Non-con grade

[Jay Bee]

AZ and Uconn also had cupcake-laden schedules.

Bruh

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

AZ and Uconn also had cupcake-laden schedules.

Arizona's schedule is ramping up with Purdue, Alabama, and FAU being their next 3 games.  We'll see how they fare.

UConn's schedule is hurt by Gonzaga, Texas, and Indiana being weaker than normal.  And their cupcakes were super sugary.

[warriorfred]

On the balance, the Warriors exceeded my expectations.  A record of 8-3, with a very tough non-conference schedule, seemed reasonable in October.

A+ would be undefeated and a number 1 ranking.
A would be a loss to Purdue and a number 2 or 3 ranking.
A- would be a loss to Kansas, 3d in Maui and a top 5 ranking.
B+ is a loss to Purdue and the Badgers, with a top 10 ranking.
B is a 8-3 record with a top 15 ranking.

I give the season a B+ so far.

[MU82]

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

Absolutely this.

One year ago, Kolek was averaging 8.5 ppg and not even his biggest backers here were saying he'd be an All-American by season's end; Oso was nowhere near ready to dominate the likes of Dickinson; Chase Ross was still a concept; and Ben Gold was a non-contributor. We not only had lost at home to UW-Madison but also to Mississippi State on a neutral court. We had a worse record at this time last season despite a much softer schedule.

The difference is so significant, folks would have to be blind to not see it.

That said, I'm lowering my grade to F-minus-minus-minus because I expected us to win 12 of our first 11 games, by at least 20 points each.

[Goose]

82

The last two seasons I have paid close attention to the progress of the program by comparing year over year. It is not even a question that this team is well advanced over last season at this time. I would even say that there is bigger improvement this year vs. the improvement we saw last season. Aside from player development, the defense is vastly improved, and the offense looks sharp again thus far. Truthfully, if anyone does not believe this team is vastly better, they either will never be satisfied or being contrarian.

[HowardsWorld]

I gave them. B+ as well. If this was last season before winning the big east conference and tournament it would have been an A. Given that we returned all but Omax expectations were higher. Marquette did imo exactly what they should have wining 2/3 in Maui and winning all but Madison in the rest of the non conference.

If they would have beat Purdue or Wisconsin they would have been ranked 2 and deserved the A.

There's no harm in losing to the Badgers imo it was the toughest test to date with a true road game against instate rival who imo will end up being a 4 seed in the tourney and could win the big 10. If we go 17-3 in conference again we will be a 1 seed no doubt in my mind

[PGsHeroes32]

Saying we are similar to last years team at this point is pretty damn hilarious.

That team wasnt even ranked and Im pretty sure it wasnt even top 100 in Kenpom defensively(or it wasnt much better than that). We are top 20 in that this year and been ranked top 10 all year.

[Viper]

#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.

...vs Buffalo...the game Markus Howard went off for +30 in the 2nd half, or something like that?

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

...vs Buffalo...the game Markus Howard went off for +30 in the 2nd half, or something like that?

An even 40.

[PointWarrior]

Can you give an F- ?    Badger loss while ranked #3 in the country should count for 3 losses. 

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

[tower912]

Can you give an F- ?    Badger loss will ranked #3 in the country should count for 3 losses.

What if you are out of F-'s to give?

[PJDunn]

I bumped us up a half grade for the loss to the Badgers. Nothing better than scoop after a badger loss.

[MU82]

82

The last two seasons I have paid close attention to the progress of the program by comparing year over year. It is not even a question that this team is well advanced over last season at this time. I would even say that there is bigger improvement this year vs. the improvement we saw last season. Aside from player development, the defense is vastly improved, and the offense looks sharp again thus far. Truthfully, if anyone does not believe this team is vastly better, they either will never be satisfied or being contrarian.

Preachin' to the choir.

Some folks expect perfection. I guess they can point to Porter Moser going 9-0 against the 222nd-ranked schedule in the nation.

With UWGB at home today, another big challenge for the Perfect Mosers!

[PointWarrior]

Thankfully, I am not fresh out of F-'s to give...

What if you are out of F-'s to give?

