Way Too Early 2019/20 Pre-Season Predictions

[muguru]

You can say it all you want, but your posts scream small time.

How many 9 seeds or lower have won the national championship in the past 34 years? I'll give you a hint, it rhymes with hero.

So your point is the only thing that guarantees a national champion is winning the national championship? Groundbreaking logic there.

Only 4 National Champions had a seed lower than 3 in the past 34 years. That's a pretty strong correlation. Best path to success is to get as many of those top 3 seeds as possible.

Sure it does, but wake me when MU gets to the level that they are knocking down 3 seeds repeatedly. Believe me, no one would love it more if they were than me, but as soon as i say that someone comes along as says "that's not being realistic", so whatever.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

It does?? Wonder what Gonzaga would say about that?? And a great regular season is NOT a guarantee of post season success, point being, you can have 10-12 GREAT regular seasons in a row, but it doesn't guarantee you will cut down the nets, now does it??

Why are you obsessed with the word guarantee all of the sudden? No one is guaranteed a national championship. But the higher the seed, the greater your chances.

I'm also not sure why you are bashing Gonzaga. Since they've started their run of great regular seasons they've had a lot more postseason success than we have.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Sure it does, but wake me when MU gets to the level that they are knocking down 3 seeds repeatedly. Believe me, no one would love it more if they were than me, but as soon as i say that someone comes along as says "that's not being realistic", so whatever.

I don't think anyone think that's not being realistic. What's not realistic is "THAT IT HAPPENS RIGHT MEOW OR ELSE!"

[brewcity77]

Sure it does, but wake me when MU gets to the level that they are knocking down 3 seeds repeatedly.

Are you going to sleep until then?

[Dr. Blackheart]

I don't think anyone think that's not being realistic. What's not realistic is "THAT IT HAPPENS RIGHT MEOW OR ELSE!"

[jesmu84]

It does?? Wonder what Gonzaga would say about that?? And a great regular season is NOT a guarantee of post season success, point being, you can have 10-12 GREAT regular seasons in a row, but it doesn't guarantee you will cut down the nets, now does it??

Yes, there is a correlation between regular season success and postseason success. Are you really this dense?

[jesmu84]

Sure it does, but wake me when MU gets to the level that they are knocking down 3 seeds repeatedly. Believe me, no one would love it more if they were than me, but as soon as i say that someone comes along as says "that's not being realistic", so whatever.

It does?? Wonder what Gonzaga would say about that?? And a great regular season is NOT a guarantee of post season success, point being, you can have 10-12 GREAT regular seasons in a row, but it doesn't guarantee you will cut down the nets, now does it??

Wait.... So it does or it doesn't...?

[muguru]

Why are you obsessed with the word guarantee all of the sudden? No one is guaranteed a national championship. But the higher the seed, the greater your chances.

I'm also not sure why you are bashing Gonzaga. Since they've started their run of great regular seasons they've had a lot more postseason success than we have.

Yes Gonzaga has had more postseason success..but they haven't won a National Championship(which is what you say matters and is most important and I don't disagree), despite numerous 1-3 seeds the past decade.

If MU had a regular season of 21-10 finished 4th in conference at 9-9, got a 6 or 7 seed in the NCAA's and won the National Championship..would you be lamenting the fact that they didn't have a very good regular season, or would that not matter because in the end, they cut down the nets?

[muguru]

Yes, there is a correlation between regular season success and postseason success. Are you really this dense?

Great! So MU as a 5 seed didn't really lose to a 12 seed this year? Well holy crap! Virginia as a 1 seed didn't lose to a 16 seed last year? Both had good regular seasons, right? Did that correlate?

How about the year the Patriots went 16-0 in the regular season but lost the Super Bowl? Or the Bucks this year that had the best record in the East, and didn't make the Eastern Conference Finals..Or the year UCONN won the NCAA tourney as a 7 seed..did those regular seasons "correlate" with those teams postseasons?

