zgolfz85 said:

---

BuzzFan24 said:

---

You've must've not ventured over to the transfer portal thread where guys are saying we should go after a 0-Star from a 17th placed Boston College team all while comparing the player who doesn't even break 10 ppg to the greats of Acie Law and Bernard King.

---

The BC player would be a great addition. Haven't ventured to that thread, but if you'd done even basic research, you'd know he's a damn good player that we could benefit from immensely.

---

So players can be "a damn good player" when their team finishes 17th in the weakest P4 conference in the country but Buzz can't be a "damn good coach" when he leads his team to a top 20 ranking in the best conference ever? Got it. Thanks for your insight.

zgolfz85 said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

The problem with that question is that "make the tourney every year" comes with the assumption that by virtue of your consistency and a little luck, youre gonna win in it sometimes. Its a very different proposition if its "make the tourney but never go far"

---

But that is the question I think is interesting. Would you rather make the tourney every year and consistently get bounced out in round of 64 or 32, or make the sweet 16 or better every 3-4 years (but not as far as final 4)

---

So basically would you rather have buzz or Kennedy?

In ll take buzz all day long

My thoughts exactly. The question is essentially asking Buzz or Kennedy. For me Buzz >>> Kennedy.

Buzz is obviously better than Kennedy, I feel like people blacked out or something and forget how long he was here.

There is a grade on raw results and a grade based on results vs pay.

Results only: B to B+
Factoring in pay: C- at best... but probably lower.

Edit: Using the 2nd grading scale, Buzz is probably no better than Kennedy.

A 'B' for me.

I think the question, though, isn't what his grade is but what is a grade that would need to be replaced? Is it a C? And how fast can a grade go down? Would 1 bad season be enough because normally it would be if we were serious about winning. I mean we waited until Watkins went winless in conference before we reluctantly let him go.

As for Kennedy, there are some who just hate him. Like really hate him and not because of his coaching. He could never even field a complete team but he's not nearly as bad of a coach as people talk about.

And back to Buzz, go look at the threads when Buzz was hired and basically everyone practically guaranteed Buzz would get us into the sweet 16 and yet that hasn't occurred.So if you grade him against expectations, he's got a D grade.

I'm not sure how you can give a grade of B or above. You have to factor in his pay. That's just reality.

I don't believe anyone other than the mysterious McNeil has been poached off the staff. That seems to indicate it's not a particularly good staff..

We don't have an offensive strategy that I can tell. Predicating offense on rebounding missed shots and trying to maximize FT when you're below average shooting FT is curious.

Winning 2 tournament games in 6 years surely can't be a B or above can it?

For me everything goes back to the question from the other thread, which is what is the offensive philosophy going forward.

Post season isnt everything, but it also doesnt matter how good your regular season is if you play a style of offensive that never has a chance of making a deep run in the tourney.

jja79 said:

---

I'm not sure how you can give a grade of B or above. You have to factor in his pay. That's just reality.

I don't believe anyone other than the mysterious McNeil has been poached off the staff. That seems to indicate it's not a particularly good staff..

We don't have an offensive strategy that I can tell. Predicating offense on rebounding missed shots and trying to maximize FT when you're below average shooting FT is curious.

Winning 2 tournament games in 6 years surely can't be a B or above can it?

---

That gets you fired in most major conferences.

If anyone is grading Buzz higher than a C needs BAS therapy because your bar is far too low. Making the tourney and winning a game in the tourney should be the minimum allowable standard. Anything worse than that is a subpar season. I do like Buzz but guys…he has done average at best.

B- paying an A+ salary

justsomeguy said:

---

Making the tourney and winning a game in the tourney should be the minimum allowable standard. Anything worse than that is a subpar season. I do like Buzz but guys…he has done average at best.

---

This is an absolutely absurd standard.

Here is the entire list of teams that have been to the round of 32 in the last three tournaments:

Gonzaga, Houston, Baylor, Creighton, Duke, Michigan State, Tennessee, UConn, Alabama

So only nine teams in all of college basketball have met this "minimum allowable standard"

We need all of the available info on the pay thing to say for sure. His pay is just a piece of what you could call "total program cost." His salary, the staff salaries, and the cost of the players.

