Everyone is lamenting this idea that we have no quality road wins, which may be true but I don't think we've had a fair shot. All of our true road losses have come to teams in the top 18 including three in the top ten. We're not even supposed to realistically win these games at home, much less on the road, and yet people keep saying things like "we let another opportunity slip by." BS. We're playing the best teams in the country on their home floor. And the teams we're supposed to be beat on the road--Rutgers and South Florida--we have. Once we lose at Seton Hall then I'll be concerned about this team on the road, but don't judge our road record until you look at who we've played. See below.
@Vanderbilt #18
@Georgetown #9
@Notre Dame #7
@Nova #14
@PITT #4
@Louisville #16
I did a detailed breakdown on this in "Don't want to be a Badger obsessor" thread comparing our road schedule to the top 20 teams according to kenpom.com. If the committee looks objectively at our schedule, I think we'll do just fine.
I was watching one basketball game. I think VA, NC St, Clemson (someone from the ACC). And they said one of their issues is that they play extremely aggressive on defense and offense and they struggle on the road so much because they don't get the same calls they get at home. Maybe this is our problem too. We got screwed yesterday and @ND. The game @ND was just a poorly officated game. They were calling touch fouls and then swallowing the whistle randomly throughout the game for both sides. Yesterday was one of the most one sided games I have watched in a while.
I agree, and for all those people bitching about the lack of road wins, which of the games listed above would you say MU should have been expected to win? Guess what, if they would have won a couple of those, they would be near the top of the Big East, and more than likely be ranked in the Top 20 right now. Do you believe MU is or should be one of the top 4-5 teams in the Big East and one of the Top 20 teams in the country?
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on February 14, 2011, 04:43:55 PM
I agree, and for all those people bitching about the lack of road wins, which of the games listed above would you say MU should have been expected to win? Guess what, if they would have won a couple of those, they would be near the top of the Big East, and more than likely be ranked in the Top 20 right now. Do you believe MU is or should be one of the top 4-5 teams in the Big East and one of the Top 20 teams in the country?
Simply, yes. They are more talented then last years team, and anyone that knows college basketball would agree with that. There's just something missing with this years team.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on February 14, 2011, 04:43:55 PM
I agree, and for all those people bitching about the lack of road wins, which of the games listed above would you say MU should have been expected to win? Guess what, if they would have won a couple of those, they would be near the top of the Big East, and more than likely be ranked in the Top 20 right now. Do you believe MU is or should be one of the top 4-5 teams in the Big East and one of the Top 20 teams in the country?
Louisville, and to a lesser extent Notre Dame. Vandy too. We probably don't win all 3, but at least we shouldn't have lost all 3 of them.
@GU, @Nova, @PITT, and even vs UConn were probably games we should have lost.
Quote from: TJ on February 14, 2011, 05:10:12 PM
Louisville, and to a lesser extent Notre Dame. Vandy too. We probably don't win all 3, but at least we shouldn't have lost all 3 of them.
@GU, @Nova, @PITT, and even vs UConn were probably games we should have lost.
So, you believe that MU should be expected to go on the road and beat both UofL and ND, two teams that are a combined 18-7 and have lost a grand total of ZERO home games in BE play? On what do you base that?
Quote from: muguru on February 14, 2011, 05:09:06 PM
Simply, yes. They are more talented then last years team, and anyone that knows college basketball would agree with that. There's just something missing with this years team.
Interesting. Do the coaches in the Big East know anything about college basketball? Seems to me MU was picked to finish significantly lower than they did last year. I'm sure you know more than them though.
I do think there is lots of talent on this team. What's missing is experience, and a legitimate starting PG. I think Buycks and Cadougan have done a pretty decent job, but Buycks is a 2G, and Cadougan still has to learn how to play at this level.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on February 14, 2011, 05:21:18 PM
So, you believe that MU should be expected to go on the road and beat both UofL and ND, two teams that are a combined 18-7 and have lost a grand total of ZERO home games in BE play? On what do you base that?
