https://twitter.com/JimMcIlvaine/status/1614701734278107136?s=20&t=Qz9C7V9V4Lld7KM5V3ohlA
@JimMcIlvaine 16h
In spite of todays outcome, I think this could be the best #mubb team since the final four year.
Even better than the E8 team 10 years ago?
I think there's only a few teams that potentially come close:
2009, before Dom James broke his foot (James, McNeal, Matthews, Hayward, Burke, Butler)
2013 Elite Eight team (Blue, J Wilson, Gardner, Cadougan, Lockett, Anderson)
2019, before the end of season slump (Howard, both Hauser's, Anim, John, Cain, Elliot)
2023
I think I might still take 2009, but it's close
Here's how I would rank the best teams since 2003:
1) 2009: They were undersized, but a legit Final Four contender until James' injury.
2) 2008: Thanks to Ousmane Barro, a better defensive team than 2009. This team gets forgotten because of how good the Amigos were as seniors, but if not for that stupid Stanford shot they go to the Elite 8.
3) 2012: This team was unquestionably better than the Elite 8 team, IMO. DJO & Jae gave them legit shooting weapons and they were better defensively.
I would put this team in the mix with those three. I think I might slot them behind 2008 but ahead of 2012. This team has better point guard play than 2012 did and more scoring threats. I also think this team has more upside than any of them because while each team had a flaw (2009's size, 2008's lack of consistency, 2012's limited offense beyond the top-2) this team's biggest flaw is its defense, but we've seen them be able to lock in defensively for stretches. If they can get that 30-40% great defense up to 60-70%, this team can go to the Final Four.
2013 and 2019 were the other two I'd mention as having flashes, but neither were in this conversation, IMO.
Quote from: brewcity77 on January 16, 2023, 06:50:49 AM
Here's how I would rank the best teams since 2003:
1) 2009: They were undersized, but a legit Final Four contender until James' injury.
2) 2008: Thanks to Ousmane Barro, a better defensive team than 2009. This team gets forgotten because of how good the Amigos were as seniors, but if not for that stupid Stanford shot they go to the Elite 8.
3) 2012: This team was unquestionably better than the Elite 8 team, IMO. DJO & Jae gave them legit shooting weapons and they were better defensively.
I would put this team in the mix with those three. I think I might slot them behind 2008 but ahead of 2012. This team has better point guard play than 2012 did and more scoring threats. I also think this team has more upside than any of them because while each team had a flaw (2009's size, 2008's lack of consistency, 2012's limited offense beyond the top-2) this team's biggest flaw is its defense, but we've seen them be able to lock in defensively for stretches. If they can get that 30-40% great defense up to 60-70%, this team can go to the Final Four.
2013 and 2019 were the other two I'd mention as having flashes, but neither were in this conversation, IMO.
I agree with this analysis.
Quote from: brewcity77 on January 16, 2023, 06:50:49 AM
Here's how I would rank the best teams since 2003:
1) 2009: They were undersized, but a legit Final Four contender until James' injury.
2) 2008: Thanks to Ousmane Barro, a better defensive team than 2009. This team gets forgotten because of how good the Amigos were as seniors, but if not for that stupid Stanford shot they go to the Elite 8.
3) 2012: This team was unquestionably better than the Elite 8 team, IMO. DJO & Jae gave them legit shooting weapons and they were better defensively.
I would put this team in the mix with those three. I think I might slot them behind 2008 but ahead of 2012. This team has better point guard play than 2012 did and more scoring threats. I also think this team has more upside than any of them because while each team had a flaw (2009's size, 2008's lack of consistency, 2012's limited offense beyond the top-2) this team's biggest flaw is its defense, but we've seen them be able to lock in defensively for stretches. If they can get that 30-40% great defense up to 60-70%, this team can go to the Final Four.
2013 and 2019 were the other two I'd mention as having flashes, but neither were in this conversation, IMO.
2013 team was our only Big East regular season champion (14-4 in conference), went to the Elite 8 and finished #11 in the coaches poll. Rating them as "having flashes" like the 2019 burnout team belittles their accomplishments.
