Grantland Big East preview

Fun article about how under the radar but good we are.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...rting-big-east

And a gratuitous shot at Crean, just for good measure. Always nice.:D

Yeah, that part was great too... :p

Tom Crean is generally disliked. I think it is due to his rotten personality

Well, the author is an Ohio State guy, so...

Yeah, I have to wonder about the antipathy toward the former MU coach. Hey, from the moment he left and Cottingham hired Buzz, I have been happy about the change. But give the former MU coach his props. He took over a program that was about as bad as it could be. In three years, he had it respectable. In five, Ix4 spent part of the season ranked #1. Granted, it is easier to do at Ix4 than it is a Podunk State, but that is still a major accomplishment. And it appears he did it without breaking any rules. I am not naive. Rules get broken. But the former MU coach does not have a rep for running roughshod over them, and even if he did, he'd have little room to maneuver at Ix4, where the program was already on probation when he came along. And from his tenure at Marquette, it is a pretty good bet that he makes his players go to class. Not such a bad record. Is he a gifted game coach? No, not really. Did he get as much out of his team last year as he should have? Probably not, but upsets happen in the tournament. Outside of the Final Four run, the former MU coach does not have a very good post-season record, but he does get teams to the post-season. Could someone else have done a better job? Probably, but I do not know who that someone is, exactly, and clearly a whole lot of people could have done worse. No, whether you like him or not, and whether you were happy with the way he left Marquette or not, and whether you would give your first born for season tickets to Ix4 or not, the former Marquette coach strikes me as a pretty good hire for Ix4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KalkBird

Tom Crean is generally disliked. I think it is due to his rotten personality

---

IME, in the sports world, people who are generally disliked are generally successful. Just sayin'....

VS

I have no antipathy, just find it funny when a national writer realized his limitations. Because he has many of those. And he carries himself like his **** doesnt stink.

The thing that I think is funny is when people talk about lack of success in the NCAAs. You have to get to the Sweet 16 to finish above .500. Everyone wants a Final Four, but only 4 teams make it each year. That's it. So much is put on winning in the NCAAs, but isn't getting there repeatedly an accomplishment?

Let's say Joe Paterno goes to the NCAAs 10 years in a row. He loses 3 times in round one, 5 times in round two and makes it to the Sweet 16 twice. That makes Joe 9-9 in the NCAAs, or .500. Is that good? Is that bad? 10 consecutive trips to the NCAAs, two Sweet 16 appearances. Is that a failure? It just means that Joe isn't in the top 4, top 8 or top 16 in the country every year. Joe could be top 20 every year, just not top 16 - is that a lack of success?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Ganzer, "IWB"

The thing that I think is funny is when people talk about lack of success in the NCAAs. You have to get to the Sweet 16 to finish above .500. Everyone wants a Final Four, but only 4 teams make it each year. That's it. So much is put on winning in the NCAAs, but isn't getting there repeatedly an accomplishment?

Let's say Joe Paterno goes to the NCAAs 10 years in a row. He loses 3 times in round one, 5 times in round two and makes it to the Sweet 16 twice. That makes Joe 9-9 in the NCAAs, or .500. Is that good? Is that bad? 10 consecutive trips to the NCAAs, two Sweet 16 appearances. Is that a failure? It just means that Joe isn't in the top 4, top 8 or top 16 in the country every year. Joe could be top 20 every year, just not top 16 - is that a lack of success?

---

Jim, I may be different, but I always looked at the number after the "-" as an indication of success. When I look at MU's overall record, it is after the "-" that is most impressive to me. Only one team get's the "0" there. The rest get a +1. A large number shows a successful program. A large number on both sides shows a very successful program.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Ganzer, "IWB"

The thing that I think is funny is when people talk about lack of success in the NCAAs. You have to get to the Sweet 16 to finish above .500. Everyone wants a Final Four, but only 4 teams make it each year. That's it. So much is put on winning in the NCAAs, but isn't getting there repeatedly an accomplishment?

Let's say Joe Paterno goes to the NCAAs 10 years in a row. He loses 3 times in round one, 5 times in round two and makes it to the Sweet 16 twice. That makes Joe 9-9 in the NCAAs, or .500. Is that good? Is that bad? 10 consecutive trips to the NCAAs, two Sweet 16 appearances. Is that a failure? It just means that Joe isn't in the top 4, top 8 or top 16 in the country every year. Joe could be top 20 every year, just not top 16 - is that a lack of success?

