Play in the finals and we are in - Katz

[mubb3434]

So apparently if we get to the finals with wins over St.Johns, Xavier, and Creighton/Hall we are in...

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=14919495

[RushmoreAcademy]

[The Lens]

I had us dead after

Creighton
Nova
@Butler

How many lives do we have?  If we get in at 8-10 with a 70+ RPI, no one can ever question the Big East's legitimacy.

Still, I'm taking the under.  Conf Champ Week always gets blown out of proportion and then it seems like Sunday 5pm rolls around and everything resets and order is restored. 

[WarriorPride68]

Andy Katz is a Rodent but we can let that slide for now

[NavinRJohnson]

He lays out an interesting and probably valid case. Unfotunately, this team is nowhere near good enough to pull it off.

[hdog1017]

Still don't see Marquette making the tournament as an at-large.  There's going to be at least a couple conference tournament champions that will steal bids.  Northern Iowa and Iona come to mind already. 

[WarriorPride68]

Holy sheet. Hadn't looked at RPI in abit.

ASU - #95 (15-16)

UCLA - #99 (15-16)

G'Town - #103 (14-17)

all ahead of Marquette (#106) because of their top 20 SOS

[Badgerhater]

I don't care who you are, a team with a sub-500 record in conference play does not deserve an at-large in the NCAA.  It is an 18-game grind against your NCAA peers and a losing record shows that you didn't measure up.

So what if 8-10 vs. 9-9 is last-second hoop by DePaul.  Losses don't come with an asterisk.

[The Lens]

And no disrespect to Katz but he's doing 7-10 of these conferences previews and talking up storylines.  I doubt he's measuring one action (MU going 3-1) against all the other conference's results.

[mu03eng]

Holy sheet. Hadn't looked at RPI in abit.

ASU - #95 (15-16)

UCLA - #99 (15-16)

G'Town - #103 (14-17)

all ahead of Marquette (#106) because of their top 20 SOS

This is why you don't schedule 7 sub 300 RPI teams, ever

[wadesworld]

Our schedule is not what kept us out of the NCAA Tournament.

[marq4life]

I don't care who you are, a team with a sub-500 record in conference play does not deserve an at-large in the NCAA.  It is an 18-game grind against your NCAA peers and a losing record shows that you didn't measure up.

So what if 8-10 vs. 9-9 is last-second hoop by DePaul.  Losses don't come with an asterisk.

If they went 3-1 in the BET tournament they would be .500 though

[marq4life]

Our schedule is not what kept us out of the NCAA Tournament.

Correct but it gave us no chance in the first place. 

[wadesworld]

Correct but it gave us no chance in the first place.

If we didn't lose to Belmont at home, Creighton at home (no shame in losing to Creighton at home, but we had that game won and gave it away), and DePaul at home, we're dancing.  We had a very good shot.  Heck, we could've still lost that Belmont game and simply not given up the DePaul and Creighton games and we're dancing.  We had our chances.  We didn't take advantage.

[GGGG]

Correct but it gave us no chance in the first place. 

That is simply not true.  It made it harder, but very likely will have made no difference whatsoever.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

If we didn't lose to Belmont at home, Creighton at home (no shame in losing to Creighton at home, but we had that game won and gave it away), and DePaul at home, we're dancing.  We had a very good shot.  Heck, we could've still lost that Belmont game and simply not given up the DePaul and Creighton games and we're dancing.  We had our chances.  We didn't take advantage.

If we would have won just one of those games, we'd be squarely on the bubble - WITH THIS SCHEDULE.  If we had won one of those games plus didn't play the little sisters of the poor 7 times, we'd be solidly in the field. Its pretty simple, really.

[Babybluejeans]

If we didn't lose to Belmont at home, Creighton at home (no shame in losing to Creighton at home, but we had that game won and gave it away), and DePaul at home, we're dancing.  We had a very good shot.  Heck, we could've still lost that Belmont game and simply not given up the DePaul and Creighton games and we're dancing.  We had our chances.  We didn't take advantage.