This team definitely has the potential to reach the heights of the more recent successful teams, but I don't think they're quite there yet. To get to the level where a lot of us think they can, there needs to be more focus on team rebounding on the defensive glass and slightly better execution down the stretch in close games.
It's an interesting conversation. I would agree they're not quite there yet and that both of the aforementioned teams were better defensively. I do think we're better than 2019.
Speaking of Mac...
'94 over 03? College basketball was so deep in 94 that it was a different game then. H2H it would be a fun one.
We left something on the table in 96. That team, could play.
We'll have an answer about where the current team ranks in a couple months. Or, preferably, in 77 days.
Come tournament time, MU doesn't have to fear anyone. That doesn't mean that they will go deep (crapshoot), it just means that they can compete with anybody.
Quote from: The Lens on January 16, 2023, 08:27:16 AM
Speaking of Mac...
'94 over 03? College basketball was so deep in 94 that it was a different game then. H2H it would be a fun one.
We left something on the table in 96. That team, could play.
Could not agree more with your '94 v '03 point. Taking nothing away from our FF team, the number of great teams back in the early 1990s was crazy. MU lost to a Duke team with ridiculous in-team depth of its own. 4 NBA players: Bobby Hurley, Cherokee Parks, Antonio Lang, and of course Grant Hill. Duke went on to lose in the NCAA Championship game to Nolan Richardson's Razorbacks.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 16, 2023, 07:42:47 AM
2013 team was our only Big East regular season champion (14-4 in conference), went to the Elite 8 and finished #11 in the coaches poll. Rating them as "having flashes" like the 2019 burnout team belittles their accomplishments.
We're talking about best team, not most accomplished. 2013 did great things, but if put them in a 7-game series with 2009, 2008, or 2012 I think they lose.
If the over the backboard shot doesn't fall, I don't think anyone even compares them to 2008. If Dom doesn't get hurt, I think we win the Big East & are favored to go to the F4 as a 1-seed in 2009, and honestly that 2009 team might have been better than 2003 when healthy. And if 2013 played our current team, I think they lose as well.
2013 is probably the fifth best team since 2003. That's not a slight, it's just that we've had some good teams that came up short in the tourney.
Quote from: brewcity77 on January 16, 2023, 09:24:14 AM
We're talking about best team, not most accomplished. 2013 did great things, but if put them in a 7-game series with 2009, 2008, or 2012 I think they lose.
If the over the backboard shot doesn't fall, I don't think anyone even compares them to 2008. If Dom doesn't get hurt, I think we win the Big East & are favored to go to the F4 as a 1-seed in 2009, and honestly that 2009 team might have been better than 2003 when healthy. And if 2013 played our current team, I think they lose as well.
2013 is probably the fifth best team since 2003. That's not a slight, it's just that we've had some good teams that came up short in the tourney.
I totally hear what you're saying, brew ... but accomplishments are tangible. Accomplishments are evidence. Accomplishments are real. The rest is all just opinion. Which is fun, and it's what fan boards are for. I'll still take the accomplishments 100 times out of 100.
I mean, 1976-77 was what? Al's 4th- or 5th-best team on paper? Maybe not even? But thank goodness for what those Warriors accomplished!
Quote from: MU82 on January 16, 2023, 09:32:01 AM
I totally hear what you're saying, brew ... but accomplishments are tangible. Accomplishments are evidence. Accomplishments are real. The rest is all just opinion. Which is fun, and it's what fan boards are for. I'll still take the accomplishments 100 times out of 100.
I mean, 1976-77 was what? Al's 4th- or 5th-best team on paper? Maybe not even? But thank goodness for what those Warriors accomplished!
I think Al's '71 team was his best.
Quote from: MU82 on January 16, 2023, 09:32:01 AM
I totally hear what you're saying, brew ... but accomplishments are tangible. Accomplishments are evidence. Accomplishments are real. The rest is all just opinion. Which is fun, and it's what fan boards are for. I'll still take the accomplishments 100 times out of 100.
I mean, 1976-77 was what? Al's 4th- or 5th-best team on paper? Maybe not even? But thank goodness for what those Warriors accomplished!
