Bilas Article on The Big East

[muarmy81]

Great teams win at the end of the year like the F4 team.  TC is a system coach...he recruits for, trains, teaches, coaches and demands "balls out play".  His teams are ready from the "get go" of the season which is why they always roll out strong with a few speed bumps.   

But playing the Oaklands, UMHBs, Idaho States, and other cupcakes we tend to schedule has to be considered when you "gauge" our early season successes.  To me, one of the biggest reasons we struggle at the end of the season is the strength of schedule.  We're no longer playing Savannah State in the friendly confides of the Bradley Center, rather we're playing Uconn in Storrs Connecticut.
Throw that into the beat down you take as a DI athlete with school, games, and difficult TC practices and you can understand the slips.
Hopefully we'll end our Big East schedule with USF or Cincy this year rather than Georgetown, Depaul, ND on the road, etc. 

[Murffieus]

IMO, the reason for the annual swoon is:

Being a very intense person, TC works them too long and too hard all season long. Has to realize that these are human beings he's coaching and not machines.

[Marquette84]

SJS ---no one is saying there isn't a difference between Hillsdale & GT----but hre's the apples to apples story:

Beginning with the first loss in February over the previous 8 seasons MU is 34 wins vs 44 losses (collectively)---------now during those same 8 years and again collectively PRIOR to that first loss in February we are 50-20 in CONFERENCE games.

So there you have it SJS-----34-44 after the first loss in Feb. vs 50-20 in conference prior to that first loss in Feb. ----and you're trying to alibi that we don't have a swoon problem?

Clearly, clearly there is a reoccurring problem here!

Fine.  You're going to be non responsive and not tell me how to account for schedule strength.  If we are unlucky enough to draw late season games @ ND (undefeated at home) or Georgetown (Final four team) or Louisville (AFTER they got a key player back from injuruy), we'll "swoon" every time. 

To a normal person, we were the 5th best team in the conference, and based on the way the schedule was made, four of our last six conference games came against the top 4 teams, and only two of our first 10 games were against the top 4 teams.   

To you, however, we "swooned".  Simply because the early schedule was loaded with easier teams.


Furthermore, we both know that your "first loss in Feburary" standard is purely arbitrary, and carefully selected to make things as negative as possible.

As I've pointed out, if we make the slightest change--begin counting with the first win AFTER the first loss in February--MU has a winning record down the stretch in five of the last six years.

I bet you can't come up with a single legitimate reason why we shouldn't start with the first WIN after the first loss.  Other than using that standard blows away your "swoon" theory.

In other words, there's no swoon unless we let you play with the numbers. 

[Murffieus]

SJS----the SOS in conference play which I cite IN THE LAST 8 YEARS is virtually the same BEFORE the first loss in February as it is WITH and AFTER the first loss in February.

There can be no argument here----the swoon is real---- 50 & 20 in conference PRIOR to the first loss loss in February-----and 34 & 44 WITH/AFTER the first loss in February.

[muwarrior87]

or it could be that a lot of our tougher conference games are played later in conference...sure a few tough ones early, but most are later.

[Marquette84]

SJS----the SOS in conference play which I cite IN THE LAST 8 YEARS is virtually the same BEFORE the first loss in February as it is WITH and AFTER the first loss in February.

There can be no argument here----the swoon is real---- 50 & 20 in conference PRIOR to the first loss loss in February-----and 34 & 44 WITH/AFTER the first loss in February.

No.  Wrong.

2007: 
Average RPI of all games beginning with 1st loss in Feburary:  22
Average RPI of previous conference games:  106

THings really go wrong quickly for you, don't they. 

In 2006, the difference was 54 versus 62. 
In 2005, the difference was 106 versus 1994
In 2004, the difference was 74 versus 82
In 2003, the difference was 72 versus 77
In 2002, the difference was 85 versus 107
In 2001, the difference was 72 versus 105
In 2000, the difference was 48 versus 95.

So, for all your blather, we have to go back eight years to find just ONE season where the schedule was not more difficult!!

In FACT, in six of the last seven seasons, the so-called "swoon" period was AT LEAST ten percent more difficult than the preceeding games.

And you seem to be making a bigger deal this year--when the increase in schedule difficult is the BIGGEST MU HAS FACED in the last eight years.  Not only does the schedule typically get stronger, but in 2007 it got FAR MORE DIFFICULT down the strecth than it has in at last eight years.

You claim there was no SOS difference in "THE LAST EIGHT YEARS", and yet I find a significant difference in the very first year I check--and in six of the seven most recent years.

