We have such a long way to go it's not funny

[ChicosBailBonds]

The question was, "why are you updating rankings, including RPI, every day in your signature?"  I didn't see an answer to the question in your reply.  One potential answer would be that you believe the RPI is meaningful at this point in the season.  The other potential answers result in... character being revealed.  

You'll notice that I updated 4 rankings, not just the RPI.  It shows the wide spread of how we rank.  It's fun to watch us climb.  If it was a character thing, as you claim, then why would I list the other two that show us with good ratings?  Hmmmm.  

Oh, that's right....you have no answer for that....so really it reveals YOUR CHARACTER.  Which is every time I post something, you and others come on the hunt.  Character indeed, that's what you guys do and everyone here knows it.  

I could make up a username here and post the exact same posts that I normally do, and no one would raise a finger in protest.  It's all about who the messenger is for you guys.  100%


Incidentally, Buzz Williams is very in tune with the RPI, what it means in the big picture.  He's only mentioned it three times last night ALONE....just sayin....maybe his character is being revealed as well?


"From a revenue perspective, from an RPI perspective, from a dates available perspective, relative to whatever exempt tournament we're playing in, relative to what week finals are, relative to the date that we'll play Wisconsin -- all of those things have to mesh. All of those things have to be married at once. There is value in winning on the road. When you win on the road, RPI-specific, you're credited with 1.6 points. When you win at home, you're credited .6 points. Any team you play that's below 200 in the RPI when you get to March, that's a wash. So there is value -- if you can win."
- Buzz Williams press conference after UW-m game


You think Buzz is following the RPI right now?  You bet your ass he is.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Brew, I think it was a couple of reasons for that expectation.

1)  MU just lost 2 games in a row, one would think they would be hungry
2)  Game was in Milwaukee against a team that has played well in one game all season and laid a huge egg the other night
3)  MU played well against Duke, the #1 team in the country, and made the Gonzaga game competitive at the end
4)  In 37 previous meetings, the final score was never closer than 13 points and typically more of the 25+ variety.

I didn't expect a 25 point win, though playing to our ability would certainly merit that outcome last night.  I did expect better than a 3 point win and having to make 7 or 8 free throws in the last 30 seconds to hold off a team that the same Ken Pom picks to finish 12-17 this year.

[IAmMarquette]

You'll notice that I updated 4 rankings, not just the RPI.  It shows the wide spread of how we rank.  It's fun to watch us climb.  If it was a character thing, as you claim, then why would I list the other two that show us with good ratings?  Hmmmm.  

Oh, that's right....you have no answer for that....so really it reveals YOUR CHARACTER.  Which is every time I post something, you and others come on the hunt.  Character indeed, that's what you guys do and everyone here knows it.  

I could make up a username here and post the exact same posts that I normally do, and no one would raise a finger in protest.  It's all about who the messenger is for you guys.  100%


Incidentally, Buzz Williams is very in tune with the RPI, what it means in the big picture.  He's only mentioned it three times last night ALONE....just sayin....maybe his character is being revealed as well?


"From a revenue perspective, from an RPI perspective, from a dates available perspective, relative to whatever exempt tournament we're playing in, relative to what week finals are, relative to the date that we'll play Wisconsin -- all of those things have to mesh. All of those things have to be married at once. There is value in winning on the road. When you win on the road, RPI-specific, you're credited with 1.6 points. When you win at home, you're credited .6 points. Any team you play that's below 200 in the RPI when you get to March, that's a wash. So there is value -- if you can win."
- Buzz Williams press conference after UW-m game


You think Buzz is following the RPI right now?  You bet your ass he is.

Rather than just make the claim, why not test your theory?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Rather than just make the claim, why not test your theory?

Hard to now since I put it out there.  It would have been interesting to do it, however, and a month later show exhibit A as another poster who posts the same things and isn't touched.

It's all about who is delivering the message with these guys....that's all it is.  See the username and pounce.

[brewcity77]

As far as continuing the series, from an RPI perspective, it makes more sense to keep playing occasionally at their place. As long as UW-M stays in the top 200 over the next few years, we'll gain something from beating them, but it's significantly more when it's at their place. If I remember right, score doesn't matter for the RPI. We beat them by 1 or 100, it's the same, the only thing that matters is the location.

We could chew on cupcakes at home, or take a few risks and go on the road for a few in hopes of helping the RPI. Teams like South Dakota, Prairie View A&M, Longwood, Centenary...all sub-200 RPI teams at home will do us no good. I understand playing them to get the requisite wins, and because we don't have to return to their building when they are that low in the ratings. Teams like Green Bay and Bucknell help us a bit because they are top-200, but won't help us as much as a road win will against a team of similar caliber. Sure, there's more of a risk any time you go away from home, but there's also more of a reward.

