Mizzou Basketball

[Saul Good]

MIZ-ZOU

[beer bacon]

I just did a blind bracket. The championship was Mizzou - KU, with MU the winner.

[tredadda]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

That's a fair statement - but only because Kentucky's would knock Mizzou out of theirs, if that makes any sense.

What makes Kentucky so dangerous is that they can play offense almost as well as Mizzou, but they have the size, length and athleticism to play lock-down defense as well.

If they play that game, they'll simply knock Mizzou right out of their game and Mizzou will end up giving you a 58 point effort on 40% shooting. In other words, Wright's suggestion of both teams playing their 'best' game is an impossibility for an MU - UK matchup.

I agree that Kentucky has the most talented team in the country and it's not even really that close. But if they go out there and don't put max effort into their defense and allow Mizzou to get hot, Mizzou can simply out-score them. Mizzou can put 4 shooters on the floor that are capable of a 20+ point night every night, as well as Ratliff and his otherwordly FG%.

Mizzou's offense is better than Kentucky's, but Kentucky's defense is the wildcard that would change the matchup.

It would be interesting to see how Ratliffe would match up against Anthony Davis.

[Bambi]

Originally Posted by |Zoccer|

In just the 2000s there were better TV ratings in 00,01,02,05,07,10 for the NCAA title game than in '08

Makes sense being that 2008 was the largest attended tourney ever.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by tredadda

It would be interesting to see how Ratliffe would match up against Anthony Davis.

Poorly.

Davis would spent a lot of time pulling Ratliff away from the rim on defense. Granted, I don't think he's as strong on the defensive blocks as Rat, but I think he could gas Ratliff on the defensive end and take his legs out from under him.

Ratliff can't jump, but one of his greatest strengths is his legs - both in his ability to run the court and his ability to use his lower body strength to establish position. If Davis can get to setting him off screens, etc... and using that mid-range game of his, he could really wear Ratliff out.

I honestly prefer a Sullinger matchup to a Davis one.

[SPATCH]

Uh oh... just noticed that Kansas is set up for their classic "loss to a mid-major" exit with Saint Mary's in rd. 2

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

So Nick Wright actually made sense just now.

Missouri's best is better than anyone's best, but Missouri's slightly below average game gets beat.

Kansas's best can lose to the best of several other teams in the league if that team plays its best game, but Kansas's slightly below average can still win ballgames.

I think he's balls on. If Mizzou plays 6 games at it's peak capacity, it will win the national championship. There are simply too many weapons on that squad to lose if they're locked in.

However, that never happens in the NCAA tournament, which is why Kansas may be better situated to advance than MU. Kansas may be able to win that game that inevitably pops up in the round of 32 or the Sweet 16 where they don't have their A game.

Gimme 4 wins, guys. Just gimme 4 wins...

Interesting way of looking at it, and I think it touches on something that was discussed here yesterday... KU can grind it out, but as far as I know, it's at least up in the air on whether MU can do the same.

As far as his comments, I know Kansas can play with Kentucky and Duke and Georgetown and Missouri because they've done it, and I wouldn't say all of those games were Kansas' best (@Columbia was probably the closest we'll ever see).... of course, they only won 2 of those games, so I don't have a problem with what he said... I think it's pretty accurate.

But, I wouldn't say the only team that can beat Missouri is Missouri, like he implies... they might have a higher ceiling than Kansas if they're playing their best basketball, and they might provide more problems than just about any team in the tournament, but it's still a game of matchups and a team could make a bunch of guarded 3s or present a matchup problem like KSU... just like Kansas, I don't think it's just a matter of how well they're playing.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Wickedson

Makes sense being that 2008 was the largest attended tourney ever.

So the fact that a few thousand more people showed up in person a tournament is what led to the national television ratings being down that year?

Whatever you say, Joan.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

So the fact that a few thousand more people showed up in person a tournament is what led to the national television ratings being down that year?

Whatever you say, Joan.

(raises an appletini)

[Dartgod]

Originally Posted by Wickedson

Makes sense being that 2008 was the largest attended tourney ever.

I may be waaaay off base here, but how is it possible for 43,000+ to impact the TV ratings?

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by Wickedson

Makes sense being that 2008 was the largest attended tourney ever.

lololololololol

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

But, I wouldn't say the only team that can beat Missouri is Missouri, like he implies... they might have a higher ceiling than Kansas if they're playing their best basketball, and they might provide more problems than just about any team in the tournament, but it's still a game of matchups and a team could make a bunch of guarded 3s or present a matchup problem like KSU... just like Kansas, I don't think it's just a matter of how well they're playing.

I'm not sure that's exactly what he meant either, though.

I think he meant that they're capable of beating anyone at any time if they are on, regardless of their opponent. However, failing to have all 7 guys locked in doesn't mean they've beaten themselves.

I don't think he expects Missouri to be locked in across the board (afterall, I'm not sure it's happened yet this year - though it sure looked like it might for about 25 minutes against KU in Lawrence). He's just saying they're capable of it.

[Dartgod]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

So the fact that a few thousand more people showed up in person a tournament is what led to the national television ratings being down that year?

Whatever you say, Joan.

OK, good. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one that thinks Wickedson's logic is flawed here.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Dartgod

OK, good. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one that thinks Wickedson's logic is flawed here.

It would be perfectly valid if the United States was actually a small island nation of about 78,000 people.

But something tells me the math doesn't quite check out here.

[Bambi]

I was just sayin that it was bigger than MU-KU in the final on a national scale.

I don't really see how that's a stretch.

Saul saying that it the 2008 Champ game not being in the top 25 is what me lol.

[Dartgod]

Originally Posted by |Zoccer|

In just the 2000s there were better TV ratings in 00,01,02,05,07,10 for the NCAA title game than in '08

The 2010 Title game had almost 71,000 in attendance. That's around 28,000 more than in '08. How could it possibly have had higher TV ratings?