MUScoop

Since the BE went to 16 teams in 2006 ...

MU BE Regular Season
2013  -  currently tied for 2nd
2012 -  2nd
2011 -   Tied for 9th
2010 -   Tied for 5th
2009 -   5th
2008 -   Tied for 5th
2007 -   Tied for 4th
2006 -   Tied for 4th

Also since 2006
* every team had at least one below .500 season except MU
* only one team made the NCAA every year ... MU

MU has been among the most consistent year-to-year teams in the BE.  Always good but never great.  Yet, some seem to be complaining above the lack of a great season (you Madtown).

We had a great season in 2003 and the next two were NIT years.  This year we should have a seed that means a third consecutive S16 is not a stretch.

So, which would you rather have?  Vote above and explain below.

2003 was awesome. That game in Minneapolis alone almost makes that run worth it. But I'd take S16, S16, E8 like we'll have after this year.

Quote from: brewcity77 on February 24, 2013, 11:37:00 AM
2003 was awesome. That game in Minneapolis alone almost makes that run worth it. But I'd take S16, S16, E8 like we'll have after this year.

I like this a lot.

The two years following 2003 were very disappointing for long term of program. FF was awfully good but not building on it created disappointment for long run. I really cannot pick on either option because both have positives and negatives. Will say watching Wade dismantle Kentucky was an A+.

Wasn't the NIT because Diener got injured? Weren't we like just short? I wasn't a fan yet so Im just working off of what I've heard. 

Diener broke his hand one year and was the only PG on the roster.   MU was probably going to get in that year, but faded without him and ended up getting rolled by Western Michigan at home in the NIT.   The other year, MU just didn't get it done.    Chapman, Townsend, Merrit, Novak, Diener were not good enough to get to the big dance. 

The year Travis got hurt they literally couldn't get the ball into the front court following his injury.  They were certainly on the way to the dance beforehand.

Quote from: Goose on February 24, 2013, 11:52:35 AM
The two years following 2003 were very disappointing for long term of program. FF was awfully good but not building on it created disappointment for long run. I really cannot pick on either option because both have positives and negatives. Will say watching Wade dismantle Kentucky was an A+.

Totally disagree...without the Final Four, Big East is tougher to get into.  We got into the Big East after the Final Four.  It helped us land the 3 amigos, etc, etc.  Having a Final Four is a major achievement.

Do they point to VCU's Final Four or their Sweet 16 appearance?   You hang banners for Final Fours, not Sweet 16's.


What if we go out in the first round this year, and the poll becomes?

FF (and Conference Championship), NIT, NIT
S16, S16, R64

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 24, 2013, 12:33:34 PM
Totally disagree...without the Final Four, Big East is tougher.  We got into the Big East after the Final Four.  It helped us land the 3 amigos, etc, etc.  Having a Final Four is a major achievement.

Do they point to VCU's Final Four or their Sweet 16 appearance?   You hang banners for Final Fours, not Sweet 16's.

What if we go out in the first round this year, and the poll becomes?

FF (and Conference Championship), NIT, NIT
S16, S16, R64

I don't think this is about justifying the past really.  Personally if I were looking forward I would take 3 16's in a row vs. FF, NIT, NIT....

I think it would be a better predictor of future success and excitement around the program.

Quote from: Frenns Liquor Depot on February 24, 2013, 12:38:26 PM
I don't think this is about justifying the past really.  Personally if I were looking forward I would take 3 16's in a row vs. FF, NIT, NIT....

I think it would be a better predictor of future success and excitement around the program.

+1 this post is not about arguing the past. 

It's a simple question, would you take consistent good but not great ... Or a great season and then go away to into the wilderness (NIT) for two years.

Ask me in April. 

Chico's

TC stepping on his Johnson after FF was not a good thing. Anyone close to the program was extremely disappointed in following two years. Wedding not build on something that was started. Politely say you are off base in saying the two post FF seasons were not a disappointment.

You really think MU got into BE solely because of making FF?

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 24, 2013, 12:41:48 PM
+1 this post is not about arguing the past. 

It's a simple question, would you take consistent good but not great ... Or a great season and then go away to into the wilderness (NIT) for two years.

Not so much about arguing the past, it's what that FF specifically meant to the program. First time we got there in 25 years.  Put away the myths that had built up at MU that we no longer could get to the FF.  The K.O. myths that Sweet 16 was as good as we could ever do.  The Mike Deane myth that we should shoot for the NIT and the NCAA was gravy.

Because you put timeframes on it, hard not to see it through that lens.

If you want it not to be about the past, then you should put it like this.

What would you like better

FF, NIT, NIT

S16, S16, ??

