Who Will be the Next Big East National Champ?

[whiteandblue77]

Do you mean national champ in BB or national chamo in any sport?

Basketball only please.

[aughnanure]

No, I was just adding in Diamond Stone (A legit one and done 6'10 C who was teammates with our freshman PG in Milwaukee) to expound on the point of not getting why we would be left off in this time frame so easily. Have you seen our other actually committed recruits for 2014 and 2015, including our Top 10 class this year and the Luke Fischer transfer? Seems a bit rash (albeit probably aided by the perception of down year) to leave us off.

This year's class- all except for Wilson, 2014 yes, 2015 a little, Fischer -none. Look even though I'm a diehard SHU fan I'm probably one of the biggest BE homers on the board so I hope it happens for MU. But now I understand better where you are coming from & I can agree with your point somewhat. My premise was 3 years & at least one super star. My observations on MU were based on this year's team is a win now team, that aint winning now. Next year begins a rebuilding process with a great foundation, but who's going to be the man to carry MU to the ship next year? It was supposed to be Wilson this year. Next year Fischer or Hill will be looked at but I just think it's unlikely with so many new bodies. The following year I could see it. I'm changing my tune b/c I had forgotten about Fischer & am probably sleeping some on JuJuan as legit wild cards for that role. I just don't know much about Fischer and it's asking a lot of next year's class before we've seen them play one cbb game.

Agreed on 2015 recruits being minimal, which is kind of why I mentioned Stone - because he would one of the very few who could have a huge impact in that year.

Wilson just has not stepped up like our other senior leaders have the past decade. But our guard situation will be much better next year. Burton looks close but it just hasn't clicked yet. Jujuan getting a lot of quality production out of his limited minutes. Mayo is looking better and better (and his numbers are pretty much equal to Vander's last year). I get the skepticism, but Marquette is used to going to battle with 6'5 centers (Lazar Hayward, Jae Crowder, Wesley Matthews, Jimmy Butler), so I don't agree next year is rebuilding. The guards will be older and Luke Fischer will really help replace Davante and Otule (and hopefully an actually healthy Steve Taylor!), and Burton can play the 4 inside a la Hayward. Clearly, its the backcourt that has been the issue this year. Having your best player be a 6'8 280 lbs beast is nice and all, but if the guards aren't stepping up and aren't threats from the outside teams can just pack inside, double team and deny him the ball. But it's not as bad as it looks, just something isn't clicking right and we're too inconsistent to win close games against good team (i.e. Wisconsin, Xavier, Arizona State).

Yeah, Fischer is big for us. A top 40 6'11 recruit who will be able to practice with our team for a full year (and already is). Going to be great for him to go against Gardner and Otule in practice.

[TheHall]

Agreed on 2015 recruits being minimal, which is kind of why I mentioned Stone - because he would one of the very few who could have a huge impact in that year.

Wilson just has not stepped up like our other senior leaders have the past decade. But our guard situation will be much better next year. Burton looks close but it just hasn't clicked yet. Jujuan getting a lot of quality production out of his limited minutes. Mayo is looking better and better (and his numbers are pretty much equal to Vander's last year). I get the skepticism, but Marquette is used to going to battle with 6'5 centers (Lazar Hayward, Jae Crowder, Wesley Matthews, Jimmy Butler), so I don't agree next year is rebuilding. The guards will be older and Luke Fischer will really help replace Davante and Otule (and hopefully an actually healthy Steve Taylor!), and Burton can play the 4 inside a la Hayward. Clearly, its the backcourt that has been the issue this year. Having your best player be a 6'8 280 lbs beast is nice and all, but if the guards aren't stepping up and aren't threats from the outside teams can just pack inside, double team and deny him the ball. But it's not as bad as it looks, just something isn't clicking right and we're too inconsistent to win close games against good team (i.e. Wisconsin, Xavier, Arizona State).

Yeah, Fischer is big for us. A top 40 6'11 recruit who will be able to practice with our team for a full year (and already is). Going to be great for him to go against Gardner and Otule in practice.

That's one of the best (and most relevant) lines I've read in awhile. I stand corrected on a total rebuilding effort. Let's just say I believe MU does better when they have an underdog attitude, which will be the case next season and wasn't the case to start this season. I would add that I think the 7-footer you guys have coming in from the Kiski School next year - Satchel Pierce, is better than people say IMO. He may or may not help immediately but he will help a lot eventually.

