I didn't have time to read your full post but I applaud your high standards for excellence and perfection.
Commit!
- Thread starter JournCat
- Start date
Maybe you should check what conferences those programs you mentioned were in when they ascended. Of the ones you mentioned, how many were in power conferences at the time? Other than WIS, I don't see any. (And while I will give you WIS, they do tend to have a lot of advantages that NU just has not had.) It can be a lot harder getting the necessary wins to get to the dance in a power conference. Prior to our dance year, what was the last time we had had a winning record in conference play? I think it was about 1968 when the conference was limited to a single bid for the conference champion. And recruits have developed under CCC. A lot more than they did under BC.
So now you don't believe Gonzaga is unique?
Another interesting piece of the criteria.
Well, I'm glad it has become so easy to run out and find a Hall of Fame player to turn things around.
Like so many other points, we'll ignore the silly details of NU's academic standards.
But go ahead and keep ignoring that it took each of your examples longer to make the tournament. At the same time, we're still several years away from the milestones each reached for the Sweet 16. But you obviously want to hold Collins to a different standard.
Okee- dokee.
You go ahead and continue to track player developments. Hopefully you might consider a measurable besides your opinion.
Last edited:
Gonzaga is in a crappy conference, beats on Power 5 teams for OOC games and then runs deep in the tournament. What is your point? Before they drew highly regarded recruits, they did this through finding overlooked talent and developing it. Are you saying NU could never develop overlooked talent and develop it?
Okay, let’s bury our heads, live in the memory of two years ago, ignore anything in front of us, have zero discussions and blow daisies around the board all day.
Put me on ignore. I will completely disappear and you can enjoy all the other reading material here. Please.
I thought you liked conversing? Why would you want him to put you on ignore?
I’m enjoying watching him take apart all your arguments...
That's funny. Yea, that's me, Mr. Ostrich. Just ask anybody. I never question Collins at all. I'm all about the rah-rah.
Once again, let's try working with the reality of what's on the board, rather than your perception of it.
Once again, let's try working with the reality of what's on the board, rather than your perception of it.
The next time will be the first. But it is subjective and rational minds can disagree.
Ok, nice. Everyone on this whole damn site cannot respect differing opinions or raise above personal attacks.
At this point, I’m thoroughly disappointed and discouraged. Any thought of spurring meaningful discussion that can examine positives and negatives about NU athletics appears to be a pipe dream.
The overwhelming vocal contributors choose to ignore reality, respond to discussion with insult and simply act unpleasant.
The whole experience seen in politics is not isolated, I feel our society has really devolved to a lack of civility.
Screw my early posts. CCC has been perfect. Everything is pointed up, though not too much, because we should never expect or hope to have nice things. Got to dance, that was cool. Cats should have a fun season and lots of people should graduate. Say good night Gracie
Having waded through multiple threads on two different boards involving a lot of your posts, it seems to me that people are having plenty of discussion with you. Many of them just aren't agreeing with you. That is likely the root of your problem. If you haven't seen the critical posts of NU football and hoops on these boards by many posters here (certainly including Sec 112), then you must have most of us on Ignore. I think, however, many here are not AS negative as you are about the state of things.
Sec.112 has presented his opinion in a logical and fact-based way, and without emotion I might add. All I've seen from Bob is a petulant response to an opinion that is different from his ("Okay, let’s bury our heads, live in the memory of two years ago, ignore anything in front of us, have zero discussions and blow daisies around the board all day"). Sec.112 is engaging in a rational discussion. Bob often presents information based on his perception, sometimes way off (Olah), and shouts down discussions with insults (Purple Koolaid Klique) and self pity. But carry on.
I don't see anything about PKK in this discussion, I conceded about Olah and I guess you think that is wrong and I am about to respond to respond to petulence and your contributions will be front and center. But thanks for more false narrative in an effort to wrongly label me.
I face different struggles on different Boards here. If you will indulge a couple of posts, I will try to illustrate. Admittedly, my frustrations came to a head last night - and as I stated on FB side, I am human, I am flawed - I do have emotions. While I need no sympathy, I hope some of the more rational folks at least recognize the struggles I face here.
