MU a 4 Point Favorite Tonight

[NersEllenson]

Wow...how about that?  Vegas has MU as a 4 point favorite against the Number 5 team in the country - yet we have some fans questioning if the program is headed in the right direction..if Buzz can coach...etc.

Ken Pomroy has us winning 75-73

Ken Pomroy has us ranked 27th...

Just a few fun facts amid much of the doom and gloom that has been floating around here the last week.

[mu_hilltopper]

Wow .. not a lot of respect for the #5 team in the country.

[Jay Bee]

Wow .. not a lot of respect for the #5 team in the country.

What do you expect?  They lack a traditional player. 

[NersEllenson]

Wow .. not a lot of respect for the #5 team in the country.

I know - I was surprised.  My "gut" feel which I posted in a different thread was MU getting 4 - so it caused me to go check..was really surprised UCONN was the underdog.

Though Ken Pomroy has UCONN only ranked 17 in his rankings

[Eweconfan]

Vegas knows we're overacheivers, too!

Jay Bee, what do you mean by we "lack a traditional player"?

[mu_hilltopper]

It's a "soft" #5.

[NersEllenson]

Vegas knows we're overacheivers, too!

Jay Bee, what do you mean by we "lack a traditional player"?

I'll answer for him - it is an insider board joke - primarily directed at one poster here, who continues to lament the fact that MU only has black players on scholarship...to put it candidly.  Said poster is quite controversial to say the least - he says we should look at Wisconsin as a program to emulate due to their players being "fundamentally sound and traditional players, who are good at free throw shooting."  However, he claims his statements have NOTHING to do with race - yet many here are skeptical...just given the "complexion" of the Wisconsin roster..

[DaCoach]

Bookies are the smartest people in the world. Take it to the bank. The line is amazing to most of us. If it looks like easy money to take the points, do the opposite. The 2nd oldest profession in the world ain't in business to lose money.

[warthog-driver]

The 2nd oldest profession in the world ain't in business to lose money.

I thought lawyers made money?

[spartan3186]

Surprisngly, the line actually moved the opposite way of what most expected. The line currently sits at -4.5 or -5 depending on the book.

[mu_hilltopper]

This is the Universe's way of setting us up for another Soul Crushing Loss.

[Jay Bee]

Vegas knows we're overacheivers, too!

Jay Bee, what do you mean by we "lack a traditional player"?

Nonathletic players that can shoot three pointers and have 'proper form'.  Chicos contrasted 'traditional players' to what he claims we have - guys that are basketball players second.  Chicos believes we have mostly athletes that just happen to play basketball, so they are lacking in basketball fundamentals and he is frustrated by our three-point shooting.

Scott Christopherson of Iowa State and Josh Gasser of Wisconsin are two examples Chicos has provided as 'traditional players'.  This was before he realized that Gasser isn't some three point marksmen. 

In UCONN's case, they don't have a slow, "traditional" guy who can drill it from deep but isn't much of an athlete.

[MarquetteDano]

Surprisngly, the line actually moved the opposite way of what most expected. The line currently sits at -4.5 or -5 depending on the book.

With that one post saying we have no chance for various posters I imagine there will be a tremednous amount on this board who will be quite rich tomorrow as not only can they bet on UConn but they get 4.5 points to boot.

If they really believed what they wrote, they would bet, and bet big!

[BM1090]

Someone explained this to me earlier. The line movement is obviously either due to big money going on MU. It moved all the way from 3 to 4.5.

Or in some cases, there is reverse line movement. this means that people are betting on UCONN, but the line is moving towards MU because bookies are extremely confident that MU will cover.

Obviously, the latter is rare, but it could be happening because UCONN is -115 while MU is - 105. Which means that the money now is going on UCONN.

someone with better knowledge than me could probably explain it better

[MUEng92]

It took about three seconds for me to convince myself this was a typo in the Journal Sentinal this morning.  So you are telling me it wasn't?

[MarquetteDano]

Someone explained this to me earlier. The line movement is obviously either due to big money going on MU. It moved all the way from 3 to 4.5.

Or in some cases, there is reverse line movement. this means that people are betting on UCONN, but the line is moving towards MU because bookies are extremely confident that MU will cover.