Yep. Schedule did us no favors with the RPI, but RPI isn't relevant at this point. We simply didn't win when we had a few wins sitting on the table. That's the difference between dancing and sweating out getting into even the NIT.

[GooooMarquette]

We got this.

[MUBigDance]

My 2 cents
(and opinions about the rest of this season are worth something in that range).

-- No way --

<But> I am still rooting for a sweep to steal a spot. And a scary 15 seed for some over-rated #2 perhaps?

[MerrittsMustache]

If we would have won just one of those games, we'd be squarely on the bubble - WITH THIS SCHEDULE.  If we had won one of those games plus didn't play the little sisters of the poor 7 times, we'd be solidly in the field. Its pretty simple, really.

You're assuming that MU would have beaten all of the non "little sisters of the poor" teams. One-third of MU's losses have been to teams with an an RPI of 97+ with 3 of those at home.

[KampusFoods]

My 2 cents
(and opinions about the rest of this season are worth something in that range).

-- No way --

<But> I am still rooting for a sweep to steal a spot. And a scary 15 seed for some over-rated #2 perhaps?

Can't tell, but are you implying that we'd be a 15 seed should we win the big east tournament?

[Badgerhater]

If they went 3-1 in the BET tournament they would be .500 though

Conference tournaments wins (without winning the championship) are extra credit and you only need extra credit in major basketball conferences if you didn't do your work right the first time.

[Badgerhater]

If we would have won just one of those games, we'd be squarely on the bubble - WITH THIS SCHEDULE.  If we had won one of those games plus didn't play the little sisters of the poor 7 times, we'd be solidly in the field. Its pretty simple, really.

If we had upgraded to include a Green Bay, Milwaukee or even a South Dakota State (beat TCU and Minnesota) in early season play, the chances of getting beat in any of those games would have been quite high.   Remember when we barely beat IUPUI?

[wadesworld]

You're assuming that MU would have beaten all of the non "little sisters of the poor" teams. One-third of MU's losses have been to teams with an an RPI of 97+ with 3 of those at home.

Exactly.  The schedule did exactly what it was intended to do.  Get some early season wins and leave us with no bad losses heading into conference play.  We could've played ourselves into the tournament but we failed to do so.

[oldwarrior81]

I replaced 5 of the lowest home games (Grambling, Maine, Chicago St, Presbyterian, Stetson) with 5 more games against IUPUI (rpi=188).

IUPUI was a struggle that MU won in OT.  How many of the 5 additional games would MU have won?   If MU went 3-2 in those games the rpi would pretty much be unchanged.  If they went 4-1 it's still an rpi of 94.   Even if they won all 5 additional games against teams 120-130 spots ahead of the actual opponents, the rpi was still pretty high at 82.

If I replaced those same bottom 5 rpi teams with a much better team in Belmont (rpi=100). 
How would MU have done with those better teams in Nov & Dec?   The comparable teams on the schedule beside Belmont were Arizona State, LSU and Georgetown.  None of them easy wins.
If MU went 5-0 in the added games against teams with an rpi of 100,  they would have a current rpi of 61.  4-1 record and the rpi would have been 73. 3-2 would be an ending rpi of 83.


MU finished 12-7 at home. With rpi home wins get credit for .6 wins.  Home losses count for 1.4 losses
That 12-7 home record translates to 7.2 wins, and 9.8 losses a rpi adjusted winning percentage of .423

[4everwarriors]

Hell, just hopin' for a win vs St. John's, hey?

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

You're assuming that MU would have beaten all of the non "little sisters of the poor" teams. One-third of MU's losses have been to teams with an an RPI of 97+ with 3 of those at home.

Ugh. I've repeated this post too many times. Go look at the RPI and find some low majors between 170-220, and tell yourself that MU loses to them. Sure, there may be a couple outliers in there that would give MU a game, but MU beats most of those teams 19/20 times. 

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

If we had upgraded to include a Green Bay, Milwaukee or even a South Dakota State (beat TCU and Minnesota) in early season play, the chances of getting beat in any of those games would have been quite high.   Remember when we barely beat IUPUI?

