So....What are we ranked on Monday - 12/23/2024?

[bilsu]

Who cares? Why does anyone think this is important? Let your play in March do the rankings.

It effects ESPN coverage.

[brewcity77]

Aww...  This comment was so great, I immediately, involuntarily showed my support for MU by tossing my cookies just like Junior.

The reason I went with the hyperbole is just because these threads are getting really repetitive. Maybe we should have one "Marquette Ranking" thread in which people can discuss where they think we'll be ranked and where we are ranked on Mondays when the polls come out. Right now, we're seeing 2-3 threads every week about "Where will we be ranked", followed by "AP has MU at XX" and "Coaches Poll -- Marquette #XX". Becoming more than a little bit of a broken record.

[Tugg Speedman]

Harvard, Yale, and Princeton would disagree with you.

Yes they would disagree ... and they would be wrong.

[Tugg Speedman]

The reason I went with the hyperbole is just because these threads are getting really repetitive. Maybe we should have one "Marquette Ranking" thread in which people can discuss where they think we'll be ranked and where we are ranked on Mondays when the polls come out. Right now, we're seeing 2-3 threads every week about "Where will we be ranked", followed by "AP has MU at XX" and "Coaches Poll -- Marquette #XX". Becoming more than a little bit of a broken record.

Disagree.  Every week should have its own thread for both the ranking and out come. 

No one is forcing you to read them.

[brewcity77]

Disagree.  Every week should have its own thread for both the ranking and out come. 

No one is forcing you to read them.

Why?

[real chili 83]

Why?

At the same time, let's do the same for threads on Vander.....either ban them completely, or limit them to one loooooong thread. 

[brewcity77]

At the same time, let's do the same for threads on Vander.....either ban them completely, or limit them to one loooooong thread. 

I'm honestly asking. What's wrong with one thread? Is it the lack of maturity in posters? The fear of it going off topic? Change the title every week to indicate the current ranking and to promote relevant discussion. The Scout Insider board has one thread that is a catch-all for recruiting tidbits. It's probably around 800+ posts long, but always stays on topic. Just make sure your settings have the maximum posts per page and go to the last page of the thread for current discussion. You can do that directly from the Hangin' board, so why is it a problem?

It really seems like people have a need to start threads for some form of online self-validation. It's not just here, it's all over the Internet. On the Scout free board, I'm pretty sure that the only form of self-validation MuggsyB ever gets is starting threads, because he'll start them on anything, from Vander Blue, to Jimmy Butler, to LeBron James, to what type of berries he likes to put in his breakfast cereal.

One large thread, possibly incorporating the votes of the media involved (similar to how Enlund does) to further encourage discussion seems like a far more engaging and enjoyable prospect. Every week you can use the one thread to look at the voting trends, see which writers like and dislike Marquette, even post up all their Twitter handles so we know who to spam with #mubb posts on a weekly basis.

It's just a lot easier for users to have one thread where they know a certain topic is being discussed. And as for your point with Vander threads (or any others, for that matter), I mostly agree. When I start a thread, I usually do a search first to make sure there isn't a relevant thread already in existence where I can continue discussion rather than starting another discussion we've already had 18 gazillion times.

[real chili 83]

Works for me.

[Tugg Speedman]

I'm honestly asking. What's wrong with one thread? Is it the lack of maturity in posters? The fear of it going off topic? Change the title every week to indicate the current ranking and to promote relevant discussion. The Scout Insider board has one thread that is a catch-all for recruiting tidbits. It's probably around 800+ posts long, but always stays on topic. Just make sure your settings have the maximum posts per page and go to the last page of the thread for current discussion. You can do that directly from the Hangin' board, so why is it a problem?

It really seems like people have a need to start threads for some form of online self-validation. It's not just here, it's all over the Internet. On the Scout free board, I'm pretty sure that the only form of self-validation MuggsyB ever gets is starting threads, because he'll start them on anything, from Vander Blue, to Jimmy Butler, to LeBron James, to what type of berries he likes to put in his breakfast cereal.

