Are you saying Marquette and Louisville are evenly matched? They've throttled us twice. We struggled with Seton Hall at home.
Are you saying Marquette and Louisville are evenly matched? They've throttled us twice. We struggled with Seton Hall at home.
...I worry that part of our poor performance in the post season over the last couple of years is due to over-confidence, that the team has looked ahead to its next game rather than focused on the one at hand.
Are you saying Marquette and Louisville are evenly matched? They've throttled us twice. We struggled with Seton Hall at home.
...I worry that part of our poor performance in the post season over the last couple of years is due to over-confidence, that the team has looked ahead to its next game rather than focused on the one at hand.
I don't believe it's been overconfidence. I believe it's been over-preparation causing "paralysis by analysis." For two straight years, we've opened up like a team afraid of making mistakes and trying to be perfect instead of just playing basketball.
Unfortunately, we had the same problem against Kansas (I know, sore subject).
Our last three NCAA tournament games we've had an average -- an AVERAGE -- halftime deficit of 18 points. Now you tell me, is that overcofidence or poor preparation?
I really believe that Crean gets these guys so worked up and nervous, especially last year, that it results in about a 15 minute adjustment period at the beginning on every NCAA game.
I just hope when the NCAA pairings come out, Crean isn't immediately lamenting the matchup like he did a year ago.
Are you saying Marquette and Louisville are evenly matched? They've throttled us twice. We struggled with Seton Hall at home.
Are you saying Marquette and Louisville are evenly matched? They've throttled us twice. We struggled with Seton Hall at home.
...I worry that part of our poor performance in the post season over the last couple of years is due to over-confidence, that the team has looked ahead to its next game rather than focused on the one at hand.
I don't believe it's been overconfidence. I believe it's been over-preparation causing "paralysis by analysis." For two straight years, we've opened up like a team afraid of making mistakes and trying to be perfect instead of just playing basketball.
Unfortunately, we had the same problem against Kansas (I know, sore subject).
Our last three NCAA tournament games we've had an average -- an AVERAGE -- halftime deficit of 18 points. Now you tell me, is that overcofidence or poor preparation?
I really believe that Crean gets these guys so worked up and nervous, especially last year, that it results in about a 15 minute adjustment period at the beginning on every NCAA game.
I just hope when the NCAA pairings come out, Crean isn't immediately lamenting the matchup like he did a year ago.
And here is the really odd part in all of that. TC's teams don't have any problems in preseason tourneys which they excel at.
Unless they play zone, the MU is screwed. I am surprised more coached don't realize this. college coaches, like Crean are too stubborn to change their strategies to fit other teams.
where is Henry Sugar when you need him? I mean someone should either debunk this myth or find out statistically it is true. all someone has to do is look up in the database all teams who played each other 3 times in one season and where one team won the first two and see how the 3rd game goes. (probably no small feat) actually, i wonder if this is born out in the numbers.
Are you saying Marquette and Louisville are evenly matched? They've throttled us twice. We struggled with Seton Hall at home.
...I worry that part of our poor performance in the post season over the last couple of years is due to over-confidence, that the team has looked ahead to its next game rather than focused on the one at hand.
I don't believe it's been overconfidence. I believe it's been over-preparation causing "paralysis by analysis." For two straight years, we've opened up like a team afraid of making mistakes and trying to be perfect instead of just playing basketball.
Unfortunately, we had the same problem against Kansas (I know, sore subject).
Our last three NCAA tournament games we've had an average -- an AVERAGE -- halftime deficit of 18 points. Now you tell me, is that overcofidence or poor preparation?
I really believe that Crean gets these guys so worked up and nervous, especially last year, that it results in about a 15 minute adjustment period at the beginning on every NCAA game.
I just hope when the NCAA pairings come out, Crean isn't immediately lamenting the matchup like he did a year ago.
And here is the really odd part in all of that. TC's teams don't have any problems in preseason tourneys which they excel at.
I think that's because he's able to prepare the guys for months. Come tournament time, he's trying to jam so much down their throats that they can't possibly process it all.
Anyway, like I said, I'm anticipating better results this year!
