three times "rule"

[mug644]

While I'm happy with the matchup against Seton Hall, I can't get that bit of conventional wisdom out of my mind, that it is very difficult to beat the same team three times in one season. I hope that we are not too confident (though I sure believe we have no right to feel that way after Saturday's showing) going into it. There has clearly been a lot of emotion in the two games with SH this season (Nutter v. James), and they know that the end of their road is upon them.

On the other hand, the three times rule makes me excited about the possibility of getting to Louisville!

[BrewCity83]

Seton Hall is our bitch.

[OneMadWarrior]

Yeah because I am sure that teams in the PAC-10 are just as worried about playing Oregon St. 3 times in a year. The three times rule only applies for evenly matched or closely matched teams. Like if Marquette Played Louisville again, that woudl be part of the # times rule.

Unless they play zone, the MU is screwed. I am surprised more coached don't realize this. college coaches, like Crean are too stubborn to change their strategies to fit other teams.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Are you saying Marquette and Louisville are evenly matched? They've throttled us twice. We struggled with Seton Hall at home.

[downtown85]

where is Henry Sugar when you need him?  I mean someone should either debunk this myth or find out statistically it is true.  all someone has to do is look up in the database all teams who played each other 3 times in one season and where one team won the first two and see how the 3rd game goes.  (probably no small feat)  actually, i wonder if this is born out in the numbers. 

[mug644]

Are you saying Marquette and Louisville are evenly matched? They've throttled us twice. We struggled with Seton Hall at home.

I was trying to resist jumping to what might happen on Friday, when we have two games just to get there. No, we are not evenly matched with Louisville, but if the three times rule does indeed serve as a indicator of possible results than grand. Still, if the team is thinking about Louisville, well that gets me even more worried about SH.

Bottom line is I don't have the confidence going into tomorrow night's game that I'd like to have. Yes, we have beaten SH twice, but anything can happen. We could easily blow them out, it could be tight, and we could get solidly beaten. (The nice thing is that, despite the team's inability to step up to quality teams for the most part, we haven't lost to any teams that we were fully expected to beat.)

Maybe this is a new thread, but I worry that part of our poor performance in the post season over the last couple of years is due to over-confidence, that the team has looked ahead to its next game rather than focused on the one at hand.

[tonyreeder]

Drake won the valley tourney by beating Indiana State, Creighton, and Illinois State each for the third time.   Three time rule is bunk

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Are you saying Marquette and Louisville are evenly matched? They've throttled us twice. We struggled with Seton Hall at home.

...I worry that part of our poor performance in the post season over the last couple of years is due to over-confidence, that the team has looked ahead to its next game rather than focused on the one at hand.

I don't believe it's been overconfidence. I believe it's been over-preparation causing "paralysis by analysis." For two straight years, we've opened up like a team afraid of making mistakes and trying to be perfect instead of just playing basketball.

Unfortunately, we had the same problem against Kansas (I know, sore subject).

Our last three NCAA tournament games we've had an average -- an AVERAGE -- halftime deficit of 18 points. Now you tell me, is that overcofidence or poor preparation?

I really believe that Crean gets these guys so worked up and nervous, especially last year, that it results in about a 15 minute adjustment period at the beginning on every NCAA game. 

I just hope when the NCAA pairings come out, Crean isn't immediately lamenting the matchup like he did a year ago.

[21Jumpstreet]

The three times rule is a myth and a motivation thing.  The better team will win.  We will beat SH.

[Big Papi]

Are you saying Marquette and Louisville are evenly matched? They've throttled us twice. We struggled with Seton Hall at home.

...I worry that part of our poor performance in the post season over the last couple of years is due to over-confidence, that the team has looked ahead to its next game rather than focused on the one at hand.

I don't believe it's been overconfidence. I believe it's been over-preparation causing "paralysis by analysis." For two straight years, we've opened up like a team afraid of making mistakes and trying to be perfect instead of just playing basketball.

Unfortunately, we had the same problem against Kansas (I know, sore subject).

Our last three NCAA tournament games we've had an average -- an AVERAGE -- halftime deficit of 18 points. Now you tell me, is that overcofidence or poor preparation?

I really believe that Crean gets these guys so worked up and nervous, especially last year, that it results in about a 15 minute adjustment period at the beginning on every NCAA game. 

I just hope when the NCAA pairings come out, Crean isn't immediately lamenting the matchup like he did a year ago.

And here is the really odd part in all of that.  TC's teams don't have any problems in preseason tourneys which they excel at.

[Coobeys Oil Depot]

Are you saying Marquette and Louisville are evenly matched? They've throttled us twice. We struggled with Seton Hall at home.

And, in the more recent match-up on their home floor, Marquette absolutely bitch slapped Seton Hall from the opening tip.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Are you saying Marquette and Louisville are evenly matched? They've throttled us twice. We struggled with Seton Hall at home.

...I worry that part of our poor performance in the post season over the last couple of years is due to over-confidence, that the team has looked ahead to its next game rather than focused on the one at hand.

I don't believe it's been overconfidence. I believe it's been over-preparation causing "paralysis by analysis." For two straight years, we've opened up like a team afraid of making mistakes and trying to be perfect instead of just playing basketball.

Unfortunately, we had the same problem against Kansas (I know, sore subject).

Our last three NCAA tournament games we've had an average -- an AVERAGE -- halftime deficit of 18 points. Now you tell me, is that overcofidence or poor preparation?

I really believe that Crean gets these guys so worked up and nervous, especially last year, that it results in about a 15 minute adjustment period at the beginning on every NCAA game. 

I just hope when the NCAA pairings come out, Crean isn't immediately lamenting the matchup like he did a year ago.