To know what kind of bang for our buck we're really getting, you need that full data and the data from other schools.

I posted my grade earlier but Buzz is not going anywhere for another year or 2 just based on his buyout, which currently sits at 14.4mil. So good guy Trev doesn't have to make any tough decisions for awhile. Maybe baseball but its hard to see Early being let go after one year.

northeastag said:

---

jja79 said:

---

I'm not sure how you can give a grade of B or above. You have to factor in his pay. That's just reality.

I don't believe anyone other than the mysterious McNeil has been poached off the staff. That seems to indicate it's not a particularly good staff..

We don't have an offensive strategy that I can tell. Predicating offense on rebounding missed shots and trying to maximize FT when you're below average shooting FT is curious.

Winning 2 tournament games in 6 years surely can't be a B or above can it?

---

That gets you fired in most major conferences.

---

One, no it doesn't. Two, context matters. Saying two wins in six years is factual, but it's also two in the last two and three straight tournaments. That's very different than winning in the first two years and then totally missing in the next three years.
Basically no one in the sport outside the blue bloods is firing someone for those results without some extenuating circumstances like we saw at Texas.

Topher17 said:

---

northeastag said:

---

jja79 said:

---

I'm not sure how you can give a grade of B or above. You have to factor in his pay. That's just reality.

I don't believe anyone other than the mysterious McNeil has been poached off the staff. That seems to indicate it's not a particularly good staff..

We don't have an offensive strategy that I can tell. Predicating offense on rebounding missed shots and trying to maximize FT when you're below average shooting FT is curious.

Winning 2 tournament games in 6 years surely can't be a B or above can it?

---

That gets you fired in most major conferences.

---

One, no it doesn't. Two, context matters. Saying two wins in six years is factual, but it's also two in the last two and three straight tournaments. That's very different than winning in the first two years and then totally missing in the next three years.
Basically no one in the sport outside the blue bloods is firing someone for those results without some extenuating circumstances like we saw at Texas.

---

the irony is that I think the NIT runner up team was probably the best chance to get us to 2nd weekend of the last 4 based on the way we were playing. Damn that team got jobbed.

Batty said:

---

I posted my grade earlier but Buzz is not going anywhere for another year or 2 just based on his buyout, which currently sits at 14.4mil. So good guy Trev doesn't have to make any tough decisions for awhile. Maybe baseball but its hard to see Early being let go after one year.

---

Ironically, with Earley it might come down to that series in Austin. We get swept and embarassed and the big dogs will want him gone. If he wins that series, I can bet the talk of a second year gains momentum. It's how we are built.

bobinator said:

---

Buzz is obviously better than Kennedy, I feel like people blacked out or something and forget how long he was here.

---

For one extra week of excitement they are willing to ignore 6 years of purgatory

this troll needs to be banned, lol

PatAg said:

---

this troll needs to be banned, lol

---

agreed. this dude is a clown. I don't care for an echo chamber and love debates and counter dialogue, but there needs to be a minimum IQ level met.

He's probably in reality a tu guy that isn't actually a buzz fan and just wants us to keep him as long as possible. It'd be like one of us going on as rodneyterryfan24 and just arguing with anyone who dares criticize coach terry for anything (until his firing obv).

It's all about the performance in the NCAA tournament.

It's a C

Aggie Dad 26 said:

---

I grade coaches on conference championships, national championships, and tournament wins. That would probably hold 80% of my grade

Buzz gets a C-

---

So you're one very disappointed Aggie.

"I love debates and counter dialogue" yet call me a clown and want me banned for giving you facts with counter dialogue...bold strategy there, Cotton.

BuzzFan24 said:

---

"I love debates and counter dialogue" yet call me a clown and want me banned for giving you facts with counter dialogue...bold strategy there, Cotton.

---

you're not giving facts. you're just saying dumb and attention-arousing things.