Are you saying Marquette and Louisville are evenly matched? They've throttled us twice. We struggled with Seton Hall at home.
...I worry that part of our poor performance in the post season over the last couple of years is due to over-confidence, that the team has looked ahead to its next game rather than focused on the one at hand.
I don't believe it's been overconfidence. I believe it's been over-preparation causing "paralysis by analysis." For two straight years, we've opened up like a team afraid of making mistakes and trying to be perfect instead of just playing basketball.
Unfortunately, we had the same problem against Kansas (I know, sore subject).
Our last three NCAA tournament games we've had an average -- an AVERAGE -- halftime deficit of 18 points. Now you tell me, is that overcofidence or poor preparation?
I really believe that Crean gets these guys so worked up and nervous, especially last year, that it results in about a 15 minute adjustment period at the beginning on every NCAA game.
I just hope when the NCAA pairings come out, Crean isn't immediately lamenting the matchup like he did a year ago.
And here is the really odd part in all of that. TC's teams don't have any problems in preseason tourneys which they excel at.
A little further analysis:
There were 119 instances where a team swept the first two games in a 3 game series.
That means that when a team wins the first two games in a 3 game series, it also won the 3rd game 71.4% of the time.
Unless they play zone, the MU is screwed. I am surprised more coached don't realize this. college coaches, like Crean are too stubborn to change their strategies to fit other teams.
IMO that is just a generic statement that really doesn't have a lot of merit. We struggle against zones when our opponents are long and athletic. Yes our offense bogs down a little when playing against a zone but it is when James, McNeal, Matthews and others attack a compact zone where they can't finish because the opponent is just so much taller and athletic that they disrupt our shots.
Rewatch the first half of the Syracuse game and it is very clear that their height bothered us badly when we had the ball. We attacked fairly well and had quite a few shots in the paint but than we were forced to throw up bad shots in the paint or risk getting rejected which is what happened to McNeal at the rim on the second play of the game by a great defensive play. Against these types of teams (Syracuse, Louisville and UConn) we really need to be firing on all cylinders from the outside to force them to loosen up their zone and by this I mean we need James, McNeal, Cube and Fitz to be nailing open 3 point shots not throwing up bricks which is what they do when we lose.
I have no problems with Seton Hall playing a zone against us. They have no one big inside to disrupt our shots so its easy pickings for McNeal, James, Matthews and Hayward. In addition, we would kill them on the boards as well as you need to be a very good rebounding team when playing a zone which Seton Hall is not. You really need the right personnel to play an effective zone against us for 40 minutes. Other teams have tried and failed.
I sort of agree with PRN here. Crean's strengths are recruiting and preparation. He is not a great game coach. In order for us to win games against good teams/good coaches, our players have to play to their ability and our game plan has to be good enough to compensate for TCs game management. Reminds me a little of Mike Martz in the NFL.
That said, I still think Crean is a very good coach and, at this point, MU should do everything they can to keep him around. There are only a handful of coaches out there who are great recruiters, teachers, preparers (I know, not a word), and game managers. Anyone who thinks we could get rid of Crean and hire a coach that can do all of those things at an elite level, is delusional. Crean has brought our program to a high level in a short period of time and seems to be continuing that improvement. There may come a time that he plateaus and someone else may be able to take the program to the next level but I don't think that time is now.
I sort of agree with PRN here. Crean's strengths are recruiting and preparation. He is not a great game coach. In order for us to win games against good teams/good coaches, our players have to play to their ability and our game plan has to be good enough to compensate for TCs game management. Reminds me a little of Mike Martz in the NFL.
That said, I still think Crean is a very good coach and, at this point, MU should do everything they can to keep him around. There are only a handful of coaches out there who are great recruiters, teachers, preparers (I know, not a word), and game managers. Anyone who thinks we could get rid of Crean and hire a coach that can do all of those things at an elite level, is delusional. Crean has brought our program to a high level in a short period of time and seems to be continuing that improvement. There may come a time that he plateaus and someone else may be able to take the program to the next level but I don't think that time is now.
Just a point of clarification...I do not think recruiting is a strength of Crean's. In fact, regardless of glowing reports and reputation, I think it's his biggest weakness as a coach.
