Third Round Wooden Game Thread

[GoMuskies]

I have no earthly idea what they were thinking when they decided to back out of Orlando.

Mario just wanted that Wichita State matchup for me so badly, and he knew we had to wait until next year to go to Orlando for that to happen.

[casualfan]

Mario just wanted that Wichita State matchup for me so badly, and he knew we had to wait until next year to go to Orlando for that to happen.

Unless we're facing them in round 1 i wouldn't bet on it. Based on recent history we'll be playing on opposite sides of the bracket.

[GoMuskies]

Unless we're facing them in round 1 i wouldn't bet on it. Based on recent history we'll be playing on opposite sides of the bracket.

Hey, the Muskies and Shockers could always square off in the 7th place game.

[PMI]

I agree with you, PMI. I don't think we can afford not playing in exempt tournaments. We need the extra games for resume-building purposes, but for that same reason we need to give ourselves a chance to build a resume. Butler is a perfect example. They took down UNC and Georgetown in the Bahamas, which will more than overshadow the Oklahoma loss. This weekend will pay dividends for them come March.

Ours, on the other hand, will be viewed as a negative -- and even winning the tournament would not have paid off all that much.

I think you're right about us not being able to afford not playing in tournaments., particularly given the rest of our OOC schedule. I'm going on memory here, but I remember in 2007, we beat Villanova in the finals of one of the tournaments, and it ended up being our biggest win of the season. We made the NCAAs as an at-large, and given that there were at least two talking heads arguing against our inclusion, it's reasonable to suggest we might not have made the tournament without it. In 2008, I remember beating Indiana on a neutral floor but I don't remember if that was a whole tournament. I thought we did win a tournament that year though, and of course, we ended up with a 3 seed. In 2009, we beat Missouri, Memphis and someone else (VCU?) which was obviously a major success and ended up with a 4 seed. 2010 I think was the first year of the recent stretch where we did not perform well in an early season tournament (Crawford hadn't hit his stride yet) and we did still end up with a 6 seed. 2011... I think it was about the same. The last three years, we've either made it as a double digit seed or not at all, and it seems we have played in a tournament with weaker competition than we did in the previous ones.

I guess the point is, these tournaments are very heavily weighted when you consider it's 3 games (two of which don't count against your allowed total) and the way the selection committee looks at teams' schedules. You can do anything from get three awesome resume-building wins (like in 2009) that can take you up multiple seeds come March, or you can go 1-2 against mediocre competition and dig yourself a resume hole, as we've done this year. Winning is the most important thing you can do, obviously. But not far behind that is giving yourself the best chance to come away with quality opponents that will help your SOS. I just didn't think we did ourselves any favors by going so far from home to play three teams that could all realistically beat us on a neutral floor on any given day, who you can't exactly rely on to remain a "high quality opponent." Simply put, I prefer the "go big or go home" strategy. I'm not saying we need to see three top 15 teams and risk getting blown out with a lot of newcomers. I do think, resumes aside, these trips can certainly bring more value than just the on-court results. But I also think we put ourselves in a situation where there isn't a ton of relative upside.

[GoMuskies]

Nova was a first round game in '07. Nova wasn't very good that year. I think Xavier was favored. We lost our second game in that tournament.

[PMI]

Nova was a first round game in '07. Nova wasn't very good that year. I think Xavier was favored. We lost our second game in that tournament.

You're right, that was a first round game, but it was still a win over an NCAA tournament team from the Big East (which by association also helped our RPI) and it allowed us to play our next game in the winner's bracket against a better opponent. I think it very realistically could've saved us from missing the tournament. Although that also would have saved me the worst St. Patty's day of my life and a few poor decisions afterward...

[Xville]

You're right, that was a first round game, but it was still a win over an NCAA tournament team from the Big East (which by association also helped our RPI) and it allowed us to play our next game in the winner's bracket against a better opponent. I think it very realistically could've saved us from missing the tournament. Although that also would have saved me the worst St. Patty's day of my life and a few poor decisions afterward...

ugh...damn you for bringing that one up. I had almost forgotten it, and now the wound is open again.

