The headline nailed it

[MU Avenue]

Have you read the headline in Sunday’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel? It reads, “Wisconsin too tall, too tough for Marquette.”

True and true.

I know some here believe that tenacity and boxing out can equal or even overcome an opposing team’s height advantage.

No way, at least much of the time.

The Journal Sentinel’s headline says it all. I hope it does not become apropos to our opponents for the rest of the season.

[nomorebuycks]

UW is taller, that's a fact.

But if they are tougher (which it sure appears they are), that's a huge indictment of MU's players and coaching staff.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Have you read the headline in Sunday’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel? It reads, “Wisconsin too tall, too tough for Marquette.”

True and true.

I know some here believe that tenacity and boxing out can equal or even overcome an opposing team’s height advantage.

No way, at least much of the time.

The Journal Sentinel’s headline says it all. I hope it does not become apropos to our opponents for the rest of the season.

So every game that UW-madison loses this year to a smaller team means what?

[mviale]

I have been a fan for 24 years and more times than not this headline has been true.  Wisconsin has pretty much owned us over the last 2 decades. The few times we have won have been the good years.  This is a rebuilding year, why is this so shocking?

[ChicosBailBonds]

I have been a fan for 24 years and more times than not this headline has been true.  Wisconsin has pretty much owned us over the last 2 decades. The few times we have won have been the good years.  This is a rebuilding year, why is this so shocking?

Because in the last two weeks people here were basically accusing people of having a horn coming out of their head and 9 eyeballs on their face for even suggesting MU would lose this game.

Incidentally, the last 8 games have been split going into yesterday, but UW-madison has had the better program in the last 25 years (not by much, but they have)

[MU Avenue]

So every game that UW-madison loses this year to a smaller team means what?

The point that you raise in your question, ChicosBailBonds, is not my concern.

My concern is that Marquette for too many seasons has done well to recruit strong guards and guard-forwards, but has been woeful at bringing in even the hint of a skilled, strong, intimidating big man.

The University of Wisconsin at Madison will lose more games this season, perhaps to shorter teams. The University of Wisconsin at Madison will also win many more games this season, due in good part to its stable of big men who play a pretty good brand of basketball.

The much more relevant issue for our purposes is that Marquette is going to continue struggling this season and into future seasons until it brings in a few big men who are good basketball players.

It is that simple.

[WarriorHal]

My concern is that Marquette for too many seasons has done well to recruit strong guards and guard-forwards, but has been woeful at bringing in even the hint of a skilled, strong, intimidating big man.

The much more relevant issue for our purposes is that Marquette is going to continue struggling this season and into future seasons until it brings in a few big men who are good basketball players.

It is that simple.

Sadly, Marquette has rarely been able to successfully recruit blue-chip power forwards and centers since Al retired.

Now, for whatever reason, we can't even land average big men--the type that Wisconsin gets several of virtually every year. Otule was a 2-star, not a high level prospect. Gardner looks like he can become a good power forward, but needs to be combined with a topnotch center--someone with Otule's size but a lot more talent. Strong guards but weak in the front court has been the story here far too often.

[shiloh26]

I think our only hope of getting out of the big-man recruiting rut is to finally develop a big man project.  We've gone small for so long now, it kinda becomes self-perpetuating. If I were a big man coming out of high school, would I go to a team that hasn't turned out a quality big in years, and has for a long time run an offense totally dependent on guards? I'm not sure I would. 

Gardner provides some potential there. Not that I think he'll ever go pro or anything, but maybe he could at least demonstrate that MU will incorporate talented big guys onto the team. 

[MerrittsMustache]

People need to stop harping on the fact that rebounding is all about size. Otule (6'11", 260) and Gardner (6'8", 290) were on the floor for a combined 26 minutes and grabbed a total of 4 rebounds. To put things into perspective...

Leuer (6'10", 225): 31 minutes, 6 rebounds
Nankovil (6'8", 240): 22 min, 5 rebounds
Bruesewitz (6'6", 220): 25 minutes, 8 rebounds
Wilson (6'4", 200): 16 minutes, 4 rebounds

Obviously, there are 4 other players on the court with Otule and Ox, but it's not like they were all Mo Acker's size. Being big is definitely an advantage but rebounding is more about position and heart.

[Markusquette]

Leuer and Nankivil are much better bigs with a lot more experience at this level.  It's not rocket science.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The point that you raise in your question, ChicosBailBonds, is not my concern.