A sense of entitlement based on our program's glory years almost 4 decades ago?
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on February 14, 2011, 04:43:55 PM
I agree, and for all those people bitching about the lack of road wins, which of the games listed above would you say MU should have been expected to win? Guess what, if they would have won a couple of those, they would be near the top of the Big East, and more than likely be ranked in the Top 20 right now. Do you believe MU is or should be one of the top 4-5 teams in the Big East and one of the Top 20 teams in the country?
Expected based on what? When you're up 18 points with 5 minutes to play, I EXPECT us to win. Or are you saying because a team has a little number next to them from a bunch of voters, many of which don't even watch these teams play, that sets the line on the expectation? Or is it the Vegas odds, which don't predict a winner yet so many people erroneously state that they do.
I would start with what you mean by expectations.
Considering what we did to ND at home and the big lead we had there, I expected that win (in the preseason I didn't, but certainly in that moment in time watching the game unfold, I absolutely did).
Louisville, no question about it considering the lead we had.
I won't say I expected Vanderbilt, even while watching the game unfold, but it was certainly a golden opportunity missed.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 14, 2011, 06:59:40 PM
Expected based on what?
Expected to win based on how good the teams are. Based on what the teams in question have done this year. Are people really complaining that MU is not the ONLY team to win at ND or UofL.
If you say that MU should have been expected to beat ND for instance, how do you reconcile the fact that you expect that they should do something that UofL, UConn, and Georgetown were also not able to do?
The circumstances of each game, frankly are irrelevant. ND is better than MU. So is U of L. Same with Pitt, Georgetown, and Villanova. Interestingly enough MU lost to all of those teams on the road. Unless you honestly think MU is or should be better than those teams, what's wrong with that? Why should people be upset or surprised when they lose on the road to a team that's better than they are? I suspect the entitlement post above pretty much sums it up.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on February 14, 2011, 07:13:11 PM
Expected to win based on how good the teams are. Based on what the teams in question have done this year. Are people really complaining that MU is not the ONLY team to win at ND or UofL.
If you say that MU should have been expected to beat ND for instance, how do you reconcile the fact that you expect that they should do something that UofL, UConn, and Georgetown were also not able to do?
The circumstances of each game, frankly are irrelevant. ND is better than MU. So is U of L. Same with Pitt, Georgetown, and Villanova. Interestingly enough MU lost to all of those teams on the road. Unless you honestly think MU is or should be better than those teams, what's wrong with that? Why should people be upset or surprised when they lose on the road to a team that's better than they are? I suspect the entitlement post above pretty much sums it up.
I could not disagree with you more. Teams are made of human beings. What they did in the past will certainly dictate how they play in the future, but they are not robots. The '27 Yankees lost games and so did this year's Green Bay Packers. Sure, we all have expectations about whether we should win or not before the game is played, but that's why the game is played. In that Louisville game, after watching how we played and how poorly Louisville played, I don't see how anyone could come away saying they didn't expect us to win.
I guess that's where I'm coming from. Totally understand your position, but I think you have to factor in the real day realities of what happens in that game.
Let's look at the ND games. Is ND a better team than MU? They certainly weren't the night we played them at MU. They certainly weren't for 3/4 of the game at ND.
Were the NJ Jets a better team than the Patriots? Nope, but they were that day. Did people expect the Jets to win that game before it was played? Probably not. While the game was being played, did a lot of people sit up and take notice the Patriots were not playing well? Did those expectations change...absolutely. That's where I think we differ. Otherwise, why bother playing these games.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 14, 2011, 07:19:50 PM
I could not disagree with you more. Teams are made of human beings. What they did in the past will certainly dictate how they play in the future, but they are not robots. The '27 Yankees lost games and so did this year's Green Bay Packers. Sure, we all have expectations about whether we should win or not before the game is played, but that's why the game is played. In that Louisville game, after watching how we played and how poorly Louisville played, I don't see how anyone could come away saying they didn't expect us to win.
