I'll leave it here, not going to call out anyone. Am only going to address that this idea we should be in the NCAA tournament every year and the Sweet 16 3 of 5....those are great goals, here's how often it happens.
There are currently 9 schools out of 352 that have gone to the NCAA tournament more than 5 times in a row. NINE
Kansas
Duke
Michigan State
Gonzaga
Cincinnati (9)
North Carolina (9)
Villanova (7)
Kentucky (6)
Virginia (6)
From those above that have gone to the Sweet 16 in three of five years currently active.
Virginia
Kentucky
North Carolina
Gonzaga
Duke
Kansas
Six schools in DI have gone to the Sweet 16 three times in the last 5 years.
Goals are great, even the best programs in this country with unlimited resources have a tough time reaching these goals.
Quote from: Cheeks on March 27, 2019, 10:42:24 PM
I'll leave it here, not going to call out anyone. Am only going to address that this idea we should be in the NCAA tournament every year and the Sweet 16 3 of 5....those are great goals, here's how often it happens.
There are currently 9 schools out of 352 that have gone to the NCAA tournament more than 5 times in a row. NINE
Kansas
Duke
Michigan State
Gonzaga
Cincinnati (9)
North Carolina (9)
Villanova (7)
Kentucky (6)
Virginia (6)
Those that have gone to the Sweet 16 in three of five years currently active.
Virginia
Kentucky
North Carolina
Gonzaga
Duke
Kansas
Six schools in DI have gone to the Sweet 16 three times in the last 5 years.
Goals are great, even the best programs in this country with unlimited resources have a tough time reaching these goals.
How big is the list for making the Sweet 16 once every 6 years? Or even the second round?
That Mark Few quote is embarrassing. The tournament is a crap shoot?! It's the equivalent of the playoffs; for which ultimate success is based.
There are extreme views on both sides that should be disregarded.
Making the tournament every year, S16 all the time. Extreme, expectations too high.
Years and years of zero tourney wins is OK if the program is clean. Extreme, expectations too low.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 28, 2019, 07:32:34 AM
There are extreme views on both sides that should be disregarded.
Making the tournament every year, S16 all the time. Extreme, expectations too high.
Years and years of zero tourney wins is OK if the program is clean. Extreme, expectations too low.
You just don't want it hard enough, Topper. If you desire something as a fan hard enough, you are entitled to it. It's in the Scoop EULA.
Quote from: MarquetteFan94 on March 28, 2019, 07:19:34 AM
How big is the list for making the Sweet 16 once every 6 years? Or even the second round?
That Mark Few quote is embarrassing. The tournament is a crap shoot?! It's the equivalent of the playoffs; for which ultimate success is based.
Embarrassing? No. Accurate? Yes
I sure hope Mark Few doesn't come around for a MU opening, it would be embarrassing to have to not hire him or Coach K and others that actually do this for a living and call it like it is.
There is no playoff system in the US in a major level event structured like this which is also why so few times the best overall team comes out with the title. Mark Few nails it.
It is very easy for Mark Few to make those comments about the NCAA, he is as secure as coach could possibly be. Seriously Chico's, you have become unhinged over the past couple of weeks. Why argue what elite is my definition? Why the numerous posts showing why MU cannot be elite or really good?
For me, I want MU to be relevant in the big picture. Does that make them elite, who cares? If you are in the national discussion every year, it means you have a program that everyone knows. Is Gonzaga elite? Not by definition, but take their place in ball landscape everyday of the week. That said, I would want my coach to focus on March and not dismiss it.
Stability
The average tenure of the current Sweet 16 coaches is 12 years.
As a reminder, we have had one coach go beyond 12 years in the last 50 years and that Was also our most successful run in our history.
Stability would be nice.
Quote from: Goose on March 28, 2019, 11:32:55 AM
It is very easy for Mark Few to make those comments about the NCAA, he is as secure as coach could possibly be. Seriously Chico's, you have become unhinged over the past couple of weeks. Why argue what elite is my definition? Why the numerous posts showing why MU cannot be elite or really good?
For me, I want MU to be relevant in the big picture. Does that make them elite, who cares? If you are in the national discussion every year, it means you have a program that everyone knows. Is Gonzaga elite? Not by definition, but take their place in ball landscape everyday of the week. That said, I would want my coach to focus on March and not dismiss it.
Mark Few isn't dismissing March, nor am I. He is saying there is more to it than just March, especially because it is a CRAPSHOOT tournament.
I would take Gonzaga's success too. Mark Few didn't always have that security and plenty of people calling for his head over the years, which is why he made the statement.
I'm just trying to understand the definition of elite because we some people here making statements like we should be the next Duke or repeat the 1970's, we have others that are equating it much differently.
To me, it is about stability, and we don't have it. I want MU to be at the top of the food chain as much as you do, but that requires stability. Unhinged = thinking we are Duke, or the 70's are a snap away from the right hire. If that person isn't here for a LONG time, you can't get sustained success by the very definition of what sustained means.
Quote from: Cheeks on March 28, 2019, 11:44:34 AM
Mark Few isn't dismissing March, nor am I. He is saying there is more to it than just March, especially because it is a CRAPSHOOT tournament.
Wait, so you think there's luck involved in NCAA results? Now I'm totally confused. Could you please explain where you stand on this another 3,657 times, and rather than just a quote, include a detailed animated pictorial diagram in your signature so everyone knows where you really stand? Because so far your comments on this have been very ambiguous.
Thanks for posting. Solid info and hopefully some of the lunatics on this board use this as perspective when making demands on our program.
I said 4 out of 5 tourney and 2.5 out of 5 for s16 (so 5 every 10).
Any idea what the s16 number increases to when dropped from 3 to 2?
