4 losses right now having alot of people on this board complaining and thinking something is wrong.
-2 of those 4 losses were to now top 5 teams
-1 was in a hostile road environment and 1 bad call changed the momentum entirely
The SDSU game was tight to the end. We have not lost to any teams that should have everyone quitting on this season. We beat a team that went on to beat a conference opponent projected to be in the top tier of our conference.
We always want to see the team in the top 25 but I think people need to relax
Is the answer 1?
Agreed that this a chillax moment. 5-4. 4 games in 20+ days coming up after 5 straight road games. Really only one truly bad half of basketball. (Second half against tOSU) I expect that the rotations will look different at Creighton.
You have it all wrong...
- MU should have been expected to beat #4 Wisconsin in Madison, because they typically aren't very talented or athletic (even though they are now).
- MU should have been expected to beat #3 OSU because they were at home.
- MU should have been expected to beat ASU, because while MU shouldn't lose at home, other teams should.
- MU should have beaten SDSU because...well, they just should have, that's all.
Your're right, Marquette should not have been expected to win any tough but winnable games...
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on December 09, 2013, 01:39:44 PM
You have it all wrong...
- MU should have been expected to beat #4 Wisconsin in Madison, because they typically aren't very talented or athletic (even though they are now).
- MU should have been expected to beat #3 OSU because they were at home.
- MU should have been expected to beat ASU, because while MU shouldn't lose at home, other teams should.
- MU should have beaten SDSU because...well, they just should have, that's all.
Can't wait to unveil our "No Bad Losses" banner next year. We should do it when ASU or UW comes to visit to let them know we're ok with losing to them. That will definitely intimidate them.
NIT here we come
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on December 09, 2013, 01:39:44 PM
You have it all wrong...
- MU should have been expected to beat #4 Wisconsin in Madison, because they typically aren't very talented or athletic (even though they are now).
- MU should have been expected to beat #3 OSU because they were at home.
- MU should have been expected to beat ASU, because while MU shouldn't lose at home, other teams should.
- MU should have beaten SDSU because...well, they just should have, that's all.
I expected to lose to UW-madison and OSU.
ASU, they're not that great. SDSU...ditto.
Hopefully we get better
Quote from: madtownwarrior on December 09, 2013, 01:58:52 PM
Your're right, Marquette should not have been expected to win any tough but winnable games...
Which are those exactly...which games should MU have been
EXPECTED to win? The supporting rationale would be helpful as well.
I was not saying we should expect them to win any one of those specific games. I am saying that we should be able to expect Marquette to win some tough games along the way (if they are a quality team).
Or we could just rationalize every loss as "oh, well that was a tough team," hang the "No bad losses banner," hand out orange slices, give participants ribbons to all and go home...
To be a tough team, don't you have to win tough games?
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on December 09, 2013, 02:14:59 PM
Which are those exactly...which games should MU have been EXPECTED to win? The supporting rationale would be helpful as well.
Quote from: madtownwarrior on December 09, 2013, 02:21:06 PM
I was not saying we should expect them to win any one of those specific games. I am saying that we should be able to expect Marquette to win some tough games along the way (if they are a quality team).
Or we could just rationalize every loss as "oh, well that was a tough team," hang the "No bad losses banner," hand out orange slices, give participants ribbons to all and go home...
To be a tough team, don't you have to win tough games?
So in other words, you just like to bitch because you want them to be better?
You don't want them to be better? You're okay losing to OSU, UW, ASU and SDSU because they were "better?"
Besides not agreeing that ASU and SDSU are better (they were that day as the score shows), but do you not think MU can play a whole better than they currently are?
Would you not prefer MU to be better and win some games against tough competition?
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on December 09, 2013, 02:25:43 PM
So in other words, you just like to bitch because you want them to be better?
I expected to be better than 5-4 at this point.
But its not the end of the world. Life goes on.
Opponents that MU have lost to are 33-3 overall.
Part of that great record is because they beat MU
Quote from: TallTitan34 on December 09, 2013, 03:45:11 PM
Opponents that MU have lost to are 33-3 overall.
Quote from: madtownwarrior on December 09, 2013, 03:52:13 PM
Part of that great record is because they beat MU
Thanks. Not sure if anyone would have figured that out.
Quote from: madtownwarrior on December 09, 2013, 03:52:13 PM
Part of that great record is because they beat MU
Well, they are still 29-3 otherwise.......