Yes, the 2nd game of the season with a team that got 75% of its scoring from underclassman. Yes, I remember, and yes, this team was vastly different after its trip to NY. 

[wadesworld]

Ugh. I've repeated this post too many times. Go look at the RPI and find some low majors between 170-220, and tell yourself that MU loses to them. Sure, there may be a couple outliers in there that would give MU a game, but MU beats most of those teams 19/20 times.

You realize we started the season by losing at home to Belmont, going to overtime at home with IUPUI, and losing by about 50 to Iowa at home, right?  We weren't ready.  Our schedule did its job.  Our team did not.

[MUBigDance]

Can't tell, but are you implying that we'd be a 15 seed should we win the big east tournament?

If I am, is there something wrong with that?

What I was mostly saying was we're not going to make the tournament.

anyway, I started a another tongue-in-cheek post about the possible seed. Its all fun right?

[Badgerhater]

Remember that incredible run with the midgets and Lazar when they won three consecutive BEAST road games in overtime and then pasted Louisville at home in the course of ten days?

MU today is not that team.

[GooooMarquette]

If I am, is there something wrong with that?

What I was mostly saying was we're not going to make the tournament.

anyway, I started a another tongue-in-cheek post about the possible seed. Its all fun right?

Fun?  FUN?!?

Scoop isn't supposed to be fun!

[wadesworld]

Yes, the 2nd game of the season with a team that got 75% of its scoring from underclassman. Yes, I remember, and yes, this team was vastly different after its trip to NY.

We were "vastly different?"  We needed late game heroics to beat 2 teams struggling to make the NIT (just like us) in NYC and then beat a bunch of cupcakes, with a win at a horrible (at the time) WI team in the middle.  Then we got trounced twice to start the BE season.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

You realize we started the season by losing at home to Belmont, going to overtime at home with IUPUI, and losing by about 50 to Iowa at home, right?  We weren't ready.  Our schedule did its job.  Our team did not.

God lord. Yes, I remember.  MU was a vastly different team in early November as opposed to early-mid December when they played Grambling (349), Maine (315), San Jose State (298), Chicago State (348), and Presbyterian (316) in 5 out of 6 games.  That's what unnatural carnal knowledgeed MU's computer numbers.  You trade out those games for Wofford (199), South Dakota (201), Detroit (202), Bowling Green (207), and Gardner Webb (208), all teams that MU likely beats at home in December, their RPI/SOS is 80/51 right now with the same 19-12 record.  Still likely out of the dance - yes. But a run in the BET would make an at large bid still possible.  Billy Garrett doesn't get inexplicably fouled on that last shot - MU is 20-11 with RPI/SOS of 68/51 - squarely on the bubble. Beat Belmont too? 57/50 with 21-10 record.  Likely in with a 9-9 conference record. 

Point is, schedule did make a difference, and it was damn joke from the very beginning.

[MerrittsMustache]

God lord. Yes, I remember.  MU was a vastly different team in early November as opposed to early-mid December when they played Grambling (349), Maine (315), San Jose State (298), Chicago State (348), and Presbyterian (316) in 5 out of 6 games.  That's what unnatural carnal knowledgeed MU's computer numbers.  You trade out those games for Wofford (199), South Dakota (201), Detroit (202), Bowling Green (207), and Gardner Webb (208), all teams that MU likely beats at home in December, their RPI/SOS is 80/51 right now with the same 19-12 record.  Still likely out of the dance - yes. But a run in the BET would make an at large bid still possible.  Billy Garrett doesn't get inexplicably fouled on that last shot - MU is 20-11 with RPI/SOS of 68/51 - squarely on the bubble. Beat Belmont too? 57/50 with 21-10 record.  Likely in with a 9-9 conference record. 

Point is, schedule did make a difference, and it was damn joke from the very beginning.

If MU had beaten DePaul and Belmont then swapping the 300s for 200s wouldn't have made a difference. They'd still be out and still need a BET run to get in.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

We were "vastly different?"  We needed late game heroics to beat 2 teams struggling to make the NIT (just like us) in NYC and then beat a bunch of cupcakes, with a win at a horrible (at the time) WI team in the middle.  Then we got trounced twice to start the BE season.

