GW

MB- I detailed Temple for you because you specifically asked for it on multiple occasions. Do you realize that asking for an analysis of SLU vs another 30 or so teams would be like writing a book? No one has the time or energy to do that. Without doing an exact analysis I will give you a summary. Just like with Temple, all the other teams which SLU is ahead of, the reason is that on average when SLU won they won by larger margins and when they lost, they lost by smaller margins. After adjusting for strength of schedule, SLU was found to be ranked higher than each of these teams.

Dayton beat Temple AT TEMPLE by 10 points. Does this make Dayton the better team? Citing my 2 possession thought, Dayton would have STILL beat temple by 4 points with a favorable swing to Temple and by 16 points in an unfavorable swing. Even with a 3 possession swing Dayton STILL beats Temple by 1 point or 19 points. So, clearly, Dayton is the better team correct??? Or do we rather consider both teams entire body of work, as I had done with Temple vs. SLU, and conclude that, no Dayton is not the better team for beating Temple one night even on its home court. If it doesn't work for Dayton vs Temple at Temple in a 10 point win, why does it work for Temple vs SLU at SLU in a 5 point win??? Again, a single result with a low margin of victory is not significant.

Thank you wiz. As fate would have it, I had already done my temple vs. slu analysis prior to this thread getting started, so the information was ready to go as if on cue... I have appreciated your analysis all season. Keep up the good work.

Thank you Cowboy. I understand the head to head matchup hurdle. One game is statistically insignificant, unless there is an extreme margin of victory. Had Temple won by 50, I'd say Temple was the better team (and SLU vs Temple's kenpom ratings would show a huge readjustment as well...). Had Slu and Temple played a 100 game series and Temple won more than 50 games (the higher the number the more definative), I'd probably conclude that Temple was the better team. But a single loss by 5 points? Doesn't define anything (gives bragging rights, that's about it...). 5 points is a 2 possession game. Had Temple missed one more 3 and we made one more three, we win by a point. This is not enough data to draw any conclusion other than temple played a slightly better game on that one night. Now in the subjective minds of pollsters and coaches- you bet, it makes a world of difference to them...

