ESPN article on MU-UW game

[ChicosBailBonds]

Totally false. We're projected to win the Big East. Are you saying if we do that and lose against UW and UNM that we will not get an at-large birth.

If we lose these next two major non-conference games, then we can kiss good-bye seeds 1-6 or 7, but to say that we need them for an at-large bid is ludicrous. Unless, of course, there's sound analysis to go with your assertion.

We were projected to win the Wooden Legacy as well.  Pre season projections ain't all that.

[Windyplayer]

We were projected to win the Wooden Legacy as well.  Pre season projections ain't all that.

Both of you have missed the point. The only point is that it's not outside the realm of possiblity that we could win the Big East and if we do, we would make the Tourney with great ease.

[Eldon]

Totally false. We're projected to win the Big East. Are you saying if we do that and lose against UW and UNM that we will not get an at-large birth.

If we lose these next two major non-conference games, then we can kiss good-bye seeds 1-6 or 7, but to say that we need them for an at-large bid is ludicrous. Unless, of course, there's sound analysis to go with your assertion.

Agreed that an at-large probably isn't really at stake.  However, we lose both those games and we had better make some noise in the BE tourney.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Both of you have missed the point. The only point is that it's not outside the realm of possiblity that we could win the Big East and if we do, we would make the Tourney with great ease.

Haven't missed it at all.  If we win the Big East, we should make the NCAA tournament.  I think what some people are opining is that we finish, say 4th or 5th, with no good out of conference wins.  What happens?  Winning some of these non-conference bigger games buys you some wiggle room on where you finish in the conference.

It may be that we lose to UNM and UW-madison, but the light goes on, Duane Wilson comes back and we go nuts and finish 15-3 in conference.  Certainly we would be in.  Its the margin for error stuff that lurks.  One can only hope that we respond like we have to most Buzz years here and we play well Jan-March.

[hoyasincebirth]

Totally false. We're projected to win the Big East. Are you saying if we do that and lose against UW and UNM that we will not get an at-large birth.

If we lose these next two major non-conference games, then we can kiss good-bye seeds 1-6 or 7, but to say that we need them for an at-large bid is ludicrous. Unless, of course, there's sound analysis to go with your assertion.

1) on one hand a team that loses all their non conference tests won't win the BE.

2) Depending on how the rest of the BE teams do in their remaining OOC games yes a team with no quality OOC wins that wins the BE could get left out of the tournament if the rest of the conference proves to be incredibly weak. Washington got left out after winning the Pac 12 regular season title.

3) You guys are being way to anal and literal about the phrase Must Win Game. For all extents a purposes it just means this is a game a team needs to win if they don't want to make things very difficult on themselves going forward. Just because you want to define it in the most literal terms doesn't mean others are wrong to use it in a different context.

[79Warrior]

1) on one hand a team that loses all their non conference tests won't win the BE.

2) Depending on how the rest of the BE teams do in their remaining OOC games yes a team with no quality OOC wins that wins the BE could get left out of the tournament if the rest of the conference proves to be incredibly weak. Washington got left out after winning the Pac 12 regular season title.

3) You guys are being way to anal and literal about the phrase Must Win Game. For all extents a purposes it just means this is a game a team needs to win if they don't want to make things very difficult on themselves going forward. Just because you want to define it in the most literal terms doesn't mean others are wrong to use it in a different context.

This

[MUSF]

3)  Just because you want to define it in the most literal terms doesn't mean others are wrong to use it in a different context.

I think it does. Sportswriters and fans get everyone spun up by throwing around the term "must-win" during a season, then months later we typically look back and realize that many of the alleged "must-win" games were in fact not that critical.

[Windyplayer]

I think the issue is that people have strayed too far from the literal meaning of must-win. I'm OK with its use in situations where it is extremely unlikely a team will advance to its desired end if they lose--as in you lose, now another team has to lose 4 in a row and you have to win 4 in a row. Also, i realize in some instances, it is impossible to mathematically determine if a game is a must-win. For instance, with a bubble team, it is impossible to say whether they are mathematically eliminated because we're dealing with a committee of humans rather than computers to determine who's in or out. But of course, we know that some teams will not be dancing and are pretty damn sure of other teams not getting in if they lose certain games.

So there is obvious wiggle room from mathematical must-wins, but this wiggle room has been used and abused.

[Mumichfan06]

Why not call it a must win? I don't see Marquette rolling through conference play (at least given our recent performances). If we are sitting on the bubble we are going to look back say if we only beat Wisconsin on the road. If we only. This is a signature win we may need. A UNM beat down will be nice but they've dropped a bit and it's a neutral court.

I don't post often, but read a lot of your posts. Let's expect greatness, let's expect better. If we truly are the eventual Big East Champion then we should go in and win.

Subscribing to the notion it's not a must win leads me to believe we are setting ourselves up for a loss and if it isn't a must win we'll feel just a little better after a loss.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

You need a scalp or two on the resume. 

Exactly the advice my Dad gave me when I went off to college.

[chapman]

You need a scalp or two on the resume. 

Yep.  It's not "must win" in the sense that elimination games are the only games that need to be won to continue your season.  Our goals are higher than "just getting in", and to be realistic you're not going to get earn respect, get in the tournament, get a good seed and set yourself up for success by losing every game you play against opponents that are worth a damn, even if it is in non-conference play.  

[MUSF]

Why not call it a must win?

Because what happens if we don't? Season over? No shot at tourney? No, we keep getting after it and set our sights on a conference championship. What possible benefit is there to calling a game must win when it isn't?

This is certainly a big game for many reasons, but nothing about it makes it a must win.

[raul]

This is the 2nd top 10 team we play this year and even if we lose both its not a big deal. Losing to ASU and SDSU looks worse in the resume. A win on the other hand would be big.

[Mumichfan06]

Because what happens if we don't? Season over? No shot at tourney? No, we keep getting after it and set our sights on a conference championship. What possible benefit is there to calling a game must win when it isn't?

This is certainly a big game for many reasons, but nothing about it makes it a must win.

We'll see where we sit Selection Sunday - I hope we don't have to look back and say, "That Wisconsin came really was a must win."

Go Marquette! Let's just win and the discussion is irrelevant.