Last year was Marquette's best season in 10 years. Second best in 35 years. But it was hardly all "seashells and balloons". Here's a very small sampling of what Scoopers felt about their Warriors last December:
I guess we are due for a down year - Not an Alum
Simply not a real good team. I've wanted to be wrong for a month now, but the lads don't have quite enough to make it so - MU82
? .500 Big East season. I think it's going to be a long winter - Mileskishnish
Expectations are very different this year. Tourney bid is a big success - ErickJD08
Maybe coaching, maybe the talent not there.....MU will be forced to shoot jump shots all season - 79 Warrior
So this is our character revealed - 4th and State
The talent on our team is not at the same level as Florida. Not even close - ATL MU Warrior
This is just a small sample of some of the criticisms of our Elite 8 and Big East Champions last December. They are by no means the most vitriolic and, as a "snapshot" of where we were then, not altogether unfair or inaccurate. But the season doesn't end in December or January and giving up prematurely on teams coached by Buzz Williams has proven spectacularly foolish on multiple occasions. I'll wait until the body is cold.
Well done.
[GOLF CLAP]
Great post.
This is a message board. There is no room for "perspective" here!
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 04, 2013, 12:40:21 PM
Last year was Marquette's best season in 10 years. Second best in 35 years. But it was hardly all "seashells and balloons". Here's a very small sampling of what Scoopers felt about their Warriors last December:
I guess we are due for a down year - Not an Alum
Simply not a real good team. I've wanted to be wrong for a month now, but the lads don't have quite enough to make it so - MU82
? .500 Big East season. I think it's going to be a long winter - Mileskishnish
Expectations are very different this year. Tourney bid is a big success - ErickJD08
Maybe coaching, maybe the talent not there.....MU will be forced to shoot jump shots all season - 79 Warrior
So this is our character revealed - 4th and State
The talent on our team is not at the same level as Florida. Not even close - ATL MU Warrior
This is just a small sample of some of the criticisms of our Elite 8 and Big East Champions last December. They are by no means the most vitriolic and, as a "snapshot" of where we were then, not altogether unfair or inaccurate. But the season doesn't end in December or January and giving up prematurely on teams coached by Buzz Williams has proven spectacularly foolish on multiple occasions. I'll wait until the body is cold.
Ouch.
I consider myself a voice-of-reason kind of guy, but reading what I said back then is a real eye-opener. I remember that before the conference season, I picked them to go 9-9 in league play. Wrong again!
Last year's evidence to the contrary, I still think I keep things in perspective pretty well. And I have to admit that I am concerned -- not loony "We're Doomed!" concerned, but concerned nonetheless -- about this team's many shortcomings.
One common theme on Scoop is that because something happened in the recent past -- early-season struggles causing great consternation, followed by significant improvement, followed by deep NCAA run -- it is destined to happen again.
I don't see that pattern playing out with this team ... but again, I hope I turn out to be very wrong!
I think we are better than last year. Not saying the results will be, but I like this squad and this group of freshman is our most impressive in a while.
Hey now!
Nice to see I made an impression with my comment (which I still stand behind completely). ;D
I was pretty down after that Florida game, and even more down after the UWGB debacle which, ironically, I think Brew captured in his triumphant "I was right" post.
Most of the time I try to be pretty even-keeled and supportive of our guys but every once in a while I guess I go the other way.
FWIW, I think people are WAY too down on the team this year, so maybe I have learned from my past negativity.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on December 04, 2013, 01:09:30 PM
I think we are better than last year. Not saying the results will be, but I like this squad and this group of freshman is our most impressive in a while.
This team has not even starting to get it going yet. I expect a nice improvement come early to mid-January. Now, maybe that won't be the case and it is an off season, but as of now, I expect to see a lot more out of this team... Too much talent, but it is taking a while to blend and get new comers experience. The Point Guard is, has and will continue to be a concern and deficiency that will hold us back (but not prevent a good season).
I think that this team is lacking in paying me millions of dollars. Looks like it's gonna be financially tough (Hopefully the opposite effect helps this prognosis as well)
Quote from: MU82 on December 04, 2013, 01:04:27 PM
Ouch.
I consider myself a voice-of-reason kind of guy, but reading what I said back then is a real eye-opener. I remember that before the conference season, I picked them to go 9-9 in league play. Wrong again!
Last year's evidence to the contrary, I still think I keep things in perspective pretty well. And I have to admit that I am concerned -- not loony "We're Doomed!" concerned, but concerned nonetheless -- about this team's many shortcomings.
One common theme on Scoop is that because something happened in the recent past -- early-season struggles causing great consternation, followed by significant improvement, followed by deep NCAA run -- it is destined to happen again.
I don't see that pattern playing out with this team ... but again, I hope I turn out to be very wrong!
1. I agree that generally you are a voice of reason poster.
2. Fans are always concerned when things don't go according to plan/hopes.
3. Nothing is destined, things can be coincidental - but don't ignore patterns.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on December 04, 2013, 01:14:40 PMI was pretty down after that Florida game, and even more down after the UWGB debacle which, ironically, I think Brew captured in his triumphant "I was right" post.
I know that thread was kind of douchey, but I really hoped it might help stem the tide of future panic on this board after a questionable loss or two. Clearly that hope was in vain.
I know the idea is that every team gets better through the season, but I'm not sure many teams have actually delivered on that idea more consistently than Buzz's teams. With the possible exception of his first team, which was undoubtedly impeded by the James injury, Buzz's teams have been consistently notably better near the end of the season than they were at the start.
Most of us thought the NIT would be a success in 2009-10, then the team just started winning and winning their way to the NCAAs as a 6-seed (admittedly overseeded and upset). Maybe one exception was 2010-11, when we lost every significant non-con test and only went 4-7 against ranked opponents in conference and tourney play, but we did peak in March while running to the semis of the BET and the Sweet 16. 2011-12 we had a great start before a 2-4 stretch in December and January, but went 15-4 after that, finishing second in the league and again reaching the Sweet 16. And of course there was last year's mass panic after the Florida blowout and the UWGB loss before the team put together a Big East title-sharing season and an Elite 8 run.
I know many have stressed that past results are not an indication of future success. But I am a believer that when you start to see a trend, there's nothing at all wrong with having faith in that trend until it is proven false. That's why I'm willing to buy in on a guy like Derrick who showed flashes in the first four games and has started to put it together consistently in the four games since. That's why I have faith that Gardner will find his free throw stroke, Buzz will figure out which freshmen are best suited to contribute come Big East play, Mayo and Wilson will find enough in the tank to get us the scoring we need to win, and a defense-first approach will win us games even if we need to slow down a bit to do it.
To borrow the silliness from another thread
The MU faithful are growing restless
(which can be said of every team that has expectations)
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on December 04, 2013, 01:14:40 PM
Hey now!
Nice to see I made an impression with my comment (which I still stand behind completely). ;D
I was pretty down after that Florida game, and even more down after the UWGB debacle which, ironically, I think Brew captured in his triumphant "I was right" post.
Most of the time I try to be pretty even-keeled and supportive of our guys but every once in a while I guess I go the other way.
FWIW, I think people are WAY too down on the team this year, so maybe I have learned from my past negativity.
The Florida game was brutal. Based on that performance your statement was fair and accurate even. As were most of the other I quoted. My point was it's a long season and Buzz's teams have a history of being pretty good late (exception when DJ went down).
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 04, 2013, 01:41:31 PM
The Florida game was brutal. Based on that performance your statement was fair and accurate even. As were most of the other I quoted. My point was it's a long season and Buzz's teams have a history of being pretty good late (exception when DJ went down).
I completely agree.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 04, 2013, 12:40:21 PM
Last year was Marquette's best season in 10 years. Second best in 35 years. But it was hardly all "seashells and balloons". Here's a very small sampling of what Scoopers felt about their Warriors last December:
I guess we are due for a down year - Not an Alum
Simply not a real good team. I've wanted to be wrong for a month now, but the lads don't have quite enough to make it so - MU82
? .500 Big East season. I think it's going to be a long winter - Mileskishnish
Expectations are very different this year. Tourney bid is a big success - ErickJD08
Maybe coaching, maybe the talent not there.....MU will be forced to shoot jump shots all season - 79 Warrior
So this is our character revealed - 4th and State
The talent on our team is not at the same level as Florida. Not even close - ATL MU Warrior
This is just a small sample of some of the criticisms of our Elite 8 and Big East Champions last December. They are by no means the most vitriolic and, as a "snapshot" of where we were then, not altogether unfair or inaccurate. But the season doesn't end in December or January and giving up prematurely on teams coached by Buzz Williams has proven spectacularly foolish on multiple occasions. I'll wait until the body is cold.
I'm so glad you posted this. It's funny how an Elite 8 made me forget all about the rough start we had last year. With that said, I've been feeling better on how we've looked since the 2nd half of the ASU game, so hopefully we can get everyone's role figured out and start rolling starting this Saturday.
Quote from: 4th and State on December 04, 2013, 02:32:30 PM
I'm so glad you posted this. It's funny how an Elite 8 made me forget all about the rough start we had last year. With that said, I've been feeling better on how we've looked since the 2nd half of the ASU game, so hopefully we can get everyone's role figured out and start rolling starting this Saturday.
Think about how precarious it is. Vander misses that shot, we are one and done. Davidson doesn't piss their pants, one and done. A very fine line. Imagine what the take would be here if that were the outcome? A very fine line....indeed.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 04, 2013, 02:39:17 PM
Think about how precarious it is. Vander misses that shot, we are one and done. Davidson doesn't piss their pants, one and done. A very fine line. Imagine what the take would be here if that were the outcome? A very fine line....indeed.