They are sentiment. I get why people get attached, but when questions like this come up, I try to remove that emotion, even in real time. It's why I was pouring cold water on the 2019 team in January when they were top-10 and before the collapse.
For me, this is kind of the whole essence of the oft silly "knows ball" discussions that go on. It's also why college basketball is so frustrating and fun, because single results determine so much. The NCAA tournament is the best way to crown a champion but the worst way to determine which team is the best.
If you love 2013 for the Big East title and Elite Eight, I don't blame you. I do too. But if you think 2013 was one of the 3 best teams post 2003, you simply don't know ball.
Quote from: brewcity77 on January 16, 2023, 10:17:04 AM
They are sentiment. I get why people get attached, but when questions like this come up, I try to remove that emotion, even in real time. It's why I was pouring cold water on the 2019 team in January when they were top-10 and before the collapse.
For me, this is kind of the whole essence of the oft silly "knows ball" discussions that go on. It's also why college basketball is so frustrating and fun, because single results determine so much. The NCAA tournament is the best way to crown a champion but the worst way to determine which team is the best.
If you love 2013 for the Big East title and Elite Eight, I don't blame you. I do too. But if you think 2013 was one of the 3 best teams post 2003, you simply don't know ball.
I literally saw that 2013 team lose by 40 to Florida, and lose to UWGB. That really only played well against Miami in the post season. Lost to Jerian Grants Notre Dame, Buzzer beat Davidson, Snuck by Butler, beat on Miami, and then got throttled by Cuse.
If we don't faceplant in March, it will be the first time in 10 years. I'm excited about the potential, but can we wait until we're handing out a few butt-kickings in late Feb or the Big East tournament before starting this hype train?
Quote from: DienerTime34 on January 16, 2023, 10:43:19 AM
If we don't faceplant in March, it will be the first time in 10 years. I'm excited about the potential, but can we wait until we're handing out a few butt-kickings in late Feb or the Big East tournament before starting this hype train?
I just want to roll in our first tournament game to end BS. Everything after would be gravy.
Quote from: mugrad_89 on January 16, 2023, 08:12:06 AM
This team definitely has the potential to reach the heights of the more recent successful teams, but I don't think they're quite there yet. To get to the level where a lot of us think they can, there needs to be more focus on team rebounding on the defensive glass and slightly better execution down the stretch in close games.
On. The rebounding issue, we have gone over a season and a half with Shaka, and we all talk about improving it and Shaka mentions rebounding but what have they done to change anything about it in either recruiting or game plans? I hope we can fix it because that is a lot of points given up every game more than likely.
"Don't mean a thing without a ring."
Games aren't played on a computer. People aren't excel cells. Wins are what matter. Sure, computer numbers are nice to compare where you are to other teams. But banners, Ws, and titles are what are fun, not algorithms.
I just can't imagine being a sports fan and having my team win a conference title and being like, "Well actually!" to everything.
Give me a season like last year's Providence team over a season like this year's Creighton season, if Creighton's season continues to go as it is with a lot of losses but nice computer numbers.
I have a soft spot for the '94 team. I was at Duke when that group played down there their freshman year and was at Knoxville for their final game. Started and ended with Duke and it was a great ride. Great group of guys, loved KO and had success on the court and a fun run.
Quote from: brewcity77 on January 16, 2023, 10:17:04 AM
If you love 2013 for the Big East title and Elite Eight, I don't blame you. I do too. But if you think 2013 was one of the 3 best teams post 2003, you simply don't know ball.
I'm sure the meat eaters would be happy to welcome you to their club, brew.
What I'm saying is that "accomplishments" are nothing to pooh-pooh. Accomplishments matter. One could make a pretty good case that, in high-level sports, accomplishments are all that matter ... with the ultimate accomplishment being the championship each year.
We have probably read hundreds of times on Scoop how our 2009 team "would have gone to the Final Four" if Dominic hadn't gotten hurt. Talk about sentiment! That team could have lost in the first round of the NCAAT just like Virginia did as the No. 1 overall seed, it could have won the national title, or anything in between. Nobody knows ... but that some of our fellow Scoopers have said it with such certainty -- as if it were a
fact -- cracks me up. (I know you only said in this thread that they'd have been legit FF contenders.)
