BillsWin Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 So did Brad have anything to do with recruiting this senior class? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 the wisconsin seniors would have been the recruits that he brought in the season he was interim head coach when bennett quit. i have heard him talk about recruiting wilkerson and harris (now in the nba as he went early last year) a number of times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Law Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Dick Bennett recruited Wilkenson. Wilk redshired his freshman year. Brad landed Devin Harris after his only other offers were Central Florida and Creighton. Nice find. The other seniors are transfers or other Bennett recruits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 So, Brad was there during this time - I think that is the only point Roy was making. Funny, when Romar was at UCLA he got credit for recruiting the team that won the national championship but Brad does not get any credit for those on the WI team that made the final four - something seems a bit out of whack here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tseugnekillib Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Mojo....What's the difference between a Bennett recruit and a Soderberg recruit? Both were on the Wisconsin staff at the same time? Can an assistant sign recruit and the headcoach not know about it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cujaysfan Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 hmmmm stealth recruits... bills gotta get themselves some of those (particularly those stealth recruits that are about 6'7-7'0 with pipes like pythons, hops like bunnys and an appetite for rebounding the rock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 I realize wins are wins...but WI/Michigan state semifinal game that year one of the worst basketball games I have ever seen. You can take that style of play and stuff it as far as I am concerned. I respect the quaility of team and staff...but it is one thing for UWGB to pull off some upset magic with undermanned teams in that style under Bennett...but not at Madison and Washington St....its tiresome on a higher level. Here's hoping SLU starts scoring some serious points...or Joe average fan off the street isn't coming....unless the record is OUTSTANDING. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nostatic Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 All of those recruits are Soderberg recruits. Bennett went out very little on recruiting trips. Didn't enjoy the process, refused to do it. Can't say that Bennett never talked to any of these guys, but BS did all the leg work and in most cases, did the home visits and sealed the deal. Does that mean you respect Bennett less. I hope not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwyjibo Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Basketball is about winning, not style. It does not matter if you win 5-3 (there was a high school game in Vermont this year where one coach thought he had no chance and held the ball most of the game) or 105-103. I loved watching the game you are referring too, particularly appreciated the beauty of Mike Kelly and Mateen Cleaves going at it. I also love watching good pitching in baseball (although at the park it is harder to appreciate good pitching with a bad seat). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3star_recruit Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 "It does not matter if you win 5-3" It matters to fans who enjoy fluid basketball. College basketball took off in this country when teams start putting points on the board. If it had remained the brutal, offensively impotent game it was in the '30s, it would be no more popular than college hockey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 i guess i am the exception, but the phil ford days at north carolina is some of my fondest memories of college ball. i enjoy the cat and mouse game of the four corners. i have no problems with bennett ball, and would just as soon see that as out of control up and down the floor 20 turnovers per game any day. i still shudder at the thought of loyola marymount basketball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schasz Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 I do prefer to see teams that aren't so offensively challenged as our SLU Billikens have become. I hope to see our future teams able to shoot the basketball much better. Nothing wrong with playing tough defense but let's be able to score in the 60-70 range when competing against some of the better teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwyjibo Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 I agree with the general point here (and my 5-3 example was probably a misleading extreme but as it happened I used it). The old rules of basketball were that a team was not penalized until their second foul per possession (you get one free hack per possession!). The rules evolved and I am not a fan of excessive physical play or a lot of whistles--if that is what you mean by fluidity we are in complete agreement. To clarify further, I am not a big fan of stall ball or the four corners either, I like the shot clock. For the record I like made shots too and have no problems with a team winning 105-103 if that is the way they have the best chance of winning. But to get back to the point I first objected to (and a long term point of contention for me on this board), I find complaining about Dick Bennett's successful run at Wisconsin apalling. They were an amazing successful team and anyone who ******* about Final Fours and winning should watch figure skating or the circus or Blue Man Group if it is just about style. On aesthetic grounds, Mike Kelly was a joy to watch playing defense (there are great offensive players who are a joy to watch on defense); he had an amazing sixth sense about positioning and screens set on him. Wisconsin's offense was actually pretty efficient in those days as well. Any masked complaints about Soderberg based on style are pointless and not particularly well founded considering there are real problems to complain about. SLU's offense was one of the least efficient (points per possesion) in all of D-1 last year. That is not good. If you want to complain about