MB- Thank you for the reply. First off, I'll state that I don't believe anyone is questioning your loyalty to the program due to your disagreeing with Kenpom's rankings (I'm certainly not). You place more stock in national polls, rpi, etc than kenpom which is based more on statistics. People like myself believe that polls are subjective- if a team named North Carolina, Kansas or Kentucky say had the same record and schedule as SLU does- they would be given the benefit of the doubt and would be ranked in the top 25 (lower half), not off the charts with no or few votes. You continue to ask how SLU is ranked 10th whereas Temple is ranked 36th. I thought I had detailed it out, but apparently it wasn't clear. Kenpom bases its ranking on margin of victory and strength of schedule. It is entirely objective- SLU does not receive bonus points because Kenpom likes our logo. Based on his system, it ranks SLU 10th and Temple 36th. Kenpom has no agenda, no bone to pick- the numbers are what they are. Now you may disagree with it entirely, that's fine, but the "why and how" of it should be clear... You cited the Giants win in the superbowl over the patriots as evidence that margin of victory is not important. As you correctly stated the Giants were -6, whereas New England was +171. I rooted for the giants, but I contend that the better team lost. A single result is statistically insignificant. If they played 1000 times, would the giants win every time because they won last time? Does New England show up for a ritual beating over and over with no chance of victory? Not doing the math, New England would be expected to win probably about 60% of the time. Statistics do not tell what WILL happen, but what is LIKELY to happen. Even with SLU's #10 Kenpom ranking, they may lose every single game going forward. It is more likely though that they will win every game going forward- although probably most likely that they go 4-1. I am going to requote my original two team scenario to make it easier to follow along. I have a question for MB that may lead to some interesting discussion. Let's suppose we have 2 teams which play 30 games with identical schedules and for fun, that schedule is the strongest one played in the country. Team A goes undefeated, but every single game went to overtime and was then won by a single point. Team B wins 15 games by 50 points in each game- dominates in every win. The other 15 games also go to overtime, but, alas, team B loses all 15 by 1 point. Team A is an undefeated 30 and 0 vs. Team B's 15 and 15. Let's say that all 15 of Team B's overtime losses were to top 25 teams, while the 15 wins were against average 100-200 rpi teams- thus not a single signature win for Team B whereas Team A has 15 of them. MB- Which team would you consider to be better and what ranking would you give to each team? Note that Team A would have an RPI rank of #1 being undefeated and having played the hardest schedule in the country....They would probably also be ranked #1 in the ap and coaches poll... Thanks in advance for participating. Good test case, team A should be higher ranked. So? Thanks for playing along. Given the above, Team A being undefeated, against the highest strength of schedule and with 15 top 25 victories, would have a #1 RPI rank and would most likely be ranked #1 in all polls- how could they not be with that resume? Team B with a .500 record and no top 25 wins would likely be unranked with a medicore RPI around 75 or so. They would be thought of as an "interesting enigma" and nothing more- "a team that competes but just can't win a big game". What would their Kenpom rankings be??? Here's where it gets interesting... Team B would have a guesstimated kenpom ranking of top 10, whereas undefeated Team A would have a guesstimated kenpom ranking of around 80. What? How can that be you say- I told you that kenpom thing was flawed!! Consider now with an open mind what is expected of the two teams going forward. Team A has played every team even and then eaked out a 1 point win in overtime- thus they have no margin of victory to speak of (its flat margin to overtime, then a +1 total average margin of victory including overtime). What happens when they play the same schedule again? Do they again win every time- because they are a good team and thats what good teams do, win the close games? The answer- probably not and its somewhere along the odds of a billion to one that they would repeat winning every game. They are effectively even in all games- thus going forward you would expect a long term winning percentage of about 50%. The odds of going undefeated again would be about the same as flipping a coin 30 times and getting 30 heads- you don't expect that, you expect about even heads and tails. What about Team B? Team B played 15 of the top 25 even as well, losing by 1 in overtime. You would expect them to have a long term winning percentage against these teams of about 50%- the same as team A's for the same reason. What about the other 15 games played against the average competetion? Here's the big difference. Team A again played them even, winning by 1 in overtime thus their long term expected winning percentage here is about 50%. Team B, however, destroyed the lesser competition winning by 50 points each time. Long term, Team B would be expected to win 99% or so of these games- that high margin of victory is very statistically significant and you could expect, with a very high probability, that they will win almost every one of these games in the future. So, all things considered- Team A has an expected long term winning percentage against this schedule of about 50% whereas Team B has an expected long term winning percentage against this schedule of about 75%. Team B is the better team, by a wide margin, and there is absolutely no doubt about it. In other words, Kenpom accurately defined the better team and accurately defined how much better they were, whereas polls and rpi provided a completely false analysis. Granted the above is an extreme example, but one which I hope proves valuable. The above is what is happening to a lesser extent to every team like SLU which is low in the polls and high in kenpom- bad luck and subjectivity is being met with statistics and objectivity. The math is there, I hope you see it and I hope that it works to our advantage going forward. Go bills.

