My concern is that we do not get nearly enough of those 50-100ish guys consistently and none of them are ever over 6'-6".  That is NOT a formula designed for consistent or high levels of success in a major conference.

Even teams with a bunch of top 50 guys are very beatable if they are young or are not coached very well.  Not sure where you are going with all this.... you don't think teams like 'Cuse, UCONN, and Louisville get much better (and bigger) talent than we do?

AbeFroman:

ike1024:

AbeFroman:

They have a different level of turnover than we do.... players leaving early, etc.  It leaves them from time to time with a very down year.... gaps in the natural progression of things.  They always have talent, but sometimes they get stuck with really young or inexperienced players. 

To answer your question, there is a large discrepancy between us MU and those schools.... yes. 

Yes, I understand that.  But what good does it do a program if their not-so-spectacular freshman bank on their potential and enter the draft?  The programs that have these freshman, with some exceptions, don't generally win national championships.  Freshman talent really only gets a team so far (with very, very few notable exceptions).  So that begs the question: Would you rather have good players for four years or great players for one (ask UW which one they prefer)?  I don't think recruiting the top 20 players will win you championships.  Recruiting the 20-100 players will.

But more specific to the issue, you're claiming that year in and year out these teams recruit and get high-level commitments, so there really shouldn't be a down year, even with the turnover, should there?

I personally rather have 4 year guys ranked 50-100ish (even though the stud lower classmen model seems to be doing pretty well as of late.... or at least a nice mix.... UNC, Memphis, OSU, UCLA).... I certainly know someone like Bo Ryan does too (his system and philosophy obviously limits what he can get anyways).  My concern is that we do not get nearly enough of those 50-100ish guys consistently and none of them are ever over 6'-6".  That is NOT a formula designed for consistent or high levels of success in a major conference.

Even teams with a bunch of top 50 guys are very beatable if they are young or are not coached very well.  Not sure where you are going with all this.... you don't think teams like 'Cuse, UCONN, and Louisville get much better (and bigger) talent than we do?

My point is who cares if they do, since they aren't consistently better, over the past few years anyway.  Comparing Marquette to UNC and UCLA is pointless because Marquette isn't on that level, but Marquette compares favorably to all of the BE schools you mentioned, so either you're wrong about the talent discrepency or it doesn't matter as much as you say it does.

ike1024:

but Marquette compares favorably to all of the BE schools you mentioned, so either you're wrong about the talent discrepency or it doesn't matter as much as you say it does.

Doesn't matter?  What have we won?  Have we gone full circle back to top 6 conference finishes being a big accomplishment?

UCONN had a terrible year last year (for the reasons I mentioned above) and 'Cuse has been down because Boeheim doesn't have a clue when it comes to anything but recruiting (which he does as well as anybody).  That being said, those two teams along with Pitt and Georgetown have hardware in the last three years.  I don't think Louisville has actually won a title in that timeframe, but they have two 2nd place finishes, and Elite 8 appearance and 4 tourney wins..... clearly more success than we've had.

AbeFroman:

Doesn't matter?  What have we won?  Have we gone full circle back to top 6 conference finishes being a big accomplishment?

UCONN had a terrible year last year (for the reasons I mentioned above) and 'Cuse has been down because Boeheim doesn't have a clue when it comes to anything but recruiting (which he does as well as anybody).  That being said, those two teams along with Pitt and Georgetown have hardware in the last three years.  I don't think Louisville has actually won a title in that timeframe, but they have two 2nd place finishes, and Elite 8 appearance and 4 tourney wins..... clearly more success than we've had.

What hardware?  Are you basing success on conference championships but an inability to win multiple games in the NCAA tournament?  Who cares about that if you can't win more than two games in the tourney?  You're talking about being nationally competitive by getting better players.  Being nationally competitive in recruiting is a means to more than a conference championship, or just a conference tourney championship.  I think being top six in the BE every year is just as much a sign of success as being second one year and tenth the next. 

And again, your reasons for why those teams have such different finishes is irrelevant, it only means that they don't produce every year, regardless of who they are recruiting.  

Furthermore, I think we would all agree that Marquette has been outcoached in just about every tournament game since '03, save the Stanford game.  I think that has something to do with the inability to move past the second round.

Would you rather have Marquette be 20-25 every year or 10th one year and 50th the next?  I guess it depends on what you want.

ike1024:

AbeFroman:

Doesn't matter?  What have we won?  Have we gone full circle back to top 6 conference finishes being a big accomplishment?

UCONN had a terrible year last year (for the reasons I mentioned above) and 'Cuse has been down because Boeheim doesn't have a clue when it comes to anything but recruiting (which he does as well as anybody).  That being said, those two teams along with Pitt and Georgetown have hardware in the last three years.  I don't think Louisville has actually won a title in that timeframe, but they have two 2nd place finishes, and Elite 8 appearance and 4 tourney wins..... clearly more success than we've had.

What hardware?  Are you basing success on conference championships but an inability to win multiple games in the NCAA tournament?  Who cares about that if you can't win more than two games in the tourney?  You're talking about being nationally competitive by getting better players.  Being nationally competitive in recruiting is a means to more than a conference championship, or just a conference tourney championship.  I think being top six in the BE every year is just as much a sign of success as being second one year and tenth the next. 

