Arizona State @ Minnesota: 1-3-21 & 1-4-21

MUgopher32

Active member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
556
Reaction score
144
Points
43
Past results have ZERO impact on today. None.
They have EVERY impact on what I said.

St Cloud has been notorious for playing up to the competition and down to the competition.

They continue to prove it. They play really well against UND and UMD. But are prone to letting their foot off the gas.

That is all I stated, and it is 100% factual.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
23,010
Reaction score
4,430
Points
113
They have EVERY impact on what I said.

St Cloud has been notorious for playing up to the competition and down to the competition.

They continue to prove it. They play really well against UND and UMD. But are prone to letting their foot off the gas.

That is all I stated, and it is 100% factual.
You were also talking about previous year teams in the NCAA tournament. Teams with completely different rosters. Completely irrelevant in every single way.
 

MUgopher32

Active member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
556
Reaction score
144
Points
43
You were also talking about previous year teams in the NCAA tournament. Teams with completely different rosters. Completely irrelevant in every single way.
First time sports follower?!?!?

Not sure you will ever watch a game where at least 20 stats from the past are referenced.

All they talk about with Lamar Jackson is his 0-2 playoff record(prior to last weekend). Trends are trends. I pointed out a trend.
 

Gophers1992

Active member
Joined
Oct 8, 2019
Messages
259
Reaction score
198
Points
43
First time sports follower?!?!?

Not sure you will ever watch a game where at least 20 stats from the past are referenced.

All they talk about with Lamar Jackson is his 0-2 playoff record(prior to last weekend). Trends are trends. I pointed out a trend.
And those stats are generally worthless and stupid. SCSU suffering a couple bad losses 3+ years ago is completely meaningless to today.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
23,010
Reaction score
4,430
Points
113
First time sports follower?!?!?

Not sure you will ever watch a game where at least 20 stats from the past are referenced.

All they talk about with Lamar Jackson is his 0-2 playoff record(prior to last weekend). Trends are trends. I pointed out a trend.
Trends in a vacuum are worthless. Same team? Maybe. But a different team with different players is in no way impacted by prior years. It's not like they are all wearing the same cursed skates.

By the same logic....do you even care to watch Marquette if they make the NCAA Tournament? Since 2000 they've made the Tournament 12 times. 5 of those years they lost to a lower seeded team IN THE FIRST ROUND. Guess you'd be the first to say that Marquette is a non factor bound to underperform and is basically a free win for whoever plays them. Historical trends right? Just a lousy team that plays down to their competition and loses to worse teams in the biggest moments.

And those stats are generally worthless and stupid. SCSU suffering a couple bad losses 3+ years ago is completely meaningless to today.
+08
 

MUgopher32

Active member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
556
Reaction score
144
Points
43
Trends in a vacuum are worthless. Same team? Maybe. But a different team with different players is in no way impacted by prior years. It's not like they are all wearing the same cursed skates.

By the same logic....do you even care to watch Marquette if they make the NCAA Tournament? Since 2000 they've made the Tournament 12 times. 5 of those years they lost to a lower seeded team IN THE FIRST ROUND. Guess you'd be the first to say that Marquette is a non factor bound to underperform and is basically a free win for whoever plays them. Historical trends right? Just a lousy team that plays down to their competition and loses to worse teams in the biggest moments.



+08
LMAO horrible analogy.

Marquette is a program in that stretch that never lost to the equivalent of 1 v 4 in hockey.

And also in that stretch you referenced had a run that resulted in a final 4.A seperate elite 8 and 2 more sweet 16s. And overall are 13-12

St. Cloud on the other hand is 5-11 in their NCAA tourney games since 2000 and the most recent 3 losses have been massive upsets.

I have no idea why you are obsessed with defending the honor of St. Cloud. All I said is they are prone to clunkers......they are. Lost again to Western Michigan.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
23,010
Reaction score
4,430
Points
113
LMAO horrible analogy.

Marquette is a program in that stretch that never lost to the equivalent of 1 v 4 in hockey.

And also in that stretch you referenced had a run that resulted in a final 4.A seperate elite 8 and 2 more sweet 16s. And overall are 13-12

St. Cloud on the other hand is 5-11 in their NCAA tourney games since 2000 and the most recent 3 losses have been massive upsets.

I have no idea why you are obsessed with defending the honor of St. Cloud. All I said is they are prone to clunkers......they are. Lost again to Western Michigan.
It's a perfectly sound analogy. When only 16 teams make the NCAA Tournament....all of those teams are going to be pretty good. You seem to conveniently forget that St. Cloud made it to the frozen four in 2013.....wait for it.....AS A FOUR SEED! Unthinkable. They shouldn't have been good enough to sniff the skates of some of those other teams.