That's why it's important to not take a reactionary approach to every game.
That stated, more often than not, great teams, players, coaches, etc. come out on the positive side of your "very fine line". Luck favors the prepared.
Quote from: MUSF on December 04, 2013, 02:43:19 PM
That's why it's important to not take a reactionary approach to every game.
That stated, more often than not, great teams, players, coaches, etc. come out on the positive side of your "very fine line". Luck favors the prepared.
Very true. As easy as it is to say "if Vander missed that shot" it was the same shot he made a week before at St. John's. Maybe a better prepared Davidson team would have been defending against that specific playcall. Not to say they didn't play a great game, but the shot that beat them was one just about anyone who regularly watches SportsCenter saw less than 7 days earlier.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 04, 2013, 02:39:17 PM
Think about how precarious it is. Vander misses that shot, we are one and done. Davidson doesn't piss their pants, one and done. A very fine line. Imagine what the take would be here if that were the outcome? A very fine line....indeed.
For what I hope will be the last time, Davidson DID NOT piss their pants. They scored 1.25 points per possession down the stretch - 1-1 field goal (100%), 3-4 free throws (75%) and had one (1) turnover. We scored 11 points (3-3 from 3, 1-1 from 2) on our last four possessions (2.75 ppp). We were flawless. Had they been flawless, they would likely have held on (barely) - but there is a huge difference between pissing one's pants and flawless.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 04, 2013, 02:39:17 PM
Think about how precarious it is. Vander misses that shot, we are one and done. Davidson doesn't piss their pants, one and done. A very fine line. Imagine what the take would be here if that were the outcome? A very fine line....indeed.
Yes, very fine line between winning and losing. When a loss seemed imminent on that day I was consoling myself to how good we would be next year (this year) with most of our major pieces coming back, likely including Vander.
Lenny,
I still have no idea of what to expect this season from the Warriors. In watching the impact freshmen across the country are having I have high hopes we see a lot of our young guys in upcoming months. Accepting a down season is easier if you can see bright spots for the future. I would play our Big 3 a ton moving ahead. Win or lose with those guys and get them real minutes.
Well said Lenny....MU had to be perfect and they were but Davidson didn't give the game away
(other then 1 bad turnover) MU took it.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 04, 2013, 02:59:30 PM
For what I hope will be the last time, Davidson DID NOT piss their pants. They scored 1.25 points per possession down the stretch - 1-1 field goal (100%), 3-4 free throws (75%) and had one (1) turnover. We scored 11 points (3-3 from 3, 1-1 from 2) on our last four possessions (2.75 ppp). We were flawless. Had they been flawless, they would likely have held on (barely) - but there is a huge difference between pissing one's pants and flawless.
I think its fair to say Florida was more talented than us last year, although not by as much as that game would indicate.
I'm not sure last year's team would have won any of the games that we've lost this year anyway. My concern is that we don't have as many opportunities for statement wins in the new conference as we have had in the past.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 04, 2013, 02:59:30 PM
For what I hope will be the last time, Davidson DID NOT piss their pants. They scored 1.25 points per possession down the stretch - 1-1 field goal (100%), 3-4 free throws (75%) and had one (1) turnover. We scored 11 points (3-3 from 3, 1-1 from 2) on our last four possessions (2.75 ppp). We were flawless. Had they been flawless, they would likely have held on (barely) - but there is a huge difference between pissing one's pants and flawless.
Don't mess with his established narrative.
Quote from: MUSF on December 04, 2013, 02:43:19 PM
That's why it's important to not take a reactionary approach to every game.
That stated, more often than not, great teams, players, coaches, etc. come out on the positive side of your "very fine line". Luck favors the prepared.
I agree. It's a furthering of perspective. It's a game, with many things happening in 40 minutes, all culminating to a final outcome, but ultimately a game. In the NCAA tourney, however, only one team comes out "on the positive side" of that very thin line....great team or not. Someone is going to lose, someone is going to win and often it's the smallest of things (a free throw missed in the first half, a missed block out, etc) that add up with all the great plays that make the difference.
Quote from: MuMark on December 04, 2013, 03:12:57 PM
Well said Lenny....MU had to be perfect and they were but Davidson didn't give the game away
(other then 1 bad turnover) MU took it.
One "bad" turnover allowed MU to win the game...what game were you watching???
Quote from: memorialspartans on December 04, 2013, 04:03:42 PM
One "bad" turnover allowed MU to win the game...what game were you watching???
You didn't understand his post in the least.
Quote from: memorialspartans on December 04, 2013, 04:03:42 PM
One "bad" turnover allowed MU to win the game...what game were you watching???
I believe our coach and my own eyes. "We're lucky to still be standing" An understatement. It's one thing to "take it", it's another thing to "take it with some help". It is almost impossible to lose a lead like that without some cooperation, which of course also happened.
It's a very fine line....Buzz gets it.
Of course we were lucky to win it...we were behind the whole game...that doesn't mean they gave the game away......they had 1 turnover in the last 3 minutes......they didn't miss a bunch of front end of one and ones or make stupid fouls.....they threw the ball away once...that is the extent that they "pissed their pants"
MU was fortunate to make all their shots(including a number of tough 3's) down the stretch......margin for error was zero.....but to MU's credit they did it and weere able to survive a game that many other teams would have lost.
Quote from: MuMark on December 04, 2013, 05:45:39 PM
Of course we were lucky to win it...we were behind the whole game...that doesn't mean they gave the game away......they had 1 turnover in the last 3 minutes......they didn't miss a bunch of front end of one and ones or make stupid fouls.....they threw the ball away once...that is the extent that they "pissed their pants"
MU was fortunate to make all their shots(including a number of tough 3's) down the stretch......margin for error was zero.....but to MU's credit they did it and weere able to survive a game that many other teams would have lost.
Yes, we did a ton of great stuff to put enormous pressure on them, and they they pissed themselves. I believe the pressure certainly added to it. It has to be an O MY GOD moment to watch your opponent hit 3 three pointers in the last minute, two of them with extra degree of difficulty.
As for what happened, actually in that time frame you used they missed a shot, missed a free throw and threw the ball a way, and committed a foul. To MU's credit, in that last three minutes MU made 3 three pointers, two free throws and the winning layup. All came up roses. Needed some help, and took advantage of it. Lucky to win....sometimes better to be lucky than good...I prefer both and that what happened that game.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 04, 2013, 05:10:43 PM
I believe our coach and my own eyes. "We're lucky to still be standing" An understatement. It's one thing to "take it", it's another thing to "take it with some help". It is almost impossible to lose a lead like that without some cooperation, which of course also happened.
It's a very fine line....Buzz gets it.
Any time you win a game that's decided by a.single point you're a little lucky. Please show me where Buzz said "Davidson pissed themselves". You're the only one I heard that nonsense from.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 04, 2013, 05:10:43 PM
I believe our coach and my own eyes. "We're lucky to still be standing" An understatement. It's one thing to "take it", it's another thing to "take it with some help". It is almost impossible to lose a lead like that without some cooperation, which of course also happened.
It's a very fine line....Buzz gets it.
+10
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 04, 2013, 05:10:43 PM
I believe our coach and my own eyes. "We're lucky to still be standing" An understatement. It's one thing to "take it", it's another thing to "take it with some help". It is almost impossible to lose a lead like that without some cooperation, which of course also happened.
It's a very fine line....Buzz gets it.
Jeez, you will say anything to denigrate and undermine all the hard work it takes for Buzz and the team to even be in a position to be successful, won't you? Give it a rest with this passive aggressive nonsense.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 04, 2013, 02:59:30 PM
For what I hope will be the last time, Davidson DID NOT piss their pants. They scored 1.25 points per possession down the stretch - 1-1 field goal (100%), 3-4 free throws (75%) and had one (1) turnover. We scored 11 points (3-3 from 3, 1-1 from 2) on our last four possessions (2.75 ppp). We were flawless. Had they been flawless, they would likely have held on (barely) - but there is a huge difference between pissing one's pants and flawless.
Well, Brooks -- their second-best player -- did piss his pants on that outlet pass.
But I agree with brew that teams (and individuals) tend to make their own luck.
And that Chicos seems to work overtime to stick in the knife and twist it.
The Florida game was as bad as it could get...why? The effort was not there, maybe the worst under Buzz...and worse, Buzz was letting it go on. The one exception: Vander Blue. He was going all out, trying to will the team back. His effort, despite a pitiful loss, picked that team up by its bootstraps. He became a man that day, and he was only Marquette player that day who deserved to wear a Warrior uniform.
Vander went on to have more newsworthy games...but that is the one game I will always remember of him. No quit, despite a piss poor team effort.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 04, 2013, 08:13:07 PM
The Florida game was as bad as it could get...why? The effort was not there, maybe the worst under Buzz...and worse, Buzz was letting it go on.
Do you think that maybe that game taught the team a valuable lesson about effort that payed off in March? So far Buzz has demonstrated that he knows how to develop a team throughout the season.
The Florida game was certainly painful from a fan's perspective.
Quote from: murara1994 on December 04, 2013, 07:46:43 PM
Jeez, you will say anything to denigrate and undermine all the hard work it takes for Buzz and the team to even be in a position to be successful, won't you? Give it a rest with this passive aggressive nonsense.
