A fun comparison (ESPN's Eamonn Brennan)

[MisterJaylenBrownMU]

Jan. 10 -- Saddle Up: ND-Marquette

Marquette at No. 11 Notre Dame, 7 p.m. ET, ESPN2: Does anyone else feel for the Marquette Golden Eagles? I know I do. Of all the potential teams Big East teams mentioned in NCAA tournament talks thus far -- which includes as many as 10 teams currently, it seems -- Marquette can't get any love. But this is not a bad team! Yes, the Golden Eagles have five losses. Granted. But it's not like those losses have been all that convincing. Here are the five teams that have handed Buzz Williams's team his five losses, and the margin of victory in each of those games:
Duke, 82-77, neutral floor (Sprint Center, Kansas City)
Gonzaga, 66-63, neutral floor (Sprint Center, Kansas City)
Wisconsin, 69-64, home (Bradley Center in Milwaukee; technically a home game, but played with a pretty split crowd in the heart of Badger country)
Vanderbilt, 77-76, at Vanderbilt
Pittsburgh, 89-81, at Pittsburgh

Sorry, but there isn't a single bad loss in that group. The only team in that mix ranked outside Pomeroy's top 30 is Gonzaga. The rest -- Duke, Wisconsin, Vanderbilt and Pittsburgh -- are all either elite teams (Duke, Pitt) or much-better-than-average squads with shots at winning their respective conferences (Vandy, Wisconsin). Given what Duke did to Kansas State and Michigan State in the preseason, Marquette's hard-fought single-digit loss looks even better now. And the Vanderbilt loss might be the most impressive result of the Eagles' season. We know how hard it is to win on the road; playing a team as good as the Commodores to a one-point deficit is an accomplishment regardless of outcome.

The Ducks have hung close with superior teams for a reason. Pomeroy has Marquette as his No. 40-ranked team in the nation to date. But because the Eagles didn't get any of those close wins, and because they entered the season with minimal expectations, they're not currently considered an NCAA tournament team. There are plenty of teams that would have performed far worse against that group than did Marquette. Some of them are even in the top 25. The Golden Eagles aren't the most talented team in the country, and they definitely aren't the biggest or strongest, but their ability to fight through runs and keep games close is unparalleled over the last two seasons. Marquette will give you a game. Count on that.

Alas, there are no moral victories in college hoops, no credit given for scrappy play against superior opponents. If Marquette wants to prove it's a viable NCAA tourney candidate, it has to do so in the Big East.

The good news? The Golden Eagles have already beaten West Virginia at home. Now they take on No. 11 Notre Dame, a team that just rose to its highest ranking since 1985-86. KenPom projects this game as a dead-even 50-50 split, which tells you something a) about how underrated these Golden Eagles are and b) about how difficult it is to win on the road in conference play.

Notre Dame would know. The Irish have cleaned up at home in the early portion of their Big East schedule, handily beating Georgetown and St. John's and holding off a late UConn run all in South Bend. When they went on the road, though, Mike Brey's impressive team was slugged in its proverbial mouth by Syracuse in the Carrier Dome.

Part of that is sheer skill, and part of that is the challenge of a Big East road game. Tonight, both will play a factor again. Don't let the rankings fool you: Marquette is completely capable of getting this win. If they play like they have in their five losses, eventually they'll break through. It's only a matter of time. At that point, maybe people will pay attention to the Eagles out of something more than curiosity and pity.


Jan. 11 -- TMA: Finally, Marquette Breaks Through

Marquette 79, No. 11 Notre Dame 57: Well, well, well. Hello, Marquette.

Yes, I thought the Golden Eagles would hang with Notre Dame. Yes, I thought this was a winnable game for Buzz Williams' underrated squad, a group that came into Monday night's lone notable match up with nary a bad loss to their name and some impressive offensive play in the Big East to date. Yes, I thought the Irish would face a difficult road challenge in Milwaukee. But I did not expect this.

Marquette didn't just hang with Notre Dame. The Eagles ran -- or, more precisely, shot -- the Irish out of the building. The game was never truly close. That's what happens when you shoot 12-of-17 from beyond the arc, as Marquette did. The Eagles' effective field goal percentage was 65.3 percent, and when you combine that with a low turnover rate (Notre Dame is never all that great at forcing opponents into turnovers anyway), and a clear advantage in free throw attempts, you're probably going to blow out your opponent no matter how well -- or poorly -- that opponent shoots.

And make no mistake, Notre Dame did shoot poorly. By their own standards, and in comparison to Marquette, the Irish were woeful; their effective field goal percentage was 42.5, as they shot 3-of-16 from beyond the arc and 21-of-53 overall. Notre Dame relies more on low turnover percentage and high free throw rate to win its slow-paced slugfests. But the Irish aren't a great offensive rebounding team, nor are they particularly tough on the defensive end. When they shoot this poorly, they're going to struggle.

