The difference

[tower912]

Against Duke, we were the better team for about 32 of the 40 minutes.   We played really scared the first 4 minutes and then let them go on a 3-4 minute spurt in the second half.   Against Gonzaga, we were the better team for 30 minutes and got rolled the other 10.   Against Wiscy, it about even.   Vanderbilt was even.    Against Pitt, we were tied after 12 minutes and won the second half.    My point is this.   In most of our losses we are the better team for 3/4 of the game and have a bad stretch where, to paraphrase Buzz, we quit doing the stuff that got us the lead or allowed us to outplay our opponent.    If  Louisville had started the game on a 24-5 run and we fought back to lose by one, we would be lamenting the first 5 minutes that got away and be proud of the comeback.
    But meltdowns hurt more because we had mentally started counting this one as a win.   We had started to contemplate what a 4-1 start would mean and had begun wondering which big name we could take down at their place next.   It causes more fear and more emotional damage to blow a big lead late than to allow a big run in the middle of a game.
    This is the same team that it has been all year.   If we are able to eliminate the 5-6 minutes of dumb we seem to do every game against the big boys, we can still be a very good and very dangerous team.    I've watched enough basketball and coached enough basketball to know that sometimes it is the coach and sometimes it is the players who screw up at the end.    I think this team bounces back.   

[APieperFan3]

Very good insight Tower. I agree with you 100%. And I was even thinking 5-1 after a W v. Depaul.

I liked Buzzs idea of "playing 40 minutes of perfect basketball"...but it's just not feasible...on any level (HS, College, NBA). Can you strive for it, yes? But should you expect it, no way. I think it also becomes so discouraging b/c when we are playing well, we look borderline unstoppable (see ND, L'ville) but when we start to play poorly (call it losing focus or whatever you want; bad basketball)it is so far as the other end of the spectrum its almost unwatchable.

We don't have the ability to turn it on/off whenever we want to. Very few teams do. There is a difference in slowing down the game and taking the air out of the ball. As cliche as it may sound - I'm not sure our team in mature enough to know the difference.

I'm still pretty frustrated about the loss (yes, even after a Packer W) and I would say I'm in the same boat as BrewCity...we have seen this story over and over and over....especially in the last 3 years. I'm not completely sold that we are learning from our mistakes. Does that make us a bad team? No. Does that make Buzz a bad coach, No. But there are some obvious changes that need to be made....whether its players, positioning, execution, mindset, etc.

No doubt in my mind we bounce back. Lets win the game we are supposed to win on Tuesday...and go into the Joyce Center with a chip on our shoulder.

We Are Marquette!

[tower912]

If you look at the box score of this game and know nothing else of the game, you see that we lost to a top 20 team at their place by 1 pt.   We were competitive on the boards, shot poorly from 2 and 3, made a bunch of FT's, Cadougan had nice numbers, turned the ball over a little too much but not bad considering Louisville's rep as a pressing team and that it must have been one highly entertaining game, too bad about the outcome.    Marquette loses another close one to a ranked team on the road.   Same old story.   The context of the late blown lead is the only thing that differentiates this from any other loss we have had to a ranked team at their place this year.  

Of course, it has taken me two days to get to this place but I have been avoiding this board because.... (see signature)

It hurt. 

[BrewCity83]

I'm in that same place.  We covered, therefore the end result is we performed better than expected.  That is the consolation I'm taking from this.  Another game we proved that we are on par with top-20 type teams in the nation.

[TJ]

I'm in that same place.  We covered, therefore the end result is we performed better than expected.  That is the consolation I'm taking from this.  Another game we proved that we are on par with top-20 type teams in the nation.

on par implies better results than we have.  The game is 40 minutes long, not 32 or 35 or 36.  You have to play "on par" all 40 minutes for it to count.

[willie warrior]

I'm in that same place.  We covered, therefore the end result is we performed better than expected.  That is the consolation I'm taking from this.  Another game we proved that we are on par with top-20 type teams in the nation.

That makes few people satisfied. A loss is a loss. We now have 6 and counting. It is one thing to beat the cupcakes. It takes a whole lot more to beat the bi9gm boys, and we need to invest heavily into the whole lot more.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Against Duke, we were the better team for about 32 of the 40 minutes.   We played really scared the first 4 minutes and then let them go on a 3-4 minute spurt in the second half.   Against Gonzaga, we were the better team for 30 minutes and got rolled the other 10.   Against Wiscy, it about even.   Vanderbilt was even.    Against Pitt, we were tied after 12 minutes and won the second half.    My point is this.   In most of our losses we are the better team for 3/4 of the game and have a bad stretch where, to paraphrase Buzz, we quit doing the stuff that got us the lead or allowed us to outplay our opponent.    If  Louisville had started the game on a 24-5 run and we fought back to lose by one, we would be lamenting the first 5 minutes that got away and be proud of the comeback.
    But meltdowns hurt more because we had mentally started counting this one as a win.   We had started to contemplate what a 4-1 start would mean and had begun wondering which big name we could take down at their place next.   It causes more fear and more emotional damage to blow a big lead late than to allow a big run in the middle of a game.
    This is the same team that it has been all year.   If we are able to eliminate the 5-6 minutes of dumb we seem to do every game against the big boys, we can still be a very good and very dangerous team.    I've watched enough basketball and coached enough basketball to know that sometimes it is the coach and sometimes it is the players who screw up at the end.    I think this team bounces back.   

