So I know there's always exceptions but usually speaking I'd wager we get to 19 wins and we're in with a decent schedule.
What's the number of games this year? Are we expecting a whole season? Are we going to say something like 15-7 gets us in?
Joe Lunardi moved us to the second to last team in the tournament after last nights win...lol
Quote from: CountryRoads on December 15, 2020, 09:21:40 AM
Joe Lunardi moved us to the second to last team in the tournament after last nights win...lol
That's nice of him... I don't understand how that's where we are on the bracket right now.
I don't think they'll be holding a retroactive Tournament, but I suspect our 18 wins were sufficient.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 15, 2020, 09:24:11 AM
I don't think they'll be holding a retroactive Tournament, but I suspect our 18 wins were sufficient.
Hah nice catch
Quote from: CountryRoads on December 15, 2020, 09:21:40 AM
Joe Lunardi moved us to the second to last team in the tournament after last nights win...lol
Here's his post. I don't get it.
https://twitter.com/ESPNLunardi/status/1338857728148533255?s=20 (https://twitter.com/ESPNLunardi/status/1338857728148533255?s=20)
Quote from: Galway Eagle on December 15, 2020, 09:26:01 AM
Hah nice catch
In all seriousness, it's so hard to say because the number of games will vary so greatly. 15-7 would absolutely do it. My guess is, with our resume, 3 games over .500 will do it. Usually it's closer to 4. So if we played 21 games, I think 12-9 would get us in.
Aside, that's one reason I think Kentucky is in real trouble. They'll be underdogs in their next two. If they fall to 1-6, they likely need to be +7 in conference just to have a shot. So 13-5 for a bid assuming they get all their games in? That's a tall order.
Quote from: CountryRoads on December 15, 2020, 09:21:40 AM
Joe Lunardi moved us to the second to last team in the tournament after last nights win...lol
Aside from a talking point theres no reason to look into this before February. AS of right now with 2 top 10 wins, Marquette is at worst a 5 seed.
If MU can have a winning record in conference play , that should be enough to get into the tournament. Our overall resume would be very attractive with a lot of quality wins if that happened.
It would be helpful is Butler and DePaul could get some of their non conference games rescheduled. We don't want them dragging the league down.
Moving target based on games played.
With the UW and CU wins, I think .500 or better in conference does it no matter how many games are played.
Creighton stayed a 4.
Our game tipped off at 9pm Philly time, it's pretty clear Joe turned his assignment in early.
.500 in however many Big East games we end up playing.
If all games currently scheduled actually get played, I'll say 15, including BET.
Quote from: JamilJaeJamailJrJuan on December 15, 2020, 11:05:51 AM
.500 in however many Big East games we end up playing.
I think .500 in Big East is good enough, if we win first game in Big East tournament. I would be very worried, if we lost first game in Big East tournament. 4-2, 10-10 & 1-1=15-13. I would say 16 wins is a lock given our two top 10 wins. Also our two current losses are to good teams.
Unfortunately there is no magic number because of COVID. Who knows how many games we and the other at large candidates will end up playing. I think anything north of .500 in the BEast will get us in since we already have two signature wins to pad the resume with.
I'm gonna get all optimistic and say we ain't gonna be on the bubble this season.
Eventually, we're gonna be debating what the Magic Number of Wins is for us to get a top-4 seed.
Quote from: MU82 on December 15, 2020, 01:27:38 PM
Eventually, we're gonna be debating what the Magic Number of Wins is for us to get a top-4 seed.
The roller coaster that is MUScoop.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on December 15, 2020, 01:31:18 PM
The roller coaster that is MUScoop.
Hopefully not making you have to hurl!
(But I do tend to lean to the optimistic side when it comes to our team.)
Quote from: MU82 on December 15, 2020, 01:27:38 PM
I'm gonna get all optimistic and say we ain't gonna be on the bubble this season.
Eventually, we're gonna be debating what the Magic Number of Wins is for us to get a top-4 seed.
That seems likely, as does the inevitable debate a few weeks later as to whether we're really a lock or if we'll miss the tournament altogether.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 15, 2020, 02:32:41 PM
That seems likely, as does the inevitable debate a few weeks later as to whether we're really a lock or if we'll miss the tournament altogether.
