MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: MU82 on June 07, 2022, 01:33:39 PM
-
Now that Lewis is staying in the NBA Draft and Marquette's supposed top transfer targets have opted to go elsewhere, Shaka has his team for the 2022-23 season.
And it is HIS team. Even though Oso, Stevie and Kam were Wojo recruits, they were re-recruited by Shaka and stayed because they wanted to play for him. Combined, they played 38 minutes for Wojo. They are Shaka's guys, as are all the others on our roster.
The system has been in place for a full season plus what will be a full offseason. And most of the players have been in the system for that entire time. "We're young" or "It's a new system" cannot be excuses if Marquette doesn't do at least as well as last season's team did. By October, Shaka will have had a year and a half to "build culture."
The roster not being talented enough obviously can't be an excuse, either. It's the head coach's job to bring in talent. Either Shaka decided not to pursue better recruits and transfers or he was unable to land better players (or maybe some of both).
I am expecting us to do at least as well as we did last season, and I'll be disappointed if we make the NCAAs but have another first-round flame-out. I don't think it's unrealistic to expect that level of success, and I don't know why any Marquette fan would be happy with anything less.
I sure as heck don't want to hear about 2023-24 or 2024-25 or some other future season being the one that Shaka's really shooting for.
I'm a Marquetter for life, so I'm not threatening to stop being a fan or anything like that if the team fails to meet my expectations. But I will be disappointed, and I'll begin to question if Shaka's the right man for the job.
Hopefully, any such concerns will be moot because Shaka's team will kick butt in 2022-23 and the program will just keep getting better in the years that follow.
We Are Marquette!
-
I expect Marquette to be a bubble team this year, middle of the pack in the Big East, and that's where I think Marquette will be for the foreseeable future. NIL is going to be a problem for Marquette to compete with the big boys, and the combination of that and immediate eligibility when transferring makes it really tough.
Shaka's been able to keep his roster together, so he'll need to be able to find underrated talent and develop it. That's what it looks like he's trying to do. We'll see if it works out.
-
Why does everybody on this board think that MU can not compete at some level for NIL money? There’s a great deal of rich people who went to MU!
-
Why does everybody on this board think that MU can not compete at some level for NIL money? There’s a great deal of rich people who went to MU!
The proof is in the pudding. Where is all this NIL money that is available to MU basketball? I've seen/heard more of Johnny Davis and Brad Davison, two guys who will never again put on a UW uniform, than I have Marquette basketball players, most of whom have 3 years of eligibility left.
-
The proof is in the pudding. Where is all this NIL money that is available to MU basketball? I've seen/heard more of Johnny Davis and Brad Davison, two guys who will never again put on a UW uniform, than I have Marquette basketball players, most of whom have 3 years of eligibility left.
I think its a little too early to make broad projections on NIL and how it will impact #mubb.
-
Why does everybody on this board think that MU can not compete at some level for NIL money? There’s a great deal of rich people who went to MU!
I don't think it's everyone on this board. I think it's a vocal minority that keep saying the same thing without recognizing that there is a ton of money dedicated to this program and those people have a vested interest not just in building the Al or firing Wojo or hiring Shaka but in making sure our players are fairly compensated.
-
The proof is in the pudding. Where is all this NIL money that is available to MU basketball? I've seen/heard more of Johnny Davis and Brad Davison, two guys who will never again put on a UW uniform, than I have Marquette basketball players, most of whom have 3 years of eligibility left.
If you hear about MU players, it will be from deals they work out on their own. Those will be few and far between. That does not mean that the players aren't making a ton of NIL dollars.
MU is very well positioned with NIL. Sure we're not at blue blood levels of money (but we never were) but we can spend as much or more than the rest of the high majors minus a few outliers (hello Miami)
-
The proof is in the pudding. Where is all this NIL money that is available to MU basketball? I've seen/heard more of Johnny Davis and Brad Davison, two guys who will never again put on a UW uniform, than I have Marquette basketball players, most of whom have 3 years of eligibility left.
I hope this is a reference to the ridiculous taco bell ad. I hope Davis stays in the lottery and has an okay career because otherwise that commercial is going to be objectively hilarious.
-
As far as NIL goes MU's biggest advantage is we are ALL IN on hoops. I live in Columbus and with Ryan Day claiming he needs between 13-14 million to keep the football team together, I don't see as much money going to hoops.
-
82 …
I agree with your post. This is 100%
Shaka’s team. Two recruiting classes,
a year and 1/2 to build “ culture.” His
guys.
However, I don’t think there’s much of
a chance - if any - that MU is better this coming season, than last.
They’ve lost their two best players and 3 starters. The replacements are 3 frosh and an NAIA transfer. That’s not enough. It’s just not. They will have trouble scoring and I presume that the rebounding will be terrible again.
I hope I’m wrong, but they seem like an NIT team. If they somehow squeeze into the Dance, they will be one / done.
-
I hope this is a reference to the ridiculous taco bell ad. I hope Davis stays in the lottery and has an okay career because otherwise that commercial is going to be objectively hilarious.
the taco bell commercial is kinda weird, but i haven't seen a witty commercial in years. unless johnny got that commercial via a bucky booster, it really has nothing to do with NIL/bucky but regional name recognition as opposed to national? taco bell must have figured he would click with the taco bell crowd so i don't know how that figures with the school itself as many here question MU and NIL monies. in other words, the NIL money would be coming directly from a company believing our player would give their product a boost, no? would MU have a deep pocketed booster with a company product they wanted a player to vouch for, wink wink...that would be different
-
Now that Lewis is staying in the NBA Draft and Marquette's supposed top transfer targets have opted to go elsewhere, Shaka has his team for the 2022-23 season.
And it is HIS team. Even though Oso, Stevie and Kam were Wojo recruits, they were re-recruited by Shaka and stayed because they wanted to play for him. Combined, they played 38 minutes for Wojo. They are Shaka's guys, as are all the others on our roster.
The system has been in place for a full season plus what will be a full offseason. And most of the players have been in the system for that entire time. "We're young" or "It's a new system" cannot be excuses if Marquette doesn't do at least as well as last season's team did. By October, Shaka will have had a year and a half to "build culture."
The roster not being talented enough obviously can't be an excuse, either. It's the head coach's job to bring in talent. Either Shaka decided not to pursue better recruits and transfers or he was unable to land better players (or maybe some of both).
I am expecting us to do at least as well as we did last season, and I'll be disappointed if we make the NCAAs but have another first-round flame-out. I don't think it's unrealistic to expect that level of success, and I don't know why any Marquette fan would be happy with anything less.
I sure as heck don't want to hear about 2023-24 or 2024-25 or some other future season being the one that Shaka's really shooting for.
I'm a Marquetter for life, so I'm not threatening to stop being a fan or anything like that if the team fails to meet my expectations. But I will be disappointed, and I'll begin to question if Shaka's the right man for the job.
Hopefully, any such concerns will be moot because Shaka's team will kick butt in 2022-23 and the program will just keep getting better in the years that follow.
We Are Marquette!
Shaka took a team that had no business winning 14 games let alone 19, and made the NCAA Tournament in year 1.
You're already ready to question his job after year 2 solely on what you expect to happen? My goodness.
-
If you hear about MU players, it will be from deals they work out on their own. Those will be few and far between. That does not mean that the players aren't making a ton of NIL dollars.
MU is very well positioned with NIL. Sure we're not at blue blood levels of money (but we never were) but we can spend as much or more than the rest of the high majors minus a few outliers (hello Miami)
I think this is now 3 separate threads where TAMU has told Wades he’s wrong about Marquette and NIL. Should we go for 4?
-
82 …
I agree with your post. This is 100%
Shaka’s team. Two recruiting classes,
a year and 1/2 to build “ culture.” His
guys.
However, I don’t think there’s much of
a chance - if any - that MU is better this coming season, than last.
They’ve lost their two best players and 3 starters. The replacements are 3 frosh and an NAIA transfer. That’s not enough. It’s just not. They will have trouble scoring and I presume that the rebounding will be terrible again.
I hope I’m wrong, but they seem like an NIT team. If they somehow squeeze into the Dance, they will be one / done.
That would be disappointing, especially the NIT part.
Shaka took a team that had no business winning 14 games let alone 19, and made the NCAA Tournament in year 1.
You're already ready to question his job after year 2 solely on what you expect to happen? My goodness.
He isn't being paid handsomely to coach, he's being paid handsomely to win. Just because you think last year's team should have had a losing record it doesn't mean that's a fact.
I didn't say "Sweet 16 or bust," or "Big East title or bust." I simply expect Shaka's program to continue to make progress.
Now, unless he goes something like 11-22, as he did in his second year at Texas, I won't be screaming for his job. But if there's a step backward, yes, he will be, as they say, "on the clock" as far as I'm concerned.
Goose hasn't weighed in here yet (and maybe he won't), but he's the biggest Shaka fan on this entire board ... and I bet he'll agree with most or all of what I'm saying.
-
82 …
I agree with your post. This is 100%
Shaka’s team. Two recruiting classes,
a year and 1/2 to build “ culture.” His
guys.
However, I don’t think there’s much of
a chance - if any - that MU is better this coming season, than last.
They’ve lost their two best players and 3 starters. The replacements are 3 frosh and an NAIA transfer. That’s not enough. It’s just not. They will have trouble scoring and I presume that the rebounding will be terrible again.
I hope I’m wrong, but they seem like an NIT team. If they somehow squeeze into the Dance, they will be one / done.
Yet you didn’t mention development from all the returnees.
The truth is no one has any idea what to expect this season. An NIT berth or a sweet 16 run wouldn’t surprise me at this point.
-
I expect significant improvement within our roster. The Lewis loss is a problem though. My hope is that it's not too late to get an impact transfer big. My gut feeling though is that ZW will be better than people think.
-
I think this is now 3 separate threads where TAMU has told Wades he’s wrong about Marquette and NIL. Should we go for 4?
Sure! If we want to compete in the way we expected when Wojo wasn’t working, we need better talent. And to get better talent we need to be MUCH more competitive on the NIL front than we have seen so far, unless the NCAA comes up with some guidelines. I’m not holding my breath for either of these things happening.
-
I expect significant improvement within our roster. The Lewis loss is a problem though. My hope is that it's not too late to get an impact transfer big. My gut feeling though is that ZW will be better than people think.
Seems pretty clear we’re not getting an impact transfer big.
-
Sure! If we want to compete in the way we expected when Wojo wasn’t working, we need better talent. And to get better talent we need to be MUCH more competitive on the NIL front than we have seen so far, unless the NCAA comes up with some guidelines. I’m not holding my breath for either of these things happening.
Look, I have had my concerns about NIL and Marquette’s willingness and ability to compete there as well. But TAMU also seems pretty knowledgeable and connected so when he speaks optimistically about what Marquette will be capable of in that realm it does alleviate those concerns for me, at least for now.
-
Seems pretty clear we’re not getting an impact transfer big.
Well then we could have issues on the glass. I think all hands should be on deck for a competent big. If we strike out our margin for error is quite small.
-
Sure! If we want to compete in the way we expected when Wojo wasn’t working, we need better talent. And to get better talent we need to be MUCH more competitive on the NIL front than we have seen so far, unless the NCAA comes up with some guidelines. I’m not holding my breath for either of these things happening.
How do you know how competitive we are? Have we lost players that Shaka wanted due to NIL?
-
How do you know how competitive we are? Have we lost players that Shaka wanted due to NIL?