It's all fun. But sure, re 2013, I'll give you the semantics of "most accomplished" and I'll let others speculate about the always unprovable "best."
Quote from: brewcity77 on January 16, 2023, 10:17:04 AM
They are sentiment. I get why people get attached, but when questions like this come up, I try to remove that emotion, even in real time. It's why I was pouring cold water on the 2019 team in January when they were top-10 and before the collapse.
For me, this is kind of the whole essence of the oft silly "knows ball" discussions that go on. It's also why college basketball is so frustrating and fun, because single results determine so much. The NCAA tournament is the best way to crown a champion but the worst way to determine which team is the best.
If you love 2013 for the Big East title and Elite Eight, I don't blame you. I do too. But if you think 2013 was one of the 3 best teams post 2003, you simply don't know ball.
Algorithms is what you don't know. Thankfully for my entertainment purposes games are played on a basketball court, not an excel spreadsheet. I get the feeling you'd like watching a spreadsheet more.
I'll take a slightly different approach.
While I don't disagree with Mr. McIlvaine's Tweet, I liken this team to where Marquette was in 1966-1967 and 1967-1968. I know this may make me a geezer to this board, but that's kinda where we are. Coach McGuire had built some very good teams that weren't terribly respected nationally. It was in this time that he sold George Thompson on Marquette. After two years, things took off.
These were Coach McGuire's third and fourth years. If Coach Smart can sustain this for another year or two, Wow!
The big challenge this year is getting past February in one piece -- preferably without a loss to DePaul!
dgies
I have a real soft spot for the early Al teams you noted. They were the foundation for the program moving forward.
Imagine if that 94 team had a guard like Wade. That's how you win a national championship.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on January 16, 2023, 09:54:54 AM
I think Al's '71 team was his best.
71 and 76 were his best. 71 was undefeated going into the tournament. 76 had one loss going into the tournament.
77 had to play through the shock of Al announcing his retirement but they weee obviously great...especially when it mattered most.
Quote from: BLWarrior91 on January 16, 2023, 03:58:22 PM
Imagine if that 94 team had a guard like Wade. That's how you win a national championship.
Imagine if this year's team had a guard like Wade.
I will go kicking and screaming to my grave the '96 team could've taken down UMass in the regional semis had it gotten past Arkansas in the second round.
Quote from: The Lens on January 16, 2023, 08:27:16 AM
Speaking of Mac...
'94 over 03? College basketball was so deep in 94 that it was a different game then. H2H it would be a fun one.
We left something on the table in 96. That team, could play.
Quote from: AlTruda94 on January 16, 2023, 06:58:01 PM
I will go kicking and screaming to my grave the '96 team could've taken down UMass in the regional semis had it gotten past Arkansas in the second round.
Didn't they lose to Providence?
Quote from: Galway Eagle on January 16, 2023, 07:26:29 PM
Didn't they lose to Providence?
'97 team did
That's the squad that had to win the CUSA Tourney to get a spot and then got poleaxed by the dence
Austin Croshere.
Quote from: AlTruda94 on January 16, 2023, 06:58:01 PM
I will go kicking and screaming to my grave the '96 team could've taken down UMass in the regional semis had it gotten past Arkansas in the second round.
I knew they were in trouble when I saw Arkansas beat Penn State. PSU was not a great team - I believe Big Ten champs in a bad year for the conference.
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on January 16, 2023, 07:35:28 PM
I knew they were in trouble when I saw Arkansas beat Penn State. PSU was not a great team - I believe Big Ten champs in a bad year for the conference.
That was a pretty young but talented Hogs team. They lost pretty much everything from the Final 4 Teams the previous two years. Still thought Marquette should have won that game
BLWarrior
I agree on '71 being the best followed by '76. IMO, '77 was third best.
Quote from: MU82 on January 16, 2023, 06:34:08 PM
Imagine if this year's team had a guard like Wade.
Imagine if the 1969, 70, 71, 72, 73,74, 75, 76, and 78 teams had Wade. Instead of the one title in 77, we win 10 in a row!
