Everything is still in front of us

[Its DJOver]

Huh?

Columbia SC is a home game for USC. I beg to differ.

So you think that if we played on a true neutral court instead of an essential road game, a 20 point swing occurs?  That loss was because our defense was atrocious (as usual that year) and Sindarius Thornwell went crazy.  Our "potent offense" only scoring 4 points the last 6 minutes didn't help much either.

[MUDPT]

It's not just with MU, I just don't trust them as a whole. And yes, I have NOT at all liked where they have sent MU most years. I can't say I have necessarily had a problem with MU's seeds, but what is just as important, if not more so, is what matchup(s) do you have?? That's what I haven't liked...It hasn't seemed to matter what seed MU has been, but it always seems like they have gotten the WORST possible match up(or best team), on the corresponding seed line. That's what has irritated the crap out of me...A few years ago, as a #10 seed, playing a #7 in their back yard(essentially), As a 5 seed with Jae Crowder getting Murray State, Having to play Utah State out west as the higher seed. The year McNeal got hurt, drawing easily the toughest 8 seed in Michigan State. I would like just for once to have a 1st round game/matchup that is favorable to them so it's much more relaxing.

MU Murray state was a 3-6 matchup. MU was the 3 seed.

[Galway Eagle]

MU Murray state was a 3-6 matchup. MU was the 3 seed.

That's one of those basketball things he was so excited to tell us he's forgotten

[Galway Eagle]

It's also not the committee's job to look at matchups.  They make an S curve and tweak it slightly to account for locations, conference balance and rematches.  They don't look and say "this team struggles with long athletic teams, lets give them a favorable or non-favorable matchup because of that". 

We beat Murray State, and Utah State, and we lost to South Carolina by 20.  In none of those games did the location of the game effect the final outcome.

To be fair Murray state was like an hour from them IIRC

And Washington might've been helped by location

[Its DJOver]

To be fair Murray state was like an hour from them IIRC

My point is that location has yet to affect the outcome of one of our tourney games.  We were favored to beat Murray State in Lexington, we beat them in Lexington.  We were favored to beat Utah State in Boise, we beat them in Boise.  We were dogs against South Carolina in South Carolina, we got blown out, and playing that somewhere more "neutral" would not have made up the 20 that we lost by. 

Just looking at Lunardi's current bracket we'd be playing Vermont in Hartford.  Strictly geographically speaking, its a big advantage Vermont.  If that match-up were to occur and we were to get upset, would the location be an excuse?  Maybe, but a pretty piss poor one IMO.  If we get sent West and face a team that is geographically further west than us (UC Irvine is currently on the 14 line so it's possible), would we be able to use location as an excuse? No.   Fans that have the means to travel to tourney games care a lot more than the actual teams IMO.  Do teams care? Yes, but no one is going to expect any sympathy is they get a less than favorable location.

[muguru]

My point is that location has yet to affect the outcome of one of our tourney games.  We were favored to beat Murray State in Lexington, we beat them in Lexington.  We were favored to beat Utah State in Boise, we beat them in Boise.  We were dogs against South Carolina in South Carolina, we got blown out, and playing that somewhere more "neutral" would not have made up the 20 that we lost by. 

Just looking at Lunardi's current bracket we'd be playing Vermont in Hartford.  Strictly geographically speaking, its a big advantage Vermont.  If that match-up were to occur and we were to get upset, would the location be an excuse?  Maybe, but a pretty piss poor one IMO.  If we get sent West and face a team that is geographically further west than us (UC Irvine is currently on the 14 line so it's possible), would we be able to use location as an excuse? No.   Fans that have the means to travel to tourney games care a lot more than the actual teams IMO.  Do teams care? Yes, but no one is going to expect any sympathy is they get a less than favorable location.

 But as a top 4 seed you are "protected" and you are supposed to be placed as close to home as possible. Hartford is nowhere near close to home.  Even lower seeds get that advantage one in awhile. Tired of them playing so far away that MU can't travel as good as they could. There are 3 relatively decently close sites this year...Des Moines, Columbus and to a lessor extent Tulsa..Let's put MU at one of those sites this year, instead of shipping them out to one of the coasts like usually happens..If they can't somehow do that, then at the very least, give them the Midwest Regional, so if they do make it to the 2nd weekend, they get to go to Kansas City..I mean, that should be a "trade off" that I'm sure they could accommodate if they had to. Make it one of the principals..If a team with a top 4 PROTECTED seed doesn't get a favorable location for the 1st and 2nd rounds, then said team shall be accommodated by placing that team as close to home as possible for the Regional rounds. Sure, you still have to win your way there, but at least it's better than starting in Hartford for example, and then going Back out East to DC for the Regional round.

