Big East Conference BET Results

[muguru]

What if we moved the DePaul, at Xavier, and at Georgetown games to the L column? That standings would look very different! What if we won all of our games? What if we lost all of our games? That would really change the standings!

Guru, no one is saying losing to PC isn't a bad loss. We all agree that's a game we should've won. I think we just have a different definition of "unacceptable." Unacceptable to me means that its something that can never happen....but bad losses happen to every team, including MU. They've happened to MU every season since Jim Chones left for the ABA. Its part of what makes the game great, anyone can beat anyone on any given night. It sucks when you are on the wrong end of an upset but any season where you are only upset one time is a pretty good season. That's where we are at right now.

Here's how I look at a game when MU plays..again everyone is different...I go into a game when I see a match up and I ask myself, who would win this game 9 out of 10 times regardless of where it's played. I don't apply that to just MU, but anyone. And then because of that, I bank on the fact that this won't be that "one time". Because after all, it's 1 time out of 10, that team might win that game.

Yes, everyone loses games they shouldn't...but it's still incredibly maddening, because for whatever reason it seems MU has at least one of those "wtf, how did they lose to them" games every year

I mean, look at the NET rankings..4 of the top 5 and 5 of the top 7 are occupied by teams that haven't lost at home this year. That isn't just coincidence.

[muguru]

That's a very clear and patient explanation that you're delivering to a wall.

Not really...because you can't "play" that game...see here's why...those games that he cited..MU is a better team then those three, regardless of how the game turned out or how close it was etc. MU SHOULD have won those games to begin with. Just as MU SHOULD have beaten PC at home and Butler on the road.

[Uncle Rico]

Not really...because you can't "play" that game...see here's why...those games that he cited..MU is a better team then those three, regardless of how the game turned out or how close it was etc. MU SHOULD have won those games to begin with. Just as MU SHOULD have beaten PC at home and Butler on the road.

Have you considered decaf

[THRILLHO]

Not really...because you can't "play" that game...see here's why...those games that he cited..MU is a better team then those three, regardless of how the game turned out or how close it was etc. MU SHOULD have won those games to begin with. Just as MU SHOULD have beaten PC at home and Butler on the road.

More Chico's than Chico's!

[Cheeks]

Yes they should have

No, in fact they should not have and were in control of that gameplay but lost it.  This is your problem, it is myopic and you don’t apply the same “what if” standard to the other schools....which shockingly would improve their records, too.

[Cheeks]

Here's how I look at a game when MU plays..again everyone is different...I go into a game when I see a match up and I ask myself, who would win this game 9 out of 10 times regardless of where it's played. I don't apply that to just MU, but anyone. And then because of that, I bank on the fact that this won't be that "one time". Because after all, it's 1 time out of 10, that team might win that game.

Yes, everyone loses games they shouldn't...but it's still incredibly maddening, because for whatever reason it seems MU has at least one of those "wtf, how did they lose to them" games every year

I mean, look at the NET rankings..4 of the top 5 and 5 of the top 7 are occupied by teams that haven't lost at home this year. That isn't just coincidence.

Do you know how many MU conference games this year the computers have predicted MU would win 9 out of 10 times?


ZERO

[shoothoops]

"Should" is infrequently a productive word.

As the saying goes, you are what your record says you are.

MU is 17-7, 7-5 in league play, 18 in NCAA Net Rankings. And this will change, good, bad, indifferent, on a game by game basis. One game at a time. The next and only game is Creighton at home...until the next one.

[muguru]

No, in fact they should not have and were in control of that gameplay but lost it.  This is your problem, it is myopic and you don’t apply the same “what if” standard to the other schools....which shockingly would improve their records, too.

What happened when Nova played @ Creighton..?? Hmmm?? You look at it differently than I do..you look at it in terms of the "in game" proceedings...or the micro view of things. I look at games BEFORE they are even played and view them through the macro level lens. Basically, the eye test..I have repeatedly tried to beat this into everyone's heads here and will continue to..look at a team's talent first and foremost. Ignore style of play, matchup etc. Too many people pay too much attention to that stuff. It matters but if you bet on talent more often then not, you will come out ahead. Again, I look at two teams and ask myself who would win 9 times out of 10 regardless of where the game is played etc. It's called trusting your eyes.

