MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: tower912 on October 27, 2016, 10:01:52 AM
-
I have been pessimistic and accurate the last two years with my predictions for the team. This year, I am of two minds. On the one hand, the lack of size and strength at the 4 can (and probably will) lead to defensive rebounding issues. In my pessimistic moments, I believe that will be a fatal flaw that will be the difference between an 18 and 22 regular season wins. I am going to be optimistic for this thread.
So, optimistically.......
This will likely be as deep as any MU team I can remember. It could legitimately go 11 deep. It goes a legit 3 deep at the 1-2-3 positions. To mitigate and camouflage the lack of size at the 4, Wojo will employ my preferred style of basketball. Extend the defensive pressure and push tempo. Rotate guys in and out quickly, having them play balls-out for 3-4 minutes and then bring in someone equally good to do the same for the next 3-4 minutes. When turnovers are created and the ball is pushed, shooters sprint to their spots at the 3 point line, ready to receive the pass and take the early and open 3. A few makes beget confidence which leads to more confidence in shooting which leads to more makes. Seven different players handle the ball well enough to confidently lead a fast break. MU averages in the low 80's for PPG. 10 players average double digit minutes. 8 different players lead the team in scoring.
The defensive pressure leads to turnovers and forced shots. Long rebounds mitigate our lack of size underneath. MU is able to break even on rebounding, securing important defensive rebounds, and preventing 2 minute possessions for the other team late in the game. We see 'switchables' taken to an NTH degree as 8 different players rotate between the 2-3-4, mixing and matching as the flow of the game dictates. MU wears down the opponent with the depth and no one cares about who starts because the minutes are being divvied up among them all. Eventually, the five who need to finish the game emerges. MU rides this to 23 regular season wins and makes it to the second weekend of the tournament.
-
All about eFG% differential. Need at least 5.0% edge on the season. TO's must be reduced. Then, we've got a chance.
At around 74 possessions / game we'd prob be around 10th highest in the nation. Even that would require 1.08 ppp to get to an avg of 80... get there, good things are happening. Don't see it, but...
-
All about eFG% differential. Need at least 5.0% edge on the season. TO's must be reduced. Then, we've got a chance.
At around 74 possessions / game we'd prob be around 10th highest in the nation. Even that would require 1.08 ppp to get to an avg of 80... get there, good things are happening. Don't see it, but...
They need to run, run and run and play a pressing D, to turn teams over. Not sure Wojo or Duke played a helter skelter way of playing that way. But they do try
and run a great deal.
-
Cant find much to disagree with tower. I too have been pessimistic but accurate going into the past two seasons. I find myself with more optimism this season. I see as a team just inside the top 50. A few good breaks and we're dancing with a respectable seed. A few bad breaks and we're missing the NIT again and scoop burns to the ground. I think I've of the biggest factors in creating good breaks and limiting bad ones is experience and we have that in spades.
-
Cant find much to disagree with tower. I too have been pessimistic but accurate going into the past two seasons. I find myself with more optimism this season. I see as a team just inside the top 50. A few good breaks and we're dancing with a respectable seed. A few bad breaks and we're missing the NIT again and scoop burns to the ground. I think I've of the biggest factors in creating good breaks and limiting bad ones is experience and we have that in spades.
More importantly, lets see how the players understand there role and are happy with PT time, and except it. This is where coaching becomes the key ingredient.
How to play all that depth. Luke and Heldt fine, how to use Reinhardt and Hauser, even Cohen, then the 3 point guards. It will be interesting.
-
More importantly, lets see how the players understand there role and are happy with PT time, and except it. This is where coaching becomes the key ingredient. How to play all that depth. Luke and Heldt fine, how to use Reinhardt and Hauser, even Cohen, then the 3 point guards. It will be interesting.
Huge point.
If you think about the best teams under Buzz Williams, their success wasn't just about talent and in-game coaching. Take, for example, the Davante Gardner-Chris Otule rotation. A smart coaching tactic, designed to maximize the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of each player. Tricky to execute at times. But perhaps an even bigger accomplishment was getting both players to accept it.
Players have egos just like everybody else. I'm sure it was hard for Davante to accept that he was a huge defensive liability — so much so that staying on the court could negate everything he brought in terms of offense. Buzz had to convince Davante and Chris that this was best for the team and would help them win. That's good coaching.
This season, if we're playing a 10-man rotation, Wojo will have his hands full with in-game tactical decisions: who are the right 5 players on the floor at the right time, given the score, opposing matchups, pace, time remaining, et cetera. But the bigger job as a coach is making sure that every player on the roster buys in — even if that means fewer shots or less court time (possibly even an occasional DNP).
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. From everything I've heard so far, Wojo's been successful on this front. We'll see how that plays out.
-
All about eFG% differential. Need at least 5.0% edge on the season. TO's must be reduced. Then, we've got a chance.
At around 74 possessions / game we'd prob be around 10th highest in the nation. Even that would require 1.08 ppp to get to an avg of 80... get there, good things are happening. Don't see it, but...
And we need to shoot a high FT% and Luke has to stay out of foul trouble right?
-
We need to get back to winning all of our home games. 2 losses max at home.
-
We need to get back to winning all of our home games. 2 losses max at home.
Wisconsin, Villanova, and Xavier all project to be top 15 teams. We could certainly win those games, but to say we should only lose two when we will likely be underdogs in at least three of them seems high. The rest of the Big East is no slouch either. I would put my goal at three home losses this season. I think we can pull off the upset of Xavier.
-
Huge point.
This season, if we're playing a 10-man rotation, Wojo will have his hands full with in-game tactical decisions: who are the right 5 players on the floor at the right time, given the score, opposing matchups, pace, time remaining, et cetera. But the bigger job as a coach is making sure that every player on the roster buys in — even if that means fewer shots or less court time (possibly even an occasional DNP).
I think the most important player for Wojo to get on the same page with is D Wilson. This team has a bunch of good players but do they have that Prime Time Player who can make the big basket that wins a game. Duane is the one guy who has shown he is not afraid of the spot light. And he is the natural team leader. Much more than Fish or JJJ. But last year I've heard pretty directly that Duane was unhappy with his role and felt he didn't "connect" with Wojo. So with even less PT to spread around at his position can Wojo and Duane connect so that Duane plays with confidence and feels its his team and the coach is behind him, even if he is not always on the floor.
-
Duane was third on the team in minutes played. Behind Henry and just slightly behind Haanif. He shot more than anyone per game but Henry, yet was about the middle of the pack in EFG%.
I like Duane. But if he is unhappy in his role from last year, when he was given all sorts of opportunities to perform, then he should look in the mirror.
-
I think the most important player for Wojo to get on the same page with is D Wilson. This team has a bunch of good players but do they have that Prime Time Player who can make the big basket that wins a game. Duane is the one guy who has shown he is not afraid of the spot light. And he is the natural team leader. Much more than Fish or JJJ. But last year I've heard pretty directly that Duane was unhappy with his role and felt he didn't "connect" with Wojo. So with even less PT to spread around at his position can Wojo and Duane connect so that Duane plays with confidence and feels its his team and the coach is behind him, even if he is not always on the floor.
As a ex-player, if you do not speak up you will sit on the end of the bench until doomsday. I would be amazed if they did not work out there differences. I think Duane
played about 30 minutes a game and many times he did not deserve it, but last year they had nobody to put in, different story this year. Like everybody else, he will
have to earn his minutes.
-
I like Duane. But if he is unhappy in his role from last year, when he was given all sorts of opportunities to perform, then he should look in the mirror.
I specifically used the word "connect". You can play a lot of minutes and still feel you're not on the same page as the coach. My son was on a college team where the coach "ruined" the best player on the team one year by the way he treated them both during and outside the game. I'm not saying Wojo did the same things (this guy was a real idiot when it came to player relations) but something wasn't right. Duane wasn't playing with the same swagger he had the prior year. Things seem better this year so I'm hopeful. But the thread comment was about Wojo's role in team chemistry so I'm building on that. DW playing like redshirt freshman DW only with more experience would be a real asset to this team winning those couple games that determine NCAA or NIT or nothing.
-
Cant find much to disagree with tower. I too have been pessimistic but accurate going into the past two seasons. I find myself with more optimism this season. I see as a team just inside the top 50. A few good breaks and we're dancing with a respectable seed. A few bad breaks and we're missing the NIT again and scoop burns to the ground. I think I've of the biggest factors in creating good breaks and limiting bad ones is experience and we have that in spades.
Pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly. Much more optimistic this year due to no longer being the 6th youngest team in D1.
While admitting that it seems there is always an overly optimistic view of what freshman are going to contribute, Hauser is getting nothing but glowing reviews. If he could step into the 4 and provide 20-25 minutes per game of nothing but rebounding and put backs while playing decent defense (i.e., Sophomore Jimmy Butler) it sure seems like we'd be in good shape.