I don’t know. But I don’t see a ton of guys on the roster who have the talent to compete for Big East titles and NCAA Tournament wins. So if Shaka hasn’t been missing out, then I think he needs to adjust his recruiting.
-
I don't think it's everyone on this board. I think it's a vocal minority that keep saying the same thing without recognizing that there is a ton of money dedicated to this program and those people have a vested interest not just in building the Al or firing Wojo or hiring Shaka but in making sure our players are fairly compensated.
fairly compensated. Our players are fairly compensated. That really jumped out at me. Fairly compensated. Dang! NIL is bs, in my humble opinion. Paying a guy that’s on a full ride worth what, $180k, or thereabouts? Doesn’t a player accept the benefits of a scholarship, in addition to the perks of playing big-time college basketball in return for his/her talent on the basketball court? Accept the scholarship…or not. Money? Go pro. Get the ride and get paid?
Ok, rant over.
Question. Put yourself in the shoes of said rich guy. What’s he get out of paying a MU player? How’s it help his/her biz? Or maybe it doesn’t…rather, it’s more so dolling out $50k, $100k for a few MU wins as an altruistic fan/alum?
-
Yet you didn’t mention development from all the returnees.
The truth is no one has any idea what to expect this season. An NIT berth or a sweet 16 run wouldn’t surprise me at this point.
Thanks for coming right out and mentioning development of players, but I thought it was implied in my post.
I expect us to do at least as well as we did last season, and the only way that will be possible is if several players take a MAJOR step. I would think Shaka and his assistants would have a lot to do with that.
As to your last point, I don’t know what will happen, but I do know what I expect. I expect our well-paid, highly regarded coach - who has his guys in place and has established his culture - to deliver a season Marquette fans will enjoy and be proud of.
I honestly don’t think it’s too much to ask for. Do you?
-
Yep, no excuses, especially with immediately eligible transfers. Results next year are on Shaka, good or bad.
-
I don’t know. But I don’t see a ton of guys on the roster who have the talent to compete for Big East titles and NCAA Tournament wins. So if Shaka hasn’t been missing out, then I think he needs to adjust his recruiting.
Well I am going to trust his judgment until he gives me a reason not to.
-
fairly compensated. Our players are fairly compensated. That really jumped out at me. Fairly compensated. Dang! NIL is bs, in my humble opinion. Paying a guy that’s on a full ride worth what, $180k, or thereabouts? Doesn’t a player accept the benefits of a scholarship, in addition to the perks of playing big-time college basketball in return for his/her talent on the basketball court? Accept the scholarship…or not. Money? Go pro. Get the ride and get paid?
Ok, rant over.
They obviously aren’t “fairly compensated” if the market is determining additional compensation is warranted.
-
They obviously aren’t “fairly compensated” if the market is determining additional compensation is warranted.
Yep. Everyone (CEOs, rock stars, teachers, etc.,) is “fairly compensated”. Don’t like the $ that supply/demand says your job can command? Find a different job.
-
Well I am going to trust his judgment until he gives me a reason not to.
Fair enough. I just think I'm MUCH more on the side of pak than on others who think Shaka's just happy with what he's got and ready to go to battle, or prior to the transfer portal heating up, that Shaka hasn't had trouble landing the guys he wants and is setting a culture rather than chasing a ranking. He's went after some pretty good talent (Trimble and Bond) and lost (though I don't necessarily blame him as he didn't even have a full offseason to recruit them to Marquette, let alone years to build that relationship). I don't see Marquette landing the top in state talent that is available in the coming years (Mimovic, Knueppel, Janowski) and I don't think it's going to be because we have Ben Gold so we don't need those guys. I mean, having Chase Ross committed didn't stop Zaide Lowery from committing to Marquette.
Put it this way. If Justin Lewis was a junior in high school right now (and assuming he has the same relationship with Shaka and whatever assistant as he had with Wojo and whatever assistant was his main recruiter), he might've considered Marquette. But I don't think we would've landed him.
-
Fair enough. I just think I'm MUCH more on the side of pak than on others who think Shaka's just happy with what he's got and ready to go to battle, or prior to the transfer portal heating up, that Shaka hasn't had trouble landing the guys he wants and is setting a culture rather than chasing a ranking.
You can believe what you want, but brew's account is much more in-line with what I have heard from others close to the program. That he most definitely did not cast a wide net in the transfer market, that he basically shut it down after Wrightsil committed, and that he thinks he has the horses to compete already.
I mean, he is on record stating that he believes player development is the best way to grow a team.
Put it this way. If Justin Lewis was a junior in high school right now (and assuming he has the same relationship with Shaka and whatever assistant as he had with Wojo and whatever assistant was his main recruiter), he might've considered Marquette. But I don't think we would've landed him.
Who knows? Kind of a strange hypothetical without much evidence to back it up though.
-
Yep. Everyone (CEOs, rock stars, teachers, etc.,) is “fairly compensated”. Don’t like the $ that supply/demand says your job can command? Find a different job.
In general yes. The market doesn't mean that outliers can't be overpaid or underpaid. But those are outliers.
-
Yep. Everyone (CEOs, rock stars, teachers, etc.,) is “fairly compensated”. Don’t like the $ that supply/demand says your job can command? Find a different job.
Do you really believe this?
-
Fair enough. I just think I'm MUCH more on the side of pak than on others who think Shaka's just happy with what he's got and ready to go to battle, or prior to the transfer portal heating up, that Shaka hasn't had trouble landing the guys he wants and is setting a culture rather than chasing a ranking. He's went after some pretty good talent (Trimble and Bond) and lost (though I don't necessarily blame him as he didn't even have a full offseason to recruit them to Marquette, let alone years to build that relationship). I don't see Marquette landing the top in state talent that is available in the coming years (Mimovic, Knueppel, Janowski) and I don't think it's going to be because we have Ben Gold so we don't need those guys. I mean, having Chase Ross committed didn't stop Zaide Lowery from committing to Marquette.
Put it this way. If Justin Lewis was a junior in high school right now (and assuming he has the same relationship with Shaka and whatever assistant as he had with Wojo and whatever assistant was his main recruiter), he might've considered Marquette. But I don't think we would've landed him.
He did a really, really good job filling out the roster his first season. Purposeful, impactful recruiting which led to a post season birth. It’s much more of a challenge to recruit when you have an almost full roster and a guy who’s 50/50 on staying or leaving.
-
The combination of Wrightsil committing weeks before Lewis announced he was staying in the Draft and Lewis not entering his name into the transfer portal at all (obviously he didn't have to, but what's the harm if you're not certain you're staying in the Draft?) leads me to believe that Lewis had his mind made up on staying in the Draft all along. I don't think there would be much of a need for Wrightsil if we were going to have Lewis back.
-
So after a year at Marquette, we're now convinced Shaka can't recruit? Is that really the new narrative?
-
So after a year at Marquette, we're now convinced Shaka can't recruit? Is that really the new narrative?
The green wiener abides
-
Purposeful, impactful recruiting which led to a post season birth.
Does Mrs. Smart know about this?
-
So after a year at Marquette, we're now convinced Shaka can't recruit? Is that really the new narrative?
Yes. Because he didn't land Noah Carter. ::)
-
So after a year at Marquette, we're now convinced Shaka can't recruit? Is that really the new narrative?
He's doing the best with what he's got. Marquette is in a tough spot.
-
The combination of Wrightsil committing weeks before Lewis announced he was staying in the Draft and Lewis not entering his name into the transfer portal at all (obviously he didn't have to, but what's the harm if you're not certain you're staying in the Draft?) leads me to believe that Lewis had his mind made up on staying in the Draft all along. I don't think there would be much of a need for Wrightsil if we were going to have Lewis back.
Wrigtsil is a very different player who could have absolutely played with Justin.
It was always assumed that Justin would go pro but it was not decided until the last few days of May.
-
Every year we SHOULD see significant improvement from returning players. No one knew how good JL would be a year ago. Many of us were at least mildly disappointed that Kuath and Morsell were not a little better, so bemoaning how much we have lost is silly. Rather than criticize Shaka in advance why net wait and see? I think we will be a good team with lots of emerging talent in Shaka's system. Have faith! Go MU!
-
Roster looks great, doesn't it?
-
Yes. Because he didn't land Noah Carter. ::)
Said absolutely no one.
-
There is one thing I am certain about Shaka, he knows how to recruit. Now, he has not recruited HS or transfers I anticipated that he would, but I think his track record on recruited has shown he knows a helluva lot more than I do.
As for NIL, I will say it again, MU will be very competitive in NIL moving forward. I have zero concern about NIL making recruiting to MU being a problem. If it is/was going to be a problem MU pissed away a lot of money bringing in Shaka.
-
He's doing the best with what he's got. Marquette is in a tough spot.
Why ?
-
You can believe what you want, but brew's account is much more in-line with what I have heard from others close to the program.
You don’t know anyone close to the program
-
fairly compensated. Our players are fairly compensated. That really jumped out at me. Fairly compensated. Dang! NIL is bs, in my humble opinion. Paying a guy that’s on a full ride worth what, $180k, or thereabouts? Doesn’t a player accept the benefits of a scholarship, in addition to the perks of playing big-time college basketball in return for his/her talent on the basketball court? Accept the scholarship…or not. Money? Go pro. Get the ride and get paid?
Yes. Fairly compensated. Because players have never been fairly compensated for the value they bring to the University in terms of donations and exposure. And because other programs will be compensating their players, so why should ours not be entitled to compensation in line with other programs?
Question. Put yourself in the shoes of said rich guy. What’s he get out of paying a MU player? How’s it help his/her biz? Or maybe it doesn’t…rather, it’s more so dolling out $50k, $100k for a few MU wins as an altruistic fan/alum?
For years, one donor sent a seven-figure check every spring to the Blue & Gold fund. What did he get out of that? Last year, one donor agreed to pay Wojo's $6,000,000 buyout. What did he get out of that? I don't have to put myself in the shoes of any rich guy to know that rich guys are already doling out money significantly greater than those numbers already on a regular basis. That's why we have the basketball budget we do. Why, or how it helps, or whatever other questions you want to pose are completely irrelevant. They have already pumped millions into Marquette Athletics, why would they not continue to do so when they already do not have a tangible self-interested benefit?
-
You don’t know anyone close to the program
I mean, I do. But I don't get recruiting info from him.
But I was talking about posters on message boards with reputations for having good info.
-
Now that Lewis is staying in the NBA Draft and Marquette's supposed top transfer targets have opted to go elsewhere, Shaka has his team for the 2022-23 season.
And it is HIS team. Even though Oso, Stevie and Kam were Wojo recruits, they were re-recruited by Shaka and stayed because they wanted to play for him. Combined, they played 38 minutes for Wojo. They are Shaka's guys, as are all the others on our roster.
The system has been in place for a full season plus what will be a full offseason. And most of the players have been in the system for that entire time. "We're young" or "It's a new system" cannot be excuses if Marquette doesn't do at least as well as last season's team did. By October, Shaka will have had a year and a half to "build culture."
The roster not being talented enough obviously can't be an excuse, either. It's the head coach's job to bring in talent. Either Shaka decided not to pursue better recruits and transfers or he was unable to land better players (or maybe some of both).
I am expecting us to do at least as well as we did last season, and I'll be disappointed if we make the NCAAs but have another first-round flame-out. I don't think it's unrealistic to expect that level of success, and I don't know why any Marquette fan would be happy with anything less.
I sure as heck don't want to hear about 2023-24 or 2024-25 or some other future season being the one that Shaka's really shooting for.