IF they absolutely HAVE to place them in Hartford...then put them in the Midwest regional...that seems reasonable and fair for a team that is supposed to be a "protected" seed.

[muguru]

It's also not the committee's job to look at matchups. They make an S curve and tweak it slightly to account for locations, conference balance and rematches.  They don't look and say "this team struggles with long athletic teams, lets give them a favorable or non-favorable matchup because of that". 

We beat Murray State, and Utah State, and we lost to South Carolina by 20.  In none of those games did the location of the game effect the final outcome.

It's not their job, but these are humans, and I am willing to bet good money it DOES occur. Everyone and their brother seem to agree that they look for "storylines". Well..if that's the case and you can make a valid argument it is, then they MUST be looking at matchups to some extent, right?? Those storylines we seemingly see every year don't just "happen" because that's the way the S-Curve fell. I'm not buying that for one second.

[Its DJOver]

Guru, it sounds like you're just drawing arbitrary lines so that you can find something to complain about.  You complain about getting MSU in the 8/9 game, well 8/9s are supposed to be toss ups so saying you drew the short straw there is really just complaining to complain.  And you admit that they look for stories, well then Crean vs Izzo was a good one, the same way Wojo vs K would have been a good one if we didn't get trounced by SCAR.

Do you think that after their upset last year any UVA fans were thinking, "Man UMBC was just a bad match-up for us, how could the committee do that to us, if we had gotten Radford instead, we would have been fine"?  (BTW have no idea about the resume comparison between UMBC and Radford, just saw that they were another 16).  Of course not.  You have said, over and over again that talent should win the majority of games (@Gtown) and that there are no excuses if the team with more talent doesn't win (@Gtown).  So why are you now already making excuses (and pretty weak ones at that) for if we do lose to a team that we shouldn't in the tourney? 

I get that you want Des Moines so that more MU fans can go to the game, but if you're already saying that the system is rigged if we draw Hartford against a team further East than us, I think your tin foil hat might be on too tight.

[willie warrior]

Disappointing way to lose last night scoring 1 pt in the final 6 ish minutes after coming back from down 12 early

But this was always a loss in my mind so didnt change anything.

Win at home and don’t come out flat vs SHU. 15-3 is fantastic.

Why did we only score 1 point in final 6 minutes. Something is wrong there. Lets hear the excuses.

[willie warrior]

Yes, everything is still in front of us, including the freight train coming in the other direction. Question still is there: Can we win the Beast regular season title and get the #1 seed.

[muguru]

Guru, it sounds like you're just drawing arbitrary lines so that you can find something to complain about.  You complain about getting MSU in the 8/9 game, well 8/9s are supposed to be toss ups so saying you drew the short straw there is really just complaining to complain.  And you admit that they look for stories, well then Crean vs Izzo was a good one, the same way Wojo vs K would have been a good one if we didn't get trounced by SCAR.

Do you think that after their upset last year any UVA fans were thinking, "Man UMBC was just a bad match-up for us, how could the committee do that to us, if we had gotten Radford instead, we would have been fine"?  (BTW have no idea about the resume comparison between UMBC and Radford, just saw that they were another 16).  Of course not.  You have said, over and over again that talent should win the majority of games (@Gtown) and that there are no excuses if the team with more talent doesn't win (@Gtown).  So why are you now already making excuses (and pretty weak ones at that) for if we do lose to a team that we shouldn't in the tourney? 

I get that you want Des Moines so that more MU fans can go to the game, but if you're already saying that the system is rigged if we draw Hartford against a team further East than us, I think your tin foil hat might be on too tight.

Talent should win, that's never a question, but MU fans have gotten shafted so much with the places they have had to travel for the NCAA's....it's time for them to be rewarded, and this year is that time. Especially when you have a seed that is presumable going to be protected...follow your rules and procedures and Give a protected site (like your rules say) to a top 4 seed. You cited lunardi's bracket earlier and that is a great HYPOTHETICAL to use...I could care less if MU plays Vermont in Hartford, they'd wax them...and I don't care if Vermont was playing some other 3 seed as a 14(no matter what they'll get waxed), my problem is...why in the hell is a 14 seed getting a location that close to home when you are sending a 3 seed out to Hartford?? MAKE IT WORK.  Another hypothetical...How would it be right for say a 7th seeded Iowa State(they will be higher but it's hypothetical), to play in Des Moines vs a 2nd seeded Kentucky?? Lower seeds should NEVER get a game in their home state, THAT should be a rule. We see it all the time where a lower seeded team gets a site closer to home then a higher seed in a different pod got. I have a problem with that.