And again, your reasons for why those teams have such different finishes is irrelevant, it only means that they don't produce every year, regardless of who they are recruiting.  

Furthermore, I think we would all agree that Marquette has been outcoached in just about every tournament game since '03, save the Stanford game.  I think that has something to do with the inability to move past the second round.

Would you rather have Marquette be 20-25 every year or 10th one year and 50th the next?  I guess it depends on what you want.

 

20-25 every year?  LOL.  We've been top 20-25 MAYBE 4 years in the last 30 (2 of them with the Wade lottery ticket) and that qualifies as "20-25 every year"..... ROFL.  Wow..... delusional.

I want championships... that is what you play for... whether it be conference or national.  It's that simple.  The goal is to bring home some hardware.  That's why you see players and coaches and fans celebrating/hugging/crying/leg humping when it happens.  Nobody threw a party or handed out t-shirts for clinching a top 6 finish last year... and nobody cut down the nets after we beat Kentucky.  None of those things have happened much recently (one year in the last 30) and it doesn't look like it is going to start any time soon.

AbeFroman:

20-25 every year?  LOL.  We've been top 20-25 MAYBE 4 years in the last 30 (2 of them with the Wade lottery ticket) and that qualifies as "20-25 every year"..... ROFL.  Wow..... delusional.

I was under the impression that we were talking about the past 3-5 years, since know one cares what happened ten years ago.  I mean if you want to base all of your arguments on how good programs were 20 years ago, we can probably start talking about UNLV as a national power.  And yes, for the majority of the past 3 years, Marquette has been a top-25 program.

I haven't seen a lot of people crying after clinching their regular season conference championship either.  I haven't seen anyone cry after winning the preseason NIT.  There's only one piece of hardware that actually matters.  Conference championships are nice, but they mean nothing.

ike1024:

There's only one piece of hardware that actually matters.  Conference championships are nice, but they mean nothing.

Very few teams have a legit shot at winning it all..... and neither UW/MU have not been in that discussion for over 30 years (when it was a much different sport).  So I guess everybody on the Sportsbabbler might as well find a new team(s) to root for, since according to you, nothing matters other than something no team in this state has any realistic shot at winning.

Yes, that's exactly what I said.  If you would be so kind as to point me to spot where I said that no one should root for a team that doesn't contend for a national championship.  I've told you before - smoke and mirrors don't work on me.  What I said, and I stand by it, has nothing to do with rooting for a team.  It means that every fan of a tournament team will be at least marginally disappointed if their team doesn't end up winning it all, regardless of how many conference championships they win.

The problem with your logic is that you originally said Marquette needs to be recruiting the top 30-40 players in the country so that they can become a national contender instead of just a conference contender - because Marquette contends for the conference every year, whether they win or not.  Now you're saying that it doesn't matter if they are a national contender as long as they get enough talent to win a conference championship, which they essentially already have.

ike1024:

The problem with your logic is that you originally said Marquette needs to be recruiting the top 30-40 players in the country so that they can become a national contender instead of just a conference contender - because Marquette contends for the conference every year, whether they win or not.  Now you're saying that it doesn't matter if they are a national contender as long as they get enough talent to win a conference championship, which they essentially already have.

LOL..... Now who is using smoke & mirrors?  I'm sorry, but you are not dealing in reality if you think we've been in the hunt for a BE title the last 3 years.

And I never said we needed to recruit the top 30-40 players to become a national contender (even though we probably do, it isn't realistic)... I said we need to start recruiting multiple 50-100 guys to have a chance in the BE once every 5 years or so (like 2005, but every year with some height mixed in).  I don't think a NC is very realistic here at MU.  For the record, I think it would take a coach like Huggins or Calapari to do that (i.e. a "better" version of Crean).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abe:

........... and neither UW/MU have not been in that discussion for over 30 years (when it was a much different sport)..............

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grammar: "knowledge or usage of the preferred or prescribed forms in speaking or writing:"

I guess double negatives are part of the MSOE curriculum??

rockmeon:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abe:

........... and neither UW/MU have not been in that discussion for over 30 years (when it was a much different sport)..............

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grammar: "knowledge or usage of the preferred or prescribed forms in speaking or writing:"

I guess double negatives are part of the MSOE curriculum??

LOL.... pointing out grammatical errors .... the time-honored crutch of those being roundly owned by their superiors.  Wow, I must really have you on tilt.  Can I now make the assumption that all of your posts will be (and have been) error-free?

rockmeon:

I guess double negatives are part of the MSOE curriculum??

Never be tempted to use more than one question mark for the sake of emphasis.

• Do you really want to risk your life skydiving?

• not  Do you really want to risk your life skydiving??

 I guess incorrect punctuation is part of the MU curriculum???!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??%%$#&*@

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/CliffsReviewTopic/Problems-with-Question-Marks.topicArticleId-29011,articleId-28982.html

AbeFroman:

LOL.... pointing out grammatical errors .... the time-honored crutch of those being roundly owned by their superiors. 

Oddly enough, you have proven nothing, other than that you still presume to be everyone else's superior.

Did Wisconsin challenge for a Big Ten title two years ago?  I will assume that you think that they had a chance to win the conference that year.  They finished 2 games behind Ohio State.  That same year Marquette finished three games back in a league that plays two more games.  Although Marquette hasn't won, or even been within a game, they were close enough where I think most would say they contended.