I'm a Marquetter for life, so I'm not threatening to stop being a fan or anything like that if the team fails to meet my expectations. But I will be disappointed, and I'll begin to question if Shaka's the right man for the job.
Hopefully, any such concerns will be moot because Shaka's team will kick butt in 2022-23 and the program will just keep getting better in the years that follow.
We Are Marquette!
I'm not sold on Shaka after last year, but I will say he exceeded my expectations. But if he leads us to a higher seed and tournament victory(s) with this roster I would be fully on board - that would be a great coaching job.
-
So after a year at Marquette, we're now convinced Shaka can't recruit? Is that really the new narrative?
Like you, I definitely believe Shaka can recruit. He recruited very well for Texas, and he recruited well to VCU given that it wasn't a major. He has a great personality that athletes like, he has been a winner, he has developed pros, he has great facilities and fans to sell. Has he recruited well so far for Marquette? We'll see!
The thing is, whether he misses on recruits/transfers or chooses to stop signing guys because he's happy with what he's got is immaterial to me when I form my expectations.
I expect us to progress as a program. I expected it when Wojo was the coach, I expected it when Buzz was the coach, I expected it when Crean was the coach, etc.
For the short-term, I see no reason not to expect at least as good a season in 2022-23 as we had in 2021-22; in the longer-term, I see no reason to think our very highly regarded coach can't at least deliver Buzz-level success to our alma mater.
We Are Marquette!
I'm not sold on Shaka after last year, but I will say he exceeded my expectations. But if he leads us to a higher seed and tournament victory(s) with this roster I would be fully on board - that would be a great coaching job.
The roster is Shaka's roster. It is the way it is either because he likes it and didn't want to make major upgrades or because he couldn't improve it. Either way, it is his job to win with it. If he doesn't win with it, "there wasn't enough talent" is not a very good excuse.
-
Like you, I definitely believe Shaka can recruit. He recruited very well for Texas, and he recruited well to VCU given that it wasn't a major. He has a great personality that athletes like, he has been a winner, he has developed pros, he has great facilities and fans to sell. Has he recruited well so far for Marquette? We'll see!
The thing is, whether he misses on recruits/transfers or chooses to stop signing guys because he's happy with what he's got is immaterial to me when I form my expectations.
I expect us to progress as a program. I expected it when Wojo was the coach, I expected it when Buzz was the coach, I expected it when Crean was the coach, etc.
For the short-term, I see no reason not to expect at least as good a season in 2022-23 as we had in 2021-22; in the longer-term, I see no reason to think our very highly regarded coach can't at least deliver Buzz-level success to our alma mater.
I definitely wasn't referencing you with that comment (though I suspect you knew that) but the biggest thing is I do believe this is the team he wants to go forward with. He's talked repeatedly about building with high school and longer-term players. They aren't going after every big name transfer and once Wrightsil committed, weren't aggressively trying to fill Justin's spot. I'm guessing they would've liked one more high level guy (Justin, Ramey, Gueye, Abogidi) but saw it more as a luxury than a necessity or they would've been reaching out to more of the top guys in the portal that weren't in the Draft pool.
I'm optimistic both for this year and for the long-term. I haven't crunched the numbers myself, but a friend that does a lot of number crunching mentioned the other day that even with all the roster consistency (returning everyone eligible except Justin and Elliott) Marquette will still be the youngest team in the Big East next year. I think that continuity bodes well not just for next year, but the years after.
The question is if Shaka can coach. If he can coach his guys up, develop talent, and get buy-in to a system that works, we should be competing at the top of the league in the next couple years. If not, well, we've moved on before. I'm hoping for the success, though.
-
Shaka took a team that had no business winning 14 games let alone 19, and made the NCAA Tournament in year 1.
You're already ready to question his job after year 2 solely on what you expect to happen? My goodness.
Which is super weird, because I believe 82 was a huge Projo even into the last days. Or I'm thinking of someone else.
-
I definitely wasn't referencing you with that comment (though I suspect you knew that) but the biggest thing is I do believe this is the team he wants to go forward with. He's talked repeatedly about building with high school and longer-term players. They aren't going after every big name transfer and once Wrightsil committed, weren't aggressively trying to fill Justin's spot. I'm guessing they would've liked one more high level guy (Justin, Ramey, Gueye, Abogidi) but saw it more as a luxury than a necessity or they would've been reaching out to more of the top guys in the portal that weren't in the Draft pool.
I'm optimistic both for this year and for the long-term. I haven't crunched the numbers myself, but a friend that does a lot of number crunching mentioned the other day that even with all the roster consistency (returning everyone eligible except Justin and Elliott) Marquette will still be the youngest team in the Big East next year. I think that continuity bodes well not just for next year, but the years after.
The question is if Shaka can coach. If he can coach his guys up, develop talent, and get buy-in to a system that works, we should be competing at the top of the league in the next couple years. If not, well, we've moved on before. I'm hoping for the success, though.
We are in agreement, brew. I knew your comment wasn't directed at me, I just wanted to amplify the points that you, I and a few others had made. Your last paragraph is spot-on. All we want is success for our alma mater's basketball program.
Which is super weird, because I believe 82 was a huge Projo even into the last days. Or I'm thinking of someone else.
You must be thinking of someone else.
-
So much COLE
-
I really enjoyed last season. It was a lot of fun especially during the January high. My expectations are very low that we can compete for an NC in the near future but looking forward to winning a few tournament games in the coming seasons.
Some are complaining about recruiting. I think the days of getting high valued players here at MU are over. The key is getting the best players that will stay at least 3 years and play to Shaka's system and perhaps lightning will strike and we'll have a good run in the tournament. Let's see what happens.
-
They obviously aren’t “fairly compensated” if the market is determining additional compensation is warranted.
do you agree with that?…that players on a full scholarship are due ‘additional compensation’? And if so, do you plan on contributing $ ?
-
I really enjoyed last season. It was a lot of fun especially during the January high. My expectations are very low that we can compete for an NC in the near future but looking forward to winning a few tournament games in the coming seasons.
Some are complaining about recruiting. I think the days of getting high valued players here at MU are over. The key is getting the best players that will stay at least 3 years and play to Shaka's system and perhaps lightning will strike and we'll have a good run in the tournament. Let's see what happens.
Agree about enjoying last season. Agree that it's unlikely we "compete for an NC," as that is true of every school. Disagree that we can no longer bring "high valued players" to Marquette -- I mean, Wojo did it, and I think Shaka is at least as good a recruiter if not better. But yes, we'll see!
-
do you agree with that?…that players on a full scholarship are due ‘additional compensation’? And if so, do you plan on contributing $ ?
Schools aren't compensating players beyond scholarships. NIL $$ does not come from schools.
Do you disagree that athletes should have the ability to control and profit off of their own names, images and likenesses, as every other American does?
-
Schools aren't compensating players beyond scholarships. NIL $$ does not come from schools.
Fixed
-
do you agree with that?…that players on a full scholarship are due ‘additional compensation’? And if so, do you plan on contributing $ ?
I wish all sorts of professions paid more than others. But does it matter if I agree with it? It is what it is.
And no I will not be donating to the NIL collective.
-
You can believe what you want, but brew's account is much more in-line with what I have heard from others close to the program. That he most definitely did not cast a wide net in the transfer market, that he basically shut it down after Wrightsil committed, and that he thinks he has the horses to compete already.
I think the evidence bears you out. I think some people expected multiple transfers and Shaka “upgrading” those holes with transfers. When the transfers never happened it looked (to me anyway) like he was pretty much OK going into next season with what he had.
-
Other than the one remaining scholarship, as well as Wrightsil's matriculation, MU's roster is set for the next two years. Unless there are transfers out or early departures to the NBA. Let us hope the development theme works.
-
Other than the one remaining scholarship, as well as Wrightsil's matriculation, MU's roster is set for the next two years. Unless there are transfers out or early departures to the NBA. Let us hope the development theme works.
If there are no departures to NBA within 2 years I would be surprised and probably disappointed.
-
If there are no departures to NBA within 2 years I would be surprised and probably disappointed.
I understand what you're saying, but I probably wouldn't be disappointed if that's the way it is.
1. There are a lot of very good college players who aren't quite NBA players. Drew Timme is a darn good college player. So is Ramey. So are plenty of others who have chosen to stay in college partly because they know the NBA isn't knocking their doors down.
2. Maybe a real good player staying will mean we have some serious NIL money available to kids in the program. I'd view that as a good thing.
-
I understand what you're saying, but I probably wouldn't be disappointed if that's the way it is.
1. There are a lot of very good college players who aren't quite NBA players. Drew Timme is a darn good college player. So is Ramey. So are plenty of others who have chosen to stay in college partly because they know the NBA isn't knocking their doors down.
2. Maybe a real good player staying will mean we have some serious NIL money available to kids in the program. I'd view that as a good thing.
I'm saying it in a good way because I expect OMax at least to get there. I expect good development and OMax and at least one more to have NBA potential.
-
Other than the one remaining scholarship, as well as Wrightsil's matriculation, MU's roster is set for the next two years. Unless there are transfers out or early departures to the NBA. Let us hope the development theme works.
Development theme is working. We have a very solid team this year that will only get better as the season goes on.
-
I'm saying it in a good way because I expect OMax at least to get there. I expect good development and OMax and at least one more to have NBA potential.
Reasonable take. I hope you’re right! I also hope that if O-Max isn’t quite ready to go, he can land a nice NIL deal.
-
Development theme is working. We have a very solid team this year that will only get better as the season goes on.
Most teams get better as the season goes on.
-
Most teams get better as the season goes on.
Marquette hasn't been most teams for a while now.
-
Most teams get better as the season goes on.
Most well coached teams.
-
Most teams get better as the season goes on.
That’s statistically impossible.
-
That’s statistically impossible.
No it is not. Basically every team in March would beat the same team at start of season. Some teams improve more than others, but they all get better unless they implode.
-
No it is not. Basically every team in March would beat the same team at start of season. Some teams improve more than others, but they all get better unless they implode.
It only matters if you improve vis-a-vis your competition.
-
What does Kenpom say?
That’s statistically impossible.
-
What does Kenpom say?
KenPom does a remarkably good job showing a teams improvements and struggles through the course of a season. In 2019, Texas Tech entered Big XII play as a very mediocre offensive team, so bad, that they didn’t profile as a Final 4 team. By the end of the season, they had improved over a 100 spots in offensive efficiency. Coupled with the nations top defense, making the title game shouldn’t have been a surprise to anyone
-
It only matters if you improve vis-a-vis your competition.
This is probably why Big East has not done well in NCAA tournament. They perform well enough in November and December to earn multiple bids, but during the conference season they do not improve enough to win first round games(except for Villanova).
-
This is probably why Big East has not done well in NCAA tournament. They perform well enough in November and December to earn multiple bids, but during the conference season they do not improve enough to win first round games(except for Villanova).
Providence lost to the National Champs by 5 in a S16 game, and Creighton had just lost to the National Champs by 7 in the second round.
UConn, Marquette, and SHU got bounced in the first round.
So the facts don't support your claim at all.
You're being a bit of an Eeyore lately.
-
This is probably why Big East has not done well in NCAA tournament. They perform well enough in November and December to earn multiple bids, but during the conference season they do not improve enough to win first round games(except for Villanova).
Outside of UConn's screwing up the last couple of years, the BE has performed pretty much to seed the last couple of tournaments.
-
Providence lost to the National Champs by 5 in a S16 game, and Creighton had just lost to the National Champs by 7 in the second round.
