Terrible decision making with passing, shooting, rebounding, defense. Thank God UW hyphen m shot poorly because they had open looks after open looks. They are not that good which just shows you how far we have to go.
Up by nearly 20 and we nearly pissed the whole thing away practically at home with a ton of our fans there.
We better get it together quickly or a real road game with 10 of our fans in attendance is going to be ugly.
We have time, but tonight was ridiculous. Wisconsin will destroy us in two weeks if we don't get our act together.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 27, 2010, 10:09:51 PM
Terrible decision making with passing, shooting, rebounding, defense. Thank God UW hyphen m shot poorly because they had open looks after open looks. They are not that good which just shows you how far we have to go.
Up by nearly 20 and we nearly pissed the whole thing away practically at home with a ton of our fans there.
We better get it together quickly or a real road game with 10 of our fans in attendance is going to be ugly.
We have time, but tonight was ridiculous. Wisconsin will destroy us in two weeks if we don't get our act together.
Whatever. UWm played a good game. It's their Super Bowl. We played okay. Did some good things..and no..Wisconsin won't destroy us - no team destroys Buzz's teams Chicos. Step back from the ledge as usual.
Yup, we do have quite a bit of work to do. But we also did last year at this point. We lost at home by 13 to NC State when we were up 11 (at least...know it was double digits can't remember exactly what though) at the half. When we lost at DePaul I literally said I was not going to go to another game the whole year, and low and behold we go to the tournament. It's a very long season. We'll have games like this and then we'll have games like we did hanging with the #1 team in the country all the way to the end. Just like we did last year in losing to DePaul and beating Louisville by 20+.
Quote from: Ners on November 27, 2010, 10:12:15 PM
Whatever. UWm played a good game. It's their Super Bowl. We played okay. Did some good things..and no..Wisconsin won't destroy us - no team destroys Buzz's teams Chicos. Step back from the ledge as usual.
+1
Quote from: Jamil_toMU10 on November 27, 2010, 10:16:29 PM
+1
Other than hit free throws down the stretch (ironically we never should have been in a position to have to make them) and DJO's first half, what are the things we did well?
Quote from: Ners on November 27, 2010, 10:12:15 PM
Whatever. UWm played a good game. It's their Super Bowl. We played okay. Did some good things..and no..Wisconsin won't destroy us -
Read what I said....they will destroy us if we don't get our act together. You have a bad habit of taking 40% of what someone says and leaving out the rest of a sentence or even entire sentences, not sure why you do that.
Quote from: Ners on November 27, 2010, 10:12:15 PM
no team destroys Buzz's teams Chicos. Step back from the ledge as usual.
Georgetown 80, Marquette 57 last year....I'd say that's a blowout
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 27, 2010, 10:21:57 PM
Read what I said....they will destroy us if we don't get our act together. You have a bad habit of taking 40% of what someone says and leaving out the rest of a sentence or even entire sentences, not sure why you do that.
Georgetown 80, Marquette 57 last year....I'd say that's a blowout
Nice reference to a 3rd game in less than 72 hours with a team full of midgets and only 6 deep. But as posted in another thread..let's go on record now Chicos and get your prediction as to how bad UW destroys MU?
Hope I'm wrong, but I think theses guys have been really overated.
Crowder - Disapointingly soft
Blue- No offense
Caudigan- so-so. Not that talented
Buycks- Nuff said
Butler- Can't do it all. Doesn't seemed to have steped up off last year.
DJO- really inconsistent.
Team can't shoot, can't rebound, mediocre on free throws, soft on defense, and certainly doesn't hustle like last year.
Hope I'm wrong but hello NIT.
3rd game in less than 72 hours? We played Monday and Tuesday, then had 95 hours until we took the court tonight.
Last year they blew big leads to FSU and NC State and the season was in jeopardy. After beating UWM, MU played an ugly game in Madison and the NCAA Tournament was a question mark. A 1-3 conference start pretty much sealed an NIT bid. Losing to DePaul and Syracuse giving MU a 2-5 BE record then made the NIT just a pipe dream. I don't remember how things went from there but I honestly can't believe Buzz kept his job after such a disasterous 09-10 season. If only they had a traditional, unathletic, spot-up shooter!
Marquette is going to be just fine.
Quote from: ecompt on November 27, 2010, 10:34:11 PM
3rd game in less than 72 hours? We played Monday and Tuesday, then had 95 hours until we took the court tonight.
He was talking about the Georgetown game that Chicos referenced
Quote from: Mutaman on November 27, 2010, 10:33:25 PM
Hope I'm wrong, but I think theses guys have been really overated.
Crowder - Disapointingly soft
Blue- No offense
Caudigan- so-so. Not that talented
Buycks- Nuff said
Butler- Can't do it all. Doesn't seemed to have steped up off last year.
DJO- really inconsistent.
Team can't shoot, can't rebound, mediocre on free throws, soft on defense, and certainly doesn't hustle like last year.
Hope I'm wrong but hello NIT.
Crowder plays small for his size, which is the opposite of Lazar from last year.
Unfortunately, I agree that Crowder, Blue, and Junior just aren't that good. They will be average college basketball players, which is nothing to sneeze at, but won't get it done at an elite Big East level. I still think Junior should be the PG since Buycks is just Godawful, though.
Quote from: nomorebuycks on November 27, 2010, 10:41:21 PM
Crowder plays small for his size, which is the opposite of Lazar from last year.
Unfortunately, I agree that Crowder, Blue, and Junior just aren't that good. They will be average college basketball players, which is nothing to sneeze at, but won't get it done at an elite Big East level. I still think Junior should be the PG since Buycks is just Godawful, though.
This is one of the dumbest posts I've seen on here...and it's in response to one of the other dumbest posts I've seen on here. I guess I shouldn't expect much from a grown man who has a screen name that rips a college kid.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on November 27, 2010, 10:45:47 PM
This is one of the dumbest posts I've seen on here...and it's in response to one of the other dumbest posts I've seen on here. I guess I shouldn't expect much from a grown man who has a screen name that rips a college kid.
Yeah, my gosh the three guys referenced just played in thier 7th D1 game. (Junior a few more).... Let's not start jumping off cliffs yet. They did play terrible but let's not go overboard.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on November 27, 2010, 10:36:41 PM
Last year they blew big leads to FSU and NC State and the season was in jeopardy. After beating UWM, MU played an ugly game in Madison and the NCAA Tournament was a question mark. A 1-3 conference start pretty much sealed an NIT bid. Losing to DePaul and Syracuse giving MU a 2-5 BE record then made the NIT just a pipe dream. I don't remember how things went from there but I honestly can't believe Buzz kept his job after such a disasterous 09-10 season. If only they had a traditional, unathletic, spot-up shooter!
Marquette is going to be just fine.
Last years team lost when they ran out of gas. They were never outhustled and they played smart. Not so this year. I don't see anyone on this team with the heart of last years seniors, and whats scary is they were all Crean's recruits.
They were also 4th year seniors dude. Acker and Cubillan looked WORTHLESS junior year. These are the exact same posts people were writing about those two at the beginning of last season.
Quote from: wadesworld on November 27, 2010, 10:13:59 PMYup, we do have quite a bit of work to do. But we also did last year at this point. We lost at home by 13 to NC State when we were up 11 (at least...know it was double digits can't remember exactly what though) at the half.
No we didn't. We lost to NC State by 4. The final score was 77-73.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 27, 2010, 10:21:57 PMGeorgetown 80, Marquette 57 last year....I'd say that's a blowout
Yeah...that's
A blowout. One. Exactly one blowout. And that is our only double digit loss since March 4, 2009 against Pittsburgh on the road. That means in our past 46 games, we have only lost once by double digits. One blemish in the past 633 days. So yes, you can take one game and say we got blown out. But as far as sample size, I'd say 2.17% is pretty damn rare. Buzz teams don't get blown out, we won't get destroyed by Wisconsin.
In fact, the only chance Wisco probably has of beating us is if they send the football team. Their basketball team simply can't score enough points.
Quote from: Ready2Fly on November 27, 2010, 10:51:59 PM
They were also 4th year seniors dude. Acker and Cubillan looked WORTHLESS junior year. These are the exact same posts people were writing about those two at the beginning of last season.
Hope you're right.
Quote from: Ners on November 27, 2010, 10:27:32 PM
Nice reference to a 3rd game in less than 72 hours with a team full of midgets and only 6 deep. But as posted in another thread..let's go on record now Chicos and get your prediction as to how bad UW destroys MU?
You said we never get blow out, I show a fact that we had and you're upset about it. Typical.
I'll see how MU does in their next two games before making my predictions. Before the season started, I had MU winning against UW-madison. I also had us at 5-2 at this point. So far I'm dead on. MU needs to shore up a lot of things in the next two games and then I'll make my prediction one way or another.
Right now, UW-madison is the better team. Fortunately, we're not playing them RIGHT NOW.
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 27, 2010, 10:52:51 PM
In fact, the only chance Wisco probably has of beating us is if they send the football team. Their basketball team simply can't score enough points.
You guys are awfully confident. I hope you're right. We definitely have more talent then madison, but talent doesn't always win. We hustle, usually, but tonight there were episodes that were extremely disappointing in that area.
Too much dumb basketball going on.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 27, 2010, 11:01:19 PM
We definitely have more talent then madison,
Than vs. then. You had us at 5-2? Most did. The CONSENSUS was that we'd be 5-2 at this point in the season. We've got a ton of talented kids that have played very little at this level. We'll be fine.
Quote from: Jay Bee on November 27, 2010, 11:09:13 PM
Than vs. then. You had us at 5-2? Most did. The CONSENSUS was that we'd be 5-2 at this point in the season. We've got a ton of talented kids that have played very little at this level. We'll be fine.
That's what scares me....you had the Vikings in the Super Bowl this year and even two weeks ago said you were going to make a huge run to the playoffs.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on November 27, 2010, 10:45:47 PM
This is one of the dumbest posts I've seen on here...and it's in response to one of the other dumbest posts I've seen on here. I guess I shouldn't expect much from a grown man who has a screen name that rips a college kid.
Agreed. Crowder is a stud, and is not soft. He should not be playing Center.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 27, 2010, 11:01:19 PM
You guys are awfully confident. I hope you're right. We definitely have more talent then madison, but talent doesn't always win. We hustle, usually, but tonight there were episodes that were extremely disappointing in that area.
Too much dumb basketball going on.
Listening to Buzz's postgame interview, I just don't think it's time to panic. 7 games in 14 days. That's insane. I don't think anyone else in the country has done that. This is the biggest game UW-M has played since their Sweet 16 run. Of course they were up for it. And that Ja'Rob McCallum was unconscious in the second half.