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 28, 2019, 11:47:41 AM
Wait, so you think there's luck involved in NCAA results? Now I'm totally confused. Could you please explain where you stand on this another 3,657 times, and rather than just a quote, include a detailed animated pictorial diagram in your signature so everyone knows where you really stand? Because so far your comments on this have been very ambiguous.
I think this one next. More recent, Painter said it just last week.
"But you all know, it's very fragile. The NCAA tournament's a crap shoot. You play on a neutral court and everybody's good."
-Matt Painter, 2019, Purdue Head Coach in the Sweet 16
Quote from: Cheeks on March 28, 2019, 12:02:20 PM
I think this one next. More recent, Painter said it just last week.
"But you all know, it's very fragile. The NCAA tournament's a crap shoot. You play on a neutral court and everybody's good."
-Matt Painter, 2019, Purdue Head Coach in the Sweet 16
Life is a crapshoot.
Quote from: Cheeks on March 28, 2019, 10:14:32 AM
Embarrassing? No. Accurate? Yes
I sure hope Mark Few doesn't come around for a MU opening, it would be embarrassing to have to not hire him or Coach K and others that actually do this for a living and call it like it is.
There is no playoff system in the US in a major level event structured like this which is also why so few times the best overall team comes out with the title. Mark Few nails it.
Nope, nope, nope.
Think Few's opinion of March would be different if he ever closed the deal? You can bet on it.
He's a great coach, with a program we should envy but until he wins it all, he'll be an also-ran.
Name one coach mentioned among the all-time elite that has not won at least one title.
He and Marv Levy probably have similar views on post-season success.
Quote from: MarquetteFan94 on March 28, 2019, 09:29:42 PM
Nope, nope, nope.
Think Few's opinion of March would be different if he ever closed the deal? You can bet on it.
He's a great coach, with a program we should envy but until he wins it all, he'll be an also-ran.
Name one coach mentioned among the all-time elite that has not won at least one title.
He and Marv Levy probably have similar views on post-season success.
Bud Grant?
Quote from: Cheeks on March 27, 2019, 10:42:24 PM
Six schools in DI have gone to the Sweet 16 three times in the last 5 years.
Buzz made it 3 times in 3 years with an Elite 8 to boot. Guess that makes him the elite of elites!
Quote from: MarquetteFan94 on March 28, 2019, 09:29:42 PM
Nope, nope, nope.
Think Few's opinion of March would be different if he ever closed the deal? You can bet on it.
He's a great coach, with a program we should envy but until he wins it all, he'll be an also-ran.
Name one coach mentioned among the all-time elite that has not won at least one title.
He and Marv Levy probably have similar views on post-season success.
Coach K has closed the deal multiple times and had called it a crapshoot.
So that kind of destroys that argument.
Quote from: Cheeks on March 28, 2019, 10:27:04 PM
Coach K has closed the deal multiple times and had called it a crapshoot.
So that kind of destroys that argument.
He's earned the right to say that and would love to see the quote/source.
Quote from: Cheeks on March 27, 2019, 10:42:24 PM
I'll leave it here, not going to call out anyone. Am only going to address that this idea we should be in the NCAA tournament every year and the Sweet 16 3 of 5....those are great goals, here's how often it happens.
There are currently 9 schools out of 352 that have gone to the NCAA tournament more than 5 times in a row. NINE
Kansas
Duke
Michigan State
Gonzaga
Cincinnati (9)
North Carolina (9)
Villanova (7)
Kentucky (6)
Virginia (6)
Those that have gone to the Sweet 16 in three of five years currently active.
Virginia
Kentucky
North Carolina
Gonzaga
Duke
Kansas
Six schools in DI have gone to the Sweet 16 three times in the last 5 years.
Goals are great, even the best programs in this country with unlimited resources have a tough time reaching these goals.
Thank you! I knew a minority but loud portion of the fan base would never come down to earth after three straight Sweet 16s. An unheard of run that we will never see again.
Prior to that run, Marquette had made 2 Sweet 16s in 31 years. If Wojo does not make two Sweet 16s by 2045 to hold par, then I will join the call to get rid of him!
Mark Few is great - and I'm sure many of our critics would have called for his firing over and over during his first 15 years because he never made the Elite 8 - including the last 5 years of that during which he never even won his second round game - even losing with a 1-seed in the 2nd round. Would any of you attacking Wojo have really wanted to let him go to his 16th year to enjoy these last 5 years?
Quote from: MarquetteFan94 on March 28, 2019, 09:29:42 PM
Nope, nope, nope.
Think Few's opinion of March would be different if he ever closed the deal? You can bet on it.
He's a great coach, with a program we should envy but until he wins it all, he'll be an also-ran.
Name one coach mentioned among the all-time elite that has not won at least one title.
He and Marv Levy probably have similar views on post-season success.
Lou Carnesecca, Brad Stevens, Pete Carill, Eddie Sutton, Majerus, Huggins...
Who would take Jim Harrick, Tubby Smith, Joe B Hall, or Kevin Ollie over any of those guys??
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 28, 2019, 09:46:42 PM
Buzz made it 3 times in 3 years with an Elite 8 to boot. Guess that makes him the elite of elites!
Davidson is still wiping the pee off their leg, but I am happy they pissed all over themselves to give us that one.
Point of clarity, a poster sent me a note that a few schools went to Sweet 16 3 of 5 years not on my list....he is correct, but this is why they weren't listed. I was showing how many schools make it 5 of 5 to the NCAA tournament....only 9 schools currently. From that list, only 6 made it to Sweet 16 in 3 of 5 years.
Oregon, Wisconsin, Meatchicken have also had three Sweet 16s in 3 of 5 years, but they didn't meet the other criteria folks here have said we have to meet....ncaa each year.