Yeah ... remember the guy who kept insisting that a team had to win 20 games to get in? Can't remember which Scooper it was, but he didn't care about evidence or facts or anything. He wouldn't relent. It cracked me up.
The bigger question is, What have we shown so far that will serve us well when we get into the tournament? Some thoughts:
1) We can play with anybody. Already, we have beaten the then 4th and 9th rated teams. We did so with strength and ultimately by forcing them into our game. Even in our two losses, we were in the game both times and not really blown out
2) We're finally playing defense. In the NCAA tournament, teams that can and do play defense have a decided edge over those that don't. Imagine what would have happened if our defense had shown up two years ago against Murray State. As good as Ja Morant was, he can be defended.
3) We have a distributive offense. More than one or even two players are in the game and contributing to our success. My guess was that this is what the Brothers Hauser were looking for when they wrote the infamous letter. Good news is that Theo looks a lot better and Lewis, Garcia and McEwen are the real deals this year.
In short, this is a team that because of our freshmen core was largely unnoticed. We're outside the core of where basketball writers write from (Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hlll) and have been off the beaten path for awhile. Writers are creatures of habit. If we defeat Villanova and UConn, we'll suddenly be the "flavor of the day" and to the earlier's poster's point about Lunardi, be arguing about a 4 seed.
Quote from: dgies9156 on December 16, 2020, 08:37:00 AM
The bigger question is, What have we shown so far that will serve us well when we get into the tournament? Some thoughts:
1) We can play with anybody. Already, we have beaten the then 4th and 9th rated teams. We did so with strength and ultimately by forcing them into our game. Even in our two losses, we were in the game both times and not really blown out
2) We're finally playing defense. In the NCAA tournament, teams that can and do play defense have a decided edge over those that don't. Imagine what would have happened if our defense had shown up two years ago against Murray State. As good as Ja Morant was, he can be defended.
3) We have a distributive offense. More than one or even two players are in the game and contributing to our success. My guess was that this is what the Brothers Hauser were looking for when they wrote the infamous letter. Good news is that Theo looks a lot better and Lewis, Garcia and McEwen are the real deals this year.
In short, this is a team that because of our freshmen core was largely unnoticed. We're outside the core of where basketball writers write from (Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hlll) and have been off the beaten path for awhile. Writers are creatures of habit. If we defeat Villanova and UConn, we'll suddenly be the "flavor of the day" and to the earlier's poster's point about Lunardi, be arguing about a 4 seed.
Good stuff Dgies! I'd like to add a little of my uneducated opinion.
1) Our defense is significantly better, but what I really like is they adjusted mid-game and got even better. Something we haven't seen a lot of in the past.
2) Our offense is getting better the more they play together. The cohesion and unselfish play is great. Different STOG every game, and we still have plenty of runner ups! Last year oppositions planned for Markus. Who do you plan for now?
3) Love the team chemistry!
4) My firm belief is we will not get any love from anyone associated with ESPN. They're still bitter about the BEast going to Fox.
Quote from: war1980rior on December 16, 2020, 09:18:48 AM
Good stuff Dgies! I'd like to add a little of my uneducated opinion.
1) Our defense is significantly better, but what I really like is they adjusted mid-game and got even better. Something we haven't seen a lot of in the past.
2) Our offense is getting better the more they play together. The cohesion and unselfish play is great. Different STOG every game, and we still have plenty of runner ups! Last year oppositions planned for Markus. Who do you plan for now?
3) Love the team chemistry!
4) My firm belief is we will not get any love from anyone associated with ESPN. They're still bitter about the BEast going to Fox.
ESPN has Villanova (a Big East team, with a loss to Virginia Tech) as a 1 seed.
Maybe -- maybe -- corporately, ESPN is still not pleased with the Big East.
But I sincerely doubt that the individuals at ESPN -- including those who vote in polls, those who look ahead to brackets, and those who write/broadcast about college hoops -- harbor anti-Big East bias.
It's a non-story.
