Mike Ellis on with MacKey and Doogie

[station19]

Talks Gophers, NCAA, NIT and Pitino spat with Bo Ryan.

Hour 3....click to listen.
http://www.1500espn.com/shows/judd

 

[MadtownGopher]

Nothing on facilities? Would love some sort of hint at how the fundraising is going. I can only assume it's virtually non-existent.

 

[alchemy2u]

Nothing on facilities? Would love some sort of hint at how the fundraising is going. I can only assume it's virtually non-existent.

Now, why would go there and assume the worst? Just be patient and assume that they know what they are doing and we will hear soon enough. Unless I missed some announcement about them breaking ground, we have plenty of time.

 

[MadtownGopher]

Now, why would go there and assume the worst? Just be patient and assume that they know what they are doing and we will hear soon enough. Unless I missed some announcement about them breaking ground, we have plenty of time.

Plenty of time for what? We need practice facilities in the worst way. Every day we are getting further and further behind the rest of the conference.

 

[Ski U Mah Gopher]

Plenty of time for what? We need practice facilities in the worst way. Every day we are getting further and further behind the rest of the conference.

It took Northwestern about 16 months to raise the 220 million for the lakeside practice facility. During that time, nothing came out the administration. What is happening at the U is SOP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[EG#9]

Continue to be impressed by Mike Ellis every time I hear him. I feel confident we've got a good guy in place overseeing the basketball program. My guess as to why facilities were not mentioned was that this was a day to discuss the NCAA/NIT and that Teague is much more the point man on the fundraising end of things.

 

[MadtownGopher]

Hope you are right. Keeping my fingers crossed.

 

[Rouser]

Continue to be impressed by Mike Ellis every time I hear him. I feel confident we've got a good guy in place overseeing the basketball program. My guess as to why facilities were not mentioned was that this was a day to discuss the NCAA/NIT and that Teague is much more the point man on the fundraising end of things.

Agree. It's obvious that he loves men's college hoops. That's awesome. I also liked the fact that Bo Ryan is getting under their skin. Nothing wrong with a healthy hatred of the Badgers.

 

[howeda7]

Now, why would go there and assume the worst? Just be patient and assume that they know what they are doing and we will hear soon enough. Unless I missed some announcement about them breaking ground, we have plenty of time.

Don't worry Tubby, come to MN! We'll build you a practice facility right away! Plenty of time for what? Children born when we told Tubby that are in the second grade. Will we have a practice facility before they can legally drink? It's iffy.

 

[howieramone]

Don't worry Tubby, come to MN! We'll build you a practice facility right away! Plenty of time for what? Children born when we told Tubby that are in the second grade. Will we have a practice facility before they can legally drink? It's iffy.

They already promised one basketball coach a practice facility, why in world wouldn't they lead the second coach to believe they will build a practice facility? After all they gave them permission to pursue the dream as long as they didn't expect one red cent from the administration. I certainly hope the next coach they promise, they have the good manners to at least dig a hole the night before.

 

[WanderingGopher]

Talks Gophers, NCAA, NIT and Pitino spat with Bo Ryan.

Hour 1.....click to listen.
http://www.1500espn.com/shows/judd

Interesting, thanks (but I found it on the hour 3 tab).

Main points that caught my attention:

1. To this day, Ellis said he has not heard an explanation from the NCAA on why Buckles was denied. Would have helped this team. (Personally, I think the committee just figured they had already granted Smith, and one was enough, didn't want to let Pitino completely raid the cupboard of his former team).

2. Andre is still a shell of himself pre-injury. (as we can see)

3. At beginning of the year, he thought this roster was a 6-7 win B1G team. (Unspoken: we overachieved by 1 game).

4. Doogie and Mackey questioned whether home win over Northwestern would've been enough to get us in, and I agree.

5. Implied he clearly thought we deserved an NCAA bid, but knew we might not because Iowa, FSU and Richmond wins were de-valued by their bad finishes.