I'll take a stab at the "how" of it. SLU and Temple have the same record vs D1 19-5. Kenpom uses margin of victory in his rankings. SLU's is 13.4 and Temple's is 7.4. Further details I found interesting... 20+ POINT WINS- SLU has nine 20+ point wins to Temple's 1. Wins of this magnitude denote dominance- the game was won by the clearly superior team- not due to luck, refs, etc. Granted many of SLU's 20+ point wins were cupcakes. Still, included in those 9 are Oklahoma, St. Bona and Duquesne- all superior teams to Temple's lone 20+ point win over Charlotte. Also, Temple had "cupcake" opportunities which it did not convert into 20+ point wins such as central michigan (12 point win) and western michigan (14 point win). SLU almost without exception (ill springfield not gameplanned for...) demolished every marginal opponent placed before it. ADVANTAGE: SLU SINGLE DIGIT WINS- SLU has 4 single digit wins to Temple's 9. Single digit wins do not denote dominance- the game was within 3 possesions, could have went either way with luck, bad refs, etc. ADVANTAGE: SLU OVERTIME- In overtime games, Temple is 3 and 0, while SLU is 0 and 1. Overtime games are a coin flip. Temple won all theirs, while SLU lost its only one. Thus temple has been "lucky" while SLU has been "unlucky". Look at it this way. Had SLU scored 1 extra point and won its game, while Temple scored 1 point less in each of its overtime games (during regulation) then SLU's record would now be 20-4 and Temple's would be 16-8. 4 measly points different and we are not even having a conversation about who is the better team... Your response may be "that's what good teams do is win the close games". If each team played 100 more overtime games, Temple would not have 103 overtime wins and slu would not have 101 overtime losses. The larger the numbers the more things will balance out. They would each probably be in the 40-60 win range... ADVANTAGE: TEMPLE (for being lucky, although in the long run there would be no advantage- with large numbers, both teams would be about even...) SINGLE DIGIT LOSSES- Temple has 2 and SLU has 4. Most of SLU's losses were of the non dominating kind where the game was within 3 possesions and could have swung either way. ADVANTAGE: SLU DOUBLE DIGIT LOSSES- Temple has 3 and SLU has 1. Double digit losses are fairly definative. Temple has more of them and they are more "questionable"- dayton at home, richmond road vs SLU's Umass road. ADVANTAGE: SLU Temple does have a few things in its favor. A stronger schedule, a huge win over Duke and of course they won the head to head matchup. The response to the schedule is that SLU did not have the opportunities Temple did, but has performed admirably with what they were given. On the head to head matchup- congrats to temple, but a single 5 point victory does not prove anything other than they were the marginally better team on that night. So, in summary- on average, when SLU wins, it wins by bigger margins than Temple does and when it loses, it loses by smaller margins than Temple does. Records are the same, Temple played a better schedule but not better enough to overcome the 6 point higher margin of victory of SLU (which is a huge difference- SLU's 13.4 is almost double Temple's 7.4). Thus, according to Kenpom, SLU is ranked significantly higher. The net implication of all this is that if the margin's of victory remained the same, over the long run, SLU would achieve a significantly better record than would Temple. More and more of Temple's small margin of victory games would result in losses, while SLU's higher victory margin would give them greater protection against losses. Does this guarantee that they would beat Temple tommorow? No. What it means is that SLU would have about a 55% or so chance of winning (guesstimating- the wiz could give a more exact number...) I have a question for MB that may lead to some interesting discussion. Let's suppose we have 2 teams which play 30 games with identical schedules and for fun, that schedule is the strongest one played in the country. Team A goes undefeated, but every single game went to overtime and was then won by a single point. Team B wins 15 games by 50 points in each game- dominates in every win. The other 15 games also go to overtime, but, alas, team B loses all 15 by 1 point. Team A is an undefeated 30 and 0 vs. Team B's 15 and 15. Let's say that all 15 of Team B's overtime losses were to top 25 teams, while the 15 wins were against average 100-200 rpi teams- thus not a single signature win for Team B whereas Team A has 15 of them. MB- Which team would you consider to be better and what ranking would you give to each team? Note that Team A would have an RPI rank of #1 being undefeated and having played the hardest schedule in the country....They would probably also be ranked #1 in the ap and coaches poll... Thanks in advance for participating.

Did a little research. Scout had Ater as a 4 star #10 ranked PF coming out of high school. He then had serious clearance issues coming out of australia (via egypt and sudan) and sat out the 2009 season and missed the fall semester last year as well (sound familiar...). He declared for the 2009 NBA draft, but did not hire an agent. Just doing a google search, there's a bit of nba hype around him. His numbers at uconn this spring weren't overly impressive, but sitting out that long, some of that could be attributed to rust. Of course, if he transfers, you are looking at another year of sitting out. He was a freshman this year, but he will turn 23 this summer. If he transfers he would be a 24 year old sophmore when he finally plays. One other interesting thing. Majok Majok is his cousin from Perth australia and is someone slu was (is?) still looking at. If Ater transfers, they will be in the same class. Hmmm....

Perhaps Ellis will develop into a 3. Didn't Majerus say something to the effect that the 3 is where he would maximize his long term potential? There is more of a "need" now at the 3 with the only true 3 being Evans and thus there is something to be said about how this would help balance the team... If this happens, and it works out great. Still, if Ellis starts at the 3 and Loe starts at the 4 and they are playing the bulk of their minutes together- we are losing the value that a shooting big adds to the team when neither is on the floor. Is it more valuable to have 2 shooting bigs at the same time often and have long stretches with none of them or have at least 1 all the time with short stretches of 2 at the same time? Also, consider that some of Ellis' value as a shooting big is lost if he plays as a 3. If he plays as a 3, the opposing teams 3 will probably be gaurding him. Having the opposing team's 3 gaurding someone on the perimeter is a normal expectation- Ellis playing the 3 is probably not going to pull the 4 out which is kind of the beauty of his current skill set. Granted, this isn't an issue if Loe is playing at the same time... It would probably work best if Ellis only played the 3 when Loe was playing with him to keep the shooting big threat available. If the Ellis at the 3 plan is the way they go and it doesn't work out for whatever reason- I think its nice that the "fallback position" doesn't look too bad... having 2 shooting bigs and trying to figure out whats best to do with them is a very nice problem to have.