And here is the really odd part in all of that.  TC's teams don't have any problems in preseason tourneys which they excel at.

I think that's because he's able to prepare the guys for months. Come tournament time, he's trying to jam so much down their throats that they can't possibly process it all.

Anyway, like I said, I'm anticipating better results this year!

[Big Papi]

Unless they play zone, the MU is screwed. I am surprised more coached don't realize this. college coaches, like Crean are too stubborn to change their strategies to fit other teams.

IMO that is just a generic statement that really doesn't have a lot of merit.  We struggle against zones when our opponents are long and athletic.  Yes our offense bogs down a little when playing against a zone but it is when James, McNeal, Matthews and others attack a compact zone where they can't finish because the opponent is just so much taller and athletic that they disrupt our shots.  

Rewatch the first half of the Syracuse game and it is very clear that their height bothered us badly when we had the ball.  We attacked fairly well and had quite a few shots in the paint but than we were forced to throw up bad shots in the paint or risk getting rejected which is what happened to McNeal at the rim on the second play of the game by a great defensive play.  Against these types of teams (Syracuse, Louisville and UConn) we really need to be firing on all cylinders from the outside to force them to loosen up their zone and by this I mean we need James, McNeal, Cube and Fitz to be nailing open 3 point shots not throwing up bricks which is what they do when we lose.

I have no problems with Seton Hall playing a zone against us.  They have no one big inside to disrupt our shots so its easy pickings for McNeal, James, Matthews and Hayward.  In addition, we would kill them on the boards as well as you need to be a very good rebounding team when playing a zone which Seton Hall is not.  You really need the right personnel to play an effective zone against us for 40 minutes.  Other teams have tried and failed.

[Henry Sugar]

where is Henry Sugar when you need him?  I mean someone should either debunk this myth or find out statistically it is true.  all someone has to do is look up in the database all teams who played each other 3 times in one season and where one team won the first two and see how the 3rd game goes.  (probably no small feat)  actually, i wonder if this is born out in the numbers. 

I think you said it best... maybe in the offseason.   

If anyone else wants to take a crack, here's a list of every single basketball game played this year 

http://kenpom.com/cbbga08.txt

[spiral97]

alright fine.. since I must..

I went with last year's results (found at http://kenpom.com/cbbga07.txt) since this year probably doesn't have many 3-peat opponents yet as many conference tourneys haven't started...

here's a summary:
There were 198 times where 2 teams met three times (no teams met more than that).

Possible records when two teams meet 3 times are a sweep (3-0 or 0-3) or a split (1-2 or 2-1).
Of those, one team was swept 85 times (so 113 times a split of some sort happened).  This means that a sweep will happen roughly 42.9%.

A little further analysis:
There were 119 instances where a team swept the first two games in a 3 game series.
That means that when a team wins the first two games in a 3 game series, it also won the 3rd game 71.4% of the time.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Are you saying Marquette and Louisville are evenly matched? They've throttled us twice. We struggled with Seton Hall at home.

...I worry that part of our poor performance in the post season over the last couple of years is due to over-confidence, that the team has looked ahead to its next game rather than focused on the one at hand.

I don't believe it's been overconfidence. I believe it's been over-preparation causing "paralysis by analysis." For two straight years, we've opened up like a team afraid of making mistakes and trying to be perfect instead of just playing basketball.

Unfortunately, we had the same problem against Kansas (I know, sore subject).

Our last three NCAA tournament games we've had an average -- an AVERAGE -- halftime deficit of 18 points. Now you tell me, is that overcofidence or poor preparation?

I really believe that Crean gets these guys so worked up and nervous, especially last year, that it results in about a 15 minute adjustment period at the beginning on every NCAA game. 

I just hope when the NCAA pairings come out, Crean isn't immediately lamenting the matchup like he did a year ago.

And here is the really odd part in all of that.  TC's teams don't have any problems in preseason tourneys which they excel at.

I think that's because he's able to prepare the guys for months. Come tournament time, he's trying to jam so much down their throats that they can't possibly process it all.

Anyway, like I said, I'm anticipating better results this year!

Interesting take regarding the tournys, and the data (w's and l's) seem to support it.

I'm not sure I'm totally sold on the over-prep thing... but we do know TC has a tendency to obsess and really put in a lot of work, so it seems palusable.

Also, I think the best half MU might have played all year was the comeback against ND... they seemed to play so much looser and more aggressive (similar to what you are saying about not being too tight). I think we all know they are at their best in an open court game... the key for the coaches is how they can put their players in those open court situations.

I still think the tourney is such a game of match-ups and some luck that I can't really put my finger on why MU hasn't won more tourney game (bad match-ups? bad luck? I dunno...)

I'm hoping for sweet sixteen this year because I know the players have worked very hard and I know they want to make it VERY badly.

[The Lens]

Are you saying Marquette and Louisville are evenly matched? They've throttled us twice. We struggled with Seton Hall at home.

...I worry that part of our poor performance in the post season over the last couple of years is due to over-confidence, that the team has looked ahead to its next game rather than focused on the one at hand.

I don't believe it's been overconfidence. I believe it's been over-preparation causing "paralysis by analysis." For two straight years, we've opened up like a team afraid of making mistakes and trying to be perfect instead of just playing basketball.

Unfortunately, we had the same problem against Kansas (I know, sore subject).

Our last three NCAA tournament games we've had an average -- an AVERAGE -- halftime deficit of 18 points. Now you tell me, is that overcofidence or poor preparation?

I really believe that Crean gets these guys so worked up and nervous, especially last year, that it results in about a 15 minute adjustment period at the beginning on every NCAA game. 

I just hope when the NCAA pairings come out, Crean isn't immediately lamenting the matchup like he did a year ago.

