https://x.com/CBKReport/status/1866184767559123020?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Also nice to see Lunardi give us a title-contender shout out - maybe change this title thread to "Title contender chatter"?
Which national championship contender are you now all-in on?
Lunardi: Is it time yet to talk about Marquette? The Golden Eagles were thought to need a little time after losing Big East Player of the Year Tyler Kolek but have instead solidified behind national POTY candidate Kam Jones. Marquette has lost just once, at Iowa State, and boasts what is approaching a No. 1 seed-type résumé.
Nice to know that it's 100% impossible for UConn to threepeat.
Quote from: 1SE on December 09, 2024, 01:57:02 PMAlso nice to see Lunardi give us a title-contender shout out - maybe change this title thread to "Title contender chatter"?
Which national championship contender are you now all-in on?
Lunardi: Is it time yet to talk about Marquette? The Golden Eagles were thought to need a little time after losing Big East Player of the Year Tyler Kolek but have instead solidified behind national POTY candidate Kam Jones. Marquette has lost just once, at Iowa State, and boasts what is approaching a No. 1 seed-type résumé.
Jokes on him we didn't lose Big East POY Tyler Kolek! Him not getting it twice was part of the continuation plan.
Quote from: Galway Eagle on December 09, 2024, 05:06:37 PMJokes on him we didn't lose Big East POY Tyler Kolek! Him not getting it twice was part of the continuation plan.
Cheap opportunity say fck Devin Carter
Much as I hate Duke and think we should be ahead of them in the rankings, I fear they will be our biggest obstacle come Tourney Time.
Duke is long. I really hope that MU is healthy and that Owens and Parham are playing defense to Shaka's standard. Going to need capable bodies to throw at them.
Quote from: Jockey on December 09, 2024, 06:12:52 PMMuch as I hate Duke and think we should be ahead of them in the rankings, I fear they will be our biggest obstacle come Tourney Time.
Why? They have one good win and it was at home, and a bench player made 6 threes in the game.
Quote from: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on December 09, 2024, 06:26:11 PMWhy? They have one good win and it was at home, and a bench player made 6 threes in the game.
They have at least 3 guys who will be lottery picks
Quote from: Apolitical Warrior on December 09, 2024, 06:01:16 PMCheap opportunity say fck Devin Carter
Ending his career was a very underrated moment last year.
Quote from: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on December 09, 2024, 06:26:11 PMWhy? They have one good win and it was at home, and a bench player made 6 threes in the game.
Their two losses were in the final minute to two very good teams with their freshman making november mistakes. They play elite D. Have shooters
And elite talent.
Will be one of the 3 most dangerous teams in March.
I'm not saying Duke is bad. But they aren't some unbeatable juggernaut.
For a #1 option, Flagg has pretty mediocre efficiency. They also have the least experienced team and coach among the contenders.
I think Auburn and Iowa State are both better. Tennessee might be better too but they haven't played any truly elite teams, so they're still wait see.
Quote from: 1SE on December 09, 2024, 01:57:02 PMAlso nice to see Lunardi give us a title-contender shout out - maybe change this title thread to "Title contender chatter"?
Which national championship contender are you now all-in on?
Lunardi: Is it time yet to talk about Marquette? The Golden Eagles were thought to need a little time after losing Big East Player of the Year Tyler Kolek but have instead solidified behind national POTY candidate Kam Jones. Marquette has lost just once, at Iowa State, and boasts what is approaching a No. 1 seed-type résumé.
Great idea. Just edited it.
There's been an inordinate amount of pants-pissing about Duke on the Scoop recently. I welcome any and all Duke matchups in the tourney.
Quote from: Tyler COLEk on December 10, 2024, 02:59:55 AMThere's been an inordinate amount of pants-pissing about Duke on the Scoop recently. I welcome any and all Duke matchups in the tourney.
If MU is healthy and hits 3s at a decent rate, MU doesn't need to be afraid of anybody. However, I do not believe it is heresy or COLE to acknowledge other teams are good, too. As it pertains to Duke, when I watch them I try to figure out the match ups. Who guards Flagg? Who guards Kon? Because they are long, mobile, and can shoot from anywhere, they present issues.
I think MU can beat them on a neutral floor.
I'm ok with Duke as the 3 seed in the bracket where MU is the 1...
We can start the build up now with Cooper Flag / Henry Ellinson comps.
Quote from: WarriorFan on December 10, 2024, 06:49:13 AMI'm ok with Duke as the 3 seed in the bracket where MU is the 1...