Quote from: Goose on January 16, 2023, 07:47:22 PM
BLWarrior
I agree on '71 being the best followed by '76. IMO, '77 was third best.
I concur.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 16, 2023, 08:25:26 PM
Imagine if the 1969, 70, 71, 72, 73,74, 75, 76, and 78 teams had Wade. Instead of the one title in 77, we win 10 in a row!
Exactly.
Why stop there? Imagine if every team had a Wade. Hell imagine two wades on 2002 and 2003!
Quote from: Galway Eagle on January 16, 2023, 09:07:35 PM
Why stop there? Imagine if every team had a Wade. Hell imagine two wades on 2002 and 2003!
One wade wasn't enough is 2002, so two couldn't been the difference.
Quote from: withoutbias on January 16, 2023, 02:18:51 PM
Algorithms is what you don't know. Thankfully for my entertainment purposes games are played on a basketball court, not an excel spreadsheet. I get the feeling you'd like watching a spreadsheet more.
So you think Vander Blue and Junior Cadougan had a better team than Jae Crowder and DJO did?
My favorite story about that 94 team was that Roney Eford had successfully checked himself back into games several times during the season. He definitely brought a swagger to that team.
Quote from: Galway Eagle on January 16, 2023, 09:07:35 PM
Why stop there? Imagine if every team had a Wade. Hell imagine two wades on 2002 and 2003!
Imagine if every team had a Wojo clone for their coach.
What if Wojo clone coaches 3 Wade's and 2 Howard's?
Quote from: Scoop Snoop on January 16, 2023, 09:18:46 PM
Imagine if every team had a Wojo clone for their coach.
Quote from: PointWarrior on January 16, 2023, 09:22:49 PM
What if Wojo clone coaches 3 Wade's and 2 Howard's?
That would have to have been a Crean team--no big.
Quote from: brewcity77 on January 16, 2023, 09:14:31 PM
So you think Vander Blue and Junior Cadougan had a better team than Jae Crowder and DJO did?
No. But not fair. We lost our two best players (DJO and Jae) -true- well, this year's team lost last year's two best players (Lewis and Morsell) and another starter (Kuath). But in 2013 returning starters (Vander and Junior) and returning sometimes starters (Davante and Jamal Wilson) were back a year older and better. And in 2013 transfer Trent Lockett arrived and starting Center Chris Otule returned from a season long injury. Reserves (Mayo, D Wilson and Juan Anderson) had another year under their belt. This year, starters TKolek and Omar returned a year older and better, and key reserves S Mitchell, Kam Jones, Oso and DJoplin are back a year older and better and our freshmen supply depth.
Not a perfect comp, I'll grant you, but close. I'm not saying 2013 was better than 2012. But lumping a regular season BE champ, NCAA #3 seed, Elite 8 team with a 2019 team with very little in the way of accomplishments is, with all due respect (and I mean that) way, way off.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 16, 2023, 10:58:52 PM
No. But not fair. We lost our two best players (DJO and Jae) -true- well, this year's team lost last year's two best players (Lewis and Morsell) and another starter (Kuath). But in 2013 returning starters (Vander and Junior) and returning sometimes starters (Davante and Jamal Wilson) were back a year older and better. And in 2013 transfer Trent Lockett arrived and starting Center Chris Otule returned from a season long injury. Reserves (Mayo, D Wilson and Juan Anderson) had another year under their belt. This year, starters TKolek and Omar returned a year older and better, and key reserves S Mitchell, Kam Jones, Oso and DJoplin are back a year older and better and our freshmen supply depth.
Not a perfect comp, I'll grant you, but close. I'm not saying 2013 was better than 2012. But lumping a regular season BE champ, NCAA #3 seed, Elite 8 team with a 2019 team with very little in the way of accomplishments is, with all due respect (and I mean that) way, way off.
Jamil
The 08 team got screwed by the Big East schedule and got seeded one line below ND, who they had beat twice.
I will also throw out that the 02 team was better than the 03 team.
Quote from: MUDPT on January 16, 2023, 11:14:17 PM
The 08 team got screwed by the Big East schedule and got seeded one line below ND, who they had beat twice.
I will also throw out that the 02 team was better than the 03 team.