GCG, DaCat, VaCat - consistently lie about me. Perception creates reality. Recent example: I only show up after losses, I only post to the negative. Well, as Fitzphile pointed out, I posted after Purdue. I dug deeper and posted the first one I could find after a FB win last year. During the NCAA dance year, I was full of positive energy. Lara and I traveled to foreign arenas to support the team and watch them play. I offered to take anyone here along. And I am highly critical about things I don't like. I expressed concern about recruiting that blew up to the start of the Walker Wars when we had no one - that turned out to be the Gaines class. Again, I raised the point, again we left a scholie unused. I find this fair material to open for debate and to be on the critical side.
But through repeatedly claiming I offer nothing positive, I only appear after losses - well, the perception builds. And it is inaccurate. Now let me jump into another post or two to show my frustrations over here...
Oh, Lord, Bob. I can't decide what's more screwy about the long parade of disappointment you try to cobble together as the foundation of your argument.
Bit on personal attack side.
If you're silly enough to be married to 10% of the board (at best!!) who talk of greatness (your word, not mine) and base your discussion on the scouting brilliance of the knowledgeable NU fanbase, I can't help you.
Bit on personal attack side.
But you really need to understand better where the talent level is here and what it's true potential is.
Point of contention, I believe we should aspire for better - that is 100% opinion. There is no right or wrong.
Law was the top-rated recruit until Nance, right? This is the second time in a week you've referenced that Law should be "great." Oh, excuse me: the board said it. You just keep repeating it.
Here's the ESPN top 100 in Law's class. Law is part of the 60-100 group. Why don't you show me all the "great" players in this group of 40?
I did not start a thread to talk about Law. I wanted to discuss the development of the players under CCC. Not whether Law deserved the recruiting rating he received. Did he improve here? Not even did he fill his potential - did he IMPROVE WHILE HERE.
Yes, there's Issac Haas, Mikal Bridges and Vince Edwards. I'll even throw in Phil Booth and Cody Martin to expand the group. Are we going to call all these guys "great?" I wouldn't at all.
So, let's lower the bar. Let's pretend a great player is someone in this class who EITHER scores double-digits for two seasons or even simply stays at their school for four years. How about you show me the long line of players in 60-100 of that class that achieved EITHER of these simple milestones of "greatness." Is it half?
Law EASILY fits into the top third of this group of 40 PLAYERS. Good luck finding "great." And, to be practical, good luck finding it with NU's grade standards.
I think you'll find similar percentages in the top 60-100 of most classes.
Not a single word about his growth or development on the NU court - not a one.
Regarding another of your disappointments, when exactly did you think Scottie Lindsey had "great potential." When his leg was broken in high school? Maybe it was his 4.4 points/game in his freshman year? Oh no ... it must have been his 5.7 p/g as a sophomore.
On a VERY good day, Lindsey was a great player. Then, we saw the mediocre-to-good player who Lindsey was for the next three-to-five games. Is that Collins' fault? How did Collins stifle Lindsey? He certainly had the green light.
Now we are getting somewhere. I suppose had I responded point by point, my answer would be as his coach, CCC needs to do more than provide a green light, but I disgress...
For now, this is where NU lives. They've taken a step but last year showed this is still a development program as most are outside the top 30. On a very good day, they are recruiting in the questionable areas of the top 60-100. On the other days, top 100+.
At that address, you're going to have Pardons, Laws and BMacs. You're also going to have Brown, Falzon and Skelly. And you're ridiculous if you think you're going to avoid injuries similar to Rapolas.
Collins has his problems. They've been discussed. And they're discussed at least as much as the opinions of greatness you like to pretend are conventional wisdom out here.
Yes, and his success. Why can we not talk about them rationally? What do you want to do on an otherwise dead board?
If you and others think a majority of their recruits should be top-100, well, you might want to re-examine your expectations while you continue to put the coaching staff under your poorly-focused microscope. There's a reason you're repeatedly disappointed in la-la land. Well, except for that one season that is so conveniently swept away.
NO - I want to talk about player development - that is what I posted about. Why change the topic and then assign it to me?
And it gets worse...stay tuned.
Bit on personal attack side.
If you're silly enough to be married to 10% of the board (at best!!) who talk of greatness (your word, not mine) and base your discussion on the scouting brilliance of the knowledgeable NU fanbase, I can't help you.
Bit on personal attack side.
But you really need to understand better where the talent level is here and what it's true potential is.
