Mizzou Basketball

[Saul Good]

MIZ-ZOU

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

It's not. It's by far the best conference by any statistical metric. Even their mediocre teams that didn't make it were quite decent (in comparison to the OSU and A&M's of the B12).


No, what's absurd would be doing it a different way and giving it to a 30 win team that doesn't have the big wins. It's very much the same principle for not giving Murray State a high seed based solely on their record.

What big wins does Kansas have? You beat Baylor twice, Mizzou once, and Georgetown. Beating OSU without Sullinger is like beating KU without Robinson.

Mizzou beat Baylor 3 times, Kansas, and Notre Dame by 100 back when they had their best player.

Missouri is better than Kansas, Ohio State, or Michigan State.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by |Zoccer|

Ah, it is Missouri who doesn't have any big wins.

Ok.

Congratulations to the Tigers for 30 small wins.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

It's not. It's by far the best conference by any statistical metric. Even their mediocre teams that didn't make it were quite decent (in comparison to the OSU and A&M's of the B12).


No, what's absurd would be doing it a different way and giving it to a 30 win team that doesn't have the big wins. It's very much the same principle for not giving Murray State a high seed based solely on their record.

I guess Saul is right - we should've just lost a couple of games to good teams so we could have that 1-seed.

MSU's aggregate wins are not collectively better than Missouri's. Even if they did play in a harder conference (I remain unconvinced; though I know you beakers love sucking on some Kenpom), they lost a bunch.

Merely playing a good team doesn't matter if you don't beat them.

[Pablo]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

Missouri.

Can't agree with that. They have big wins, just not in non-con.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

What big wins does Kansas have? You beat Baylor twice, Mizzou once, and Georgetown. Beating OSU without Sullinger is like beating KU without Robinson.

Mizzou beat Baylor 3 times, Kansas, and Notre Dame by 100 back when they had their best player.

So basically MU just has Baylor and KU (because Notre Dame isn't actually a great team). Not nearly enough to be a #1 seed, not at all.

Missouri is better than Kansas, Ohio State, or Michigan State.

Not according to every statistical metric out there (RPI, BPI, KenPom, Sagarin, Massey). What matters the most for what we're talking about is RPI, though.

[|Zach|]

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by PostRockPablo

Can't agree with that. They have big wins, just not in non-con.

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

[Bowser]

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

[|Zach|]

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showt...92#post8439992

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I guess Saul is right - we should've just lost a couple of games to good teams so we could have that 1-seed.

MSU's aggregate wins are not collectively better than Missouri's. Even if they did play in a harder conference (I remain unconvinced; though I know you beakers love sucking on some Kenpom), they lost a bunch.

Merely playing a good team doesn't matter if you don't beat them.

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?

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by |Zoccer|

Ah, it is Missouri who doesn't have any big wins.

Ok.

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

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

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.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by |Zoccer|

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?

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

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?

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...

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

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?

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.