[XU 87]

I doubt it means much if anything at this point, but Pomeroy has X ranked at 44. I guess that's better than being 144. Or 244.

According to Pomeroy, X is 313th in the country in defending the 3. NCAA average is about 33%. X is a little over 40%.

[Masterofreality]

While we are talented, we are very, very young and the staff is playing a rotation now to get all these kids some experience. We won't be seeing the same rotations in January. Those that pass the test meter in the next 5 games will play significantly in Jan, Feb, Mar. Those that do not, will not.

That being said, the team as a whole, failed the back to back toughness test last weekend. That had better change.

I expect some heavy competition in practice this next week.

[bleedXblue]

What really concerns me is the history of underperforming in early season tourneys.

Butler's new coach said after the NC win, that his guys were simply a very tough group. He really didn't say anything other than that.

That's very telling to me.

Rarely do you hear Mack talk about toughness...........of his team.

[XU2011]

While we are talented, we are very, very young.

Where is all this young talk coming from? We're starting 2 seniors, 2 juniors and 1 freshman. The first 2 guys off of our bench are sophomores.

[waggy]

Rarely do you hear Mack talk about toughness...........of his team.

Used to be the motto.

And then there was the Crosstown.

[casualfan]

Where is all this young talk coming from? We're starting 2 seniors, 2 juniors and 1 freshman. The first 2 guys off of our bench are sophomores.

And those two sophomores are 21. One of them will turn 22 later this month.

[DC Muskie]

Frankly I'm tired of the "young" talk when it comes to college basketball. Everyone's young if you want to spin it like that. Everyone needs time to adjust, Xavier in general and this team specifically doesn't have some sort of monopoly on being young, or needing more time to adjust to a new scheme on defense or offense or both.

This stat is pretty glaring to me. In Mack's tenure we are 16-21 in neutral site/tournament games. In comparison we were 25-11 in those same games under Miller. This was a tournament we should have won, and coming in 4th is absolutely, positively, turrible.

The sky certainly isn't falling, but man we started with a very thin margin of error for the entire season. Beginning of December and we just made it a little harder on ourselves, but really, we have a very disturbing trend on our hands playing important games outside the Cintas.

[vee4xu]

Makes sense, DC.

[DC Muskie]

Makes sense, DC.

Thanks, and I'll just throw this bomb out there.

I don't think Mack should be fired...but if someone else wants to hire him away after this season, I'm crossing my fingers.

Here's something else to consider:

Matta-Miller 25+ win seasons: 6
Prosser -Mack 25+ win seasons : 2

I said this last year and we are seeing it again this year. We are seeing that Skip Prosser type of defense, and I wish somehow we could get back to the Sean Miller way of playing defense. I know it's basically the same scheme, but man we are really bad on the defensive end.

I don't want to have to go through another Prosser exit, where a lot of us were happy to move on. I'd rather be pissed that Mack left. I feel better when I'm pissed. Pissed means we had more than a few 25+ win seasons. Instead I'm afraid we are going to head down the 67% win percentage (like we have with Mack now) and turrible tournament records and relived that Clempson dumped the Brinks truck on him.

[paulxu]

A lot of those 25 win seasons were built on 12, 13, 14 even a 15 game win total in the A10. Going to be a little harder in the BE.
Which of course makes the OOC even more important.

But I'm not ready to join the train yet.

[smileyy]

There's something to be said for a guy who's coaching like he's auditioning for his next job.

[DC Muskie]

A lot of those 25 win seasons were built on 12, 13, 14 even a 15 game win total in the A10. Going to be a little harder in the BE.
Which of course makes the OOC even more important.

But I'm not ready to join the train yet.

I would image they did that with top flight A10 talent too. Would it safe to say we could do that with top flight BE talent?

You think Villanova has a chance to win 16 conference games in back to back seasons? I do.

[xsteve1]

Thanks, and I'll just throw this bomb out there.

I don't think Mack should be fired...but if someone else wants to hire him away after this season, I'm crossing my fingers.