[marquette]

That's one of the best (and most relevant) lines I've read in awhile. I stand corrected on a total rebuilding effort. Let's just say I believe MU does better when they have an underdog attitude, which will be the case next season and wasn't the case to start this season. I would add that I think the 7-footer you guys have coming in from the Kiski School next year - Satchel Pierce, is better than people say IMO. He may or may not help immediately but he will help a lot eventually.

Obviously there are no guarantees, but Fischer and Pierce have given us a lot of hope. I'd say national championship is off the table for next year, but there's a small chance for the next couple years (Stone would be a huge help in that). I like our incoming recruits. Along with the above 2 we have a couple 6'7'' switchables,6'7'' PF Steve Taylor Jr. will hopefully be past his injury by then, 6'5'' and 6'4'' SGs who are highly ranked, and hopefully 2 serviceable point guards (Derrick Wilson, John Dawson) to go along with a stud PG in Duane Wilson (who will hopefully not be injured again). Whatever happens next year it will be fun to watch these talented kids grow.

[aughnanure]

Agreed on 2015 recruits being minimal, which is kind of why I mentioned Stone - because he would one of the very few who could have a huge impact in that year.

Wilson just has not stepped up like our other senior leaders have the past decade. But our guard situation will be much better next year. Burton looks close but it just hasn't clicked yet. Jujuan getting a lot of quality production out of his limited minutes. Mayo is looking better and better (and his numbers are pretty much equal to Vander's last year). I get the skepticism, but Marquette is used to going to battle with 6'5 centers (Lazar Hayward, Jae Crowder, Wesley Matthews, Jimmy Butler), so I don't agree next year is rebuilding. The guards will be older and Luke Fischer will really help replace Davante and Otule (and hopefully an actually healthy Steve Taylor!), and Burton can play the 4 inside a la Hayward. Clearly, its the backcourt that has been the issue this year. Having your best player be a 6'8 280 lbs beast is nice and all, but if the guards aren't stepping up and aren't threats from the outside teams can just pack inside, double team and deny him the ball. But it's not as bad as it looks, just something isn't clicking right and we're too inconsistent to win close games against good team (i.e. Wisconsin, Xavier, Arizona State).

Yeah, Fischer is big for us. A top 40 6'11 recruit who will be able to practice with our team for a full year (and already is). Going to be great for him to go against Gardner and Otule in practice.

That's one of the best (and most relevant) lines I've read in awhile. I stand corrected on a total rebuilding effort. Let's just say I believe MU does better when they have an underdog attitude, which will be the case next season and wasn't the case to start this season. I would add that I think the 7-footer you guys have coming in from the Kiski School next year - Satchel Pierce, is better than people say IMO. He may or may not help immediately but he will help a lot eventually.

Agreed, and its why this year has been so very disappointing (we finally FINALLY have size in the post and this is the year we don't have guards?! Just frustrating). Satchel is intriguing, but I can't assume a frosh big man will have a large impact in his 1st year - which is why its so nice we got Luke Fischer again, though Pierce will have to play some in the non-con before Fischer is eligible.

[pki1998]

Yeah that was years and years ago before the college landscape changed. New programs don't, or very rarely, win titles. And this league is built on past success. Think of why Butler X and Creighton were let in over Dayton or SLU it's because of past success. Think of why MU and Depaul were let in with Louisville and Cinci it's because of past success. Maybe you five are always looking forward because you've been in it since before you had a bunch of success but the other half of the league got in because of our past success.

Repeating a premise doesn't make it true. During the time of the old Big East (1979-2013), 13 teams won their first NCAA Tournament title. The thirteen schools combined for 22 of the 35 championships in that time. And in case you think they are all near the beginning of that period in the last 15 years four teams (UConn , Maryland, Syracuse, and Florida) have won thier first championship during that time these schools combined for 7 of the championships. I don't think that counts as very rarely

[ChelseaFriar]

Yeah that was years and years ago before the college landscape changed. New programs don't, or very rarely, win titles. And this league is built on past success. Think of why Butler X and Creighton were let in over Dayton or SLU it's because of past success. Think of why MU and Depaul were let in with Louisville and Cinci it's because of past success. Maybe you five are always looking forward because you've been in it since before you had a bunch of success but the other half of the league got in because of our past success.

