I know a lot of you think 9-9 gets us in

[brewcity77]

And another 13 that have us as an 11 or 12 seed...meaning last 8 teams in.  I don't disagree with you on 10-8, I think 9-9 is nail biter time.

I'll agree with that, I just think that we're probably on the "in" side at 9-9 rather than the "out". And even still, that's 70% that have us as a 10-seed or better before a loss to #11 Georgetown on their court. I think that's pretty reassuring, though it probably speaks as much to the weak nature of the bubble as it does anything. I fully agree that in most years, I'd be on pucker-factor 10 in terms of our likelihood of making the tournament, but with the soft bubble and the expanded field, I just am not that worried right now. If we lose to St. John's this week, that will change things, but right now, I feel pretty secure.

[Eye]

Answered this earlier in the thread, but for reference, a grand total of two teams have ever made the tourney as at-large's with 14 losses; U of A in '08 with three good road wins playing the #2 schedule in the country and Georgia in '01 with five good road wins and playing the #1 schedule in the country. I understand the rules are a little different with the three extra spots this year and charminy-soft bubble, but I don't think 9-9, 19-14 will be enough.

Here's the comparison between '11 MU and '09 UW-Madison BTW

'11 MU
Projected Pomeroy regular-season finish 19-12, 10-8 (9-4 non-conference)
Pomeroy ranking entering today - 27
Top 50 road/neutral wins - Zero
Bad losses - Zero
Top 50 home wins - Three (WV, ND, cuse)
Conference RPI - 1

'09 UW-Madison
Regular season finish 19-12, 10-8 (9-4 non-conference)
Final Pomeroy ranking - 29
Top 50 road/neutral wins - One (Mich)
Bad losses - One (at Iowa)
Top 50 home wins - Three (Ill, tOSU, Mich)
Conference RPI - 1

UW-Madison was a 12 seed that year and either the 2nd/3rd to last team to make it. With the three extra spots this year, 20-13, 10-8, 1-1 BET probably enough to make it, but very well may be in one of the PIG's.

[79Warrior]

I'm on record right now as sayin' St. John's beats us on Tues. Now what? Doesn't look like a tourney team to me, soft, medium, or hard bubble not withstanding.

I agree with you on both points. I see SJU beating us Tuesday and the NIT looming.  I think we have shown an inability to close out games. You will never win big games with monster scoring droughts.

[mu03eng]

Wish I shared your confidence in that.  9-9 is going to be a nail biter.

So many blown opportunities this year.  Frustrating.


I thought Elmore made a great statement about defense and our JUCO players.  Cohesiveness, or lack of it, because they are not used to playing defense together for long periods of tenure.

Spot on

The problem I have with this statement is that our defense was not the issue today.  Could it have been better in the second half, sure.  However, we lost this game because I offense disappeared and our free throw shooting sucked in the second half.  Our defense was very good(in comparison to our other games)  in the first half.

[warriors1965]

I agree with you on both points. I see SJU beating us Tuesday and the NIT looming.  I think we have shown an inability to close out games. You will never win big games with monster scoring droughts.

I'm as big a pessimist as anyone, but I don't think MU will lose at home Tuesday.  They know the importance of the game and it's one they should win, and will win.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

I'm as big a pessimist as anyone, but I don't think MU will lose at home Tuesday.  They know the importance of the game and it's one they should win, and will win.

no sh!t?  Really?  c'mon now.

[MerrittsMustache]

I disagree with people that say we are "out talented"...I've been hearing on this board that we have the best talent in over a decade, better recruits than ever before...HOW ARE WE OUT-TALENTED?

It's all relative. How do you think MU's "best talent in over a decade" compares to the "best talent" at Georgetown, L'ville, Nova, Syracuse, Pitt, UConn, etc over that same time period?

[RawdogDX]

Wish I shared your confidence in that.  9-9 is going to be a nail biter.

