Program trajectory and wojo

[Cheeks]

I don’t have the right to post my opinion?

Sure, but don’t pretend it is based on anything other than emotion.

 You still have not explained the talking head data charge.  I’m sure you know Jeff Sagarin is a MIT grad in mathematics, sports statistician.  Ken Pomeroy is an atmospheric scientist teaching at Univ of Utah but spends most of his time and earning a living doing college basketball stats.  Are those your talking heads b3cause the other three metrics don’t have a talking head behind them.

[Goose]

Cheeks
I do not think you have brought your best stuff of late. You can spin, compare and share data all day long and that is fine with me. Fact is, this team/program is light years away from competing day in and day out with the winning teams the last two days.

Sure, we could spring and upset or two, we could have done that any game the last 3-4 years. Big frickin deal, we can spring an occasional upset. If that floats your boat, there are plenty of MU faithful on here that would join that cruise.

[1SE]

A point is made earlier on the thread which is something I've been preaching for years. Whether or not you think the program has been making incremental improvements over the past 5 years, it is completely without argument that we are NOT getting value for money with this trajectory.

Of the 17 programs that spend $10 million or more on MBB, Mizzou, Illinois and TCU are the only other teams without a NCAA win in the past 5 years, and TCU at least has a NIT championship to show for the spend. (G-town is also yikes - 17 million and no NCAA in the past 4).

At least we're still a profitable program - but how long can that last without success? I think we might as well see what this team can do next year (but if we wouldn't lose anyone by firing Wojo and promoting Stan I'd give that a shot). But with no NCAA win next year we need to change course.

To repeat Topper's question (which I didn't see any answer to) how many years without a NCAA win is ok? Chico, Tower?

Duke   $19,507,686.00   $34,398,285.00   ACC
Kentucky   $19,180,059.00   $27,965,227.00   SEC
Georgetown   $17,702,377.00   $17,702,377.00   Big East
Louisville   $17,065,364.00   $43,960,492.00   ACC
TCU   $15,168,356.00   $12,889,761.00   Big 12
Syracuse   $13,260,311.00   $29,322,084.00   ACC
Indiana   $12,855,019.00   $24,560,829.00   Big Ten
Marquette   $11,803,633.00   $19,327,629.00   Big East
Texas   $11,430,591.00   $17,567,914.00   Big 12
Kansas   $11,126,047.00   $18,266,319.00   Big 12
Villanova   $11,120,378.00   $11,120,378.00   Big East
Florida State   $11,029,101.00   $13,252,028.00   ACC
Michigan State   $10,975,215.00   $17,548,611.00   Big Ten
Illinois   $10,404,451.00   $15,827,099.00   Big Ten
North Carolina   $10,293,415.00   $21,408,475.00   ACC
Washington   $10,154,262.00   $9,683,868.00   Pac-12
Missouri   $10,065,698.00   $10,065,698.00   SEC

https://www.midmajormadness.com/2018/6/11/17441968/ncaa-revenue-expense-statistics-college-basketball-2016-gonzaga-mid-major

[Class71]

Apparently we like to chase windmills in attempting to change people's minds on Wojo. So I will not attempt an impossibility. Logic is gone and emotions lead each of our positions. Time will tell who is correct but at that point most will have moved on to something else. It simply is too painful to watch a horrible struggle.

[jesmu84]

I know what it's about..and the ONLY reason you Wojo slurpers can say the program is trending positively is because he went to the NCAA'S this year after coming off an NIT season..stop and think about that..the ONLY way it's possible to have an upward trend is to go up from where you were..in this instance..it was NCAA(upward from prior seasons), NIT(DOWN) from previous season..and now NCAA(up from previous season)...

Well..see..here's the problem with your "upward trajectory"..it's 3 letters..NIT...that's sandwiched in between two NCAA'S..and that's the ONLY reason it's on an upward trend now..my point being..you replace those three letters..NIT with 4 letters..NCAA like it should be and there wouldn't be an upward trend for you Wojo slurpers to keep pointing to.

Here is an upward trend..as an example..