KenPom thinks so but Wade grew a lot as a leader + Travis as a starter + River Jackson.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 16, 2023, 10:58:52 PMBut lumping a regular season BE champ, NCAA #3 seed, Elite 8 team with a 2019 team with very little in the way of accomplishments is, with all due respect (and I mean that) way, way off.
2013 isn't in my top-3 since the F4. Neither is 2019. If that's lumping them together, then I'm also lumping 2015, 2021, and 2014 with them.
I think there's three teams with "best since" claims and seventeen other teams. My point was more to say why I put 2012 ahead of teams like 2013 & 2019, not to compare 2013 & 2019. You're the only one doing that.
10-11 played 4 games against top 25 teams prior to the NCAA Tournament. 11-12 played 8 games against top 25 teams prior to the NCAA Tournament.
But KenPom is the anti crystal ball. It is correct. Algorithms have taken over sports and you cannot argue it. They say we're winning 10 of the last 12. So 16-4 we are this year in the Big East. Awesome.
Quote from: withoutbias on January 17, 2023, 07:30:53 AM
10-11 played 4 games against top 25 teams prior to the NCAA Tournament. 11-12 played 8 games against top 25 teams prior to the NCAA Tournament.
But KenPom is the anti crystal ball. It is correct. Algorithms have taken over sports and you cannot argue it. They say we're winning 10 of the last 12. So 16-4 we are this year in the Big East. Awesome.
I started this year thinking this was a top-25 team, single digit seed, and top-3 in the Big East. Really, not much has changed except the on-court play slightly elevating my expectations.
Quote from: The Lens on January 16, 2023, 11:21:08 PM
KenPom thinks so but Wade grew a lot as a leader + Travis as a starter + River Jackson.
Wait ... KenPom actually had the '02 team as being better than the '03 team?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 16, 2023, 08:25:26 PM
Imagine if the 1969, 70, 71, 72, 73,74, 75, 76, and 78 teams had Wade. Instead of the one title in 77, we win 10 in a row!
Imagine if they had Butch...
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 16, 2023, 08:25:26 PM
Imagine if the 1969, 70, 71, 72, 73,74, 75, 76, and 78 teams had Wade. Instead of the one title in 77, we win 10 in a row!
Its not like we had a shortage of great guards in those days:
Dean Meminger
Allie McGuire
Sugar Frazier
Marcus Washington
Lloyd Walton
Butch Lee
Jim Boylan
Sam Worthen
These guys were really good and, while not Dwyane quality, did wonderus things for our program!
I'm with you Goose, those early teams were special.
Quote from: MU82 on January 17, 2023, 12:29:30 PM
Wait ... KenPom actually had the '02 team as being better than the '03 team?
Marginally more efficient. The adjusted efficiency margin in 2002 was +21.47, in 2003 it was +21.30. The 2002 team was ranked 11th, the 2003 team 15th. However, had if you swapped those numbers, the rankings wouldn't change. The 2002 team would've been ranked 15th in 2003 and the 2003 team would've been ranked 11th in 2002.
There are a few reasons for this. First, it's because the defense was terrible in 2003. Like worst to ever make a Final Four bad. 2002 had an excellent defense. And while the 2002 offense wasn't nearly as good as 2003, Diener was more efficient as a lower usage freshman and Cordell Henry and Oluoma Nnmaka were both solid enough to round out a good but not great offense.
2003 was by far the best offense (and people generally remember great offenses better) under Crean or Buzz and the postseason accomplishments lead us to remember them more fondly. The only Marquette offense in the kenpom era to rank better than 2003 was 2017, though that defense was even worse.
Quote from: The Lens on January 16, 2023, 11:21:08 PM
River Jackson.
Was this Rob's nickname or were you drunk posting?
Quote from: brewcity77 on January 17, 2023, 01:52:51 PM
Marginally more efficient. The adjusted efficiency margin in 2002 was +21.47, in 2003 it was +21.30. The 2002 team was ranked 11th, the 2003 team 15th. However, had if you swapped those numbers, the rankings wouldn't change. The 2002 team would've been ranked 15th in 2003 and the 2003 team would've been ranked 11th in 2002.