[muguru]

Guru, it sounds like you're just drawing arbitrary lines so that you can find something to complain about.  You complain about getting MSU in the 8/9 game, well 8/9s are supposed to be toss ups so saying you drew the short straw there is really just complaining to complain.  And you admit that they look for stories, well then Crean vs Izzo was a good one, the same way Wojo vs K would have been a good one if we didn't get trounced by SCAR.

Do you think that after their upset last year any UVA fans were thinking, "Man UMBC was just a bad match-up for us, how could the committee do that to us, if we had gotten Radford instead, we would have been fine"?  (BTW have no idea about the resume comparison between UMBC and Radford, just saw that they were another 16).  Of course not.  You have said, over and over again that talent should win the majority of games (@Gtown) and that there are no excuses if the team with more talent doesn't win (@Gtown).  So why are you now already making excuses (and pretty weak ones at that) for if we do lose to a team that we shouldn't in the tourney? 

I get that you want Des Moines so that more MU fans can go to the game, but if you're already saying that the system is rigged if we draw Hartford against a team further East than us, I think your tin foil hat might be on too tight.

You make my point...you think the Izzo vs Crean match up just happened?? or the potential Wojo vs K just "happened"?? Absolutely NOT, they PURPOSELY look for those things, which means they look at match ups.

[BM1090]

Why did we only score 1 point in final 6 minutes. Something is wrong there. Lets hear the excuses.

We didnt.

[Its DJOver]

Talent should win, that's never a question, but MU fans have gotten shafted so much with the places they have had to travel for the NCAA's....it's time for them to be rewarded, and this year is that time. Especially when you have a seed that is presumable going to be protected...follow your rules and procedures and Give a protected site (like your rules say) to a top 4 seed. You cited lunardi's bracket earlier and that is a great HYPOTHETICAL to use...I could care less if MU plays Vermont in Hartford, they'd wax them...and I don't care if Vermont was playing some other 3 seed as a 14(no matter what they'll get waxed), my problem is...why in the hell is a 14 seed getting a location that close to home when you are sending a 3 seed out to Hartford?? MAKE IT WORK.  Another hypothetical...How would it be right for say a 7th seeded Iowa State(they will be higher but it's hypothetical), to play in Des Moines vs a 2nd seeded Kentucky?? Lower seeds should NEVER get a game in their home state, THAT should be a rule. We see it all the time where a lower seeded team gets a site closer to home then a higher seed in a different pod got. I have a problem with that.

You say that it doesn't matter where MU would play Vermont, that MU would win.  Then why do you care where they play?  I for one couldn't care less where the a game takes place as long as Marquette wins, we could play all of our tournament games on the moon if it meant that we'd win 6 in a row.  I'm sure the only stat a competitor like you cares about the final score.  You cited both Utah St, and Murray St earlier, and I know I don't have to remind you that we won those games.  You're literally complaining about Marquette NCAA tournament victories, that is the part of this that is just baffling to me.  For someone that only seems to look at the final score, you sure seem to care a lot about where the game took place.

You claim that you don't trust the committee, you claim that it's only because of location rather than seed, you cite three games in the last decade where we've played at a potential significant disadvantage because of location.  All three games followed chalk, with us winning 2, and losing 1 in a blowout.  If our loss to SCAR had some serious home cooking, or was even a single digit margin, you may have a point, but you have yet to give an example where the location of the game (which you said is the only reason why you don't trust the committee) actually effected the outcome.  That is why it seems like you are just complaining for the sake of complaining.

[NickelDimer]

We didnt.

Excuses, excuses!

[muguru]

You say that it doesn't matter where MU would play Vermont, that MU would win.  Then why do you care where they play?  I for one couldn't care less where the a game takes place as long as Marquette wins, we could play all of our tournament games on the moon if it meant that we'd win 6 in a row.  I'm sure the only stat a competitor like you cares about the final score.  You cited both Utah St, and Murray St earlier, and I know I don't have to remind you that we won those games.  You're literally complaining about Marquette NCAA tournament victories, that is the part of this that is just baffling to me.  For someone that only seems to look at the final score, you sure seem to care a lot about where the game took place.

