What do we need to finish the season with to make the tourney? Expectations? Prediction? Could we only win 3 more and 1 in the big east tourney
We will make the tourney if we go either 9-9 or 8-10 in BE play
Quote from: Marquette4life on February 07, 2017, 10:46:52 PM
What do we need to finish the season with to make the tourney? Expectations? Prediction? Could we only win 3 more and 1 in the big east tourney
We need to win Saturday and go from there.
Quote from: wadesworld on February 07, 2017, 10:48:39 PM
We need to win Saturday and go from there.
One game at a time #TrustTheProcess
Prediction: 1-5 down the stretch and miss all post season action
Quote from: GoldenEagles32 on February 07, 2017, 10:51:25 PM
One game at a time #TrustTheProcess
Problem is trust the process is 18-33 with a terribly constructed roster. I'd prefer to shoot for higher.
Look, I have preached this repeatedly...the EASIEST way into the tourney every single year is to defend your home floor, and win one game on the road, and you are in..it's really that simple. Except MU has been TERRIBLE at defending their home floor for years now. That's precisely why they don't make the dance anymore. It's sickening really.
Its also why no one is showing up for the games
Quote from: Mr. Sand-Knit on February 07, 2017, 11:28:46 PM
Its also why no one is showing up for the games
E-X-A-C-T-L-Y! No one cares about the MU BB program anymore like they used to. No one wants to come to games anymore knowing there's no better then a 50-50 shot of walking out of there with a win..at least against good teams. Start protecting the home floor, and it would be amazing how many good things started happening again...attendance picks up, you make the dance every year etc. It's really that simple.
I think people are foolish to think 9-9 gets MU in. This isn't a household name - this is a team that hasn't made ANY tourney in recent years. To get in at 9-9, MU would need nearly every favorite to win its conference tourney. It's 4-2 or bust.
Quote from: 21rooster on February 07, 2017, 11:40:29 PM
I think people are foolish to think 9-9 gets MU in. This isn't a household name - this is a team that hasn't made ANY tourney in recent years. To get in at 9-9, MU would need nearly every favorite to win its conference tourney. It's 4-2 or bust.
How about 3-3 with a big East tourny win?
I still think if we get 3 wins we will have a strong chance to win 1 BE tourny gm. We will enter the Big East tournament in must-win mode, and play against Butler/Xavier or Creighton who have already secured a bid.
I'd still rather get 4 wins before NYC, but I like our odds of winning a 1st Rd match up if we NEED that win to get in.
Quote from: 21rooster on February 07, 2017, 11:40:29 PM
I think people are foolish to think 9-9 gets MU in. This isn't a household name - this is a team that hasn't made ANY tourney in recent years. To get in at 9-9, MU would need nearly every favorite to win its conference tourney. It's 4-2 or bust.
I agree. Soft bubble or not, we need to get to 10-8. And I really don't think the BET matters unless we win it. If we go 20-13 (9-9) and lose in the final, I still think we go to the NIT. I'd happily be wrong, but that 10th conference win I feel would be worth more than 2 at MSG.
Quote from: brewcity77 on February 08, 2017, 05:46:04 AM
I agree. Soft bubble or not, we need to get to 10-8. And I really don't think the BET matters unless we win it. If we go 20-13 (9-9) and lose in the final, I still think we go to the NIT. I'd happily be wrong, but that 10th conference win I feel would be worth more than 2 at MSG.
That can't be true. If we beat the 4 seed and Villanova in the BE tournament (and go 9-9) that would push us much higher than any 10-8 scenario with a 1st Rd loss would.
Quote from: amen426 on February 08, 2017, 06:40:11 AM
That can't be true. If we beat the 4 seed and Villanova in the BE tournament (and go 9-9) that would push us much higher than any 10-8 scenario with a 1st Rd loss would.
I don't think the Selection Committee puts much stock in conference tournaments results. People make a big deal of them, but I don't believe you play your way in or out the final weekend, you do that from November to February.
I fully believe that 10-8 with a first round loss would be more heavily valued then beating the 4 and Nova simply because it's easier to only have contingency plans for auto bids.
Would even 4-2 get us in?
RPI Wizard says that only gets MU to 57, with the two likeliest losses @Xavier and (@Gtown or @Prov.)
Throw in a BET win vs. Butler, loss to Nova, and that gets us to 47.
