MUScoop

It is the teams job to not look past any opponents...so I think MUScoopers should!

Green Bay without CO will be tougher than most people expect, but Vandy with a healthy Ezeli is the obvious threat. I think we're a completely different team defensively without him, and suspect we'd drop one.

I don't care if we lost a game or two in April.  I just want an undefeated April.  Heck that is only one game.  I don't think that's too much to ask for.

Moot point, Otule will be back by Saturday.  (Says me)

What is LSU's story.  How much would a Otule loss hurt us in that game?

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 07, 2011, 01:33:40 PM
Green Bay without CO will be tougher than most people expect, but Vandy with a healthy Ezeli is the obvious threat. I think we're a completely different team defensively without him, and suspect we'd drop one.

Can't look past Milwaukee either. They have some glaring weaknesses, but they haven't looked awful this year (They're 8-1), and they gave us a scare last year.

Quote from: TrueBlueAndGold on December 07, 2011, 01:41:18 PM
Can't look past Milwaukee either. They have some glaring weaknesses, but they haven't looked awful this year (They're 8-1), and they gave us a scare last year.

Milwaukee concerns me a heck of a lot more than Green Bay does.

Only have 2 losses on the poll, I see 3 good chances for a loss.

Goose said undefeated first time this poll was up and voted undefeated again. Set the bar high...who knows we might just reach it.

Quote from: MUMac on December 07, 2011, 01:42:09 PMMilwaukee concerns me a heck of a lot more than Green Bay does.

UW-M has the gaudy record, but all their wins are to teams rated 148 or lower by kenpom. Let's see how they do in their next two before we get too nervous. And the odds of Otule missing GB is higher than Milwaukee.

I think UW-M is decent, but I'm not sold they're much better than UW-GB and I think what the Phoenix want to do is exactly what will give a team like ours trouble.

I think they can. I don't see UWGB, No. Colo, LSU or Milwaukee as a serious threat. But, Vandy with Ezeli if Otule is out could be very tough. I said they lose one, but I could easily see them remaining undefeated heading into Big East play.

I'm not voting until I know the extent of CO's injury.

Green Bay's 7 footer, Alec Brown, will give Marquette some trouble.  MU will have to muscle him.  They also have a 6-9, 270 kid who transfer from Iowa via a juco.  That said while the team has some talent they a pretty young and Marquette should be able to run on them.  Vandy will be the toughest test for Marquette particularly if Otule is not available of less than 100%.  Crowder, Gardner and JW should have a fiield day with UWM's front court.

This whole thread is a jinx.  :(

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 07, 2011, 02:48:32 PM
UW-M has the gaudy record, but all their wins are to teams rated 148 or lower by kenpom. Let's see how they do in their next two before we get too nervous. And the odds of Otule missing GB is higher than Milwaukee.

I think UW-M is decent, but I'm not sold they're much better than UW-GB and I think what the Phoenix want to do is exactly what will give a team like ours trouble.

You FAR over rate UWGB.  They have some talent, but are young and the talent is no where near MU's level.  But, be afraid, be very afraid if you like.

Quote from: MUMac on December 07, 2011, 09:45:32 PM
You FAR over rate UWGB.  They have some talent, but are young and the talent is no where near MU's level.  But, be afraid, be very afraid if you like.

UWGB just got smoked by Wisconsin, 70-42.

Quote from: MUMac on December 07, 2011, 01:36:05 PM
I don't care if we lost a game or two in April.  I just want an undefeated April. 

?

Quote from: buzzchiapet on December 07, 2011, 10:18:47 PM
?

Oops.  Computer issues and did not catch that.  Should have read "I don't care if we lost a game or two in December." 

Lost any pizzazz.   :D

I know they aren't that good, but I see the road game in Baton Rouge as trouble.

The mere logic behind winning in Madison, and losing at LSU is wack...but I just don't have a good feeling about that one.  Hope I'm wrong.

Quote from: MUMac on December 07, 2011, 09:45:32 PMYou FAR over rate UWGB.  They have some talent, but are young and the talent is no where near MU's level.  But, be afraid, be very afraid if you like.