My concern is that Marquette for too many seasons has done well to recruit strong guards and guard-forwards, but has been woeful at bringing in even the hint of a skilled, strong, intimidating big man.

The University of Wisconsin at Madison will lose more games this season, perhaps to shorter teams. The University of Wisconsin at Madison will also win many more games this season, due in good part to its stable of big men who play a pretty good brand of basketball.

The much more relevant issue for our purposes is that Marquette is going to continue struggling this season and into future seasons until it brings in a few big men who are good basketball players.

It is that simple.

Last year we were the 341st tallest team in Division I and went to the NCAAs anyway (only 6 teams shorter than MU in all of D1)

2009, MU was the 290th tallest team in D1, went to the NCAA second round

2008, MU was the 244th tallest team in D1, went to the NCAAs

2007, MU was 150th tallest team in D1, went to the NCAAs

2006, MU was 172nd tallest team in D1, went to the NCAAs


2011....MU is the 151st tallest team in D1.....we go to the <       >  tournament


Height is great, but as we have proven consistently the past half decade, MU can go on to big things and reach TALL goals even lacking height.  In fact, this year's team is our second tallest in the last 5 years in comparison to the rest of the D1 competition....missing by one spot as our tallest.  Height is an excuse.

[Dr. Blackheart]

I will reiterate this point as we are forgetting this after yesterday's game:  MU is vastly improved in offensive rebounding rate this season--at 65th nationally vs. 238th last season. At least four offensive boards yesterday in the 2nd half were by the shooter as MU failed to box out. Very fixable if not infinitely irritating. 

MU really misses Joe--he is a defensive board vacuum where his defensive rebounding % would be 3rd in the country if he had played enough minutes. Jae needs to step into that void.   

[MerrittsMustache]

Last year we were the 341st tallest team in Division I and went to the NCAAs anyway (only 6 teams shorter than MU in all of D1)

2009, MU was the 290th tallest team in D1, went to the NCAA second round

2008, MU was the 244th tallest team in D1, went to the NCAAs

2007, MU was 150th tallest team in D1, went to the NCAAs

2006, MU was 172nd tallest team in D1, went to the NCAAs


2011....MU is the 151st tallest team in D1.....we go to the <       >  tournament


Height is great, but as we have proven consistently the past half decade, MU can go on to big things and reach TALL goals even lacking height.  In fact, this year's team is our second tallest in the last 5 years in comparison to the rest of the D1 competition....missing by one spot as our tallest.  Height is an excuse.

+1

Nice research and excellent points, Chicos.

[21Jumpstreet]

I disagree with the headline, at least half of it.  It should have read "UW has perfect players for a well thought out system with perfect execution against a team of young, above average switchables, and too tough for Marquette."

Bo gets a lot out of his players, like him or not, and his players are pretty good to begin with.  His system highlights each players strengths.  If we want to be athletic, switchable and successful then we need better switchables.  If we want to have athletic, switchables and be successful then they need defined roles and get after it.

[77ncaachamps]

I'd rather it read:

"Lack of Shooters + Taller UW = MU Loss"

[Lennys Tap]

Because in the last two weeks people here were basically accusing people of having a horn coming out of their head and 9 eyeballs on their face for even suggesting MU would lose this game.

It's this kind of blatant dishonesty that drives people here nuts, especially when you add a little of your patented "look at me, I'm smart" and "why's everybody always pickin' on me" bulls**t to the equation. The game was pick em in Vegas. People on this board were split on who they thought would win. You wouldn't  venture a guess, thought it was too close to call. NOBODY said that anyone who suggested that Wisky would win had nine eyeballs or a horn on their head - or anything remotely like that. Yet you write posts like this over and over and over and over and over and over again.

The sad thing is that on the rare occasions when you stick to analysis and avoid the snide remarks and hyperbole you can be insightful. I even agree with many of your thoughts on our shortcomings, though I think our biggest weakness is one noone brings up - the fact that with Fulce out, 6 of the 9 guys in our rotation are 1st year division 1 players.

[MerrittsMustache]

It's this kind of blatant dishonesty that drives people here nuts, especially when you add a little of your patented "look at me, I'm smart" and "why's everybody always pickin' on me" bulls**t to the equation. The game was pick em in Vegas. People on this board were split on who they thought would win. You wouldn't  venture a guess, thought it was too close to call. NOBODY said that anyone who suggested that Wisky would win had nine eyeballs or a horn on their head - or anything remotely like that. Yet you write posts like this over and over and over and over and over and over again.