Here's something else to consider:

Matta-Miller 25+ win seasons: 6
Prosser -Mack 25+ win seasons : 2

I said this last year and we are seeing it again this year. We are seeing that Skip Prosser type of defense, and I wish somehow we could get back to the Sean Miller way of playing defense. I know it's basically the same scheme, but man we are really bad on the defensive end.

I don't want to have to go through another Prosser exit, where a lot of us were happy to move on. I'd rather be pissed that Mack left. I feel better when I'm pissed. Pissed means we had more than a few 25+ win seasons. Instead I'm afraid we are going to head down the 67% win percentage (like we have with Mack now) and turrible tournament records and relived that Clempson dumped the Brinks truck on him.

I wish I didn't agree with you and hopefully Mack can get X back to what they used to be but things just seem to play out as expected with Mack. X will be really good at home and really mediocre away.
I was happy Mack stuck around this off season mainly because of the recruits he was bringing in. Now it's his job and his staff's to coach them up and motivate them. If things remain the same and this class doesn't elevate the program to what it was then there will need to be a change.
Mack as a player was a fiery guy that opponents hated. His coaching style seems the exact opposite. He rarely works the ref's and doesn't bring a lot of intensity to the sidelines.
I'm rooting for him and hope he's at X for a long time if he can rectify the problems.

[BMoreX]

I don't like Lunardi but with all the doom and gloom here, maybe this'll help a bit.

Joe Lunardi ‏@ESPNLunardi 11m11 minutes ago

FIRST OUT: Purdue, Xavier, St. Mary's, Texas A&M. NEXT OUT: So Methodist, Pitt, Oregon, Seton Hall.

[GoMuskies]

That sets us up nicely for a good NIT seed.

[Masterofreality]

I don't like Lunardi but with all the doom and gloom here, maybe this'll help a bit.

Joe Lunardi ‏@ESPNLunardi 11m11 minutes ago

FIRST OUT: Purdue, Xavier, St. Mary's, Texas A&M. NEXT OUT: So Methodist, Pitt, Oregon, Seton Hall.

Does he still have SucKS in that bracket? If so, it's total crap.

[boozehound]

Where is all this young talk coming from? We're starting 2 seniors, 2 juniors and 1 freshman. The first 2 guys off of our bench are sophomores.

I think we often forget the Junior and Senior leadership that was present on Miller's successful teams. This team may not be 'young', but we only start 2 guys who have played meaningful minutes in a Xavier uniform.

Our 2008 Elite 8 Run was lead by Seniors Stanley Burrell, Josh Duncan, and Drew Lavendar. We also had Juniors BJ Raymond and CJ Anderson, and Redshirt Sophmore Derrick Brown. The only non-walk on Freshmen on that team was Dante Jackson. Everybody that contributed significantly to that run had 2+ years in the Xavier system, with the exception of CJ.

The 2009 Sweet 16 team was lead by Seniors CJ Anderson, BJ Raymond, and RS Junior and future NBA player Derrick Brown. We also got significant contribution from a Junior Jason Love. Those guys all had several productive years in Xavier's system. Freshman Tu Holloway and Sophmore Dante Jackson manned the point - at times poorly.

The 2010 Sweet 16 team (coached by Chris Mack) was lead in scoring by RS Sophmore phenom Jordan Crawford, but also had Sr. Jason Love, Juniors Jamel McLean and Dante Jackson, and Sophmore Tu Holloway (who was a total stud). We also got some production from Freshman Mark Lyons.

All of those teams, and particularly the 2008 and 2009 teams, featured rotations lead by players that had significant experience in the system. This year's team doesn't have that. Once you get past Stainbrook you get to Sr. Dee Davis who has never been a 'go-to guy' in any sense of the word and is not known for his leadership, and James Farr who has been in the system but hasn't played a lot of meaningful minutes. This is Abell's first year playing for Xavier, and Blueitt is a Freshman. Davis and Reynolds are both Sophmores who spent a year completely out of organized basketball between prep school and last season at Xavier. We keep plugging in new pieces, which I think hurts our ability to play defense as a cohesive unit.

[THRILLHOUSE]

Does he still have SucKS in that bracket? If so, it's total crap.

