What is Chris Mullin’s coaching philosophy?

First off I expect better than 22 wins, but assuming we do end with 22 it certainly depends on who we lose to and what the scores of our wins are not to mention how our non conference opponents end up.

I still expect this team to be in/in-out of top 25 and end up in the top 25

First off I expect better than 22 wins, but assuming we do end with 22 it certainly depends on who we lose to and what the scores of our wins are not to mention how our non conference opponents end up.

I still expect this team to be in/in-out of top 25 and end up in the top 25

Fair enough, although we're 11-0 and not in the top 25 yet. So if we're hovering around or just above .500 through the BE season we won't be in the top 25.

That said, the top 25 is pretty much useless anyway. It has little to no effect on NCAA Tournament seeding/selection

I disagree using Marquette because if you have watched their close games such as Louisville and Wisconsin you would know they should have lost both of those. The refs missed an obvious 3 point shot and gave Louisville 2 instead and they went into OT and loss. The refs also sucked in the Wisconsin game which gave Howard 15 Fts and a bs flagrant on Buzzcut Brad. They should be 1-4 in OOC difficult games with their best win against K-State at home.

Remember when you laughed at me for saying I'd rather be 3-2 with Marquette's schedule than 5-0 with ours, and you pointed to the NET as proof that you were right about the schedule not being weak? Who is ahead of who in the NET these days? Spoiler, it's the team with 2 losses, not the undefeated team.

So our schedule is too strong, but we'll only get a 10 seed with 22 wins. Sure, that makes sense.

22 wins in a good conference with a not-weak OOC schedule is usually slightly better than a 10 seed, but one of those things doesn't apply to us this year so I agree with your assessment of where we'd end up with 22 wins.

Another question - is this roster better or worse than a typical 10 seed in your opinion?

Please tell me you are just troling and that you're not really this slow mentally.

The NET looks like a horrible metric. It rewards teams for winning and blowouts over tough games.

Your comment about how you'd rather be 3-2 with Marquette's then resume than 5-0 St. John's was one of the all-time dumbest posts. The NET had Marquette at 99 and us top 30 at that time.

The NET has four categories...three of them reward wins or margin of victory. Two of those categories...HALF...don't take the quality of opponent into account at all! That's absurd.

That is why a strong overall schedule will hurt us in the NET.  We won't rack up wins and we won't blow teams out after Sacred Heart.

A team like Furman could roll in the NET beating lesser schools by 30 and winning nonstop.

The NET looks like a horrible metric. It rewards teams for winning and blowouts over tough games.

Ok so when the NET rankings help your case they're great. When they don't, it's a horrible metric. Despite us blowing the piss out of the last few teams we've played, Marquette is still ahead of us with two more losses. More on this below

Your comment about how you'd rather be 3-2 with Marquette's then resume than 5-0 St. John's was one of the all-time dumbest posts. The NET had Marquette at 99 and us top 30 at that time.

That wasn't my point at all and either A) you know it and are flat out lying, or B) have 0 reading comprehension skills. I didn't say I'd rather be 3-2 with their resume at the time than 5-0 with ours. I said I'd rather be 3-2 with their FULL SCHEDULE than 5-0 with our FULL SCHEDULE. I was proven right as they are ahead of us in the NET and we need to pick up at least 2 more wins than them in the BE season to have even an equal resume to them. Pretty crazy that since that time, neither team lost yet Marquette passed us even though we were a full 70(!) spots ahead of them. If only I could put my finger on why that could occur... Oh yeah, it's because our OOC schedule is pathetic.

That is why a strong overall schedule will hurt us in the NET.  We won't rack up wins and we won't blow teams out after Sacred Heart.

By this logic, the top of the NET will be flooded by the best low conference teams that go 16-2 in their conferences while the 10-8 BE or SEC team will be in the middle. In relation to those low conference teams, yes our schedule will be relatively strong. In relation to the power conference teams, our schedule will be among the weakest. And those are the teams we'll be competing with for seeding/selection.

A team like Furman could roll in the NET beating lesser schools by 30 and winning nonstop.

