Tourney - wise, what's is reasonable to expect?

[ervins84]

UCLA and UK was a very tough draw. St. Joes wasn't. Harvard wasn't. Creighton wasn't.

St Joe's (bembry) and Creighton (McDermott) both had future 1st round picks on those teams.

And Harvard finished 32 when we finished 27 in kenpom. We were overseeded (relative to how good we were, albeit not to resume) that year and Harvard was underseeded.


I mean looking back, I think we were a dog vs Creighton, a small fav vs Harvard, and basically pickem vs St Joe's.
We should probably expect to win an about 1.5 of 3 of those games, and we got 0. Yes it's underachieving, but it's not like we were expected to be winning all of those games.

 

[Jive]

his first round losses were ugly regardl

ess of the size of the field

Well, not exactly an accurate statement. His 1st NCAA season, he advanced to the sweet 16 by beating Texas Am, then lost to Louisville in the S16, and then came back to beat Notre Dame in the regional 3rd place game, The next year he lost to a much higher seeded Notre Dame with Adrian Dantly at the buzzer by one point, The next year he lost in the 1st round by the eventual national champion Marquette. How can you say these performances were bad?

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

I don't really care about the selection committee. Do what it takes to have a good schedule. If you have to play a 2 for one every once in a while, do it. And win them.

I understand that but it puts us at a disadvantage. You think we could have lost 8 of our last 10 like X and make the field and end up with their draw. We also would have beat st. Joes if Gary Clark was healthy.

 

[TheLongHaul]

St Joe's (bembry) and Creighton (McDermott) both had future 1st round picks on those teams.

And Harvard finished 32 when we finished 27 in kenpom. We were overseeded (relative to how good we were, albeit not to resume) that year and Harvard was underseeded.


I mean looking back, I think we were a dog vs Creighton, a small fav vs Harvard, and basically pickem vs St Joe's.
We should probably expect to win an about 1.5 of 3 of those games, and we got 0. Yes it's underachieving, but it's not like we were expected to be winning all of those games.

I didn't say they were expected to win them all. But they weren't tough draws. When you are a 10 seed you can't expect to play a cupcake. All 3 were very winnable. Bembry was a very good player but St. Joes was not that good. Harvard? C'mon.

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

Well, not exactly an accurate statement. His 1st NCAA season, he advanced to the sweet 16 by beating Texas Am, then lost to Louisville in the S16, and then came back to beat Notre Dame in the regional 3rd place game, The next year he lost to a much higher seeded Notre Dame with Adrian Daftly at the buzzer by one point, The next year he lost in the 1st round by the eventual national champion Marquette. How can you say these performances were bad?

By using most people's logic. If you have better seasons you get better draws. With our program why would a first round loss ever be excepted. I'm just playing devils advocate here. Using your logic losing to UCLA this year was not a bad thing right.

 

[TheLongHaul]

I understand that but it puts us at a disadvantage. You think we could have lost 8 of our last 10 like X and make the field and end up with their draw. We also would have beat st. Joes if Gary Clark was healthy.

Reason X got in is because they played a tough schedule and had a number of good wins. Their draw had nothing to do with the committee liking them.

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

I didn't say they were expected to win them all. But they weren't tough draws. When you are a 10 seed you can't expect to play a cupcake. All 3 were very winnable. Bembry was a very good player but St. Joes was not that good. Harvard? C'mon.

Harvard has upset a fee higher seeds. Didn't they beat Duke.Creighton had McDermot I believe. Playing with Gary on one foot was tough.

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

Reason X got in is because they played a tough schedule and had a number of good wins. Their draw had nothing to do with the committee liking them.

They lost 8 of their last ten. They had lost one of their best players. The committee likes the big conferences. The ACC had 9 teams and many thought Syracuse should have made it. The point is they don't like non P5 teams. Bad for business. I may be wrong but other then big east the last two years have been 15 of 16 sweet 16 have been P5 teams.

 

[david aka the TYZ]

dave our issue this year wasn't our post players it was our lack of consistent shooting behind the arc. Teams always double our post players leaving Gary to pass the ball and Kyle to force up shots. The teams still alive in tourney knock down shots at a very good rate. As much as I like KJ and TC nothing about them screamed defend me to the opposition. Evans has a chance to be better but he really needs to work on his isolation game.