And here is the really odd part in all of that.  TC's teams don't have any problems in preseason tourneys which they excel at.

That's b/c when other coaches are goling all summer ours breaking down our 7 possible pre season tourney opponents.  No one walks into Maui, Alaska, KC etc more prepared than MU.

[chapman]

A little further analysis:
There were 119 instances where a team swept the first two games in a 3 game series.
That means that when a team wins the first two games in a 3 game series, it also won the 3rd game 71.4% of the time.

Thanks for that.  I was just about to say "If it's so tough to beat a team three times, why does it happen 70% of the time?"  Now there are numbers to support that.  If it's a case like Pitt last year, you can see how we lose game three.  Even after winning the first two, there wasn't much optimism for beating them again.  This is Seton Hall,  team we're expected to beat anytime, anywhere.

[MarquetteVol]

I think bad luck has certainly played a role in 2 of our previous 4 tourney appearances. In 2003, we definitely caught some breaks. If it wasn't for Travis we would have been one-and-done. The Tulsa game could have gone either way. The Alabama game could have gone either way, too. Michigan State was obviously a sound beating.

TC is 4-4 in the tournament. Of those 4 losses, two were very close games and two were not.

[MUSF]

I sort of agree with PRN here. Crean's strengths are recruiting and preparation. He is not a great game coach. In order for us to win games against good teams/good coaches, our players have to play to their ability and our game plan has to be good enough to compensate for TCs game management. Reminds me a little of Mike Martz in the NFL.

That said, I still think Crean is a very good coach and, at this point, MU should do everything they can to keep him around. There are only a handful of coaches out there who are great recruiters, teachers, preparers (I know, not a word), and game managers. Anyone who thinks we could get rid of Crean and hire a coach that can do all of those things at an elite level, is delusional. Crean has brought our program to a high level in a short period of time and seems to be continuing that improvement. There may come a time that he plateaus and someone else may be able to take the program to the next level but I don't think that time is now.

[MarquetteDano]

Unless they play zone, the MU is screwed. I am surprised more coached don't realize this. college coaches, like Crean are too stubborn to change their strategies to fit other teams.

IMO that is just a generic statement that really doesn't have a lot of merit.  We struggle against zones when our opponents are long and athletic.  Yes our offense bogs down a little when playing against a zone but it is when James, McNeal, Matthews and others attack a compact zone where they can't finish because the opponent is just so much taller and athletic that they disrupt our shots.  

Rewatch the first half of the Syracuse game and it is very clear that their height bothered us badly when we had the ball.  We attacked fairly well and had quite a few shots in the paint but than we were forced to throw up bad shots in the paint or risk getting rejected which is what happened to McNeal at the rim on the second play of the game by a great defensive play.  Against these types of teams (Syracuse, Louisville and UConn) we really need to be firing on all cylinders from the outside to force them to loosen up their zone and by this I mean we need James, McNeal, Cube and Fitz to be nailing open 3 point shots not throwing up bricks which is what they do when we lose.

I have no problems with Seton Hall playing a zone against us.  They have no one big inside to disrupt our shots so its easy pickings for McNeal, James, Matthews and Hayward.  In addition, we would kill them on the boards as well as you need to be a very good rebounding team when playing a zone which Seton Hall is not.  You really need the right personnel to play an effective zone against us for 40 minutes.  Other teams have tried and failed.

I am nominating this post as one of the best of year.  I keep hearing comments like "coaches should be fired if they don't play zone against us".  The post basically refutes that statement.  Some teams can pull if off against us, others cannot.  Even teams that cannot may be able to get away with it for a few posessions, but if they play it the whole game sooner or later for the reasons MUFanatic specified, it will be broken down.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

I sort of agree with PRN here. Crean's strengths are recruiting and preparation. He is not a great game coach. In order for us to win games against good teams/good coaches, our players have to play to their ability and our game plan has to be good enough to compensate for TCs game management. Reminds me a little of Mike Martz in the NFL.

That said, I still think Crean is a very good coach and, at this point, MU should do everything they can to keep him around. There are only a handful of coaches out there who are great recruiters, teachers, preparers (I know, not a word), and game managers. Anyone who thinks we could get rid of Crean and hire a coach that can do all of those things at an elite level, is delusional. Crean has brought our program to a high level in a short period of time and seems to be continuing that improvement. There may come a time that he plateaus and someone else may be able to take the program to the next level but I don't think that time is now.

Just a point of clarification...I do not think recruiting is a strength of Crean's. In fact, regardless of glowing reports and reputation, I think it's his biggest weakness as a coach.

[MUSF]

"Just a point of clarification...I do not think recruiting is a strength of Crean's. In fact, regardless of glowing reports and reputation, I think it's his biggest weakness as a coach."

Trust me, I know how you feel about Crean as a recruiter. I was trying to reference your post regarding preparation/over-preparation.

Regarding the recruiting issue, I completely disagree.  TC has put together a team that will be making its 3rd straight NCAA appearance and there is no reason to believe that next year won't be number 4. That is something this program hasn't done in a long time and you can't get to that level without talent. I know you have pointed to our lack of highly rated recruits as a weakness but what about Crean's ability to find talent that other teams are over-looking? DWade, McNeal, Hayward, Cubillan, etc... I love TCs approach to recruiting. He doesn't go all in with a few highly rated guys. He finds talent that can help this team regardless of location or ranking.

 

[jmayer1]

I sort of agree with PRN here. Crean's strengths are recruiting and preparation. He is not a great game coach. In order for us to win games against good teams/good coaches, our players have to play to their ability and our game plan has to be good enough to compensate for TCs game management. Reminds me a little of Mike Martz in the NFL.