Obviously, the latter is rare, but it could be happening because UCONN is -115 while MU is - 105. Which means that the money now is going on UCONN.

someone with better knowledge than me could probably explain it better

Right but the moneyline is -175 Marquette meaning you have to bet $175 on Marquette to win $100 ignoring the line.  So, regardless of the line money is still betting on a Marquette win.

[BM1090]

Exactly. Either way, I got much more confident about this game after watching the line. Either way, smart money is being placed on marquette

[Marquette84]

I'll answer for him - it is an insider board joke - primarily directed at one poster here, who continues to lament the fact that MU only has black players on scholarship...to put it candidly.  Said poster is quite controversial to say the least - he says we should look at Wisconsin as a program to emulate due to their players being "fundamentally sound and traditional players, who are good at free throw shooting."  However, he claims his statements have NOTHING to do with race - yet many here are skeptical...just given the "complexion" of the Wisconsin roster..

I think you do the board a disservice by failing to present the honest answer.

The actual statement was made in reference to the fact that Buzz doesn't play a traditional 1 through 5 set lineup, and instead uses a lineup of  "switchables".   It had nothing to do with race until someone looked at who posted the comment and decided to cast accusations of thinly veiled racism.

The implication is that when our non-traditional lineup doesn't work--as was evidenced in the 2nd half against Notre Dame--we have no other looks we can throw at an opponent.  

For example don't have a traditional spot-up 3-point specialist in the tradition of a Mark Anglavar or Robb Logtermann.  We don't have a ball handler/playmaker in the tradition of Travis Diener or Tony Miller.  We have switchables.

When "switchables" work, they work great and we race to double-digit leads.  When they don't, the team is prone to long stretches without scoring.  However, without a traditional player to sub in, we can't change our offensive look.  And our bench is made of of other switchables, who aren't quite as good as the the first set.

After the 2nd half of Notre Dame, every one of the inside jokers ought to give Chicos an apology--not continue with their lame attempts at humor.  His analysis was spot on.  Unfortunately, some people can't permit any criticism of Buzz.

[PaintTouches]

MU84, unless I'm missing something you're way off base. The joke was that Chicos said we needed more traditional players, the solid fundamentally, lights out shooting type. He wasn't being racist or anything like that, but the running joke (fairly or unfairly) was that Chicos wanted more white players because those players tend to be white. I don't think it has anything to do with traditional lineups.

[Jay Bee]

MU84, unless I'm missing something you're way off base. The joke was that Chicos said we needed more traditional players, the solid fundamentally, lights out shooting type.

This is true.  Marquette84 is making things up.  Chicos also went on to say that the majority of our roster is made up of guys who are basketball players second.  

Specifically, Chicos referred to "traditional" basketball players who were not athletic, but were "spot up and shoot type players".  Everything else he is saying now is just more backpedaling, which he does on many topics. 

[PaintTouches]

Jay Bee, I don't know about all that. Basically like all things on the internet it got blown out of proportion. It's a semi-funny inside joke and nothing more.

[Jay Bee]

Jay Bee, I don't know about all that. Basically like all things on the internet it got blown out of proportion. It's a semi-funny inside joke and nothing more.

Let's allow Chicos to speak:

"Well, many posts in and no one really answered it.  I'm guessing it was because he was deemed not athletic enough for Buzz's style of play???  I don't know, that's why I put the question out there. Very intelligent kid, nice ball player, good outside shooter.

It's obvious Buzz likes athletic players, slashers, etc....I wonder if down the road he will recruit one or two "traditional" basketball players that are more of your spot up and shoot type players...like Gasser."

"When I say traditional basketball player I mean just that....a basketball player first.  Many of our guys are athletes first, basketball players second. "

[NersEllenson]

I think you do the board a disservice by failing to present the honest answer.

The actual statement was made in reference to the fact that Buzz doesn't play a traditional 1 through 5 set lineup, and instead uses a lineup of  "switchables".   It had nothing to do with race until someone looked at who posted the comment and decided to cast accusations of thinly veiled racism.

The implication is that when our non-traditional lineup doesn't work--as was evidenced in the 2nd half against Notre Dame--we have no other looks we can throw at an opponent.  

For example don't have a traditional spot-up 3-point specialist in the tradition of a Mark Anglavar or Robb Logtermann.  We don't have a ball handler/playmaker in the tradition of Travis Diener or Tony Miller.  We have switchables.

