clintonpriddy writes: What middle of the road big six conference team could you see making a run to the Final Four, a la UConn last year?
Brennan: I'm not sure there is one. Connecticut's situation was pretty unusual. The Huskies were fantastic in nonconference play, so-so for large stretches of the Big East season and fantastic yet again in Big East play, and for their trouble they received a nice little No. 3 seed, albeit one that forced them to play much of their NCAA games on the West Coast. (Not that Kemba & Co. seemed to mind.) Obviously, we don't have conference tournament play for comparison purposes yet, but even so, there aren't too many teams that fit that bill. One team that sticks out -- and fits the "good nonconference, so-so conference play" barometer -- is Marquette. Another is Indiana. But the Hoosiers' best wins came at home, not at a neutral site, so it's hard to tell how they'll look when they get to neutral-site play in the tournament.
Frankly, Connecticut was a strange team last season. The Huskies were really, really good in elimination games; they didn't lose one all season long. But sandwiched between all that delicious winning was the disgusting tuna salad (bad metaphor, but I just hate tuna salad) of a 9-9 mark in Big East play. I'm not sure we'll see that again this season. Or for many seasons to come.
Quote from: Jblattner7 on January 18, 2012, 02:32:35 PM
clintonpriddy writes: What middle of the road big six conference team could you see making a run to the Final Four, a la UConn last year?
Brennan: I'm not sure there is one. Connecticut's situation was pretty unusual. The Huskies were fantastic in nonconference play, so-so for large stretches of the Big East season and fantastic yet again in Big East play, and for their trouble they received a nice little No. 3 seed, albeit one that forced them to play much of their NCAA games on the West Coast. (Not that Kemba & Co. seemed to mind.) Obviously, we don't have conference tournament play for comparison purposes yet, but even so, there aren't too many teams that fit that bill. One team that sticks out -- and fits the "good nonconference, so-so conference play" barometer -- is Marquette. Another is Indiana. But the Hoosiers' best wins came at home, not at a neutral site, so it's hard to tell how they'll look when they get to neutral-site play in the tournament.
Frankly, Connecticut was a strange team last season. The Huskies were really, really good in elimination games; they didn't lose one all season long. But sandwiched between all that delicious winning was the disgusting tuna salad (bad metaphor, but I just hate tuna salad) of a 9-9 mark in Big East play. I'm not sure we'll see that again this season. Or for many seasons to come.
I'm not entirely sure I'm willing to accept the "so-so conference play" label. Marquette has lost two conference games. Both on the road. Both to top-10 teams. By a combined total of 10 points. As the season progresses it might turn out that MU has a "so-so" conference season, but I'm not sure that's fair to say at this point.
i think that's the definition of "so-so", win the home games you're supposed to win, lose the tough road games you're supposed to lose.
Conference has been exactly as expected to this point, nothing too impressive, nothing too terrible, so-so...
Although those losses were disappointing they were to top 10 teams on the road.
So-so to me means average. Average means .500. like 3-3 not 4-2 a .667 win %
what a moron.
Quote from: Jblattner7 on January 18, 2012, 02:41:02 PM
i think that's the definition of "so-so", win the home games you're supposed to win, lose the tough road games you're supposed to lose.
Conference has been exactly as expected to this point, nothing too impressive, nothing too terrible, so-so...
I don't exactly disagree with you, but my point was that it's a little to early to declare Marquette's conference season "so-so." In this conference, I think if the only games you lose are "tough road games you're supposed to lose," then you've done a lot better than "so-so."
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on January 18, 2012, 02:41:18 PM
Although those losses were disappointing they were to top 10 teams on the road.
So-so to me means average. Average means .500. like 3-3 not 4-2 a .667 win %
what a moron.
I generally agree, but 4-2 is one game away from 3-3. I wouldn't call our conference season average or above average at all yet.
UConn is going to be a beast once their outside shooting and interior defense start clicking.
Elight 8 and Final Four are certainly attainable.
Sure, Marquette is 4-2 but they really haven't put together a full 40 minutes of solid basketball in BE play and they should be 5-1 considering they blew a 17-point lead. Top 10 opponent or not, that's a game you need to win.
IMO, it's more about how Marquette has played as opposed to their current record.
I dont know about you guys but i think it's pretty impressive that we've been pegged as a Final Foul sleeper, regardless of whether we have a so-so conference record so far.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 18, 2012, 03:14:22 PM
Sure, Marquette is 4-2 but they really haven't put together a full 40 minutes of solid basketball in BE play and they should be 5-1 considering they blew a 17-point lead. Top 10 opponent or not, that's a game you need to win.
IMO, it's more about how Marquette has played as opposed to their current record.
OK, if we should have won the GTown game because we blew a 17-point lead, should we have lost the Louisville game because we were down by 16?
We lost to Georgetown and beat Louisville because we deserved both outcomes.
Difference between 3-3 and 4-2 is negligible. Not enough information yet. I hope we're debating Marquette's legit title hopes two months from now!!!!
Quote from: MU82 on January 18, 2012, 03:34:56 PM
OK, if we should have won the GTown game because we blew a 17-point lead, should we have lost the Louisville game because we were down by 16?
We lost to Georgetown and beat Louisville because we deserved both outcomes.
Difference between 3-3 and 4-2 is negligible. Not enough information yet. I hope we're debating Marquette's legit title hopes two months from now!!!!
Up 17 with how many minutes to play? Down 16 with how many minutes to play?
Not a valid comparison.
He's missing a key point. We don't have a Kemba.
Quote from: MU82 on January 18, 2012, 03:34:56 PM
OK, if we should have won the GTown game because we blew a 17-point lead, should we have lost the Louisville game because we were down by 16?
Ehhh. Not a great comparison at all. It took GU to nail an extremely clutch three after an obvious offensive foul under 15 seconds left in the game. He misses that shot, MU has the ball and a chance to win. That...combined with having the lead much later in the game, make your comparison pretty far fetched.