So, yes, Marquette's opponent shot itself in the foot. Hence the blowout. But you can make the argument this Marquette offense would have prevailed anyway, because guess what? This Marquette offense is good. As John Gasaway noted last night, Marquette has scored 1.24 points per possession through four Big East games. Those four opponents have been West Virginia, Rutgers, No. 5 Pittsburgh and No. 7 Notre Dame. That's impressive no matter how you break it down.

The Golden Eagles are plenty vulnerable on defense, and they don't have ideal size for the rigors of the Big East schedule. (Though junior college transfer Jae Crowder has been a big boost on the interior.) But Marquette can shoot, it can score, and it can force you into all sorts of match up problems with its versatile, athletic lineup. This is a good team team, folks. We knew that before, but now we have something more than "look at all those close losses!" to point to.

[NersEllenson]

Great stuff..thanks for finding and posting

[jaybilaswho?]

Good articles but come on. Who wrote these? The first article had MU playing AT Notre Dame and the second article says ND is ranked 7th? Its call basic research... do some.

[Benny B]

If I was still wearing my Blue & Gold glasses this morning, I would say that Eamonn Brennan is finally starting to pull his weight in the blogosphere.

But alas, even with the indentations that remain on my regular-sized noggin this morning (having worn said glasses to bed), I still can't find myself to invite EB off of the blog crap-heap.  Granted, there are thousands (upon thousands) of worse bloggers out there, but EB - IMO - is quite possibly the bottom of the barrel when it comes to "nationally-syndicated" college hoops bloggers, i.e. he's the worst of the best, and therefore, I shall continue to rag on him... seemingly without merit at times (such as now).  However, as EB rightfully stated, Pomeroy saw something about MU being a tough match-up for ND.  Vegas did too.  So the fact that EB picked up on it is no surprise, but at the very least, he met the minimum standard (which is far and away better than the Nostradamus-wannabes - who shall remain nameless - that predicted a double-digit ND win).

That being said... great double-entry, EB, and you were spot-freakin' on.  I am, and this is the God's honest truth, looking forward to the day you surpass Dana Jacobson in the world of college athletics commentary.

[StillAWarrior]

Good articles but come on. Who wrote these? The first article had MU playing AT Notre Dame and the second article says ND is ranked 7th? Its call basic research... do some.

I'll give you the second one, he does say "No. 7 ND".  But in the first article he mentioned at least twice that they were No. 11.  I suspect it's a typo, not a research issue.  I don't see where he says that the game is at ND.  It seemed clear that he knew it was at Marquette because he mentioned that the fact that Pomeroy has the No. 11 team in the country as a 50-50 split against an unranked team shows how hard it is to win on the road in the Big East.  He knew the game was at Marquette.

I was more interested that he called Marquette the "Ducks."  I think someone was looking forward to the football game.

[Tugg Speedman]

I was more interested that he called Marquette the "Ducks."  I think someone was looking forward to the football game.

+1 ... I thought exactly the same thing ... he wrote this with the football game on in the background and got "ducks" stuck in his head.

[jaybilaswho?]

I'll give you the second one, he does say "No. 7 ND".  But in the first article he mentioned at least twice that they were No. 11.  I suspect it's a typo, not a research issue.  I don't see where he says that the game is at ND.  It seemed clear that he knew it was at Marquette because he mentioned that the fact that Pomeroy has the No. 11 team in the country as a 50-50 split against an unranked team shows how hard it is to win on the road in the Big East.  He knew the game was at Marquette.

I was more interested that he called Marquette the "Ducks."  I think someone was looking forward to the football game.

Totally forgot about the "Ducks" comment.

as for where he says MU at ND (first line of the first article):

Jan. 10 -- Saddle Up: ND-Marquette

Marquette at No. 11 Notre Dame, 7 p.m. ET, ESPN2:

[StillAWarrior]

Totally forgot about the "Ducks" comment.

as for where he says MU at ND (first line of the first article):

Jan. 10 -- Saddle Up: ND-Marquette

Marquette at No. 11 Notre Dame, 7 p.m. ET, ESPN2:

Fair enough.  You're right, and I missed that.  In any event, I think it was sloppiness and not a research issue.  Not that that's any better.  He knew where the game was.

[TT13]

http://twitter.com/eamonnbrennan/statuses/24954586234097664

[Skatastrophy]

http://twitter.com/eamonnbrennan/statuses/24954586234097664

I clicked his url shortener link in his tweet... then puzzled for longer than I'd like to admit on why I had this thread open twice