Wish I shared your confidence in that. 9-9 is going to be a nail biter.
So many blown opportunities this year. Frustrating.
I thought Elmore made a great statement about defense and our JUCO players. Cohesiveness, or lack of it, because they are not used to playing defense together for long periods of tenure.
Spot on
Right Chicos. This team would be much better without DJO and Crowder.
I don't see 9-9 getting us in. Bottom line is this team needs at least one marquee road win(at UCONN) or else needs to beat an upper echelon team in the BET. And then if they can win the rest of their home games I think they get in for sure.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2011, 02:17:54 PM
Wish I shared your confidence in that. 9-9 is going to be a nail biter.
So many blown opportunities this year. Frustrating.
I thought Elmore made a great statement about defense and our JUCO players. Cohesiveness, or lack of it, because they are not used to playing defense together for long periods of tenure.
Spot on
Chicos wants a team full of traditional players that will stay at Marquette for a full four years. If not he hates them.
What Chicos always negates to mention is that we are stocked with JUCOs because of the empty shelves left by his buddy Crean.
Quoting Len Elmore does not lend itself to your credibility...
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 13, 2011, 02:18:41 PM
Right Chicos. This team would be much better without DJO and Crowder.
Not what Chicos said at all... While the JUCO's bring plenty of talent to our program, we lack a certain level of comfort with each other as we are actually such an inexperienced unit.
Quote from: Jam Chowder on February 13, 2011, 02:20:22 PM
Quoting Len Elmore does not lend itself to your credibility...
What credibility?
You guys need to re-read Chicos post - that's not what he's saying at all.
9-9 does not get MU in, imo.
Late game fades, chokes, poop-outs, whatever you want to call them, are now the norm for MU under Buzz.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 13, 2011, 02:18:41 PM
Right Chicos. This team would be much better without DJO and Crowder.
I think you're missing the point. The game is played on both ends of the court. It's an offensive game and a Defensive game. We are #1 in offense but #15 in defense. No one is saying the team would be better off without Jae or DJO. We are saying the defense stinks and Elmore's point has some validity to it.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2011, 02:17:54 PM
I thought Elmore made a great statement about defense and our JUCO players. Cohesiveness, or lack of it, because they are not used to playing defense together for long periods of tenure.
Spot on
How is that "spot on?" They are a poor defensive team. Are no teams with JUCOs good defensive teams? Crowder failing to play help side is 6th grade stuff. Correlation doesn't mean causation.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 13, 2011, 02:23:41 PM
Correlation doesn't mean causation.
Or Caucasian, if you get what Chicos has been going for this season.
I love how losing to nationally ranked teams on the road automatically means we're going to let some bad losses come our way as well. We have 4 home games yet, a winnable game at the end of the season @ SH, and what will likely be a single digit loss @ UConn. How is 9-9 some sort of guarantee all of the sudden?
Couple in the fact that MU can get a win or two at the BEast tourney, and I'm not worried until we lose one of the ones at home.
Quote from: marqptm on February 13, 2011, 02:19:59 PM
Chicos wants a team full of traditional players that will stay at Marquette for a full four years. If not he hates them.
What Chicos always negates to mention is that we are stocked with JUCOs because of the empty shelves left by his buddy Crean.
My buddy? Sigh
I do prefer 4 year players and won't back away from that.
Perhaps you have a better argument why our defense is so poor and on a 3 year downward trajectory?
By the way, is the year 2019 when people here stop blaming Crean? This team has talent. This team played great defense in the first half...I'll bet Tom Crean was mentioned by Buzz in the halftime speech and that's what caused the defense to go south. ::)
Plain and simple, St.John's is huge. Come out to the BC on Al's night!
If we beat Cincy and St. John's, it would be hard to keep us out. We have already beaten WVU and Syracuse so that would mean that we have beaten all the middle of the pack teams.
If we lose to St. John's we are toast. They are really putting something together now.
Quote from: Jam Chowder on February 13, 2011, 02:20:22 PM
Quoting Len Elmore does not lend itself to your credibility...
He was only a NBA player for 10 years, 3 time ACC player and All American college player. Harvard law grad and college basketball announcer...he clearly has no credibility.
I wonder what his viewpoint is on rushing the court
9-9 gets us in very easily this year. Book it.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2011, 02:27:12 PM
My buddy? Sigh
I do prefer 4 year players and won't back away from that.
Perhaps you have a better argument why our defense is so poor and on a 3 year downward trajectory?