This year we were better offensively than probably any other. And most of the time yes, our post players weren't the problem. But the problem as a whole is our offense looks for jump shots. And that is Micks style. Now there's nothing wrong necessarily with that style, but when your players aren't aggressive in attacking the rim, you settle for jump shots. It's easy for teams to pack it in the paint and dare you to shoot and that's what teams did. You have to attack those defenses. Cumberland was the only guard who attacked a defense. As I tied to point out in my above post, the round of 32 , chances are you're playing a top 25 team. So they are just as good as you for the most part. You have to score the ball. Settling for jump shots is not a formula for lighting up a scoreboard. That's why we struggle in March. This year we got a really bad draw. UCLA was by far the best team we played all year. They were a better team, we gave them a good game, but lost. I can't blame Mick or the players for losing to UCLA. But even if we had a better draw, it's not like we'd get to play a Tulsa or Memphis to make the sweet sixteen. It would still be a ranked team. To win in March we have to score better and that falls on Micks shoulders. I think Mick is a good coach. I definitely don't think they need to fire him, but he has to continue to improve his recruiting and coaching to improve the team.

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

This year we were better offensively than probably any other. And most of the time yes, our post players weren't the problem. But the problem as a whole is our offense looks for jump shots. And that is Micks style. Now there's nothing wrong necessarily with that style, but when your players aren't aggressive in attacking the rim, you settle for jump shots. It's easy for teams to pack it in the paint and dare you to shoot and that's what teams did. You have to attack those defenses. Cumberland was the only guard who attacked a defense. As I tied to point out in my above post, the round of 32 , chances are you're playing a top 25 team. So they are just as good as you for the most part. You have to score the ball. Settling for jump shots is not a formula for lighting up a scoreboard. That's why we struggle in March. This year we got a really bad draw. UCLA was by far the best team we played all year. They were a better team, we gave them a good game, but lost. I can't blame Mick or the players for losing to UCLA. But even if we had a better draw, it's not like we'd get to play a Tulsa or Memphis to make the sweet sixteen. It would still be a ranked team. To win in March we have to score better and that falls on Micks shoulders. I think Mick is a good coach. I definitely don't think they need to fire him, but he has to continue to improve his recruiting and coaching to improve the team.

I won't argue against any of that. All I'm saying is improving recruiting is not that easy in how we are currently configured. Is it possible yes but very hard. Players make the coaches in most cases.

 

[ervins84]

I didn't say they were expected to win them all. But they weren't tough draws. When you are a 10 seed you can't expect to play a cupcake. All 3 were very winnable. Bembry was a very good player but St. Joes was not that good. Harvard? C'mon.

Getting #32 in kenpom as a 12 seed is a horrible draw.

The 12s this year were Mid Ten #42, Nevada 55, Princeton 57, UNC-W 59


That year the other 12's were Xavier 54, N Dakota St 61, and NC St 62.

I haven't looked at all of the years but 32 has to be one of the highest ranks for a 12 seed.

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

Guys I'm not saying the committee doesn't have difficult job but if you think it is not profit driven your fooling yourself. The selection criteria is set up to give them the latitude to shape the field in a way thst maximizes its earning potential.

 

[ervins84]

Other 12 seeds
2016
Yale 46
Ark LR 56
SD St 80
Chattanooga 109

2015
SF Austin 51
Buffalo 58
Wofford 96
Wyoming 109

So literally since that year Harvard finished 32 and wasa 12 seed that was the single highest rated team by 10 spots, and the only top 40 12 seed since that season. That's the definition of a shitty draw.

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

Other 12 seeds
2016
Yale 46
Ark LR 56
SD St 80
Chattanooga 109

2015
SF Austin 51
Buffalo 58
Wofford 96
Wyoming 109

thanks for the info

 

[Jive]

By using most people's logic. If you have better seasons you get better draws. With our program why would a first round loss ever be excepted. I'm just playing devils advocate here. Using your logic losing to UCLA this year was not a bad thing right.

This was not a "bad" loss. But, when you are expected to keep raising the bar, you can't just keep losing all these matchups and just say "oh well", we weren't favored. You have to do whatever it takes to win some of these games. Mack has been to three Sweet 16s as a 6, 10, and 6 seed, and to an elite 8 as an 11 seed. These were all over achievements, and as a result, their program has been elevated and now the recruits have followed. We can't just be satisfied with the status quo and make endless excuses.

