Why does it imply Mizzou would have been a 3 seed had they lost? They could have had the 2 locked up regardless of what happened in the championship game. Even if Baylor was the top 3 seed, it doesn't mean it would have changed... that gap could have been large enough for the outcome of that one game to not make a difference.

No.

Losses typically drop your standing. Bottom #2 could easily be top #3. At least Jason King thought so, it was his opinion, not mine. It was the first time I saw anyone speculate that way, which is why I posted it. I thought it was an interesting comment.

You're thinking of it like Mizzou was #8 overall before they beat Baylor, so they would logically have to drop had they lost. I'm saying that's not necessarily true... they could have come to the same conclusions had Baylor won -- that MU won 2 out of 3 of the meetings, etc; they deserve a 2 seed. Like I said, the gap could have been so large, MU could have locked up a 2 seed regardless of the Big 12 championship game, even if it was the last spot.

That is a complete valid viewpoint. Clearly Jason King believed Mizzou to be higher than the bottom #2...Mizzou finished the last coaches poll as #3 with one first place vote, I don't see any way that they should have been a #3...but the committee chairman's comments could have taken that way. I only read them, did not hear them, so maybe it did not sound that way. Jason King is pretty respected, and he seemed to think that Mizzou was closer to a #3 seed than most folks were thinking. Otherwise, I don't think it would have gotten the mention in the blog. Like I said, it was an interesting opinion, and something different, so I posted it.

I think if you based the seedings on location, then Mizzou is clearly the bottom #2. I think if you look at the opponents in the brackets, I think it is clear that Duke is the bottom #2. Duke has a much tougher road to the final four than Mizzou, and I am perfectly okay with that.

I get his point about the "eyeball factor," and understand what you're saying... and for Mizzou, it seems like the statement is "they had the 8th best resume" instead of "they're the 8th best team". When 2-8 are so close, and one team's non-conference SoS is significantly worse than the others, is it fair to overlook that in favor of the "eyeball test," when the other top teams played each other in non-con?

It does seem like it's give and take with the top lines... you get a #1, but you get shipped out of region, you're pushed down to #2, but stay in region... and in Mizzou's case, I'm sure they weren't blind to the eyeball test, so while they couldn't ignore the non-con SoS, they put them in with the weakest #1 in a true neutral court setting. With 6 teams from 3 conferences presenting a challenge for seeding, it seemed to end up fitting together nicely.

Why do KU fans post in here? I just skip everything they post, so it doesn't matter. But why the **** would I ever post in a KU thread? Who gives a shit? I hope we don't have anyone replying in their thread.


But anyway, I like the set up. At this point, you have to play real teams. If you don't want to play big games, **** off and go home. I can't wait.

Your second paragraph is basically what I said in my last posts...Mizzou got the "last" #2 based on geography...but they were put with the weakest #1, and the weakest #15. I like Mizzou's path to the final four, and hope they can take advantage and play their best basketball of the year.

I'm a basketball fan. I post in basketball threads where basketball is being discussed. What exactly is the problem (other than your own ridiculous hostility)?

KCC is alright. I don't always agree with his opinions, but at least he is coming in here with opinions and discussion. Much better than the occasional Gayhawk troll that just wants to sling shit and leave.

I'd put Bearcat in that same category

Virginia is a scary potential second game for Mizzou. They are very similar to Bo Ryan's Wisconsin teams; they walk the ball up the court, use all 35 seconds on offense, play tough half-court defense, and limit possessions. We will have to grind out a win in that one, and it will likely come down to the final couple possessions.

I have no doubt UVA will beat Florida, who has lost their edge after losing Will Yeguete.

I'm really not sure who to root for in that game. Florida's rebounding took a hit, that's for sure.

I think UF is far more of a threat to Mizzou than UVA. UF plays Mizzous style which means they can keep up with us in the speed and three point shooting category. UVA will get killed by Mizzou if they play each other. They do not match up with us well. Only two teams in MU's region really do, UF and Marquette.

I have no interest in facing Marquette. That looks to be among the toughest draws for us, IMO.

Eh, we avoided Kentucky and Syracuse; two teams I had no interest in facing. We got slotted behind the 'old balls' schools that guys like Digger !@#$ing Phelps love to fawn over (jesus, do I hate that asshat). We'll always get slotted behind the old balls schools until we win something.

So let's just win something and shut them the **** up.

Like Denmon said - we don't set up the pins, we just knock them down.

Maybe if we don't play well.

But the worst thing any team in the country can do is try to play our style. And I mean any team. There's not a school in the country that's capable of simply going out there and out 'quicking' us. Nobody can throw as many shooters/scorers out on the floor as we can either.

The worst matchups for us are actually schools like the B1G schools. I'm trying not to worry myself about Michigan St. because I don't think they'll actually survive to the Elite 8, but a school like them an Virginia can make things difficult for us.

Go ahead and try to play our game - but there's a reason Mizzou paces the country in offensive efficiency. Unless we come out and simply play a bad game, nobody's going to beat Mizzou at what Mizzou does. And if Mizzou just comes out and plays a bad game, well they can lose to anyone.

So lets not play any bad games...m'kay?