---

I'll go you one further. Take someone like Oliver Purnell. When DePaul hired him, some of their fans complained that he was 0-6 in the Dance. Looks terrible. But let's take a look at those teams. His first was his first year at Old Dominion. He got them into the Dance, but they were 15-15, which means they won their conference tournament and probably played a top seed. Now this was his first year there, so he was probably not taking over a great team. It was an accomplishment to get them to go on a run in the conference tournament. Then they had to play a one or two seed in the first round. Then he did it twice at Dayton. He took over a program that was terrible and got them into the tournament twice in nine years and three NIT appearances. I am not sure where they were seeded, but it is likely that they were underdogs in at least one of those games. Then he had three appearances at Clemson. Clemson probably should have won at least a couple of those. So out of six games, maybe on paper his team should have won three. In one, they had virtually no chance. And at both Dayton and Clemson, he had about as much success as any coach. Not a great post-season record, but if a coach went 0-6 in the toughest part of his season, it is disappointing, but probably not a cause for firing. Often the season is salvageable, and by the next year, everybody forgets about it.

So much of the NCAA comes down to luck. The former Marquette coach did not look all that great in his tenure, except for the Final Four run. But as we all recall, Marquette almost got upset in the first round for the second year in a row, and had to go into overtime against Missouri in the second round. Without some timely threes in the first game, DWade never gets a chance for a triple double against Kentucky. One of the differences between good teams and almost good teams is that good teams win most of those games, but it was a close thing. A year earlier, MU got upset by Tulsa, but almost pulled it out. Had we won, we would have faced a good but beatable Kentucky team. Beating them would have been an accomplishment and gotten the team to the Sweet Sixteen for the first time in a decade. But instead, UK clobbered Tulsa in the second round.

When Shaka Smart had his huge year, his team barely made the tournament. They were one of the last four in. And as I recall, they had to go into overtime to beat Kevin O'Neill's USC team in the play-in round. So Smart is a hero. Obviously, he did something right to get them to the Final Four, but again, it was a close thing. If they lose in the first round, he might be a good coach, but no hero. And if O'Neill had taken his team to the Final Four instead, he'd still be coaching.

We've done just great the last three years, but everybody knows that it took some luck to get past Davidson last year, and every year, we have had one really terrible game, usually at home. One year it was LSU blowing us out. The next year Vanderbilt. At home. Fortunately, those games didn't happen in the tournament. Part of that is coaching of course. Buzz has his team ready to play in the postseason. But part of it is luck. And the problem with tournament stats is that for most coaches, there aren't enough games to figure out which it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclejohn

And the problem with tournament stats is that for most coaches, there aren't enough games to figure out which it is.

---

There it is right there.

I loved the picture accompanying the article - C.O. and Ox on the court at the same time against 'Cuse - big part of MU's win. I really hope we see that more than a few times this year - very intimidating - NBA size w/ those 2 and Jamil. Throw in DW and TM (or JJJ to loosen things up) in the backcourt and you've got an impressive situational line-up.

Not sure - At media day I asked a few of the players and they seemed to think that those two would not play much together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaribouJim

I loved the picture accompanying the article - C.O. and Ox on the court at the same time against 'Cuse - big part of MU's win. I really hope we see that more than a few times this year - very intimidating - NBA size w/ those 2 and Jamil. Throw in DW and TM (or JJJ to loosen things up) in the backcourt and you've got an impressive situational line-up.

---

The key word you said is "situational." The problem is that you are going to have mis-matches on the defensive end. That is actually what happened in that Syracuse game when Davante blew up. They went small and Buzz had to counter with Steve Taylor...who ran the baseline in the offense and guarded the 4 on the defensive end. Taylor ended up playing almost as many minutes (16) as Otule (17).

I just don't think those two work as well together on the floor as a lot of people think they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSultan

The key word you said is "situational." The problem is that you are going to have mis-matches on the defensive end. That is actually what happened in that Syracuse game when Davante blew up. They went small and Buzz had to counter with Steve Taylor...who ran the baseline in the offense and guarded the 4 on the defensive end. Taylor ended up playing almost as many minutes (16) as Otule (17).

I just don't think those two work as well together on the floor as a lot of people think they do.

---

That's why I said "situational". However, it was my recollection that the line-up with C.O. and D.G. along with Jamil (or Taylor) together played an integral part in the momentum change - gave SU a dose of their own medicine going against a lengthy (and bulky) zone.

Maybe others can chime in with their recollections about that game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaribouJim

That's why I said "situational". However, it was my recollection that the line-up with C.O. and D.G. along with Jamil (or Taylor) together played an integral part in the momentum change - gave SU a does of their own medicine going against a lengthy (and bulky) zone.

Maybe others can chime in with their recollections about that game.

---

No, I think you are correct. The momentum change started with CO and DG on the floor...but Syracuse countered. Here is the play by play:

http://statsheet.com/mcb/games/2013/...4/play_by_play

Using both of them cut a small halftime deficit down to a back and forth game. However Syracuse ended up going up by 7 at the 9:26 mark of the second half when DG was fouled. At that point, Otule came out for the rest of the game...and Taylor came in and played for the remainder of the game except for a short :30 stretch in the late second half. From that point on, MU outscored SU 30-20.