The sad thing is that on the rare occasions when you stick to analysis and avoid the snide remarks and hyperbole you can be insightful. I even agree with many of your thoughts on our shortcomings, though I think our biggest weakness is one noone brings up - the fact that with Fulce out, 6 of the 9 guys in our rotation are 1st year division 1 players.

Let it go, Lenny. Chicos is going to do his schtick and that's just the way it goes. Laugh to yourself when he does it and try to stick to the topic. Your point is a good one but it's buried in the last sentence in your rant.

[ChicosBailBonds]

It's this kind of blatant dishonesty that drives people here nuts, especially when you add a little of your patented "look at me, I'm smart" and "why's everybody always pickin' on me" bulls**t to the equation. The game was pick em in Vegas. People on this board were split on who they thought would win. You wouldn't  venture a guess, thought it was too close to call. NOBODY said that anyone who suggested that Wisky would win had nine eyeballs or a horn on their head - or anything remotely like that. Yet you write posts like this over and over and over and over and over and over again.

The sad thing is that on the rare occasions when you stick to analysis and avoid the snide remarks and hyperbole you can be insightful. I even agree with many of your thoughts on our shortcomings, though I think our biggest weakness is one noone brings up - the fact that with Fulce out, 6 of the 9 guys in our rotation are 1st year division 1 players.

I thought you could recognize sarcasm with the horn and 9 eyeballs.

You must have a lot of people on ignore because plenty of people ripped on folks that questioned if MU would win or not.

Here are some examples that you apparently missed...for you to suggest people on this board were "split" is absolutely comical (or is it "blatant dishonesty" on your part    )

MU to win http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=22789.msg250371#msg250371

Mu to win http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=22789.msg250374#msg250374

MU to win http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=22789.msg250657#msg250657

MU to win http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=22789.msg250660#msg250660

MU to win http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=22789.msg250713#msg250713

MU to win http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=22789.msg250733#msg250733

MU to win http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=22789.msg250761#msg250761

MU to win http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=22789.msg250861#msg250861

MU to lose...3 people stated it

Go to the Prediction contest thread....over 80% picked MU to win...sure sounds like a "split"  


Now, in terms of what people called others when the mere suggestion was MU could or would lose this game?

Perhaps you should go back to last week and read the posts after the UWM game and then posts two weeks prior to that......indeed.

[El Duderino]

People need to stop harping on the fact that rebounding is all about size. Otule (6'11", 260) and Gardner (6'8", 290) were on the floor for a combined 26 minutes and grabbed a total of 4 rebounds. To put things into perspective...

Leuer (6'10", 225): 31 minutes, 6 rebounds
Nankovil (6'8", 240): 22 min, 5 rebounds
Bruesewitz (6'6", 220): 25 minutes, 8 rebounds
Wilson (6'4", 200): 16 minutes, 4 rebounds

Obviously, there are 4 other players on the court with Otule and Ox, but it's not like they were all Mo Acker's size. Being big is definitely an advantage but rebounding is more about position and heart.

Marquette does have a problem going forward when facing bigger teams, i'm not trying to minimize that here and i doubt anybody will agree with me, but i thought part of the reason Wisconsin go so many offensive boards was simply good luck.

The Badgers took a lot of jumpers in that game and many of those were long jumpers. While some of their offensive rebounds did surely come off being bigger/in better position, some of them were simply luck that comes from long jumpers coming off the rim hard and finding a Badger.

Missed shots taken in the paint or near to it generally get rebounded by the guys boxing out best inside or if there is a size advantage inside. Often enough though when someone shoots a long two/three point jumper, it can lead to long rebounds that bounce off the rim to unpredictable places on the court and thus land into the hands of a player who just happens to be in the right place.

I thought in this game, Wisconsin got more of those just happen to be in the right place long rebounds than MU did, while i'm not discounting that overall Wisconsin is and will stay being a better rebounding team.

[El Duderino]

MU to lose...3 people stated it

Go to the Prediction contest thread....over 80% picked MU to win...sure sounds like a "split"  

Fans by nature on almost all sports forums will trend towards picking their team to win when a matchup between two teams doesn't have a clear obvious mismatch in talent like if say UW-Green Bay was facing UW or MU. More Green Bay fans than not are going to recognize the large talent gap and not predict a win.