Here's the thing...if you look at MU's season to this point, and really it's kind of been this way for a few years at least..they typically only do what one might expect them to do..beat the teams below them, and struggle with teams ahead of them in the standings. To this point, they are 1-3 against Nova, Hall and Creighton...maybe not surprisingly, MU sits in 4th place behind those 3. Shocking I know. Now they do have a chance to make it 3-3 against those teams still so we will see how that shakes out.

However...in the grand scheme of things, of course losing to Nova, Hall and Creighton isn't shameful or "unexpected" if you will, it's the potential that MU loses out on when they drop a game like that. And honestly, it may be a small thing in the grand scheme of it, but winning one or two games like that(particularly on the road) is what can start to propel a program to greater heights.

Imagine what winning even one of those games on the road would do for them this year(and potential future years)?? Think about where they would be in the NET, what even winning one of those could do/would have done for their seeding, what kind of potential it would have given them as far as a possibility to win a Big East title, ESPECIALLY when you couple that with an inexcusable home loss to Providence. Those are the kinds of things that "wow" people, that open people's eye's again to the Marquette program and it's potential going forward...though those things may seem minor..they matter if you want to take the next step in the progression from being viewed as a "good, solid program" to a potentially consistent nationally recognized program.

These are the kinds of things that I talk about when I say they never seem to be able to come up big when the opportunity is in front of them. You can cite individual things sure(like knocking off Nova when they were #1), but it's sustaining momentum like that(they turned around the next game and lost at home to PC), that have kept this program from potentially reaching new heights at least compared to where they have been the last 5 years. It's like they can get about halfway to 3/4 of the way up the mountain, but can't seem to reach the peak, if you want a comparison. It's little things like that that keep the program from reaching the status I(and others) think it can reach. It's frustrating, because it's like they are so close...yet so far. I think that's where you see the "spinning it's wheels" saying come into play. Because it's fitting when you look at it through the lens I was just touching on.

[🏀]

Do you know how many MU conference games this year the computers have predicted MU would win 9 out of 10 times?


ZERO

The computers don’t have the eye test.

[Mr. Nielsen]

Only one game today.

Sunday 2/16/20
15 Villanova @ Temple, 12:00, ESPN - Kevin Brown, Bryce Drew
Line: Villanova -6.5/135.5

[muguru]

Do you know how many MU conference games this year the computers have predicted MU would win 9 out of 10 times?


ZERO

Bingo! I am so glad you brought this up Cheeks...this is the problem with today's world...we rely too damn much on what computers and #'s tell us. Some people here that's all they know, I get that, but people like you and I(and many others) were around before computers and analytics and all that stuff were even a thing. How did we judge teams/talent back then?? BY WATCHING them, trusting our eyes(it's all we had). Did we need #'s or computers to tell us how great players like Dr J, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan etc were?? HELL NO! We used our eyes and our abilities to see it...we did it ourselves, and you know what?? It was reliable! Now people ignore the eye test and go almost strictly on #'s to make their determinations..I will never understand that. People let the #'s and computers do the work for them instead of trusting on the most reliable thing(IF you have a knack for it I suppose)...their eyes!

Former Packers GM  Ron Wolf once said, and I remember it distinctly when asked in an interview what the #1 thing was that he relied on when scouting/evaluating talent and he said "my eyes". He talked about how you can look at all the numbers you want on a prospect(combine 40 times etc), but the true evaluation comes in whether or not they pass the "eye test". Right on Ron, right on.