The idea of this thread is wrong. I have no problem being 5-4 with the schedule we have played, although it would be nice to be 7-2.
The problem is that we have seen the backcourt and that is what people are going into a panic over. Unless something changes there, it will be a long season - borderline NCAA or possible NIT. I don't believe it is possible to win without a serviceable PG and unless Duane is healed and can give 20 minutes by the middle of the conference schedule, I fear we are in trouble.
You could give Michigan State, Kansas, Duke, Arizona, Louisville, etc. a backcourt like Saturday and they would also be struggling big-time.
The 5-4 record is what makes it more frustrating.
The Warriors were in three of those games (tOSU excluded).
A win against any ONE of those teams would have been wonders for their non-Conf record.
The losses to very good teams doesn't wow the March committee unless you almost run the conference table and are sitting on or near the bubble.
Have a hard time believing UW is #4. Granted they are 10-0 but only 1 ranked win. I just feel like so many teams ranked in the top 15 would destroy them.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on December 09, 2013, 01:39:44 PM
You have it all wrong...
- MU should have been expected to beat #4 Wisconsin in Madison, because they typically aren't very talented or athletic (even though they are now).
- MU should have been expected to beat #3 OSU because they were at home.
- MU should have been expected to beat ASU, because while MU shouldn't lose at home, other teams should.
- MU should have beaten SDSU because...well, they just should have, that's all.
I expect them to win at least one of those. Don't think that's unreasonable. It has not been a good start to the season, I think everyone can agree with that. And yes, they should have beaten SDSU because they're a better team.
Quote from: esotericmindguy on December 09, 2013, 10:33:09 PM
And yes, they should have beaten SDSU because they're a better team.
Based on what?
Quote from: Stronghold on December 09, 2013, 10:28:38 PM
Have a hard time believing UW is #4. Granted they are 10-0 but only 1 ranked win. I just feel like so many teams ranked in the top 15 would destroy them.
I won't go that far, but I think they're destined for another March disappointment. They're so one dimensional offensively, and all it will take is one off night. Just like last year.
Quote from: esotericmindguy on December 09, 2013, 10:33:09 PM
I expect them to win at least one of those. Don't think that's unreasonable. It has not been a good start to the season, I think everyone can agree with that. And yes, they should have beaten SDSU because they're a better team.
You are not the first to confidently state that MU is better than SDSU.
Based on ... what?
If fans of Davidson and Butler said after we beat them in last year's NCAAs that they were better than Marquette, what would your response be?
Mine would be: "Say whatever you want. I'll just look at the final score. Thank you."
You know, Patrick Ewing claimed 763,210 times that the 90s-era Knicks were better than the Bulls.
Quote from: MU82 on December 10, 2013, 08:39:18 AM
You are not the first to confidently state that MU is better than SDSU.
Based on ... what?
I'm not saying we're better, mind you, but an argument could be made that we lost what was a toss up game with 2 minutes left and a) it was essentially a home game for SD State and b) our number 1 (or 1A) offensive player was rendered useless (or a distinct negative) due to the flu.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on December 10, 2013, 06:08:44 AM
Based on what?
Based on my opinion after watching the game. 15 turnovers, 5 assists, 16-26 FTs, 1-11 behind the arc....horrible numbers.
Again, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a projected conference champion to win tough games at home, road, or neutral. You can whine all you want about people being upset, but it's not entirely unwarranted. If players/coaches want lower expectations go to Ball St. Not sure how you can argue the point that it's been a disappointing start to the season.
Quote from: esotericmindguy on December 10, 2013, 09:25:51 AM
Based on my opinion after watching the game. 15 turnovers, 5 assists, 16-26 FTs, 1-11 behind the arc....horrible numbers.
Again, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a projected conference champion to win tough games at home, road, or neutral. You can whine all you want about people being upset, but it's not entirely unwarranted. If players/coaches want lower expectations go to Ball St. Not sure how you can argue the point that it's been a disappointing start to the season.
So marquette puts up bad numbers, and that leads you to believe they are the better team. Got it.
Quote from: esotericmindguy on December 10, 2013, 09:25:51 AM
Based on my opinion after watching the game. 15 turnovers, 5 assists, 16-26 FTs, 1-11 behind the arc....horrible numbers.
Again, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a projected conference champion to win tough games at home, road, or neutral. You can whine all you want about people being upset, but it's not entirely unwarranted. If players/coaches want lower expectations go to Ball St. Not sure how you can argue the point that it's been a disappointing start to the season.
