MBB: University Athletic Association

[Marty Peretz]

So is anyone running the UAA pick em like they did last year? That was a lot of fun. Just wondering...

[Gregory Sager]

Chicago loses another heartbreaker that went right down to the wire, this one a 73-69 loss to Milwaukee Engineering up in Beer City. MSOE (9-3) is no slouch -- the Raiders are usually a fairly decent team -- but I'm sure that Mike McGrath thought that this was the game in which the Maroons would finally break through. Instead, they'll go into next Saturday's UAA opener at home against archrival Wash U saddled with an 0-11 record and the weight of the world on their shoulders.

[Hugenerd]

Gregory: Is that the first time Chicago has ever gone winless out of conference since joining the UAA?

[Gregory Sager]

Gregory: Is that the first time Chicago has ever gone winless out of conference since joining the UAA?

Dunno, since neither Chicago nor the UAA keep records online that go that far back, but the worst that Chicago has done in non-con play over the past decade was a three-year streak of 4-7 records from 2002-03 thru 2004-05. A 4-7 record is not good, even considering the tough non-con schedule that Mike McGrath always puts together, but 0-11 is something else entirely.

On the bright side, Coach McGrath can sit his players down this week and tell them in all honesty that the travails of the past month and a half don't amount to a hill of beans. In a very real sense, Chicago's season begins anew on Saturday against the Bears -- and, unlike November, this time the Maroons have the advantage of having absolutely nobody take them seriously. Call me a slow learner, but I still think that Chicago's good enough to have something to say about who wins the UAA this year. The Maroons probably won't win it, but I would not be at all surprised if they finish in the first division.

[frodotwo]

It appears they have still not recovered from the 17-0 lead they were spotted by UWSP in last years' tournament game. They were outscored 67-36 the last 33 minutes of that game and have been outscored ever since

[Gregory Sager]

Yeah, I'm sure that their loss last March has been the uppermost thing on their minds all season.

[Hugenerd]

Considering 7 of their 11 losses are by 4 points or less, what they are missing most is someone to hit big shots like Nate Hainje did last year.  Last year they were 7-4 out of conference (excluding postseason), they would be in the same position if they had pulled out those close games this year.  I still think they are dangerous in conference, they will win some games, McGrath knows all the teams and coaches and they have alot of upperclassmen so they arent going to lay down for anyone.  Lets not put them in the cellar with Case quite yet.

[Marty Peretz]

I disagree with Gregory that Chicago enters the conference opener with the weight of the world on their shoulders. On the contrary, I see it as just the opposite. They're going to play Wash.U. without a care in the world; all the pressure is on the Bears. I can tell you that it's the Wash.U guys who will be feeling the pressure and they will be ready. As a WU fan, I am not looking forward to this match-up. I see my Bears winning in a barn burner, 83-78 in front of a pro Wash.U. Ratner.

[pabegg]

Gregory: Is that the first time Chicago has ever gone winless out of conference since joining the UAA?

Dunno, since neither Chicago nor the UAA keep records online that go that far back, but the worst that Chicago has done in non-con play over the past decade was a three-year streak of 4-7 records from 2002-03 thru 2004-05. A 4-7 record is not good, even considering the tough non-con schedule that Mike McGrath always puts together, but 0-11 is something else entirely.

Actually the UAA web site does have that information. I've included Chicago's record for each of the UAA years along with the lowest win total in non-conference play for each year:

2007-8: 7-4 (plus 0-1 NCAA) Emory and Case 7 wins
2006-7: 9-2 (plus 0-1 NCAA) Case 4 wins
2005-6: 7-4 Emory, Brandeis, Chicago 7 wins
2004-5: 4-7 Chicago and Case 4 wins
2003-4: 4-7 Case 2 wins
2002-3: 4-7 Case 3 wins
2001-2: 5-6 Case 4 wins
2000-1: 8-2 (plus 2-1 NCAA) Case 3 wins
1999-2000: 7-3 (plus 1-1 NCAA) Carnegie 1 win
1998-9: 8-3 Carnegie 4 wins
1997-8: 9-2 (plus 1-1 NCAA) Brandeis 4 wins
1996-7: 8-3 (plus 2-1 NCAA) Brandeis 4 wins
1995-6: 7-4 Emory 5 wins
1994-5: 6-5 Emory 3 wins
1993-4: 1-10 Chicago 1 win
1992-3: 6-5 Brandeis 4 wins
1991-2: 4-7 Chicago 4 wins
1990-1: 4-6 Chicago 4 wins
1989-90: 3-4 Chicago and Carnegie 3 wins
1988-9: 2-8 Chicago 2 wins
1987-8: 5-7 Case 1 win (pre-dates full round-robin)

So the 0 wins is the first time anyone in the conference has done this, replacing three one-win seasons, including Chicago's previous worst in 1993-4.