USE your eyes..that's what I implore people to do.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Bingo! I am so glad you brought this up Cheeks...this is the problem with today's world...we rely too damn much on what computers and #'s tell us. Some people here that's all they know, I get that, but people like you and I(and many others) were around before computers and analytics and all that stuff were even a thing. How did we judge teams/talent back then?? BY WATCHING them, trusting our eyes(it's all we had). Did we need #'s or computers to tell us how great players like Dr J, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan etc were?? HELL NO! We used our eyes and our abilities to see it...we did it ourselves, and you know what?? It was reliable! Now people ignore the eye test and go almost strictly on #'s to make their determinations..I will never understand that. People let the #'s and computers do the work for them instead of trusting on the most reliable thing(IF you have a knack for it I suppose)...their eyes!

Former Packers GM  Ron Wolf once said, and I remember it distinctly when asked in an interview what the #1 thing was that he relied on when scouting/evaluating talent and he said "my eyes". He talked about how you can look at all the numbers you want on a prospect(combine 40 times etc), but the true evaluation comes in whether or not they pass the "eye test". Right on Ron, right on.

USE your eyes..that's what I implore people to do.

I get what you are saying. But this seems like a recipe for confirmation bias more than anything.

[Cheeks]

Bingo! I am so glad you brought this up Cheeks...this is the problem with today's world...we rely too damn much on what computers and #'s tell us. Some people here that's all they know, I get that, but people like you and I(and many others) were around before computers and analytics and all that stuff were even a thing. How did we judge teams/talent back then?? BY WATCHING them, trusting our eyes(it's all we had). Did we need #'s or computers to tell us how great players like Dr J, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan etc were?? HELL NO! We used our eyes and our abilities to see it...we did it ourselves, and you know what?? It was reliable! Now people ignore the eye test and go almost strictly on #'s to make their determinations..I will never understand that. People let the #'s and computers do the work for them instead of trusting on the most reliable thing(IF you have a knack for it I suppose)...their eyes!

Former Packers GM  Ron Wolf once said, and I remember it distinctly when asked in an interview what the #1 thing was that he relied on when scouting/evaluating talent and he said "my eyes". He talked about how you can look at all the numbers you want on a prospect(combine 40 times etc), but the true evaluation comes in whether or not they pass the "eye test". Right on Ron, right on.

USE your eyes..that's what I implore people to do.

The problem, GURU, is it is IMPOSSIBLE for me or you to use the EYE test for every team, let alone every BIG EAST team.  Teams play at the same time, people are busy, games may not be available to watch, etc.

I am more than capable of using the eye test AND data.  You seem adverse to it.  Or, what I see you do a lot is taking our best performance and making that the standard we should do each time.  Sorry, that's not human beings work....we have ups and downs.

[MU82]

USE your eyes..that's what I implore people to do.

I use my brain. And my brain knows 2 things related to this particular subject you can't let go:

1. Even though you don't like to talk about teams other than Marquette, the fact is that all teams lose games they are "supposed" to win. Even a "crap team" like PC can and will beat the likes of Marquette, Seton Hall, etc. That's sports. We don't have to like it, but we have to acknowledge it.

2. It's wasted energy because all of your kvetching can't change the past. You can complain a zillion times about who we should have beaten and what that would have meant ... but it doesn't change anything.

It's like a coach complaining about a bad call. The ref calls travel on one of my players in the first quarter. I don't like it and I say, "She didn't travel." The ref says, "Yes, she did." A million times out of a million, the ref isn't gonna change the call. So sure, I could still be whining about the call in the fourth quarter, but that would be pretty stupid. I said my piece briefly and then both I and the ref move on. That's what grown-ups do.

Marquette lost to PC. I wish we didn't. You wish we didn't. But it happened and the scoreboard isn't gonna change no matter how much you kvetch about it.

It was almost 6 effen weeks ago. Be a grown-up. Move on!

[DoctorV]

+1. Also good diction on “kvetching”

[MUDPT]

Guru would be over the moon, if we were 12-0 and won every game by a point for a point differential of +12...

[Spaniel with a Short Tail]

Gotta give muguru credit for persistence.

[GooooMarquette]

I'm with guru.