Run them yourself: http://www.rpiforecast.com/wizard/Marquette.html
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on February 08, 2017, 07:55:41 AM
Would even 4-2 get us in?
RPI Wizard says that only gets MU to 57, with the two likeliest losses @Xavier and (@Gtown or @Prov.)
Throw in a BET win vs. Butler, loss to Nova, and that gets us to 47.
Run them yourself: http://www.rpiforecast.com/wizard/Marquette.html
Combined with good wins (Nova, Creighton) and only 1 "bad" loss (@SJU) it would be plenty.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 08, 2017, 08:00:36 AM
Combined with good wins (Nova, Creighton) and only 1 "bad" loss (@SJU) it would be plenty.
So .. yer sayin' RPI doesn't matter?
Der a bubble team by finishin' 4-2. Only by beatin' Creighton and VU is dis discussion relevant. Crap da bed and go 3-3, 2-4, 1-5 orr 0-6 and we're back ta we're waitin' on MLB season, ai na?
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on February 08, 2017, 08:09:13 AM
So .. yer sayin' RPI doesn't matter?
Not that it doesn't matter, but that an RPI in the 40s or 50s is certainly good enough for an at large given the rest of our resume.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on February 08, 2017, 07:55:41 AM
Would even 4-2 get us in?
RPI Wizard says that only gets MU to 57, with the two likeliest losses @Xavier and (@Gtown or @Prov.)
Throw in a BET win vs. Butler, loss to Nova, and that gets us to 47.
Run them yourself: http://www.rpiforecast.com/wizard/Marquette.html
The BE is going to get at least 5 teams. We still match up very well resume wise with everyone after the top 4. That's why I think 9-9 with our Nova and Creighton wins at least puts us in the conversation for Dayton assuming we finish in the fifth spot in the Big East and none of the teams currently behind us pass us.
Things definitely would have been a lot easier with a win last night, that is for sure.
GU is like MU, inconsistent. Could come down ta Saturday's game, hey?
Quote from: brewcity77 on February 08, 2017, 07:21:02 AM
I don't think the Selection Committee puts much stock in conference tournaments results. People make a big deal of them, but I don't believe you play your way in or out the final weekend, you do that from November to February.
I fully believe that 10-8 with a first round loss would be more heavily valued then beating the 4 and Nova simply because it's easier to only have contingency plans for auto bids.
So the committee just stops watching once conference play ends? I could be wrong, but I assumed all conference tournament games would contribute to your RPI, SOS, Last 12 Record, Record vs. Top 50, etc...
Just simply running a scenario or two on RPI Forecast for comparison...
Scenario 1: Go 3-3 in regular season (beating GTown, Providence, and St Johns), then going 1-1 in Big East Tournament (Win vs. Butler, Loss vs. Nova).
Record (19-13), RPI: 62, SOS: 38
Scenario 2: Go 4-2 in regular season (beating those same 3 + Xavier at home), then going 0-1 in Big East Tournament (Loss vs. Butler).
Record (19-12), RPI: 62, SOS: 52
...
I'm guessing the SOS factor is a little overblown since it doesn't factor in everyone's potential conference tournament games, but I would at the very least consider those resume's equally likely to make the tournament.
Did the committee ever indicate that a conference tournament game does not have equal weight? I always assumed it was the same as every regular season game.
I agree that you can't make up for a poor resume with a nice showing in the tournament. But you should still treat those individual games as your 32nd and/or 33rd game on your resume.
And with that being said - 4 wins the rest of the way should get us to the same place on the S-Curve, whether it comes at the Bradley Center or NYC.
The Committee doesn't come out and say it, but the number of times I've heard people say "they played themselves in" only to see a team snubbed, or heard "they needed a win to get in" only to see a team lose and still get in, or watched as Saturday and Sunday results seemed to play no factor into seeding, the less stock I've put in conference tournaments.
I know how the numbers work, I know that logically those games should matter, but I really feel the Committee almost treats them like recency bias and at best treats them with a grain of salt.
I'd rather win 10 in league than lose the conference championship with 8-9 wins.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on February 08, 2017, 08:09:13 AM
So .. yer sayin' RPI doesn't matter?
No it does. But a top 60 RPI is enough combined with other factors. Keep in mind that teams with RPIs in the 70 have gotten in before.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 08, 2017, 01:20:23 PM
No it does. But a top 60 RPI is enough combined with other factors. Keep in mind that teams with RPIs in the 70 have gotten in before.