Actually, he's denigrating the idiots who think Buzz's game plan was to intentionally fall behind to the 14th seed to set up the situation where 3 contested 3 point attempts from a pair of 30%shooters, followed by an opponents turnover with six seconds to go, followed by a last second two point shot would be the only way to win. Not to mention not once but twice letting 20 seconds run off the clock before fouling to stop the clockin the last 1:12. And THEN crediting the win to "great coaching."
Giving Buzz credit for that win takes it away from the real heroes--Jamil Wilson and Vander Blue, who stepped up in the face of highly improbably odds and actually had to take those shots.
Buzz did a piss poor job of gameplanning the 14 seed. He made no real adjustments all game. Down the stretch he had no play designed that could get a player an uncontested three. It was entirely in the hands of Blue and Wilson to decide on their own to decide if and when when they would shoot.
And the sad part is that fans would have crapped all over Wilson and Blue had either missed one of those threes simply becuase they attempted to win.
I'm tired of guys like Lenny denegrating the real heroes of that game, Wilson and Blue, so he could give false credit elswhere.
And what do you bet that Lenny or his minions go after me for pointint out the obvious, rather than either mount some defense of Buzz's actual coaching moves during the game, or admitting that it wasn't Buzz's finest coaching hour.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 04, 2013, 12:40:21 PM
Last year was Marquette's best season in 10 years. Second best in 35 years. But it was hardly all "seashells and balloons". Here's a very small sampling of what Scoopers felt about their Warriors last December:
I guess we are due for a down year - Not an Alum
Simply not a real good team. I've wanted to be wrong for a month now, but the lads don't have quite enough to make it so - MU82
? .500 Big East season. I think it's going to be a long winter - Mileskishnish
Expectations are very different this year. Tourney bid is a big success - ErickJD08
Maybe coaching, maybe the talent not there.....MU will be forced to shoot jump shots all season - 79 Warrior
So this is our character revealed - 4th and State
The talent on our team is not at the same level as Florida. Not even close - ATL MU Warrior
This is just a small sample of some of the criticisms of our Elite 8 and Big East Champions last December. They are by no means the most vitriolic and, as a "snapshot" of where we were then, not altogether unfair or inaccurate. But the season doesn't end in December or January and giving up prematurely on teams coached by Buzz Williams has proven spectacularly foolish on multiple occasions. I'll wait until the body is cold.
We could use the Greek Freak, hey?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 04, 2013, 12:40:21 PM
Last year was Marquette's best season in 10 years. Second best in 35 years. But it was hardly all "seashells and balloons". Here's a very small sampling of what Scoopers felt about their Warriors last December:
I guess we are due for a down year - Not an Alum
Simply not a real good team. I've wanted to be wrong for a month now, but the lads don't have quite enough to make it so - MU82
? .500 Big East season. I think it's going to be a long winter - Mileskishnish
Expectations are very different this year. Tourney bid is a big success - ErickJD08
Maybe coaching, maybe the talent not there.....MU will be forced to shoot jump shots all season - 79 Warrior
So this is our character revealed - 4th and State
The talent on our team is not at the same level as Florida. Not even close - ATL MU Warrior
This is just a small sample of some of the criticisms of our Elite 8 and Big East Champions last December. They are by no means the most vitriolic and, as a "snapshot" of where we were then, not altogether unfair or inaccurate. But the season doesn't end in December or January and giving up prematurely on teams coached by Buzz Williams has proven spectacularly foolish on multiple occasions. I'll wait until the body is cold.
I've been reading this for years and rarely post anything. Just enjoying the conversation. But I couldn't have said it better. Relax. It's only early December. Have faith.
Quote from: murara1994 on December 04, 2013, 07:46:43 PM
Jeez, you will say anything to denigrate and undermine all the hard work it takes for Buzz and the team to even be in a position to be successful, won't you? Give it a rest with this passive aggressive nonsense.
Funny, if you read what I said I praised them for making three three pointers, two free throws and a last second layup.
Reading....try it....it can be passive, aggressive, informational, erotic, whatever you like.
It's good to see have come around and said luck is part of the equation....some of you have come a long way in a few months from a time when luck had no role.
Progress. ;D
Quote from: MUSF on December 04, 2013, 08:59:59 PM
Do you think that maybe that game taught the team a valuable lesson about effort that payed off in March? So far Buzz has demonstrated that he knows how to develop a team throughout the season.
The Florida game was certainly painful from a fan's perspective.
That was my point...but I think it was Vander's effort in that game, despite the hill to climb back, that taught the team that lesson: Never give up. At that point, no one team leader had surfaced. I think we are still waiting for that guy to this year.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 04, 2013, 09:14:33 PM
Funny, if you read what I said I praised them for making three three pointers, two free throws and a last second layup.
Reading....try it....it can be passive, aggressive, informational, erotic, whatever you like.
How clever. As if you don't know exactly what you are doing. Every single one of your 'compliments' is a disguised insult. Nobody knows why but you have an agenda and it couldn't be more transparent. That's what happens when you post obsessively and with such an obvious bias. You create a profile.
You know what can be enlightening? Self-awareness. Try it.
Great post, Lenny. And kudos to all those quoted who took it in the good natured spirit it was offered.
Quote from: The Equalizer on December 04, 2013, 09:04:44 PM
Actually, he's denigrating the idiots who think Buzz's game plan was to intentionally fall behind to the 14th seed
Does anyone actually think this? I haven't gotten that impression from anyone on this board.
Quote from: The Equalizer on December 04, 2013, 09:04:44 PM
Actually, he's denigrating the idiots who think Buzz's game plan was to intentionally fall behind to the 14th seed to set up the situation where 3 contested 3 point attempts from a pair of 30%shooters, followed by an opponents turnover with six seconds to go, followed by a last second two point shot would be the only way to win. Not to mention not once but twice letting 20 seconds run off the clock before fouling to stop the clockin the last 1:12. And THEN crediting the win to "great coaching."
Giving Buzz credit for that win takes it away from the real heroes--Jamil Wilson and Vander Blue, who stepped up in the face of highly improbably odds and actually had to take those shots.
Buzz did a piss poor job of gameplanning the 14 seed. He made no real adjustments all game. Down the stretch he had no play designed that could get a player an uncontested three. It was entirely in the hands of Blue and Wilson to decide on their own to decide if and when when they would shoot.
And the sad part is that fans would have crapped all over Wilson and Blue had either missed one of those threes simply becuase they attempted to win.
I'm tired of guys like Lenny denegrating the real heroes of that game, Wilson and Blue, so he could give false credit elswhere.
And what do you bet that Lenny or his minions go after me for pointint out the obvious, rather than either mount some defense of Buzz's actual coaching moves during the game, or admitting that it wasn't Buzz's finest coaching hour.
You are correct, these guys got the win.
It may not have been Buzz's greatest game as a coach, but it's is his team. Just like all of his other teams that have over achieved.
Not sure why you are trying to defend Chicos. Tonight, he has done nothing but offer a "different perspective" all night. On more than one topic. Chicos is a smart dude, and a good writer, but he comes across as having an agenda. Just scratching my head as to why he works so hard at it.
Yes, I realize you didn't directly name Chicos in your thread.....
Anyways, Go Warriors! Let's hang another pelt up in the BC!
Quote from: jesmu84 on December 04, 2013, 09:33:55 PM
Does anyone actually think this? I haven't gotten that impression from anyone on this board.
No, nobody actually thinks this.
Quote from: The Equalizer on December 04, 2013, 09:04:44 PM
Actually, he's denigrating the idiots who think Buzz's game plan was to intentionally fall behind to the 14th seed to set up the situation where 3 contested 3 point attempts from a pair of 30%shooters, followed by an opponents turnover with six seconds to go, followed by a last second two point shot would be the only way to win. Not to mention not once but twice letting 20 seconds run off the clock before fouling to stop the clockin the last 1:12. And THEN crediting the win to "great coaching."
Giving Buzz credit for that win takes it away from the real heroes--Jamil Wilson and Vander Blue, who stepped up in the face of highly improbably odds and actually had to take those shots.
Buzz did a piss poor job of gameplanning the 14 seed. He made no real adjustments all game. Down the stretch he had no play designed that could get a player an uncontested three. It was entirely in the hands of Blue and Wilson to decide on their own to decide if and when when they would shoot.
And the sad part is that fans would have crapped all ov.er Wilson and Blue had either missed one of those threes simply becuase they attempted to win.
I'm tired of guys like Lenny denegrating the real heroes of that game, Wilson and Blue, so he could give false credit elswhere.
And what do you bet that Lenny or his minions go after me for pointint out the obvious, rather than either mount some defense of Buzz's actual coaching moves during the game, or admitting that it wasn't Buzz's finest coaching hour.
Never, at any time, anywhere did I or any other "idiots" you refer to state that it was our game plan to fall behind Davidson and need a near miracle comeback. Anyone who would suggest such a thing is a liar and an idiot himself. That would be you.
Never, at any time, anywhere did I credit the win to "great coaching". Anyone who says I did is a liar and an idiot. That would be you.
Never, at any time, anywhere did I "denigrate the real heroes of the game" (Blue and Wilson) for their play down the stretch. As a matter of fact, I said they played flawlessly during that time. Only a liar and an idiot would say otherwise. That would be you.
In addition, I never said the Davidson game was Buzz's finest coaching hour. Only a liar and an idiot would suggest I did. That would be you.
This is your typical modus operandi. You make up things that people never said then call those same people idiots for saying them. And when you piss off people enough with your insults and made up BS that they respond angrily in kind you whine like a little boy.
