Softest bubble in a decade?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

okay, important related question to try to illustrate my point.  which team would win in a game: this years MU team or the 2007 MU team that lost to Michigan State?

The point is that the two squads are likely to get similar, if not identical seeds.  I don't think this teams quality of play is that of the team of 2007.  The fact that, in my opinion, you could say that looking across the board for the bubble teams this year, represents what has been termed a soft bubble.

You're missing the point.

This years team is better because TC is a dick and Buzz is cool.

Get it through your thick skull.

[Ready2Fly]

okay, important related question to try to illustrate my point.  which team would win in a game: this years MU team or the 2007 MU team that lost to Michigan State?

The point is that the two squads are likely to get similar, if not identical seeds.  I don't think this teams quality of play is that of the team of 2007.  The fact that, in my opinion, you could say that looking across the board for the bubble teams this year, represents what has been termed a soft bubble.

This team would win.  At the very least it would be a coin flip.  You have to remember - the team that lost to Michigan State had no McNeal, and that is also why their seed suffered.  It wasn't because there was a lack of a "soft bubble" that year.

James, Matthews, Barro, freshman Hayward, freshman Cubillan vs. Senior Hayward, Butler, DJO, senior Acker and senior Cubillan.  I'll take my chances with this year's squad.  Add McNeal to the equation and my answer is different - as their seed would have been too.

The soft bubble does not exist.  It's the second shooter on the grassy knoll!

[jmayer1]

The point is that the two squads are likely to get similar, if not identical seeds.  I don't think this teams quality of play is that of the team of 2007.  The fact that, in my opinion, you could say that looking across the board for the bubble teams this year, represents what has been termed a soft bubble.

MU got an 8 seed after Jerel went down (speculative, but they may have been a line or two higher if McNeal was healthy).  Right now, MU is looking at most likely an 11 seed.  If MU goes 3-1 or 4-0 down the stretch they may get their seed that high.  However, if this team does finish 11-7 or 12-6 and wins a game in the BET, I would have no qualms about debating which team was better at the end of the year.

Trying to compare the quality of teams across the board, is highly illogical.  Comparisons between individual teams or champions are somewhat more reasonable, but trying to extrapolate those comparisons to all 330+ teams in D1 basketball is an effort in futility.  

Idaho, with an rpi of 92, made the tournament in 2004.  Does that make 2004 the weakest bubble ever?  Of course not!!! RPI is a static measure used to indicate how good a team in in comparison to the other teams that year.  It is not intended to, and does not, make a valid comparison between teams of different years.  Comparative to the rest of basketball that year, Idaho was a bad team to make the tournament. But it does not make them the worst at large to make the tournament simply based off the RPI data.

I don't care if this year the bubble is soft, hard, aroused, flaccid, or crooked; I think Buzz has done an admirable job getting this team into contention to (and likely making) the tourney.  Before this season, many posters through that would be a tremendous accomplishment.  Bringing talk of college basketball being "down" does not lessen those accomplishments (I'm not saying that is or is not the objective of the posts, I don't know).

[NersEllenson]

okay, important related question to try to illustrate my point.  which team would win in a game: this years MU team or the 2007 MU team that lost to Michigan State?

The point is that the two squads are likely to get similar, if not identical seeds.  I don't think this teams quality of play is that of the team of 2007.  The fact that, in my opinion, you could say that looking across the board for the bubble teams this year, represents what has been termed a soft bubble.

And this will be my last response to the personal attack from Ners - if we want to have it out, we should do it with PMs and not dominate the board.  The basketball being played by experienced mid major squads is EXACTLY as good as in the past (there are so many of them, the quality stays relatively constant even though the teams change [George Mason, Richmond, St Marys, Creighton, etc etc] ) However because the quality from the major conferences is down (Pac 10, ACC) the overall quality of the bubble is watered down, resulting in more of those mid major teams getting in than when superior BCS teams would be in the hunt.