Year 1..NCAA appearance
Year 2..NCAA appearance..advance to round of 32.
Year 3..NCAA appearance..Sweet 16
Year 4..NCAA Elite 8
Year 5..NCAA Final Four

That's an upward trend..and how it should look..2 ncaa blowout losses sandwiched around an NIT by any measure is at best stagnant. At a program like Saint Louis or Old Dominion for example im sure theyd be extactic with the "upward" trend that MU is on..that should NEVER be ok at Marquette however.

So we agree on the positive trend over the 5 years. Great! Now let's see how high it can go!

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

A point is made earlier on the thread which is something I've been preaching for years. Whether or not you think the program has been making incremental improvements over the past 5 years, it is completely without argument that we are NOT getting value for money with this trajectory.

Of the 17 programs that spend $10 million or more on MBB, Mizzou, Illinois and TCU are the only other teams without a NCAA win in the past 5 years, and TCU at least has a NIT championship to show for the spend. (G-town is also yikes - 17 million and no NCAA in the past 4).

At least we're still a profitable program - but how long can that last without success? I think we might as well see what this team can do next year (but if we wouldn't lose anyone by firing Wojo and promoting Stan I'd give that a shot). But with no NCAA win next year we need to change course.

To repeat Topper's question (which I didn't see any answer to) how many years without a NCAA win is ok? Chico, Tower?

Duke   $19,507,686.00   $34,398,285.00   ACC
Kentucky   $19,180,059.00   $27,965,227.00   SEC
Georgetown   $17,702,377.00   $17,702,377.00   Big East
Louisville   $17,065,364.00   $43,960,492.00   ACC
TCU   $15,168,356.00   $12,889,761.00   Big 12
Syracuse   $13,260,311.00   $29,322,084.00   ACC
Indiana   $12,855,019.00   $24,560,829.00   Big Ten
Marquette   $11,803,633.00   $19,327,629.00   Big East
Texas   $11,430,591.00   $17,567,914.00   Big 12
Kansas   $11,126,047.00   $18,266,319.00   Big 12
Villanova   $11,120,378.00   $11,120,378.00   Big East
Florida State   $11,029,101.00   $13,252,028.00   ACC
Michigan State   $10,975,215.00   $17,548,611.00   Big Ten
Illinois   $10,404,451.00   $15,827,099.00   Big Ten
North Carolina   $10,293,415.00   $21,408,475.00   ACC
Washington   $10,154,262.00   $9,683,868.00   Pac-12
Missouri   $10,065,698.00   $10,065,698.00   SEC

https://www.midmajormadness.com/2018/6/11/17441968/ncaa-revenue-expense-statistics-college-basketball-2016-gonzaga-mid-major

As has been explained many times before, the reason we are top 10 in expense is because we rent out our arena from an NBA team. The only other team on that list that has that expense is Georgetown. I believe all the others own their arena. If you take that expense out and replaced it with the normal arena costs that all other schools have to pay we wouldn't be top 10. I'm not sure where we would be, but it would be a very pedestrian number for a high major.

And we are getting bang for our buck. Basketball at the end of the day is a marketing tool for the university and it still has a positive ROI. That's not close to changing. You ask how long can we keep that up? Well we just put up our best numbers in years so I guess its being kept up just fine.

As to your question, you are asking the wrong question. Tournament wins is a meaningless stat. Goal is to build a winning program. Best sign of that is consistently earning high seeds in the tournament. You continue to do that and the tournament wins will come. Is there a theoretical line of "wow we've gotten a high seed X numbers of years in a row but have still haven't won an NCAA tournament game"? Probably, I have no idea what that line is. Luckily, I don't think any coach has ever tested that line. The closest example I could think of is Mick Cronin who has gotten to the tournament 9 years in a row with mostly high seeds but has only made it to the second weekend once.

[vogue65]

As has been explained many times before, the reason we are top 10 in expense is because we rent out our arena from an NBA team. The only other team on that list that has that expense is Georgetown. I believe all the others own their arena. If you take that expense out and replaced it with the normal arena costs that all other schools have to pay we wouldn't be top 10. I'm not sure where we would be, but it would be a very pedestrian number for a high major.