 

[station19]

Interesting, thanks (but I found it on the hour 3 tab).

Main points that caught my attention:

1. To this day, Ellis said he has not heard an explanation from the NCAA on why Buckles was denied. Would have helped this team. (Personally, I think the committee just figured they had already granted Smith, and one was enough, didn't want to let Pitino completely raid the cupboard of his former team).

2. Andre is still a shell of himself pre-injury. (as we can see)

3. At beginning of the year, he thought this roster was a 6-7 win B1G team. (Unspoken: we overachieved by 1 game).

4. Doogie and Mackey questioned whether home win over Northwestern would've been enough to get us in, and I agree.

5. Implied he clearly thought we deserved an NCAA bid, but knew we might not because Iowa, FSU and Richmond wins were de-valued by their bad finishes.

I agree with you on #4.

 

[station19]

Interesting, thanks (but I found it on the hour 3 tab).

Main points that caught my attention:

1. To this day, Ellis said he has not heard an explanation from the NCAA on why Buckles was denied. Would have helped this team. (Personally, I think the committee just figured they had already granted Smith, and one was enough, didn't want to let Pitino completely raid the cupboard of his former team).

2. Andre is still a shell of himself pre-injury. (as we can see)

3. At beginning of the year, he thought this roster was a 6-7 win B1G team. (Unspoken: we overachieved by 1 game).

4. Doogie and Mackey questioned whether home win over Northwestern would've been enough to get us in, and I agree.

5. Implied he clearly thought we deserved an NCAA bid, but knew we might not because Iowa, FSU and Richmond wins were de-valued by their bad finishes.

Thanks, I fixed it.

 

[Bad Gopher]

Interesting, thanks (but I found it on the hour 3 tab).

Main points that caught my attention:

1. To this day, Ellis said he has not heard an explanation from the NCAA on why Buckles was denied. Would have helped this team. (Personally, I think the committee just figured they had already granted Smith, and one was enough, didn't want to let Pitino completely raid the cupboard of his former team).

2. Andre is still a shell of himself pre-injury. (as we can see)

3. At beginning of the year, he thought this roster was a 6-7 win B1G team. (Unspoken: we overachieved by 1 game).

4. Doogie and Mackey questioned whether home win over Northwestern would've been enough to get us in, and I agree.

5. Implied he clearly thought we deserved an NCAA bid, but knew we might not because Iowa, FSU and Richmond wins were de-valued by their bad finishes.

Pretty level headed points by Ellis - boostering his program but not going over the top with it either. We arguably overachieved by more than one game when you adjust for what we lost with Andre's injury. Of all the luck, none was as bad as the injury Richmond sustained, which help drag us down. If it weren't for bad luck...

Interesting to hear Pitino talk yesterday about what the selection committee seems to value. He talks about maybe having to take a different approach with scheduling in the future. I remember the day when strength of schedule was king, so Esposito scheduled the non-con the way he did. The criteria seem to be shifting under our feet, or is it my imagination? Who's to know how the criteria continue to evolve? Maybe I'm overly pitying the program, but it feels like a moving target sometimes.

 

[34Gopher]

Pretty level headed points by Ellis - boostering his program but not going over the top with it either. We arguably overachieved by more than one game when you adjust for what we lost with Andre's injury. Of all the luck, none was as bad as the injury Richmond sustained, which help drag us down. If it weren't for bad luck...

Interesting to hear Pitino talk yesterday about what the selection committee seems to value. He talks about maybe having to take a different approach with scheduling in the future. I remember the day when strength of schedule was king, so Esposito scheduled the non-con the way he did. The criteria seem to be shifting under our feet, or is it my imagination? Who's to know how the criteria continue to evolve? Maybe I'm overly pitying the program, but it feels like a moving target sometimes.

I wouldn't say our scheduling hurt us at all. The only games we lost that were "scheduled" (non-conference games) were in the Maui Invitational. So should we not play in pre-season tournaments that have good teams?