I don't really get your point about the 2007 team versus this year's squad.  This year's team shoots it better, turns it over less, and is probably coached better - by virtue of that, it is likely 2010 team beats 2007 team.  But Pakuni summed it up best when he asked of you the below - I know I'd like to hear your rebuttal his analysis.  

I'm curious ... how do you know this?
Have you studied the rosters of BCS programs this year and years past to determine that in 2010 they are, by and large, younger? If so, I'd love to see those numbers.
Or are you just taking one or two traditionally good teams - say, UCLA and UNC - and arguing that youth is holding them back?
If so, where was this argument when a bunch of freshman and sophomores led UCLA to back-to-back Final Fours a few years back?
Or when a freshman and sophomore dominated UNC team spent much of the season in the top five in 2006-07?
Or when a Florida team that started four sophomores won the championship in 2006?Why isn't youth killing Kentucky this year?

Just wondering.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Good grief gents, I just read the hatorade on this thread, glad I waited until the morning.  Some of you guys are hilarious with some of this stuff.  There is no swipe at all at Buzz, NONE.

This is a college basketball board about Marquette  Marquette is fighting to get into the NCAA tournament.  Part of getting into the tournament is looking at our chances to get in.  Our chances are improved by a soft bubble.  This happens to be one of the softest bubbles in years as confirmed by several sources and I quoted one of the most respected in the industry because I have a relationship with him. 

Why is that a bust on Buzz?  It's just reality.  Doesn't mean he hasn't coached his ass off.  Doesn't mean he doesn't deserve great praise.  Doesn't mean anything else, but some of you are taking this places I or anyone else never intended it to go.  That crazy mind reading crap that some people here have.  JESUS H CHRIST.


There are some years when teams get bit by the level of hoops and other years they don't.  Last year's Providence team got bit. If that same Providence team was playing this year, they would be in the NCAA tournament, but they got squeezed because of how good the Big East was.  This year, MU is benefiting from the soft bubble.  Doesn't make it bad, doesn't make it an attack on the coach.  It's just a statement of fact and some of you go into a wild tizzy.  Timing is everything in life.  Take advantage of those opportunities I say.  We have an opportunity due to the level of hoops this year, let's take advantage of it.  How that is a swipe at Buzz Williams is beyond my comprehension.

I don't understand the comment at all that this thread or others suck the life out of things.  How?  Are we not battling for a NCAA spot because the bubble is soft?  Are we going to have an * by our team that said "made the NCAAs during a soft bubble year"?  Of course not.  Nor was anyone implying that was the case.  I'm THRILLED it's a soft bubble because it gives us a chance to get into the tournament and no one a few years from now is going to remember the bubble was soft.

So why are SOME people (the same ones each time) going down this path?   Why don't you guys blast CBS, SI, and others that are saying it's a soft bubble?  Ask Ken Pom about the bubble....it just is what it is and God forbid someone dare call it what it is.  Immediately that's extrapolated as a swipe at Buzz. Are they all "belittling" Buzz Williams.   I got news for some of you, not everything posted here is about Buzz Williams as much as some of you want to make it that way.  The mind reading BS has got to stop.  The black helicopters you're seeing and the tin foil on your heads, let it go.  People aren't out to "get Buzz Williams".  It's a soft bubble, we're the beneficiary of it....so what.  Instead the sirens go off and it becomes a "you're attacking Buzz" circle jerk.  GIVE ME A BREAK.

I apologize for bringing some information to this board that I thought was pertinent to our school and our chances of getting into the NCAA tournament.  No slight on Buzz at all. 

I just hope on selection show Sunday that Jim Nantz doesn't use those dreaded words, "soft bubble", as he clearly will be secretly bashing Buzz Williams and Marquette in the process.     (or the 50 plus college basketball articles in the last month plus that say the same thing)

[MUBurrow]

I'm curious ... how do you know this?
Have you studied the rosters of BCS programs this year and years past to determine that in 2010 they are, by and large, younger? If so, I'd love to see those numbers.
Or are you just taking one or two traditionally good teams - say, UCLA and UNC - and arguing that youth is holding them back?
If so, where was this argument when a bunch of freshman and sophomores led UCLA to back-to-back Final Fours a few years back?
Or when a freshman and sophomore dominated UNC team spent much of the season in the top five in 2006-07?
Or when a Florida team that started four sophomores won the championship in 2006?Why isn't youth killing Kentucky this year?