A little further analysis:
There were 119 instances where a team swept the first two games in a 3 game series.
That means that when a team wins the first two games in a 3 game series, it also won the 3rd game 71.4% of the time.
Thanks for that. I was just about to say "If it's so tough to beat a team three times, why does it happen 70% of the time?" Now there are numbers to support that. If it's a case like Pitt last year, you can see how we lose game three. Even after winning the first two, there wasn't much optimism for beating them again. This is Seton Hall, team we're expected to beat anytime, anywhere.
I think that the 70% number is valid because by the time someone says "it's hard to beat a team three times..." they've already played twice. No one schedules another school 3 times in the same year - the third game is pretty much always the result of a post season tournament, right? So that statement really only gets uttered in situations where the first 2 games have already been won. I don't know if other years will result in the same ratio, but for the numbers you showed (84 sweeps out of 119 times a team won the first 2 games), 70% is the number I would go with.A little further analysis:
There were 119 instances where a team swept the first two games in a 3 game series.
That means that when a team wins the first two games in a 3 game series, it also won the 3rd game 71.4% of the time.
Thanks for that. I was just about to say "If it's so tough to beat a team three times, why does it happen 70% of the time?" Now there are numbers to support that. If it's a case like Pitt last year, you can see how we lose game three. Even after winning the first two, there wasn't much optimism for beating them again. This is Seton Hall, team we're expected to beat anytime, anywhere.
not to be nit-picky but I am not sure I was clear on the numbers.. It doesn't happen 70% of the time.. it happens roughly 43% of the possible times.. the 70% number is the percentage of times that a 2 game sweep turned into a 3 game sweep.
either way though, the statement in question is "it's hard to beat a team three times in a row in the same season". I think you're right.. whether you make that statement before the first two games have been swept or not, I wouldn't classify it as hard or even unlikely. 2 out of 5 times a 3 game series was swept.
Program standards - A lot of players at Memphis, Louisville, Cincy, K-State, would not be allowed to set foot in MU. Some of this is MU and some of this is the type of person Crean wants in the program
Are you saying Marquette and Louisville are evenly matched? They've throttled us twice. We struggled with Seton Hall at home.
...I worry that part of our poor performance in the post season over the last couple of years is due to over-confidence, that the team has looked ahead to its next game rather than focused on the one at hand.
I don't believe it's been overconfidence. I believe it's been over-preparation causing "paralysis by analysis." For two straight years, we've opened up like a team afraid of making mistakes and trying to be perfect instead of just playing basketball.
Unfortunately, we had the same problem against Kansas (I know, sore subject).
Our last three NCAA tournament games we've had an average -- an AVERAGE -- halftime deficit of 18 points. Now you tell me, is that overcofidence or poor preparation?
I really believe that Crean gets these guys so worked up and nervous, especially last year, that it results in about a 15 minute adjustment period at the beginning on every NCAA game.
I just hope when the NCAA pairings come out, Crean isn't immediately lamenting the matchup like he did a year ago.
Program standards - A lot of players at Memphis, Louisville, Cincy, K-State, would not be allowed to set foot in MU. Some of this is MU and some of this is the type of person Crean wants in the program
I hope you're not talking about academics, because you might want to check the transcripts of some of our players. He's been given more leeway than any coach in Marquette history in this regard.
Are you saying Marquette and Louisville are evenly matched? They've throttled us twice. We struggled with Seton Hall at home.
...I worry that part of our poor performance in the post season over the last couple of years is due to over-confidence, that the team has looked ahead to its next game rather than focused on the one at hand.
I don't believe it's been overconfidence. I believe it's been over-preparation causing "paralysis by analysis." For two straight years, we've opened up like a team afraid of making mistakes and trying to be perfect instead of just playing basketball.
Unfortunately, we had the same problem against Kansas (I know, sore subject).
Our last three NCAA tournament games we've had an average -- an AVERAGE -- halftime deficit of 18 points. Now you tell me, is that overcofidence or poor preparation?
I really believe that Crean gets these guys so worked up and nervous, especially last year, that it results in about a 15 minute adjustment period at the beginning on every NCAA game.