 

[Bad Gopher]

I wouldn't say our scheduling hurt us at all. The only games we lost that were "scheduled" (non-conference games) were in the Maui Invitational. So should we not play in pre-season tournaments that have good teams?

The point Pitino makes implicitly or explicitly is that we beat ourselves up enough in the conference schedule, and it doesn't seem to pay to play a challenging non-conference as well. A challenging pre-season tournament is fine, but we don't have to play a Richmond on the road or all these prospective small conference champions that Esposito liked to schedule.

 

[WanderingGopher]

So should we not play in pre-season tournaments that have good teams?

Well, that is the rhetorical question we are rightfully asking in light of being left out of the tournament this year. Maui screwed us, and the committee not looking deep enough screwed us. We open Maui at night vs a top-5 team, tight, emotional loss in the last minute when we gave it our all, have to turn around the next morning and play another pretty good team, then don't even get a D1 game to count in the finale even though we were up against an inspired, home court team that played as well as any lower tier D1 team ... so our 'reward' for playing Maui is going home with an 0-2 neutral court record. Would've been better off picking up an easy 2-3 wins on neutral court vs top 150-ish teams. Then the other 2 neutral games in the BTT we beat an RPI 100-ish team and lose to another top 10 team. So 5 neutral court games, 2 wins (but only 1 counts) and 3 losses...2 of those vs top 10 teams.

Then you look at road, and we beat a Richmond team that should count as a top 50 win but doesn't bc committee apparently doesn't consider when you played somebody, and we beat Penn St and NW. Of the other 7 losses, 6 were to tourney teams (5 of which were top 25 or higher at the time) and the 7th was in triple overtime with our best player severely injured.

So I just think it's dumb and not persuasive for a committee to say that our road/neutral record wasn't good enough. They're not looking closely enough at who we played and when, thus not making an apples to apples comparison to others. Also, I'm pretty sure road and neutral games are already figured into RPI, so for the committee to say we had a better RPI but not enough "road/neutral" wins is not a very persuasive argument.

 

[Shawn Bradley Guy]

Well, that is the rhetorical question we are rightfully asking in light of being left out of the tournament this year. Maui screwed us, and the committee not looking deep enough screwed us. We open Maui at night vs a top-5 team, tight, emotional loss in the last minute when we gave it our all, have to turn around the next morning and play another pretty good team, then don't even get a D1 game to count in the finale even though we were up against an inspired, home court team that played as well as any lower tier D1 team ... so our 'reward' for playing Maui is going home with an 0-2 neutral court record. Would've been better off picking up an easy 2-3 wins on neutral court vs top 150-ish teams. Then the other 2 neutral games in the BTT we beat an RPI 100-ish team and lose to another top 10 team. So 5 neutral court games, 2 wins (but only 1 counts) and 3 losses...2 of those vs top 10 teams.

Then you look at road, and we beat a Richmond team that should count as a top 50 win but doesn't bc committee apparently doesn't consider when you played somebody, and we beat Penn St and NW. Of the other 7 losses, 6 were to tourney teams (5 of which were top 25 or higher at the time) and the 7th was in triple overtime with our best player severely injured.

So I just think it's dumb and not persuasive for a committee to say that our road/neutral record wasn't good enough. They're not looking closely enough at who we played and when, thus not making an apples to apples comparison to others. Also, I'm pretty sure road and neutral games are already figured into RPI, so for the committee to say we had a better RPI but not enough "road/neutral" wins is not a very persuasive argument.

As a Gopher bobo myself...this is hard to read. We don't have to have an excuse for every loss during the year? Tubby's fading squad the year before was saved by the Atlantis tourney, they lost to Duke in the opening round. But, came back and had two big neutral wins against Memphis and Stanford (fellow bubbler). And if you don't do work in November, you better raise hell in conference season on the road.