One large thread, possibly incorporating the votes of the media involved (similar to how Enlund does) to further encourage discussion seems like a far more engaging and enjoyable prospect. Every week you can use the one thread to look at the voting trends, see which writers like and dislike Marquette, even post up all their Twitter handles so we know who to spam with #mubb posts on a weekly basis.

It's just a lot easier for users to have one thread where they know a certain topic is being discussed. And as for your point with Vander threads (or any others, for that matter), I mostly agree. When I start a thread, I usually do a search first to make sure there isn't a relevant thread already in existence where I can continue discussion rather than starting another discussion we've already had 18 gazillion times.

Yes to all ...

I've been here long enough to know I rarely read past the second page because it always off topic. 

I think each week's discussion is unique to itself.  Besides I'm the one that often starts a poll for each week.  How would a poll work?

Why the phobia about threads?  The mods can combine them if more than one start for the same week.

It isn't broke so do not fix it.

[brewcity77]

We don't need a poll each week. This thread doesn't have a poll. And because it's a fluid topic, it doesn't matter if it gets off-topic, because every Monday there's a new discussion to be had. And if half the posters each week are complaining about the endless litany of threads, clearly it IS broken.

I don't have a phobia of threads, but why keep making new ones if they aren't necessary, and by the same token, why the obsession with making new threads? Just saying that if there are viable alternatives and half the posts in these threads are either facetious or denigrate the nature of the thread, maybe it's time to explore other options.

[Tugg Speedman]

We don't need a poll each week. This thread doesn't have a poll. And because it's a fluid topic, it doesn't matter if it gets off-topic, because every Monday there's a new discussion to be had. And if half the posters each week are complaining about the endless litany of threads, clearly it IS broken.

I don't have a phobia of threads, but why keep making new ones if they aren't necessary, and by the same token, why the obsession with making new threads? Just saying that if there are viable alternatives and half the posts in these threads are either facetious or denigrate the nature of the thread, maybe it's time to explore other options.

You don't think we need a poll every week.  I think they are worthwhile most weeks.

So, problem solved ... I will do polls most weeks and you can ignore them.

[TallTitan34]

For coverage purposes all that matters is that we stay ranked.

Our actual ranking doesn't matter at all.

[augoman]

So, Augie... what do you think we deserve

hard to say with any certainty..., but the way we've been playing my gut says towards bottom of top 30 or so. 

[wiscwarrior]

hard to say with any certainty..., but the way we've been playing my gut says towards bottom of top 30 or so. 

Can you name 25 teams that deserve to be ranked above us? 

[augoman]

probably, but not going to.

[DCWarriors04]

This team deserves to be ranked between 15 and 25. Have we played better than that; yes. Have we played worse than that; yes. This team plays better with a chip on its shoulder than it does with a bulls eye on its chest.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

This thread is hilarious. Who gives a rats ass if some posters want to talk about what MU will be ranked? I personally like talking about it, and I know several other posters do as well. Leave the moderating to the moderators. 

With that said, I think MU will be ranked between 21-23. It has been a tough week for the top 25. I think Michigan and Louisville will fall considerably...maybe even behind us. Gonzaga and Seton Hall will likely drop out of the top 25, and K State will fall back close to 25 with two straight loses. I also think Vandy, St Mary's and West Virginia could climb into the top 25. So yeah, 22 or 23 sounds about right.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

Parrish/Goodman have MU at 21 and Seth Davis has MU at 19 in their new polls.