And we are getting bang for our buck. Basketball at the end of the day is a marketing tool for the university and it still has a positive ROI. That's not close to changing. You ask how long can we keep that up? Well we just put up our best numbers in years so I guess its being kept up just fine.

As to your question, you are asking the wrong question. Tournament wins is a meaningless stat. Goal is to build a winning program. Best sign of that is consistently earning high seeds in the tournament. You continue to do that and the tournament wins will come. Is there a theoretical line of "wow we've gotten a high seed X numbers of years in a row but have still haven't won an NCAA tournament game"? Probably, I have no idea what that line is. Luckily, I don't think any coach has ever tested that line. The closest example I could think of is Mick Cronin who has gotten to the tournament 9 years in a row with mostly high seeds but has only made it to the second weekend once.

All that talk, bottom line, cost of arena rental, thanks.

[Eldon]

As has been explained many times before, the reason we are top 10 in expense is because we rent out our arena from an NBA team. The only other team on that list that has that expense is Georgetown. I believe all the others own their arena. If you take that expense out and replaced it with the normal arena costs that all other schools have to pay we wouldn't be top 10. I'm not sure where we would be, but it would be a very pedestrian number for a high major.

And we are getting bang for our buck. Basketball at the end of the day is a marketing tool for the university and it still has a positive ROI. That's not close to changing. You ask how long can we keep that up? Well we just put up our best numbers in years so I guess its being kept up just fine.

As to your question, you are asking the wrong question. Tournament wins is a meaningless stat. Goal is to build a winning program. Best sign of that is consistently earning high seeds in the tournament. You continue to do that and the tournament wins will come. Is there a theoretical line of "wow we've gotten a high seed X numbers of years in a row but have still haven't won an NCAA tournament game"? Probably, I have no idea what that line is. Luckily, I don't think any coach has ever tested that line. The closest example I could think of is Mick Cronin who has gotten to the tournament 9 years in a row with mostly high seeds but has only made it to the second weekend once.

Nova plays four games per year in the Wells Fargo Center (home of the Sixers).  Not sure on the cost.

The other thing that I would point out is that basketball team expenditures can be seen--as you point out--as a marketing expense.  Wojo may not be producing ROI in terms of tourney credits, but Markus's 50-point games, being interviewed on ESPN, Dan Patrick, etc., has a real ROI component to it.

[Cheeks]

A point is made earlier on the thread which is something I've been preaching for years. Whether or not you think the program has been making incremental improvements over the past 5 years, it is completely without argument that we are NOT getting value for money with this trajectory.

Of the 17 programs that spend $10 million or more on MBB, Mizzou, Illinois and TCU are the only other teams without a NCAA win in the past 5 years, and TCU at least has a NIT championship to show for the spend. (G-town is also yikes - 17 million and no NCAA in the past 4).

At least we're still a profitable program - but how long can that last without success? I think we might as well see what this team can do next year (but if we wouldn't lose anyone by firing Wojo and promoting Stan I'd give that a shot). But with no NCAA win next year we need to change course.

To repeat Topper's question (which I didn't see any answer to) how many years without a NCAA win is ok? Chico, Tower?

Duke   $19,507,686.00   $34,398,285.00   ACC
Kentucky   $19,180,059.00   $27,965,227.00   SEC
Georgetown   $17,702,377.00   $17,702,377.00   Big East
Louisville   $17,065,364.00   $43,960,492.00   ACC
TCU   $15,168,356.00   $12,889,761.00   Big 12
Syracuse   $13,260,311.00   $29,322,084.00   ACC
Indiana   $12,855,019.00   $24,560,829.00   Big Ten
Marquette   $11,803,633.00   $19,327,629.00   Big East
Texas   $11,430,591.00   $17,567,914.00   Big 12
Kansas   $11,126,047.00   $18,266,319.00   Big 12
Villanova   $11,120,378.00   $11,120,378.00   Big East
Florida State   $11,029,101.00   $13,252,028.00   ACC
Michigan State   $10,975,215.00   $17,548,611.00   Big Ten
Illinois   $10,404,451.00   $15,827,099.00   Big Ten
North Carolina   $10,293,415.00   $21,408,475.00   ACC
Washington   $10,154,262.00   $9,683,868.00   Pac-12
Missouri   $10,065,698.00   $10,065,698.00   SEC

https://www.midmajormadness.com/2018/6/11/17441968/ncaa-revenue-expense-statistics-college-basketball-2016-gonzaga-mid-major

How many times are these numbers going to be used incorrectly? 