I guess that's where I'm coming from. Totally understand your position, but I think you have to factor in the real day realities of what happens in that game.
Let's look at the ND games. Is ND a better team than MU? They certainly weren't the night we played them at MU. They certainly weren't for 3/4 of the game at ND.
I think where the disagreement lies is in the fact that you are using the (partial) results of the game in question to define what you were "expecting" for that game. Without the benefit of hindsight and knowing how the game turned out, what were your expectations before the game started? Did you expect us to go in to Louisville and win? Did you really expect us to go beat ND @ ND when better teams than MU had failed in doing that? If so, then you must think we are pretty damn good.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on February 14, 2011, 07:33:28 PM
I think where the disagreement lies is in the fact that you are using the (partial) results of the game in question to define what you were "expecting" for that game. Without the benefit of hindsight and knowing how the game turned out, what were your expectations before the game started? Did you expect us to go in to Louisville and win? Did you really expect us to go beat ND @ ND when better teams than MU had failed in doing that? If so, then you must think we are pretty damn good.
This is exactly right. The better team does not always win, but after 12, and especially after 18 games, the standings pretty much tell the story. That's the point. I believe the teams I referenced are better than MU, and there is no reason that MU should have been expected to go on the road and beat them, any more than they should be expected to lose at home to DePaul. I assume most would agree. If you want to play the real day realities/what if game as Chicos lays it out above, its a two way street. As I said, as long as its a 40 minute game, the circumstances are rather irrelevant. For every loss you say
should be in the win column, there is certainly one win that
could be in the loss column. Disappointed in the way it turned out? sure. Should have been expected to win? No.
(http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/199/497/dennis_green_display_image.jpg?1271351046)
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on February 14, 2011, 05:21:18 PM
So, you believe that MU should be expected to go on the road and beat both UofL and ND, two teams that are a combined 18-7 and have lost a grand total of ZERO home games in BE play? On what do you base that?
Because we almost did it. I didn't know I had to answer as if it's Jan 1. I guess I misunderstood. I also think that this team is better than their record indicates, but that's an unpopular opinion around here.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on February 14, 2011, 05:27:14 PM
Interesting. Do the coaches in the Big East know anything about college basketball? Seems to me MU was picked to finish significantly lower than they did last year. I'm sure you know more than them though.
I do think there is lots of talent on this team. What's missing is experience, and a legitimate starting PG. I think Buycks and Cadougan have done a pretty decent job, but Buycks is a 2G, and Cadougan still has to learn how to play at this level.
Why do you put so much stock in preseason rankings and opposing coaches' preseason predictions? They hadn't seen the teams play, they didn't know how things would shake out. Expectations change as the season goes on. We were picked 12th last year, would you have been ok with that if we had gone into a free fall from this point last year and finished there? No. Expectations change.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on February 14, 2011, 06:48:59 PM
A sense of entitlement based on our program's glory years almost 4 decades ago?
What the hell does this mean? I wasn't alive then. I base nothing on that. I may base some of it based on our 5 year performance in the Big East and having the second most wins of all the schools. But mostly I think that this team is better than their record indicates and good enough to win some of these games they are pissing away.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on February 14, 2011, 07:13:11 PM
The circumstances of each game, frankly are irrelevant. ND is better than MU. So is U of L. Same with Pitt, Georgetown, and Villanova. Interestingly enough MU lost to all of those teams on the road. Unless you honestly think MU is or should be better than those teams, what's wrong with that? Why should people be upset or surprised when they lose on the road to a team that's better than they are? I suspect the entitlement post above pretty much sums it up.
I agree with Chicos' response to this and absolutely 100% disagree with every part of this statement. Does every upset that ever happens just blow your mind? Why do the games even get played since the better team should never lose.