That said, I still think Crean is a very good coach and, at this point, MU should do everything they can to keep him around. There are only a handful of coaches out there who are great recruiters, teachers, preparers (I know, not a word), and game managers. Anyone who thinks we could get rid of Crean and hire a coach that can do all of those things at an elite level, is delusional. Crean has brought our program to a high level in a short period of time and seems to be continuing that improvement. There may come a time that he plateaus and someone else may be able to take the program to the next level but I don't think that time is now.

Just a point of clarification...I do not think recruiting is a strength of Crean's. In fact, regardless of glowing reports and reputation, I think it's his biggest weakness as a coach.

I think Crean is an ok recruiter.  He gets guys that fit his system and are within his reach, but until MU starts to be in on the top recruits (ie-Shumpert) time after time and eventually starts to land a few; he won't be a great recruiter IMO.  I think Crean's biggest fault is his in game management.  There have been two games (ND & G-Town) where we had time to get off a good last second shot and failed.  I also don't particularly care for the set plays we run either, it doesn't seem like we get many open shots from them. 

[spiral97]

A little further analysis:
There were 119 instances where a team swept the first two games in a 3 game series.
That means that when a team wins the first two games in a 3 game series, it also won the 3rd game 71.4% of the time.

Thanks for that.  I was just about to say "If it's so tough to beat a team three times, why does it happen 70% of the time?"  Now there are numbers to support that.  If it's a case like Pitt last year, you can see how we lose game three.  Even after winning the first two, there wasn't much optimism for beating them again.  This is Seton Hall,  team we're expected to beat anytime, anywhere.

not to be nit-picky but I am not sure I was clear on the numbers.. It doesn't happen 70% of the time.. it happens roughly 43% of the possible times.. the 70% number is the percentage of times that a 2 game sweep turned into a 3 game sweep.

either way though, the statement in question is "it's hard to beat a team three times in a row in the same season".  I think you're right.. whether you make that statement before the first two games have been swept or not, I wouldn't classify it as hard or even unlikely.  2 out of 5 times a 3 game series was swept.

[MUSF]

"I think Crean is an ok recruiter.  He gets guys that fit his system and are within his reach, but until MU starts to be in on the top recruits (ie-Shumpert) time after time and eventually starts to land a few; he won't be a great recruiter IMO.  I think Crean's biggest fault is his in game management.  There have been two games (ND & G-Town) where we had time to get off a good last second shot and failed.  I also don't particularly care for the set plays we run either, it doesn't seem like we get many open shots from them."

You don't recruit in a vaccum. There are a lot of factors outside of the coach that factor into recruiting.
Location - MU not a huge draw location/campus wise
Fan Base - MU not a huge fan base
Style of play - Good for guards/athletes, not good for back to the basket bigs
Program standards - A lot of players at Memphis, Louisville, Cincy, K-State, would not be allowed  to set foot in MU. Some of this is MU and some of this is the type of person Crean wants in the program
National Exposure - Better in the BE but not elite

IMO, all things considered, Crean is a great recruiter because year in year out we put a talented team on the court that has been one of the 6 best teams in the best conference for the last 3 years.

To your second point, I agree with Crean's sometimes poor game management. However, I disagree that our set plays don't work. They work when the other team does what we expect them to and don't adjust adequately. See Villanova.

[TJ]

A little further analysis:
There were 119 instances where a team swept the first two games in a 3 game series.
That means that when a team wins the first two games in a 3 game series, it also won the 3rd game 71.4% of the time.

Thanks for that.  I was just about to say "If it's so tough to beat a team three times, why does it happen 70% of the time?"  Now there are numbers to support that.  If it's a case like Pitt last year, you can see how we lose game three.  Even after winning the first two, there wasn't much optimism for beating them again.  This is Seton Hall,  team we're expected to beat anytime, anywhere.

not to be nit-picky but I am not sure I was clear on the numbers.. It doesn't happen 70% of the time.. it happens roughly 43% of the possible times.. the 70% number is the percentage of times that a 2 game sweep turned into a 3 game sweep.

either way though, the statement in question is "it's hard to beat a team three times in a row in the same season".  I think you're right.. whether you make that statement before the first two games have been swept or not, I wouldn't classify it as hard or even unlikely.  2 out of 5 times a 3 game series was swept.

I think that the 70% number is valid because by the time someone says "it's hard to beat a team three times..." they've already played twice.  No one schedules another school 3 times in the same year - the third game is pretty much always the result of a post season tournament, right?  So that statement really only gets uttered in situations where the first 2 games have already been won.  I don't know if other years will result in the same ratio, but for the numbers you showed (84 sweeps out of 119 times a team won the first 2 games), 70% is the number I would go with.

[Big Papi]

I think TC is a phenomenal talent evaluator but for whatever reasons, that can be debated about ad nauseum, he has not been able to close the deal on some really high profile players. 

Having said that he has brought in some very talented players that we have not seen around here in a long time.  Furthermore he has us flirting with being a top 25 team on a consistent basis that has also not happened in a long time.  Actually, now that I think about it, its hard to imagine that we are faulting his recruiting much when we are now on the cusp of our third consecutive NCAA tourney and our third finish in the top half of the BIG EAST conference.  A conference mind you that is legitimately considered one of the best in NCAA basketball but yes his recruiting could be better.  I mean come on, we as die hard MU fans deserve elite status and if TC can't deliver it than we all know that there are 5-10 coaches lined up who are dying to coach MU who can get us to that elite status overnight.   

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Program standards - A lot of players at Memphis, Louisville, Cincy, K-State, would not be allowed  to set foot in MU. Some of this is MU and some of this is the type of person Crean wants in the program

I hope you're not talking about academics, because you might want to check the transcripts of some of our players. He's been given more leeway than any coach in Marquette history in this regard.