I was thinking about next year's lineup, focusing on the offense. Some have suggested our best lineup would consist of our theoretical (if Loe develops as expected) best 4 offensive players- thus Mitchell, Reed, Ellis and Loe. Considering offense only, this has merit- but then we have the issue of playing Ellis at the 3. It's been suggested that perhaps we would play some zone in this scenario or only do it when the opposing team has an Ellis-like 3 (meaning someone that Ellis could defend). Maybe this would be viable- then again, Majerus isn't a big fan of the zone and if the other team had a 3 which Ellis could gaurd, then perhaps he would look to play Evans or someone to exploit the advantage rather than simply countering with Ellis. I am now approaching it from the angle that it may be more valuable to play Ellis and Loe seperately rather than together. I am looking at Ellis and Loe as being... interchangable parts. The big man who can roam the perimeter, pulling out his post defender, and shoot the 3. This is very valuable in Majerus' system and is why both were coveted. They are so valuable, that I believe it is important to have one on the floor at all times as they make the team better. Assuming that each will play about 25 minutes a game... if one or the other was always on the floor, then that would be an overlap of only 10 minutes a game where both were playing together. My opinion is that an ideal use of this overlap time would be when Willie is not in the game. Loe could then play center and Ellis could still be the 4. You still have your post presence with Loe, and the shooting big with Ellis. If this is how it plays out, Ellis never has to play the 3. To quantify the value of the "shooting big", I tried to gauge Ellis' contribution this past season. It's obvious to all of us that the team was much improved after Ellis arrived and their record backs it up. But how valuable? I found it interesting when looking at Ellis' stats for the season that his 3 point % was only 30% and his PPS (points per shot) was 1.10. To put this in perspective, the 3% was the 4th best on the team and the pps was the 6th best (not including Young). The team averages were 31.9% from 3 and 1.21 pps. Ellis was "below average" in both categories. Granted he arrived late and was possibly injured and fatigued. Still, for someone to have made such a noticable impact on the team- you would expect something more than "below average" production. Ok, so maybe some are thinking "well, he was an extra body that added to our depth- this explains his value being more than his stats show". And there is some merit to that- we definately needed an extra body... Still, I believe he added value beyond providing extra minutes of below average offensive production. I noticed on Timmerman's season ending plus/minus numbers that Ellis really stood out. He finished with the highest number per 100 minutes played (discounting Reid) and twice the overall number of the next closest in conference season/postseason (+96- Wille was next at +43). How does one lead the team in plus/minus while being a statistically below average offensive player? He had to have added value with either his defense or by making the rest of the team better. I propose that it is more of the latter- that his skill set of being a perimeter threat and pulling out one of the opposing team's post players to gaurd him, softened the opposing team's defense (more 1 on 1's for Willie, easier drives for Mitchell and others, etc.) and the net result was a better team. Where I'm going with this is that if the "ellis effect" makes the team better beyond his individual contribution alone.... then would we not want to maximize that effect by having either Ellis or the new taller Ellis named Loe on the floor at all times? If that's the case, then they won't be playing together very much and the few times they are together, if it is done in combination with a rest period for Willie, then we gain all the benefits of the "ellis effect" without having to expose Ellis to defending a 3.

You may well be correct. I'm just trying to keep things simple based upon what we know now. Theoretically, no one will leave and we will be in the position I detailed...