By the way, is the year 2019 when people here stop blaming Crean? This team has talent. This team played great defense in the first half...I'll bet Tom Crean was mentioned by Buzz in the halftime speech and that's what caused the defense to go south. ::)
I'd prefer four year players too, but I don't mind the players we have at all.
I think you're grasping for your typical straws to merely say we play bad defense because we have JUCO players. We played good team defense for the first 15 minutes of the game. Georgetown made better adjustments, and we made terrible adjustments.
I think people around here will stop bringing up Crean when you stop trying to build him up at every chance possible. You can't say we have too many JUCOs and then not take a look at the classes that were left for Buzz.
Quote from: HoopsMalone on February 13, 2011, 02:28:17 PM
If we beat Cincy and St. John's, it would be hard to keep us out. We have already beaten WVU and Syracuse so that would mean that we have beaten all the middle of the pack teams.
If we lose to St. John's we are toast. They are really putting something together now.
Agree that SJU is must win, but my concern is still that every good win is at home.
Wednesday night's escape against South Florida right now is MONUMENTALLY huge.
Quote from: marqptm on February 13, 2011, 02:25:09 PM
Or Caucasian, if you get what Chicos has been going for this season.
Moderators...this is the crap I've been talking about with you the last month. This is complete crap. Why is it tolerated? Why do we let posters make racial remarks?
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 13, 2011, 02:31:35 PM
9-9 gets us in very easily this year. Book it.
VERY EASILY. Well, if you're wrong, what do we win? A televised matchup with TCU and Wisconsin in football? An Inconvenient Truth DVD?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2011, 02:32:52 PM
Moderators...this is the crap I've been talking about with you the last month. This is complete crap. Why is it tolerated?
It's sad, I've ignored you for the majority of the season. However, after you're little time off you have come back with the same crap.
Getting back to the original idea on 9-9 not being enough, a grand total of two teams have ever made the tourney with 14 losses. U of A in '08 with three good road wins playing the #2 schedule in the country and Georgia in '01 with five good road wins and playing the #1 schedule in the country. I understand the rules are a little different with the three extra spots this year and charminy-soft bubble, but I'm with CBB on this one. I don't think 9-9 will be enough, particularly with that meaning the lack of questionable/home losses would be off the board at that point. With the extra bids, 10-8 probably barely will be enough. Recall the Rodents getting in recently at 19-12, 10-8, and MU could easily be 20-13, 10-8 right now.
U mad about something, Chicos?
The next message about anything but 9-9 records will be deleted with prejudice.
You've been warned.
I agree though, 9-9 does not get us in.
how does the fact that we are 6-6 with 6 games to go have anything to do with finishing 9-9 and getting in the tourney? Or is the dog peeing again? ::) ::)
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 13, 2011, 02:37:04 PM
U mad about something, Chicos?
Not at all. I'm curious how 9-9 "very easily" gets us in. I hope you're right, we might finish there. Very easily in my mind would mean a 9-9 finish puts us at a 9 or 10 seed, that would make us comfortably in. I'm curious to hear your logic on how you think that number very easily gets us in. Again, hope you are right.
SJU game is huge. Thank God we didn't choke against South Florida or we are in a tremendous world of hurt right now.
EYE...you are correct. And when the Rodents got in, they were a 12 seed and likely the 2nd to last team into the tournament.
Quote from: ZiggysF*ckinFryBoy on February 13, 2011, 02:42:25 PM
how does the fact that we are 6-6 with 6 games to go have anything to do with finishing 9-9 and getting in the tourney? Or is the dog peeing again? ::) ::)
This. +1.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 13, 2011, 02:31:35 PM
9-9 gets us in very easily this year. Book it.
9-9 ain't going to get us anywhere!
The more immediate concern are the next two games. MU will NEED wins against both St. John's AND Seton Hall at home to remain in the conversation. We'll know where we stand in a week. We'll see what happens after that.
Quote from: ZiggysF*ckinFryBoy on February 13, 2011, 02:42:25 PM
how does the fact that we are 6-6 with 6 games to go have anything to do with finishing 9-9 and getting in the tourney? Or is the dog peeing again? ::) ::)
Because so many here have said that 9-9 gets us in, some have even said "Very Easily" gets us in and to "book it". Therefore, in those remaining 6 games, we have no margin for error. Could we lose at Seton Hall, absolutely. Will we lose at UCONN? Likely, but who knows. Means the SJU game is a must. The other 3 we should win at home. If we don't win the SJU game, that makes us 9-9 which is what this topic is all about.