[Big Papi]

Having leeway doesn't mean total disregard of academic standards.  All you have to do is look at the graduation rates of MU basketball players to see that we don't just take anyone.

[spiral97]

For 2006's year's results (found at http://kenpom.com/cbbga06.txt):
There were 188 times where 2 teams met three times (again no teams met more than that).  This is 10 fewer than in 2007.

Of those, one team was swept 80 times (so 108 times a split of some sort happened).  That is 5 fewer times than in 2007.  This means that a sweep will happen roughly 42.6% of the time.  This is 0.3% less than in 2007.

There were 111 instances where a team swept the first two games in a 3 game series (8 fewer times than 2007).
That means that when a team wins the first two games in a 3 game series, it also won the 3rd game 72.1% of the time.  This is 0.7% more than in 2007.

Wow.. I really didn't think these numbers would be so constant.  Amazing.  Unfortunately, that site didn't seem to have similar data from 2005 or earlier to also compare.  If someone reminds me, I'll re-run these numbers for the 2008 data when the NCAA tournament is over.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Are you saying Marquette and Louisville are evenly matched? They've throttled us twice. We struggled with Seton Hall at home.

...I worry that part of our poor performance in the post season over the last couple of years is due to over-confidence, that the team has looked ahead to its next game rather than focused on the one at hand.

I don't believe it's been overconfidence. I believe it's been over-preparation causing "paralysis by analysis." For two straight years, we've opened up like a team afraid of making mistakes and trying to be perfect instead of just playing basketball.

Unfortunately, we had the same problem against Kansas (I know, sore subject).

Our last three NCAA tournament games we've had an average -- an AVERAGE -- halftime deficit of 18 points. Now you tell me, is that overcofidence or poor preparation?

I really believe that Crean gets these guys so worked up and nervous, especially last year, that it results in about a 15 minute adjustment period at the beginning on every NCAA game. 

I just hope when the NCAA pairings come out, Crean isn't immediately lamenting the matchup like he did a year ago.

Uhm....we didn't "open up" at all like that against Kansas.  In fact, it was 17-14 at the 13 minute mark....then the ass-kicking started.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Program standards - A lot of players at Memphis, Louisville, Cincy, K-State, would not be allowed  to set foot in MU. Some of this is MU and some of this is the type of person Crean wants in the program

I hope you're not talking about academics, because you might want to check the transcripts of some of our players. He's been given more leeway than any coach in Marquette history in this regard.

Hyperbole at it's finest....meanwhile 87% of his guys have graduated.

if you want to know about transcripts...check out the KO era and the Dukiet era.  Gerald Posey, Keith Stewart, Tony Reeder, Zack McCall, Aaron Hutchins, etc.  Leeway has been given many times...one needs to look at Alton Mason and a few of the beauties Deane brought in as well.

[BrewCity83]

Leeway has always been the way.  I went to a class with Artie Green (a guy Al recruited) and my second grader has better reading skills than Artie had.  He did attend class regularly, though.

[Big Papi]

Are you saying Marquette and Louisville are evenly matched? They've throttled us twice. We struggled with Seton Hall at home.

...I worry that part of our poor performance in the post season over the last couple of years is due to over-confidence, that the team has looked ahead to its next game rather than focused on the one at hand.

I don't believe it's been overconfidence. I believe it's been over-preparation causing "paralysis by analysis." For two straight years, we've opened up like a team afraid of making mistakes and trying to be perfect instead of just playing basketball.

Unfortunately, we had the same problem against Kansas (I know, sore subject).

Our last three NCAA tournament games we've had an average -- an AVERAGE -- halftime deficit of 18 points. Now you tell me, is that overcofidence or poor preparation?

I really believe that Crean gets these guys so worked up and nervous, especially last year, that it results in about a 15 minute adjustment period at the beginning on every NCAA game. 

I just hope when the NCAA pairings come out, Crean isn't immediately lamenting the matchup like he did a year ago.

Uhm....we didn't "open up" at all like that against Kansas.  In fact, it was 17-14 at the 13 minute mark....then the ass-kicking started.

The wide open shots that were falling the previous 3 games completely stopped in that game.  One of the very few times I can remember Novak missing wide open shots.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yup.  Travis was 1 for 11.  Novak was 1 for 7.  2 for 18 combined.  Chapman was 0-3 and Merritt 5-14.

We couldn't shoot a lick that game from guys that were shooting well the first 4 games of the tournament, sans Dwyane and RJax who did shoot well against Kansas.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I agree here.

I LOVE the 2003 team, but let's be realistic about who they actually were.

They were a very good team that got very hot shooting at the right time of year. The heat ran out suddenly as they came up against Kansas, and KU ran them out of the gym.

MU would to HC and/our Mizzou is Deiner and Novak hadn't been crazy hot shooting the ball.

The tourny is a weird beast... a team that almost loses in the first round gets hot and rides the wave all the way to the final 4.

I really think that if Novak had hit that shot against Bama, MU would have had a decent shot at taking out UCLA... but that's how it works in a single elim. format.

[Big Papi]

I agree here.

I LOVE the 2003 team, but let's be realistic about who they actually were.

They were a very good team that got very hot shooting at the right time of year. The heat ran out suddenly as they came up against Kansas, and KU ran them out of the gym.

MU would to HC and/our Mizzou is Deiner and Novak hadn't been crazy hot shooting the ball.

The tourny is a weird beast... a team that almost loses in the first round gets hot and rides the wave all the way to the final 4.

I really think that if Novak had hit that shot against Bama, MU would have had a decent shot at taking out UCLA... but that's how it works in a single elim. format.