In terms of ROI, how was attendance this year?  How was viewership ratings of MU games?  How is recruiting going?  How was exposure where MU was receiving national attention?  All of that has value and in some cases hard dollars, which ROIs are measured.

Our ROI this year was very good.  This notion that it was bad this year is laughable.  Off the hook laughable.  MU sold more tickets, received more media impressions, etc, etc, in years.  Now, if attendance suffers down the road, ticket sales are off, etc, you may have a point....but from a pure ROI perspective, this has been the best ROI we have had in 7 years at least.

[Cheeks]

Cheeks
I do not think you have brought your best stuff of late. You can spin, compare and share data all day long and that is fine with me. Fact is, this team/program is light years away from competing day in and day out with the winning teams the last two days.

Sure, we could spring and upset or two, we could have done that any game the last 3-4 years. Big frickin deal, we can spring an occasional upset. If that floats your boat, there are plenty of MU faithful on here that would join that cruise.

Well, that’s fine.  I think you are arguing two different things.  Whether we can compete with these other teams the last few days is purely subjective, I’m using data.  How many times did we here Wisconsin was going nowhere because they weren’t athletic enough and then we see them in Sweet 16 or Final Four?  Until games are played, it is purely subjective.  Iowa had the same collapse we did, they damn near made the Sweet 16.  I guarantee you 99% of people here did not see that coming.

Our team is constructed as a three point shooting team, when we hit we can beat anyone.  Do you think our team is not as talented as Loyola Chicago? You know it is, but they managed to get to a Final Four. 

Do we need more athletes?  Yes.  Do we need more drivers?  Yes.  Is our team complete?  No.  We keep taking steps forward, I get that p pole want them faster.

[Goose]

Cheeks

Loyola proved anything can happen, once. Not interested in MU have Sr. Jean moment and then disappearing.

[Hards Alumni]

How many times are these numbers going to be used incorrectly? 

In terms of ROI, how was attendance this year?  How was viewership ratings of MU games?  How is recruiting going?  How was exposure where MU was receiving national attention?  All of that has value and in some cases hard dollars, which ROIs are measured.

Our ROI this year was very good.  This notion that it was bad this year is laughable.  Off the hook laughable.  MU sold more tickets, received more media impressions, etc, etc, in years.  Now, if attendance suffers down the road, ticket sales are off, etc, you may have a point....but from a pure ROI perspective, this has been the best ROI we have had in 7 years at least.

I think the return should be based on post season success, not financials.

I think that gets the root of the problem here.

[Marcus92]

I posted this in another thread -- but have been following this one as well, and wanted to share my thoughts.

I think everyone here wants the same thing. Namely, Marquette competing for and winning a second national title.

So is Wojo the right coach to get us there?

What winning coaches look like
NCAA appearances and high seeds aren't the end goal. But they are a key measure of progress and success along the way. It's worth considering that only 8 current Division I head coaches have won a national title:

Mike Krzyzewski (1991, 1992, 2001, 2010, 2015)
Roy Williams (2005, 2009, 2017)
Jay Wright (2016, 2018)
Jim Boeheim (2003)
John Calipari (2012)
Tom Izzo (2000)
Bill Self (2008)
Tubby Smith (1998)

On average, they won their first national championship in their 16th season as a head coach. It took Boeheim 27 years. Wright 22 years. Calipari 20 years. And all of them except Williams have had first-round exits from the NCAA tournament. Jay Wright, in fact, has lost in the first round 5 times. What they had in common up to that point was making the tournament often, and earning high seeds.