This was as of as of Feb 2016, maybe these records got nudged a month after that.
Lowest RPI to get an at-large bid:
• 67 - USC (2011)
• 64 - Marquette (2011)
• 63 - North Carolina State (2005), Stanford (2007)
Outside the Big Six:
• 50 - Air Force (2006)
• 49 - VCU (2011)
So .. 70 will not do it.
RPIForecast.com has us at 71 for the season.
My guess: Finishing above those expectations, going 4-2 with a 57 RPI and 0-1 in the BET .. and we're NIT bound.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on February 08, 2017, 03:28:37 PM
This was as of as of Feb 2016, maybe these records got nudged a month after that.
Lowest RPI to get an at-large bid:
• 67 - USC (2011)
• 64 - Marquette (2011)
• 63 - North Carolina State (2005), Stanford (2007)
Outside the Big Six:
• 50 - Air Force (2006)
• 49 - VCU (2011)
So .. 70 will not do it.
RPIForecast.com has us at 71 for the season.
My guess: Finishing above those expectations, going 4-2 with a 57 RPI and 0-1 in the BET .. and we're NIT bound.
You think a 10-8 5th place Big East team with an RPI in the 50s, Kenpom in the mid 30s is going to be left out? There is not a shot in hell.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on February 08, 2017, 03:28:37 PM
This was as of as of Feb 2016, maybe these records got nudged a month after that.
Lowest RPI to get an at-large bid:
• 67 - USC (2011)
• 64 - Marquette (2011)
• 63 - North Carolina State (2005), Stanford (2007)
Outside the Big Six:
• 50 - Air Force (2006)
• 49 - VCU (2011)
So .. 70 will not do it.
RPIForecast.com has us at 71 for the season.
My guess: Finishing above those expectations, going 4-2 with a 57 RPI and 0-1 in the BET .. and we're NIT bound.
So I just ran the numbers. Go 4-2 and lose to Xavier in the first game, that's a 61 RPI and 53 SOS. That gives us 4 top-25 wins and 1 sub-100 loss. This year, in this conference, that's a NCAA resume. If we go 9-9, I'm with you. we're NIT bound. But 10-8 gets us in pretty much no matter what happens at MSG.
Further, last year, 68 Temple, 70 Tulsa, and 71 Vanderbilt all made the tournament as at-large bids. And the bubble isn't any better this year.
Quote from: brewcity77 on February 08, 2017, 05:04:10 PM
So I just ran the numbers. Go 4-2 and lose to Xavier in the first game, that's a 61 RPI and 53 SOS. That gives us 4 top-25 wins and 1 sub-100 loss. This year, in this conference, that's a NCAA resume. If we go 9-9, I'm with you. we're NIT bound. But 10-8 gets us in pretty much no matter what happens at MSG.
Further, last year, 68 Temple, 70 Tulsa, and 71 Vanderbilt all made the tournament as at-large bids. And the bubble isn't any better this year.
There are scenarios that would get us in at 9-9, but they require wins in the BET. Let's say we go 3-3 the rest of the way, losses at Georgetown, @ X and vs. Creighton. Lets assume that gets us the 6 seed, though it may still be the 5. Play and beat Creighton in the 3/6 game a few days after they beat us at the BC, then lose to Butler in the semis. That gets us to 19-13 and an RPI of 62. Maybe enough to sneak in, maybe not. Lets say we beat Butler in the 2nd game, then fall to Nova in the final..that gets us to 20-13 and an RPI of 49. No way that team doesn't get in.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on February 08, 2017, 03:28:37 PM
This was as of as of Feb 2016, maybe these records got nudged a month after that.
Lowest RPI to get an at-large bid:
• 67 - USC (2011)
• 64 - Marquette (2011)
• 63 - North Carolina State (2005), Stanford (2007)
Outside the Big Six:
• 50 - Air Force (2006)
• 49 - VCU (2011)
So .. 70 will not do it.
RPIForecast.com has us at 71 for the season.
My guess: Finishing above those expectations, going 4-2 with a 57 RPI and 0-1 in the BET .. and we're NIT bound.
Tulsa had an RPI in the 70's last year, and still got an at-large bid.
If we get our RPI in the 60's (meaning we have to win a total of 4 games the rest of the way), we should be fine.
My question to you would be - if we're going to the NIT, who's going to take our spot?