Take the dates out of it because the dates in this particular case are paramount.  It's not we are Duke, or UNC, or UCLA, or IU, or some other Kentucky were a Final Four happens every 7 to 10 years.  That was a CRITICAL FF.

In Chicos defense, he was defending Crean's NIT years as vigorously while they were going on as he is now.   He used to get in extended arguments with abefroman about it while going on.   It would be inconsistent, if not hypocritical, for him to now admit they were substandard. 

Quote from: Goose on February 24, 2013, 01:13:50 PM
Chico's

TC stepping on his Johnson after FF was not a good thing. Anyone close to the program was extremely disappointed in following two years. Wedding not build on something that was started. Politely say you are off base in saying the two post FF seasons were not a disappointment.

You really think MU got into BE solely because of making FF?

No, and I didn't say it was the sole reason.  I said it made it easier. Made it easier to get the funding for the Al.  Made many things easier.

We've gone through this many times before, there are MANY programs that went to the Final Four not to get back to the NCAA the next year...programs like Kansas, Louisville, Kentucky, NC State, Indiana, etc, etc. 

Some of you make it sound like we fell off the cliff after those two NIT years, instead we started a run in the Big East that no one else has matched since we joined...with that same Johnson stepping coach.  Injuries were part of the reason we went to one of those NITs, but people also want to ignore this as if it didn't happen....why, I don't know (well, I know exactly why they do it, we all do).

Did those two NIT years suck?  Sure. Did we rebound?  Yes, we did...and started a run that has us in the NCAAs about to be 8 straight years.   Doesn't take away that I'd take a FF in three years over 2 Sweet 16's and an unknown every day of the week. I think a lot of people forgot what that FF meant or what any FF means.  Sweet 16 means you did well one weekend.  FF means you did well two weekends and are playing in a third weekend.


Let me put it another way for some of you.  Do you think we're going to have a 10 year anniversary for the Sweet 16 teams?  Any of them?  I rest my case. 

Chico's

Schools like Kansas can regroup much faster than MU. If Wade and FF was not building block for TC in recruiting nothing was at MU. He had opportunity to move to next level and did not get it done. That national attention should have allowed TC and program to move further ahead. One NIT appearance maybe, but two in a row. Trust me this is not coming from anti TC guy at all. In looking back I would think TC would probably now agree he did not get it done.

While I said I could not honestly vote in this poll because I am not sure, the FF trumps everything for the most part. The addition of two backwards seasons makes it tough for me. Also, I really cannot compare VCU one FF with MU. If goal is to surprise the nation every 50 years than VCU would be good place for you to compare things.

I think anyone who thinks we are making the elite 8 this year is dreaming......I'd love to be wrong but just don't see us making that kind of a run with this team.

How far would we have to go this year for people to think the two sweet16s + this year is better than the FF and 2 Nits?

Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on February 24, 2013, 02:26:22 PM
How far would we have to go this year for people to think the two sweet16s + this year is better than the FF and 2 Nits?

The Final Four.

Let's see where we end up this year before you start comparing.

Either way one Final Four > three Sweet Sixteens.

Quote from: MuMark on February 24, 2013, 01:54:14 PM
I think anyone who thinks we are making the elite 8 this year is dreaming......I'd love to be wrong but just don't see us making that kind of a run with this team.

I understand what you're saying but shouldn't we hold this thought until the seedings come out?  If we make the S16 and then have to play #1 seed Gonzaga to make the E8, that changes thing.

I'll be happy if we make it to the sweet 16 this year. I'll be happy if we win our 1st round game. This years team is good but not great. Three of our four losses in conference were due to good pressure defense. We even couldn't break the full court press Nova thru at us. Louisville did the same. I hope we don't see a team that plays good pressure defense.

Quote from: PTM on February 24, 2013, 02:30:43 PM
Let's see where we end up this year before you start comparing.

Either way one Final Four > three Sweet Sixteens.

George Mason's singular final four is better than the two sweet 16s and hopefully at least a third one? I disagree. 

Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on February 24, 2013, 02:48:24 PM
George Mason's singular final four is better than the two sweet 16s and hopefully at least a third one? I disagree. 

Sweet 16s aren't increasing your profile in conference realignment. Final Fours are. See Marquette to BE and George Mason/VCU to C7 talk.

Give me four Sweet Sixteens compared to one Final Four and that might be equal. The exposure with one Final Four and the weight it carries is ridiculous.

Final Four. Buildings get put up and the money pours in!

Sweet 16s are nice, but you will remember a Final Four appearance forever, This one was an easy decision. 

