Mizzou Basketball

[Saul Good]

MIZ-ZOU

[petegz28]

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

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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?

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.

[Sassy Squatch]

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

[Braincase]

Originally Posted by petegz28

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.

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

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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.

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.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Braincase

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

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.

[Braincase]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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.

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

[stonedstooge]

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

[petegz28]

UK tied with Vande at the half.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by stonedstooge

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

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

[stonedstooge]

Originally Posted by petegz28

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

[Braincase]

Originally Posted by petegz28

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.

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.

[Braincase]

Originally Posted by stonedstooge

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

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

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by petegz28

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.

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.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by stonedstooge

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

That's how they do things in Larryville.

Want to make a BCS Bowl? Lose.