Quote from: Cheeks on March 29, 2019, 08:38:12 AM
Davidson is still wiping the pee off their leg, but I am happy they pissed all over themselves to give us that one.
You know this isn't true. In the final 1:10, Davidson shot 75% from the line, 100% from the floor, & scored 1.25 ppp with 1 turnover. It wasn't Davidson peeing on themselves at all, it was Marquette's shooting reverting to the statistical norm.
Quote from: Cheeks on March 29, 2019, 08:38:12 AM
Davidson is still wiping the pee off their leg, but I am happy they pissed all over themselves to give us that one.
If you can't take any joy in one of the most thrilling comebacks in Marquette history, you need to find a new team to root for.
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 29, 2019, 08:58:59 AM
You know this isn't true. In the final 1:10, Davidson shot 75% from the line, 100% from the floor, & scored 1.25 ppp with 1 turnover. It wasn't Davidson peeing on themselves at all, it was Marquette's shooting reverting to the statistical norm.
Err...well...ugh...it's a crapshoot then. That's the ticket.
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 29, 2019, 08:58:59 AM
You know this isn't true. In the final 1:10, Davidson shot 75% from the line, 100% from the floor, & scored 1.25 ppp with 1 turnover. It wasn't Davidson peeing on themselves at all, it was Marquette's shooting reverting to the statistical norm.
+1000 Brew. One of Chico's biggest lies. Greatest comeback (because it was on the big stage) in MU history. 3 straight 3s capped by Vander's drive overcomes a Davidson team who played BETTER down the stretch than is their norm. Proves Chico's hatred of Buzz, his players and all things Marquette during that era beyond any doubt.
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 29, 2019, 08:58:59 AM
You know this isn't true. In the final 1:10, Davidson shot 75% from the line, 100% from the floor, & scored 1.25 ppp with 1 turnover. It wasn't Davidson peeing on themselves at all, it was Marquette's shooting reverting to the statistical norm.
Exactly. Buzz's team took it. Davidson didn't give it.
Davidson win was big time comeback. One of my favorite modern day era memories. That team knew how to win and delivered some high quality entertainment to the MU faithful. Anyone that says otherwise, is simply trying to be different.
Marcus92 posted this in another thread, and I think it should help add a lot of perspective to peoples expectations:
I think everyone here wants the same thing. Namely, Marquette competing for and winning a second national title.
So is Wojo the right coach to get us there?
What winning coaches look like
NCAA appearances and high seeds aren't the end goal. But they are a key measure of progress and success along the way. It's worth considering that only 8 current Division I head coaches have won a national title:
Mike Krzyzewski (1991, 1992, 2001, 2010, 2015)
Roy Williams (2005, 2009, 2017)
Jay Wright (2016, 2018)
Jim Boeheim (2003)
John Calipari (2012)
Tom Izzo (2000)
Bill Self (2008)
Tubby Smith (1998)
On average, they won their first national championship in their 16th season as a head coach. It took Boeheim 27 years. Wright 22 years. Calipari 20 years. And all of them except Williams have had first-round exits from the NCAA tournament. Jay Wright, in fact, has lost in the first round 5 times. What they had in common up to that point was making the tournament often, and earning high seeds.
What winning programs look like
Here are the 11 Division I programs that have earned NCAA bids each of the past 3 seasons, while averaging better than a 5 seed:
North Carolina - 2017 (1 seed), 2018 (2), 2019 (1)
Duke - 2017 (2), 2018 (2), 2019 (1)
Gonzaga - 2017 (1), 2018 (4), 2019 (1)
Kansas - 2017 (1), 2018 (1), 2019 (4)
Virginia - 2017 (5), 2018 (1), 2019 (1)
Villanova - 2017 (1), 2018 (1), 2019 (6)
Kentucky - 2017 (2), 2018 (5), 2019 (2)
Purdue - 2017 (4), 2018 (2), 2019 (3)
Michigan - 2017 (7), 2018 (3), 2019 (2)
Florida St. - 2017 (3), 2018 (9), 2019 (4)
Michigan St. - 2017 (9), 2018 (3), 2019 (2)
Notice anything? Williams at NC, Coach K at Duke, Self at Kansas, Wright at Nova, Calipari at UK, Izzo at MSU. Six of the 8 coaches who've won a national title are on this list. What that tells me is NCAA appearances and seeding count. (And that Mark Few and Tony Bennett are the most likely candidates to celebrate their first national title).
What's that got to do with Wojo?
Obviously, MU isn't there yet. And honestly, chances are Wojo won't be a Hall of Fame coach like Coach K. However...
When you look at the records of successful coaches early in their careers -- not just one individual coach, but a broad cross-spectrum of them -- Wojo's first 5 seasons compare favorably. You might believe he should have accomplished more. But history suggests that not many coaches do.
To the argument about winning zero NCAA games, I call bulls**t. Hugely disappointing? Yes. Meaningful? Not likely. No statistician would call 2 NCAA games anything close to a reliable data set. It's 2 data points. How can you judge anything based on that, compared to a season's worth of games? With almost all of this team coming back, the bad loss to Murray State could motivate them even more for next season.
I believe Marquette isn't far from joining the ranks of those 11 programs listed above. Like many here, I have big concerns about how the season ended. But MU has still appeared in 2 of the past 3 NCAA tournaments and earned a better seed each time. If that progress continues next season (winning the Big East and earning a 3 seed or better), I'll feel even more confident that we're on the right path.
Keep Wojo.
Only one person consistently makes that argument.
Quote from: Cheeks on March 29, 2019, 08:38:12 AM
Davidson is still wiping the pee off their leg, but I am happy they pissed all over themselves to give us that one.
For the unteenth time, down the stretch in crunch time they missed one free throw and had one critical turnover. Their final possessions in the last minute and a half were as follows:
1) Split a pair of free throws.