You clearly know absolutely nothing about the NET rankings because the maximum amount of points counted towards a win = 10. Meaning, winning by 36 is = to winning by 10. So yesterday's win over SFNY doesn't count as a 34 point win for us, it counts as a 10 point win. Whether that's stupid or not is one thing, but clearly you have no clue what you're talking about, as usual.

If you are actually mentally challenged please let me know, and I'll stop this because I'd feel bad. Seriously, you're embarrassing yourself

I disagree using Marquette because if you have watched their close games such as Louisville and Wisconsin you would know they should have lost both of those. The refs missed an obvious 3 point shot and gave Louisville 2 instead and they went into OT and loss. The refs also sucked in the Wisconsin game which gave Howard 15 Fts and a bs flagrant on Buzzcut Brad. They should be 1-4 in OOC difficult games with their best win against K-State at home.

We should have lost to VCU, then what? We can do this all day.

22 wins in a good conference with a not-weak OOC schedule is usually slightly better than a 10 seed, but one of those things doesn't apply to us this year so I agree with your assessment of where we'd end up with 22 wins.

Current NCAA NET

MU @ 9-2 = 19

SJ @ 11-0 = 26

In the abstract I have no idea what those numbers mean, but it doesn't seem like a significant difference. If there's ~ 330 D1 teams a difference of 7 is carry the one about 2 percent.

That said, question: if Marquette goes 9-9 in the BE and 1-1 in BET and finishes 19-12, what seed would they be do you think?

Another question - is this roster better or worse than a typical 10 seed?

My first thought was that this roster is much better than a ten seed but looking at last year's tournament two BE teams were 10 seeds, Butler and Providence - which I think this year's SJ team is more talented than but considering the lack of big man only because Ponds is Jesus. The year before that Seton Hall (Carrington, Rodriguez, Delgado) was a 9, Marquette (Hauser, Fischer, Howard) a 10, and Xavier (Bluiett, Sumner, Macura) and Providence (Bullock, Holt, Lindsey) 11's. How many seeds better than those teams is this years SJ team? Three? Four? I don't think too many and if so not by much, which is why if they go 9-9 in conference they deserve a 10 seed.

That said, question: if Marquette goes 9-9 in the BE and 1-1 in BET and finishes 19-12, what seed would they be do you think?

If Marquette goes 10-10 in the BE regular season + BET that would put them at 21 wins if they beat Buffalo and Southern to round out their OOC. If they we go 10-10 and don't beat Duke we'll be at 22 wins. They'd likely be a 6 or 7, we'll be a 10 or 11, possibly having to play in Dayton. 22 wins with our schedule will have us at least slightly sweating on selection Sunday, but fortunately for us the bubble is shaping up to be weak this year even though it's very early. That's the point. We can  have 22 wins and still not be completely comfortable because we have zero decent OOC wins, an avoidable error. Our ceiling is extremely lowered because of this and this is not the right year for it.

My first thought was that this roster is much better than a ten seed but looking at last year's tournament two BE teams were 10 seeds, Butler and Providence - which I think this year's SJ team is more talented than but considering the lack of big man only because Ponds is Jesus. The year before that Seton Hall (Carrington, Rodriguez, Delgado) was a 9, Marquette (Hauser, Fischer, Howard) a 10, and Xavier (Bluiett, Sumner, Macura) and Providence (Bullock, Holt, Lindsey) 11's. How many seeds better than those teams is this years SJ team? Three? Four? I don't think too many and if so not by much, which is why if they go 9-9 in conference they deserve a 10 seed.

To me, this is the best roster we've had in decades we might not have another roster like this for a couple more decades. A 1st team All-American candidate + the best player on a 4 seed last year + a 4th year Justin Simon + a 5th year Marvin Clark + a guy like LJ is a 5 or 6 seed roster at worst with what should be a serious chance to make the Sweet 16, even with limited big depth. A team like Marquette has given themselves a chance to get a 5 or 6 seed while still leaving themselves some margin for error in the BE. We haven't. Getting a 10 seed and having to face Gonzaga, Nevada or a team like that to get to the second weekend would make things unnecessarily difficult and could end up wasting what should be a banner raising season.

Let’s pretend for a minute we beat duke at duke. Would it be the best ooc schedule of all time? I’m kidding of course but it would be absolutely genius.