The excitement of the Loe verbal got me thinking about where the team stands. I wanted to put some numbers with the past, present and future to get a perspective. I am going to list the 3 seasons Majerus has been here, plus the next two going forward. In each season, I will list the # of Majerus recruits at the start and end of the season on the team and the number of collective years of experience of the team in Majerus's system at the start and end of the season. I found it interesting.... 2007-08 # recruits (start/end) 1/1 Collective years of experience in the system (start/end) 0/12. 2008-09 # recruits 8/6 Years of experience 4/14. 2009-10 # recruits 11/11 Years of experience 7/18. 2010-11 # recruits 14/14 Years of experience 18/32. 2011-12 # recruits 14/14 Years of experience 32/46. Here were the parameters and assumptions I made. 1) Eckerle is listed as a recruit and his experience is counted in the totals- no other walk ons are counted in either category 2) Cotto was not given a year of experience 3) Redshirting of Femi last year and Eckerle this year were awarded a year of experience 4) This year for Ellis was counted as a year of experience 5) I did not count Jeff Reid's season as a year of experience- he is included in the # of recruits though. The # of recruits for this season stays at 11 because I wasn't counting Ellis at the start. 6) Players who were not majerus recruits (lisch, Liddell, etc.) were still given years of experience while they were on the team 6) I assume that there are not further recruits being added this season and that the team remains the same for the next two seasons I'm liking that next year will be our first non rebuilding year with a full roster of Majerus recruits. Every year before, the experience of the team took a hit from where it was at the end of the year prior and the number of recruits went down last year. This was due to graduations, players moving on, etc. Next year, not only will we have depth, but it will not be REQUIRED for the freshman to make a contribution from the very start of the season. Sure, I'm expecting big things from Loe and the other recruits- but they can be brought along as slowly as need be without detriment to the team. The last 2 classes were thrown in at the start of the year and had to sink or swim because there were no other options... Additional point of interest- at the end of next year, the team will have almost TWICE (18 vs 32) the collective experience that it does now. Consider what SLU was able to accomplish this season on a depleted roster and then nearly double that roster (with recruits and healthy players) and double their experience and it really makes me excited where SLU will be at this time next year.... And then the following year, damn. Not a single freshman to break in. A full roster of talented, seasoned veterens. I can't help but think that the potential is there for Majerus's second final four appearance....

I would spin it that they are underachieving on the road. If those road losses are indicative of our talent level, we should be non competitive no matter where we play- home, road, neutral. The ability to have an 8 and 3 home record, with all 3 losses being close games against good teams, does not equate with an untalented team. If Dayton had been the single game where SLU was competitive all year, then fine- it was a fluke. That's not the case though. Truly untalented teams like NJIT and North Florida struggle similarily to us on the road. Guess what- they get home and they still struggle as they are winless. It is much easier for a talented team to underachieve, than a untalented team to overachieve. #1 Memphis could decide to blow off a game for whatever reason and get spanked by anyone. They could in fact go winless the rest of the year if they so chose to. Truly untalented teams cannot do the same- decide to start winning on cue and sustain it. Given this, I would contend that SLU's home record is in fact a truer indicator of our talent. We have the talent to, at home, CONSISTENTLY play at a competitive level. These are not flukes night after night. Sure, we then go on to get totally humiliated on the road, but I think the evidence suggests that this is more of a mental problem than a physical one.

That may be true. One would have to think that they would be more competitive on the road at least. Still, even if Majerus himself was the entire cause of our road woes, I would rather have him as our coach. Hopefully, these issues will be resolved when Majerus has his own players to work with next year combined with our carryover players having a year of experience in his system. Long term, I have faith in Majerus and I am willing to deal with the pain of this season for the potential we have in years to come.

The contrast for the home vs. road games for the team this year has been simply amazing. Everyone knows that a team plays better at home than on the road, but this extreme? Don't the oddsmakers give like an extra 4 points for being at home? SLU is probably running a 20+ point road handicap. You take Dayton to overtime at home... and lose by 37 at their place (against a weaker team due to injuries). You set a record for lowest scoring game on the road... and then beat a ranked team for the first time in 4 years at home. Talk about Jekyll and Hyde... Looking at SLU's road record alone, you would think they are possibly the least talented team in the country. SLU's lowest scoring game- 20 points. Largest loss differential- 41 points. Look at how this compares to 2 of the worst teams in the country- winless NJIT and North Florida. Lowest scoring game for either- 28 points. Largest loss differential- 42 and 51. Yet this same SLU team, which is comparable on the road to the worst teams in the country, can manage to have a 8 and 3 home record, with all 3 losses being close affairs against quality teams. Looking at SLU's home record alone, you would think they may have tournament possibilities. This is where the idea that the bills are "untalented" breaks down for me. If SLU's road record is indicative of our talent level, then we should be getting spanked no matter where we play. A truly untalented team loses on the road, home, neutral it doesn't matter. There are still winless teams out there- they are the untalented ones. So what do we have? A moderate amount of talent that is able to overachieve at home. I will offer a proposal that the huge road/home differential is perhaps a result of "home" being the only constant in a year of extreme change.