Point of contention, I believe we should aspire for better - that is 100% opinion. There is no right or wrong.
Law was the top-rated recruit until Nance, right? This is the second time in a week you've referenced that Law should be "great." Oh, excuse me: the board said it. You just keep repeating it.
Here's the ESPN top 100 in Law's class. Law is part of the 60-100 group. Why don't you show me all the "great" players in this group of 40?
I did not start a thread to talk about Law. I wanted to discuss the development of the players under CCC. Not whether Law deserved the recruiting rating he received. Did he improve here? Not even did he fill his potential - did he IMPROVE WHILE HERE.
Yes, there's Issac Haas, Mikal Bridges and Vince Edwards. I'll even throw in Phil Booth and Cody Martin to expand the group. Are we going to call all these guys "great?" I wouldn't at all.
So, let's lower the bar. Let's pretend a great player is someone in this class who EITHER scores double-digits for two seasons or even simply stays at their school for four years. How about you show me the long line of players in 60-100 of that class that achieved EITHER of these simple milestones of "greatness." Is it half?
Law EASILY fits into the top third of this group of 40 PLAYERS. Good luck finding "great." And, to be practical, good luck finding it with NU's grade standards.
I think you'll find similar percentages in the top 60-100 of most classes.
Not a single word about his growth or development on the NU court - not a one.
Regarding another of your disappointments, when exactly did you think Scottie Lindsey had "great potential." When his leg was broken in high school? Maybe it was his 4.4 points/game in his freshman year? Oh no ... it must have been his 5.7 p/g as a sophomore.
On a VERY good day, Lindsey was a great player. Then, we saw the mediocre-to-good player who Lindsey was for the next three-to-five games. Is that Collins' fault? How did Collins stifle Lindsey? He certainly had the green light.
Now we are getting somewhere. I suppose had I responded point by point, my answer would be as his coach, CCC needs to do more than provide a green light, but I disgress...
For now, this is where NU lives. They've taken a step but last year showed this is still a development program as most are outside the top 30. On a very good day, they are recruiting in the questionable areas of the top 60-100. On the other days, top 100+.
At that address, you're going to have Pardons, Laws and BMacs. You're also going to have Brown, Falzon and Skelly. And you're ridiculous if you think you're going to avoid injuries similar to Rapolas.
Collins has his problems. They've been discussed. And they're discussed at least as much as the opinions of greatness you like to pretend are conventional wisdom out here.
Yes, and his success. Why can we not talk about them rationally? What do you want to do on an otherwise dead board?
If you and others think a majority of their recruits should be top-100, well, you might want to re-examine your expectations while you continue to put the coaching staff under your poorly-focused microscope. There's a reason you're repeatedly disappointed in la-la land. Well, except for that one season that is so conveniently swept away.
NO - I want to talk about player development - that is what I posted about. Why change the topic and then assign it to me?
And it gets worse...stay tuned.
Let me continue to bang my head ...
So we can compare programs, but we can't compare players. Got it.
No, compare players away - but compare their development. I am not attacking players - I am looking at development.
You want to compare to programs? Fine, let's do that.
As I said, you might want to consider your measuring sticks a little ridiculous, but if you want to compare NU to a program that has made the Sweet 16 in each of the last four year, let's do it. But don't forget that Dan Fitzgerald was coaching Gonzaga for ten years before his first tournament in '94-'95.
Barry Collier was coaching Butler for seven years before his first tournament in '96-'97.
Homer Drew was coaching Valpo for seven years before his first tournament in '94-'95.
Dick Bennett had been a coach D1 coach for five years before his first tournament at UW-Green Bay in '90-'91. That was 15 years after his first college head coaching job and five more years before he arrived in Madison.
See a trend here?
And these aren't even the guys who actually brought the programs to their heights. Each of these guys laid the foundation. In each case except Bennett, the program was in at least the Sweet 16 within four years after the first modern tournament bid.
Bennett was in a Final Four five years after he arrived at Wisconsin,
I see you've also continued to ramble on about the supposed Vic Law resume. No, I have not. Besides the personal attack, I have spoken to development. What do we have here: highest recruit ... talent ... potential ... savior ... remarkable lack of development. These may be your "points of analysis," but you might want to consider the more you repeat them doesn't bring them any closer to factual.
