Anybody been watching the Big East Tournament?

[NavinRJohnson]

If so, have you noticed what has been going on? I have read a lot of comments the past couple weeks to the effect of...MU should have beat Villanova. MU should have beat Louisville. MU should have beat Syracuse.. MU should have beat UConn. If you have said those things, and you know who you are, what exactly do you think MU is? Because I've got news for you, MU wins those games and they would be a Top 10 team, if not Top 5. Is that really what your expectations for MU are?

Someone explain to me why MU should have beaten Villanova. You can point to the last 40 seconds, but in order to do that you also have to explain away the previous 39:20. It just doesn't work that way.

Explain to me why MU should have beat Syracuse who is playing as well as any team in the country the last few weeks. Same here, it is a 40 (45 actually) minute game.

Explain to me why MU should have beat UL who won the BE title and appear on their way to winning the BET, and getting a number 1 seed.

Explain to me why MU should have beat UConn, who is as talented as any team in the country.

The simple fact is, all of those teams are better than MU. They were seemingly better when DJ was here, and the gap has only widened since he went down.

If you are going to argue that MU should have won some or all of those games, then you also need defend the position that MU is good enough to be one of the Top 10-12 teams in the country.

To say MU did not beat any of the above is to say that MU did not upset any of the above. All of the above are in the Top 15 teams in the country, and MU is unfortunately just a notch below that, so enough with the hand wringing and the coulda, shoulda, wouldas.

In the end, MU is a good team...one of the top 20-25 teams in the country at this moment. We can play with all of the teams above, but require a bit of luck to beat them. Given the loss of our most critical player, is that really anything to complain about?

[BrewCity83]

Amen, brother.

[ATWizJr]

At the risk of the onslaught of criticism that I know will come from several predictable sources:

People feel that we should have beaten Louisville because any kind of reasonable performance by our "remaining best player" would have offset the small margin by which we lost.  It was a huge opportunity that our experienced players (we start 3 seniors and 2 juniors) should have seized.

As for yesterday, true, the game is 40 minutes long, but, after 39:20 of it the scoreboard said that were the better team holding a 1 point lead and the ball and a fresh 35.  Our team was not able to plan or execute or maintain the discipline needed to close out the game and another huge opportunity was given away.  Was VU better or did we blow it?

It's not so much that we are better or worse than the teams you mention.  It's that, better or worse, we have had opportunities to beat these teams and failed to take advantage of those opportunities.

We have only been outclassed twice in BE play twice. At Pitt and at VU. 

I think you can conclude that there is parity in the BE and the conference plays at the highest level in the country. Clearly, we belong in that group and are as "good" as our counterparts. 

Hell, of the BET final 4, we beat two and barely lost to two.  So, when you say we are not as "good " as those teams, well, I'm just not buying it.

There is a difference between getting beat and beating yourself. Yesterday we didn't play smart at the end and beat ourselves. So, yes, we should have won that game.

In Wes' own words "we gave it away."  His words, not mine.

Putting on my kevlar.

[AlumKCof93]

The frustration is with the missed opportunities.  We had everything in our favor yesterday and blew it in unbeleivable fashion.  Its hard not to be frustrated.

[Brewtown Andy]

  We had everything in our favor yesterday

Other than the entire first half.

[ATWizJr]

We overcame that.  Gotta' cash in your opportunities.

[AlumKCof93]

We have the ball with a 1 pt lead and 20 secs left on the clock.  Momentum in our favor and Villanova has no timeouts.  Yes, everything was in our favor.

[NavinRJohnson]

It was a huge opportunity that our experienced players (we start 3 seniors and 2 juniors) should have seized.

As for yesterday, true, the game is 40 minutes long, but

we have had opportunities to beat these teams and failed to take advantage of those opportunities.

Yesterday we didn't play smart at the end and beat ourselves.

You basically just made my point. You are trying to have it both ways. It is you saying these things and not some Villanova or Louisville fan. The fact is, MU came up short. MU didn't execute. MU beat themselves. After 40 minutes, the score said Villanova was better, and in case you weren't aware, it is a 40 minute game. You can't just take those things away. Those are exactly the things that determine how good you actually are. That's the point! If you take all of those things away, MU would be sitting in the Top 10, looking at a 2 or 3 seed. Do you really believe MU is that good? Based on your arguments, I can only assume your answer is yes, even though the results on the court clearly say otherwise.