Majerus by his own words has stated often that he could be winning more if winning was a priority. Is Majerus a "fool" as well? It is unfortunate that you see a need to disparage those who disagree with you. There is no doubt in my mind, nor apparently in Majerus's, that the team could be doing better. Whether they SHOULD BE- in other words prioritizing winning instead of his system implementation- is debatable. An untalented team does not take #17 (#6 rpi) dayton to overtime. An untalented team does not have a winning record when the head coach is admittedly not prioritizing winning. No, the bills will not be confused for a final four team anytime soon, but their talent level is moderate- good enough to compete with top competition when they are on, limited so that they can set low scoring records when they are off. I understand all the points you have made. We definately have limitations. Even so, Majerus has stated he could be winning more. How exactly does one go about winning more with such deficiencies? Well, Majerus must believe there is untapped potential (talent) to the team or he would not state that he could be winning more. How people can believe we are untalented when we have a winning record- under a coach who is admittedly not prioritizing winning and is instead focused on installing a new system- is something I can not understand. There are winless teams out there and one can only assume that they are probably prioritizing winning- now there are examples of untalented teams... For those who think the bills are untalented, I am curious which truly untalented 300+ rpi teams they would trade rosters with? Ya, I know, the bills suck- they set a low scoring record. Well, Grambling and NJIT are winless, yet they have set no records for futility like we did. Anyone want to trade?

Apparently, we do have enough talent to be able to take #17 dayton to overtime... This would not happen if we were as untalented as some seem to believe. I noticed that the basic idea concerning the GW game was- well, look at our talent level, this is to be expected. If that GW game is an indicator of our talent level, we do not no way no how take dayton to overtime- we get destroyed... So what do we really have? We have a moderate amount of talent. When it's clicking we can compete with top competition. When its not, we can get blown out by almost anyone. My expectation for the season was for Majerus to take our moderate amount of talent and get it to overachieve. This has not happened. Why? Majerus himself has stated that winning is not a priority- that if it was he would be doing things differently and he has said that he could be winning more if that was the focus. That in itself demonstrates that there is more talent here than what the record shows. I know that Majerus has went on about the team lacking in talent, but I take this to mean talent to be running his system. If the team is lacking in talent, why does he go on to say he could be winning more? How exactly do you make an untalented team win more? One would think that 9 wins at this point would be an incredible overachievement for a untalented team- there are teams out there who are still winless (grambling, NJIT- it is teams like these who are truly untalented who you would expect to set low scoring records). Think about that. Not only does Majerus consider 9 wins not to be an overachievement- he believes he could be winning even more! Never has Majerus stated something like "hey, I am doing everything I possibly can to win now, playing to each player's limited strengths. We could not possibly win more than what we are- we are in fact fortunate to have won what we have". So, since Majerus thinks he could be winning more, where would our untalented team be if Majerus was prioritizing winning? Apparently, Majerus believes it would be something better than 9 and 7.... And you know what, when Majerus says he could "win more", I take that to be more than one extra game- if that is all the difference there would be, why even bring it up since it would be immaterial? Even 2 extra wins would put our team to 11 and 5. I'm sorry, but that record or better does not belong to an untalented team.

Might not be a bad plan, thanks. Someone's going to tear me a new one before too long after tonight...

That has to be the best one liner you have delivered in your glorious career...LMAO

I recall after the Kent State loss, when the wizard offered a similar explanation on how we could lose by 40 to Kent- basically that we had our worst performance of the year combined with Kent's best performance of the year. That was consoling to me- you figure hey one bad game that was a fluke and you move on, no problem. Now we get this, which although not as large of a point loss has to be considered worse- we set a record for lowest points scored. Is it possible to have 2 such "flukes" in one season? At some point, you have to wonder if these are "perfect storms"- or are we really this bad? Are these not flukes, but a trend? On the flip side, you have to wonder how a team with a 9 and 6 record could put in 2 such hideously bad performances. I mean, if we were 300+ RPI with like 1 win now, then it wouldn't be so shocking. What a Jeckyl and Hyde team... I really thought we had turned the corner with our 3 prior wins. I'm speechless. Side note- the GW in my screen name is derived from my initials- I am not a GW (university) fan. After tonight, I feel like making a real life name change- GW sucks...

Even if I could maintain objectivity, this is by far worse. From a personal standpoint, this is a nightmare. As you can see, my screen name is "GW". These are my initials- I am not a closet fan of George Washington. Everywhere I look it's GW this, GW that. I can't even look at my name without wanting to vomit. I either need to change my name or do myself in....

