...has MU as a 5 seed in Portland.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology
A 5-12 matchup with 'zona would be scary - although Jordan Hill is hobbled right now. Would love Purdue in the 2nd round though...
I hate joe lunardi as much as I love MU basketball.
Joe lunardi is so Big Ten/ACC biased its sickening. There is no way any of those #4 seeds deserve it more than MU. Marquette is better than Ill, Muzzo, Clemson, Prudue; James or no james.
I know lunardi has had a very good record predicting the final field, but its total BS what joe does with MU with the seeds. We need Jay Bilas making this field up; he would give MU a #3 seed easily.
Quote from: Badgerhater920 on March 02, 2009, 10:39:16 AM
A 5-12 matchup with 'zona would be scary - although Jordan Hill is hobbled right now. Would love Purdue in the 2nd round though...
Interesting. Purdue is REALLY talented.
Quote from: GOMU1104 on March 02, 2009, 10:49:29 AM
Interesting. Purdue is REALLY talented.
Unless Hummel's back locks up.
Quote from: username on March 02, 2009, 10:52:29 AM
Unless Hummel's back locks up.
He's been doing just fine, plus hes not their only talented player. Just because they're a Big Ten team doesn't mean they are bunch of clowns.
Purdue would not be a good matchup for MU.
Bracketology is what it is.
Fantasy.
+1
Quote from: GOMU1104 on March 02, 2009, 10:58:13 AM
Just because they're a Big Ten team doesn't mean they are bunch of clowns.
I sure wasn't laughing when Michigan State whooped our ass in the first round of the NCAA tournament.
Quote from: Wade4Life on March 02, 2009, 10:49:22 AM
I hate joe lunardi as much as I love MU basketball.
Joe lunardi is so Big Ten/ACC biased its sickening. There is no way any of those #4 seeds deserve it more than MU. Marquette is better than Ill, Muzzo, Clemson, Prudue; James or no james.
I know lunardi has had a very good record predicting the final field, but its total BS what joe does with MU with the seeds. We need Jay Bilas making this field up; he would give MU a #3 seed easily.
Why would you hate Lunardi? If he has a "very good record predicting the final field," it isn't his fault that there is perceived bias toward the Big Ten and ACC. It is what it is.
Quote from: The Wizard of West Salem on March 02, 2009, 11:26:06 AM
Why would you hate Lunardi? If he has a "very good record predicting the final field," it isn't his fault that there is perceived bias toward the Big Ten and ACC. It is what it is.
The NCAA committee has been so public in how they pick teams that virtually all the "experts" do pretty well in naming the 65 team field. At the end of the day, it's really picking out of a group of 5-8 teams for those 12 seed types.
Go Warriors.
He does have us as #15 on the S-Curve, which means we should be a 4 seed. Remember that teams can get bumped up or down a seed to make the bracket work out. We obviously got bumped down, likely due to the other teams in our conference ranked ahead of us.
EDIT: the #15 on the S-Curve is apparently last week's. MU seems to be the only one without an updated number. i guess he did bump us down to the 5 seed.
Quote from: jdiamon2 on March 02, 2009, 11:23:07 AM
I sure wasn't laughing when Michigan State whooped our ass in the first round of the NCAA tournament.
I sure wasn't laughing with our best player not playing due to a broken wrist for that game either.
I don't like possibly having to go West for the 3rd time in 4 years. If we are going to get bumped down a seed, can't we stay closer to home? Also, why would a #10 seed Ohio State get rewarded with essentially a home court advantage by getting to play in Dayton in the 1st round? #9 South Carolina also gets to play in Greensboro and #6 Gonzaga gets Portland.
Quote from: jdiamon2 on March 02, 2009, 11:23:07 AM
I sure wasn't laughing when Michigan State whooped our ass in the first round of the NCAA tournament.
Wasn't that the year we didn't have McNeal?
Quote from: Mike McCarter on March 02, 2009, 11:59:53 AM
He does have us as #15 on the S-Curve, which means we should be a 4 seed. Remember that teams can get bumped up or down a seed to make the bracket work out. We obviously got bumped down, likely due to the other teams in our conference ranked ahead of us.
EDIT: the #15 on the S-Curve is apparently last week's. MU seems to be the only one without an updated number. i guess he did bump us down to the 5 seed.
Lunardi was probably taking James' injury into consideration when projecting the team's seed. The committee will look at this, and will most likely do the same when seeding the team. We're not the same team without James on the court, and the seed will reflect that.
Barring an impressive run in the Big East tournament that shows that this team can still compete and more importantly win against teams of high caliber, we'll probably receive a worse seed than the resume will warrant.
Quote from: ErickJD08 on March 02, 2009, 12:07:59 PM
Wasn't that the year we didn't have McNeal?
I think that was CBB's point.
Quotewe'll probably receive a worse seed than the resume will warrant.
Like every other year.....
I'll take a 5 seed at this point...especially with Purdue in the second round. Hello Sweet 16.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 02, 2009, 12:03:50 PM
I sure wasn't laughing with our best player not playing due to a broken wrist for that game either.
Why, was he playing against Louisville on Sunday? We did OK in that game.
If you are all going to just mock the Big 10(+1) without even trying to remember how
at no point were we even contending in the game against Michigan State, then I'm wasting my breath.