Repeating a premise doesn't make it true. During the time of the old Big East (1979-2013), 13 teams won their first NCAA Tournament title. The thirteen schools combined for 22 of the 35 championships in that time. And in case you think they are all near the beginning of that period in the last 15 years four teams (UConn , Maryland, Syracuse, and Florida) have won thier first championship during that time these schools combined for 7 of the championships. I don't think that counts as very rarely

Not to mention Butler. I know they didn't win the title, but they made back-to-back title games after not advancing past the Sweet 16 since 1962.

[MUBoxer]

Yeah that was years and years ago before the college landscape changed. New programs don't, or very rarely, win titles. And this league is built on past success. Think of why Butler X and Creighton were let in over Dayton or SLU it's because of past success. Think of why MU and Depaul were let in with Louisville and Cinci it's because of past success. Maybe you five are always looking forward because you've been in it since before you had a bunch of success but the other half of the league got in because of our past success.

Repeating a premise doesn't make it true. During the time of the old Big East (1979-2013), 13 teams won their first NCAA Tournament title. The thirteen schools combined for 22 of the 35 championships in that time. And in case you think they are all near the beginning of that period in the last 15 years four teams (UConn , Maryland, Syracuse, and Florida) have won thier first championship during that time these schools combined for 7 of the championships. I don't think that counts as very rarely

Ok lets look at a fairly current sample say the 21st century. In that time we've seen Kentucky, UNC 2x, Duke 2x, Ville, UConn 2x, Florida win but then REPEAT, MSU all repeat for titles. So of the 13 national title 10 have been repeats. I said in my post that times have changed and there is rarely going to be a new team win it now and I believe that 10/13 shows that pretty well.

[pki1998]

Ok lets look at a fairly current sample say the 21st century. In that time we've seen Kentucky, UNC 2x, Duke 2x, Ville, UConn 2x, Florida win but then REPEAT, MSU all repeat for titles. So of the 13 national title 10 have been repeats. I said in my post that times have changed and there is rarely going to be a new team win it now and I believe that 10/13 shows that pretty well.

Again repeating a premise doesn't make it true. It's better to admit that you are wrong then ignoring facts. When you look at the 21st century (2001 - present) there have been 13 champions. Of which three teams (Maryland, Syracuse and Florida) Have won their first championship, Florida has won two of them as such 4 out of 13 the championships won this century was by teams that had not won one in the 20th century. That's approximately 31% of the time. Plus I fail to see how your 13 year period of the 21 st century is significantly more relevant than the 15 year period expressed in my original post, that was included to prempt such an arguement. If we go to my fifteen year period I would get to include UCOnn which has won 3 titles since 1999 (it's first). So under the same math that's 7 championships won in 15 years by teams that had never won one before 1999 or approximately 47%. Or if even if you want to try saying that repeats prove your point. 4 new schools have won there first championship in the last 15 years , you still get approximately 27% first time champions in the last 15 years. I fail to see that as rare. And before you say the last 15 years are a fluke. In addition to UConn the 90s had four more schools win there first championship.

[MUBoxer]

Ok lets look at a fairly current sample say the 21st century. In that time we've seen Kentucky, UNC 2x, Duke 2x, Ville, UConn 2x, Florida win but then REPEAT, MSU all repeat for titles. So of the 13 national title 10 have been repeats. I said in my post that times have changed and there is rarely going to be a new team win it now and I believe that 10/13 shows that pretty well.

Again repeating a premise doesn't make it true. It's better to admit that you are wrong then ignoring facts. When you look at the 21st century (2001 - present) there have been 13 champions. Of which three teams (Maryland, Syracuse and Florida) Have won their first championship, Florida has won two of them as such 4 out of 13 the championships won this century was by teams that had not won one in the 20th century. That's approximately 31% of the time. Plus I fail to see how your 13 year period of the 21 st century is significantly more relevant than the 15 year period expressed in my original post, that was included to prempt such an arguement. If we go to my fifteen year period I would get to include UCOnn which has won 3 titles since 1999 (it's first). So under the same math that's 7 championships won in 15 years by teams that had never won one before 1999 or approximately 47%. Or if even if you want to try saying that repeats prove your point. 4 new schools have won there first championship in the last 15 years , you still get approximately 27% first time champions in the last 15 years. I fail to see that as rare. And before you say the last 15 years are a fluke. In addition to UConn the 90s had four more schools win there first championship.

Why is the 21st century relevant? Because I said the college basketball landscape is different NOW, not in the 90s, not in the 80s, I don't give a darn about those times. They aren't now. And no Florida doesn't count when they win their second, a repeat is a repeat not a special exception because they hadn't won one before.