Are you really this dense?

[GoldenEagle323]

Great! So MU as a 5 seed didn't really lose to a 12 seed this year? Well holy crap! Virginia as a 1 seed didn't lose to a 16 seed last year? Both had good regular seasons, right? Did that correlate?

How about the year the Patriots went 16-0 in the regular season but lost the Super Bowl? Or the Bucks this year that had the best record in the East, and didn't make the Eastern Conference Finals..Or the year UCONN won the NCAA tourney as a 7 seed..did those regular seasons "correlate" with those teams postseasons?

Are you really this dense?

[MU82]

I'd rather have a conference championship than a sweet 16

It would be close for me, but I think I'd take the Sweet 16.

To me, the conference title in 2013 would have meant pretty little if we had lost that NCAA opener to Davidson.

Ask Virginia if the conference title made them feel better about losing to UMBC.

This is a personal preference issue, though, I recognize there. There isn't a "right" or "wrong" answer.

We all want both the conference title AND the Sweet 16 (and beyond).

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Yes Gonzaga has had more postseason success..but they haven't won a National Championship(which is what you say matters and is most important and I don't disagree), despite numerous 1-3 seeds the past decade.

I said Final Fours and National Championships matter. Gonzaga has been in more national championship games in the past three years than we have been in the past 41. And why is that the only example you are using? What about Duke? North Carolina? Villanova? Kentucky? Florida? Virginia? Kansas? They all have something in common, they started getting top seeds regularly to give themselves the best shot at a national championship.

If MU had a regular season of 21-10 finished 4th in conference at 9-9, got a 6 or 7 seed in the NCAA's and won the National Championship..would you be lamenting the fact that they didn't have a very good regular season, or would that not matter because in the end, they cut down the nets?

I would say that we were the 2nd worst and 2nd luckiest national champion in the past 35 years (or however long it took to make this happen). As happy as I would be, I would call us lucky, not good.

Great! So MU as a 5 seed didn't really lose to a 12 seed this year? Well holy crap! Virginia as a 1 seed didn't lose to a 16 seed last year? Both had good regular seasons, right? Did that correlate?

How about the year the Patriots went 16-0 in the regular season but lost the Super Bowl? Or the Bucks this year that had the best record in the East, and didn't make the Eastern Conference Finals..Or the year UCONN won the NCAA tourney as a 7 seed..did those regular seasons "correlate" with those teams postseasons?

Are you really this dense?

1. The Bucks made the Eastern Conference Finals. I think you meant the NBA Finals.
2. Correlation does not mean causation.
3. I'm glad you brought up UConn. What happened after they won the national championship? They missed the tournament the following season. Made the tourney as a bubble team the season after that. Since then, they have turned in three straight losing seasons. To use your other favorite example, which program do you think is better right now? Gonzaga or UConn?

Again Guru, you are thinking small time. The goal isn't to make one national championship and then never sniff it again. The goal is to be competing for a national championship every single season. The only way to do that is to consistently earn high seeds. Think bigger! Have some cajones!

[muguru]

I said Final Fours and National Championships matter. Gonzaga has been in more national championship games in the past three years than we have been in the past 41. And why is that the only example you are using? What about Duke? North Carolina? Villanova? Kentucky? Florida? Virginia? Kansas? They all have something in common, they started getting top seeds regularly to give themselves the best shot at a national championship.

I would say that we were the 2nd worst and 2nd luckiest national champion in the past 35 years (or however long it took to make this happen). As happy as I would be, I would call us lucky, not good.

1. The Bucks made the Eastern Conference Finals. I think you meant the NBA Finals.
2. Correlation does not mean causation.
3. I'm glad you brought up UConn. What happened after they won the national championship? They missed the tournament the following season. Made the tourney as a bubble team the season after that. Since then, they have turned in three straight losing seasons. To use your other favorite example, which program do you think is better right now? Gonzaga or UConn?