Regardless of strength of schedule I think this team needed some time to gel and overcome injury. I think the team is playing with great confidence and buying into the principles of the staff.

A few L's might have caused doubt over playing time, coach's decisions, etc.

Ultimately we need to win in conference and I think we will.

Regardless of strength of schedule I think this team needed some time to gel and overcome injury. I think the team is playing with great confidence and buying into the principles of the staff.

A few L's might have caused doubt over playing time, coach's decisions, etc.

Ultimately we need to win in conference and I think we will.

There are two parts to the argument you guys are making.

A) The schedule isn't weak. On a scale of 1-10 I disagree with this about a 20. It's absurd to think that.

B) The schedule is perfect for us because we need time to gel and would have lost to better teams. This is an ok thought but I still disagree with it at about a 7. There's no evidence that supports this. This isn't 1990 anymore where teams look the same each year. In 2018, teams that return 5, 6 or 7 rotation players are the anomalies. In a given season, most teams have multiple new players they have to work into the rotation or have to play completely different roles. That doesn't stop them from playing good teams early on.

Here's a hypothetical question I have for you Dave and whoever else. If you were in charge of the schedule and were presented with the chance to trade the Princeton game for Kentucky at MSG (which is what would happened if we didn't back out of that game), would you make that trade?

If Marquette goes 10-10 in the BE regular season + BET that would put them at 21 wins if they beat Buffalo and Southern to round out their OOC. If they we go 10-10 and don't beat Duke we'll be at 22 wins. They'd likely be a 6 or 7, we'll be a 10 or 11, possibly having to play in Dayton. 22 wins with our schedule will have us at least slightly sweating on selection Sunday, but fortunately for us the bubble is shaping up to be weak this year even though it's very early. That's the point. We can  have 22 wins and still not be completely comfortable because we have zero decent OOC wins, an avoidable error. Our ceiling is extremely lowered because of this and this is not the right year for it.

To me, this is the best roster we've had in decades we might not have another roster like this for a couple more decades. A 1st team All-American candidate + the best player on a 4 seed last year + a 4th year Justin Simon + a 5th year Marvin Clark + a guy like LJ is a 5 or 6 seed roster at worst with what should be a serious chance to make the Sweet 16, even with limited big depth. A team like Marquette has given themselves a chance to get a 5 or 6 seed while still leaving themselves some margin for error in the BE. We haven't. Getting a 10 seed and having to face Gonzaga, Nevada or a team like that to get to the second weekend would make things unnecessarily difficult and could end up wasting what should be a banner raising season.

I seriously don't understand this. If this is the best roster we've had in decades and might have in decades - and I agree this team has a high ceiling depending on how good or bad Keita is - and we go .500 in conference then either this is not the best roster we've had in decades or Mullin stinks - neither of which has anything to do with the schedule - which in either case it doesn't matter what seed they get, because they'll be out the first weekend. (Much like almost every St John's team ever. Hashtag glory years.)

If you're still harping on the schedule, I agree, it wasn't optimal. But I don't care to argue about it, because I don't have a time machine. You made your point. My point is: if SJ take care of business in conference they will receive an advantageous seed. If they don't they don't deserve an advantageous seed.

PS Lunardi currently has SJ as a 9 versus Maryland in SC, which is a not good match up and Palm has SJ as a 7 versus UCLA in Hartford, which I'd take. I'd rather be a 12 seed than either of those, but then I'm a contrarian.

I seriously don't understand this. If this is the best roster we've had in decades and might have in decades - and I agree this team has a high ceiling depending on how good or bad Keita is - and we go .500 in conference then either this is not the best roster we've had in decades or Mullin stinks - neither of which has anything to do with the schedule - which in either case it doesn't matter what seed they get, because they'll be out the first weekend. (Much like almost every St John's team ever. Hashtag glory years.)

If you're still harping on the schedule, I agree, it wasn't optimal. But I don't care to argue about it, because I don't have a time machine. You made your point. My point is: if SJ take care of business in conference they will receive an advantageous seed. If they don't they don't deserve an advantageous seed.

PS Lunardi currently has SJ as a 9 versus Maryland in SC, which is a not good match up and Palm has SJ as a 7 versus UCLA in Hartford, which I'd take. I'd rather be a 12 seed than either of those, but then I'm a contrarian.