How could you not have been upset after losing that Lou game? We had them beat and then blew it. How could you think 40 years or 4 years ago has anything to do with it?
Quote from: TJ on February 14, 2011, 08:59:00 PM
Expectations change.
Of course they do, and they should based on what actually happens. So, that said, what have you seen from MU this year that expectations should change to the point that you believe they are one of the top 3 teams in the league? Because if you give them the record you seem to think they should have at this point (8-4), that is exactly where they would be, and I can only assume, given your expectations, that they should win all but
maybe 1 of their remaining games, which would almost assuredly put them in second place to finish the year. Do you think MU is the second best team in the Big East?
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on February 14, 2011, 07:33:28 PM
I think where the disagreement lies is in the fact that you are using the (partial) results of the game in question to define what you were "expecting" for that game. Without the benefit of hindsight and knowing how the game turned out, what were your expectations before the game started? Did you expect us to go in to Louisville and win? Did you really expect us to go beat ND @ ND when better teams than MU had failed in doing that? If so, then you must think we are pretty damn good.
Why does hindsight get discounted completely? I'm not upset based on pregame expectations; I'm upset because they blew a game they had in the bag. Did you think to yourself after the game that it was ok they blew a huge late lead because Louisville is ranked higher?
So during the Louisville game - AT Louisville - we're up 18, they are playing like crap, we're on fire, you turn to your fellow MU fan and say "we should win this game." He looks back at you and says, "No we shouldn't, they're more talented, we're too young, we were picked 10th they were picked above us in the preseason - we are going to lose."
How can you say the results are predetermined? That's what you're implying. We lost to Louisville at their place because we were supposed to or were expected to?
Quote from: TJ on February 14, 2011, 09:08:42 PM
I agree with Chicos' response to this and absolutely 100% disagree with every part of this statement. Does every upset that ever happens just blow your mind? Why do the games even get played since the better team should never lose.
So you admit Louisville is better/winning would have been an upset, but at the same time you say MU is better than their record indicates. Well, which is it?
Again, by the time you get through 12, 14, 18 games of the Big East season, the standing will give you a real accurate picture of how you stack up. Though it has not really been the case for MU in this instance, typically you are going to win one or two you don't expect, and lose one or two you don't expect, but the overall numbers are generally going to come out where they belong.
If they do what I expect they are going to do and finish somewhere in the lower upper half of the league, do you really think they are better than that? If so, where should they finish? Top 3? Top 5?
Quote from: TJ on February 14, 2011, 09:14:12 PM
Why does hindsight get discounted completely? I'm not upset based on pregame expectations; I'm upset because they blew a game they had in the bag. Did you think to yourself after the game that it was ok they blew a huge late lead because Louisville is ranked higher?
Of course not. That's also not what this debate is about.
The debate is about whether or not this current MU team should be expected to go on the road and win against top 15-top 20 teams. You seem to want to formulate your expected outcome for a game based on the actual outcome of the game. That's not the question. The question is what makes you think that this MU team
should be expected to win on the road against this level of competition?
Quote from: romey on February 14, 2011, 09:20:04 PM
How can you say the results are predetermined? That's what you're implying. We lost to Louisville at their place because we were supposed to or were expected to?
Yep. That's exactly what I said. Good Grief!
Does the better team
usually win? Yes, they do. Not because they are expected to, or because they are supposed to, but because they're better. That's why they are supposed to or expected to. You see how that works?
As for the Uof L game, of course with that lead, they should have have won, but they didn't. Just as they should have lost the USF game. Look at that in conjunction with UofL's 8-4 record, USF's 2-11 record, and MU's 6-6 record, and what can our God given power of rational thought tell us?
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on February 14, 2011, 09:27:28 PM
Yep. That's exactly what I said. Good Grief!
Does the better team usually win? Yes, they do. Not because they are expected to, or because they are supposed to, but because they're better. That's why they are supposed to or expected to. You see how that works?