It's a young team with a young coach. They've had relatively little prep time for most of their games thus far. That won't be the case for Wisconsin. It's not nearly time for the panic button, and they have plenty of problems of their own. They struggled with a mediocre Boston College team, shot wretched against Manhattan and only scored because the Jaspers were even worse, and lost to UNLV. It's not like Ohio State or Kansas is coming to town. We may not be at our best, but Becky's been arguably worse than us. Look at who beat us, two of the top 20 teams in the country. Wisco could pose a threat if we play poorly, which is possible, but based on the results thus far, we should be okay.
Quote from: Jay Bee on November 27, 2010, 11:09:13 PM
Than vs. then. You had us at 5-2? Most did. The CONSENSUS was that we'd be 5-2 at this point in the season. We've got a ton of talented kids that have played very little at this level. We'll be fine.
Nobody knows how to pat himself on the back like Chicos. The world won't ever appreciate the guy, but he'll be damned if he himself doesn't acknowledge his own greatness.
Quote from: willie warrior on November 27, 2010, 11:13:16 PM
Agreed. Crowder is a stud, and is not soft. He should not be playing Center.
Outrebounded tonight 31-21. By UW friggin M. Nuff said.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 27, 2010, 10:58:41 PM
You said we never get blow out, I show a fact that we had and you're upset about it. Typical.
I'll see how MU does in their next two games before making my predictions. Before the season started, I had MU winning against UW-madison. I also had us at 5-2 at this point. So far I'm dead on. MU needs to shore up a lot of things in the next two games and then I'll make my prediction one way or another.
Right now, UW-madison is the better team. Fortunately, we're not playing them RIGHT NOW.
I'm not upset about the fact you pointed out we got beat by 25 or whatever by Georgetown on the 3rd game in less than 72 hours with Tom Creans midgets at point and shooting guard who were 5th and 4th year seniors respectively.
But..since you are SO put off by this years MU team and it has so many issues that make it appear at present that it will get destroyed and schooled by UW - let's just get your prediction on record right now. I don't care about your pre-season pick that you thought MU would win...you've seen our output so far and seem to be disgusted..so let's get your pick..how bad will it be Chicos??
My pick - we beat Wisconsin. Period...even with all that in your small mind ails us currently. As I recall, UW got beat by about 10 points by Green Bay last year..what a terrible loss that would have been for MU, right? I mean how could a solid team like UW possibly lose to a schoool of Green Bay's caliber??
Loved DJO's "traditional" game tonite.
Quote from: Ners on November 27, 2010, 11:37:12 PM
But..since you are SO put off by this years MU team and it has so many issues that make it appear at present that it will get destroyed and schooled by UW - let's just get your prediction on record right now. I don't care about your pre-season pick that you thought MU would win...you've seen our output so far and seem to be disgusted..so let's get your pick..how bad will it be Chicos??
My pick - we beat Wisconsin. Period...even with all that in your small mind ails us currently. As I recall, UW got beat by about 10 points by Green Bay last year..what a terrible loss that would have been for MU, right? I mean how could a solid team like UW possibly lose to a schoool of Green Bay's caliber??
Disgusted? Hardly. Frustrated? Yes. Youthful teams will do that. Calling two timeouts with two minutes to go and we commit a TO and then take a wild 35 foot shot with the clock expiring....frustrating. Not disgusted, but very frustrating.
As you will recall, UW lost to Green Bay last year in OT and it was by 4 points and it was away. OH, and UW-Green Bay was a post season team that actually won a post season game and then lost to Rick Majerus and SLU in 2OT. Other than, great comparison. ::)
I need to see more of what MU does in the next two games before I make my prediction (I've already made my season predictions on our blog and I picked MU). Sorry you don't like that.
Time for the boys on this team to strap it on.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 28, 2010, 12:19:02 AM
I need to see more of what MU does in the next two games before I make my prediction (I've already made my season predictions on our blog and I picked MU). Sorry you don't like that.
As you will recall, UW lost to Green Bay last year in OT and it was by 4 points and it was away.
So you need two more games to make a prediction, yet you made a prediction weeks ago? Why not give an update now?
Good to see you give passes for overtime losses, losses by 4 points or less, and away losses. I suspect those rules are applied by you only in certain cases (i.e., not MU games). By the way, uw-Maidsen was ranked #20 at the time they lost.
Quote from: Jay Bee on November 28, 2010, 12:25:41 AM
So you need two more games to make a prediction, yet you made a prediction weeks ago? Why not give an update now?
Good to see you give passes for overtime losses, losses by 4 points or less, and away losses. I suspect those rules are applied by you only in certain cases (i.e., not MU games). By the way, uw-Maidsen was ranked #20 at the time they lost.
Thank you Jay Bee...once again Chicos does it to himself..talking out of both sides of his mouth to advance his agenda.
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 27, 2010, 11:14:16 PM
Listening to Buzz's postgame interview, I just don't think it's time to panic. 7 games in 14 days. That's insane. I don't think anyone else in the country has done that. This is the biggest game UW-M has played since their Sweet 16 run. Of course they were up for it. And that Ja'Rob McCallum was unconscious in the second half.
It's a young team with a young coach. They've had relatively little prep time for most of their games thus far. That won't be the case for Wisconsin. It's not nearly time for the panic button, and they have plenty of problems of their own. They struggled with a mediocre Boston College team, shot wretched against Manhattan and only scored because the Jaspers were even worse, and lost to UNLV. It's not like Ohio State or Kansas is coming to town. We may not be at our best, but Becky's been arguably worse than us. Look at who beat us, two of the top 20 teams in the country. Wisco could pose a threat if we play poorly, which is possible, but based on the results thus far, we should be okay.
Not panicking, just frustrated. This is a talented team but they are playing dumb basketball. There is no senior leadership that is evident. Jimmy, be the man!!
I'm mostly concerned that Buzz has relied on stellar senior leadership the last two years that he was fortunate enough to come into. He doesn't have that this year. Maybe Jimmy and DB are those guys, but they don't seem to be...at least not yet. Jimmy seems rather quiet and I honestly can't figure DB out just yet. As a result, we are playing young...young and dumb.
That's frustrating.
I agree with you completely that Wisconsin doesn't have anywhere near the talent MU has on the court, but that's also what makes it so frustrating. After Leuer, MU has better players just about at every position, but that doesn't mean we play smart at those positions or play experienced at those positions.
UW vs Notre Dame tomorrow will be interesting to watch. They play North Carolina State after that and then against UWM prior to playing us.
Quote from: Jay Bee on November 28, 2010, 12:25:41 AM
So you need two more games to make a prediction, yet you made a prediction weeks ago? Why not give an update now?
Good to see you give passes for overtime losses, losses by 4 points or less, and away losses. I suspect those rules are applied by you only in certain cases (i.e., not MU games). By the way, uw-Maidsen was ranked #20 at the time they lost.
Sigh.
All of the contributors to Cracked Sidewalks make their predictions for the entire season ahead of time, before the first game is played (this is probably too nuanced for Ners to understand, so if you could help him I would appreciate it).
Those predictions were made based on viewing one game...St. John's University of Minnesota. You'll forgive me but I'll be watching UW-madison play a few more games as well as MU before I make my prediction. If the game were held tomorrow, I'd pick Wisconsin. The game isn't held tomorrow.
I'm glad UW-madison was ranked #20 at the time of that loss, goes to show you what I've said for the last 10 years...pre-season rankings aren't worth crap. How's that UCONN preseason ranking looking right now?
Ners was trying to compare this UW-M team to last year's UW-GB team which is laughable in all areas, but that should not be surprising.
Quote from: New Era Warriors on November 28, 2010, 12:41:48 AM
CHICOS, I would love to sock you in the face...multiple times. you are a poison to this board. Do you even care about MU basketball? All you do is point out the negatives time after time. You pretty much suck. And usually whatever you say is way off base.
You want to punch the guy in the face because he's critical of the team's play? I've always thought many MU fans seemed to have some sort of an inferiority complex where they can't handle criticism from other fans, talk radio hosts or print journalists. This kind of post just proves the point.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 28, 2010, 01:04:15 AM
You'll forgive me but I'll be watching UW-madison play a few more games as well as MU before I make my prediction. If the game were held tomorrow, I'd pick Wisconsin. The game isn't held tomorrow.
I'm glad UW-madison was ranked #20 at the time of that loss, goes to show you what I've said for the last 10 years...pre-season rankings aren't worth crap. How's that UCONN preseason ranking looking right now?
The game isn't held tomorrow but predictions are predictions. They are held at the time they are made. I'm glad you were able to tell me the shocker of the year - you have changed your mind and now expect Wisconsin to win.
You've said for the last 10 years that preseason rankings are crap?.. and point out a December 9th UW loss to UWGB as evidence (despite Wisconsin finishing 16 and 19 in the AP and Coaches Poll, respectively)... yet a few days ago, here in November, you start a thread to point out Marquette is in the 200s when it comes to the RPI? Hmm.. guess you like saying the same thing, over and over and over again.
10 steals and team shooting over 50 percent are certainly 2 things we did really well. We are shooting much better than the past 6 years - our percentages are just coming a lot more on drives than jumpers - but percentage is good.
Jay Bee...serious, read what you write.
Yes, preseason rankings, as in the WRITERS and COACHES rankings. Those are what I've said are crap. There is no way for the writers and coaches to be able to know what 355 DI teams are doing, how well they will be playing, etc in the preseason. THAT is what I said. Sigh. And yes, they are crap. The UWGB game last year is not the only example, I've given a ton of examples to Lenny to show how piss poor the preseason coaches and writer rankings are each year. More than 60% of the time the teams they select in the top 25 don't finish there in the 3 or 4 years I looked at. That is piss poor.
I also said, clearly, that the RPI rankings were early and I CLEARLY showed the Ken Pom rankings, too, to give the readers the extremes of both rankings. Same records, same data, but totally different conclusions (because of the earliness in the season and how they apply that data). At least the computer rankings are taking raw data in of ACTUAL GAMES and not making up predictions like the writers and coaches are in preseason. Again, huge difference.
Finally, I said if the game was held tomorrow I'd pick Wisconsin. And again, CLEARLY, I stated the game ISN'T held tomorrow. I'll make my prediction based on more data. In the preseason, when I threw crap against the wall like the writers and coaches do, I said MU would win 22 games and would beat Wisconsin. That was before one real game was played. As we get closer to this actual game, I'll make my decision then. Is Davonte back? Is DJO in the groove for good? How is our guard play? Etc, etc. Now, I'm sure next week you'll run around saying on November 27th you picked Wisconsin to win. No, I didn't, but that's what you and Ners will say anyway. I'll make my prediction as the game approaches with more data.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 28, 2010, 01:22:54 AM
Is Davonte back?