In the prior two years, the Big East has gotten 6 & 5 bids. Without even looking at any other conferences...
1. Is anyone in our conference more worthy of being the 5th Bid in the Big East?
2. Is the Big East down from the prior two years, or should they at least match the 5-6 bids that we received in the last two years?
I can't see Seton Hall, Providence or Georgetown leapfrogging us for that 5th bid. I also can't see the Big East getting less than 5 bids this year.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on February 08, 2017, 03:28:37 PM
This was as of as of Feb 2016, maybe these records got nudged a month after that.
Lowest RPI to get an at-large bid:
• 67 - USC (2011)
• 64 - Marquette (2011)
• 63 - North Carolina State (2005), Stanford (2007)
Outside the Big Six:
• 50 - Air Force (2006)
• 49 - VCU (2011)
So .. 70 will not do it.
RPIForecast.com has us at 71 for the season.
My guess: Finishing above those expectations, going 4-2 with a 57 RPI and 0-1 in the BET .. and we're NIT bound.
Wow I can't believe I dont remember that Marquette was an 11 seed in 2011.
Okay...here are a few questionable teams last year:
- Syracuse looked terrible, losing 4 of their last 5 conference games. Most felt they didn't belong, and they went one and done in the conference tourney, yet got in.
- Vanderbilt was 19-13 before losing to a bad Tennessee team in the SEC opener. Sub-70 RPI, they had no chance without a SEC run, yet they got in.
- Tulsa toppled to 70 in the RPI after losing to a Memphis team that missed the NIT. Surely the conference tournament cost them, right? Wrong, they got in.
- San Diego State dropped to 25-9 after going 2-1 in the conference tourney before falling to MWC champs Fresno State. Play themselves in? Nope, snubbed.
- St Mary's was a lock after overcoming their bizarre Pepperdine bugbear and going 2-1 against Gonzaga despite losing in the WCC Final. Except...they weren't. Left out despite doing everything but win the conference tournament.
This is why I have no faith in the conference tournaments. You can play like crap and get in because the committee decided you were worthy before you took the court (Syracuse, Vanderbilt, Tulsa) or you can tack on some wins and still get left out (San Diego State, St Mary's).
I think 10-8 in conference and losing the 4/5 game gives us a better shot than 9-9 and making the conference final. Those games are regularly overweighted by pundits and bracketologists and aren't nearly as important as people think unless you win the whole damn thing.
Quote from: brewcity77 on February 08, 2017, 05:40:47 PM
Okay...here are a few questionable teams last year:
- Syracuse looked terrible, losing 4 of their last 5 conference games. Most felt they didn't belong, and they went one and done in the conference tourney, yet got in.
- Vanderbilt was 19-13 before losing to a bad Tennessee team in the SEC opener. Sub-70 RPI, they had no chance without a SEC run, yet they got in.
- Tulsa toppled to 70 in the RPI after losing to a Memphis team that missed the NIT. Surely the conference tournament cost them, right? Wrong, they got in.
- San Diego State dropped to 25-9 after going 2-1 in the conference tourney before falling to MWC champs Fresno State. Play themselves in? Nope, snubbed.
- St Mary's was a lock after overcoming their bizarre Pepperdine bugbear and going 2-1 against Gonzaga despite losing in the WCC Final. Except...they weren't. Left out despite doing everything but win the conference tournament.
This is why I have no faith in the conference tournaments. You can play like crap and get in because the committee decided you were worthy before you took the court (Syracuse, Vanderbilt, Tulsa) or you can tack on some wins and still get left out (San Diego State, St Mary's).
I think 10-8 in conference and losing the 4/5 game gives us a better shot than 9-9 and making the conference final. Those games are regularly overweighted by pundits and bracketologists and aren't nearly as important as people think unless you win the whole damn thing.
You are assuming you know what the committee's opinion is before the conference tournament begins. Just because those teams made the tournament, doesn't mean the losses didn't drop them down the seed line.
In 2014, most pundits would have assumed that SMU was a lock for the tournament. They lose their first conference tournament game, and get snubbed on Selection Sunday. Clearly, they thought the conference tournament held some value - since their resume wasn't worthy prior to the AAC tourny.
There are just as many scenarios proving that the conference tournament games are just as relevant as regular season games to the committee.