As for the Uof L game, of course with that lead, they should have have won, but they didn't. Just as they should have lost the USF game. Look at that in conjunction with UofL's 8-4 record, USF's 2-11 record, and MU's 6-6 record, and what can our God given power of rational thought tell us?
Navin, you and I are on the same page tonight. Preach on!
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on February 14, 2011, 09:09:56 PM
Of course they do, and they should based on what actually happens. So, that said, what have you seen from MU this year that expectations should change to the point that you believe they are one of the top 3 teams in the league? Because if you give them the record you seem to think they should have at this point (8-4), that is exactly where they would be, and I can only assume, given your expectations, that they should win all but maybe 1 of their remaining games, which would almost assuredly put them in second place to finish the year. Do you think MU is the second best team in the Big East?
I don't know what's going on with the conference this year - lots of losses by really good teams and everyone is bunched up in the middle. I don't know where we fit in in amongst the middle of the conference, but I believe Pitt, GU, Lou (except for the day we played them), UConn, and Nova are better teams than ours, regardless of what their records are. So MU is no better than 6th best team.
By the way, I only said that we shouldn't have lost all 3 of those games. However, even if we had pulled out both of the conference games, that would have put us in 4th place in conference - not the 4th best team, but the team in 4th place.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on February 14, 2011, 07:33:28 PM
I think where the disagreement lies is in the fact that you are using the (partial) results of the game in question to define what you were "expecting" for that game. Without the benefit of hindsight and knowing how the game turned out, what were your expectations before the game started? Did you expect us to go in to Louisville and win? Did you really expect us to go beat ND @ ND when better teams than MU had failed in doing that? If so, then you must think we are pretty damn good.
I believe I answered that but if not, I'll answer again. Did I expect to beat Louisville before the game? Not really, but I didn't expect us to get run either....I thought we would lose by 6 points. http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=23571.msg261567#msg261567
After watching about 10 minutes of the actual game, yes I expected to win. When there were 6 minutes left in the game, not only did I expect to win I would have found it nearly impossible to expect anything less.
It sounds like you're limiting your expectations based on arbitrary rankings or what some sports writer says or only based on what's on paper. The reality is that they actually play the games. Expectations change. Teams get confidence, they hang around, some teams take someone for granted, etc, etc.
That's why I couched the original question back...define expectations and define WHEN they are held. I see no reason why someone's expectations cannot change during a game and they often do. In the Super Bowl last week when the Steelers got the ball back at the end of the 3rd quarter trailing by 4....my expectations were changing. The Steelers had all the momentum, the Packers were struggling, the Steelers were scoring and had the ball again in great field position. Then the fumble....expectations change.
So back to the original question...did I expect to beat Louisville after that game started. You bet. There were several others. I don't think someone's expectations are locked in before a game starts...they actually play the game.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on February 14, 2011, 09:23:48 PM
Of course not. That's also not what this debate is about.
The debate is about whether or not this current MU team should be expected to go on the road and win against top 15-top 20 teams. You seem to want to formulate your expected outcome for a game based on the actual outcome of the game. That's not the question. The question is what makes you think that this MU team should be expected to win on the road against this level of competition?
Because they almost did. I'm not having this debate in a vacuum on Jan 1st. I didn't expect them to win the game, though I did expect that they could win the game. Now that the game is over I think they should have won.
No one is upset because they thought MU should have won pregame. They're upset because they thought MU should have won with 6 minutes to play.
Quote from: TJ on February 14, 2011, 09:34:36 PM
I don't know what's going on with the conference this year - lots of losses by really good teams and everyone is bunched up in the middle. I don't know where we fit in in amongst the middle of the conference, but I believe Pitt, GU, Lou (except for the day we played them), UConn, and Nova are better teams than ours, regardless of what their records are. So MU is no better than 6th best team.