We can start the build up now with Cooper Flag / Henry Ellinson comps.
Flagg is so much better than Ellenson and not comparable at all
Quote from: tower912 on December 10, 2024, 06:40:34 AMIf MU is healthy and hits 3s at a decent rate, MU doesn't need to be afraid of anybody. However, I do not believe it is heresy or COLE to acknowledge other teams are good, too. As it pertains to Duke, when I watch them I try to figure out the match ups. Who guards Flagg? Who guards Kon? Because they are long, mobile, and can shoot from anywhere, they present issues.
I think MU can beat them on a neutral floor.
I'd match up like this:
Stevie on Proctor
Kam on Foster
Chase on Flagg
Jop on Kon
Ben on Maluch
Marquette's X-Factor in the tournament will be Jop and Ben shooting threes. If they're hot, Marquette can beat anyone.
Yup. Getting back to health, give me a healthy Chase, a healthy Zaide, and a neutral floor, and I am not afraid of Iowa State. Really good team, nothing but respect for them. Not afraid.
Quote from: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on December 10, 2024, 07:15:19 AMI'd match up like this:
Stevie on Proctor
Kam on Foster
Chase on Flagg
Jop on Kon
Ben on Maluch
Marquette's X-Factor in the tournament will be Jop and Ben shooting threes. If they're hot, Marquette can beat anyone.
Actually, the X-Factor will be our bench. Especially if Owens and Parham can contribute like the Iowa State game, albeit a loss, will be in good shape. Shaka is giving all of them plenty of minutes.
Just looked at MU's Natty odds on Sportsbook.ag - the site I use for online wagers. They still have MU at 50 to 1 for the Natty. Great value. Some teams with better odds: UCLA, Arizona, Florida, St. Johns all at 30 to 1. UCONN still 12 to 1 on their site..
Time to cash in the 401k and go all-in on Marquette!
Nancy Pelosi bet all her bitcoin holdings to Marquette #donedeal
Quote from: Apolitical Warrior on December 10, 2024, 02:38:47 PMNancy Pelosi bet all her bitcoin holdings to Marquette #donedeal
I bet Wojo was a bored ape yacht club guy
Quote from: 4 Falling Turds on December 10, 2024, 02:56:30 PMI bet Wojo was a bored ape yacht club guy
Wojo? Oh no. He has a nice ladder of CDs that he monitors daily.
Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on December 10, 2024, 02:58:01 PMWojo? Oh no. He has a nice ladder of CDs that he monitors daily.
I dunno, pump and dump was kinda his 1st half/2nd half game plan
Hmmm...I hear a lot of chicken counting. "If we hit our 3's..."...how often has that been said by ultimately disappointed fan bases.
I'm wondering do we have a good team or a great team?? I'm hoping Great...could be.
I'm really glad the next 3 out of 4 are away against decent teams. Those three away will tell a lot. Good teams win at home and some away. Great teams are scary away. Maryland, hey nice!? Purdue felt good but we were home. Same with UW. ISU told us we were good but nothing about great.
If we go 4/4 next 4, well I'm all in!
Quote from: FairWeatherEagle on December 10, 2024, 08:48:27 PMHmmm...I hear a lot of chicken counting. "If we hit our 3's..."...how often has that been said by ultimately disappointed fan bases.
I'm wondering do we have a good team or a great team?? I'm hoping Great...could be.
I'm really glad the next 3 out of 4 are away against decent teams. Those three away will tell a lot. Good teams win at home and some away. Great teams are scary away. Maryland, hey nice!? Purdue felt good but we were home. Same with UW. ISU told us we were good but nothing about great.
If we go 4/4 next 4, well I'm all in!
Pretty remarkable how fast some Scoopers have been spoiled by Shaka. We were great each of the last two years getting 2 seeds, and we are great again this year. Top 10 Ken Pom at the moment, with a legitimate national player of the year candidate in Kam.
Kam is the best player at MU since Wade, and bordering on his greatness, and I may go so far as to say exceeding DWade's impact. Special player and special person.
As has been pointed out in other threads, I believe by MU82 - it is absolutely reasonable to say we are a better team this year than last year, despite losing Kolek and Oso. Kam is exceeding Kolek by a pretty substantial margin, and we upgraded our defense losing Kolek and inserting Chase. I was and am a big Tyler fan and don't want to diminish his achievements by posting the above, yet Kam is playing at an ELITE level. That alone with this supporting cast means we are a great team.