There's no magic number this year. Teams are going to be playing a different number of games so the committee will be able to use the "eye test" and other subjective measures to select teams. It means that this year the committee doesn't have to justify that 15-13 (4-2 NC, 10-10 Conf, 1-1 BE Tourn) is better or worse than another teams 19-14 or 12-9.
There's also no magic number because games will be canceled. It matters whether those games are Nova and Creighton or DePaul and Butler.
Quote from: MU82 on December 16, 2020, 09:51:21 AM
Maybe -- maybe -- corporately, ESPN is still not pleased with the Big East.
But I sincerely doubt that the individuals at ESPN -- including those who vote in polls, those who look ahead to brackets, and those who write/broadcast about college hoops -- harbor anti-Big East bias.
It's a non-story.
From 2013-2016? Most definitely. In 2020? It's pretty much a non-issue at this point. When the BE broke with ESPN (and signed with Fox), there were definitely some initiatives from the network to attempt to downplay any successes the league had, while just downright ignoring others. Couple that with the fact that, early on, ESPN was attempting to elevate the AAC has a high-major conference (superior to that Big East), and it was easy to see what was going on. However, some wonderful things happened. Yes, Villanova won a national championship (followed by another), yes, Xavier also earned a 1-seed, and yes, the BET was selling out again, but the entire league was very competitive and was so in OOC as well - which drove interest and affirmed fan support.
The turning point, to me, was right after 2016, when ESPN commentators began actively campaigning UConn's return to the Big East. Vitale, Greenberg, and others all used their platforms on ESPN to urge the Huskies to "return home". Why would any network actively urge one of its properties to go to a competitor? Well, firstly, it wanted to drive down the open market value for the AAC so that it could keep its content for ESPN+. Secondly, I believe that ESPN will eventually want to bid on and get back the Big East content to ESPN. ESPN truly felt that it had sliced and diced all remaining value from the old Big East by arranging for the moves of Syracuse and Pittsburgh (among a chain reaction of others) to the ACC; never did it think the Big East would be in such great position in 2020 (and thriving) as a non-football league.
Regardless, that is why I think the Big East (and Marquette), even in a post-pandemic world, is in prime negotiating position with Fox (or ESPN) for its next TV deal. UConn coming back added yet another high level, championship brand, to the conference's inventory, and will only help make the league better in the long-run. Our floor this year for the tournament, in a pandemic, very much appears to be five teams (and this is supposed to be a down year). In a normal year, we should get about 7 bids, with high(er) seeds, thanks to the added conference games that UConn brings with it.
Quote from: GoldenWarrior11 on December 16, 2020, 02:36:28 PM
From 2013-2016? Most definitely. In 2020? It's pretty much a non-issue at this point. When the BE broke with ESPN (and signed with Fox), there were definitely some initiatives from the network to attempt to downplay any successes the league had, while just downright ignoring others. Couple that with the fact that, early on, ESPN was attempting to elevate the AAC has a high-major conference (superior to that Big East), and it was easy to see what was going on. However, some wonderful things happened. Yes, Villanova won a national championship (followed by another), yes, Xavier also earned a 1-seed, and yes, the BET was selling out again, but the entire league was very competitive and was so in OOC as well - which drove interest and affirmed fan support.
The turning point, to me, was right after 2016, when ESPN commentators began actively campaigning UConn's return to the Big East. Vitale, Greenberg, and others all used their platforms on ESPN to urge the Huskies to "return home". Why would any network actively urge one of its properties to go to a competitor? Well, firstly, it wanted to drive down the open market value for the AAC so that it could keep its content for ESPN+. Secondly, I believe that ESPN will eventually want to bid on and get back the Big East content to ESPN. ESPN truly felt that it had sliced and diced all remaining value from the old Big East by arranging for the moves of Syracuse and Pittsburgh (among a chain reaction of others) to the ACC; never did it think the Big East would be in such great position in 2020 (and thriving) as a non-football league.