What winning programs look like
Here are the 11 Division I programs that have earned NCAA bids each of the past 3 seasons, while averaging better than a 5 seed:

North Carolina - 2017 (1 seed), 2018 (2), 2019 (1)
Duke - 2017 (2), 2018 (2), 2019 (1)
Gonzaga - 2017 (1), 2018 (4), 2019 (1)
Kansas - 2017 (1), 2018 (1), 2019 (4)
Virginia - 2017 (5), 2018 (1), 2019 (1)
Villanova - 2017 (1), 2018 (1), 2019 (6)
Kentucky - 2017 (2), 2018 (5), 2019 (2)
Purdue - 2017 (4), 2018 (2), 2019 (3)
Michigan - 2017 (7), 2018 (3), 2019 (2)
Florida St. - 2017 (3), 2018 (9), 2019 (4)
Michigan St. - 2017 (9), 2018 (3), 2019 (2)

Notice anything? Williams at NC, Coach K at Duke, Self at Kansas, Wright at Nova, Calipari at UK, Izzo at MSU. Six of the 8 coaches who've won a national title are on this list. What that tells me is NCAA appearances and seeding count. (And that Mark Few and Tony Bennett are the most likely candidates to celebrate their first national title).

What's that got to do with Wojo?
Obviously, MU isn't there yet. And honestly, chances are Wojo won't be a Hall of Fame coach like Coach K. However...

When you look at the records of successful coaches early in their careers -- not just one individual coach, but a broad cross-spectrum of them -- Wojo's first 5 seasons compare favorably. You might believe he should have accomplished more. But history suggests that not many coaches do.

To the argument about winning zero NCAA games, I call bulls**t. Hugely disappointing? Yes. Meaningful? Not likely. No statistician would call 2 NCAA games anything close to a reliable data set. It's 2 data points. How can you judge anything based on that, compared to a season's worth of games? With almost all of this team coming back, the bad loss to Murray State could motivate them even more for next season.

I believe Marquette isn't far from joining the ranks of those 11 programs listed above. Like many here, I have big concerns about how the season ended. But MU has still appeared in 2 of the past 3 NCAA tournaments and earned a better seed each time. If that progress continues next season (winning the Big East and earning a 3 seed or better), I'll feel even more confident that we're on the right path.

[Silkk the Shaka]

I posted this in another thread -- but have been following this one as well, and wanted to share my thoughts.

I think everyone here wants the same thing. Namely, Marquette competing for and winning a second national title.

So is Wojo the right coach to get us there?

What winning coaches look like
NCAA appearances and high seeds aren't the end goal. But they are a key measure of progress and success along the way. It's worth considering that only 8 current Division I head coaches have won a national title:

Mike Krzyzewski (1991, 1992, 2001, 2010, 2015)
Roy Williams (2005, 2009, 2017)
Jay Wright (2016, 2018)
Jim Boeheim (2003)
John Calipari (2012)
Tom Izzo (2000)
Bill Self (2008)
Tubby Smith (1998)

On average, they won their first national championship in their 16th season as a head coach. It took Boeheim 27 years. Wright 22 years. Calipari 20 years. And all of them except Williams have had first-round exits from the NCAA tournament. Jay Wright, in fact, has lost in the first round 5 times. What they had in common up to that point was making the tournament often, and earning high seeds.

What winning programs look like
Here are the 11 Division I programs that have earned NCAA bids each of the past 3 seasons, while averaging better than a 5 seed:

North Carolina - 2017 (1 seed), 2018 (2), 2019 (1)
Duke - 2017 (2), 2018 (2), 2019 (1)
Gonzaga - 2017 (1), 2018 (4), 2019 (1)
Kansas - 2017 (1), 2018 (1), 2019 (4)
Virginia - 2017 (5), 2018 (1), 2019 (1)
Villanova - 2017 (1), 2018 (1), 2019 (6)
Kentucky - 2017 (2), 2018 (5), 2019 (2)
Purdue - 2017 (4), 2018 (2), 2019 (3)
Michigan - 2017 (7), 2018 (3), 2019 (2)
Florida St. - 2017 (3), 2018 (9), 2019 (4)
Michigan St. - 2017 (9), 2018 (3), 2019 (2)

Notice anything? Williams at NC, Coach K at Duke, Self at Kansas, Wright at Nova, Calipari at UK, Izzo at MSU. Six of the 8 coaches who've won a national title are on this list. What that tells me is NCAA appearances and seeding count. (And that Mark Few and Tony Bennett are the most likely candidates to celebrate their first national title).