Again Guru, you are thinking small time. The goal isn't to make one national championship and then never sniff it again. The goal is to be competing for a national championship every single season. The only way to do that is to consistently earn high seeds. Think bigger! Have some cajones!

You say that, and people applaud you, when I have brought that up in the past, I have been told repeatedly that "that isn't realistic for MU", or I have to "accept what MU is as a program". You want me to think bigger(which I think bigger then most I'd say, there are posts to prove it), yet when I mention it...I get told it's not realistic...what exactly am I supposed to do??

How about this?? You have to walk before you can run, right?? So let's see Wojo win an NCAA game FIRST, before we worry about/talk about getting regularly high seeds, ok?? It's sad that after 5 years we still have to discuss winning an NCAA game, but here we are.

You're significantly younger than I am TAMU, you may have the luxury of seeing MU win multiple National Championships in your lifetime, I hope like hell you do. The odds I see that are probably about .0000001%(hopefully not), therefore at this stage of my life, I'd take one more Natty in my lifetime and be happy about it. I'd love more...but, time isn't on my side like it is yours.

[Galway Eagle]

You say that, and people applaud you, when I have brought that up in the past, I have been told repeatedly that "that isn't realistic for MU", or I have to "accept what MU is as a program". You want me to think bigger(which I think bigger then most I'd say, there are posts to prove it), yet when I mention it...I get told it's not realistic...what exactly am I supposed to do??

How about this?? You have to walk before you can run, right?? So let's see Wojo win an NCAA game FIRST, before we worry about/talk about getting regularly high seeds, ok?? It's sad that after 5 years we still have to discuss winning an NCAA game, but here we are.

It's all about communication.

When you have said that, you often phrase it in a manner that deems anything less as unacceptable, essentially you never acknowledge the "walk before you run"

You second paragraph I feel like pretty much everybody would applaud you and say welcome to the world of realistic expectations that change based on what we return, what we bring in, how experienced the coach is, the tournament matchup etc. rather than black and white "we are a failure if we don't make the final four or win the national championship"

[jesmu84]

I said Final Fours and National Championships matter. Gonzaga has been in more national championship games in the past three years than we have been in the past 41. And why is that the only example you are using? What about Duke? North Carolina? Villanova? Kentucky? Florida? Virginia? Kansas? They all have something in common, they started getting top seeds regularly to give themselves the best shot at a national championship.

I would say that we were the 2nd worst and 2nd luckiest national champion in the past 35 years (or however long it took to make this happen). As happy as I would be, I would call us lucky, not good.

1. The Bucks made the Eastern Conference Finals. I think you meant the NBA Finals.
2. Correlation does not mean causation.
3. I'm glad you brought up UConn. What happened after they won the national championship? They missed the tournament the following season. Made the tourney as a bubble team the season after that. Since then, they have turned in three straight losing seasons. To use your other favorite example, which program do you think is better right now? Gonzaga or UConn?

Again Guru, you are thinking small time. The goal isn't to make one national championship and then never sniff it again. The goal is to be competing for a national championship every single season. The only way to do that is to consistently earn high seeds. Think bigger! Have some cajones!

Ding ding.

Thanks for being rational.

[Uncle Rico]

Simple question. What was more successful in your mind? Last year's 24-10 or Buzz's 22-15 year.

Last year.  It was nice having a coach that didn't quit on his team

[NotAnAlum]

I for one would take the Zags success for the rest of my life for MU.  Think of each year being a force in the non con, the clear favorite for your conference and a high NCAA seed, a threat to go all the way.  You get 30+ wins to enjoy and 5 or less loses.  Think of passing the winter that way.  Sure when you get that consistent success you want the final crown but if i had to give that up in this deal with the devil I'd take it for my team all day long.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

You say that, and people applaud you, when I have brought that up in the past, I have been told repeatedly that "that isn't realistic for MU", or I have to "accept what MU is as a program". You want me to think bigger(which I think bigger then most I'd say, there are posts to prove it), yet when I mention it...I get told it's not realistic...what exactly am I supposed to do??

