Non-con grade

[Goose]

I graded MU off what the rest of the top teams have done to this point. I would think top ten team in the country would have been quite happy with 9-2 with the schedule played.

[UWW2MU]

I graded a B simply in context of THIS YEAR's expectation.    Year in and year out, this overall would be an 'A' to me... but if you specifically weight it by what this team wants to accomplish and how good they should be this year, I think they did good but not excellent against expectations.

[Uncle Rico]

How is "meeting expectations" an A?

I'm super bullish on this team and season - but I want March succes - the probability of that falls drastically from a 1 seed to a 2 or worse.

What was UConn's seed last year?

[Pepe Sylvia]

Was going to comment earlier on Ben's shooting but that's actually up 5% from last year.

I think any hopes of him being Novak 2.0 are pretty much dead. Can you imagine how unstoppable we'd be if we could.being him of the been shooting 46% from behind the arc?

I'm happy enough with his dan fitzgerald 2.0 game.

[Viper]

F

The loss to Wisconsin means another year of constant references to that game by the usual suspects who treat the game like life and death and have to "suffer" being around Badger fans

yes!! oh wait, you talkin' 'bout me?

[GoldenWarrior11]

A-/B+ range.  9-2 with the schedule we had is very impressive, including blowing out the (then) #1 Kansas Jayhawks.  While we have not peaked (yet), we still have won many of our games without playing our very best.  That should be the case for any team in November/December.  Wisconsin game hurt many, but it doesn't change the outlook for the team for the season.  At all. 

It was great to get Lowery and Norman extended looks in several of the games, along with AA.  Hoping there will be a few games they also get runs to continue with the team's development and progressions in BE play.  We have to continue to hope for minimal/no injuries (get well soon, Stevie). 

We are a top-10 team.  Just need to continue to get better and build towards March.  We were never going to win every game, against the spread, by 20+ points. 

[Dr. Blackheart]

B to expectations. A to the Wojo baseline. The defense has been better than expected, the shooting is a concern. Rebounding sux as expected. Coaching the system has been outstanding. In game and game planning has met my expectations, but my expectations are that Shaka just let's the players play the system versus being a strong situational coach (not a fan of that philosophy going against so many great game coaches but it is Shaka's way and it's been successful).

However, MU needs a LOT more consistency from everyone not named Oso or Tyler be an A+. I have to say, that part is a disappointment versus expectations.

[MUfan12]

In game and game planning has met my expectations, but my expectations are that Shaka just let's the players play the system versus being a strong situational coach (not a fan of that philosophy going against so many great game coaches but it is Shaka's way and it's been successful).

You can almost see the struggle at times with this, when we play teams that are distinctly different stylistically. Even last night, it took until the 3 minute mark to just play them straight up defensively.

[wisblue]

How is "meeting expectations" an A?

I'm super bullish on this team and season - but I want March succes - the probability of that falls drastically from a 1 seed to a 2 or worse.

I think that tournaments the last few years, and last year more than any other, should show  that you can throw out the idea that getting a 1 seed dramatically increases a team's chances of advancing.

Those stats that are pulled out every March include all of those years when some of the #1 seeds were head and shoulders above the field. Some of those Duke, UNC, Kansas, and Kentucky teams could have been given an 8 or 9 seed and they still would have advanced to the Final Four.

Last year we saw a 4 seed crush everyone they faced en route to the title and no 1,2,or 3 seed advance to the Final Four. If MU is good enough and plays well enough, they can advance to the Final Four from any protected seed position. They've already shown that they can beat and compete with 2 teams that might be #1 seeds.

[wadesworld]

I think that tournaments the last few years, and last year more than any other, should show  that you can throw out the idea that getting a 1 seed dramatically increases a team's chances of advancing.

Those stats that are pulled out every March include all of those years when some of the #1 seeds were head and shoulders above the field. Some of those Duke, UNC, Kansas, and Kentucky teams could have been given an 8 or 9 seed and they still would have advanced to the Final Four.