[wisblue]

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

We should take this up again when it gets closer to Selection Sunday and people start stressing over exactly what seed MU will get.

In the meantime, I think you are pretty significantly overstating the difference in win probabilities for the teams in the 4 and 5 spots on the S Curve.

If the bracket is set precisely as dictated by the S Curve (which it isn't because of adjustments that have to be made because of some of the placement principles like avoiding early matchups between teams in the same conference) the 4 and 5 teams will be the 1 and 2 seeds in the same region and they would be on a path to face each other in the fourth round. That game should be something close to a tossup.

If all of the higher seeded teams win their games, the path for the teams would be:

Team 4- Teams 61, 29, and 13

Team 5- Teams 60, 28, and 12

Those teams that are 1 apart on the seed list should be of pretty comparable strength. The relative win probabilities for the higher seeds would be more a function of the specific matchup than playing an inherently inferior opponent.

Obviously there is value in teams earning the highest seed they can get. But once they are placed, the difficulty of their path to the Final Four will be determined in large part by the specific matchups they are faced with and whether higher seeded teams are knocked out before they get to them.

Look at Creighton last year. They had a 6 seed and their path to the Final Four looked like it would go through NC State, Baylor, Arizona, and Alabama. But, because Princeton knocked out Arizona and Missouri, and SD State beat Alabama, once they beat 3 seed Baylor Creighton played a 15 seed and a 5 seed the second weekend.

[brewcity77]

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

Sure. I guess I just have higher expectations for this team than the rest of Scoop does. And I grade accordingly. If you guys want to grade them on an easy scale where try hard is a B and perform as expected is an A, that's your prerogative. But there's no world in which I feel this team has exceeded my expectations, so B- it is.

[MU82]

As you all know, first prize is a Cadillac El Dorado. Anyone wanna see second prize? Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired.

[wadesworld]

Sure. I guess I just have higher expectations for this team than the rest of Scoop does. And I grade accordingly. If you guys want to grade them on an easy scale where try hard is a B and perform as expected is an A, that's your prerogative. But there's no world in which I feel this team has exceeded my expectations, so B- it is.

A kid who got a 34 on their ACT doesn't get graded any differently than a kid in the same class that got a 26 on their ACT.

Going 9-2 with wins at Illinois, over UCLA and Kansas neutral, a close loss to Purdue on a neutral, and dominating Texas and ND at home is a great non con. 40 bad minutes at a good Wisconsin team was the only negative result.

Also, you kind of referenced coming into the year ranked in the top 5 and not being that anymore. If playing to our preseason ranking is a consideration, we also played 2 teams that came into the season (and are currently) ranked higher than us this year. So 9-2 would've been expected.

Expecting 0 losses with our non conference is wild.

[Johnny B]

That's not my dad, that's a cell phone.

Throw it on the ground eh

[DoctorV]

A kid who got a 34 on their ACT doesn't get graded any differently than a kid in the same class that got a 26 on their ACT.

Going 9-2 with wins at Illinois, over UCLA and Kansas neutral, a close loss to Purdue on a neutral, and dominating Texas and ND at home is a great non con. 40 bad minutes at a good Wisconsin team was the only negative result.

Also, you kind of referenced coming into the year ranked in the top 5 and not being that anymore. If playing to our preseason ranking is a consideration, we also played 2 teams that came into the season (and are currently) ranked higher than us this year. So 9-2 would've been expected.

Expecting 0 losses with our non conference is wild.

I can see both sides of the equation, to be honest.

The above isn't as wild as you'd think.

In all reality, Brew expected Marquette to be #1 after Maui, facing a top 5 Creighton team in Mke on 12/30 in a possible 1v2 matchup and he said so before the ball was tipped.

Seems crazy? Well, I expected Marquette to win in Maui too. MU is en elite, experienced team and for some season I thought Kansas wouldn't be an issue, and they weren't.
I expected a better performance versus Purdue than we got, but they went light out from 3 and Edey ate.

Even with that, it was really damn close to MU being #1 on that Monday.
The dynamics would have been different going into Madison.
Not saying MU would win, and it definitely wouldn't playing the dumpster fire ball they played for 30 of the 40 mins, but they would have had a different edge as #1.