You claim that you don't trust the committee, you claim that it's only because of location rather than seed, you cite three games in the last decade where we've played at a potential significant disadvantage because of location.  All three games followed chalk, with us winning 2, and losing 1 in a blowout.  If our loss to SCAR had some serious home cooking, or was even a single digit margin, you may have a point, but you have yet to give an example where the location of the game (which you said is the only reason why you don't trust the committee) actually effected the outcome.  That is why it seems like you are just complaining for the sake of complaining.

Okay whatever DJ...you don't have an issue with a top 4 PROTECTED seed(like MU will be this year), getting sent somewhere nowhere close to home when rules/procedures state they are supposed to play as close to home as possible. Or a lower seed playing close to home when there is ZERO reason that should ever happen. None whatsoever. Yes, all I care about is MU winning the games, but..I want them to beat who they play, every game, and I want them to have every possible advantage they can on their way. When I have some time tomorrow, I will go through some past tournaments and give you some examples of overseeded,/underseeded teams in the past(not just MU). One that stands out to me, and as much as it pains me to say it...what about Wisconsin a couple of years ago when they were an 8. Pretty much EVERYONE agreed they were underseeded .

Two that also jump out to me just last year...TCU had NO BUSINESS being a 6 seed last year, and Tennessee had no business being a 3 seed.

[DoctorV]

Except for the games we’ve already played

[Its DJOver]

Okay whatever DJ...you don't have an issue with a top 4 PROTECTED seed(like MU will be this year), getting sent somewhere nowhere close to home when rules/procedures state they are supposed to play as close to home as possible. Or a lower seed playing close to home when there is ZERO reason that should ever happen. None whatsoever. Yes, all I care about is MU winning the games, but..I want them to beat who they play, every game, and I want them to have every possible advantage they can on their way. When I have some time tomorrow, I will go through some past tournaments and give you some examples of overseeded,/underseeded teams in the past(not just MU). One that stands out to me, and as much as it pains me to say it...what about Wisconsin a couple of years ago when they were an 8. Pretty much EVERYONE agreed they were underseeded .

Two that also jump out to me just last year...TCU had NO BUSINESS being a 6 seed last year, and Tennessee had no business being a 3 seed.

You do know that the top 16 teams in the country are not evenly distributed geographically right?  Just because you get a "protected seed" does not mean that you are guaranteed to be playing in you backyard. 4 "protected seeds" will be in San Jose/SLC, and there is really only 1 team projected to get a "protected seed" that would benefit from playing in those locations.  That means that three "protected seeds" will be unhappy going out west, and you know what, one of them may be drawn against a New Mexico State, or Washington, and that sucks for them, but that does not mean that there was some conspiracy against them.

[muguru]

You do know that the top 16 teams in the country are not evenly distributed geographically right?  Just because you get a "protected seed" does not mean that you are guaranteed to be playing in you backyard. 4 "protected seeds" will be in San Jose/SLC, and there is really only 1 team projected to get a "protected seed" that would benefit from playing in those locations.  That means that three "protected seeds" will be unhappy going out west, and you know what, one of them may be drawn against a New Mexico State, or Washington, and that sucks for them, but that does not mean that there was some conspiracy against them.

Whatever, you are a tool...SHOW ME WHERE I SAID ANYTHING WAS A CONSPIRACY?? I did not. I simply said, I do NOT trust the committee to get it right with seeding, location, teams etc. And time and time again, they have proven to not get it right all the time. So you trust a bunch of humans to get it right every single time. That's your prerogative. It's my prerogative to NOt trust them to get it right every single time, is that fair??

[Its DJOver]

Whatever, you are a tool...SHOW ME WHERE I SAID ANYTHING WAS A CONSPIRACY?? I did not. I simply said, I do NOT trust the committee to get it right with seeding, location, teams etc. And time and time again, they have proven to not get it right all the time. So you trust a bunch of humans to get it right every single time. That's your prerogative. It's my prerogative to NOt trust them to get it right every single time, is that fair??

No I don't trust people to get things right every single time, because many times there is no right solution.
 This year will be a perfect example of that.  There are zero potential brackets that allow all 16 "protected seeds" to play close to home.  That's just the way it worked out this year.  Someone will be SOL and will have to play a game on the west coast.  You seem to think that there is some magic solution that makes everyone happy when that is simply not the case.  If you want to blame anyone, blame the PAC12.