We've covered all the things you claimed I said that I never said - now here's what I did say:
Davidson didn't piss there pants and give us the game. They scored 5 points in their final 4 possessions. We (Jamil and Vander in particular) took the game by playing flawlessly (11 points in our last 4 possessions). They were the heroes, and I said that from the jump.
Quote from: murara1994 on December 04, 2013, 09:29:01 PM
How clever. As if you don't know exactly what you are doing. Every single one of your 'compliments' is a disguised insult. Nobody knows why but you have an agenda and it couldn't be more transparent. That's what happens when you post obsessively and with such an obvious bias. You create a profile.
You know what can be enlightening? Self-awareness. Try it.
No agenda. We got lucky, that's ok. Buzz knew it, every sportswriter in America knew it, most fans knew it. I don't know why people are so afraid to embrace it. Hell, sometimes you get a little lucky and win a game. Nothing to be ashamed of, and certainly no agenda.
If we had lost a game on a full court shot that was pure luck, would you say we didn't lose on a lucky shot? If we lost a game the way Davidson did, would you say Davidson won the game or we lost the game....be honest. Try it. I'll bet 90% of this board would say we lost it. Let's make it even more interesting....if IU lost a game the way Davidson did, I'd bet 99.999% would say IU choked it. Or UW-madison. If IU had won the game the we did against Davidson, I'd bet 99.999% would say IU got lucky to win it. Or insert ND or UW-madison. Be honest...try it. All the people here saying we took it, or we won it, would be 180 degrees on the opposite side of the ledger if one of those other teams was in that situation.
Funny how what team does what changes the perspective...perspective is the name of this thread....see how I tied that all up in a bow for you?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 05, 2013, 12:17:30 AM
No agenda. We got lucky, that's ok. Buzz knew it, every sportswriter in America knew it, most fans knew it. I don't know why people are so afraid to embrace it. Hell, sometimes you get a little lucky and win a game. Nothing to be ashamed of, and certainly no agenda.
If we had lost a game on a full court shot that was pure luck, would you say we didn't lose on a lucky shot? If we lost a game the way Davidson did, would you say Davidson won the game or we lost the game....be honest. Try it. I'll bet 90% of this board would say we lost it. Let's make it even more interesting....if IU lost a game the way Davidson did, I'd bet 99.999% would say IU choked it. Or UW-madison. If IU had won the game the we did against Davidson, I'd bet 99.999% would say IU got lucky to win it. Or insert ND or UW-madison. Be honest...try it. All the people here saying we took it, or we won it, would be 180 degrees on the opposite side of the ledger if one of those other teams was in that situation.
Funny how what team does what changes the perspective...perspective is the name of this thread....see how I tied that all up in a bow for you?
Yes, we got lucky. HOWEVER, good teams / players / coaches put themselves in position to be on the right side of luck more often. I would wager that there was zero self doubt inside of Buzz, Vander, or the rest of the team at the end of that game. That is why MU didn't "piss themselves" and Davidson did.
Could the shot have rimmed out? Sure. Could we have missed those threes? Absolutely. Were we lucky to win that game? Yes. All of that stated, the great ones will get lucky more often because they are prepared to be big enough for the moment. There is a reason that the Detroit Lions, Cleveland Browns, etc. are habitually on the wrong side of luck; they aren't winners.
So, I will acknowledge that we got a little lucky last year (just like we did in 2003, btw). I hope you will acknowledge that it wasn't stupid blind luck that put us in a position to win, and ultimately caused us to win. You make it seem like a crap shoot or coin toss. Our team stayed composed down the stretch and Vander had the skill and stones to take and make the final shot.
Quote from: MUSF on December 05, 2013, 12:47:11 AM
So, I will acknowledge that we got a little lucky last year (just like we did in 2003, btw). I hope you will acknowledge that it wasn't stupid blind luck that put us in a position to win, and ultimately caused us to win. You make it seem like a crap shoot or coin toss. Our team stayed composed down the stretch and Vander had the skill and stones to take and make the final shot.
Always luck involved in close games. The irony is when a Buzz team has been on the other side of that luck (DePaul, Louisville, Missouri, Washington, et al) I've never heard Chico attribute the loss to bad luck. We were unprepared, choked like dogs, pissed our pants, etc., but were never unlucky. We were most definitely lucky in 2003. Had we lost to Holy Cross or Missouri, TC's career path might have closely resembled Mike Deane's. But as much as I can't stand who Tom Crean is, you'll never hear me dismiss or denigrate that run as lucky.
Quote from: MUSF on December 05, 2013, 12:47:11 AM
So, I will acknowledge that we got a little lucky last year (just like we did in 2003, btw). I hope you will acknowledge that it wasn't stupid blind luck that put us in a position to win, and ultimately caused us to win. You make it seem like a crap shoot or coin toss. Our team stayed composed down the stretch and Vander had the skill and stones to take and make the final shot.
And to be fair what I said didn't advocate that at all. We had to hit some tough shots, etc, etc. I concur, I acknowledged. My point is simply to suggest that those thinking we "TOOK IT" are out of their minds. We did some amazing things at the end to put us in the position we were in for the opportunity, but to win that kind of game you need a willing partner and Davidson played the role. To be fair to Davidson, they didn't completely crumble, but they did just enough pissing of the pants (foul, missed free throw, turnover, etc) where the stars aligned and MU pulled it off. Great job by MU and a thank you kiss to Davidson for pissing themselves. Both had to happen.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 04, 2013, 02:59:30 PM
For what I hope will be the last time, Davidson DID NOT piss their pants. They scored 1.25 points per possession down the stretch - 1-1 field goal (100%), 3-4 free throws (75%) and had one (1) turnover. We scored 11 points (3-3 from 3, 1-1 from 2) on our last four possessions (2.75 ppp). We were flawless. Had they been flawless, they would likely have held on (barely) - but there is a huge difference between pissing one's pants and flawless.
You should have that in a Word doc somewhere to save yourself the typing. You'll doubtlessly need it many times over.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 05, 2013, 09:31:48 AM
And to be fair what I said didn't advocate that at all. We had to hit some tough shots, etc, etc. I concur, I acknowledged. My point is simply to suggest that those thinking we "TOOK IT" are out of their minds. We did some amazing things at the end to put us in the position we were in for the opportunity, but to win that kind of game you need a willing partner and Davidson played the role. To be fair to Davidson, they didn't completely crumble, but they did just enough pissing of the pants (foul, missed free throw, turnover, etc) where the stars aligned and MU pulled it off. Great job by MU and a thank you kiss to Davidson for pissing themselves. Both had to happen.
Here is the rundown of the final minute of MU - Davidson:
1:02 J Wilson makes 3 point shot
:41 Davidson makes lay up
:27 Blue makes 3 point shot
:20 Davidson makes 2 free throws
:10 J Wilson makes 3 point shot
:07 Davidson Turnover
:01 Blue makes lay up
Marquette sores 11 points on 4 possessions, Davidson 4 on 3. We win, slight assist from Davidson. Eight months later you're still talking loudly and often about our luck and how they pissed themselves.
Contrast that game to Indiana's biggest win of last season, March 10 vs Michigan. The game that gave the Hoosiers the Big 10 title and saw Tom Crean go maniac on a Wolverine assistant coach.
52 seconds left, Michigan up 5, Indiana ball:
:41 Zellar misses lay up, makes tip in
:38 Hardaway misses free throw
:30 Zellar makes 2 Free throws
:28 Burke misses free throw
:14 Zellar makes lay up
:07 Burke misses lay up
:04 Morgan misses lay up
You want collapse? You want pissing yourself? You want lucky? You want the Big Ten title as a gift? Two turnovers (that's what the missed front end of a 1 and 1 is), two missed lay ups on the offensive end and two lay ups, a foul and a tip in given up by the defense. In 41 seconds. An epic, almost unprecedented heap of good fortune. Yet in discussing Indiana's Big 10 title you speak in terms of accomplishment and not luck, achievement and not gift. And in your boy's press conference after the game, I don't recall him musing about the incredible amount of good luck/Michigan self pissing that gave his team the game and the title. Hmmmm....wonder why that is.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 05, 2013, 10:37:51 AM
Here is the rundown of the final minute of MU - Davidson:
1:02 J Wilson makes 3 point shot
:41 Davidson makes lay up
:27 Blue makes 3 point shot
:20 Davidson makes 2 free throws
:10 J Wilson makes 3 point shot
:07 Davidson Turnover
:01 Blue makes lay up
Marquette sores 11 points on 4 possessions, Davidson 4 on 3. We win, slight assist from Davidson. Eight months later you're still talking loudly and often about our luck and how they pissed themselves.
Contrast that game to Indiana's biggest win of last season, March 10 vs Michigan. The game that gave the Hoosiers the Big 10 title and saw Tom Crean go maniac on a Wolverine assistant coach.
52 seconds left, Michigan up 5, Indiana ball:
:41 Zellar misses lay up, makes tip in
:38 Hardaway misses free throw
:30 Zellar makes 2 Free throws
:28 Burke misses free throw
:14 Zellar makes lay up
:07 Burke misses lay up
:04 Morgan misses lay up
You want collapse? You want pissing yourself? You want lucky? You want the Big Ten title as a gift? Two turnovers (that's what the missed front end of a 1 and 1 is), two missed lay ups on the offensive end and two lay ups, a foul and a tip in given up by the defense. In 41 seconds. An epic, almost unprecedented heap of good fortune. Yet in discussing Indiana's Big 10 title you speak in terms of accomplishment and not luck, achievement and not gift. And in your boy's press conference after the game, I don't recall him musing about the incredible amount of good luck/Michigan self pissing that gave his team the game and the title. Hmmmm....wonder why that is.
