Scholarship table
If you were truly aware that the other teams had the same chance over the course of the season to improve, then why did you specify a hypothteical matchup between MU in November, but held the other teams in March?Was it an honest mistake--a lack of awareness--that you asked me to make the comparision that way?Or did I spoil an intentional attempt to play "gotcha" when i shifted your question back to a fair comparison of MU in November to Davidson, St. Johns or Rutgers in November (instead of March)?
If you're going to make the argument argue that a particular action makes a team stronger in March, then, yes, the team actually has to be stronger in March for your argument to hold.
I think the serious point is here is that you can refute the argument that "odd coaching moves in November make us solid in March" with the fact that we weren't that solid in March:Take a look at our March games:Nearly lost to Rutgers nearly lost to St. JohnsBlown out by Notre Dame in the BET--a team we handled solidly a few weeks beforeNearly lost to Davidson, a 14 seed.Barely escaped Butler.Lost badly to Syracuse, a team we easily defeated a few weeks before.We had two solid wins in eight games in March--Notre Dame at home, and Miami in the tournament. AND against Notre Dame Jack Cooley was sick. Against Miami Reggie Johnson (their leading rebounder) blew out his knee the game before.Speaking facturally about our March play isn't denigrating the team--its pointing out the falacy that Buzz's odd coaching moves in November and December made us a stronger team in March.
Using the available Kenpom data: Your cherry-picked examples could not be less convincing. God you suck at being a negative, contrarian douchebag.
God you suck at being a negative, contrarian douchebag.
Is Equalizer 84/Joanie?? I should have figured that out. Must have morphed into the new personae when I was in Nepal for 10 months.
But we beat Rutgers....and St. Johns...and Davidson...and Butler...So this is the new thing? Not only do we have to win games, but we have to blow people out to be satisfied? Wins come with an asterisk if they aren't "solid" wins?
Using the available Kenpom data:2013: We were ranked 58 on January 1, finished the season ranked 24 after losing in the elite 8 and winning the conference regular season.2012: We were ranked 27 on January 4, finished the season ranked 18 after losing in the sweet 16 and finishing #2 in the conference.2011: We were ranked 42 on January 1, finished the season ranked 30 after losing in the sweet 16 and going .500 in a conference that sent 11 teams to the dance after losing literally every game of significance in the pre-conference season.2010: We were 2-4 in conference on January 20. There are not historical rankings by game listed, but we ended up 11-7 in conference play. After the DePaul loss, I recall KenPom had us ranked 50+ and predicted our conference record at well below .500. Made the tournament as a 6 seed.So, "facturally" speaking, we play better in the second half of the season than the first half of the season. Not only relative to ourselves, but relative to the rest of college basketball. Your cherry-picked examples could not be less convincing. God you suck at being a negative, contrarian douchebag.
Your cherry-picked examples could not be less convincing.
2011. Sweet 162012. Sweet 162013. Elite 8
+ 10,000. Perfect, except for the final sentence. He's great at being those things - a 1st team All American.
I think you meant that he excels at being a negative, contrarian douchebag. Or did you really mean that he is a negative contrarian douchebag, but his negative contrarian douchebaggery is performed in a substandard manner?
I never made that argument. I just don't understand tearing down last year's accomplishments and saying "well, it really wasn't that impressive."Yeah honestly it was. Perhaps I have too long a history dealing with bad Marquette basketball, but last March was fun.
I agree with Equalizer here in that it's very silly to claim that losing in November somehow makes us stronger in March. I also agree with the idea that MU wasn't particularly strong most of last March. They did win a lot of games and most of the time it was fun (except the Davidson game for me at least - I was too angry about the first 38 minutes to be too happy about the last 2), but to say they were playing their best is not accurate.
Please accept my apologies--I misinterpeted your comment--probably becuase it was interspersed with all the other crap I put up with. I'm sorry--from my perspective it seemed like you were piling on with the others. I accept your explanation that you were really just asking about our chances against the same opponents in November.
Yes, it was fun--but only because we won. I think you would admit that it would have been a lot less fun had we not pulled off wins against Rutgers, St. Johns, Davidson or Butler. It would have been a lot more fun ahd we not been blown out by Notre Dame or stuffed by Syracuse.Please accept my apologies--I misinterpeted your comment--probably becuase it was interspersed with all the other crap I put up with. I'm sorry--from my perspective it seemed like you were piling on with the others. I accept your explanation that you were really just asking about our chances against the same opponents in November.The answer to your question is yes, I think we would have beat the same teams in November as we did in March. The only exception may be Miami becuase they didn't lose Reggie Johnson until the NCAA tournament. Keep in mind that early in the year, before his injuries he pulled a double-double in their victory against MSU, and would have been a force in keeping Gardner in check.I think we would have beat Rutgers, St. Johns and Davidson--probably by more substantial margins than we did in March. I don't think we would have sufferd a blowout to Notre Dame (as we did in the BET) earlier in the year.
In your first post, you claimed to be a 1970 grad. Assuming you were 22 on graduation, that makes you around 65 years old.Its a shame that the years have turned you into a bitter old man incapable of accepting any perspective other than your own.Perhaps you should scroll through your old posts--half of them are either outright attacks on me, or egging on someone else for doing the same.
Lenny, you're not eatin' many grains or sugars, are you?