To expound on this a little further...currently MU is 4-5 vs. the top 50 RPI. Only 3 teams from RPI #25, down to MU at 74 have as many or more than MU. West Virginia- RPI 34 top 50 wins...6, Minnesota- RPI 25 has 4, and Notre Dame-RPI 27 has 4 as well.
On another note, did anyone realize UW has only played 5 games against the top 50 RPI?? 5!! And they are 2-3 in those games..Only, South Carolina, UCLA and Maryland have played that few or fewer amongst power 5 conference schools. That's pathetic!
Quote from: muguru on February 08, 2017, 05:58:16 PM
To expound on this a little further...currently MU is 4-5 vs. the top 50 RPI. Only 3 teams from RPI #25, down to MU at 74 have as many or more than MU. West Virginia- RPI 34 top 50 wins...6, Minnesota- RPI 25 has 4, and Notre Dame-RPI 27 has 4 as well.
On another note, did anyone realize UW has only played 5 games against the top 50 RPI?? 5!! And they are 2-3 in those games..Only, South Carolina, UCLA and Maryland have played that few or fewer amongst power 5 conference schools. That's pathetic!
Exactly. Plus we'll grab at least 1 or 2 more, and we have what only a few teams in the country have in a win versus a legit #1. MU still has quite a bit going for them, and I know I've said it a bunch, but they have as good a shot as anyone does at .500 in conference.
Quote from: JamilJaeJamailJrJuan on February 08, 2017, 06:08:31 PM
Exactly. Plus we'll grab at least 1 or 2 more, and we have what only a few teams in the country have in a win versus a legit #1. MU still has quite a bit going for them, and I know I've said it a bunch, but they have as good a shot as anyone does at .500 in conference.
I still would rather not chance it at 9-9...get to 10-8 and remove all doubt.
Quote from: muguru on February 08, 2017, 06:29:17 PM
I still would rather not chance it at 9-9...get to 10-8 and remove all doubt.
No doubt about it. Completely with you there.
Quote from: amen426 on February 08, 2017, 05:49:02 PM
You are assuming you know what the committee's opinion is before the conference tournament begins. Just because those teams made the tournament, doesn't mean the losses didn't drop them down the seed line.
In 2014, most pundits would have assumed that SMU was a lock for the tournament. They lose their first conference tournament game, and get snubbed on Selection Sunday. Clearly, they thought the conference tournament held some value - since their resume wasn't worthy prior to the AAC tourny.
There are just as many scenarios proving that the conference tournament games are just as relevant as regular season games to the committee.
Except there aren't. When has the committee ever said "they were just off our radar, but played their way in"? I'm genuinely asking, I can't ever remember a similar comment.
When it comes to SMU the Committee cited their #302 NCSOS and #129 SOS. There was no "if not for that loss to Houston they were a lock". When you look at how the entire AAC was treated that year, I think their fate was decided before they tipped their first game, they needed to win the tourney to make the Dance.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2014/03/16/green-bay-southern-methodist-ncaa-tournament-snubs/6504815/
Hey, I thought this was a fishing thread.
We got this!
MU was 23-4, CUSA champs, and a projected 2 seed heading into the CUSA Tournament in 2003. They lost first round to UAB and dropped to a 3 seed.
UCONN was 24-9 and 9-9 in the BE (good for a tie for 9th place) heading into the BET and had lost 4 of its last 5 and 7 of its last 11 regular season games before going on to win the BET and ended up with a 3 seed in the NCAA Tournament. There's no chance a .500, 9th place BE team gets a 3 seed without making a run through the BET.
Conference tournaments matter for what they are, 1-4 games. Of course the regular season holds more weight, they're over games long compared to a max of 5 games depending on your conference tournament format. But if you're a bubble team and you lose to a team like DePaul you're in some trouble, just like if you lost to DePaul in the regular season. Or if you're a bubble team and you make a run to beat Creighton, Butler, and lose to Villanova, you help yourself quite a bit, just like if you went through that stretch in the regular season (like we saw this year). If you're a bubble team and beat Houston and Memphis before losing to Cinci then it's pretty neutral, just as it would be in the regular season.
Quote from: brewcity77 on February 08, 2017, 07:06:27 PM
Except there aren't. When has the committee ever said "they were just off our radar, but played their way in"? I'm genuinely asking, I can't ever remember a similar comment.
When it comes to SMU the Committee cited their #302 NCSOS and #129 SOS. There was no "if not for that loss to Houston they were a lock". When you look at how the entire AAC was treated that year, I think their fate was decided before they tipped their first game, they needed to win the tourney to make the Dance.