2) Executed a nice pick and roll for a layup.
3) Made a pair of free throws.
4) Turned ball over on the sideline under full court pressure.
5) Unsuccessful half court inbound with one second.
So that's 5 total points in what was really 4 possessions, a 1.25PPP. NO team in college basketball scored at that pace for all of 2018-19.
Marquette's possessions:
1) Jamil three from left wing.
2) Vander HIGHLY contested three from right wing.
3) Jamil three from right wing.
4) Vander driving layup for the win.
An incredible
ELEVEN points in 4 possessions with credible D played each time.
So just stop with the revisionist history. Marquette
WON. Davidson certainly didn't 'leg pee'. Consider the discussion closed forever.
cheeks
Glow has called this debate over with. Thanks for contributing to the discussion, but Glow has concluded this discussion.
I stand with glow.
Quote from: Goose on March 29, 2019, 09:53:29 AM
cheeks
Glow has called this debate over with. Thanks for contributing to the discussion, but Glow has concluded this discussion.
Because I'm demonstrably correct.
glow
I agree with you. I stated that a couple of posts ago. I did not add case closed, but agree with you.
Quote from: Goose on March 29, 2019, 09:59:25 AM
glow
I agree with you. I stated that a couple of posts ago. I did not add case closed, but agree with you.
8-)
Quote from: jsglow on March 29, 2019, 09:51:09 AM
For the unteenth time, down the stretch in crunch time they missed one free throw and had one critical turnover. Their final possessions in the last minute and a half were as follows:
1) Split a pair of free throws.
2) Executed a nice pick and roll for a layup.
3) Made a pair of free throws.
4) Turned ball over on the sideline under full court pressure.
5) Unsuccessful half court inbound with one second.
So that's 5 total points in what was really 4 possessions, a 1.25PPP. NO team in college basketball scored at that pace for all of 2018-19.
Marquette's possessions:
1) Jamil three from left wing.
2) Vander HIGHLY contested three from right wing.
3) Jamil three from right wing.
4) Vander driving layup for the win.
An incredible ELEVEN points in 4 possessions with credible D played each time.
So just stop with the revisionist history. Marquette WON. Davidson certainly didn't 'leg pee'. Consider the discussion closed forever.
Exactly.
But it also speaks to a larger point - that only someone with an anti MU bias could see it Chico's way.
Quote from: Cheeks on March 28, 2019, 12:02:20 PM
I think this one next. More recent, Painter said it just last week.
"But you all know, it's very fragile. The NCAA tournament's a crap shoot. You play on a neutral court and everybody's good."
-Matt Painter, 2019, Purdue Head Coach in the Sweet 16
source?
Quote from: Research Report on March 29, 2019, 09:04:34 AM
If you can't take any joy in one of the most thrilling comebacks in Marquette history, you need to find a new team to root for.
Tremendous joy, was going crazy in my office when we won....doesn't change how lucky we were. Our head coach even said so.
Quote from: Cheeks on March 29, 2019, 10:19:30 AM
Tremendous joy, was going crazy in my office when we won....doesn't change how lucky we were. Our head coach even said so.
Big difference between being lucky and opponent urinary incontinence.
cheeks
Our coach did not always tell the truth, right?
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 29, 2019, 08:58:59 AM
You know this isn't true. In the final 1:10, Davidson shot 75% from the line, 100% from the floor, & scored 1.25 ppp with 1 turnover. It wasn't Davidson peeing on themselves at all, it was Marquette's shooting reverting to the statistical norm.
I did't realize the first 38 minutes no longer counted. Number 1 free throw shooting team in the nation at 80%, shot 64% that game...probably due to our great ft defense. 🤪
They did essentially what Creighton did this year in coughing up the ball at the end, all they had to do is wait to get fouled.
Let's put it this way, if Wisconsin lost that way, or Duke, or Notre Dame, or any Crean coached team....every damn person here would say it was a pissing choke job. If MU pissed a game away like that in the NCAAs, the cries for firing would be epic.
But because we came out on top it was all us, none on Davidson choking? Give me a break.
I'm thrilled we won, awesome to advance....but I'm not naive to recognize what a lucky gift that was. Sometimes it works out that way.
Quote from: Cheeks on March 29, 2019, 10:25:09 AM
I did't realize the first 38 minutes no longer counted. Number 1 free throw shooting team in the nation at 80%, shot 64% that game...probably due to our great ft defense. 🤪
They did essentially what Creighton did this year in coughing up the ball at the end, all they had to do is wait to get fouled.
Let's put it this way, if Wisconsin lost that way, or Duke, or Notre Dame, or any Crean coached team....every damn person here would say it was a pissing choke job. If MU pissed a game away like that in the NCAAs, the cries for firing would be epic.
But because we came out on top it was all us, none on Davidson choking? Give me a break.
I'm thrilled we won, awesome to advance....but I'm not naive to recognize what a lucky gift that was. Sometimes it works out that way.
A good friend of mine has an expression for this.
'You lose. Take off your clothes.'
Fits.
Quote from: Goose on March 29, 2019, 09:53:29 AM
cheeks
Glow has called this debate over with. Thanks for contributing to the discussion, but Glow has concluded this discussion.
I noticed Glow missed a few key stats as well as simply how to play the game at the end.
Also noticed missing were the comments about how lucky we were as well as the quotes from media, etc, that we were lucky or Davidson choked.
Weird
Let me throw something out there, is it possible Davidson's poor FT shooting throughout the game set us up for an opportunity? Is it possible we also made some amazing shots and took advantage of the opportunity?
Would our "heroics" have been possible if Davidson didn't shoot free throws so poorly and coughed up the ball at the end when all they had to do was hold it and get fouled? Takes two to tango for a loss like that, and Davidson was a very willing partner.