No. Only AAC team he has in the field is UConn. (6 Big East teams listed as in)

[GoMuskies]

No. Only AAC team he has in the field is UConn. (6 Big East teams listed as in)

That's six Big East teams in with Xavier and Seton Hall just on the outside looking in? Impressive start.

[casualfan]

That's six Big East teams in with Xavier and Seton Hall just on the outside looking in? Impressive start.


It is, but I'm pretty sure Lunardi is one of those guys who projects what would happen today if the selection committe was picking, not what will end up happening.

I'm glad you brought that up because it brings up another point about our weak OOC schedule. Once BE play starts and teams start to cannibalize each other OOC performance could be huge. If the middle of the conference is a huge scrum like it was last year and everyone is beating each other up guess what becomes even that much more important? OOC resume.

The reality is that even though 8 of 10 teams are showing in or close to in today, that number will drop as conference play starts and we all beat each other up.

Personally I think a realistic number for the conference this year is 5. I'd like to think we could get a 6th, but I'm just not sure I see it.

[ammtd34]

It is, but I'm pretty sure Lunardi is one of those guys who projects what would happen today if the selection committe was picking, not what will end up happening.

I'm glad you brought that up because it brings up another point about our weak OOC schedule. Once BE play starts and teams start to cannibalize each other OOC performance could be huge. If the middle of the conference is a huge scrum like it was last year and everyone is beating each other up guess what becomes even that much more important? OOC resume.

The reality is that even though 8 of 10 teams are showing in or close to in today, that number will drop as conference play starts and we all beat each other up.

Personally I think a realistic number for the conference this year is 5. I'd like to think we could get a 6th, but I'm just not sure I see it.

Good point. Since we've bombed the OOC so far, we've got to separate ourselves from the middle of the Big East pack.

[Xville]

its obviously very early still but the next four games should tell us a lot about the direction that this team is going to go.

A decent team in Alabama at home
A crappy IUPUI team at home
An awful Missouri team on the road
An awful Auburn team on the road

There is zero reason we should lose any of these next four games. Missouri is an awful team right now...they may be a different team by February or March, but right now, they are terrible. Auburn is a little bit better, but not by much. We win these next four games, and I think we can all chill out a little bit. Not saying that these next four are do or die, but if we lose one of these next four, i think we can expect a team that is going to be basically the same as last year in terms of results.

[casualfan]

Good point. Since we've bombed the OOC so far, we've got to separate ourselves from the middle of the Big East pack.

Exactly. That's a much more succinct way of saying what I meant.

[PMI]

We knew we weren't going to have a ton of leeway in the OOC, and had to win most of our games (which is yet another reason I think the tournament was a scheduling failure but I digress.) What we did not count on was the rest of the league performing so well in the OOC thus far, which will directly help us, as long as it can keep up. The bottom line is, while we definitely cannot afford any more "bad losses" (I'm not sure our losses will end up as such) in the OOC, the better the rest of the league does OOC, the less it ends up mattering. We may, for the first time since... ever(?) have a lot of opportunities for quality wins in league play. They key is holding serve at home and getting a few of those good ones on the road, as well as avoiding the disastrous DePaul loss. But, as the staff probably was banking on, the rope is much longer in conference now.

What I'm most anxious to see is what Mack is going to do with this defense. I think it would be a major coaching success to turn this into an above average defense at this point. I see it as a personnel issue given the pack line system we mostly play. We are extremely reliant on Stainbrook, who is a special offensive weapon, but lacks the mobility and athleticism to realistically flourish at some of the most vital principles of running the pack line properly. We also rely extremely heavily on Bluiett, a freshman who unfortunately lost his offense in the LBSU game, and who, due to some natural limitations and newness to the system, also struggles. Dee is a good on ball defender which is crucial in the pack line, but he lacks the size to effectively close out against bigger deep threats. You can pretty much go down the list and find lots of guys whose defensive upside in the pack line is questionable.