Take a bow.
Lenny...of course they were lucky. UM absolutely pissed themselves.
I think my comments last night were dead on correct. If IU or UW-Madison or ND was in the position that MU was against Davidson and won that way, 99.99% of this board would say they got lucky and would say Davidson choked, pissed their pants, whatever. You and I know that is exactly the view people would have.
I'm applying the same standard.
So what's going to happen when TC isn't coaching at IU anymore?
Are you guys finally going to let us enjoy this forum without having to continually dodge the TC thread takeovers?
Guys, guys, guys...it's okay to admit that we got lucky and yet still admit that Buzz is a great coach. The tenets are perfectly consistent with each other.
IMO, we did get lucky beating Davidson. Luck did not, however, win us the BE regular season title last year (or beating Butler or the thrashing of the U)
Quote from: ElDonBDon on December 05, 2013, 12:19:20 PM
Guys, guys, guys...it's okay to admit that we got lucky and yet still admit that Buzz is a great coach. The tenets are perfectly consistent with each other.
IMO, we did get lucky beating Davidson. Luck did not, however, win us the BE regular season title last year (or beating Butler or the thrashing of the U)
DING DING DING DING. All coaches get lucky at times. My God, you would think some people take it as a rip...it's ok to be lucky sometimes, part of life. Good Lord
Quote from: PTM on December 05, 2013, 12:11:45 PM
So what's going to happen when TC isn't coaching at IU anymore?
Are you guys finally going to let us enjoy this forum without having to continually dodge the TC thread takeovers?
You mean when TC comes back to Marquette after Buzz leaves for Texas?
The only luck I remember from last year is Junior going full court with about 5 secs. left, and launching a deep three to send the game into overtime. Result, Win!! Everything else was solid.
There was absolutely nothing lucky about the Davidson game. Basketball players making normal basketball shots.
Quote from: Sunbelt15 on December 05, 2013, 12:32:15 PM
The only luck I remember from last year is Junior going full court with about 5 secs. left, and launching a deep three to send the game into overtime. Result, Win!! Everything else was solid.
And even that wasn't totally lucky.
I coach a middle-school girls basketball team and even we have devoted time to practicing just such shots. I'm guessing Junior (and others) practiced that shot numerous times.
Quote from: Sunbelt15 on December 05, 2013, 12:32:15 PM
The only luck I remember from last year is Junior going full court with about 5 secs. left, and launching a deep three to send the game into overtime. Result, Win!! Everything else was solid.
Coach Autry, 1-0
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 05, 2013, 12:10:17 PM
Lenny...of course they were lucky. UM absolutely pissed themselves.
I think my comments last night were dead on correct. If IU or UW-Madison or ND was in the position that MU was against Davidson and won that way, 99.99% of this board would say they got lucky and would say Davidson choked, pissed their pants, whatever. You and I know that is exactly the view people would have.
I'm applying the same standard.
Mom always said I was special. Nice to know I'm a .01 per center in your estimation. If IU, ND, or UW hit 3 in rhythm, good form perfectly swished 3s and a lay up in the final minute to beat a team who scored 2 points, 2 points and 0 points on their final 3 possessions I would call it what it was - a miraculous, one for the ages comeback with a small nod to our opponents since they were only perfect on 2 or their final 3 possessions.
If, however, MU came back in the final minute due to a total implosion by our opponent (see IU vs Michigan) I would call it what it was - a mostly lucky win with huge nod to our opponent for totally pissing themselves, but a win we had to seal by taking what was offered (teams don't always do that).
Our disagreement isn't over luck being involved in both scenarios but over how much luck and your agenda driven reaction to it. If Michigan "pisses themselves" like Davidson, Indiana still loses. We didn't. Yet here you are, on a Marquette board, 8 months after the fact, minimizing maybe the greatest comeback in MU history. You're a Kansas and an Indiana fan. Do you constantly diminish KU's championship on their boards as lucky because Memphis choked? Or Indiana's BIG title because Michigan choked? Of course not. That would be considered bad form for a Jayhawk or Hoosier fan. And 99.99% of Warrior fans, too.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 05, 2013, 12:34:37 PM
There was absolutely nothing lucky about the Davidson game. Basketball players making normal basketball shots.
Coach Buzz Williams and nearly every basketball writer in America disagrees, but that's ok.
I'll take a bit of luck with skill.....the two are a winning combination.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 05, 2013, 01:18:38 PM
Coach Buzz Williams and nearly every basketball writer in America disagrees, but that's ok.
Buzz uses hyperbole and most basketball writers are idiots...well not really idiots....just hyperbolic.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 05, 2013, 01:19:29 PM
Buzz uses hyperbole and most basketball writers are idiots.
That is funny. You basically are diminishing any opinion other than your own.
Quote from: 79Warrior on December 05, 2013, 01:27:06 PM
That is funny. You basically are diminishing any opinion other than your own.
Idiots is a strong, and inaccurate word.
Basketball writers tend to use hyperbole, and extra-flowery words, to describe things that are not actually that. There was simply nothing lucky about that comeback. No half court shots or anything of the like. Marquette simply out-executed Davidson down the stretch. The shots MU hit, and the turnover that MU forced, were basketball players making basketball plays.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 05, 2013, 01:08:48 PM
Mom always said I was special. Nice to know I'm a .01 per center in your estimation. If IU, ND, or UW hit 3 in rhythm, good form perfectly swished 3s and a lay up in the final minute to beat a team who scored 2 points, 2 points and 0 points on their final 3 possessions I would call it what it was - a miraculous, one for the ages comeback with a small nod to our opponents since they were only perfect on 2 or their final 3 possessions.
If, however, MU came back in the final minute due to a total implosion by our opponent (see IU vs Michigan) I would call it what it was - a mostly lucky win with huge nod to our opponent for totally pissing themselves, but a win we had to seal by taking what was offered (teams don't always do that).
Our disagreement isn't over luck being involved in both scenarios but over how much luck and your agenda driven reaction to it. If Michigan "pisses themselves" like Davidson, Indiana still loses. We didn't. Yet here you are, on a Marquette board, 8 months after the fact, minimizing maybe the greatest comeback in MU history. You're a Kansas and an Indiana fan. Do you constantly diminish KU's championship on their boards as lucky because Memphis choked? Or Indiana's BIG title because Michigan choked? Of course not. That would be considered bad form for a Jayhawk or Hoosier fan. And 99.99% of Warrior fans, too.
Lenny on fire
Luck is when the opposing head coach gets his second technical for putting his hands on his hips and gets thrown out at the end of a tight NCAA game (and then has an assistant coach take over at a key time). Bad luck is not pressuring two poor handled guards, while single teaming the All-American center with your back-up center (who every one in the arena knew was getting the ball for the last shot).
Very funny yet perceptive post, Lenny. Made me chuckle. Yes, I am a pessimist. Thanks for not pointing out that I've already been on the same bandwagon this year. I'm hoping my ability to see the future has not improved!
Quote from: mileskishnish72 on December 05, 2013, 06:21:29 PM
Very funny yet perceptive post, Lenny. Made me chuckle. Yes, I am a pessimist. Thanks for not pointing out that I've already been on the same bandwagon this year. I'm hoping my ability to see the future has not improved!
Trust me Miles, every fan (myself included) jumps on that bandwagon from time to time. I yell at the TV, the dog, anyone who might listen.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 05, 2013, 04:48:03 PM
Luck is when the opposing head coach gets his second technical for putting his hands on his hips and gets thrown out at the end of a tight NCAA game (and then has an assistant coach take over at a key time). Bad luck is not pressuring two poor handled guards, while single teaming the All-American center with your back-up center (who every one in the arena knew was getting the ball for the last shot).
Shut it down!
Bravo, Doc.
Quote from: MUfan12 on December 05, 2013, 10:42:05 PM
Shut it down!
Bravo, Doc.
Doc's point was very well played, other than it was slightly factually inaccurate. Stanford's head coach got tossed in the 1st half...so we were matched against there assistant the whole 2nd half. Even more embarrassing.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 04, 2013, 09:14:33 PM
Funny, if you read what I said I praised them for making three three pointers, two free throws and a last second layup.
Reading....try it....it can be passive, aggressive, informational, erotic, whatever you like.
Erotic for me. Definitely.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 05, 2013, 04:48:03 PM
Luck is when the opposing head coach gets his second technical for putting his hands on his hips and gets thrown out at the end of a tight NCAA game (and then has an assistant coach take over at a key time). Bad luck is not pressuring two poor handled guards, while single teaming the All-American center with your back-up center (who every one in the arena knew was getting the ball for the last shot).
If only we had a stronger assistant coaching staff to guide us then....I remember a similar situation where everyone in the arena up in San Jose knew a certain player was going to get the ball for a team called UW (not Wisconsin) and take the last shot. Sure enough, the kid made it and we lost despite having a 15 point second half lead.
Crazy...only in that game we were a 6 seed against an 11 seed, not a 6 seed vs a 3 seed.
Perspective.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 05, 2013, 01:18:38 PM
Coach Buzz Williams and nearly every basketball writer in America disagrees, but that's ok.
I'll take a bit of luck with skill.....the two are a winning combination.
i always love how you use buzz's words (or anyone for that manner), to fit your argument...like it's this great debating skill to turn the words of someone who your opposition supports against them.
a little insulting to think people don't understand context or can't apply meaning, interpretation or change over time. it's something politicians will sometimes use, but in a formal debating session among professionals is very rarely used.