So they had some good teams in that stretch too. But losing 5 of 12 in the first round as a higher seed? Pretty clear that they MASSIVELY underwhelm in the tournament. Clearly a program to write off using your logic. Prone to losses to worse teams....right?

Sure....they are prone to clunkers. I haven't argued with you there. I take issue with the "THEY'VE HISOTRICALLY BEEN BAD AS #1 SEEDS AND HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF" take. It means little and you've dug yourself in on it. And also yes....getting swept by WMU was a bummer. But even the Gophers got swept at home by a bad to extremely average Notre Dame team. It happens.
 

MUgopher32

Active member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
556
Reaction score
144
Points
43
It's a perfectly sound analogy. When only 16 teams make the NCAA Tournament....all of those teams are going to be pretty good. You seem to conveniently forget that St. Cloud made it to the frozen four in 2013.....wait for it.....AS A FOUR SEED! Unthinkable. They shouldn't have been good enough to sniff the skates of some of those other teams.

So they had some good teams in that stretch too. But losing 5 of 12 in the first round as a higher seed? Pretty clear that they MASSIVELY underwhelm in the tournament. Clearly a program to write off using your logic. Prone to losses to worse teams....right?

Sure....they are prone to clunkers. I haven't argued with you there. I take issue with the "THEY'VE HISOTRICALLY BEEN BAD AS #1 SEEDS AND HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF" take. It means little and you've dug yourself in on it. And also yes....getting swept by WMU was a bummer. But even the Gophers got swept at home by a bad to extremely average Notre Dame team. It happens.
5/12 isnt even 50% of the time haha. Cloud has lost 3 straight as a straight up top seed.

And no, it was a terrible analogy. Those "top seeded" had a couple of them being the 8/9 or 7/10 games. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know that those games are not just results wise basically toss ups, but spread wise as well.

They did lose to a 11 and 12 once each though(even though those are also very common). Since 2000 Marquette has won 2 games or more in the NCAA tourney 4 times as often as SCSU has.

To further illustrate your lack of a point. Marquette lost to 12 seeded Tulsa one year. The next year they went on to the final 4.

Cloud on the other hand lost a 1 seed. Then did it again and then did it again. 3 consecutive trips.

There is the difference. One is a trend.

You did argue them being prone to clunkers tho. Thats how this all started and for some reason you are so passionate about SCSU hockey(on a gopher board) you got so bent out of shape you brought up Marquette basketball on a gopher hockey board. Not a good look, anyway you try and slice it.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
23,010
Reaction score
4,430
Points
113
5/12 isnt even 50% of the time haha. Cloud has lost 3 straight as a straight up top seed.

And no, it was a terrible analogy. Those "top seeded" had a couple of them being the 8/9 or 7/10 games. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know that those games are not just results wise basically toss ups, but spread wise as well.

They did lose to a 11 and 12 once each though(even though those are also very common). Since 2000 Marquette has won 2 games or more in the NCAA tourney 4 times as often as SCSU has.

To further illustrate your lack of a point. Marquette lost to 12 seeded Tulsa one year. The next year they went on to the final 4.

Cloud on the other hand lost a 1 seed. Then did it again and then did it again. 3 consecutive trips.

There is the difference. One is a trend.

You did argue them being prone to clunkers tho. Thats how this all started and for some reason you are so passionate about SCSU hockey(on a gopher board) you got so bent out of shape you brought up Marquette basketball on a gopher hockey board. Not a good look, anyway you try and slice it.
Hockey teams in the NCAA tournament are much closer in competition level considering that there are only 16 that make it. Many of the NCAA basketball teams around that 9-12 range are middling power five teams that go around .500 in their conferences. Nothing special. Marquette dropped 5/12 of those. Sorry to break it to you....but that's a major underperformance. Certainly not a good tournament team....at least using your odd "historical results matter today" claims. Pick against them in your brackets....they're good as a first round upset in those 5-8 favorite games based upon historical results....if you think that matters.

My point is that historical results DON'T matter. And you tried to claim they do. I knew that you'd completely forfeit that claim if the NCAA underperforming Marquette basketball team was brought up though. Sure enough....here you are claiming it doesn't matter.
 

MUgopher32

Active member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
556
Reaction score
144
Points
43
Hockey teams in the NCAA tournament are much closer in competition level considering that there are only 16 that make it. Many of the NCAA basketball teams around that 9-12 range are middling power five teams that go around .500 in their conferences. Nothing special. Marquette dropped 5/12 of those. Sorry to break it to you....but that's a major underperformance. Certainly not a good tournament team....at least using your odd "historical results matter today" claims. Pick against them in your brackets....they're good as a first round upset in those 5-8 favorite games based upon historical results....if you think that matters.