Now, let's look in depth at some of the games you say we "swooned" in.

Beginning with the 1st loss in February (excluding NCAA tournament),

In 2007:
MU was 1-4 aginst teams AHEAD of them in the standings (1-1 at home, 0-2 on the road, 0-1 neutral).
MU was 2-1 against teams BEHIND them in the standings (1-0 at home, 1-1 on the  road).


In 2006
MU was 0-1 against teams AHEAD in the standings (the loss was on the road)
MU was 2-1 against teams TIED in the standings (2-0 at home, 0-1 neutral)
MU was 3-1 against teams BEHIND them in the standings (3-0 at home, 0-1 on the road).


In other words, since joining the Big East, MU has managed to play 2 home games against the teams ahead of them in the standings, and 4 road/neutral games.




 

[Pardner]

I don't care much about the SoS debate.  With the expanded BE schedule, this goes away to a large extent now.  To me, what's more important is that "great" teams win at the end of the year (we have been consistently rated in the Top 20  so we should have been winning our fair share +).  With all our depth this year, we have more to match up against the top teams and in tourney time.  At the end of recent years (x F4) against the top teams, we didn't match up well and it showed (like ND).  Personally, I don't give a rat's arse if we have been slightly over or under .500 or had a tougher schedule, but can we win when it matters?  We are close to being a top program and are consistently rated.  With this year's depth, we will see how good of a match-up game coach is TC is--or isn't.  This maybe TC's most critical year.

[Murffieus]

SJS---first of all those are YOUR figures which immediately makes one suspicious----but secondly even if they are accurate (which I doubt) the disparity in RPI (as you report it) is minimal compared to our won- loss fortunes beginning with the first loss in February.

I mean a record of 50-22 in the conference games prior to the first loss in February compared to  a complete reversal of 34-44 in games with/after the first loss in February is WAY out of proportion to the very small differences in RPI that you show above. SOS isn't even a factor here as the RPI differences that YOU report are so minimal!

[ozmetal71]

Once again Murf hijacks a thread to push his anti-Crean, anti-MU agenda.

Thanks Murf.  Could you please stick to the topic next time.  This was a thread about a preview article on the Big East next year, not why MU 'swoons' in February under Crean.

But hey, you got a chance to push one of your four or five recurring themes (wide post, attack offense, E/W dribble offense, DJ, despite what every NBA scout said, playing well in Orlando, and anything else that is negative towards MU).

[Marquette84]

SJS---first of all those are YOUR figures which immediately makes one suspicious----but secondly even if they are accurate (which I doubt) the disparity in RPI (as you report it) is minimal compared to our won- loss fortunes beginning with the first loss in February.

If my figures were wrong, you'd have actually found the mistake and posted the correct information.  You know where the RPI data is.  You most likely already checked, and found I was correct, so you resort to the sad tactic of trying to demean everything I've posted.

I'll put my facts and figures up against yours anytime, any place, with any judge or arbiter. 

As usual, since the facts are inconvenient for you, you'll pull any stunt possible to ignore them.

In this case, you claimed that in eight years the schedule was never more difficult at the end of the season. That is simply incorrect.

The data show that in 6 of 8 years, the average RPI was AT LEAST 10% more diffcult down the stretch.  In 2006-07 the difference is more than  300% more difficult.

So MU plays 10 games against teams that average an RPI of close to 100, and go 8-2.  Then  we play 8 games against teams with an RPI average of close to 20, and we go 4-4.  And YOU claim it was because the team "swooned" due to difficult practices? 

Come on--use some common sense here--in 2007, the schedule got a LOT more difficult, and the w/l record reflected it.   

[Murffieus]

No "stunt"----as I say even if accurate, your RPI numbers don't explain the extremely large disparity in MU's performanc the last 8 years in the conference season prior to the first loss in February (50 wins vs 22 losses)-----and our record against similar competition with and after the first loss February (34 wins - 44 losses).

It's a problem that needs to be addressed----IMO the answer is not to work them as hard all year long, but especially after mid January!

[Marquette84]

No "stunt"----as I say even if accurate, your RPI numbers don't explain the extremely large disparity in MU's performanc the last 8 years in the conference season prior to the first loss in February (50 wins vs 22 losses)-----and our record against similar competition with and after the first loss February (34 wins - 44 losses).

It's a problem that needs to be addressed----IMO the answer is not to work them as hard all year long, but especially after mid January!

