The point was that they don't have enough of them to compare with the others for a #1, not that they have none.

**** it, put us in with Kentucky. These guys are smack dab in the middle of a white hot groove right now.

You need to become objective about this. If every stat out there indicates the B10 is the stronger conference (and that MU played a terrible non-conference sched.), why is this outcome so surprising to you?

Not enough to contend for the #1, no. Not with all of these other teams that have multiple elite wins on their schedules.

So now they do?

Are you reeruned?

Do you know the words you type mean specific things.

It's either some KU-led national conspiracy to keep MU out of a #1 seed (despite their lesser schedule, lack of big wins, and two-game loss in the conference) or it's what I'm saying. I guess you guys will believe what you want, but which is more likely?

Because losing games in a stronger conference doesn't make you a better team.

MSU is not a better team than Missouri even if the B1G is considered a better conference (and it isn't; it never is).

The tournament always tells the tale for the B1G and the Big East. Those packs of maulers that build their conference rankings up by beating the shit out of each other invariably end up getting smoked and left with maybe a one or 2 teams left by the Sweet 16.

But hey, KU beat Ohio State...so the B1G must be awesome...

I don't care what seed they get. I am just concerned that you don't understand the basic words you type and what they mean.

What's more likely is that the same stodgy old voters that keep putting overrated B1G teams in positions to embarrass themselves annually will do so again.

It's not a conspiracy against Mizzou; it's just the same ol' B1G ball-licking that we always see.

You might want to try to grasp the concept of a weak schedule before saying shit like this. LMAO

You might want to learn what the word "no" means. Before you try to qualify something that just before you said didn't exist.

If you need help understanding basic language concepts maybe kcnut can have a sit down with you or something?


I have no Jawhawk clothes.

o rly?

None that I wear outside at least.

lol

Amazing to see the level of butthurt with you, it truly is. LMAO

Is there? I am just ready for basketball. I don't think there is a conspiracy. I say match up us up with another team and put the ball on the court.

I am just reading your posts...surely you realize how reeruned you are coming off?

If you want to explain yourself differently though feel free to use words that express that.

There's only so many ways that I can say that MU didn't have the elite wins or strong schedule to get a #1 over the B10 teams, ACC teams, or KU. If you can't see that, it's simply because you don't want to.

You said we didn't have any big wins.

Those were your words. If you meant something else that is fine. Use those words instead.

But what do I know...you are the guy with well over 200 posts in a Mizzou thread so I guess I am the one who is butthurt.

I don't feel the need to prove anything to rival fans in their thread but you just can't quit us can you. ROFL

Remember guys - losing to good teams means you had a better year.

Where's KU's big win, hotshot? You're not really going to try to bark up that OSU tree are you? Beating OSU without Sullinger is no more impressive than beating Cal.

Keep on crowin', beaker. You really are talking out your ass.

Missouri doesn't have big wins. - KCC

KU's wins over OSU and Georgetown elevate them over MU in the eyes of the committee, yes.

Probably time for 100 more posts in a Missouri thread telling us how butthurt we are.

lol

I think the point (valid or otherwise) was that in the non-con, Mizzou didn't play a large number of teams headed for the dance.

Is it true that Mizzou only had one game against a team headed for the NCAA tournament in the non-con? If that is the case, like it or not, it's going to hurt.

It's called hyperbole for effect. I've said many times now that it's because MU didn't have enough big wins in comparison with the others, not that they had absolutely none.

Is the Kansas loss to Baylor a good loss or a bad one?

So yeah - you're going with the OSU win. Got it. Maybe you're right and the committee voters will be as blind to names (i.e. 'B1G' and 'Ohio State') as you hope they are. If so, maybe you have a chance at that #1 afterall. BUt if they actually pay attention to the fact that KU beat an OSU squad that isn't a top 25 squad without Sullinger and lost to every other 'premier' team it played - you're probably out of luck.

And for the record, Mizzou's win over a healthy ND squad is every bit as impressive as KU's win over Georgetown, especially since we beat them by about 87 points, but that doesn't fit your horseshit narrative nearly as well.

Beakers, man...

Well good luck understanding what words mean next time around. I know I will see alot of you in this thread working hard on that.

We can't read your mind. We can only read your poorly written posts.

KU's best win of the season was a 1 pt OT win t Lawrence against MU.

Cal will also likely make it in.

And then there's just bad luck in our scheduling. Illinois was in the middle of a very nice run when we beat them; then they just collapsed down the stretch. That doesn't mean that Illinois wasn't playing great ball when we played them.

It's why the raw strength of schedule crap (i.e. you fellas chirping about that OSU win) is just stupid. Context matters.

But hey - KENPOM! Right?

On a seperate note, UNC is down by 9 to FSU

Once again, it's pretty subjective. It's stupid if it hurts you, it has value if it helps you. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be a total dick here, although for some it might come across that way (usually does when KU fans and MU fans cross swords).