Of course young teams can win.  My suggestion that youth was to blame in explaining why teams stacked with all americans are losing was merely that - a suggestion.  I was just trying to explain an unusual phenomenon.  The greater point is that when BCS schools with all americans and 5 star talent are replaced in the tournament by mid majors with 2 or 3 star talent, that says something.  There are always a bunch of mid major bubble teams, who are so plentiful that i would surmise the overall level of play of those mid major bubbles are relatively equal.  One years Creighton is another years UNI.  However there are a very limited amount of UNCs, UCLAs that are loaded with 5 star talent.  When those BCS conference schools have down years, and are replaced in great numbers with mid majors, Occam's Razor says it is because the traditional powers are having down years, not because 10 of the 35 cyclical mid majors has once in a lifetime talent.  Its not a matter of taking one or two traditional powers, its that two of the BCS conferences are considered to have 2 locks between them.  That is a larger trend of a down year for the teams who have recruited the best talent.

[4everwarriors]

EAT still blows bubbles in the bathtub.

[Ready2Fly]

Softest MU player in a decade: Niv Berkowitz
Softest ice cream in a decade: Gilles
Softest Bulletin in a decade: The Flaming Lips' 5th major label album
Softest Parade in a decade: N/A, no entrants since The Doors in 1969

[Skatastrophy]

Softest MU player in a decade: Niv Berkowitz
Softest ice cream in a decade: Gilles
Softest Bulletin in a decade: The Flaming Lips' 5th major label album
Softest Parade in a decade: N/A, no entrants since The Doors in 1969

Gilles sells custard, not ice cream.

[Ready2Fly]

I thought frozen custard = soft ice cream?

[Kramerica]

I thought frozen custard = soft ice cream?

Technically, frozen custard is different from ice cream since it uses a custard instead of straight cream.  Custards are typically made with eggs and cream.  Which in turn makes frozen custard much creamier and much much worse for you. 

[Pakuni]

There are some years when teams get bit by the level of hoops and other years they don't.  Last year's Providence team got bit. If that same Providence team was playing this year, they would be in the NCAA tournament, but they got squeezed because of how good the Big East was.  

I know you're trying to justify your Keno Davis love of 2008, but you can't really mean this, can you?
An objective look at PU's non-conference schedule last year shows why they weren't a tourney team, and it had nothing to do with the Big East. Their problem was going 8-4 against a weak non-conference schedule, including a home loss to Northeastern and by 16 in a neutral site game with NIT-bound Baylor.
Truth of the matter is, their conference record (10-8) would have been good enough to get them into the tourney had they played better against a better nonconference schedule. In fact, the conference's only other 10-8 team, WVU, not only got into the tournament, but got a six seed. If anything, the toughness of the Big East last year improved Providence's chances.

This year, MU is benefiting from the soft bubble.  Doesn't make it bad, doesn't make it an attack on the coach.

Just curious ... but should MU finish with 20 wins, including 11 in conference, will you still be yakking about a soft bubble? Seems to me those numbers are fairly bubble-proof (notwithstanding the 2006 Orange).

How that is a swipe at Buzz Williams is beyond my comprehension.

I'd like to think you're smarter than this.
You are, at the very least, diminishing this team's success by making it less about them and more a byproduct of everyone else's weakness.

Just wondering, though ... why weren't you talking about soft bubbles and the weakness of college basketball, etc., when you were saying that Buzz should be a candidate for coach of the year if this team competed for a tourney spot, etc..
It seems, to me at least, your positions are shifting. Back then, this team would be lucky to win 10 games and compete for a tourney slot. Now it's a matter of fortunate timing, soft bubbles, etc.
Why the change ... other than what seems to be your need to justify MU's success?