Again, that's your opinion.
They aren't wrong in saying that they missed the tournament because of the SOS. But that doesn't mean they would have kept them out of the tournament if they had beaten Houston. When did the committee ever say that SMU needed to win the tournament in order to get in?
They don't get that specific.
My only point was - individual conference games mean just as much as individual regular season games. The committee has never said otherwise.
Quote from: brewcity77 on February 08, 2017, 05:40:47 PM
Okay...here are a few questionable teams last year:
- Syracuse looked terrible, losing 4 of their last 5 conference games. Most felt they didn't belong, and they went one and done in the conference tourney, yet got in.
- Vanderbilt was 19-13 before losing to a bad Tennessee team in the SEC opener. Sub-70 RPI, they had no chance without a SEC run, yet they got in.
- Tulsa toppled to 70 in the RPI after losing to a Memphis team that missed the NIT. Surely the conference tournament cost them, right? Wrong, they got in.
- San Diego State dropped to 25-9 after going 2-1 in the conference tourney before falling to MWC champs Fresno State. Play themselves in? Nope, snubbed.
- St Mary's was a lock after overcoming their bizarre Pepperdine bugbear and going 2-1 against Gonzaga despite losing in the WCC Final. Except...they weren't. Left out despite doing everything but win the conference tournament.
This is why I have no faith in the conference tournaments.
These teams shouldn't be used as an argument against conference tournaments. They should be a reminder that RPI is not as big of a factor as the pundits think it is.
All of those "surprises" were all RPI related. They are not proof that the teams maintained the exact same seed before and after the conference tournament games.. Syracuse probably moved down -- just not enough to get knocked out of the field of 68.
Quote from: wadesworld on February 08, 2017, 07:18:56 PM
Conference tournaments matter for what they are, 1-4 games.
+1
In 2002, #1 ranked Cincy was the only CUSA team while we were in there league to earn a 1-seed. Before that, the champs for 6 years (all Cincy) were between a the 2-5 lines. In the years after 2003, before we joined the Big East, Cincinnati was the top CUSA seed with a 4 in 2004 while 29-4 Louisville earned a 4 in 2005. Sorry, but I don't believe we lost our 2-seed because of one game any more than I think we were in line for a 1 by winning out. That league was routinely disrespected.
As far as UConn, they had also not lost a non-conference game and were ranked 19/21 in the polls. The 3-seed wasn't an outlier from where they were projected by more than one line.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on February 08, 2017, 03:28:37 PM
This was as of as of Feb 2016, maybe these records got nudged a month after that.
Lowest RPI to get an at-large bid:
• 67 - USC (2011)
• 64 - Marquette (2011)
• 63 - North Carolina State (2005), Stanford (2007)
Outside the Big Six:
• 50 - Air Force (2006)
• 49 - VCU (2011)
So .. 70 will not do it.
RPIForecast.com has us at 71 for the season.
My guess: Finishing above those expectations, going 4-2 with a 57 RPI and 0-1 in the BET .. and we're NIT bound.
That was broken last year. Check Syracuse
I think we need to win the Big East tournament. Get lucky with 3 straight hot shooting nights. The rest of our schedule is a bear. Wins going to be hard to come by.
Quote from: Marquette Fan In NY on February 08, 2017, 11:16:03 PM
I think we need to win the Big East tournament. Get lucky with 3 straight hot shooting nights. The rest of our schedule is a bear. Wins going to be hard to come by.
Phew.
Quote from: real chili 83 on February 08, 2017, 07:13:29 PM
Hey, I thought this was a fishing thread.
We got this!
Ya... whatcha usin there? 5lb test line eh?
Quote from: Marquette Fan In NY on February 08, 2017, 11:16:03 PM
I think we need to win the Big East tournament. Get lucky with 3 straight hot shooting nights. The rest of our schedule is a bear. Wins going to be hard to come by.
Why are three games against teams currently out of the tournament and three games against teams missing their starting PGs considered a bear? I mean it's the Big East so every game is a bear but as our conference goes, this is less than average.
Are you trying the reverse jinx?
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 09, 2017, 08:52:24 AM
Why are three games against teams currently out of the tournament and three games against teams missing their starting PGs considered a bear? I mean it's the Big East so every game is a bear but as our conference goes, this is less than average.