Parrish/Goodman Top 25 (and one):

1.Syracuse (19-0)
2. Kentucky (17-1)
3. Baylor (17-0)
4. Duke (15-2)
5. Missouri (16-1)
6. Ohio State (16-3)
7. North Carolina (15-3)
8. Michigan State (15-3)
9. Kansas (14-3)
10. Indiana (15-3)
11.Creighton (16-2)
12. San Diego State (15-2)
13. UNLV (16-3)
14. Georgetown (14-3)
15. Virginia (14-2)
16. Kansas State (14-4)
17. Mississippi State (15-3)
18. Illinois (15-3)
19. Michigan (14-4)
20. Murray State (18-0)
21. Marquette (14-4)
22. Wisconsin (14-5)
23. Seton Hall (15-3)
24. Connecticut (14-3)
25. Alabama (13-4)
26. West Virginia (13-5)

Davis Top 25:
1. Syr 2. UK 3. Baylor 4. Ohio St 5. Duke 6. Mich St 7. Mizzou 8. KU 9. UNC 10. Indiana 11. Gtown 12. UNLV 13. Mich 14. Murray St 15. UVa 16. Fla 17. Miss St 18. UConn 19. Marq 20. West Va 21. St. Mary's 22. Gonz 23. SDSt 24. Illinois 25. Creighton

[🏀]

Parrish and Goodman loving Illinois WAY to much.

[bamamarquettefan]

23/24 - maybe move up two in AP and stay the same in ESPN

We have 2/3 teams we could pass - K-State, Gonzaga and in AP Seton Hall (already head of them in ESPN).  So that puts us up to 22 in both polls if it all happens.

While that could happen, I've got to believe at some point they bump Vandy past us in both polls (2 easy SEC wins and their blowout of us has to factor at some point), and St. Mary's blowout of Gonzaga could put us past them in the AP though they had a lot fewer votes in ESPN.

It's possible none of some of these happen, but on balance it seems almost as many could sneak past us, as we could sneak past.  Let's hope Louisville didn't drop too far so a win against them will look more impressive.

[JTBMU7]

outside of the top 4 teams, there isnt a single team on that list that i wouldnt think MU had a could beat. this years tourney is going to be WIDE open again...

[4everwarriors]

So, the tourney selection will have a soft bubble?

[mu_hilltopper]

I'm honestly asking. What's wrong with one thread?

Dang.  We get paid to moderate by the thread.

Otherwise, yeah.

[RawdogDX]

+1

Its completely irrelevant that were ranked right now, we may not even have what qualifies as a quality win yet. Madison will become on (hopefully) when they get their act together as they always do, but right now our next best win is Washington...

-1
If u don't want to talk about MU basketball then dont click on the thread.

[RawdogDX]

I'm honestly asking. What's wrong with one thread? Is it the lack of maturity in posters? The fear of it going off topic? Change the title every week to indicate the current ranking and to promote relevant discussion. The Scout Insider board has one thread that is a catch-all for recruiting tidbits. It's probably around 800+ posts long, but always stays on topic. Just make sure your settings have the maximum posts per page and go to the last page of the thread for current discussion. You can do that directly from the Hangin' board, so why is it a problem?

It really seems like people have a need to start threads for some form of online self-validation. It's not just here, it's all over the Internet. On the Scout free board, I'm pretty sure that the only form of self-validation MuggsyB ever gets is starting threads, because he'll start them on anything, from Vander Blue, to Jimmy Butler, to LeBron James, to what type of berries he likes to put in his breakfast cereal.

One large thread, possibly incorporating the votes of the media involved (similar to how Enlund does) to further encourage discussion seems like a far more engaging and enjoyable prospect. Every week you can use the one thread to look at the voting trends, see which writers like and dislike Marquette, even post up all their Twitter handles so we know who to spam with #mubb posts on a weekly basis.

It's just a lot easier for users to have one thread where they know a certain topic is being discussed. And as for your point with Vander threads (or any others, for that matter), I mostly agree. When I start a thread, I usually do a search first to make sure there isn't a relevant thread already in existence where I can continue discussion rather than starting another discussion we've already had 18 gazillion times.

is your need of one thread a sign of senility?
No, it's not easier to have to guess if I should click on page 10 or 11.  I'd rather just click on all.  All the information in one place? No one wants to read your posts from week two of the season. U didn't give me the slightest reason to think this was a good idea, actually your off topic ramblings and attacks show why a long thread would suck.