UConn, Marquette, and SHU got bounced in the first round.
So the facts don't support your claim at all.
You're being a bit of an Eeyore lately.
You are just looking at last year. Seton Hall, Providence and MU almost always lose in first round.
-
You are just looking at last year. Seton Hall, Providence and MU almost always lose in first round.
We always lose on national TV
-
We always lose on national TV
But at least we get the easy rebounds.
-
You are just looking at last year. Seton Hall, Providence and MU almost always lose in first round.
You are just looking at the last nine years.
-
Damn light blue unis.
-
This is probably why Big East has not done well in NCAA tournament. They perform well enough in November and December to earn multiple bids, but during the conference season they do not improve enough to win first round games(except for Villanova).
Outside of UConn's screwing up the last couple of years, the BE has performed pretty much to seed the last couple of tournaments.
I was curious as to which of these is closer to the truth.
I looked at the Big East NCAA tournament performance since the Big East restructuring, and the track record actually isn't that good. Big East teams frequently underperform and almost never overperform their seed.
For this analysis, I excluded teams that won or lost by one seed line. In other words, I didn't count a #1 seed losing to a #2 as underperforming, or a #9 seed beating a #8 as overperforming.
I also didn't limit this to the first round--I figure that a #1 seed losing to a #8 or #9 in the second round isn't supporting the argument that teams are playing to their seed. If you want to take consolation that in 2017 Villanova beat #16 Mount St. Marys before losing to #8 Wisconsin, be my guest.
Performing below seed: 12 times
- 2014 #2 Villanova lost to #7 UConn
- 2014 #3 Creighton lost to #6 Baylor
- 2015 #1 Villanova lost to #8 UNC
- 2015 #6 Providence lost to #11 Dayton
- 2016 #2 Xavier lost to #7 UW
- 2016 #6 SH lost to #11 Gonzaga
- 2017 #1 Villanova lost to #8 Xavier
- 2017 #6 Creighton lost to #11 URI
- 2018 #1 Xavier lost to #9 FSU
- 2019 #5 MU lost to #12 Murray State
- 2021 #7 UConn lost to #10 Maryland
- 2022 #5 UConn lost to #12 New Mexico State
Performing at seed: 29 times
This includes 3 first four losses: Xavier in 2014, St. Johns in 2019, and Providence in 2017.
Performing above seed: 1 time (technically it was twice, but it was the same tournament by #11 Xavier who beat #3 FSU and #2 Arizona in 2017).
I think it's fair to say that bilsu wins the argument--the Big East underperforms far more frequently than it overperforms.
-
I was curious as to which of these is closer to the truth.
I looked at the Big East NCAA tournament performance since the Big East restructuring, and the track record actually isn't that good. Big East teams frequently underperform and almost never overperform their seed.
For this analysis, I excluded teams that won or lost by one seed line. In other words, I didn't count a #1 seed losing to a #2 as underperforming, or a #9 seed beating a #8 as overperforming.
I also didn't limit this to the first round--I figure that a #1 seed losing to a #8 or #9 in the second round isn't supporting the argument that teams are playing to their seed. If you want to take consolation that in 2017 Villanova beat #16 Mount St. Marys before losing to #8 Wisconsin, be my guest.
Performing below seed: 12 times
- 2014 #2 Villanova lost to #7 UConn
- 2014 #3 Creighton lost to #6 Baylor
- 2015 #1 Villanova lost to #8 UNC
- 2015 #6 Providence lost to #11 Dayton
- 2016 #2 Xavier lost to #7 UW
- 2016 #6 SH lost to #11 Gonzaga
- 2017 #1 Villanova lost to #8 Xavier
- 2017 #6 Creighton lost to #11 URI
- 2018 #1 Xavier lost to #9 FSU
- 2019 #5 MU lost to #12 Murray State
- 2021 #7 UConn lost to #10 Maryland
- 2022 #5 UConn lost to #12 New Mexico State
Performing at seed: 29 times
This includes 3 first four losses: Xavier in 2014, St. Johns in 2019, and Providence in 2017.
Performing above seed: 1 time (technically it was twice, but it was the same tournament by #11 Xavier who beat #3 FSU and #2 Arizona in 2017).
I think it's fair to say that bilsu wins the argument--the Big East underperforms far more frequently than it overperforms.
I said “the last couple of tournaments” and specifically mentioned UConn. So you used a lot of words to verify what I said. Congrats on wasting your time.
-
I'm pretty sure 2016 Villanova outperformed their seed. Ignoring teams that are highly seeded is just silly and trying to reinforce one side of the argument.
-
I said “the last couple of tournaments” and specifically mentioned UConn. So you used a lot of words to verify what I said. Congrats on wasting your time.
I guess I don't understand why you think it's a waste of time for me to start with the two years of data you provided and add the six years you omitted.
Or why you omitted those six years in the first place.
-
I'm pretty sure 2016 Villanova outperformed their seed. Ignoring teams that are highly seeded is just silly and trying to reinforce one side of the argument.
As I said, I didn't consider a 1-seed difference large enough to warrant labeling a team as over- or under-performers. I chose to use a minimum 2-seed difference as my threshold.
So I didn't include #2 Villanova beating #1 Kansas in 2016 as outperforming their seed. It also means that I didn't include #8 Seton Hall losing to #9 TCU in 2022 as underperforming. Or #4 Georgetown losing to #5 Utah in 2015. Or #8 Creighton losing to #9 Kansas State in 2018.
You know I already have the data--you could have just politely asked what the results would look like if I used a strict 1 seed threshold as opposed to 2 seeds. In addition to Villanova as you cited, there were two #9s that beat #8s (PC and Butler in 2016). On the other side of the ledger were the 3 examples cited above.
So switching to a 1-seed difference, we would have
15 teams that underperformed (including 3 by a single seed line)
23 that performed to seed (generously counting a 0-3 performance in the First Four in this group).
4 that overperformed (only 1 by more than a single seed line)
Does that really change the argument for you? Are you really going to look at the updated results and say 4 overperformers versus 15 underperforming teams is good performance? The results still show the Big East has overwhelmingly underperformed their seed in the NCAA tournament.
-
I guess I don't understand why you think it's a waste of time for me to start with the two years of data you provided and add the six years you omitted.
Because you did so to declare a "winner" in a debate I wasn't having.
Or why you omitted those six years in the first place.
Because I wanted to.
-
Every tournament I list the number of bids by conference and then cross out the teams that lose.
Big 10 did very poorly this year, with several of their teams losing in first round. Many of them were upsets. Clearly, the Big 10 was way overrated.
This is why I think November and December games should not decide who gets in tournament. A league that wins the early non-conference games gets more weight at tournament time than a league that underperforms.
All teams improve from November to March, but not at the same rate. Generally, in the last few years MU has done very well early on and then fades the last half of conference season. Does MU peak earlier than other teams? Very disappointing that the same thing happened last year. It may be that the other Big East coaches are better at adjusting to what MU does the second time around. I may be wrong, but I felt MU pulled back on their pressure defense after we lost to Providence. Our offense fed off of defense, so playing more passively on defense hurt our offense. Did anyone else feel like we were less aggressive on defense or was it just me?
It is not going to happen, but to get a better picture for the NCAA tournament, the conference season should be played first. The non-conference season after the conference season and then the conference tournaments.
-
I was curious as to which of these is closer to the truth.
I looked at the Big East NCAA tournament performance since the Big East restructuring, and the track record actually isn't that good. Big East teams frequently underperform and almost never overperform their seed.
For this analysis, I excluded teams that won or lost by one seed line. In other words, I didn't count a #1 seed losing to a #2 as underperforming, or a #9 seed beating a #8 as overperforming.
I also didn't limit this to the first round--I figure that a #1 seed losing to a #8 or #9 in the second round isn't supporting the argument that teams are playing to their seed. If you want to take consolation that in 2017 Villanova beat #16 Mount St. Marys before losing to #8 Wisconsin, be my guest.
Performing below seed: 12 times
- 2014 #2 Villanova lost to #7 UConn
- 2014 #3 Creighton lost to #6 Baylor
- 2015 #1 Villanova lost to #8 UNC
- 2015 #6 Providence lost to #11 Dayton
- 2016 #2 Xavier lost to #7 UW
- 2016 #6 SH lost to #11 Gonzaga
- 2017 #1 Villanova lost to #8 Xavier
- 2017 #6 Creighton lost to #11 URI
- 2018 #1 Xavier lost to #9 FSU
- 2019 #5 MU lost to #12 Murray State
- 2021 #7 UConn lost to #10 Maryland
- 2022 #5 UConn lost to #12 New Mexico State
Performing at seed: 29 times
This includes 3 first four losses: Xavier in 2014, St. Johns in 2019, and Providence in 2017.
Performing above seed: 1 time (technically it was twice, but it was the same tournament by #11 Xavier who beat #3 FSU and #2 Arizona in 2017).
I think it's fair to say that bilsu wins the argument--the Big East underperforms far more frequently than it overperforms.
The COLE is strong
-
This is why I think November and December games should not decide who gets in tournament. A league that wins the early non-conference games gets more weight at tournament time than a league that underperforms.
So the NCAA should not count the entire season? That's ridiculous. Does the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. weight late season games more strongly than early season ones? Of course not.
And its not about conferences. It's about teams. A team's performance against its schedule is what gets them into the tournament. The committee doesn't care at all about whether or not this performance comes against conference foes or non conference foes. (Except for autobid conference champions of course.) The entirety of the season is what matters.
-
Every tournament I list the number of bids by conference and then cross out the teams that lose.
Big 10 did very poorly this year, with several of their teams losing in first round. Many of them were upsets. Clearly, the Big 10 was way overrated.
This is why I think November and December games should not decide who gets in tournament. A league that wins the early non-conference games gets more weight at tournament time than a league that underperforms.
All teams improve from November to March, but not at the same rate. Generally, in the last few years MU has done very well early on and then fades the last half of conference season. Does MU peak earlier than other teams? Very disappointing that the same thing happened last year. It may be that the other Big East coaches are better at adjusting to what MU does the second time around. I may be wrong, but I felt MU pulled back on their pressure defense after we lost to Providence. Our offense fed off of defense, so playing more passively on defense hurt our offense. Did anyone else feel like we were less aggressive on defense or was it just me?
It is not going to happen, but to get a better picture for the NCAA tournament, the conference season should be played first. The non-conference season after the conference season and then the conference tournaments.
Reality is performance in non conference sets the trend on NET. Big East has done well since it’s inception in non conference and gets a lot of bids as a result.
-
Every tournament I list the number of bids by conference and then cross out the teams that lose.
Big 10 did very poorly this year, with several of their teams losing in first round. Many of them were upsets. Clearly, the Big 10 was way overrated.
This is why I think November and December games should not decide who gets in tournament. A league that wins the early non-conference games gets more weight at tournament time than a league that underperforms.
All teams improve from November to March, but not at the same rate. Generally, in the last few years MU has done very well early on and then fades the last half of conference season. Does MU peak earlier than other teams? Very disappointing that the same thing happened last year. It may be that the other Big East coaches are better at adjusting to what MU does the second time around. I may be wrong, but I felt MU pulled back on their pressure defense after we lost to Providence. Our offense fed off of defense, so playing more passively on defense hurt our offense. Did anyone else feel like we were less aggressive on defense or was it just me?
It is not going to happen, but to get a better picture for the NCAA tournament, the conference season should be played first. The non-conference season after the conference season and then the conference tournaments.