I just hope when the NCAA pairings come out, Crean isn't immediately lamenting the matchup like he did a year ago.
Uhm....we didn't "open up" at all like that against Kansas. In fact, it was 17-14 at the 13 minute mark....then the ass-kicking started.
I agree here.
I LOVE the 2003 team, but let's be realistic about who they actually were.
They were a very good team that got very hot shooting at the right time of year. The heat ran out suddenly as they came up against Kansas, and KU ran them out of the gym.
MU would to HC and/our Mizzou is Deiner and Novak hadn't been crazy hot shooting the ball.
The tourny is a weird beast... a team that almost loses in the first round gets hot and rides the wave all the way to the final 4.
I really think that if Novak had hit that shot against Bama, MU would have had a decent shot at taking out UCLA... but that's how it works in a single elim. format.
I agree here.
I LOVE the 2003 team, but let's be realistic about who they actually were.
They were a very good team that got very hot shooting at the right time of year. The heat ran out suddenly as they came up against Kansas, and KU ran them out of the gym.
MU would to HC and/our Mizzou is Deiner and Novak hadn't been crazy hot shooting the ball.
The tourny is a weird beast... a team that almost loses in the first round gets hot and rides the wave all the way to the final 4.
I really think that if Novak had hit that shot against Bama, MU would have had a decent shot at taking out UCLA... but that's how it works in a single elim. format.
Well actually that team had 3 future NBA players with one being a superstar. Also we had 2 skilled big men which we haven't had in a long time before and after that year. The more you look back at that team, the better they look. Don't forget that Novak was not just on fire during 3 tourny games. He was on fire the entire half of the second season. Diener was a stud in the making that year and there is no need to talk about how great Wade was. All four Final FOur teams that year had phenomenal players and MU was on par talent wise with Texas, Kansas and Syracuse.
I agree here.
I LOVE the 2003 team, but let's be realistic about who they actually were.
They were a very good team that got very hot shooting at the right time of year. The heat ran out suddenly as they came up against Kansas, and KU ran them out of the gym.
MU would to HC and/our Mizzou is Deiner and Novak hadn't been crazy hot shooting the ball.
The tourny is a weird beast... a team that almost loses in the first round gets hot and rides the wave all the way to the final 4.
I really think that if Novak had hit that shot against Bama, MU would have had a decent shot at taking out UCLA... but that's how it works in a single elim. format.
Well actually that team had 3 future NBA players with one being a superstar. Also we had 2 skilled big men which we haven't had in a long time before and after that year. The more you look back at that team, the better they look. Don't forget that Novak was not just on fire during 3 tourny games. He was on fire the entire half of the second season. Diener was a stud in the making that year and there is no need to talk about how great Wade was. All four Final FOur teams that year had phenomenal players and MU was on par talent wise with Texas, Kansas and Syracuse.
What about Scott Merritt was ever skilled? He had one move, a stupid spin move to the basket from the top of the key. That is why he is wasting away in the NBDL. I'll give you Robert Jackson because he was the most important player on that team most of the year. But Merritt sucks and will always suck.
I agree here.
I LOVE the 2003 team, but let's be realistic about who they actually were.
They were a very good team that got very hot shooting at the right time of year. The heat ran out suddenly as they came up against Kansas, and KU ran them out of the gym.
MU would to HC and/our Mizzou is Deiner and Novak hadn't been crazy hot shooting the ball.
The tourny is a weird beast... a team that almost loses in the first round gets hot and rides the wave all the way to the final 4.
I really think that if Novak had hit that shot against Bama, MU would have had a decent shot at taking out UCLA... but that's how it works in a single elim. format.
Well actually that team had 3 future NBA players with one being a superstar. Also we had 2 skilled big men which we haven't had in a long time before and after that year. The more you look back at that team, the better they look. Don't forget that Novak was not just on fire during 3 tourny games. He was on fire the entire half of the second season. Diener was a stud in the making that year and there is no need to talk about how great Wade was. All four Final FOur teams that year had phenomenal players and MU was on par talent wise with Texas, Kansas and Syracuse.
I agree here.