We have played 10 currently ranked teams in the last 16 games.
For comparison .... Wisconsin has played 2 currently ranked teams (OSU and Purdue) in their last 16. (They did play MSU, Minn and IL when they were ranked but they are not anymore)
Try to appreciate the difficultly of our schedule and why I think this is why 9 and 9 will get us a serious look. (we'll need a win or two in the BE tourney)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2011, 02:42:46 PM
Not at all. I'm curious how 9-9 "very easily" gets us in. I hope you're right, we might finish there. Very easily in my mind would mean a 9-9 finish puts us at a 9 or 10 seed, that would make us comfortably in. I'm curious to hear your logic on how you think that number very easily gets us in. Again, hope you are right.
SJU game is huge. Thank God we didn't choke against South Florida or we are in a tremendous world of hurt right now.
EYE...you are correct. And when the Rodents got in, they were a 12 seed and likely the 2nd to last team into the tournament.
It very easily gets us in because this will be the softest bubble ever and the other power conferences look terrible.
The teams that we have left to play... If we ONLY beat Providence, and Seton Hall twice we still have no bad losses.
http://kenpom.com/team.php?team=Marquette
If we beat UConn, Cincy, and St. Johns we are in for sure.
Find me some teams that will deserve to go in ahead of us. For Christ's sake, we are still top 30 in KenPom rankings... and we have the 10th worst luck in the NCAA's.
We are an 8 seed in the latest bracketology.
if we go .500 down the stretch I don't see how we are not in.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2011, 02:31:53 PM
Agree that SJU is must win, but my concern is still that every good win is at home.
Wednesday night's escape against South Florida right now is MONUMENTALLY huge.
It would be nice to have a road/neutral court loss. Vandy, Gonzaga, and Louisville are the coulda, woulda, shoulda games that would have made our position right now a lot safer. We will need to beat Cincy and SJU at home and then beat another middle tier team in the first round at the Garden.
USF was huge, especially since most people were likely watching Duke/UNC and not our game.
Curious on the loss side .. we have 10 losses. 6 games, plus the BET remain, so let's assume 3 more losses for 13. Easily could be 14.
The question is .. what's the max losses an AT LARGE bid has ever had?
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on February 13, 2011, 03:19:36 PM
Curious on the loss side .. we have 10 losses. 6 games, plus the BET remain, so let's assume 3 more losses for 13. Easily could be 14.
The question is .. what's the max losses an AT LARGE bid has ever had?
Obviously it would be something interesting to look at, but I have a feeling that there will be multiple that have more losses than whatever the previous high is. The bubble is not filled with a lot of good teams.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 13, 2011, 02:53:46 PM
It very easily gets us in because this will be the softest bubble ever and the other power conferences look terrible.
The teams that we have left to play... If we ONLY beat Providence, and Seton Hall twice we still have no bad losses.
http://kenpom.com/team.php?team=Marquette
If we beat UConn, Cincy, and St. Johns we are in for sure.
Find me some teams that will deserve to go in ahead of us. For Christ's sake, we are still top 30 in KenPom rankings... and we have the 10th worst luck in the NCAA's.
We are an 8 seed in the latest bracketology.
if we go .500 down the stretch I don't see how we are not in.
http://bracketproject.50webs.com/matrix.htm
Of the 60 online guru brackets, we're in 55 of them before today's loss. Average seed of 10. Thirteen have us as an 11 or 12 seed. Sixteen have us as a 10 seed. Five have us out of the tournament altogether.
I guess I have a different definition of "very easily", but I sure as hell hope you are right.
If you don't think 9-9 gets us in, then all I ask is for a list of the at-large teams you think will deservedly get in ahead of us. Are Virginia Tech, Clemson, and FSU heads and tails above a 9-9 Marquette team in a weak ACC? Are Wazoo and UCLA the powerhouses out of the PAC-10 that will keep us out? Will it be perennial SEC powers like Alabama and Georgia? Or maybe it's mighty mid-majors like Memphis, New Mexico, UAB, and Butler.