You get e-motional when your character starts to become revealed. Who is this Davonte you speak of? If early rankings are so crap, why post them? Was it simply to harp on what you've said the past ten years? If so, why didn't you make the point that they were crap and meaningless in your original post?
Have a GOOD night, my friend.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 28, 2010, 01:22:54 AMFinally, I said if the game was held tomorrow I'd pick Wisconsin. And again, CLEARLY, I stated the game ISN'T held tomorrow. I'll make my prediction based on more data. In the preseason, when I threw crap against the wall like the writers and coaches do, I said MU would win 22 games and would beat Wisconsin. That was before one real game was played. As we get closer to this actual game, I'll make my decision then. Is Davonte back? Is DJO in the groove for good? How is our guard play? Etc, etc. Now, I'm sure next week you'll run around saying on November 27th you picked Wisconsin to win. No, I didn't, but that's what you and Ners will say anyway. I'll make my prediction as the game approaches with more data.
My main issue with these comments tonight is that it doesn't take Wisconsin into account at all. Have we struggled some? Sure. Have they struggled some? Hell yes. They won two games in the Old Spice Classic in very non-convincing fashion. They beat Manhattan while shooting like pure crap and scoring only 50 points. They beat a poor Boston College team after struggling through the first half and needing a monster second half run to take control. Compare that to how we did in the CBE. Honestly, despite them going 2-0 thus far and us going 0-2 in KC, I would say without a doubt that Marquette's performances were more impressive. It's not even close. The main difference is that we played #1 Duke and #18 Gonzaga, while they played two teams that likely won't even be considered for the Big Dance. The only team they played that will be in the mix come March is UNLV, and they lost that game.
Why do you think Wisconsin is so good? You can pick at Marquette's faults until the cows come home, but what about Bucky's? For all our blemishes, they have us beat in that category by far, it just doesn't stand out as much because they have played such poor competition. Does anyone really think they'll beat Notre Dame tomorrow? Maybe they'll surprise me, but I haven't seen anything from Wisco to convince me they are any better than Marquette.
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 28, 2010, 01:45:19 AM
My main issue with these comments tonight is that it doesn't take Wisconsin into account at all. Have we struggled some? Sure. Have they struggled some? Hell yes. They won two games in the Old Spice Classic in very non-convincing fashion. They beat Manhattan while shooting like pure crap and scoring only 50 points. They beat a poor Boston College team after struggling through the first half and needing a monster second half run to take control. Compare that to how we did in the CBE. Honestly, despite them going 2-0 thus far and us going 0-2 in KC, I would say without a doubt that Marquette's performances were more impressive. It's not even close. The main difference is that we played #1 Duke and #18 Gonzaga, while they played two teams that likely won't even be considered for the Big Dance. The only team they played that will be in the mix come March is UNLV, and they lost that game.
Why do you think Wisconsin is so good? You can pick at Marquette's faults until the cows come home, but what about Bucky's? For all our blemishes, they have us beat in that category by far, it just doesn't stand out as much because they have played such poor competition. Does anyone really think they'll beat Notre Dame tomorrow? Maybe they'll surprise me, but I haven't seen anything from Wisco to convince me they are any better than Marquette.
Let's look at it the other way. They held Manhattan to 35 points for the game, that's pretty good defense...hell, even a God awful Prairie View team scored 50+ against MU and UW.
They beat Boston College who had just beaten Texas A&M. I don't know how good BC is this year. I watched some of the UNLV game and thought UW played pretty well in a hostile place against a likely NCAA team. They lost by one point.
I was also impressed with our play against Duke. I was not as impressed with our play against Gonzaga, a team we should have beaten. They may have a #22 next to their name, but I'm not sure I buy that ranking right now. Because of the league they are in, they certainly will make the NCAA tournament again. That's a given.
Sigh.
Marquette is still a work in progress. This team is young and very talented. The team is still trying to find its identity. What's exciting is the potential, once Buzz and the team gets its act together! We have seen flashes of how good this team can be. Otule had 5 blocked shots last night and played his best game. It showed that if he continues developing, he can be a factor. Gardner can definitely be a factor on offense right now. Crowder needs to play closer to the basket to grab more offensive rebounds. Blue has shown that he is a great talent. He needs to step up his offensive game; quit playing like a freshman and slash more to the basket. Overall, Marquette needs to return to its aggressive, high energy defense; play more full court press, utilize all its players. Play hard and good things will happen.
Right now, UW beats MU at the BC. Why, they get it. Bo has a defined system both offensively and defensively, the players know what it is when they're recruited, it's practiced, and doesn't vary. Like it or not, Bo is a legendary coach and winner. Consistency, consistency, consistency....
MU might get it this season, and then again, may not. What is Buzz' style of play? I don't know. Does it vary based on the talent he gets yearly? We'll see.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 27, 2010, 10:09:51 PM
Terrible decision making with passing, shooting, rebounding, defense. Thank God UW hyphen m shot poorly because they had open looks after open looks. They are not that good which just shows you how far we have to go.
Up by nearly 20 and we nearly pissed the whole thing away practically at home with a ton of our fans there.
We better get it together quickly or a real road game with 10 of our fans in attendance is going to be ugly.
We have time, but tonight was ridiculous. Wisconsin will destroy us in two weeks if we don't get our act together.
Back to the original post... Chicos is 100% correct. This team is not good right now. I cringe at the thought of a BE schedule right now. UWM is not a good basketball team, but MU let them stay in it. I was having DePaul flashbacks in the second half.
What really gets me is they can play exceptionally good ball in 5 minute stretches, and then give up a 10-2 run and erase all of it. It keeps happening too. You'd think they'd learn at some point.
Quote from: Ners on November 27, 2010, 10:12:15 PM
Whatever. UWm played a good game. It's their Super Bowl. We played okay. Did some good things..and no..Wisconsin won't destroy us - no team destroys Buzz's teams Chicos. Step back from the ledge as usual.
we have not gotten destroyed since the tanned one left...georgetown was third game in 3 days with no bench ...getting blown out includes rolling over...teams quitting and getting destroyed was one of his trademarks not one of Buzzs
Quote from: New Era Warriors on November 28, 2010, 12:41:48 AM
CHICOS, I would love to sock you in the face...multiple times. you are a poison to this board. Do you even care about MU basketball? All you do is point out the negatives time after time. You pretty much suck. And usually whatever you say is way off base.
If people would just actually address the substance of what he says, instead of writing crap like this above, this board would be a lot easier to read.
I think his initial post was a little chicken littleish, but there are a couple of nagging things that I don't think can be written off as fatigue....our inability to rebound...our point guard play. These will be killers come BE time.
Quote from: New Era Warriors on November 28, 2010, 12:41:48 AM
CHICOS, I would love to sock you in the face...multiple times. you are a poison to this board. Do you even care about MU basketball? All you do is point out the negatives time after time. You pretty much suck. And usually whatever you say is way off base.
Looks like you put quite a bit of thought into that post. I cannot believe the number of thin skinned posters on this board. I, for one, was very unimpressed with the team last night. I consider myself a big fan of the program and there is notrhing wrong with criticsm.
For those banking on a win over Wisconsin......................................
Quote from: 79Warrior on November 28, 2010, 10:21:04 AM
Looks like you put quite a bit of thought into that post. I cannot believe the number of thin skinned posters on this board. I, for one, was very unimpressed with the team last night. I consider myself a big fan of the program and there is notrhing wrong with criticsm.
For those banking on a win over Wisconsin......................................
Could it be that UWM played a really, really good game last night? Upsets can happen you know? UCONN beating Michigan State this year. Purdue getting beaten by Richmond last night. Evansville beats Butler last night.
I get annoyed with some elitist posts here who think by virtue of us wearing an MU jersey, we should destroy a decent mid-major team, that happens to be a cross-town rival, that looks at playing/beating MU as its Super Bowl of games.
If it was such a bad game, why did our RPI rise 50 spots?
Quote from: Ners on November 28, 2010, 10:32:32 AM
Could it be that UWM played a really, really good game last night? Upsets can happen you know? UCONN beating Michigan State this year. Purdue getting beaten by Richmond last night. Evansville beats Butler last night.
I get annoyed with some elitist posts here who think by virtue of us wearing an MU jersey, we should destroy a decent mid-major team, that happens to be a cross-town rival, that looks at playing/beating MU as its Super Bowl of games.
Ners, did you watch the first half or the beginning of the second half when we were up by 18 points? UWM looked HORRIBLE (that was also when I titled my thread, when UWM was God awful and we looked like we actually cared). Wide open 3's by us, easy transition baskets, etc. Of course, we didn't play defense again and let them back in it.
If MU played to their capabilities this is a 25 point win. That is the frustrating part. It wasn't anything UWM did, it was MU becoming cocky, lazy, lackadaisical and playing dumb basketball after having a big lead.
For it's "Super Bowl" of games, I would expect there to be more than 7,200 fans in attendance.
Quote from: Jay Bee on November 28, 2010, 10:48:10 AM
If it was such a bad game, why did our RPI rise 50 spots?
Great post JayBee.
Quote from: Jay Bee on November 28, 2010, 10:48:10 AM
If it was such a bad game, why did our RPI rise 50 spots?
It didn't, that was from the previous few days. Our RPI dropped 3 spots. In fact, we dropped in all the rankings.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 28, 2010, 11:19:02 AM
For it's "Super Bowl" of games, I would expect there to be more than 7,200 fans in attendance.
Are you trying to deny that UWM wanted this more than MU? C'mom, Chics.
Quote from: marqptm on November 28, 2010, 11:20:56 AM
Are you trying to deny that UWM wanted this more than MU? C'mom, Chics.
Nope, not denying that at all. I just laugh at how some are making this sound like we went into the Lion's lair....their support is a joke, half the fans there were ours for Christ sake.
Quote from: marqptm on November 28, 2010, 11:19:19 AM
Great post JayBee.
Actually a terrible post, as a result of the game we went down in every ranking. The rankings I posted last night were PRIOR to last night's game factored in which were done this morning.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 28, 2010, 12:32:35 AM
I'm mostly concerned that Buzz has relied on stellar senior leadership the last two years that he was fortunate enough to come into. He doesn't have that this year. Maybe Jimmy and DB are those guys, but they don't seem to be...at least not yet. Jimmy seems rather quiet and I honestly can't figure DB out just yet. As a result, we are playing young...young and dumb.
That's frustrating.