So we can compare programs, but we can't compare players. Got it.
No, compare players away - but compare their development. I am not attacking players - I am looking at development.
You want to compare to programs? Fine, let's do that.
As I said, you might want to consider your measuring sticks a little ridiculous, but if you want to compare NU to a program that has made the Sweet 16 in each of the last four year, let's do it. But don't forget that Dan Fitzgerald was coaching Gonzaga for ten years before his first tournament in '94-'95.
Barry Collier was coaching Butler for seven years before his first tournament in '96-'97.
Homer Drew was coaching Valpo for seven years before his first tournament in '94-'95.
Dick Bennett had been a coach D1 coach for five years before his first tournament at UW-Green Bay in '90-'91. That was 15 years after his first college head coaching job and five more years before he arrived in Madison.
See a trend here?
And these aren't even the guys who actually brought the programs to their heights. Each of these guys laid the foundation. In each case except Bennett, the program was in at least the Sweet 16 within four years after the first modern tournament bid.
Bennett was in a Final Four five years after he arrived at Wisconsin,
I see you've also continued to ramble on about the supposed Vic Law resume. No, I have not. Besides the personal attack, I have spoken to development. What do we have here: highest recruit ... talent ... potential ... savior ... remarkable lack of development. These may be your "points of analysis," but you might want to consider the more you repeat them doesn't bring them any closer to factual.
Anyway, the whole point being, I just wanted to have some discussion here. The chirps and snarks from the usual non-contributors, I had hoped Sec, med, a few others here might take up some conversation. I think we have little more to discuss on recruiting - it's not going well. And I feel like even folks like sec have been persuaded by the Va and DaCat that I only post negative stuff (then whenever I pull the archive to prove the falsity, I am unreasonable for that too - I guess I should drop to your level and banter in name calling and lies...).
But fine, it would appear that even the rational folks here believe any discussion about player development under a coaching regime is irrelevant. So I will ask again, what can we discuss? Or do you all prefer a quiet empty Board with occasional puff pieces during the offseason?
But fine, it would appear that even the rational folks here believe any discussion about player development under a coaching regime is irrelevant. So I will ask again, what can we discuss? Or do you all prefer a quiet empty Board with occasional puff pieces during the offseason?
OK, so now everyone has had their say. Mods it's time to delete this entire post.
You really have your rules, don't you? We're now pointing out "bits" of a personal attack? I won't bother returning the serve but don't play the angel with me.
We all have our way of saying "f*ck you." Some of us do it directly - or in this case - "bits" of directly. Some do it by not listening, intellectually lying or not acknowledging a conversation - the one that really seems to bother you, yet you have no problem doing over and over and over.
In the end, it's all disrespectful. So stop playing like one is worse than another.
I'd love to talk about player development, and I have in this thread and far more. - another point you seem to keep ignoring. But ... let me say this as gently as possible for you ...: time and again, you've made it very obvious you are lacking the ability to understand talent level, what it's true potential is and any measurables for that discussion.
And a whole slew of people agree with me.
You can tell me Charlie Hall should be playing at the level of Magic Johnson and what he needs to improve. Am I really suppose to believe that?
That's not that far away from when you repeatedly say Vic Law should be "great." You have no clue what he should be, no comps and no definition of what "great" is. Just repetiton on the word "great" which evolves into your disappointment narrative.
It's the most basic premise of this whole thing, but you want to repeatedly ignore it.
So why am I going to continue to engage in your zigs and zags when you don't respect the conversation you supposedly want?
Was that soft enough for you?
You also need to understand something else. I'm not exactly the most loved guy out here. And when you have this many people lining up against you in a conversation with me, you need to take a look at what you're doing.
When you want to take some responsibility for your part in this and stop playing the victim or inventing conspiracy theories, I'll be happy to respond to the conversation you supposedly want - even though I already did ... extensively. I'm sorry I didn't address it within your parameters.
We all have our way of saying "f*ck you." Some of us do it directly - or in this case - "bits" of directly. Some do it by not listening, intellectually lying or not acknowledging a conversation - the one that really seems to bother you, yet you have no problem doing over and over and over.
In the end, it's all disrespectful. So stop playing like one is worse than another.