Quote from: Elonsmusk on December 10, 2024, 09:01:10 PMPretty remarkable how fast some Scoopers have been spoiled by Shaka. We were great each of the last two years getting 2 seeds, and we are great again this year....yada yada
Got to prove it on the court. Methinks Shaka would agree with me.
No disrespect with the yada yada. You make a good case that maybe we are great.
But we've played two games on their court against "good" maybe "great" teams. W by 4 and L by 11. We still need to prove it. I'm hoping for it. I'll buy in if we go 4/4.
MUBB needs to win games—got it.
Quote from: Elonsmusk on December 10, 2024, 09:01:10 PMPretty remarkable how fast some Scoopers have been spoiled by Shaka. We were great each of the last two years getting 2 seeds, and we are great again this year. Top 10 Ken Pom at the moment, with a legitimate national player of the year candidate in Kam.
Kam is the best player at MU since Wade, and bordering on his greatness, and I may go so far as to say exceeding DWade's impact. Special player and special person.
As has been pointed out in other threads, I believe by MU82 - it is absolutely reasonable to say we are a better team this year than last year, despite losing Kolek and Oso. Kam is exceeding Kolek by a pretty substantial margin, and we upgraded our defense losing Kolek and inserting Chase. I was and am a big Tyler fan and don't want to diminish his achievements by posting the above, yet Kam is playing at an ELITE level. That alone with this supporting cast means we are a great team.
I'll also add in that, despite losing the offensive production of both Tyler and Oso, our scoring ability is perhaps even better than last year's as well.
The inside-out offense we're running has been something of a game-changer with the way it's made it easier for our guards to attack the rim. (As others have pointed out, a flaw of our constant P&R action from last year was that it caused driving lanes to get pretty congested at times.)
On top of that, we now have more scoring threats than we did before. Parham, Owens, and even Hamilton are proving to be competent scorers off the bench, while Stevie's clearly made great strides in improving his 3pt shooting.
Stevie's driving bully ball layups are also more frequent and consistent. He has made a conscious decision to score more this year and it is apparent both from range and inside. Has that nice little forearm quarter shove or right shoulder to the chest working well. The direct opposite of Kam.
We're better at finishing through contact at the rim. Jop and Stevie improved here and chase has put it all together with his athleticism in a meaningful way.
Quote from: FairWeatherEagle on December 10, 2024, 08:48:27 PMHmmm...I hear a lot of chicken counting. "If we hit our 3's..."...how often has that been said by ultimately disappointed fan bases.
I'm wondering do we have a good team or a great team?? I'm hoping Great...could be.
I'm really glad the next 3 out of 4 are away against decent teams. Those three away will tell a lot. Good teams win at home and some away. Great teams are scary away. Maryland, hey nice!? Purdue felt good but we were home. Same with UW. ISU told us we were good but nothing about great.
If we go 4/4 next 4, well I'm all in!
Username checks out.
Quote from: FairWeatherEagle on December 10, 2024, 08:48:27 PMHmmm...I hear a lot of chicken counting. "If we hit our 3's..."...how often has that been said by ultimately disappointed fan bases.
What I love about this team is I think the reality is "if we hit our 3's" we're fairly assured of beating anyone. But if we don't, we can still beat most teams. George Mason, Maryland, Purdue, and Wisconsin we all beat while shooting under 35% from deep.
Every year under Shaka, our three-point shooting has improved in conference play to at least 36%. If this team keeps up that trend it increases our ceiling over what is already a very high floor.
If we end up with another 4/31 in the Tournament, there's a decent chance we lose that game. But maybe our defense does enough to still get us through. Ultimately, all but one fanbase ends the season disappointed, so it's not like these sorts of hope aren't common everywhere in the sport.
When someone tells you who they are, believe them.
I don't mind healthy skepticism. However all teams are in the same boat. It's college basketball.
IMO, the key to Marquette's success is outscoring their opponents on a regular basis
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 11, 2024, 08:41:40 AMUltimately, all but one fanbase ends the season disappointed, so it's not like these sorts of hope aren't common everywhere in the sport.
I have never been a big fan of saying "IF" followed by a scenario that would have resulted in winning. And yes,
I know...it's irresistible and, if very specific, undeniable. If if is said pregame, it's
hope. If if is said postmortem? What's the
point? Move on. Yeah...that's just me probably. I posted recently and on other occasions that I enjoy our wins for a while, but usually quickly get over our losses and look forward to the next game.
Me, too. Be careful saying that out loud, people will call you names.
Quote from: tower912 on December 11, 2024, 10:30:13 AMMe, too. Be careful saying that out loud, people will call you names.
PM me. We need to set up a coded system to keep them at bay.
