Which Is Better: No Bad Losses, Or Bad Losses And More Good Wins?

[Tugg Speedman]

We have no bad losses and arguably two good wins (WVU and ND).

Is the above better than Gonzaga and Vandy wins (two games we "almost won") coupled with Bucknell and UWM losses (two game we "almost lost")

I think consistency is better.  Do not underestimate the fact we have "no bad losses" so far.  That means something.

Thoughts?

[icheights]

Helps the rpi but do you put "never been fired" on your job resume?

[Benny B]

I think the committee made the point very clear last year that "good losses" mean something... especially for a team such as MU that now has a reputation for playing a close game every night.

That being the case, I think the edge - for a team in a major bball conference - always goes to the scenario with no bad losses.  While RPI would probably benefit more from Vandy and Zaga wins + UWM and Bucknell losses, Marquette doesn't need "marquee" wins, just "good" wins.  If MU finishes above .500 in the BE, they are assured a spot on the committee's preliminary ballot - then their resume will take over and that's where no bad losses really matters.

A mid-major or low-major trying to earn an at-large is a different story.  If I were Bucknell, I am going to need a marquee win or two just to get my foot in the committee room door.  No bad losses and a "good" win at Richmond doesn't get Bucknell anywhere near the Dance unless they win the Patriot tourney.

In other words, marquee wins will get you an interview, but a solid resume with no bad losses gets you the job.


[On a different note, had the Bucknell-MU game gone the other way, the tourney-watch status for both teams would have been swapped, i.e. Bucknell would be in solid shape for an at-large and MU would still be on the outside looking in (even after last night).]