Perhaps MU was simply overrated.
Quote from: esotericmindguy on December 10, 2013, 09:25:51 AM
Based on my opinion after watching the game. 15 turnovers, 5 assists, 16-26 FTs, 1-11 behind the arc....horrible numbers.
Again, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a projected conference champion to win tough games at home, road, or neutral. You can whine all you want about people being upset, but it's not entirely unwarranted. If players/coaches want lower expectations go to Ball St. Not sure how you can argue the point that it's been a disappointing start to the season.
I didn't say I wanted lowered expectations. I just wanted some proof that MU is better than SDSU, as so many have claimed with a figurative shrug of the shoulders, as if it should be accepted without a second thought.
Still waiting for the proof. Waiting for proof of WMDs in Iraq, too.
Quote from: Stronghold on December 09, 2013, 10:28:38 PM
Have a hard time believing UW is #4. Granted they are 10-0 but only 1 ranked win. I just feel like so many teams ranked in the top 15 would destroy them.
No way. Wisconsin is good, really good. I think it is time that we start accepting this.
I don't think there is a team in the country that would "destroy" Wisconsin, if Wisconsin is healthy and plays well. Any team can have an off night, but best against best; UW would hold their own against anyone.
I wonder how many of the MU fans that seem to think our 5-4 record is terrible, are the same fans that complained when we didn't play enough good teams prior to the conference schedule.
Would we be better off if we substituted buy games for ASU and SDSU, but still lost to UW and OSU? We would probably be top 25 going into conference play, but we might not be as prepared for conference play.
The teams MU has lost to are (or were at a recent point) 33-3. And it wasn't so long ago that people were whining about the OOC schedule that MU played under Crean, that MU never played anybody any good and that filling up on cupcakes was not helping MU get ready for the conference season.
Just taking a look at some schedules, and it sure is starting to look like both UW-Madison and OSU could end up as a 1 or 2 seed in the tournament. Obviously, its a long season, and a lot could happen, but I just don't see many losses on their schedules. UW-Madison conference road schedule in particular is a joke and could give them an advantage. They only play MSU and OSU once each, both at home. That is huge.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on December 12, 2013, 03:52:36 PM
Just taking a look at some schedules, and it sure is starting to look like both UW-Madison and OSU could end up as a 1 or 2 seed in the tournament. Obviously, its a long season, and a lot could happen, but I just don't see many losses on their schedules. UW-Madison conference road schedule in particular is a joke and could give them an advantage. They only play MSU and OSU once each, both at home. That is huge.
good point if both teams stay healthy - was it in 2007 that the badgers were ranked #1 and then Butch broke his arm?
Quote from: tower912 on December 11, 2013, 02:03:48 PM
The teams MU has lost to are (or were at a recent point) 33-3. And it wasn't so long ago that people were whining about the OOC schedule that MU played under Crean, that MU never played anybody any good and that filling up on cupcakes was not helping MU get ready for the conference season.
Seems relevant information on MU the last 5 years
SOS Rank RPI Rank Record
2013: .5656 61 .558 85 5-4
2012: .4981 156 .4890 187 9-4
2011: .5022 198 .5684 64 9-3
2010: .4885 149 .5825 50 11-2
2009: .5031 132 .5974 35 10-1
Quote from: mu03eng on December 12, 2013, 04:03:03 PM
Seems relevant information on MU the last 5 years
SOS Rank RPI Rank Record
2013: .5656 61 .558 85 5-4
2012: .4981 156 .4890 187 9-4
2011: .5022 198 .5684 64 9-3
2010: .4885 149 .5825 50 11-2
2009: .5031 132 .5974 35 10-1
It isn't though, since all the cupcakes aren't in for this year yet. Probably going to look a lot like last year when its all said and done.
How many RPI top 50 wins would you say it would take to get Marquette into the tournament? 3 or 4 maybe with a 10+ loss team? So far they are 0-4 against teams projected to be there at the end of the year and have only ~8 such games likely remaining (lobos, nova 2x, creighton 2x, gtown 2x, big east tourney(?)). I'm not saying the sky is falling, but if Marquette drops the game to New Mexico next Saturday, Marquette would certainly be in less than an ideal position heading into a weaker conference slate than usual.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on December 12, 2013, 04:07:46 PM
It isn't though, since all the cupcakes aren't in for this year yet. Probably going to look a lot like last year when its all said and done.