-
Pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly. Much more optimistic this year due to no longer being the 6th youngest team in D1.
While admitting that it seems there is always an overly optimistic view of what freshman are going to contribute, Hauser is getting nothing but glowing reviews. If he could step into the 4 and provide 20-25 minutes per game of nothing but rebounding and put backs while playing decent defense (i.e., Sophomore Jimmy Butler) it sure seems like we'd be in good shape.
I think Hauser can give us 15-20 minutes but I don't think it's going to consist of a ton of put backs. I'm hopeful he can grab 3 or 4 rebounds per game but I'm also hopeful that he can pull an interior defender out to the perimeter and knock down some shots.
-
We have enough talent to become a tourney team. I lack confidence in Wojos coaching and leadership capability , especially as it relates to playing time allocation and rotation,and thus continue to believe we project out to a losing season.
-
I have been pessimistic and accurate the last two years with my predictions for the team.
Out of curiosity, did you peg us for a winning record last year? I know you weren't high on the team, but were you at the 20 win point?
I'm an eternal optimist in October, and right now think 19-21 wins is a good bet and would have us in the Tournament. Rebounding is definitely an issue, but on paper we've never had this good of a team from a shooting perspective. Hopefully makes diminish our need for offensive boards and team rebounding on defense allows us to at least keep up.
I do think we'll be better than last year, and with our schedule, 19 wins should be enough for a bid. The first four are critical. Get out to a 3-1 start and we're in good shape. 2-2 or 1-3 and it will be an uphill battle all year long.
-
We have enough talent to become a tourney team. I lack confidence in Wojos coaching and leadership capability , especially as it relates to playing time allocation and rotation,and thus continue to believe we project out to a losing season.
Okay Ners.
-
Out of curiosity, did you peg us for a winning record last year? I know you weren't high on the team, but were you at the 20 win point?
I'm an eternal optimist in October, and right now think 19-21 wins is a good bet and would have us in the Tournament. Rebounding is definitely an issue, but on paper we've never had this good of a team from a shooting perspective. Hopefully makes diminish our need for offensive boards and team rebounding on defense allows us to at least keep up.
I do think we'll be better than last year, and with our schedule, 19 wins should be enough for a bid. The first four are critical. Get out to a 3-1 start and we're in good shape. 2-2 or 1-3 and it will be an uphill battle all year long.
I predicted 17-18 wins lay year and no postseason.
-
Midgets success keys: Trey shooting, low turnovers, experience, and free throw rate (attrition--not a deep bench).
http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2011/01/guest-post-marquette-pace-and-rest-of.html
What may be different versus the Midget Team is pace. That team lacked depth so they played at a slow pace. Wojo wants uptempo and pressure like this as he has depth:
http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2011/01/guest-post-marquette-pace-and-rest-of.html
http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2011/02/south-florida-pace-and-press.html
Of course, the Midgets also had four future NBA players on their roster.
-
Wisconsin, Villanova, and Xavier all project to be top 15 teams. We could certainly win those games, but to say we should only lose two when we will likely be underdogs in at least three of them seems high. The rest of the Big East is no slouch either. I would put my goal at three home losses this season. I think we can pull off the upset of Xavier.
The subject was what do we need to do to make the tournament. 3 losses at home puts us at 14-3. There are 13 road/neutral games. 6 and 7 in those games gets us to 20-10, so it is certainly possible to make the tournament with 3 home losses. However, losing to Wisconsin, Xavier and Villanova at home may not give us any wins over ranked teams, which will hurt us when the bids are handed out. Beating one of them, but losing to another team may give us a bad home loss. The more you lose at home the more you need to win on the road.
Last year after Big East tournament at time bids were handed out:
Butler 21 wins
Providence 23 wins
Seton Hall 25 wins
Xavier 27 wins
Villanova 29 wins
-
Respect the process.
All we have to worry about is beating Vandy.
-
Respect the process.
All we have to worry about is beating Vandy.
That is a huge game just like Belmont was. Beating Vandy does not get us an NCAA bid. Losing to Vandy is not a good sign. The same thing with the Big East opener at home against Georgetown. The Georgetown game will not be an easy game, but it is virtually a must win, if we want to finish in the top 5 in the Big East.
-
Don't lose more than three non-con games.
Get at least 10 BE wins.
You're in.
-
Don't lose more than three non-con games.
Get at least 10 BE wins.
You're in.
Yep. Vandy is huge. Then win 1 of 2 in NYC. Then beat either Wisconsin or Georgia.
Sweep Providence, DePaul, SJU. Beat Gtown, Butler, SHU, Creighton at home.
-
I have been pessimistic and accurate the last two years with my predictions for the team. This year, I am of two minds. On the one hand, the lack of size and strength at the 4 can (and probably will) lead to defensive rebounding issues. In my pessimistic moments, I believe that will be a fatal flaw that will be the difference between an 18 and 22 regular season wins. I am going to be optimistic for this thread.
So, optimistically.......
This will likely be as deep as any MU team I can remember. It could legitimately go 11 deep. It goes a legit 3 deep at the 1-2-3 positions. To mitigate and camouflage the lack of size at the 4, Wojo will employ my preferred style of basketball. Extend the defensive pressure and push tempo. Rotate guys in and out quickly, having them play balls-out for 3-4 minutes and then bring in someone equally good to do the same for the next 3-4 minutes. When turnovers are created and the ball is pushed, shooters sprint to their spots at the 3 point line, ready to receive the pass and take the early and open 3. A few makes beget confidence which leads to more confidence in shooting which leads to more makes. Seven different players handle the ball well enough to confidently lead a fast break. MU averages in the low 80's for PPG. 10 players average double digit minutes. 8 different players lead the team in scoring.
The defensive pressure leads to turnovers and forced shots. Long rebounds mitigate our lack of size underneath. MU is able to break even on rebounding, securing important defensive rebounds, and preventing 2 minute possessions for the other team late in the game. We see 'switchables' taken to an NTH degree as 8 different players rotate between the 2-3-4, mixing and matching as the flow of the game dictates. MU wears down the opponent with the depth and no one cares about who starts because the minutes are being divvied up among them all. Eventually, the five who need to finish the game emerges. MU rides this to 23 regular season wins and makes it to the second weekend of the tournament.
I think you just described Havoc
*ducks*
-
The subject was what do we need to do to make the tournament. 3 losses at home puts us at 14-3. There are 13 road/neutral games. 6 and 7 in those games gets us to 20-10, so it is certainly possible to make the tournament with 3 home losses. However, losing to Wisconsin, Xavier and Villanova at home may not give us any wins over ranked teams, which will hurt us when the bids are handed out. Beating one of them, but losing to another team may give us a bad home loss. The more you lose at home the more you need to win on the road.
Last year after Big East tournament at time bids were handed out:
Butler 21 wins
Providence 23 wins
Seton Hall 25 wins
Xavier 27 wins
Villanova 29 wins
This year, for us, 19-20 should be enough. Looking at our slate, I'm guessing we'll be in the 50-150 range for non-con schedule. Both us and Creighton would have probably merited consideration last year had our non-con SOS not been 229 (Creighton) and 304 (Marquette). If our non-con is around 100 and our overall SOS is top-60, it makes it a lot easier.
Probably need at least 9 of those wins in conference play too. It isn't a complete killer, but sub-.500 records in conference don't help your cause.
-
I think you just described Havoc
*ducks*
I love Havoc. IMO, a wojo version of that is the best use of this roster.
-
I love Havoc. IMO, a wojo version of that is the best use of this roster.
+1
-
Just win?
-
This year, for us, 19-20 should be enough. Looking at our slate, I'm guessing we'll be in the 50-150 range for non-con schedule. Both us and Creighton would have probably merited consideration last year had our non-con SOS not been 229 (Creighton) and 304 (Marquette). If our non-con is around 100 and our overall SOS is top-60, it makes it a lot easier.
Probably need at least 9 of those wins in conference play too. It isn't a complete killer, but sub-.500 records in conference don't help your cause.
Our schedule is a big improvement over last year, but it is not as tough as you think. We no longer haves games against Syracuse, Notre Dame, Uconn, Cincy,Louisville, West Virginia or Pitt that gave us many more opportunities to pick up NCAA tournament quality wins. Based on preseason rankings we have 7 games against top 25 teams. Four at home and three on the road. We probably need at least 21 wins including Big East tournament to get a bid. Last year we had 20 wins with four victories against NCAA tournament teams (Providence twice, Butler and Wisconsin), which did not even qualify us for an NIT bid. Playing and beating a 200 ranked team vs. a 300 ranked team makes your schedule look tougher, but really does not matter much.