I like the idea of setting up 3-4 of these series that offer a 3-1 or 4-1 home-away ratio. They won't be as easy of cupcakes as the Texas A&M-Corpus Christi's of the world, but they will do more for our RPI while also giving us about one good shot at a top-200 RPI road win a year. Maybe instead of 6 sub-200 teams and 3 top-200 "cupcakes", make it the other way around. 4 teams at home in the sub-200 range and 5 in the top-150 to 200 range with one of those an away game. That should in theory result in the same number of wins, with a bit more risk potential but a lot more reward and more of a test for the team to prepare them for Big East play. I have a feeling that a challenging game against UW-M on the road will do a lot more to humble this team and prepare them for what's ahead than another 39-point whomping of a PVAMU.

I'm sure it won't happen, but I'd like to see it, and maybe it would help our posters understand that there's a risk any time you go on the road, even against the UW-M's of the world.

[CTWarrior]

We have one Achilles' heel, and that is defensive rebounding.  Crowder is really a 3 at this level, as is Butler, and neither Otule (hands) nor Gardner (quickness, positioning) appear to be adequate rebounders.

I think the offense will improve.  Last year we were so deadly from three that people didn't want to zone us.  I think we look worse than we are on offense because of what we were used to last year.  We're OK and will get better.

Our initial defense is pretty good too, and figures to continue to get better.  Our harrassing style is effective and fun to watch.  In the end, if we don't get a lot better at securing defensive rebounds, we have a flaw that's too big to overcome.

[Boone]

What's worrisome about the anemic rebounding, is that it hasn't been addressed so far in recruiting. Unless we use our last scholarship on a Ryan Rhoomes or a JUCO 4, it doesn't figure to improve next season neither.

[ChicosBailBonds]

They beat a poor Boston College team after struggling through the first half and needing a monster second half run to take control. Compare that to how we did in the CBE. Honestly, despite them going 2-0 thus far and us going 0-2 in KC, I would say without a doubt that Marquette's performances were more impressive. It's not even close. The main difference is that we played #1 Duke and #18 Gonzaga, while they played two teams that likely won't even be considered for the Big Dance. The only team they played that will be in the mix come March is UNLV, and they lost that game.

That Boston College team won again today, this time over Cal (who is not that good).  BC's victory over Texas A&M looks better as the Aggies knocked off Temple this afternoon. 

[bamamarquettefan]

I like having the ratings on the bottom of your posts, but the RPI really takes a while to take shape.

http://www.rpiforecast.com/teams/Marquette.html

If you look at the forecast, if MU goes just 9-9, 18-13 we end up would projected RPI 66.  Win one more game and we are at an RPI of 54 and definitely in the tourney with the close losses already vs. Duke and Gonzaga, and we move up to the 45th RPI if we get to 20-11 (would have to be Wisconsin OR Vandy and go 10-8 in the Big East).

Problem with the RPI early is that your opponents record counts twice your record, so after the first game, the winner gets 1-0 for their record, 0-2 for their opponents losses doubled, and 1-0 for their opponents' opponents' record - so the first two teams are tied no matter who wins after one game.  Just takes a while for opponents records to settle into around .500 so the rest works.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Bama

That is correct and I stated that the other day, the RPI is out of whack for two reasons....margin of victory and limited number of games means a heavy emphasis on the few games played thus far.  So if you lose early, it can be a killer.  Takes awhile for it to sort out.

Of course for this I was attacked (despite also having another rating that showed a high rating score....apparently I secretly was bagging on Buzz with the RPI ranking but the other ranking...uhm...ahh...well...no answer from the henchmen...why let details get in the way of a good virtual lynching on their part).

I would disagree with one part of your statement, however.  A 54 RPI isn't "definitely in the tourney".  I understand you included the close losses to Duke and Gonzaga as reasons to push a 54 RPI over the top, but not entirely sure on that. Dayton was a 35 RPI last year and didn't get in. Wichita State at 50 also left out.   Others in years past also were better than 50 and left out...Ohio State at 33 two years ago.  UMass at 34 two years ago.  Ole Miss at 46 two years ago.

[PE8983]

"Thank God UW hyphen m shot poorly"

They shot 51% - how is that poor?

[madtownwarrior]

chicos should add the Indiana and Utah State RPI's to his signature as well...