Don't sit here and think Purdue is a favorable matchup based solely on the fact they play in the Big 10. Wisconsin played us tough earlier this season, and they lost to some of the worst Big Ten teams. Even Wisconsin would be tough to beat in the tournament.
I like our chances against Big Ten teams, but let's show some respect, lest we follow in the footsteps of Pittsburgh before their game against Providence.
Quote from: ReneeRowarrior on March 02, 2009, 12:30:18 PM
I'll take a 5 seed at this point...especially with Purdue in the second round. Hello Sweet 16.
I think all of you guys are nuts thinking that this current draw would be a good one. Purdue is a bad matchup. Again, just because they are in the Big Ten doesnt mean we would walk right over them. They are really talented.
I like our chances of getting to the sweet 16........Purdue in the second round!!!
Quote from: warrior55 on March 02, 2009, 12:39:42 PM
I like our chances of getting to the sweet 16........Purdue in the second round!!!
I think you missed a train of debate there, somewhere in the middle.
Quote from: jdiamon2 on March 02, 2009, 12:32:21 PM
Don't sit here and think Purdue is a favorable matchup based solely on the fact they play in the Big 10.
I didn't see this explicitly written anywhere in the thread. Think you and another are jumping ahead two steps with ASSuming what you wrote above.
Some MU fans think Purdue would be a good matchup. I can't imagine they think that solely on conference affiliation.
Quote from: username on March 02, 2009, 01:02:32 PM
I didn't see this explicitly written anywhere in the thread. Think you and another are jumping ahead two steps with ASSuming what you wrote above.
Some MU fans think Purdue would be a good matchup. I can't imagine they think that solely on conference affiliation.
Well, I just REASONED that out myself by finding that Purdue is actually not a good match up for us, and these jokers must be assuming they suck because they're in the Big Ten.
Purdue sucks.....don't they play in the Big Ten?
Why is Purdue not a good matchup for Marquette? Are they an extremely tall team with huge centers and power forwards? Do they drain 3's all day long? I watched them play a little and don't see anything that scares me too much.
Teams to fear in the Big 10 . . .
MSU and Purdue. The rest of them, let's play. These 2 are legit.
Quote from: Norm on March 02, 2009, 01:27:06 PM
Why is Purdue not a good matchup for Marquette? Are they an extremely tall team with huge centers and power forwards? Do they drain 3's all day long? I watched them play a little and don't see anything that scares me too much.
JaJuan Johnson - Athletic big man who we can't match up with.
Robbie Hummel - Drains 3s
Pretty solid guard play from Etwaun More, Keaton Grant, and Lewis Jackson
Not a gimme at all...there are definately better matchups that one could hope for.
Quote from: AlumKCof93 on March 02, 2009, 01:35:25 PM
Teams to fear in the Big 10 . . .
MSU and Purdue. The rest of them, let's play. These 2 are legit.
I'd rather play Purdue than most of the teams in the BE. MSU, on the other hand, would not be a team I'd like to face.
Edited...I'm an idiot.
Quote from: GOMU1104 on March 02, 2009, 01:39:06 PM
JaJuan Johnson - Athletic big man who we can't match up with.
Robbie Hummel - Drains 3s
Pretty solid guard play from Etwaun More, Keaton Grant, and Lewis Jackson
Not a gimme at all...there are definately better matchups that one could hope for.
6'10'' JuJuan Johnson is really the only matchup that bothers me a little bit but we've beaten teams with better big men this year and Lazar plays bigger than him at 6'6''.
Beyond that, our guards are better even without Dom, Wes would abuse Hummel, and Jerel would beat up Moore.
Yes, the big 10 is overrated, but that's not really why I wouldn't mind playing Purdue in the 2nd round - any team that scores 49 on Iowa doesn't exactly terrify me.
Quote from: GOMU1104 on March 02, 2009, 01:52:20 PM
You are more worried about Penn State, Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin?
I think
BE stands for Big East.
No one is saying Purdue would be easy. But I would take them over the top 6 teams in the Big East any day.
Quote from: jdiamon2 on March 02, 2009, 01:15:41 PM
Well, I just REASONED that out myself by finding that Purdue is actually not a good match up for us, and these jokers must be assuming they suck because they're in the Big Ten.
::)
I'm more upset that Villanova with a loss this weekend at home to GU is a 3 seed.
I think UConn and Pitt are definitely among the top teams in the country and are significantly better then both MSU and Purdue. I still don't know about Lville - they are capable of being great but they don't seem to be the smartest team around. After that, there's Nova and us. I think Purdue would fit right in with us and would finish anywhere from 4th to 7th in the BE.
Michigan State and Purdue are both tall teams - top 50 by kenpom.com's calculations, and we have had more trouble with tall teams - even weak ones like DePaul. Last year we drew the tallest team in the country in the 2nd round in Stanford, and played a great game but fell just short. We just played the tallest team in the country this year, UConn.
What I think we want to avoid is a big point guard who can score like UConn's Price, because that's the only place where I really think Mo will be a liability, and we might just have to go with Butler in the starting 5. I love Butler as a starter, but am concerned that if Wes or Jerel are bringing the ball up the court they won't be scoring as much.
From Acker's perspective, isn't anyone taller than 5"11" a big point guard?