missed shots or an offensive system that does not create open shots be my guest--there is nothing great about missing an open 10 footer or hurling up a prayer as the shot clock expires. SLU's defense was good last year (about 50th in efficiency after some lapses in conference games) but can get better. My problem is that SLU has had pretty good defenses consistently for 15 years. That is flat out a good thing and should be a source of pride for all Billiken fans. I only watch a few Billiken games a year and it is frustrating for me to generally watch excellent defensive play and have it seldom mentioned on this board (Hey Mr. Tree meet Mr Forest!). In those years there have been various levels of success but that is a result of varying offensive efficiency and the answer to offensive problems does not lie in complaining about good defense or about Final Four teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadDad1999 Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Tony Bennett was involved in the recruiting process as well, esp. Devin Harris, who was under-recruited because of a injury during his junior year in HS. Wisconsin swooped in and signed him before the big boys really started to take notice. It's true that Bennett disdained recruiting, and Soderberg did a lot of the leg work, and Tony began doing a good deal of it after the FF4 run in 2000. Someone mentioned the Final Four game with Mich St., which most people do that know little about the UW program, but the four games leading up to the Final Four were perfect examples of Bennett ball, terrific offensive execution, awesome defense and fundamental play. The frustration on the faces of Arizona, and then LSU(Stromile Swift etc.) were just classic. I have tapes of those games and can't help but go back and watch from time to time. For a program that had so little hoops history to accomplish that was just an amazing time for our program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 ...Schasz I believe "gets" what I am saying. I like teams who can win in the 50's....if they have to, or if the game dictates it....or can also win in the 90's....or anywhere in between. That game was hideous. If only it were the beauty of Mike Kelly's D on Cleaves. It was poorly played game too if you remember correctly. There is a MINIMUM standard of offensive(fluidity and pts) imo for hoops. It doesn't need to be an up and down foot race, no defense, high turnovers...etc...plenty of uptempo games don't involve 20 turnovers Roy. Some motion offense, solid ball....I'd take that. There is a big difference....not wanting the Dick Bennett style doesn't mean the opposite...there is a lot of room in between. It's just an opinion. It is FACT that the average Joe will NOT turn out even if the team is winning playing that opposed style mentioned. The team would have to win almost every time out to draw large quantities of fans. I do agree that if you win people come....but in hoops, people will come more if it is decently attractive to watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 courtside said, "It doesn't need to be an up and down foot race, no defense, high turnovers...etc...plenty of uptempo games don't involve 20 turnovers Roy." i never said all are. in fact i agree a well organized power game is preferred by everyone. but it is also a fact that many try to play that way when they dont have the horses to do so and it becomes pathetic. a good fast break team is as disciplined as a bennett or norman dale team. they correctly choose their opportunities. if you reread my previous post, i am referring to the majority of teams though that just try to play that way without any clue or discipline. that is the style of play that makes me crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 I understand what you are saying...I think we can all agree that the fluid play on offense, and point totals needs to improve. Obviously, having players to do so is required. But those coaches have to go get those players too..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwyjibo Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 It's simple. It is about winning and real sports fans know that. This is where I really disagree. Dick Bennett got his team to the Final Four (and he did a great job for many years prior as well). You cannot take swipes at his "style" without taking a swipe at the fundamental goal of sports--winning. (Also, there is a whole history that I think you know about with people carping about Bennett). It is instructive you bring up fan support. I am not disagreeing with what you say but I want to point out that dislike of winning in a particular style is arbitrary and self-fulfilling. It is also a slipery slope to base a rational argument on. What if "fans" don't like a particular player--should coaches pick line-ups based on popularity? Are we to assume that what fans like is self-evident or are we to do extensive market research (or just let the loudest/squeakiest wheels decide?)? "Gutsy" (but stupid) calls in football are usually popular until they fail miserably and the Monday Morning Coaches chime in (who with the convenience of hindsight are always right!). Egil Olsen was the national soccer coach of Norway who led a Norway team to great success (the team had only won 6 times over their previous 48 games!) and endured lots of fans who did not like his style of play (luckily the fans of Norway were smarter and kept him on for 8 years). An unheralded Greece team won Euro 2004 using similar ideas and many complained (although mostly that was whining from the losing nations). I am not saying that fans do not have opinions, I am just saying that the mob is often confused about what they really want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 We will agree to disagree....respectfully... Funny because....I much prefer the 3-2, 4-3 baseball game as opposed to 10-9. I am in favor of moving back the fences more...and first raising the pitcher's mound back to where it was.... I think the NJ Devil trap was very very bad for hockey...though very successful. Fundamentals and discipline are fine and wanted...but intentionally holding the ball to keep the score low to better compete...bothers me. In fact I am in favor of 10 minute quarters in high school hoops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.