-
Our schedule is a big improvement over last year, but it is not as tough as you think. We no longer haves games against Syracuse, Notre Dame, Uconn, Cincy,Louisville, West Virginia or Pitt that gave us many more opportunities to pick up NCAA tournament quality wins. Based on preseason rankings we have 7 games against top 25 teams. Four at home and three on the road. We probably need at least 21 wins including Big East tournament to get a bid. Last year we had 20 wins with four victories against NCAA tournament teams (Providence twice, Butler and Wisconsin), which did not even qualify us for an NIT bid. Playing and beating a 200 ranked team vs. a 300 ranked team makes your schedule look tougher, but really does not matter much.
It didn't qualify us for an NIT bid because our buy games were terrible. We had 7 300+ RPI opponents. This year,we have most likely 2 300+ RPI opponents with an outside chance at having 0. Playing a 200 ranked team over a 300 ranked team doesn't matter much in the sense that neither will be good wins, but the computer numbers will be much improved with this year's schedule. And that's important.
If our buy games were better last year, our RPI jumps significantly and we have an NIT berth.
-
Just win?
Baby?
-
Our schedule is a big improvement over last year, but it is not as tough as you think. We no longer haves games against Syracuse, Notre Dame, Uconn, Cincy,Louisville, West Virginia or Pitt that gave us many more opportunities to pick up NCAA tournament quality wins. Based on preseason rankings we have 7 games against top 25 teams. Four at home and three on the road. We probably need at least 21 wins including Big East tournament to get a bid. Last year we had 20 wins with four victories against NCAA tournament teams (Providence twice, Butler and Wisconsin), which did not even qualify us for an NIT bid. Playing and beating a 200 ranked team vs. a 300 ranked team makes your schedule look tougher, but really does not matter much.
You're wrong multiple times here
-
You're wrong multiple times here
Details...details.
-
You're wrong multiple times here
+1
-
Yep. Vandy is huge. Then win 1 of 2 in NYC. Then beat either Wisconsin or Georgia.
Sweep Providence, DePaul, SJU. Beat Gtown, Butler, SHU, Creighton at home.
I see us going 0-5 in the tough non conference games. We won't be blown out but we won't win. The other teams ( with the exception of Wisky) have coaches who are more seasoned and successful than ours. They need to win those games as much as we do .
I see us going at best 7-11 in conference. Again no blow outs, but we have improved less than the rest of the teams in conference , with the exception of Providence who we beat twice last year. So it is going to be hard to improve on last years record.
Our only path to the tournament this year is to get hot and win the BET.
-
I see us going 0-5 in the tough non conference games. We won't be blown out but we won't win. The other teams ( with the exception of Wisky) have coaches who are more seasoned and successful than ours. They need to win those games as much as we do .
I see us going at best 7-11 in conference. Again no blow outs, but we have improved less than the rest of the teams in conference , with the exception of Providence who we beat twice last year. So it is going to be hard to improve on last years record.
Our only path to the tournament this year is to get hot and win the BET.
So everyone's due for a breakout year but we're not good enough?
-
I see us going 0-5 in the tough non conference games. We won't be blown out but we won't win. The other teams ( with the exception of Wisky) have coaches who are more seasoned and successful than ours. They need to win those games as much as we do .
I see us going at best 7-11 in conference. Again no blow outs, but we have improved less than the rest of the teams in conference , with the exception of Providence who we beat twice last year. So it is going to be hard to improve on last years record.
Our only path to the tournament this year is to get hot and win the BET.
No, it's not.
-
A lot predictions here but I think the point of the post was to ask what does this team need to do from player and X/O standpoint to get in the tourney.
A lot of mentions of playing super up tempo. I wonder if playing too up tempo could be a problem? To play up tempo well, you need to force a lot of TO's and defensive rebound well. Not sure we will good on either count. Maybe turnovers, hard to say with the new players.
If you try to play super up tempo you need guards to not get too deep so that when you get the ball on the defensive end you can outlet the ball and get it up court quickly. I think we may need to gang rebound which means guards may be too deep in the opponents backcourt to play super fast.
I agree that we don't want a slow-down, throw the ball in the post, type game but I think we will need to pick our spots to play up tempo. Not force it.
If somehow we can be a slightly above average defensive rebounding team, play up tempo when it suits, we have a chance to the tourney.
-
So everyone's due for a breakout year but we're not good enough?
Unfortunately, the other teams have improved more . We are handicapped because of our coach this year. The style of play he wants to implement requires a lot of belief by the players in the coach and he is not a very inspirational and motivating guy.
-
Unfortunately, the other teams have improved more . We are handicapped because of our coach this year. The style of play he wants to implement requires a lot of belief by the players in the coach and he is not a very inspirational and motivating guy.
This makes absolutely no sense. I know that your not a Wojo fan and I get that but style of play is impacted by buy in from the players? If you can't get any buy in from your players then you probably won't be successful regardless of style.
-
Unfortunately, the other teams have improved more . We are handicapped because of our coach this year. The style of play he wants to implement requires a lot of belief by the players in the coach and he is not a very inspirational and motivating guy.
Don't tell Katin or any of the other guys on the team.
You must've played high school basketball and know better though.
-
This makes absolutely no sense. I know that your not a Wojo fan and I get that but style of play is impacted by buy in from the players? If you can't get any buy in from your players then you probably won't be successful regardless of style.
Bingo
33-32 career record
12-24 in conference
when it is all said and done on the Wojo era, he will be only slightly above Dukiet performance wise
-
Bingo
33-32 career record
12-24 in conference
when it is all said and done on the Wojo era, he will be only slightly above Dukiet performance wise
What record would you expect in a year your best players are Matt Carolino, Juan Anderson, and Derrick Wilson?
Remind me what Al's record was after 2 years of coaching? How about Coach K's?
-
Unfortunately, the other teams have improved more . We are handicapped because of our coach this year. The style of play he wants to implement requires a lot of belief by the players in the coach and he is not a very inspirational and motivating guy.
We have more production returning than any team in the conference besides Georgetown, the highest ranked recruiting class, and two great transfers. How can you say with any confidence that every other team in the conference has improved more?
-
Our schedule is a big improvement over last year, but it is not as tough as you think. We no longer haves games against Syracuse, Notre Dame, Uconn, Cincy,Louisville, West Virginia or Pitt that gave us many more opportunities to pick up NCAA tournament quality wins. Based on preseason rankings we have 7 games against top 25 teams. Four at home and three on the road. We probably need at least 21 wins including Big East tournament to get a bid. Last year we had 20 wins with four victories against NCAA tournament teams (Providence twice, Butler and Wisconsin), which did not even qualify us for an NIT bid. Playing and beating a 200 ranked team vs. a 300 ranked team makes your schedule look tougher, but really does not matter much.
Quite simply, you're wrong. It's easier to look at Pomeroy than to analyze RPI, so while not equal, they are relatively close enough that I feel comfortable using that as the comparison benchmark. Only looking at the conference schedule, since you specifically reference old Big East teams. Let's take a look, bear with me, this will be a long post. Starting with 2008, which was the first year the Big East went to 18 games.
2008 (Old Big East)
1-25: 7
26-50: 3
51-100: 1
101+: 7
2009 (Old Big East)
1-25: 7
26-50: 3
51-100: 3
101+: 5
2010 (Old Big East)
1-25: 5
26-50: 3
51-100: 7
101+: 3
2011 (Old Big East)
1-25: 9
26-50: 3
51-100: 4
101+: 2
2012 (Old Big East)
1-25: 4
26-50: 6
51-100: 4
101+: 4
2013 (Old Big East)
1-25: 6
26-50: 3
51-100: 2
101+: 7
2014 (New Big East)
1-25: 4
26-50: 2
51-100: 10
101+: 2
2015 (New Big East)
1-25: 8
26-50: 4
51-100: 4
101+: 2
2016 (New Big East)
1-25: 4
26-50: 8
51-100: 2
101+: 4
2017 Projected (New Big East)
1-25: 6
26-50: 6
51-100: 2
101+: 4
Average Old Big East
1-25: 6.3
26-50: 3.5
51-100: 3.5
101+: 4.7
Average New Big East
1-25: 5.5
26-50: 5
51-100: 4.5
101+: 3
There's a very slight advantage in terms of top-25 teams (less than 1 per year) but annually, we are now playing more teams in the top-50, more teams in the top-100, and fewer teams that are sub-100. I'd argue that at worst, the New Big East is equal to the Old Big East. However, when you look at the depth of quality across the league and the reduced RPI drains when you play fewer sub-100 opponents (making 83% of league wins "good wins") we are actually playing a tougher league schedule than we did in the past, and let's be honest, the league is trending up virtually across the board.