Recently Xavier went to three consecutive sweet 16s and nobody makes (or made) a big deal of it.  If they had gone to a FF one of those years, we'd all remember that.  FF>3S16s for sure

Quote from: Goose on February 24, 2013, 01:13:50 PM
Chico's

TC stepping on his Johnson after FF was not a good thing. Anyone close to the program was extremely disappointed in following two years. Wedding not build on something that was started. Politely say you are off base in saying the two post FF seasons were not a disappointment.

You really think MU got into BE solely because of making FF?

With Crean's short legs and extra small feet, it didn't take much for him to step on his Johnson.

Quote from: ElDonBDon on February 24, 2013, 05:20:58 PM
Recently Xavier went to three consecutive sweet 16s and nobody makes (or made) a big deal of it.  If they had gone to a FF one of those years, we'd all remember that.  FF>3S16s for sure

Sure about that?  If X did not accomplish this, would they still be the number 1 choice to add to the C7?

No, if they did not go to 3 straight S16s, they are no different than Dayton.

VCU went to one FF how bad does the C7 want them relative to X?

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 24, 2013, 06:07:43 PM
Sure about that?  If X did not accomplish this, would they still be the number 1 choice to add to the C7?

No, if they did not go to 3 straight S16s, they are no different than Dayton.

VCU went to one FF how bad does the C7 want them relative to X?

That's not the reason Xavier is being chosen over VCU.

The 2005 team was never, ever close to making the tournament, with or without Diener.  They were 5-5 with him in CUSA that season.  DePaul finished 10-6 in CUSA and didn't make the tournament. Memphis and Houston finished at 9-7 and didn't make it. TCU finished 8-8 and didn't make it. UAB finished 10-6 and was an 11 seed.   Our best away win (which seems to be a popular topic today) was at SLU, ranked 142 in Pomeroy that year.  

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 24, 2013, 06:07:43 PM
VCU went to one FF how bad does the C7 want them relative to X?

Apples to Oranges.

Even if you switch the NCAA resumes of VCU and X, the C7 still wants X over VCU.

Even if X doesn't go to three straight S16s, they're still better than Dayton because Dayton sucks.

Quote from: MUDPT on February 24, 2013, 06:21:54 PM
The 2005 team was never, ever close to making the tournament, with or without Diener.  They were 5-5 with him in CUSA that season.  DePaul finished 10-6 in CUSA and didn't make the tournament. Memphis and Houston finished at 9-7 and didn't make it. TCU finished 8-8 and didn't make it. UAB finished 10-6 and was an 11 seed.   Our best away win (which seems to be a popular topic today) was at SLU, ranked 142 in Pomeroy that year.  

While the team wasn't great, let's get the facts right.

The team was 6-7 when Diener went down, and were not projecting into the tournament. Diener was out earlier in the season, @Louisville where Rick lasted the full 40 minutes and hammered Marquette all game. Diener was also out against UAB where Marcus Jackson had to play point guard against Mike Anderson's 40 minutes of hell.

With Travis all year, that team finishes 9-7. Which would have made them a bubble team, Travis' 20 PPG could have helped us win some games in the CUSA tournament, but who knows.

Point is, that team was a bubble team with Travis healthy all year.

Quote from: PTM on February 24, 2013, 02:30:43 PM
Let's see where we end up this year before you start comparing.

Either way one Final Four > three Sweet Sixteens.

Of course it is. But when you throw two straight NITs immediately after a Final Four then the calculus is changed materially. I would much rather have 3 straight Sweet Sixteens than to suffer the shame of what happened in 04 and 05. The Western Michigan debacle still burns. 

Quote from: PTM on February 24, 2013, 07:02:29 PM
While the team wasn't great, let's get the facts right.

The team was 6-7 when Diener went down, and were not projecting into the tournament. Diener was out earlier in the season, @Louisville where Rick lasted the full 40 minutes and hammered Marquette all game. Diener was also out against UAB where Marcus Jackson had to play point guard against Mike Anderson's 40 minutes of hell.

With Travis all year, that team finishes 9-7. Which would have made them a bubble team, Travis' 20 PPG could have helped us win some games in the CUSA tournament, but who knows.

Point is, that team was a bubble team with Travis healthy all year.

I'm not sure in my post where I didn't post a fact.  I guess they were a bubble team.  They had one win over a top 50 team, Wisconsin at home.  The 2011 team, one of the last teams included in the tournament, had 5. The 2011 team had 1 loss against teams outside of the top 50.  The 2005 team had 5 losses against teams outside of the top 50.  Don't think there was enough Travis magic to make up for the fact that Chapman and Mason were not point guards.

Quote from: 4everwarriors on February 24, 2013, 05:39:06 PM

With Crean's short legs and extra small feet, it didn't take much for him to step on his Johnson.

His tie kept getting in the way