[Pakuni]

I thought frozen custard = soft ice cream?

No ... frozen custard = ice cream for soft people.

[hairy worthen]

Chicos, your posts have inspired me to finally reply. I have read your posts for two years now and it is pretty clear that most of your posts have an agenda. You state some passive agressive crap to prove your points and then cry later when others call you on it. An individual post can be explained away, but when you look at all the posts you make it is pretty obvious.

The soft bubble post is ridiculus. MU is currently 7th and possibly moving up in arguebly the most difficult conference in the nation. If they get in the tournament it will be on their own merit not because of a " soft bubble".

[jmayer1]

There are some years when teams get bit by the level of hoops and other years they don't.  Last year's Providence team got bit. If that same Providence team was playing this year, they would be in the NCAA tournament, but they got squeezed because of how good the Big East was.  This year, MU is benefiting from the soft bubble.  Doesn't make it bad, doesn't make it an attack on the coach.  It's just a statement of fact and some of you go into a wild tizzy.  Timing is everything in life.  Take advantage of those opportunities I say.  We have an opportunity due to the level of hoops this year, let's take advantage of it.  How that is a swipe at Buzz Williams is beyond my comprehension.

This is 100% false!!!

If MU finished 10-8 in the Big East this year with an rpi of 79, I would not expect them to get in, regardless of how soft or hard the bubble is. 

The reason I think some people are saying this is a soft bubble is pretty simple.  A cursory glance of a few of the well-known programs that are doing bad (NC, UCLA, IU, Arizon) and all of a sudden it's a soft bubble?  A few less BCS teams might get in this year than last (estimated to be about 4 right now) but it will be a few more than other years.  I think writes/analysts need something to talk about and for some reason they are honing in on this "soft bubble" when in reality it is not supported by any objective data.

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?action=post;quote=185198;topic=18389.75;num_replies=88;sesc=22efc55309b1ecb442a9c6961f401452

[ChicosBailBonds]

Idaho, with an rpi of 92, made the tournament in 2004.  Does that make 2004 the weakest bubble ever?  Of course not!!! RPI is a static measure used to indicate how good a team in in comparison to the other teams that year.  It is not intended to, and does not, make a valid comparison between teams of different years.  Comparative to the rest of basketball that year, Idaho was a bad team to make the tournament. But it does not make them the worst at large to make the tournament simply based off the RPI data.

Idaho has not made the NCAA tournament this century (nor had Idaho State).  Perhaps you were thinking of someone else?

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/history?team1Id=6197

[ChicosBailBonds]

This is 100% false!!!

If MU finished 10-8 in the Big East this year with an rpi of 79, I would not expect them to get in, regardless of how soft or hard the bubble is. 

The reason I think some people are saying this is a soft bubble is pretty simple.  A cursory glance of a few of the well-known programs that are doing bad (NC, UCLA, IU, Arizon) and all of a sudden it's a soft bubble?  A few less BCS teams might get in this year than last (estimated to be about 4 right now) but it will be a few more than other years.  I think writes/analysts need something to talk about and for some reason they are honing in on this "soft bubble" when in reality it is not supported by any objective data.

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?action=post;quote=185198;topic=18389.75;num_replies=88;sesc=22efc55309b1ecb442a9c6961f401452

Yikes.  You're not understanding what I'm saying...obviously.  Providence was 10-8 last year because of how good the Big East was.  That same talent this year would get you MORE than a 10-8 record and thus would make the NCAA tournament. 

I'm not saying a 79RPI last year that doesn't get in gets you in this year.  I'm saying that they ran into bad luck that the Big East was so stacked.  That same talent gets more wins this year than last.  Just as this year's MU team would have not have finished nearly as well if we were in LAST YEAR'S Big East.

Timing is EVERYTHING!!

[NavinRJohnson]

Yikes.  You're not understanding what I'm saying...obviously.  Providence was 10-8 last year because of how good the Big East was.  That same talent this year would get you MORE than a 10-8 record and thus would make the NCAA tournament. 