It does help that KU has more non-con wins against teams that are going to the tournament. It also helps KU that even their losses are against teams that are going to the dance as well. I think the loss to Okie State is the biggest black mark on either of the schedules, con or noncon.

I think the loss to Davidson is the worst of the losses

AllI remember was back when KU football went to the Orange Bowl all we heard from beakers was "they had a better record than MU because they had one less loss". Well true except MU played one more game than KU that KU was not good enough to quailify for.

So it's funny how suddenly when the tables are turned we hear about SoS and such.

Could be, but once again, they are in the tournament.

That whole argument just got validated by the SEC, ironically enough. Remember, Alabama didn't even win their division.

And I still see it as a 27-6 team vs. a 30-4 team. KU wasn't good enough to qualify for a 34th game, much like when they went to the Orange Bowl. If you want to get down to it, MU qualified for a 34th game against a ranked team that had just beat KU and won. So it isn't like the 34th game was against no one.

Alabama didn't play a pussy schedule and lose to the only good team they played.

Sorry, try again.

And it's bunk. You can't say you're a better team because you have less losses when you didn't play as many games.

KU wasn't good enough to qualify for a 34th game for one. And secondly it isn't like they dominated the Big 12 and won it by 5 games. They won it by 2 games which really hinged on a 1 pt OT victory. Otherwise they end up tied with the team who was not only good enough to qualify for a 34th game but won it against a team that beat KU. MU is clearly the better team this year.

Once again, it's all subjective. petegz28 just put forth an argument that Strength of Schedule is bullshit, and now frazod says it's important. I'll let you MU fans sort this out. I think my original point is valid regarding SOS - it's subjective. When it supports your position, you're going to be in favor of it, and when it works against you, you'll argue that it's BS. I think you both just reinforced my point.

Then by the same logic, Kansas didn't win their conference. The regular season was just to set seeding for the playoffs - i.e. the conference tournament.

LMAO, the UNC Roy-Boys are looking to go into the half down by 11

Sure, it matters on a message board... does it matter to the committe though? Outside of something obvious, like KU beating OSU without Sulliger, I doubt they really look into each game and how each team was playing at the time. IIRC, KU only moved up like one spot for beating OSU and didn't jump them in the polls, and I believe OSU has always been higher in kenpom... so, any of those assumptions regarding what they were ranked at the time, who wasn't playing, etc; was already taken into account when they played.

Who gives a **** whether we are a 1 or 2 seed. I just want them to play in St Louis.

KU and MU split. How would you assess the other conference losses?

You're forgetting that the Big 12 Tourney only means something when KU wins it. Once they lose it becomes nothing more than a fundraiser and a just for fun thing.

As conference losses, nothing more, nothing less. It's like playing teams in your division in football. They are usually tough regardless of who is playing. And no they didn't split. One team played 33 games, one played 34.

Let me know when there's a D1 football tourney, and I'll lend a little credence to that position.

So how would the seeding been effected had Kansas played in the finals last night and lost to Missouri?

UK tied with Vande at the half.

I think it would have assured KU losing the #1 seed. But hey, those tourneys, they don't mean anything, remember?

I just don't see how they can be rewarded with a 1 seed for not making the finals, but had they made the finals, the 1 seed would have had a greater chance of being lost

Please link to any time I ever posted anything of the sort. I congratulated Mizzou for the post-season conference title this year just like I did a few years ago, just as Mizzou fans congratulated KU for winning the regular season. I would have loved to see KU/MU match up again. For one week in March, MU was the better team. For two months, I'd argue KU was the better team. We'll see how things go from here.

Ask the guy in the alternate dimension two over to the left.

Meh, I remember MU fans talking about SoS, KU's weak schedule, not playing OU and Texas, etc... it goes both ways, since that all of a sudden doesn't matter nearly as much as # of wins.

It's pretty much even... yeah, MU has more wins, but KU lost to Kentucky and Duke in non-conference, and the committee isn't going to drop them a line for those losses, while MU was beating Notre Dame and Cal. MU lost to Oklahoma State and KSU twice, and you can talk about how it's different because it's in conference, but KU didn't lose those games.

No one should be surprised where either school winds up, outside of something really dumb like a 3 seed in the East. KU could have beat Davidson and Baylor and really help solidify their case for a #1 in St. Louis... Missouri could have done better in conference, and whether you say they could have played someone in non-con or "but, those teams were supposed to be good", they ended up with a non-con SoS in the bottom 10% of the country. One will probably get the #2 in St. Louis, one will probably get the #1 in Phoenix, or maybe they'll both go outside of the region while Kentucky and OSU go to the Midwest.

That's how they do things in Larryville.

Want to make a BCS Bowl? Lose.