Where was that "stellar senior leadership" when Dayton blew us out of the gym (nuetral court) or S Florida beat us two years ago? Or when NC State easily handled us at home and De Paul beat us last year. Oh yeah, I forgot, those were occasions of Buzz not getting our "stellar senior leadership" (left behind by the great TC) ready to play. And now that they're gone we're devoid of leadership. As usual, you're as easy to see through as one of Cher's evening gowns - and as interesting to read as she is to look at.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on November 28, 2010, 07:46:52 AM
Right now, UW beats MU at the BC. Why, they get it. Bo has a defined system both offensively and defensively, the players know what it is when they're recruited, it's practiced, and doesn't vary. Like it or not, Bo is a legendary coach and winner. Consistency, consistency, consistency....
MU might get it this season, and then again, may not. What is Buzz' style of play? I don't know. Does it vary based on the talent he gets yearly? We'll see.
+1
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 28, 2010, 11:24:22 AM
Nope, not denying that at all. I just laugh at how some are making this sound like we went into the Lion's lair....their support is a joke, half the fans there were ours for Christ sake.
We go to Rosemont every year, and we have half our fans there? Still lose...
You're still playing in the other team's house. Whether or not half the fans are ours or not, it matters.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 28, 2010, 11:26:09 AM
Where was that "stellar senior leadership" when Dayton blew us out of the gym (nuetral court) or S Florida beat us two years ago? Or when NC State easily handled us at home and De Paul beat us last year. Oh yeah, I forgot, those were occasions of Buzz not getting our "stellar senior leadership" (left behind by the great TC) ready to play. And now that they're gone we're devoid of leadership. As usual, you're as easy to see through as one of Cher's evening gowns - and as interesting to read as she is to look at.
Apparently interesting enough for you to respond, which scares me because that must mean you think Cher is attractive as well.
Lenny, do you think this team looks poised, mature or do they look lost at times? Critical times at that? Does this team play down to the level of competition, a sure sign of immaturity? Does this team lack the ability to put teams away? Does this team have the talent to play with anyone but often doesn't show the sense of urgency needed until too late (Gonzaga game, almost the Bucknell game)? Does this team have great talent that is capable of a solid season? Does this team hustle and have the desire to be great?
I think they are a bit of all of the above and it concerns me some of the most fundamental aspects of basketball they are lost, at times. Now, the good news is this is correctable. On the leadership front, I love Jimmy Butler and hope that he can become that leader that we need him to be this year. Novak wasn't a get in your face guy until his senior year, either. Jimmy needs to make this his team, just like Lazar did last year and Wes did the year prior.
In my opinion, we look lost in situations we shouldn't look lost in.
I've got you, babe!
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 28, 2010, 11:43:40 AM
Jimmy needs to make this his team, just like Lazar did last year and Wes did the year prior.
In my opinion, we look lost in situations we shouldn't look lost in.
Two very good points. JFB has to step up and be the guy. DB isn't capable of being that voice. Fulce probably is, but that shouldn't be his role.
Quote from: marqptm on November 28, 2010, 11:30:38 AM
We go to Rosemont every year, and we have half our fans there? Still lose...
You're still playing in the other team's house. Whether or not half the fans are ours or not, it matters.
We've lost at Rosemont four times in the last 8 years....once to a NCAA DePaul team, twice to a NIT DePaul team, and then there was last year.....
Over the last 20 years, we have had tremendous success down at DePaul because it was a home game away from home, but at least still had a semi-flavor of an opposition. I wouldn't compare going to the MECCA on equal terms of going to the Rosemont Horizon. Playing at the MECCA is an easier atmosphere (no travel at all) with a lesser opponent.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 28, 2010, 11:50:10 AM
We've lost at Rosemont four times in the last 8 years....once to a NCAA DePaul team, twice to a NIT DePaul team, and then there was last year.....
Over the last 20 years, we have had tremendous success down at DePaul because it was a home game away from home, but at least still had a semi-flavor of an opposition. I wouldn't compare going to the MECCA on equal terms of going to the Rosemont Horizon. Playing at the MECCA is an easier atmosphere (no travel at all) with a lesser opponent.
It should be, but I could see how it couldn't be.
I also think UWM might beat some of those DePaul teams. Not the NCAA team, but lately...
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 28, 2010, 11:19:02 AM
Ners, did you watch the first half or the beginning of the second half when we were up by 18 points? UWM looked HORRIBLE (that was also when I titled my thread, when UWM was God awful and we looked like we actually cared). Wide open 3's by us, easy transition baskets, etc. Of course, we didn't play defense again and let them back in it.
If MU played to their capabilities this is a 25 point win. That is the frustrating part. It wasn't anything UWM did, it was MU becoming cocky, lazy, lackadaisical and playing dumb basketball after having a big lead.
For it's "Super Bowl" of games, I would expect there to be more than 7,200 fans in attendance.
Chicos - I did watch the game in its entirety - teams usually look bad when the other other team is making shots. Simple as that. Both teams shot the ball real well from the field and the 3 point line. UWM hit some tough 3's, and the Hill kid was a very good interior presence. McCallum was a very good 3 point shooter. Meier hit some 3's too.
I didn't really see MU getting cocky or lackadasical..UWM went on a couple of runs, and MU had a few turnovers and empty possesions in those runs. It happens. Regarding the "Super Bowl" comment - I'm not basing that off of attendance, nor did I ever say anything about MU going into some hornet's nest/mad house, etc....but TO THE PLAYERS AND COACHES IN THE UWM PROGRAM, playing MU is their Super Bowl. I'm sure UWM has been preparing for the MU game since practices began October 15th and definitely have it circled on the calendar. MU? Probbably was more focused on Duke and Gonzaga.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on November 27, 2010, 10:45:47 PM
This is one of the dumbest posts I've seen on here...and it's in response to one of the other dumbest posts I've seen on here. I guess I shouldn't expect much from a grown man who has a screen name that rips a college kid.
My god, everyone is tearing into each other after a VICTORY four games into the season. Let's get some perspective and be a little more civil. The bottom line is that we have an undersized team with a lack of experience. We'll have nights like last night.
Quote from: Ners on November 28, 2010, 11:54:48 AM
I didn't really see MU getting cocky or lackadasical.
I have to disagree they had some terrible runs of sloppy, slow and overall disinterested play. Buzz had to call two TOs very quickly to get the team back into the game.
Maybe they were focused on the hot cheerleader on the sidelines?
(https://inotes.crmanagement.com/mail/gstrzalk.nsf/0/E35DC60F5DE78FAB862577E90018DB60/$File/Unnamed.jpg?OpenElement&FileName=Unnamed.jpg)
Quote from: marqptm on November 28, 2010, 11:52:18 AM
It should be, but I could see how it couldn't be.
I also think UWM might beat some of those DePaul teams. Not the NCAA team, but lately...
It would be an interesting game.
Ken Pom predicts UW-M to go 12-17 this year....by the way, they play DePaul later this year and Ken Pom predicts a DePaul win by 3 points. If we think DePaul is that bad and Ken Pom predicts a DePaul victory, what does that say about UW-M? That's my point, they aren't very good and we have no business playing like we did the last 17 minutes of last night's game.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 28, 2010, 12:00:15 PM
It would be an interesting game.
Ken Pom predicts UW-M to go 12-17 this year....by the way, they play DePaul later this year and Ken Pom predicts a DePaul win by 3 points. If we think DePaul is that bad and Ken Pom predicts a DePaul victory, what does that say about UW-M? That's my point, they aren't very good and we have no business playing like we did the last 17 minutes of last night's game.
I don't disagree with you, we played terrible. It was really bad second half. However, I don't think the season is lost. Why you got to be all doom & gloom?
Quote from: Ners on November 28, 2010, 11:54:48 AM
I didn't really see MU getting cocky or lackadasical..UWM went on a couple of runs, and MU had a few turnovers and empty possesions in those runs. It happens. Regarding the "Super Bowl" comment - I'm not basing that off of attendance, nor did I ever say anything about MU going into some hornet's nest/mad house, etc....but TO THE PLAYERS AND COACHES IN THE UWM PROGRAM, playing MU is their Super Bowl. I'm sure UWM has been preparing for the MU game since practices began October 15th and definitely have it circled on the calendar. MU? Probbably was more focused on Duke and Gonzaga.
I would by and large agree with you IF we had let them go out to a lead...but we didn't. We let them off the mat in both the first and second halves. We got lazy with the ball and gave away too many possessions. I don't think, as Chicos asserts, they were "cocky," but they definately lost their focus. I don't care if it is their Super Bowl...you don't let a team with inferior talent off the mat like that.
Quote from: MUfan12 on November 28, 2010, 08:23:30 AM
Back to the original post... Chicos is 100% correct. This team is not good right now. I cringe at the thought of a BE schedule right now. UWM is not a good basketball team, but MU let them stay in it. I was having DePaul flashbacks in the second half.
What really gets me is they can play exceptionally good ball in 5 minute stretches, and then give up a 10-2 run and erase all of it. It keeps happening too. You'd think they'd learn at some point.
+1
I'm not ready to say the sky is falling but we aren't a good basketball team right now. I'm beginning to hate Buycks. Terrible decision making and worse shooting. -Why do you take a 30 foot shot at the end of the half? And that wasn't just a one game problem for him.
last nights game shouldn't have been that close. we pissed away opportunities to win at Gonzaga. I don't want to go as far as saying we're a bad basketball team but we certainly arent playing up to expectations.
Quote from: marqptm on November 28, 2010, 12:03:44 PM
I don't disagree with you, we played terrible. It was really bad second half. However, I don't think the season is lost. Why you got to be all doom & gloom?
Where did I say the season is lost?
That's the problem I have with many people on this board. NEVER did I say the season is lost or even hint at it. In fact, I've said many times these issues are correctable. I've said we are young and inexperienced, but never the season is lost.
This is the problem with this board, someone states the obvious (which is we played terrible basketball in the second half last night) and you're labeled a hater, a poison, words are put into their mouths (i.e. season is lost), etc, etc. We can be a good team and have a good season, but we need to play better than we are.
Why don't people just actually READ what is said.
Sorry for the rant, you are far less guilty of it then the core group that simply doesn't know how to read or chooses willfully to ignore the most important words by some posters. Frustrating to say the least.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 28, 2010, 11:50:10 AM
Playing at the MECCA is an easier atmosphere (no travel at all) with a lesser opponent.
The team actually packed and stayed at a hotel prior to game day vs UWM. Maybe that was the issue - should we crucify Buzz?
BTW, why are you updating rankings, including RPI, every day in your signature? "For over 10 years" you have been saying how worthless early rankings are, yet you're updating them manually every single day? What is the reason?
PS - Vikings up in the third on the road... pretty good chance we make the playoffs.