I don't like the idea of relying on 9-9. I think it would land us squarely on the bubble. But it would probably land us on the right side of the bubble. The bubble is soft. Very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very soft. There is only one conference that is clearly dominant, and we're in it. In the past, 9-9 wouldn't have been enough. This year, it probably will be. Because while we may not be great, the rest of the country outright sucks. So until I see a convincing argument of why we won't make it (and "I don't like 9-9" isn't convincing) then let's stop moaning about every single loss.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on February 13, 2011, 03:19:36 PM
Curious on the loss side .. we have 10 losses. 6 games, plus the BET remain, so let's assume 3 more losses for 13. Easily could be 14.
The question is .. what's the max losses an AT LARGE bid has ever had?
Good question. Dayton had 12 losses last year and did not get in, but G. Tech with 13 did. However, G.Tech made it to the final of the ACC Tournament which likely got them in.
Minnesota had 14 losses last year and made it, but they also made it to the finals of the Big Ten Tournament.
In 2009, G'Town had a Ken Pom rating of 27...same as ours...and didn't make it. They lost 14 going into Selection Sunday.
In 2008, Arizona had 14 losses and made it. Ohio State had 13 losses with a Pomeroy rating of 29 (2 worse than ours) and didn't make it.
In 2007, Mississippi State had 13 losses, won their first round SEC game against Kentucky and still didn't make it...a Pomeroy ranking of 22 (higher than MU's today).
Plenty of examples of teams making it and teams NOT making it that have similar resumes to ours right now.
I'm on record right now as sayin' St. John's beats us on Tues. Now what? Doesn't look like a tourney team to me, soft, medium, or hard bubble not withstanding.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 13, 2011, 02:51:49 PM
We have played 10 currently ranked teams in the last 16 games.
For comparison .... Wisconsin has played 2 currently ranked teams (OSU and Purdue) in their last 16. (They did play MSU, Minn and IL when they were ranked but they are not anymore)
Try to appreciate the difficultly of our schedule and why I think this is why 9 and 9 will get us a serious look. (we'll need a win or two in the BE tourney)
I get it, but AP rankings don't mean jack to me, they are a flawed system beyond belief and have been exposed time and time and time again on this board by many people.
Wisconsin's overall schedule is 27
MU's overall schedule is 44
The reality is, both have played tough schedules, MU probably will even end up with a tougher one. Both teams are on national tv a lot. I just didn't get the point of the ranked team part of your commentary and especially the national television portion...they're both on equally in terms of national tv appearances. Now, I do see where you're going with the fact that they have won big games on national tv, like #1 Ohio State yesterday. Agree with you there. At the end of the day, this team has a lot of talent, plays really well for great portions of the game but seems to have a death spiral period that hits them in many games. Very frustrating.
I disagree with people that say we are "out talented"...I've been hearing on this board that we have the best talent in over a decade, better recruits than ever before...
HOW ARE WE OUT-TALENTED?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2011, 03:41:35 PMPlenty of examples of teams making it and teams NOT making it that have similar resumes to ours right now.
Sorry, but the more this season goes on, the more bracket projections I look at, the more I am thinking this is becoming just a stupid argument. No offense, Chicos, but this is the softest bubble in history. Not only are pretty much all the conferences outside the Big East sucking it up, but there are three extra bids to go around. You simply can't say "well, this wasn't good enough in 2007" because the changes in college basketball between 2007 and 2011 are immense.
And I'm not sure if you were here, but I broke down the cases for 11 Big East teams in comparison to teams that didn't make it, including the likes of 2006 Cincinnati and 2007 Syracuse. Our resume, or that of this year's Cincy and St. John's, matched up pretty well with almost all of those teams, and was clearly better than almost all of them. When you factor in a soft bubble, I simply think it'd ignorant to say that we're teetering on the brink, especially when the hardest part of our conference schedule is behind us.
Our conference schedule featured 9 ranked teams. Of those, 8 are behind us. We play one more ranked team in our final 6 games. If we start losing to teams we shouldn't lose to, something we haven't had a habit of doing all year, then yes, we'll likely miss the tourney. But if we just keep up at the rate we've done all season long, we'll be in fine shape. The panic on this board today is bizarre. I just don't get it.
Quote from: brewcity77 on February 13, 2011, 03:33:54 PM
If you don't think 9-9 gets us in, then all I ask is for a list of the at-large teams you think will deservedly get in ahead of us. Are Virginia Tech, Clemson, and FSU heads and tails above a 9-9 Marquette team in a weak ACC? Are Wazoo and UCLA the powerhouses out of the PAC-10 that will keep us out? Will it be perennial SEC powers like Alabama and Georgia? Or maybe it's mighty mid-majors like Memphis, New Mexico, UAB, and Butler.