You think playing a 200 vs a 300 doesn't make a difference, you are out of your mind. I'm sorry, but that is probably the single most ignorant schedule related comment I've ever read or heard. It has absolutely no basis in reality and no connection to how the Selection process has been handled since the RPI was adjusted in 2004.
Look at Syracuse's resume last year compared to ours. We won 20 games, they won 19. They won 9 league games, we won 8. They went 3-2 against top-100 non-con opponents, we went 3-1. So where's the big difference? We junked up on sub-300 teams while they played teams primarily in the top-250. (And I know it's record and not RPI, but this still makes the point).
With a league as strong as ours, the main thing to focus on is the non-conference. Our league schedule will NOT keep us out, especially with the round robin. Non-conference can keep us out, especially if we play teams that are posting 0-8 wins per year in weak leagues. Get 4-6 high-major (or top-100) games and make sure the rest of the games are in the 100-250 range and our schedule will never hold us back. It's really that simple.
-
Or, stated more simply, the New Big East isn't the Old Big East because it's actually better.
In a stronger league, we only need a competitive non-con to have a resume that's tourney worthy. Play 4-6 high-majors and avoid teams across the board that win fewer than 10 games and we'll be fine.
-
Thanks for the detailed breakdown, Brew. KenPom's conference rankings tell a similar story. The difference is one of perception. Providence and Seton Hall are much stronger programs today. Xavier, Creighton and Butler have been strong additions. And the conference isn't weighed down by dreck like Rutgers. But lots of fans focus only on the big names like Syracuse and Louisville.
-
Thanks for the detailed breakdown, Brew. KenPom's conference rankings tell a similar story. The difference is one of perception. Providence and Seton Hall are much stronger programs today. Xavier, Creighton and Butler have been strong additions. And the conference isn't weighed down by dreck like Rutgers. But lots of fans focus only on the big names like Syracuse and Louisville.
That's the thing, the entire league seems to be trending up. We clearly are, St. John's has been recruiting well and showed flashes last year, and while DePaul will almost certainly be propping up the league again this year, there's reasons for hope under Leitao.
Looking at this league, it feels like we can become what the Big 12 has been and maybe even better. If 1-2 teams can join Villanova as regularly elite and the bulk of the league is top-100, we can be that league that sends 6-7 teams to the tourney each year.
-
Did some quick work on some of the RPI implications of our 2016-17 sked vs. last year... certainly a nice boost in the schedule compared to last year's awful slate:
http://latenighthoops.com/marquettes-schedule-improved-2016-17/#.WBSzxC0rJhE (http://latenighthoops.com/marquettes-schedule-improved-2016-17/#.WBSzxC0rJhE)
-
You're wrong multiple times here
I was expected to be challenged on this. Remember my post was in response to someone who said 19 wins and we are in with our schedule. That is 19-11 regular season and if I hold him to 19 wins it is 19-12 with a first round Big East tournament loss. Give him the benefit of doubt and MU is 20-11 after a second round loss.
Last year Butler got in with 21 wins and the other 4 Big East teams had more than that. How do you get an at large bid. First of all you have to avoid bad losses or at least limited them to one or two. Perhaps more importantly you have to beat someone good. The committee looks at how you fared against other teams in the NCAA field. A loss at home to a team ranked 100 or above is a bad loss. Let us assume the top 5 teams in the Big East are going to get bids and MU finishes 6Th. That gives MU 10 games against teams in the NCAA field, or 11 if they make the second round of the Big East tournament so let us assume that. They play Wisconsin so that is 12 games. Mich and Pitt are predicted to make the tournament, so if we play Pitt in the second game that is 14 out of 32 games. As explained above we have 12 losses.
Assuming we avoid that bad loss, we have only two wins against teams in the NCAA tourney field. That of course is ignoring the possibility that one of our buy games make the field, but none of them are predicted to. So does no bad losses (18-0) against non NCAA tournament teams and a 2-12 record against teams in the field get us the 6Th Big East bid? Last year we had four wins against the tournament field (Wisconsin, Providence twice and Butler).
Last year we played 11 Big East games against NCAA tournament teams and WI and Iowa, which was 13 out of 33 games and we went 4-9 against those 13 teams. Losing to DePaul and Belmont at home were bad losses and maybe even Creighton (NCAA tournament teams are expected to win their home games against non NCAA tournament teams). Therefore, I believe my statement is correct that 19 wins does not result in an NCAA tournament team. The second part of my statement, which I also think you were challenging is that our schedule does not compare to the old Big East.
Now I selected the 2011/12 season, because that was the first one that I found the MU media guide for that we made the tournament. In that year we played 15 games out of 32 games against teams in the tourney. We lost to Louisville in our first Big East tournament game. We went 9-6 in those games. 15 out of 32 is better than 14 out of 32, but not a big difference.
However in that year the Big East only got 8 bids and I know they got more than 8 bids in other years. Also, I believe (did not verify) that the old Big East teams in general had more higher seeds (1-4) than New Big East. Winning 9 quality games is a huge difference over what a team with 19 wins will accomplish. You may not like my statement, but if you truly think about it 19 wins (9-9 Big East record, which is not likely to be a top 5 finish) is not likely going to result in an NCAA bid.
I think the minimum is 21 wins. With last years schedule we would of needed 24 wins, so predicting a bid for 21 wins is reflecting that our schedule has taken a big jump in quality over last year's schedule. I just do not see us getting a bid with only 19 wins, except if we lost some key games when a significant player was out with an injury.
Edit: inserted random paragraph breaks.
-
I was expected to be challenged on this. Remember my post was in response to someone who said 19 wins and we are in with our schedule. That is 19-11 regular season and if I hold him to 19 wins it is 19-12 with a first round Big East tournament loss. Give him the benefit of doubt and MU is 20-11 after a second round loss. Last year Butler got in with 21 wins and the other 4 Big East teams had more than that. How do you get an at large bid. First of all you have to avoid bad losses or at least limited them to one or two. Perhaps more importantly you have to beat someone good. The committee looks at how you fared against other teams in the NCAA field. A loss at home to a team ranked 100 or above is a bad loss. Let us assume the top 5 teams in the Big East are going to get bids and MU finishes 6Th. That gives MU 10 games against teams in the NCAA field, or 11 if they make the second round of the Big East tournament so let us assume that. They play Wisconsin so that is 12 games. Mich and Pitt are predicted to make the tournament, so if we play Pitt in the second game that is 14 out of 32 games. As explained above we have 12 losses. Assuming we avoid that bad loss, we have only two wins against teams in the NCAA tourney field. That of course is ignoring the possibility that one of our buy games make the field, but none of them are predicted to. So does no bad losses (18-0) against non NCAA tournament teams and a 2-12 record against teams in the field get us the 6Th Big East bid? Last year we had four wins against the tournament field (Wisconsin, Providence twice and Butler). Last year we played 11 Big East games against NCAA tournament teams and WI and Iowa, which was 13 out of 33 games and we went 4-9 against those 13 teams. Losing to DePaul and Belmont at home were bad losses and maybe even Creighton (NCAA tournament teams are expected to win their home games against non NCAA tournament teams). Therefore, I believe my statement is correct that 19 wins does not result in an NCAA tournament team. The second part of my statement, which I also think you were challenging is that our schedule does not compare to the old Big East. Now I selected the 2011/12 season, because that was the first one that I found the MU media guide for that we made the tournament. In that year we played 15 games out of 32 games against teams in the tourney. We lost to Louisville in our first Big East tournament game. We went 9-6 in those games. 15 out of 32 is better than 14 out of 32, but not a big difference. However in that year the Big East only got 8 bids and I know they got more than 8 bids in other years. Also, I believe (did not verify) that the old Big East teams in general had more higher seeds (1-4) than New Big East. Winning 9 quality games is a huge difference over what a team with 19 wins will accomplish. You may not like my statement, but if you truly think about it 19 wins (9-9 Big East record, which is not likely to be a top 5 finish) is not likely going to result in an NCAA bid. I think the minimum is 21 wins. With last years schedule we would of needed 24 wins, so predicting a bid for 21 wins is reflecting that our schedule has taken a big jump in quality over last year's schedule. I just do not see us getting a bid with only 19 wins, except if we lost some key games when a significant player was out with an injury.
TLDR. Paragraphs are your friend. :)
-
TLDR. Paragraphs are your friend. :)
Holy isht! I just skipped it all. May have set a world record, so lthough I can't speak to content, length was impressive (nh)
-
Holy isht! I just skipped it all. May have set a world record, so lthough I can't speak to content, length was impressive (nh)
Old trick for permitting submit so much documentation that it will scare government official and get approval....
-
TLDR. Paragraphs are your friend. :)
I am not worried about my English or any other poster's English on this site.
-
I expected to be challenged on this.