I LOVE the 2003 team, but let's be realistic about who they actually were.
They were a very good team that got very hot shooting at the right time of year. The heat ran out suddenly as they came up against Kansas, and KU ran them out of the gym.
MU would to HC and/our Mizzou is Deiner and Novak hadn't been crazy hot shooting the ball.
The tourny is a weird beast... a team that almost loses in the first round gets hot and rides the wave all the way to the final 4.
I really think that if Novak had hit that shot against Bama, MU would have had a decent shot at taking out UCLA... but that's how it works in a single elim. format.
Well actually that team had 3 future NBA players with one being a superstar. Also we had 2 skilled big men which we haven't had in a long time before and after that year. The more you look back at that team, the better they look. Don't forget that Novak was not just on fire during 3 tourny games. He was on fire the entire half of the second season. Diener was a stud in the making that year and there is no need to talk about how great Wade was. All four Final FOur teams that year had phenomenal players and MU was on par talent wise with Texas, Kansas and Syracuse.
What about Scott Merritt was ever skilled? He had one move, a stupid spin move to the basket from the top of the key. That is why he is wasting away in the NBDL. I'll give you Robert Jackson because he was the most important player on that team most of the year. But Merritt sucks and will always suck.
Ummmm don't let the 03-04 season that Merritt had taint your memory of him. Was Merritt soft? You bet. Did he rely on one major move in the paint when he was playing the five and turned the ball over a lot? Yes. But he was a very skilled big that could score and rebound and shoot free throws.
Here is some of his highlights from the 02-03 season from the wiki board:
"Averaged 10.1 points and 6.6 rebounds. Started all 33 games. Posted five double-doubles. Recorded 17 points and 12 rebounds against Appalachian State. Tallied 14 points and 11 rebounds at St. Louis. Scored season-high 18 points on 8-for-10 shooting and grabbed seven rebounds against Missouri in the Sweet Sixteen of the NCAA Tournament. Added 17 points against Pittsburgh in the Elite Eight. Registered a double-double of 12 points and 11 rebounds against Kansas in the Final Four."
Yea we have had that type of production in and around the paint on a consistent basis over the last 10 plus years. ::)
Oh and here are some from his disappointing 03-04 season:
"Averaged 11.2 points and a team-leading 7.1 rebounds (ninth in Conference USA). Started 30 of 31 games. Posted 21 double-digit scoring efforts and had nine games with double-digits in rebounds. Scored season-high 18 points and grabbed 12 rebounds against Notre Dame. Recorded 17 points and a career-high 15 rebounds against South Florida. Registered 16 points and ten rebounds against Valparaiso in the title game of the Pepsi Blue and Gold Classic, earning all-tournament honors. "
In addition if you look at his NBDL bio you will see that Scott is the only player in MU school history to record over 1,000 points, 600 rebounds, 100 assists, and 100 blocked shots for his career. But yea your right he is not skilled at all. ;D
I agree here.
I LOVE the 2003 team, but let's be realistic about who they actually were.
They were a very good team that got very hot shooting at the right time of year. The heat ran out suddenly as they came up against Kansas, and KU ran them out of the gym.
MU would to HC and/our Mizzou is Deiner and Novak hadn't been crazy hot shooting the ball.
The tourny is a weird beast... a team that almost loses in the first round gets hot and rides the wave all the way to the final 4.
I really think that if Novak had hit that shot against Bama, MU would have had a decent shot at taking out UCLA... but that's how it works in a single elim. format.
Well actually that team had 3 future NBA players with one being a superstar. Also we had 2 skilled big men which we haven't had in a long time before and after that year. The more you look back at that team, the better they look. Don't forget that Novak was not just on fire during 3 tourny games. He was on fire the entire half of the second season. Diener was a stud in the making that year and there is no need to talk about how great Wade was. All four Final FOur teams that year had phenomenal players and MU was on par talent wise with Texas, Kansas and Syracuse.
What about Scott Merritt was ever skilled? He had one move, a stupid spin move to the basket from the top of the key. That is why he is wasting away in the NBDL. I'll give you Robert Jackson because he was the most important player on that team most of the year. But Merritt sucks and will always suck.