I'm going to hope that was just a LOTR reference, because at no point have I said I'm afraid of either UW-GB or UW-M. Neither of those teams are anywhere near our level talent-wise. Honestly, I don't believe there's a mid-major in the country that is. There are two ways to beat our team, the first is to try to run with us, out-athletic us, and beat us at our own game. Washington almost did that, but let's be honest, there aren't a lot of teams (and zero mid-majors) that have the horses to do that. So that leaves option B, which requires three things:

1) Have a solid front court -- Norfolk State did with O'Quinn, Green Bay does with Brown and Cougill, I'm not sold on a (relatively) undersized Haarsma and Kelm.
2) Slow it down -- NSU tried this to great effect, both Green Bay and Milwaukee will want to do the same.
3) Shoot the three -- Here's the advantage for UW-M over UW-GB. Milwaukee is an okay three-shooting team, Green Bay is awful.

I don't think Milwaukee has enough up front to beat us, I don't think Green Bay shoots well enough to beat us. But in the past, some poor three-point shooting teams have gotten red-hot against us. If Milwaukee does, no big deal, it'll only add a bit to their game. If Green Bay gets hot, it is a big deal because it adds a lot to their game.

And honestly, Milwaukee's schedule doesn't come close to Green Bay's so far. Milwaukee's best win (kenpom #142 DePaul) is 34 spots worse than Green Bay's worse loss (#108 ND State). Heck, Green Bay's best win (#117 Wyoming) is better than Milwaukee's best win. If Green Bay was playing Texas Southern, Northern Illinois, and UALR instead of Virginia, Indiana State, and Duquesne, they'd be 8-1 too.

Don't be fooled by the record disparity. I'm going to hold off on proclaiming Milwaukee a decent team until they actually beat someone. Saturday at Northern Iowa, for example.

And as for LSU...they're really tough to figure. They beat a pretty good Georgia Tech team at a neutral site, they lose to a bad South Alabama at home. They also hit the offensive glass really well. Here's hoping we don't look past them with the Cross-City Classic coming up a few days later.

Brew, you have several posts expressing concern about UWGB.  It may have been hyperbole when I made the comment, but not by much.  UWM does not concern me.  UWGB concerns me much less.  You seem to think they are better than they are.

BTW, Norfolk State did not bother us when we won by 31.

Anyway, I think this debate is silly.  MU wins easily Saturday.  You think differently.  Fine.  We will see on Saturday.

Vandy will be tough.  LSU is a true road game.  Still, we're way too good to drop more than 1, even without Chris.

Quote from: MUMac on December 08, 2011, 06:21:28 AMBrew, you have several posts expressing concern about UWGB.  It may have been hyperbole when I made the comment, but not by much.  UWM does not concern me.  UWGB concerns me much less.  You seem to think they are better than they are.

BTW, Norfolk State did not bother us when we won by 31.

Anyway, I think this debate is silly.  MU wins easily Saturday.  You think differently.  Fine.  We will see on Saturday.

I think UW-GB is better than their record because they've played a tough SOS, just like I think UW-M isn't as good as their record because they've played a god-awful schedule. And NSU gave mid-majors a blueprint on how to beat us. The first game is irrelevant, the won where they came within a missed three of beating us is not.

If you look back at my actual posts, all I said was that GB would be tougher than people might expect (W by 15 instead of 30) and that Vandy is the real threat. Then I said that UW-M has played a soft schedule while GB has played tougher teams. If you look at the numbers, that's not really debatable. Neither team should beat us, I agree with that.

All I'm saying is upsets happen (just ask Cincy, 'Nova, or Pitt) and in the unlikely event that we lose either, I think the combination of Otule more likely being out and Green Bay's size up front makes them more dangerous to us than Milwaukee. I'd still be shocked, and likely very irritated, if we lost either.

We'll be favored to win them all, but figure we'll stumble once either at LSU or homer against Vandy.

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 08, 2011, 07:58:31 AM
I think UW-GB is better than their record because they've played a tough SOS, just like I think UW-M isn't as good as their record because they've played a god-awful schedule. And NSU gave mid-majors a blueprint on how to beat us. The first game is irrelevant, the won where they came within a missed three of beating us is not.

If you look back at my actual posts, all I said was that GB would be tougher than people might expect (W by 15 instead of 30) and that Vandy is the real threat. Then I said that UW-M has played a soft schedule while GB has played tougher teams. If you look at the numbers, that's not really debatable. Neither team should beat us, I agree with that.

All I'm saying is upsets happen (just ask Cincy, 'Nova, or Pitt) and in the unlikely event that we lose either, I think the combination of Otule more likely being out and Green Bay's size up front makes them more dangerous to us than Milwaukee. I'd still be shocked, and likely very irritated, if we lost either.