NCAAT is not about making sure the best teams get in. It's about the teams who earned a spot getting in
-
Big 10 did very poorly this year, with several of their teams losing in first round. Many of them were upsets. Clearly, the Big 10 was way overrated.
Definitely.
Every tournament I list the number of bids by conference and then cross out the teams that lose.
I think November and December games should not decide who gets in tournament.
All games should decide who gets in the NCAA tournament. Teams that play strong non-conference schedules are rewarded, as they should be.
Generally, in the last few years MU has done very well early on and then fades the last half of conference season. Does MU peak earlier than other teams? Very disappointing that the same thing happened last year. It may be that the other Big East coaches are better at adjusting to what MU does the second time around. I may be wrong, but I felt MU pulled back on their pressure defense after we lost to Providence. Our offense fed off of defense, so playing more passively on defense hurt our offense. Did anyone else feel like we were less aggressive on defense or was it just me?
What happened in previous seasons had nothing to do with what happened last season.
Last season, Marquette was 5-4 in second games against Big East opponents. Not tremendous but not horrible.
We were not a great defensive team last season, less so down the stretch.
It is not going to happen, but to get a better picture for the NCAA tournament, the conference season should be played first. The non-conference season after the conference season and then the conference tournaments.
You're right ... there is a 0.00% chance of that happening.
-
Because you did so to declare a "winner" in a debate I wasn't having.
To be fair, your comment was made in direct response (and even quoted) bilsu's post that asserted that the Big East underperforms in the NCAA tournament.
The nature of your comment, and that it was made in the context of the quoted post, made it sound like you disagreed that that point. If I got you wrong and you weren't trying to dispute the point, I apologize.
But now that you have all the data since the Big East restructuring, we can both move forward knowing that bilsu's point was spot on. The Big East teams really do underperform their seed far more frequently than overperform.
At this point, I'm curious as to why this is the case.
-
This is why I think November and December games should not decide who gets in tournament. A league that wins the early non-conference games gets more weight at tournament time than a league that underperforms.
Sure, but if we're discounting November and December, there's no way to differentiate between the Big East and say the SWAC. So every league gets 2 bids. Conference tourney champ and highest league finisher that isn't the tourney champ.
-
To be fair, your comment was made in direct response (and even quoted) bilsu's post that asserted that the Big East underperforms in the NCAA tournament.
The nature of your comment, and that it was made in the context of the quoted post, made it sound like you disagreed that that point. If I got you wrong and you weren't trying to dispute the point, I apologize.
Honestly I'm just mostly annoyed by bilsu's constant negativity.
-
NCAAT is not about making sure the best teams get in. It's about the teams who earned a spot getting in
The NCAA used to put greater emphasis on the last 10 games a team played. Teams that “limped in” were either not invited or saw their seed drop significantly. The reverse was true for teams on a charge. IMO that was an improvement to the way they do things now.
-
The NCAA used to put greater emphasis on the last 10 games a team played. Teams that “limped in” were either not invited or saw their seed drop significantly. The reverse was true for teams on a charge. IMO that was an improvement to the way they do things now.
Disagree completely. The entire season should count equally. Just like every other sport…but college football. It’s about performance over the course of the season. Not who gets hot at the end.
-
Disagree completely. The entire season should count equally. Just like every other sport…but college football. It’s about performance over the course of the season. Not who gets hot at the end.
I like that the games that matter most in college football come at or near the end.
I also think the college basketball teams who improve over the season and who peak late are more deserving and more fun to watch in the tournament than those who play well in November but are on life support in March.
All games matter, bur for seeding purposes and choosing which side of the bubble teams end up on I like more emphasis on the final 6 weeks - including conference tournaments.
-
I like that the games that matter most in college football come at or near the end.
I also think the college basketball teams who improve over the season and who peak late are more deserving and more fun to watch in the tournament than those who play well in November but are on life support in March.
All games matter, bur for seeding purposes and choosing the which side of the bubble teams end up on I like more emphasis on the final 6 weeks - including conference tournaments.
CFB uses a pretty flawed system to determine who is in their playoff. Games matter at the end because the system is flawed, not because they matter more at the end.
-
CFB uses a pretty flawed system to determine who is in their playoff. Games matter at the end because the system is flawed, not because they matter more at the end.
Conference championship games in Big 10 and SEC are big determining factors on who gets seeded 1 through 4 in CFB championship playoff.
-
Honestly I'm just mostly annoyed by bilsu's constant negativity.
You can block me, if I bother you so much. The reality is I am a contrarian. I will take the other side of overly optimistic people and the other side of overly pessimistic people.
Posters here are overly optimistic about how good MU basketball is. I was around for all of Al's games. I know what great is, I love MU basketball, but I also know many posters believe we are a great program. It galls me to see how much better Wisconsin has been than us this century. In the new Big East how many conference tournament games has MU won? We have been pretty pathetic.
I like Shaka. I like his personality, especially compared to Wojo's. I like how he brought in young players and is taking a long-term approach. None of his players' transferring out tells me his players' like him. This is much better than having a coach like Ewing, who seems to have his players running away as fast as they can from him. I do expect significant improvement out of Kolek and Prosper this year. They can replace Lewis and Morsell. The rest depends on how last year's reserves step up and whether the newcomers can make a difference. To me being good means winning games in Big East tournament and/or NCAA tournament. Zero tournament wins means we are irrelevant.
-
The BIG 10/14/whatever is a shell of what it once was. Someone had to fill the void. Much to our chagrin, the hole was gleefully filled the last couple decades by the rodents. Get over it. NCAA success came to them because their players supremely excel at executing a system, outlined by a distinct culture. Shaka’s players are committed to doing the same. Don’t you think the folks at hallowed IU wonder as well how they were routinely surpassed by a bunch of two and three stars from Madison?
-
You can block me, if I bother you so much.
I'm not going to block you. I'm just going to make fun of your dumb takes.
-
I like that the games that matter most in college football come at or near the end.
I also think the college basketball teams who improve over the season and who peak late are more deserving and more fun to watch in the tournament than those who play well in November but are on life support in March.
All games matter, bur for seeding purposes and choosing which side of the bubble teams end up on I like more emphasis on the final 6 weeks - including conference tournaments.
They may be more fun, but they aren't more deserving.
-
I think a team's entire body of work should matter. But I do think there's something to be said for an 18-12 team that finished 2-8 perhaps being a little less deserving than an 18-12 team that finished 8-2. Maybe there's some way the computers can account for all of it? Or maybe not. I don't profess to know.
-
I like that the games that matter most in college football come at or near the end.
I also think the college basketball teams who improve over the season and who peak late are more deserving and more fun to watch in the tournament than those who play well in November but are on life support in March.
All games matter, bur for seeding purposes and choosing which side of the bubble teams end up on I like more emphasis on the final 6 weeks - including conference tournaments.
No, you could be rewarding teams playing really crap competition. The way it works can be tweaked like they have done, but the way it is done is best, reward teams for playing hardest schedule. The problem with football they basically play mostly in conference. Too few games outside conferences.
-
Conference championship games in Big 10 and SEC are big determining factors on who gets seeded 1 through 4 in CFB championship playoff.
Yes because they don't have much else to go with, strongest conferences and teams usually in top 10. Same would happen in ACC Big East if tournament teams in semis were all top 10, they probably would wait to rank 1-4 teams in tournament.
-
you want to punish teams for a “Wojo finish” to the season?
I think a team's entire body of work should matter. But I do think there's something to be said for an 18-12 team that finished 2-8 perhaps being a little less deserving than an 18-12 team that finished 8-2. Maybe there's some way the computers can account for all of it? Or maybe not. I don't profess to know.
-
you want to punish teams for a “Wojo finish” to the season?
Your attempts at trolling aside ... maybe. As I said, I don't know enough about how all the computer rankings work or how they could be tweaked.
-
I think a team's entire body of work should matter. But I do think there's something to be said for an 18-12 team that finished 2-8 perhaps being a little less deserving than an 18-12 team that finished 8-2. Maybe there's some way the computers can account for all of it? Or maybe not. I don't profess to know.
For me, this actually underlies why it's better to take the whole body of work. Because that 8-2 could easily be the WCC team that beats a bunch of cupcake caliber opponents while losing to Gonzaga and St Mary's while the 2-8 team is a Big 12 team that loses to all top-60 opponents while beating Baylor and Kansas.
Because leagues are so disparate in quality, taking the whole season is the only way to judge them fairly. If you're a mid or low major, November and December might be your only chances at quality wins. Even a high major might see a front or back loaded conference schedule.
"Last 10" as a metric is problematic because no one will have the same last 10. Even if you try to do it by date, some smaller leagues are done with conference play and into tournaments while other at-large candidates are still in their league play. The new system is much better and more equitable.
-
For me, this actually underlies why it's better to take the whole body of work. Because that 8-2 could easily be the WCC team that beats a bunch of cupcake caliber opponents while losing to Gonzaga and St Mary's while the 2-8 team is a Big 12 team that loses to all top-60 opponents while beating Baylor and Kansas.
Because leagues are so disparate in quality, taking the whole season is the only way to judge them fairly. If you're a mid or low major, November and December might be your only chances at quality wins. Even a high major might see a front or back loaded conference schedule.
"Last 10" as a metric is problematic because no one will have the same last 10. Even if you try to do it by date, some smaller leagues are done with conference play and into tournaments while other at-large candidates are still in their league play. The new system is much better and more equitable.
When figuring “last 10” or some variant of it certainly we have computers capable of adding a weighted strength of schedule component to the equation. Maybe it would make things harder to predict for geniuses like Joe Lunardi or Jerry Palm but it would nevertheless improve the quality of the tournament.
-
For me, this actually underlies why it's better to take the whole body of work. Because that 8-2 could easily be the WCC team that beats a bunch of cupcake caliber opponents while losing to Gonzaga and St Mary's while the 2-8 team is a Big 12 team that loses to all top-60 opponents while beating Baylor and Kansas.
Because leagues are so disparate in quality, taking the whole season is the only way to judge them fairly. If you're a mid or low major, November and December might be your only chances at quality wins. Even a high major might see a front or back loaded conference schedule.
"Last 10" as a metric is problematic because no one will have the same last 10. Even if you try to do it by date, some smaller leagues are done with conference play and into tournaments while other at-large candidates are still in their league play. The new system is much better and more equitable.
This is reasonable, brew, but with leagues so disparate in quality, why is "last 10" any more problematic than conference play period? For that matter, teams play disparate non-con schedules, too.
Obviously, strength of schedule metrics help smooth out the differences in conferences as well as in non-con schedules. So I wonder if some kind of similar metrics could make some kind of last-10 computation a useful measurement for the committee, too.
I can't speak for Lenny or anybody else, but I'm not talking about having last-10 be a hugely important thing. I just think it could be another factor that goes into the many that are fed into the computers. For the most part, a P6 team that finishes 9-1 is "better" than one that finishes 3-7. That's not universal, of course, in part because of the disparate schedules, but again that's for the computers to decide.
Bottom line, though, is I do agree with you that today's system for picking and ranking teams is superior to those of yesteryear. And I also generally agree that overall body of work should be the main determining factor.
-
When figuring “last 10” or some variant of it certainly we have computers capable of adding a weighted strength of schedule component to the equation. Maybe it would make things harder to predict for geniuses like Joe Lunardi or Jerry Palm but it would nevertheless improve the quality of the tournament.
Are you sure it would do that? And even if you could prove it does, is that really important?