You know that how?

Just as this year's MU team would have not have finished nearly as well if we were in LAST YEAR'S Big East.

You know that how?

[jmayer1]

Idaho has not made the NCAA tournament this century (nor had Idaho State).  Perhaps you were thinking of someone else?

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/history?team1Id=6197

Haha, you're right, that was volleyball (who know they kept RPI's for that).  However, my point still stands.

[Hards Alumni]

You know that how?

You know that how?

It should be intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer.

I totally have CBB's back on this one.

[mugrad99]

Who did Providence lose from last year to this year?

[Pakuni]

Who did Providence lose from last year to this year?

Efejuku, Hanke, Kale, McDermott and Xavier (and Xavier's brother).

But they gained Jamine Peterson, Bilal Dixon and Vincent Council.

[jmayer1]

Yikes.  You're not understanding what I'm saying...obviously.  Providence was 10-8 last year because of how good the Big East was.  That same talent this year would get you MORE than a 10-8 record and thus would make the NCAA tournament. 

I'm not saying a 79RPI last year that doesn't get in gets you in this year.  I'm saying that they ran into bad luck that the Big East was so stacked.  That same talent gets more wins this year than last.  Just as this year's MU team would have not have finished nearly as well if we were in LAST YEAR'S Big East.

Timing is EVERYTHING!!

This is all conjecture on your part, yet you state it like it's fact.   I believe the top of the BE was better last year, but the lower to bottom of the conference is deeper this year (conjecture on my part, but I'm not stating it as fact).  Do you think this year's MU team is better than last year's Providence team, based on the entire body of work?  I'm not sure, but again, I'm not going to state my opinion as if it's fact.  The fact is that is is darn near impossible to make a comparison year-to-year of the entire body of D1 teams, however, you make a statement and then give no empirical evidence to back up your statement (I don't know if there is any to prove it or not).  

I think the problem that a lot of posters have with your statements is that you very rarely seem to post anything without some sort of agenda.  If you would have come out and just stated, "I'm not sure if the last 5 or 6 teams are as strong this year as compared to past years and MU may be the beneficiary, but Buzz has done a hell of a job this year and exceeded my wildest expecations!!" it probably would have been received much better.  Instead you seem snide, saying that MU is lucky this is a soft bubble year...blah...blah.  You seem to be one of those guys that is always up for a debate but never able to admit when you were wrong (NO THE SUN SETS IN THE EAST!!!!).  In addtion, the name-dropping is also laughable, just like it was when The Previous did it while gainfully employed for MU.  

Of course, you'll prolly read this whole thing and only respond to 1 sentence, because that's your style.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You know that how?

You know that how?

The quality of play in the Big East.  Last year, 3 number 1 seeds, greatest conference in history.  The talent in the Big East and the number of elite Big East teams isn't as strong.  It's still a great conference, but not as good as last year as EVERY Big East coach has already said. 

It's an opinion, but I believe last year's MU team would win the Big East this year.  Last year's Providence team would make the NCAAs this year.  This year's MU team would have a much more difficult time making it last year in the loaded Big East.  Yes, an opinion, but I'd argue one based on strong evidence.

[NersEllenson]

Yikes.  You're not understanding what I'm saying...obviously.  Providence was 10-8 last year because of how good the Big East was.  That same talent this year would get you MORE than a 10-8 record and thus would make the NCAA tournament. 

I'm not saying a 79RPI last year that doesn't get in gets you in this year.  I'm saying that they ran into bad luck that the Big East was so stacked.  That same talent gets more wins this year than last.  Just as this year's MU team would have not have finished nearly as well if we were in LAST YEAR'S Big East.

Timing is EVERYTHING!!

Is the Big East really that much weaker this year??  WE have the 4,7,8,13,16 teams in the country.  And for much of the season UCONN was ranked, meaning we have had approximately 6 teams ranked in the Top 25 this year - pretty much similar to last.  Last year the Big East finished the season with 6 teams in the Top 15 per Pomeroy.