Bracketology 2019-2020

[Its DJOver]

Not gonna name names, but someone here thought there was an anti-MU conspiracy last year.  I'm not sure someone who thinks that can claim to be "well aware of how it works."

https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=58040.0

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Nice try, I LIVE for the NCAA selection show, I'm well aware of how it works. Answer my question...if you're intelligent enough to do so..If team A takes care of their own business during the year, does it matter what your opponents do the rest of the way?? Especially if it's one's you shouldn't have lost to to begin with??

It makes ZERO difference...do what you need to do and what you can control as a team, and everything will be fine. In other words, win games...lots of them. It's very simple.

If a team from the ACC, a team from the Big 10, a team from the Big 12, a team from Big East, and a team from the SEC went undefeated in the same year, one of those five teams would not get a 1 seed even though each team "took care of their business" all year. How other teams perform has a YUGE impact on both selection and seeding. To say otherwise is to deny reality.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Nice try, I LIVE for the NCAA selection show, I'm well aware of how it works.

Yes, you live for the show (the result), but you've proven you don't have a clue about how seeds are determined (the process).

Wisconsin losing will negatively Marquette's place on the s-curve and potentially lead to a lower seed.  You may still want to Wisconsin to lose despite that, but to insist it has no impact is simply factually wrong.

[dgies9156]

Let's see now -- beat Villanova in Philadelphia. Beat Seton Hall in Milwaukee. Beat Creighton in Milwaukee. All doable.

Win the games we are supposed to win -- Georgetown in MKE, DePaul in South Milwaukee, Providence in Rhode Island and St. John's in Milwaukee. All more likely than not.

Do this (and it IS possible) and the last thing we will worry about is a seeding.

[brewcity77]

I don't care about that...MU's resume will take care of itself. it's far more important to me to not see them in the dance.

I'm glad you posted this though Brew, because it brings me back to a HUGE issue of mine that I see so many people talk about...one example is what you cited above for instance. that you(and I'm sure many others do too)want UW to make the dance so MU's loss to them doesn't look as bad...or, when someone says "well if so and so beats so and so, that helps us". To me, that's crap...in any sport. Why should you depend on others to help make you look better??

Do what you have to do and take care of your own business, and none of that ever matters, right?? For instance, beat Wisconsin, and beat Providence for example, and what they do the rest of the year really shouldn't matter. Win games, don't lose one's you shouldn't lose and everything else takes care of itself. But because you lose those games(which you shouldn't have), now it turns to a mentality where people want your opponent to do this or that so it helps you look better...you know what would have helped the most?? Not losing to them to begin with. There is no better way to help yourself than by winning games...that goes for ANY sport. Don't rely on your opponents to do the work you could have done yourself. That's the way I see it.

TL;DR

I don't care about Wisconsin, but since they were on our schedule, I want them to have the highest NET possible. Just like Purdue, K-State, Davidson, etc.

[HowardsWorld]

I really believe that MU will wind up on the 3 seed line when its all said and done.

[Marquette4life]

I really believe that MU will wind up on the 3 seed line when its all said and done.

you think we're gonna win out?

[MU82]

I simply can't root for Wisconsin to win, even if them winning helps us slightly.

So I apologize to Wojo, his Warriors and to MU fans everywhere if my rooting against Madison is what causes us to slip a spot on the S-curve.

[IL Warrior]

Nice try, I LIVE for the NCAA selection show, I'm well aware of how it works. Answer my question...if you're intelligent enough to do so..If team A takes care of their own business during the year, does it matter what your opponents do the rest of the way?? Especially if it's one's you shouldn't have lost to to begin with??

It makes ZERO difference...do what you need to do and what you can control as a team, and everything will be fine. In other words, win games...lots of them. It's very simple.

I mean if you can't go 31-0 in the regular season and win the conference tournament to get the #1 overall seed, why are you even playing the games, right guru?

[brewcity77]

I simply can't root for Wisconsin to win, even if them winning helps us slightly.

So I apologize to Wojo, his Warriors and to MU fans everywhere if my rooting against Madison is what causes us to slip a spot on the S-curve.

I never root for them to win, I'm just not paying any real attention to them. I check their NET and hope it stays top-40. If they could lose every game and stay top-40, great, but I really don't want them falling lower than that.

[wadesworld]

Said it since Bo forced UW to make Gard the head coach.  Gard leading UW is a great thing for MU.

[Marquette4life]

what does marquette need to do for a 3 seed?

[muguru]

Not gonna name names, but someone here thought there was an anti-MU conspiracy last year.  I'm not sure someone who thinks that can claim to be "well aware of how it works."

https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=58040.0

Sorry, but if you don't think there's at least some politics that goes on behind those closed doors..then you don't pay close enough attention my man.

[muguru]

Yes, you live for the show (the result), but you've proven you don't have a clue about how seeds are determined (the process).

Wisconsin losing will negatively Marquette's place on the s-curve and potentially lead to a lower seed.  You may still want to Wisconsin to lose despite that, but to insist it has no impact is simply factually wrong.

Hmmm, gee I don't know Tony..perhaps losing to them leads to a lower seed. How about you not do that to begin with...that's my point. Do what you are SUPPOSED to do, and it takes care of itself. Hate rooting for teams that beat you..that's like saying, well okay, we couldn't beat you, but at least don't suck the rest of the year to make our loss "look better". That's the biggest problem..NO LOSS looks good. Why don't people get that?? IDC who you lost to, what their metrics are or what the committee says...DON'T lose more games than you should reasonably lose.

[Its DJOver]

Sorry, but if you don't think there's at least some politics that goes on behind those closed doors..then you don't pay close enough attention my man.