I do like the Ball State example and its good to maintain the perspective that even if we have a .500 season this year, Majerus has the ability to turn things around after that. It would be interesting to know how much of the roster turned over after the .500 season at Ball State. This is part of why we are being prepared for a struggle next year as well by the coach- we're going to have at least 5 (probably more) new players who are going to have to go through this learning process. Also, the Ball State team Majerus inherited went 9 and 18 in the prior year, so getting to .500 was actually a substantial improvement. Had we only had 9 wins last season and we would be where we are at now, I doubt anyone would be complaining- rebuilding that team from the get go made perfect sense. Put another way- Majerus installing his system then was the way to MAXIMIZE Ball State's season. The same does not apply here- installing his system is MINIMIZING our season. When you win 20 prior and the coach admits that he could be winning more if he wanted to- well, it leaves you a little dissapointed. I wonder if the coach is confused and thinks he's at Ball State again (just kidding). I am optimistic about the future though.

Thank you for the compliment. In answer to your questions. I do not believe that we have a lack of talent to run "any system". I believe that we have a moderate amount of talent which appears to be worse than what it is due to the slow learning curve/unsuited personnel of Majerus's system. I think the Tommie 3 point hesitation example sums it up well- the players aren't sure of what they should be doing, so it's only natural that they are going to look unimpressive. Sure, we don't have the talent to run deep into the tournament, but I do think that Majerus could have got the guys to overachieve and possibly get in- had winning now been a priority. No, I do not believe that Brad could have got 23 wins out of this team. I believe that Majerus is such a talent that he could in fact run Brad's system better than Brad himself. With some minor tweakings of that base system, combined with Majerus's experience, game planning, game management, etc.- I do believe he could have produced about 23 wins. Do I like Brad's system? Not really, but unfortunately, that is what the team is used to operating under- for Majerus to maximize this season's wins would require him to work within that system, bending it where he can without confusing the players. My idea was that the modified Brad system would be run this season only- and then only if it was showing results. I know I spoke of giving it 10 games, but if its 1 and 3 say after 4 games- just blow it up then no need to wait. Would changing systems early in the season be chaotic? Ya (apparently changing systems even BEFORE the season is chaotic....) ,but if this year is to be a struggle anyway I don't see much difference (maybe we lose to kent by 50 instead of only by 40 whatever...). For the class of 2009 we have at least 3 scholarships to give. These are occupied currently be Lisch, Liddell and Eberhardt. That total may increase depending on if we have transfers (likely). My point was that if we did make the tournament- or really if we were even respectable this year- recruiting for that 2009 class would have probably yielded better results. I do believe that Majerus can recruit here regardless of record, but its hard to deny that for the high quality recruits- what we have now is going to be a much harder sale than what it would have been had we made the tournament. I am aware of Majerus's comments about how he would do things differently if winning now was the priority. We have different takes on it though. I see that you believe that we will win about 15 and if Majerus prioritized winning that would bring us to 18- so an increase of 3 games. If that would be the net difference then fine do things as they are being done. My take is that when Majerus says that he could win more- I believe that he means SUBSTANTIALLY more. Something like 20+ wins. I think that Brad could have produced 18 wins- Majerus prioritizing winning gets us more than that. This is why we have different evaluations. If Majerus could have taken us to the tournament this season, I see that as yielding more for the program than installing his system now- especially when he informs us that next season will be a struggle as well. Why have 2 years of struggle when you can reduce that to 1? What are we gaining for what we are sacrificing? Really, I'm beginning to wonder if this extra year of...experience...is going to pay many dividends at all. If Majerus begins the implementation next year- at least he has personnel to run it more appropriately. Is learning a system that is incapable of working as it is currently configured all that worthwhile? The board has been wondering why we looked better at the start of the season than we do now. I think I may have the answer. As time has went on, Majerus has installed more and more of his system... If we looked our best with minimal system implementation, would we not have been even better with no new system implementation? More than the 3 extra wins that you suggest? Possibly enough to get us to the tournament?

In their current capacity as assistant coaches, I would consider Moser and Biancardi to be "all stars". When you have 2 assistants who were former mid level D1 head coaches, thats a good staff. Would I want either as our head coach? Probably not, but again, as assistants they are special. I don't have the statistics, but I doubt there are many staffs that can boast the same.