Quote from: Uncle Rico on December 11, 2024, 09:39:54 AMIMO, the key to Marquette's success is outscoring their opponents on a regular basis
I think the success is really the friends we made along the way.
Quote from: JakeBarnes on December 11, 2024, 10:46:39 AMI think the success is really the friends we made along the way.
Relationships. Growth. Victory.
Quote from: Scoop Snoop on December 11, 2024, 10:28:20 AMI have never been a big fan of saying "IF" followed by a scenario that would have resulted in winning. And yes, I know...it's irresistible and, if very specific, undeniable. If if is said pregame, it's hope. If if is said postmortem? What's the point? Move on. Yeah...that's just me probably. I posted recently and on other occasions that I enjoy our wins for a while, but usually quickly get over our losses and look forward to the next game.
Although I totally get what you're saying, I do think there is some nuance.
There were some years not long ago where we had to say something like, "If we
really shoot well from 3, we have a chance to beat (superior opponent)."
Saying, "If we shoot anywhere near our average from 3 instead of something like 4/31, we're good enough to beat anybody" seems a lot different to me.
The first is based on pretty unrealistic hope - only if we get unusually red-hot can we beat a better opponent. The second is realistic - avoid a catastrophic shooting night and we'll win because we have an outstanding all-around team.
The latter is what I truly believe about this team, and I personally don't believe it's false hope or seeing things through blue-and-gold-colored glasses.
Quote from: MU82 on December 11, 2024, 11:18:22 AMAlthough I totally get what you're saying, I do think there is some nuance.
There were some years not long ago where we had to say something like, "If we really shoot well from 3, we have a chance to beat (superior opponent)."
Saying, "If we shoot anywhere near our average from 3 instead of something like 4/31, we're good enough to beat anybody" seems a lot different to me.
The first is based on pretty unrealistic hope - only if we get unusually red-hot can we beat a better opponent. The second is realistic - avoid a catastrophic shooting night and we'll win because we have an outstanding all-around team.
The latter is what I truly believe about this team, and I personally don't believe it's false hope or seeing things through blue-and-gold-colored glasses.
Fair enough Mike. It's just that there is so much "we coulda/shoulda/woulda won,IF...." It's strictly a personal opinion on my part, but I just do not see any value in imagining a different outcome. For those who do,...
go for it.
82. Spot on.
Quote from: Uncle Rico on December 11, 2024, 09:39:54 AMIMO, the key to Marquette's success is outscoring their opponents on a regular basis
This all this the RC83 principle
Quote from: JakeBarnes on December 11, 2024, 10:46:39 AMI think the success is really the friends we made along the way.
So you're telling me that all the EGBs I've been hoarding are worthless!?!?
Quote from: Frenns Liquor Depot on December 11, 2024, 04:51:08 PMSo you're telling me that all the EGBs I've been hoarding are worthless!?!?
You be quiet! If a player sees your post and tells his teammates about it, it's on you pal.
I dug into this and it's actually a bigger trend than this tweet indicates. Yes, it does include every champion back to 2004, but it really started earlier.
The 2003 Champs were Syracuse and they were unranked in the 2002 Week 6 AP Poll. But before that, every Champion going back to 1988-89 Michigan was also top-12 in the Week 6 Poll. So from 1988-89 through today, that UR Syracuse team was the only one not to be ranked in the AP Top-12 in Week 6. So 34 of the last 35 champs were in that Top-12 (97.1%).
Are we still doing the 5 years to judge meme?
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 13, 2024, 11:44:29 AMI dug into this and it's actually a bigger trend than this tweet indicates. Yes, it does include every champion back to 2004, but it really started earlier.
The 2003 Champs were Syracuse and they were unranked in the 2002 Week 6 AP Poll. But before that, every Champion going back to 1988-89 Michigan was also top-12 in the Week 6 Poll. So from 1988-89 through today, that UR Syracuse team was the only one not to be ranked in the AP Top-12 in Week 6. So 34 of the last 35 champs were in that Top-12 (97.1%).
Wild.
As far as narrowing the list goes, I recall a comment saying that none of the champs since 2004 have been west of Kansas. If that holds true for the stat you just mentioned too, I guess that means we can knock off of Oregon and Gonzaga (lol). And let's be real, Purdue isn't winning 6 straight games this year unless a miracle happens.
That gives us a 1/9 chance of winning that title based on this trend. Sounds pretty good to me.
Quote from: #UnleashSean on December 13, 2024, 12:02:38 PMAre we still doing the 5 years to judge meme?