I think Remy Abell needs to play more, period. I don't care that he doesn't have a great shot. He gets to the rim and finishes very well, and sort of reminds me of CJ in how he does so. He has the most upside and experience combination among our perimeter defenders. Having more than one of Myles, JP, and Sumner in the game at any given time really puts the pressure on our team to hit some outside shots and force some turnovers, because we will also give up a lot of easy deep looks and defensive breakdowns. I am more than willing to have patience with the freshmen. I think they will turn out to be really good players. But we need wins this year too, and I think Remy needs to be taking some of the minutes that seem to be experimental and heavily optimistic on good shooting/explosive offense.

I have no idea what Mack will or needs to do with our defense, but something has to give. This group is going to give up threes like they're playing the Golden State Warriors every night if this continues. We can keep outscoring teams in the friendly confines of the Cintas Center, but when you go on the road against Big East teams, you are going to be in tough, ugly battles, and right now we aren't built to sustain long spurts of defensive success in the pack line IMO. I hope he's cooking up something.

[waggy]

Well it would be a luxury to have a zone to throw in as a change up, but that just takes away time spent getting better at man to man.

[XU 87]

I guess Tim Floyd thinks his team is going to the Final 4.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/xaviersports/2014/11/28/notes-from-the-utep-loss/19636355/

[Cheesehead]

I guess Tim Floyd thinks his team is going to the Final 4.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/xaviersports/2014/11/28/notes-from-the-utep-loss/19636355/

Tim must be high. XU looks very average at the moment. He seems like a DB. I was actaully surprised he did not get T'ed up for his sideline antics. I think LB benefitted a little bit call-wise. He was really working those refs.

We need to to go back to Zip'em up. I am tired of watching teams play tougher than us.

[casualfan]

Tim must be high. XU looks very average at the moment. He seems like a DB. I was actaully surprised he did not get T'ed up for his sideline antics. I think LB benefitted a little bit call-wise. He was really working those refs.

We need to to go back to Zip'em up. I am tired of watching teams play tougher than us.

Or he's playing us up to help create buzz for his team.


The "man, that's a really good team we just beat" is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

[vee4xu]

Some have nibbled around the edges of transfers. For those with good memories, databases or both How many players have transferred or been dismissed from X's team starting with Miller's last year through this year? Used to be x would grow players a la Chalmers, West, Love, Sato, Duncan, Raymond, Lyons, Doellman, cage etc. then sprinkle in Thornton, Myles, Lavender, Holloway, Crawford and it worked. Not so much anymore. That has to impact growth and consistency. Long a short too much turnover.

[boozehound]

Long a short too much turnover.

Agree with this. I think that some of that is the changing environment of college basketball, but a lot of it is the personalities you recruit. Hopefully Mack has turned that part around. If so, I think the performance will follow.

[kyxu]

Some have nibbled around the edges of transfers. For those with good memories, databases or both How many players have transferred or been dismissed from X's team starting with Miller's last year through this year? Used to be x would grow players a la Chalmers, West, Love, Sato, Duncan, Raymond, Lyons, Doellman, cage etc. then sprinkle in Thornton, Myles, Lavender, Holloway, Crawford and it worked. Not so much anymore. That has to impact growth and consistency. Long a short too much turnover.


Agree with this. I think that some of that is the changing environment of college basketball, but a lot of it is the personalities you recruit. Hopefully Mack has turned that part around. If so, I think the performance will follow.

This is not really a Xavier issue and more of a college basketball issue. But for the most part, Xavier has been fairly solid at retaining players under Mack, with the exceptions being the giant whiff that was the 2010 recruiting class and the catastrophe of Dez Wells' expulsion. I feel like since that time, most of Xavier's attrition can be attributed to the above two factors.

I mean, look at the massive 2008 recruiting class we had with Frease, Holloway, Lyons, Redford, and Walsh. Even though that group saw a coaching change, four of the five were major contributors and even stuck around long enough to get their degree. At most other programs, it would not be uncommon to see maybe 50% of such a class not stick around long enough for their junior year.

[waggy]

A guy like Lyons leaving hurts the team for that year for sure. Very experienced athletic guard capable of playing the highest level. But flipside is Mack put up with him longer than he should've. Mack is more of a "players coach" I think. Some of that is natural; some is out of necessity.

[XU 87]

Mack is more of a "players coach" I think.

That's not what I've heard. He might have been initially, but not now.