I'd love to talk about player development, and I have in this thread and far more. - another point you seem to keep ignoring. But ... let me say this as gently as possible for you ...: time and again, you've made it very obvious you are lacking the ability to understand talent level, what it's true potential is and any measurables for that discussion.
And a whole slew of people agree with me.
You can tell me Charlie Hall should be playing at the level of Magic Johnson and what he needs to improve. Am I really suppose to believe that?
That's not that far away from when you repeatedly say Vic Law should be "great." You have no clue what he should be, no comps and no definition of what "great" is. Just repetiton on the word "great" which evolves into your disappointment narrative.
It's the most basic premise of this whole thing, but you want to repeatedly ignore it.
So why am I going to continue to engage in your zigs and zags when you don't respect the conversation you supposedly want?
Was that soft enough for you?
You also need to understand something else. I'm not exactly the most loved guy out here. And when you have this many people lining up against you in a conversation with me, you need to take a look at what you're doing.
When you want to take some responsibility for your part in this and stop playing the victim or inventing conspiracy theories, I'll be happy to respond to the conversation you supposedly want - even though I already did ... extensively. I'm sorry I didn't address it within your parameters.
Well, I will stop making the effort and sit back and watch. I try to keep my engagement over the crap, with exceptions for a select few. Meanwhile, let's see what happens on this Board over the next week or two. I look forward to the spirited engagement, of which I will participate on as minor a level as I can.
They got into the tourney early by having won their conference. Easier to do that than win the BIG.
I would probably give the staff a B+ on player development thus far. Not elite, but most players have trended upward. You can point to B-Mac as someone who didn't improve a ton over the course of his time, but he was pretty good coming in, and there are an awful lot of other examples of players I think have improved - Vic, Scottie (until his senior year), Pardon, Skelly, Sanjay, etc. And what I like is that I can notice specific skills they likely had developed / worked on in a prior offseason. Positive development is the general rule rather than the exception, while it was sort of the opposite under the past regime IMO - though with notable positive exceptions from special guys like Jitim, Shurna, Vedran, etc.
In other areas, I think I'd give the staff a B- on game-to-game coaching. There have been some notable positives - being flexible on defensive scheme within a given season, the decision to switch to a tough-minded D focus in his first season when we were a bit outmatched in athleticism, adjusting pace against different opponents, managing defensive matchups, using double-teams selectively. But generally I think the offensive scheme has not been particularly imaginative, and it's rare that I see a play or game-specific design that it looks like was successful primarily due to its design. (The Taphorn to Pardon play is one notable exception)
Recruiting I would give an A-. Not been perfect year-to-year, but this is a far cry better than what I've experienced in the past while following NU. I think he's done an excellent job at ticking up our recruiting a level higher, particularly given the inherent challenges of recruiting to NU, and that we are behind peers on the facilities side (hopefully not for too much longer!).
Player motivation maybe a B? This was excellent in the NCAAT year obviously, but it does feel like it's been inconsistent at times in the other years. So averaging that out.
So overall I think he's been about a B+ coach for us thus far. Quite a bit above average compared to other options out there. Not perfect or elite, and plenty of things to work on, but I'm very very happy to have him and don't think there are many better options out there for NU.
Go Cats
Last edited:
Only three players have been trusted by the staff to start regularly as frosh....BMac, Law and Falzon. Collins put Law on the bench midway through his first year. IIRC, Falzon started because Law was out injured. Pardon's shirt was burned out of necessity, but he later returned to the bench. Gaines was pressed into a starting role late last year because of injuries.
With the exception of BMac and maybe Falzon, all the frosh played like frosh so they didn't get much time.
The fact that many developed into starters and major minutes suggests improvement.
I don't get the knock on Law. He made all conference defensive team his second full year and shot over 40 percent for two years. His court time at NU has been limited by a health issue. Seriously, what's the basketball/coaching expectation....he should have been born with different DNA?
With the exception of BMac and maybe Falzon, all the frosh played like frosh so they didn't get much time.
The fact that many developed into starters and major minutes suggests improvement.
I don't get the knock on Law. He made all conference defensive team his second full year and shot over 40 percent for two years. His court time at NU has been limited by a health issue. Seriously, what's the basketball/coaching expectation....he should have been born with different DNA?