[avid1010]

Terrible decision making with passing, shooting, rebounding, defense.  Thank God UW hyphen m shot poorly because they had open looks after open looks.  They are not that good which just shows you how far we have to go.

Up by nearly 20 and we nearly pissed the whole thing away practically at home with a ton of our fans there.

We better get it together quickly or a real road game with 10 of our fans in attendance is going to be ugly.

We have time, but tonight was ridiculous.  Wisconsin will destroy us in two weeks if we don't get our act together.

Just decided to read this thread, and never got past Chico's first comments.  How do you figure UW will destroy MU, yet Duke and Gonzaga were unable to do so on a neutral court???

[Steve Buscemi]

Just decided to read this thread, and never got past Chico's first comments.  How do you figure UW will destroy MU, yet Duke and Gonzaga were unable to do so on a neutral court???

Come on.... he's saying that in retrospect to the way they played last night. People need to quit bashing Chicos, because he's mostly correct on this thread.  Overall, the team played like crap.  We're lucky it was against UWM because if it was against just about any other team on our schedule, we'd have 3 losses.  If they play that way against Madison, they will get destroyed.

[avid1010]

Right now, UW beats MU at the BC. Why, they get it. Bo has a defined system both offensively and defensively, the players know what it is when they're recruited, it's practiced, and doesn't vary. Like it or not, Bo is a legendary coach and winner. Consistency, consistency, consistency....
MU might get it this season, and then again, may not. What is Buzz' style of play? I don't know. Does it vary based on the talent he gets yearly? We'll see.

Couldn't disagree more on this one.  Bo is far from legendary.  Many of the UW alumni would like to see him out as they realize his recruiting will never be good enough to contend for a championship.  Bo is very consistent, and his teams are very consistent as well.  That being said, they consistently perform at a level that is far from being legendary.  When you talk about MU's style of play I think it's important to understand that Buzz does make adjustments based on his talent.  Bo adjusts very little.  Bo and his system are probably the greatest things to ever happen to MU.  He runs a program that is good, but never great, and Buzz can often beat him in the recruiting game because of Bo's style of play.  A player that has what it takes to dominate a game will be put into a situation in which he can do so at MU, while I believe Bo makes average players good, but he also makes great players good.  To me, there's a ceiling on the UW program because of Bo's system and his recruiting.  

[Mr. Nielsen]

Some need to relax. MU has played 7 games in 16 days with many new players.

[Steve Buscemi]

Hope I'm wrong, but I think theses guys have been really overated.  

Crowder - Disapointingly  soft
Blue- No offense
Caudigan- so-so. Not that talented
Buycks- Nuff said
Butler- Can't do it all. Doesn't seemed to have steped up off last year.
DJO- really inconsistent.

Team can't shoot, can't rebound, mediocre on free throws, soft on defense, and certainly doesn't hustle like last year.

Hope I'm wrong but hello NIT.

This post is ridiculous.  You're writing off the season in November.  If you want to start every season 7 - 0, invent a time machine, become a UCLA fan, and go back to 1966.

[brewcity77]

Come on.... he's saying that in retrospect to the way they played last night. People need to quit bashing Chicos, because he's mostly correct on this thread...

...If they play that way against Madison, they will get destroyed.

I agree that Chicos gets more flack than he deserves most of the time, but this mindset of us getting destroyed by Bucky just seems a bit silly to me. The Badgers haven't been very good this year. They just haven't. It's not like K-State or Kentucky is headed for the BC. Maybe they are impressing everyone else, but I just don't see it.

A player that has what it takes to dominate a game will be put into a situation in which he can do so at MU, while I believe Bo makes average players good, but he also makes great players good.

+10

Probably the best description of Bo's impact on the program I've ever seen.

[Mr. Nielsen]

This post is ridiculous.  You're writing off the season in November.  If you want to start every season 7 - 0, invent a time machine, become a UCLA fan, and go back to 1966.

Your right. It just shows what some people don't know about the game of basketball.

Titles are not won in November. MU will be more than fine this season!

[ChicosBailBonds]

chicos should add the Indiana and Utah State RPI's to his signature as well...

No, it would be Kansas and Indiana, the other schools where I am an alum.

Not Utah State, though I did enjoy this article recently from a fellow MU alum.

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1264

[avid1010]

Come on.... he's saying that in retrospect to the way they played last night. People need to quit bashing Chicos, because he's mostly correct on this thread.  Overall, the team played like crap.  We're lucky it was against UWM because if it was against just about any other team on our schedule, we'd have 3 losses.  If they play that way against Madison, they will get destroyed.