I'll probably catch hell for this, but in my mind there are no GREAT Big East teams this year, certainly not like there were a few years ago when there were three number 1 seeds from the conference. Pitt is very good and they could win it all this year, a year when there isn't a dominant team in the country. I think the Big East is very good this year, arguably the best conference top to bottom (some ratings say yes, others have it at #2) but it seems to me that teams 3 through 10 don't have a ton of separation. There is some, but not a ton, and therefore you'll get teams coming back on one another.
The Big East a few years ago was probably the greatest single conference year in the history of college basketball. High quality, incredible depth, talent was fantastic. A ridiculous year that I believe most Big East coaches have said was the greatest year ever and a number of college hoops pundits agree.
Quote from: TJ on February 14, 2011, 09:34:36 PM
I don't know what's going on with the conference this year - lots of losses by really good teams and everyone is bunched up in the middle. I don't know where we fit in in amongst the middle of the conference, but I believe Pitt, GU, Lou (except for the day we played them), UConn, and Nova are better teams than ours, regardless of what their records are. So MU is no better than 6th best team.
Given what ND has done this year, I have no idea how you don't include them on that list, so I'll do it for you, making MU no better than the 7th best team. And I suspect come March 6th, when its all said and done, that is roughly where you will find them in the Big East standings. So what's the problem? After 18 games, your record in the conference/place in the standings is going to be be a pretty damn good indicator of how you stack up.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 14, 2011, 09:39:06 PM
I believe I answered that but if not, I'll answer again. Did I expect to beat Louisville before the game? Not really, but I didn't expect us to get run either....I thought we would lose by 6 points. http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=23571.msg261567#msg261567
After watching about 10 minutes of the actual game, yes I expected to win. When there were 6 minutes left in the game, not only did I expect to win I would have found it nearly impossible to expect anything less.
It sounds like you're limiting your expectations based on arbitrary rankings or what some sports writer says or only based on what's on paper. The reality is that they actually play the games. Expectations change. Teams get confidence, they hang around, some teams take someone for granted, etc, etc.
That's why I couched the original question back...define expectations and define WHEN they are held. I see no reason why someone's expectations cannot change during a game and they often do. In the Super Bowl last week when the Steelers got the ball back at the end of the 3rd quarter trailing by 4....my expectations were changing. The Steelers had all the momentum, the Packers were struggling, the Steelers were scoring and had the ball again in great field position. Then the fumble....expectations change.
So back to the original question...did I expect to beat Louisville after that game started. You bet. There were several others. I don't think someone's expectations are locked in before a game starts...they actually play the game.
I thought that's what I did ?-(
Quote from: TJ on February 14, 2011, 09:39:20 PM
Because they almost did. I'm not having this debate in a vacuum on Jan 1st. I didn't expect them to win the game, though I did expect that they could win the game. Now that the game is over I think they should have won.
No one is upset because they thought MU should have won pregame. They're upset because they thought MU should have won with 6 minutes to play.
I get this, I really do. That's not what the original debate was about but I get it.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on February 14, 2011, 09:44:56 PM
Given what ND has done this year, I have no idea how you don't include them on that list, so I'll do it for you, making MU no better than the 7th best team. And I suspect come March 6th, when its all said and done, that is roughly where you will find them in the Big East standings. So what's the problem? After 18 games, your record in the conference/place in the standings is going to be be a pretty damn good indicator of how you stack up.
Because we've outplayed them 60 out of 80 head to head minutes this year. Maybe they had 2 off nights against us, but I don't think that's the case and I think we stack up well against them. So I won't say they are outright better than us.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on February 14, 2011, 09:51:01 PM
I get this, I really do. That's not what the original debate was about but I get it.
Cool.
Taking each game as a stand-alone, no, we were not predicted to win any of the road games we lost. However, given that most were predicted to be relatively close, it would be expected statistically that we'd win 1 or 2 or them. Couple that with the fact that we showed for periods of time (20, 30, 34 minutes) that we could outplay a number of these team, and you're going to get a frustrated fanbase.