Since this is now a "did they" or "didn't they" piss down their leg thread. Tenn FT percentage on the season 76%. Last night 50%. Purdue FT percentage on the season 73%. Last night 48%. Is it possible for both teams to piss down their legs? Either shoots their season average from the stripe and they win in regulation.
Quote from: Cheeks on March 29, 2019, 10:30:43 AM
I noticed Glow missed a few key stats as well as simply how to play the game at the end.
Also noticed missing were the comments about how lucky we were as well as the quotes from media, etc, that we were lucky or Davidson choked.
Weird
Let me throw something out there, is it possible Davidson's poor FT shooting throughout the game set us up for an opportunity? Is it possible we also made some amazing shots and took advantage of the opportunity?
Would our "heroics" have been possible if Davidson didn't shoot free throws so poorly and coughed up the ball at the end when all they had to do was hold it and get fouled? Takes two to tango for a loss like that, and Davidson was a very willing partner.
does anyone really care anymore?
Quote from: Cheeks on March 29, 2019, 10:25:09 AM
I did't realize the first 38 minutes no longer counted. Number 1 free throw shooting team in the nation at 80%, shot 64% that game...probably due to our great ft defense. 🤪
They did essentially what Creighton did this year in coughing up the ball at the end, all they had to do is wait to get fouled.
So your first contention is that they didn't pee themselves for the last 2 minutes, they peed themselves during the first 38 minutes that allowed them to build a 7-point lead with 1:10 to play?
Your second contention is that one single turnover is indicative of a team peeing all over themselves?
And from the other post, because Buzz said so, it must be true, making your third contention the unspoken but unquestionably implied "coach speak does not exist, every word spoken by a coach is the gospel truth."
You are wrong on this one. We all know it. You know it. You're just too stubborn to ever own when you are wrong. Marquette scored an insane 2.75 ppp over the final 1:10 of that game. That's more than double any offense in modern recorded history has done for a season. They got blisteringly hot, though in the process didn't even improve to the mean in terms of shooting (MU still shot below their season averages in FG%, 3PFG%, 2PFG%, & eFG% despite the hot finish).
Teams do choke. Teams that score 1.25 ppp are not examples of that. Especially when their opponents are in the process of scoring 2.75 ppp in the same stretch.
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 29, 2019, 10:54:26 AM
So your first contention is that they didn't pee themselves for the last 2 minutes, they peed themselves during the first 38 minutes that allowed them to build a 7-point lead with 1:10 to play?
Your second contention is that one single turnover is indicative of a team peeing all over themselves?
And from the other post, because Buzz said so, it must be true, making your third contention the unspoken but unquestionably implied "coach speak does not exist, every word spoken by a coach is the gospel truth."
You are wrong on this one. We all know it. You know it. You're just too stubborn to ever own when you are wrong. Marquette scored an insane 2.75 ppp over the final 1:10 of that game. That's more than double any offense in modern recorded history has done for a season. They got blisteringly hot, though in the process didn't even improve to the mean in terms of shooting (MU still shot below their season averages in FG%, 3PFG%, 2PFG%, & eFG% despite the hot finish).
Teams do choke. Teams that score 1.25 ppp are not examples of that. Especially when their opponents are in the process of scoring 2.75 ppp in the same stretch.
Not only that, but all three of Marquette's three point shots at the end were well defended.
Quote from: Jon on March 29, 2019, 12:39:15 AM
Lou Carnesecca, Brad Stevens, Pete Carill, Eddie Sutton, Majerus, Huggins...
Who would take Jim Harrick, Tubby Smith, Joe B Hall, or Kevin Ollie over any of those guys??
You completely missed the point. Btw, you forgot Steve Fisher.
Your all-time elite list is also pretty expansive. I'm talking about the Mt. Rushmore of coaches (people will have different opinions):
Coach K
John Wooden
Dean Smith
Roy Williams
Bobby Knight
Maybe now you get the idea? Yes, they've all had nice regular season records, but they're also reknowned for national championships.
The others you list as all-time greats are tier 2 at best.
So coaches that have the most success in the NCAA tourney are simply lucky coaches in a crapshoot? The vast majority of posters realize anything can happen in essentially a 6 game tournament. We also understand that certain coaches are better at having their teams playing their best ball at the end of the year, preparing on short turn-arounds, and making in-game changes. If the tourney was a total crapshoot the coach wouldnt matter. Poker tournaments...total crapshoot...yet some seem to make the final table regularly. NFL playoffs...crapshoot...Game 7...crapshoot...blah blah blah. All to varying degrees. If I had to pick between Izzo and Wojo to coach a given team in the NCAA tourney I wouldnt throw my hands up and say, "take either its a crapshoot."
So some Nova fans were foolishly frustrated by many failed attemps at an NCAA championship before Jay pulled off his 2...and Jay admits it takes luck...but getting a great seed year in and year out really helps in a "crapshoot."
Quote from: avid1010 on March 29, 2019, 11:23:49 AM
So coaches that have the most success in the NCAA tourney are simply lucky coaches in a crapshoot? The vast majority of posters realize anything can happen in essentially a 6 game tournament. We also understand that certain coaches are better at having their teams playing their best ball at the end of the year, preparing on short turn-arounds, and making in-game changes. If the tourney was a total crapshoot the coach wouldnt matter. Poker tournaments...total crapshoot...yet some seem to make the final table regularly. NFL playoffs...crapshoot...Game 7...crapshoot...blah blah blah. All to varying degrees. If I had to pick between Izzo and Wojo to coach a given team in the NCAA tourney I wouldnt throw my hands up and say, "take either its a crapshoot."
