[Cracked Sidewalks] Oh-no-vertime!

[Anti-Dentite]

If ever someone revealed their identity, that was it.

No kidding, whoacheeks gave himself up there.

[Its DJOver]

Interesting read, although I would like to see how the potential changes would differ if slightly different criteria were inserted rather than just whether or not the game went to OT.  By my count, we've played 7 what I'm calling "close games" (a game that was 2 possessions or less sometime within the last 4 minutes, excluding games that went from 9 to 6 on a last second garbage time 3 etc.).  We're 5-2 in those games, and excluding the Robert Morris game which never should have been that close to begin with, we're 4-2 in six games (wins against Purdue, Davidson, K-State, and Gtown, loses to PC and BU).  I have neither the time or the know-how to run all the various simulations, but where would we be if we'd gone 6-0, 3-3, 0-6, 4-2 but with the wins and losses rotated between different games?  Not necessarily trying to make an argument, but interested to know how much of a slide or jump would be possible had those "close games" gone differently.

[WhoaJoe2020]

No kidding, whoacheeks gave himself up there.

I'm not Cheeks.

The reason I got pissed is because I clicked on the article after the OP said it wouldn't rehash the two losses, and in the first paragraph all it did was rehash the two losses. Particularly the part Wojo played in those losses. Then it went on to show what could have been if only Marquette hadn't lost those two games. It was a bit of interesting but ultimately useless trivia that seemed designed to put into sharp relief the cost of losing those games. I felt the OP was misleading in the way they advertised the article and I wouldn't have bothered reading it if I knew its actual contents.

I don't like wasting my time on woulda coulda shoulda topics.

[Cheeks]

No kidding, whoacheeks gave himself up there.

LOL

Nope....but it makes me laugh my arse off how wrong you clowns are.  I don't know Whoa but he has you all spinning like tops.  Makes me laugh.

[Cheeks]

I'm not Cheeks.

The reason I got pissed is because I clicked on the article after the OP said it wouldn't rehash the two losses, and in the first paragraph all it did was rehash the two losses. Particularly the part Wojo played in those losses. Then it went on to show what could have been if only Marquette hadn't lost those two games. It was a bit of interesting but ultimately useless trivia that seemed designed to put into sharp relief the cost of losing those games. I felt the OP was misleading in the way they advertised the article and I wouldn't have bothered reading it if I knew its actual contents.

I don't like wasting my time on woulda coulda shoulda topics.

Are you really this thick?

[WhoaJoe2020]

Are you really this thick?

Define thick in this instance.

[Cheeks]

Define thick in this instance.

However Brew used it

[WhoaJoe2020]

However Brew used it

Then I guess I am.

The article wasn't biased in one direction or the other so why would anybody have an issue with it??

Fair and balanced.

[rocket surgeon]

Cheeks and whoa gotta raise their rent

[Cheeks]

Then I guess I am.

The article wasn't biased in one direction or the other so why would anybody have an issue with it??

Fair and balanced.

The first paragraph is a mess on nonsense.  He talks about win probabilities and ignores the actual players plays (or lack thereof) as part of the reason for losing.  Later paragraph goes on to state coaching decisions caused 3 seed line change, provides zero evidence to support this and again acts as if this is a game in which coaches make decisions but players don't shot, defend, rebound...it's bizarre to put it mildly.

[WhoaJoe2020]

The first paragraph is a mess on nonsense.  He talks about win probabilities and ignores the actual players plays (or lack thereof) as part of the reason for losing.  Later paragraph goes on to state coaching decisions caused 3 seed line change, provides zero evidence to support this and again acts as if this is a game in which coaches make decisions but players don't shot, defend, rebound...it's bizarre to put it mildly.

The point I was trying to make is that the OP says they're not here to talk about the decisions made in the losses, then in the first paragraph of the article talks about the decisions made in the losses. The decision not to foul in the Providence game, and the intentional foul in the Butler game. The call in the Providence game was close and the call in the Butler game was inconsequential.

Of course the author of the article did an incomplete analysis, because accuracy was never their intention. They cherry picked two volatile examples and got the results that fit their narative.

The only purpose I saw in posting where Marquette would be ranked if they had won those two games was to piss people off.

It worked.