[brewcity77]

Huh?  Uhh, no, the biggest game of the season is Sunday, against Creighton, as stated in the post...

I'm really trying not to continue giving you crap for this repetition. How about you stick with Rocky's suggestion of just letting it go so the rest of us can do the same? 👍🏼

[Its DJOver]

What's sad about you saying a 4...Is with as much as I don't trust the committee, That loss last night is EXACTLY the thing in my opinion the committee would use to drop MU to a 4 seed. MU is the type of team that they would punish for one loss like that, whereas the Michigan's, MSU's, Duke's of the world could lose the rest of their games and not drop a seed line. I hate it, but that's the way it is...it shouldn't be though.

While not using the words "conspiracy theory", this line of thinking suggests that BBs get prefferential treatment, when in reality, they just have better resumes.  Mich, MSU, and Duke all have more Q1A wins than MU.

[muguru]

While not using the words "conspiracy theory", this line of thinking suggests that BBs get prefferential treatment, when in reality, they just have better resumes.  Mich, MSU, and Duke all have more Q1A wins than MU.

I get that, but that should NOT forgive them for losses like it seemingly will do. You can have 9 Q1 wins, but if you lose to say Penn St, Indiana, TCU, or whoever, a loss is a loss, and all teams should be treated equally as such. Not so far as who you lost to(some are better then others), but if one team is gonna get dinged for a loss, then so to should another for an "equal" loss.

Q1A should NEVER be a thing...it's biased towards the conferences like the ACC etc that have many more opportunities for Q1A wins then other conferences do. So, if that is always going to be the biggest factor for selection committee's, then schools that aren't in the ACC, SEC etc aren't playing on a level field and never will be. For example, Duke could theoretically get 2 Q1A wins in a WEEK. Butler, MU Xavier etc, may not have a chance to get that many in a year.

Now if we narrow it down to just Q1 wins(which is the proper way to do it in my opinion), then MU has more Q1 wins then Purdue, Michigan, UNC, Tennessee, Gonzaga and the same amount as Duke. They have to have some sort of "check and balance" to differentiate and understand that some schools just don;t have the same chances for Q1A wins. So...keep in mind they changed this really when no one was paying attention, and the question is why?? They had it Q1, Q2, etc. Why the need to define them even further?? Maybe, because, the playing field becomes more equal if you just leave it the way it was(the example of MU having more Q1 wins then the schools I listed above), and god forbid the committee have to explain why someone with more Q1 teams then someone got seeded two lines lower. This way they can just say more Q1A wins(even though they may not have as many overall Q1 wins. That's a cop out.

[Its DJOver]

Dude, I tried to follow your train of thought, I really did, but I got completely lost trying to decipher your last paragraph. 

The ACC is a better conference than the Big East so of course there are going to be more opportunities for Q1A games, the teams still have to win them though.  We had an opportunity for a Q1A win literally yesterday, and we didn't rise to the occasion.

If you get rid of the Q1A/Q1B split then our win @Butler would be seen the same way as Duke's win @Virginia, they'd both be Q1.  Personally I think Duke's win @Virginia is better than our win @Butler so it makes sense that they would get a bigger resume boost than us.  Big enough to make up for a home loss to Syracuse even.  Mich blowout win @Nova (who just beat us BTW) more than makes up for a loss @PennSt.  MSU win @Mich more than makes up for a loss to I4 (who beat us by 23 BTW). 

While not benefiting us a ton this year, I fully believe that the Q1A/Q1B split was beneficial in more accurately determining the quality of teams resumes.

[PorkysButthole]

What's sad about you saying a 4...Is with as much as I don't trust the committee, That loss last night is EXACTLY the thing in my opinion the committee would use to drop MU to a 4 seed. MU is the type of team that they would punish for one loss like that, whereas the Michigan's, MSU's, Duke's of the world could lose the rest of their games and not drop a seed line. I hate it, but that's the way it is...it shouldn't be though.

Can’t disagree with this.  Unfortunately it’s going to be a while before MU receives the same benefit of the doubt as the Blue Bloods.  Perhaps if we have comparably spectacular seasons for the next 5 years in a row we might be on the precipice of Blue Blood status, But if history is any guide, coach probably wouldn’t stay here after achieving that level of success.    Wish it weren’t the case but until our program defies its own  history, Porky will continue to share Guru’s cynicism.