Quote from: Jay Bee on November 28, 2010, 01:58:41 PM
The team actually packed and stayed at a hotel prior to game day vs UWM. Maybe that was the issue - should we crucify Buzz?
No. I agree with his approach, treat it like a road game, stay at the hotel. Does that change the fact that there was no travel? That the building was half MU fans? That going to DePaul there is at least some travel and Big East talent on the other side of the court rather than Horizon League talent?
Quote from: Jay Bee on November 28, 2010, 01:58:41 PM
BTW, why are you updating rankings, including RPI, every day in your signature? "For over 10 years" you have been saying how worthless early rankings are, yet you're updating them manually every single day? What is the reason?
I said the writers and coaches rankings....(the PRE-SEASON RANKINGS) why can't you understand this? Really, is there a mental block? How many times do I have to repeat it?
Quote from: Jay Bee on November 28, 2010, 01:58:41 PM
PS - Vikings up in the third on the road... pretty good chance we make the playoffs.
Did you mean to put that in teal?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 28, 2010, 02:21:52 PM
I said the writers and coaches rankings....(the PRE-SEASON RANKINGS) why can't you understand this? Really, is there a mental block? How many times do I have to repeat it?
The question was, "why are you updating rankings, including RPI, every day in your signature?" I didn't see an answer to the question in your reply. One potential answer would be that you believe the RPI is meaningful at this point in the season. The other potential answers result in... character being revealed.
*Sigh*
I guess one of the differences here is expectation. Most people on this site seemed to think we would blow out UW-M by 25-40 points. I always thought that was an unrealistic expectation. I predicted a 10 point win. Had the game ended a couple minutes earlier, that would have been about right. I think had it gone on a couple more minutes, it still would have been about right.
UW-M got down in the first, they made a run back in. When they did, we re-established most of the lead by halftime. They made another second half run, whittling it down to 5, then we ran the score back up to double-digits. They made their final run and cut it to three. I fully believe had the game gone on any longer, we would have pushed the score back up. Despite coming at us time and time again, all they could do is get a little closer, then we would push it back. So the game ended when they were in the midst of a run, so what?
According to KenPom, this was our toughest challenge outside of Duke and Gonzaga, and I'm basing that on playing on their court. Yes, UWGB is one spot higher (172, UW-M is 173) but we played Green Bay at home. Bucknell is 191, South Dakota 279, Prairie View A&M 335. This is still a top-200 team on their home floor. This wasn't likely to be a 35-point win. I don't know why so many people expected it to be.
Quote from: Jay Bee on November 28, 2010, 02:28:30 PM
The question was, "why are you updating rankings, including RPI, every day in your signature?" I didn't see an answer to the question in your reply. One potential answer would be that you believe the RPI is meaningful at this point in the season. The other potential answers result in... character being revealed.
You'll notice that I updated 4 rankings, not just the RPI. It shows the wide spread of how we rank. It's fun to watch us climb. If it was a character thing, as you claim, then why would I list the other two that show us with good ratings? Hmmmm.
Oh, that's right....you have no answer for that....so really it reveals
YOUR CHARACTER. Which is every time I post something, you and others come on the hunt. Character indeed, that's what you guys do and everyone here knows it.
I could make up a username here and post the exact same posts that I normally do, and no one would raise a finger in protest. It's all about who the messenger is for you guys. 100%
Incidentally, Buzz Williams is very in tune with the RPI, what it means in the big picture. He's only mentioned it three times last night ALONE....just sayin....
maybe his character is being revealed as well? "From a revenue perspective, from an
RPI perspective, from a dates available perspective, relative to whatever exempt tournament we're playing in, relative to what week finals are, relative to the date that we'll play Wisconsin -- all of those things have to mesh. All of those things have to be married at once. There is value in winning on the road. When you win on the road,
RPI-specific, you're credited with 1.6 points. When you win at home, you're credited .6 points. Any team you play that's below
200 in the RPI when you get to March, that's a wash. So there is value -- if you can win."
- Buzz Williams press conference after UW-m game
You think Buzz is following the RPI right now? You bet your ass he is.
Brew, I think it was a couple of reasons for that expectation.
1) MU just lost 2 games in a row, one would think they would be hungry
2) Game was in Milwaukee against a team that has played well in one game all season and laid a huge egg the other night
3) MU played well against Duke, the #1 team in the country, and made the Gonzaga game competitive at the end
4) In 37 previous meetings, the final score was never closer than 13 points and typically more of the 25+ variety.
I didn't expect a 25 point win, though playing to our ability would certainly merit that outcome last night. I did expect better than a 3 point win and having to make 7 or 8 free throws in the last 30 seconds to hold off a team that the same Ken Pom picks to finish 12-17 this year.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 28, 2010, 03:00:18 PM
You'll notice that I updated 4 rankings, not just the RPI. It shows the wide spread of how we rank. It's fun to watch us climb. If it was a character thing, as you claim, then why would I list the other two that show us with good ratings? Hmmmm.
Oh, that's right....you have no answer for that....so really it reveals YOUR CHARACTER. Which is every time I post something, you and others come on the hunt. Character indeed, that's what you guys do and everyone here knows it.
I could make up a username here and post the exact same posts that I normally do, and no one would raise a finger in protest. It's all about who the messenger is for you guys. 100%
Incidentally, Buzz Williams is very in tune with the RPI, what it means in the big picture. He's only mentioned it three times last night ALONE....just sayin....maybe his character is being revealed as well?
"From a revenue perspective, from an RPI perspective, from a dates available perspective, relative to whatever exempt tournament we're playing in, relative to what week finals are, relative to the date that we'll play Wisconsin -- all of those things have to mesh. All of those things have to be married at once. There is value in winning on the road. When you win on the road, RPI-specific, you're credited with 1.6 points. When you win at home, you're credited .6 points. Any team you play that's below 200 in the RPI when you get to March, that's a wash. So there is value -- if you can win."
- Buzz Williams press conference after UW-m game
You think Buzz is following the RPI right now? You bet your ass he is.
Rather than just make the claim, why not test your theory?
Quote from: IAmMarquette on November 28, 2010, 03:25:44 PM
Rather than just make the claim, why not test your theory?
Hard to now since I put it out there. It would have been interesting to do it, however, and a month later show exhibit A as another poster who posts the same things and isn't touched.
It's all about who is delivering the message with these guys....that's all it is. See the username and pounce.
As far as continuing the series, from an RPI perspective, it makes more sense to keep playing occasionally at their place. As long as UW-M stays in the top 200 over the next few years, we'll gain something from beating them, but it's significantly more when it's at their place. If I remember right, score doesn't matter for the RPI. We beat them by 1 or 100, it's the same, the only thing that matters is the location.
We could chew on cupcakes at home, or take a few risks and go on the road for a few in hopes of helping the RPI. Teams like South Dakota, Prairie View A&M, Longwood, Centenary...all sub-200 RPI teams at home will do us no good. I understand playing them to get the requisite wins, and because we don't have to return to their building when they are that low in the ratings. Teams like Green Bay and Bucknell help us a bit because they are top-200, but won't help us as much as a road win will against a team of similar caliber. Sure, there's more of a risk any time you go away from home, but there's also more of a reward.
I like the idea of setting up 3-4 of these series that offer a 3-1 or 4-1 home-away ratio. They won't be as easy of cupcakes as the Texas A&M-Corpus Christi's of the world, but they will do more for our RPI while also giving us about one good shot at a top-200 RPI road win a year. Maybe instead of 6 sub-200 teams and 3 top-200 "cupcakes", make it the other way around. 4 teams at home in the sub-200 range and 5 in the top-150 to 200 range with one of those an away game. That should in theory result in the same number of wins, with a bit more risk potential but a lot more reward and more of a test for the team to prepare them for Big East play. I have a feeling that a challenging game against UW-M on the road will do a lot more to humble this team and prepare them for what's ahead than another 39-point whomping of a PVAMU.
I'm sure it won't happen, but I'd like to see it, and maybe it would help our posters understand that there's a risk any time you go on the road, even against the UW-M's of the world.
We have one Achilles' heel, and that is defensive rebounding. Crowder is really a 3 at this level, as is Butler, and neither Otule (hands) nor Gardner (quickness, positioning) appear to be adequate rebounders.
I think the offense will improve. Last year we were so deadly from three that people didn't want to zone us. I think we look worse than we are on offense because of what we were used to last year. We're OK and will get better.
Our initial defense is pretty good too, and figures to continue to get better. Our harrassing style is effective and fun to watch. In the end, if we don't get a lot better at securing defensive rebounds, we have a flaw that's too big to overcome.
What's worrisome about the anemic rebounding, is that it hasn't been addressed so far in recruiting. Unless we use our last scholarship on a Ryan Rhoomes or a JUCO 4, it doesn't figure to improve next season neither.
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 28, 2010, 01:45:19 AM
They beat a poor Boston College team after struggling through the first half and needing a monster second half run to take control. Compare that to how we did in the CBE. Honestly, despite them going 2-0 thus far and us going 0-2 in KC, I would say without a doubt that Marquette's performances were more impressive. It's not even close. The main difference is that we played #1 Duke and #18 Gonzaga, while they played two teams that likely won't even be considered for the Big Dance. The only team they played that will be in the mix come March is UNLV, and they lost that game.
That Boston College team won again today, this time over Cal (who is not that good). BC's victory over Texas A&M looks better as the Aggies knocked off Temple this afternoon.
I like having the ratings on the bottom of your posts, but the RPI really takes a while to take shape.
http://www.rpiforecast.com/teams/Marquette.html
If you look at the forecast, if MU goes just 9-9, 18-13 we end up would projected RPI 66. Win one more game and we are at an RPI of 54 and definitely in the tourney with the close losses already vs. Duke and Gonzaga, and we move up to the 45th RPI if we get to 20-11 (would have to be Wisconsin OR Vandy and go 10-8 in the Big East).
Problem with the RPI early is that your opponents record counts twice your record, so after the first game, the winner gets 1-0 for their record, 0-2 for their opponents losses doubled, and 1-0 for their opponents' opponents' record - so the first two teams are tied no matter who wins after one game. Just takes a while for opponents records to settle into around .500 so the rest works.
Bama
That is correct and I stated that the other day, the RPI is out of whack for two reasons....margin of victory and limited number of games means a heavy emphasis on the few games played thus far. So if you lose early, it can be a killer. Takes awhile for it to sort out.
Of course for this I was attacked (despite also having another rating that showed a high rating score....apparently I secretly was bagging on Buzz with the RPI ranking but the other ranking...uhm...ahh...well...no answer from the henchmen...why let details get in the way of a good virtual lynching on their part).