[SERocks]

In short:

Good teams find a way to win.

-SERocks

[CTWarrior]

First off, I think most people concede the UConn and Pitt games.  Teams with that kind of size are very tough for us.  But, with a straight face, I con honestly say that with James we were every bit as good as Louisville and Nova, and better than Syracuse.  Without him, we can still play with and beat those teams if we play well.  What have you seen that leads you to think otherwise?  Winning or losing a game by a point  here or there doesn't prove which team is better, since so many luck factors figure in. A missed call by a ref here, a lucky bounce there and the outcome is different.

Finally, I think a lot of us feel that if, in crucial situations, we had put the ball in the hands of our best decision maker rather than our best player, things could easily have been different.  I don't know how you could have watched this Big East season and thought otherwise.

[NavinRJohnson]

I don't know how you could have watched this Big East season and thought otherwise.

The (very significant) difference is, I am basing my conclusion on things that actually happened. Yours requires the use of the words if, but, etc.. In order to do that, the opponents must be afforded the same luxury. You think Villanova, Syracuse, UL, etc. might be able to point to a couple things they would like to have done differently in those games? It just doesn't work that way.

[ATWizJr]

So, following your reasoning, Syracuse deserves to be seeded higher than UConn in the dance since they defeated UCONN this morning because although UConn could have won the game they didn't.

[ATWizJr]

And, it then follows that WV should be seeded higher than Pitt after their victory yesterday.

What's that, those were upsets?  No, not accordinig to your reasoning.  No matter who should have won we only need to consider who did win.

Franky, I don't think a 1 point win by either team proves who was the better team in our case.

[NavinRJohnson]

Ummm...no, I never said that, but nice try.  There is an 18 game schedule that every team played. Those same standings (you can find them on the left), with the exception of Syracuse support my argument, not yours. And as far as Syracuse goes, they haven't lost a game in almost 4 weeks. Are you really going to try to argue that MU is as good as Syracuse at this moment, let alone better?

Any other questions?

[ATWizJr]

actually you did say it since you say one must only base conclusions on what did actually happen.

And what did actually happen was Syracuse actually defeated UConn and WV actually defeated Pitt.  By your definition, they actually are the better teams and actually should be seeded higher.

[NavinRJohnson]

actually you did say it since you say one must only base conclusions on what did actually happen.

And what did actually happen was Syracuse actually defeated UConn and WV actually defeated Pitt.  By your definition, they actually are the better teams and actually should be seeded higher.

Ya know what else actually happened? UConn won 15 BE games. Pitt won 15 BE games. Syracuse won 11. WVU won 10.

C'mon! You can do better than that. If you are going to say I said something, you might want to make sure I actually said it.

[ATWizJr]

per your thinking, what else happened is not important.  You can't have it both ways either.  What's it going to be league record or play in the BET?

Really, after UCONN and Pitt you can throw the next 5-6 teams in a hat and on any given day....... 

That is to say, just to help you out, that we are as good as they are. 

PS.  never did notice those standing on the left.  Thanks!

[NavinRJohnson]

per your thinking, what else happened is not important.  You can't have it both ways either.  What's it going to be league record or play in the BET?

When did I ever say it wasn't both? Go ahead and look for that and let me know when you find it.

BTW, you'll notice that most of the games I referenced in the original post took place during the regular season.

Let me spell it out, since you seem to want to inject your own version of what I am saying to help your argument. My position is simple: Regular season standings, BET, and overall season performance would seem to indicate that Pitt, UConn, UL, Villanova, and Syracuse are better teams than MU right now (certainly post-James, if not before).

Your position as best as I can tell is that if only MU were better, they would be better. Where am I off on that?

[wermarquette]

If so, have you noticed what has been going on? I have read a lot of comments the past couple weeks to the effect of...MU should have beat Villanova. MU should have beat Louisville. MU should have beat Syracuse.. MU should have beat UConn. If you have said those things, and you know who you are, what exactly do you think MU is? Because I've got news for you, MU wins those games and they would be a Top 10 team, if not Top 5. Is that really what your expectations for MU are?