It's amazing that twice in the last three years, everyone in the conference won at least 7 non-conference games.

[Titan Q]

At Illinois Wesleyan on Dec. 19, Chicago led IWU by 4 with 18:36 to play in the game.  The Titans hit Chicago with a run to take about an 8-point lead and Mike McGrath called timeout.  I spoke to a Titan fan who sits directly behind IWU's bench every game (where you're basically in the huddle during timeouts) and she said that during that timeout IWU head coach Ron Rose said, "Look at their body language...they don't think they can win this game anymore.  Let's not give them any reason to feel differently."  The run turned out to be 15-0 and it was never close the rest of the way.

I'm no psychologist, but I've watched enough college basketball to know how important confidence is.  Chicago must have almost zero right now.  They've had so much go wrong in the final minutes of so many games now it's amazing.  I believe if they could just get over the hump in one game and have some good things happen, they might start to string a few W's together.

[deiscanton]

My picks for this weekend's UAA action-- Men's games

Friday, January 9, 2009

1.)  Rochester at Brandeis-- Brandeis
2.)  Carnegie Mellon at NYU-- Carnegie Mellon

Saturday, January 10, 2009

1.)  Wash U at Chicago-- Wash U
2.)  Emory at Case-- Case

Sunday, January 11, 2009

1.)  Rochester at NYU-- NYU
2.)  Carnegie Mellon at Brandeis-- Carnegie Mellon

[Gregory Sager]

I disagree with Gregory that Chicago enters the conference opener with the weight of the world on their shoulders. On the contrary, I see it as just the opposite. They're going to play Wash.U. without a care in the world; all the pressure is on the Bears.

I think that you're dead wrong, Marty, and this is the reason why:

At Illinois Wesleyan on Dec. 19, Chicago led IWU by 4 with 18:36 to play in the game.  The Titans hit Chicago with a run to take about an 8-point lead and Mike McGrath called timeout.  I spoke to a Titan fan who sits directly behind IWU's bench every game (where you're basically in the huddle during timeouts) and she said that during that timeout IWU head coach Ron Rose said, "Look at their body language...they don't think they can win this game anymore.  Let's not give them any reason to feel differently."  The run turned out to be 15-0 and it was never close the rest of the way.

I'm no psychologist, but I've watched enough college basketball to know how important confidence is.  Chicago must have almost zero right now.  They've had so much go wrong in the final minutes of so many games now it's amazing.

Losing begets losing, and much of the reason why is psychological. The more that you lose, the more that you expect to lose. Toss in the fact that Chicago will be playing the defending national champions and the overwhelming favorite to win the UAA this season, and every Maroon who suits up on Saturday will be about as likely to enter the game "without a care in the world" as he will be to walk through the Englewood neighborhood two miles west of campus in the middle of the night while singing "We're In the Money" at the top of his lungs.

Chicago has lost in every way, shape, or form. The Maroons have lost a bunch of nailbiters, and they've lost games big. They've lost at home, and they've lost on the road. They've lost games to good teams, and they've lost games to the likes of Illinois Tech (5-12) and Lake Forest (1-8). They've lost games in a house; they've lost games with a mouse. Er, sorry. At some point, you see that the only pattern to your season is that you've somehow managed to lose every game, no matter the circumstances of score, location, or opponent. You therefore deduce, because you're a University of Chicago student and you're thus skilled at deductive reasoning, that the only constant in every game is that the Maroons lose ... and your confidence evaporates. And when you think you're going to lose, you do lose -- it's the most ironclad self-fulfilling prophecy in sports. As Bob implied, the only way to end that downward spiral is to actually break through and win a game.

That's why I said that Mike McGrath is going to stress in his pre-Wash U addresses to his team that the slate is wiped clean on their season, and that the Wash U game represents a fresh start. It's a speech that he has to make, because his team must be psychologically devastated by what has happened to it thus far.

[Hoosier Titan]

All too true about the psychological aspect.  I'm the person Titan Q quoted--I think I posted it right after the IWU-Chicago game, too.  The two teams looked really well matched, and Chicago was hitting early in the second half.  The game was up for grabs.  Once they hit a snag--a Chicago player got frustrated after traveling and slammed the ball down, bringing on an automatic technical--you could see fear and then panic in their faces and their play.  Ron Rose saw it too, and the Titans closed the door. 

Chicago has it in them to be a very good team.  If they can focus on each possession, they'll be very dangerous in the UAA season.  I wish them well.

[Hugenerd]

I disagree with Gregory that Chicago enters the conference opener with the weight of the world on their shoulders. On the contrary, I see it as just the opposite. They're going to play Wash.U. without a care in the world; all the pressure is on the Bears.