I would disagree with one part of your statement, however. A 54 RPI isn't "definitely in the tourney". I understand you included the close losses to Duke and Gonzaga as reasons to push a 54 RPI over the top, but not entirely sure on that. Dayton was a 35 RPI last year and didn't get in. Wichita State at 50 also left out. Others in years past also were better than 50 and left out...Ohio State at 33 two years ago. UMass at 34 two years ago. Ole Miss at 46 two years ago.
"Thank God UW hyphen m shot poorly"
They shot 51% - how is that poor?
chicos should add the Indiana and Utah State RPI's to his signature as well...
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 27, 2010, 10:09:51 PM
Terrible decision making with passing, shooting, rebounding, defense. Thank God UW hyphen m shot poorly because they had open looks after open looks. They are not that good which just shows you how far we have to go.
Up by nearly 20 and we nearly pissed the whole thing away practically at home with a ton of our fans there.
We better get it together quickly or a real road game with 10 of our fans in attendance is going to be ugly.
We have time, but tonight was ridiculous. Wisconsin will destroy us in two weeks if we don't get our act together.
Just decided to read this thread, and never got past Chico's first comments. How do you figure UW will destroy MU, yet Duke and Gonzaga were unable to do so on a neutral court???
Quote from: avid1010 on November 28, 2010, 05:27:30 PM
Just decided to read this thread, and never got past Chico's first comments. How do you figure UW will destroy MU, yet Duke and Gonzaga were unable to do so on a neutral court???
Come on.... he's saying that in retrospect to the way they played last night. People need to quit bashing Chicos, because he's mostly correct on this thread. Overall, the team played like crap. We're lucky it was against UWM because if it was against just about any other team on our schedule, we'd have 3 losses. If they play that way against Madison, they will get destroyed.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on November 28, 2010, 07:46:52 AM
Right now, UW beats MU at the BC. Why, they get it. Bo has a defined system both offensively and defensively, the players know what it is when they're recruited, it's practiced, and doesn't vary. Like it or not, Bo is a legendary coach and winner. Consistency, consistency, consistency....
MU might get it this season, and then again, may not. What is Buzz' style of play? I don't know. Does it vary based on the talent he gets yearly? We'll see.
Couldn't disagree more on this one. Bo is far from legendary. Many of the UW alumni would like to see him out as they realize his recruiting will never be good enough to contend for a championship. Bo is very consistent, and his teams are very consistent as well. That being said, they consistently perform at a level that is far from being legendary. When you talk about MU's style of play I think it's important to understand that Buzz does make adjustments based on his talent. Bo adjusts very little. Bo and his system are probably the greatest things to ever happen to MU. He runs a program that is good, but never great, and Buzz can often beat him in the recruiting game because of Bo's style of play. A player that has what it takes to dominate a game will be put into a situation in which he can do so at MU, while I believe Bo makes average players good, but he also makes great players good. To me, there's a ceiling on the UW program because of Bo's system and his recruiting.
Some need to relax. MU has played 7 games in 16 days with many new players.
Quote from: Mutaman on November 27, 2010, 10:33:25 PM
Hope I'm wrong, but I think theses guys have been really overated.
Crowder - Disapointingly soft
Blue- No offense
Caudigan- so-so. Not that talented
Buycks- Nuff said
Butler- Can't do it all. Doesn't seemed to have steped up off last year.
DJO- really inconsistent.
Team can't shoot, can't rebound, mediocre on free throws, soft on defense, and certainly doesn't hustle like last year.
Hope I'm wrong but hello NIT.
This post is ridiculous. You're writing off the season in November. If you want to start every season 7 - 0, invent a time machine, become a UCLA fan, and go back to 1966.
Quote from: 1001 N. 4th St. on November 28, 2010, 05:39:18 PM
Come on.... he's saying that in retrospect to the way they played last night. People need to quit bashing Chicos, because he's mostly correct on this thread...
...If they play that way against Madison, they will get destroyed.
I agree that Chicos gets more flack than he deserves most of the time, but this mindset of us getting destroyed by Bucky just seems a bit silly to me. The Badgers haven't been very good this year. They just haven't. It's not like K-State or Kentucky is headed for the BC. Maybe they are impressing everyone else, but I just don't see it.
Quote from: avid1010 on November 28, 2010, 05:42:15 PMA player that has what it takes to dominate a game will be put into a situation in which he can do so at MU, while I believe Bo makes average players good, but he also makes great players good.
+10
Probably the best description of Bo's impact on the program I've ever seen.
Quote from: 1001 N. 4th St. on November 28, 2010, 05:44:48 PM
This post is ridiculous. You're writing off the season in November. If you want to start every season 7 - 0, invent a time machine, become a UCLA fan, and go back to 1966.
Your right. It just shows what some people don't know about the game of basketball.
Titles are not won in November. MU will be more than fine this season!
Quote from: madtownwarrior on November 28, 2010, 05:23:34 PM
chicos should add the Indiana and Utah State RPI's to his signature as well...
No, it would be Kansas and Indiana, the other schools where I am an alum.
Not Utah State, though I did enjoy this article recently from a fellow MU alum.
http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1264
Quote from: 1001 N. 4th St. on November 28, 2010, 05:39:18 PM
Come on.... he's saying that in retrospect to the way they played last night. People need to quit bashing Chicos, because he's mostly correct on this thread. Overall, the team played like crap. We're lucky it was against UWM because if it was against just about any other team on our schedule, we'd have 3 losses. If they play that way against Madison, they will get destroyed.
I guess you'll need to explain that to me. The title of the thread is "we have such a long way to go it's not funny" and a statement like "we better get it together quickly or a real road game...is going to be ugly" doesn't seem to suggest that to me. Are you saying that MU had what is takes to run close with Duke and Gonzaga on a neutral court, but they lost that ability prior to the UWM game and have such a long way to go to get back to that point? I don't think so. If his comment was simply, "if we play bad against UW they'll beat us" I don't think there would be any need for discussion. He clearly stated we have such a long way to go but we have time to get better, but if we don't he feels UW will destroy us. Not sure I buy that seeing as we were competitive with Duke and Zaga less than a week ago. They're playing to their competition at this point in time, and I expect them to play UW competitively just as they have every team they faced this year.
Quote from: avid1010 on November 28, 2010, 05:42:15 PM
Couldn't disagree more on this one. Bo is far from legendary. Many of the UW alumni would like to see him out as they realize his recruiting will never be good enough to contend for a championship. Bo is very consistent, and his teams are very consistent as well. That being said, they consistently perform at a level that is far from being legendary. When you talk about MU's style of play I think it's important to understand that Buzz does make adjustments based on his talent. Bo adjusts very little. Bo and his system are probably the greatest things to ever happen to MU. He runs a program that is good, but never great, and Buzz can often beat him in the recruiting game because of Bo's style of play. A player that has what it takes to dominate a game will be put into a situation in which he can do so at MU, while I believe Bo makes average players good, but he also makes great players good. To me, there's a ceiling on the UW program because of Bo's system and his recruiting.
You do realize that Wisconsin in the last 10 years UW has won several Big Ten titles, earned a #1 ranking in February (not in the preseason when it means squat), went to an Elite 8, has the edge on MU head to head, NCAA wins, etc? They have the 4th longest NCAA streak in the country right now at 12 consecutive appearances...that may not be great in your opinion but it's better than just "good".
Give him credit for what he does...he understands what players he wants, recruits them and wins a ton of basketball games. I find his style incredibly boring but it's effective.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 28, 2010, 05:58:13 PM
You do realize that Wisconsin in the last 10 years UW has won several Big Ten titles, earned a #1 ranking in February (not in the preseason when it means squat), went to an Elite 8, has the edge on MU head to head, NCAA wins, etc? They have the 4th longest NCAA streak in the country right now at 12 consecutive appearances...that may not be great in your opinion but it's better than just "good".
Give him credit for what he does...he understands what players he wants, recruits them and wins a ton of basketball games. I find his style incredibly boring but it's effective.
I get that, and I think that's a fair definition of a good program...would you feel better if I said good+ or very good?!?! He hasn't had the post season success of Izzo or Matta because they just aren't talented enough. I guess I look at NCAA tourney play more than anything. An Elite 8 appearance is nothing to sneeze at, yet it's not a final four, let alone a championship. I don't believe he'll ever be able to recruit the players to make a final four run in his system. Makes me realize how dang impressive Dick Bennett's system was and the run he made with the players he had. They have a hard time beating a higher ranked team in the tourney because their talent level isn't on par with the others. I guess I'd have to look at the points you provided (several B10 championships and a Feb. #1 ranking) and wonder why they don't have more success in the tourney.
Quote from: avid1010 on November 28, 2010, 06:20:36 PM
I get that, and I think that's a fair definition of a good program...would you feel better if I said good+ or very good?!?! He hasn't had the post season success of Izzo or Matta because they just aren't talented enough. I guess I look at NCAA tourney play more than anything. An Elite 8 appearance is nothing to sneeze at, yet it's not a final four, let alone a championship. I don't believe he'll ever be able to recruit the players to make a final four run in his system. Makes me realize how dang impressive Dick Bennett's system was and the run he made with the players he had. They have a hard time beating a higher ranked team in the tourney because their talent level isn't on par with the others. I guess I'd have to look at the points you provided (several B10 championships and a Feb. #1 ranking) and wonder why they don't have more success in the tourney.
Well, let me turn the tables on you. If after 8 more years (10 total under Buzz), MU has not gone back to the Final Four are we merely a good program?
That's the danger of putting all your eggs into the proverbial NCAA Tournament basket. The tournament is a crap shoot. It seems you judge greatness by what someone does in the NCAAs. I treat them separately. There's a regular season and the NCAA tournament. Because a team has one bad game or is beat by 1 point by another very good team in the NCAAs should not negate what a team did for 6 months from November to March...in my opinion.
Chicos spouts off the Badger talking points almost verbatim. He spends so much time reading those boards in angst worrying about what they think of MU that I think he's got a slight case of Stockholm syndrome.
Quote from: Ready2Fly on November 28, 2010, 06:32:43 PM
Chicos spouts off the Badger talking points almost verbatim. He spends so much time reading those boards in angst worrying about what they think of MU that I think he's got a slight case of Stockholm syndrome.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_1vt71vZGHGQ/TF8Q2C_rhgI/AAAAAAAAAIY/-M2R0MgLE8M/s1600/jesus-facepalm.jpg)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 28, 2010, 03:39:59 PM
It's all about who is delivering the message with these guys....that's all it is. See the username and pounce.
This pissing contest isn't for me but this is 100% correct.
Too much posting here is in response to the username rather then the content of their fellow MU fan.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 28, 2010, 06:26:23 PM
Well, let me turn the tables on you. If after 8 more years (10 total under Buzz), MU has not gone back to the Final Four are we merely a good program?