Regardless, that is why I think the Big East (and Marquette), even in a post-pandemic world, is in prime negotiating position with Fox (or ESPN) for its next TV deal. UConn coming back added yet another high level, championship brand, to the conference's inventory, and will only help make the league better in the long-run. Our floor this year for the tournament, in a pandemic, very much appears to be five teams (and this is supposed to be a down year). In a normal year, we should get about 7 bids, with high(er) seeds, thanks to the added conference games that UConn brings with it.
We appear to mostly agree.
Quote from: GoldenWarrior11 on December 16, 2020, 02:36:28 PM
From 2013-2016? Most definitely. In 2020? It's pretty much a non-issue at this point. When the BE broke with ESPN (and signed with Fox), there were definitely some initiatives from the network to attempt to downplay any successes the league had, while just downright ignoring others. Couple that with the fact that, early on, ESPN was attempting to elevate the AAC has a high-major conference (superior to that Big East), and it was easy to see what was going on. However, some wonderful things happened. Yes, Villanova won a national championship (followed by another), yes, Xavier also earned a 1-seed, and yes, the BET was selling out again, but the entire league was very competitive and was so in OOC as well - which drove interest and affirmed fan support.
The turning point, to me, was right after 2016, when ESPN commentators began actively campaigning UConn's return to the Big East. Vitale, Greenberg, and others all used their platforms on ESPN to urge the Huskies to "return home". Why would any network actively urge one of its properties to go to a competitor? Well, firstly, it wanted to drive down the open market value for the AAC so that it could keep its content for ESPN+. Secondly, I believe that ESPN will eventually want to bid on and get back the Big East content to ESPN. ESPN truly felt that it had sliced and diced all remaining value from the old Big East by arranging for the moves of Syracuse and Pittsburgh (among a chain reaction of others) to the ACC; never did it think the Big East would be in such great position in 2020 (and thriving) as a non-football league.
Regardless, that is why I think the Big East (and Marquette), even in a post-pandemic world, is in prime negotiating position with Fox (or ESPN) for its next TV deal. UConn coming back added yet another high level, championship brand, to the conference's inventory, and will only help make the league better in the long-run. Our floor this year for the tournament, in a pandemic, very much appears to be five teams (and this is supposed to be a down year). In a normal year, we should get about 7 bids, with high(er) seeds, thanks to the added conference games that UConn brings with it.
Great recap. I would add just one important point on the BET: Locking Madison Square Garden.
Right now we have two great wins and no bad losses. Is it possible for us to have a bad loss, now that the non-conference season is over? Maybe a home loss to Georgetown or St. John's. I have no idea about DePaul.
Quote from: bilsu on December 16, 2020, 05:00:08 PM
Right now we have two great wins and no bad losses. Is it possible for us to have a bad loss, now that the non-conference season is over? Maybe a home loss to Georgetown or St. John's. I have no idea about DePaul.
Gtown would definitely not be an ideal loss.
But I think at this point its all about finishing .500 in conference. That should be enough for us
Quote from: bilsu on December 16, 2020, 05:00:08 PM
Right now we have two great wins and no bad losses. Is it possible for us to have a bad loss, now that the non-conference season is over? Maybe a home loss to Georgetown or St. John's. I have no idea about DePaul.
I think this way of thinking about it only matters if we assume it's a 68 team field. I think Lunardi has his head up his ass if we're last team in thus far, but I also don't know that we will be sitting pretty enough by the end of the year if it's a truncated field.
Quote from: GB Warrior on December 16, 2020, 07:15:59 PM
I think this way of thinking about it only matters if we assume it's a 68 team field. I think Lunardi has his head up his ass if we're last team in thus far, but I also don't know that we will be sitting pretty enough by the end of the year if it's a truncated field.
If it's not a 68 team field they need to announce it in the next week or two.
Quote from: GB Warrior on December 16, 2020, 07:15:59 PM
I think this way of thinking about it only matters if we assume it's a 68 team field. I think Lunardi has his head up his ass if we're last team in thus far, but I also don't know that we will be sitting pretty enough by the end of the year if it's a truncated field.
I'm not betting the mortgage or anything. But I really do not see them doing a reduced field. They are gonna be going full bore to try and get a full tourney after missing last years.
Especially with the hope of a vaccine being pretty established by March.