Last year we saw a 4 seed crush everyone they faced en route to the title and no 1,2,or 3 seed advance to the Final Four. If MU is good enough and plays well enough, they can advance to the Final Four from any protected seed position. They've already shown that they can beat and compete with 2 teams that might be #1 seeds.

Well yeah, no kidding. If the committee somehow decided to give Louisville, DePaul, Georgetown, and Notre Dame 1 seeds it doesn't mean they'll suddenly become really good teams. Getting a 1 seed means you've had a great season and are a great team. And those teams have great shots to go deep in the Tournament.

Kansas, Kentucky, UNC, and Duke could've gone to the FF if they were given an 8 or 9 seed because they were actually a 1 seed caliber team that earned a 1 seed. They wouldn't lose their abilities if the committee screwed them over.

[brewcity77]

🙄

You act like this team is a historically good college basketball team. They're a very good 2023-2024 college basketball team. They're far from a dominant team. You have set yourself up only to be disappointed by this team, and that's extremely unfortunate for you because this season so far has been a joy.

In my lifetime, at Marquette, it sure as hell is. But as I said, we're talking about performance vs expectation. If they were undefeated, it would be a firm A. 10-1 would be AB because when you're top-5, that's sort of the expectation.

Look at the teams that started ahead of us. Kansas and Purdue have 1 loss and have generally met expectations. Not exceeded, but met. Duke & MSU have underperformed and deservedly been castigated. We're in between that. Which is fine. But it's not like we've done anything to exceed where we should expect to be.

[Carl]

Brew that's all true, but, setting "expectations" aside...

Where does this non-con performance rank for you in the last 25 years?

#1?

If so, that seems like a harsh grade

[wisblue]

Well yeah, no kidding. If the committee somehow decided to give Louisville, DePaul, Georgetown, and Notre Dame 1 seeds it doesn't mean they'll suddenly become really good teams. Getting a 1 seed means you've had a great season and are a great team. And those teams have great shots to go deep in the Tournament.

Kansas, Kentucky, UNC, and Duke could've gone to the FF if they were given an 8 or 9 seed because they were actually a 1 seed caliber team that earned a 1 seed. They wouldn't lose their abilities if the committee screwed them over.

It seems obvious, and yet when tournament time comes around I guarantee that there will be people on this board agonizing over whether MU gets a seed of X or a seed of X-1 and pulling out the statistics showing the percentage of teams with seed X or X-1 that have advanced to the Final Four.

[Carl]

It's impossible to determine what a deserving 1 seed would do year over year if given a 10 seed. It is very easy and valid to point out actual statistics of how 1,2 and 3 seeds perform. Of course it's predicated on performance. That's sort of the point. And if we get a 10 seed, there will be a ton of evidence for us to point to that would indicate that NO, we are not a team that can make the Final 4. But obviously it's better to have a better seed. What are we talking about here?

[wisblue]

It's impossible to determine what a deserving 1 seed would do year over year if given a 10 seed. It is very easy and valid to point out actual statistics of how 1,2 and 3 seeds perform. Of course it's predicated on performance. That's sort of the point. And if we get a 10 seed, there will be a ton of evidence for us to point to that would indicate that NO, we are not a team that can make the Final 4. But obviously it's better to have a better seed. What are we talking about here?

I'm addressing the statement that MU's chances of having March success fall dramatically if they go from a 1 seed to a 2 seed or worse.

I think everyone agrees that you want your teams to earn as high a seed as possible by playing as well as possible during the season. But the marginal advantage of being one seed line higher can be pretty negligible, especially if there's just one place difference on the NCAA seed list (eg teams 4 and 5, the last 1 seed  and the first 2 seed). After the first round those two teams are on the same track.

[brewcity77]

Brew that's all true, but, setting "expectations" aside...

Where does this non-con performance rank for you in the last 25 years?

#1?

If so, that seems like a harsh grade

#1? Definitely not. That was 2007. 12-1 record, only loss to Duke in the Maui Final, beat a better Badger team in Madison.