My point is that historical results DON'T matter. And you tried to claim they do. I knew that you'd completely forfeit that claim if the NCAA underperforming Marquette basketball team was brought up though. Sure enough....here you are claiming it doesn't matter.
God you really are dumb.

You do realize that like 25% of all college hockey teams make the tournament right??? In basketball its less than 20%.

SCSU losing to American is basically the equivalent to if Marquette lost to like a 15 seed. They havent.

A team like American only made the tourney because they got their auto bid. Same as a back end college basketball tournament team.

You are a next level moron.

As already stated Marquette is 13-12 in the NCAA tournament since 2000. So based on my "historical results" They literally have a better chance of winning any time the program steps out on the court in the tournament. St. Cloud??? 5-11 like I said.

It was a dumb analogy by a really, really dumb human being. You can keep trying to call Marquettes results "under performing" won't bother me. The criteria your incompetent ass is using means that basically every non title winning program since 2000 has "under performed". Which really, loses the luster of the term.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
23,010
Reaction score
4,430
Points
113
God you really are dumb.

You do realize that like 25% of all college hockey teams make the tournament right??? In basketball its less than 20%.

SCSU losing to American is basically the equivalent to if Marquette lost to like a 15 seed. They havent.

A team like American only made the tourney because they got their auto bid. Same as a back end college basketball tournament team.

You are a next level moron.

As already stated Marquette is 13-12 in the NCAA tournament since 2000. So based on my "historical results" They literally have a better chance of winning any time the program steps out on the court in the tournament. St. Cloud??? 5-11 like I said.

It was a dumb analogy by a really, really dumb human being. You can keep trying to call Marquettes results "under performing" won't bother me. The criteria your incompetent ass is using means that basically every non title winning program since 2000 has "under performed". Which really, loses the luster of the term.
In basketball the talent is far more diluted than in hockey. Lots of teams in that 9-12 range are mostly marginal whereas most of the teams in the hockey tournament are all good enough to beat anyone on any given night.

You seem to be fixated on a couple of good years that Marquette had. But losing five out of twelve first round games as a favorite screams underperforming. But again....I don't think that losing a bunch of games as a higher seed really has any effect on future years. I don't think the ghosts of underperformance in the NCAA tournament linger in the Golden Eagle locker room.

The analogy is fine. You just don't like it because it pokes holes in your historical result opinion. Doesn't matter in basketball...but it does matter in hockey. Interesting stuff.
 

MUgopher32

Active member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
556
Reaction score
144
Points
43
In basketball the talent is far more diluted than in hockey. Lots of teams in that 9-12 range are mostly marginal whereas most of the teams in the hockey tournament are all good enough to beat anyone on any given night.

You seem to be fixated on a couple of good years that Marquette had. But losing five out of twelve first round games as a favorite screams underperforming. But again....I don't think that losing a bunch of games as a higher seed really has any effect on future years. I don't think the ghosts of underperformance in the NCAA tournament linger in the Golden Eagle locker room.

The analogy is fine. You just don't like it because it pokes holes in your historical result opinion. Doesn't matter in basketball...but it does matter in hockey. Interesting stuff.
Haha you just keep talking in circles.

Again, a 9 seed in college basketball tourney is far better than the standard 16th best team in the NCAA hockey tournament. In most cases, the 9 seed is an at large team meaning they actually had a resume worthy of making the dance. A team like American only got in because they won their auto bid, much like a 15 seed.

The analogy is terrible. You are comparing 5-11 with 13-12. You poke your own holes with blatant stupidity.

And actually I like it, youre allowing me to go back to the past when Marquette was really successful. If you were going to use a bad analogy regardless you shoulda just picked one that attacked the Wojo years, at least that would be some solid ammo.

A couple good years? Tells me you really don't follow college hoops similar to your lack of college hockey history. Marquette not only had a the 03 final 4 and the 3 straight years of sweet 16 or better but in the 8 years of the Old 16 team BE. They were the only team in the entire conference to make the tournament every single year and finished above .500 in conference every year but 1(finished .500 in 2010/2011 and made sweet 16 as 11 seed).

I am fixated on facts. 13-12 is vastly superior to 5-11.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
23,010
Reaction score
4,430
Points
113
Haha you just keep talking in circles.

Again, a 9 seed in college basketball tourney is far better than the standard 16th best team in the NCAA hockey tournament. In most cases, the 9 seed is an at large team meaning they actually had a resume worthy of making the dance. A team like American only got in because they won their auto bid, much like a 15 seed.