The team will bounce back, but I don't buy all that you're saying.  You think we were the better team than Duke 32 of 40 minutes?  That just doesn't make sense to me.  We trailed most of that game, in fact for about 98% of the game.  I just don't see how anyone can say we were the better team, especially for 32 minutes of a 40 minute game in which we trailed almost the entire game.

http://statsheet.com/mcb/games/2010/11/22/duke-82-marquette-77/flow

I'd say the same for some of your other comparisons.  I'd certainly agree we were even many times during the games, but better?

[MerrittsMustache]

The team will bounce back, but I don't buy all that you're saying.  You think we were the better team than Duke 32 of 40 minutes?  That just doesn't make sense to me.  We trailed most of that game, in fact for about 98% of the game.  I just don't see how anyone can say we were the better team, especially for 32 minutes of a 40 minute game in which we trailed almost the entire game.

http://statsheet.com/mcb/games/2010/11/22/duke-82-marquette-77/flow

I'd say the same for some of your other comparisons.  I'd certainly agree we were even many times during the games, but better?

Not saying I necessarily agree with tower but to break it down as simply as possible...

First 8 minutes: Duke 17, MU 7
Final 32 minutes: MU 70, Duke 65

[BrewCity83]

What I'm saying is that we are very close to where we want to be.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Not saying I necessarily agree with tower but to break it down as simply as possible...

First 8 minutes: Duke 17, MU 7
Final 32 minutes: MU 70, Duke 65

The difference, of course, is that Duke was playing with a lead and maintaining it the entire time.  In other words, it took them 8 minutes to get a 10 point lead and 32 minutes by MU to cut it down only by 5....does that mean we were better than Duke for those 32 minutes when we're cutting a point off the lead every 6 minutes...that screams that we were even, not better.  Duke knows how to play with a lead.

That was my point.  Duke controlled that game for almost the entire duration with two moments where they didn't.  They know how to play with a lead and controlled that game.  I just don't buy the argument that MU was the better team for 32 minutes...Duke was ahead for 39 of those 40 minutes.

[Marquette84]

Not saying I necessarily agree with tower but to break it down as simply as possible...

First 8 minutes: Duke 17, MU 7
Final 32 minutes: MU 70, Duke 65

Or you can break it down into 4-minute segments, separated by the media time outs.  If I recall correctly, this is how Buzz said he looks at the game flow--a series of 4-minute games, you try and win each one.

First Half:
1. (20:00 to 16:00)  8-4 Duke
2. (16:00 to 12:00)  9-3 Duke
3. (etc.) 10-7 Marquette
4. 8-7 Duke
5. 8-7 Duke

Second Half:
1.  11-6 Marquette
2.  6-5 Marquette
3.  15-11 Duke
4.  9-8 Marquette
5.  9-6 Marquette

Looking at it this way, it's 50/50.  However, we really only had one segment where we outscored Duke by more than one possession (20:00 to 16:00 in the 2nd half), while Duke had three (20-16, 16-12 first half, 12-8 second half).

I hesitate to say we really "won" the last segment, since Duke had a 9 point lead with 33 seconds to go but we outscored 4-0 in that stretch.  I would suspect that the defensive pressure from Duke wasn't there.

[brewcity77]

Hate to be a negative nancy, since I'm usually overly optimistic, but willie's right. A loss is a loss. We saw this same grit, fighting spirit, and ability to play with anyone last year. But it still resulted in close losses to Villanova, Syracuse, Notre Dame...the list goes on, ending with a close loss to Washington after it seemed we had finally turned the corner on those types of games.

This year we're losing in a similar fashion to similar teams. Maybe we figure it out again, pull off some upsets, and get the 11-12 wins we need to get into the Big Dance. But if we do, have we learned enough to get out of the first round? Will we learn enough collectively to avoid this same emotional roller coaster next year?

The talent is here to win 25-30 games. The only games I've seen us play this year where I didn't really feel we had a legitimate chance to win were Duke and Pitt. But the bottom line is we are 12-6, not the 16-2 that we could be. And even if we figure it out, what progress have we made in a year? Bottom line is we need to start defending those easy late layups in the post (Vandy and 'Ville), we need to overcome the shooting slumps (Gonzaga) and show we aren't afraid to take the game to the opponent (Bucky).

Buzz talks time and time again about playing like ourselves. As the head coach, he needs to be the one to get us playing like ourselves. He's a great motivator and recruiter. Now it's time for it to translate to the court and result in winning these games that we should be winning. I don't think Buzz should go. I don't think it's time for us to be on the ledge. But I do think it's about time we see his teams turn a corner and start finishing games the way they are capable.

And we need guys like Blue, DJO, and Crowder to learn this stuff so we aren't bitching about the same exact problems after game 6 of the 2012 Big East season.

[PE8983]

All of the players getting the most minutes are Juco transfers.  I didn't used to think that this would affect our team chemistry on the court, but I am starting to doubt that.  We continuously make boneheaded plays with the game on the line.  We stall for the last 6 minutes of the game, but Buycks doesn't with 15 seconds left and up 1.  Twelve seconds left in the game, a timeout is called, and coming out of it, the players don't know if they are supposed to switch or not.  If this was the first time that happened, we could maybe excuse it.  Bball IQ is not doing this team any favors.  IMO, this is why this stuff continues to happen time and again.

We basically have an all Juco team as far as playing time.  I am thinking that we need more continuity in the program and need to start developing 4 year players.  Like it or not, we are going to need players that the NBA is going to want to look at, to be able to compete in the BEast.  The Juco route may be a good option to fill a roster, but I hope it's not going to be the main recruiting focus going forward.