I think it's totally reasonable to look at our best performance...when we really came to play, were totally on fire, playing our A-game, dictating the tempo, putting on a clinic, hitting on all cylinders, never giving up, stepping on their throats, hitting every dagger, giving 110%, playing like it was a must-win game, winning all the hustle plays, leaving it all on the court, making a statement, shocking the world...and then expecting us to repeat that game after game.

Or maybe we should realize this is real life, where people have good days and bad....

[muguru]

I'm with guru.

I think it's totally reasonable to look at our best performance...when we really came to play, were totally on fire, playing our A-game, dictating the tempo, putting on a clinic, hitting on all cylinders, never giving up, stepping on their throats, hitting every dagger, giving 110%, playing like it was a must-win game, winning all the hustle plays, leaving it all on the court, making a statement, shocking the world...and then expecting us to repeat that game after game.

Or maybe we should realize this is real life, where people have good days and bad....

You people make everything more complicated then it needs to be...I have NEVER said this or implied this...I will say this ONE more time...JUDGE IT BY THE TALENT ON THE FLOOR VIS A VIS YOUR OPPONENT. It's really that simple. Period. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not infallible(nothing is) but if you use that(and your confident in your abilities to judge said talent) and made bets on the better, more talented team(regardless of anything else) you will be right, FAR more then you will be wrong. There's no hidden secret etc. Numbers do not tell you everything..they tell you some things, but stop the damn reliance on numbers so much...especially with a system(numbers) that can be gamed.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

If your eye test says that MU should beat any Big East team on the road 9 times out of 10, you need glasses.

[Cheeks]

You people make everything more complicated then it needs to be...I have NEVER said this or implied this...I will say this ONE more time...JUDGE IT BY THE TALENT ON THE FLOOR VIS A VIS YOUR OPPONENT. It's really that simple. Period. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not infallible(nothing is) but if you use that(and your confident in your abilities to judge said talent) and made bets on the better, more talented team(regardless of anything else) you will be right, FAR more then you will be wrong. There's no hidden secret etc. Numbers do not tell you everything..they tell you some things, but stop the damn reliance on numbers so much...especially with a system(numbers) that can be gamed.

Guru....talent on the floor doesn’t play the same way every game....and the opposing talent can have an impact. 

[wadesworld]

Why people actually argue with or try to rationalize with guru is beyond me.

[muguru]

If your eye test says that MU should beat any Big East team on the road 9 times out of 10, you need glasses.

Jeesus christ...point to me were I said that?? You people are GREAT and I mean the best their is at twisting my words to whatever you want them to say. No one but me knows what goes into my evaluations when it comes to judging games/talent.

I have news for you, if MU can't/wouldn't beat the dumpster fire that is DePaul 9 out of 10 times, or SJU 9 out of 10 times etc, then there is something VERY wrong. I don't care where that game is played...one more time for the tone deaf...I JUDGE BASED ON THE TALENT ON THE FLOOR. My eyes do NOT deceive me. You grew up in an era of computers, you have relied on them and numbers your whole life. People your age don't know about the eye test(or have the experience with it) because you didn't spend a lot of your life having to use it like us older generation has. That's just a fact. Believe it or not, the more you do something, the better you get at it..strange how that works...the better you get at it, means the more reliable it is.

[muguru]

Why people actually argue with or try to rationalize with guru is beyond me.

Because he's right..and people can't stand people that are right if they aren't, so thus they feel the need to argue with them.

[Uncle Rico]

If Marquette had won every game, they’d be undefeated and 1st in the polls and net rankings.

If Marquette has lost all its games, they’d be winless and probably not listed in net rankings or ranked at all.

IMO, Marquette should win every game.  That would be the better of the two choices.  If they had beaten the Badgers, then we’d be higher in net rankings and I think 78 out of 75 times, we should beat them.  The problem is, we have too many snowflakes who think losing a game is fine if we were supposed to lose but in reality we should win those games because that’s what we should do.  In my day, the coach would be fired after every loss and the players would have to run around Milwaukee until they passed out to teach them that losing isn’t acceptable under any circumstance.