re: Annual LOL at Big 12 March Meltdown

Forgot about Tech.

The problem being that the big 12 is not the conference to choose for this point. None of their teams were on the bubble. Texas tech maybe got a higher seed due to conference strength but they were not gonna miss the tournament. So that point is meaningless in regards to the big 12 specifically

i'd take some of the mid majors over michigan (even though they are playing well now) or other middling teams from bigger conferences, none of this supports the contention that the SEC would have done better. it would not have.

Same story, different year.

That league is a joke...the same team has won it 12 years in a row and the rest of the teams flame out early in the tournament every year.

It's so overrated it's not even funny. It's kU and a bunch of dogshit.

quote:

---

The question I ask is who should an SEC team have gotten in over? No one in the Big 12 for sure. SC didn't do itself any favors losing 5 out of its last 8 or whatever it was.

---

exactly.

KenPom rankings of teams that have beating Big 12 teams.

SFA #25
Yale #38
Butler #39
UNI #68 (assuming Texas loses)

My favorite argument is that since Kansas has won it 12 years in a row, it's not a good conference.

I can't really put into words why that pisses me off, but I just don't think that it's a point that holds any ground if you do any analysis whatsoever

Although as far as the NCAA tournament is concernd, it pretty much always has been Kansas and a bunch of dogshit unfortunately

quote:

---

Which Big 12 team would you replace with an SEC team?

---

That wasn't directly meant only Big 12 teams. I just meant all 4 conferences getting 7 a piece.

quote:

---

This thread is full of people that watch college basketball for two weekends a year and think they have it all figured out.

---

I definitely watch less of it than I did in the past because for the most part it can be a real shite product at times, but I still watch a ton of it.

quote:

---

The NCAA tournament is not the best way to determine the strength of a conference.

---

I don't understand why it can't be. Why are random games in December more meaningful, especially it is a home/road game?

quote:

---

really put into words why that pisses me off, but I just don't think that it's a point that holds any ground if you do any analysis whatsoever

---

You don't think people would say that UK winning the SEC every year means it's not competitive? What if UNC had won the ACC 12 years in a row? Would you think the league wasn't super competitive? I would.

But they pretty much have been. Kansas has been a top 10 team pretty much every year in that stretch. There were a few years they weren't and probably should have lost, but didn't. That's where the luck came into play. If this year's Oklahoma or West Virginia team were in the conference in 2009 or 2006 for instance, Kansas would have lost.

Kentucky and Florida were each other's foil as well as Duke/unc. Kansas doesn't have that foil that is consistent. Number 2 has switched between Oklahoma, Texas, Oklahoma state, Missouri, and Iowa state in this 12 year stretch. Even Kansas state for a year or two. That volatility allows for a higher chance of a run like this. Don't think it makes the conference weaker, but there is no Duke or Florida or anything to deal with EVERY year.

And I understand why people think that way. But there is nothing kansas can do. Lose the conference so it seems tougher?

I think the Big 12 has the best brand of basketball in the country and with my time for basketball watching being limited, the only conference I watch on a regular basis. That said, they have had rather poor tournament showings.