Ummmm don't let the 03-04 season that Merritt had taint your memory of him. Was Merritt soft? You bet. Did he rely on one major move in the paint when he was playing the five and turned the ball over a lot? Yes. But he was a very skilled big that could score and rebound and shoot free throws.
Here is some of his highlights from the 02-03 season from the wiki board:
"Averaged 10.1 points and 6.6 rebounds. Started all 33 games. Posted five double-doubles. Recorded 17 points and 12 rebounds against Appalachian State. Tallied 14 points and 11 rebounds at St. Louis. Scored season-high 18 points on 8-for-10 shooting and grabbed seven rebounds against Missouri in the Sweet Sixteen of the NCAA Tournament. Added 17 points against Pittsburgh in the Elite Eight. Registered a double-double of 12 points and 11 rebounds against Kansas in the Final Four."
Yea we have had that type of production in and around the paint on a consistent basis over the last 10 plus years. ::)
Oh and here are some from his disappointing 03-04 season:
"Averaged 11.2 points and a team-leading 7.1 rebounds (ninth in Conference USA). Started 30 of 31 games. Posted 21 double-digit scoring efforts and had nine games with double-digits in rebounds. Scored season-high 18 points and grabbed 12 rebounds against Notre Dame. Recorded 17 points and a career-high 15 rebounds against South Florida. Registered 16 points and ten rebounds against Valparaiso in the title game of the Pepsi Blue and Gold Classic, earning all-tournament honors. "
In addition if you look at his NBDL bio you will see that Scott is the only player in MU school history to record over 1,000 points, 600 rebounds, 100 assists, and 100 blocked shots for his career. But yea your right he is not skilled at all. ;D
Well I am glad he was able to put up numbers like that on a really good team but He played with some darn good guards during that time. His numbers don't stand up as much when you look at his minutes played and compare at per 40 minutes to other players like "Scary" Marcus Jackson. I never saw him make one difference in a game that mattered and he usually choked in the clutch. He tallied good numbers and was a contributer for 4 years but I never saw him get any better after his freshman year. Its too bad too.
I agree here.
I LOVE the 2003 team, but let's be realistic about who they actually were.
They were a very good team that got very hot shooting at the right time of year. The heat ran out suddenly as they came up against Kansas, and KU ran them out of the gym.
MU would to HC and/our Mizzou is Deiner and Novak hadn't been crazy hot shooting the ball.
The tourny is a weird beast... a team that almost loses in the first round gets hot and rides the wave all the way to the final 4.
I really think that if Novak had hit that shot against Bama, MU would have had a decent shot at taking out UCLA... but that's how it works in a single elim. format.
Well actually that team had 3 future NBA players with one being a superstar. Also we had 2 skilled big men which we haven't had in a long time before and after that year. The more you look back at that team, the better they look. Don't forget that Novak was not just on fire during 3 tourny games. He was on fire the entire half of the second season. Diener was a stud in the making that year and there is no need to talk about how great Wade was. All four Final FOur teams that year had phenomenal players and MU was on par talent wise with Texas, Kansas and Syracuse.
Novak was on fire, and he was a unique talent... along with Diener. BUT, remember that they were a fresh. and soph. respectively.
I'm not saying that team wasn't very, very good.... But I think sometimes MU fans (myself included) treat that team like they were the greatest team in college basketball.
They had a nice mix of young and old talent... but a couple of wrong bounces and they would have been out of the tourny. It's fact. Go back and watch the games.
I'm in no way trying to diminish their AWESOME accomplishments... I'm simply trying to point out that a single elimination tournament is such a weird format when trying to actually determine the best team. Don't get me wrong, I love it... but you have to realize that it rewards teams who are "hot". MU was hot that year... and not "hot" the past couple. Hopefully MU gets hot this year.
season | 3 game series | 3 game sweeps | % | first 2 game sweeps | % of those that swept third game |
05-06 | 188 | 80 | 42.6% | 111 | 72.1% |
06-07 | 198 | 85 | 42.9% | 119 | 71.4% |
07-08 (so far) | 202 | 88 | 43.6% | 115 | 76.5% |