I guess you'll need to explain that to me.  The title of the thread is "we have such a long way to go it's not funny" and a statement like "we better get it together quickly or a real road game...is going to be ugly" doesn't seem to suggest that to me.  Are you saying that MU had what is takes to run close with Duke and Gonzaga on a neutral court, but they lost that ability prior to the UWM game and have such a long way to go to get back to that point?  I don't think so.  If his comment was simply, "if we play bad against UW they'll beat us" I don't think there would be any need for discussion.  He clearly stated we have such a long way to go but we have time to get better, but if we don't he feels UW will destroy us.  Not sure I buy that seeing as we were competitive with Duke and Zaga less than a week ago.  They're playing to their competition at this point in time, and I expect them to play UW competitively just as they have every team they faced this year.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Couldn't disagree more on this one.  Bo is far from legendary.  Many of the UW alumni would like to see him out as they realize his recruiting will never be good enough to contend for a championship.  Bo is very consistent, and his teams are very consistent as well.  That being said, they consistently perform at a level that is far from being legendary.  When you talk about MU's style of play I think it's important to understand that Buzz does make adjustments based on his talent.  Bo adjusts very little.  Bo and his system are probably the greatest things to ever happen to MU.  He runs a program that is good, but never great, and Buzz can often beat him in the recruiting game because of Bo's style of play.  A player that has what it takes to dominate a game will be put into a situation in which he can do so at MU, while I believe Bo makes average players good, but he also makes great players good.  To me, there's a ceiling on the UW program because of Bo's system and his recruiting.  

You do realize that Wisconsin in the last 10 years UW has won several Big Ten titles, earned a #1 ranking in February (not in the preseason when it means squat), went to an Elite 8, has the edge on MU head to head, NCAA wins, etc?  They have the 4th longest NCAA streak in the country right now at 12 consecutive appearances...that may not be great in your opinion but it's better than just "good".

Give him credit for what he does...he understands what players he wants, recruits them and wins a ton of basketball games.  I find his style incredibly boring but it's effective. 

[avid1010]

You do realize that Wisconsin in the last 10 years UW has won several Big Ten titles, earned a #1 ranking in February (not in the preseason when it means squat), went to an Elite 8, has the edge on MU head to head, NCAA wins, etc?  They have the 4th longest NCAA streak in the country right now at 12 consecutive appearances...that may not be great in your opinion but it's better than just "good".

Give him credit for what he does...he understands what players he wants, recruits them and wins a ton of basketball games.  I find his style incredibly boring but it's effective. 

I get that, and I think that's a fair definition of a good program...would you feel better if I said good+ or very good?!?!  He hasn't had the post season success of Izzo or Matta because they just aren't talented enough.  I guess I look at NCAA tourney play more than anything.  An Elite 8 appearance is nothing to sneeze at, yet it's not a final four, let alone a championship.  I don't believe he'll ever be able to recruit the players to make a final four run in his system.  Makes me realize how dang impressive Dick Bennett's system was and the run he made with the players he had.  They have a hard time beating a higher ranked team in the tourney because their talent level isn't on par with the others.  I guess I'd have to look at the points you provided (several B10 championships and a Feb. #1 ranking) and wonder why they don't have more success in the tourney.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I get that, and I think that's a fair definition of a good program...would you feel better if I said good+ or very good?!?!  He hasn't had the post season success of Izzo or Matta because they just aren't talented enough.  I guess I look at NCAA tourney play more than anything.  An Elite 8 appearance is nothing to sneeze at, yet it's not a final four, let alone a championship.  I don't believe he'll ever be able to recruit the players to make a final four run in his system.  Makes me realize how dang impressive Dick Bennett's system was and the run he made with the players he had.  They have a hard time beating a higher ranked team in the tourney because their talent level isn't on par with the others.  I guess I'd have to look at the points you provided (several B10 championships and a Feb. #1 ranking) and wonder why they don't have more success in the tourney.

Well, let me turn the tables on you.  If after 8 more years (10 total under Buzz), MU has not gone back to the Final Four are we merely a good program?

That's the danger of putting all your eggs into the proverbial NCAA Tournament basket.  The tournament is a crap shoot.  It seems you judge greatness by what someone does in the NCAAs.  I treat them separately.  There's a regular season and the NCAA tournament.  Because a team has one bad game or is beat by 1 point by another very good team in the NCAAs should not negate what a team did for 6 months from November to March...in my opinion. 

[Ready2Fly]

Chicos spouts off the Badger talking points almost verbatim. He spends so much time reading those boards in angst worrying about what they think of MU that I think he's got a slight case of Stockholm syndrome.