So some Nova fans were foolishly frustrated by many failed attemps at an NCAA championship before Jay pulled off his 2...and Jay admits it takes luck...but getting a great seed year in and year out really helps in a "crapshoot."
exactly. thank you. not only that if it truly is a crapshoot then over time every seed would have the same record.
We all know that the "crapshoot" argument is chicos way of being on all sides of whatever agenda he is forwarding.
Yes...and he is citing Mark Few's quote to support that agenda....
Doubt Few would feel that way if he ever wins a title.
Quote from: hairy worthen on March 29, 2019, 11:34:32 AM
exactly. thank you. not only that if it truly is a crapshoot then over time every seed would have the same record.
We all know that the "crapshoot" argument is chicos way of being on all sides of whatever agenda he is forwarding.
"Crapshoot" doesn't apply to any games in the Crean era, if you notice. In that case the term is "crap, shoot".
Quote from: MarquetteFan94 on March 29, 2019, 11:44:35 AM
Yes...and he is citing Mark Few's quote to support that agenda....
Doubt Few would feel that way if he ever wins a title.
No...i think jay wright would still say "crapshoot" or whatever other term you want to apply...and has essentially said so. When he threw his hands up after Jenkins hit the game winning 3...he showed that to the world. That said...you have to put it in perspective. Chicos is much closer to acting like its black jack being played strictly by standard strategy...the fact is some are better at counting cards then others. Its why Duke's chances of winning the tourney are different than Virginia's. Ridiculous to act like losing to Murray St. at anytime, let alone the tourney, is a crapshoot. It was sh1t execution and wojo would say as much.
Semantics. Definition of a crapshoot is something that is unpredictable. The antonym definition is a Sure Thing.
The ncaa tournament is not a sure thing and highly unpredictable. You are correct it doesn't mean odds are equal for all, but in sporting events there is nothing of the kinds that has this much unpredictably....which is why it is labeled as such.
No different than someone saying that was a war out there on the court...really, was it a war and people died, were shot, etc?
I think the grownups know why media, coaches, etc say it is a crapshoot because of the nature of the tournament. Not that hard fellas.
Whether it is Mark Few, Matt Painter, Coach K, Jay Wright, other coaches, other experts....that term or one very close to it is par for the course.
It's a jungle out there, going to battle each day, dying, sweating bullets trying to get through this crapshoot. 😅
Quote from: Cheeks on March 29, 2019, 12:43:09 PM
Semantics. Definition of a crapshoot is something that is unpredictable. The antonym definition is a Sure Thing.
The ncaa tournament is not a sure thing and highly unpredictable. You are correct it doesn't mean odds are equal for all, but in sporting events there is nothing of the kinds that has this much unpredictably....which is why it is labeled as such.
Really? Ive seen odds some years where the odds of a single team winning the NCAA are higher than in other major sporting events.
And by definition...damn near everything in life is a crapshoot.
Nm
Of course a coach is going to say the tournament is a crapshoot...it's a self serving comment to save their arse if and when they lose to a lower seeded team. One has to look at more than one tournament. To paraphrase, once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is a trend.
I'm not going to argue with cheeks anymore because there's no purpose. So I'll scratch the itch a different way.
Is that single minute of basketball the BEST minute Marquette has ever played in crunch time under the bright lights? Reason I asked is that jsonline listed the 10 greatest Crew openers in an article today. Yesterday clocked in at #3. Sixto's grand slam was of course #1.
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 29, 2019, 10:54:26 AM
So your first contention is that they didn't pee themselves for the last 2 minutes, they peed themselves during the first 38 minutes that allowed them to build a 7-point lead with 1:10 to play?
Your second contention is that one single turnover is indicative of a team peeing all over themselves?
And from the other post, because Buzz said so, it must be true, making your third contention the unspoken but unquestionably implied "coach speak does not exist, every word spoken by a coach is the gospel truth."
You are wrong on this one. We all know it. You know it. You're just too stubborn to ever own when you are wrong. Marquette scored an insane 2.75 ppp over the final 1:10 of that game. That's more than double any offense in modern recorded history has done for a season. They got blisteringly hot, though in the process didn't even improve to the mean in terms of shooting (MU still shot below their season averages in FG%, 3PFG%, 2PFG%, & eFG% despite the hot finish).
Teams do choke. Teams that score 1.25 ppp are not examples of that. Especially when their opponents are in the process of scoring 2.75 ppp in the same stretch.
My contention is straight forward.
1) The most elite team in college basketball at shooting free throws, which is done without a defender, shot WELL below their season average that certainly didn't help them.
2) If the only way to lose is to not give up 3 point attempts, guard the 3 point line with urgency
3) If you are winning with 10 seconds left, get the ball inbounds and let them foul you. You are in the double bonus. You shoot 80% from the line, make the opponent go the length of the court. What a mental fart...thankfully
4) Win probability. There is only one game that I can remember in my life where we had a worse win probability late in the game, that was this year vs Creighton when it was 99.99% probability to lose.
5) Great comeback, but great comebacks happen when the other team is a willing partner. There's a reason some in the media said "escaped", "got lucky", "extremely fortunate", "let one get away", or worse..."choked", "blew it" (AP Headline was "DAVIDSON BLOWS LATE LEAD IN ONE POINT LOSS TO MARQUETTE"), etc
6) If the shoe were on the other foot and we had that lead and lost, or one of our rivals did, we would call it a choke, not the other way around. You and I every honest person here knows exactly that is what it would be called.
We were fortunate, beyond fortunate. Great comeback, not possible without Davidson depositing in the shorts and bed....including the FT line where it is just them and the rim.
Quote from: jsglow on March 29, 2019, 03:38:28 PM
I'm not going to argue with cheeks anymore because there's no purpose. So I'll scratch the itch a different way.