What's that got to do with Wojo?
Obviously, MU isn't there yet. And honestly, chances are Wojo won't be a Half of Fame coach like Coach K. However...

When you look at the records of successful coaches early in their careers -- not just one individual coach, but a broad cross-spectrum of them -- Wojo's first 5 seasons compare favorably. You might believe he should have accomplished more. But history suggests that not many coaches do.

To the argument about winning zero NCAA games, I call bulls**t. Hugely disappointing? Yes. Meaningful? Not likely. No statistician would call 2 NCAA games anything close to a reliable data set. It's 2 data points. How can you judge anything based on that, compared to a season's worth of games? With almost all of this team coming back, the bad loss to Murray State could motivate them even more for next season.

I believe Marquette isn't far from joining the ranks of those 11 programs listed above. Like many here, I have big concerns about how the season ended. But MU has still appeared in 2 of the past 3 NCAA tournaments and earned a better seed each time. If that progress continues next season (winning the Big East and earning a 3 seed or better), I'll feel even more confident that we're on the right path.

There is certainly a compelling bull case to be made in Wojo's favor, and you laid it out very well here.


The final line here is exactly where I'm at:

"If that progress continues next season (winning the Big East and earning a 3 seed or better), I'll feel even more confident that we're on the right path."

Sucks we'll have to wait that long to find out, but them's the breaks.

[Cheeks]

I think the return should be based on post season success, not financials.

I think that gets the root of the problem here.

Yup, you and others are in that basket.  That’s fine, but as someone who actually worked in athletic departments I can tell you point blank that is not the sole criteria.  It is part of it, for sure, but a lot more goes into it when looking at that return.  That is especially true for a school like MU that doesn’t have football receipts to count on and because basketball is so tied to the identity of the school. 

Off the court stuff at UAB or Fresno State....not that big a deal.  Off the court stuff at Gonzaga, MU, off the field stuff at Notre Dame....stays with you for years.  Also part of the equation.  Balancing act has to be done and I know there is a segment of our fan base that doesn’t want to hear that reality.

[muguru]

So we agree on the positive trend over the 5 years. Great! Now let's see how high it can go!

LOL you are a tool...I love how every response you have given me, you conveniently "skim" over the most important parts of my post...Did you see what I posted is a positive trend?? THAT is a positive trend, and how it should be.

[muguru]

As has been explained many times before, the reason we are top 10 in expense is because we rent out our arena from an NBA team. The only other team on that list that has that expense is Georgetown. I believe all the others own their arena. If you take that expense out and replaced it with the normal arena costs that all other schools have to pay we wouldn't be top 10. I'm not sure where we would be, but it would be a very pedestrian number for a high major.

And we are getting bang for our buck. Basketball at the end of the day is a marketing tool for the university and it still has a positive ROI. That's not close to changing. You ask how long can we keep that up? Well we just put up our best numbers in years so I guess its being kept up just fine.

As to your question, you are asking the wrong question. Tournament wins is a meaningless stat. Goal is to build a winning program. Best sign of that is consistently earning high seeds in the tournament. You continue to do that and the tournament wins will come. Is there a theoretical line of "wow we've gotten a high seed X numbers of years in a row but have still haven't won an NCAA tournament game"? Probably, I have no idea what that line is. Luckily, I don't think any coach has ever tested that line. The closest example I could think of is Mick Cronin who has gotten to the tournament 9 years in a row with mostly high seeds but has only made it to the second weekend once.