When "switchables" work, they work great and we race to double-digit leads.  When they don't, the team is prone to long stretches without scoring.  However, without a traditional player to sub in, we can't change our offensive look.  And our bench is made of of other switchables, who aren't quite as good as the the first set.

After the 2nd half of Notre Dame, every one of the inside jokers ought to give Chicos an apology--not continue with their lame attempts at humor.  His analysis was spot on.  Unfortunately, some people can't permit any criticism of Buzz.

You just did the board a disservice by trying to serve up this completely lame defense of Chico's per usual.  the debate never had 1 thing to do with a "traditional lineup" as you are trying to argue here.  Sometimes you bring good data and stats to this board 84 - but this argument here was really off base and weak - and just an attempt to rescue your one friend here...which to a degree is noble.

[Marquette84]

MU84, unless I'm missing something you're way off base. The joke was that Chicos said we needed more traditional players, the solid fundamentally, lights out shooting type. He wasn't being racist or anything like that, but the running joke (fairly or unfairly) was that Chicos wanted more white players because those players tend to be white. I don't think it has anything to do with traditional lineups.

No--you and I are essentially saying the same thing.  He wasn't being racist, but thats how people tried to spin it. 

If they accepted his comment in context, they'd be forced to admit he was pretty much spot on correct.  The 2nd half of the Notre Dame game shows why he was right.

Taken in context, his point is that we have a bunch of switchable athletes--not fundamentally sound basketball players. We have one look on offense, and if the fast break/dribble penetrate/transition approach is not working, we don't have anybody on the bench that might step in and change our off.

This is true.  Marquette84 is making things up.  Chicos also went on to say that the majority of our roster is made up of guys who are basketball players second. 

Specifically, Chicos referred to "traditional" basketball players who were not athletic, but were "spot up and shoot type players".  Everything else he is saying now is just more backpedaling, which he does on many topics. 

What did I make up?  Specifically?

[Marquette84]

Let's allow Chicos to speak:

"Well, many posts in and no one really answered it.  I'm guessing it was because he was deemed not athletic enough for Buzz's style of play???  I don't know, that's why I put the question out there. Very intelligent kid, nice ball player, good outside shooter.

It's obvious Buzz likes athletic players, slashers, etc....I wonder if down the road he will recruit one or two "traditional" basketball players that are more of your spot up and shoot type players...like Gasser."

"When I say traditional basketball player I mean just that....a basketball player first.  Many of our guys are athletes first, basketball players second. "

And what, specifically, is incorrect about what Chicos said?  And where, specifically, does he reference a player's race?

As I said, our rotation is six to seven athletic switchables, plus Otule. 
Also, as I said, our bench consists of players like the first 7--just not as good. 
And when our approach of going with five switchables (or 4 switchables plus Otule) is working, it works very very well. 

With me so far?

WHy is it heresy to say that when it doesn't work, we have nobody on the bench we can send in to show a different look?  Isn't it obvious this is the case?

The fundamental issue we run into is that when our primary transition/penetrate offense--specifically designed to leverage the speed and athleticism of our top 7 players--runs into trouble, we have nobody to come in and change the nature of our offense.

We don't change the look of our offense when we put Erik Williams in for Jae Crowder or Jamail Jones for DJO.  We get exactly the same offense--just not quite as effective because Crowder is better than Williams and DJO is better than Jones.

Again, this shouldn't be controversial--it should be obvious.

The 2nd half of Notre Dame would have changed completely if instead of continuing the futility of the transition/penetrate offense that was clearly ineffective against ND's zone, we could have brought in a fundamentally sound shooter--like a Logermann, like a Christopherson, like a David Diggs--who could help force ND to abandon the zone.

You just did the board a disservice by trying to serve up this completely lame defense of Chico's per usual.  the debate never had 1 thing to do with a "traditional lineup" as you are trying to argue here.  Sometimes you bring good data and stats to this board 84 - but this argument here was really off base and weak - and just an attempt to rescue your one friend here...which to a degree is noble.

Frankly, the debate started because some people refused to accept Chico's common sense point.  We have too many of the same type of player on the roster.  We have nobody that might be a more traditional shooter who could come in when ND goes to a zone, or Buzz wants to run clock but still get off a good shot in a slow-paced half-court offense.

And lets be honest--people refused to accept his point because it means that Buzz didn't put together the right 13 players to meet the situations we're going to face this year.  And we're paying for it with more losses that this team deserves to have.