I don't like the idea of relying on 9-9. I think it would land us squarely on the bubble. But it would probably land us on the right side of the bubble. The bubble is soft. Very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very soft. There is only one conference that is clearly dominant, and we're in it. In the past, 9-9 wouldn't have been enough. This year, it probably will be. Because while we may not be great, the rest of the country outright sucks. So until I see a convincing argument of why we won't make it (and "I don't like 9-9" isn't convincing) then let's stop moaning about every single loss.
That's for the committee to decide, but here's a list from others that have taken a stab at it where they think we either belong or don't belong...this was before today's loss.
http://bracketproject.50webs.com/matrix.htm
Looking at that though, what have Minnesota and Illinois done to get them up to 7 seeds and in most places? They may have a few better wins than us, but both lost to Indiana and Illinois lost to Penn State. I just have a hard time believing that they are that much better than us.
Quote from: cheebs09 on February 13, 2011, 04:00:16 PM
Looking at that though, what have Minnesota and Illinois done to get them up to 7 seeds and in most places? They may have a few better wins than us, but both lost to Indiana and Illinois lost to Penn State. I just have a hard time believing that they are that much better than us.
Hard to say, maybe the RPI number. Illinois is 38th, MU 59th. Minnesota is 37th.
Illinois has wins over Maryland, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Gonzaga, Minnesota
Minnesota has wins over North Carolina, Purdue, West Virginia (neutral court)...but Minnesota is reeling. Lost 4 straight.
Hard to say. I agree the bubble is beyond soft...last year I said the same thing and was ridiculed for it as some kind of slap against Buzz. ::) It's even softer this year....which is a good thing for MU.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2011, 03:53:35 PM
That's for the committee to decide, but here's a list from others that have taken a stab at it where they think we either belong or don't belong...this was before today's loss.
http://bracketproject.50webs.com/matrix.htm
So 5 out of, what, 60 keep us out? Which gives us a 91.6% chance of making the tournament? And that's before a loss to the #11 team in the country on the road by less than 10 points? Excuse me if I'm not exactly panicking.
Thank you for that evidence that indicates that 10-8 or 9-9 is probably good enough to get us in. That's all I was saying :)
Quote from: brewcity77 on February 13, 2011, 04:17:59 PM
So 5 out of, what, 60 keep us out? Which gives us a 91.6% chance of making the tournament? And that's before a loss to the #11 team in the country on the road by less than 10 points? Excuse me if I'm not exactly panicking.
Thank you for that evidence that indicates that 10-8 or 9-9 is probably good enough to get us in. That's all I was saying :)
And another 13 that have us as an 11 or 12 seed...meaning last 8 teams in. I don't disagree with you on 10-8, I think 9-9 is nail biter time.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2011, 02:27:12 PM
My buddy? Sigh
I do prefer 4 year players and won't back away from that.
Perhaps you have a better argument why our defense is so poor and on a 3 year downward trajectory?By the way, is the year 2019 when people here stop blaming Crean? This team has talent. This team played great defense in the first half...I'll bet Tom Crean was mentioned by Buzz in the halftime speech and that's what caused the defense to go south. ::)
Agree, I prefer 4 year players. Academically we have 3 seniors, 2 juniors, 3 soph and 3 frosh. However, we have 1 guy in his 3rd year, 3 guys in their 2nd year and the rest essentially in their 1st year of D1 ball. This is really a young team and I wasn't sure what kind of team we would have this year. Obviously our defense has been our achilles heal. Not sure what you meant by a 3 year decline. Do you mean over the last 3 seasons or are you saying the defense will continue to decline over the next 3 years. As I said the team is young and Buzz awards playing time on how well they play defense. Hopefully over time the younger players will learn to play defense. We shall see.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2011, 04:38:48 PMAnd another 13 that have us as an 11 or 12 seed...meaning last 8 teams in. I don't disagree with you on 10-8, I think 9-9 is nail biter time.
I'll agree with that, I just think that we're probably on the "in" side at 9-9 rather than the "out". And even still, that's 70% that have us as a 10-seed or better before a loss to #11 Georgetown on their court. I think that's pretty reassuring, though it probably speaks as much to the weak nature of the bubble as it does anything. I fully agree that in most years, I'd be on pucker-factor 10 in terms of our likelihood of making the tournament, but with the soft bubble and the expanded field, I just am not that worried right now. If we lose to St. John's this week, that will change things, but right now, I feel pretty secure.