I agree that the Majerus comments about next year being a struggle were telling. I have been quietly thinking this myself. Just because the new recruits are Majerus's picks, doesn't mean they won't be going through similar growing pains as what we are seeing now. The process should hopefully be a little smoother since they will have no prior college experience to unlearn, and will have the benefit of the rest of the remaining team being familiar with the system. Still.... if next year is to be a rebuilding year anyway, maybe things should have been done differently this year. Majerus inherited a 20 win team, not some hopeless project. Had he left Brad's system relatively intact with minor tweakings, I think they could have won 23 or so games and made the tournament. Making the tournament this year, combined with the good recruiting class we just had, would have accelerated the buzz that was already in place. I believe this would have led to an even stronger recruiting class for 2009. As things are now though... what we have is going to be a hard sale for future recruits- Billikan sums it up well "the air is out of the ballloon". OK, so now its the end of this season and we've went to the tournament. Majerus had the season to evaluate the team (albeit not running his system, still he should have a good idea about who he can use). He politely suggests to those who he thinks won't make it to persue other options. With the remainder, he gives them the playbook for his system with what to work on during the offseason. The plan is then to implement Majerus's system in full at the start of next season- which is appropriate as this would be a rebuilding season EITHER WAY. At the start of next season we then have 1) a core group of returning players who have been evaluated by Majerus for suitability. They have also worked with Majerus for a season, gaining confidence and learning some important fundamentals (Majerus can still teach a lot even if he's not running his system). 2) a very good group of 5 new recruits coming in 3) another very good, if not better class of 2009 signed next fall. 4) a smoother initial system implementation next year than the start of this year. 5) stronger community support as we are a demonstrated winner. Another possible scenario- Majerus leaves Brad's system intact for the first 10 games this season. If the team is 8 and 2 or better he keeps running it, if we are worse, then he blows it up and starts with his. Compare these suggestions to what we now have- a chaotic system implementation, loss of buzz, etc. Would not beginning the rebuilding next year have been more beneficial? If we are going to "struggle" anyway, what's the difference? The only benefit I see by doing it now is a better player suitability evaluation and the returning players for next year having a year of experience in the system. But consider this- it is quite possible that all that returns for next year is liddel, lisch, eckerle and eberhardt. So we have those 4 and the new freshmen "struggling" next year. Liddel, Lisch and Eberhardt then graduate the following year, when things hopefully then become something other than a struggle. So in THAT season (2009-10), we have as a net result of this season's dissapointment- a more experienced Eckerle, the 5 freshmen who maybe learned the system a little better than they would have otherwise, but probably a lesser recruiting class (2009) joining them that year. So its my guess that its a net wash- we would probably be in about the same situation for the 2009-10 season either way (fielding then, finally, a very good team). While it might be a wash on the court, off the court the loss of buzz for the next 2 years is something that is not calculatable, but is still a loss. Also, probably my biggest concern with Majerus blowing it up now is this- what happens if he fails to complete his contract? If he left after this season, the program would probably be in worse shape than when he arrived. Had he played to win this season though, even if he then leaves, we would have been fine. I know I have been critical here of Majerus, but don't take that to mean I am not pleased to have him as our coach. I think it is fair to contrast the alternate scenarios of what could have been vs. what is. Majerus is going to do it his way so we have to accept that- and its too late now to do anything different anyway- we are on the path we are on. Ask yourself this- if before Majerus was hired he informed us that we would have 2 seasons of struggle, but then after that we would have a real chance to compete for a national championship- would you still want him as coach? For me, the answer would be yes. Many of us have waited decades for some real success- what's a couple more years? So in summary- I'm dissapointed that perhaps this season was an opportunity lost, but still pleased with our long term prospects.

Well, I predicted 26 and 9 as a final record in the prediction contest, so I guess that makes me a major "knucklehead". Fortunately, while the bills were still 3 and 1, I modified my expectations downward in my "tempered expectations" thread, where I stated my belief that winning will be a secondary goal for the season- the primary goal being Majerus installing his system to his satisfaction. If Majerus had only this season to operate with and maximizing wins were a priority, I would like to believe that ya 26 and 9 would have been achievable. I do feel Majerus is doing the right thing- if by not prioritizing winning now that makes the team better down the road I am all for it, even if that means suffering a painful, ugly loss like tonight. Majerus's first season at Ball State was .500- the next season they went 29 and 3. I realize that tonight's loss is very disturbing, but is name calling really neccesary? I, along with some others, were inaccurate in our predictions. It isn't the first time I've been wrong and it certainly won't be the last. I hope you didn't believe us to be some gurus or something. Sorry to dissapoint you...