So you think a team that started 4 underclassman and three freshman for much of the year should be graded out for the entire season how they played in the first 2 games of the season?

Alrighty then.

Look, as you said, MU still could have played themselves into the tournament with a 10-8 or 11-7 BE record. Agreed.  But their margin for error was literally zero due to the god awful buy games. Do they deserve to get an at large at 8-10?  No. But that doesn't change the fact that at a 10,000 foot view, their resume isn't all that different from teams battling for the last four spots RIGHT NOW, the main difference being the ugly RPI/SOS numbers.   

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

If MU had beaten DePaul and Belmont then swapping the 300s for 200s wouldn't have made a difference. They'd still be out and still need a BET run to get in.

Disagree. Educate yourself on the bubble and get back to me.

[MerrittsMustache]

Disagree. Educate yourself on the bubble and get back to me.

Lunardi has Ohio State on the bubble.

19-12
RPI: 76
2-8 vs top 50
3 sub-100 losses

MU (w wins over DePaul & Belmont)
21-10
RPI: 80
4-8 vs top 50
1 sub-100 loss

Is that not bubble territory?

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

Lunardi has Ohio State on the bubble.

19-12
RPI: 76
2-8 vs top 50
3 sub-100 losses

MU (w wins over DePaul & Belmont)
21-10
RPI: 80
4-8 vs top 50
1 sub-100 loss

Is that not bubble territory?

Territory? Yes.  But they're likely in.  Plus, you said the crappy buy games wouldn't matter at that point, which you are incorrect, because if you look at my previous posts, you replace those games with less crappy buy game teams the RPI jumps another ~15 spots.

Look, its all moot.  It doesn't matter at this point. But to say the schedule didn't have any affect is silly.  Yes, MU still needed to win a game they lost somewhere along the way to be closer be in with better buy games, but they'd at least still have a shot.

Ok, I am actually done now.

[MerrittsMustache]

Territory? Yes.  But they're likely in.  Plus, you said the crappy buy games wouldn't matter at that point, which you are incorrect, because if you look at my previous posts, you replace those games with less crappy buy game teams the RPI jumps another ~15 spots.

Look, its all moot.  It doesn't matter at this point. But to say the schedule didn't have any affect is silly.  Yes, MU still needed to win a game they lost somewhere along the way to be closer be in with better buy games, but they'd at least still have a shot.

Ok, I am actually done now.

Fair enough...but we're back to assuming MU would beat those RPI 170-200s 

Hopefully a year from now we're debating whether or not MU's non-conf schedule is going to cost them to #1 overall seed.

[The Lens]

Hell, just hopin' for a win vs St. John's, hey?

Somebody is paying attention to current events.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

Fair enough...but we're back to assuming MU would beat those RPI 170-200s 

Hopefully a year from now we're debating whether or not MU's non-conf schedule is going to cost them to #1 overall seed.

Yes, I am comfortable assuming MU beats the likes of Wofford (199), South Dakota (201), Detroit (202), Bowling Green (207), and Gardner Webb (208) at home.

[brewcity77]

Had we scheduled 4 tougher opponents instead of Grambling, Maine, Chicago State, and Presbyterian and gone 3-1, we'd be on the bubble (though likely still out). The 8-10 league record didn't do us any favors.

The problem with the schedule is it left us no margin for error. We had to win every game we were expected to win (including Belmont, Creighton, and DePaul at home) and a quite a few we weren't (LSU, Wisconsin, Providence (x2), Creighton away). Because we weren't perfect in those games, we are out.

Pretty much anything less than winning every close game we played in meant we would be left out. We went 11-3 in games decided by two possessions or fewer. We needed to be 14-0 in those to have a chance.

[Jay Bee]

Lunardi has Ohio State on the bubble.

19-12
RPI: 76
2-8 vs top 50
3 sub-100 losses

MU (w wins over DePaul & Belmont)
21-10
RPI: 80
4-8 vs top 50
1 sub-100 loss

Is that not bubble territory?