We have 3 cupcakes and New Mexico left. Assuming we win, I bet the cupcakes balance New Mexico on SOS and obviously our RPI goes up(though I don't know if a New Mexico win counts as a road win in RPI).
I bet SOS finishes around .53 and RPI(with wins) finishes around a .54
If we win out the OOC (obviously not a guaranteed, NM will be very very very tough, but let's just say IF)....we will be 9-4 heading into league play.
All things considered, that's not the end of the world.
Quote from: mu03eng on December 12, 2013, 04:29:06 PM
We have 3 cupcakes and New Mexico left. Assuming we win, I bet the cupcakes balance New Mexico on SOS and obviously our RPI goes up(though I don't know if a New Mexico win counts as a road win in RPI).
I bet SOS finishes around .53 and RPI(with wins) finishes around a .54
Our expected out of conference SOS is 75
http://www.rpiforecast.com/teams/Marquette.html
Quote from: tower912 on December 11, 2013, 02:03:48 PM
The teams MU has lost to are (or were at a recent point) 33-3. And it wasn't so long ago that people were whining about the OOC schedule that MU played under Crean, that MU never played anybody any good and that filling up on cupcakes was not helping MU get ready for the conference season.
The thing that furstrates me is that this schedule was probably set when Buzz thought his returning backcourt would be anchored by Vander as a Senior. Buzz would not have opted for a tough schedule particularly as front loaded as this one if he knew he would have a basically untested backcourt. Put Vander on this team and they are probably 8-1 maybe even 9-0.
Quote from: marqet4lyfe on December 12, 2013, 04:26:35 PM
How many RPI top 50 wins would you say it would take to get Marquette into the tournament? 3 or 4 maybe with a 10+ loss team? So far they are 0-4 against teams projected to be there at the end of the year and have only ~8 such games likely remaining (lobos, nova 2x, creighton 2x, gtown 2x, big east tourney(?)). I'm not saying the sky is falling, but if Marquette drops the game to New Mexico next Saturday, Marquette would certainly be in less than an ideal position heading into a weaker conference slate than usual.
If MU loses to New Mexico, and beats the cupcakes, they will need to at least win regular season BEast with 12-6 or better to make the Dance. 20-11 will be bubble. That is tall order the way we are playing now.
Granted MU has played a strong schedule but when was the last time MU started with a worse record? 5 losses by Jan. 1 is possible. We are not used to this.
Quote from: raul on December 12, 2013, 11:06:59 PM
Granted MU has played a strong schedule but when was the last time MU started with a worse record? 5 losses by Jan. 1 is possible. We are not used to this.
We were 7-3 last year (could have been 7-4 if we played OSU) with a much worse loss (UWGB) but a better win (an unranked Bucky)
Three years ago we had four non-con losses and no wins even remotely close to quality (UWM? UWGB? Bucknell?)
Quote from: tower912 on December 11, 2013, 02:03:48 PM
The teams MU has lost to are (or were at a recent point) 33-3. And it wasn't so long ago that people were whining about the OOC schedule that MU played under Crean, that MU never played anybody any good and that filling up on cupcakes was not helping MU get ready for the conference season.
Just so you don't accuse me of being insufficeintly positive about Buzz, let's just use his figures:
2009: 5th
2010: Tie for 5th
2011: 9th
2012: 2nd
2013: Tie for 1st.
I don't think there was much difference in strength of non-conference schedule between 2011 and 2013. 2011 we played Duke, Gonzaga, Vanderbilt and Wiscsonsin in non-conference and wound up with the worst record we had since joining the Big East. 2013 we played Butler, Florida and Wisconsin and had the best finish.
Not a lot of difference in non-coference schedule. Big difference in conference standing.
I suspect that conference standing has more to do with a) our players and b) the opposition than non-conference scheduleing.
Despite four very challenging NCAA-calibre teams in 2011, we still finished in a tie for 9th. Despite only two tournament worthy teams in 2012, we finsished 2nd.
I'm not making any statment about Buzz or Crean or comparing the two--I'm merely questioning the premise that the type of teams played in non-conference has any bearing on how you play in conference.
5-4....I thought that was what happened when Derrick was on the floor....
This team makes the NCAA probably a # 9. Enjoy basketball or it can produce anxiety. I like Marquette even in a bad year because there is always some moments of wonder.