Again, the "not being realistic" comments you get aren't about consistently getting high seeds. It's about saying that it should have happened by year 2 of Wojo's tenure, or that we should be there already. Like you say:

How about this?? You have to walk before you can run, right??

Exactly, that's what a lot of us have been trying to tell you. You don't go from "some program" to "elite" in a few years. It's a slow progression where you build on success.

You're significantly younger than I am TAMU, you may have the luxury of seeing MU win multiple National Championships in your lifetime, I hope like hell you do. The odds I see that are probably about .0000001%(hopefully not), therefore at this stage of my life, I'd take one more Natty in my lifetime and be happy about it. I'd love more...but, time isn't on my side like it is yours.

I'm going to quote you here:

To me, the guys on the team have to ask themselves, what's more important...winning or "me"??

You have to ask yourself the same question. What's more important? The team or you? Just because you might not see the results, doesn't mean that this isn't the right path.

[Herman Cain]

MU will realize on everyone's goals once they hire a dynamic and motivational young coach. The current occupant of the job has demonstrated he not the right guy to put MU on the necessary track for high level success.

Unfortunately the administration is not on the same page as the fan base . The bromance is alive and well.

[Cheeks]

MU will realize on everyone's goals once they hire a dynamic and motivational young coach. The current occupant of the job has demonstrated he not the right guy to put MU on the necessary track for high level success.

Unfortunately the administration is not on the same page as the fan base . The bromance is alive and well.

You speak for the fan base?

[Uncle Rico]

You speak for the fan base?

2019: Beard, Bennett, Izzo, Pearl
2018: Wright, Beilein, Moser, Self
2017: Martin, Few, Williams, Altman
2016: Wright, Williams, Kruger, Boeheim
2015: Calipari, K, Cryptkeeper, Izzo

Lot of young guys on that list of Final 4 coaches.  Super dynamic personalities, too

[Cheeks]

2019: Beard, Bennett, Izzo, Pearl
2018: Wright, Beilein, Moser, Self
2017: Martin, Few, Williams, Altman
2016: Wright, Williams, Kruger, Boeheim
2015: Calipari, K, Cryptkeeper, Izzo

Lot of young guys on that list of Final 4 coaches.  Super dynamic personalities, too

Teal button broken?   

[Herman Cain]

2019: Beard, Bennett, Izzo, Pearl
2018: Wright, Beilein, Moser, Self
2017: Martin, Few, Williams, Altman
2016: Wright, Williams, Kruger, Boeheim
2015: Calipari, K, Cryptkeeper, Izzo

Lot of young guys on that list of Final 4 coaches.  Super dynamic personalities, too

Those guys were all young and/or  dynamic back in the day. That is  how they got to where there are today.

Wojo barking at the kids to " Play Angry" is not going to get a team far. When they played that video it was an embarrassment. No wonder the Hausers jumped ship. 

[Newsdreams]

Those guys were all young and/or  dynamic back in the day. That is  how they got to where there are today.

Wojo barking at the kids to " Play Angry" is not going to get a team far. When they played that video it was an embarrassment. No wonder the Hausers jumped ship.

Lol I love the humor you bring to Scoop

[jesmu84]

Again, the "not being realistic" comments you get aren't about consistently getting high seeds. It's about saying that it should have happened by year 2 of Wojo's tenure, or that we should be there already. Like you say:

Exactly, that's what a lot of us have been trying to tell you. You don't go from "some program" to "elite" in a few years. It's a slow progression where you build on success.

I'm going to quote you here:

You have to ask yourself the same question. What's more important? The team or you? Just because you might not see the results, doesn't mean that this isn't the right path.

Just pure domination of guru by you lately. Love it