"We didn't win the regular-season championship, but we won a conference tournament championship." - Frank Haith

Link

Do you prefer the regular season in the NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA or in almost any high school sport? The regular season is jockeying for position in post-season tournaments in every sport other than major college football and there's a lot of sentiment in favor of adding a tournament (aka playoff) there as well. Hell, even in Big 12 football, prior to this year, regular season wasn't as important as winning the Big 12 championship game.

Your point was comparing Kansas to Alabama, which is sort of like comparing Dan Quayle to John Kennedy.

The Big IIX tourney could be more meaningful if only the top 7 or 8 teams get in. I don't see why A&M, OU and TT got to play in the tournament this year except for money.

(Psst, hey frazod - this is a basketball discussion. Remember, you don't give a rat's ass about college basketball.)

Funny, we seemed to be talking about football.

Is one of the games in the tournament called the Orange Bowl?

That's the difference between tourney's and the regular season, though. In the regular season, it's the week-in, week-out grind of playing everybody twice. In a tournament, every now and then one of those lucky bastard teams finds a way to make a run (not implying Mizzou was one of those teams, BTW).

My younger brother's senior year of high school, Salina Central found a way to win state with a losing 11-13 record. Amazing run, and by rights they really had no business being there. I think that's part of the reason why there's recognition for both the regular season and the tournament.

If those sports had some kind of divisional or conference tournament before the playoffs that no effect on whether the top teams made the playoffs, I'd care about the regular season more than that divisional/conference tournament.... especially the latter 3, who spend 82 or 162 games jockeying for position.

You knew what I meant before I even took the time to explain myself reasonably. I don't think I'll ever understand where your juvenile hostility comes from.

I didn't bring it up, one of the Mizzou fans did. We've gone round and round on this one enough. It's history.

It's not a question of what I want or what I wish for. The difference between a #1 and a #2 seed in winning (or even advancing far in the tournament) is quite negligible in any case. KU simply has more big wins than MU does, as do OSU and MSU.

How do you figure, sports fan?

I compare the schedules of the four teams and then see who OSU, MSU, KU, and MU beat over those schedules. It's quite simple, really.

So what do you think will happen if NC loses to FSU?

I agree, but outside of the NCAA tourney itself in basketball the conference tournaments mean very little. The only exception is for those that need to win theirs to get a bid. The Pac 12 was the exception this year, but generally speaking if you are from a power conference and you do well during the regular season, you will get a NCAA tournament bid regardless of how you did in the conference tournament. Look at KU/MU. MU won the Big XII tournament while KU won the conference championship. KU has a much better chance at a #1 seed than MU. The same could also be said for UK and SU, and UNC. They will all be #1 seeds regardless of how they do in their respective tournaments. Now when I talk about regular season success over postseason, it only is in reference to conference tournaments in men's BB. In every other sport, post season success easily trumps regular season success.

I am not looking through 59 pages of posts so I am not sure if it has been posted yet but FWIW the experts at ESPN feel that had Mizzou beaten KU in the Big XII championship they would have been a #1 seed. But since KU did not make it, a MU win over Baylor is not enough to justify a #1 seed. Not saying I agree or disagree with it, but it is what some are thinking. Hopefully winning the Big XII championship allows for MU to stay in the midwest as a #2.

Both Duke and UNC have held out some of their best players in the ACC tournament, mostly for precautionary and resting reasons. They haven't tried their best to win it, nor should they have. Next week is what matters for them and what people actually remember.

This is what I've said basically. I think if MU had beaten KU again, they would have been above them on the S-curve. Still not sure it would have been enough to go ahead of the B10 teams.

The post-season conference tournaments do have an effect on whether teams make the NCAA tournament (and where they're seeded). And IIRC, the Big 12's only automatic qualifier is determined by the Big 12 tournament, no? Maybe you should care about it more than you do.

How happy are KU fans that they choked in the Big 12 Tournament and didn't have to play MU again? Instead of getting drilled by a red hot Mizzou team, KU fans now have enough grey area they can continue to talk trash. KU takes care of business against Baylor, and their fans would be in hiding today.

Also were any of the CP KU fans at the game yesterday? There were some in my section, and most of them were living and dying with every Baylor basket. It was great to see them all slowly realize Baylor had no shot and leave in the second half.

Kansas Jayhawks 5 time, 5 time, 5 time, KenPom champions.

Mizzou beats KU in the eye test, the "Who would you bet to win" test, and the "less likely to choke in the second round" test.

A team that doesn't play defense and relies entirely on hitting jump shots seems like far more of a threat to drop an elimination game to an inferior team to me. You can live or die with that shot, as they say.

Yes, I know how it works... I said "no effect on whether the top teams made the playoffs" ...and I can assure you the conference tournaments have no effect on whether the projected top seeds make the NCAA tournament. Of course I'd care more if Kansas had to win their conference tournament one year to make the NCAA tournament... but, when it's, at most, a matter of a 1 or 2 seed, St. Louis or Phoenix, it's not a huge deal outside of possibly making a road trip to St. Louis.

Proof that you're a moron.