Even so, don't forget Marquette was right there quickly in the 2H before things unraveled again.

Again, I can see both sides of the coin but an undefeated non-con wouldn't have been as wild as some are saying it would've been, so I understand Brew's sentiment even though I still call it an A-

[CountryRoads]

Sure. I guess I just have higher expectations for this team than the rest of Scoop does. And I grade accordingly. If you guys want to grade them on an easy scale where try hard is a B and perform as expected is an A, that's your prerogative. But there's no world in which I feel this team has exceeded my expectations, so B- it is.

I also graded them relative to expectations and gave them a B+. Though if it's relative to other MU seasons, then it's an A+. I don't miss playing 8 cupcakes a year (9 in the 2007 season you referenced).

[Goose]

There have been threads or posts on scoop over the years that completely blew my mind and this is one is the climbing the ladder quickly. They played the best non conference schedule in school history, been ranked between 3-8 all season, has a first team AA, up to to 4-5 potential NBA players and we are debating a grade and comparing this team to other MU teams is crazy, imo.

As for having high expectations for the team and program, I believe my posts over the years indicate I have an extremely high bar and this team has delivered the goods. Any fan on here that grades a season based on beating UW is officially not a serious basketball fan. Two nearly flawless games against top 12 teams is how I will remember this NC portion of the season.

[Jay Bee]

We're doing fine. Great team w high upside. Nothing to overly yank the chain about yet. There have been ups and downs. We are a great team, but with flaws.

Gonna enjoy the ride (pawz) and roll with my squad, no matter what the outcome.

B grade this far

[1SE]

We should take this up again when it gets closer to Selection Sunday and people start stressing over exactly what seed MU will get.

In the meantime, I think you are pretty significantly overstating the difference in win probabilities for the teams in the 4 and 5 spots on the S Curve.

If the bracket is set precisely as dictated by the S Curve (which it isn't because of adjustments that have to be made because of some of the placement principles like avoiding early matchups between teams in the same conference) the 4 and 5 teams will be the 1 and 2 seeds in the same region and they would be on a path to face each other in the fourth round. That game should be something close to a tossup.

If all of the higher seeded teams win their games, the path for the teams would be:

Team 4- Teams 61, 29, and 13

Team 5- Teams 60, 28, and 12

Those teams that are 1 apart on the seed list should be of pretty comparable strength. The relative win probabilities for the higher seeds would be more a function of the specific matchup than playing an inherently inferior opponent.

Obviously there is value in teams earning the highest seed they can get. But once they are placed, the difficulty of their path to the Final Four will be determined in large part by the specific matchups they are faced with and whether higher seeded teams are knocked out before they get to them.

Look at Creighton last year. They had a 6 seed and their path to the Final Four looked like it would go through NC State, Baylor, Arizona, and Alabama. But, because Princeton knocked out Arizona and Missouri, and SD State beat Alabama, once they beat 3 seed Baylor Creighton played a 15 seed and a 5 seed the second weekend.

Yes, hopefully we're discussing the relative merits of being 4 or 5 on the S come March.

I get what you're saying but maybe some of our bracketologists can weigh in - I don't think those S paths are real likely once all the other considerations come in (protected seed locations, conference match ups, etc).

[1SE]

There have been threads or posts on scoop over the years that completely blew my mind and this is one is the climbing the ladder quickly. They played the best non conference schedule in school history, been ranked between 3-8 all season, has a first team AA, up to to 4-5 potential NBA players and we are debating a grade and comparing this team to other MU teams is crazy, imo.

As for having high expectations for the team and program, I believe my posts over the years indicate I have an extremely high bar and this team has delivered the goods. Any fan on here that grades a season based on beating UW is officially not a serious basketball fan. Two nearly flawless games against top 12 teams is how I will remember this NC portion of the season.

Yes, it is a great start against an incredible schedule. But I think my (and maybe Brew's and others') point is that I would have expected this from this team. For DePaul this would have been an A+++++++++ start. For a title-contending blue blood it would be a B- . If we want to be there we need to act like we belong.