We're fine on the road

[TJ]

Of course they do, and they should based on what actually happens. So, that said, what have you seen from MU this year that expectations should change to the point that you believe they are one of the top 3 teams in the league? Because if you give them the record you seem to think they should have at this point (8-4), that is exactly where they would be, and I can only assume, given your expectations, that they should win all but maybe 1 of their remaining games, which would almost assuredly put them in second place to finish the year. Do you think MU is the second best team in the Big East?

I don't know what's going on with the conference this year - lots of losses by really good teams and everyone is bunched up in the middle.  I don't know where we fit in in amongst the middle of the conference, but I believe Pitt, GU, Lou (except for the day we played them), UConn, and Nova are better teams than ours, regardless of what their records are.  So MU is no better than 6th best team.

By the way, I only said that we shouldn't have lost all 3 of those games.  However, even if we had pulled out both of the conference games, that would have put us in 4th place in conference - not the 4th best team, but the team in 4th place.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think where the disagreement lies is in the fact that you are using the (partial) results of the game in question to define what you were "expecting" for that game.  Without the benefit of hindsight and knowing how the game turned out, what were your expectations before the game started?  Did you expect us to go in to Louisville and win?  Did you really expect us to go beat ND @ ND when better teams than MU had failed in doing that?  If so, then you must think we are pretty damn good. 

I believe I answered that but if not, I'll answer again.  Did I expect to beat Louisville before the game?  Not really, but I didn't expect us to get run either....I thought we would lose by 6 points.   http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=23571.msg261567#msg261567

After watching about 10 minutes of the actual game, yes I expected to win.  When there were 6 minutes left in the game, not only did I expect to win I would have found it nearly impossible to expect anything less.

It sounds like you're limiting your expectations based on arbitrary rankings or what some sports writer says or only based on what's on paper.  The reality is that they actually play the games.  Expectations change.  Teams get confidence, they hang around, some teams take someone for granted, etc, etc.

That's why I couched the original question back...define expectations and define WHEN they are held.  I see no reason why someone's expectations cannot change during a game and they often do.   In the Super Bowl last week when the Steelers got the ball back at the end of the 3rd quarter trailing by 4....my expectations were changing.  The Steelers had all the momentum, the Packers were struggling, the Steelers were scoring and had the ball again in great field position.  Then the fumble....expectations change.

So back to the original question...did I expect to beat Louisville after that game started.  You bet.  There were several others.  I don't think someone's expectations are locked in before a game starts...they actually play the game.

[TJ]

Of course not.  That's also not what this debate is about.  

The debate is about whether or not this current MU team should be expected to go on the road and win against top 15-top 20 teams.  You seem to want to formulate your expected outcome for a game based on the actual outcome of the game.  That's not the question.  The question is what makes you think that this MU team should be expected to win on the road against this level of competition?  

Because they almost did.  I'm not having this debate in a vacuum on Jan 1st.  I didn't expect them to win the game, though I did expect that they could win the game.  Now that the game is over I think they should have won.

No one is upset because they thought MU should have won pregame.  They're upset because they thought MU should have won with 6 minutes to play.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I don't know what's going on with the conference this year - lots of losses by really good teams and everyone is bunched up in the middle.  I don't know where we fit in in amongst the middle of the conference, but I believe Pitt, GU, Lou (except for the day we played them), UConn, and Nova are better teams than ours, regardless of what their records are.  So MU is no better than 6th best team.

I'll probably catch hell for this, but in my mind there are no GREAT Big East teams this year, certainly not like there were a few years ago when there were three number 1 seeds from the conference.  Pitt is very good and they could win it all this year, a year when there isn't a dominant team in the country.  I think the Big East is very good this year, arguably the best conference top to bottom (some ratings say yes, others have it at #2) but it seems to me that teams 3 through 10 don't have a ton of separation.  There is some, but not a ton, and therefore you'll get teams coming back on one another.

The Big East a few years ago was probably the greatest single conference year in the history of college basketball. High quality, incredible depth, talent was fantastic.  A ridiculous year that I believe most Big East coaches have said was the greatest year ever and a number of college hoops pundits agree.

[NavinRJohnson]

I don't know what's going on with the conference this year - lots of losses by really good teams and everyone is bunched up in the middle.  I don't know where we fit in in amongst the middle of the conference, but I believe Pitt, GU, Lou (except for the day we played them), UConn, and Nova are better teams than ours, regardless of what their records are.  So MU is no better than 6th best team.

Given what ND has done this year, I have no idea how you don't include them on that list, so I'll do it for you, making MU no better than the 7th best team. And I suspect come March 6th, when its all said and done, that is roughly where you will find them in the Big East standings. So what's the problem? After 18 games, your record in the conference/place in the standings is going to be be a pretty damn good indicator of how you stack up.

[ATL MU Warrior]

I believe I answered that but if not, I'll answer again.  Did I expect to beat Louisville before the game?  Not really, but I didn't expect us to get run either....I thought we would lose by 6 points.   http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=23571.msg261567#msg261567

After watching about 10 minutes of the actual game, yes I expected to win.  When there were 6 minutes left in the game, not only did I expect to win I would have found it nearly impossible to expect anything less.

It sounds like you're limiting your expectations based on arbitrary rankings or what some sports writer says or only based on what's on paper.  The reality is that they actually play the games.  Expectations change.  Teams get confidence, they hang around, some teams take someone for granted, etc, etc.

That's why I couched the original question back...define expectations and define WHEN they are held.  I see no reason why someone's expectations cannot change during a game and they often do.   In the Super Bowl last week when the Steelers got the ball back at the end of the 3rd quarter trailing by 4....my expectations were changing.  The Steelers had all the momentum, the Packers were struggling, the Steelers were scoring and had the ball again in great field position.  Then the fumble....expectations change.

So back to the original question...did I expect to beat Louisville after that game started.  You bet.  There were several others.  I don't think someone's expectations are locked in before a game starts...they actually play the game.

I thought that's what I did 

[ATL MU Warrior]

Because they almost did.  I'm not having this debate in a vacuum on Jan 1st.  I didn't expect them to win the game, though I did expect that they could win the game.  Now that the game is over I think they should have won.

No one is upset because they thought MU should have won pregame.  They're upset because they thought MU should have won with 6 minutes to play.

I get this, I really do.  That's not what the original debate was about but I get it. 

[TJ]

Given what ND has done this year, I have no idea how you don't include them on that list, so I'll do it for you, making MU no better than the 7th best team. And I suspect come March 6th, when its all said and done, that is roughly where you will find them in the Big East standings. So what's the problem? After 18 games, your record in the conference/place in the standings is going to be be a pretty damn good indicator of how you stack up.

Because we've outplayed them 60 out of 80 head to head minutes this year.  Maybe they had 2 off nights against us, but I don't think that's the case and I think we stack up well against them.  So I won't say they are outright better than us.

[TJ]

I get this, I really do.  That's not what the original debate was about but I get it. 

Cool.

[WashDCWarrior]

Taking each game as a stand-alone, no, we were not predicted to win any of the road games we lost.  However, given that most were predicted to be relatively close, it would be expected statistically that we'd win 1 or 2 or them.  Couple that with the fact that we showed for periods of time (20, 30, 34 minutes) that we could outplay a number of these team, and you're going to get a frustrated fanbase.