Have to disagree with you on in-game coaching. While I'd give them a B+ on the defensive side, I see them a C- on offense. The Cats offense seems to be passing around the perimeter and jacking up a forced 3 as the shot clock winds down, or having BMac penetrate and shoot one of his low percentage floaters or (more favorably) dish to Dererk. The lack of cutting or movement and inability of any body other than BMac to drive to the bucket makes for a lack luster offense. Compare their offense to that of Loyola, who got layup after layup in the tournament. I sure hope they come up with a different plan this season, although without a ball handler that might be a challenge.
Oh yeah. I actually meant for that to be a B-. I fully agree better than that on defense, but it hasn’t been great on offense. C- there sounds about right.
I disagree that guys like Shurna, Vedran etc improved that much. Nash definitely did as well as our walkon favorite Reggie but other than that, I did not see a lot of development under BC. Generally if they did not start as Frosh, you would not see much of them.
The rest of your assessment seems reasonable while I might give game day coaching a little bit of a bump to a B. Last year was sort of an exception in that we were short handed and injuries affected rotations and more so I am giving them a little bit of a pass in this area. For example, Lindsey might have deserved benching in spots last year but with the injuries just could not afford to.
Last year with the injuries, the O was definitely affected by the lack of depth and injuries. The year before there was more variety
John Shurna went from a skinny freshman averaging 7 ppg to an All American, First Team Big 10 player who led the league in scoring as a Senior. Shurna improved every year.
Carmody guys generally had lower ceilings than what we are seeing with Collins. Guy like Nash, Shurna, Vedran were excellent athletes so they got better. Some other guys lacked athleticism to keep getting better.
Yeah Shurna had some incredible development. Maybe Vedran was already good and was just fighting to stay healthy, but I feel like he also improved. Nash is another good one. And actually Hachad did improve to some extent, though don't think he fully realized his potential. Hearn was a great story. But guys like Wink, W Blake, Scott, Seacat, Marcotullio, Peljusic, and a myriad of other big men I feel like were pretty stagnant over their time here. Trying to think back, perhaps it was more of a mixed story and not as negative for the BC staff as I portrayed above. But I would still contend that the CC staff has done a better job, and much more quickly.
I would argue that the best Carmody players (Shurna, Crawford, Vedran, Juice, Jitim, Coble) were better than the best Collins guys so far (only BMac and maybe Law can be included in that group; Demps was a Carmody recruit but developed under Collins and probably belongs). But Collins had one unicorn team better than any NU team since the '82-83 squad and is better positioned to take a step up.
There's the key right there - without a couple of ball handlers who can break down a defense, everything stagnates. Add a couple of those guys to the mix, and all kinds of possibilities open up for the offense.
The in-game coaching comments are the ones that caught my attention.
While I agree there have been some nice in-season changes on defense, I'm pretty sure I remember correctly that major adjustments in two different years came 10+ games into the season. Between practice and those first ten games, that's almost two months before identifying and implementing changes.
I'd love to ask other coaches if that's a slow process.
As for the offense, I've said before how much I dislike "I'll never tell someone not to shoot." I know there's a D'Antonian idea that you need to get the ball up early or late in the shot clock, but we saw last year how poor decisionmaking on shots can kill a team. At some point, CC needs to better control that.
Last season, he also openly admitted how poorly he prepared the team. Let's hope it was learning experience on managing a veteran team.
There's some work to be done, but the concentration on the foundational attributes of winning programs has always been there. There's the Xs and Os as well as the needs that go beyond strategy.
Let's hope he smooths out his rough edges. I don't think those improvements are out of the realm of possibility.
Those in season defense changes have been entire scheme / approach changes. Admittedly they were a ways into the season, but I feel like the season doesn’t fully start until conference play, the rest is warmup. I’ve also seen in game adjustments in terms of matchups (moving Sanjay, and later Vic around, or the distribution of big man minutes against different opponents) and also in how / whether to double team. I think he’s been a pretty good defensive coach.
Re offense, I’m not sure that I agree that decisions to shoot too early are our problem (I generally like it when we try to push the pace). But clearly something isn’t working great, so we are mostly on the same page. I think that generally his scheme / play calling just hasn’t added a ton of value, and so the players struggle to create opportunities on their own. Very few people are going to be Brad Stevens, but I feel like we should have more and better designed actions to use scheme to get players open looks.