And if you think that there is a collective movement to try to screw over MU, your tin foil hat is on too tight.  Fundamental lack of understanding about the selection process last year, good to see some things don't change.

[jesmu84]

Hmmm, gee I don't know Tony..perhaps losing to them leads to a lower seed. How about you not do that to begin with...that's my point. Do what you are SUPPOSED to do, and it takes care of itself. Hate rooting for teams that beat you..that's like saying, well okay, we couldn't beat you, but at least don't suck the rest of the year to make our loss "look better". That's the biggest problem..NO LOSS looks good. Why don't people get that?? IDC who you lost to, what their metrics are or what the committee says...DON'T lose more games than you should reasonably lose.

Is it okay to root for teams that MU beat?

How many losses are "reasonable"?

[Its DJOver]

DON'T lose more games than you should reasonably lose.

And here lies the fundamental difference between Guru and everyone else here.  Everyone's number of "reasonable" losses is different. 

[MUfan12]

Losses happen. Results that lessen the effect of those losses on MU's tourney resume are a good thing for MU.

Don't know why this is difficult.

[LAZER]

what does marquette need to do for a 3 seed?

13-5 would be my guess.

[MU82]

Hmmm, gee I don't know Tony..perhaps losing to them leads to a lower seed. How about you not do that to begin with...that's my point. Do what you are SUPPOSED to do, and it takes care of itself. Hate rooting for teams that beat you..that's like saying, well okay, we couldn't beat you, but at least don't suck the rest of the year to make our loss "look better". That's the biggest problem..NO LOSS looks good. Why don't people get that?? IDC who you lost to, what their metrics are or what the committee says...DON'T lose more games than you should reasonably lose.

We actually agree on not rooting for Madison just because another win or two might "help" us with the NET. We're actually both probably "wrong" here, but I can live with that, and it appears you can, too.

However ...

Folks aren't rooting for Madison to do OK because they think it will make us look better after losing to them. Folks want all the teams we play - whether we lost to them or beat them - to do well because it helps our NET when that happens. So the folks you're arguing with might want Madison, yes, but they also want Davidson, USC and Purdue to win their games. It's not a matter of making us "feel" better about beating or losing to those teams.

And yes, it's better if our heroes win any game than lose any game. Nobody is arguing against Marquette "taking care of business," so please stop pretending that's what's going on. You aren't the only Marquette fan who very much wants us to win tomorrow and every other game.

[muguru]

And here lies the fundamental difference between Guru and everyone else here.  Everyone's number of "reasonable" losses is different.

Of course, yours is likely double digits(reasonable), mine is not. People just see what they want to see I guess...when they lose a game, it's because of this or because of that. Look, sometimes it's that simple, yes. But believe me when I tell you there have been PLENTY of games they had no business losing through the years. If you can't tell when one team is more talented(and this is different than being a better TEAM), then watch more basketball.

For me, regardless of anything else, I will take talent 100 times out of 100. Will it always win?? of course not, especially in a 1 game setting, but sometimes(regardless of what Vegas says), you just know when one team is supposed to beat another. And keep in mind, Vegas will almost always favor a home team once you get into conference play. That however does not mean you're supposed to/or are expected to lose that game. That's just the way Vegas works. Do you really believe that everyone that sets lines, actually believes the team they have as an under dog(simply because they are on the road) will really or should lose that game?? That's what vegas does my friend..Use your eyes, not Vegas lines to decide those things...at least if you trust your eyes.

[BM1090]

Of course, yours is likely double digits(reasonable), mine is not. People just see what they want to see I guess...when they lose a game, it's because of this or because of that. Look, sometimes it's that simple, yes. But believe me when I tell you there have been PLENTY of games they had no business losing through the years. If you can't tell when one team is more talented(and this is different than being a better TEAM), then watch more basketball.

For me, regardless of anything else, I will take talent 100 times out of 100. Will it always win?? of course not, especially in a 1 game setting, but sometimes(regardless of what Vegas says), you just know when one team is supposed to beat another. And keep in mind, Vegas will almost always favor a home team once you get into conference play. That however does not mean you're supposed to/or are expected to lose that game. That's just the way Vegas works. Do you really believe that everyone that sets lines, actually believes the team they have as an under dog(simply because they are on the road) will really or should lose that game?? That's what vegas does my friend..Use your eyes, not Vegas lines to decide those things...at least if you trust your eyes.

Two questions.

1. Where do you think we rank in terms of talent in the Big East?

2. What is an acceptable number of losses in a 31 game season?

[Its DJOver]

Of course, yours is likely double digits(reasonable), mine is not. People just see what they want to see I guess...when they lose a game, it's because of this or because of that. Look, sometimes it's that simple, yes. But believe me when I tell you there have been PLENTY of games they had no business losing through the years. If you can't tell when one team is more talented(and this is different than being a better TEAM), then watch more basketball.

There have been plenty of games we had no business winning that we've won as well.  It's almost like that's how sports work. 

The number of losses I expect in a year changes every year based on our level of talent and our SOS.  2 non-con losses was acceptable to me, I know that there is no reason to ever lose to Madison in your opinion, but the non-conference as a whole I was okay with 2.  4 losses through our first 11 Beast games is also an acceptable number to me.  I know you think there is no reason to ever lose a home game, or to lose to a team with the talent level of PC, but with the current sample size, I'm happy with the results.  Given that a conference championship is currently unlikely I know a competitor such as yourself is no where near satisfied.

[IL Warrior]

nm

[Silkk the Shaka]

what does marquette need to do for a 3 seed?

great question.

http://barttorvik.com/teamcast.php?team=Marquette&year=2020

have fun!