Well actually that team had 3 future NBA players with one being a superstar.  Also we had 2 skilled big men which we haven't had in a long time before and after that year.   The more you look back at that team, the better they look.  Don't forget that Novak was not just on fire during 3 tourny games.  He was on fire the entire half of the second season.  Diener was a stud in the making that year and there is no need to talk about how great Wade was.  All four Final FOur teams that year had phenomenal players and MU was on par talent wise with Texas, Kansas and Syracuse.

[OneMadWarrior]

I agree here.

I LOVE the 2003 team, but let's be realistic about who they actually were.

They were a very good team that got very hot shooting at the right time of year. The heat ran out suddenly as they came up against Kansas, and KU ran them out of the gym.

MU would to HC and/our Mizzou is Deiner and Novak hadn't been crazy hot shooting the ball.

The tourny is a weird beast... a team that almost loses in the first round gets hot and rides the wave all the way to the final 4.

I really think that if Novak had hit that shot against Bama, MU would have had a decent shot at taking out UCLA... but that's how it works in a single elim. format.

Well actually that team had 3 future NBA players with one being a superstar.  Also we had 2 skilled big men which we haven't had in a long time before and after that year.   The more you look back at that team, the better they look.  Don't forget that Novak was not just on fire during 3 tourny games.  He was on fire the entire half of the second season.  Diener was a stud in the making that year and there is no need to talk about how great Wade was.  All four Final FOur teams that year had phenomenal players and MU was on par talent wise with Texas, Kansas and Syracuse.

What about Scott Merritt was ever skilled? He had one move, a stupid spin move to the basket from the top of the key. That is why he is wasting away in the NBDL. I'll give you Robert Jackson because he was the most important player on that team most of the year. But Merritt sucks and will always suck.

[Big Papi]

I agree here.

I LOVE the 2003 team, but let's be realistic about who they actually were.

They were a very good team that got very hot shooting at the right time of year. The heat ran out suddenly as they came up against Kansas, and KU ran them out of the gym.

MU would to HC and/our Mizzou is Deiner and Novak hadn't been crazy hot shooting the ball.

The tourny is a weird beast... a team that almost loses in the first round gets hot and rides the wave all the way to the final 4.

I really think that if Novak had hit that shot against Bama, MU would have had a decent shot at taking out UCLA... but that's how it works in a single elim. format.

Well actually that team had 3 future NBA players with one being a superstar.  Also we had 2 skilled big men which we haven't had in a long time before and after that year.   The more you look back at that team, the better they look.  Don't forget that Novak was not just on fire during 3 tourny games.  He was on fire the entire half of the second season.  Diener was a stud in the making that year and there is no need to talk about how great Wade was.  All four Final FOur teams that year had phenomenal players and MU was on par talent wise with Texas, Kansas and Syracuse.

What about Scott Merritt was ever skilled? He had one move, a stupid spin move to the basket from the top of the key. That is why he is wasting away in the NBDL. I'll give you Robert Jackson because he was the most important player on that team most of the year. But Merritt sucks and will always suck.

Ummmm don't let the 03-04 season that Merritt had taint your memory of him.  Was Merritt soft?  You bet.  Did he rely on one major move in the paint when he was playing the five and turned the ball over a lot?  Yes.  But he was a very skilled big that could score and rebound and shoot free throws.

Here is some of his highlights from the 02-03 season from the wiki board:

"Averaged 10.1 points and 6.6 rebounds. Started all 33 games. Posted five double-doubles. Recorded 17 points and 12 rebounds against Appalachian State. Tallied 14 points and 11 rebounds at St. Louis. Scored season-high 18 points on 8-for-10 shooting and grabbed seven rebounds against Missouri in the Sweet Sixteen of the NCAA Tournament. Added 17 points against Pittsburgh in the Elite Eight. Registered a double-double of 12 points and 11 rebounds against Kansas in the Final Four."

Yea we have had that type of production in and around the paint on a consistent basis over the last 10 plus years.   

Oh and here are some from his disappointing 03-04 season:

"Averaged 11.2 points and a team-leading 7.1 rebounds (ninth in Conference USA). Started 30 of 31 games. Posted 21 double-digit scoring efforts and had nine games with double-digits in rebounds. Scored season-high 18 points and grabbed 12 rebounds against Notre Dame. Recorded 17 points and a career-high 15 rebounds against South Florida. Registered 16 points and ten rebounds against Valparaiso in the title game of the Pepsi Blue and Gold Classic, earning all-tournament honors. "

In addition if you look at his NBDL bio you will see that Scott is the only player in MU school history to record over 1,000 points, 600 rebounds, 100 assists, and 100 blocked shots for his career.  But yea your right he is not skilled at all. 

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I agree here.

I LOVE the 2003 team, but let's be realistic about who they actually were.

They were a very good team that got very hot shooting at the right time of year. The heat ran out suddenly as they came up against Kansas, and KU ran them out of the gym.

MU would to HC and/our Mizzou is Deiner and Novak hadn't been crazy hot shooting the ball.

The tourny is a weird beast... a team that almost loses in the first round gets hot and rides the wave all the way to the final 4.

I really think that if Novak had hit that shot against Bama, MU would have had a decent shot at taking out UCLA... but that's how it works in a single elim. format.

Well actually that team had 3 future NBA players with one being a superstar.  Also we had 2 skilled big men which we haven't had in a long time before and after that year.   The more you look back at that team, the better they look.  Don't forget that Novak was not just on fire during 3 tourny games.  He was on fire the entire half of the second season.  Diener was a stud in the making that year and there is no need to talk about how great Wade was.  All four Final FOur teams that year had phenomenal players and MU was on par talent wise with Texas, Kansas and Syracuse.