Sorry, Murff.  You're just wrong. 

The SOS figures DO explain the difference--especially last season. 

And this last season, the schedule was SO MUCH more difficult that it's amazing that you even attempt to make the straight-faced argument that SOS wasn't a factor. 

You might have earned some small shred of crediblility if you admitted that you can't tell if 2006-07 represented a swoon or not because the schedule got so much more difficult. 

You might have earned some small shred of credibility if you admitted that in the 2005-06 season, MU actually played much better down the strecth, winning four of the last five conference games (after starting the season with a 6-5 record), earning a 1st round bye.

You might have earned some small shred of credibility if you admitted that after a 4-7 start in conference play in the 2003-04 season winning 4 of the last 5 shows some improvement rather than evidenced of a swoon.



Basically, you have to create a carefully chosen criteria (the "first loss in February" scheme--which NOBODY in the ENTIRE world of college basketball agrees with), and then include a bunch of games from 1999 and 2000 and 2001 and 2002 or your whole "swoon" theory goes up in smoke. 

Up.  In.  Smoke. 

[Murffieus]

Wait a minute SJS----are you trying to tell me that a conference pre first loss in February RPI of 73 vs an 88 RPI (an average of YOUR numbers) accounts for the difference of a 50 win 22 losses (pre first game lost in February) and a 34 win vs 44 loss record with & after the first loss in February the past 8 seasons???? -----otherwise known as swoon time!

You're spending too much time in the sun, if that's what you are saying!

[Marquette84]

Wait a minute SJS----are you trying to tell me that a conference pre first loss in February RPI of 73 vs an 88 RPI (an average of YOUR numbers) accounts for the difference of a 50 win 22 losses (pre first game lost in February) and a 34 win vs 44 loss record with & after the first loss in February the past 8 seasons???? -----otherwise known as swoon time!

You're spending too much time in the sun, if that's what you are saying!

Murrf, I'm only going to ask you one more question.

Think about the end 2005-06 season.  When MU was making a run at a 1st round by in the Big East tournament. 

Think long and hard.

In case you need a reminder, here's  how the conference season played out:

On Feburary 4th, they fell just short of upsetting #4 Villanova
On Feburary 9th, they got through a terrible noreaster to get to the RAC and were upset by Rutgers.
On February 16th, they impressively beat #17 Georgetown
On Feburary 18th, they avenged an earlier loss and beat #9 Pittsburgh
On Feburary 26th, they travelled to the Joyce Center and beat archrival Notre Dame
On March 1st, they travelled to Lousiville, where the lost to the Cards in overtime
On March 4th, they beat Providence and clinched 4th place in the Big East, and a 1st round bye in the tournament.

And here's my question:  Would you be willing to go face to face with Steve Novak, Dominic James, Chris Grimm, Mike Kinsella, Joe Chapman, Ryan Amoroso, Jerel McNeal, Wes Matthews, Ousmane Barro, Jamil Lott and Dwight Burke?

Would you be willing to face those guys and tell them to their faces that you thought their personal performance was a "swoon"? 

Let's get past 34 and 44, or SOS or any of the other crap.  Would you be willing to perrsonally tell THAT ONE TEAM--THOSE PLAYERS, that you thought their performance was a swoon?
 

[Murffieus]

You can't take any one season in isolation----a pattern develops over many years----in this case 8 years----just like the warmer climate trend-----this past February in Milwaukee didn't exactly resonate with "Global Warming"!

[Marquette84]

You can't take any one season in isolation----a pattern develops over many years----in this case 8 years----just like the warmer climate trend-----this past February in Milwaukee didn't exactly resonate with "Global Warming"!

Well, Murff, I most certainly CAN ask you about one season in isolation.  Unlike global warming, the roster changes year to year--the planet doesn't.

Then again,  if a pattern develops over many years It's fair to say that the end-of-season swoons most likely began in 1956-57--which as far as I can tell was the only team in MU history NOT to win a game after the first loss in Febuary.  Six straight losses.  The biggest bunch of swooners of all time.

Now, seriously, I don't think we can blame the single loss in the last five games of 05-06 on that 1957 swoon.  Nor can we blame it on 2000, 2001 or 2002.  Different players.  Different results.

So, Murff--I can isolate one year.

But don't worry--I'll eventually get around to asking you about some other years.

But for now, just answer the question for 2005-06:  Would you tell our guys to their faces that you consider their performance (beating Pitt and UConn to take 4th in the BE) to be a swoon?