Have you compared the two schedules?  I have.  They are comparable.  UWM would not be 4-5 with UWGB's schedule and UWGB would not be 8-1 with UWM's schedule.

Yes, upsets happen.  Based upon that, you could comment every game that the other team concerns you.

Quote from: MUMac on December 08, 2011, 01:40:32 PMHave you compared the two schedules?  I have.  They are comparable.  UWM would not be 4-5 with UWGB's schedule and UWGB would not be 8-1 with UWM's schedule.

Yes, upsets happen.  Based upon that, you could comment every game that the other team concerns you.

Are you kidding? The two schedules are comparable? That's ridiculous. Per RealTimeRPI, Green Bay currently has played the #32 schedule in the country, Milwaukee has played the #322 schedule. If the season ended today, despite Green Bay's 3-5 record (for RPI purposes), they would actually have a higher RPI -- 110 -- than Milwaukee would with a 7-1 record -- 130.

Or let's look at who they've beaten, this time I'll reference kenpom. Green Bay's best win came against #117 Wyoming. Milwaukee's best win came against #142 DePaul. Against the top 150 teams on kenpom.com, Green Bay is 1-5, Milwaukee is 1-1.

Green Bay has not lost to a single team that is rated worse than a single team Milwaukee has defeated. If Green Bay was playing the slugs that Milwaukee is playing, I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't have a similar record. And if Milwaukee was playing against all top-125 opponents, I don't think they'd be 8-1.

I'm sorry, but there is no way I believe you've actually looked at these schedules and come to the conclusion that they are comparable. #32 vs #322. It's not even close.

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 08, 2011, 02:24:52 PM
Are you kidding? The two schedules are comparable? That's ridiculous. Per RealTimeRPI, Green Bay currently has played the #32 schedule in the country, Milwaukee has played the #322 schedule. If the season ended today, despite Green Bay's 3-5 record (for RPI purposes), they would actually have a higher RPI -- 110 -- than Milwaukee would with a 7-1 record -- 130.

Or let's look at who they've beaten, this time I'll reference kenpom. Green Bay's best win came against #117 Wyoming. Milwaukee's best win came against #142 DePaul. Against the top 150 teams on kenpom.com, Green Bay is 1-5, Milwaukee is 1-1.

Green Bay has not lost to a single team that is rated worse than a single team Milwaukee has defeated. If Green Bay was playing the slugs that Milwaukee is playing, I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't have a similar record. And if Milwaukee was playing against all top-125 opponents, I don't think they'd be 8-1.

I'm sorry, but there is no way I believe you've actually looked at these schedules and come to the conclusion that they are comparable. #32 vs #322. It's not even close.

I broke it down yesterday from Collegerpi.com (whose numbers differ from Ken Poms shite).  That is where I drew my conclusions.  That and actually having watched UWGB play a few games.  I am not impressed, but obviously you are.  They are 4-5 and have gotten blown out of several games.  Lost to the likes of North Dakota State.  Which road games have they won?

Look, I am from Green Bay and follow the Phoenix.  My 2nd favorite in state school.  But, this team is no where close to last years team.  In time Wardle may get it done, but he has some work to do.  They are young and not as athletic as last year.

But seriously, you are far too delusional to continue a discussion.  It really is not worth all of this.  Arguing UWM v UWGB was not the reason for all of this.  All I said was I would be more concerned about UWM than UWGB.  I am not concerned, though, with either.  It was your defending your ridiculous concerns about UWGB beating MU Saturday.  As I said yesterday, be concerned.  After all, that was your point in SEVERAL posts.

Quote from: MUMac on December 08, 2011, 02:42:01 PMBut seriously, you are far too delusional to continue a discussion.  It really is not worth all of this.  Arguing UWM v UWGB was not the reason for all of this.  All I said was I would be more concerned about UWM than UWGB.  I am not concerned, though, with either.  It was your defending your ridiculous concerns about UWGB beating MU Saturday.  As I said yesterday, be concerned.  After all, that was your point in SEVERAL posts.

Point out one post where I said UWGB was going to beat MU Saturday. You must be either illiterate or insane if you think I said that. Go back and actually look at "SEVERAL" of my posts. And find one, just ONE where I actually said that. You won't, because I didn't.

What the hell are you on?