I think that you're dead wrong, Marty, and this is the reason why:

At Illinois Wesleyan on Dec. 19, Chicago led IWU by 4 with 18:36 to play in the game.  The Titans hit Chicago with a run to take about an 8-point lead and Mike McGrath called timeout.  I spoke to a Titan fan who sits directly behind IWU's bench every game (where you're basically in the huddle during timeouts) and she said that during that timeout IWU head coach Ron Rose said, "Look at their body language...they don't think they can win this game anymore.  Let's not give them any reason to feel differently."  The run turned out to be 15-0 and it was never close the rest of the way.

I'm no psychologist, but I've watched enough college basketball to know how important confidence is.  Chicago must have almost zero right now.  They've had so much go wrong in the final minutes of so many games now it's amazing.

Losing begets losing, and much of the reason why is psychological. The more that you lose, the more that you expect to lose. Toss in the fact that Chicago will be playing the defending national champions and the overwhelming favorite to win the UAA this season, and every Maroon who suits up on Saturday will be about as likely to enter the game "without a care in the world" as he will be to walk through the Englewood neighborhood two miles west of campus in the middle of the night while singing "We're In the Money" at the top of his lungs.

Chicago has lost in every way, shape, or form. The Maroons have lost a bunch of nailbiters, and they've lost games big. They've lost at home, and they've lost on the road. They've lost games to good teams, and they've lost games to the likes of Illinois Tech (5-12) and Lake Forest (1-8). They've lost games in a house; they've lost games with a mouse. Er, sorry. At some point, you see that the only pattern to your season is that you've somehow managed to lose every game, no matter the circumstances of score, location, or opponent. You therefore deduce, because you're a University of Chicago student and you're thus skilled at deductive reasoning, that the only constant in every game is that the Maroons lose ... and your confidence evaporates. And when you think you're going to lose, you do lose -- it's the most ironclad self-fulfilling prophecy in sports. As Bob implied, the only way to end that downward spiral is to actually break through and win a game.

That's why I said that Mike McGrath is going to stress in his pre-Wash U addresses to his team that the slate is wiped clean on their season, and that the Wash U game represents a fresh start. It's a speech that he has to make, because his team must be psychologically devastated by what has happened to it thus far.

I think there is one exception to your argument, and that is Caltech. Its not that Caltech was psychologically down and thats why they lost the first 10 games of their season, but instead they simply were not good enough to beat any of those teams.  When they finally played a team with equal or inferior talent, they won the game.  With that said, I dont think their win against Polytech will spark their season and have them winning a bunch of games.  What you said, which you may have insuated but did not state explicitly, applies only to teams that are underperforming (and in the case of Chicago, underperforming by a great deal).  I do not think the same argument applies to teams that truly are not good enough to beat the vast majority of teams out there (which does not seem to be case with Chicago).

[Gregory Sager]

Caltech is not a good example upon which to base any argument, hugenerd. It's like trying to postulate a thesis about bobsledding by using the Jamaican national team as your case study.

I think that you've misinterpreted my argument. I didn't say that teams lost because of a lack of self-confidence. Teams usually lose because their opponents are simply better at playing basketball than they are. But in the rare instances in which a team loses several games over the course of a few weeks to opponents that have equal or less ability, the psychological blow can cause a lack of self-confidence that becomes self-perpetuating.

I think that the losing-begets-losing mental syndrome is universal; I don't think it's confined to underachievers such as the Maroons. I don't think that Caltech or Polytech or Bard or UMPI or Principia or Alma or any other other traditionally poor team is immune to it. The difference between those annual doormats and Chicago is that the annual doormats have an obvious ability deficiency that almost always renders their lack of self-confidence a moot point. Whether the Caltechs and UMPIs of the world believe that they are incapable of beating anybody, or spout "I think I can, I think I can" like the Little Engine That Could every time that they take the court, really makes no difference. The vast majority of basketball games are decided by the respective abilities of the two teams to play the sport of basketball, not by psychological considerations. Simply put, if your ability is nonexistent, all the self-confidence in the world wouldn't make any difference -- but your team most likely won't have that self-confidence, anyway.

I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if teams like Caltech and UMPI are psychologically fragile simply from being worn down by all of that losing, and that this plays into many of their (relatively) close losses on occasions in which they play teams that, while not epically bad like they are, are well south of the bar of mediocrity.

That's part of what makes games like Caltech vs. Polytech, or UMPI vs. Unity, so fascinating. They not only represent a sort of duel of the dregs in terms of basketball ability, but they're also a study in the capability of teams to muster self-confidence where none is usually present. Caltech now has an edge in that category, as opposed to other beaten-down annual doormats such as UMPI or Alma. To discover why, click on this link.