Quote from: avid1010 on December 06, 2013, 06:09:05 AM
i always love how you use buzz's words (or anyone for that manner), to fit your argument...like it's this great debating skill to turn the words of someone who your opposition supports against them.
a little insulting to think people don't understand context or can't apply meaning, interpretation or change over time. it's something politicians will sometimes use, but in a formal debating session among professionals is very rarely used.
Well said. Buzz is honest and also very self deprecating, so when he puts himself or his team down, Chico can't wait to say "See, team stinks, Buzz stinks, we're lucky, etc - I'm just agreeing with Buzz" Crean is equal parts Richard Nixon and Captain Queeg, defensive, dishonest and quick to throw others under the bus. Rolled back to back by Syracuse, he'll still insist that his game plan and coaching were perfect, his players just didn't execute.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 06, 2013, 12:43:23 AM
If only we had a stronger assistant coaching staff to guide us then....I remember a similar situation where everyone in the arena up in San Jose knew a certain player was going to get the ball for a team called UW (not Wisconsin) and take the last shot. Sure enough, the kid made it and we lost despite having a 15 point second half lead.
Crazy...only in that game we were a 6 seed against an 11 seed, not a 6 seed vs a 3 seed.
Perspective.
Are you talking luck here...or seeding or coaching ability? I am a bit confused as I thought your argument was about luck? My point is you make your own luck.
In basketball, there are two outcomes: yes or no. You make a basket or not. You foul or not. You make a free throw or not. You double team or not. You turn it over or not. 50/50. How players come through or how a coach designs a play or a defense decides the outcome of a play, and can change your odds heavily.
So, the basis, whether Stanford or Davidson, is a 50/50 play at the end of the game. The minute Lopez caught the ball in the low post, it became 60/40 in favor of Stanford as he makes about 60% of his shots from there. If Marquette pressured the ball or double downed, the odds would have swung to 60/40 in their favor. What part was luck and what part was the head coach strategy out of a time out? That decision was a 20% swing in odds away from Marquette (60% in MU favor if pressure, 40% in Stanford's if no pressure).
Btw, in terms of assistant coaching ability, I would take the guy who was the lead for the game before in the win over Kentucky, Crean's last victory at Marquette.
Quote from: avid1010 on December 06, 2013, 06:09:05 AM
i always love how you use buzz's words (or anyone for that manner), to fit your argument...like it's this great debating skill to turn the words of someone who your opposition supports against them.
a little insulting to think people don't understand context or can't apply meaning, interpretation or change over time. it's something politicians will sometimes use, but in a formal debating session among professionals is very rarely used.
Let me know when we are in a formal debating session among professionals, I'll buy a ticket.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 06, 2013, 08:51:58 AM
Are you talking luck here...or seeding or coaching ability? I am a bit confused as I thought your argument was about luck? My point is you make your own luck.
In basketball, there are two outcomes: yes or no. You make a basket or not. You foul or not. You make a free throw or not. You double team or not. You turn it over or not. 50/50. How players come through or how a coach designs a play or a defense decides the outcome of a play, and can change your odds heavily.
So, the basis, whether Stanford or Davidson, is a 50/50 play at the end of the game. The minute Lopez caught the ball in the low post, it became 60/40 in favor of Stanford as he makes about 60% of his shots from there. If Marquette pressured the ball or double downed, the odds would have swung to 60/40 in their favor. What part was luck and what part was the head coach strategy out of a time out? That decision was a 20% swing in odds away from Marquette (60% in MU favor if pressure, 40% in Stanford's if no pressure).
Btw, in terms of assistant coaching ability, I would take the guy who was the lead for the game before in the win over Kentucky, Crean's last victory at Marquette.
I'm talking about luck....then you went away from it with your anecdote, so I obliged in kind.
All of your comments above, you have no idea if they are true. I suspect in the coaching huddle they would have discussed all the options, as a staff they went with what they did. Just as with a staff for other games. Sometimes guys make great shots, sometimes guys don't. McNeal makes his shot, we aren't talking about this. The refs don't make some phantom calls to make up for kicking out the other coach, we may not be talking about this stuff.
Maybe we should have pressured the ball more, or denied Pondexter from getting it for Washington....everyone in the building knew he was going to get it...he did...he made it...we lost. We can play this game forever.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 06, 2013, 08:51:58 AM
Are you talking luck here...or seeding or coaching ability? I am a bit confused as I thought your argument was about luck? My point is you make your own luck.
In basketball, there are two outcomes: yes or no. You make a basket or not. You foul or not. You make a free throw or not. You double team or not. You turn it over or not. 50/50. How players come through or how a coach designs a play or a defense decides the outcome of a play, and can change your odds heavily.
So, the basis, whether Stanford or Davidson, is a 50/50 play at the end of the game. The minute Lopez caught the ball in the low post, it became 60/40 in favor of Stanford as he makes about 60% of his shots from there. If Marquette pressured the ball or double downed, the odds would have swung to 60/40 in their favor. What part was luck and what part was the head coach strategy out of a time out? That decision was a 20% swing in odds away from Marquette (60% in MU favor if pressure, 40% in Stanford's if no pressure).
This is pretty much right on relative to the theory of luck. Fact is, every possession has the same potential value athe outset. Basketball doesn't become luck simply because it happens at the end of a game. Had the minute or so exchanges cited above taken place with 16 minutes to play intel second half, they would not be viewed as luck, or as a team "pissing their pants." In MU's case, it would just be viewed as a an 11-4 run early in the second half (if it was ever discussed at all). If its not luck in the first 39 minutes, its not lucking he last one. The pointthatyou make your own luck is correct. You make your own luck by making plays.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 04, 2013, 09:49:07 PM
Never, at any time, anywhere did I or any other "idiots" you refer to state that it was our game plan to fall behind Davidson and need a near miracle comeback. Anyone who would suggest such a thing is a liar and an idiot himself. That would be you.
Never, at any time, anywhere did I credit the win to "great coaching". Anyone who says I did is a liar and an idiot. That would be you.
Never, at any time, anywhere did I "denigrate the real heroes of the game" (Blue and Wilson) for their play down the stretch. As a matter of fact, I said they played flawlessly during that time. Only a liar and an idiot would say otherwise. That would be you.
In addition, I never said the Davidson game was Buzz's finest coaching hour. Only a liar and an idiot would suggest I did. That would be you.
Yes, you have. For years and in plenty of other threads you've said or implied each of these things.
How many times have you said that Buzz's history is to have the team playing its best ball (e.g. finest hour) in March? Maybe if you were honest enough to admit that sometimes Buzz didn't have the team playing well in March (such as against Davidson) and admit the obvious that sometimes the team was poorly prepared and outcoached, but we pull out a win anyway.
And, yes, you absolutely do take something away from Blue and Wilson when you try to take some portion of the credit for that particular game and share it with Buzz.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 04, 2013, 09:49:07 PM
This is your typical modus operandi. You make up things that people never said then call those same people idiots for saying them. And when you piss off people enough with your insults and made up BS that they respond angrily in kind you whine like a little boy.
I could find plenty of examples where you've done the same to me. So get off your high horse. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
As I pointed out above--you've implied each of those things. Maybe in different threads. Maybe with different words.
You want to make this a serious basketball discussion--then address the following without resorting to any comment about who's asking the question:
1. You've repeatedly claim that Buzz has the team playing its best ball in March. What
specific coaching moves did Buzz make aginst Davidson that supports that claim?
1a. If your argument is some variation that Davidson was a lot tougher than your typical 14 seed, provide the justifcation you used to make that claim (higher RPI, higher Pomeroy rating, notable non-conference wins, etc).
2. Do you agree or disagree that Buzz wasn't as well prepared for Davidson as Davidson was for us? Support your argument with examples.
3. Do you disagree that Buzz was not able to make effective in-game adjustments. Support your argument with examples of specific adjustments that you think were game changers..
4. Do you agree or disagree that Buzz did not set up a play in the last minute that got an open 3 point look, and the team relied on Blue and Wilson to create their own shot. If you disagree, which of the shots would you argue is a result of someting that Buzz set up?
5. You claim that you didn't take anything away from Wilson and Blue for the Davidson win, but continue to give Buzz credit for the win. Assuming you're not going to give 100% credit to Wilson and Blue, state how much less credit they deserve and how much you attribute to Buzz's coaching decisions in the last two minutes. Your answer must add up to 100%. Justify your answer with the specific coaching moves that you use as basis for any credit you attribute to Buzz.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 06, 2013, 12:43:23 AM
If only we had a stronger assistant coaching staff to guide us then....I remember a similar situation where everyone in the arena up in San Jose knew a certain player was going to get the ball for a team called UW (not Wisconsin) and take the last shot. Sure enough, the kid made it and we lost despite having a 15 point second half lead.
Crazy...only in that game we were a 6 seed against an 11 seed, not a 6 seed vs a 3 seed.
Perspective.
I remember that year very well. You said early in that season that if Buzz could squeak into the tournament as the last at large team picked (12 seed) he should be National Coach of the Year. He cleared that hurdle rather easily, finishing closer to a 1 seed than a 12. So in your book did that make him merely the National Coach of the Decade or would you anoint him Coach of the Century?
Regarding the year that Stanford literally gave us 4 points and played more than half the game without its coach, wasn't a 6 seed in the tournament at the very best viewed as meeting expectations?
Perspective.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 06, 2013, 09:09:44 AM
I remember that year very well. You said early in that season that if Buzz could squeak into the tournament as the last at large team picked (12 seed) he should be National Coach of the Year. He cleared that hurdle rather easily, finishing closer to a 1 seed than a 12. So in your book did that make him merely the National Coach of the Decade or would you anoint him Coach of the Century?