Someone explain to me why MU should have beaten Villanova. You can point to the last 40 seconds, but in order to do that you also have to explain away the previous 39:20. It just doesn't work that way.

Explain to me why MU should have beat Syracuse who is playing as well as any team in the country the last few weeks. Same here, it is a 40 (45 actually) minute game.

Explain to me why MU should have beat UL who won the BE title and appear on their way to winning the BET, and getting a number 1 seed.

Explain to me why MU should have beat UConn, who is as talented as any team in the country.

The simple fact is, all of those teams are better than MU. They were seemingly better when DJ was here, and the gap has only widened since he went down.

If you are going to argue that MU should have won some or all of those games, then you also need defend the position that MU is good enough to be one of the Top 10-12 teams in the country.

To say MU did not beat any of the above is to say that MU did not upset any of the above. All of the above are in the Top 15 teams in the country, and MU is unfortunately just a notch below that, so enough with the hand wringing and the coulda, shoulda, wouldas.

In the end, MU is a good team...one of the top 20-25 teams in the country at this moment. We can play with all of the teams above, but require a bit of luck to beat them. Given the loss of our most critical player, is that really anything to complain about?

to answer all of your questions... because we had a legimimate chance to win all of these games and ended up blowing it

[NavinRJohnson]

to answer all of your questions... because we had a legimimate chance to win all of these games and ended up blowing it

That doesn't explain why MU should have won those games. The only thing it explains is that MU probably just isn't that good. The teams we played against also had legitimate chances to win those games...and guess what, they did! Somehow that translates to MU should have won, but the opponent should not have?

[ATWizJr]

You have been crusading on the platform that if MU should have won those games then they would have won those games.  You further state that since they didn't win those games they are not as good as the team that did win the game.

Using that thinking, it is clear that WV and Cuse are better teams than the teams they beat yesterday, even though Pitt and UConn should have won those games.

So, the better teams, those that won yesterday, should be seeded higher than the ones that lost yesterday.

or to paraphrase, Pitt and Uconn probably aren't that good.

[NavinRJohnson]

You further state that since they didn't win those games they are not as good as the team that did win the game.

Wrong! That's what you said I said! That is one data point, but you seem to want to pretend it is the only one I have provided. So since you seem to be having a reading comprehension problem, let's try it another way...

My contention is in fact that UL, Pitt, UConn, Villanova and Syracuse are better teams than MU. You and others want to argue that MU is as good or better than Syracuse and Villanova in particular, but also UL.

You said...

Clearly, we belong in that group and are as "good" as our counterparts.

I have provided plenty of evidence to the contrary including conference standings, head to head, and total record against BE competition...all of which support the contention that the teams in question are in fact better than MU.

Now, without invalidating your argument with words like if, but, etc...please share with me any evidence that MU is as good as those teams, and should have won this game or that game.

[ATWizJr]

You continue to disregard your own basic premise.  How do you explain the losses yeaterday by Pitt and UConn?

S_ _t happens?  Does that make Pitt and UConn worse teams then Cuse and WV?

Sometimes the team that is supposed to win doesn't.  Simple.

[NavinRJohnson]

You continue to disregard your own basic premise.  How do you explain the losses yeaterday by Pitt and UConn?

S_ _t happens? 

Yep, pretty much. Sometimes you lose to an inferior team. Doesn't happen all that often however, which is why the inferior teams are in fact inferior teams. The alternative is that WVU is better than Pitt, and Syracuse better than UConn. Do you believe that? Because I certainly don't. Again...one data point.

You seem to be the one ignoring the basic premise (as well as everything I have been saying) that all of the evidence taken collectively says MU is 6th on a list of 6 teams, and wanting to focus only on one data point and ignoring all others.

Again, if you have actual evidence to the contrary - that is something beyond theories that require revising history and taking away mistakes by MU but not their opponents, I'm all ears.

[JMcSteal]

I'd say without DJ we are not as good as those teams.

With a healthy DJ we are as good as those teams.

Even though we aren't an elite team we are still a very good team and as shown we compete with elite teams.