The headline nailed it

[dsfire]

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.

Not disagreeing with the point but wanted to mention: Probably better to use the effective height stat since that one's weighted for minutes played (our average height was almost the same between 2007-08 and 2008-09, but we were obviously playing smaller in 08-09 after losing Barro, Fitz and Trend.

2006-07: # 71
2007-08: #142
2008-09: #305
2009-10: #308
2010-11: #188

In recent years we've made up the difference on the boards by winning the turnover battle, and while we're doing that fairly well still this year, we weren't able to force the Badgers to turn the ball over in the second half on Saturday and ended with 10 turnovers apiece.

[dsfire]

Also, I weighted the players heights from Saturday's game by minutes played (numbers from statsheet):
Marquette average player height in-game: 76.6" (6' 4.6")
Wisconsin average player height in-game: 77.4" (6' 5.4")

For comparison, last year's game was MU @ 6' 3.5" vs. UW @ 6' 4.6".  MU won that rebounding battle but was nearly doubled up on turnovers and lost the free throw battle as well.

The leading rebounder of this year's game was actually 6'6" Bruesewitz with 8.  Lastly, we had one more block than them (4-3).  I don't care to look up the stats on all the MU/UW games, but I'm guessing it's been a while since we've been on the right side of that statistic.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Not disagreeing with the point but wanted to mention: Probably better to use the effective height stat since that one's weighted for minutes played (our average height was almost the same between 2007-08 and 2008-09, but we were obviously playing smaller in 08-09 after losing Barro, Fitz and Trend.

2006-07: # 71
2007-08: #142
2008-09: #305
2009-10: #308
2010-11: #188

In recent years we've made up the difference on the boards by winning the turnover battle, and while we're doing that fairly well still this year, we weren't able to force the Badgers to turn the ball over in the second half on Saturday and ended with 10 turnovers apiece.

Yeah, I thought about that...thanks for adding it in.

What's interesting is if you go to effective height and look at our two NIT years, both were top 100 in the country and yet we went to the NIT both years.  In other years, our effective height was much worse and we went to the NCAAs.

Proves again that height is great and all, but hardly the end all be all to a successful season. 

[GoldenWarrior]

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.

I like this research, but I also hope that we can all agree that just making it to the dance is not enough.  I want this program to take steps forward, not just consistently make the tourney.  Yes, making the NCAAs is an accomplishment, but I would like to see us advance in it more too.  I agree that height is often too much of an excuse, but it is also a valid point in SOME circumstances, etc.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I like this research, but I also hope that we can all agree that just making it to the dance is not enough.  I want this program to take steps forward, not just consistently make the tourney.  Yes, making the NCAAs is an accomplishment, but I would like to see us advance in it more too.  I agree that height is often too much of an excuse, but it is also a valid point in SOME circumstances, etc.

This year, I'd like to just make it.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

I should apologize because you don't know that split (what I said) and 50/50 split or even split don't mean the same thing? LOL. I'd just like for once in your life to be honest and admit when your wrong. Sadly, that's not who you are.

I'll get back to you on the "vast majority" of the Buzz posts when I have time but I absolutely stick by my statement - because it happens to be true.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'll do what you do all the time Lenny, I'll play psychologist and say that wasn't your intent when you said split.

Funny, doesn't feel so great when the shoe is on the other foot now does it.  LOL.


Moving forward, I'll concede everything pretty much in the world is a split since it's almost impossible to get 100% of people to agree on anything....if you meant it in the way you claim, I'll apologize.   Yes, I took your comment as "split" to mean either evenly split or close to it.  I didn't realize 80% picking one way was the split you intended.  Only you know if you're blatantly honest on this one.

[GoldenWarrior]

This year, I'd like to just make it.

+1

[ATWizJr]

I like this research, but I also hope that we can all agree that just making it to the dance is not enough.

It is this year.

[Lennys Tap]

I'll do what you do all the time Lenny, I'll play psychologist and say that wasn't your intent when you said split.

Funny, doesn't feel so great when the shoe is on the other foot now does it.  LOL.


Moving forward, I'll concede everything pretty much in the world is a split since it's almost impossible to get 100% of people to agree on anything....if you meant it in the way you claim, I'll apologize.   Yes, I took your comment as "split" to mean either evenly split or close to it.  I didn't realize 80% picking one way was the split you intended.  Only you know if you're blatantly honest on this one.

In the spirit of fairness, I'll stipulate to the fact that I was surprised to learn the split was 80/20. 60/40 or maybe 65/35 would have been my guess.

Now let me keep my promise and explain my view that the vast majority of your posts regarding Buzz are negative. Let me begin by admitting my conclusions are not based on strict science - I'm so internet challenged I don't even know how to search for the evidence. But I do know that there are certain topics that by sheer volume have at times dominated the board concerning Buzz - ones on which you've come down decidedly on the negative.

The most obvious topic was his hiring itself. You were very much against it 32 months ago and as recently as last week were insisting that had MU hired one of the guys you wanted we'd still have some combination of Taylor, Mbakwe, Cristopherson and N Williams on the team today. I'm not talking about how he was hired, just the fact that he was. Lot's of posts, all negative.

Next up, DJ Newbill. Tons of posts, all negative. Roseboro, junior college players in general, general squirminess, all negative. You've treated us to the venom of the last few fans of the University of New Orleans and the vitriol of some angry Milwaukee blogger directed towards Williams -all negative. You may have posted  more about our loss to DePaul last year than about all 22 of our wins - and the previous year it was our loss to USF. So many posts about unprepared, uninspired teams - again, all negative. Add to these a few minor complaints (not practicing free throws, not fouling intentionally up 3 late in games, etc). I'm leaving out tons of other stuff, but a pretty clear and decidedly negative picture emerges.

I do concede that along the way you've thrown a few bones his way - okay, so far being the most common, followed often by an example of someone who started well but was later proved to be a miserable failure.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you're not entitled to these opinions. But suggesting that the vast majority of your posts that have taken sides haven't chosen the negative just isn't true.

[GoldenWarrior]

It is this year.

Hence my last '+1' posting

[Daniel]

Clearly, this team has issues right now.  The good news is this team is playing below its potential.