-
For me, this actually underlies why it's better to take the whole body of work. Because that 8-2 could easily be the WCC team that beats a bunch of cupcake caliber opponents while losing to Gonzaga and St Mary's while the 2-8 team is a Big 12 team that loses to all top-60 opponents while beating Baylor and Kansas.
Because leagues are so disparate in quality, taking the whole season is the only way to judge them fairly. If you're a mid or low major, November and December might be your only chances at quality wins. Even a high major might see a front or back loaded conference schedule.
"Last 10" as a metric is problematic because no one will have the same last 10. Even if you try to do it by date, some smaller leagues are done with conference play and into tournaments while other at-large candidates are still in their league play. The new system is much better and more equitable.
The bolded is a good point. I do feel the last 10 should be applied just to all the teams on the bubble. The totality of their season is still considered but you add the last 10 for the 5-10 bubble teams that are in the running for the last spots. Buzz's A&M team last season is a perfect example - they should have been in the tournament..I mean look at Rutger's resume compared to A&M.
-
The bolded is a good point. I do feel the last 10 should be applied just to all the teams on the bubble. The totality of their season is still considered but you add the last 10 for the 5-10 bubble teams that are in the running for the last spots. Buzz's A&M team last season is a perfect example - they should have been in the tournament..I mean look at Rutger's resume compared to A&M.
Perhaps Buzz’s team shouldn’t have underperformed early.
-
Perhaps Buzz’s team shouldn’t have underperformed early.
And perhaps Buzz shouldn't have created the softest nonconference schedule in the SEC.
-
Are you sure it would do that? And even if you could prove it does, is that really important?
I can’t say I’m sure and I don’t know if it’s provable but logic and my experience tell me that it would (on the margins) improve the field and make seeding more accurate. Are those improvements “really important”? Nope. Most improvements aren’t. Doesn’t mean they’re not worthwhile.
-
The bolded is a good point. I do feel the last 10 should be applied just to all the teams on the bubble. The totality of their season is still considered but you add the last 10 for the 5-10 bubble teams that are in the running for the last spots. Buzz's A&M team last season is a perfect example - they should have been in the tournament..I mean look at Rutger's resume compared to A&M.
No, it was their fault for scheduling one of the worst, softest non con schedules, came back to bite him.
-
And perhaps Buzz shouldn't have created the softest nonconference schedule in the SEC.
Well despite the weak Non-Con schedule Ken Pom (which I believe the committee does use as a component - Brew?) A&M was ranked 43 and Rutgers 74 after their last games of their respective conference tournaments.
-
Well despite the weak Non-Con schedule Ken Pom (which I believe the committee does use as a component - Brew?) A&M was ranked 43 and Rutgers 74 after their last games of their respective conference tournaments.
Is a component as you say. They were helped by it and destroyed by other factors. Football schools were put on notice I believe 2 years ago that weak non-con games would factor more in the equation.
-
Yeah, I don’t feel sorry for Buzz or his team. Just win more games and/or play a better schedule - 2 things in your control - and you won’t be on the bubble.
And I’d say the same if it happened to Marquette.
-
Yeah, I don’t feel sorry for Buzz or his team. Just win more games and/or play a better schedule - 2 things in your control - and you won’t be on the bubble.
And I’d say the same if it happened to Marquette.
Right. That’s why I never understood the “we should be in” outrage.
I mean…just win more.
-
For the most part, a P6 team that finishes 9-1 is "better" than one that finishes 3-7. That's not universal, of course, in part because of the disparate schedules, but again that's for the computers to decide.
The "most part" is the problematic bit. When you take the whole season, that's an effort to remove bias. Focusing more on a small part of the season that naturally preferences larger conference teams (and the at-large pool isn't supposed to compare just P6 to P6) makes it harder to look with a fair eye.
I get the causal argument behind this, but I don't think it would have the outcome result people want.
-
You can block me, if I bother you so much. The reality is I am a contrarian. I will take the other side of overly optimistic people and the other side of overly pessimistic people.
Posters here are overly optimistic about how good MU basketball is. I was around for all of Al's games. I know what great is, I love MU basketball, but I also know many posters believe we are a great program. It galls me to see how much better Wisconsin has been than us this century. In the new Big East how many conference tournament games has MU won? We have been pretty pathetic.
I like Shaka. I like his personality, especially compared to Wojo's. I like how he brought in young players and is taking a long-term approach. None of his players' transferring out tells me his players' like him. This is much better than having a coach like Ewing, who seems to have his players running away as fast as they can from him. I do expect significant improvement out of Kolek and Prosper this year. They can replace Lewis and Morsell. The rest depends on how last year's reserves step up and whether the newcomers can make a difference. To me being good means winning games in Big East tournament and/or NCAA tournament. Zero tournament wins means we are irrelevant.
You don't just simply win tournament games. It's a process. We thought the process would take longer than it already has, but you have to let a culture grow before just winning.
At the end of the day a team that everyone in the league thought would take 9th out of 11 teams, beat a Final Four team twice, made the NCAA tournament, had a bench player from the previous season make 1st team All Big East in Justin, and had Kam as a unanimous 1st team all Freshman.
We all want to win now, but that's just not how it works. If the only players you are losing are those to graduation and the NBA it shows that the early stages of the culture are working. I honestly don't think I could be much more excited about the direction of the program and upcoming growth we will see than I am right now. You all should be excited. Enjoy the ride because it's as fun, if not more fun, than the destination.
-
You don't just simply win tournament games. It's a process. We thought the process would take longer than it already has, but you have to let a culture grow before just winning.
At the end of the day a team that everyone in the league thought would take 9th out of 11 teams, beat a Final Four team twice, made the NCAA tournament, had a bench player from the previous season make 1st team All Big East in Justin, and had Kam as a unanimous 1st team all Freshman.
We all want to win now, but that's just not how it works. If the only players you are losing are those to graduation and the NBA it shows that the early stages of the culture are working. I honestly don't think I could be much more excited about the direction of the program and upcoming growth we will see than I am right now. You all should be excited. Enjoy the ride because it's as fun, if not more fun, than the destination.
Regarding your last paragraph and being excited about the direction of the culture and team, I think much of that is legitimate. But Shaka would garner even more support from the general MU fan base by bringing in higher level talent.
Unranked players are not exciting to the general MU fan. Naming Wojo recruits as the jewels of last years team doesn’t do it either. We won’t know the outcome of this culture building until this coming season is finished. Most fans are willing to to wait because we have no other choice. TALENT and culture have to combine to win. Hopefully Shaka is simply a better talent evaluator than the rankings would show and we are getting major diamonds in the rough.
-
Regarding your last paragraph and being excited about the direction of the culture and team, I think much of that is legitimate. But Shaka would garner even more support from the general MU fan base by bringing in higher level talent.
Unranked players are not exciting to the general MU fan. Naming Wojo recruits as the jewels of last years team doesn’t do it either. We won’t know the outcome of this culture building until this coming season is finished. Most fans are willing to to wait because we have no other choice. TALENT and culture have to combine to win. Hopefully Shaka is simply a better talent evaluator than the rankings would show and we are getting major diamonds in the rough.
Kolek and OMax are Smart recruits. The 2 graduates, Kuath and Morsell, were also recruited by Shaka. Mitchell and Jones were the only 2 re-recruited by Shaka to retain commitment, he didn't have to keep them around but did because he liked the fit with his plan. Ellis, Joplin, and Itejere were also Shaka recruits.
As far as Justin goes, Shaka deserves the credit for getting him to where he is at. Justin has answered dozens of questions regarding his status at Marquette and only mentioned the Wojo regime once as far as I've seen. Sure, Wojo recruited him, but Shaka coached him to the next level and Justin has raved about him on numerous occasions.
This team is all Shaka's doing and the Freshman class of last year was ranked in the Top 20 in both ESPN and 247, so he does recruit high level players and has continued to do so.
-
The "most part" is the problematic bit. When you take the whole season, that's an effort to remove bias. Focusing more on a small part of the season that naturally preferences larger conference teams (and the at-large pool isn't supposed to compare just P6 to P6) makes it harder to look with a fair eye.
I get the causal argument behind this, but I don't think it would have the outcome result people want.
Thanks, brew. It's certainly not a hill I'm willing to die on.
-
Kolek and OMax are Smart recruits. The 2 graduates, Kuath and Morsell, were also recruited by Shaka. Mitchell and Jones were the only 2 re-recruited by Shaka to retain commitment, he didn't have to keep them around but did because he liked the fit with his plan. Ellis, Joplin, and Itejere were also Shaka recruits.
As far as Justin goes, Shaka deserves the credit for getting him to where he is at. Justin has answered dozens of questions regarding his status at Marquette and only mentioned the Wojo regime once as far as I've seen. Sure, Wojo recruited him, but Shaka coached him to the next level and Justin has raved about him on numerous occasions.
This team is all Shaka's doing and the Freshman class of last year was ranked in the Top 20 in both ESPN and 247, so he does recruit high level players and has continued to do so.
To follow up on this...
Justin was ranked 106 by 247 in his class. 107 Ben Carlson at UW. 108 OMax. 109 Jamari Sibley from Milwaukee who ended up at Georgetown.
All 4 of those guys with ties to the state now in 1 way or another. Carlson and Sibley, who knows what happened to those 2? No clue. Justin and OMax? 1 about to get drafted, the other on draft boards, both by way of Shaka and Marquette.
-
To follow up on this...
Justin was ranked 106 by 247 in his class. 107 Ben Carlson at UW. 108 OMax. 109 Jamari Sibley from Milwaukee who ended up at Georgetown.
All 4 of those guys with ties to the state now in 1 way or another. Carlson and Sibley, who knows what happened to those 2? No clue. Justin and OMax? 1 about to get drafted, the other on draft boards, both by way of Shaka and Marquette.
I like your points on Shakas developmental acumen. Next year it will be fun to find out how the culture, talent and development come together.
-
You don't just simply win tournament games. It's a process. We thought the process would take longer than it already has, but you have to let a culture grow before just winning.
At the end of the day a team that everyone in the league thought would take 9th out of 11 teams, beat a Final Four team twice, made the NCAA tournament, had a bench player from the previous season make 1st team All Big East in Justin, and had Kam as a unanimous 1st team all Freshman.
We all want to win now, but that's just not how it works. If the only players you are losing are those to graduation and the NBA it shows that the early stages of the culture are working. I honestly don't think I could be much more excited about the direction of the program and upcoming growth we will see than I am right now. You all should be excited. Enjoy the ride because it's as fun, if not more fun, than the destination.
You are 100% on point with your post. I'm not expecting a step up from last year's results. I expect a similar type of season/record. However, I think 2023-2024 could be where we see the jump/2nd weekend caliber team.
-
You are 100% on point with your post. I'm not expecting a step up from last year's results. I expect a similar type of season/record. However, I think 2023-2024 could be where we see the jump/2nd weekend caliber team.
Yup, and the overall team may not see a step up because of all that departed, but the individual players returning should and will see significant improvement. An overall better finish than last year can't be ruled out until we see how everyone blends together.
-
To follow up on this...
Justin was ranked 106 by 247 in his class. 107 Ben Carlson at UW. 108 OMax. 109 Jamari Sibley from Milwaukee who ended up at Georgetown.
All 4 of those guys with ties to the state now in 1 way or another. Carlson and Sibley, who knows what happened to those 2? No clue. Justin and OMax? 1 about to get drafted, the other on draft boards, both by way of Shaka and Marquette.
Great post, good points. Ratings are subjective, and beyond the top couple dozen they're often "wrong."