What a useless comment.  Why don't you man up and say we won't get in at 9-9? Because you don't want to be wrong.
You are just posting some girly non-perdiction, so that when we get in, this can happen:

Some  poster: "Chico's, I told you 9-9 was enough"
Chico's: "I never said it wouldn't be.  I just pointed out that it would be a nail biter.  We were lucky that so many good mid-major teams won their conference tournaments or it might have been a different story."

Man up.

[🏀]

What a useless comment.  Why don't you man up and say we won't get in at 9-9? Because you don't want to be wrong.
You are just posting some girly non-perdiction, so that when we get in, this can happen:

Some  poster: "Chico's, I told you 9-9 was enough"
Chico's: "I never said it wouldn't be.  I just pointed out that it would be a nail biter.  We were lucky that so many good mid-major teams won their conference tournaments or it might have been a different story."

Man up.

+1.

[bilsu]

It's all relative. How do you think MU's "best talent in over a decade" compares to the "best talent" at Georgetown, L'ville, Nova, Syracuse, Pitt, UConn, etc over that same time period?

Most people are talking about are talent through 13 spots. The talent that matters the most is the starting spots. This team is weak at the most important position and that is point guard. Buyckes has talent, but should not be playing point.

[brewcity77]

Most people are talking about are talent through 13 spots. The talent that matters the most is the starting spots. This team is weak at the most important position and that is point guard. Buyckes has talent, but should not be playing point.

I'll agree, but I think he's the best we have. Cadougan is no Dominic James, Travis Diener, or even Maurice Acker. At least not yet. Buycks may well be the difference between this team being a top 25 team and a 40-50 type team, but he won't keep us out of the tournament, and he's played fantastically well considering he's been out-of-position for almost the entire year.

I think we need to start focusing on next year. Will Cadougan or Blue be ready? Will Buzz get a JUCO in who can take over the point? As much as Buycks may not be the perfect guard, it's possible that we'll be rueing his loss next year as much as we are currently wishing Acker or Cubes had one more year of eligibility.

[CTWarrior]

I think you're missing the point.  The game is played on both ends of the court.  It's an offensive game and a Defensive game.  We are #1 in offense but #15 in defense.  No one is saying the team would be better off without Jae or DJO.  We are saying the defense stinks and Elmore's point has some validity to it.

+1
I remember Elmore saying that during the game and thinking, "Wow that was a solid point he just made."  I was surprised because, you know, it was Len Elmore.

Buzz's constant switching team defensive philosophy requires a lot of time playing together to work optimally.  You watch us play D, and if the other team is patient and doesn't turn the ball over, they will get a good shot just about every time.  Someone eventually breaks down or misses a coverage.

[lab_warrior]

9-9 gets us in very easily this year.  Book it.

I am one of the more optimistic folks, but a lot would have to break our way for that to happen.  At 9-9, I am terrified of the usual "conference tourney upset bids" that will KO us.  

[willie warrior]

9-9 gets us in very easily this year.  Book it.

For the people that are blowing this horn--you are drinking the MU blue Kool Aid.

[brewcity77]

For the people that are blowing this horn--you are drinking the MU blue Kool Aid.

9-9 doesn't get us in easily. It probably gets us in as an 11 or 12 seed, and I would give it about 70% odds that we get in if we go 9-9. The bubble's soft this year. It would likely be good enough, but it isn't a guarantee.

[Eye]

I'll step onto the ledge. I don't think 9-9 gets MU in. I think 10-8 with one BET win (even if it's Tuesday) is the minimum necessary standard.

[TJ]

Buzz's constant switching team defensive philosophy requires a lot of time playing together to work optimally.  You watch us play D, and if the other team is patient and doesn't turn the ball over, they will get a good shot just about every time.  Someone eventually breaks down or misses a coverage.

Sometimes it seems like we work so hard for our offense while the other team has it just come to them or they capitalize on our mistakes.  I know it's a biased opinion because I'm looking through my fan glasses and noticing what MU does far more than the other team, but I definitely feel like my memory supports that statement.