Remember, my post was in response to someone who said 19 wins and we are in with our schedule. That is 19-11 regular season — and if I hold him to 19 wins, it is 19-12 with a first round Big East tournament loss. Give him the benefit of doubt and MU is 20-11 after a second round loss.
Last year, Butler got in with 21 wins and the other 4 Big East teams had more than that. How do you get an at large bid? First of all, you have to avoid bad losses — or at least limit them to one or two. Perhaps more importantly, you have to beat someone good. The committee looks at how you fared against other teams in the NCAA field.
A loss at home to a team ranked 100 or above is a bad loss. Let us assume the top 5 teams in the Big East are going to get bids and MU finishes 6th. That gives MU 10 games against teams in the NCAA field, or 11 if they make the second round of the Big East tournament. So let us assume that. They play Wisconsin, so that is 12 games. Mich and Pitt are predicted to make the tournament — so if we play Pitt in the second game that is 14 out of 32 games.
As explained above, we have 12 losses. Assuming we avoid that bad loss, we have only two wins against teams in the NCAA tourney field. That, of course, is ignoring the possibility one of our buy games make the field, but none of them are predicted to. So does no bad losses (18-0) against non-NCAA tournament teams and a 2-12 record against teams in the field get us the 6th Big East bid?
Last year we had 4 wins against the tournament field (Wisconsin, Providence twice and Butler). We played 11 Big East games against NCAA tournament teams, plus Wisconsin and Iowa — which was 13 out of 33 games — and we went 4-9 against those teams.
Losing to DePaul and Belmont at home were bad losses, and maybe even Creighton (NCAA tournament teams are expected to win their home games against non-NCAA tournament teams). Therefore, I believe my statement is correct that 19 wins does not result in an NCAA tournament team.
The second part of my statement, which I also think you were challenging, is that our schedule does not compare to the old Big East. Now, I selected the 2011-12 season, because that was the first season that I found the MU media guide for in which we made the tournament.
That year we played 15 games out of 32 games against teams in the tourney. We lost to Louisville in our first Big East tournament game. We went 9-6 in those games. 15 out of 32 is better than 14 out of 32, but not a big difference. However, in that year the Big East only got 8 bids and I know they got more than 8 bids in other years. Also, I believe (did not verify) that the old Big East teams in general had more higher seeds (1-4) than the new Big East.
Winning 9 quality games is a huge difference over what a team with 19 wins will accomplish. You may not like my statement. But if you truly think about it, 19 wins (9-9 Big East record, which is not likely to be a top 5 finish) is not likely to result in an NCAA bid. I think the minimum is 21 wins.
With last year's schedule, we would have needed 24 wins. So predicting a bid for 21 wins is reflecting that our schedule has taken a big jump in quality. I just do not see us getting a bid with only 19 wins, except if we lost some key games when a significant player was out with an injury.
Some thoughtful stuff in here. Format/presentation is a key part of effective communication and persuasion. This edit for basic grammar took me approximately 3 minutes.
-
Gazed through the paragraphed version of bilsu's post... still a complete disconnect from the relevant/real world. Yeeeesh
-
I was expected to be challenged on this.
Probably because you know you are wrong, but you aren't sure why.
Remember my post was in response to someone who said 19 wins and we are in with our schedule. That is 19-11 regular season and if I hold him to 19 wins it is 19-12 with a first round Big East tournament loss. Give him the benefit of doubt and MU is 20-11 after a second round loss.
Actually, it wasn't, it was in reference to the number of home losses. But if you want to talk about me saying 19-20 should be enough, that's a fair discussion.
Last year Butler got in with 21 wins and the other 4 Big East teams had more than that.
Number of wins alone is a poor metric, but Texas got in with 20, Vanderbilt, Syracuse, and Oregon State with 19. All as many or fewer than we had last year. They played in comparable conferences, so clearly our number of wins wasn't the problem. However, they also played tougher non-con schedules. Number of wins has to be team specific. Last year Butler was able to get in with 21 (and likely would have been in with 20) and this year we will be able to get in with 19-20.
How do you get an at large bid. First of all you have to avoid bad losses or at least limited them to one or two. Perhaps more importantly you have to beat someone good.
That's just wrong. What matters is strength of schedule and total wins. That's it. If you have a strong enough schedule and win enough games, you will get in. Period, point, blank.
You can say "but what if you lose to X, Y, and Z", well, if my schedule is strong enough, I can weather those losses because I beat A, B, and C. This upcoming year, what if we lose to a team in the 200-250 range like Howard, but beat Villanova? They wash. At the end of the day, it's simply SOS and number of wins.
The committee looks at how you fared against other teams in the NCAA field. A loss at home to a team ranked 100 or above is a bad loss. Let us assume the top 5 teams in the Big East are going to get bids and MU finishes 6Th. That gives MU 10 games against teams in the NCAA field, or 11 if they make the second round of the Big East tournament so let us assume that. They play Wisconsin so that is 12 games. Mich and Pitt are predicted to make the tournament, so if we play Pitt in the second game that is 14 out of 32 games. As explained above we have 12 losses. Assuming we avoid that bad loss, we have only two wins against teams in the NCAA tourney field. That of course is ignoring the possibility that one of our buy games make the field, but none of them are predicted to. So does no bad losses (18-0) against non NCAA tournament teams and a 2-12 record against teams in the field get us the 6Th Big East bid?
This is a lot of words that says nothing, other than to reinforce a past narrative that at the very least is false today. It would be an incredibly interesting resume, but yes.
Last year we had four wins against the tournament field (Wisconsin, Providence twice and Butler). Last year we played 11 Big East games against NCAA tournament teams and WI and Iowa, which was 13 out of 33 games and we went 4-9 against those 13 teams. Losing to DePaul and Belmont at home were bad losses and maybe even Creighton (NCAA tournament teams are expected to win their home games against non NCAA tournament teams). Therefore, I believe my statement is correct that 19 wins does not result in an NCAA tournament team.
The problem wasn't the 4-9 record. The problem wasn't the bad losses. The problem was the non-con SOS that meant before the season started we needed 22 or 23 wins to get in. If only someone had realized this last year. Wait...someone did:
My estimation is that Marquette probably needs to win 22-23 games just to be on the NCAA bubble, and that's assuming they don't lose to one of these teams.
I told everyone over a year ago that we would need 22-23 wins to get in last year. Had we beat DePaul and Belmont (or any other two teams) we would have been dancing. I'm telling you right now that this year we need 19-20 wins because of our improved SOS. Feel free to ignore it, but you are stuck in an old thought process that is not accurate.
The second part of my statement, which I also think you were challenging is that our schedule does not compare to the old Big East. Now I selected the 2011/12 season, because that was the first one that I found the MU media guide for that we made the tournament. In that year we played 15 games out of 32 games against teams in the tourney. We lost to Louisville in our first Big East tournament game. We went 9-6 in those games. 15 out of 32 is better than 14 out of 32, but not a big difference. However in that year the Big East only got 8 bids and I know they got more than 8 bids in other years. Also, I believe (did not verify) that the old Big East teams in general had more higher seeds (1-4) than New Big East. Winning 9 quality games is a huge difference over what a team with 19 wins will accomplish.
Okay, this is a lot of fluff and talk without any understanding again. You have to understand, when it comes to a bid, you need to look at numbers. Look at what I posted above. We are playing about the same number of top teams in this league and fewer bad teams because the league is a round-robin with 10 teams. The only way you can say our schedule does not compare to the old Big East is because of the names on the front of the jerseys, not the quality of teams in the league or the product on the court. Take a look at the number of top-25 teams per Pomeroy we hosted at the BC in the last four years of the old Big East and the first four years (including this year projected) in the new Big East:
2010: 2
2011: 4
2012: 2
2013: 3
-------
2014: 2
2015: 4
2016: 2
2017: 3
OMFG It's the SAME!!!!!!!1!!11!!!! The new Big East is not a barrier to us making the tournament. Only the Big 12's teams have consistently better odds than we do of getting in.
You may not like my statement,
I don't, but that's because it is inaccurate and outdated.
but if you truly think about it 19 wins (9-9 Big East record, which is not likely to be a top 5 finish) is not likely going to result in an NCAA bid. I think the minimum is 21 wins.
I think the 9-9 Big East record is a must, but 19 will have us on the bubble and likely in, 20 and we'll definitely be in. Your minimum is wrong.
With last years schedule we would of needed 24 wins, so predicting a bid for 21 wins is reflecting that our schedule has taken a big jump in quality over last year's schedule. I just do not see us getting a bid with only 19 wins, except if we lost some key games when a significant player was out with an injury.