In the case though of Marquette playing Wisconsin at the BC, of course the vast majority of fans on an MU forum are going to predict a win, why should that be any surprise or be viewed as if it's irrational homer thinking when even the oddsmakes basically viewed the game as a coin flip? It's not like Wisconsin was favored by 12 points.

Go to any random sports forum be it college or pro and in a pick em/close odds type of game by the oddsmakers, you'll find in the prediction thread that a large majority of each team's fans will predict that their team will win. That doesn't mean that those same fans didn't also recognize that it's certainly very possible the opposite result could end up happening in a game that likely would be pretty close to very close.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Fans by nature on almost all sports forums will trend towards picking their team to win when a matchup between two teams doesn't have a clear obvious mismatch in talent like if say UW-Green Bay was facing UW or MU. More Green Bay fans than not are going to recognize the large talent gap and not predict a win.

In the case though of Marquette playing Wisconsin at the BC, of course the vast majority of fans on an MU forum are going to predict a win, why should that be any surprise or be viewed as if it's irrational homer thinking when even the oddsmakes basically viewed the game as a coin flip? It's not like Wisconsin was favored by 12 points.

Go to any random sports forum be it college or pro and in a pick em/close odds type of game by the oddsmakers, you'll find in the prediction thread that a large majority of each team's fans will predict that their team will win. That doesn't mean that those same fans didn't also recognize that it's certainly very possible the opposite result could end up happening in a game that likely would be pretty close to very close.

I don't disagree with what you said...unfortunately that's not what Mr. Tap said ("People on this board were split on who they thought would win.").  That's who I was responding to.  The irony is he throws out "blatantly dishonest" accusations when he is the one making the statements devoid of truth.

[mu-rara]

I absolutely hate BADger bb and have lost a very visible bet to a BADger alum, but this loss was not the end of the world.

MU shot lousy and was totally manhandled on the defensive boards and only lost by 5. 

This game was about exactly what I expected. The BADgers are more experienced and it showed.  While a quality NC win would have been helpful, as long as we are playing our best hoop in February we'll be OK.

[hairy worthen]

Marquette does have a problem going forward when facing bigger teams, i'm not trying to minimize that here and i doubt anybody will agree with me, but i thought part of the reason Wisconsin go so many offensive boards was simply good luck.

The Badgers took a lot of jumpers in that game and many of those were long jumpers. While some of their offensive rebounds did surely come off being bigger/in better position, some of them were simply luck that comes from long jumpers coming off the rim hard and finding a Badger.

Missed shots taken in the paint or near to it generally get rebounded by the guys boxing out best inside or if there is a size advantage inside. Often enough though when someone shoots a long two/three point jumper, it can lead to long rebounds that bounce off the rim to unpredictable places on the court and thus land into the hands of a player who just happens to be in the right place.

I thought in this game, Wisconsin got more of those just happen to be in the right place long rebounds than MU did, while i'm not discounting that overall Wisconsin is and will stay being a better rebounding team.

I agree with you to a degree, however I think we were out hustled to a lot of rebounds and in poor postion. I remember a few plays were we did not block out at all. I wouldn't call that luck but I wouldn't say it was strictly a case of them being bigger and stronger.

[Lennys Tap]

I don't disagree with what you said...unfortunately that's not what Mr. Tap said ("People on this board were split on who they thought would win.").  That's who I was responding to.  The irony is he throws out "blatantly dishonest" accusations when he is the one making the statements devoid of truth.

I said people were split (ie, divided) as to who would win. I didn't say it was a 50/50 split or a 95/5 split, only that they were split. How can something that's devoid of truth be 100% true? Only in "The World According to Chicos". I'll await the apology that honesty would demand, but I won't hold my breath. LOL.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I said people were split (ie, divided) as to who would win. I didn't say it was a 50/50 split or a 95/5 split, only that they were split. How can something that's devoid of truth be 100% true? Only in "The World According to Chicos". I'll await the apology that honesty would demand, but I won't hold my breath. LOL.

Wow, so you want me to believe that you really meant it to be a 95/5 split or even an 80/20 split especially in the context of your entire message.  You should be the one apologizing.  From your comments not long ago claiming the "vast majority" of my Buzz posts are negative toward him (WRONG...and can be proven easily) to this latest incarnation.  

We need an auditor here to fact check your stuff.