No. Katz is wrong.

tOSU is on outside looking in, but they have a path other than winning the B1G tourney. They get PSU first.. should be a win. Then they get MSU. Beat the Spartans and lose the next game and their RPI can fall into the high-50's.

MU has one path to the tourney - win the BET.

[GooooMarquette]

MU has one path to the tourney - win the BET.

Yep.

[brewcity77]

MU has one path to the tourney - win the BET.

+2

Further, Marquette probably needs to make the final just to get to the NIT. Last year's lowest rated team in the RPI to make the NIT as an at-large was 90 Arizona State. For us to exceed that, we would have to get to the final (beat SJU, X, SHU, lose to 'Nova) just to crack the top-90.

What Katz says will get us the NCAAs will only get us the NIT, and what most think will get us the NIT will only get us Las Vegas or the CBI.

[BM1090]

+2

Further, Marquette probably needs to make the final just to get to the NIT. Last year's lowest rated team in the RPI to make the NIT as an at-large was 90 Arizona State. For us to exceed that, we would have to get to the final (beat SJU, X, SHU, lose to 'Nova) just to crack the top-90.

What Katz says will get us the NCAAs will only get us the NIT, and what most think will get us the NIT will only get us Las Vegas or the CBI.

Friendly wager that if we win tonight and lose tomorrow we make the NIT field? 6 pack of the winner's choice, perhaps?

I think we're focusing way too much on metrics. Check out the NIT projected brackets and look at the "also considered" page. Really not too much there.

[GGGG]

Friendly wager that if we win tonight and lose tomorrow we make the NIT field? 6 pack of the winner's choice, perhaps?

I think we're focusing way too much on metrics. Check out the NIT projected brackets and look at the "also considered" page. Really not too much there.

The problem is that Marquette is hanging on as an at large in those brackets, but there are still 9 or 10 single bid leagues left to go.  If about half of those go to non #1 seeds, Marquette is likely out with out a good run in the BET.  If those go chalk, my guess is Marquette is likely in no matter how they do tonight.

[humanlung]

I said on another thread that in 1990-1991 K.O.  took a very young team and threw it out against top-tier teams.  We played at Duke, at Kansas, and at Michigan that year, to name a few.  We got killed but the team got incredibly tough.  If I remember correctly, that team was in/stealing games at the end of the season that shouldn't have been close.  A couple years later, the kids grew into men and we had back-to-back 20 win season for the first time in a while.

I have always believed this is the way to "grow up" a young team.  The pre-conference schedule(s) we have been playing have, overall, been the NCAA Division I equivalent of a participation trophy for a little kid.  Nice to get but it does not teach you anything about the effort, determination, and character that true excellence requires.

[BM1090]

The problem is that Marquette is hanging on as an at large in those brackets, but there are still 9 or 10 single bid leagues left to go.  If about half of those go to non #1 seeds, Marquette is likely out with out a good run in the BET.  If those go chalk, my guess is Marquette is likely in no matter how they do tonight.

That's fair. And if those single bid leagues all go to non #1 seeds, then I'd probably rather be in the Vegas 16 anyways.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

Friendly wager that if we win tonight and lose tomorrow we make the NIT field? 6 pack of the winner's choice, perhaps?

I think we're focusing way too much on metrics. Check out the NIT projected brackets and look at the "also considered" page. Really not too much there.

Agreed. I'd get in on that wager.  I think MU is basically a lock for the NIT if they win tonight. That said, I won't lose much sleep if they have to go to Vegas instead.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

If we win I am thinking that a team with the BE FOY and a marquee name would be something they would love to add to the NIT. I'm not always this positive , my friends, but when I am I think MU.

[esotericmindguy]

If we win I am thinking that a team with the BE FOY and a marquee name would be something they would love to add to the NIT. I'm not always this positive , my friends, but when I am I think MU.

You're exactly right. Basketball remains a star driven sport. Anyone who thinks LSU is on the bubble is kidding themselves.

[BM1090]

You're exactly right. Basketball remains a star driven sport. Anyone who thinks LSU is on the bubble is kidding themselves.