Is that single minute of basketball the BEST minute Marquette has ever played in crunch time under the bright lights? Reason I asked is that jsonline listed the 10 greatest Crew openers in an article today. Yesterday clocked in at #3. Sixto's grand slam was of course #1.
Back to back to back clutch 3s and a blow by lay in with the off hand over a big body. One miss and the team is toast. So, yeah. No doubt in my mind.
Quote from: MarquetteFan94 on March 29, 2019, 11:44:35 AM
Yes...and he is citing Mark Few's quote to support that agenda....
Doubt Few would feel that way if he ever wins a title.
Mark Few
Jay Wright
Matt Painter
Coach K
On and on. So it doesn't tie in with your narrative that if they win a national title, it suddenly goes away.
Some have won it all, some have been to the Final, others have been solid but not yet at the Final Four (Painter has a chance tomorrow). If anything, listen to some of what Izzo, K, and others have said who won it all and how damn hard it is because of the nature of it all.
Quote from: Cheeks on March 29, 2019, 04:04:44 PM
My contention is straight forward.
1) The most elite team in college basketball at shooting free throws, which is done without a defender, shot WELL below their season average that certainly didn't help them.
2) If the only way to lose is to not give up 3 point attempts, guard the 3 point line with urgency
3) If you are winning with 10 seconds left, get the ball inbounds and let them foul you. You are in the double bonus. You shoot 80% from the line, make the opponent go the length of the court. What a mental fart...thankfully
4) Win probability. There is only one game that I can remember in my life where we had a worse win probability late in the game, that was this year vs Creighton when it was 99.99% probability to lose.
5) Great comeback, but great comebacks happen when the other team is a willing partner. There's a reason some in the media said "escaped", "got lucky", "extremely fortunate", "let one get away", or worse..."choked", "blew it" (AP Headline was "DAVIDSON BLOWS LATE LEAD IN ONE POINT LOSS TO MARQUETTE"), etc
6) If the shoe were on the other foot and we had that lead and lost, or one of our rivals did, we would call it a choke, not the other way around. You and I every honest person here knows exactly that is what it would be called.
We were fortunate, beyond fortunate. Great comeback, not possible without Davidson depositing in the shorts and bed....including the FT line where it is just them and the rim.
I think I agree with you more than others here because I try to ignore the name of the poster. But I think this is just wrong.
1. Sure, Davidson shot lower than their season average. They shot 14-22. Of course, 11 of those attempts and 6 of those attempts were taken by their worst free throw shooter, De'Mon Brooks. He still shot 74%, but the rest of the team was 9-11 and above their season average. One player had a poor free throw shooting game and he was their worst free throw shooter. Not exactly shocking.
2. None of the 3's were open. Jamil's first one was almost blocked. He was able to get it off because he was more athletic than Davidson's defender. Nothing to be done. Ditto with his second three. Vander, I guess they could have doubled him. But he was a 30% 3P shooter who hit it from 3 feet beyond the arc, contested, off the dribble. They guarded the line fine. We just made them.
3. The turnover was Davidson's only mistake. They scored 5 points on their other 3 possessions. Even if they get fouled and make both we still have a chance to tie. So even if they did everything PERFECT, we still would have had a chance to force OT. That means MU took the game.
4. Yeah. Probably. Don't think it is relevant to luck, however.
5. What are they supposed to say? That's always the headline. Doesn't make it true.
6. Same with 5. I probably would have said we choked. It doesn't mean I'm right.
Lastly, I saw references to Davidson not playing well for 38 minutes and that's why we had a chance to win. That's true. But I could easily argue the only reason we didn't win going away was because we didn't play well for 39 minutes.
Quote from: MUeagle1090 on March 29, 2019, 05:51:48 PM
I think I agree with you more than others here because I try to ignore the name of the poster. But I think this is just wrong.
Please understand, I was going bonkers with that win. Insanely excited. Only saying as great as it was, we got help...that's how comebacks usually work. I thought your points were fair, but disagree with some
1. Sure, Davidson shot lower than their season average. They shot 14-22. Of course, 11 of those attempts and 6 of those attempts were taken by their worst free throw shooter, De'Mon Brooks. He still shot 74%, but the rest of the team was 9-11 and above their season average. One player had a poor free throw shooting game and he was their worst free throw shooter. Not exactly shocking. Not shocking, but did not perform to the level he had all year. MU, conversely shot above their FT % for this game. This is one stat the other team doesn't have any impact on. It is you and the rim. That's why I'm not mentioning any other stats because the other teams impacts FG% or turnovers, etc, by being on the court, too
2. None of the 3's were open. Jamil's first one was almost blocked. He was able to get it off because he was more athletic than Davidson's defender. Nothing to be done. Ditto with his second three. Vander, I guess they could have doubled him. But he was a 30% 3P shooter who hit it from 3 feet beyond the arc, contested, off the dribble. They guarded the line fine. We just made them. I disagree with the first.... Wilson's defender was still 5 feet away and started to close when he went up for the shot so he comes flying in late, but clean look. Vander's was tough as hell. Wilson's last shot mildly contested because Davidson doubling up and getting lost on the slip screen made for an open shot. Look, they were great, clutch shots, not suggesting they were standing by themselves, but two of the three were normal three point attempts in the course of a game. Not arguing that at all....amazing amazing amazing had to have them shots.
3. The turnover was Davidson's only mistake. They scored 5 points on their other 3 possessions. Even if they get fouled and make both we still have a chance to tie. So even if they did everything PERFECT, we still would have had a chance to force OT. That means MU took the game. Not the only mistake, the missed free throw with 1:09 opened the door further. And that turnover was MASSIVE, they didn't even need to throw the ball, just hold it. MASSIVE. Lastly, maybe MU has chance to tie, or even win, but Davidson can also foul and force MU to shoot free throws instead of a 3 attempt. MU wasn't even in the double bonus yet, foul them up. Yes, Davidson could have also missed free throws, which would have been further opening the door.