This is the problem though. We're 11-0 and are projected to be a 9 and 7 seed (Palm's bracket is a joke considering UCLA is nowhere near the NCAA Tournament conversation at this point. That seems off.

I agree, going .500 in the BE would be an underachievement in and of itself and I expect us to do better than 10-10. The point though is our ceiling is significantly lowered and our margin for error is razor thin, when it doesn't necessarily have to be. If we go 12-8, which is more so in the range that I'd expect us to finish, we'd be seeded lower than we should be, simply because our OOC is weak.

Pretty much regardless of how we do in the BE we will be at a disadvantage come selection Sunday. For somebody like me, all the good things that happen Between November-Mid March are nice but the NCAA Tournament 100x supersedes all of that. I understand if others feel differently, but nothing equals the thrill of succeeding in the NCAA Tournament, something we haven't felt in a very very long time.

Pretty much regardless of how we do in the BE we will be at a disadvantage come selection Sunday. For somebody like me, all the good things that happen Between November-Mid March are nice but the NCAA Tournament 100x supersedes all of that. I understand if others feel differently, but nothing equals the thrill of succeeding in the NCAA Tournament, something we haven't felt in a very very long time.

I agree and disagree. On the one hand I agree: I watch the games and am happy when they win and frustrated when they lose and either way I get on with my life. On the other I also agree: there is outside of horse racing nothing like the NCAA tournament, but that's along ways away and being as it is subject to the vagaries of fate I'll defer my expectations. On the third hand I disagree: if they win 15 games in conference they'll be a number two seed out west and if history is any indication they'll lose in the first round, at the buzzer and on some egregious call. And if they're not 15-5 they'll lose in the first round at some lesser seed, at the buzzer and on some egregious call. Which is why I'm happy enough to have not lost yet. Either way I expect that something awful will happen, probably sooner rather than later.

A factor to consider in our OOC schedule: this schedule was put together long before anyone knew that Heron and Figueroa would be on the team.  Consider what we'd look like without them so far and then decide if the schedule was appropriate for the team we had at the time that it was locked in. 

IMO, even with the schedule we have, we would not be looking at anything like a 12 - 0 start without the addition of Heron and Figueroa and there's be far less complaining that we would have booked a schedule worthy of a top 25 team.  We were 4 and 14 in the BE last year.

[quote author=goredmen link=topic=11103.msg301642#msg301642 date=

Here's a hypothetical question I have for you Dave and whoever else. If you were in charge of the schedule and were presented with the chance to trade the Princeton game for Kentucky at MSG (which is what would happened if we didn't back out of that game), would you make that trade?
[/quote]

I would have traded the Princeton game for a better opponent to play at the Garden. I think it would have been the perfect point in time to test ourselves with an upper echelon opponent. That being said, I'm of the opinion that this team/ staff needed a schedule where we could build confidence, form an identity and learn how to win in different ways. I really can't wait for conference play to start because I think this team is up for the challenge.

Let’s pretend for a minute we beat duke at duke. Would it be the best ooc schedule of all time? I’m kidding of course but it would be absolutely genius.

Yes it would.  Even the 1985 Final Four team lost to Niagara.  This schedule is almost perfect for this team.  Our three best players have never played together before this year! 

I think we beat Duke if we can control that monster Zion in the paint.  Let him fall in love with the perimeter. They have one guard that plays who is under 6'2 and he is a freshman.  If that doesn't scream 40 points and National Player of the Week I don't know what does. 

The one change I would have made was playing Kentucky at the Garden instead of SH.  We match up so well with them.  Who knows why that fell through. 

Let’s pretend for a minute we beat duke at duke. Would it be the best ooc schedule of all time? I’m kidding of course but it would be absolutely genius.

Pretty sure that your schedule going from awful to great solely hinging on winning a game in which you'll be about a 20 point underdog isn't an optimal strategy. But perhaps the NBA analytics guys that Mullin has doing the schedule for him think otherwise.

Fortunately for us we'll be way better in February than we are now. Duke on the other hand, with their entire starting lineup having never played together before this summer and consisting of 18 year old superfreak Freshmen won't get any better under the tutelage of perhaps the greatest basketball coach in history between now and 2/2.