Regarding the year that Stanford literally gave us 4 points and played more than half the game without its coach, wasn't a 6 seed in the tournament at the very best viewed as meeting expectations?
Perspective.
Now that's funny, especially coming from you when you have always said a team that doesn't beat a worst seed is not meeting expectations. Moving those goal posts again, I see.
And yes, I did say that. They exceeded those expectations to get there, then had the unfortunate 15 point lead lost and the game lost. It's a crapshoot, it happens. Using your definition that you constantly throw out there, that didn't meet expectations. My point to the good doctor is EVERYONE in the building knew where that ball was going as well, and we still lost. It happens. I guess we just had bad luck.
Perspective
Am I the only one who sees the beauty and irony of a thread entitled "Perspective" devolving into this?
Quote from: The Equalizer on December 06, 2013, 09:05:53 AM
Yes, you have. For years and in plenty of other threads you've said or implied each of these things.
How many times have you said that Buzz's history is to have the team playing its best ball (e.g. finest hour) in March? Maybe if you were honest enough to admit that sometimes Buzz didn't have the team playing well in March (such as against Davidson) and admit the obvious that sometimes the team was poorly prepared and outcoached, but we pull out a win anyway.
And, yes, you absolutely do take something away from Blue and Wilson when you try to take some portion of the credit for that particular game and share it with Buzz.
I could find plenty of examples where you've done the same to me. So get off your high horse. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
As I pointed out above--you've implied each of those things. Maybe in different threads. Maybe with different words.
You want to make this a serious basketball discussion--then address the following without resorting to any comment about who's asking the question:
1. You've repeatedly claim that Buzz has the team playing its best ball in March. What specific coaching moves did Buzz make aginst Davidson that supports that claim?
1a. If your argument is some variation that Davidson was a lot tougher than your typical 14 seed, provide the justifcation you used to make that claim (higher RPI, higher Pomeroy rating, notable non-conference wins, etc).
2. Do you agree or disagree that Buzz wasn't as well prepared for Davidson as Davidson was for us? Support your argument with examples.
3. Do you disagree that Buzz was not able to make effective in-game adjustments. Support your argument with examples of specific adjustments that you think were game changers..
4. Do you agree or disagree that Buzz did not set up a play in the last minute that got an open 3 point look, and the team relied on Blue and Wilson to create their own shot. If you disagree, which of the shots would you argue is a result of someting that Buzz set up?
5. You claim that you didn't take anything away from Wilson and Blue for the Davidson win, but continue to give Buzz credit for the win. Assuming you're not going to give 100% credit to Wilson and Blue, state how much less credit they deserve and how much you attribute to Buzz's coaching decisions in the last two minutes. Your answer must add up to 100%. Justify your answer with the specific coaching moves that you use as basis for any credit you attribute to Buzz.
Wow--put the equalizer in the WH Press Corps. (or is it corpse--you never know anymore?)
Quote from: tower912 on December 06, 2013, 09:43:28 AM
Am I the only one who sees the beauty and irony of a thread entitled "Perspective" devolving into this?
Well played Tower!
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 06, 2013, 09:19:12 AM
Now that's funny, especially coming from you when you have always said a team that doesn't beat a worst seed is not meeting expectations. Moving those goal posts again, I see.
I don't think I've ever based expectations on seeding. I use Vegas as my guiding light. We were pick em or a slight dog vs Washington and a 3 point favorite against Davidson. So, a disappointing loss and a scary near loss, but neither outcome should have been unexpected. IU's near loss to Temple and slaughter at the hands of Syracuse were both major disappointments versus the line (as was MUs effort vs Cuse) which makes them worse in my book.
Quote from: The Equalizer on December 06, 2013, 09:05:53 AM
Yes, you have. For years and in plenty of other threads you've said or implied each of these things.
How many times have you said that Buzz's history is to have the team playing its best ball (e.g. finest hour) in March? Maybe if you were honest enough to admit that sometimes Buzz didn't have the team playing well in March (such as against Davidson) and admit the obvious that sometimes the team was poorly prepared and outcoached, but we pull out a win anyway.
And, yes, you absolutely do take something away from Blue and Wilson when you try to take some portion of the credit for that particular game and share it with Buzz.
I could find plenty of examples where you've done the same to me. So get off your high horse. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
As I pointed out above--you've implied each of those things. Maybe in different threads. Maybe with different words.
You want to make this a serious basketball discussion--then address the following without resorting to any comment about who's asking the question:
1. You've repeatedly claim that Buzz has the team playing its best ball in March. What specific coaching moves did Buzz make aginst Davidson that supports that claim?
1a. If your argument is some variation that Davidson was a lot tougher than your typical 14 seed, provide the justifcation you used to make that claim (higher RPI, higher Pomeroy rating, notable non-conference wins, etc).
2. Do you agree or disagree that Buzz wasn't as well prepared for Davidson as Davidson was for us? Support your argument with examples.
3. Do you disagree that Buzz was not able to make effective in-game adjustments. Support your argument with examples of specific adjustments that you think were game changers..
4. Do you agree or disagree that Buzz did not set up a play in the last minute that got an open 3 point look, and the team relied on Blue and Wilson to create their own shot. If you disagree, which of the shots would you argue is a result of someting that Buzz set up?
5. You claim that you didn't take anything away from Wilson and Blue for the Davidson win, but continue to give Buzz credit for the win. Assuming you're not going to give 100% credit to Wilson and Blue, state how much less credit they deserve and how much you attribute to Buzz's coaching decisions in the last two minutes. Your answer must add up to 100%. Justify your answer with the specific coaching moves that you use as basis for any credit you attribute to Buzz.
You are the one that made the following claims about the Davidson game:
"Buzz did a piss poor job of gameplanning the 14 seed. He made no real adjustments all game. Down the stretch he had no play designed that could get a player an uncontested three."
And YOU are asking for proof that counteract these claims based on what he "implied...Maybe in different threads. Maybe with different words?"
That is very odd.
Quote from: The Equalizer on December 06, 2013, 09:05:53 AM
Yes, you have. For years and in plenty of other threads you've said or implied each of these things.
How many times have you said that Buzz's history is to have the team playing its best ball (e.g. finest hour) in March? Maybe if you were honest enough to admit that sometimes Buzz didn't have the team playing well in March (such as against Davidson) and admit the obvious that sometimes the team was poorly prepared and outcoached, but we pull out a win anyway.
And, yes, you absolutely do take something away from Blue and Wilson when you try to take some portion of the credit for that particular game and share it with Buzz.
1.No I haven't. Reasserting lies doesn't make them true. It just makes the liar look even more desperate and foolish.
2.I do believe that Buzz's teams play better when it counts most (tourney time) than in December. In the last 3 seasons (the ones where he's had his own players) we've had several ugly losses in December. Yet we've won 7 games in the tournament, 2 more than the previous regime won in 9 years. All the hate in your heart can't change that.
3.Vander and Jamil deserve the lion's share of the credit for the win. They were nothing short of heroic. Again, I've never said anything different. Suggesting I did is a lie. That said, I'll go out on a limb and say that if we played the game with just those two on the court and no coaches on the sideline we lose. Saying "teams" win or lose games doesn't mean those teams don't have heroes. Maybe you never played sports and don't grasp that concept.
Quote from: willie warrior on December 06, 2013, 09:49:03 AM
Wow--put the equalizer in the WH Press Corps. (or is it corpse--you never know anymore?)
Corpse...well played sir, well played.
Quote from: The Equalizer on December 06, 2013, 09:05:53 AM
Yes, you have. For years and in plenty of other threads you've said or implied each of these things.
As I pointed out above--you've implied each of those things. Maybe in different threads. Maybe with different words.
LOL. This is the best. First you state in no uncertain terms that I've said a bunch of stuff that I've never said. Now you concede I didn't SAY them. I IMPLIED them. In different threads. In different words. In your view. By your interpretation. So hard facts asserted have morphed to extremely subjective and biased opinion. How convenient.
Crean sucks
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 06, 2013, 08:57:14 AM
I'm talking about luck....then you went away from it with your anecdote, so I obliged in kind.
All of your comments above, you have no idea if they are true. I suspect in the coaching huddle they would have discussed all the options, as a staff they went with what they did. Just as with a staff for other games. Sometimes guys make great shots, sometimes guys don't. McNeal makes his shot, we aren't talking about this. The refs don't make some phantom calls to make up for kicking out the other coach, we may not be talking about this stuff.
Maybe we should have pressured the ball more, or denied Pondexter from getting it for Washington....everyone in the building knew he was going to get it...he did...he made it...we lost. We can play this game forever.
Your argument about luck is specious at best and overall silly as luck can be quantified as a laid out. 50/50. A made shot or a miss. In those end of the game situations, a good game coach plays the fringes. The Stanford assistant chose a play to make it 60/40 (again, not random but based on shooting percentages, moving his odds to 60/40). Our coach chose to play straight up man defense (we don't need to be in the huddle, we can see what the plan was in how they came out and executed). If MU pressured and trapped the ball handler and forced a three, there was a 40% or less chance of their shooters hitting it (again based on odds--shooting %--and in MU's favor).
As to my comment you objected to, what is not true? Everyone in the arena knew what the play was going to be. I didn't say "everyone but our head coach". CTC chose to hold his cards (40% chance shot won't go in). Stanford chose the 60% path. That difference is coaching, not luck. Do you really believe Crean did not know what that last play was going to be?