Answered this earlier in the thread, but for reference, a grand total of two teams have ever made the tourney as at-large's with 14 losses; U of A in '08 with three good road wins playing the #2 schedule in the country and Georgia in '01 with five good road wins and playing the #1 schedule in the country. I understand the rules are a little different with the three extra spots this year and charminy-soft bubble, but I don't think 9-9, 19-14 will be enough.
Here's the comparison between '11 MU and '09 UW-Madison BTW
'11 MU
Projected Pomeroy regular-season finish 19-12, 10-8 (9-4 non-conference)
Pomeroy ranking entering today - 27
Top 50 road/neutral wins - Zero
Bad losses - Zero
Top 50 home wins - Three (WV, ND, cuse)
Conference RPI - 1
'09 UW-Madison
Regular season finish 19-12, 10-8 (9-4 non-conference)
Final Pomeroy ranking - 29
Top 50 road/neutral wins - One (Mich)
Bad losses - One (at Iowa)
Top 50 home wins - Three (Ill, tOSU, Mich)
Conference RPI - 1
UW-Madison was a 12 seed that year and either the 2nd/3rd to last team to make it. With the three extra spots this year, 20-13, 10-8, 1-1 BET probably enough to make it, but very well may be in one of the PIG's.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on February 13, 2011, 03:43:34 PM
I'm on record right now as sayin' St. John's beats us on Tues. Now what? Doesn't look like a tourney team to me, soft, medium, or hard bubble not withstanding.
I agree with you on both points. I see SJU beating us Tuesday and the NIT looming. I think we have shown an inability to close out games. You will never win big games with monster scoring droughts.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2011, 02:17:54 PM
Wish I shared your confidence in that. 9-9 is going to be a nail biter.
So many blown opportunities this year. Frustrating.
I thought Elmore made a great statement about defense and our JUCO players. Cohesiveness, or lack of it, because they are not used to playing defense together for long periods of tenure.
Spot on
The problem I have with this statement is that our defense was not the issue today. Could it have been better in the second half, sure. However, we lost this game because I offense disappeared and our free throw shooting sucked in the second half. Our defense was very good(in comparison to our other games) in the first half.
Quote from: 79Warrior on February 13, 2011, 05:40:08 PM
I agree with you on both points. I see SJU beating us Tuesday and the NIT looming. I think we have shown an inability to close out games. You will never win big games with monster scoring droughts.
I'm as big a pessimist as anyone, but I don't think MU will lose at home Tuesday. They know the importance of the game and it's one they should win, and will win.
Quote from: warriors1965 on February 13, 2011, 09:18:45 PM
I'm as big a pessimist as anyone, but I don't think MU will lose at home Tuesday. They know the importance of the game and it's one they should win, and will win.
no sh!t? Really? c'mon now.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2011, 03:49:02 PM
I disagree with people that say we are "out talented"...I've been hearing on this board that we have the best talent in over a decade, better recruits than ever before...HOW ARE WE OUT-TALENTED?
It's all relative. How do you think MU's "best talent in over a decade" compares to the "best talent" at Georgetown, L'ville, Nova, Syracuse, Pitt, UConn, etc over that same time period?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2011, 02:17:54 PM
Wish I shared your confidence in that. 9-9 is going to be a nail biter.
What a useless comment. Why don't you man up and say we won't get in at 9-9? Because you don't want to be wrong.
You are just posting some girly non-perdiction, so that when we get in, this can happen:
Some poster: "Chico's, I told you 9-9 was enough"
Chico's: "I never said it wouldn't be. I just pointed out that it would be a nail biter. We were lucky that so many good mid-major teams won their conference tournaments or it might have been a different story."
Man up.
Quote from: RawdogDX on February 14, 2011, 10:49:28 AM
What a useless comment. Why don't you man up and say we won't get in at 9-9? Because you don't want to be wrong.
You are just posting some girly non-perdiction, so that when we get in, this can happen:
Some poster: "Chico's, I told you 9-9 was enough"
Chico's: "I never said it wouldn't be. I just pointed out that it would be a nail biter. We were lucky that so many good mid-major teams won their conference tournaments or it might have been a different story."
Man up.
+1.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 13, 2011, 09:25:41 PM
It's all relative. How do you think MU's "best talent in over a decade" compares to the "best talent" at Georgetown, L'ville, Nova, Syracuse, Pitt, UConn, etc over that same time period?