The analogy is terrible. You are comparing 5-11 with 13-12. You poke your own holes with blatant stupidity.

And actually I like it, youre allowing me to go back to the past when Marquette was really successful. If you were going to use a bad analogy regardless you shoulda just picked one that attacked the Wojo years, at least that would be some solid ammo.

A couple good years? Tells me you really don't follow college hoops similar to your lack of college hockey history. Marquette not only had a the 03 final 4 and the 3 straight years of sweet 16 or better but in the 8 years of the Old 16 team BE. They were the only team in the entire conference to make the tournament every single year and finished above .500 in conference every year but 1(finished .500 in 2010/2011 and made sweet 16 as 11 seed).

I am fixated on facts. 13-12 is vastly superior to 5-11.
Sixteen teams in the hockey tournament. It's a much stronger field. Marquette had a few good teams that won some games to make up for the fact that nearly half their trips to the tournament resulted in first round upsets. I'm not trying to defend St. Cloud's tournament failures. I'm pointing out that they have no basis in this year. Much like how Marquette dropping first round games against lower seeding teams doesn't reflect on their ability in the future to beat teams that they are favored over come tournament time. You should take comfort in the fact that you don't need to count on Dwayne Wade to net you a win again. Marquette is not cursed.
 

MUgopher32

Active member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
556
Reaction score
144
Points
43
Sixteen teams in the hockey tournament. It's a much stronger field. Marquette had a few good teams that won some games to make up for the fact that nearly half their trips to the tournament resulted in first round upsets. I'm not trying to defend St. Cloud's tournament failures. I'm pointing out that they have no basis in this year. Much like how Marquette dropping first round games against lower seeding teams doesn't reflect on their ability in the future to beat teams that they are favored over come tournament time. You should take comfort in the fact that you don't need to count on Dwayne Wade to net you a win again. Marquette is not cursed.
Yes, 16/62 teams. We just went over this. I higher % of college hockey teams make their NCAA tournament than basketball. It is not a stronger field haha. Its even more watered down.

You're right Marquette dropping a few first round games doesnt reflect on them, because it isn't a trend. Unlike St. Cloud, Marquette is actually historically(in the post 2000s window you chose) more likely to win any given tournament game.

More fun numbers. In their first game of the tournament since 2000, Marquette is 6-6. Regardless of where they are seeded, its a 50/50 shot they get a second game. Cloud?? 4-8. A paltry 33% chance they get a second game.

A bad analogy will always be a bad analogy.
 

bonin21

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2014
Messages
1,172
Reaction score
389
Points
83
Way too much to read but the guy saying the NCAA hockey tournament is watered down doesn't know anything about college hockey. Parity has been growing since that fateful day the Gophers lost to Holy Cross.

4 seeds are 12-16 since 2013 and if you keep going back until Holy Cross the record doesn't get all that much worse.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
23,010
Reaction score
4,430
Points
113
Yes, 16/62 teams. We just went over this. I higher % of college hockey teams make their NCAA tournament than basketball. It is not a stronger field haha. Its even more watered down.

You're right Marquette dropping a few first round games doesnt reflect on them, because it isn't a trend. Unlike St. Cloud, Marquette is actually historically(in the post 2000s window you chose) more likely to win any given tournament game.

More fun numbers. In their first game of the tournament since 2000, Marquette is 6-6. Regardless of where they are seeded, its a 50/50 shot they get a second game. Cloud?? 4-8. A paltry 33% chance they get a second game.

A bad analogy will always be a bad analogy.
Wrong. Hockey talent is more condensed whereas basketball talent is not. The percentage of teams is less important than the quality of the teams.

And you are right about Marquette repeatedly losing first round games as the favorite. It reflects zero moving forward. You're starting to figure it out.
 

MUgopher32

Active member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
556
Reaction score
144
Points
43
Wrong. Hockey talent is more condensed whereas basketball talent is not. The percentage of teams is less important than the quality of the teams.

And you are right about Marquette repeatedly losing first round games as the favorite. It reflects zero moving forward. You're starting to figure it out.
You have a very loose definition of repeatedly.

Marquette actually has only 1 time lost to a "worse" team in the ncca tournament first round, and followed it up with doing the same thing their next appearance. 1 time.

Which is again, the point of your awful analogy. When Marquette does have the less likely "bad tournament showing" they tend to make up for it the next time. Unlike St. Cloud.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
23,010
Reaction score
4,430
Points
113
Way too much to read but the guy saying the NCAA hockey tournament is watered down doesn't know anything about college hockey. Parity has been growing since that fateful day the Gophers lost to Holy Cross.