So what happens when the powers that be at MU worry about selling tickets at Fiserv?? What happens when season ticket holders start to cancel?? You keep going back to this earning a high seed in the tournament. Sure, they were a 5..but have you forgotten that they were a minimum of a 3 before the epic, unprecedented collapse at the end of the season?? It's important to understand how they got to a 5...and where they were before that. It doesn't look that impressive then, all things considered.  To me a 5 isn't that high of a seed. a 1,2 or 3...maybe a 4 is a high seed. Look at what's left in the tournament...all the 1,2,3's are still there, 3 of the 4's are still there...one 5 and a 12.

[MUBurrow]

So what happens when the powers that be at MU worry about selling tickets at Fiserv?? What happens when season ticket holders start to cancel?? You keep going back to this earning a high seed in the tournament. Sure, they were a 5..but have you forgotten that they were a minimum of a 3 before the epic, unprecedented collapse at the end of the season?? It's important to understand how they got to a 5...and where they were before that. It doesn't look that impressive then, all things considered.  To me a 5 isn't that high of a seed. a 1,2 or 3...maybe a 4 is a high seed. Look at what's left in the tournament...all the 1,2,3's are still there, 3 of the 4's are still there...one 5 and a 12.

Even if next year's team is "only" on pace for a 5 seed throughout the season, I guarantee you only a statistically insignificant number of season ticket holders will start to cancel. You can want Wojo fired for the collapse because you think its underachieving, but the $ and attendance won't bear out the University impacting consequences you're projecting here.

[jesmu84]

LOL you are a tool...I love how every response you have given me, you conveniently "skim" over the most important parts of my post...Did you see what I posted is a positive trend?? THAT is a positive trend, and how it should be.

I'm not skimming over anything. I haven't seen one person say they were happy with how the season ended. But the year over year trend is absolutely positive. No objective measure says otherwise.

Regarding your hypothetical positive trend... sure. That is an example of one. Isn't it possible that MU could get there? Isn't it possible that could be year 10-15 of Wojo?

As an aside, I find your hypothetical to be horribly unrealistic. Is there an example of that exact scenario in history?

[Cheeks]

So what happens when the powers that be at MU worry about selling tickets at Fiserv?? What happens when season ticket holders start to cancel?? You keep going back to this earning a high seed in the tournament. Sure, they were a 5..but have you forgotten that they were a minimum of a 3 before the epic, unprecedented collapse at the end of the season?? It's important to understand how they got to a 5...and where they were before that. It doesn't look that impressive then, all things considered.  To me a 5 isn't that high of a seed. a 1,2 or 3...maybe a 4 is a high seed. Look at what's left in the tournament...all the 1,2,3's are still there, 3 of the 4's are still there...one 5 and a 12.

If that happens, it will be addressed.  So far that isn't the case....right?   

How about this, what happens if we win the Big East next year and put another good product on the floor....then what?

[jesmu84]

If that happens, it will be addressed.  So far that isn't the case....right?   

How about this, what happens if we win the Big East next year and put another good product on the floor....then what?

Then guru will b*tch that we didn't win by enough.

[muguru]

Then guru will b*tch that we didn't win by enough.

Nope...all I care about is that they win, don't care about margin other than, it's much easier on my ohysical well being if the ywin comfortably. 

[jesmu84]

Nope...all I care about is that they win, don't care about margin other than, it's much easier on my ohysical well being if the ywin comfortably. 

Doubtful. They won this season. A lot. Enough to finish 2nd in conference and get a 5 seed in the tourney.

Yet all you've done is whine since the season ended.

So, somehow I don't believe you now.

[Cheeks]

Doubtful. They won this season. A lot. Enough to finish 2nd in conference and get a 5 seed in the tourney.

Yet all you've done is whine since the season ended.

So, somehow I don't believe you now.

Whined plenty DURING the season, quiet when we won, however.

[muguru]

Whined plenty DURING the season, quiet when we won, however.

I have explained that many times...I EXPECT them to win...therefore, when they do win, it's not surprising to me, thus there really isn't anything to talk about for me. Most people here seem shocked win they win some games they didn't think they were supposed to(in their eyes). heck some people flat out say "I expect them to lose this game". I NEVER EVER EVER expect them to lose.