Same with McKillop vs. Buzz. While McKillop was bitching about MU stealing a time out under the review and not setting up his defense for the last play, Buzz calmly gathered his team and telling them to repeat the St. John's play. Buzz played the odds and influenced his luck. There was no divine intervention.
As to Washington, is stepping on the end line bad luck or bad execution? Bad execution...a mistake by a kid who played his heart out, but a mistake not bad luck.
And how are you arbitrarily assigning 40% or 60% or anything else? Luck isn't 50-50 as you defined it. Furthermore, none of us were in that huddle to know what was discussed and if they executed properly. Just two weeks ago many of us here were not pleased by our last shot attempt from Jake Thomas and there was blather about if that was really how Buzz drew it up, or did he draw it up different and it was executed not to the way he liked. The simple fact is, things aren't that black and white...there are options, the opposing team has a stake in this as well. So to say it is coaching, etc, when none of know is really the specious part. You are opining, which is fine, but that doesn't mean you know what was directed and then get to state THAT IS COACHING. You have no idea.
The stepping over the end line didn't happen with the Washington debacle, it happened with the Missouri game a year later.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/mizzou-marquette-star-boisterous-drama-044100759--ncaab.html
In before the lock.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 06, 2013, 11:09:42 AM
And how are you arbitrarily assigning 40% or 60% or anything else? Luck isn't 50-50 as you defined it. Furthermore, none of us were in that huddle to know what was discussed and if they executed properly. Just two weeks ago many of us here were not pleased by our last shot attempt from Jake Thomas and there was blather about if that was really how Buzz drew it up, or did he draw it up different and it was executed not to the way he liked. The simple fact is, things aren't that black and white...there are options, the opposing team has a stake in this as well. So to say it is coaching, etc, when none of know is really the specious part. You are opining, which is fine, but that doesn't mean you know what was directed and then get to state THAT IS COACHING. You have no idea.
The stepping over the end line didn't happen with the Washington debacle, it happened with the Missouri game a year later.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/mizzou-marquette-star-boisterous-drama-044100759--ncaab.html
It is called game theory.
Quote from: real chili 83 on December 06, 2013, 11:11:16 AM
In before the lock.
(http://media.theindychannel.com/photo/2013/03/11/tom_crean_grin_1363016283877_385065_ver1.0_320_240.jpg)
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on December 06, 2013, 11:16:33 AM
(http://media.theindychannel.com/photo/2013/03/11/tom_crean_grin_1363016283877_385065_ver1.0_320_240.jpg)
The caption underneath could read: "I just sh#t my pants!"
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 06, 2013, 11:11:29 AM
It is called game theory.
Well aware...a predictive tool, that has its own probabilities, weaknesses, etc. Has some very nice applications in economics, politics, etc. My problem with game theory is that is ultimately comes down to a zero sum basis, and life (sports in particular) are not so neatly divided up that way. Sure, at a high level there are two teams competing and one wins and one loses...zero sum. Or you can say, one takes a shot, it either goes in or it doesn't. The problem I have with it (as do many of the math whizs we have here that run around with their UofChicago, Duke and Cornell degrees will attest), it often doesn't capture all of the variables, dynamics, etc, that a basketball or other sport contains within the game. I happen to find the study of game theory worthy and extremely interesting, but it only goes so far. We use it, many fortune 500 companies use it to predict behaviors.
My favorite is always the foul or not foul up 3 points and game theory analysis has some interesting takes on this...though they vary which in and of itself right there tells you the level of disagreement based on the variables, which one are counted, how they are weighted, etc.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 06, 2013, 10:45:55 AM
LOL. This is the best. First you state in no uncertain terms that I've said a bunch of stuff that I've never said. Now you concede I didn't SAY them. I IMPLIED them. In different threads. In different words. In your view. By your interpretation. So hard facts asserted have morphed to extremely subjective and biased opinion. How convenient.
First, I'd like you to go back and read what I wrote.
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=40868.msg538623#msg538623
I didn't say that you said anything--"in no uncertain terms" or otherwise. In fact, I said it was "guys like" who said such things. Which means that you think I implied it was you.
Funny that you're all bent out of shape because I said you implied something, even though you did exactly the same thing. ;)
I did predict that you'd go after me personally in response, and you lived
up down to that prediction.
But I'll let you in on the little game I played on you here:
You have a long history of giving Buzz full credit for last year's NCAA run and claiming that it was because he had the team playing better. If anyone
ever disgareed with you on that point, you accused them of denigrating Buzz or hating Marquette (your oft repeated big lie, BTW). I've certainly been on the receiveing end of that statement.
In the past I tried to reply with logic and an argument supporte with exampls. I know you won't respond to those arguments--becuase you don't have any of the facts on your side.
But this time, instead of trying to win you over with logic, I thought I would throw your own argument back in your face and let it blow up. Your continued efforts over time to overinflate credit to Buzz's coaching for that win comes at the cost of denigrating the contribution of Wilson & Blue.
You can't credit Buzz for coaching us to the Davidson win without also taking credit away from Wilson and Blue.
Quote from: The Equalizer on December 06, 2013, 09:05:53 AM
Yes, you have. For years and in plenty of other threads you've said or implied each of these things.
How many times have you said that Buzz's history is to have the team playing its best ball (e.g. finest hour) in March? Maybe if you were honest enough to admit that sometimes Buzz didn't have the team playing well in March (such as against Davidson) and admit the obvious that sometimes the team was poorly prepared and outcoached, but we pull out a win anyway.
And, yes, you absolutely do take something away from Blue and Wilson when you try to take some portion of the credit for that particular game and share it with Buzz.
I could find plenty of examples where you've done the same to me. So get off your high horse. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
As I pointed out above--you've implied each of those things. Maybe in different threads. Maybe with different words.
You want to make this a serious basketball discussion--then address the following without resorting to any comment about who's asking the question:
1. You've repeatedly claim that Buzz has the team playing its best ball in March. What specific coaching moves did Buzz make aginst Davidson that supports that claim?
1a. If your argument is some variation that Davidson was a lot tougher than your typical 14 seed, provide the justifcation you used to make that claim (higher RPI, higher Pomeroy rating, notable non-conference wins, etc).
2. Do you agree or disagree that Buzz wasn't as well prepared for Davidson as Davidson was for us? Support your argument with examples.
3. Do you disagree that Buzz was not able to make effective in-game adjustments. Support your argument with examples of specific adjustments that you think were game changers..
4. Do you agree or disagree that Buzz did not set up a play in the last minute that got an open 3 point look, and the team relied on Blue and Wilson to create their own shot. If you disagree, which of the shots would you argue is a result of someting that Buzz set up?
5. You claim that you didn't take anything away from Wilson and Blue for the Davidson win, but continue to give Buzz credit for the win. Assuming you're not going to give 100% credit to Wilson and Blue, state how much less credit they deserve and how much you attribute to Buzz's coaching decisions in the last two minutes. Your answer must add up to 100%. Justify your answer with the specific coaching moves that you use as basis for any credit you attribute to Buzz.
Dr. Philip Barbay to Thornton Melon: "I just have one question. In 27 Parts"........ "Back to School" Rodney Dangerfield. 1986.
Buzz put Jake Thomas on the floor and McKillop took it seriously enough to guard him in the corner, eliminating one defender to help on Blue. Advantage Buzz. Against Butler, on the final inbounds play for Butler, Buzz tossed a defense at Brad that he had never seen before, resulting in an off-balance 3 by a guarded big.
http://www.sports-ratings.com/basketball/2013/03/2013-ncaa-tournament-round-of-64-preview-odds-prediction-3-marquette-vs-14-davidson.html
This is just one link, but is shows at the bottom that Davidson had a 37% chance of winning, much higher than a normal 14 seed. They were a trendy upset pick last year.
http://www.betvega.com/thursdays-ncaa-tournament-lines-score-predictions-316111/
This one makes me laugh in light of MU's current state. ..."MU had a terrible out of conference record."
Quote from: 4everwarriors on December 06, 2013, 10:50:51 AM
Crean sucks
eloquent.
Says more in two words than all of equalizers essays put together.
Quote from: willie warrior on December 06, 2013, 11:34:00 AM
The caption underneath could read: "I just sh#t my pants!"
In other games, yes, but not that picture....it should read "We just won the Big Ten outright title for the first time in 20+ years on Meat Chicken's home court"
Quote from: The Equalizer on December 06, 2013, 11:57:48 AM
First, I'd like you to go back and read what I wrote.
I didn't say that you said anything--"in no uncertain terms" or otherwise. In fact, I said it was "guys like" who said such things. Which means that you think I implied it was you.
Really? Never said I said those things "in no uncertain terms" or otherwise?
"For years and in plenty of threads YOU'VE SAID or implied each of these things" - The Equalizer
I won't get into the faulty logic and thought processes that resort in you drawing implications that are absent, false or both. That's a problem you'll need to see someone about. But for the part where you claim that you didn't write that I said things that I never said - your own words make that a lie.
Quote from: The Equalizer on December 06, 2013, 11:57:48 AM
I did predict that you'd go after me personally in response, and you lived up down to that prediction.
Calling people idiots and then predicting they'll take it personally. Wow. Carnac and The Amazing Kreskin have nothing on you. Might as well pat yourself on the back for "predicting" the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.
Quote from: hairyworthen on December 06, 2013, 12:14:57 PM
eloquent.
Says more in two words than all of equalizers essays put together.
Yes, the eloquence speaks volumes.
Just to gloss it up a bit more it could be "Crean sucks________(insert word or phrase here)