Most people are talking about are talent through 13 spots. The talent that matters the most is the starting spots. This team is weak at the most important position and that is point guard. Buyckes has talent, but should not be playing point.
Quote from: bilsu on February 14, 2011, 11:29:53 AMMost people are talking about are talent through 13 spots. The talent that matters the most is the starting spots. This team is weak at the most important position and that is point guard. Buyckes has talent, but should not be playing point.
I'll agree, but I think he's the best we have. Cadougan is no Dominic James, Travis Diener, or even Maurice Acker. At least not yet. Buycks may well be the difference between this team being a top 25 team and a 40-50 type team, but he won't keep us out of the tournament, and he's played fantastically well considering he's been out-of-position for almost the entire year.
I think we need to start focusing on next year. Will Cadougan or Blue be ready? Will Buzz get a JUCO in who can take over the point? As much as Buycks may not be the perfect guard, it's possible that we'll be rueing his loss next year as much as we are currently wishing Acker or Cubes had one more year of eligibility.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2011, 02:23:10 PM
I think you're missing the point. The game is played on both ends of the court. It's an offensive game and a Defensive game. We are #1 in offense but #15 in defense. No one is saying the team would be better off without Jae or DJO. We are saying the defense stinks and Elmore's point has some validity to it.
+1
I remember Elmore saying that during the game and thinking, "Wow that was a solid point he just made." I was surprised because, you know, it was Len Elmore.
Buzz's constant switching team defensive philosophy requires a lot of time playing together to work optimally. You watch us play D, and if the other team is patient and doesn't turn the ball over, they will get a good shot just about every time. Someone eventually breaks down or misses a coverage.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 13, 2011, 02:31:35 PM
9-9 gets us in very easily this year. Book it.
I am one of the more optimistic folks, but a lot would have to break our way for that to happen. At 9-9, I am terrified of the usual "conference tourney upset bids" that will KO us.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 13, 2011, 02:31:35 PM
9-9 gets us in very easily this year. Book it.
For the people that are blowing this horn--you are drinking the MU blue Kool Aid.
Quote from: willie warrior on February 14, 2011, 12:29:05 PM
For the people that are blowing this horn--you are drinking the MU blue Kool Aid.
9-9 doesn't get us in easily. It probably gets us in as an 11 or 12 seed, and I would give it about 70% odds that we get in if we go 9-9. The bubble's soft this year. It would likely be good enough, but it isn't a guarantee.
I'll step onto the ledge. I don't think 9-9 gets MU in. I think 10-8 with one BET win (even if it's Tuesday) is the minimum necessary standard.
Quote from: CTWarrior on February 14, 2011, 12:00:10 PM
Buzz's constant switching team defensive philosophy requires a lot of time playing together to work optimally. You watch us play D, and if the other team is patient and doesn't turn the ball over, they will get a good shot just about every time. Someone eventually breaks down or misses a coverage.
Sometimes it seems like we work so hard for our offense while the other team has it just come to them or they capitalize on our mistakes. I know it's a biased opinion because I'm looking through my fan glasses and noticing what MU does far more than the other team, but I definitely feel like my memory supports that statement.
9-9 puts us at 18-13 overall--not counting BEast Tourney, where we will likely lose first game being a lower seed. 18-14 with about a 60 RPI are NIT credentials. That should be obvious.
Quote from: mu03eng on February 13, 2011, 09:10:00 PM
The problem I have with this statement is that our defense was not the issue today. Could it have been better in the second half, sure. However, we lost this game because I offense disappeared and our free throw shooting sucked in the second half. Our defense was very good(in comparison to our other games) in the first half.
The offense definitely struggled, no question about it. Normally our offense is solid. It was the second half defensive lapses that I felt hurt us, but your point is well taken.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 14, 2011, 06:04:54 PM
The offense definitely struggled, no question about it. Normally our offense is solid. It was the second half defensive lapses that I felt hurt us, but your point is well taken.
The offense has disappeared in the second half in a lot of our Big East games. When our offense is clicking our defense is good enough to win games. It is not good enough, if we go long periods without scoring.
Quote from: warriors1965 on February 13, 2011, 09:18:45 PM
I'm as big a pessimist as anyone, but I don't think MU will lose at home Tuesday. They know the importance of the game and it's one they should win, and will win.
They knew that about South Florida too and still won even though they did not show up. We know we are a significantly better team at home and St. John's is also significantly a better team at home. The fact that it is a home game for us gives me hope, but I think on a neutral court St. John's wins.