4 seeds are 12-16 since 2013 and if you keep going back until Holy Cross the record doesn't get all that much worse.
+08

350+ D1 basketball schools compared to 61 hockey teams
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
23,010
Reaction score
4,430
Points
113
You have a very loose definition of repeatedly.

Marquette actually has only 1 time lost to a "worse" team in the ncca tournament first round, and followed it up with doing the same thing their next appearance. 1 time.

Which is again, the point of your awful analogy. When Marquette does have the less likely "bad tournament showing" they tend to make up for it the next time. Unlike St. Cloud.
The point of my analogy isn't to compare St. Cloud State's horrible recent tournament results to Marquette's only bad results. My point was that it doesn't matter if these teams underperform come tournament time. Both SCSU AND Marquette can beat lower seeded teams regardless of their struggles in the recent past. Those results do not have a lingering effect.
 

MUgopher32

Active member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
556
Reaction score
144
Points
43
The point of my analogy isn't to compare St. Cloud State's horrible recent tournament results to Marquette's only bad results. My point was that it doesn't matter if these teams underperform come tournament time. Both SCSU AND Marquette can beat lower seeded teams regardless of their struggles in the recent past. Those results do not have a lingering effect.
Well yeah, the Twins "could" conceivably beat the Yankees in a playoff game again.

The point that you keep failing to grasp. Is likelihood. I never said if Cloud makes the tournament this year "they will lose". I said that they much more prone to getting booted early than programs like UMD and UND. Which they are

Winning pedigree is a thing. Culture is a thing.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
23,010
Reaction score
4,430
Points
113
Well yeah, the Twins "could" conceivably beat the Yankees in a playoff game again.

The point that you keep failing to grasp. Is likelihood. I never said if Cloud makes the tournament this year "they will lose". I said that they much more prone to getting booted early than programs like UMD and UND. Which they are

Winning pedigree is a thing. Culture is a thing.
Of course they could. Every game starts 0-0 and the players either perform or they don't. That is true for any game in every sport. You'll drive yourself crazy trying to forecast games by comparing "cultures". It's an exercise in futility.
 

MUgopher32

Active member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
556
Reaction score
144
Points
43
Of course they could. Every game starts 0-0 and the players either perform or they don't. That is true for any game in every sport. You'll drive yourself crazy trying to forecast games by comparing "cultures". It's an exercise in futility.
Or you can stay sane.

For example with the Twins. I now have the expectation every year they will get swept out of the playoffs. No false hope. Can only be pleasantly surprised(still waiting for this day to come).
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
23,010
Reaction score
4,430
Points
113
Or you can stay sane.

For example with the Twins. I now have the expectation every year they will get swept out of the playoffs. No false hope. Can only be pleasantly surprised(still waiting for this day to come).
That's fine. I think it's silly. Much like with probability....if you flip a coin ten times and the first nine come up heads.....the tenth flip forgets the past results and still has a 50/50 shot at either. There's no carryover.
 

MUgopher32

Active member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
556
Reaction score
144
Points
43
That's fine. I think it's silly. Much like with probability....if you flip a coin ten times and the first nine come up heads.....the tenth flip forgets the past results and still has a 50/50 shot at either. There's no carryover.
Correct. But there are more variables at play here than just flipping the coin.

Now I will say obviously a trend of SCSU losing with a completely different roster under a different head coach would not be the same as a trend where Ron Gardenhire and a similar core of Twins got bent over in the playoffs but there is a reason a program like SCSU loses more frequently early in the tournament than a team like UND. And same with the Twins in October compared to New York. It's not some lucky flip of the coin.

Maybe this all could have been avoided if I simply stated that the all around talent and depth of UND and UMD scares me more than Cloud. Because all this started by simply alluding to the fact that as a Gopher fan I don't exactly fear a meeting with Cloud like I do UND in March/April.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
23,010
Reaction score
4,430
Points
113
Correct. But there are more variables at play here than just flipping the coin.

Now I will say obviously a trend of SCSU losing with a completely different roster under a different head coach would not be the same as a trend where Ron Gardenhire and a similar core of Twins got bent over in the playoffs but there is a reason a program like SCSU loses more frequently early in the tournament than a team like UND. And same with the Twins in October compared to New York. It's not some lucky flip of the coin.

Maybe this all could have been avoided if I simply stated that the all around talent and depth of UND and UMD scares me more than Cloud. Because all this started by simply alluding to the fact that as a Gopher fan I don't exactly fear a meeting with Cloud like I do UND in March/April.
Ok.
 
Top Bottom