As to the next posts by you and Ners ... I expect Shaka's team to do at least as well in Year 2 as we did in Year 1. I'll be a little disappointed if we don't do better. And barring something unforeseen, like a rash of injuries or something, I'll be very disappointed if we do worse.
And then I'll expect even more in 2023-24!
-
Well despite the weak Non-Con schedule Ken Pom (which I believe the committee does use as a component - Brew?) A&M was ranked 43 and Rutgers 74 after their last games of their respective conference tournaments.
End of the season Ken Pom isn’t perfect but it’s pretty damn good.
Any system that picks the 74th ranked team over #43 should be re-examined. It’s flawed by more than a little.
And believe me, every Scooper not named Sultan (or any of his aliases) would scream bloody murder if Ken Pom had us #43 and every pundit had us in - only to be passed over for the #74 team. And we all would be justified.
-
And believe me, every Scooper not named Sultan (or any of his aliases) would scream bloody murder if Ken Pom had us #43 and every pundit had us in - only to be passed over for the #74 team. And we all would be justified.
I think most pundits had TAMU out but maybe I'm misremembering.
-
End of the season Ken Pom isn’t perfect but it’s pretty damn good.
Any system that picks the 74th ranked team over #43 should be re-examined. It’s flawed by more than a little.
And believe me, every Scooper not named Sultan (or any of his aliases) would scream bloody murder if Ken Pom had us #43 and every pundit had us in - only to be passed over for the #74 team. And we all would be justified.
Agree 100%. No doubt if MU finished as A&M did last year Scoop would have been on fire with outrage! The committee used to look at the last 10 games as a factor. As I posted earlier, I'd like to see it as a factor used for all teams on the bubble.
-
Agree 100%. No doubt if MU finished as A&M did last year Scoop would have been on fire with outrage! The committee used to look at the last 10 games as a factor. As I posted earlier, I'd like to see it as a factor used for all teams on the bubble.
Just because we’d be outraged doesn’t mean we’d be right.
-
Agree 100%. No doubt if MU finished as A&M did last year Scoop would have been on fire with outrage! The committee used to look at the last 10 games as a factor. As I posted earlier, I'd like to see it as a factor used for all teams on the bubble.
Scoop outrage is never wrong.
That said, I'm pretty sure that if Marquette just missed the tournament because it scheduled one of the weakest P6 nonconference schedules in the nation, most of the outrage would have been directed at the coach and athletic department who made that happen.
-
MU won 20 games and missed out on the NCAA and NIT not too long ago.
-
MU won 20 games and missed out on the NCAA and NIT not too long ago.
Final Ken Pom ranking that year? 97. Hard to be outraged when you’re not even in the conversation.
-
Scoop outrage is never wrong.
That said, I'm pretty sure that if Marquette just missed the tournament because it scheduled one of the weakest P6 nonconference schedules in the nation, most of the outrage would have been directed at the coach and athletic department who made that happen.
Actually, Scoop is savvy and would have complained five minutes after the schedule was released.
-
I think most pundits had TAMU out but maybe I'm misremembering.
Bracket Matrix had them as one of the last four in ahead of Rutgers, ND and Wyoming.
So wah…Buzzz got screwed out of Dayton.
-
Actually, Scoop is savvy and would have complained five minutes after the schedule was released.
Fair.
-
This team is all Shaka's doing and the Freshman class of last year was ranked in the Top 20 in both ESPN and 247, so he does recruit high level players and has continued to do so.
If you're going to make this point, then it's probably fair to point out that the two highest ranked players of that class - and the two best performers so far - were signed by the last guy. And yes, I know that Shaka had to re-recruit them, but obviously they already had been sold on Marquette by then.
-
If you're going to make this point, then it's probably fair to point out that the two highest ranked players of that class - and the two best performers so far - were signed by the last guy. And yes, I know that Shaka had to re-recruit them, but obviously they already had been sold on Marquette by then.
The last guy could definitely recruit, his coaching skills were less refined .Now we have a coach who can recruit and coach.
-
Bracket Matrix had them as one of the last four in ahead of Rutgers, ND and Wyoming.
So wah…Buzzz got screwed out of Dayton.
Yessir.
How 'bout don't lose 8 straight games, including home games to horrible Missouri and bad South Carolina teams, and you're easily in? How 'bout after you finally break the streak not losing to a mediocre Vanderbilt team? How 'bout not scheduling a bunch of non-con games against the Sisters of the Poor? How 'bout a little personal responsibility instead of Buzz whining like a little beyotch?
Not sure why any Scoopers not screen-named TAMU are the least bit upset on behalf of Texas A&M.
-
Yessir.
How 'bout don't lose 8 straight games, including home games to horrible Missouri and bad South Carolina teams, and you're easily in? How 'bout after you finally break the streak not losing to a mediocre Vanderbilt team? How 'bout not scheduling a bunch of non-con games against the Sisters of the Poor? How 'bout a little personal responsibility instead of Buzz whining like a little beyotch?
Not sure why any Scoopers not screen-named TAMU are the least bit upset on behalf of Texas A&M.
I couldn’t care less about A+M or Rutgers.
My point was that the better the teams in the tournament the better the tournament. And there’s no doubt in my mind that the #43 team in the final Pomeroy rankings is better than the #74 team. And that if MU (as #43) was passed over in favor of #74 that, despite your protestations to the contrary, you and most other Scoopers would be apoplectic.
-
I couldn’t care less about A+M or Rutgers.
My point was that the better the teams in the tournament the better the tournament. And there’s no doubt in my mind that the #43 team in the final Pomeroy rankings is better than the #74 team. And that if MU (as #43) was passed over in favor of #74 that, despite your protestations to the contrary, you and most other Scoopers would be apoplectic.
I'm biased because I'm a Marquette fan, so I obviously wouldn't love it. But I'm quite sure I wouldn't be "apoplectic." I'd be upset that Shaka and the AD put together a cupcake non-con schedule, and I'd be ticked off that we had an 8-game losing streak that included home losses to bad teams.
Each college basketball program has control over two things -- their non-con schedule and their results on the court. Take care of those two things and stop whining about the stuff that's out of your control.
-
I'm biased because I'm a Marquette fan, so I obviously wouldn't love it. But I'm quite sure I wouldn't be "apoplectic." I'd be upset that Shaka and the AD put together a cupcake non-con schedule, and I'd be ticked off that we had an 8-game losing streak that included home losses to bad teams.
Each college basketball program has control over two things -- their non-con schedule and their results on the court. Take care of those two things and stop whining about the stuff that's out of your control.
I don’t buy it, Mike. Pomeroy takes SOS into consideration in their rankings, which I’m sure you would be quick to point out. And every team anywhere near the bubble has bad losses.
You (and most others) would go nuts that the #74 team was chosen over our #43 team. And what’s more you’d have a good argument.
-
If you're going to make this point, then it's probably fair to point out that the two highest ranked players of that class - and the two best performers so far - were signed by the last guy. And yes, I know that Shaka had to re-recruit them, but obviously they already had been sold on Marquette by then.
I did. Reread pal.
-
I don’t buy it, Mike. Pomeroy takes SOS into consideration in their rankings, which I’m sure you would be quick to point out. And every team anywhere near the bubble has bad losses.
You (and most others) would go nuts that the #74 team was chosen over our #43 team. And what’s more you’d have a good argument.
Tony, I love how you set up hypothetical situations and are 100% certain how everybody else would react if your hypothetical situation actually happened.
That's a great superpower, my friend!
It's Super Len ... who can change the course of Scoopy conversations, troll chicos with his droll wit. And who disguised as Lenny's Tap, mild-mannered poster for a great metropolitan website, fights a never-ending battle for mirth, merriment and the Scoopy way!
-
The Tourney’$ doing fine.
-
I don’t buy it, Mike. Pomeroy takes SOS into consideration in their rankings, which I’m sure you would be quick to point out. And every team anywhere near the bubble has bad losses.
You (and most others) would go nuts that the #74 team was chosen over our #43 team. And what’s more you’d have a good argument.
TAMU was a unique case. They had two Q1 and 2 Q2 wins before their run in the SEC tourney. They were also 58th in Kenpom. They were on the NIT bubble at the end of the regular season, not the NCAAT bubble. They had a historic run through the SEC tourney but the committee has consistently said that they don't weight conference tournaments as heavily as the regular season. I've always questioned that logic but TAMU shows that they believe it.
If we were in the same situation I would be disappointed but blame us for not winning more. You can poke fun at Rutgers but they had 7 Q1 wins...and all of them before their conference tourney. They beat people. TAMU didn't until it was too late
-
I couldn’t care less about A+M or Rutgers.
My point was that the better the teams in the tournament the better the tournament. And there’s no doubt in my mind that the #43 team in the final Pomeroy rankings is better than the #74 team. And that if MU (as #43) was passed over in favor of #74 that, despite your protestations to the contrary, you and most other Scoopers would be apoplectic.
Rutgers and Notre Dame went to double overtime in the play in game. ND went on to upset Alabama in the first round before losing to Texas Tech in the last minute of the second.
The tournament managed just fine without A&M.
-
TAMU was a unique case. They had two Q1 and 2 Q2 wins before their run in the SEC tourney. They were also 58th in Kenpom. They were on the NIT bubble at the end of the regular season, not the NCAAT bubble. They had a historic run through the SEC tourney but the committee has consistently said that they don't weight conference tournaments as heavily as the regular season. I've always questioned that logic but TAMU shows that they believe it.
If we were in the same situation I would be disappointed but blame us for not winning more. You can poke fun at Rutgers but they had 7 Q1 wins...and all of them before their conference tourney. They beat people. TAMU didn't until it was too late
Do they not weight conference tournaments as heavily as the regular season, or just each game as another datapoint like any other? So for instance if Marquette plays Creighton in the BET, they would treat it as if they were playing an extra game with no additional weight because it’s a conference tournament game.
-
Do they not weight conference tournaments as heavily as the regular season, or just each game as another datapoint like any other? So for instance if Marquette plays Creighton in the BET, they would treat it as if they were playing an extra game with no additional weight because it’s a conference tournament game.
They have basically said that by the time tournaments of major conferences are being played Saturday the team field is set except for bubble teams that could be affected by bid thieves in tournaments with auto bids.
-
They have basically said that by the time tournaments of major conferences are being played Saturday the team field is set except for bubble teams that could be affected by bid thieves in tournaments with auto bids.
Gotcha. I mean, I do think conference tournament games should "count," but don't believe they should weigh more heavily than any other regular season game.
-
If we were in the same situation I would be disappointed but blame us for not winning more.
Stop fibbing. Super Len used his X-Ray vision to peer deep into your brain, and you know he knows you know that you would be apoplectic.
Apoplectic, my man!!!!
-
Well despite the weak Non-Con schedule Ken Pom (which I believe the committee does use as a component - Brew?) A&M was ranked 43 and Rutgers 74 after their last games of their respective conference tournaments.
Kenpom is one of 6 metrics used by the Committee. NET is most important because the team sheets are ordered by NET and the SOS, Avg win, Avg loss, and Quadrant systems are all factored with NET. Then there are two resume-based metrics (Kevin Pauga Index, KPI and Strength of Record, SOR) and three efficiency based metrics (Basketball Performance Index, BPI, Sagarin, and Kenpom). If you weight resume and efficiency equally, after NET, kenpom's value weighting comes out to about 16.7% (each resume would be 25%, each predictive 16.7%).
In practice, the predictive metrics are more important when it comes to selection and resume metrics are more important when it comes to seeding. Though TAMU vs Rutgers seems to fly in the face of that.