Yes it would.  Even the 1985 Final Four team lost to Niagara.  This schedule is almost perfect for this team.  Our three best players have never played together before this year! 

I think we beat Duke if we can control that monster Zion in the paint.  Let him fall in love with the perimeter. They have one guard that plays who is under 6'2 and he is a freshman.  If that doesn't scream 40 points and National Player of the Week I don't know what does. 

The one change I would have made was playing Kentucky at the Garden instead of SH.  We match up so well with them.  Who knows why that fell through. 

Do you realize in the same post you just said that we can't beat anybody better than VCU or GTech now but will be good enough to beat Duke in 4 weeks. There is not a coach or miracle worker on the planet that could improve a team that much that fast

Ok so when the NET rankings help your case they're great. When they don't, it's a horrible metric. Despite us blowing the piss out of the last few teams we've played, Marquette is still ahead of us with two more losses. More on this below

That wasn't my point at all and either A) you know it and are flat out lying, or B) have 0 reading comprehension skills. I didn't say I'd rather be 3-2 with their resume at the time than 5-0 with ours. I said I'd rather be 3-2 with their FULL SCHEDULE than 5-0 with our FULL SCHEDULE. I was proven right as they are ahead of us in the NET and we need to pick up at least 2 more wins than them in the BE season to have even an equal resume to them. Pretty crazy that since that time, neither team lost yet Marquette passed us even though we were a full 70(!) spots ahead of them. If only I could put my finger on why that could occur... Oh yeah, it's because our OOC schedule is pathetic.

By this logic, the top of the NET will be flooded by the best low conference teams that go 16-2 in their conferences while the 10-8 BE or SEC team will be in the middle. In relation to those low conference teams, yes our schedule will be relatively strong. In relation to the power conference teams, our schedule will be among the weakest. And those are the teams we'll be competing with for seeding/selection.

You clearly know absolutely nothing about the NET rankings because the maximum amount of points counted towards a win = 10. Meaning, winning by 36 is = to winning by 10. So yesterday's win over SFNY doesn't count as a 34 point win for us, it counts as a 10 point win. Whether that's stupid or not is one thing, but clearly you have no clue what you're talking about, as usual.

If you are actually mentally challenged please let me know, and I'll stop this because I'd feel bad. Seriously, you're embarrassing yourself

We've both dug in and won't budge.  We can go back and forth calling each other nice persons or we can try to find some middle ground for the sanity of the board.

Only one category was capped (margin of victory at ten points).  The NCAA made a big mistake by not accounting for location of the game and quality of the opponent for the net offensive and defensive efficiency.  Can we at least agree on that?  .5 pts per possession @ Duke is the same as .5 pts per possession home v. Arkansas Pine Bluff.  That is insane.

I don't think St. John's is as good as Marquette yet. They were a tournament team last year and we were under .500. VCU was better than us the night we played and that should have been a loss if Ponds wasn't perfect.  Marquette should have lost to Louisville.  The blown call on the blatant three pointer put the game in OT.  They could easily have 5 losses and I think we'd have at least three losses with their schedule. 

I think we can all objectively say the NET is a flawed metric.  If it ends up helping us this year then great.  If the lottery gave me the winnings for getting only one # right, I could be happy about that and still think the method was flawed.  I think the NET has been too kind to us thus far and I fear it will be WAY too harsh on us for playing at least 19 games in a league with no weak teams.  Every other conference has whipping boys.  Lasalle is 0-10 in the A-10.  Rutgers and Illinois are getting bullied in the Big 10. The PAC 12 is a mess middle down.  The ACC is as soft middle down as ever. There are conferences right outside the high-majors that could really capitalize by destroying horrible teams.  The increase they get from destroying the bad teams will outweigh the
the decrease they will feel from playing crap opponents.

The predictions for us center around us being around .500 in conference play.  We COLLAPSED last year after a 10-2 OOC slate.  We started 0-10 in conference!  Who can trust us right now without some proof.  A few wins to start will buy us trust. 

I too think this is one of the most talented rosters in many years, but they have never learned how to win consistently yet.  Overcoming that losing inertia is tougher than you give it credit for.  And who knows what Keita will be like?  That is another huge variable.