Just a quick update for all the hand wringers out here....the combined record of the teams that beat MU is now 38-3,with those 3 losses coming at the hands of #1 Arizona, Creighton, and Miami.
If you want to throw GW into the mix, the combined record is 47-4,with the one additional loss obviously coming to MU.
Currently, OSU is ranked #3, UW-Madison #4, SDSU #24, and ASU NR.
Don't confuse the chicken littles with the idea that the teams that beat MU are good.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on December 16, 2013, 11:11:08 AM
Just a quick update for all the hand wringers out here....the combined record of the teams that beat MU is now 38-3,with those 3 losses coming at the hands of #1 Arizona, Creighton, and Miami.
If you want to throw GW into the mix, the combined record is 47-4,with the one additional loss obviously coming to MU.
Currently, OSU is ranked #3, UW-Madison #4, SDSU #25, and ASU NR.
Just a quick update for all the blue-and-gold-glasses wearers out here ... the combined record of the teams that MU beat is now 22-34. If you want to throw GW out of the mix, the combined record is 13-33.
Currently, Grambling, Southern, GWash, IUPUI, New Hampshire and Fullerton haven't quite cracked the rankings.
Hey, I'm just having some fun. The tale to this season has yet to be written. Here's hoping it's a good one!
I'm still of the opinion that we're building for success. I think the game that disturbed me the most was New Hampshire. We looked terrible. When returning from our own western trip (plus Bucky), I was very impressed with how we looked against IUPUI. I think we'll be okay. Really looking forward to success against New Mexico.
Quote from: The Equalizer on December 13, 2013, 04:58:29 PM
Just so you don't accuse me of being insufficeintly positive about Buzz, let's just use his figures:
2009: 5th
2010: Tie for 5th
2011: 9th
2012: 2nd
2013: Tie for 1st.
I don't think there was much difference in strength of non-conference schedule between 2011 and 2013. 2011 we played Duke, Gonzaga, Vanderbilt and Wiscsonsin in non-conference and wound up with the worst record we had since joining the Big East. 2013 we played Butler, Florida and Wisconsin and had the best finish.
Not a lot of difference in non-coference schedule. Big difference in conference standing.
I suspect that conference standing has more to do with a) our players and b) the opposition than non-conference scheduleing.
Despite four very challenging NCAA-calibre teams in 2011, we still finished in a tie for 9th. Despite only two tournament worthy teams in 2012, we finsished 2nd.
I'm not making any statment about Buzz or Crean or comparing the two--I'm merely questioning the premise that the type of teams played in non-conference has any bearing on how you play in conference.
According to the numbers there is a difference between 2011 and 2013. Relative to the rest of Division 1 our 2011 non-con was 198th best, 2013 we're sub-100(schedule isn't finished yet).
Quote from: mu03eng on December 16, 2013, 03:29:09 PM
According to the numbers there is a difference between 2011 and 2013. Relative to the rest of Division 1 our 2011 non-con was 198th best, 2013 we're sub-100(schedule isn't finished yet).
Still, in 2013 we really only played 3 tough teams (Butler, UW and Florida), yet finishd first. In 2011 we played 4 tough teams (Vandy, UW, Duke and Gonzaga) and finished tied for 9th.
The argument was that it's the tough teams that get us ready for conference play--if so, then 2011 should have been our high-water mark, 2012 our low point, and 2013 somewhere in between.
The data show that scheduling a lot of tough non-conference games to prepare teams is way overstated.
You are who your record says you are, and who you are after 10 games is in no way necessarily who you are after 30 games.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on December 16, 2013, 09:13:21 PM
You are who your record says you are, and who you are after 10 games is in no way necessarily who you are after 30 games.
Truer words have never been spoken. (Except perhaps, "I slit the sheets, the sheets I slit and on the slitted sheets I sit." Right, Navin?)
Quote from: MU82 on December 16, 2013, 10:05:14 PM
Truer words have never been spoken. (Except perhaps, "I slit the sheets, the sheets I slit and on the slitted sheets I sit." Right, Navin?)
Ummmmm...hello...."Lord loves a workin' man. Don't trust whitey. See a doctor and get rid of it"
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on December 16, 2013, 10:10:34 PM
Ummmmm...hello...."Lord loves a workin' man. Don't trust whitey. See a doctor and get rid of it"
The ashtray, the paddle game, the remote control, and that's all I need. ... And these matches.