I covered this above, but last year was 22-23 and this year is 19-20. I'm confident we'd have been in last year with 22. I didn't think so earlier in the season, but looking at the resumes, if you take away our two sub-100 losses to Belmont and DePaul, we'd have been dancing. No question about it. Every year, the bubble gets softer. No reason to think that won't happen this year, so no reason to think 19 wins won't be enough to get us in.
Our league is stronger almost across the board this year (sorry PC and DPU) and we have a much tougher non-con SOS. As I noted above, other teams are getting in with 20 or fewer wins, and that's happening every year. With our league strength, our improved non-con, there's no way we can't be one of those teams. Forget your bad losses, because again, if we lose one of those game we're expected to win and still get to 19-20 wins, that means we will win a game we're expected to lose.
-
I need a bloody after reading this page.
-
In the brief history of the new Big East
St. Johns was left out with a 10-8 conference record and 20 wins. They lost in the first round of the Big East tournament. Maybe they were the victim of it being the first year of the new conference and the conference was not getting the respect it deserved as it got only 4 bids. In the conference's three year history every other team with at least 10 conference wins got an NCAA bid.
In each of the the three years the 6Th place team has finished 9-9 and those have been the only 9-9 teams.
MU 17-15 including a first round Big East tournament loss.
Creighton 18-14 including a first round Big East tournament loss
Both failed to get bids, but obviously they were below the 19 win mark.
Xavier earned the 6Th bid for the league in the league's 2ND year by winning two Big East tournament games, which got them to 21 wins before the NCAA tournament.
Three year history of the Big East the minimum wins has been 21. I think it is safe to say, if you finish 9-9 you have to win at least 1 Big East tournament game to get a bid.
-
In the brief history of the new Big East
St. Johns was left out with a 10-8 conference record and 20 wins. They lost in the first round of the Big East tournament. Maybe they were the victim of it being the first year of the new conference and the conference was not getting the respect it deserved as it got only 4 bids. In the conference's three year history every other team with at least 10 conference wins got an NCAA bid.
In each of the the three years the 6Th place team has finished 9-9 and those have been the only 9-9 teams.
MU 17-15 including a first round Big East tournament loss.
Creighton 18-14 including a first round Big East tournament loss
Both failed to get bids, but obviously they were below the 19 win mark.
Xavier earned the 6Th bid for the league in the league's 2ND year by winning two Big East tournament games, which got them to 21 wins before the NCAA tournament.
Three year history of the Big East the minimum wins has been 21. I think it is safe to say, if you finish 9-9 you have to win at least 1 Big East tournament game to get a bid.
One of the reasons I don't understand why gave up our 31st game.
Win 11 non conference, Minimum 9 wins in conference and 1 BET tournament game.
-
St. John's was a snub, but they were a 1-seed in the NIT, so you can't be any closer to the tournament than they were. Xavier was a 6-seed, they weren't even close to missing out, and conference tournaments are always overrated for seeding. Xavier was in without question at 19 wins. Not even remotely debatable. If they lose to Butler, they were still looking at a 8-9 seed at worst.
It's a case by case basis. Marquette's case this year is that 19 wins will have them on the bubble and 20 will have them in.
-
One of the reasons I don't understand why gave up our 31st game.
Win 11 non conference, Minimum 9 wins in conference and 1 BET tournament game.
Because number of wins is not a metric. It's only relevant in relation to the schedule you play. If Marquette added Grambling, it would make their schedule worse and the extra win would hurt their chances of going to the Tournament. Marquette could play 27 total games, go 9-9 in conference, and as long as the SOS was high enough, 16-17 wins would get them in.
-
One of the reasons I don't understand why gave up our 31st game. Win 11 non conference, Minimum 9 wins in conference and 1 BET tournament game.
I also wondered if this was a mistake. The argument that adding a 250+ team just down grades the schedule and that is a greater negative than the extra win may be valid argument. In the end it only matters if you are vying with other teams for the last spot. At that point all of those teams have warts. However, it is my understanding that the reason we do not have the 31st game is that Wojo did not want to play it in the conference season. There are two sides to that issue. Wojo did not want to worry about a non-conference game during the conference season and I can see his point in that. However, having a so called easy game after having to play two extremely tough games may be needed for team confidence. Personally, I like watching my team play, so I would of rather had the 31st game. Had we dropped one of the bunnies last year we would of been 19-13 and I rather have the 20th win. In the end, as it would be in most cases, it had no effect on last season's post season prospects.
-
St. John's was a snub, but they were a 1-seed in the NIT, so you can't be any closer to the tournament than they were. Xavier was a 6-seed, they weren't even close to missing out, and conference tournaments are always overrated for seeding. Xavier was in without question at 19 wins. Not even remotely debatable. If they lose to Butler, they were still looking at a 8-9 seed at worst.
It's a case by case basis. Marquette's case this year is that 19 wins will have them on the bubble and 20 will have them in.
You may be right, but by winning two conference tournament games they added two quality wins and three quality games to their resume. I would also be interested in knowing, if someone would be so kind to look it up, what Xavier's strength of schedule was that year vs. MU's projected strength of schedule this year. They may or may not be comparable.
-
You may be right, but by winning two conference tournament games they added two quality wins and three quality games to their resume. I would also be interested in knowing, if someone would be so kind to look it up, what Xavier's strength of schedule was that year vs. MU's projected strength of schedule this year. They may or may not be comparable.
Looking around, Xavier was 28 in RPI that year with a non-conference SOS ranking of 37. They went 10-3 in non-conference. Here's the breakdown by range, with losses noted in red.
1-25: 0 opponents
26-50: 3 opponents
51-100: 2 opponents (74 UTEP)
101-200: 6 opponents (117 Long Beach State, 132 @Auburn)
201-300: 2 opponents
301+: 0 opponents
The beauty of that schedule was that they had 6 opponents in the 101-200 range and no sub-300 opponents. They didn't have any real marquee matchups, but also didn't have any real dogs. They also had two bad losses, but going 3-0 against teams in the 26-50 range (Cincinnati, Stephen F Austin, Murray State) offset those losses.
Now let's look at our projected breakdown:
1-25: 1 opponent
26-50: 2 opponents (including SMU/Pitt)
51-100: 2 opponents
101-200: 2 opponents
201-300: 4 opponents
301+: 1 opponent
About the same quality at the top, the only real difference is their advantage in terms of teams in the 101-200 range with us having more in the 201-300 range. However, we'll also have a stronger conference schedule this year based on projections, as there is only one team ranked lower than 70 in the Big East for 2016-17, as opposed to four teams in 2014-15.
Not having those 300+ teams on the schedule is a huge advantage. I also wouldn't be surprised to see teams like Howard and Houston Baptist end up being pretty decent wins (maybe sneak into the top-200) when all is said and done. And it bears repeating, last year we had 6 sub-300 teams. That's a huge drain on the RPI.
-
Looking around, Xavier was 28 in RPI that year with a non-conference SOS ranking of 37. They went 10-3 in non-conference. Here's the breakdown by range, with losses noted in red.
1-25: 0 opponents
26-50: 3 opponents
51-100: 2 opponents (74 UTEP)
101-200: 6 opponents (117 Long Beach State, 132 @Auburn)
201-300: 2 opponents
301+: 0 opponents
The beauty of that schedule was that they had 6 opponents in the 101-200 range and no sub-300 opponents. They didn't have any real marquee matchups, but also didn't have any real dogs. They also had two bad losses, but going 3-0 against teams in the 26-50 range (Cincinnati, Stephen F Austin, Murray State) offset those losses.
Now let's look at our projected breakdown:
1-25: 1 opponent
26-50: 2 opponents (including SMU/Pitt)
51-100: 2 opponents
101-200: 2 opponents
201-300: 4 opponents
301+: 1 opponent
About the same quality at the top, the only real difference is their advantage in terms of teams in the 101-200 range with us having more in the 201-300 range. However, we'll also have a stronger conference schedule this year based on projections, as there is only one team ranked lower than 70 in the Big East for 2016-17, as opposed to four teams in 2014-15.
Not having those 300+ teams on the schedule is a huge advantage. I also wouldn't be surprised to see teams like Howard and Houston Baptist end up being pretty decent wins (maybe sneak into the top-200) when all is said and done. And it bears repeating, last year we had 6 sub-300 teams. That's a huge drain on the RPI.
Thank you.
That does may the schedule look better than I thought it was. Part of my opinion is from looking at the preseason poll in which we only play four teams (three of them twice) in the top 25. It still will come down to beating some teams in the top 25. Assuming we go 19-11 the part that bothers me is that I have to assume we are not beating the 7 preseason ranked teams.
-
TO's must be reduced. Then, we've got a chance.
I agree that this is crucial for success.
Last year was exasperating...
-
Need to step up full court and force TO's. We cannot sit back and play prevent half court D.
-
Need to step up full court and force TO's. We cannot sit back and play prevent half court D.