 

[david aka the TYZ]

I won't argue against any of that. All I'm saying is improving recruiting is not that easy in how we are currently configured. Is it possible yes but very hard. Players make the coaches in most cases.

I agree to an extent, but Mick can get scorers if he wanted. We can't get McDonald's all Americans but there's plenty of kids that can score at all levels in division 1. Xavier gets them and got them before they were in the Big East. We didn't get them in the real Big East. Mick was trying to match athletically with the big boys and went after the Justin Jackson's and Shaq Thomas'. He learned the hard way that doesn't cut it. He changed his philosophy and it's working better. A guy like Evans, Cumberland, they weren't being recruited by Duke or Kentucky, but they can score the ball. He has to just get scorers. Pure scorers. Guys that put the ball in the hoop. Xavier does that and that's why they make runs.

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

This was not a "bad" loss. But, when you are expected to keep raising the bar, you can't just keep losing all these matchups and just say "oh well", we weren't favored. You have to do whatever it takes to win some of these games. Mack has been to three Sweet 16s as a 6, 10, and 6 seed, and to an elite 8 as an 11 seed. These were all over achievements, and as a result, their program has been elevated and now the recruits have followed. We can't just be satisfied with the status quo and make endless excuses.

Many factors contributed to X's run. They have never been a bad team. Getting some favorable draws and moving to the big east has helped tremendously. They have done very well taking advantage of their opportunities. Saying you have to do anything is really not practical. Especially if things are being done to put you at a disadvantage. Many factors determine how good you can be these days. It's not just a issue of trying harder or paying more. As I said when I started this discussion I'm all for making a change. It may not be exactly the same reason others want to see a change is all. Personally if I'm Mick I'm racing out of here. He'll never win over this fan base.

 

[ervins84]

This was not a "bad" loss. But, when you are expected to keep raising the bar, you can't just keep losing all these matchups and just say "oh well", we weren't favored. You have to do whatever it takes to win some of these games. Mack has been to three Sweet 16s as a 6, 10, and 6 seed, and to an elite 8 as an 11 seed. These were all over achievements, and as a result, their program has been elevated and now the recruits have followed. We can't just be satisfied with the status quo and make endless excuses.

Let's keep those runs in perspective.

2017 worst team, great run, nice draw
2016 Best team, lost in 2nd rd
2015 beat an 11 and 14 seed
2014 lost play in game
2013 No Tourney
2012 beat a 7 and 15 seed
2011 Rd 1 loss
2010 beat 11 and 3 seed Pitt, who was somehow a 3 seed despite finishing 28 in kpom


I'm done going through this, but they have legit had a lucky rabbits foot with their draws. Hell, how many of us would have rather been their 11 seed than our 6 seed? We would have had an easier round 1 game and a significantly weaker 3 seed.

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

I agree to an extent, but Mick can get scorers if he wanted. We can't get McDonald's all Americans but there's plenty of kids that can score at all levels in division 1. Xavier gets them and got them before they were in the Big East. We didn't get them in the real Big East. Mick was trying to match athletically with the big boys and went after the Justin Jackson's and Shaq Thomas'. He learned the hard way that doesn't cut it. He changed his philosophy and it's working better. A guy like Evans, Cumberland, they weren't being recruited by Duke or Kentucky, but they can score the ball. He has to just get scorers. Pure scorers. Guys that put the ball in the hoop. Xavier does that and that's why they make runs.

David that isn't the only reason why they have made runs. Mick recruited Cash who was a scorer before his injury,Stephenson, Deonte and others. He took over a program that was in the toilet. In 4 years he had us in the dance. He missed on the Sanders, Thomas class. Since then he doesn't have the conference to help him with recruiting and has found very nice under the radar players that have got us to the level we are at. If you think someone else can take us higher then we are currently at I won't argue. All I'm saying is those guys are hard to find. Especially under the current conditions.

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

Let's keep those runs in perspective.

2017 worst team, great run, nice draw
2016 Best team, lost in 2nd rd
2015 beat an 11 and 14 seed
2014 lost play in game
2013 No Tourney
2012 beat a 7 and 15 seed
2011 Rd 1 loss
2010 beat 11 and 3 seed Pitt, who was somehow a 3 seed despite finishing 28 in kpom


I'm done going through this, but they have legit had a lucky rabbits foot with their draws. Hell, how many of us would have rather been their 11 seed than our 6 seed? We would have had an easier round 1 game and a significantly weaker 3 seed.

Good stuff.