That's the danger of putting all your eggs into the proverbial NCAA Tournament basket. The tournament is a crap shoot. It seems you judge greatness by what someone does in the NCAAs. I treat them separately. There's a regular season and the NCAA tournament. Because a team has one bad game or is beat by 1 point by another very good team in the NCAAs should not negate what a team did for 6 months from November to March...in my opinion.
I think we're a good program right now, and Buzz needs a final four run to be a great coach/run a great program. The NCAA tourney isn't a crap shoot to the great coaches/programs. There are coaches that consitently make deep runs in the tourney, and I believe those are the great coaches in college basketball...IMHO. You don't feel one bad game should negate a great season, and I don't think it does, but every team that makes a deep run has one bad game in the NCAA tourney. The great teams can overcome that, the good teams lose. I'm not going to get into how strong the B10 has been since Bo has been at UW, in comparison to the BEAST, but the tourney is the only apples to apples comparison. I think Izzo sacrifices games early to have his team ready in March. Like any sport...I think you have to have a ring to be great. Bo was a great D3 coach...he's a good D1 coach.
Quote from: mupanther on November 28, 2010, 05:48:21 PM
Your right. It just shows what some people don't know about the game of basketball.
Titles are not won in November. MU will be more than fine this season!
I really hope that come March when such mediocre efforts against the likes of Bucknell, Gonzaga, and UWM are just a distant memory, I will have to conceed that my November feelings were "rediculous" and that I obviously "don't know about the game of basketball". But there will have to be significant improvement for this team to "be more than fine this season!" (Whatever that means).
The bottom line is will this team improve over last year's record? Not from what I've seen so far.
Quote from: avid1010 on November 28, 2010, 07:01:59 PM
I think we're a good program right now, and Buzz needs a final four run to be a great coach/run a great program. The NCAA tourney isn't a crap shoot to the great coaches/programs. There are coaches that consitently make deep runs in the tourney, and I believe those are the great coaches in college basketball...IMHO. You don't feel one bad game should negate a great season, and I don't think it does, but every team that makes a deep run has one bad game in the NCAA tourney. The great teams can overcome that, the good teams lose. I'm not going to get into how strong the B10 has been since Bo has been at UW, in comparison to the BEAST, but the tourney is the only apples to apples comparison. I think Izzo sacrifices games early to have his team ready in March. Like any sport...I think you have to have a ring to be great. Bo was a great D3 coach...he's a good D1 coach.
I see your point, we'll just have to agree to disagree a bit. Gene Keady was a great coach, but never made the Final Four. There are others that are great coaches but because of where they coach, will never get to the Final Four (Mt. St. Marys, Utah State, Holy Cross, etc are never going to get Final Four talent), doesn't make them any less a great coach. Just as there are some coaches that made the Final Four that aren't great coaches. I'm sure about 200 people on this board can fill in a name quite quickly in that regard. :)
I do agree that to be great in most sports you have to have a ring, but the huge difference is every other sport the post season is played on a home turf / court that was earned with the greatness of the regular season. It's also a small field, not one of 65 teams where you have 4 days to prepare. Usually, in other sports, the post season is best of series as well (Super Bowl an exception). There's nothing like the NCAA tournament for randomness, short time to prepare, unexpected travel, etc, etc. Total crapshoot IMO. It's what allows a Butler to be within a miracle shot to win the whole thing, or a George Mason to the Final Four, or a #1 UCONN flaming out in the second round.
Right now, I'll settle for Buzz being very good in the next 10 years. If he accomplishes what the "good" Bo Ryan has in his 10 years at UW, I'll be ecstatic with Buzz. That's a high bar that Bo has set.
Just watching the end of the Badgers game, and I think it pretty much shows that this Bucky team isn't all that good. We may not be at the top of our game, but they're far from being some indomitable force. Horrible job of closing out the game, not very good shooting, and not a lot of options outside of Leuer and Nankivil. From a rebounding perspective, they just haven't been very good. Poor position, give up far too many chances on the offensive end for a Bo Ryan team. Notre Dame's going to win this and they haven't been all that great.
Again, we may not be great, we may not be a finished product, but this team isn't one we should be quaking in our boots over. Yes, if they play their game they can beat us, but they simply are not good enough to destroy us. If they want to win at the BC, they'll have to score at least 65 points. I'm honestly not sure Becky is capable of that (short of bringing the football team).
If the tourney is a total crapshoot John Wooden would have broken every casino in Vegas. Has to be the "luckiest" coach of all time. Coach K must be #2.
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 28, 2010, 01:45:19 AM
My main issue with these comments tonight is that it doesn't take Wisconsin into account at all. Have we struggled some? Sure. Have they struggled some? Hell yes. They won two games in the Old Spice Classic in very non-convincing fashion. They beat Manhattan while shooting like pure crap and scoring only 50 points. They beat a poor Boston College team after struggling through the first half and needing a monster second half run to take control.
Brewcity...I watched the last 5 minutes of the UW-madison vs Notre Dame game and thought Wisconsin was dreadful. They set up one play for Leuer but that was it. Taylor was jacking up wild threes, Gasser played like a freshman, Leuer got beat for a rebound off a FT that was a killer.
They looked really bad that last 5 minutes. Of course, prior to that apparently they were up double digits and I don't know how they got to that point since I didn't see it.
With the way we close out games and Becky....we might set back the game of basketball 50 years in a few weeks. ;)
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 28, 2010, 07:54:15 PM
If the tourney is a total crapshoot John Wooden would have broken every casino in Vegas. Has to be the "luckiest" coach of all time. Coach K must be #2.
When you have all the cards, you don't have to be lucky. He had the best talent. It was also much easier to win the tournament back then...top seeds got a bye, only had to win 4 games to win the title. Takes 6 wins now, no byes, etc.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 28, 2010, 08:26:56 PM
When you have all the cards, you don't have to be lucky. He had the best talent. It was also much easier to win the tournament back then...top seeds got a bye, only had to win 4 games to win the title. Takes 6 wins now, no byes, etc.
The better you are, the higher your seed. And with a high (top4) seed, the easier your path. The easier your path, the less it's a crapshoot.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 28, 2010, 08:39:19 PM
The better you are, the higher your seed. And with a high (top4) seed, the easier your path. The easier your path, the less it's a crapshoot.
Especially when they didn't seed teams back then like they do today.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 28, 2010, 07:29:26 PM
Gene Keady was a great coach, but never made the Final Four. Not a great coach IMO, his style of play held him backThere are others that are great coaches but because of where they coach, will never get to the Final Four (Mt. St. Marys, Utah State, Holy Cross, etc are never going to get Final Four talent), doesn't make them any less a great coach.Agreed, but they need to have some kind of success out of conference, or IMO they're just great coaches in their conference, not in D1 college hoops as a whole Just as there are some coaches that made the Final Four that aren't great coaches. I'm sure about 200 people on this board can fill in a name quite quickly in that regard. :)There's more to coaching college bball than just coaching...TC gets the credit for recruiting Wade. No one can argue that.
I do agree that to be great in most sports you have to have a ring, but the huge difference is every other sport the post season is played on a home turf / court that was earned with the greatness of the regular season.Seeding and location is what you play all year for, and it plays a huge roll in the NCAA tourney. I do agree it's more of a crap shoot than most, but there are coaches that consistently do well in the tourney. That's what differentiates them from the Bo Ryan's of the coaching world. It's also a small field, not one of 65 teams where you have 4 days to prepare. Usually, in other sports, the post season is best of series as well (Super Bowl an exception). Not sure it's a huge field when you consider the amount of teams eligible. There's nothing like the NCAA tournament for randomness, short time to prepare, unexpected travel, etc, etc. Total crapshoot IMO. It's what allows a Butler to be within a miracle shot to win the whole thing, or a George Mason to the Final Four, or a #1 UCONN flaming out in the second round. Butler and GM had good teams.
Right now, I'll settle for Buzz being very good in the next 10 years. If he accomplishes what the "good" Bo Ryan has in his 10 years at UW, I'll be ecstatic with Buzz. That's a high bar that Bo has set. I hope for most post season success.
:-\ :(It's going to be a Loooooooonnnnnnnng season. Hopefully DG will come through. We do need an effective BIG next year. Jerome Whitehead or Mbakwe where are you? Can Diener come back?
Avid, I hope for more post season success as well.
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 28, 2010, 07:52:49 PM
Just watching the end of the Badgers game, and I think it pretty much shows that this Bucky team isn't all that good. We may not be at the top of our game, but they're far from being some indomitable force. Horrible job of closing out the game, not very good shooting, and not a lot of options outside of Leuer and Nankivil. From a rebounding perspective, they just haven't been very good. Poor position, give up far too many chances on the offensive end for a Bo Ryan team. Notre Dame's going to win this and they haven't been all that great.
Again, we may not be great, we may not be a finished product, but this team isn't one we should be quaking in our boots over. Yes, if they play their game they can beat us, but they simply are not good enough to destroy us. If they want to win at the BC, they'll have to score at least 65 points. I'm honestly not sure Becky is capable of that (short of bringing the football team).
It will be interesting to see if they get better as the year goes on, although it looks like the B10 isn't as good as first thought so it may be hard to tell. I typically feel that Bo's teams have smaller growth targets than others because of his system. They're typically a pretty finished product pretty early in the season.
The fear is in rebounding. Jimmy Butler appeared to be the only individual trying to get a defensive rebound. Sorry, when you have three opponents versus one Marquette player, the majority of times it will go to the opposing player. I don't know why Buzz is going small ball when he worked so hard to get decent front court players. If we don't team rebound we will get pounded silly like Gonzaga on the boards.
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on November 28, 2010, 06:42:42 PM
This pissing contest isn't for me but this is 100% correct.
Too much posting here is in response to the username rather then the content of their fellow MU fan.
I see your point, I don't totally agree.
There is a reason why certain people's "usernames" are being "pounced on" all the time, and I find it hard to believe that it's because they are smarter or more adept than everyone else.
It's because they're usually the first to post a contrarian/cynical/catastrophizing/sensationalized viewpoint. That's called building a reputation, and makes it harder for people to then deal with those posters from a purely objective standpoint.
Quote from: turk17 on November 29, 2010, 03:56:30 PM
I see your point, I don't totally agree.
There is a reason why certain people's "usernames" are being "pounced on" all the time, and I find it hard to believe that it's because they are smarter or more adept than everyone else.
It's because they're usually the first to post a contrarian/cynical/catastrophizing/sensationalized viewpoint. That's called building a reputation, and makes it harder for people to then deal with those posters from a purely objective standpoint.