The salary argument is way overblown on this board imo. Put it this way, how low of salary would be OK with you for a coach that never made the tournament? A P5 school coach is expected to regularly make the tournament no matter his salary.

Buzz was paid because it was a reasonably safe bet he would rebuild the program. Based on the last 4 years I think he has met expectations while not reaching the heights we hoped for. Yes we could have paid less for and up and coming coach, but it would have been a bigger gamble.

As a reminder of the pre-BCG era, all of hires were up and coming coaches coming off of multiple NCAA appearances at their previous stop and this is how it turned out:

Kermit Davis (got us on probation after 1 yr)
Tony Barone (76-120 record)
Melvin Watkins (61-112 record)

It was reasonable to pay a premium to avoid a return to the dark ages.

cutter said:

---

The salary argument is way overblown on this board imo. Put it this way, how low of salary would be OK with you for a coach that never made the tournament? A P5 school coach is expected to regularly make the tournament no matter his salary.

Buzz was paid because it was a reasonably safe bet he would rebuild the program. Based on the last 4 years I think he has met expectations while not reaching the heights we hoped for. Yes we could have paid less for and up and coming coach, but it would have been a bigger gamble.

As a reminder of the pre-BCG era, all of hires were up and coming coaches coming off of multiple NCAA appearances at their previous stop and this is how it turned out:

Kermit Davis (got us on probation after 1 yr)
Tony Barone (76-120 record)
Melvin Watkins (61-112 record)

It was reasonable to pay a premium to avoid a return to the dark ages.

---

Totally agree, its an argument used as the linchpin to a side, rather than a really rational reason to judge someone. The school paid what he was worth to get him here. His salary is not outrageous by any stretch. that argument held a LOT of water in the first three seasons. Now its stupid, IMO.

It's also a positive in its own right because it makes the job more desirable if we can afford Buzz Williams. None of these fantasy "young up and coming coaches" daydream of heading to basketball programs where bean counters squeeze the salaries down to a value proposition.

It's also easy to say his pay is "elite" when like everyone between #45 and #10 is between 3 and 5. It really escalates quickly in the top ten.

People must forget how bad we were most years under Kennedy outside of his two NCAA runs.

Agreed. Even in the SEC, Cal's $8 per looms large over everyone. Could be argued its a Jimbo esque contract. Everyone else is hovering between $5.9 and $3m), though the $3m was Rodney Terry, so Miller will likely be making more than Buzz as well. Todd Golden at $3.6m is in line for a big raise in the offseason as well. Right now, in the toughest conference, Buzz is paid the 7th highest in a 14 team league. After this offseason, I expect him to be the 9th highest paid and for guys like Pearl, Barnes, Golden and Miller to get big bumps to increase the lead. The salary stuff needs to stop. It's a false narrative.

Texas_Ag11 said:

---

Agreed. Even in the SEC, Cal's $8 per looms large over everyone. Could be argued its a Jimbo esque contract. Everyone else is hovering between $5.9 and $3m), though the $3m was Rodney Terry, so Miller will likely be making more than Buzz as well. Todd Golden at $3.6m is in line for a big raise in the offseason as well. Right now, in the toughest conference, Buzz is paid the 7th highest in a 14 team league. After this offseason, I expect him to be the 9th highest paid and for guys like Pearl, Barnes, Golden and Miller to get big bumps to increase the lead. The salary stuff needs to stop. It's a false narrative.

---

Yep, Miller will 100% be making more than Buzz....even if just a flex on us alone. And Golden is definitely getting a big bump.

What's your thought on the staff? Since no one seems to be coming after our assistants that seems concerning.

Don't really know anything about them but have said for a while the fact that basically nobody comes and goes is not ideal.

I live far away and this board and TV are my only connections but the lack of suitors concerns me.

Unless you're a donor in the hundreds of thousands range, I don't get why the coach salary matters. It doesn't. It's just an excuse to hate. If he made less it wouldn't matter, it would just be one less thing to point at while stamping your feet