Are you trying the reverse jinx?
.
To be fair, he picked us to go 1-15.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 09, 2017, 08:52:24 AM
Why are three games against teams currently out of the tournament and three games against teams missing their starting PGs considered a bear? I mean it's the Big East so every game is a bear but as our conference goes, this is less than average.
Are you trying the reverse jinx?
Six games against tough teams. Even without the injured players Xavier and Creighton are still strong teams. Georgetown has been better lately. We have demonstrated our ability to lose against Providence and St. Johns. d.
We need to win Four to get into the tournament. Steve Lavin was commenting on the 6 loss teams in the Big East last night on one of the FS1 games,he says it will take 10-8 to get in.
It is possible we can win all six of the remaining games. it is also possible we can lose all 6. If we go 3-3 that makes us 9-9.
So my conclusion is our best path to the NCAA tournament is to have three hot shooting nights in the Big East Tournament. I would of course prefer we get in with a 10-8 conference record.
Quote from: Marquette Fan In NY on February 09, 2017, 11:11:56 AM
Six games against tough teams. Even without the injured players Xavier and Creighton are still strong teams. Georgetown has been better lately. We have demonstrated our ability to lose against Providence and St. Johns. d.
We need to win Four to get into the tournament. Steve Lavin was commenting on the 6 loss teams in the Big East last night on one of the FS1 games,he says it will take 10-8 to get in.
It is possible we can win all six of the remaining games. it is also possible we can lose all 6. If we go 3-3 that makes us 9-9.
So my conclusion is our best path to the NCAA tournament is to have three hot shooting nights in the Big East Tournament. I would of course prefer we get in with a 10-8 conference record.
If Seton Hall and Marquette finish 9-9, at least one of them will make the tournament. No way in hell the BE only gets 4 teams in.
Quote from: Marquette Fan In NY on February 09, 2017, 11:11:56 AM
So my conclusion is our best path to the NCAA tournament is to have three hot shooting nights in the Big East Tournament.
That's an asinine assertion. Winning three in a row in MSG to win the Big East tournament (which likely means going through Villanova and probably Butler again) is in no way easier than winning 4 of 6 against teams that have either a) a key starter injured or b) a worse record than us.
The only way that makes any sense is because 3 is less than 4. But here's the thing: 3 out of 3 (100 %) is a lot tougher than 4 out of 6 (66%).
In addition, 3 games in 3 days does not favor Marquette at all. What I have seen year after year in MSG is that the hot shooting teams aren't hot on day 3. Legs are tired, shots are short, and the team loses. It happened to Nova (a drive-and-kick jump-shooting team) against Seton Hall (a bang inside team) just last year. After Day 1 we will be playing with house money.
Quote from: SaveOD238 on February 09, 2017, 11:40:04 AM
That's an asinine assertion. Winning three in a row in MSG to win the Big East tournament (which likely means going through Villanova and probably Butler again) is in no way easier than winning 4 of 6 against teams that have either a) a key starter injured or b) a worse record than us.
The only way that makes any sense is because 3 is less than 4. But here's the thing: 3 out of 3 (100 %) is a lot tougher than 4 out of 6 (66%).
In addition, 3 games in 3 days does not favor Marquette at all. What I have seen year after year in MSG is that the hot shooting teams aren't hot on day 3. Legs are tired, shots are short, and the team loses. It happened to Nova (a drive-and-kick jump-shooting team) against Seton Hall (a bang inside team) just last year. After Day 1 we will be playing with house money.
A good point.
Quote from: Marquette Fan In NY on February 09, 2017, 11:11:56 AM
Six games against tough teams. Even without the injured players Xavier and Creighton are still strong teams. Georgetown has been better lately. We have demonstrated our ability to lose against Providence and St. Johns. d.
We need to win Four to get into the tournament. Steve Lavin was commenting on the 6 loss teams in the Big East last night on one of the FS1 games,he says it will take 10-8 to get in.
It is possible we can win all six of the remaining games. it is also possible we can lose all 6. If we go 3-3 that makes us 9-9.
So my conclusion is our best path to the NCAA tournament is to have three hot shooting nights in the Big East Tournament. I would of course prefer we get in with a 10-8 conference record.
If we do go 9-9 then we don't need to win the BET.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 09, 2017, 12:48:32 PM
If we do go 9-9 then we don't need to win the BET.
True the bubble is so soft this year, like everyone has said