Pay attention to how far apart the opposition will space their players for the drive against our over extended man to man.
The opposition doesn't "see help" on the drive. as coach K says "when you see real estate, you buy it."
Need better gap control through help defense. can't over commit or be late either or else you won't recover on the kick out.
To the question posted earlier about the most losses to get an AT LARGE bid in the NCAA tournament, check the following link http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/mayhem/history/atlarge (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/mayhem/history/atlarge)
Since 1985, when the tourney expanded to 64 teams, six teams have entered the NCAA tournament with 14 losses, the most recent being Arizona in 2008. 13 teams since 1985 have made the tournament field with 13 losses, with last years Gophers being the most recent. Interestingly, no team has ever made the tournament with more than 14 losses.
Quote from: mugrad2006 on February 14, 2011, 06:56:11 PM
To the question posted earlier about the most losses to get an AT LARGE bid in the NCAA tournament, check the following link http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/mayhem/history/atlarge (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/mayhem/history/atlarge)
Since 1985, when the tourney expanded to 64 teams, six teams have entered the NCAA tournament with 14 losses, the most recent being Arizona in 2008. 13 teams since 1985 have made the tournament field with 13 losses, with last years Gophers being the most recent. Interestingly, no team has ever made the tournament with more than 14 losses.
Yup, and some of them (like last year's Gophers team) went all the way to the finals of their conference tournament and got the bid. That's a tall order asking this MU team to go to the finals of the Big East. I hope we're 10-8 going into the tournament and win the first one in the BET. If we're 9-9 that means 13 losses entering the BET which might mean a very deep run in NYC to go. I'd prefer we stay out of that scenario, even if we're "easily in" as some state.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 14, 2011, 07:10:19 PM
Yup, and some of them (like last year's Gophers team) went all the way to the finals of their conference tournament and got the bid. That's a tall order asking this MU team to go to the finals of the Big East. I hope we're 10-8 going into the tournament and win the first one in the BET. If we're 9-9 that means 13 losses entering the BET which might mean a very deep run in NYC to go. I'd prefer we stay out of that scenario, even if we're "easily in" as some state.
Actually, only one of the six 14 loss teams since 1985 made the finals of their conference tournament. Here are the results of the six teams
Conference Tournament Results of 14 loss teams since 1985
1991 Villanova team lost in semifinals of Big East tournament
1990 Villanova team lost second round of Big East Tournament
2001 Georgia team lost to LSU by 1 in the first round of the SEC tournament
1990 Kansas State lost in first round of Big Eight tournament
2008 Arizona lost in the quarterfinals of the Pac 10 tournament to Stanford
1987 LSU lost in the finals of the SEC tournament to Alabama
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 13, 2011, 09:25:41 PM
It's all relative. How do you think MU's "best talent in over a decade" compares to the "best talent" at Georgetown, L'ville, Nova, Syracuse, Pitt, UConn, etc over that same time period?
Wait a second, since joining the Big East with the talent we've had prior to "our best talent in over a decade" haven't we performed second only to Pitt in the Big East? I'd say the talent we've had most of this decade has been pretty good as have the results.
Quote from: mugrad2006 on February 14, 2011, 07:32:39 PM
Actually, only one of the six 14 loss teams since 1985 made the finals of their conference tournament. Here are the results of the six teams
Conference Tournament Results of 14 loss teams since 1985
1991 Villanova team lost in semifinals of Big East tournament
1990 Villanova team lost second round of Big East Tournament
2001 Georgia team lost to LSU by 1 in the first round of the SEC tournament
1990 Kansas State lost in first round of Big Eight tournament
2008 Arizona lost in the quarterfinals of the Pac 10 tournament to Stanford
1987 LSU lost in the finals of the SEC tournament to Alabama
Yup...I was thinking of Georgia Tech who had 13 wins and went to the ACC finals to get their bid. I believe that was last year or the year prior.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 14, 2011, 08:12:15 PM
Yup...I was thinking of Georgia Tech who had 13 wins and went to the ACC finals to get their bid. I believe that was last year or the year prior.
I was really surprised to see that only one team made the finals of their conference tournament here, would've guessed your earlier statement on conference finals to be correct. I don't have the time nor the energy, but it would be interesting to see where each of those teams finished in the RPI and conference schedule that the made the dance with 14 losses and no conference tourney finals appearance.