Thank you. I tried several times to express what you did above, but couldn't find the right words. I agree with you 100%.
Quote from: turk17 on November 29, 2010, 03:56:30 PM
I see your point, I don't totally agree.
There is a reason why certain people's "usernames" are being "pounced on" all the time, and I find it hard to believe that it's because they are smarter or more adept than everyone else.
It's because they're usually the first to post a contrarian/cynical/catastrophizing/sensationalized viewpoint. That's called building a reputation, and makes it harder for people to then deal with those posters from a purely objective standpoint.
Ironic....did you just read what you wrote? You have proven the point....what you're saying is you're incapable emotionally, intellectually, or whatever, from reading a post for what it is without separating who wrote it (because of his reputation). Instead, you kick into overdrive and assume something that isn't in the post, read things that weren't said but attribute them anyway, and attach your bias into your responses to those posts because, as you said it, "its harder for people to then deal with those posters
from a purely objective standpoint". You've absolutely proven the point yet you say you "don't totally agree". Of course you agree, you just proved it with your own words. In short, you're saying that people here can't be OBJECTIVE in responding to certain posters. Exactly what I've been saying for a long time.
BINGO. That's why I said if I or a few others here changed our username and posted essentially the same thing, no one would get upset. Instead, you guys have your pounce radar on regardless of what the post says....it's all about
WHO said it and the inability of some people here to separate what was said from who said it.
Quote from: NCMUFan on November 28, 2010, 09:57:25 PM
The fear is in rebounding. Jimmy Butler appeared to be the only individual trying to get a defensive rebound. Sorry, when you have three opponents versus one Marquette player, the majority of times it will go to the opposing player. I don't know why Buzz is going small ball when he worked so hard to get decent front court players. If we don't team rebound we will get pounded silly like Gonzaga on the boards.
I think teams who are sending 3-4 guys to the offensive rim are going to pay big time IF MU begins to secure those rebounds...should amount to a lot of transition points for MU. Watching Otule, one elementary improvement would be to simply see him rebound and outlet in a faster manner. Sounds simple, but watch for it and you'll probably see about a half dozen breaks that don't happpen because he's not confident in throwing a quick outlet pass yet.
Quote from: avid1010 on November 29, 2010, 05:44:11 PM
I think teams who are sending 3-4 guys to the offensive rim are going to pay big time IF MU begins to secure those rebounds...should amount to a lot of transition points for MU. Watching Otule, one elementary improvement would be to simply see him rebound and outlet in a faster manner. Sounds simple, but watch for it and you'll probably see about a half dozen breaks that don't happpen because he's not confident in throwing a quick outlet pass yet.
Unfortuntaely, nobody has paid big time yet.
Quote from: mupanther on November 28, 2010, 05:44:00 PM
Some need to relax. MU has played 7 games in 16 days with many new players.
Yep
I expected Marquette to be inconsistent this year, especially early in the season given all the roster turnover and so many main contributors seeing their first regular action playing college ball.
Hell, last year North Carolina who gets the elite recruits had to settle for the NIT and that's because they had a young team with lots of roster turnover. There is a reason that young/inexperienced teams can often struggle a lot or be inconsistent, even at the traditionally elite programs. Yet, some here act like Marquette is a program that should be immune to this. Based on what?
MU certainly didn't make the NCAA Tournament every year under Crean and likely won't under Buzz. I have no idea if they'll make it this year either, but anyone who easily dismisses the potential issues that can be caused in college ball by having a young and largely inexperienced team, they must not have followed MU close over the years or college basketball.
A little patience please and let this very inexperienced team gets some games under their belt playing together.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 29, 2010, 04:35:14 PM
Ironic....did you just read what you wrote? You have proven the point....what you're saying is you're incapable emotionally, intellectually, or whatever, from reading a post for what it is without separating who wrote it (because of his reputation). Instead, you kick into overdrive and assume something that isn't in the post, read things that weren't said but attribute them anyway, and attach your bias into your responses to those posts because, as you said it, "its harder for people to then deal with those posters from a purely objective standpoint". You've absolutely proven the point yet you say you "don't totally agree". Of course you agree, you just proved it with your own words. In short, you're saying that people here can't be OBJECTIVE in responding to certain posters. Exactly what I've been saying for a long time.
BINGO. That's why I said if I or a few others here changed our username and posted essentially the same thing, no one would get upset. Instead, you guys have your pounce radar on regardless of what the post says....it's all about WHO said it and the inability of some people here to separate what was said from who said it.
To be fair to turk, reputations of some posters on forums are pretty hard to ignore.
I'm a big fan of the Packers and hang out at a Packers forum. Well, for quite awhile, the job being done by Ted Thompson as the Packers GM was a lightning rod at that Packers forum, especially among a handful of very pro-Thompson supporters and a few that seemed to look for any chance to bash him. It would be silly and i could pretty much tell exactly how how both sides of them would post before they did, depending on something which happened with the Packers. The Thompson nut-huggers would look for any excuse to cover for mistakes Ted made and the Thompson haters constantly looked to pounce on and blame Ted for anything going wrong with the Packers. It was so predictable.
I've been only coming here since last season for the most part and i see the same thing here. While i think some posters look for any reason to rip on you, it was pretty obvious to me that you did and continue to seemingly almost always look for the negative side of things regarding MU basketball, particularly if it involves Buzz Williams. Even when you aren't taking direct shots at him, there is quite often subtle or not so subtle wording in your posts to denigrate the job he's doing. Posts by you in that vein vastly outnumber anything positive about the program under Buzz and thus if a relative newcomer like me can spot this so easily, of course long term members can see the same.
This then leads to Buzz supporters attacking you constantly and sometimes going overboard. Rinse and repeat over and over. This in turn i'd assume makes some posters question your objectivity toward Buzz Williams/the program he's running and to be honest, i do also even though i'm sure you think that you're completely objective.
Quote from: turk17 on November 29, 2010, 03:56:30 PM
I see your point, I don't totally agree.
There is a reason why certain people's "usernames" are being "pounced on" all the time, and I find it hard to believe that it's because they are smarter or more adept than everyone else.
It's because they're usually the first to post a contrarian/cynical/catastrophizing/sensationalized viewpoint. That's called building a reputation, and makes it harder for people to then deal with those posters from a purely objective standpoint.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 29, 2010, 04:35:14 PM
Ironic....did you just read what you wrote? You have proven the point....what you're saying is you're incapable emotionally, intellectually, or whatever, from reading a post for what it is without separating who wrote it (because of his reputation). Instead, you kick into overdrive and assume something that isn't in the post, read things that weren't said but attribute them anyway, and attach your bias into your responses to those posts because, as you said it, "its harder for people to then deal with those posters from a purely objective standpoint". You've absolutely proven the point yet you say you "don't totally agree". Of course you agree, you just proved it with your own words. In short, you're saying that people here can't be OBJECTIVE in responding to certain posters. Exactly what I've been saying for a long time.
BINGO. That's why I said if I or a few others here changed our username and posted essentially the same thing, no one would get upset. Instead, you guys have your pounce radar on regardless of what the post says....it's all about WHO said it and the inability of some people here to separate what was said from who said it.
Funny that you chose to respond to the original poster with this reply....I didn't see where he called you out by name?? A little hyper sensitive and defensive Chicos?
Chicos Bail Bonds...The Johnny Glaser of the Alternative Board!
Due to the anonymity of the internet, you are what you post. And sometimes, just like in all facets of life, you reap what you sow. If someone has a reputation on this board, it is due to what they posted on this board. I can toss out a dozen names and you get immediate impressions of that person...bma725.....ners....abefroman....marquette84.... williewarrior......murfieuss...canadiandimes...iwb......dodds. Each of these, like you, have, through their posts, created a reputation. To lament having a reputation after several thousand posts..... Sorry, chicos.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 29, 2010, 04:35:14 PM
Ironic....did you just read what you wrote? You have proven the point....what you're saying is you're incapable emotionally, intellectually, or whatever, from reading a post for what it is without separating who wrote it (because of his reputation). Instead, you kick into overdrive and assume something that isn't in the post, read things that weren't said but attribute them anyway, and attach your bias into your responses to those posts because, as you said it, "its harder for people to then deal with those posters from a purely objective standpoint". You've absolutely proven the point yet you say you "don't totally agree". Of course you agree, you just proved it with your own words. In short, you're saying that people here can't be OBJECTIVE in responding to certain posters. Exactly what I've been saying for a long time.
BINGO. That's why I said if I or a few others here changed our username and posted essentially the same thing, no one would get upset. Instead, you guys have your pounce radar on regardless of what the post says....it's all about WHO said it and the inability of some people here to separate what was said from who said it.
What's ironic is that you fail to understand that after nearly 9,000 posts you have made your bed, and you now have to lay in it. People don't respond to the name on the post, they respond to the content. You've consistently written content that's easily interpreted by everyone (except you) as negative. T
Quote from: tower912 on November 30, 2010, 07:09:42 AM
Due to the anonymity of the internet, you are what you post. And sometimes, just like in all facets of life, you reap what you sow. If someone has a reputation on this board, it is due to what they posted on this board. I can toss out a dozen names and you get immediate impressions of that person...bma725.....ners....abefroman....marquette84.... williewarrior......murfieuss...canadiandimes...iwb......dodds. Each of these, like you, have, through their posts, created a reputation. To lament having a reputation after several thousand posts..... Sorry, chicos.
I'm not denying that at all.....in fact, that's exactly the point I was making. That SOME people are unable to read a post for what it is without biasing their response. You have proven my point again with your answer and I've been saying this all along.
It's not WHAT is said or posted, it's WHO posted it and what is said be damned. They can by 100% dead on right but because of who said it, the pouncing will begin because some folks just can't pull it together emotionally, intellectually, etc to debate the merits of the post without attacking the poster.
Peace
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on November 30, 2010, 07:20:36 AM
People don't respond to the name on the post, they respond to the content.
You couldn't be more wrong, they damn well respond to the name and literally make up stuff that isn't even in posts or assume things that aren't there to justify their actions.
Sorry, you couldn't be more wrong.
Quote from: Ners on November 29, 2010, 09:29:19 PM
Funny that you chose to respond to the original poster with this reply....I didn't see where he called you out by name?? A little hyper sensitive and defensive Chicos?
He didn't, the response was really meant for you Ners, along with a few others. You are exhibit 1A of a person that responds to certain posters here guns blazing without even reading the content of the post or literally making up parts of the content to justify your actions.
Sorry, just the way it is. I have my reputation as a poster, and you have yours (as does Dimes, Lenny, etc, etc). It works both ways.
Seems this thread isn't about basketball anymore...