What this really shows is how meaningless conference tournaments are. If you're using kenpom, the number to look at is #58, which is where TAMU was coming in to the conference tournies, while Rutgers was #74. Still a disparity, but not as much of one. And the Selection Committee really prioritized big pre-tourney wins. Rutgers had 8 regular season wins over the field while TAMU had just 3.
I'll be the first to say I'm not the person to defend Rutgers over TAMU. I think Rutgers was the worst at-large selection by the committee in more than a decade (2011 VCU, sorry Shaka). Sure, they had 7 Q1 wins, but they also had 7 losses outside Q1 and the Selection Committee claims to care about the whole season, which means November losses to DePaul, UMass, and Lafayette should be weighed just as much as wins over Purdue, Iowa, and Illinois.
I don’t buy it, Mike. Pomeroy takes SOS into consideration in their rankings, which I’m sure you would be quick to point out. And every team anywhere near the bubble has bad losses.
You (and most others) would go nuts that the #74 team was chosen over our #43 team. And what’s more you’d have a good argument.
I would say to this that you can't look at one isolated metric as the reason for selection, especially when that metric represents one third of a second tier metric. Oklahoma was ranked even higher and was left out, while the "first team out" was Dayton, who was #58 at kenpom on Selection Sunday. Personally, I think they put too much stock in big wins and not enough in overall team quality this year. I'm fine with conference tournaments not mattering (at least they're consistent in that regard) and that no single metric should be the end-all, but I don't think either Rutgers or Notre Dame did enough to warrant inclusion. But at the end of the day, my opinion doesn't matter (clearly).
-
Poor Buzz
(https://i.imgur.com/gM2tyFJh.jpg)
-
I couldn’t care less about A+M or Rutgers.
My point was that the better the teams in the tournament the better the tournament. And there’s no doubt in my mind that the #43 team in the final Pomeroy rankings is better than the #74 team. And that if MU (as #43) was passed over in favor of #74 that, despite your protestations to the contrary, you and most other Scoopers would be apoplectic.
The bolded makes it obvious you didn't watch enough games involving these two teams.
Rutgers was, without an ounce of doubt, the better team.
-
I think the NCAA has more problem seeding the teams than picking the actual teams in the tournament.
At most they leave out one team that should have been in the play in game. The last three Marquette matchups were mis-seeded.
-
The bolded makes it obvious you didn't watch enough games involving these two teams.
Rutgers was, without an ounce of doubt, the better team.
LOL.
The Golden Avalanche eye test vs the science of Ken Pom.
I’ll take B. Without an ounce of doubt.
-
What I get out of this thread is that since some posters claim Texas a&M shouldn't complain because they should have won more games= one should never ever complain about the refs, since you should make more plays during the other parts of the game.
-
What I get out of this thread is that since some posters claim Texas a&M shouldn't complain because they should have won more games= one should never ever complain about the refs, since you should make more plays during the other parts of the game.
I agree with this analysis
-
What I get out of this thread is that since some posters claim Texas a&M shouldn't complain because they should have won more games= one should never ever complain about the refs, since you should make more plays during the other parts of the game.
Sultan?
-
What I get out of this thread is that since some posters claim Texas a&M shouldn't complain because they should have won more games= one should never ever complain about the refs, since you should make more plays during the other parts of the game.
Yep.
-
Not losing 8 straight games is in your control. Scheduling a tougher schedule than the worst in P6 conferences is in your control. A bad whistle is not in your control.
-
I think the NCAA has more problem seeding the teams than picking the actual teams in the tournament.
At most they leave out one team that should have been in the play in game. The last three Marquette matchups were mis-seeded.
Hard disagree there. Personally, I had UNC an 8 and Marquette a 9. The Bracket Matrix consensus agreed on both point. In 2019 I had Marquette a 5 and Murray State a 12, as did Bracket Matrix. Bracket Matrix in 2017 had South Carolina a 7 and Marquette a 10. The only issue there was location. None of those matchups were mis-seeded. They were all spot on, but proved to be bad matchups for us.
-
Not losing 8 straight games is in your control. Scheduling a tougher schedule than the worst in P6 conferences is in your control. A bad whistle is not in your control.
Overcoming a couple bad calls is most certainly within your control.
-
Overcoming a couple bad calls is most certainly within your control.
Especially since in most games there are several missed calls going both ways.
-
Especially since in most games there are several missed calls going both ways.
Refs are bad across the board. Sport is populated by bigger, faster and stronger players at the upper levels and the refs have all stayed the same. Game is too fast for them and with basketball being an inherently physical game, no way they can be very good on a regular basis.
Does a decision by a ref cost teams a game or two a year? I’d say yes, but it works both ways.
-
Start with the assumption that the refs are going to miss calls. They are. The best you can hope for is that the officiating does not dictate outcome. It does from time to time, but not nearly as often as message board denizens believe.
-
Hard disagree there. Personally, I had UNC an 8 and Marquette a 9. The Bracket Matrix consensus agreed on both point. In 2019 I had Marquette a 5 and Murray State a 12, as did Bracket Matrix. Bracket Matrix in 2017 had South Carolina a 7 and Marquette a 10. The only issue there was location. None of those matchups were mis-seeded. They were all spot on, but proved to be bad matchups for us.
Yup.
I think a better way to say it would be weve played teams better than their seed would indicate(SC more so for the location) and also bad match ups.
UNC and Murray State based off their resumes were definitely seeded fairly. It just sucks because UNC talent wise and how they were playing for a month going into the tournament were not a 8 seed. But that isnt how seeding and the tournament works.
Weve been a unfortunate but not screwed over.
-
What I get out of this thread is that since some posters claim Texas a&M shouldn't complain because they should have won more games= one should never ever complain about the refs, since you should make more plays during the other parts of the game.
I had the same thought when reading this thread. The one nit I would pick is that I think it is fine to complain about the refs and the selection committee. Refs make bad calls. The selection committee makes bad selections. But I don't think it is right to blame either. Your team should never put themselves in a position where a bad call loses them the game or a bad selection sends them to the NIT instead of the NCAAT.
-
The idea that refs never cost a team a game is absurd. It absolutely happens. "Well make more shots." Sure. But you're going to be in tight games when you're evenly matched. Your opponent is going to make shots. Your opponent is going to prevent you from making shots. You can't shoot 100% from the field with 0 turnovers. When two evenly matched teams play each other, a single missed call (or multiple missed calls) can absolutely change the outcome of the game.
You can outplay your opponent all game and if the game is reffed one way or another, you can lose that game.
You can't be good enough to deserve to be in the Tournament and miss the Tournament. That's the difference. You aren't a very good team if you are on the bubble enough that you get "snubbed."
-
Hard disagree there. Personally, I had UNC an 8 and Marquette a 9. The Bracket Matrix consensus agreed on both point. In 2019 I had Marquette a 5 and Murray State a 12, as did Bracket Matrix. Bracket Matrix in 2017 had South Carolina a 7 and Marquette a 10. The only issue there was location. None of those matchups were mis-seeded. They were all spot on, but proved to be bad matchups for us.
Yep, losing those games by a margin ranging from 19 to 32 points were not mis-seeds, but rather embarrassments in game prep.
-
The idea that refs never cost a team a game is absurd. It absolutely happens.
You're the only one to use the word "never" in this topic.
-
You're the only one to use the word "never" in this topic.
No I did. Unless the ref is paid off I don't think the refs should ever be considered THE reason a team lost a game. They are certainly often one of the many reasons why a team loses a game.
-
No I did. Unless the ref is paid off I don't think the refs should ever be considered THE reason a team lost a game. They are certainly often one of the many reasons why a team loses a game.
OK. I think there are times when they *can* lose a team a game, but they are extremely limited, end of game situations.
-
Yup.
I think a better way to say it would be weve played teams better than their seed would indicate(SC more so for the location) and also bad match ups.
UNC and Murray State based off their resumes were definitely seeded fairly. It just sucks because UNC talent wise and how they were playing for a month going into the tournament were not a 8 seed. But that isnt how seeding and the tournament works.
Weve been a unfortunate but not screwed over.
I get that tournament bids are awarded on the whole season. I think seeding should be based on more recent play. MU was not playing well. UNC was playing very well and therefore under seeded. Maybe MU was deserving of a 9. No way based on recent play UNC should of been an 8th seed.
-
I get that tournament bids are awarded on the whole season. I think seeding should be based on more recent play. MU was not playing well. UNC was playing very well and therefore under seeded. Maybe MU was deserving of a 9. No way based on recent play UNC should of been an 8th seed.
So most of the regular season doesn't count? You want the selection committee arbitrarily deciding "I think this team is playing better right now so they deserve an easier path to the Final Four even though their resume is worse than these other teams"? Sounds like a terrible idea to me
-
OK. I think there are times when they *can* lose a team a game, but they are extremely limited, end of game situations.
I think what bothers me the most is a bad call occurring just before the two minute mark. A few seconds later the call can be reviewed and reversed. Maybe coaches, like in the NBA, should be given a challenge.
-
Yup.
I think a better way to say it would be weve played teams better than their seed would indicate(SC more so for the location) and also bad match ups.
I do not think it would of matter where we played SC. They were more athletic than us and I believe they made the final four.
-
I do not think it would of matter where we played SC. They were more athletic than us and I believe they made the final four.
They did. Two of our last three opponents made the Final Four (USC & UNC). But seeding is based on regular season performance, not what you do after you get the seed. Which is why those teams were appropriately seeded.
But tell me...why was North Carolina mis-seeded? Even on recent play, their win over Duke was only their second win over an at-large caliber team the entire season and first since beating Michigan on December 1st. Their "recent play" if you look at the last 10 games included a loss to an abysmal Pitt team and after Duke, their best wins were over a Va Tech team that only got in because they won the auto-bid and Virginia was the only NIT team they beat. The rest of their wins were mostly sub-100 teams that weren't even in the "Next 32 out" based on the NIT field.
They got in because they had great predictive metrics, but on the season they were just 2-6 against at-large worthy teams. What you do once you get in has nothing to do with the seed you were given. There's no world in which North Carolina was under-seeded, and if anything, they were more likely over-seeded than under-seeded.
-
Refs are bad across the board. Sport is populated by bigger, faster and stronger players at the upper levels and the refs have all stayed the same. Game is too fast for them and with basketball being an inherently physical game, no way they can be very good on a regular basis.
Does a decision by a ref cost teams a game or two a year? I’d say yes, but it works both ways.
Yessir.
I had the same thought when reading this thread. The one nit I would pick is that I think it is fine to complain about the refs and the selection committee. Refs make bad calls. The selection committee makes bad selections. But I don't think it is right to blame either. Your team should never put themselves in a position where a bad call loses them the game or a bad selection sends them to the NIT instead of the NCAAT.
And another yessir.
-
Got to love Scoop, from Shaka's team, to NCAAT selection committee, to refereeing
-
Yeah ... but it's still Shaka's team. And I still expect us to be at least as good in 2022-23 as we were in 2021-22!
-
Got to love Scoop, from Shaka's team, to NCAAT selection committee, to refereeing
Kudos to the passionate Scoopers who can resurrect issues I forgot about five mins after they happened.
-
Pick and Roll with Shaka Smart.
45 minute dive into more of Shaka Smart's story, how and why he ended up at Marquette, etc.
Pretty good stuff here. Most of the Marquette talk starts around the 29 minute mark, but it's all really good.
https://youtu.be/PcsPzHZkASM