stophorseabuse
04-06-2010, 08:40 AM
The following is a prime example of the ignorance of BCS fans. This comes from a UC board, and the fan is quoting how recruiting a player like Heyward (who was actually known to be a big time player, but destined for Butler or Purdue) leads to the destruction of a program, and states the only reason for Butler's run is system, coach, and lots of luck. Quote bolded below.
Very well said. I might add for every Butler, there's a good 100 other schools that don't succeed with these types of player. This was a great run by Butler, maybe once in a lifetime given the tourney expansion coming.
Just b/c one, two, three, etc seem to excel with these skill levels does not mean this would be an intelligent way to approach winning year in and year out for a BCS school. Butler lands these kids b/c they fit what they're looking for, but importantly it's what's available to them and they make it work. No teams are passing up a top 50 player to land a Hayward. It may work for them somewhat in the long run, and certainly this year b/c of a great system and a great coach, but would kill a program like UC.
The tourney is a total different animal than league play as well, which is why it's so entertaining. Butler deserves a ton of credit, they're great but you can't field a team of similar athleticism and size and expect to be able so sustain it through a 16 game league schedule in the BE. I would not underestimate the position their conference can put them in come the NCAA's either. It can really hurt or help them, in Butler's case it helped. Keep in mind they were in a decent, close 1st round game, they didn't run away from anyone. You can't say they would have been the same team if they weren't on a 18 game winning streak either or whatever. They developed a lot of confidence and probably little fatigue from their regular season when compared to others.
These are completely hypothetical numbers but like I said, there' a lot of teams that field similar rosters. Let's say 4 out of 50 succeed each year with all 3 and a couple of 4 stars... That's 8%. On the hand, if you take the 30 or so teams that are comprised of 4 stars and a couple of 5 stars, it's probably 15-20 of 30 that succeed each year. Obviously 50-66%.
It all comes down to the coach and their system too, Cronin, and every BE and BCS coach probably, is not suited to work with less. The higher the athlete(s), the better chance for success. These players do not fit most systems coming out of HS. For every Hayword there's 25 kids ranked right around him that would sit the pine for a school like UC. Recruit a handful of them, and you're digging your program's grave in a major conference. The tourney is great but there's tons of luck involved. I do get the point in that a major confence team not always going for the top athlete, it's valid and showing more each year. But I don't see using Butler's success as a good way to build a program, or for us to take examples from, either.
Good coach, good system, a whole of luck = Butler. With those caliber players though it's alot more probable to be a Fordham, Lasalle, Weber St., Duqeusne, St. Bonaventure... They're all bringing in simliar recruits. We all just taking notice b/c of the tourney runs, it happens ever year. When we smack one of these 3 star teams down next year in the OOC, no one will be begging for the kid ranked at #215 and his like skilled teammates.
Kids ranked 215 are all over great teams. If each school gets 3 freshmen each year that means the BCS teams have roughly 230 freshmen coming in. When you take out all the players better than 215 that go to non BCS schools, BCS teams have players ranked up to 400ish coming in. But somehow Larry Davis, Yancey Gates, and Biggie McClain are better than taking skilled players. To some fans credit a few recognize the value of skilled basketball players.
I love the attitude about somehow the Horizon league gives Butler an advantage, and somehow they were less fatigued than big east schools. Then the example talking about bad teams bringing in the talent equal to Butler's (by pointing out 4 a-10 schools). Somehow this moron implies Butler was a fluke at the end of his post, apparently he doesn't follow basketball outside of the BCS. Butler's talent is high (and was when they were recruited) and they have been damn good for a while now.
The poster also brought up earlier how 'situations' like Butler will not come up as much when the tourney expands. That is ignorant. Butler was a 5 seed. That means their first round game will be easier, even if they are an 8 seed. The top 32 teams will get to play their first game against a team with less rest, and still only have to win 4 games to make the final 4. It can never be that the non power 6 conference team earned their way by beating the 'power teams', there always has to be an excuse.
Very well said. I might add for every Butler, there's a good 100 other schools that don't succeed with these types of player. This was a great run by Butler, maybe once in a lifetime given the tourney expansion coming.
Just b/c one, two, three, etc seem to excel with these skill levels does not mean this would be an intelligent way to approach winning year in and year out for a BCS school. Butler lands these kids b/c they fit what they're looking for, but importantly it's what's available to them and they make it work. No teams are passing up a top 50 player to land a Hayward. It may work for them somewhat in the long run, and certainly this year b/c of a great system and a great coach, but would kill a program like UC.
The tourney is a total different animal than league play as well, which is why it's so entertaining. Butler deserves a ton of credit, they're great but you can't field a team of similar athleticism and size and expect to be able so sustain it through a 16 game league schedule in the BE. I would not underestimate the position their conference can put them in come the NCAA's either. It can really hurt or help them, in Butler's case it helped. Keep in mind they were in a decent, close 1st round game, they didn't run away from anyone. You can't say they would have been the same team if they weren't on a 18 game winning streak either or whatever. They developed a lot of confidence and probably little fatigue from their regular season when compared to others.
These are completely hypothetical numbers but like I said, there' a lot of teams that field similar rosters. Let's say 4 out of 50 succeed each year with all 3 and a couple of 4 stars... That's 8%. On the hand, if you take the 30 or so teams that are comprised of 4 stars and a couple of 5 stars, it's probably 15-20 of 30 that succeed each year. Obviously 50-66%.
It all comes down to the coach and their system too, Cronin, and every BE and BCS coach probably, is not suited to work with less. The higher the athlete(s), the better chance for success. These players do not fit most systems coming out of HS. For every Hayword there's 25 kids ranked right around him that would sit the pine for a school like UC. Recruit a handful of them, and you're digging your program's grave in a major conference. The tourney is great but there's tons of luck involved. I do get the point in that a major confence team not always going for the top athlete, it's valid and showing more each year. But I don't see using Butler's success as a good way to build a program, or for us to take examples from, either.
Good coach, good system, a whole of luck = Butler. With those caliber players though it's alot more probable to be a Fordham, Lasalle, Weber St., Duqeusne, St. Bonaventure... They're all bringing in simliar recruits. We all just taking notice b/c of the tourney runs, it happens ever year. When we smack one of these 3 star teams down next year in the OOC, no one will be begging for the kid ranked at #215 and his like skilled teammates.
Kids ranked 215 are all over great teams. If each school gets 3 freshmen each year that means the BCS teams have roughly 230 freshmen coming in. When you take out all the players better than 215 that go to non BCS schools, BCS teams have players ranked up to 400ish coming in. But somehow Larry Davis, Yancey Gates, and Biggie McClain are better than taking skilled players. To some fans credit a few recognize the value of skilled basketball players.
I love the attitude about somehow the Horizon league gives Butler an advantage, and somehow they were less fatigued than big east schools. Then the example talking about bad teams bringing in the talent equal to Butler's (by pointing out 4 a-10 schools). Somehow this moron implies Butler was a fluke at the end of his post, apparently he doesn't follow basketball outside of the BCS. Butler's talent is high (and was when they were recruited) and they have been damn good for a while now.
The poster also brought up earlier how 'situations' like Butler will not come up as much when the tourney expands. That is ignorant. Butler was a 5 seed. That means their first round game will be easier, even if they are an 8 seed. The top 32 teams will get to play their first game against a team with less rest, and still only have to win 4 games to make the final 4. It can never be that the non power 6 conference team earned their way by beating the 'power teams', there always has to be an excuse.