Yes, I still haven't decided if Shaka is the right fit or not.
Quote from: K1 Lover on December 13, 2024, 12:06:12 PMWild.
As far as narrowing the list goes, I recall a comment saying that none of the champs since 2004 have been west of Kansas. If that holds true for the stat you just mentioned too, I guess that means we can knock off of Oregon and Gonzaga (lol). And let's be real, Purdue isn't winning 6 straight games this year unless a miracle happens.
That gives us a 1/9 chance of winning that title based on this trend. Sounds pretty good to me.
The last champion from the far west was Arizona in 1997. And Waco is slightly further west than Lawrence.
Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on December 13, 2024, 12:14:11 PMThe last champion from the far west was Arizona in 1997. And Waco is slightly further west than Lawrence.
UCLA in 1995 too, I just found out. Nevertheless, I'll gladly take 1/11.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 13, 2024, 11:44:29 AMI dug into this and it's actually a bigger trend than this tweet indicates. Yes, it does include every champion back to 2004, but it really started earlier.
The 2003 Champs were Syracuse and they were unranked in the 2002 Week 6 AP Poll. But before that, every Champion going back to 1988-89 Michigan was also top-12 in the Week 6 Poll. So from 1988-89 through today, that UR Syracuse team was the only one not to be ranked in the AP Top-12 in Week 6. So 34 of the last 35 champs were in that Top-12 (97.1%).
So the 12 teams people perceive as good after a few weeks are in fact... good?
If it was a smaller number than 12 it'd be cool but basically all I'm seeing is that after a decent amount of evidence people know who good teams are
Quote from: Galway Eagle on December 13, 2024, 01:27:46 PMSo the 12 teams people perceive as good after a few weeks are in fact... good?
If it was a smaller number than 12 it'd be cool but basically all I'm seeing is that after a decent amount of evidence people know who good teams are
You don't think its at least a little shocking that, for the last 35 seasons, teams who were judged to be in the top 4-5% of all of D1 basketball in mid-December, have always won a single stage knockout tournament in March???
I ran it on the runners up, as well.
- Unranked - 6 times
- Ranked 13-25 - 7 times
- Top-12 - 22 times
So while the top-12 is still the most prevalent, it's a much stronger corollary with the winners than the losers. And one of the 13-25s was 2003 Kansas, so teams ranked #13 or worse in the Week 6 poll are 0-12 against teams in the top-12.
When two teams from the top-12 of Week 6 meet, the team that was ranked higher in Week 6 went 13-8 against the lower ranked team.
What needs to be emphasized is that MU is in that group again this season. With two players gone to the NBA. With no new players from the portal.
Kudos to all of you who were bullish on this season's roster during the offseason.
Get healthy, stay healthy, build that bench, make those 3s. All of that and the sky is the limit.
Quote from: Galway Eagle on December 13, 2024, 01:27:46 PMSo the 12 teams people perceive as good after a few weeks are in fact... good?
If it was a smaller number than 12 it'd be cool but basically all I'm seeing is that after a decent amount of evidence people know who good teams are
I get what you're saying, and I'd say the same thing if it was referring to the final week of the AP Poll. But it's not.
What makes this trend noteworthy is that it's referring specifically to week 6 — an entire three months before the tournament. There's plenty of room for variance between now and then, and in theory, it's possible that the top 12 in week 21 (when the final poll is released) will feature twelve different teams than it does now. Most people would be inclined to believe that the top twelve teams in early March stand the best chance of winning the tournament. But this trend suggests otherwise.
That is why it's interesting.
Quote from: K1 Lover on December 13, 2024, 02:58:15 PMI get what you're saying, and I'd say the same thing if it was referring to the final week of the AP Poll. But it's not.
What makes this trend noteworthy is that it's referring specifically to week 6 — an entire three months before the tournament. There's plenty of room for variance between now and then, and in theory, it's possible that the top 12 in week 21 (when the final poll is released) will feature twelve different teams than it does now. Most people would be inclined to believe that the top twelve teams in early March stand the best chance of winning the tournament. But this trend suggests otherwise.
That is why it's interesting.
Personally I'd be curious about how much variance there is from that 6wk mark to the end of year. At 6 weeks most major schools have played in a MTE, maybe the non con rival, potentially a conference challenge. That's a good enough data set to have gauged whether a team's actually good.if there's not really many teams falling out of the top 12 then all the stat's really telling us is that by 6wks we've determined who the best teams are. If there is a decent amount of variance then it'd be interesting that teams that are on top early seem to peak again at the end of the year.