On par with this were 2002 & 2018. 2002 had wins over Villanova, Wisconsin, & Wake. 2018 included the three wins over #12, K-State, Wisconsin, & Buffalo. This is top-4, but not #1, and in terms of comparing it to expectations against those others I'd put it at #4.

[CountryRoads]

#1? Definitely not. That was 2007. 12-1 record, only loss to Duke in the Maui Final, beat a better Badger team in Madison.

On par with this were 2002 & 2018. 2002 had wins over Villanova, Wisconsin, & Wake. 2018 included the three wins over #12, K-State, Wisconsin, & Buffalo. This is top-4, but not #1, and in terms of comparing it to expectations against those others I'd put it at #4.

Badger win was fantastic in 2007 but that non con schedule was an absolute joke in comparison to this year's schedule.

[1SE]

I'm addressing the statement that MU's chances of having March success fall dramatically if they go from a 1 seed to a 2 seed or worse.

I think everyone agrees that you want your teams to earn as high a seed as possible by playing as well as possible during the season. But the marginal advantage of being one seed line higher can be pretty negligible, especially if there's just one place difference on the NCAA seed list (eg teams 4 and 5, the last 1 seed  and the first 2 seed). After the first round those two teams are on the same track.

I agree that the difference between the 4 and 5 teams on the S is very low - but the NCAA is a cumulative probability event so the probabilities in each game matter. Even a small change in the probability for each game in each round can have a big cumulative effect.

For example (and these probabilities aren't right- just illustrative but they're probably pretty close) a 1 seed's path to the FF might look like

.85*.75*.65*.55

While a 2 seed's path might be

.75*.65*.55*.45

Assuming they face the highest seeds possible in each game (first round probs are probably a bit low, 2nd might be a bit high, but you get the picture.

So the cumulative probs of making the FF are  .228 vs .121

It would be interesting to pull up thr actual data and compare historical performance of 4 vs 5 S curve teams, but even the I'd say difference probably not negligible

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

100.

We mostly are playing like we were last year - which of course was pretty darn good.

Disagree. We are better at this point in the season than we were at the same point last season. I could hear an argument that we are playing about the same as we were at the end of last season.

We are still growing.  There's another level we haven't reached yet

[94Warrior]

Kansas, UCLA, Illinois, Texas & ND were A's.
Purdue was a B-.
Wisconsin was an F.
Other games don't matter unless you lose.

Overall a B.  Can't be any higher than a B, when you average in an F.

[#UnleashSean]

B+ we came out of our hardest non conference season that I can remember with 2 L's. Beat number 1 and lost by three to the new number 1.


The bucky stinker is the only thing that stops mu from receiving an A.

[1SE]

Disagree. We are better at this point in the season than we were at the same point last season. I could hear an argument that we are playing about the same as we were at the end of last season.

We are still growing.  There's another level we haven't reached yet

Yeah - that's what I meant - we basically picked up where we left off last year which, other than how was the play Mrs Lincoln, was pretty good.

[WarriorFan]

I'm really pleased with the noncon season except the loss at UW, but that should be the best learning experience of the season for shaka and the coaching staff. 

If you look at the top 10, Houston is #1 and has played nobody so far.  AZ and Uconn also had cupcake-laden schedules. The only teams with stronger schedules are Purdue (respect) and Tennessee.

MU's 2 losses are either teams MU will specifically need to go through for a natty (Purdue) or the model everyone will try to use to beat MU (UW).  The Tommies tried it with much less talent and discipline than UW and still made it tough for MU to win.  THAT is what the non-con season is for. 

One unfortunate outcome is the loss of a starter.  Wishing Stevie a fast recovery.
A-

[The Sultan]

Kansas, UCLA, Illinois, Texas & ND were A's.
Purdue was a B-.
Wisconsin was an F.
Other games don't matter unless you lose.

Overall a B.  Can't be any higher than a B, when you average in an F.

Losing to a currently ranked team on the road is not an "F."

[muwarrior69]

Losing to a currently ranked team on the road is not an "F."

Since all our exams are Pass or Fail it has to be an F.