[willie warrior]

9-9 puts us at 18-13 overall--not counting BEast Tourney, where we will likely lose first game being a lower seed. 18-14 with about a 60 RPI are NIT credentials. That should be obvious.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The problem I have with this statement is that our defense was not the issue today.  Could it have been better in the second half, sure.  However, we lost this game because I offense disappeared and our free throw shooting sucked in the second half.  Our defense was very good(in comparison to our other games)  in the first half.

The offense definitely struggled, no question about it.  Normally our offense is solid.  It was the second half defensive lapses that I felt hurt us, but your point is well taken.

[bilsu]

The offense definitely struggled, no question about it.  Normally our offense is solid.  It was the second half defensive lapses that I felt hurt us, but your point is well taken.

The offense has disappeared in the second half in a lot of our Big East games. When our offense is clicking our defense is good enough to win games. It is not good enough, if we go long periods without scoring.

[bilsu]

I'm as big a pessimist as anyone, but I don't think MU will lose at home Tuesday.  They know the importance of the game and it's one they should win, and will win.

They knew that about South Florida too and still won even though they did not show up. We know we are a significantly better team at home and St. John's is also significantly a better team at home. The fact that it is a home game for us gives me hope, but I think on a neutral court St. John's wins.

[Blackhat]

Pay attention to how far apart the opposition will space their players for the drive against our over extended man to man.  

The opposition doesn't "see help" on the drive.  as coach K says "when you see real estate, you buy it."

 Need better gap control through help defense.   can't over commit or be late either or else you won't recover on the kick out.

[mugrad2006]

To the question posted earlier about the most losses to get an AT LARGE bid in the NCAA tournament, check the following link http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/mayhem/history/atlarge

Since 1985, when the tourney expanded to 64 teams, six teams have entered the NCAA tournament with 14 losses, the most recent being Arizona in 2008.  13 teams since 1985 have made the tournament field with 13 losses, with last years Gophers being the most recent.  Interestingly, no team has ever made the tournament with more than 14 losses.

[ChicosBailBonds]

To the question posted earlier about the most losses to get an AT LARGE bid in the NCAA tournament, check the following link http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/mayhem/history/atlarge

Since 1985, when the tourney expanded to 64 teams, six teams have entered the NCAA tournament with 14 losses, the most recent being Arizona in 2008.  13 teams since 1985 have made the tournament field with 13 losses, with last years Gophers being the most recent.  Interestingly, no team has ever made the tournament with more than 14 losses.

Yup, and some of them (like last year's Gophers team) went all the way to the finals of their conference tournament and got the bid.  That's a tall order asking this MU team to go to the finals of the Big East.  I hope we're 10-8 going into the tournament and win the first one in the BET.  If we're 9-9 that means 13 losses entering the BET which might mean a very deep run in NYC to go.  I'd prefer we stay out of that scenario, even if we're "easily in" as some state.

[mugrad2006]

Yup, and some of them (like last year's Gophers team) went all the way to the finals of their conference tournament and got the bid.  That's a tall order asking this MU team to go to the finals of the Big East.  I hope we're 10-8 going into the tournament and win the first one in the BET.  If we're 9-9 that means 13 losses entering the BET which might mean a very deep run in NYC to go.  I'd prefer we stay out of that scenario, even if we're "easily in" as some state.

Actually, only one of the six 14 loss teams since 1985 made the finals of their conference tournament.  Here are the results of the six teams

Conference Tournament Results of 14 loss teams since 1985
1991 Villanova team lost in semifinals of Big East tournament
1990 Villanova team lost second round of Big East Tournament
2001 Georgia team lost to LSU by 1 in the first round of the SEC tournament
1990 Kansas State lost in first round of Big Eight tournament
2008 Arizona lost in the quarterfinals of the Pac 10 tournament to Stanford
1987 LSU lost in the finals of the SEC tournament to Alabama