Novak was on fire, and he was a unique talent... along with Diener. BUT, remember that they were a fresh. and soph. respectively.

I'm not saying that team wasn't very, very good.... But I think sometimes MU fans (myself included) treat that team like they were the greatest team in college basketball.

They had a nice mix of young and old talent... but a couple of wrong bounces and they would have been out of the tourny. It's fact. Go back and watch the games.

I'm in no way trying to diminish their AWESOME accomplishments... I'm simply trying to point out that a single elimination tournament is such a weird format when trying to actually determine the best team. Don't get me wrong, I love it... but you have to realize that it rewards teams who are "hot". MU was hot that year... and not "hot" the past couple. Hopefully MU gets hot this year.

[OneMadWarrior]

I agree here.

I LOVE the 2003 team, but let's be realistic about who they actually were.

They were a very good team that got very hot shooting at the right time of year. The heat ran out suddenly as they came up against Kansas, and KU ran them out of the gym.

MU would to HC and/our Mizzou is Deiner and Novak hadn't been crazy hot shooting the ball.

The tourny is a weird beast... a team that almost loses in the first round gets hot and rides the wave all the way to the final 4.

I really think that if Novak had hit that shot against Bama, MU would have had a decent shot at taking out UCLA... but that's how it works in a single elim. format.

Well actually that team had 3 future NBA players with one being a superstar.  Also we had 2 skilled big men which we haven't had in a long time before and after that year.   The more you look back at that team, the better they look.  Don't forget that Novak was not just on fire during 3 tourny games.  He was on fire the entire half of the second season.  Diener was a stud in the making that year and there is no need to talk about how great Wade was.  All four Final FOur teams that year had phenomenal players and MU was on par talent wise with Texas, Kansas and Syracuse.

What about Scott Merritt was ever skilled? He had one move, a stupid spin move to the basket from the top of the key. That is why he is wasting away in the NBDL. I'll give you Robert Jackson because he was the most important player on that team most of the year. But Merritt sucks and will always suck.

Ummmm don't let the 03-04 season that Merritt had taint your memory of him.  Was Merritt soft?  You bet.  Did he rely on one major move in the paint when he was playing the five and turned the ball over a lot?  Yes.  But he was a very skilled big that could score and rebound and shoot free throws.

Here is some of his highlights from the 02-03 season from the wiki board:

"Averaged 10.1 points and 6.6 rebounds. Started all 33 games. Posted five double-doubles. Recorded 17 points and 12 rebounds against Appalachian State. Tallied 14 points and 11 rebounds at St. Louis. Scored season-high 18 points on 8-for-10 shooting and grabbed seven rebounds against Missouri in the Sweet Sixteen of the NCAA Tournament. Added 17 points against Pittsburgh in the Elite Eight. Registered a double-double of 12 points and 11 rebounds against Kansas in the Final Four."

Yea we have had that type of production in and around the paint on a consistent basis over the last 10 plus years.   

Oh and here are some from his disappointing 03-04 season:

"Averaged 11.2 points and a team-leading 7.1 rebounds (ninth in Conference USA). Started 30 of 31 games. Posted 21 double-digit scoring efforts and had nine games with double-digits in rebounds. Scored season-high 18 points and grabbed 12 rebounds against Notre Dame. Recorded 17 points and a career-high 15 rebounds against South Florida. Registered 16 points and ten rebounds against Valparaiso in the title game of the Pepsi Blue and Gold Classic, earning all-tournament honors. "

In addition if you look at his NBDL bio you will see that Scott is the only player in MU school history to record over 1,000 points, 600 rebounds, 100 assists, and 100 blocked shots for his career.  But yea your right he is not skilled at all. 

Well I am glad he was able to put up numbers like that on a really good team but He   played with some darn good guards during that time. His numbers don't stand up as much when you look at his minutes played and compare at per 40 minutes to other players like "Scary" Marcus Jackson. I never saw him make one difference in a game that mattered and he usually choked in the clutch. He tallied good numbers and was a contributer for 4 years but I never saw him get any better after his freshman year.  Its too bad too.

[Big Papi]

I agree here.

I LOVE the 2003 team, but let's be realistic about who they actually were.

They were a very good team that got very hot shooting at the right time of year. The heat ran out suddenly as they came up against Kansas, and KU ran them out of the gym.

MU would to HC and/our Mizzou is Deiner and Novak hadn't been crazy hot shooting the ball.

The tourny is a weird beast... a team that almost loses in the first round gets hot and rides the wave all the way to the final 4.

I really think that if Novak had hit that shot against Bama, MU would have had a decent shot at taking out UCLA... but that's how it works in a single elim. format.

Well actually that team had 3 future NBA players with one being a superstar.  Also we had 2 skilled big men which we haven't had in a long time before and after that year.   The more you look back at that team, the better they look.  Don't forget that Novak was not just on fire during 3 tourny games.  He was on fire the entire half of the second season.  Diener was a stud in the making that year and there is no need to talk about how great Wade was.  All four Final FOur teams that year had phenomenal players and MU was on par talent wise with Texas, Kansas and Syracuse.

What about Scott Merritt was ever skilled? He had one move, a stupid spin move to the basket from the top of the key. That is why he is wasting away in the NBDL. I'll give you Robert Jackson because he was the most important player on that team most of the year. But Merritt sucks and will always suck.

Ummmm don't let the 03-04 season that Merritt had taint your memory of him.  Was Merritt soft?  You bet.  Did he rely on one major move in the paint when he was playing the five and turned the ball over a lot?  Yes.  But he was a very skilled big that could score and rebound and shoot free throws.