4. Yeah. Probably. Don't think it is relevant to luck, however. Very strange things have to happen to overcome a 98% win probability with under a minute to play. Almost always it is a combination of greatness with stupidity.
5. What are they supposed to say? That's always the headline. Doesn't make it true. Lots of headlines possible, and many were of the variety that MU escaped or dodged a bullet. The AP was pretty strong saying Davidson blew it....strong words, but true.
6. Same with 5. I probably would have said we choked. It doesn't mean I'm right. We all know what we would have said and believed it to the core, so why is the reverse appropriate? Great comebacks happen with two things happening. Some excellent execution, which MU had, and usually some dumb, boneheaded stuff by the opponent. See Falcons vs Patriots, et al.
Lastly, I saw references to Davidson not playing well for 38 minutes and that's why we had a chance to win. That's true. But I could easily argue the only reason we didn't win going away was because we didn't play well for 39 minutes.
Lastly, a great win, one for the ages. We got lucky. Let's also not forget that we got the free timeout with 6.7 seconds left to reset the clock...Buzz used his final timeout with 1:03 left, but because of that play we got a free TO where Buzz could draw something up. Davidson was not happy and I don't blame them. As McKillop said we got "an unfair advantage". Sometimes it is better to be lucky.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 29, 2019, 04:45:16 PM
Back to back to back clutch 3s and a blow by lay in with the off hand over a big body. One miss and the team is toast. So, yeah. No doubt in my mind.
Not to correct you Lenny but it was actually back to back to back followed by off hand running layup. :)
Quote from: jsglow on March 29, 2019, 09:51:09 AM
For the unteenth time, down the stretch in crunch time they missed one free throw and had one critical turnover. Their final possessions in the last minute and a half were as follows:
1) Split a pair of free throws.
2) Executed a nice pick and roll for a layup.
3) Made a pair of free throws.
4) Turned ball over on the sideline under full court pressure.
5) Unsuccessful half court inbound with one second.
So that's 5 total points in what was really 4 possessions, a 1.25PPP. NO team in college basketball scored at that pace for all of 2018-19.
Marquette's possessions:
1) Jamil three from left wing.
2) Vander HIGHLY contested three from right wing.
3) Jamil three from right wing.
4) Vander driving layup for the win.
An incredible ELEVEN points in 4 possessions with credible D played each time.
So just stop with the revisionist history. Marquette WON. Davidson certainly didn't 'leg pee'. Consider the discussion closed forever.
Vander was a very enjoyable player to watch that year. The kid was very clutch and a winner.
Quote from: jsglow on March 29, 2019, 06:52:34 PM
Not to correct you Lenny but it was actually back to back to back followed by off hand running layup. :)
Trying to figure out what we said differently, Glow.
Herman
Regardless of what TheREAlwrk says, Vander told Buzz he was growing before season started and I stated that many times. Vander played like a guy fighting for food that season. He played a big time year for us.
When crapshoot appears in a thread.
(https://media.makeameme.org/created/not-this-crap.jpg)
(http://makeameme.org/media/created/Crap-Crap-Crap.jpg)
(https://pics.me.me/oh-crap-oh-crap-oh-crap-20363764.png)
(https://media.giphy.com/media/O2zL3TVRhZuGk/giphy.gif)
Quote from: lawdog77 on March 29, 2019, 10:10:24 AM
source?
https://www.jconline.com/story/sports/college/purdue/basketball/2019/03/17/old-dominion-up-first-purdue-takes-next-shot-tournament-run/3191457002/
Cheeks, take the L like a man. We made that win vs Davidson happen. We weren't given anything
Quote from: NickelDimer on March 29, 2019, 11:53:45 PM
Cheeks, take the L like a man. We made that win vs Davidson happen. We weren't given anything
That will never happen.
Quote from: Cheeks on March 29, 2019, 05:28:53 PM
Mark Few
Jay Wright
Matt Painter
Coach K
On and on. So it doesn't tie in with your narrative that if they win a national title, it suddenly goes away.
Some have won it all, some have been to the Final, others have been solid but not yet at the Final Four (Painter has a chance tomorrow). If anything, listen to some of what Izzo, K, and others have said who won it all and how damn hard it is because of the nature of it all.
You can create whatever list you'd like without citing sources, why not add to it?
You honestly can't understand the difference between a coach that's never won a title calling the tournament a "crapshoot" vs those that have??
Cheeks seems to have some sort of piss and crap fetish, aina?
Here are the Pomeroy teams charted by offensive and defensive efficiencies. If you look at the half moon, you can see that 14-16 Sweet 16 teams fall into an elite half moon where defensive efficiency ~97 or below while offense efficiency is above ~113. LSU (on the border) and Oregon are the exceptions.
Statistically, "elite" mattas. Very predictable.
Another crapshoot loss for Few and Gonzaga...
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on March 30, 2019, 04:00:25 PM
Here are the Pomeroy teams charted by offensive and defensive efficiencies. If you look at the half moon, you can see that 14-16 Sweet 16 teams fall into an elite half moon where defensive efficiency ~97 or below while offense efficiency is above ~113. LSU (on the border) and Oregon are the exceptions.
Statistically, "elite" mattas. Very predictable.
***Adjusted efficiency, including a (dramatic) impact of recent tourney games...
Would be interesting to see this same info as of selection sunday...
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 30, 2019, 08:54:02 PM
***Adjusted efficiency, including a (dramatic) impact of recent tourney games...
Would be interesting to see this same info as of selection sunday...
Once the tourney is over it will be there (or you can manually click back to March 17). For old seasons, just click the "pre-tourney" filter in the help line near the top of the screen.