There are a few reasons for this. First, it's because the defense was terrible in 2003. Like worst to ever make a Final Four bad. 2002 had an excellent defense. And while the 2002 offense wasn't nearly as good as 2003, Diener was more efficient as a lower usage freshman and Cordell Henry and Oluoma Nnmaka were both solid enough to round out a good but not great offense.
2003 was by far the best offense (and people generally remember great offenses better) under Crean or Buzz and the postseason accomplishments lead us to remember them more fondly. The only Marquette offense in the kenpom era to rank better than 2003 was 2017, though that defense was even worse.
It's wild what being on the right side of a game in a single elimination bracket can do to peoples fondness for a team. Davidson doesn't throw the ball away or Rotnei Clarke hits the second insane three and we forget the 2013 team. 2003 Holy Cross wins and Wades tenure is viewed as a waste. Meanwhile if Jimmy and Lazar don't misread Quincy Pondexter's drive 2010 same with the Tulsa loss I'm sure in 2002, very easily could be talking about that team as a great run.
Edit: or Stanford or 78, 71 or 69 iirc those were all single possession tournament losses.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on January 17, 2023, 02:01:10 PM
Was this Rob's nickname or were you drunk posting?
You've obviously never played cards with him.
Quote from: brewcity77 on January 16, 2023, 06:50:49 AM
2013 and 2019 were the other two I'd mention as having flashes, but neither were in this conversation, IMO.
You didn't lump 2013 and 2019 together. Really? C'mon, Brew.
Quote from: The Lens on January 17, 2023, 02:25:39 PM
You've obviously never played cards with him.
The Lens knows cards (and ball).
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 17, 2023, 02:27:16 PM
You didn't lump 2013 and 2019 together. Really? C'mon, Brew.
Only in the sense that I lumped every non-2008, 2009, and 2012 team together. You're trying to make this into something it's not. There's three teams worth considering. 2013 and 2019 are not among that group.
Jim elaborates...
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=5930740986985449&id=205603912832547&sfnsn=mo&extid=a&mibextid=6aamW6
Quote from: brewcity77 on January 17, 2023, 09:44:33 PM
Only in the sense that I lumped every non-2008, 2009, and 2012 team together. You're trying to make this into something it's not. There's three teams worth considering. 2013 and 2019 are not among that group.
No you didn't. You specifically mentioned 2013 and 2019 (no others) implying that they were next in line. And certainly 2013 should have been at the very worst next in line. 2019? Not in the same universe.
Imagine if Vanilla Soft Serve was on this year's team, hey?
Doc
Thank God he is not, he is a coach killer.
Too slow. Doesn't defend. Ball stopper.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 18, 2023, 05:02:44 PM
No you didn't. You specifically mentioned 2013 and 2019 (no others) implying that they were next in line. And certainly 2013 should have been at the very worst next in line. 2019? Not in the same universe.
You're trying to argue over the fourth best team. Just stop. You're literally the only person that thinks this is a discussion.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on January 18, 2023, 05:50:50 PM
Imagine if Vanilla Soft Serve was on this year's team, hey?
I miss seeing Marquette guys fall down in random spots
Quote from: Goose on January 18, 2023, 05:51:29 PM
Doc
Thank God he is not, he is a coach killer.
Michigan State 2019: Final 4
Michigan State 2020: Co-Big Ten Champs
Michigan State 2021: 15-13, 9-11, 11-seed play-in
Michigan State 2022: 19-15, 11-9, 7-seed, eliminated in the 2nd Round
Second worst two year stretch of the Tom Izzo era
Best team result: 2019 with Marquette, 24-10, 12-6, 5-seed
🤷🏼♂️
The current 30 year old version? Or the Crayon letter writing one that tried to pass it around to the team to have sign it when he was in college at MU like a decade ago?
Quote from: warriorchick on January 18, 2023, 03:02:49 PM
Jim elaborates...
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=5930740986985449&id=205603912832547&sfnsn=mo&extid=a&mibextid=6aamW6
Me thinks Jim reads Scoop
If so, thanks, Jim, for all you gave and continue to give to MU.