[kyxu]

That's not what I've heard. He might have been initially, but not now.

Heard the same thing, except from the beginning of Mack's tenure; the things that Miller would typically allow from players, Mack does not.

[XU 87]

Heard the same thing, except from the beginning of Mack's tenure; the things that Miller would typically allow from players, Mack does not.

Such as?

And my impression of Miller was that he was a "players coach" the first few years and then he changed his way of doing things. I remember DeCoursey writing about Miller kicking Finn off the team and writing, "A more experienced coach probably would have made that move earlier."

As I write this, what a way to end your Xavier career- getting kicked off the team towards the end of your senior year because you were partying too much. Dumb.

[LA Muskie]

I think it depends on how you define "player's coach." As I understand them, Miller gave his players more lee-way off the court, but was far more strict in terms of practice/performance. Particularly on the defensive side of the court. Mack, to a large extent, is the opposite. He micromanages their off-the-court lives far more (likely out of necessity at this point), but for whatever reason does not command the same "respect" when it comes to practice and performance. Particularly on the defensive side of the court.

[LA Muskie]

Such as?

And my impression of Miller was that he was a "players coach" the first few years and then he changed his way of doing things. I remember DeCoursey writing about Miller kicking Finn off the team and writing, "A more experienced coach probably would have made that move earlier."

As I write this, what a way to end your Xavier career- getting kicked off the team towards the end of your senior year because you were partying too much. Dumb.
Miller and Mack both rose from assistant positions. Since assistants work more closely with -- and often have tighter relationships with -- the players (often dating all the back to recruiting them), those who are promoted from an assistant position to the team's head coach are often labeled "players' coaches". At least initially.

[XU 87]

That's interesting about Miller commanding more "respect" on the court than Mack, particularly on defense. Can you expand on that?

P.S. And I agree with your above post about assistants becoming head coaches at the same school. I think it can be tough to go from "cool uncle" to Head Coach.

[LA Muskie]

That's interesting about Miller commanding more "respect" on the court than Mack, particularly on defense. Can you expand on that?
Not the best choice of words on my part. I put it in quotes because I didn't have time to figure out the perfect word. At any rate, I think it's just a style thing. Miller was a screamer. He was ruthless on the court (in practice and in games). Frankly, Mack (his lead assistant) often had to smooth things over afterward. I don't mean to imply that Mack is gentle -- he's not -- but next to Miller he could look like Wally Cleaver.

[Xavier]

Just from my point Mack gives a little more leeway to the guys on defense. I always felt like if you did something dumb defensively Miller would sub you out quicker. Pretty much you had to give good effort and be at least respectable on defense in order to play.

[xu82]

Particularly on the defensive side of the court.
It appears a little added emphasis is in order. Yikes!

[XU 87]

Not the best choice of words on my part. I put it in quotes because I didn't have time to figure out the perfect word. At any rate, I think it's just a style thing. Miller was a screamer. He was ruthless on the court (in practice and in games). Frankly, Mack (his lead assistant) often had to smooth things over afterward. I don't mean to imply that Mack is gentle -- he's not -- but next to Miller he could look like Wally Cleaver.

I had heard that by the end of his freshman year, Holloway HATED Miller because Miller screamed at him so much.

[LA Muskie]

It appears a little added emphasis is in order. Yikes!
Sadly, it's not all that easy. It's not that Mack doesn't prioritize defense -- it's been his point of emphasis (nearly exclusively) all season and pre-season. As I see it, there are three variables. One is the system. Second is the personnel. Third is the coaching style. The personnel isn't changing at this point, and the coaching style can't be effectively changed mid-course. So we somehow have to find a tweak to the system that will allow the staff to coach-up this group into a serviceable defense.

[LA Muskie]

I had heard that by the end of his freshman year, Holloway HATED Miller because Miller screamed at him so much.
I don't know if "hate" is the right word, but I have no doubt that Tu had never been coached that way before and didn't particularly enjoy it at the time. Miller was tough on everyone. But PG's in particular. And the better you were and/or more potential you had, the harder he was on you. Miller either made you or broke you. I think Tu was one of several that fell into the former category.