One of the hallmarks of Al's teams was stifling defense. Every game we got at least one of both a 5 second inbound call and a 10 second backcourt trap. Nothing electrified the Arena more than our smothering D.
-
Need to step up full court and force TO's. We cannot sit back and play prevent half court D.
I would agree that we have to extend the defense, but I wouldn't extend full court except as an occasional change up.
-
1. 10 or less TO per game
2. Fast Break points need to be high
3. Everyone needs to rebound
4. Beat Wisconsin
-
1. 10 or less TO per game
2. Fast Break points need to be high
3. Everyone needs to rebound
4. Beat Wisconsin
1) Won't happen.
2) Won't happen. Need to send at least 4 to the boards.
3) Yes. Which makes 2 very tough.
4) Unimportant towards getting to the Tournament.
-
1) Won't happen.
2) Won't happen. Need to send at least 4 to the boards.
3) Yes. Which makes 2 very tough.
4) Unimportant towards getting to the Tournament.
3 can happen if we create a lot of turnovers
4 are you saying that beating a quality opponent isn't important to making the tournament?
-
3 can happen if we create a lot of turnovers
4 are you saying that beating a quality opponent isn't important to making the tournament?
That is true on 3, but I'm not sure that you're going to turn teams over enough to make fast break points "high."
Beating a quality opponent is important to making the Tournament, but one game is meaningless in terms of whether or not you make the Tournament. We beat a quality opponent (NCAA Tournament team) 4 times last year and it did us no good in terms of getting to the post season. In fact, we won at that exact same quality opponent's home and still missed all post season tournaments. One game, good or bad, does not make or break a season.
-
For us to make the tournament:
1) Our senior leadership is going to have to lead and help motivate the team. That means Big Fishy has to stay out of foul trouble; JJJ has to play a huge role on this team. If Fishy doesn't stay out of foul trouble, yikes. I really believe Luke is key to this team. If he plays a big role, we'll do well.
2) We're going to have to consistently shoot close to or better than 50 percent. That will open up the lanes for dribble drives and penetration and probably improve rebounding substantially.
3) The turnovers need to fall dramatically. I agree we need to average less than 10 a game. If there was anything that killed us last year more than turnovers, I don't know what it was.
4) Our defense has to get better. The steals, deflections and just simple stops has to improve if we're going to the tournament. If we get stops at the top of the key or elsewhere on the perimeter, Luke won't foul out and See #1.
-
That is true on 3, but I'm not sure that you're going to turn teams over enough to make fast break points "high."
Beating a quality opponent is important to making the Tournament, but one game is meaningless in terms of whether or not you make the Tournament. We beat a quality opponent (NCAA Tournament team) 4 times last year and it did us no good in terms of getting to the post season. In fact, we won at that exact same quality opponent's home and still missed all post season tournaments. One game, good or bad, does not make or break a season.
One game does not make or break a season this is correct (Though I think it's probably fair to say that one game against Depaul was the difference between an NIT and no NIT last year) however he didn't say that we don't need to beat anyone else he just said "beat wisconsin" maybe he believes this is a key victory that could be extremely valuable to getting us into the postseason.
-
One game does not make or break a season this is correct (Though I think it's probably fair to say that one game against Depaul was the difference between an NIT and no NIT last year) however he didn't say that we don't need to beat anyone else he just said "beat wisconsin" maybe he believes this is a key victory that could be extremely valuable to getting us into the postseason.
Thats what i was thinking because like every year wisconsin is supposed to be "tough"
-
For us to make the tournament:
1) Our senior leadership is going to have to lead and help motivate the team. That means Big Fishy has to stay out of foul trouble; JJJ has to play a huge role on this team. If Fishy doesn't stay out of foul trouble, yikes. I really believe Luke is key to this team. If he plays a big role, we'll do well.
2) We're going to have to consistently shoot close to or better than 50 percent. That will open up the lanes for dribble drives and penetration and probably improve rebounding substantially.
3) The turnovers need to fall dramatically. I agree we need to average less than 10 a game. If there was anything that killed us last year more than turnovers, I don't know what it was.
4) Our defense has to get better. The steals, deflections and just simple stops has to improve if we're going to the tournament. If we get stops at the top of the key or elsewhere on the perimeter, Luke won't foul out and See #1.
Maybe the key to the team is Heldt.
-
Maybe the key to the team is Heldt.
Yes, Heldt will get his share of Fischer foul minutes; junk minutes; Fischer rest minutes and maybe even some rotation minutes. Could be a nice average MPG at end of season.
-
Anybody know how to make muscoop display most recent first?
for example this thread...I have to jump to page 4 and then scroll to the bottom for the most recent post.
Sorry if this is a stupid question...I just don't see a way to flip it around??
any help appreciated.
EDIT: I do see the most recent post on the right column....so that helps. But I would really like the most recent first and scroll down. maybe asking too much.
thanks.
-
Anybody know how to make muscoop display most recent first?
for example this thread...I have to jump to page 4 and then scroll to the bottom for the most recent post.
Sorry if this is a stupid question...I just don't see a way to flip it around??
any help appreciated.
EDIT: I do see the most recent post on the right column....so that helps. But I would really like the most recent first and scroll down. maybe asking too much.
thanks.
Hit the "new" button in orange next to the thread title. It'll take you to the first unread post in the thread.
-
One game does not make or break a season this is correct (Though I think it's probably fair to say that one game against Depaul was the difference between an NIT and no NIT last year) however he didn't say that we don't need to beat anyone else he just said "beat wisconsin" maybe he believes this is a key victory that could be extremely valuable to getting us into the postseason.
That's fine if that's what he means. It's not what the thread title is about though. "Beat Wisconsin" is not "how MU can be a tourney team."
-
Here's a review from
http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/13500
MU projected #69 between buffalo and Valparaiso. I think they base a lot on last years team - HE.
Final Projection:
"Turnovers and rebounding are going to be the two areas where Marquette could falter this year. Sandy Cohen and Matt Heldt will have to provide some quality minutes when Coach Wojciechowski needs to play bigger. Cohen is just 6-6, but he can be a solid rebounder from the small forward position. However, he will see most of his time at the power forward spot. Heldt is a big 6-10, 245 pound center. He barely saw the floor as a freshman, but he is ready for a bigger role. He will be Fischer’s primary backup. Yet that does not mean all of the 6-5, 6-6 and 6-7 guards or forwards are strong enough on the glass to play beside Fischer. When a team plays smaller, they tend to play faster and that is not good for Marquette’s turnover issue. The team will often shoot more three-pointers as well. That may not be a big issue for this team, but after making very few three-pointers last year, it is a big change and Marquette may not have all of the weapons they need to make those changes and improve enough to reach the NCAA Tournament."
-
Here's a review from
http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/13500
MU projected #69 between buffalo and Valparaiso. I think they base a lot on last years team - HE.
Final Projection:
"Turnovers and rebounding are going to be the two areas where Marquette could falter this year. Sandy Cohen and Matt Heldt will have to provide some quality minutes when Coach Wojciechowski needs to play bigger. Cohen is just 6-6, but he can be a solid rebounder from the small forward position. However, he will see most of his time at the power forward spot. Heldt is a big 6-10, 245 pound center. He barely saw the floor as a freshman, but he is ready for a bigger role. He will be Fischer’s primary backup. Yet that does not mean all of the 6-5, 6-6 and 6-7 guards or forwards are strong enough on the glass to play beside Fischer. When a team plays smaller, they tend to play faster and that is not good for Marquette’s turnover issue. The team will often shoot more three-pointers as well. That may not be a big issue for this team, but after making very few three-pointers last year, it is a big change and Marquette may not have all of the weapons they need to make those changes and improve enough to reach the NCAA Tournament."
Much of this is idoicy. The shooting and speed comments are glittering generalities and assume we have not upgraded after the season. It also assumes we have done nothing on turnovers and interior fouls.
I like to think we're going to surprise a lot of people (but not those of us on Scoop)
-
Keefe
Amen to the Al D. The pressure they put on the ball in full court press did electrify the joint. Amazing how a five second or ten second violation does to educated basketball fans.
-
Ran through a few numbers looking at past performance (but not projecting usage or taking experience into account or anything like that--I'm not that sophisticated).
Last season for every 100 possessions, we had approximately:
54.3 2-point attempts
23.5 3-point attempts
15 trips (trips, not shots) to the FT line. Using Pomeroy’s formula, this comes out to about 31.5 FT attempts
20 turnovers
I know, that adds up to 112.8. That’s because about 12.8% of our possessions included an offensive rebound.