Here is some of his highlights from the 02-03 season from the wiki board:

"Averaged 10.1 points and 6.6 rebounds. Started all 33 games. Posted five double-doubles. Recorded 17 points and 12 rebounds against Appalachian State. Tallied 14 points and 11 rebounds at St. Louis. Scored season-high 18 points on 8-for-10 shooting and grabbed seven rebounds against Missouri in the Sweet Sixteen of the NCAA Tournament. Added 17 points against Pittsburgh in the Elite Eight. Registered a double-double of 12 points and 11 rebounds against Kansas in the Final Four."

Yea we have had that type of production in and around the paint on a consistent basis over the last 10 plus years.   

Oh and here are some from his disappointing 03-04 season:

"Averaged 11.2 points and a team-leading 7.1 rebounds (ninth in Conference USA). Started 30 of 31 games. Posted 21 double-digit scoring efforts and had nine games with double-digits in rebounds. Scored season-high 18 points and grabbed 12 rebounds against Notre Dame. Recorded 17 points and a career-high 15 rebounds against South Florida. Registered 16 points and ten rebounds against Valparaiso in the title game of the Pepsi Blue and Gold Classic, earning all-tournament honors. "

In addition if you look at his NBDL bio you will see that Scott is the only player in MU school history to record over 1,000 points, 600 rebounds, 100 assists, and 100 blocked shots for his career.  But yea your right he is not skilled at all. 

Well I am glad he was able to put up numbers like that on a really good team but He   played with some darn good guards during that time. His numbers don't stand up as much when you look at his minutes played and compare at per 40 minutes to other players like "Scary" Marcus Jackson. I never saw him make one difference in a game that mattered and he usually choked in the clutch. He tallied good numbers and was a contributer for 4 years but I never saw him get any better after his freshman year.  Its too bad too.

I liked Marcus Jackson.  Great rebounder but couldn't score a lick.  Merritt could score but was just never comfortable with his back to the basket.  He definitely preferred to face the basket.  Would love to have a player on this team with Merritts skills.

And yes Merritt played with some darn good guards but so has every other big we have had here since and it seems like no big can score down low consistenly unless a guard draws a defender away and the basket has been gift wrapped.

[Big Papi]

I agree here.

I LOVE the 2003 team, but let's be realistic about who they actually were.

They were a very good team that got very hot shooting at the right time of year. The heat ran out suddenly as they came up against Kansas, and KU ran them out of the gym.

MU would to HC and/our Mizzou is Deiner and Novak hadn't been crazy hot shooting the ball.

The tourny is a weird beast... a team that almost loses in the first round gets hot and rides the wave all the way to the final 4.

I really think that if Novak had hit that shot against Bama, MU would have had a decent shot at taking out UCLA... but that's how it works in a single elim. format.

Well actually that team had 3 future NBA players with one being a superstar.  Also we had 2 skilled big men which we haven't had in a long time before and after that year.   The more you look back at that team, the better they look.  Don't forget that Novak was not just on fire during 3 tourny games.  He was on fire the entire half of the second season.  Diener was a stud in the making that year and there is no need to talk about how great Wade was.  All four Final FOur teams that year had phenomenal players and MU was on par talent wise with Texas, Kansas and Syracuse.

Novak was on fire, and he was a unique talent... along with Diener. BUT, remember that they were a fresh. and soph. respectively.

I'm not saying that team wasn't very, very good.... But I think sometimes MU fans (myself included) treat that team like they were the greatest team in college basketball.

They had a nice mix of young and old talent... but a couple of wrong bounces and they would have been out of the tourny. It's fact. Go back and watch the games.

I'm in no way trying to diminish their AWESOME accomplishments... I'm simply trying to point out that a single elimination tournament is such a weird format when trying to actually determine the best team. Don't get me wrong, I love it... but you have to realize that it rewards teams who are "hot". MU was hot that year... and not "hot" the past couple. Hopefully MU gets hot this year.

True but so were Melo and McNamara.  We had the right mix that year, including a superstar player and while we were hot, we also had the talent to make it there as well.  Its rare that a team that does not have very good talent makes it that far.  I know there are the George Masons of the world but that is an exception. 

That was a very good and extremely talented MU team that ran into a buzzsaw and couldn't hit a shot when it mattered most.  And yes we almost bowed out in the first round and had some very tough games against Mizzou and Pitt but they were also very talented teams that we beat.  We definitely had to earn our way to the final four.  Also it seems like all the teams that do end up making the final four need to have the ball bounce the right way so I view that as a wash.  Heck Kansas a two seed almost lost in the first round that year.  Talented team, hot or not, lucky or not.

As for this year, MU might or might not get hot this year but unfortunately this team does not have the balance that that MU team did.  I am a die hard MU fan but consider it a great year if we make the Sweet 16 because while we can look awesome at times we just have to many warts to cover up, no matter how hot we get.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Merritt made free throws too, something our 4's and 5's don't always do so well.  He hit some absolutely clutch free throws against Pittsburgh and Missouri in the NCAAs.  Big pressure free throws.

[spiral97]

Decided to run the current log of 07-08 season games (found at http://kenpom.com/cbbga08.txt) through the same quick analysis..
so far there have been 202 unique series of 3 games.. 88 were sweeps (43.6%)...  115 of these series resulted in a team winning the first two games so the historical probability to sweep after winning 2 games in a row (the meat of any "three times rule") is 76.5%.

summarizing in a table:

season	3 game series	3 game sweeps	%	first 2 game sweeps	% of those that swept third game
05-06	188	80	42.6%	111	72.1%
06-07	198	85	42.9%	119	71.4%
07-08 (so far)	202	88	43.6%	115	76.5%