If they're kidding themselves it's because they think LSU has a shot at a berth. They're out barring 2/3 SEC tournament wins

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

You're exactly right. Basketball remains a star driven sport. Anyone who thinks LSU is on the bubble is kidding themselves.

LSU is not dancing unless they go bonkers in the SEC tourney.

[MerrittsMustache]

LSU is not dancing unless they go bonkers in the SEC tourney.

If LSU gets in, every member of the Selection Committee should be replaced. 18-13 with 6 losses to RPI 100+. Not a tourney team.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Yeah, but Simmons........

[frozena pizza]

Yeah, but Simmons........

versus Ellenson in the play-in game for the 11 seed.

[NavinRJohnson]

Some of this talk about bad schedule vs. Win and losses is absolutely comical. Fact is, they just aren't very good. That's why they aren't going to the Tournamnet or on the bubble. from where I'm sitting, the chances of a loss tonight seem much higher than those of a win tomorrow.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

Some of this talk about bad schedule vs. Win and losses is absolutely comical. Fact is, they just aren't very good. That's why they aren't going to the Tournamnet or on the bubble. from where I'm sitting, the chances of a loss tonight seem much higher than those of a win tomorrow.

Look, I don't think anyone here is saying MU is this great team that should be dancing. But from comments like this, it is also quite obvious that you don't watch much CBB and certainly don't f follow the bubble.  The bubble is weak - very, very, very weak - weaker than the last several years weak bubbles.  MUs resume is on par with other teams on the bubble in terms of good wins, bad losses.  Maybe one league win away from real discussion.  Whats killing MU is their computer numbers, which are driven down by terrible buy game opponents. 

No one is saying MU is this great team - they're just saying that the schedule gave them very little chance of dancing without going 11-7 or better in conference, which is a tall task for a young team. It was an embarrassing schedule for a high major team with hopes or turning their program back around to play.  Was there a reason for the weak schedule? Yes, that's been well established - but they overdid it a bit.

[NavinRJohnson]

Look, I don't think anyone here is saying MU is this great team that should be dancing. But from comments like this, it is also quite obvious that you don't watch much CBB and certainly don't f follow the bubble.  The bubble is weak - very, very, very weak - weaker than the last several years weak bubbles.  MUs resume is on par with other teams on the bubble in terms of good wins, bad losses.  Maybe one league win away from real discussion.  Whats killing MU is their computer numbers, which are driven down by terrible buy game opponents. 

No one is saying MU is this great team - they're just saying that the schedule gave them very little chance of dancing without going 11-7 or better in conference, which is a tall task for a young team. It was an embarrassing schedule for a high major team with hopes or turning their program back around to play.  Was there a reason for the weak schedule? Yes, that's been well established - but they overdid it a bit.

But you're kind of making my point, the computer numbers don't make any difference because they just aren't very good. I won't argue the quality of the schedule was ridiculous and the corresponding numbers low, but who cares? The fact is, they didn't get that one more league win to really be in the discussion. Furthermore, the what if game just doesn't work. If you give MU that one more win, you have to do the same for every other team on or off the bubble, and MU remains out of the conversation.

I get that people want to believe this team is, or at least could have been pretty good. Their play on the court just doesn't support that. Trying to rationalize it away via SOS arguments just doesn't work. They're not good, they're not bad. They're just ok, nothing more.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

But you're kind of making my point, the computer numbers don't make any difference because they just aren't very good. I won't argue the quality of the schedule was ridiculous and the corresponding numbers low, but who cares? The fact is, they didn't get that one more league win to really be in the discussion. Furthermore, the what if game just doesn't work. If you give MU that one more win, you have to do the same for every other team on or off the bubble, and MU remains out of the conversation.

I get that people want to believe this team is, or at least could have been pretty good. Their play on the court just doesn't support that. Trying to rationalize it away via SOS arguments just doesn't work. They're not good, they're not bad. They're just ok, nothing more.

I don't disagree with most of your post, except the bolded part.  But whatever, its water under the bridge and I am sick of talking about it.