Using that mix and plugging in shooting percentages, MU averaged 1.037 points per possession. JB talked earlier in this thread about 1.08 being a good target for this team. How do we get there, and is there any reason to be optimistic? Looking at each of the four factors:
Effective FG%: A year ago, MU ranked 76th nationally, with a 52% eFG%. This was buoyed by 52.4% on 2-pointers (44th in the country), and simultaneously weighed down by the 33.9% figure on threes (210th nationally).
Looking at our returning players plus Rowsey & Reinhardt’s most recent seasons, the eFG% rises to 54.3%, which would have been good for 22nd in the country. The collective 3P% jumps to 36.3%, a top-100 figure, and 3-point attempts from this group accounted for 40% of all field goal attempts (contrasted with 30% of our shots last season). The combination of taking and making more threes is a really straightforward way to improve the eFG figure. Ideally, if we’re shooting threes well, this will open up space for driving lanes and for Luke to operate, so hopefully that 2P% can stay high as well.
Turnover Rate: This absolutely has to drop. Last year MU suffered a turnover 20% of the time it had the ball, 292nd in the country. 18% would put us around the midpoint of D1, 17.5% would be heavenly. We need to lower TOs and maximize the number of shots because…
Offensive Rebounding: We’re probably not going to get very many 2nd chances. Luke was one of the best in the country last year, and Henry was OK, but that’s it. If we can even stay at the same below-average level as last year, I’d take it.
Free Throw Rate: I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a correlation between shooting more three pointers and shooting fewer free throws, but there are some notable counter examples out there. Still, I’d expect us to have fewer trips to the line…maybe 13.5 instead of 15 per 100 possessions.
So…looking at some super optimistic, pulled-off-the-back-of-the-envelope numbers, if we can have per 100 possessions…
48.8 2-point attempts (holding at that 52.4 shooting percentage)
32.5 3-point attempts (hell, shooting 37.5% thanks to the additive impact of multiple shooters on the floor plus faith in the freshmen)
13.5 trips to the line (a little over 28 FTA)
18 turnovers
We’re looking at 1.079 points per possession. Bubblicious.
Hopefully we can guard, turn teams over, and not get crushed too bad on the glass.
-
Love the numbers crunched, Cooby. I think it's going to be an interesting team and a fun season to watch.
-
Love the numbers crunched, Cooby. I think it's going to be an interesting team and a fun season to watch.
+1
Nice job, Cooby.
-
15 trips (trips, not shots) to the FT line. Using Pomeroy’s formula, this comes out to about 31.5 FTA...
13.5 trips to the line (a little over 28 FTA)
So... knowing what I know about 3FGA fouls vs 1&1's, and-1's and Ken... I'm thinking you might be mixed up on this 2+ FTA's per foul thing.
-
Thanks for the detailed breakdown, Brew. KenPom's conference rankings tell a similar story. The difference is one of perception. Providence and Seton Hall are much stronger programs today. Xavier, Creighton and Butler have been strong additions. And the conference isn't weighed down by dreck like Rutgers. But lots of fans focus only on the big names like Syracuse and Louisville.
Dont forget South Florida.
-
So... knowing what I know about 3FGA fouls vs 1&1's, and-1's and Ken... I'm thinking you might be mixed up on this 2+ FTA's per foul thing.
Yeah. I just reversed the FT portion of how he calculates possessions (FTA*.475) without thinking, and it matched up when I plugged the numbers to compare to last season's raw ORtg, so I ran with it.
-
WE ARE WINNING IT ALL
-
Obviously one issue this team has is lack of depth in the frontcourt. Now I have to assume the answer is no, but...
Is there a chance Matt Heldt and Luke Fischer could play together? Matt displayed decent range in high school. I can't remember if he had a quick enough release or enough range to extend out to the arc, but has anyone who's been able to watch him seen if he can face up at all? I've heard from a few people that Heldt has a chance to get more minutes than people expect, might part of that be in a twin tower type role with Luke manning the middle and Matt sliding to the four? Even for 5-10 minutes per game that could be a nice alternate look to throw at teams.
Without looking, I don't remember enough about Matt's high school game to know if this is a viable option, but I do remember he could hit some midrange shots and the occasional three. Not sure if the muscle he's added might limit his mobility to play that type of role, but if he can, it could be a great asset.
-
Obviously one issue this team has is lack of depth in the frontcourt. Now I have to assume the answer is no, but...
Is there a chance Matt Heldt and Luke Fischer could play together? Matt displayed decent range in high school. I can't remember if he had a quick enough release or enough range to extend out to the arc, but has anyone who's been able to watch him seen if he can face up at all? I've heard from a few people that Heldt has a chance to get more minutes than people expect, might part of that be in a twin tower type role with Luke manning the middle and Matt sliding to the four? Even for 5-10 minutes per game that could be a nice alternate look to throw at teams.
Without looking, I don't remember enough about Matt's high school game to know if this is a viable option, but I do remember he could hit some midrange shots and the occasional three. Not sure if the muscle he's added might limit his mobility to play that type of role, but if he can, it could be a great asset.
Wow, Batman and Robin at the same time. Holy Podcast!
-
Obviously one issue this team has is lack of depth in the frontcourt. Now I have to assume the answer is no, but...
Is there a chance Matt Heldt and Luke Fischer could play together? Matt displayed decent range in high school. I can't remember if he had a quick enough release or enough range to extend out to the arc, but has anyone who's been able to watch him seen if he can face up at all? I've heard from a few people that Heldt has a chance to get more minutes than people expect, might part of that be in a twin tower type role with Luke manning the middle and Matt sliding to the four? Even for 5-10 minutes per game that could be a nice alternate look to throw at teams.
Without looking, I don't remember enough about Matt's high school game to know if this is a viable option, but I do remember he could hit some midrange shots and the occasional three. Not sure if the muscle he's added might limit his mobility to play that type of role, but if he can, it could be a great asset.
Wojo at the season ticket holder scrimmage said he was going to experiment with playing Heldt & Fischer at the same time, so it may be possible. I also said I felt that Heldt slightly out played Fischer at the scrimmage. It was interesting to see that apparently Heldt started in the Dayton scrimmage. Now, I really do not expect Heldt to start over Fischer, but if he has truly become an effective player it would not surprise me to see both Fischer in Heldt in the game together against our really tall opponents such as Creighton.
-
Keefe
Amen to the Al D. The pressure they put on the ball in full court press did electrify the joint. Amazing how a five second or ten second violation does to educated basketball fans.
Goose
Al always downplayed his ability as a coach but he was an innovator in terms of defensive sets and schemes. Watching our full court press was a thing of beauty. He changed the game through his use of zones that confounded the enemy. Marquette was always in the top three in terms of defensive efficiency - we held opponents to less than 50 ppg season after season.
I remember people said that Al gave Butrym a scholarship for one reason - to defend the inbound play.
-
Keefe
Best part of Al's D was when full court press was used. They delivered on high % when they went full court or half court trap. Simply amazing how it could change a game in 10 seconds.
Have to be honest, I love Rick Pitino's D because I believe it is modern day version of Al used to do. Nothing rocks the joint like high pressure, trapping D.
-
Have to be honest, I love Rick Pitino's D
Quick, but effective aiiiina?
-
Keefe
Best part of Al's D was when full court press was used. They delivered on high % when they went full court or half court trap. Simply amazing how it could change a game in 10 seconds.
Have to be honest, I love Rick Pitino's D because I believe it is modern day version of Al used to do. Nothing rocks the joint like high pressure, trapping D.
My favorite team was the 1975/76 team. That team did press and was good at it. Part of the reason it was good was Ellis played back protecting against the long inbounds pass. Whitehead and Lee were reasonably quick, but Walton and Tatum were extremely quick.
Whitehead vs. Fischer, Watlon vs. Wilson, Lee vs. Carter are probably similar in quickness.
Tatum vs. Cheatham there is no question that Tatum was quicker.
Ellis vs. ?. Maybe one of the possibilities could keep up with Ellis quickness wise, but they are nowhere near his length.
I do not actually remember, but it would make sense to me that Whitehead was on the in bounder using his size to harass the in bounder.
-
bilsu
The 75/76 was one of my favorite teams of all time also. That team was loaded and really was the real deal. They knew how to turn up the heat when needed.
-
We just have to hope Luke doesn't get into foul trouble EVERY game
-
We just have to hope Luke doesn't get into foul trouble EVERY game
Hasn't been much of an issue so far in his career
-
To be a tourney team we have to have an extremely efficient offense. Our size and rebounding are huge liabilities this year. We need to limit our turnovers and be a highly efficient 3 point shooting team. We need to outscore the other teams without it being a track meet. We need to score 3 when the other team scores 2. Yes, it would be great to play HAVOC or 40 minutes of hell or whatever gimmicky name you want to use but we don't have those types of players or system.
We have the shooters to be a very good 3 point shooting team. Do we have the ball handlers to limit our turnovers?