Can anyone recall our quickest route to 20 wins in past seasons?
What about the year when they started out like 28-0 or something under McGuire? This year probably is the quickest in terms of calendar time that we will reach 20 wins.
Quote from: ozmetal71 on January 25, 2007, 08:45:05 AM
What about the year when they started out like 28-0 or something under McGuire? This year probably is the quickest in terms of calendar time that we will reach 20 wins.
That is because the season starts earlier and the tournament MU played in. Prior to the '90's or so, teams did not start play until December.
I remember back in 97 when Marquette played UW @ the Field House thinking that the game was awfully early in the year (Nov 14th or close to it), amazing how early the season starts now. Unfortunately that was also the last time MU won within the People's Republic of MAdison. Great game by Hutch
I didnt mean datewise, I meant 20 wins in 24 games.
Quote from: mviale on January 25, 2007, 08:41:20 AM
Can anyone recall our quickest route to 20 wins in past seasons?
I know this is a little off the subject but with the current state of college basketball scheduling, does 20 wins mean anything anymore? Basically all decent teams come into conference play with 12 or 13 wins and barely have to play .500 in conference to hit 20 (we only had to go 7-9.) I know it's a lost cause but I really wish someone could figure out a way of "legislating" a tougher preseason schedule. Tournament bids including an RPI factor didn't do much to help and any other suggestion I've heard penalizes non-football schools on the revenue side. No answers, just lamenting.
2001-2002 season 20 wins in 23 games
2002-2003 season 20 wins in 24 games
QuoteBasically all decent teams come into conference play with 12 or 13 wins
Seriously, when wasn't this the case?
When didn't good teams have to win 12 or 13 out of their first 15 games in order to get to 20 wins.
The 7 games we'll have against ranked teams this season (assuming Pitt and ND stay ranked, and Georgetown doesn't make it), will be more ranked regular season opponents than Al faced in 12 out of his 13 years, and equal to the most he ever faced.
2007: 7 Ranked Opponents--Duke, Wisconsin, UConn, WVU, Pitt, ND, PItt
1965: 3
1966: 2
1967 1
1968 1
1969 1
1970 1
1971 2
1972 3
1973 4
1974 3
1975 3
1976 3
1977 4
In other words, if we win 20 games this year, we've done it against a far more difficult schedule than we faced through most of the 60's and 70's.
And yes, I know WVU and UConn have dropped out of the rankings--but I'm sure some of those we played in the 60's and 70's dropped out after we played them. According to the MU media gude, these are the opponents who were ranked WHEN WE PLAYED THEM--as was the case with UConn and WVU.
So the big difference between then and now is that we used to be an independent. The Big 10 or ACC or Pac 10 teams WERE in conferences back then, however. So there has been no change in the way they schedule games.
My guess is that with the advent of made-for-TV games, those B10 and ACC teams will show similar increases in the number of ranked oppnents of late.
They only had a top 20 back then.
Agreed 71 on the 20 wins thing. My personal standard (not that that's worth much) is a .750 winning percentage, which was roughly equivalent to 20 wins 25 years ago. For MU, somewhere between 23-8 and 24-7 this year.
Quote from: Eye on January 26, 2007, 12:38:19 AM
Agreed 71 on the 20 wins thing. My personal standard (not that that's worth much) is a .750 winning percentage, which was roughly equivalent to 20 wins 25 years ago. For MU, somewhere between 23-8 and 24-7 this year.
Agree. A .750 is a good gauge of a good season. One could also go to conference record and dismiss the preseason entirely. That would be the best way to judge a team like UConn this year.
ok - so in other words.. we need to go at least 6-3 in the remaining 9 games for you to consider us having had a successful regular season. (resulting in a worst-case record of 24-7)
and at least 7-2 in the remaining 9 games for you to consider us having had a successful big east season. (resulting in a worst-case record of 12-4)
That seems fair to me (and quite realistic given our team's play of late). Anyone object to "a .minimum of a 750 record" as the official muscoop definition of "successful regular season" and "successful big east season"? Speak now or forever hold your peace! :P
A bunch of other factors would be involved.
- players lost the previous year
- incoming players
- quality of the BE that year
- non-conf schedule
- conf schedule
This year, .750 is a good benchmark, but next year it might be .800 if DJ stays and .700 if he goes.
Do I get naming rights or anything if that's applied as the standard? ;D I'll settle for a beer from everybody who reads the board the next time I'm at the BC. ;D
I would have said the record at the beginning of the season for a successful season, based upon all of DC's factors, would have been 23-8, 10-6. Which is about .750. Looking like MU might be a game or two better than that in the BE right now. DC's right, though, that those factor's made last year's 20-11, 10-6 a successful one, too. They also made 19 wins each in '03-04 and '04-05 less than successful in my mind.
So how about a flexible # that floats between about .667 and .750 depending upon the year? I'd have a hard time seeing a season that finished anywhere below the neighborhood of .667 as a successful one and anyone that finished at or above .750 as a poor one.